World-News

07.03.06

Die EU-Kommission hat am 3. März die Markteinführung der genetisch modifizierten Maislinie 1507 für den Gebrauch als Nahrungsmittel und Nahrungsbestandteil genehmigt. Die Genehmigung bedeutet, dass dieser Maistyp nunmehr in der EU als Nahrungsmittel, Nahrungsbestandteil oder daraus gewonnenes Produkt, wie Öl und Stärke, vermarktet werden kann. Es handelt sich hierbei um die erste Genehmigung nach der EU-Verordnung 1829/2003 über genetisch modifizierte Nahrungs- und Futtermittel. Im Einklang mit den EU Kennzeichnungs- und Rückverfolgbarkeitsregeln soll auf den betreffenden Produkten auf den genetisch veränderten Mais hingewiesen werden. Wie bei Verfahren über genetisch veränderte Organismen üblich hatte sich der Ministerrat zuvor vor einer Entscheidung gedrückt. Auf diese Weise wird die EU-Kommission verantwortlich für die Entscheidung, die gewöhnlich Genehmigungen für den Einsatz genetisch veränderter Organismen erteilt.

Die ganze Nachricht im Internet: http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php?Nr=13079

06.03.06

Der BUND kritisiert die Verteilung von genmanipuliertem Mais an Jäger in Thüringen. Der Verband befürchtet eine unkontrollierte Ausbreitung auf konventionellen Mais, wie BUND-Landesgeschäftsführer Burkhard Vogel am Donnerstag in Erfurt sagte. Laut Vogel verstreut sich das Saatgut zum Füttern der Wildtiere in alle Himmelsrichtungen. Das Sozialministerium wies die Vorwürfe zurück.

Die ganze Nachricht im Internet: http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php?Nr=13080

Website reveals plan to scrap prohibition on seeds that threaten Third World farmers with hunger

By Geoffrey Lean,
Environment Editor
Published: 05 March 2006 http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article349331.ece

Ministers are trying to scrap an international agreement banning the world's most controversial genetic modification of crops, grimly nicknamed "terminator technology", a move which threatens to increase hunger in the Third World.

Their plans, unveiled in a new official document buried in a government website, will cause outrage among environmentalists and hunger campaigners. Michael Meacher, who took a lead as environment minister in negotiating the ban six years ago, has written Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for the Environment, to object.

The Government is to push for terminator crops to be considered for approval on a "case-by-case basis" at two meetings this month; its position closely mirrors the stance of the United States and other GM-promoting countries.

Terminator technology, so abominated even Monsanto will not develop it, would stop hundreds of millions of poor farmers from saving seeds from their crops for resowing for the following harvest, forcing them to buy new ones from biotech companies every year. More than 1.4 billion poor Third World farmers and their families pursue the age-old practice.

The technique is officially known as genetic use restriction technology
(Gurt), making crops produce sterile seeds. It could be applied to any crop, including maize and rice, widely grown in developing countries.

The UK working group on terminator technology, a coalition of 10 British environment and development groups, says: "It could destroy traditional farming methods, damage farmers' livelihoods and threaten food security, particularly in developing countries."

In 2000, the world's governments imposed a de facto moratorium on developing, or even testing, the technology under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, an agreement largely brokered by Britain under Mr Meacher's leadership. But pro-GM nations such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, largely orchestrated by the US, have been pressing for the moratorium to be lifted, and for Gurt crops to be approved after "case-by-case risk assessment".

They, and biotech companies, claim the technology is a green solution to a serious drawback of GM crops, the way their genes spread, through pollen, to create superweeds and contaminate conventional and organic crops. But environmentalists say this is an illusion because terminator plants will still produce pollen, and their genes would pose a particular hazard by threatening to make non-GM sterile as well.

Yet ministers have refused to meet environmental groups to discuss their policy and failed publicise their position, posted two weeks ago on the website of the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Defra).

Britain will be pushing for this approach first at a meeting of EU ministers on Thursday, then at a meeting of the convention in Brazil in two weeks. Mr Meacher said: "For the first time in the history of the world, farmers would be stopped from using their own seeds. This would undermine food production and cause starvation."

*How it works: Sowing the seeds of starvation*

Gurts may be an ugly acronym, but environmentalists believe that the genetic use restrictions technologies they stand for are even uglier. There are two types:

*v-GURTS*, called terminator technology. Developed by the US Department of Agriculture and the Delta Pine and Land Co, it makes seeds sterile so they cannot be cropped and resown. Before they are sold, seeds are treated with a compound which activates a gene introduced into the plant from bacteria. The gene allows the crop to be grown normally, but takes charge just as it becomes ready for harvesting and stops its seeds from manufacturing any of the protein it needs for germination.

*t-GURTS*, dubbed traitor technology. These are linked to a particular trait of a plant such as good growth , germination and other desirable characteristics. The genes governing these can be activated only when the plant is sprayed with a proprietory chemical, which is sold separately. Big biotech companies want to make the plants dependent on their own chemicals so they can make profits by selling first the seed, then the chemical needed to make it work properly.

Ministers are trying to scrap an international agreement banning the world's most controversial genetic modification of crops, grimly nicknamed "terminator technology", a move which threatens to increase hunger in the Third World.

Their plans, unveiled in a new official document buried in a government website, will cause outrage among environmentalists and hunger campaigners. Michael Meacher, who took a lead as environment minister in negotiating the ban six years ago, has written Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for the Environment, to object.

The Government is to push for terminator crops to be considered for approval on a "case-by-case basis" at two meetings this month; its position closely mirrors the stance of the United States and other GM-promoting countries.

Terminator technology, so abominated even Monsanto will not develop it, would stop hundreds of millions of poor farmers from saving seeds from their crops for resowing for the following harvest, forcing them to buy new ones from biotech companies every year. More than 1.4 billion poor Third World farmers and their families pursue the age-old practice.

The technique is officially known as genetic use restriction technology
(Gurt), making crops produce sterile seeds. It could be applied to any crop, including maize and rice, widely grown in developing countries.

The UK working group on terminator technology, a coalition of 10 British environment and development groups, says: "It could destroy traditional farming methods, damage farmers' livelihoods and threaten food security, particularly in developing countries."

In 2000, the world's governments imposed a de facto moratorium on developing, or even testing, the technology under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, an agreement largely brokered by Britain under Mr Meacher's leadership. But pro-GM nations such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, largely orchestrated by the US, have been pressing for the moratorium to be lifted, and for Gurt crops to be approved after "case-by-case risk assessment".

They, and biotech companies, claim the technology is a green solution to a serious drawback of GM crops, the way their genes spread, through pollen, to create superweeds and contaminate conventional and organic crops. But environmentalists say this is an illusion because terminator plants will still produce pollen, and their genes would pose a particular hazard by threatening to make non-GM sterile as well.

Yet ministers have refused to meet environmental groups to discuss their policy and failed publicise their position, posted two weeks ago on the website of the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Defra).

Britain will be pushing for this approach first at a meeting of EU ministers on Thursday, then at a meeting of the convention in Brazil in two weeks. Mr Meacher said: "For the first time in the history of the world, farmers would be stopped from using their own seeds. This would undermine food production and cause starvation."

*How it works: Sowing the seeds of starvation*

Gurts may be an ugly acronym, but environmentalists believe that the genetic use restrictions technologies they stand for are even uglier. There are two types:

*v-GURTS*, called terminator technology. Developed by the US Department of Agriculture and the Delta Pine and Land Co, it makes seeds sterile so they cannot be cropped and resown. Before they are sold, seeds are treated with a compound which activates a gene introduced into the plant from bacteria. The gene allows the crop to be grown normally, but takes charge just as it becomes ready for harvesting and stops its seeds from manufacturing any of the protein it needs for germination.

*t-GURTS*, dubbed traitor technology. These are linked to a particular trait of a plant such as good growth , germination and other desirable characteristics. The genes governing these can be activated only when the plant is sprayed with a proprietory chemical, which is sold separately. Big biotech companies want to make the plants dependent on their own chemicals so they can make profits by selling first the seed, then the chemical needed to make it work properly.


Informant: Teresa Binstock

--------

UK Ministers Back 'Terminator' GM Crops
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0305-04.htm

By Jeffrey Smith
March 5, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

Genetically modified(GM) crops were introduced 10 years ago, but 2005 saw plenty of evidence that the technology was introduced long before the science was ready. Here are some of last year’s highlights, so to speak.

At a conference in October, a leading scientist from the Russian Academy of Sciences reported that more than half (55.6%) of the offspring of rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. By contrast, only 9% of rats died whose mothers were fed non-GM soy.

Read further under: http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey11.htm

Genetically Engineered Foods Pose Health Risk for Children

By Jeffrey M. Smith,
author of Seeds of Deception

In a study in the early 1990's rats were fed genetically modified (GM) tomatoes. Well actually, the rats refused to eat them. They were force-fed. Several of the rats developed stomach lesions and seven out of forty died within two weeks. Scientists at the FDA who reviewed the study agreed that it did not provide a "demonstration of reasonable certainty of no harm." In fact, agency scientists warned that GM foods in general might create unpredicted allergies, toxins, antibiotic resistant diseases, and nutritional problems. Internal FDA memos made public from a lawsuit reveal that the scientists urged their superiors to require long-term safety testing to catch these hard-to-detect side effects. But FDA political appointees, including a former attorney for Monsanto in charge of policy, ignored the scientists' warnings. The FDA does not require safety studies. Instead, if the makers of the GM foods claim that they are safe, the agency has no further questions. The GM tomato was approved in 1994. Americans eat genetically modified foods everyday. Although the GM tomato has been taken off the market, millions of acres of soy, corn, canola, and cotton have had foreign genes inserted into their DNA. The new genes allow the crops to survive applications of herbicide, create their own pesticide, or both. While there are only a handful of published animal safety studies, those conducted by the biotech industry are often dismissed by critics as superficial and designed to avoid finding problems. Scientists who voice their criticism or discover incriminating evidence have been threatened, stripped of responsibilities, denied funding or tenure, or fired. For example, a UK government-funded study demonstrated that young rats fed a GM potato developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, damaged immune systems, partial atrophy of the liver, and inhibited development of their brains, livers and testicles. When the lead scientist went public with his concerns, he was promptly fired from his job after 35 years and silenced with threats of a lawsuit. Other research shows: Rats fed GM corn had problems with blood cell formation. Those fed GM soy had problems with liver cell formation, and the livers of rats fed GM canola were heavier. Pigs fed GM corn on at least 25 Midwest farms developed false pregnancies or sterility. Cows fed GM corn in Germany died mysteriously. And twice the number of chickens died when fed GM corn compared to those fed natural corn. Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent. This might be due to the fact that the most common allergen in soy, called trypsin inhibitor, is substantially elevated in GM soy. In addition, GM soy contains a protein that was never before part of the human food supply, and might be allergenic. In fact, sections of that protein are identical to those found in shrimp and dust mite allergens, which should have disqualified GM soy from approval, according to World Health Organization recommendations. Moreover, since the sequence of the gene that was inserted into soy has inexplicably rearranged over time, the protein it creates is different than the one intended, and was never subject to any safety studies. It may be allergenic or toxic. Without follow-up tests, we can't be sure if the introduction of GM soy was the cause of the allergies, but we do know that the composition of GM soy is different. Ask the animals. Eyewitness reports from all over North America describe how several types of animals, when given a choice, avoided eating GM food. These included cows, pigs, elk, deer, raccoons, squirrels, rats, and mice. Differences in GM food will likely have a much larger impact on children. They are three to four times more susceptible to allergies. Also, they convert more of the food into body-building material. Altered nutrients or added toxins can result in developmental problems. For this reason, animal nutrition studies are typically conducted on young, developing animals. After the feeding trial, organs are weighed and often studied under magnification. If scientists used mature animals instead of young ones, even severe nutritional problems might not be detected. Monsanto's study on their GM soybeans used mature animals instead of young ones. The UK government also sponsored a study on GM soy—the only human feeding study ever conducted. It showed that the gene inserted into soybeans spontaneously transferred out of food and into the DNA of gut bacteria. This has several serious implications. First, it means that the bacteria inside our intestines, newly equipped with this foreign gene, may create the novel protein inside of us. If it is allergenic or toxic, it may affect us for the long term, even if we give up eating GM soy. The same study verified that the promoter, which scientists attach to the inserted gene to permanently switch it on, also transferred to gut bacteria. Preliminary results also showed that the promoter transferred into rat organs, after they were fed only a single GM meal. Research on this promoter suggests that it might unintentionally switch on other genes in the DNA— permanently. This could create an overproduction of allergens, toxins, carcinogens, or antinutrients. Scientists also theorize that the promoter might switch on dormant viruses embedded in the DNA or generate mutations. Kids are regularly fed GM soy-based infant formula. The digestive capacity of small children is less than adults, suggesting that more GM DNA might survive with more transgenes ending up inside gut bacteria or possibly inside organs. What about corn genetically engineered to create its own pesticide? If the inserted gene were to transfer from the corn that children eat into their gut bacteria, it could theoretically transform their intestinal flora into living pesticide factories. Preliminary evidence shows that thirty-nine Philippinos living next to a pesticideproducing cornfield developed skin, intestinal, and respiratory reactions while the corn was pollinating. Tests of their blood also showed an immune response to the pesticide. Mice fed the pesticide developed an immune response equal to cholera toxin, misshapen and excessive cell growth in their small intestines, and an increased susceptibility to allergens. GM corn and most GM crops are also inserted with antibiotic resistant genes. FDA scientists described this as "A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZAARD." They, and health organizations worldwide, are concerned about the possibility that these might transfer to pathogenic bacteria inside our gut and create new, antibiotic resistant super-diseases. The biotech industry countered these fears by insisting that the DNA was fully destroyed during digestion and therefore no such transfer of genes was possible. The human feeding study described above, published in February 2004, overturned this baseless assumption. Unfortunately, children prone to ear and other infections may be at risk of facing antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, due to the use of antibiotic resistant genes. The British Medical Association cited this as one reason why they called for a moratorium of GM foods. No one monitors human health impacts of genetically modified foods. If the foods were creating health problems in the US population, it might take years or decades before we identified the cause. One epidemic in the 1980's provides a chilling example. A new disease was created by a brand of the food supplement Ltryptophan, which had been produced through genetic modification and contained tiny traces of contaminants. The disease killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness or disability in about 5-10,000 others. The only reason that doctors were able to identify that an epidemic was occurring, was because the disease had three simultaneous characteristics: it was rare, acute, and fast acting. Even then it was nearly missed entirely. Children are more susceptible to problems with milk Milk and dairy products from cows treated with the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH) contain an increased amount of the hormone IGF-1, which is one of the highest risk factors associated with breast and prostate cancer. The Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association called for more studies to determine if ingesting "higher than normal concentrations of [IGF-1] is safe for children, adolescents, and adults." Sam Epstein, M.D., Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and author of eight books, wrote, "rbGH and its digested products could be absorbed from milk into blood, particularly in infants, and produce hormonal and allergic effects." He described how "cell-stimulating growth factors . . . could induce premature growth and breast stimulation in infants, and possibly promote breast cancer in adults." Dr. Epstein pointed out that the hormones in cows could promote the production of "steroids and adrenaline-type stressor chemicals . . . likely to contaminate milk and may be harmful, particularly to infants and young children." Schools can protect children Our entire population is being fed GM foods daily, without knowing the impact of these foods on our health, our behavior, or our children. Thousands of schools around the world, particularly in Europe, have decided not to let their kids be used as guinea pigs. They have banned GM foods. With the epidemic of obesity and diabetes and with the results in some schools showing that food influences student behavior, parents and schools are waking up to the critical role that diet plays. When making changes in what kids eat, removing genetically modified foods should be a priority. To become more informed of the dangers of GM foods and to learn how to avoid buying and eating GM foods, see http://www.seedsofdeception.com .

© Copyright Jeffrey M. Smith.
Permission is granted to reproduce this article in whole or in part.

http://www.saynotogmos.org/risks-to-children.pdf


Informant: JHW369

--------

Top GMO Expert on the Alex Jones show

Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception

his sites Main: http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Home/index.cfm
2nd site http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/Home/index.cfm

Listen to the interview http://www.nw0.info/files/Radio/Alex%20Jones%20Radio%20Archive/2008/February/aj_2008-02-29.mp3

Fast forward to 44:00 mins

Top info on GMO foods.


Informant: shane_digital



http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=GMO+foods
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Seeds+of+Deception

03.03.06

Nach Angaben von Greenpeace wurde in Futtermittelproben von Landliebe-Milchlieferanten gentechnisch manipuliertes Soja nachgewiesen. Greenpeace bezieht sich auf Analyseergebnisse "eines international renommierten Labors". In zwei von fünf Proben seien Gen-Soja über dem Kennzeichnungsgrenzwert von 0,9 Prozent festgestellt worden. In einem Fall habe der Sojaanteil des Futters sogar zu 100 Prozent aus Gen-Soja bestanden. "Dabei vermittelt das Image der Marke Landliebe eine besonders naturnahe und traditonelle Art der Milchproduktion", kritisieren die Umweltschützer.

Die ganze Nachricht im Internet: http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php?Nr=13073

Die Münchner ödp ruft alle Bürgerinnen und Bürger auf, am 11. März um 13 Uhr an der überparteilichen Demonstration gegen Gentechnik in Lebensmitteln am Geschwister-Scholl-Platz teilzunehmen. „Das Jahr 2006 wird maßgeblich entscheiden, ob es den Gensaatgut-Konzernen gelingt, die bayerische Landwirtschaft mit genmanipulierten Organismen zu verunreinigen“, begründet der stellvertretende ödp-Stadtvorsitzende Martin Heigl den ödp-Aufruf. Die Großveranstaltung ist überparteilich und wird von der Initiative nahrungskette und BN München organisiert. Schirmherrin von nahrungskette ist Frau Edith von Welser-Ude. Heigl: „Jeder kann durch seine Teilnahme einen Beitrag dafür leisten, dass er auch in Zukunft gentechnikfreies Essen auf den Teller bekommt. Die landwirtschaftliche Gentechnik hat unvorhersehbare und nicht rückholbare Folgen!“

Markus Hollemann
Regionalbeauftragter
Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei (ödp)
Stadtverband München
Fon 089/45 24 74 15 × Fax 089/244 365 397
E-Mail m.hollemann@oedp-muenchen.de
http://www.oedp-muenchen.de


Veranstaltungshinweise:

Alle Vorträge finden jeweils am zweiten Donnerstag im Monat in den Räumen der Gregor-Louisoder-Umweltstiftung statt: Brienner Str. 46, zwischen U2/U8 Königsplatz und U1/U7 Stiglmaierplatz.

Do., 09. März 2006, 19.30 Uhr "Die gar nicht so schlechte rot-grüne ökologische Steuerreform - Rückblick und Ausblick" Referent: Dr. Anselm Görres, Förderverein Ökologische Steuerreform

Do., 13. April 2006, 19.30 Uhr "Biokraftstoffe in der Praxis - vom Pflanzenöl zum solaren Wasserstoff" Referent: Marcus Reichenberg, mobil ohne fossil

Do., 11. Mai 2006, 19.30 Uhr "Die 12 Salze des Lebens - Mit Schüßlersalzen gesund durch das Jahr" Referentin: Angelika Gräfin Wolffskeel von Reichenberg, Heilpraktikerin und Buchautorin

Do., 08. Juni 2006, 19.30 Uhr "EU-Feinstaubrichtlinie - zahnloser Papiertiger?" Referent: Dr. Stefan Taschner, Mobilitätsexperte, Green City

Do., 13. Juli 2006, 19.30 Uhr "Die Welt vor einer neuen Energiekrise? - Solare Zukunft ohne Erdöl und Atomenergie?" Referent: Dr. Herbert Kuhn, Ingenieur, Energieberater

Do., 10. Aug. 2006, 19.30 Uhr "Limbische Wahrheiten – Gehirnforschung, Marketing und Ökologie" Referent: Günther Hartmann, Berater im Stadt- und Regionalmarketing

Do., 14. Sep. 2006, 19.30 Uhr "Pflegenotstand - Keine Perspektive im Alter?" Referentin: Christiane Lüst, Dipl.-Soz. Päd., Initiatorin des Münchner Pflegestammtischs

Do., 12. Okt. 2006, 19.30 Uhr "Ein Jahr nach der Bundestagswahl - Wo steht Deutschland heute?" Referent: Prof. Dr. Klaus Buchner, ödp-Bundesvorsitzender

Do., 09. Nov. 2006, 19.30 Uhr "Das 1,5-Liter-Auto ist machbar - Entwickler berichten" Referent: Uli Sommer, Chefentwickler Loremo-Projekt

23.02.06

Mehrere deutsche Verbraucher- und Naturschutzverbände haben die geplante Ausrichtung der Agrar- und Ernährungsforschung im 7. EU-Forschungsrahmenprogramm scharf kritisiert. In dem für die Jahre 2007 bis 2013 geplanten Programm liege das Schwergewicht einseitig auf der Förderung von Gentechnikforschung, heißt es in einem Schreiben vom Donnerstag an Europa- und Bundestagsabgeordnete sowie an deutsche Ministerien. Diese Ausrichtung werde zudem ausschließlich von der Chemie- und Lebensmittelindustrie sowie der Forschung bestimmt, kritisieren die Verfasser. Den Brief haben unter anderem Greenpeace, der Naturschutzbund (NABU) und der Bund Umwelt und Naturschutz in Deutschland (BUND) unterschrieben.

Die ganze Nachricht im Internet: http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php?Nr=13003

22.02.06

Rund 70 Aktivisten haben am Mittwoch innerhalb der Bannmeile des Landtags in Stuttgart gegen eine Aufweichung des Gentechnikgesetzes demonstriert. Wie das "Aktionsbündnis Gentechnik-freie Landwirtschaft" mitteilte, pflanzten sie vor dem Gebäude ein traditionelles Maisfeld an. Das Landtagsgelände sei damit symbolisch zur gentechnikfreien Anbauzone erklärt worden. Mit der Aktion wurden die Landtagsabgeordneten aufgefordert, sich im Bundesrat gegen die von der Bundesregierung geplante Lockerung des Gentechnikgesetzes einzusetzen.

Die ganze Nachricht im Internet: http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php?Nr=12997

A coalition of farmers, consumers and environmental activists have sued the US government over its approval of a biotech alfalfa that critics say will spell havoc for farmers, the environment and public health.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/022106HA.shtml