In the future the individual European Union member states themselves are to decide on the cultivation of genetically changed organisms (GVO). They can forbid to these also completely or for certain regions. This plans a proposal of 13 European Union member states, which yesterday the secretaries of the environment of the European Union discussed. A decision did not fall. Germany did not sign the proposal compiled by Austria.
At the last meeting of the European Union secretaries of the environment March the Netherlands had suggested at the beginning of for the first time, the general permission of GVO at the European Union too left to shift the decision over the cultivation of GVO however on the member states. Austria took up these suggestions and pointed a way out, how this would be to be converted. Small additions of the relevant regulations should grant the unlimited right to the member states to forbid the cultivation of the European Union of certified GVO totally or partly. Legally to justify can one is such a regulation by the Subsidiaritätsprinzip specified in the European Union contract as well as the unanimity demanded there with decisions over the land use. Alternatively a list could be specified by socio-economic criteria, due to those an European Union member state the cultivation of GVO on its territory or be forbidden in certain regions can.
So far member states can express only temporary cultivation prohibitions, if them new scientific realizations are present for the health or environmental injurious character of the respective GVO. These realizations are examined by the European food authority EFS and rejected regularly. The European Commission with its attempt failed nevertheless to let these prohibitions waive because of a two-thirds majority in the Council of Ministers.
Signed the paper beside Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Litauen, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Hungary and Cyprus. The Niederland is considered as genetic engineering proponents, sees however in the proposal a possibility of overcoming the present Patt within the European Union.

The Secretaries of Agriculture of the European Union member states adopted their proposal to the revised version of the Novel Food regulation on their council meeting on 22 June 2009. This is to be valid in the future also for food such as meat or milk, which comes from descendants of cloned animals. These might be marketed, as soon as they are certified as Novel Food. The Ministers rejected a marking of the food of animals, which were fed with genetic engineering. Now the European parliament must advise again over the regulation.
The Secretaries of Agriculture justified their procedure with the clone meat with a right gap: Food, which comes directly from cloned animals, bräuchten a permission after the genetic engineering right, in order to be allowed to be marketed in the European Union. Practically this no role plays, since the aufwändige cloning only for breeding animals one practices. On the market however soon products of the descendants of such cloned breeding animals urge could. Because in the USA clone meat is in the meantime approved. These food would be subject not to the genetic engineering right, might be marketed at present thus without editions.
The European parliament suggested with the first reading of the Novel Food regulation in March 2009 therefore forbidding food of cloned animals and their descendants in its own regulation. Up to then a moratorium should be valid for food, which is made of cloned animals and their descendants. The Secretaries of Agriculture wiped this proposal likewise from the table like most different that approximately 90 changes and additions, which the parliament suggested. Among them also a regulation, all products of animals, was which were fed with genetic engineering to mark. Now the parliament in second reading must be concerned with the regulation.
The Secretaries of Agriculture requested the commission to submit specific legislation over all aspects of the cloning methods and mentioned thereby particularly also commercialreferred aspects. In the plain language is called: The Ministers want neither a moratorium still another prohibition of clone meat, because they fear commercial problems with the USA. Therefore the food of the clone descendants is to be treated at least according to the Novel Food rules. A permission can hardly be prevented thereby, because is examined thereby only security for the consumer. The European food authority EFSA came however already to the result that such food was safe.
At the cloning above all the suffering of the animals is criticized. Only five per cent of all clone attempts are successful – most in such a way born animals are ill and suffer pain, argue Bärbel Höhn, vice-chairperson of a parliamentary group of the Bundestag Greens. Also the cloning of high-performances animal would continue to industrialize the agriculture and would endanger the variety of types in the stables still more strongly.

The provisional cultivation prohibition for gene corn MON 810 accelerated the resistance against the green genetic engineering. Still more, think many genetic engineering opponents go there, particularly since the politicians are because of the lining up election to the Bundestag additionally at pressure. Like that the appointment calendar is stout filled with genetic engineering actions. From gene free go up to the FE storage of the authorizing agency participates for each somewhat.
This week approximately 1,500 humans from the bio and health food industry made the prelude. They started the action in Berlin gene-freely go. Their initiator is Joseph Wilhelm, Chef of the health food manufacturer Rapunzel and passionierter rambler. It wants to walk in the next weeks accompanied of as much as possible humans from Berlin to Brussels. Who wants to along-walk for one or more days, can inform on www.genfrei-gehen.de about the route and the lining up stages. The arrival in Brussels is planned for 30 July.
On 29 June Bertram Hague has documentation &amp in Berlin; Percy Schmeiser – David against Monsanto& World premiere. The film describes the fight of the Canadian Bauers Percy Schmeiser against the genetic engineering company Monsanto. Percy Schmeiser participates naturally also and still travels in the days following on it with lectures by Germany. The film will often have to be seen in the next months, if genetic engineering Inititiven invite to info. evenings. Interested can it also buy and even publicly would drive.
The genetic engineering activists approximately around the project workshop Saasen brings organized irresponsibility to at the end of of June a majority edition of the brochure on the market. It brings up for discussion gene felt between authorities, politics and science, calls company near officials describes dubious machinations. The booklet is to be distributed fast over circulars, magazines and as display in health food shops. The main locations of the genetic engineering roped parties are to then get in September visit. Actions and FE storages of the federal authorities in Berlin as well as the attempt centers close Rostock are planned and in the Magdeburger Börde from 9 to 15 September. To it there is more information on the side www.biotech-seilschaften.de.vu.

The regional court Magdeburg regards a payment of damages of 100,000 euros as the destruction of a gene wheat field for appropriate. The court negotiates at present against six Feldbefreier, which terminated the disputed attempt in April 2008. Institut for plant genetics and cultivated plant research (IPK) had requested 245,000 euros. In an interlocutory judgment the judges cut the amount on 100,000 euros, which now in the detail are to be negotiated.
On 21 April 2008 four women and two men of the initiative gene dirt plowed away the 2500 square meter large gene wheat field of the IPK with heels over. They terminated thereby a cultivation of attempt, against which over 30.000 citizens objections had raised. The experimental field lay in direct proximity of a gene bank with hundreds of old wheat places, which must be cultivated could be polluted for preservation in the open land and by gene wheat. The Secretary of Agriculture at that time Horst Seehofer (CSU) nevertheless let the attempt approve in December 2007.
In opinion of the court the six Feldbefreier acted illegally. However they did that publicly, so that it was an easy for the IPK to require before court payment of damages. It was less easy to compute the accurate sum of the damage. The IPK lawyer refuge Rehberger, former FDP minister of economics of Saxonia-Anhalt and admitting genetic engineering fan, numbered the damage on 245,000 euros. The court regarded a part of Rehbergers computation not conclusive however as and trimmed therefore the demands. After press releases Rehberger wanted to charge for the Feldbefreiern even to displays for the readiness to drive of the institute or for monitoring cameras.
Uwe Schrader, FDP state parliament delegate and chairman of the genetic engineering lobby association Innoplanta, rated the court decision nevertheless as decision, which will strengthen the research the back. Because so far negotiated payment of damages sums moved with public field freeing in the order of magnitude less thousand euros. This mark is clear it more and the sums could still further rise. After the destruction of an attempt with genetically altered apples Institut concerned numbered the damage on at least 700,000 euros.

The European Union food authority EFSA holds for antibiotic resistance marker genes (ARMG) in genetically changed (GV) plants for harmless. However not all EFSA experts divide this estimate. Two scientists warn before uncalculable consequences.
Most GV-plants cultivated today contain ARMG. These genes serve to proving success the genetic change in the manipulated cells. If the cells grow on a fertile soil soaked with the respective antibiotic, the operation was successful. Genetic engineering critics fear that these resistance genes could turn into with a cultivation on ground bacteria and on a long-term basis arrive thus into the food chain and to humans.
The EFSA considers this risk of a horizontal gene transfer very small and argues that such resistances would anyway already occur in ground bacteria. In a common appraisal both for genetic change organisms came as well as for biological dangers responsible scientist committees (GMU and BIOHAZ) to the result, the fact that negative effects on the human health and the environment by the transfer of the two antibiotic resistance marker genes nptII and aadA of genetically changed plants on bacteria in connection with the use of genetically changed plants according to the present realizations is improbable. Two high-ranking BIOHAZ scientists contradicted however. They do not consider the risks of the Tranfers and possible effect assessable due to the available data.
Of importance the EFSA appraisal, because the GV-potato Amflora waiting for the cultivation permission contains the ARMG nptII, is conciliatory a resistance against that in the medicine used antibiotics Kanamycin. With reference on the associated risks the European Commission had so far shifted a decision over the cultivation. In opinion of the Amflora producer to BASF give the appraisal of the entire European Commission the concluding scientific clarity, in order to permit Amflora. The environment organization Greenpeace however referred on Bedeutungder both Minderheitenvoten. the EFSA came the first time to no unanimous opinion over the security of a gene plant. The fact that it gave nevertheless again green light for the Amflora is negligent, warned genetic engineering expert Stephanie Töwe.

The European Union food authority EFSA holds for antibiotic resistance marker genes (ARMG) in genetically changed (GV) plants for harmless. However not all EFSA experts divide this estimate. Two scientists warn of uncalculable consequences.
Most GV-plants cultivated today contain ARMG. These genes serve to prove success the genetic change in the manipulated cells. If the cells on a fertile soil soaked with the respective antibiotic grow, the operation was successful. Genetic engineering critics fear that these resistance genes could turn into with a cultivation at ground bacteria and on a long-term basis arrive thus into the food chain and to humans.
The EFSA considers this risk of a horizontal gene transfer very small and argues that such resistances would anyway already occur in ground bacteria. In a common appraisal both for genetic change organisms came as well as for biological dangers responsible scientist committees (GMU and BIOHAZ) to the result, the fact that negative effects on the human health and the environment by the transfer of the two antibiotic resistance marker genes nptII and aadA of plants changed genetically by genetically changed plants on bacteria in connection with the use according to the present realizations is improbable. Two high-ranking BIOHAZ scientists contradicted however. They do not consider the risks of the Tranfers and possible effect assessable due to the available data.
Of importance the EFSA appraisal, because the GV-potato Amflora waiting for the cultivation permission contains the ARMG nptII, is conciliatory a resistance against that in the medicine used antibiotics Kanamycin. With reference to the associated risks the European Commission had so far shifted a decision over the cultivation. In opinion of the Amflora producer to BASF give the appraisal of the entire European Commission the concluding scientific clarity, in order to permit Amflora. The environment organization Greenpeace however referred to Bedeutungder both Minderheitenvoten. the EFSA came the first time to no unanimous opinion over the security of a gene plant. The fact that it gave nevertheless again green light for the Amflora is negligent, warned genetic engineering expert Stephanie Töwe.

The environment organization Greenpeace again presented its purchase councellor to meals without Gentechnik’. It lists therein not only companies, which do consciously without genetic engineering, but summarizes also the development of the last yearly briefly.
Only few companies use so far the possibility of providing their products with the voluntary marking without genetic engineering. In addition the dairies Campina and mash gau milk with their marks land love and black forests pasture milk belong. The dairy Berchtesgadener country wants to have changed over and then also offer a reward their entire milk to end of the yearly to genetic engineering-free. Without genetic engineering logo be emblazoned also on the noodles of Albgold, the pigs of the rural producer community Swabian resound and the cockerels of the Geflügelmästers Stolle. The chain Tegut provides peu à peu its self-branded articles with the marking. – Also without logo – all bio products are genetic engineering free.
The Greenpeace councellor mentions also that ever secretly genetic engineering plants from the Futtertrögen of their suppliers banish more companies. Thus the Discounter Lidl of its poultry meat suppliers demands a feeding without gene plants. With the cold treatment manufacturer Frosta must feed all meat suppliers without gene plants. With eggs the suppliers are in the conversion. Also the milk products for Frosta are to be produced in the future without gene plants. The Schoko manufacturer knight looks according to Greenpeace at present actively for genetic engineering-free milk powder for his Naschereien. Among the companies, which strive actively, Greenpeace ranks also the Hähnchenmäster meadow yard, the baby food manufacturer Hipp (for its conventional products) as well as the Allgäuer Emmentaler of works and the dairy Ehrmann.
There were red maps for some dairies, it is all the same to which that their farmers feed gene soy. Often they even still recruit with pastureland and alpine summits. There is this the large dairy Mueller including its daughter, the dairy dedicating Stefan, likewise the dairies Allgäuland and the yogurt mark farmer. Also bear mark and Milka contain gene milk. For the consumers Greenpeace has therefore a clear advice: Legends you companies such as Mueller/dedicating Stefan or Bärenmarke your opinion and leave you untouched the products in the supermarket shelf.

The American academy for environmental medicine (AAEM) warns in a position paper before health risks by genetically altered food and already demands a moratorium for Genfood and the marking on the market of products present. The association of physicians justifies its attitude with the fact that it gives plentifully proofs for possible damage by Genfood.
The 1965 created federation of the US environmental medical profession supports his statement with the results of several last year published studies. These feeding attempts with mice and rats had resulted in referring to Unfruchtbarkeit, liver and kidney damage as well as negative effects on the immune system. In view of the increasing data it is biologically plausibly that genetically changed food can negatively affect also the human health, is called it in the statement. Genfood within the ranges toxicology, allergy and immune function, fertility, metabolism and physiology a serious health risk represents, must in the opinion the AAEM the precaution principle there be used
The AAEM requests the physicians to guess their patients and the public to do without Genfood where always possible. The medical profession should consider and seize possible effects of Genfood with the treatment, how the conversion to a genetic engineering-free nutrition to the health of its patients affects itself. In addition epidemiological studies would have to investigate possible health effects of Genfood.

The American academy for environmental medicine (AAEM) warns in a position paper before health risks by genetically altered food and already demands a moratorium for Genfood and the marking on the market of products present. The association of physicians justifies its attitude with the fact that it gives plentifully proofs for possible damage by Genfood.
The 1965 created federation of the US environmental medical profession supports his statement with the results of several last year published studies. These feeding attempts with mice and rats had resulted in references on Unfruchtbarkeit, liver and kidney damage as well as negative effects on the immune system. In view of the increasing data it is biologically plausibly that genetically changed food can negatively affect also the human health, is called it in the statement. Genfood within the ranges toxicology, allergy and immune function, fertility, metabolism and physiology a serious health risk represents, must in the opinion the AAEM the precaution principle there be used
The AAEM requests the physicians to guess their patients and the public to do without on Genfood where always possible. The medical profession should consider and seize possible effects with the treatment of Genfood, how the conversion affects itself on a genetic engineering-free nutrition on the health of their patients. In addition epidemiological studies would have to investigate possible health effects of Genfood.

Unknown ones destroyed 274 apple trees in the plant of the institute for July US bold in Dresden Pillnitz at whit-monday. There Federal Institut for breeding research at garden-structural cultures and fruit worked for years on genetically changed apples. Already 2003 wanted to cultivate the researchers their manipulated apple trees in the open land. They failed at that time because of the resistance and public protest. The trees in open land cages grew up since then. Those are greenhouses, with which a fine, allegedly insect-safe gauze network the disks replace.
Against this by the state financed genetic engineering research in the fruit-growing numerous federations had engaged themselves, among them the Pomologen association. In the summer 2008 they discharged the Pillnitzer explanation in the context of a conference. Therein the organizations demanded: It may not become certified that with the fruit a new group of plants is exposed to the access of the genetic engineering. The breeding goals in the fruit-growing are attainable also with classical methods – without the risks and side effects of the genetic engineering -.
This demand apparent converted now one action Obelix. On Indymedia it is called Dresden under the title is genetic engineering-free: Now and we want up to the pc. Nimmerleinstag for the fact will not wait that such insight succeeds also in the Führungsschichten of this world. Who change wants must it also here lead.
The Saxonian Greens and the cultivation federation Gäa dissociated themselves from the action. The destruction of strange property generally may not be tolerated, completely equal which motives behind it stands said Gäa chairmen Kornelie flower light. We feel in addition, extremely affected over the unakzeptierbaren attack of our Minister of State for agriculture and environment in the press opposite all, which express themselves not for, or against Agro genetic engineering in the land and food economy, added flower light. The Saxonian secretary of the environment franc copper had commentated the destruction of the apple trees in such a way: Hopefully the self-appointed rescuers ran from humans and environment to foot after Pillnitz, were dressed and checked off the 270 trees with the fist wedge in a skin. That is the consequence from progress hostileness. If mankind would have dared never new, then we became today like apes on rising still do gymnastics. The Ministry numbered the developed damage with approximately 700,000 euros.
Shortly before Whitsuntide also a field of the seeds company KWS with genetically altered sugar beets was destroyed with Magdeburg. However the KWS cultivated new gene carrots according to own data. Admits became the procedure only by a message of the local police. It remained completely unberichtet that in the middle of with Rostock had visited May Feldbefreier the gene barley attempt of the University of pouring in large Lüsewitz. Only in the location register is a small reference: Revision modification v. 19.05.2009: New sowing due to of destruction by foreign effect.