>
> Mothers for Natural Law
> Biweekly News 99/03/31
>
> Thanks to Cliff Kinzel and Richard Wolfson for these items.
>
>
> Articles have been aggressively shortened.
>
> ------------------

> Copyright 1999 The Straits Times Press Limited The Straits Times (Singapore)
>
> March 22, 1999
>
> Altering Crops May Unleash Super-Viruses
>
> Making plants resistant to common scourges through genetic engineering could
> end up wiping out farms, warns a report to the British government
>
> LONDON - Crops genetically altered to be resistant to common plant viruses
> risk creating mutant strains of "super-viruses" which could wipe out entire
> farms, a damning research report commissioned by the British government has
> warned. The study was ordered under the government's Genetically Modified
> Organisms Research Programme. It found plants made resistant to common
> viruses could in fact trigger the evolution of more virulent strains which
> could spread throughout the British countryside, said The Independent On
> Sunday. The report was prepared for the Department of the Environment by the
> Scottish Crop Institute.
>
> ------------------
>
> To subscribe, send an email to ge-news-subscribe@egroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send an email to ge-news-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
> Mothers for Natural Law
> http://www.safe-food.org
> ====================================================
> Help the campaign for mandatory labeling of GE foods
> Sign the petition:
>  http://www.safe-food.org/-campaign/petition.html
> Add this message to your email signature
> ====================================================
> webmaster@...
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/ge-news
> Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

--


><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gen-ocidio
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Esta é para aqueles que gostam de chocolate Suíço
>
> Mothers for Natural Law
> Biweekly News 99/03/31
>
> Thanks to Cliff Kinzel and Richard Wolfson for these items.
>
>
> Articles have been aggressively shortened.
>
> ------------------

> International Scientific Committee Warns of Serious Risks of Breast and
> Prostate Cancer from Monsanto`s Hormonal Milk
>
> March 22, 1999
>
> CHICAGO, March 21 /PRNewswire/ via NewsEdge Corporation -- The following was
> released today by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Professor Environmental Medicine,
> University of Illinois School of Public Health and Chairman of The Cancer
> Prevention Coalition:
>
> The European Commission (EC) has just released a report by its authoritative
> international 16-member scientific committee, based on meticulous scientific
> documentation, confirming excess levels of the naturally occurring
> Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) in milk of cows injected with Monsanto's
> biotech hormone (rBGH).
>
> The report concludes that the excess levels of IGF-1 pose serious risks of
> breast and prostate cancer. "Experimental evidence for an association between
> IGF-1 and breast and prostate cancer is supported by epidemiological ...
> evidence arising from recently published cohort studies ... "
>
> ------------------
>
>
> To subscribe, send an email to ge-news-subscribe@egroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send an email to ge-news-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
> Mothers for Natural Law
> http://www.safe-food.org
> ====================================================
> Help the campaign for mandatory labeling of GE foods
> Sign the petition:
>  http://www.safe-food.org/-campaign/petition.html
> Add this message to your email signature
> ====================================================
> webmaster@...
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/ge-news
> Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

--


><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gen-ocidio
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Parece que é verdade que o pessoal no RS está realmente tentando se
posicionar...
>
> Mothers for Natural Law
> Biweekly News 99/03/31
>
>
> Articles have been aggressively shortened.
>
> ------------------
>
> Brazil State Threatens to Destroy Monsanto Soy
>
> SAO PAULO, March 18 (Reuters) - Brazil's major soybean producing state of Rio
> Grande do Sul is threatening to destroy genetically-modified soybeans grown
> on a test plot by the local unit of U.S. biotechnology giant Monsanto Co.
> "The soybean area will be destroyed by the end of the month if they continue
> in violation of state law," the state's Agriculture Secretary Jose Hermeto
> Hoffamann told Reuters. Rio Grande do Sul, which aims to sell soybeans to
> European consumers opposed to transgenics, accused the multinational of
> breaking a new, March 3 state law by failing to provide an environmental risk
> analysis for the 435-hectare test plot.
>
> Copyright 1998 Reuters Limited.
>
> ------------------
>
> >
> To subscribe, send an email to ge-news-subscribe@egroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send an email to ge-news-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
> Mothers for Natural Law
> http://www.safe-food.org
> ====================================================
> Help the campaign for mandatory labeling of GE foods
> Sign the petition:
>  http://www.safe-food.org/-campaign/petition.html
> Add this message to your email signature
> ====================================================
> webmaster@...
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/ge-news
> Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com


	 Temos visto várias notícias neste sentido, mas fico duvidando o que
eles realmente estão tentando.

	 Parte da mídia escrita têm colocado isto como iniciativa dos
"sem-terra", em antagonismo aos grandes produtores.

	 Como eles vão queimar as dezenas de toneladas de soja transgênica que
foram contrabandeadas da Argentina e do Paraguay desde o início de 98?

	 E as plantações de arroz da AgroEvo?

	 E os tomates transgênicos?

	 E as enzimas transgênicas utilizadas às dezenas nos mais diferentes
processos industriais alimentícios e têxteis, como por exemplo os
condicionadores de massa utilizados em panificação?


	 Realmente não sei o que elesestão pretendendo com esta publicidade.


><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gen-ocidio
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

>
> Mothers for Natural Law
> Biweekly News 99/03/31
>
> Thanks to Cliff Kinzel and Richard Wolfson for these items.
>
>
> Allergy and Digestion Problems Caused by Soya
>
> >From a summary prepared by the Natural Law Party UK press office
> <nlpnews@...>
>
> A study by Europe's leading specialists on food sensitivity, the York
> Nutritional Laboratory in northern England, found that allergy and digestion
> problems caused by soya had increased significantly in the past two year,
> rising from 14th to 9th place in the list of leading allergens. As this
> period coincided with the widespread introduction of GM soya into processed
> foods, researchers at the Laboratory felt that these findings raised serious
> new questions about the safety of GM foods.
>
> ------------------
> ------------------
>
> To subscribe, send an email to ge-news-subscribe@egroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send an email to ge-news-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
> Mothers for Natural Law
> http://www.safe-food.org
> ====================================================
> Help the campaign for mandatory labeling of GE foods
> Sign the petition:
>  http://www.safe-food.org/-campaign/petition.html
> Add this message to your email signature
> ====================================================
> webmaster@...
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/ge-news
> Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

--


><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gen-ocidio
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Roberto Verzola escreveu:

>  >Something that some of you might find interesting . . .
>  >There are two basic breeds of rice in the world, African and Asian. These
>  >two last had sexual relations in a place called Gondwanaland. Now some
>  >scientists have suggested interbreeding these two, when they have not
>  >produced any offspring for about 100 million years.
>  >The method proposed is to use a paintbrush to move pollen from one plant to
>  >another (an old, trusted method), and no "modern biotechnology" will be
>  >used.
>
> I'm not sure if this is a joke or what...
>
> Asians have travelled to Africa and Africans have travelled to Asia.
> Many Africans studied at the Intl Rice Research Inst. in the
> Philippines. Farmers collect seeds as a matter of course.
>
> How can you be so certain that the two have not interbred for 100
> million years? That's quite a difficult assertion to prove...
>
> Roberto Verzola
>

     Thanks Roberto V


     (portuguese)

     Polinização cruzada é o método mais usado desde há tempos remotos para a
obtenção de híbridos.

     Interfiro nesta mensagem em língua diversa por considerar este tema de
extrema importância, e raramente abordado nas discussões sobre OGM.

     Mais de 90% dos produtos que ingerimos são híbridos, e na sua grande maioria
com a propriedade "terminator" (se vinga alguma geração, dificilmente serão
replicáveis).

     Seguramente estas plantas misturadas produzirão proteínas misturadas que a
sua vez estimularão nosso mecanismo de defesa como "proteínas estranhas", ou
corpos estranhos, que deverão ser inativados e eliminados através de
imuno-complexos.

     Nosso ambiente "hiper-antigênico" induz à proliferação absurda que as
doenças
alérgicas estão tendo atualmente.


     Abordo esta questão em:
http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira/transgen.htm

     e também nas mensagens sobre "híbridos" na lista de discussão:
  http://www.egroups.com/list/gen-ocidio


     Peço a gentileza de traduzirem os parágrafos que considerarem
significativos,
para que também outros membros da lista possam participar.

     Agradeço antecipadamente


><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gen-ocidio
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Folks, kindly do not confuse hybridization with genetic engineering. In
normal sexual reproduction, as is involved in hybridization, the chromosomal
chain remains whole, and its defense mechanisms against invasion remain
intact.

In genetic engineering, invasive substances, such as viruses and antibiotic
resistance markers, MUST BE USED in order to break down the normal defense
mechanisms of the genetic chain and complete the process. The chromosomal
chain is disrupted and weakened. The invading gene is shot into the chain
imprecisely, with unpredictable effects.

Would you say that inviting guests into your home for dinner is really no
different than being invaded at gunpoint by armed bandits and robbed of your
jewelry? After all, they are both inside your house!

The consequences of this disruption and weakening are untested and unknown,
for the most part. The little we know is of great concern: Dr. Pustzai's
experiments, for example, and the remarkable rise of soy allergies in
England. There is also the genetic engineering of L-tryptophan, which caused
deaths and disabilities; and the toxic allergic reactions caused by soy beans
containing the genes of Brazil nuts. We are unable to verify the effects of
GMO's on the population since most GMO's are unsegregated. This is a
political ploy that is part and parcel of the science of biotechnology.

The long-term effects are even less well known. By "long-term", I am
referring to the effects on 3 human generations. Again, the rush to exonerate
these GMO's from harmful effects is part of the conflict of interest that the
science of biotechnology is defined by. Industry can't wait 50 years for a
return on its investment.

Please do not think of genetic structures as inanimate toy building blocks
that you can manipulate like child's play. Rather, we should regard them with
awe and respect, and understand that our powers over them can be as
potentially destructive as nuclear weapons.


- Nina Moliver

In a message dated 4/15/1999 4:02:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
luizmeira@... writes:

<< Roberto Verzola escreveu:

  >  >Something that some of you might find interesting . . .
  >  >There are two basic breeds of rice in the world, African and Asian. These
  >  >two last had sexual relations in a place called Gondwanaland. Now some
  >  >scientists have suggested interbreeding these two, when they have not
  >  >produced any offspring for about 100 million years.
  >  >The method proposed is to use a paintbrush to move pollen from one plant
to
  >  >another (an old, trusted method), and no "modern biotechnology" will be
  >  >used.
  >
  > I'm not sure if this is a joke or what...
  >
  > Asians have travelled to Africa and Africans have travelled to Asia.
  > Many Africans studied at the Intl Rice Research Inst. in the
  > Philippines. Farmers collect seeds as a matter of course.
  >
  > How can you be so certain that the two have not interbred for 100
  > million years? That's quite a difficult assertion to prove...
  >
  > Roberto Verzola
  >

      Thanks Roberto V


      (portuguese)

      Polinização cruzada é o método mais usado desde há tempos remotos para a
  obtenção de híbridos.

      Interfiro nesta mensagem em língua diversa por considerar este tema de
  extrema importância, e raramente abordado nas discussões sobre OGM.

      Mais de 90% dos produtos que ingerimos são híbridos, e na sua grande
maioria
  com a propriedade "terminator" (se vinga alguma geração, dificilmente serão
  replicáveis).

      Seguramente estas plantas misturadas produzirão proteínas misturadas que
a
  sua vez estimularão nosso mecanismo de defesa como "proteínas estranhas", ou
  corpos estranhos, que deverão ser inativados e eliminados através de
  imuno-complexos.

      Nosso ambiente "hiper-antigênico" induz à proliferação absurda que as
doenças
  alérgicas estão tendo atualmente.


      Abordo esta questão em:
  http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira/transgen.htm

      e também nas mensagens sobre "híbridos" na lista de discussão:
   http://www.egroups.com/list/gen-ocidio


      Peço a gentileza de traduzirem os parágrafos que considerarem
significativos,
  para que também outros membros da lista possam participar.

      Agradeço antecipadamente


  ><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
  <><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira
   >>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gen-ocidio
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

NinaLynn@... escreveu:

> Folks, kindly do not confuse hybridization with genetic engineering. In
> normal sexual reproduction, as is involved in hybridization, the chromosomal
> chain remains whole, and its defense mechanisms against invasion remain
intact.
>

     Realmente esta eh a questao que coloco: que deveriamos considerar os
hibridos
como OGM, pois a diferença está na técnica, onde utilizamos polinizacao cruzada
ao
inves de enzimas ou radiacoes. A intencao eh a mesma: modificar a estrutura
original da especie.

     A prova que estas variedades sao desestruturadas para a vida eh que nao se
reproduzem, ou formam individuos defeituosos, geralmente incapazes de se
reproduzirem.

     Se olharmos sob a perspectiva terapeutica estas variedades nao cumprem seu
papel energetico propiciando a cura; da mesma forma seria na perspectiva
alimentar, pois a diferenciacao entre as propriedades terapeuticas e alimentares
eh algo muito sutil.

     Durante anos tenho procurado bibliografia que indique o papel antigenico das
proteinas estranhas formadas pelos hibridos, mas ate o momento encontrei somente
uma rapida referencia a  um grupo de indios americanos que passaram a ter 50%
mais
diabetes apos a mudanca no consumo de milho selvagem para milho hibrido.


     Compreender o papel antigenico dos hibridos seria um avanco significativo no
ambito imunologico, e assim talvez pudessemos evitar doencas autoimunes como
esclerose multipla, lupus, artrites, etc. Talvez até outras doencas cronicas
onde
o papel imune nao eh bem definido como a diabetes ou neoplasias.


><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gen-ocidio
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

    Esta é prá ajudar abrir o olho.
 

><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira
 

Hi all,

I read in the "words" of Prof. Jones :
>What would happen, for instance, if a gene
>that conferred resistance against insects escaped?

Isn'it a clear mistake ?

Let me stress. I'm not joking :
There is no gene of resistance to insects.

Indeed there are genes of production of pesticide.

                               Why is it so important ?

Because it's the MAIN argument (in front of EPA, ...) : If the corn
produces also an insecticide, then it has to be validated as a pesticide.
And as say the official of Zenneca, it would be very counter-effect
for consumers !!!

So, PLEASE, stop saying this non-sense. I would bet that it was teleguided
by biotechs : the problem is less if it's only corn "resistant to pyrale",
while it's corn that produces pesticide.

By the way, can anyone confirm that Bt (for instance) is produced only in the
leaves and not in the seed nor in the roots ?

Last : Even if it's not produced in the roots, rain drives pesticide to
the ground and puts Bt in contact with bacteria in the soil.

Last of last : Since the News Scientist of 30 Jan 1999, we know for sure that
the gene of resistance to antibiotic jumps to bacteria at EACH digestion.

What with the gene of production of a pesticide in the gut ?

If anyone disagree, please, let me know, but I already checked this with
3 persons

HLM

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe,
subscribe or help is:

               GENTECH-REQUEST@...

The searchable WWW list archive is available at

               http://gen.free.de/archives.html

I think it is a serious mistake to focus on genetic deterministic theories
when looking into diseases such as diabetes, cancer and arthritis. We have
known for years that these diseases are not found very much among people who
eat whole-foods, vegetarian diets. The human body is not a passive recipient
of genetic commands. It is an organism that participates in the environment
at many levels: eating, drinking, breathing, working in front of computers,
living in dangerous electromagnetic fields, lack of fresh air, and lack of
exercise.

Our environment is highly toxic, and chemicals are being poured into our air
and water every day that trigger cellular and genetic mysfunction. One of the
biggest culprits in pouring chemicals into the air daily is hospitals:
supposedly there to heal the sick, but in fact making people sicker every day
when they burn plastics and send the dioxin into the air. New viruses are
being triggered by all this genetic research, and antibiotic resistance is
growing every day because of their overuse in medicine, agriculture and
biotechnology.

Genetic determinism is perhaps the most dangerous development of modern
medicine. It creates an environment in which billions of dollars are poured
into "barking up the wrong tree", looking for "the gene" that is responsible
for all this illness and death, while ignoring that people are shovelling
their deaths into their mouths every day by consuming meat, dairy, and
chemically processed food. Very few people get sick and die from "single
gene" diseases such as sickle cell anemia, in comparison to the ones who get
sick and die from their food.

Genetic determinism encourages people to be passive about their lives and to
shun responsibility for their own health and well-being, both personally and
socially. It is a backward, socially irresponsible outlook, funded by
industries that profit from it.

- Nina Moliver

In a message dated 4/15/1999 2:16:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
luizmeira@... writes:

<< NinaLynn@... escreveu:

  > Folks, kindly do not confuse hybridization with genetic engineering. In
  > normal sexual reproduction, as is involved in hybridization, the
chromosomal
  > chain remains whole, and its defense mechanisms against invasion remain
intact.
  >

      Realmente esta eh a questao que coloco: que deveriamos considerar os
hibridos
  como OGM, pois a diferença está na técnica, onde utilizamos polinizacao
cruzada ao
  inves de enzimas ou radiacoes. A intencao eh a mesma: modificar a estrutura
  original da especie.

      A prova que estas variedades sao desestruturadas para a vida eh que nao
se
  reproduzem, ou formam individuos defeituosos, geralmente incapazes de se
  reproduzirem.

      Se olharmos sob a perspectiva terapeutica estas variedades nao cumprem
seu
  papel energetico propiciando a cura; da mesma forma seria na perspectiva
  alimentar, pois a diferenciacao entre as propriedades terapeuticas e
alimentares
  eh algo muito sutil.

      Durante anos tenho procurado bibliografia que indique o papel antigenico
das
  proteinas estranhas formadas pelos hibridos, mas ate o momento encontrei
somente
  uma rapida referencia a  um grupo de indios americanos que passaram a ter
50% mais
  diabetes apos a mudanca no consumo de milho selvagem para milho hibrido.


      Compreender o papel antigenico dos hibridos seria um avanco
significativo no
  ambito imunologico, e assim talvez pudessemos evitar doencas autoimunes como
  esclerose multipla, lupus, artrites, etc. Talvez até outras doencas cronicas
onde
  o papel imune nao eh bem definido como a diabetes ou neoplasias.
   >>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gen-ocidio
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Andrês De Nuccio escreveu:
 

                                                                                                                                                                ��
     Prezados amigos:
     Confiram um bom exemplo!
     Os consumidores europeus, conscientes dos perigos -impossíveis de prever- do consumo de alimentos transgênicos,
     pressionam e obtêm sucesso para que o bom senso prevaleça sobre os interesses económicos de algumas multinacionais que,
     colocando em risco a saúde física de toda a humanidade, ocultam e distorcem informações minimizando os riscos do consumo
     de alimentos genéticamente modificados.

     Atenciosamente,
 

     Andrês De Nuccio
     ISVARA Instituto de Yoga
     Rua Carlos Kaisel, 34 Cambuí
     Campinas - São Paulo - Cep 13025-020
     TEL:   (019)   253-5422
     yogaisvara@...

     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 

       Londres- A pressão do consumidor europeu contra a presença dos alimentos transgênicos nas prateleiras
             dos supermercados pode beneficiar o Brasil. Na tentativa de atender às exigências de um público que não
           quer ter à mesa produtos geneticamente modificados, representantes de um grupo formado por dez grandes
     varejistas europeus iniciam amanhã uma visita pelo País para verificar se os produtores brasileiros têm condições de
     oferecer alimentos não-transgênicos aos consumidores europeus.

     O padrão de compra do recém-formado consórcio de varejistas determina que os alimentos de marca própria desses
     supermercados não terão em qualquer fase de sua produção genes modificados (em inglês, GM-free). Um grupo de
     especialistas independentes, liderado pelo Law Laboratories Ltda., será responsável por verificar se há algum traço de
     alimento, geneticamente modificado, nos produtos de marca própria vendidos aos participantes do consórcio.

     Paula Puliti

><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira
 

Dear participants of  the Gentech,

         I  do appreciate your understanding and  your replies to my
interferences in a foreign language (Portuguese).

         I am having this message translated into English, but
unfortunately I can not always do so,  as I depend on the services of a
third party for that.

         The point I want to make is that the HYBRIDS CAN [also] PLAY an
ANTIGENIC (allergic) ROLE.

         The proteins resulting from the genetic interaction of different
species
are considered  foreign bodies by our defense system. Daily stimulation
through foods ends up by unbalancing the immune response, facilitating
the
emergence of autoimmune diseases (Multiple Sclerosis, Thyroids,
Arthritis,
etc.).

         This concept is very difficult to prove as we have, practically,
no
population groups that do not use hybrids these days and the only
undocumented information that I have is that a group of American Indians

has suffered an increase of 50% in their incidence of diabetes after
swapping
the wild corn for the hybrid corn.   Should anybody have any other
INFORMATION ABOUT HYBRIDS and allergy, I would very much appreciate if
that could be sent to me.

         Another aspect of the issue is that the hybrids are so much
altered that
they do not, practically, reproduce, or they produce malformed
specimens.
Surely these alterations can result in metabolic disturbances when used
as
food or therapeutic product.   Even if we have no technology to
understand
these metabolic alterations,  it would be prudent to start giving
attention
to this new possibility.

         Although the malignity of the hybrids is not comparable to the
transgenics,  I insist in placing this theme for discussion here on the
Gentech, as it congregates the most willing and qualified people to
think
about the subject.

         Once more I thank you for your understanding and take the
opportunity to let you know that quite a lot of people in Brazil benefit
from
the contents presented on the Gentech.

         Best regards,


><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira/transgen.htm
                                         (with translate on line to
english)





------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gen-ocidio
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Luiz Meira wrote:
...the only undocumented information that I have is that a group of
American Indians has suffered an increase of 50% in their incidence of
diabetes after swapping the wild corn for the hybrid corn.

Dear Luiz,

Such studies often have many other factors and we sometimes
assume what fits into our agendas.  Would you have more
information on the above study?

Thank you!

Robert Cohen

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gen-ocidio
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Robert Cohen escreveu:

> Luiz Meira wrote:
> ...the only undocumented information that I have is that a group of
> American Indians has suffered an increase of 50% in their incidence of
> diabetes after swapping the wild corn for the hybrid corn.
>
> Dear Luiz,
>
> Such studies often have many other factors and we sometimes
> assume what fits into our agendas.

     I am very hapy about this

> Would you have more
> information on the above study?

     The mesage from Dr. Juan Herrera Salazar:

A propósito de Alimentos Transgénicos quiero  hacer un comentario basado
en la cita de Knowles et allies., 1990  que estudio los indios PIMA del sur
oeste de los Estados Unidos,   donde se comenta que estos Indios a raíz del
cambio en su alimentación basada en maíz tradicional, (small kernel)  por
maíz mejorado , de grano grande (large kernel) hibridizado,  aumentaron su
tasa de diabetes  hasta un 50%.
Parece que el índice glicémico del grano grande es mayor que el índice del
grano  tradicional.  Por Indice Glicémico se debe entender , la capacidad de

un alimento de producir secreción de insulina inmediata y/o sostenida.
Este  se mida  como una área bajo la curva.
El contenido de fibra en el grano grande es mínimo respecto al grano
tradicional.

Me despido atentamente

Dr. Juan Herrera Salazar
Juanhs@...
Nicaragua.



     Regards


><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira





------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gen-ocidio
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

http://www.agestado.com.br/redacao/integras/abr/19/50.htm

    Na última mensagem sobre polens, vimos que um carregamento de milho dito orgânico foi rejeitado pelos europeus após verificarem que estava contaminado por transgênicos. Esta contaminação foi atribuída à disseminação de polen pelo vento.

    Nesta mensagem que transcrevo em parte vemos mais uma ratificação deste processo.
 
 

Beth von Gunten escreveu:

NEW POLLEN RESEARCH CASTS FURTHER DOUBT ON GM TRIALS

  New research by British botanists - to be published later this
  week in the New Scientist - shows that pollen blown from large
  fields of genetically modified (GM) oilseed rape remains fertile
  over greater distances than expected.  Even at sites 400 metres
  away from transgenic (GM) plots, as many as 7 per cent of the
  seeds (from non-GM oilseed rape plants) were herbicide resistant.

  Earlier today, scientists from the Scottish Crop Research
  Institute [1] in Dundee, told a conference at the University of
  Keele that oilseed rape pollen had been found 4 km from the
  nearest source - further that it had been previously discovered.
  The research says that "bees may be important pollen vectors over
  a range of distances" and concludes that  "the results suggest
  that farm-to-farm spread of OSR [oilseed rape] transgenes will be
  widespread ."

  The results are at odds with safety measures currently demanded by
  the Government for GM crop trials.  They also highlight one of
  FOE's concerns with the farm-scale trials programme of GM crops
  which only operates a 50 metre 'buffer' zone.

  Adrian Bebb, Food Campaigner at Friends of the Earth said:
  "This research throws current thinking out of the window.  It
  confirms that pollen from these mutant crops will be a problem for
  most farmers and will spread in the countryside quicker then
  previously thought.  The time has come for the Government to act.
  We need an immediate 5 year freeze to put a stop to this dangerous
  experiment on our countryside."

><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira
 

><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira
 

On April 19th, Luiz Meira wrote:
        The point I want to make is that the HYBRIDS CAN [also] PLAY an
ANTIGENIC (allergic) ROLE.

        The proteins resulting from the genetic interaction of different
species
are considered  foreign bodies by our defense system. Daily stimulation
through foods ends up by unbalancing the immune response, facilitating
the
emergence of autoimmune diseases (Multiple Sclerosis, Thyroids,
Arthritis,
etc.).

        This concept is very difficult to prove as we have, practically,
no
population groups that do not use hybrids these days and the only
undocumented information that I have is that a group of American Indians

has suffered an increase of 50% in their incidence of diabetes after
swapping
the wild corn for the hybrid corn.   Should anybody have any other
INFORMATION ABOUT HYBRIDS and allergy, I would very much appreciate if
that could be sent to me.

        Another aspect of the issue is that the hybrids are so much
altered that
they do not, practically, reproduce, or they produce malformed
specimens.
Surely these alterations can result in metabolic disturbances when used
as
food or therapeutic product.   Even if we have no technology to
understand
these metabolic alterations,  it would be prudent to start giving
attention
to this new possibility.

        Although the malignity of the hybrids is not comparable to the
transgenics,  I insist in placing this theme for discussion here on the
Gentech, as it congregates the most willing and qualified people to
think
about the subject.

Dear Gentech recipient and recipients of similar listserves:
    This message is in response to the numerous "debates" people have had on hybrids. I've stayed quiet far too long and can no longer stand the misinformation that is being put out on this list and many others.
    You are referring to "hybrids" as a whole, but actually referring to two different things. There are hybrids, such as wheat, which were created when two, possibly three, different species intercrossed. The only way to avoid these hybrids is to not eat products from cross pollinated  plants. This leaves only selfed plants such as soybeans. Even then, many selfed plants can cross pollinate as well, just at very low frequencies. For example, wheat is a selfed plant, but it will cross pollinate with goat grass and has, in its history obviously, cross-pollinated. Thus, I'm afraid that you'll never truly get away from these kinds of hybrids.
    Those types of hybrids are not the same as the commercial corn "Hybrids" that are sold on the market, which many of you refer to on these lists. These corn hybrids are nothing more than a cross between two inbred corn lines from the same species. In fact, all corn is from the same species. The difference between yellow corn and blue corn and Indian corn has been selection, not cross pollination with other species.
    Furthermore, hybrids can and do reproduce. The progeny of a commercial corn hybrid will perform poorly in the sense that it will not have uniform stand, yield, and all the other monoculturally important agronomic traits, but the progeny can survive and reproduce. The reason plant breeders create hybrids, at least in the case of corn, is to get "hybrid vigour". Essentially, you take inbred homozygous line A and cross it to inbred homozygous line B and the resulting heterozygous progeny are stonger than either parent line. That's the theory. It works well in corn, because corn is a simple diploid. Other cross pollinated plants, such as alfalfa, are not as easy to work with, because it is difficult to self alfalfa and alfalfa is an autotetraploid. After about four generations of selfing, the alfalfa is extremely weak and often becomes sterile. That's why alfalfa seed is sold in mixtures and rarely produces a truly uniform stand.
   Since I'm at work and need to go, that's all I'll write for now.
                                                                            Sincerely,
      Wendy  Kyle

    Imaginem os DNA da soja transgênica nos lípides culinários, nas pastas matinais, na panificação. Imaginem os resíduos das enzimas utilizadas nos alimentos industrializados. . . tadinhos dos ninhos que virão por aí...
 

><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira
 

Hi all,

I've just found on Medline the following abstract. By and large, it
claims to have proved that traces of ingested DNA (not modified food OK)
can be found in the nuclei (!) of the cells of various organs of the new-born
animals when the mother has been fed with this plasmid (once agin OK : it's
not GMO).

I think this article could be quoted as relevant in the topic of alimentary
risks.

DO I misunderstand ?

HLM

Mol Gen Genet 1998 Oct;259(6):569-76

On the fate of orally ingested foreign DNA in mice: chromosomal association and
placental transmission to the fetus.

Schubbert R, Hohlweg U, Renz D, Doerfler W

Institute of Genetics, University of Cologne, Koeln, Germany.

We have previously shown that, when administered orally to mice, bacteriophage
M13 DNA, as a paradigm foreign DNA without
homology to the mouse genome, can persist in fragmented form in the
gastrointestinal tract, penetrate the intestinal wall, and reach the
nuclei of leukocytes, spleen and liver cells. Similar results were obtained when
a plasmid containing the gene for the green fluorescent
protein (pEGFP-C1) was fed to mice. In spleen, the foreign DNA was detected in
covalent linkage to DNA with a high degree of
homology to mouse genes, perhaps pseudogenes, or to authentic E. coli DNA. We
have now extended these studies to the offspring of mice
that were fed regularly during pregnancy with a daily dose of 50 microg of M13
or pEGFP-C1 DNA. Using the polymerase chain reaction
(PCR) or the fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) method, foreign DNA,
orally ingested by pregnant mice, can be discovered in various
organs of fetuses and of newborn animals. The M13 DNA fragments have a length of
about 830 bp. In various organs of the mouse fetus,
clusters of cells contain foreign DNA as revealed by FISH. The foreign DNA is
invariably located in the nuclei. We have never found all
cells of the fetus to be transgenic for the foreign DNA. This distribution
pattern argues for a transplacental pathway rather than for
germline transmission which might be expected only after long-time feeding
regimens. In rare cells of three different fetuses, whose
mothers have been fed with M 13 DNA during gestation, the foreign DNA was
detected by FISH in association with both chromatids. Is
maternally ingested foreign DNA a potential mutagen for the developing fetus?

PMID: 9819049, UI: 99034358

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe,
subscribe or help is:

               GENTECH-REQUEST@...

The searchable WWW list archive is available at

               http://www.gene.ch/archives.html

Herve LE MEUR escreveu:

> Thanks to Wendy (wendykccga@...), I understand better.
>

     and we also!

> Then, I cannot see how wheat could be a cross-pollinitation of two-three
> species.
> I guess what i thought was only theory.
>

     wheat + rye  = tricale = 75% of the "plainflour" waidespreid    => gluten
allergy
     gluten = proteic part = antigenic


[]s


><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gen-ocidio
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

    Quem quiser ver um curso em português muito bem feito, olhe em:
     http://www.epm.br/ge/biomol/BIOMOL.HTM

><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira
 

Here's the section on Ploidy.

Classification of Polyploidy

Diploid species have two homologous chromosome sets. Each
type of chromosomes is always represented twice (except the
sex chromosomes). Most of the animal species, including all
the mammals, are typical diploid species. Polyploid individuals
have more than two basic genomes or chromosome sets (3x, 4x,
6x,etc.). They are particularly prominent in the plant kingdom. It is
estimated that about 30% to 35% of following plant species
are polyploids.

Autopolyploids: The chromosome sets or genomes are identical.
The genome formula (capital letters represent a group of
chromosomes that is generally referred to as the basic genome or
chromosome set) is AAA (autotriploidy), or BBBB(autotetraploidy),
etc. Autopolyploids are also called polysomicpolyploids.

Allopolyploids: Such polyploid species were derived hybridization
of parents that had structural dissimilarity between their basic
genomes. Chromosomes in meiosis are limited to bivalent pairing.
Typical alloployploids are AABB (allotetraploid), AABBCC
(allohexaploid), etc. Allopolyploids are also called as disomic
polyploids.

Segmental allopolyploids: The genomes in the species are partially
homologous each other. It is difficult to define such polyploids. It
includes a wide array of types that ranges all the way from nearly
autoploids to the other extreme, almost alloploids. Partial multivalent
formation is an important characteristics of such polyploid species.
Typical genome formula foe a segmental allotetraploid is A1A1A2A2.

Autoallopolyploids: Such polyploids combine the characteristics
from both autopolyploids and allopolyploids, such as AABBBB.

Origin of Autopolyploids

Autopolyploids spontaneously occur in the nature in a low frequency
and can be induced artificially using various ways, such as heat and
chemical treatments, decapitation, and selection from twin seedlings.
The effective method to obtain autopolyploids is using colchicine.
Colchicine is a spindle fiber poison or suppressant. It inhibits the
spindle mechanism at mitosis, resulting multiples of normal
chromosome number.

Autotriploids

Autotriploids are genetically equal to trisomics for each chromosome.
The three chromosomes will pair as a trivalent or a bivalent plus a
univalent. Chromosome separation from such pairing is irregular.
Daughter nuclei will receive either one or two copies from each
chromosome. Consequently, most of the gametes resulting from
autotriploid individuals do not have balanced chromosome
complements and are not viable. If progeny survives from
autotriploids it is mostly an aneuploid. Autotriploids can be produced
by crossing diploids with their corresponding autotetraploids.

The high sterility of autotriploids has been explored in plant breeding.
Triploid bananas (2n = 33) are vigorous but seedless and therefore
preferred for food consumption. Triploid watermelons have only
undeveloped seeds. Triploid is also applied in seedless Citrus
cultivars.

Autotetraploids

Autotetraploids are genetically equal to tetrasomics for
Each chromosome. Theoretically the four chromosomes will pair as
aquadrivalent, or a trivalent plus a univalent, or two
bivalents. Quadrivalents and bivalents are often dominant
in autotetraploids. Rings or chains of four homologous
chromosomes are usually the most popular configurations for
quadrivalents inautotetraploids. Different chromosome pairing and
orientation ofthe quadrivalents at metaphase I often result in
aneuploidgametes, causing sterility. The percentage of such sterility
islower than in autotriploids. Quadrivalents are
apparentlyunfavorable for fertility in autotetraploids and their
frequencycan be reduced by selection. For example, Gilles and
Randolph(1951) reported a decrease from an average of 8.47 to
7.46quadrivalents per cell after 10 generation of selection forfertility.
This is also reflected by the fact that quadrivalentsare less prominent
in natural autopolyploid propagated sexually(such as Medicago
sativa) than those propagatedvegetatively (such as Solanum
tuberosum).

Nucleus and cell are usually larger in autotetraploids than in the
diploids, which will led to gigas (giant) characteristics.The benefits of
polyploid plant breeding have increased the size of plant organs such
as roots, leaves, flowers, fruits, and seeds. The chemical
characteristics of some plants, such as contents of sugar, have been
substantially changed by polyploid breeding. However, artificially
produced autotetraploids always partially sterile and produce a high
number of aneuploids. This makes autotetraploid breeding difficult for
plant species with seed propagation.

Tetrasomic Inheritance

Five possible genotypes in autotetraploids:

AAAA - Quadruplex for dominant gene A

AAAa - Triplex for dominant gene A

Aaaa - Duplex for dominant gene A

Aaaa - Simplex for dominant gene A

aaaa - Nulliplex for dominant gene A

Autopolyploids in Animals

Polyploidy in sexually reproducing animals is rare.
However, polyploidy, perhaps autopolyploidy has been detected in
Several sexually reproducing animals: earthworm, insects,
shrimps, fishes, and amphibian. In most autopolyploid forms of
animal species, the meiosis is either modified (automictic or meiotic
thelytoky)or is abolished altogether and replaced by none, one or
two mitotic divisions (apomictic or ameiotic thelytoky). The generative
reproduction in such animals is usually replaced by parthenogenesis
as normal means of reproduction. However, the South American frog
Odontophrynus americanus (4n=44) has a normal sexual
reproduction in spite of a large frequency of quadrivalents and
aneuploids are not observed.

Several reasons have been advanced to explain the rarity
of autopolyploid in bisexual animals. One is that the event of
an unreduced egg-cell being fertilized by an unreduced sperm
is extremely improbable, while for reproduction the
autoployploid needs an autopolyploid mate, as otherwise sterility is
bound to result. This makes the origin of a polyploid variety
almost impossible. The second possible reason is that polyploidy
may disturb the sex determining mechanism. For example, the sex in
Drosophila melanogaster is determined by the balance in an ratio
betweenthe X chromosomes and the sutosomes. Polyploidy in such
will break down such balances.
 
 
 

    Boicote!

><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira
 

INDEPENDENT (London) April 28

Brit. stores Tesco and Unilever ban Genetically Manipulated products

By Paul Waugh, Political Correspondent

GOVERNMENT reassurances about the safety of genetically modified foods

were further undermined yesterday when both Tesco and Unilever
announced they were banning GM ingredients from their products.

Britain's biggest supermarket chain and the world's largest food
manufacturer unveiled their new policy just hours after Jack
Cunningham, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, made a staunch
defence of the benefits of GM crops and foods.

Tesco revealed it was working with Greenpeace to remove modified
ingredients from its own meals and would label clearly all other
products that contained them.

The company's decision follows pressure from customers and criticism
from environmentalists that it was the only one of the big chains to
refuse to respond to public concern.

Tesco, the market leader with a turnover of #18.5bn, joins Safeway,
Sainsbury's, Iceland, Marks and Spencer and Waitrose in seeking
GM-free products and boosting its organic range.

More than 150 of Tesco's its 20,000 own-label products contain
modified soya and maize and the chain has agreed to work with
Greenpeace in a task force to find reliable sources of GM-free
ingredients.

John Longworth, Tesco trading law and technical director, said
customers believed GM products offered no new benefits. "We will
remove GM ingredients where we can and label where we can't. In the
short and medium term I expect the number of products containing GM
ingredients to decline steadily, quite possibly to zero."

Peter Melchett, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said that the
spotlight was now on Nestle to phase out the ingredients.

Greenpeace said it was "delighted" that Unilever, owner of Birds Eye
Walls and one of the most popular manufacturers of ready meals, had
taken its decision.

Mr Cunningham had told MPs the GM foods and crops were now "a reality"

and helped to boost Britain's #70bn a year biotechnology industry.

Mr Cunningham, who chairs the Cabinet committee set up by Tony Blair
to co-ordinate Government policy on GM issues, told the environmental
audit select committee that "media hysteria" had skewed public debate
to date.

"Some aspects of the public debate have been ill-informed, often
fuelled by a barrage of media hysteria," he said.

"About 4.5 million hectares of land are in cultivation in the UK. GM
crops have grown for 19 years in North America with almost no effects
on biodiversity."

Mr Cunningham did confirm that the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief

Scientific Officer had been commissioned to look into the health and
safety aspects of GM foods and their report would be made publicly
available in the next few weeks.


                JOIN THE ACTIVIST MAILING LIST
To subscribe, write to Activist_List-subscribe@...
_____________________________________________________
                                *  The Activist  *
                             http://get.to/activist

  This is not about the world that we inherited from our forefathers,
      It is about the world we have borrowed from our children !!
_____________________________________________________

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe,
subscribe or help is:

               GENTECH-REQUEST@...

The searchable WWW list archive is available at

               http://www.gene.ch/archives.html

    []s

><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira
 

"Noticias BT" - El Boletín Transgénico
Septima edición, 29 de Abril, 1999

Dedicado a informar el mundo hispano parlante acerca de los riesgos potenciales
de la ingeniería genética en la alimentación, la salud, la biodiversidad
y el medio ambiente.


Estimados Suscriptores,

Esta edición del Boletín Transgénico - "Noticias BT" contiene:

1. - TECNOLOGIA TRAIDOR: "Productos Dañados" de los Gigantes Genéticos
2. - Las compañías norteamericanas se resiten al maíz transgénico; Legisladores
de la Union Europea estan divididos sobre el réginen de la bioseguridad
3. - Llamadas para una moratoria en la clausula de biodiversidad de TRIPS
4. - Los científicos advierten a los parlamentarios sobre la necesidad
de prohibir los alimentos geneticamente manipulados
5. - Noticias Breves

—————————————————————————————————————-
**TECNOLOGIA TRAIDOR:
"Productos Dañados" de los Gigantes Genéticos **

Un nuevo informe de RAFI detalla más de 2 docenas de patentes "Terminator
II" que vinculan semillas suicida a químicos patentados, plantas genéticamente
debilitadas y el poder patentado para hacer que plantas genéticamente inviables
resuciten de la muerte.

Fundación Internacional para el Progreso Rural  (RAFI)  Nota de Prensa
29 de Marzo 1999
http://www.rafi.org
—————————————————————————————————————-

Más allá de los pronósticos de hasta sus críticos más pesimistas, la ciencia
Terminator está rápidamente convirtiendose en el centro de beneficios
corporativos
de los próximos años.  Y, si las compañías multinacionales importantes
de agroquímica y semillas logran sus propósitos, las tecnologías Terminator
y Traitor (Traidor - que impide expresiones genéticas naturales) llegaran
pronto después del cambio del milenio a una granja cerca de usted. El Director
Administrativo de RAFI, Pat Mooney declara, "Con este informe y nuestro
trabajo previo sobre Terminator, RAFI suena la alarma que sin la acción
del gobierno, estas tecnologías se comercializarán dentro de pocos años
con consecuencias potencialmente desastrosas."

Edward Hammond, Director de Programas de RAFI dice, "Desde que hemos descubierto
la patente original de Terminator hace un año, ni siquiera en nuestros
momentos mas pesimistas habíamos pronosticado que la ingeniería genética
de características negativas iba a estallar tan rápidamente como lo ha
hecho."  La mayoría de los observadores pensaron que habría una demora
de dos o tres años antes de que los refinamientos de segunda y tercera
generación de la tecnología Terminator serian patentados; pero en vez de
esto, dice Hammond, "una encuesta de las oficinas de patentes revela que
ya esta ocurriendo ahora. De hecho, el Terminator original podría ser papel
mojado porque las semillas Terminator mejoradas ya están en el laboratorio."

RAFI informa que cada multinacional gigante de la genética ha patentado,
o admite que está trabajando con semillas genéticamente esterilizadas o
químicamente dependientes.  El informe de RAFI provee detalles y análisis
sobre más de dos docenas de estas patentes recientemente adquiridas por
12 instituciones.  Las patentes buscan explotar - o podrían explotar -
nuevas técnicas de ingeniería genética que usan  promotores inductibles
para inutilizar las funciones críticas que rigen la reproducción, la resistencia
a las enfermedades y la viabilidad de la semilla de las plantas.

Si se realiza la comercialización de estas semillas, los agricultores en
todo el mundo se enredarán en una maraña carísima de productos químicos,
propiedad intelectual y plasma de germen incapacitado que les llevará a
la bioesclavitud. La tecnología augura desastre para los agricultores y
la seguridad alimentaria mundial porque más de tres cuartas partes de los
agricultores del mundo - principalmente agricultores pobres - dependen
de semillas ahorradas por ellos mismos. La eliminación total de esta tradición
antiquísima de cultivar semillas guardadas de cosechas anteriores, al ser
sustituida por semillas estériles, también puede señalar una reducción
desastrosa de la diversidad genética de la cual todo el mundo depende para
la seguridad alimentaria.

UN ALCANCE DE MIEDO:  Según el Director de Investigación  de RAFI, Hope
Shand, "Las patentes describen el uso de químicos externos para activar
y desactivar las características genéticas de las plantas y van mucho más
allá de la patente 'Terminator' original de DeltaPine. Son técnicas para
controlar una variedad amplia de características de producción y procesamiento
genéticas rociando las plantas con  herbicidas o fertilizantes patentados.
Otras técnicas nos llevan mas allá de las plantas de cultivo al implementar
tácticas tipo Terminator en los insectos y hasta posiblemente en los mamíferos."

GENES ASESINOS, SEMILLAS DROGADICTAS Y "MILAGROS MODERNOS":  Algunas patentes
tratan de activar o desactivar la germinación de la planta. Las patentes
Verminator de AstraZeneca utiliza lo que denominan genes asesinos para
este fin. Aún así AstraZeneca ha estado informando a los gobiernos, científicos
y a la prensa que a pesar de sus esfuerzos continuados para patentar en
todo el mundo, no impedirían  a los agricultores ahorrar semillas. Pat
Mooney de RAFI dice: "Algo no cuadraba, así que comenzamos a investigar."

Nuevas propuestas de patentes recientemente descubiertas explican la posición
confusa de AstraZeneca. Las nuevas patentes refinan la tecnología "Verminator"de
AstraZeneca que vincula el crecimiento y germinación de la planta a la
aplicación repetida de químicos patentados. Sin estos químicos específicos
patentados, la planta no crece. "Esencialmente," dice Edward Hammond de
RAFI, "están hablando de la fabricación de plantas drogadictas que dependen
físicamente de un cóctel químico."  AstraZeneca dice que patentará la tecnología
en 77 países.

Vea la patente Verminator II de AstraZeneca:
http://wo.dips.org/search97cgi/s97is.dll?Action=View&ViewTemplate=ep/en/viewer.h\
ts&SearchType=4&VdkVgwKey=9735983

Dice Mooney de RAFI, "Así, ves que AstraZeneca y los otros gigantes genéticos
no quieren tanto que los agricultores compren nuevas semillas cada año.
En cambio, quieren forzarles a recomprar su propia semilla."  Monsanto
ya está utilizando estas técnicas de 'pagar por cada generación'  mediante
medios legales - los infames acuerdos agrícolas - en los EE.UU y Canadá;
pero la investigación ahora se dirige hacia medios biológicos para lograr
el mismo triste fin.  Mooney dice  "será vastamente más lucrativo para
las multinacionales vender semillas programadas a suicidarse a la hora
de la cosecha y que los agricultores tengan que pagar a la compañía para
reactivarlas para la próxima siembra - o a través de un proceso de
acondicionamiento
de la semilla o a través de la compra de productos químicos especializados
que, al estilo de Lázaro, resucitan las semillas ahorradas a la vida."

"En efecto, esto traslada todos los costos de la semilla a los agricultores,
y las compañías no tendrán que multiplicar, transportar y almacenar cantidades
masivas de semillas." Hammond agrega, "A medida que se fortalece la oligarquía
de la semilla, las compañías tendrán cada vez menos incentivos para invertir
en la investigación de cultivos de plantas, después de todo ya tendrán
los agricultores en una posición de dependencia total." Pat Mooney esta
de acuerdo, "Con estas  "semillas lazarinas" - continuara la inversión
publicitaria pero la inversión en la investigación se marchitará."

MUTILACION GENETICA:  Un aspecto especialmente perturbador de algunas de
las nuevas patentes perfiladas en el informe de RAFI es la deliberada
inutilización
en las plantas de funciones naturales que ayudan a luchar contra las
enfermedades.
  El gigante biotecnologico suizo, Novartis, es el que esta más avanzado
en este aspecto de la tecnología "Traitor."  Sin darle importancia, Novartis
se refiere a esto como "la inactivación de la regulación endógena" para
que "genes que son regulados por la misma planta podrán regularse exclusivamente
por la aplicación a la planta de un regulador químico."

Entre los genes que Novartis puede controlar de esta manera hay genes SAR
(resistencia sistémica adquirida) patentadas, que son imprescindibles para
la habilidad de la planta para repeler infecciones creadas por muchos virus
y bacteria.  De esta forma, Novartis ha patentado técnicas para crear plantas
con funciones naturales y sanas desactivadas. "La única forma para volver
a activarlas y reparar estos "productos dañados" dice Edward Hammond, de
RAFI,  "es, como usted  bien lo adivinó, la aplicación de un producto químico
patentado."

Vea la patente de regulación antisentido de sistemas SAR:
http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/n
etahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5,650,505'.WKU.&OS=PN/5,650,505&RS=PN/5,650\
,505

EL SECRETISMO DE MONSANTO: Paralizado de miedo como un ciervo con la luz
de los faros de un automóvil, durante las recientes batallas sobre las
plantas genéticamente modificadas, especialmente en Europa,   Monsanto
ha tratado de desviar preguntas y criticas acerca de la tecnología Terminator
diciendo que pertenece a la compañía DeltaPine, que pronto va a ser una
compañía subsidiaria suya. Ante esta situación, las relaciones publicas
de Monsanto repiten constantemente que aún no tienen acceso a Terminator
y no pueden informar a los gobiernos y a la gente preocupada acerca de
los planes para las  semillas Terminator.

"Esto ha sido su mantra en todo el mundo." dice Mooney de RAFI, "Nosotros
hemos escuchado las mismas declaraciones confusas de representantes de
Monsanto en Nueva Zelanda, la India, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Brasil, la UE y los
EE.UU." Incluso la semana pasada , en una presentación en la Universidad
de Harvard, el representante de Monsanto escurrió la pregunta de forma
igual.  "De hecho," dice Mooney, "es una estrategia deliberada - o, en
el mejor de los casos, información incompleta - que ofusca los hechos acerca
de la agenda de investigación de la compañía. Monsanto ya tiene su propia
tecnología Terminator patentada, e indica que lo patentara en 89 países.
Obviamente, la compañía no esta diciendo las cosas claras.  Si Monsanto
no comienza a jugar limpio, se arriesga a empañar aun más su ya muy dañada
imagen."

Vea la patente Terminator II de Monsanto:
el
http://wo.dips.org/search97cgi/s97is.dll?Action=View&ViewTemplate=ep/en/viewer.h\
ts&SearchType=4&VdkVgwKey=9744465

¿ FUNCIONARA TERMINATOR?  RAFI anota que algunos científicos especialistas
en plantas son escépticos acerca de si la tecnología Traitor funcionará
con exito en el campo.  Monsanto, uno de los proponentes originales de
la tecnología Traitor, alienta este punto de vista.   No hay ninguna duda
que la tecnología Traitor se refinará continuamente a medida que se acerca
su comercialización; pero plantas "Terminator" ya están en el invernadero
y las estimaciones de las ganancias están siendo calculadas.  "Es sólo
una cuestión de tiempo. Cada gigante genético productor de pesticidas está
trabajando duro para perfeccionar la tecnología". Shand añade, "las compañías
no patentan para divertirse con el papeleo y pagar a los abogados.  Aquéllos
que piensan  que las corporaciones dejarán Terminator - o piensan que no
llegará al mercado - están en las nubes. Hay demasiado dinero entremedio.
  A menos que se prohiba por los gobiernos, Terminator va a ocurrir, y
probablemente
mas pronto que tarde."

¿LO COMPRARÁN LOS AGRICULTORES?  Delta & Pine Land y Monsanto insisten
que nadie obligará a los agricultores a comprar semillas Terminator. La
pregunta real es, ¿tendrán los agricultores una opción?  La industria de
la semilla comercial se está condensando, y un grupo reducido de gigantes
genéticos ya controlan una porción en rápida expansión de los mercados
de la semilla.  Después de que DuPont anunció este mes que compraría Pioneer
Hi-Bred, la compañía de semillas más grande del mundo, el periódico Wall
Street Journal concluyo que el trato "de hecho divide" la mayoría de la
industria de la semilla norteamericana entre DuPont y Monsanto.  Con la
desaparición de cultivadores de plantas del sector público, los agricultores
se están haciendo más vulnerables y tienen menos opciones en el mercado.


TERMINANDO EL TERMINATOR: RAFI y sus socios alrededor del mundo están
contactando
a los gobiernos pidiendoles que declararen todas las peticiones de patentes
"estilo Terminator" como contrario al bienestar público.  En enero, Global
Response (una organización basada en los EE.UU sin fines lucrativos) animó
a sus 4,000 miembros en cuarenta países a escribir al Director-general
de la FAO pidiendole que se opusiera a la tecnología Terminator como un
asunto de seguridad alimenticia mundial .  La FAO ha contestado que los
gobiernos pueden estudiar el problema en Roma del 19 al 23 de abril durante
la reunión de la Comisión de la FAO sobre Recursos Genéticos para los Alimentos
y Agricultura (FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture).
  RAFI estará en esa reunión y hará una presentación a los gobiernos. Además,
individuos, interesados de 71 países han enviado casi 7,000 cartas al Secretario
de la Agricultura Americana, el Sr. Glickman, pidiendole que prohiba la
tecnología Terminator.

Aunque la oposición global está aumentando, RAFI se preocupa de que la
Convención sobre la Biodiversidad de la ONU pueda ser demasiado blando
en las implicaciones medioambientales y sociales de la tecnología. Cuando
la Convención se reúna en Montreal en junio, va a recibir un estudio científico
sobre Terminator.  "Leeremos y  responderemos muy rápidamente a ese estudio,"
dice Pat Mooney .

—————————————————————————————————————-

Para más información:

Pagina web: http://www.rafi.org

Pat Roy Mooney, Executive Director, RAFI
110 Osborne Street South, Suite 202
Winnipeg, MB, R3L 1Y5  CANADA
Tel:    +1 204 453-5259
Fax:    +1 204 925-8134
E-mail: rafi@...

Hope Shand, Research Director, RAFI
Tel:    +1 717 337-6482
Fax:    +1 717 337-6499
E-mail: hope@...

Edward Hammond, Programme Officer, RAFI
Tel:    +1 206 323-7378
Fax:    +1 206 323-6052
E-mail: hammond@...


—————————————————————————————————————-
Dos Articulos de BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest
—————————————————————————————————————-


LAS COMPAÑÍAS NORTEAMERICANAS SE RESISTEN AL MAÍZ TRANSGÉNICO; LEGISLADORES
DE LA UNION EUROPEA ESTAN DIVIDIDOS SOBRE EL RÉGIMEN DE LA BIOSEGURIDAD


Dos compradores principales de maíz de los EE.UU. -- Archer Daniels Midland
(ADM) y A.E. Staley, anunciaron a principios de mes que no comprarían o
negociarían con ningún producto de maíz  no aprobado para la venta en la
UE. La Asociación Nacional Norteamericana de Cultivadores de Maíz  ha advertido
a los cultivadores norteamericanos que si usaban semilla de maíz no aprobado
por la Unión Europea deberían esperar vender su cosecha sólo en el mercado
doméstico.

Entretanto, la Comisión Europea (CEE) y el Parlamento Europeo (PE) permanecen
divididos por cómo revisar la Directiva 90/220 sobre la Liberación Deliberada
de Organismos Genéticamente Modificados (90/220), el régimen regulador
de la UE sobre la bioseguridad. El 30 de marzo la CEE rechazó tres enmiendas
importantes del PE al régimen.  Una enmienda habría establecido una cláusula
de responsabilidad que sostiene que las compañías serían responsables para
cualquier daño medioambiental causado por la liberación de un organismo
genéticamente modificado (OGM) en el medio ambiente. Una segunda enmienda
habría establecido un periodo de autorización de 12 años para cualquier
OGM aprobado para su liberación en el medio ambiente (la CEE había propuesto
un periodo del siete años). La CEE también rechazó una enmienda del PE
que prohibe todos los genes antibióticos en los OGMs.

En esta directiva, el PE (cuyos 626 miembros son elegidos directamente
por los ciudadanos de los 15 estados socios de la UE) tiene poderes de
decisión en conjunto con la CEE (cuyos 20  miembros son designados por
los diferentes gobiernos de la EU). Antes este mes, el PE dijo que no
retrocedería
de su posición en cualquiera de las enmiendas reflejadas por la CEE. Alemania
que sostiene la presidencia rotativa de la UE, dijo que debido a "la amplia
divergencia en este problema" las aprobaciones definitivas de las revisiones
de 90/220 probablemente no se alcanzarían hasta mediados del año 2000.
Es seguro que el retraso provocara los EE.UU. que ha advertido a la UE
que sus problemas interiores y externos acerca del uso de los OGM deberían
estar resueltos para que los agricultores de la UE puedan permanecer
competitivos
y evitar conflictos comerciales. Oficiales de comercio norteamericanos
han advertido que en el futuro cercano, cerca del 100 por ciento de las
exportaciones agrícolas de los EE.UU.  tendrán un componente de OGM.

En noticias relacionadas, Grecia (un estado socio de la UE) ha hecho una
llamada para una moratoria sobre la liberación comercial de OGMs en el
medio ambiente en todo la Unión Europea. Grecia intentará persuadir a los
demás estados de la UE para aceptar una moratoria en Junio en la próxima
reunión de Ministros del Consejo del Medio Ambiente de la UE.

Referencias:
"Commission, Parliament head for showdown on genetically modified organisms
directive;"
"Greece calls for EU-wide moratorium on GMOs; bans test planting in country,"
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT REPORTER, 14 April 1999;
"OGM: la resistance s'organise," LE FIGARO, 13 April 1999;
"GM food: US buyers spurn modified corn," FINANCIAL TIMES, 15 April 1999.



LLAMADAS PARA UNA MORATORIA EN LA CLÁUSULA DE BIODIVERSIDAD DE TRIPS

El mes pasado los socios de la Comunidad de Desarrollo de Africa del Sur
(SADC) hicieron un taller para explorar una posición común en la revisión
del Artículo 27.3(b) del Acuerdo de Aspectos de los Derechos de la Propiedad
Intelectual Relacionados con el Comercio (TRIPs) de la WTO (Organización
Mundial del Comercio) qué esta relacionado con los patentes de organismos
vivos.   Los países en desarrollo tienen hasta enero del año 2000 para
cumplir con las obligaciones de TRIPs para proteger los derechos de los
diseñadores de nuevas variedades de plantas.

El Artículo 27.3(b) pide a los miembros de la WTO de proteger la propiedad
intelectual sobre variedades de plantas o por medio de patentes o por un
sistema eficaz de sui generis, o por una combinación de los dos. Como
parte de la Ronda de Uruguay,  los miembros de la WTO estaban de acuerdo
en repasar el Artículo 27.3(b) en 1999 - adelantandose a la fecha tope
de su implementación en los países en vías de desarrollo.

Organizaciones no gubernamentales  (ONGs) en ambos Norte y Sur han criticado
los esfuerzos de la revisión hasta ahora y han hecho una llamada para una
moratoria sobre la implementación del Artículo 27.3(b) "hasta que se realiza
una revisión sustancial--las condiciones de la cual  deben ser abierta
y transparentemente determinadas, y convenidas por el Sur," según la declaración
de una coalición de ONGs basadas en el Sur.

Estos grupos indican que los países en vías de desarrollo están bajo presión
para adoptar la Convención Internacional de 1991 para la Protección de
Nuevas Variedades de Plantas (UPOV 1991) como el mecanismo para cumplir
sus obligaciones 27.3(b). Argumentan que hasta ahora la revisión 27.3(b)
ha desatendido eficazmente otras avenidas para su cumplimiento (por ejemplo
sistemas de sui generis importados de la Convención sobre la Diversidad
Biológica o de imperativos legales nacionales tal como la justicia social
y los derechos de la comunidad). Aun más, según Renee Vellve de Genetic
Resources Action International (GRAIN) "no solamente los ONGs,  sino también
muchos científicos, abogados y políticos, del Norte y Sur, sienten fuertemente
que el sistema UPOV no es conveniente para las condiciones de los países
en vías de desarrollo [por ejemplo con respecto a los derechos de los
agricultores
en contra de las de las multinacionales, o con respecto a la agricultura
sostenible]."

"La presión sobre los países en vías de desarrollo para unirse a UPOV como
un medio de cumplir el Artículo 27.3 (b) de TRIPs es un esfuerzo para
circumventar
y debilitar el proceso de la revisión en la WTO," dijo Cecilia Oh del Third
World Network (Red del Tercer Mundo). "El grupo ASEAN en el Consejo de
TRIPs ha pedido que la WTO dirija una revisión seria y substantiva de la
provisión del Artículo 27.3 (b)  en si. Sin embargo, países como los EE.UU.
quieren reducir la revisión a un intercambio sin sentido de información
sobre la implementación,"agregó.

En las Filipinas, una coalición nacional de agricultores y científicos
ha requerido que la biodiversidad sea sacado del Acuerdo TRIPs. "Los
agricultores
manejan los recursos genéticos del país como el recurso del pueblo. Nosotros
también somos innovadores. Los derechos de la propiedad intelectual son
anti-agricultor, anti - biodiversidad e inmoral," el grupo de MASIPAG dijo
en una declaración.

"La opción de UPOV no es conveniente para la India," dice Ashish Kothari
de Kalpavriksh, una ONG basada en la India. "Sólo protege los intereses
del sector formal de la semilla, ignorando los intereses y derechos de
millones de agricultores que han estado cultivando y desarrollado semillas
durante miles de años."

La South Asian Network on Food, Ecology and Culture (SANFEC) - Red de Comida,
Ecología y Cultura de Asia del Sur en una declaración a principios de año
también exigió la exclusión de biodiversidad de TRIPs. "Los tipos de derechos
que realmente necesitamos no son Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual  y
no se gobernarían por la WTO pero apoyarían a los agricultores, y a comunidades
indígenas y locales en sus esfuerzos a través de los milenios para conservar
y reforzar la biodiversidad," según una declaración de  SANFEC.

En el taller de SADC, los participantes acordaron que SADC y la Organización
para la Unidad Africana (OAU) deberían trabajar juntos en este problema.
La OAU ya esta elaborando una posición africana común en la revisión del
Articulo 27.3(b) de TRIPs con un mandato para proteger los derechos de
comunidades locales como la preocupación más importante para Africa.

Merece la pena mencionar que China, Kenya, Brasil y Panamá se unieron a
UPOV 78 (el predecesor de UPOV 91) la semana pasada.

Referencias:
"Press statement on the regional workshop in Southern Africa on the
implementation
of article 27.3(b) of WTO/TRIPS," March 1999;
"NGOs PROTEST WIPO-WTO MOVES ON UPOV AT BANGKOK," SUNS, 18 March 1999;
"SANFEC'S statement of position on TRIPs Article 27.3(b)," SANFEC PRESS
RELEASE, 4 March 1999;
Archivos internos de ICTSD.

BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest (en inglés) se publica por el Centro
Internacional
para el Comercio y Desarrollo Sostenible (International Centre for Trade
and Sustainable Development - ICTSD) con apoyo del Instituto para Política
Agricultural y Comercial (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy -
IATP). Esta edición ha sido compilada por Hugo Cameron, Marie Chamay y
Miguel Jimenez-Pont; escrita por Judy Brienza (IATP) y editada por Caroline
Dommen,  cdommen@.... El Director es Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz,
rmelendez@....
ICTSD es una organización independiente y sin fines lucrativos basada en:
13, ch des Anemones, 1219 Geneva, Switzerland. Tel: (41 22) 979 9492; Fax:
(41 22) 917 8093.

Articulos y citas de BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest pueden utilizarse
en otras publicaciones con las referencias apropiadas a las fuentes. Se
agradecen comentarios y sugerencias y deberían ser dirigidas a la Editora
o el Director.

Para suscribirse envíe un E-Mail a: majordomo@...
Deje vacío la línea del asunto. En el texto escribe: subscribe tradedev.
Se puede encontrar BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest en la página web de
ICTSD: http://www.ictsd.org y en la pagina web de IATP.
http://www.newsbulletin.org


—————————————————————————————————————-
Noticias del Partido de la Ley Natural de Inglaterra
—————————————————————————————————————-
LOS CIENTÍFICOS ADVIERTEN A LOS PARLAMENTARIOS SOBRE LA NECESIDAD DE
PROHIBIR LOS ALIMENTOS GENÉTICAMENTE MANIPULADOS

Una reunión especial para todos los parlamentarios del Parlamento británico
se celebró el 8 de marzo en el salón de reuniones de la Cámara de los Comunes,
dirigido por científicos que observan con aprehensión la introducción de
alimentos genéticamente manipulados.

El doctor John Fagan , un eminente biólogo molecular con 23 años de experiencia
y líder en técnicas genéticas sobre la investigación del cáncer, aconsejó
mucho mayor cuidado en la introducción de alimentos genéticamente modificados.

El doctor Fagan dijo a los parlamentarios "Si se ha de usar la ingeniería
genética en la agricultura y en la producción de alimentos, su uso debe
seguir el mismo método científico y las pruebas rigurosas que se usan
actualmente
para evaluar los medicamentos y aditivos alimentarios. Unas pruebas estrictas,
a corto y largo plazo, de la seguridad y del impacto ambiental son esenciales".

Proceso impreciso e incontrolado

El doctor Fagan mostró cómo la inserción de genes específicos nuevos en
un organismo es un proceso impreciso e incontrolado que puede influenciar
el funcionamiento biológico de formas imprevistas." Siempre hay un riesgo
de que los alimentos genéticamente manipulados contengan alérgenos y toxinas
imprevistas y que tengan menor valor nutritivo. Además los cultivos
genéticamente
manipulados pueden alterar el ecosistema reduciendo la biodiversidad,
perjudicando
la fertilidad del suelo, induciendo el desarrollo de nuevos patógenos,
pestes y hierbas y aumentando el uso de agro-químicos tóxicos y carcinógenos".

El Dr. Fagan es profesor de biología molecular y bioquímica. Él inició
un debate mundial sobre investigación genética en 1994 cuando devolvió
casi dos millones de dólares en becas del Instituto Nacional de la Salud
de Estados Unidos por su preocupación sobre los peligros de la ingeniería
genética ylos riegos de liberar organismos GM en el ambiente. El Dr. Fagan
también es el principal asesor científico de Genetic ID, compañía que
proporciona
un servicio de pruebas genéticas para industrias alimenticias, nutritivas
y agrícolas en todo el mundo. Las pruebas que el doctor Fagan ha diseñado
son significativamente más sensibles que las utilizadas actualmente por
las autoridades británicas y pueden detectar la más pequeña partícula de
cualquier OGM.


Aplicaciones médicas y agrícolas de la ingeniería genética

El Dr. Michael Antoniou, profesor titular de patología molecular y jefe
de un grupo de investigación en uno o de los principales hospitales didácticos
de Londres, explicó la diferencia entre las aplicaciones de la ingeniería
genética en los campos clínico y agrícola : "La ingeniería genética enmedicina
intenta corregir un defecto genético hereditario, como distrofia muscular
o fibrosis quística, o adquirida, como cáncer. La estricta regulación justamente
exige que el uso de la manipulación genética (GM) en medicina no conlleve
la liberación deliberada de organismos geno-manipulados (GM) capaces de
reproducirse (OGM). Por el contrario, el uso de la manipulación genética
en la agricultura trata de " reparar" las plantas que no tienen esencialmente
nada incorrecto. En la agricultura se producen específicamente OGM para
su liberación deliberada en el medio ambiente."

  En medicina, un nuevo medicamento o terapia producido, usando genomanipulación
(GM) está sujeto a pruebas pre-clínicas y sobre todo clínicas para evaluar
no sólo su eficacia sino para detectar efectos secundarios imprevistos.
Sin embargo para los alimentos GM no se requieren legalmente pruebas con
voluntarios humanos para conocer su toxicidad o reacciones alérgicas antes
de su comercialización.

"Las medicinas están etiquetadas y se toman conscientemente, y sus efectos
son vigilados cuidadosamente. Nada de ello se aplica a los alimentos GM.
Bajo el reglamento actual de la UE la mayor parte de los alimentos (90%)
que contienen ingredientes GM no necesitan etiquetas. La ausencia de una
separación efectiva hace que el público no tenga elección, y finalmente
la vigilancia después de la comercialización no existe. Cualquier problema
consecuente será virtualmente imposible de rastrear".


Respecto a los límites naturales

"Si el mal de "las vacas locas" nos ha enseñado algo es que debemos ser
cautos antes de usar una tecnología que se salta los límites naturales
establecidos. La naturaleza funciona con el principio de mínima acción
(máxima economía) sugiriendo que todo existe con una utilidad. Los límites
naturales o leyes de la naturaleza pueden considerarse como medios por
los cuales la dirección de integridad evolutiva de la vida se mantiene.
No nos debemos engañar con un falso sentido de seguridad, ni pensar que
al regular algo que es intrínsecamente imprevisible e incontrolable ya
se hace seguro".

El Dr. Antoniou es autor y co-autor de más de 50 publicaciones y es asesor
de biotecnología de muchas organizaciones incluyendo la Asociación del
Suelo y la Sociedad para la Promoción de Terapias Sustentadoras.

Prohibición total

El Dr Geoffrey Clemments, líder del Partido de la Ley Natural británico
y físico, subrayó que el conocimiento científico que sustenta esta llamada
tecnología es completamente incapaz de garantizar que los OGMs producidos
ahora están libres de riesgos.

"Es como esperar que un físico formado en la física de Newton pueda manejar
un reactor nuclear. Los métodos actuales son intrínsecamente peligrosos
y muy innaturales," dijo refiriéndose al hecho de que la manipulación genética
implica que trozos de ADN de escorpiones, virus acuáticos, bacterias y
otras especies se implanten en el ADN de cereales, verduras, frutas y animales.

En contraposición a lo que se argumenta, estas mutaciones nunca pueden
ocurrir naturalmente. Se las obliga a ocurrir en especies aisladas en uno
o 2 años. En estado natural la evolución del ADN normalmente lleva varios
millones de años en una ambiente natural de especies viviendo conjuntamente
en equilibrio.

"Por tanto no tenemos en absoluto medios para predecir resultados adversos
que puedan suceder. Cuando se entiende que los métodos de la modificación
genética implican la utilización del ADN de virus y bacterias está claro
que estamos liberando un desastre potencial para todas formas de vida.

"El único camino es la prohibición total de todos los cultivos y alimentos
GM y la retirada de todo los productos y cosechas que ya se están cultivando".
El Partido de la Ley Natural fue el primer partido político que declaró
su oposición a los alimentos GM y ahora está haciendo una campaña sobre
este asunto en 80 países.


Para suscribirse al SERVICIO DE NOTICIAS del Consejo Internacional Maharishi
de Partidos
de la Ley Natural por favor envíe un mensaje a: nlp@...
El servicio es gratuito. Por favor informe a su amigos.

CONSEJO INTERNACIONAL MAHARISHI DE PARTIDOS DE LA LEY NATURAL
SERVICIO DE NOTICIAS
Markt 1 • 6063 AC Vlodrop • The Netherlands
Tel.: +31-475-404111 • Fax: +31-475-403642
Internet: http://www.natural-law-party.org
E-mail: nlp@...


—————————————————————————————————————-
NOTICIAS BREVES
—————————————————————————————————————-
Cadenas importantes del sector alimentario en Inglaterra deciden eliminar
los alimentos transgénicos de sus marcas.
(Resumen de un articulo del Independent (Londres) de Abril:
Brit. stores Tesco and Unilever ban Genetically Manipulated products
(Tiendas Británicas Tesco y Unilever prohiben productos Genéticamente
Manipulados
por Paul Waugh, corresponsal político)

Ya son siete grandes cadenas de alimentación en Inglaterra que han decidido
quitar alimentos transgénicos de sus estanterías. Debido a la presión de
los consumidores preocupados sobre los posibles riesgos a la salud y al
medio ambiente, la compañía Tesco (líder del mercado con 18,5 mil millones
de libras) y Unilever se unen a Safeway, Sainsbury's, Iceland, Marks and
Spencer y Waitrose en este esfuerzo para encontrar productos libres de
ingredientes transgénicos y animar la venta de productos biológicos.

(resumen por AV.)

En la misma linea (gracias a Richard Wolfson):

Martes, 23 de Marzo, 1999
Negocios: El Archivo de la Compañía (The Company File)

La cantidad de personas haciendo sus compras en el minorista de congelados
Iceland se ha disparado desde su prohibición de alimentos transgénicos
y el éxito de su programa de comprar desde casa...El grupo obtuvieron beneficios
de £55,1millones (antes de impuestos) para 1998 en comparación con £43,5
millones el año pasado. La facturación subió a £1.74 mil millones, en
comparación
con £1.57 mil millones en 1997.


—————————————————————————————————————-

Si quieres colaborar traduciendo o mandando artículos propios, habrá mucha
gente agradecida. No lo dudéis. Acordaos de que para cualquier articulo
publicado en otro medio de comunicación se necesitara permiso para poder
reimprimirlo aquí y mandarlo por E-Mail

Para no recibir "Noticias BT" mande un E-Mail a: avalls@... poniendo
"borrar" en el texto o en la linea del asunto.

Gracias,
Adrian Valls
Partido de la Ley Natural
http://ww2.grn.es/avalls






----------------------------------------------------------------------
This Message sent with Aureate Group Mail Free Edition
http://groupmail.aureate.com

    Observem que o texto anexo não abarca as enzimas transgênicas.
 

    A lista de discussão "Gen-ocidio" continua de vento em popa

    Imaginem as mulheres que estão gerando com alimentos transgênicos...

    O tempo urge!

><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira
 

How To Get a 100% Total Worldwide Ban of Genetically Engineered Foods

UPDATED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY,  April 30, 1999

1.  Foods we assume to be natural food
     and eat every day have been genetically engineered
     with the DNA of bacteria, viruses, animals, and fish.
     The chemical/genetic engineering industry has done this
     secretly within the past three years.

2.  Although the chemical/genetic engineering industry claims
     to have good motives and good intentions for doing this,
     they are essentially experimenting with the human race
     on a mass scale.

3.  The chemical/genetic engineering industry claims that
     genetically engineered food is just a natural extension
     of time-tested crossbreeding and hybridization. Actually this
     is a new, experimental, very dangerous, AND radical technology.
     The process causes unnatural mutation and combination of
     DNA of our food in a manner which excludes nature out of
     the process. This means we and our children are now eating
     lab-created, mutated and experimental "fake" food. They are
     experimenting, not only with us and our children, but with the
     entire food chain.

4.  The chemical/genetic engineering industry claim that
     these "scientific advances" will help solve the
     problem of world hunger.  Their actual main motive is to
     create a profit windfall by increasing sales of their pesticides.
     For example, the patent on Monsanto's pesticide/herbicide known
     as "Roundup" will expire soon. They have enticed farmers
     with their experimental crops that are genetically engineered
     to absorb and tolerate their chemical pesticides and their other
     yummy crops which create their own pesticide internally.
     Opponents of genetically engineered food call them Frankenfoods,
     or Frankenstein foods.

5.  There have been many ill effects already from genetically
     engineered products. Genetically engineered Tryptophan caused
     50 deaths and permanently injured thousands, while the genetically
     engineered sweetener Aspartame has caused thousands of
     disease cases worldwide. Now the chemical companies
     have genetically engineered soy, corn, potatoes, tomatoes,
     canola, cotton, papaya, and crook neck squash.
     These are now in your supermarket !!

6.  To avoid these foods, shop very carefully, and eat only certified
     organic versions of soy, corn, potatoes, tomatoes, canola,
     cotton oil (sometimes in chips/snacks), papaya, or
     crook neck squash. Soy and corn derivitives
     are in most processed foods.

7.  There is a complete Internet plan available to stop
     Frankenfoods. To receive a copy, send an e-mail to
     pmligotti@...    with

     "avoiding dangerous foods" as the subject heading.


Relevant Websites About Genetic Engineering:
(Easily accessible with Netscape mail programs)

http://www.safe-food.org/welcome.html
http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/~usa/reports/biodiversity/roundup
http://www.greenpeace.org/~comms/cbio/geneng.html
http://www.indiaserver.com/betas/vshiva/
http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/biotech.htm
http://www.rafi.ca
http://www.purefood.org
http://www.med.upenn.edu/~bioethic/genetics/articles.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/agriculture/ag.docs.html
http://www.k2net.co.uk/~savage/ef/earthfirst.html
http://www.essential.org/crg/
http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/shag/
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~rone/gedanger.htm
http://www.bio-integrity.org
http://www.natural-law.org/issues/genetics/ge_hazards.html
http://www.bio-integrity.org/
http://www.peg.apc.org/~acfgenet/
http://www.indians.org/welker/genome.htm
http://www.solbaram.org/articles/clm505.html
http://www.netlink.de/gen/home.html
http://www.psagef.org/indexgen.htm


_____________________________________________________

  !!  Stop and Avoid GE Food !!

For more information and a complete Internet plan
(the only comprehensive global plan to 100% STOP GE FOOD)
send an e-mail to  pmligotti@...
with "avoiding dangerous food" in the subject heading
_____________________________________________________


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe,
subscribe or help is:

               GENTECH-REQUEST@...

The searchable WWW list archive is available at

               http://www.gene.ch/archives.html

[]s

><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira
 

From: Information Systems for Biotechnology <isb@...>
Subject: ISB News Report - May 1999

BIOTECHNOLOGY IN LATIN AMERICA AFTER CARTAGENA

After February’s UN-sponsored biosafety talks in Cartagena,
Colombia failed to produce a consensus among the 134
countries present, it is worth taking the pulse of the region
surrounding this Caribbean city. How do the different Latin
American nations fit into the global biotechnology picture?

First, it should be said that these talks did not neatly divide
along north vs. south lines, despite how some journalists
covered it. The so-called Miami Group (United States,
Canada, Australia, and three Latin nations--Argentina,
Uruguay, and Chile), named after the site of last year’s
meeting, is the principal opponent to an eleventh-hour
version of what would have been the first international
protocol on transboundary movement of genetically
engineered organisms. This illustrates the diversity within this
region when it comes to biotechnology research,
development, trade, and regulations.

Argentina leads the latin nations with 4.3 million hectares
dedicated to herbicide resistant soybean, second only to the
U.S. with more than 20.5 million hectares (1). This sizable
production has been possible primarily owing to Argentina’s
temperate climate, in marked contrast to its neighbor, Brazil.
Argentina’s development in this area creates one of the most
marked splits within the region's 23 nations, as environmental
groups and even some of the other Latin delegations at the
talks vilified Argentina and its neighbors for being associated
with the Miami Group.

"We’ve been accused of treason," said Ricardo Lagorio of
Argentina’s Foreign Affairs Ministry. "But we're acting in an
open, transparent manner, as part of a group with shared
interests. And we consider that the future of the world food is
with biotechnology...while also seeing it important that
environment not be affected."

Although Brazil did not align itself with the Miami Group, the
region’s most populated country has contemplated the role
that genetically engineered crops could play in its agriculture
since the 1990s (2). In fact, Brazil adopted Latin America's
first biosafety law in 1995. "In Cartagena, we didn't want to
sign a protocol that would be less stringent than our national
law, or that would force us to change our regime," said
researcher Genaro de Paiva. He serves on Brazil’s Biosafety
Commission, created by this same law. "We are a center of
megabiodiversity," said Dr. De Paiva. "Brazil is where these
issues are being played out. At the same time, we think that
the use of these organisms can be regulated in a
case-by-case, scientific manner." The scientist added that
Brazil differed with the Miami Group over including
commodities such as corn and soybeans in a proposed
review process prior to the first shipment between countries.

The group of exporting countries adamantly opposed this
measure, and said the process should apply only to
genetically engineered seeds destined to be planted in the
ground. They alleged that seeds should be reviewed for
possible risks to the environment and biological diversity, but
that commodities posed no such risks. In a recent interview,
Dr. De Paiva added, "We are now creating an operating list of
products that could be exempted from review on the second
movement." The scientist also emphasized that commercial
production of transgenic crops in Brazil is still a few years off,
and that "most products being evaluated at this point are still
routine, like Bt maize and Roundup®-ready soy."

The latter is the most extensively planted in field trials, with
around 2,500 hectares in all. Dr. De Paiva emphasized that
wild relatives of soy are not found in Brazil, and so the issue
of possible gene flow and threats to biodiversity are
minimized with this crop. He also mentioned that varieties
being tested are local, and not suitable for temperate
climates (unlike Argentina’s, which are).

Like Brazil, Colombia is a global center of megabiodiversity.
But as host country in Cartagena, it wound up in an unusual
position, saddled with the difficult position of peacemaker.
Delegate Cristian Samper said his country was pushing for a
"wide scope," and that "without a protocol, we’ve temporarily
lost the possibility of having a multilateral, international
instrument of control, which we hoped would place some
responsibility on exporting countries."

At the same time, Colombia is presently testing its new
national biosafety regulations and review committee. The
regulations were adopted in December of last year; the
review committee established to enforce them will be meeting
for the first time next month to review applications for field
trials, which can still be counted on two hands. According to
Carlos Silva, of the Colombian Agricultural Institute (ICA)--the
government entity charged with maintaining the Andean
country’s biosafety regulations--these applications range
from Bt potatoes and maize to blue carnations. There is also
an application pending for a variety of indica rice developed
at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).
The rice is engineered for resistance to hoja blanca, a
disease-causing virus found only in Latin America, and which
is capable of destroying as much as 80% of commercial
crops.

Dr. Samper, director of the Humboldt Biological Resources
Institute, added that "the Andean Group plans to adopt its
own biosafety protocol this year, taking advantage of our
similarities in biodiversity, culture, and foodstuffs." Silva
echoed this concept, stating, "why wait for an international
protocol--we could create an Andean pact and then make
any necessary changes." The Andean group also includes
Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela, countries with little
development in biotechnology as of yet.

The region’s other major player is Mexico. In fact, Mexico is
the only Latin nation apart from Argentina that figures in a list
of global leaders in commercial cultivation of transgenic
crops, with about 100,000 hectares total (1). According to Dr.
Amanda Galvez, a member of the Mexican delegation in
Cartagena and part of a national commission on biodiversity
(CONABIO), the correct term should be "pre-commercial,"
since the Bt cotton in question here is still being closely
monitored for commercialization by the Ministry of Agriculture.

Being the genetic and evolutionary homeland of maize,
transgenic work with this crop has been of some concern in
Mexico. Apart from the International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center’s (CIMMYT) limited, enclosed
experiments with apomixis, the Mexican government has now
restricted transgenic maize release. (This despite the lack of
alarm expressed by Damaso Luna, Environmental Director of
Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cartagena delegation
member. Shortly after Cartagena, he stated that it was "too
early and alarmist to be saying that the apocalypsis is at
hand for maize.")

As for Mexico’s position in Cartagena, Dr. Luna said, "We
were interested in having a protocol with clear rules that
could protect biodiversity without duly interrupting trade.
We’re concerned that the very genetic resources on which
this technology and the future will depend are in balance
here. But we have our own guidelines and will continue to
develop them, with or without a protocol."

In fact, as the ISB News Report goes to press, Mexico
President Ernesto Zedillo is reviewing new recommendations
made by a body of 15 scientists coordinated by CONABIO on
biodiversity conservation and biotechnology research for
meeting national needs. As Dr. Galvez put it, "in Mexico, we’re
still importing this technology, and most of our concerns as a
nation are still not being addressed."

Of course, there is a flip side to the issue of possible gene
flow to wild relatives and land races--as raised with maize in
Mexico, potato in the Andean nations, and in nations with
high biodiversity in general. At this point, neither the public
nor the private sector offer the small farmer incentive for
developing land races; wild relatives are left out of the picture
altogether. Subsistence farmers will tend to look for varieties
that help them feed their families, either by increasing yield or
lowering costs (for inputs such as pesticides and
fertilizers)--whether obtained from traditional breeding or
genetic engineering.

Small-scale farmers in Latin America are either going to be
financially compensated for conserving the native germplasm
that is at the heart of many of the concerns regarding
genetically engineered crops, biosafety, and biodiversity, or
more resources will have to be put into seed banks and
germplasm research. This will be a key issue in the years to
come, from the southern cone up to Mexico, as genes and
agriculture converge to an even greater degree (3).

Sources

1. James C. 1998. Global Review of Transgenic Crops: 1998.
ISAA Briefs No. 8. Ithaca, N.Y: ISAA.

2. Sampaio M. 1999. Perspectives from National Agricultural
Research Systems. In Biotechnology and Biosafety, eds. I
Serageldin and W Collins. Washington, D.C.: The World
Bank.

3. Pers. Comm., Willy De Greef, Head Regulatory &
Government Affairs, Novartis.

Timothy Pratt
Journalist
Cali, Colombia
v.communicaciones@...


***********************************************************


The material in this News Report is compiled by NBIAP's
Information Systems for Biotechnology, a joint project of
USDA/CSREES and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University. It does not necessarily reflect the views of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture or of Virginia Tech. The
News Report may be freely photocopied or otherwise
distributed without charge.

      Patricia L. Traynor, Editor (traynor@...)
      Ruth Irwin, Associate Editor
      (rirwin@...)

To have the News Report automatically emailed to you, send
an email message to news@... and type
subscribe newsreport [your_name] in the message section.
Connect to http://www.nbiap.vt.edu for internet access to ISB
News Reports, textfiles, and databases.

_____________________________________________________________________
                         *PLEASE NOTE THE ADDITION OF AN "8" TO OUR NUMBERS*
Richard T. Roush
Associate Professor and Director          Phone +61 8 8303-6590
Centre for Weed Management Systems        FAX   +61 8 8303-7125
Waite Institute                                                  ;-_|\
University of Adelaide                                          /     \
Glen Osmond 5064                                               (       )
South Australia                                                 \_;-*_/
AUSTRALIA                                                           | v

                                                                 Adelaide,
                                                              South Australia

Cooperative Research Centre for Weed Management Systems:
http://www.waite.adelaide.edu.au/CRCWMS/

"Weeds - Australia's most underestimated environmental threat"

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe,
subscribe or help is:

               GENTECH-REQUEST@...

The searchable WWW list archive is available at

               http://www.gene.ch/archives.html

http://www.agestado.com.br/redacao/integras/mai/05/63.htm


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/gen-ocidio
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

Andrês De Nuccio escreveu:

 

Bresser defende soja transgênica Brasília - O ministro da Ciência e Tecnologia, Luiz Carlos Bresser Pereira, defendeu o plantio, em escala comercial, de soja transgênica no País.

 

A posição de Bresser Pereira, baseada em decisão da Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança (CTNBio)

    Que a CNTBio (composta por 14 representantas das "seed enterpraises" e 1 representante do "governo") faça o possível para implantar a soja transgênica, assim como outras espécies é o esperado...

 "Somos o único grande produtor de soja que não está fazendo isso", afirmou, durante audiência pública na Comissão de Ciência e Tecnologia da Câmara.

    Agora..., que o Gabeira, na mesma oportunidade, tenha se manifestado "ponderado", dizendo que devemos esperar um pouco mais para aprovar ou rechaçar este genocídio, é algo desalentador...
 

    Tenho visto políticos que não conseguem manejar um e-mail, agora, se mostram incapazes de contruir uma vistão coerente frente à uma "nova" tecnologia que está sendo comercializada há décadas... O que estes "representantes" vão fazer quando surgirem outras "novas" tecnologias?

:-(

><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira

    A "coisa" vai se esparramando...

    Interessante notar que os cooptados pelas empresas de sementes inistem em utilizar os mesmos argumentos: que vai diminuir os custos; que é a solução para diminuir a fome; etc; etc; etc...

    Quero ver o que eles vão fazer quando seus filhos e entes queridos estiverem com auto-imunidade tipo esclerose múltipla. Por maior que seja a vantagem monetária auferida agora, nunca poderá ao menos minimizar tamanha dor.
 

    Gostaria de falar também sobre a questão da rotulagem. Se os intelectuais, os ditos representantes políticos, os médicos, os engenheiros agrônomos não conseguem um mímino de disposição para constatar o conhecimento disponível sobre a antigenicidade dos transgênicos, como a "população" poderá ter elementos para "escolher" o que é "melhor"?
 

 
file:///C%7C/TEMP/gene/cgrande.htm
 
 

><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira
 

Que eu sobesse, até agora não está regulamentado o plantio de soja
transgênica pela CTNBio, em todo o território nacional. Como eles
estão plantando oficialmente em Ponta Porã?

     Gostaria de comentar a observação:
"No Brasil, no entanto, ainda há dúvidas em relação a
     possibilidade de consumo do produto como alimento pela
     população, bem como sobre sua influência no meio ambiente."

     Na Europa não existe dúvidas! Os produtos transgênicos não entram!

     pelo menos de forma grosseira como grãos. Eles utilizam enzimas
transgênicas alimentícias industriais desde há muitos anos sem
saber...


file:///C%7C/TEMP/gene/telma.htm


><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/gen-ocidio
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

mailbox:/C|/Arquivos de Programas/Netscape/Users/luizmeira/mail/Inbox?id=004201be9cce%24bdc2aa40%246a82d3c8@LUCIANAGOMES&number=380114&part=1.2
--
 

><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira
 

Simone Saraiva
organica@...

----------
> De: David Hathaway <hathaway@...>
> Para: Recipient list suppressed
> Assunto: Brasil articula contra rotulagem de transgênicos ?
> Data: Sábado, 8 de Maio de 1999 10:21
>
> O Estado de S. Paulo - Sábado, 8 de maio de 1999
>
> Brasil discutirá rotulagem de transgênicos
>
> País integrará grupo de trabalho com EUA, França, Inglaterra, Japão e
> Austrália
>
> O Brasil vai integrar um grupo de trabalho com Estados Unidos, França,
> Inglaterra, Japão e Austrália para discutir a questão de rotulagem de
> produtos geneticamente modificados. "Há divergências sobre a
> obrigatoriedade de incluir no rótulo a informação `transgênico'", disse
> ontem Marília Nutti, da Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária
> (Embrapa), durante o 2º Seminário sobre Qualidade de Alimentos.
>
> Marília disse que os EUA lideram um grupo de países que dispensa a
> classificação no rótulo, desde que não haja mudança na forma de utilizar,
> na composição ou no aspecto nutricional. "A opinião dos países da União
> Européia semelhante, mas com algumas exigências a mais, como a mudança da
> composição do DNA no produto final", afirmou Nutti. "O Brasil discorda
> dessas duas frentes, pois está defendendo a classificação de transgênicos
> no rótulo dos produtos vendidos."
>
> Liberação - O ministro da Agricultura, Francisco Turra, disse que vai
> debater no Fórum dos Secretários Estaduais de Agricultura a liberação
> comercial dos produtos transgênicos no País. O secretário da Agricultura
do
> Rio Grande do Sul, José Hermetto Hoffmann, vai amanhã para a Europa
> negociar contratos de exportação de soja não-transgênica. O secretário
quer
> também buscar apoio técnico e financeiro para a instalação de um
> laboratório de identificação de produtos geneticamente modificados no
Estado.
>
> Copyright 1999 - O Estado de S. Paulo - Todos os direitos reservados

mailbox:/C|/Arquivos de Programas/Netscape/Users/luizmeira/mail/Inbox?id=004201be9cce%24bdc2aa40%246a82d3c8@LUCIANAGOMES&number=380114&part=1.7
--
 

><>   Luiz Roberto Salvatori Meira ><> Equilíbrio Alimentar
<><   http://www.aleph.com.br/~luizmeira
 

Simone Saraiva
organica@...

----------
> De: Marijane Lisboa <mlisboa@...>
> Para: ABONG <abong@...>; Andre B.F. Schierz
<abfschie@...>; André Iamamoto <atoshio@...>; Adriano
Soares/CUT <snf@...>; Angelito <angelitocassol@...>;
Anselmo <fuconams@...>; Alessandra <alegubcp@...>; Alexandre
Harkaly <ibd@...>; Attila  Miklós <awmiklos@...>;
Associação Agricultura Orgânica AAO <organica@...>; Associação de
Defesa do Consumidor ADOC <adoc@...>; ABRA/Horácio Martins
<horaciom@...>; Angela Cordeiro <acordei@...>; AS-PTA/Paraná
   <asptapr@...>; Aurélio Rios <aureliov@...>;
Cristina Maria do Amaral Azevedo <sma.cristinaa@...>; Carlos Tautz
<tautz@...>; Carlos Colombo <ccolombo@...>; Claudio Yuji
Tsutumi <cytsutsu@...>; CONFEA <presi@...>;
CONTAC <contac@...>; CREA/Bahia <creaba@...>;
CUT/Pedro Ivo <pedroivo@...>; Dalcio Caron
<dalcaron@...>; Departamento de Política Científica e
Tecnológica <dpct@...>; David Hathaway
<hathaway@...>; Denise e Marcos <tamandua@...>; Dulce
Maltez <maltez@...>; Ecoa/Rios Vivos
<ecoa@...>; Edélcio Vigna de Oliveira
<edelinesc@...>; feijao <wschmidt@...>; Fernando
Gabeira <gabeira@...>; FASE Nac. <fase@...>; FASE/Jean Pierre
<jpierre@...>; Flávio Lewgoy <axdewgoy@...>;
Fórum de ONGs <forumbr@...>; Francisco Milanez - AGAPAN
<milanez@...>; GAMBÁ <gamba@...>; Geraldo
Travassos/ISOMED <travassos@...>; Gilney Viana
<gilneyviana@...>; Gisela de Alencar
<gdealencar@...>; Grace Dalla Pria
<grace_dallapria@...>; Grace Pereira <grace_dallapria@...>;
Graciela <invalid.recipient@...>; Itamar
<imprensa@...>; ISA <francis@...>; ISA -
Marco <marco@...>; Janaína Velasquez - UFMS
<janna.wicca@...>; Jackson T. Ota
<jacktota@...>; Joao Luiz/SADF <sadf@...>; John
Kleba <kleba@...>; Lenine A de Carvalho/GIPAS
<lenine@...>; Letícia Rodrigues da Silva <mila@...>;
Lynn Silver/IDEC <idec@...>; Luiz Eduardo/UFRJ
<luizeduardo@...>; Karen <connect_inf@...>; Marcelo Farias
<nardelli@...>; Marcelo Nishikawa <mannishi@...>;
Marcelo Nishikawa <manni@...>; Marijane Lisboa/GREENPEACE
<mlisboa@...>; Magda Renner <foebr@...>; Marlene
<vadiga@...>; Mariana Paoli <paolim@...>; Marsha
Hanzi?Instituto de Permacultura <hanzibra@...>; Marilena Lazzarini -
IDEC <idec@...>; Marina Silva <nilomelo@...>; Mario
Bertani <centralgrup@...>; Nilo Diniz <nilomelo@...>;
pinhei@...; Operação Amazonia Nativa/OPAN - Monica
<opan@...>; Pahola Garrido Molina <pgarrido@...>; Patricia
Baeza <baeza@...>; Renata menasche <menasche@...>; Renato
e Rebeca <comms.brazil@...>; Ricardo Cerveira
<rcerveir@...>; Rita Lourenço/ CDHEP - Acre
<cdhep@...>; Roberto Villar <bobvillar@...>; Rodrigo
Rollemberg <dep.rollemberg@...>; Samuel Wallace MacDowell
<samuelmd@...>; SBPC/Itamar Cavalcante
<diret@...>; Sebastião Pinheiro/GIPAS <juquira@...>;
Sebastião Pinheiro <tiao@...>; Secretaria de Agricultura RS
<rs021542@...>; Sérgio Henrique/ICV <invida@...>;
Sezifredo Paz/IDEC <adoc@...>; Sezifredo P. A. Paz
<sezi@...>; SENGE-BA <sengeba@...>; Siderlei
Oliveira <contac@...>; Silvio Valle/Fiocruz
<valle@...>; Socorro Gomes <sgomes@...>; SOS Mata Atl
<smata@...>; Telo <telo.oc@...>; TIE/SP
<tiebr@...>; Walter José Siqueira <walterjs@...>;
Washington Novaes <novaes@...>
> Assunto: secretários da agricultura querem proibição para transgênicos!
> Data: Segunda-feira, 10 de Maio de 1999 12:11
>
> Caros amigos,
>
> Na reunião mensal dos secretários estaduais de agricultura, na
> última quinta-feira, os 27 secretários aprovaram uma moção
> pedindo a proibição de plantio comercial de transgênicos no
> país.Os secretários manifestaram sua preocupação com os
> impactos ambientais, na saúde e na economia do país, que a
> introdução de transgênicos poderá trazer.
> Enquanto isso, lá fora, mais empresas de alimentos aderem à
> política de alimentos livres de transgênicos. A maior empresa de
> congelados alemã, FROSTA, anunciou na quarta-feira, que não
> utilizará transgênicos em seus produtos.
> O comércio internacional de grãos também começa a reagir à
> resistência européia em consumir grãos transgênicos. A ADM,
> uma das maiores exportadoras/importadoras de grãos do planeta,
> e que foi a primeira a tentar introduzir a soja e o milho
> transgênicos na Europa há três anos atrás, anunciou que vai
> comercializar separadamente a soja convencional, da transgênica,
> para atender à demanda européia. E ela dizia, há 3 anos atrás,
> quando a Greenpeace bloqueou seus navios nos portos europeus,
> que não era possível segregar uma soja da outra e que além do
> mais, se viesse a fazê-lo, isso encareceria a soja convencional.
> Agora, no entanto, há soja convencional já é cotada com um
> "premium" no mercado norte-americano de soja. Como o próprio
> secretário de Agricultura dos EUA reconheceu recentemente, "não
> adianta querer empurrar pela goela dos europeus os transgênicos
> norte-americanos".
> Abraços,
> Marijane

http://www.agestado.com.br/redacao/integras/mai/14/9.htm


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/gen-ocidio
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications