Category Archives: GMO

Genetically modified super mouse shocked scientists with physical abilities - New GMO animals again

Genetically modified super mouse shocked scientists with physical abilities - New GMO animals again

Do we need really this? I don’t think so. Please read the article below and post me your opinion.

Best Regards,
Lionel

Source: independent. ie
November 02 2007

 
Scientists have been amazed by the creation of a genetically modified “supermouse” with extraordinary physical abilities - comparable to the performance of the very best athletes - raising the prospect that the discovery may one day be used to transform people’s capacities.

The mouse can run up to six kilometers at a speed of 20 meters per minute for five hours or more without stopping. Scientists said that this was equivalent of a man cycling at speed up an Alpine mountain without a break.

Although it eats up to 60 per cent more food than an ordinary mouse, the modified mouse does not put on weight. It also lives longer and enjoys an active sex life well into old age - being capable of breeding at three times the normal maximum age.

American scientists who created the mice - they now have a breeding colony of 500 - said that they were stunned by their abilities, especially given that the animals came about as a result of a standard genetic modification to a single metabolism gene shared with humans.

They emphasized that the aim of the research was not to prepare the way to enhance the genes of people. However, they accepted that it may be possible to use the findings to develop new drugs or treatments that could one day be used to “enhance” the natural abilities of athletes.

The professor of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve University at Cleveland in Ohio, Richard Hanson, said that the physical performance of the supermouse can only be compared to supremely fit athletes like the cyclist Lance Armstrong, who won the Tour de France seven consecutive times from 1999 to 2005. The genetic alteration to a gene involved in glucose metabolism appears to stimulate the efficient use of body fat for energy production. At the same time, the mice do not suffer from a build up of lactic acid - which causes muscle cramps - a feature also seen in the best endurance athletes.

Professor Hanson said yesterday: “They are metabolically similar to Lance Armstrong biking up the Pyrenees. They utilise mainly fatty acids for energy and produce very little lactic acid. They are not eating or drinking and yet they can run for four or five hours. They are 10 times more active than ordinary mice in their home cage. They also live longer - up to three years of age - and are reproductively active for almost three years. In short, they are remarkable animals.

“On the downside, they eat twice as much as control mice, but they are half the weight, and are very aggressive. Why this is the case, we are not really sure.”

Professor Hanson, who led the 15-strong team of researchers, said that the first supermouse was created about four years ago by injecting a highly active form of a gene for an enzyme called phosphonenolpyruvate carboxykinase (PEPCK-C) into a mouse embryo. The results of studies on the mice are published for the first time today in the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

Professor Hanson said: “We humans have exactly the same gene. But this is not something that you’d do to a human. It’s completely wrong. We do not think that this mouse model is an appropriate model for human gene therapy. It is currently not possible to introduce genes into the skeletal muscles of humans and it would not be ethical to even try.”

 
However, it may be possible for pharmaceutical companies to use the findings to develop new drugs that enhance muscle performance, which may benefit certain patients. Professor Hanson accepted that it was possible athletes might misuse any future drug developed in this way.

He said: “It’s very possible. It’s a different approach to putting a gene into a human. I would only do that to help anyone who suffers from disorders such as cystic fibrosis.”

The aim of the research was to gain a greater understanding of the PEPCK-C enzyme, which is present mainly in the liver and kidneys. As a result of the genetic modification, the mighty mice have up to 100 times the concentration of the enzyme in its muscles compared with ordinary mice.

Professor Hanson said: “The purpose of our experiment was to study energy metabolism in the mice and the role that a single, metabolically important enzyme might play in a tissue in which it is not normally expressed at high levels.”

He said that the physical and behavioural changes in the modified mice were completely unexpected. Usually, scientists have to carry out blood tests to see if there has been any effect of altering the genes, but these mice were noticeably different at a very early age.

He said: “We could spot them at just a few weeks after birth. They popped around the cage like popcorn. We found that they were about 10 that they were about 10 times as active as ordinary mice.”

Further research on the mice could shed light on the link between high-calorie diets and cancer, and low-calorie diets and longevity. He said: “Our animals live longer and eat almost twice as much as ordinary mice - this is a model to study.”

 
A risky business: other attempts at genetic modification
Genetic modification is a 30-year-old technology that has been used extensively on a range of animals for basic research and the production of agricultural or pharmaceutical products. It involves inserting an extra gene or modifying the expression of an existing gene within the DNA of the animal. Famous examples of GM animals include:

The Beltsville pig
An early experiment involving the insertion of a gene for human growth hormone into pigs to make them grow faster. They suffered severe bone and joint problems and could not walk properly without pain.

Oncomouse Created by scientists at Harvard. Engineered to develop cancer, it enabled researchers to use it as a model of the disease. It was involved in one of the earliest patent applications on an animal.

Knock-out mice
Probably the most common use of genetically modified animals. The mice have a gene modified or destroyed so that scientists can study the outcome. Has created a revolution in the understanding of mammalian genes.

Spider-silk goats
Spider-silk protein gene is inserted into goats to extract the substance from their milk. The silk is stronger than steel, so could be used in industry.

Spinach pigs
Japanese scientists have created pigs with an added gene from spinach. They say it cuts fat - making them healthier to eat.

Humanised cattle
A range of experiments have tried to introduce important human genes into cattle so that pharmaceutical proteins can be extracted from their milk.

The green pig
Scientists are trying to introduce a bacterial gene into pigs that will make their faeces less toxic, cutting farm pollution.

Posted 06 November 2007 † botond § ‡ Comments (0) °

Japan government says no to GMO

 
Japan Government Says No to GMO

SOURCE: Farm Weekly, WA’s leading rural newspaper.

THE pro-genetically modified organism (GMO) lobby has found an unlikely opponent in its bid to have the States’ moratorium on genetically modified (GM) food crops lifted.

A delegation of Japanese customers visited Australia as part of a publicity campaign designed to keep the various bans in place.

The No! GMO Campaign, an grouping of Japanese customers and farmer groups representing 2.9 million Japanese consumers, have met with State Government officials in South Australia, Victoria and NSW.

The group was also in WA this week and met with State Agriculture Minister, Kim Chance, to put forward its concerns about the quality of food imported into Japan.

The group used the occasion to express fears about GM food products, and presented Mr Chance with a petition signed by 155 Japanese organisations that represented the 2.9m Japanese consumers.

Campaign spokesman, Ryoko Shimizu, said the group’s major concern was with food safety.

 
“We Japanese consumers are now standing at a critical crossroads in assuring our food safety,” Mr Shimizu said.

“Australia is the only country that can supply GM-free canola to food-importing countries like Japan. If the moratoria are lifted it would damage the reputation of Australian crops in Japan and Japanese consumers would stop buying Australian crops.”

Mr Chance hinted that the Japanese petition could yield influence on WA’s moratorium review.

“We need to maintain the confidence of our consumers, and particularly those in Japan,” he said.

“We will review the moratorium in WA and we will review it along proper guidelines, including both the science of the question and the position that our consumers take, here in Australia and internationally.

“But among those consumers this very strong statement by Japanese consumers certainly helps us in our decision making.”

SOURCE: Farm Weekly, WA’s leading rural newspaper.

 

Posted 05 November 2007 † botond § ‡ Comments (1) °

Children Starvation and GMO’s Foods - What is Better?

africa starvationThousands of children in developing nations die of starvation every day. Scientists at UC Davis are working on a new technology to bring healthier food to more people, yet critics wonder if genetic engineering of food is safe.

Seed biotechnology - critics call it food changing, but researchers trust engineering the gene makeup of crops like rice can boost food production while also making it more nutritious.

UC Davis professor Kent Bradford said, “If we’re going to double or triple food production without taking over rain forests, marginal lands, areas for wildlife and so on, then we have to be able to produce crops very efficiently and at high yield.”

Researchers are sure the new technology can help feed more people around the world in a way that’s improved for the environment.

Jorge Mayer, with Golden Rice Humanitarian Foundation, said, “You can reduce the use of pesticides by introducing a gene that is not available in the genetic diversity of a crop and reduce the use of pesticides.”

But critics from the ecological community say they are troubled by the idea of modifying the genetic code for crops.

Dan Jacobson, with Environment California, said, “There’s nothing wrong with feeding the world. The questions and concerns that we have are - is it a safe way to feed the world? And that hasn’t been proven at all yet.”

But the scientists insist the technology is safe and that genetically engineered crops are already in production on 200 million acres worldwide.

The argument over genetic engineering is not going away any time soon.

Critics say they want altered meals to be labeled and clearly marked, so consumers can know exactly what they’re eating.

Posted 17 October 2007 † botond § ‡ Comments (1) °

Specific Gene Modifications in Mice - The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

strong>The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

If you need more information you will find the source in: http://nobelprize.org/

8 October 2007
The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet has today decided to award
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 2007 jointly to
Mario R. Capecchi, Martin J. Evans and Oliver Smithies
for their discoveries of “principles for introducing specific gene modifications in mice by the use of embryonic stem cells”

Summary
This year’s Nobel Laureates have made a series of ground-breaking discoveries about embryonic stem cells and DNA recombination in mammals. Their discoveries led to the creation of an immensely powerful technology referred to as gene targeting in mice. It is now being applied to virtually all areas of biomedicine – from basic research to the development of new therapies.

Gene targeting is often used to inactivate single genes. Such gene “knockout” experiments have elucidated the roles of numerous genes in embryonic development, adult physiology, aging and disease. To date, more than ten thousand mouse genes (approximately half of the genes in the mammalian genome) have been knocked out. Ongoing international efforts will make “knockout mice” for all genes available within the near future. With gene targeting it is now possible to produce almost any type of DNA modification in the mouse genome, allowing scientists to establish the roles of individual genes in health and disease. Gene targeting has already produced more than five hundred different mouse models of human disorders, including cardiovascular and neuro-degenerative diseases, diabetes and cancer.
Modification of genes by homologous recombination

Information about the development and function of our bodies throughout life is carried within the DNA. Our DNA is packaged in chromosomes, which occur in pairs – one inherited from the father and one from the mother. Exchange of DNA sequences within such chromosome pairs increases genetic variation in the population and occurs by a process called homologous recombination. This process is conserved throughout evolution and was demonstrated in bacteria more than 50 years ago by the 1958 Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg.

Mario Capecchi and Oliver Smithies both had the vision that homologous recombination could be used to specifically modify genes in mammalian cells and they worked consistently towards this goal.

Capecchi demonstrated that homologous recombination could take place between introduced DNA and the chromosomes in mammalian cells. He showed that defective genes could be repaired by homologous recombination with the incoming DNA. Smithies initially tried to repair mutated genes in human cells. He thought that certain inherited blood diseases could be treated by correcting the disease-causing mutations in bone marrow stem cells. In these attempts Smithies discovered that endogenous genes could be targeted irrespective of their activity. This suggested that all genes may be accessible to modification by homologous recombination.

Embryonic stem cells – vehicles to the mouse germ line

The cell types initially studied by Capecchi and Smithies could not be used to create gene-targeted animals. This required another type of cell, one which could give rise to germ cells. Only then could the DNA modifications be inherited.

Martin Evans had worked with mouse embryonal carcinoma (EC) cells, which although they came from tumors could give rise to almost any cell type. He had the vision to use EC cells as vehicles to introduce genetic material into the mouse germ line. His attempts were initially unsuccessful because EC cells carried abnormal chromosomes and could not therefore contribute to germ cell formation. Looking for alternatives Evans discovered that chromosomally normal cell cultures could be established directly from early mouse embryos. These cells are now referred to as embryonic stem (ES) cells.

The next step was to show that ES cells could contribute to the germ line (see Figure). Embryos from one mouse strain were injected with ES cells from another mouse strain. These mosaic embryos (i.e. composed of cells from both strains) were then carried to term by surrogate mothers. The mosaic offspring was subsequently mated, and the presence of ES cell-derived genes detected in the pups. These genes would now be inherited according to Mendel’s laws.

Evans now began to modify the ES cells genetically and for this purpose chose retroviruses, which integrate their genes into the chromosomes. He demonstrated transfer of such retroviral DNA from ES cells, through mosaic mice, into the mouse germ line. Evans had used the ES cells to generate mice that carried new genetic material.
Two ideas come together – homologous recombination in ES cells
By 1986 all the pieces were at hand to begin generating the first gene targeted ES cells. Capecchi and Smithies had demonstrated that genes could be targeted by homologous recombination in cultured cells, and Evans had contributed the necessary vehicle to the mouse germ line – the ES-cells. The next step was to combine the two.

For their initial experiments both Smithies and Capecchi chose a gene (hprt) that was easily identified. This gene is involved in a rare inherited human disease (Lesch-Nyhan syndrome). Capecchi refined the strategies for targeting genes and developed a new method (positive-negative selection, see Figure) that could be generally applied.

Birth of the knockout mouse – the beginning of a new era in genetics.
The first reports in which homologous recombination in ES cells was used to generate gene-targeted mice were published in 1989. Since then, the number of reported knockout mouse strains has risen exponentially. Gene targeting has developed into a highly versatile technology. It is now possible to introduce mutations that can be activated at specific time points, or in specific cells or organs, both during development and in the adult animal.

Gene targeting is used to study health and disease.
Almost every aspect of mammalian physiology can be studied by gene targeting. We have consequently witnessed an explosion of research activities applying the technology. Gene targeting has now been used by so many research groups and in so many contexts that it is impossible to make a brief summary of the results. Some of the later contributions of this year’s Nobel Laureates are presented below.

Gene targeting has helped us understand the roles of many hundreds of genes in mammalian fetal development. Capecchis research has uncovered the roles of genes involved in mammalian organ development and in the establishment of the body plan. His work has shed light on the causes of several human inborn malformations.

Evans applied gene targeting to develop mouse models for human diseases. He developed several models for the inherited human disease cystic fibrosis and has used these models to study disease mechanisms and to test the effects of gene therapy.

Smithies also used gene targeting to develop mouse models for inherited diseases such as cystic fibrosis and the blood disease thalassemia. He has also developed numerous mouse models for common human diseases such as hypertension and atherosclerosis.
In summary, gene targeting in mice has pervaded all fields of biomedicine. Its impact on the understanding of gene function and its benefits to mankind will continue to increase over many years to come.

Mario R. Capecchi, born 1937 in Italy, US citizen, PhD in Biophysics 1967, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA. Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator and Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics and Biology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Sir Martin J. Evans, born 1941 in Great Britain, British citizen, PhD in Anatomy and Embryology 1969, University College, London, UK. Director of the School of Biosciences and Professor of Mammalian Genetics, Cardiff University, UK.

Oliver Smithies, born 1925 in Great Britain, US citizen, PhD in Biochemistry 1951, Oxford University, UK. Excellence Professor of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

If you have any problem with the article please leve a message in a comment and I will take out from my personal bolg Lionel

Posted 08 October 2007 † botond § Health & Life ‡ Comments (1) °

10 EU States Stopped Approval of Import of 3 GMO’s Maize Varieties

September 26, 2007

Agriculture ministers from 10 EU countries on Wednesday stopped approval of 3 genetically modified varieties of maize for use on the European market, reflecting continued deep divisions among EU nations over whether biotech producers pose a risk to human or animal health.

The products had been given the all-clear by the EU’s food safety authority, EFSA, which said they would not have adverse effects on health or the environment.

Officials said Austria, Malta, Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania and Luxembourg voted against, while France and Italy abstained, ensuring a deadlock. Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden led the group of biotech groups.

The failure to reach agreement means it will be left to the EU’s executive commission to approve the three products, which it is expected to do in the future weeks.

Two of the biotech crops were in cooperation developed and marketed by U.S. group Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. and Mycogen Seeds.

Their maize products are designed to resist insects like the corn rootworm and be tolerant to herbicides. The third maize product, developed by U.S. biotech firm Monsanto Co., is also insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant.

All 3 products are meant to be used in food and animal feed production but not used for cultivation in the EU.

The European Commission has been trying to get all EU governments on side to open up the EU market to more biotech crops, something the United States, Canada and others have requires.

The EU ended a six-year freeze on accepting applications for new biotech products in May 2004, introducing strict approval procedures and cataloging, labeling rules, but several EU nations remain hesitant to approve biotech crops because of public health and environmental concerns.

Posted 04 October 2007 † botond § ‡ Comments (1) °

EU ministers stopped three GMO maize approvals

EU agricultural ministers fell short of a consensus agreement on Wednesday to allow imports of three genetically modified (GMO) maize types, again revealing their deep differences on GMO crops and foods, bureaucrats said.

The three biotech maize types, two of them hybrids, would be imported for processing, for all food and feed uses. These can not cultivate the 27-country European Union.

Since the ministers failed to achieve the required majority under the EU’s weighted voting system, the decision now passes to the European Commission, which should issue a approve authorization according to EU legal procedures.

In fact, this means ten-year default approval, probably to be issued within a few weeks, or perhaps slightly longer.

“There was no qualified majority for or against (the draft approval decision) so the decision comes back to the Commission,” one told for the journalists.

The first GMO maize, known commercially as Herculex RW and also by its code name 59122, is jointly made by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a subsidiary of DuPont Co., and Dow AgroSciences unit Mycogen Seeds.

Herculex is designed to protect against larval stages of corn rootworm, which eats through plant roots and so reduces yield and nutrients. It also resists the active herbicide ingredient glusofinate ammonium.

The same two companies also developed a maize hybrid called 1507/NK603, engineered to resist field pests like the European corn borer, and also the herbicides glufosinate and glyphosate.

Corn borers, which attack the plant stalks and seed s are found across Europe and thrive in warmer climates in southern EU countries such as Spain and Italy.

The third GMO maize is also a hybrid developed by U.S. biotechnology company Monsanto and called MON810/NK603. The maize plants resist certain insects and also glyphosate - the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.

For many years, EU countries have not been able to gain the majority needed to vote through a new GMO approval under the EU’s weighted voting system. But that may be slowly changing.

Analysis of recent GMO voting patterns shows that the consistent blocking alternative of EU governments may be eroding as some lesser countries are opting to abstain rather than reject an application outright — so weakening the anti-GMO camp.

Few countries, like Britain, Finland and the Netherlands, almost always choose in favour of approving new GMOs. They are offset by a group of GMO-sceptic states like Austria, Greece and Luxembourg, which vote against and force a deadlock

Posted 03 October 2007 † botond § ‡ Comments (0) °

Why Can Be the Soy Granulates or Protein Contaminated with GMO?

When I worked like developer in a food industry engineer I realized that I can not avoid our customer form soy GMO’s protein.
At the first time we looked for GMO free soy granulate but we did not find this in the market. I talked several big and small producers and I got the following answer:

They can not provide 100% GMO free soy granulate because during the procedures they use several tons of Soy Beans which are partly GMO free and other time they use GMO’s soy bean. The procedures use lot of big tank and holder, tube and mixing machine and they can not clean properly this system. Another hand of course they buy (if they want make non GMO soy granulate) no GMO soy bean and they got GMO free declaration form the producers but when the farmers make the packs of soy bean during the transportation the soy bean can be get cross contamination form the soy bean batches which are full of GMO.

That’s why the EU make a statement which request that the soy granulate can be contaminated with GOM maximum 0,01% weight percent but the rule tolerate maximum 1% GMO contamination.

The problem is that the most of analyze method can see only contamination above 0,05-0,1%. And my experience said that it is concerning to the complete batch (which is aprox. 10 ton) and in one kilogram can contains more than 1% another 100 kilogram can contain close to nothing. This is the wonder of the statistics and you know It will not help the guy who will eat one plate soy granulate with full of GMO.

Our customer called Wander in Swiss made lot of GMO analyze in our goods concerning to Roundup Ready modification and several time and several times they found genetically modified protein but the levels were below or very close the limit of the law (approximately between 0,1 and 0,9 weight percent). But if they repeat the analyses in other peaces of goods they do not found any contamination so, we can sell the product in the Swiss market (it is again of wonder of the statistics).

I can show you an average NON GMO declaration (you will find here NON GMO DECLARATION) made by Novarti’s subsidiary company. Which is quite correct but I think it is not enough good.

If you buy soy based meals from China you will do not know that your product will contains GMO ( I would say YES) because the Chinese law and technology not that stick like in EU or in the USA and the GMO uses is enabled in China. Of course It will be cheap and delicious but if you know how done the business in Far East. It can be dangerous maybe harmfull.

For example we bought Chinese noodle with high protein from Hong-Kong. The source of the protein was egg-white. Once a time in 2004 we got one batch noodle which was 6 ton and we made GMO analyze randomly on incoming based materials. We found more than 25% GMO’s soy protein in the noodle. The strange thing was in fact this type of noodle recipe did not contain any soy base material. The Chinese suppler said lot of excuse. The supplier said we can destroy the product. Yes we give this work to a sub-agent. As I heard later this sub-agent give this 6 tons noodle to him pigs.

Personally I would like to tell you if you will eat some kind of soy protein or granulate you will know never when will you eat GMO.

Posted 23 September 2007 † botond § ‡ Comments (0) °

Animal models help to analyze allergenic of GMO’s

Gains and injuries of the animal test

Gains and injuries of the animal test

Incidence of IgE-mediated sensitive reactions to foods is increasing as well as the severity of connected symptoms and numerous foods are now incriminated, probably in relation with modifications of nutritional habits and increased exposure to new or changed food elements.

Therefore, the introduction on the sell of food composed of or derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) raised the question of their potential allergenicity. Principally with regards to the allergenicity of a newly expressed protein, it is necessary to obtain, from some steps in the danger assessment process, a increasing body of evidence which minimises any uncertainty.

This may include the use of animal model despite no fully reliable validated model is available yet. Such animal models should allow addressing 3 major issues: Is the novel protein a sensitizer, i.e. does it possess intrinsic properties that allow to sensitize a predisposed personality? Is the protein an elicitor i.e. is it able to elicit an allergic reaction in a sensitized individual? And is the protein an adjuvant, i.e. can it facilitate or improve the sensitization to another protein? Animal models under examination presently include mice, rats and guinea pigs but models such as dogs and swine also come out a few years ago. The aim is to mimic the mechanism and characteristics of the sensitization phase and-or the elicitation phase of the allergic reaction as it occurs in atrophic humans. They are necessary because sensitization studies can obviously not be done in human and because in vitro tests cannot reproduce the complexity of the immune system. We propose a mouse model which mimics both phases of the allergic reaction. It has permitted to evidence that biochemical and scientific manifestations occurring during the dynamic phases of the allergic reaction differ according to the structure of the allergen used for the challenge. This may allow to match up to the allergenic potential of a genetically modified protein with that of the conventional one and to identify possible unintended things.

Though, pathogenesis of food allergy in human is very complex and multifactor, including individual differences in susceptibility, environmental factors, conditions of exposure. No animal model can take into account all these factors and allow a reliable prediction of the prevalence and severity of allergic reactions which would result from the exposure to a (novel) protein. Nevertheless, point by point analysis using the different models available may provide useful information’s on the potential allergenic of a novel protein.

Personal note:

When can we get the final answer? Who will know this. During this period we will use lot of animal testing of GMO allergenic and we will cause lot of pain for this animals. I can not tolerate this method of testing. We do not have to use GMO technology modification to the animals and also we do not have to make experiment with animals that we gain some dollars more. If somebody agree with me please look for the possibilities to exclaim against to animal experiment in every stage like use genetically modification on animals or any needles animal experiment.

Lionel

Posted 21 September 2007 † botond § ‡ Comments (0) °

FOOD SAFETY, GMO AND BIOTECHNOLOGY IN EUROPA - INTRODUCTION

Modern biotechnology has many applications in the pharmaceutical and agri-food industries. One example is the use of GMOs in the food production chain. GMOs are organisms such as plants, animals and micro-organisms (bacteria, viruses, etc.), the genetic characteristics of which have been modified artificially in order to give them a new property (a plant’s resistance to a disease or insect, improvement of a food’s quality or nutritional value, increased crop productivity, a plant’s tolerance of a herbicide, etc.). In order to ensure that this development of modern biotechnology, and more specifically of GMOs, takes place in complete safety, the European Union has established a legal framework comprising various acts:
• The contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms, e.g. laboratory research (in a confined environment), is regulated by Directive 90/219/EC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms;
• The experimental release of GMOs into the environment, in other words the introduction of GMOs into the environment for experimental purposes (e.g. for field testing), is governed by Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (mainly Part B thereof);
• The placing on the market of GMOs (products containing or consisting of GMOs), e.g. for cultivation, import or processing into industrial products, is subject to Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (mainly Part C thereof);
• The placing on the market of GMOs intended for food or feed and of food or feed products containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs is governed by Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed. Where a food product contains or consists of GMOs, the applicant has a choice: either the application as a whole is subject solely to Regulation (EC) 1829/2003, in application of the principle of “one door, one key”, in order to obtain authorisation for the deliberate release of a GMO into the environment - in accordance with the criteria laid down by Directive 2001/18/EC - and for the use of this GMO in food products - in accordance with the criteria laid down by Regulation (EC) 1829/2003; or the application - or part of it - is subject both to Directive 2001/18/EC and to Regulation (EC) 1829/2003.
• Unintentional movements of GMOs between Member States and exports of GMOs to third countries are governed by Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms.

The above legislation establishes the conditions under which a party may develop, use or market a GMO or a food product derived from GMOs.
GMOs and food products derived from GMOs placed on the market must also comply with labelling and traceability requirements. These requirements are found in Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 and in Regulation (EC) 1830/2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC.

Posted 20 September 2007 † botond § ‡ Comments (0) °

Illeagal GMO’s sowing in EU


Green activist s put Braila island, on the Danube river, under quarantine, after Greenpeace field investigations revealed that illegal Genetically Modified (GMO) Soya, is being grown and harvested there.

Romania — Environmental activists placed an entire island under strict quarantine after finding illegal genetically modified (GMO) soya being grown there.

Bralia Island in Romania is normally a quiet agricultural area on the Danube river but now it is the site of a massive environmental contamination by soya that has been genetically modified by the agricultural chemical company, Monsanto.

The peaceful action in Romania began early in the morning when 30 green activists from across Europe set up a ‘decontamination station’ at the ferry harbor region on Braila Island.

All automobiles leaving the island were decontaminated by being carefully washed to prevent the genetic contamination from spreading further.

It is unlawful for member states of the European Union which includes Romania, to grow GMO Soya. Greenpeace is calling on the Romanian government and the European Commission to act instantly to find and destroy all of the unlawfully cultivated GMO Soya.

“We have taken action to protect the rest of Romania from contamination by these illegal GMO crops, which pose massive risks to the environment, biodiversity and human heath. Romanian people have overwhelmingly rejected GMO,” said Gabriel Paun, Greenpeace Romania, GMO campaigner.

“This is not the first time Greenpeace has discovered illegal GMO production in Romania, the situation is out of control. The Government must immediately locate and destroy all of the crops before they enter the food chain.”

At the same time as activists were decontaminating Bralia Island in Romania, more activists were busy taking action against another site of GMO contamination in France. 20 volunteers painted a field of unlawfully grown GMO maize (corn) bright red, in order to expose its location.

The GMO maize, known as MON810, is another genetically modified product being pushed onto customers by Monsanto. The GMO maize is being illegally grown, as either the farmer, or the French governments have “forget” to tell the public of its presence as required under French law.

“By failing to take control, the Romanian and French governments are allowing biotech companies such as Monsanto, to run riot over their environment and ignore the wishes of European people; contaminating their food and their fields” said Myrto Pispini, Greenpeace International GMO campaigner.

Posted 10 September 2007 † botond § ‡ Comments (0) ° Tagged: , , , ,