Scientific American: Alle Berichte über GVO-Untersuchungen in Fachblättern stammen von den Saatgutmultis!

Samstag, 1. August 2009

Scientific American: Alle Berichte über GVO-Untersuchungen in Fachblättern stammen von den Saatgutmultis!

(1.8.09) Die Hungeroffensive im globalen Süden geht weiter, auch wenn sie in den Medien fast nicht mehr erwähnt, und wenn, dann meist schöngeredet wird. Es handelt sich um eine Offensive und nicht einfach um einen Schicksalsschlag. Es geht darum, den Grossteil der Menschheit von wenigen Saatgut- und Agrokonzernen abhängig zu machen. Zentrale Bestandteile dieses Unternehmens sind die Durchsetzung gentechnisch manipulierter Organismen, die Welle der Agrotreibstoffe und eine neue Verfügbarkeit von land für das transnationale Kapital, vor allem in der Form von (Zwangs-) Verpachtung „unproduktiver“ Ländereien, womit der bäuerische Kleinbesitz gemeint ist. (Zu diesem ganzen Themenkomplex: s. Correos 154. August 2008, Der FAO kommt in diesem Kontext die Rolle zu, die Werbetrommeln für noch mehr Gentechfood-Produktion weltweit zu rühren.

William Engdahl hat ( auf ein Editorial der Augustnummer des Scientific American aufmerksam gemacht. Die HerausgeberInnen des bekannten Fachblattes berichten über einen von 24 ForscherInnen unterschriebenen Brief an die US-Umweltagentur EPA, in dem sie von der Administration Obama wichtige Änderungen auf dem Gebiet der Forschung über die GVO erbitten. Das Problem: Monsanto, Pioneer und Syngenta verbieten im Schatten des „geistigen Eigentums“ mittels einer an jeden Verkauf ihres Saatgutes gekoppelte Enduser-Lizenz jegliche unabhängige Forschung zu Qualität oder Umwelt- und Gesundheitsrisiken ihrer Produkte. Einzig ForscherInnen, die von den Multis kontrolliert und abgesegnet sind, können deshalb in den Fachzeitschriften publizieren. Soviel zur monotonen Behauptung der MultipropagandistInnen, wissenschaftlich sei kein Beweis für eine gesundheitsschädigende Auswirkung von Frankenstein-Food erbracht worden.

Hier der Text aus dem Scientific American (

Scientific American Magazine - August 13, 2009

Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?

Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end
By The Editors
Advances in agricultural technology—including, but not limited to, the genetic modification of food crops—have made fields more productive than ever. Farmers grow more crops and feed more people using less land. They are able to use fewer pesticides and to reduce the amount of tilling that leads to erosion. And within the next two years, agritech com¬panies plan to introduce advanced crops that are designed to survive heat waves and droughts, resilient characteristics that will become increasingly important in a world marked by a changing climate.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.
Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.”
Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies—most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the tech¬nol¬ogy.”
It would be chilling enough if any other type of company were able to prevent independent researchers from testing its wares and reporting what they find—imagine car companies trying to quash head-to-head model comparisons done by Consumer Reports, for example. But when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nation’s food supply or from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the country’s agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous.
Although we appreciate the need to protect the intellectual property rights that have spurred the investments into research and development that have led to agritech’s successes, we also believe food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny. Agricultural technology companies should therefore immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements. Going forward, the EPA should also require, as a condition of approving the sale of new seeds, that independent researchers have unfettered access to all products currently on the market. The agricultural revolution is too important to keep locked behind closed doors.
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "A Seedy Practice."