Germany bans genetically-modified maize

Oh yeah....just one taste and they will know.

good call germany, now we hope everyone else gets it.

seriously, why shouldt i be allowed to deat genetically enhanced foods? i believe that they weill give me super powers...isnt it my right to consume them based on my beliefs?

The next thing I hope Germany does is ban Monsanto and the rest of the world follows. Monsanto cannot be trusted and should be banned in America as well.

"MON810" is so not corn...

Go call Germany, I saw a documentry a couple days ago about Monsanto and there manipulation of seeds, Roundup, and the US government. It scares me that were radically changing the foods in one generation that hundreds have lived on. I have one word for what all this gene manipulations going to do CANCER.

When will US care for it's citizens?

Thank you JanforGore for this awesome news. Someday, (sooner than later) MAYBE, I will wake up and read that same headline, except it will the US that has banned all GMO.

(I can dream can't I?)

Well actually, it was the new names with the defense of Monsanto I was referring to. But that the News tag would be taken off this post for no reason and without explanation sure seems to be a testimony to what this site is now about. You will never see a story about this "featured" or "on tv." So much for getting important information out. It seems cut and paste about Obama's dog however is just what this site looks for now.

Gm testing for safety is done on a bacterial surrogate of the protein , rather than that produced by the plant . Allergenicity assessments of modified (transgenic) proteins are usually limited to in vitro tests of digestive stability . This form of test has come under some criticism in recent years as woefully inadequate . http://www.gmfoodnews.com/ns171205.txt Even this was something to be avoided as the Center for Science recommended that the EPA deny DowAgro Science's request for exemption from tolerance for its Cry34/35 frankencorn .http://www.cspinet.org/biotech/dowagro.html

55% of rats fed GM soy died within 3 weeks of birth , compared with only 9% in the control group . http://www.gmfoodnews.com/cy251105.txt Man made genetic modifications are not stable . It is a slow poison that increases with each generations' exposure . It leads to ever compromised health and sterility ... Might as well put death in charge of the food supply .

Some of us are pulling our weight, even if we have vague statements. Here's one myself and others are working on right now:

"JEFFERSON CITY, Mo.—State lawmakers say a proposed new tax credit could help persuade St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. to build a planned expansion in Missouri rather than Iowa."

It's a rough battle when Monsanto is offering jobs in this economy, the MO legislature are licking their chops over this, and it's f'ing hard to convince them what Monsanto is all about.

If you would like to pitch in follow the link below

Legislature: http://www.moga.mo.gov

I already have. Time for those of you with the vague statements to start pulling your weight. Up to now you are all weak. Whose on the Monsanto Internet night shift BTW? We all know they have an entire budget for that.

Thank you Germany!

JanforGore needs to educate us on what genetic engineering is. Because I was obviously wrong.

Don't eat it . More research needed . What does it do to mice long term ?

More fear of the mundane and harmless. Does anyone even know what "genetic engineering" means? All they do is take the best traits and promote them in future generations. Too bad we humans have done the opposite and promoted stupid weak cowards as the best of out species.

To whoever on the staff removed the News tag from this post while featuring the Obama's dog: FYI, this IS news. Please leave it alone. Thank you.

Time for us Americans to jump on the bandwagon!

Scrambling and further scrambling of GM inserts
T25 maize LibertyLink (Bayer)

Modified for tolerance to herbicide glufosinate. Company data showed insert includes a truncated ampicillin resistance bla gene in the plasmid vector pUC18, a CaMV 35S promoter (hereafter referred to as P35S) driving a synthetic pat gene (glufosinate tolerance) terminated by CaMV 35S terminator (hereafter referred to as T-35S). On analysis, the insert was found to have undergone further rearrangement, so that a second, truncated and rearranged P35S has been joined to the 5’ (left, or head) end of the insert, while additional pUC18 sequences were found at the 3’ (right, or tail) end.

Edges flanking the insert show homologies (similarities) with Huck retrotransposons (a class of mobile genetic elements) in the maize genome.

Mon 810 maize YieldGard (Monsanto)

Modified for resistance to lepidopteran insects (butterflies & moths). Company data showed insert has a P35S driving a CrylAb synthetic gene with terminator T-nos. Analysis revealed however, that T-nos and part of the 3’ (tail) end of the CrylAb gene have been deleted. T-nos has been detected elsewhere in the genome, indicating that it has moved from its original position.

The 5’ (head) end of the insertion site shows homology to the long terminal repeats (LTR) of the maize alpha Zein gene cluster, but no homology to the maize genome was detected at the 3’ site, indicating that there has been scrambling of the maize genome at the insertion site.

GTS 40-3-2 soybean (Monsanto)

Modified for tolerance to herbicide glyphosate (Roundup Ready). Company data showed insert with P35S driving a composite gene containing the N-terminal chloroplast transit peptide (CPT4) joined to modified epsps gene with T-nos terminator.Analysis revealed that a 254bp piece of DNA homologous to the epsps gene and 534bp of unknown DNA have been joined to the 3’end of the insert.

It was not possible to identify the insertion site at all, indicating substantial genome scrambling or deletion at the insertion site.

Bt 176 maize (Syngenta)

Modified for tolerance to herbicide glufosinate, male sterility and insect resistance. The structures of two inserts, originating from two GM constructs, were provided by the company. Only the simpler construct was analyzed. Company data showed insert contains P35S driving the bar gene (glufosinate tolerance) terminated by T35S, followed by the ampicillin resistance (bla) gene plus bacterial promoter, and plasmid origin of replication, ori. Analysis revealed several fragments, all containing CaMV 35S promoter, one with P35S joined to T35S, a second with P35S joined to an unknown sequence, and a third with P35S joined to the bar gene with the T35S deleted.

There were at least three insertion sites.

GA 21 maize (Monsanto)

Modified for tolerance to herbicide glyphosate (Roundup Ready). Company data indicated insert contains multiple copies of the cassette with the rice actin gene promoter (P-ract) driving the composite gene containing the N-terminal chloroplast transit peptide (CPT4) joined to modified epsps gene and T-nos. There were three complete cassettes flanked by a cassette with P-ract partially deleted at the 5’ end, and one cassette with 3’ deletion of epsps plus a lone P-ract at the 3’end. Analysis found partial deletion of P-ract and deletion of T-nos in two different cassettes.

The insertion site at the 3’end is flanked by sequences of pol polyprotein gene belonging to a PREM2-retrotransposon.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TLPU.php

Transgenic Lines Proven Unstable
The insert in every commercially approved GM line has undergone rearrangement. The cauliflower mosaic virus promoter plays a major role. This should be the final nail in the coffin for GM crops, says Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, who has, for years, challenged scientific committees advising governments over this very issue.

There is plenty of evidence that transgenic lines are unstable, which is why ISIS has long recommended that appropriate molecular methods must be used to document the stability of the GM insert before any transgenic line is released into the environment. The characterization of the insert must be ‘event-specific’, which not only gives the structure of the insert, but also the host genome sequences flanking the insert, proving that the insert remains stable in successive generations. This recommendation has been incorporated into the current European Directive (2001/18 /EC) on deliberate release of GMOs.

But to this day, pro-GM scientists advising the UK and other governments have refused to acknowledge the evidence on transgenic instability, and worse. In its latest reply to ISIS, the UK Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) has gone as far as to say that event-specific molecular characterization is not necessary, thus going against the European Directive (see ISIS’ final response to ACRE: Let the people decide ).

ISIS has reiterated 5 experiments which should be done to address the ‘areas of uncertainty’, one of which calls for full event-specific molecular characterization of all transgenic lines to establish uniformity and genetic stability of the transgenic DNA insert(s), and "comparison with the original data supplied by the biotech company to gain approval for field trials or for commercial release."

I am pleased to report that some effort has recently been made to do such experiments by French scientists from the Laboratory of Methods for Detecting GMOs in Versaille, and the Laboratory of Biometry and Artificial Intelligence, Domaine de Vilvert in Jouy-en-Josas. And they have presented their results in a poster at a conference in June 2003 [1].

The scientists recognized that, as labeling laws and thresholds are established for foods containing GMOs in Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere, "reliable GMO identification and quantification methods are needed to comply with the regulations." And "in order for these tests to be specific, the sequence and detailed characterization of the GMO inserts and their edges are required."

Five different commercially approved GMOs in Europe were analyzed: three from Monsanto, one from Bayer and one from Syngenta. All inserts were rearranged from their intended gene order. Moreover, all five inserts showed further rearrangements from the original structure submitted by the companies. In other words, either the companies were mistaken about the original structure, or more likely, further rearrangements had occurred after the crops had been commercially grown. The details are given in Box 1.

Why geneticlly modified corn so bad? I think that genetic modification is necessary in order to keep up with our growing populations.

The winds of change are in the air as more & more countries step forward to protect their citizens from Frankenfoods. I can't wait until ours does the same.

Even if it is the best corn, I have a hard time trusting a company whose past failures include Agent Orange (and the legal battle around it).

This is the same company who forbids you to save seeds (you must use or destroy them), and they will sue you if you try.

Hooray for Germany.

Maybe it's the best corn.

From the article ;

Germany became Tuesday the sixth European Union nation to ban a type of genetically-modified maize manufactured by US biotech giant Monsanto, the only GM crop permitted until now in the country.
Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner told reporters she was outlawing the cultivation of MON 810 maize -- modified to be super resistant against crop-destroying insects -- on environmental grounds.

"I have come to the conclusion there are just reasons to assume that the genetically-modified maize MON 810 represents a danger for the environment," Aigner said.

"Therefore, the cultivation of MON 810 is now banned in Germany."

The environment ministry had undertaken a "rigorous study to weigh the pros and cons," she said, adding that "new scientific elements" had come to light justifying the decision to ban the GM crop.

Fields containing genetically-modified corn make up a mere 0.2 percent of Germany's total maize-producing land -- with only 3,700 hectares (9,100 acres) of land sown with GM maize.

The decision underlines political heavyweight Germany's role in the camp of European countries sceptical about genetically-modified produce -- dubbed Frankenfoods by their opponents.

Germany is the sixth EU country to introduce a provisional ban on MON 810, following similar action taken by France, Austria, Hungary, Luxembourg and Greece.

The European Commission sought to force Austria and Hungary to reverse their bans on the crop but its ruling was overturned by a majority of EU nations last month.

Spokeswoman Nathalie Charbonneau said: "the Commission will analyse the ban by Germany and ... decide on the most appropriate follow-up to this situation."

German environmental groups hailed Tuesday's decision.

"This is a welcome change of course from the environment ministry. Neither German consumers nor farmers want genetically-modified plants," said Leif Miller, head of Germany's Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union, NABU.

"A ban on MON 810 was overdue and is an important step in the right direction."