Posts Tagged ‘Bayer’

BRD: BASF, Bayer und Syngenta die Rote Karte zeigen! (KAMPAGNE)

Dienstag, Juni 5th, 2012

“Welt-Umwelttag: Aktion gegen hochgefährliche Pestizide

Anlässlich des heutigen Welt-Umwelttags unterstützt die Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren (CBG) die internationale Kampagne gegen die Vermarktung hochgefährlicher Pestizide. Die CBG ruft zu Unterschriften und Protestaktionen auf.

Allein die drei größten Pestizid-Konzerne BASF, Bayer und Syngenta, die fast die Hälfte des Pestizid-Weltmarkts kontrollieren, vermarkten jeweils mehr als fünfzig hochgefährliche Wirkstoffe, die u.a. Krebs auslösen, Nervenschäden und Unfruchtbarkeit verursachen, das Hormonsystem schädigen oder die Biodiversität gefährden können. Die Kampagne „Pestizid-Konzernen die rote Karte zeigen‟ wurde vom Pestizid Aktions-Netzwerk (PAN) initiiert.

Philipp Mimkes von der Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren: „Die Anwendung von Pestiziden wie Paraquat, Carbofuran oder Glufosinat führt zu schweren Gesundheits- und Umweltschäden und muss umgehend gestoppt werden. Dabei darf man nicht auf den guten Willen der Anbieter hoffen: zahlreiche Wirkstoffe befinden sich trotz einer Vielzahl von Vergiftungsfällen seit Jahrzehnten auf dem Markt.‟ Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation WHO schätzt die Zahl der jährlichen Pestizidvergiftungen auf 3 bis 25 Millionen, Zehntausende Fälle verlaufen tödlich. Rund 99% aller Pestizid-Vergiftungen treten in den Ländern des Südens auf.

Die Firma Bayer CropScience ist mit einem Weltmarktanteil von rund 20 % der zweitgrößte Pestizidhersteller der Welt. Erst im vergangenen Herbst hatte der Konzern angekündigt, die Wirkstoffe der WHO-Gefahrenklasse I bis Ende 2012 vom Markt zu nehmen. Das ursprüngliche Versprechen, den Verkauf bis zum Jahr 2000 zu beenden, war gebrochen worden. „Hätte Bayer die ursprüngliche Ankündigung eingehalten, hätten Tausende von Vergiftungsfällen verhindert werden können!‟, so Philipp Mimkes weiter.


● PAN-Studie „Hochgefährliche Pestizide von BASF, Bayer und Syngenta“:
● Kampagne „Bienensterben durch Pestizide“:
BAYER nimmt tödliche Pestizide vom Markt
● Gefahren von Glufosinat:


(Quelle: Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren
        Presse Information vom 5. Juni 2012)

Wer entscheidet, was wir essen?

Mittwoch, Juni 9th, 2010

Who is deciding what we eat?

By Esther Vivas

The increasing conversion of agriculture into a commodity industry is an undeniable reality today. The privatisation of natural resources, the policies of structural adjustment, the gradual disappearance of the peasantry and the industrialisation of food systems have driven us to the current food crisis situation.

In this context, who is deciding what we eat? The answer is clear: a handful of multinationals of the agro-food industry, with the blessing of governments and international institutions, end up imposing their private interest above collective needs. Due to this situation, our food security is seriously threatened.

The supposed concern of governments and institutions such as the G8, the G20, the World Trade Organization, etc., regarding the rise of the price of basic food and its impact on the more disadvantaged peoples, as they showed in the course of 2008 in international summits, has only shown their deep hypocrisy. They take significant economic profits from the current food and agricultural model, using it as an imperialist instrument for political, economic and social control, towards the countries of the global South.

As pointed out by the international movement of La Vía Campesina, at the end of the FAO meeting in Rome in November 2009: “The absence of the heads of state of the G8 countries has been one of the key causes of the dismal failure of this summit. Concrete measures were not taken to eradicate hunger, to stop the speculation on food or to hold back the expansion of agrofuels”. Likewise, commitments such as those of the Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security and the Food Security Trust Fund of the World Bank, which have the explicit support of the G8 and the G20, also point this out, leaving our food supply, once again, in the hands of the market.

Yet the reform of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) of the FAO is, according to La Vía Campesina, a step forward towards democratizing the decision-making processes over agriculture and environment: “At least this workspace respects the basic rule of democracy, which is the principle of “one country, one vote”, and it gives a new opportunity to civil society”. However, we will still have to check the real impact of the CFS.

The agro-food chain is subjected, in its whole route, to a high business concentration. Starting with the first stretch, seeds, we can observe that ten of the biggest companies (such as Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, Bayer…), according to data from the ETC Group, control one half of sales. Copyright laws, which give exclusive rights on seeds to these companies, have further stimulated the business concentration of the sector and have eroded the peasant right to the maintenance of indigenous seeds and biodiversity.

The seed industry is intimately linked to that of pesticides. The biggest seed companies also dominate this other sector and very frequently the development and marketing of both products are done together. Moreover, in the pesticide industry, the monopoly is even greater and the ten biggest multinationals control 84% of the global market. This same dynamic is observed in the sector of food distribution and in that of the processing of drinks and foods. It is all about strategy, and it is bound to increase.

Big-scale retailing, just like other sectors, registers a high business concentration. In Europe, between 1987 and 2005, the market share of the ten biggest multinationals of big-scale retailing was 45% of the total and the chances are that they will reach 75% in the next 10-15 years. In countries such as a Sweden, three supermarket chains control around 95.1% of the market share; and in countries such as Denmark, Belgium, the Spanish State, France, Netherlands, Great Britain and Argentina, a handful of companies control between 60% and 45% of the market. Mega fusions are the usual dynamic. This monopoly and concentration enables them to wield huge power to determine what we buy, the price of products, their origin, and how they have been elaborated.

Making a profit from hunger
In the middle of the food crisis, the main multinational companies of the agro-food industry announced record profit figures. Monsanto and Dupont, the main seed companies, declared a rise of their profits of 44% and 19% respectively in 2007 in relation to the previous year. The data of fertilizer companies pointed out the same: Potash Corp, Yara and Sinochem, saw their profits rise by 72%, 44% and 95% respectively between 2007 and 2006. Food processors such as Nestlé also experienced a rise of their economic gains, as well as supermarkets such as Tesco, Carrefour and Wal-Mart, while millions of people in the world did not have access to food.


– Esther Vivas is a member of the Centre for Studies on Social Movements (CEMS) at Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona. She is co-coordinator of the books in Spanish “Supermarkets, No Thanks” and “Where is Fair Trade headed?”. She is also a member of the editorial board of Viento Sur (
(Article published in Diagonal, nº115.)

(Quelle: Radio Chango.)

USA: Bei Monsanto knallen die Sektkorken…

Montag, Mai 17th, 2010

“Mark of the Beast: Obama’s latest Monsanto pick, Elena Kagan

By Rady Ananda

First, we spit out our coffee over President Obama’s appointments of former Monsanto goon Michael Taylor as Food Safety [sic] Czar and ‘biotech governor of the year’ Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture. Then we choked on our grits when he made Monsanto lobbyist, Islam Siddiqui, the US Ag Trade Representative. Now, the real food movement has completely lost its appetite with Obama’s nomination of Monsanto defender, Elena Kagan, to the US Supreme Court.

In December 2009, in her capacity as Solicitor General, Kagan intervened in the first case on which SCOTUS will rule involving genetically modified crops, Monsanto v Geertson Seed. She defended Monsanto’s fight to contaminate the environment with its GM alfalfa, not the American people’s right to safe feed and a protected environment. 

The lower court ruled that ‘contamination of organic and conventional alfalfa crops with the genetically engineered gene has occurred and defendants acknowledge as much. Such contamination is irreparable environmental harm.’

That other fields, not those of Geertson Seed, et al., had been contaminated does not bother Kagan. ‘The district court failed to find either that respondents had suffered or were likely to suffer irreparable harm…’

This flies in the face of reality. The biotech industry has admitted it cannot prevent contamination of natural fields. When Bayer CropScience contaminated nearly a third of the US rice supply with its GM version, its defense lawyers told jurors that ‘Bayer’s containment protocols were equal to or exceeded industry standards when the test rice escaped into the general supplies.’

If the best containment protocols don’t work, then (…). “

(Quelle: Food Freedom.)