GMO depesze dyplomacji amerykańskiej z Warszawy

*Dj Kid* · Gość Znajdź posty / tematy

Cytat:

Naturalnegeny.pl ujawniają po raz pierwszy - GMO depesze dyplomacji amerykańskiej z Warszawy
29-08-2011 11:48

Rys. ericdrooker.com
Portal WIKILEAKS publikuje porażające materiały o promowaniu GMO przez dyplomację amerykańską w Polsce i Bułgarii. Widzimy tu dziesiątki nieoficjalnych spotkań nie tylko z biotechnologami, którzy mają grać rolę "niezależnych" ekspertów, ale także z politykami i dziennikarzem Gazety Wyborczej znanym z niobiektywnego stosunku do problemu GMO. Materiały te stawiają pod znakiem zapytania suwerenność Polski w podejmowaniu decyzji na temat dopuszczenia GMO w naszym kraju.

2006-01-25 13:36

"Starszy doradca w zakresie biotechnologii rolniczej, Madelyn Spirnak odwiedziła Warszawę w dniach 29-30.11.2005 aby przedyskutować stanowisko rządu USA w sprawie GMO z przedstawicielami rządu polskiego, naukowcami i mediami. Spirnak była zadowolona z pozytywnego stosunku do inżynierii genetycznej niektórych pracowników ministerialnych i profesorów, jednak to pozytywne wrażenie osłabia fakt, że wiele jeszcze pracy trzeba, aby odwrócić powszechnie panujące negatywne opinie o GMO.

Jedna konkluzja była szczególnie jasna: kwestia GMO jest obecnie regulowana przez nastawienie opinii publicznej i dlatego potrzeba taktyki politycznej i socjologicznej aby wygrać z decydentami i opinią społeczną. Spirnak w pierwszej kolejności spotkała się z sześcioma naukowcami z zakresu genetyki roślin. Wszyscy ci naukowcy narzekali, że choć przed laty społeczeństwo polskie zaakceptowało GMO, dziś 70% społeczeństwa jest przeciwko GMO w rolnictwie i żywności.

W ich opinii, adwokaci GMO – wpływając na opinię publiczną, muszą skupić się na potencjalnych zyskach dla konsumentów, a nie dla producentów. Jeden z naukowców zauważył, że część opozycji dla GMO wynika z faktu, że w Polsce nikt nie głoduje, więc po co wprowadzać GMO. Z drugiej strony Polacy nie sprzeciwiają się wykorzystaniu GMO w medycynie, ponieważ to daje dostęp do tańszych leków. Naukowcy stwierdzili, że kampania skupiona na potencjalnie mniejszych kosztach żywności otrzymanej z GMO przemówi do przeciętnego Polaka.

Spirnak odwiedziła także ministerstwa Rolnictwa i Środowiska aby poznać opinie rządu polskiego. Anna Liro, zastępca dyrektora powiedziała, że dolne szczeble administracji opierają się na argumentach naukowych, ale Minister Środowiska w swoich decyzjach bierze pod uwagę opinię publiczną i kwestie polityczne.

W Ministerstwie Rolnictwa Spirnak spotkała się z sekretarzem Lechem Różańskim, który powiedział, że w Polsce opinia publiczna jest przeciw GMO i rząd musi brać to pod uwagę. Rząd rozważa regulacje bardziej restrykcyjne niż Unia Europejska. Różański wyjaśnił, że polskie produkty mają w UE markę zdrowych i naturalnych i są konkurencyjne na rynku. Użycie GMO może osłabić tę opinię i pozycję rynkową Polski. Kiedy Spirnak i Doradca Rolniczy z Ambasady powiedzieli, że takie podejście będzie wielkim problemem dla USA, UE i WTO, Różański uspokoił się i powiedział, że Polska będzie postępować zgodnie z regulacjami UE. (dopisek: Różański złagodził swoje stanowisko na kolejnym spotkaniu, w którym uczestniczył amerykański doradca rolniczy).

(...)Spirnak dyskutowała o braku akceptacji dla GMO wśród polskiej opinii publicznej z Robertem Gabarkiewiczem, przedstawicielem Monsanto. Gabarkiewicz powiedział, że 10% polskich rolników produkuje 80% żywności spożywanej w Polsce. Ci producenci są za GMO, bo zależy im na wyższych plonach i większych zyskach. Ale 90% polskich rolników, którzy produkują 20% żywności jest stanowczo przeciwnych ponieważ są oni zależni od dopłat unijnych w ramach wspólnej polityki rolnej UE. Ponieważ ten segment populacji polskiej sięga milionów, ich głosy mają silny wpływ na decyzje polityczne.

Spirnak spotkała się także ze Sławomirem Zagórskim z Gazety Wyborczej, która ma największy nakład w Polsce. Zagórski, szef działu naukowego Wyborczej słuchał Spirnak życzliwie i wspomniał, że napisał niedawno artykuł o GMO (po wizycie w USA, sponsorowanej przez Wydział Rolnictwa (USA). Po tej publikacji był oskarżany, że jest agentem Monsanto, który bierze łapówki, żeby pozytywnie pisać o GMO. Chociaż wciąż jest zainteresowany tematem, po prostu nie może teraz napisać kolejnego artykułu o GMO, biorąc pod uwagę silnie negatywną reakcję publiczną na pierwszy artykuł. Dwa zagadnienia pojawiły się podczas wizyty Spirnak: polskie społeczeństwo i polski rząd. Polacy zwyczajnie wierzą, że w UE jest nadprodukcja żywności, a GM produktów nie da się porównać z ich naturalnymi odpowiednikami pod względem smaku i wartości odżywczej. Słyszeliśmy stale, że ludzie powinni mieć prawo wyboru, ale chcą oznakowań, aby wiedzieć, czy jedzą GM żywność. Po drugie, jest jasne, że eksperci w ministerstwach mają naukowe podejście do GMO. Jednak ich przełożeni, ci na poziomie politycznym, więcej uwagi zwracają na opinię publiczną.

Na podstawie dyskusji z naukowcami i innymi działaczami pro-biotechnologicznymi, powstał wniosek, że nasza strategia, aby wpłynąć na bardziej pozytywne nastawienie opinii publicznej powinna być skupiona na podkreślaniu zysków dla konsumentów i na pozytywnym wpływie jaki GMO może mieć na redukcję kosztów żywności i leków. Nasze wysiłki powinny skupiać się również na przedstawieniu pozytywnego wpływu GMO na środowisko poprzez obniżenie zużycia pestycydów, herbicydów i rezygnację z głębokiej orki.

W najbliższym czasie jest kluczowe, aby pracować z członkami rządu polskiego aby zapobiec proponowanemu dwuletniemu moratorium na nasiona GM i aby wpłynąć na kształt przyszłych przepisów o koegzystencji z nadzieją zapewnienia, że nie będą one tak restrykcyjne, aby zapobiec komercyjnemu użytkowaniu ziarna GMO w Polsce. Stopniowe wprowadzanie GM ziarna paszowego (w przeciwieństwie do konsumpcji przez ludzi) mogłoby w końcu zmiękczyć społeczny sprzeciw wobec innych zastosowań GMO. Importowane pasze GMO już są w Polsce, a wiec ten most został już przerzucony.”

Tłumaczenie: Dr Katarzyna Lisowska

http://ekologia.re.pl/artykul/41676.html

p.e.1984

Wyrazy szacunku dla Dr. Lisowskiej.

No tak, tylko jak zwykle brak źródła oryginalnego:
http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2006/01/06WARSAW107.html

Kod:

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 WARSAW 000107

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

DEPT FOR EUR/NCE DKOSTELANCIK, MSESSUMS DEPT FOR E, G; EB
FOR MSPIRNAK

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: TBIO SENV ETRD EAGR KSCA ECIN PL
SUBJECT: POLAND: SENIOR ADVISOR FOR AGRICULTURAL
BIOTECHNOLOGY SPIRNAK'S MEETINGS WITH GOP OFFICIALS AND
ACADEMIA

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED - NOT FOR INTERNET DISTRIBUTION

¶1. (SBU) Summary. Senior Advisor for Agricultural
Biotechnology Madelyn Spirnak visited Warsaw on November 29
and 30, 2005 to discuss the USG position on genetically
modified organisms (GMO's), with GOP officials, members of
the academic community, and the media. While the current GOP
and much of Polish society express serious concerns about
transgenic plants, these attitudes appear to reflect the
perceived European view on the subject, and are not based on
negative experience or scientific data. Spirnak was
encouraged by some ministerial employees' and professors'
positive views of genetic engineering, though this was
tempered by the message that much work would be needed to
reverse mainstream negative opinion. One conclusion in
particular was very clear: The GMO issue is currently driven
by public opinion, and political and social tactics are
necessary to win over decision makers and the public.

-----------------------------------
Views from the Academy of Science
-----------------------------------

¶2. (SBU) Spirnak first met with six scientists and experts
whose research deals with plant genetics. This discussion,
like Spirnak's others, focused on genetically modified
plants, not animals. All of the scientists present lamented
the fact that several years ago Polish society accepted the
idea of GMO's, but that now 70% of the Polish public rejected
them as potential sources of food and for use in agriculture.
Furthermore, the scientists expect no change in this
attitude in the near future. In their opinion, GMO advocates
must focus on the potential benefits to consumers, not to
producers, in swaying public opinion.

¶3. (SBU) The scientists also said that a new law governing
GMO's is currently being considered in Parliament, and that
all future approaches to the issue must reflect EU policy and
also the general EU attitude on the subject. One scientist
noted that part of the opposition to GMO's in Poland stemmed
from the fact there is no starvation in Polish society, so
why introduce transgenic food crops? On the other hand,
Poles do not oppose the use of GMO's in medicine, because
this leads to cheaper drugs. The scientists reasoned that a
campaign focused on the potential lower cost of foods made
with GMO's would resonate with average Poles. The group also
pointed out that GMO's are generally produced and marketed by
large corporations. This fact does not play well with the
Polish public, and especially with small farmers, who are
wary of large corporations encroaching on a market that is
perceived to be traditionally within the domain of small
business.

--------------------------------------------- --------
The Ministries: Neutrality Among the Experts, Public Opinion
Reigns
--------------------------------------------- --------

¶4. (SBU) Spirnak also visited the Ministries of Environment
and Agriculture for the GOP view. In Environment, Acting
Deputy Director of Environmental Protection Anna Liro
(previous IV program participant) stated that science plays
the central role in the run up to policy formulation in the
lower levels of the Ministry, but that ultimately the
Minister, when issuing statements and decisions, takes
opinion and politics into consideration. Liro also stressed
that Poland's focus in the area of GMO policy is
harmonization with the EU. In fact, the GOP is currently
drafting legislation to bring Poland into EU compliance in
the areas of labeling and traceability. Included in this
legislation is language stating the GOP officials must
develop coexistence regulations. The legislation, which
requires Parliamentary approval, is still working its way
through administrative clearances. Liro could not predict
when the legislation might finally be sent to Parliament.

¶5. (SBU) In the Ministry of Agriculture, Spirnak met with the
new Undersecretary of Agriculture responsible for
biotechnology, Lech Rozanski. Rozanski stressed that Polish
public opinion is against the use of GMO's, and that the GOP
must yield to public opinion, Therefore, the GOP is
contemplating regulations that might be even more stringent
than current EU versions, including bans on both food
(including use in processed food) and feed. Rozanski went on
to explain that Polish food products are viewed in the EU as
healthy and natural, and are competitive in their current
state. Use of GM seeds could threaten this perception, and
thus Poland's place in the market. When Spirnak and Embassy
Agricultural Counselor noted that such an approach would be
of great concern to the U.S. and would be contrary to EU as
well as WTO commitments, Rozanski backed off and said that
Poland must comply with EU and international commitments
(Note: Rozanski softened this message further at a subsequent
meeting that Agricultural Counselor attended).

¶6. (SBU) Rozanski also explained that several months ago
Poland submitted a letter to the European Commission
requesting EC approval for a two-year moratorium on the
import and planting of 16 GMO seed varieties that for
agronomic reasons can not be grown in Poland. The GOP is
still waiting for an answer in this matter.

--------------------------------------------- -----------
Informed Polish Students Voice Concern, But No Visceral
Opposition
--------------------------------------------- -----------

¶7. (U) Spirnak made a presentation at the highly regarded
Warsaw Agricultural University (SGGW), the institution that
trains many of Poland's future leaders in agriculture and
agricultural policy. The lecture was very well attended (by
100 students approximately) and the SGGW students were very
familiar with the issues surrounding GMO's. During the Q&A
session, students were cautious but not overtly opposed to
GMO's. They asked questions that covered topics ranging from
food safety and GMO's to the potential for GMO producing
countries to "dump" food into the EU market. In general, the
students seemed to approach the subject objectively, although
they have obviously been influenced by the overriding
negative European attitude toward GMO's.

¶8. (U) Spirnak's second lecture took place at the American
Studies Center at Warsaw University. Approximately 20
students and faculty attended the lecture. Again, the
students did not openly object to the idea of consuming GMO's
but did reflect the typical European mistrust surrounding the
issue. They asked about the purpose of altering the genetic
structure of food, in what is essentially a "if it's not
broken don't fix it" argument that is commonly made in Poland.

------------------------------
Root Causes of the Opposition
------------------------------

¶9. (SBU) Spirnak discussed the lack of Polish public support
for GMO's during a meeting with Robert Gabarkiewicz, Monsanto
Representative. Gabarkiewicz said that 10% of Polish farmers
produce 80% of the food consumed in the Polish market. These
farmers support GMO's because they lead to higher crop yields
and greater profits. However, the 90% of Polish farmers who
produce 20% of the food are adamantly opposed because they
are reliant on (or seeking to qualify for) EU funds under the
Common Agricultural Policy. These farmers run very small
scale operations and see the more tangible value of subsidies
outweighing the longer-term benefits of GMO's. Since this
segment of the Polish population numbers in the millions,
their potential votes are a strong driver of policy
decisions. Gabarkiewicz also stated that soybeans are
imported into Poland each year, mainly from Argentina and
Brazil, for use in the feed industry. These beans are
certainly genetically modified, so there are GM products that
regularly enter Poland for feed use.

¶10. (SBU) Spirnak's last meeting was with Slawomir Zagorski,
a reporter from Gazeta Wyborcza, the newspaper with the
largest circulation in Poland. Zagorski, also the paper's
Science Editor, lent a sympathetic ear to Spirnak, and
recounted that he had written a story on GMO's recently,
following a visit to the U.S. sponsored by the Department of
Agriculture. In the aftermath of publication, Zagorski was
accused of being an "agent" for Monsanto who had taken bribes
to write a story portraying GMO's positively. Although he is
still interested in the subject, he explained, he simply can
not write another story on GMO's right now, given the deeply
negative public reaction to his last story.

--------------------------------------------- --------
Summary: Fact, Fiction, and Reversing Public Opinion
--------------------------------------------- --------

¶11. (SBU) Two themes emerged during Spirnak's visit, one
concerning Polish society and the other the Polish
government. First, most of the Polish public not directly
involved in agriculture or politics does not really feel a
strong attachment to either side of the GMO argument. The
average Pole takes a mildly negative view of GM food, but
this attitude seems to have percolated up from certain
segments of the Polish countryside, and from anti-GMO
interest group activity throughout Europe. While they have
no firm experience on which to base their opinions, many
Poles simply believe that GMO's are ptentially dangerous and
that they are unnecessary. They believe there is already too
much food crop production in the EU, and that GM food
products simply can not compare to their "natural"
counterparts in terms of taste and nutritional value. We
also heard continually that people can live with choice, but
want to know through labeling if they are consuming GM
products.

¶12. (SBU) Second, it was clear that experts in the ministries
approach the GMO issue using science as their principal tool.
On the other hand, their superiors, those at the policy
level, grant greater weight to public opinion. This is
troublesome since the current government was elected with
overwhelming support from small farmers in rural Poland and
this voting bloc is traditionalist in worldview. These two
facts indicate that a significant portion of voters will
likely remain opposed to GMO use in Poland, at least until
commercially beneficial GM seed is available to Polish
farmers.

¶13. (SBU) Given discussions within academia and with other
pro-biotech actors, our strategy to influence a more positive
public attitude toward bioengineered crops should focus on
consumer benefits and the positive effects GMO's could have
in reducing the costs of food and medicine. Our efforts also
should focus on the positive environmental impact GMO's
provide via reduced pesticide and herbicide use and
encouraging reduced-till practices. In the days ahead, it is
vital to work with the GOP officials to prevent the
imposition of a proposed two-year moratorium on GM seeds and
to influence the drafting of future coexistence and liability
regulations, with the hope of ensuring that they are not so
restrictive as to prevent the commercial use of GM seed in
Poland. The gradual introduction of GM crops for feed use
(in contrast to direct human consumption) could eventually
soften public opposition to other GMO uses. Imported GM
feeds already are being used in Poland, thus this bridge has
already been crossed.

¶14. (U) Senior Advisor for Agricultural Biotechnology Madelyn
Spirnak cleared this cable.
ASHE

p.e.1984

Ciąg dalszy wątku GMO na wikileaks, nie tłumaczony:
http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2006/06/06WARSAW1142.html

Kod:

null
Anne W McNeill 10/20/2006 02:40:59 PM From DB/Inbox: Search Results

Cable
Text:

UNCLAS WARSAW 01142

SIPDIS
CXWARSAW:
ACTION: ECON
INFO: FCS POL ADM MGT ORA DCM AMB PAS

DISSEMINATION: ECOX
CHARGE: PROG

APPROVED: ECON:RRORVIG
DRAFTED: ECON:MKATULA,RRUDZIN
CLEARED: FAS: EPORTER DOS: MSPIRNAK

VZCZCWRI459
RR RUEHC RUEHZL RUEHRO RUEHKW RHEHNSC RUEHRC
RUEHBS
DE RUEHWR #1142/01 1630936
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 120936Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY WARSAW
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0999
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 0860
RUEHKW/AMCONSUL KRAKOW 1131
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUEHRC/DEPT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON DC
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 WARSAW 001142

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

DEPT FOR EUR/NCE DKOSTELANCIK AND MSESSUMS
DEPT PASS USTR FOR DVETTER AND WBUSIS
DEPT FOR USDA/FAS
USDOC FOR 4232/ITA/MAC/EUR/DBURGESS AND MRODGERS
FAS FOR ITP/PSHEIKH, MWOOLSEY; BIOTECH GROUP LJONES, RFECITT
USEU FOR USTR CWILSON, MDASTIN
NSC FOR JHERRMANN
ROME FOR USMISSION BRAKEL

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: TBIO ECON EAGR ETRD PL
SUBJECT: SENIOR DOS AGRICULTURAL BIOTECH ADVISOR SPIRNAK'S
TRIP TO POLAND - MAY 21-25

REF: WARSAW 917

Sensitive but unclassified - not for internet distribution.

¶1. (SBU) Summary. Madelyn Spirnak, State Department Senior
Advisor for Agricultural Biotechnology, attended meetings in
Warsaw on May 22 and 23, and in Krakow on May 24, 2006. Her
visit came at a crucial time in the new GOP's legislative
assault on agricultural biotechnology. In March the GOP
drafted its "Framework Policy" (see reftel), and Spirnak
learned during her visit that President Kaczynski has signed
new legislation banning GMO seed sales and registration in
Poland. While all of her interlocutors were willing to
listen to USG arguments on the subject, the GOP's position
remains that only very limited uses of GMOs will be allowed
in Poland. Although the new Agriculture Minister may be less
stridently opposed to some uses of GM technology,
parliamentary members stressed that they would continue to
promote an anti-GMO policy, even if this means enacting
legislation stricter than EU standards, and perhaps violating
Polish EU and WTO obligations. End summary.

¶2. (U) Background. On May 17, 2006 the President of Poland
signed legislation that will ban the sale and registration of
biotechnology seeds in Poland. The legislation will enter
into force 30 days after its publication, which is expected
soon. The legislation does not ban the planting of biotech
seeds varieties registered in the EU seed catalogue and
purchased outside of Poland. Polish farmers currently are
not using biotech seed, but trade contacts report there are
some varieties of Bt corn available that should be
economically beneficial to Polish farmers. During debate in
Parliament, legal advisors for both houses of Parliament
reportedly told legislators that the legislation would
violate EU regulations. Many in the Polish scientific
community, including government scientists, have publicly
expressed opposition to this legislation.

-----------------------
Ministry of Environment
-----------------------

¶3. (SBU) On May 22, 2006, Spirnak began her meetings in the
Ministry of the Environment with Malgorzata Wozniak, Senior
Specialist, and Krzysztof Lissowski, Acting Director, both of
the Department of Nature Conservation. Wozniak explained
that the Ministry of Environment's primary role in crafting
Polish legislation is in preparing EU biotech regulations for
implementation in Poland. However, she continued that the
Ministry of the Environment is very concerned with the
potential environmental and human health impacts of biotech,
and that very restrictive regulations should be expected.
Wozniak also mentioned that the GOP's Commission on GMOs will
begin meeting again very soon, and will be a body composed of
personnel from several ministries. The Commission will
provide recommendations on GM issues, and will report
directly to the Minister of Environment. Spirnak stated that
the U.S. hopes that any regulatory steps that Poland takes
will be based on science and not politics. She also
mentioned that regulations that go beyond the stringent EU
regulatory system could be harmful to joint U.S.-Polish trade
interests as well as US-EU relations on this sensitive issue.
Lissowski commented that he and Wozniak are only civil
servants, and must comply with any instructions they are
given by the politicians who run the government. Spirnak
retorted that civil servants are obliged to give good advice
to superiors. Lissowski replied that not everyone wants to
listen to opinions of civil servants.

-------------------
Ministry of Science
-------------------

¶4. (SBU) At the Ministry of Science, Spirnak met with
Undersecretary of State Olaf Gajl (strictly protect), who led
off the meeting by stating that Poland needs stronger
educational programs on biotechology issues because Polish
society is traditional and conservative, and Polish farmers
are not well educated. Gajl also noted that there is a
general communication problem on the issue and that the
Ministry of Science may try to form biotech working groups at
the official level (Gajl stated this is rumor only at this
point). Gajl also noted that biotech industry development is
his responsibility and he hopes to form eco-biotech working
groups to unite industry, scientists and government officials
to develop strategies for moving biotech forward in Poland.
Biotech industry development is his responsibility and he
personally would like to move this idea forward. He also
requested USG assistance in obtaining factual information on
agbiotech that could be used in an information campaign,
which he would like to develop for use in institutes of
higher education. Although Gajl seemed to be a voice of
reason on the issue, he also requested that his statements
during the meeting be taken as private, not official Ministry
opinions.

-----------------------
Ministry of Agriculture
-----------------------

¶5. (SBU) Spirnak and Warsaw's FAS Agricultural Counselor
met with Undersecretary Chrapek from the Ministry of
Agriculture to gain a better picture of Poland's new
restrictive seed legislation. Chrapek explained that the
seed legislation was Parliament's response to public concerns
over biotechnology and acknowledged that it could cause
problems for Poland with the European Commission. Chrapek
stressed, however, that Poland intends to remain in
compliance with EU biotechnology legislation, and in reply to
a question, stated that the GOP will change its legislation
if the EU determines that it is not in compliance with EU
regulations. Chrapek stressed that he hoped that Poland's
"safe" approach to biotechnology would not cause problems
between our two governments.

--------------------------------------------- -
Senate and Sejm Agricultural Committee Leaders
--------------------------------------------- -

¶6. (SBU) Spirnak held a two-hour meeting with Jerzy
Chroscikowski, Senator and Chairman of the Agricultural and
Environmental Protection Committee, and Pawel Michalak,
Senator, and Chroscikowski's Deputy. Spirnak discussed the
increased yield and efficiencies gained through planting GM
seed, the need for a no trade barrier approach to GM
products, and the myths surrounding the dangers of GMOs. The
Senators were quick to refute her arguments and pointed out
that the GOP's negative stance on biotech is based on
economic and safety concerns. They first mentioned that
Poland does not have a food shortage and thus does not need
to produce more food. On the contrary, Michalak noted,
Poland is currently working to get EU quotas for Polish fruit
increased to meet export potential - GMOs simply are not of
use to Polish farmers given current realities in Poland.
Chroscikowski and Michalak also stressed that the GOP, as
well as Polish society, is not convinced of the safety of
GMOs, and is not ready to accept the notion without well
crafted scientific studies. The Senators also stated that
thousands of agricultural workers would lose their jobs if GM
foods were introduced, and that no other sector of the Polish
economy could absorb them (Chroscikowski then quipped that
obviously the U.S. does not want Polish workers), thus
canceling out the potential efficiency gains from harvesting
GM products.

¶7. (SBU) Conversation then turned to newly enacted Polish
legislation banning GMO seed sales and registration in
Poland. Spirnak asked the Senators how the GOP would react
if the new legislation were to conflict with existing EU and
WTO regulations. Answering with a question, Chroscikowski
wondered aloud why the U.S. is so concerned with Poland's EU
relations. He invited the USG, if it so desires, to become
involved in Poland's interaction with the EU, requesting that
it approach Brussels about equalizing the level of
agricultural subsidies paid out to EU member states.
Chroscikowski also mentioned that as a fan of Polish cuisine,
he constantly promotes Polish foods. He wondered why GMO
advocates are so adamantly against labeling - basically
asking that if the food is good and you believe people will
like it, why not label it? The Senators concluded the
conversation by stating that the GOP is not against progress
and would like to learn more about GM research being
conducted in the U.S., but that its primary mission is to
protect Polish agriculture, especially organic production,
and that the GOP's line on the issue will not move.

¶8. (SBU) Over lunch, Spirnak and the Ag and Econ Counselors
met with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Sejm (lower house)
Agriculture Committee, Wojciech Mojzesowicz and Jan Laczny.
During this session, Spirnak attempted to discuss the
benefits that had been gained globally through GMO crops as
well as the growing number of EU countries which were
adopting the technology. In response, the parliamentarians
gave unsophisticated arguments such as: US women are heavy
because they eat GMO food; organic is "healthy" because its
natural; confusing fertilizers with pesticides; and most
importantly, nationalistic arguments about US and
multinational companies coming to Poland and destroying the
Polish farming system. Efforts to present facts about
potential benefits for farmers, including increasing their
competitiveness within the EU were dismissed.

--------------------------
Grain Producer Association
--------------------------

¶9. (SBU) One ray of light was a discussion with Maciej
Tomaszewicz of the Grain Producers Association. Tomaszewicz
stated that his membership opposed the seed legislation.
Asked about biotech/transgenic organisms in general, he
replied that his membership had no objection to either feed
or food containing GMOs. He also noted that he had recently
watched a weekly agricultural television program which
focused on the GMO issue. He was pleasantly surprised that
the majority of speakers were in favor of the technology for
Poland and the lone voice against agbiotech was an
ill-prepared Agriculture Ministry Undersecretary (not
Chrapek).

------
Krakow
------

¶10. (SBU) On May 24 Spirnak traveled to Krakow to meet with
students and faculty of Krakow Agriculture University and
Jagiellonian University, which offers a major in
biotechnology. Among the topics discussed were biotechnology
legislation, and the future of farming. Educators expressed
deep concern that new Polish legislation would inhibit their
ability to perform research using biotechnology; indeed they
have been waiting months for GOP approval to move forward on
one research project. As they are already restricted to
testing only in labs and not in open fields, the proposed
legislation is another step in the wrong direction. Numerous
times, government officials have asked scientists for their
opinions on biotechnology. Yet, the professors complained,
the government will not listen to these expert opinions
advising them to embrace biotechnology. Jagiellonian
University Dean Kazimierz Strzalka wonders what the GOP is
really afraid of when, in his opinion, GMOs would help Polish
farmers more successfully compete with the rest of Europe.
He cited a study that indicated that 60% of Polish farmers
would use GMOs if they were given the option.

¶11. (SBU) The greatest hope, according to Dean Strzalka, is
in the hands of students. At a recent Greenpeace meeting
held at the university, students were vocal in challenging
the assertions made by the Greenpeace "ideologists"
concerning biotechnology. Nationally, the Polish Association
of Biotechnology Students is well organized. They have a few
hundred members, a website, and plans for a national
conference in the fall. Strzalka asked if the U.S. could
help to provide speakers for the conference, and for a Polish
National Biotech Conference that will take place in April
¶2007.

¶12. (SBU) At the Krakow Agriculture University, Ms. Spirnak
addressed a group of approximately 50 students and
professors. There were few questions and most were from
professors. Based on the Krakow visit, it appears that
overall, professors and students of biotechnology support
transgenic crops for Poland and feel that they are good for
Poland and for farmers. They are frustrated that the GOP is
so opposed. They also believe that it is inevitable that
Poland will see an increase in farmers using GM seeds from
other countries, whether it is legal or not.

--------------------------------------------- -
Comment - Outreach Critical
--------------------------------------------- -

¶13. (SBU) Comment: Clearly the GOP remains opposed to the
use of GM crops in Poland as evidenced by the polite but firm
arguments against biotech Ms. Spirnak heard from the majority
of her interlocutors. Post believes that the current GOP and
leaders within the Parliament will continue to work within
the EU against the expanded use of biotech products in the
EU. While there may be a slight positive shift as heard by
Spirnak in her meeting with the Ag U/S and by the Ambassador
in his introductory call on the new Agriculture Minister
(reftel), the Chairs of the Senate and Sejm Agricultural
Committees are unwilling to listen to science-based arguments
regarding agbiotech. Thus, Post believes the USG should work
with pro-biotech scientists, student groups and farmer
organizations to educate current and future farmers about the
safety and advantages of biotechology in agriculture. We
should also continue to educate GOP officials with the goal
of preventing additional regulations that prohibit farmer
choice when it comes to biotechnology. Working with the
Ministry of Science and Higher Education may also help to
spread a more positive message on agbiotech to students and
the general public. Finally, we need to push the EU to
ensure that Poland and other anti-biotech member states abide
by EU commitments as well as WTO obligations governing the
use of biotechnology in agriculture. While pushing to open
Poland to biotechnology, we need to take care to be seen as
protecting choice, not pushing use.

¶14. (SBU) FAS Warsaw and Senior DOS Agricultural Biotech
Advisor Madelyn Spirnak have cleared this cable.
ASHE

_________________
Jak szukać prawdy na prawda2.info - odwiedź systematycznie aktualizowany wybór ważniejszych tekstów.

p.e.1984

Reszta koresponcencji:

Kod:

http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/07WARSAW2265.html
SUBJECT: POLAND: BIOTECH POLICY UNCERTAIN-POSITIVE CHANGE
POSSIBLE

REF: A. STATE 158225

¶B. WARSAW 2230

¶1. (U) On 21 November AgAtt Kate Snipes delivered ref. A
demarche on the EU discussion regarding a tolerance level for
low level presence of unapproved biotech products to Dr.
Andzej Wojtyla, Head of Sanitary Inspection and Emilia
Kalinska, Specialist on GM Food at the Polish Ministry of
Health and Dr. Ewa Lech, Chief Veterinary Officer at the
Polish Ministry of Agriculture.

¶2. (SBU) In separate meetings Kalinska and Lech both said
that Poland does not have a formal position on the matter of
low level presence (LLP) at this time due to the change in
government. Kalinska stated that under the previous coalition
government led by Law and Justice (PiS) she was confident
Poland would have been against any tolerance level for LLP
for unapproved products but noted there may be more
flexibility in the new government. Lech speculated that the
new government's position may be more pragmatic regarding ag
biotech. She added that both the Polish pork industry and the
Ministry of Agriculture officials responsible for feed are
aware of the limits of non-GM feed supplies and are concerned
that limited access to feed would make Polish producers less
competitive and raise meat prices for Polish consumers.

¶3. (U) Kalinska confirmed that if tolerances were adopted by
the EU, Poland would have the capacity to test and measure
them with five laboratories approved as part of the EU
Network of GM Laboratories (ENGL).

¶4. (U) The formal coalition agreement was signed between
Civic Platform (PO) and the Polish People's Party (PSL) on
the morning of November 23. The official Polish position on
ag biotech will be decided under this new leadership. (See
ref. B.)
ASHE
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/08/08WARSAW940.html
SUBJECT: BIOTECH: MINISTRY OF ECONOMY ENGAGING

REF: WARSAW 823

¶1. (SBU) Polish Economy Minister and Deputy Prime Minister
Waldemar Pawlak (PSL) August 6 signaled to Charge that he
regarded Poland's hard-line stance on agricultural
biotechnology as a relic of the previous government's tactic
of deploying conflict and fear - in this case against GMOs.
Quoting a Russian proverb - "if you keep a low profile, you
will get further" - Pawlak said he is looking for a "soft
exit" from that stance. He acknowledged the damage Poland's
policy has done to its farmers and producers, who face record
high input prices, and suggested that his ministry is
prepared to take small steps toward more openness to GMOs.

¶2. (SBU) The current Ministry of Economy has not engaged
itself to date in Poland's biotechnology policy. The
PSL-controlled Agriculture Ministry was important in moving
legislation through the Sejm to avert a Polish ban on GM
crops in animal feed in July (reftel), legislation that
finally overruled the Environment Minister's activist
approach against transgender crops. That victory and
Pawlak's August 6 signal have generated guarded hope in
Embassy Warsaw that Pawlak's approach of seeking quiet
progress may yield more fruit, and not only in Warsaw. While
we defer to the vote counting expertise of USEU, we
understand that a Polish abstention alone on, for example,
new soybean varieties in the Commission's Standing Committee
for Animal Health and the Food Chain can help open EU markets
to U.S. production.

¶3. (SBU) Pawlak invited Charge to continue the conversation
with him in the next two weeks - an offer we accepted. Though
August is a difficult time to do business here, Embassy
Warsaw's Biotechnology Working Group (ECON, PAS, FAS, FCS)
will reach out in the meantime to other stakeholders in
Warsaw and in the USG to develop what may be a new opening in
Warsaw.
QUANRUD
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/09/08WARSAW1114.html
SUBJECT: POLAND AG BIOTECHNOLOGY PROGRESS

REF: Krakow 095

WARSAW 00001114 001.2 OF 002

¶1. (SBU) Summary: Polish debate on biotechnology is heating up,
with nudging from the Embassy. From April to September, an industry
coalition supporting biotech has coalesced, and we are starting to
see local leaders following their constituents in countering
negative propaganda and demanding access to the biotechnologies
Polish farmers need to be competitive. Nevertheless, biotech
opponents still have the upper hand, and the support of the Ministry
of Environment. The next big test will be a virulently anti-biotech
bill proposed by the Ministry that the Sejm will consider this fall.
Nevertheless, the characteristic Polish resolve to push ahead
despite obstacles means today the pro-GM movement finally has legs
to walk on. End summary.

¶2. (U) Embassy officers have conducted demarches, worked with the
press, connected idea salesmen, and offered analysis. Primarily
supported by USDA's Emerging Markets Program, but with some input
from State's Biotech Outreach Funds the mission in Warsaw has hosted
a farmer from Spain, Jose Luis Romeo (May 2008); farmers from Iowa,
Varel Bailey and Jill Euken (June 2008), Czech Farmer Vitezslav
Navratil (Sept 2008), representatives of the American Soybean
Association, (Oct. 2007, Feb 2008, and Sept 2008); and held seminars
with regional leaders in Poznan, Opole, and nearby Warsaw for crowds
of up to 200. Ag Counselor drove 5000 miles meeting regional
political officials, academics, media, local associations, and
producers.

¶3. (U) Embassy Public Affairs, USDA Warsaw, and Consulate Krakow
currently are arranging to host author and Professor Alan McHughen
of the University of California, Riverside, in Wroclaw and Warsaw in
October. Dr. McHughen's book, Pandora's Food Basket, has been
translated in Polish with an altered title, Genetically Modified
Foods: What Consumers Need to Know. Emboffs are excited about the
visit, as Dr. McHughen is credible with his willingness to accept
and discuss some technology downsides. McHughen's description of
the positive attributes of biotechnology outweigh his depiction of
the negatives.

¶4. (U) In traveling Poland it is clear that the Embassy is stepping
in where the Government of Poland is offering negative, biased, and
sometimes anti-American statements on the technology, primarily from
the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry's Center for
Environmental Information financed a publication from Professor
Stanislaw Wiackowski, labeling USDA, FDA, and EPA "indolent" and the
President of the United States corrupt. It was a 50 page screed
claiming biotechnology causes hunger in India and cancer in rats.
Embassy complaints about lack of balance to the Ministry have not
elicited a response. More damaging, the Ministry has conducted six
seminars across Poland, over the same time frame of embassy
activities, that specified biotechnology negatives. Greenpeace,
Friends of the Earth, and Dr. Wiackowski were all speakers. These
seminars were financed with public Polish and EU funds.

¶5. (U) The Ministry of Environment has drafted a GM cultivation law
that represents a farce. The draft law, at 145 pages, contacts
report is the longest draft law written in Polish history. The law
envisions that individual regions may declare themselves GM free.
If a farmer then plants GM they face jail time. Even if a regional
legislature votes to plant GM, they can be overruled by the local
provincial governor (wojewod), representing the national government.
Before planting, the law requires producers to seek permission from
neighbors, post bonds for damages, and conduct exhaustive
recordkeeping. Though the law was 145 pages, it did not include
provisions for insect refuges or barriers from organic crops. The
draft states that regulatory issues like these will be issued by the
Environment Ministry later. The administrative risk is so high,
that producers say they will not plant under this law.

¶6. (U) Each law in Poland must be accompanied by a justification
for its passage. The justification of the cultivation law plainly
states the law is designed to prevent GM crops from being planted.
The Ministry received negative comments from producers, many
accompanied by detailed analysis about how the law conflicts with EU
mandates. Scientists were outraged at the provisions of the law
regulating their activities. Presently, the Ministry of Environment
does not approve animal feed tests and open field crop trials,
despite the scientific panels at the Ministry that support these
requests. The draft imagines an even stricter regime. Worrisome

WARSAW 00001114 002.2 OF 002

for the future, the draft includes provisions that are interpreted
by some contacts to mean animal clones will be considered
genetically modified, and thus under the regulation of the Ministry
of Environment. With its comment period over, the Ministry
announced it will be working on sending the draft to Parliament on
September 28. It will need the support of the Ministries of
Agriculture and Economy. Those ministries are more positive on the
technology, but their views are unlikely to overcome the strong
negative views put forward by the environmental movement.

¶7. (U) There is reason for optimism. A pro biotech coalition is
active. In partnership with the seed industry, a Coalition for
Modern Farming is pushing local governments to do more to educate
and defend them. Biotechnology is at the core of the survivability
of Polish agriculture. The nation has a disastrous outbreak of the
European Corn Borer, which destroys $400 million worth of the corn
crop annually, losses that could easily be prevented by Mon 810 Bt
corn, available for sale. Polish producers have planted 3,000
hectares, and some trade rumors indicate the figure may be as high
at 5,000 hectares with Bt corn, bought in neighboring Czech
Republic. Producers realize they must cut costs and worry about
predictions of rising input prices and falling commodity prices.
They worry as well about the new paradigm in the Polish farm
economy: it has become a net pork importer and its domestic hog
population is at a 23 year low. Poland is an inefficient producer
of pork, and has open borders with more efficient
vertically-integrated Western European suppliers.

¶8. (SBU) The Embassy and USDA are stepping in to provide better
biotechnology information and contacts to regional leaders who are
willing to work for cultivation and acceptance of U.S. varieties in
animal feeds. Last week, Ag Counselor traveled to Opole with
Polish scientists and producers from the Mazowiecki region near
Warsaw. Opole dedicated its annual Corn Day exhibition to a
conference promoting biotechnology. Then, after the formal
conference concluded, the region's agricultural leaders and elected
regional leaders retired with experts to the office of the
agricultural extension service leader to hear the presentations
again and debate them. The Mazowiecki region agricultural chamber
passed a resolution promoting biotechnology in July, after the visit
of Ag Counselor and Iowa speakers in June. Mazowiecki-Opole regions
are in an alliance for biotech and Opole leaders may follow with
their own pro-biotech position shortly.

----------------
OPOLE IS THE KEY
----------------

¶9. (SBU) The Polish characteristic of personal opposition in tough
circumstances helps. Poles are fiercely independent and stand up
for their beliefs. This has so far benefitted the anti-GM movement,
but facing farm losses, competition from crops abroad, and the
hypocrisy of how Polish consumers eat GM crops produced elsewhere,
producers and scientists are working together for biotechnology.
Accompanying Ag Counselor to Opole was Dr. Lucjan Szponar, former
head of the Polish Nutrition Institute, now retired; Dr. Roman
Warzecha, of the Ag Ministry's Plant Breeding Station near Warsaw,
and Tadeusz Szymanczak, former parliamentarian and corn farmer. Met
in Opole by a Czech farmer, Vitezslav Navratil, the speakers had an
open forum to present their views. Mr. Navratil's participation was
organized by USDA Embassy Prague Ag Specialist. Local TV and print
press, including with Ag Counselor, was overwhelmingly positive.
Important for the future, Opole is the home region of Sejm
Agricultural Committee chief, Leszek Korzionowski. A corn
bioethanol plant will move into production in April 2009 in Opole,
stoking demand for corn. The plant will eat 350,000 tons of corn,
while Poland produces just 1.7 million tons now and will import.
Recovering crop losses from the corn borer would provide needed
feedstock for the plant.

¶10. (SBU) Embassy's Polish biotechnology experts have been invited
to speak again at a farm group convention near Krakow in October,
with help from Consulate Krakow. Malopolski has fresh interest in
the technology, see reftel.
ASHE
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/02/09WARSAW199.html
¶1. FAS Agricultural Counselor delivered reftel demarche on Pioneer
and Syngenta GMO corn hybrid approvals at the Ministry of
Environment, February 20, 2009, meeting with New Technologies
Department Director, Agnieszka Dalbiak. Dalbiak said Poland has not
decided how it will vote on February 25 in Brussels on the new
biotechnology events. Director Dalbiak commented the possibility of
WTO trade sanctions was clear and responded affirmatively when
AgCouns asked if Poland might abstain.

¶2. EconOff delivered demarche February 19 to Poland's
representative to the Section 133 committee, Mieczyslaw Nogaj, of
the Ministry of Economy. The Econ Ministry had no immediate reply.

¶3. FAS Agricultural Attach delivered demarche to Malgorzata
Surawska, Director of the Plant Breeding and Protection Department,
Polish Ministry of Agriculture on February 23. No response was
offered. Neither Director Surawska nor other agriculture contacts
were available for an in-person meeting until later in the week.

¶4. Comment: Post will follow-up to obtain information on Poland's
decision and details of a law on cultivating genetically modified
crops now being drafted. However, Poland's established policy to
vote against approval of all GMO varieties remains in effect, and we
expect it to follow that policy and vote against the approvals
during this vote as well. Nevertheless, Director Dalbiak's comment
that Poland might abstain shows Poland at least is having an
internal debate on biotech. Decision makers have a greater
appreciation that their actions have consequences after facing a
large retaliation sanction in the WTO beef hormone case*. End
Comment. *rBGH
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/09/09WARSAW915.html
SUBJECT: POLAND'S VIEW ON UNAPPROVED BIOTECH VARIETIES IN U.S.
SOYBEAN SHIPMENTS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR ECON ETRD PL

REF: STATE 86566

¶1. Summary. Poland likely supports, or will abstain from voting,
on suspended U.S. soybean shipments due to the EU zero tolerance for
unapproved biotech varieties -- if the September 7 Ag Ministers
Council meeting discusses the issue. End summary.

¶2. August 28, Ag Counselor delivered reftel demarche to Ministry of
Agriculture, Department for Animal and Feed Products, Director
Wojciech Wojtyra. Wojtyra commented that the Ministry had no
position on the low level presence issue. Wojtyra added that the
Polish Grain and Feed Producers Association and others had written
the Ministry asking for support to raise the zero tolerance limit to
a workable level. Wojtyra said that there had been no communication
from the Commission or other member states to Poland about the
issue.

¶3. September 4, Ag Counselor met with member companies'
representatives of the Polish Grain and Feed Producers Association.
Contacts reported that in their view the Ministry will either
abstain or support the issue if raised. Called for comment, MinAg
declined to confirm how it might vote.

ASHE

_________________
Jak szukać prawdy na prawda2.info - odwiedź systematycznie aktualizowany wybór ważniejszych tekstów.

*Dj Kid* · Gość Znajdź posty / tematy

Cytat:

30.08.2011 17:5975
opublikowana w: A elita !, Forum 2011, Głos oddolny, Media-Watch, Otwieracz, Parada Oszustów !, Totalitaryzm
SKANDAL. WIKILEAKS o Polsce - a media milczą. Dlaczego?

Wikileaks ujawnia, że USA prowadziło lobbing GMO (USA na tym bardzo korzysta) w Polsce od co najmniej 2005 roku. Cel? Ustawa o GMO. Rozmawiali z "Gazetą Wyborczą", naukowcami, ludźmi z ministerstwa. Czy ktokolwiek o tym pisze? Nikt. Czy ktokolwiek o tym trąbi w mediach? Nikt.
Wg. Wikileaks do "Gazety Wyborczej" (jako najbardziej opiniotwórczego medium) poszli porozmawiać z szefem działu nauki. Redaktor powiedział, że jest przychylny GMO, nie może jednak teraz nic pisać (2005 rok), ale zaznaczył, że niedawno opublikował bardzo pozytywny artykuł o GMO. Niestety wkrótce został nazwany agentem Monsanto i musi chwilowo dać na wstrzymanie. Co ciekawe tamten artykuł powstał po sponsorowanej przez USA "wycieczce szlakami" GMO. Możliwe, że wycieczka była bardzo przekonująca. Tak bywa. Są różne wycieczki. Np. Tuska syna do Chin koleją za państwowe pieniądze.
Naukowcy i pozostali powtarzali, że opinia publiczna jest na nie. Na co departament USA, że trzeba będzie to zmienić, powoli i systematycznie, nastrajać społeczeństwo ku GMO. I że pierwszy krok to wprowadzenie GMO do pasz dla zwierząt, by ludzie się przekonali, obeznali. Nie protestowali.
6 lat później ustawa o nasiennictwie prawie wprowadza GMO. Gdyby nie protest ekologów i osób zbierających się na portalach społecznościowych, nikt by nie zauważył problemu. Media nie informowały o szkodliwości GMO i nowej propozycji (oprócz UWAGI TVN - plus dla nich! portalu wpolityce.pl).
Batalia chwilowo wygrana, prezydent zmuszony do zawetowania ustawy. Ale: można nadal obalić veto, a i nowa Ustawa o GMO się szykuje. I grunt pod nią też. Eksperci, ci sami często którzy często robią drogie eksperymenty dla firm z tej branży przekonują, że GMO jest super zdrowe.
Kto na tym zarobi? USA. Plan działania długoterminowy. A media milczą. Zamiast tego wałkują: Hofmana, chłopów i Blidę.
A w między czasie "Gazeta Wyborcza" może przez przypadek, może na wszelki wypadek pisze, że Wikileaks to upadek moralności. Piórem Bartosza Węglarczyka zauważa: "Nigdy nie byłem wielkim fanem WikiLeaks i jego przywódcy Juliana Assange'a. Wydawało mi się jednak, że on i jego ludzie trzymają się jakiegoś, choćby pokrzywionego kodeksu moralnego. Teraz jednak wszystkie tamy puściły."
Więcej... http://wyborcza.pl/1,75968,10197586,Moralny_upadek_WikiLeaks.html#ixzz1WX3wM1Uj

Link źródłowy: http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2006/01/06WARSAW107.html
Polecam też stary artykuł z wpolityce.pl doktora, autora rozprawy doktorskiej o sporze GMO w Polsce. O tym, dlaczego specjaliści naukowcy od GMO są zawsze za GMO. Bo dostają za to kasę: http://wpolityce.pl/artykuly/13467-jaka-.....-z-firmami
Zbiór artykułów o GMO w polskiej prasie: http://polska-wolna-od-gmo.org

http://hannafona.salon24.pl/337939,skand.....a-dlaczego

p.e.1984

O sprawie GMO można sobie pisać:
http://palmer.eldritch.1984.salon24.pl/335398,czy-problem-gmo-nie-istnieje
http://palmer.eldritch.1984.salon24.pl/3.....h-glownych
http://palmer.eldritch.1984.salon24.pl/3.....m-po-i-psl

Nawet o wikileaks, łącznie z dokumentami źródłowymi zacytowanymi w tekście:

Najlepszy wybór "polskiego wątku" na wikileaks (z PO i PSL u włądzy!)- 0 komentarzy!:
http://palmer.eldritch.1984.salon24.pl/3.....-czesc-iii

GMO w czasie rządów PiS-SO-LPR:
http://palmer.eldritch.1984.salon24.pl/3.....o-w-polsce
http://palmer.eldritch.1984.salon24.pl/3.....e-czesc-ii - jedyne w polskiej sieci tłumaczenie tego fragmentu, tak na marginesie.

Frustrujące. Widać teraz sprawa dostała 'zielone światło' i Janke-bandy.

Kruczowłosa

Jeśli zostanie wprowadzona w Polsce żywność modyfikowana genetycznie, to zwykły konsument nie dowie się kiedy to nastąpiło, a to dlatego, że producent towaru spożywczego nie ma obowiązku podania takiej informacji na produkcie. Taka "mała" luka prawna, która z biegiem czasu będzie coraz lepiej opłacana aby dalej nią być.
Poza tym może już wpieprzamy taką żywność sprowadzoną z zagranicy...bo też nie mają obowiązku mówić i pisać czy jest dany produkt na jej bazie. Smacznego

p.e.1984

mala napisał:

Jeśli zostanie wprowadzona w Polsce żywność modyfikowana genetycznie, to zwykły konsument nie dowie się kiedy to nastąpiło, a to dlatego, że producent towaru spożywczego nie ma obowiązku podania takiej informacji na produkcie. Taka "mała" luka prawna, która z biegiem czasu będzie coraz lepiej opłacana aby dalej nią być.
Poza tym może już wpieprzamy taką żywność sprowadzoną z zagranicy...bo też nie mają obowiązku mówić i pisać czy jest dany produkt na jej bazie. Smacznego

Wypowiadasz się na temat, na którym się nie znasz. Odpowiednie regulacje są obowiązującym prawem, zarówno w Polsce, jak i w UE (ale nie w USA - mimo kampanii społecznych): http://www.naturalnegeny.pl/aktualnosci/.....-w-polsce/. Próbuj używać google, zanim coś napiszesz.

Kruczowłosa

Google? G o o g l e? a od kiedy do chol....y google podaje dokładne info? Poszukam odpowiednich regulacji po angielsku i wkleję, czytałam 2 miechy temu, google jak wikipedię to sobie w toalecie poczytać możesz

p.e.1984

mala napisał:

Google? G o o g l e? a od kiedy do chol....y google podaje dokładne info? Poszukam odpowiednich regulacji po angielsku i wkleję, czytałam 2 miechy temu, google jak wikipedię to sobie w toalecie poczytać możesz

Jeśli nie potrafisz obsługiwać google, może choć hiperłącze dasz rady kliknąć:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003R1830:PL:NOT. To są te regulacje po polsku, dodajmy.

Kruczowłosa

peczku a po co ja mam hiperłącza obsługiwać jak to samo mam w pismach naukowych, tylko poszukam sobie, ale to na dziś nie będzie mój priorytet pozwól

p.e.1984

mala napisał:

peczku a po co ja mam hiperłącza obsługiwać jak to samo mam w pismach naukowych, tylko poszukam sobie, ale to na dziś nie będzie mój priorytet pozwól

No i się nie doczekałem na te "pisma naukowe". Mimo natężonej aktywności spamerskiej małej na forum, czas na poszukanie w "pismach naukowych" się nie znalazł.

Kruczowłosa

Bo dupku ja to 2 miesiące temu czytałam, myślisz, że to tak łatwo znaleźć??????????
A poza tym o sytuacji GMO w Polsce był ostatnio piękny artykuł w newsweeku, też ci mam przepisać? Wyręczyli mnie, ale po prasę sięgnij a nie tylko google

A poza tym pokaż mi moją aktywność spamerską na głónym forum oszczerco wredny, najlepiej zacytuj. Tu w pierdolni mogę sobie pożartować a od głównego forum wara.

p.e.1984

mala napisał:

Bo dupku ja to 2 miesiące temu czytałam, myślisz, że to tak łatwo znaleźć??????????
A poza tym o sytuacji GMO w Polsce był ostatnio piękny artykuł w newsweeku, też ci mam przepisać? Wyręczyli mnie, ale po prasę sięgnij a nie tylko google

A poza tym pokaż mi moją aktywność spamerską na głónym forum oszczerco wredny, najlepiej zacytuj. Tu w pierdolni mogę sobie pożartować a od głównego forum wara.

Ja od początku wiedziałem, że żadnego "pisma naukowego" nie zobaczę. A swój komentarz napisałem tylko po to, by sprowokowac taką reakcję, jak ta powyżej.
W pewnym starym filmie dama wżeniona w arystokratyczny ród zachowywała się w jednej ze scen w sposób nie licujący z manierami oczekiwanymi od osoby z jej "statusem społecznym". Młody człowiek chciał powstrzymać wybuch jej temperamentu i został powstrzymany przez kamerdynera słowami "Zostaw, zostaw, niech pani hrabina pokaże całą rasę". Czasem zabawnie pooglądać sobie czyjąś rasę w akcji.

*krova* · Gość Znajdź posty / tematy

p.e.1984 napisał:

mala napisał:

Bo dupku ja to 2 miesiące temu czytałam, myślisz, że to tak łatwo znaleźć??????????
A poza tym o sytuacji GMO w Polsce był ostatnio piękny artykuł w newsweeku, też ci mam przepisać? Wyręczyli mnie, ale po prasę sięgnij a nie tylko google

A poza tym pokaż mi moją aktywność spamerską na głónym forum oszczerco wredny, najlepiej zacytuj. Tu w pierdolni mogę sobie pożartować a od głównego forum wara.

Ja od początku wiedziałem, że żadnego "pisma naukowego" nie zobaczę. A swój komentarz napisałem tylko po to, by sprowokowac taką reakcję, jak ta powyżej.
W pewnym starym filmie dama wżeniona w arystokratyczny ród zachowywała się w jednej ze scen w sposób nie licujący z manierami oczekiwanymi od osoby z jej "statusem społecznym". Młody człowiek chciał powstrzymać wybuch jej temperamentu i został powstrzymany przez kamerdynera słowami "Zostaw, zostaw, niech pani hrabina pokaże całą rasę". Czasem zabawnie pooglądać sobie czyjąś rasę w akcji.

p.e.1984 tez Ci sie zachciewa artykulow z newsweeka (o ile to mozna odmieniac w naszym jezyku) a poczytal bys sobie express wieczorny, tam tez mozna przeczytac ze rowerzysta rozjechal traktorzyste, a co do GMO to nikt nie bedzie robil referendum zeby sie spytac czy to sie komus podoba czy nie. "pismo naukowe" niczego nie zalatwi.

GMO zastanie wprowadzone tak jak wprowadzono Konstytucje europejska przepraszam Traktat lizbonski, bo tam gdzie przeprowadzono referendum ( Francja, Holandia, Irlandia w Dani (tylko przymiarka) nikt tej glupoty nie zaakceptowal) Super Konstytucja, super idioty Valéry Giscard d'Estaing nie przeszla a oni szybko sie ucza, zrobili Traktat lizbonski nikogo sie o nic nie pytajac (Kaczynski troche pyskowal cos tam "wywalczyl" praktycznie nic) nastepnego referendum nie bedzie.

Ba, mamy "demokracje", pozwoli sie ludziom wyjsc na ulice pokrzyczec ale na tym koniec, decyzja nie nalezy do choloty demonstrujacej na ulicach lecz do klasy rzadzacej widac to bardzo wyraznie od 64 roku n. e.(rewolucja z 1917, byla chyba jedna z niewielu niekontrolowanych, wielka improwizacja).

Tymczasem mozna cos zrobic ludzie czekaja na przywodce, znajda go ale nie bedzie to odpowiednia osoba, zdegenerowane spoleczenstwo moze miec tylko zdegenerowanego szefa.

Zgadzam sie na GMO bo nie mam innej alternatywy, niestety.
♣

Kruczowłosa

Pismo naukowe było po angielsku, na stronie nieanglojęzycznego kraju, niestety link w moich 1346 przejrzanych od tamtej pory linkach uległ hm..zawieruszeniu, panowie w międzyczasie muszę jeszcze jeść, spać itp itd.

Jeśli chcecie moją rasę poznać proszę bardzo: rasa biała, polska. Jeśli chodzi o to czy moi przodkowie byli szlachcicami, hrabiami czy innymi mentami to nie ma w ogóle znaczenia. Ja jestem dumna z tego co mogę sama osiągnąć, nie poprzez "wżenienie", czy odziedziczenie po przodkach. Nawet jeśli byłabym z domu dziecka to cholera mam być z czego dumna i żadna krew błękitna, czerwona, zielona czy z marsa nie zmieni tego kim ja jestem i jakimi wy panowie jesteście.
Dalsza konwersacja w waszym stylu jest ponad moje oczekiwania estetyczne.

*krova* · Gość Znajdź posty / tematy

mala napisał:

Pismo naukowe było po angielsku, na stronie bałkańskiej, niestety link w moich 1346 przejrzanych od tamtej pory linkach uległ hm..zawieruszeniu, panowie w międzyczasie muszę jeszcze jeść, spać itp itd.

Jeśli chcecie moją rasę poznać proszę bardzo: rasa biała, polska, myślę bez domieszek jeśli to ma znaczenie. Jeśli chodzi o to czy moi przodkowie byli szlachcicami, hrabiami czy innymi mentami to nie ma w ogóle znaczenia. Ja jestem dumna z tego co mogę sama osiągnąć, nie poprzez "wżenienie", czy odziedziczenie po przodkach. Nawet jeśli byłabym z domu dziecka to cholera mam być z czego dumna i żadna krew błękitna, czerwona, zielona czy z marsa nie zmieni tego kim ja jestem i jakimi wy panowie jesteście.
Dalsza konwersacja w waszym stylu jest ponad moje oczekiwania estetyczne.

Ja nic nie mam ani do jakiegos tam "pisma naukowego" ani do Ciebie, ani do Twojej rasy (moze jestes skoligacona z krolowa angielska a tym samym jestes najnormalniejsza jaszczurka Laughing

), praktycznie nigdy nie biore na serio tego co "ktos" gdzies mowi i wiekszosc moich wpisow jest dosc ironiczna, to mnie troche bawi i prosze Cie nie bierz na serio tego co pisze, zreszta nie bardzo wiem o co Ci chodzi, jesli mam ochote komus przywalic to robie bez zadnych ceregieli bez chamstwa, ale dosc czesto to nie dociera do "zbyt inteligentnego" adresata, ale to juz inna historia.

Dobrej nocy , niech Ci sie przysni ksiaze z bajki, ten ...
♣

DarkRaven

mala napisał:

Pismo naukowe było po angielsku, na stronie nieanglojęzycznego kraju

Jestesmy w UE i rozkazy z centrali w Brukselii dostajemy (zreszta jak wszyscy w tym kolchozie) w jezyku angielskim.

Wy tak na powaznie myslicie ze UE i wladcow obchodzi wasze "chcenie" ? Nie myslcie tez ze nawet jak przypadkiem jakies "pismo naukowe" podwazy wartosc GMO to cos to zmieni ... znajdzie sie od reki 50 specjalistow ktorzy wlasna glowa zagwarantuja ze:
a ) GMO jest zdrowe
b ) "pismo naukowe"/autor artykulu sa: w bledzie, oplacani przez nazistow z Mongolii, maja zaburzenia psychiczne, sa zoofilami, nie sa lekarzami/naukowcami (niepotrzebne skreslic).

Wszelkie informacje maja jednak wartosc dla was/nas i pozwalaja swiadomie wybierac. Nawet jak wprowadza to cale GMO (moim zdaniem to juz od dawna jest obecne na rynku) to i tak macie/mamy mozliwosc wyboru (poki co).