|
search
international
home English
contact: info@safer-world.org
| |
Dear subscribers,
since some days I offer also two newsletters, where you can read all news at the English
and/or at the German subweb of www.safer-world.org
When you want to receive only the URLs, please let me know. I thought, so it is not
necessary that you go online.
I also want to write here:
I am always very thankful, when others give me information, articles, URLs, translation
which I can publish at my different webs. I am thankful when readers are giving me
some feedback not only about broken links, about false URLs, my poor English but also
about the real issues of the sites, also when you have a different opinion.
Only so www.safer-world.org can grow and grow. In the moment all subwebs have together 700
sites (URLs).
Best wishes
Ingrid Scherrmann
info@safer-world.org, www.safer-world.org
============================================================================0
5/31/2001:
KEYCODE BAYER #39
KEYCODE BAYER is published by the German group BAYERwatch which has been monitoring the
BAYER Corporation for more than 20 years.
US: BAYER SPONSORS SCIENTISTS AND HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS
"Corporations increasingly are funding academic scientists to conduct
research, speak at press conferences, and provide advice" says Michael Jacobson,
executive director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). "Too
frequently, neither the scientists nor the corporations disclose that funding." The
CSPI lifted that veil of secrecy by launching an Internet site to provide information
about the links between American scientists and corporations
www.integrityinscience.org ).
The site also provides information about corporate support received by professional,
health, and nonprofit organizations. Some of the most important groups - like the American
Heart Association or the American Diabetes Association - are sponsored by the German
Chemical and Pharmaceutical company BAYER. As a result, important health and environmental
policies can be distorted by scientists who assert objectivity, but who receive funding
from affected industries. The result could be more pollution, unsafe food additives, and
dangerous consumer products. Among the organization funded by BAYER are:
AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION Bayer contributes more than $500,000
AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION American Heart Association has endorsed only Bayer aspirin.
According to Kramer Laboratories, Inc. (Miami), "Bayer, as we understand it,
contributes over $500,000 a year to the American Heart Association."
ALLIANCE FOR THE PRUDENT USE OF ANTIBIOTICS
AMERICAN MEDICAL WRITERS ASSOCIATION
ARTHRITIS FOUNDATION
ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE Founded in 1994. Criticizes "multiple
chemical sensitivity" (MCS). member of Board of Directors: Wayne Carlson, PhD, Bayer
Corporation
NATIONAL CENTER FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL POLICY part of the National Center for Food and
Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) on October 1, 1993. The Program focuses on four major
objectives:
1. Maintain publicly available national databases on pesticide use.
2. Develop methods and data systems to improve the estimation of pesticide benefits.
3. Provide information needed for implementing the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996
4. Prepare reports, articles, and testimony on pesticide policy issues. Bayer is a member
organization
------
BAYERwatch collects information about BAYER and coordinates activities against violations
of human and environmental rights caused by this company. Anyone who has information on
possibly illicit activities of BAYER - please let us know. Anyone who needs photos or
information concerning BAYER is invited to contact us: CBG/BAYERwatch, Postfach 15 04 18,
40081 Duesseldorf, Germany E-mail: CBGnetwork@aol.com website: www.bayerwatch.org
Fax: +49 211 333 940 Tel: +49 211 333 911
==========================================================================================
5/31/2001:
From P A N U P S Pesticide Action Network Updates Service
Resource Pointer #258, May 31, 2001
For copies of the following resources, please contact the appropriate publishers or
organizations directly.
*Forging Our Future: Women in Agriculture, 2000* Pesticide Action Network
Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP). Discussion of issues for women in agriculture, as evaluated
in PAN AP Task Force on Women in Agriculture meeting in April 1997. Explores impacts of
increased export crop production and industrialization of agriculture, international trade
agreements and World Bank/International Monetary Fund Structural Adjustments. Includes
papers on integrated pest management and farmers, impacts of globalization on working
women, indigenous communities and their right to land, and more. 97 pp. US$10. Contact PAN
AP, P.O. Box 1170, 10850 Penang, Malaysia; phone (604) 657-0271 and 656-0381; fax (604)
657-7445; email panap@panap.po.my; Web site http://www.poptel.org.uk/panap/ .
*Women's Equality: An Unfinished Agenda, 2000* Women's Environment and Development
Organization (WEDO). Assessment of U.S. government actions on implementing the Beijing
Platform for Action, a broad-based agenda for promoting and protecting women's human
rights and basic freedoms worldwide. Includes discussion of poverty, education, health,
violence against women, armed conflict, economics, decision-making and more. 64 pp.
Download free at http://www.wedo.org
or US$15 for hardcopy. Contact WEDO, 355 Lexington Ave., 3rd floor, New York,
NY 10017-6603; phone (212) 973-0325; fax (212) 973-0335; email wedo@igc.org ; Web site http://www.wedo.org .
*Risks, Rights and Reforms: A 50-Country Survey Assessing Government Actions Five Years
After the International Conference on Population and Development, 1999*
Bharati Sadasivam (editor), Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO).
Report shows that governments have partnered with non-governmental organizations, the
United Nations and international agencies to advance reproductive and sexual health and
rights. Includes discussion of negative impacts of economic reforms on women's access to
basic and reproductive health services. Also includes discussion of damage to women's
reproductive systems caused by exposures to pesticides and other chemicals. 251 pp.
US$19.95. Contact WEDO, 355 Lexington Ave., 3rd floor, New York, NY 10017-6603; phone
(212) 973-0325; fax (212) 973-0335; email wedo@igc.org; Web site http://www.wedo.org .
*Where Women Have No Doctor: A Health Guide for Women (Donde No Hay Doctor Para Mujeres),
1997* A. August Burns, Ronnie Lovich, Jane Maxwell, Katherine Shapiro. Provides
information about a wide range of women's health problems, using simple language and
hundreds of pictures. Combines self-help medical information with discussion of ways in
which poverty, discrimination and cultural beliefs limit women's health and access to
health care. Developed with community-based groups and medical experts from more than 30
countries. Topics include sexual health; health concerns of women with disabilities,
girls, older women and refugees; pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding; and more. Also
available in Spanish. 583 pp. US$20. Contact the Hesperian Foundation, 1919 Addison
Street, Suite 304, Berkeley, CA 94704; phone (510) 845-1447; fax (510) 845-9141; email
hesperian@hesperian.org ; Web site http://www.hesperian.org
.
*Women Behind the Labels: Worker Testimonies from Central America, 2000*
Marion Traub-Werner. Interviews with Central American sweatshop workers present stories
behind clothing labels and food brands. Shows how women organized unions for better
working conditions, better wages, justice, respect and better futures for themselves and
their children. Features testimony from eight women. 42 pp. US$5. In U.S. contact the
Support Team International for Textileras (STITCH), 4933 S. Dorchester, Chicago, IL 60615;
phone (773) 924-2738; email hf52@aol.com ; Web site http://www.stitchonline.org . Outside of U.S. contact Maquila
Solidarity Network, 606 Shaw St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6G 3L6; phone (416) 532-8584;
fax (416) 532-7688; email info@maquilasolidarity.org ; Web site http://www.maquilasolidarity.org
.
We encourage those interested in having resources listed in the PANUPS Resource Pointer to
send review copies of publications, videos or other resources to our office.
PANUPS is a weekly email news service providing resource guides and reporting on pesticide
issues that don't always get coverage by the mainstream media. It's produced by Pesticide
Action Network North America, a non-profit and non-governmental organization working to
advance sustainable alternatives to pesticides worldwide.
To comment, send a message to: panna@panna.org
To subscribe, send a blank message to: panups-subscribe@igc.topica.com
Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) 49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA
94102 USA Phone: (415) 981-1771, Fax: (415) 981-1991´Email: panna@panna.org Web: http://www.panna.org
=========================================================================================
5/28/2001:
TOKYO - A nationwide recall of potato snacks by a Japanese food maker
has rekindled concerns over unapproved gene-spliced StarLink corn,
prompting importers once again to shun U.S. grain, traders said on Friday.
see http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10978
for more.
=========================================================================================
5/18/2001:
Speech by David Byrne, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection : Prescriptions
for a future European Health Policy - Congress on Medicine and Health, Berlin, 18
May 2001
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/speeches/speech99_en.html
I am delighted to be here in Berlin to take part in this important Congress on Medicine
and Health. Today, I would like to share with you some thoughts on how the European
Community dimension and thinking in health policy has developed in the past few years, and
where I think we will be going in the future.
Let me congratulate you for putting so much emphasis on this aspect in your programme.
This is a very welcome reflection of the significant role the European Community has
acquired in health over the last years.
You have asked me to speak on ‘Prescriptions’ for a future public health
policy at European level. I should say straightaway that I am not sure whether the
European Community is in a position to prescribe anything; nor am I sure where such a
prescription can be filled once it is delivered. But any prescription would have to be
based on an analysis of where we have come from in terms of public health in Europe, where
we are today, and of our options for developments in the future.
The simple fact that we can have a discussion on how the Community’s role in health
should develop is significant in itself. But is it also clear that any such role must be
developed in close co-operation with the Member States and has to fully respect their role
in providing health care and running health services.
Challenges in Health Policy
If we look at the challenges in health policy in Europe today, it is remarkable that they
are very similar across the continent. They contribute to rising health care costs and
have forced all Member States to look carefully at how systems perform and how their
functioning can be improved.
Let me just point to three key factors:
First, health policy and health systems are faced with the need to adapt to the
consequences of demographic developments. The ageing population will require particular
attention; illnesses linked to old age will increase and specific health and
social services will need to be developed.
Second, medical technologies continue to be introduced at an unprecedented pace. They are
often costly, but by no means always proven to be better than ‘traditional’
therapies. And we are seeing new generations of ‘lifestyle’ drugs and
interventions– designed, for example, to cure baldness or reduce weight. Should these
drugs be reimbursed by health insurance?
And finally, and certainly most importantly, patients have entered the health policy arena
as consumers. They come to their doctors with high expectations, with a lot of information
(certainly of varying quality), and with a clear idea that they want to be treated as
partners, not objects of medical care and attention.
This major shift which we can observe in all European has important implications for the
European Community. European Citizens are concerned that the Community plays its role in
protecting and improving their health. They want the Community to contribute towards
ensuring that they live in a safe and healthy environment and that the products they buy
and consume do not pose any health risks.
It is therefore crucial that in the area of health, which is close to the heart of our
citizens, the Community plays its role to the full. Showing people that the Community is
capable of contributing in concrete terms to their health and welfare, will also help to
win their support for the European project as a whole. People are more likely to sign up
fully to the European cause if they see that the Community is stepping in to protect their
health in areas where national governments cannot do this on their own.
This is why it is vital that the obligation in the Treaty to ensure a high level of health
protection does not remain simply an abstract idea, but is translated into practical
measures which will benefit our population. Turning this principle into concrete actions
is therefore a key priority for the European Commission.
The fact that we are now preparing for the Community’s enlargement makes it all the
more important to do this. It is true that Candidate countries have made significant
progress towards adapting to the Community acquis of legislation and practices. But in
focusing on the way laws in these countries are being aligned with Community legislation,
we must not overlook the more general health concerns that remain.
How will health systems in Central and Eastern European countries cope when they join the
Community? What are the possible implications for flows of patients, and of health
professionals? How can we ensure that the arrangements for the surveillance of
communicable diseases, or for monitoring the safety of the blood supply are fully
effective and properly linked into Community-wide systems? How do we ensure that all
countries develop a modern public health infrastructure?
These considerations are behind our new approach to health at Community level which we
have developed over the last few years.
The European Community’s Health Strategy
The basis of our work on health is the new health strategy which we put forward last year.
This has two key elements: first, to improve the way the different health-related policies
at Community level interlink and interact. And, second, a new approach to our work within
our overall public health competence.
Let me therefore first speak about the Community’s general role in health. Since its
outset, the Community has had an interest in health, and many Community policies have an
important influence on health status and health systems in the Community, and beyond. Just
think about legislation on the free movement of health professionals, on health and safety
at work, and internal market rules governing products such as pharmaceuticals and medical
devices. Public health considerations have of course played a role in developing actions
in these areas. But it is also clear that they have been developed as part of specific
policy frameworks, such as creating a free labour market, and therefore reflect the
priorities and objectives in those particular areas. In this respect, the new health
strategy represents a new departure. Our goal is to develop a forward-looking, integrated
approach to health at Community level. A number of instruments have been put in place to
pursue this ambitious goal.
Notable among them is the key commitment to report about the health impact of relevant
proposals as part of the legislative process.are redefining the place for health in
Community terms. This started when the Commission decided to create a specific portfolio
for ‘Health and consumer protection’, and when a corresponding Directorate
General was formed within the Commission services.
A good illustration of the way that our thinking is developing is the area of
pharmaceuticals policy. Patients, of course, want high quality medicines on whose safety
and efficacy they can rely. Taking steps to ensure this must form part of any
comprehensive public health agenda.
The existing public health programmes address this in part. For example, there is a
programme on rare diseases which affect small groups of people. This is designed to
support investigation and information in this important area. Complementary efforts have
been undertaken to provide incentives to the European Pharmaceutical Industry to produce
orphan drugs. These are products aimed at health conditions for which there would normally
be too small a market in which to recoup a return on the costs of investment.
In the future we intend to develop the work further. We will for instance be giving
increasing attention to how to provide for better incentives for targeted research into
products which will address key public health priorities, for example safe and effective
vaccines.
Another area for action is in relation to the mechanisms for establishing safety of
medicines. A key part of this are the systems of post-marketing vigilance which Member
States have set up. We would like to ensure that the quality and coverage of these systems
of reporting adverse effects of pharmaceuticals give appropriate and consistent levels of
protection for all patients and all products. Helping to strengthen these systems
will therefore be an important priority for our future work.
Potentially, one of the most far-reaching developments in the delivery of health care is
the increasing use of the Internet and other electronic information sources. Health
professionals are using these systems to have access to the latest researchresults and
guidelines in their areas of specialism; patients are informing themselves about their own
and their family’s medical conditions, and about available medicinal products and
treatments. This raises major questions, such as how we can ensure that people have access
to validated and authoritative information and how this information is managed. One
particular issue is whether and how the quality of the information on health-related web
sites can be assessed and certified.
As you can see, the Community is involved in many issues related to health and
pharmaceuticals. The new health strategy has served to strengthen and support the health
policy focus in this process. These and other questions are already under discussion in a
High Level Group on Innovation and the Provision of Medicines established under the joint
chairmanship of Commissioner Liikaanen and myself.
I am delighted to say that public health interests are represented on that Group by
several health ministers, including my German colleague, Ulla Schmidt. This is the first
time that patients' interests and industry interests have been represented in the same
Committee at European level. And already our initial meetings promise constructive debates
and contributions to the further development of European pharmaceutical policy,
particularly from the point of view of its impact on health systems and public health.
There are many similar cases of initiatives linking together health policy with other
policy areas. To give just one example, we have developed a large agenda of work on food
safety questions – including, as you know, the establishment of a European Food
Authority. We are now covering a further health dimension by drawing up a comprehensive
action plan on nutrition, which will be published in the near future.
A new Orientation for Public Health Policy
The second key element of our new strategy is a radical re-orientation of our activities
in the public health field proper. Our legal competence in this area is of course limited
by the Treaty provisions. But there is nevertheless considerable scope for ensuring that
actions are targeted to achieve maximum impact and added value. This is for example why we
are acting swiftly on blood safety using the new powers that the Community has in this
field. We will take a similar initiative regarding the safety of organs and tissues.
But most importantly, the new public health action programme is the principal symbol of
this new departure.This programme, which is currently being discussed by the European
Parliament and the Council, focuses on three priority areas which were selected as the
areas where investment in health at Community level would yield the highest added value.
Work on these areas will be undertaken involving candidate countries as well as a number
of further European partners so that the programme will cover an impressive geographical
area in Europe.
First, the programme is aimed at improving health information. Our goal is to create a
comprehensive health information system which would cover data and analyses related to
health status, health determinants and health systems. For the first time, decision
makers and health professionals would have a full set of comparable data and information
to inform policy development, facilitate comparison and cross-fertilisation of ideas
across the continent.
Second, it focuses on health threats and on developing systems to react rapidly to respond
to them. This would build on our work on the surveillance and control of communicable
diseases which is already in place. But it would be extended to cover a multitude of other
health threats we are facing in Europe today, such as environmental risks and
non-communicable diseases.
Finally, instead of targeting certain diseases and conditions, we will in future
concentrate on tackling health determinants - the key factors which lie behind them.
Work will focus not only on determinants related to lifestyles, such as tobacco and
alcohol, but also on broad social, economic and environmental determinants.
The idea behind this programme is to launch a number of sustainable systems and
co-operation structures; These would inform and underpin policy development both at
Community level and also in the Member States.
Let me add that one of my personal objectives is to increase transparency in this process
to the maximum. The information we gather and the results of work undertaken by the
programme in general will therefore be accessible and available to health professionals,
the public health community at large and, as appropriate, to the general public.
A Health Forum
In order to focus on the needs and concerns of our populations from a public health point
of view, we intend to create a European Health Forum. It will enable the main stakeholders
within the public health community to make a structured input into the development of
health-related policies at Community level. We launched a consultation on its scope and
structure earlier this year and hope to be able to get the process moving with a first
event in the next few months.
Some Prescriptions
Ladies and gentlemen, that has been a rather detailed description of developments in
health in the Community. Let me conclude by highlighting one or two issues which we will
have to address in the coming years. In doing so, I take up the challenge that I have been
given, to offer a few prescriptions for the future.
First, the Community will have to continue and broaden its work with citizens and address
their concerns about health. The Commission has laid the groundwork for the Community
approach in its new health strategy and its public health proposals. These proposals need
to be implemented quickly and effectively, and that requires the Member States to respond
to them in a constructive way, and to play a full part in designing and carrying out
all the specific actions.
Second, we need to look more and more at the potential of cross border co-operation in
order to protect and improve health. That does not apply only to areas such as
surveillance of communicable diseases or tackling environmental hazards. In my view it is
equally important in relation to health care systems. There are numerous legal, financial
and operational barriers which stand in the way of introducing structured co-operation
agreements across borders in areas such as hospital planning; Yet such agreements can help
to ensure that resources are used efficiently and can ease problems of over or
under-supply.
Third, we need a better grasp of health costs and benefits, and we must make sure that the
systems and structures we have in place are efficient. The introduction of the Euro will
help to make costs of health care transparent across Member States and this will make
differences easier to see. Moreover, the Community’s health information system will
help to provide the data and indicators that are needed in order to undertake
cross-country comparisons.
Fourth, and this is a related point, we have to arrive at common understandings and
definitions of the effectiveness of health interventions and at open exchanges of what is
considered to be best practice and how quality is assessed. In short, we ought to have a
much better idea of what works - and of course, what does not.
This does not mean that everyone should follow the same model – far from it. Health
is the last area where solutions which take no account of local circumstances should be
imposed. But it does mean that the knowledge base will widen and that everyone will be
able to profit from what has been tried elsewhere.
Ladies and gentlemen, Berlin is at the centre of Europe and thus provides a good vantage
point to look at what is happening today and to consider what is likely to happen in
future. I have tried to make a small contribution to that process by setting out where we
came from, what we are currently doing and what we intend to do in the important area of
public health.
I believe that this is one of the areas on which citizens will judge the European
Community and its success. But progress in this crucial area depends on full and sustained
co-operation between the Community, the Member States and candidate countries. We in the
Commission have an important contribution to make – but it can only be effective and
useful if it is part and parcel of a joint effort by all partners concerned.
I am looking forward to the discussion to pursue some of these points in more detail.
Thank you very much.
==========================================================================================
5/18/2001:
From P A N U P S Pesticide Action Network Updates Service
Top Seven Agrochemical Companies in 2000
May 18, 2001
Corporate consolidation continues to reduce the number of agrochemical/crop biotechnology
companies. In 2000, there were only seven companies with sales of more than US$1 billion
dollars. In comparison, 11 companies had sales above the US$1 billion mark in 1995. These
included Ciba Geigy, Sandoz, AgrEvo, Rhone-Poulenc and Cyanamid, none of which now exist
due to corporate mergers.
Syngenta, formed by a merger of Novartis and Zeneca in November, topped the list with
sales approaching US$6 billion. The German multinational corporation BASF saw a 39%
increase in sales, the largest increase of the top seven but due almost entirely to the
acquisition of Cyanamid. Monsanto and Bayer were the only two other corporations showing
increased sales in 2000, at 8% and 13% respectively.
Monsanto's increase was due primarily to sales of Roundup (glyphosate), which accounted
for 67% of Monsanto's total sales. Volumes of Roundup sold increased 20% in the U.S. and
Argentina, and 16% worldwide -- due to higher sales of Roundup Ready (glyphosate tolerant)
crops and glyphosate-based no-till farming practices. According to Monsanto, Roundup Ready
soy planted in the U.S. rose by 12%, making up 60% of total U.S. soybean acreage. In
Argentina, plantings of Roundup Ready soy increased by 3%, with 90% of the soy in that
country now genetically engineered to be glyphosate tolerant. Roundup Ready corn is
currently grown on three million acres, but Monsanto sees the potential global market at
200 million acres.
Aventis CropScience had virtually no increase in sales in 2000. While sales for Aventis
were up in Brazil and the U.S., these gains were offset by low sales in the Asia/Pacific
region and in Europe. Aventis was also forced to pay more than US$90 million to cover some
of the costs of the StarLink crop buy back last year. Genetically engineered StarLink corn
was approved in the U.S. only for use as animal feed; however, the corn was found in corn
supplies and products for human consumption. Company officials have admitted that the
final amount could be several times higher than that paid in 2000.
In April 2001, Aventis announced that it would sell off its CropScience division rather
than seeking a separate stock market listing. The company has sent a sale proposal to
Monsanto, DuPont and Dow, and to two German firms -- Bayer and BASF.
2000 Top Seven Agrochemical Companies Company 2000 sales (US$ mill.) % change vs. 1999
Syngenta 5,888 -2.6%
Monsanto 3,885 +8.3%
Aventis 3,701 -14.3%
DuPont 2,511 -3.1%
Dow 2,271 -0.1%
Bayer 2,252 -2.8%
BASF 2,228 +20.0%
Sources: Agrow: World Crop Protection News, January 5, March 2 and April 13, 2001.
Contact: PANNA.
PANUPS is a weekly email news service providing resource guides and reporting on pesticide
issues that don't always get coverage by the mainstream media. It's produced by Pesticide
Action Network North America, a non-profit and non-governmental organization working to
advance sustainable alternatives to pesticides worldwide.
You can join our efforts! We gladly accept donations for our work and all contributions
are tax deductible in the United States. Visit our extensive web site at http://www.panna.org to learn more
about getting involved.
-----
To comment, send a message to: panna@panna.org
To subscribe, send a blank message to: panups-subscribe@igc.topica.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: panups-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) 49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA
94102 USA Phone: (415) 981-1771, Fax: (415) 981-1991 Email: panna@panna.org Web: http://www.panna.org
=========================================================================================
5/18/2001 and
NEW WEBSITE LISTS SCIENTISTS LINKED TO INDUSTRY
http://integrityinscience.org
The Center for Science in the Public Interest has posted on the Internet a database of
over 1,100 professors and scientists who consult for or have other affiliations with
chemical, gas, oil, food, drug, and other companies. The web site also provides partial
information about nonprofit and professional organizations that receive industry funding.
Both parts of the database will be regularly expanded in the future.
The well-documented database is designed for activists, journalists, policy makers, and
others who are concerned about potential conflicts of interest.
The database is part of CSPI's Integrity in Science project, one purpose of which is to
encourage greater public disclosure of corporate sponsorship of science.
For further information, or to contribute to the database, contact Ron Collins,
ronc@cspinet.org, or 202-332-9110, ext. 322, or CSPI, Suite 300, 1875. Connecticut Ave.
NW, Washington, DC 20009.
Please forward this message to other people who might be interested
================================================================
end of newsletter/English/1
|