Greenpeace may call Müller milk gene milk

Mulled milk is allowed „GM milk“ Milk produced with genetically modified forage crops may be termed by Genetal Milk Greenpeace.

(22.09.2010) As the Federal Constitutional Court decided today, the environmental activists of Greenpeace may in the future the milk of the dairy group „miller“ when „GM milk“ dub. It was preceded by a year-long legal dispute. The judges see in the name a freedom of expression The environmental activists can rely on the fundamental right of freedom of expression, as it was said. Already the Federal Court had also judged. A corresponding complaint from the dairy „miller“ was discarded with it.

Today's move to the Federal Constitutional Court was a success for the environmental organization. In the future, the environmental organization may „Greenpeace“ the milk from the group „miller“ when „GM milk“ describe. The Federal Constitutional Court judges, the term „GM milk“ should be considered a "catchword-like statement". The meaning behind this statement becomes clear through the overall campaign. The environmental activists had always talked about the feed of the cows in this context. The enterprise „miller“ still refrains from applying genetic engineering methods throughout the entire production process. As a result, "the criticism of their business conduct does not lack any true factual basis," argued the supreme judges. The topic of genetic engineering and potential health risk factors in the production of food is of high social and public interest.

In public protests Greenpeace had the milk products from Müller as „GM milk“ designated. According to environmentalists use the dairy group u.a. genetically modified feed corn for the cows. For the group, the arguments of Greenpeace were a "false factual claim", because the milk is not treated with genetic engineering. The Müller group then sued Greenpeace to obtain a ban on the statement used. Because the statement „GM milk“ be damaging to the business. In her constitutional complaint, Müller, headquartered in Fischach-Aretsried, criticized, among other things, a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of occupation.

The Federal Constitutional Court had no concerns about the Bergriff in relation to the judgment of the Federal High Court „GM milk“. The term as such is indeed „Substance-poor“, however, the meaning behind it becomes clear when one looks at the context. Thus, according to the judges, the disputed wording does not contain a false allegation of fact. The environmentalists have declared the significance of all actions and pointed out the background of genetically modified food. The group had criticized above all, consumers could think that the milk would be genetically modified as such. The argument did not allow the judges.

Environmental activists see the verdict as a great success. "The verdict of the Federal Constitutional Court is a great success for Greenpeace and consumer rights, says Greenpeace genetic engineering expert Stephanie Töwe, who says that freedom of expression and transparency are more important than the interest of dairies in obscuring the use of GM crops Products or their subsidiary Weihenstephan are being fed on gene plants, so these products may continue to be called 'gene milk'. " The environmentalists argue that there is sufficient animal feed without GM plants, but the group still allows its contract farmers to feed GM crops to the cows. Since April 2004, genetically modified food has to be labeled in the EU. However, products such as milk, cheese or meat from animals fed with GM plants are excluded. For this reason, Greenpeace makes itself strong for a labeling obligation in dairy products. (Sb)