|
|
Free World Order
tagged & banned
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 2013
Location: Totalitarian EU |
 Fri May 12, 2006 11:13 pm
|
 |
|
Some Nazi propaganda for ya:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4352871.stm
Last Updated: Wednesday, 16 March 2005, 14:59 GMT
UK farms 'want to grow GM crops'
Genetically modified crops could be grown in the UK within 10 years, US biotechnology giant Monsanto has said.
Company president Hugh Grant told the BBC's Farming Today programme his firm's research showed that most UK farmers wanted the chance to grow GM.
Following a five-year national debate, the government said last year GM crops could be grown under strict conditions. But Friends Of The Earth says farmers are sceptical and consumers do not want the crops because of safety fears.
Monsanto, which pioneered GM crops, announced it would close its European seed cereal business in the UK in 2003.
'Health benefits'
Mr Grant told the programme he found the pace of change in Europe frustratingly slow and he rejected the view that UK consumers were worried about the safety of GM products.
He said more than 400 million hectares (one billion acres) of GM crops had been planted around the world and farmers from China to Brazil were literally reaping the benefits.
He also insisted GM technology could be used to produce a range of crops with distinct health benefits.
However, Friends Of The Earth said biotechnology firms had been promising such "super crops" for years and had failed to deliver. It insisted more research was needed into the effects of GM food.
Spokeswoman Clare Oxborrow told BBC News: "Monsanto's predictions for GM in the UK are more about marketing hype than reality.
"People have genuine concerns about GM crops - about their impacts on our health, the environment and the fact that they are being promoted by multinational companies more interested in controlling the global food supply and making a profit than providing us with healthy food."
'Business decision'
National Farmers' Union food science advisor Dr Helen Ferrier said most farmers would not be thinking about whether they were going to grow GM crops.
"Most farmers probably don't think that far ahead," she said. But they might well want to grow them in the future, if it proved to be a "good business decision", she added.
Although consumers were not generally in favour of GM crops, for "moral reasons", she said, the extra choices that could be offered might change that in the future.
"If, for example, a GM food is significantly cheaper, there could be a market for it," she added.
Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett approved the growing of a single variety of GM maize - herbicide-tolerant maize - in March 2004.
However, German company Bayer CropScience, the only firm eligible to grow herbicide-tolerant maize in the UK decided not to proceed with plans to cultivate the plant.
Mrs Beckett's statement followed five years of consultation, farm-scale trials and a major survey which showed 90% of the public were against GM crops.
The next window for the GM crop companies is 2008, when Bayer CropScience will propose commercialisation of oilseed rape and Monsanto and Syngenta will be vying to get GM sugar beet approved.
A lot has happened since; EU now has over 150 GMO free regions and now Both Poland and Ireland want a complete ban on GM crops! With support from political parties in both countries.
_________________
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
Disclaimer: all my posts are thought crimes and only IMO in the police state we all live in...
http://www.europeantruth.co.uk/index1.html UK is history, USA to RESIST?
http://www.freedom-force.org
Last edited by Free World Order on Fri May 12, 2006 11:17 pm; edited 4 times in total |
| |
|
|
Free World Order
tagged & banned
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 2013
Location: Totalitarian EU |
|
Fri May 12, 2006 11:37 pm
|
|
|
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6281
Easing fears of biotech food with BIO bullsh*t (23/2/2006)
1.Easing fears of biotech food with bullsh*t
2.Easing fears of biotech food
---
1.Easing fears of biotech food with bullsh*t
New Biotechnology Industry Organisation (BIO) man Sean Darragh is a former U.S. defense, national security and trade official.
The "new public face of the global agricultural biotechnology industry" is also a bullsh*t specialist par excellence and the newspaper interview he has given below has to be read to be believed!
Here's a couple of examples of Darragh, ducking and diving and laying it on thick:
Q: "Have you done studies over a long period of time to say whether people who eat more genetically modified foods get more cancers or get more of other diseases than people who eat more organically grown food? Have those sorts of studies been done?"
Darragh : Ten years have gone by without one documented case of any problem associated with the technology. ... I've never met anybody with a science degree, who has a Ph.D. in biology, ever, who was not comfortable with the safety of biotechnology."
"...If I had a conversation with anybody with a Ph.D. in biology and they could articulate why they were concerned about it and why this technology is any different than the stuff that's been happening for years - like Mendel's peas - then I could understand. But there's nobody out there."
Nobody out there?! Darragh really needs to get out more. He could try these for starters - none of them short of a Ph.d or two and some of them even to be found in America!
Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist, "This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences."
"With genetic engineering familiar foods could become metabolically dangerous or even toxic." - Statement by 21 scientists including the following, Professor Brian Goodwin, Professor Jacqueline McGlade, Professor Peter Saunders and Professor Richard Lacey
Professor Richard Lewontin, professor of genetics, Harvard University, "We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another."
Professor Norman Ellstrand, ecological geneticist at the University of California, "within 10 years we will have a moderate to large-scale ecological or economic catastrophe, because there will be so many products being released."
Dr Harash Narang, microbiologist and senior research associate at the University of Leeds, who originally pointed to the possible link between mad cow disease (BSE) and CJD in humans, "If you look at the simple principle of genetic modification it spells ecological disaster. There are noways of quantifying the risks... The solution is simply to ban the use of genetic modification in food."
Dr. Erik Millstone, Sussex University, "The fundamental problem of the way in which GM foods have been approved is that they haven't really been tested properly at all. All that has happened is something which I would characterise as an exercise in wishful thinking."
Professor Richard Lacey, microbiologist and Professor of Food Safety at LeedsUniversity - one of the scientists who predicted the BSE disaster from early on - has spoken out strongly against the introduction of genetically engineered foods because of "the essentially unlimited health risks."
Doctor Arpad Pusztai, world-leading nutrintional science expert, formerly of the Food, Gut, and Microbial Interactions Group, Rowett Research Institute, "If it is left to me, I would certainly not eat it. We are putting new things into food which have not been eaten before. The effects onthe immune system are not easily predictable and I challenge anyone who will say that the effectsare predictable."
Professor James (the main architect of the UK Food Standards Agency) has commented on genetically engineered food: "The perception that everything is totally straightforward and safe isutterly naive. I don't think we fully understand the dimensions of what we're getting into." He has also said, ""There is... a need to develop more effective and appropriate screening methods toalert companies and government agencies to the unexpected consequences of the often random insertion of genetic traits into plants." Professor James has also remarked that the current regulatory system is open to challenge simply because we are making all sorts of judgments with so little evidence at hand."
Dr Andrew Chesson, vice chairman of European Commission scientific committee on animal nutrition, "Potentially disastrous effects may come from undetected harmful substances in genetically modified foods"
Dr. Gerald B. Guest, Director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), "...animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns ... Residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human food safety problems."
Professor Gordon McVie, head of the Cancer Research Campaign: "We don't know what genetic abnormalities might be incorporated into the genome [the individual's DNA]. I'm more worried about humans than about the environment, to be honest. One of the problems is that because it' s a long-term thing, you need to do long-term experiments."
Dr Vyvyan Howard, expert in fetal and infant toxico-pathology at Liverpool University Hospital, "Swapping genes between organisms can produce unknown toxic effects and allergies that are most likely to affect children"
Dr Peter Wills, theoretical biologist at Auckland University writes: "By transferring genes across species barriers which have existed for aeons between species like humans and sheep we risk breaching natural thresholds against unexpected biological processes. For example, an incorrectly folded form of an ordinary cellular protein can under certain circumstances be replicative and give rise to infectious neurological disease".
Dr Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Pathology at Guy's Hospital says, "The generation of genetically engineered plants and animals involves the random integration of artificial combinations of genetic material from unrelated species into the DNA of the host organism. This procedure results in disruption of the genetic blueprint of the organism with totally unpredictable consequences. The unexpected production of toxic substances has now been observed in genetically engineered bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals with the problem remaining undetected until a major health hazard has arisen. Moreover, genetically engineered food or enzymatic food processing agents may produce an immediate effect or it could take years for full toxicity to come to light." Dr Antoniou has also warned MPs against believing there was any safe alternative to a ban on GM foods, "We should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security: we should not think that by regulating something which is inherently unpredictable and uncontainable it automatically becomes safe!"
For more like this:
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=3&page=1
---
2.Easing fears of biotech food
by Jim Wasserman
Sacramento Bee, 20 February 2006
http://www.sacbee.com/content/business/story/14211377p-15037501c.html
Nineteen months ago Sean Darragh, a former U.S. defense, national security and trade official, became a leading promoter and new public face of the global agricultural biotechnology industry.
Representing more than 1,100 biotech companies, academic institutions and state research centers, Darragh travels the planet as head of food and agriculture for the Biotechnology Industry Organization in Washington, D.C.
As chief spokesman for a decade-old and still controversial technology used on 1 billion acres of farmland worldwide, Darragh tries to reassure a sometimes skeptical public that genetically modified food is both safe and good for the environment.
U.S. farmers grow mostly herbicide-resistant corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, squash and papaya on 123 million acres.
Darragh recently stopped by The Bee to talk about pressures to label biotech food for consumers, continuing safety concerns of public interest groups and his own faith in biotech science.
Q: Tell us what you do.
A: My role is to talk to folks and talk about the technology. We recognize as an industry that things are evolving quickly in biotechnology and that anytime you have a new technology folks want to be sure that it's safe and it's something that they're comfortable with. Part of what we do is try to make people comfortable with it.
Q: Does your industry advocate labeling products if biotech products are put in them?
A: We do not support the labeling of biotech products. The idea being that scientists, the American Medical Association and all the regulatory bodies in the U.S. and the European commission that oversee this, have all said the technology is safe.
Our concern with putting on a label saying that the products were made with genetic modification is that it raises, from our perspective, the concern that there must be a reason.
It's almost like a warning sign. If science says genetically modified products are safe and our government is saying they're safe, what is the reason for putting a label on it that says they're genetically modified other than to say there's some reason why?
Q: Have you done studies over a long period of time to say whether people who eat more genetically modified foods get more cancers or get more of other diseases than people who eat more organically grown food? Have those sorts of studies been done?
A: Ten years have gone by without one documented case of any problem associated with the technology. ... I've never met anybody with a science degree, who has a Ph.D. in biology, ever, who was not comfortable with the safety of biotechnology.
Does that mean you shouldn't be cautious? I'm not saying that. ... We have been modifying plants for tens of thousand of years. In biotech we're going in and saying this is the gene we want to transfer, and we're ensuring that it transfers and nothing else does. It's a more precise way of doing what (19th century Austrian monk and founder of genetics Gregor) Mendel did with peas moons and moons ago.
Our fear is that by putting a label on it that says GMO (genetically modified organism) it's like a skull and crossbones. We don't think the science justifies it.
Q: The government has approved things that it said were safe and later were found to be harmful.
A: If I had a conversation with anybody with a Ph.D. in biology and they could articulate why they were concerned about it and why this technology is any different than the stuff that's been happening for years - like Mendel's peas - then I could understand. But there's nobody out there. I think part of the problem is we haven't done a very good, or as good a job as we could, with making people feel comfortable with the technology. I think it's a failure on our part.
Q: Many Europeans cite the precautionary principle. They say, "Prove it's safe rather than tell us it hasn't been proved unsafe."
A: Part of the problem existing today in Europe is they had a number of failures in their system, whether it was BSE (mad cow disease) or other things.
It appears they weren't transparent with their population and there were a number of regulatory and governmental organizations charged with safety that lost credibility with the population. ...
I think as a whole most Americans think the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) does a good job doing their best to keep our food supply safe and good. And the Europeans don't have the same faith in their food safety system that we do. That's why it's a little easier here for the technology than it is in Europe.
Q: With labeling, isn't there a fear that groups like the Center for Food Safety would ramp up a campaign and urge people to boycott those foods?
A: Here's an analysis. Just the other day in the Wall Street Journal was an article by (former U.S. President) Jimmy Carter talking about the technology. Most Americans think Jimmy Carter is a straight shooter. He's going to tell you what he believes, and it comes from the heart.
He's coming out and saying he's a mainstream American leader, who has proven his worth to the nation and the world, and he's coming out and talking about it. I think there will be more politicians and thought leaders that come out in the next few years that will do something similar.
Q: Sonoma County voters just rejected a ban on biotech crops. What was your reaction to that?
A: I think Californians and people in general should choose their destiny. That's what we are about. We want to have freedom of choice. Am I happy the vote went the way it did? Yes.
Q: What do you fear most that could bring this technology to a halt?
A: I have faith in the scientific community, and if you look at challenges we're facing, feeding the world or providing fuel for the future, biotechnology is a major part of the solution to that. We need to move forward and have appropriate regulatory regimes to make sure we don't have problems. But we have challenges we have to deal with, and this is a path that is going to get us where we need to go. I don't think I'm going to wake up in the morning, and there's going to be something that's going to stop.
---
Professor Richard Lewontin, professor of genetics, Harvard University, "We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another."
Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist, "This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences."
Professor Norman Ellstrand, ecological geneticist at the University of California, "within 10 years we will have a moderate to large-scale ecological or economic catastrophe, because there will be so many products being released."
Dr Harash Narang, microbiologist and senior research associate at the University of Leeds, who originally pointed to the possible link between mad cow disease (BSE) and CJD in humans, "If you look at the simple principle of genetic modification it spells ecological disaster. There are noways of quantifying the risks... The solution is simply to ban the use of genetic modification in food."
Dr. Erik Millstone, Sussex University, "The fundamental problem of the way in which GM foods have been approved is that they haven't really been tested properly at all. All that has happened is something which I would characterise as an exercise in wishful thinking."
"With genetic engineering familiar foods could become metabolically dangerous or even toxic." - Statement by 21 scientists including the following, Professor Brian Goodwin, Professor Jacqueline McGlade, Professor Peter Saunders and Professor Richard Lacey
Professor Richard Lacey, microbiologist and Professor of Food Safety at LeedsUniversity - one of the scientists who predicted the BSE disaster from early on - has spoken out strongly against the introduction of genetically engineered foods because of "the essentially unlimited health risks."
Doctor Arpad Pusztai, world-leading nutrintional science expert, formerly of the Food, Gut, and Microbial Interactions Group, Rowett Research Institute, "If it is left to me, I would certainly not eat it. We are putting new things into food which have not been eaten before. The effects onthe immune system are not easily predictable and I challenge anyone who will say that the effectsare predictable."
Professor Colin Blakemore, Waynflete professor of physiology at Oxford University and former President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, has said of the genetic engineering of food crops: "We shouldn't be complacent in thinking that we can predict the results."
Professor James (the main architect of the UK Food Standards Agency) has commented on genetically engineered food: "The perception that everything is totally straightforward and safe isutterly naive. I don't think we fully understand the dimensions of what we're getting into." He has also said, ""There is... a need to develop more effective and appropriate screening methods toalert companies and government agencies to the unexpected consequences of the often random insertion of genetic traits into plants." Professor James has also remarked that the current regulatory system is open to challenge simply because we are making all sorts of judgments with so little evidence at hand."
Dr Andrew Chesson, vice chairman of European Commission scientific committee on animal nutrition, "Potentially disastrous effects may come from undetected harmful substances in genetically modified foods"
Dr. Gerald B. Guest, Director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), "...animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns ... Residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human food safety problems."
Professor Gordon McVie, head of the Cancer Research Campaign: "We don't know what genetic abnormalities might be incorporated into the genome [the individual's DNA]. I'm more worried about humans than about the environment, to be honest. One of the problems is that because it' s a long-term thing, you need to do long-term experiments."
Dr Vyvyan Howard, expert in fetal and infant toxico-pathology at Liverpool University Hospital, "Swapping genes between organisms can produce unknown toxic effects and allergies that are most likely to affect children"
Dr Peter Wills, theoretical biologist at Auckland University writes: "By transferring genes across species barriers which have existed for aeons between species like humans and sheep we risk breaching natural thresholds against unexpected biological processes. For example, an incorrectly folded form of an ordinary cellular protein can under certain circumstances be replicative and give rise to infectious neurological disease".
Dr Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Pathology at Guy's Hospital says, "The generation of genetically engineered plants and animals involves the random integration of artificial combinations of genetic material from unrelated species into the DNA of the host organism. This procedure results in disruption of the genetic blueprint of the organism with totally unpredictable consequences. The unexpected production of toxic substances has now been observed in genetically engineered bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals with the problem remaining undetected until a major health hazard has arisen. Moreover, genetically engineered food or enzymatic food processing agents may produce an immediate effect or it could take years for full toxicity to come to light." Dr Antoniou has also warned MPs against believing there was any safe alternative to a ban on GM foods, "We should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security: we should not think that by regulating something which is inherently unpredictable and uncontainable it automatically becomes safe!"
Dr. George Wald, Nobel Laureate and Higgins Professor of Biology, Harvard University, wrote "Up to now, living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations.. going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise, but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics."
_________________
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
Disclaimer: all my posts are thought crimes and only IMO in the police state we all live in...
http://www.europeantruth.co.uk/index1.html UK is history, USA to RESIST?
http://www.freedom-force.org |
| |
|
|
Free World Order
tagged & banned
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 2013
Location: Totalitarian EU |
|
Fri May 12, 2006 11:46 pm
|
|
|
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5376
Biotech takeover in Kenya - Genes and a hoe (16/6/2005)
1.The biotech take-over in Kenya
2.Genes and a Hoe
COMMENT
The writer of the New York Times article (item 2 below) has swallowed biotech propaganda hook line and sinker. The article claims:
"Monsanto and Syngenta find no profit in recyclable seeds. They also have no incentive to create hardier versions of subsistence crops, like cassava and sweet potatoes, that agribusiness doesn't grow.
Kenya's corn project will move slowly. The research will take six more years and will cost $10 million, which will come from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture, which is separate from the biotech company. Researchers must also persuade biotech companies, which hold the patents, to free up the technology."
The separation off of this project from the industry and the opposing interests of each, that the article claims, is complete garbage. This project origianted with the Syngenta Foundation - it's their baby but as with Monsanto and its sweet potato project in Kenya they have tried to disappear more into the background as the project has devloped.
In case anyone is in any doubt the Syngenta Foundation is funded by Syngenta. And as the first piece below points out, Syngenta directors occupy 3 of the 5 seats on the Syngenta Foundation's board. Heinz Imhof, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Syngenta is the Foundation's President.
This project is, and always has been, a showcase project for the biotech industry.
------
1.The biotech take-over in Kenya - the role of Monsanto, Syngenta and USAID
http://www.gmwatch.org/print-archive2.asp?arcid=3632
A number of reports in the past few months have highlighted the failure of the GM sweet potatoes trialled in Kenya. But this bad publicity is just an embarrassing blip in relation to the overall PR success of the project, which has been hailed for years with headlines such as 'Transgenic sweet potato could end Kenyan famine'. Nor should the project's failure mask the success of the industry's real agenda in Kenya, an agenda that is now being taken forward by Syngenta.
The GM sweet potato was field trialled by the Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) but the project was initiated by Monsanto, and made possible by funding from Monsanto, USAID and the World Bank. It is one of two industry showcase projects in the country.
The other is that of the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture. The Foundation has as its declared goal 'contributing to sustainable food security for small-scale farmers'. Syngenta, the result of a merger incorporating Novartis, is the world's largest biotech company and Syngenta directors occupy 3 of the 5 seats on the Syngenta Foundation's board. Heinz Imhof, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Syngenta is the Foundation's President. Its Executive Director is Andrew Bennet, a controversial figure formerly with the UK government's Department for International Development (DFID). http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=175
According to a report by Aaron deGrassi of the Institute of Development Studies, the Syngenta Foundation's activities have much more to do with PR than with delivering real benefits to poor farmers.
'The Syngenta Foundation,' he writes, 'has a poor record of supporting client-driven public agricultural research institutes, as illustrated by the Cinzana research station in Mali. The extent of damage by stem borers was repeatedly over-estimated based on ad hoc guesses. No rigorous assessments were done before the project was started of the extent of damage by stem borers, nor of whether farmers felt they were a significant problem. When the project did survey 30 villages throughout the country, none identified stem borers as the most pressing constraint upon maize production... project surveys found that many farmers were already using their own resistant varieties.' http://www.twnafrica.org/docs/GMCropsAfrica.pdf
The Syngenta Foundation's showcase project in Kenya is its 'Insect Resistant Maize for Africa - IRMA'. For this several maize varieties have been genetically engineered to protect against 3 types of stem borers. The project, as noted in the article from the Kenyan press belowis being jointly implemented by the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT) in Mexico, which is being funded by the Syngenta Foundation.
The Kenyan article [originally accompanying this commentary] holds out great hope for the project: 'Every year, Kenya loses Sh7.2 billion ($90 million) to a pesky insect that attacks maize stalks. The stem borer, which eats away 400,000 tonnes of maize - about 15 per cent of farmers’ annual harvests - has been on scientists’ minds for a long time. Now, a new project to develop insect resistant maize on the continent is likely to put farmers at rest.' ('Kenya prepares to grow genetically modified maize'),
However, accoring to Aaron deGrassi, the Syngenta project has failed to engineer protection against the most important stem borer in Kenya - the one which affects 80% of the country's maize crop. Moreover, deGrassi reports that in terms of alleviating poverty, which is the basis on which these projects are being promoted, stem borers are a relatively insignificant contributing factor. Of far greater importance are other agronomic constraints - such as 'droughts, low soil fertility, and the weed Stiga - as well as other socio-economic and political constraints - such as corruption, HIV/AIDS, poor transport, unequal land tenure, and political repression.'
In any case, other less generously funded projects have used a range of techniques that have already proven capable of protecting against stem borers in farmers fields. DeGrassi points out that some of these methods, which have been shown to reduce borers to negligible levels, have been tested in farmers' fields and are already being adopted. These methods, unlike the use of the genetically engineered (Bt) maize, also do not face the likelihood of evolved pest resistance.
DeGrassi's over all conclusion on this Syngenta Foundation project, and others like it, is that 'while genetic modification may constitute a novel tool, in Africa it is a relatively ineffective and expensive one. Cash-strapped scientists working with poor farmers in Africa might well regard genetic modification as a waste of time and money.'
That's certainly been the case with the GM sweet potato project which wasted over 12 years of research and around $6 million. But deGrassi points out that despite their low suitability these projects manage to generate a great deal of interest, even excitement. Thus, while the 'maximum gains from genetic modification are small, much lower than with either conventional breeding or agroecology-based techniques', they generate 'heavy publicity'. In particular, he notes, 'biotechnology firms have been eager to use philanthropic African projects for public relations purposes. Such public legitimacy may be needed by companies in their attempts to reduce trade restrictions, biosaftey controls, and monopoly regulations.'
And this takes us to the heart of the matter. The Monsanto-trained scientist Florence Wambugu, who did much to help the company realise the PR potential of the sweet potato project, now defends it in terms of it having laid a bridgehead for the continued introduction of GM crops into Kenya, and via Kenya into other countries in the region.
These are the revealing points Wambugu makes:
*Many Kenyan scientists were trained via the GM sweet potato project. "It is this human capacity that has enabled the country define its nature of support to the GM technology."
*Kenya now has a "bio-transformation" lab where other crops – other than the sweet potato – can be researched in future. "The lab puts Kenya in a position to form vital collaborations with countries such as South Africa which may be conducting related scientific work." It also enables it to take on other GM crops such as Syngenta Foundation's Bt maize project.
*Kenya is now in a position to run GM field trials.
*"The GM Sweet Potato Project also helped the development of national biosafety regulatory framework." And this sets a model for other African countries to follow.
These "spin-offs" from the project mean, according to Wambugu, that Kenya is now "well equipped with necessary expertise to serve the needs of [biotech-related] organizations". This, she says, includes "private sector companies wishing to commercialize GM crops".
Kenya is now, according to Wambugu, "a beacon of light in the region with regard to biosafety and GM technologies." And the Syngenta Foundation project will, of course, reinforce that status.
The man behind the GM sweet potato project, Robert Horsch of Monsanto, has said his role in the company is to 'create goodwill and help open future markets'. Constructing a bridgehead for the introduction of GM crops into the region certainly fulfils that purpose.
------
2.Genes and a Hoe
New York Times, June 15, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/opinion/15wed3.html
Every year Kenya's corn farmers lose about 15 percent of their crop to the stem borer, an insect that drills into the corn stalk. Farmers who can afford it douse their corn repeatedly with pesticides, which poison the environment. The stem borer and its relatives steal the livelihood of millions of small corn farmers. Last year at least 125 Kenyans, most of them children, died from eating corn with toxins created by the stem borer.
Help may be on the way from genetic manipulation. Kenya has just begun trials of a corn identical to the local variety but carrying genes that increase its resistance to the stem borer. The project, carried out by the Kenyan national agricultural research program and the Mexico-based International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, is a careful endeavor to test genetically modified crops and make them work for the small farmer.
A billion acres worldwide are planted with genetically modified crops. Yet virtually all the land belongs to agribusiness. That is because biotech companies create genetically modified seeds that can't be replanted; farmers who use them have to buy expensive patented seeds each year. Subsistence farmers need to be able to replant their own crop for seed, but companies like Monsanto and Syngenta find no profit in recyclable seeds. They also have no incentive to create hardier versions of subsistence crops, like cassava and sweet potatoes, that agribusiness doesn't grow.
Kenya's corn project will move slowly. The research will take six more years and will cost $10 million, which will come from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture, which is separate from the biotech company. Researchers must also persuade biotech companies, which hold the patents, to free up the technology.
The Kenya project will likely get the needed financing and permissions. But similar studies will be needed elsewhere. Other farmers might, for example, want a drought-resistant corn. Since there is no market incentive, it won't happen without help from governments and foundations and cooperation from biotech concerns. The Kenya study is a model of how to do it and a warning about how difficult adapting this technology for poor farmers will be.
_________________
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
Disclaimer: all my posts are thought crimes and only IMO in the police state we all live in...
http://www.europeantruth.co.uk/index1.html UK is history, USA to RESIST?
http://www.freedom-force.org |
| |
|
|
Free World Order
tagged & banned
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 2013
Location: Totalitarian EU |
|
Fri May 12, 2006 11:47 pm
|
|
|
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5497
Chutzpah Science / Africa missing out on GM crops (14/7/2005)
QUOTE: "Wambugu has created a network of allies in Africa that will develop new crops as well as coax governments to okay the use of bioengineered seeds."
1.Africa missing out on GM crops, researchers say
2.Danforth Center Researchers Will Receive $3.3M
3.Chutzpah Science
COMMENT
You might have thought that the US government via multilateral and bilateral free trade agreements and high-level diplomatic pressure was doing a brilliant job of pushing African countries to adopt corporate-friendly regulations for GM crops. Not least, when this external pressure has been effectively complimented by lobbying and funding from USAID's networks and other corporate-friendly groups and scientists. (see, for instance, USAID: Making the World Hungry for GM Crops)
http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=191
But the first article below reports how "a team of international food scientists" are complaining that "regulatory hurdles are preventing African farmers from reaping the benefits of genetically modified foods". The article does not say who exactly this "team" is. However, the main scientist quoted is the former USAID man, Joel Cohen, who is a keen supporter of the recently formed Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI).
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=316
Cohen knows all about Africa reaping the benfits of GM crops. While with USAID he worked with Monsanto to select and provide the funding for Florence Wambugu to head their GM sweet potato project - a project which over more than a decade generated fantastic PR for GM crops while producing absolutely nothing useful for farmers in Africa (at a cost of millions!)
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131
The other 2 items below also connect to PRRI. Item 3 refers to another keen PRRI supporter, Florence Wambugu. Interestingly, Wambugu has claimed the failed GM sweet potato project as a success. Why? Principally, because it helped Kenya ready itself for the introduction of GM crops!
This article relates to the Gates' grant that Wambugu's consortium has just won to genetically modify sorghum for Africa, with the help of Pioneer Hi-bred. Tellingly, the article says, "Wambugu has created a network of allies in Africa that will develop new crops as well as coax governments to okay the use of bioengineered seeds." (item 3)
That larger goal is also relevant to another Gates' grant-recipient featured in item 2 - the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=200
It was at a meeting at this Monsanto-backed Center that PRRI launched itself. Interestestingly, in USAID's biotech configuration, the Danforth Center is responsible for "assistance with regulatory packages".
http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=191
The Center's founding president Dr Roger Beachy was recently at the Biotechnology Industry Organisation's annual get together in Philadelphia singing the praises of PRRI to the industry delegates, who were doubtless very grateful to know that "public researchers" had found yet another way of assisting them with "regulatory packages" to overcome their "regulatory hurdles".
Monsanto's Robert Horsch who with Joel Cohen helped select Wambugu for the GM sweet potato project has openly said that his role at Monsanto is to "create goodwill and help open future markets". Wambugu reinforces the point: "it [the GM sweet potato] has no commercial value to Monsanto, except as PR."
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131
Unfortunely, the project also had no value for poor African farmers. This illustrates a point that Aaron deGrassi of the Institute of Development Studies is not alone in making, "the excitement over certain genetic engineering procedures can divert financial, human, and intellectual resources from focusing on productive research that meets the needs of poor farmers."
In fact, exploiting poor farmers and taking risks with their livelihoods for reasons of PR and self-interest, particularly when it's done so brazenly and without any sense of guilt, does qualify as "Chutzpah Science".
For more on PRRI:
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=316
------
1.Africa missing out on biotech crops, researchers say
By LANCE GAY
Scripps News Service, July 13, 2005
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=BIOTECH-07-13-05&cat=WW
WASHINGTON - Regulatory hurdles are preventing African farmers from reaping the benefits of genetically modified foods that could relieve hunger and lessen the need for outside food assistance, a team of international food scientists said Wednesday.
Joel Cohen, a researcher at the International Food Policy Research Institute, said many African countries are conducting aggressive research into using biotechnology to develop disease and insect-resistant plants, but the seeds they are developing aren't reaching farmers because government regulatory institutions in those countries aren't familiar with how biotechnology works.
"The resistance is not with the farmers," said Cohen, who looked at biotech research in Egypt, Kenya, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. "Farmers have been adopting this technology rapidly."
Cohen said researchers in Africa are studying how to genetically modify 20 different crops, including maize, sugar cane and bananas. Approval of genetically modified cotton plants has taken Africa 10 years, even though the same insect-resistant cotton already is grown in Argentina, China, India and Mexico.
Idah Sithole-Niang, a biochemist at the University of Zimbabwe, said the major and unanticipated bottleneck is that regulatory agencies in African countries aren't familiar with the technology and getting the new seeds approved for use is taking too much time. "The difficulty is moving from the laboratory to the farmer's field," she said.
The researchers released a report on their findings Wednesday and urged more funds to bolster the expertise of African regulatory agencies. International agencies contend genetic modification is one method of making Africa more self-sufficient in producing food by reducing crop losses due to disease and insect infestation.
Genetic modification also provides other benefits to farmers, who don't have to rely on costly pesticides and agro-chemicals for their crops, and can grow drought-resistant crops. One goal of grant programs to Africa is to increase food production. Economists predict a 10 percent increase in African agricultural productivity would result in a 7.2 percent reduction in the continent's poverty rates.
Although genetic modification of plants has sparked a controversy over the last decade, the researchers noted that more than 1 billion acres of crops from genetically modified seeds were planted this year. Nearly all the crops are grown in developed countries like the United States, Argentina, Canada, Brazil, and China
------
2.Danforth Center Researchers Will Receive $3.3 Million for a Five-Year Project
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
http://www.pnnonline.org/article.php?sid=6076&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
The Donald Danforth Plant Science Center will work with scientists at nine other institutions to enhance the nutritional value of cassava. The team of scientists, led by Dr. Richard Sayre of Ohio State University, secured a $7.5 million Grand Challenges in Global Health grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to fund the research to improve cassava - the most important food crop in Africa. This grant was one of 43 selected from more than 1,500 applications involving 10,000 scientists from 75 countries.
The Danforth Center will receive $3.3 million for its portion of the research, and will provide expertise on the best methods to genetically improve cassava. In particular, the Danforth Center team will be responsible for enhancing disease resistance and increasing the nutritional content of this important food crop.
The Grand Challenges in Global Health initiative is supported by a $450 million commitment from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as two new funding commitments: $27.1 million from the Wellcome Trust, and $4.5 million from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). The initiative is managed by global health experts at the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH), the Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and CIHR.
------
3.Chutzpah Science
by: Elizabeth Corcoran
http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=4115
When Florence Wambugu, founder of A Harvest Biotech Foundation International in Kenya, heard about the Gates grants, she immediately thought about three packages of sorghum seeds sitting in cold storage in Des Moines, Iowa. A cousin of corn, sorghum is a staple for half a billion people worldwide, even though it lacks much nutritional value. Five years ago Pioneer Hi-Bred International (a subsidiary of DuPont) figured out how to slide a critical gene from corn into sorghum to make a variant with more lysine--an essential amino acid. The researchers published their work, then filed the details (along with 200 seeds) in cold storage. The sorghum market simply wasn't big enough for Pioneer, says Paul Anderson, research director of DuPont crop genetics.
But Wambugu, who remembered the project from past discussions with Anderson, wanted those seeds. She called Anderson and asked if Pioneer would help her foundation develop better sorghum for African farmers. Wambugu and Anderson worked on their joint proposal for 20 months, ultimately winning $16.9 million from the Gates Foundation. Pioneer agreed to further nutritional enhancements to the sorghum strain, to train African scientists, and to donate the know-how (and seeds) from its earlier work. Wambugu has created a network of allies in Africa that will develop new crops as well as coax governments to okay the use of bioengineered seeds.
_________________
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
Disclaimer: all my posts are thought crimes and only IMO in the police state we all live in...
http://www.europeantruth.co.uk/index1.html UK is history, USA to RESIST?
http://www.freedom-force.org |
| |
|
|
Free World Order
tagged & banned
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 2013
Location: Totalitarian EU |
|
Fri May 12, 2006 11:47 pm
|
|
|
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5909
Native Hawaiians protest GM corn (5/11/2005)
Multiple items
EXCERPT: "We're not guinea pigs. We are not lab rats." - Walter Ritte, spokesman for the native Hawaiian community group, Hui Ho'opakela Aina (item 3)
A majority of the estimated 150 people who were in attendance were [Monsanto] employees. Many of them were bussed in.
...we ask[ed] a couple of workers.
"Do you know what a GMO is?"
"Yeah, we know something with chemicals or something" (item 3)
---
GMO activists march at meeting site
November 4 2005
http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=13937
HOOLEHUA, Molokai – About 20 protesters of genetically modified organisms in farm operations on Molokai were allowed into a company meeting of Monsanto Hawaiian Research on Thursday, but they left when they couldn't get answers from executives.
Despite that, Walter Ritte, spokesman for the community group that organized the demonstration, said he still thought their message got through.
"I think we got a lot of people asking, 'What are GMOs?' and 'What are they doing in our fields?’'" said Ritte.
A representative of Monsanto on Molokai could not be reached for comment.
Ritte said members of Hui Ho'opakele 'Aina ("Rescue the Land") were allowed to enter the Hoolehua Recreation Center where Monsanto employees were meeting with executives from the Mainland. When they weren't permitted to ask their questions, Ritte said the protesters began marching around the room with their signs.
"I apologized to them if we disturbed them, but we felt we had been lied to because they said we could ask our questions," said Ritte.
The group wanted to ask Monsanto if GMOs were being grown on Molokai and would company representatives agree to sit down with the community to talk more about the subject.
GMOs are crops that have had genetic material inserted in seeds to produce plants that have qualities that promote productivity, including resistance to diseases and pesticides.
Ritte said Hui Ho'opakele 'Aina still had hopes it could convince representatives of the other seed company on the island, Dow/Mycogen, to meet with residents. But the group wasn't ready to give up on Monsanto, either.
"We're going to keep going after Monsanto to tell us what they're doing with their secret little factories," said Ritte.
Earlier this week, a spokesman for Monsanto Hawaiian Research said meetings have been held with the Molokai community.
Hui Ho'opakele 'Aina was organized to deal with other issues that members felt would adversely affect the community on Molokai, including questions raised three years ago over the impact of large cruise ships landing passengers at the Kaunakakai Wharf.
---
2.GMO in Hawaii gets stirred up on Molokai
Ron Mizutani
Khon 2 News, November 3, 2005
http://khon.com/khon/display.cfm?storyID=8616&sid=1152
The controversial issue of genetically modified crops in Hawaii took center stage on Thursday on Molokai.
A town meeting briefly heated up after protesters stepped forward.
Executives from Monsanto wanted to hear from residents about their concerns over bio-tech research that's been going on for many years. On Thursday, they got what they wanted.
Genetically modified crops of corn in Kaunakakai have Molokai residents divided.
"It's very hard because you looking at people that you love, that you care about, and they stay on the other side," says Hano Naehu, Molokai resident.
The research companies provide much needed jobs.
"It's the main thing you get job in Molokai because sometimes Molokai don't have too much jobs, so how we going to feed our family if no more job?" asks William Casino, Monsanto employee.
"We are developing GMO crops here, or bio-tech -- better stated, bio-tech crops -- and we are proud of that," says Ray Foster, Monsanto/Hawaiian research general manager.
But some feel the crops are creating questions.
"We have concerns. These concerns have been pushed under the rug, and everything that's being grown is a big secret," says Walter Ritte, Molokai resident.
About a dozen people protested as Monsanto executives arrive for a town meeting.
"We wanted to come now to raise the red flag and get people to ask, 'well what is a GMO, what is going on?'" says Ritte.
A majority of the estimated 150 people who were in attendance were employees. Many of them were bussed in.
Inside, as executives start to share information, the protesters step forward.
"This is Molokai, brah, not only what you guys went hire," says Naehu.
"Nobody is telling us anything. We're afraid for our health, we're afraid for our children's health, the cornfields surround our town," says Ritte. "Half of us don't even know what a GMO is. We don't even know what we're growing over here."
So we ask a couple of workers.
"Do you know what a GMO is? Yeah, we know something with chemicals or something," says Casino.
"We're very proud of what we do, and we welcome the questions," says Foster. "We've been planting biotech's products now for 10 years. We've planted over a billion acres, and so there hasn't been one case of harm to people or the environment."
The State Health Department says there's no proof genetically modified crops are dangerous to the people of Hawaii or any place where they're being tested.
---
3.Biotech firm touts record in face of Molokai protest
By Gary T. Kubota
Star Bulletin, November 4 2005
http://starbulletin.com/2005/11/04/news/story12.html
Native Hawaiian protesters demonstrated yesterday against growing genetically altered corn on Molokai.
Hui Ho'opakela Aina spokesman Walter Ritte said Hawaiian Research's activity threatens the community's health, organic farming and medicinal Hawaiian plants, such as the uhaoloa shrub whose roots are used to treat congestion in children.
"Their secret GMO (genetically modified organisms) experiments in the corn fields surrounding our town is dangerous to our lives and is unacceptable," Ritte said.
Ritte said the 20 protesters demonstrated their objections at a lunch sponsored by Hawaiian Research to discuss worries expressed by the community.
Hawaiian Research, which employs about 140 full- and part-time employees, started on Molokai in 1968 and became a part of the Monsanto Co. in 2000.
The company develops seed corn in fields near the eastern and western edge of Kaunakakai town.
Hawaiian Research manager Ray Foster said the business is very proud that in the 10 years that biotech crops have been commercially grown, there has not been one single documented case of any health issue anywhere in the world caused by the technology.
"I don't think we could have wished for a better record," he said.
Foster said there is a growing body of evidence that shows the biotech crops could actually help reduce illnesses and deaths.
"Some of the newer plant varieties being developed now will have higher levels of vitamins or Omega 3 fatty acids that can help fight vitamin A deficiencies and cardiovascular disease," Foster said.
Foster said 100 percent of the biotech crops on Molokai are corn, which can only cross-pollinate with another corn plant and not any known native species.
He said the business also plants fields far apart from other fields and at different times, and also bag the tassels so the pollen can't go elsewhere.
Foster said agricultural biotechnology has been endorsed by a number of health and medical organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences, American College of Nutrition, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Ritte said the plants grown by Monsanto are not normal corn plants but genetically modified.
"Nobody knows what the reaction of these modifications are," Ritte said. "That's why they call it research. We're not guinea pigs. We are not lab rats."
gkubota@starbulletin.com
_________________
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
Disclaimer: all my posts are thought crimes and only IMO in the police state we all live in...
http://www.europeantruth.co.uk/index1.html UK is history, USA to RESIST?
http://www.freedom-force.org |
| |
|
|
Free World Order
tagged & banned
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 2013
Location: Totalitarian EU |
|
Fri May 12, 2006 11:48 pm
|
|
|
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6002
Monsanto's new website with farmers punting biotech (29/11/2005)
EXCERPT: "The site features video clips with farmers from countries including India, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Australia, Argentina, the Philippines and the United States. These farmers discuss the benefits that biotech crops have had on their farms, families, communities and the environment."
COMMENT
Given Monsanto's long history of manufacturing farmer support and making fake claims about its products "successes" for farmers, it's worth checking out any of the farmers from your part of the world who are quoted on Monsanto's new website expressing their support for GMOs.
Here's a reminder some classic examples of manufactured biotech support:
GROOMED BY MONSANTO
The development expert Aaron deGrassi of the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, has reported on Monsanto's use of South African farmers on a global basis for PR purposes:
'these "representative farmers" read statements carefully scripted by Monsanto.. These [relatively well-to-do and unrepresentative] South African farmers - whom representatives of Monsanto and other businesses call "basically representative farmers" and "representatives of the African smallholding community" - are plucked from South Africa, wined and dined, and given scripted statements about the benefits of GM'
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?ArcId=1006
FAKE FARMERS
A recent report on the promotion of GM cotton in India revealed:
'Posters appeared in many places in Madhya Pradesh before sowing time, featuring a person who claimed to have gained great benefits from using Bt Cotton seed. These advertisements urged other farmers to benefit similarly from the use of Bt Cotton.
Investigations revealed that this "farmer" was actually a paan dabbahwala (a vendor of betel leaves and cigarettes) who is not even a farmer, let alone a Bt Cotton farmer.'
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5741
FAKE CLAIMS
Within the last month a complaint has been filed with the Advertising Standards Council of India against a print campaign by Mahyco-Monsanto. The complaint centres on a farmer pictured in front of a tractor as part of an advertisement headed "TRUE STORIES OF FARMERS WHO HAVE SOWN BT COTTON" that implied he was able to purchase the tractor as a result of growing Bt cotton.
From what the farmer says, he was effectively tricked into appearing in the advertisement for the Monsanto Bt cotton. He also says the tractor was only obtained with a private loan! He adds that with the yields he got from Bt Cotton, "I would not be able to buy even two tractor tyres"!
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5995
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5741
FAKE PARADES
Then there was the parade of GM supporting farmers at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. They wore t-shirts and carried placards with slogans like "Biotechnology for Africa". On approaching the protesters, however, a journalist discovered that all of the props had been made available to the marchers by the pro-corporate lobbyists who were the organizers. When he tried to converse with some of the farmers about their pro-GM T-shirts, "They smiled shyly; none of them could speak or read English."
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?ArcId=288
FAKING IT ON THE NET
Then there's Monsanto's dubious Internet PR promotionals:
'In a talk to fellow PR professionals, Jay Byrne, Monsanto's former Chief Internet Strategist gave 'CFFAR' as an example of the type of website that Monsanto worked to direct people to who were seeking information on GM on the internet.
CFFAR stands for The Center for Food & Agricultural Research and its website is not currently available, following adverse publicity...
... [on the site] no details [were] given of the history, constituent members, organisational structure, administrative location or personnel of this 'public policy and research coalition'.'
In fact, the site was a fiction created by Monsanto's PR people. And it's far from being the only such site.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=171
For more details on manufactured support see:
*Trade Wars and Media Campaigns
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?ArcId=1006
TJ Buthelezi
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=184
Chengal Reddy
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=108
*THE MARKETING OF BT COTTON IN INDIA
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5741
*The Fake Parade
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?ArcId=288
Center For Food and Agricultural Research (CFFAR)
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=171
Foodsecurity.net
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=172
Complaint filed against Monsanto's "misleading" ad
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5995
---
New plant biotech Web site offers global discussions on GMO crops
Source: Monsanto Company news release
http://www.stopsoybeanrust.com/viewStory.asp?StoryID=642
11/29/2005 ST. LOUIS -- A new multimedia Web site, "Conversations about Plant Biotechnology" at www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo, offers discussions taking place among farmers on the impact of genetically modified crops. This year marks the milestones of a decade since GMO crops were first introduced and more than one billion acres such crops harvested worldwide.
The site features video clips with farmers from countries including India, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Australia, Argentina, the Philippines and the United States. These farmers discuss the benefits that biotech crops have had on their farms, families, communities and the environment. The Web site also offers viewpoints from global experts, such as Dr. Norman Borlaug -- Nobel laureate and leader of the Green Revolution.
Visitors to the site can sign up for a service that alerts subscribers when new video content is available. The "Conversations about Plant Biotechnology" site is hosted by the Monsanto Company.
_________________
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
Disclaimer: all my posts are thought crimes and only IMO in the police state we all live in...
http://www.europeantruth.co.uk/index1.html UK is history, USA to RESIST?
http://www.freedom-force.org |
| |
|
|
Ellyn
Joined: 16 Jul 2000
Posts: 4458
|
| GM CROPS MAY PRODUCE HERBICIDE INSIDE OUR INTESTINES
Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:03 am
|
|
|
http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey12.htm
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS MAY PRODUCE HERBICIDE INSIDE OUR INTESTINES
By Jeffrey Smith
June 7, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
Pioneer Hi-Bred’s website boasts that their genetically modified (GM) Liberty Link[1] corn survives doses of Liberty herbicide, which would normally kill corn. The reason, they say, is that the herbicide becomes “inactive in the corn plant.”[2] They fail to reveal, however, that after you eat the GM corn, some inactive herbicide may become reactivated inside your gut and cause a toxic reaction. In addition, a gene that was inserted into the corn might transfer into the DNA of your gut bacteria, producing long-term effects. These are just a couple of the many potential side-effects of GM crops that critics say put the public at risk.
Herbicide tolerance (HT) is one of two basic traits common to nearly all GM crops. About 71% of the crops are engineered to resist herbicide, including Liberty (glufosinate ammonium) and Roundup[3] (glyphosate). About 18% produce their own pesticide. And 11% do both. The four major GM crops are soy, corn, cotton and canola, all of which have approved Liberty- and Roundup-tolerant varieties. Herbicide tolerant (HT) crops are a particularly big money-maker for biotech companies, because when farmers buy HT seeds, they are required to purchase the companies’ brand of herbicide as well. In addition, HT crops dramatically increase the use of herbicide,[4] which further contributes to the companies’ bottom line.
There are no required safety tests for HT crops in the US—if the biotech companies declare them fit for human consumption, the FDA has no further questions. But many scientists and consumers remain concerned, and the Liberty Link varieties pose unique risks.
Liberty herbicide (also marketed as Basta, Ignite, Rely, Finale and Challenge) can kill a wide variety of plants. It can also kill bacteria,[5] fungi[6] and insects,[7] and has toxic effects on humans and animals.[8] The herbicide is derived from a natural antibiotic, which is produced by two strains of a soil bacterium. In order that the bacteria are not killed by the antibiotic that they themselves create, the strains also produce specialized enzymes which transform the antibiotic to a non-toxic form called NAG (N-acetyl-L-glufosinate). The specialized enzymes are called the pat protein and the bar protein, which are produced by the pat gene and the bar gene, respectively. The two genes are inserted into the DNA of GM crops, where they produce the enzymes in every cell. When the plant is sprayed, Liberty’s solvents and surfactants transport glufosinate ammonium throughout the plant, where the enzymes convert it primarily into NAG. Thus, the GM plant detoxifies the herbicide and lives, while the surrounding weeds die.
The problem is that the NAG, which is not naturally present in plants, remains there and accumulates with every subsequent spray. Thus, when we eat these GM crops, we consume NAG. Once the NAG is inside our digestive system, some of it may be re-transformed back into the toxic herbicide. In rats fed NAG, for example, 10% of it was converted back to glufosinate by the time it was excreted in the feces.[9] Another rat study found a 1% conversion.[10] And with goats, more than one-third of what was excreted had turned into glufosinate.[11]
It is believed that gut bacteria, primarily found in the colon or rectum, are responsible for this re-toxification.[12] Although these parts of the gut do not absorb as many nutrients as other sections, rats fed NAG did show toxic effects. This indicates that the herbicide had been regenerated, was biologically active, and had been assimilated by the rats.[13] A goat study also confirmed that some of the herbicide regenerated from NAG ended up in the kidneys, liver, muscle, fat and milk.[14]
More information about the impact of this conversion is presumably found in “Toxicology and Metabolism Studies” on NAG, submitted to European regulators by AgrEvo (now Bayer CropScience). These unpublished studies were part of the application seeking approval of herbicide-tolerant canola. When the UK government’s Pesticide Safety Directorate attempted to provide some of this information to an independent researcher, they were blocked by the company’s threats of legal action.[15] The studies remained private.
Toxicity of the herbicide
Glufosinate ammonium is structurally similar to a natural amino acid called glutamic acid, which can stimulate the central nervous system and, in excess levels, cause the death of nerve cells in the brain.[16] The common reactions to glufosinate poisoning in humans include unconsciousness, respiratory distress and convulsions. One study also linked the herbicide with a kidney disorder.[17] These reactions typically involve large amounts of the herbicide. It is unclear if the amount converted from GM crops would accumulate to promote such responses or if there are low dose chronic effects.
Perhaps a more critical question may be whether infants or fetuses are impacted with smaller doses. A January 2006 report issued by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Inspector General said that studies demonstrate that certain pesticides easily enter the brain of young children and fetuses, and can destroy cells. That same report, however, stated that the EPA lacks standard evaluation protocols for measuring the toxicity of pesticides on developing nervous systems.[18] Scientists at the agency also charged that “risk assessments cannot state with confidence the degree to which any exposure of a fetus, infant or child to a pesticide will or will not adversely affect their neurological development.” [19]Furthermore, three trade unions representing 9,000 EPA workers claimed that the evaluation techniques used at the agency were highly politicized. According to a May 24, 2006 letter to the EPA’s administrator, the unions cited “political pressure exerted by Agency officials perceived to be too closely aligned with the pesticide industry and former EPA officials now representing the pesticide and agricultural community.”[20]
Although the EPA may be hampered in its evaluations, research has nonetheless accumulated which suggests that glufosinate carries significant risks for the next generation. According to Yoichiro Kuroda, the principal investigator in the Japanese project entitled “Effects of Endocrine Disrupters on the Developing Brain,” glufosinate is like a “mock neurotransmitter.” Exposure of a baby or embryo can affect behavior, because the chemical disturbs gene functions that regulate brain development.[21]
When mouse embryos were exposed to glufosinate, it resulted in growth retardation, increased death rates, incomplete development of the forebrain and cleft lips,[22] as well as cell death in part of the brain.[23] After pregnant rats were injected with glufosinate, the number of glutamate receptors in the brains of the offspring appeared to be reduced.[24] When infant rats were exposed to low doses of glufosinate, some of their brain receptors appeared to change as well.[25]
Glufosinate herbicide might also influence behavior. According to Kuroda, “female rats born from mothers that were given high doses of glufosinate became aggressive and started to bite each other—in some cases until one died.” He added, “That report sent a chill through me.”[26]
Disturbing gut bacteria
If the herbicide is regenerated inside our gut, since it is an antibiotic, it will likely kill gut bacteria. Gut microorganisms are crucial for health. They not only provide essential metabolites like certain vitamins and short fatty acids, but also help the break down and absorption of food and protect against pathogens. Disrupting the balance of gut bacteria can cause a wide range of problems. According to molecular geneticist Ricarda Steinbrecher, “the data obtained strongly suggest that the balance of gut bacteria will be affected”[27] by the conversion of NAG to glufosinate.
When eating Liberty Link corn, we not only consume NAG, but also the pat and bar genes with their pat and bar proteins. It is possible that when NAG is converted to herbicide in our gut, the pat protein, for example, might reconvert some of the herbicide back to NAG. This might lower concentrations of glufosinate inside of our gut. On the other hand, some microorganisms may be able to convert in both directions, from glufosinate to NAG and also back again. If the pat protein can do this, that is, if it can transform NAG to herbicide, than the presence of the pat protein inside our gut might regenerate more herbicide from the ingested NAG. Since there are no public studies on this, we do not know if consuming the pat gene or bar genes will make the situation better or worse.
But one study on the pat gene raises all sorts of red flags. German scientist Hans-Heinrich Kaatz demonstrated that the pat gene can transfer into the DNA of gut bacteria. He found his evidence in young bees that had been fed pollen from glufosinate-tolerant canola plants. The pat gene transferred into the bacteria and yeast inside the bees’ intestines. Kaatz said, “This happened rarely, but it did happen.”[28] Although no studies have looked at whether pat genes end up in human gut bacteria, the only human GM-feeding study ever conducted did show that genetic material can transfer to our gut bacteria. This study, published in 2004, confirmed that portions of the Roundup-tolerant gene in soybeans transferred to microorganisms within the human digestive tract.[29]
Since the pat gene can transfer to gut bacteria in bees, and since genetic material from another GM crop can transfer to human gut bacteria, it is likely that the pat gene can also transfer from Liberty Link corn or soybeans to our intestinal flora. If so, a key question is whether the presence of the pat gene confers some sort of survival advantage to the bacteria. If so, “selection pressure” would favor its long term proliferation in the gut.
Because the pat protein can protect bacteria from being killed by glufosinate, gut bacteria that take up the gene appears to have a significant survival advantage. Thus, the gene may spread from bacteria to bacteria, and might stick around inside us for the long-term. With more pat genes, more and more pat protein is created. The effects of long-term exposure to this protein have not been evaluated.
Now suppose that the pat protein can also re-toxify NAG back into active herbicide, as discussed above. A dangerous feedback loop may be created: We eat Liberty Link corn or soy. Our gut bacteria, plus the pat protein, turns NAG into herbicide. With more herbicide, more bacteria are killed. This increases the survival advantage for bacteria that contain the pat gene. As a consequence, more bacteria end up with the gene. Then, more pat protein is produced, which converts more NAG into herbicide, which threatens more bacteria, which creates more selection pressure, and so on. Since studies have not been done to see if such a cycle is occurring, we can only speculate.
Endocrine disruption at extremely low doses
Another potential danger from the glufosinate-tolerant crops is the potential for endocrine disruption. Recent studies reveal that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can have significant hormonal effects at doses far below those previously thought to be significant. The disruptive effects are often found only at minute levels, which are measured in parts per trillion or in the low parts per billion. This is seen, for example, in the way estrogen works in women. When the brain encounters a mere 3 parts per trillion, it shuts down production of key hormones. When estrogen concentration reaches 10 parts per trillion, however, there is a hormone surge, followed by ovulation.
Unfortunately, the regulation and testing of agricultural chemicals, including herbicides, has lagged behind these findings of extremely low dose effects. The determination of legally acceptable levels of herbicide residues on food was based on a linear model, where the effect of toxic chemicals was thought to be consistent and proportional with its dosage. But as the paper Large Effects from Small Exposures shows, this model underestimates biological effects of EDCs by as much as 10,000 fold.[30]
In anticipation of their (not-yet-commercialized) Liberty Link rice, Bayer CropScience successfully petitioned the EPA in 2003 to approve maximum threshold levels of glufosinate ammonium on rice. During the comment period preceding approval, a Sierra Club submittal stated the following.
“We find EPA’s statements on the potential of glufosinate to function as an endocrine-disrupting substance in humans and animals as not founded on logical information or peer-reviewed studies. In fact EPA states that no special studies have been conducted to investigate the potential of glufosinate ammonium to induce estrogenic or other endocrine effects. . . . We feel it’s totally premature for EPA at this time to dismiss all concerns about glufosinate as an endocrine-disrupting substance. . . . Due to the millions of Americans and their children exposed to glufosinate and its metabolites, EPA needs to conclusively determine if this herbicide has endocrine-disrupting potential.”
The EPA’s response was that “glufosinate ammonium may be subjected to additional screening and/or testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption”[31] but this will only take place after these protocols are developed. In the mean time, the agency approved glufosinate ammonium residues on rice at 1 part per million.
Since glufosinate ammonium might have endocrine disrupting properties, even small conversions of NAG to herbicide may carry significant health risks for ourselves and our children.
Inadequate animal feeding studies
If we look to animal feeding studies to find out if Liberty Link corn creates health effects, we encounter what independent observers have expressed for years—frustration. Industry-sponsored safety studies, which are rarely published and often kept secret, are often described as designed to avoid finding problems.
In a 42-day feeding study on chickens, for example, 10 chickens (7%) fed Liberty Link corn died compared to 5 chickens eating natural corn.[32] Even with the death rate doubled, “because the experimental design was so flawed,” said bio-physicist Mae-Wan Ho, “statistical analysis failed to detect a significant difference between the two groups.”[33] Similarly, although the GM-fed group gained less weight, the study failed to recognize that as significant. According to testimony by two experts in chicken feeding studies,[34] the Liberty Link corn study wouldn’t identify something as significant unless there had been “huge” changes. The experts said, “It may be worth noting, in passing, that if one were seeking to show no effect, one of the best methods to do this is would be to use insufficient replication, a small n,”[35] which is exactly the case in the chicken study.
Without adequate tests and with a rubber stamp approval process, GM crops like Liberty Link corn may already be creating significant hard-to-detect health problems. In Europe, Japan, Korea, Russia, China, India, Brazil and elsewhere, shoppers have the benefit of laws that require foods with GM ingredients to be labeled. In the US, however, consumers wishing to avoid them are forced to eliminate all products containing soy and corn, as well as canola and cottonseed oils. Or they can buy products that are organic or say “non-GMO” on the package. Changing one’s diet is a hassle, but with the hidden surprises inside GM foods, it may be a prudent option for health-conscious people, especially young children and pregnant women.
Footnotes:
1, Liberty Link is a registered trademark of Bayer CropScience
2, Pioneer Brand hybrids with the LibertyLink1 gene
3, Roundup is a registered trademark of Monsanto
4, Charles Benbrook, "Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years," October 2004
5, Colanduoni JA and Villafranca JJ (1986). Inhibition of Escherichia coli glutamine-synthetase by phosphinothricin. Bioorganic Chemistry 14(2): 163-169, and Pline W A~ Lacy GH~ Stromberg V ~ Hatzios KK (200 I). Antibacterial activity of the herbicide glufosinate on Pseudomonas syringae pathovar glycinea. Pesticide Biochemistry And Physiology 71(1): 48-55.
6, Liu CA; Zhong H; Vargas J; Penner D; Sticklen M (1998). Prevention of fungal diseases in transgenic, bialaphos- and glufosinate-resistant creeping bentgrass (Agrostis palustrls). Weed Science 46(1): 139-146, and Tada T~ Kanzaki H~ Norita E~ Uchimiya H~ Nakamura I (1998). Decreased symptoms of rice blast disease on leaves of bar-expressing transgenic rice plants following treatment with bialaphos. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 9( : 762-764.
7, Ahn Y -J, Kim Y -J and Yoo J-K (2001). Toxicity of the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium to predatory insects and mites of Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) under laboratory conditions. Journal Of Economic Entomology 94(1): s157-161.
8, Watanabe T and Sano T (1998). Neurological effects of glufosinate poisoning with a brief review. Human & Experimental Toxicology 17(1): 35-39.
9, Bremmer IN and Leist K-H (1997). Disodium-N-acetyl-L-glufosinate; AE F099730 - Hazard evaluation of Lglufosinate produced intestinally from N-acetyl-L-glufosinate. Hoechst Schering AgrEvo GmbH, Safety Evaluation Frankfurt. TOX97/014. A58659. Unpublished.
10, Kellner H-M, StumpfK and Braun R (1993). Hoe 099730-14C Pharmacokinetics in rats following single oral and intravenous administration of3 mg/kg body. Hoechst RCL, Germany, 01-L420670-93. A49978. Unpublished.
11, Huang, M.N. and Smith, S.M. 1995b. Metabolism of [14C]-N-acetyl glufosinate in a lactating goat. AgrEvo USA Co.Pikeville, PTRL East Inc., USA. Project 502BK. Study U012A/A524. Report A54155. Unpublished.
12, In one study, for example, protein produced from a gene found in E. coli turned NAG into glufosinate. G. Kriete et al, Male sterility in transgenic tobacco plants induced by tapetum-specific deacetylation of the externally applied non-toxic compound N-acetyl-L-phosphinothricin, Plant Journal, 1996, Vol.9, No.6, pp.809-818.
13, Bremmer IN and Leist K-H (1998). Disodium-N-acetyl-L-glufosinate (AE F099730, substance technical) - Toxicity and metabolism studies summary and evaluation. Hoechst Schering AgrEvo, Frankfurt. TOX98/027. A67420. Unpublished. (see FAO publication on
14, Huang, M.N. and Smith, S.M. 1995b. Metabolism of [14C]-N-acetyl glufosinate in a lactating goat. AgrEvo USA Co.Pikeville, PTRL East Inc., USA. Project 502BK. Study U012A/A524. Report A54155. Unpublished.
15, Ricarda A. Steinbrecher, Risks associated with ingestion of Chardon LL maize, The reversal of N-acetyl-L- glufosinate to the active herbicide L-glufosinate in the gut of animals, Chardon LL Hearing, May 2002, London. (Note: This work is an excellent summary of the risks associated with NAG conversion within the gut.)
16, Fujii, T., Transgenerational effects of maternal exposure to chemicals on the functional development of the brain in the offspring. Cancer Causes and Control, 1997, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 524-528.
17, H. Takahashi et al., "A Case of Transient Diabetes Isipidus Associated with Poisoning by a Herbicide Containing Glufosinate." Clinical Toxicology 38(2), 2000, pp.153-156
18, Ohn J. Fialka, EPA Scientists Pressured to Allow Continued Use of Dangerous Pesticides, Wall Street Journal Page A4, May 25, 2006
19, EPA SCIENTISTS PROTEST PENDING PESTICIDE APPROVALS; Unacceptable Risk to Children and Political Pressure on Scientists Decried, Press release, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. May 25, 2006,
20, EPA SCIENTISTS PROTEST PENDING PESTICIDE APPROVALS; Unacceptable Risk to Children and Political Pressure on Scientists Decried, Press release, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. May 25, 2006,
21, Bayer's GE Crop Herbicide, Glufosinate, Causes Brain Damage, The Japan Times, 7 December 2004
22, Watanabe, T. and T. Iwase, Development and dymorphogenic effects of glufosinate ammonium on mouse embryos in culture. Teratogenesis carcinogenesis and mutagenesis, 1996, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 287-299.
23, Watanabe, T. , Apoptosis induced by glufosinate ammonium in the neuroepithelium of developing mouse embryos in culture. Neuroscientific Letters, 1997, Vol. 222, No. 1, pp.17-20, as cited in Glufosinate ammonium fact sheet, Pesticides News No.42, December 1998, p 20-21.
24, Fujii, T., Transgenerational effects of maternal exposure to chemicals on the functional development of the brain in the offspring. Cancer Causes and Control, 1997, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 524-528.
25, Fujii, T., T. Ohata, M. Horinaka, Alternations in the response to kainic acid in rats exposed to glufosinate-ammonium, a herbicide, during infantile period. Proc. Of the Japan Acad. Series B-Physical and Biological Sciences, 1996, Vol. 72, No. 1, pp. 7-10.
26, Bayer's GE Crop Herbicide, Glufosinate, Causes Brain Damage, The Japan Times, 7 December 2004
27, Ricarda A. Steinbrecher, Risks associated with ingestion of Chardon LL maize, The reversal of N-acetyl-L- glufosinate to the active herbicide L-glufosinate in the gut of animals, Chardon LL Hearing, May 2002, London. (Note: This work is an excellent summary of the risks associated with NAG conversion within the gut.)
28, Antony Barnett, New Research Shows Genetically Modified Genes Are Jumping Species Barrier, London Observer, May 28, 2000.
29, Netherwood, et al, Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract, Nature Biotechnology, Vol 22 Number 2 February 2004.
30, Wade V. Welshons et al, Large Effects from Small Exposures. I. Mechanisms for Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals with Estrogenic Activity, Table 2,Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 111, Number 8, June 2003.
31, Glufosinate Ammonium; Pesticide Tolerance, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register: September 29, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 188), 40 CFR Part 180, ACTION: Final rule
32, S. Leeson, The effect of Glufosinate Resistant Corn on Growth of Male Broiler Chickens, by Department of
33, Mae-Wan Ho, Exposed: More Shoddy Science in GM Maize Approval, ISIS Press Release 13/03/04
34, Testimony of Steve Kestin and Toby Knowles, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol on behalf of Friends of the Earth, before the Chardon LL Hearings of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, November 2000.
35, Testimony of Steve Kestin and Toby Knowles, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol on behalf of Friends of the Earth, before the Chardon LL Hearings of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, November 2000.
© 2006 Jeffrey M. Smith- All Rights Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey M. Smith is working with a team of international scientists to catalog all known health risks of GM foods. He is the author of Seeds of Deception, the world's bestselling book on GM food, and the producer of the video, Hidden Dangers in Kids' Meals.
Website: www.seedsofdeception.com
E:Mail: info@seedsofdeception.com |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 3:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
