tagged w/ GMOS are dangerous
-
On 28 September 2011, the scientist at the centre of the global row over glyphosate/Roundup herbicide and birth defects met with representatives of the German government to present his scientific findings that Roundup herbicide and the chemical on which it is based, glyphosate, cause birth defects in laboratory animals.[1]
Prof Andres Carrasco, MD, is head of the Molecular Embryology Laboratory at University of Buenos Aires (UBA) and chief scientist at the National Council for Science and Technology (CONICET), Argentina. Carrasco’s findings gave scientific credibility to reports of people in Argentina who claimed escalating rates of birth defects and cancers after the introduction of genetically modified soy, which is engineered to tolerate being sprayed with huge amounts of glyphosate.
Accompanying Dr Carrasco at the meeting were representatives of the sustainability nonprofit organisation Earth Open Source. The delegation met with representatives from BMELV, BVL, UBA, and BfR. The current approval of glyphosate dates from 2002.
The current approval (in common with all approvals of pesticide and genetically modified crops) is based on studies performed by the very same pesticide companies that stand to profit from an approval of the substance.
Originally glyphosate was due to be reviewed in 2012 but the Commission delayed the review until 2015. Germany has a special responsibility in the Roundup controversy because it is the rapporteur member state for glyphosate, responsible for liaising between the pesticide industry, the EU Commission and the EU member states on the EU approval of glyphosate. Germany will remain as the rapporteur member state for the 2015 review of the substance.
In June 2011, Earth Open Source published a report by a group of international scientists, Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?[2] which examined the original approval documents for glyphosate and found that industry’s own studies from as long ago as the 1980s-1990s (including some commissioned by Monsanto) showed that glyphosate causes birth defects in laboratory animals, specifically rabbits and rats.
Birth defects were found in these industry studies not only at high, maternally toxic doses, but also at lower doses. As the industry studies were supposed to be on pure glyphosate, they show that it is not only the toxic added ingredients in Roundup (called adjuvants or co-formulants) that cause problems, but also glyphosate itself. Earth Open Source disagrees with Germany’s interpretation of these industry studies as laid out in its report to the EU Commission in 1998.
In this report, which formed the basis of the EU Commission’s current approval of glyphosate, Germany incorrectly classified malformations as "rather a developmental variation than a malformation" and dismissed findings of malformations at lower doses.[2]
Earth Open Source believes that as a result of such data being ignored, a potentially unsafe "acceptable daily intake" limit for glyphosate was set by Germany and accepted by the Commission in its 2002 approval. Earth Open Source says that the industry study findings are confirmed by Carrasco’s research, which found birth defects from both Roundup and pure glyphosate.
Carrasco commented that the malformations found in the industry studies were consistent with those found in his own study, as both types of malformations depend on a mechanism called the retinoic acid pathway. Carrasco's findings were not welcomed by some sectors of society in Argentina.
The Argentine government is heavily dependent on the soy economy because it has levied taxes of 35% on soy exports. Earth Open Source believes that the Argentine situation is highly relevant to Europe. Much the soy grown in Argentina is imported into Europe to feed our livestock and it is unclear that these glyphosate-sprayed soy imports are tested for residues.
In addition, there are several applications in the EU approvals pipeline for the cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerant crops, which, if cultivated in Europe, will result in an escalation of glyphosate exposure. Claire Robinson, spokesperson for Earth Open Source, said, "We requested this meeting to bring attention to the inadequacies of the current approvals process for pesticides and other risky substances.
"We asked the German government to conduct a rigorous and transparent review of glyphosate for the 2015 review – taking into account the full range of independent scientific findings as well as the industry studies.
"On the EU level, we are asking the Commission to cease allowing industry to conduct its own studies on risky substances like pesticides, chemicals, genetically modified foods, and food additives. "Instead, industry should pay money into a central fund administered by the EU government and the government should commission independent scientists to do the studies.
The scientists doing the testing could be blinded to the identity of the substance and its manufacturer to ensure impartiality.
"We thank the German government representatives for their willingness to listen to our concerns and hope that together we can move the approvals process in the direction of stronger science and better protection of human health and the environment."
Notes 1. Paganelli, A., Gnazzo, V., Acosta, H., Lopez, S.L., Carrasco, A.E. 2010. Glyphosate-based herbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signalling. Chem. Res. Toxicol., August 9.http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749
2. Antoniou et al. Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? Earth Open Source. June 2011.http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/17-roundup-and-birth-defects-is-the-public-being-kept-in-the-darkOn 28 September 2011, the scientist at the centre of the global row over... more
-
-
It is something that many farmers of genetically-modified (GM) crops are already trying to do and failing to succeed in, but that the chemical companies responsible for the problem may soon be pushing as an alleged "solution." The Dow Chemical Company has sponsored a study that aims to position the 2,4-D herbicide, a popular commercial herbicide, as the solution to Roundup-resistant "superweeds." But 2,4-D-resistant "superweeds" have already begun emerging as well, which suggests that increased chemical interventions of any kind will only make the superweed problem worse, not better.
Year after year, GM crop farmers have to battle mutant superweeds that continue to grow stronger and more resistant to the toxic pesticides and herbicides used in GM crop cultivation. But the practice is polluting the environment, contaminating the food supply, and spurring the rampant growth of harmful superweeds.
Rather than admit they are responsible for the problem, agri-giants like Dow and Monsanto say that using different pesticides and herbicides will help solve the problem. But such a suggestion could not be further from the truth. Treating plants with increasingly higher levels and more potent concoctions of toxic chemicals is a recipe for disaster, and one that will only make the superweed problem worse.
Dow, of course, found in its own study that using 2,4-D is a successful intervention to help prevent the growth of superweeds, But a review by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, which tends to be conservative in its estimation of the environmental harm caused by pesticides and herbicides, says 2,4-D leads to "risk quotients that exceed the level of concern." In other words, Dow's "solution" is highly problematic in terms of environmental and human health.It is something that many farmers of genetically-modified (GM) crops are already... more
-
-
This next year must be the year we lobby this government to get GMOS out of our food. The risks are simply too great to continue putting the Monsantos of this world before our health and environment!This next year must be the year we lobby this government to get GMOS out of our food.... more
-
-
French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini unmasked the dangers of genetically modified brinjal, almost approved for commercial production in India. He shared with Savvy Soumya Misra his findings on Bt brinjal and Roundup Ready soybean
*On the data submitted on Bt brinjal by Mahyco for approval from the Indian government
The data submitted to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (geac) of the Union environment ministry is not valid; it has not been signed by the scientist who conducted the tests. What is more scandalous is that the studies on the effects of Bt brinjal were conducted for just three months.
If the product is to be consumed by humans, the tests should have been for a period of at least two years—the lifespan of a rodent.
Worse, Mahyco tried to cover up the side-effects by jumbling data on various types of brinjal in a way that it was hard to compare Bt brinjal with normal brinjal. I am sorry to say people in the geac did not carefully assess the data. It is also not clear how the geac overlooked the fact that Bt brinjal has a protein that induces resistance to antibiotics. Mahyco has not studied hormonal impacts of Bt brinjal—Bt toxin found in it could lead to reproductive health problems.
*On his findings on Roundup Ready soybean that tolerates herbicides
Our study found that even minute doses of Roundup (a natural herbicide) disrupt sex hormones like androgen and estrogen. The inert ingredients in Roundup Ready (RR) soybean like polyethoxylated tallowamine kill human cells and disrupt the synthesis and action of human sex hormones. The research was published in this year’s July edition of the journal Toxicology. Some pregnant women who consumed RR soybean developed disorders. This combined with certain studies on animals in labs (conducted by others) made us conclude that Roundup is an endocrine disruptor.
*On claims that GM plants reduce the need for pesticides
This is a false projection. Bt plants, in fact, are designed to produce toxins to repel pests. Bt brinjal produces a very high quantity of 16-17mg toxin per kg. They affect animals. Unfortunately, tests to ascertain their effect on humans have not been conducted. RR soybean that makes up 63 per cent of GM plants in the world contains high amounts of Roundup. The US food and drug administration (usfda) has allowed up to 400 ppm Roundup residues in animal feed. It is much more than what we recommended. There was a paper published in June in Scientific American saying usfda would review the approval accorded to RR soybean because of our study.French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini unmasked the dangers of genetically modified... more
-
-
How far reaching does this have to get before it is given proper attention? Will people have to die from eating it? Is it newsworthy then?
___
Contamination of European food threatens Canadian export markets
An unapproved variety of genetically modified flax has been discovered in Canadian exports shipped to Germany and found growing illegally in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. The European Commission’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) confirmed the contamination of Canadian flax exports with the GM flax, devastating Canadian flax sales to Europe. The GM flax has been illegal to grow in Canada since 2001 when flax growers forced the government to take the product off the market.
A German company confirmed the GM contamination in its cereals and bakery products and said that it could have been distributed on the market. The German surveillance lab in the state of Baden-Württemberg conducted tests that detected the GM flax. Officials in Baden-Württemberg discovered large quantities of GM flax growing illegally in the state, and it has apparently been unknowingly sold to several EU countries. “We assume that this discovery will affect not only Germany, but rather all of Europe,” said Peter Hauk, the state’s agriculture minister.
The GM flax variety, known as FP967 and “Triffid,” is not authorized for food or feed use in the European Union. Because it is not authorized in the EU, there is zero tolerance for FP967 per EU regulations. This means that any shipment of raw material or flax/linseed derivative that tests positive for FP967 is not marketable in the EU.
“Absolute nightmare”
“This is an absolute nightmare for flax growers and why we worked so hard to have the GM flax removed,” said Terry Boehm, a flax grower and Vice President of the National Farmers Union. “Flax growers forced the GM flax off the market eight years ago to prevent any threat of contamination and protect our export markets. GM flax was never wanted or needed. We knew it would destroy our European markets and now we fear this has happened.”
The GM flax is an herbicide tolerant variety that was developed by the Crop Development Centre of the University of Saskatchewan. It was named “Triffid” after a venomous mutant plant from a British science fiction film called Day of the Triffids. FP967 was approved by Canadian regulators in 1998 but the Flax Council of Canada convinced the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to remove variety registration for the GM flax in 2001, making it illegal to grow. Flax growers took this action to protect their export markets from the threat of GM contamination. In the wake of the 2001 controversy the Centre halted its GM research.
At the beginning of September, cash bids for flaxseed in Western Canada fell dramatically based on rumors of GMO contamination. According to a report in Alberta Farmer, cash bids for flax in Manitoba dropped to as low as $6.78 per bushel after being around $10 per bushel just a few days before the contamination incident became public.
Barry Hall, president of the Flax Council of Canada, said the incident could not have come at a worse time for the Canadian flaxseed industry because flax sales to Europe begin at this time. Approximately 70%, 500,000 to 700,000 tons, of Canada’s flax is exported to Europe.How far reaching does this have to get before it is given proper attention? Will... more
-
-
Claire Hope Cummings was an environmental lawyer for 20 years. An environmental journalist, she has also farmed in both California and Vietnam. This essay is an excerpt from her new book, Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds (Beacon Press, 2008) .
On a frozen island near the North Pole, a huge hole has been blasted out of the side of an Arctic mountain and a tunnel has been drilled deep into the rock. When the facility under construction here is completed, it will be lined with one-meter-thick concrete, fitted with two high-security blast-proof airlock doors, and built to withstand nuclear war, global warming, terrorism, and the collapse of the earth's energy supplies. It's known as the "Doomsday Vault," and in it will be stored millions of seeds and mankind's hope for the future of the world's food supply.
The idea is that in the event of massive ecological destruction, those seeds could be used to reconstruct the planet's agricultural systems. Exactly who might remain to begin replanting the earth after such a catastrophe is only one of the questions this astounding project raises. The more immediate question is, are seeds in peril? The answer is yes, especially the seeds that provide us with food, fiber, and fuel. Both the diversity and the integrity of seeds are threatened, in the wild and on our farms. They are being put at risk by agricultural technologies, patents and corporate ownership, and the overall degradation of the environment. The plight of seeds is one of the most important environmental stories of our time. Until now, however, this critical issue has not received the attention it deserves.
Seeds are as critical to our survival as air, water, and soil. And yet despite the everyday miracles that they perform, we tend to take them for granted. Seeds sustain the beauty and vitality of the earth. Seeds are essential to the regenerative capacity of the planet. We will need their natural resilience and adaptability even more as temperatures rise. Biologically, each seed has a unique way of fulfilling its promise. Taken together, the world's seeds maintain the plant systems that keep the planet breathing. Every breath we take has been exhaled by a plant, which turned it into oxygen for us. Seeds have always been our silent partners in maintaining life on earth.
People and plants coevolved through the ages, and that relationship has been mutually beneficial. Seed plants dependably meet our needs, producing the corn and rice we eat, the flax and cotton we weave, and the oak and pine we use for shelter. Eighty percent of the people in the world still rely on plants as their primary source of medicine. The remains of long-dead plants provide all of us with our fossil fuels. As metaphors, seeds are a rich source of inspiration in art, literature, and religion. We cannot afford to lose any more of this generosity, this beauty, this abundance.
We find ourselves at a dramatic turning point for life on earth. Population and consumption are rapidly expanding. Industrial food production is exhausting the planet's basic biological support systems, making them even more vulnerable to the effects of global warming. The natural world is experiencing catastrophic losses of biodiversity, fresh water, and fertile soil. All of these trends are threatening seeds and forcing us to take a careful look at how we will feed ourselves in the future. It comes down to this: whoever controls the future of seeds controls the future of life on earth.
http://www.clairehopecummings.com/book.htmlClaire Hope Cummings was an environmental lawyer for 20 years. An environmental... more
-
-
"To be a real choice this must include labelling food with any detectable level of GMs and food produce from animals fed GM feed."
---
---
'Label GM food products', say farmers
Sally Williams
Western Mail (front page of 'Country & Farming' section), 8 September 2009
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/countryside-farming-news/farming-news/2009/09/08/label-gm-food-products-say-farmers-91466-24629461/
WELSH farmers are calling for "Frankenstein food" GM products to be labelled, as a survey published today raises fresh concerns about the technology.
Philip Bevan of Great House Farm, a 220-acre organic farm in Abergavenny, Monmouthshire, said Welsh consumers have every right to know exactly what the food they eat contains, as a survey by Consumer Focus Wales shows that almost a quarter of them (24%) think GM should be banned from sale in the UK.
Mr Bevan said, "As organic farmers, we would always avoid GM food at all costs.
"We believe in pesticide and herbicide-free food.
"We think it is definitely the healthier option but would welcome more research into the benefits of organic food to the body.
"The trouble is that more and more pesticides are being brought into the food chain all the time and who knows what untold damage they are doing?"
As GM crops become more commonplace around the world, CFW warned that it is likely to become a hotly-debated topic in future.
And Haf Elgar a campaigner, for Friends of the Earth Cymru agreed that any traces of GM should be pointed out clearly to the consumer, as soon as possible.
"Clear food labelling is a must in order to give consumers a choice and make sure that we all know what's in the food we eat," she said.
"But to be a real choice this must include labelling food with any detectable level of GMs and food produce from animals fed GM feed.
"Friends of the Earth supports establishing a Sustainable Agriculture Research Council to provide independent research into the effects of GM crops and food, instead of relying on research largely done by the same biotech companies that develop GM food.
end of excerpt"To be a real choice this must include labelling food with any detectable level... more
-
