Este es un blog bilingüe fundado en mayo de 2004, dedicado a proveer perspectivas críticas sobre biotecnología y bioseguridad … This is a bilingual blog, founded in May 2004, dedicated to providing critical perspectives on biotechnology and biosafety. Contact: ruiz@tutanota.com.
Compartimos con ustedes una serie de noticias y análisis preocupantes sobre la situación de los transgénicos en América Latina, como posibles liberaciones de mosquitos transgénicos para combatir el dengue, el avance de los transgénicos en Cuba y Argentina y las resistencias locales, así como el impacto social de las plantaciones de palma en Honduras. Boletín N° 405 de la Red por una América Latina Libre de Transgénicos
Descargar: MP3 – 2.6 MB
Los cables diplomáticos revelados por el sitio de investigación Wikileaks indican que el gobierno de Estados Unidos habría trabajado en conjunto con el de España para impulsar el cultivo de los organismos genéticamente modificados (OGM) en Europa, buscando vencer así a las posturas contrarias, lideradas por Francia.
Los cables revelan también información sobre cómo se manejaba a la oposición a los transgénicos dentro de España, y a la injerencia de Estados Unidos en asuntos de política interna española para frenar las posturas adversas a estos cultivos y a las empresas del agronegocio.
La Unión Europea ha puesto trabas al cultivo de transgénicos y de hecho sólo se cultiva maíz modificado genéticamente en seis países (España, República Checa, Portugal, Rumania, Polonia y Eslovaquia), mientras que otros seis han aplicado la llamada "cláusula de salvaguarda", que les permite vetar estos cultivos por considerarlos "un riesgo para la salud humana o el medio ambiente". Estos países son Austria, Francia, Alemania, Grecia, Hungría y Luxemburgo.
Asimismo, Francia indicó en su exposición de motivos que el maíz que fabrica la gigante del agronegocio de origen estadounidense Monsanto, el MON810, genera "posibles efectos tóxicos adversos a largo plazo sobre las lombrices, los isópodos, los nemátodos y las mariposas monarca", algo que la empresa consideró un efecto de las organizaciones ambientalistas sobre el gobierno francés, señalan los cables filtrados a la prensa.
Según estos cables, para Monsanto la posición se debe a un "acuerdo de facto entre el Gobierno de Francia y Greenpeace y Amigos de la Tierra por el cual el Ejecutivo francés apoyaría el movimiento libre de transgénicos si los activistas miraran para otro lado en las iniciativas nucleares de [el presidente Nicolás] Sarkozy".
A su vez, en un informe confidencial de la embajada estadounidense en Francia se indica que el gobierno de Estados Unidos consideró tomar represalias contra el gobierno francés y otros gobiernos europeos por su negativa a cultivar organismos genéticamente modificados.
Según informó el medio estadounidense Democracy Now!, en el cable filtrado el embajador Craig Roberts afirmaba: "En esta cuestión, Europa está retrocediendo, no avanzando, y Francia está desempeñando un papel principal, junto con Austria, Italia e incluso la Comisión”.
"Vemos el veto al cultivo como un primer paso, al menos por los anti-OGM, que después se moverán para prohibir las importaciones", agregaba el informe, según indicó el diario español El País.
Ante la revelación de estos cables y particularmente frente al papel que jugó el gobierno español en la promoción y defensa de los transgénicos, las organizaciones Amigos de la Tierra, Ecologistas en Acción, Greenpeace, COAG, Plataforma Rural y CECU están exigiendo a la ministra española Rosa Aguilar que la política sobre OGM “deje de estar controlada por las multinacionales” y reclaman “una moratoria inmediata a su cultivo en España”.
Por ello han iniciado una ciberacción, que consiste en enviar una carta a la ministra, que puede ser completada en el sitio web de Greenpeace.
Etiquetas: es, Radio Mundo Real, Wikileaks
- ¡Ciberactúa! No te quedes parado ante la revelación de Wikileaks sobre los transgénicos
Por si quedaran dudas sobre a favor de quién ha estado trabajando el gobierno de España en los últimos años, los cables revelados por Wikileaks y publicados hoy por El País lo dejan claro: el Gobierno de España ha estado trabajando de la mano de EEUU y de Monsanto a favor de los transgénicos y en contra del conjunto de la sociedad. En ellos se evidencia una estrategia conjunta de los gobiernos de España y EEUU a favor de las multinacionales de los transgénicos y en contra de aquellos países de la UE que han intentado parar estos cultivos.
El propio Secretario de Estado Josep Puxeu le llegó a pedir al gobierno de EEUU que presionase a la UE a favor del cultivo de transgénicos. Y confesó que sentía cómo la presión en contra de los transgénicos aumentaba en España… ¿Por qué en lugar de cambiar de política, en lugar de escuchar a la sociedad, en lugar de adoptar actitudes democráticas y basadas en la precaución, estos cargos políticos prefieren ponerse del lado de los poderes corporativos?
¿Qué más necesitamos saber sobre quién está detrás de los transgénicos y qué pretenden con ello?
Por ello desde Greenpeace y el resto de organizaciones aliadas, hemos pedido a la ministra de Medio Ambiente, Medio Rural y Marino, Rosa Aguilar, que adopte las medidas oportunas, tome inmediatamente cartas en el asunto exigiendo responsabilidades a quienes, escandalosamente, han trabajado para favorecer los intereses de las grandes multinacionales biotecnológicas en detrimento del conjunto de la sociedad, de la salud pública y del medio ambiente.
Desde hace más de una década el gobierno de España ha defendido el cultivo de transgénicos prácticamente en solitario en la UE, y es el único país que ha tolerado el cultivo a gran escala de OMG (según datos del propio Ministerio, se cultivan entorno a 70.000 hectáreas de un maíz modificado genéticamente de Monsanto). Y lo ha hecho sin cumplir con las normas europeas y españolas de transparencia, sin seguir los productos a través de la cadena alimentaria, sin obligar a etiquetar los alimentos transgénicos y sin realizar seguimiento alguno de los campos cultivados con estas peligrosas semillas. Los datos hechos públicos ahora explican por qué se ha permitido que campen a sus anchas las multinacionales del sector, a pesar de los innumerables casos de contaminación genética y los daños sociales y económicos que estos cultivos han ocasionado.
Por ello es de vital importancia que la nueva ministra cambie inmediatamente la posición del gobierno de España y que la primera medida sea prohibir el cultivo de maíz transgénico de Monsanto MON 810 para la próxima campaña de siembra, tal y como llevan haciendo desde hace años los gobiernos de hasta diez países de la UE (entre ellos Francia, Austria o Alemania) en base a las evidencias científicas sobre sus impactos sobre el medio ambiente, la imposibilidad de convivencia de la agricultura transgénica con la convencional y ecológica y las incertidumbre sobre sus efectos sobre la salud a largo plazo.
La prohibición del cultivo de transgénicos por parte del gobierno de España es imprescindible para poder defender los intereses de nuestro medio ambiente, nuestra agricultura y la salud pública, para que éstos no sigan en manos de la industria de los transgénicos, de los intereses de EEUU y de quienes, desde las instituciones españolas, los han apoyado abiertamente, tal y como ha quedado demostrado en los cables de Wikileaks.
Etiquetas: es, España, Europe, Greenpeace, Wikileaks
"If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."
Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, quoted in the Kansas City Star, March 7, 1994
"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."
Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, quoted in the New York Times, October 25, 1998
After 16 years of non-stop biotech bullying and force-feeding Genetically Engineered or Modified (GE or GM) crops to farm animals and “Frankenfoods” to unwitting consumers, Monsanto has a big problem, or rather several big problems. A growing number of published scientific studies indicate that GE foods pose serious human health threats. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) recently stated that “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM advises consumers to avoid GM foods. Before the FDA arbitrarily decided to allow Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) into food products in 1994, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can set off serious, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored. http://www.responsibletechnology.org
Federal judges are finally starting to acknowledge what organic farmers and consumers have said all along: uncontrollable and unpredictable GMO crops such as alfalfa and sugar beets spread their mutant genes onto organic farms and into non-GMO varieties and plant relatives, and should be halted.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22173.cfm
An appeals court recently ruled that consumers have the right to know whether the dairy products they are purchasing are derived from cows injected with Monsanto’s (now Elanco’s) controversial recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), linked to serious animal health problems and increased cancer risk for humans.
Monsanto’s Roundup, the agro-toxic companion herbicide for millions of acres of GM soybeans, corn, cotton, alfalfa, canola, and sugar beets, is losing market share. Its overuse has spawned a new generation of superweeds that can only be killed with super-toxic herbicides such as 2,4, D and paraquat. Moreover, patented “Roundup Ready” crops require massive amounts of climate destabilizing nitrate fertilizer. Compounding Monsanto’s damage to the environment and climate, rampant Roundup use is literally killing the soil, destroying essential soil microorganisms, degrading the living soil’s ability to capture and sequester CO2, and spreading deadly plant diseases. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_21039.cfm
In just one year, Monsanto has moved from being Forbes’ “Company of the Year” to the Worst Stock of the Year. The Biotech Bully of St. Louis has become one of the most hated corporations on Earth. http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm
Monsanto and their agro-toxic allies are now turning to Obama’s pro-biotech USDA for assistance. They want the organic community to stop suing them and boycotting their products. They want food activists and the OCA to mute our criticisms and stop tarnishing the image of their brands, their seeds, and companies. They want us to resign ourselves to the fact that one-third of U.S. croplands, and one-tenth of global cultivated acreage, are already contaminated with GMOs. That’s why Monsanto recently hired the notorious mercenary firm, Blackwater, to spy on us. That’s why Monsanto has teamed up with the Gates Foundation to bribe government officials and scientists and spread GMOs throughout Africa and the developing world. That’s why the biotech bullies and the Farm Bureau have joined hands with the Obama Administration to preach their new doctrine of “coexistence.”
“Coexistence” or Cooptation?
The Agriculture Department is dutifully drafting a comprehensive “coexistence policy” that supposedly will diffuse tensions between conventional (chemical but non-GMO), biotech, and organic farmers. Earlier this week industry and Administration officials met in Washington, D.C. to talk about coexistence. Even though the Organic Consumers Association tried to get into the meeting, we were told we weren’t welcome. The powers that be claim that the OCA doesn’t meet their criteria of being “stakeholders.” The unifying theme in these closed-door meetings is apparently that Monsanto and the other biotech companies will set aside a “compensation” fund to reimburse organic farmers whose crops or fields get contaminated. That way we’ll all be happy. Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, Dow, and Dupont will continue planting their hazardous crops and force-feeding animals and consumers with GMOs. Organic farmers and companies willing to cooperate will get a little compensation or “hush money.” But of course our response to Monsanto and the USDA’s plan, as you might have guessed, is hell no!
There can be no such thing as “coexistence” with a reckless and monopolistic industry that harms human health, destroys biodiversity, damages the environment, tortures and poisons animals, destabilizes the climate, and economically devastates the world’s 1.5 billion seed-saving small farmers. Enough talk of coexistence. We need a new regime that empowers consumers, small farmers, and the organic community. We need a new set of rules, based on “truth-in-labeling” and the “precautionary principle” — consumer and farmer-friendly regulations that are basically already in place in the European Union—so that “we the people” can regain control over Monsanto, indentured politicians, and the presently out-of-control technology of genetic engineering.
Truth-in-Labeling: Monsanto and the Biotech Industry’s Greatest Fear
In practical terms coexistence between GMOs and organics in the European Union, the largest agricultural market in the world, is a non-issue. Why? Because there are almost no GMO crops under cultivation, nor consumer food products on supermarket shelves, in the EU, period. And why is this? There are almost no GMOs in Europe, because under EU law, as demanded by consumers, all foods containing GMOs or GMO ingredients must be labeled. Consumers have the freedom to choose or not to consume GMOs, while farmers, food processors, and retailers have (at least legally) the right to lace foods with GMOs, as long as they are labeled. Of course consumers, for the most part, do not want to consume GM Frankenfoods. European farmers and food companies, even junk food purveyors like McDonald’s and Wal-Mart, understand quite well the axiom expressed by the Monsanto executive at the beginning of this article: "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."
The biotech industry and Food Inc. are acutely aware of the fact that North American consumers, like their European counterparts, are wary and suspicious of GMO foods. Even without a PhD, consumers understand you don’t want to be part of an involuntary food safety experiment. You don’t want your food safety or environmental sustainability decisions to be made by profit-at-any-cost chemical companies like Monsanto, Dow, or Dupont—the same people who brought you toxic pesticides, Agent Orange, PCBs, and now global warming. Industry leaders are acutely aware of the fact that every single industry or government poll over the last 16 years has shown that 85-95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on GMO foods. Why? So that we can avoid buying them. GMO foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why Monsanto and their friends in the Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations have prevented consumer GMO truth-in-labeling laws from getting a public discussion in Congress, much less allowing such legislation to be put up for a vote. Obama (and Hilary Clinton) campaign operatives in 2008 claimed that Obama supported mandatory labels for GMOs, but we haven’t heard a word from the White House on this topic since Inauguration Day.
Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) introduces a bill in every Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GMOs, don’t hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling and consumers’ right to know what’s in their food. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the so-called “Citizens United” case gave big corporations and billionaires the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent.
Therefore we need to shift our focus and go local. We’ve got to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie, in the marketplace, at the retail level; pressuring retail food stores to voluntarily label their products; while on the legislative front we must organize a broad coalition to pass mandatory GMO (and CAFO) labeling laws, at the city, county, and state levels.
Millions Against Monsanto: Launching a Nationwide Truth-in-Labeling Campaign, Starting with Local City Council Ordinances or Ballot Initiatives
Early in 2011 the Organic Consumers Association, joined by our consumer, farmer, environmental, and labor allies, plans to launch a nationwide campaign to stop Monsanto and the Biotech Bullies from force-feeding unlabeled GMOs to animals and humans. Utilizing scientific data, legal precedent, and consumer power the OCA and our local coalitions will educate and mobilize at the grassroots level to pressure retailers to implement “truth-in-labeling” practices; while simultaneously organizing a critical mass to pass mandatory local and state truth-in-labeling ordinances or ballot initiatives similar to labeling laws already in effect for country of origin, irradiated food, allergens, and carcinogens. If local government bodies refuse to take action, wherever possible we will gather petition signatures and place these truth-in-labeling initiatives directly on the ballot in 2011 or 2012. Stay tuned for details, but please send an email to: information@organicconsumers.org
if you’re interesting in helping organize a truth-in-labeling campaign in your local community. Millions Against Monsanto. Power to the people!
Etiquetas: en, Monsanto, Ronnie Cummins
http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/3245
By Jeffrey Smith, Institute for Responsible Technology
This blog appeared on Huffington Post on December 20, 2010
"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU" [Emphasis added] --Recommendation by US Ambassador to France, Craig Stapleton.
WikiLeaked cables released over the weekend revealed more about the US' role as a global bully, trying to thrust unpopular genetically modified (GM) crops onto cautious governments and their citizens.
Etiquetas: en, Europe, Jeffrey Smith, Wikileaks
Notas:
(1) Oxitec’s genetically-modified mosquitoes: in the public interest? GeneWatch UK briefing. December 2010. Disponible en: http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/Oxitecbrief_fin.pdf
(2) La lista de pestes transgénicas de Oxitec puyeden ser encontrada en : http://www.oxitec.com/our-targets/agricultural-pests/
Gusanos modificados genéticamente para contener un marcador fluorescente se han probado en los EE.UU., pero estos fueron esterilizados con radiación, en lugar de ser modificados genéticamente con el rasgo de Oxitec de "letalidad condicional".
Esta semana se encontró la presencia de gusanos del algodón resistentes a la toxina presente en el algodón Bt en la India:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101212/jsp/frontpage/story_13290179.jsp#top
Fuente:
Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia.
Pesquisa tenta desenvolver um mosquito da dengue macho capaz de reprodução de novas larvas
Fuentes:
John Tuxill, "La pérdida de la biodiversidad campesina".
Kirill O. Rossianov, "Lysenco y Stalin".
ONU, 19.02.04, "Geo, América Latina y el Caribe, perspectivas del medio ambiente 2003".
Etiquetas: Enildo Iglesias, es, Rel-UITA, Vavilov
About the writer: Claire Robinson is an editor at GMWatchThe above article is reproduced from the Ecologist, 24th November, 2010.
Etiquetas: en
For Immediate Release: November 30, 2010
Federal Court Orders First-Ever Destruction of a GMO Crop
Orders Removal of Genetically Engineered Sugar Beet Seed Crop
Finds Government and Monsanto rushed to illegally plant herbicide resistant crop
San Francisco, CA – Today Federal District Judge Jeffrey S. White issued a preliminary injunction ordering the immediate destruction of hundreds of acres of genetically engineered (GE) sugar beet seedlings planted in September after finding the seedlings had been planted in violation of federal law. The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by Earthjustice and Center for Food Safety on behalf of a coalition of farmers, consumers, and conservation groups. The lawsuit was filed on September 9, shortly after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) revealed it had allowed the seedlings to be planted.
The court outlined the many ways in which GE sugar beets could harm the environment and consumers, noting that containment efforts were insufficient and past contamination incidents were “too numerous” to allow the illegal crop to remain in the ground. In his court order, Judge White noted, “farmers and consumers would likely suffer harm from cross-contamination” between GE sugar beets and non-GE crops. He continued, “the legality of Defendants’ conduct does not even appear to be a close question,” noting that the government and Monsanto tried to circumvent his prior ruling, which made GE sugar beets illegal.
Paul Achitoff of Earthjustice, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said, “USDA thumbed its nose at the judicial system and the public by allowing this crop to be grown without any environmental review. Herbicide resistant crops just like this have been shown to result in more toxic chemicals in our soil and water. USDA has shown no regard for the environmental laws, and we’re pleased that Judge White ordered the appropriate response.”
Plaintiff Center for Food Safety’s Senior Staff Attorney George Kimbrell said, “Today's decision is a seminal victory for farmers and the environment and a vindication of the rule of law. The public interest has prevailed over USDA's repeated efforts to implement the unlawful demands of the biotech industry."
The plaintiffs—The Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance, High Mowing Organic Seeds, and the Sierra Club—had immediately sought a court order to halt the planting. On September 28 Judge White ruled that USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by allowing the plantings without analyzing the potential environmental, health, and socioeconomic impacts of growing GE sugar beets. Judge White heard testimony from the parties during a three-day hearing in November before issuing today’s ruling.
Monsanto created “Roundup Ready” crops to withstand its Roundup herbicide (with the active ingredient glyphosate), which it then sells to farmers together with its patented seed, for which it charges farmers a substantial “technology fee.” Earlier this year, the Department of Justice announced it had opened a formal investigation into possible anticompetitive practices in Monsanto’s use of such patented crops. Growing previous Roundup Ready crops such as soy, cotton, and corn have led to greater use of herbicides. It also has led to the spread of herbicide resistant weeds on millions of acres throughout the United States and other countries where such crops are grown, and contamination of conventional and organic crops, which has been costly to U.S. farmers. There is also evidence that such herbicide-resistant crops may be more susceptible to serious plant diseases.
In an earlier case the court ruled that USDA had violated NEPA by allowing the crop to be commercialized without first preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In August the court made any future planting and sale unlawful until USDA complies with federal law. (USDA has said it expects to complete an EIS in spring 2012.) But almost immediately after the ruling, USDA issued permits allowing companies to plant seedlings to produce seed for future Roundup Ready sugar beet crops, even though the crops are still illegal to grow, and no EIS has been prepared. The seed growers rushed to plant the seed crop in Oregon and Arizona, apparently hoping to outrun the legal action to stop it. In this latest case, USDA argued that the seedlings were separate from the rest of the sugar beet crop cycle and had no impact by themselves, but Judge White rejected this. He found that the law requires USDA to analyze the impacts of not only the seedlings, but the rest of the Roundup Ready sugar beet production process as well, before any part of that process can begin.
Courts have twice rescinded USDA’s approval of biotech crops. The first such crop, Roundup Ready alfalfa, is also illegal to plant, based on the vacating of its deregulation in 2007 pending preparation of an EIS. Although Monsanto appealed that case all the way to the Supreme Court and the High Court set aside part of the relief granted, the full prohibition on its planting – based on the same initial remedy granted here, the vacatur – remains in place.
This case is Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. C10-04038 JSW (N.D. Cal. 2010).
The order can be viewed here: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/SBII-ORDER-granting-preliminary-inj.pdf
***
Get the NEW True Food Shoppers Guide App for iPhone or Android!
Get it on iTunes or search for "True Food" in the Android Market
Etiquetas: Beets, Center for Food Safety, en
Suscribirse a
Entradas [Atom]