martes, junio 30, 2015

Monsanto "educating" journalists

http://www.whav.net/cms/?p=9604

EXCERPT:

This corporate-media symbiosis can be seen in an upcoming food conference for journalists put on by the National Press Foundation. NPF bills its meeting as an in-depth all-day, all-expenses-paid “bootcamp” for reporters on the issues of “feeding the world’s growing population.” Sounds great—educating reporters is a plus. But wait…shouldn’t journalists ask: Who’s providing this education?


Corporations, that’s who. NPF is funded by such giants as Bayer, Entergy, Ford, Honda, Lockheed Martin and Prudential, as wall as by corporate foundations, lobbyists, and PR firms. And who is the chief sponsor of NPF’s bootcamp on the future of food? Monsanto! In fact, NPF moved the conference to St. Louis, home of this notorious huckster of genetically-altered frankenfoods, specifically so reporters could come visit its corporate labs and get “educated.”

Etiquetas: , , ,

lunes, junio 29, 2015

2,4-D linked to cancer

Another common herbicide linked to cancer 

Less than three months after declaring that the ubiquitous herbicide glyphosate, marketed by Monsanto as Roundup, is “probably carcinogenic,” a working group of scientists convened by the World Health Organization has taken aim at another widely used herbicide, 2,4-D, which the WHO panel has found to be “possibly carcinogenic.”
These announcements can hardly be welcome news in the Midwest, whose farm fields are blanketed in corn and soybeans. Since the advent of crops genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate in the 1990s, farmers there have come to rely heavily on the herbicide that many weed varieties have evolved to resist, causing many headaches and a surge in herbicide use.

Etiquetas: , ,

domingo, junio 28, 2015

Royal Society against science

The Royal Society's assault on the science of GM foods must cease 

The Royal Society wants us to take its word that GM crops are safe and healthy, writes Steven Druker. But it refuses to retract its errors, apologise to those whose reputations it has impugned, or enter into constructive debate on the issue. To restore its scientific integrity, it must abide by its own motto.

Etiquetas: , ,

sábado, junio 27, 2015

Documento Constitutivo de la Unión de Científicos Comprometidos con la Sociedad y la Naturaleza de América Latina (UCCSNAL)



Biodiversidad en América Latina | Documento Constitutivo de la Unión de Científicos Comprometidos con la Sociedad y la Naturaleza de América Latina (UCCSNAL)

"Es imprescindible que todo proceso de generación y aplicación de tecnologías en la sociedad sea convalidado por la licencia social y ambiental correspondiente, fruto de legítimos procesos participativos que tengan como eje el respeto por las culturas, los territorios, los mecanismos de decisión y los sistemas sociales locales."

Etiquetas: ,

viernes, junio 26, 2015

Manifiesto sobre glifosato por científicos independientes





http://www.biodiversidadla.org/Principal/Secciones/Documentos/Manifiesto_sobre_el_Glifosato_de_Cientificos_Independientes

Un grupo de más de 80 científicos de todo el mundo están pidiendo a los gobiernos a todos los niveles prohibir la fumigación de herbicidas de glifosato, basándose en la abrumadora evidencia de estudios científicos y declaraciones de testigos recopiladas por dicho grupo.

Etiquetas: ,

jueves, junio 25, 2015

GRR analiza las campañas contra el glifo

http://www.volveralatierra.com.ar/alimentos/huerta/huerta-mayo-2015-glifosato-perejil/

"Pretendíamos modificar el modelo rural, detener el creciente despoblamiento del campo y modificar las políticas de crecimiento sustentadas en la exportación y en los pagos de la deuda, llevar los debates sobre la violación de los derechos humanos al presente, en que, como consecuencia de las políticas de Estado para la agricultura, son violados sistemáticamente, y por sobre todo, pretendíamos obligar a que se reconociera el actual status semicolonial de la Argentina y se aceptara dar grandes debates sobre el tipo de país que pretendemos construir. Desde ya que esta lucha que llevamos a lo largo de los años no fue gratuita ni dejó de despertar grandes resistencias y lamentablemente, demasiados esfuerzos para tergiversarla o acallarla.De esa manera, las víctimas podrían, llegar a ser utilizadas como baza por uno de los bandos en pugna, en la mesa de negociación donde se discute quiénes y cómo manejan las enormes rentas que proporciona el modelo de la soja. De hecho, en un frente con sectores políticos y desde usinas del conformismo y de la política “del pájaro en mano” como la de Carta Abierta, algunos sectores sociales de base alimentados con la gran caja asistencial, y ONG financiadas por fundaciones ligadas a las políticas europeas de certificación, pretenden reducir la lucha de los pueblos fumigados a denunciar el glifosato o a discutir tan solo la cantidad de metros que distarían los primeros campos de soja de la última calle de los pueblos."

Etiquetas: , , ,

miércoles, junio 24, 2015

RENACE informa

RENACE INFORMA
RED NACIONAL DE ACCION ECOLOGISTA de la Argentina
23 de junio 2015

PROTECCIÓN EN EL TRABAJO y BUENAS PRÁCTICAS:
QUÉDESE TRANQUILO QUE ESTÁ EN BUENAS MANOS.

Los múltiples intereses del ocultamiento.

          Hace apenas cuatro años, quien esto escribe, recibió de parte del Director de Producción del municipio en el cual vive, la siguente respuesta “…pero tanto lío por el glifosato! Si te podés tomar un vasito que no te hace nada!”. Esa era, palabras más, palabras menos, la misma respuesta que se dio a lo largo de cuarenta años, ya que en el mundo –dice CASAFE[1]- se usa desde 1974.
          Fue necesario que un ejército de científicos se pusiera de pie (como el caso de Seralini en Francia o Carrasco en Argentina) para que finalmente, a punta de paper, la OMS tuviese que decirle a sus amigos industriales, que no era posible negar más tiempo las evidencias y debía hacerse público que el ingénuo herbicida resultaba ser probable carcinógeno, y además, banda roja para el contacto con los ojos.

          ¿Qué dicen ahora los Directores de Producción, Ministerios, ART,  a los miles y miles de personas que fueron adiestradas para usar sin protección alguna esa sustancia a lo largo de toda su vida, porque total, “Si te podés tomar un vasito que no te hace nada!”.

          Hoy, 23 de junio, la Agencia Internacional para la Investigación sobre el Cáncer (IARC) de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, ha evaluado la carcinogenicidad de los insecticidas gamma-hexaclorociclohexano (lindano) y diclorodifeniltricloroetano (DDT) y el herbicida ácido 2,4-diclorofenoxiacético (2,4-D). Oh sorpresa, clasificó el lindano como carcinógeno para los humanos, y el 2,4-D (que avanza en Argentina con la nueva semilla de las multinacionales) como posible carcinógeno para las personas. Señala que hay fuertes indicios de que el 2,4-D induce estrés oxidativo, y la evidencia moderada que el 2,4-D causa inmunosupresión, basado en in vivo e in vitro.
         
¿Había que ir tan lejos? ¿Había que esperar tanto? Pues parece que no, porque el laboratorio del Area Toxicología de la Facultad de Ciencias Bioquímicas y Farmacéuticas de la Universidad Nacional de Rosario viene trabajando en el D,4-D desde hace 40 (cuarenta) años… y ha arribado a las mismas conclusiones hace muuucho tiempo.
Entonces, decíamos “agrotóxicos” y las cámaras nos atacaban por ese término “tendencioso”. Hoy ya podemos mandarlos a reclamar al Vaticano, pues es el término que usa el Papa Francisco en su encíclica reciente, para estas sustancias que son biocidas.
          Esta suerte de “delay” o retraso en aceptar al fin las evidencias, se alimenta de complicidades entre investigadores mercenarios, funcionarios corruptos, y ocultamientos sistemáticos, tales como fueron los de la industria tabacalera para que “no se sepa” durante 40 años, que el tabaco producía cáncer. Gentes de la OMS, gentes de las industrias, científicos comprados, sostuvieron la “inexistencia de pruebas suficientes” durante medio siglo, hasta asegurarse el imperio de la adicción en todo el planeta.
          La misma estructura funciona hoy, pero, oh sorpresa, no solamente en este tema tan caro a los corazones de los ecologistas, sino en otro también:

Ayer, 22 de junio, la misma IARC publicó en la revista The Lancet Hematology los resultados de un estudio que señala que la exposición prolongada a dosis bajas de radiación ionizante puede causar leucemia.
 "este estudio proporciona la evaluación más precisa del riesgo de desarrollar leucemia relacionado con las dosis bajas prolongadas de radiación recibida por los trabajadores nucleares durante toda su carrera", dice el investigador Dr. IARC Ausrele Kesminiene, coautor del estudio.
Evaluaron las exposiciones de 300.000 trabajadores nucleares en Francia, Reino Unido y EE.UU. durante la friolera del período entre 1943 y 2005. Los resultados ponen de manifiesto una fuerte evidencia de asociación positiva entre la exposición a la radiación ionizante y el riesgo de muerte por leucemia y muestran que el riesgo de leucemia aumenta linealmente con la dosis de radiación.

          Qué dirán ahora los que sostienen que las bajas dosis nada hacen?  Su discurso se va cayendo a pedazos frente al surgimiento de coaliciones de científicos “para la ciencia digna” tanto en Argentina como en el resto del mundo. Ya no se puede sostener tanto ocultamiento.  Qué dirán los que defienden las buenas prácticas agrícolas, la seguridad nuclear, el modelo de producción que manipula biocidas de a toneladas y supone que la naturaleza (y la especie humana) lo seguirá resistiendo. Con casi 15 millones de cánceres nuevos al año –datos oficiales, y solamente pensando en cáncer- ¿nuestra especie lo está resistiendo?
          Ayer mismo se conocía en Science Advances el trabajo que expertos de las universidades de Standford, Autónoma de México y Florida realizaron sobre extinción, en el cual piden tomar "medidas rápidas" para conservar las especies y advierten de que "la ventana de oportunidad" para hacerlo "se está cerrando con rapidez". El estudio muestra, "sin ninguna duda significativa, que estamos entrando en la sexta gran extinción masiva". Y que incluso, con las estimaciones más conservadoras, las especies de nuestro planeta están desapareciendo unas cien veces más rápido de lo que sería normal.
          Mientras nos posicionemos como personas por afuera de la “lista de especies”, estaremos errando la mirada.
Como bien se dijo hace cuatro dias, desde el Vaticano:

Existen formas de contaminación que afectan cotidianamente a las personas. La exposición a los contaminantes atmosféricos produce un amplio espectro de efectos sobre la salud, especialmente de los más pobres, provocando millones de muertes prematuras. Se enferman, por ejemplo, a causa de (…) los fertilizantes, insecticidas, fungicidas, controladores de malezas y agrotóxicos en general. La tecnología que, ligada a las finanzas, pretende ser la única solución de los problemas, de hecho suele ser incapaz de ver el misterio de las múltiples relaciones que existen entre las cosas, y por eso a veces resuelve un problema creando otros”.
“…hay que asegurar una discusión científica y social que sea responsable y amplia, capaz de considerar toda la información disponible y de llamar a las cosas por su nombre. A veces no se pone sobre la mesa la totalidad de la información, que se selecciona de acuerdo con los propios intereses, sean políticos, económicos o ideológicos.
(…) Algunos proyectos, no suficientemente analizados, pueden afectar profundamente la calidad de vida de un lugar debido a cuestiones tan diversas entre sí como una contaminación acústica no prevista, la reducción de la amplitud visual, la pérdida de valores culturales, los efectos del uso de energía nuclear. La cultura consumista, que da prioridad al corto plazo y al interés privado, puede alentar trámites demasiado rápidos o consentir el ocultamiento de información. En toda discusión acerca de un emprendimiento, una serie de preguntas deberían plantearse en orden a discernir si aportará a un verdadero desarrollo integral: ¿Para qué? ¿Por qué? ¿Dónde? ¿Cuándo? ¿De qué manera? ¿Para quién? ¿Cuáles son los riesgos? ¿A qué costo? ¿Quién paga los costos y cómo lo hará”?[2]

Lo mismo nos preguntamos nosotros.



Lic. Silvana Buján
BIOS – RENACE – GAIA – Coalición Ciudadana Antiincineración

Etiquetas: , , ,

martes, junio 23, 2015

Monsanto/Syngenta: From Gene Giants to Agribehemoths


http://www.etcgroup.org/content/monsantosyngenta-gene-giants-agribehemoths

A proposed merger of seed and pesticide conglomerates portends a new level of monopoly over the first link in the global food chain



Etiquetas: , , ,

lunes, junio 22, 2015

Lawyer challenges Monsanto to find inaccuracies in his book exposing GMO risks


An American public interest attorney has challenged Monsanto to find any inaccurate statements of fact in the new book he has written exposing the risks of GM foods and the multiple misrepresentations that have enabled them to permeate world markets. He asserts that if the company cannot prove that his book is essentially erroneous, it will entail that these controversial products are unacceptably risky and should be promptly banned.

The attorney is Steven Druker, who came to prominence for initiating a lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that forced it to divulge its files on GM foods – which revealed that the agency had covered up the extensive warnings of its own scientists about their abnormal risks and then repeatedly lied to the public.

The book is titled: “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public”.

It features a foreword by the renowned primatologist Jane Goodall hailing it as “without doubt one of the most important books of the last 50 years”. It has been praised by several other eminent scientists as well, including David Schubert, a Professor and Head of Cellular Neurobiology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, who has called it “incisive, insightful, and truly outstanding” – and also commended it as “well-reasoned and scientifically solid.”

The book and the challenge were sent to Robb Fraley, Monsanto’s Chief Technology Officer, and delivered on May 20 to the company’s St. Louis headquarters. Fraley previously sent Dr Goodall an email attempting to sooth her concerns about GM foods – and declaring that he would be “very pleased” to provide additional information. She passed that email on to Druker so that he could respond as he saw fit, resulting in the challenge – which stipulates that the additional information comprise a list of every inaccurate assertion of fact that Fraley and his colleagues can find in the book, along with a citation to evidence that conclusively confirms its erroneousness.

Other GMO proponents invited to assist Monsanto

Druker has also invited the other proponents of GM foods in industry and academia to assist Monsanto so that the response it submits will represent the best collective effort of the products’ supporters. He has allotted them two months and set a deadline of July 20. He asserts: “If by that date Monsanto and its allies have not been able to refute the essential factual accuracy of Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, the world will have a right to assume that it is as sound as the experts who reviewed it have affirmed – and to conclude that the GE food venture is a reckless gamble that must be quickly brought to an end.”

In his challenge, Druker pledges to publicly acknowledge any genuine errors that Monsanto can demonstrate and to correct them in the book’s next printing. Moreover, he demands that Monsanto display reciprocal responsibility. The challenge notes that a Monsanto brochure sent by Fraley to Dr. Goodall contains several misleading statements, and it decisively demonstrates the falsity of two of the biggest deceptions: the claims (a) that “every respected organization that has examined the evidence” has concluded that GE foods are safe and (b) that “there have been no documented safety issues.” Further, it insists that Monsanto promptly acknowledge the misrepresentations and set the record straight.

Druker asserts: “The proponents of GE foods have been passing off disinformation as scientific fact, and my challenge can restore the truth.” As the challenge declares: “Monsanto and its allies have been propagating a distinctly different set of facts than are delineated in Altered Genes, Twisted Truth. Both versions of reality cannot be correct, and people have a right to know which one is valid and which is fictitious.”

The challenge is posted at:
http://alteredgenestwistedtruth.com/challenge-to-monsanto/

It is also available at:
www.biointegrity.org

Previously Druker issued a similar challenge to the UK Royal Society, which failed to respond and justify its support for GM crops and foods.

About the book:
Altered Genes, Twisted Truth – How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public
By Steven M. Druker
Foreword by Jane Goodall
Published March 2015    ISBN: 978-0-9856169-1-5 (Hardcover)
For More Information:
MEDIA CONNECT
Adrienne Fontaine; 646-307-6309adrienne.fontaine@finnpartners.com
Emily Labes; 646-776-5761emily.labes@finnpartners.com
Andrew Blum: 917-783-1680andrew.blum@finnpartners.com

Etiquetas: , ,

martes, junio 16, 2015

Carmelo Ruiz Marrero: Etiquetado de transgénicos, Vermont a la vanguardia

http://www.agenciaecologista.info/editoriales/782-etiquetado-de-transgenicos-vermont-a-la-vanguardia


19 de mayo 2015
En Estados Unidos se ha desatado una gran lucha en torno al etiquetado de alimentos transgénicos. Esta lucha se ha dado a nivel estatal y nacional, en referendos al igual que en los ámbitos legislativo y judicial. De los 50 estados del país el que más se ha distinguido en afirmar el derecho del consumidor a estar informado es seguramente Vermont. En abril de 2014 el senado de Vermont aprobó- por un abrumador margen de 28 a 2- la ley 112, la primera legislación a nivel nacional que requiere del etiquetado de todo alimento con contenido transgénico- la cámara baja había aprobado legislación de etiquetado el año anterior. El gobernador del estado, Peter Shumlin, firmó la ley el 8 de mayo de 2014.

Los estados de Connecticut y Maine ya han aprobado legislación en pro del etiquetado, pero con cláusulas al efecto de que el etiquetado entraría en efecto sólo cuando otros estados hayan aprobado legislación similar. La ley 112 de Vermont no contiene tal condicionalidad.
Es necesario subrayar que esta victoria fue posible gracias al trabajo de base de Vermont Right to Know GMO, coalición multisectorial dirigida por la finca orgánica Cedar Circle, la asociación de productores orgánicos NOFA-VT, y las organizaciones Rural Vermont y Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG). (1)
 La industria alimentaria, representada por el poderoso gremio detallista Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), demandó a Vermont, alegando que la ley 112 viola la constitución nacional, particularmente la primera enmienda y la cláusula de comercio interestatal. (2) La GMA, que representa a más de 300 corporaciones que venden productos de supermercado, ha movilizado millones de dólares para financiar campañas de cabildeo y publicidad en contra del etiquetado de transgénicos, y en 2014 demandó a la isla hawaiana de Maui después que sus ciudadanos votaran en un referendo a favor de prohibir el cultivo de transgénicos. (3)
Pero la industria sufrió un duro revés en abril de 2015 cuando la juez Christina Reiss desestimó el caso presentado por la GMA contra Vermont, y en su decisión de 84 páginas despachó como inválidos sus argumentos legales y constitucionales.
“Los gigantes de los alimentos transgénicos no están acostumbrados a perder, pero acaban de recibir una patada en el trasero de parte del estado de Vermont,” comentó Paul Burns, de VPIRG. “Esta decisión judicial aporta un apoyo poderoso a la idea de que los ciudadanos de Vermont tienen un interés legítimo y sustantivo en saber si su comida ha sido genéticamente alterada.” (4)
La defensa en este caso fue asumida por la Clínica de Derecho Ambiental de la Escuela de Derecho de Vermont, con la asistencia de VPIRG y el Center for Food Safety (CFS) como amigos de la corte.
“Esta importante decisión afirma la constitucionalidad del etiquetado de alimentos genéticamente alterados, al igual que los derechos de los ciudadanos de Vermont y Estados Unidos”, declaró el abogado George Kimbrell, del CFS. “Los estadounidenses exigen saber si su comida es producida mediante ingeniería genética por razones de salud, ambientales y muchas otras. Esta decisión es crucial para proteger esos derechos.” (5)
La ley entrará en efecto el 1 de julio de 2016.

Ruiz Marrero es periodista puertorriqueño residente en Ecuador. Es director del Blog de Bioseguridad y autor de El Gran Juego de Ajedrez Botánico: Escritos sobre Biotecnología y Agroecología (Editorial Tiempo Nuevo, 2015).




Etiquetas: ,

lunes, junio 15, 2015

The Monsanto Protection Act is Back, and Worse Than Ever

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/3961/the-monsanto-protection-act-is-back-and-worse-than-ever#

Latest changes to the Pompeo “DARK” Act create an anti-democracy, anti-consumer, anti-environment mega-bill
June 15, 2015 (Washington, D.C.) - Center for Food Safety (CFS) today expressed strong opposition to Representative Pompeo’s newly revisedgenetically engineered (GE) food labeling preemption bill (H.R. 1599), which now has been greatly expanded to not only prohibit all labeling of GE foods, but also to make it unlawful for states or local governments to restrict GE crops in any way. These new provisions would not only prohibit any future state and local laws, but also undemocratically nullify GE crop regulations that have existed in numerous counties across the country for over a decade. The bill would also further weaken already weak federal regulation of GE crops, while at the same time forbidding local communities from opting to protect their citizens, their farmers, and their environments. The bill draft will be discussed at a House hearing on Thursday.

Etiquetas: ,

domingo, junio 14, 2015

La Fundación Gates y la promoción de transgénicos en África - Boletín 611 de la RALLT

Biodiversidad en América Latina | Fundación Gates y la promoción de transgénicos en África - Boletín 611 de la RALLT




"Sobre las ayudas de la Fundación Gates a la agricultura empobrecida de África podemos defender una tesis más atrevida aún: con los supuestos fondos solidarios, lo que busca la fundación no es frenar el hambre o la malnutrición en África, sino permitir el avance de los negocios agrícolas en los que ha depositado su dinero."
RED POR UNA AMÉRICA LATINA LIBRE DE TRANSGÉNICOS
BOLETÍN 611
Contenido
GATES, AYUDAS QUE LE AYUDAN
¿POR QUÉ EL MUNDO RICO ACAPARA LAS AYUDAS DE BILL GATES?
GATES, MONSANTO Y EL MAÍZ CON USO EFICIENTE DEL AGUA

Etiquetas: , , ,

sábado, junio 13, 2015

What BBC’s Panorama got wrong on GMOs

http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16221-what-bbc-s-panorama-got-wrong-on-gmos

The BBC’s lack of journalistic and scientific rigour hits new depths. Claire Robinson reports

BBC’s Panorama programme on GMOs, which was aired in the UK, has rightly attracted derision for its outrageous pro-GMO bias. Presenter Tom Heap ignored or skated over every major controversy about GM crops and gave a free ride to a handful of rabid GMO proponents. 

Etiquetas: ,

viernes, junio 12, 2015

From GM Watch: Low-intensity farming more sustainable than GM and chemical intensive systems – study

Conventional high-intensity and GMO farming systems perform less well on environmental indicators and resource use than traditional low-intensity systems, according to a new study from an international team of researchers.

The study assessed the environmental costs and resource use performance of a set of maize cropping systems in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Italy and USA, over the last 25 years. The study focused on three farming categories: (1) traditional, low-intensity systems, (2) conventional, high-intensity systems, and (3) GMO-based cropping systems.

The assessments used the Emergy Accounting (EMA) approach. EMA includes material, energy, labour, money, and knowledge flows in the assessment and expands its focus over larger timescales and wider geographical areas than conventional assessment methods.

The study found that emergy-based environmental indicators of grain production for high-intensity hybrid and GMO systems performed less well than low-intensity, traditional patterns in terms of resource use, renewability and sustainability.

The researchers concluded that compared to subsistence agriculture, both conventional and GMO-based systems were “far from sustainable based on environmental indicators”. The researchers explained that the inner fragility of these systems derives from their reliance on high-intensity, nonrenewable resource use. Their emergy-based performance indicators did not differ substantially.

The researchers added that GMO-based systems did not demonstrate better performance than conventional hybrid seed based production systems in terms of trade, environmental indicators, or resource use.

Moreover, the researchers found that when the research, development and production costs were taken into account, GMO-based systems did not live up to claims of higher economic profitability.

The researchers said their results suggest that “solutions for sustainable agricultural activities will not come from intensification of high-tech tools and resource uses, but instead rely on better balance in use of locally renewable and imported non-renewable resources and appropriate technologies.”

Environmental assessment of maize production alternatives: Traditional, intensive and GMO-based cropping patterns

G.C. Rótoloa, C. Francis, R.M. Craviotto, S. Ulgiati
Ecological Indicators 57 (2015) 48–60
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X15001661

The evolution of maize production patterns in Argentina is evaluated over the last 25 years to compare costs, benefits, environmental performance and sustainability as well as to identify the main driving sources and improvement potential. Results from Argentina cropping systems are compared to other systems worldwide in order to put the Argentina results in a broader context. The study focuses on three farming categories: (1) traditional, low-intensity systems, (2) conventional, high-intensity systems, and (3) GMO-based cropping systems. Low input intensity systems include traditional cropping patterns with seed selection by farmers and conventional hybrid seed coupled to plowing and crop-animal rotation techniques; high input intensity systems use conventional hybrid seeds and recommended chemicals, irrigation and machinery with important soil erosion consequences; and GMO-based cropping systems use herbicide resistant transgenic hybrids, pesticides, higher fertilizer rates, and no-till practices. In each of the three cases, input flows are compared to the achieved yield (in mass and income terms) to better understand relative efficiencies and options for improvement. The study of GMO systems required a preliminary investigation of GMO seed production by seed companies, where a large investment in terms of prior knowledge and high-tech laboratory research is required. The assessments used the Emergy Accounting (EMA) approach. EMA includes material, energy, labor, money, and knowledge flows into the assessment and expands its focus over larger time and spatial scales than conventional economic and cumulative energy demand methods. Emergy-based environmental indicators of grain production for high-intensity hybrid and GMO systems both show a lower performance than low-intensity, traditional patterns in terms of resource return, renewability and sustainability. The fraction of renewability in low-intensity systems is between 28% and 63%, while it is between 8% and 26% for high-intensity hybrid and GMO systems. Calculated indicators also show that GMO-based maize production patterns do not guarantee the expected improvement over conventional high-intensity cropping systems or low-intensity systems in terms of performance and sustainability. Strong reliance on nonrenewable resources and technology, as well as role of direct and indirect labor costs are important factors in determining long-term sustainability and environmental stability of maize production systems.
__________________________________________________________
Website: http://www.gmwatch.org

Etiquetas: ,

miércoles, junio 10, 2015

Cultivating Myths – The Pro-GMO Bias of the BBC

http://beyond-gm.org/cultivating-myths-the-bbc-pro-gmo-bias/

The pro-GM bias of the BBC was plain to see during Monday’s (8th June) Panorama programme.

Blinkered and narrow rather than panoramic, selective and prejudicial rather than investigative, this sorry display set a new low for a programme which was once a flagship of investigative journalism.

It had no more veracity and insight than the most clichéd corporate press release and the result was that a mix of myths, deceptive assertions and inaccurate statements by pro-GM lobbyists – including those masquerading as independent scientists – were given a free ride and promotional slot on prime time television.

It’s tempting to say that you couldn’t make this stuff up – except Panorama has proven with its latest fiction that actually you can – and that you can even get the BBC (and thus the licence fee payer) to pay for it.

Etiquetas: ,

What "The Science Guy" got wrong

http://civileats.com/2015/06/03/what-bill-nye-got-wrong-in-his-about-face-on-gmos/

The Science Guy’s errors let the pesticide/biotech industry off the hook.
By Doug Gurian-Sherman and Margaret Mellon

Etiquetas: ,

viernes, junio 05, 2015

Congreso de agroecología

miércoles, junio 03, 2015

Agroecology: A Proven Plan of Action to Ensure Food Security and Sovereignty

THIRD WORLD NETWORK INFORMATION SERVICE ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
Dear Friends and Colleagues

Agroecology is necessary for social and ecological transformation and is the best solution to ending hunger and ensuring climate change resilience and environmental sustainability. This is the conclusion of social movements and grassroots organizations that are working on agroecology as captured in anew publication by WhyHunger which shares the perspectives of some of these groups as well as the social, political, cultural, nutritional, and spiritual meaning of agroecology to their communities.
For indigenous people and peasants, agroecology is regarded as a way of life.It frees people from the dangers of chemical pesticides and fertilizers andbrings communities together in the creation of their own solutions to conserve soil and water, and produce healthy food and healthy communities. “A social and political project and methodology enacted at the base in rural communities” which always involves “participatory and local decisions about what, how and when to produce”, it advances the peasant struggle for productive resources and self-determination.In a nutshell: “Food sovereignty is the concept. Agroecology is the plan of action.”
The publication discusses what is necessary to “bring agroecology to scale” which involves scaling upagroecology by increasing research, training, and supportive policies; and scaling outby supporting the dissemination of peasant-led agroecological practices through peasant-to-peasant exchanges and training.
The Preface of the publication is reproduced below.
With best wishes,
Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Penang
Malaysia

Email: twn@twnetwork.org
Websites: http://www.biosafety-info.net/and http://www.twn.my/
To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net

AGROECOLOGY – PUTTING FOOD SOVEREIGNTY INTO ACTION
by WhyHunger
Preface
Agroecology is a science and practice defined in the daily lives of millions of families worldwide. It represents both a form of agricultural production and a process for organizing and building community self-determination. As Ibrahima Coulibaly from Mali says, “Agroecology is not an alternative.” This publication shows that agroecology is a way of life and is one of the paths to end hunger and transform society.
Agroecology brings communities together in the creation of their own solutions to produce healthy food and conserve soil and water. Agroecology is based on communities having access to and control of local resources like land, water and seeds and on working toward local food sovereignty. Because it is developed by communities and maintained through democratic social movements, agroecology nourishes the local and global struggle for food sovereignty and climate justice, which is growing more urgent every day. Though agroecology relies on local knowledge and local resources, the efforts to “scale up” and “scale out” agroecology are global. “Scaling up” — increasing support from institutions and policymakers — and “scaling out” — spreading agroecology to other farmers and communities — are critical, and the movement is strengthened through sharing the different practices of agroecology from around the world.
This publication is not a technical guide to agroecology. It does not discuss or share the science behind agroecological farming, and it does not include examples of farming practices. This publication does not try to present agroecology as a new technological fix or as a set of farming practices that can be learned and replicated with a “how to” manual. Instead, this publication shares the perspectives of members of social movements and grassroots organizations that are building agroecology and highlights the social, political, cultural, nutritional, and spiritual meaning of agroecology to their communities.
La Via Campesina, a global social movement, says, “the origin of agroecology is the accumulated knowledge of rural people, systematized and further developed through a dialogue of different kinds of knowledge: scientific knowledge, knowledge of organizing communities, and the everyday practical knowledge of agroecology and food production.” This publication embodies the ongoing dialogue of grassroots knowledge and features peasant and indigenous men, women, and youth who are the stewards of agroecology in the US and the Global South. Agroecology belongs to communities, so we hope that the knowledge summarized here will help to generate dialogue in other communities and among consumers and food producers. And further we hope this publication will expand our collective struggle for justice and international solidarity and support the leadership of communities around the world facing the impacts of the commodification of food and the growing influence of international agribusinesses in our food system.
"Scaling Up" Agroecology
The question of how agroecology can make an impact at a greater scale has been at the center of the debates among NGOs, scholars, and policymakers at national and international levels. The question of how to increase the number of people and places impacted by agroecology everyday is important, and we must recognize that peasant and small farmer communities are at the center of agroecology, both as a science and as a way of life. Bringing agroecology to scale means both “scaling up” and “scaling out” agroecology — scaling up agroecology by increasing research, training, and supportive policies; and scaling out by supporting the dissemination of peasant-led agroecological practices through peasant-to-peasant exchanges and training. Specifically, scaling agroecology up and out needs:
  • Increased funding for social movements’ priorities.
  • Support for the rights to land, seeds, and water of local communities.
  • Substantial government commitment, away from policies that subsidize international agribusinesses and toward significant funding for technical assistance for farmers; farmer-led research of agroecological practices; and basic infrastructure of roads, schools, and other services still lacking in many rural communities.
  • Democratic reviews of free trade agreements and other international agreements that disregard and even curb farmers’ rights to multiply, store, and share seeds.

Etiquetas: , ,