Errors, fraud, lies, and William Saletan – Part 2: GMO food safety

http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16316-errors-fraud-lies-and-william-saletan-part-2-gmo-food-safety

Journalist William Saletan’s appeals to scientific authority do not stand up, says Claire Robinson in the second of a three-part series

EXCERPT:

In his article, Saletan claims to have researched GMOs for up to a year. All the more remarkable, then, that on the vexed issue of GMO safety, he falls for the discredited GMO lobby trick of a vague appeal to authority that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Saletan states that eminent scientific bodies like the World Health Organization (WHO) “have all declared that there’s no good evidence GMOs are unsafe”. The implied question is: who are you to doubt them?

The trouble is that 124 health- or science-related organizations from around the world have declared doubts about the safety of GM foods and/or called for mandatory labelling – something that Saletan vehemently opposes.

Saletan doesn’t even appear to have read the WHO statement on GMO safety that he relies on. Certainly the WHO did say, “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved” – though skeptics will note that it is hard to find effects on human health in the absence of any studies. 

We don't need "golden rice"

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2015/07/17/we-dont-need-golden-rice/

by Robert Greer

Journalist Will Saletan set the Internet afire yesterday with his long-form piece against anti-GMO activists.  A key component of his argument is that Golden Rice, which has been genetically engineered to contain Vitamin A precursors, has not been welcomed by anti-GMO crowd with open arms.  But what Saletan fails to mention is that the science is still out on whether golden rice is actually the boon it’s claimed to be.

The best evidence we have is that the compounds in the rice are converted to Vitamin A in the human system, but this isn’t enough to say that it’s healthy — Saletan makes a lot of hay out of the fact that anti-GMO activists often can’t point to specific known harms, but instead must rely on fears of unknown future problems.  But unknown side effects are not necessarily inchoate, ad hoc rationales to oppose genetic modification, and are in fact especially salient in the realm of nutrition because of the field’s complexity. The body’s processes for gleaning nutrition from a particular food are highly complex, and depend on many different factors such as the ratios in which the nutrients are presented to the body, the form in which they greet your digestive system, and the composition of your gut biome. For example, iron is difficult for your body to assimilate properly if you’re not getting enough Vitamin C, sugars in juice may be dangerous while sugars in whole fruits are not, and large numbers of people are deficient in Vitamin B12 despite getting plenty of it in their diets, for reasons that are still not entirely clear.

Errors, fraud, lies, and William Saletan – Part 1: Golden rice

Errors, fraud, lies, and William Saletan – Part 1: Golden rice

The journalist William Saletan’s indictment of GMO critics is being promoted by the GMO lobby. In the first of a three-part series, Claire Robinson looks at his arguments on golden rice

Argentina: Los derechos de la naturaleza, la participación ciudadana y la biotecnología

Biodiversidad en América Latina | Argentina: Los derechos de la naturaleza, la participación ciudadana y la biotecnología


El 17 de Abril de 2015 el Ministerio de Agricultura Ganadería y Pesca de la Nación, mediante la Resolución 98/2015 aprobó la comercialización (condicionada a la aprobación en China) de la semilla transgénica de soja (DAS-444Ø6-6) con tolerancia al glifosato, glufosinato y 2,4-D, solicitada por la subsidiaria local de Dow Chemicals.

La semilla ya había sido cuestionada en la instancia administrativa por las ONGS, Acción por la Biodiversidad, Foro Ecologista de Paraná, Centro de Protección a la Naturaleza, Bios y la Red de Abogados de Pueblos Fumigados, que en su presentación solicitaron acceso a los estudios ambientales, presentados por la empresa peticionante, y exigieron el cumplimiento de una instancia de participación ciudadana.

From DDT to Roundup, by Evaggelos Vallianatos

Ruthless Power and Deleterious Politics: From DDT to Roundup →

Resistance is now taking a new form: the removal of global toxins, unfortunately, one at a time. In early 2015, the usually timid and agribusiness-friendly, World Health Organization, declared both glyphosate and 2,4-D probable human carcinogens. Following on this modest step, in May 14, 2015, the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, based in Basel, Switzerland, issued an appeal to the European governments: “To immediately and permanently ban, with no exceptions, the production, trade and use in all the EU territory of glyphosate-based herbicides.” The UK journalist, Georgina Downs,echoes that sentiment to include all pesticides.

Humans need a pesticides-free future. We need to appeal to all politicians all over the world to ban permanently and without exception all pesticides. Glyphosate represents all pesticides. Our message and policies should be telling agribusiness companies enough is enough: no more death rain. Monsanto, on the other hand, isbuilding additional facilities to manufacture another weed killer by the name of dicamba in order to mix it up with glyphosate. That way the joint product will be more effective against the super weeds resisting glyphosate.

Pesticides are chemical weapons. They were brought to market under the cover of questionable and often fraudulent science and regulation. They are maintained in farming under the false pretense of feeding the world. They are danger itself; they are biocides. They are simply the money lubricants of giant agriculture. They serve no public purpose. We don’t need them.

GMO safety: No evidence

No scientific evidence of GM food safety →

The new study analyses a dossier by giant agribusiness conglomerate, Monsanto, submitted to the Brazilian government, and also conducts a comprehensive review of the available scientific literature from other sources.

Its focus is on Monsanto’s GM soybean Intacta Roundup Ready 2 Pro, which is grown in Brazil, and also authorised in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, and probably also present in Bolivia due to illegal introductions from neighbouring countries.

Sobre transgénicos: Cinismo, manipulación e ignorancia

Biodiversidad en América Latina | Sobre transgénicos: Cinismo, manipulación e ignorancia

Carmelo Ruiz: Are the GMO advocates playing fair?

How independent are the “independent” experts that advocate for GM foods? Are they being secretly paid like some climate change “skeptics”? The activist group U.S. Right To Know (USRTK), decided to find out. On February 2015 USRTK filed a FOIA request for the e-mails and correspondence of public university professors that write for GMO Answers, a pro-GM advocacy web site set up by the Ketchum public relations agency. “We taxpayers deserve to know the details about when our taxpayer-paid employees front for private corporations and their slick PR firms,” said Gary Ruskin, the organization´s executive director.

This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address: 
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/bloggers/Are-the-Pro-GM-Debaters-Playing-Fair-20150320-0001.html. If you intend to use it, please cite the source and provide a link to the original article. www.teleSURtv.net/english

Otro descubrimiento lleva a los transgénicos al banquillo. Boletín 615 de la RALLT

Biodiversidad en América Latina | Otro descubrimiento lleva a los transgénicos al banquillo. Boletín 615 de la RALLT

En sus conclusiones, los expertos afirman que la exposición a la formulación comercial del bacilo Bt, incluso a bajas concentraciones y por un período relativamente corto, puede inducir genotoxicidad y daño intestinal en renacuajos de la rana común. Ahí está el punto. En un sistema de por sí ya jaqueado por los agronegocios, ¿cuánto más padecerán las especies? ¿Y cuánto debe servir de advertencia, en vistas de la salud del mismo ser humano que respira los químicos rociados, y come las semillas del maíz modificadas, ya con la bacteria metida por la fuerza en el mismo plato de los niños?"

A challenge to scientific integrity: a critique of the critics of the GMO rat study conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini et al. (2012)

http://www.enveurope.com/content/27/1/13

This paper reviews the many criticisms of the publication by Seralini et al (2012) which has led to so much controversy, was retracted and then republished in this journal. Seralini et al found that a GM maize and its associated herbicide Roundup resulted in numerous chronic abnormalities in rats. The vehemence of the critics is not matched by their evidence; it is often based on entrenched assumptions and on mis-representing published material. The arguments have challenged normal healthy scientific dialogue, and appear to be driven by other motives. A further interpretation of Seralini et al's results on tumour formation is suggested. The probability that Seralini et al's results are significant is sufficient to justify further study.

Ley de Semillas: Alerta Argentina!

New biosafety report by GenØk

http://genok.no/arkiv/4294/

The new plant breeding techniques provide the emergence of novel products that challenges our current regulations and our management practices of what we traditionally have viewed as a genetically modified organism (GMO).

International regulations, such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, operate with definitions of GMOs that may not be applicable to products arising from some of these new techniques. The question then arises on how society and regulatory bodies should view and regulate the products.
This report does not approach that problem per se, but as a crucial step in management, we sum up the current scientific understanding of two new plant breeding techniques, site directed nucleases (SDN) and oligonucleotide directed mutagenesis (ODM). The underlying mode of action of both of these techniques are the plants natural repair systems and how this can be utilized to achieve genomic modifications. Herein also lies the main challenge for risk assessment – our limited knowledge about the function of these systems, factors involved and potential off-target effects.
This report aims at providing an overview of the current status of scientific knowledge concerning SDN and ODM. We have reviewed up to date peer reviewed scientific publications on the mechanisms and natural functions that are utilized by SDN and ODM techniques in an effort to understand potential risks such as unintentional changes in the genome of plants. Finally, recommendations for action are outlined.

What next after a ban on glyphosate?

June 30, 2015

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE Dear Friends and Colleagues The African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), the Network for a GE Free Latin America (RALLT) and the Third World Network have today released a briefing titled, What next after a ban on glyphosate—more toxic chemicals and GM crops? Or the transformation of global food systems.? The briefing has been prompted by the recent conclusion of the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC), of the World Health Organization (WHO), that glyphosate, the world’s most-used chemical ingredient for weed control, is a “probable human carcinogen”. In recent years, the use of glyphosate has come to be associated with herbicide-tolerant (HT) genetically modified (GM) crops, with glyphosate use increasing dramatically in all major GM HT crop-producing countries. The consequences for human health and the environment have been disastrous in many communities. A number of countries have already taken action to reduce or halt the use of glyphosate in response to the IARC assessment. While glyphosate is still in use and is heavily relied upon for GM soya production in particular, Monsanto and other biotechnology and agro-chemical companies are already planning for business after glyphosate. A plethora of GM crops that are tolerant to multiple toxic herbicides – including 2,4-D and dicamba – are already approved for the market, while Monsanto has recently sought the potential acquisition of Syngenta, the world’s largest producer of herbicides. The groups are calling for a ban on glyphosate, given the evidence. However, they insist that other toxic herbicides must similarly also come under urgent review and that adequate measures must be put in place to ensure that more toxic chemicals do not replace glyphosate.   Further, they argue that it is imperative that the IARC’s findings take the debate further—into deeper conversations about the characteristics of our food and agriculture systems and how they interact with and impact upon people and the environment. A shift is urgently needed from chemical-input agriculture to agro-ecology.  The groups are also calling for appropriate international bodies to initiate programmes for the fair and equitable reparations to affected people as well as the restoration and remediation of contaminated environments. The briefing is attached below. With best wishes Third World Network 131 Jalan Macalister 10400 Penang Malaysia Email: twn@twnetwork.org Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/ To unsubscribe: reply ‘unsubscribe’ to biosafety@twnetwork.org To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net

Printer friendly version

Download document(s): » Glyphosate report web.pdf (English - pdf - 1109 Kb)