|
GMOs, Politics, Citizens & Ethics |
|
|
|
|
Written by HH
|
|
Wednesday, 07 July 2010 |
|
What do you think of the attitude of the politicians of the European Union in this respect? According to you, will the different representatives of the European Union be able to agree at a European level?
“The European countries are gradually agreeing on the legislation and the regulation of GMOs. A new European Directive will soon be validated, for the time being, there is a moratorium on new GMO crops”. (January 2001)
Do you think that lobbying at a geopolitical level is the major issue in this field?
“One of the major tools, undoubtedly”.
Which organizations could, according to you, constitute some kind of counter-power to the biotech firms like Monsanto & Novartis? With a view to reduce the potential excesses of agro-genetics, what safeguards could be implemented? Consumer associations? Environment protection organizations?
“Yes, and a strong political power influenced by democratic consultations first and foremost”.
Which GMOs are legalised for animal and human consumption in France?
“GMO soy, maize and canola can be part of the ingredients that we find in our food, in 2001 (still true in 2010). See the web site of the French Ministry for Agriculture, CGB reports.” |
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 11 July 2010 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by HH
|
|
Tuesday, 06 July 2010 |
Interview of Pr. Séralini in TERRE NETThe opinion of a scientist of CRIIGEN, Pr. Gilles-Eric Séralini, expert on the assessment of GMOs: “A Health Sham”. Nathalie Petit, journalist with Terre-Net (NP): What scientific arguments can be opposed to growing GMOs freely?
Gilles-Eric Séralini, Professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen, co-founder of CRIIGEN, author of: “Ces Ogm qui changent le monde”, Flammarion.
(G-E S): The dossier about cultivated commercialized GMOs is just the cover up of a health scandal, for two major reasons.
First of all, contrary to common scientific usage, the blood analyses of the laboratory mammals were kept secret, that is the very analyses that were used as study models, during the longest tests in the world (unfortunately, the animals consumed the GMOs only for three months before the authorization).
Secondly, they reveal, after we had to go to Court to obtain them, for a Monsanto maize (the Bt MON 863), significant effects: up to 24-40% increase in fat in the blood of female rats, among other things. Monsanto is not denying this, but does not deem it serious enough to continue the tests. This is sham science in favour of gigantic interests!
Read the remainder of Pr Séralini's interview in French in TERRE NET |
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 06 July 2010 )
|
|
GMOs and Scientific Aspects |
|
|
|
|
Written by HH
|
|
Wednesday, 05 May 2010 |
|
Some people claim that GMOs are similar to the hybrid species obtained thanks to plant breeding, that the former are no more dangerous than the latter. What is your opinion on this?
“GMOs go right through the genetic barrier between species, genes are randomly introduced in animals or plants; or rather, fragments of artificially synthesized genes, often inspired by viruses or bacteria. In fact, an infinite number of combinations is now possible. We no dot master the effects of the introduced modification and we have no hindsight on the secondary modifications that can occur in the metabolism. Whereas hybridizations occur between compatible varieties: between maize varieties, or between canola varieties. They occur naturally, even if in the last few years, they were produced by man on purpose, they are part of the history of agriculture as it has been practiced for the last 11,000 years.”
What are precisely your arguments to demonstrate that the development of second generation GMOs rests on the success of the ones commercialized currently?
“Both the necessary financial resources and what the manufacturers say about it. The first generation GMOs need to become profitable so that investing can continue (see the CRIIGEN’s Index Cards on second generation GMOs).”
You are making a distinction between genetic engineering applied to medicine and genetic engineering applied to agriculture, which generates an enormous demand in terms of authorization applications, for what reasons?
The GMOs that are useful in medicine are produced in sealed environments: from yeasts used in fermentors, from bacteria, and often from plants grown in greenhouses in pharmaceutical factories. They are not disseminated everywhere round the world over 40 million hectares like agricultural GMOs. Their purpose is more obvious: for example with recombinant insulin. Finally the products made from these GMOs are evaluated just like other medicines, this could certainly be improved, but they are prescribed under medical control and therefore with a certain traceability. On the contrary, agricultural GMOs and pesticide plants are not systematically tested on mammals, nor are they tested as pesticides. They are therefore more dangerous”. |
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 14 May 2010 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Questions and Answers on GMOs |
|
|
|
|
Written by HH
|
|
Thursday, 29 April 2010 |
|
By Gilles Eric Séralini
From the humanitarian point of view:
Q - The growth of the world’s population is constant and the issue of feeding the world is becoming more and more pressing. GMOs make it possible to increase yields and prevent shortages and famines, what do you think?
A – No. The GMOs used in intensive agriculture today are unsuitable for the countries of the South, because they use patented seeds. The countries of the South are already missing essential drugs, because they are patented. Therefore patenting seeds would increase famines.
In the field of medicine:
Q – Drugs made from GMOs are useful in medicine, don’t you think?
A – Yes. Recombinant insulin and recombinant growth hormone are well tested on human health, and microbial GMOs are grown in sealed environments.
Q – The production of GMO vaccines is less costly and more efficient for certain diseases, don’t you think?
A – If they are produced in a sealed environment and well tested, the answer is the same as above. However, adverse reactions due to the side effects of vaccines need to be taken seriously. |
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 07 January 2011 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Daniel
|
|
Thursday, 25 January 2007 |
|
G. E Séralini, vous affirmez que le développement des OGM en agriculture provoquera des morts et des maladies, pouvez-vous vous expliquer ?"
Il existe des OGM pour la recherche dont l'objectif est de mieux comprendre la fonction des gènes, que ne verra jamais le grand public. Pour le reste, il convient de définir précisément ce que sont les OGM de première génération commercialisés. Il s'agit à 99% de plantes à pesticides : 28% secrètent dans le monde un insecticide (comme le maïs Bt), 71% ont été créés pour savoir absorber des doses importantes de désherbant sans mourir (ou y être insensibles, comme le soja au Roundup). Pour des raisons développées par ailleurs (OGM, Le Vrai Débat, Flammarion), ils servent essentiellement l'agriculture intensive, utilisant les pesticides, sans en faire l'économie, et en en consommant davantage dans certains cas. Ce sont des brouillons génétiques mal évalués pour leurs risques sur l'environnement et la santé publique, avec un manque de tests de nutrition et de toxicité chronique sur mammifères." " On dénombre déjà 20 000 morts par cancers et par an liés aux pesticides aux Etats Unis. Le problème de la toxicité des pesticides (et notamment de ceux qui sont associés aux OGM) est d'une autre ampleur pour la santé humaine que celui de la vache folle".
|
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 20 June 2008 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Questions on GMOs