domingo, septiembre 30, 2012

A Less Thirsty Future Through Engineered Crops?

http://blog.ucsusa.org/a-less-thirsty-future-through-engineered-crops/


A Less Thirsty Future Through Engineered Crops?


Bookmark and Share
An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal sees a bright future for crops engineered for drought tolerance, water use efficiency, and other useful traits. The author, R. Paul Thompson, criticizes our recent report, “High and Dry,” for expressing too little faith in the ability of science and technology to make good on its unmet promises about genetic engineering.
The basic point of the article is that new technologies typically start slow, but get more effective and less expensive as they mature,  so we should expect GE to get cheaper and more effective too.

Corn plant in drought-cracked soil. Copyright iStockphoto.com/Drbouz
New Improved Biotech?
Clearly technologies can advance, and the author provides a few cases in point. But technologies do not always significantly improve or become much cheaper. The backers of nuclear power claimed it would become “too cheap to meter” after it was rolled out more than half a century ago. Nuclear power is still expensive, and still faces big technological hurdles such as the disposal of nuclear waste. And after Fukushima, we are less sanguine about its safety as well.
Technologies may face challenges that ultimately do not find adequate solutions, for technical, social, or economic reasons. Thompson implies that UCS considered only current aspects of GE drought tolerant crops without understanding that they may improve over time. In fact, we did analyze the prospects of GE drought tolerance for coming years.
Thompson ignores the part of our report that examines why the technology faces significant challenges in addressing drought. These include unanswered questions about complex and unpredictable interactions of engineered genes with the rest of the workings of the crop that may result in undesirable tradeoffs in crop properties.
An important reason for considering the current state of genetically engineered drought tolerance, and its prospects, is to inform our investments in agricultural science to improve our ability to confront the challenges that Thompson and others have noted. Should those investments be based on our best information regarding what works, as we contend, or on the hope that we will find ways to make GE substantially cheaper and more effective?
And the truth is, we can make major headway toward answering agriculture’s challenges now–we don’t need to hold our breaths to see if GE will improve! We already have multiple ways to substantially address Thompson’s agricultural challenges, but we are not implementing them widely, or adequately supporting research to improve them.
Conventional breeding is already producing numerous drought tolerant crops, as noted in “High and Dry”. There is also substantial evidence from recent genetics studies to suggest that conventional breeding can continue to produce big improvements in drought tolerance and other traits, which is also discussed in the report. And there are clear benefits from ecologically-based farming systems that employ practices like long crop rotations (alternating crops from year to year) and the addition and recycling of nutrients and organic matter in the form of manure, mulches, and cover crops.
For example, Thompson wants to blunt the damaging effect of fertilizers and pesticides on the environment. But we already know that cover crops can typically reduce nitrogen fertilizer pollution by 40 to 70 percent, reduce the need for pesticides and fertilizers, enrich the soil, and maintain or increase crop productivity. Cover crops are not widely used today due to misplaced policies like insurance penalties, and lack of research and infrastructure to make them more farmer-friendly. Other ecologically based farming methods can provide similar benefits.
The typical refrain from some promoters of GE is that we need all of these methods of meeting our agricultural challenges. That remains an assertion that has never been demonstrated, because there are probably several paths to achieving food security that include conventional breeding, agroecology, reducing food waste, empowerment of poor farmers (especially women), and more judicious consumption of meat, which is an inefficient source of protein and calories.
And Thompson never mentions that producing enough food alone won’t ensure that everyone is well fed, as the billion people who have too little food now demonstrates. It is not enough to understand the safety and efficacy of a technology, as Thompson contends, we also need to understand whether it may be compatible with justice and fairness.
One could argue that prudence suggests that every technology should be aggressively pursued unless there are compelling safety reasons to the contrary. In a world without substantial resource constraints, that might be the case. But in the real world of limited resources, we need to make informed choices. Our reports, and major reports like the IAASTD, are part of a growing body of evidence that supports an emphasis on agroecology, other agronomic and infrastructure improvements (e.g. more efficient irrigation and reducing waste) and conventional breeding, not GE.



Etiquetas: , , ,

Entrevista en Córdoba (Argentina) a Carmelo Ruiz de Millones Contra Mons...

Etiquetas: ,

Act for Seed Freedom

sábado, septiembre 29, 2012

Biodiversidad en América Latina | Transgénicos e irresponsabilidad

Monsanto makes rats grow tumors; are humans next?




Aired on Sep 20, 2012
In a recent French lab study, rats that were fed genetically modified foods had a tendency to develop tumors and suffer severe organ damage. GMO's have become a hot topic in the United States and in California people are demanding GMO food be labeled in the state. Many consumers feel humans will suffer the same fate as the lab rats and are hoping to put a stop to GMO food. Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director for the Organic Consumers Association joins us with more on the startling consequences and why Americans should be aware if they are buying GMO foods or not.

Etiquetas: , , ,

FUERA MONSANTO DE CHILE!

PROTESTA FRENTE A OFICINAS DE MONSANTO EN SANTIAGO, CHILE, 14 DE SEPTIEMBRE 2012


Etiquetas: , ,

miércoles, septiembre 26, 2012

Sh*t GMO Companies Say

Etiquetas: , ,

martes, septiembre 25, 2012

TAKE ACTION FOR SEED FREEDOM! Oct 2012

 From 2nd October (Gandhi’s Birth Anniversary), to 16th October (World Food Day) the Global Alliance for Seed Freedom is planning intensive actions to create a global citizens’ response on the issue of Seed Freedom that we hope will act as a wake up call for citizens and the government http://seedfreedom.in/seed-freedom-fortnight/

Etiquetas: , , ,

Argentina dice NO a Monsanto


Etiquetas: , , ,

French Study Finds Tumours in Rats Fed GM Corn


French Study Finds Tumours in Rats Fed GM Corn

  • Reuters, September 19, 2012 Straight to the Source 
  • Rats fed a lifetime diet of Monsanto's genetically modified corn or exposed to its top-selling weedkiller Roundup suffered tumours and multiple organ damage, according to a French study published on Wednesday.

Etiquetas: ,

lunes, septiembre 24, 2012


LLAMADO A JORNADA INTERNACIONAL DE ACCIONES EN DEFENSA DE LAS SEMILLAS
Especial llamado en defensa del maíz americano
Llamado mundial a la acción directa no violenta
En el marco del festival internacional Pachamama Kokopelli
en el valle Sagrado de Ollantaytambo, Perú, Agosto del 2012, múltiples actores sociales que defienden las semillas y luchan contra la contaminación transgénica acuerdan responder al llamado internacional en defensa de las semillas que hacen Vandana Shiva y la organización de Navdanya (http://seedfreedom.in/).
Se acuerda que en las fechas 02 y 16 de octubre del presente 2012 realizar múltiples y diversas acciones a nivel planetario en contra de los cultivos transgénicos y las ilegítimas leyes que privatizan las semillas e impiden su reproducción por parte de los agricultores. Se llama por medio de la acción directa no violenta  a  visibilizar nuestro repudio a la introducción de cultivos transgénicos, y a proclamar nuestro amor en defensa de la preservación y la libertad  de las semillas nativas, campesinas e indígenas y a defender los derechos de los agricultores a intercambiar, regalar o vender sus semillas.
Además. La Red por Una América Latina Libre de Transgénicos (www.rallt.org) hace un especial llamado en defensa del maíz en América. La contaminación con maíz transgénico en el continente es una agresión culposa de las corporaciones que atenta contra un  profundo tramado de relaciones agrícola-culturales  entre la gente y el maíz. América como centro de origen del Maíz debe de ser especialmente protegida contra la contaminación transgénica. La RALLT ha lanzado una campaña para que el Maíz sea declarado como patrimonio cultural de la humanidad ante la UNESCO en aras facilitar la protección ante la agresión transgénica en el continente.  Para apoyar esta iniciativa visitar el siguiente enlace
La Red de Semillas Libres, conformada en el marco del Festival Pachamama Kokopelli también estará articulando  múltiples acciones en defensa de las semillas y compartiendo su declaratoria de principios disponible en el siguiente enlace: (http://www.redsemillaslibres.org/)
Se invita abiertamente a adherirse y compartir dicha declaratoria en el marco de la jornada mundial de acciones en defensa de las semillas.
Informes: Fabián Pacheco <bloqueverde@gmail.com>

Etiquetas: ,

viernes, septiembre 21, 2012

GMO wheat dangerous


 
MEDIA RELEASE
Tuesday September 11 2012
 
GM WHEAT DISCOVERY
 
SCIENTISTS WARN ON CSIRO GM WHEAT THREAT

Expert scientists warn that genetically modified wheat may cause Glycogen Storage Disease IV, resulting in an enlarged liver, cirrhosis of the liver, and failure to thrive. Children born with this disease usually die at about the age of 5.
 
Australia is on track to be the first country in the world to grow GM wheat commercially, and to test this in human feeding trials.
 
Today in Melbourne molecular biologist and risk assessment researcher Professor Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, NZ, and Associate Professor Judy Carman, a biochemist at Flinders University, will release expert scientific opinions on the safety of CSIRO's GM wheat. These opinions have been reviewed by Dr Michael Antoniou, reader in molecular genetics at King's College, London.
 
Professor Heinemann's expert opinion outlining how CSIRO's GM wheat silencing technology could transfer to humans is believed to be a world-first, and has been reviewed by scientists in Australia, the UK and Austria.
 
Australia is on track to be the first country in the world to allow the commercial growing of GM wheat. It is not yet grown anywhere else, nor is there any market worldwide that wants GM wheat. Current GM food crops, like canola and corn, are experiencing fierce resistance across the globe, and there is growing anger in the USA, the birthplace of GM food technology.
 
Australia has been selected to lead the push for the acceptance of GM wheat and CSIRO is currently conducting field trials of GM wheat in WA, NSW, and the ACT. CSIRO says human feeding trials are planned. It is feared these may already be underway.
 
Professor Heinemann has studied the similarity in the DNA sequencing of the wheat branching enzyme which makes starch in wheat, and the human branching enzyme which produces glycogen.
 
CSIRO's GM technology deliberately suppresses the wheat branching enzyme in GM wheat so there is less starch and the wheat has a lower glycaemic index.
 
Professor Heinemann says there is strong evidence that siRNA, a type of dsRNA - which is a form of ribonucleic acid, like DNA - when produced in wheat will transfer to humans through food.
 
"There is strong evidence that siRNAs produced in the wheat will remain in a form that can transmit to humans even when the wheat has been cooked or processed for use in food.
 
"There is strong evidence that once transmitted, siRNA produced in wheat would have the biological capacity to cause an effect."
 
There is also an environmental risk, which the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) appears to have overlooked in allowing field trials. These siRNAs will also transfer to animals that eat the wheat throughout the production chain, including beneficial insects, birds, mammals etc
 
Biochemist Dr Judy Carman from Flinders University has reviewed the Heinemann paper and written her own expert scientific opinion outlining the possible disease consequences from the transfer of siRNAs. She says it is likely that if a person eats GM wheat then the siRNA engineered to suppress the wheat branching enzyme would also silence the human branching enzyme.
 
Both expert scientists are concerned that human consumption of this GM wheat technology - which is not affected by cooking or other processing - could suppress the production of glycogen, which is critical for life.
 
In her expert opinion, Associate Professor Carman goes on to say: "Consequently it is clear that there is an obvious risk to animals and humans who eat these GM wheat varieties." She says this could lead to disease and death. In fact, humans born with a genetic form of this disease usually die by the age of 5.
 
Dr Michael Antoniou, Reader in Molecular Genetics at King‚s College, London, has also reviewed and endorsed the Heinemann and Carman expert opinions.
 
He says it not a question of if there will be gene function disturbances, but to what degree and with currently unknown health consequences. He's criticised CSIRO, and the regulators, OGTR and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), for not being up to date with the latest developments in the field of RNAi technology and therefore not taking the necessary steps to properly evaluate the safety of the GM wheat.
 
The research was commissioned for the Safe Food Foundation, an Australian not for profit organisation that campaigns and advocates on food issues.
 
Safe Food Foundation director Scott Kinnear says the urgent scientific opinions were commissioned after a researcher alerted them to the similarity in the DNA sequencing of the wheat branching enzyme and human branching enzyme.
 
"Apart from the serious public health risk, the cost to taxpayers and farmers could be significant. It reminds me of CSIRO's GM field pea project, shelved in 2005, which had allergen like reactions when tested on mice - and a loss to taxpayers of approximately $10 million.
 
"In this case the testing was done at ANU as we believe that CSIRO lacks the capacity to do proper safety studies. In fact the Australian regulators - FSANZ and the OGTR - do not conduct any safety testing, nor require the safety testing recommended by our safety experts.
 
"FSANZ and the OGTR rely on GM applicants to do their own safety testing, even though CSIRO has previously demonstrated that it does not have the capacity to do this."
 
The Safe Food Foundation calls on CSIRO to immediately release all details of its safety testing on GM wheat for urgent independent scientific review, and immediately release the precise DNA sequences involved so that independent scientists can conduct further urgent checking.
 
"If CSIRO cannot provide immediate and adequate responses to these issues we call on them to immediately cease all field trials currently underway, stop all plans for human feeding trials, and agree to undertake the recommended safety testing," Mr Kinnear said.
 
* The Safe Food Institute was established to conduct high quality research into issues of food safety and quality. Working in partnership with the Safe Food Institute, the Safe Food Foundation is working to promote awareness of the health, social, economic and environmental effects of food production and consumption.

Etiquetas: , , ,

Bitter Seeds trailer

http://www.itvs.org/films/bitter-seeds



Biotechnology is changing the way farming is done all over the world. Advocates believe the “New Green Revolution” is the only way to provide sufficient food for the world's growing population while opponents raise environmental concerns and fear that GMOs drive small-scale farmers off the land. Bitter Seeds explores the controversy — from a village in India that uses genetically modified seeds to U.S. government agencies that promote them.

Etiquetas: , , , ,

miércoles, septiembre 19, 2012

50 Aniversario de la Primavera Silenciosa

http://www.biodiversidadla.org/Principal/Secciones/Documentos/
La_Primavera_Silenciosa_._Boletin_N_488_de_la_RALLT


"La Primavera Silenciosa". Boletín N° 488 de la RALLT

Transgénicos
Este septiembre se cumple 50 años de la publicación de la célebre publicación “La Primavera Silenciosa”, donde por primera vez se hace una denuncia de los impactos producidos por los plaguicidas. Su autora en ese entonces decía que los plaguicidas matan todo, no sólo las llamadas “plagas”, por lo que pronto ya no se escuchará el canto de las aves, ni de los grillos ni de las cigarras en primavera. Las primaveras serán silenciosas.
RED POR UNA AMÉRICA LATINA
LIBRE DE TRANSGÉNICOS
BOLETÍN 488
Amig@s
Cincuenta años más tarde, el escenario descrito por Rachel Carson (la autora), el uso de agrotóxicos se ha incrementado, especialmente desde que comenzó a utilizarse de manera masiva la soja con resistencia a glifosato. Este modelo productivo ha dejado tras de sí, una estela de niños con malformaciones, poblaciones enteras con problemas tiroideos, linfomas, tumores, …
Hoy se presenta una nueva amenaza: los nuevos cultivos resistentes al 2,4D pariente cercano del temible “Agente Naranja”.
En agosto de 2011, APHIS (Servicio de Inspección Sanidad Animal y Vegetal) del Departamento de Agricultura de Estados Unidos, recibió una petición de la transnacional Dow AgroSciences (DAS), para que la soja transgénica con tolerancia a los herbicidas 2,4-diclorofenoxiacético (2,4-D). Además hay una petición similar para un maíz también tolerante al 2,4D.
Por otro lado, en Brasil y en Argentina se están haciendo pruebas de campo tanto con maíz como con soja resistentes al 2,4D. Hay que anotar que estos nuevos transgénico en realidad tienen genes apilados, y que además son resistentes a glifosato y glufosinato.
Todos los impactos que se han dado ya con la gran expansión de la soja RR (resistente al glifosato) se multiplicará, pues aumentará su uso 2,4D (como lo demuestra Benbrook en la siguiente nota) y éste es un herbicida mucho más peligroso que el glifosato, el mismo que se usó primero como arma química, como se verá más adelante.
No podemos permitir el avance de los transgénicos del agente naranja. Es imprescindible que reaccionemos en contra de esta nueva agresión contra la vida.
========================================================
Contenido:
1. Se proyecta un incremento en el uso del 2,4 d con la introducción del maíz transgénico con resistencia al herbicida 2,4D hacia el año 2019
2. El 2,4-D, de arma química a campeón de ventas para las corporaciones transnacionales
3. Características generales del 2,4-D
4. Maíz y soja resistente al 2,4 d en Brasil. La posición de Terra de Dereitos
5. QUE DEBES SABER SOBRE LOS TRANSGÉNICOS TOLERANTE AL 2,4D DE DOW

Etiquetas: ,

miércoles, septiembre 12, 2012

Labeling, the right to know

martes, septiembre 11, 2012

Occupy Monsanto, Sept 17

http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob341.htm

September 17, 2012: Occupy Monsanto's Global Week of Action

Organic Consumers Association and Millions Against Monsanto are working with the Occupy Monsanto network to organize protests and direct action at Monsanto facilities during the September 17th Global Week of Action Against Monsanto.
Click here to join an existing Genetic Crimes Unit or organize your own occupation and Occupy Monsanto will send you your very own GCU action toolkit. Genetic Crimes Units are autonomous Occupy Monsanto affinity groups who will carry out "decontamination" events during the Global Week of Action against Monsanto.
No Monsanto facilities nearby? How about congregating at Dow, Syngenta or one of the other Biotech Bullies' offices?
Occupy not your style? How about organizing a Millions Against Monsanto rally or event?
Take your group to your state capital and rally for GMO labels. Host a film screening and discussion of Bitter Seeds or the World According to Monsanto. Set up a table at your local farmer's market and tell people about genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Visit the retail store where you buy your organic food and get them to endorse Proposition 37, the California Ballot Initiative to label GMOs. Hit the sidewalks and gather signatures for our Truth-in-Labeling petition - we are very close to our goal of one million national signers!
Whatever you decide to do, contact us for flyers, posters and petitions and tell us about your event so we can help you mobilize.



Etiquetas: , , , ,

Manifiesto por la defensa de las semillas libres en Colombia

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


Semillas
Por la defensa de las semillas nativas y libres a nivel nacional, la conservación de la agricultura familiar y la declaratoria de los derechos de los campesinos. ¡Sin semillas no hay agricultura y sin Campesinos no hay agroecología!
Ecovida - Jardín Botánico, Universidad de Caldas
Sin semillas no hay agricultura y sin Campesinos no hay agroecología

Las Organizaciones campesinas reunidas en la VII versión del encuentro de productores ecológicos y sabidurías populares ECOVIDA 2012, realizada en la ciudad de Manizales en la Universidad de Caldas, desde el 23 al 26 de agosto, debatiendo y reflexionando sobre la situación en la que se encuentra el sector campesino colombiano, la problemática sociopolítica en la que está sumido el país desde hace más de cincuenta años y en la que los pobladores rurales (campesinos, indígenas y afrocolombianos) son las principales víctimas de estigmatización y persecución; de igual forma, la presión que se viene ejerciendo desde el gobierno nacional a través de las regulaciones que se han establecido desde los entes de control y que se presentan como una forma de mejorar la agricultura colombiana están vulnerando los derechos fundamentales establecidos en la Carta Magna como la vida, la libertad y el derecho a la alimentación.
De igual forma los Tratados de libre comercio, las políticas internacionales en lo referente al tema rural no han dado claras respuestas a la protección de la economía campesina, la conservación de su cultura, costumbres, territorio y de su entorno por el contrario han favorecido los intereses de monopolios y de sectores externos que tienen intereses sobre la tierra para su explotación a gran escala con el uso de tecnologías contaminantes y enclaves económicos que han puesto en riesgo la estabilidad de las comunidades en sus territorios, el entorno natural y han fragmentado el tejido colectivo que se ha construido históricamente en las diferentes regiones del país.
Por tanto, desde el VII Encuentro de productores ecológicos y sabidurías populares ECOVIDA concluimos que:
1. Teniendo en cuenta que la Resolución 0970 de 2010 plantea la regulación de las semillas a través de la certificación por parte del Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario (ICA), la prohibición de los intercambios de semillas amparados en la justificación de la contaminación fitosanitaria y la fuerte relación de los intereses de monopolios de semillas, proponemos difundir entre nuestra comunidades estrategias que garanticen las semillas libres, para ello, celebraremos el DIA DE LA SEMILLA LIBRE durante el 12 y 16 de octubre de 2012 en resonancia de la misma campaña a nivel mundial, y rescataremos nuestras semillas criollas mediante la siembra permanente de ellas y la distribución entre nuestras comunidades, programando en las agendas de cada organización esta fecha como días de conmemoración a nivel regional y nacional.
2. Ante la declaración del año internacional de la agricultura familiar por parte de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para el año 2014, nos comprometemos a promover acciones locales que visibilicen la importancia de dicha celebración para que sean defendidos sus territorios, sus culturas y sus núcleos de cohesión social y faciliten la conservación local de las semillas propias y adaptadas, a partir de estrategias definidas localmente para su implementación.
3. Ante la reciente aprobación de los derechos de los campesinos y otras personas que trabajan en áreas rurales por parte de las Naciones Unidas, promoveremos ante las instancias respectivas el aval normativo nacional que legitime su existencia y a partir de ahí contrarrestar la vulnerabilidad que tienen nuestras sociedades rurales, del mismo modo permitir y promover las acciones que desde la sociedad civil y las organizaciones comunitarias se tejen como redes de solidaridad para contrarrestar las dificultades locales.
4. Desde las diferentes regiones y organizaciones generar propuestas que articulen a los representantes a la cámara, senadores y otros delegados político locales que acompañen las iniciativas planteadas en este manifiesto en aras de continuar en la defensa de las semillas nativas y libres a nivel nacional, la conservación de la agricultura familiar y la declaratoria de los derechos de los campesinos porque:
¡SIN SEMILLAS NO HAY AGRICULTURA, SIN FAMILIA NO HAY ORGANIZACIÒN SOCIAL Y SIN CAMPESINOS NO HAY AGROECOLOGÌA!.
MANIZALES - 23 AL 26 DE AGOSTO DE 2012.ECOVIDA
Fuente: Kaos en la Red

Etiquetas: , ,

Sept 17, Occupy Monsanto

Don't like Monsanto? Then join the MILLIONS AGAINST MONSANTO campaign! And start preparing for the big day of action: SEPT 17
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/index.cfm


September 17th Global Week of Action Against Monsanto

Let’s take our message to the Biotech Bully’s front doorsteps!
Organic Consumers Association and Millions Against Monsanto are working with the Occupy Monsanto network to organize protests and direct action at Monsanto facilities during the September 17th Global Week of Action Against Monsanto. There are over 70 actions planned at Monsanto facilities worldwide.Click here to attend an action near you!

Etiquetas: , ,