Uruguay en lucha

http://www.rapaluruguay.org/boletin/85%20julio%202013.htm

número 85- julio-2013

Boletín electrónico de RAP-AL Uruguay Transgénicos made in Uruguay ¿A qué nos exponemos? La Unión Europea prohíbe el insecticida Fipronil para tratar semillas de maíz y girasol Y en Uruguay ¿Qué pasa? Estudio prueba alteración genética en trabajadores de soja de Porto Alegre Los agrotóxicos en el banquillo Diálogo con Miguel Altieri y Marc Dufumier. Crisis alimentaria y agroecología Video: Contaminación Cero "Fumigaciones"

What should you do when Mark Lynas comes to town?

http://www.bioscienceresource.org/2013/02/what-should-you-do-when-mark-lynus-comes-to-town/

Published: February 28, 2013

Media celebrity and ‘renegade environmentalist’ Mark Lynas claims to have recently discovered science and now believes that GMOs are the key to a bountiful and sustainable future. BSR has compiled a list of recent articles from scientists and other experts who think he still has a lot to learn about science, food security, and genetic engineering.

As Lynas tours the world with his story, we suggest you share these articles with anyone who thinks they want to hear Lynas speak — they can help put the propaganda in perspective. The Mark Lynas scientific misrepresentations will be familiar to anyone who has heard Nina Federoff, Martina McGloughlin, Marc Van Montagu, and other industry-linked GMO proponents talk at universities or scientific conferences. For a list of other frequent speakers who present standard industry PR rather than a thoughtful scientific or social analysis of GMOs seehttp://www.gmwatch.org/myth-makers-m.

What You Need to Know When Mark Lynas Comes to Town

Discovering Science: Here’s an amusing article on Mark Lynas and his “discovery of science” by Professor John Vandermeer, University of Michigan.http://www.foodfirst.org/en/GMO+uproar+in+EU Vandermeer encourages Lynas to keep studying and describes some important areas of science he hopes Lynas will learn about in the future.

What links Biotech, Big Conservation, and Mark Lynas? Big Money. Eric Holt Gimenez (Food First) in Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/of-myths-and-men-mark-lyn_b_2591502.html The views of Mark Lynas are nothing new. They are right in line with the biotech industry and “The Big Three” conservation organizations: the World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International and The Nature Conservancy. All peddle the myth that GMOs and industrial agriculture are necessary to “save the planet” and “feed the 9 billion.” Gimenez explores the links, debunks the myths, and discusses how GMOs threaten the small-scale mixed farming that actually feeds most of the world now.

Analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists: For a discussion of some of the science that Lynas and other proponents of GMOs routinely get wrong, see Union of Concerned Scientists, Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist, Food and Environment:http://blog.ucsusa.org/science-dogma-and-mark-lynas/ Gurian-Sherman’s article links to recent scientific studies and challenges standard myths from “GE reduces pesticide use” and “We need GE because no other methods can feed the world sustainably” to “Critics of GE are anti-science” and “Misguided regulations are stifling GE.”

More from scientists….This article critiques twenty-two Mark Lynas mistakes, one by one, with links to the supporting data at the end of the article. It encompasses a clear and thorough rebuttal of Lynas’s Oxford speech by Dr Brian John, Past Lecturer in Geography, University of Durham, 6th January 2013.http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/lynas_school.html

Is the ‘Mark Lynas Great Conversion’ story just a propaganda exercise? In Part 1 of his SpinWatch article “The Repentant Environmentalist”, Jonathan Matthews (January 2013) discusses whether the Mark Lynas Oxford speech isn’t best understood simply as a PR narrative. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/52-2013/14614-the-repentant-environmentalist-part-1

Is the goal of Lynas to shut down scientific debate? In Part 2, Matthews examines Lynas’ reaction to scientific questions. He also fact-checks the numbers underlying the ‘science’ of Mark Lynas, including his ‘2 trillion GM food meals served and eaten‘ claim, and vets his ‘scientific sources’ which include EuropaBio and AgBioForum.http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/science/item/5461-the-repentant-environmentalist-part-2

How GMOs sell pesticides: Marcia Ishii-Eiteman from PAN North America discusses the actual effect of GMOs on pesticide use: http://www.panna.org/blog/debunking-mark-lynas-ge-myths

Does India need GMOs? Some thoughts from Indian Scientists and media: Dr. Suman Sahai:  http://governancenow.com/views/interview/it-scientists-who-are-asking-regulation-and-precaution Dr. Pushpa M Bhargava: http://governancenow.com/views/interview/science-we-go-evidence Dr. Vandana Shiva: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?283594 Indian media coverage:http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/mark-lynas-and-demeaning-science

Lynas at Cornell — Advocate of science or anti-science: Lynas tours major pro-biotech universities like Cornell University in New York State, spreading misinformation and enhancing the already toxic anti-scientific atmosphere where any critical analysis or discussion of genetic engineering is angrily attacked or dismissed. Science requires open discussion, independent analysis, and a reliance on high quality data and experimentation. Anti-science relies on shutting down discussion, preventing research and analysis, personal attacks, name-calling, misinformation and disinformation.  http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14794

Print This Post

The critical role of civil society in biosafety

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=993

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE 

Dear Friends and Colleagues 

Re: The critical role of civil society in biosafety 

The latest issue of ‘Biosafety Protocol News’, a magazine on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety published by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, focuses on the tenth anniversary of the coming into force of the Cartagena Protocol. 

The contribution from Third World Network (TWN) underlines the need for civil society to gain access to relevant information in order to raise public awareness and promote public participation in decision-making processes regarding LMOs. It also outlines the critical role that civil society has played and continues to play in global and national biosafety discussions, as well as the challenges that remain.

We reproduce below the TWN article. The full magazine is available athttp://bch.cbd.int/protocol/outreach/newsletter/bpn-11.pdf 

With best wishes, 

Third World Network

131 Jalan Macalister

10400 Penang

Malaysia

Email: twnet@po.jaring.my

Websites: : www.twn.my, www.biosafety-info.net

To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net 

Civil society helps promote safety in the use of biotechnology: Third World Network 

by Lim Li Ching

Researcher, Third World Network 

From the early days of modern biotechnology, civil society has actively and consistently raised concerns about the environmental, health and socio-economic risks of genetic engineering and its products. Many non-governmental organizations, farmers’ organizations and indigenous peoples’ organizations have been active in raising public awareness. They have collaborated with scientists engaged in biosafety research by holding campaigns to increase public awareness, education and participation as well as informing policy makers. 

The efforts of civil society have helped to shape international regulatory frameworks and policies regarding living modified organisms (LMOs), commonly known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Information from civil society and scientists helped to shape the discussions leading up to the adoption of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, including the provision on public awareness and participation (Article 23). It also encouraged industry to actively participate in the discussions. 

Notable civil society contributions include the existing international de facto moratorium on field testing or commercial use of genetic use restriction technology (GURTs). Because GURTs aim to restrict the use of genetic material and their related traits, they are seen as impinging upon the rights of farmers [1]. 

In 1999, in response to an avalanche of public opposition, two of the world’s largest seed and agrochemical corporations, Monsanto and AstraZeneca (currently Syngenta), publicly committed themselves to not commercialize “Terminator” seeds. Continued public pressure also led the former Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to publicly declare FAO’s opposition to “Terminator Technology” as a threat to food security [2]. As a result, several countries, including India and Brazil, currently have legislation prohibiting the use of “Terminator Technology”. 

TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=993

Africa’s Food Sovereignty Under Attack By Corporate Interests

Press Release

15 August 2013

Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa

Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), a coalition of pan-African networks, with members in 50 African countries and representing smallholder farmers, indigenous peoples and civil society, met in Addis Ababa 12-16^th August 2013 to formulate an action plan to safeguard Africa’s sovereignty over its food, seeds and natural resources from the assault on Africa’s food systems.

Africa’s diversity and knowledge systems are being threatened by corporate and genetically modified (GM) seeds, agro-chemicals, resource grabs and laws that prevent farmers from freely using, sharing or selling their seed.

These threats come from amongst others, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and the G8 "New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition" that strongly promote the interests of multinational seed, fertilizer and agro-chemical companies at the expense of the rights and interests of smallholder farmers.

Currently, 80% of seed in Africa is bred by smallholder farmers, who freely save and share seed, resulting in a wide diversity of agricultural crops and a safety net for food security. “We are outraged at the way African governments are being strong-armed into adopting draconian seed laws that ensure the dominance of corporate seeds; giving private breeders monopoly and exclusive marketing rights over seeds” said Elizabeth Mpofu, from La Via Campesina Africa.

The entry point for corporate agribusiness into Africa is through valuable cash crops such as cotton. Bt cotton is promoted as necessary for African farmers to compete on the global cotton market. "Bt cotton production in Burkina Faso and South Africa has failed to achieve its promise. Small farmers are finding that yields and quality of Bt cotton are extremely low. For this reason Bt cotton planting this year has plunged from 400,000 hectares to 200,000 hectares in Burkina Faso." Fatou Batta, Association Nourrir Sans Détruire, Burkina Faso.

The G8 New Alliance places a heavy emphasis on nutrition that focuses almost exclusively on the bio-fortification of key staple crops.  According to Bernard Guri from COMPAS Africa  “Bio-fortification is a dangerous distraction from real solutions for nutrition such as increasing crop diversity. We cannot look to dependence on so-called ‘fortified’ crops, whilst ignoring the real socio-economic causes of malnutrition.”

The many pan-African networks belonging to AFSA all note with great concern the increasing acquisition of huge areas of African land by mining conglomerates and biofuel and export agribusiness.  Smallholder farmers such as those displaced by these land grabs feed 70% of the world. Their model of agro-ecological family farming is the most efficient and productive in the world. We must support them instead of undermining their knowledge and practice." said Million Belay, Coordinator of AFSA

Notes to Editors

The ALLIANCE FOR FOOD SOVEREIGNTY IN AFRICA (AFSA) is a Pan African platform comprising networks and farmer organisations working in Africa including the African Biodiversity network (ABN), Coalition for the Protection of African Genetic Heritage (COPAGEN), Comparing and Supporting Endogenous Development (COMPAS) Africa, Friends of the Earth- Africa, Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC), Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) Association, Eastern and Southern African Small Scale Farmers‟ Forum (ESSAFF), La Via Campesina Africa , FAHAMU, World Neighbours, Network of Farmers' and Agricultural Producers' Organizations of West Africa (ROPPA), Community Knowledge Systems (CKS), Plate forme Sous Régionale des Organisations Paysannes d'Afrique Centrale (PROPAC) and African Centre for Biosafety (ACB).

AFSA members represent small holder farmers, pastoralists, hunter/gatherers, indigenous peoples, citizens and environmentalists from Africa who possess a strong voice that shapes policy on the continent in the area of community rights, family farming, promotion of traditional knowledge and knowledge systems, the environment and natural resource management. Thus, providing a forum to analyse, discuss issues, challenge policies and identify ways forward.

Member countries of COMESA in collaboration with the African Seed Trade Association (AFSTA) and ACTESA (The Alliance for Commodity Trade in Eastern and Southern Africa have drafted seed registration law that will be considered by COMESA governments in September 2013. These draft Regulations create a compulsory regional registration system allowing only marketing of private sector seeds while criminalizing the sale of smallholder farmer varieties that have evolved over centuries.

In addition, African regional institutions such as the African Regional Intellectual Property Office (ARIPO) and the South African Development Community (SADC) have also developed draft intellectual property frameworks that only grants proprietary rights to the private sector varieties, while preventing small-holder farmers from continuing their sustainable farming practices of freely using,

exchanging and selling seeds. Theseframeworks enables corporate take-over of African seeds and undermines seedsovereignty.

Golden rice, not the solution to Vitamin A deficiency

TO READ THE ARTICLE:
http://bulatlat.com/main/2013/08/17/golden-rice-not-the-solution-to-vitamin-a-deficiency/

Farmers, scientists and advocates believe that golden rice is but a “simplistic, techno-fix solution” to the prevalence of Vitamin A deficiency and there are other sustainable measures that have no negative impact on human health and the environment.  

More pro-GMO drivel from the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/sunday-review/golden-rice-lifesaver.html?_r=2&

Golden Rice: Lifesaver?

By AMY HARMON

Published: August 24, 2013 

Jes Aznar for The New York Times

Genetically engineered Golden Rice grown in a facility in Los Baños, Laguna Province, in the Philippines.

Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food

http://www.foodrevolution.org/blog/former-pro-gmo-scientist/

By Thierry Vrain

I retired 10 years ago after a long career as a research scientist for Agriculture Canada. When I was on the payroll, I was the designated scientist of my institute to address public groups and reassure them that genetically engineered crops and foods were safe. There is, however, a growing body of scientific research – done mostly in Europe, Russia, and other countries – showing that diets containing engineered corn or soya cause serious health problems in laboratory mice and rats.

I don’t know if I was passionate about it but I was knowledgeable. I defended the side of technological advance, of science and progress.

In the last 10 years I have changed...

New info on glyphosate

TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=994

August 22, 2013

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE Dear Friends and Colleagues  Re: New Evidence on the Health Impacts of Glyphosate  Glyphosate is the world’s most popular herbicide, applied not only on farms but also in forests, parks, public spaces and gardens. It is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s ‘Roundup’ and is regularly used in the widespread cultivation of the company’s Roundup Ready crops genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate. For years, industry has claimed that glyphosate is minimally toxic to humans but new studies indicate otherwise.  A new Thai in-vitro study on human cells (Item 1) shows that glyphosate induces the growth of human breast cancer cells via estrogen receptors. Even low, environmentally relevant doses were found to stimulate estrogenic activity. In addition, the study found that there was an additive estrogenic effect between glyphosate and genistein, a phytoestrogen in soybeans. This is worrying as glyphosate-based herbicides are widely used in soybean cultivation.  Another study found that acute Roundup exposure at low doses for 30 minutes disrupts male reproductive functions by triggering calcium-mediated cell death in rat testis and Sertoli cells (Item 2). Sertoli cells play an important role in sperm cell production and hence male fertility.  Glyphosate residues have been found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. New research by Friends of the Earth detected glyphosate residues in the urine of 44 per cent of people tested from 18 different European countries (Item 3).  Another study (Item 4) presents evidence that glyphosate could disrupt gut bacteria, suppress the CYP enzyme class, and likely impair suphate transport, thereby inducing disease. One of the roles of CYP enzymes is to detoxify xenobiotics (foreign chemicals found in a living organism). This means that glyphosate could effectively enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. According to the authors, the medical conditions to which glyphosate could plausibly contribute to include inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, depression, ADHD, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, multiple sclerosis, cancer, cachexia, infertility, and developmental malformations. The researchers call for more independent research to validate the findings presented and if verified, to take immediate action to drastically curtail the use of glyphosate in agriculture.

Nathanael Johnson: Grist to whose mill?

TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15012-nathanael-johnson-grist-to-whose-mill

Grist's new food writer fails to see beyond industry spin in his series of articles on GM.

Claire Robinson takes Grist’s new food writer to task for falling for pro-GM spin
GMWatch, 21 August 2013

The online magazine Grist is well known for its coverage of environmental issues and for its incisive writing on food, agriculture, and GM, from the likes of Tom Philpott (now with Mother Jones) and Tom Laskawy, the founder and executive director of the Food and Environment Reporting Network.

Recently, Grist has offered us a new food writer, Nathanael Johnson, a Philpott replacement who has started to pen a series about GMOs. Johnson says a friend asked him before he started, "So are you for them, or against?" to which he answered, "I'm trying to figure that out."

His figuring out has given considerable pleasure to GM supporters. Jon Entine of the Cato Institute, whom Tom Philpott has called an "agribiz apologist", has celebrated in the columns of the business magazine Forbes "the sudden and surprising turn” of Grist. Entine uses Johnson’s pieces to pontificate on what constitutes good science journalism – the creators of which, in his view, include himself, Mark Lynas, the pro-GM blogger Keith Kloor, and the bloggers at Biofortified, who are keen admirers of the GM plant scientist Pam Ronald.

Ronald might be said to typify the problems with Johnson's series exploring the GM issue. In the third piece in this series, Johnson set out to explore the differences between conventional breeding and genetic engineering, with Ronald as his principal guide. For additional information he turned to another pro-GM plant scientist, Margaret Smith of Cornell. Unsurprisingly, the resulting article was supportive of GM’s safety.

The only real balance he offered to these two keen GM supporters were some things he had heard at a talk given by the microbiologist Dr Ignacio Chapela. This juxtaposition would seem to suggest a severe lack of balance: on the one hand, direct quotes arising out of hours apparently spent meeting and talking to Ronald and her assistant, and a direct interview with Margaret Smith, contrasted with notes from a lecture Chapela gave “years ago”. Again unsurprisingly, it's Smith who gets the final word.

Sadly, Johnson's latest article, "Is extremism in defense of GM food a vice?", is full of the mistakes and misleading statements that I have come to expect from his supposedly open-minded series.

Informe sobre maíz transgénico en México

http://genok.com/arkiv/1734/

Scientific input from GenØk to the Mexican government on GM maize

08.08.2013

GenØk researcher David Quist, in collaboration with researchers at the Instituto de Ecologia, UNAM – Mexico, posted a report as a public hearing in relation to the use of two types of GM maize in Mexican agriculture.

You can read the report here (only in Spanish) “Una perspectiva multidisciplinaria respecto a la liberación de maíz transgénico resistente a lepidópteros o tolerante a los herbicidas glifosato y glufosinato de amonio“, published 1. August 2013

- See more at: http://genok.com/arkiv/1734/#sthash.VKPnxLOC.dpuf

SUPERWEEDS – HOW BIOTECH CROPS BOLSTER THE PESTICIDE INDUSTRY

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=989

The full study by Food & Water Watch can be downloaded from:documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Superweeds.pdf‎. 

Executive Summary Genetically engineered (GE) crops were first approved in the United States in the 1990s, and since then the United States has been the biggest global adopter of this technology. GE crops were supposed to improve yields, lower costs for farmers and reduce agriculture’s environmental impact. Yet nearly 20 years after their introduction, genetically engineered crops have not provided the benefits promised by the companies that patented them. Food & Water Watch examined U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data to document the increased use of herbicides that has accompanied the adoption of herbicide-tolerant GE crops. Our analysis looks at the rapid proliferation of GE crops and affiliated pesticides in the United States and points out the interdependent relationship between these two industries that also fuels the crisis of weed resistance. Food & Water Watch evaluated data from the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds that reveal burgeoning herbicide-resistant weeds caused by the over-reliance on glyphosate for broad control of weeds. These data make it clear that the problem of herbicide-resistant weeds will not be solved with the intensified use of older, more toxic herbicides like 2,4-D and dicamba. Some of Food & Water Watch’s findings include: • Herbicide use on corn, soybeans and cotton did fall in the early years of GE crop adoption, dropping by 42 million pounds (15 percent) between 1998 and 2001. But as weeds developed resistance to glyphosate, farmers applied more herbicides, and total herbicide use increased by 81.2 million pounds (26 percent) between 2001 and 2010. • The total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012. • Total 2,4-D use declined after glyphosate was widely adopted, but its use has increased since glyphosate-resistant crops became widespread, growing 90 percent between 2000 and 2012. 2,4-D application on corn could easily increase by nearly three-fifths within two years of 2,4-D-tolerant corn’s introduction. And if just a million dicamba-tolerant soybean acres are planted, it would increase dicamba use 17 times. • Reports of weeds developing glyphosate resistance are popping up in more and more states. In 2008, glyphosate-resistant waterhemp was reported in five states, but by 2012 it was reported in 12 states. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth was reported in eight states in 2008 but 17 by 2012. Resistant horseweed spread from 12 states in 2004 to 21 in 2012. • The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds found only about one weed infestation per year that was resistant to multiple herbicides between 1997 and 2001, but a decade after GE crops were introduced (2007 to 2011), there were three times as many multiple herbicide-resistant weed infestations. • Herbicide-resistant weeds’ costs to farmers can range from $12 to $50 an acre, or as much as $12,000 for an average-sized corn or soybean farm or $28,000 for an average cotton farm. More biotech industry-led solutions will only perpetuate agriculture’s reliance on chemicals as the end-all-be-all solution to weed and insect management. But this approach drives the rise of superweeds, poses risks to human health and threatens critical habitat for wildlife in the process. Food & Water Watch recommends that: • The USDA, EPA and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must work together to thoroughly evaluate the potentially harmful effects of GE crops and linked chemicals before commercialization, to ensure the safety of humans and the environment. • The USDA should support and encourage cultivation best management practices to prevent weed resistance in the first place. • The USDA should educate and encourage farmers to adopt non-chemical strategies for long-term weed control. The USDA must dedicate research dollars to developing alternatives for sustainable management of herbicide-resistant weeds. • The U.S. government must improve the collection and distribution of weed resistance and agricultural pesticide application data.

GMO risk assessment

http://genok.com/capacity-building/risk-assessments/

Risk Assessments

Ask us about risk assessments and regulation of GMOs

As a part of the biosafety capacity building programme, financed by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), GenØk gives advice to representatives from ODA-countries on various aspects related to the evaluation of information used in regulatory approval of GMOs, including environmental and socioeconomic risk assessments, risk management strategies and environmental monitoring, on a case by case basis.

We kindly ask you to download and use this form when contacting our advisory department: Request form
If you have any questions, please contact the advisory department at advisory@genok.no

Further information:
GenØk risk assessments
GenØk reports

- See more at: http://genok.com/capacity-building/risk-assessments/#sthash.N38EKTUf.mILHO9BK.dpuf

About genøk

GenØk – Centre for Biosafety was founded in 1998 and is a non-commercial foundation located in the research environment at the University of Tromsø and Forskningsparken (the Science Park).

GenØk vision is safer use of biotechnology. The Foundation conducts research on environmental, health and social consequences of genetic engineering and genetic modification. GenØk also conducts information activities and consulting within their area of competence.

The institute has approx. 35 employees. Our closest partners are TWN (Third World Network) and the University of Tromsø.

In 2007 GenØk was appointed national competence in biosafety.

- See more at: http://genok.com/about-genok/#sthash.TF81hl3K.dpuf

Cultura Profética: Fuera Monsanto de Puerto Rico!

Solicitando tu firma por un Mexico libre de transgenicos

El actor Alfonso Herrera te invita a ser un defensor activo del maíz nativo firmando con tu puño y letra la iniciativa "Maíz Libre" en demanda de un marco legal que establezca la moratoria a las siembras del grano genéticamente modificado.

Chile se moviliza contra la Ley Monsanto

El delito de tener semilla

PARA LEERLO ENTERO:
http://www.elespectador.com/opinion/tener-una-semilla-un-delito-nueva-dictadura-alimentaria-columna-439703

12 Ago 2013 - 10:11 pm

Tener una semilla es un delito: la nueva dictadura alimentaria

Por: Dharmadeva

Hace ya décadas estaba pronosticado que llegaría el momento en que tener una semilla sería un crimen. Parecía ciencia ficción imaginar que un campesino no podría guardar semillas para la próxima cosecha, como lo había venido haciendo por milenios. Sin embargo, es un hecho.

Chile sí, Monsanto no!

Carmelo Ruiz: Monsanto faces rough waters in Puerto Rico

http://ww4report.com/node/12414

MONSANTO FACES OPPOSITION IN PUERTO RICO

• Features

by Carmelo Ruiz Marrero, World War 4 Report

Agricultural biotech corporate giant Monsanto pretty much has had its way in Puerto Rico since it first set up seed breeding operations in the island in 1983. But the last few months have seen a hailstorm of bad publicity and protests against the corporation’s local activities.

Carmelo on Occupy Monsanto

TO READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE: http://alainet.org/active/58196&lang=es

Madeline Buthod and her two children protest Monsanto and GMOs outside of the Millennium Hotel. Photo: Langelle/GJEP

OCCUPY MONSANTO GOES TO THE HOME OF MONSANTO

Carmelo Ruiz Marrero 

In the city of St. Louis, there is no one who does not have a friend, relative or neighbor working at Monsanto. This city on the banks of the Mississippi river has the doubtful honor of hosting the world headquarters of the Monsanto corporation. Founded in 1901, it was one of the world's leading chemical companies in the twentieth century. At the start of this century it transformed itself into a biotechnology giant, or as the company likes to put it, "a leader in the life sciences industry". Nowadays, Monsanto is the world's largest seed company (global market share: 27%) and owns over four fifths of the planet's genetically modified (GM) seed.

Monsanto is therefore the very embodiment of the biotech-agricultural-industrial complex, the company has worked very hard to earn that distinction. That also means that it symbolizes everything that is wrong with the food system.

Monday September 17 (2012) was the Occupy Monsanto campaign's international day of actions against the corporation (1). Concerned citizens all over the world were called upon to carry out protest actions at the Monsanto facility nearest to them. Groups as far away as Chile and Argentina picketed Monsanto offices and circulated photos of their actions on social media. 

That day I was, of all places, in St. Louis picketing the company headquarters' main entrance. I was accompanied by dozens of local activists plus some who came from as far away as Chicago and the San Francisco bay area.

TO READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE: http://alainet.org/active/58196&lang=es

Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Russian Academy of Scientists, joins GMO Free Midwest picket. Photo: Don Fitz

India: Indefinite moratorium on GM field trials recommended

TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/indefinite-ban-gm-field-trials-recommended

 Latha Jishnu @ljishnu 

Date:Jul 22, 2013

Supreme Court’s expert panel of scientists for ban on herbicide tolerant crops for India

Illustration: Divya

A committee of technical experts comprising scientists from top public research laboratories and academic institutions set up by the Supreme Court last year has changed the 10-year  moratorium on field trials of Bt transgenics that it recommended in October 2012 to what appears to be an indefinite moratorium on food crops in its final report.

Based on “the examination/study of the safety dossiers, it is apparent that there are major gaps in the regulatory system. These need to be addressed before issues related to tests can be meaningfully considered. Till such time it would not be advisable to conduct more field trials,” the experts say in their final report without specifying any time frame.

Tres agriculturas: keynesiana, neoliberal y ecologica, por Carmelo Ruiz Marrero

http://carmeloruiz.blogspot.com/2013/08/tres-agriculturas.html

TABLA DE CONTENIDOS:

0. Introducción

1. Raíces keynesianas

2. Una revolución agrícola mundial

3. Fracasa la revolución verde

4. Llega el neoliberalismo agrícola transgénico

5. La alternativa agroecológica

Mercado orgánico este y todos los sábados

Chile dice NO a la ley que privatiza semillas

RT en Español: El imperio transgénico contraataca

Monsanto Winning Our Hearts and Minds? WTF?

http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob388.html

Read PDF | Subscribe & Read Past Issues | OCA Homepage | Donate  ESSAY OF THE WEEK Winning Our Hearts and Minds? Monsanto and Big Food Pull Out the Big Guns Monsanto and Big Food are taking the battle for consumers’ hearts and minds to the next level. And it’s no coincidence that they’re pulling out the big guns just as the Washington State I-522 campaign to label genetically modified organisms in food products is gaining steam. Can industry front groups and slick public relations firms convince us that the products they’re peddling are not only safe, but good for us? Will the millions they spend on websites and advertorials pay off? You be the judge. The freshly launched GMOAnswers.com is funded by the biotech industry, which claims it just "wants to talk." And the recently formed Alliance to Feed the Future, representing more than 50 multinational food, agribusiness and biotech companies, wants to give us the “real” scoop on our food system. Read the essay I-522 UPDATE Leader of the Pack: GMA Tops List of NO on I-522 Donors Who wants you to have the right to know whether or not your food has been genetically engineered or not? Leading organic and natural health companies. Consumer groups such as the OCA and the Alliance for Natural Health. Nonprofit watchdog groups. Thousands and thousands of organic and natural health consumers. Who doesn’t? The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and its dues-paying members. Monsanto. DuPont. Bayer Cropsciences. Dow Agrisciences. So far the GMA is the largest donor to the NO on I-522 campaign, which wants desperately to defeat I-522, Washington’s citizens’ initiative to label GMOs. The GMA represents more than 300 corporations including Kraft, Kellogg’s, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Unilever, Hershey’s, ConAgra, General Mills and a long list of other companies that want your money – but don’t want you to know what they’re selling you. The GMA member roster also includes Starbucks, Target and Safeway, owner of the O Organics™ brand. Which is why we hope you’ll sign our petition asking the leaders of those companies to support I-522 and ditch the GMA. See Who’s Funding NO and YES on I-522 Campaigns TAKE ACTION: Tell Safeway, Starbucks and Target: Stop bankrolling campaigns to defeat GMO Labeling!