Tag Archive | "toxins"

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are There Cracks in the GM Armor?

Posted on 19 October 2013 by Jerry

Below the surface there are cracks in Monsanto’s armor and storm clouds threaten its future.  If we only look at Monsanto’s results for 2013 things are going great.  Sales are up to $14,861 billion while gross profit and net income are at $7,653 billion and $2.482 billion respectively.  Their total seeds and ‘genomics’ (genetically modified products which includes almost all seeds) generated $10,340 billion.  In addition, Monsanto hired the new lobbying firm, the Lincoln Policy Group, of ex-Senator Blanche Lincoln, who for two years was the chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.

But 2013 was not as positive as it seems.  Events in the European Union have been so negative that Monsanto has announced it will no longer seek approvals for its GM crops in the E.U.  Activists and governments continued to block approval of Monsanto’s applications for genetically modified crops.

While the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has deemed eight genetically modified crops as safe beginning as far back as 2005, they and five other crops are still under study and have been effectively blocked.  European governments have stopped implementation of the EFSA’s approved crops due to political pressure of activists and continued scientific disagreement.  Monsanto announced instead that its focus in the E.U. would be on its traditional seed business.

Also reflecting the rejection of GM products in the E.U. in 2012, BASF Plant Sciences announced they would abandon the development and sale of their European Union product Amflora.  Amflora is a high starch GM potato designed for industrial applications like the production of paper.  BASF instead moved their development and sales resources for this product to a much more supportive United States.

Indicative of the hostility to GM products in the E.U. the Swiss government has announced it will create a permanently protected federal research area for genetically modified crops.  This is to help control the increase of vandalism and the costs it is experiencing.  It is estimated Swiss GM researchers spend 78% of their research funds on security.  Because of this, the government approved an annual expense of €600,000 (~$822,000) for a secure field test site of approximately 3 hectares (~7.4 acres).  In 2008 masked activists threatened researchers and destroyed about 1/3 of the GM plants grown at another location.

Even in the U.S., the home of genetic engineering and the biggest crops from GM grains, there are signs of eventual labeling of GM crops.  Connecticut became the first state to pass legislation requiring labeling of GM foods.  Unfortunately, given the small size of the state, the bill only goes into effect after a number of other states in the Northeast follow suit.

Almost half of the  states have introduced legislation or ballot initiatives requiring mandatory labeling.  The biggest battle that is raging is in the state of Washington where once again the GM industry has brought its big wallet to the fray.  So far opponents of the legislation, the GM industry, have raised over $17 million compared to the $5 million raised by the backers of the initiative.  We will know how this initiative fares by the end of the year.

While labeling is being hotly contested in the U.S., labeling requirements have been embraced by over 64 countries in the world.  These include Australia, Brazil, China, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, and all of the countries of the European Union.  We can only hope the GM crop industry decides its state-by-state approach is too costly.

Rumors abound about secret negotiations at the federal level.  President Obama committed to mandatory labeling of GM food in his second term.  This commitment will require we hold the Obama Administration’s feet to the fire to require legislation with real teeth to accomplish the labeling.  Toothless legislation is the House and Senate’s tradition when big business is involved.   This continues the uphill struggle.

Use the following links to obtain more information on these topics or to see source documents.

http://news.monsanto.com/press-release/financial/monsanto-delivers-third-consecutive-year-strong-growth-performance-global-po

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/16/monsanto-blanche-lincoln-_n_4110750.html

http://www.nature.com/news/monsanto-drops-gm-in-europe-1.13432

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-simon/junk-food-lobbyists-sued_b_4104046.html

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/state-labeling-initiatives

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/10/17/4558314/will-washington-state-break-us.html

 

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Businesses Join the GM Labeling Fight

Posted on 06 May 2013 by Jerry

We could be cynical about Whole Foods declaring it will require all its suppliers to label products that contain genetically modified ingredients by 2018.  We could be skeptical, if it weren’t so exciting and part of a larger trend of businesses weighing in to protect their interests.  We could see the Whole Foods announcement, known for its “organic” products, as just moving closer to their customers, who have been lobbying the chain to get involved.  On the contrary however, we see it as potentially a historic turning point in the U.S.

The Food and Drug Administration is rumored to be about to approve genetically modified salmon developed by AquaBounty for sale in U.S. stores (see an earlier post on this blog).  This would be a major milestone since it would constitute approval of the first genetically modified animal to enter the U.S. food supply.

This development threatens the natural salmon fishing industry in Alaska and elsewhere.  It has prompted many more businesses to join the anti-GMO ranks.  Trader Joe’s and other grocery retailers representing more than 2,000 stores have announced they will not carry the GM salmon if it is approved for sale.

The prospect of GM salmon has led to the introduction of federal mandatory labeling legislation, the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act.  This unites mandatory labeling forces with the fishing industry to continue the fight.  Sponsors of the legislation include U.S. Senators from California (Barbara Boxer), Alaska, New York, and Vermont and House Representatives from Alaska, Oregon, Maine, New York and Washington.

This is not to say the other side of the labeling debate has not been lobbying for its positions.  Quiet meetings between the FDA and pro-GM forces are reported to have taken place as companies lobby for neutered and watered-down labeling requirements that pre-empt the states.  Companies participating in these meetings are said to include behemoths such as Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Pepsi-Frito Lay, and Mars.

State legislation and ballot measures have not yet been successful other than in Alaska where legislation has passed calling for the mandatory labeling of genetically modified salmon. While state labeling bills are still pending in Connecticut, Missouri, Vermont and Washington state, legislation in New Mexico was allowed to die on the state senate floor.

Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream also announced it would commit to sourcing non-GMO ingredients for all of its products everywhere by the end of 2013.  They also stated they would transition packaging so all products will be labeled with respect to GMO by the end of 2014.

While owned by international conglomerate Unilever, the terms of its sale required a measure of ongoing independence of a separate subsidiary board of directors unusual to corporate acquisitions.  In addition, some would argue this is not a big deal because of the small size of the B&J product line, that 80% of its ingredients are already non-GMO, and that mandatory labeling is required in the E.U. and U.K.

The U.S. government defines the use of the word organic on a label.  Amongst other things, it identifies products that do not have GM ingredients.  People concerned about the healthiness of their food have a history of paying more for this organic assurance.  Whole Foods has a net profit margin approaching 4% that is more than twice as big as the less than 2% net margin of average retail/wholesale food grocery stores.

Because labeling is a worldwide issue and complex, the identified links below provide additional information.  At present there are 64 countries identified as having mandatory GMO labeling requirements (see below).

For those people looking for a way to be involved or to impact this labeling issue in the U.S. I suggest you put personal pressure on the businesses with which you do business.  We need to learn from the effectiveness of people who lobbied for a change of policy at Whole Foods.

In addition, you should go to www.justlabelit.org.  While hundreds of organizations have declared support for mandatory labeling, Just Label It has become a focal point for individual involvement and grassroots lobbying of elected officials.  I am convinced they are one of the most effective points of entry today.

Use the following links to obtain more information:

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/node/199961

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-15/business/37731461_1_gmo-organic-ingredients-food

http://news.msn.com/science-technology/whole-foods-others-to-shun-genetically-modified-seafood

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/04/bill-introduced-in-house-and-senate-to-require-labeling-of-ge-foods/

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/448-farm-and-food-policy/15491-why-are-wal-mart-and-big-food-lobbying-the-fda-for-a-gmo-labeling-law

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27182.cfm

http://www.allaboutfeed.net/process-management/management/2013/2/us-washington-state-to-vote-on-mandatory-gm-labelling-1166691w/

http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/news/2013/02/01/gmo-food-labeling-bill-voted-down.html

 

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Vote Yes on California Prop 37

Posted on 30 October 2012 by Jerry

Several readers have asked if IAmAGuardian.com has taken a position on California Proposition 37 which requires labeling of genetically engineered foods.  Yes, below are two articles which have been posted in support of Proposition 37.

As previously identified, chemical and agricultural conglomerates opposing Prop 37 are grossly outspending supporters of the proposition (funds raised exceed $40 million at this point, still a 10 to 1 advantage).  Opponents have cited very large additional costs to the food industry from the labeling, increased costs to consumers as if prices will be forced up, and the supposed inconsistency of application of the labeling requirement to various products.

All products in California require labels.  There is no requirement to re-label products made before the law’s passage.  There is virtually no cost to redraft future product labels which have to be produced on packaging anyway.  There should be no change in pricing of products to consumers other than hypothesized price reductions to sell newly labeled genetically engineered products that consumers refuse to buy. 

The logic of what is included to be labeled as genetically engineered and what is not, is a function of what farms may be incidentally contaminated by plants from neighboring farms whose crops are genetically engineered.  This is because there is nothing to prevent GE crops from cross pollinating adjacent non GE crops. In addition, labeling a GE product is determined by whether it is eaten directly by a human being.  Meat from animals that have been fed GE products is exempt because the animal itself has not been genetically engineered.  In cases where the animal itself is genetically engineered, for example the proposed genetically modified salmon, there would be a requirement for GE labeling before human consumption.

Those of us who have read the proposed legislation and have studied genetic engineering find the arguments against this simple labeling requirement to be complete fabrications.  This type of product labeling already exists in over 60 countries around the world. These vociferous and wealthy opponents of Prop 37 are only concerned about their profits and being completely unregulated when they genetically engineer their products.  They want to remain completely unfettered by a simple labeling requirement that informs consumers who might care about what they feed themselves and their family.

A U.S. Domino for Genetically Engineered Foods

September 16, 2012 – San Francisco

California may be the last chance for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods in the U.S. or the first U.S. governmental entity to require labeling. Unfortunately there has been no progress in the U.S. with a number of labeling bills defeated around the country.  As the birth place of genetic engineering, the U.S. and Canada have the largest adoption of genetically modified foods in the world.

When the U.S. reversed its decades long opposition to allowing other nations to require labels on genetically engineered food (see iamaguardian.com August 2011 posting of “Speed/Slow/Stop….or Label Genetically Modified Foods”) it was clear it would cause labeling dominoes to fall around the world.  We have seen movement in a number of countries including lately the European Union and most recently a committee of the Indian Parliament and separately the Turkish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock. 

The reality is that when consumers get information, they read it and they act on it.  This is why the opposition to California’s Proposition 37 (Genetically Engineered Foods, Mandatory Labeling Initiative Statute) has put up over $25 million to defeat the proposition. This does not compare favorably to the $2.5 million raised in support of the measure.

If you are judged by the company you keep as a measure of how you should be viewed, the roles of the two sides of the debate are clear.  The proponents number many and have a long history of standing on the side of consumers and their health (see http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements/ ).  The antagonists include the largest chemical and food companies.  If you look at this list of opponents what is striking is that many producers on the list are either genetically modifying foods themselves, are the nation’s largest buyers of GE crops or produce products that are only sugar foods which contain nothing but empty calories and pander to the worst eating habits in our nation (http://www.noprop37.com/donors/ ).

Who do you believe has your best health interests at heart, Monsanto, Bayer Crop Science, Cargill, Clorox, and Dow Agro Sciences?  Maybe others have more credibility with you, like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo Inc., Hershey Company, Nestle USA, H.J Heinz, Sara Lee, and the J.M. Smucker Company.   These are the company’s paying the most to defeat a simple labeling requirement.

You should decide for yourself but not be swayed by the avalanche of negative ads that are about to launch in California.  This is simply a labeling requirement, not anything more.  When the antagonists say it is a conspiracy to have a deceptive labeling scheme or a plot to help organic businesses or will cost too much to change labels or will cause a rise in food prices or will be a windfall for trial lawyers or has loopholes for special interests, you should reject these claims. Some of us have read the legislation, are familiar with the genetic engineering of foods in the U.S. and have seen these scare tactics before.  We are only talking about your right to see a label that shows you what is in the food you intend to eat and feed to your family.

Use the following links to obtain more information:

http://www.nature.com/news/companies-set-to-fight-food-label-plan-1.11240

http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements/

http://www.noprop37.com/donors/

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/08/indian-parliamentary-panel-slams-gm-crops.html

http://www,todayszaman.com/newsDetail_openPrintPage.action?newsld=289724/

 

CA Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act

March 27, 2012 – San Francisco

Since the July 5, 2011 reversal of the U.S. position opposing labeling of genetically modified foods internationally (see August 5, 2011 post “Speed/Slow/Stop…or LABEL Genetically Modified Foods), pressure for mandatory labeling of GM foods in the U.S. has been building.

While there are efforts nationally to produce petitions (see www.justlabelit.org ) and to pass laws to require mandatory labeling, many are not optimistic these efforts will be successful in the near term.  The situation in the State of California may be dramatically different however (see www.carighttoknow.org ).

As you probably know California has a history of leading and pioneering in forward looking health and safety issues.  California also has a well developed voter initiative process in which citizens groups can qualify proposed laws for inclusion on the state election ballot once a specific number of voter signatures have been secured.  In the November elections of 2012 California voters will have a unique opportunity to pass ground breaking legislation that requires mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods offered for sale in California.

Called the “California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act” the proposed legislation requires mandatory labeling when a food is:

  • “any genetically engineered raw agricultural commodity”
  • a “processed food that is made with or derived from any genetically engineered ingredient” or
  • any “processed food that is made with or is derived from any ingredient that may be genetically engineered” shall include a conspicuous statement which says “MAY CONTAIN GENETICALLY ENGINEERED INGREDIENT(S)”

While this legislation has elements which do not go far enough, it does represent a landmark step.  An example of an area that could be strengthened is its failure to call for labeling of food from any animal that has not itself been genetically engineered but has been fed or injected with genetically engineered food or any drug that has been produced though means of genetic engineering.  The proposed law also excludes labeling of food solely because it includes one or more genetically engineered processing aids or enzymes.

In any case, this is a ballot initiative you should support with your contributions and votes. Quoting Beyond Animal, Ego and Time, “Successful activists take the progress that is offered and demand more.”  Let us pass this law as written as a beachhead for the rest of the nation.  For voters from other states, use this draft as a template for your own local initiatives.

Remember, this legislation does not change the food choices you are given in your local store.  It also does not limit the genetic engineering the industry performs.  It merely gives you more information about what you may consume yourself or serve to your family.  It only equips you to make a more informed choice.

Use the following links to review the actual wording of the voter initiative and visit the websites of organizations driving this issue:

http://carighttoknow.org (Select “About”, then select “The Initiative”)

http://carighttoknow.org

http://justlabelit.org

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Genetic Engineering Influence Peddling and Profit

Posted on 13 June 2012 by Jerry

The world is full of influence peddlers with countless people on both sides of the transaction. There are the influencers with money, power, and prestige who tempt people around them to take actions which benefit the influencers to the exclusion of everyone else.  There are also those who are waiting to be influenced and act compliantly or at minimum turn a blind eye toward someone else taking advantage of a situation. They view their personal corruption by others as the most direct way for them to progress and prosper.  In their world every issue is a shade of gray rather than black and white.  There is always an argument to justify the most self serving answer of the moment.  These groups view the world as dog-eat-dog and view their personal prosperity and that of their interest group as all that matters.

There are an infinite number of angles that can be worked for personal profit and/or to facilitate influence peddling, too many angles to list and explain.  There are however, notable examples that garner public attention, outcry and deserve further elaboration.  This is certainly true in the areas of greatest opportunity where large amounts of money are being paid and where the corporate and venture capital consensus sees a future bonanza.  This is specifically true in genetic engineering of modified foods and in the field of synthetic biology.

The first example is of a very straight forward phenomenon, the movement of people back and forth between government and the corporations who wish to control government’s actions.  The case in point is that of Michael R. Taylor who was appointed by the Obama administration to be the Deputy Commissioner of Foods at the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) in 2010.  In this capacity, Mr. Taylor, an attorney by trade, is in charge of food safety in the United States.

To illustrate how influence peddlers groom their collaborators we look first at Wikipedia that gives a fairly straight forward description of Mr. Taylor’s background.  The Wikipedia article describes that after law school he went to the FDA as a staff attorney, then to a law firm where he led the firm’s “food and drug law” practice and represented Monsanto for many years.  Then he was appointed as Administrator of Food Safety and Inspection in the Department of Agriculture.  From there he went back to his prior legal practice where he was shortly named at Monsanto as the Vice President for Public Policy.  Then he went into academia as a Research Professor of Health Policy before returning to the government to become a “senior advisor” to the FDA Commissioner.  He held this position for a few years before Obama promoted him to his present position.

Compare this background description with the two press releases issued by the FDA announcing his appointment as senior advisor to the FDA Commissioner in 2009 and the announcement of his appointment as Deputy Commissioner for Foods in 2010.  In the 2009 announcement there is no mention whatsoever of his past affiliation with Monsanto.  In the 2010 document from the FDA there is one mention of Monsanto in the next to last sentence of the press release.

Lest you think these two press releases go out of their way to downplay, if not completely omit, description of Mr. Taylor’s Monsanto connections, you would be completely right.  Among the many WikiLeaks disclosed cables from within the State Department are a number of cables that reveal the full and explicit U.S. government support for U.S. chemical and agriculture business’ genetically modified foods.  It is particularly instructive to learn that the strategic policy of the United States is to support and promulgate genetically modified foods around the world as one of our most important exports.

In addition, we have two examples of descriptions of Mr. Taylor’s appointment to his latest position.  The article in the New York Times mentions his past affiliation with Monsanto only once in passing.  The corresponding article in the Washington Post is much more balanced and provides full disclosure of Mr. Taylor’s past affiliations with Monsanto and his support, while in government, for controversial Monsanto issues like not needing to label milk from cows that were given growth hormones.

Our next example received more public attention but unfortunately it was largely confined to the European Union.  Such is the case of Diána Bánáti who was the unpaid chairwoman of the management board of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Union’s top risk assessment body.  She concurrently held the salaried food safety commissioner and chief scientific advisor positions at the Hungarian Ministry of Rural Development.  As reported in the cited article, Ms. Bánáti was asked to resign from both positions when she announced she was being appointed as the executive and scientific director of the Brussels based International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). 

Previous controversy surrounded Ms. Bânâti when it was discovered that she had not disclosed an earlier appointment to the ILSI’s Board of Directors before her last re-election to the EFSA Board.  After her ILSI Director appointment was disclosed she was forced to give it up so as not to jeopardize her position as EFSA chair.

Her new position was possibly recognition for a job well done at the EFSA.  Within a few weeks of her resignation, the European Food Safety Authority rejected a French Government attempt to ban a genetically modified strain of corn developed by the U.S. based Monsanto Corporation.  The rejection is now slated to go for decision to the European Commission for ratification or rejection.

While not going to work directly for a chemical or agriculture business, her move is a variation of the revolving door that Michael Taylor is using.  The ILSI is an industry funded think tank. Its membership list is a who’s who of the agriculture, food and chemical industries world-wide. 

Our final two examples are in the area of synthetic biology and represent a different gambit to achieve personal profit.  This involves concurrent leadership of non-profit research institutes and venture capital backed private businesses.  One can suspect that this puts a scientist entrepreneur in the position to use government grants and nonprofit status to conduct research in a promising area and then redirect the research into their own startup when they think a scientific breakthrough is eminent.  In at least one of these situations, we see the entrepreneur hedge his bets by having his private company fund the research in his own research institute.  This would appear to be a way to limit argument about who owns the science that is developed.  The entrepreneur sits at the key pivot point and is in a position to choose where, how and with whose money to conduct ongoing breakthrough research.

While this is happening, selected individuals in the scientific community, governmental departments or grant making nonprofit organizations at a minimum turn a blind eye to what may be happening.  This is because they can argue that the research needs to be done no matter how it is accomplished or who benefits.  A cynical assessment is that these people are hoping for future positions in one of the organizations, stock options of the private companies or the favors of the scientist entrepreneur helping them pursue their own future opportunities. 

To see this organizational structure consider J. Craig Venter who on the nonprofit side heads the J. Craig Venter Institute “with more than 300 scientists and staff”.  This Institute was assembled by the merger of several of Craig Venter’s earlier organizations, specifically The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR), The Center for Advancement of Genomics, The J. Craig Venter Science Foundation, The Joint Technology Center, and the Institute for Biological Energy Alternatives.  On the for profit side, Craig Venter leads Synthetic Genomics, a high tech synthetic biology private startup funded in part by Draper Fisher Jurvetson, BP, the Meteor Group, Biotechonomy LLC and Plenus, S.A. de C.V.

Another example of this dual nonprofit and for profit structure is that assembled by Steven A. Benner.  On the non-profit side, Benner heads The Westheimer Institute of Science and the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution (FAME).  On the profit side, he leads private startup Firebird BioMolecular SCiences LLC.  He sold another private company, EraGen Biosciences, to Luminex.

As a side note, synthetic biology as expressed in earlier posts creates significant risks if you assume there is a potential for release of a synthetically created organism outside the laboratory.  Apparently Firebird Biomolecular Sciences, LLC, agrees.  It posts a disclaimer that reads “All products sold by Firebird Biomolecular Sciences LLC., are for research and development purposes only, and are not for use in humans.  It is the responsibility of the buyer to determine the suitability of the product for any given purpose.  Products should be handled by trained personnel who understand the potential hazards of working with such materials.  Responsibility for accidents arising from the handling and use of Firebird products rests solely with the buyer.”  While approving of the warning, it would be great if it was this easy to insulate one’s company and one’s self from future lawsuits and responsibility.  

As has been observed in previous posts, the world’s largest chemical and agricultural businesses are pushing, with the U.S. government’s help, the adoption of genetically modified foods throughout the world.  At the same time, scientist entrepreneurs looking to benefit from synthetic biology are arguing aggressively and successfully there should be no government oversight or intervention in synthetic biology. 

Citizens around the world must be cynical as they consider what is happening in their governments.  They must examine every appointment to high government position and identify the biases these individuals bring with them.  They must be vigilant about the present positions their governments are taking on issues surrounding our ozone, climate change, nuclear weapons and genetic engineering and synthetic biology.  They must identify influence peddling for what it is and marshal public opinion against it.

Use the following links to obtain more information on these topics:

Michael R. Taylor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor (Select “search for Michael R. Taylor in Wikipedia.”  You will see a message saying there is no listing for Michael R. Taylor.  Select the first Taylor option offered and you will go to the page)

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2009/ucm170842.htm?utm  

http://www.fda.gov/food/newsevents/constituentupdates/ucm197828.htm?utm

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/print/2011/01/us-presses-europe-to-worship-genetically-modified-foods/69633

http://www.rodale.com/genetically-modified-organisms-foods-0

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/health/policy/14fda.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/13/AR2010011304402.html

Diána Bánáti:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/05/european-food-safety-official-re.html

http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2012/may/eu-rejects-french-gm-ban/74415.aspx

http://phys.org/news/2012-05-eu-food-agency-france-monsanto.html

J. Craig Venter:

http://dnalc.org/view/16830-Biography-39-John-Craig-Venter-1946-.html

http://edge.org/memberbio/j_craig_venter

http://www.syntheticgenomics.com/about/

http://www.syntheticgenomics.com/about/genesis.html

Steven Benner:

http://www.westheimerinstitute.org/about.php

http://www.gtecflorida.com/tech_industry-GTEC_start-ups.aspx

http://www.ffame.org/sbenner.php

http://www.firebirdbio.com/index.html

http://www.firebirdbio.com/AboutUs.html

Presidential Bioethics Panel:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/health/17synthetic.html

To see the text of the report from the Presidential Bioethics Panel, select “the report” in the first line of the second paragraph of the NY Times article listed above.

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Roundup (Glyphosate) and Infertility

Posted on 27 April 2012 by Jerry

In a new study the chemical glyphosate, commonly referred to as GLYP, and glyphosate-based products like Monsanto’s Roundup Bioforce®, were found to cause testicular cells in rats to die within 24-48 hours after a dosage that is 10 times below the chemical level in normal agricultural use.  This chemical is used on crops that have been genetically engineered to not be harmed by the herbicide.  In an earlier August 2011 article, “Where there’s toxins, there’s….What?” we identified a study at the University of Sherbrook Hospital Center in Quebec that showed GLYP was found in the blood streams of the women studied.  The unknown of those findings was the physical effects of the exposure in their blood streams.  This new study gives us an indication of some of the long term effects of exposure to this chemical.

The lead French researcher, Gilles-Eric Séralini at the Université de Caen Basse-Normandie, released his report at the same time there were reports of GLYP contamination of ground water in Catalonia, Spain, and GLYP found in human urine samples at 4-20 times the level allowed in drinking water of Berlin City (0.1 micrograms per litre, or 0.1 parts per billion [ppb]).  An article summarizing these findings stated, “American consumers exposed to glyphosate through residual levels in genetically modified (GM) foods are likely to have even higher levels in their system; although no studies appear to have been done.”

Further the article observed, “The concentration of the herbicides used in the experiments ranged from 0.0001% (1ppm) of Roundup Bioforce®, (corresponding to 0.336ppm of pure glyphosate) to agricultural levels of 1% (10,000ppm)….  Further the permitted level of glyphosate residue on food or feed in the U.S. is 400 ppm or 400 times the lowest concentrations tested by Séralini and colleagues.  Thus, the concentrations used in the study are very relevant to human exposure as well as exposure of other animals.  Of particular concern is the scarcity of published data regarding the possible bioaccumulation of this herbicide, leaving us only able to speculate how much is in our bodies….Chronic exposure has not been sufficiently tested, and needs to be investigated.”

In another study also led by Gilles-Eric Séralini at the Université de Caen Basse-Normandie, he and his colleagues tested the effects on human tissue of combined exposure to both glyphosate-based herbicides (like Roundup) and pesticides with the Bt toxins of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac.  Human embryonic kidney cell line 293 was the human tissue in the experiment.  The study looked at the effects of the combined exposure within a 24 hour period. 

Findings were as follows:

  • Cry1Ab caused cell death from 100 ppm with no effects detected from exposure to Cry1Ac.
  • Roundup, tested alone from 1 to 20,000 ppm, will kill cells from 50 ppm which is far below agricultural dilutions (50% lethal concentration at 57.5 ppm).

The conclusion reached in this research contradicts assertions of the chemical industry over the last 20 years. Unfortunately the dosages administered in a very short time are considered too high to be conclusive.  More prolonged exposure to smaller dosages are required.  The researchers stated however, “In these results, we argue that modified Bt toxins are not inert on nontarget human cells, and that they can present combined side-effects with other residues of pesticides specific to GM plants.”

Use the following link to obtain more information on this story:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosate_kills_rat_testis_cells.php

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/crucial27.htm

 

Comments (0)

Advertise Here
Advertise Here
April 2017
S M T W T F S
« Feb    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30