First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

This is the place for ON or Off topic conversations. Almost anything goes - but be kind, and no trolling.
Forum rules
While the rules in this forum are more relaxed than in other parts of the Expat site, there are still a few things we’d like you to remember: No name calling, no insults – be civil to each other!
User avatar
JoshuS
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:40 am

First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby JoshuS » Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:48 am

First long-term study of GMO corn‏

http://youtu.be/Njd0RugGjAg


French researchers secretly studied, for two years, 200 rats fed with transgenic maize. Tumors, serious disorders… full-fledged slaughter. And a bomb for the GMO industry. Monsanto’s GMOs led to horrendous tumors that led to rats literally dragging them along the ground.
A two-year study. Very alarming results on the proven harm of NK603 maize for rats that were given this food. Roundup harm is confirmed.

It has certainly been a rough couple of weeks for the mega corporation as the real dangers surrounding GMOs are being brought to the attention of consumers on a global scale like never before. It all started with the monumental French study finding a serious link between the consumption of Monsanto’s Roundup-drenched GMOs and massive tumors. Being called the ‘most thorough’ research ever published on the real health effects of GMOs, the study led to even larger victories.

Meanwhile, Monsanto is continuing to stick to its tired statements regarding the ‘safety’ of its GMO crops and Roundup herbicide. Instead of discussing not only the French study finding that the company’s GMOs led to horrendous tumors that led to rats literally dragging them along the ground as they walked, they claim that the information ‘does not warrant’ any concern at all from European officials. Just as Monsanto (and the US government) ignored evidence linking Roundup to DNA damage and infertility, it appears they intend to do it once more and hope that it all goes away. Unfortunately for Monsanto, it’s not going away this time.

Related articles:

http://www.gmo-global-alert.net
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2012/09/29/i ... gmo-crops/
http://naturalsociety.com/russia-bans-u ... ing-study/

Monsanto's Government Orgy / Report
http://youtu.be/EbhtUhebzic


User avatar
Alan
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 2876
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:10 pm
Contact:

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby Alan » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:22 pm

And from the Washington Post, this quote questioning the findings:

“The first thing that leaps to my mind is why has nothing emerged from epidemiological studies in the countries where so much GM has been in the food chain for so long? If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren’t the North Americans dropping like flies?! GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there — and longevity continues to increase inexorably!”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all ... _blog.html
renodante
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: miraflores

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby renodante » Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:32 pm

At the heart of all the ranting and soul searching has been, in reality, a quite insignificant story. Pusztai allegedly showed that a certain strain of genetically engineered potato, when laced with a known toxin, made some rats a bit sick. But these were not potatoes intended for sale in the local supermarket - they were grown specifically for scientific research on the effect of lectins, the type of chemical which is found in red kidney beans and renders them quite poisonous until cooked..

http://www.sirc.org/news/flight.html
User avatar
JoshuS
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:40 am

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby JoshuS » Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:08 pm

Alan wrote:And from the Washington Post, this quote questioning the findings:

“The first thing that leaps to my mind is why has nothing emerged from epidemiological studies in the countries where so much GM has been in the food chain for so long? If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren’t the North Americans dropping like flies?! GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there — and longevity continues to increase inexorably!”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all ... _blog.html


GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) The taking of genes from one specie and force it into the DNA of other species (plant or animal), so they can mix and match between species that would've never normally mated, like human genes put into corn to make spermicide, etc or the cow genes put into pigs so the pigs have cow hides and so on. There are no veritable long term studies by Monsanto of the potentially harm these could cause to human beings. Certainly people are not rats, and not dropping dead by the day, but there are clear signs of the dangers, be it directly or indirectly, that GMOs are causing more harm than wellness, turning this into a harmful, if not deadly, game of Genetic Roulette.

Here's some enlightenment of what GMOs are and how it works into animal and human organisms at the genetic level.

Genetic Roulette Movie (short) Trailer
http://youtu.be/Vv96D_ZURzs

GMO Documentary: Genetic Roulette (17-minute trailer)
http://youtu.be/hAMlir8oprw

Genetic Roulette - Full Documentary
http://youtu.be/kC-ny11zLXg
User avatar
Alan
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 2876
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:10 pm
Contact:

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby Alan » Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:36 pm

Yet, here is another study done over the course of two years using soy beans, not corn, that showed no health impact whatsoever on rats. Look it over.

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2012/09/t ... of-gm.html


I am no biologist, and doubt you are one either Josh. Are we really qualified to judge the scientific merits of these studies?
mirage
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:07 pm

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby mirage » Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:21 am

You may not be biologists, but the problem with your argument Alan is that we know that before GM the natural process worked, once there is large scale infection and cross pollination there is no going back. The whole industry is about making money and controlling seed supply. As Henry Kissenger said, whoever controls the seed supply controls the world.
User avatar
Alan
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 2876
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:10 pm
Contact:

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby Alan » Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:08 am

mirage wrote:You may not be biologists, but the problem with your argument Alan is that we know that before GM the natural process worked, once there is large scale infection and cross pollination there is no going back. The whole industry is about making money and controlling seed supply. As Henry Kissenger said, whoever controls the seed supply controls the world.


Not certain what point of my argument you disagree with ( I am not really making an argument, rather showing that for ever study there seems to be a counter study, and that for now, evidence seems to weigh on the side of GM).

Interesting point you make about controlling the seed supply, though it´s hard for me to imagine that kind of future reality. Why wouldn´t farmers have the choice to go back to lesser-producing seeds not sold by Monsanto?

Like many of you, my mind has not been made up on this subject, but at times like these I wish I had studied more science!
mirage
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:07 pm

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby mirage » Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:21 pm

Alan the point is that assuming that that GM is equal is not correct, it is not tried and tested as non GM which has been for milenia.

There is a technology that will make the seeds produce sterile seeds. As it is farmers are allowed contractually to produce for one year and then you have to buy more seed, hence Monsanto´s enthusiasm, they are more germ resistent, and perhaps other supposedly stronger characteristics. It used to be that farmers would have seed banks that were built up over many years which could be planted and develped, not the case with GM as Monsanto contractually bans this.

http://farmwars.info/?p=5885
http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/ ... lants.html
renodante
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: miraflores

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby renodante » Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:58 pm

i'm absolutely against the dubious practice of trying to create a seed monopoly by the technique mentioned above.

however i can't help but be skeptical when all the gloom and doom reports about effects detrimental to human health come from the natural foods and conspiracy blogosphere, and almost never from the scientific community (i know i know they're in on the diabolical plan...). the few studies that show negative effects on humans have turned out to be quite shady.

like evolution, vaccines, global warming etc, you have the scientific community telling you one thing, and the purveyors of doom another. of course there can be ill effects, but it seems conclusions are being jumped to by those who are eager for their beliefs about GMOs to be vindicated. what about the positives? like hypoallergenic milk, rice that has higher nutrient content, sweet potatoes that help protect against blindness, crops that promote beneficial insect breeding?

it is not tried and tested as non GM which has been for milenia.


This sort of thing is said about just about any scientific advancement humans make when it's new. probably when we were breeding wolves into dogs someone was like "this will create an evil mutant wolf beast that will kill us all!"
User avatar
JoshuS
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:40 am

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby JoshuS » Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:29 pm

Alan wrote:Yet, here is another study done over the course of two years using soy beans, not corn, that showed no health impact whatsoever on rats. Look it over.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2012/09/t ... of-gm.html
I am no biologist, and doubt you are one either Josh. Are we really qualified to judge the scientific merits of these studies?


The study you point out is from 2008 and it claims "These results indicate that long-term intake of GM soybeans at the level of 30% in diet has no apparent adverse effect in rats."
There's been a new generation of GM crops, more aggressively developed on such main staple plants such as those with increased vitamin levels ever since, from what I understand.

Also, we know for a fact, that Monsanto demands to supervise the test environment in which their GM seeds tests are performed, this is prerequisite if they are to release their GM seeds for any given "independent" lab study. So the study you provided, chances are, was no exception to this prerequisite, whether it was transgenic soy beans or corn. We also know for a fact that, 90% of US soy bean and 70% of US corn crops contain the 'Round Up - ready' transgenic gene. Thus, it is safe to infer that the French study is the first, most thorough (across several biochemical spectrums), truly independent (they admittedly had to wait, to be able to procure the Monsanto's transgenic corn by other means, for the reason explained above) and most current long term study of its kind, done on both Monsanto's GM corn and the Round-Up herbicide, separately and combined. And the results are appalling in both cases.

To be very clear, we're not talking about us humans, insects or weather, as agents of selection playing into the process of seed/plants evolution that began over 2.8 million years ago. Or the way we have been modifying wild animals by the same processes of selective breeding, so that we have produced the Chi-Hua-Hua from the wolf lineage, per say. There is a difference between breeding a trait over a certain amount of years and producing it in a lab.

What we're talking about here is the manipulation of the genome, at the bio-molecular level if you will, by forcing genes of one species into the DNA of other species that would've never normally and naturally mated otherwise. The complete swapping of genes between normal species barriers, creating new organisms which are not part of the evolutionary process. I don't know about you, but to me sounds like creating what some have called, and justly so: "Franken-Foods". And you're right, I'm not a bio-scientist and neither are you, but it takes just common sense to realize that this senseless artificial disruption (violation) of the natural processes of genes, genomes and DNAs leave the door wide open to all kinds of unknown side effects, inflammations and mutations of the natural ways of expression of such violated living organisms, be it plant or animals. Mutations which dangers are yet to be fathomed, even more so when there's very little data of what the effects of introducing foreign DNA into a food crop will be on our health.
In light of all that, I don't know about you but I, at the very least, would like to have these GM foods labeled, the way it's supposed to be, so informed people can have a choice.

And what about Monsanto and FDA corrupt reputation history in the matter, as proven in the case of the "Landmark Lawsuit Challenges FDA Policy on Genetically Engineered Foods", when it forced to disclose 44,000 secret internal memos into the public domain which show how the FDA since 1992 repeatedly claimed an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that GM foods were safe, while the overwhelming consensus within their own FDA staff showed the exact opposite, that these foods were not safe.

Now, it's been reported that a Monsanto official told the New York Times that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."

And of course, it would be nice to think the FDA can be trusted with these matters, but think again. Monsanto has succeeded in insuring that government regulatory agencies let Monsanto do as it wishes. In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report. Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen. Deciding whether or not rBGH-derived milk should be labeled fell under the jurisdiction of another FDA official, Michael Taylor, who previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto. Ah, you've got to love that revolving door!

Prior to being the Supreme Court Judge who put GW Bush in office, Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer.
The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation.
The Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals.
The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor.
The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the last election were Larry Combest (Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and Attorney General John Ashcroft. (Source: Dairy Education Board)

Money and power corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
renodante
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: miraflores

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby renodante » Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:39 pm

To be very clear, we're not talking about us humans, insects or weather, as agents of selection playing into the process of seed/plants evolution that began over 2.8 million years ago.


That's exactly what it is. It's just being done with new technology combined with the knowledge acquired over all that time.

There is a difference between breeding a trait over a certain amount of years and producing it in a lab.


Right, one is faster than the other.

What we're talking about here is the manipulation of the genome, at the bio-molecular level if you will, by forcing genes of one species into the DNA of other species that would've never normally and naturally mated otherwise.


And this is bad why?

The complete swapping of genes between normal species barriers, creating new organisms which are not part of the evolutionary process.


chihuahuas would most likely never have occurred if we let evolution run its course. Everything we do as humans is a part of the "evolutionary process." everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Thus, it is safe to infer that the French study is the first, most thorough (across several biochemical spectrums)


The study went on for two years, the breed of rat chosen for the study commonly develops tumors after two years. The sample sizes were small.

"Another red flag was that tumor rates didn’t increase in line with the dose of GMOs fed to animals, as scientists would expect to see if the genetically engineered corn were to blame, said Kevin Folta, a plant molecular biologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Instead, “you are likely seeing variation of normal tumor incidence in a small population of rats,” he said."

"Bob Goldberg, a plant molecular biologist at UCLA, said the study didn't offer any credible explanation for why the engineered corn would cause tumors. The changes made to plants to help them resist Roundup involve a protein that is naturally present in all plants people eat every day, he said."

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la- ... 7735.story

Breaking with a long tradition in scientific journalism, the authors allowed a selected group of reporters to have access to the paper, provided they signed confidentiality agreements that prevented them from consulting other experts about the research before publication.


http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2012/ ... -scrutiny/

Paging Dr. Wakefield.
mirage
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:07 pm

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby mirage » Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:01 pm

Another nail in the coffin. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ocean-rob ... 55563.html

It won´t take long now before more people start to realize, just a matter of time.

And what happens in California usually ends up spreading way and beyond.

I fail to understand how one can compare breeding a trait selectively on a small scale to feeding the majority of the world with the latest and greatest biochemical technology. Chihuahuas are just a little different from changing or attempting to change the genetic makeup of the world food supply.
renodante
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: miraflores

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby renodante » Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:31 pm

the article you posted is just a repetition of the same info going around the anti GMO blogosphere, with the addition of california wanting a ban now, it's nothing more than panic and CYA mentality.

I fail to understand how one can compare breeding a trait selectively on a small scale to feeding the majority of the world with the latest and greatest biochemical technology. Chihuahuas are just a little different from changing or attempting to change the genetic makeup of the world food supply.


Because you don't understand that more quickly, more accurately, more precisely, and using the most modern knowledge and technology, is not always something to be automatically feared or automatically bad, because it's different from the way we have always done it. we always did it the other way, because we didn't know how to do it the way we do now. what do the majority of biotech scientists say about GMOs? What have the studies on GMOs thus far revealed? and, how about what biotech scientists are saying about this french study freaking everyone out?

Why is no one on here saying a word about the fact that a breed of rat was selected that rather consistently develops tumors after two years, was chosen for a two year study? Now ask yourself if the tables were turned, and Big Pharma, Monsanto, or whoever chose a subject like that for a study to prove the opposite, would you question the study? My bet is you wouldn't even look into it, that one fact alone would be the slam dunk, but that's only one of the shady aspects of the French study. But nope, it's what anti GMO folks want to hear, so the study is solid, it's the best study ever, it's the only real study out there in fact....right?

To learn about this, check what the experts in the field have to say. Naturalremediesdotwhatever is going to give you one side of the story, it's always wise to check the other side(s) as well.

another side of the story:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html
mirage
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:07 pm

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby mirage » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:54 am

This is a paid for article, properganda for Monsanto and company. Really don´t you get it? But on the other side where is the money to be made, where are they going to make money on seeds, where are the investments going to increase because of demand. There is no profit motive, got it?
User avatar
Alan
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 2876
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:10 pm
Contact:

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby Alan » Tue Oct 16, 2012 2:44 pm

renodante wrote:
Why is no one on here saying a word about the fact that a breed of rat was selected that rather consistently develops tumors after two years, was chosen for a two year study? Now ask yourself if the tables were turned, and Big Pharma, Monsanto, or whoever chose a subject like that for a study to prove the opposite, would you question the study? My bet is you wouldn't even look into it, that one fact alone would be the slam dunk, but that's only one of the shady aspects of the French study. But nope, it's what anti GMO folks want to hear, so the study is solid, it's the best study ever, it's the only real study out there in fact....right?




That does seem to be one of the key issues here. I hope someone addresses it.
renodante
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: miraflores

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby renodante » Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:01 pm

This is a paid for article, properganda for Monsanto and company. Really don´t you get it? But on the other side where is the money to be made, where are they going to make money on seeds, where are the investments going to increase because of demand. There is no profit motive, got it?


The Slate article was paid for by Monsanto?

Do you have evidence of this, or is it simply because it comes to conclusions different from those you've already formed?

Every scientist-and there are quite a few-from all those different universities who heavily criticized the studies are also all paid shills and minions for Monsanto?

"Don't you get it?" I don't accept things without evidence provided to back it up. What there IS evidence of however, is foul play almost every step of the way in the french study.

There is no profit motive, got it?


"Non GMO produce" "Non GMO vitamin supplements" "my book about how bad GMOs are" "my blog about how bad GMOs are with ads for non GMO products and natural foods and t-shirts against gmos and books by other people about how bad GMOs are" "my research about how bad GMOs are funded by organizations that are against GMOs" "my articles published by a newspaper/magazine, blog/my paid appearance on a pundit show about how bad GMOs are." nope, no profit motive, nada.

Monsanto lies, big pharma lies, the big banks lie, the government lies, there's no doubt about that, it's a no brainer. But when you fail to realize natural foods enthusiasts, 9/11 truthers, anti vaccine proponents, they all lie too, to promote their message, you're done for. You'll believe absolutely anything someone tells you, as long as it's what you wanted to hear in the first place.

And if you don't think the natural food/natural remedies crowd, who are often at the forefront of all this anti GMO hyperbole and pseudo scientific disinformation and outright propaganda have something to sell you, stroll around a natural foods store one day, look at the prices of things, and then check the scientific studies on the efficacy of half the stuff in those stores. they make a fortune off the stuff, and a LOT of it doesn't even work. The same website warning you GMOs will kill you and Monsanto is the devil incarnate, will gladly sell you a 40 dollar bottle of placebo pills that cost them a buck or two to produce.
Last edited by renodante on Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kelly
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3871
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:28 pm
Location: Lima, Peru
Contact:

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby Kelly » Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:19 pm

The same website warning you GMOs will kill you and Monsanto is the devil incarnate, will gladly sell you a 40 dollar bottle of placebo pills that cost them a buck or two to produce.


"Like"
mirage
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:07 pm

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby mirage » Sat Oct 20, 2012 5:26 pm

Difficult to compare Monsanto a 47 billion dollar company to placebo pills, if they are that. Doubtful whether the pills are connected with the writing of the article.

California has led the way against air pollution standards, like stopping people from breathing in heavy metals when they go for a walk, among many other things. Fortunately, the State continues to do a lot to help the environment, and despite the massive spending power of Monsanto, it looks at the moment like common sense will prevail, and the law will be passed. FYI the law is not banning these foods, only labelling them, so I ask you, it these foods are so safe why can you not label them?
renodante
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: miraflores

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby renodante » Sat Oct 20, 2012 7:19 pm

Difficult to compare Monsanto a 47 billion dollar company to placebo pills, if they are that. Doubtful whether the pills are connected with the writing of the article.


You inferred the opposing side has no profit motive while Monsanto does, that's why I brought up a list of things the anti GMO crowd makes a profit off of.

And I don't care if it's Joe Shmoe Scam Artist that makes an extra 20,000 a year selling "super possum placenta pills from Guam that heal cancer" or a multi billion dollar corporation scamming people, a scam is a scam and I try not to sign up with sides that B.S people. I'm not pro Monsanto by the way, just for the record. And can you let me know how you could so confidently say "this is a paid for article by Monsanto?" Not "I think" or "this could be" but "this is."

FYI the law is not banning these foods, only labelling them, so I ask you, it these foods are so safe why can you not label them?


I have nothing against labeling them, you just seem to tout this as some kind of victory against GMOs and the labeling is a sign that they are in fact harmful for you, the article you cite lists the French study which is most likely on its way to be retracted from its peer reviewed journal, as a primary source.

Like organic food, don't be surprised if "Non GMO" end up at least a liiiiittle bit more expensive than GMO products. Which leads to again, the profit motive you spoke of. Meanwhile, actual studies show it's not harmful to humans, as far as we know.

Just saying, both sides have their agendas and neither side is the good guy. And with many issues dealing with science, often the scientifically illiterate (media, concerned parents, actors/actresses, politicians) are the ones that help push movements like this along.
mirage
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:07 pm

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby mirage » Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:22 pm

User avatar
Alan
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 2876
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:10 pm
Contact:

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby Alan » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:56 pm

A 10-year ban on genetically modified foods in Peru came into effect this week, state news agency Andina reported.
Peru’s executive has approved the regulations for the law that prohibits the importation, production and use of GMO foods in the country.
Violating the law can result in a maximum fine of 10,000 UIT tax units, which is about 36.5 million soles ($14 million). The goods can also be seized and destroyed, according to the norms.
The law, which was approved by President Ollanta Humala last year, is aimed at preserving Peru’s biodiversity and supporting local farmers, Environment Minister Manuel Pulgar Vidal said.
Peru’s previous administration, under President Alan Garcia, had supported the proposal to use genetically modified organisms. The initiative came from Peru’s private-sector export society, known as Comex, and strongly supported by Ministry of Agriculture advisors at the time. Their focus was mainly on boosting crop output for biofuels and .
However, then Environment minister Antonio Brack, whose portfolio was created by Garcia —basically paying lip service to requirements of the Free Trade Act with the United States— successfully fought the initiative and with environmental groups generated public awareness of the issues involved.
Besides protecting an increasing export industry of organic and native products, the ban protects Peru’s exceptionally varied native plant species —the import and use of GM seeds for corn, for example, would eventually destroy the different and multicolored species grown in the Andean region.
However, despite the fact that the ban will certainly protect Peru’s crops, more than 70% of the foods on the supermarket shelves in Peru contain GMOs, according to Crisólogo Cáceres, president of APEC, the association of consumers and users, in an interview with Gestion business daily. Some are labeled as such, some are not —the consumer protection law says consumers have a right to know what they are eating or drinking but institutions within the government are working to extend the deadline again for a further year.


http://www.peruviantimes.com/17/ten-yea ... -thursday/
User avatar
chi chi
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 6060
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:28 pm
Location: Granada, Andalusia

Re: First Long-Term Study of GMO Corn‏

Postby chi chi » Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:30 pm

mirage wrote:
California has led the way against air pollution standards, like stopping people from breathing in heavy metals when they go for a walk


How do they stop people going for a walk?

Return to “Expat Conversations”

cron

Login  •  Register