Mark Lynas - the pro-GMO propagandist for Monsanto, the biotech/chemical/agribusiness industry and the US/Obama administration has been spreading false, misleading, fraudulent and deceitful propaganda on the internet, in the press and in the mass media about the human and animal health, the environmental and the socio-economic hazards of GMO's, and he is actively promoting the widespread adoption of GMO's in Africa as a panacea to " end hunger and poverty..."
In July 2011, Mark Lynas wrote an article published in the Sunday Times/UK and in The Nation/Kenya titled "To abolish hunger and malnutrition, Africa must embrace GM technology" ( please click on the link below to read a copy of the article)
http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Africa+must+embrace+GM+technology+/-/440808/1201226/-/item/0/-/42dqbnz/-/index.html
Moreover, in July 2013, Mark Lynas travelled to several African countries to further spread his false, misleading, fraudulent and deceitful pro-GMO propaganda as a panacea to "end poverty and hunger in Africa..."
Please find below a copy of my detailed response to his above mentionned article. Unsurprisingly, I never received a response from Mark Lynas to this day...
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 4:15 PM
Subject: Your article on GMO's
Subject: Your article on GMO's
TO: Mark Lynas
Cc: Sunday Times,
London , UK
Daily Nation, Nairobi , Kenya
Re: My response to your article titled " To abolish hunger and malnutrition,
Dear
Mark Lynas,
I
hereby wish to respond to the false, deceitful, fraudulent and ignorant claims - contradicted and debunked by independent scientific and empirical evidence- stated in your article titled "To abolish hunger and malnutrition, Africa must embrace GM technology", published this month in both the Sunday Times /UK
Link to your article published in
the Daily Nation:
http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Africa+must+embrace+GM+technology+/-/440808/1201226/-/item/0/-/42dqbnz/-/index.html
In your article you deceitfully write:
“ I am not aware of a single
substantiated case of GM foods having had any negative effects on health or the
environment anywhere in the world. Instead, the impact has been almost entirely
positive.”
You are either entirely ignorant of the subject – in
which case I suggest you research the subject thoroughly before spreading ignorant and deceitful propaganda in the press, or you are simply acting as a biased paid corporate whore for the biotech/chemical/agribusiness industry ( which is blatantly obvious!)
In any case, I will grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is the former and will therefore try to enlighten you on the
subject by providing independent scientific, medical and empirical evidence
that contradict and debunk each one of your stated deceitful and fraudulent claims.
In fact, the only problem that
confronts me in this exercise is the lack of space to provide the mountain of independent scientific research and literature and empirical evidence that clearly and irrefutably
demonstrates the serious human and animal health hazards and the inevitable and irreversible environmental and biodiversity hazards and destruction as well as the negative socio-economic consequences associated with
GMO’s around the world.
Please find below a summary overview of the
scientifically documented human and animal health hazards, the inevitable and irreversible environmental and biodiversity destruction and the negative
socio-economic consequences associated with GMO’s worldwide.
I hope that this information will help enlighten you
on the subject and will prevent you from further spreading ignorant, deceitful and
fraudulent propaganda in the press/media/internet.
I welcome your (enlightened and intelligent) response.
SUMMARY OVERVIEW OF THE
SCIENTIFIC, MEDICAL AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON THE HUMAN AND ANIMAL HEALTH HAZARDS, THE INEVITABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION AND THE NEGATIVE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH GMO’s WORLDWIDE
In your above mentionned article you write:
"I am not aware of a single substantiated case of GM foods having had any negative effects on health or the environment anywhere in the world. Instead, the impact has been almost entirely positive."
Hopefully the following overwhelming independent scientific, medical and empirical evidence will help to enlighten you on the subject.
INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC, MEDICAL AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON HUMAN AND ANIMAL HEALTH HAZARDS OF
GMO’s
Monsanto’s corn/maize linked to organ damage
In what is being
described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of
genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked
organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize. Three varieties of
Monsanto’s GM corn – Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing
NK 603 – were approved for consumption by US, European and several other
national food safety authorities. The data used for this approval, ironically,
is the same data that independent researchers studied to make the organ damage
link.
The Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic
Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen
in France
You further deceitfully write:
"Herbicide-tolerant crops have been designed to work with more benign
weedkillers (Round Up/glyphosate) than the toxic brew sprayed on conventional
crops.”
Again, the following independent scientific research and empirical evidence debunks this deceitful and fraudulent claim.
Monsanto's "Round-Up-Ready" herbicide causes cells to die in human
embryo...
In fact, Gilles-Eric Seralini, professor at theUniversity of Caen
In fact, Gilles-Eric Seralini, professor at the
Moreover, another independent scientific study led by Dr. Andres
Carrasco, a leading embryologist, professor and researcher at the University of
Buenos Aires, also found that glyphosate, patented by Monsanto under the name
"Round Up " causes birth defects, malformations, miscarriages,
hormonal problems, reproductive problems, and different types of cancers when
applied in doses much lower than what is commonly used in soy fields. We injected the amphibian embryo cells with glyphosate diluted to a
concentration 1,500 times than what is used commercially and we allowed the
amphibians to grow in strictly controlled conditions. On the side where the
contaminated cell was injected you can see defects in the eye and defects in
the cartilage. Frog embryos injected with glyphosate developed obvious defects
which would compromise their ability to live in their normal habitats. The frog
embryos grown in petri dishes in the photos looked like something from a
futuristic horror film, creatures with visible defects—one eye the size of the
head, spinal cord deformations, and kidneys that are not fully developed”4 ( see pictures below)
Dr. Carrasco further explains:
" Embryological study is based on the premise that all vertebrate
animals share a common design during the development stages. This accepted
scientific premise means that the study indicates human embryonic cells exposed
to glyphosate, even in low doses, would also suffer from defects. When a
field is fumigated by an airplane, it's difficult to measure how much glysophate
remains in the body," says Dr. Carrasco. "When you inject the
embryonic cell with glysophate, you know exactly how much glysophate you are
putting into the cell and you have a strict control." 5
Furthermore, inhabitants
living in proximity of GM soya fields in Argentina
.jpg)
Furthermore, a group of
international scientists researched and published a scientific study detailing
health and environmental hazards resulting from the cultivation of genetically
modified Roundup Ready soy and the use of glyphosate (Roundup) herbicide.
The report, GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible? 7 highlights new
research by Argentine government scientist, Professor Andrés Carrasco, which
found that "glyphosate causes malformations in frog and chicken embryos
at doses far lower than those used in agricultural spraying. The
findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans
exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy," said Carrasco.
Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology, University of Buenos Aires Medical School and lead researcher of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET),Argentina
Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology, University of Buenos Aires Medical School and lead researcher of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET),
Carrasco also found that:
"The cultivation of GM RR soy endangers human and animal
health, increases herbicide use, damages the environment, reduces biodiversity,
and has negative impacts on rural populations. The monopolistic control by
agribusiness companies over GM RR soy technology and production endangers
markets, compromises the economic viability of farming, and threatens food
security." 8
OTHER INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL
REPORTS CONFIRMING HUMAN AND ANIMAL HEALTH HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH GMO CONSUMPTION
The American
Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has issued and published an
alarming statement which states that “ there is more than a casual
association between GM foods and adverse health effects. The strength of
association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in
several animal studies. Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific
disease processes is also supported. Also, because of the mounting data, it is
biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health
effects in humans." 9
Excerpts from the AAEM statement:
“Safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of "substantial equivalence" such that "if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food. However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility. The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies. Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS. Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn. This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth and disruption of the intestinal immune system." 10
“Safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of "substantial equivalence" such that "if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food. However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility. The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies. Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS. Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn. This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth and disruption of the intestinal immune system." 10
And the Truth Shall...get
you fired!
.jpg)
The first ever (independent) scientific study to look into the
effects of GMO food consumption on human health was conducted by the world's
leading lectins and plant genetic modification expert, UK-based Arpad Pusztai
from the prestigious Scotland's Rowett Research Institute. Arpad Pusztai - the
world's foremost expert in the field - became alarmed by his findings, and was
subsequently vilified and fired from his research position at Scotland
Furthermore, a scientific report published by the US-based Institute
for Responsible Technology drew together the findings from more than 100
research papers. Entitled "State-of-the-Science on the Health Risks
of GM Foods," it described the conflict of interest among regulators
that allowed GM foods on the market; the wide range of adverse findings from
animal feeding studies such as "higher death rates, organ damage,
reproductive failures, and infant mortality; reports by farmers of thousands of
sick, sterile, and dead livestock; toxic and allergic properties of GM foods;
numerous scientific assumptions used as the basis for safety claims that have
since proven false; inadequate regulatory oversight; biased industry safety
studies; manipulation of public opinion; and the mistreatment of scientists
critical of the technology." 12
OTHER SCIENTIFICALLY DOCUMENTED HEALTH HAZARDS OF GMO’s
Hazards of meat, dairy products and eggs from GM-fed livestock
Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and world renowned expert on the health hazards of GMO, reveals the following disturbing (hidden) information in an article written in the Huffington post on the observed detrimental health effects of GM foods on animals and humans.
Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and world renowned expert on the health hazards of GMO, reveals the following disturbing (hidden) information in an article written in the Huffington post on the observed detrimental health effects of GM foods on animals and humans.
"Dairy cows are usually
fed GM feed and sometimes injected with GM bovine growth hormone. Although no
studies have looked at the impact of eating meat or milk from GM-fed animals,
secret FDA documents 13 made public from a lawsuit
revealed that their Center for Veterinary Medicine was very concerned that
toxins from GM foods might bio-accumulate in the livestock. If so, their milk
and meat may be even more dangerous than the GM plants. Studies on the impact of bovine growth hormone on the cows' milk are
less ambiguous.14 The dairy products from
treated cows contain higher amounts of puss, antibiotics, bovine growth
hormone, and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). The last on the list is
considered most dangerous. IGF-1 is linked to a much higher risk of cancer, and
according to one study, may also be responsible for the high rates of fraternal
twins born in the US" writes Dr. Jeffrey Smith.
Toxic intestinal bacteria
Dr Smith further writes: “The beneficial bacteria living inside
our digestive tract is used for digestion and immunity. Excessive herbicide
residues on herbicide-tolerant GM crops may kill beneficial gut flora. More
importantly, the only published human feeding experiment revealed that the
genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our
intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating
GM foods, we may still have dangerous GM proteins continuously produced inside
us. Consider, for example, if the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were
also to transfer. It might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide
factories.”15
Bt toxin (insecticide) found in human blood
In fact Dr Smith’s fears were recently confirmed in a recently published
scientific study that "found Bt toxin (insecticide) in the blood of both
pregnant and non-pregnant women and their fetuses. Pesticides used on GM herbicide
tolerant (HT) crops were also detected." The new study was carried out by a team
at Sherbrooke University
Hospital in Quebec
The scientists took blood samples from 30 pregnant women prior to
delivery, 30 samples from umbilical cords immediately after birth and samples
from 39 non-pregnant women who were undergoing treatment.
“The results show that the toxic Bt protein Cry1Ab was present in blood
serum from all three sources (93% of pregnant women, 80% in umbilical blood and
67% of non-pregnant women"17
The researchers suggest that the most probable source of the toxin is GM
food consumed as part of a normal diet in Canada
"FDA scientists were
also quite concerned about the possibility of inserted genes spontaneously
transferring into the DNA of bacteria inside our digestive tract. Although the
biotech industry confidently asserted that gene transfer from GM foods was not
possible, the only human feeding study on GM foods later proved that it does
take place. The genetic material in soybeans that make them herbicide tolerant
transferred into the DNA of human gut bacteria and continued to function. That
means that long after we stop eating a GM crop, its foreign GM proteins may be
produced inside our intestines. It is also possible that the foreign genes
might end up inside our own DNA, within the cells of our own organs and tissues," writes Dr Jeffrey Smith 18
Digestive disorders
Furthermore, according to GMO safety expert Arpad
Pusztai, PhD, the digestive tract is the first and largest point of contact
with GM foods and can reveal reactions to various toxins. "Lab animals fed GM
feed developed lesions in the stomach, damage intestines, and abnormal and
proliferative cell growth in the walls of the stomach and intestines." 19
Compromised immune system
Virtually every animal feeding study that
looked for immune changes from GMOs found them. " GM-fed animals had a
sluggish immune responses, damaged organs associated with immunity, altered
parameters in the blood, and dangerous inflammatory and immune reactions” 20 writes Dr Smith
Allergies
Jeffrey Smith further writes:
"No tests can guarantee that a GMO will not cause allergies.
Although the World Health Organization recommends a screening protocol, GM soy
and corn fail those tests--because their GM proteins have properties of known
allergens. It is noteworthy that children with autism are often allergic to
corn and soy. Both are genetically engineered. Many are also allergic to dairy.
Soon after GM soy was introduced in the UK India
GMOs may make you allergic to
non-GM foods
“ Since GMOs were introduced in the US
GMOs and liver problems
"The liver is a primary detoxifier. Its condition can indicate if there are toxins in our food. Mice and rats fed GM feed had profound changes in their livers. In some cases, livers were smaller and partially atrophied. Some were significantly heavier, possibly inflamed. And certain cellular changes indicated a toxic insult from the GM diet”23 writes Jeffrey Smith.
"The liver is a primary detoxifier. Its condition can indicate if there are toxins in our food. Mice and rats fed GM feed had profound changes in their livers. In some cases, livers were smaller and partially atrophied. Some were significantly heavier, possibly inflamed. And certain cellular changes indicated a toxic insult from the GM diet”23 writes Jeffrey Smith.
Reproductive problems and infant mortality
"Both male and female
animals showed horrific problems when fed GM soy. More than half the babies of
mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, compared to 10 percent of the
non-GM soy controls. The GM babies were also considerably smaller, and were
unable to conceive in a subsequent study. Male rats and mice fed GM soy had
changed testicles, including altered young sperm cells in the mice. And when
both mouse parents ate GM soy, the DNA of their embryos functioned differently.
GM corn also had an impact. The longer mice were fed the corn, the fewer babies
they had and the smaller their babies were" writes Jeffrey Smith.24
Livestock sterility, disease, and death
"Many of the problems
seen in laboratories are also reported by farmers and investigators in the
field. Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India Asia
say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses died from eating Bt corn
varieties. About two dozen US
GENETIC ENGINEERING PROCESS
FLAWED AND DANGEROUS
Furthermore, Jeffrey Smith states that in addition to
the detrimental health effects of GM foods consumption for humans &
animals, the process of genetic engineering itself creates unpredicted
alterations, irrespective of which gene is transferred.
Jeffrey Smith explains:
"The gene insertion process, for example, is accomplished by either
shooting genes from a “gene gun” into a plate of cells, or using bacteria to
infect the cell with foreign DNA. Both create mutations in and around the
insertion site and elsewhere. The “transformed” cell is then cloned into a
plant through a process called tissue culture, which results in additional
hundreds or thousands of mutations throughout the plants‟ genome. In the
end, the GM plant’s DNA can be a staggering 2‐4% different from its natural parent. Native genes
can be mutated, deleted, or permanently turned on or off. In addition, the
insertion process causes holistic and not‐well‐understood changes among large numbers of native
genes. One study revealed that up to 5% of the natural genes altered their
levels of protein expression as a result of a single insertion." 26
The Royal Society of Canada acknowledged that "the default
prediction for GM crops would include a range of collateral changes in
expression of other genes, changes in the pattern of proteins produced and/or
changes in metabolic activities."
Although the FDA scientists evaluating
GMOs in 1992 were unaware of the extent to which GM DNA is damaged or changed,
they too described the potential consequences. They reported, "The
possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in genetically engineered plants might produce unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants." GM crops,
they said, "might have increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins, and the appearance of new, not previously identified toxins. The same
mechanism can also produce allergens, carcinogens, or substances that inhibit
assimilation of nutrients." 27
Please read the following two books published by Jeffrey Smith on the human and animal health hazards of gmo's
.jpg)
.jpg)
Moreover, in an article published in the New York Times in july 2007 titled "Change to gene theory raises new challenges for biotech", 28 Denise Caruso writes: "The $73.5 billion global biotech business may soon have to grapple with a discovery that calls into question the scientific principles on which it was founded. Last month, a consortium of scientists published findings that challenge the traditional view of the way genes function. The exhaustive, four-year effort was organized by the United States National Human Genome Research Institute and carried out by 35 groups from 80 organizations around the world. To their surprise, researchers found that the human genome might not be a "tidy collection of independent genes" after all, with each sequence of DNA linked to a single function, like a predisposition to diabetes or heart disease. Instead, genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet fully understood.
Please read the following two books published by Jeffrey Smith on the human and animal health hazards of gmo's
Moreover, in an article published in the New York Times in july 2007 titled "Change to gene theory raises new challenges for biotech", 28 Denise Caruso writes: "The $73.5 billion global biotech business may soon have to grapple with a discovery that calls into question the scientific principles on which it was founded. Last month, a consortium of scientists published findings that challenge the traditional view of the way genes function. The exhaustive, four-year effort was organized by the United States National Human Genome Research Institute and carried out by 35 groups from 80 organizations around the world. To their surprise, researchers found that the human genome might not be a "tidy collection of independent genes" after all, with each sequence of DNA linked to a single function, like a predisposition to diabetes or heart disease. Instead, genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet fully understood.
According to the institute, these findings will challenge scientists "to rethink some long-held views about what genes are and what they do." Biologists have recorded these network effects for many years in other organisms. But in the world of science, discoveries often do not become part of mainstream thought until they are linked to humans. With that link now in place, the report is likely to have repercussions far beyond the laboratory. The presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built. The principle that gave rise to the biotech industry promised benefits that were equally compelling. Known as the Central Dogma of molecular biology, it stated that each gene in living organisms, from humans to bacteria, carries the information needed to construct one protein. The scientists who invented recombinant DNA in 1973 built their innovation on this mechanistic, "one gene, one protein" principle. Because donor genes could be associated with specific functions, with discrete properties and clear boundaries, scientists then believed that a gene from any organism could fit neatly and predictably into a larger design - one that products and companies could be built around, and that could be protected by intellectual-property laws. This presumption, now disputed, is what one molecular biologist calls "the industrial gene." II.
SCIENTIFIC AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE (IRREVERSIBLE) ENVIRONMENTAL
HAZARDS OF GMO’S
Monsanto’s Roundup: “Biodegrable and environmentally friendly…?"
Monsanto’s Roundup: “Biodegrable and environmentally friendly…?"
Supreme Court of France
Monsanto fraudulently claimed that its herbicide (Roundup) was "biodegrable" and it "left the soil clean." However, the Supreme Court of
France has ruled that Monsanto had lied about the safety of its best-selling
weed-killer, Roundup. The court confirmed an earlier judgment in 2009 that
Monsanto had falsely advertised its herbicide as "biodegradable" and
claimed it "left the soil clean." French environmental groups had
brought the case in 2001 on the basis that glyphosate, Roundup's main
ingredient, is classed as"dangerous for the environment" by
the European Union. In the latest ruling, France 's
Supreme Court upheld two earlier convictions against Monsanto by the Lyon
criminal court in 2007, and the Lyon court of
appeal in 2008. 29
Genetic pollution and environmental destruction
SUPERWEEDS
Since 2004, ―super weeds‖ (pigweed, horse weed, ragweed, etc. ) have developed resistance to glyphosate/Roundup and have rapidly spread across Sun Belt states and other grain basket states of the US (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri). Today,100,000 acres in Georgia are severely infested with pigweed and
29 counties have now confirmed resistance to glyphosate, according to weed
specialist Stanley Culpepper from the University of Georgia 10,000 acres
of land were abandoned in Macon country, the
epicenter of the super weed explosion, North Carolina State
University
SUPERWEEDS
Since 2004, ―super weeds‖ (pigweed, horse weed, ragweed, etc. ) have developed resistance to glyphosate/Roundup and have rapidly spread across Sun Belt states and other grain basket states of the US (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri). Today,
Pesticides treadmill…
“Over time, weeds develop resistance to herbicides", explains Javier Souza Casadinho, professor at the
According to the UK-based Soil Association, which campaigns for and certifies organic food, "Monsanto was well aware of the risk of super weeds as early as 2001 and took out a patent on mixtures of glyphosate and herbicide targeting glyphosate-resistant weeds. The patent will enable the company to profit from a problem that its products had created in the first place,”says a 2002 Soil Association report. Monsanto’s technical development manager, Rick Cole, said he believed super weeds were manageable. "The problem of weeds that have developed a resistance to Roundup crops is real and [Monsanto] doesn’t deny that, however the problem is manageable,” he said.
“Solution”
offered by Monsanto: Use more toxic pesticides…
Indeed, according to
Monsanto press releases, company sales representatives are encouraging
farmers to mix glyphosate and older herbicides such as 2,4-D, a herbicide which
was banned in Sweden, Denmark and Norway over its links to cancer, reproductive
harm and mental impairment to combat weeds resistance to glyphosate, the
main active ingredient in Roundup. 2,4-D is also well-known for being a
component of Agent Orange, a toxic herbicide which was used in chemical warfare
in Vietnam
As Einstein rightly said: "Insanity is doing the same thing over
and over again and expecting different results"
Monsanto's Bt cotton kills the soil, the
plant and farmers...
A recent scientific study carried out by Navdanya in India Nagpur , Amravati and Wardha
of Vidharbha which accounts for highest GMO cotton planting in India India
Bt kills the plant
Bt protein triggers abnormal growth and sterility in plants
A team of Indian scientists has found that genetic modification (GM)
will have a detrimental effect on the growth and development of plants. This
is the first time that scientists have found that the Bt gene will trigger
major problems in plants like stunted growth and sterility. Thus far,
studies have centred on the toxicity of the Bt gene to animals and human
beings. “Many of the transgenic plants obtained showed developmental defects
comprising abnormal growth (stunting) and/or sterility. These symptoms suggest
that expression of Cry1Ac could be causing growth defects in plants,” the team observed.
“We find a very strong
correlation between the levels of Cry1Ac and abnormalities —higher the levels
of Cry1Ac in the plants, the greater the damage,” said Pradeep Burma , a plant geneticist at the University of Delhi South Campus Hyderabad
GENETIC CONTAMINATION: Inevitable and irreversible…
“Co-existence between conventional and GM cotton is not possible. If
Bt cotton is introduced in the region, the contamination of non-Bt cotton is
inevitable. As there is no way to easily distinguish between Bt cotton and
non-Bt cotton, Bt cotton will easily end up being mixed into the conventional
cotton supply when farmers drop off their harvests, when the cotton is transported,
or when seeds are cleaned and distributed. Contamination will also take place
in the fields through cross-pollination, either by way of wind or, more likely,
by way of insect pollinators. In India
There have now been episodes of GM contamination in Argentina , Austria ,
Bolivia , Brazil , Canada ,
Colombia , France , Germany ,
Greece , Holland ,
India , Japan , Korea Luxembourg , Mexico ,
New Zealand , Sweden , Thailand ,
the UK and the USA , Spain ,
Germany
Nature Biotechnology candidly pointed out, „gene containment is
next to impossible with the current generation of GM crops … gene flow from GM
crops to related plants thus remain a primary concern for regulators and one
that companies need to address’34
Chemical pollution,
deforestation, climate change and global warming
As we have seen above,
Monsanto fraudulently claimed that genetic engineering will preserve the
environment by decreasing the amount of pesticides used in (industrial)
agriculture. Scientific evidence provided above clearly contradicts and debunks
this fraudulent claim. Furthermore, millions of hectares of natural rain forests and other
natural landscapes are being savagely and irreversibly destroyed at an alarming
rate every day in South America and around the world to plant genetically modified crops to produce
agrofuels, animal feed and other industrial and pharmaceutical raw materials
for export and consumption in affluent countries ( not to feed starving humans).
" Soy cultivation has already resulted in the deforestation of 21 million hectares of forests inBrazil , 14 million hectares in Argentina , two million hectares in Paraguay and 600,000 hectares
in Bolivia Brazil 320,000 hectares
per year). Soybean—along with sugar cane—currently occupies the largest area of
any crop in Brazil Paraguay Paraguay
Thus, GMO’s are directly and irreversibly destroying the environment, contributing to and significantly worsening climate change and killing the soil – through chemical pollution, deforestation, etc - contrary to the fraudulent claims made by Monsanto and other biotech companies that GMO’s help fight climate change and preserve the environment.
" Soy cultivation has already resulted in the deforestation of 21 million hectares of forests in
Thus, GMO’s are directly and irreversibly destroying the environment, contributing to and significantly worsening climate change and killing the soil – through chemical pollution, deforestation, etc - contrary to the fraudulent claims made by Monsanto and other biotech companies that GMO’s help fight climate change and preserve the environment.
III. SCIENTIFIC AND EMPIRICAL
EVIDENCE OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF GMO’s
Monsanto's Bt cotton kills the soil and cotton farmers…
.jpeg)
Over 250,000 cotton farmers have committed
suicide in India
Over 250,000 cotton farmers have committed
suicide in Bt cotton genocide
"More than a quarter of a million Indian (cotton) farmers have committed suicide in the last 16 years, the largest wave of recorded suicides in human history ; that’s one farmer every 30 minutes."
A study (yet another) recently published by The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) at New York University School of Law 35, found that over 250,000 cotton farmers in India have committed suicide over the last 16 years, as a direct result of Bt cotton and GMO’s and the corporate-sponsored pro-GMO agribusiness policies being promoted and pursued by the biotech industry and foreign multinational corporations with political support from the US/Obama Administration and the criminal complicity of the government of India.
The authors of the study write: " It is estimated that more than a quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide in the last 16 years—the largest wave of recorded suicides in human history. A great number of those affected are cash crop farmers, and cotton farmers in particular. In 2009 alone, the most recent year for which official figures are available, 17,638 farmers committed suicide—that’s one farmer every 30 minutes."
Furthermore, as the world-famous and respected anti GMO activist Vandana Shiva clearly states: "Every suicide can be linked to Monsanto. Monsanto’s GMOs do not improve farmers’ lives. They have pushed farmers to suicide. 200,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide in the last decade. 84% of the suicides in Vidharbha, the region with highest suicides are linked to debt created by Bt–cotton. This is neither ecological nor economic or social sustainability. It is ecocide and genocide." 36
.jpg)
Genetic
contamination, sterilization and patenting of plants and food crops.
Worse, GMO
seeds will INEVITABLY and IRREVERSIBLY contaminate and destroy all traditional
(non-GMO) seeds worldwide through genetic contamination. This is THE most
serious economic, social, human and environmental threat and hazards that GMO’s
pose to the future survival of human civilization. Over time all non-GMO seeds
will be contaminated, sterilised and patented leaving the entire
world exclusively and dangerously dependent on Monsanto and a handful of other
biotech companies to buy their GM patented seeds, and thus...to eat and therefore to live!
Terminator Technology
As Dr. Mercola writes: "Perhaps their biggest assault to your food supply is what’s known as Terminator Technology. These are seeds that have been genetically modified to ―self-destruct.‖ In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again each year. The implications that terminator seeds could have on the world’s food supply are disastrous: the traits from genetically engineered crops can get passed on to other crops. Once the terminator seeds are released into a region, the trait of seed sterility could be passed to other non-genetically-engineered crops, making most or all of the seeds in the region sterile. If allowed to continue, every farmer in the world could come to rely on Monsanto for their seed supply!" 38
Terminator Technology
As Dr. Mercola writes: "Perhaps their biggest assault to your food supply is what’s known as Terminator Technology. These are seeds that have been genetically modified to ―self-destruct.‖ In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again each year. The implications that terminator seeds could have on the world’s food supply are disastrous: the traits from genetically engineered crops can get passed on to other crops. Once the terminator seeds are released into a region, the trait of seed sterility could be passed to other non-genetically-engineered crops, making most or all of the seeds in the region sterile. If allowed to continue, every farmer in the world could come to rely on Monsanto for their seed supply!" 38
Do GMO’s REALLY increase
yield…?
Mark Lynas further deceitfully write:
“Importantly for Africa , GM crops have substantially increased yields,
meaning more food for the hungry and a greater harvest per acre or gallon of
water.”
Again, your deceitful and fraudulent claims are contradicted by both scientific
and empirical evidence. In fact, according to the following scientific report -
Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops
- written by Doug Gurian-Sherman and published by the Union of Concerned
Scientists in March 2009, the scientific and empirical evidence does not support
that claim. Doug Gurian-Sherman writes: "For years the biotechnology
industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its
genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields. That promise has
proven to be empty. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of
commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase
U.S. crop yields." 39
Failure to Yield is the first (independent)
scientific report to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering
has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It
reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary
genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States
Failure to Yield makes a critical distinction between potential—or intrinsic—yield and operational yield, concepts that are often conflated by the industry and misunderstood by others. Intrinsic yield refers to a crop’s ultimate production potential under the best possible conditions. Operational yield refers to production levels after losses due to pests, drought and other environmental factors. The study reviewed the intrinsic and operational yield achievements of the three most common genetically altered foods and feed crops in theUnited States
Failure to Yield makes a critical distinction between potential—or intrinsic—yield and operational yield, concepts that are often conflated by the industry and misunderstood by others. Intrinsic yield refers to a crop’s ultimate production potential under the best possible conditions. Operational yield refers to production levels after losses due to pests, drought and other environmental factors. The study reviewed the intrinsic and operational yield achievements of the three most common genetically altered foods and feed crops in the
Herbicide-tolerant soybeans,
herbicide-tolerant corn, and Bt corn have failed to increase intrinsic yields,
the report found. Herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn also
have failed to increase operational yields, compared with conventional methods.
In addition to evaluating genetic engineering’s record, Failure to Yield suggest that it makes little sense to support genetic engineering at the expense of technologies that have proven to substantially increase yields, especially in many developing countries. In addition, recent studies have shown that organic and similar farming methods that minimize the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can more than double crop yields at little cost to poor farmers in such developing regions as Sub-Saharan Africa.
The report concludes that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future. The biotechnology industry has been promising better yields since the mid-1990s, but Failure to Yield documents that the industry has been carrying out gene field trials to increase yields for 20 years without significant results “If we are going to make headway in combating hunger due to overpopulation and climate change, we will need to increase crop yields,” said Gurian-Sherman. “Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.”
In addition to evaluating genetic engineering’s record, Failure to Yield suggest that it makes little sense to support genetic engineering at the expense of technologies that have proven to substantially increase yields, especially in many developing countries. In addition, recent studies have shown that organic and similar farming methods that minimize the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can more than double crop yields at little cost to poor farmers in such developing regions as Sub-Saharan Africa.
The report concludes that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future. The biotechnology industry has been promising better yields since the mid-1990s, but Failure to Yield documents that the industry has been carrying out gene field trials to increase yields for 20 years without significant results “If we are going to make headway in combating hunger due to overpopulation and climate change, we will need to increase crop yields,” said Gurian-Sherman. “Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.”
Moreover, another major U.S.
Last but not least, a 2008
draft report produced by the International Assessment of Agricultural
Science and Technology project – an ambitious, 4-year, US$10-million
undertaking involving 4,000 scientists and experts from around the world –
raised still further serious concerns about the environmental, human health and
economic impacts of GM crops. As well as stating that there is no
evidence that GM crops increase yields, the report specifically warned that
use of the technology in the developing world could concentrate "ownership
of agricultural resources" in the hands of the companies involved and
cause problems with patents. Significantly therefore, following the
report’s failure to back GM as a tool to reduce poverty and hunger, the biotech
companies Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF promptly withdrew from the project." 42
Do
GMO’s REALLY decrease pesticide usage…?
.jpg)
Again, Mark Lynas deceitfully writes:
“
Herbicide-tolerant crops have been designed to work with more benign
weedkillers than the toxic brew sprayed on conventional crops. “
However, once again scientific and empirical evidence debunk this
fraudulent claim. In fact, according to the following (independent) scientific
report published in November 2009 - "Impacts of Genetically Engineered
Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years" 43– authored by
Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., Chief Scientist at The Organic Center: "GE
crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly accelerating pace. Farmers
applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a
result of planting GE seeds.” 44 The report is based on official, U.S.
Department of Agriculture pesticide use data to estimate the differences in the
average pounds of pesticides applied on GE crop acres, compared to acres
planted to conventional, non-GE varieties. ―The basic finding is that
compared to pesticide use in the absence of GE crops, farmers applied 318
million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a result of
planting GE seeds. This difference represents an average increase of about 0.25 pound for each acre
planted to a GE trait. GE crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly
accelerating pace. In 2008, GE crop acres required over 26% more pounds of
pesticides per acre than acres planted to conventional varieties. The report
projects that this trend will continue as a result of the rapid spread of
glyphosate-resistant weeds.” 45
Pesticide treadmill...
Moreover, according
to a report published in 2009 by Friends of the Earth titled "Who benefits
from GM crops" 46, the widespread adoption of GM "Roundup Ready"
crops combined with the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds has driven a
more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on major field crops from
1994 to 2005. The trend continues. In 2006, the last year for which data is
available, glyphosate use on soybeans jumped a substantial ―28%, from 75,743
million lbs in 2005 to 96,725 million lbs in 2006. ― More and more farmers
are being told – by agronomists and by Monsanto - to combat
glyphosate-resistant weeds by applying other chemicals, such as paraquat,
diquat and atrazine, often in combination with higher rates of glyphosate. USDA
pesticide data confirm this trend: rising glyphosate use even while use of
other more toxic herbicides also increases, or at best remains constant. “The
widespread adoption of Roundup Ready GM crops in the US 2005. In 2006, the last
year for which data are available, glyphosate use on soybeans jumped by a
substantial 28%.” 47 Increasing glyphosate use has driven an epidemic of
glyphosate-resistant weeds, which in turn has led to rising use of other
herbicides to control them. For instance, the amount of 2,4-D (a component of
Agent Orange) applied to U.S. 2005.”
48 Brazilian government authorities have documented an ―80% increase in
glyphosate use from 2000 to 2005, together with the rapid emergence of
weeds that are resistant to the chemical. Use of glyphosate grew 79.6% during
this period, much faster than the increase in area planted to Roundup Ready
soya. ― 49 ―In Argentina, overall glyphosate use has more than tripled from
65.5 million litres in 1999/2000 to over 200 million litres in 2005/6.17
In
2007, agricultural experts reported that a glyphosate-resistant version of
Johnsongrass (Sorghum halapense) was infesting over 120,000 ha of the
country’s prime cropland. Johnsongrass, an extremely damaging perennial, is a
monocot weed that is considered one of the worst weeds in the world, and
resistance to glyphosate will make it all the more harder to control. The emergence
of glyphosate-resistant Johnsongrass is directly attributable to the huge
increase in glyphosate use associated with near total dependence on Roundup
Ready soybeans in Argentina.‖ 50 ―The main recommendation to control resistant
weeds is to use a cocktail of herbicides other than glyphosate, including more
toxic weedkillers such as paraquat, diquat and triazine herbicides such as
atrazine.It is estimated that an additional 25 million litres of herbicides
will be needed each year to control resistant weeds, resulting in an increase
in production costs of between $160 and $950 million per year. 51
.jpg)
Regarding Bt cotton, Mark Lynas further deceitfully writes:
“ Some biotech crops
such as insect-resistant “Bt cotton” and corn have anti-pest traits engineered
into the plant itself so they require much less insecticide.”
Again, both scientific and empirical evidence debunk your fraudulent claims. In fact the exact opposite is true: Pests have naturally developed resistance to Bt crops, forcing farmers to use a cocktail of more and more toxic insecticides to combat insect resistance. Steve Connor, Science Editor of the UK based Independent newspaper writes 52: "An insect pest that is supposed to be killed by a type of genetically modified cotton crop with an in-built toxin gene has developed resistance and is beginning to spread in parts of the United States, a scientific study has found. It is believed to be the first documented example in the wild of an insect pest becoming resistant to this particular type of GM crop, which was thought to be immune from the problems that have plagued conventional pesticides. The bollworm moth is one of the most destructive pests of cotton crops. The resistant form of the moth's caterpillar was found in a dozen fields in the southern states of
Pests "thriving and
reproducing" on Bt cotton fields in India and China
.jpg)
Furthermore, an
article in the latest issue of the journal Current Science raises serious
questions about the long-term viability of genetically-modified Bt cotton to
actually do what it's intended to do, increase pest resistance. Scientists
have found for the first time "bollworms not only living and surviving on GM
cotton, but having offspring that can complete their full lifecycle there." 53 Looking at two varieties of Bt
cotton in commercial use, containing both single and double genes intended to
be toxin to the bollworms, the scientists found that the pests were able to
survive. Report co-author Aralimarad Prabhuraj told Kolkata's The Telegraph:
"We saw virtually no differences between the biology of insect
populations reared on the GM cotton and the non-GM cotton ... We have indeed
seen a dramatic boost to India's cotton, but we had always anticipated that at
some point in time, we'll encounter pests that can withstand the modified
plants. No one knew when it would happen." 54
Bt cotton boosting
pesticide use
.jpg)
GM lobbyists have tried to paint Bt cotton in India India
Scientific study by PRO-GMO scientists reveal
exponential increase in secondary cotton pests pests and pesticide
use/expenditure on Bt cotton fields in China
"Seven years after the initial commercialization of Bt cotton in China , we show that total pesticide
expenditure for Bt cotton farmers in China
Detailed information on
pesticide expenditures reveals that, though Bt farmers saved 46% Bollworm
pesticide relative to non-Bt farmers, they spend 40% more on pesticides
designed to kill an emerging secondary pest. These secondary pests (one example
is Mirid) was rarely found in the field prior to the adoption of Bt cotton,
presumably kept in check by bollworm populations and regular pesticide
spraying. The extra expenditure needed to control secondary pests nearly
offsets the savings on primary pesticide frequently cited in the current
literature.56
Thus, it is crystal clear from both the scientific and empirical evidence that GMO’s can neither increase crop yields nor reduce pesticides usage, thus directly contradicting the deceitful and fraudulent claims made by you Mark Lynas, Monsanto and the biotechnology industry, that GMO’s can fight hunger and poverty in Africa‖ and feed the world by increasing crop yields while reducing pesticides usage, thus increasing both food production and farmers’ revenue while preserving the soil and environment from chemical pollution.
Thus, it is crystal clear from both the scientific and empirical evidence that GMO’s can neither increase crop yields nor reduce pesticides usage, thus directly contradicting the deceitful and fraudulent claims made by you Mark Lynas, Monsanto and the biotechnology industry, that GMO’s can fight hunger and poverty in Africa‖ and feed the world by increasing crop yields while reducing pesticides usage, thus increasing both food production and farmers’ revenue while preserving the soil and environment from chemical pollution.
Mark Lynas further deceitfully writes:
“One of the most
pervasive myths about biotech crops is that they only benefit big corporations
and are part of a nefarious plot by multinational seed companies such as
Monsanto to dominate the world food chain. “
GMO’s do indeed only benefit big biotech/chemical and foreign agrobusiness corporations and are indeed a "nefarious plot" and a Trojan horse and a weapon used by the US/Obama
administration, Monsanto and the biotech/chemical/agribusiness industry to dominate and control the
global seed and food chain. This is in fact the REAL (hidden) geopolitical objective and
agenda of Monsanto and the biotech/chemical/agribusiness industry backed by political support from the US/Obama administration, and is therefore
not a "pervasive myths" but rather the most serious and dangerous threat facing
the future survival of Africa and of humanity as a whole.
I invite you to read the following research-based book which provides solid and irrefutable evidence in support of this FACT. Seeds of destruction: The hidden agenda of genetic manipulation, by William Engdhal available at:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/books/SoD.html
I invite you to read the following research-based book which provides solid and irrefutable evidence in support of this FACT. Seeds of destruction: The hidden agenda of genetic manipulation, by William Engdhal available at:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/books/SoD.html
.jpg)
I also highly recommend
the following investigative articles on the real (hidden) agenda behind GMO’s.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23503
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_seedsdestruction.htm
The root economic,
political and structural causes of poverty and hunger in Africa and around the world
.jpg)
.jpg)
Last but not least, Mark Lynas ignorantly and arrogantly writes:
"Unfortunately, many environmental groups remain steadfastly opposed to
any use of biotechnology. This kind of neo-Luddism is damaging. With 800
million people still constantly malnourished, we must use every tool available
to feed the world while also protecting the planet."
.jpg)
Poverty and hunger in Africa - the worst form of Violence – are a direct
result of unfair global trading rules, exploitative economic practices and
suicidal economic policies imposed on Africa by the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO), blindly followed à
la lettre by so-called African "leaders" and governments and
their colonial masters disguised as “development experts”,
which combined, result in abject and widespread human poverty, hunger, famine,
disease, war, misery, etc.
Furthermore, GMO's produced in Africa using local staple food crops such as maize, cassava, rice, soya, etc. on vast tracts of confiscated and privatized land using chemical-intensive monoculture industrial plantations will be used for biofuel production (ethanol, biodiesel), animal feed, pharmaceutical products and other industrial products to be exported and consumed in affluent countries, NOT to feed starving Africans...
There is more than sufficient food to feed everyone inAfrica and around the world. The
problem lies in its inequitable distribution and in the lack
of financial resources required to purchase it by the vast majority of the
African population. Thus, simply increasing food production without
addressing the root economic, political and structural causes of poverty and
hunger and without distributional justice will NOT resolve hunger poverty and
hunger in Africa and in the world.
As Mahatma Gandhi rightly stated: "There is enough food in the world to satisfy everyone's needs but not everyone's greed."
Furthermore, GMO's produced in Africa using local staple food crops such as maize, cassava, rice, soya, etc. on vast tracts of confiscated and privatized land using chemical-intensive monoculture industrial plantations will be used for biofuel production (ethanol, biodiesel), animal feed, pharmaceutical products and other industrial products to be exported and consumed in affluent countries, NOT to feed starving Africans...
There is more than sufficient food to feed everyone in
As Mahatma Gandhi rightly stated: "There is enough food in the world to satisfy everyone's needs but not everyone's greed."
AGROECOLOGY IS THE SOLUTION TO FEED
TANZANIA, AFRICA AND THE ENTIRE WORLD.
As Olivier de Schutter - Special Rapporteur on the right to food appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council - writes in
his report titiled "Agro-ecology and the right to food" 16, presented on March
08, 2011 before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva:
“We won‟t solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations. The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers‟ knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development.”
“We won‟t solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations. The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers‟ knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development.”
“To feed 9 billion people in
2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques
available. Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods
outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the
hungry live - especially in unfavorable environments.”
“To date, agroecological
projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing
countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects,” De
Schutter says. “Recent projects conducted in 20 African countries demonstrated
a doubling of crop yields over a period of 3-10 years.”
“Agroecology applies ecological
science to the design of agricultural systems that can help put an end to food
crises and address climate-change and poverty challenges. It enhances soils
productivity and protects the crops against pests by relying on the natural
environment such as beneficial trees, plants, animals and insects.”
“Conventional farming relies on
expensive inputs, fuels climate change and is not resilient to climatic shocks.
It simply is not the best choice anymore today,” De Schutter stresses. “A large
segment of the scientific community now acknowledges the positive impacts of
agroecology on food production, poverty alleviation and climate change
mitigation -- and this this is what is needed in a world of limited resources.”
“ Malawi,
a country that launched a massive chemical fertilizer subsidy program a few
years ago, is now implementing agroecology, benefiting more than 1.3 million of
the poorest people, with maize yields increasing from 1 ton/ha to 2-3 tons/ha.”
“However, despite its impressive potential in realizing the right to food for
all, agroecology is still insufficiently backed by ambitious public policies
and consequently hardly goes beyond the experimental stage.”
The report identifies a dozen of
measures that States should implement to scale up agroecological practices.
“Agroecology is a
knowledge-intensive approach. It requires public policies supporting agricultural
research and participative extension services,” De Schutter says. “States and
donors have a key role to play here. Private companies will not invest time and
money in practices that cannot be rewarded by patents and which don‟t open
markets for chemical products or improved seeds.”
De Schutter also urges States to
support small-scale farmer’s organizations which demonstrate a great ability to
disseminate the best agroecological practices among their members. “Strengthening social organization
proves to be as impactful as distributing fertilizers. Small-scale farmers and
scientists can create innovative practices when they partner”, De Schutter
explains.
“We won‟t solve hunger and stop
climate change with industrial farming on large plantations. The solution lies
in supporting small-scale farmers‟ knowledge and experimentation, and in
raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development.”
“If key stakeholders support the
measures identified in the report, we can see a DOUBLING of food production
within 5 to 10 years in some regions where the hungry live,” De Schutter says. “Whether or not
we will succeed this transition will depend on our ability to learn faster from
recent innovations. We need to go fast if we want to avoid repeated food and
climate disasters in the 21st century.”
Olivier De Schutter was appointed
Special Rapporteur on the right to food in May 2008 by the United Nations Human
Rights Council. He is independent from any
government or organization.
I hope that the above independent scientific and medical research/literature and the overwhelming empirical evidence regarding the human and animal health hazards, the inevitable and irreversible environmental and biodiversity destruction and the negative socio-economic consequences of GMO’s will help to enlighten you on the subject and
will prevent you from further spreading ignorant, deceitful and fraudulent
propaganda in the press/media/internet.
Finally, I would also suggest that in the future you refrain from providing
your so-called "expert" advice to Africans on how to feed themselves. By the way, have
Africans mandated you to "advise" them on how to feed themselves...? Or are you – like Bill Gates - a self-appointed deceptive "savior" of starving Africans…?
Instead of deluding yourself and misleading others, I would suggest that you
practice what you preach; i.e. eat the GMO yourself and become the guinea pig
for the biotech/chemical/agribusiness industry, for Africa and for the world . That
is the best help you can provide to Africa and to humanity.
Bon appétit et bon vent!
I rest my case.
Truthfully,
Arya
References:
1
http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Africa+must+embrace+GM+technology+/-/440808/1201226/-/item/0/-/42dqbnz/-/index.html
2 http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11
3. http://www.criigen.org/content/view/185/85/
4: Paganelli,
A., Gnazzo, V., Acosta, H., López, S.L., Carrasco, A.E. 2010. Glyphosate-based herbicides produce
terato-genic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signaling. Chem.
Res. Toxicol., August 9. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749
5:
ibid
6: http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6254
7. http://www.gmwatch.eu/images/pdf/gmsoy_sust_respons_full_eng_v14.pdf
8. Ibid
9: http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
10:
ibis
11:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Pusztai
http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/a.pusztai/
http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Roulette-Documented-Genetically-Engineered/dp/0972966528/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203883808&sr=1-1
12:
http://www.saynotogmos.org/paper.pdf
13: http://biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/08/OGG1V.GIF 14:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/governor-sebelius-must-ve_b_183838.html
15:http://www.saynotogmos.org/paper.pdf
16: Aziz A. and Leblanc S., 2010, Reproductive Toxicology, accepted 13
February 2011 Currently available online or from GM Freeze. http://www.gmfreeze.org/site_media/uploads/publications/GM_blood_study_summary_FINAL.pdf
17: ibis
18: http://www.saynotogmos.org/paper.pdf
19: http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Roulette-Documented-Genetically-Engineered/dp/0972966528/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203883808&sr=1-1
20. ibid
21: http://www.seedsofdeception.com/DocumentFiles/145.pdf
22: ibid
23: ibid
24: ibid
25 : ibid
26 ibid
27. Ibid
28: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/business/worldbusiness/03iht-biotech.4.6471136.html?_r=1
29: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8308903.stm
30 http://foodfreedom.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16:superweed&catid=5:articles
31: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BtCottonKillsSoilandFarmers.php
To obtain a copy of the report, contact: Navdanya A-60, Hauz Khas New
Delhi - 110 016 Phone : 91-11-26535422 / 26532124 Email :
vandana@vandanashiva.com Website : www.navdanya.org
32 http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/13214
Link to the study:
The expression of Bt
endotoxin Cry1Ac has detrimental effect on the in vitro regeneration as well as
in vivo growth and development of tobacco and cotton transgenics Rawat, P., A. K. Singh, et al. (2011). J
Biosci 36(2): 363–376.
http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosci/jun2011/363.pdf
33 http://staging.grain.org/article/entries/123-gm-cotton-set-to-invade-west-africa-time-to-act
http://www.ask-force.org/web/Geneflow/Rowell-Immoral-Maize-and-Comment-Ammann-20091125.pdf
34 source: Agrofuels in the Americas
35 http://www.chrgj.org/publications/docs/every30min.pdf
36 source:
http://www.goal-2025.com/2011/02/26/climate-change-and-agriculture-by-dr-vandana-shiva/
37:
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6254
38:http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Politics/Politics/france_finds_monsanto_guilty_of_lying_211120090805.html
39.http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html
40:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html
41:
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/aweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/3cacfd251aab6d318025742700407f02!OpenDocument
42:http://www.agassessment.org/docs/SR_Exec_Sum_280508_English.htm
43:
http://www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159
44 ibid
45 ibid
46: Friends of the Earth report: "Who benefits from GM crops"
47-51: ibid
52: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pest-evolves-resistance-to-gm-crops-779794.html
53:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/12/gm-cotton-fails-pests-thriving-when-they-should-be-dead.php
54: Survival and reproduction of natural populations of Helicoverpa armigera
on Bt-cotton hybrids in Raichur ,
India
56:Tarnishing Silver Bullets: Bt Technology Adoption, Bounded
Rationality and the Outbreak of Secondary Pest Infestations in China
57 http://www.globalresearch.ca/books/SoD.html
