Roundup está no Solo, os Alimentos e a Chuva

Onde for que o químico da Monsanto é usado, ele deixa o solo, sobe e desce sobre as nossas cabeças.

Tradução Luis R. Miranda
GMFreeze.org
Outubro 22, 2011

Monitoramento pela U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) revelou que o glifosato e o seu subproduto, o Acido Aminometilfosfônico (conhecido como AMPA) foram frequentemente encontrados na chuva e rios na Bacia de Mississippi, onde a maioria das culturas tolerantes ao glifosato são cultivadas. [1]

Glifosato (a base do produto Roundup da Monsanto) é amplamente utilizado nos EUA com produtos conhecidos como RoundupReady, que foram geneticamente modificados para tolerar o herbicida, para que eles sobrevivam quando os campos são pulverizados com este produto. Plantas tolerantes a herbicidas geneticamente modificados não são cultivados no Reino Unido devido a preocupações sobre os impactos adversos causados pelos herbicida sobre a fauna que incluem a perda de habitat. Mas Monsanto continuamente pede a sua adopção. Soja e Milho RoundupReady são importados dos EUA para utilização na alimentação animal, produtos lácteos e de carne estão infestados de transgénicos e não são rotulados em muitos supermercados britânicos e do mundo.

Os resultados da USGS são baseados em dois estudos de chuva e bacias hidrográficas em áreas agrícolas da Bacia do Mississippi onde o existe o “maior uso” de glifosato para controlar ervas daninhas que crescem perto do milho, algodão e soja geneticamente modificada e que são tolerantes ao glifosato / Roundup. Os relatórios da USGS mostram que o uso do glifosato aumentou em oito vezes, para 88,000 mil toneladas, nos 15 anos até 2007, corroendo ainda mais o mito de que as culturas geneticamente modificadas reduzem o uso de químicos.

Monsanto negou múltiplas vezes que o glifosato seja lavado dos campos em quantidades significativas, alegando que o herbicida se liga ao solo e, por tanto, não pode ser lavado. [2]

Os resultados da USGS confirmam as advertências de outros países que o glifosato é mais móvel em solos do que algumas empresas de biotecnologia admitem. [3]

A presença de glifosato e AMPA em águas de superfície significa que a qualidade da água que e usada pela fauna aquática pode estar em risco. Estudos têm demonstrado que muitas espécies aquáticas são afetadas pelo herbicida e seu produto de degradação, e há cada vez mais preocupações com a segurança do produto para a saúde humana. [4] Além disso, o uso excessivo do glifosato na soja transgênica, algodão e milho está aumentando a propagação de ervas daninhas que se tornam resistentes ao herbicida, o que significa que mais Roundup deve ser utilizado, frequentemente em combinação com outros herbicidas, em uma tentativa para controlam as novas “super ervas”.

O USGS encontrou glifosato em mais de 60% do ar e chuva amostrados em três locais no Mississippi, Iowa e Indiana, com AMPA encontrado em 50% das amostras, em concentrações de até 9.1ng/metro cúbico e 0.49ng/metro cúbico, respectivamente. [5] Pesquisadores da USGS estimam que cerca de 1% do glifosato pulverizado acabou nas águas nas quatro áreas ONDE FOI feito o monitoramento de rios. As concentrações variaram em diferentes sistemas fluviais que formaram parte do Programa de Monitoramento. O mais alto nível de glifosato detectado foi de 5.7μg/litro. [6] Este não seria um nível permitido no abastecimento de água potável segundo a Directiva da União Europeia.

Este ano, a Comissão Europeia adiou para 2015 a revisão de segurança na aprovação europeia de uso de glifosato. [7]
Comentando para GM Freeze, Pete Riley disse:

“A Bacia do Mississippi foi submetida a aplicação de glifosato em grande escala nos últimos 15 anos. Como resultado deste experimento gigante e descontrolado, o USGS está encontrando agora que produtos de degradação do glifosato estão aparescendo nas chuvas e rios, e não, como Monsanto querem nos fazer pensar, que este fica no solo com segurança.

“Os políticos e os reguladores precisam tomar nota destas descobertas e suspender o uso de culturas tolerantes a Roundup para proteger a água, que abastece a vida selvagem e a saúde pública. O primeiro passo e reagendar urgentemente a revisão de segurança de glifosato, garantindo a transparência e que os fornecedores dos dados e estudos sejam independentes da indústria.

“Graças a oposição do público e alguns Estados-Membros, a UE tem escapado de ser parte do experimento da Monsanto e disseram ‘Não’ às culturas tolerantes a herbicidas geneticamente modificados, que agora é justamente visto como uma escalada da corrida armamentista química que começou na década de 1950. Com base no último levantamento da USGS, é hora de usar novas táticas. A evidência sobre a segurança de e movimentação de glifosato acumula méritos para a proibição de transgênicos tolerantes. “

Notas

[1] USGS press release, 29 August 2011. “Widely Used Herbicide Commonly Found in Rain and Streams in the Mississippi River Basin”

[2] “From soil and plant applications of glyphosate herbicide it is expected that a small amount of the applied glyphosate may enter surface waters through runoff or attached to soil particles that wash off treated fields.” Monsanto. 2003. Backgrounder. Glyphosate and water quality. Updated November 2003.

[3] See GM Freeze report Herbicide Tolerance and GM crops – Why the world should be ready to Roundup glyphoste. Chapter 4

[4] See GM Freeze report Herbicide Tolerance and GM crops – Why the world should be ready to Roundup glyphoste. Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7

[5] Chang FC, Simcik MF and Capel CD, 2011. “Occurrence and fate of the herbicide glyphosate and its degradate Aminomethylphosphonic acid in the atmosphere”. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 30, 548–555

[6] Coupe RH, Kalkhoff SK, Capel PD and Gregoire C, 2011. “Fate and transport of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in surface waters of agricultural basin”. Pesticide Management Science, 67, doi: 10.1002/ps.2212

[7] See GM Freeze action Is Roundup Safe?

Roundup is on the Soil, Food and Rain

Wherever Monsanto’s chemical is used, it leaves the soil, goes back up and down on our heads.

GMFreeze.org
October 22, 2011

Monitoring by the US Geological Survey (USGS) has revealed that glyphosate and its breakdown product Aminomethylphosphonic acid (known as AMPA) are frequently found in rainfall and rivers in the Mississippi Basin, where most GM crops tolerant to glyphosate are grown. [1]

Glyphosate (the basis of Monsanto’s brand name product Roundup) is widely used in the US with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GM crops, which have been genetically modified to tolerate the weedkiller, so they survive when a field is sprayed with it. Herbicide tolerant GM plants are not currently grown in the UK due to concerns about adverse impacts on wildlife associated with the loss of habitat caused by the weedkiller. However Monsanto has lobbied persistently for their introduction. Roundup Ready soya and maize are imported from the US for use in animal feed, and meat and dairy products fed on GM feed are not labelled in many British supermarkets.

The USGS results are based on two studies of rain and watersheds in agricultural areas of the Mississippi Basin where the “the greatest use” of glyphosate takes place to control weeds in GM maize, soya and cotton tolerant to glyphosate/Roundup. The USGS reports that glyphosate use rose by more than eight fold, to 88,000 tons, in the 15 years to 2007, further eroding the myth that GM crops reduce chemical use.

Monsanto has repeatedly denied that glyphosate washes off fields in significant amounts, claiming the herbicide binds to soil particles and therefore cannot be leached. [2]

The USGS results confirm warnings from other countries that glyphosate is more mobile in some soils than the biotech corporation is prepared to admit. [3]

The presence of glyphosate and AMPA in surface waters means that drinking water quality and aquatic wildlife may be put at risk. Studies have shown many aquatic species are affected by the herbicide and its breakdown product, and there is growing concern about the safety of the product for human health. [4] In addition the overuse of glyphosate on GM soya, cotton and maize crops is driving an escalation and spread of problem weeds resistant to the weedkiller, meaning even more Roundup has to be used, often in combination with other herbicides, in an attempt to control these new “super” weeds.

The USGS found glyphosate in more than 60% of air and rain sampled at three locations in Mississippi, Iowa and Indiana, with AMPA found in more than 50% of samples, at concentrations up to 9.1ng/cubic metre and 0.49ng/cubic metre respectively. [5] Researchers from the USGS estimate that about 1% of glyphosate sprayed in catchments ended up in surface waters in the four areas where monitoring was conducted in streams and rivers. Concentrations varied between different river systems that formed part of the monitoring programme. The highest median level of glyphosate detected was 5.7μg/litre. [6] This level would not be allowed to enter public supply untreated under the EU Drinking Water Directive.

This year the European Commission postponed to 2015 a scheduled safety review of the European approval of glyphosate. [7]

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

“The Mississippi Basin has been subjected to glyphosate application on a massive scale for the last 15 years. As a result of this giant uncontrolled experiment, the USGS is now finding that glyphosate and its breakdown products are turning up in rainfall and rivers, and not, as Monsanto would have us think, being safely locked up in the soil.

“Politicians and regulators need to take note of these findings and suspend the use of Roundup tolerant crops wherever they are grown to protect water supply, wildlife and public health. The first step should be to urgently reschedule the safety review of glyphosate, ensuring it is both transparent and independent of data supplied by the industry.

“Thanks to opposition from the public and some Members States, the EU has escaped being part of the Monsanto experiment and has the opportunity to say ‘No’ to GM herbicide tolerant crops, which are now rightly seen as an escalation of the chemical arms race which began in the 1950s. On the basis of this latest USGS survey results, it’s time to use new tactics. The mounting evidence on the safety and movement of glyphosate now merits a ban on GM tolerant crops. ”

Notes

[1] USGS press release, 29 August 2011. “Widely Used Herbicide Commonly Found in Rain and Streams in the Mississippi River Basin”

[2] “From soil and plant applications of glyphosate herbicide it is expected that a small amount of the applied glyphosate may enter surface waters through runoff or attached to soil particles that wash off treated fields.” Monsanto. 2003. Backgrounder. Glyphosate and water quality. Updated November 2003.

[3] See GM Freeze report Herbicide Tolerance and GM crops – Why the world should be ready to Roundup glyphoste. Chapter 4

[4] See GM Freeze report Herbicide Tolerance and GM crops – Why the world should be ready to Roundup glyphoste. Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7

[5] Chang FC, Simcik MF and Capel CD, 2011. “Occurrence and fate of the herbicide glyphosate and its degradate Aminomethylphosphonic acid in the atmosphere”. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 30, 548–555

[6] Coupe RH, Kalkhoff SK, Capel PD and Gregoire C, 2011. “Fate and transport of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in surface waters of agricultural basin”. Pesticide Management Science, 67, doi: 10.1002/ps.2212

[7] See GM Freeze action Is Roundup Safe?

Pesticide exposure in expectant mothers causes lower IQ in newborns

NaturalNews.com
September 19, 2011

Three separate studies recently published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives indicate prenatal pesticide exposure to fetuses negatively impact a child’s learning ability. Their IQs tend to be lower. The greater the umbilical cord pesticide blood levels, the lower the child’s IQ.

Research Focus

These toxins originated mostly from conventional agriculture’s heavily sprayed foods. But farmers and farm workers were studied the least.

The three studies focused mostly on urban dwellers who consume those sprayed foods. One was done in UC Berkley, CA, another by Columbia University in NYC, and the other by Mt. Sinai Hospital researchers, also in NYC. It doesn’t get much more urban than that.

What’s Bad About Pesticides

Most effective pesticides contain different types oforganophosphates. As of the turn of our current century, many nations had bannedchlorpyrifos and diazinon, from domestic use. Those two pesticides were so heavily loaded with organophosphates that just having bug and ant poisons stored in one’s domicile caused health problems to occupants.

Organophosphates (OPs) are spinoffs from biochemical warfare research to create nerve gases for killing humans. Scientists soon discovered that the OPs killed bugs too. Of course, the usual toxicology index that protects the industry is based on the notion that if you don’t drop dead soon after exposure to any chemical agent, it’s safe!

But eventually, long term neurological deterioration was detected among OP users,even if they hardly used them. The link was made to these organophosphate nerve gas components in chlorpyrifos and diazinon. They were disallowed for home use, but not for agricultural use.

Back on the Farm

Since workers on farms using these pesticides are often subject to skin exposure and inhalation of organophophates, the CDC issued a paper categorizing symptoms of poisoning from biochemical nerve agents and pesticide toxicity. The symptoms described were the same for both. (CDC source below)

If you’re having thoughts about Monsanto’s Roundup, it is actually an herbicide for killing weeds. Roundup kills all plants. That’s why Roundup Ready GM seeds are necessary. They enable using the herbicide while the GMO seed plants supposedly thrive.

Roundup’s active ingredient is glyophosate, which is a type of organophosphate that isn’t as nasty to the nervous system as other organophosphates. Over 30 organophosphate pesticides used in non-organic commercial farming are USDA approved.

So what if we eat daily while other environmental toxins overload our immune systems. Remember, if it doesn’t do great harm immediately, it’s safe.

If you have to go with conventionally grown produce occasionally, find out the most and least sprayed from the Environmental Working Group’s dirty dozen and clean fifteen list here:http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary/

Sources for more information include:

Three new studies reveal children are dumbed down by pesticide exposure in wombhttp://www.naturalnews.com/032158_p…
Guide to pesticides in producehttp://www.naturalnews.com/033163_p…

CDC nerve toxin paperhttp://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/nerve/t…

Explaining organophosphateshttp://www.panna.org/resources/spec…

Explaining Glycophosate in Rounduphttp://archive.greenpeace.org/genen…

Main stream media article reporting the three pesticide studieshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a…

Did USDA Deregulate All New GMO Crops?

by Tom Philpott
Mother Jones
July 8, 2011

It’s a hoary bureaucratic trick, making a controversial announcement on the Friday afternoon before a long weekend, when most people are daydreaming about what beer to buy on the way home from work, or are checking movie times online. But that’s precisely what the US Department of Agriculture pulled last Friday.

In an innocuous-sounding press release titled “USDA Responds to Regulation Requests Regarding Kentucky Bluegrass,” agency officials announced their decision not to regulate a “Roundup Ready” strain of Kentucky bluegrass—that is, a strain genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate, Monsanto’s widely used herbicide, which we know as Roundup. The maker of the novel grass seed, Scotts Miracle Gro, is now free to sell it far and wide. So you’ll no doubt be seeing Roundup Ready bluegrass blanketing lawns and golf courses near you—and watching anal neighbors and groundskeepers literally dousing the grass in weed killer without fear of harming a single precious blade.

Which is worrisome enough. But even more worrisome is the way this particular product was approved. According to Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Food and Environment Program, the documents released by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) along with the announcement portend a major change in how the feds will deal with genetically modified crops.

Notably, given the already-lax regulatory regime governing GMOs (genetically modified organisms, click here for a primer), APHIS seems to be ramping down oversight to the point where it is essentially meaningless. The new regime corresponding with the bluegrass announcement would “drastically weaken USDA’s regulation,” Gurian-Sherman told me. “This is perhaps the most serious change in US regs for [genetically modified] crops for many years.”

Understanding why requires a brief history of the US government’s twisted attempts to regulate GMOs. Since the Reagan days, federal regulatory efforts have been governed by what’s known as the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology. Despite its name, the Coordinated Framework amounts to a porous hodgepodge of regulations based on the idea that overseeing GMOs required no new laws—that the novel technology could be effectively regulated under already-existing code.

Long story short, it means that the USDA theoretically regulates new GMO crops the same way it would regulate, say, a backyard gardener’s new crossbred squash variety. Which is to say, it really doesn’t. But that’s absurd. GM crops pose different environmental threats than their nonmodified counterparts. The most famous example involves the rapid rise of Roundup Ready corn, soy, and cotton, which were introduced in the mid-late 1990s and now blanket tens of millions of acres of US farmland. Spraying all of that acreage every year with a single herbicide has given rise to a plague of Roundup-resistant “superweeds,” forcing farmers to apply more and more Roundup and also resort to other, far-more-toxic products. Crops that aren’t engineered to withstand an herbicide could never have created such a vexation.

From the start, in a tacit acknowledgement that modified crops really are different, the USDA has resorted to a fiction that allows it to at least nominally regulate GMOs, Gurian-Sherman told me. A ’50s-era law called the Plant Pest Act gave the USDA power to restrict the introduction of organisms that might, well, harm plants. Genetically modified crops technically qualified as “plant pests” because industry scientists used DNA “promoters” derived from natural plant pathogens, most notably cauliflower mosaic virus, to amplify the genetic traits they introduced into new crops. “These promoters ensure that the desired trait is always ‘on,’ that is, expressed,” Gurian-Sherman explains.

The promoters—short stretches of DNA—are not themselves expressed by the engineered plant. In other words, the cauliflower mosaic virus used to bolster, say, Roundup Ready soybeans, poses no threat to actual cauliflower plants. In addition to promoters, GMO developers also use plant-pest substances at other points in the genetic-modification process—but again, they don’t express themselves in the finished project. “The Plant Pest Act was always just a regulatory hook to give the USDA authority to regulate engineered crops,” notes Gurian-Sherman. “Everyone—the industry, industry watchdogs, the USDA—always knew it was a fiction.”

Yet the fiction has endured. The industry accepted it, Gurian-Sherman says, because cursory oversight gave companies from a “fig leaf…They could say that their crops are regulated and have been deemed ‘safe’ by the USDA.” GMO foes accepted it as well, he adds, because without the plant-pest fiction, the USDA would have no authority to regulate genetically modified crops. Indeed, this plant-pest business has given activists important tools to force better oversight. For instance, the USDA is required by the National Environmental Policy Act to assess the environmental impact of the novel crops it regulates, and by the Endangered Species Act to gauge potential impact of GM crops on endangered species. Well, in recent years, the Center for Food Safety has successfully sued the agency for failing to conduct proper environmental-impact statements and endangered-species analyses for crops it removed from its plant-pest list.

Then, in 2000, Congress passed the Plant Protection Act, which broadened the Plant Pest Act slightly, adding one more regulatory hook (Gurian-Sherman’s words) to the USDA’s sparse GMO-regulation toolkit. That was the “noxious weed” status—any engineered crop that threatens to go rogue in the field and become a hard-to-control weed may be regulated.

That, roughly speaking, is where things stood. Until last Friday.

Obviously, a regulatory regime based on a lie was never really durable. Gurian-Sherman says the plant-pest schtick has been wearing thin for years now, because the industry has begun using nonpest material to develop novel crops. “If the companies don’t use plant pests, then the USDA ostensibly doesn’t have a legal hook to regulate the crops,” he says. To compensate, Gurian-Sherman says, the agency has resorted to tacitly acknowledging that it has no jurisdiction, but doing so quietly to avoid exposing the fiction.

But the agency’s decision on Scotts Miracle Gro’s Roundup Ready bluegrass may have changed all that. Scotts essentially shattered the code of silence in a Sept. 13, 2010 letter (PDF) to the USDA, which the agency released Friday. The company declared:

Because Kentucky bluegrass itself is not a plant pest, no plant pest components will be involved in the transformation, and the native plant genomes that will be used are fully classified, there is no scientifically valid basis for concluding that transgenic Kentucky bluegrass is or will become a plant pest within the meaning of the Plant Protection Act.

Based on that impeccable logic, the company went in the for the kill: “Scotts requests that [USDA] confirm that Kentucky bluegrass modified
without plant pest components…is not a regulated article within the meaning of the current regulations.”

In its July 1 response, the USDA agreed: “[N]one of the organisms used in generating this genetically engineered (GE) glyophosphate tolerant Kentucky bluegrass…are considered to be plant pests,” so Roundup Ready bluegrass “does not meet the definition of a ‘regulated article’ and is not subject” to the Plant Protection Act. In other words, go forth and multiply.

Read Full Article…

Alimentos Modificados Genéticamente – ¿Envenenando Nuestra Gente?

Traducción Luis R. Miranda
allAfrica.com
Junio 9, 2011

Opinión

Uno de los más extensos experimentos no regulados en seres humanos se está llevando a cabo aquí en África del Sur. Los sudafricanos fueron los primeros en el mundo en consumir alimentos genéticamente modificados (OGM)como parte de su dieta. Según fuentes de la industria más del 75% de nuestro maíz blanco es ahora GM. Esto significa que la papilla consumida a diario en la mayoría de los hogares de Sudáfrica está compuesto de maíz genéticamente modificado.

La afirmación de la industria que nadie se ha enfermado después de ingerir alimentos modificados genéticamente es científicamente deshonesta. Se basa en el principio de “si no miras, no encuentras”. Debido a que los alimentos modificados genéticamente no están claramente identificados a través de un etiquetado claro, es muy imposible saber qué enfermedades están relacionadas con el consumo del producto.

Se dice que estos alimentos han sido probados y son seguros. Al mismo tiempo, los productores de transgénicos afirman que sus productos son “sustancialmente equivalentes” – idénticos a sus contra partes naturales. Como tales, no requieren pruebas. Cuando las pruebas se ha hecho han sido presas de las mismas trampas que han afectado las pruebas de toxicología hechas a productos químicos durante décadas. No es sorprendente que las empresas que producen OGM, sin excepción han evolucionado a partir de las empresas químicas agrícolas, infames en su abuso de los protocolos estadísticos y experimentales.

La mayoría de las pruebas se han realizado en los alimentos y presentado por las mismas compañías que buscan su aprobación. El diseño de estas pruebas ha sido opaco y engañoso. Las investigaciones han demostrado que los resultados han sido sistemáticamente manipulados y sesgados. Dice la epidemióloga Judy Carman: “Su enfoque conjunto para el análisis no sería útil para una clase de estadística básica.”

Los primeros análisis de todos los estudios de alimentación encuentran exactamente tres experimentos. Aún estas pruebas muestran tendencias preocupantes. Más reciente meta-análisis han reforzado estas preocupaciones. Un hallazgo consistente ha sido el daño al hígado y los riñones. Cabe destacar que el hígado y la enfermedad renal han aumentado desde que los cultivos transgénicos se introdujeron en los EE.UU..

Lo notable es que cuando los investigadores empleados o conectados a los desarrolladores de los alimentos GM hicieron estudios, no se reportaron problemas. Por otra parte, estudios realizados por científicos independientes siempre motivan su preocupación. Un análisis publicado recientemente puso de relieve esta tendencia. Esta relación es común en los análisis de otros productos químicos y alimentos.

Más preocupante aún es el hecho de que los estudios de alimentación fueron hechos a muy corto plazo, con no más de tres meses. Fundamentalmente, ninguno de ellos utiliza más de un tercio de los productos transgénicos en la dieta. En el sur de África, comemos maíz transgénico no identificado como un alimento básico en niveles que en muchos casos puede alcanzar el 100% de la dieta. La pregunta es: Si el daño es preocupante y está estadísticamente demostrado que los riñones, el hígado y otros órganos son destruídos cuando los animales son alimentados con un tercio de su dieta con productos modificados genéticamente, en estudios de una duración de tres meses, entonces ¿qué diablos va a pasar con aquellos de nosotros que comemos una dieta que es predominantemente a base de maíz GM, todos los días durante años?

Esto no es nada menos que un experimento masivo no regulado. Para empeorar las cosas este experimento no se lleva a cabo en una población sana, sino en una cuya salud está doblemente comprometida: en primer lugar, las personas no comen una dieta lo suficientemente variada. En segundo lugar, tenemos el mayor número de habitantes con VIH, SIDA e infecciones de tuberculosis en el mundo.

Hay muchos otros estudios que han señalado los problemas del consumo de los cultivos transgénicos, incluso a niveles reducidos de una tercera parte de la dieta total. Los estudios han demostrado menor recuento de espermatozoides y esterilidad. Los investigadores han pedido constantemente para que se siga investigando. Todo lo que la industria de los transgénicos hace es lo de siempre; intentar salirse con la suya.

Esta situación escandalosa cuenta con la asistencia de nuestra mala regulación de los alimentos modificados genéticamente que sólo se identificarán a finales de este año. En otras palabras, las personas han estado comiendo alimentos GM en la ignorancia total de los hechos. Hasta el momento, no hay una prueba independiente, llevada a cabo durante generaciones sobre como la dieta de varias de las personas se ve afectada al consumir alimentos GM. Esto equivale a poco menos que negligencia criminal por parte de nuestro gobierno, que siempre ha hecho caso omiso de estas preocupaciones, y en lugar ha tomado el lado de una industria con una trayectoria muy defectuosa.

Por supuesto esta industria insiste en que la Unión Europea y otros han producido informes que demuestran que los cultivos transgénicos no tienen ningún riesgo para la salud. El hecho es que los reguladores de la UE se han basado en exactamente las mismas pruebas producidas por la propia industria. En segundo lugar, la influencia de la industria en el régimen normativo es significativo. Esta industria tiene no sólo los reguladores habitualmente mal informados, a través de pruebas con el suministro de datos estadísticos sesgados, pero siempre ha interferido en el régimen de reglamentación.
Por ejemplo, la normativa que regula los cultivos transgénicos en los EE.UU. fue redactada por el ex jefe de asuntos reguladores de Monsanto, Michael Taylor, quien dejó la empresa Monsanto para trabajar en el gobierno con el fin de elaborar una legislación favorable a la industria. Luego regresó a Monsanto. Desde entonces, ha vuelto al gobierno, en lo que se conoce como “la puerta giratoria”. Esto no es en absoluto un caso aislado y una situación similar existe en el sur de África.

Esta es sólo la punta del iceberg. Hay casos documentados de como la industria restringe y prohíbe las pruebas independientes de sus productos. Esto es posible debido a que estos productos están patentados se necesita permiso de las empresas para accesar diversos aspectos cruciales de e información en las pruebas científicas, el cual es siempre negado.

No se trata sólo de los peligros inherentes de los cultivos transgénicos. El producto GM más cultivado en el mundo, la soja resistente a los herbicidas, se ha relacionado con niveles altos del herbicida Roundup, fabricado por Monsanto, que también es propietaria de las patentes en más del 90% de todos los cultivos transgénicos a nivel mundial. Monsanto también introdujo el maíz resistentes a los herbicidas, que se cultivan en el sur de África. Pese a las afirmaciones de que los cultivos transgénicos reducen el uso de productos químicos, hemos visto exactamente que lo contrario ocurre en todo el mundo.

Por ejemplo, en Argentina, el uso de herbicidas ha aumentado 180 veces en 13 años. En los EE.UU., 174 000 toneladas más se usan cada año. En Brasil es de hasta un 95%. La responsabilidad del impacto ambiental y en la salud de las personas no es la preocupación de los agricultores, sino que simplemente es pasada a los consumidores, que no son los más sabios. Y los riesgos que estos productos químicos crean son cada vez más y más preocupantes que los cultivos transgénicos en sí.

Cuando los primeros cultivos transgénicos se introdujeron la cantidad permitida legalmente de residuos de herbicidas en los alimentos se aumento en 200 veces en el caso de la Unión Europea, con incrementos similares en otros lugares, todo para acomodar las peticiones de las corporaciones. Roundup está vinculado a graves impactos en la salud humana, incluidos los daños al crecimiento del embrión y el feto (impactos tetragénicos), así como el daño celular, entre muchos otros impactos sobre los mamíferos. Hay literalmente docenas de estudios publicados que indican las preocupaciones acerca de este producto químico. También afecta a los anfibios, insectos, lombrices y bacterias del suelo que liberan nutrientes para las plantas.

Además de estas preocupaciones, hay una inconsistencia evidente en el argumento de que los cultivos transgénicos son necesarios para alimentar al mundo: El hecho de que el producto GM más cultivado en el mundo, la soja, siempre ha sido demostrado que rinden menos que la soja convencional y natural. A pesar de años de promesas de que los cultivos GM son más resistentes a la sequía estas promesas siguen sin cumplirse.

Oxfam Internacional publicó recientemente un informe que indica que los precios de los alimentos se duplicaran, desde sus ya altos niveles en las próximas dos décadas. ¿Cómo podemos solucionar este problema? Somos constantemente informados por los partidarios de los cultivos transgénicos que debemos adoptar la tecnología para alimentar al mundo. La realidad es que los programas de mejoramiento convencional de plantas han logrado mucho más, a un costo mucho más bajo, mejorando el rendimiento, la resistencia viral, la mejora nutricional y resistencia a la sequía.

Quince años de cultivos genéticamente modificados en África del Sur han demostrado que la rápida adopción de cultivos transgénicos no ha tenido impacto alguno sobre la cantidad de alimentos que llegan a la boca de los más necesitados. La única conclusión que puede ser obtenida es que los cultivos transgénicos no son la solución. Más importante es que estamos jugando un peligroso juego de la ruleta rusa genética con la salud de nuestro pueblo.

La Evaluación Internacional del Papel del Conocimiento, Ciencia y Tecnología para el Desarrollo (IAASTD), en su informe titulado “Agricultura en la encrucijada”, señaló que los cultivos transgénicos en el mejor de los casos desempeñará un papel limitado en la lucha contra el hambre mundial. El enfoque en la agricultura de altos insumos industriales y los OGM han marginado las prácticas agrícolas más eficaces. El estudio de la IAASTD fue financiado por el Banco Mundial y varios organismos de la ONU, e involucró a más de 400 expertos en agricultura de todo el mundo.

El enfoque perjudicial en los cultivos transgénicos en las últimas dos décadas ha contribuido a retrasar el desarrollo de la investigación que se necesita con urgencia. En lugar de centrarse en el clima y los aspectos relacionados en los sistemas de producción de las comunidades que necesitamos para fomentar la seguridad alimentaria y la verdadera independencia, el enfoque político-institucional sobre los cultivos transgénicos nos ha dirigido hacia la confianza en el modelo de dependencia personificado por la agricultura industrial, en cuanto erosiona nuestra salud y la ya precaria situación.
Se mire como se mire, los cultivos transgénicos personifican el problema, no la solución.

Related Links:

Togel178

Pedetogel

Sabatoto

Togel279

Togel158

Colok178

Novaslot88

Lain-Lain

Partner Links