Citrus Para
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL Biosafety
IN THE FIELD OF 'AGRICULTURE AND FOOD PRODUCTION
Dr. Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, Balasore.
Techniques called into question:
Genetic modification of seed-farming of cotton, soybean, corn, potatoes, rice and trees in the forest.
Prologue
This includes all large macabre theme discussed throughout the world today is the invasion of good science, 'biotechnology' in virtually every angle and corner of the biosphere and practically turned to bad science, 'thanotechnology' to every living element of concern and to accelerate the rate of total annihilation biosphere.It all began with a little known episode in 1980, which is the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in this case, Diamond VRS. Chakrabarty, where the highest court U.S. has decided that biological life was legally patentable.
History
Anand Mohan Chakrabraty a microbiologist and employee of General Electric Company (GE) has developed a type of bacteria that could ingest oil from oil spills. GE rushed for a patent in 1971 which has been downgraded forms of life are not patentable. GE said and won. In 1985 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Chakrabraty ruled that the sentence could be further extended to all plants, seeds and plant tissues or the entire plant kingdom.
U.S. company WR Grace was granted 50 U.S. patents on the Indian Neem tree that knowledge including patents of indigenous medicinal use of Neem products (state level 'biopiracy'). In 1988 PTO issued the patent on animals for the professors of Harvard, Philip Lader and Timothy R. Stewart, who had created a transgenic mouse that have the genes of chicken and human. In 1991, the PTO granted patent for human stem cells and later of human genes. Biocyte European patent has been assigned to all cells in the cord blood from fetuses and newborns, even without the authorization of the 'donors'. The Office European Patent Office (EPO) received applications from Baylor University for the patenting of women that have been genetically modified to produce protein GE in their mammary glands.
Baylor University essentially sought monopoly rights regarding the use of human mammary glands to manufacture pharmaceuticals. Besides Attempts were made to patent cells of the blood of the indigenous peoples of Panama, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea. Within a decade the 'Chakrabarty ruling' the U.S. Supreme Court has revolutionized research and developments in biotechnology that microbes to human health beings that led it to be branded as bad science, "thanotechnology" in the following decade and hated throughout the world. Biotech companies active in biotechnology pharmaceutical quickly moved on Agriculture, has obtained patents on seeds, the purchase of small seed companies, destroying their stocks of seeds and the replacement of same with GE seeds. Over the past ten years many companies have obtained the monopoly control over those seeds all over the world, such as soybean, corn and cotton (used in food through the oil cotton seed). As a result, almost 2 / 3. of these processed foods showed some GM ingredient in them.
However, even without labelings, the issue of U.S. consumers were aware of these pervasive food biotech firms. Immediately knew that the company aware of the city kept away from genetically modified foods and are organized in order to persuade the regulators not to require such labelings. Somewhat surprisingly bureaucratic risk assessors in the United States turned a blind eye towards the sick reasons of bio-technology.
The point of interest
All changes are based on genetic recombinant DNA technology. The current company is facing unprecedented problems not only in the history of science, but of all life on earth. The technology enables GE-profit biotech companies the capacity to redesign living organisms, products of three billion years of evolution. In the words of Dr. George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Medicine (1967), Higgins, professor Biology at the University of Harvard, "potentially could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer and new epidemics."
Record
In 1989, dozens of Americans died and more than several thousand have been affected and reduced due to the ingestion of a genetically modified food L - tryptophan. A solution of $ 2 billion was paid by Showa Denko, Japan 3rd. largest Chemical Company (and gleich Mayen, 1994)
In 1996, Pioneer Hi-Bred spliced Brazil nut gene into soybeans. Some people are allergic to nut this way of going into apoplectic shock that can cause death. Animal testing confirmed the danger and the product was immediately withdrawn from the market before any fatalities occurred. In the words of Marion Nestle, Nutrition Hod, New York University, "The next case could be less than ideal and the public less fortunate."
In 1994, U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Monsanto's r-BGH, a GE growth hormone, injecting for dairy cows to increase their milk yield despite experts warning that the resulting increase of IGF-1, a potent hormone chemical linked to 400 - 500% higher risk of human breast cancer, colon cancer and prostrate. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Chicago, "which induce malignant transformation of human breast epithelial cells. "Studies on rats have confirmed the suspicion and showed damage to internal organs with r-BGH ingestione. Even its FDA evidence spleen showed an increase in mass by 46%, a state that is a prelude to 'leukemia'. The argument that the substance is affected by pasteurization canceled 2 of Monsanto's scientists, and Ted Elasser Brian Mc Bride who found only 19% of the hormone to have destroyed after 30 minutes of boiling (pasteurization it only takes 30 seconds). In spite of Canada, European Union, Australia, New Zealand and the United Nations Codex Alimentarius Commission, the refusal to endorse the GE hormone, the same is freely marketed in the United States by Monsanto. It was discovered that holds 2 U.S. bureaucrats, Margaret Miller and Michael Taylor in the U.S. FDA that helped Monsanto r-BGH pass the risk factor in the barrier had already Monsanto employees.
Many other GM products approved by U.S. FDA involve herbicides which are commonly known as' cancer ', that is to say -' bromoxiny'l used on BT. Cotton, Monsanto's' round-up 'or glufosinate used GM soya, maize and rapeseed. Sharyn Martin, a researcher, has argued that a number of autoimmune diseases are enhanced by foreign DNA fragments that are provided with food GM, which are not fully digested in the human stomach and intestine. These fragments of DNA absorbed into the blood stream by mixing with normal recombination DNA and, therefore, unpredictable. These DNA fragments were found to be in GM soy and other GM products on the market.
The fear factor
Professor Joe Cummins, Professor Emeritus of Genetics, University of Western Ontario said, 'Virus-resistant crops are becoming the starting point for biotech industries. These crops bring foreign virus genes that are genetically engineered to make the plants resistant to virus attacks. Most fruits, vegetables and baby food in the United States are in this category. Lab experiments have shown that 'viral genes in GE foods potentially give rise to new virus - that the deadlier virus that crops are protected ', Which is rather alarming.
In 1986, it was reported that GE TMV genes of plants that have delayed the development of the disease and this report has opened the door to the creation of flood resistance to a wide range of other viruses. But the fact is that the production of viral coat protein in GE crops do not block the virus entering the cell instead of the transgene plant is exposed to the nucleic acids of many viruses that are brought to the attention of the plants from insect vectors. A series of studies the results are there to prove that plant viruses can acquire a number of viral genes from GE plants through recombination.
For example --
* Red Color defective mosaic virus lacking the gene allows you to move from cell to cell and, consequently, is not infectious, but recombined with a copy of this gene in GE Nicotine benthamiana plants regenerated infectious RCMVirus.
* GE Brassica napus from a virus that lack the gene, and
new products in all the GE plant virus infection.
* N. benthamiana expressing a segment of Cowpea chlorotic mottle virus (CCMV) coat protein gene recombined more frequently with the genetic defect of the virus is lacking.
* N. benthamiana was transformed with 3 different constructs containing coat protein coding sequence of African Cassava Mosaic Virus (ACMV). The inoculated plants were transformed with a coat protein deletion mutant of ACMV that induces mild systemic symptoms in control plants. Many of these plants inoculated the transgenic lines developed severe systemic symptoms typical of ACMV confirm recombination had occurred between mutant viral DNA and the integrated DNA construct, with the subsequent production of progeny virus recombined with 'wild type' virulency.
The CaMV recombination, when and where?
CaMV 35 s promoter gene, the sequence is a ubiquitous virus in all transgenic (GM) plants that are already on the trade on the market or undergoing field trials. This gene is necessary to plant genetically modified by all the producers, because the production unit messages from the genes inserted gene to provide tolerance to herbicides, insect resistance, resistance to antibiotics and a host of other features considered to improve the quality crop plants. In the absence of the 'promoter of the gene', the 'gene inserted' remains inactive while its presence in the work of genes is maintained at a high level in all tissues of the plant, regardless of changing environmental conditions that dramatically affect the activity of 'promoters' native for the cultivation of plants.
The 2 events that have occurred in 1999 caused Professor Cummins and other independent scientists to draw global attention these alarming scientific industrial diseases which can have disastrous consequences. In fact Professor Cummins in 1994 had questioned the environmental safety of the release of 35 s through the CaMV promoter gene genetically modified plants. Experimental evidence available indicated that the frequency of recombination of CaMV 35 s promoter gene was much higher than those of other viruses. When recombinant CCMV was recovered from 3% of transgenic N. benthamiana containing CCMV sequences, recombinant CaMV was recovered from 36% of N. begelovii transgenic.
Event -1. Scientists at the John Innes Research Institute published a document showing that the CaMV 35 s promoter has a recombination 'hot spots' which means it is susceptible to breakage and re with other pieces of genetic material, may be of other viruses.
Event -- 2nd Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a senior scientist working in the UK Govt. funded Rowett Institute in Scotland was dismissed from his job because he revealed the results experiments suggest that feeding transgenic potatoes are at risk. The laboratory. Rats fed with genetically modified foods has shown an increase in lymphocyte indicating damage to the bowel lining the intestinal non-specific viral infections.
Scientists Mae-Wan Ho Ryan Angel and has published a paper in October 1999 issue of the Journal of Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease warning that the CaMV 35 s promoter is interchangeable with promoters of other animal and plant viruses and is promiscuous and functions efficiently in all plants, green algae, yeast and E. coli. Its recombination hot spot is flanked by a variety of reasons and is similar to other recombination hot spots such as the T-DNA of Agrobacterium vector, the gene most commonly used in making transgenic plants. They also claimed to have demonstrated laboratory. recombination between viral transgenes and infecting virus.
In an article published in the online journal of European Food Research and Technology (2006) Authors (Marit R. Myhre, et. Al) has claimed to have constructed expression vectors CaMV 35 s promoter inserted in front of 2 'reporter gene' encoding firefly luciferase and green fluorescent protein (GFP), respectively, and transient transfection experiments in human enterocytes - like cell line, CaCO - 2 and found that 35 s CaMV promoter driving the gene expression of both 'Reporter genes' at significant levels.
Super virus
Viral promoter genes as CaMV 35 s can mix with other genes, viruses, bacteria and others, including those of retroviruses such as HIV and hepatitis B. CaMV is in itself a retrovirus. With retro transposons available on all the genomes of plants (which are mobile in nature) and a myriad of viruses together with CaMV 35 s promoter, the possibility of super virus origin is quite certain.
In a Canadian study, a plant infected with a virus of cucumber mosaic lame (CuMV) that lacked a gene needed for movement between cells of the plant, the crippled CuMV became active in less than 2 weeks - a test of gene mixing, after acquiring the necessary activator from the surrounding environment - a test of 'horizontal gene transfer'.
The Protocol on Biosafety signed internationally by most independent nations in Montreal in January 2000 will be of no use if things continue to move in this direction.
Threat to antibiotics through plants
Much of the genetic system uses a 'cookie' to track where the gene goes into the cell. Plants of corn genetically modified to use a gene resistant to ampicillin. The British Royal Society has called for the banning of this marker is likely that an essential element of antibiotic use.
Resurgence of infectious diseases
'Microbial Ecology in Health and Diseases' Journal reported in 1998 that GM food crops can cause resurgence of infectious diseases. It cited the cases of resistance to antibiotics, the formation of new and unknown viral strains, the lowering of body immunity through altered food etc. the drastic consequences of bio-engineering with the genes. E 'also indicated the occurrence of horizontal gene transfer between transgenic DNA from bacteria. It cited the cases of bacteria in the mouth, pharynx and intestines start transgenic (viral) DNA in domestic animals through food that can be easily transferred to humans through their milk and meat.
Increase food allergies
The loss of biodiversity in our food supply is grown in parallel with the increase of food allergies. Mass studies indicate that our body and cells of the immune system seems over-reject 'the homogeneity of our
food '. Monsanto its analysis of glyphosate-resistant soya showed GM line contains 28% more Kuniz - trypsin inhibitor, a known inhibitor allergens and nutrients.
Lowered Nutrition
A study by Dr. Marc. Lappe, 1999 and published in the 'Official of Medicinal Food 'demonstrated that genetically modified foods have lower levels of nutrients - especially' plant estrogen 'compounds that protect the body from heart disease and cancer. A study on the consumption of GM Vita Faba, a soy bean family, caused increased levels of estrogen. This is worrying, since the same is used in baby food. Dairy cows injected with r-BGH (a GE growth hormone), contains substantially higher levels of pus, bacteria and adipose cells.
Unnatural food
Sometimes back, Monsanto announced that it had found 'unexpected gene fragments' in their' Round-Up Ready ' soybean. It is a well known fact that proteins modified to all outputs GE foods, proteins not before ingested by humanity. FDAs' own microbiologist Dr. Louis J. Pribyl had warned in 1992 that pleiotropic (accidental and / or not) there will be no effects of GE plants at frequencies exceeding 30% of known and unknown toxic with undesirable alterations in the levels of nutrients that farmers could escape notice. FDA's biotechnologist James Marayanski also warned about the lack of consensus among scientists of the FDA regarding the 'identity' of genetically modified foods compared with foods not genetically modified.
Environmental Impact
Genetic modifications have been investigated in crops to increase production and reduce the use of toxic agro-chemicals. But nothing
could be further from the truth. Professor David Ehrenfield, Professor of Biology, Rutgers University has rightly said, "What has emerged in recent ten years-GE crops have increased sales of chemicals and production of nutrients lacking dangerous food. "Ontario (U.S.) Govt. study also demonstrated that the use of herbicides is increasing in large part due to the cultivation of GM crops.
Soil toxicity
All GM plants are designed to resist all types of toxins such as herbicides and pesticides etc., and these chemicals are sold by the same biotech companies that have developed GE crops, as if to promote their sales of agrochemicals. Scientists as Golburg RJ planned long ago that GM crops will triple the sales of chemical products toxic and over the years has been found to be correct. According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, "Monsanto's chemical spray 'Round-out' (a herbicide) already threatens 74 endangered species in the United States. And the attacks of other plants' photosynthetic activity. "Malcolm Kane (former head of security Sainsbury's food chain super markets) has revealed that the U.S. Govt. to accommodate Monsanto, raised pesticide residue limits in food as 6 ppm to 20 ppm. According to a study published by the University of California, glyphosphate (the active ingredient of the 'round-up') was the main 3rd cause of agricultural workers' disease. At least 14 people died swallowed 'round-up'. "
-Sterility of the soil and pollution
In Oregon, scientists have discovered that the genetically modified bacterium, Klebsiella planticola, designed for the distribution and agricultural waste to produce ethanol and the component residual waste material as compost - rendered the soil sterile. E 'eliminate essential nutrients of the soil, such as nitrogen and nitrogen capture killed fungi. A similar result was found with genetically altered bacteria, Rhizobium melitoli. Professor Guenther Stotzky of New York University have discovered that it has eliminated toxins Monarch butterflies have been issued by the roots of GM plants and polluted the soil, which lasted up to 18 months and depressed microbial activity of soil. The Oregon study also showed that GM soil microbes killed wheat plants in the laboratory. when added to the ground.
Loss of seed sovereignty
Un po 'di Now back to the United States' Time' magazine referred to the massive trend by large multinational seed buying up small seed companies, destroying their varieties and replacing them with their genetically modified seeds control and patented brands as' the death of birth '. The genetically modified seed companies also have the farmers not to sign contracts to save their seeds - forfeiting their rights over seeds.
Super weeds
E 'was shown that GM Bt endotoxins remain active in soil for up to 18 months (Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey) and can be transported to wild plants creating super weeds that are resistant to parasites - thus offsetting the balance of nature. Studies in the United Kingdom (National Institute of Agricultural Botany) and Denmark (Mikkelsen, 1996) revealed the growth of weeds super close in a single generation. U.S. and UK, Studies have shown that even the super weeds are resistant to glufosinate (herbicide). Another American study showed 20 times more genetic with genetically modified plants losses through horizontal gene transfer. A French study has shown that GM canola could transfer genes of wild radish. According to a 'new science', a farmer in Alberta, Canada, between 1997 and 1999 years planted fields with 3 different seeds of genetically modified oilseed rape for the production of 3 different mutant weeds that were resistant to Monsanto's' Round-up ', Cyanamid's' Pursuit' and having the 'Liberty', the patented herbicides.
GE super trees, the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem collapse
GE super trees are being developed that can withstand high doses of spray herbicides from the air to kill all surrounding life with the exception of GE trees. These trees are mostly flowering and sterile. Monsanto's super trees also exude chemicals toxic to kill not only its leaves, but all visiting caterpillars insect life. In 2002 China planted millions of 'poplar' super trees to combat deforestation, the creation of monoculture forests. These trees oozing flowerless toxin ultimately eliminate all flying insects (including bees and butterflies) to reduce the insect in the world only booklice and earwigs. His plantation in nature not only lead to collapse of the forest ecosystem consisting of fungi, insects, earthworms, birds and mammals, but also because of contamination Genetic intensity through the gene flow of transgenes in the wild and impair human and animal health. The case study reported that transgene flow and introgression transgene from the wild cultivar (JR Reichman and LS Watrud, Molecular Ecology, 2006) may be cited, which established the existence of transgenic plants in the wild in Oregon, United States of America. The case involved glyphosate - resistant 'creeping bent grass' (Agrostis stolonifera L.) plants expressing CP4 EPSPS gene from Agrobacterium spp. Strain CP4, which confers resistance to glyphosate, transgenes has not been found in agricultural habitats outside the experimental test plots in central Oregon study.
Super Pest
Lab tests indicate that the cotton bollworms, a common plant pest is resistant to Bt spray. The stink bug outbreak reported from North Carolina and Georgia is suspected of being connected to the GE plant, loved by the plague. GE company Monsanto has recommended a chemical spray clashes, 'Methyl parathion' for control of pests. Transgenic Bt cotton and other non-GE crops in the United States, India and elsewhere, mainly because of the plague, over their problems and expectations of desired output failures. Bt Cotton is designed to kill pests such as the American bollworms, pink bollworms and nascere worms, but in the end to eliminate these pests' natural predators and turned into these super parasite parasites.
Killing beneficial insects
Several studies have shown that genetically modified products kill beneficial insects, as the Monarch butterfly larvae (Cornell, 1999). Bt Crops killed Lace wings that are the natural predators of the cotton worm. Bees are killed when the animal feed proteins in GM canola flowers and Bt. Cotton flowers.
Poisonous to mammals
GM potato, with DNA spliced from Snowdrop plant with the viral promoter (CaMV 35 s) is found to be poisonous to mammals (like rats) to damage vital organs and their immune system. Scientist have since requested that all products using genetically modified CaMV - 35 s with the promoter of the gene to be taken from commercial production.
Genetic pollution
Some GM crops are flowerless but not all. GM pollen transported by wind, rain, birds, bees and other insects, fungi and bacteria causesevere genetic pollution. Pollen from GM canola, rapeseed and GE Bt. cotton can move several hundred meters and does not pollute the genetically modified varieties as well as wild varieties also the barriers between species that cause horizontal gene transfer. Is postulated that ubiquitous promoter CaMV 35 s, and in fact increase
horizontal gene transfer and recombination.
A U.S. study has shown that 50% of berries growing wild straw than 50 meters of straw berry GM GM acquired genes, and another study showed 25-38% of wild sunflowers grown close to GM crops had GM gene markers. Similar studies conducted in Germany compared with GE oilseed rape and Thailand compared to BT. American cotton have confirmed the results.
A study conducted in England demonstrated that a small planting GM contaminated wild honey
This means that bees carried pollen of GM plants and organic
wild, who must show evidence transgenic them.
A new revolution of the 'blue revolution' in the aquaculture sector is growing rapidly in
that fish such as salmon commercial trout and catfish are genetically
modified to grow in size (up to 39 X). This, in turn clean their
cousins in the wild. There is no regulation on the safety of GM and non -
native / wild biodiversity right now.
Decline and destruction of the family and small farm land owners
In the U.S., the population engaged in agriculture was 60% in 1850 and 4% in 1950 and less than 2% today. In In 1935 there were 7 million farms which is now less than 2 million. More or less similar declines have occurred throughout the world. But the fact remains that these firms to conduct family and the small land holders between them produce over 60% of our food. This decline has its roots in the new GATT - WTO regulations. The economic strength and skills laws have been taken away by the new company through agro GATT - WTO-dominated new world order. Promotion of genetically modified products in food is the activity of these companies agro. A large number of varieties of paddy numbering around several thousands have already been lost in India through the two agricultural revolutions. The new world order in May wipe 1.00000 traditional vanilla farmers in Madagascar and the Comoros through GM vanilla, sugarcane lakh other farmers in the Third World through GE fructose. Sudan has long lost its export of gum arabic. A modest estimate puts the figure at least $ 14 billion for synthetic substitutes for primary agricultural products of Third World. There are attempts to grow food in large laboratories to eliminate the need for seeds, soil and plants and also the task of transferring the production of food of farming communities by the GE labs.
The control and dependency
Terminator technology: --
GE seed companies have ensured through legislation that farmers would not be eligible to save and exchange seeds patented. For farmers unable to seed and seed collection of savings, which have developed and introduced technology, widely called 'Terminator technology' to ensure that the seeds are rendered sterile after harvest. These seeds contain 'suicide' genes in both male and female lines. The male sterility is caused by a gene (U.S. patent no. 5,750,867 owned by Aventis) from the bacterium called Bacillus amyloliquefeciens 'barnase' coding for a ribonuclease that makes pollen 'dead' failing pollen from cells undergoing meiosis to halve their chromosomes. Moreover, a pollen-lethal gene is also used in delay, which is expressed in the development of male flowers, pollen in cells after meiosis, which prevents the formation pollen. Sterility female gene (U.S. patent no. 5,633,441 owned by Aventis) is linked to a selectable marker gene with its promoter, so that female sterile plants can be selected. The genes of termination, as well barnase include papain active protein, or the A-fragment of diphtheria toxin, genes for resistance to herbicides used include gene or a gene conferring disease resistance or a gene for glucuronidase GUS, or a gene coding for Bacillus thuringensis (Bt) endotoxin. The main problem associated with the process of use of different genetic constructs is that there is a lot of scrambling of the gene in which they are integrated, and genetic engineering can not control or additions or multiply them that, in turn, increases the uncertainties and unpredictabilities of GM crops. Many of the genes currently being used in crops genetically modified as recombinase and termination lethal genes are harmful to cells including mammalian cells. The recombinase recombination due to non-specific sites causing large-scale genome scrambling (ISIS News 7 / 8). In addition, the synthetic genes and other GM constructs can spread by horizontal gene transfer of alien species, which can not be controlled. This will cause destruction on a large scale biodiversity exists so evolved in nature by the forces of evolution.
Traitor technology: --
This is another bad patented technology to the market issued by the agricultural society that some GM crops have technologically controlled stages of their cycle life - when a leaf, flower and bear fruit, and - under the influence of some chemical activation. Thus, an employer is forced to use these substances chemical if he / she is to get a crop, thus forcing him / her to deeper levels of economic dependence or debit card.
Less diversity, the quality, quantity and profit
The most misleading hopes raised by GM technology companies is that only genetically modified crops to solve the hunger of world. Worldwide studies have shown beyond doubt that the monoculture of any culture anywhere is always less yields per hectare as compaired to polyculture of various crops - Different seeds interplanted between rows, on the floor or in different patches within the same area. In a study of the 8200 field trials, round up ready soybean bushels of fewer of products of non-genetically modified soybean cousin (Charles Benbrook, former Director, Council of Agriculture, National Academy of Sciences). The average yield for soybeans are not genetically modified was 51.21 bushels per acre, for GM varieties was 49.26. This was confirmed in a study at the University of Nebraska Institute of Agricultural Resources. Monsanto 5 different strains of soya was planted in 4 different locations of various soil environments. Dr. Elmore noted that, on average, more expensive seed genetically change produced 6% less than non-GM varieties and 11% less than conventional yield good crops. Although the yield was higher (in some Bt cotton field study in the United States.) The cost of seeds and fertilizers used reduced net profit in order to reduce substantially out of the cost-benefit analysis (B: C) further report. In agronomy, the cost-effectiveness is the important factor is that all the farmer sustainability. A drop B: C ratio indicates a decrease in the farmer's economy, he is not all that useful and that he can not continue long in that the agricultural sector.
Fragility Agriculture of the future: --
Loss of biodiversity makes fragile agro farming. The case of Irish potato famine of 1840 is a prime example of the importance of diversity crop factor. When the Irish farmers cultivated varieties, Peruvian farmers have thousands of varieties and diversity of resources for the continued blight resistance in potato cultivation. Over the past had a similar situation arose in Russia, where a virulent strain - potato late blight - Russia threatened the crops potatoes, in principle have the capacity to withstand the harsh Russian winter. Citrus blight cancer threatened Florida's $ 8.5 billion citrus industry in 2000. Plants coca, mono cropped and almost all identical, are also in danger from an international blight. Thus the destruction rather than the conservation of crop diversity seed stock company GM agro create a very dangerous situation and the future of extremely fragile.
Most pesticides and reduced yield: --
Contrary to the assertions of senior field studies show that GM business of best farming techniques - using rich natural resources can always better to produce resistant crops with higher yields and greater B: C compared to the reports of GM crops. GM crops, over the years, asked 2-5 times more pounds of biocides per hectare of GM crop varieties, and this does not lead to environmental deterioration wings.
Economic, political and social factor
Monopolization of food production: --
There are about 1500 companies in the seed worlds, but about a dozen of these control 50% of global market commercial seed. Large seed companies are buying smaller seed companies and using their faith clandestinely market. By the year 2000, 5 companies controlled 40% of the market for soybean seeds, 3 companies controlled 90% of the market for maize seed, and 2 companies controlled 75% of the market for cotton seed and then the decrease in the number of companies and monopolistic control of the growing market. Competing against new GATT / WTO not only the number of families are falling sharply, but the net annual farm income. Average annual income of small family farms in the United States / Europe have plummeted in the past ten years of rendering for families live below poverty level.
Impact of food dependency: --
When food production is monopolized, the future of its offer is dependent on the decisions of a few companies and their actual stock of seed. The diversity of crops is declining - lost in the developed world and is being in third world countries with the exception of some pockets - like potatoes and Peruvian Indian rice varieties, all in the third world. Food scientists indicate that if these indigenous territories are further disturbed by the biotech advances, the long term viability of the entire world food supply will be lost forever.
Companies and leading them Agro Biotech & Agribusiness, 1999.
Total Corporations
Seed Sales Food Sales
Production Ranking (overall) Agro --
Chemical Sales Ranking (overall) pharmaceutical
Sales (their
Original activity.) Research &
Investment in the development
A. 'Life Science' of the group (mainly involved in genetic modification of crop
plants)
Aventis $ 20.5 billion to $ 4.6 billion n / a 1 $ 13.9 billion $ 3 billion
Novartis
(Syngenta) $ 20.3 $ 4.4 billion 3 2 billion $ 9.8 billion $ 2.2 billion
Monsanto (98) $ 8.6 billion to $ 4 billion 2 3 $ 2.8 billion $ 1.3 billion
Astra Zeneca
(Syngenta) $ 18.4 billion to $ 2.7 billion 6 $ 5 $ 14.8 billion 2.9 billion
B. 'industrial science' of the group (mainly involved in the production of various
agrochemicals)
Bayer $ 27 billion of $ 3.1 billion n / a $ 6 5 billion $ 2.1 billion
DuPont $ 26.9 billion to $ 3 billion 1 4 $ 1.6 billion $ 1.6 billion
Dow $ 18.9 billion of $ 2.3 billion 8 ------ ------ $ 0.85 billion
BASF $ 29.5 billion to $ 1.7 billion ------ 9 $ 2.5 billion $ 1.3 billion
Biocolonisation: --
Colonization was passed through the technologically superior armies. But the new weapon in the hands of a few superpowers is organic and one that is the seed genetically modified. When a person loses the food gets entangled in the food addiction. This is why Indian farmers reporting 5.00000 staged a protest against the new GATT in 1993 and are now against the genetically modified seeds, agro products GM. Recently, the community has launched the Slow movement Food that is fast growing into a global movement aimed at significantly reducing GM crops and save the decline of biodiversity and
indigenous knowledge on farming techniques, biodiversity in organic basis.
Dependence and slavery: --
The new regulations that have crossed the world new orders, GATT - WTO etc, the autonomy of local economies, may be totally ignored. Foreign companies can buy and own all the local businesses, seeds, water, land and natural resources, conversion to exported cash, thus pushing the local economies of dependency and slavery.
Where does that lead to the future?
Long ago the philosopher Descartes postulated that space can be universally
or infinitely separated. Not long ago he created Einstein's famous formula E = mc2, which has 2 led to the death of the Japanese city that eventually led to the 2nd World War. Now is the time of genetic engineering or gene splicing, the recombinant DNA technology, introduction of DNA - markers and promoters - genetic modification of all forms of life - not for the improvement of mankind, but thanotechnology for using the money to do evil. Global sense prevailed to destroy or limit the nuclear weapons, once the property of the 2 super powers. But the madness is spreading quickly in the form of recombinant DNA technology Programs in the living world threatens its existence. This is a Cartesian approach in a different form?
It 'better to be safe than sorry?
In response to the rapid evolution of genetic engineering and its
Application forms of life, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was negotiated and entered into force starting in September 2003. The protocol
establishing a system governing the international movement of genetically modified organisms with the
designed to protect the global biodiversity from the adverse effects of GMOs. The
WTO covers only trade in GMOs, and has a different purpose namely, to prevent
restrictions on free movement of GMOs. Therefore, the protocol, in a sense
clash with the WTO. Therefore, the harmonization of these agreements is highly
desirable. The suggestion is that the protocol for use with the WTO
evidence of internationally accepted standards on GMOs. But it is
unlikely that the WTO would accept such a proposal. Is there a solution?
By 1999, about 28 million hectares were under GE crop plantations around the world under the claim that they were parasites, disease resistant and provide enough food to end world hunger.
The other view is that these crops have been issued without sufficient evidence and questioned their long-term safety with respect to human beings and the environment.
Governments the world were in dilemma, to enable or not permit, a decision most likely heavily influenced by bureaucrats in view of the lack of an adequate scientific consensus on the issue of threat to the world biological.
On the basis of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Cartagena Protocol, which entered into force with effect from 11 September 2003 introduced a system that dealt with the international movement of all living modified organisms (LMOs), including GMOs and other organisms created through the fusion of cells different taxonomic groups - in accordance with the precautionary principles.
The Protocol applies to 2 categories of LMOs: --
1. LMOs intended for release environment, such as fish, plants and
seeds, etc. covered by the operational sections.
2nd LMOs intended for use in food or feed or for processing, such as corn flakes,
soy milk etc.
All LMOs which are pharmaceuticals for humans are excluded from the protocol,
which was contested by the Union European members of the U.S. veto, but this objection.
Under the Protocol, trade in LMOs not party (eg the U.S.) must be made in the same way with the parties.
Articles 7-12 of the Protocol, the advance informed agreement (AIA) has described as required by its backbone of an exporting country to obtain the consent of the importing country before shipping LMOs life for the first time since its national information authorities. The importing country must acknowledge receipt of the notification and decide whether to accept the shipment within a certain period of time. Under the protocol, a risk assessment must be carried out for all decisions on acceptance of LMO shipments. A party may accept the shipment, with certain conditions, prohibit the import or require additional information from the exporter. Moreover, The Protocol establishes a Biosafety Clearing House, "on which the importing country must announce its decision on the import of a particular within LMO 270 days from the date of original notification. However, under the Protocol no notification does not imply consent.
The United States, although not party to the Protocol have exerted a significant influence on the scope of the Protocol, participating in the negotiations. His intentions are to ensure that the protocol had little effect as possible, to protect the U.S. biotechnology industry. The primary objective of the United States has been to make the protocol subject to rules so that international trade of GMOs would not be disrupted.
Resulting from the participation of the United States, 135 member countries, it soon became divided into 2 groups ie. "Like Minded Group" most developing countries, except Argentina, Chile and Uruguay and "Miami Group" consisting of GMOs.
The United States has continually sought to have the problem of trade in GMOs is shifted to the WTO's mandate. Only the lack of support from the has forced the WTO to address the decline in the issue of GMOs, which in turn, lent greater weight to the protocol.
Under U.S. insistence on draft protocol included a 'savings clause' in the 'whereas' not in the' device 'and the United States, with reference to 2nd and 3rd paragraph ignoring the Treaty states that do not alter the rights and obligations of governments under the WTO rules.
Any conflict between the Protocol and the WTO might be more likely under the WTO dispute panel, while the settlement of disputes has not signed the environmental agreement (such as the United States). For example, if India, in a manner consistent with the protocol prohibited the import of certain GMOs from the United States, the United States may take the conflict for WTO dispute panel, said that India had violated the rules and in this case the result can also be provided by the Dispute body only role is to to interpret the WTO Agreement and the Protocol.
So the question - It 's better to be safe than sorry? And the answer is, 'sorry, maybe it's too late '. We are halfway through globalization. We have already decided our fate with the laws and policy decisions which may not may return. Yet we have enough biodiversity that we must support no matter how and at what cost.
- June 30th