Saturday, July 2, 2016
Brazil Has Now Refused All Imports of U.S. Grown GMO Crops
This highlights the steadily increasing movement to push GMO crops out of the food chain. My central question today is to ask why long term studies supporting the use of GMOs in human and animal foods are not been trotted out?
Rather obviously the scientists cannot produce positive results. They have now had ample time.
Instead we continue to get piece meal results as if this technology had been invented recently, all the better to obfuscate with.
The only long term study had horrible results and it remains the only one. Read the second item for the details.
Brazil Has Now Refused All Imports of U.S. Grown GMO Crops
June 17, 2016
Christina Sarich, Guest
Brazil — The list of countries refusing Monsanto’s genetically-modified crops continues to grow. Highlighting the world divide on the issue, Brazil recently refused all U.S.-grown GM crops. While we are continually force-fed genetically modified foods — since they are in approximately 80 percent of all packaged, conventional foods in grocery stores in America — other countries are refusing to import them, grow them, or sell them within their borders.
As more nations pass laws that impose trade regulations on genetically modified goods, despite World Trade Organization back room deals, Monsanto and their cut-outs opt for ever-more devious strategies to insinuate their wares onto the world.
Despite this, as a Bloomberg article points out, “In recent years, some of the largest commodity trading companies have refused to take certain GMO crops from farmers because the seeds used hadn’t received a full array of global approvals, something that can lead to holdups at ports or even the rejection of entire cargoes.”
For example, Brazil.
In this instance, it is Brazil’s chicken farmers who won’t feed their birds GM corn; but there are other countries opting out of GM crops, too.
Ironically, Brazil is the the second largest producer of GM crops in the world after the U.S., and grows 29 varieties of GM corn, so they are likely pulling rank for trade rather than hoping to save their population’s health — but at least the chicken farmers see the detriment from using GM corn.
This doesn’t mean that a resistance in Brazil isn’t growing as well. Female Members of the Landless Worker’s Movement (MST) broke into a São Paulo State lab and destroyed millions of samples of GM prototypes not long ago that contained a carcinogenic pesticide.
There is a good reason for banning GM crops, even if they are only meant for livestock to consume. A new Seralini study says that the very first GM crop, introduced way back in 1996, was highly toxic to farm animals over the long-term.
Seralini highlights problems such as “partial paralysis (paresis) accompanied by great fatigue, and problems in the kidneys and mucosal membranes in the animals, followed by death in 10% of cases,”all from feeding the animals GM crops like corn, soy, and alfalfa. Not surprisingly, he finds that GM maize (like Monsanto’s highly touted Bt variety) are the most toxic of all.
You can imagine what we’ve done to these animals’ health since the 1990s — and to ourselves in the years that have followed.
Fortunately, Brazil’s farmers join a growing, international resistance against cultivating GM seed. Russia recently banned all U.S. corn and soy imports due to possible GM contamination. Nineteen additional countries in the E.U. also banned all GM crops, and dozens more have banned GM crops for import or growth in their country.
A unique new study led by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini has shown that the first genetically-modified GM crop commercialized for animal feed, Bt176 from Novartis (now Syngenta), was toxic to cows over the long-term.
The first GM maize to be commercialized for animal feed, Bt176 from Novartis (subsequently Syngenta), caused various controversies, beginning in 1996. Grown on a few thousand hectares, it was quickly withdrawn from the market.
An antibiotic resistance marker gene was used in the genetic transformation, and the plant produced a new modified insecticide like all Bt plants. Yet only one nutritional test was conducted by Novartis on four cows for two weeks; one cow died after a week without scientific explanation.
Around this time (1998-2007), Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini had access to the industry dossier on Bt176 as an expert for the French government within the Biomolecular Engineering Commission. Together with CRIIGEN, he had already denounced the crucial lack of long-term tests.
Meanwhile, Gottfried Glöckner, an experienced farmer who had won an award for the high productivity of his dairy herd in Germany, was working with the GM industry, first to test GMOs for cultivation (1995), and then as the first farmer to feed Bt176 maize silage to his dairy cows (1998-2002).
As it turned out, this was and still remains the longest detailed feeding observation with a GMO. Glöckner’s farm, a recognized model of good practice, was supervised by qualified veterinarians. There had been no cases of serious disease on the farm since Glöckner took it over in 1986.
When partial paralysis (paresis) accompanied by great fatigue, and problems in the kidneys and mucosal membranes arose in the animals, followed by death in 10% of cases, microbial causes were sought.
All kinds of analyses were conducted, including some by university laboratories, in agreement with the German Ministry of Health and Syngenta. The investigations drew a blank. At this time, the dose of GMO Bt maize, which had been progressively introduced, had reached 40% of the diet.
By 2002, the farmer had become convinced that Bt maize was the cause of the diseases. He sued Syngenta and had partial compensation for his losses. But he subsequently suffered legal and personal setbacks, as reported in a short commentary [Séralini, SJAS, 2016].
After all these court cases ended, Prof Séralini gained access to veterinary records and to very complete archived data for each cow, as well as to the testimony of the farmer, who holds a Master’s degree in Agricultural Sciences. For the first time ever, an analysis of these data has been published.
The analysis, by Prof Séralini and the farmer, Gottfried Glöckner, appears in the peer-reviewed Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Sciences [Glöckner & Séralini, SJAS, 2016]. http://scholarly-journals.com/sjas/archive/2016/January/toc.htm
New scientific data on Bt toxins and a thorough study of the records show that this GMO Bt maize is most probably toxic over the long term.
This study reveals once again the urgent need for specific labelling of the identity and quantity of GMOs, especially in food and feed. Long-term testing of GM food and the pesticides they are designed to contain must be carried out and made public. This is now more essential than ever.