[Ngo-sanrm] 81 Percent of GM Crops Approved Without Adequate Safety Studies

Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources Management Working Group ngo-sanrm at ngocentre.org.vn
Sun Nov 23 02:53:13 GMT 2014


*Nation of Change*
<http://www.nationofchange.org/2014/11/22/report-81-percent-gm-crops-approved-without-adequate-safety-studies/>
81 Percent of GM Crops Approved Without Adequate Safety Studies [image:
genetic experiment] With all the GM crops approved for planting and
marketing globally, a high percent were not studied for possible health and
environmental safety risks. This is a recipe for disaster.
Published: November 22, 2014
Authors: Christina Sarich
<http://www.nationofchange.org/2014/author/christina-sarich/> | Natural
Society
<http://naturalsociety.com/81-gm-crops-approved-scientific-safety-studies/>
News Report

What's a recipe for environmental mayhem and the destruction of human
health? The approval of genetically modified organisms by governments
worldwide *without any scientific safety studies*. A new study published by
the risk-assessment journal *Environment International *states that *of the
GM crops approved for planting and marketing globally, 81% were not studied
<http://rightbiotech.tumblr.com/post/100437995195/ultimate-experts> for
possible health and environmental safety risks.*

Nevertheless, the biotech industry keeps touting
<http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/biotech-safety-gmo-advantages.aspx>
GMO 'benefits' like a narcissistic madman on steroids. This chest beating
continues - despite *a complete lack of published, peer-reviewed research
supporting the safety of genetically modified organisms*.

The researchers of the risk-assessment
<http://biology.usf.edu/ib/data/flyers/ROHR-PESTICIDE-REGULATION-11-2014.pdf>
study looked at GM crops engineered either for tolerance to the herbicide
glyphosate (Roundup) or engineered to produce pesticides in their tissues
due to the expression of cry1Ab or cry3Bb1 genes. Of all the bioengineering
tricks up Monsanto and Syngenta's sleeves, these are the most commonly used
in commercial GM crops.

A whopping 47 GM crop varieties meet these conditions and have been given
approval by agencies like the USDA, the FDA, and other regulatory bodies
around the world.

When the researchers did a search for peer-reviewed studies on these
crops *prior
to their approval* so that they could tell if the agencies were relying on
published vs. secret, industry-led studies, their findings were indeed
telling.

*The approval of these crops was based entirely on industry-biased data*.

Only 18 peer-reviewed studies could be found which assessed the safety of
any of the 47 GM crops that have been given a rubber stamp, and only 9 of
the 47 crop varieties were studied. This means that the *remaining 38 GMO
varieties* *were approved with zero credible scientific evidence of their
safety.*

This is an incontrovertible piece of evidence that Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta,
Bayer, Cargill, the Grocery Manufacturer's Association, and others have
completely swayed government opinion about GMO safety based on manufactured
to appease 'experts.' Experts who are supposed to assess the possible
toxicity of any food or beverage we consume. This means that GMOs got the
green light without safety assessments by independent scientists. No
government-appointed shills should be making decisions about our food
supply with such little risk assessment conducted.

*The new study does suffer from one major limitation, however*, since it
looked only for published studies involving feeding rats the GM crop
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412014002669> in
question and then monitoring them for health effects. There are obviously
other ways to conduct safety tests, but these were not conducted either.

Furthermore, these companies did indeed test their own crops and hid the
results from regulators, even when they knew their toxic GMO products could
cause serious health risks. The biotech industry has called these
tests a 'commercial
secret
<http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-hides-toxicity-test-results-roundup-calling-commercial-secret/>'
even when they knowingly promote GMOs while they causes harm.

The pesticides and herbicides marketed to go hand-in-hand with GM crop
sales are subject to the same 'scrutiny' as GMO crops themselves. A 2014
study in the journal *BioScience *found that the pesticide-approval process
has been very similar.

*"Risk assessment is compromised when <http://biology.usf.edu/ib/news/>
relatively few studies are used to determine impacts, particularly if most
of the data used in an assessment are produced by a pesticide's
manufacturer, which constitutes a conflict of interest. Although
manufacturers who directly profit from chemical sales should continue to
bear the costs of testing**, this can be accomplished without [conflicts of
interest] by an independent party with no potential for financial gain from
the outcome and with no direct ties to the manufacturer."*




*CHUCK SEARCY*


*Co-Chair, Agent Orange Working GoupM    +8 490 342 0769*

*E     chuckusvn at gmail.com <chuckusvn at gmail.com>*

*Sk   chucksearcy*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://ngocentre.org.vn/pipermail/ngo-sanrm/attachments/20141123/1fb27280/attachment-0010.html 


More information about the Ngo-sanrm mailing list