http://www.siemensjobcam.com/mobile-power-solutions-oregon/
Biotechnology and Environmental Biosafety
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOSAFETY OF ENVIRONMENT
IN THE FIELD OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD PRODUCTION
Dr. Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, Balasore.
Technical question:
genetic modification agricultural seed cotton, soybeans, corn, potato, rice and trees in the forest.
Prologue
The theme that covers all major macabre discussed worldwide today is the invasion of good science, "biotechnology" to virtually every corner of the biosphere and almost turned to the bad science ", thanotechnology 'for each live element of concern and the acceleration of the rate at total annihilation of the biosphere.It all started with a little-known episode in 1980, ie U.S. decision of the Supreme Court in the case vs. Diamond. Chakrabarty, where the U.S. Supreme Court 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 capable ingesting oil from spills of oil. GE ran for a patent in 1971, which became established as life forms are not patentable. GE sued and won. In 1985 the Patent and Trademark Office U.S. Office (PTO) ruled that the sentence Chakrabraty could be further extended to all plants, seeds and plant tissues or the entire plant kingdom.
U.S. WR Grace company was granted 50 U.S. patents in the Indian Neem tree they even patented knowledge Indian medicinal uses of Neem products (since it has been stabilized "biopiracy"). In 1988 awarded the patent on the PTO of the animals to Harvard Teachers, and Timothy A. Philip Lader Stewart, who had created a transgenic mouse with genes of chickens and humans. In 1991, PTO patents granted to the cells human stem and later human genes. Biocyte obtained a European patent on all umbilical cord cells from fetuses and newborns, even without the permission of "donors." European Patent Office (EPO) received applications from Baylor University for the patenting of women who had been altered engineered to produce proteins in their mammary glands GE.
Baylor University is essentially sought monopoly rights over the use of human mammary glands to manufacture pharmaceuticals. Attempts were also made to patent cells of indigenous peoples blood Panama, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea. Within a decade, the "question Chakrabarty 'of the U.S. Supreme Court revolutionized research and development of biotechnology involving microbes to human beings that led him to be classified as "bad science", thanotechnology "in the decade following and hated worldwide. Biotech companies active in biotech pharmaceuticals quickly moved to agriculture, has obtained patents on seeds, purchase of small seed companies, destroying their stocks of seeds and replace it with GM seeds. In the last decade several companies have gained monopoly control over seeds around the world such as soy, corn and cotton (used in processed foods through oil cotton). As a result, almost 2 / 3 rd. of such processed foods showed some GM ingredient in them.
However, even without any labeling, U.S. consumers concerned were aware of such widespread food biotechnology companies. Immediately companies knew that the citizen aware stay away from genetically modified foods and organized to convince regulators to require labeling such. Somewhat surprisingly bureaucratic risk assessors in the U.S. turned a blind eye to the bad motives of the biotech companies.
The point of interest
All genetic modifications are based on recombinant DNA technology. Today's society faces unprecedented challenges not only in the history of science, but of all life on earth. GE's technology allows companies oriented to the benefits of biotechnology capacity to redesign living organisms, products three million years of evolution. In the words of Dr. George Wald, Nobel laureate (1967), Higgins Professor of Biology at Harvard University, "potentially could breed of animal and plant diseases, new, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics. "
In Registry
In 1989, dozens of Americans died and more than several thousand people were affected, and problems due to the ingestion of a genetically modified version of "food supplement L – tryptophan. A $ 2 billion was paid by Showa Denko, Japan 3. largest chemical company (Mayen and Gleich, 1994)
In 1996, Pioneer Hi-Bred spliced Brazil nut gene into soybeans. Some people are so allergic to this nut to go into apoplectic shock that can cause death. Animal tests confirmed the danger and the product was soon withdrawn from the market before there deaths. In the words of Marion Nestle, DOH Nutrition, University of New York ", the following may be less than ideal and the less fortunate. "
In 1994 U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Monsanto's r-BGH, a GE growth hormone to inject dairy cows to increase milk production, although experts warn that the resulting increase in IGF-1, a potent chemical hormone, linked to 400 to 500% higher risk of human breast cancer, prostate and colon cancer. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Chicago "induces the malignant transformation of cells human breast epithelial. "Studies on rats confirmed the suspicion and showed internal organ damage while taking r-BGH. Even the FDA's own tests showed increased mass of the spleen by 46%, a state that is the prelude of "leukemia." The argument that the substance damaged by pasteurization was annulled by 2 Monsanto scientists themselves, Ted and Brian McBride Elasser they found only 19% of the hormone are destroyed after 30 minutes of cooking (pasteurization takes only 30 seconds.) Although Canada, EU, Australia, New Zealand and even the UN Codex Alimentarius refuse to approve GE hormone, the same is freely traded in U.S. by Monsanto. It was found that 2 U.S. bureaucrats namely, Margaret Miller and Michael Taylor in the U.S. FDA Monsanto who helped pass the r-BGH barrier factors at risk were, in fact, the early employees of Monsanto.
Several other GM products approved by U.S. FDA involve herbicide commonly known as "carcinogenic", namely: – "bromoxiny'l used in Bt cotton and Monsanto turns up 'or glufosinate used in modified soya, maize and canola. Sharyn Martin, a researcher, has opined that a number of autoimmune diseases are enhanced by foreign DNA fragments are with genetically modified foods are not completely digested in the stomach and the human intestine. These fragments of DNA absorbed by the mixture of blood with normal DNA through recombination and therefore unpredictable. These DNA fragments have been found in transgenic soybeans and other GM products available the market.
The fear factor
Professor Joe Cummins, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario said: "The virus-resistant crops are becoming the mainstay of the biotechnology industries. These crops are foreign genes that are genetically engineered virus to empower plant resist virus attacks. Most fruits, vegetables and baby foods marketed in the U.S. are in this category. Laboratory. Experiments have shown that "the viral genes in GE foods can give rise to new virus – the virus more deadly than the crops are being protected," a fact which is quite alarming.
In 1986, it was reported that the plants TMV genes GE having delayed the development of the disease and this report opens the floodgates for resistance to a range of other viruses. But the fact is that the production of viral coat protein in GE crops does not block the virus from entering the plant cell rather than the transgene is exposed to the nucleic acids of many viruses that are brought into the plant by insects. A series of study results are there to show that plant viruses can purchase a variety of viral genes from GE plants across the recombination.
For examples,
* Defective mosaic virus lacks the red color gene that allows you to move from one cell to another and therefore is not infectious, but is recombined with a copy of that gene in Nicotiana benthamiana plants GE regeneration of infectious RCMVirus.
* GE Brassica napus and Nicotiana bigelovii containing "gene-vi", a
translational activator of cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV), which
recombined with the complementary part of a virus lacking this gene, and
producing new infectious virus in all GE plants.
* N. benthamiana expressing a segment of the virus cowpea chlorotic mottle (CCMV) coat protein gene recombined more frequently with the defective virus lacking this gene.
* N. benthamiana was transformed with 3 different buildings containing coat protein coding sequence of the virus African cassava mosaic (ACMV). The transformed plants were inoculated with a removal of coat protein of ACMV mutant that induces mild systemic symptoms in control plants. Several of these inoculated plants of transgenic lines developed systemic symptoms typical of ACMV confirming recombination had occurred between the mutant viral DNA and DNA resulting integrated construction production of progeny virus recombines with 'wild type' virulence.
CaMV Recombination, when and where?
35 gene CaMV s, viral sequence is ubiquitous in all GM (GM) plants that are already commercially released in the market or undergoing field trials. This gene is necessary for all producers of GM plant as it boosts the production of messages gene inserted genes to provide herbicide tolerance, resistance to insects, pests, antibiotic resistance and a series of functions that are considered to improve the commercial quality of the crop plant. In the absence of this gene promoter, "the" inserted gene "Inactive, while in its presence the activity of genes is maintained at a high level in all tissues of the plant, regardless of changing conditions environmental drastically affect the activity of "native promoters of the crop plant.
The 2 events that occurred in 1999 led Professor Cummins and other independent scientists for global attention to these alarming scientific industrial diseases that can have disastrous consequences. In fact Professor Cummins in 1994 had questioned the environmental safety of the release of the CaMV 35 s promoter gene through genetically modified plants. Experimental data available indicate that the frequency of genetic recombination gene CaMV 35 s was much higher than those of other viruses. When recombinant CCMV was recovered from 3% of transgenic sequences containing N. CCMV benthamiana, recombinant CaMV was recovered 36% of transgenic N. begelovii.
Event -1. Scientists from John Innes Research Institute published a paper showing that the CaMV 35 s promoter has a recombination "hot spot" which means it is prone to break and re-associate with other pieces of genetic material resources, may be of other viruses.
Event-2. Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a senior scientist working in the UK Govt. funded Institute Scotland's Rowett was fired from his job because he revealed the results of feeding experiments suggesting that GM potatoes were not secure. Lab. Rats fed GM food showed increased lymphocytes in the lining of the intestines that indicates damage to the intestine of nonspecific viral infection.
The Mae-Wan Ho scientists and Angel Ryan published an article in October 1999, the journal of microbial ecology in health and disease warning that the CaMV 35 s is interchangeable with promoters of other plant and animal virus and is promiscuous and functions efficiently in all plants, green algae, yeast and E. coli. Recombination hot spot is flanked by multiple reasons, and is similar to other recombination hot spots such as the Agrobacterium vector DNA-T, the gene most commonly used others in making transgenic plants. He also claimed to have demonstrated in the laboratory. recombination between viral transgenes and viruses infected.
In an article published in the online journal of the European Food Research and Technology (2006) authors (Marit R. Myhre, et. Al.) Claims to have built vector of expression with the CaMV 35 s promoter inserted in front of 2 "reporter genes" encoding firefly luciferase and green fluorescent protein (GFP) respectively, and performed transient transfection experiments in human enterocyte – like cell line Caco – 2 and found that 35 genes CaMV s unit expressions of the two reporter genes "at significant levels.
Super virus
CaMV viral promoter genes as 35 s can be mixed with other genes, viruses, bacteria and others including retroviruses such as HIV and hepatitis B. CaMV itself is a retrovirus para. With retro transposons available in all genomes of plants (which are mobile in nature) and a number of viruses together with CaMV 35 s promoter, the possibility of super virus origin is very true.
In a Canadian study, a plant infected with a cucumber mosaic virus Disabled (CuMV) that lacked a gene needed for movement between plant cells, the crippled CuMV is activated in less than 2 weeks – Evidence of a mixture of genes, which have acquired the much needed trigger around – a test of "horizontal gene transfer."
The international Biosafety Protocol signed by a majority of independent nations in Montreal in January 2000 will be of no use if things continue to move in that direction.
Threat to antibiotics through plants
Much of the genetic implantation uses a marker to track gene in entering the cell. GM maize plants using a gene resistant to ampicillin. The British Royal Society called for a ban of this marker, as it threatens to a vital antibiotic use.
Resurgence of infectious diseases
"The microbial ecology in health and disease," Journal reported in 1998 that genetic modifications in food crops may result in a resurgence of infectious diseases. He cited the cases of antibiotic resistance, training strains of new, unknown viruses, decreased immunity the body through food, etc. dramatically altered as the fallouts of bioengineering with genes. They also pointed to the occurrence of horizontal gene transfer of transgenic DNA among bacteria. He cited the cases of the bacteria in the mouth, pharynx and intestines taking GM (viral) DNA, domestic animals through their food that is easily passed to humans through their milk and meat.
The increase of food allergies
The loss of biodiversity in our food supply has grown in parallel with the increase in food allergies. Mass Studies case indicate that the body's cells and the immune system seems to reject excess' homogeneity of our
food. own analysis of Monsanto soy glyphosate-resistant GM showed the line contains 28% more Kuniz – trypsin inhibitor, a known allergen and inhibitor of nutrients.
The decrease Nutritional
A study by Dr. Marc Lappe in 1999 and published in the Journal of Medicinal Food 'showed that genetically modified foods have lower levels of nutrients – especially composite phyto-estrogens, which protect the body against heart disease and cancer. A study Vita GM consumption Faba, a Jewish family of soybean, caused increased levels of estrogen. This is alarming because it is used in baby foods. The milk from cows injected with r-BGH (a GE growth hormone) contains substantially higher levels of pus, bacteria and fat cells.
Unnatural food
Long ago Monsanto announced it had found "unexpected gene fragments" in its "Round-Up Ready" soybeans. It is well known that the modified proteins do all food outlets GM, proteins never before eaten by mankind. ZPD own microbiologist Dr. Louis J. Pribyl had warned in 1992 that pleiotropic (unwanted and / or uncontrolled) effects occur in GE plants at frequencies exceeding 30% of known and unknown toxic substances, with undesirable changes in the levels of nutrients that may go unnoticed breeders. James Marayanski biotechnologist FDA also warned of the lack of consensus between scientists from the FDA regarding the 'identity' of genetically modified foods compared to non-GM food.
Environmental Impacts
The genetic modifications were sought in crop plants to increase production and reduce consumption of toxic agrochemicals. But nothing
could be further from the truth. Professor David Ehrenfield, Professor of Biology, Rutgers University has rightly said: "What emerged in the last decade of GM crops are increased sales of agrochemicals and production of hazardous food nutrients lacking. " Ontario (U.S.) Govt. study also showed that the use of herbicides on the rise due largely to the cultivation of GM crops.
Soil toxicity
All plants of GM crops are designed to withstand all kinds of toxins such as herbicides and pesticides and chemicals, etc. These are sold by the same companies biotechnology GE crops has developed so as to boost sales of agrochemicals. Scientists like RJ Golburg predicted long ago that GM crops will triple the sale of toxic agrochemicals and during the years that is found to be correct. According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, "product chemical spray Monsanto 'Round-out "(a herbicide), which already threatens 74 endangered species in the U.S.. Attacks other activities of photosynthetic plants ". Malcolm Kane (former Head of Food Safety for Sainsbury's chain of super markets) revealed that the U.S. govt. To accommodate Monsanto, raised the limits Pesticide residues in food as 6 ppm to 20 ppm. According to a study published by the University of California, "glyphosate (active ingredient in 'round-up) was the 3rd leading cause of illness in agricultural workers. At least 14 people were killed by ingestion of 'round-up'. "
Soil-sterility and pollution
In Oregon, the scientists found GM bacterium, Klebsiella planticola, designed to breakdown agriculture waste to produce ethanol and component of residual waste as material for compost – rendered the land barren. Eliminated the essential nutrients such as nitrogen and soil nitrogen capture killed fungi. A similar result was also found with the GM bacteria, Rhizobium melitoli. Professor Guenther Stotzky of New York University found that the same toxins that eliminates Monarch butterflies also were released by the roots of GM plants and contaminated soil for a period of 18 months and soil microbial activity depressed. A study Oregon also showed that GM soil microbes killed wheat plants in the laboratory. when added to the soil.
The loss of the seeds of sovereignty
Some time ago Time 'U.S. the magazine refers to the massive trend of large corporations to buy seed small businesses seed, destruction of seed varieties and replace it with their patented GM seeds and control brands as "death of birth." These GM seed companies also get the farmers sign contracts not to save seeds – lose their sovereign rights to the seeds.
Super Weed
It has been shown that transgenic 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 pests – thus offsetting the balance of nature. Studies in the UK (National Institute of Agricultural Botany) and Denmark (Mikkelsen, 1996) showed the growth of super weeds nearby, in a single generation. U.S. and UK studies also showed that super weeds resistant to glufosinate (A herbicide). Another U.S. study showed 20 times more genetic leakage with genetically modified plants through horizontal gene transfer. A French study showed that GM canola could transfer genes to wild radishes. Under the "new scientists, a farmer in Alberta, Canada between 1997 and 1999 3 fields planted with different GM canola seeds to produce only 3 different mutant weeds were resistant to Monsanto "Round-up ',' Cyanamid Pursuit 'and' holders of Liberty ', all the proprietary herbicides.
GE super trees, biodiversity loss and collapse ecosystem
super GM trees are being developed to withstand high doses of air spray herbicides to kill all those surrounding life except the genetically engineered trees. These trees are blooming and mostly non-sterile. Monsanto super trees still exude chemicals toxic leaves to kill caterpillars not only, but all visiting insects. In 2002, China planted millions of "poplar" super trees to combat deforestation, the establishment of forest monocultures. These trees without flowers toxin exudes end in the elimination of all flights insects (including bees and butterflies) to reduce insect world of books only lice and earwigs. Planting in the wild may not only cause the collapse of the forest ecosystem consisting of fungi insects, earthworms, birds and mammals, but also cause genetic pollution through intensive gene flow of transgenes in the wild and affect human and animal health. We present the case study of transgene flow and introgression of transgenes to grow in the wild Reichman (JR and LS Watrud, ecology molecular, 2006) may be cited which established the existence of transgenic plants in the wild in Oregon, USA. The case relates to glyphosate – resistant "creeping bent grass' (Agrostis stolonifera L.) expressing CP4 EPSPS gene from Agrobacterium spp. Voltage CP4, which confers resistance to the herbicide glyphosate, the transgenes are found in agronomic habitats not outside the experimental test plots in the center of Oregon study.
Super Pest
Laboratory. evidence suggests that the worm Cotton, a common plant pest is becoming resistant to Bt. aerosols. The stench of the epidemic of errors reported from North Carolina and Georgia are suspected of being associated with GE plants, loved by the plague. GE company Monsanto recommended spray of one of the worst chemicals, parathion-methyl to control the pest. Transgenics Bt cotton and other non-GE crops in the U.S., India and elsewhere mainly because of pest problems in addition to their desired and expected production failures. Bt Cotton was designed to kill their pests like worms of America, pink bollworm and bud worms but ended in the destruction of these natural predators of pests and pest turned these super pests.
Killing beneficial insects
Several field studies showed the genetically modified products kill beneficial insects like the Monarch butterfly larvae (Cornell, 1999). The Bt crops killed lacewings that are natural predators of the cotton worms. Bees honey are killed when they feed on proteins in GM canola flowers and BT. Cotton flowers.
Toxic to mammals
GM potatoes, together lengthwise with the DNA of the Snowdrop plant with viral promoter (CaMV 35 s) proved to be poisonous to mammals (like rats) damage your organs vital and immune system. Scientific since have required that all genetically modified products CaMV – 35 gene promoter to be with drawn s production commercial.
Genetic pollution
Some transgenic crops without flowers but not all. GM pollen transported by wind, rain, birds, bees and other insects, fungi and bacteria causesevere genetic contamination. GM canola pollen, GE oilseed rape and BT. Cotton can move hundreds of meters and do not pollute the genetically modified varieties and wild varieties, including the barriers between species that cause horizontal gene transfer. It is postulated the ubiquitous promoter, CaMV 35 s, in fact, improve
horizontal gene transfer and recombination.
A U.S. study showed that 50% of straw berry that grows wild within 50 meters of straw berry GM GM acquired gene markers and another study showed 25-38% of wild sunflowers growing near GM crops, GM gene markers. Similar studies in Germany with respect to the violation of GE seed oil and in Thailand with regard to BT. Cotton have confirmed the findings of America.
A study in England showed that a small planting of GM contaminated wild honey
This means that bees carried pollen on planting GM and organic
wild, which must show the transgenic elements in them.
A new revolution of "blue revolution" in aquaculture is growing rapidly in
that commercial fisheries such as salmon, trout and catfish are genetically
modified to grow rapidly in size (up to 39 X). This, in turn, eliminate their
cousins in the wild. There is no regulation for safety of non-GM and
native biodiversity and wildlife from now.
Reduction and destruction of family farms and small landowners
In the U.S., the population employed in agriculture was 60% in 1850, 4% in 1950 and less than 2% today. In 1935 there were 7 million farms which now stands at less than 2 million dollars. more or less similar decreases have occurred worldwide. But the fact remains that these family farms and owners land among small produce more than 60% of our food. This decline is rooted in the new GATT – WTO rules. The economic strength and legislative powers have been taken by new agricultural enterprises through the GATT – WTO-dominated new world order. Promotion of genetically modified products in food is the business of these agricultural corporations. A large number of indigenous varieties of rice about numbering several thousands have been lost in India through two agricultural revolutions. The new world order can break down traditional 1,00,000 vanilla farmers in Madagascar and the Comoros by vanilla GM; lakh several sugar cane farmers in the Third World by GE fructose. Sudan has long lost its exports of gum arabic. An estimate modestly puts the figure at least $ 14 billion of synthetic substitutes for natural agricultural products in the Third World. There are attempts to produce food in large laboratories eliminating the need for seeds, soil and even plants which moves the task of food production in rural communities to the laboratories of GE.
Control and dependency
Terminator Technology: –
GE seed companies have ensured through legislation that farmers would not be entitled to store and exchanging patented seeds. To leave farmers in the collection of seeds and seed saving, have developed and introduced a technology, in terms of call "Terminator technology to ensure that the seeds become sterile after harvest. These seeds contain" suicide "genes in male and female lines. The male sterility is caused by a gene (U.S. Patent no. 5,750,867 owned by Aventis) of bacteria called Bacillus amyloliquefeciens' barnase "That encodes a ribonuclease that causes the pollen" dead "cells in the absence of pollen meiosis to halve their chromosomes. In addition, a lethal gene Pollen is also used and is expressed late in development of male flowers in the pollen cells after meiosis, which prevents the pollen is formed. The gene female sterility (U.S. Patent no. 5,633,441 owned by Aventis) is related to a selectable marker gene with its own promoter, so that sterile plants female can be selected. Terminator genes, as well as barnase, including papain active protein, or fragment A of diphtheria toxin, gene markers used include herbicide resistance gene or a gene for a disease or pest resistance, for glucuronidase GUS gene or a gene encoding Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) endotoxin. The main problem associated with the process of using different genetic constructs is that there will be a large number of genes that are integrated encryption and genetic engineers it can not control their integrations or multiplications which, in turn, multiplies the uncertainty and unpredictability of GM crops. Many of the genes that are currently used in the production of GM crops as the recombinase and the terminator of the lethal genes are harmful to cells, including mammalian cells. Recombination causes non-specific recombinase in places there because of the large-scale genome assembly (ISIS News 7 / 8). In addition, GM and synthetic genes other constructions can be spread by horizontal gene transfer to unrelated species that can not be controlled. This will cause large scale destruction of biodiversity existing, so evolved in nature by the forces of evolution.
Traitor technology: –
This is another bad patented technology launched by modern agricultural enterprises by which some GM crops are technologically controlled stages of its life cycle – when the leaf, flower and fruit – low the influence of certain triggering chemicals. Therefore, a farmer is forced to use these chemicals if he / she is to give a harvest, that pushes him / her to deeper levels of economic dependence or the debt.
Less diversity, quality, quantity and profits
The most misleading hopes raised by the companies of GM technology is that only GM crops will solve world hunger. Worldwide studies have demonstrated beyond doubt that the monoculture of any culture anywhere has always yields less per acre as compaired polyculture of various crops – Seeds different between the three rows, on the fence or in different patches within the same area. In a study of 8,200 field trials, Roundup Ready soybeans produced fewer bushels of non-GM soy cousin (Charles Benbrook, former Director of the Board of Agriculture, the National Academy of Sciences). The average yield of GM soybeans was not 51.21 bushels per acre, for GM variety was 49.26. This was reconfirmed in a study by the University of Nebraska Institute of Agriculture Resources. 5 different strains of Monsanto soybean was planted in 4 places different soil environments varied. Dr. Elmore found that on average the most expensive genetically modified seeds produced 6% less than non-GM varieties and 11% less than conventional crops good performance. Even when the yield was higher (Bt cotton in some field studies in the U.S..), The cost of seeds and fertilizers used substantially reduced the net profits thus reducing the cost-depleted (B: C) Index over. In agriculture, the cost-benefit the most important factor which means the sustainability of the farmer. A decrease of B: C ratio indicates declining economy of a farmer, he is not making any profit and can not continue for long in such agriculture.
Fragility of agriculture of the future: –
The loss of biodiversity agriculture makes farming fragile. The case of the Irish famine of 1840 is a clear example of the importance of crop diversity factor. When Irish farmers grow some varieties, Peruvian farmers had thousands of varieties and this diversity of resources where the constant of resistance to late blight in potatoes. In recently passed a similar situation occurred in Russia where a more virulent strain late blight – potato late – threatened the Russian potato crop in general with the ability to withstand the harsh Russian winter. citrus blight threatened cancer 8.5 billion U.S. dollars of the Florida citrus industry in 2000. Coca plants, mono cropped and almost identical to everything, also endangered by an international blight. Therefore, the destruction rather than conservation of seed-growing populations of the diversity of GM agro corporations create a very dangerous situation and the future of agriculture very fragile.
More pesticides and diminishing returns: –
Contrary to the height of the companies GM field studies show that the best organic farming techniques – with help from the rich natural resources can always produce better-resistant crops with higher yields and higher B: C ratios that GM crops. transgenic crops over the years, required 2 to 5 times more pounds of biocides per hectare than non-GM crop varieties and this leads to drastic deterioration of the environment.
Economic, political and social factor
Monopolization of food production –
There are approximately 1,500 companies across worlds seed, but about a dozen of these control 50% of global commercial seed market. Large corporations are buying up seed companies smaller seeds and the use of their faith clandestinely market. For 2000, 5 companies controlled 40% of planting soybean market, 3 companies controlled 90% of the corn seed market; 2 companies controlled 75% of the cotton seed market and therefore the company's numbers decrease and monopoly control of the growing market. Competing against the new rules of the GATT-WTO, not only the number of rural families are falling sharply, but net farm income annually. The average annual income of small family farms in the U.S. / Europe plummeted in the past decade providing families are kept at the level poverty.
Impact of food dependency: –
When food production is monopolized, the future of their supply is dependent the decisions of a few companies and their stocks of seeds effectively. The diversity of crops is declining – lost in the developed world and is in the process in countries the third world, except some pockets – like the Peruvian potato and Indian rice varieties, particularly in the Third World. Food scientists indicate that these territories Indians are more concerned with advances in biotechnology, the long-term vitality of all the world's food supply is lost forever.
Main Agro Biotechnology Companies and Agribusiness, 1999.
Total Companies
Agribusiness Sales Seed Sales
Production Ranking (overall) Agro-
Chemical Sales Ranking (overall) Pharmaceuticals
Sales (his
original business.) Research and
Investment Development
Life Sciences 'A' group (primarily involved in the genetic modification of various crops
plants)
Aventis 20.5 billion 4.6 billion U.S. dollars U.S. dollars n / a 1 13.9 billion U.S. dollars 3 billion U.S. dollars
Novartis
(Syngenta) 20.3 billion U.S. dollars $ 4.4 3 2 one billion to 9.8 billion U.S. dollars 2.2 billion U.S. dollars
Monsanto (98) 8.6 billion U.S. dollars 4 billion U.S. dollars 2 3 2.8 billion U.S. dollars 1.3 billion U.S. dollars
Astra Zeneca
(Syngenta) $ 18.4 million of 2.7 billion dollars 6 5 14.8 billion U.S. dollars 2.9 billion U.S. dollars
Industrial Science 'B' of the group (primarily involved in the production of several
agrochemicals)
Bayer 27 billion U.S. dollars 3.1 thousand million dollars n / a 6 5 billion U.S. dollars 2.1 billion U.S. dollars
DuPont 26.9 billion U.S. dollars 3 billion U.S. dollars 1 4 $ 1.6 million of 1.6 billion U.S. dollars
Dow 18.9 billion U.S. dollars 2.3 billion U.S. dollars —— 8 —— 0.85 billion U.S. dollars
BASF 29.5 billion U.S. dollars —— 1.7 billion U.S. dollars 2.5 billion U.S. dollars 9 $ 1.3 billion
Biocolonisation: –
Colonization in the past was through armies technologically superior. However, the new weapon in the hands of a few great powers is a biological concept and that a GM seed. When a person loses food sufficiency that is entangled in food dependency. This is why farmers in India 5,00,000 alert staged a protest against the new GATT in 1993, and now oppose seeds GM, GM agro products. European communities have recently launched the Slow Food movement, which is fast growing into a global movement, primarily designed to stop GM crops and keep the reduction of biodiversity and
indigenous knowledge on farming techniques, agricultural biodiversity organic based.
Dependence and slavery: –
The new regulations have gone through the new world order, the GATT – WTO, etc, autonomy local economies may be completely invalidated. Foreign companies can buy and have all the local businesses, seeds, water, land and natural resources, making export cash, boosting the local economy's dependence and slavery.
Where does the future lead us?
Long ago, philosopher Descartes postulated that space can be universally
or infinitely separated. Not long ago came up with Einstein's famous formula E = mc2, which led to the annihilation 2 Japanese cities brought an end to World War 2. Now is the time of genetic engineering or gene splicing, recombinant DNA technology, the introduction foreign DNA – the promoters and markers – Genetic modification of all life forms – not the betterment of mankind, but using thanotechnology to Bad money. global sense prevailed to destroy or restrict nuclear weapons belonged to the 2 super powers. But the madness is spreading rapidly as technology Recombinant DNA applications in the world who live threatening their existence. Is it a Cartesian approach in a different way?
Is it better to be safe than sorry?
In response to rapid advances in genetic engineering and
Application forms of life, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was negotiated and entered into force from September 2003. Protocol
establishing a regime governing the international movement of genetically modified organisms to
aim to protect global biodiversity from the adverse effects of GMOs. The
The WTO covers only trade in GMOs, is, therefore has a different goal, to avoid
limitations on the free movement of GMOs. Thus, the Protocol in a sense
conflict with the WTO. Therefore, the harmonization of these two agreements is
desirable. The suggestion is that the protocol being used by the WTO as
evidence of internationally accepted standards in relation to GMOs. But is
WTO unlikely to accept the proposal. Is there a solution?
In 1999, about 28 million hectares planted with GE crops worldwide under the claim that were pests, disease resistant and provide enough food to end world hunger.
The other view was that such crops were released without sufficient evidence and questioned its long-term safety with respect to humans and the environment.
World governments were in the dilemma, to allow or not allow, a decision most likely heavily influenced by the bureaucrats in view of the lack of adequate scientific consensus the question of the threat to the biological world.
On the basis of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Cartagena Protocol, which entered into force from September 11, 2003 established a system which deals with international movement of all living modified organisms (LMOs), including GMOs and other bodies created through the fusion of cells from different taxonomic categories – in accordance with the precautionary principle.
The Protocol covers 2 categories of LMOs: –
1. LMOs intended for release into the environment, such as fish, plants and
seeds, etc. for the areas covered operational.
2. LMOs intended for use in food or feed or for processing, such as cereals,
soy milk, etc.
All agencies LMOs that are pharmaceuticals for humans are excluded from the Protocol
which was objected to by the States of the European Union, but the U.S. vetoed this objection.
Under the Protocol, trade in LMOs with non-parties (like the U.S.) should be conducted in the same way as with the parties.
Articles 7 to 12 of the Protocol, progress Agreement (AIA) has described as its backbone requires an exporting country to obtain the consent the importing country before shipping LMOs for the first time living by informing their national authority. The importing country then you must acknowledge receipt of the notification and decide whether to accept the shipment within a period of time. Under the Protocol, a risk assessment should be carried out for all decisions taken regarding the acceptance of shipments of LMOs. A party may accept the transfer under certain conditions, prohibit the import or request additional information from exporter. The Protocol also establishes a "clean Biosafety" house to which the importing country should inform their decision on imports of a particular LMO within 270 days after the original notification. However, under the Protocol to the lack of notification does not imply consent.
U.S. Although not a party to the Protocol had a considerable influence on the scope of the Protocol by the participants in the negotiations. His intention was to ensure that the Protocol had limited effect as possible, in order to protect U.S. industry of biotechnology. The main objective of U.S. was to subordinate the Protocol to WTO rules for international trade of GMOs would not be interrupted.
As a result of the participation of USA, the 135 member countries will soon be divided into 2 groups viz. "Like-Minded Group" in most developing countries, except Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, and "Miami Group", comprising of countries like Australia, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and the U.S., exporting and importing GMOs. Group of Miami for a weak protocol can not stop the international trade of GMOs.
U.S. have continually sought the issue of trade of GMOs passed the mandate of the WTO. Only lack of support from the European Union forced the WTO to address the issue of reduction of GMOs which, in turn, gave more weight the Protocol.
Under U.S. insistence the draft protocol includes a "savings clause" in the "preamble" not the "failure" and the U.S. in relation to paragraph 2 and in disregard of the claims in paragraph 3 of the Treaty does not alter the rights and obligations governments under the WTO rules.
Any conflict between the Protocol and the WTO will most likely referred to the Disputes Panel of the WTO, if a party the dispute has not signed the environmental agreement (such as USA). For example, if India, acting consistently with the Protocol prohibits the importation of certain OMG U.S., U.S. can take the dispute to the WTO panel Disputes alleging that India had violated WTO rules and in this case, the result can If so since the function predicted only the Dispute Settlement Body is to interpret the WTO agreement and not the Protocol.
Therefore, the question – Is it better to be safe than cure? And the answer may be: "Sorry, it may be too late." We are halfway through globalization. We have decided our fate through legislation and policy decisions which perhaps can not turn back. However, we have enough biodiversity we have to hold no matter how and at what cost.
About the Author
Author is an avid natrure analyst,has worked on & written books,research papers and short & large articles on several aspects of the nature such as farming,forest,food and water etc.
Engineered Seals: Trelleborg Sealing Solutions