Fwd: excellent piece by Hector Valenzuela
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Mark Roest
Nov 2, 2013, 8:15:32 PM11/2/13
to
Subject: Fwd: excellent piece by Hector Valenzuela,
Regards,
Mark
Hello All,
From a legal point of view (calling the FDA and USDA on the carpet for consistently violating the laws and regulations under which they ostensibly operate), the forward below from the Sierra Club is pretty close to an air-tight case. Because it is, it could be paired with more graphic, emotional information that shows how the FDA and USDA are blowing it overall, helping to put the nails in the coffin of the FDA's and USDA's credibility. I've attached 2 rather powerful items.
There are some really good people already fighting for the Good in Food. For instance, the people putting on and attending the EcoFarm Conference in January:
EcoFarm Conference - Ecological Farming Association
www.eco-farm.org/programs/efc/
Please join us for the 34th Annual EcoFarm Conference on January 22 through January 25, 2014. Stay tuned for all the details coming soon!
Industrial Agriculture is one of the worst contributors to global warming, and incorporating biochar into the soil is perhaps the best potentially geological-scale way we can pull carbon back out of the atmosphere, if almost everyone gardens and every gardener learns about biochar's direct value to crops, and has access to the means to make and use it. Permaculture is one of the systems of organic gardening which recognizes the value of biochar.
Regards,
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Laurel Hopwood <lhop...@roadrunner.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Subject: excellent piece by Hector Valenzuela
To: CONS-SPST-B...@lists.sierraclub.org
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hector-valenzuela/the-science-behind-hawaii_b_4159250.html
by Hector Valenzuela, Professor and Crop Specialist at the University of Hawaii
(edited)
Some of the key points that challenge the claims that GM crops are safe, and/or necessary include:
* No scientific consensus exists about the safety of GM crops. A recent statement signed by over 90 international and independent scientists, refutes the existence of a consensus on the safety of GM crops. Some of the points they raise, are listed below.
http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/
* Statements made by international or scientific bodies about the purported safety of GM crops, carry considerable caveats, including dissent by well-established scientists within these organizations; conflict of interest by organizations that depend on industry or U.S. funding; and the fact that their assessments are based on data provided by industry itself, and not on independent research.
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/yes-labels-on-gm-foods
* A close inspection of scientific reviews; references made to lists of 'hundreds' of publications; and a citation of a long-term European study, all of which are often cited to claim proof of safety, reveals that these reviews are contradictory -- as many of the cited studies actually show harm, and that many of the cited references are irrelevant to the issue of human health risks.
* The claim that no one has been harmed from consuming GM crops, repeatedly made by industry and by support academics, is false, ludicrous, and irresponsible-- as NO epidemiological studies have been conducted on humans to determine the short- and long-term effects from our exposure to GM crops.
* Considerable research has been published in the literature, raising questions about environmental, social, and human health risks, from the production and exposure to GM crops. Despite claims by industry and by support academics that many of these studies have been 'discredited', no actual follow-up studies have been conducted to either refute or validate the experimental observations.
* Conflict of interest consistently obfuscates the claims of safety made by industry-affiliated scientists. Academic studies that receive support from industry are less likely to find adverse effects, while research by independent scientists is more likely to uncover adverse impacts.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919210001302
What farmers need is concerted government and university support, to develop ecologically-based production systems. A new paradigm of sustainable agroecosystems is required, to meet community food security needs, and to satisfy the growing consumer demand for locally-grown, wholesome, toxic-free, and nutritious fruits and vegetables.
http://www.scidev.net/global/food-security/opinion/agroecology-taps-a-wellspring-of-farming-knowledge.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
From: Laurel Hopwood <lhop...@roadrunner.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Subject: excellent piece by Hector Valenzuela
To: CONS-SPST-B...@lists.sierraclub.org
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hector-valenzuela/the-science-behind-hawaii_b_4159250.html
by Hector Valenzuela, Professor and Crop Specialist at the University of Hawaii
(edited)
Some of the key points that challenge the claims that GM crops are safe, and/or necessary include:
* No scientific consensus exists about the safety of GM crops. A recent statement signed by over 90 international and independent scientists, refutes the existence of a consensus on the safety of GM crops. Some of the points they raise, are listed below.
http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/
* Statements made by international or scientific bodies about the purported safety of GM crops, carry considerable caveats, including dissent by well-established scientists within these organizations; conflict of interest by organizations that depend on industry or U.S. funding; and the fact that their assessments are based on data provided by industry itself, and not on independent research.
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/yes-labels-on-gm-foods
* A close inspection of scientific reviews; references made to lists of 'hundreds' of publications; and a citation of a long-term European study, all of which are often cited to claim proof of safety, reveals that these reviews are contradictory -- as many of the cited studies actually show harm, and that many of the cited references are irrelevant to the issue of human health risks.
* The claim that no one has been harmed from consuming GM crops, repeatedly made by industry and by support academics, is false, ludicrous, and irresponsible-- as NO epidemiological studies have been conducted on humans to determine the short- and long-term effects from our exposure to GM crops.
* Considerable research has been published in the literature, raising questions about environmental, social, and human health risks, from the production and exposure to GM crops. Despite claims by industry and by support academics that many of these studies have been 'discredited', no actual follow-up studies have been conducted to either refute or validate the experimental observations.
* Conflict of interest consistently obfuscates the claims of safety made by industry-affiliated scientists. Academic studies that receive support from industry are less likely to find adverse effects, while research by independent scientists is more likely to uncover adverse impacts.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919210001302
What farmers need is concerted government and university support, to develop ecologically-based production systems. A new paradigm of sustainable agroecosystems is required, to meet community food security needs, and to satisfy the growing consumer demand for locally-grown, wholesome, toxic-free, and nutritious fruits and vegetables.
http://www.scidev.net/global/food-security/opinion/agroecology-taps-a-wellspring-of-farming-knowledge.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages