The REAL Reasons You Want to Avoid Genetically Modified Foods

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Omega Group

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 7:56:49 AM11/6/07
to Freepage News
<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/
googleplayer.swf?docId=2108022965800005689&hl=en" flashvars=""> </
embed>

In this lecture, Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception,
summarizes the contents of his book, which explains how genetically
modified ... all » foods cause health problems, and their potential
for creating a vast array of unforeseen and surprising illnesses. He
also sheds light on how the corruption within the U.S. government, the
FDA, and the GMO industry has allowed, and perpetuated, the cover-up.

http://tinyurl.com/3ao7xt

--------

ISIS Press Release 06/11/07

UK Government's Dirty GM Secrets

UK Government funding genetically modified (GM) crop projects at tens
of millions of pound and colluding with a biotech company to ease its
GM field trials

Damning evidence contained in documents obtained through the Freedom
of Information Act (Based on Geoffrey Lean in the Independent on
Sunday (28 October 2007)

Sweet exchanges of e-mails

Publicly, ministers claim to be neutral over GM. But the documents
obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show otherwise. One
set obtained by the campaigning group GM Freeze clearly demonstrate
that the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) had
allowed the biotech giant BASF to effectively set the conditions for
field trials it has conducted on modified potatoes. On 1 December last
year the company was given permission to plant 450 000 modified
potatoes in British fields over the next five years, in a series of 10
trials [1] (Universal Condemnation Meets UK Government's Green Light
for GM Potato Trials. SiS 33) Emails and letters between Defra and the
company reveal that officials repeatedly went to remarkable lengths to
make sure the trial conditions, supposed to protect the environment
and farmers, were "agreeable" to BASF. The e-mail sent 29 September
from a Defra official to BASF to inform the company of a
recommendation by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the
Environment (Acre) that "the land should be left fallow for two years
following each trial" said, "I would like to know whether you think
that this is workable for you". The writer pointed out that other EU
countries had specified that "berries/true seed should be removed from
the trial", but that Acre had "not specified this because the
committee believes that this would be a very big job". The email went
on: "If you think this is completely unworkable, I think the committee
may be prepared to accommodate a reduction of this fallow period to
one year but there may be other conditions (eg removal of flowers/
berries)." And again: "In addition to this, Acre has recommended a
particular tillage regime, hopefully you are able to accommodate
this." On 6 October Defra sent BASF a draft of the consent to the
trials, with the helpful statement: "Please let me know whether or not
the conditions as they stand would be agreeable to BASF or whether
there are any conditions that would be difficult to meet." BASF
replied on 26 October that it believed the "probable conditions" were
"very agreeable to us", adding: "We hope that the final conditions
will not change too much." On 9 November Defra again emailed BASF to
check that one of the conditions "does not affect your plans", and
five days later was in touch again to say that it had "redrafted"
another "in response to your concerns". But the department had
insisted in a written statement a week before the revelation: "There
is no truth in any allegation that Defra was in any way influenced by
BASF in relation to the terms under which BASF could conduct trials on
GM potatoes in the UK." Pete Riley, campaign director of GM Freeze,
said: "That is simply not correct. The documents clearly show that
Defra colluded with BASF to ensure that Acre's conditions for growing
their GM crop were to their liking. Its role is to protect the
environment and public health. It is supposed to be a watchdog, but
the documents reveal it to be the industry's lapdog." Peter Ainsworth,
the Conservative environment spokesman, added: "This is a government
department that claims to be objective and science-based in its
approach to biotechnology, but clearly it has bent over backwards to
model its conditions on the requirements of BASF." A spokesman for
BASF said: "I do not think that they granted us any concessions that
would not normally have been granted."

Massive funding of GM despite overwhelming rejection by UK citizens

The documents on GM funding proved extraordinarily difficult to get,
it took three months of investigation by an environmental pressure
group, a series of parliamentary questions, and three applications for
the information. Friends of the Earth finally obtained still partial
information in October 2007 which shows that the Government gave at
least £50 m a year for research into GM crops and food, compared with
£1.6 m for research into organic agriculture last year, in spite of
repeated promises to promote environmentally friendly, sustainable
farming. The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
(BBSRC) gave £39.3m to its seven sponsored institutes for research on
agricultural biotechnology in 2006-07. Besides this "core strategic
grant", the BBSRC also gives tens of millions of pounds a year for
similar research to universities and other institutes. The BBSRC told
Friends of the Earth that it could not provide up-to-date information
until January, unless it paid a fee of £750, because this "would take
considerable effort, beyond the appropriate limit" to assemble. On top
of the BBSRC funding, Defra provided £12.6m for agricultural
biotechnology research in 2005-06, the last year for which figures are
available. It is not clear how much money goes to genetic
modification, as the BBSRC defines agricultural biotechnology as "the
application of molecular genetic and other modern biological
techniques to crops, livestock and disease-causing organisms". It says
it is not yet able to provide information on the proportion that has
recently been devoted to GM, as opposed to other techniques. But
figures on its website show that in 2000-01 about half of its core
strategic grant to the seven institutes was spent on the technology.
In contrast, Defra spent £1.6m on research "relating to organic
farming", while BBSRC refuses to provide any funds at all, saying it
"does not fund applied work on entire farming systems". When the
Government officially asked the public four years ago, 86 per cent
said they would not be happy to eat GM foods. By contrast, sales of
organic produce rose by 22 per cent last year to more than £2 bn. Over
half of Britons now buy organic, at least from time to time.

The BBSRC says that its funding for the research on GM crops would
continue even if there was "a Europe-wide ban" on growing them
commercially.

Read the rest of this article here http://www.i-sis.org.uk/dirty_GM_secrets.php

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages