Non pochi errori nell’analisi di Benbrook
Versione PDF |
No Comments Nell’articolo vengono dimostrati tutti gli errori presenti nell’analisi di Benbrook.
leggi nbtpesticide
Greenpeace apre al golden rice
Versione PDF |
7 Comments |
Greenpeace Backing Down on GMOs - AfricaBio, January 6, 2010 Greenpeace has for the second time in eight years backed down on opposing the development of Golden Rice. Kumi Naidoo of Durban , the South African born newly appointed executive director of Greenpeace International, in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, on the question of Golden Rice, said: This is the second positive statement from Greenpeace on Golden Rice, Prof Webster emphasised. She pointed out that in February 2001 at the BioVision Conference in Lyon , France , Benedict Haerlin, genetic engineering coordinator of Greenpeace, also backed down from the stand against GM crops. He admitted that Greenpeace would not oppose field trials of Golden Rice being developed to combat blindness in the Third World . (Daily Telegraph, London , 10 February 2001) “I’m sure that South African born Naidoo is encouraged by the success of GM crop production in South Africa over the past eleven years. There have been no adverse effects on human and animal health nor the environment. Main beneficiaries have undoubtedly been the thousands of smallholder farmers who have increased their yields by up to 30%, providing them with a sustainable food supply,” according to Prof Webster. Commenting on Naidoo’s remarks, Professor Klaus Ammann, eminent Swiss scientist said: “Greenpeace’s aggressiveness towards Golden Rice and Naidoo’s encouraging stance will soon turn into a major success like Bt rice in China. China is the world’s largest producer and consumer of rice and has just approved the production of GM rice promising a yield increase of 8% and an 80% decrease in insecticides.” Golden Rice is scheduled to be launched in 2011/12. |
Greenpeace smentisce solo in parte l’intervista a Der Spiegel http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makin gwaves/archives/2010/01/were_not_ backing_down_on_genet.html |
Il pane al mais OGM si vende bene
Versione PDF |
No Comments 
Vendendo al mercato pane fatto con mais biologico tradizionale e da OGM il 20% degli svizzeri acquista il pane agli OGM anche se costano UGUALE!, Figuriamoci cosa sarebbe successo se avessero scritto sul pane biologico: “Mais coltivato su terreni fertilizzati con Farine Animali”, oppure sul pane al mais OGM: ” Mais OGM senza uso di pesticidi” oppure : “Col minore tenore possibile di Fumonisine”.
Questo esperimento al mercato mostra come viviamo sotto truffa mediatica e che chi confeziona l’informazione organizza i sondaggi per avere la risposta che desidera.
Leggi la notizia dal sito (http://www.finanzainchiaro.it)
Una nuova generazione di OGM
Versione PDF |
No Comments A Golden Age for GM Crops?
- Editorial, New Scientist, Oct 28, 2009
The war over genetically modified foods is entering a new phase. At last, the GM industry has produced what it promised at the outset: a product designed to have real benefits for consumers. It’s an oil from soybean modified to produce omega-3 fatty acids essential for health and proven to reduce the risk of heart disease. It can be added unobtrusively to ordinary food products, potentially bringing health benefits to millions.
The oil contains a dietary precursor of EPA, an omega-3 fatty acid that is vital for heart health. One study calculated that in 2005, 84,000 Americans died of heart disease that might have been avoided had they had a sufficient amount of this fatty acid in their diets. That makes omega-3 deficiency the sixth most common cause of preventable death in the US.
The new crop could also relieve some pressure on the world’s fish stocks. Demand for omega-3 fatty acids is rising, and at present, the principal way to obtain them is from fish.
Created by Monsanto, the soybean is a far cry from just about everything that the industry has thrown at us so far: modified crops benefiting no one but seed companies and farmers. With these, the perception - perhaps rightly - was that Monsanto and its peers were foisting a technology on us with few benefits for consumers but unknown risks for human health and the environment.
Monsanto’s oil ought to nullify that line of attack. Can Friends of the Earth and its allies justify campaigning against a product that could save lives and help reduce over fishing? Of course, they could try the argument that GM technology per se is risky, but that position looks increasingly untenable too. GM crops have been grown on a large scale for more than a decade, and by and large, the predicted environmental catastrophes haven’t materialised, nor has anyone suffered health problems through eating GM food.
Can environmental groups justify campaigning against a product that could save thousands of lives?
First-generation GM crops may even have brought unexpected benefits. A recent report from UK consultancy PG Economics charting the global impact of GM crops from 1996 to 2007 found that over that period, pesticide spraying dropped by 8.8 per cent. And because fields don’t have to be tilled before planting GM crops, energy savings in 2007 alone amounted to the equivalent of removing 6.3 million cars from the road. These findings are disputed by environmental groups and need to be independently confirmed, but if they hold up it will be time for the technology’s critics to reconsider.
Monsanto’s oil could represent a defining moment in the debate over genetic modification. Providing cheap access to a proven superfood and relieving pressure on fish stocks are worthy objectives. Only a Luddite would disagree.
Scari qui l’articolo
