01.01.70

Their overall verdict is that Seralini and his team did not follow the accepted scientific standards, which makes their findings unreliable. Perhaps the most shocking in the decision of prominent European officials is the fact that they flatly refused to check the results they rejected. They assumed that if the researchers from the University of Caen did not adhere to scientific standards, there was no need to check their results.

Back when the Catholic Church began dealing with the "heretical" Galileo, before giving the scientist to the Inquisition, an astronomer was asked to look through a telescope to check the data provided by his great compatriot. He checked, and found that Galileo was right. The trial was postponed for several years and was held for another reason. But this was the "dark" Middle Ages. Interestingly, the polemicists of pro-Western beliefs often referred to a "Soviet-type" behavior based on some examples from the USSR history. For example, when the Soviet public unanimously criticized Pasternak's novel "Doctor Zhivago", proudly saying: "I have not read it - but I know". Purely ideological labels of "reactionary pseudo-science" and "imperialism whores" placed on genetics and cybernetics in the 1940s-1950s are of similar nature. Generally, this approach is not purely a Soviet invention. Because this approach, if we discard the empty rhetoric, is a speculation relying primarily on the logical structure of the human mind. Speculations, with rare exceptions, had been dominant in the European history from ancient times until the new time. Then, finally, science in the modern sense of the word has emerged. It was based primarily on experience and practice. In the situation with the research about GMO the officials who are obliged to demonstrate scientific integrity of the highest standard acted as sensitive schoolchildren. Professor Seralini left out some little thing, so he should be criticized. Why check the shocking data for two years instead of three months normal for Europe, after which the products are considered to be completely safe. Instead, they acted as members of a medieval church council analyzing "heresy." They made a speculative conclusion based on the majority opinion followed by the final decision.

Source: Pravda

47% Are not sure what percentage of the fruits and vegetables the buy are genetically modified.      When given positive and negative statements about genetically modified foods, respondents choose the negative one by a 50% to 24% margin. The negative statement includes the unknown long-term health effects and the reliance of farmers on bio-tech companies for seeds. The positive statement cites the reduction in chemicals used in modified produce and the stronger and more abundant crop yields that could combat world hunger. The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc....

Read more...

by Admin

Rech Believes Better Quality, Lower Production Costs and Reduced Use of Chemicals Are Among Greatest Benefits

Brazil is one of a few developing countries that have made significant progress in plant biotechnology over the last decade.   Dr. Elíbio Rech, a biotechnology researcher at Embrapa in Brazil, has spent his entire professional life working in the area of plant biotechnology and believes the social and economic benefits of genetically modified crops in Brazil are high – and that many of those benefits will transfer to other developing countries as the technology is more broadly adopted over the next 10 years. 

“… there is a need to solve problems that are not possible to solve through traditional breeding methods.  So, we need genetic engineering to aggregate value and solve problems for the producers,” says Dr. Rech.  “In the case of biotechnology in agriculture, it is really important that we use this technology, not only to aggregate value to the products, but also to develop products with better quality, whose production costs are lower, and which reduce the use of chemicals in the environment.  So, this technology makes each of these three things possible, and they are very important for our planet.”

...

Read more...