BNW Brave New World
Samenzwering, verborgen agenda's en geheime geschiedenis. De zoektocht naar de wereld die achter de façade van alledag ligt.
Nutteloze informatie, is de prijs/kg omhoog gegaan, is er een verschuiving in gewassen, is het areaal vergroot?quote:Op woensdag 11 juni 2014 16:13 schreef budvar het volgende:
[..]
Dit plaatje bijvoorbeeld.
[ afbeelding ]
Meer geld? Zijn de pesticiden duurder geworden? Andere pesticiden?quote:
[..]
Dit plaatje bijvoorbeeld.
[ afbeelding ]
Hoe kan je toch tegen zulke ontwikkelingen zijn? Dan ben je toch gewoon een egoist, die het zelf allemaal prima heeft, maar vanwege vage ideologische bezwaren anderen gewoon dood laat gaan? Terwijl er mogelijk een oplossing is?
http://www.mnn.com/food/h(...)ity-and-malnutrition
http://www.mnn.com/food/h(...)ity-and-malnutrition
En dit - wat is daar nu op tegen?quote:Op donderdag 19 juni 2014 02:31 schreef kets70 het volgende:
Hoe kan je toch tegen zulke ontwikkelingen zijn? Dan ben je toch gewoon een egoist, die het zelf allemaal prima heeft, maar vanwege vage ideologische bezwaren anderen gewoon dood laat gaan? Terwijl er mogelijk een oplossing is?
http://www.mnn.com/food/h(...)ity-and-malnutrition
http://www.fastcoexist.co(...)-improve-your-health
Ja, lijkt mij ook alleen maar goed.quote:
[..]
En dit - wat is daar nu op tegen?
http://www.fastcoexist.co(...)-improve-your-health
The glyphosate toxicity studies you're not allowed to see
02 July 2014.
Pesticide regulators are refusing to release to the public the key industry studies on glyphosate that underpin regulatory authorizations and safety limits set for the herbicide, writes Claire Robinson.
The glyphosate toxicity studies you're not allowed to see
On opposite sides of the globe, pesticide regulators are refusing to release to the public the key industry studies on glyphosate that underpin regulatory authorizations and safety limits set for the herbicide.
Earlier this year a group of Chinese food safety volunteers submitted a request to China’s Ministry of Agriculture to disclose the study that justified issuing the safety certificate for the import into China of Monsanto's glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup. The Ministry replied that Roundup was registered in China in 1988 based on a toxicology test report issued by a testing company called Younger Laboratories in St Louis, Missouri. The test was an acute exposure toxicity test (such tests last a maximum of a few days), with Roundup being given to rats by mouth and applied to the skin of rabbits. It claimed to find no effect on the eyes or skin, and no allergy.
The volunteers asked the Ministry to release the study, and the Ministry in turn asked Monsanto. Monsanto replied that the study constituted its own commercial secret, adding that the company had never disclosed the study anywhere in the world and did not agree to disclose it now. The volunteers are appealing against the decision.
It is hard to credit that China would approve a herbicide as safe to use and consume as residues in food over the long term on the basis of toxicity tests lasting just a few days.
Meanwhile in Europe, Tony Tweedale, a Brussels-based advisor to NGOs on toxicity and risk assessment issues, asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to disclose the two key chronic toxicity studies on glyphosate that the German regulatory agencies relied upon to set the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of the chemical. Germany is the “rapporteur” member state for glyphosate’s renewed market approval in Europe. Based on these studies, Germany had recommended revising the ADI upwards from 0.3 mg to 0.5 mg per kg of bodyweight per day.
That means regulators are allowing more exposure for you and me.
Presumably, these must be very reassuring studies, since they are claimed to show that glyphosate is safe in long-term exposures. Yet both the German government regulatory agencies (Germany is the "rapporteur" member state for glyphosate) and EFSA have refused Tweedale's requests to release the studies, on the grounds that they are commercially confidential information.
Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe previously asked the German regulatory agencies to release the full range of long-term toxicity studies on glyphosate. They refused, again for reasons of commercial confidentiality.
However, a 2013 ruling at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg could throw a spanner into the works of this cosy industry/regulator nexus. The case was brought by PAN Europe and Greenpeace Netherlands against the European Commission after it refused to disclose industry information on the exact composition of glyphosate, including impurities and additives. Referring to the Aarhus Convention on access to environmental information, the Court ruled that any document containing information about emissions to the environment must be released without any restriction.
Tweedale commented on the ruling: "Presumably it covers industry's toxicity studies, with which chronic risk is always assessed. But neither Germany or EFSA (so far) will release these key studies in the case of glyphosate."
Tweedale has appealed to EFSA to reverse its original decision, citing the European Court of Justice ruling, and awaits its response.
What are they hiding?
Such official stonewalling raises the question of what could be in these industry studies that that public is not allowed to see. It's an obvious assumption that industry has plenty to hide, but maybe the regulators do, too.
In 2011 Earth Open Source published a report called "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?"
The report found that industry's own studies conducted in the 1980s and 1990s showed that glyphosate causes birth defects in experimental animals. While the industry studies themselves are held by the German government and remain secret, the Earth Open Source authors examined Germany's summary report on the studies, which is in the public domain. This report was submitted to the EU Commission and led to glyphosate's European approval in 2002.
The Earth Open Source authors were surprised to find that the German regulator consistently dismissed evidence of birth defects using unscientific reasoning. For example, the German regulator introduced irrelevant "historical control data" to dilute out the malformations seen in exposed groups of animals, enabling a false conclusion of no effect from glyphosate exposure. It also creatively redefined a known skeletal malformation as "rather a developmental variation than a malformation" (page 15).
This appears to be a case of the German regulator minimizing harm made explicit even in industry's own tests. If the German government or EFSA were to release the industry studies, independent academic scientists could reanalyze the data and form their own conclusions about the safety of glyphosate. Given the past failures of risk assessment, these could well be at odds with the conclusions of the German regulator, which form the basis of the current regulatory approval of glyphosate. In fact, not just the results, but also the details of the methodology of the industry tests should be made public, since data are only as strong as the methods used to derive them.
There is another reason why regulatory agencies may not want industry studies underlying risky product authorisations to be made public. That reason is identified by former US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staffer Evaggelos Vallianatos in his recent book, Poison Spring (Bloomsbury, 2014). Vallianatos quotes the EPA scientist Adrian Gross as saying that his colleagues long ago gave up actively reviewing industry studies in a way that would allow them to identify problems with the data or interpretation. "Instead," Gross said, the EPA toxicologists "go straight to the company's summary and lift it word for word and give it as their own evaluation of those studies."
It would be interesting to see if the German agencies' reassuring interpretation of the glyphosate toxicity data represents their own analysis, or is lifted straight from Monsanto's own summaries. If the latter, then the pretense that any kind of regulatory oversight of glyphosate has occurred is illusory. What has gone on under the name of regulation would be revealed as nothing more than Monsanto announcing that its own products are safe.
(by Claire Robinson)
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15519
02 July 2014.
Pesticide regulators are refusing to release to the public the key industry studies on glyphosate that underpin regulatory authorizations and safety limits set for the herbicide, writes Claire Robinson.
The glyphosate toxicity studies you're not allowed to see
On opposite sides of the globe, pesticide regulators are refusing to release to the public the key industry studies on glyphosate that underpin regulatory authorizations and safety limits set for the herbicide.
Earlier this year a group of Chinese food safety volunteers submitted a request to China’s Ministry of Agriculture to disclose the study that justified issuing the safety certificate for the import into China of Monsanto's glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup. The Ministry replied that Roundup was registered in China in 1988 based on a toxicology test report issued by a testing company called Younger Laboratories in St Louis, Missouri. The test was an acute exposure toxicity test (such tests last a maximum of a few days), with Roundup being given to rats by mouth and applied to the skin of rabbits. It claimed to find no effect on the eyes or skin, and no allergy.
The volunteers asked the Ministry to release the study, and the Ministry in turn asked Monsanto. Monsanto replied that the study constituted its own commercial secret, adding that the company had never disclosed the study anywhere in the world and did not agree to disclose it now. The volunteers are appealing against the decision.
It is hard to credit that China would approve a herbicide as safe to use and consume as residues in food over the long term on the basis of toxicity tests lasting just a few days.
Meanwhile in Europe, Tony Tweedale, a Brussels-based advisor to NGOs on toxicity and risk assessment issues, asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to disclose the two key chronic toxicity studies on glyphosate that the German regulatory agencies relied upon to set the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of the chemical. Germany is the “rapporteur” member state for glyphosate’s renewed market approval in Europe. Based on these studies, Germany had recommended revising the ADI upwards from 0.3 mg to 0.5 mg per kg of bodyweight per day.
That means regulators are allowing more exposure for you and me.
Presumably, these must be very reassuring studies, since they are claimed to show that glyphosate is safe in long-term exposures. Yet both the German government regulatory agencies (Germany is the "rapporteur" member state for glyphosate) and EFSA have refused Tweedale's requests to release the studies, on the grounds that they are commercially confidential information.
Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe previously asked the German regulatory agencies to release the full range of long-term toxicity studies on glyphosate. They refused, again for reasons of commercial confidentiality.
However, a 2013 ruling at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg could throw a spanner into the works of this cosy industry/regulator nexus. The case was brought by PAN Europe and Greenpeace Netherlands against the European Commission after it refused to disclose industry information on the exact composition of glyphosate, including impurities and additives. Referring to the Aarhus Convention on access to environmental information, the Court ruled that any document containing information about emissions to the environment must be released without any restriction.
Tweedale commented on the ruling: "Presumably it covers industry's toxicity studies, with which chronic risk is always assessed. But neither Germany or EFSA (so far) will release these key studies in the case of glyphosate."
Tweedale has appealed to EFSA to reverse its original decision, citing the European Court of Justice ruling, and awaits its response.
What are they hiding?
Such official stonewalling raises the question of what could be in these industry studies that that public is not allowed to see. It's an obvious assumption that industry has plenty to hide, but maybe the regulators do, too.
In 2011 Earth Open Source published a report called "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?"
The report found that industry's own studies conducted in the 1980s and 1990s showed that glyphosate causes birth defects in experimental animals. While the industry studies themselves are held by the German government and remain secret, the Earth Open Source authors examined Germany's summary report on the studies, which is in the public domain. This report was submitted to the EU Commission and led to glyphosate's European approval in 2002.
The Earth Open Source authors were surprised to find that the German regulator consistently dismissed evidence of birth defects using unscientific reasoning. For example, the German regulator introduced irrelevant "historical control data" to dilute out the malformations seen in exposed groups of animals, enabling a false conclusion of no effect from glyphosate exposure. It also creatively redefined a known skeletal malformation as "rather a developmental variation than a malformation" (page 15).
This appears to be a case of the German regulator minimizing harm made explicit even in industry's own tests. If the German government or EFSA were to release the industry studies, independent academic scientists could reanalyze the data and form their own conclusions about the safety of glyphosate. Given the past failures of risk assessment, these could well be at odds with the conclusions of the German regulator, which form the basis of the current regulatory approval of glyphosate. In fact, not just the results, but also the details of the methodology of the industry tests should be made public, since data are only as strong as the methods used to derive them.
There is another reason why regulatory agencies may not want industry studies underlying risky product authorisations to be made public. That reason is identified by former US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staffer Evaggelos Vallianatos in his recent book, Poison Spring (Bloomsbury, 2014). Vallianatos quotes the EPA scientist Adrian Gross as saying that his colleagues long ago gave up actively reviewing industry studies in a way that would allow them to identify problems with the data or interpretation. "Instead," Gross said, the EPA toxicologists "go straight to the company's summary and lift it word for word and give it as their own evaluation of those studies."
It would be interesting to see if the German agencies' reassuring interpretation of the glyphosate toxicity data represents their own analysis, or is lifted straight from Monsanto's own summaries. If the latter, then the pretense that any kind of regulatory oversight of glyphosate has occurred is illusory. What has gone on under the name of regulation would be revealed as nothing more than Monsanto announcing that its own products are safe.
(by Claire Robinson)
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15519
Ik weet niet hoor, klinkt als een hoop bangmakerij. Als ik naar wikipedia of pubmed glyphosate toxicity referenties kijk, is er toch behoorlijk wat onderzoek naar gedaan. Kan ze niet allemaal lezen, want ik heb hier geen access.quote:
The glyphosate toxicity studies you're not allowed to see
....
Ik zou het overigens niet slecht vinden als alle ingredienten van pesticiden gepubliceerd moeten worden. Maar dat is nog iets anders dan suggereren dat bedrijven en regluators toxiciteit proberen te verbergen.
geen enkele onderbouwing in de tekst of referenties, matig stukje.quote:
The glyphosate toxicity studies you're not allowed to see
02 July 2014.
Pesticide regulators are refusing to release to the public the key industry studies on glyphosate that underpin regulatory authorizations and safety limits set for the herbicide, writes Claire Robinson.
The glyphosate toxicity studies you're not allowed to see
On opposite sides of the globe, pesticide regulators are refusing to release to the public the key industry studies on glyphosate that underpin regulatory authorizations and safety limits set for the herbicide.
Earlier this year a group of Chinese food safety volunteers submitted a request to China’s Ministry of Agriculture to disclose the study that justified issuing the safety certificate for the import into China of Monsanto's glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup. The Ministry replied that Roundup was registered in China in 1988 based on a toxicology test report issued by a testing company called Younger Laboratories in St Louis, Missouri. The test was an acute exposure toxicity test (such tests last a maximum of a few days), with Roundup being given to rats by mouth and applied to the skin of rabbits. It claimed to find no effect on the eyes or skin, and no allergy.
The volunteers asked the Ministry to release the study, and the Ministry in turn asked Monsanto. Monsanto replied that the study constituted its own commercial secret, adding that the company had never disclosed the study anywhere in the world and did not agree to disclose it now. The volunteers are appealing against the decision.
It is hard to credit that China would approve a herbicide as safe to use and consume as residues in food over the long term on the basis of toxicity tests lasting just a few days.
Meanwhile in Europe, Tony Tweedale, a Brussels-based advisor to NGOs on toxicity and risk assessment issues, asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to disclose the two key chronic toxicity studies on glyphosate that the German regulatory agencies relied upon to set the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of the chemical. Germany is the “rapporteur” member state for glyphosate’s renewed market approval in Europe. Based on these studies, Germany had recommended revising the ADI upwards from 0.3 mg to 0.5 mg per kg of bodyweight per day.
That means regulators are allowing more exposure for you and me.
Presumably, these must be very reassuring studies, since they are claimed to show that glyphosate is safe in long-term exposures. Yet both the German government regulatory agencies (Germany is the "rapporteur" member state for glyphosate) and EFSA have refused Tweedale's requests to release the studies, on the grounds that they are commercially confidential information.
Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe previously asked the German regulatory agencies to release the full range of long-term toxicity studies on glyphosate. They refused, again for reasons of commercial confidentiality.
However, a 2013 ruling at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg could throw a spanner into the works of this cosy industry/regulator nexus. The case was brought by PAN Europe and Greenpeace Netherlands against the European Commission after it refused to disclose industry information on the exact composition of glyphosate, including impurities and additives. Referring to the Aarhus Convention on access to environmental information, the Court ruled that any document containing information about emissions to the environment must be released without any restriction.
Tweedale commented on the ruling: "Presumably it covers industry's toxicity studies, with which chronic risk is always assessed. But neither Germany or EFSA (so far) will release these key studies in the case of glyphosate."
Tweedale has appealed to EFSA to reverse its original decision, citing the European Court of Justice ruling, and awaits its response.
What are they hiding?
Such official stonewalling raises the question of what could be in these industry studies that that public is not allowed to see. It's an obvious assumption that industry has plenty to hide, but maybe the regulators do, too.
In 2011 Earth Open Source published a report called "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?"
The report found that industry's own studies conducted in the 1980s and 1990s showed that glyphosate causes birth defects in experimental animals. While the industry studies themselves are held by the German government and remain secret, the Earth Open Source authors examined Germany's summary report on the studies, which is in the public domain. This report was submitted to the EU Commission and led to glyphosate's European approval in 2002.
The Earth Open Source authors were surprised to find that the German regulator consistently dismissed evidence of birth defects using unscientific reasoning. For example, the German regulator introduced irrelevant "historical control data" to dilute out the malformations seen in exposed groups of animals, enabling a false conclusion of no effect from glyphosate exposure. It also creatively redefined a known skeletal malformation as "rather a developmental variation than a malformation" (page 15).
This appears to be a case of the German regulator minimizing harm made explicit even in industry's own tests. If the German government or EFSA were to release the industry studies, independent academic scientists could reanalyze the data and form their own conclusions about the safety of glyphosate. Given the past failures of risk assessment, these could well be at odds with the conclusions of the German regulator, which form the basis of the current regulatory approval of glyphosate. In fact, not just the results, but also the details of the methodology of the industry tests should be made public, since data are only as strong as the methods used to derive them.
There is another reason why regulatory agencies may not want industry studies underlying risky product authorisations to be made public. That reason is identified by former US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staffer Evaggelos Vallianatos in his recent book, Poison Spring (Bloomsbury, 2014). Vallianatos quotes the EPA scientist Adrian Gross as saying that his colleagues long ago gave up actively reviewing industry studies in a way that would allow them to identify problems with the data or interpretation. "Instead," Gross said, the EPA toxicologists "go straight to the company's summary and lift it word for word and give it as their own evaluation of those studies."
It would be interesting to see if the German agencies' reassuring interpretation of the glyphosate toxicity data represents their own analysis, or is lifted straight from Monsanto's own summaries. If the latter, then the pretense that any kind of regulatory oversight of glyphosate has occurred is illusory. What has gone on under the name of regulation would be revealed as nothing more than Monsanto announcing that its own products are safe.
(by Claire Robinson)
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15519
->just messengerquote:
[..]
geen enkele onderbouwing in de tekst of referenties, matig stukje.
Even voor het perspektief, na alle bangmakerij:
http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/07/glyphosate-math.html
http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/07/glyphosate-math.html
Deze is ook goed:quote:
Even voor het perspektief, na alle bangmakerij:
http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/07/glyphosate-math.html
'Illumination - An old adage says, "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness". I think we better do both.'
Overview van droogte-tolerante ontwikkelingen:
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v32/n7/full/nbt.2948.html
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v32/n7/full/nbt.2948.html
Leuk zo'n artikel achter een betaalmuurquote:
Overview van droogte-tolerante ontwikkelingen:
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v32/n7/full/nbt.2948.html
[b]Op maandag 26 januari 2015 11:42 schreef Bapple het volgende:[/b]
Hier hebben we budvar. De grootste atheist van FOK!, en die zou het natuurlijk weer anders hebben gedaan.
Kan ook niet anders. :(
JE WEET ALTIJD ALLES BETER
Hier hebben we budvar. De grootste atheist van FOK!, en die zou het natuurlijk weer anders hebben gedaan.
Kan ook niet anders. :(
JE WEET ALTIJD ALLES BETER
Sorry. Ik kon hem lezen, maar dat was op werk.quote:
[..]
Leuk zo'n artikel achter een betaalmuur
Kopieren lukt ook niet zo goed, maar dit zijn de gewassen in waar aan gewerkt wordt. Het is Table 1 in de paper, ik ga verder niet het hele artikel kopieren, maar dit is een overview. Sorry voor de leesbaarheid, gaat allemaal niet zo goed.quote:
[..]
Sorry. Ik kon hem lezen, maar dat was op werk.
Crop
Mechanism
Implementation location and status
Field trial results
Corn
Expresses a cold-shock protein B from B. subtilis, which stabilizes RNA
Deregulated in US in December 2011; stewarded commercialization in US western Great Plains and Midwest
Average increase of five bushels of corn per acre during drought
Sugarcane
Expresses glycine betaine fromRhizobium meliloti
Approved in Indonesia by the National Genetically Modified Product Biosafety Commission in May 2013
20–30% higher sugar production than conventional counterparts during drought
Canola, corn, petunia and rice
Uses RNAi driven by conditional promoters to suppress farnesyltransferase; shuts down stomata
Licensed to Scotts (Marysville, Ohio), Syngenta (Basel), Bayer CropScience (Monheim, Germany), DuPont Pioneer, Mahyco (Jalna, India), RiceTec (Houston) and DBN (Beijing)
Canola, 26% higher yield; petunia, double the number of flowers
Corn
Expresses an ACS6 RNA construct to downregulate ACC synthase and decrease biosynthesis of ethylene
Field trials in the US and Chile
2.7–9.3 bushel per acre advantage over nontransgenic varieties in drought conditions
Rice and canola
Expresses isopentenyltransferase from Agrobacterium, which catalyzes the rate-limiting step in cytokinin synthesis; accompanied by SARK promoter from bean
Two years of US field trials in rice with combined water use efficiency, nitrogen use efficiency and salt tolerance; technology licensed to developers who have put the gene into their own varieties of soybean, wheat, rice, cotton, sugar beets, sugarcane and tree crops
13–18% under various nitrogen application rates; 12–17% under water stress conditions; 15% under combined stress
Soybean
Overexpresses Hahb-4, from sunflower thought to inhibit ethylene-induced senescence
Field trials in Argentina and the US
7–15% yield advantage over comparable varieties during drought and other stress
Wheat, soybean and sugarcane
Expresses DREB1A transcription factor under the control of the rd29A promoter
Field trials via collaborations with International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, International Rice Research Institute, International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Brazilian Enterprise for Agricultural Research
Varies
Rice and peanut
Expresses DREB1A transcription factor under the control of the rd29A promoter
Field trials via collaborations with University of Calcutta (India, rice) and International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid-Tropics (India, peanut)
Varies
Wheat
Expresses HVA1 gene from barley, which confers osmotolerance
Conducting field trials and generating biosafety data required for approval by Egypt's regulatory authorities
Not disclosed
Tomato
Overexpressing osmotin-encoding genes under the control of the 35S CMV promoter
Greenhouse studies in India
Better survival and growth: yield data not yet available
|
|
