Entries by Denitsa

The vacation is over, even though for some of us, it never really started. Today, I want to write about the recent French madness, to deport Roma people (gypsies) from France back to their native Bulgaria and Romania.
This campaign is wrong on so many fronts, it is hard to believe it is actually happening. And yet it did!

But let's start with the news.

Commission closely following France's Roma expulsions 

19 August 2010
The European Commission is following very closely France's dealings with its Roma, who the authorities are planning to expel in groups, Commission representatives said yesterday (18 August), after being asked by the Brussels press whether the expulsions were in line with EU legislation.

Journalists wanted to know the basis on which the expulsions of 700 people were being made, as EU legislation requires each case to be examined individually. A Commission spokesperson replied by saying that he would give such details later, as for the time being the EU executive was monitoring the situation.
Teodor Basconschi, Romania's foreign minister, voiced fears of mounting xenophobia in France over the Roma expulsions. source

Roma controversy rocks French cabinet

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, formerly a high-profile humanitarian activist, said he had considered resigning over the controversy sparked by the expulsions of Roma from France to their home countries, Bulgaria and Romania. Even Prime Minister François Fillon admitted he had "differences" with President Nicolas Sarkozy over his immigration policy. source 

As I said, this is so outrageous, it's hard to believe it's happening.  So, France decides to send home few thousands of European citizens, because they don't like their presence and everybody keeps quite? Isn't it amazing how Barroso didn't criticize France during his speech in the EP? I find it most worrying. Because I can understand why one country will make something so stupid, I cannot understand why the President of the EC will just try to ignore the problem and pretend this never happened.
Well, it did happen, Mr. Barroso! And we're all victims of your incompetence to be a good President of the EC. Because the President doesn't avoid problems, s/he looks for them and try to fix them before they got out of control. Because we're all losing from what happened in France.
Why? Oh, it's very simple, because the freedom of movement is one of the most fundamental aspects of the EU. Without it, we don't have the EU, we're back to the paranoia of wartime. We hear that all European citizens should obey the law. Ok, I have no problems with that. Were those people arrested, did they have charges against them, did they get a fair trail and did they receive justice? No, not at all. They were PAID to leave France and go back to their countries. And not only this, but France is considering closing the borders for Bulgaria and Romania because they cannot handle their citizens. I'm sorry, I got the impressions that now we're free to live anywhere we like, as long as we obey the laws of that country. The laws, not its xenophobic and racists moods. Because you cannot convince me this is not a racist move. You cannot convince me that if 1000 spanish people decided to camp in France or in Germany, the problem would be handled the same manner - by bribing the people to leave and involving the media and other countries in a propaganda against their own country . No mister, not at all!
The problem is not that those people are criminals - if they are, they must face justice, not to be sent home with a nice gift of 300 euros! I think any French person (or any nationality) will require their country to provide the justice they pay for with their taxes. So this is not the case, we're not talking about justice. We're talking about comfort. About xenophobic comfort, mixed with some even more xenophobic attitude towards the Eastern European neighbors.
I'm not Roma, I'm not a human right activist. I'm just a normal person. A decent European citizen. Yes, I'm Bulgarian and that makes me partial. So what? Someone has to be partial. Someone has to have opinion based on more than xenophobia. Someone has to face the real issue. And the real issue is very simple. Sarkozy is making his "peuple" happy, he's showing them he's the man and the poorest EU member states are supposed to keep quite and be ashamed. Well, I'm not ashamed. We have the right to be the poorest, just as some countries have the privilege to be the richest. I don't envy them, I'm not angry on them, although I'll sure like to be richer. But those people are the way they are. It's hard to integrate someone without education, with different tradition and understanding of life. It's even harder when the richest, mostly criminal gypsies are so well integrated with the local police bosses, that they invite them to the weddings of their under-age daughters, that they make gifts to each other and no one ever questions the fact that gypsy girls give birth on 12 or 13 - ages when having sex is criminal offense that requires investigation and arrests. No such things. Oddly enough, France didn't question the actions of Bulgarian politicians when the whole world heard about the 12 years old girl that got pregnant and gave birth without even knowing why and how she got pregnant! Not only this, but in the moment when someone tries to sue a Roma person, for something considered as tradition, all the human rights organisations will jump and say that's bad, that's discrimination against the minorities and so on. Yet, no one cares about those little girls that get to become women before they get in their puberty. No one cares! Gypsies are cheap votes, expensive cases against the often foreign government and of course, interesting news for the sympathetic European viewer. How nice. But when they are in your home country, you get very very angry and try to make them go away. Well, they are not going away, really. They will be back to France in no time. This problem cannot be solved like this. It requires politics, not force. You can't say you do it for the good of all the children in those camps - if you cared about their well-being, you'll send your social workers, you'll offer them a good life, a life that they cannot obtain in the ghettos back home! You'll offer them the chance to integrate, to be a decent European citizen, you won't send them home and make that problem someone else's problem. Bulgaria and Romania have so many immediate problems, it's hard to believe they'll just stop everything else and "integrate" all the gypsies. Why? Well, because they first have to integrate the majority of their population and then to try with the minorities. Because life right now is hard here. Small companies are going bankrupt, the government has no money to pay for almost anything, the situation goes worst and worst. I personally have no idea where all those money we had last year went, but this is not so important. The important thing is that all the Bulgarians have hard time right now, there are no money for anyone, it's very silly to believe that the least educated and willing to work will suddenly feel very happy here. Of course they will leave. They have nothing to make them stay here. Soon, there will be nothing to make any of us stay here.

So, obviously this expulsion stunt won't work, not in the long term anyway. The question is why France did that at all?
Especially if we remember how nationalist parties took so many votes in last European elections. Is it that hard to connect the dots? This could be the beginning of the end, is this what the EC wants? Is this why Barroso is so quite about this horrible act of discrimination? I sometimes wonder how stupid very smart people can actually be...I don't doubt the qualities of Barroso. But I doubt his dedication to Europe and his vision of the EU. I think that in the background of growing nationalism, it is very important to show sever response to such nationalist acts. It's not about the gypsies - they are not so much, they get money, they get free ticket home, they are fine. What they get is actually a free vacation for everyone. It's us who are not fine. Us who allow such acts, such attitude towards a minority. Do you notice how Western Europe doesn't have so many gypsies. Most of them are in Central and Eastern Europe. Do you ask yourself why? Well, I can tell you why, because of the Second World War. Because a lot of people went into those camps, and that weren't only Jews, contrary to the Hollywood versions. Bulgaria never sent those trains to the camps. And right now we're punished for saving lives? Right now the whole Europe abdicated from the obligation to try to make the life of those people better? True, they are Bulgarian and Romanian citizens. But also they are European citizens. And most of the strategies I hear of, those that our expensive MPs in the EP vote on and those that our Commissioners create, they require decreasing poverty in the Union. Well, what poverty do they intend to handle? Because those gypsies are not particularly rich, you know. It's so hypocritical to talk about reducing poverty and in the mean time to send home poor people who don't fit your landscape. Because they will continue to be poor here! And your 300 euro are not going to make them very rich and happy, even in poor Bulgaria. Not for more than few months.
So, dear European citizens, why don't you see where the problem is? The problem is that your problems are now our problem and vice versa. That's the idea of the EU - solidarity. Where's the solidarity in sending hundreds or thousands of gypsies home, without a court, without a verdict, just like that, because you don't want our poor people in your country. Thanks a lot, that's very nice of you. Next time you happen to want help, maybe your neighbors should tell you to go back to your country and stay there? This is never going to work!
What we can do is to show Europe and the world, that we think this is wrong and to find a better way to deal with the problem. Otherwise, we risk destabilizing our EU and losing it. Do you want to have to cross borders again? Do you want to have visas? To have to prove where you're going and WHY! Because that was the case in Bulgaria until 3 years ago. You may have forgotten, but I haven't. The EU is the best thing we have created, we have to keep it, we have to make it better. Otherwise, we're all going to suffer. And I think in that case, it's not that hard to do the right thing. France already showed us they can protest against their own government's stupidity. So can we! Let's show the world we don't simply put our problems in our dirty closets, but that we actively try and do solve them! This can be done. All it takes is a clear vision of what the European Union should be. The power is in our hands. Let's use it.

Welcome to the 21st century. We used to fight for so many things, we abused so many places and people, that blood is no longer scary or sacred. We almost take it for granted that for our comfort, someone has to suffer. Like our pleasure wouldn't be complete, without someone's pain to give it substance. To make it real.
I might over-dramatize a little, but I'm not far from the truth. I wrote so many times about the outsourcing evil. The worst is that it never looks so evil when you listen to people talking about it. The idea is simple - you pay someone to do your work, you profit, the guy in Eastern Europe or Asia profits. Everyone is happy, the economy is flowing. Well, not exactly. Because in order for such economy to sustain its existence, it needs constant difference between the standards. Just like electric current, it cannot function in equal standards. Which in non-philosophical terms means someone has to suffer in order for someone else to be happy. It would be ok, if the very foundation of our economy didn't deny the possibility of freedom, fraternity and equality. Yes, that is supposed to be the slogan of French republic. But although I'm so damn mad on them, I'll leave that for my other blog. For this one, I'm more interested in the capitalism itself.
I'm not some mad socialists, it's not about that at all. It's not about what system is better and how to enforce it over the whole world. It's about what is bad on the long run and how we can change it.
And what we have now, even if it is the best we know, it's not the best we can figure. Because the system as it is, requires pain, it requires misery, it requires exploitation. What's bad in paying kids to do what you don't want to do? Even if you profit from them? Absolutely nothing. As long as the work they do is not harming their physical or mental health and they do it according to their own will, it's fine. But this is when we talk about the kids in the neighborhood. When it comes to international companies buying labor or resources from third world countries, it's never a question of health or mutual benefit. It's always question of abuse. Abuse by the company over the locals or the environment, abuse by the government that sells to that company, abuse by the people over themselves, because they have no other choice. Always abuse. But nobody questions that, as long as the prices are low and we can buy and buy. Like buying will satisfy our existence. Yes, this also is for another post.
This post is about the economy. About the world. About how it's going in a very wrong direction.
First, you can read the article I pasted here. It will give you a partial clue of my indignation (go to the source site and see the picture - it's so upsetting). But it's not only that. The main problem is that people are so obsessed by the free markets, that they forget that the markets are the secondary thing. The first thing is human will. It's human will that should be free. And the manifestation of that free will is free choice. It's free choice that the free market is trying to guarantee. Along with fighting trade wars, which hypothetically can decrease our freedom of choice.
But what we have now is not freedom of choice! Nobody actually cares about our choice - free or not. People are so obsessed in earning as much as they can using the tools that the free market and the capitalist economy gives them - namely exploiting the difference in standards, that nobody cares about consumer's choice anymore (and the consumers are kept happy by low prices). 
And nobody sees that what we have now essentially is legalized version of slavery! Yes, now we pay those third world countries to work for us, we don't own them like we did with slaves, but then, don't we? When you need the difference in standards, you're automatically very interested in keeping that difference big. The natural desire of every person is to improve the quality of his/her life. It's hard imagine how this goes with the constant need of difference. True, the Earth is big, there is always someone that is going to be poorer than us. But we don't just use poverty, we also create it! Just like the blood diamonds, just like blood cell phones, just like Arabian world failing to get into the society of 21st century. Just like the whole world going secular and Turkey going more and more religious. Just like Wold Bank and IMF giving loans to everyone, just after those economy crashed with the JOLY HELP OF the American economy. For those of you who have forgotten, the last big crisis of the euro was after some very articles in US and UK papers of economist who were VERY pessimistic of the future of the euro. Even if the euro was just as fine as before and even if the debts of EU countries were hardly more than those in the last years. So, we do create poverty and that's clear.
The irony of the situation is that our crazy understanding of capitalism and free markets led to the rise of the biggest non-capitalist country ever - China. People somehow like to close their eyes to the rise of China, seeing in it more an economical miracle than a threat, but hey, that won't change the facts. The facts that USA never argues with China when they do something wrong, the fact that Europe also hardly argue with China - the latest rows about leaking patents of European companies that want to produce in China or on the ban of rare materials, were all more likely pleas than fights. China is big and very strong. And what's worst is that I don't see any strategy in Western world how to counter that power with something useful. I'm not speaking of military actions, what I mean is some kind of way to contain the Chinese expansion. I'm not a racist or something, but I believe in diversity. If China simply flood us all with their money and cheap labor, we're on our way to oblivion. And nobody wins from that - not even them in the long run. Nature needs diversity - it is simply the best strategy for survival of the species.
So where the hell is the response of Europe (or USA)? When they speak of China, they always refer to carbon leakage or how to free the heaviest emitters from CO2 limitations, so that they can stay here and pollute even more. And even though the WTO said it's ok to impose carbon tax on countries that do not join the carbon market (like China), we still don't hear about such taxes. Why? Well, I can tell you why - because they are afraid. Because the free markets work lovely in the direction of companies profiting the most, but they work very badly in the direction of protecting people's free choice (or health or life). Which happens to be their original purpose actually.
So back to the beginning - are we that used to buying stuff covered in blood? Because that still happens. When exactly are we going to find the strength and motivation to question the production lines of those companies? To question their outsourcing? To question our very economy? How far could an economy go if it's not interested in improving the life of each person in its chain? Because the Earth is dynamical system and very soon, we may be the one on the bottom of the chain. China gets richer, it's the second economy right now (behind USA), we're the one that gets poorer. How would you feel to work in a dirty factory, getting sick because nobody cares about your health, because the company bought the local authorities and they will never allow you to sue the factory for the bad conditions. How would you feel if your children mine rare and dangerous elements? How would you feel to be transported in ships and to be closed in some warehouse and to work 20 hours a day? So that some fat ladies on the other side of the ocean may buy your product just to throw it away next day?
Sounds like over-dramatizing? Not really! This is our economy, remember? Precisely that economy is always on the side of the happy consumer who should buy as much as possible. And when that consumer is too poor to buy, the economy starts using it like outsourcing material.
Think people, think! We're heading in a so wrong way. I'm not saying we should change everything. Some things are good, others - bad. Freedom is good, but freedom should be for everyone. Liberty, egality, fraternity - remember?! The economy must create best conditions for everyone, not just for some. It must be a win-win deal, otherwise it's always lose-lose!
We really have to take the good and to move on! Because if we don't move on intentionally, we cannot control the direction in which we're heading, we'll be just moving with the flow. And that flow is a dangerous place. It made many empires to perish, it made whole civilizations to perish. Do you really want to follow it?

'Blood Cell Phones' Fuel War, Crime and Human Rights Abuses

Analysis by Clark Boyd Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:20 PM ET

This month, my colleagues have been giving you a glimpse of what the end of the life cycle often looks like for electronic equipment like cell phones, mp3 players, and old hard drives and monitors. It can make for grim reading. There are e-waste recyclers who don't actually recycle, and there's the fact that much of this stuff ends up in the developing world, where people often risk their health (and their lives) in pursuit of a few pennies' worth of material to sell.Well, I thought I'd take this opportunity to tell you about the beginning of the electronics life cycle, which, quite frankly, can be just as grim. The picture above was taken at the Bisle mine in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo. This man is mining cassiterite, an ore that's used to make tin. Tin is used to solder circuit boards. You can imagine how many circuit boards get soldered each year.
Watchdog groups such as Global Witness say that the demand for cassiterite and other so-called "conflict minerals," is fueling war, crime, and human rights abuses in this part of the world. Just like we have "blood diamonds," people are now talking about "blood cell phones."
So, who you gonna call in to address the problem? Why, the U.S. Congress of course. A provision in the recently passed (and signed) legislation on financial reform calls on tech companies to disclose when the minerals used to create their products come from Congo or neighboring countries.
For activist groups and concerned consumers, it's a start. Mike Davis of Global Witness recently did an interview with The World, that scrutiny and transparency "can go a long way to address the problem" of conflict minerals, but that scrutiny and transparency "need to be backed up by enforcement." source

A log delayed post, but I think you'll appreciate it. I gathered quite a collection of articles about GMO crops. Even if I might have some problems with Google, still I preferred to paste them here, before they disappeared. I hope you find them just as enlightening as I do.
links:
Naked Capitalism-India Defies Monsanto, Says No to GMO Crops - amazing post
Urgent: USDA to rule on mutant alfalfa - a petition against approving of GMO alfalfa
Common weedkiller turns male frogs into females - imagine what it does on humans
E.U. Clears Biotech Potato for Cultivation -
GM potato to be grown in Europe - comments
Articles:

1. Debate over GM eggplant consumes India


2. Dairy producers lose productivity going organic, but can save on feed


3. Monsanto Pulls GM Corn Amid Serious Food Safety Concerns


4. Is Genetically Modified Corn Toxic?


5. 'Genetically modified crops benefit farmers'


6.  Research links pesticides with ADHD in children


7. Evidence of First Virus That Infects Both Plants and Humans


8. Scientists uncover transfer of genetic material between blood-sucking insect and mammals


9. EU governments seen opposing GM crop proposals

 Debate over GM eggplant consumes India

MUMBAI (Reuters) - The purple eggplant that Indian shopper Tanuja Krishnan picks out at a Mumbai market stall every week is an unlikely protagonist in a raging debate about whether genetically modified foods should be introduced into India.

A genetically modified version of eggplant, a staple in fiery curries, was slated to be the first GM food introduced into India in a bid to stabilize food prices and mitigate some of the effects of climate change on Indian food crop yields.
Yet, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh blocked the release of the vegetable until further notice following an outcry by environmentalists and some farmers. The opposition to GM foods was so heated that some protesters burned effigies.
Ramesh said there was not enough public trust to support the introduction of such crops into India's food supply until more research was done to remove all doubts that GM foods were safe for consumption.
But while those from the camp that opposed GM foods are celebrating, there are concerns that rising food prices will be a major problem for Indian policymakers in the future unless the country starts embracing genetically-modified food crops.
India's farm sector has changed very little since the advent of the Green Revolution with crop yields failing to keep up with soaring population growth and rising incomes.At the same time, damage to crops from pests and disease have worsened due to rising temperatures from climate change.
Known as Bt brinjal, the Indian word for aubergine, the GM vegetable is able to resist some pests responsible for devastating crops across India thanks to a gene from soil bacteria called 'bacillus thuringniensis' (Bt).
The moratorium against the release of the GM eggplant followed harsh criticism by environmentalists and farmers who demanded rigorous testing and labeling standards before Bt brinjal was cultivated.India's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) opened the way for the commercial cultivation of Bt brinjal last October, seven years after approving Bt cotton, which is now grown on more than 80 percent of total cotton area.Thanks to genetically modified cotton, India has become the world's second largest cotton producer and exporter after China, with about 5 million farmers growing Bt cotton.
India is the world's second largest producer of eggplant after China and the vegetable is also used in traditional medicine to treat diabetes and hypertension.About 1.4 million farmers grow eggplant, which is very susceptible to pest attacks. Farmers tend to spray the crop with pesticides 30-50 times during a crop cycle.
Even though the GM seeds for the vegetable would likely cost three times the price and farmers would need to purchase seeds for every sowing rather than reusing crop seeds, proponents say the extra expenses would be compensated by lower pesticide costs and less devastating crop loses."You have a large population that's growing in affluence, but our resources -- land, water, cheap labor -- are all shrinking, so we have to increase output quickly and efficiently," said Gyanendra Shukla, director of Monsanto India Ltd.
"I don't see any other option but GM crops."
Since Monsanto launched the world's first GM crop in 1996, more than 25 countries have taken to biotech crops including soybean, corn, tomato, squash, papaya and sugarbeet.
Bt brinjal was developed by Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co (Mahyco) under license from Monsanto, and estimates show economic benefits from higher yields could top $400 million a year.
GEAC has also approved studies of GM okra, tomato and rice, but opponents say GM should be a last resort.
Aside from health and safety concerns, critics worry that the widespread use of GM crops will put India's food supply largely in the hands of a few giant corporations that make the seeds.There is also the possibility of genetic contamination if the Bt genes cross pollinate with other varieties.
A recent report by U.S. health and environment protection groups said that rather than reduce the use of pesticides, genetically engineered crops had actually prompted increased use of these chemicals, caused an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds and resulted in more chemical residues in foods.
 sourceMy comment: ( More) Amazing article. Especially if you combine it with the recent articles about GM canola in USA which escaped in the wild and two different strands started to breed together and exchange genes. Also, it gives new perspective to the idea of Roundup resistant weeds - people started actually plowing their fields! So I find it hard to buy Monsanto's version about this eggplant. The yields fall not so much because of the lack of pesticides, but because of changing climate conditions and probably bad technology. Even if the GM version can handle the new conditions better, it's still very questionable if it will increase the net profit of farmers, because they'll have to buy seeds and special pesticides. Not  to mention the safety side (they are among the largest producer so if you compromise the safety of the plants, it can become very ugly!) and also the environment risk - the more GM plants around, the bigger chance of interbreeding and gene-exchanges leading to super-resistant weeds! And also the comparison with cotton has no place - people don't eat cotton as far as I know!

Dairy producers lose productivity going organic, but can save on feed

February 2, 2010 by Brian Wallheimer

Dairy producers must meet stringent protocols to be certified organic. Cows cannot receive antibiotics or hormones, feed must be certified organic and herds must have access to certified organic pastures.
In another study published in the Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, Balagtas' team found that those organic producers could cut as much as 22 percent of production costs if they grow their own feed, though the same isn't true for conventional producers.
Organic dairy producers cannot use feedstock that has been grown with pesticides and other chemicals, making it more expensive. And since there are fewer organic growers than conventional, sourcing organic feed typically means increased transportation costs for dairy producers.
"If you're located in a climate that permits it, you can reduce costs by growing your own organic feed," Balagtas said. "Establishing organic crop production is costly, but this research says that over time you would pay off that investment."
Balagtas said comparisons were based on producers of a similar size in the same region using similar technology and management practices. source
My comment: I find this article quite interesting mostly because it shows that going organic is not as dramatic as people suggest. And also, just not what kind of stuff are usually found in your milk - antibiotics, growth hormones and so on. Nasty, huh?

Monsanto Pulls GM Corn Amid Serious Food Safety Concerns

 by Dr. Brian John February 10, 2010

For the first time, a GM multinational has pulled two GM corn varieties from the regulatory and assessment process at the eleventh hour (1), after planning for a future income of several billion dollars per year from global sales (2).
Monsanto has abandoned its ambitious plans for a so-called “second generation GM crop” rather than accede to a request from European regulators for additional research and safety data (3).
Under conditions of great secrecy, Monsanto has informed EFSA that it no longer wishes to pursue its application for approval of GM maize LY038 and the stacked variety LY038 x MON810. Both of these varieties were designed to accelerate the growth rate of animals. Two letters were sent to EFSA from the Monsanto subsidiary company Renessen at the end of April this year confirming the withdrawal of its applications originally submitted in 2005 and 2006. The letters cite “decreased commercial value worldwide” and state that the high-lysene varieties “will no longer be a part of the Renessen business strategy in the near future.” (4) There has been no announcement of these decisions on the Monsanto web site, and there are no mentions on EFSA or European Commission web sites either. In other words, there is a conspiracy of silence involving both the applicants and the regulators.
The two letters sent to EFSA in April requested the return of all dossier material (varietal characterization, experimental protocols, and test results) which was submitted with the applications for cultivation, animal feed and human food (4). EFSA acceded to this request, making it impossible for any future independent researchers to analyse the Monsanto / Renessen data. That in itself is profoundly disturbing.
Scientists who have followed these two applications are quite convinced that the “decisions to withdraw” have nothing to do with commercial considerations and everything to do with food safety. In other words, the varieties are too dangerous to be allowed onto the open market — although they would certainly have been approved by EFSA and most other European regulatory authorities had it not been for the diligence of independent scientists in New Zealand who subjected the application dossiers to very close scrutiny (5). In the absence of such scrutiny in the United States, the varieties were approved in 2005 for cultivation, animal feed and human food use on the other side of the Atlantic (6). Consents for food and feed use were also given in Japan, Canada, the Philippines, and South Korea. In 2007 Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) approved LY038 for food and feed use in spite of strenuous objections from the Green Party and scientists at Canterbury University’s Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) who warned that the new corn was not safe for humans when cooked (7). They also expressed concerns about unpredictable health effects, increased levels of toxins in high-lysene corn, and possible allergies and links to cancer.
It does not appear that the varieties have been grown or “commercialized” anywhere in the world (8), although test plantings probably occurred in the United States.
While INBI’s detailed and devastating analysis of the applicant’s supporting dossiers was dismissed out of hand by FSANZ, EFSA was forced to take it seriously because of concerns from a large number of European countries including Finland and Malta. The scientific bases of those concerns were highlighted by Jeffrey Smith in his book “Genetic Roulette” and by Prof Jack Heinemann in his book “Hope not Hype” (9). The Monsanto dossiers included rigged research and false assumptions in the reported experiments; a failure to offer any test results based on cooked or processed corn; a failure to test the whole GM plant in feeding trials; confusing and contradictory characterizations of the GM varieties and proteins; a fraudulent mixing of GM strains during trials; a pooling of crop data so as to mask undesirable effects in experiments; feeding trials too short to reveal true physiological changes in animal tissues; and the choice of an irrelevant, unrelated corn variety as the control group for comparison with the GM lines, with the clear intention of hiding potentially serious differences in composition or side effects on animals(10). The Codex guidelines for the testing of GM crops were thus comprehensively broken by Monsanto’s subsidiary Renessen, and were not enforced by the regulators in the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (11). All in all, this amounted to blatant scientific fraud by the applicants, and a cynical failure to enforce the rules, and to protect the public, by the regulators.
During the assessments of these two varieties in Europe, many countries used the INBI peer review of the applicant’s dossiers to underpin their concerns, and these widely-expressed concerns forced EFSA to ask the applicants for additional studies and for a clarification of their experimental data (12). EFSA also asked — for the first time — for adherence to the Codex rules relating to GM and comparator studies. In the knowledge that their dossiers were now being subjected to an unprecedented level of scrutiny, Monsanto / Renessen simply decided that they would not cooperate in this process for fear of what might emerge. So they wrote to EFSA in April (4) to indicate that they were abandoning all plans for the cultivation and commercialization of the two GM crops.
Commenting for GM-Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: ”This is the first time, to our knowledge, that EFSA has sought to enforce the Codex rules relating to the use of isolines in the testing of GM crops, and the first time that it has expressed profound dissatisfaction about the content of an applicant’s dossiers. It is also the first time that a GM multinational has withdrawn a GM product (or two products) at the eleventh hour. It was insane in the first place to seek to pass GM maize crops containing Bt toxins and “growth enhancers” straight into the human food chain (13). In addition, EFSA and the other regulators have been quite irresponsible in the past in assuming that “stacked” events, hybridized from two GM lines, are harmless if the applicant says so, and if the separate lines have been independently approved. That is simply bad science, since it fails to address the likelihood of synergistic effects and even accumulating toxins in the food chain (14).
“Nonetheless, we applaud the fact that EFSA has asked Monsanto some hard questions in this case, having in the past demonstrated, over and again, that its GMO Panel is simply unfit for purpose (15). This represents progress.
Dr Brian JohnGM-Free Cymru
Tel: 01239-820470
source
My comment: Reprinted here, just in case it manages to disappear from the original page. But simply stunning! What I want to know is why if there is a Codex regarding GM crops, EFSA never applied it?! That's more than suspicious. I do agree we're looking at conspiracy, the question is why this was not on the news, why nobody cared, there was no press release. And most of all, why EFSA agreed to return back all the documents, when most European institutions inform you in advance that your documents will be held after the submission for all sort of purposes. Obviously that doesn't apply to the big guys. I can only be happy that at least this two GM misunderstanding of a plants were spared to European consumer. But then how would we know if we eat them in imported food? Who knows.

Is Genetically Modified Corn Toxic?

A new analysis of data released by Monsanto pried from Monsanto's lawyers' cold dead hands by a tag-team of legal experts at Greenpeace and other groups suggests there may be something to the idea that we shouldn't be eating maize that's had its DNA messed with.

The study found that three strains of modded crops -- MON 810 and MON 863, which are resistant to pests, and NK 603, which is foritified to withstand weed killer -- significantly disrupted the blood chemistry of rats who ate them. According to an article in New Scientist:

With each of the three strains of maize, researchers say they found unusual concentrations of hormones and other compounds in the blood and urine of the tested rats, suggesting each strain impaired kidney and liver function. By the end of the trials, the female rats that were fed MON 863 had elevated blood-sugar levels and raised concentrations of fatty substances called triglycerides. Both are potential precursors of diabetes, according to [lead author Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen in France].

"What we've shown is clearly not proof of toxicity, but signs of toxicity," says Seralini. "I'm sure there's no acute toxicity, but who's to say there are no chronic effects?"

The researchers are suggesting that if the GM corn has the same affect in humans that is does in rats, we're unknowingly taxing our kidneys and livers, and probably raising the risk of damaging those organs.

But as is often the case in these type of reports, the conclusions aren't terribly convincing. For one, the effects are barely statistically significant, and the article goes on to say that independent toxicologists who saw the paper said Seralini was reading too much into the results. source
My comment: Ok, this is hardly news, this was the first thing I read in the very few scientific researches on GM toxicity. Which by the way is strange, scientists usually like to study new things in great details but on GM crops, this is not the case. There are really FEW official peer-reviewed articles on GMOs. At least this was what a person I know found when doing his little research. But if we leave this aside, what that study discovered was hormonal changes and increase immune response in the test mice. And that oddly enough, the study wasn't continued generations ahead to see what will happen. So, I really believe that GM crops do pose a health risk. Even if it's barely statistical, still, 0.1% in 1 000 000 (million) people are 100 people. Who has the right to destroy the health of those people? And I believe the percentage is higher. And also, we're speaking not of millions, but of billions and 0.1%*1billion makes 1 million!!! Again, no news on this in official media. Interesting, huh?