A-Infos (en) France, Alternative Libertaire #224 - GMOs: A damning report dismissed the debate (fr) [machine translation]

A scientific study published in September endangers many economic and financial interests 
in finding a strong carcinogenic not only the most commonly used pesticide in the world as 
well as - and this is a first - a GM crop. ---- The media scene is rough since September 
19 by controversy following the publication of the results of the study conducted over two 
years by Gilles-Eric Seralimi and his team. The particularity of this study is to be the 
first to test the influence of the consumption of GM maize NK603 Roundup and (the most 
commonly used pesticide in the world) throughout the life of a population of rats. Note 
also the context of its release, the debate on whether to allow the GM crop in France was 
not yet decided.

We do not here retranscrirons the subject of controversy especially as the media and 
corporations threatened apply their usual strategy, or the complexity of the debate in 
order to confine the benefits of the study to the backstage giving institutions more image 
a quarrel expert than a real social issue. Rather see what is brought to light.

Privatization of life
First previous studies allowing the consumption of GMOs in general and the use of inputs 
in the broad sense are clearly inadequate because they do not consider that a few months 
of living rats and not all of their lives (the development of tumors and cancer nodules 
require a minimum time). Then note the widespread compromise experts from public 
institutions, they have significant financial relationships with multinationals involved, 
or simply the virtual absence of independent studies.

The priority given to profit by politicians at the expense of health seems to justify 
their eyes to take a risk to the entire population. While it is known that intensive 
agriculture led to a massive expansion of the petrochemical industry and GM are nothing 
other than privatization of life and the right to control our food. The benefits that 
accrue to people remain on them to find while negative impacts are increasingly 
compelling. This question of risk - which would be entitled to consider that the risk 
taken by the whole population is not acceptable, especially for private interests? - 
Certainly will not put the public arena because it directly undermines the democratic 
representativeness. Away because the population policy issues crucial areas such as health 
and food security comes to be seen as an irresponsible being.

Ecology Commission AL
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en