| | 01/November/23
| Child cancer deaths in Brazil: Is GMO soy farming to blame? A new study links the pesticides used in GM glyphosate-tolerant soy cultivation to child cancer deaths in Brazil, the world's largest producer of soybeans. The researchers found a higher incidence of deaths from acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), the most common childhood blood-borne cancer, in areas downstream of soy farms than in areas upstream. This means it is likely that the diseases are linked to the pollution of drinking water. While epidemiological studies such as this cannot prove a casual link, controlled animal feeding studies can. With extraordinary timing, the new study comes hard on the heels of the finding in just such an animal feeding study by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy that low doses of glyphosate-based herbicides, at levels deemed safe to ingest by EU regulators, cause leukemia in rats at an early age. GMWatch Bayer investor calls for rethink after $332 million glyphosate defeat Bayer investor Union Investment said the German group should reconsider its litigation strategy for glyphosate after it lost a trial over the weedkiller's alleged carcinogenic effects for a third time in a row. A California jury has found Bayer liable in a case brought by a man who claimed his cancer was due to exposure to the company's glyphosate-based Roundup weedkiller and ordered it to pay $332 million in damages. The jury verdict was the third recent defeat for Bayer, after the company was ordered to pay a total of $175 million and $1.25 million in two other Roundup lawsuits. Before the three consecutive losses, Bayer had won nine cases in a row. Markus Manns, a fund manager at Union Investment, one of Bayer's 10 largest shareholders, said Bayer was trying to avoid an expensive settlement because of its difficult cash situation and high levels of debt. Head Topics Canada Advisory committee disagrees with European Commission on new GMO labelling, assumed equivalence of new GMO with conventional plants The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) acts as an advisory committee to the European Parliament, Council, and Commission, and is made up of employers, trade unionists and representatives of social, occupational, economic and cultural organisations. The EESC has issued a useful critical opinion on the EU Commission's proposal to deregulate new GMOs. Apart from the obligatory puffery about supporting innovation in plant varieties and competitiveness, the opinion disagrees with the Commission on some important points. Notably, the EESC wants:
* some kind of labelling of Category 1 NGT (new genomic techniques or new GMOs) plants, including for the consumer. The Commission wants only to label seed and there is a proposal from the Parliament to reject even that;
* EU-level regulation of co-existence to avoid different rules being applied by Member States (the Commission wanted to leave it to Member States to fight it out among themselves);
* the creation of a traditional European seed bank that would be GMO-free as insurance for food sovereignty;
* outlawing of do-it-yourself GMO/CRISPR kits for non-professionals to buy on the Internet;
* upholding of the precautionary principle ("as there is scientific uncertainty as to the global impact of NGTs") and the principle of reversibility ("to reverse or mitigate any damage if the operations regulated by the Commission were to have negative effects");
* a risk-benefit analysis applicable 10 years after the introduction of the new techniques.
The opinion rejects the Commission's and industry's position that new GMOs are equivalent to conventional plants, which it calls an "unrealistic simplification" based on the incorrect assumption that only the gene of interest is concerned. However, the opinion gives the impression that unintended mutations in new GM plants will be assessed even for Category 1 GMOs, though our own reading of the Commission's proposal gives us no such assurance. The EESC opinion correctly points out that traces of foreign DNA are left behind in new GMOs and that unintentional mutations are not eliminated through back-crossing. GMWatch comments on EESC opinion We hope you’ve enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible by readers’ donations. Please support our work with a one-off or regular donation. Thank you! __________________________________________________________ Website: http://www.gmwatch.org
Profiles: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GM_Watch:_Portal
Twitter: http://twitter.com/GMWatch
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/GMWatch/276951472985?ref=nf |
|
