GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
        • Notícias em Português
        • Nieuws in het Nederlands
        • Nachrichten in Deutsch
      • Archive
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Donations
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

INTRODUCTION TO GM

GMO Myths and Facts front page.jpg

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE EDITING MYTHS AND REALITY

A guide through the smokescreen

Gene Editing Myths and Reality

ON-TARGET EFFECTS OF GENE EDITING

Damaged DNA

CITIZENS’ GUIDE TO GM

GMO Myths and Truths front cover

LATEST VIDEOS

  • Herbicide-tolerant/Bt cotton chaos in Indian fields
  • Seed keepers and truth tellers: From the frontlines of GM agriculture
  • Myths and Truths of Gene-Edited Foods

KEVIN FOLTA: A rogue’s gallery

Roundup, dollars and Kevin Folta

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

Swiss study concluding low risk from GMOs is based on industry data

Details
Published: 29 August 2012
Twitter

Swiss GMO study based on industry data
Informationsdienst Gentechnik / Information Service on GMOs (Berlin)
August 29, 2012 

Many media in Switzerland reported yesterday on the newly published results of a publicly funded research programme on genetic engineering. The programme concluded: "Low risks, unused potentials." However, this conclusion is little surprising as first insights into the project show that it is based on data supplied by the industry.

The Swiss Working Group on Genetic Engineering (SAG) criticised the final report of the National Research Programme 59 (NRP) and its recommendations as 'biased'. Existing problems of GMO farming and its risks are played down. As NFP 59 states on its website, long-term risks have not been evaluated: "NFP 59 did not include projects on long-term impacts of GMO on the health of humans and animals due to lack of time and financial means." 

It can also be deduced that much of the data that has been taken into consideration in the NFP 59's 'extensive literature review' come from the GM industry or from organizations close to it. For example, the literature overview on health issues of GMOs quite often cites EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority. This agency has been heavily criticised for its close relationships with GE companies and for its biased evaluations of GMOs. 

Other data apparently stems from the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a lobby organization of the producers of GMOs. The NFP 59 used ILSI data when giving examples of "GM plants with health benefits" such as GM canola, rice and soy.

A second literature review on the costs and benefits of GM farming is just as one-sided. One of its chapters on supposed financial benefits of GM plants for farmers is based almost exclusively on studies conducted by economist Matty Demont of African Rice Center in Senegal. According to his CV, Demont has received over the last years 700,000 USD from GE giants Monsanto and Syngenta alone.

His employer, the African Rice Center, is not only funded by Syngenta Foundation but also by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The latter is known to financially support industrialized farming and genetic engineering with large sums. Moreover, the African Rice Center is part of the Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR) which is also close to the industry. Its board's vice-chair Carl Hausmann is a high-ranking manager at Bunge Limited, one of the biggest traders of food and feeds much of it from genetically modified soy. And CGIAR's CEO Frank Rijsberman serves as a director at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Chief Scientific Officer of the Consortium is Anne-Marie Izac who is also advising the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform (SAI) an umbrella organization of all important food companies including Nestlé, Kraft, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Pepsico and many others. They are the same corporations which are currently pumping millions of dollars into a campaign against the labeling of GMOs in California.

The case of economist Demont is probably only one of many in the "extensive literature review" done by the NFP 59. That the NFP now demands to lift the temporary ban on GM plants in Switzerland thus seems all the more questionable.


Original article by Informationsdienst Gentechnik (German), includes links to sources
http://www.keine-gentechnik.de/news-gentechnik/news/de/26225.html

Menu

Home

Subscriptions

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

Non-GM Successes

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

Donations

Content 1999 - 2022 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design