GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • Daily Digest
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
    • 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
      • Cornell 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
    • How donations will help us
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
      • 2021 articles
      • 2020 articles
      • 2019 articles
      • 2018 articles
      • 2017 articles
      • 2016 articles
      • 2015 articles
      • 2014 articles
      • 2013 articles
      • 2012 articles
      • 2011 articles
      • 2010 articles
      • 2009 articles
      • 2008 articles
      • 2007 articles
      • 2006 articles
      • 2005 articles
      • 2004 articles
      • 2003 articles
      • 2002 articles
      • 2001 articles
      • 2000 articles
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • How donations will help us
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Cornell 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
  • Contact
  • About
  • Donations
SUBSCRIBE TO REVIEWS

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE-EDITED CROPS & FOODS

Help stop the new threat

GM Fed pig

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

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!

2012 articles

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

  • Print
  • Email
Details
Published: 29 August 2012
Created: 29 August 2012
Last Updated: 22 October 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

  • Prev
  • Next

Menu

Home

News

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

How Donations Will Help Us

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

RSS

Content 1999 - 2021 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design