Articles

Abstract

The monograph program of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which relies on the efforts of volunteer Working Groups, uses a transparent approach to evaluate the carcinogenicity of agents for which scoping has determined that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a review. Because of the potentially powerful implications of the conclusions of the monographs and the sometimes challenging nature of the evidence reviewed, the monographs and the IARC process have been criticized from time to time. This commentary describes the IARC monograph process and addresses recent criticisms of the program, drawing on a recent defense of the program authored by 124 researchers. These authors concluded that the IARC processes are robust and transparent and not flawed and biased as suggested by some critics.

Social organizations and scientific researchers ask for ban on the herbicide

After the World Health Organization (WHO) declared glyphosate a probable carcinogen, the campaign has intensified in Latin America to ban the herbicide, which is employed on a massive scale on transgenic crops.

In a March 20 publication, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reported that the world’s most widely used herbicide is probably carcinogenic to humans, a conclusion that was based on numerous studies.

Social organizations and scientific researchers in Latin America argue that thanks to the report by the WHO’s cancer research arm, governments no longer have an excuse not to intervene, after years of research on the damage caused by glyphosate to health and the environment at a regional and global level.

“We believe the precautionary principle should be applied, and that we should stop accumulating studies and take decisions that could come too late,” said Javier Souza, coordinator of the Latin American Pesticide Action Network (RAP-AL).

The precautionary principle states that even if a cause-effect relationship has not been fully established scientifically, precautionary measures should be taken if the product or activity may pose a threat to health or the environment.

“We advocate a ban on glyphosate which should take effect in the short term with restrictions on purchasing, spraying and packaging,” Souza, who is also the head of the Centre for Studies on Appropriate Technologies in Argentina (CETAAR), said.

April 27, 2015 (Washington, DC)--Today, Center for Food Safety (CFS) hailed the just-issued federal court decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont affirming the constitutionality of Vermont’s genetically engineered food labeling law, Act 120. The ruling fully denied the preliminary injunction motion brought by the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association, Snack Food Association, and other plaintiffs to try and halt the law’s implementation, and granted the State of Vermont’s motion to dismiss on several claims.

“This important ruling affirms the constitutionality of genetically engineered food labeling, as well as the rights of Vermonters and U.S. citizens across the country,” said George Kimbrell, senior attorney for Center for Food Safety and counsel in the case. “Americans are demanding the right to know if their food is produced through genetic engineering, for health, environmental and many other reasons. This decision is a crucial step in protecting those rights.”

"What a victory for Vermont consumers," said Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. "From the beginning, we have said that Vermonters have substantial interests in knowing whether their food has been genetically engineered. This ruling brings us one giant step closer to that reality."

Act 120 was signed into law on May 8, 2014. The Grocery Manufacturer’s Association (GMA), which represents the country’s largest food manufacturers and has poured tens of millions of dollars into anti-labeling campaigns in other states, sued Vermont just over a month after the bill was signed into law.

As organic moves beyond a niche, the movement needs to take stock of what organic has become and what the future holds, especially to be prepared for political developments, environmental challenges and market trends. IFOAM EU therefore initiated a participatory vision process to identify where the organic sector and movement want to be in 2030 and what strategies are needed to get there.

The vision process started in 2013 and the feedback from the movement has led to two vision statements. It is now time to select what vision best suits the European organic movement's goals - and we need your help to do so. The results will be published at the 9th European Organic Congress, where we will begin to work on strategy development. Join us! More information on www.organic-congress-ifoameu.org

There is no scientific consensus to support the assertion that GMOs are safe

By MARCO CONTIERO

Multinational biotech companies and several scientists are playing Russian roulette with our food and farming systems. They claim that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a safe bet, just because the bullet is still in the chamber.

Some commentators – including in this publication – have fallen for the myth of a scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs. They accuse anti-GMO campaigners of sowing doubt. This accusation is a gross misrepresentation of the scientific debate in Europe and elsewhere.

Regulators are sometimes also taken in. The European Commission maintains that there is no evidence of harm and that any disagreement with EU countries is not about the science. In reality, over a period of 15 years, many countries have expressed scientific concerns about the safety of GMOs and EU risk assessment procedures.

The myth of consensus

Already in 2008, EU countries unanimously raised concerns about the EU risk assessment process. In 2009, EU countries formally confronted the Commission with unresolved scientific questions about GM crops. Several governments also raised scientific concerns to justify bans on the cultivation of GM crops on their territories.

There is no scientific consensus to support the assertion that GMOs are safe.

Never before has the EU Commission authorised so many genetically engineered plants for import on just one day. Last Friday, 19 genetically plants were granted market authorisation, 17 for usage in food and feed, and 2 are for flowers (carnations). 10 of the plants approved for food and feed are new authorisations, the others are re-approvals. The overall number of genetically engineered plants that can be imported into the EU for use in food and feed has now risen to 58. Testbiotech plans to file a complaint to set a precedent case.

“The risks of the genetically engineered plants are not investigated sufficiently and the combinatorial risks factors of these plants if mixed in a diet have not been assessed at all,” says Christoph Then for Testbiotech. “Neglecting to properly assess the risks of genetically engineered plants coupled with mass-authorisation is increasing risks and uncertainties in the food chain.”

Experts from several EU Member States have also criticised the deficiencies in EU risk assessment carried out by the by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). However, the EU Commission ignored this criticism in its decision making process. Instead, it is suggesting new regulations that would allow each Member State to ban the import of genetically engineered plants. They would not, however, be allowed to use arguments such as health risks to justify their decision. Consequently, it would be almost impossible to defend such national bans against legal challenges.

There are substantial uncertainties about the risk assessment of these plants.

The European Commission's proposed new rules on the approval of food derived from genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), published on Wednesday (22 April), have immediately attracted criticism from both environment NGOs and the agribusiness sector. For the first time, the proposal formally allows EU countries to opt-out from the Europe-wide approval system.

(.....)

Only one GM crop is currently grown in Europe, Monsanto's maize MON810, in Spain and Portugal.

But the new proposal attracted criticism by Greenpeace, which said the proposed reform would still allow the Commission to authorise the import of GMOs, even when a majority of national governments, the European Parliament and the public oppose them.

“The Commission’s proposal is a farce because it leaves the current undemocratic system untouched. It would allow the Commission to continue ignoring major opposition to GM crops, despite president Juncker’s promise to allow a majority of EU countries to halt Commission decisions on GMOs," said Greenpeace EU's food policy director Franziska Achterberg.

Healthy soils are the foundation of global food production and ought to become a top priority on the political agenda. This was one of the key messages of the opening pannel at the Global Soil Week, which started in Berlin on Monday. „If humanity’s overarching need for food security and nutrition, climate change mitigation and sustainable development is to be met, soil resources have to be given the global attention they deserve,” said Moujahed Achouri, Director of FAO’s Land and Water Division, in his opening address. However, the level of soil degradation is alarming in many countries. „Every year, 24 billion tonnes of fertile soil is lost: through erosion, development, flooding, mining - or through intensive agriculture,“ says Jes Weigelt of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Germany, which organises the conference together with partners such as FAO, UNEP or the European Commission. Global Soil Week brings together more than 550 land and soil management experts from 78 countries. Under the slogan „Soil. The Substance of Transformation“, this year’s meeting highlights the importance of land and soil in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These goals, to be adopted by the UN General Assembly in autumn, will succeed the Millennium Development Goals and form the political foundation for sustainable development in both developing and industrialised nations. But a new IASS research paper released on Monday shows that the land demands made in the SDGs exceed the world’s existing land resources. Twelve of the proposed SDGs relate to the sustainable use of natural resources and several depend on the use of additional land resources, e.g. Goal 2 on food security and sustainable agriculture, as well as the goals on energy supply (Goal 7), production and consumption (Goal 12) and the sustainable use of ecosystems (Goal 15). IASS Executive Director Klaus Töpfer concluded: “The 17 SDGs are therefore not consistent. The demands for biomass and land that they make are far more than we can possibly meet. We need to set priorities, for example, where food security is concerned.” According to the publication, consumers play an important role as well. “The choices we make are of great importance: not only our decisions on what to consume, but also our decision to buy food in a way that it does not end up being wasted.” (ab)

Seventeen new genetically modified food products will be authorised for import to Europe before the end of May in a significant acceleration of biotech trade, the Guardian has learned.

A growing demand for organics, and the near-total reliance by U.S. farmers on genetically modified corn and soybeans, is driving a surge in imports from other nations where crops largely are free of bioengineering.