Franken Foods: UN Environment Programme peddling crude propaganda for GM

[Guest guest]

GMW: UN Environment Programme peddling crude propaganda for GM

" GM WATCH " <info

 

Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:33:18 +0100

 

 

UN Environment Programme peddling crude propaganda for GM

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

BIOSAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

An introduction to the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol

 

EXCERPTS FROM A COMMENTARY BY THE NEW ZEALAND SCIENTIST, DR ROBERT

MANN.

 

For the full text Robert is commenting on:

http://www.biodiv.org/doc/press/presskits/bs/cpbs-unep-cbd-en.pdf

------

I have just been shocked to find the UN Environment Programme peddling

crude propaganda for GM.

 

>BIOSAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

>An introduction to the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol

>by the UN Environment Programme

>http://www.biodiv.org/doc/press/presskits/bs/cpbs-unep-cbd-en.pdf

 

This took me 5 min to receive. It turns out to have far more dud

characters than I thought a PDF could have, but its gist is still

horribly

apparent.

 

>Genetic manipulation is not new. For millennia, farmers have relied

on

>selective breeding and cross-fertilization to modify plants and

animals

>and encourage desirable traits that improve food production and

satisfy

>other human needs.

 

This is a GM-industry slogan, calculated to deceive. GM is nothing

like selective breeding. Current GMOs are made by illegitimate

recombination, and any surviving mutant is properly called a

GM-bastard. I

disbelieve that the UNO operatives who put out this propaganda are not

well

aware of the huge differences.

 

> Artisans have exploited traditional fermentation techniques to

transform

> grains into bread and beer and milk into cheese.

 

Use of GMOs in food technology is novel - and one of the first

industrial attempts [L-tryptophan], only 2 decade ago, killed one or two

hundred people and maimed thousands. Do the UN propagandists not know

this? Mentioning ancient trusted foods & drinks like this is deceitful.

 

>Such intentional modification of the natural world has contributed

>enormously to human well-being.

 

Credit is thus illegitimately claimed for GM from the accomplishments

of breeders, brewers etc over the centuries who have indeed benefitted

mankind. This type of deceit is morally as low as lying.

 

>Over the past 30 years, however, our ability to alter life-forms has

been

>revolutionized by modern biotechnology.

 

This term is itself an item of propaganda. The term is genetic

manipulation or gene-splicing.

 

>Scientists have learned how to extract and transfer strands of DNA and

>entire genes - which contain the biochemical instructions governing

how an

>organism will develop - from one species to another.

 

Actually what they insert is scarcely if ever natural genes. Your

typical genes-cassette features synthetic DNA, often deliberately

different

from any natural gene, spliced with synthetic modified parts from the

DNA of viruses, bacteria, etc - all for slamming into illegitimate

recombination to procreate a GM-bastard.

 

> Using sophisticated techniques, they can precisely manipulate the

intricate

>genetic structure of individual living cells.

 

The techniques so far have been anything but precise, crassly blasting

cassettes into genomes by 'weapons greed' methods not resembling

natural breeding, with no means of controlling where DNA-insertion will

occur. Most of the target cells are killed, and most of the survivors

are

obvious monsters. A tiny minority show the desired trait based on the

transgene e.g resistance to RoundUp®. Defects are liable to emerge

later in any GM-bastards that *apparently* show only the desired trait

e.g

producing a modified version of a Bt toxin.

 

> It will benefit the environment by reducing the need for more

farmland,

>irrigation and pesticides. It will also provide better medical

treatments

>and vaccines, new industrial products and improved fibres and fuels.

 

These are essentially fantasies - but stated as if facts, and no

longer with the 'proponents argue' or equivalent. So now we are down to

barefaced lying.

 

>For many people, however, this rapidly advancing science raises a

tangle

>of ethical, environmental, social and health issues.

 

'Tangle', eh? = too complicated to explain.

 

>Because modern biotechnology is still so new, they say, much is

unknown

>about how its

>products may behave and evolve, and how they may interact with other

species.

 

That is true; but why not also mention actual known harm? And note the

'they say'.

 

>Could an ability to tolerate herbicides, for example, transfer from GM

>crops to related wild species?

 

So drawbacks are expressed as hypotheses, questions - speculations.

The fact that this type of problem has already emerged on a serious

scale e.g among GM-rape in Canada, is suppressed.

 

> Might plants that have been genetically modified > to repel pests

also harm beneficial insects?

 

ditto - Losey's monarch caterpillars aren't mentioned

 

> Could the increased competitiveness of a GMO cause it to damage

>biologically-rich ecosystems?

 

ditto

 

>Such concerns have kept GMOs in the headlines.

 

There are many other well-founded concerns, not mentioned by UNEP.

 

> One new scientific study concludes that modified organisms pose

little

> risk - and then another raises difficult new questions.

 

This is a deceitful sentence, designed to imply there's no clear

evidence of harm. UNEP is also failing to reveal that scarcely any

benefits

have yet been manifested by GMOs for farmers or indeed anybody but the

GM-bastard makers and the DNA-kits mfrs.

 

>Modified soya is found in export shipments that had been declared GMO

>free, or pollen from modified corn is detected in a nearby

non-modified field.

 

Still no mention of why any such outcomes should matter.

 

> Editors fret about potential trade conflicts

 

Very funny - as if your typical modern editor is anything better than

totally cynical, refusing to fret about anything. This disgusting

document was composed by jaded if clever PR agents.

 

>, and commentators recite emotional arguments about the pros and cons

of

> modern biotechnology.

 

The UN Environment agency won't link readers to, let alone itself

outline, the very strong scientific and ethical reasons to keep GMOs in

containment (and to get much tougher on the lab containment systems &

personnel).

 

>Fortunately, this debate has led to a broad consensus that, while

modern

>biotechnology may have great potential,

 

What, PR operatives - some loss of nerve? Or are you wishing to

create wording you could later point to, taken out of context, in case

your

bosses ask you in future why you didn't warn them? Nearly all of the

claimed benefits of GM are fantasies stated as if they're reality

 

>it must be developed and used with adequate safety measures,

particularly

>for the enviroment.

 

but be careful not to indicate the main concerns about GMOs in the

environment, won't you?

 

>Countries with strong biotechnology industries do have national

>legislation and risk-assessment systems in place.

 

These function almost entirely as rubber stamps.

 

> However, many developing countries interested in modern biotechnology

and

>its products are still in the process of drafting regulations.

 

There is little hope that most of them will ever create regulatory

charades, let alone effective regulatory regimes. Some will probably

outsource charades to Arthur D Little corp, J Arthur Young, or other

transnational accountancy/PR corporation.

 

>And because bio-technology is a global industry,

 

Who says so? It is obnoxious propaganda to assert this slogan. Most

countries have no GM nor any desire for GM crops or for importing

GM-food.

 

> and GMOs are traded across borders, international rules are needed as

well.

 

It remains open to a nation to refuse such international trade.

 

>In 1995, the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity

responded

>to this challenge by launching

>negotiations on a legally binding agreement that would address

potential

>risks posed by GMOs.

>These discussions culminated in January 2000 with the adoption of the

>Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

>Named after the Colombian city where the final round of talks was

launched, the Protocol for the first

>time sets out a comprehensive regulatory system for ensuring the safe

>transfer, handling and use of GMOs subject to transboundary movement.

>In this way, the Protocol seeks to meet the needs of consumers,

industry

>and the environment for many

>decades to come. This booklet explains how this system works.

 

The Cartagena Protocol itself is omitted from this corrupt PDF. I hope

some capable lawyers, cooperating with suitable scientists, will tackle

the uninviting prospect of finding out why this treaty is of so little

use in protecting nations (parties or not) from injection of GMOs.

Someone has to do it...

 

R

 

 

 

 

----------