20 August 2005
David Hosley
President and General Manager
KVIE Public Television
Dear Mr. Hosley,
I am writing both in my capacity as Director of the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) and a member of the Independent Science Panel (ISP).
ISIS is a not-for profit organisation dedicated to providing critical public information on cutting edge science and to promoting social accountability and ecological sustainability in science. We do this through reports posted on our website www.i-sis.org.uk and circulated to our extensive e-mail list, and quarterly magazine Science in Society, of which I am editor.
The ISP, launched 10 May 2003 at a public conference in London, UK, consists of dozens of prominent scientists from all over the world, spanning the disciplines of agroecology, agronomy, biomathematics, botany, chemical medicine, ecology, epidemiology, histopathology, microbial ecology, molecular genetics, nutritional biochemistry, physiology, plant biotechnology, taxonomy, toxicology and virology (http://www.indsp.org/ISPMembers.php). They share a deep concern over the commercialisation of genetic engineering and other technologies without the due process of thorough scientific assessment, informed public consultation and public consent; and are dedicated to researching and actively promoting science for a sustainable world through education, advocacy and social engagement.
I and my fellow scientists have long held the Public Broadcasting Service in high regard for its role in providing critical and reliable information to the public, and for maintaining the highest standards of balance and independence.
Recently, members of ISIS residing in the United States have alerted me to the potentially unbalanced coverage of genetic engineering in the forthcoming PBS series, “America’s Heartland”.
According to a letter circulated by the Union of Concerned Scientists in the United States, “America’s Heartland” is “a series on American agriculture that appears to unevenly promote the interests of the series’ main sponsors - Monsanto and the Farm Bureau - two historic proponents of industrial-style food production. Advance materials indicate that the series will portray an entirely positive portrait of U.S. agriculture. Despite an in-depth approach spanning 20 episodes, the series producers appear unwilling to give time to any concerns about agribusiness, from the impact of pesticides on human health, to pollution and foodborne illness caused by industrialized meat production, to the debate over genetically engineered crops.”
ISIS and ISP would like to add our voice to the concerns expressed. The ISP have reviewed the evidence on the problems and hazards of genetically modified (GM) crops as well as the proven successes of sustainable agriculture and published its report in June 2003 [1]. This report has been republished in the United States in 2004, and translated into five major languages.
The key findings of the ISP report on GM crops are as follows:
* Regulations over the releases of GM crops and products have been highly inadequate.
* There has not been a single credible independent scientific study showing that GM food and feed are safe to eat.
* Few feeding studies have been carried out, but existing evidence raises serious doubts over the safety of the transgenic process itself.
* GM varieties are unstable; and this may enhance the horizontal spread of transgenes, with the potential to create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and to disrupt gene function in animal and human cells.
* Many GM crops contain gene products known to be harmful: Bt proteins incorporated into a wide range of GM crops to control insect pests are known to be strong immunogens and allergens.
* Herbicide tolerant GM crops - accounting for 75 percent of all GM crops worldwide - are tied to the broad-spectrum herbicides glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium, and will likely increase their use. Both herbicides are systemic metabolic poisons linked to spontaneous abortions, birth defects and other toxicities for human beings and laboratory animals, and also harmful to wild life and beneficial organisms in the soil.
* GE crops have resulted in no benefits to the environment. There has been no reduction in the use of pesticides, while herbicide tolerant weeds and volunteers have emerged, and highly toxic herbicides have had to be brought back in use.
David Hosley
President and General Manager
KVIE Public Television
Dear Mr. Hosley,
I am writing both in my capacity as Director of the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) and a member of the Independent Science Panel (ISP).
ISIS is a not-for profit organisation dedicated to providing critical public information on cutting edge science and to promoting social accountability and ecological sustainability in science. We do this through reports posted on our website www.i-sis.org.uk and circulated to our extensive e-mail list, and quarterly magazine Science in Society, of which I am editor.
The ISP, launched 10 May 2003 at a public conference in London, UK, consists of dozens of prominent scientists from all over the world, spanning the disciplines of agroecology, agronomy, biomathematics, botany, chemical medicine, ecology, epidemiology, histopathology, microbial ecology, molecular genetics, nutritional biochemistry, physiology, plant biotechnology, taxonomy, toxicology and virology (http://www.indsp.org/ISPMembers.php). They share a deep concern over the commercialisation of genetic engineering and other technologies without the due process of thorough scientific assessment, informed public consultation and public consent; and are dedicated to researching and actively promoting science for a sustainable world through education, advocacy and social engagement.
I and my fellow scientists have long held the Public Broadcasting Service in high regard for its role in providing critical and reliable information to the public, and for maintaining the highest standards of balance and independence.
Recently, members of ISIS residing in the United States have alerted me to the potentially unbalanced coverage of genetic engineering in the forthcoming PBS series, “America’s Heartland”.
According to a letter circulated by the Union of Concerned Scientists in the United States, “America’s Heartland” is “a series on American agriculture that appears to unevenly promote the interests of the series’ main sponsors - Monsanto and the Farm Bureau - two historic proponents of industrial-style food production. Advance materials indicate that the series will portray an entirely positive portrait of U.S. agriculture. Despite an in-depth approach spanning 20 episodes, the series producers appear unwilling to give time to any concerns about agribusiness, from the impact of pesticides on human health, to pollution and foodborne illness caused by industrialized meat production, to the debate over genetically engineered crops.”
ISIS and ISP would like to add our voice to the concerns expressed. The ISP have reviewed the evidence on the problems and hazards of genetically modified (GM) crops as well as the proven successes of sustainable agriculture and published its report in June 2003 [1]. This report has been republished in the United States in 2004, and translated into five major languages.
The key findings of the ISP report on GM crops are as follows:
* Regulations over the releases of GM crops and products have been highly inadequate.
* There has not been a single credible independent scientific study showing that GM food and feed are safe to eat.
* Few feeding studies have been carried out, but existing evidence raises serious doubts over the safety of the transgenic process itself.
* GM varieties are unstable; and this may enhance the horizontal spread of transgenes, with the potential to create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and to disrupt gene function in animal and human cells.
* Many GM crops contain gene products known to be harmful: Bt proteins incorporated into a wide range of GM crops to control insect pests are known to be strong immunogens and allergens.
* Herbicide tolerant GM crops - accounting for 75 percent of all GM crops worldwide - are tied to the broad-spectrum herbicides glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium, and will likely increase their use. Both herbicides are systemic metabolic poisons linked to spontaneous abortions, birth defects and other toxicities for human beings and laboratory animals, and also harmful to wild life and beneficial organisms in the soil.
* GE crops have resulted in no benefits to the environment. There has been no reduction in the use of pesticides, while herbicide tolerant weeds and volunteers have emerged, and highly toxic herbicides have had to be brought back in use.
Etiquetas: Biotech
0 Comentarios:
Publicar un comentario
Suscribirse a Comentarios de la entrada [Atom]
<< Página Principal