I personally protested genetic engineering at University of Minnesota - based on the science hazards. I was personally commended by biology professor - now emeritus - Phil Regal. He said the biology department at Minnesota had been taken over by Monsanto and Cargill. And why do you think the bees and butterflies have been killed off? Why do rats get sick and cancer from genetic engineered foods? It's NOT the same as hybrid mutations in nature.
I quoted an administrator at University of Minnesota - "for enough money we'll give you tomatoes the size of basketballs!" That's what's driving GE science - patent control for profit. I did my master's degree research on this subject - here is one published letter I had in the University newspaper - serving 50,000. I was then hired as a paid op-ed writer for the University newspaper: https://www.mndaily.com/article/1999/11/university-sells-out-corporate-interests
The recent dean of the College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences, Mike Martin, exposes the true priorities of the University to be bold, elite marketing. In his lead Research Review, May 1998, article, "This University Must and Will Lead in Biotechnology Research," Martin states: "The millers told our breeder, Jim Orf in Agronomy and Plant Genetics, that it would be a little better for them if the bean could be just a little bit bigger. Jim, a good biotechnologist, said, 'for enough money I'll make 'em the size of basketballs.'"
Martin continues in a context of glee, "We've acquired the rights to Monsanto's Roundup-ready gene: You put the gene into a crop plant, plant the plant, blast the area with the weed-killer Roundup, and everything dies but the crop. In southern Minnesota, they raised a lot of Roundup-ready soybeans last year, and we're working on Roundup-ready turf grass, Roundup-ready canola, and perhaps Roundup-ready barley." With concentrated corporate control comes unaccountability, and my report details a long list of white-collar crime indicative of the Corporate U.
It's to be expected, then, that Martin left the state while at the center of a scandal. Sen. Ember Reichgott Junge, DFL-New Hope, chair of the State Ethics Committee, stated, "Dean Martin has provided us now with two to three different accounts of the facts." The alleged issue: State Sen. Dallas Sams was paid University funds ($12,500) to secure public funding ($1 million) that will be focused on corporate agriculture. Junge added that she "believe(s) that Dr. Martin was the center person in all of this." Tragically, the University's image of sifting through the ethics of biotechnology is a blatant lie.
For instance, the scientific hazards of rBGH, already pushed onto suicidal farmers and exploited consumers, was exposed recently by the distinguished Codex Alimentarius. The commission ruled unanimously that rBGH is unsafe on the grounds that the resulting milk has excessive levels of an insulin growth factor that is linked to spreading of various cancers, notably breast, prostate and colorectal. In the United States, 1 out of 2 men and 1 out of 3 women now get cancer. The University still has Monsanto tax-deductible financing of synthetic growth hormones on campus.
All of this might seem shocking, since the University constantly promotes an image of ethical analysis regarding genetic engineering technology. But the public continues to become guinea pigs to this fundamentally deadly technology, and the Corporate University does public relations damage control. For the 25-year Celebration of the Women's Studies Program, an anti-genetic engineering presentation was held, titled, "The Sacred Cow and the Mad Cow: metaphors of ecofeminism and technofeminism" by physicist and ecologist Dr. Vandana Shiva, Director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology.
Inherent dangers of genetic engineering include: genetically engineered potatoes, being poisonous and damaging to mammals; increased cancer risks from genetically engineered products; damage to food quality and nutrition, increased antibiotic resistance, increased pesticide residues, genetic pollution, damage to beneficial insects and soil fertility, creation of genetically engineered "superweeds" and "superpests," creation of new viruses and pathogens, genetic "bio-invasion," socioeconomic hazards and ethical hazards. Because of Cargill's genetic engineering partnership with Monsanto and Cargill's invasive global corporate destruction, Shiva is part of a mass movement against Cargill and corporate capitalism.
In 1996, this movement involved a march of 500,000 Indian farmers against corporate-controlled trade agreements and 1,000 farmers' destruction of a Cargill factory and corporate records. Shiva stated that Minnesota needs a democracy movement. We taxpayers of Minnesota, where Cargill is based, have a moral responsibility to act in compassion for self-reliant farmers worldwide. The public retains the constitutional right to revoke chartered entities (i.e. the University and corporations) when those entities are repeatedly violating the public good.
Drew Hempel is a Unviersity graduate student. He welcomes comments at hemp0027@tc.umn.edu.
thanks - I didn't see his reply. But if those are his claims - they're hilarious. As I mentioned Phil Regal, U of MN biology professor commending me - he is also a Biosafety Protocol expert. Yes in my protest - I pointed out the British Medial Association had banned GE foods and research. But what happened in the US is that RayGun changed the corporate-state research laws so that "official" research got turned into a 100% tax deductible donation so that the corporations get free research buildings, free researchers, and get to control the direction of research, etc.
And of course the logic is faulty. Just because bees and butterflies have been killed off from genetic engineering does not mean that other causes are creating an insect die-off globally. Also to equate the Green Revolution with genetic engineering - well the only real connection is that the Rockefellers have funded both. And so Dr. Vandana Shiva has pointed out the evils of the Green Revolution.
https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/Are_Genetically_Engineered_Foods_Safe_A_Scient.htm Professor Philip J. Regal, 100 Ecology Building, 1987 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108. or regal001@maroon.tc.umn.edu ARE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS SAFE? A SCIENTIST'S QUEST FOR BIOSAFETY
"I have personal and civic concerns about risks to the health of myself, loved ones, and fellow human beings, but the reader will discover that I also have concerns about the erosion of traditional scientific values. In my opinion, the intrusion of spin doctors, public relations campaigns, and financial and career-based conflicts of interest have been unhealthy for the science of biology. The newcomers have compromised the ability of science to offer value-free information to society. I believe that the courts should act to preserve the openness of science and should begin to set limits on the efforts of powerful special interests to promote their financial agendas at the expense of traditional scientific ideals and standards."
There is this myth that genetic engineering has increased food production. Sure the "green revolution" increased food production - but obviously not sustainably. We're now running out of phosphorus - and fresh water - and are dependent on fossil fuels to grow food while the soil is being destroyed. So yes the populations are now crashing - the Green Revolution created an artificial spike in food production at the expense of ecology. Mother Nature bats last.
Also food production got concentrated via automation and the loss of jobs - so the farm economy suffered overall.
As far as cancer rates going down? Well compared to wait? The main reason is due to smoking rates going down - is that true globally? Of course not - smoking rates have increased elsewhere. What about brain cancer rates? They are going up due to cell phone electromagnetic radiation. The environmental pollution causes of cancer are not tracked nor really researched - and so for cancer rates to go down - this could also be do an increase in eating organic food. Whereas the rate of 1 out of 3 males getting cancer and one out of 2 females - then of course cancer rates will go down dramatically from smoking rates going down.
In the US, 1 in 2 women and 1 in 3 men will develop cancer in their lifetime. Now, a similar rate has been reported in the UK, with a new study published in the British Journal of Cancer claiming 1 in 2 men and women will be diagnosed with the disease at some point in their lives.Feb 4, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment