Por noticiasdeabajo • 5 abril, 2014
GMWatch, 31 de marzo de 2014
Cerdos alimentados con soja transgénica, de la granja de Borup Pedersen, en Dinamarca. A la derecha, cochinillo con deformidad craneal; arriba a la izquierda, deformidad en la columna; abajo izquierda, lechones siameses. http://noticiasdeabajo.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/dinamarca-se-relaciona-la-soja-transgenica-con-danos-en-la-cria-del-cerdo/
En una
nueva entrevista, el Profesor Séralini dice que va a volver a publicar
el estudio sobre el maíz transgénico y Roundup, que fue retirado de la
revista Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). Mientras tanto, una
declaración sobre la retractación por motivos ético-científicos, fue
firmada por 170 científicos. Esto es lo que dijo uno de los científicos:
“La
censura de las evidencias científicas con fines comerciales debe ser
perseguida como un hecho criminal. Las Compañías de Tabaco lograron
durante casi 30 años silenciar su peligrosidad, antes de que el mundo se
diera cuenta del problema, incluso entonces la respuesta no fue muy
contundente. Los riesgos que plantean las modificaciones epigenéticas en
la respuesta del ADN, por la introducción de genes extraños en las
plantas, son potencialmente catastróficos. Censurar los estudios
científicos es jugar con la vida de las personas”.
- Dr Bob Abell, Member/originator, “Scientists Concerned and Informed on the Environment Speak Out”, Kanata, Ont., Canada
Más comentarios en: : http://www.endsciencecensorship.org
También se firmó una declaración comprometiéndose a un boicot contra la revista del grupo Elservier FCT. De momento ha sido firmada por 1240 científicos:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Open_letter_to_FCT_and_Elsevier.php#form
Resumen.-
El estudio [sobre la alimentación con maíz transgénico y el herbicida
Roundup] fue criticado por una decena de personas, que pertenecen a
Agencias Sanitarias y a grupos de presión. Creo que la retractación
[retirada del artículo publicado en la revista FCT] se ha debido al
efecto simbólico que ha producido el estudio. La retirada del estudio
permite a los grupos de presión decir que nunca se ha publicado ningún
estudio sobre los riesgos en la salud de los transgénicos. Así que la
Comisión puede seguir aprobando transgénicos y seguir diciendo que no
hay estudios. Este estudio fue retirado debido a una conducta exenta de
toda ética, llevada a cabo por los lobbies y bajo los auspicios de Monsanto.
Los argumentos esgrimidos por la revista han sido los mismos que los
esgrimidos por Monsanto. En cualquier caso, seguimos manteniendo por
buenos los resultados de nuestro estudio. Esta es la razón por la que
vamos a volver a publicar el estudio.
Los transgénicos enferman a los animales
Entrevista con el Profesor Séralini realizada por Sophie Devillers:
[El Profesor Séralini es biólogo de la
Universidad de Caen, Francia, y autor de un controvertido estudio sobre
el impacto de los transgénicos]
Sophie Devillers (SD).- Usted dice que los transgénicos producen daños en la salud. ¿Cómo?
Gilles-Eric Séralini (GES).-
Los transgénicos cultivados en agricultura están cargados de
pesticidas. Las tres cuartas partes de todos los transgénicos contienen
grandes cantidades de Roundup, el herbicida más utilizado en todo el
mundo, diseñado para matar las malas hierbas. Estas plantas han sido
modificadas genéticamente para que toleren al herbicida Roundup, tanto
en el maíz como en la soja. En los transgénicos se puede aplicar Roundup
en las cantidades que se quiera, ya que la plantas las tolerará. Si
usted aplica una dosis de este herbicida a otra planta, muere. Los
transgénicos facilitan el monocultivo intensivo.
SD.- ¿Y los mismos transgénicos?
GES.- Los
transgénicos no existen de forma independiente de los plaguicidas.
Todavía no sabemos lo suficiente. Las tres cuartas partes de ellos
absorben los pesticidas, y el cuarto restante, como el caso del maíz Bt,
produce su propio insecticida. Por lo tanto, existe una toxicidad
debido a la presencia de plaguicidas en los transgénicos, algo nuevo en
nuestra dieta. Antes de consumir transgénicos, nunca habíamos ingerido
niveles tan altos de residuos de Roundup. Lo mismo para el resto de
insecticidas. Sí, los transgénicos son especialmente peligrosos porque
contienen pesticidas, pero no sólo por eso. Nuestro equipo también
encontró efectos tóxicos en los transgénicos aunque no tuviesen restos
de pesticidas.
SD.- ¿Qué estudio ha realizado su equipo?
GES.-
Nuestro equipo ha publicado un estudio pionero sobre el impacto de los
transgénicos en la salud. Hemos realizado estudios en células humanas y
ratas, tanto a corto como a largo plazo (dos años). En cuanto a los
estudios en ratas, fuimos los primeros en analizar gran cantidad de
parámetros ( de la sangre y de la orina) y por un período largo. Estas
ratas consumieron de forma regular transgénicos con pesticidas, y en las
mimas dosis, transgénicos sin pesticidas. El objetivo era averiguar de
dónde proviene la toxicidad. Nunca se había hecho esto, ya que los
estudios realizados por empresas y Agencias Sanitarias sólo han hecho
estudio no superiores a tres meses (90 días). Pero este estudio fue
retirado sin miramientos por la revista que inicialmente lo había
publicado, después de que un exempleado de Monsanto entrase a formar parte del Consejo Editorial de la revista. El exjefe de toxicología de los transgénicos de Monsanto.
SD.- ¿Y qué encontraron? ¿Cáncer?
GES.- Por
primera vez, se ha observado el efecto tóxico en el hígados de los
animales. Los transgénicos y Roundup también causaron inflamación renal
muy significativa y necrosis del hígado. Otro fenómeno observado fue una
inversión de las hormonas sexuales ( exceso de andrógenos en las
mujeres y pocos estrógenos). El tercer efecto fue también hormonal:
tumores en las mamas y tumores en la glándula pituitaria. En nuestro
estudio nunca hemos mencionado la palabras cáncer, porque no todos los
tumores lo eran, variaban de más a menos cancerígenos. No concluimos que
se produce cáncer. Las muertes se produjeron porque los tumores
crecieron mucho (sangrado interno y presión sobre los órganos vitales…).
Esto sucedió tanto con el pesticida como sólo con los transgénicos.
Hemos comprobado su mecanismo de acción: la enzima que se produce en
exceso en los transgénicos tolerantes a Roundup hizo disminuir los
niveles de ácidos esenciales para la protección del hígado y del riñón.
SD.- No comemos transgénicos, así qué ¿cómo pueden resultar peligrosos? La normativa europea es muy estricta en este sentido…
GES.-
Comemos muchos transgénicos a través de los animales. El 90% de los
transgénicos se utilizan para alimentar a los cerdos y vacas de los
países ricos. Los transgénicos contienen pesticidas que entran en la
cadena alimentaria, donde se acumulan. Por otro lado, los animales
enferman, y comer animales enfermos en muy perjudicial para la salud.
Los animales son más susceptibles a infecciones y enfermedades. Su
consumo debe ser prohibido. Los pesticidas se acumulan en la cadena
alimentaria y en la grasa de los animales, en niveles más altos que las
plantas tratadas con Roundup. Antes, el debate se planteaba sobre los
posibles peligros de los transgénicos y su ADN, que penetra en la cadena
alimentaria. Este no es el problema. Nadie había demostrado que estos
animales alimentados con transgénicos están enfermos. Y lo hemos
demostrado. Debido a la naturaleza de la producción industrial, y la
corta vida de los animales, no lo vemos, y aparentemente no se
diferencian de los demás.
SD.- Pero este estudio es cuestionable, ya que ha utilizado unos animales susceptibles de presentar tumores…
GES.-
Existía un grupo de control ( no alimentado con transgénicos) y
encontramos de dos a tres veces más tumores en la ratas tratadas (
alimentadas con transgénicos y/o Roundup). Se produjeron inversiones de
las hormonas sexuales, algo que nadie ha mencionado. Además, estas ratas
son las utilizadas en los estudios de toxicología (unos 250.000
estudios), e hicimos diez grupos de ratas, un total de 200, lo que entra
dentro de las normas de los estudios generales sobre toxicidad a largo
plazo. Monsanto ha utilizado la misma cepa de ratas para probar su maíz
transgénico, en el que sólo utilizó un total de 40. Hay un doble rasero.
El estudio ha sido criticado por Agencias Sanitarias y grupos de
presión. Creo
que la retractación [retirada del artículo publicado en la revista FCT]
se ha debido al efecto simbólico que ha producido el estudio. La
retirada del estudio permite a los grupos de presión decir que nunca se
ha publicado ningún estudio sobre los riesgos en la salud de los
transgénicos. Así que la Comisión puede seguir aprobando transgénicos y
seguir diciendo que no hay estudios. Este estudio fue retirado debido a
una conducta exenta de toda ética, llevada a cabo por los lobbies y bajo
los auspicios de Monsanto. Los argumentos esgrimidos por la revista han
sido los mismos que los esgrimidos por Monsanto. En cualquier caso,
seguimos manteniendo por buenos los resultados de nuestro estudio. Esta
es la razón por la que vamos a volver a publicar el estudio.
Procedencia: http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15371-gmos-make-animals-seriously-ill-prof-gilles-eric-seralini
http://noticiasdeabajo.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/profesor-seralini-los-transgenicos-enferman-a-los-animales/
GMOs make animals seriously ill - Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini
In
a new interview, Seralini vows he will republish the GMO maize and
Roundup study retracted by the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.
Meanwhile the scientists' sign-on statement opposing the retraction on scientific as well as ethical grounds has gathered 170 signatures. Here's what one scientist said:
"The suppression of scientific evidence for commercial gain should be punishable by criminal charges. The tobacco companies got away with this for nearly 30 years before the world woke up to the problem, and even then the response was insufficient. The risks posed by the epigenetic response of plant DNA to foreign genes is potentially catastrophic, and the precautionary principle should apply. Censoring science is playing with peoples lives."
- Dr Bob Abell, Member/originator, "Scientists Concerned and Informed on the Environment Speak Out", Kanata, Ont., Canada
More comments at: http://www.endsciencecensorship.org
A sign-on statement pledging to boycott Elsevier until its journal FCT reinstates the study has now attracted a massive 1240 scientist signatories:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Open_letter_to_FCT_and_Elsevier.php#form
EXCERPT: [Seralini:] The study was criticised by some tens of people: health agencies and lobbies. For me, the retraction was due to the study’s symbolic effect. This [retraction] allows lobbyists to say there has never been any study showing a health risk with GMOs. So that the Commission can continue to allow GMOs and so that this little phrase can always be used. This study was withdrawn due to the wrongdoing of lobbyists in the system, under pressure from Monsanto. The arguments of the journal were the same as those of Monsanto. In any case, we stand by our findings! And we will republish [the study]!
---
“They [GMOs] make animals seriously ill”
La Libre Belgique, 31 March 2014
Interview: Sophie Devillers, English translation from the French by Claire Robinson
http://www.gmoseralini.org/they-gmos-make-animals-seriously-ill/
* Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini is a biologist at the University of Caen and author of a controversial study on the impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). While in Brussels, he answered our questions:
According to you, eating GMOs harms health… How?
Agricultural GMOs are loaded with pesticides. Three-quarters of all GMOs contain large amounts of Roundup, the main pesticide in the world, designed to kill weeds. These plants have been genetically modified for this, such as Roundup-tolerant soybean and corn. The GM provides in this case the possibility to apply Roundup, whenever and as much as you want, because the plant will tolerate it. If one gives such a large dose of pesticides to a normal plant, it dies. GMOs facilitate intensive farming methods.
And GMOs themselves?
Agricultural GMOs do not exist independently of pesticides. We do not know enough. Three-quarters of them absorb pesticides, and the last quarter, like Bt corn, produce their own insecticide. There is already a toxicity due to pesticides within these GMOs, which is new in our diet. Before GMOs, we have never eaten such high levels of Roundup residues. Same for insecticides. Yes, GMOs are especially dangerous because they contain pesticides, but not only because of that. Our team also found toxic effects of GMOs without pesticides.
What did you study?
Our team is the most-published in the world on the impact of GMOs and pesticides on health. We have done studies on human cells and on rats, both short- and long-term (two years). Regarding studies in rats, we were the first ones to study so many parameters (tens of thousands for blood and urine) and for so long. These rats consumed regularly GMOs with pesticides, and at the same doses, GMOs without pesticides. The aim was to find out where any toxicity came from. We were the only ones in the world to do this, as companies and health agencies had never ordered tests lasting longer than three months. But the study was retracted with great violence by the journal which published it after a former employee of Monsanto [Editor’s note: manufacturer of Roundup and GMO seeds] was introduced onto the editorial board of the journal. He is the former head of GMO toxicology dossiers at Monsanto.
What did this study show? Cancer?
No. We first observed the toxic effect on the animals’ liver. GMOs and Roundup also caused very significant kidney inflammation and necrosis of the liver. The other phenomenon was inversion of sex hormones (excess androgen in females and too little estrogen). The third effect was also hormonal: mammary tumors and pituitary gland tumours. In our study, we never mentioned the word cancer, because there were tumours, which varied from more or less cancerous. We recorded everything , but we did not conclude on cancer. Deaths resulted because they had grown very quickly (internal bleeding, pressure on vital organs … ). This happened both with the pesticide and with the GMO alone. We understand the mechanism of action. The enzyme that is overproduced in the GMO to make it tolerate Roundup began indirectly to decrease the levels of amino acids essential for protection of the liver and kidney.
We do not eat GMOs , so how could they be dangerous? And European rules are very strict about it …
We eat a lot via animals. 90% of GMOs are used to feed pigs and cows in rich countries. GMOs contain pesticides that go into the food chain and accumulate. On the other hand, they make animals seriously ill, and to eat sick animals is very harmful for health. They may be more susceptible to infections and diseases. Eating them should be banned. Pesticides accumulate in the food chain and in the animal’s fat, at higher levels than in the treated plants [themselves]. Before, the debate focused on the possible dangers of GMO DNA getting into the food chain. This is not the problem. Nobody had shown that these animals [that eat GMOs] were sick. We showed that. Due to the nature of industrial production and the short lifespan [of livestock animals], we do not see it. And they are not differentiated from others.
But this study is questionable because you used a type more susceptible to tumours, groups of animals that were too small …
We had control rats (not fed GMOs), and we still found two to three times more tumors [in treated rats]. And there were inversions of sex hormones, which nobody mentioned. Furthermore, these rats have been used in 250 000 toxicology studies, and with ten rats per group (a total of 200), the number of rats was within the norms of general long-term toxicity studies [like Séralini’s]. And Monsanto used the same strain of rat to test its GM corn! And they measured ten rats per group, a total of 40. There are double standards! The study was criticised by some tens of people: health agencies and lobbies. For me, the retraction was due to the study’s symbolic effect. This [retraction] allows lobbyists to say there has never been any study showing a health risk with GMOs. So that the Commission can continue to allow GMOs and so that this little phrase can always be used. This study was withdrawn due to the wrongdoing of lobbyists in the system, under pressure from Monsanto. The arguments of the journal were the same as those of Monsanto. In any case, we stand by our findings! And we will republish [the study]!
Fuente: http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15371-gmos-make-animals-seriously-ill-prof-gilles-eric-seralini
Meanwhile the scientists' sign-on statement opposing the retraction on scientific as well as ethical grounds has gathered 170 signatures. Here's what one scientist said:
"The suppression of scientific evidence for commercial gain should be punishable by criminal charges. The tobacco companies got away with this for nearly 30 years before the world woke up to the problem, and even then the response was insufficient. The risks posed by the epigenetic response of plant DNA to foreign genes is potentially catastrophic, and the precautionary principle should apply. Censoring science is playing with peoples lives."
- Dr Bob Abell, Member/originator, "Scientists Concerned and Informed on the Environment Speak Out", Kanata, Ont., Canada
More comments at: http://www.endsciencecensorship.org
A sign-on statement pledging to boycott Elsevier until its journal FCT reinstates the study has now attracted a massive 1240 scientist signatories:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Open_letter_to_FCT_and_Elsevier.php#form
EXCERPT: [Seralini:] The study was criticised by some tens of people: health agencies and lobbies. For me, the retraction was due to the study’s symbolic effect. This [retraction] allows lobbyists to say there has never been any study showing a health risk with GMOs. So that the Commission can continue to allow GMOs and so that this little phrase can always be used. This study was withdrawn due to the wrongdoing of lobbyists in the system, under pressure from Monsanto. The arguments of the journal were the same as those of Monsanto. In any case, we stand by our findings! And we will republish [the study]!
---
“They [GMOs] make animals seriously ill”
La Libre Belgique, 31 March 2014
Interview: Sophie Devillers, English translation from the French by Claire Robinson
http://www.gmoseralini.org/they-gmos-make-animals-seriously-ill/
* Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini is a biologist at the University of Caen and author of a controversial study on the impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). While in Brussels, he answered our questions:
According to you, eating GMOs harms health… How?
Agricultural GMOs are loaded with pesticides. Three-quarters of all GMOs contain large amounts of Roundup, the main pesticide in the world, designed to kill weeds. These plants have been genetically modified for this, such as Roundup-tolerant soybean and corn. The GM provides in this case the possibility to apply Roundup, whenever and as much as you want, because the plant will tolerate it. If one gives such a large dose of pesticides to a normal plant, it dies. GMOs facilitate intensive farming methods.
And GMOs themselves?
Agricultural GMOs do not exist independently of pesticides. We do not know enough. Three-quarters of them absorb pesticides, and the last quarter, like Bt corn, produce their own insecticide. There is already a toxicity due to pesticides within these GMOs, which is new in our diet. Before GMOs, we have never eaten such high levels of Roundup residues. Same for insecticides. Yes, GMOs are especially dangerous because they contain pesticides, but not only because of that. Our team also found toxic effects of GMOs without pesticides.
What did you study?
Our team is the most-published in the world on the impact of GMOs and pesticides on health. We have done studies on human cells and on rats, both short- and long-term (two years). Regarding studies in rats, we were the first ones to study so many parameters (tens of thousands for blood and urine) and for so long. These rats consumed regularly GMOs with pesticides, and at the same doses, GMOs without pesticides. The aim was to find out where any toxicity came from. We were the only ones in the world to do this, as companies and health agencies had never ordered tests lasting longer than three months. But the study was retracted with great violence by the journal which published it after a former employee of Monsanto [Editor’s note: manufacturer of Roundup and GMO seeds] was introduced onto the editorial board of the journal. He is the former head of GMO toxicology dossiers at Monsanto.
What did this study show? Cancer?
No. We first observed the toxic effect on the animals’ liver. GMOs and Roundup also caused very significant kidney inflammation and necrosis of the liver. The other phenomenon was inversion of sex hormones (excess androgen in females and too little estrogen). The third effect was also hormonal: mammary tumors and pituitary gland tumours. In our study, we never mentioned the word cancer, because there were tumours, which varied from more or less cancerous. We recorded everything , but we did not conclude on cancer. Deaths resulted because they had grown very quickly (internal bleeding, pressure on vital organs … ). This happened both with the pesticide and with the GMO alone. We understand the mechanism of action. The enzyme that is overproduced in the GMO to make it tolerate Roundup began indirectly to decrease the levels of amino acids essential for protection of the liver and kidney.
We do not eat GMOs , so how could they be dangerous? And European rules are very strict about it …
We eat a lot via animals. 90% of GMOs are used to feed pigs and cows in rich countries. GMOs contain pesticides that go into the food chain and accumulate. On the other hand, they make animals seriously ill, and to eat sick animals is very harmful for health. They may be more susceptible to infections and diseases. Eating them should be banned. Pesticides accumulate in the food chain and in the animal’s fat, at higher levels than in the treated plants [themselves]. Before, the debate focused on the possible dangers of GMO DNA getting into the food chain. This is not the problem. Nobody had shown that these animals [that eat GMOs] were sick. We showed that. Due to the nature of industrial production and the short lifespan [of livestock animals], we do not see it. And they are not differentiated from others.
But this study is questionable because you used a type more susceptible to tumours, groups of animals that were too small …
We had control rats (not fed GMOs), and we still found two to three times more tumors [in treated rats]. And there were inversions of sex hormones, which nobody mentioned. Furthermore, these rats have been used in 250 000 toxicology studies, and with ten rats per group (a total of 200), the number of rats was within the norms of general long-term toxicity studies [like Séralini’s]. And Monsanto used the same strain of rat to test its GM corn! And they measured ten rats per group, a total of 40. There are double standards! The study was criticised by some tens of people: health agencies and lobbies. For me, the retraction was due to the study’s symbolic effect. This [retraction] allows lobbyists to say there has never been any study showing a health risk with GMOs. So that the Commission can continue to allow GMOs and so that this little phrase can always be used. This study was withdrawn due to the wrongdoing of lobbyists in the system, under pressure from Monsanto. The arguments of the journal were the same as those of Monsanto. In any case, we stand by our findings! And we will republish [the study]!
Fuente: http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15371-gmos-make-animals-seriously-ill-prof-gilles-eric-seralini
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario