Russia is the last bastion of GMO Free Food

[senheiser]

17.05.2014

Genetically modified food is accused of dangerously toying with nature. Its potential negative health effects are making Russia take steps. A draft law submitted to the Russian parliament seeks to impose punishment up to criminal prosecution to producers of genetically-modified organisms harmful to health or the environment. RT's Egor Piskunov reports








Russian anti-GMO activists raise funds for ‘first-ever’ independent intl research
Published time: May 17, 2014 11:31
Get short URL

As Russian MPs ponder over a draft bill that could see GMOs outlawed, the country’s chief genetic safety activist tells RT she is skeptical about the legislative initiative and urges ‘long-overdue’ independent international research.

GMO production and distribution is likened to terrorism by the authors of a draft bill submitted to the Russian parliament earlier this week. It’s not the first comparison of the kind, according to Elena Sharoykina, director of the Genetic Safety Public Association (GSPA), a 10-year-old NGO in Moscow, Russia’s major campaigner for GM-free food and agriculture.

In an interview to RT, Sharoykina recalled a statement made by the NATO Committee on the Challenges to Modern Society in the Belgian city of Liege in 2004, in which it warned that GMOs may be used as a genetic weapon.

“If serious international experts on security who have close ties with the scientific community say this is possible then there’s no smoke without fire,” Sharoykina said.

The GSPA director is still skeptical about the draft bill, as she sees no way in which the legislation could be enforced in practice, as it would be hard to prove a direct link between certain GMOs and health or environmental problems.

The activist however cites some disturbing experiment results, like the one GSPA conducted with the help of the A.N. Severtsev Institute of Ecology and Evolution in 2010.

“We conducted an experiment on hamsters taken from the natural environment,” Sharoykina said. “We had a group that was given standard feed-stuff plus pure soy and another group which had their standard feed-stuff combined with GM soy. The animals which were eating GMO did not have their third generation born.”

Elena Sharoykina, director of the Genetic Safety Public Association (GSPA). Photo from vk.com/oagbru


The GSPA director confesses it was a modest, underfunded experiment and a more serious and comprehensive one is needed and is going to be conducted in Russia. The NGO has already enrolled a team of researchers from the US, France, the UK, China and Russia and will make sure the experiment will comply with all international standards. It’s also going to be available for everyone to follow online.

The GSPA is raising funds from as many sources as possible for the experiment to come up to the group’s claims – the first-ever independent international research on GMO.

Until results of this kind of experiment become available, Russia should abstain from opening its market to GMOs, despite economic losses the step might incur, the expert says.

“How can we think about money when we’re talking about the health of our close ones?” Sharoykina asks. “Russia has huge territories and doesn’t need GM foods. Moreover, we have all the chances of dominating the clean, unmodified food market.”

After entering the World Trade Organization, Russia was expected to allow GM foods production and distribution. However, in March Russia’s president said the country was able stay GM-free without violating its obligations to the WTO.

In April, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev told MPs that Russia will not plant GM seeds for at least three more years due to delays in creating the necessary infrastructure. Earlier Russia had expected to allow planting such seeds from June 2014.


GMO producers should be punished as terrorists, Russian MPs say
Published time: May 15, 2014 12:47
Edited time: May 16, 2014 11:13
Get short URL

A draft law submitted to the Russian parliament seeks to impose punishment up to criminal prosecution to producers of genetically-modified organisms harmful to health or the environment.

The draft legislation submitted on Wednesday amends Russia's law regulating GMOs and some other laws and provides for disciplinary action against individuals and firms, which produce or distribute harmful biotech products and government officials who fail to properly control them.

At worst, a criminal case may be launched against a company involved in introducing unsafe GMOs into Russia. Sponsors of the bill say that the punishment for such deeds should be comparable to the punishment allotted to terrorists, if the perpetrators act knowingly and hurt many people.

“When a terrorist act is committed, only several people are usually hurt. But GMOs may hurt dozens and hundreds. The consequences are much worse. And punishment should be proportionate to the crime,” co-author Kirill Cherkasov, member of the State Duma Agriculture Committee told RT.

Russian criminal code allows for a punishment starting with 15 years in jail and up to a life sentence for terrorism.

Less severe misdeeds related to GMOs would be punishable by fines. For instance the administrative code would provide for up to 20,000 rubles (US$560) in fines for failure to report an incident of environmental pollution, which would also cover harmful GMO contamination, if sponsors of the bill have their way.

Russia gave the green light to import of GMOs and planting of bioengineered seeds as part of its accession to the WTO, but the Russian government remains skeptical of GMOs. In April, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev announced that his cabinet will postpone the beginning of certification of GMO plants for growth in Russia due to lack of proper infrastructure needed to test their safety.

The government also opposes imports of GMO food, saying the country has enough farmlands to provide enough regular food to feed itself.

But the new draft legislation, even if adopted, would be difficult to enforce in practice. Proving a direct link between certain GMOs and health or environmental problems could be difficult, considering that harmful effects, if they manifest, may take years to become apparent.

Critics of the draft bill also point out that it fails to suggest amendments to laws regulating textile production and pharmaceutical industry, both of which have been using genetically-altered products for years.

“The global pharmaceutical industry uses GMOs much wider than food industry does. And there is the question, who should be punished in this case – producers of medicines which are used to treat people, or those who want to ban them,” commented Aleksandr Korbut, vice-president of the Russian grain union, to Izvestia newspaper.

 

[nangyale]

I am extremely happy for this decision.
The world food supply shouldn't be surrendered to the likes of Monsanto.
It just shows to the world again that Putin cares more about the health and well being of humanity rather than short term profits.

 

[senheiser]

I am extremely happy for this decision.
The world food supply shouldn't be surrendered to the likes of Monsanto.
It just shows to the world again that Putin cares more about the health and well being of humanity rather than short term profits.

this will also benefit the russian agriculture industry, we can now ban any food imports from america or any country using GMO.

 

[PWFI]

Russia is the last hope for the humanity

 

[nangyale]

this will also benefit the russian agriculture industry, we can now ban any food imports from america or any country using GMO.

Agreed.
Also anybody who does not want to consume GM (because of it's many side effects on human health), can happily and safely consume Russian products, safe in the knowledge that they are completely GM free.

 

[IND151]

GMO is not good, it should be banned.

 

[Secret Service]

even Pakistan's government purchased wheat seeds without realizing what damage it will cause...
well done Russian keep yourself away from zionist regimes ..

 

[Secret Service]

watch " Seeds of Death" and “the world according to Monsanto” to realize what it is dong to the poor farmers all over the world and how its effecting our consumers as we are feeding poison of Monsanto.

 

[Schutz]

There not all that bad, some are modified to be high in important nutrients which might be difficult to get in some climates/regions for various regions although on the whole they should be banned by every country. America must be a haven for GM food, just a guess.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

I haven't watched the above movies yet....I'm not pro-GM as I don't think enough tests have been done to prove it is 100% safe.

I just don't particularly understand the gripe with Monsanto.
I thought Monsanto has a line of GM seeds that is immune to their weedkiller RoundUp...that's their main selling point.
If people don't want to use it...then just don't buy it. It's not like they have a monopoly on food seeds or weedkiller. Buying their seeds without their weedkiller is useless and buying their weedkiller without their seeds is just as useless. Roundup kills all non-GM plants...and their GM seeds are killed by other weedkillers.

What could be simpler than that?
It's not like Monsanto flies a plane across countries of the world and tosses seeds out the window.

 

[nangyale]

Squandering Nature's Capital
The Social Cost of GMOs
by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Ecological economists such as Herman Daly write that the more full the world becomes, the higher are the social or external costs of production.
Social or external costs are costs of production that are not captured in the price of the products. For example, dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico that result from chemicals used in agriculture are not included as costs in agricultural production. The price of food does not include the damage to the Gulf.
Food production is a source of large social costs. Indeed, it seems that the more food producers are able to lower the measured cost of food production, the higher the social costs imposed on society.
Consider the factory farming of animals. The density of operations results in a concentration of germs and in animals being fed antibiotics. Lowering the cost of food in this way contributes to the rise of antibiotic resistant superbugs that will impose costs on society that will more than offset the savings from lower food prices.
Monsanto has reduced the measured cost of food production by producing genetically modified seeds that result in plants that are pest and herbicide resistant. The result is increased yields and lower measured costs of production. However, there is evidence that the social or external costs of this approach to farming more than offsets the lower measured cost. For example, there are toxic affects on microorganisms in the soil, a decline in soil fertility and nutritional value of food, and animal and human infertility.
When Purdue University plant pathologist and soil microbiologist Don Huber pointed out these unintended consequences of GMOs, other scientists were hesitant to support him, because their careers are dependent on research grants from agribusiness. In other words, Monsanto essentially controls the research on its own products.
In his book, Genetic Roulette, Jeffrey M. Smith writes: “Genetically modified (GM) foods are inherently unsafe, and current safety assessments are not competent to protect us from or even identify most dangers.” The evidence is piling up against such foods; yet the US government is so totally owned by Monsanto that labeling cannot be required.
Pesticides damage birds and bees. Some years ago we learned that ingestion of pesticides by birds was bringing some species near to extinction. If we lose bees, we lose honey and the most important pollinating agent. The rapid decline in bee populations have several causes. Among them are the pesticides sulfoxaflor and thiamethoxam produced by Dow and Syngenta. Dow is lobbying the Environmental Protection Agency to permit sulfoxaflor residues on food, and Syngenta wants to be able to spray alfalfa with many times the currently allowed amount of thiamethoxam.
As the regulators are more or less in the industry’s pocket, the companies will likely succeed in their efforts to further contaminate the food of people and animals.
The profits of Monsanto, Dow, and Syngenta are higher, because many of the costs associated with the production and use of their products are imposed on third parties and on life itself.
Many countries have put restrictions on GMO foods. Lawmakers in Russia equate genetically engineered foods to terrorist acts and want to impose criminal penalties. The French parliament has approved a ban on GMO cultivation in France. However, Washington lobbies foreign governments on behalf of its agribusiness and chemical donors. Dick Cheney used his two terms as vice president to staff up the environmental agencies with corporate friendly executives. Just as the political appointees at the SEC would not let SEC prosecutors bring cases against the big banks, environmental regulators have a difficult time protecting the environment and food supply from contamination. The way Washington works is that the regulators protect those they are supposed to regulate in exchange for big jobs when they leave government. The economist, George Stigler, made this clear several decades ago.
The public favors labeling of genetically engineered food, but Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association have so far been successful in preventing it. On May 8 the governor of Vermont signed a bill passed by the state legislature that requires labeling. Monsanto’s response is to sue the state of Vermont.
The opposition to labeling by agribusiness is suspicious. It creates the impression of hiding information from the public. Normally, this is not good public relations. Currently, foods are mislabeled when genetically engineered food is labeled “natural.”
Breakthroughs in science and technology allow mere humans to play God with insufficient information. The downsides of genetic engineering are unknown, and the costs could exceed the benefits. What economists term “low cost production” might turn out to be very high cost.
Neoclassical economists do not lose sleep over external costs, because they think that there is always a solution. The way to deal with pollution is to price it so that the entity that most needs to pollute ends up with the right. Somehow this is thought to solve the problem of pollution. Neoclassical economists think that it is impossible to run out of resources, because they believe man-made capital is a substitute for nature’s capital. It is a fantasy world in which we become ever more productive and better off and never run out of anything.
Ecological economists see the world differently. Nature’s capital, such as mineral resources and fisheries, are being depleted, and the disposal sinks for wastes are filling up, with land, air, and water being polluted. Every act of production produces useful products and wastes. As external costs and the depletion of nature’s capital are not measured, we have no way of knowing whether an increase in output is economic or uneconomic. All we can tell is whether the costs that are measured are covered by the price of the product.
What this means is that in a full world, neoclassical economics becomes less meaningful and is less able to contribute to our understanding of problems. It cannot even tell us whether GDP is rising or falling as we do not have a measure of the full cost of production.
For further information on these issues, see my book, The Failure Of Laissez Faire Capitalism And Economic Dissolution Of The West, and the website: http://steadystate.org
Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts’ How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is How America Was Lost.

 

[Tshering22]

I am extremely happy for this decision.
The world food supply shouldn't be surrendered to the likes of Monsanto.
It just shows to the world again that Putin cares more about the health and well being of humanity rather than short term profits.

I agree. Food is every human's basic necessity and corporatizing it is the most dangerous thing.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

I agree with most of this BUT pesticide/herbicide use is common in non-GM crops too. The article is painting a bit of a slanted picture.

I personally eat organic foods as much as possible due to herbicides and pesticides. As it is not just a problem with GM crops.

If you want to talk about the hazards of GM it is better to focus on the gene manipulation dangers.

 

[Tsilihin]

GMO food is not good for health, but sometimes we consume that food ....example when we go to markets there is not information about which food is GMO .
we take products from stand but we don't know nothing about producer and proces of production.
We must start rejecting many product especially candies,chocolates,juices,cereals and some dairy products.
We can't throw away all food from our way of living but we must take prevention.
Doctors know that cancer is disease that is accelerated by stress,electromagnetic radiation, and food, especialy GMO .....
Prevention is fresh air ,drinking quality water and consuming fresh food.