"Science" does not like to stop and reflect, but the important thing is "money".
Now we have to defend ourselves from a new calamity, much worse than the chemist: the transgenic affectionately called by his supporters “Organisms genetically modified ".
In nature there are constantly genetic modifications, but everything happens gradually, leaving time for all other organisms to adapt to these changes, only in this harmony there are no side effects.
They are proposing us the transgenic, but do we know anything about this "crime against nature"?
The studies regarding these foods are presented only by the companies that produce them, only rarely have there been independent studies, but these few works have given precise results, which demonstrate the drama of these substances in our body.
Currently it is very difficult to consider - because they are not predictable - the effects of PLEIOTROPIA (the property of a gene to influence two or more characters rather than just one, as generally happens). This issue is much debated in the scientific community regarding genetically modified plants. Considering that a plant has a much less complex cellular structure than humans, what consequences can a transgenic product have on us? We will see the results in twenty or thirty years, and they will certainly be more harmful than the chemist.
We propose an interesting article from https://www.thelivingspirits.net/un-biologo-russo-racconta-rischi-e-danni-probabili-da-soia-ogm/
In a study recently conducted in England, the researcher fed two groups of guinea pigs, one with genetically engineered potatoes, the other with "normal" potatoes. The results were shocking; the guinea pigs fed on genetically modified potatoes had their immune systems upset, and they were sick while the others, fed "normal" potatoes, were fine. (NB The researcher is now unemployed, reality only bothers!)
The British government commissioned a study from NEW CASTLE University. The results were presented on July 18, 2002. The study was done on human volunteers, to understand what it entailed to eat genetically modified (transgenic) food. The trial was supposed to last 3 years but after just 3 months the results were alarming for the group that ate transgenic food. Those responsible for the research alerted the Minister of Health, and the British government stopped the research, trying to minimize the results. Results of these three months of transgenic feeding: severe cellular alteration of the immune system, particularly in the lymphocytes, modification of the intestinal bacterial flora. Some bacteria have changed due to constant contact with modified DNA fragments introduced with food.
Dr. Stefan LANKA, virologist and molecular biologist of the International Re.GIMed Association. he says: "The claims of the so-called genetic engineering do not correspond to biological reality because the substance handled represents a great potential danger comparable to uncontrolled radioactivity."
When it is stated that "science" serves to improve living conditions, the idea cannot be dismissed. However, today's objective data is anything but: "science" serves to make money, and is used, many times, to deceive people's good faith.
Nature has never inserted the DNA of a fish into a plant that is used for human nutrition, not even a small piece of scorpion. Antibiotics are also "inserted" (to mark the product), which then enter us through food.
It is also demonstrated: the yield per hectare of the transgenic product is lower than the traditional product, much more pesticides than other crops (greater pollution) are needed to obtain results and there is no study over time of what happens to humans when eating. continuously these products. The only studies are in the short term and with dramatic results.
The research was set up by Surov and colleagues to verify if the Genetically Modified Soy produced by Monsanto - soybeans growing on 91% of US soybean fields - cause growth and reproduction problems. What he discovered could wipe out a multi-billion dollar industry.
After feeding for two years on hamsters that have developed over three generations, those with a GMO diet - and particularly the group with the diet with the maximum amount of GMO soy - have shown devastating effects. At the time of the third generation, the majority of hamsters fed GMO soybeans have lost their ability to reproduce, has shown slower growth and a higher mortality rate among young babies.
If this were not enough to upset you, some third generation hamsters have also shown hair growing inside the mouth - a phenomenon rarely seen - and much more common among hamsters fed on a diet containing GMO soy.
The research, conducted together with Surov's Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security, is expected to be published within 3 months (July 2010) - so we have to wait for the technical details; but Surov described - in an email he sent me - the fundamental aspects
He used Campbell hamsters, which have a high reproduction rate, and divided them into 4 groups: all on a normal diet, but one group did not receive any type of soy, one received non-GMO soy, a third received GMO soy, and a quarter high content of GMO soybeans. Each group consisted of 5 pairs of hamsters, each produced 7-8 young ones, for a total of 140 animals.
Surov told The Voice of Russia: “In the beginning, everything went normally, but we noticed some quite worrying effects when we selected - among the little ones - the new couples, and we continued with the feeding they had received before: these couples showed slower growth rate and later sexual maturity ”.
From each group Surov selected new couples, which generated 39 other small hamsters: 52 young and 78 were born from the control group and from the group with a soy-free GMO diet.
However, only 40 babies were born from the group with GMO soybeans, of which 25% died. This represented a double digit mortality rate five times greater than the 5% that was in the control group. As for the hamsters of the group fed a high percentage of GMO soybeans, only one female had young children: 16 with a mortality of 20%.
Says Surov: "These low numbers in F2 [the third generation], show that many animals have become sterile."
The research includes measurements of the apparatuses of third generation animals: including testes, spleen, uterus, etc; and if the team of researchers raises enough funds, they can analyze the hormone levels in the collected blood samples.
Hair grows in the mouth
Earlier this year, Surov co-authored research published in the journal Doklady Biological Sciences which showed that, in rare cases, hair grew inside hidden pockets in hamsters' mouths.
“Some of these pockets contained only a hair, while others of the thick tufts of colored and pigment-free hair, long enough to reach the part of the teeth used for chewing. Sometimes, the row of teeth was surrounded by a sort of uniform hairbrush on both sides. The hair grew vertically and ended with sharp tips, often covered by a lump of mucus. "
(The photos of these tufts are disgusting. Trust me look at yourself.)
At the conclusion of the research, the authors suggest that such a surprising anomaly may be due to the diet administered to the hamsters grown in the laboratory. In fact, they write: "This pathology may have been amplified by elements of food that are absent in natural food, elements such as GMO ingredients (soy or corn) or contaminants (pesticides, mycotoxins, heavy metals, etc.)"
There is no doubt that the number of hamsters with hair in the mouth was much higher in the third generation bred with GMO soybeans than in any other case previously studied by Surov.
Abominable, even if only preliminary
Surov warns against jumping to conclusions immediately. He says: "It is quite possible that GMOs do not cause these effects per se." Surov wants the analysis of food components to become a priority in order to find out exactly what causes these effects and how they occur.
He also said that in addition to GMOs, there may be contaminants, or high herbicide residues, such as Roundup, which in fact is much more present in GMO soybeans; they are in fact called "Ready for Roundup": bacterial genes are forced into their DNA so that plants can tolerate Roundup, the herbicide produced by Monsanto. It follows that GMO soy always brings with it the double threat of a higher herbicide content and all the side effects of genetic engineering.
Years of reproductive disorders due to GMO feed
Surov's hamsters are but the latest example of animals showing reproductive disorders after feeding on GMOs. In 2005, Irina Emakova - together with the Russian National Academy of Sciences - reported that more than half of the young rats fed GMO soybean had died within 3 weeks: a mortality rate far greater than the group's 10% mortality control system fed with non-GM soybean. The youngsters in the GMO group were also smaller ( see the photo) and were sterile.
Significant Coincidence: After Ermakova's feeding experiments, her research laboratory began feeding all the rats in the facility - a type of commercial rat - using GMO soybeans. Within two months, infant mortality across the facility rose to 55%.
When Emakova fed male rats with GMO soybeans, theirs testicles changed color from their usual pink to a dark blue! Italian scholars have also found analogues changes in the testicles of mice (PDF), changes that affected damage to young sperm cells. In addition, the DNA of embryos from parents fed on GMO soybeans worked differently.
A study conducted by Austrian government and published in November 2008 showed that as much GMO corn was given to mice, much less offspring these had (PDF), and all the smaller they were.
Jerry Rosman - an Iowa farmer - also had problems with pigs and cows, which began to become sterile. Some of her sows had also begun to show false pregnancies by giving birth to bags full of water. After months of investigation and verification, he finally identified the cause in the GM food grain.
When newspapers, magazines or TV reports on Jerry's problems, he receives calls from an increasing number of farmers who complain of similar infertility problems, in relation to GMO wheat.
Some scholars of the Baylor College of Medicine have accidentally discovered that rats raised in beds of corn cobs "they did not reproduce or exhibit reproductive behavior. " Analyzes conducted on grains revealed two components that blocked the female sexual cycle ": they had concentrations of approx. two hundred times lower than the classic phytoestrogens. One component also reduced male sexual behavior and both substances contributed to the growth of breast and prostate cancer cells in cultured cells.
The researchers also found that the rate of these substances varies according to the type of GMO grain. The shredded corn cobs used at Baylor most likely came from central Iowa, near Jerry Rosman's farm - and others who complain about cattle becoming barren.
In Haryana - India - a team of veterinarians who are investigating reports that bison who consume GMO cotton seeds suffer from infertility, frequent abortions, premature births and uterine prolapses. Many young and adult bisons then died mysteriously.
It denies, attacks and deletes updates
Scientists who have made adverse discoveries about GMOs are regularly targeted. ridiculed, deprived of funding, and even fired. When Ermakova reported the high infant mortality rate in offspring of animals fed with GMO soy, to give just one example, she invited the scientific community to replicate and verify her preliminary results. He also sought additional funding to analyze organs that had been preserved. Instead, she was attacked and slandered, samples were stolen from her laboratory, papers on her desk were burned; she also said that her boss - pressed in turn by her boss - told her to stop continuing with any other research on GMOs. No one - so far - has replicated the simple and economical studies conducted by Ermakova.
Surov reports that, so far, he has not been under any form of pressure.
Let's stop experimenting with GMO feed
Without detailed evidence, no one can pinpoint exactly what is causing these reproductive troubles in Italian and Austrian hamsters, rats and mice, in the cattle of India and America; we can only speculate on the relationship between the introduction of genetically modified foods, which took place in 1996, and the corresponding occurrence of underweight births, infertility and other problems in the US population.
Many scientists, doctors and participating citizens, however, do not think that people should be the laboratory animal for a giant and uncontrolled experiment in the biotechnology industry.
Says Alexey Surov: "We have no right to use GMOs until we understand the possible negative effects, not only for ourselves, but also for future generations. We absolutely need fully detailed research that clarifies these doubts. Any type of contamination must be tested before being consumed and GMOs are only part of it. "
Posted: April 20, 2010 on:
The Independent Scientists Group (ISP): final report on GMOs
Dozens of well-known scientists from seven different countries, specialists in disciplines such as agroecology, agronomy, biomathematics, botany, medical chemistry, ecology, histopathology, microbial ecology, molecular genetics, nutritional biochemistry, physiology, toxicology and virology, have joined forces to form an independent research group on GMOs, officially presented during a public meeting held in London on 10 May 2003, which was attended by British Environment Minister Michael Meacher and 200 other people.
During this meeting, the draft of a report, The Case for a GM-free Sustainable World, was officially presented, with which the ISP asks to ban GM crops and instead implement every form of sustainable agriculture. This authoritative report, presented as "the strongest and most complete dossier of experimental evidence" ever compiled on the risks and problems associated with GM crops, on the one hand, and on the other on the multiple benefits of sustainable agriculture, has been made public on June 15, 2003 and is visible on the following sites:
- Institute of Science in Society, UK www.i-sis.org.uk http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ispr-summary.php
- Third World Network www.twnside.org.sg
- Institute for Food and Development Policy (Food First), USA www.foodfirst.org].
Prior to the publication of the final 120-page report, the ISP released the concise four-page summary, presented here, as a contribution to the debate on GMOs which is taking place at national level in the United Kingdom.
This document challenges GMO advocates to respond to all the points presented here. Please give this document the widest possible circulation.
Why not to GMOs?
- GM crops did not bring the promised benefits
No increase in productivity, nor significant reduction in the use of pesticides and herbicides;
The amount of sales lost by the United States, following the rejection of GM crops worldwide, is estimated at $ 12 billion;
In India the percentage of failed GM crops reaches 100%;
High risk future for agrobiotech: "Monsanto could be another disaster looming on investors".
- GM crops pose growing problems to agriculture
The transgenic lines are unstable: "most cases of inactivation of transgenes never appear in the scientific literature";
Weeds and plants with simultaneous resistance to three different herbicides have emerged in North America;
Plants resistant to glyphosate now infest GM cotton and soybean fields; to control them, atrazine is used again;
Plants that produce Bt toxins threaten to cause the emergence of super weeds and Bt-resistant pests.
- Extensive transgenic contamination is INEVITABLE
Extensive transgenic contamination found in local maize varieties in remote regions of Mexico;
in Canada 32 of 33 commercial seed stocks proved to be GMO contaminated;
the pollen is dispersed and carried by the wind for hours and a wind speed of 35 miles per hour is by no means exceptional;
there can be no coexistence between GM and non-GM crops.
- GM crops are unsafe
The safety of GM crops has not been proven: the regulation was affected from the outset by fatal errors;
the principle of 'substantial equivalence', vague and ill-defined, has done nothing but give industries the total possibility of declaring that GM products are 'substantially equivalent' to non-GM products and therefore 'safe'.
- GM foods raise serious concerns about their safety
Despite the scarcity of credible studies, the results we can already have today raise serious concerns about the safety of food from GMOs;
effects similar to those produced by a "growth factor" [cell proliferation and growth], observed in the stomach and small intestine of young rats, have been attributed to the process of transgenesis itself or to the transgenic construct [vector + foreign gene]; it is therefore possible that these are general effects that any food obtained with genetic engineering can cause.
- Genes for hazardous products are incorporated into transgenic food plants
Bt proteins [of Bacillus thuringiensis], incorporated in 25% of the total GM plants grown worldwide, are harmful to many non-target insects; some are potent immunogens [= substances that trigger immune responses] and allergens [= substances that trigger allergic responses] for humans and other mammals;
food crops [especially corn] are increasingly being engineered to produce pharmaceutical and medicinal substances, including: a) cytokines, known to act as suppressors of the immune system and associated with dementia, neurotoxicity and secondary effects on both mood and cognitive processes; b) vaccines and viral sequences, for example the gene of a pig coronavirus, belonging to the same family as the SARS virus which is at the origin of the current epidemic; c) the gp120 gene for an AIDS virus glycoprotein, which could interfere with the immune system and recombine with viruses and bacteria already present in the host, in order to generate new and unpredictable pathogens.
- Terminator cultures spread male infertility among plants
Transgenic cultures in which 'suicidal' genes for male infertility have been inserted, advertised as a means of preventing the spread of transgenes, actually spread through the pollen both male infertility and herbicide tolerance.
- Broad-spectrum herbicides are highly toxic to humans and other animal species
Ammonium glyphosinate and glyphosate, the herbicides used with GM plants resistant to these same herbicides (and which currently represent 75% of all GM plants cultivated in the world), are systemic metabolic poisons;
Glyphosinate ammonium is associated with various forms of toxicity - neurological, respiratory, gastrointestinal and hematological - and congenital defects in the various species of mammals, including the human one; this compound is also toxic for butterflies and for many useful insects, for larvae of molluscs and oysters, for daphnia and for some freshwater fish, in particular for rainbow trout; it inhibits bacteria and fungi that perform beneficial actions in the soil, and in particular nitrogen-fixing bacteria;
in the United Kingdom glyphosate is the most frequent cause of poisoning and there have been cases of disturbances to many organic functions also following exposure to the normal levels of use of the compound; exposure to glyphosate has almost doubled the risk of spontaneous abortions among children of glyphosate and of creating children with neurobehavioural defects; glyphosate retards the development of the fetal skeleton in laboratory rats, inhibits the synthesis of steroids and is genotoxic in mammals, fish and amphibians; exposure to field spraying doses resulted in mortality of at least 50% in earthworms and significant intestinal damage in surviving earthworms; Round Up (or glyphosate in the formulation produced by Monsanto) caused cell division dysfunction, a phenomenon that could be linked to cancer in humans.
- Genetic engineering generates superviruses
The most insidious dangers of genetic engineering are inherent in its own process, which greatly increases the extent and probability of horizontal gene transfer and recombination, the main way in which viruses and pathogenic bacteria are generated;
recent techniques, such as DNA shuffling, allow geneticists to generate millions of recombinant viruses in a few minutes in the laboratory, which have never existed in billions of years of evolution;
viruses, pathogenic bacteria and their genetic material are the raw materials and the instruments of choice both for genetic engineering and for the intentional production of bacteriological weapons.
- The transgenic DNA present in food is absorbed by bacteria in the human intestine
It has been observed that the transgenic DNA of food plants is absorbed by bacteria, both in the soil and in the intestine of human volunteers; the antibiotic resistance marker genes present in transgenic foods can transmit to pathogenic bacteria, which makes the treatment of infections very difficult.
- Transgenic DNA and cancer
It is proven that transgenic DNA survives digestion in the intestine and that it 'jumps' into the genome of mammalian cells, giving rise to the possibility that it behaves as a carcinogenic element;
the use of GM products, for example corn, for animal feed can pose risks not only for animals, but also for humans who consume the products of those animals.
- CaMV [Cauliflower Mosaic Virus] 35S promoter makes horizontal gene transfer more likely and frequent
Experimental evidence suggests that transgenic constructs containing the 35S CaMV promoter may be particularly unstable and prone to horizontal transfer and recombination of genes, with all the resulting risks: gene mutations due to random insertion, cancer, reactivation of latent viruses and generation of new viruses.
- A story made up of falsehoods and concealments of scientific evidence
The history of GMOs is made up of falsehoods and concealments of scientific evidence, in particular as regards the horizontal transfer of genes. The key experiments were not carried out, or were carried out poorly and then presented in a distorted way. Many experiments have not been repeated over time, including research into the possibility that the CaMV 35S promoter is responsible for the growth factor effects observed in young rats fed GM potatoes.
In conclusion, GM crops have not brought the promised benefits and are posing increasingly serious problems for agriculture. Transgenic contamination is now a fact widely recognized as inevitable, so there can be no coexistence between GM and non-GM agriculture. Most important of all, the safety of GM crops has never been proven.
On the contrary, the evidence that has already emerged is sufficient to raise serious concerns about the risks posed by GMOs, risks which if ignored could cause irreversible damage to health and the environment. The most appropriate would therefore be to reject and immediately ban GM crops.
Why yes to sustainable agriculture?
- Productivity and higher yields
especially in the third world 8,98 million farmers have adopted sustainable agricultural practices, for a total of 28,92 million hectares cultivated in Asia, Latin America and Africa;
Scientifically reliable data collected from 89 projects show that these practices lead to an increase in productivity and yields of 50-100% for non-irrigated crops and 5-10% for irrigation. The biggest hits were in Burkina Faso, where it went from a deficit of cereals of 644 kilos per year to an annual surplus of 153 kilos, in Ethiopia, where 12 500 families of farmers have enjoyed an increase of 60 % in crop yields and in Honduras and Guatemala, where 45 families saw yields increase from 000-400 kg / ha to 600-2.000 kg / ha;
Long-term studies conducted in industrialized countries show that the yields of organic agriculture are comparable to those of conventional agriculture and are often higher.
- Soil improvement
Sustainable agricultural practices reduce soil erosion, improve the physical structure of the soil and its water retention capacity, all of which are crucial factors in avoiding the loss of crops during periods of drought;
Soil fertility is maintained and increased by sustainable agricultural practices;
Soils cultivated with sustainable practices show a greater biological activity: a higher number of earthworms, arthropods, mycorrhizae and other fungi, and microorganisms, all useful organisms for the recycling of nutrients and for the natural elimination of diseases.
- Cleaner environment
In sustainable agriculture, the use of polluting chemicals is scarce or completely absent;
Lower quantities of nitrates and phosphorus reach the water table;
Water filtration is better in organic farming systems, which are therefore less exposed to erosion and contribute less to water pollution by surface washout;
- Reduction of pesticides, without increase of parasites
Integrated pest control reduced the number of pesticide spraying from 3,4 to one per season in Vietnam, from 2,9 to 0,5 in Sri Lanka and from 2,9 to 1,1 in Indonesia;
in California's tomato production, the choice not to use synthetic insecticides did not lead to any increase in crop losses due to pest damage;
Pest control can be carried out without resorting to pesticides and without this leading to crop losses, using for example 'trap' crops to attract the corn borer, as seen in East Africa where the borer is an important parasite;
- Maintenance and use of biodiversity
Sustainable agriculture promotes biodiversity in agriculture, crucial for food security; organic agriculture can support a much higher level of biodiversity, with great advantage for species that have undergone significant reductions;
in Cuba integrated agricultural systems are 1,45 to 2,82 times more productive than monocultures;
in China thousands of rice farmers doubled their crops and almost eliminated one of the most devastating rice diseases by simply planting a mixture of two different varieties;
organic agriculture increases biodiversity, bringing beneficial effects such as the recovery of degraded land, the improvement of the structure of the soil and its ability to filter water.
- Organic agriculture is sustainable both from the point of view of the environment and the economy
Research on apple production with different agricultural systems has revealed that organic farming ranks first in terms of environmental and economic sustainability; the second place is the system of integrated struggle and the last one that of conventional agriculture; organic apples have proved to be the most profitable due to their higher market price, faster return on investment and faster recovery of costs;
a study conducted all over Europe indicated that organic agriculture gives better results than conventional agriculture, compared to the vast majority of environmental indicators;
a survey conducted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concluded that properly applied organic farming practices lead to an improvement in environmental conditions, at all levels.
- Positive effects on climate change, through the reduction of direct and indirect energy consumption
Organic agriculture uses energy much more efficiently, and significantly reduces CO2 emissions, compared to conventional agriculture both in terms of direct energy consumption in the form of fossil fuels, and in terms of indirect consumption associated with use of synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides;
Sustainable agriculture restores the organic matter of the soil, increasing the quantity of carbon sequestered in the soil, therefore subtracting significant quantities of carbon from the atmosphere;
organic farming probably emits less nitrogen dioxide (N2O), another important greenhouse gas and one of the causes of the destruction of the ozone layer.
- Efficient, high-profit production
in organic agriculture, any reduction in yields is more than offset by ecological improvements and efficiency gains;
the smaller organic farms produce much more per unit area than the much larger plots of land characteristic of conventional agriculture;
in organic agriculture production costs are often lower than in conventional agriculture, leading to equivalent or higher net returns even without the premium on the prices of organic products; when taking into account the higher prices for organic products, the profits of this agriculture system are almost always higher.
- Increased food security and benefits for local communities
A survey on the results of sustainable agriculture projects showed that average food production per family increased by 1,71 tons per year (up to 73%) for 4,42 million farmers who work 3,58 million hectares , bringing great benefits to local communities in terms of food safety and health;
Increased productivity increases the amount of food available and incomes, therefore reduces poverty by increasing access to food, reducing malnutrition and improving health and living conditions;
sustainable agriculture methods draw heavily on traditional indigenous knowledge and give importance to the experience of farmers and their innovations, therefore improve their social status and autonomy, strengthening social and cultural relationships within local communities;
for every pound spent to buy organic farming products (in a UK study), £ 2.59 is generated for the local economy; for every pound spent in a supermarket, only 1,40 pounds are generated for the local economy.
- Better health food products
Organic food is safer, as the use of pesticides is prohibited in organic farming; it is therefore rare to find harmful chemical residues in these foods;
in organic production the use of artificial additives is prohibited, such as hydrogenated fats, phosphoric acid, aspartame and monosodium glutamate, which have been linked to very different pathologies such as heart disease, osteoporosis, migraine and hyperactivity;
Various studies have shown that, on average, organic foods have a higher content of vitamin C, minerals and phenols - plant compounds that can fight heart disease and cancer and relieve age-related neurological dysfunctions - and a significantly lower content of nitrates, which are toxic.
Organic farming practices have proven to have positive effects on all aspects of health and the environment. In addition, these agricultural practices are everywhere a source of food security, social and cultural well-being for all local communities. The complete transition to all forms of sustainable agriculture worldwide is necessary and urgent.
Some of the scientists who form the ISP (group of independent scientists) on GMOs:
Prof. Miguel Altieri
Professor of Agroecology, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Dr. Michael Antoniou
Senior Lecturer in Molecular Genetics, GKT School of Medicine, King's College, London.
Dr. Susan Bardocz
Biochemistry, previously active at the Rowett Research Institute, Scotland
Prof. David Bellamy OBE
Internationally renowned botanist, environmentalist, journalist; awarded with numerous prizes and awards; President & Vice President of many conservation and environmental protection organizations
Dr. Elizabeth Bravo V.
Biologist, researcher and activist in information campaigns on biodiversity and GMO issues; co-founder of Acción Ecológica; part-time lecturer at the Salesian Political University, Ecuador
Prof. Joe Cummins
Professor Emeritus of Genetics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Dr. Stanley Ewen
Histopathologist at the Grampian University Hospitals Trust; formerly Senior Lecturer of Pathology, University of Aberdeen; manager of the Scottish Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot Project.
Environmentalist, awarded many prizes and awards, scholar, author and founder of The Ecologist.
Dr. Brian Goodwin
Active scholar at Residence, Schumacher College, England.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Co-founder and Director of the Institute of Science in Society; Science in Society publisher; Scientific consultant for The Third World Network and for the Roster of Experts for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety; Visiting Reader, Open University, UK and Visiting Professor of Organic Physics, University of Catania, Sicily, Italy
Prof. Malcolm Hooper
Professor Emeritus at the University of Sunderland; former Professor of Medical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Sunderland Polytechnic; Chief Scientific Consulent for the Gulf War Veterans
Dr. Vyvyan Howard
Pathologist, Developmental Toxico-Pathology Group, Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, The University of Liverpool; Member of the UK Government's Advisory Committee on Pesticides
Geomorphology and environmental science scholar; Founder and long-time President of the West Wales Eco Center
Professor of Plant Breeding and Seed Production, Agricultural College Križevci, Croatia.
Researcher, Institute of Science in Society and Third World Network; deputy-editor of Science in Society.
Astronomer, activist in campaigns on GMOs for Scientists for Global Responsibility, SGR
Prof. Bob Orskov OBE
Head of the International Feed Resource Unit at Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland; Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, FRSE; Member of the Polish Academy of Science
Dr. Michel Pimbert
Ecologist, International Institute for Environment and Development.
Dr. Arpad Pusztai
Private consultant; formerly Senior Research Fellow at the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland
Professor of microbial ecology, Ecosystem Science Division, Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Dr. Peter Rosset
Ecologist and rural development expert; Co-director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy (Food First), Oakland, California, USA
Prof. Peter Saunders
Professor of Applied Mathematics at King's College, London.
Dr. Veljko Veljkovic
Virologist, AIDS expert, Center for Multidisciplinary Research and Engineering, Institute of Nuclear Sciences, VINCA, Belgrade, Yugoslavia
Philippine Greens; Member of the Board of Trustees, PABINHI (network for sustainable agriculture), Coordinator, SRI-Pilipinas.
Dr. Gregor Wolbring
Biochemist, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Adjunct Assistant Professor on bioethics, University of Calgary; Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Alberta; Founder and Executive Director of the International Center for Bioethics, Culture and Disability; Founder and Coordinator of the International Network on Bioethics and Disability
Prof. Oscar B. Zamora
Professor of Agronomy, Department of Agronomy, University of the Philippines Los Banos-College of Agriculture (UPLB-CA), College, Laguna, The Philippines
(July 14, 2003) http://www.indicius.it/biotecnologie/no_ogm.htm