Suomalainen meedia lensi päätä pahkaa lankaan: mitä ”tieteellisempi” sitä ”komeammin” (”TIEDE”-hölynpölylehden ex-päätoimittaja tyylinäyte):
http://www.hs.fi/paakirjoitukset/art-2000005366244.html
The European food safety authority (Efsa) based a recommendation that a chemical linked to cancer was safe for public use on an EU report that copied and pasted analyses from a Monsanto study, the Guardian can reveal.
Glyphosate is the core ingredient in Monsanto’s $4.75bn (£3.5bn) a year RoundUp weedkiller brand and a battle over its relicensing has split EU countries, with a final decision on its authorisation expected in early November.
That decision will largely be informed by an Efsa opinion, which is based on a 4,300-page renewal assessment report (RAR) published in 2015.
In June, Efsa said that where the RAR was concerned, “every scientific study is scrutinised for relevance and reliability by EU risk assessors based on the evidence contained within the study”.
But dozens of pages of the paper are identical to passages in an application submitted by Monsanto on behalf of the Glyphosate Task Force (GTF), an industry body led by the company.
These sections analyse peer-reviewed studies into links between glyphosate and genotoxicity (how likely it is to cause cell mutations), carcinogenicity and reproductive damage.
Franziska Achterberg, Greenpeace EU’s food policy director, said: “Whether this is a question of negligence or intent, it is completely unacceptable.
“It calls into question the entire EU pesticide approval process. If regulators rely on the industry’s evaluation of the science without doing their own assessment, the decision whether pesticides are deemed safe or not is effectively in the industry’s hands.”
Efsa insists that it has a “robust, well-balanced independence policy” and that it views the RAR as separate from the authority’s conclusion which follows it. The RAR is prepared by an EU state’s regulator – in this case Germany’s BfR – rather than Efsa itself.
An Efsa spokesperson said: “It is important to stress that these are extracts from and references to publicly available studies submitted by the applicant as part of their obligation under the pesticide legislation to carry out a literature search. In other words, these are not Glyphosate Task Force studies but rather studies available in the public scientific literature.”
Even so, the Efsa paper repeats descriptions – and analyses – verbatim from the 2012 GTF review. One of these, by former and current Monsanto employees John Acquavella and Donna Farmer, challenges the results of a study which found an association between pesticide use and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
It says: “The major limitations of this study were: the reliance on reported pesticide use (not documented exposure) information, the small number of subjects who reported use of specific pesticides, the possibility of recall bias, the reliance on secondary sources (next-of-kin interviews) for approximately 43% of the pesticide use information, and the difficulty in controlling for potential confounding factors, given the small number of exposed subjects.”
Some other sections are differentiated from the GTF paper by additions of text and reference numbers, different marking of headings and tables, capitalisations, changes from US to British spelling and some text cuts.
Most paragraphs dealing with peer-reviewed papers, though, are copied word for word. A Monsanto spokesperson said that Efsa allowed renewal reports to be written this way because of the large volume of toxicological studies submitted.
“There was an explanation by Efsa that direct passages from the industry application were included,” the spokesperson said. “This should by no means be understood as Efsa’s conclusion on glyphosate.”
The row over glyphosate’s safety has pitted scientists against each other – and regulators – with one branch of the World Health Organisation assessing that the substance was unlikely to be carcinogenic, while another ruled that it probably was. ”
TUOLLAISIA EU-HUIJARIVIRASTOJA EMME TARVITSE SUOMEEN!!!
PITÄKÖÖT MUUALLA LÄÄKEVIRASTONSA, JOKU JOUTUU BREXITIN TAKIA LÄHTEMÄÄN LONTOOSTA! BARCELONAAN SITÄ TUSKIN ANNETAAN KATALONIAN EROAMISHANKKEIDEN TAKIA ESPANJASTA.
MENKÖÖN VAIKKA – TALLINNAAN!!!!
Katalonia ja EU:n lääkevirasto
EU declared Monsanto weedkiller safe after intervention from controversial US official
Exclusive: European Food Safety Authority dismissed a study linking glyphosate to cancer following counsel with an EPA official allegedly linked to the company and who figures in more than 20 lawsuits
The European Food Safety Authority dismissed a study linking a Monsanto weedkiller to cancer after counsel from a US Environmental Protection Agency officer allegedly linked to the company.
Jess Rowlands, the former head of the EPA’s cancer assessment review committee (CARC), who figures in more than 20 lawsuits and had previously told Monsanto he would try to block a US government inquiry into the issue, according to court documents.
The core ingredient of Monsanto’s RoundUp brand is a chemical called glyphosate, for which the European commission last week proposed a new 10-year license.
Doubts about its regulatory passage have been stirred by unsealed documents in an ongoing US lawsuit against Monsanto by sufferers of non-hodgkins lymphoma, who claim they contracted the illness from exposure to RoundUp.
“If I can kill this, I should get a medal,” Rowlands allegedly told a Monsanto official, Dan Jenkins, in an email about a US government inquiry into glyphosate in April 2015.
In a separate internal email of that time, Jenkins, a regulatory affairs manager, said that Rowlands was about to retire and “could be useful as we move forward with [the] ongoing glyphosate defense”.
Documents seen by the Guardian show that Rowlands took part in a teleconference with Efsa as an observer in September 2015.
Six weeks later, Efsa adopted an argument Rowlands had used to reject a key 2001 study which found a causal link between exposure to glyphosate and increased tumour incidence in mice.
Rowlands’ intervention was revealed in a letter sent by the head of Efsa’s pesticides unit, Jose Tarazona, to Peter Clausing, an industry toxicologist turned green campaigner.
In the missive, Tarazona said that “the observer from the US-EPA [Rowlands] informed participants during the teleconference about potential flaws in the Kumar (2001) study related to viral infections.”
Efsa’s subsequent report said that the Kumar study “was reconsidered during the second experts’ teleconference as not acceptable due to viral infections”.
Greenpeace said that news of an Efsa-Rowlands connection made a public inquiry vital. “Any meddling by Monsanto in regulatory safety assessments would be wholly unacceptable,” said spokeswoman Franziska Achterberg. “We urgently need a thorough investigation into the Efsa assessment before glyphosate can be considered for re-approval in Europe.”
Socialist MEPs last week said that they too would call for an inquiry unless outstanding questions about the relicensing were cleared up.
A reply to Tarazona’s letter from Clausing, seen by the Guardian, also says: “In the light of Jess Rowland’s role in the assessment of carcinogenicity of glyphosate in the US as reflected by the internal Monsanto documents, I have serious concerns that he might have influenced the decision by providing wrong information which has not been scrutinised by Efsa and its experts.”
A Monsanto spokesman said: “Plucking a single email out of context doesn’t change the fact that the US EPA and regulators around the world, as well as a branch of the World Health Organization (WHO) that analysed pesticide residues, have concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.”
The WHO’s pesticides panel ruled last May that glyphosate was probably not carcinogenic to humans through diet, a year after the WHO’s cancer arm came to the opposite conclusion.
Efsa though remains bullish about the probity of its assessment of the most heavily used weedkiller in human history.
Tarazona declined to comment on Rowlands’ contribution to the Efsa study but said that Kumar’s paper had been compromised by the use of Swiss albino mice.
“The issue of ‘high background incidence’ is something common to all studies that use that strain of mouse,” he said. “There was [also] the fact that the effect was observed only at a very high dose level.”
Other toxicologists, such as Prof Ivan Rusyn, who contributed to a WHO assessment of glyphosate, contend that where sample sizes are limited, “the most informative animal studies are those conducted with sufficiently high doses”.
Clausing said that there was “almost no difference” between malignant lymphomas in Kumar’s control group, compared to others. ”
Lääketeollisuuden metkut tulivat rikkaruohmyrkkyihinkin!
http://www.hs.fi/talous/art-2000002920817.html
Lääkevalmistaja Bayer ostaa kiistellyn kasvien biotekniikkayhtiö Monsanton
Bayer maksaa 66 miljardia dollaria Monsantosta, joka tunnetaan arvostelua herättäneistä muuntogeenisistä eli GMO-tuotteista.
Saksalaisen Bayer-yhtiön liikevaihto vuonna 2015 oli 46,3 miljardia euroa. Kasvinviljelyyn liittyvien tuotteiden osuus liikevaihdosta oli 22 prosenttia. (KUVA: Marco Bello Reuters)
Juhana Rossi HS
Julkaistu: 14.9.2016 16:04
Perinteikäs saksalainen lääkevalmistaja Bayer ilmoitti keskiviikkona allekirjoittaneensa sopimuksen, jossa se ostaa amerikkalainen kasvien biotekniikkayhtiö Monsanton yhteensä 66 miljardin dollarin eli vajaan 60 miljardin euron arvoisessa kaupassa.
Viestimien tietojen mukaan vireillä oleva kauppa on lajissaan kuluvan vuoden suurin maailmassa. Kauppa on myös suurin Bayerin historiassa.
Bayer maksaa koko kauppahinnan käteisellä. Yhtiön tavoite on laajentaa omaa liiketoimintaansa. Monsanton kasvinjalostus ja kasvinsuojeluaineiden valmistus ovat periaatteessa lupaavia kasvualoja, sillä tulevaisuudessa kasvinviljelyn satoisuuden pitää tehostua, jotta maailman kasvavan väestön ruokahuolto voidaan turvata.
Uutistoimisto Reutersin mukaan kaupassa syntyvän uuden yhtiön osuus maailman viljelykasvien siemenistä ja kasvinsuojeluaineista olisi yli 25 prosenttia.
Bayerin ja Monsanton hallitukset ovat jo hyväksyneet kaupan. Kauppa vaatii vielä kilpailuviranomaisten sekä Monsanton yhtiökokouksen hyväksynnän.
Monsanto saa Bayerilta kahden miljardin dollarin korvauksen, mikäli kauppa peruuntuu sen takia, että se ei saa viranomaisten hyväksyntää.
Bayer tunnetaan Aspirin-särkylääkkeen valmistajana. Nykyisin sen 46,3 miljardin euron liikevaihdosta vuonna 2015 vajaa puolet tuli terveydenhuollon tuotteista. Kasvinviljelyyn liittyvien toimintojen osuus liikevaihdosta oli 22 prosenttia.
Monsanto tunnetaan muuntogeenisten eli GMO-kasvilajikkeiden kehitystyöstä ja tuotannosta. Yhtiön liiketoiminta on herättänyt arvostelua eri puolilla maailmaa. ”
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-9880691
Viljelijän epäillään yrittäneen vauhdittaa viljan kypsymistä kielletyllä glyfosaatilla
Rikkakasvien torjunta-aine glyfosaattia on käytetty sääntöjen vastaisesti viljan tuleennuttamiseen.
12.10.2017 klo 20:20
Turvallisuus- ja kemikaalivirasto Tukes on varmistanut, että suomalaistilalla on nopeutettu vehnän kypsymistä puintikuntoon glyfosaatilla. ELY-keskukseen tulleen ilmiannon perusteella tehdyssä tarkastuksessa vehnänäytteestä on löytynyt glyfosaattia.
Torjunta-aineen käyttö varmistui tänään.
Glyfosaatin löytyminen viljasta tässä vaiheessa syksyä tarkoittaa sitä, että peltoa on käsitelty sääntöjen vastaisesti. Suomessa on kielletty glyfosaatin käyttö viljan pakkotuleennuttamiseen, vaikka tämä on sallittua muualla Euroopassa.
Tavoitteena on Suomessa, ettei leipäviljaan päätyisi kasvinsuojeluaineita. Sadon käyttäminen elintarvikkeeksi tai rehuksi kielletään, jos siitä aiheutuu vaaraa ihmisten tai eläinten terveydelle.
Turvallisuus- ja kemikaaliviraston tietoon on tullut tapauksia, joissa viljapeltoon on saatettu ruiskuttaa glyfosaattia ennen puimista.
Tukesin ylitarkastaja Lotta Kailan mukaan maatilatukitarkastukset kyseisellä tilalla ovat vielä kesken. Torjunta-aineen määräysten vastainen käyttö johtanee kuitenkin sanktioihin. Tämä tarkoittaa 3–5 prosentin leikkauksia tilan saamiin tukiin.
Viljelijällä on vielä mahdollisuus antaa vastineensa tutkimustulokseen.
Kiistelty glyfosaatti
Glyfosaatti on tehoaine, jota käytetään rikkakasvien torjuntaan tarkoitetuissa valmisteissa. Euroopan unionissa sen käyttö on sallittua tämän vuoden loppuun asti. Jatkokäytön luvallisuudesta ei vielä ole tehty päätöstä.
Tukes muistutti [url=http://tiedotteessaan]tiedotteessaan
syyskuun lopussa, että tiettyjen glyfosaattia sisältävien valmisteiden käyttö on sallittu juolavehnän torjuntaan tuleentuneista ohra- ja kaurakasvustoista, jos viljan jyvän kosteus on alle 30 prosenttia ja sato käytetään eläinten rehuksi.
https://yournewswire.com/37-million-bees-dead-after-gmo-seeds-planted-nearby/
https://yournewswire.com/37-million-bees-dead-after-gmo-seeds-planted-nearby/
Anonhq.com reports:
According to reports, Schuit and other local beekeepers believe neonicotinoids, or “neonics” are to blame for the influx of bee deaths.
Around 37 million bees at a farm in Canada have died after GMO corn was planted in the nearby area, according to a local beekeeper.
Dave Schuit, a beekeeper who produces honey in Elmwood, Canada, claims that since GMO corn was planted in the nearby area, his farm has lost around 37 million bees (approximately 600 hives). According to reports, Schuit and other local beekeepers believe neonicotinoids, or “neonics” are to blame for the influx of bee deaths.
Imidacloprid and Clothianidin, two of Bayer CropScience’s most widely used pesticide, both contain neonics and have been linked with many large-scale bee ‘die-offs’ in both European and U.S. countries. However, despite the dangers associated with the use of this chemical, the pesticides are still regularly used and sold on the market.
Despite their size, the impact bees have on the environment is almost unparalleled. In fact, bees are responsible for pollinating about one-sixth of the flowering plant species worldwide and approximately 400 different agricultural types of plant.
In 2010, bees helped provide over $19 billion worth of agricultural crops in the U.S alone – estimated to be roughly one third of the food we eat. As a result, it is not hard to see that bees are needed to sustain our modern food system.
However, despite their obvious importance in our ecosystem, bee populations have been rapidly dropping over the past few decades. In fact, 44 percent of honeybee colonies in the United States died off last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported last month.
In the past, scientists have tried to conclude why bee populations are in rapid decline. While it is not been proven that pesticides directly kill the bees that come into contact with the chemical, many scientists believe there is a strong link between the use of the pesticide and a phenomenon they refer to as “colony collapse disorder” (CCD).
“We believe that some subtle interactions between nutrition, pesticide exposure and other stressors are converging to kill colonies,” said Jeffery Pettis, of the ARS’s bee research laboratory.
While the cause of CCD is still widely debated, some believe that “the neonicotinoid pesticides are coating corn seeds, and with the use of new air seeders, are blowing pesticide dust into the air when planted.”
However, according to a new study published in the Journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, neonicotinoid pesticides kill honeybees by damaging their immune system and making them unable to fight diseases and bacteria.
Although we are unable to definitively determine what is causing the terminal decline of bee populations around the world, using all the scientific evidence that is currently available, it is clear that pesticides are having a significantly negative effect on bee populations.
In fact, it seems more and more countries are also beginning to accept this idea. Canada has banned the use of Imadacloprid on sunflower and corn fields; France has rejected Bayer’s application for Clothianidin; Italy has now banned certain neonicotinoids; and the European Union has banned multiple pesticides.
At this moment in time, EU scientists are reviewing the EU-wide ban on three neonicotinoid pesticides. By the end of January 2017, the EU scientist will finish their risk evaluation and determine the status of the chemical.
Although the United States have yet to follow suit, several states – including California, Alaska, New York, and Massachusetts – are currently considering legislation that would ban neonicotinoids. In fact, just last month Maryland came the first state to pass a neonic-restricting bill; Maryland’s Pollinator Protection Act has eliminated consumer use of neonicotinoids in the state.
Eikös tämän glyfosaattijalostajan nimi ole Monsanto; nykyisin se patentti on aikoja sitten vanhentunut ja sitä glyfosaattia myydään muillakin nimillä.
Oli mitä oli; luotan siimaleikkuriin ja ruohonleikkuriin, glyfosaattia en pihalleni kyllä laita.
Tämä on eri asia kuin patentti. Tämä on tuotenimike, joka on hyväksytty tiettyyn tarkoitukseen vähän kuin lääke. Ei niitä muiden kilpailevia tuotteita ilmeisestikään ole ainakaan vielä hyväksytty.
Kyllähän niitä on hyväksytty; mm Rambo.
Aha. No hinnat laskee. Ja entitä enemmän on myrkkyä ruuassa…