Geenitekniikan mahdolliset riskit ja haitat

[Heikki Jokipii]

Lisää Intiaan jumiutuneesta tilanteesta:

Viewpoint: When politics eclipses science �" India has botched its regulation of crop biotechnology innovation

Laajemimin linkissä:

Hybrid law? Govt is stern with GM crop innovators, but lax with farmers growing them

[Heikki Jokipii]

GLP:n uutinen ja analyysi tästä:

Are GM foods safe? New study of studies challenges long-established claim that GMOs pose no unique health hazards. Let’s review what they found

Nonetheless, researchers, sometimes for what appear to be ideological reasons, review selected previous studies and offer their reinterpretations, raising doubts about the consensus. That appears to be the case recently.

In January 2022, a study by Chen Shen and 2 co-authors published in Environmental Sciences Europe addressed the adverse effects in humans and animals from the intake of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or products derived from them was published. [..]

Se päätyy kuitenkin johtopäätökseen:

The selected studies, many of which are misrepresented, present a bizarre picture about the safety of GMO crops. Every major scientific body and regulatory agency in the world has reviewed the research on GMO crops, including most of the studies cited here, and definitively declare crop biotechnology and the foods currently available do not present any unique health hazards. GM crops are as safe�"and in the case of nutritionally enhanced varieties, such as Golden Rice, healthier�"than conventional and organic crops. Here are summary statements from 12 independent global organizations.

(yhteenvetokuva)

Mutta varoittelee jo:

Is there any value to this paper? A positive aspect is that it provides a good overview of feeding studies with GMOs and/or products derived from them, especially studies conducted in China.

However, the researchers selectively chose studies to draw a distorted interpretation and misrepresent key data and therefore the publication does not demonstrate scientifically proven negative toxic effects from the consumption of foods grown from genetically engineered seeds. As such this paper is misleading and open to exploitation by advocacy groups less interested in science than in promoting a biotechnology-rejectionist agenda.

(lihav. HJ)

[Heikki Jokipii]

Ironiaa tässä kommentissa on. Mutta laitetaan silti tähän triidiin:

Ludger Wess
@LudgerWess
·6. huhtik.

Jetzt müssen die Landwirte jede Saison neues Mango-Saatgut kaufen. #Ernährungssouveränität geht anders.

Twiitin lainaus
Channa Prakash
@AgBioWorld
· 6. huhtik.
Seedless mango? Shut up and take my money

https://twitter.com/i/status/1511566439047647245

***

Nyt en ole varma, onko tuon siemenettöämän lajikkeeen kehittämiseen käytetty geeniteknikkaa:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/india/239189/the-exciting-new-seedless-mango-variety-indian-scientists-have-produced-is-neither-seedless-nor-new/amp/

Mutta Wess nosti esiin geenitekniikan vastustajien tyypillisen argumentin.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Todellakin. Riskit ovat minimaaliset:

Gene-edited crops pose low risks �" but still face regulatory and public acceptance challenges

Analysis of the top seven risks of genome-edited crops finds that the scientific risks are comparable to those of accepted, past and current breeding methods, but failure to address regulatory, legal and trade framework, and the granting of social license, squanders the potential benefits.

(lihav. HJ)

Miksi vaikeudet? Olisiko EU:n vahvalla poliittisella luomusuuntautumisella asian kanssa tekemistä? Geenieditoiduista lajikkeista on kyse. �" Kirjoittajista noterataan Robert Paarlberg!

[Heikki Jokipii]

Tämän väitteen läpikäyntiä:

Does crop genetic engineering promote monoculture, as anti-GMO activists claim

In summary, it can be said that the cultivation in monocultures instead of in mixed cultures, as well as in less complex crop rotations, is not caused by the use of green genetic engineering, but by the way modern agriculture is practiced . If anything, one could criticize the fact that, in particular with herbicide-tolerant GM maize and soybean varieties, such GMOs were brought onto the market in a targeted manner that perfectly matched the cultivation systems with short crop rotations that were already in place in North America.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Tilanne jatkuu, entisellään:

With India dragging its feet on approving insect resistant Bt GMO corn to fight new pests, farmers increasingly buy illegal seeds

Anil Ghanwat, president of Swatantra Bharat Party, and a member of the Supreme Court-appointed committee on farm law, said that farmers would continue to use unapproved seeds as it helps them increase production. “The government should facilitate faster approval of newly-developed seeds so that farmers get access to quality seeds and thereby, reduce the labour cost,” Ghanwat said.

Tästä on ollut jo useasti edellä. Toistamme valittelumme, että tuo tapahtuu laittomasti. Vaikka tiede onkin kapinoitsijoiden puolella.

Mielenkiintoista kyllä olisi, jos näkisimme EU:ssa samanlaisen kapinaliikkeen. Se voisi syntyä sellaisen viljelylajikkeen kohdalla, jonka EU on hyväksynyt myytäväksi, muttei viljeltäväksi. Sellaisen lajikkeen kun EU olisi jo implisiittisesti hyväksynyt turvalliseksi.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Vertailutaulukko geenimuuntelusta ja mutaatiojalostuksesta:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWHbE6-UUAAI_pu?format=jpg&name=small

Johtopäätös jo tuon taulukon pohjalta: juuri mutaatiojalostuksen mahdollisiiin riskeihin suhtaudutaan hyvin huolettomasti.

Ainakin voisi odottaa, että kuluttajajärjestöt vaatisivat niin jalostetuille oman tarran. 

Koska kuluttajalla on oikeus tietää.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Olisiko tällainen filosofinen ongelma Intian pattitilanteen taustalla?

Viewpoint: India’s ‘foreign DNA’ delusion �" Why the country needs to modernize genetically modified crop regulations

In an attempt to expand farmers’ access to genetically engineered crops, in March of this year, the Indian government exempted crops with certain kinds of genetic modifications introduced by genome editing (also known as gene editing) from the cumbersome and time-consuming regulations previously imposed on the commercialisation of all crops genetically modified with molecular techniques.

Specifically (and as explained in more detail below), the new policy exempts crops with simple tweaks to genes that are already ‘natural’ to the plant but that have not had any ‘foreign’ DNA added. This approach may be expedient but it is not scientifically sound.

Se on paljon mahdollista. Siksi on täälläkin hiukan vaarallista "myydä" geenieditointia turvallisempana ja tuon syyn takia hyväksyttävämpänä vaihtoehtona.

***

Tämä keskustelu on nyt relevanttia Intiassakin:

Kansalaistottelemattomuus vaikuttamisen keinona jakaa mielipiteitä

Vaikka toisessa kysymyksessä.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Bolivia on ajautumassa vähän samantyyppiseen tilanteeseen kuin Intia:

Bolivia maintains ban on GMO crops �" but it’s estimated that 40% to 100% of corn, soybeans and cotton are grown from illegal genetically modified seeds

Erona ehkä se, että Intiassa ollaan avoimesti kansalaistottelemattomia. Mutta lakia joudutaan rikkomaan kummassakin maassa.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Intia on siis tässä kohtaa jumissa:

Viewpoint: ‘Discrimination against new crops’: India speeds up approval process for gene-edited crops �" but still disadvantages safe GMOs

In an attempt to expand farmers’ access to genetically engineered crops, in March of this year, the Indian government exempted crops with certain kinds of genetic modifications introduced by genome editing (also known as gene editing) from the cumbersome and time-consuming regulations previously imposed on the commercialisation of all crops genetically modified with molecular techniques.

Specifically… the new policy exempts crops with simple tweaks to genes that are already ‘natural’ to the plant but that have not had any ‘foreign’ DNA added. This approach may be expedient but it is not scientifically sound.

The regulatory policies of the governments of India, the EU and many other countries fail this test of scientific logic. The regulation of molecular genetic engineering has been based more on political considerations than on sound science, and as such cripples progress.

Vaarana on, että EU jämähtää samaan kohtaan. "Varovaisuusperiaatteensa" kanssa.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Katsaus siihen, mitkä tahot tässä asiassa tolmivat:

International science denial: Top-5 activist groups spreading anti-GMO myths in Latin America

On sitten niin, että jos noiden tahojen toimesta tulee Suomeenkin tietoa muuntogeenisten lajikkeiden haitoista, se on suurella todennäköisyydellä "tietoa". Yksi, Via Campesina, on täällä jo useasti tullut esillekin. Kritiikin kera.

Meidän tulee myös välttää a priori asennetta, että älä lue näitä, älä usko näitä. Mutta sallittaneen kehotus, että tarkista huolellisesti näiltä tahoilta tulevat väitteet.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Tämä kysymys ei ole vielä EU:ssa ajankohtainen:

Why meat and milk from gene-edited hornless cows are safe to eat

Mutta voi sellaiseksi hyvin pian tulla. Itse tuo teknologia jo mainittu täällä ja Suomen Kuvalehdessä.

[Heikki Jokipii]

GMO-lajikkeiden vaaroista monarkkiperhosille kohkattiin kovasti netissä ja USA:ssa vielä jokunen vuosi sitten ...

Study suggests GM crops not prime culprit in monarch decline

.. mutta tuon tutkimuksen mukaan - josta Mark Lynas kertoo - niin ei siis ole laita.

Se tuntui ehkä uskottavalta perusteelta niitä vastustaa ...

The claim that GM crops might be responsible for the decline of monarchs was one of the few plausible reasons for opposing their cultivation from an environmental perspective.

... mutta ei ole sitä enää. Artikkeli kertoo tarkemmin, miksi ei ole.

Eräs anarkisti:

Viewpoint: Could a GMO herbicide-resistant milkweed help save the Monarch butterfly?

Monarkkiperhosten suojelemiseksi hän ehdottaa ko. perhosten suosimien (rikka)kasvien jalostamista glyfosaattia kestäviksi!

Joskus ennen pelättiin, että noin kävisi, vahingossa. Tuossa esitetään, että pannaan niin tapahtumaan.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Kopio.

***

Ludger Wess uudelleentwiittasi
Channa Prakash 
@AgBioWorld
Hello Media: Stop giving equal time to anti-biotech activists! Despite 25 years of commercial cultivation of GM crops around the world, without a single negative health outcome, British media continues to imply that GMOs are controversial & uncertain

Media must address ‘false balance’ in biotech coverage

[Heikki Jokipii]

Erään varsin yleisen haittaväitteen kritiikki:

Viewpoint: Does ‘Big Ag’ promote GMOs as a backhanded way to peddle pesticides? Activist claims don’t withstand scrutiny