Archive | Vested interests RSS feed for this section

Pakistan fends off cultivation of GM corn: Jan. – May 2019

30 May

 JANUARY

The News reported that the Pakistan Agriculture Research Council (PARC) called a meeting of Variety Evaluation Committee (VAC) to seek approval for the commercial farming of genetically modified corn varieties developed by multinational seed companies.

The Federal Minister for National Food Security Sahibzada Mehboob Sultan asked for a cancellation of meeting, saying that this was due to the request of Faisalabad Agriculture University as its team was not ready to show up.

Some stakeholders in the seed business strongly opposed the introduction of genetically modified corn’s commercial cultivation for several reasons:

  • it would increase the cost of farming for farmers due to high royalty fees,
  • it would lead to contamination of local germplasm, particularly in maize, which is a wind pollinated crop,
  • it would have an adverse effect on the investment in locally developed hybrid varieties and discourage local production and research and development in seed business and
  • Pakistan would not be able to export GM products to a wide range of GM-free regions and countries.

They said Pakistan’s per hectare production of corn was already showing an upward trend and with five tons per hectare output of corn hybrids, Pakistan was already ahead of several countries that allowed genetically modified corn. “We are sufficiently meeting our needs of corn through local production and there is no need to experiment with genetically modified organisms, which have several proven issues,” sources said.

FEBRUARY

The Technology Times reported that Pakistan Kissan Mazdoor Tehreek (PKMT) – an alliance of small and landless farmers including women farmers – fully support the position of the Ministry of National Food Security & Research which has distanced itself from going ahead with approval of genetically modified maize in Pakistan by intervening to cancel the VAV meeting in January. PKMT reiterates their demand for a moratorium on genetically modified seeds and foods in the country as it violates farmers’ collective rights to seed.

They stress that the recent lawsuit against Monsanto won by a USA citizen suffering from cancer due to the company’s herbicide Roundup Ready clearly shows the critical health hazard to Pakistani famers who will be forced to use the herbicide along with GM seeds and add that in India, Monsanto’s Bt Cotton has failed drastically; and the story is no different in Pakistan.

For many years, they add, ‘the company’ (Monsanto?) has been lobbying for commercial use of GM maize; which – if approved – will cross-pollinate and rapidly destroy the local maize seed varieties.  Pakistan’s per hectare production of maize was already showing an upward trend that is already ahead of many countries that are using genetically modified maize.

The News reports that – despite strong opposition from farmers, local seed companies, officials and experts of agriculture – multinational companies have increased efforts to get genetically modified (GM) maize registered at the Variety Evaluation Committee (VEC) and start its production in the country.

MARCH

In order to create awareness among journalists about science-related communication, the Lahore chapter of Pakistan Biotechnology Information Center and The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) organised a one-day workshop at the Forman Christian College University (FCCU) Lahore on March 3, 2019.

Pakistan Today reports that, during the workshop, Malaysian Biotechnology Information Center (MABIC) Executive Director Dr Mahaletchumy Arujanan gave a brief presentation on biotechnology, Genetic Modification (GM) Technology and the industrial challenges.

FCCU Dean of Postgraduate studies Dr Kauser A Malik told the audience of science writers and journalists that they could play an important role in informing the public about scientific and technological developments by bridging the gap between the common person and scientist, ensuring the ‘formulation of appropriate government policies conducive to the development of science in the country’.

APRIL

Business Recorder published an interview in two parts with a team from CropLife Pakistan Association, an association of multi-national biotech firms working on seed technology in the country, currently advocating the introduction of Genetically Modified seeds, specifically GM maize. Part 1 – focussing on developing an understanding of the science behind GMOs – may be read here. A few days later the second part was published, focussing on the environmental safety and regulatory aspects.

MAY

Representatives of seed companies warned that Pakistan will not be able to export its products to many regions and countries in Europe and Africa. A case in point follows:

Bulgaria, which told the European Union in 2015 that it was to ban the cultivation of crops with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), attended the second meeting of Pakistan-Bulgaria Inter-Ministerial Commission. On Monday 20th May, the Bulgarian Minister for Economy, Liliya Ivanove Ivanove, stated that Bulgaria is looking forward to extensive cooperation in the field of agriculture including sustainable imports of cotton and rice from Pakistan.

But USDA is undeterred: Dawn reports that the Foreign Agricultural Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) said future collaborative projects between the US and Pakistan include using American GM soybean feed in poultry, fish farming and dairy industries, introducing genetically-engineered maize and working with various government departments to develop uniform food safety standards.

 

 

 

o

 

Advertisements

MMR: why not allow the single vaccine option, in use elsewhere and widely accepted in ‘60s & ‘70s Britain?

30 Apr

 

As Dr Michael Jarmulowicz (FRCPath, MBBS) wrote in the BMJ:

“What I find puzzling is the adamant refusal of the authorities to facilitate the availability of the single measles vaccine, to the point that the Department of Health has banned its use within the NHS. How does this fit with the growing acceptance of patient autonomy and patient
choice? . . .

“Other countries with equivalent medical and ethical standards make them freely available.”

Other countries with equivalent medical and ethical standards do indeed make single vaccines freely available – indeed, Japan, a country with an excellent child health record, completely stopped using the MMR vaccine in 1993 after 1.8 million children had been given two types of MMR and a record number developed non-viral meningitis and other adverse reactions

The Merck measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine is a mixture of live weakened viruses of the three diseases. The first dose is generally given to children around 9 to 15 months of age and a second dose at 15 months to 6 years of age, with at least 4 weeks between the doses, according to PubMed (US government document – though the country’s National Center for Biotechnology Information (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) states that the vaccine is only licensed for use in children who are 12 months old.

The scientific argument for immunising infants against measles is to establish a good herd immunity, protecting unvaccinated babies, children and adults who could not be given the vaccination.

Doctors and parents are urged to acquire and carefully read the information leaflets relating to whatever vaccine they are considering and an online search of medical journals finds material which would make a thoughtful parent pause before agreeing to have their baby injected with the MMR vaccine.

The World Health Organisation (a UN affiliated body) reports that Live Attenuated Vaccines (LAVs) raise some general safety and stability concerns and lists six. A snapshot of the measles section follows:

Mass measles immunization campaigns – reporting and investigating adverse events following Immunization – notes that seizure risk is age-dependent, and lower for children over six years, who are unlikely to have febrile seizures. Allergies (especially to gelatine) and general illhealth is a contraindication to vaccination with MMR vaccine.

The most common programme error is an infection as a result of non-sterile injection. The infection can manifest as a local reaction (e.g., suppuration, abscess), systemic effect (e.g., sepsis or toxic shock syndrome), or blood-borne virus infection (e.g., HIV, hepatitis B).

Establishing a profitable monopoly

In the U.S. more than a million dollars has been paid in compensation over the last ten years to parents alleging their children were harmed by the MMR jab, Merck and Co USA. Despite this, the manufacturers of Mumpsvax (Jeryl Lynn strain) announced in January 2010 that it would no longer provide mumps vaccines as single doses. The single dose rubella vaccine has also been halted. Single measles vaccines and a combined measles/rubella vaccine are still available.

Prolonged legal action in its tenth year against Merck, the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine.

The Wall St Journal and many other news outlets have reported that Stephen A. Krahling and Joan A. Wlochowski, former Merck virologists, filed a lawsuit in 2010, accusing the drug maker of falsifying data about its mumps vaccine. The case has not yet been settled nine years later and the virologists complain that the company is not making some documents available to the court.

Single vaccines are used privately in Britain

Although separate vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella are now unlicensed in Britain, it is not illegal for doctors and clinics to import the vaccines as long as they inform the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) that they are bringing the vaccine into the country.

Dr Richard Halvorsen, a GP with over 20 years’ experience and the author of OK Vaccines: Making the Right Choice for Your Child (2017), has written widely on the subject. He runs an immunisation service in Britain that offers parents a choice of buying single and small combination vaccines which includes the single measles and measles/rubella vaccines.

Should not all parents have the right to request the single vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella under the NHS system?

 

 

 

o

Medic’s warning: prescribed medication caused a 50% increase in emergency admissions & nearly 100,000 hospitalisations a year in England

10 Feb

 

An article by Dr Mark Porter (December 2018) opens, “The first thing I do when faced with a poorly patient is to look at their medication to see if it could be responsible. You would be surprised how often it is”. Polypharmacy is rife: 1 in 18 of the population is taking ten medicines or more and potent pharmaceuticals carry risks as well as benefits. Millions of people are taking medication such as blood pressure pills and statins to prevent problems they may never have.

The really important message that reducing your risk of heart disease is best done by an improved diet and lifestyle is getting ‘crowded out’

Repeated campaigns have advocated mass medication – for example the February 2014 drive by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (the ‘health watchdog’) saying that the vast majority of men aged over 50 and most women over the age of 60 should take the drugs to guard against strokes and heart disease – though studies have suggested that up to one in five patients taking statins suffers some kind of ill-effect, including muscle aches, memory disturbance, cataracts and diabetes.

The Times reported on February 1st that a study published in the Lancet says all men over 60 and women over 75 are at high enough risk of cardiovascular problems to be eligible for the drugs. Professor Colin Baigent from Oxford University, a ‘co-investigator’, says “The risk of heart attacks and strokes increases markedly with age, and yet statins are not utilised as widely in older people as they should be”.

Dr Porter writes: “it is not illegal drug use in older people that concerns me most. I am embarrassed to report that prescribed medication exacts a far bigger toll on the nation’s health. Since 2008 there has been a 50% increase in the number of emergency admissions to hospitals for adverse drug events caused by medicines. In England alone such reactions are responsible for nearly 100,000 hospitalisations a year”.

He explains that anti-inflammatories such as ibuprofen and naproxen can work wonders for aches and pains from arthritic joints, but they have worrying side-effects and don’t mix well with many drugs commonly prescribed to treat high blood pressure (BP). They can damage the lining of the stomach, causing life-threatening bleeds (responsible for thousands of admissions every year) and can lead to kidney failure (on their own and when taken with BP drugs).

More subtle reactions impairing the quality of life are far more common and much easier to miss. Dr Porter gives a few examples from an ‘endless list’:

  • Blood pressure and heart pills that cause coughs (e.g. ramipril) and erectile dysfunction.
  • The prostate drug tamsulosin that can make you light-headed and increase the risk of falling.
  • Statins that cause aches and pains and reduce mobility.
  • Sleeping tablets that lead to addiction.
  • Cramp pills (quinine) that can cause heart problems.

He gave a striking case history:

“An elderly man with “early dementia” and diabetes was admitted to a residential home on our patch, where the staff reported that their new resident just sat in the corner all day looking vacant. His drug chart revealed he was taking an old-fashioned treatment for diabetes (gliclazide) that was pushing his blood sugars too low. It was stopped and two weeks later he was a new man and back in his own home. It is a lesson I have never forgotten”.

In October, an analysis in the British Medical Journal cautioned against any expansion in prescribing. One of its authors, Dr John D Abramson, clinical lecturer in primary care, from Harvard Medical School, last night said: “I think we have become victims of the drug companies. All the research is funded by them, and the really important message – that reducing your risk of heart disease is best done by an improved diet and lifestyle – is getting crowded out.”

 

 

 

o

Mass-medication 3: is compulsory fortification of all flour with folic acid imminent?

17 Oct

The Guardian reports that senior government sources say compulsory fortification of all flour with folic acid will be introduced within weeks.  

Theresa May, who was opposed to the measure, has been persuaded to back a plan to add folate supplement to food after a campaign to reduce the number of babies born in the UK with the neural tube defect (NTD). The Independent adds that the Department of Health and Social Care said the proposal is still being considered.

Two years ago, when the second reading of the above bill was debated, Lord Prior quoted from a report by the UK government’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN):

“The fortification of white bread flour with folic acid should be introduced only if it is accompanied by a number of preconditions: for example, action to reduce folic acid intakes from voluntary fortified foods, to ensure that individuals do not substantially exceed their safe maximum daily intake of folic acid . . . It also told us that there is inconclusive evidence on several possible adverse health effects of the mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid. For example, for people aged 65 and over, folate fortification of flour may result in cases of vitamin B12 deficiency not being diagnosed and treated”.

Clinical Education reports that Dr Edward Reynolds from King’s College, London has researched this matter, reviewing the literature from the 1940’s. He maintains that the recommended current upper limit of folate -1 mg – is too high.

In the 2016 debate, however, Lord Prior said the dangers of over-medication are small: “The issue is one of balancing the scientific and medical arguments with issues around choice and whether or not it is right to medicate the entire population for the benefit of a fairly small part of it”.

All women are recommended by the NHS to take a daily supplement of 400 micrograms of folic acid while they’re trying to get pregnant and during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, when the baby’s spine is developing. The BDA asserts that very few women take this advice and according to research published in a 2015 paper in the British Medical Journal, the prevalence of NTD pregnancies was 1.28 per 1000 total births.

A reader comments on the Independent article: “70 million people to be mass-medicated for the sake of 1000 women… well that makes sense doesn’t it?”

 

 

 

o

Mass-medication 2: the prevention element – a potential revenue stream?

23 Sep

As Andrew Miles, senior UK vice-president of GlaxoSmithKline observed cryptically in the Financial Times recently, “As much as people might think that the prevention element may not be a revenue stream for the company, it provides phenomenal insights.”

In July, the journal Science Translational Medicine published a report of the trial at Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research in Massachusetts into a treatment, administered as two daily pills. A Times article noted that it was found to cut the number of infections in older people. Stephen Evans, the professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said that the study was only an incremental improvement on the treatments already available and there are unanswered questions about the possible side-effects of the drugs.

Mass medication is an iatrogenic catastrophe

In June, this view was expressed in a BMJ article by James Le Fanu, retired GP and journalist. He wrote that ‘profligate’ prescribing has brought a hidden epidemic of side effects and no benefit to most individuals. There is no drug or procedure with its “chance of good” that may not harm some. The more doctors do, the greater that risk. Over the past 20 years there has been:

  • a dizzying fourfold rise in prescriptions for diabetes treatments,
  • sevenfold for antihypertensives,
  • and 20-fold for the cholesterol lowering statins.
  • Meanwhile the number of people taking five or more different drugs has quadrupled to include almost half of those aged 65 or over.

He continues: “The consequences of this massive upswing in prescribing? A hidden epidemic of immiserating symptoms such as fatigue, muscular aches and pains, insomnia, and general decrepitude, a 75% rise in emergency admissions to hospital for adverse drug reactions (an additional 30 000 a year) …

Proposals have been made in the past for mass or even universal medication by aspirin and statins

The NHS now concludes that the risk of side effects (particularly the risk of bleeding) outweighs the benefit of preventing blood clots. It has long been known that the pills carry a risk of gastro-intestinal bleeding. But a new University of Oxford study, published in The Lancet, suggests that the danger increases far more sharply with age than was thought, according to Professor Peter Rothwell, lead author. A Telegraph artlcle reports on his 2017 findings, adding that taking a daily aspirin is more dangerous than was thought, causing more than 3,000 deaths a year.

Britain is already the “statins capital” of Europe

The UK has the second highest prescribing levels in the Western world, with aggressive prescribing of the medication by GPs, whose pay is linked to take-up of the pills.

In 2014 it was reported that twelve million people (one in four adults) would be told to take statins under controversial new NHS guidelines. Draft proposals from health watchdogs were that the vast majority of men aged over 50 and most women over the age of 60 are likely to be advised to take the drugs to guard against strokes and heart disease. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) had cut the “risk threshold” for such drugs in half and experts said that the number of patients advised to take the drugs is likely to rise from seven million to 12 million.

And current medical guidance says that anyone with a 20% risk of developing cardiovascular disease within 10 years should be offered statins.

Almost all men over 60 and all women over 75 in England qualify for statin prescriptions under guidelines adopted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in 2014, a 2017analysis shows – see BMJ.

However, some health experts have questioned the industry forces behind these studies. The first recommendation was put out in 2013 by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA).  CNN reports that a number of experts who worked on the ACC/AHA guidelines had financial links to drug companies, which they disclosed publicly. No conflicts of interests were reported by the authors of the United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, but nearly all of the trials they included in their analysis were sponsored by industry, according to Dr Rita Redberg, who stressed this point in a January 2017 editorial in the journal she oversees. “The ACC did not follow its own conflict of interest guidelines“..

Fluoridation – or any practice that uses the public water supply as a vehicle to deliver medicine – violates medical ethics in several important ways:

  • It deprives the individual of his or her right to informed consent to medication.
  • It is approved and delivered by people without medical qualifications.
  • It is delivered to everyone regardless of age, health or nutritional status, without individual oversight by a doctor and without control of dose.
  • The safety of fluoridated water has never been demonstrated by randomized controlled trials–the gold standard study now generally required before a drug can enter the market.

Fluoridating water is a form of mass medication and most western European nations have rejected the practice — because, in their view, the public water supply is not an appropriate place to be adding drugs.

Who profits from all these instances of largescale medication?

 

 

 

o

 

 

o

 

 

 

Much ado about an OP nerve-agent: but hundreds of British farmers were poisoned – compelled by government to use OP dips

13 Mar

Senior ministers have been told that the nerve agent used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal in in Salisbury, on Sunday 4 March 2018 near Porton Down, has been identified by Porton Down experts as the organophosphate Novichock. Porton Down’s research focus has successively been known as Chemical Warfare, Chemical Defence, Chemical & Biological Defence and now Defence Science and Technology. Areas of concern are outlined here. Early British collaboration with American chemical warfare research (aka ‘field studies’) is acknowledged here.

In 2015 the Guardian reported that a cross-party MPs called for an inquiry into the compulsory use of dangerous chemicals called organophosphates (OPs), used to protect livestock from parasites. The Farmers Weekly reported that the Sheep Dip Sufferers Support Group repeated this call in 2016

The problem was first identified by Dr Goran Jamal, a Kurdish-born neurologist working in Glasgow, who later gave evidence of OP-related Gulf War Syndrome. Read Booker’s compelling account in Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth, or extracts from it here.

In his autobiography, BBC Countryfile presenter Adam Henson wrote: “the authorities realized that they were poisoning a lot of farmers”. In Countryfile Magazine (9.6.17) he wrote (snapshot of page, above right)

BBC Countryfile Magazine made the following points below:

  • OPs were originally created as a nerve gas and were developed during the Second World War. In 1951 Lord Zuckerman, who would go on to become the government’s chief scientist, warned of the dangers of allowing farmers to use OPs. Zuckerman raised concerns that farmers could absorb the poison through skin or inhalation. Read the legal noticepublished by Minister of Agriculture and Fishery regarding the harmful effects of Ops in 1951. Read a report published by Tim Farron, MP, stating that Government knew about the harmful effects of OPs.
  • Zuckerman called for farmers to be given detailed instructions for the use of OPs and for the substance to be labelled as deadly poison, although neither suggestion would be adopted until the 1980s.
  • Dipping sheep became compulsory in the late 1970s, and the use of OPs specifically was mandated by the British government until 1992. Read abstract at Small Ruminant Research.
  • In 1981 an advice leaflet was produced by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) that warned against the dangers of using OPs, citing that the chemicals could be absorbed through the skin. A report from the HSE in 1990showed growing concerns over the use of the chemicals.
  • UCL’s Dr Sarah MacKenzie Ross reviewed existing scientific evidence in 2013 and found that 13 out of 16 studies showed evidence of neurological problems following long-term, low-level exposure to Ops. Long-term health issues linked to OP poisoning also include multiple sclerosis and memory issues.  (Ed; we add her work in Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Volume 32, Issue 4, 2010, abstract here.)
  • In April 2014 MPs called for a ‘Hillsborough-style’ inquiry into the sheep-dip poisoning, with Shadow health secretary Andy Burnham called it a “major scandal”. Source: Agri Wales.

A saga of missing medical records

In the Telegraph, Booker pointed out that the health of thousands of farmers and their families had been destroyed by using highly toxic organo-phosphate (OP) chemicals to dip their sheep, as a protection against parasites. When the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) commissioned its own internal study into this disaster, its findings in 1991 were so devastating that they had to be ruthlessly suppressed. The survey, later released under a freedom of information request, said:

“Repeated absorption of small doses [can] have a cumulative effect and can result in progressive inhibition of nervous system cholinesterase.”

The Manchester Evening News published an early photograph of Littleborough farmer, the late Brenda Sutcliff with her husband Harold. She and three family members became ill after using a government-recommended sheep dip.  No active, healthy old age for her – but her persistent campaigning was recognised and celebrated by many (below left).

Details of a sheep dipping survey were released by the Health and Safety Executive following a Freedom of Information Request by the Sheep Dip Sufferers Group. The HSE survey examined sheep dipping facilities and practices on a representative sample of 696 farmers across 16 different regions of Britain. See also: Minister pledges to re-examine OP sheep dip files

But in the same month as this report was published internally – May 1991 – the farming minister at the time, John Gummer, was demanding that local authorities clamp down on farmers who refused to use the chemical.

The report found 160 occasions where some form of ill-health occurred after dipping. It also criticised manufacturers for providing inadequate protective clothing and unclear instructions to farmers on how to use the chemicals: “If with all the resources available to them, a major chemical company proves unable to select appropriate protective equipment, what hope is there for an end-user?” Booker commented that ministers were only too aware that the government had forced the farmers to use these chemicals, which its own Veterinary Medicines Directorate had licensed as safe to use and ends:

“Although in 1992, the government quietly dropped the compulsory use of OPs for dipping, without explanation, a succession of Tory and Labour ministers refused to accept publicly that repeated exposure to them could cause irreparable damage – because, it seemed, any public admission that they were as dangerous as the HSE had found them to be might trigger off a major scandal resulting in tens of millions of pounds of compensation claims”.

A more high-profile victim (see illness), former sheep farmer Margaret Mar (right), a life peer in the House of Lords, has spent three decades campaigning in Westminster on the issue.

She said: “I know from private discussions with an advisor at the Department of Health that officials knew about the risks, but couldn’t publicly criticise OPs because they were a government-recommended dip at that time”.

An campaign by the Sheep Dip Sufferers’ Support Group, co-ordinated by Tom Rigby, organic dairy farmer and chair of NFU’s Organic Forum, has an exceptionally accurate and informative website, with a balanced approach, useful links and well-documented interviews and reports with the political establishment – recording reasonable interaction with MPs like Andy Burnham, George Eustice and Paul Tyler.

They deserve the last word:

“We are a group of volunteers campaigning for better diagnosis and treatment for all those affected by organophosphates used in agriculture. We have no membership subscription or outside funding and rely mostly on the collective experience of those who have been bravely battling against the devastating effects of these chemicals for decades.

“We hope 2018 will be the year when the farming community comes to realise the impact these insecticides have had on those involved in disease control and that they finally start to get the help and support they urgently need”.

 

 

Republished from Political Concern

o

Hawaii: calling Syngenta to account – an uphill struggle

8 Mar

Richard Bruce has drawn attention to a case reported by Reuters in February. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had been seeking a $4.8 million settlement from Syngenta, alleging that dozens of workers at Syngenta Seeds’ former research farm on Kauai, Hawaii were exposed to the neurotoxic pesticide chlorpyrifos in 2016 and 2017.

Sold to Hartung in 2017, but Syngenta will ‘contract Hawaii-based seed production activities with the new owner’.

The final settlement was a meagre $150,000, with $400,000 more to be spent on worker protection, far less – as Alexis Strauss, acting regional administrator for the EPA’s Region 9, acknowledged – than the maximum allowed under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and its regulations designed to protect workers.

This would not surprise McKay Jenkins, whose book, Poison Spring  (Bloomsbury, 2014), co-written with E.G. Vallianatos, has been called “a jaw-dropping expose´ of the catastrophic collusion between the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and the chemical industry.

The IPS news agency reported that in 2013, the Kauai county council passed a law ordering the companies to create wider buffer zones and to disclose in far more detail than they do now what they spray, where and when.

A group of doctors in Waimea, which is surrounded by cornfields on three sides, testified that the number of cases of serious heart defects in local newborns was 10 times the national rate. But the head of the companies’ trade group, the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, said that no credible source of statistical health information to support the claims had been seen. The association sued and a federal judge struck the law down, arguing that only the state can regulate pesticide use.

Background information

In Outside Online, whose wide remit includes health and fitness, Professor Jenkins writes about Kauai, a place where for years, multinational agrochemical companies have developed genetically modified seeds but kept their experiments secret from locals especially their use of pesticides to test the resilience of GM seeds to chemicals See his recent book: Food Fight: GMOs and the Future of the American Diet.

“In recent years over 16,000 acres of Kauai’s land have been leased to DuPont-Pioneer, Dow, and Syngenta because its tropical climate enables them to work their fields year-round. Company workers can plant experimental fields three seasons a year, which can cut in half the time it takes to develop a new genetically altered seed. They plant these seeds, then spray them with a wide variety of chemicals that are designed to kill weeds and insects. When they find food crops that can stand up to these toxins, they begin the process of taking them to market”.

The cases

In 2016 nineteen workers were exposed to chlorpyrifos after Syngenta sprayed the insecticide on a field of genetically engineered (GE) corn at its Kekaha farm. According to the complaint, the workers were allowed to reenter the field before the reentry period expired and without protective equipment. Ten workers were taken to the hospital and three were held overnight.

Pearl Linton hand-pollinating corn plants at a Syngenta seed farm on Kauai.

At the time of the incident, an inspector from the Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDOA) was present on the Syngenta farm and the EPA brought a civil administrative enforcement action against Syngenta for violating several federal statutes including worker protection standards, allegedly affecting as many as 77 workers.

A second incident occurred in 2017 when Syngenta failed to post warnings for worker crews containing 42 employees after applying chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate pesticide. EPA also found that Syngenta failed to provide both adequate decontamination supplies on-site and prompt transportation to a medical facility for exposed workers.

Hawaii is now considering bills in the state House and Senate to ban chlorpyrifos, as well as a proposal to require farmers to notify the public when they use certain pesticides and to create buffer zones around some schools.  

Hawaii State Capitol, Makai Entrance

May the decisions taken there show concern for the health of its people and environment, regardless of vested interest, and justify its magnificent architecture

=

Main source: https://www.outsideonline.com/2151976/ongoing-hawaiian-battle-shows-real-gmo-problem

 

 

 

o