go-ahead to GM crops. After an embargo period of 12 years, Europe has decided to give its consent to the use of genetically modified organisms notorious allowing entry to their fields agricultural crops of potato Amflora and three new varieties of GM maize. All products for animal feed.
But that is enough to begin the cultivation of GM crops across the Old Continent and, consequently, to the protests of various scientific and environmental organizations. Among those not miss the alarm raised by Legambiente to voice its vice president Andrea Poggio
Dr. Poggio, as commented on the decision taken by the EU to allow the cultivation of GM crops?
This type of GM crops in Europe has given the green light, it makes no sense from the standpoint of nutritional value for citizens and in particular European citizens. We have been cheat. He did not even make any sense for agriculture. Is nothing but the pure fruit of a shared interest in lobbying and multinationals that have nothing to do with the real agriculture.
can name a few, and especially those residing explain in what she calls the interests?
The usual suspects, and many others. The important thing is that he knows who profits in promoting these seeds, genetically engineered, it is not at all interested in those who eat food products. The only interest is only to increase the sales of other products that enter the market, whether pesticides or other forms of struggle chemical in agriculture. Participate in a market that sees the usual multinationals on both the sale of the seeds on both the sale of chemicals for agriculture. In short, never once came from these men there is a serious proposal to study the genetic structure of these products. What is suggested is nothing but sell other substances were offered as useful for agriculture.
there, without dragging in the multinationals, serious studies on GMOs? There is evidence of damage caused by GMOs?
There are continued and raised in a technical forum at Community level. The European Union has opposed the use of many studies of GMOs. But apart from these, I do a pretty thorough scientific attitude, whereby if there are mysterious factors in research or if you are not sure of the consequences of certain changes in the field would be good to act prudently.
Apart from breaking news: A few days ago is a set of guidelines, published by Carlo Petrini Espresso, in which he argues that it is impossible to grow GM crops safe for small businesses without the risk of contaminating other culture media. Do you agree with this analysis?
Yes, but I would add: we want to specialize the entire valleys devoted to agriculture with unique production of a product in order to concentrate in certain boundaries, and without giving them the ability to affect others? We have no idea of \u200b\u200bthe havoc that would cause? Or do we want to safeguard the freedom of those who does not want GMOs in Italy? I had my way I propose a referendum in Italy, so at least begin to address the problem, if the outcome was favorable to GM, how to organize themselves to produce it, because there will certainly be an easy task.
Let's health is another concern implicated by Carlo Petrini, what are the most serious risks of GM food?
Some consequences are known in the reaction of the human body. Here we could study seriously and try to understand what an effective method of the real risk or not. But beyond the naturalization of GMOs is in itself harmful to agriculture today in a special way. Just look at the increase in allergies each year is growing exponentially. While we are working to resolve the current problems associated with intensive farming what do we do? We increase the risks for the future by including the GM crops? I frankly do not see the point.
From here we come to another problem: some people report that with few GM's commercial realities will become holders of the distribution of seeds for cultivation. It is a real risk?
course. And not only will the multinational seed and holder of the gene (rescued from a farmer who had the seeds and culturally if they exchanged with their colleagues), but to come together with the gene will also have the monopoly of the chemical bound. A monopoly that is composed of two different products. I honestly do not want to see a world where all fields are using the same seed and the same chemicals.
In fact it is a frightening prospect, but beyond the issue of "feeling" can you explain what risks would Unified agriculture?
We say environmentalists in particular to protect biodiversity. Biodiversity is found in nature, but also, and fundamentally, in agriculture. It is from different genes, in this case from the fruits and products of different ground, one can draw new scientific discoveries for the future. Dall'imprevista growth of a certain plant will probably recover in the future who knows what benefits foods. If mass-agriculture will always have the same type of product with the same characteristics for all human beings. Simplification is always damaging.
Damage also cultural?
course. It is known that the Italians and the French are famous worldwide for their traditional products. Let's think what would become Italy if you do not leave more space for agricultural tradition. Made in Italy of our products will be destroyed, making our products in a food approved as many others. The renunciation typically cause serious damage to the economy also.
last question: how do you respond to those who say that GMOs could be the key to solving the problem of world hunger?
This is a matter of wool goats, as demonstrated by the fact that people die of hunger will not eat (and do not want to eat) to GM. Who produces GM does for the rich markets, because production of GM means increasing costs, and those increases costs to produce the rich, not for Africans. It can be seen with the game that is played now in Europe has given the green light to GM plant products for animal feed and meat eaters is just starving.
But that is enough to begin the cultivation of GM crops across the Old Continent and, consequently, to the protests of various scientific and environmental organizations. Among those not miss the alarm raised by Legambiente to voice its vice president Andrea Poggio
Dr. Poggio, as commented on the decision taken by the EU to allow the cultivation of GM crops?
This type of GM crops in Europe has given the green light, it makes no sense from the standpoint of nutritional value for citizens and in particular European citizens. We have been cheat. He did not even make any sense for agriculture. Is nothing but the pure fruit of a shared interest in lobbying and multinationals that have nothing to do with the real agriculture.
can name a few, and especially those residing explain in what she calls the interests?
The usual suspects, and many others. The important thing is that he knows who profits in promoting these seeds, genetically engineered, it is not at all interested in those who eat food products. The only interest is only to increase the sales of other products that enter the market, whether pesticides or other forms of struggle chemical in agriculture. Participate in a market that sees the usual multinationals on both the sale of the seeds on both the sale of chemicals for agriculture. In short, never once came from these men there is a serious proposal to study the genetic structure of these products. What is suggested is nothing but sell other substances were offered as useful for agriculture.
there, without dragging in the multinationals, serious studies on GMOs? There is evidence of damage caused by GMOs?
There are continued and raised in a technical forum at Community level. The European Union has opposed the use of many studies of GMOs. But apart from these, I do a pretty thorough scientific attitude, whereby if there are mysterious factors in research or if you are not sure of the consequences of certain changes in the field would be good to act prudently.
Apart from breaking news: A few days ago is a set of guidelines, published by Carlo Petrini Espresso, in which he argues that it is impossible to grow GM crops safe for small businesses without the risk of contaminating other culture media. Do you agree with this analysis?
Yes, but I would add: we want to specialize the entire valleys devoted to agriculture with unique production of a product in order to concentrate in certain boundaries, and without giving them the ability to affect others? We have no idea of \u200b\u200bthe havoc that would cause? Or do we want to safeguard the freedom of those who does not want GMOs in Italy? I had my way I propose a referendum in Italy, so at least begin to address the problem, if the outcome was favorable to GM, how to organize themselves to produce it, because there will certainly be an easy task.
Let's health is another concern implicated by Carlo Petrini, what are the most serious risks of GM food?
Some consequences are known in the reaction of the human body. Here we could study seriously and try to understand what an effective method of the real risk or not. But beyond the naturalization of GMOs is in itself harmful to agriculture today in a special way. Just look at the increase in allergies each year is growing exponentially. While we are working to resolve the current problems associated with intensive farming what do we do? We increase the risks for the future by including the GM crops? I frankly do not see the point.
From here we come to another problem: some people report that with few GM's commercial realities will become holders of the distribution of seeds for cultivation. It is a real risk?
course. And not only will the multinational seed and holder of the gene (rescued from a farmer who had the seeds and culturally if they exchanged with their colleagues), but to come together with the gene will also have the monopoly of the chemical bound. A monopoly that is composed of two different products. I honestly do not want to see a world where all fields are using the same seed and the same chemicals.
In fact it is a frightening prospect, but beyond the issue of "feeling" can you explain what risks would Unified agriculture?
We say environmentalists in particular to protect biodiversity. Biodiversity is found in nature, but also, and fundamentally, in agriculture. It is from different genes, in this case from the fruits and products of different ground, one can draw new scientific discoveries for the future. Dall'imprevista growth of a certain plant will probably recover in the future who knows what benefits foods. If mass-agriculture will always have the same type of product with the same characteristics for all human beings. Simplification is always damaging.
Damage also cultural?
course. It is known that the Italians and the French are famous worldwide for their traditional products. Let's think what would become Italy if you do not leave more space for agricultural tradition. Made in Italy of our products will be destroyed, making our products in a food approved as many others. The renunciation typically cause serious damage to the economy also.
last question: how do you respond to those who say that GMOs could be the key to solving the problem of world hunger?
This is a matter of wool goats, as demonstrated by the fact that people die of hunger will not eat (and do not want to eat) to GM. Who produces GM does for the rich markets, because production of GM means increasing costs, and those increases costs to produce the rich, not for Africans. It can be seen with the game that is played now in Europe has given the green light to GM plant products for animal feed and meat eaters is just starving.
0 comments:
Post a Comment