Politics and the Environment

The following is a set of # articles that appeared in popular publications. They do illustrate though the interaction between politics and the environment very clearly. Please read them in the order that they appear and then comment .  The first article by David Brooks is what set off this debate.

A Sad Green Story

By DAVID BROOKS

The period around 2003 was the golden spring of green technology. John McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced a bipartisan bill to curb global warming. I got my first ride in a Prius from a conservative foreign policy hawk who said that these new technologies were going to help us end our dependence on Middle Eastern despots. You’d go to Silicon Valley and all the venture capitalists, it seemed, were rushing into clean tech.

From that date on the story begins to get a little sadder.

Al Gore released his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006. The global warming issue became associated with the highly partisan former vice president. Gore mobilized liberals, but, once he became the global warming spokesman, no Republican could stand shoulder to shoulder with him and survive. Any slim chance of building a bipartisan national consensus was gone.

Then, in 2008, Barack Obama seized upon green technology and decided to make it the centerpiece of his jobs program. During his presidential campaign he promised to create five million green tech jobs. Renewable energy has many virtues, but it is not a jobs program. Obama’s stimulus package set aside $90 billion for renewable energy loans and grants, but the number of actual jobs created has been small. Articles began to appear in the press of green technology grants that were costing $2 million per job created. The program began to look like a wasteful disappointment.

Federal subsidies also created a network of green tech corporations hoping to benefit from taxpayer dollars. One of the players in this network was, again, Al Gore. As Carol Leonnig reported in The Washington Post last week, Gore left public office in 2001 worth less than $2 million. Today his wealth is estimated to be around $100 million.

Leonnig reports that 14 green tech firms that Gore invested in received or directly benefited from more than $2.5 billion in federal loans, grants and tax breaks. Suddenly, green tech looks less like a gleaming beacon of virtue and more like corporate welfare, further enriching already affluent investors.

The federal agencies invested in many winners, but they also invested in some spectacular losers, from Solyndra to the battery maker A123 Systems, which just filed for bankruptcy protection. Private investors can shake off bad investments. But when a political entity like the federal government makes a bad investment, the nasty publicity tarnishes the whole program.

The U.S. government wasn’t the only one investing in renewables. Governments around the world were also doing it, and the result has been gigantic oversupply, a green tech bubble. Keith Bradsher of The Times reported earlier this month that China’s biggest solar panel makers are suffering losses of up to $1 for every $3 in sales. Panel prices have fallen by three-fourths since 2008. Manufacturers will need huge subsidies far into the future — as Bradsher writes, “a looming financial disaster.” The U.S. share of the global market, meanwhile, has fallen from 7 percent to 3 percent since 2008.

The biggest blow to green tech has come from the marketplace itself. Fossil fuel technology has advanced more quickly than renewables technology. People used to worry that the world would soon run out of oil, but few worry about that now. Shale gas, meanwhile, has become the current hot, revolutionary fuel of the future.

Writing in Foreign Policy magazine, Daniel Yergin projects that in 2030 the worldwide fuel mix will not be too different than what it is today. That is, there will be more solar and wind power generated, but these sources will still account for a small fraction of total supply. Fossil fuels will still be the default fuel for decades ahead.

The Financial Post in Canada recently surveyed the gloom across the clean energy sector. “Revenues from renewable and alternative energy fell a little more than 12%” in 2011, the paper reported. Research and development spending on renewables is set to decline next year, according to United Nations figures, while the oil and gas sector is investing a whopping $490 billion a year in exploration.

All in all, the once bright green future is looking grimmer. Green tech is decidedly less glamorous, tarnished by political and technological disappointments.

The shifting mood was certainly evident in the presidential debate this week. Global warming was off the radar. Meanwhile, President Obama and Mitt Romney competed to see who could most ardently support coal and new pipelines. Obama is running radio ads in Ohio touting his record as a coal champion.

This is not where we thought we’d be back in 2003.

Global warming is still real. Green technology is still important. Personally, I’d support a carbon tax to give it a boost. But he who lives by the subsidy dies by the subsidy. Government planners should not be betting on what technologies will develop fastest. They should certainly not be betting on individual companies.

This is a story of overreach, misjudgments and disappointment.

 

 

The sad history of climate policy, according to David Brooks

By Ezra Klein , Updated: October 19, 2012

This is, according to David Brooks, the sad history of Washington’s efforts to address climate change.
1) “The period around 2003 was the golden spring of green technology. John McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced a bipartisan bill to curb global warming.”
2) “Al Gore released his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006. The global warming issue became associated with the highly partisan former vice president. Gore mobilized liberals, but, once he became the global warming spokesman, no Republican could stand shoulder to shoulder with him and survive.” (Note: Some Republicans could, and did, stand with Gore.)
3) “Obama’s stimulus package set aside $90 billion for renewable energy loans and grants, but the number of actual jobs created has been small. Articles began to appear in the press of green technology grants that were costing $2 million per job created. The program began to look like a wasteful disappointment.”
4) “The federal agencies invested in many winners, but they also invested in some spectacular losers, from Solyndra to the battery maker A123 Systems, which just filed for bankruptcy protection. Private investors can shake off bad investments. But when a political entity like the federal government makes a bad investment, the nasty publicity tarnishes the whole program.”
5) “Fossil fuel technology has advanced more quickly than renewables technology. People used to worry that the world would soon run out of oil, but few worry about that now. Shale gas, meanwhile, has become the current hot, revolutionary fuel of the future.”
6) “The shifting mood was certainly evident in the presidential debate this week. Global warming was off the radar. Meanwhile, President Obama and Mitt Romney competed to see who could most ardently support coal and new pipelines.”
7) “This is not where we thought we’d be back in 2003. Global warming is still real. Green technology is still important. Personally, I’d support a carbon tax to give it a boost. But he who lives by the subsidy dies by the subsidy. Government planners should not be betting on what technologies will develop fastest. They should certainly not be betting on individual companies. This is a story of overreach, misjudgments and disappointment.”
So, to summarize: Addressing climate change by pricing carbon — an idea Brooks supported then and supports now — was a bipartisan project in 2003. It became a partisan project because Al Gore thought it was important enough to make a documentary about. Republicans began opposing efforts to price carbon, in part because they hate Al Gore. That left funding renewables research as the only avenue for those worried about climate change. Funding renewables research means funding some projects that won’t work out, and some that might make Al Gore rich. This led to bad publicity that tarnished the whole program.
The passivity of Brooks’s conclusion is astonishing. This isn’t a story of overreach, misjudgements, and disappointment. It’s a story of Republicans putting raw partisanship and a dislike for Al Gore in front of the planet’s best interests. It’s a story, though Brooks doesn’t mention this, of conservatives building an alternative reality in which the science is unsettled, and no one really knows whether the planet is warming and, even if it is, whether humans have anything to do with it. It’s a story of Democrats being forced into a second and third-best policies that Republicans then use to press their political advantage.
It’s a story, to put it simply, of Democrats doing everything they can to address a problem Brooks says is real in the way Brooks says is best, and Republicans doing everything they can to stop them. And it’s a story that ends with Democrats and Republicans receiving roughly equal blame from Brooks.
The existence of this op-ed is part of the story of why the Democrats failed. The story of what happened over the last 10 years is right there in Brooks’s column. But he doesn’t want to say who’s right and who’s wrong, which is the only tool pundits have to help those who are right and push those who are wrong. Instead, he wants to say everybody is wrong, and isn’t it just a shame.
For a clearer take on this issue, read Eugene Robinson’s

 

 

Why the chill on climate change?

By Eugene Robinson, Published: October 18

Not a word has been said in the presidential debates about what may be the most urgent and consequential issue in the world: climate change.
President Obama understands and accepts the scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is trapping heat in the atmosphere, with potentially catastrophic long-term effects. Mitt Romney’s view, as on many issues, is pure quicksilver — impossible to pin down — but when he was governor of Massachusetts, climate-change activists considered him enlightened and effective.
Yet neither has mentioned the subject in the debates. Instead, they have argued over who is more eager to extract ever-larger quantities of oil, natural gas and coal from beneath our purple mountains’ majesties and fruited plains.
“We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years,” Obama said in Tuesday’s debate. “Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment.”
Romney scoffed that Obama “has not been Mr. Oil, or Mr. Gas, or Mr. Coal,” and promised that he, if elected, would be all three. “I’ll do it by more drilling, more permits and licenses,” he said, adding later that this means “bringing in a pipeline of oil from Canada, taking advantage of the oil and coal we have here, drilling offshore in Alaska, drilling offshore in Virginia, where the people want it.”
If this is a contest to see who can pretend to be more ignorant of the environmental locomotive that’s barreling down the tracks toward us, Romney wins narrowly.
Obama does acknowledge that his administration has invested in alternative energy technologies, such as wind and solar, that do not emit carbon dioxide and thus do not contribute to atmospheric warming. But he never really says why, except to say he will not “cede those jobs of the future” to nations such as China and Germany.
Romney, on the other hand, claims to pledge heart and soul to an idea that he, as a successful businessman, must know is ridiculous: “North America[n] energy independence.” The notion seems to be that all the oil and natural gas we need can be produced in the United States, Canada and Mexico, and that achieving this continental “independence” will magically cause energy prices to fall.
This is silly. At current production levels, relying solely on good old “North American” oil would leave us more than 30 percent short of what we now consume, and no amount of drilling and despoiling could close that gap. Moreover, the price of oil is a global price — a barrel costs the same whether it’s extracted in North Dakota or the North Sea.
Natural gas is harder to transport over long distances, which means the price is more local. But we’re already moving faster than prudence would advise — through the technology of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” — to pump huge quantities of natural gas, and the price is already quite low.
As for coal, Romney was once more of an environmentalist than Obama; as the president noted Tuesday,Romney once stood in front of the Salem Harbor coal-fired plant in Massachusetts and said, “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant — that plant kills people.” Now, however, Romney says he is ardently pro-coal and claims that Obama isn’t.
But Obama has long been a champion of so-called “clean coal” technology, which many environmentalists believe is an oxymoron. From the point of view of limiting carbon emissions, burning more coal is the worst thing you could do.
Why does it matter that nobody is talking about climate change? Because if you accept that climate scientists are right about the warming of the atmosphere — as Obama does, and Romney basically seems to as well — then you understand that some big decisions will have to be made. You also understand that while there are some measures the United States could take unilaterally, carbon dioxide can never be controlled without the cooperation of other big emitters such as China, India and Brazil. You understand that this is an issue with complicated implications for global prosperity and security.
A presidential campaign offers an opportunity to educate and engage the American people in the decisions that climate change will force us to make. Unfortunately, Obama and Romney have chosen to see this more as an opportunity to pretend that the light at the end of the tunnel is not an approaching train.

Frankenstorm: Do We Really Care?

I decided to spare you my views on the frankenstorm and its possible connection to climate change. That is a very tempting topic that is very dear to me but is not directly related to our syllabus this semester. But the following article that appeared in today's NYT must be read. It is a rather brief account of the sad state of affairs that we have come to accept. I post this article because it does reflect 100% my thinking on this matter. I do believe, sadly, that we have come to accept climate change as a development that we can adapt to. The we , however, does not represent much more than 10% of humanity. Read the following and write a frank comment. Please do not try to be politically correct.

Deciding Where Future Disasters Will Strike

By McKENZIE FUNK

WE all have an intuitive sense of how water works: block it, and it flows elsewhere. When a storm surge hits a flood barrier, for instance, the water does not simply dissipate. It does the hydrological equivalent of a bounce, and it lands somewhere else.

The Dutch, after years of beating back the oceans, have a way of deciding what is worth saving with a dike or sea wall, and what is not. They simply run the numbers, and if something is worth less in terms of pure euros and cents, it is more acceptable to let it be flooded. This seems entirely reasonable. But as New York begins considering coastal defenses, it should also consider the uncomfortable truth that Wall Street is worth vastly more, in dollar terms, than certain low-lying neighborhoods of Brooklyn, Staten Island and Queens — and that to save Manhattan, planners may decide to flood some other part of the city.

I think I was the only journalist who witnessed the March 2009 unveiling of some of the first proposed sea-wall designs. “Against the Deluge: Storm Surge Barriers to Protect New York City” was a conference held at N.Y.U.’s Polytechnic Institute in Brooklyn, and it had the sad air of what was then an entirely lost cause. There was a single paying exhibitor — “Please visit our exhibitor,” implored the organizers — whose invention, FloodBreak, was an ingenious, self-deploying floodgate big enough to protect a garage but not at all big enough to protect Manhattan. When we lined up for the included dinner, which consisted of cold spaghetti, the man waved fliers at the passing engineers. But as I look back over my notes, I can see how prescient the conference was. A phrase I frequently scrawled is “Breezy Point.”

One speaker got a sustained ovation. He was an engineer from the Dutch company Arcadis, whose $6.5 billion design is one with which I suspect we will all soon be familiar. It is a modular wall spanning 6,000 feet across the weakest point in New York’s natural defenses, the Narrows, which separates Staten Island and Brooklyn. Its main feature is a giant swinging gate modeled on the one that protects Rotterdam, Europe’s most important port. Consisting of two steel arms, each more than twice as long as the Statue of Liberty is tall, Rotterdam’s gate is among the largest moving structures on earth. And New York’s barrier would stretch across an even larger reach of water — “an extra landmark” for the city, he said triumphantly. That’s when everyone began clapping.

The engineers in the room did not shy away from the hard truth that areas outside a Narrows barrier could see an estimated two feet of extra flooding. If a wave rebounding off the new landmark hits a wave barreling toward it, it could make for a bigger wave of the sort that neighborhoods like Arrochar and Midland Beach on Staten Island and Bath Beach and Gravesend in Brooklyn may want to start fretting about.

I attended the conference not just because I was interested in the fate of New York, my onetime home, but because I was recently back from parts of Bangladesh decimated by a cyclone. By now it is commonplace to point out that climate change is unfair, that it tends to leave the big “emitter countries” in good shape — think Russia or Canada or, until recently, America — while preying on the low-emitting, the poor, the weak, the African, the tropical. But more grossly unfair is the notion that, in lieu of serious carbon cuts, we will all simply adapt to climate change. Manhattan can and increasingly will. Rotterdam can and has. Dhaka or Chittagong or Breezy Point patently cannot. If a system of sea walls is built around New York, its estimated $10 billion price tag would be five times what rich countries have given in aid to help poorer countries prepare for a warmer world.

Whether climate change caused Sandy’s destruction is a question for scientists — and in many ways it’s a stupid question, akin to asking whether gravity is the reason an old house collapsed when it did. The global temperature can rise another 10 degrees, and the answer will always be: sorta. By deciding to adapt to climate change — a decision that has already been partly made, because significant warming is already baked into the system — we have decided to embrace a world of walls.

Some people, inevitably richer people, will be on the right side of these walls. Other people will not be — and that we might find it increasingly convenient to lose all sight of them is the change I fear the most. This is not an argument against saving New York from the next hurricane. It is, however, an argument for a response to this one that is much broader than the Narrows.

McKenzie Funk is a journalist who is writing a book on the business of climate change.

French Study Linking GMO to Cancer Is Flawed.

A major news item that was very widely spread over the internet and other news media recently suggested that a French study has determined that GMO corn fed to rats has increased the probability of developing cancer.
This story is full of twists and turns but my intension is only to make sure that you have all seen the most recent turn in this charade. Originally it was revealed that GMO corn and /or Roundup has increased the probability of developing cancer in rats.

 When the news was first released it was done in a very highly "strange" procedure. A few journalists were given the results provided that they would sign a written agreement that prohibits them from asking any outsiders for verification of the results. That is highly uncommon in scientific studies. Anyway,  a number of top French Scientific organizations suspected foul play because of the procedure and also because of the language used in the report. The six French Scientific Academies issued a joint statement which rejects all the findings of the study in question. I will spare you the exact translation of the statement but share with you an explanation of what has transpired as reported by Agence France:

“This work does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn,” they said, adding bluntly that the affair helped “spread fear among the public.” The joint statement—an extremely rare event in French science—was signed by the national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies. It was sparked by research published in September that said rats fed with so-called NK603 corn and/or doses of Roundup herbicide developed tumors….
Two fast-track official investigations into the study, ordered by the government, are due to be unveiled on Monday.
The academies’ statement said: “Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view, as are, more generally, genetically modified plants that have been authorised for consumption by animals and humans.” In withering terms, it dismissed the study as “a scientific non-event.” “Hyping the reputation of a scientist or a team is a serious misdemeanour when it helps to spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion,” the academies said.

And let me leave you with the conclusion of the European Food Safety Authority on this subject:

"Conclusions cannot be drawn on the difference in tumour incidence between the treatment groups on the basis of the design, the analysis and the results as reported in the Séralini et al. (2012) publication. In particular, Séralini et al. (2012) draw conclusions on the incidence of tumours based on 10 rats per treatment per sex which is an insufficient number of animals to distinguish between specific treatment effects and chance occurrences of tumours in rats. Considering that the study as reported in the Séralini et al. (2012) publication is of inadequate design, analysis and reporting, EFSA finds that it is of insufficient scientific quality for safety assessment."

 (hat tip to Dot Earth for some of the above material)

The EFSA said an initial review showed that the "design, reporting and analysis of the study ... are inadequate," meaning it could not "regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound." Given these shortcomings, the EFSA called on the author of the study, French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, to provide additional information before a second, final review is completed by the end of this month. Seralini's team at France's University of Caen found that rats develop tumours when fed US agribusiness giant Monsanto's NK603 corn, or when exposed to one of the company's weedkillers used with it, containing glyphosate. The scientist insisted Thursday he would not give the EFSA any additional information until it first detailed the basis of its own assessment. "It is absolutely scandalous that (EFSA) keeps secret the information on which they based their evaluation" of NK603 and the pesticide, he said. "In any event, we will not give them anything. We will put the information in the public domain when they do," Seralini told AFP. NK603 was developed by Monsanto to make it resistant to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup, enabling farmers to use the weedkiller just once in the crop's life-cycle, enabling substantial savings. Seralini and his team say their experiment in GM food is the first to follow rats through their lifespan, as opposed to just 90 days, but other experts have also questioned its methodology, results and relevance to humans. EFSA, which reviews the use and authorisation of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), said that "based on the information published by the authors ... it does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 nor to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate." In May, the EFSA said a temporary French ban on another Monsanto corn, MON810, was not properly based on scientific evidence. "Based on the documentation submitted by France, there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment," EFSA said of the French position. France, like many EU countries, has a long record of opposition to GM foods but the pressures on farmers in terms of cost are immense, driving their increasing use, especially in emerging economies such as China and Brazil. EFSA listed a series of concerns it had with Seralini's findings, among them that the type of rat used "in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. "This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors." Environmental groups attacked the EFSA action, saying it was not doing enough on its own to test GM foods while condemning the work of others. The "EFSA fails to convince us that they are putting public safety before the interests of agribusiness biotech industry," said Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth. "Instead of dismissing peer-reviewed independent research they should be asking themselves why they don't demand long term safety tests for genetically modified foods," Schimpf said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-eu-french-scientist-linking-gm.html#jCp

The EFSA said an initial review showed that the "design, reporting and analysis of the study ... are inadequate," meaning it could not "regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound." Given these shortcomings, the EFSA called on the author of the study, French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, to provide additional information before a second, final review is completed by the end of this month. Seralini's team at France's University of Caen found that rats develop tumours when fed US agribusiness giant Monsanto's NK603 corn, or when exposed to one of the company's weedkillers used with it, containing glyphosate. The scientist insisted Thursday he would not give the EFSA any additional information until it first detailed the basis of its own assessment. "It is absolutely scandalous that (EFSA) keeps secret the information on which they based their evaluation" of NK603 and the pesticide, he said. "In any event, we will not give them anything. We will put the information in the public domain when they do," Seralini told AFP. NK603 was developed by Monsanto to make it resistant to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup, enabling farmers to use the weedkiller just once in the crop's life-cycle, enabling substantial savings. Seralini and his team say their experiment in GM food is the first to follow rats through their lifespan, as opposed to just 90 days, but other experts have also questioned its methodology, results and relevance to humans. EFSA, which reviews the use and authorisation of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), said that "based on the information published by the authors ... it does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 nor to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate." In May, the EFSA said a temporary French ban on another Monsanto corn, MON810, was not properly based on scientific evidence. "Based on the documentation submitted by France, there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment," EFSA said of the French position. France, like many EU countries, has a long record of opposition to GM foods but the pressures on farmers in terms of cost are immense, driving their increasing use, especially in emerging economies such as China and Brazil. EFSA listed a series of concerns it had with Seralini's findings, among them that the type of rat used "in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. "This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors." Environmental groups attacked the EFSA action, saying it was not doing enough on its own to test GM foods while condemning the work of others. The "EFSA fails to convince us that they are putting public safety before the interests of agribusiness biotech industry," said Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth. "Instead of dismissing peer-reviewed independent research they should be asking themselves why they don't demand long term safety tests for genetically modified foods," Schimpf said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-eu-french-scientist-linking-gm.html#jCp

The EFSA said an initial review showed that the "design, reporting and analysis of the study ... are inadequate," meaning it could not "regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound." Given these shortcomings, the EFSA called on the author of the study, French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, to provide additional information before a second, final review is completed by the end of this month. Seralini's team at France's University of Caen found that rats develop tumours when fed US agribusiness giant Monsanto's NK603 corn, or when exposed to one of the company's weedkillers used with it, containing glyphosate. The scientist insisted Thursday he would not give the EFSA any additional information until it first detailed the basis of its own assessment. "It is absolutely scandalous that (EFSA) keeps secret the information on which they based their evaluation" of NK603 and the pesticide, he said. "In any event, we will not give them anything. We will put the information in the public domain when they do," Seralini told AFP. NK603 was developed by Monsanto to make it resistant to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup, enabling farmers to use the weedkiller just once in the crop's life-cycle, enabling substantial savings. Seralini and his team say their experiment in GM food is the first to follow rats through their lifespan, as opposed to just 90 days, but other experts have also questioned its methodology, results and relevance to humans. EFSA, which reviews the use and authorisation of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), said that "based on the information published by the authors ... it does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 nor to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate." In May, the EFSA said a temporary French ban on another Monsanto corn, MON810, was not properly based on scientific evidence. "Based on the documentation submitted by France, there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment," EFSA said of the French position. France, like many EU countries, has a long record of opposition to GM foods but the pressures on farmers in terms of cost are immense, driving their increasing use, especially in emerging economies such as China and Brazil. EFSA listed a series of concerns it had with Seralini's findings, among them that the type of rat used "in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. "This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors." Environmental groups attacked the EFSA action, saying it was not doing enough on its own to test GM foods while condemning the work of others. The "EFSA fails to convince us that they are putting public safety before the interests of agribusiness biotech industry," said Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth. "Instead of dismissing peer-reviewed independent research they should be asking themselves why they don't demand long term safety tests for genetically modified foods," Schimpf said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-eu-french-scientist-linking-gm.html#jCp

The EFSA said an initial review showed that the "design, reporting and analysis of the study ... are inadequate," meaning it could not "regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound." Given these shortcomings, the EFSA called on the author of the study, French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, to provide additional information before a second, final review is completed by the end of this month. Seralini's team at France's University of Caen found that rats develop tumours when fed US agribusiness giant Monsanto's NK603 corn, or when exposed to one of the company's weedkillers used with it, containing glyphosate. The scientist insisted Thursday he would not give the EFSA any additional information until it first detailed the basis of its own assessment. "It is absolutely scandalous that (EFSA) keeps secret the information on which they based their evaluation" of NK603 and the pesticide, he said. "In any event, we will not give them anything. We will put the information in the public domain when they do," Seralini told AFP. NK603 was developed by Monsanto to make it resistant to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup, enabling farmers to use the weedkiller just once in the crop's life-cycle, enabling substantial savings. Seralini and his team say their experiment in GM food is the first to follow rats through their lifespan, as opposed to just 90 days, but other experts have also questioned its methodology, results and relevance to humans. EFSA, which reviews the use and authorisation of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), said that "based on the information published by the authors ... it does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 nor to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate." In May, the EFSA said a temporary French ban on another Monsanto corn, MON810, was not properly based on scientific evidence. "Based on the documentation submitted by France, there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment," EFSA said of the French position. France, like many EU countries, has a long record of opposition to GM foods but the pressures on farmers in terms of cost are immense, driving their increasing use, especially in emerging economies such as China and Brazil. EFSA listed a series of concerns it had with Seralini's findings, among them that the type of rat used "in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. "This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors." Environmental groups attacked the EFSA action, saying it was not doing enough on its own to test GM foods while condemning the work of others. The "EFSA fails to convince us that they are putting public safety before the interests of agribusiness biotech industry," said Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth. "Instead of dismissing peer-reviewed independent research they should be asking themselves why they don't demand long term safety tests for genetically modified foods," Schimpf said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-eu-french-scientist-linking-gm.html#jCp

The EFSA said an initial review showed that the "design, reporting and analysis of the study ... are inadequate," meaning it could not "regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound." Given these shortcomings, the EFSA called on the author of the study, French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, to provide additional information before a second, final review is completed by the end of this month. Seralini's team at France's University of Caen found that rats develop tumours when fed US agribusiness giant Monsanto's NK603 corn, or when exposed to one of the company's weedkillers used with it, containing glyphosate. The scientist insisted Thursday he would not give the EFSA any additional information until it first detailed the basis of its own assessment. "It is absolutely scandalous that (EFSA) keeps secret the information on which they based their evaluation" of NK603 and the pesticide, he said. "In any event, we will not give them anything. We will put the information in the public domain when they do," Seralini told AFP. NK603 was developed by Monsanto to make it resistant to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup, enabling farmers to use the weedkiller just once in the crop's life-cycle, enabling substantial savings. Seralini and his team say their experiment in GM food is the first to follow rats through their lifespan, as opposed to just 90 days, but other experts have also questioned its methodology, results and relevance to humans. EFSA, which reviews the use and authorisation of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), said that "based on the information published by the authors ... it does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 nor to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate." In May, the EFSA said a temporary French ban on another Monsanto corn, MON810, was not properly based on scientific evidence. "Based on the documentation submitted by France, there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment," EFSA said of the French position. France, like many EU countries, has a long record of opposition to GM foods but the pressures on farmers in terms of cost are immense, driving their increasing use, especially in emerging economies such as China and Brazil. EFSA listed a series of concerns it had with Seralini's findings, among them that the type of rat used "in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. "This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors." Environmental groups attacked the EFSA action, saying it was not doing enough on its own to test GM foods while condemning the work of others. The "EFSA fails to convince us that they are putting public safety before the interests of agribusiness biotech industry," said Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth. "Instead of dismissing peer-reviewed independent research they should be asking themselves why they don't demand long term safety tests for genetically modified foods," Schimpf said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-eu-french-scientist-linking-gm.html#jCp

The EFSA said an initial review showed that the "design, reporting and analysis of the study ... are inadequate," meaning it could not "regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound." Given these shortcomings, the EFSA called on the author of the study, French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, to provide additional information before a second, final review is completed by the end of this month. Seralini's team at France's University of Caen found that rats develop tumours when fed US agribusiness giant Monsanto's NK603 corn, or when exposed to one of the company's weedkillers used with it, containing glyphosate. The scientist insisted Thursday he would not give the EFSA any additional information until it first detailed the basis of its own assessment. "It is absolutely scandalous that (EFSA) keeps secret the information on which they based their evaluation" of NK603 and the pesticide, he said. "In any event, we will not give them anything. We will put the information in the public domain when they do," Seralini told AFP. NK603 was developed by Monsanto to make it resistant to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup, enabling farmers to use the weedkiller just once in the crop's life-cycle, enabling substantial savings. Seralini and his team say their experiment in GM food is the first to follow rats through their lifespan, as opposed to just 90 days, but other experts have also questioned its methodology, results and relevance to humans. EFSA, which reviews the use and authorisation of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), said that "based on the information published by the authors ... it does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 nor to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate." In May, the EFSA said a temporary French ban on another Monsanto corn, MON810, was not properly based on scientific evidence. "Based on the documentation submitted by France, there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment," EFSA said of the French position. France, like many EU countries, has a long record of opposition to GM foods but the pressures on farmers in terms of cost are immense, driving their increasing use, especially in emerging economies such as China and Brazil. EFSA listed a series of concerns it had with Seralini's findings, among them that the type of rat used "in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. "This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors." Environmental groups attacked the EFSA action, saying it was not doing enough on its own to test GM foods while condemning the work of others. The "EFSA fails to convince us that they are putting public safety before the interests of agribusiness biotech industry," said Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth. "Instead of dismissing peer-reviewed independent research they should be asking themselves why they don't demand long term safety tests for genetically modified foods," Schimpf said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-eu-french-scientist-linking-gm.html#jCp

The EFSA said an initial review showed that the "design, reporting and analysis of the study ... are inadequate," meaning it could not "regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound." Given these shortcomings, the EFSA called on the author of the study, French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, to provide additional information before a second, final review is completed by the end of this month. Seralini's team at France's University of Caen found that rats develop tumours when fed US agribusiness giant Monsanto's NK603 corn, or when exposed to one of the company's weedkillers used with it, containing glyphosate. The scientist insisted Thursday he would not give the EFSA any additional information until it first detailed the basis of its own assessment. "It is absolutely scandalous that (EFSA) keeps secret the information on which they based their evaluation" of NK603 and the pesticide, he said. "In any event, we will not give them anything. We will put the information in the public domain when they do," Seralini told AFP. NK603 was developed by Monsanto to make it resistant to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup, enabling farmers to use the weedkiller just once in the crop's life-cycle, enabling substantial savings. Seralini and his team say their experiment in GM food is the first to follow rats through their lifespan, as opposed to just 90 days, but other experts have also questioned its methodology, results and relevance to humans. EFSA, which reviews the use and authorisation of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), said that "based on the information published by the authors ... it does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 nor to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate." In May, the EFSA said a temporary French ban on another Monsanto corn, MON810, was not properly based on scientific evidence. "Based on the documentation submitted by France, there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment," EFSA said of the French position. France, like many EU countries, has a long record of opposition to GM foods but the pressures on farmers in terms of cost are immense, driving their increasing use, especially in emerging economies such as China and Brazil. EFSA listed a series of concerns it had with Seralini's findings, among them that the type of rat used "in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. "This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors." Environmental groups attacked the EFSA action, saying it was not doing enough on its own to test GM foods while condemning the work of others. The "EFSA fails to convince us that they are putting public safety before the interests of agribusiness biotech industry," said Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth. "Instead of dismissing peer-reviewed independent research they should be asking themselves why they don't demand long term safety tests for genetically modified foods," Schimpf said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-eu-french-scientist-linking-gm.html#jCp

The EFSA said an initial review showed that the "design, reporting and analysis of the study ... are inadequate," meaning it could not "regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound." Given these shortcomings, the EFSA called on the author of the study, French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, to provide additional information before a second, final review is completed by the end of this month. Seralini's team at France's University of Caen found that rats develop tumours when fed US agribusiness giant Monsanto's NK603 corn, or when exposed to one of the company's weedkillers used with it, containing glyphosate. The scientist insisted Thursday he would not give the EFSA any additional information until it first detailed the basis of its own assessment. "It is absolutely scandalous that (EFSA) keeps secret the information on which they based their evaluation" of NK603 and the pesticide, he said. "In any event, we will not give them anything. We will put the information in the public domain when they do," Seralini told AFP. NK603 was developed by Monsanto to make it resistant to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup, enabling farmers to use the weedkiller just once in the crop's life-cycle, enabling substantial savings. Seralini and his team say their experiment in GM food is the first to follow rats through their lifespan, as opposed to just 90 days, but other experts have also questioned its methodology, results and relevance to humans. EFSA, which reviews the use and authorisation of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), said that "based on the information published by the authors ... it does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 nor to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate." In May, the EFSA said a temporary French ban on another Monsanto corn, MON810, was not properly based on scientific evidence. "Based on the documentation submitted by France, there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment," EFSA said of the French position. France, like many EU countries, has a long record of opposition to GM foods but the pressures on farmers in terms of cost are immense, driving their increasing use, especially in emerging economies such as China and Brazil. EFSA listed a series of concerns it had with Seralini's findings, among them that the type of rat used "in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. "This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors." Environmental groups attacked the EFSA action, saying it was not doing enough on its own to test GM foods while condemning the work of others. The "EFSA fails to convince us that they are putting public safety before the interests of agribusiness biotech industry," said Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth. "Instead of dismissing peer-reviewed independent research they should be asking themselves why they don't demand long term safety tests for genetically modified foods," Schimpf said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-eu-french-scientist-linking-gm.html#jCp

The EFSA said an initial review showed that the "design, reporting and analysis of the study ... are inadequate," meaning it could not "regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound." Given these shortcomings, the EFSA called on the author of the study, French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, to provide additional information before a second, final review is completed by the end of this month. Seralini's team at France's University of Caen found that rats develop tumours when fed US agribusiness giant Monsanto's NK603 corn, or when exposed to one of the company's weedkillers used with it, containing glyphosate. The scientist insisted Thursday he would not give the EFSA any additional information until it first detailed the basis of its own assessment. "It is absolutely scandalous that (EFSA) keeps secret the information on which they based their evaluation" of NK603 and the pesticide, he said. "In any event, we will not give them anything. We will put the information in the public domain when they do," Seralini told AFP. NK603 was developed by Monsanto to make it resistant to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup, enabling farmers to use the weedkiller just once in the crop's life-cycle, enabling substantial savings. Seralini and his team say their experiment in GM food is the first to follow rats through their lifespan, as opposed to just 90 days, but other experts have also questioned its methodology, results and relevance to humans. EFSA, which reviews the use and authorisation of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), said that "based on the information published by the authors ... it does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 nor to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate." In May, the EFSA said a temporary French ban on another Monsanto corn, MON810, was not properly based on scientific evidence. "Based on the documentation submitted by France, there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment," EFSA said of the French position. France, like many EU countries, has a long record of opposition to GM foods but the pressures on farmers in terms of cost are immense, driving their increasing use, especially in emerging economies such as China and Brazil. EFSA listed a series of concerns it had with Seralini's findings, among them that the type of rat used "in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. "This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors." Environmental groups attacked the EFSA action, saying it was not doing enough on its own to test GM foods while condemning the work of others. The "EFSA fails to convince us that they are putting public safety before the interests of agribusiness biotech industry," said Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth. "Instead of dismissing peer-reviewed independent research they should be asking themselves why they don't demand long term safety tests for genetically modified foods," Schimpf said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-eu-french-scientist-linking-gm.html#jCp

The EFSA said an initial review showed that the "design, reporting and analysis of the study ... are inadequate," meaning it could not "regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound." Given these shortcomings, the EFSA called on the author of the study, French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, to provide additional information before a second, final review is completed by the end of this month. Seralini's team at France's University of Caen found that rats develop tumours when fed US agribusiness giant Monsanto's NK603 corn, or when exposed to one of the company's weedkillers used with it, containing glyphosate. The scientist insisted Thursday he would not give the EFSA any additional information until it first detailed the basis of its own assessment. "It is absolutely scandalous that (EFSA) keeps secret the information on which they based their evaluation" of NK603 and the pesticide, he said. "In any event, we will not give them anything. We will put the information in the public domain when they do," Seralini told AFP. NK603 was developed by Monsanto to make it resistant to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup, enabling farmers to use the weedkiller just once in the crop's life-cycle, enabling substantial savings. Seralini and his team say their experiment in GM food is the first to follow rats through their lifespan, as opposed to just 90 days, but other experts have also questioned its methodology, results and relevance to humans. EFSA, which reviews the use and authorisation of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), said that "based on the information published by the authors ... it does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 nor to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate." In May, the EFSA said a temporary French ban on another Monsanto corn, MON810, was not properly based on scientific evidence. "Based on the documentation submitted by France, there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment," EFSA said of the French position. France, like many EU countries, has a long record of opposition to GM foods but the pressures on farmers in terms of cost are immense, driving their increasing use, especially in emerging economies such as China and Brazil. EFSA listed a series of concerns it had with Seralini's findings, among them that the type of rat used "in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. "This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors." Environmental groups attacked the EFSA action, saying it was not doing enough on its own to test GM foods while condemning the work of others. The "EFSA fails to convince us that they are putting public safety before the interests of agribusiness biotech industry," said Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth. "Instead of dismissing peer-reviewed independent research they should be asking themselves why they don't demand long term safety tests for genetically modified foods," Schimpf said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-eu-french-scientist-linking-gm.html#jCp

The EFSA said an initial review showed that the "design, reporting and analysis of the study ... are inadequate," meaning it could not "regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound." Given these shortcomings, the EFSA called on the author of the study, French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, to provide additional information before a second, final review is completed by the end of this month. Seralini's team at France's University of Caen found that rats develop tumours when fed US agribusiness giant Monsanto's NK603 corn, or when exposed to one of the company's weedkillers used with it, containing glyphosate. The scientist insisted Thursday he would not give the EFSA any additional information until it first detailed the basis of its own assessment. "It is absolutely scandalous that (EFSA) keeps secret the information on which they based their evaluation" of NK603 and the pesticide, he said. "In any event, we will not give them anything. We will put the information in the public domain when they do," Seralini told AFP. NK603 was developed by Monsanto to make it resistant to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup, enabling farmers to use the weedkiller just once in the crop's life-cycle, enabling substantial savings. Seralini and his team say their experiment in GM food is the first to follow rats through their lifespan, as opposed to just 90 days, but other experts have also questioned its methodology, results and relevance to humans. EFSA, which reviews the use and authorisation of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), said that "based on the information published by the authors ... it does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 nor to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate." In May, the EFSA said a temporary French ban on another Monsanto corn, MON810, was not properly based on scientific evidence. "Based on the documentation submitted by France, there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment," EFSA said of the French position. France, like many EU countries, has a long record of opposition to GM foods but the pressures on farmers in terms of cost are immense, driving their increasing use, especially in emerging economies such as China and Brazil. EFSA listed a series of concerns it had with Seralini's findings, among them that the type of rat used "in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. "This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors." Environmental groups attacked the EFSA action, saying it was not doing enough on its own to test GM foods while condemning the work of others. The "EFSA fails to convince us that they are putting public safety before the interests of agribusiness biotech industry," said Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth. "Instead of dismissing peer-reviewed independent research they should be asking themselves why they don't demand long term safety tests for genetically modified foods," Schimpf said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-eu-french-scientist-linking-gm.html#jCp

The EFSA said an initial review showed that the "design, reporting and analysis of the study ... are inadequate," meaning it could not "regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound." Given these shortcomings, the EFSA called on the author of the study, French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, to provide additional information before a second, final review is completed by the end of this month. Seralini's team at France's University of Caen found that rats develop tumours when fed US agribusiness giant Monsanto's NK603 corn, or when exposed to one of the company's weedkillers used with it, containing glyphosate. The scientist insisted Thursday he would not give the EFSA any additional information until it first detailed the basis of its own assessment. "It is absolutely scandalous that (EFSA) keeps secret the information on which they based their evaluation" of NK603 and the pesticide, he said. "In any event, we will not give them anything. We will put the information in the public domain when they do," Seralini told AFP. NK603 was developed by Monsanto to make it resistant to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup, enabling farmers to use the weedkiller just once in the crop's life-cycle, enabling substantial savings. Seralini and his team say their experiment in GM food is the first to follow rats through their lifespan, as opposed to just 90 days, but other experts have also questioned its methodology, results and relevance to humans. EFSA, which reviews the use and authorisation of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), said that "based on the information published by the authors ... it does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 nor to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate." In May, the EFSA said a temporary French ban on another Monsanto corn, MON810, was not properly based on scientific evidence. "Based on the documentation submitted by France, there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment," EFSA said of the French position. France, like many EU countries, has a long record of opposition to GM foods but the pressures on farmers in terms of cost are immense, driving their increasing use, especially in emerging economies such as China and Brazil. EFSA listed a series of concerns it had with Seralini's findings, among them that the type of rat used "in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. "This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors." Environmental groups attacked the EFSA action, saying it was not doing enough on its own to test GM foods while condemning the work of others. The "EFSA fails to convince us that they are putting public safety before the interests of agribusiness biotech industry," said Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth. "Instead of dismissing peer-reviewed independent research they should be asking themselves why they don't demand long term safety tests for genetically modified foods," Schimpf said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-eu-french-scientist-linking-gm.html#jCp

The EFSA said an initial review showed that the "design, reporting and analysis of the study ... are inadequate," meaning it could not "regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound." Given these shortcomings, the EFSA called on the author of the study, French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, to provide additional information before a second, final review is completed by the end of this month. Seralini's team at France's University of Caen found that rats develop tumours when fed US agribusiness giant Monsanto's NK603 corn, or when exposed to one of the company's weedkillers used with it, containing glyphosate. The scientist insisted Thursday he would not give the EFSA any additional information until it first detailed the basis of its own assessment. "It is absolutely scandalous that (EFSA) keeps secret the information on which they based their evaluation" of NK603 and the pesticide, he said. "In any event, we will not give them anything. We will put the information in the public domain when they do," Seralini told AFP. NK603 was developed by Monsanto to make it resistant to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup, enabling farmers to use the weedkiller just once in the crop's life-cycle, enabling substantial savings. Seralini and his team say their experiment in GM food is the first to follow rats through their lifespan, as opposed to just 90 days, but other experts have also questioned its methodology, results and relevance to humans. EFSA, which reviews the use and authorisation of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), said that "based on the information published by the authors ... it does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 nor to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate." In May, the EFSA said a temporary French ban on another Monsanto corn, MON810, was not properly based on scientific evidence. "Based on the documentation submitted by France, there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment," EFSA said of the French position. France, like many EU countries, has a long record of opposition to GM foods but the pressures on farmers in terms of cost are immense, driving their increasing use, especially in emerging economies such as China and Brazil. EFSA listed a series of concerns it had with Seralini's findings, among them that the type of rat used "in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. "This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors." Environmental groups attacked the EFSA action, saying it was not doing enough on its own to test GM foods while condemning the work of others. The "EFSA fails to convince us that they are putting public safety before the interests of agribusiness biotech industry," said Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth. "Instead of dismissing peer-reviewed independent research they should be asking themselves why they don't demand long term safety tests for genetically modified foods," Schimpf said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-eu-french-scientist-linking-gm.html#jCpv

Treatment Outcomes - www.mskcc.org "This work does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn," they said, adding bluntly that the affair helped "spread fear among the public." The joint statement—an extremely rare event in French science—was signed by the national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies. It was sparked by research published in September that said rats fed with so-called NK603 corn and/or doses of Roundup herbicide developed tumours. The paper, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini at the University of Caen, unleashed a storm in Europe, where GM crops are a highly sensitive issue. Critics accused Seralini of manipulating the media to boost the impact of his findings, branded his experiments as shoddy or fraught with gaps or bias. Two fast-track official investigations into the study, ordered by the government, are due to be unveiled on Monday. The academies' statement said: "Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view, as are, more generally, genetically modified plants that have been authorised for consumption by animals and humans." In withering terms, it dismissed the study as "a scientific non-event." "Hyping the reputation of a scientist or a team is a serious misdemeanour when it helps to spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion," the academies said. NK603 is a corn, also called maize, made by US agribusiness giant Monsanto.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-linking-gm-corn-cancer-non-event.html#jCp

Treatment Outcomes - www.mskcc.org "This work does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn," they said, adding bluntly that the affair helped "spread fear among the public." The joint statement—an extremely rare event in French science—was signed by the national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies. It was sparked by research published in September that said rats fed with so-called NK603 corn and/or doses of Roundup herbicide developed tumours. The paper, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini at the University of Caen, unleashed a storm in Europe, where GM crops are a highly sensitive issue. Critics accused Seralini of manipulating the media to boost the impact of his findings, branded his experiments as shoddy or fraught with gaps or bias. Two fast-track official investigations into the study, ordered by the government, are due to be unveiled on Monday. The academies' statement said: "Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view, as are, more generally, genetically modified plants that have been authorised for consumption by animals and humans." In withering terms, it dismissed the study as "a scientific non-event." "Hyping the reputation of a scientist or a team is a serious misdemeanour when it helps to spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion," the academies said. NK603 is a corn, also called maize, made by US agribusiness giant Monsanto.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-linking-gm-corn-cancer-non-event.html#jCpv

Treatment Outcomes - www.mskcc.org "This work does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn," they said, adding bluntly that the affair helped "spread fear among the public." The joint statement—an extremely rare event in French science—was signed by the national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies. It was sparked by research published in September that said rats fed with so-called NK603 corn and/or doses of Roundup herbicide developed tumours. The paper, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini at the University of Caen, unleashed a storm in Europe, where GM crops are a highly sensitive issue. Critics accused Seralini of manipulating the media to boost the impact of his findings, branded his experiments as shoddy or fraught with gaps or bias. Two fast-track official investigations into the study, ordered by the government, are due to be unveiled on Monday. The academies' statement said: "Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view, as are, more generally, genetically modified plants that have been authorised for consumption by animals and humans." In withering terms, it dismissed the study as "a scientific non-event." "Hyping the reputation of a scientist or a team is a serious misdemeanour when it helps to spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion," the academies said. NK603 is a corn, also called maize, made by US agribusiness giant Monsanto.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-linking-gm-corn-cancer-non-event.html#jCp

A controversial study that linked genetically modified corn to cancer in lab rats is a "scientific non-event," six French scientific academies said on Friday. Ads by Google Diagnosed with Cancer - Memorial Sloan-Kettering for better Cancer Treatment Outcomes - www.mskcc.org "This work does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn," they said, adding bluntly that the affair helped "spread fear among the public." The joint statement—an extremely rare event in French science—was signed by the national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies. It was sparked by research published in September that said rats fed with so-called NK603 corn and/or doses of Roundup herbicide developed tumours. The paper, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini at the University of Caen, unleashed a storm in Europe, where GM crops are a highly sensitive issue. Critics accused Seralini of manipulating the media to boost the impact of his findings, branded his experiments as shoddy or fraught with gaps or bias. Two fast-track official investigations into the study, ordered by the government, are due to be unveiled on Monday. The academies' statement said: "Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view, as are, more generally, genetically modified plants that have been authorised for consumption by animals and humans." In withering terms, it dismissed the study as "a scientific non-event." "Hyping the reputation of a scientist or a team is a serious misdemeanour when it helps to spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion," the academies said. NK603 is a corn, also called maize, made by US agribusiness giant Monsanto. Genetically modified corn cobs are seen at a corn field Enlarge Genetically modified corn cobs are seen at a corn field, west of Cairo, 2008. A controversial study that linked genetically modified corn to cancer in lab rats is a "scientific non-event," six French scientific academies said. It has been engineered to make it resistant to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup. This enables farmers to douse fields with the weedkiller in a single go, thus offering substantial savings. The study was published on September 19 in a peer-reviewed specialist journal called Food and Chemical Toxicology. Seralini is a well-known opponent of GM crops, and his research was funded in part by an alliance comprising anti-GM campaigners and supermarket chains that have invested heavily in organic food.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-linking-gm-corn-cancer-non-event.html#jCpv

A controversial study that linked genetically modified corn to cancer in lab rats is a "scientific non-event," six French scientific academies said on Friday. Ads by Google Diagnosed with Cancer - Memorial Sloan-Kettering for better Cancer Treatment Outcomes - www.mskcc.org "This work does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn," they said, adding bluntly that the affair helped "spread fear among the public." The joint statement—an extremely rare event in French science—was signed by the national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies. It was sparked by research published in September that said rats fed with so-called NK603 corn and/or doses of Roundup herbicide developed tumours. The paper, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini at the University of Caen, unleashed a storm in Europe, where GM crops are a highly sensitive issue. Critics accused Seralini of manipulating the media to boost the impact of his findings, branded his experiments as shoddy or fraught with gaps or bias. Two fast-track official investigations into the study, ordered by the government, are due to be unveiled on Monday. The academies' statement said: "Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view, as are, more generally, genetically modified plants that have been authorised for consumption by animals and humans." In withering terms, it dismissed the study as "a scientific non-event." "Hyping the reputation of a scientist or a team is a serious misdemeanour when it helps to spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion," the academies said. NK603 is a corn, also called maize, made by US agribusiness giant Monsanto. Genetically modified corn cobs are seen at a corn field Enlarge Genetically modified corn cobs are seen at a corn field, west of Cairo, 2008. A controversial study that linked genetically modified corn to cancer in lab rats is a "scientific non-event," six French scientific academies said. It has been engineered to make it resistant to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup. This enables farmers to douse fields with the weedkiller in a single go, thus offering substantial savings. The study was published on September 19 in a peer-reviewed specialist journal called Food and Chemical Toxicology. Seralini is a well-known opponent of GM crops, and his research was funded in part by an alliance comprising anti-GM campaigners and supermarket chains that have invested heavily in organic food.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-linking-gm-corn-cancer-non-event.html#jCpv

A controversial study that linked genetically modified corn to cancer in lab rats is a "scientific non-event," six French scientific academies said on Friday. Ads by Google Diagnosed with Cancer - Memorial Sloan-Kettering for better Cancer Treatment Outcomes - www.mskcc.org "This work does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn," they said, adding bluntly that the affair helped "spread fear among the public." The joint statement—an extremely rare event in French science—was signed by the national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies. It was sparked by research published in September that said rats fed with so-called NK603 corn and/or doses of Roundup herbicide developed tumours. The paper, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini at the University of Caen, unleashed a storm in Europe, where GM crops are a highly sensitive issue. Critics accused Seralini of manipulating the media to boost the impact of his findings, branded his experiments as shoddy or fraught with gaps or bias. Two fast-track official investigations into the study, ordered by the government, are due to be unveiled on Monday. The academies' statement said: "Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view, as are, more generally, genetically modified plants that have been authorised for consumption by animals and humans." In withering terms, it dismissed the study as "a scientific non-event." "Hyping the reputation of a scientist or a team is a serious misdemeanour when it helps to spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion," the academies said. NK603 is a corn, also called maize, made by US agribusiness giant Monsanto. Genetically modified corn cobs are seen at a corn field Enlarge Genetically modified corn cobs are seen at a corn field, west of Cairo, 2008. A controversial study that linked genetically modified corn to cancer in lab rats is a "scientific non-event," six French scientific academies said. It has been engineered to make it resistant to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup. This enables farmers to douse fields with the weedkiller in a single go, thus offering substantial savings. The study was published on September 19 in a peer-reviewed specialist journal called Food and Chemical Toxicology. Seralini is a well-known opponent of GM crops, and his research was funded in part by an alliance comprising anti-GM campaigners and supermarket chains that have invested heavily in organic food.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-linking-gm-corn-cancer-non-event.html#jCp

A controversial study that linked genetically modified corn to cancer in lab rats is a "scientific non-event," six French scientific academies said on Friday. Ads by Google Diagnosed with Cancer - Memorial Sloan-Kettering for better Cancer Treatment Outcomes - www.mskcc.org "This work does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn," they said, adding bluntly that the affair helped "spread fear among the public." The joint statement—an extremely rare event in French science—was signed by the national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies. It was sparked by research published in September that said rats fed with so-called NK603 corn and/or doses of Roundup herbicide developed tumours. The paper, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini at the University of Caen, unleashed a storm in Europe, where GM crops are a highly sensitive issue. Critics accused Seralini of manipulating the media to boost the impact of his findings, branded his experiments as shoddy or fraught with gaps or bias. Two fast-track official investigations into the study, ordered by the government, are due to be unveiled on Monday. The academies' statement said: "Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view, as are, more generally, genetically modified plants that have been authorised for consumption by animals and humans." In withering terms, it dismissed the study as "a scientific non-event." "Hyping the reputation of a scientist or a team is a serious misdemeanour when it helps to spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion," the academies said. NK603 is a corn, also called maize, made by US agribusiness giant Monsanto. Genetically modified corn cobs are seen at a corn field Enlarge Genetically modified corn cobs are seen at a corn field, west of Cairo, 2008. A controversial study that linked genetically modified corn to cancer in lab rats is a "scientific non-event," six French scientific academies said. It has been engineered to make it resistant to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup. This enables farmers to douse fields with the weedkiller in a single go, thus offering substantial savings. The study was published on September 19 in a peer-reviewed specialist journal called Food and Chemical Toxicology. Seralini is a well-known opponent of GM crops, and his research was funded in part by an alliance comprising anti-GM campaigners and supermarket chains that have invested heavily in organic food.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-linking-gm-corn-cancer-non-event.html#jCp

A controversial study that linked genetically modified corn to cancer in lab rats is a "scientific non-event," six French scientific academies said on Friday. Ads by Google Diagnosed with Cancer - Memorial Sloan-Kettering for better Cancer Treatment Outcomes - www.mskcc.org "This work does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn," they said, adding bluntly that the affair helped "spread fear among the public." The joint statement—an extremely rare event in French science—was signed by the national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies. It was sparked by research published in September that said rats fed with so-called NK603 corn and/or doses of Roundup herbicide developed tumours. The paper, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini at the University of Caen, unleashed a storm in Europe, where GM crops are a highly sensitive issue. Critics accused Seralini of manipulating the media to boost the impact of his findings, branded his experiments as shoddy or fraught with gaps or bias. Two fast-track official investigations into the study, ordered by the government, are due to be unveiled on Monday. The academies' statement said: "Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view, as are, more generally, genetically modified plants that have been authorised for consumption by animals and humans." In withering terms, it dismissed the study as "a scientific non-event." "Hyping the reputation of a scientist or a team is a serious misdemeanour when it helps to spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion," the academies said. NK603 is a corn, also called maize, made by US agribusiness giant Monsanto. Genetically modified corn cobs are seen at a corn field Enlarge Genetically modified corn cobs are seen at a corn field, west of Cairo, 2008. A controversial study that linked genetically modified corn to cancer in lab rats is a "scientific non-event," six French scientific academies said. It has been engineered to make it resistant to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup. This enables farmers to douse fields with the weedkiller in a single go, thus offering substantial savings. The study was published on September 19 in a peer-reviewed specialist journal called Food and Chemical Toxicology. Seralini is a well-known opponent of GM crops, and his research was funded in part by an alliance comprising anti-GM campaigners and supermarket chains that have invested heavily in organic food.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-linking-gm-corn-cancer-non-event.html#jCp

A controversial study that linked genetically modified corn to cancer in lab rats is a "scientific non-event," six French scientific academies said on Friday. Ads by Google Diagnosed with Cancer - Memorial Sloan-Kettering for better Cancer Treatment Outcomes - www.mskcc.org "This work does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn," they said, adding bluntly that the affair helped "spread fear among the public." The joint statement—an extremely rare event in French science—was signed by the national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies. It was sparked by research published in September that said rats fed with so-called NK603 corn and/or doses of Roundup herbicide developed tumours. The paper, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini at the University of Caen, unleashed a storm in Europe, where GM crops are a highly sensitive issue. Critics accused Seralini of manipulating the media to boost the impact of his findings, branded his experiments as shoddy or fraught with gaps or bias. Two fast-track official investigations into the study, ordered by the government, are due to be unveiled on Monday. The academies' statement said: "Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view, as are, more generally, genetically modified plants that have been authorised for consumption by animals and humans." In withering terms, it dismissed the study as "a scientific non-event." "Hyping the reputation of a scientist or a team is a serious misdemeanour when it helps to spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion," the academies said. NK603 is a corn, also called maize, made by US agribusiness giant Monsanto. Genetically modified corn cobs are seen at a corn field Enlarge Genetically modified corn cobs are seen at a corn field, west of Cairo, 2008. A controversial study that linked genetically modified corn to cancer in lab rats is a "scientific non-event," six French scientific academies said. It has been engineered to make it resistant to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup. This enables farmers to douse fields with the weedkiller in a single go, thus offering substantial savings. The study was published on September 19 in a peer-reviewed specialist journal called Food and Chemical Toxicology. Seralini is a well-known opponent of GM crops, and his research was funded in part by an alliance comprising anti-GM campaigners and supermarket chains that have invested heavily in organic food.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-linking-gm-corn-cancer-non-event.html#jCp

Downside of Growth

 

There Is a Conflict between Economic Growth and:

(1) Environmental Protection
A growing economy consumes natural resources and produces wastes. It results in biodiversity loss, air and water pollution, climate destabilization, and other major environmental threats.
(2) Economic Sustainability
A healthy environment is the foundation of a healthy economy. We need healthy soils for agriculture, healthy forests for timber, and healthy oceans for fisheries. Along with clean air for breathing and clean water for drinking, these are the building blocks of a prosperous economy and a good life.
(3) National Security and International Stability
When economic growth threatens the environment and economic sustainability, social unrest is the result, and national security is compromised. Economic growth was once used for building military power, but in an overgrown global economy, economic sustainability is more conducive to diplomacy and stability among nations.

Evidence of the Conflict

The conflict between economic growth and environmental protection is becoming more apparent as the oversized economy bumps up against limits.  From depletion of ocean fisheries to loss of pollinators, from groundwater drawdown to deforestation, from climate change to increasing concentrations of toxic pollution (not to mention increasing childhood cancer rates), from massive urban slums to degraded rural lands, the consequences of too much economic growth are observable all around us.
Ecological footprint analysis also reveals that the economy has become overgrown.  The footprint measures how much land and water area a human population requires to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb its wastes under prevailing technology. According to data from the Global Footprint Network, the footprint of all nations exceeded the biological capacity of the planet in the mid- to late 1980s. We find ourselves in a global state of overshoot, accumulating ecological debt by depleting natural capital to keep the economy growing.

Uneconomic Growth

Continuing to grow the economy when the costs are higher than the benefits is actually uneconomic growth.  The United Nations has classified five types of uneconomic growth:

• jobless growth, where the economy grows, but does not expand opportunities for employment;
• ruthless growth, where the proceeds of economic growth mostly benefit the rich;
• voiceless growth, where economic growth is not accompanied by extension of democracy or empowerment;
• rootless growth, where economic growth squashes people’s cultural identity; and
• futureless growth, where the present generation squanders resources needed by future generations.

The downsides of economic growth can be avoided by maintaining an optimal scale of the economy.

Marginal cost refers to the cost of producing one more unit of a good or service. Marginal benefit is the benefit gained from one more unit. This graph shows the marginal costs and benefits of GDP growth. Costs tend to rise and benefits tend to decrease for each additional unit of growth. We should stop growing GDP, therefore, when marginal costs are exactly equal to marginal benefits. If costs are less than benefits, then GDP growth is economic (the green part of the graph). When costs rise above benefits, GDP growth is uneconomic (the brown part).