Biotechnology and Environmental Biosafety , A Brief History of “BIO-PIRACY”

Dr. Ashok Kumar Panigrahi Balasore.

Technical Challenge:

The GM seeds agricultural products, cotton, soybeans, corn, potatoes, rice and trees in the forest.

The macabre, like all major problems addressing today’s world is the invasion of the scale of good science, “biotechnology” in virtually every nook and cranny of the Biosphere and practically turned bad science “thanotechnology” for every element of life concerns and to accelerate the pace to total annihilation all started biosphere.It with a little-known episode in 1980, which is the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case, VRS Diamond. Chakrabarty, where the highest court in U.S. ruled that life biological was legally patentable.
Anand Mohan Chakrabarty a microbiologist and employee of General Electric Company (GE) has developed a type of bacteria that could ingest oil spills. GE ran for a patent in 1971, which was rejected as life forms are not patentable. GE went on and won. In 1985, The U.S. Patent Office and Trademark Office (PTO) ruled that the Chakrabraty decision could be extended to all plants, seeds and plant tissues or the entire plant kingdom.

American Society of WR Grace returned 50 U.S. patents neem tree in India, which even included the patenting of indigenous knowledge about the medicinal uses of neem products (it has since stabilized “biopiracy”). In 1988, PTO a patent on the animals on teachers Harvard, and Timothy A. Philip Lader Stewart, who had created a transgenic mouse genes poultry and humans. In 1991, the PTO granted patent cell human stem and later human genes. Biocyte got a patent for Europe in all umbilical cord cells from fetuses and newborns, even without the permission of the “donors”. European Patent Office (EPO) has received applications from Baylor University in the patenting of women who have been genetically modified to GE proteins in their mammary glands.

Baylor University in essence, seeking monopoly rights on the use of human mammary glands for the manufacture of pharmaceuticals. Attempts have also been visible in the indigenous peoples, the blood cells of Panama, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea. Within a decade, “Chakrabarty decision” of the U.S. Supreme Court has revolutionized research and development of biotechnology participation of microbes to human beings who have to be stigmatized as bad science, “thanotechnology” in the next decade and hated in the world. Biotechnology companies involved in pharmaceutical biotechnology in agriculture rapidly, has obtained patents on seeds, small business purchasing seed, destruction of their stocks of seeds and replacing the same with GM seeds. In the last decade, several companies took control of the monopoly over seeds worldwide such as soybeans, corn and cotton (used in processed foods through the cotton seed oil). As a result, almost 2 / 3 rd. these processed foods showed some GM ingredients in them.

However, even without markings, concerned consumers Americans were aware of such food biotechnology companies everywhere. Immediately after the companies were aware that citizens stay out of food GM and have organized to convince the regulatory authorities do not require such markings. Somewhat surprisingly, risk assessors in the U.S. bureaucracy turned a blind eye to the pleas of evil bio-technology.
The point of interest
All genetic modifications are based on recombinant DNA technology. The Today’s society faces unprecedented challenges not only in the history of science but of all life on earth. GE’s technology allows companies to Biotechnology focuses on the capacity to redesign living organisms, products of three billion years of evolution. In the words of Dr. George Wald, Nobel laureate (1967), Higgins, professor of biology at Harvard University, “Potentially it could breed new animal diseases of plants, new sources of cancer and emerging epidemics.”
The Register
In 1989 Americans were killed and tens of thousands more have been affected and the damage due to ingestion of a genetically engineered version manipulated in a food supplement L – tryptophan. An agreement of $ 2 billion was paid by Showa Denko, Japan, 3rd. largest chemical company (Mayen and Gleich, 1994)

In 1996, Pioneer Hi-Bred splicing genes from Brazil nuts into soybeans. Some people are allergic to nuts so go to the shock stroke, that can cause death. Animal experiments have confirmed the danger and the product market was quickly withdrawn before the deaths occurred. In the words of Marion Nestle, JD Nutrition, University of New York “, the next case could be far from ideal and the public less fortunate.”

In 1994 U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Monsanto r-BGH, a GE growth hormone for injection to improve dairy cow milk production, although experts warn that the resulting increase of IGF-1, a potent chemical hormone, linked to 400 – the risk is 500% higher in the breast, prostate and colon cancer. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Chicago, induced malignant transformation of mammary epithelial cells. ” Studies in rats have confirmed the suspicions and showed internal organ damage if ingested with r-BGH. Even the FDA’s own testing showed an increase in spleen weight by 46%, a condition that is the prelude of “leukemia. The argument that the substance damaged by pasteurization was canceled for 2 Monsanto scientists themselves, Ted and Brian McBride Elasser who found that only 19% of the hormone are destroyed after 30 minutes of boiling (pasteurization only takes 30 seconds). Despite the U.S. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and even the Codex Alimentarius of the United Nations refused to approve GE hormone, the same is freely sold in the U.S. by Monsanto. We found that 2 to know, bureaucrats United States, Margaret Miller and Michael Taylor to the FDA of the United States who helped Monsanto r-BGH cross the barrier of the risk factors were used in fact earlier Monsanto.

Several other GM approved by the FDA involve SU herbicides that are commonly known as “carcinogenic”, namely: – “bromoxiny’l used in round-Monsanto Bt cotton and glufosinate-up or use in genetically modified soybean, corn and canola. Sharyn Martin, a researcher has suggested that number autoimmune diseases are enhanced by foreign DNA fragments that come with genetically modified foods are not completely digested in the stomach and human intestine. These DNA fragments absorbed into the bloodstream of mixing with normal DNA recombination and therefore unpredictable. These DNA fragments were found in the GM soy and other GM products once available commercially.
The fear factor
Professor Joe Cummins, Emeritus Professor of Genetics University of Western Ontario, said, “virus-resistant crops have become the mainstay of agricultural biotechnology. These crops have genes from foreign viruses, that are genetically modified to allow the plants to resist virus attacks. Most fruits, vegetables and baby foods marketed in the U.S. are in this category. Lab. The experiments showed that “viral genes in GE foods potentially generate new viruses – More deadly than the virus that crops have been protected, a fact that is quite alarming.
In 1986, it was reported that GE plants TMV genes in disease development and this report delay has opened the flood gates for resistance to a wide range of other viruses. But the fact is that the production of virus protein layer on the culture of GE blocks the virus from entering the plant cell instead of the transgenes described nucleic acids of many viruses that are brought to the plant by insect vectors. A series of results studies are there to demonstrate that plant viruses can acquire a variety of viral genes from genetically modified plants by recombination.
To Examples —
* Color not defective red mosaic virus genes that allow you to move from cell to cell and therefore is not contagious but recombined with a copy of this gene in Nicotiana benthamiana GE plants, regenerated RCMVirus infectious.
* GE Brassica napus and Nicotiana bigelovii containing “gene-VI, a
virus translational cauliflower mosaic activator (CaMV), which
recombined with the complementary a virus lacking this gene, and
produced new infectious virus in all plants GE.
* N. benthamiana expressing a segment of cowpea chlorotic mottle virus (MBCR) protein gene recombined layer more frequently with the defective virus lacking this gene.
* N. benthamiana was transformed with 3 different building envelope protein containing the coding sequence of the African the cassava mosaic virus (ACMV). Been transformed plants were inoculated with a deletion of the CVMA envelope protein mutant that induces mild systemic symptoms in control plants. Many of these transgenic lines inoculated plants developed severe systemic symptoms typical of ACMV confirm recombination had occurred between the mutant viral DNA and integrated DNA construct of the production of progeny virus recombined with the “wild type” virulence.

CaMV Recombination, when and where?

CaMV 35 s promoter gene, the viral sequence found in all GM (GM) the plants that are already commercially released in the market or in field trials. This gene is required for all producers of genetically modified organisms, because the results in production of the messages of the genes inserted genes to provide herbicide tolerance, resistance to insect pest resistance to antibiotics and a series of functions considered to improve the quality of crops. In the absence of this gene, “promoter” gene inserted “is inactive, whereas in the presence of gene activity is maintained at a high level in all plant tissues, regardless of changing environmental conditions that significantly affect Indian promoters of business products, “the harvest.

The 2 events in 1999, led by Professor Cummins and other independent scientists to undertake the level of global attention on these diseases industrial alarming, scientists can have devastating consequences. In fact, Professor Cummins had challenged in 1994 the environmental safety of the release of CaMV 35 s promoter gene of the GM plants. Experimental evidence indicates the frequency of genetic recombination of CaMV 35 s gene promoter was significantly higher than those of other viruses. When recombinant MBCR recovered 3% of N. benthamiana MBCR containing transgenic sequences, recovered CaMV recombinant, 36% of transgenic N. begelovii.
Event -1. Scientists from the John Innes Research Institute published a paper showing that the CaMV 35 s promoter has felt recombination hotspot is likely to break and re-associate with other parts of the genetic material, there may be other viruses.
Event-2. Dr. Arpad Pusztai, senior scientist working in the British government. funded by the Rowett Institute in Scotland has been fired from his job for revealing the results feeding experiments suggest that transgenic potatoes have been dangerous. Lab. Rats fed with genetically modified cells showed a increase in the intestinal mucosa witnessed an attack in the intestine of nonspecific viral infection.
Scientists Mae-Wan Ho and Angel Ryan has published a document In October 1999 the Journal of Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease warning that the CaMV 35 s promoter is interchangeable with promoters of other plants and animals and the virus is promiscuous and it works efficiently in all plants, green algae, yeast and E. coli. Their recombination hotspot is flanked on multiple grounds, and is similar to other hot spots recombination as the vector for Agrobacterium T-DNA, the other most used gene in the production of transgenic plants. They also claimed demonstrated in the laboratory. of recombination between viral transgenes and infecting virus.
In an article published in the electronic journal of European Food Research and Technology (2006) authors (Marit R. Myhre, et. al.) claims to have constructed expression vectors with the CaMV 35 s promoter inserted in front of 2 ‘Firefly luciferase reporter genes encoding and green fluorescent protein (GFP), respectively, and performed transient transfection experiments in human enterocytes – like cell line Caco – 2 and found that the CaMV 35 s promoter driving the gene expression of two genes of “postponed” at significant levels.
Super Virus
Promoter viral gene and CaMV 35 s can be combined with other genes, viral, bacterial and others, including retroviruses such as HIV and hepatitis B. CaMV together by a retrovirus. In transposons retro plants available in all genomes (which are mobile in nature) and a multitude of viruses with CaMV 35 s promoter, the possibility that the origin of the virus is super secure.

In a Canadian study, a plant infected by cucumber mosaic virus Disabled (CuMV) that lacked a gene needed for movement between plant cells, the lame CuMV is activated within 2 weeks – evidence of the mixture of genes that have acquired a great need to activate all – evidence of “horizontal gene transfer.

The Protocol International Biosafety signed by a majority of independent nations in Montreal in January 2000 does not help if things keep moving in that direction.
Threat to antibiotics by the plant
Much of the Preimplantation genetic uses a scoreboard to see if the gene is in the cell. Maize plants GM with a gene for resistance to ampicillin. The British Royal Society has called for the prohibition of this marker as it threatens the use of an antibiotic Vital.
Resurgence of infectious diseases
“The microbial ecology of health and disease Journal reported in 1998 that the genetic modification of crops of food may cause a resurgence of infectious diseases. He cited the case of resistance to antibiotics, the formation of new virus strains and unknown, under immunity the body through food, etc. dramatically changed as the impact of bio-engineered with genes. He also reported the occurrence of transfer Horizontal gene of transgenic DNA in bacteria. He cited the case of bacteria in the mouth, pharynx and intestine bearing transgenic (viral) DNA in pets through food that can be easily transmitted to humans through their milk and meat.

Increased food allergies
The loss biodiversity in our food has increased in tandem with the increase of food allergies. Mass Case Studies indicate that the cells of our body and immune system seems to reject excess homogeneity “of our
food. Own analysis Monsanto soybean resistant to glyphosate showed Kuniz GM line containing a 28% more – an inhibitor of trypsin, a known allergen and inhibiting nutrient elements.
The decrease of Nutrition
A study by Dr. Marc Lappe in 1999 and published in the Journal of Medicinal Food showed that genetically modified foods have lower levels of nutrients – compounds of estrogen in particular ” plant “that protect the body against diseases of heart disease and cancer. A study on the consumption of GM Faba Vita, a family of soybean, caused increased in estrogen levels. This situation is alarming because it is used in baby foods. The milk from cows injected with r-BGH (GE growth hormone) contains significantly higher levels of high-pus, bacteria and fat cells.

Unnatural foods
Some time ago Monsanto announced it had found “unexpected gene fragments in its” Round-Up Ready “soybeans. It is well known that the modified proteins are the outputs in all genetically modified food proteins never before eaten by mankind. Dr. Microbiology AMF own ‘Louis J. Pribyl had done 1992, warned that pleiotropic (non-intentional and / or uncontrolled) effects occur in GE plants at frequencies exceeding 30% of known and unknown toxic substances and adverse changes in the levels of nutrients that farmers could go unnoticed. James biotechnologist Marayanski FDA has also warned against the lack of consensus among FDA scientists about the identity “of GM foods compared to non-GM foods.

The Environmental Impacts
The genetic changes were sought in crops to increase production and reduce the use of toxic agrochemicals. But nothing
could be further from the truth. Professor David Ehrenfield, sales Professor of Biology, Rutgers University has rightly said, “what emerged from the last decade of GM crops increase of agrochemicals and production of nutrients from food safely. “Ontario (USA) Govt. Study also showed that the use of herbicides on the rise was due mainly to the cultivation of genetically modified plants.

Soil toxicity
All GM crops are designed to withstand all types of toxins such as herbicides and pesticides, etc., and these chemicals are sold by the same biotech companies that have been developed, such as GM crops to increase sales of agrochemicals. RJ Golburg scientists as long ago planned crops GM will triple sales of products and toxic chemicals in recent years, is correct. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, “Round the spraying of chemicals out of Monsanto” (an herbicide) that already threatens 74 endangered species in the United States. Attack the photosynthetic activity of other plants. “Malcolm Kane (former security chief of the food chain Sainsbury’s Super Markets) revealed that the U.S. Gov’t. to accommodate Monsanto, raised the limits of pesticide residues in food products is 6 ppm to 20 ppm. According to a study report published by the University California, “glyphosate (active ingredient in Round-up) was the 3rd cause of illness in agricultural workers. At least 14 people have died from swallowing Round-Up. ”

Infertile soils and pollution
In Oregon, scientists have discovered that the GM bacterium, Klebsiella planticola, designed for ventilation of agricultural waste to produce ethanol and the burning of waste composite material – a fact that the barren land. It has removed essential nutrients such as nitrogen and nitrogen capture dead fungi. A similar result was also found with the GM bacteria, Rhizobium melitoli. Professor Guenther Stotzky of the University of New York found that same toxins that have removed the monarch butterflies have also been released by the roots of GM plants and soil degradation, which lasted up to 18 months and depressed soil microbial activity. An Oregon study also showed that GM soil microbes killed wheat plants in the laboratory. when is added to soil.

The loss of seed sovereignty

Sometime back in the U.S. of Time magazine that Mass refers to the tendency of big seed companies to buy small seed companies, destroying their seed varieties and the replacement of the same seed patented transgenic control marks “the death of birth”. GM seed companies also get contracts from farmers not to save firm seeds – the confiscation of their sovereign rights to seeds.

Super Weed

It has been shown that transgenic Bt endotoxins are active in the soil for up to 18 months (Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey) and can be transported to wild plants creating super weeds resistant to pests – offsetting the balance of nature. Studies in the UK (National Institute of Agricultural Botany) and Denmark (Mikkelsen, 1996) showed a growth of about super weeds in a single generation. American and British studies have also shown that super weeds resistant to glufosinate (herbicide). Another U.S. study showed a loss 20 times more genetic genetically modified by horizontal gene transfer. A French study has shown that GM canola could transfer genes to the wild radish. According to the “new science, a farmer in Alberta, Canada, between 1997 and 1999, 3 fields sown with genetically engineered canola seeds as different weeds to produce 3 different mutants that were resistant to Monsanto’s Round-up ‘, Monitoring and Cyanamid “Aventis’ Freedom’, all proprietary herbicides.

GE Super trees, loss of biodiversity and ecosystem collapse

Super GM trees have been developed to withstand high doses of herbicides in the air to kill all surrounding life with the exception of GM trees. These trees are mostly sterile flowers. Super Monsanto even trees emit toxic chemicals from their leaves to kill caterpillars but only all insect visitors. Super Alamos in 2002, China planted millions of “combating deforestation, monoculture afforestation. These toxins without flowers dripped from the trees end up in the elimination of all flying insects (bees and butterflies included) to reduce the insect world book lice and earwigs. His plantation in nature not only results in a forest ecosystem collapse composed of fungi, insects, earthworms, birds and mammals, but also cause genetic pollution through intensive gene flow of transgenes in the natural environment and affect human and animal health. The case study of transgene flow and introgression of transgenes JR Reichman cultivate nature (and LS Watrud, Molecular Ecology, 2006) can be cited which established the existence of transgenic plants in the wild in Oregon, USA. The case of glyphosate in question – tough ‘bentgrass reptiles (Agrostis stolonifera L.) plants expressing CP4 EPSPS gene from Agrobacterium spp. Strain CP4, which confers resistance to the herbicide glyphosate, transgenes have been found in habitats agronomic not outside the test plots experimental study of central Oregon.

Super parasites
Lab. The evidence indicates that the cotton worm, a common weed becomes resistant to the BT. aerosols. The stink bug report outbreak in North Carolina and Georgia, is suspected of being linked to transgenic plants, as the plague. Monsanto GE recommends spraying one of the most deadly chemicals, methyl parathion, to control the pest. Transgenic Bt cotton and other crops GM not in the United States, India and elsewhere, mainly because of pest problems on their desired and expected production failures. Bt cotton has been designed to kill pests such as worms and caterpillars of America rose bud, but ended in the elimination of natural predators of these pests “and become these pests super pest.

Kill beneficial insects
Several field studies have shown genetically modified products do not kill insects beneficial, such as Monarch butterfly larvae (Cornell, 1999). Bt crops killed lacewings that are natural predators of cotton. The bees are killed when protein feed on the flowers of GM rapeseed and BT. Cotton Blossom.

Toxic to mammals
GM potatoes, together with DNA Plant snowflakes with the viral promoter (CaMV 35 s) was found to be toxic to mammals (like rats) damage to vital organs and immune system. Here we have demanded that all genetically modified by CaMV – 35 s promoter gene that is of commercial production.

Genetic pollution
Some GM crops are not flowers, but not all. GM pollen carried by wind, rain, birds, bees and other insects, fungi causesevere bacteria and genetic contamination. The pollen of GM canola, rapeseed, GE and BT. cotton can move several hundred meters and not contaminate modified varieties transgenic and wild, even across species barriers caused by horizontal gene transfers. It is postulated that ubiquitous promoter, CaMV 35 s, in fact, improve the
horizontal transfer of genes and recombination.

A U.S. study showed that 50% of wild berries that grow within the thatch GM 50-meter Straw Berry acquired markers genetically modified genes, and another study showed that 25-38% of wild sunflowers growing near crops GM transgenes have markers. Similar studies made in Germany with regard to transgenic oilseed rape and Thailand compared with BT. Cotton U.S. provisional findings.

A study conducted in England found that planting GM contaminated wild honey
This means that bees carried a pollen for genetically modified crops and organic
Wild, who must show evidence of transgenic them.

A new revolution revolution Blue in aquaculture is growing rapidly
that commercial fishing such as salmon, trout and catfish are genetically
quickly modified to growth in size (up to 39 X). This, in turn, deletes
cousins in the wild. Security There regulation for GM and non —
/ The native wildlife biodiversity as now.
Decay and destruction of family farms and owners of small
In the United States, population active in agriculture was 60% in 1850, up 4% in 1950 and less than 2% today. In 1935 there were 7 million farms, which currently is less than $ 2 million. Somewhat similar declines have occurred worldwide. But the fact is that these family farms and small holders of land between them produce over 60% of our food. This decline is rooted in the new GATT – the WTO rules. Economic power and the legislature were taken by corporate agriculture again by GATT – WTO-dominated new world order. Promotion of genetically modified products in food is the business of these agricultural enterprises. A large number of varieties Indian rice about numbering several thousand have already been lost to India by the two agricultural revolutions. The new world order can erase traditional farmers 1.00.000 Vanilla from Madagascar and the Comoros through vanilla producers of GM LAKH several sugarcane in the Third World by GE fructose. Sudan has been lost long ago while its exports of gum arabica. A conservative estimate puts the figure at less than $ 14 billion for synthetic substitutes for natural products Third World agriculture. There are attempts to grow food in large laboratories that eliminates the need for seeds, soil and even plants and move production task food farming communities in the laboratories of GE.

The control and dependency
Terminator Technology: —
The transgenic seed companies have ensured through legislation that farmers would not be eligible for registration and the sharing of patented seeds. With the failure of farmers at harvest seeds and seed storage, that have developed and implemented a technology generally called “terminator technology” to ensure that seeds become sterile after harvest. These seeds contain “suicide genes” lines in both male and female. Male sterility is caused by a gene (U.S. patent no. 5,750,867 owned by Aventis), bacteria called Bacillus Amyloliquefeciens encoding a ribonuclease barnase that makes pollen “dead” by the omission of the pollen cells undergo meiosis to reduce half of its chromosomes. In addition, a pollen lethality gene is also used which is expressed late in development male flowers in pollen cells after meiosis, which prevents the formation of pollen. The female sterility gene (U.S. patent no. 5,633,441 property Aventis) is linked to a selection marker gene with its own promoter, so that the female sterile plants can be selected. Terminator genes, barnase also include the papain active protein, or a fragment of diphtheria toxin, marker genes for resistance to herbicides used include gene or gene confers resistance to diseases or pests, for glucuronidase GUS gene or a gene encoding the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) endotoxin. The main problem associated with the process of using different genetic constructs is that it produces a large number of genes encoding engineers are integrated and can not control genetics or their integration or multiplication, which in turn multiplies the uncertainties and risks of GM crops. Several genes that are currently used in the production of genetically modified, such as gene recombination and Terminator are lethal to harmful cells, including mammalian cells. The recombinase sites causes non-specific recombination is causing large-scale genome coding (ISIS News 7 / 8). In addition, GM synthetic genes and other buildings may spread by horizontal transfer of genes from different species that can not be controlled. This will cause widespread destruction of biodiversity by modern market agricultural societies in which some GM crops are technologically controlled stages of its life cycle – the time of the leaf, flower and fruit – the influence of certain chemical thresholds. Thus the farmer is required to use these chemicals, if he or she is to produce a crop, what inspired him / it to deeper levels of economic dependency or debt.
Less diversity, quality, quantity and nonprofit
The most misleading hopes raised by technology companies is that only GM crops are genetically modified to solve world hunger. Studies worldwide have shown beyond any doubt that the yields of agricultural monocultures anywhere always less than an acre compared to intercrop various crops – Seeds of interlayer between the different lines, the fence or on different plates in the same area. In a study of 8200 field trials, Round Up Ready soybeans produced fewer bushels of soybeans premium not transgenic (Charles Benbrook, former director of the Board of Agriculture, the National Academy of Sciences). The average yield of non-GM soybeans 51.21 bushels per acre, by the GM variety was 49.26. This was confirmed in a study by the University of Nebraska Institute of Agricultural Resources. 5 different strains of Monsanto soybean was planted in 4 locations variety of different soil environments. Dr. Elmore is found in more expensive genetically modified seeds produced an average 6% less than non-GM varieties and 11% less efficient than conventional crops. Even if the yield is higher (Bt cotton in some field studies in the United States.) The cost of seeds and fertilizer use has reduced the net profit and reduce the cost-benefit depleted (B: C) ratio of more. In agriculture, the cost-benefit factor is important in all this that the viability of farmers. The decrease of B: C ratio indicates a decline in the economy of a farmer, is nonprofit and can no longer continue in agriculture itself.

The fragility of the agriculture of the future: —

The loss of agricultural biological diversity makes agriculture fragile. The case of the Great Irish Famine 1840 is a clear example of the importance of cultural diversity factor. When the Irish farmers cultivated several varieties, Peruvian farmers had thousands of varieties and diversity where the constant recourse to the pest resistance in potato cultivation. In the recent past, a situation similar happened in Russia, where a more virulent strain – the potato blight – endanger the potato harvest in Russia, with ample capacity to withstand the harsh Russian winter. Cancer pest threat to Florida citrus 8.5 billion U.S. dollars of the citrus industry in 2000. Coca plants grown monkey and almost all identical, are also threatened by International bacteria. Thus the destruction rather than conservation of populations of the diversity of seed crops GM agro enterprises by creating a very dangerous situation and the future of agriculture is extremely fragile.

More pesticides and diminishing returns: —

Unlike large companies reporting field studies show GM the best farming techniques – Using the rich natural resources can always produce better crops resistant to higher yields and B: C ratios that GM crops. Transgenic crops in recent years has required 2 to 5 times more books biocides per hectare than non-GM crop varieties, and that leads to drastic environmental degradation.

Factor Name economic and political
The monopolization of food production: —

There are about 1500 companies from the worlds of seed width, but about a dozen of these control 50% of world commercial seed market. The big seed companies are buying up small seed companies and use of their faith in the underground market. By 2000, 5 companies control 40% of the market for soybeans, 3 companies control 90% of the corn seed market, 2 companies Control 75% of cotton seed market and consequently the company has reduced and monopoly control of the growing market. In competition against the GATT new WTO rules not only the number of farming families decreased significantly, but net farm income annually. The average annual income of small family farms in the United States and Europe has declined over the past ten years making families subsisting below the poverty line.

Impact of food dependency: —

Where is monopolized food production, the future of their supply becomes dependent on the decisions of a small number of firms and their seed stocks effectively. Crop diversity is declining – lost in the developed world and now in countries third world, except for some pockets – like the potato in Peru and the varieties of rice from India, particularly in the third world. Food scientists indicate that if these indigenous territories are being disturbed by the advance of biotechnology, the long-term vitality of the entire food supply on the planet will be lost forever.
Home Agro biotech companies and agricultural industries, 1999.

Total firms
Agribusiness Sales Sales of Seed
Production Ranking (World) Agro —
Classification of chemical sales (in general) Pharmaceuticals
Turnover (his
Original business.) Research &
Investment for Development

A. Life sciences group (mainly involved in changing the genetics of different cultures
the plants)

Aventis 20.5 billion U.S. dollars 4.6 billion U.S. $ n / a 1 13.9 billion U.S. dollars 3 billion dollars
(Syngenta) U.S. $ 20.3 million 4.4 $ 3 2 billion to 9.8 billion U.S. dollars 2.2 billion dollars
Monsanto (98) 8.6 million U.S. dollars 4 billion dollars 2 3 2.8 million U.S. dollars 1.3 billion
Astra Zeneca
(Syngenta) $ 18.4 billion of 2.7 billion U.S. dollars 6 5 14.8 million U.S. dollars 2.9 billion dollars

B. ‘Industrial Science Group (involved mainly in production various

Bayer N 27 billion USD 3.1 billion dollars / A 6 5 billion U.S. $ 2.1 billion
DuPont 26.9 billion U.S. dollars 3 billion of dollars 1 4 1.6 billion U.S. dollars 1.6 billion U.S. dollars
Dow 18.9 U.S. $ billion U.S. $ 2.3 billion —— —— $ 8 million to $ 0.85
BASF 29.5 billion U.S. dollars —— 1.7 billion 9 2.5 million U.S. dollars 1.3 billion U.S. dollars

Biocolonisation: —
Colonization in the past thanks to the superior military technology. However, the new weapon in the hands several powers is a biological and that GM seed. When a person loses food self-sufficiency, which is mired in food dependency. Therefore alert 5,00,000 Indian farmers staged a demonstration against the new GATT in 1993 and now oppose genetically engineered agricultural products modified, genetically modified. Recently, the European Communities launched the Slow Food that grows rapidly into a worldwide movement designed primarily the fight against genetically modified crops and save the decline of biodiversity and
indigenous knowledge on farming techniques, biodiversity, according to organic farming.
Dependence and slavery: —

The new regulations have gone through the new world orders, the GATT – WTO, etc. the autonomy of the local economy can not be completely replaced. Foreign companies can buy and hold all the local businesses, seeds, water, land and natural resources, convert them into cash exported, what drives the local economy’s dependence and slavery.
Where does the future lead us to?
Long ago Descartes philosopher postulated that space can be universally
or infinitely separated. Not long ago designed the famous Einstein formula E = mc2, which led to the destruction of 2 Japanese cities that ended in the 2nd World War. Now is the time of genetic engineering or genetic manipulation technology recombinant DNA, the modification of the introduction of foreign DNA – the promoters and markers – genetic of all life forms – not for the betterment of humanity, but using thanotechnology to make counterfeit money. Common sense has prevailed World destroy or limit nuclear weapons once owned by the 2 major powers. But madness is spreading faster applications of recombinant DNA technology in the living world that threatens their existence. Is this a Cartesian approach in a way different?

Is it better to be safe than sorry?
In response to the rapid development of genetic engineering and its
Application forms for the life, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was negotiated and entered into force from September 2003. The protocol
establishes a regime regulating OMG with the international movement
aim to protect global biodiversity from the adverse effects of GMOs. The
The WTO covers trade in GMOs, is knowledge and purposes, to avoid
restrictions on free movement of GMOs. Thus, the Protocol in a sense
conflict with the WTO. Therefore, the harmonization of these agreements is very
desirable. The idea is that the protocol will be used by the WTO as
Evidence of internationally recognized norms relating to GMOs. But it is
WTO unlikely to accept this proposal. Is there a solution?

Hardy in 1999, approximately 28 million hectares under cultivation worldwide GE crops in the assumption that they were pest disease and not enough food supply to end hunger.

The other view was that these crops have been released without sufficient testing and questioned its long-term safety of humans and the environment.

Governments around the world dilemma is to allow or not, a decision probably influenced by the bureaucrats in the absence of sufficient scientific consensus on the issue of the threat to biodiversity world.

Based on the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Cartagena Protocol entered into force on 11 September 2003 established a plan that deals with the movement international of all living modified organisms (LMOs), including GMOs and other bodies established by the fusion of cells from different taxonomic categories – In accordance with the precautionary principle.

The Protocol applies to 2 categories of LMOs: —
1. LMOs intended for release into the environment such as fish, plants and
seeds, etc. covered by the operational areas.
2. LMOs intended for use in food or feed or for processing, such as cereals,
soy milk, etc.
All LMOs that are pharmaceuticals for humans are excluded from the protocol,
, Which has been challenged by the European Union, but the U.S. has vetoed this objection.

Under the Protocol, trade in LMOs with non-parties (such as United States) must take place in the same manner with the parties.

Articles 7 to 12 of the Protocol, the Agreement (AIA) has described as the backbone an exporting country must obtain the consent of the importing country before shipment of living modified organisms for the first time in informing their national authorities. The importing country must then acknowledge the notification and decide whether to accept or reject the shipment within a certain period of time. Under the protocol, an assessment risk should be conducted for all decisions regarding the acceptance of shipments of LMOs. A party may not accept delivery of certain conditions, prohibit import or request additional information from the exporter. The Protocol also establishes a “Center for International Exchange,” in which the importing country must inform its decision on the import of a particular LMO within 270 days from the original notification. However, under the Protocol to the lack of notification does not imply consent.

The United States, even if not part of protocol exerted considerable influence on the scope the Protocol by the participants in the negotiations. His intention was to ensure that the Protocol had an effect as small as possible to protect the biotech industry USA. The main objective of the United States to the Protocol subject to WTO rules so that international trade of GMOs would not be disrupted.

Because U.S. involvement, the 135 member countries will soon be divided into 2 groups, ie. “Related” Group of most developing countries, except Chile, Argentina and Uruguay and the “Miami Group, comprised of countries such as Australia, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and the United States, countries GMO exporters and importers. Miami Group in favor of a lower protocol not disrupt international trade of GMOs.

The United States has always tried to question The trade of GMOs are transferred to the mandate of the WTO. Only the lack of support from the WTO forced the EU to face the issue of GMOs, which in turn, paid more weight to the Protocol.

At the insistence of the U.S. draft protocol includes a “safeguard clause” in the preamble to “not in” device “and the United States in connection with paragraph 2 and ignoring the claims in paragraph 3 of this Treaty shall not affect rights and governments’ obligations under the WTO rules.

Any conflict between the Protocol and the WTO, probably will be presented to the Group of the WTO Dispute if a party to the dispute has not signed the environmental agreement (such as USA). For example, if India, in accordance with the Protocol prohibits the importation of some genetically modified organisms in the United States, the United States may take the dispute panel in WTO dispute indicates that India had violated WTO rules and in such cases, the result can be well predicted by the role that the Dispute Settlement Body is the interpretation of the WTO agreement and not the protocol.
Therefore, the question – Is it better to be safe than sorry? And the answer may be: “Sorry, may be too late.” We’re halfway through the globalization. We have already decided our destiny through laws and policy decisions that perhaps can not go back. However, we have enough of biological diversity that we support in any way and at what cost.

About the Author

Author is an avid natrure analyst,has worked on & written books,research papers and short & large articles on several aspects of the nature such as farming,forest,food and water etc.

3 thoughts on “Biotechnology and Environmental Biosafety , A Brief History of “BIO-PIRACY”

  1. Pingback: Biotechnology and Environmental Biosafety , A Brief History of “BIO-PIRACY” | Biosociedad |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

*Patricia Lohan *

Helping you find peace in your life.........*Sacred Sound Healing Practitioner * BodyMind Balancing Therapist * Reiki Master * Yoga Teacher

The Blog of Baphomet

a magickal dialogue between nature and culture

AMNTE NOFRE (Amentet Neferet)

Ancient Egyptian Religion


A deficient Aspie

Alternative Thinking 37

The collective unconscious '37' aspects of the path to enlightenment

Attenti al Lupo


Musica e fantasia: curtas as sugestões de discos, filmes e livros.


A great site

Multidimensional Ocean

Twinflames Matters

Friends of Syria

revealing the truth


All there is to do with Minecraft it's MineTime

Interesting Literature

A Library of Literary Interestingness


To Give Hope and Encouragement through the Word of God

The Happy Guide

Happiness blueprint

the anthropo.scene

making up the 'world' with what we have on hand

%d bloggers like this: