<>In the Romanian media, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have not been the subject of too many front-page headlines, leaving the vast majority of those who have no connection with agriculture to believe that the cultivated varieties would still be normal and natural, as we were used to – wheat, corn, corn, unmodified soybeans, without bacterial genes, etc. Many of us watched how in Western countries there is a consistent concern on the part of consumers about the origin and composition of consumer products, in the sense of being as natural as possible, and we thought that we would somehow be safer from such problems, because what we find on the shelves in grocery stores or supermarkets would come from natural sources. But the lack of reasons for concern was actually due to ignorance!
We will present below some surprising data regarding the culture of genetically modified organisms in our country, data that highlight both the criminal unconsciousness of some and the indifference to human health, financial interests being on the first place.
In Romania, GMOs were introduced in 1998. Even at the time when the use of genetically modified varieties in protected areas and in their immediate vicinity was strictly prohibited, transgenic maize and soya were grown in several such areas.
In 2006, Grivco (Voiculescu Industrial Group & CO) was fined 30,000 euros by the National Environmental Guard and was forced to destroy the respective fields, as a result of the cultivation of genetically modified soybeans on land located at a distance of less than 15 kilometers from the Comana Natural Park (in Giurgiu County).
In 2007, after joining the EU, Romanian entrepreneurs were obliged, according to European rules, to eliminate modified soybeans. The European authorities accepted only MON810 maize, produced by Monsanto, and Amflora potato, produced by BASF, as transgenic crops. In May 2007, the Romanian government issued an emergency ordinance (GEO no. 43/23 May 2007) on the deliberate introduction of genetically modified organisms into the environment. It entered into force on 28 June 2007. In October 2007, the Romanian Academy hosted the symposium “Biotechnologies in Agriculture”, organized together with the Embassy of the United States of America and the Biotech Association, with the aim of lobbying for the use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture.
<>In 2008, the Minister of the Environment, Attila Korodi, wanted to ban the use of MON810 maize, the cultivation of which was already no longer allowed in France. For this, he set up the Commission for Biological Safety (CSB), which was supposed to decide the fate of GMOs in our country. The head of this commission was appointed the nutritionist Gheorghe Mencinicopschi, a person who was known at the time to promote natural food, with an anti-biotechnology orientation, partly due to the harmful effects on health that the consumption of genetically modified organisms had been observed to cause.
On July 25, 2008, the most important meeting on maize MON810 was held at the CSB. Surprisingly, Mencinicopschi was absent from that debate, more precisely he came and went immediately after it began! In her absence, the meeting was chaired by Elena Badea – a researcher who had worked for Monsanto and Syngenta – and the result was the approval of the maintenance of this modified corn in cultivation. Mencinicopschi’s gesture surprised the Minister of the Environment as well, but later, as he stated in an interview, he explained this fact by the “very close connection”, which he did not know about at the time, between Mencinicopschi and the owner of Grivco, Dan Voiculescu, who was a fervent supporter of biotechnology. It is worth mentioning that the friendship between Voiculescu and Mencinicopschi did not stop here. As we know, in 2013, Dan Voiculescu was sentenced by the Bucharest Court to 5 years in prison in the case of the privatization of the Bucharest Food Research Institute, for a damage to the Romanian state in the amount of 60 million euros. In this case, along with the owner of Grivco, 8 other people were convicted, including Gheorghe Mencinicopschi (director of ICA), as well as Gheorghe Sin (member of the ICA General Assembly and president of the Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences).
Returning to the CSB meeting on July 25, another significant fact came to light. In the Biosafety Commission there was, according to certain sources, only one opponent of biotechnology – Dr. Aurel Maxim, associate professor at the University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine in Cluj-Napoca. But he was not invited to that meeting that decided the fate of genetically modified maize. Even if later dr. Maxim repeatedly asked for explanations on his omission from the list of participants in the meeting, he did not receive any answer. This well-known tactic, together with Mencinicopschi’s dodge, an emblematic figure for natural nutrition, shows without any doubt that, in reality, the decision to continue using MON810 maize had been adopted even before the CSB meeting was held.
Mencinicopschi resigned from the position of president of the CSB very shortly after, and in his place was enthroned, for two consecutive terms, none other than Elena Badea, although it was publicly known that she had had professional contracts with Monsanto (the largest producer of GMOs in the world). Therefore, the commission that was supposed to decide whether various genetically modified organisms could be introduced into Romania for cultivation and consumption had come to be led by a person who had worked for the world’s largest producer of GMOs. In this situation, there was practically no chance that the decisions regarding GMOs would be impartial, or that the introduction of these varieties in Romania would be rejected. Biotechnology had a free way, from the decision-making authorities, to penetrate our country unhindered.
<>In 2011, Ionel Haiduc, president of the Romanian Academy and Gheorghe Sin, president of the Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences signed a document entitled “The position of the academic environment regarding genetically modified plants”, through which they tried to determine the authorities to approve the large-scale cultivation of transgenic plants. You can read this document here, which is a clear proof of the academic environment’s shocking indifference to the health of the environment and the human being, related to the cultivation and consumption of genetically modified organisms. In this material, the financial benefits brought by these crops are first analyzed, as well as how the country’s economy was affected when these modified varieties were banned, but their impact on the environment and human health are hardly taken into account. Regarding the dramatic way in which the consumption of these products affects the health of the human being, no concrete clarification was made, passing over this aspect very easily, in two general sentences: “The introduction of transgenic plants into commercial crops is authorized only after a rigorous assessment of the risks to the environment, human and animal health that could be associated with this action. It is the first time in the history of agriculture that the producer of a plant that has been the subject of breeding must provide scientific evidence that his product is safe for the environment and for consumption.” Beyond the praise for the adoption of so-called protection measures, from these statements, which seem to cover the problem, we see that the tests are left to the producers, that is, precisely those who have the greatest interest in selling their “creations“. How rigorous or objective these studies are, we can quickly clarify if we stop, for example, on the MON810 corn, aggressively promoted by Monsanto, but which, precisely because of its negative impact on the environment, has been banned in 8 member countries of the European Union (France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Luxembourg).
The conclusion that emerges from the document elaborated by the Romanian academicians is that the production per hectare is of interest first of all, and the collateral effects – the environmental risks, the negative impact on the soil, whether the product can be consumed by man safely for health or not – are conveniently overlooked.
In elaborating the demanding position of the academic environment, those who drafted it seem not to have consulted the scientific investigations available at the time neither in terms of environmental safety nor in terms of the impact on human health. Either out of incompetence or, most likely, out of a queasy obedience to the imposed policies, the report being nothing else, as mentioned above, than a maneuver to legitimize the large-scale cultivation of GMOs in our country. As it emerges from the document, the academics (and this title can only be attributed to them with a considerable dose of sarcasm) were limited to supporting the ideas promoted by the proponents of biotechnology: “the numerous scientific evidence and practical experience have led to the conclusion that the transgenic plants currently marketed bring benefits (only financial! – n.a.) farmers and are much more environmentally friendly than conventional technologies.”
<>It’s good to know that these genetically modified plants are not “friendly” to the environment at all! The Greenpeace report on the interaction of transgenic crops with the environment highlights the incalculable risks to which we expose ourselves by the indiscriminate introduction of these unnatural organisms: “Genetically modified crops pose a significant threat to the natural environment through pollution from pollen from genetically modified plants and the consequent flow of modified genes into the extended plant community. Genetically modified crops also pose threats to soil ecology. In summary, there are four main areas of concern: 1. Agrochemical changes imposed by the use of genetically modified crops, with genetic implications for soil microbes; 2. Genetic contamination of soil and existing microbes as a result of horizontal gene transfer; 3. Modification of the soil ecosystem through the altered characteristics of genetically modified plants; 4. Soil contamination by genetically modified seeds that remain in the soil after harvest. These aspects highlight the fact that the use of GMOs brings unacceptable risks to the health and fertility of soil, one of the most precious natural resources we have.”
The pro-biotechnology offensive then continued with the adoption in June 2013 of a draft law that allows the cultivation of genetically modified organisms in certain protected natural areas as well. The document was promulgated in July 2013 and regulated the following: ” (4) In protected natural areas of community, national and international interest, the cultivation of genetically modified higher plants shall be prohibited. Exceptions are the protected natural areas of community interest, Natura 2000 site, based on the opinion issued by the Romanian Academy.” And these Natura 2000 site areas have come to measure, in our country, 17.84% of the surface.
What exactly are these Natura 2000 sites? Within the EU, through the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive, special areas of conservation and protection have been designated respectively for the different species that need it, forming a network of protected natural areas that has received the name of Natura 2000. In short, they are protected areas that, according to the EU Nature Directives, contain natural objectives/species that must be conserved “taking into account economic, social, cultural, regional and recreational demands” (according to the EU Natura 2000 Area Management Act).
<>So, at present, according to the law issued in 2013, in Romania it is allowed to grow GMOs almost anywhere, even in certain protected natural areas, such as Natura 2000, with the help of the Romanian Academy!
Below we will briefly expose some of the results of scientific research that have been completely ignored by the decision-making bodies in our country, by the supporters of biotechnology and genetically modified organisms.
In the early 2000s, the health risk of eating genetically modified organisms was under debate around the world. However, very few studies have been carried out so far on the toxicological assessment of the effects of medium- or long-term consumption of these products. One of these studies was conducted by Monsanto itself, regarding mon863 transgenic maize. The results of this study were initially classified by the company as confidential, but later, following legal action at the Court of Appeal in Munster, they were made public for a specific period of time. Monsanto published its own interpretation of the data that MON863 maize was safe for consumption. The study and the results obtained were submitted to the questionnaire of various European inspectors and in the end this corn was approved for cultivation and consumption in Europe in 2005.
Subsequently, a team of French researchers under the leadership of Gilles Eric Seralini independently redid the Monsanto study and found certain inaccuracies. In conclusion, what Seralini and collaborators found, both from their own study and after careful analysis of the same data (obtained by Monsanto) and the application of statistically appropriate methods for their evaluation, was that MON863 corn is not safe for consumption. They noticed that in addition to certain changes in weight that the consumption of this genetically modified corn gives to rats, there are also signs of hepato-renal toxicity.
<>Other researchers have also conducted studies on GMOs, independently of large producing companies. Irina Ermakova, from the Institute of Neurophysiology and Study of Higher Nervous Activity of the Russian Academy of Sciences, showed that in the case of female rats fed GM soybeans, the number of deaths in the offspring generation is much higher than normal, the data statistically correlating with the type of food that was administered. Arpad Pusztai, from the Rowett Research Institute, studied the effect of genetically modified potatoes, observing that laboratory mice that were fed this mutant variety had smaller brains, livers and testicles, a deficient immune system, and had a high number of precancerous cells in numerous organs. After communicating these results, Pusztai was kicked out of the institute where he worked and his team was dissolved.
Researchers who have studied the harmful effects that genetically modified organisms can have on human health have also listed other aspects: a) new allergens may appear, with the development of GMOs (within the biotechnological process); b) the person who consumes these GMOs may become resistant to antibiotics; c) new toxins may appear; d) a concentration of toxic metals may occur in these GMOs and thus, the person who consumes them may be exposed to heavy metal poisoning without even knowing it; e) it can increase the amount of fungi toxic to the human body.
There are numerous studies that would have deserved to be taken into account both by the Commission for Biological Safety, as well as by Romanian academics or parliamentarians when they promoted and voted extremely permissive laws that allow the intensive use of genetically modified organisms. Ieconomic entanglements, and even more so the obscure interests of some corporations, should never take precedence over people’s health. The narrowness of vision of the decision-making bodies – focused exclusively on short-term benefits – opens the door to unpredictable and incalculable effects in the future.
source: yogaesoteric.net