Archives: Press Releases

Madrid, Bruselas – Amigos de la Tierra y Food & Water Europe publican hoy un nuevo informe que expone cómo la industria manipula la información sobre los cultivos y alimentos transgénicos para generar la idea de que existe un “consenso científico” en torno a la seguridad de sus productos. El informe “El falso ‘consenso científico’: El debate en torno a los transgénicos no ha terminado” [1] muestra cómo la industria de los transgénicos y sus defensores eligen de forma interesada la información y manipulan citas, incluyendo interpretar a su manera a la Organización Mundial de la Salud, para promover la idea de que el debate sobre la seguridad de los cultivos y alimentos transgénicos está superado.

David Sánchez, coordinador de campañas de Food & Water Europe [2] aseguró: “Durante años la industria de los transgénicos ha utilizado su poder económico y su influencia política para distorsionar el debate público y científico sobre los transgénicos. Ni las instituciones, ni la literatura científica ni la ciencia independiente apoya que haya un ‘consenso’ sobre la seguridad de los alimentos y cultivos modificados genéticamente.”

Blanca Ruibal, responsable del área de agricultura y alimentación de Amigos de la Tierra afirmó: “La estrategia tanto a nivel internacional como estatal es utilizar organizaciones teóricamente neutras, financiadas por la propia industria, y científicos afines para repetir de forma machacona en medios de comunicación y blogs los mismos argumentos y citas manipuladas o convenientemente adaptadas. El verdadero debate no es si hay ‘consenso’ o no, el verdadero debate es si los cultivos y alimentos transgénicos son seguros, si son necesarios, a quién benefician, a quién perjudican y si son más convenientes para la sociedad que el resto de opciones”.
La industria de los transgénicos, a través de esta campaña para promocionar la existencia de un supuesto ‘consenso’ sobre la seguridad de los cultivos y alimentos transgénicos no menciona los hechos citados por cientos de científicos que niegan este consenso, incluyendo que:

• Se han realizado muy pocos ensayos de alimentación con animales sobre transgénicos y varios de ellos muestran o sugieren efectos tóxicos.
• La industria de los transgénicos es la responsable de la gran mayoría de los estudios de alimentación disponible que muestran que los cultivos transgénicos son seguros. Un número similar de grupos de investigación que trabajan con estos estudios de alimentación han expresado “preocupaciones serias” sobre su seguridad.
• No existen estudios epidemiológicos sobre seguridad en alimentación humana.
• Hay evidencias de problemas de seguridad para el medio ambiente, incluyendo impactos adversos e inesperados en organismos no diana y la generación de malas hierbas resistentes a herbicidas.
• Hay evidencias de efectos potenciales negativos sobre la salud humana y animal de la exposición al Roundup, el herbicida utilizado con la mayor parte de los cultivos transgénicos.
• Varios acuerdos internacionales reconocen problemas de seguridad con los organismos modificados genéticamente

Lea el informe en Español:

Lea el informe en Inglés

Para más información

David Sánchez, coordinador de campañas, Food & Water Europe +32 485842604 dsanchez(at)fweurope(dot)org

Blanca Ruibal, responsable de Agricultura y Alimentación, Amigos de la Tierra 691471389

Notas

[1] El informe “El falso ‘consenso científico’: El debate en torno a los transgénicos no ha terminado” puede descargarse en castellano y en inglés aquí:
[2] Food & Water Europe es el proyecto europeo de Food & Water Watch, organización de consumidores con sede en EEUU que trabaja para garantizar que la comida, el agua y el pescado que consumimos son seguros, accesibles y sostenibles. Para que todos y todas podamos disfrutar y confiar en lo que comemos y bebemos, ayudamos a la ciudadanía a asumir el control sobre el origen de sus alimentos; a mantener un suministro de agua de grifo limpia, asequible y pública; a proteger el medio ambiente y la salud de los océanos; a forzar a los gobiernos a cumplir con su obligación de proteger a la ciudadanía, y a educar sobre la importancia de mantener los bienes comunes bajo el control público.
www.foodandwatereurope.org

Brussels – Food & Water Europe warmly welcomed the news that MEPs on the European Parliament’s Environment Committee voted last night for a moratorium on nanotechnology in food until proper risk assessment methods have been established and such products proved safe. The group also welcomed the vote to stand firm on clones in food, with Green MEP Bart Staes saying the Committee has “sent the EU Commission back to the drawing board with its flawed proposals”.

EU Food Policy Advisor Eve Mitchell said, “Thank goodness MEPs are standing up once again for the Precautionary Principle and basic food safety, this time on nanotechnology and clones. Working through the hundreds of amendments tabled is not easy, but it is incredibly important to get this right.

“This ‘safety first’ approach has not been matched elsewhere in the European machinery, and we all need to support the MEPs fighting our corner – the pressure will only grow to ‘compromise’. When there is such widespread admission that our knowledge on these issues so sparse, and when the risks are so grave, compromise simply is not an option.

“Added to the disagreements currently under discussion on GMOs, the gap between our elected representatives and other powers in Europe just keeps getting wider when it comes to food safety. We commend MEPs for holding a clear, sensible line and keeping this stuff out of our food.”

Contact: Eve Mitchell, EU Food Policy Advisor, Food & Water Europe +44 (0)1381 610 740 or emitchell(a)fweurope(dot)org

Food & Water Europe Calls Food Nanotech
“The Scariest Thing You’ve Probably Never Heard Of”

Brussels — Food & Water Europe today called on Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to secure a moratorium on the use of nanotechnology in food and food packaging, saying the risks of the technology are so grave that it needs its own laws.

MEPs on the Environment Committee of the European Parliament will vote Monday (24 November) on a raft of amendments aiming to “streamline” EU law for placing novel foods on the market. This includes nanotechnology — extremely small particles engineered at the molecular level to create materials with new behaviours and chemical properties. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) admits that, “The same special properties that make nanoscale materials useful are also properties that may cause some nanoscale materials to pose potential risks to humans and the environment.”

Some of the known risks include:

• Damage to DNA
• Disruption of cellular function and production of reactive oxygen species
• Asbestos-like pathogenicity
• Neurologic problems (such as seizures)
• Organ damage, including significant lesions on the liver and kidneys
• Destruction of beneficial bacteria in wastewater treatment systems
• Stunted root growth in corn, soya, carrots, cucumber and cabbage
• Gill damage, respiratory problems and oxidative stress in fish

Food & Water Europe’s EU Food Policy Advisor Eve Mitchell said: “We appreciate the work of MEPs trying to strengthen what’s on paper, but they can only make the best of a bad job. Nanotechnology is different — we don’t even know yet how different — and it has no place in our food until those differences are clear and until the technology is clearly demonstrated to be safe both now and in the long term.”

More than 1,300 products claiming to use nanotechnology are already for sale in the EU, including cosmetics and sunscreens, despite the lack of safety data. Health supplements and antibacterial household products already contain nanosilver, called “extremely toxic” by researchers, and which can kill both good and bad bacteria as it passes through wastewater treatment systems, negatively affecting their performance.

Nanoscale particles may persist in the environment after human use, with potentially serious effects on farmland, water and wildlife. Nanosilver is also used in food packaging, where it can pass into the food itself, something a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nanotechonology said demands “a review of the long-term biohazard issues of silver nanoparticles.” The EPA says, “Not enough is known to enable meaningful predictions on the biodegradation of nanomaterials in the environment and much further testing and research are needed.”

Mitchell added: “EU Novel Food law aims to ensure that food is ‘safe and wholesome’ with ‘a high level of protection of human health’. Nanotech simply cannot be called safe or wholesome, and it shouldn’t be ‘streamlined’ into our food. MEPs must either support or table amendments that secure a full moratorium until dedicated regulation is in place for nanotech in food, until full safety analysis shows that it is safe and until clear labels on all affected products are enacted.”

“Cloning and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were removed from EU Novel Food regulations precisely because they are different and need dedicated regulations. It’s time we stopped trying to shoehorn nanotech into a law designed to handle things like traditional foods from other countries. It needs dedicated regulation, and a full regime for liability resting on the companies selling it. The industry shouldn’t have a problem with that if what they are selling is safe.

“This is a very new technology, and we already we know it is dangerous. We also know that the science on this is so young that there isn’t even an agreed scientifically robust definition which we can use to identify nanotech. We appeal to MEPs to not rush through a mechanism to accept it just because the industry wants to sell it to us.”

Contact: Eve Mitchell, EU Food Policy Advisor, Food & Water Europe, +44 (0)1381 610 740 or emitchell(at)fweurope(dot)org

October 28, 2014—Brussels and Washington, DC. Officials in Panama fined U.S. biotech company AquaBounty Technologies a near-maximum US$9,500 after ruling that the company has been operating in violation of environmental regulations during its experiments with genetically modified (GM) salmon. Food & Water Europe, Food & Water Watch, the Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth U.S. today called on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to terminate its ongoing safety review of GM salmon and to reject AquaBounty’s pending application to sell the company’s GM fish in the United States.

“The FDA has always assured the public that it is checking, monitoring and regulating AquaBounty’s production platform to ensure that the company can mitigate the well-documented environmental impacts of escaped GM salmon,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Europe. “We now know that AquaBounty is unwilling or unable to follow basic rules and regulations, and that the FDA is unable or unwilling to enforce them. It’s time to put an end to this dangerous experiment.”

Last week’s decision from the Panamanian National Environmental Authority came in response to a complaint filed last year by the Panamanian environmental organization Centro de Incidencia Ambiental (CIAM). Regulators found AquaBounty out of compliance with a raft of environmental safety rules and regulations, including failing to secure prior to beginning operations the legally required permits related to water use and water discharge. Regulators concluded, “We are of the opinion that it [AquaBounty] has repeatedly violated the aforementioned environmental regulations.” The US$9,500 penalty is very near the US$10,000 maximum penalty provided for in Panamanian law.

AquaBounty’s facility in Panama has long experienced serious security issues, including a storm-related accident that led to “lost” salmon in Panama. A visiting journalist described the company’s facility as a “run-down shed.”

To date, the FDA has made no regulatory decision on AquaBounty’s application to sell GM salmon, which, if approved, would be the first biotech animal to enter the food supply anywhere in the world. The FDA’s current regulatory review considers only one production scenario in which AquaBounty produces GM salmon at a remote facility in Panama, then sends fillets to U.S. retailers. Critics have long worried that AquaBounty chose its out-of-the-way production facility as a way to evade regulatory scrutiny.

“In the European Union, we are well aware that GM foods are not labeled in the U.S. One of the big reasons we are fighting the U.S. approval of GM salmon for food is the grave doubts surrounding the ability of either AquaBounty or the U.S. food system to keep these GM fish out of exports headed our way,” said Eve Mitchell, EU food policy advisor for Food & Water Europe. “If AquaBounty doesn’t even have legal permission to do what it is doing, it only adds to worries that the entire regulatory process is too full of holes to be trusted, especially on something as important as a safety assessment. We do not want GM salmon in the EU, and we don’t think anyone else does either, so it’s time for the FDA to reject the application and put this thing behind us.”

Contacts:
Eve Mitchell, Food & Water Europe (UK time), +44(0)1381 610 740, [email protected]
Rich Bindell, Food & Water Watch (Washington time), 202-683-2457, [email protected]