건강과 대안 » GMO

[건강과대안 5월포럼] GM 논쟁의 최전선 : GMO 의 확대 그리고 글리포세이트 위험 논쟁

건강과대안 — Mon, 09 May 2016 06:12:49 +0000

<연구공동체 건강과대안 5월 포럼 안내>

GM 논쟁의 최전선 : GMO 확대 그리고 글리포세이트 위험 논쟁

일시 및 장소 : 2016. 5. 17(화) 저녁7시 / 서울NPO지원센터 교육장1(주다)

건강과대안은 5월 21일 몬산토 반대 국제 행진의 날을 맞아 GMO와 건강 관련한 토론의 자리를 갖고자 합니다. 세계보건기구는 몬산토가 GMO 작물 재배를 위해 생산한 글리포세이트를 발암물질로 지정하였습니다. 유럽의회는 글리포세이트의 조건부 사용을 권고하였고, 공공장소와 어린이 놀이터 등에서의 사용금지를 결정했습니다. 미국 FDA는 식품에서 글리포세이트 잔여물을 조사하겠다는 조치를 발표하기도 했습니다. 그러나 국내에서는 제초제로 널리 쓰이고 있는 글리포세이트에 대한 아무런 규제가 없는 실정입니다. GMO가 없다면 존재하지 않았을 글리포세이트의 규제를 위해서는 GMO에 대한 엄격한 규제가 필수적입니다. 하지만 우리나라의 경우, GM 벼를 시험재배하는 등 한미FTA 이후 GMO 수입 규제 뿐만 아니라 국내 생산까지로 확대가 되는 추세에 있습니다. 건강과대안은 최근 GM연어와 GM모기등으로 확대되고 있는 문제와 유전자 가위를 사용한 GMO 개발의 문제 등 최근 동향을 통해 GMO의 확장이 가져올 위험성에 대해 알리고 그 대안을 논의하는 토론회를 갖고자 합니다. 관심있는 많은 분들의 참여와 토론을 기대합니다.

* 발제_1 : GM연어, 모기, 유전자 가위를 통한 GMO 개발

김병수 (건강과대안 연구위원)

* 발제_2 : 발암물질 글리포세이트와 GMO문제

이상윤 (건강과대안 연구위원)

문의 : 건강과대안 사무국 (02-747-6887 / facebook 건강대안 / healthcommune@gmail.com)

[TPP] 몬산토, TPP와 전세계 식량 지배(Ecologist)

건강과대안 — Mon, 23 Dec 2013 05:38:39 +0000

몬산토, TPP와 전세계 식량 지배(Ecologist)

Monsanto, the TPP and global food dominance
Ellen Brown
Ecologist 7th December 2013
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2188967/monsanto_the_tpp_and_global_food_dominance.html

================================

TPP 협상의 미국측농업분야 수석대표 Islam Siddique(현재 USTR 소속)는 전직 몬산토의 로비스트였는데요… 그는 2001년부터 2008년까지 CropLife America 의 로비스트로 등록했습니다.

CropLife America는 Monsanto를 비롯하여 BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, FMC Corp., Sumitomo, Syngenta 등을 포함하는 생명공학(즉 유전자조작) 기업을 대변하고 있습니다.

———–
Islam Siddique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_A._Siddiqui
http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/biographies-key-officials/ambassador-islam-siddiqui-chief-agricultural-negotiator
————–

2013.12.21 박상표

[TPP/한미FTA] 미국에서 GMO도 유기농이 될 수 있는가?

건강과대안 — Mon, 23 Dec 2013 05:32:06 +0000

TPP의 4대 선결조건의 하나로 유기농인증 문제가 제기됨에 따라 한국과 미국의 유기농 인증제도에 대해서 자세히 알아볼 필요가 생겼습니다.

한미 사이에 유기농 상호인증을 하지 못하는 가장 큰 이유는 한국정부는 미국의 유기농 인증의 동등성을 양보하려고 내심으로 마음 먹고 있는데… 미국정부에서 한국의 유기농 인증 방식을 전혀 인증하지 않으려고 한다는 점입니다.
(한국과 미국의 법령이 큰 차이가 없는데… 미국은 자신들의 유기농 인증은 그냥 인정하라고 하고… 한국의 유기농 인증은 신뢰할 수 없다며 이율배반적인 주장을 하고 있는 것이 문제의 핵심입니다. 지난 번 메일과 이번 메일의 내용을 종합하면 쟁점을 파악하시는데 도움이 될 겝니다.)

그렇다면 한국과 미국에서 GMO도 유기농이 될 수 있을까요?

한국과 미국에서 모두 유기농 제품에 GMO가 사용되는 것은 금지되어 있습니다.
미 농무부에서도 공식적으로는 아래와 같이 유기농 제품에 GMO가 사용되는 것은 금지되어 있다고 밝히고 있습니다.

[근거자료]
Organic 101: Can GMOs Be Used in Organic Products?
출처 : USDA Blog Miles McEvoy, National Organic Program Deputy Administrator, on May 17, 2013 at 1:20 PM
http://blogs.usda.gov/2013/05/17/organic-101-can-gmos-be-used-in-organic-products/

그런데 문제는 한국과 미국의 법령에서 유기농산물로 인증을 받은 원료를 95%이상 사용하도록 한 규정이 공통적으로 존재하는다는 사실입니다.
5% 비유기농 원료는 USDA’s National List에 등재되어 있는 것만 가능한데…GMO는 이 목록에 등재되어 있지 않기 때문에… 한국과 미국의 법령에서 GMO는 유기농으로 인증받을 수 없습니다.

하지만… 문제는 여기서 끝나지 않습니다. 미국의 유기농 규정에는 허점(loopholes)이 존재합니다. 미국에서는 유기축산 사료의 경우 non-GMO 증명서가 첨부되어 있을 경우 GMO zero라는 성분분석 증명서가 필요하지 않다는 규정이 명문화되어 있습니다.

실제로 성분분석을 하면… GMO가 검출될 가능성이 있는데… 그러한 가능성에 대한 검사를 생략했기 때문에… 허점(loopholes)이 존재하는 것입니다.

왜냐하면… GMO 곡물재배가 점점 더 늘어나고 있기 때문에 유기농 방식으로 곡물을 재배하는 농장에서도 자연수분 등을 통해 GMO 오염이 발생할 수 있기 때문입니다.
(상업적으로 재배하고 있는 GMO가 단 1개도 없는 한국에서도 GMO 오염을 흔하게 발생하고 있는데… 상업적으로 재배하고 있는 GMO가 전 세계의 50% 정도를 차지하는 미국에서 GMO 오염은 너무나 비일비재하게 발생하고 있습니다.)

오해의 소지는 미국정부의 GMO가 포함된 농축산물 및 가공품의 유기농 인증의 역사에서 발생하기도 했습니다.

1997년 미 농무부(USDA)가 National Organic Program rule을 발표했을 때… 실제 그 내용 속에 GMO 곡물이라고 하더라도 유기농 방식으로 재배가 되었다면 유기농 인증을 받을 수 있다고 밝힌 바 있습니다.

그러나 이러한 인증방식은 유기농을 취급하는 소비자, 가공업자, 소매업자, 생산 농민으로부터 엄청난 비판에 직면했습니다.

결국 미 농무부는 2002년 10월 유기농 인증을 받으려면 GMO가 포함되지 않아야 한다는 금지규정으로 변경을 하였습니다.

게다가 미국에서는 GMO나 살충제를 사용했더라도 “Natural”이라는 표기를 할 수 있는 또 다른 허점(loopholes)이 존재합니다. 이러한 허점은 한국에서도 동시에 존재하고 있습니다.

2013.12.22 박상표

‘No Monsanto!’ GMO에 반대하는 행진 전세계적으로 일어나(기사)

건강과대안 — Thu, 17 Oct 2013 06:56:33 +0000

지난 10월 16일은 세계식량의 날이었습니다. 세계식량의 날 4일전이었던 지난 10월 12일에는 전세계적으로 몬산토와 그들의 GMO, 농화학약품에 반대하는 시위와 행진이 조직되었습니다. 애초에는 작게 시작된 행사였지만, 2번째로 조직된 이번해에는 50개국 이상의 나라에서 2백만명 이상이 참가했다는 소식입니다. 한국에서도 유전자조작식품과 거대 농화학기업의 행태, 그리고 그것들이 건강에 미치는 영향에 대해 앞으로 더욱 많이 논의되길 바랍니다.

‘No Monsanto!’ GMO에 반대하는 행진 전세계적으로 일어나

원문출처: http://rt.com/news/monsanto-march-berlin-protest-115/

2103년 10월 12일자 기사.

토요일, 수천의 사람들이 거리로 나섰다. GMO식품을 사용하는데 저항하기 위해서였다. 주요한 대상은 거대기업 몬산토였다. 세계식량의 날(10월 16일)을 맞이하여 전세계 50개국이상의 나라에서, 미국 47개 주에서 사람들이 이 행진에 참가했다.

베를린, 스트라스부르그, 시카고, 런던, 시드니, 뭄바이는 이 행진에 참가한 500여개의 도시 중 아주 일부일 뿐이며 한도시당 수백의 사람들이 참가했다.

몬산토반대행진(March Against Monsanto)의 공식웹사이트에 따르면, 이 시위는 유전자조작식품(GMO)을 비롯 ‘그 외 해로운 농업화학(식)품’을 영구적으로 불매(boycott)하자고 호소하고 있다. 행진참가자들은 GMO식품을 비판하는 대규모 현수막을 내세우며, 귀여운 복장을 하고 있다. 워싱턴DC에서는 벌처럼 입은 일군의 참가자들이 벌의 개체수에 미치는 살충제의 해악성에 대해 강조하기도 했다.

(사진설명: GMO 반대론자들이 2013년 10월 12일 몬산토 반대행동의 날 동안, 프랑스 남부 Monbequi에서 미국 몬산토 회사 입구에 쇠사슬을 걸어놓고 있다. 현수막에는 “No to a world according to Monsanto”라고 씌여있다. (AFP Photo / Pascal Pavani))

워싱턴의 참가자들은 몬산토 로비스트들이 미 정부가 ‘셧다운’된 와중임에도 아주 열심이라고 전했다. 행진 조직자들 또한, 토요일 행사는 시작에 불과하다며, 저항이 만들어지는 순간이라고 전했다. 이 행진은 세계식량의 날인 10월 16일보다 4일전에 진행되었으며, 몬산토의 ‘약탈적인 비즈니스’라고 불리는 유전자조작산업과 다른 해로운 농약산업을 직접 공격하는 것이다. 이러한 산업이 ‘건강, 임신, 장수’를 위협한다는 것이다.

(사진설명: 한 남자가 2013년 10월 12일, 미국 로스앤젤레스에서 GMO와 농화학기업에 반대하는 ‘몬산토반대행동’에 참가하여 색칠한 옥수수 자루를 들고 있다.(Reuters / Lucy Nicholson))

베를린에서, 사람들은 거대식품기업을 미워하는 수많은 이유를 나열하였는데, 이는 장기적인 건강에 대한 우려부터 몬산토에서 사용하는 화학품까지 아우르고 있다.

“몬산토가 만들어낸 스마트스택스(Smartstax, 다중GM옥수수제품)가 있다…이것은 6가지 서로다른 제초제에 저항력이 있어서, 6가지 서로다른 화학제를 뿌려대도 죽지 않는다.” 베를린에서의 행진에 참가한 하이디 오스터만(Heidi Ostermannm)이라는 영양학자가 말했다. “또 이 옥수수는 그 낱알 안에서 2가지 살충제를 배출하는데 이걸 씻어낼 수가 없다-기술적으로 이게 식품이라고 할 수 있을지 모르겠다. 영양학자로서 내 관점에서는, 이건 더 이상 식품이 아니다.”

(사진설명: GMO반대론자들은 미국 거대 농화학기업 몬산토에 반대해 조직된 2013년 10월 12일 전세계 몬산토 반대시위에 참가했다. 프랑스 남부 Marseille에서의 시위모습. (AFP Photo / Bertrand Langlois)

진실된식량재단(True Food Foundation)의 부대표 디트리히 비텔(Dietrich Wittel)은 쥐에게 행해진 실험을 인용하며, 몬산토 옥수수를 먹인 대상이 된 동물들이 종양으로 고통받는 모습이 담긴 대규모 포스터를 가져왔다. “90일 이내에는 장기손상의 미묘한 징후들이 있다. 하지만 2년 간, 쥐의 수명은 줄어들었다- 이들은 심각한 장기손상을 겪었고, 암쥐들의 경우 거대한 유방종양이 생겼는데, 이건 정말, 진짜 무시무시한 일이다.” 그는 큰 동물들에게 미치는 영향에 대해 계속해서 토론해갔다.

“최근에는, 호주의 연구에 따르면 이 옥수수를 먹인 돼지들이 엄청 심각한 위궤양을 나타냈다…우리는 쥐보다 훨씬 더 오래된 생애주기를 갖고 있다. 우리가 만약 GMO의 결과로 인한 암발생을 기다리는 거라면, 우리는 기다려야만 할 뿐이다.”

(사진설명: 집회참가자들이 2013년 10월 12일 거대기업 몬산토와 GMO에 반대하는 현수막을 들고 있다.(AFP Photo / Heikki Saukkomaa)

10월은 특히 미국의 참가자들에게는 의미있는 달인데, ‘베트남참전군인건강연맹의 아이들(Children of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance, COVVHA)’에서 에이전트 오렌지(Agent Orange, 베트남전에서 살포된 고엽제) 알기의 달로 홍보하고 있기 때문이다.

“몬산토는 에이전트 오렌지를 제조한 7개 화학기업 중 하나로 에이전트 오렌지에는 사람에게 가장 치명적인 화학물질인 다이옥신이 섞여있다. 몬산토와 다른 6개 기업, 미국정부는 베트남 참전군인, 그 아이들, 그 손자/손녀들이 점점 더 많이 죽어가는 사태에 대해 책임이 있다”고 몬산토반대행진은 주장하고 있다.

이전에 몬산토반대의 움직임은 5월에 진행되었다. 작은 규모의 행사로 시작했지만, 이내 행진에 참가하는 곳이 52개국, 436개 도시로, 2백만명이 넘는 사람들이 전세계적인 캠페인이 참가하게 되었다.

(사진설명: 제임슨 블루마(Jameson Bluma)라는 소년이 2013년 10월 12일 GMO와 농화학기업에 반대하는 ‘몬산토반대행진’에서 피켓을 들고 있다. (Reuters / Lucy Nicholson)

==========================================================

‘몬산토 반대행동’ 전세계적으로 2번째 저항이 계획되고 있다

http://rt.com/news/march-against-monsanto-global-996/

2013년 10월 11일자 기사

(사진출처:AFP Photo / Robyn Beck)

6대륙에 걸쳐, 52개국, 500개이상의 도시에서, ‘몬산토반대행동’은 유전자변형 및 GMO식품을 생산하는 거대기업 몬산토에 맞서 토요일날 두 번째 대규모 행진을 계획하고 있다. 에이전트 오렌지의 수많은 희생자들은 이 저항에 참가할 것으로 보인다.

“토요일은 몬산토에 맞서는 대규모 행동의 날이다. 우리는 지역 옥수수밭에 주목했다. 몬산토는 우리 식량으로는 해롭고, 우리 지구에도 해롭다”, 몬산토반대행동은 페이스북에 이와 같이 포스팅을 했다.

세계식량의 날인 10월 16일 4일전에 이루어질 행진에는 ‘몬산토의 약탈적인 비즈니스’, GMO와 다른 해로운 살충제가 ‘건강, 임신, 장수’를 위협한다며 수백만 활동가들에게 이들을 불매하자고 촉구하게 될 것이다.

10월 5일, 몬산토반대행동은 전세계적인 ‘폭풍 트위터’를 시작해 사람들에게 가장한 자주 트윗하고, 해시태그(#특정단어를 표기하여 글로 표현하는 것)를 포스트하도록 요청했다.

“이번 폭풍트위터의 목표는 행진에 참가하고 트위터와 페이스북에서 GMO의 성격에 대해 알리면서, 몬산토와 이 기업의 위험한 식품, 정책에 대해 알려내는 것이다” 이 행사의 조직자는 성명에서 위와 같이 말했다.

과학자들의 연구를 인용하면서, 활동가들은 건강 위험요인으로 장기손상, 불임, 영아사망, 선천적 기형, 자가면역상태, 알러지, 암발병위험 증가 등이 꼽힌다고 주장한다.

이번 토요일 행진이 이전과 다른 것은 에이전트 오렌지와 다이옥신에 노출된 피해자들(베트남참전군인건강연맹의 아이들, Children of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance, COVVHA)이 미국 전역에 걸쳐 여러 도시에서의 행사에 참가하게 될 것이란 점이다.

성명에 따라 이 운동은 전한다. “베트남참전군인의 수많은 아이들이 같은 날 같은 시간에 공개적으로 연설한 적은 전혀 없었다. 10월은 에이전트 오렌지에 대해 알리는 달이다. 자신들의 일생을 다르게 만들고자 하는 이들을 지지해 달라.”

몬산토는 유독성 제초제인 에이전트 오렌지를 제조한 7개 회사 중 하나로, 미정부는 베트남ㅁ전에서 엄청나게 이를 살포하였으며, 성명에서는 다음과 같이 밝혔다.

“베트남참전군인들이 집으로 돌아오고 가족을 꾸리자마자, 각종 보고서에서는 다양한 유산과 자녀들 사이에서 선천적 기형이 나타나기 시작했다고 발표했다.”

40년이 지난 후에도, 말도 다할 수 없이 수많은 베트남 민간인, 전 군인, 1960년대와 70년대 유독성 화학물질에 노출된 이들에게 암과 같은 치명적인 질병이 계속해서 발생하고 있으며, 기타 모든 종류의 제초제가 유발하는 참혹한 경험으로 고통받고 있다는 것을, 보고서에서 여전히 밝히고 있다.

몬산토는 살충제, 제초제, GMO를 사용하는 유일한 기업은 아니지만, 몬산토의 전세계적인 패권은 몬산토가 공공의 저항이 삼아야 할 가장 큰 목표임을 뜻하고 있다.

작은 행사로 시작되었던 5월 25일 첫 번째 몬산토반대 행진은 전세계적인 캠페인으로 바뀌어 행진에 참가하는 수가, 52개국, 436개 도시에서 2백만명이 넘는 수에 이르렀다.

한편, 공중의 두려움과 비난에도 불구하고, 몬산토는 인류건강이나 환경에 용납할 수 없는 어떤 위험도 제기하지 않았다며, 이와 달리, 물이나 에너지와 같은 자원을 절약하여 땅에서 더 많은 작물을 생산할 수 있도록 농민들을 도왔으므로, 농업을 발전시킨다고 주장했다.

미국의 거대 유전자변형기업은 GMO곡물에 대한 연구는 ‘결론이 나지 않았다’고 주장하며 실험실에서 만들어진 식품을 지속해서 제조해내도록 영향력을 행사하고 있다.

지난 3월, 미국 의회는 반대론자들이 ‘몬산토보호법안’라고 별명을 붙인 법안을 통과시켰는데, 이는 기업들에게 법원판결을 무시하고 유전자변형된 작물을 기르고, 판매하는 것을 허용하고 있다. 9월 27일에는, GMO기업에 대한 지원이 상원지출법안에서 없어졌는데 미 하원에서 같은 달에 3개월 연장하도록 승인한 사실에도 불구하고 시행되었다.

[GMO] 세라리니 교수, GM 독성 연구결과 설명 위해 영국 방문

건강과대안 — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 02:24:14 +0000

2012년 유전자조작 작물과 라운드업 제초제가 아주 소량으로 종양의 발생, 내부장기의 심한 손상, 조기 사망을 일으킨다는 연구결과를 쥐 실험을 통해 학계에 보고한 세라리니 교수가 자신의 연구결과를 설명하기 위해 영국을 방문했다는 소식입니다. (세라리니 교수의 입장에서는
자신의 정당성을 주장하기 위해 적진 깊숙히 들어간 셈입니다.)

영국 정부는 EU 내에서 GM 작물의 상업화에 가장 앞장서고 있으며… 영국에 기반을 둔
사이언스미디어센터(Science Media Centre ; SMC)는 세라리니 교수의 논문이 학술지에
발표된 당일부터 과학적 정당성이 의심된다는 맹렬한 공격을 개시한 바 있습니다.

아래 뉴스에도 언급하고 있듯이… 사이언스미디어센터(Science Media Centre)는 스스로를
독립적 기관이라고 표방하고 있으나… 유전자조작(GM) 기업으로부터 자금지원을 받고 있는
사실이 폭로된 바 있습니다.

세라리니 교수의 연구결과는 몬산토, 다우케미칼 등을 비롯한 유전자조작 산업계(소위 ‘생명
공학업계’)의 경제적 이해관계에 치명적인 위협이 되었고… 사이언스미디어센터가 GM 산업계
의 이해관계를 앞장서서 대변한 것으로 추정됩니다.

이러한 공격은 도를 지나쳐 업계의 앞잡이 노릇을 하는 과학자들이 학술지에 세라라니 교수
팀의 연구 논문의 게재를 철회하라는 압력을 행사하는데까지 이르렸습니다.

세라리니 교수팀의 연구 결과가 과학적 사실에 어긋난다는 것은 똑같은 장기독성실험의 재현을
통해서 규명한 후… 이를 학술지에 발표하면… 당연히 논문 게재가 철회될 것인데도 불구하고…
연구진실성 규명을 위한 실험을 실시하지도 않고… 친유전자조작(Pro-GM)업계의 과학자들이
집단적으로 의사표명을 한 것은 마치 중세의 마녀사냥을 연상시키기에 충분한 모습이었다고
생각합니다.

세라리니 교수팀의 논문 발표 이후에도 몬산토 사를 대표로 하는 유전자조작 작물과 라운드업
제초제가 독성이 있다는 몇몇 연구 결과들이 발표되고 있습니다.

아직 유전자조작 작물과 라운드업 제초제의 안전성과 독성에 관한 과학적 결론이 나지 않은
상황이지만… 주로 경제전문지 등의 언론을 통해 괴담식으로 유포되는 상업적 이해관계를
앞세운 친유전자조작(Pro-GM)업계의 비과학적인 주장들은 전혀 전문적이지도 과학적이지도
않다고 생각합니다.

세라리니 교수팀의 논문에 대한 학계의 엄정하고도 개관적이면서 과학적인 연구진실성이
하루 빨리 밝혀져야 대중들의 건강과 안전이 기업의 상업적 이익에 위협받지 않을 것이라
생각합니다.

=====================

Seralini to visit UK to speak about his research

Prof Gilles-Eric Seralini will visit the UK in September to speak about his research on GM health risks.

The GM health study they don’t want you to know about

Claire Robinson
GMhealthriskweek.org, August 2013
http://www.gmhealthriskweek.org/the-study-that-should-have-been-a-wake-up-call-to-the-world/

Claire Robinson is editor of GMOSeralini.org, a public information website to counter misleading spin about the Séralini study.

She is an editor at GMWatch and research director at Earth Open Source.

The most detailed scientific study ever conducted on the health effects of a genetically modified (GM) food was published last year. The findings of the study, led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen in France, were shocking. Rats fed over a two-year period with two Monsanto products, a GM maize and tiny amounts of the Roundup herbicide that the maize is engineered to tolerate being sprayed with, had increased rates of severe organ damage, tumours, and premature death.[1]

The study should have been a wake-up call to the world, but most members of the public and the scientific community are in danger of learning nothing from it. The reason? Within hours of the study’s release, an orchestrated media campaign swung into action to discredit it.

Quotes from scientists criticizing the paper were circulated by the UK-based Science Media Centre (SMC), an organization which claims to be independent and to aim to ensure the public have access to the best scientific evidence[2] – while at the same time taking funding from GM companies.[3] SMC director Fiona Fox later said that she took pride in the fact that the SMC’s “emphatic thumbs down had largely been acknowledged throughout UK newsrooms”. Few newspapers had covered the story, and those that did “used quotes supplied by the Science Media Centre”. She added that several television news programmes had also rejected the story after reading the quotes.[4]

The SMC’s efforts ensured that few British people heard about the study and many of those who did swallowed the SMC line that it was rubbish.

Now you have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to cut through the misinformation and spin that was fed to us and to hear the inside story of the study that’s got the GM industry – as well as scientists whose careers depend on it – seriously worried. Prof Séralini will visit the UK from September 2-8 on a rare speaking tour, speaking about the health risks posed by GM foods. He’ll speak in London, Cardiff, and Edinburgh as part of an expert panel.

Other panel members will include Ib Pedersen, a Danish farmer who found digestive and reproductive problems in his pigs when they ate GM feed and restored them to health by substituting a non-GM diet. Ib’s experience shows that toxic effects from a GM diet are not just something that happens to rats in a lab but that potentially put at risk all livestock – and all people.

There are powerful forces that don’t want you to hear this message. The US is currently trying to force GM foods into Europe through the EU-US free trade agreement and sees Britain as the weak link in European resistance to GM. That’s not because the British people want GM – they overwhelmingly do not – but because our government is rabidly pro-GM and is moving in lockstep with US government interests on the issue. Environment secretary Owen Paterson acts as a mouthpiece for GM industry talking points, even promising that the UK will ignore opposition to GM from the rest of Europe and “go it alone” on GM.

So please come to hear Prof Seralini and the other speakers. It’s never been more urgent that British citizens arm themselves with the information they have to offer.

[1] Séralini, G. E., et al. (2012). Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50(11): 4221-4231.
[2] Science Media Centre (2013). Home page. http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/
[3] Powerbase (2013). Science Media Centre. http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Science_Media_Centre
[4] Matthews, J. (2012). Smelling a corporate rat. Spinwatch, 11 December. http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/science/item/164-smelling-a-corporate-

[GMO] 유전자조작 산업계, GM식품 옹호 웹사이트 개설

건강과대안 — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:58:05 +0000

유전자조작 산업계(몬산토, 듀퐁 등)에서 유전자조작 식품(GMO) 반대 시민사회운동에 대응하기 위해 GM 식품을 옹호하는 웹사이트를 개설했다는 소식입니다.

몬산토, 듀퐁, 다우케미칼 등 유전자조작 산업계는 웹사이트를 개설하여 GM 안전성에 의문을 제기하하는 최근 연구결과들에 의해 궁지에 몰린 나머지 유전자조작 식품(GMO)을 옹호하는 허위정보를 퍼뜨리는 활동을 하고 있습니다.

========================================

‘GMO Answers’ website launched by biotech industry

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/14878-gmo-answers-website-launched-by-biotech-industry

The GM industry’s latest PR drive includes a new website aimed at combating mounting opposition to GM foods.

You need to register to be able to post comments. Go to www.GMOAnswers.com to do so and challenge each of their misleading entries, so members of the public who check out the site get a better picture of reality. (e.g., include links to studies like Jack Heinemann’s recent one, etc.) Time to match their PR and outreach! A good resource for doing this:http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/gmo-myths-and-truths

1.’GMO Answers’ Website Launched By Monsanto, DuPont, More
2.GMO Re-Education: Monsanto, Dow and Biotech Firms Unite to Launch Disinformation Site

EXTRACT: Biotech is on the defensive now – they have been backed into a corner by activists who insist that the GMOs in our food supply, at the very least, be labeled, so that we can make an informed decision about what we feed our families. This false transparency is their last ditch effort to head off pro-labeling legislation and to keep their toxins hidden in our food supply.

…they’ve invited us to “Be skeptical. Be open. We want to hear from you.” Let’s give them what they asked for, shall we? (item 2)
—
—
1.’GMO Answers’ Website Launched By Monsanto, DuPont, More
Carey Gillam
Reuters, 29 July 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/gmo-answers-website_n_3671483.html

A group of biotech seed companies on Monday launched an online forum to combat mounting opposition to genetically modified foods among consumer groups and activists.

The website, www.GMOAnswers.com, is designed as a “central online resource” for information on genetically modified organisms and their use in agriculture and food production, the Biotechnology Industry Organization said.

The website is backed in part by Monsanto Co, DuPont , Dow AgroSciences, a unit of Dow Chemical Co, and other companies whose products include seeds that have been genetically altered to improve food production.

The website is part of a broad campaign by the biotech industry to beat back growing calls for GMO food labeling and for tighter regulation of the biotech seed industry in the United States. European opposition to GMOs is so strong that Monsanto this month said it would withdraw all pending requests to grow new types of GMO crops.

As part of the multi-year, multimillion-dollar campaign, the biotech seed companies will also open some of their fields and offices to visitors and will host face-to-face forums around the country with consumers, according to Cathleen Enright, spokeswoman for the website.

Paul Schickler, president of DuPont Pioneer, the agricultural unit of DuPont, said anti-GMO forces have been using the Internet very effectively to get their message out, and industry wants to use the same strategy to combat what he said were notions “not always based in fact.”

“This … is an effort to increase the dialogue. That is all we want,” said Schickler. “Dialogue is good. Over time I think we’ll come to a common understanding.”

Critics predicted the industry effort to change consumer skepticism would fail, saying there is ample scientific evidence that GMO foods can contribute to health problems in animals and humans, and hurt the environment.

“This latest effort will likely do little to stop the consumer backlash against genetically engineered foods that has been brewing for years,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, a consumer organization.

The most popular gene-altered crops withstand dousings of weed-killing chemicals and produce their own insect-killing toxins. Biotech corn, canola, soybeans, and other crops are used in human food and animal feed around the world, and biotech companies say they are heavily regulated and thoroughly tested.

Last year, Monsanto and other industry members spent $40 million to defeat a ballot initiative in California to require labeling of GMO food. Similar initiatives are under way in several other U.S. states and at the federal level.

Grocery retailer Whole Foods said this year it would require suppliers to label any product made with genetically modified ingredients. And the Natural Products Association, which represents 1,900 food industry players, has called for a uniform national standard for GMO labeling.

Burrito chain Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc recently became the first major U.S. restaurant chain to disclose GMO ingredients and is moving to remove such products from its supply chain.
—
—
2.GMO Re-Education: Monsanto, Dow and Biotech Firms Unite to Launch Disinformation Site
Daisy Luther
The Organic Pepper, July 29 2013
http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/gmo-re-education-monsanto-dow-and-biotech-firms-unite-to-launch-disinformation-site-07292013

If you had a question about how to protect yourself from a criminal known to break into houses in your neighborhood, would you ask him how to protect your home and then take his suggestions, or would you be suspicious he might be answering them in a way that would make your home even easier to encroach?

If you had a question about the honesty and integrity of a person in an authority position, would you ask that person to investigate himself and then accept his findings? (I mean, if you were a normal person, not if your name is Barack or Eric.)

If a company came out with a new medication that promised to cure your ills overnight, would you ask the company that produced it whether it was safe and trust them to be honest, or would you feel that their answer might be colored by their urge to make a buck?
So why on earth would anyone possibly believe that the likes of Monsanto, Dow, and Dupont would be spreading anything but sales-driven propaganda on their new website GMOAnswers?

Are they serious or is this some kind of big public relations joke being played out on a national platform? Are we being punked?

What kind of person would look up their answers on a website SPONSORED by the very people who are putting out the toxic garbage they’d like us to believe is food?
Welcome to the compendium of disinformation!

In the most outrageous, blatant case of the foxes being put in charge of the henhouse that I have ever seen, the big biotech companies got together and launched their propaganda site GMOAnswers today. It is run by the Council for Biotechnology Information, whose members include Monsanto, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer CropScience and BASF. The site contains a heavily moderated question and answer forum and a complete compendium of disinformation in the section called “Explore GMOs”.

They purport that the website is an acknowledgement that they need to change:

*Genetically modified organisms — GMOs — are a major topic of discussion today. Across our society, media and the Internet, a growing number of people have shared a wide range of questions and emotions on the topic – ranging from excitement and optimism to skepticism and even fear.

*GMO Answers was created to do a better job answering your questions — no matter what they are — about GMOs. The biotech industry stands 100 percent behind the health and safety of the GM crops on the market today, but we acknowledge that we haven’t done the best job communicating about them – what they are, how they are made, what the safety data says.

*This website is the beginning of a new conversation among everyone who cares about how our food is grown.

*Join us. Ask tough questions. Be skeptical. Be open. We look forward to sharing answers. (source)

And they tout these 5 principals:

*Respecting people around the world and their right to choose healthy food products that are best for themselves and their families;
*Welcoming and answering questions on all GMO topics;
*Making GMO information, research and data easy to access and evaluate and supporting safety testing of GM products; including allowing independent safety testing of our products through validated science-based methods;
*Supporting farmers as they work to grow crops using precious resources more efficiently, with less impact on the environment and producing safe, nutritious food and feed products;
*Respecting farmers’ rights to choose the seeds that are best for their farms, businesses and communities and providing seed choices that include non-GM seeds based on market demands.

The most notable things that I saw about the “discussions” there is that the “experts” are all pro-GMO. There is a very subtle bias against those with concerns, despite the fact that many of them are quoting real statistics and genuine peer-reviewed studies. How many “experts” that are anti-GMO are being moderated right out of the discussion using the “House Rules“?

This website, sadly, is nothing more than an indoctrination vehicle for furthering the myths that Monsanto wants you to believe.

Biotech is on the defensive now – they have been backed into a corner by activists who insist that the GMOs in our food supply, at the very least, be labeled, so that we can make an informed decision about what we feed our families. This false transparency is their last ditch effort to head off pro-labeling legislation and to keep their toxins hidden in our food supply.

What can we do?

I’ve created my own profile over there so that I can “join the discussion.” If you decide to join me, please follow the House Rules to the best of your ability and additionally, remember that you want to garner respect, not scorn, so:

*Be courteous – we are in the right and we should take the high road in conversations
*Don’t be threatening
*Don’t use foul language
*Don’t be abusive towards others, even when you disagree or when they are abusive towards you
*Use facts and cite sources
*If you are censored unfairly, take screen shots and let those tell your story

If other people who don’t know a lot about GMOs come to the forum and see anti-GMO activists scrapping it out in an uncivil fashion, it will close their eyes to the message we are trying to share. Don’t be afraid to be passionate, but please remember that you are representing all of us who say no to GMO.

Do you remember when Cheerios launched the Facebook App that allowed consumers to share what they really thought about the toxin-laden cereal? That was a PR move that backfired dramatically when users bombarded the company’s page with anti-GMO messages.

Biotech must have missed that, because they’ve invited us to “Be skeptical. Be open. We want to hear from you.”

Let’s give them what they asked for, shall we?

About the author:

Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor. Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at’);document.write(addy43508);document.write(‘<\/a>’);daisy@theorganicprepper.ca

[GMO] 유럽식품기준청의 장기독성 실험 가이드라인, 세라리니 연구결과 유효성 인증 주장

건강과대안 — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:57:18 +0000

유럽식품기준청(EFSA)의 GMO 장기 실험에 관한 새로운 지침서가 세라리니 박사팀의
연구결과를 유효하게 인증했다는 유전자조작 감시 시민사회단체인 [GM watch]의 논평입니다.

Seralini validated by new EFSA guidelines on long-term GMO experiments

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/14882-seralini-validated-by-new-efsa-guidelines-on-long-term-gmo-experiments

Food Safety Authority’s guidelines on long-term GM feeding studies validate Prof Seralini’s study, which found serious health effects from NK603 maize.

Seralini validated by new EFSA guidelines on long-term GMO experiments
Comment by Claire Robinson of GMWatch and Earth Open Source, 31 July 2013

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has issued guidelines for two-year whole food feeding studies to assess the risk of long-term toxicity from GM foods.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3347.htm

This is a fascinating document which largely validates the methodology and choices of Prof GE Seralini in his 2012 study on GM maize NK603 – methodology and choices that EFSA and countless other critics previously attacked him for.

Particular points to note:

1. EFSA admits that “no standardised protocol or guidelines exist for this type of study and [industry] applicants have to adapt protocols” – as Seralini did, too.

2. EFSA says the same strain of rat that was used in the 90-day study on the GM food should be used in the longer study – thus vindicating Seralini’s use of the Sprague-Dawley rat, which Monsanto used in its 90-day study on the same maize.

3. EFSA says animals should be fed ad libitum, which Seralini did, but which critics complained made it impossible to measure individual food and water consumption.

4. EFSA admits that you do not necessarily need a narrow and fixed hypothesis and that such a study can be “exploratory”, in spite of its previous claim that Seralini’s experiment was flawed because it (according to EFSA) didn’t have a clear hypothesis or objective.

5. EFSA recommends against using the extra control or “reference diet” groups commonly included by Monsanto in its 90-day studies and fed a variety of supposedly non-GM diets, on the grounds that the concurrent controls are the valid controls AND what is being tested is the difference between the GM variety and the non-GM comparator. Seralini was criticised by many for not including these spurious extra control groups and for thus having “inadequate controls”.

6. EFSA cautions strongly AGAINST relying on historical control data and if it is used, restricts it to within 5 years of the current experiment and to the same testing facility. This is a much stricter requirement than industry ever applies; industry uses ancient data from a wide variety of sources.

EFSA says: “The use of historical control data should be considered with caution. The historical controls might not be useful because the incidences of neoplastic (or non-neoplastic) lesions would possibly be from control animals kept on different diets than the diet applied in whole food/feed study, and because the diet itself (high/low fat, type of fat, % of carbohydrate, type of carbohydrate, etc.) can influence the formation of neoplastic or non-neoplastic lesions. Where the diet formulation used in the experiment for the control groups cannot be demonstrated to be equivalent to that used for the generation of historical control data, the inclusion may be considered of an additional control group (as similar as possible to the historical controls), in addition to the concurrent control group(s).”

It’s unfortunate that in rightly condemning the use of historical control data, however, EFSA allows in those extra control or “reference” groups that it rightly condemned in point (5) above.

7. EFSA recommends a minimum of 10 animals per sex per group for the chronic toxicity phase, the same number that Seralini used.

8. EFSA recommends housing animals in pairs, as Seralini did, so individual food consumption cannot be measured.

9. EFSA requires an a priori power analysis to ensure appropriate sample size, depending on the effect size that is being looked for. We’ve never noticed the GM industry doing one of these, resulting in experiments that are virtually guaranteed not to find anything. For Seralini’s team’s comment on this, see:
http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm

Overall, we’re pleased to see EFSA taking on board our cautionary lessons on spurious “reference” control groups and historical control data (even if in the same document EFSA subsequently allows the use of both!), as well as validating the aspects of Seralini’s experiment that he was most criticised for.

[GMO] 프랑스 정부, GMO 장기독성 실험 착수 및 향후 GM 야외 재배시험 중단

건강과대안 — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:03:22 +0000

프랑스 정부가 GMO의 장기독성 연구에 착수했다는 뉴스와 프랑스에서 유전자조작(GM) 작물의
야외 실험재배를 더 이상 실시하지 않는다는 뉴스입니다.

1.Seralini study: France launches long-term study on the risks of GMOs
Philippe Collet
Actu-Environnement, July 15, 2013
http://www.actu-environnement.com/ae/news/etude-risques-environnementaux-sanitaires-long-terme-seralini-anses-efsa-19049.php4
GMWatch translation from French original

On Friday, July 12, the research department of the General Commission for Sustainable Development (CGDD) Department of Ecology issued a call for the establishment of a consortium under the research program Risk’OGM, a national research program on the environmental and health risks of GMOs. “The purpose of this call for the creation of a consortium is to investigate the health effects of long-term consumption of GMOs,” announced the ministry, which added that the grant to the consortium will be “in the order of 2.5 million euros. “The call for the formation of the consortium is open from 12 July to 20 September 2013.

“This research program follows the commitments made by the Government in the framework of the Grenelle Environnement,” the ministry said, adding that “it seeks to generate knowledge that will inform public policy.”

The Seralini study the initiator

The call for the creation of a consortium is in the framework of the publication of the Seralini study, recalls the description of the call.

“In November 2012, following the publication of a study on potential health effects of NK603 maize and Roundup, the National Agency for the Safety of Food, Environment and Labour (ANSES) and the High Council of Biotechnology (HCB) were asked for their opinions,” the paper says, adding that “ANSES noted the need for further scientific studies to better document the potential long-term effects of GMOs. ”

Similarly, DG Health and Consumers of the European Commission has decided to fund a study of long-term toxicity of the NK603 maize over a period of two years.

In this context, “the Department of Ecology has decided for its part to fund, from 2013, a complementary research project to the project of the European Commission, implemented by a unique consortium, on health effects related to long-term GMO consumption.”
—
—
2.No more GMO open field trials in France
Audrey Garric
Le Monde, 17 Jul 2013
http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2013/07/17/pourquoi-il-n-y-a-plus-d-experimentation-d-ogm-en-plein-champ-en-france_3448936_3244.html
GMWatch English translation of French original (shortened)

France’s last-remaining experimental open field trial of GMOs in France has been stopped. The National Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) ended the trial by destroying 1000 GM poplars that have grown since 1995 in Saint-Cyr-en-Val, near Orléans (Loiret), a research site of 1300 square meters.

The properties of the transgenic trees were being studied to improve the manufacture of pulp and, since 2007, in an attempt to produce 2nd generation biofuels such as bioethanol from poplar biomass.

The reason for the decision to stop the trial: the lack of government approval for the continuation of this scientific work. “Given the time of hearing of the application for renewal of the test, to the particular climatic constraints of the spring of 2013 and their influence on the experiment, and in the absence of the expected approval, INRA had to decide on Friday, July 12 to definitively destroy the genetically modified poplars,” said the institute in a press release.

LATE FILING OF RECORD

What happened to make INRA fail to obtain renewal of a license for an experiment that ran for five years, from 2007 to 2012? First problem: the organization filed its application on 20 December, 11 days before the expiration of the current authorization. However, the case should be subject to review both by the Scientific Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Ethical (CEES) of the High Council of Biotechnology (HCB), before a public inquiry, and then the final joint decision of the Ministers the environment and agriculture. A long process, minimum 90 days…

DIVISION OF EXPERTS

Meanwhile, the case … divides the HCB: though its scientific committee concludes that there is no danger to human health or the environment, the CEES believes that the research should not be renewed and denounced its “poorly defined goals, a fuzzy argument, and a collective limited usefulness.”

The CEES wonders about the economic opportunities of these tests. In fact, in eighteen years, the INRA research has given rise to around fifteen scientific publications but have not resulted in any industrial application, and no economic partner is showing an interest now…

[GMO] 미 농무부 연구자들, GMO의 생체 내 RNA 간섭 위험 인정

건강과대안 — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:02:35 +0000

이중가닥(ds) RNA 분자는 일시적으로 그리고 장기적인 과정을 통해 유전자 발현을
규제할 수 있는데… 이중가닥(ds) RNA 매개 유전자 억제(silencing)는 GM 작물 개발의
기본적 기술이기 때문에 GM 작물의 안전성에 문제가 있을 수 있다는 연구 결과들이
나오고 있습니다.

또한 이중가닥(ds) RNA가 생체 내 소화과정에서 파괴되지 않고 이를 섭취한 동물에게
영향을 끼칠 수 있다는 연구결과도 나오고 있습니다.

SUMMARY: USDA researchers confirm Heinemann conclusions on RNA-interference risks

1. RNA-interference pesticides will need special safety testing – press release
2. RNAi-based insecticidal crops: Potential effects on nontarget species – new study

A new peer-reviewed paper in the journal Bioscience draws attention to potential hazards on nontarget species of pesticides and GMOs made with RNA-interference (RNAi) gene-silencing techniques. These hazards could include off-target gene silencing or immune stimulation.

The paper, authored by two employees of the US Dept of Agriculture (USDA)’s Agricultural Research Service, notes that the nature of these new pesticides and GMOs makes the prediction of toxicGN effects “challenging” and suggests the development of a special testing and regulatory framework to assess their safety.

The paper confirms the conclusions of another recently published paper by researchers Jack Heinemann, Sarah Agapito-Tenfen and Judy Carman:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412013000494

The Science Media Centre New Zealand and the GMO “regulator” FSANZ dismissed the Heinemann et al study and claimed no special risks were posed by these RNAi type products (http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2013/05/22/fsanz-defends-stance-on-gene-silencing-experts-respond/). Let’s see how they respond to this new paper. It will be politically difficult for them to dismiss the findings of USDA researchers in such a dishonest way.

1. RNA-interference pesticides will need special safety testing
A new technology for creating pesticides and pest-resistant crops could have effects on beneficial species that current toxicity testing will miss
Press release, American Institute of Biological Sciences, 16 Jul 2013
http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/130716_rna-interference_pesticides_will_need_special_safety_testing.html

Standard toxicity testing is inadequate to assess the safety of a new technology with potential for creating pesticides and genetically modifying crops, according to a Forum article published in the August issue of BioScience. The authors of the article, Jonathan G. Lundgren and Jian J. Duan of the USDA Agricultural Research Service, argue that pesticides and insect-resistant crops based on RNA interference, now in exploratory development, may have to be tested under elaborate procedures that assess effects on animals’ whole life cycles, rather than by methods that look for short-term toxicity.

RNA interference is a natural process that affects the level of activity of genes in animals and plants. Agricultural scientists have, however, successfully devised artificial “interfering RNAs” that target genes in insect pests, slowing their growth or killing them. The hope is that interfering RNAs might be applied to crops, or that crops might be genetically engineered to make interfering RNAs harmful to their pests, thus increasing crop yields.

The safety concern, as with other types of genetic modification and with pesticides generally, is that the artificial interfering RNAs will also harm desirable insects or other animals. And the way interfering RNA works means that simply testing for lethality might not detect important damaging effects. For example, an interfering RNA might have the unintended effect of suppressing the action of a gene needed for reproduction in a beneficial species. Standard laboratory testing would detect no harm, but there could be ecological disruption in fields because of the effects on reproduction.

Lundgren and Duan suggest that researchers investigating the potential of interference RNA pesticides create types that are designed to be unlikely to affect non-target species. They also suggest a research program to evaluate how the chemicals move in real-life situations. If such steps are taken, Lundgren and Duan are optimistic that the “flexibility, adaptability, and demonstrated effectiveness” of RNA interference technology mean it will have “an important place in the future of pest management.”

The article by Lundgren and Duan can be accessed ahead of print as an uncorrected proof athttp://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/resources/Lundgren.pdf

Contact: Tim Beardsley
tbeardsley@aibs.org
703-674-2500 x326
American Institute of Biological Sciences
—
—
2. RNAi-based insecticidal crops: Potential effects on nontarget species
Jonathan G. Lundgren and Jian J. Duan
Bioscience 63, Aug 2013: 657-665
http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/resources/Lundgren.pdf

The potential hazards posed by RNA interference (RNAi)–based pesticides and genetically modified crops to nontarget organisms include off-target gene silencing, silencing the target gene in unintended organisms, immune stimulation, and saturation of the RNAi machinery. Non-target organisms will vary in their exposure to small RNAs produced by genetically modified crops at a previously unrealized scale. Areas that warrant future work include the persistence of insecticidal small RNAs in the environment, describing crop-based food webs to understand those species that are most exposed, sequencing genomes for species to proactively understand those that may be affected by RNAi, and substantiating that laboratory toxicity testing can accurately predict the field-level effects of this technology. The costs and benefits of pesticidal RNA must be considered relative to current pest management options as pesticidal RNAs move from a theoretical approach to being used as a practical tool.

[GMO] 유전자조작 곡물 투여 살충제, 남성 생식능력 떨어뜨려

건강과대안 — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:01:40 +0000

유전자조작 곡물을 재배할 때 패키지로 사용하는 라운드업 제초제 성분이 수컷 쥐의
생식능력을 떨어뜨린다는 연구결과가 최근 발표되었습니다.

Roundup Disrupted Male Reproductive Functions By Triggering Calcium-Mediated Cell Death In Rat Testis And Sertoli Cells.

de Liz Oliveira Cavalli VL, Cattani D, Elise Heinz Rieg C, Pierozan P, Zanatta L, Benedetti Parisotto E, Wilhelm Filho D, Regina Mena Barreto Silva F, Pessoa-Pureur R, Zamoner A.
Free Radic Biol Med. 2013 Jun 29. pii: S0891-5849(13)00326-2. doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2013.06.043. [Epub ahead of print]
Source
Departamento de Bioquímica, Centro de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis-Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Open access: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23820267

Abstract
Glyphosate is the primary active constituent of the commercial pesticide Roundup®. The present results show that acute Roundup® exposure at low doses (36ppm, 0.036g/L) for 30min induces oxidative stress and activates multiple stress-response pathways leading to Sertoli cell death in prepubertal rat testis. The pesticide increased intracellular Ca2+ concentration by opening L-type voltage-dependent Ca2+ channels (L-VDCC) as well as endoplasmic reticulum IP3 and ryanodine receptors, leading to Ca2+ overload within the cells, which set off oxidative stress and necrotic cell death. Similarly, 30min incubation of testis with glyphosate alone (36ppm) also increased 45Ca2+ uptake. These events have been prevented by the antioxidants Trolox® and ascorbic acid. Activated protein kinase C (PKC), phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) and the mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs), such as ERK1/2 and p38MAPK have played a role in eliciting Ca2+ influx and cell death. Roundup® decreased the levels of reduced glutathione (GSH) and increased the amounts of thiobarbituric reactive species (TBARS) and protein carbonyls. Also, exposure to the glyphosate-Roundup® has stimulated the activity of glutathione peroxidase, glutathione reductase, glutathione-S-transferase, gamma-glutamyl transferase (γGT), catalase, superoxide dismutase and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, supporting downregulated GSH levels. Glyphosate has been described as an endocrine disruptor affecting the male reproductive system; however, the molecular basis of its toxicity remains to be clarified. We could propose that Roundup® toxicity, implicating in Ca2+ overload, cell signaling misregulation, stress response of the endoplasmic reticulum and/or depleted antioxidant defenses could contribute to Sertoli cell disruption of spermatogenesis that could impact male fertility.