Clipping of news on Brazilian Culture, Law and Citizenship
25/10/2012
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.
By application dated October 1, 2012 and forwarded to the Minister, Chief of Staff and Chairman of the National Biosafety Council, the Minister - Head of Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, the Sub-Attorney General and Coordinator of the 4th Chamber Coordination and Review of Environment and Heritage Brasileiro, the Chief Executive Officer of the National Health Surveillance Agency - ANVISA, the President of the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources, the President of the National Food and Nutrition Security and President of the National Technical Commission on Biosafety, several civil society organizations and social movements seek a remade the risk assessment of genetically modified maize NK603 and granted the suspension of commercial release of this event, and other piramidados that have this technology in their formulation until the results of independent research confirming their food security and nutrition.
The application is supported by Article 14 of Law 11,105 (Biosafety law) that says CTNBio fit:
XXI - reassess their technical decisions at the request of its members, or by using the organs and entities of registration and inspection, based on new scientific knowledge or facts that are relevant to biosafety of GMOs as or derived, in terms of this Act and its regulations;
Thus, it would be the registration and supervision organs of the MAP, the MMA, the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Fishing forward this request to CTNBio or, alternatively, one or more of its members. In CTNBio was discussed at the meeting in October 2012 (after the first publication of the work online Séralini et al.), The quality of the article of the French group, with an opinion of members and ad hoc conclusions contrary to Article which should be referred to the relevant authorities. It was suggested the possibility to carry out a new risk assessment of the event or events NK603 piramidados containing it.
It is understandable, therefore, that some social organizations have been publicly request that the registration and inspection agencies to ask CTNBio reassessment of the risk event for human and animal health and for the environment. This was done. However, organizations also requested the immediate suspension of the marketing of the event and its piramidados, without making clear to whom this request is directed. Well, she should have been addressed also to CTNBio, as the law clearly indicates. As you did, the request for leaks and other instances compromises the legality of the decision making.
It also understands the urgency in the request, since serious damage to health had been described by the French group, arising from the consumption of transgenic corn by rats. Assuming a scientific paper published in the journal of the international movement of rigid editorial and peer review must be true, no doubt justified, but only in principle, the application and its urgency. And because this caveat? Why accept a job at a magazine is not a serious stamp of quality. And because the experience only becomes fact if confirmed and incorporated into the guideline of scientific thought. In case the article in question, it will never happen, as explained further below. With this, the application loses its raison d'être and must be filed by recipients.
It should be noted that there are several inaccuracies and assertions unsupported by facts in the application entities. One of the most serious is the statement that "like all commercial releases of genetically modified organisms in Brazil, the studies that supported the approval of the planting, sale and consumption of GM were based on surveys conducted in the short term, and unpublished studies prepared by the tendering company. " The claim is doubly false and aims to cast doubt on the quality of the risk assessment made specifically for the event NK603 on the agenda.
First, you must know that, in fact, the proponent company sends all studies required by CTNBio biosecurity and others, made in Brazil and other countries, which may contribute to the risk assessment data. But tmbém must be well aware that CTNBio serves up mainly of abundant information published in international journals and the reports of other government agencies for risk assessment. For opinions favorable to the release of this event, supported by careful risk assessments conducted in many countries, the summary table below the current frame. Of the 15 countries that endorsed the event, 13 did so before Brazil. Therefore, when issuing its own opinion, CTNBio was supported in the analysis of more than a dozen agencies specializing in risk of GMOs, not only on the information of the applicant, as erroneously stated in the application of civil society organizations. This is wholly untrue systematically disseminated by various channels on the internet.
Table I: Countries where the event NK603 was approved, approval dates and proposed use.
Country Planting food or feed Food Ration
South Africa 2002 2002
Argentina 2004 2004
Australia 2002
Brazil 2008 2008
Canada 2001 2001 2001
China 2005
Colombia 2004
Korea 2002 2004
El Salvador 2009
USA 2000 2000
Philippines 2005 2003
Japan 2001 2001 2001
Mexico 2002
Taiwan 2003
European Union 2004 2004
Uruguay 2011 2011
Secondly, we must clarify that the accumulated knowledge about the world's food security EPSPS protein (expressed in NK603 event) is huge, from independent studies conducted by researchers in many countries. Likewise, experiments were made short and long term animal (for long term see Snell et al. 2 012-http :/ / www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399) showing that there was no deleterious effect on the health of rats, mice, rabbits, cows, etc. Much of these studies was available at the time of the decision of CTNBio for commercial release event NK603 in 2008.
Thus, the opinion of CTNBio relied on the best science and the advice of other agencies prior risk assessment of GMOs, and the experimental results submitted by the proponent (with full supporting documentation and, in many cases, on-site inspection by MAP and even by CTNBio).
To read the complete article, click here.
Source: Blog Genpeace
Our news are removed entirely from the sites of our partners. For this reason, we can not change their content even in cases of typos.
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.