Whoo-hoo!
"A genuinely global event challenging the agricultural behemoth Monsanto’s efforts to dominate the world food supply took place, on May 24th, across the globe as millions of anti-GMO ("Genetically-Modified Organism) activists join forces against the biotech giant." (from countercurrents.org)
Fifty-two countries, 47 U.S. states and more than 400 cities marched against Monsanto.
A Personal Note: I've been blogging against this exceptionally revolting U.S. chemical and agribusiness monstrosity ever since I had internet access.
(*Sniffle*)... Warms my (non-existent) heart...
And, it was only last year... That this happened:
Monsanto Named 2013s Most Evil Corporation In New Poll
Showing posts with label biotech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biotech. Show all posts
Monday, May 26, 2014
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
GMOs In The UK: Just Because You've Banned Them, Doesn't Mean They're Staying Out Of Your Food Supply...
Hey! Watch Out! Big, Bad (Bad, Very Bad!) Biotech Is Sneaking Around Behind The Peoples' Backs, Again!
(*Guard Your Food Sources/Safety/Sustainability and Your Natural Resources As If Your Life Depends Upon It... - Because It Does.)
Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer... Oh My!
(cue theme music for "Jaws")
(cue theme music for "Jaws")
British Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary Owen Paterson is a staunch supporter of the GM ("Genetic Modification") sector (1). Despite criticisms of him being an industry puppet (2) and content to ignore the devastating, deleterious health, environmental, social and agricultural impacts of GMOs (3), both he and other officials like the EU’s chief science advisor Anne Glover (4) have been more than happy to act as mouthpieces for the GM sector by making false statements and claims about the benefits and safety of GMOs that fly in the face of scientific findings.
*And, if you think GM-corruption and GM greased-palm crap isn't going on in the U.S.A. and Everywhere...
Well, then, you don't know... Monsanto! (Get off your arse and do some research!)
*Those of us already 'in the know' about GMOs need to Stay Informed, Stay Involved and Stay Active:
Well, then, you don't know... Monsanto! (Get off your arse and do some research!)
*Those of us already 'in the know' about GMOs need to Stay Informed, Stay Involved and Stay Active:
http://www.ucsusa.org/ (Website for: Union of Concerned Scientists)
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
This Gives A Whole, New, Unpleasant Meaning To: "Don't Have a Cow, Man!"
From: The "Eeeewww!!" Files:
Plan to create human-cow embryos
By Fergus Walsh
BBC News, Medical correspondent
UK scientists have applied for permission to create embryos by fusing human DNA with cow eggs.
Researchers from Newcastle University and Kings College, London, have asked the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for a three-year licence.
The hybrid human-bovine embryos would be used for stem cell research and would not be allowed to develop for more than a few days.
But critics say it is unethical and potentially dangerous.
Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris - a member of the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee - said: "If human benefit can be derived by perfecting therapeutic cloning techniques or from research into subsequently-derived stem cells, then it would actually be immoral to prevent it just because of a 'yuck' factor."
Stem cell research is one of the most promising areas of medical science.
You may begin to undermine the whole distinction between humans animals and humans
Calum MacKellar
Why create chimeras?
Stem cells are the body's master cells and five-day-old embryos are packed with them - each with the potential to turn into any tissue in the body.
It is this ability which scientists want to harness to treat diseases such as Parkinson's Disease, strokes and Alzheimer's Disease.
To do that, they say they need to have access to thousands of embryos for research.
Short supply
The problem is that human eggs for research are in short supply and to obtain them women have to undergo surgery.
That is why scientists want to use cows' eggs as a substitute.
They would insert human DNA into a cow's egg which has had its genetic material removed, and then create an embryo by the same technique that produced Dolly the Sheep.
The resulting embryo would be 99.9% human; the only bovine element would be DNA outside the nucleus of the cell.
It would, though, technically be a chimera - a mixing of two distinct species into one.
The aim would be to extract stem cells from the embryo when it is six days old, before destroying it.
The quality and the viability of stem cells would then be checked to see if the technique had worked.
The scientists also plan to examine the way the cells are reprogrammed after fusion to see if there are useful processes they could replicate in the laboratory.
Lead researcher Dr Lyle Armstrong said: "If we can learn from the egg cell how to make embryonic stem cells without having to use an animal egg at all then some day we may be able to cure diseases such as Parkinson's disease, or better still some of the age-related diseases which are creating such a burden on society."
Dr Stephen Minger, from King's College London, said: "The current state of the technology is such that literally hundreds of human ooctyes (eggs) from young women will be required to generate a single human embryonic stem cell line.
"Therefore we consider it more appropriate to use non-human oocytes from livestock as a surrogate.
"We feel that the development of disease-specific human embryonic stem cell lines from individuals suffering from genetic forms of neurodegenerative disorders will stimulate both basic research and the development of new medicines to treat these horrific brain diseases."
'Undermining humanity'
Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, head of developmental genetics, National Institute for Medical Research, said: "This is a very rational step: to learn what you can using animal eggs, which are readily obtainable, before moving on to valuable human eggs when or if this becomes necessary."
What are diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's if they are not undermining human dignity?
Paul Kemp, Munich
But some will argue the end does not justify the means.
Calum MacKellar, from the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, said the research undermined the distinction between animals and humans.
He said: "In the history of humankind, animals and human species have been separated.
"In this kind of procedure, you are mixing at a very intimate level animal eggs and human chromosomes, and you may begin to undermine the whole distinction between humans and animals.
"If that happens, it might also undermine human dignity and human rights."
*************************************************************************
.... Frell! What about animal rights?!
... Oh, that's right, since most of them are incapable of saying, "Hey! Stop! Don't do that! 'Golden Rule', fellas"... in English, anyway... and since they have yet to overpower the homo-sapiens... I guess it's the 'Oh well, let's pick on the weaker, more vulnerable and mute creatures, because we can' philosophy...
Although, I hear that even rabbits scream during some procedures done to them in "tests".
From: The "Eeeewww!!" Files:
Plan to create human-cow embryos
By Fergus Walsh
BBC News, Medical correspondent
UK scientists have applied for permission to create embryos by fusing human DNA with cow eggs.
Researchers from Newcastle University and Kings College, London, have asked the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for a three-year licence.
The hybrid human-bovine embryos would be used for stem cell research and would not be allowed to develop for more than a few days.
But critics say it is unethical and potentially dangerous.
Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris - a member of the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee - said: "If human benefit can be derived by perfecting therapeutic cloning techniques or from research into subsequently-derived stem cells, then it would actually be immoral to prevent it just because of a 'yuck' factor."
Stem cell research is one of the most promising areas of medical science.
You may begin to undermine the whole distinction between humans animals and humans
Calum MacKellar
Why create chimeras?
Stem cells are the body's master cells and five-day-old embryos are packed with them - each with the potential to turn into any tissue in the body.
It is this ability which scientists want to harness to treat diseases such as Parkinson's Disease, strokes and Alzheimer's Disease.
To do that, they say they need to have access to thousands of embryos for research.
Short supply
The problem is that human eggs for research are in short supply and to obtain them women have to undergo surgery.
That is why scientists want to use cows' eggs as a substitute.
They would insert human DNA into a cow's egg which has had its genetic material removed, and then create an embryo by the same technique that produced Dolly the Sheep.
The resulting embryo would be 99.9% human; the only bovine element would be DNA outside the nucleus of the cell.
It would, though, technically be a chimera - a mixing of two distinct species into one.
The aim would be to extract stem cells from the embryo when it is six days old, before destroying it.
The quality and the viability of stem cells would then be checked to see if the technique had worked.
The scientists also plan to examine the way the cells are reprogrammed after fusion to see if there are useful processes they could replicate in the laboratory.
Lead researcher Dr Lyle Armstrong said: "If we can learn from the egg cell how to make embryonic stem cells without having to use an animal egg at all then some day we may be able to cure diseases such as Parkinson's disease, or better still some of the age-related diseases which are creating such a burden on society."
Dr Stephen Minger, from King's College London, said: "The current state of the technology is such that literally hundreds of human ooctyes (eggs) from young women will be required to generate a single human embryonic stem cell line.
"Therefore we consider it more appropriate to use non-human oocytes from livestock as a surrogate.
"We feel that the development of disease-specific human embryonic stem cell lines from individuals suffering from genetic forms of neurodegenerative disorders will stimulate both basic research and the development of new medicines to treat these horrific brain diseases."
'Undermining humanity'
Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, head of developmental genetics, National Institute for Medical Research, said: "This is a very rational step: to learn what you can using animal eggs, which are readily obtainable, before moving on to valuable human eggs when or if this becomes necessary."
What are diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's if they are not undermining human dignity?
Paul Kemp, Munich
But some will argue the end does not justify the means.
Calum MacKellar, from the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, said the research undermined the distinction between animals and humans.
He said: "In the history of humankind, animals and human species have been separated.
"In this kind of procedure, you are mixing at a very intimate level animal eggs and human chromosomes, and you may begin to undermine the whole distinction between humans and animals.
"If that happens, it might also undermine human dignity and human rights."
*************************************************************************
.... Frell! What about animal rights?!
... Oh, that's right, since most of them are incapable of saying, "Hey! Stop! Don't do that! 'Golden Rule', fellas"... in English, anyway... and since they have yet to overpower the homo-sapiens... I guess it's the 'Oh well, let's pick on the weaker, more vulnerable and mute creatures, because we can' philosophy...
Although, I hear that even rabbits scream during some procedures done to them in "tests".
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
WMD, Bio Weapons Found!!!...At Lawrence Livermore Labs!!!
From CBS:
Biodefense Lab Fight Heads To Court
SAN FRANCISCO, June 13, 2006(AP)
To the Bush administration, a biodefense lab designed to test lethal agents including HIV, plague and anthrax is "vital to national security."
But area residents have visions of a biodisaster and warn an accident could kill thousands.
Years of legal wrangling were to culminate Tuesday when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments about whether the Department of Homeland Security should be permitted to open the lab at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, about 50 miles east of San Francisco.
The new facility would test some of the deadliest toxins known to man in simulations of terrorist attacks. Construction is complete, and the facility is set to open by August, said John Belluardo, spokesman for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.
Its actual mission is a matter of some dispute.
Opponents, citing government documents, said in court filings it would "aerosolize" the bioagents "in order to speed the efficiency by which they could kill and spread disease." And if the agents escaped into the air, it could be catastrophic, killing hundreds or thousands, they say."If these bioagents are released into the environment in significant quantities, they could cause massive human mortality within the densely populated San Francisco Bay Area," the opponents wrote in their court brief. That scenario was "never modeled nor considered" by the Bush administration in its safety assessments, the opponents say.
The lab sits in a region under which several faults lurk, and the lawsuit warns an earthquake could trigger the release of potentially deadly agents in the densely populated East Bay region near San Francisco. Some 7 million people live in the broader bay area.
Spokesmen for the government and Lawrence Livermore don't dispute the lab would produce airborne pathogens. But they firmly deny that advancing biological weapons is the facility's aim, pointing out the United States signed the 1975 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, a treaty that banned the development, production and stockpiling of bioweapons.
Also, they say the Department of Energy's environmental assessment found no serious risk of an accident.The facility "will significantly improve the nation's ability to detect and respond to the threat of terrorism using biological agents," the Department of Energy said in its court brief.
A court order blocking it "would directly and adversely impact the "national security"," the administration said. The facility would test the agents, which could also include hantavirus, influenza, hepatitis, Q fever, brucellis, herpes and salmonella, among others, on live animals.
Two groups representing area residents and other project opponents, Tri-Valley CARES and Nuclear Watch New Mexico, asked a federal court to block the project in 2003. Their lawsuit argued the Energy Department failed to follow the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act by moving ahead without a full environmental impact review.The lawsuit also argued that the Energy Department, which began research on the site before the Department of Homeland Security took it over, failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act by failing to turn over certain documents to the groups.
A federal district court judge sided with the Bush administration in 2004, saying the administration had not violated the two federal laws.
The project's foes appealed, saying the lower court had improperly excluded critical evidence and wrongly interpreted the National Environmental Policy Act.
(If you aren't f'g angry.....you aren't f'g paying attention!-L)
From CBS:
Biodefense Lab Fight Heads To Court
SAN FRANCISCO, June 13, 2006(AP)
To the Bush administration, a biodefense lab designed to test lethal agents including HIV, plague and anthrax is "vital to national security."
But area residents have visions of a biodisaster and warn an accident could kill thousands.
Years of legal wrangling were to culminate Tuesday when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments about whether the Department of Homeland Security should be permitted to open the lab at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, about 50 miles east of San Francisco.
The new facility would test some of the deadliest toxins known to man in simulations of terrorist attacks. Construction is complete, and the facility is set to open by August, said John Belluardo, spokesman for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.
Its actual mission is a matter of some dispute.
Opponents, citing government documents, said in court filings it would "aerosolize" the bioagents "in order to speed the efficiency by which they could kill and spread disease." And if the agents escaped into the air, it could be catastrophic, killing hundreds or thousands, they say."If these bioagents are released into the environment in significant quantities, they could cause massive human mortality within the densely populated San Francisco Bay Area," the opponents wrote in their court brief. That scenario was "never modeled nor considered" by the Bush administration in its safety assessments, the opponents say.
The lab sits in a region under which several faults lurk, and the lawsuit warns an earthquake could trigger the release of potentially deadly agents in the densely populated East Bay region near San Francisco. Some 7 million people live in the broader bay area.
Spokesmen for the government and Lawrence Livermore don't dispute the lab would produce airborne pathogens. But they firmly deny that advancing biological weapons is the facility's aim, pointing out the United States signed the 1975 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, a treaty that banned the development, production and stockpiling of bioweapons.
Also, they say the Department of Energy's environmental assessment found no serious risk of an accident.The facility "will significantly improve the nation's ability to detect and respond to the threat of terrorism using biological agents," the Department of Energy said in its court brief.
A court order blocking it "would directly and adversely impact the "national security"," the administration said. The facility would test the agents, which could also include hantavirus, influenza, hepatitis, Q fever, brucellis, herpes and salmonella, among others, on live animals.
Two groups representing area residents and other project opponents, Tri-Valley CARES and Nuclear Watch New Mexico, asked a federal court to block the project in 2003. Their lawsuit argued the Energy Department failed to follow the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act by moving ahead without a full environmental impact review.The lawsuit also argued that the Energy Department, which began research on the site before the Department of Homeland Security took it over, failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act by failing to turn over certain documents to the groups.
A federal district court judge sided with the Bush administration in 2004, saying the administration had not violated the two federal laws.
The project's foes appealed, saying the lower court had improperly excluded critical evidence and wrongly interpreted the National Environmental Policy Act.
(If you aren't f'g angry.....you aren't f'g paying attention!-L)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)