Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>]

*********** BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE  ***********

On 10/15/2009 at 6:04 AM Ken Hargesheimer <minifarms@gmail.com wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carol B. Vesecky
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Subject: Glyphosate whistle-blower under sustained attack
To: cvesecky@igc.org


 Having trouble viewing this email? Click
here<http://campaign.constantcontact.com/render?v=001ouM5UxPuMtVUGh3baWSEIjMRzzcn6dkvopHrSx44VuVYYmIetezlPk1hvdrq5xN8qfkI4nbJvXRZaxuKkKPEfBzuTkXNA9xows9_BvInKNWGpPZsK8oNa-p6gsL59jZqLR7P0S90_Wij1gP6MAWs3QnL4ioyVzAFricbuxdeQMnT45X_sktW1g%3D%3D





GE News List

04/06/2009





Glyphosate whistle-blower comes under sustained attack
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice20Sept2009.htm

Pusztai 1999 - Carrasco 2009

This is a highly revealing interview (originally in Spanish) with Prof
Andres
Carrasco, who is having to cope with a vicious campaign of vilification in
Argentina, involving Monsanto and its cohorts inside and outside of
government,
as a result of the publication of his findings on glyphosate and embryo
development. He doesn't pull his punches. There are eerie echoes of what
happened in 1999 with Arpad Pusztai. The translation is a bit crude, but
the
key
points are there.

Contact and more info:

http://www.voces-de-alerta.blogspot.com

A group of concerned scientists has circulated a statement of protest on
the
internet and in a very small period of time received more then 600
signatures
from Argentina and also from Mexico, Brazil, the US and Europe supporting
this
stance. Dr Miguel Teubal and Dr Norma Giarracca
"What happens in Argentina is almost a massive experiment" 03 05 09

Two weeks ago in Pagina/12 we reported the devastating effects of the
compound
herbicide Roundup on human embryos. Expecting a reaction, "but not so
violent",
the researcher was threatened, and had to defend himself against a smear
campaign. It was even claimed that his research did not exist. Carrasco
contests
these charges and renews his own charges against the multinational chemical
industry.

By Dario Aranda

Anonymous threats, media smear campaign and political pressure were some of
the
consequences of an investigation into the health effects of the intensive
chemical model of agriculture and, more importantly, this pressure
encouraged
the dissemination of the research findings.

On the second floor of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Buenos
Aires
(UBA) works Andrés Carrasco, professor of embryology, principal
investigator
of
the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET) and
director
of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology. With thirty years of scientific
and
academic work behind him, recently he confirmed the lethal effect of
glyphosate
on embryos. The most famous brand containing glyphosate is Roundup,
produced
by
the multinational Monsanto Company.

Prof Carrasco knew there would be a reaction from the industrial the
sector,
but
had not expected it to be at such a high level. "I did not discover
anything
new, and only confirmed what other scientists discovered," he says, in his
small
airy office. The industry spokesmen spent two weeks on a complex smear
campaign
that has not yet finished. Clearly they preferred the old regime of silence
and
acquiescence to progress on new evidence. They even questioned the
existence
of
Carrasco's research. "They think they can easily destroy thirty years of an
academic career. They are all hypocrites, these troops from the
corporations,
but they are afraid. They know they can not cover the sun with their hands.
There is scientific evidence and, above all, hundreds of people who are
living
proof of a health emergency linked to glyphosate. "

Twenty days ago, this newspaper published its investigation. But three days
later another unexpected fact emerged: the Environmental Lawyers
Association
filed a document before the Supreme Court, which requested the prohibition
of
the use and sale of glyphosate pending an investigation into its effects on
health and the environment. Companies like Monsanto went ballistic and and
began
to issue press releases, alarmed by the possible negative impact on their
profits. Five days later, on Monday 20, the Defense Ministry banned Soybean
planting in their fields, citing the harmful effects of pesticides. This
was
an
unprecedented political event, a national body warning of the evils of
agrochemicals. At that time, businesses, chambers of industry, media
communication operators and politicians declared the highest alert. Never
before
have multinational agribusiness and their spokesmen reacted so violently.
During
a full week they mounted a campaign in defense of the pesticides, and at
the
same time, they sought to discredit their critics. The great fear of the
supporters of Agribusiness is a ban on the most widely used pesticides like
Roundup -- used as the chemical emblem of the current agricultural model.

THE INTERVIEW

Glyphosate toxicity and reactions

- Did you expect a reaction like that? - No. It was a violent reaction, and
excessively dirty. Especially since I had found nothing new, just something
that
confirmed what others had come to by different paths. So I do not
understand
why
business made such a stir. Remember that the origin of this goes back to
the
work with community victims of the use of agrochemicals. They are the
irrefutable proof of what I researched in systematic and model experimental
work
30 years ago, and which confirmed that glyphosate is devastating to
amphibian
embryos. Even at doses far below those used in agriculture it causes many
and
varied deformations.

- The results can be extrapolated to human health? - Vertebrate animal
models
currently used in embryological research have a common gene for mechanical
early
embryonic development and regulation. The results should be considered as
an
extrapolated alteration or external impact. The scientific world knows it,
and
officials from ministries too. So when I found evidence for these things,
two
issues arose -- how to research the effect of a mechanism that alters the
normal
embryo (which is underway); and then how to make the results known to the
world.

- Why did the dissemination of your findings become a problem? - Because
there
are no institutional channels accessible to scientists who who can
undertake
research of this type, with powerful interests lined up against them. So
the
decision to make the findings public was a personal one, because there is
no
national security reason, or jargument in the economic interests of the
corporations, to justify silence when it comes to public health. I must
make
it
clear, when you have a result that is only of interest to a small circle,
delays
are acceptable in tidying up the smallest details, and then publication
reaches
just that small circle. But when you discover facts which may impact on
public
health, you are obliged to give them urgent and massive dissemination.

- Is it a common practice to disseminate a scientific breakthrough before
being
published in a scientific journal? - It is quite common. The country has
institutions that broadcast their everyday scientific progress, that agents
have
to press that spread progress; nobody questions the media and the reply
without
asking. Broadcast progress, without papers and publications is not very
good. Of
course, these distributions of research results generally do not affect the
interests of powerful groups.

- But there is a tension in science on when to release a breakthrough? -
The
tension is whether the disclosure should expect to be "approved" (a process
which takes years). Now, if the research has implications beyond the
academic
sphere, affects society, the moral dilemma is whether I keep quiet until I
have
the last detail, and my libido is satisfied, or whether I turn on the
alert.
I
decided to give the alert, and insist it is nothing new. There are clear
background studies such as those of Belle and Gilles-Eric Seralini, who
have
done studies with other models, and published them. Their studies are more
important than mine. What institutions should do, instead of attacking
people
like me, as is happening from some officials and businesses, is to start
working
to rectify the damage that my research has uncovered.

- Businesses, the media, agribusinesses argue that your study was not a
serious
one? - There are investigations in various parts of the world that have
very
serious implications, such as those just mentioned. Companies and their
journalists dismiss inconvenient employee research, and at the same time
fail to
listen to the waterfall of medical charts from areas affected by glyphosate
poisoning; the provinces are full of victims of pesticides, but the big
corporations do not want to see the day when they will be held responsible.
I do
not understand why my story is more important than that of the Mothers of
Ituzaingó (on the outskirts of Cordova, the emblem of agrochemical
contamination). Doctors in the provinces have been complaining for years,
as
have the peasants and urban slum dwellers. And all is silent. But the
evidence
is incontrovertible reality. I am inspired by this reality and the facts
about
it are known. Agricultural enterprises, the media, and world scientific and
political leaders are basically hypocrites regarding the effects of
pesticides.
It is a simple thing for them to protest and dismiss research, but they
seem
incapable of observing and absorbing the medical evidence and recognizing
the
countless claims from Santiago del Estero, Chaco, Entre Rios, Cordoba and
Santa
Fe.

- What other workers are there? - Belle and Seralini in France. There is
also
work from the Universidad Nacional del Litoral and researchers like
Alejandro
Oliva, Rosario, with the collaboration INTA and Agrarian Federation. There
are
the surveys of the doctors Rodolfo Paramo (Santa Fe) and Dario Gianfelici
(Entre
Rios). Not many studies, but they are serious and available.

- Why does science not study this issue? - Because most of the world does
not
have the huge acreages with soybeans as are found in Argentina. There are
nearly
18 million hectares here. From the ecotoxicological point of view, what
happens
in Argentina is almost a massive experiment.

Corporations and science

- They have attempted to discredit your investigation by saying that the
UBA
and
CONICET are not aware of the work? - The UBA-CONICET and management
agencies
do
not necessarily have to know everything I do or what all their other
researchers
do. It is within our power to define the lines of work, to investigate and
publicize our results. That is the logic of research. So I do not have to
seek
permission to launch an idea or a new issue and they need not know, because
science does not work at the whim of the supervisory bodies of the subjects
we
choose. It is part of academic freedom to make progress on theory, research
and
the development of questions. It also said that Conicet as an institution
did
not support my research. That is probably true, because it was not asked
and
does not endorse the framework of a new idea within the scope of a project.
This
is what happens in hundreds of research projects being conducted. Let me be
clear, Conicet has no responsibility for my research
decisions. They are personal decisions, as appropriate, and they are
non-institutional. And this is within my powers. Neither do I require
institutional approval to develop my research, although we know that some
areas
are more resisted than others!

- There are agreements between government and the mining Conicet Barrick
Gold,
and also Monsanto, with encouragement for them to make research awards. Is
research that might be critical of these sectors less welcome than other
types
of research? - I prefer not to answer.

- You could investigate for Monsanto? - Of course. CONICET and UBA permit
that.
Moreover, many scientists have been working for years for biotechnology
companies under the guise of advisor- consultant for Conicet which allows
them
up to twelve hours a week to provide its research services to the public or
private sector.

- Your research is accused of not being validated in a scientific
publication. -
That's a cheap jibe that only demonstrates an irrational fear of companies.
In
the scientific world you do not obtain validation for your research by
publication in an industry magazine. Moreover, scientists are aware of
mistakes
and even frauds that are published in specialized journals. Many times
something
is published and then it is shown to be wrong. On the other hand, there are
often investigations that are not published -- not because they are bad,
but
because the magazine is not interested either for editorial or "special
interest" reasons. A personal example: in 1984 I discovered genes that were
important for embryonic development, now called Hox genes. I published two
papers in Cell, one of the best magazines in the world. There were those
who
accepted the work, and those who did not. It took years for the scientific
community to validate the findings.

- The laboratory is dependent Conicet Embryology. Your work must be
validated by
the Conicet? - Please be clear, neither the committee nor publisher Conicet
validated my research. What they do is to evaluate the evidence presented
and to
judge from the strength of the data and the argument. They have no way to
verify
the results in practice. The only certainty is the validation that other
researchers can give by repeating experiments systematically and refining
the
results of the investigation.

- When are you going to share your work and bring the discussion to the
scientific community? - In brief. I have to finish some testing and then I
will
be ready. What I love most is to pass my findings along to colleagues, so
that
other researchers can replicate the work. In fact I have already shared
with
my
peers in this country and abroad. Now those studies should be independent,
and
NOT provided by corporations or by their accomplices in the government.

- Monsanto could replicate the work? - If they hire qualified researchers,
yes.
I have no doubt they will, and we all know what results will eventually be
forthcoming!

- How will you continue the investigation? - We have confirmed
malformations
in
embryos. Now we are seeking to discover the mechanisms involved. That is
one
more step. As a scientific worker, I must continue with the degree of
academic
freedom that I have, in trying to see what the causes may be. Mechanistic
and
molecular observations will be made, and I will publish the results. Apart
from
the amphibian, which serves as a model, we want to extend to other
experiments
on models of embryological development, such as birds.

- Can there be a possibility that these new tests, when the results are
published, will not repeat the aberrations you have already discovered? -
No
way. These were controlled experiments, which were rigorous. Furthermore,
there
is other scientific evidence that points in the same direction. Therefore,
I
insist, I have not discovered anything new. I got certain results and
believe in
them. If the scientific community reaches a different conclusion, so be it.
The
core of the problem should not be this research. Who would want to hide the
sun
with his hand? I have simply encouraged more discussion. But there are
sectors
that want to close down and dismiss my research, simply for ideological,
economic convenience.

- You have been accused of using wrong methods in your glyphosate research
--
which would explain your spectacular results. It is claimed that the
glyphosate
concentrations in your experiments would never be matched in the case of
consumption by humans. There was somebody who mentioned that "if we put oil
in a
glass of milk, of course it will cause poisoning", and they claimed that no
fuel
should be prohibited on that basis. - That kind of assertion has several
facets.
On the one hand, it shows biological ignorance, which is understandable for
anyone who is not engaged in this branch of science. But the words that
have
come from the spokesmen of the corporations, also shows a deliberate and
cynical
intention to discredit an experimental design and procedure which is
globally
accepted. So that seems to be both malicious and hypocritical. It is well
known
both in the scientific community and in the agricultural sector, that the
spraying of glyphosate herbicide affects ecosystems,
operating directly or indirectly on insects and other animals when they
come
into contact with the herbicide. So in addition to plant cells, it also
affects
organisms composed of animal cells. Our experiments warn that the cocktail
sold
as "pure" or harmless causes animal cells to generate developmental
abnormalities in the embryo. Therefore glyphosate in the cell alters
embryonic
cell function, as in the plant cells of weeds. Moreover, it is already
proven
that herbicides are moved by wind. In reality, the suffering of families in
camps near field boundaries and neighborhoods close to the spraying is
incontrovertible. Therefore, glyphosate can be crossing respiratory
barriers
and
/ or entering placental and embryonic cells. There are even scientific
advances
in this direction, as there are records of glyphosate and possible
metabolites
in pregnant women. This could be correlated with potential effects
including
malformation. Therefore, if the degrading pure glyphosate which has been
ingested has an effect on the behavior of embryonic cells in animals during
development, it is essential that we examine this in a proper experimental
strategy. I insist that I used a classic strategy of analysis in my
scientific
research.

- Do you think that glyphosate must be banned? - In my work I would not go
that
far. And it is not my responsibility to propose a measure of that type.
That
having been said, based on 30 years of study in the genetic regulation of
embryos, I will say that glyphosate generates changes in development. I am
sure
of that.

- The results do not correspond to the classification or Senasa
recommendations
of the Secretary of Agriculture. - It is a clear problem for them, who
classify
glyphosate as having low toxicity. Everything they say is contrary to what
several studies show. Those confirm the alteration of cellular mechanisms
and,
above all, demonstrate the suffering of families from a dozen provinces.
It's
crazy to think that nothing happens.

Government pressures and need for studies

- Since your work at the Ministry of Defense, your research has been linked
to a
government operation against the employers in this field. - No serious
person
could think that. On the one hand, for anyone with 30 years academic work
that
would risk dismissal. For another, it is a fact that the Government did not
ask
me to do that. They don't wish to prohibit glyphosate, and cannot do it
anyway.
Some of the media invented that conspiracy. In fact I experienced some
pressure
arising from the core of my research. So no one can tell what the
Government
actually wants.

- Which officials put you under pressure? - I would prefer, for the moment,
not
to give names.

- In addition to the staff that moved against you, arguing for agribusiness
(especially in the Ministry of Agriculture), there are senior people linked
to
the biotech sector, and pushing for agrofuels, as a second issue. - Again,
I
will not give names. But the official concentration of effort should be on
obtaining further results, and on forming multidisciplinary teams. The
reasonable and more scientific reaction would have been more humane,
especially
as there is a warning here on an issue related to human health. The logical
reaction following my research should have been to study the difference
between
biodegradability and decomposition, and the different routes of glyphosate
penetration -- and to review the regulations controlling the use and
effects
of
glyphosate on human health in a systematic manner. But if they pander to
business interests, we must make further studies.

Dependent media and intimidation

- Why didn't your study get support from other media and from companies? -
Nearly a week after the publication shadowy players, for example from the
business and media sector, got involved. Then the attacks commenced. The
last
straw was when I appeared in my laboratory to find commercial lawyers
(CASAFE)
demanding to see my research reports and data, and they conducted
interviews
which were very intimidating towards my staff. This was unacceptable
bullying,
but they have no right to access the contents of my laboratory on the
pretext
that they represent the law. I do not discuss my research with private
companies
or lawyers, especially if they are part of the problem. I discuss my
results
with my peers who will judge my professional expertise, in conferences,
meetings, seminars and every day in my laboratory. On the other hand, I
received
intimidating calls, as reported. Therefore, I am careful about who I work
for.
Clearly, Clarín and La Nation, some say, have a vested interest,
and
act as spokesmen for the companies. When my peers examine my work, I will
be
there. As a researcher I will leave it to companies to seek to influence
the
media and temporary government officials.

- You accuse people of working to question the very existence of your
research?
- Well, scientists, Senasa, two deputies and three senators, requested the
work
and immediately accepted it. So have members of the Executive,
environmental
organizations and colleagues from abroad. If other work is required by
reasons
of internal political or business interests, sorry, but it will have to
wait.
Again, my scientific results can not be assessed by political or economic
interests.


- Is it a common practice to disseminate a scientific breakthrough before
being
published in a scientific journal? - It is quite common. The country has
institutions that broadcast their everyday scientific progress, that agents
have
to press that spread progress; nobody questions the media and the reply
without
asking. Broadcast progress, without papers and publications is not very
good. Of
course, these distributions of research results generally do not affect the
interests of powerful groups.

- But there is a tension in science on when to release a breakthrough? -
The
tension is whether the disclosure should expect to be "approved" (a process
which takes years). Now, if the research has implications beyond the
academic
sphere, affects society, the moral dilemma is whether I keep quiet until I
have
the last detail, and my libido is satisfied, or whether I turn on the
alert.
I
decided to give the alert, and insist it is nothing new. There are clear
background studies such as those of Belle and Gilles-Eric Seralini, who
have
done studies with other models, and published them. Their studies are more
important than mine. What institutions should do, instead of attacking
people
like me, as is happening from some officials and businesses, is to start
working
to rectify the damage that my research has uncovered.

- Businesses, the media, agribusinesses argue that your study was not a
serious
one? - There are investigations in various parts of the world that have
very
serious implications, such as those just mentioned. Companies and their
journalists dismiss inconvenient employee research, and at the same time
fail to
listen to the waterfall of medical charts from areas affected by glyphosate
poisoning; the provinces are full of victims of pesticides, but the big
corporations do not want to see the day when they will be held responsible.
I do
not understand why my story is more important than that of the Mothers of
Ituzaingó (on the outskirts of Cordova, the emblem of agrochemical
contamination). Doctors in the provinces have been complaining for years,
as
have the peasants and urban slum dwellers. And all is silent. But the
evidence
is incontrovertible reality. I am inspired by this reality and the facts
about
it are known. Agricultural enterprises, the media, and world scientific and
political leaders are basically hypocrites regarding the effects of
pesticides.
It is a simple thing for them to protest and dismiss research, but they
seem
incapable of observing and absorbing the medical evidence and recognizing
the
countless claims from Santiago del Estero, Chaco, Entre Rios, Cordoba and
Santa
Fe.

- What other workers are there? - Belle and Seralini in France. There is
also
work from the Universidad Nacional del Litoral and researchers like
Alejandro
Oliva, Rosario, with the collaboration INTA and Agrarian Federation. There
are
the surveys of the doctors Rodolfo Paramo (Santa Fe) and Dario Gianfelici
(Entre
Rios). Not many studies, but they are serious and available.

- Why does science not study this issue? - Because most of the world does
not
have the huge acreages with soybeans as are found in Argentina. There are
nearly
18 million hectares here. From the ecotoxicological point of view, what
happens
in Argentina is almost a massive experiment.

Corporations and science

- They have attempted to discredit your investigation by saying that the
UBA
and
CONICET are not aware of the work? - The UBA-CONICET and management
agencies
do
not necessarily have to know everything I do or what all their other
researchers
do. It is within our power to define the lines of work, to investigate and
publicize our results. That is the logic of research. So I do not have to
seek
permission to launch an idea or a new issue and they need not know, because
science does not work at the whim of the supervisory bodies of the subjects
we
choose. It is part of academic freedom to make progress on theory, research
and
the development of questions. It also said that Conicet as an institution
did
not support my research. That is probably true, because it was not asked
and
does not endorse the framework of a new idea within the scope of a project.
This
is what happens in hundreds of research projects being conducted. Let me be
clear, Conicet has no responsibility for my research
decisions. They are personal decisions, as appropriate, and they are
non-institutional. And this is within my powers. Neither do I require
institutional approval to develop my research, although we know that some
areas
are more resisted than others!

- There are agreements between government and the mining Conicet Barrick
Gold,
and also Monsanto, with encouragement for them to make research awards. Is
research that might be critical of these sectors less welcome than other
types
of research? - I prefer not to answer.

- You could investigate for Monsanto? - Of course. CONICET and UBA permit
that.
Moreover, many scientists have been working for years for biotechnology
companies under the guise of advisor- consultant for Conicet which allows
them
up to twelve hours a week to provide its research services to the public or
private sector.

- Your research is accused of not being validated in a scientific
publication. -
That's a cheap jibe that only demonstrates an irrational fear of companies.
In
the scientific world you do not obtain validation for your research by
publication in an industry magazine. Moreover, scientists are aware of
mistakes
and even frauds that are published in specialized journals. Many times
something
is published and then it is shown to be wrong. On the other hand, there are
often investigations that are not published -- not because they are bad,
but
because the magazine is not interested either for editorial or "special
interest" reasons. A personal example: in 1984 I discovered genes that were
important for embryonic development, now called Hox genes. I published two
papers in Cell, one of the best magazines in the world. There were those
who
accepted the work, and those who did not. It took years for the scientific
community to validate the findings.

- The laboratory is dependent Conicet Embryology. Your work must be
validated by
the Conicet? - Please be clear, neither the committee nor publisher Conicet
validated my research. What they do is to evaluate the evidence presented
and to
judge from the strength of the data and the argument. They have no way to
verify
the results in practice. The only certainty is the validation that other
researchers can give by repeating experiments systematically and refining
the
results of the investigation.

- When are you going to share your work and bring the discussion to the
scientific community? - In brief. I have to finish some testing and then I
will
be ready. What I love most is to pass my findings along to colleagues, so
that
other researchers can replicate the work. In fact I have already shared
with
my
peers in this country and abroad. Now those studies should be independent,
and
NOT provided by corporations or by their accomplices in the government.

- Monsanto could replicate the work? - If they hire qualified researchers,
yes.
I have no doubt they will, and we all know what results will eventually be
forthcoming!

- How will you continue the investigation? - We have confirmed
malformations
in
embryos. Now we are seeking to discover the mechanisms involved. That is
one
more step. As a scientific worker, I must continue with the degree of
academic
freedom that I have, in trying to see what the causes may be. Mechanistic
and
molecular observations will be made, and I will publish the results. Apart
from
the amphibian, which serves as a model, we want to extend to other
experiments
on models of embryological development, such as birds.

- Can there be a possibility that these new tests, when the results are
published, will not repeat the aberrations you have already discovered? -
No
way. These were controlled experiments, which were rigorous. Furthermore,
there
is other scientific evidence that points in the same direction. Therefore,
I
insist, I have not discovered anything new. I got certain results and
believe in
them. If the scientific community reaches a different conclusion, so be it.
The
core of the problem should not be this research. Who would want to hide the
sun
with his hand? I have simply encouraged more discussion. But there are
sectors
that want to close down and dismiss my research, simply for ideological,
economic convenience.

- You have been accused of using wrong methods in your glyphosate research
--
which would explain your spectacular results. It is claimed that the
glyphosate
concentrations in your experiments would never be matched in the case of
consumption by humans. There was somebody who mentioned that "if we put oil
in a
glass of milk, of course it will cause poisoning", and they claimed that no
fuel
should be prohibited on that basis. - That kind of assertion has several
facets.
On the one hand, it shows biological ignorance, which is understandable for
anyone who is not engaged in this branch of science. But the words that
have
come from the spokesmen of the corporations, also shows a deliberate and
cynical
intention to discredit an experimental design and procedure which is
globally
accepted. So that seems to be both malicious and hypocritical. It is well
known
both in the scientific community and in the agricultural sector, that the
spraying of glyphosate herbicide affects ecosystems,
operating directly or indirectly on insects and other animals when they
come
into contact with the herbicide. So in addition to plant cells, it also
affects
organisms composed of animal cells. Our experiments warn that the cocktail
sold
as "pure" or harmless causes animal cells to generate developmental
abnormalities in the embryo. Therefore glyphosate in the cell alters
embryonic
cell function, as in the plant cells of weeds. Moreover, it is already
proven
that herbicides are moved by wind. In reality, the suffering of families in
camps near field boundaries and neighborhoods close to the spraying is
incontrovertible. Therefore, glyphosate can be crossing respiratory
barriers
and
/ or entering placental and embryonic cells. There are even scientific
advances
in this direction, as there are records of glyphosate and possible
metabolites
in pregnant women. This could be correlated with potential effects
including
malformation. Therefore, if the degrading pure glyphosate which has been
ingested has an effect on the behavior of embryonic cells in animals during
development, it is essential that we examine this in a proper experimental
strategy. I insist that I used a classic strategy of analysis in my
scientific
research.

- Do you think that glyphosate must be banned? - In my work I would not go
that
far. And it is not my responsibility to propose a measure of that type.
That
having been said, based on 30 years of study in the genetic regulation of
embryos, I will say that glyphosate generates changes in development. I am
sure
of that.

- The results do not correspond to the classification or Senasa
recommendations
of the Secretary of Agriculture. - It is a clear problem for them, who
classify
glyphosate as having low toxicity. Everything they say is contrary to what
several studies show. Those confirm the alteration of cellular mechanisms
and,
above all, demonstrate the suffering of families from a dozen provinces.
It's
crazy to think that nothing happens.

Government pressures and need for studies

- Since your work at the Ministry of Defense, your research has been linked
to a
government operation against the employers in this field. - No serious
person
could think that. On the one hand, for anyone with 30 years academic work
that
would risk dismissal. For another, it is a fact that the Government did not
ask
me to do that. They don't wish to prohibit glyphosate, and cannot do it
anyway.
Some of the media invented that conspiracy. In fact I experienced some
pressure
arising from the core of my research. So no one can tell what the
Government
actually wants.

- Which officials put you under pressure? - I would prefer, for the moment,
not
to give names.

- In addition to the staff that moved against you, arguing for agribusiness
(especially in the Ministry of Agriculture), there are senior people linked
to
the biotech sector, and pushing for agrofuels, as a second issue. - Again,
I
will not give names. But the official concentration of effort should be on
obtaining further results, and on forming multidisciplinary teams. The
reasonable and more scientific reaction would have been more humane,
especially
as there is a warning here on an issue related to human health. The logical
reaction following my research should have been to study the difference
between
biodegradability and decomposition, and the different routes of glyphosate
penetration -- and to review the regulations controlling the use and
effects
of
glyphosate on human health in a systematic manner. But if they pander to
business interests, we must make further studies.

Dependent media and intimidation

- Why didn't your study get support from other media and from companies? -
Nearly a week after the publication shadowy players, for example from the
business and media sector, got involved. Then the attacks commenced. The
last
straw was when I appeared in my laboratory to find commercial lawyers
(CASAFE)
demanding to see my research reports and data, and they conducted
interviews
which were very intimidating towards my staff. This was unacceptable
bullying,
but they have no right to access the contents of my laboratory on the
pretext
that they represent the law. I do not discuss my research with private
companies
or lawyers, especially if they are part of the problem. I discuss my
results
with my peers who will judge my professional expertise, in conferences,
meetings, seminars and every day in my laboratory. On the other hand, I
received
intimidating calls, as reported. Therefore, I am careful about who I work
for.
Clearly, Clarín and La Nation, some say, have a vested interest,
and
act as spokesmen for the companies. When my peers examine my work, I will
be
there. As a researcher I will leave it to companies to seek to influence
the
media and temporary government officials.

- You accuse people of working to question the very existence of your
research?
- Well, scientists, Senasa, two deputies and three senators, requested the
work
and immediately accepted it. So have members of the Executive,
environmental
organizations and colleagues from abroad. If other work is required by
reasons
of internal political or business interests, sorry, but it will have to
wait.
Again, my scientific results can not be assessed by political or economic
interests.




********************************************************************
**************************************************
The GE News List is produced by Thomas Wittman and the
<twittman@aol.com Ecological
Farming Association, and supported by a generous donation from the Newman's
Own
Foundation.<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102764858948&s=1589&e=001kZJ0PK6biGHceOS600bmCTHy5hrgEkfWDvvmCNX4kwHrT1xyTrjIqdXRgdF87eCTZwNsUzGZ9ed9n0cBpUk8AWNmByMrFBp_7rvv4lNDRBg=

*********************************************************************
*************************************************
Forward
email<http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1101719606521&ea=cvesecky%40igc.org&a=1102764858948

<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?v=001_vy7Mr9Zh8ydhc7qYuFf-ejbTTCMCvU9McHuJyrQb7mLXdwTLzWfTQ%3D%3D&p=un
This email was sent to cvesecky@igc.org by
twittman@aol.com.<twittman@aol.com
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal
with<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?v=001_vy7Mr9Zh8ydhc7qYuFf-ejbTTCMCvU9McHuJyrQb7mLXdwTLzWfTQ%3D%3D&p=oo
SafeUnsubscribe
|<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?v=001_vy7Mr9Zh8ydhc7qYuFf-ejbTTCMCvU9McHuJyrQb7mLXdwTLzWfTQ%3D%3D&p=un
Privacy
Policy. <http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp
Email Marketing
by<http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?pn=perceptionmediadesign&cc=TEM_Press_200

<http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?pn=perceptionmediadesign&cc=TEM_Press_200
Ecological Farming Association | 406 Main Street, Suite 313 | Watsonvillle
|
CA | 95076



*********** END FORWARDED MESSAGE  ***********