Neanderthals Self-Medicated?

A cave in northern Spain that previously yielded evidence of Neanderthals as brain-eating cannibals now suggests the prehistoric humans ate their greens and used herbal remedies.

A new study of skeletal remains from El Sidrón cave site in Asturias (map) detected chemical and food traces on the teeth of five Neanderthals. (Take a Neanderthal quiz in National Geographic magazine.)

Tartar samples from the 50,000-year-old teeth revealed microscopic plant starch granules, which had cracks indicating the plants had been roasted first. Further chemical analysis revealed compounds associated with wood smoke.

Starch and carbohydrates in the tartar show the Neanderthals ate a variety of plants, but there were surprisingly few traces of meat-associated proteins or lipids.

Not only did our extinct cousins prefer grilling vegetables to steaks, they were also dosing themselves with medicinal plants, according to a team led by Karen Hardy, an archaeologist at the Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies in Barcelona.

The cave dwellers' diet was found to include yarrow and chamomile, both bitter-tasting plants with little nutritional value. Earlier research by the same team had shown that the Neanderthals in El Sidrón had a gene for tasting bitter substances.

"We know that Neanderthals would find these plants bitter, so it is likely these plants must have been selected for reasons other than taste"—probably medication, Hardy said in a statement.

"It fits in well with the behavioral pattern of self-medication by today's higher primates, and indeed many other animals."

(See "Chimps Eat Dirt, Leaves to Fend Off Malaria.")

It's impossible to know what cures Neanderthals sought from the plants, but people use them today to treat a variety of ailments, she noted.

"Chamomile is very well known as a herbal treatment for nerves and stress, and for digestive disorders," while yarrow is used to treat colds and fevers and works as an antiseptic, she said.

Veggie-Loving Neanderthals

The research adds to recent findings that question the Neanderthals' reputation as inflexible carnivores—previously cited as a reason why modern humans, able to draw on a wider variety of food sources, gained a competitive edge over their heavy-browed cousins.

"Our results do add to the growing picture of plant consumption by Neanderthals," said Hardy, who worked with archaeological chemistStephen Buckley of the University of York.

(See "Neanderthals Ate Their Veggies, Tooth Study Shows.")

And she sees no reason to view this Spanish population as a veggie-loving anomaly.

"I do not see why they should be unusual," Hardy said.

"It will be very interesting, though, to conduct this type of study on Neanderthal populations living in different environments."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120720-neanderthals-herbs-humans-medicine-science/

Kenyan Government wants GM foods banned?

The Cabinet held a meeting today in which it approved several pieces of legislations for consideration and enactment by Parliament.

The meeting chaired by President Mwai Kibaki directed Public Health Minister to ban the importation of Genetically Modified foods (GMOs) until such a time that the country will certify that they have no negative impact on the health of the people

The Cabinet in a statement issued by PPS noted that there is no sufficient information about on the dangers of such foods and ordered that the ban will stay until when there is sufficient information, data and knowledge indicating that they are not dangerous to the public health.

Tanzania: State Not Ready for GMOs - Minister
All Africa, 7 November 2012
http://allafrica.com/stories/201211070167.html

THE government has said that it is not ready to adopt Genetic Modified Foods and Organisms (GMO) technology as the National Assembly on Monday evening passed the Bill proposing for the establishment of "The Plant Breeders' Rights Act, 2012".

The Bill was endorsed amid heated debate by Members of the Parliament who expressed concern that it would open doors for multinational companies to come in the country and develop genetically modified seeds and in the process undermine traditional ones.

Minister for Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives, Mr Christopher Chizza said that the Bill aimed at replacing another law enacted by Parliament in 2002, The Protection of New Plant Varieties (Plant Breeders' Rights) Act, 2002. He said that the 2002 law does not attract researchers to research on seeds and that the new law would increase morale by introducing royalty and copyrights.

Mr Chizza said while tabling the Bill in the House for the second time that the government had no intention to open doors for GMOs but it was a move aimed at looking for quality and high yield seeds. "For a GMO to be introduced in the country there are strict liabilities attached under the Environmental Management Act, 2004, therefore there is no need to panic because we are all patriotic and we would not like to put the future of our country in doubt," he said.

He added that the government has its experts at Mikocheni area in Dar es Salaam who are conducting research on GMOs and that the experts have been cautioned not to make any dubious recommendations because of the sensitivity of the matter. "The government is committed in preserving local seeds and we will not let them be replaced by foreign seeds," he said.

He said that the Bill was a move by the government to adhere to the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) ratified by parliament in 2010. "The law is not a result of external forces but it is aimed at protecting the rights of researchers on new varieties of seeds," he said.

Earlier, legislators hailed the government for coming up with the Bill saying it would increase availability of seeds and motivate researchers. The MPs also said that the law would help in realizing real objectives of government's policy of Kilimo Kwanza (Agriculture First) which has been hindered by inadequate quality seeds.

Prof Peter Msola (Kilolo-CCM) said that the law has come at an opportune time as seeds production in the country remain poor at almost 25 per cent of the demand, making the country dependent on seeds from abroad. "Through the implementation of this law we will be able to improve technologically but the government should also fulfil its promise of putting aside one per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for research purposes," he said.

He said that since the promise of putting aside that amount was made, the government has not been able to fulfil it, saying there was a need to improve in the future. Mr Salim Hemed Hamis (Chambani-CUF) said that the Bill would improve agriculture by introducing modern seeds. He said that the maximum demand of seeds in the country was at 120,000 tons per annum and 60,000 tons on average but the country's capacity on the same is at around 28,000 tons.

Mr Suleiman Jafo (Kisarawe-CCM) said that researchers in the country were being demoralized by the fact that their work in discovering better seeds is never honoured. "Having this law in place will boost morale among our researchers and make them work hard than ever before as they are sure of getting royalty from their work and copyrights for their innovations," he said.

He emphasized on the need for the government to live up to its promises by setting aside one per cent of the country's GDP for research. "Nothing will be discovered without researches and there cannot be researches without funds, therefore the need to put aside enough money for that purpose is vital," he said. Mr Jafo also called for improved research institutions in terms of working environment and ensure that mentors therein are motivated enough to play their role accordingly.

http://www.citizennews.co.ke/news/2012/local/item/5515-cabinet-wants-gmos-foods-banned

Millions of GMO Mosquitoes Released Without Risk Assessment or Oversight

Look out people of planet earth, genetically engineered bugs are here. Just in case you haven’t figured it out yet, our technocracy is working ever diligently on genetically engineering every last living cell on the planet – WITHOUT EXCEPTION. What does this mean for life here on earth? Ever hear the expression “soup sandwich?” Well, after these “scientific” geniuses are through with us, that is exactly what all life will be – a genetic soup sandwich, made in a lab, and stamped with a corporate logo embedded in our DNA. If the following report from Testbiotech doesn’t send chills up your spine, I don’t know what will. Get ready world, because nothing will ever be the same. Ever. There is no remediation technique available to clean up genetically engineered mutations released into the wild and spread through horizontal gene transfer. Barb Regulatory decisions on releasing genetically modified (GM) insects biased by corporate interests Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK said “The public will be shocked to learn that GM insects can be released into the environment without any proper oversight. Conflicts-of-interest should be removed from all decision-making processes to ensure the public have a proper say about these plans.” London/ Munich Thursday 8th November 2012 A briefing published today by public interest groups highlights how regulatory decisions on GM insects in Europe and around the world are being biased by corporate interests. The briefing shows how UK biotech company Oxitec has infiltrated decision-making processes around the world. The company has close links to the multinational pesticide and seed company, Syngenta. Oxitec has already made large-scale open releases of GM mosquitoes in the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Brazil and is developing GM agricultural pests, jointly with Syngenta. Plans to commercialise GM insects would result in many millions of GM insects being released in fields of crops, including olives, tomatoes, citrus fruits, cabbages and cotton. In future, any insect species might be genetically modified. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is highlighted as one of several examples showing how industry organises its influence. In EFSA´s GM insects working group, which was established to develop guidance for risk assessment of genetically engineered insects, there are several cases of conflicts of interest, including experts with links to Oxitec who only partially declared their interests. The draft Guidance on risk assessment of GM insects shows some significant deficiencies: for example it does not consider the impacts of GM insects on the food chain. Oxitec’s GM insects are genetically engineered to die mostly at the larval stage so dead GM larvae will enter the food chain inside food crops such as olives, cabbages and tomatoes. Living GM insects could also be transported on crops to other farms or different countries. EFSA has excluded any consideration of these important issues from its draft guidance. Many other issues are not properly addressed. The briefing also highlights problems with a World Health Organisation (WHO)-funded project which has allowed the company to bypass requirements for informed consent for the release of GM mosquitoes. The WHO-funded Mosqguide project, which was supposed to be developing best practice, also allowed the company to gain approval from Brazilian regulators to release 16 million GM mosquitoes before draft regulations on the release of GM insects had been finalised or adopted, without publishing a risk assessment. Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK said “The public will be shocked to learn that GM insects can be released into the environment without any proper oversight. Conflicts-of-interest should be removed from all decision-making processes to ensure the public have a proper say about these plans.” Christoph Then, Executive Director, Testbiotech, said: “Risk assessment of genetically engineered animals touches many areas where there is lack of knowledge. We are concerned that EFSA will apply a biased and selective protocol to safety without really sorting out potential hazards.” François Meienberg, Berne Declaration, said: “Companies such as Syngenta and Oxitec have to learn that negative impacts on the environment or health can arise from their lobbying activities. To act responsibly they have to change their lobbying behaviour immediately.” Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), said: “Experts on EFSA’s working groups should not be allowed to have any conflict of interests with industry, let alone ties with companies producing the very product they are assessing – in this case GM insects. This clearly shows that EFSA’s rules to deal with conflicts of interest still have major gaps.” Tina Goethe, SwissAid, said: “The development of GM-insects for agriculture implies unforeseeable risks for human health and environment. In order to meet the challenges of small scale agriculture in poor countries, we do not need expensive and high risk technologies, but agro-ecological solutions.” The briefing highlights multiple attempts by Oxitec to influence regulation around the world, which have included: Attempts to define ‘biological containment’ of the insects (which are programmed to die at the larval stage) as contained use, by-passing requirements for risk assessments and consultation on decisions to release GM insects into the environment; Attempts to avoid any regulation of GM agricultural pests on crops which will end up in the food chain; Avoidance of any discussion of how GM insects can be contained at a site, or products produced using GM insects can be labelled; Exclusion of many important issues from risk assessments, including impacts of surviving GM mosquitoes on the environment and health, and impacts of changing mosquito populations on human immunity and disease; Failure to follow transboundary notification processes for exports of GM insects correctly; Undermining the requirement to obtain informed consent for experiments involving insect species which transmit disease; Attempts to avoid liability for any harm if anything goes wrong; Pushing ahead with large-scale open releases of GM mosquitoes before relevant guidance or regulations are adopted.

Read more.. http://farmwars.info/?p=9457

Fracking and a Radioactive Silvery-White Monster: Radium Must be Left in the Earth

Fracking for gas not only uses toxic chemicals that can contaminate drinking and groundwater -- it also releases substantial quantities of radioactive poison from the ground that will remain hot and deadly for thousands of years.

Issuing a report yesterday exposing major radioactive impacts of hydraulic fracturing known as fracking -- was Grassroots Environmental Education, an organization in New York, where extensive fracking is proposed.

The Marcellus Shale region which covers much of upstate New York is seen as loaded with gas that can be released through the fracking process. It involves injecting fluid and chemicals under high pressure to fracture shale formations and release the gas captured in them.

But also released, notes the report, is radioactive material in the shale including Radium-226 with a half-life of 1,600 years. A half-life is how long it takes for a radioactive substance to lose half its radiation. It is multiplied by between 10 and 20 to determine the “hazardous lifetime” of a radioactive material, how long it takes for it to lose its radioactivity. Thus Radium-226 remains radioactive for between 16,000 and 32,000 years.

“Horizontal hydrofracking for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale region of New York State has the potential to result in the production of large amounts of waste materials containing Radium-226 and Radium-228 in both solid and liquid mediums,” states the report by E. Ivan White. For 30 years he was a staff scientist for the Congressionally-chartered National Council on Radiation Protection.

“Importantly, the type of radioactive material found in the Marcellus Shale and brought to the surface by horizontal hydrofracking is the type that is particularly long-lived, and could easily bio-accumulate over time and deliver a dangerous radiation dose to potentially millions of people long after the drilling is over,” the report goes on.

“Radioactivity in the environment, especially the presence of the known carcinogen radium, poses a potentially significant threat to human health,” it says. “Therefore, any activity that has the potential to increase that exposure must be carefully analyzed prior to its commencement so that the risks can be fully understood.”

The report lays out “potential pathways of the radiation” through the air, water and soil. Through soil it would get into crops and animals eaten by people.

Examined in the report are a 1999 study done by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation “assisted by representatives from 16 oil and gas companies” on hydrofracking and radioactivity and a 2011 Environmental Impact Statement the agency did on the issue. It says both present a “cavalier attitude toward human exposure to radioactive material.”

Radium causes cancer in people largely because it is treated as calcium by the body and becomes deposited in bones. It can mutate bones cells causing cancer and also impact on bone marrow. It can cause aplastic anemia an inability of bone marrow to produce sufficient new cells to replenish blood cells. Marie Curie, who discovered radium in 1893 and felt comfortable physically handling it, died of aplastic anemia.

Once radium was used in self-luminous paint for watch dials and even as an additive in products such as toothpaste and hair creams for purported “curative powers.”

There are “no specific treatments for radium poisoning,” advises the Delaware Health and Social Services Division of Public Health in its information sheet on radium. When first discovered, “no one knew that it was dangerous,” it mentions.

White’s report, entitled “Consideration of Radiation in Hazardous Waste Produced from Horizontal Hydrofracking,” notes that “radioactive materials and chemical wastes do not just go away when they are released into the environment. They remain active and potentially lethal, and can show up years later in unexpected places. They bio-accumulate in the food chain, eventually reaching humans.”

Under the fracking plan for New York State, “there are insufficient precautions for monitoring potential pathways or to even know what is being released into the environment,” it states.

The Department of Environmental Conservation “has not proposed sufficient regulations for tracking radioactive waste from horizontal hydrofracking,” it says. “Neither New York State nor the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would permit a nuclear power plant to handle radioactive material in this manner.”

Doug Wood, associate director of Grassroots Environmental Education, which is based in Port Washington, New York, and also editor of the report, commented as it was issued: “Once radioactive material comes out of the ground along with the gas, the problem is what to do with it. The radioactivity lasts for thousands of years, and it is virtually impossible to eliminate or mitigate. Sooner or later, it’s going to end up in our environment and eventually our food chain. It’s a problem with no good solution - and the DEC is unequipped to handle it.”

As for “various disposal methods…contemplated” by the agency “for the thousands of tons of radioactive waste expected to be produced by fracking,” Wood said that “none…adequately protect New Yorkers from eventual exposure to this radioactive material. Spread it on the ground and it will become airborne with dust or wash off into surface waters; dilute it before discharge into rivers and it will raise radiation levels in those rivers for everyone downstream; bury it underground and it will eventually find its way into someone’s drinking water. No matter how hard you try, you can’t put the radioactive genie back into the bottle.”

Furthermore, said Wood in an interview, in releasing radioactive radium from the ground, “a terrible burden would be placed on everybody that comes after us. As a moral issue, we must not burden future generations with this. We must say no to fracking -- and implement the use of sustainable forms of energy that don’t kill.”

The prospects of unleashing, through fracking, radium, a silvery-white metal, has a parallel in the mining of uranium on the Navajo Nation.

The mining began on the Navajo Nation, which encompasses parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, during World War II as the Manhattan Project, the American crash program to build atomic weapons, sought uranium to fuel them. The Navajos weren’t told that mining the uranium, yellow in color, could lead to lung cancer. And lung cancer became epidemic among the miners and then spread across the Navajo Nation from piles of contaminated uranium tailings and other remnants of the mining.

The Navajos gave the uranium a name: Leetso or yellow monster.

Left in the ground, it would do no harm. But taken from the earth, it has caused disease. That is why the Navajo Nation outlawed uranium mining in 2005. “This legislation just chopped the legs off the uranium monster,” said Norman Brown, a Navajo leader.

Similarly, radium, a silvery-white monster, must be left in the earth, not unleashed, with fracking, to inflict disease on people today and many, many generations into the future.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/presidential-elections-powerful-special-interest-groups-won-again/5310972

Climate change, not the national debt, is the legacy we should care about

Imagine if in response to Japan attacking Pearl Harbor in December of 1941, our political leaders had debated the best way to deal with the deficits from war spending projected for 1960. This is pretty much the way in which Washington works these days.

The political leadership, including the Washington press corps and punditry, were already intently ignoring the economic downturn that is still wreaking havoc on the lives of tens of millions of people across the country. Now, in the wake of the destruction from Hurricane Sandy, they will intensify their efforts to ignore global warming. After all, they want the country to focus on the debt – an issue that no one other than the elites views as a problem.

The reality, of course, is straightforward. The large deficits of recent years are due to the economic downturn caused by the collapse of the housing bubble. If the economy were back near its pre-recession level of unemployment, then the deficits would be close to 1% of GDP, a level that could be sustained indefinitely.

But the deficit scare-mongers are not interested in numbers and economics; they want to gut key government programs – most importantly, social security and Medicare. That is why they are pushing the fear stories about the debt and deficit. This is the rationale for the Campaign to "Fix" the Debt, a collection of 80 CEOs ostensibly focused on getting the budget in order.

What is perhaps most infuriating about this crew is the claim that their efforts are somehow designed to benefit our children and grandchildren. This is bizarre for a number of reasons. First, while they do want to cut social security and Medicare for current retirees and those expecting to benefit from these programs in the near future, the biggest cuts in their plans will hit today's young.

In effect, they are promising to "save" these programs for young workers by destroying them. Under most of the proposals designed to "fix" these programs, social security will provide a sharply-reduced benefit for retirees in 40 to 50 years' time, compared to the currently scheduled level. And Medicare will by no means ensure most seniors' access to decent healthcare.

However, what's even more bizarre regarding their generational equity logic is the idea that, somehow, the well-being of future generations can be measured in any way by the size of the government debt. This point should have been pounded home to even the thickest deficit hawk by Hurricane Sandy. What we do or don't do in the next decade will have a huge impact on the climate conditions that our children and grandchildren experience. Imagine that we listen to our Campaign to Fix the Debt friends and find a way to pay down the debt while neglecting any steps to curb global warming.

We'll be able to tell our children and grandchildren that they don't have to pay interest on government bonds (they also won't be receiving interest on government bonds, but let's not complicate matters with logic), even as they evacuate their homes ahead of flood waters. Undoubtedly, they will be very thankful for this great benefit that we will have bestowed on them, courtesy of the public-minded CEOs of the Campaign to Fix the Debt.

In reality, the campaigners are spewing utter nonsense when they imply that the well-being of future generations will be in any way determined by the size of the government debt that we pass on to them. We hand down to future generations a whole society and a planet that will be damaged to varying degrees, depending on our current actions. Neglecting the steps necessary to fix the planet out of a desire to reduce the deficit is incredibly irresponsible if we care about future generations.

Of course, global warming is far from the only non-budgetary cost that we are imposing on future generations. When we fill our jails with young people, many of whom will spend much of their lives in the criminal justice system, we are imposing large costs on future generations. We just are not honest enough to enter them in the budget books. The same is true when we make enemies internationally with aggressive military actions that could lead to enduring hostility.

There are also even simpler cases of dishonest accounting: if the government imposed a $250bn annual tax on prescription drugs (roughly $3tn over the ten-year budgetary horizon), everyone would understand this as a large burden on consumers. However, when the government grants patent monopolies on prescription drugs that allow drug companies to charge $250bn more than the free-market price, no one enters this additional cost on the ledgers.

The Campaign to Fix the Debt types like to pretend such costs don't exist. They just want us to shut up and gut social security and Medicare. But the public is not likely to be as stupid as they want us to be.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/08/climate-change-national-debt-legacy

GM crops should go back to the lab

Some weeks ago, I was addressing students of molecular biology at the Kerala Agricultural University campus in Thiruvananthapuram. During the question-answer session, I asked how many of them would like to take up agricultural biotechnology as a career. To my surprise, only a couple of hands went up.

The answer I got probably points to the future of agricultural biotechnology in India. Most students wanted to go into animal biotechnology and human genetics, but not into crop biotechnology. The reason they gave was that they did not see a future for crop biotechnology, given the social backlash against it. Well, I am aware that this class is not an exact representation of the national mood among students, but surely it tells us a lot about the way society, more importantly the younger generation, perceives genetic engineering.

So, when the Supreme Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee (TEC) recommended a 10-year moratorium on all field trials of GM food crops, I was not surprised. The expert panel had merely echoed the concerns and apprehensions that society at large has towards such crops.

Knowing the casual manner in which large-scale field trials are held across the country, the absence of a regulatory mechanism, and the failure to document the damage transgenic crops have inflicted on humans and the environment during, before and after such trials, the committee has called for invoking the “precautionary principle.”
Report’s recommendations

A few months ago, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture tabled on August 9 its report Cultivation of Genetically Modified Food Crops: Prospects and Effects. After an exhaustive interaction with stakeholders, and considering the impact genetically modified food crops have on biodiversity, human health, the environment and the future of farming, it recommended: “for the time being all research and development activities on transgenic crops should be carried out only in containment, the ongoing field trials in all States should be discontinued forthwith.” In a way, the Parliamentary Standing Committee and TEC are saying the same thing.
In support of GM

Three years after Bt Brinjal — which, if allowed, would have been India’s first GM food crop — was put on indefinite hold, the reports of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture and the TEC are pointers to swelling opposition to the manner in which GM crops are being pushed. Although many State governments have already refused permission for field trials of GM crops, I don't understand why Food and Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar is time and again appealing to Chief Ministers to put GM research back on the agenda. Chairman of the Science Advisory Council to the Prime Minister (SAC-PM), Dr. C.N.R. Rao, too has lamented the lack of a “science-informed, evidence-based approach” in the debate.

In a desperate bid to support GM crops, it is often said that conventional agriculture technologies may be inadequate to meet India’s food security challenges. The other objection is that the debate is not “science-based.” Let us look at both arguments. As far as the role of GM crops in boosting food security needs is concerned, this argument is not “evidence-based.” First, there is no GM crop anywhere in the world which increases crop productivity. In fact, even the U.S. Department of Agriculture acknowledges that the productivity of GM soya and GM corn in the U.S. is less than the conventional varieties. Moreover, the prevailing drought in the U.S. has conclusively shown that it is only non-GM crops that have withstood the vagaries of weather.

In India, on June 1, a record 82.3 million tonnes surplus of wheat and rice was stored. This surplus existed at a time when an estimated 320 million people went to bed hungry. Mr. Pawar is making all efforts to export a large chunk of food stocks or make open market releases, but no serious effort is being made to feed the hungry. In fact, since 2001-03, India has been holding on an average anything between 50 to 60 million tonnes of foodgrains and yet its ranking in the Global Hunger Index shows no improvement.
Food insecurity

Food insecurity, therefore, is not the result of any production shortfall. To ensure that farmers do not produce more, and thereby add to existing storage problems, the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) has frozen the wheat price at last year’s level. Paying more to farmers would entail more production. This does not make any economic sense. After all, the farmer too is impacted by rising inflation. Why penalise farmers for the government’s inability to handle and store surplus foodgrain?

The fact remains that food production is being deliberately kept low, and only enough to meet basic food security needs. Provide market price to wheat and rice growers, and I am sure production will go up manifold.

SAC-PM is a committee made up of distinguished scientists. Although the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) had given the green signal for commercial cultivation of Bt Brinjal, the SAC-PM should take note of the 19-page submission by the then Minister for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh; the analysis is the best “science-based” justification for stopping GM food crops.
Findings

Even when the Bt Brinjal debate was hot, I had pointed out the inability of the scientific community to conduct long-term feeding trials on rats. Internationally, the practice is to have 90-day feeding trials, which corresponds to 24 years of human lifespan — and that’s what the GEAC followed. I had always wondered why the industry as well as the scientific community was not conducting feeding trials for two years, which means the entire human lifespan. Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, professor of molecular biology at the Caen University in France, finally did it. He recently published the findings of the two-year study on the long-term toxicity of GM maize NK 603, engineered to resist Roundup herbicide — and as expected the industry was up in arms.

In these first-ever long-term feeding trials on rats, published in the scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, Prof. Séralini and his team observed that “females developed fatal mammary tumours and pituitary disorders. Males suffered liver damage, developed kidney and skin tumours and experienced problems with their digestive system.” The team also found that even lower doses of GM corn and Roundup weedicides resulted in serious health impacts. Moreover, 50 per cent male and 70 per cent female rats died prematurely. The tumours were 2.5 times bigger than what would normally appear in the control population.

As expected, the study was branded “bogus,” “inadequate” and of course “unscientific.” Séralini answered the industry’s main criticism pointing out that the species of rat used was the same that the biotech giant Monsanto had used in its research trials. Moreover, the sample size was as per the recommendations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) protocol for GM food safety toxicology studies. Séralini’s experiment has amplified the need for long-term human safety trials, which I think the SAC-PM should be primarily asking the Department of Biotechnology to focus on. SAC-PM needs to review more scientific literature before making any broad and sweeping assertions.

At a time when GM crops hold no promise of higher crop production, the latest long-term scientific research on the impacts on health warrants repeated trials under all environments. As suggested by TEC and the Standing Committee, more experiments are needed on farm animals.

Since science is answerable to society, and cannot be allowed to operate in a vacuum, this is the least India can do to dispel any fear.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/gm-crops-should-go-back-to-the-lab/article4074872.ece

Superstorm Sandy: Powerful Case For Revisiting Fukushima and the Dangers of Nuclear Energy From Natural Disasters

Conditions at 3 US Reactors Were Similar to What Caused the Fukushima Disaster

We barely dodged a nuclear crisis from Hurricane Sandy at the Oyster Creek, Nine Mile and Salemplants.

For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission confirmed loss of power to the fuel pools at Oyster Creek:

On October 29, 2012, Oyster Creek declared a Notice of Unusual Event followed by an Alert due to high water levels in the intake structure. Elevated intake structure water levels are of concern as excessive levels can flood certain plant components and render normal cooling systems inoperable. No safety systems were adversely affected by the high intake level. The site also experienced a loss of offsite power. Both emergency diesel generators started as designed and supplied power to the emergency electrical busses. Shutdown cooling and spent fuel pool cooling were temporarily lost but subsequently restored, after the busses were reenergized. At 9:59 a.m. EDT on October 30, the licensee restored one line of off-site power via a start-up transformer. Oyster Creek terminated the Alert at 3:52 a.m. EDT on October 31 when water level dropped below 4.5 ft and off-site power was fully restored.

Time Magazine notes:

Superstorm Sandy’s unexpected wrath makes a powerful case for revisiting Fukushima and the dangers to nuclear energy from natural disasters. As Sandy made landfall on Atlantic City, Oyster Creek nuclear power plant nearby was fortunately on a scheduled outage. But Indian Point 3 in Buchanan, N.Y., Nine Mile Point 1 in Scriba, N.Y., and Salem Unit 1 in Hancocks Bridge, N.J., all experienced shutdowns because of high water levels or electrical disruption. Last year, the dangerous Fukushima nuclear power plant meltdown was caused by similar conditions after tsunami waves flooded the plant and short-circuited both the regular and back-up electrical systems.

Equally dangerous are drought and record heat conditions the U.S. experienced last summer. In August, one of two reactors at the Millstone nuclear power plant near New London, Conn., not far from where I grew up, was shut down because water in Long Island Sound needed to cool the reactors got too warm. Cool water is necessary to produce electricity.

Fukushima has been a worldwide wakeup call, particularly for the United States, the country with the largest number of reactors — 104. The lesson is glaringly obvious:when nature and nuclear energy collide the consequences can be lethal.

Indeed, the gravest natural threats are not being addressed.  See this and this.

Time continues:

Unfortunately, Japan is not offering an inspiring example of how to handle this threat. While all but two of the country’s 50 reactors remain offline, government and nuclear industry are proposing plant restarts and construction projects. This muddled move stands against the majority of Japanese citizens who have turned against nuclear power.

The American government is largely responsible for the Japanese government’s stubborn support for nuclear power.

Time concludes:

It’s time to face the facts: Mother Nature rules. The best we can do is try to lessen the damage from her wrath. Phasing out nuclear power is the safe answer.

Indeed … nuclear power – other than perhaps alternative types – is expensive and bad for the environment.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/superstorm-sandy-powerful-case-for-revisiting-fukushima-and-the-dangers-of-nuclear-energy-from-natural-disasters/5310988

An Open Letter to Obama from the World's Poorest Countries

Dear President Obama,

As the lead negotiator for the world's 48 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in the United Nations climate change negotiations, I congratulate you on your re-election. I also want to express my admiration for your response to superstorm Sandy: without the preparations that you made, the impacts to those hit by the storm would have been even more devastating. As communities in the north-east work to rebuild and recover, the world has an opportunity to begin a new, reality-based conversation about climate change

I write with a simple request: as this discussion continues in the world's most developed countries, remember those who live in its poorest regions. Remember that as a result of climate change, this kind of fatal weather event has become commonplace for us while we lack the infrastructure and resources to adequately protect our citizens.

As researchers at Brown University's climate and development lab have shown, climate-related disasters such as droughts, extreme temperatures, floods, and hurricanes have caused an estimated 1.3 million deaths since 1980. Two-thirds of these deaths (over 909,000) occurred in the least developed countries. We are only 12% of the world's population, but we suffer the effects of climate-related disasters more than five times as much as the world as a whole.

Given this reality and your early commitment to leading a science-directed discussion about the changing climate, I was surprised that you only mentioned climate change in your re-election campaign a few times, and not once in your three debates with Mitt Romney. We know that 70% of US citizens now recognise the reality of human-caused climate change. As the world's largest economy, the US has a unique opportunity and responsibility to take bold action on this issue. Indeed, the wellbeing of the citizens of your nation and mine depends on your ability to lead at this critical juncture. It is time to end the climate silence.

Later this month, representatives of the world's nations will meet in Doha, Qatar, for the annual negotiations on the UN climate change treaty. When you were first elected president, your words gave us hope that you would become an international leader on climate change. But you have not lived up to this promise. The framework that you put in place sets the planet on course to warm dangerously, and delays action until 2020 – this will be too late. This year's meeting in Qatar may be our last chance to put forward a new vision and plan to reverse this course. Your legacy, and the future of our children and grandchildren depend on it. We ask you to lead in two ways.

First, join with the European Union, the LDCs and the Alliance of Small Island States in taking on ambitious national commitments to reduce climate pollution. Go beyond the commitments that you made in Copenhagen in 2009. The climate is changing faster than we thought, and we must respond with increased ambition.

Second, provide adequate funding to help the LDCs and other vulnerable nations to adapt to this new climate reality. In 2010, the wealthiest countries directed about $1.5bn to help developing countries adapt to a changing climate. Over the same period, they spent over $400bn subsidising fossil fuel industries. They gave the main contributors to human-caused climate change more than 250 times the support they offered those whom it harms most.

Countries from Gambia and Haiti, to Malawi and Bangladesh need the "predictable and adequate" funding promised in Copenhagen so that they can take simple steps to protect their citizens. This means moving drinking water and irrigation wells away from coasts, where saltwater is intruding into aquifers; it includes developing drought-resistant crops and helping small farmers in fragile, semi-arid regions survive. We have to prepare roads and cities, villages and farms for floods, hurricanes and heat waves. We need to equip people with the weather prediction, early warning systems and emergency response that citizens of the developed countries take for granted.

With 20 years of international climate change negotiations behind us, there is simply no longer time or cause for wealthy countries to continue to stall in taking real action to fulfil the promises they have made. Having the wealthy nations reduce their greenhouse gas emissions steeply is fundamental, but helping the poorest of us cope with its impacts is an immediate necessity.

Mr President, remind the world that the devastation of climate change is shared by all its citizens. Remember that this reality is changeable. Make changing it your legacy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/nov/08/obama-climate-change-poorest-countries

Study: Predicted 6ºC Rise by 2100 Should End "Business as Usual"

A new report by a global accounting firm announced Monday that businesses around the world are ill-prepared to meet the challenges of climate change and issued a warning, citing their extensive analyses of world economies, that global temperatures could rise by as much as 6ºC by the end of the century.

"This isn't about shock tactics, it's simple maths," said Leo Johnson, a partner at Pricewaterhouse Cooper (PwC), which conducted the economic study. "We're heading into uncharted territory for the scale of transformation and technical innovations required. Whatever the scenario, or the response, business as usual is not an option."

"It's time to plan for a warmer world … We have passed a critical threshold."

In 2007, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change determined that a rise in global temperatures of more than 2ºC would lead to catastrophic changes for planetary systems. Though binding agreements remain elusive, most of the world's nations have agreed—at least in principle—that preventing a more than 2ºC rise should be a key target to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change.

The PwC report, however, says that limiting global warming to 2ºC would now mean reducing global carbon intensity by an average of 5.1% a year – a performance never achieved since 1950, when these records began. The report warns that "governments and businesses can no longer assume that a 2ºC warming world is the default scenario."

"While we've reversed the increase in emissions intensity reported last year we're still seeing results that are simply too little too late," said Johnson. "We've now got to achieve, for the next 39 years running, a target we've never achieved before."

"It's time to plan for a warmer world… We have passed a critical threshold," he said.

Words like resilience, decarbonization and sustainability have long been key words among environmental campaigners and scientists warning about the current and coming impacts of human-induced global warming and climate change. The PwC report, now, puts some of those same words into the vocabularies of some of the the world's largest financial planners.

"The risk to business is that it faces more unpredictable and extreme weather, and disruptions to market and supply chains," said Jonathan Grant, director of the PwC's sustainability and climate change program. "Resilience will become a watch word in the boardroom - to policy responses as well as to the climate. More radical and disruptive policy reactions in the medium term could lead to high carbon assets being stranded."

"The new reality is a much more challenging future in terms of planning, financing and predictability. Even doubling our current annual rates of decarbonization globally every year to 2050, would still lead to 6ºC, making governments' ambitions to limit warming to 2ºC appear highly unrealistic."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/05-2

Obama and Romney remain silent on climate change, the biggest issue of all

Here's a remarkable thing. Neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama – with the exception of one throwaway line each – have mentioned climate change in the wake of hurricane Sandy.

They are struck dumb. During a Romney rally in Virginia on Thursday, a protester held up a banner and shouted "What about climate? That's what caused this monster storm". The candidate stood grinning and nodding as the crowd drowned out the heckler by chanting "USA! USA!". Romney paused, then resumed his speech as if nothing had happened. The poster the man held up? It said "End climate silence".

While other Democrats expound the urgent need to act, the man they support will not take up the call. Barack Obama, responding to his endorsement by the mayor of New York, mentioned climate change last week as "a threat to our children's future". Otherwise, I have been able to find nothing; nor have the many people I have asked on Twitter. Something has gone horribly wrong.

There are several ways in which the impact of hurricane Sandy is likely to have been exacerbated by climate breakdown. Warmer oceans make hurricanes more likely and more severe. A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, increasing the maximum rainfall. Higher sea levels aggravate storm surges. Sandy might not have hit the United States at all, had it not been for a blocking ridge of high pressure over Greenland, which diverted the storm westwards. The blocking high – rare there at this time of year – could be the result of the record ice melt in the Arctic this autumn.

This might sound like the wisdom of hindsight. But in February the journal Nature Climate Change published an article warning that global warming is likely to "increase the surge risk for New York City". As storms intensify and the sea level rises, it predicted that storm surges previously described as 100-year events would become between five and 30 times as frequent.

Four years ago, Obama pledged that "my presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change". He promised a federal cap and trade system and "strong annual targets" to reduce carbon pollution. But he ran into a ridge of high pressure. His cap and trade bill was killed in the Senate in 2010.

At a meeting in the White House in 2009, his strategists decided that climate change was a banned topic: it caused too much trouble. From then onwards, Obama would talk about clean energy and green jobs and improvements in fuel economy, but would seldom explain why these shifts were necessary. The problem with this approach is that you cannot engineer a sustained reduction of greenhouse gas emissions only by getting into clean energy: you also have to get out of dirty energy. And that requires statesmanship: active and persuasive engagement with the public.

In April, Obama said that global warming "will become part of the campaign" and that he would be "very clear" about how he would deal with it. It hasn't happened. There were a couple of noncommittal paragraphs in his speech to the national convention, during which he also boasted that "we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration in the last three years, and we'll open more." There was more of the same in the Democratic platform (the party's manifesto). Otherwise, this remains the issue that dare not speak its name. For the first time since 1984, climate change wasn't mentioned in any of the presidential debates.

This, remember, is after a year of climate disasters: the droughts and wildfires that devastated much of the continental interior of the United States, the Arctic meltdown, the superstorm that ripped through the Caribbean before piercing the financial and spiritual heart of the nation. You wonder what it takes.

As for Romney, his contribution has been confined to mockery. Even as hurricane Isaac cut short the Republican national convention, he ridiculed Obama, to the delight of the delegates, for wanting to stop the sea level from rising. It was a revolting spectacle, which, in the aftermath of Sandy, would have become a major liability, had climate change not been taboo.

In the Republican party platform, "climate change" – yes, in quotes – is mentioned only once, to attack Obama for taking it seriously. The platform commits the party to blocking all effective measures to curb it, and to developing new coal (which Romney now professes to "love"), the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and oil drilling on the outer continental shelf and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Planetary ruin, for the Republicans, seems no longer to be an unfortunate side-effect of development: now it looks almost like a desirable end in itself; a test of manhood and corporate muscle.

Successive polls show that an effective response to climate breakdown will not lose votes. Votes are not the problem: the problem is money and traction. Anyone who tries to address this subject encounters a storm surge of attack ads, obstruction and manufactured fury.

During the crucial year – 2009 – in which the cap and trade bill was struggling through Congress and governments were preparing for the summit in Copenhagen, environmental groups threw everything they had at climate change. After massive fundraising efforts, a coalition of green NGOs managed to find $22m for federal lobbying. But Exxon alone outspent them with a casual flick of the wallet. The $27m it dropped into the counter-campaign represented half of a day's profits. The other fossil fuel companies threw in a further $150m. Without a major reform of both lobbying and campaign finance, the big money will keep winning. Protecting the planet and its people is impossible in a plutocracy.

The Republicans in Congress have no choice but to keep obstructing or filibustering every means of addressing our foremost global crisis, for to alter their position would be to jeopardise their political funding. As David Roberts of grist.org points out, Obama has little incentive to talk about climate change when he knows that any promise he makes will be thwarted. All he can do is to "fight for gridlock because gridlock is better than the alternative".

So the two candidates remain struck dumb. Speech fails them, action is abominable, they will not even raise their hands in self-defence. The world's most pressing crisis, now breaking down the doors of the world's most powerful nation, cannot be discussed.

• This article was amended on 6 November 2012, to say that for the first time since 1984, climate change wasn't mentioned in any of the presidential debates. The original article said 1988.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/05/obama-romney-remain-silent-climate-change