background preloader

OGM - Les monstrueux animaux de la génétique

OGM - Les monstrueux animaux de la génétique
Related:  Les risques

The GM Apple That Won't Turn Brown Apples have become the latest controversial entry into the genetically modified food debate, following a July 12 New York Times piece written by Andrew Pollack. Okanagan Specialty Fruits, a small British Columbia company, wants to start marketing a non-browning apple, and it has applied for approval in Canada and in the United States. The Arctic apple, available so far in the Golden Delicious and Granny Smith varieties, contains an extra copy of a gene which interferes with the enzymatic activity that causes browning. The enzyme is polyphenol oxidase. According to Neal Carter, founder and president of Okanagan Specialty Fruits, the non-browning Arctic apple is just what consumers are looking for. Carter suggests that it is merely a cosmetic change intended to encourage people to eat more apples. It is intended “to turn the apple into an industrialized product,” said Lucy Sharratt, coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, as reported in the Times. Related Stories:

ressources à piocher Une étude russe qui prouve que les OGM stériliseront l'humanité au bout de 3 Générations On soupçonnait déjà que la perte de la fertilité était au nombre des graves dégâts occasionnés, une étude récente va dans ce sens. Une étude qui, si elle n'est pas étouffée, pourrait avoir un grand impact sur les décisions à prendre à l'avenir! En 2009, près de 3% des terres agricoles étaient couvertes d'OGM avec 134 millions d'hectares, selon l'ISAAA, qui, chaque année, fait état des cultures des plantes transgéniques dans le monde. Et le dossier des OGM alimentaires - dont de très nombreuses pages restent encore floues à ce jour - pourrait bien s'alourdir prochainement alors qu'une nouvelle pièce en provenance de Russie est sur le point d'y être ajoutée. Celle-ci prend la forme d'une étude, dont les résultats les plus frappants viennent d'être présentés à la presse en Russie dans le cadre de l'ouverture dans ce pays des Journées de Défense contre les Risques Environnementaux. A la fin de cette première phase, l'ensemble des quatre groupes a eu en tout 140 petits.

expérimentation / tests sur animaux Texas: une herbe OGM à l'origine de la mort d'un troupeau de vaches? Temps de lecture: 2 min Une variété d’herbe génétiquement modifiée hybride est soupçonnée d’être à l’origine de la mort subite d’un troupeau de bovins dans le Texas, rapporte CBS News. Les premiers tests ont montré que l’herbe, une forme modifiée hybride d’herbe des Bermudes appelée Tifton 85, avait mystérieusement commencé à produire du gaz cyanure. Les scientifiques du département de l’Agriculture américain mènent de nouveaux tests pour savoir si une mutation quelconque a pu déclencher la diffusion du gaz mortel. Les bovins sont morts il y a environ trois semaines alors qu’ils broutaient dans un ranch à Elgin, à environ 30 kilomètres à l’est d’Austin. Un jour, les vaches ont commencé à beugler peu après avoir été sorties pour paitre, raconte le propriétaire du ranch, Jerry Abel. 15 de ses 18 bêtes sont mortes en quelques heures. Abel a déclaré à CBS qu’il n’avait jamais eu de problème en 15 ans d’utilisation d’herbe modifiée hybride jusqu’à ce jour.

à étayer pour les autres thématique que Genetic Engineers Blast GM Crops In discussions with friends who have only vague ideas about all the GMO (genetically modified organisms) controversy, I have often wished for a handy guide to the main arguments, pro and con. Now I finally have it, thanks to a new report: “GMO Myths and Truths: An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops.” The report’s authors include two genetic engineers and a writer and editor with extensive knowledge of the issues. They have clustered the main arguments used by supporters of genetically modified crops into seven areas and then deconstructed each of them. For those wanting to dive into the technical issues and academic studies, dozens of references are provided for every section. The summary of claims made by the GM crop industry and its supporters will sound familiar to most people.

Blue Strawberries Raise More GMO Questions By Dani Stone for DietsInReview.com The GMO folks are at it again and this time they haven’t engineered a giant raisin or crossed a tangerine with a grapefruit (tangelo), they’ve created a blue strawberry. It wasn’t engineered for shock value, although it does look like something Willy Wonka would have at his factory. It was actually created to withstand freezing temperatures and you’ll never believe what they used to make it blue. For those of you unfamiliar with the lingo, GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism. GMO is achieved by adding and deleting genes of different species of plants to engineer a new one. Genetically modified food has been available for years in select grocery stores including over-sized strawberries and packages of pluots (plums and apricots) to name a few. How did scientists make it blue and why, aside from the cool factor? There are conflicting opinions about the nutritional value of GMOs.

Devons nous laisser les géants des biotechnologies détruire le maïs mexicain ? Aidez Greenpeace Mexique à dire NON ! Le gouvernement mexicain est susceptible d’autoriser la culture d’organismes génétiquement modifié (OGM) de maïs au Mexique. Jusqu’à présent, les citoyens mexicains, avec l’aide d’organisations comme Greenpeace, ont réussi à empêcher les géants de l’agrobusiness tels que Monsanto, DuPont et Dow AgroSciences d’obtenir une autorisation au Mexique. Mais cela pourrait bien changer. Le ministère de l’agriculture mexicain pourrait décider d’autoriser des compagnies étrangères à planter du maïs génétiquement modifié sur des surfaces de 2,4 millions d’hectares. Et pourtant, le Mexique est le pays d’origine et de diversité du maïs. Aujourd’hui, cultivateurs et commerçants de semences se servent des variétés de maïs mexicain indigènes pour créer de nouvelles variétés. Le Mexique est comme un gigantesque entrepôt génétique du maïs. Des recommandations pour protéger le maïs du Mexique sont venues de toutes parts. Partagez cet article :

Genetically engineered food: Allergic to regulations? What are the true risks of genetically modified foods spreading allergens? I’m looping back today to look more deeply at this. It gets a bit technical, but here’s the deal: A few moments of pain here and there, and in exchange you’ll get past the talking points and come away with a genuine grasp of the risks of GM allergenicity. Deal? All right. To you, the select and honored 10 percent still here, I bow. Here’s where I left off: The most obvious difference between transgenics and conventionally bred crops is that, in the former, you often are moving genetic material between unrelated organisms. I’d noted that we can test for this relatively easily — that’s how Pioneer Hi-Bred caught allergenic soybeans after adding DNA from a Brazil nut. The deeper fear is that genetic modification could introduce new proteins into our foods that provoke an immune response in ways we can’t predict or guard against. He’s right. So how big is this specter of the unknown, when it comes to allergies? Why?

Ask Umbra: Are GMO sugar beets bad for the birds? Send your question to Umbra! Q. Dear Umbra, I feed hummingbirds a syrup made of 1 cup sugar and 4 cups water. Susan W.Egremont, Mass. A. I love that your first thought upon learning that sugar is not labeled transparently is for the birds. As we began chronicling in the pages of Ye Olde Grist Herald back in 2007, genetically modified sugar beets have been on a stealth march into your pantry (and your hummingbird feeder) for a few years now. Unless your box of sugar says “cane sugar,” it almost certainly contains sugar beets. These beets, part of the pest-resistant Roundup Ready line made by our friends at Monsanto, were first approved by the USDA in 1998 and first planted for commercial purposes in the U.S. in 2008. So are GM sugar beets risky for you and your feathered friends? Point is, some people are comfortable with subtle and irreversible effects, others aren’t. You see how deftly I have so far avoided your actual question, Susan? But yea, I will not dart away. Dulcetly, Umbra

Crop flops: GMOs lead ag down the wrong path Editor’s note: After we ran What I learned from six months of GMO research: None of it matters, Nathanael Johnson’s essay concluding his “Panic-Free GMOs” series, we heard from a lot of people who think that GMOs really do matter. We’re publishing three two responses: one from Ramez Naam, author of The Infinite Resource: The Power of Ideas on a Finite Planet; and — to kick things off today — one from Tom Philpott, whose work long graced these pages and who is now at Mother Jones. (We’d planned to run another response from Denise Caruso, author of Intervention: Confronting the Real Risks of Genetic Engineering and Life on a Biotech Planet but that piece did not materialize.) Before I respond to Nathanael Johnson’s assertion that the “stakes are so low” in the debate over GMOs, I want to address a smaller point. “The debate isn’t about actual genetically modified organisms — if it was we’d be debating the individual plants, not GMOs as a whole,” Johnson writes.

rn crops increasingly vulnerable to dry spells WASHINGTON – U.S. farmers can grow more corn than ever before thanks to genetic modifications and improved planting techniques, but the crops are also increasingly vulnerable to drought, researchers recently said. The study in the journal Science found that “densely planted corn appears to be unexpectedly more sensitive to water scarcity,” raising concerns about future food supply as the planet warms. The United States is the largest exporter of corn in the world, shipping about 40 percent of the world’s corn. In recent years, most commercially produced corn has been modified with new traits that make roots better able to access water and build in pest resistance. That has allowed farmers to plant more corn and set the plants more closely together than they could in the past, resulting in higher yields. If predictions for future climate in the midwestern U.S. — known as the Corn Belt — are correct, then corn yields could fall 15 to 30 percent over the next half century, scientists said.

Related: