¿Atentado contra la investigación?

ORIGINAL: El Espectador

Por: Mariana Escobar Roldán

17 Ene 2013

Cerca de 300 especies de plantas y vegetales que sembraron estudiantes de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias de la Universidad Nacional, sede Medellín, resultaron partidas y fumigadas. Aún no se conocen los autores, pero las pérdidas son grandes y la indignación crece.

“Les cortamos todo”. Ese fue el mensaje anónimo que dejaron desconocidos luego de destruir una huerta con 300 especies de plantas y vegetales, que había sido construida por un grupo de estudiantes de la Universidad Nacional de Medellín, con fines académicos.

Treinta variedades de frijol de todo el continente, veinte de maíz, seis de tomate, plantas medicinales y ornamentales y árboles maderables nativos fueron rociados con herbicidas y cortados con guadañadoras durante el periodo de vacaciones de la institución, cuando ningún estudiante tenía permiso para entrar a las instalaciones.

Este martes varios miembros que pertenecen al grupo de estudio, trabajo e investigación en agroecología (Graeco) de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, se encontraron con la sorpresa de que, del paisaje verde que habían dejado en diciembre, solo quedaba el recuerdo . “Encontramos pérdidas totales. Todo estaba quemado, dañaron el equilibrio ecológico del suelo y acabaron con el hábitat de aves e insectos. Seguimos sin entender qué pasó”, expresa Juan Diego Cano, coordinador del equipo.

Desde hace cinco años el grupo venía trabajando en una huerta donde cultivaban semillas orgánicas que recibían de comunidades de Colombia y otros países del continente, como México, Bolivia y Perú. Con lo aprendido, los estudiantes capacitaban a comunidades indígenas y campesinas que querían aprender técnicas agrarias alternativas, sin el uso de químicos y pesticidas.

El ecosistema tenía como principios el uso sostenible del agua y del suelo y el estímulo de la soberanía alimentaria. Varias tesis de grado y proyectos resultaron de este ejercicio, como el que vienen realizando en la Comuna 8 de Medellín, específicamente en el Cerro Pan de Azúcar, con la comunidad de desplazados Pinares de Oriente, quienes están aprendiendo sobre agricultura urbana, agroecología y mejoramiento del hábitat.

Según Cano, hace cinco años el comité de Planeación de la Universidad les había otorgado un permiso para trabajar en el área donde se ubica la huerta, por eso no entienden qué pudo haber sucedido, y afirma que ninguno de los miembros del grupo fue notificado de que se fueran a cortar y a fumigar sus plantas.

El vicerrector encargado de la Nacional Medellín, Carlos Mario Sierra, afirma que desconoce quién destruyó las plantas y que a su despacho no ha llegado ninguna denuncia al respecto, aunque reconoce que durante las vacaciones sí se desarrollaron actividades de mantenimiento de las zonas verdes, como la limpieza de maleza. Sin embargo, advierte que siempre se respetan los cultivos experimentales. “Vamos a hacer las averiguaciones pertinentes y la próxima semana, cuando se reinicien las actividades, vamos a escuchar a los estudiantes y a aclarar la situación”, dijo.

Hace un año, el proyecto Jardín Botánico de la Capilla, también de la Nacional de Medellín, pasó por una situación similar: cien especies de plantas fueron destruidas sin previo aviso por miembros de servicios generales de la institución. Las directivas reconocieron su error y se comprometieron a fortalecer el trabajo del grupo, pero un año después, a principios de diciembre de 2012, ocurrió lo mismo y, por suerte, una estudiante registró la destrucción en video. Servicios generales argumentó que se había solicitado previamente el permiso de los estudiantes para cortar algunas plantas.

“Es un panorama muy desalentador. Nosotros no estábamos haciendo nada malo. Tratábamos de hacer un manejo ecológico de las especies vegetales, el agua y el suelo. Ahora nos va a tocar muy difícil porque erradicaron con herbicida y eso destruye hasta las raíces”, lamentó Cano.

Los estudiantes quieren pedir indemnización, ya que en la huerta había recursos de la misma Universidad, del municipio de Medellín y de organizaciones como la Red de Agricultura Biológica de Colombia, Penca de Sábila y la Corporación para la Investigación y el Ecodesarrollo Regional. Por ahora, tendrán que esperar hasta la próxima semana, cuando se reanudan las actividades del plantel.

Mariana Escobar Roldán | Elespectador.com

Up to 20,000 Genetically Engineered Mosquitoes Released in Australian Towns

ORIGINAL: Activistpos

Anthony Gucciardi

Do you remember how some scientists, researchers, and individuals like Bill Gates were trying to release genetically modified mosquitoes into the environment? Well, that endeavor isn’t quite over. Two towns in Northern Australia have recently been gifted with 10-20 thousand genetically engineered mosquitoes – almost completely replacing mosquitoes naturally occurring in the outdoors.

Different Genetically Engineered Mosquitoes?

Although the mosquitoes released are still GM, they aren’t exactly the same as the more well-known mosquitoes developed my Oxitec. Oxitec is a British company responsible for the creation of the genetically engineered mosquitoes containing a gene designed to kill themselves unless given an antibiotic known as tetracycline. The company created this internally manipulated insect to help control agricultural pests and reduce insect-borne diseases like dengue fever and malaria.

These new mosquitoes released in Australia, however, are developed with a slightly different strategy. A bacterium named Wolbackiapipientis infects numerous insects species, and harnesses the ability to alter it’s hosts reproductive ability. When this happens, entire populations become infected within generations, and when the bacterium infects mosquitoes, the mosquitoes’ ability to pass on the dengue virus vanishes.

Needless to say, numerous scientists, researchers, and many individuals have expressed concern regarding the release of genetically engineered mosquitoes. The first mosquito release by Oxitec took place in the Cayman Islands in the Caribbean in 2009, only for a second trial to occur in 2010, where 6,000 mosquitoes were released in Malaysia for further experiments. Now, 10-20 thousand mosquitoes were released in Australia, drilling the environment with even more genetically modified creations. As mentioned, many people are not happy about this.

Some individuals, such as Daniel Strickman, point out the obvious discomfort surrounding the possibility that the bacterium could become out of control once released – in a way that does not naturally occur in nature. In addition, mosquitoes less susceptible to dengue infection could in turn become more susceptible to other viruses.

Unfortunately, no peer-reviewed scientific proof of the safety of such biotechnologies can be offered. Long-term effects have not been at all measured, and once these insects are released, they can not be recalled.

Here are but a few of the questions and issues regarding GM mosquitoes (or any GM insect for that matter).

Will Oxitec need to acquire the free and informed consent of residents in Key West for the release of the GM mosquitoes? With the previous release of the mosquitoes in the Cayman Islands there was no public consultation taken on potential risks and informed consent was not given from locals.

What could happen to the ecosystem and local food chain with the major decrease in the Aedes aegypti mosquito population?

Tetracycline, the antibiotic Oxitec’s genetically engineered mosquitoes are supposed to have no contact with, is showing up in the environment. With tetracycline being present in the wild, these GE mosquitoes would survive and thrive.

Mosquitoes can develop resistance to the lethal gene inputted by Oxitec. In fact, 3.5 percent of the insects survived to adulthood in laboratory tests despite carrying the lethal gene, according to Todd Shelly, an entomologist for the Agriculture Department in Hawaii.

0.5 percent of the released insects are female (the gender which bites humans); what happens to humans if bitten by the female mosquitoes?

Who regulates releases, and who will be responsible in the event of complications – to any degree? The truth is that we have no idea what the future holds for genetic modification and the potential impacts it has on the environment and public health. We know that the genetically engineered mosquitoes are equipped with a lethal gene designed to lower the mosquito population, but what does that really mean for humans? We simply do not know the potential outcomes that could arise from such creations.

This article first appeared at NaturalSociety.com. Click the banner below to Anthony Gucciardi's new book.

Tell the EPA: Ban the pesticide that's killing bees!

ORIGINAL: CredoAction

In the next week, the EPA is expected to issue a decision on the pesticide Clothianidin -- which scientists believe is a major factor in the alarming decline in U.S honey bee populations, known as Colony Collapse Disorder.

Since 2006, one third of U.S honey bee populations have been dying off. One third. Every year. That's a terrible rate of species destruction on its own, but it's also a serious threat to our food supply. Honey bees play a crucial role by pollinating 71 of the 100 most common crops, which account for 90% of the world's food supply.1

More than 125,000 CREDO Activists joined the Pesticide Action Network and other groups this March in urging the EPA to suspend its approval of Clothianidin.

The EPA will be issuing a decision soon. If the agency doesn't act, it won't review Clothianidin again until 2018 -- and by then it could be too late for the bees.

Tell the EPA: Bee die-offs are an emergency. Ban the pesticide that's killing bees. Click here to automatically sign the petition.

While the causes of Colony Collapse disorder are complex, studies are increasingly pointing to the role played by pesticides like Clothianidin.

Produced by the German corporation Bayer CropScience, it is used as a treatment on crop seeds, including corn and canola, and works by expressing itself in the plants' pollen and nectar. Not coincidentally, these are some of honey bees' favorite sources of food.

Shockingly, Clothianidin was approved without any independent study verifying its safety. The Pesticide was conditionally approved for use on corn -- the largest crop in the U.S. - in 2003, and then fully approved by the EPA in 2010, on the basis of only one test conducted by Bayer, which EPA scientists later said was unsound and not sufficient to be the basis of an unconditional approval of the pesticide.2

Tell the EPA: Ban the pesticide that's killing bees. Click here to automatically sign the petition.

Clothianidin has already been banned in France, Italy, Slovenia, and Germany -- the home of Bayer -- but it continues to be applied to over 100 million acres here in the U.S., at the peril of bees and our ability to produce foods like apples, blueberries, almonds, pumpkins and dozens of other vital crops.

For the EPA to take action and suspend the use of Clothianidin it must declare bee die-offs to be an "imminent hazard." With massive continuing die-offs of the species that is a cornerstone of our crop production, it's clear that is the case.

Tell the EPA to protect honey bees and our food, not pesticide makers . It's time to ban Clothianidin and save the bees.

1. " Pesticides and Honey Bees: State of the Science ," Pesticide Action Network North America

2. " Leaked document shows EPA allowed bee-toxic pesticide despite own scientists' red flags ," Grist, 12/10/10

TEDxBOGOTA - Gonzalo Sarmiento - Biocultivos

ORIGINAL: TEDxBogotá

Con un gran interés en los Biocultivos. 

"Si los gobiernos, productores agrícolas, consumidores y toda la humanidad en general no toma conciencia inmediata de la necesidad de un cambio en el modelo agrícola actual, más amigable con el medio ambiente, continuaremos actuando de manera irresponsable y no le estaremos dejando un planeta viable a las futuras generaciones."