|
Nina Federoff Comments for GE Crop Report Sept 15, 2014
Nina Federoff Comments to NRC September 15-16
The Nation Research Council is coming out with a report on GE Crops. Public Testamony is welcome again at the December meeting. All written Comments are welcome now! Nina Federoff, former president of the AAAS called some of the speakers being allowed to speak "non-credible"…In other works, some of the Anti-GMO speakers who differ from her Biotech point of view. Her comment called some of the other speakers incredulous was bleeped out of the official transcript. I heard her comment.
These hearings continue tomorrow. There was a place for public testimony today,but those who represent Anti-GMO did not ask to be heard. Amazing to me that the Anti-GMO activists were not in this loop to be heard when they had the chance to speak up today. I just heard about this hearing this morning!
I found out about this through my email from the Organic Trade Association Us Gov Affairs mailing list. Thank you, OTA!
Date: 9/15/2014 4:28:51 PM ( 10 y ) ... viewed 1238 times
OPEN COMMENTS FOR NATIONAL RESARCH COUNCIL REPORT ON GE CROPS
Comment now!!!!
The National Research Council’s Committee on Genetically-Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects (Committee) will be accepting input via SurveyGizmo throughout the course of the study. The input is intended to help ensure that the committee hears about important issues from interested parties. All submissions made to SurveyGizmo may be reviewed by members of the Committee. By submitting input, you agree that all input received by the Committee via SurveyGizmo, including your name and e-mail address (if included in the input) will be included in the Public Access File created for the Committee and may be quoted in whole or in part in the Committee’s report with attribution. SurveyGizmo and Widgix, LLC is not affiliated in any way with, or endorsed by, the National Academy of Sciences or the Institute of Medicine, and your submission to the SurveyGizmo website is subject to SurveyGizmo’s terms of use.
http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2014/06/15/provide-comments/
FULL TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 15, 2014
http://www.captionedtext.com/client/ViewTranscript.aspx?EventId=2447990&ParticipantId=8e8d37a6-a076-4d9d-8373-ef770152ecea
Nina Federoff Comments to NRC September 15-16
Nina is a former president of the AAAS…and this organization sent out a letter a few weeks before Prop 37 coming out against Prop 37. She has written the book, "Mendel in the Kitchen." She is a big Biotechnology proponent.
FROM NINA FEDEROFF
Thanks for the opportunity to comment and I will read my remarks in the interest of efficiency and time. Fred said that the charge included all credible views and I have printed out here for a number of analyses and number of the several individuals invited to speak here today and tomorrow our [ Indiscernible ].*
*{She said [indiscernable] that some of the people speaking were not credible!!!! How interesting that this was not transcribed!!!!]
I am also submitting a letter signed, a petition signed and addressed to President Ralph Cicero, signed by more than 100 scientists addressing several issues concerning this study and this committee. My remarks have to do with the history in the future. recombinant DNA technology was first developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s a handful of high-profile centers became concerned about the possibility of a combining genes across species might create organisms with unexpected nutrients. They published a note in science magazine requesting that the NIH advisory committee to oversee within the techniques and organize the renowned 1975 [ Indiscernible ] conference. The requested advisory body, was duly constituted and by the NIH director and developed guidelines for containment procedures. I served on the committee from 1980 to 1984. Since it wasn't known whether organisms modified by recomment DNA techniques were dangerous, the guidelines are based on peoples guesses about risks. As experience with the recomment DNA technology, accumulated it became increasingly clear that the initial estimates of risks had been exaggerated and the guidelines were gradually relaxed. Each suggested modification was first examined, published in the Federal Register subjected to public scrutiny and then re-examined by the committee before it was implemented. The point is that the NIH guidelines could and did involve with accumulating evidence. That began to change when [ Indiscernible ] began to come into field test transgenic lance. Around 1984. Representatives of the regulatory agencies him began to show up at random meetings and the White house office of science and technology policy better to known as OSTP organized an interagency committee to consider how transgenic plants should be regulated. Committee wrote the [ Indiscernible ] and after publication, for public comment was implemented in 1986. At the committee concluded that the use of recomment DNA techniques was not inherently risky and therefore did not require new legislation but could be regulated under existing statutes as you heard earlier from Jim cook, the EPA used [ Indiscernible ] and also [ Indiscernible ] toxic substances control act, then the federal test act of 1957. While FDA use the 1938 Federal food drug and cosmetic act. These are still the same statutes that are used to regulate agriculture -- agricultural biotechnology in the US today but by contrast to what happened under the [ Indiscernible ] with the original guidelines the regulatory requirements have evolved very little despite decades of biosafety experimentation and experience that have accumulated something. Just to quote one example, in 2010 the European commission published an overview of 25 years of GM zero biosafety research on which it has expended roughly $300 million. I quote from the report. The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups is that I have technology and in particular GM owes are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant reading Technics and of quote. The Black book that Jim cook quoted from is a white paper. Issued in 1987 and titled the direction of recomment DNA engineered organisms into the environment. Key issues. He coded one of the conclusions and I will add the other. It is worth reiterating the basic conclusions because they remain sensible and consistent with all of the assessments that have been done in the intervening quarter-century. First, there is no evidence that unique hazards exist in the use of recomment DNA techniques or in the movement of genes between unrelated organisms. Second, the risks associated with the introduction of recomment DNA in organisms of the same in kind as those associated with introduction of unmodified organisms modified by other methods. And third, the one the gym quoted, assessment of the risks of the introduced recomment -- organisms and the environment should be based on the nature of the organisms and the environment into which it is introduced, not on the method by which it was produced. Look into the future while it would be desirable I doubt that it will be possible to relax the existing regulatory requirements. It was possible under the guidelines but they were guidelines not regulated by laws. I believe with the possibility that the targeted gene modification techniques that were referred to earlier, remain unregulated is the best hope for modern science to contribute to future crop and animal improvement as Jim cook pointed out. Indeed these new technologies produce precisely the kinds of genetic changes produced by earlier technologies but highly targeted to precisely the intended genes rather than at random throughout the gene. I encourage the committee to rigorously evaluate these new technologies in the context of the no conventional gene modification technologies which include genome wide chemical and radiation radio Genesis as well as math alone to stabilizing culture. Which is still not regulated. One more sentence. I was very pleased with the involvements and plea for less rather than more regulation. Getting more public sector researchers and perhaps even farmers involved to stimulate innovation of all kinds of crops. It is hard to imagine anything that stifles innovation more than regulatory regimes that take years sometimes decades and cost tens of millions of dollars. Thank you. I will submit these as directed.
ANOTHER SPEAKER, A FARMER, SPOKE OUT IN FAVOR OF BIOTECH FARMING AND CO-EXISTENCE
Okay, thank you very much. We have another speaker in the room. John Linder? Him
Thank you for inviting us to this comment period. I am John Linder, I am from central Ohio, a grain farmer with my brother and wife and kids. We raise corn, CBMs which are preserved and we also raise non- GM obedience for export which are identity preserved. Also some soft winter wheat. We do use Bt crops. As farmers, we are looking for the new innovations. If we really are going to have a population growth coming forward that has been spoken so many times, we need the next products to get us there. So that we can actually achieve what needs to be done for the world's needs. I think biotech is going to be key to that. Having little relaxed regulations maybe we do need more vetting but to get the next product out there. 1986 we were excited about what we had as the gentleman spoke of. That's a long time ago. P products are starting to show their problems so we need the next one and the next one and we need a little more simple process to get that stewardship going to where we can have choices. We do on our farm use mobile products, chemistry for herbicides. We do not just rely on just one. We rotate so that we can have that longevity and maintain as long as we can the weed control that we needed and I'm sure the problems are coming. So we need new products there as well. We also rotate our crops. Stewardship is key for us. We also use a certified ground missed so we have an independent view on how we look and that on our own operation, what choices we have and what choices we make. We monitor our crops throughout the year and make decisions based on yield data. We're planning a harvest now I'm part of that process is making sure we have good data when we finish our harvest so we can make better decisions for next year. I would say that we really do practice sustainability. With the rotations and with the biotechnology, we have reduced herbicides, we have for years we could not use a one pass operation for weed control and corn. We have a lot of fears of one pass of herbicides and corn. That is a huge factor going forward. Biotech has a play in that. We no longer use insecticides. If you look at that cost is great for us but that impact to the environment as well as my families safety, my granddaughter brings my lunch out. My daughter when she was young I didn't want her walking in the field because we applied insecticide. I wanted to get rid of my close when I went home. Now we can feel safer about actually being in the field. We are dryland farmers and I can stay with confidence that my dad would be shocked at the production we get into like years where we have minimal rainfall. He never saw the production we get in those years. Yes, there is a big affect on what genetics as well as biotechnology has done for covering water usage as well as the herbicides as I mentioned.
Biotech not only returns trust, a returns to the community. Anybody can find a study online, anybody can get quotes from and CJ and soybean Association farmers. What affect this has had on the community. It's big. That innovation needs to continue. We are well regulated, but we need a better process. And maybe part of what can come out of this is a little better understanding on how we can get through this policy portion of it. As I stated, we have non- GM will crops. We have GM will crops. We have CBMs. Coexistence is real on our farm and with our neighbors. We don't farm just one block. A field here, a field there, we are surrounded by our neighbors. It can happen. In closing I would like to say that farmers take pride in producing food for not only American families but our own. Modern biotechnology has allowed us to develop safe and sustainable ways to protect our crops allowing American farmers to continue producing the safest most reliable foods apply in the world. Again thank you and I welcome the opportunity to present more substantial presentation to the committee later if they want more information. Thank you. [
Begin forwarded message:
Thanks to the Government Affairs Committee of the Organic Trade Association for alerting me to this important event!!!!!
Subject: [usgovernmentaffairs] Live Webcast Today: NRC Committee on GE Crops
From OTA:
Gather ‘round…and tune in today at 1pm EST for the first committee meeting of the National Research Council study, "Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects.” The study will provide an independent, objective examination of what has been learned since the introduction of GE crops based on current evidence.
Near 2pm, in today’s session, testimony will be presented by Charles Benbrook, Research Professor and Program Leader of the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University. Today’s session concludes at 6:15pm EST and the committee will also hold an open session from 9am-6:15pm EST on Tuesday, September 16th.
Click here to join!
READ LINKS HERE
National Research Council Hearings
http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/
Transcript of September 15, 2014
TRANSCRIPT FOR SEPTEMBER 16, 2015
Appears to have Gilles and Jeffrey Smith giving testimony
http://www.captionedtext.com/client/ViewTranscript.aspx?EventId=2447992&ParticipantId=d8f96494-90a7-4f27-b9dd-7b6835d85e59
HELPING UNCLE SAM MARRY AUNTIE (ANTI) GMO
http://curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=2181365
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites! Print this page
Email this page
 Alert Webmaster
|
