See English version below,with
updates at the bottom of page
Voir les commentaires (bas de page) et une analyse du rapport par un agronome
Mise à jour: l'analyse de l'institut belge VIB
L'Agence européenne pour l'environnement (AEE) a rendu public le 23 janvier 2013 un rapport intitulé
« Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation » sensé illustrer les dommages et les coûts induits par un
mauvais usage du principe de précaution, ou par le fait de le négliger.
Un thème éminemment politique, qui se situe sur un terrain différent de l’évaluation scientifique des risques, mission dévolue à d’autres agences, comme par l’exemple l’EFSA.
En effet, la mission de l’AEE est, en principe, de fournir des « informations […] conçues pour aider les décideurs politiques dans divers domaines à prendre des décisions politiques saines et cohérentes en matière d'environnement. Pour y arriver, l'AEE travaille en étroite collaboration avec les institutions de l'UE, à savoir la Commission européenne, le Parlement européen et le Conseil des ministres ».
Connaissant les diverses interprétations du principe de précaution, d’une logique d’action à une logique d’opportunisme politique, on pouvait s’interroger sur la manière dont l’AEE allait aborder la question…
Examinons le chapitre consacré aux OGM dans la partie C « « Emerging issues », chapitre 19 « Hungry for innovation: pathways from GM crops to agroecology ».
Quelques exemples:
-page 490, on lit « Further, indications of harm stemming from the widespread and intensive use of glyphosate
for the environment and human health has been documented in the scientific literature and remains a concern ». Sur quoi sont basées ces affirmations? Les références sont
« Greenpeace 2009 » et . . . « Séralini 2012 », c’est-à-dire la fameuse “étude-choc” du Criigen, réfutée par la communauté scientifique ! Voir les diverses réfutations.
-page 501, on lit : « Currently, no regulatory framework requires mandatory toxicity or allergenicity testing from the consumption (or inhalation) of GM crops or their products ».
Il est donc insinué (en jouant sur les mots: il n’y aurait pas de cadre réglementaire) qu’il n’y a pas d’évaluation des risques toxicologique ou d’allergénicité liés à la consommation d’OGM, ce
qui est bien sûr faux. Accéder à des références.
La référence citée (Kroghsbo 2008) est ici détournée de son sens : elle ne montre pas de réaction allergénique chez des rats suite à la consommation d’un riz produisant la protéine insecticide Cry1Ab (largement commercialisée).
-toujours page 501, suivent des arguments tout aussi biaisés : « Commonly, only 90-day (usually rat) feeding trials are conducted and conclusions of long-term risk are based on these short-term tests, despite their critical deficiencies in revealing sub-chronic and chronic effect». Avec comme référence 2 publications du Criigen ! Et dans la phrase suivante est citée encore la publication réfutée de Séralini 2012.
Aucune mention de la synthèse des études à long-terme qui ont été menées (Snell et coll. 2012), ni de leur mise à jour par A. Ricroch.
Sans faire une analyse exhaustive du rapport, on peut ainsi constater une utilisation sélective et biaisée des références scientifiques (beaucoup de références émanent des lobbies anti-OGM et non pas des auteurs les plus reconnus).
Une liste d'auteurs très orientée
Comment cela s’explique t-il ? La réponse est dans la liste des 5 auteurs, tous liés au GenØk, une organisation anti-OGM norvégienne (l’équivalent du Criigen dans ce pays) :
David Quist,
“Scientist/Adviser” au GenØk
Jack A. Heinemann “senior adjunct professor of gene ecology” au GenØk. Voir aussi.
Anne Ingeborg Myhr “acting director” du GenØk
Iulie Aslaksen aussi lié au GenØk, invité par le Criigen:
Silvio Funtowicz, un théoricien du postmodernisme, employé par le (respectable) Joint Research Center de la Commission européenne ; Funtowicz a de nombreux liens avec le GenØk ou son fondateur Terje Traavik. Voir par exemple. Il a rédigé un avant-propos pour un livre de Kamilla Lein Kjølberg et Fern Wickson. Cette dernière est “scientist” au GenØk.
Les titres en apparence scientifiques des militants du GenØk ne doivent pas surprendre, l’organisme pratique lui-aussi la “science” parallèle de l’écologie politique.
Conclusions
L’AEE a, dans ce rapport, failli à sa mission de fournir des informations « saines et cohérentes ».
Ce rapport, noyauté par des militants de l’écologie politique, rejoint ainsi le rapport de l’International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) comme un exemple de détournement d’une organisation internationale vers la “science” parallèle.
L’intérêt pour l’écologie politique est clair : citer chaque fois que possible ces rapports - qu’ils ont inspirés - comme une référence validant leurs thèses.
A European Environment Agency
report infiltrated by 'green' ideology
The European Environment Agency (EEA) released on January 23, 2013 a report entitled “Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation” which was supposed to illustrate “how damaging and costly the misuse or neglect of the precautionary principle can be”.
This is obviously a highly political issue, differing from a scientific risk assessment which is undertaken by other agencies, for example the EFSA.
Indeed, the mission of the EEA is, in principle, to “provide sound, independent information on the environment”, in order “to help the Community and member countries make informed decisions about improving the environment, integrating environmental considerations into economic policies and moving towards sustainability”.
Knowing that the precautionary principle is subjected to various interpretations, it is interesting to examine how the EEA would address the issue ...
Some examples taken from
the chapter on GMOs in Part C “Emerging issues”, Chapter 19 “Hungry for innovation: pathways from GM crops to agroecology”.
-Page 490, it is said: "Further, indications of harm stemming from the widespread and intensive use of glyphosate for the environment and human health has been documented in the scientific literature and remains
a concern". What are these claims based on? The references
are "Greenpeace 2009" and... "Séralini 2012", that is to say the famous September 2012 study by Criigen, refuted by the scientific community! See the various rebuttals.
-Page 501, it is said: "Currently, no regulatory framework requires mandatory toxicity or allergenicity testing from the consumption (or inhalation) of GM crops or their products ". Playing on words (there would be no regulatory framework) It is insinuated that
there is no risk assessment for toxicity or allergenicity associated with the consumption of GMOs, which is of course
untrue .
The meaning of the cited reference (Kroghsbo 2008) is falsely presented: it does not show allergenic reaction in rats after consumption of rice producing the (widely marketed) Cry1Ab insecticidal protein.
-Still on page 501, an equally biased argument follows: "Commonly, only 90-day (usually rat) feeding trials are conducted and conclusions of long-term risk are based on these short-term tests, despite their critical deficiencies in revealing sub-chronic and chronic effect". The references are 2 publications from Séralini/Criigen! And the reference of the following sentence is again the refuted publication by Séralini (2012).
No mention of the review of long-term feeding studies published by Snell et al. (2012), nor of its recent uptade by A. Ricroch.
Thus, it can be concluded that the GMO chapter of this report uses a selective and biased list of scientific references (many references come from the anti-GMO lobbies and not the most recognized authors).
A highly confined list of
authors
How can one explain such a biased report? The answer lies in the list of the five authors, all related to GenØk, an Norwegian anti-GMO organisation (equivalent to Criigen in this country):
David Quist, "Scientist / Adviser" at GenØk
Jack A. Heinemann, "senior adjunct professor of gene ecology" at GenØk. See also.
Anne Ingeborg Myhr "acting director" at GenØk
Iulie Aslaksen also linked to GenØk, invited by Criigen.
Silvio Funtowicz is a theorician of postmodernism, employed by the (respectable) Joint Research Center of the
European Commission; Funtowicz has many links with the GenØk or its founder Terje Traavik. See, an example. He wrote a
foreword to a book by Kamilla Lein and Fern Wickson Kjølberg. The latter is "scientist" at GenØk.
The seemingly scientific titles of these activists should not surprise anybody since GenØk practices a parallel "science" created by the political ecologist movement.
Conclusions
The EEA, in this report, failed in its alleged mission to provide “sound, independent” information.
Like the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report,
this report provides an example of an international organization infiltrated by green activists, and its reorientation towards an ideologically-compatible parallel "science".
The interest for political ecology is obvious: whenever possible they will cite this report as a reference validating their claims.
See also these comments (English version) by a French agronomist,
and an analysis by the Belgian institut VIB
LATEST NEWS:
My question to European Commission/ENV.F.4/Chief Scientist, Research and Innovation:
"Regarding the section on GMOs, can you explain to me what is the interest for the European tax-payers, who sponsored this report, to receive a report which does not present facts but the ideological belief of the Green lobby (we knew before that they are opposed to GMOs and they already received quite a lot of European money to express their views!)"
Reply from ENV.F.4/Chief Scientist, Research and Innovation:
"The European Environment Agency is a decentralised autonomous agency of the European Union, whose role in developing the knowledge base
for environment policy includes fostering open debates such as the one which is the basis of the Report in question.
Where this Report is concerned, the case study topics and the authors were selected independently (as indicated in the acknowledgement section of the report) and each case study was
peer-reviewed by experts in the various fields.
I can only reiterate that the EEA Report contained a series of chapters authored by independent authors and that none of the Report represents an EU policy position on any of the issues
covered."
My additional comments:
If these authors had been selected ‘independently’, one would not end up with 5 authors from the same anti-GMO organization!
If a proper peer-review process had been applied, this GMO section would have been rejected because it is making false claims. Therefore, these ‘experts’ were chosen in a manner which is just as ‘independent’ as the choice of authors!
