+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: OneHealth

  1. Link to Post #1
    Canada Avalon Member TomKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2017
    Thanked 13,292 times in 2,363 posts

    Default OneHealth

    World Government is emplementing total control over human and animal health and nutrition, with something called OneHealth:


  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to TomKat For This Post:

    Alecs (16th January 2023), ExomatrixTV (15th January 2023), Harmony (16th January 2023), Hym (15th January 2023), Johnnycomelately (15th January 2023), Spiral (15th January 2023), Vangelo (15th January 2023)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    English, Dutch, German, Limburgs
    Thanked 111,036 times in 18,201 posts

    Exclamation Re: OneHealth

    • Dig It! #173: With Special Guest Elze van Hamelen


    In this week's podcast we are joined by special guest, researcher and reporter, Elze van Hamelen to discuss the One Health agenda, the WHO International Health Regulations, gene edited food, lab grown meat, mRNA injections for animals and more.
    Find and support Elze's work here:
    The European Commission is considering deregulating 'new genetic techniques' (ngt). This is evident from secret policy scenarios that have come out through the environmental organization GMWatch. A long-term aggressive lobby of the US government, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, multinationals such as Bayer, BASF, Dow and Monsanto, as well as the University of Wageningen and the Dutch government, seems to be successful. The genetic manipulation would contribute to achieving sustainability goals, but critics say there is no evidence for this and the lobby behind the deregulation is out for "total control over global food production". The EU regulation of genetically engineered organisms (GMOs) has been a thorn in the side of the agrochemical industry since its introduction in 2001. The EU applies the precautionary principle for placing GMOs on the market, which requires risk assessments, tracing and labeling of GMO products. This makes it difficult to introduce GMOs on the EU market and if that is successful, consumers and retailers are not open to these products. In other countries with no or less strict GMO regulation, such as the US, the patented seeds and accompanying pesticides are very lucrative for the agrochemical industry.

    The industry is now trying to circumvent the existing GMO legislation by introducing 'new genetic techniques'. In traditional genetic engineering, foreign DNA is introduced into an organism. With the new techniques, DNA is edited, that is, the DNA is 'rewritten' by various cutting and pasting methods, such as the CRISPR/Cas technology. According to the industry, this technique is more precise than traditional genetic engineering, and only causes minor adjustments that could also have occurred in nature. Critics argue that the basic process is still genetic engineering. Ricarda Steinbrecher, who specializes in molecular genetics and is co-director of Econexus, a research organization that studies the environmental impact of new technologies, says that “it is worrying that the development of new genetic techniques seems to be mainly aimed at circumventing regulation and makes it difficult for the public to recognize that genetic engineering has been used.” In the article Genetic engineering in plants and the 'New Breeding Techniques (NBTs), she analyzes seven editing techniques, demonstrating that they carry the same risks as traditional genetic engineering. Steinbrecher: “There is sufficient scientific basis to regulate these techniques with the same strictness as existing GMOs”.

    According to the lobby watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory, the new genetic techniques also fall legally under existing GMO legislation. The industry sees it differently. In 2015, the Commission announced that it would publish a non-legally binding interpretation of the existing legislation. Meanwhile, the New Breeding Techniques (NBT) platform was established in 2012, to which companies such as Syngenta, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, Inova Fruit and biotech lobby association EuropaBi are affiliated. Coordination is in the hands of the Dutch consultancy company Schuttelaar and Partners. Wob requests from Corporate Europe Observatory show that Wageningen University (WUR) regularly attends NBT meetings and that the Dutch government is also exerting pressure in Brussels to deregulate new genetic techniques. In 2018, following a case brought by France, the European Court of Justice ruled that products resulting from new genetic techniques should be regulated under existing GMO legislation. That is not to the liking of the US government. US Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue writes in a press release on July 27, 2018: “This statement unfairly stigmatizes new technologies”.

    Perdue speaks of “regressive and outdated regulations”. On 5 September 2019, EU Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis meets with US Assistant Secretary of State Ted McKinney. McKinney says the US is "frustrated" by the Court's ruling, and that "the EU needs to think more carefully about the implications of the ruling and recognize that EU law needs to change." The US environmental group Food and Water Watch exposes much more lobbying activity from US embassies around the world. The lobby meeting CRISPRcon 2019 is co-organized by the University of Wageningen.

    The NBT platform will close in 2019, but its activities appear to be continued by the “independent academic organization” European Plant Science Organization (EPSO). This includes developing an attractive narrative. For example, it is stated that genetically modified products can contribute to combating climate change and reducing pesticide use. In addition, in July 2020, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will donate $1.5 million to the think tank Re-Imagine Europe to set up an 'innovation and climate task force', with the aim of “engaging a broad group of European stakeholders in a debate on genetic editing in the 21st century”. An expert committee of the task force indicates that a redefinition of industrial agriculture versus organic production is desirable, so that the new genetic techniques can be promoted as 'green'.

    In 2021, the Study on New Genomic techniques, which is being commissioned by the European Council, will conclude that the new genetic techniques can contribute to a more sustainable food system and to achieving the goals of the European Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy. The European Commission will then reopen the debate on the regulation in April 2021. In the same month, Wageningen University publishes an article entitled: Scientists urge the EU to allow the use of new genetic techniques and modern biotechnology in organic farming. In it, the university states that allowing "new breeding techniques such as gene editing in organic agriculture" is necessary to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. According to Richard Visser, Professor of Plant Breeding in Wageningen, “organic agriculture and gene editing can complement each other very well and, combined, contribute to more local and global sustainability”.

    Hans van Scharen, researcher at Corporate Europe Observatory, disagrees. “Regulations have so far protected consumers, farmers and the environment by requiring a minimum safety check,” he says. “In addition, GMO products must be recognizable. That is now released. It is said 'there must be freedom of choice'. But that freedom apparently does not apply to consumers or organic farmers who emphatically do not opt ​​for GMOs.”
    According to a consortium of 58 organic advocacy groups, “The Commission is sailing blindly on the promises of the GMO industry. There is no scientific substantiation for the claims that the new techniques contribute to sustainability. At the same time, the extensive scientific literature that shows that genetic editing carries risks is ignored.

    “European politicians often indicate that we should listen to science,” says Van Scharen. “They act like there's some kind of consensus about these gene-editing techniques. There isn't. There are many scientists who are very concerned and express this. But they are barely heard. In addition, there is a conflict of interest. Many of the scientists who are active in all kinds of lobbying platforms have an interest in deregulation themselves. They have patents to their name, or they work closely with agrochemical companies”. He warns that there are four companies - Syngenta, Bayer, Corteva and BASF - that control the market. “If this deregulation continues, that concentration will only increase. All those seeds, plants and new crops are patented. Who holds those patents? The same companies that already dominate the market. This is about taking control of global food production.” The Commission will present a policy proposal in the second quarter of 2023.
    Last edited by ExomatrixTV; 15th January 2023 at 22:36.
    No need to follow anyone, only consider broadening (y)our horizon of possibilities ...

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ExomatrixTV For This Post:

    Harmony (16th January 2023), Michi (15th January 2023)

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts