Linggo, Disyembre 23, 2012

SDA ARTICLES

Ipinaskil ni sa Walang komento:

Miyerkules, Disyembre 12, 2012

What Pharmaceutical Companies Don't Want You To Know About Herbal Medicine!

Herbs or medicinal plants have a long history in treating disease. In traditional Chinese medicine, for example, the written history of herbal medicine goes back over 2000 years and herbalists in the West have used “weeds” equally long to treat that which ails us. We are all familiar with the virtues of Garlic, Chamomile, Peppermint, Lavender, and other common herbs.

Interest in medicinal herbs is on the rise again and the interest is primarily from the pharmaceutical industry, which is always looking for ‘new drugs’ and more effective substances to treat diseases, for which there may be no or very few drugs available.

Considering the very long traditional use of herbal medicines and the large body of evidence of their effectiveness, why is it that we are not generally encouraged to use traditional herbal medicine, instead of synthetic, incomplete copies of herbs, called drugs, considering the millions of dollars being spent looking for these seemingly elusive substances?

Herbs are considered treasures when it comes to ancient cultures and herbalists, and many so-called weeds are worth their weight in gold. Dandelion, Comfrey, Digitalis (Foxglove), the Poppy, Milk Thistle, Stinging nettle, and many others, have well-researched and established medicinal qualities that have few, if any, rivals in the pharmaceutical industry. Many of them, in fact, form the bases of pharmaceutical drugs.

Research into the medicinal properties of such herbs as the humble Dandelion is currently being undertaken by scientists at the Royal Botanical Gardens, in Kew, west London, who believe it could be the source of a life-saving drug for cancer patients.

Early tests suggest that it could hold the key to warding off cancer, which kills tens of thousands of people every year.

Their work on the cancer-beating properties of the dandelion, which also has a history of being used to treat warts, is part of a much larger project to examine the natural medicinal properties of scores of British plants and flowers.

Professor Monique Simmonds, head of the Sustainable Uses of Plants Group at Kew, said: "We aren't randomly screening plants for their potential medicinal properties, we are looking at plants which we know have a long history of being used to treat certain medical problems.

“We will be examining them to find out what active compounds they contain which can treat the illness."

Unfortunately, as is so often the case, this group of scientists appears to be looking for active ingredients, which can later be synthesized and then made into pharmaceutical drugs. This is not the way herbs are used traditionally and their functions inevitably change when the active ingredients are used in isolation. That’s like saying that the only important part of a caris the engine – nothing else needs to be included.

So, why is there this need for isolating the ‘active ingredients’?

As a scientist, I can understand the need for the scientific process of establishing the fact that a particular herb works on a particular disease, pathogen or what ever, and the need to know why and how it does so. But, and this is a BIG but, as a doctor of Chinese medicine I also understand the process of choosing and prescribing COMBINATIONS of herbs, which have a synergistic effect to treat not just the disease, but any underlying condition as well as the person with the disease. That is a big difference and not one that is easily tested using standard scientific methodologies.

Using anecdotal evidence, which after all has a history of thousands of years, seems to escape my esteemed colleagues all together. Rather than trying to isolate the active ingredient(s), why not test these herbs, utilizing the knowledge of professional herbalists, on patients in vivo, using the myriad of technology available to researchers and medical diagnosticians to see how and why these herbs work in living, breathing patients, rather than in a test tube or on laboratory rats and mice (which, by the way, are not humans and have a different, although some what similar, physiology to us)?

I suspect, that among the reasons for not following the above procedure is that the pharmaceutical companies are not really interested in the effects of the medicinal plants as a whole, but rather in whether they can isolate a therapeutic substance which can then be manufactured cheaply and marketed as a new drug - and of course that’s where the money is.

The problem with this approach is, however, that medicinal plants like Comfrey, Dandelion and other herbs usually contain hundreds if not thousands of chemical compounds that interact, yet many of which are not yet understood and cannot be manufactured. This is why the manufactured drugs, based on so-called active ingredients, often do not work or produce side effects.

Aspirin is a classic case in point. Salicylic acid is the active ingredient in Aspirin tablets, and was first isolated from the bark of the White Willow tree. It is a relatively simple compound to make synthetically, however, Aspirin is known for its ability to cause stomach irritation and in some cases ulceration of the stomach wall.

The herbal extract from the bark of the White Willow tree generally does not cause stomach irritation due to other, so called ‘non-active ingredients’ contained in the bark, which function to protect the lining of the stomach thereby preventing ulceration of the stomach wall.

Ask yourself, which would I choose: Side effects, or no site effects? It’s a very simple answer. Isn’t it?

So why then are herbal medicines not used more commonly and why do we have pharmaceutical impostors stuffed down our throats? The answer is, that there’s little or no money in herbs for the pharmaceutical companies. They, the herbs, have already been invented, they grow easily, they multiply readily and for the most part, they’re freely available.

Further more, correctly prescribed and formulated herbal compounds generally resolve the health problem of the patient over a period of time, leaving no requirement to keep taking the preparation – that means no repeat sales. No ongoing prescriptions, no ongoing problem.

Pharmaceuticals on the other hand primarily aim to relieve symptoms – that means: ongoing consultations, ongoing sales, ongoing health problems. Which do you think is a more profitable proposition?

Don’t get me wrong, this is not to say that all drugs are impostors or that none of the pharmaceutical drugs cure diseases or maladies – they do and some are life-preserving preparations and are without doubt invaluable. However, herbal extracts can be similarly effective, but are not promoted and are highly under-utilized.

The daily news is full of ‘discoveries’ of herbs found to be a possible cure of this or that, as in the example of Dandelion and its possible anti-cancer properties. The point is that these herbs need to be investigated in the correct way. They are not just ‘an active ingredient’. They mostly have hundreds of ingredients and taking one or two in isolation is not what makes medicinal plants work. In addition, rarely are herbal extracts prescribed by herbalists as singles (a preparation which utilizes only one herb). Usually herbalists mix a variety of medicinal plants to make a mixture, which addresses more than just the major symptoms.

In Chinese medicine, for example, there is a strict order of hierarchy in any herbal prescription, which requires considerable depth of knowledge and experience on the physician's part. The fact that the primary or principle herb has active ingredients, which has a specific physiological effect, does not mean the other herbs are not necessary in the preparation. This is a fact seemingly ignored by the pharmaceutical industry in its need to manufacture new drugs that can control disease.

Knowing that medicinal plants are so effective, that these plants potentially hold the key to many diseases, are inexpensive and have proven their worth time and time again over millennia, why is it that herbal medicine is still not in the forefront of medical treatments, and is considered by many orthodox, medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies as hocus-pocus, hmmm?
Ipinaskil ni sa Walang komento:

Secret Government

Secret Government
Ipinaskil ni sa Walang komento:

5 Common Questions About Generic Drugs



Summer Intern, Consumer Health Information Corporation 2008
Class of 2010: Creighton University School of Pharmacy and Health Professions
Every day people come into the pharmacy and ask questions about generic drugs. This makes a lot of sense since so many people are receiving prescriptions for generic drugs instead of the original brand name drugs.
It is estimated that 46% of the people in the United States take at least one prescription drug. This means that there were 3.3 billion prescriptions dispensed in 2006. The total cost of all of these prescriptions was $192 billion. The average cost to fill one prescription with a brand name drug is approximately $111.02, while a generic prescription averages $32.23. This means that you would have to pay over THREE times as much for a brand name drug than as a generic one!
Many patients go to their pharmacists every day and ask if there is any way they can lower their costs to purchase prescription drugs. One common way that patients try to save money is to take generic drugs instead of brand name drugs. Using generic drugs instead of brand name drugs can save $8-$10 billion each year.
Some of the most common questions people ask about generic drugs are the following. 

1.) What are Generic Drugs?

A generic drug is a copy of a brand name drug. To be sold, a generic drug must be “bioidentical” to the brand name drug. This means that the generic drug must be proven to be the same as the original brand name drug in the following ways:

• dosage form (tablet, capsule, liquid, etc.)
• strength (same amount of drug in both)
• safety
• how it is taken (by mouth, injection, etc.)
• quality
• how the medicine gets into the bloodstream and works in the body
The manufacturer must prove that their generic drug meets these requirements before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will approve it and allow it to be sold to the public.

2.) Why are Generic Drugs Cheaper Than Brand Name Drugs?

A brand name drug has to go through 10-15 years of research and testing in animals and people before it can be sold to the public. During this testing, the company making the drug must prove that it is safe and effective for people to use. All of this testing can cost over $1 billion. Once the new drug is approved, the company that made and tested it receives a patent. This means that no other company can make the drug until the end of the patent, which is usually 10-15 years after the drug is released.
When a patent for a brand name drug expires, any other company can copy the drug and sell a generic version. These other companies must only prove that their product is the same as the brand name drug. This means that generic drug companies do not have to spend as much time and money because they do not have to invent or test the drug for safety and get FDA-approval. This is why generic drugs cost less.
When a patent for a brand name drug expires, there are usually a number of companies that begin to make a generic version of the drug. Since there is more than one company making the drug, the price is lowered even farther due to competition between all of the different generic drug makers. 

3.) Are Generic Drugs as Safe and Effective as Brand Name Drugs?

The short answer to this question is “usually yes”. A company must prove that its generic version of a drug is both safe and effective before it can be sold to the public. The company that made the original brand name drug proved during years of testing that the drug is both safe and effective.
A company that makes a generic drug must show that its version of the drug is 80%-125% “bioequivalent” to the original brand name drug. For example: a brand name drug is taken and it is found that 100mg of medicine reaches the person’s bloodstream. For a generic version of the drug to be considered safe and effective, the active drug in the tablet or capsule must release between 80mg and 125mg reach the bloodstream (80-125%). This means that some companies might make generic versions that have 80mg reach the bloodstream and other companies might make generic versions that have 125mg reach the bloodstream. This difference isn’t a problem in most drugs. There are a few drugs, however, in which this can be an issue.
For example, some drugs are only safe and effective when the amount of medicine is within a small range in the bloodstream. This small range is called a “narrow therapeutic window.” This means that a small change in dose can cause a large change in the way the drug acts in the body. Below the therapeutic window, the drug is not effective. Above the therapeutic window, the drug could be harmful because too much drug is getting into the bloodstream. It is critical that the medicine be given in a dose that falls in the safe and effective range.
Let’s say a person is taking one of these drugs with a narrow therapeutic window. They have been taking a generic version of the drug that is 80% bioequivalent to the original brand name drug. After a few months, their pharmacy orders a generic version of the same drug that is made by a different company. This new version is 125% bioequivalent to the original brand name drug. This means that the new version of the drug could contain as much as 45% more active drug than the old version.
There are only a few drugs that have narrow therapeutic windows that need to be worried about. Some of these drugs include:

• Warfarin (used to prevent blood clots)
• Theophylline (used to improve breathing in people with asthma and other lung diseases)
• Phenytoin (used to prevent and treat seizures)
• Clonidine (used to treat high blood pressure)
• Quinidine (used to keep your heartbeat normal)
• Levothyroxine (used to treat low thyroid activity)
If you are taking one of these drugs it is very important to talk to your pharmacist to find out the name of the company that makes your generic drug. If you notice that your pharmacy has switched brands for your generic drugs (if your medicine looks different than normal), discuss this with your pharmacist and doctor and learn what signs to watch for to make sure you are still at the correct dose. 

4.) If This Generic Drug is the Same as the Brand Name Drug, Why Do They Look Different?

Just because two versions of the drug do not look the same does not mean they act differently in the body.
There are laws in the United States that say that a generic version of a drug cannot look the same as a brand name version. The company that makes the generic version of the drug can make it whatever color, shape, or flavor they want as long as the amount of active drug remains the same as the brand name drug. 

5.) How Do I Know if There is a Generic Version of the Drug that I Take?

There are a few different ways to find out if there is a generic version of the drugs you take.

• The easiest way is to ask your pharmacist. They will be able to tell you if there is a generic version of a drug available or when a generic version will most likely become available. Another way is to look it up yourself.
• The FDA has a website that lists all companies that make both brand name and generic drugs: http://www.fda.gov/cder/ob/default.php. By using this website, you can search for the drug you take to find out if there are any generic versions available.
Generic Drugs are Helpful, But We Still Need Brand Name Drugs

Generic drugs are cheaper than brand name drugs because the manufacturer does not have to spend money to discover and test the drug. However, without this research and testing, new drugs would never be discovered. Generic drugs can help save money, but if new brand name drugs aren’t developed, there will not be any new drugs available to help treat diseases. There is a place for both in our healthcare system.
Be careful switching from one generic drug to another. ALWAYS talk to your doctor and pharmacist before switching from a brand name drug to a generic drug or to a different brand of generic drug.
Ipinaskil ni sa Walang komento:

GM-Free Cymru

Keep up to date with our collection of News and Press Releases.

Older news 2003 - 2008
Date Title
11th December 2012
GM-Free Cymru		 Environment Minister's "naive acceptance of GM fairytale"
8th December 2012
GM-Free Cymru		 The corrupting of EFSA
14 November 2012 Hundreds of scientists defend Seralini against EFSA and other GM apologists
2 Nov 2012
Tages Woche (Switzerland)		 Hilbeck on the corruption of GM science
9 November 2012
Earth Open Source		 Regulatory approval of Roundup based on "don't look, don't see"
1st November 2012 EFSA -- hypocrisy, double standards and dodgy dealing on Seralini paper
8th October 2012
Press Notice 		Revealed: how EFSA staff orchestrated "official" rebuttals of Seralini research
28 September 2012
Medscape France		 Co-author of rat feeding study responds to criticisms
28 September 2012
The Guardian		 The Seralini file -- at last some sense from a journalist
25 September 2012 Corinne Lepage MEP slams critics of the Seralini study
24th September 2012
NYR Natural News		 UK media – a conspiracy of silence over GM health risks
19th September 2012
GM-Free Cymru 		THE END OF MONSANTO? Purveyor of deadly poisons and toxic GM foods accused of "twenty years of cynical and persistent scientific corruption"
19th September 2012
GM-Free Cymru 		"Dramatic" safety research findings threaten to wipe out global GM food industry
19th September 2012
CRIIGEN PRESS RELEASE		 GM toxicity:  We are all Guinea Pigs now!
19th September 2012
GM-Free Cymru 		PUSZTAI VINDICATED: GM FOOD IS TOXIC
September 19 2012
Food and Chemical Toxicology		 First peer reviewed lifetime feeding trial finds "safe" levels of GM maize and roundup can cause tumours and multiple organ damage
September 19 2012
ENSSER		 ENSSER and Heinemann fight back after attack from GM hitmen
September 19 2012
Le Nouvel Observateur, 		Yes, GMOs are poisonous!
13 August 2012
Egypt Independent 		Egyptian experiments confirm that GM feed damages health
09 August 2012
Press Release 		Complaint against EU authorisation of genetically engineered soybeans with stacked genes
Added 21st July 2012
Environmental Sciences Europe		 Independent scientists fight back against concerted GM industry attack
19 Jun 2012
Animal feed news 		GM-feed may harm the reproductive system of animals
Press release
20th May 2012		 Revealed: Rothamsted scientist's role in destruction of key GM research
News added 10th May Another EFSA scandal -- chair is forced to resign
News added 8th May
North Dakota State Seed Dept		 North Dakota farmers encouraged to use glyphosate-sprayed crops for feed, not seed
Press release
29th April 2012		 Danish Whistle blowers reveal links between GM soy, Roundup and health damage in pig herds
Press release
10th February 2012		 Pressure mounts on EC over "perverse science" used for GM approvals
Mother Jones
25th January 2012 		Dow and Monsanto show the way to their GM chemical farming paradise
Mother Jones
23rd January 2012 		Monsanto counts on utterly stupid farmers to buy its utterly useless GM corn
Downtoearth.org
December 15th 2011 		How Indian Farmers were lured into the GM technology trap
The Center for Investigative Journalism,
added 30th Nov 		Puerto Rico -- GM Paradise or GM Hell?
News added
9th November 2011 		GM-Free Cymru slams latest "evaluation" of GMO legislation in the EC
News added
21st October 2011 		Is Monsanto Using Us As “Human Guinea Pigs”?
News added
20th October 2011 		HOW MONSANTO DOES BUSINESS
News
20th October 2011 		Mexico -- Transgenic Cotton Harbours Hidden Dangers
The Guardian
19th October 2011 		GM crops promote superweeds, food insecurity and pesticides, say NGOs
Navdanya International
13th October 2011 		New Report: A Global Citizens Report on the State of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms)—False Promises, Failed Technologies
Review
9th October 2011 		New film exposes GM industry vilification of independent scientists
News
3rd October 2011 		Roundup and birth defects researcher presents findings to German government
14th July 2011 USDA abandons GMO crop regulation
Saturday, 21 May 201 Landmark US ruling against USDA and Monsanto in GM beet case
Daily Planet
May 11, 2011		 Roundup -- the most abused chemical ever used in agriculture
GM Freeze Press Release 3 May 2011 EU Report on GM socio-economic impacts is incompetent and biased
CNBC Poll
28 Aprill 2011		 CNBC flogs GM food -- and gets a kick in the teeth
AlterNet
27 April 2011 		Why Is Damning New Evidence About Monsanto's Most Widely Used Herbicide Being Silenced?
Reuters
8 April 2011 		Beginning of the end for Glyphosate and Roundup?
GM Watch
27 March 2011		 Roundup and birth defects: Carrasco vs Monsanto
A Huber/GMO/Roundup
29th March 		Latter-Day Luther Nails Troubling Thesis to GM Farm & Food Citadels
News Western Mail
22 March 2011 		Anti-GM scientist wins probe into food safety
Press release
17th March 2011		 EU Committee seeks full reform of EFSA and GM approvals process
Press release Plaid Cymru
16th March 2011		 EU food safety agency future questioned
News Added
29th January 2011		 How the biotech corporations buy GM "deregulation" in the US
News 29th January 2011 German Court upholds publication of pamphlet exposing GM Mafia
News 20th January 2011 US diplomatic pressure on GMOs / Monsanto's little helpers
News 19th Jan 2011 Independent GM researcher wins court victory for defamation
News 4th January 2011 GM mosquitoes release -- unregulated, uncontrolled and unethical
News 3rd Jan 2011 US diplomats were sales agents for Monsato's GM crops
News The Center for Food Safety USA
30th November 2010		 Federal court orders first-ever destruction of a GMO crop, orders removal of genetically engineered sugar beet seed crop
News Grist USA
20th October 2010		 Monsanto pays farmers to spray crops with rival herbicides
Press Release
5th October 2010 		New research ramps up pressure for science-based GM ban in Europe
News GM Watch
16 September 2010		 Commissioner Dalli admits EU food safety regime must change
GM Watch Press Release
16 September 2010		 Groundbreaking study shows Roundup link to birth defects
News
19 August 2010 		DNA from transgenic plants found in milk and animal tissue:
Traces of GM maize and soy in goats, fish and pigs
News
Amnesty International
12 August 2010		 HIRED THUGS SEEK TO SILENCE CARRASCO
Argentina: Threats deny community access to research
News
GM-free Ireland 23 July 2010:		 ILLEGAL GM MAIZE GROWN IN IRELAND
Press Release
12th June 2010 		Commission's cunning plan for fast-track GM approvals is rumbled
News
Mail on Sunday UK
added 6th June 2010		 GM FOOD AND A SINISTER BID TO TWIST PUBLIC OPINION CYNICAL SHAM THAT INSULTS PUBLIC
Press Release
4th June 2010 		WARNING OVER "HIDDEN AGENDA" IN OVERHAUL OF GM APPROVALS SYSTEM
Press Release
4th June 2010 		FSA's costly GM "promotion stunt" must now be abandoned
News
28th April 2010 		GM products: commission places commercial aspirations above consumer health EU Petitioner highlights deficiencies in GM assessment process
News
26th April 2010 		Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality in Hamsters
News
16th April 2010 		New Russian research says genetically modified foods are harmful
Press Release
11th March 2010		 EC Amflora consent will "galvanize public opposition to GM"
Press Release
23rd February 2010 		Commission slammed for illegal GM policy changes
Press Release
9 February 2010		 BT Brinjal -- science reasserts itself
News 9
February 2010 		Whistleblower confirms Monsanto scientific fraud
News
16 December 2009		 Three Major GMOs Approved for Food and Feed Found Unsafe
News
10 December 2009		 GERMAN MON810 FEEDING TRIAL RESULTS ARE WORTHLESS
Did the researchers manipulate the trial so as to obtain their desired "no harm" result?
News 27
November 2009		 FSA distorts research and moves into Pro-GM "Education"
News
16 November 2009		 Western Australia: Unprecedented political attack on GM scientist
News
9 November 2009		 Monsanto pulls GM corn amid serious food safety concerns
Applicant's dossiers contained wide-ranging fraudulent research
News
21 October 2009		 The Royal Society is wrong: GM technology will never deliver food security
News
24th September 2009 		The Harrington GM Maize stunt -- lies, fantasies, and cynical mischief- making
News
23rd September 2009 		A seed is planted: New dialogue makes significant progress in addressing independent seed research. Some progress on GM research blocking?
News
20th September 2009 		Pusztai 1999 - Carrasco 2009 Glyphosate whistle-blower comes under sustained attack
Press Release
15th August 2009		 UK Government feeds taxpayers money into GM Golden Rice project
Press Release
12th August 2009		 Harrington's GM con exposed - GM planting claim was a "grubby little stunt
Press Release
14th March 2009		 Golden Rice Humanitarian Board admits to human feeding trials
Press Release
26th January 2009		 Secret GM farmer faces prosecution calls
Press Release
8th January 2009		 Sick children used as GM feeding trial guinea-pigs



Further Reading

Do read our collection of documents

Analysis of Draft Regulation reveals EFSA trickery
Pusztai hitman oversaw EFSA's demolition of Seralini
EFSA slammed for "institutionalised pseudo-science" after rat study review
A critique of the new paper by Seralini et al -- statistics and significance
Seralini team defends itself against snarling GM rottweilers
The Monsanto Business Model and the Perfect Storm
Secrecy and Spoiler studies -- the Monsanto method.
Bt Toxicity Confirmed: Flawed Studies Exposed
What Rothamsted had not told you about the GM Wheat trial
Rothamsted Retrospect: Media poisoned by GM vitriol
The dangers of GM - Europe must learn the lessons from America
One million signatures aginst GM -- the Commission response (Greenpeace Briefing)
EFSA dodgy dealings under scrutiny
The GM cornflakes question
Scientists slam GM industry's "shoot the messenger" tactics
EFSA slammed for strong GM-industry bias
Cooking the Books: the dark arts of ISAAA and PG Economics
An insight into the mad world of American GM soy farming.......
Ten Key Facts about GMOs: from Jeffrey Smith
US State Department -- Monsanto's pimp
New 30-year study: Organic crops out-perform GM on all measures
GMO policy favours corporations - not the public interest
Cheap GM soy from Paraguay? Cheap -- so long as the real human costs are hidden away.......
GM propaganda -- another wolf in sheep's clothing
New study slams EFSA's GM industry contacts and bias
New statement on vilification of independent GM scientists
A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants
The criminal tale of Monsanto
More GM Trickery from EFSA. Environmental risk assessment guidelines are deeply flawed
No seeds, no independent research
The fiasco of the GM tomatoes
Roundup and Roundup Ready GM crops do threaten public health
Gutter Science: Inter-Academy Report On GM Crops
ROUNDUP RESEARCHER SEES OFF MONSANTO ROTTWEILERS
OGM science and regulation -- warnings from the drugs industry
Ethics and the GM approval process for import and processing
GMO Food - An Experiment on You?
Ten good reasons why GMOs are not compatible with organic agriculture
The BT cotton suicide belt -
thousands of cotton farmers in India are killing themselves in their fields
The science of wishful thinking: ISAAA's latest report on GM crops
Seralini is latest victim of attack by GM Rottweilers
Genetically modified fetishism
GM crops dramatically reduce biodiversity and economic sovereignty
MORE SHARP PRACTICE FROM THE FSA
How a little qualitative study is spun into a big quantitative one.............
A LANDMARK RULING
NZ Commerce Commission: animals fed on GM components ARE different
McHughen, his GM Triffid Flax and the inevitable disaster
GM crops do not increase yield
How the GM industry deals with dissidents:
The case of Christian Vélot, the french whistle blower.
US scientists complain about GM research blocking
Biotech companies limiting independent GM analysis
GM Crops worldwide-- The 2009 situation
Court Ruling paves the way for full release of GM planting information
The Precautionary Principle for GMOs: rational and needed
Monsanto slammed for false "GM is safe" advertising
The Monsanto files: fraud in Roundup / Glyphosate testing
Nature Biotechnology’s Dummy Proof
Presentation by Dr Brian John at the Launch of Independent Science Panel
The Science of GM Crops and Food - Fit For Public Consumption?
Paper for House of Commons 29 April 2004
'Approving GM Crops is anti-science' Dr. Brian John
WTO ruling - "No change to de facto European ban on GMOs"
Seeds of Doubt
Draft GM Coexistence Measures for Wales
EUROGM: gm free regions join forces TO DO!
ACRE approves secret GM crop trials
National Assembly for Wales and GM crops
GM Crops: What you should know.
Links To Websites of Interest
Read older news 2003 - 2008
Ipinaskil ni sa Walang komento:
Mag-subscribe sa: Mga Post (Atom)