Antineoplastic,Antineoplastic Agents,Natural Antineoplastic,Methotrexate Antineoplastic NOUVASANT PHARMhealth LTD. , http://www.nouvasant.com
Transgenic is blocked in the United States
——Interview with Professor Dulins Debinsky, Scientific Advisor of “Greenpeace†On December 1st, Greenpeace published a report to the media in Beijing, “The Risks to Health and the Environment of GM Rice in Chinaâ€. This report was completed by two British scientists. On November 30th, as a scientific advisor to Greenpeace, Prof. Duolinsdebinski came to Beijing from the United States to explain the report to the media. In the afternoon of the same day, she accepted an interview with this newspaper at the Greenpeace Beijing office. Durrinsky is also a professor of global environmental politics at the University of the Atlantic in Maine, USA. Over the past 15 years, she has been working on research in the fields of sustainable agriculture and genetic engineering safety, and in international trade agreements, Advocacy and appeals in the areas of intellectual property and biosafety. Ecologists' pressure: On the issue of genetically modified foods, most people think that the United States supports and the EU opposes China at a crossroads. So, in the United States, have people completely accepted GM foods? Durin Stobinski: Scientists are basically divided into two groups. They belong to the fields of molecular biology and biotechnology. They research and develop genetically modified foods. The other faction is mainly ecologists who have reservations and criticisms of genetically modified foods. However, more than ten years ago, universities and other research institutions exerted great pressure on ecologists, making it difficult for them to make a sound. But now, ecologists have become more and more dare to speak and grow louder, and they have found more and more fellow travelers. Reporter: Why did universities put pressure on ecologists? Durains Debinsky: Because the university has received less and less money from the government, it is increasingly dependent on large biotech companies to provide research funding. Therefore, the university does not want its own scientists to have too many criticism. In addition, in the universities, there are quite a lot of research funds in biotechnology research, and the influence of molecular biologists in universities is much greater than that of ecologists. To discuss this issue, one cannot escape from the political factors behind science. In recent years, large American agrochemical companies have been screwed up with those who engage in biotechnology. For example, Monsanto in the US, which was originally a pesticide company, has now become a biotechnology company. Such a large interest group has considerable influence on the U.S. government’s agricultural policy. Such interest groups are concerned not with the interests of the peasants but with how to increase their profits. Reporter: You have always criticized the "patent on life" law, which holds that biologists and biotech companies that hold patents have become "pirates of life", turning resources shared by humans into property rights of private individuals and enterprises. Is this legal provision important for the development of GM technology? Durinsky Debinsky: This is a key reason for the development of transgenics. In the 1980 "Daihamon vs. Chuck Nabodi"?Diamond vs. Chakrabarty?famous case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a bacterial organism capable of digesting oils could become a patented product. This decision establishes a precedent for a creature to become a patented product. Since then, the life industry?life industry?company has started patent control of genetic resources such as microorganisms, genes, cells, organs, embryos, and genetically modified plant and animal species. This is the "patent for life." This case has a huge impact on the United States. Many large companies engaged in agricultural chemicals have begun to annex seed companies so that they can obtain patents. When farmers want to plant them, they must purchase seed from them. Moreover, they must not leave their own seeds for the coming year. Scientific research in universities has also been greatly affected. In the past, scientists had good income in college, but do not dream of becoming millionaires. But now it's different. Bioscientists can own patents, set up their own companies, or sell patents to others and become themselves millionaires. This interest drive plays an important role in scientists' research on genetically modified technology. The United States does not have staple foods for the commercialization of genetically modified plants. Reporter: Is there currently a staple food crop planted with genetically modified plants in the United States? Durningsdebinsky: There has been no staple food for transgenic planting. In the United States, soybeans, corn, rapeseed, cotton and papaya are all grown in large areas and are not staple foods for humans. Moreover, soybeans and corn are mainly used for feed. Some foods eaten by Americans do belong to genetically modified foods, but a little bit of genetically modified soybean oil, corn flour, and a whole lot of bread in front of you, and a large plate of pasta are all genetically modified foods, giving people a totally different feeling. . Wheat is the staple food for Americans and Canadians. Monsanto had applied to the U.S. government and the Canadian government for the commercial cultivation of genetically modified wheat, but it was strongly opposed by the farmers' association. The peasant group sent an open letter requesting Monsanto to withdraw its application. Because the farmers are clear that there is no overseas market for GM wheat, the European Union and Japan will refuse to import GM wheat and turn to other import sources. The Canadian government is likely to make a decision to dismiss the application because of its opposition to the Chinese side and the consideration of environmental risks. Monsanto believes that if it is rejected by such an important national government, it will be extremely unfavorable to them. Thus, in the first half of this year, they took the initiative to withdraw their applications from both the Canadian and U.S. governments. Reporter: So, in the United States, genetically modified foods are also facing great resistance? Du Linssi Debinsky: Yes, GM companies have been counterattacked, and the counterattack is growing. In the past year, three counties in California have conducted a referendum and decided to ban the cultivation of genetically modified crops in their counties. This is learned from Europe. In some parts of Europe, local residents strongly oppose GM foods and classify their regions as “non-genetically modified landsâ€. Now this method is also introduced into the United States and will continue to spread. A U.S. company conducted a field trial of medicinal genetically modified rice in California. It was opposed by local farmers and was kicked out of California by farmers and transferred to Missouri. Now, California farmers have been in contact with farmers in Missouri, alerting them to the company’s behavior. Reporter: Is it true that the U.S. genetically modified scientists and genetically modified organisms would like to see China's GM rice planted commercially? Durin Stobinski: Of course. In the past few years, these people often used the example of China's cultivation of genetically modified cotton. They said that developing countries benefited from genetically modified cotton. If China re-commercially grows genetically modified rice, it would be a powerful propaganda weapon for them. Moreover, after the failure of the commercialization of genetically modified wheat, there has not been a staple food that is genetically modified (GM). They would like to see a wide variety of genetically modified crops that are staple foods. At present, because the rice seed market is relatively fragmented, it is difficult for large foreign seed companies to obtain direct benefits from the Chinese rice seed market. However, the vision of large companies is long-term. From the perspective of the failure of applications for genetically modified wheat, the United States Biotech companies are afraid of the products they launch. They are then opposed by farmers and the government. Therefore, they are very happy to see Chinese scientists promoting the commercial production of genetically modified rice. Chinese scientists themselves take risks. Once the commercialization is successful, these large foreign biotech companies have come back to the industry and monopolized the seed market through large-scale acquisitions of patented Chinese bio-companies.