Australia’s wheat scandal
Today we released our report outlining the controversy surrounding the GM wheat trials across Australia. Our investigations reveal the biotech takeover of our daily bread.
Australia’s national science body, CSIRO, has approved the world’s first human feeding trials of GM wheat. This is despite serious health, economic and environmental risks. We’ve detailed our findings in a new report titled ‘Australia’s wheat scandal: The biotech takeover of our daily bread.’
Our findings reveal that CSIRO is in partnership with GM biotech companies to commercialise Australia’s daily bread. It is these companies that stand to benefit – and it is Australian farmers and consumers that stand to lose – if Australia pursues GM wheat. The involvement of biotech companies in the field trials represents a clear conflict of interest. It also corrupts the kind of thorough risk analysis that would have prevented the release of GM wheat across Australia.
Health Risk Australia is the first country in the world to test GM wheat on humans. GM wheat will only be tested on Australians in short-term and superficial trials that run for just 1 day. There is no stated intention to test for long-term effects or other negative health effects such as allergic or toxic reactions. Read the open letter from scientists and doctors around the world regarding human feeding trials of genetically modified wheat in Australia
Read more by clicking on source or pic thanks
Animal rights, also known as animal liberation, is the idea that the most basic interests of non-human animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings. Advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions, ranging from the protectionist side of the movement, presented by philosopher Peter Singer—with a utilitarian focus on suffering and consequences, rather than on the concept of rights—to the abolitionist side, represented by law professor Gary Francione, who argues that animals need only one right: the right not to be property. Despite the different approaches, advocates broadly agree that animals should be viewed as non-human persons and members of the moral community, and should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment...WIKI
Twitter @animalforce
Facebook http://www.facebook.com/Margforsharks
"THERE WILL COME A TIME WHEN MEN SUCH AS I WILL LOOK UPON THE MURDER OF ANIMALS AS THEY NOW LOOK UPON THE MURDER OF MEN" LEONARDO DA VINCI
Animal Advocate, Shark Conservationist, Animal liberationist, Greenpeace Frontliner, Vegan and Buddhist. Fearless EcoWarrior!
-->
