Category Archives: Health

Biotechnology, Britain, Economic, European Union, Government, Health, Science, Technology

Environment Secretary says GM farming would save the countryside…

The Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson MP, has controversially claimed that GM farming would save the countryside and cost less.

Mr Paterson says that Britain should lead the way in producing genetically-modified food because it would lower prices and free up the countryside.

A long standing advocate of GM technology, Mr Paterson claims its adoption in the UK could be as significant as the agricultural revolution.

He has pointed out that since 1996 there has been a hundred-fold increase in the use of GM crops around the world, with 17 million farmers in 28 countries now growing what critics have branded Frankenstein foods. Less than 0.1 per cent of this takes place in the EU.

According to Mr Paterson farmers wouldn’t grow these crops if they didn’t benefit from doing so. Governments wouldn’t license these technologies, he says, if they didn’t recognise the economic, environmental and public benefits. He also added that consumers wouldn’t buy these products if they didn’t think they were safe and cost-effective.

In a speech designed to appeal to traditionalists, he said that while the rest of the world is ploughing ahead and reaping the benefits of new technologies, Europe risks being left behind.

… The use of GM (technology) could be as transformative as the original agricultural revolution was. The UK should be at the forefront now, as it was then.

Mr Paterson says that GM farming can help feed people in poorer countries and inject missing vitamins into the diets of children in the UK. He also argued that using GM crops to improve yields will require less space, and will free up more greenfield land.

… If we use cultivated land more efficiently, we could free up space for biodiversity, nature and wilderness.

The Environment Secretary also promotes the view that GM crops can help combat the effects of Britain’s increasingly erratic climate.

In recent weeks, the Prime Minister, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport, and the Science Minister, David Willetts, have all voiced support for GM crops.

Mr Paterson intends to lead a campaign among European ministers to make Brussels lift many of its restrictions on the use of GM technology.

The Minister of State says that he is conscious of those who need reassurance on this matter. He highlighted the need for government, industry and the scientific community of having a duty to the British public to reassure them that GM is a ‘safe, proven and beneficial innovation.’

But despite the assurances, the Soil Association has warned:

… We need farming that helps poorer African and Asian farmers produce food – not farming that helps (GM producers) Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto produce profits.

Standard
Biotechnology, Health, Science

Research suggests GM diet ‘can lead to disease in pigs’…

GM crops could give pigs diseases, after scientists claimed those fed the so-called Frankenstein food had inflamed stomachs and heavier uteruses.

The research is significant because the digestive system and organs of pigs are similar to those of humans, who eat the pork from the animals.

A group of Britain’s biggest supermarkets recently ended a ban on the feeding of GM crops to pigs and other animals on farms in the UK.

Meat, milk and eggs from these animals are not labelled as having come from animals fed on GM crops.

The latest study will embarrass the Government, which supports GM crops and food, based on assurances that they have been proven safe for humans and the environment.

However, the research suggests this cannot be taken for granted.

The study was led by Dr Judy Carman, associate professor in health and the environment at Flinders University, Australia.

She said GM-fed female pigs had on average a 25 per cent heavier uterus than non-GM-fed females, which is a possible indicator of disease.

Also, severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs on a GM diet. Referring to the results as ‘striking’, Dr Carman added:

… We found these results in farm conditions, not in a laboratory, but with the benefit of strict scientific controls. We need to investigate if people are also getting digestive problems from eating GM crops.

The trial involved 168 newly-weaned pigs fed either GM soya and corn, or an equivalent non-GM diet.

But Professor Tom Sanders of Kings College, London, said that there were no differences in growth and mortality rates and pigs appeared in similar health. Cambridge Professor, David Spiegelhalter, has also said that the ‘conclusions don’t stand up to statistical scrutiny.’

The Biotechnology Industry Organisation said that this study was authored by ‘anti-biotech campaigners’. It added that hundreds of independent studies found no difference between animals fed GM or non-GM diets.

Owen Paterson MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, claims opposition to GM food should be cast aside in the interests of the economy and our ability to feed the world. Mr Paterson has dismissed scepticism of GM as ‘complete nonsense’.

A statement issued by Mr Paterson’s department said:

… The world’s population is set to hit nine billion by 2050, and we must increase food production, minimise waste and boost competition. We must not ignore technologies, including GM, that can meet the challenge.  

Standard
Health, Medical, Research, Science

HRT and the menopause: benefits now thought to outweigh risks…

After more than a decade of controversy, medical experts say that Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) for women in their 50s is safe in combating the menopause.

Taking medication to reduce the symptoms of the menopause is now deemed safe and the benefits for women on HRT are now thought to far outweigh the potential risks. Freshly released guidance from the British Menopause Society (BMS) has sought to reassure patients.

Medical experts say hundreds of thousands of women have suffered unnecessarily as a result of the decade-long controversy over the effects of HRT.

They say that General Practitioners (GPs) should prescribe the treatment to any woman who has unpleasant menopausal symptoms, such as hot flushes and mood changes. HRT is also known to provide bone protection in later life.

However, the debate over HRT use is likely to rage on as The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists continues to advise HRT prescription only for women with serious menopausal symptoms ‘for the shortest time possible’.

After a period of five years doctors are not expected to continue prescribing HRT medication without discussing potential risks with their patients.

Uptake of HRT halved after two studies linked it to an increased risk of heart disease and breast cancer. An estimated one million women in the UK stopped having the treatment.

But the emerging consensus now is that the benefits of HRT outweighed the risks for most women, and that GPs should consider the updated BMS advice when treating the condition.

Consultant Endocrinologist Dr Helen Buckler, from the University of Manchester, speaking at the Cheltenham Science Festival, said the two studies linking HRT to breast cancer and heart disease were ‘scientifically unreliable’.

She said:

… The new advice is HRT should be used for a slightly wider age, if need be. If a woman has symptoms affecting the quality of her personal or professional life, then the benefits outweigh the risk.

The scare of taking HRT began in 2002, when the US Women’s Health Initiative study was halted some three years early because researchers claimed women using HRT were at a higher risk of breast cancer, heart disease and strokes. Yet, this contradicted previous (and later) research which suggested its use guarded against heart problems.

HRT is normally prescribed to menopausal women in their 50s, but according to the WHI study it was also given to women in their 60s and 70s who had gone through the menopause more than a decade earlier.

Shortly afterwards the UK Million Women Study, part funded by Cancer Research, a charity, said HRT doubled breast cancer risk, but a review in 2012 said it was ‘unreliable and defective’.

The advice from Cancer Research remains that there is still convincing evidence that women who take HRT have an increased risk of breast cancer. Dr Buckler, though, said the organisation was ‘out of step’ and its approach had tended to ‘put women off’ taking the treatment.

Some younger doctors have never prescribed HRT because they assume the risks outweigh the benefits.

Cancer Research UK said there was ‘convincing evidence’ that women who take HRT have an increased risk of breast cancer, but says that risk returns to normal around five years after the medication is stopped being used.

The BMS guidance is also opposed to the ‘arbitrary’ five year limit on treatment, and says it should be continued if symptoms persist.

The BMS, a registered charity and medical foundation, receives no government funding. Its medical advisory council comprises leading international experts in post reproductive health management, who regularly draw up guidelines for health professionals.

Standard