EU investigation of the paper by Gilles-Éric Séralini comes as much-needed validation for scientists and farmers in India who have been pushing for GM crops.
Only 8.52% of total budget has been released in 3 years by Modi govt to clean Ganga; inter-ministerial tussle, lack of cooperation from states major hurdles.
Many offices in Telangana have asked their employees to work from home because of heavy rainfall, but it has become impossible due to the internet outages.
The new law, which the government has framed as a moral duty, forced major platforms like Dream11 & Zupee to shut operations, wiping out hundreds of crores in market capitalisation.
The Navy has always been on board with the theaterisation plan, but the Air Force feels splitting up air assets into several theatre commands is futile & will tie up critical systems.
Putin sees this as a victory. Europeans have decided to deal with Trump on his terms for the sake of the larger Western alliance. We look at the lessons for us in India.
It is interesting that the article does not provide counter viewpoints of other scientists both Indian and international based on which the reader can form an informed opinion. Work of scientists like Prof Schubert: Salk Institute, USA, Prof Jack Heinemann: University of Canterbury, NZ and Prof David Andow: Dept of Entomology: University of Minnesota: Distinguished McKnight University Professor, to name a few would provide readers with other points of view. In addition it must be noted that the decision in 2010 on Bt Brinjal was based on a countrywide consultation process in which scientists like the late Molecular Biologist Dr. P.M Bhargava and Prof M S Swaminathan among others participated. Seralini’s paper was one of the references provided. As a responsible Science journalist I think it is important that the author provide all arguments for a balanced article on a polarising issue like GM foods.
Hopefully the current Indian authorities are educated and humane enough to allow GE Brinjal and also have the integrity and functioning spines to do so.
It is interesting that the article does not provide counter viewpoints of other scientists both Indian and international based on which the reader can form an informed opinion. Work of scientists like Prof Schubert: Salk Institute, USA, Prof Jack Heinemann: University of Canterbury, NZ and Prof David Andow: Dept of Entomology: University of Minnesota: Distinguished McKnight University Professor, to name a few would provide readers with other points of view. In addition it must be noted that the decision in 2010 on Bt Brinjal was based on a countrywide consultation process in which scientists like the late Molecular Biologist Dr. P.M Bhargava and Prof M S Swaminathan among others participated. Seralini’s paper was one of the references provided. As a responsible Science journalist I think it is important that the author provide all arguments for a balanced article on a polarising issue like GM foods.
Hopefully the current Indian authorities are educated and humane enough to allow GE Brinjal and also have the integrity and functioning spines to do so.
Again, Eric, you are here cheerleading beneath a pro-GM piece, but again you are totally unaware or willfully ignorant of the situation and thus wrong – again: https://countercurrents.org/2018/06/17/pro-gmo-activism-and-smears-masquerade-as-journalism-from-seralini-to-jairam-ramesh-aruna-rodrigues-puts-the-record-straight/
Will the Indian Supreme court lift the 10 year ban?