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.
An explosive email from ICC CEO to the PCB, accusing it of compromising ICC rules by making a video of match officials before the match with UAE, shows the fire isn’t doused yet.
SEBI probe concluded that purported loans and fund transfers were paid back in full and did not amount to deceptive market practices or unreported related party transactions.
This is the first major attack on central security forces since last November, when a CRPF jawan was killed and four were injured in an ambush in Jiribam on Manipur-Assam border.
Many really smart people now share the position that playing cricket with Pakistan is politically, strategically and morally wrong. It is just a poor appreciation of competitive sport.
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?