"dramatiquement drôle" - L'Express
Acheter ce livre: Amazon.fr, FNAC, Eyrolles, Gibert Joseph
"Une fraîche et amusante satire du monde de la recherche." - Le Monde des Livres
Lack of traceability in the food we eat is no joke. But a picture's worth a thousand words, as internet humorists mock the incredible failure of food giants to perform basic supply chain quality management. Findus bears the brunt of the attack in France, but Tesco and Aldi also inspire #sm wits.
and the less funny headlines...
| | | |
| | |
Barbarro Navarro is a Paris based artist whose decades-long interest in the peoples of the Amazon rain forest inspired her first illustrated book for children, "Amazon Rainforest Magic: The Adventures of a Yanomami Boy". Based on her experiences with the Yanomami communities living in the jungles of Venezuela and Brazil, Amazon Rainforest Magic relates the journey of Namowë, a thirteen year old Yanomami boy, as he seeks a cure for his baby sister.
A Paris Writers News interview
____
Laurel Zuckerman: Where are you from ?
Barbara Navarro: Originally I’m from San Francisco, but I’ve been living in Paris since 1977. I first studied art at R.I.S.D. and then got my BFA at San Francisco Art Institute.
How did you end up in the Amazon rain forest writing a children’s book ?
For decades, I’ve been interested in knowing why people in subsistence cultures create art. I traveled first to the Dogon people of West Africa to study their végétal pigments, then received University support for obtaining permits from the Venezuelan government to spend time with Yanomami communities to learn more about their painting techniques for body painting and painting on ritual and shamanic implements. I spent several months each winter for twelve years in the Amazon Rainforest. Over the years, I had two exhibitions of my art work (including a burning sculpture performance to protest the ongoing destruction of the Rainforest) in Puerto Ayacucho, the regional capital of the Venezuelan Amazonas state.
Where did the idea for the book come from ?
I was so shocked by the degradation of the Rainforest and the lives of the Yanomami when I visited communities in Brazil that it transformed my painting into a more abstract style and I created the first of my (eight so far) burning sculpture performances.
The idea of writing a book for children about the Yanomami and Rainforest issues evolved from my need to speak out about these issues threatening their existence.
When did you start writing ?
While I was in Brazil and seeing the devastation myself. The book project took on a life of its own and an urgency.
How do you write ?
It seems to be dreaming itself to me. I help nurture it along, but it’s an irresistible force in my life !
What was the most suprising thing you discovered writing the book ?
I’ve been amazed by the way these books seem to inhabit me. I’m woken up in the night by conversations between the protagonist and the shaman or animals speaking and I have to get out of bed to write it down. I have to have a notebook with me everywhere I go.
How did you get along with the Yanomami ? Will they be able to read your book too ?
Interestingly, my art created a bond with the Yanomami immediately that has grown over time with return visits to the same communities. Instead of me observing them, they loved observing me drawing and painting. Their generosity in including me in their lives was incredible.
The book is being published in English and French first, then later in Spanish. The communities that I’m closest to don’t read in any language, not even Yanomami, but the book could be read to them out loud in Yanomami translated from Spanish.
You have a background in art. Did you also do the artwork ?
Yes !
Was it difficult to find a publisher ?
I’m working with a small publisher who specializes in e-books and on-demand printing through Amazon.com and Kindle.
How are you getting the word out about your book ? Who would you like to reach ?
People like you ! There’s been a lot of word-of-mouth momentum. This issue is also in the news at the moment because the destruction of the Amazon Rainforest is accelerating and the indigenous peoples affected by that are speaking out.
What are you working on now ?
I’m working on the second volume of the series as well as quiz books to accompany the different volumes in English, French and Spanish.
About Barbara Navarro
Barbara Navarro is a Franco-American artist who has lived in Paris since 1978. She studied at Rhode Island School of Design and the San Francisco Art Institute. Her exploration of techniques and natural pigments took her originally to West Africa and particularly to the Dogon people of Mali. Over several years, she studied the techniques of traditional « Bogolan » painting. The pigment is made using a mixture of plants that are dried and crushed and then mixed with mud and applied to canvas dyed an ochre color with boiled bark from the wolo tree .
Since 1997, voyages to the Amazon Rainforest in Venezuela and in Brazil have informed several series of paintings created while living among the Yanomami. The support used is roughly woven canvas prepared with acrylic medium then textured with a mixture of sand from the river bank and lava. This supple canvas is then rolled and easily transported on expeditions into the Amazon Rainforest. They are then painted using a mixture of acrylic colors and roucou, the plant-based pigment used by the Yanomami for their ritual paintings.
Her concern for the ongoing devastation of the Amazon Rainforest has inspired her films and installation projects. Since 2005, she has created a performance and film project « Fire Sculpture » to bring urgent attention to the Rainforest and the indigenous cultures that it sustains. To protest against its continuing destruction, she has been publicly burning her totemic sculptures. These burning sculptures symbolize the degradation of nature and the annihilation of indigenous cultures that depend on the forest for their survival.
| | | |
| | |
"Uranium mining in Niger is absolutely strategic for Areva, both for the supply of French nuclear power plants for the sale of this valuable material to foreign clients. In addition, according to French Government and business sources: Areva must increase its staff significantly to operate a new mine, which will increase its workforce from 25 people to over 300."
Several of Areva's employees are still being held hostage and, after the attack in Algeria, security concerns have intensified. The sending of French troops to secure a private company is, according to Guisnel, a first. Despite requests, the previous Prime Minister François Fillon had refused to send troops to guard the company, unlike his successor, Jean-Marc Ayrault.
For the complete article in Le Point click here.
For Areva's official information about its uranium mine at Imouaren click here.
For an Oilprice.com analysis of why The energy industry’s biggest security concerns right now should be Niger, click here.
For a Slate 2010 analysis of France's strategic interests in Niger by Gilles Bridier click here
Note: France relies on nuclear power for 80% of its electricity. This electricity is produced by EDF which contracts with Areva for the supply of uranium, the fuel currently used in French nuclear reactors. EDF and AREVA signed "two major contracts for the supply of 30,000 tonnes of natural uranium" last fall. See official Areva announcement here.
| | | |
| | |
Indestructible treats that could have won a war...
Take them anywhere. Literally ANYWHERE. On a five day cross country car trip with the three sibs, the cat and the slightly motion sick dog. On a rowboat in the metal box with worms and tackle. Into a desert wadi during a sandstorm. These soft, yellowish, cream(like) filled immortal delights offered one clear advantage over delicate French pastries - they'd follow you anywhere.
Victims of corporate greed, union intransigence, aggressive financial engineering, the fad for kale or even (longshot) the Chinese, Twinkies are now on their way out. And not just Twinkies, but also their friends in arms Hohos, Cupcakes, Dingdong and Snowballs (sooooo soft).
Yes, they were bad for you!
Yes, they contained chemicals whose names were so long my keyboard can't reproduce them.
Yes, they did not scream: sophisticated.
But so what?
For anyone growing up in the 70's (or 80's or 60's) in America, their taste evoked a rush of memories no less overwhelming than Proust's madeleine.
So weep for the Twinkie. And raise high the ebay auctions. Our past is gone and will not return.
Except as a shiny Jeff Koons parody, as large as a Hummer and just as soft.
and how Hostess CEO paid himself millions as company collapsed.
| | | |
| | |
"How should airlines treat larger passengers?"
The question is anything but simple. But The Economist, always seeking to entertain, decided to give it a try.
There is no one answer. In Canada, The Economist tells us, obese passengers can receive an extra seat for free if they bring a doctor's note, while in America humiliation and discomfort are to be expected (well, actually, that's for everyone).
How to reconcile competing interests?
For those seated next to someone too large to remain within the confines of his seat, the debate hits a nerve. Air travel is hard enough as it is! For a large person who needs to get somewhere, the tiny seats are a form of humiliating torture. For the airline, with its reliance on yield management to pack 'em in, the extra weight and bulk are costly inefficiencies.
The Economist poses the question, but it is the readers who supply the answers.
The most popular response, from Tobias G, is basically one long insult of fat people ("those massive land whales one sees often in the supermarket, riding in motorized chairs with baskets loaded with soda, candy and chips") - not really a solution (unless venting is considered a solution).
The second most popular response (by one vote) is simply silly. Malkavian suggests that having 20 obese people on the plane might save it in case of a terrorist attack - from 20 obese Al Qaida terrorists. ("Imagine the following plot - 20 Al Qaeda hijackers gorge themselves until they weigh 500 lbs each, and then board a plane. At a predetermined moment, they all get up from their seats and rush to one side of the plane, tipping it over and causing a crash. If there are 20 obese Americans on board however, they can rush to the other side and stabilize the plane.")
The third most highly rated response actually applies economic theory (and as such is my personal favorite): charge passengers like freight: by the pound. "Fuel costs are up to 40-50% of airline costs," Connect the Dots reasons. "And fuel expenditure is proportional to weight of passengers or cargo. Fat people are expensive to ship around, just like a refrigerator cost more to ship by parcel post than a down quilt. The Obese should simply be charged more for their added costly fuel expenditures--just like any other passenger who wants to ship extra, large luggage."
I already feel like freight when I board a plane - dangerous freight from the look of all those security guys e-raying me and making sure I take off my shoes. So why not go whole hog?
It's equitable - in that everyone is treated like extra baggage And it makes economic sense (fuel costs really are proportional to weight).
Anyone has a better idea out there?
| | | |
| | |
If Bertrand Delanoe has his way, by 2014 only cars respecting the Euro2 standard will be allowed within Paris. What is the Euro2 standard? Is this the best way to reduce dangerous emissions from cars in Paris? Will the law pass?
According to Yves Maroselli, writing in Le Point, nothing could be less clear. The worst pollutants will not be affected, as the Euro 2 standard does not call for the necessary filters, and new diesel engines, which would still be authorized, continue to produce dangerous particulates*. The chief advantage would be to reduce slightly the overall number of cars competing for road space.
Maroselli points out that 60% of Paris' public buses fail to respect environmental norms, setting a poor example.
As one French tweeter observed, not everyone can afford a new car. (@ELISA_IEJ Mesure de Delanoë absurde : interdire les voitures datant d'avant 1997. Tout le monde ne peut pas se payer une voiture neuve.)
Could the otherwise environment- friendly Delanoe be stooping to empty political gestures designed to boost the car industry by forcing consumers to buy new (preferably French) cars? In any event the measure does seem rather lacking in finesse. Let's hope it improves after some constructive criticism...
We are all for reducing air pollution in Paris. How to do this best remains a question which still awaits an answer...
*"Elle est plus discutable du point de vue de l'amélioration recherchée de la qualité de l'air. En effet, il est bon de rappeler que les principaux polluants mis en cause par les mesures récentes sont les particules et les oxydes d'azote. Or, la norme Euro5 qui a rendu obligatoire le filtre à particules n'est entrée en vigueur qu'en 2009, tandis que même les voitures diesel neuves continuent à émettre trois fois plus d'oxydes d'azote que les essence..."
| | | |
| | |
Joël GUILLEMAIN, chairman of ANSES' working group on Biotechnology deems a 90 day study by Monsanto, the company most interested in approval, as perfectly sufficient, even though the details of Monsanto's studies have never and will never be published. Says no need for longer study by independent agency because it's "'materially impossible."
In a perfectly bizarre interview, now behind Le Figaro's paywall, Joël Guillemain "expert à l'Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire," denounced Séralini's two year study of genetically modified Monsanto NK603 corn as statistically inconclusive because it followed only 200 rats, a number deemed insufficient.
When asked by Marc Mennessier whether future studies should be extended to two years (instead of only 90 days) Guillemain said, "No." To be statistically relevant, such a study would require over a thousand rats and this is "materially impossible."
When asked whether Monsanto and other industrialists should publish the details of their studies (which they have adamantly refused to do) Guillemain said "yes" but offered no measures to force them to do so.
The upshot of this strange interview: to slam Séralini's study of 200 rats as insufficient while arguing that it is impossible to study the necessary number for a statistically valid conclusion.
And to uphold the consumption of this untested product by hundreds of millions of human beings.
Interesting links
Joël Guillemain's testimony at the Senat on conflict of interest in the pesticide industry
Biopharm consulting (Joël Guillemain listed as team member)
ANSES members EMPTY Déclaration publique d'intérêt
Société.com listings for a person with the name Joël Guillemain (is this the same?)
"Experts et politiques cherchent avant tout à couvrir leur responsabilité pour l'avenir" - article Corinne Lepage
Monsanto sleight-of-hand in its NK603 maize study? - research analyst
| | | |
| | |
In an unsigned PDF published on the internet, six French academies (Agriculture, Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences, Technology, and Veterinary ) declare that they do not need to conduct an "expertise approfondie" into Séralini's study of Montanto NK603 GMO corn because "studies have already been carried out by specialized institutions." They name the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) which Séralini has repeated pointed to as a kind of lapdog for OGM industrialists like Monsanto.
Just try to track down the signatories. Or find out which commission takes responsibility. Was there a report? Did the members of each academy vote? (Were they even informed?) Who, exactly, are the scientific "experts" behind this anonymous condemnation? And in what specific ways do they think that Séralini's study is inferior to previous studies? The lack of transparency continues to reign in the world of OGM "science".
The criticisms cited resemble those already seen in Monsanto's thinly disguised PR campaign earlier this month (also unsigned).
What was the process? Did each Academy form a commission? Was there a report? Did members vote? And where were the Academies when Monsanto's own studies served to authorize the consumption of Monsanto's NK603 GMO corn by humans - with no critical review?
I consulted the site of the Académie Nationale de Médécine to look for clues. Surely there must be a Secretaire Perpetuel or a Commission or something listed. In fact, there's a page with "Groupes de travail" and another with "Commissions" but it is quite impossible to identify who might be the "experts" involved from either.
There's also a page with reports, but none concern OGM. So who, I wonder, authorized the inclusion of the French Academy of Medecine in this unsigned PDF? Impossible to tell on the Academy's own website. Of OGM and Séralini's study, no trace at all...
Any journalists out there who would like to track down the signatories of the "six academies" and let us know exactly what their expertise in the area of genetically modified organisms might be? They have, of course, every right to condemn Séralini's study ANONYMOUSLY and without close examination, but still it would be nice to know who these courageous unnamed heroes are and whether they have any experience at all in the matter under consideration.
Also, it would be instructive to ask the writer of the anonymous Le Monde article why no effort was made to track down the "experts" involved and interview them.
This just in: The HCB, the Haut Conseil de Biologies has concluded that Séralini's study "did not establish the causal links between the events observed and the consumption of NK603 corn" but at the same time called for a "an independent, contradictory, long term study under government [ie not private industry] control concerning the safety of NK603 corn"
"Le HCB estime qu'il n'y avait "pas de causalité entre les événements observés et la consommation de maïs NK603, traité ou non avec l'herbicide Roundup". "Le dispositif expérimental mis en oeuvre est inadapté aux objectifs de l'étude", juge également le HCB.
Dans le même temps, le HCB a recommandé une "étude de long terme, indépendante et contradictoire soit entreprise sous l'égide des pouvoirs publics quant à la sécurité sanitaire du maïs NK603". Tout en jugeant que l'article du Pr Séralini "n'est pas conclusif", le Haut conseil veut néanmoins "répondre aux interrogations de la société" sur l'innocuité de ce maïs OGM." - Huffpost
The NCB was wracked by defections and politics last year over the issue of OGM crops.
BREAKING Professor Séralini demands that Monsanto's studies receive the same scrutity as his own Le Pr Gilles-Eric Séralini, auteur d'une étude controversée sur un maïs OGM, a demandé lundi que les études de Monsanto qui ont servi à autoriser des OGM soient publiées et «décortiquées» comme les siennes
| | | |
| | |
In a two-year study, a team of French researchers led by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini found that rats fed Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” corn developed significantly more tumors than a control group not fed GM corn. The rats fed a GM diet also developed tumors that appeared earlier and behaved more aggressively, and died sooner than rats in the control group.
The Monsanto corporation has been orchestrating a public relations campaign to downplay and discredit the results, pointing out that the species of rat used is prone to tumors and that its own studies showed no problem.
However, the results, published in the prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, have not been called into question in any serious way, and the two year study is one that can, in accordance with scientific method, be replicated in order to prove or disprove the results.
Nouvel Observateur dedicated their Sep 20-26 cover to the study. The title "Yes, genetically modified crops are poison" ("Oui, les OGM sont des poisons") has been criticized for overenthusiasm, however the articles speak for themselves. 200 rats of the "Sprawgue Dawley" type were fed different menus for their entire lives. Some received GM corn treated with Monsanto's Roundup; others GM corn not treated with Roundup; others food with water that contained traces amounts of pesticide present in GM fields. Compared to rats who had no exposure to GM crops, "the GM-fed rats had two to three times more tumors than the the non GM fed rats, whatever their sex."
Why was this study such a shocker? Why had Monsanto's own studies not showed similar results?
The interview with Professor Séralini is most instructive.
Monsanto's study, he says, was deliberately limited to only 90 days, only a fraction of the rats' lifespan which averages two years. Also, many studies remain unpublished due to a total lack of transparency. He denounces the lack of long term studies by the GM industries and their associated experts on a food now consumed by hundreds of millions of people worldwide.
Professor Séralini suggests several reforms:
1) lifting of "confidentiality" on the tests performed by industrial manufacturers such as Monsanto. These are currently secret. (Health officials and scientists do not have access to all Monsanto's test results - only those Monsanto decides to publish.)
2) The use of "life-time" tests, that is test that cover the life cycle of the animal tested, not just a small portion of it. Astonishingly for a food consumed everyday, this is not currently the case. Thus Monsanto is able to declare a product safe based on the results of a test that lasts only 90 days on an animal that lives for more than 600 days.
3) The implementation of a systematic "counter-expertise". Scientific independence, Sélanini points out, is a myth.
4) Ensure that the scientific experts cited are both competent and independent (Unfortunately, he says, this is not currently the case).
The PR counter-attack mounted by Monsanto is designed to call the results of the French researcher's results into question by citing friendly authorities who are not actually experts in this specific field or the very different results of its own, deliberately limited studies. This serves to create doubt and confusion, in the hopes of evading regulatory action.
The best way to evaluate results of this kind is, of course, to duplicate the study. The challenge: to enlist researchers who are both independent of the industry and have the scientific credibility necessary to confirm or infirm the results.
Gentlemen, to your rats!
see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637 (see abstract below)
also, see Séralini's book (in French) Tous Cobayes
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
Food and Chemical Toxicology abstract
, 
, The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.
► A Roundup-tolerant maize and Roundup provoked chronic hormone and sex dependent pathologies. ► Female mortality was 2–3 times increased mostly due to large mammary tumors and disabled pituitary. ► Males had liver congestions, necrosis, severe kidney nephropathies and large palpable tumors. ► This may be due to an endocrine disruption linked to Roundup and a new metabolism due to the transgene. ► GMOs and formulated pesticides must be evaluated by long term studies to measure toxic effects..
| | | |
| | |
In a remarkable article entitled "The Organic Fable" NYT op-ed columnist Roger Cohen attacked organic foods for failing to be more nutritious than regular foods, citing a Stanford metastudy.
People who grow and eat organic foods, however, are trying to avoid pesticides, hormones and antibiotics, which have repeatedly been shown to be dangerous for both the environment and for the people forced to consume them.
Nowhere in his article, unfortunately, did Cohen grapple with - or even mention- this. (This is especially curious because the NYT's article by Kenneth Chang that he links to DOES talk about these concerns.)
What's interesting here is that this line of attack - ignoring the reasons why people want organic foods while focusing on a nutritional claim publicized by the foes of organic in order to discredit it - has been used before. In 2009 in Britain.
And it smacks of corporate com.
Setting up a straw man (nutritional claims) in order to knock it down is a classic Mad Men tactic.
As is changing the conversation.
Organic is about protecting ourselves and our children from pesticides present in industrially produced vegetables and fruits and from the residue of hormones and antibiotics in industrially produced poultry, beef and pork. Its farmers want to protect our land and water from contamination.
It is perfectly understandable that the agribusiness, drug and chemical industries prefer not to focus on these issues. Especially since research on the impact of the consumption of pesticides and hormones on the health of laboratory animals is profoundly negative. And the rising resistance of bacteria to antibiotics has been traced in part to their massive use in industrial feedlots.
What is not clear is why Roger Cohen fell for it.
Mr Cohen, pehaps in your next article you can take a closer look at origins of studies blatantly oriented to serve corporate interests. And report back to us on the conclusions of the many specific scientific studies on the impact of pesticides, hormones and antibiotics on our children, and the environment.
| | | |
| | |
