MINISTERUL EDUCATIEI NATIONALE

UNIVERSITATEA ECOLOGICA DIN BUCURESTI

CENTRU DE INSCRIERE SI EDUCATIE UNIVERSITATEA BRAILA

REFERATENGLEZA

NUME STUDENT: Oleniuc(Vilcu) Lucy

Research genetically modified organisms(crops, animals, farms) in your area- possible harmful effects.

European Union

See also: Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms Europe

Genetic modification has been the subject of international trade disputes, one of which arose between the United States and Europe in the early 2000s. Until the 1990s, Europe's regulation was less strict than in the U.S. In 1998, however, the use of MON810, a Bt expressing maize conferring resistance to the European corn borer, was approved for commercial cultivation in Europe. Moreover, in the 1990s a series of unrelated food crises created consumer apprehension about food safety in general and eroded public trust in government oversight of the food industry - most importantly, the infection of cows with bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the mishandling of food safety by European authorities. In 1998, a de facto moratorium led to the suspension of approvals of newgenetically modified organisms (GMO) in the European Union pending the adoption of revised rules to govern the approval, marketing and labelling of biotech products.

The approval of genetically modified crops in the United States in the mid-1990s precipitated strong public concern in Europe and led to a dramatic decrease in American exports to Europe. "Prior to 1997, corn exports to Europe represented about 4% of total U.S. corn exports, generating about $300 million in sales. Starting in 1997, however, the U.S. largely stopped shipping bulk commodity corn to the EU because such shipments typically commingled corn from many farms, including genetically modified varieties not approved by the EU. The change was dramatic. For example, before 1997, the U.S. sold about 1.75 million tons of corn annually to Spain and Portugal, the two largest importers of U.S. corn in the EU. But in the 1998–99 crop year, Spain bought less than a tenth of the previous year’s amount and Portugal bought none at all." [424]

In May 2003, the United States and twelve other countries filed a formal complaint with the World Trade Organization that the European Union was violating international trade agreements, in blocking imports of U.S. farm products through its long-standing ban on genetically modified food. The countries argued that the EU's regulatory process was far too slow and its standards were unreasonable given the overwhelming body of scientific evidence showing that the crops were safe. The case was also lobbied by U.S. biotechnology giant Monsanto and France's Aventis, as well as by US agricultural groups such as the National Corn Growers Association. In response, in June 2003, the European Parliament ratified a U.N. biosafety protocol regulating international trade in genetically modified food, and in July agreed to new regulations requiring labeling and traceability, as well as an opt-out provision for individual countries. Afterward, the approval of new genetically modified organisms began again in May 2004. While a number of other GMOs have been approved since then, approvals remain controversial and various countries have utilized the opt-out provisions. In 2006, the World Trade Organization ruled that the pre-2004 restrictions had been violations, although the ruling had little immediate effect since the moratorium had already been lifted.

In late 2007, the U.S. ambassador to France recommended "moving to retaliation" to cause "some pain" against France and the European Union in an attempt to fight the French ban and changes in European policy toward genetically modified crops, according to a U.S. government diplomatic cable obtained byWikiLeaks.

Are these crops with pesticides use-harmful effect on environment?

Pesticides and the Environment

Since the publication of Rachel Carson’s landmark 1962 book Silent Spring, the impacts of pesticides on the environment have been well known. Pesticides are toxic to living organisms. Some can accumulate in water systems, pollute the air, and in some cases have other dramatic environmental effects. Scientists are discovering new threats to the environment that are equally disturbing.

Pesticide use can damage agricultural land by harming beneficial insect species, soil microorganisms, and worms which naturally limit pest populations and maintain soil health;

Weakening plant root systems and immune systems;

Reducing concentrations of essential plant nutrients in the soil such nitrogen and phosphorous.

The Myth of Safety: A Failed Regulatory System

Despite what government agencies and corporations tell you, pesticide products currently on the market are not safe, even when they are used legally. There are many flaws in the way that pesticides are registered and in our political process that allows corporations to influence pesticide policy to allow the continued use of their poisonous products.

Even if we know that a pesticide causes severe health and environmental impacts, including cancer and genetic damage, it may still be allowed for use. The EPA may determine that a cancer-causing chemical may be used despite its public health hazard if its "economic, social or environmental" benefits are deemed greater than its risk. According to the US EPA, more than 70 active ingredients known to cause cancer in animal tests are allowed for use.

Although industry tests for a wide range of environmental and health impacts, the vast majority of pesticides currently on the market have not been fully tested.

Pesticides often contain inert ingredients in addition to the active ingredients that are designed to kill the target pest. Unfortunately, the public is not provided information about what inert ingredients are included in pesticides in most cases.

At least 382 of the chemicals that the U.S. EPA lists as inert ingredients were once or are currently also registered as pesticide active ingredients. This means that the public is kept in the dark about the contents of pesticide products that may be hazardous. Among the ingredients that are listed as both inert and active ingredients are chloropicrin, which has been linked to asthma and pulmonary edema, and chlorothanonil, a probable human carcinogen.

The Solution to Pesticides

We need to make our food, our air, our water, and our soil free from toxic chemicals.

The real solution to our pest and weed problems lies in non-toxic and cultural methods of agriculture, not in pulling the pesticide trigger. Organically grown foods and sustainable methods of pest control are key to our families’ health and the health of the environment.

Better testing. State and federal agencies should require stricter independent testing, including testing of synergistic effects of pesticides. Pesticides known or suspected of causing human health problems should be phased out.

Protect our children. Because our children are the most vulnerable population to pesticides, pesticide use should be prohibited in places where our children live and play, including schools, parks, and playgrounds. Require strict non-toxic pest management programs for such places.

Pesticide Use Reduction. Provide technical assistance to farmers, local governments, businesses, and homeowners on non-toxic alternatives to pesticide use. This includes alternatives to nuisance spraying for mosquitoes and controlling West Nile virus and other pest problems.

Prohibit pollution of our water and poisoning of our communities. Ensure that aerial pesticide use does not pollute our waterways through

strict rules governing spraying and buffer zones that prevent the harmful effects of drift. Prohibit the use of pesticides for purely aesthetic reasons. Prevent pesticide applications to water bodies, instead using non-chemical methods of managing aquatic invasive weeds.

Right to know. Provide free and universal notification to residents about pesticide use, including who is using chemicals, where, when, how, what pesticides are being used, and why.

Protect workers. Provide protection to workers and farmers to prevent acute and chronic pesticide poisoning.

Are there organic farms and crops?

DELCAMAG enhances grape production

The farmers who have used DELCAMAG as amendment for acid soils in the central and northern

“Organic is not a luxury, but an alternative strategy to reach the goal of sustainable agriculture” – Markus Arbenz, Executive Manager of IFOAM

IFOAM (The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) is the most.

Organic apple juice – MERITABIO

MERITABIO is apple juice made from certified eco ecological, fresh picked from their own orchard in Cheresig (Bihar) and sorted according to quality.

Organic honey and bee products

SC Enjoyment of Nature LLC activity primarily aims to obtain the honey bee, honey-derived products and other organic bee products, and marketing of apiculture products. Entered the market in 2008, our company, as the manufacturer guarantees that all products are 100% natural.

Organic fruits and vegetables – Biodumbrava

Organic micro Biodumbrava is open to everyone to purchase organic fruits and vegetables. Product range is part of the vegetables grown under controlled organic production technologies at European level. Purchase can be made directly from the ski slopes, giving the buyer the pleasure of collecting personal favorite vegetables.

List 3 chemicals having harmful effects in food, cosmetics, building materials (etc.) on the product label (ex. phthalates from plastic materials).

Human biomonitoring studies show that many environmental contaminants, including known and potential carcinogens, are finding their way into people’s bodies. The sources of these contaminants are wide-ranging:

Pesticides: conventional pesticides used in agriculture, industry, home, and garden, as well as chlorine and other disinfectants, and wood preservatives.

Industrial chemicals, wastes, and waste byproducts from mining facilities, smelting operations, chemical manufacturing and processing plants, petrochemical plants, and medical and municipal waste facilities. Such facilities release billions of pounds of chemicals into the environment every year.

Chemicals in consumer products, including building materials, furniture, and food packaging materials, and cosmetics.

Pollution from coal-fired power plants, automobile exhaust, and other sources.

The following are examples of common environmental chemicals linked to cancer. Some are listed as known carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, or by the Environmental Protection Agency. Others are probable or possible carcinogens. Because something has been classified as a carcinogen does not mean that every instance of exposure to that substance will result in the development of cancer. By the same token, a listing of “probable” or “possible” carcinogenicity does not mean we have exhausted study on that substance. It means the substance is not yet sufficiently studied. Such substances may, with further study, turn out to be definitively carcinogenic.

There are hundreds of other substances definitively linked to cancer in people.

Arsenic, Asbestos,Benzene, Bisphenol A (BPA), Chromium Hexavalent compounds, Dioxins, Formaldehyde, Polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs), Polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), Vinyl Chloride.

Are there protected species, protected areas and endangered species in your residential area?

At the end of a road, that surpasses 2.860 km, gathering rivers to an outstanding basin, with a surface that covers more than 80% of the European surface, Danube, the second largest river of the old continent builds at its intersection with the Black Sea, for more than 10.000 years, one of the most beautiful “delta” of Europe and even more, of the entire world, known as one of the most humid areas of the Planet. The stretches of water and lands that were formed here, gives great conditions of life for a large amount of species of plants and animals. From these, the reed makes one of the largest compact areas of the world, and the woods Latea and Caraorman represent the northern limit for two rare species of our country, oak trees, frequently seen in the southern area of the Balkan and Italian Peninsula. Along with the great number of aquatic and terrestrial plants we encounter colonies of pelicans and cormorants that are so proper to the Danube Delta, like the large number of other aquatic birds that live or come to hatch or hibernate. Also, we are also to notice the great number of species of fish with an ecological value and also with a higher economic.

It can be said that with these remarkable diversity of the habitats and life forms that hosts into a relatively small area, Danube Delta represents a true museum of biodiversity, a layer of natural genes, which is invaluable for the universal natural heritage.

Many species of vegetables or animals also framed important natural resources, economical exploitable, which drawn people to these places form old times. The human settlements established were based, first of all, on the exploitation of natural resources developing in this way the traditional economic activities and social relations.

Afterwards, there was the manifestation of tendency of the overexploitation of natural resources. This tendency which is manifested even in the present through a grown pressure upon these resources and especially upon the fish and pastures, as well as the tendency to develop some economical activities inappropriate to the “Delta” system, as the

investment situation was, for the exploitation of the sand from Caraorman, had resulted in the disturbance of the existent natural balance through the extinction of some areas of natural reproduction of the fish or of other species, through the warping of some channels or through the appearance of the eutrophication phenomenon of the lakes and pools etc.

The negative effects generated of the human activity in the interior of the delta cumulates with those generated by activities, more active, which runs outside the delta, having the risk of these conjugated effects to further affect the balance of the natural ecosystem and to worsen if there won’t be measures of reducing the negative phenomena, of rebuilding some affected areas, of protecting the existent areas, whose value aren’t affected by the local or regional cooperation in all of these actions.

These characteristics represented the arguments that led to the declaration of the Danube Delta, by the Romanian Government in 1990, to become a biosphere reservation, decision confirmed afterwards by the Romanian Parliament, through law nr. 82/1993. The universal value of the reservation was recognised by its inclusion in the international network of the biosphere reservation (1990), within the programme “Man and Biosphere ” (MAB), launched by UNESCO in 1970, because Danube Delta fulfils the main characteristics of a biosphere reservation:

a) preserves examples of typical ecosystem and contains areas strictly protected, areas of traditional utilities of resources, for example fish and reed resources and buffer areas to reduce the impact of human activities;

b)it is an costal or navy area where people represent an integral component and it is administrated for causes going from the fully protection to the intensive production, which is durable;

c) it is a regional central for monitoring, research, for education upon the natural and administrated ecosystems;

d) it is a place where the government policy markers, scientists and other policy markers and the local population cooperate to develop a sample programme for the territorial and aquatic administration to resolve the human necessities together with the conservation of natural process and biological resources.

e) it serves as a symbol to voluntary cooperation for the conservation and usage of the resources, for the good of all mankind.

From September 1990, Danube Delta’s Biosphere Reservation was recognised as a humid area of international importance, especially as a habitat for water birds, been included among the more than 600 of such areas, but located among the largest of these areas.

The universal natural heritage value of the Danube Delta’s Biosphere Reservation was recognised in December 1990 by including over a half of this surface in the World Heritage List. Created by the World Heritage Committee in the Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage addopted by Member States of UNESCO in 1972; this action has the rol of protecting against human activities with distructiv effect on the areas of which value is important not only for every country but for the entire humanity