by Jeffrey M. Smith
July 30, 2010
from
NaturalNews Website
About the author
International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey
Smith is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers
of genetically modified (GM) foods. His first book,
Seeds of Deception, is the world's bestselling and #1
rated book on the topic.
His second,
Genetic Roulette:
The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered
Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that GMOs are
unsafe and should never have been introduced.
Mr. Smith
is the executive director of the Institute for
Responsible Technology, whose Campaign for Healthier
Eating in America is designed to create the tipping
point of consumer rejection of GMOs, forcing them out of
our food supply. |
At a biotech industry conference in January 1999, a representative
from
Arthur Anderson, LLP explained how they had helped
Monsanto
design their strategic plan.
First, his team asked Monsanto
executives what their ideal future looked like in 15 to 20 years.
The executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial
seeds genetically modified and patented.
Anderson consultants then worked
backwards from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to
achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures
needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which
natural seeds were virtually extinct.
This was a bold new direction for Monsanto, which needed a big
change to distance them from a controversial past. As a chemical
company, they had polluted the landscape with some of the most
poisonous substances ever produced, contaminated virtually every
human and animal on earth, and got fined and convicted of deception
and wrongdoing.
According to a former Monsanto vice
president,
"We were despised by our customers."
So they redefined themselves as a "life
sciences" company, and then proceeded to pollute the landscape with
toxic herbicide, contaminate the gene pool for all future
generations with genetically modified plants, and get fined and
convicted of deception and wrongdoing.
Monsanto's chief European spokesman
admitted in 1999,
"Everybody over here hates us."
Now the rest of the world is catching
on.
"Saving the
world," and other lies
Monsanto's public relations story about genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) are largely based on five concepts.
-
GMOs are needed to feed the
world.
-
GMOs have been thoroughly tested
and proven safe.
-
GMOs increase yield.
-
GMOs reduce the use of
agricultural chemicals.
-
GMOs can be contained, and
therefore coexist with non-GM crops.
All five are pure myths - blatant
falsehoods about the nature and benefit of this infant technology.
The experience of former Monsanto
employee Kirk Azevedo helps expose the first two lies, and provides
some insight into the nature of the people working at the company.
In 1996, Monsanto recruited young Kirk Azevedo to sell their
genetically engineered cotton. Azevedo accepted their offer not
because of the pay increase, but due to the writings of Monsanto CEO
Robert Shapiro. Shapiro had painted a picture of feeding the world
and cleaning up the environment with his company's new technology.
When he visited Monsanto's St. Louis
headquarters for new employee training, Azevedo shared his
enthusiasm for Shapiro's vision during a meeting.
When the session ended, a company vice
president pulled him aside and set him straight.
"Wait a second," he told Azevedo.
"What Robert Shapiro says is one thing. But what we do is
something else. We are here to make money. He is the front man
who tells a story. We don't even understand what he is saying."
Azevedo realized he was working for
"just another profit-oriented company," and all the glowing words
about helping the planet were just a front.
A few months later he got another shock. A company scientist told
him that
Roundup Ready cotton plants contained new, unintended
proteins that had resulted from the gene insertion process. No
safety studies had been conducted on the proteins, none were
planned, and the cotton plants, which were part of field trials near
his home, were being fed to cattle.
Azevedo,
"was afraid at that time that some
of these proteins may be toxic."
He asked the PhD in charge of the test
plot to destroy the cotton rather than feed it to cattle, arguing
that until the protein had been evaluated, the cows' milk or meat
could be harmful. The scientist refused.
Azevedo
approached everyone on his team at Monsanto to raise concerns about
the unknown protein, but no one was interested.
"I was somewhat ostracized," he
said.
"Once I started questioning things,
people wanted to keep their distance from me... Anything that
interfered with advancing the commercialization of this
technology was going to be pushed aside."
Azevedo decided to leave Monsanto.
He
said,
"I'm not going to be part of this
disaster."
Monsanto's toxic past
Azevedo got a small taste of Monsanto's character.
A verdict in a lawsuit a few years later
made it more explicit. On February 22, 2002, Monsanto was found
guilty for poisoning the town of Anniston, Alabama with their PCB
factory and covering it up for decades. They were convicted of
negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance,
trespass, and outrage.
According to Alabama law, to be guilty
of outrage typically requires conduct,
"so outrageous in character and
extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency
so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in
civilized society."(1)
The $700 million fine imposed on
Monsanto was on behalf of the Anniston residents, whose blood levels
of Monsanto's toxic
PCBs were hundreds or thousands of times the
average.
This disease-producing chemical, used as
coolants and lubricants for over 50 years, are now virtually
omnipresent in the blood and tissues of humans and wildlife around
the globe.
Ken Cook of the Environmental
Working Group says that based on Monsanto documents made public
during a trial, the company,
"knew the truth from the very
beginning. They lied about it. They hid the truth from their
neighbors."
One Monsanto memo explains their
justification:
"We can't afford to lose one dollar
of business."
Welcome to the world of Monsanto.
Infiltrating
the minds and offices of the government
To get their genetically modified products approved, Monsanto has
coerced, infiltrated, and paid off government officials around the
globe.
In Indonesia, Monsanto gave bribes and
questionable payments to at least 140 officials, attempting to get
their genetically modified (GM) cotton accepted.(2) In
1998, six Canadian government scientists testified before the Senate
that they were being pressured by superiors to approve rbGH, that
documents were stolen from a locked file cabinet in a government
office, and that Monsanto offered them a bribe of $1-2 million to
pass the drug without further tests.
In India, one official tampered with the
report on Bt cotton to increase the yield figures to favor Monsanto.(3)
And Monsanto seems to have planted their own people in key
government positions in India, Brazil, Europe, and worldwide.
Monsanto's GM seeds were also illegally smuggled into countries like
Brazil and Paraguay, before GMOs were approved.
Roberto Franco, Paraguay's Deputy
Agriculture Ministry, tactfully admits,
"It is possible that [Monsanto],
let's say, promoted its varieties and its seeds" before they
were approved. "We had to authorize GMO seeds because they had
already entered our country in an, let's say, unorthodox way."
In the U.S., Monsanto's people regularly
infiltrate upper echelons of government, and the company offers
prominent positions to officials when they leave public service.
This revolving door has included key
people in the White House, regulatory agencies, even the Supreme
Court. Monsanto also had George Bush Senior on their side, as
evidenced by footage of Vice President Bush at Monsanto's facility
offering help to get their products through government bureaucracy.
He says,
"Call me. We're in the 'de-reg'
business. Maybe we can help."
Monsanto's influence continued into the
Clinton administration.
Dan Glickman, then Secretary of
Agriculture, says,
"there was a general feeling in
agro-business and inside our government in the U.S. that if you
weren't marching lock-step forward in favor of rapid approvals
of biotech products, rapid approvals of GMO crops, then somehow,
you were anti-science and anti-progress."
Glickman summarized the mindset in the
government as follows:
"What I saw generically on the
pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good,
and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn't good,
because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and
feed the hungry and clothe the naked... And there was a lot of
money that had been invested in this, and if you're against it,
you're Luddites, you're stupid.
That, frankly, was the side our
government was on.
Without thinking, we had basically
taken this issue as a trade issue and they, whoever 'they' were,
wanted to keep our product out of their market. And they were
foolish, or stupid, and didn't have an effective regulatory
system. There was rhetoric like that even here in this
department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by
trying to present an open-minded view on some of the issues
being raised.
So I pretty much spouted the
rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written
into my speeches."(4)
He admits, "when I opened my mouth in
the Clinton Administration [about the lax regulations on GMOs], I
got slapped around a little bit."
Hijacking the
FDA to promote GMOs
In the U.S., new food additives must undergo extensive testing,
including long-term animal feeding studies.(5)
There is an exception, however, for
substances that are deemed "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS).
GRAS status allows a product to be commercialized without any
additional testing.
According to U.S. law, to be considered
GRAS the substance must be the subject of a substantial amount of
peer-reviewed published studies (or equivalent) and there must be
overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the
product is safe.
GM foods had neither. Nonetheless, in a
precedent-setting move that some experts contend was illegal, in
1992 the FDA declared that GM crops are GRAS as long as their
producers say they are. Thus, the FDA does not require any safety
evaluations or labels whatsoever. A company can even introduce a GM
food to the market without telling the agency.
Such a lenient approach to GM crops was largely the result of
Monsanto's legendary influence over the U.S. government.
According to the New York Times,
"What Monsanto wished for from
Washington, Monsanto and, by extension, the biotechnology
industry got... When the company abruptly decided that it needed
to throw off the regulations and speed its foods to market, the
White House quickly ushered through an unusually generous policy
of self-policing."
According to Dr. Henry Miller, who had a
leading role in biotechnology issues at the FDA from 1979 to 1994,
"In this area, the U.S. government
agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them
to do and told them to do."
The person who oversaw the development
of the FDA's GMO policy was their Deputy Commissioner for Policy,
Michael Taylor, whose position had been created especially for
him in 1991.
Prior to that, Taylor was an outside
attorney for both Monsanto and the Food Biotechnology Council. After
working at the FDA, he became Monsanto's vice president.
He's now back at the FDA, as the U.S. food
safety czar.
Covering up
health dangers
The policy Taylor oversaw in 1992 needed to create the impression
that unintended effects from GM crops were not an issue.
Otherwise their GRAS status would be
undermined. But internal memos made public from a lawsuit showed
that the overwhelming consensus among the agency scientists was that
GM crops can have unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects.
Various departments and experts spelled these out in detail, listing
allergies, toxins, nutritional effects, and new diseases as
potential problems.
They had urged superiors to require
long-term safety studies.(6)
In spite of the warnings, according to
public interest attorney Steven Druker who studied the FDA's
internal files,
"References to the unintended
negative effects of bioengineering were progressively deleted
from drafts of the policy statement (over the protests of agency
scientists)."(7)
FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl wrote
about the policy,
"What has happened to the scientific
elements of this document? Without a sound scientific base to
rest on, this becomes a broad, general, 'What do I have to do to
avoid trouble'-type document... It will look like and probably
be just a political document... It reads very pro-industry,
especially in the area of unintended effects."(8)
The FDA scientists' concerns were not
only ignored, their very existence was denied.
Consider the private
memo summarizing opinions at the FDA, which stated,
"The processes of genetic
engineering and traditional breeding are different and according
to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different
risks."(9)
Contrast that with the official policy
statement issued by Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney:
"The agency is not aware of any
information showing that foods derived by these new methods
differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."(10)
On the basis of this false statement,
the FDA does not require GM food safety testing.
Fake safety
assessments
Monsanto participates in a voluntary consultation process with the
FDA that is derided by critics as a meaningless exercise.
Monsanto submits whatever information it
chooses, and the FDA does not conduct or commission any studies of
its own.
Former EPA scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman,
who analyzed FDA review records obtained through the Freedom of
Information Act, says the FDA consultation process,
"misses obvious errors in
company-submitted data summaries, provides insufficient testing
guidance, and does not require sufficiently detailed data to
enable the FDA to assure that GE crops are safe to eat."(11)
But that is not the point of the
exercise. The FDA doesn't actually approve the crops or declare them
safe. That is Monsanto's job!
At the end of the consultation, the
FDA issues a letter stating:
"Based on the safety and nutritional
assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that
Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new
variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and
other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and
that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that
would require premarket review or approval by FDA...
As you are aware, it is Monsanto's
responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are
safe, wholesome and in compliance with all applicable legal and
regulatory requirements."(12)
The National Academy of Sciences and
even the pro-GM Royal Society of London (13) describe the
U.S. system as inadequate and flawed.
The editor of the prestigious journal
Lancet said,
"It is astounding that the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on
genetically modified food adopted in 1992... Governments should
never have allowed these products into the food chain without
insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health."(14)
One obvious reason for the inflexibility
of the FDA is that they are officially charged with both regulating
biotech products and promoting them - a clear conflict.
That is also why the FDA does not
require mandatory labeling of GM foods. They ignore the desires of
90 percent of American citizens in order to support the economic
interests of Monsanto and the four other GM food companies.
Monsanto's
studies are secret, inadequate, and flawed
The unpublished industry studies submitted to regulators are
typically kept secret based on the claim that it is "confidential
business information."
The Royal Society of Canada is one of
many organizations that condemn this practice. Their Expert Panel
called for "completely transparent" submissions, "open to full
review by scientific peers"
They wrote,
"Peer review and independent
corroboration of research findings are axioms of the scientific
method, and part of the very meaning of the objectivity and
neutrality of science."(15)
Whenever Monsanto's private submissions
are made public through lawsuits or Freedom of Information Act
Requests, it becomes clear why they benefit from secrecy.
The quality of their research is often
miserable, and would never stand up to peer-review. In December
2009, for example, a team of independent researchers published a
study analyzing the raw data from three Monsanto rat studies. When
they used proper statistical methods, they found that the three
varieties of GM corn caused toxicity in the liver and kidneys, as
well as significant changes in other organs.(16)
Monsanto's studies, of course, had claimed that the research showed
no problems. The regulators had believed Monsanto,
and the corn is already in our food supply.
Monsanto rigs
research to miss dangers
(17)
Monsanto has plenty of experience cooking the books of their
research and hiding the hazards.
They manufactured the infamous Agent
Orange, for example, the cancer and birth-defect causing defoliant
sprayed over Vietnam. It contaminated more than three million
civilians and servicemen.
But according to William Sanjour,
who led the Toxic Waste Division of the Environmental Protection
Agency,
"thousands of veterans were
disallowed benefits" because "Monsanto studies showed that
dioxin [the main ingredient in Agent Orange] was not a human
carcinogen."
But his EPA colleague discovered that
Monsanto had allegedly falsified the data in their studies.
Sanjour says,
"If they were done correctly, [the
studies] would have reached just the opposite result."
Here are examples of tinkering with the
truth about Monsanto's GM products:
-
When dairy farmers inject cows
with genetically modified bovine growth hormone (rbGH), more
bovine growth hormone ends up in the milk. To allay fears,
the FDA claimed that pasteurization destroys 90 percent of
the hormone. In reality, the researchers of this drug (then
owned by Monsanto) pasteurized the milk 120 times longer
than normal. But they only destroyed 19 percent. So they
spiked the milk with a huge amount of extra growth hormone
and then repeated the long pasteurization. Only under these
artificial conditions were they able to destroy 90 percent.
-
To demonstrate that rbGH
injections didn't interfere with cows' fertility, Monsanto
appears to have secretly added cows to their study that were
pregnant BEFORE injection.
-
FDA Veterinarian Richard
Burroughs said that Monsanto researchers dropped sick cows
from studies, to make the drug appear safer.
-
Richard Burroughs ordered more
tests on rbGH than the industry wanted and was told by
superiors he was slowing down the approval. He was fired and
his tests canceled. The remaining whistle-blowers in the FDA
had to write an anonymous letter to Congress, complaining of
fraud and conflict of interest in the agency. They
complained of one FDA scientist who arbitrarily increased
the allowable levels of antibiotics in milk 100-fold, in
order to facilitate the approval of rbGH. She had just
become the head of an FDA department that was evaluating the
research that she had recently done while an employee of
Monsanto.
-
Another former Monsanto
scientist said that after company scientists conducted
safety studies on bovine growth hormone, all three refused
to drink any more milk, unless it was organic and therefore
not treated with the drug. They feared the substantial
increase of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in the
drugged milk. IGF-1 is a significant risk factor for cancer.
-
When independent researchers
published a study in July 1999 showing that Monsanto's GM
soy contains 12-14 percent less cancer-fighting
phytoestrogens, Monsanto responded with its own study,
concluding that soy's phytoestrogen levels vary too much to
even carry out a statistical analysis. Researchers failed to
disclose, however, that they had instructed the laboratory
to use an obsolete method of detection - one that had been
prone to highly variable results.
-
To prove that GM protein breaks
down quickly during simulated digestion, Monsanto uses
thousands of times the amount of digestive enzymes and a
much stronger acid than what the World Health Organization
recommends.
-
Monsanto told government
regulators that the GM protein produced in their high-lysine
GM corn was safe for humans, because it is also found in
soil. They claimed that since people consume small residues
of soil on fruits and vegetables, the protein has a safe
history as part of the human diet. The actual amount of the
GM corn protein an average U.S. citizen would consume,
however, if all their corn were Monsanto's variety, would be
"about 30 billion to four trillion times" the amount
normally consumed in soil residues. For equivalent exposure,
people would have to eat as much as 22,000 pounds of soil
every second of every day.
-
Monsanto's high-lysine corn also
had unusual levels of several nutritional components, such
as protein and fiber. Instead of comparing it to normal
corn, which would have revealed this significant disparity,
Monsanto compared their GM corn to obscure corn varieties
that were also far outside the normal range on precisely
these values. On this basis, Monsanto could claim that there
were no statistically significant differences in their GM
corn content.
Methods used by Monsanto to hide
problems are varied and plentiful.
For example, researchers,
-
use animals with varied
starting weights, to hinder the detection of food-related
changes
-
keep feeding studies short, to
miss long-term impacts
-
test Roundup Ready soybeans that
have never been sprayed with Roundup - as they always are in
real world conditions
-
avoid feeding animals the GM
crop, but instead give them a single dose of GM protein
produced from GM bacteria
-
use too few subjects to obtain
statistical significance
-
use poor or inappropriate
statistical methods, or fail to even mention statistical
methods, or include essential data
-
employ insensitive detection
techniques - doomed to fail
Monsanto's 1996 Journal of Nutrition
study, which was their cornerstone article for "proving" that GM soy
was safe, provides plenty of examples of masterfully rigged methods.
-
Researchers tested GM soy on
mature animals, not the more sensitive young ones. GMO
safety expert Arpad Pusztai says the older animals "would
have to be emaciated or poisoned to show anything."
-
Organs were never weighed.
-
The GM soy was diluted up to 12
times which, according to an expert review, "would probably
ensure that any possible undesirable GM effects did not
occur."
-
The amount of protein in the
feed was "artificially too high," which would mask negative
impacts of the soy.
-
Samples were pooled from
different locations and conditions, making it nearly
impossible for compositional differences to be statistically
significant.
-
Data from the only side-by-side
comparison was removed from the study and never published.
When it was later recovered, it revealed that Monsanto's GM
soy had significantly lower levels of important constituents
(e.g. protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential
amino acid) and that toasted GM soy meal had nearly twice
the amount of a lectin - which interferes with the body's
ability to assimilate nutrients. Moreover, the amount of
trypsin inhibitor, a known soy allergen, was as much as
seven times higher in cooked GM soy compared to a cooked
non-GM control. Monsanto named their study, "The composition
of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that
of conventional soybeans."
A paper published in Nutrition and
Health analyzed all peer-reviewed feeding studies on GM foods as of
2003.
It came as no surprise that Monsanto's
Journal of Nutrition study, along with the other four peer-reviewed
animal feeding studies that were "performed more or less in
collaboration with private companies," reported no negative effects
of the GM diet.
"On the other hand," they wrote,
"adverse effects were reported (but not explained) in [the five]
independent studies."
They added,
"It is remarkable that these effects
have all been observed after feeding for only 10 to 14 days."(18)
A former Monsanto scientist recalls how
colleagues were trying to rewrite a GM animal feeding study, to hide
the ill-effects.
But sometimes when study results are
unmistakably damaging, Monsanto just plain lies. Monsanto's study on
Roundup, for example, showed that 28 days after application, only 2
percent of their herbicide had broken down.
They nonetheless advertised the weed
killer as "biodegradable," "leaves the soil clean," and "respects
the environment." These statements were declared false and illegal
by judges in both the U.S. and France.
The company was forced to remove
"biodegradable" from the label and pay a fine.
Monsanto
attacks labeling, local democracy, and news coverage
-
On July 3, 2003, Monsanto sued
Oakhurst dairy because their labels stated, "Our Farmers'
Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones." Oakhurst eventually
settled with Monsanto, agreeing to include a sentence on
their cartons saying that according to the FDA no
significant difference has been shown between milk derived
from rbGH-treated and non-rbGH-treated cows. The statement
is not true. FDA scientists had acknowledged the increase of
IGF-1, bovine growth hormone, antibiotics, and pus, in milk
from treated cows. Nonetheless, the misleading sentence had
been written years earlier by the FDA's deputy commissioner
of policy, Michael Taylor, the one who was formerly
Monsanto's outside attorney and later their vice president.
-
Monsanto's public relations firm
created a group called the Dairy Coalition, which pressured
editors of the USA Today, Boston Globe, New York Times and
others, to limit negative coverage of rbGH.
-
A Monsanto attorney wrote a
letter to Fox TV, promising dire consequences if the station
aired a four-part exposé on rbGH. The show was ultimately
canceled.
-
A book critical of Monsanto's GM
foods was three days away from being published. A
threatening letter from Monsanto's attorney forced the small
publisher to cancel publication.
-
14,000 copies of Ecologist
magazine dedicated to exposing Monsanto were shredded by the
printer due to fears of a lawsuit.
-
After a ballot initiative in
California established Mendocino County as a GM-free zone -
where planting GMOs is illegal, Monsanto and others
organized to push through laws in 14 states that make it
illegal for cities and counties to declare similar zones.
Monsanto's promises
of riches come up short
Biotech advocates have wooed politicians, claiming that their new
technology is the path to riches for their city, state, or nation.
"This notion that you lure biotech
to your community to save its economy is laughable," said Joseph
Cortright, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a report on the
subject.
"This is a bad-idea virus that has
swept through governors, mayors and economic development
officials."(19)
Indeed, The Wall Street Journal
observed,
"Not only has the biotech industry
yielded negative financial returns for decades, it generally
digs its hole deeper every year."(20)
The Associated Press says it "remains a
money-losing, niche industry."(21)
Nowhere in the biotech world is the bad-idea virus more toxic than
in its application to GM plants. Not only does the technology
under-deliver, it consistently burdens governments and entire
sectors with losses and problems.
Under the first Bush administration, for example, the White House's
elite Council on Competitiveness chose to fast track GM food in
hopes that it would strengthen the economy and make American
products more competitive overseas. The opposite ensued. U.S. corn
exports to Europe were virtually eliminated, down by 99.4 percent.
The American Corn Growers Association (ACGA)
calculated that the introduction of GM corn caused a drop in corn
prices by 13 to 20 percent.(22)
Their CEO said,
"The ACGA believes an explanation is
owed to the thousands of American farmers who were told to trust
this technology, yet now see their prices fall to historically
low levels while other countries exploit U.S. vulnerability and
pick off our export customers one by one."(23)
U.S. soy sales also plummeted due to GM
content.
According to Charles Benbrook, PhD, former executive director of the
National Academy of Sciences' Board on Agriculture, the closed
markets and slashed prices forced the federal government to pay an
additional $3 to $5 billion every year.(24)
He says growers have only been kept
afloat by the huge jump in subsidies.(25)
Instead of withdrawing support for failed GM crops, the U.S.
government has been convinced by Monsanto and others that the key to
success is to force open foreign markets to GMOs.
But many nations are also reeling under
the false promise of GMOs.
Canola crashes
on GM
When Canada became the only major producer to adopt GM canola in
1996, it led to a disaster.
The premium-paying EU market, which took
about one-third of Canada's canola exports in 1994 and one-fourth in
1995, stopped all imports from Canada by 1998. The GM canola was
diverted to the low-priced Chinese market. Not only did Canadian
canola prices fall to a record low,(26) Canada even lost
their EU honey exports due to the GM pollen contamination.
Australia benefited significantly from Canada's folly. By 2006, the
EU was buying 38 percent of Australia's canola exports.(27)
Nonetheless, Monsanto's people in
Australia claimed that GM canola was the way to get more
competitive. They told farmers that Roundup Ready canola would yield
up to 30 percent more. But when an investigator looked at the best
trial yields on Monsanto's web site, it was 17 percent below the
national average canola yield.
When that was publicized, the figures
quickly disappeared from the Monsanto's site. Two Aussie states did
allow GM canola and sure enough, they are suffering from loss of
foreign markets.
In Australia and elsewhere, the non-GMO farmers also suffer. Market
prices drop, and farmers spend more to set up segregation systems,
GMO testing, buffer zones, and separate storage and shipping
channels to try to hold onto non-GMO markets.
Even then, they risk contamination and
lost premiums.
GM farmers
don't earn or produce more
Monsanto has been quite successful in convincing farmers that GM
crops are the ticket to greater yields and higher profits.
You still hear that rhetoric at the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). But a 2006 USDA
report "could not find positive financial impacts in either the
field-level nor the whole-farm analysis" for adoption of Bt corn and
Roundup Ready soybeans.
They said,
"Perhaps the biggest issue raised by
these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of [GM] crops
when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even
negative."(28)
Similarly, the Canadian National Farmers
Union (NFU) flatly states,
"The claim that GM seeds make our
farms more profitable is false."(29)
Net farm incomes in Canada plummeted
since the introduction of GM canola, with the last five years being
the worst in Canada's history.
In spite of numerous advertising claims that GM crops increase
yield, the average GM crop from Monsanto reduces yield. This was
confirmed by the most comprehensive evaluation on the subject,
conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2009. Called
Failure to Yield, the report demonstrated that in spite of years of
trying, GM crops return fewer bushels than their non-GM
counterparts.
Even the 2006 USDA report stated that,
"currently available GM crops do not
increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety... In fact,
yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the
herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest
yielding cultivars."(30)
U.S. farmers had expected higher yields
with Roundup Ready soybeans, but independent studies confirm a yield
loss of 4 to 11percent.(31)
Brazilian soybean yields are also down
since Roundup Ready varieties were introduced.(32) In
Canada, a study showed a 7.5 percent lower yield with Roundup Ready
canola.(33)
The Canadian National Farmers Union (NFU) observed,
"Corporate and government managers
have spent millions trying to convince farmers and other
citizens of the benefits of genetically-modified (GM) crops.
But this huge public relations
effort has failed to obscure the truth: GM crops do not deliver
the promised benefits; they create numerous problems, costs, and
risks... It would be too generous even to call GM crops a
solution in search of a problem: These crops have failed to
provide significant solutions."(34)
Herbicide use
rising due to GMOs
Monsanto bragged that their Roundup Ready technology would reduce
herbicide, but at the same time they were building new Roundup
factories to meet their anticipated increase in demand.
They got it.
According to USDA data, the amount of
herbicide used in the U.S. increased by 382.6 million pounds over 13
years. Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans accounted for 92 percent of
the total increase. Due to the proliferation of Roundup resistant
weeds, herbicide use is accelerating rapidly. From 2007 to 2008,
herbicide used on GM herbicide tolerant crops skyrocketed by 31.4
percent.(35)
Furthermore, as weeds fail to respond to
Roundup, farmers also rely on more toxic pesticides such as the
highly poisonous 2,4-D.
Contamination
happens
In spite of Monsanto's assurances that it wouldn't be a problem,
contamination has been a consistent and often overwhelming hardship
for seed dealers, farmers, manufacturers, even entire food sectors.
The biotech industry recommends buffer
zones between fields, but these have not been competent to protect
non-GM, organic, or wild plants from GMOs. A UK study showed canola
cross-pollination occurring as far as 26 km away.(36)
But pollination is just one of several ways that contamination
happens. There is also seed movement by weather and insects, crop
mixing during harvest, transport, and storage, and very often, human
error. The contamination is North America is so great, it is
difficult for farmers to secure pure non-GM seed. In Canada, a study
found 32 of 33 certified non-GM canola seeds were contaminated.(37)
Most of the non-GM soy, corn, and canola
seeds tested in the U.S. also contained GMOs.(38)
Contamination can be very expensive. StarLink corn - unapproved for
human consumption - ended up the U.S. food supply in 2000 and resulted
in an estimated price tag of $1 billion.
The final cost of GM rice contamination
in the U.S. in 2006 could be even higher.
Deadly
deception in India
Monsanto ran a poster series called, "TRUE STORIES OF FARMERS WHO
HAVE SOWN BT COTTON."
One featured a farmer who claimed great
benefits, but when investigators tracked him down, he turned out to
be a cigarette salesman, not a farmer. Another poster claimed yields
by the pictured farmer that were four times what he actually
achieved. One poster showed a farmer standing next to a tractor,
suggesting that sales of Bt cotton allowed him to buy it.
But the farmer was never told what the
photo was to be used for, and said that with the yields from Bt,
"I would not be able to buy even two
tractor tires."
In addition to posters, Monsanto's
cotton marketers used dancing girls, famous Bollywood actors, even
religious leaders to pitch their products.
Some newspaper ads looked like a news
stories and featured relatives of seed salesmen claiming to be happy
with Bt. Sometimes free pesticides were given away with the seeds,
and some farmers who helped with publicity got free seeds.
Scientists published a study claiming that Monsanto's cotton
increased yields in India by 70 to 80 percent. But they used only
field trial data provided to them by Monsanto.
Actual yields turn out to be quite
different:
-
India News (39) reported studies
showing a loss of about 18 percent.
-
An independent study in Andhra
Pradesh "done on [a] season-long basis continuously for
three years in 87 villages" showed that growing Bt cotton
cost 12 percent more, yielded 8.3 percent less, and the
returns over three years were 60 percent less.(40)
-
Another report identified a
yield loss in the Warangal district of 30 to 60 percent. The
official report, however, was tampered with. The local
Deputy Director of Agriculture confirmed on Feb. 1, 2005
that the yield figures had been secretly increased to 2.7
times higher than what farms reported. Once the state of
Andhra Pradesh tallied all the actual yields, they demanded
approximately $10 million USD from Monsanto to compensate
farmers for losses. Monsanto refused.
In sharp contrast to the independent
research done by agronomists, Monsanto commissioned studies to be
done by market research agencies.
One, for example, claimed four times the
actual reduction in pesticide use, 12 times the actual yield, and
100 times the actual profit.(41)
In Andhra Pradesh, where 71 percent of farmers who used Bt cotton
ended up with financial losses, farmers attacked the seed dealer's
office and even "tied up Mahyco Monsanto representatives in their
villages," until the police rescued them.(42)
In spite of great losses and unreliable yields, Monsanto has
skillfully eliminated the availability of non-GM cotton seeds in
many regions throughout India, forcing farmers to buy their
varieties.
Farmers borrow heavily and at high interest rates to pay four times
the price for the GM varieties, along with the chemicals needed to
grow them. When Bt cotton performs poorly and can't even pay back
the debt, desperate farmers resort to suicide, often drinking unused
pesticides. In one region, more than three Bt cotton farmers take
their own lives each day.
The UK Daily Mail estimates that the
total number of Bt cotton-related suicides in India is a staggering
125,000.
Doctors orders
- no genetically modified food
A greater tragedy may be the harm from the dangerous GM foods
produced by Monsanto.
The American Academy of Environmental
Medicine (AAEM) has called on all physicians to prescribe diets
without GM foods to all patients.(43) They called for a
moratorium on GMOs, long-term independent studies, and labeling.
They stated,
"Several animal studies indicate
serious health risks associated with GM food," including
infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin
regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal
system. "There is more than a casual association between GM
foods and adverse health effects. There is causation…"
Former AAEM President Dr. Jennifer
Armstrong says,
"Physicians are probably seeing the
effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right
questions."
Renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava
believes that GMOs are a major contributor to the deteriorating
health in America.
Pregnant women
and babies at great risk
GM foods are particularly dangerous for pregnant moms and children.
After GM soy was fed to female rats,
most of their babies died - compared to 10 percent deaths among
controls fed natural soy.(44) GM-fed babies were smaller,
and possibly infertile.(45)
Testicles of rats fed GM soy changed from the normal pink to dark
blue.(46) Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.(47)
Embryos of GM soy-fed parent mice had changed DNA.(48)
And mice fed GM corn had fewer, and smaller, babies.(49)
In Haryana, India, most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had
reproductive complications such as premature deliveries, abortions,
and infertility; many calves died. About two dozen U.S. farmers said
thousands of pigs became sterile from certain GM corn varieties.
Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows
and bulls also became infertile.(50)
In the U.S., incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and
infant mortality are all escalating.
Food that
produces poison
Monsanto's GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce a built-in
pesticide called Bt-toxin - produced from soil bacteria
Bacillus thuringiensis.
When bugs bite the plant, poison splits
open their stomach and kills them. Organic farmers and others use
natural Bt bacteria spray for insect control, so Monsanto claims
that Bt-toxin must be safe.
The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times
more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more
toxic,(51) has properties of an allergen, and cannot be
washed off the plant.
Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural spray can
be harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in
Washington and Vancouver, about 500 people reported allergy or
flu-like symptoms.(52) (53)
The same symptoms are now reported by
farm workers from handling Bt cotton throughout India.(54)
GMOs provoke
immune reactions
GMO safety expert
Arpad Pusztai says changes in immune status are,
"a
consistent feature of all the [animal] studies."(55)
From Monsanto's own research to
government funded trials, rodents fed Bt corn had significant immune
reactions.(56) (57) Soon after GM soy was
introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent.
Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles
says,
"I used to test for soy allergies
all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is
so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it."
GM soy and corn contain new proteins
with allergenic properties,(58) and GM soy has up to
seven times more of a known soy allergen.(59)
Perhaps the U.S. epidemic of food
allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.
Animals dying
in large numbers
In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest.
But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt
cotton plants, thousands died. Investigators said preliminary
evidence,
"strongly suggests that the sheep
mortality was due to a toxin... most probably Bt-toxin."(60)
In one small study, all sheep fed Bt
cotton plants died; those fed natural plants remained healthy.
In an Andhra Pradesh village, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for
eight years without incident. On Jan. 3, 2008, 13 buffalo grazed on
Bt cotton plants for the first time. All died within three days.(61)
Monsanto's Bt corn is also implicated in the deaths horses,
water buffaloes, and chickens in the Philippines.(62)
Lab studies of GM crops by other companies also show mortalities.
Twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; seven of 40
rats fed a GM tomato died within two weeks.(63)
And a farmer in Germany says his cows
died after exclusively eating Syngenta's GM corn.
GMOs remain
inside of us
The only published human feeding study revealed that even after we
stop eating GMOs, harmful GM proteins may be produced continuously
inside of us; genes inserted into Monsanto's GM soy transfer into
bacteria inside our intestines and continue to function.(64)
If Bt genes also transfer, eating corn
chips might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide
factories.
Hidden dangers
Biologist David Schubert of the Salk
Institute says,
"If there are problems [with GMOs],
we will probably never know because the cause will not be
traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop."
In the nine years after GM crops were
introduced in 1996, Americans with three or more chronic diseases
jumped from 7 percent to 13 percent.(65)
But without any human clinical trials or
post marketing surveillance, we may never know if GMOs are a
contributor.
Un-recallable contamination
In spite of the enormous health dangers, the environmental impacts
may be worse still.
That is because we don't have a
technology to fully clean up the contaminated gene pool. The
self-propagating genetic pollution released into the environment
from Monsanto's crops can outlast the effects of climate change and
nuclear waste.
Replacing nature - "Nothing shall be
eaten that we don't own"
As Monsanto has moved forward
with its master plan to replace nature, they have led the charge in
buying up seed businesses and are now the world's largest.
At least 200 independent seed companies
have disappeared over 13 years, non-GMO seed availability is
dwindling, and Monsanto is jacking up their seed prices
dramatically. Corn is up more than 30 percent and soy nearly 25
percent, over 2008 prices.(66)
An Associated Press exposé (67) reveals how Monsanto's
onerous contracts allowed them to manipulate, then dominate, the
seed industry using unprecedented legal restrictions.
One contract provision, for example,
"prevented bidding wars" and "likely
helped Monsanto buy 24 independent seed companies throughout the
Farm Belt over the last few years: that corn seed agreement says
that if a smaller company changes ownership, its inventory with
Monsanto's traits 'shall be destroyed immediately.'"
With that restriction in place, the seed
companies couldn't even think of selling to a company other than
Monsanto.
According to attorney David Boies,
who represents
DuPont - owner of Pioneer Seeds:
"If the independent seed company is
losing their license and has to destroy their seeds, they're not
going to have anything, in effect, to sell," Boies said.
"It requires them to destroy things
- destroy things they paid for - if they go competitive. That's
exactly the kind of restriction on competitive choice that the
antitrust laws outlaw."
Boies was a prosecutor on the antitrust
case against Microsoft. He is now working with DuPont in their civil
antitrust lawsuit against Monsanto.
Monsanto also has the right to cancel deals and wipe out the
inventory of a business if the confidentiality clauses are violated:
"We now believe that Monsanto has
control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This
level of control is almost unbelievable,' said Neil Harl,
agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied
the seed industry for decades."
Monsanto also controls and manipulates
farmers through onerous contracts.
Troy Roush, for example, is one
of hundreds accused by Monsanto of illegally saving their seeds. The
company requires farmers to sign a contract that they will not save
and replant GM seeds from their harvest. That way Monsanto can sell
its seeds - at a premium - each season.
Although Roush maintains his innocence, he was forced to settle with
Monsanto after two and a half years of court battles.
He says his,
"family was just destroyed [from]
the stress involved."
Many farmers are afraid, according to
Roush, because Monsanto has,
"created a little industry that
serves no other purpose than to wreck farmers' lives."
Monsanto has collected an estimated $200
million from farmers thus far.
Roush says,
"They are in the process of owning
food, all food."
Paraguayan farmer Jorge Galeano says,
"Its objective is to control all of
the world's food production."
Renowned Indian physicist and community
organizer Vandana Shiva says,
"If they control seed, they control
food; they know it, it's strategic. It's more powerful than
bombs; it's more powerful than guns. This is the best way to
control the populations of the world."
Our food security lies in diversity -
both biodiversity, and diversity of owners and interests.
Any single company that consolidates
ownership of seeds, and therefore power over the food supply, is a
dangerous threat. Of all the corporations in the world, however, the
one we should trust the least is Monsanto.
With them at the helm, the impact could
be cataclysmic.
Notes
(1) Michael Grunwald,
"Monsanto Held Liable for PCB Dumping," Washington Post,
February 23, 2002
(2) "Monsanto Bribery Charges in Indonesia by DoJ and USSEC,"
Third World Network, Malaysia, Jan 27, 2005,
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Mo...
(3) "Greenpeace exposes Government-Monsanto nexus to cheat
Indian farmers: calls on GEAC to revoke BT cotton permission,"
Press release, March 3, 2005,
http://www.greenpeace.org/india_en/...
(4) Bill Lambrecht, Dinner at the New Gene Café, St. Martin's
Press, September 2001, pg 139
(5) See Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
(6) See Smith, Seeds of Deception; and for copies of FDA memos,
see The Alliance for Bio-Integrity,
www.biointegrity.org
(7) Steven M. Druker, "How the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
approved
genetically engineered foods despite the deaths one had
caused and the warnings of its own scientists about their unique
risks," Alliance for Bio-Integrity,
http://www.biointegrity.org/ext-sum...
(8) Louis J. Pribyl, "Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92,"
March 6, 1992,
www.biointegrity.org
http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs...
(9) Linda Kahl, Memo to James Maryanski about Federal
Register Document "Statement of Policy: Foods from
Genetically Modified Plants," Alliance for Bio-Integrity(January
8, 1992)
http://www.biointegrity.org
(10) "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant
Varieties," Federal Register 57, no. 104 (May 29, 1992): 22991.
(11) Doug Gurian-Sherman, "Holes in the Biotech Safety Net, FDA
Policy Does Not Assure the Safety of Genetically Engineered
Foods," Center for Science in the Public Interest,
http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/fda_...
(12) FDA Letter, Letter from Alan M. Rulis, Office of Premarket
Approval, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA to
Dr. Kent Croon, Regulatory Affairs Manager, Monsanto Company,
Sept 25, 1996. See Letter for BNF No. 34 at
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/bioco...
(13) See for example, "Good Enough To Eat?" New Scientist
(February 9, 2002), 7.
(14) "Health risks of
genetically modified foods," editorial, Lancet, 29
May 1999.
(15) "Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation
of Food Biotechnology in Canada; An Expert Panel Report on the
Future of Food Biotechnology prepared by The Royal Society of
Canada at the request of Health Canada Canadian Food Inspection
Agency and Environment Canada" The Royal Society of Canada,
January 2001.
(16) de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A
Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on
Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726.
Available from
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
(17) For citations on rigged research, see, Jeffrey M. Smith,
Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically
Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, Iowa, USA, 2007
(18) Ian F. Pryme and Rolf Lembcke, "In Vivo Studies on Possible
Health Consequences of Genetically Modified Food and Feed --
with Particular Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically
Modified Plan Materials," Nutrition and Health 17(2003):
1–8.
(19) Chee Yoke Heong, Biotech investing a high-risk gamble,
Asia Times, July 31, 2004,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_...
(20) David P. Hamilton, "Biotech's Dismal Bottom Line: More Than
$40 Billion in Losses: As Scientists Search for Cures, They
Gobble Investor Cash; A Handful Hit the Jackpot - 'The Ultimate
Roulette Game'", Wall Street Journal, 20 May 2004,
www.mindfully.org/GE/2004/Biotech-$...
(21) Leslie Parrilla, Biotechnology grant trains workers,
Associated Press, August 18, 2004,
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2...
(22) Hugh Warwick and Gundala Meziani, Seeds of Doubt, UK Soil
Association, September 2002
(23) "Corn Growers Challenge Logic of Promoting Biotechnology in
Foreign Markets" Press Release American Corn Growers Association
June 5, 2001
http://www.biotech-info.net/foreign...
(24) Hugh Warwick and Gundala Meziani, Seeds of Doubt, UK Soil
Association, September 2002
(25) Charles Benbrook, "Premium Paid for Bt Corn Seed Improves
Corporate Finances While Eroding Grower Profits," Benbrook
Consulting Services, Sandpoint, Idaho, February 2002
(26) NFU (2005a) GM Crops: Not Needed on the Island, -
Recommendations of the National Farmers Union to the Prince
Edward Island Legislature's Standing Committee on Agriculture,
Forestry, and the Environment,
www.nfu.ca/briefs/2005/PEI%20GMO%20... viewed 20/6/07.
(27) Foster, M. et al (2003) Market Access Issues for GM
Products: Implications for Australia, ABARE Research Report
03.13, p. 9. Available at:
http://abareonlineshop.com/product.... viewed 24/6/05.
(28) Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and McBride, W., May 2002.
Adoption of Bioengineered Crops. ERS USDA Agricultural
Economic Report, p.24.
https://selectra.co.uk/sites/default/files/pdf/eib11.pdf
(29) NFU (2007) Submission by the National Farmers Union on The
Farm Income Crisis Business Risk Management, and The "Next
Generation" Agricultural Policy Framework, April 26th, 2007
www.nfu.ca/briefs/2007/NFU_Brief_to... viewed 13/8/07.
(30) Fernandez-Cornejo, J. & Caswell. April 2006. Genetically
Engineered Crops in the United States. USDA/ERS Economic
Information Bulletin n. 11.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publication...
(31) See for example, Charles Benbrook, Ag BioTech InfoNet
Technical Paper Number 1, July 13, 1999, and Oplinger, E.S et
al., 1999. Performance of Transgenetic Soyabeans, Northern U.S..
http://www.biotech-info.net/soybean...
(32) ABIOVE, 2006a. Sustainaibility in the Legal Amazon.
Presentation by Carlo Lovatelli at the Second Roundtable on
Responsible Soy. Paraguay, 1 September 2006.
http://www.abiove.com.br/english/pa...
(33) Fulton, M and Keyowski, L. "The Producer Benefits of
Herbicide Resistant Canola." AgBioForum Vol 2 No 2, 1999,
as reported in Stone, S. Matysek, A. and Dolling, A. Modeling
Possible Impacts of GM Crops on Australian Trade
Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper,
October
2002 at 32.
(34) NFU (2005a) GM Crops: Not Needed on the Island, -
Recommendations of the National Farmers Union to the Prince
Edward Island Legislature's Standing Committee on Agriculture,
Forestry, and the Environment,
www.nfu.ca/briefs/2005/PEI%20GMO%20... viewed 20/6/07.
(35) Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., "Impacts of Genetically Engineered
Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years" November 2009
http://www.organic-center.org/scien...
(36) Ramsay, G., Thompson, C. & Squire, G. (2004) Quantifying
landscape-scale gene flow in oilseed rape, Scottish Crop
Research Institute and the UK Department for Environment, Food,
and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), October 2004, p. 4.
www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/res... viewed 16/7/07.
(37) Friesen, L., Nelson, A. & Van Acker, R. (2003) Evidence of
Contamination of Pedigreed Canola (Brassica napus)
Seedlots in Western Canada with Genetically Engineered Herbicide
Resistance Traits," Agronomy Journal 95, 2003, pp.
1342-1347, cited in NFU (2005b).
(38) Mellon, M & Rissler, J. (2004) Gone to Seed: Transgenic
Contaminants in the Traditional Seed Supply, Union of
Concerned Scientists, cited in NFU (2005b).
(39) May 6, 2005, India News
(40) Abdul Qayum & Kiran Sakkhari. Did Bt Cotton Save Farmers in
Warangal? A season long impact study of Bt Cotton - Kharif 2002
in Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh . AP Coalition in Defence
of Diversity & Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, 2003.
(41) Abdul Qayum & Kiran Sakkhari. Did Bt Cotton Save Farmers in
Warangal? A season long impact study of Bt Cotton - Kharif 2002
in Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh . AP Coalition in Defence
of Diversity & Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, 2003.
(42) Abdul Qayum & Kiran Sakkhari. Did Bt Cotton Save Farmers in
Warangal? A season long impact study of Bt Cotton - Kharif 2002
in Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh . AP Coalition in Defence
of Diversity & Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, 2003.
(43)
http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
(44) Irina Ermakova, "Genetically modified soy leads to the
decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first
generation.
Preliminary studies," Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.
(45) Irina Ermakova, "Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,"
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament,
Brussels, June 12, 2007
(46) Irina Ermakova, "Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,"
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament,
Brussels, June 12, 2007
(47) L. Vecchio et al, "Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from
Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean," European Journal
of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.
(48) Oliveri et al., "Temporary Depression of Transcription in
Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically
Modified Soybean," 48th Symposium of the Society for
Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006.
(49) Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter, "Biological effects
of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction
studies in mice," Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2008
(50) Jerry Rosman, personal
communication, 2006
(51) See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F.
Bigler, "Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic
maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea,"
Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7; and J. Romeis, A.
Dutton, and F. Bigler, "Bacillus thuringiensis toxin
(Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the
green
lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera:
Chrysopidae)," Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2–3
(2004): 175–183.
(52) Washington State Department of Health, "Report of health
surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,"
(Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993).
(53) M. Green, et al., "Public health implications of the
microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An
epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86," Amer. J. Public
Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.
(54) Ashish Gupta et. al., "Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers'
Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),"
Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005.
(55) October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and
Brian John
(56) John M. Burns, "13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study
with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food
Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,"
December 17, 2002
http://www.
monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf
(57) Alberto Finamore, et al, "Intestinal and Peripheral Immune
Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice,"
J. Agric. Food Chem. , 2008, 56 (23), pp 11533–11539,
November 14, 2008
(58) See L Zolla, et al, "Proteomics as a complementary tool for
identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic
maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications," J Proteome
Res. 2008 May;7(5):1850-61; Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun
Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, "Genetically Modified and
Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison," Allergy and Asthma
Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7); and
Gendel, "The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess
potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified
foods," Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42
(1998), 45–62.
(59) A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, "GMO in animal
nutrition:
potential benefits and risks," Chapter 17, Biology of
Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T.
Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005
(60) "Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton
Fields -- Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh" Report of the
Preliminary Assessment, April 2006,
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp
(61) Personal communication and visit, January 2009.
(62) Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented
Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books,
Fairfield, IA USA 2007
(63) Arpad Pusztai, "Can Science Give Us the Tools for
Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?" Nutrition and
Health 16 (2002): 73–84.
(64) Netherwood et al, "Assessing the survival of transgenic
plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract," Nature
Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.
(65) Kathryn Anne Paez, et al, "Rising Out-Of-Pocket Spending
For Chronic Conditions: A Ten-Year Trend," Health Affairs,
28, no. 1 (2009): 15-25
(66)
http://farmertofarmercampaign.com/O...
(67)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091214...
|