Monsanto
GM foods
Covert human
genocide
Monsanto: The world's poster child for corporate
manipulation and deceit
by
Jeffrey Smith
http://www.naturalnews.com
"Saving the world," and other lies
Monsanto's toxic past
Infiltrating the
minds and offices of the government
Hijacking the FDA to promote GMOs
Covering up health dangers
Fake safety assessments
Monsanto's
studies are secret, inadequate, and flawed
Monsanto rigs research to
miss dangers
Monsanto attacks labeling, local democracy, and news coverage
Monsanto's promises of
riches come up short
Canola crashes on GM
GM farmers don't earn or
produce more
Herbicide use rising due to GMOs
Contamination happens
Deadly deception in India
Doctors orders: no
genetically modified food
Pregnant women and babies at
great risk
Food that produces poison
GMOs provoke immune reactions
Animals dying in large numbers
GMOs remain inside of us
Hidden dangers
Un-recallable contamination
Replacing
nature: "Nothing shall be eaten that we don't own"(NaturalNews) 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.
Monsanto's public
relations story about genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
are largely based on five concepts.
1. GMOs are needed to feed the world.
2. GMOs have been thoroughly tested and proven safe.
3. GMOs increase yield.
4. GMOs reduce the use of agricultural
chemicals.
5. 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."
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.
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 US, 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 US 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."
In the US, 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 US 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 US 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 US food
safety czar.
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.
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 US system as inadequate and flawed. The editor of the prestigious
journal Lancet said, "It is astounding that the US
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.
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.
(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 US 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; and
• 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 US and France.
The company was forced to remove "biodegradable" from the label and pay a fine.
• 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.
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. US 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 US
vulnerability and pick off our export customers one by one."(23) US 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 US 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.
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.
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)
US 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)
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 US 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.
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 US also contained GMOs.(38)
Contamination can be very expensive. StarLink corn -- unapproved for human
consumption -- ended up the US food supply in 2000 and resulted in an estimated
price tag of $1 billion. The final cost of GM rice contamination in the US in
2006 could be even higher.
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.
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.
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 US 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 US, incidence of low birth
weight babies, infertility,
and infant mortality are all escalating.
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)
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 US epidemic
of food llergies and asthma
is a casualty of genetic manipulation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs, and what you can do to help end
the genetic engineering of our food supply, visit
www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.
To learn how to choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit
www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.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. Watch the free online
video today, for the big picture.(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 US 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.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publication...
(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 US.
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...