October 24: Natural Breeding Beats GMOs
A small seed company, the Mark Seed Company of Perry Iowa, has developed a new soybean variety that promises increased yields for farmers facing a pervasive parasite in their fields. According to the company's founder, the soybeans can see yields of up to 80 bushels per acre, compared to the national average of 48. Several farmers who planted the beans confirmed annual yield increases each year of planting.
By contrast, Monsanto's GMO Roundup Ready soybeans, the most widely planted variety in the U.S. and worldwide, yield no more (and may actually yield less) per acre than natural varieties.
Mark Seed, which developed the new variety with traditional breeding over the last two decades, has about 2,000 customers and annual sales of about $6 million. Annual revenue for Monsanto, which developed RR soy over the last two decades, is about $12 billion.
October 22, 2009: Genetic Engineering and the Two Bills
We do not ride on the railroad; it rides upon us.
Henry David Thoreau, "Walden" (1854), quoted in "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us," by Bill Joy (2000)
Computer techno-whiz Bill Gates has been touting the benefits of genetically engineered crops again, creating a techno-scientific veneer of respectability for Monsanto and the agbiotech industry. This comes as no surprise: as early as this June 2000 Time Magazine piece, Gates was uncritical in promoting the unverified claims of the industry, touting the benefits of GMO crops containing untested toxins and claiming GMOs would increase yields (now debunked) and soon create vitamin-enriched super foods (we're still waiting).
Interestingly, just two months before Gates' Time Magazine piece, another leading-edge computer whiz kid recounted a very different take on the potential that genetic engineering—along with robotics and nanotechnology ("GNR" technologies)—have to impact all life on Earth. In his piece for Wired, "Why the future doesn't need us," Sun Microsystems founder Bill Joy outlined the uncontrollable dangers of these technologies, and offered a radical proposal for protecting ourselves from the inherent risks the technologies create. After a discussion of the scientific impracticalities of missile defense and nanotech safety shields, Joy suggested a path that is generally considered heretical among technocrats:
Similar difficulties apply to the construction of shields against robotics and genetic engineering. These technologies are too powerful to be shielded against in the time frame of interest; even if it were possible to implement defensive shields, the side effects of their development would be at least as dangerous as the technologies we are trying to protect against.
These possibilities are all thus either undesirable or unachievable or both. The only realistic alternative I see is relinquishment: to limit development of the technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge.…
Otherwise, we can easily imagine an arms race developing over GNR technologies, as it did with the NBC technologies in the 20th century. This is perhaps the greatest risk, for once such a race begins, it's very hard to end it. This time - unlike during the Manhattan Project - we aren't in a war, facing an implacable enemy that is threatening our civilization; we are driven, instead, by our habits, our desires, our economic system, and our competitive need to know.
Many who early on warned about the dangers of GMOs pointed out that, for the first time, the "genetic pollution" created by the technology would be uncontrollable and could be disastrous. While pollution from industrial chemicals could be persistent and deadly, it at least would not generally escalate. But if environmental problems followed from a release of living organisms like GMOs, the damage could worsen over time, and genetic threats could not be contained or recalled.
In his piece, Joy took this reasoning to its logical conclusion. Writing on robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology, Joy explained,
(W)ith each of these technologies, a sequence of small, individually sensible advances leads to an accumulation of great power and, concomitantly, great danger….[these technologies] are so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses…[with them] we have the possibility not just of weapons of mass destruction but of knowledge-enabled mass destruction, this destructiveness hugely amplified by the power of self-replication.
In stark contrast to the hubris of Gates and other technocrats, Joy's proposed limits on technology stemmed from his personal experience and concern for the future. Reflecting on the need for a new attitude towards technologies that carry with them new and unprecedented dangers, he wrote:
I remember from my childhood that my grandmother was strongly against the overuse of antibiotics. She had worked since before the First World War as a nurse and had a commonsense attitude that taking antibiotics, unless they were absolutely necessary, was bad for you. It is not that she was an enemy of progress….(But) she had an awareness of the nature of the order of life, and of the necessity of living with and respecting that order. With this respect comes a necessary humility that we, with our early-21st-century chutzpah, lack at our peril.
New Table of Contents
- Shopping for Non-GMO Food
- Animal Genes in What?
- Threats from GMOs - A Brief Overview
- SuperWeeds Attack! Why GMOs Mean More Chemicals on Our Food
- Organic Food - The Alternative to GMOs
- Decoding Organic Labels
- Organic Food Myths and Facts
- GMOs Won't Feed the World - But Organic Farming Can
- GMOs and Contamination of Organic & Natural Food
- GMO Contamination Incidents
- The Gene Giants - Monsanto's Misdeeds
- Five Questions for Monsanto
- Resources, Studies and More Information
- Monsanto's Minions
- Monsanto on GMO Food Labeling
- New Text with BIG Picture
Shopping for Non-GMO Food
How to Avoid GMOs and Eat Healthy, Natural Food
Share on FacebookThe bad news: GMOs are widespread in the U.S. food supply. The good news: it's possible to avoid them, at least most of the time.
The most widely grown GMO crops are corn and soy, and are primarily used for animal feed. But even these GMO crops end up in our food; ingredients from GMO soy and corn, like corn syrup, corn starch, soy oil, soy protein and many others are ubiquitous in processed, packaged foods. The much-cited statistic that GMOs are in 70% of the food in our supermarkets refers to the widespread use of corn and soy in processed foods: since GMO crops are not generally seperated, any corn or soy ingredient (unless it is organic or labeled "non-GMO") is suspect.
Despite ongoing rumors that GMO foods can be detected by produce stickers starting with the number 8, in fact no such stickers have been verified. As Marion Nestle said about the labels in "What to Eat," "I have never been able to find one." Instead, she reports finding a label starting with 8 on non-GMO melons, and finding several GMO papayas with labels starting with a 4.
So, the best way to avoid GMO food is to eat a diet based on whole foods, primarily on whole grains, beans and other legumes, and fresh produce. With the exception of Hawaiian papaya (where half the crop is GMO), there are no widely grown GMO fruits or vegetables (there are persistent rumors spread by pro-biotech forces of GMO squash harvests, but investigators have looked and failed to find a single example of the Frankensquash in stores).
A few other tips for avoiding GMOs:
Animal Genes in What?
The Strange Fruit of GMO Food
A Monsanto blogger recently complained about those who fear GMOs because they have heard that some GMO foods have been created using animal genes. She laments that people are revolted by the possibility that fish genes have been inserted in tomatoes. Denying such frankenfoods exist, she states, "there are no commercial biotech products owned or produced by Monsanto that have animal DNA. I'm not sure how this rumor got started but it's just not true."Denying what's not in your food might seem odd coming from a company that fights so aggressively against your right to know what is in your food, but irony isn't Monsanto's strong suit. Regardless, note Monsanto's statement does not deny that GMO crops have been created using animal genes. It doesn't even deny that Mosanto has created such crops. It simply states that no such Monsanto crops have been commercialized.
But animal genes have been inserted into food crops since the beginning of attempts to commercialize GMO food - including a GMO tomato, from Chinese scientists, created using fish genes (the tomato was even mentioned in that radical publication, Time Magazine - maybe they should be held responsible for Monsanto's woes!).
A quick review of U.S. field experiment data finds more than a dozen GMO crop experiments using animal genes in food crops (and of course, this only includes U.S. field trials -many more such plantings likely occur in dozens of countries where Monsanto and others grow test plots).
Such U.S. field experiments are ongoing: in 2008-09, there have been at least five field experiments of GMO foods using animal genes, including potatoes with chicken genes, corn with fish and firefly genes, and barley with human genes, among others. Other crops that have recently been engineered with animal genes include wheat, safflower, rice and peas. Several GMO crops with animal genes have been commercialized, although it appears that these have not yet entered the food supply.
Monsanto's blogger further claims that vegetables are not "typically" produced using GMO technology, since GMO development takes too long. Oddly, the company blogger then states that gene splicing is used to develop veggies when breeding isn't fast enough.
So that's clear: Monsanto doesn't create GMO fruits and vegetables, because it's too slow, except when it's faster, and then they do.
For the record, Monsanto currently has in development, among other veggies, GMO eggplant (for introduction in India and the Philippines); "Roundup Ready" GMO onions; and at least one GMO tomato - all currently in field trials.
Do these Monsanto GMO tomatoes contain genes from animals? Only Monsanto knows, and they're not telling - as with most of their field experiments, Monsanto refuses to disclose the source of the inserted genes, claiming them as "confidential business information."
Threats from GMOs - A Brief Overview
While there are few studies, and no long term data, on the safety of GMO food, there are many reasons to be concerned about the advent of the technology. In brief, here are some areas of concern (details with links to published studies, more information and resources are found below):
SuperWeeds Attack! Why GMOs Mean More Chemicals on Our Food
Even before GE crops were widely grown, environmentalists and farm ecologists warned that GMO varieties would result in increased pesticide use. Despite industry claims that these crops would reduce spraying, 80% of the global acreage of GE crops is in herbicide tolerant varieties that require farmers to spray toxic chemicals in their fields. It is now indisputable that GMOs have resulted in a huge increase in the amounts of pesticides sprayed on our food and farms. A study based on USDA data looking at the first nine years of widespread cultivation showed that GMO crops have resulted in 122 million more pounds of pesticides used on our food.
Monsanto's Roundup Ready (RR) GMO crops are the most widely grown of these varieties, and today the truth about these crops is clear:
Before the advent of RR crops, few glyphosate resistant weeds had been identified. And in fact, resistant weeds were identified just a few years after RR crops were introduced, and in at least one case scientists explained the emergence of resistance as resulting from continuous planting of RR soy. Recently, at least five more Roundup resistant weeds have been identified, prompting Monsanto and others to advise farmers to add more chemicals to their Roundup applications. These include pesticides known or suspected of causing cancer and other serious health problems. Monsanto has even tried to profit from the development of resistant weeds by filing a patent application for any mixing of other chemicals with Roundup for use on RR crops.
Resistant weeds in at least some cases may make the GMO technology useless for farmers, as increased pesticide costs negate the purported benefits of RR crops. The GMO technology is supposed to save farmers time, since hand weeding is no longer necessary, but one cotton farmer faced with resistant weeds in 2005 noted, "We had six guys come in to chop the weeds. We kept the chopping crew going for two weeks in the fields with the worst problems." Coupled with increased pesticide costs, this may make the RR technology obsolete.
Overuse of herbicides is just one way herbicide tolerant crops can create hardier weeds. In Canada, GE canola hybridized to create a canola variety resistant to three different herbicides. The resistant canola is now itself a major weed problem, one that a Canadian science panel called "a classic example" of a superweed." In 2005, Monsanto announced a partnership to develop crops that would tolerate the herbicide dicamba, which is listed by EPA as a developmental toxin, is toxic to fish and is a potential groundwater contaminant. In 2009, the company announced a new project to create more powerful dicamba formulas to use with the new GMO crops.
Organic Food - The Alternative to GMOs
Organic and natural foods are the fastest growing sector of the food industry, yet there is still much confusion about the category. Many consumers believe organic is simply a label, with no more behind it than other food labels like "all natural" or "wholesome." But unlike other food labels, organic is well defined and regulated by law (Consumers Union, publisher of Consumers' Report, has created the Greener Choices Eco-labels Center, a great tool for understanding dozens of food labels). Many other industries spend millions in lobbying funds to avoid government regulation, but the organic movement worked for more than a decade asking for government rules to make organic certification consistent across the country.Today, any organic products must meet strict farming, processing and marketing rules detailed under the USDA National Organic Program and overseen by independent organic certifiers. Many consumers believe that organic merely means grown without pesticides, but organic includes much more. Briefly, organic is defined as "a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people." Organic producers are required to develop and maintain an organic farm plan that includes tracking systems and standards for soil fertility methods, compost use, conservation of natural and natural resources and more. Guiding the farm plan are the four principles of organic agriculture:
Any product labeled as organic (including products labeled as "made with organic ingredients") must be made without the use of GMOs.
Share on Facebook
Decoding Organic Labels
Organic Food Myths and Facts
Persistent campaigns by anti-organic, pro-biotech forces have led to widespread dissemination of many myths about organic food. Below are the facts to counter the falsehoods spread by the GMO industry.Myth: Organic farms can't produce as much food as synthetic fertilized, pesticide-intensive factory farms.
FACT: Numerous studies show that organic and sustainable methods produce as much or more food than conventional farms. Fertilizer and pesticide-dependent farms degrade soils, leading to ongoing struggles against yield declines, but organic farms can achieve equivalent yields and can do so while enriching soils for sustainable production. Examples of organic yield studies include:
Myth: Organic food is not healthier than food sprayed with toxic chemicals.
FACT: We all need safe water, clean air and a healthy environment. Organic farms work to enhance the natural environment, without the toxic chemicals that agribusiness uses to pollute our water, air and land. Organic food is less likely to be contaminated with toxic farm poisons, and can be more nutritious than factory-farmed food. Recent studies have found higher levels of beneficial nutrients, and lower levels of harmful compounds (like Advanced Glycosylation End Products, which can lead to cardiovascular complications, among other health effects) in organic food.
Myth: Since pesticides on food are safe, buying organic is a waste of money.
FACT: Pesticides commonly found on food have been linked to numerous health problems, including cancer, birth defects, Parkinsons disease, and many other illnesses. Proponents of pesticides say that the amounts on food are safe, but a recent study from researchers at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health noted that "Many pesticides have not been tested for their toxicity, and testing in the past has focused on acute effects rather than long-term effects."
Myth: Organic is just a label, like "all natural"
FACT: While many other food labels have few or no standard definitions, organic is well-defined and regulated (see the Greener Choices Eco-labels Center for information on dozens of food labels). Organic products must meet strict farming, processing and marketing rules detailed under the USDA National Organic Program and overseen by independent organic certifiers. Many consumers believe that organic merely means grown without pesticides, but organic includes much more. Organic producers are required to develop and maintain an organic farm plan that includes tracking systems and standards for soil fertility methods, compost use, conservation of natural and natural resources and more.
Myth: Organic farming uses manure that can cause e-coli contamination of food.
FACT: Most manure is used by conventional farms, and these farms have no rules defining how they can or cannot use manure. Organic farmers, by contrast, have strict guidelines that require composting of manure (which kills or inhibits the growth of harmful bacteria) and prohibits application of manure when contamination is most likely to occur.
Share on Facebook
GMOs Won't Feed the World - But Organic Farming Can
The biotech industry persistently claims that we need GMOs to feed the growing world population. They and other anti-organic zealots also persistently claim that mass starvation would accompany movement towards more organic farming, since, they say, crop yields on organic farms are much lower than on pesticide-sprayed, GMO crops.
But overwhelmingly evidence shows the fallacy of the industry's position. The world's most widely grown GMO crop, Monsanto's GMO soy, has repeatedly been shown to yield less per acre than natural soy. Another recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that after 20 years of research and 13 years of marketing, GMO production has failed to increase yields.
Organic and sustainable farming methods, meanwhile, have shown tremendous promise for productivity, conservation and suitability for small farmers. Jules Pretty of the University of Essex has reported on dozens of small farmer projects in more than 20 countries, in which the adoption of organic and sustainable methods both increased yields and cut costs. A 2008 United Nations-funded study on organic production for Africa found that "(O)rganic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and [is] more likely to be sustainable in the long term."
Moreover, experts point out that hunger is not primarily a food production problem, but follows from poverty and economic inequality. Writing in the New York Times, development expert Peter Rosset stated, "The real problems are poverty and inequality. Too many people are too poor to buy the food that is available or lack land on which to grow it themselves." He noted that "the rapid introduction of genetically engineered crops may actually threaten agriculture and food security" in hungry nations.
GMOs threaten to perpetuate hunger in several ways. The most widely grown GMOs, the herbicide tolerant crops that make up about 80% of global GMO acreage, require high doses of expensive farm chemicals. These high input cost crops will favor wealthier farmers, leaving aside poor farmers. Further, the weed killers used on these GMOs could threaten local plants that are useful to small farmers but "weeds" to large, monocrop plantations. Even worse, GMO seed patents would deny farmers their long-held right to save seed, while 1.4 billion people on the planet rely on food from saved seed for their daily nutritional needs. When GMO patents are difficult to enforce, the biotech industry may rely on so-called "terminator" technologies, which take the place of patents by engineering seed sterility into crops. When small farmer advocates discovered new patents for terminator technologies, the last gasp of industry's "feed the world" argument was heard. Clearly biotech companies are interested in controlling food supplies at any cost, even at the expense of increasing hunger for billions of people.
But overwhelmingly evidence shows the fallacy of the industry's position. The world's most widely grown GMO crop, Monsanto's GMO soy, has repeatedly been shown to yield less per acre than natural soy. Another recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that after 20 years of research and 13 years of marketing, GMO production has failed to increase yields.
Organic and sustainable farming methods, meanwhile, have shown tremendous promise for productivity, conservation and suitability for small farmers. Jules Pretty of the University of Essex has reported on dozens of small farmer projects in more than 20 countries, in which the adoption of organic and sustainable methods both increased yields and cut costs. A 2008 United Nations-funded study on organic production for Africa found that "(O)rganic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and [is] more likely to be sustainable in the long term."
Moreover, experts point out that hunger is not primarily a food production problem, but follows from poverty and economic inequality. Writing in the New York Times, development expert Peter Rosset stated, "The real problems are poverty and inequality. Too many people are too poor to buy the food that is available or lack land on which to grow it themselves." He noted that "the rapid introduction of genetically engineered crops may actually threaten agriculture and food security" in hungry nations.
GMOs threaten to perpetuate hunger in several ways. The most widely grown GMOs, the herbicide tolerant crops that make up about 80% of global GMO acreage, require high doses of expensive farm chemicals. These high input cost crops will favor wealthier farmers, leaving aside poor farmers. Further, the weed killers used on these GMOs could threaten local plants that are useful to small farmers but "weeds" to large, monocrop plantations. Even worse, GMO seed patents would deny farmers their long-held right to save seed, while 1.4 billion people on the planet rely on food from saved seed for their daily nutritional needs. When GMO patents are difficult to enforce, the biotech industry may rely on so-called "terminator" technologies, which take the place of patents by engineering seed sterility into crops. When small farmer advocates discovered new patents for terminator technologies, the last gasp of industry's "feed the world" argument was heard. Clearly biotech companies are interested in controlling food supplies at any cost, even at the expense of increasing hunger for billions of people.
GMOs and Contamination of Organic & Natural Food
GMOs can contaminate natural foods throughout the supply chain: from seed, through planting, growing, harvest and the food chain there are literally hundreds of ways that GMOs can get into the natural food supply, making it impossible for suppliers of non-GMO products to guarantee purity.The biotech industry says that a little GMO contamination never hurt anyone. They even have a phrase for contamination: they call it the "adventitious presence" of GMO material. Adventitious presence is advantageous to the biotech industry, because they hope it will give consumers who want natural foods the feeling that there's nothing they can do to stop GMOs. When asked if natural foods could be kept pure once GMOs are planted, a Monsanto spokeswoman stated, "Nobody can guarantee zero tolerance. If that's what people want, then nobody can deliver it."
But contamination from GMOs has already cost farmers and food companies countless dollars in costs for testing, equipment, and lost sales. Organic producers are especially at risk, since the organic market has little tolerance for contamination. As early as 1999, an organic food company suffered nearly $150,000 in lost sales when its products tested positive for GMO contamination. A 2001 survey by the Organic Farm Research Foundation found that 48% of organic farmers had taken steps to avoid contamination by GMOs; 24% said they had talked to neighbors about their GMO fields, and 8% indicated that they had already suffered costs related to GMO contamination.
Consumers can help stop the threat of GMO contamination in at least two ways:
- Advocate for strong protections for farmers and food makers whose products are contaminated by GMOs, so biotech companies are held responsible when farmers suffer losses. California recently passed the first such liability protection for farmers in the nation; other states have considered such laws
- Support strict international limits on GMOs in food exports. Most of Europe, Asia and other regions have rejected crop shipments from the U.S. when they have been found contaminated with GMOs. Organic advocates have suggested liability measures and standards until GMOs can be phased out of production altogether.
Resources on contamination
- The GM Contamination Register lists hundreds of incidents around the world in which GMO crops, grass, and even animals contaminated food, seed, feed, or wildlife.
- The Union of Concerned Scientists has reported on widespread natural seed contamination by GMOs.
Share on Facebook
GMO Contamination Incidents
Taco Bell, hundreds of other products recalled after GMO contamination
Just a few of many examples
In 2000, a variety of GMO corn called Starlink that was not approved for use in food was found in taco shells, tortillas, and hundreds of other products sold in supermarkets across the country. Commodity market experts estimated that StarLink contamination of the US corn supply cost American farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in testing costs, supply losses, and lost sales.
In 2001, a GMO pharmaceutical corn crop that was engineered to produce an untested pig drug contaminated 500,000 bushels of soybeans intended for the food supply. Unapproved planting of the pharm corn in Iowa also resulted in incineration of a 155 acre corn field.
Between 2001-03, 386 offspring of experimental GMO pigs were sold by University of Illinois researchers to a livestock dealer for possible food use.
- In 2006, at least three varieties of an unapproved GMO rice contaminated U.S. rice supplies, leading to international bans on U.S. rice and massive losses in rice exports.
The Gene Giants - Monsanto's Misdeeds
Corporations Playing with Our Food
Share on Facebook
A handful of companies make virtually all of the world's GMO crops, and among these, Monsanto is by far the leader. Other chemical giants now heavily invested in GMO food include DuPont (which owns Pioneer, the largest U.S. seed company), Bayer (Aventis), Syngenta (Novartis/Ciba/Zeneca), and Dow. These companies (along with BASF) are also practically the last "crop protection" (ie, pesticide) companies still in business, and all have been long known for their environmental (and other) corporate crimes. But Monsanto's record stands out even among these irresponsible companies. In addition to their misdeeds around GMOs, following is a brief overview of Monsanto's checkered history:
PCBs: Founded in 1901, Monsanto had its first blockbuster product when it bought the chemical company that first developed PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) in 1927. While health problems in workers and others exposed to PCBs were observed as early as the mid-1930's,Monsanto and its licensees continued to sell the chemical and defend its safety, despite massive increasing evidence of concern. Ultimately studies showed numerous harmful effects of PCBs, including cancer, birth defects, damage to the immune system, hypertension, and others. In Anniston Alabama, Monsanto PCB pollution resulted in massive health problems for thousands of residents: internal company documents revealed that Monsanto knew of the pollution and the potential harm to public health, but spent decades (and millions of dollars) to cover-up rather than clean-up the problem.
Dioxin: Dioxins and furans are some of the most toxic chemicals known. A class of chemicals that are created when certain chemicals are produced and/or burned, Monsanto's dioxins were found in contaminated soil samples in Times Beach, Missouri, prompting permanent evacuation of thousands of residents. Monsanto has denied its operations had anything to do with the pollution at Times Beach.
Agent Orange: Monsanto was one of several pesticide companies that produced Agent Orange for use in the Vietnam War; Monsanto's version of the chemical defoliant was many times higher in dioxins than other versions. After Veterans groups filed lawsuits against the company for the health effects they suffered from exposure, Monsanto undertook a series of studies designed to minimize its liability. An EPA regulator later charged that the company doctored the studies to hide evidence of harmful effects from its dioxins.
rBGH: Monsanto was one of the companies that introduced the cow drug rBGH (also called rBST or Posilac) in the early 1990s, and for many years was the sole company marketing the drug (in 2008, Monsanto finally sold its rBGH business to Eli Lilly). From the inception, consumer groups warned that the use of rBGH could lead to human and animal health problems, but FDA approved the use of rBGH in 1993. But in 1999, evidence from Canada showed that health studies raising concerns about the safety of rBGH were suppressed, and Canada refused to approve the drug. Today, rBGH is banned throughout Europe and in much of Asia.
Attacks on Free Speech: Monsanto has a long history of attempts to stifle those who have uncovered the company's misdeeds. For example:
In 1997, Monsanto threatened to sue German activist Werner Reisberger, who in an email called the company a "corporation of poisons, genes and swindle." The email went to a closed list of only 24 activists, but Monsanto apparently received a copy from its public relations firm, which had fraudulently signed up to receive alerts.
In 1997, Monsanto's complaints to a Fox TV Tampa station led to the station pulling a segment on rBGH prepared by a team of award-winning journalists. The reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, sued Fox and won their case when a jury found that Fox "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH," but an appeals court later overturned the verdict.
In early 1998, Monsanto threatened legal action against the publisher of Against the Grain, a book on the company's GMO crops. The authors were forced to find a new publisher.
Later that year, Monsanto threatened legal action against the publisher and the printer of The Ecologist, a British magazine that had prepared a full issue on the company's history and operations. The printer initially destroyed an entire run of the issue, which was ultimately printed.
In 2003, Monsanto sued a small Maine dairy for "promoting its products as containing milk from cows who are not treated with artificial growth hormones. The suit was part of a long campaign Monsanto waged to keep dairies from using truthful labels when they prohibit the use of rBGH.
Many online resources on Monsanto cover these and other issues; see Monsanto's Checkered History; Monsanto Watch (no longer updated); The Monsanto Files; and Millions Against Monsanto.
A handful of companies make virtually all of the world's GMO crops, and among these, Monsanto is by far the leader. Other chemical giants now heavily invested in GMO food include DuPont (which owns Pioneer, the largest U.S. seed company), Bayer (Aventis), Syngenta (Novartis/Ciba/Zeneca), and Dow. These companies (along with BASF) are also practically the last "crop protection" (ie, pesticide) companies still in business, and all have been long known for their environmental (and other) corporate crimes. But Monsanto's record stands out even among these irresponsible companies. In addition to their misdeeds around GMOs, following is a brief overview of Monsanto's checkered history:
Many online resources on Monsanto cover these and other issues; see Monsanto's Checkered History; Monsanto Watch (no longer updated); The Monsanto Files; and Millions Against Monsanto.
Five Questions for Monsanto
Recently, Backyard Poultry radio broadcaster Andy Schneider asked for questions for his May 23, 2009 guest, a spokesperson from Monsanto, the world leader in selling GMO seeds. Now, Monsanto can give Sarah Palin lessons in evading direct questions, so I passed on the chance to send Andy some hardballs for the biotech giant. But below are a few I'd have Jack Bauer pose to Monsanto if the day ever comes to have the company really face the grilling they deserve. Feel free to add your own in the space below!1. The FDA says that Monsanto is responsible to insure that its GMO foods "are safe, wholesome, and in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements." But Monsanto told the NY Times that safety was FDA's job; Monsanto's interest in GMO foods, the company's chief spokesman said, was in "selling as much of it as possible." Given this reckless and arrogant attitude, isn't it understandable that consumers don't trust Monsanto to care about their health or safety?
2. If a polluter moves next door to my business, and their pollution causes me losses, they can be held responsible. Monsanto has acknowledged that its GMO crops will inevitably contaminate natural foods and many farmers and food producers have lost sales and suffered testing and segregation costs due to Monsanto's genetic pollution. Shouldn't Monsanto be held responsible like any other polluter?
3. In 2002, Tom Abate of the SF Chronicle asked Monsanto about the Percy Schmeiser case; according to the Chronicle story, this was Abate's question and Monsanto's reply:
"If the company doesn't want people growing its patented seeds without
payment, isn't it the company's responsibility to keep its patented seeds
off their property?
It took Harvey Glick, Monsanto's director of global product stewardship,
about 45 minutes not to answer the question directly. But what I think he
told me in the four pages of notes I took is this: If patented seeds blow
over to your land, you'd better pay for them or else ask Monsanto to
remove them. If not, the company will sue you."
But in 2008, California passed a law protecting farmers from Monsanto lawsuits when their crops are unavoidably contaminated. Since farmers in California are now so protected, will Monsanto afford this same protection to farmers elsewhere?
4. Monsanto-supported research has found that GMO crops reduces pesticide use and increases crop yields. But independent studies found the opposite: GMO crops increased pesticides used by 122 million pounds, even before the now widespread resistance to Monsanto's herbicide, which is causing farmers to use more and more dangerous chemicals on our food. Several independent studies also found that yields for GMO crops are lower or at best, no better than natural crops. Why should anyone believe Monsanto-funded research, when it so often finds whatever Monsanto wants it to find?
5. Monsanto says they welcome dialogue about GMO food. But the company has sued dairies who use truthful milk labels, has threatened publishers who intended to print works critical of Monsanto, and has even gone after individuals who simply asserted their right to protest for the right to know what's in their food. Meanwhile, Monsanto has funded at least a half a dozen groups who spread lies about organic food and promote phony studies about GMOs, and has paid for bogus counter demonstrations when actual citizens have demanded regulations on GMOs. Given this history, isn't it obvious that Monsanto's aim is to monopolize public relations about GMO food and crush any opposing views?
New Guestbook
submit
-
Reply
- Kay Wiliams Kay Wiliams Oct 24, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
- I am going to treat this great information.Shouldn't you too?
-
Reply
- OrganicGiftsByDiana OrganicGiftsByDiana Sep 25, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
- Say NO to GMO !
Say NO to manmade pesticides !
Say NO to manmade fertilizers including that nasty blue stuff !
Say YES to REAL food !
Say YES to organic !
Say YES to compost !
Say YES to aged manure from organic farm animals !
I too write about and teach organic gardening and natural living - see my Squidoo pages for recipes and ideas.
Organically Yours,
Diana
http://twitter.com/Relax_Naturally
-
Reply
- badmsm badmsm Jun 7, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
- Great lens, thanks for helping to get the word out. If ever there was EVIL in the world, it's science without conscience and GMO's. 5 Stars & a Squid Angel Blessing!
-
Reply
- Food Alliance Food Alliance Jun 1, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
- In addition to organic, a few nonprofit certifications are also good indicators or non-GMO food. But not all certifications are equal.
Food Alliance is the most comprehensive and credible certification for sustainable food in North America. We certify farms, ranches, and food processors and distributors for sustainable agricultural and facility management practices. By choosing Food Alliance Certified products, consumers and food buyers support safe and fair working conditions, humane treatment of animals, and good environmental stewardship.
Improved practices in Food Alliance Certified agricultural operations and food handling facilities have led to better conditions for thousands of workers, more humane treatment of hundreds of thousands of animals, reduced use of toxic and hazardous materials, healthier soils, cleaner water, and enhanced wildlife habitat on millions of acres across the U.S.
For more info visit: http://www. foodalliance.org
-
Reply
- Dawn Dawn May 22, 2009 @ 11:21 am
- If I could add one question, it would be:
Let's suppose GMO crops are good for us, good for our land, good for our farmers, and good for our economy. If GMO crops were labeled as such, people could choose to support GMO industry as easily as they could choose to avoid using GMO foods. So if science could prove that these crops and food products to be safe and good for us (and we know your science could!), wouldn't labeling be a boon to corporate agriculture? Why fight labeling?
-
Reply
- Local Nourishment Local Nourishment May 22, 2009 @ 9:44 am
- Outstanding info. Thanks for all the great research!
-
Reply
- CHEESESLAVE CHEESESLAVE Apr 22, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
- I LOVE this lens! Thanks so much for posting all this information. People need to wake up to the truth about GMOs!
Resources, Studies and More Information
Share on Facebook
GMO Food: General Health Effects
British Medical Association - The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health - An Interim Statement
Why GMOs could be hazardous to our health, by cell biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute.
David Schubert, A Different Perspective on GM Food. Nature Biotechnology, vol 20, Oct 2002.
While FDA policy allows untested GMO foods on the market, internal FDA documents show concerns by agency scientists about GMO health risks.
Consumers Union (publisher of Consumers Report), Why We Need Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food.
Health Care Without Harm Position Statement on GMO Food
Allergies & Toxic Effects
New England Journal of Medicine editorial by Dr. Marion Nestle.
Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry study found that a GMO pea caused an immune response (possible allergen) in a feeding study in mice, demonstrating that genetic engineering can cause unexpected harmful changes. In a video promoting this GE wonder pea-bean, an Australian scientist boasted that the pea would surely be safe to eat, since "we've been eating beans for a long time." A letter in New Scientist points out that U.S. and other regulatory systems do not require the kind of testing that found the potential allergy problem.
Consumers Union - on food safety and potential allergies from GMO crops.
GMO yeast produced high levels of a toxic, mutagenic compound; the study's authors concluded that their results "may raise some questions regarding the safety and acceptability of genetically engineered food, and give some credence to the many consumers who are not yet prepared to accept food produced using gene engineering techniques." (quoted in "Too Good to Go Wrong," endnote 40)
Center for Food Safety background on unintended effects of GMO crops.
Antibiotic Resistance
Patrice Courvalin, "Transgenic Plants and Antibiotics." La Recherche 309, May 1998, pp. 36-40. Notes that the main risk of antibiotic resistance genes used in GMOs is that they could "contribute to the dissemination of antibiotic resistance in bacteria pathogenic for humans and animals." (translation available by request, from the Edmunds Institute).
Friends of the Earth Backgrounder.
Environmental Threats
M. Altieri, Ecological Impacts of Transgenic Crops on Agroecosystem Health, published in Ecosystem Health, Vol. 6, # 1, March 2000, pp. 13-23(11)
Arjun Makhijani, Ecology and Genetics:An Essay on the Nature of Life and the Problem of Genetic Engineering, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
Anne R Kapuscinski, et al, Making Safety First a Realty. Nature Biotech June 2003
Regulatory Failures
William Freese and David Schubert, "Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods," Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, Vol. 21, November 2004, pp. 299-324 (press statement from Friends of the Earth)
David Schubert, Sensible regulations for GE food crops. (unedited version of article from Nature Biotechnology 23, 785 - 787; July 2005)
Brian Tokar, "Deficiencies in Federal Regulatory Oversight of Genetically Engineered Crops." Institute for Social Ecology Biotechnology Project, June 2006.
Millstone, et al. Beyond Substantial Equivalence Nature Vol 401, 7 October 1999. (Why the foundation of U.S. regulatory system for GMOs is invalid)
GMO Food: General Health Effects
British Medical Association - The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health - An Interim Statement
Why GMOs could be hazardous to our health, by cell biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute.
David Schubert, A Different Perspective on GM Food. Nature Biotechnology, vol 20, Oct 2002.
While FDA policy allows untested GMO foods on the market, internal FDA documents show concerns by agency scientists about GMO health risks.
Consumers Union (publisher of Consumers Report), Why We Need Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food.
Health Care Without Harm Position Statement on GMO Food
Allergies & Toxic Effects
New England Journal of Medicine editorial by Dr. Marion Nestle.
Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry study found that a GMO pea caused an immune response (possible allergen) in a feeding study in mice, demonstrating that genetic engineering can cause unexpected harmful changes. In a video promoting this GE wonder pea-bean, an Australian scientist boasted that the pea would surely be safe to eat, since "we've been eating beans for a long time." A letter in New Scientist points out that U.S. and other regulatory systems do not require the kind of testing that found the potential allergy problem.
Consumers Union - on food safety and potential allergies from GMO crops.
GMO yeast produced high levels of a toxic, mutagenic compound; the study's authors concluded that their results "may raise some questions regarding the safety and acceptability of genetically engineered food, and give some credence to the many consumers who are not yet prepared to accept food produced using gene engineering techniques." (quoted in "Too Good to Go Wrong," endnote 40)
Center for Food Safety background on unintended effects of GMO crops.
Antibiotic Resistance
Patrice Courvalin, "Transgenic Plants and Antibiotics." La Recherche 309, May 1998, pp. 36-40. Notes that the main risk of antibiotic resistance genes used in GMOs is that they could "contribute to the dissemination of antibiotic resistance in bacteria pathogenic for humans and animals." (translation available by request, from the Edmunds Institute).
Friends of the Earth Backgrounder.
Environmental Threats
M. Altieri, Ecological Impacts of Transgenic Crops on Agroecosystem Health, published in Ecosystem Health, Vol. 6, # 1, March 2000, pp. 13-23(11)
Arjun Makhijani, Ecology and Genetics:An Essay on the Nature of Life and the Problem of Genetic Engineering, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
Anne R Kapuscinski, et al, Making Safety First a Realty. Nature Biotech June 2003
Regulatory Failures
William Freese and David Schubert, "Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods," Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, Vol. 21, November 2004, pp. 299-324 (press statement from Friends of the Earth)
David Schubert, Sensible regulations for GE food crops. (unedited version of article from Nature Biotechnology 23, 785 - 787; July 2005)
Brian Tokar, "Deficiencies in Federal Regulatory Oversight of Genetically Engineered Crops." Institute for Social Ecology Biotechnology Project, June 2006.
Millstone, et al. Beyond Substantial Equivalence Nature Vol 401, 7 October 1999. (Why the foundation of U.S. regulatory system for GMOs is invalid)
Monsanto's Minions
The phony front groups promoting GMOs and attacking organics
Like many dirty industries, biotech food companies have learned that they have little public credibility when it comes to their risky products. So corporations employ sophisticated public relations techniques (well described in John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton's Trust Us, We're Experts, among their other works), including the use of third-party spokespeople who can appear as independent while actually fronting for company interests. Monsanto uses this technique widely; just a few of their favorite front groups are described here.The Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues: Father and son team Dennis and Alex Avery have been long-time admirers of Monsanto products. For a fee, the Avery's have defended pesticides as "saving the planet", and without irony, called GMO crops sustainable because they can decrease the use of dangerous pesticides.
The American Council on Science and Health: ACSH has declared that GMOs can be safer and more nutritious than natural foods. Such medical advice is especially dubious coming from an organization whose medical director is a convicted felon who ran a medicare fraud at a clinic that court documents described as "very dirty and unsanitary."
The Center for Consumer Freedom: The food industry front groups also fronts for GMO food, opposing GMO food labelling and calling those supporting labels "anti-biotech extremists." Founder Rick Berman was recently called recently called "a despicable man...a sort of human molestor. An exploiter. A scoundrel. A world historical mother******* son of a bitch" by his son, musician David Berman.
The National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy: Former front-man Leonard Gianessi spent his career defending the benfits of pesticides before turning his attention to Monsanto GMOs. In 2001, Gianessi stated that lower yields from GMO crops were simply a temporary problem; but a recent Union of Concerned Scientists report has documented the ongoing failure of GMOs to offer any yield gains for farmers. NCFAP has been less active since Gianessi left (to go to work for the Monsanto-and biotech industry trade group Crop Life Foundation).
Burson-Marsteller: The public relations giant has worked for Monsanto, hiring a fake pro-GMO "consumer organizer" and paying "protesters" to demonstrate in support of GMO food.
American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology: AFACT was created to deny consumers the right to know when dairy products are produced without recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), the GMO drug marketed by Monsanto for more than a decade (the company sold its rBGH business in 2008).
Monsanto on GMO Food Labeling
New Text with BIG Picture
by KvetchingGuru
I have been following developments around genetically engineered food for over a decade. Contact me with any questions, research needs, or suggestions... (more)
Explore related pages
Easy to Make Vegetarian Recipes- Going vegetarian can be tough on the mind. Who doesn't crave a cheeseburger or p...
The Truth about Coconut Oil- It becomes more widely known how modern dairy is the culprit of many diseases -...
Environment (Recipes, Gardening, Energy Bills, Recycling, Clothes, Bags)- I want the world to realize how vital the environment is to life and health. In...
50 Things you can Reuse- Recycling is very important, but even better is reusing. Recycling actually uses...
Sustainable Gardening Non-Profit changing the world one garden at a time.
- The Food for Everyone Foundation is a Non-Profit organization that travels the w...
How to Make Great Vegetable Broth- Homemade vegetable broth is easy to make and so much healthier and more flavorfu...
