• Recently Written
  • Owning a Dog Is Linked to Reduced Heart Risk
  • How to Grow Your Own Food in Small Spaces
  • Women Beware: Most Feminine Hygiene Products Contain Toxic Ingredients
  • Bayer, Pfizer Accused of Making False Claims About Their Top-Selling Multivitamins
  • More Younger Women Getting Breast Cancer
  • Farmer Faces Jail Time Over Raw Dairy Sales
  • Better Than Wheatgrass: Raw Veggie Juice and Sprouts
  • Vitamin E May Alleviate Symptoms of Liver Disease Brought on by Obesity
  • Better than Wheatgrass: Raw Veggie Juice and Sprouts
  • Getting to the Root of How GMO Plants Harm Food Production and Your Health
• Archives
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009

 

By Dr. Mercola

Under new U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules, Monsanto and other biotech companies that create genetically modified (GM) crops will get speedier regulatory reviews of their genetically engineered food products.

The new rules will cut the time needed to approve biotech crops in half?from an average of three years, to about 13 months for new versions of already existing crop technologies, and about 16 months for brand new technologies.

The U.S. Congress is also helping out by increasing the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 2012 budget for biotech regulation from $13 million to $18 million.

One way the USDA plans to speed up approvals is by asking for public comments as soon as a petition for the deregulation of a biotech crop is filed, rather than waiting until the end of the review.

However, according to Bloombergⁱ:

"The Center for Food Safety, a Washington-based non-profit group that has successfully challenged approvals of Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar-beet and alfalfa crops, said the rule change is aimed at preventing opponents of modified crops from voicing criticism of the agency's methods.

"They are trying to work the system so they can dismiss public comments more quickly and easily in order to speed things up," Bill Freese, a policy analyst at the group, said in a telephone interview.

 "It's a rubber-stamp system. A real regulatory system will occasionally reject something.""

Monsanto Will Also Conduct Its Own Environmental Impact Studies...

As if that's not enough, let's not forget that the USDA also created a two-year long pilot program last year, which allows biotech companies like Monsanto to conduct their own environmental assessments.ⁱⁱ

This decision opens the door for massive conflicts of interest, because if history has shown us anything, it's that industries CANNOT police themselves. The end result is always the same?corporate vested interests win every time. This is exactly why we need independent agencies to do safety reviews.

Unfortunately, the U.S. government and our regulatory agencies are FILLED with former Monsanto employees, which is likely why all federal actions relating to genetically engineered foods are so illogical and downright foolhardy.

Take Michael Taylor for example. He was the vice president of public policy and a chief lobbyist at Monsanto, and he's now the deputy commissioner for foods at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)! According to Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology, Taylor oversaw the creation of GMO policy, which may help explain why genetically engineered foods do not have to be labeled in the U.S.

According to Jeffrey Smith:

"If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist."

Once you realize just how many of Monsanto's employees have shifted into positions of power within the federal government, it suddenly becomes a lot easier to understand why they appear to so callously ignore public safety and turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to any and all evidence of harm linked to Monsanto's products.

Monsanto Accused in Suit Tied to Agent Orange

Granting speedier approvals and allowing biotech companies to do their own safety reviews becomes even more ludicrous when you consider the poor safety record of companies such as Monsanto. Most recently, in the town of Nitro, West Virginia, tens of thousands of people filed a class-action lawsuit against Monsanto, accusing the company of spreading toxic substances, primarily carcinogenic dioxins, all over the city for two decadesⁱⁱⁱ. The Monsanto chemical plant in Nitro produced the herbicide 2,4,5-T; a component of Agent Orange, the extremely toxic herbicide used to defoliate jungles during the Vietnam War. Agent Orange is known to cause cancer, birth defects in children of exposed victims, leukemia, liver disease, heart disease, Parkinson's Disease, diabetes and chloracne.

The suit claims poisonous residues from the chemical have polluted the area, putting residents' health and the environment at serious risk. According to the Republic Broadcasting Network^iv:

"Monsanto is alleged to have burned dioxin waste in open pits, spewing dioxin and its ash into the air and polluting land ... The EPA recommended that Monsanto be criminally investigated for fraud in covering-up dioxin contamination in its products, including 2,4,5-T herbicide. Monsanto failed to report contamination, substituted false information to show no contamination or sent in 'doctored' samples of their products devoid of dioxin to government regulators."

Monsanto has tentatively agreed to a $93 million settlement with some of the residents. The settlement would include $21 million for medical testing, $63 million for additional screening, and $9 million for the cleanup of 4,500 homes.

Why We MUST Insist on Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods

Mandatory labeling may be the only way to stop the proliferation of GM foods in the U.S. It is primarily due to lack of labeling that many Americans are still unfamiliar with what GM foods are, and that they're eating them on a daily basis. We have a plan to change that, and I urge you to participate and to continue learning more about GM foods and helping your friends and family do the same. To start, please print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store.

You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

Your BEST strategy, however, is to simply buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit GM ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers.

The majority of the GMO's you're exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you're not inadvertently consuming something laced with GM ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues. To learn more about GM foods, I highly recommend the following films and lectures:

• Hidden Dangers in Kid's Meals
• Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!
• Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods

Important Action Item: Support California's Ballot Initiative to Label GMO's!

In 2007, then-Presidential candidate Obama promised to "immediately" require GM labeling if elected. So far, nothing of the sort has transpired. Fortunately, 24 U.S. states have (as part of their state governance) something called the Initiative Process, where residents can bring to ballot any law they want enacted, as long as it has sufficient support. California has been busy organizing just such a ballot initiative to get mandatory labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state. The proposed law will be on the 2012 ballot.

Michigan and Washington are also starting similar campaigns^v.

Since California is the 8th largest economy in the world, a win for the California Initiative would be a huge step forward, and would affect ingredients and labeling nation-wide. A coalition of consumer, public health and environmental organizations, food companies, and individuals has submitted the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act to the State Attorney General. Now, they need 800,000 signatures to get the Act on this year's ballot. I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can. Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the U.S. states, so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there!

• Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort
• Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to label genetically engineered foods.
• Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
• For timely updates, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
• Look for in-depth coverage of the issue at the Institute for Responsible Technology, subscribe to Spilling the Beans, and check out their Facebook or Twitter.

References:

---

• ⁱ Bloomberg February 22, 2012
• ⁱⁱ Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices
• ⁱⁱⁱ Republic Broadcasting Network, February 27, 2012
• ^iv Republic Broadcasting Network, February 27, 2012
• ^v GMO Labelling

• Bloomberg February 22, 2012

• Republic Broadcasting Network February 27, 2012

Related Articles:

 Comments (92)

By Dr. Mercola

It's been called the "largest wave of recorded suicides in human historyⁱ."

Indian farmers have been robbed of their livelihoods, causing them to take their own lives in despair.

Over the past 16 years, it is estimated that more than a quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide.

Who is responsible for this tragedy?

The most obvious culprits are global corporations like Monsanto, Cargill and Syngenta and the genetically engineered seed they have forced upon farmers worldwide.

None are hit harder than those in India, where socioeconomic and environmental factors have magnified the impact, making it almost impossible for these farmers to survive.

In fact, genetically engineered seeds are so fundamental to the problem that it's been termed "GM Genocide."ⁱⁱ

The rate of Indian farmer suicides has greatly increased since the introduction of Bt cotton in 2002ⁱⁱⁱ.

This is not a pleasant subject to read about, but it is a necessary one? one that can help you understand why it's so important to continue fighting seed monopolies with ever-increased resolve.

I experienced the Indian farmers' plight firsthand while spending two weeks in India, where I saw for myself the devastating effects of GM seed upon the lives and livelihoods of these rural farmers.

I worked closely with Organic India, a company helping more than 150,000 farmers change back to time-honored methods of producing high quality plants and herbs. If you have any doubts about the dire global implications of GM crops, the plight of these farmers should put those doubts to rest.

  I personally visited India when I met with Organic India.

A Farmer Commits Suicide by Pesticide Every 30 Minutes in India

The statistics are staggering. According to a publication from the New York University School of Law^iv, in 2009 alone (the most recent year for which official figures are available) 17,638 Indian farmers committed suicide?that's one farmer every 30 minutes. A great number of those affected are cash crop farmers, and cotton farmers in particular.

Cotton exemplifies India's general shift toward cash crop cultivation, a shift that has contributed significantly to farmer vulnerability. The cotton industry, like other cash crops in India, has been dominated by foreign mega-corporations that promote genetically modified seeds and exert increasing control over the entire agricultural industry. Most farmer suicides are a direct result of overwhelming indebtedness. And the suicide numbers may be grossly underestimated.

According to the authors of the NYU report:

"While striking on their own, these figures considerably underestimate the actual number of farmer suicides taking place. Women, for example, are often excluded from farmer suicide statistics because most do not have title to land?a common prerequisite for being recognized as a farmer in official statistics and programs."

The general trend over time is increasing suicides, despite the generally decreasing numbers of Indians performing farming each year, which makes the statistics even starker: It's estimated that more than 250,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide so far. But this problem is not limited to India, as the suicide rate for farmers is higher worldwide than for the non-farming population.

In the Midwestern U.S., suicide rates among male farmers are twice that of the overall population. In Britain, one farmer commits suicide every week.^v

For every Indian farmer who takes his own life, a family is hounded by the debt he leaves behind, typically resulting in children dropping out of school to become farmhands, and surviving family members themselves frequently committing suicide out of hopelessness and despair. The Indian government's response to the crisis?largely in the form of limited debt relief and compensation programs?has failed to address the magnitude and scope of the problem or its underlying causes.^vi

India's "Suicide Belt"

India is an agrarian country, populated by 1.1 billion people, about 60 percent of whom are directly or indirectly dependent on agriculture. Two-thirds of farmer suicides occur in five Indian states/territories, which has come to be known as India's "Suicide Belt": Maharastra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Chattisgarh. The worst area is Maharastra. In 2007, there were 4,238 farmer suicides in this state alone, accounting for one fourth of the total farmer suicides in India that year. These territories represent zones of highly diversified, commercialized agriculture where cash crops dominate?especially Bt cotton, grown from Monsanto's genetically modified cotton seed. So, what is it about genetically engineered seed that is so damaging for Indian farmers?

Genetically Engineered Seeds Spell Global Disaster

There are four primary factors directly related to the use of genetically engineered seed that contribute heavily to this grim situation:

1. Compared to traditional seed, genetically engineered seeds are very expensive and have to be repurchased every planting season
2. Genetically engineered crops require much more water to grow, have much higher requirements for fertilizer and pesticide, in spite of Monsanto's claims to the contrary^vii and, in spite of their cost to farmers, provide NO increased yield

While companies like Monsanto have plenty of blood on their hands, additional social, economic and environmental factors make matters worse for these small rural farms:

• The "Green Revolution" of the 1960s and 1970s has funneled money toward the middle class and away from the farming/peasant classes
• Rising prices for seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and other farm supplies, along with falling prices for farm commodities, are forcing farmers to take out high-interest loans from opportunistic moneylenders
• A trend from polyculture farming (diverse crops) to monoculture farming (primarily cotton) has depleted the soil and increased crop infestation by opportunistic pests
• Limited water supplies, periodic drought, decreased monsoonal rainfall, and poor access to irrigation
• Dishonest, predatory salesmen; lack of government support; and grossly inadequate government relief programs

  Here I am with local Indian farmers.

Green Revolution Not Kind to Small Indian Farmers

The introduction of hybrid seeds marked the beginning of the current issues plaguing Indian farmers today. Prior to the 1960s and 1970s, Indian farmers grew diverse food crops, but that all changed with the Green Revolution as modern machinery, chemical pesticides and fertilizers, and hybrid seeds were introduced from the West. Most farmers in India now plant cash crops for export, rather than rice, legumes, millet, and other foods for local consumption.

And in India, cotton is king.

In 1998, under the World Bank's new lending policies, India opened its seed sector to international agribusiness, forcing small cotton farms to compete with giant cotton plantations in the West. Companies like Monsanto promoted their new hybrid seed technology. However, it was soon discovered that the new high-tech cotton required more water and more chemicals to grow. This was not good for small Indian farmers, for whom both money and water were, and still are, in short supply.

Seeds of Evil

In 2002, Monsanto "came to the rescue" with the introduction of even higher-tech seeds: genetically engineered Bt cotton. The company claimed that these miracle seeds were a dream come true for farmers everywhere?more pest resistant, higher yields, etc. Bt cotton contains a bacteria gene, an insecticide that repels bollworm, cotton's most voracious parasite.

But this genetically engineered cotton actually required far MORE water and far MORE pesticides than hybrid or traditional cotton!

These seeds were heavily marketed in India, using film stars and even religious deities to lure farmers in. And they came with a steep price tag?they are four to 10 times more expensive than hybrid seeds. Prior to hybrids, farmers were able to harvest their own seeds from each crop, to be planted next season. However, many genetically engineered seeds contain "terminator technology," meaning they have been genetically modified so that the resulting crops don't produce viable seeds of their own. Therefore, new seeds must be purchased every year from big seed companies, at the same punitive prices.

Bt Cotton is a Debt Trap

Bt cotton requires more pesticide sprayings than indigenous cotton?MANY times more. Bt cotton has created new resistant pests^viii, and to control these, farmers must use 13 times more pesticides^ix than they were using prior to its introduction. Rates of infestation by aphids, thrips, jassids, and other pests have risen since Bt cotton's introduction^x.

Meanwhile, yields for Bt cotton are disappointingly low. Monsanto claims Bt cotton will yield 1500 kg per year, but farmers have gotten only 300 to 400 kg per year, average. High costs and unreliable output make GM cotton a debt trap. According to Voltairenet.org:

"When Monsanto first introduced Bt cotton in 2002, the farmers lost one billion rupees due to crop failure. Instead of 1,500 kilos per acre as promised by the company, the harvest was as low as 200 kilos per acre. Instead of incomes of 10,000 rupees an acre, farmers ran into losses of 6,400 rupees an acre? Poor peasants of the South cannot survive seed monopolies. The crisis of suicides shows how the survival of small farmers is incompatible with the seed monopolies of global corporations."

This has all been amplified by the dramatic fall in cotton prices as a result of the WTO's free trade policies, which make cotton farming financially unsustainable. Foreign agricultural subsidies have driven down the price of crops on the global market, and unsubsidized Indian farmers can't compete.

In 1994, one pound of raw cotton fetched $1.10. In 2006, that same pound brought in a meager 54 cents. A study carried out by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) shows that due to falling farm prices, Indian peasants are losing $26 billion annually.

Add to All of That a Water Shortage

Bt cotton requires irrigation, which only 10 percent of Indian farmers have. The other 90 percent depend on monsoonal rainfall, and in drought years, they risk losing their crops, their financial investment, and even their land.

Droughts are becoming more frequent due to the changing climate. Rains have largely failed for the past several years, and many genetically engineered crops have simply withered and died, leaving the farmers with crippling debts and no means of paying them off.

One study^xi showed that, although most Bt cotton seed packets carry the information that they are "best grown in irrigated conditions" (in fine print), NONE of the homes of suicided farmers had irrigated land. These farmers aren't educated about what it takes to make these seeds grow and the potential risk for total crop failure. And many farmers are completely illiterate and sign on the dotted lines without the benefit of reading, much less understanding, a contract.

And a Banking Shortage?

Another factor contributing to the problem is that farmers no longer have access to good loans. Thousands of rural bank branches have shut down since 1993, redirecting their lending away from farmers and toward elite city dwellers in Mumbai and Delhi, where high-tech growth and technology is booming. Lacking the financial means to pay for high-tech seeds and chemicals, about 80 percent of Indian farmers can borrow only from private moneylenders, who charge exorbitant interest rates. In order to obtain these loans, they must put up their land as collateral. When their crops fail, they lose everything and become servants to the moneylenders.

Many seed dealers operate like America's infamous subprime mortgage lenders.

India has an army of salesmen out selling farm products to farmers who can't afford them. A famer is manipulated into the deal with high-pressure sales tactics, and then borrows from a moneylender to do the deal. When his harvests fail, he has no choice other than to borrow even more. This marks the beginning of a downward spiral of indebtedness and despair. After crops fail and moneylenders hover like buzzards over their decimated fields, many farmers take their lives by ingesting the very pesticides they went into debt to purchase, suffering slow, agonizing deaths.

India's Farmers are Abandoned and Forgotten by their Government

The Indian government used to have agricultural extensions to help farmers, but those days are gone. Farmers now have no one to turn to for advice, except for predatory seed salesmen who don't have the farmers' best interests in mind. The Indian farmers have lost faith in their government, and who could blame them?

The government's priority is clearly India's new urban high-tech based economy. Corrupt officials are disinterested in protecting farmers, and little money is spent on infrastructure, in spite of the fact that 70 percent of Indians live in rural areas. Until the government begins to address irrigation, rural credit, and regulation of the business practices of multinational corporations, the farmer suicide crisis will unfortunately continue.

Genetic Engineering Brings Magnitude 10 Dangers

Genetically tinkering with the human food supply? what could possibly go wrong? Plenty, as it turns out. The potential dangers of genetically engineered food run the gamut, including:

• Contamination of organic crop varieties
• Development of herbicide-resistant super weeds
• Organ disruption, cancer, and increased rate of miscarriage and infertility in animals raised on genetically engineered feed
• Air and rain samples contaminated with glyphosate, and waterways in agricultural areas contaminated with a genetically engineered bug-killing protein
• A brand new organism related specifically to genetically engineered crops, found to be responsible for disease and sudden death in both plants and mammals

The potential risks of genetically engineered crops are so enormous that I have devoted an entire segment of Mercola.com to the subject.

The Importance of Buying Organic Cotton

A few Indian farmers have decided to switch to growing organic cotton. There are numerous advantages, of course, from the standpoint of health?but there are also financial advantages^xii. A minimum price for organic cotton is guaranteed. And the cost of growing organic cotton declines over time as the ecosystem regains its balance.

Organic cotton fields may harbor a few bollworms, but you'll also find plenty of helpful insects, such as ladybugs, and birds that help keep pests under control. Organic farmers make their own insecticides from a renewable mixture of cow dung, cow urine, and butter, and compost fertilizers as well.

You Can Help the Indian Farmers' Plight

Monsanto has been ruthless in their drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops, and it gives us a very clear picture of what could be in store for the rest of the world's small farmers if GM seed conglomerates are allowed to continue. This is why it's so important to vote with your pocket book, being vigilant about not purchasing GM foods.

I have visited thousands of Indian farmers who've escaped the clutches of Monsanto, thanks to the efforts of Organic India that has taught them how to grow crops organically. Organic India has also constructed a number of hospitals and clinics to serve these farmers, which has helped tremendously in restoring their dignity.

Your best strategy, to help both yourself and small organic farmers everywhere, is to buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit genetically engineered ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the genetically engineered crops you're exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you're not inadvertently consuming something laced with genetically engineered ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.

  Here I am with Organic India and local Indian Farmers.

You may also find this Non-GMO Shopping Guide helpful, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for "ShopNoGMO" in the applications. To learn more, I highly recommend the following films and lectures:

• The Future of Food
• Hidden Dangers in Kid's Meals
• Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!
• Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods

Important Action Item: Support California's Ballot Initiative to Label GMO's!

In 2007, then-Presidential candidate Obama promised to "immediately" require GM labeling if elected. So far, nothing of the sort has transpired.

 

Fortunately, 24 U.S. states have (as part of their state governance) something called the Initiative Process, where residents can bring to ballot any law they want enacted, as long as it has sufficient support. California has been busy organizing just such a ballot initiative to get mandatory labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state. The proposed law will be on the 2012 ballot.

Michigan and Washington are also starting similar campaigns^xiii.

Since California is the 8th largest economy in the world, a win for the California Initiative would be a huge step forward, and would affect ingredients and labeling nation-wide. A coalition of consumer, public health and environmental organizations, food companies, and individuals has submitted the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act to the State Attorney General. Now, they need 800,000 signatures to get the Act on this year's ballot.

Proof Positive that GMO Labeling WILL Change the Food Industry

Many don't fully appreciate the strategy of seeking to have genetically engineered foods labeled in California. The belief is that large companies would refuse to have dual labeling; one for California and another for the rest of the country. It would be very expensive and a logistical nightmare. So rather than have two labels, they would simply not carry the product, especially if the new label would be the equivalent of a skull and crossbones. This is why we are so committed to this initiative as victory here will likely eliminate genetically engineered foods from the US.

Powerful confirmation of this belief occurred in early 2012 when both Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo Inc. chose to alter one of their soda ingredients as a result of California's labeling requirements for carcinogens^xiv:

"Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. are changing the way they make the caramel coloring used in their sodas as a result of a California law that mandates drinks containing a certain level of carcinogens bear a cancer warning label. The companies said the changes will be expanded nationally to streamline their manufacturing processes. They've already been made for drinks sold in California."

This is a PERFECT example of the national impact a California GMO labeling mandate can, and no doubt WILL, have. While California is the only state requiring the label to state that the product contains the offending ingredient, these companies are switching their formula for the entire US market, rather than have two different labels. According to USA Today:

"A representative for Coca-Cola, Diana Garza Ciarlante, said the company directed its caramel suppliers to modify their manufacturing processes to reduce the levels of the chemical 4-methylimidazole, which can be formed during the cooking process and as a result may be found in trace amounts in many foods. "While we believe that there is no public health risk that justifies any such change, we did ask our caramel suppliers to take this step so that our products would not be subject to the requirement of a scientifically unfounded warning," Garza-Giarlante said in an email."

You CAN Make a Difference

I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can. Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the U.S. states, so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there!

• Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort
• Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to label genetically engineered foods.
• Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
• For timely updates, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
• Look for in-depth coverage of the issue at the Institute for Responsible Technology, subscribe to Spilling the Beans, and check out their Facebook or Twitter.

References:

---

• ⁱ Counterpunch February 12, 2009
• ⁱⁱ MailOnline November 3, 2008
• ⁱⁱⁱ DnaIndia January 9, 2011
• ^iv New York University Center for Human Rights and Global Justice 2011
• ^v UN.org
• ^vi PBS.org August 28, 2007
• ^vii Monsanto.com
• ^viii Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) June 1, 2010
• ^ix Voltairenet.org May 23, 2009
• ^x Institute of Science in Society November 1, 2010
• ^xi Global Research June 2, 2009
• ^xii GM Watch June 30, 2011
• ^xiii GMO Labeling
• ^xiv USA Today March 8, 2012,

 Comments (116)

By Dr. Mercola

Americans are finally waking up to the reality of genetically engineered food?what it is, and its many dangers to human health and the environment.

Genetically engineered (GE) foods are also known as genetically modified (GM), or as genetically modified organisms (GMO).

In the video above, activist Adam Eidinger proposes a GMO shareholder resolution at Monsanto's 2012 annual shareholder meeting.   

He tries to make the board and shareholders more aware of the dangers of Monsanto's pesticides and GMOs, the company's questionable practices, and the growing consumer backlash.

Did You Know? GM Crops are Sown in Wildlife Refuges Across U.S.

In related news, the White House has refused to release certain portions of a January 11 email sent from a Monsanto-linked lobbyist to top Obama administration policy analyst Peter Schmeissnerⁱ.

The email was requested by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Based on other emails they have already obtained, PEER believes the email in question could reveal that the White House is colluding with lobbyists to defend the planting of genetically modified crops in wildlife refuges.

According to Truthout:

"Last July, PEER released a number of internal emails  revealing that Peter Schmeissner, a senior science policy analyst and member of the White House's biotechnology working group, had corresponded with the BIO lobbyist about a legal challenge filed by PEER and its allies. The PEER lawsuit had successfully halted GE crop plantings in wildlife refuges in northeastern states, and the group continues to challenge planned plantings in other regions across the country.

In the emails obtained by PEER, longtime biotech lobbyist Adrianne Massey asks Schmeissner if the 'interagency working group' is addressing the PEER's legal challenges. Massey also forwarded environmental assessments of proposed GE crop plots at wildlife refuges in other regions of the country. These assessments could protect future GE crop plots in refuges from legal challenges."

Legal documents state that the White House is withholding part of the email because it accidentally also included information about the Biotechnology  Industry Organization's (BIO's) lobbying strategy, which, if released, "would cause competitive harm to the group and the companies it represents," Truthout reports. In response, PEER staff counsel Kathryn Douglass has stated,

"We suspect the reason an industry lobbyist so cavalierly shared strategy is that the White House is part of that strategy."

Crazy as it sounds, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service has permitted GM seeds to be sown in wildlife reserves for several years now, as part of various habitat restoration efforts. The idea is that planting herbicide-resistant GM crops helps establish ground cover while allowing them to kill off unwanted weeds. PEER challenged this practice after being contacted by concerned Fish and Wildlife biologists, and claims it is being used as a ploy to boost exports of GM crops. According to Truthout:

"PEER contends that the White House working group's involvement indicates high-level interest in showing trade partners that the US government considers GE crops to be so environmentally safe that Americans plant them in wildlife reserves."

PEER also claims to have evidence in the form of an email showing that US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack has pressured the Fish and Wildlife Service to support GE agriculture.

"In the January 14 email, Interior Department Deputy Secretary David Hayes told top Interior Department and Fish and Wildlife officials that Vilsack is "somewhat exercised that the Administration is not being consistent in supporting genetically engineered crops," Truthout reports.

Farmers Against Monsanto Fight in New York City

Another GMO battle was recently lost. At the end of January, 55 farmers belonging to the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) traveled to Manhattan, New York to defend their lawsuit against Monsanto, as the biotech giant was trying to get it dismissed on the grounds of being "frivolous."

OSGATA's suit sought to invalidate Monsanto's seed patents. At the heart of this effort was  the very real fact that Monsanto's genetically modified crops threaten to contaminate the fields of farmers who opt not to use their seeds. And these farmers are then at risk of being targeted for Monsanto's aggressive enforcement of their alleged patent rights.

Anyone who understands how nature works will know that Monsanto's tactics are profoundly unfair, because there's simply NO way to avoid contamination!

For example, American rice farmers recently lost $389 million in projected sales as a result of the contamination with Bayer's unapproved experimental GM rice. Some 3,000 lawsuits have been filed against Bayer in recent years over their GM crops contaminating American rice farms. What makes this such a potent example is that Bayer's GM rice, known as LibertyLink, was never approved for commercial planting; it's an experimental crop, meant to be sown for research purposes only. Yet once planted, it was impossible to contain it. And this is the kind of dangerous ripple-effect that is bound to occur whenever a GM crop is introduced.

Unfortunately, federal judge Naomi Reice Buchwald dismissed OSGATA's case on February 27, stating that the organization "had no standing to bring such a suit, had not been harmed by the company, and had engaged in a transparent effort to create a controversy where none exists," the New York Times reportsⁱⁱ.

GM Contamination Spreading Like Uncontained Wildfire

Two years ago, the Food Freedom blog reported that the Irish government accidentally planted Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM maize, which was, and still is, banned in Irelandⁱⁱⁱ. The contaminated seeds had been supplied by Pioneer Hi-Bred Northern Europe, a subsidiary of DuPont. To protect surrounding farmers and organic farms, the contaminated maize crops were destroyed before flowering, to prevent pollen drift. However, there's still no telling the full extent of the GM contamination. After all, it was only discovered through random testing. The seed had verified as "GM-free" by Pioneer Hi-Bred.

Last year, a Greenpeace report revealed Monsanto's GM corn had been discovered across 3,000 hectares (7,400 acres) in seven German states^iv. Since GM corn is banned in Germany, the farmers had to destroy their crops and "eat" their losses, as the seed companies refused to accept liability for the contamination.

In 2007, pollen drift from GM maize (MON810) fields were also found to have contaminated hundreds of conventional and organic farmers in Spain; the only country in the EU that allows GM maize to be cultivated. A 2009 Greenpeace report documents the socioeconomic and human impacts of the contamination^v. Part of the summary reads:

"The farmers' stories tell of an alarming reduction in the amount of organic maize being grown and the direct negative impacts that genetically modified organisms have on the population. These organic producers have voluntary opted out of the conventional or GM farming model, many out of dedication to the principles of sustainability. Now, they face contamination from neighboring GM crops, even when they take measures to try to avoid cross pollination of the plants. For an organic farmer, genetic contamination is an unmitigated disaster. This report tells the stories of real people who have experienced losses not of their own making. Adding insult to injury, they often have to pay for testing or other protection measures themselves.

? There are no safeguards for MON 810 cultivation, and co-existence of GM and non-modified crops is impossible."

That's the reality of the situation, which is why we cannot rest on our laurels and must fight against the approval of each and every new GM crop. You cannot contain them. They absolutely WILL contaminate their conventional and organic counterparts.

The Many Dangers of GM Foods

Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that genetically engineered foods are unsafe and should never have been introduced. He's also 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. Smith has documented at least 65 serious health risks from GM food products. Among them:

• Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce
• Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells
• The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning
• Many US farmers report sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed GM corn
• Investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products

Other hazards to environmental-, animal-, and human health related to GM crops include:

• Dr. Don Huber, an internationally recognized plant pathologist and professor emeritus at Purdue University, has discovered an organism, brand new to science, related to GM corn and soy appears to be responsible for plant death, as well as infertility and spontaneous abortion in animals given GM feed. The organism is especially troubling as there's strong evidence this infectious agent promotes disease in BOTH plants and mammals, which is extremely rare.
• Data from 19 animal studies has linked GM foods to organ disruption.
• Proteins from GM crops are showing up in Indiana waterways. The University of Notre Dame and Loyola University looked at 217 streams, drains and ditches near Indiana cornfields and found the genetically modified bug-killing protein in 50 of them.
• Glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, used on all Roundup Ready GM crops) is now showing up in air- and rain samples collected in Mississippi and Iowa. Glyphosate was detected in 60 to 100 percent of all air and rain samples, in varying amounts.
• Superweeds that now cover about 11 million acres of farmland, up fivefold from just three years ago, according to Penn State weed scientist David Mortensen ^vi. It's estimated that more than 130 types of weeds spanning 40 U.S. states are now herbicide-resistant. As a result, farmers are applying ever increasing amounts of herbicides on their crops.
• Dow AgroSciences (a subsidiary of Dow Chemicals and one of the original manufacturers of Agent Orange) has developed a new generation of GM crops -- soybeans, corn and cotton -- designed to resist a major ingredient in Agent Orange: the herbicide called 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D). Experimental animal studies of chronic oral exposure to 2,4-D have reported adverse effects on the eye, thyroid, kidney, adrenals, and ovaries/testes. In addition, some experimental animal studies have reported teratogenic effects (birth defects) at high doses, including increased fetal death.
  

Why We MUST Insist on Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods

I've gone on record saying that due to the amount of GM crops now grown in the United States (over 90 percent of all corn is GM corn and over 95 percent all soy is GM soy) EVERY processed food you encounter at your local supermarket that does not bear the "USDA Organic" label is likely to contain at least one GM component.

If you eat processed foods, you're eating GM foods, and you have been for the last decade?whether you knew it or not. You can thank Congress for this, and the USDA and Monsanto. What ultimate impact these GM foods will have on your health is still unknown, but increased disease, infertility and birth defects appear to be on the top of the list of most likely side effects. Last year, Mark Bittman wrote in the New York Times^vii:

"A majority of our foods already contain GMOs and there's little reason to think more isn't on the way. It seems our "regulators" are using us and the environment as guinea pigs, rather than demanding conclusive tests. And without labeling, we have no say in the matter whatsoever."

Mandatory labeling may be the only way to stop the proliferation of GM foods in the U.S. Because, believe it or not, while GM crops are banned in several European countries, in the U.S., states have begun passing legislation that protects the use of GM seeds and allows for unabated expansion! At present, no less than 14 states have passed such legislation. Michigan's Senate Bill 777^viii, if passed, would make that 15. The Michigan bill would prevent anti-GMO laws, and would remove "any authority local governments may have to adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit or regulate the labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, use, or planting of agricultural, vegetable, flower or forest tree seeds."

While legislation like this sounds like crazy nonsense to normal people, such bills are essentially bought and paid for through the millions of dollars Monsanto and other biotech companies spend lobbying the US government each year. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying the federal government -- a drop from a year earlier, when they spent $2.5 million during the same quarter. Their efforts of persuasion are also made infinitely easier by the fact that an ever growing list of former Monsanto employees are now in positions of power within the federal government.

Learn More about Genetically Modified (GM) Foods

Due to lack of labeling, many Americans are still unfamiliar with what GM foods are. We have a plan to change that, and I urge you to participate and to continue learning more about GM foods and helping your friends and family do the same.

To start, please print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

Your BEST strategy, however, is to simply buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit GM ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the GMO's you're exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you're not inadvertently consuming something laced with GM ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.

To learn more about genetically engineered foods, I highly recommend the following films and lectures:

• Hidden Dangers in Kid's Meals
• Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!
• Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods

Important Action Item: Support California's Ballot Initiative to Label GMO's!

In 2007, then-Presidential candidate Obama promised to "immediately" require GM labeling if elected. It's now 2012, and we're still waiting... 

Fortunately, 24 U.S. states have (as part of their state governance) something called the Initiative Process, where residents can bring to ballot any law they want enacted, as long as it has sufficient support. California has been busy organizing just such a ballot initiative to get mandatory labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state. The proposed law will hopefully make it onto this year's ballot.

Michigan and Washington are also starting similar campaigns^ix, but since California is the 8th largest economy in the world, a win for the California Initiative would have the power to affect ingredients and labeling nation-wide. A coalition of consumer, public health and environmental organizations, food companies, and individuals has submitted the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act to the State Attorney General. Now, they need 800,000 signatures to get the Act on this year's ballot.

I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can. Also, regardless of where you live, please donate to help support this Initiative, and spread the word to everyone you know in California. Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the U.S. states, so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there!

REFERENCES

---

• ⁱ White House Refuses to Release Email From Monsanto-Linked Lobbyist, Truthout February 21, 2012,
• ⁱⁱ New York Times February 28, 2012,
• ⁱⁱⁱ Banned throughout Europe, Monsanto's GM corn found growing in Ireland, Food Freedom, August 17, 2010
• ^iv Genetically modified corn contaminates crops in seven German states
• ^v Testimonies of Contamination, Greenpeace, 15 October 2009
• ^vi Growing Roundup-resistant weed problem must be dealt with, expert says, Physorg.com, September 14, 2010
• ^vii Why Aren't G.M.O. Foods Labeled?, The New York Times, February 15, 2011,
• ^viii The Michigan Citizen
• ^ix GMO Labeling

• Truthout February 21, 2012

 Comments (215)

By Dr. Mercola

Above, ABC's "Nightline," Bill Weir talks with Microsoft founder Bill Gates about his charitable endeavors.

Gates' latest plan is to try to end world hunger by growing more genetically modified (GM) crops.

He's already invested $27 million into Monsanto Company?leading some countries to reject his charity due to the high risks, such as:

• New disease vectors
• Mutated pesticide-resistant insects
• Resistant "superweeds"
• Contamination of surrounding non-GM crops

We already know how deeply entrenched the U.S. government has become with Monsanto.

For a visual illustration of their 'revolving-door-relationship' with the governmental regulatory agencies, see the graph toward the bottom of this article.

It is this type of government infiltration that allowed genetically engineered alfalfa to be approved without any restrictions at all, despite the protests of the organic community and public comments from a quarter of a million concerned citizens.

In Bill Gates, Monsanto also has one of the wealthiest and most influential "philanthropists" supporting their agenda and spreading misleading propaganda about their products.

In recent years, it has become disappointingly clear that Gates may be leading the pack as one of the most destructive "do-gooders" on the planet... His views on what is required to make a difference in poverty- and disease-stricken third world nations are short-sighted and misinformed at best. A recent article in the Seattle Times¹ joins me in arguing that Bill Gates' support of genetically modified (GM) crops as a solution for world hunger is based on unsound science. A team of 900 scientists funded by the World Bank and United Nations, investigated the matter over the course of three years, and determined that the use of GM crops is simply NOT a meaningful solution to the complex situation of world hunger.

Instead, the scientists suggested that "agro-ecological" methods would provide the most viable means to ensure global food security, including the use of traditional seed varieties and local farming practices already adapted to the local ecology.

"Philanthropy is the Enemy of Justice"

In a recent article with the same headline, "Philanthropy is the Enemy of Justice", Robert Newman criticizes² the choice of Bill Gates as the designated "voice" of the world's poor at the World Economic Forum, held in January.

"Am I saying that philanthropy has never done good? No, it has achieved many wonderful things... But beware the havoc that power without oversight and democratic control can wreak," Newman writes.

"The biotech agriculture that Lord Sainsbury was unable to push through democratically he can now implement unilaterally, through his Gatsby Foundation. We are told that Gatsby's biotech project aims to provide food security for the global south. But if you listen to southern groups such as the Karnataka State Farmers of India, food security is precisely the reason they campaign against GM, because biotech crops are monocrops which are more vulnerable to disease and so need lashings of petrochemical pesticides, insecticides and fungicides ? none of them cheap ? and whose ruinous costs will rise with the price of oil, bankrupting small family farms first. Crop diseases mutate, meanwhile, and all the chemical inputs in the world can't stop disease wiping out whole harvests of genetically engineered single strands.

Both the Gatsby and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundations are keen to get deeper into agriculture, especially in Africa. But top-down nostrums for the rural poor don't end well."

I agree. Donating patented seeds, which takes away the farmers' sovereignty, is not the way to save the third-world poor. As reported by Netline last year³, Monsanto and other biotech companies have collaborated with the Gates Foundation via the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to promote the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa. The Gates Foundation has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to AGRA, and in 2006 Robert Horsch was hired for the AGRA project. Horsch was a Monsanto executive for 25 years. In a nutshell, the project may be sold under the banner of altruism and 'sustainability', but in reality it's anything but. It's just a multi-billion dollar enterprise to transform Africa into a GM-crop-friendly continent.

Conflicts of Interest Abound

Gates' philanthropic methods came under scrutiny back in August 2010, when it was discovered that The Gates Foundation had purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock; dramatically increasing its previous holdings?and hence its financial conflicts of interest?in the biotech firm. AGRA-Watch commented on the ties stating⁴:

"The Foundation's direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels," said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering.

"First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation's heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests."

It would be naive to think that all these philanthropic collaborations are designed to solve any problem besides how to help Monsanto monopolize the world's food supply with expensive patented GM seeds, and the herbicides to go with them.

In the interview above, Gates claims the seeds would be donated to the impoverished areas in question. But seriously, how long would the seeds remain free? There's rarely such a thing as a free lunch anymore, and it appears highly unlikely that Monsanto is poised to "feed Africa" indefinitely... And since you cannot save Monsanto's seeds from year to year, they will literally own the areas and the people they temporarily donate their seeds to. And once you own the rights to all the food grown around the globe, you literally rule the world.

That appears to be the goal. And only sane, rational, thinking people can stop them. It's really too bad that Gates has signed up as a lackey for "the Dark Side," as it were, instead of using his unfathomable wealth to really create positive, sustainable change.

It's an undisputed fact at this point that the introduction of genetically engineered crops lead to diminished biodiversity, which is the direct opposite of what the world needs. Truly, in order to save the planet and ourselves, small-scale organic and sustainable farming must not only prevail but flourish, and GM crops do not help, but rather threaten their existence. Seeds have always been sold and swapped freely between farmers, preserving biodiversity, and without that basis, you cannot have food sovereignty. And with fewer farmers, "feeding the hungry with GM crops" is nothing but a pipe dream.

Both Genetically Engineered Seeds and Herbicides Pose Risks to Environment and Human Health

Besides the threat to the environment and to agricultural practices, GM crops also bring a whole host of health concerns; not just from the GM seeds, but also from the herbicide used: Monsanto's Roundup. It's the world's best-selling herbicide, which is designed to be partnered with genetically engineered "Roundup Ready" crops.

According to a shocking report⁵, regulators were aware as early as 1980 that glyphosate, the active chemical ingredient of Roundup, caused birth defects in lab animals. However, the information was not made public. Instead, regulators misled the public about glyphosate's safety, and with the introduction of Roundup Ready crops, the use of Roundup has skyrocketed.

According to Monsanto. NO⁶:

"Dr. Andres Carrasco, a lead embryologist at the University of Bueno Aires Medical School and the Argentinean national research council, discovered that glyphosate-based herbicides like Monsanto's Roundup formula caused deformations in chicken embryos that resembled the kind of birth defects which where reported in areas like La Leonesa, where big agribusinesses depend on glyphosate to treat genetically engineered crops."

Golden Rice: a "Trojan Horse"

The idea that you can end world hunger with genetically engineered crops is simply not very well thought through. Last summer, I reported on The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's donation of $20 million toward the development of so-called "golden rice"?yet another untested GM crop that risks bringing economic and ecological disaster. Golden rice has been genetically engineered to produce beta-carotene, which your body can convert to vitamin A. It's been promoted as a way to alleviate vitamin A deficiency, which is common in developing countries where people don't have regular access to beta-carotene-rich foods, like vegetables and fruits.

However, while this sounds all well and good in theory, the reality of a beta-carotene producing rice may not be all it's cracked up to be. According to Food Freedom⁷:

"Golden rice is a Trojan horse for pushing through GE-friendly biosafety regulations under the guise of humanitarian aid. Once in place, these regulations open the door for the biotech industry to bring in commercial, patented GE crops; USAID and Monsanto accomplished exactly this in Kenya with their sweet potato project."

It may be easier to see why so many people question this kind of philanthropy once you understand a bit more about the product itself, and why it likely cannot ever live up to its own hype. In this case, your body can only convert beta-carotene to vitamin A under certain conditions. Specifically, beta-carotene is fat-soluble, which means dietary fat is required for your body to convert it into vitamin A. But many people in developing countries eat very low-fat diets, as they simply do not have access to animal foods or other fat on a regular basis. Furthermore, malnourished people might not be able to convert beta carotene to vitamin A efficiently, so taken as a whole, the actual usefulness of golden rice is debatable.

The soundness of the idea becomes even more questionable when you consider the unrealistic amounts of rice you'd have to consume each day to obtain the recommended amount of vitamin A. As stated in a golden rice case study from Iowa State University⁸:

"Even if golden rice is successfully introduced ? a woman would need to eat 16 lbs. of cooked rice every day in order to get sufficient Vitamin A, if golden rice were her only source of the nutrient. A child would need 12 lbs." [Emphasis mine]

What people in the developing world need in order to receive ample dietary vitamin A is access to a diverse range of nutritious foods -- including animal products like eggs, cheese and meat and vegetables such as dark leafy greens and sweet potatoes. This is the type of diet that is attained from biodiverse farming -- the opposite of what will occur if GM crops like golden rice get planted on a large scale.

Learn More about Genetically Engineered Foods

Many Americans are still unfamiliar with what GE foods are, which is understandable when you consider that these foods do not need to be labeled in the U.S. We have a plan to change that, and I urge you to participate, and to continue learning more about genetically engineered foods and associated risks, and help your friends and family do the same.

To start, please print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

An even better strategy is to simply buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit GM ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the GMO's (genetically modified organism) you're exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you're not inadvertently consuming something laced with GM ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.

To learn more about GM foods, I highly recommend number of great films and lectures available, including:

• Hidden Dangers in Kid's Meals
• Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!
• Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods

Does Monsanto "Own" the U.S. Government?

Is sure seems like it at times. Genetically engineered seeds are now banned in Hungary, as they are in several other European countries, such as Germany and Ireland. Peru is also following the precautionary principle, and has even passed a law that bans genetically modified ingredients within the nation for 10 years⁹.

In the U.S., however, the opposite to consumer protection is taking place, with certain states actually passing legislation that protects the use of GM seeds and allows for unabated expansion! To date, 14 states have passed such legislation and Michigan's Sen. Bill 777, if passed, would make that 15.

The Michigan bill would prevent anti-GMO laws and would remove "any authority local governments may have to adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit or regulate the labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, use, or planting of agricultural, vegetable, flower or forest tree seeds." Bills like these are obviously music to Monsanto's ears, which spends millions of dollars lobbying the U.S. government at the federal level for favorable legislation that supports the spread of their toxic products. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying the federal government -- a drop from the year before, when they spent $2.5 million during the same quarter.

If we all had several million to spend on lobbying efforts, the world would undoubtedly be a very different place... If you aren't familiar with the power of lobbying please view the recent 60 minutes expansion on it, which is one of the best 60 Minute episodes I have seen in 40 years.

Not only that, but once you realize just how many of Monsanto's employees have simply shifted into positions of power within the federal government, it suddenly becomes easy to understand how this biotech giant has managed to so successfully undermine common sense within the U.S. government.

Your Opportunity to Eliminate Genetically Engineered Foods from the U.S.

In 2007, then-Presidential candidate Obama promised to "immediately" require GM labeling if elected. So far, nothing of the sort has transpired.

Labeling of genetically engineered food is way overdue... Here's how you can get involved to rectify the situation:

• Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort
• Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to label genetically engineered foods.
• Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
• For timely updates, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
• Look for in-depth coverage of the issue at the Institute for Responsible Technology, subscribe to Spilling the Beans, and check out their Facebook or Twitter.

In the meantime, the simplest way to avoid genetically engineered foods is to buy whole, certified organic foods. By definition, foods that are certified organic must never intentionally use genetically engineered organisms, must be produced without artificial pesticides and fertilizers and come from an animal reared without the routine use of antibiotics, growth promoters or other drugs. Additionally, grass-fed beef will not have been fed genetically engineered corn feed, although now that genetically engineered alfalfa is approved, grass-fed will not always mean they animals have not consumed genetically engineered feeds.

Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the U.S., so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there!

References:

---

• ¹ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2017612869_guest28ashton.html
• ² "Philanthropy is the enemy of justice", The Guardian January 27, 2012,
• ³ "Wikileaks documents Gov complicity with GMO seed monopolies", Netline
• ⁴ For Immediate Release: GATES FOUNDATION INVESTS IN MONSANTO, Community Alliance for Global Justice, August 25th, 2010,
• ⁵ Monsanto's herbicide Roundup linked to birth defects in Argentina's agricultural areas?, Monsanto. NO.
• ⁶ Monsanto. NO
• ⁷ 'Golden Rice' or Trojan Horse? NGO misled by Gates, Monsanto and Syngenta, Food Freedom, June 3, 2011,
• ⁸ Case Study: Golden Rice, The Biotechnology Outreach Education Center At Iowa State University, http://www.biotech.iastate.edu, Kristen Hessler, Ross Whetten, Carol Loopstra, Karen Pesaresi Penner, Sharon Shriver, Robert Ziegler, Jacqueline Fletcher, Melanie Torrie, Linda Guarino, Gary Comstock
• ⁹ Genetically modified ingredients
• ¹⁰ GMO Labeling

 Comments (264)

By Dr. Mercola

Agent Orange, produced by both Monsanto and Dow Chemicals, was used to defoliate jungles during the Vietnam War.

During that time, millions of gallons of the toxic chemical mixture were sprayed on trees and vegetation, and the aftermath left hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese sick, with countless numbers of their children suffering birth defects, and a still growing group of U.S. veterans with related diseases ranging from cancer to Parkinson's disease.

Agent Orange was a horrific chemical concoction that never should have been used, and if you want to see some of its effects on children who were exposed in the womb, you can do so here -- but I warn you the photos are very graphic and upsetting.

Agent Orange is no longer produced -- so why am I bringing it up now?

Because Dow AgroSciences (a subsidiary of Dow Chemicals), who was one of the original manufacturers of Agent Orange (AO), has developed a new generation of genetically modified (GM) crops -- soybeans, corn and cotton -- that are designed to resist a major ingredient in AO: the herbicide called 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D).

The use of 2,4-D, however, is not new, as it is actually one of the most widely used herbicides in the world.

What is new ? and disturbingly so ? is that now that staple crops like soy and corn have been engineered to be resistant to 2,4-D, it may soon be applied to U.S. arable land on an unprecedented scale -- not unlike its indiscriminate application during Vietnam.

The whole point of engineering resistance to an herbicide within a GMO plant, of course, is so that you can "carpet bomb" an entire field, leaving only your "Frankenfoods" standing, without having to exert even a fraction of the effort required raise crops organically and sustainably.

In fact, if 2,4-D resistant crops receive approval and eventually come to replace Monsanto's failing Roundup-resistant crops as Dow intends, it is likely that billions of pounds will be needed, on top of the already insane levels of Roundup now being used (1.6 billion lbs were used in 2007 in the US alone!).

Agent Orange Ingredient to be Used in GMO Crops

Dow's new GM product, dubbed "Enlist," is a three-gene, herbicide-tolerant soybean that has been engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's popular Roundup herbicide, along with glufosinate and 2,4-D. The company expects to earn $1.5 billion in additional profit in 2013 by selling these triple herbicide-resistant seeds. As noted by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs:

"The two active ingredients in the Agent Orange herbicide combination were equal amounts of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T), which contained traces of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)."

Ironically, while Dow's new crops would seriously escalate the use of 2,4-D, Monsanto is currently facing a class-action lawsuit involving the other Agent Orange ingredient, 2,4,5-T. The suit alleges that homes and schools near one of its 2,4,5-T chemical plants are now contaminated with cancer-causing dioxin, a byproduct of the manufacturing process. This should be a wake-up call to those considering widespread application of any toxic Agent Orange ingredient.

Dow, however, is touting the new product as a solution to Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM crops, which currently dominate the GM seed market but are now being overshadowed by problems with weed resistance (not to mention that glyphosate itself is also incredibly toxic, and has been linked to infertility, among other serious health problems).

Where Monsanto has failed, Dow and other chemical rivals like DuPont, Syngenta, and Bayer (which are also working on their own herbicide-resistant GM seeds) see opportunity. So Dow has trotted in on their white horse to offer a new variety of GM crop, which they say will not pose the "superweed" problem that Roundup Ready crops have created.

This is not so, according to an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in which researchers state that suggesting 2,4-D will not lead to widespread weed resistance "misrepresented the potential for 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)?resistant weeds in 2,4-D?resistant cropping systems and exaggerated the sustainability of their approach to addressing glyphosate-resistant weed problems in agriculture."

They, in fact, note 28 species across 16 plant families that have already evolved resistance to similar herbicides to 2,4-D. Further, as stated on GreenMedInfo, the new Enlist crops are setting the stage for even greater and simultaneous herbicide use, the health ramifications of which are completely unknown:

"Instead of learning from Monsanto's colossal mistakes (which happens when you play geneticist-as-God and use a broad spectrum poison to kill all but your "chosen" plants) Dow AgroScience's solution is to multiply the problem by a factor of three, creating the "first-ever, three-gene," herbicide-tolerant staple crops.

What this means is that instead of using only one highly toxic herbicide (Roundup), three will be used simultaneously, further increasing the risk of serious exposures, and setting up the conditions for synergistic toxicities ? something that toxicological risk assessments on singular herbicide ingredients, which establish "an acceptable level of harm," never account for."

Studies Show Increases in Cancer, Birth Defects With Use of 2,4-D

What is known about 2,4-D so far is not reassuring, considering the devastation caused by Agent Orange. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding 2,4-D specifically:

"Health effects of chronic or acute 2,4-D exposure reported for adults included blood, liver, and kidney toxicity. Specific effects included a reduction in hemoglobin and red blood cell numbers, decreased liver enzyme activity, and increased kidney weight. Acute exposure can result in skin and eye irritation. Acute exposure to very high concentrations of 2,4-D can cause the following clinical symptoms: stupor, coma, coughing, burning sensations in lungs, loss of muscular coordination, nausea, vomiting, or dizziness.

Experimental animal studies of chronic oral exposure have reported adverse effects on the eye, thyroid, kidney, adrenals, and ovaries/testes. In addition, some experimental animal studies have reported teratogenic effects (birth defects) at high doses, including increased fetal death, urinary tract malformation, and extra ribs.

When adult female experimental animals were exposed to 2,4-D during their pregnancy and lactation periods, their exposed offspring exhibited neurological effects, including delayed neurobehavioral development and changes in several neurotransmitter levels or binding activities and ganglioside levels in the brain. Delayed neurobehavioral development was manifested as delays in acquisition of certain motor skills such as the righting reflex."

The glaring problem, of course, is that with approval of Dow's new GM crops, the use of 2,4-D could skyrocket out of control. As reported by The Cornucopia Institute:

""The concern is that, just like Monsanto's genetically engineered corn that is resistant to RoundUp? (glyphosate) herbicide, the approval of a cultivar resistant to 2,4-D will cause an exponential increase in the use of this toxic agrichemical," says Mark A. Kastel, senior farm policy analyst with The Cornucopia Institute.

And again, as the EPA acknowledges, this is far from a benign chemical. The Cornucopia Institute continues:

"2,4-D is a chlorophenoxy herbicide, and scientists around the world have reported increased cancer risks in association with its use, especially for soft tissue sarcoma and malignant lymphoma. Four separate studies in the United States reported an association with chlorophenoxy herbicide use and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

? Research by the EPA found that babies born in counties with high rates of 2,4-D application to farm fields were significantly more likely to be born with birth defects of the respiratory and circulatory systems, as well as defects of the musculoskeletal system like clubfoot, fused digits and extra digits. These birth defects were 60% to 90% more likely in counties with higher 2,4-D application rates. The results also showed a higher likelihood of birth defects in babies conceived in the spring, when herbicide application rates peak."

Weed Scientist Says, "We Told You So"

In the same way that Dow is now certain that its new three-gene, herbicide-tolerant soybean will not spur the creation of more herbicide-resistant "super weeds," Monsanto was also historically adamant that Roundup Ready crops would not cause weed resistance either.

Of course, now that the die has been cast, the United States is reaping the consequences with 13 resistant weed species covering more than 11 million acres, mostly those planted with Monsanto's GM soy, corn and cotton crops. Around the world, 21 weed species are now resistant to glyphosate, up from zero in 1996.

The weeds are making Monsanto's promises that their GM crops would reduce pesticide use completely laughable -- since farmers are being forced to use multiple, and more, pesticides to keep weeds in their GM crops under control -- and are turning out to be a very big thorn in Monsanto's proverbial side.

Monsanto's solution is similar to Dow's ? add more herbicide-resistant genes to the plants so even more potent herbicide cocktails can be poured over U.S. farmland! According to Monsanto Chief Executive Officer Hugh Grant, who was interviewed in Business Week, the company plans to add resistance to Dicamba, another weedkiller, to Roundup Ready crops by 2015, noting that:

"The cavalry is coming."

The cavalry is coming indeed ? unfortunately they are working for the wrong side, with their "war on weeds" causing massive collateral damage to environmental and human health alike. William G. Johnson, a weed scientist at Purdue University, told Business Week, these new technologies may control Roundup-resistant weeds and leave us in "wedded bliss for 10 or 15 years" but "they do select for their own failure:"

 "Now that it has kind of blown up, it's like, 'We told you so,'" he says.

Adding further insult to injury, Johnson explains that "Dicamba and 2,4-D both tend to volatilize, turning the chemicals into vapor that can drift onto neighboring land ? " accidentally killing nearby crops and exposing greater expanses to its toxic effects.

Let us also not forget that all the "weeds" these herbicides were designed to kill represent biodiversity, without which we would be left with only a handful of staple crops -- upon which our entire subsistence now precariously depends. Only because we do not find obvious value in a plant, does not mean it is not there.

Emerson once said: "What is a weed? A plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered."

Indeed, when we target as "the enemy" any living plant that does not bear the favored qualities of a GM plant, and use the slash-and-burn, herbicidal approach to eradicate any competing plant life form, we are basically declaring war on the biosphere itself, and thereby setting up the future conditions for the collapse of our entire food production system, as well as poisoning ourselves in the process. Without biodiversity, monoculturing puts "too many eggs in one basket," virtually guaranteeing future crop collapses and famine. In a nutshell, industrial herbicides (and the GM plants designed to thrive when exposed to them), are a dead end ? both figuratively, and literally.

Now's the Time to Take Action!

Dow has applied for non-regulated status of its 2,4-D-resistant corn, and you have until February 27, 2012 to comment on the petition. Please let your opinion be heard that approving more herbicide-tolerant crops is not the solution to ending "super weeds"; the real solution lies in eliminating the genetically modified crops that created them in the first place! 

As Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides told The Cornucopia Institute:

"In 2012 the USDA is proposing approving a new GE corn variety that is resistant to a different toxic herbicide, escalating the toxic treadmill in chemical-dependent agriculture. This is nothing more than a band-aid solution to a serious problem, and will only give rise to more superweeds, more herbicide pollution in our environment, more herbicide poisoning, while likely leading to the need for even more toxic herbicides a couple of years down the line. This foolish circle has to end."

It's quite clear that genetically engineered foods are not only threatening the food supply with the creation of herbicide-resistant weeds, but they can also pose potentially serious threats to animal and human health when consumed. Fortunately, now you, too, can let your opinion be heard on this issue. Several organizations, including Mercola.com, the Organic Consumers Association, the Institute for Responsible Technology, and the Environmental Working Group, are working to generate a tipping point of consumer rejection to make GMOs a thing of the past.

Here's how you can get involved:

• If you live in California and are willing to attend a short training session and then start collecting petition signatures (you will be part of a team of 2-4 people) for the California Ballot Initiative, sign up here. (For more information see: The California Ballot Initiative: Taking Down Monsanto.) Also remember to share this information with family and friends in California!
• Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort.
• Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to require the proper labeling of genetically engineered foods.
• Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available from the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
• For timely updates, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter
• Look for in-depth coverage of the issue at the Institute for Responsible Technology, subscribe to Spilling the Beans, and check out their Facebook or Twitter.
• You can also join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or Twitter

In the meantime, the simplest way to avoid GM foods is to buy whole, certified organic foods. By definition, foods that are certified organic must never intentionally use GM organisms, must be produced without artificial pesticides and fertilizers and come from an animal reared without the routine use of antibiotics, growth promoters or other drugs. Additionally, grass-fed beef will not have been fed GM corn feed, although now that GM alfalfa is approved, grass-fed will not always mean GMO free. You can also look for foods that are "non-GMO verified" by the Non-GMO Project.

Important Action Item: Support California's Ballot Initiative to Label GMO's!

In 2007, then-Presidential candidate Obama promised to "immediately" require GM labeling if elected. So far, nothing of the sort has transpired.

Fortunately, 24 U.S. states have (as part of their state governance) something called the Initiative Process, where residents can bring to ballot any law they want enacted, as long as it has sufficient support. California has been busy organizing just such a ballot initiative to get mandatory labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state. The proposed law will be on the ballot for 2012.

Michigan and Washington are also starting similar campaigns.

Since California is the 8th largest economy in the world, a win for the California Initiative would be a huge step forward, and would affect ingredients and labeling nation-wide. Last month, a coalition of consumer, public health and environmental organizations, food companies, and individuals submitted the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act to the State Attorney General. Now, they need 800,000 signatures to get the Act on next year's ballot.

I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can.

If you live in California, volunteer to gather petition signatures. If you live outside of California, please donate to help support this Initiative and spread the word to everyone you know in California. Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the US states, so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there!

• Green Med Info December 27, 2011

• Reuters August 22, 2011

• Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States March 15, 2011; 108(11): E37

Related Articles:

 Comments (154)

← Previous Page — Next Page →

• Categories
  • About Jim Humble
  • How Chlorine Dioxide Works
  • Humble's Latest on MMS Use
  • Main Content
  • MMS & Adequate Fluid Intake
  • MMS & cardiovascular disease
  • MMS - Uncloaked!
  • MMS and Cancer
  • MMS and Chelation Therapy
  • MMS and malaria
  • Other News
  • Testimonials - Feel Good Stories
  • Testimonials - MMS & Animals
  • Testimonials - MMS & Cancer
  • Testimonials - MMS & Candida
  • Testimonials - MMS & Constipation
  • Testimonials - MMS & Heart Disease
  • Testimonials - MMS & Heavy Metals
  • Testimonials - MMS & Hepatitis
  • Testimonials - MMS & Herpes
  • Testimonials - MMS & HIV
  • Testimonials - MMS & IBS
  • Testimonials - MMS & Insomnia
  • Testimonials - MMS & Lupus
  • Testimonials - MMS & Lyme Disease
  • Testimonials - MMS & MS
  • Testimonials - MMS & Oral Health
  • Testimonials - MMS & Parasites
  • Testimonials - MMS & Sinus
  • Testimonials - MMS & Sjogren's
  • Testimonials - MMS & Warts
• Tags
  Abc News allergies Breast Cancer Cdc Centers For Disease Control Centers For Disease Control And Prevention Centers For Disease Control And Prevention Cdc Chronic Diseases Cnn Disease Control And Prevention Dr Mercola Environmental Protection Agency Flu Food And Drug Administration Food And Drug Administration Fda Fructose Corn Syrup Gm Crops Health Benefits health healthy living parasites viruses bacterial infestions cancer heart disease chronic fatigue Heart Disease heart health Herpes High Blood Pressure High Fructose Corn High Fructose Corn Syrup Insulin Resistance Med Info Mercury Fillings Mms Monsanto Nbsp New York Times Omega 3 Fats Optimal Health Prescription Drugs Processed Foods Related Articles Rsquo Serious Health Sun Exposure swine flu type 2 diabetes Video Transcript Vitamin D World Health Organization
• Archives
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009