Seeds of Deception
By Jeffrey M. Smith
A 10-Page Summary
|
Exposing Industry and Government
Deception
About the Safety of the
Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating
|
Praise for the Book Seeds of Deception
“Outrageous! That’s what you’ll say over and over again
when you read how the biotechnology companies have manipulated the government,
our food, and the media, and put an entire generation at risk.
- Ben Cohen, Co-Founder, Ben & Jerry’s
“Clear, profound,
and unerringly accurate, Seeds of Deception tells you what you need
to know about genetically engineered food — and what Monsanto won't tell
you. If you care about the safety of our food supply, if you care what corporations are
doing to your food and health, this is the book to get.”
- John Robbins, author, The Food Revolution, and Diet
For A New America
“This pivotal exposé leaves no doubt that politics and corporate influence,
not sound science, allowed these potentially dangerous GM foods onto supermarket
shelves.”
- Joe Mendelson, Legal Director, Center for Food Safety
“I have seen first hand how Monsanto and the FDA have resorted to scientific
deceit of the highest order to market genetically engineered milk. With
captivating style and a flair for describing science in clear, accurate
language, Seeds of Deception unveils the distortions, omissions,
and lies for all to see.”
- Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., professor emeritus environmental
and occupational medicine
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
Introduction
On May 23, 2003, President Bush proposed
an Initiative to End Hunger in Africa [1] using genetically modified (GM) foods.
He also blamed Europe’s “unfounded, unscientific fears” of these foods for
thwarting recovery efforts. Bush was convinced that GM foods held the key
to greater yields, expanded U.S. exports, and a better world. His rhetoric
was not new. It had been passed down from president to president, and delivered
to the American people through regular news reports and industry advertisements.
The message was part of a master plan that had been crafted by corporations
determined to control the world’s food supply. This was made clear at a
biotech industry conference in January 1999, where a representative from
Arthur Anderson Consulting Group explained how his company had helped Monsanto
create that plan. First, they asked Monsanto what their ideal future looked
like in fifteen to twenty years. Monsanto executives described a world with
100 percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Anderson
Consulting then worked backwards from that goal, and developed the strategy
and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures
needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural
seeds were virtually extinct.
Integral to the plan was
Monsanto’s influence in government, whose role was to promote the technology
worldwide and to help get the foods into the marketplace quickly, before
resistance could get in the way. A biotech consultant later said, “The hope
of the industry is that over time, the market is so flooded that there’s
nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender.” [2]
The anticipated pace of conquest
was revealed by a conference speaker from another biotech company. He showed
graphs projecting the year-by-year decrease of natural seeds, estimating
that in five years, about 95 percent of all seeds would be genetically modified.
While some audience members
were appalled at what they judged to be an arrogant and dangerous disrespect
for nature, to the industry this was good business. Their attitude was illustrated
in an excerpt from one of Monsanto’s advertisements: “So you see, there
really isn’t much difference between foods made by Mother Nature and those
made by man. What’s artificial is the line drawn between them.” [3]
To implement their strategy,
the biotech companies needed to control the seeds—so they went on a buying
spree, taking possession of about 23 percent of the world’s seed companies.
Monsanto did achieve the dominant position, capturing 91 percent of the
GM food market. [4]
But the industry has not met their projections of converting the natural
seed supply. Citizens around the world, who do not share the industry’s
conviction that these foods are safe or better, have not “just sort
of surrendered.”
Widespread resistance to
GM food has resulted in a global showdown. U.S. exports of genetically modified
corn and soy are down, and hungry African nations won’t even accept the
crops as food aid. Monsanto is faltering financially and is desperate to
open new markets. The U.S. government is convinced that EU resistance is
the primary obstacle and is determined to change that. On May 13, 2003,
the U.S. filed a lawsuit with the World Trade Organization (WTO), charging
that the European Union’s restrictive policy on GM food violates international
agreements.
On the day the WTO suit was
filed, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick declared, “Overwhelming
scientific research shows that biotech foods are safe and healthy.” [5] This has been industry’s
chant from the start. It is the key assumption at the basis of their master
plan, the WTO challenge, and the president’s campaign to end hunger. It
is also, however, untrue.
The following chapters reveal that it was industry
influence, not sound science, which allowed these foods onto the market.
Moreover, if overwhelming scientific research suggests anything, it is that
the foods should never have been approved.
Just as the
magnitude of the industry’s plan was breathtaking, so too are the distortions
and cover-ups. While many of the stories in this book reveal government
and corporate maneuvering worthy of an adventure novel, the impact of GM
foods is personal. Most people in North America eat them at every meal.
These chapters not only dismantle the U.S. position that the foods are safe,
they inform you of the steps you can take to protect yourself and your family.
Chapter 1: A Lesson From Overseas
When eminent scientist Arpad Pusztai
went public about his accidental discovery that genetically modified (GM)
potatoes severely damage the immune system and organs of rats, he was suspended
from the prestigious Scottish research institute where he had worked for
thirty-five years. He was silenced with threats of a lawsuit while the Institute
denied or distorted his findings.
In the ensuing war over public opinion,
biotech advocates tried to spin the science in favor of GM foods, but were
thwarted at each attempt by leaked documents and compelling evidence. Pusztai,
who describes this chapter as “the most thorough and accurate report on
the topic,” was ultimately vindicated when his potato study was published
in the Lancet. His remains the only independent safety assessment
in a peer-reviewed journal. It contrasts sharply with the handful of published
industry studies, an analysis of which reveals how they were designed to
avoid finding problems.
Excerpt:
When Susan answered the door, she
was startled to see several reporters standing in front of her. Several
more were running from their cars in her direction and she could see more
cars and TV news vans parking along the street.
“But you all
know that we can’t speak about what happened. We would be sued and—” [6]
“It’s OK now,”
the reporter from Channel Four Television interrupted, waving a paper in
front of her. “They’ve released your husband. He can talk to us.”
Susan took the
paper. “Arpad, come here,” she called to her husband.
Arpad Pusztai
(pronounced: Are-pod Poos-tie), a distinguished looking man in his late
sixties, was already on his way. As his wife showed him the document, the
reporters slipped past them into the house. But Arpad didn’t notice; he
was staring at the paper his wife had just handed him. He recognized the
letterhead at once—The Rowett Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland. It was one
of the world’s leading nutritional institutes and his employer for the previous
thirty-five years—until his sudden suspension seven months ago. And there
it was, clearly spelled out. They had released their gag order. He could
speak.
The document
was dated that same day, February 16, 1999. In fact, less than twenty minutes
before, thirty reporters had sat in the Rowett Institute press conference
listening to its director, Professor Phillip James, casually mention that
the restrictions on Dr. Pusztai’s speaking to the press had been lifted.
Before James had finished his sentence, the reporters leaped for the door.
They jumped into their cars and headed straight to the Pusztai’s house on
Ashley Park North, an address most were familiar with, having virtually
camped out there seven months earlier. Now those thirty reporters, with
TV cameras and tape recorders, were piled into the Pusztai’s living room.
Arpad Pusztai
read the document—twice. As he looked up, the reporters started asking him
questions all at once. He smiled, and breathed more easily than he had in
a long time. He had all but given up hope. Now he finally had the chance
to share what he knew about the dangers of genetically engineered foods.
The story of Arpad Pusztai made headlines throughout
Europe for months, alerting readers to some of the serious health risks
of genetically modified (GM) foods. It was barely mentioned, however, in
the U.S. press; the media watchdog group Project Censored described it as
one of the ten most underreported events of the year. [7] In fact, major U.S. media avoided almost
any discussion of the controversy over genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
until May 1999. But that was all about saving the monarch butterfly from
GM corn pollen, not about human food safety.
It wasn’t until the massive food recall prompted by
StarLink corn that Americans were even alerted to the fact that they were
eating GM foods everyday. Moreover, the American press was forced to question
whether GM foods were safe. Up until then, the media had portrayed European
resistance to America’s GM crops as unscientific anti-Americanism. But as
the story of Arpad Pusztai reveals, the European anti-GMO sentiment had
been fueled, in part, by far greater health risks than the scattered allergic
reactions attributed to StarLink.
Between the Chapters: The Wisdom of
Animals
Mice avoid eating GM foods when they
have the chance, as do rats, cows, pigs, geese, elk, squirrels, and others.
What do these animals know that we don’t? At the end of each chapter is
a one-page story describing how farmers, students, and scientists discovered
that animals refuse to eat the same GM foods that we consume everyday.
Excerpt:
The Washington Post reported that laboratory
mice, usually happy to munch on tomatoes, turned their noses up at the genetically
modified FlavrSavr tomato. Scientist Roger Salquist said of his tomato,
“I gotta tell you, you can be Chef Boyardee and mice are still not going
to like them.” [8]
The mice were eventually force fed the tomato through gastric tubes and
stomach washes. Several developed stomach lesions; seven of forty died within
two weeks. The tomato was approved without further tests.
Chapter 2: What Could Go Wrong—A
Partial List
Genetic
engineers continually encounter unintended side effects—plants create toxins,
react to weather differently, contain too much or too little nutrients,
become diseased or malfunction and die. This chapter describes the process
of genetic engineering and twenty-one ways in which it can create unexpected,
potentially serious problems.
Excerpt:
New DNA chip
technology has recently allowed scientists to monitor changes in DNA functioning
when foreign genes are inserted. In one experiment, there was a staggering
5 percent disruption of gene expression. In other words, after a single
foreign gene had been added through genetic engineering, one out of every
20 genes that were creating proteins either increased or decreased their
output. According to Professor David Schubert, “while these types of unpredicted
changes in gene expression are very real, they have not received much attention
outside the community of the DNA chip users.” He adds that, “there is currently
no way to predict the resultant changes in protein synthesis.” [9]
Chapter 3:
Spilled Milk
“The scientists’
testimony before a Senate committee was like a scene from the conspiratorial
television show The X-Files.” [10] This
was how Canada’s leading paper described the story of six Canadian government
scientists who tried to stand up to pressure to approve Monsanto’s genetically
engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH) which they believed was unsafe.
The scientists were threatened by senior government officials, files were
stolen from their locked file cabinets, Monsanto allegedly offered them
a bribe of $1-2 million, and one senior official suddenly quit and disappeared,
avoiding an appearance before a Parliamentary Committee. [11] What
was happening to the Canadian scientists in 1998 amounted to “re-runs” of
what U.S. government scientists faced in the 1980s. When FDA scientists tried to blow the whistle on what
was happening, they were stripped of responsibilities or fired. The
FDA eventually approved rbGH on the basis of a research summary submitted
by Monsanto that had distorted and deleted data about serious health effects,
including cancer.
Excerpt:
The FDA’s article
states, “it has also been determined that at least 90 percent
of bovine growth hormone (bGH) activity is destroyed upon pasteurization
of milk. Therefore, bGH residues do not present a human food safety concern.” [12] Robert Cohen decided to investigate
this claim. He uncovered what he considers to be blatant scientific fraud.
The research had been conducted by undergraduate Paul Groenewegan. His three
co-authors all had close ties with Monsanto. The paper described how they
heated milk at 162ºF for thirty minutes.
Cohen said,
“when I read that, I said, wait a second, milk is pasteurized for 15 seconds
at that temperature—not 30 minutes. They intentionally tried to destroy
the hormone…. That must have been their mission. Why else would they heat
the milk for 30 minutes at a high temperature reserved for a 15 second treatment?”
But even after thirty minutes only 19 percent of the bGH in milk from hormone-treated
cows was destroyed. According to Cohen, “They then ‘spiked’ the milk. This
is their word, ‘spike.’ They added artificial bGH … 146 times the level
of naturally occurring bST in powdered form to the milk and heated it. The
powdered bGH in milk was destroyed! They saved the day for Monsanto. The
experiment worked. These men of science could claim that heat treatment
destroys bGH.” [13]
Chapter 4:
Deadly Epidemic
In 1989, first
dozens, then thousands fell sick. About one hundred people died, others
struggled with paralysis, unbearable pain, and debilitating symptoms. [14] Authorities
eventually tracked its cause: contaminants produced in one company’s genetically
modified variety of the food supplement L-tryptophan. [15] This chapter describes the evidence
implicating genetic engineering as the cause of the epidemic and the efforts
by industry and the FDA to divert the blame. Current regulations are so
loose, they would allow that same type of deadly supplement onto the market
today.
Chapter 5: Government By the Industry,
For the Industry
Henry Miller
was in charge of biotechnology issues at the FDA from 1979 to 1994. According
to Miller, “U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness
has asked them to do and told them to do.” [16] This chapter reveals how industry
influence has dictated policy, and how the FDA ignored the recommendations
by the majority of their own scientists by approving GM foods without
requiring safety tests.
Excerpts:
The biotech industry’s success with these government leaders became apparent
on May 26, 1992 in the Indian Treaty Room of the Old Executive Building.
There, Vice President Dan Quayle announced the Bush administration’s new
policy on genetically engineered food: “The reforms we announce today will
speed up and simplify the process of bringing better agricultural products,
developed through biotech, to consumers, food processors and farmers. We
will ensure that biotech products will receive the same oversight as other
products, instead of being hampered by unnecessary regulation.” [17]
By “receive the same oversight as other products,” Quayle meant that GM
foods would be considered just as safe as natural, non-GM foods. And sidestepping
“unnecessary regulation” meant that the government would not require any
safety tests or any special labels identifying the foods as genetically
engineered. The rationale for this hands-off policy was spelled out in an
FDA document dated three days after Quayle’s announcement. “The agency is
not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods
differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.” [18] Monsanto had what it wanted: government
endorsement of safety, and no regulations that would interfere with its
plans for rapid worldwide sales.
Political Science at the FDA
Attorney Michael Taylor was involved
in the development of FDA policy. Prior to working at the FDA, Monsanto
was his personal client. Taylor had helped Monsanto draft pro-biotech regulations
that the industry would lobby for. While working for the FDA, Taylor could
implement those laws himself. For Monsanto, there was no better person to
step into a leadership role at the FDA.
Taylor did not simply fill a vacant position at the agency. In 1991 the
FDA created a new position for him: Deputy Commissioner for Policy. He instantly
became the FDA official with the greatest influence on GM food regulation,
overseeing the development of government policy.
According to
public interest attorney Steven Druker, who has studied the FDA’s internal
files, “During Mr. Taylor’s tenure as Deputy Commissioner, references to
the unintended negative effects of bioengineering were progressively deleted
from drafts of the policy statement (over the protests of agency scientists),
and a final statement was issued claiming (a) that [GM] foods are no riskier
than others and (b) that the agency has no information to the contrary.” [19] In
1994, Taylor became the administrator at the Department of Agriculture’s
Food Safety and Inspection Service, where he was also involved in biotechnology
issues. He later became Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto.
When the FDA
announced its policy, the public was not aware of any internal dissent.
The policy boldly claimed that there was no information to indicate that
GM foods were different or more risky than natural varieties. Since the
American public generally trusts the FDA, people assumed that no such risks
existed. But nearly a decade later, the agency’s internal documents—made
public for the first time through a lawsuit—told a different story.
Linda Kahl,
an FDA compliance officer, protested that by “trying to force an ultimate
conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic
engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices,” the agency
was “trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.” She insisted, “the processes
of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according
to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.” [20]
One
such expert was FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl. “There is a profound difference
between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic
engineering,” wrote Pribyl in a letter to James Maryanski, the FDA’s biotech
coordinator. Pribyl said that several aspects of gene splicing “may be more
hazardous.” [21]
According to the New York Times, “Dr. Pribyl knew from studies that
toxins could be unintentionally created when new genes were introduced into
a plant’s cells.” [22] Moreover, Pribyl wrote “there is no certainty that [the breeders
of GM foods] will be able to pick up effects that might not be obvious.” He
declared, “This is the industry’s pet idea, namely that there are no unintended
effects that will raise the FDA’s level of concern. But time and time again,
there is no data to back up their contention.” [23]
Pribyl was only
one of many FDA scientists asked to provide input during the formulation
of the FDA’s policy on genetically engineered food. According to Druker,
records show that the majority of these scientists identified potential
risks of GM foods. Druker was the main organizer of the lawsuit that forced
the FDA documents into the public domain. His nonprofit organization, the
Alliance for Bio-Integrity, was the lead plaintiff. Having sorted through
tens of thousands of pages of FDA documents, he described the opinion of
the agency’s scientists as follows: “The predominant view was that genetic
engineering entails distinct risks and that its products cannot be regarded
as safe unless they have been confirmed to be so through appropriate feeding
studies.” Druker says several scientists “issued strong warnings.” [24]
The Toxicology
Group, for example, warned that genetically modified plants could “contain
unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants,” and described the reasons
why these might be very difficult to identify. [25] Their
director wrote, “The possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in genetically
engineered plants justifies a limited traditional toxicological study.” [26]
The Division
of Food Chemistry and Technology outlined four potential dangers:
-
“Increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins”
-
“Appearance of new, not previously identified” toxins
-
Increased tendency to gather “toxic substances from the environment” such as “pesticides or heavy metals”
-
“Undesirable alterations in the levels of nutrients”
They warned,
“unless genetically engineered plants are evaluated specifically for these
changes,” these four “may escape breeders’ attention.” The division recommended
testing every GM food “before it enters the marketplace.” [27]
Gerald Guest,
the director of FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) sent a letter
to the FDA’s Biotech Coordinator, James Maryanski, saying that he and the
other CVM scientists concluded that there is “ample scientific justification”
to require testing and review of each GM food before it is eaten by the
public. He stated, “CVM believes that animal feeds derived from genetically
modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns.” He pointed
out that, “residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk
products may pose human food safety concerns.” [28]
In spite of
repeated internal memos outlining the potential for increased health risks
posed by this new technology, subsequent drafts of the FDA’s policy statement,
overseen by Taylor, deleted more and more of the scientist’s input. In a
fiery memo to Maryanski, Pribyl challenged the direction the policy statement
had taken: “What has happened to the scientific elements of this document?
Without a sound scientific base to rest on, this becomes a broad, general,
‘What do I have to do to avoid trouble’-type document…. It will look like
and probably be just a political document…. It reads very pro-industry,
especially in the area of unintended effects.”
But while the
FDA’s scientists were emphasizing caution and testing, its leaders were
beholden to an altogether different lobbying effort. A March 1992 memo from
FDA Commissioner David Kessler, confirmed the White House’s influence in
the crafting of the agency’s policy. “The approach and provisions of the
policy statement are consistent with the general biotechnology policy established
by the Office of the President…. It also responds to White House interest
in assuring the safe, speedy development of the U.S. biotechnology industry.” [29]
But even the
draft of the policy that Commissioner Kessler praised as White House-friendly
was subject to further revision as it went up the political chain of command.
A memo from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, at the Department
of Health & Human Services, expressed reservations about the length
and depth of the policy statement’s concern for environmental effects of
GM crops. The letter said, “The extensive twelve page discussion seems to
be…dangerously detailed and drawn-out.” [30] In the end, it was the political,
rather than scientific considerations that prevailed.
The agency not
only ignored its scientists, it claimed their concerns never existed. For
example, the State Department’s Melinda Kimble, while negotiating GMO trade
policy said, “I want to make very clear that it is the position of the United
States government that we do not believe there is a difference between GMO
commodities and non-GMO commodities.” [31] Likewise, a March 2003 statement by
Speaker of the House Hastert declared, “There is general consensus among
the scientific community that genetically modified food is no different
from conventional food.” [32]
When the FDA
documents eventually became public, Maryanski defended the agency’s policy.
On February 28, 2000, he told the OECD Conference on GM Food Safety in Edinburgh,
Scotland that the FDA scientists had merely been asking questions about
the various issues involved in bioengineered food. Maryanski was unpleasantly
surprised when Druker, who was a member of the conference, stood up and
invited the audience to read the FDA memos that were posted on his organization’s
website. They could see for themselves that the agency’s scientists were
not merely asking questions; many of their statements were quite emphatic
about the unique risks of GM foods.
Maryanski, other
FDA officials, and representatives throughout the U.S. government continue
to claim that there is overwhelming consensus among scientists that GM foods
are safe. In an October 1991 letter to a Canadian official, however, Maryanski
himself had admitted that this was not true. He said, “there are a number
of specific issues… for which a scientific consensus does not exist currently,
especially the need for specific toxicology tests.” Maryanski also said,
“I think the question of the potential for some substances to cause allergenic
reactions is particularly difficult to predict.” [33]
Commenting on
statements made by FDA scientists, the New York Times wrote. “The
scientists were displaying precisely the concerns that Monsanto executives
from the 1980’s had anticipated -- and indeed had considered reasonable.
But now, rather than trying to address those concerns, Monsanto, the industry
and official Washington were dismissing them as the insignificant worries
of the uninformed.” [34]
Many scientists who understood the dangers, however, were not convinced
by the FDA’s assurances. Geneticist David Suzuki, for example, said, “Any
politician or scientist who tells you these products are safe is either
very stupid or lying. The experiments have simply not been done.” [35] A January 2001 report from an expert
panel of the Royal Society of Canada likewise supported the conclusions
of the FDA scientists. The report said it was
“scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GM foods are safe. The report
explains that the “default prediction” for any GM foods is that “expression
of a new gene (and its products) … will be accompanied by a range of collateral
changes in expression of other genes, changes in the pattern of proteins
produced and/or changes in metabolic activities.” This could result in novel
toxins or other harmful substances. The report emphasized the need for safety
testing, looking for short and long-term human toxicity, allergenicity,
and other health effects. The panel began their comprehensive 245-page report
by quoting the editors of the UK’s Nature Biotechnology. “The risks
in biotechnology are undeniable, and they stem from the unknowable in science
and commerce. It is prudent to recognize and address those risks, not compound
them by overly optimistic or foolhardy behavior.” [36]
FDA veterinarian Richard Burroughs described
the changes he saw at the FDA. “There seemed to be a trend in the place
toward approval at any price. It went from a university-like setting where
there was independent scientific review to an atmosphere of ‘approve, approve,
approve.” He said, “the thinking is, ‘How many things can we approve this
year?’ Somewhere along the way they abdicated their responsibility to the
public welfare.” [37] A congressional aide said, “At FDA
morale stinks. Hundreds of people have either retired or quit in disgust.
All the best people, who believed in working on behalf of public health,
have gone.” Dan Glickman, former Secretary of Agriculture, describes
the government’s pro-biotech mind-set. “It was almost immoral to say that
it wasn’t good because it was going to solve the problems of the human race
and feed the hungry and clothe the naked.” He said, “You felt like you were
almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view…. So
I pretty much spouted the rhetoric… It was written into my speeches.” [38]
Chapter 6: Rolling the Dice With Allergies
An infant girl
in England broke out in cold sores from drinking soymilk, but was tested
as “not allergic” to normal soy. Was she allergic to something in GM soy
instead? Perhaps it was the increased amount of the allergen—trypsin inhibitor—found
in Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans? Could this also explain why soy allergies
in the UK jumped by 50 percent after Roundup Ready soy was introduced? It’s
difficult to say, because although scientists have confirmed that deadly
allergies can be transferred into foods via genetic engineering, there are
no robust allergy tests done on GM foods. This was brought to the public’s
attention only after StarLink had been blamed for severe, potentially fatal
allergic reactions. It took the FDA nearly a year to develop a test to see
if StarLink was allergenic. The test was so poorly designed and unreliable,
even the EPA rejected the results.
Excerpts:
In March 1999,
the York Nutritional Laboratory, Europe’s leading specialists on food sensitivity,
reported that soy allergies skyrocketed over the previous year, jumping
50 percent. The increase propelled soy into the top ten list of allergens
for the first time in the 17 years
of testing. York scientists tested 4,500 people for allergic reactions to
a wide range of foods. In previous years, soy affected 10 percent of consumers.
Now, 15 percent reacted with a range of chronic illnesses, including irritable
bowel syndrome, digestion problems, and skin complaints, as well as neurological
problems, chronic fatigue syndrome, headaches and lethargy. Researchers
confirmed the link with soy by detecting increased levels of antibodies
in the blood. Furthermore, the soy tested in the study was likely to contain
significant percentages of the genetically modified Roundup Ready variety.
The fact that
GM soy had just entered the food supply was not lost to the researchers,
who, according to the Daily Express, “said their findings provide
real evidence that GM food could have a tangible, harmful impact on the
human body.” A spokesman said, “We believe this raises serious new questions
about the safety of GM foods.”
The British Medical Association had already “warned
that the technology may lead to the emergence of new allergies.” With
the York’s research in hand, now British
scientists urged their government to impose an immediate ban on GM food
until further testing evaluated their safety. Pathologist Michael Antoniou
said that the increased allergic responses “points to the fact that far
more work is needed to assess their safety. At the moment no allergy tests
are carried out before GM foods are marketed.” [39]
At a business lunch with co-workers, 35-year-old Grace
Booth dined on three chicken enchiladas, which she later recalled were
very good. Within about fifteen minutes, however, something went wrong.
She felt hot, itchy. Her lips swelled; she lost her voice and developed
severe diarrhea. “I felt my chest getting tight, it was hard to breathe,”
recalled Booth. “She didn’t know but she was going into shock,” reported
CBS news. “I thought, oh my God, what is happening to me? I felt like
I was going to die.” Her co-workers called an ambulance . . . . [40]
Booth didn’t know what had caused her nearly deadly allergic reaction.
But this was September 2000 and within a few days she heard the news.
A genetically modified corn product called StarLink, a potential allergen
not approved for human consumption, was discovered in tacos, tortillas,
and other corn products. More than 300 items were eventually recalled
from the grocery store shelves in what was to become one of the world’s
biggest GM food debacles.
Chapter 7: Muscling the Media
The biotech industry uses its considerable
resources to mold public opinion about genetically modified foods. In
addition to promoting a one-sided image of the foods as safe and necessary,
they stifle coverage about health and environmental damage. For example,
a Fox TV station canceled a news series, a publisher canceled a book contract, [41] scientific
journals refused papers, and a printer shredded 14,000 magazines, all
due to fear of lawsuits by Monsanto. Other stories presented in this chapter
describe how the industry manipulated news that was reported.
Excerpt:
A national TV commercial showed a montage of smiling
Asian children, caring doctors, rice paddies, and a narrator who says
that golden rice can ‘help prevent blindness and infection in millions
of children’ suffering from vitamin-A deficiency.” [42] Time magazine went so far as
to claim on their cover, “This rice could save a million kids a year.”
The biotech company Syngenta claims one month of a delay in marketing
Golden Rice, would cause 50,000 children to go blind. [43]
The biotech industry had found its poster child, genetically engineered
rice that makes its own beta-carotene—a precursor to vitamin A. In his
New York Times Magazine article, “The Great Yellow Hype,” Michael
Pollan says that golden rice impales Americans on the horns of a moral
dilemma: “if we don’t get over our queasiness about eating genetically
modified food, kids in the third world will go blind.”
“Yet the more one learns about biotechnology’s Great Yellow Hope,” Pollan
continues, “the more uncertain seems its promise.” [44] A closer look reveals some interesting
omissions in the industry’s numbers. According to a Greenpeace report, golden rice provides
so little vitamin A, “a two-year-old child would need to eat seven pounds
per day.” [45]
Likewise, an adult would need to eat nearly twenty pounds to get the daily-recommended
dose.
“This whole project is actually based on what can only be characterized
as intentional deception,” writes Benedikt Haerlin, former international
coordinator of Greenpeace’s genetic engineering campaign. “We recalculated
their figures again and again. We just could not believe serious scientists
and companies would do this.” [46]
Even the president of the Rockefeller Foundation, which funded development
of golden rice, said “the public-relations uses of golden rice have gone
too far” and are misleading the public and media. He adds, “We do not
consider golden rice the solution to the Vitamin A deficiency problem.” [47]
There are other considerations as well.
No published study has confirmed that the human body could actually convert
the beta-carotene in golden rice. Also other nutrients such as fat and
protein, often lacking in the diets on malnourished children, are needed
in order to absorb Vitamin A. And it is not clear whether the genes from
the daffodil, which are used to create golden rice, will transfer known
allergens from the flower. [48]
The biotech proponents also admit that to persuade people to eat yellow
rice may require an educational campaign. But if they are going to spend
the time to educate, Pollan asks, why not instead teach “people how to
grow green vegetables [that are rich in vitamin A and other nutrients]
on the margins of their rice fields, and maybe even give them the seeds
to do so? Or what about handing out vitamin-A supplements to children
so severely malnourished their bodies can’t metabolize beta-carotene?”
Distributing supplements is precisely what the Vitamin Angel Alliance
is doing. They give children who are at risk a high potency tablet, strong
enough so that only two are required per year to prevent blindness. At
a cost of only $.05 per tablet, only $25,000 is needed to prevent 500,000
children from going blind per year. [49] Contrast
this with golden rice, which has cost more than $100 million dollars so
far, and is not yet ready.
Michael Khoo of Greenpeace says golden rice “isn’t about solving childhood
blindness, it’s about solving biotech’s public relations problem.” If
the industry were truly dedicated to the problems of malnutrition and
starvation, a tiny fraction of their advertising budget could have been
diverted to make an enormous difference already. Khoo says, “It is shameful
that the biotech industry is using starving children to promote a dubious
product.” [50]
Grains of Delusion, a research report jointly released by humanitarian
organizations in Thailand, Cambodia, India, Philippines, Indonesia and
Bangladesh, concluded that, “the main agenda for golden rice is not malnutrition
but garnering greater support and acceptance for genetic engineering amongst
the public, the scientific community and funding agencies. Given this
reality, the promise of golden rice should be taken with a pinch of salt.” [51]
Chapter 8: Changing Your Diet
This chapter describes all the sources of GM foods and explains how to
remove them from your diet. It also provides additional motivation to
make a change, describing how food can dramatically influence mood and
behavior.
Chapter 9: What You Can Do
This chapter offers some practical ways to stay informed and to make a
real change. One of these is to get this book into the hands of those
who can make a difference.
Excerpt:
Books have power. Upton Sinclair’s
novel The Jungle exposed the unsanitary conditions of the meat
packing industry. After Teddy Roosevelt read the book on a long train
trip, he pushed a bill through congress creating meat inspection. At a
press conference, President Kennedy acknowledged the importance of Rachel
Carson’s book Silent Spring, which exposed the dangers of pesticides.
Kennedy then had his scientific advisor look into the issue. The book
was eventually “credited with beginning the American environmental movement,
the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 1972 ban
on DDT.” [52]
Officials around the world who are in charge of GM food policy need to
be made aware of the foods’ dangers and of how their approval was based
on politics, not science. They have been subjected to relentless promotion
by the biotech industry and bullying by the U.S. government to accept
GM foods and crops. The revelations in this book might change that.
Epilogue
This section ties in recent events
with a summary of some of the salient points from the book.
Excerpt:
There are the numerous ways in which industry researchers apparently
doctored their studies to avoid finding problems with GM foods. For example,
Aventis heated StarLink corn four times longer than standard before testing
for intact protein; Monsanto fed mature animals diets with only one tenth
of their protein derived from GM soy; researchers injected cows with one
forty-seventh the amount of rbGH before testing the level of hormone in
the milk and pasteurized milk 120 times longer than normal to see if the
hormone was destroyed; and Monsanto used stronger acid and more than 1,250
times the amount of a digestive enzyme recommended by international standards
to prove how quickly their protein degraded. Cows that got sick were dropped
from Monsanto’s rbGH studies, while cows that got pregnant before treatment
were counted as support that the drug didn’t interfere with fertility;
differences in composition between Roundup Ready soy and natural soy were
omitted from a published paper; antibody reactions by rats fed rbGH were
ignored by the FDA; and deaths from rats fed the FlavrSavr tomato remain
unexplained.
Overturning a myth is not easy and cannot be accomplished by only a few
individuals. Please join with those of us who are dedicated to getting
the truth out.
Order Your Copy Here
For other reliable resources on health cover-up issues,
see Health Information
Center
For an excellent website on the GMO cover-up, see http://www.seedsofdeception.com
For what you can do, see http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/TakeAction/index.cfm
For reliable information on other major cover-ups, see www.WantToKnow.info
Seeds of Deception - Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the Food You Eat
