California First US State To Ban Trans Fats In Food - Ban Trans Fats Now, But GM Foods Only Later?

Ban Trans Fats Now, But GM Foods Only Later?
Junk Foods And Junk Decisions As New Study Links Aspartame To Adverse Brain Effects
California First US State To Ban Trans Fats In Food
Massachusetts May Follow
www.nlpwessex.org/docs/transfats.htm
After Decades Of 'Safe' Consumption Now They Say
'This Is An Invisible And Dangerous Ingredient'

"With no genetically modified food labelling or monitoring, America is now running a 'don't look, don't ask' GM junk food culture. It is one that, in effect, complacently assumes that GMOs are safe because people don't foam at the mouth as soon as they ingest them. The same approach with trans fats, another man made food, turned into thousands (1,400 a year in Massachusetts alone), and ultimately millions, of undetected premature deaths across the globe. Having already gone through the trans fat experience it remains something of a shock to learn that, despite the billions invested in, and earned from, this technology, there has only ever been one published study on the direct human impact of eating GM food. And it found unexpected effects. ... Given that the first study raising health concerns in relation to trans fats was published in 1957, and yet New York City only began banning them in 2006, perhaps it is reasonable to project that the first bans on GM foods might begin arriving sometime around 2060. The trouble is, by then there may well be little else available left to eat."
Ban Trans Fats Now, GM Foods Only Later?
NLPWessex, September 2008

'Rumsfeld's Disease' Decades Of Junk Decisions In The World's Leading Junk Food Nation

Donald Rumsfeld (left) was responsible for bringing the world 'aspartame', a leading contender for the title of the world's top 'junk food' ingredient. Meanwhile Arnold Schwarzenegger (right) has just begun a reversal of decades of 'junk decisions' on artificially man made foods by signing off a bill to ban trans fats in California, the first US state to do so. How long will it now take to introduce a ban on the latest artificial product to arrive on grocery shelves, genetically modified (GM) food?
America's Physical And Mental Health Suffer The Scourge Of Artificially Man Made Foods Former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in addition to his more well known 'war on terror' invasion of Iraq, was previously responsible for the introduction of one of the world's most infamous junk food ingredients, the synthetic (artificially man made) sweetener aspartame, a product also once owned by Monsanto, now the world's largest producer of genetically modified (GM) crop seeds (another artificially man made product now found in the food supply). US factories have made aspartame using genetically modified bacteria (also artificially man made). After decades of supposedly 'safe' use, a study published earlier this year in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition indicates that high consumption of aspartame may lead to 'neurodegeneration' in the human brain. Other problems have also recently been found with the sweetener saccharine (artificially man made), with evidence that it may, together with other health problems, cause some people to put on weight, not lose it. Again it has taken decades to establish this. Now Rumsfeld's Republican colleague, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, has signed off a bill passed in his state legislature which bans another junk food, trans fats (artificially man made), after the product had become associated with serious disease (now thought to include cancer, as well as heart attacks and diabetes) and premature death. With trans fats also recently banned in New York City, once again the associated ill-health effects of a man made food were established only after decades of supposedly 'safe' use. What is also striking is how such serious 'below the radar' toxicity could be induced by seemingly innocuous changes to the molecular makeup of existing food. Naturally occurring food oils comprised of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen simply had extra hydrogen added to them to create the artificial trans fats. The worst estimates from the Harvard School ofPublic Health make trans fats potentially responsible for approaching a quarter of a million heart attacks a year in America alone (yes, a year). However, for decades there was no 'obvious' sign of this. In fact, with trans fats first patented in 1903 and brought into industrial production in 1909, it took around a hundred years to establish the full nature and extent of the problem, culminating in a Harvard led study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 (the Lancet had first published work raising initial concerns nearly fifty years earlier in 1957). The State of Massachusetts is now also considering a ban of trans fats. But why isn't there simply a Federal ban? Perhaps it is partly down to too much aspartame (and cocaine) induced brain disease occurring within the political community in Washington. Meanwhile, if trans fat bans are now emerging in the United States after decades of supposedly 'safe' use, how many decades of 'safe' use will it take before a similar decision is taken in relation to any GM foods (artificially man made), creations which routinely use foreign genetic material from bacteria and viruses? Some GM crops (most notably rice grown for the pharmaceutical industry in America, which is expected to leak into the food supply at some point due to not being grown in enclosed conditions - the result of a classic 'junk' decision) may even contain human genes. Yet, even the most basic common sense should dictate that no food-chain crop species should ever be permitted to be used for such purposes. Many previous 'junk decisions' in relation to artificial foods are now coming home to roost. A variety of food additives and colourings, plus sodium benzoate and monosodium glutamate, are also man made products where evidence of health concerns is emerging. It is little surprise, therefore, that the biotechnology industry (such is its de facto 'confidence' in the long-term safety of its own products) resolutely continues to oppose any legislation that would place strict liability on it were similar 'slow poison' problems to surface with any of their (patented) GM crops in the decades to come. The epidemiological studies on the health effects of trans fats, which ultimately produced devastating results, were not conducted until decades after the introduction of foods containing this man made ingredient. In the total absence of any epidemiological studies in relation to GM foods, claims that the latter are safe for human consumption based on a decade of widespread use in the American food chain are completely unsubstantiated by science. Yet given the trans fats experience, why have no such studies been conducted for GM foods? And are we to take it from this omission that, more often than not, junk policy decisions in the artificial foods arena have become the default standard? Indeed, is the very consumption of some of these artificial foods itself doing something to our brains to reduce the capacity for intelligent thinking? There is some evidence for this. The study in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition indicates that aspartame, a product ubiquitous in the market, is now potentially associated with "compromised learning and emotional functioning". This syndrome, that might perhaps one day become known as 'Rumsfeld's Disease', suggests that the denaturing of food and drink can affect not only physical health, but mental capacity as well. If so, what influence might the mass consumption of such products have on the tendency of a nation to collectively flunk making coherent decisions about all kinds of things, the result of which might be, say, the unwise selection of its own leadership, or a diet-aggravated anxiety based approach to shaping a national security policy which turns out to be counter-productive, generating new enemies instead of new friends? 1996 was a significant year. In the spring American farmers began planting their country's first large-scale genetically modified agricultural crops. A few months later Osama Bin Laden issued his first fatwa against the US. In the 'war on terror' conflicts that followed America has suffered some serious losses, but on nothing like the scale of those incurred more silently through the consumption of trans fats. Whether and where other artificially man made foods, including aspartame and GM crops, will end up on this distressing league table of damage will depend in part on the degree to which their effects are monitored and investigated in the years ahead. Donald Rumsfeld is unlikely to be in any rush to encourage much of that.
State-of-the-Science On The Health Risks of GM Foods Institute for Responsible Technology, June 2008 - Click Here GM Crops - The Health Effects Soil Association, February 2008 (PDF) - Click Here More Information Available From 'Seeds Of Deception' Web Site www.seedsofdeception.com includng newsletter and PowerPoint presentation on GMO health risks

"Almost everything we grow, everything we eat is the root result of human intervention, human breeding and so on. But this [genetic modification through recombinant DNA technology] is unnatural in a different sort of way from the kinds of breeding programs that have characterized humanity for ten thousand years.... So the question which people have, I believe, not only a right but a duty to ask, is how wisely will we use these unprecedented new powers? What are the risks associated with doing something this new and this profound at the very wellsprings of life?... Certainly, humanity's record for using technology wisely, sensitive to its potential effects on society, on people, on environment is, at best, mixed and hardly encouraging.... We have not yet identified, yet alone cloned, the gene for wisdom, and some skepticism about our ability to manage powerful new technologies is appropriate."
Robert Shapiro, Chief Executive of Monsanto
State of the World Forum, San Francisco, 27 October 1998

"In June, the UK environment minister, Phil Woolas, told the Independent that it was time for the nation to take a fresh look at the issue of genetically modified (GM) crops in the light of the surge in food prices over the past few months. ...‘The cynic in me thinks that they’re just using the current food crisis and the fuel crisis as a springboard to push GM crops back on to the public agenda’, says Professor Denis Murphy, head of biotechnology at the University of Glamorgan in Wales. ‘I understand why they’re doing it, but the danger is that if they’re making these claims about GM crops solving the problem of drought or feeding the world, that’s bullsh*t.' "
GM: it’s safe, but it’s not a saviour
Spiked, 7 July 2008

'Come Out With Your Hands Up, Woolas, We Have You Surrounded - We Know Which GM Interest Has Just Given New Labour Another £2 Million'

"Scottish Ministers are putting mounting pressure on the UK government to end its support for GM crops now that Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland have all agreed to become GM-free. In the wake of the latest GM crop contamination revealed on Friday, the Scottish environment minister, Michael Russell, is urging Whitehall to alter its stance to take account of the strong opposition to genetically modified crops in all the devolved administrations.His call has been welcomed by anti-GM groups, though they argue he should go further. The GM concordat agreed by the devolved administrations just before the last Scottish election should now be renegotiated, they say. At a conference in Dublin last week, the agriculture ministers of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland both declared that they wanted their countries to be GM-free. This follows similar commitments from the Scottish and Welsh governments. 'I'm very encouraged by the strong all-Ireland stance that is being taken, and it chimes perfectly with our stance and that of Wales,' Russell told the Sunday Herald. 'The political dynamic of the GM debate in these islands has changed profoundly over the last year and it is time that the UK government woke up to the fact.'"
Scotland urges UK-wide ban on GM crops
Sunday Herald, 14 September 2008

"Labour has pulled itself back from the brink of bankruptcy by restructuring its loans and persuading the bulk of its backers to give the party until 2015 to repay the money... But only two of the tycoons — Lord Sainsbury of Turville, the supermarket heir [and GM crop investor and promoter], and Sir Gulam Noon, the curry magnate — were prepared to write off their money. Lord Sainsbury, a Labour peer, lent the party £2 million, and Sir Gulam lent £250,000."
Lenders save Labour from bankruptcy with 7 year reprieve to pay £15m
London Times, 13 August 2008

"Americans have consumed food derived from GM crops for the past decade, with no obvious ill effect on public health"
GM crops: not against nature
London Times, 14 August 2008

"..... the ubiquitous argument that 'since there is no evidence that GM products make people sick, they are safe' is both illogical and false. There are, again, simply no data or even valid assays to support this contention. Without proper epidemiological studies, most types of harm will not be detected, and no such studies have been conducted."
The Problem with Nutritionally Enhanced Plants
Journal of Medicinal Food, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2008

"Disease surveillance and event monitoring procedures will need to be sufficiently robust to deal with the potential emergence of new diseases associated with GM material which will be obscure and difficult to diagnose."
The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health - An Interim Statement
British Medical Association, May 1999

"Ben Miflin, former director of the Institute of Arable Crops at Rothamsted, near London, who is a proponent of the potential benefits of genetic modification of crops... argues that, under current monitoring conditions, any unanticipated health impact of such foods would need to be a 'monumental disaster' to be detectable."
Long-term effect of GM crops serves up food for thought
Nature, Volume 398:651, 22 April 1999

Trans Fats Were 'Slow Poisons' Quietly Killing Millions And The 'Scientists' Didn't Notice Anything 'Obvious' For Decades
How Long Will It Take For The Same Scenario To Unfold With GM Foods?

"My colleagues and I from the Harvard School of Public Health estimate, from laboratory and epidemiological studies, that between 72,000 and 228,000 heart attacks could be prevented each year in America if industrially produced trans fats were eliminated from our diet."
Meir Stampfer, MD, DrPH, Professor of Epidemiology and Nutritionat Harvard School of Public Health
Experts Weigh In: Will Trans Fat Bans Affect Obesity Trends?
DOC News, Volume 4 Number 5 p. 1, May 1, 2007

"In his New York Times column, Nicholas Kristof compares the selling of trans fat-laden Girl Scout cookies to 'death at the hands of Al Qaeda.'...Top nutritionists at Harvard University have stated: 'By our most conservative estimate, replacement of partially hydrogenated oils in the U.S. diet with natural nonhydrogenated vegetable oils would prevent approximately 30,000 premature coronary deaths per year, and epidemiologic evidence suggests this number is closer to 100,000 premature deaths annually.' With those kind of claims, it’s no wonder everyone is going trans fat-free. There are even entire countries going trans fat free. Denmark has passed this legislation, and Canada is well on its way."
Transcending trans fats
FoodProcessing.com, 2007-32

'Zero Tolerance'
US Food And Drug Administration (FDA) Now Says No Room For Any Level Of Trans Fat In A Healthy Diet

"The FDA has stated that there is no room in a healthy diet for any level of trans fat—a fat found in partially hydrogenated oils that raises bad cholesterol and lowers good cholesterol, thereby contributing to heart disease.... "
Functional foods from biotech—an unappetizing prospect?
Nature Biotechnology 25, 525 - 531 (2007)

"The only published trial of GM foods on humans was carried out by Newcastle University [in the UK] for the Food Standards Agency, and published in 2004. It was designed to study what happens to transgenic DNA in the human gut and whether it could pass out and enter bacteria in the body, a long-standing concern. It found that .... portions of transgenic DNA had ‘horizontally’ transferred from GM food into the intestinal bacteria of some of the volunteers, which was a shocking discovery with implications for the long-term impacts of GM consumption. Just as shocking, however, was the fact that at the time the FSA chose not to mention this key finding in its communications on the study, thus widely giving the impression that horizontal gene transfer had not been identified in the study."
GM Crops - The Health Effects
Soil Association, February 2008

The Biotech Industry Is Looking For Crop And Seed Contamination
To Make A GM-Food Supply A Universal Reality By Default

"The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded [with GMOs] that there's nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender".
Don Westfall, biotech industry consultant and vice-president of Promar International
Toronto Star, 9 January 2001

"The real strategy is to introduce so much genetic pollution that meeting the consumer demand for GM-free food is seen as not possible. The idea, quite simply, is to pollute faster than countries can legislate - then change the laws to fit the contamination.... In April, Monsanto recalled about 10% of the GM oilseed rape seeds it had distributed in Canada because of reports that the seeds had been contaminated by another modified rape-seed variety, one not approved for export. The most well-known of these cases is StarLink corn. The genetically altered crop (meant for animals and deemed unfit for humans) made its way into much of the US corn supply after the buffer zones surrounding the fields where it was grown proved wholly incapable of containing the wind-borne pollen. Aventis, which owns the StarLink patent, proposed a solution: instead of recalling the corn, why not approve its consumption for humans?....Arran Stephens, president of Nature's Path, an organic food company in British Columbia, told the New York Times earlier this month that GM material is even finding its way into organic crops. 'We have found traces in corn that has been grown organically for 10 to 15 years. There's no wall high enough to keep that stuff contained.' Indeed, there is so much genetic contamination in North American fields that a group of organic farmers is considering launching a class action suit against the biotech industry for lost revenues. ...What does all this mean to Europeans? It means that your [GM food] labels could soon be as obsolete as the scratched-out ones in our supermarkets. If contamination continues to spread in North America, and agribusiness's current push to overturn Brazil's ban on GM seeds is successful, it will become next to impossible to import non-GM soybeans....Backed by predatory intellectual property laws, agribusinesses are on their way to getting the global food supply so hopelessly cross pollinated, polluted and generally mixed up, that legislators may well be forced to throw up their hands. When we look back on this moment, munching our genetically modified health-style food, we may well remember it as the precise turning point when we lost our real food options...."
When choice becomes just a memory
Guardian, 21 June 2001

"Despite persistent concerns about genetically modified crops, they are spreading so rapidly that it has become almost impossible for consumers to avoid them, agriculture experts say.....They are even turning up where people least expect them: in countries where they are banned but a black market has developed; in food supplies where they are forbidden or shunned, like organic products; even in fields that farmers believe are completely free of genetically modified crops. The rapid adoption and proliferation means that even as scientists and others debate the safety of altering foods' genetic codes to produce cheaper and bigger supplies, a large share of the world's population has little or no choice but to consume genetically modified crops. One indication came last year when Starlink, a variety of genetically modified corn not approved for human consumption, accidentally entered the global food supply, leading to extensive food recalls in the United States and Japan over fears it could cause allergic reactions....Seed companies, farmers, processors and food makers have spent more than $1 billion in the last six months trying to eradicate Starlink. But most experts agree that will take years....while the episode helped stall the advance of genetically modified wheat, potatoes and sugar, it seems to have served as proof, over all, of biotech's inexorable spread....Some agriculture experts say that cross-pollination of biotech corn and seed corn, as well as poor and imperfect grain-handling practices, have thoroughly scrambled crops in a global food chain that for decades shipped bulk supplies of largely undifferentiated products. Food makers around the world are finding traces of gene-altered crops in foods that were not supposed to be made with them; Midwestern farmers are complaining that wind is blowing pollen from gene-altered crops into neighboring fields planted with conventional corn. Even organic crops labeled 'G.M. Free' are testing positive for genetic modification...Some critics of biotechnology see a sinister plot at work, with the industry ignoring the implications of widespread pollen flow and perhaps even encouraging a black market in biotech crops. 'They're hoping there's enough contamination so that it's a fait accompli,' said Jeremy Rifkin, a longtime critic of biotechnology....The world's biggest biotech seed companies acknowledge that some pollen may go astray. And they acknowledge that they cannot guarantee that even the conventional seed they sell is 100 percent free of genetic modification. Agriculture, they say, is prone to mishaps."
As Biotech Crops Multiply, Consumers Get Little Choice
New York Times, 10 June 2001

"[Dale] Adolphe [of the Canadian Seed Growers Association] said it's ironic that even as public protests and opposition to GM food products seem to grow and even as new regulations and controls are put in place, the total acreage devoted to GM crops around the world is expanding. That maybe what eventually brings the debate to an end, said Adolphe. 'It's a hell of a thing to say that the way we win is don't give the consumer a choice, but that might be it.'"
Biotech Wins by Giving Consumer No Choice
The Western Producer, 4 April 2002

"The industry is in reality making serious efforts, whether legally or illegally, to contaminate the cultivated species all over the world. From Canada to New Zealand, and from Greenland to Cape Horn, the industry is busy in spreading genetic pollution....once genetic contamination reaches a 'significant' level, the world will be left with no other choice but to accept the sad reality. Genetically engineered crops will then be pushed with impunity. The great genetic scandal is only beginning to unfold."
Devinder Sharma - The Great Genetic Scandal
Center For Alternative Agricultural Media, 1 August 2002

"Global incidents of genetic contamination from genetically modified (GM) crops are on the rise, while the companies responsible ignore the consequences. Our activists have highlighted this growing problem by protesting shipments of illegal GM-rice varieties entering Europe from the US. Genetic contamination occurs when experimental or unapproved GM crops are mixed with staple food crops. The 'GM Contamination Register Report 2007', details 39 new instances of GM contamination in 23 countries over the past year. Most of the contamination involved such staple crops as rice and maize, but also included soya, cotton, canola, papaya and fish. Since 2005, the GM Contamination Register has recorded 216 contamination events in 57 countries since GM crops were first grown commercially on a large scale in 1996. While companies claim they can control the use of GM crops, the reality is very different."
Biotech companies fuel GM contamination spread
Greenpeace International, 29 February 2008

"The consequences of contamination between GM crops and non-GM varieties will be much more serious with the next generation of GM crops, an influential group of US scientists has warned. Mixing between GM and non-GM varieties has already caused serious economic losses for producers in lost sales and exports. But the consequences of mixing will be much more serious with new crops that are altered to produce pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals, the scientists argue....Prof Paul Gepts, a plant geneticist at the University of California, Davis, said past experience suggests that 'contamination' events cannot be avoided. 'Gene flow is really a regular occurrence among plants. So if you put a gene out there it's going to escape. It's going to go to other varieties of the same crop or to its wild relatives,' he said. 'It's clear that zero contamination is impossible at present.' There have been a handful of examples in the US and elsewhere of genes from GM varieties not cleared for human consumption getting into nearby food crops and hence the human food chain. This has led to major economic losses for producers in lost sales, exports and clean-up costs, but there have been no proven cases of damage to human health. 'With the products we are talking about, there's the potential for that to be much more serious than what we have seen so far,' said Prof Robert Wisner at Iowa State University. According to Gepts, most of the ideas for keeping crops apart are inadequate, because pollen and seed are carried on the wind, by animals and birds and on farm machinery."
Consequences of GM crop contamination 'are set to worsen'
Guardian, 18 February 2008

"Trial sowings of a new variety of oilseed rape in Scotland have been found to contain small amounts of unauthorised GM material....Plants on the three trial plots - two in Aberdeenshire and one near Arbroath in Angus - will be destroyed....Environment Minister Michael Russell said: 'Had these plants been allowed to mature, the risk to the environment could have been very serious. However, prompt action by the Scottish Government is ensuring that the situation is remedied. This further emphasises the continuing need for rigorous controls on GM material and for Scotland to remain a GM crop-free zone.' He added that steps were being undertaken to understand how this had happened and to ensure that it does not happen again. No GM crops can be grown in Europe without specific authorisation. In this case, a seed sample of a conventional oilseed rape variety was found to contain small amounts of GM material."
'Unauthorised' release of GM seed
BBC Online, 12 September 2008

It's Time To Fight Back Against This De Facto Compulsory Consumption Of GM Foods

This Is A Beginning In The US
Tell Your Congressman To Support Dennis Kucinich's New GE Bills
July 2008

"Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced three bills designed to protect consumers, defend farmers’ rights, and increase food safety yesterday. The bills collectively create a comprehensive framework to regulate genetically modified organisms (GMOs). 'We have a responsibility to put the public health and the environment before profits. These bills spell out common sense precautions.' The three bills are titled, respectively, H.R. 6636, The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act, H.R. 6635, The Genetically Engineered Safety Act, and H.R. 6637, The Genetically Engineered Farmer Protection Act. H.R. 6636, The Genetically Engineered Food Right To Know Act, would require mandatory labeling of all foods that contain or are produced with genetically modified material. A legal framework to ensure labeling accuracy without significant economic hardship would also be established. H.R. 6635, The Genetically Engineered Safety Act, would require that genetically engineered foods follow a food safety review process to prevent contamination of food supplies by pharmaceutical and industrial crops. This Act would also require that the FDA screen all genetically engineered foods to ensure they are safe for human consumption. H.R. 6637, The Genetically Engineered Farmer Protection Act, places liability from the impacts of genetically engineered organisms on the biotechnology companies that created the GMOs, and protects farmers from law suits by biotechnology companies. 'We are eating genetically engineered foods every day. Farmers are sowing genetically engineered seeds every day. Yet, we have never studied the long term effects of genetically modified organisms on our health, our children or our environment. Congress must take steps to maximize the benefit and minimize the risks of biotechnology.'”
Kucinich 'Protect our health and environment'"
Web Site Of Congressman Dennis Kucinich, 30 July 2008

The Ball Has Already Started To Roll
With Governor Schwarzenegger's California Leading The Way Again
August 2008

"A landmark piece of legislation protecting California's farmers from crippling lawsuits was passed through both legislative houses this week in an end-of-session flurry. The Senate voted 23 - 14 to support it, and the Assembly was unanimous in their support. The bill, AB 541 (Huffman, D-Marin/Sonoma), is now headed to the Governor's desk for his signature. Sponsored by diverse organizations, some of whom are traditionally opposed on farm issues, AB 541 is the first bill passed by the California legislature that brings much-needed regulation to genetically engineered (GE) crops. AB 541 enacts protections against lawsuits brought against California farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable - the drift of GE pollen or seed onto their land and the subsequent contamination of their non-GE crops. Currently, farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented seeds or pollen have been the target of harassing lawsuits brought by biotech patent holders, particularly Monsanto. The bill also establishes a mandatory crop sampling protocol to prevent biotech companies that are investigating alleged violations from sampling crops without the explicit permission of farmers. AB 541 has the support of organizations traditionally on opposite sides of the GE issue, and its sponsors are confident that the Governor will sign it. The bill was sponsored by a thirteen-member coalition including Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Earthbound Farm, California Certified Organic Farmers, United Natural Foods Inc., as well as California Farmers Union and the California Farm Bureau, and several others."
California Legislature Passes Bill Protecting Farmers Against Monsanto Lawsuits
Genetic Engineering Policy Project, 31 August 2008

Just The Beginning?
Will California Eventually Follow Trans Fat Ban With GM Food Ban?

"I am very pleased that my office, working with the stakeholders on both sides of this historically divisive issue, was able to find common ground and pass California's first legislation on genetic engineered crops. While there is still work to be done on other aspects of genetic engineering, AB 541 is an important step in establishing basic protections for California's farmers."
California Assembly Member Huffman
Genetic Engineering Policy Project, 31 August 2008

A GM Crop Ban Is Perfectly Reasonable
Because There Are Better Biotechnologies Than GM Which Have Lower Risk Profiles That Are Acceptable To The Public

"GM is only one easily recognised byproduct of genetic research. The quiet revolution is happening in gene mapping ['genomics'], helping us understand crops better. That is up and running and could have a far greater impact on agriculture.... There really are no downsides, particularly in terms of public perception... [By contrast in the case of GMOs] there are public perception problems and the technology itself is still not optimised, with antibiotic and herbicide resistance genes still needed and bits of bacterial DNA hanging about. Whether that poses any danger is debatable, but it is not desirable."
Professor John Snape, John Innes Centre
'Gene mapping the friendly face of GM technology'
Farmers Weekly, 1 March 2002, p54

".... many agbiotech methods have nothing to do with gene transfer ('genetic engineering') but are more akin to the kinds of DNA fingerprinting that are now in such common use in forensic science and medical diagnostics. Even today, by far the most effective use of agbiotech, and one with which I have been involved in Southeast Asia, is MAS, or marker-assisted selection. Here, molecular markers and other high-tech tools are used to speed up and widen the scope of crop breeding around the world but no GM methods are involved."
Denis J Murphy, Professor of Biotechnology at the University of Glamorgan, Wales
Agricultural Biotechnology: Monster, Marvel, or just Misunderstood?
Public Service Review - Devolved Government, November 2006

"Genetically modified crops will not solve the current food crisis, according to Martin Taylor, chairman of GM giant Syngenta, who admitted it would take 20 years to launch GM crop varieties designed to address the problems of the developing world...... His words appear to contradict statements from UK politicians, industry bodies and the European Commission that GM technology should be considered as a way to address chronic shortages and soaring prices of basic staples across the world.... Earlier this year, a major report from UN experts said there was little role for GM, as it is currently practised, in feeding the poor on a large scale.... "
GM will not solve current food crisis, says industry boss
Guardian, 27 June 2008

"In 2006, the pro-GM US Department of Agriculture observed that 'currently available GM crops do not increase yield potential' – a point already made by a 2004 UN Food and Agriculture Organisation report which acknowledged that 'GM crops can have reduced yields'. The recently published UN IAASTD report, the work of more than 400 international scientists, about the future of global food production under the challenges of climate change and population pressure, concluded that GM crops do not have much to offer."
Don't believe the GM apologists
Independent, 21 August 2008

"Scottish Ministers are putting mounting pressure on the UK government to end its support for GM crops now that Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland have all agreed to become GM-free. In the wake of the latest GM crop contamination revealed on Friday, the Scottish environment minister, Michael Russell, is urging Whitehall to alter its stance to take account of the strong opposition to genetically modified crops in all the devolved administrations.His call has been welcomed by anti-GM groups, though they argue he should go further. The GM concordat agreed by the devolved administrations just before the last Scottish election should now be renegotiated, they say. At a conference in Dublin last week, the agriculture ministers of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland both declared that they wanted their countries to be GM-free. This follows similar commitments from the Scottish and Welsh governments. 'I'm very encouraged by the strong all-Ireland stance that is being taken, and it chimes perfectly with our stance and that of Wales,' Russell told the Sunday Herald. 'The political dynamic of the GM debate in these islands has changed profoundly over the last year and it is time that the UK government woke up to the fact.'"
Scotland urges UK-wide ban on GM crops
Sunday Herald, 14 September 2008

"When the tipping point of consumer rejection was reached in Europe in 1999, within a single week, virtually all major food companies committed to remove GMOs. The European tipping point was achieved within 10 weeks of the lifting of Dr. Pusztai’s gag order. More than 750 articles were written, which propelled the issue into the mainstream awareness. People were concerned about the health effects, and using GM ingredients became a liability.... Unlike in Europe, the mainstream press has not covered the GM issue in the US. Thus, if you ask the average American 'have you ever eaten genetically modified foods?,' 60% say no, 15% say I don’t know. The success of the GM food industry in the US is based on consumer ignorance. The number of people needed in the US to create a European-style tipping point is probably very low. If even 5 percent of the U.S. population rejected GM brands, it should be more than enough to reach this Tipping Point, since that represents an enormous loss in revenue for food companies. Whatever the magic percentage is, there are certainly far more people in the US who would buy non-GMO products if given a choice. In fact, a 2008 survey by CBS and the New York Times showed that 53 percent of Americans would avoid GMOs if they were labeled. The Institute for Responsible Technology and a coalition of organizations launched the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, which is designed to hit the US tipping point by the end of 2009. They are bringing the message that 'Healthy eating starts with no GMOs' and providing clear non-GMO choices through a Non-GMO Shopping Guide (Fall, 2008).... We are already seeing a tipping point against Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, called rBGH or rBST. In 2006, newspapers called it a tipping point or explosion in the industry. Since then, Wal-Mart, Kroger, Starbucks, and about 40 of the top 100 dairies so far have removed it from their milk or dairy products. We see the same thing happening soon with GM ingredients across the board."
From note accompanying Powerpoint Presentation
Seeds of Deception, July 2008

'The World According To Monsanto'
The Documentary Most Americans Will Likely Never See

"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A's [Food and Drug Administration] job."
Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications
New York Times, October 25, 1998

"This letter is a response to the piece by Mick Willoughby in the June issue [of CLA Land & Business magazine], which in my view was full of unsupported assertions and bullet points dressed up as facts. Those presumably came directly from the Monsanto Corporation, passed on to Mr Willoughby during his visit to their St Louis headquarters. He should not believe everything he is told, and he might find it educational to view the recent French film The World According To Monsanto which carefully documents the corporation's methods of conducting science and doing business. I found it terrifying.... There is a 'revolving door' between the GM industry and the state-funded bodies that are supposed to regulate its activities and protect the public. Most of the approvals for GM crops are based on 'advocacy science' provided by the GM companies and protected from public scrutiny."
'Star Letter' - Why The Genes Don't Fit - Jim Bowen
Country Land & Business Association (England and Wales), Land & Business Magazine, July 2008

'The World According To Monsanto'
March 2008 Franco-German TV Channel ARTE Documentary
To view English language internet version of this extraordinary 109 minute exposé on YouTube Click Here
(or if it gets taken down just Google 'World According To Monsanto' to find it elsewhere)
European Format DVD is also available for purchase in English
Click Here
Interview with programme maker Marie-Monique Robin - Click Here

View Documentary Broadcast Excerpts On Line - Click Here

American Format DVD Now Available For Purchase In USA
Click Here

"Monsanto's controversial past combines some of the most toxic products ever sold with misleading reports, pressure tactics, collusion, and attempted corruption. They now race to genetically engineer (and patent) the world's food supply, which profoundly threatens our health, environment, and economy. Combining secret documents with first-hand accounts by victims, scientists, and politicians, this widely praised film exposes why Monsanto has become the world's poster child for malignant corporate influence in government and technology. 109 minutes"
www.seedsofdeception.com

worldmonsantousa3.jpg (17306 bytes)

"With the exception of commercial (for-profit) showings in theaters and post secondary institutions (colleges and universities), permission is granted for individuals and groups to show home DVD of The World According to Monsanto in public, whether a fee is charged or not. Please view the Detailed Policy. Inform others! Organize a public showing or house party. Download the Monsanto Film Showing Guide to help you with organizing, and channeling audience enthusiasm into effective community action."
www.seedsofdeception.com

"French journalist Marie-Monique Robin takes a scattershot approach in her exposé of Monsanto, an American multinational chemical and biotechnology company responsible for some of the most toxic and environmentally damaging products ever sold. Monsanto's list of accomplishments includes production of Agent Orange, PCBs, recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone and genetically modified crops such as Roundup Ready soybeans ....One of her interviewees, author and activist Jeremy Rifkin, talks about how 'we were trying to say these things [GMOs] should be considered food additives.' They weren't. In a 1987 film clip, then vice-president George Bush is seen touring a Monsanto bioengineering lab. Should Monsanto encounter any difficulties in winning approvals for its products, he tells his hosts, they can 'call me. We're in the de-reg business.' Nothing was to get in the way of the United States becoming a world leader in biotechnology. ..... the film documents the passage of numerous Monsanto executives back and forth between the corporation and U.S. regulating agencies. The documentary visits scientists in Britain and Canada who mysteriously lose their jobs after making findings injurious to Monsanto. The company is shown to have falsified scientific findings....Now that The World According to Monsanto, which aired on European television this year, is available in English, it might reach the American public. But the likelihood is that this company will continue to do what it has always done: exactly what it wants."
The World According to Monsanto: A toxic tour
Toronto Star, 1 August 2008

"... there is no doubt about one thing - America is the world's leading consumer of 'junk food'. The impact on levels of domestic obesity and general ill-health is proving devastating. As a result the US junk food sector is now following the tobacco industry in trying to take action to evade what could become an unprecedented wave of lawsuits. Such a risk now emanates from the large numbers of US consumers who have had their health damaged through the over consumption of highly processed industrialised food products..... Based on profoundly junk science GMOs are the ultimate junk food - the denaturing of food using this technology begins at the absolute source even before the seed for the food is planted in the ground. As with tobacco and other forms of junk food, it is likely to be decades before the science concerning the effects of GMOs on human health catches up with consumption. But when it does the claims are likely to be on an altogether larger scale. Apart from the uniquely radical nature of the technology, there is a particular legal reason for this. With tobacco and Coca-Cola US consumers know that they are consuming it and they do so voluntarily for the most part. With GMOs the fact that US citizens are consuming them is not disclosed. They consume them with neither knowledge nor consent. Aided and abetted by a continuous stream of corporate sponsored American governments - both Republican and Democrat - this policy of non-disclosure is conscious and deliberate. Just like the Enron scandal, a large part of the impending GM debacle is going to hinge around the issue of non-disclosure..... In the meantime there is already plenty of evidence of harm for the lawyers to be getting stuck into with the more traditional junk foods (see press excerpts below), even though it took decades for this evidence to surface. In addition the willingness of American consumers to sue over the application of new technology is demonstrated by the announcement earlier this month that Vodafone is now subject to a $1 billion claim by mobile phone users in the US who have suffered brain cancer. Vodafone says there is no evidence of a connection between these instances of disease and the use of their technology. Nonetheless, the announcement awkwardly coincides with the publication of new research which has reignited the debate on potential causal links. Unlike GMOs, however, mobile phones have never been introduced on the basis of de facto compulsory consumption. "
America's Looming Food Crisis
NLPWessex, 25 June 2002

"In the impoverished neighborhood of South Los Angeles, fast food is the easiest cuisine to find — and that's a problem for elected officials who see it as an unhealthy source of calories and cholesterol. The City Council was poised to vote Tuesday on a moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in a swath of the city where a proliferation of such eateries goes hand-in-hand with obesity. 'Our communities have an extreme shortage of quality foods,' City Councilman Bernard Parks said."
Los Angeles wants to take bite out of fast food
Associated Press, 29 July 2008

"'It is our responsibility to the residents of the Commonwealth to remove this poison from the food supply,' state [Massachusetts] Representative Peter J. Koutoujian, cochairman of the Legislature's Joint Committee on Public Health, wrote to Public Health Commissioner John Auerbach yesterday. In his letter, Koutoujian cites a Harvard School of Public Health study estimating that a statewide ban on trans fats could prevent 1 in 4 heart attacks and 1,400 deaths per year in Massachusetts."
Bid to ban trans fat statewide gets a boost
Boston Globe, 21 August 2008

"An analysis of the health effects of industrial trans fats conducted by researchers with the Harvard School of Public Health Department of Nutrition indicates that eliminating trans fats from the U.S. food supply could prevent up to 1 in 5 heart attacks and related deaths. That would mean a quarter of a million fewer heart attacks and related deaths each year in the United States alone."
Shining the Spotlight on Trans Fats
Harvard School of Public Health Nutrition Source, 2008

"First cigarettes, now flaky pastry: Arnold Schwarzenegger is being asked to train his sights on another health hazard by outlawing the use of trans fats from all restaurants in California. There is rising concern that trans fats - a key ingredient in food such as margarine, biscuits, crisps and other snacks - poses a public health crisis on the scale of smoking. Although there is a general scientific consensus that trans fats clogs arteries, other less conclusive studies have claimed links between the ingredient and cancer, diabetes, obesity, liver dysfunction and infertility. If the California Governor signs off a law to ban trans fats, it could result in the ingredient disappearing from all American food. The ban would be the biggest of its kind in the United States and force all restaurants and bakeries in California to remove trans fats from non-baked products by July 1 next year and from baked products by July 1, 2010."
Arnold Schwarzenegger to attack fast food
London Times, 16 July 2008

So With GMOs Now Already On The Menu What Has The US Learnt From The Trans Fat Experience?
Zero GM Labelling, Zero GM Monitoring - God Bless America!
Meanwhile Any Adverse Health Effects From GM Foods Which Don't Immediately Cause 'A Monumental Disaster'
Will Likely Not Be Detected For Decades

".... if the industry wants public support, it can no longer dismiss public concerns about the risks of GM crops—health risks for humans but also the ecological risk that GM crops will escape farms and contaminate the wilderness..... Human health risks are even less clear-cut. Though we've yet to see credible reports of GM foods causing human health problems, we've also not had the benefit of credible long-term health studies. Until such studies have been completed, the GM industry needs to stop regarding a skeptical public as a nuisance."
Food Fight
Slate, 8 August 2008

"Monsanto repeatedly states that GE products are reviewed by regulatory agencies. Understanding these agencies role is central to understanding the issue of liability. The biggest misperception about GE crops is that the FDA has tested these plants and declared them safe. What the FDA has done is approved GE crop commercialization based on Monsanto's assurance that the products are safe..... As the world’s leading producer of GE crops Monsanto faces unique risks; these risks require a detailed assessment by senior management and the reporting of that assessment to shareholders....the company’s nominal acknowledgement of GE crop contamination in the face of ever growing scientific and governmental warnings on this issue – show that management is either unprepared for these market changes or did not divulge major risks and strategy changes to investors."
Issue Brief - Monsanto Fails To Identify Risks To Investors
ProxyInformation.com, 2005

"Biotechnology companies can market genetically engineered (GE) foods without notifying the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or obtaining its approval, thanks to regulatory gaps in a system that consumer and environmental groups today asked Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tommy Thompson to fix.... HHS could begin fixing that system, the groups say, by finalizing a rule stalled at the FDA for more than a year. The period for public comment on the rule ended a year ago today. The proposed rule would require premarket notification of bioengineered foods. And while the rule would not require government approval for GE foods, consumer groups say the rule would be a small step in the right direction.... Currently, the FDA only reviews safety data on biotech crops provided by seed companies on a voluntary basis.... 'The public shouldn’t have to rely entirely on the word of a big biotech company when it comes to the safety of food,' [said Gregory Jaffe, director of CSPI’s biotechnology project] 'But under the current rules, companies can bypass the FDA with impunity.'..."
REGULATORY GAP MEANS GE FOODS ARRIVE ON THE MARKET WITHOUT FDA
APPROVAL AND POSSIBLY WITHOUT NOTICE
CSPI Press Release, 3 May 2002

Growth Of Cows Not Affected By Monsanto's GM Soya But Growth Of Rats Were
So What About Humans?

"Despite consumer pleas, the Food and Drug Administration has declined since 1992 to require that genetically modified food seeds be proved safe for consumption before their release into the food supply. Nor does the FDA require ingredient labels for genetically modified foods. Instead, the agency encourages producers to voluntarily submit safety data. Its rationale is that genetically modified foods are substantially equivalent to their conventionally grown counterparts. In other words, food is food, and according to food and drug law, foods are presumed safe. The flaw in this policy is that the presumption of equivalence does not rest on a substantial body of research comparing genetically modified and conventional foods. Far from being confirmed by extensive research, this presumption is challenged even by the producers themselves, notably in a study that Monsanto conducted on one of its biotech foods. Rather than prove safety, this study raised red flags that should have prompted researchers and the FDA to call for more testing.....According to the FDA’s 1992 policy, Monsanto was not required by law to prove the safety of its beans to the FDA before marketing Roundup Ready soybeans. This regulatory effect must be corrected. Toward that end, legislation compelling the FDA to require premarket proof of safety for all genetically modified food seeds should be passed. Monsanto did turn over a study to the FDA in 1994. Eventually published by the Journal of Nutrition in March 1996, the study claimed to prove that Roundup-tolerant soybean seeds are equivalent to conventional ones. But combined data from the study’s three experiments showed significant differences in fat, carbohydrates, ash and some fatty acids. Also, the brain-boosting vitamin choline was 29% lower in Roundup Ready lecithin, which is commonly used as a source of choline...... Allergic reactions are most commonly triggered by undigested proteins. One table in Monsanto’s study shows that, relative to conventional soy meal, raw Roundup Ready soy meal contained 27% more trypsin inhibitor, a potential allergen that interferes with protein digestion and has been associated with enlarged cells in rat pancreases. This important measurement was camouflaged in a table on unrelated information. Because its policy does not require premarket proof of safety or equivalence for genetically modified food, the FDA had little basis for rejecting the study’s results. Perhaps more important, the FDA did not see all the data, specifically, that from Experiment 1, the first of the study’s three experiments. According to FDA representatives, the agency did not ask to see the data....What did the omitted data show? Significantly lower levels of protein and one fatty acid in Roundup Ready soybeans. Significantly lower levels of phenylalanine, an essential amino acid that can potentially affect levels of key estrogen-boosting phytoestrogens, for which soy products are often prescribed and consumed. And higher levels of the allergen trypsin inhibitor in toasted Roundup Ready soy meal than in the control group of soy. Even more unsettling was one measurement of trypsin inhibitor in toasted Roundup Ready soy meal that exceeded what the authors reported as the highest levels measured for soybeans by other researchers. After a second toasting, the levels of another allergen, called lectin, in Roundup Ready soy meal, were nearly double those in conventional beans. Monsanto also conducted a study of the effects of consuming its genetically modified beans, which was also presented to the FDA. Besides possible allergic reactions, what might be expected from consuming higher levels of trypsin-inhibitor and lectin? Slower, or lower, growth, for starters. That is what happened to male rats fed unprocessed meal from Roundup Ready soybeans. Compared with controls, cumulative body weight gains were significantly lower in male rats fed Roundup Ready soy. Although the growth of dairy cattle was not affected, higher levels of fat were measured in the milk of cows fed Roundup Ready soy meal. These analyses did not reveal all the differences between Roundup Ready and conventional beans. In May 2000, Monsanto reported to the FDA the discovery of a genetic surprise package in its soybeans. When company scientists spliced the Roundup-tolerant gene into the bean, they accidentally threw in two extra gene fragments. Not to worry, according to Monsanto representatives: The gene fragments were contained in the Roundup Ready beans approved by the FDA in 1994 and have been consumed nearly worldwide ever since. But this discovery further challenges the presumption of equivalence between genetically modified and conventional foods, while undermining the contention that genetic engineering is precise or predictable. Even so, the genetic hitchhikers, like the red flags in the 1994 study, were barely mentioned in the U.S. media and did not appear to raise FDA concern. Do Monsanto’s own findings prove that Roundup Ready soy products will slow or stunt growth in animals and children, or change the fat content of milk in cows and breast-feeding mothers? Of course not. Do they prove that all Roundup Ready soy will always contain more allergens and less protein? No. But the studies do confirm that transgenic foods need rigorous testing—by someone other than the affected industries and the researchers they fund—before they’re released into the food supply. They also suggest that consumers may not be adequately protected when the FDA leaves the question of biofood safety up to the companies selling the biofoods....In drafting its 1992 policy, FDA representatives relied primarily on an opinion by FDA attorneys that food and drug law did not give the agency responsibility for labeling transgenic foods, and the relevant food and drug law has not changed. Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) have introduced legislation calling to alter this situation. The Genetically Engineered Food Safety Act, co-authored by Kucinich, provides for mandatory safety testing of genetically modified foods before they are released into the food supply."
BIOTECH: SOME FOOD FOR FDA REGULATION
Los Angeles Times, 7 January 2001

"Fresh fears over the safety of genetically modified foods surfaced faced yesterday after new research revealed that food allergies relating to soya increased by 50 per cent last year. A study by Europe's leading specialists on food sensitivity found health complaints caused by soya - the ingredient most associated with GM foods - have increased from 10 in 100 patients to 15 in 100 over the past year. Researchers at the York Nutritional Laboratory said their findings provide real evidence that GM food could have a tangible, harmful impact on the human body. The findings were sent to Health Secretary Frank Dobson last night as scientists urged the Government to act on the information and impose an instant ban on GM food, while further safety tests are carried out. Dr Michael Antoniou, senior lecturer in molecular pathology at Guy's Hospital, Central London,, said: 'This is a very interesting if slightly worrying, development. It 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 and that also needs to be looked at.' John Graham, spokesman for the York laboratory, said: 'We believe this raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods because it is impossible to guarantee that the soya used in the tests was GM-free.' It is the first time in 17 years of testing that soya has crept into the laboratory's top 10 foods to cause an allergic reaction in consumers. The vegetable has moved up four places to ninth end now sits alongside foodstuffs with a long history of causing allergies, such as yeast, sunflower seeds and nuts. Mr. Graham said researchers tested 4,500 people for allergic reactions to vegetables including soya. Among the range of chronic illnesses it caused were irritable bowel syndrome, digestiontion problems and skin complaints including acne and eczema. 'People also suffered neurological problems with chronic fatigue syndrome, headaches and lethargy. It is worrying,' Mr Graham added. Researchers measured the levels of antibodies in a person's blood. If increased levels were detected it showed the person suffered an adverse reaction to a particular food. Soya, the wonder crop of the 20th century is found in 60 per cent of all processed foods sold in the UK - from bread to baby food, ready-to-eat curries to vegetarian lasagne. But because GM and natural soya are mixed at source in America - the world's biggest supplier - it has become increasingly difficult for retailers to guarantee the purity of any products."
Soy Allergies Up Along With GMOs
Daily Express, 12 March 1999

Incredibly Only One Scientific Study On The Direct Impact Of GM Foods On Humans Has Ever Been Published
It Was On The World's Largest GM Crop (Monsanto's Roundup Ready Soya) Long After It Had Been Approved For Commercial Use
The Study Found Unexpected Effects And Britain's Food Standards Agency Tried To Cover It Up

"Why don't we require a pharmaceutical type analysis of the safety of these foods with proper trials? At its last meeting, MISC6 [the Cabinet sub-committee on biotechnology] requested a paper by the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Advisor on human health implications of GM foods. Will we publish this when it is ready (about April) and use it as a means to explain that GM foods on the market are safe? What if it shows up any doubts? What can we do? We will be pressured to ban them immediately. What if it says that we need evidence of long term effects? This will look like we are not sure about their safety ..."
Jack Cunningham, UK cabinet minister with overall responsibility for biotechnology,
raising a variety of issues in relation to GM crops and food in a leaked internal memo to one of his civil servants, February 1999
Guardian, 3 March 1999

"I was recently on a TV talk show where I debated the safety of genetically modified food with someone representing the Food Technology Association. I began with a brief statement on the hazards of rBGH, the synthetic bovine-growth hormone that is now present in nearly all U.S. dairy products. I described how, in 1989, someone dropped off at my office a batch of documents that had been stolen from the Food and Drug Administration’s files on Monsanto, the company that manufactures rBGH. Included was a Monsanto document from 1987 indicating that the company was fully aware of rBGH’s danger and was conspiring with the FDA to suppress information critical to veterinary and public health. The industry representative responded: 'We’ve researched this question of genetically modified foods very closely, and you don’t think we’d sell any product that would be harmful, do you? We’d be shooting ourselves in the foot. We’ve done every conceivable study, and we’re convinced it’s perfectly safe.' I said, 'I hate to be direct, but can you cite me a single study that Monsanto, or anybody else in the industry, has published documenting what questions they’ve asked, what tests they’ve done, and what are the results of those tests?' She hemmed and hawed, saying, 'You can’t expect us to publish every study,' and finally admitted that, no, she couldn’t cite a single study. Basically, she was saying, 'Trust us.' In spite of clear evidence that Monsanto and the FDA have suppressed and manipulated information on genetically modified milk since the 1980s, in 1994 they introduced a new technology into the market, about which they have published minimal information, particularly in regard to cancer risks for which there is well-documented, independent scientific evidence. I see no difference between these groups and the tobacco industry, which gave us these same assurances for decades."
Dr Samuel Epstein, Professor Emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, University of Illinois School of Public Health, Chicago
The Sun Magazine, Issue 291, March 2000

Unintended Effects
How Monsanto's Genetic Engineering Disrupted The Functioning Of The Soya Genome
Bad News For Farmers - But What Are The Associated Health Implications For Consumers?

"Yields were suppressed with GR [Glyphosate Resistant GM] soybean cultivars.....The work reported here demonstrates that a 5% yield suppression was related to the gene or its insertion process [yield 'drag'] and another 5% suppression was due to cultivar genetic differential [yield 'lag']. Producers should consider the potential for 5-10% yield differentials between GR and non-GR cultivars as they evaluate the overall profitability of producing soybean.....Based on our results from this study and those of Elmore et al., 2001, the yield suppression appears associated with the GR gene or its insertion process rather than glyphosate itself."
Elmore et al, Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean Cultivar Yields Compared with Sister Lines
Agronomy Journal 2001, Vol 93, Issue 2: 408-412 (2001)

Burying The Data

"How often have you heard that GE foods are extensively studied for safety? These 'extensive' safety studies make an interesting read. The titles sound reassuring. For example: 'The composition of glyphosate-tolerant [read Roundup Ready] soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans.' That study was presented to the FDA in 1994 during the approval process for Roundup Ready Soybeans. Except that part of it was buried. And it failed to prove equivalence. Even what Monsanto scientists presented to FDA and subsequently published in the JOURNAL OF NUTRITION shows significant differences between GE beans and controls in 3 of the 6 macronutrients measured and in one fatty acid. The researchers did not perform statistical analysis on even larger differences in Roundup Ready beans, such as 29% less choline. They found raw Roundup Ready meal contained 27% more trypsin inhibitor, an allergen that inhibits protein digestion, can retard growth in animals fed raw soybeans, and has been connected to enlarged cells in rat pancreases.....In the unreported Puerto Rico trials, Roundup Ready beans were significantly lower in protein and the amino acid phenylalanine....More disturbing were levels of the allergen trypsin inhibitor in toasted Roundup Ready meal....And in the retoasted meal, levels of allergens called lectins in Roundup Ready beans almost doubled the levels in controls. What might be the result of consuming foods with high levels of trypsin inhibitor and lectin?"
Buried Data in Monsanto's Study on Roundup Ready Soybeans
Whole Life Times, August 2000

"An animal feeding study published by Monsanto showed no apparent problems with GM soy], but their research has been severely criticized as rigged to avoid finding problems. Monsanto used mature animals instead of young, more sensitive ones, diluted their GM soy up to 12-fold, used too much protein, never weighed the organs, and had huge variations in starting weights. The study’s nutrient comparison between GM and non-GM soy revealed significant differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content, lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine. Monsanto researchers had actually omitted the most incriminating nutritional differences, which were later discovered and made public. For example, the published paper showed a 27% increase in a known allergen, trypsin inhibitor, while the recovered data raised that to a 3-fold or 7-fold increase, after the soy was cooked. In addition to promoting allergies, trypsin inhibitor is an anti-nutrient that may impair protein digestion.... A common feature of GM research is that when incriminating evidence surfaces, it is not followed up....Unfortunately, there is a feature about GM crops that may make follow-up studies unreliable. In 2003, a French laboratory analyzed the inserted genes in five GM varieties, including Roundup Ready soybeans. In each case, the genetic sequence was different than that which had been described by the biotech companies years earlier. Had all the companies made a mistake? That’s unlikely. Rather, the inserted genes probably rearranged over time. A Brussels lab confirmed that the genetic sequences were different than what was originally listed. But the sequences discovered in Brussels didn’t all match those found by the French. This suggests that the inserted genes are unstable and can change in different ways. It also means that they are creating new proteins—ones that were never intended or tested.... If regulators officially acknowledged that GM crops were unstable, that would likely cause the foods to be withdrawn from the market. But so far, regulatory agencies have largely ignored the growing body of adverse findings and not dared to threaten the billions of dollars invested by the biotech industry. It may take some dramatic, indisputable and life-threatening discovery."
Dead Babies
The Ecologist, 1 December 2005

John Innes Centre - Europe's Leading Agricultural Biotech Research Laboratory
On Transgene Instability - Click Here

"Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard University School of Public Health, praised New York health officials for considering a ban, which he said could save lives. 'Artificial trans fats are very toxic, and they almost surely causes tens of thousands of premature deaths each year,' he said. 'The federal government should have done this long ago.'"
NYC Health Department Proposes Ban on Trans Fats
Associated Press, 27 September 2006