Archive for 2008

GM Files: Rats Refuse GM Foods, FDA Says GMOs Dangerous, Approves Them

Friday, April 18th, 2008

The Natural Solutions Foundation, the leading Global Health Freedom organization, is proud to present this information to you. We protect your right to know about – and to use – natural ways to maintain and regain your health, no matter where in the world you live. Among your freedoms is the right to clean, unadulterated food free of genetic manipulation, pesticides, heavy metals or other contaminants and access to herbs, supplements, frequency devices and other means as therapies that may benefit or to protect your well-being without drugs and other dangerous interventions, if you choose.

For more information on our global programs, including the International Decade of Nutrition, and our US based ones, please visit us at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org and join the free email list for the Health Freedom eAlerts to keep you in the loop, informed and active defending your right to make your own decisions about your health and wellbeing!
Our activities are supported 100% by your tax deductible donations. Please give generously (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189) to the Natural Solutions Foundation. Thank you for your support.
Feel free to disseminate this information as widely as possible with full attribution.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.organics4U.orgProtect Yourself from Genetically Engineered Foods

By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception

In a study in the early 1990’s rats were fed genetically modified (GM) tomatoes. Well actually, the rats refused to eat them. They were force-fed. Several of the rats developed stomach lesions and seven out of forty died within two weeks.1 Scientists at the FDA who reviewed the study agreed that it did not provide a “demonstration of reasonable certainty of no harm.” In fact, agency scientists warned that GM foods in general might create unpredicted allergies, toxins, antibiotic resistant diseases, and nutritional problems. Internal FDA memos made public from a lawsuit reveal that the scientists urged their superiors to require long-term safety testing to catch these hard-to-detect side effects.2 But FDA political appointees, including a former attorney for Monsanto in charge of policy, ignored the scientists’ warnings. The FDA does not require safety studies. Instead, if the makers of the GM foods claim that they are safe, the agency has no further questions. The GM tomato was approved in 1994.
According to a July 27, 2004 report from the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS),3 the current system of blanket approval of GM foods by the FDA might not detect “unintended changes in the composition of the food.” The process of gene insertion, according to the NAS, could damage the host’s DNA with unpredicted consequences. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), which released its findings a few days earlier, identified a long list of potentially dangerous side effects from GM foods that are not being evaluated. The ICMR called for a complete overhaul of existing regulations.4
The safety studies conducted by the biotech industry are often dismissed by critics as superficial and designed to avoid finding problems. Tragically, scientists who voice their criticism, as well as those who have discovered incriminating evidence, have been threatened, stripped of responsibilities, denied funding or tenure, or fired.5 For example, a UK government-funded study demonstrated that rats fed a GM potato developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth,6 damaged immune systems, partial atrophy of the liver, and inhibited development of their brains, livers and testicles.7 When the lead scientist went public with his concerns, he was promptly fired from his job after 35 years and silenced with threats of a lawsuit.
Americans eat genetically modified foods everyday. Although the GM tomato has been taken off the market, millions of acres of soy, corn, canola, and cotton have had foreign genes inserted into their DNA. The new genes allow the crops to survive applications of herbicide, create their own pesticide, or both. While there are only a handful of published animal safety studies, mounting evidence, which needs to be followed up, suggests that these foods are not safe.
Rats fed GM corn had problems with blood cell, kidney and liver formation.8 Mice fed GM soy had problems with liver cell formation9 and pancreatic function,10 and the livers of rats fed GM canola were heavier.11 Pigs fed GM corn on several Midwest farms developed false pregnancies or sterility.12 Cows fed GM corn in Germany died mysteriously. And twice the number of chickens died when fed GM corn compared to those fed natural corn.13
Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent.14 Without follow-up tests, we can’t be sure if genetic engineering was the cause, but there are plenty of ways in which genetic manipulation can boost allergies.
A gene from a Brazil nut inserted into soybeans made the soy allergenic to those who normally react to Brazil nuts.15
GM soy currently consumed in the US contains a gene from bacteria. The inserted gene creates a protein that was never before part of the human food supply, and might be allergenic.
• Sections of that protein are identical to those found in shrimp and dust mite allergens.16 According to criteria recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), this fact should have disqualified GM soy from approval.
• The sequence of the gene that was inserted into soy has inexplicably rearranged over time.17 The protein it creates is likely to be different than the one intended, and was never subject to any safety studies. It may be allergenic or toxic.
• The process of inserting the foreign gene damaged a section of the soy’s own DNA, scrambling its genetic code.18 This mutation might interfere with DNA expression or create a new, potentially dangerous protein.
• The most common allergen in soy is called trypsin inhibitor. GM soy contains significantly more of this compared with natural soy.19
The only human feeding study ever conducted showed that the gene inserted into soybeans spontaneously transferred out of food and into the DNA of gut bacteria.20 This has several serious implications. First, it means that the bacteria inside our intestines, newly equipped with this foreign gene, may create the novel protein inside of us. If it is allergenic or toxic, it may affect us for the long term, even if we give up eating GM soy.
The same study verified that the promoter, which scientists attach to the inserted gene to permanently switch it on, also transferred to gut bacteria. Research on this promoter suggests that it might unintentionally switch on other genes in the DNA—permanently.21 This could create an overproduction of allergens, toxins, carcinogens, or antinutrients. Scientists also theorize that the promoter might switch on dormant viruses embedded in the DNA or generate mutations.22
Unfortunately, gene transfer from GM food might not be limited to our gut bacteria. Preliminary results show that the promoter also transferred into rat organs, after they were fed only a single GM meal.23
This is only a partial list of what may go wrong with a single GM food crop. The list for others may be longer. Take for example, the corn inserted with a gene that creates its own pesticide. We eat that pesticide, and plenty of evidence suggests that it is not as benign as the biotech proponents would have us believe. Preliminary evidence, for example, shows that thirty-nine Philippinos living next to a pesticide-producing cornfield developed skin, intestinal, and respiratory reactions while the corn was pollinating. Tests of their blood also showed an immune response to the pesticide.24 Consider what might happen if the gene that produces the pesticide were to transfer from the corn we eat into our gut bacteria. It could theoretically transform our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories.
GM corn and most GM crops are also inserted with antibiotic resistant genes. The ICMR, along with the American Medical Association, the WHO, and organizations worldwide, have expressed concern about the possibility that these might transfer to pathogenic bacteria inside our gut. They are afraid that it might create new, antibiotic resistant super-diseases. The defense that the biotech industry used to counter these fears was that the DNA was fully destroyed during digestion and therefore no such transfer of genes was possible. The human feeding study described above, published in February 2004, overturned this baseless assumption.
No one monitors human health impacts of GM foods. If the foods were creating health problems in the US population, it might take years or decades before we identified the cause. One epidemic in the 1980’s provides a chilling example. A new disease was caused by a brand of the food supplement L-tryptophan, which had been created through genetic modification and contained tiny traces of contaminants. The disease killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness or disability in about 5-10,000 others.25 The only reason that doctors were able to identify that an epidemic was occurring, was because the disease had three simultaneous characteristics: it was rare, acute, and fast acting. Even then it was nearly missed entirely.
Studies show that the more people learn about GM foods, the less they trust them.26 In Europe, Japan, and other regions, the press has been far more open about the potential dangers of genetic manipulation. Consequently, consumers there demand that their food supply be GM-free and manufacturers comply. But in the US, most people believe they have never eaten a GM food in their lives27 (even though they consume them daily). Lacking awareness, complacent consumers have been the key asset for the biotech industry in the US. As a result, millions of Americans are exposed to the potential dangers, and children are most at risk. Perhaps the revelations in the reports released on opposite sides of the planet will awaken consumers as well as regulators, and GM foods on the market will be withdrawn.

This is the first in a series of articles by Jeffrey Smith. To learn more about GM foods and how to avoid them, to download a letter to food manufacturers, and to receive a free monthly electronic newsletter with the rest of the series, go to www.seedsofdeception.com.
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating, and the Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. He has traveled to five continents to inform world leaders and the public on the documented risks of genetically modified foods and crops and the controversies surrounding their approval. See www.seedsofdeception.com for the current tour schedule.
(References available at www.seedsofdeception.com)
© Copyright 2004 by Jeffrey M. Smith. Permission is granted to reproduce this in whole or in part.
References
1. Pusztai, A. et al. (2003) Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects. In: Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins (ed. JPF D’Mello) pp. 347-372. CAB International, Wallingford Oxon, UK
2. www.biointegrity.org
3. SAFETY OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS: APPROACHES TO ASSESSING UNINTENDED HEALTH EFFECTS, Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health, Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS, Washington, D.C., 2004
4. Ashok B. Sharma, “ICMR Wants Overhaul Of GM Foods Regulation,” Financial Express, New Delhi, India July 25, 2004
5. Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, Iowa, US, 2003
6. Ewen, SWB & Pusztai, A. (1999) Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354, 1727-1728.
7. Personal communication with Arpad Pusztai.
8. French experts very disturbed by health effects of Monsanto GM corn (24/4/2004), www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3308, Translation of Le Monde article “L’expertise confidentielle sur un inquiétant maïs transgénique,” Confidential report on a worrying GM corn by Herve Kempf, 22.04.04, www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3226,36-362061,0.html. Also see Spilling the Beans, June 2005, www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/June05GMCornHealthDangerExposed/index.cfm
9. Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, et al “Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean”. Cell Structure and Function Vol. 27 (2002), No. 4, pp. 173-18. www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3622
10. Manuela Malatesta, et al, Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Journal of Anatomy, Volume 201 Issue 5 p. 409, November 2002
11. Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, Advice on a notification for marketing of herbicide tolerant GM oilseed rape, www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/advice/pdf/acre_advice36.pdf
12. www.savejerryscorn.org/
13. Report for the Chardon LL Hearing, Non-Suitability of Genetically Engineered Feed for Animals, Dr. Eva Novotny, Scientists for Global Responsibility, May 2002, www.sgr.org.uk/GenEng/animalfeel_all.pdf
14. Mark Townsend, “Why soya is a hidden destroyer,” Daily Express, March 12, 1999
15. J Ordlee, et al, “Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans,” The New Englandd Journal of Medicine, March 14, 1996
16. G. A. Kleter and A. A. C. M. Peijnenburg, “Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences indentical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens,” BMC Structural Biology, vol. 2, 2002, p. 8-19
17. Mae-Wan Ho, Transgenic Lines Proven Unstable, www.i-sis.org.uk/TLPU.php about Collonier C, et al, Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity. Poster courtesy of Pr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN, www.crii-gen.org
18. P. Windels, I. Taverniers, A. Depicker, E. Van Bockstaele, and M. DeLoose, “Characterisation of the Roundup Ready soybean insert,” European Food Research and Technology, vol. 213, 2001, pp. 107-112
19. Stephen R. Padgette and others, “The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans,” The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996 (Data was taken from the journal archives, as they had been omitted from the published study. It was reported by Barbara Keeler and Marc Lappé, “Some Food for FDA Regulation,” Los Angeles Times, January 7, 2001)
20. Netherwood, et al, Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract, Nature Biotechnology, Vol 22 Number 2 February 2004.
21. Michael Hansen, “Possible Human Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Bt Crops: Comments on the human health and product characterization sections of EPA’s Bt Plant-Pesticides Biopesticides Registration Action Document,” Presented to the EPA Science Advisory Panel Arlington, VA, October 20, 2000
22. Mae-Wan Ho, Angela Ryan and Joe Cummins, “Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter—A Recipe for Disaster?” Institute of Science in Society, www.i-sis.org.uk/camvrecdis.php
23. Jeffrey M. Smith, The cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) promoter was found intact in rat tissues after a single meal, and was also confirmed to be active in human cells, Press Release, February 2004, www.seedsofdeception.com/Media-rattissue.php
24. Jeffrey M. Smith, Bt-maize (corn) during pollination, may trigger disease in people living near the cornfield, Press Release February 2004, www.seedsofdeception.com/Media-maizepollen.php and Allen V. Estabillo, Farmer’s group urges ban on planting Bt corn; says it could be cause of illnesses, Mindanews / 19 October 2004, www.seedsofdeception.com/Media-update-Philippines-BT-corn.php
25. Jeffrey M. Smith, “Deadly Epidemic,” Chapter 4 in Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, Iowa, US, 2003
26. GM Nation? The findings of the public debate, www.gmnation.org.uk/ut_09/ut_9_6.htm#summary
27. Public Sentiment About Genetically Modified Food, September 2003 Update, Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, http://pewagbiotech.org/research/2003update

GM Files: Unintended Health Risks of GMOs

Friday, April 18th, 2008

The Natural Solutions Foundation, the leading Global Health Freedom organization, is proud to present this information to you. We protect your right to know about – and to use – natural ways to maintain and regain your health, no matter where in the world you live. Among your freedoms is the right to clean, unadulterated food free of genetic manipulation, pesticides, heavy metals or other contaminants and access to herbs, supplements, frequency devices and other means as therapies that may benefit or to protect your well-being without drugs and other dangerous interventions, if you choose.

For more information on our global programs, including the International Decade of Nutrition, and our US based ones, please visit us at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org and join the free email list for the Health Freedom eAlerts to keep you in the loop, informed and active defending your right to make your own decisions about your health and wellbeing!
Our activities are supported 100% by your tax deductible donations. Please give generously (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189) to the Natural Solutions Foundation. Thank you for your support.
Feel free to disseminate this information as widely as possible with full attribution.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.organics4U.org

Unintended GMO Health Risks

Genetically modified foods:

YES, you are already eating them.
NO, they are not safe to eat.

Did you know… since 1996 Americans have been eating genetically modified (GM) ingredients in most processed foods.

Did you know… GM plants, such as soybean, corn, cottonseed, and canola have had foreign genes forced into their DNA. And the inserted genes come from species, such as bacteria and viruses, that have never been in the human food supply.

Did you know… genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not safe. They have been linked to thousands of toxic and allergenic reactions, thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals.

Find out what the risks are and start protecting yourself and your family today!

Why isn’t the FDA protecting us?

In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration claimed that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different from conventionally grown foods and therefore were safe to eat. But internal memos made public by a lawsuit reveal that their position was staged by political appointees under orders from the White House to promote GMOs. FDA scientists, on the other hand, warned that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long term safety studies, but were ignored.[1] The FDA does not require any safety evaluations for GMOs. Instead, biotech companies, who have been found guilty of hiding toxic effects of their chemical products, are now in charge of determining whether their GM foods are safe. (The FDA official in charge of creating this policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney and later their vice president.)

Although these biotech companies participate in a voluntary consultation process with the FDA, it is a meaningless exercise. The summaries of the superficial research they submit cannot identify most of the health risks of GMOs.[2]

Genetic modification is radically different from natural breeding

In contrast to the statements of biotech advocates, FDA scientists and others affirm that genetic modification is not just an extension of the conventional breeding techniques that have been used by farmers for millennia. Genetic engineering transfers genes across natural species barriers, using imprecise laboratory techniques that bear no resemblance to natural breeding. Furthermore, the technology is based on outdated concepts of how genes and cells work.[3]

Widespread, unpredictable changes

Gene insertion is done either by shooting genes from a “gene gun” into a plate of cells or by using bacteria to invade the cell with foreign DNA. The altered cell is then cloned into a plant. These processes create massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the plant’s DNA.[4] Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their levels of expression.[5]

In addition:

*
The inserted gene is often rearranged;[6]
* It may transfer from the food into our body’s cells or into the DNA of bacteria inside us;[7] and
* The GM protein produced by the gene may have unintended properties or effects.

GM foods on the market

The primary reason companies genetically engineer plants is to make them tolerant to their brand of herbicide. The four major GM plants, soy, corn, canola, and cotton, are designed to survive an otherwise deadly dose of weed killer. These crops have much higher residues of toxic herbicides. About 68% of GM crops are herbicide tolerant.

The second GM trait is a built-in pesticide. A gene from the soil bacterium called Bt (for Bacillus thuringiensis) is inserted into corn and cotton DNA, where it secretes the insect-killing Bt-toxin in every cell. About 19% of GM crops produce their own pesticide. Another 13% produce a pesticide and are herbicide tolerant.

There is also Hawaiian papaya and a small amount of zucchini and yellow crookneck squash, which are engineered to resist a plant virus. Help stop the introduction of GM sugar in late 2008. Send a letter to top companies on our website.

Growing evidence of harm from GMOs
GM soy and allergic reactions

* Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced.[8]
* A human subject showed a skin prick allergic-type reaction to GM soy, but not to natural soy.[9]
* The level of one known soy allergen is as much as 7-times higher in cooked GM soy compared to non-GM soy.[10]
* GM soy also contains an unexpected allergen-type protein not found in natural soy.[11]

Bt corn and cotton linked to allergies

The biotech industry claims that Bt-toxin is harmless to humans and mammals because the natural bacteria version has been used as a spray by farmers for years. In reality, hundreds of people exposed to Bt spray had allergic-type symptoms,[12] and mice fed Bt had powerful immune responses[13] and damaged intestines.[14] Moreover, Bt in GM crops is designed to be more toxic than the natural spray and is thousands of times more concentrated.

Hundreds of laborers in India report allergic reactions from handling Bt cotton.[15] Their symptoms are identical to those exposed to Bt spray.[16]

GMOs fail allergy tests

No tests can guarantee that a GMO will not cause allergies. Although the World Health Organization recommends a protein screening protocol,[17] the GM soy, corn, and papaya in our food supply fail those tests— because they have properties of known allergens.[18]

GMOs cause immune reactions to non-GM foods

* If proteins “digest” slowly, there is more time for allergic reactions. Because GM soy reduces digestive enzymes in mice,[19] it may slow protein digestion and promote allergies to many foods.
* Mice not only reacted to Bt -toxin, they had immune responses to formerly harmless compounds.[20]
* Similarly, a mouse test indicated that people eating GM peas could develop allergies both to the peas and to a range of other foods. The peas had already passed all the allergy tests normally used to get GMOs on the market. It took this advanced mouse test, which was never used on the GMOs we eat, to discover that the peas could be deadly.[21]

GMOs and liver problems

* Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller, partially atrophied livers.[22]
* The livers of rats fed GM canola were 12-16% heavier.[23]
* GM soy altered mouse liver cells in ways that suggest a toxic insult.[24] The changes reversed after their diet switched to non-GM soy.[25]

GM soy, reproductive problems, and infant mortality

* More than half the offspring of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks.[26]
* Male rats[27] and mice[28] fed GM soy showed changes in their testicles; the mice had altered young sperm cells.
* The DNA of mouse embryos whose parents ate GM soy functioned differently than those whose parents ate non-GM soy.[29]

Many offspring of female rats fed GM soy were considerably
smaller,and more than half died within three weeks (compared
to 10% of the non-GM soy controls). [30]

Bt crops linked to sterility, disease, and death

* When sheep grazed on Bt cotton plants after harvest, within a week 1 in 4 died. Shepherds estimate 10,000 sheep deaths in one region of India.[31]
* Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties.[32]
* About two dozen US farmers report that Bt corn varieties caused widespread sterility in pigs or cows.[33]
* Filipinos in at least five villages fell sick when a nearby Bt corn variety was pollinating.[34]

The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may be a precursor to cancer. Rats also had damaged organs and immune systems.[35]

Functioning GM genes remain inside you

Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment verified that genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and continues to function.[36] This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us.

* If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics.
* If the gene that creates Bt -toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories.
* Animal studies show that DNA in food can travel into organs throughout the body, even into the fetus.[37]

GM food supplement caused deadly epidemic

In the 1980s, a contaminated brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness and disability in another 5,000-10,000 people. The source of contaminants was almost certainly the genetic engineering process used in its production.[38] The disease took years to find and was almost overlooked. It was only identified because the symptoms were unique, acute, and fast-acting. If all three characteristics were not in place, the deadly GM supplement might never have been identified or removed.

If GM foods on the market are causing common diseases or if their effects appear only after long-term exposure, we may not be able to identify the source of the problem for decades, if at all. There is no monitoring of GMO-related problems and no long-term animal studies. Heavily invested biotech corporations are gambling away the health of our nation for profit.

Help end the genetic engineering of our food supply

When the tipping point of consumer concern about GMOs was achieved in Europe in 1999, within a single week virtually all major food manufacturers committed to remove GM ingredients. The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to reach a similar tipping point in the US before the end of 2009.

Our growing network of manufacturers, retailers, healthcare practitioners, organizations, and the media, is informing consumers of the health risks of GMOs and helping them select healthier non-GMO alternatives.

Go to www.responsibletechnology.org to get involved and learn how to avoid GMOs. Look for our Non-GMO Shopping Guide in summer 2008.

Start buying non-GMO today.

Help us stop the genetic engineering of our food supply.

Donations to the Institute For Responsible Technology are tax-deductible. Your $25 membership includes a free educational gift.
There are three ways to become a member or make a donation:

1.
By mail: Institute For Responsible Technology, P.O. Box 469, Fairfield, IA 52556
2.
Online: www.responsibletechnology.org
3.
By phone: (641) 209-1765

The health information is from the book Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risk of Genetically Engineered Foods, by Jeffrey M. Smith.

© copyright Institute For Responsible Technology 2008. The Institute is a fully tax deductible project of The Coordinating Council, a 501c(3).
[1] See www.biointegrity.org
[2] See Part 2, Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2007
[3] See for example 233-236, chart of disproved assumptions, in Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2007
[4] J. R. Latham, et al., “The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation,” The Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006, Article ID 25376: 1-7; see also Allison Wilson, et. al., “Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications,” Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews – Vol. 23, December 2006.
[5] Srivastava, et al, “Pharmacogenomics of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) and the cystic fibrosis drug CPX using genome microarray analysis,” Mol Med. 5, no. 11(Nov 1999):753–67.
[6] Latham et al, “The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation, Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006:1-7, article ID 25376, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/JBB/index.html; Draft risk analysis report application A378, Food derived from glyphosate-tolerant sugarbeet line 77 (GTSB77),” ANZFA, March 7, 2001, www.agbios.com/docroot/decdocs/anzfa_gtsb77.pdf; E. Levine et al., “Molecular Characterization of Insect Protected Corn Line MON 810.” Unpublished study submitted to the EPA by Monsanto, EPA MRID No. 436655-01C (1995); Allison Wilson, PhD, Jonathan Latham, PhD, and Ricarda Steinbrecher, PhD, “Genome Scrambling—Myth or Reality? Transformation-Induced Mutations in Transgenic Crop Plants Technical Report—October 2004,” www.econexus.info; C. Collonier, G. Berthier, F. Boyer, M. N. Duplan, S. Fernandez, N. Kebdani, A. Kobilinsky, M. Romanuk, Y. Bertheau, “Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity,” Poster presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology (n°VII), Barcelona, 23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN, www.crii-gen.org; also “Transgenic lines proven unstable” by Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS Report, 23 October 2003, www.i-sis.org.uk
[7] Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2; Chowdhury, et al, “Detection of genetically modified maize DNA fragments in the intestinal contents of pigs fed StarLink CBH351,” Vet Hum Toxicol. 45 , no. 2 (March 2003): 95–6; P. A. Chambers, et al, “The fate of antibiotic resistance marker genes in transgenic plant feed material fed to chickens,” J. Antimic. Chemother. 49 (2000): 161–164; and Paula S. Duggan, et al, “Fate of genetically modified maize DNA in the oral cavity and rumen of sheep,” Br J Nutr. 89, no 2 (Feb.2003): 159–66.
[8] Mark Townsend, “Why soya is a hidden destroyer,” Daily Express, March 12, 1999.
[9] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).
[10] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, “GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks,” Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005.
[11] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).
[12] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852; and M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook, Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray (Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992)
[13] Vazquez et al, “Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice,” 1897–1912; Vazquez et al, “Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice,” Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33 (2000): 147–155; and Vazquez et al, “Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant,” Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999): 578–584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).
[14] Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, “Fine Structural Changes in the Ileum of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes,” Natural Toxins 6, no. 6 (1998): 219–233.
[15] See for example “Bt cotton causing allergic reaction in MP; cattle dead,” Bhopal, Nov. 23, 2005, http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=170692&cat=Health;
[16] Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005; and M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852; and M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook, Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray (Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992)
[17] FAO-WHO, “Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology,” Jan. 22–25, 2001; http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/pdf/allergygm.pdf
[18] Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62; G. A. Kleter and A. A. C. M. Peijnenburg, “Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences indentical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens,” BMC Structural Biology 2 (2002): 8–19; H. P. J. M. Noteborn, “Assessment of the Stability to Digestion and Bioavailability of the LYS Mutant Cry9C Protein from Bacillus thuringiensis serovar tolworthi,” Unpublished study submitted to the EPA by AgrEvo, EPA MRID No. 447343-05 (1998); and H. P. J. M. Noteborn et al, “Safety Assessment of the Bacillus thuringiensis Insecticidal Crystal Protein CRYIA(b) Expressed in Transgenic Tomatoes,” in Genetically modified foods: safety issues, American Chemical Society Symposium Series 605, eds. K.H. Engel et al., (Washington, DC, 1995): 134–47.
[19] M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera, E. Manuali, M. B. L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, “Fine Structural Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean,” Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385–388.
[20] Vazquez et al, “Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant,” Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999): 578–584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).
[21] V. E. Prescott, et al, “Transgenic Expression of Bean r-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity,” Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry (2005): 53.
[22] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84
[23] Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363 from the Food Legislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, “Food produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73,” http://www.iher.org.au/
[24] M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini, C. Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, “Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173–180.
[25] M. Malatesta, C. Tiberi, B. Baldelli, S. Battistelli, E. Manuali, M. Biggiogera, “Reversibility of Hepatocyte Nuclear Modifications in Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” Eur J Histochem, 49 (2005): 237-242.
[26] I.V. Ermakova, “Diet with the Soya Modified by Gene EPSPS CP4 Leads to Anxiety and Aggression in Rats,” 14th European Congress of Psychiatry. Nice, France, March 4-8, 2006; “Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of Russian scientists’ studies,” REGNUM, October 12, 2005; http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html; Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.
[27] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[28] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.
[29] Oliveri et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006.
[30] I.V. Ermakova, “Diet with the Soya Modified by Gene EPSPS CP4 Leads to Anxiety and Aggression in Rats,” 14th European Congress of Psychiatry. Nice, France, March 4-8, 2006; “Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of Russian scientists’ studies,” REGNUM, October 12, 2005; http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html; Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.
[31] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6494
[32] Mae-Wan Ho, “GM Ban Long Overdue, Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the Philippines,” ISIS Press Release, June 2, 2006; and Mae-Wan Ho and Sam Burcher, “Cows Ate GM Maize & Died,” ISIS Press Release, January 13, 2004, http://www.isis.org.uk/CAGMMAD.php
[33] Personal communication with Jerry Rosman and other farmers, 2006; also reported widely in the farm press.
[34] See for example Mae-Wan Ho, “GM Ban Long Overdue, Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the Philippines,” ISIS Press Release, June 2, 2006; “Study Result Not Final, Proof Bt Corn Harmful to Farmers,” BusinessWorld, 02 Mar 2004; and “Genetically Modified Crops and Illness Linked,” Manila Bulletin, 04 Mar 2004.
[35] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84; Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad Pusztai, “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine,” Lancet, 1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4; and Arpad Pusztai, “Facts Behind the GM Pea Controversy: Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment,” Proceedings of the Conference, December 1st 2005 (Frankfurtam Main, Germany: Literaturhaus, 2005)
[36] Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.
[37] Ricarda A. Steinbrecher and Jonathan R. Latham, “Horizontal gene transfer from GM crops to unrelated organisms,” GM Science Review Meeting of the Royal Society of Edinburgh on “GM Gene Flow: Scale and Consequences for Agriculture and the Environment,” January 27, 2003; Traavik and Heinemann, Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research; citing Schubbert, et al, “Ingested foreign (phage M13) DNA survives transiently in the gastrointestinal tract and enters the bloodstream of mice,” Mol Gen Genet. 242, no. 5 (1994): 495–504; Schubbert et al, “Foreign (M13) DNA ingested by mice reaches peripheral leukocytes, spleen, and liver via the intestinal wall mucosa and can be covalently linked to mouse DNA,” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94, no. 3 (1997): 961–6; Schubbert et al, “On the fate of orally ingested foreign DNA in mice: chromosomal association and placental transmission to the fetus,” Mol Gen Genet. 259, no. 6 (1998): 569–76; Hohlweg and Doerfler, “On the fate of plants or other foreign genes upon the uptake in food or after intramuscular injection in mice,” Mol Genet Genomics 265 (2001): 225–233; Palka-Santani, et al., “The gastrointestinal tract as the portal of entry for foreign macromolecules: fate of DNA and proteins,” Mol Gen Genomics 270 (2003): 201–215; Einspanier, et al, “The fate of forage plant DNA in farm animals; a collaborative case-study investigating cattle and chicken fed recombinant plant material,” Eur Food Res Technol 212 (2001): 129–134; Klotz, et al, “Degradation and possible carry over of feed DNA monitored in pigs and poultry,” Eur Food Res Technol 214 (2002): 271–275; Forsman, et al, “Uptake of amplifiable fragments of retrotransposon DNA from the human alimentary tract,” Mol Gen Genomics 270 (2003): 362–368; Chen, et al, “Transfection of mEpo gene to intestinal epithelium in vivo mediated by oral delivery of chitosan-DNA nanoparticles,” World Journal of Gastroenterology 10, no 1(2004): 112–116; Phipps, et al, “Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in rumen fluid, duodenal digesta, milk, blood, and feces of lactating dairy cows,” J Dairy Sci. 86, no. 12(2003): 4070–8.
[38] William E. Crist, Toxic L-tryptophan: Shedding Light on a Mysterious Epidemic, http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptophan/index.cfm; and Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2003, chapter 4, Deadly Epidemic.

GM Files: GMOs and Drug Resistent Tuberculosis

Friday, April 18th, 2008

The Natural Solutions Foundation, the leading Global Health Freedom organization, is proud to present this information to you. We protect your right to know about – and to use – natural ways to maintain and regain your health, no matter where in the world you live. Among your freedoms is the right to clean, unadulterated food free of genetic manipulation, pesticides, heavy metals or other contaminants and access to herbs, supplements, frequency devices and other means as therapies that may benefit or to protect your well-being without drugs and other dangerous interventions, if you choose.

For more information on our global programs, including the International Decade of Nutrition, and our US based ones, please visit us at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org and join the free email list for the Health Freedom eAlerts to keep you in the loop, informed and active defending your right to make your own decisions about your health and wellbeing!
Our activities are supported 100% by your tax deductible donations. Please give generously (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189) to the Natural Solutions Foundation. Thank you for your support.
Feel free to disseminate this information as widely as possible with full attribution.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.organics4U.org

Correlation between GMOs and multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis—Ingrid Blank

“Instead of blaming multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis on patients and their alleged non-adherence to the prescribed drug regime, it would be prudent to investigate and eradicate the underlying cause for multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis and other drug and antibiotic resistant infectious diseases first – namely commercial gene technology!

The disaster unfolding on a global scale is exactly the reason why the first genetic engineers called for a moratorium in the Asilomar Declaration of 1975. For decades, reputable and ethical scientists such as Dr. Mae Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins have warned -substantiated by scientific evidence – that horizontal gene transfer, i.e. the transfer of genes by vectors (viruses and other infectious agents)designed to cross species barriers and thus enhancing the potential for creating new viral and bacterial pathogens, will result in the creation of superbugs and multi-drug resistant diseases. According to these eminent genetic researchers, strains of bacteria “crippled” in the laboratory can survive in the environment and exchange genes with other organisms. DNA from dead and living cells persists in the environment and transfers to other organisms. Naked viral DNA (virus without its viral coat)is even more infectious and may well be taken up by mammalian cells including our own! In addition, viral DNA has shown to resist digestion in the gut of mice, enters the blood stream to infect white blood cells, spleen and liver cells. One such virus most commonly used as a promoter in genetic engineering is the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV)which, due to its recombination hotspot, is prone to break and join with other DNA to integrate into the cell’s genome, which could activate host genes and lead to cancer. In addition, CaMV is closely related to the Hepatitis B and HIV virus and due to its ability to propagate in plant and insect hosts after recombination may also recombine with related Hepatitis B and HIV to create a most powerful disease in a large number of people consuming large numbers of virus genes incorporated into crop plants.

In the South African setting, the number of people at risk could not get any larger, since our government unilaterally decided without the peoples’ knowledge and above all prior CONSENT, to grow our staple food (white maize) in genetically modified form without adhering to the precautionary principle, thus violating our constitutional rights to a healthy environment and healthy food. For the reasons described above it is therefore imperative to demand immediate implementation of mandatory labeling of genetically modified food products in compliance with our constitutional rights of informed choice and consent, participation in decision-making processes and above all the individual’s right to bodily integrity, the latter being the most significant provision of the Nuremberg Code, which sets forth the legal requirements for human experimentation, i.e. ” voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”. Likewise, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares bodily integrity central to both human rights and human dignity and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights unmistakably declares that “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation”. By deliberately ignoring the precautionary principle and refusing to implement mandatory labeling of GM products, this government allows its citizens to be used as guinea pigs, sacrificing the nation’s health for corporate greed.

There is no such thing as “substantial equivalence”. This phrase was coined by scientifically illiterate lawyers of the biotech industry and in 1992 written into law by H.W. Bush, who proclaimed GM plants to be “substantially equivalent” to their traditional counterparts and therefore did not need any special health safety study or testing. Ethical scientists and researchers consider this the biggest farce and fraud ever committed in the science field. Contrary to what the corporate yarn spinners of biotech companies want the public to believe, not one single human safety study has ever been conducted!

One does not need a PhD in genetics to see the correlation between GMOs and the sharp rise in HIV infections and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis and other diseases.The decision-makers who keep violating our human right to bodily integrity by unleashing these toxins into our environment and food chain without our knowledge and consent must be held accountable.

Ingrid Blank/South Africa

GM Files: Making the World GM-Free and Sustainable

Friday, April 18th, 2008

The Natural Solutions Foundation, the leading Global Health Freedom organization, is proud to present this information to you. We protect your right to know about – and to use – natural ways to maintain and regain your health, no matter where in the world you live. Among your freedoms is the right to clean, unadulterated food free of genetic manipulation, pesticides, heavy metals or other contaminants and access to herbs, supplements, frequency devices and other means as therapies that may benefit or to protect your well-being without drugs and other dangerous interventions, if you choose.

For more information on our global programs, including the International Decade of Nutrition, and our US based ones, please visit us at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org and join the free email list for the Health Freedom eAlerts to keep you in the loop, informed and active defending your right to make your own decisions about your health and wellbeing!
Our activities are supported 100% by your tax deductible donations. Please give generously (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189) to the Natural Solutions Foundation. Thank you for your support.
Feel free to disseminate this information as widely as possible with full attribution.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.organics4U.org

Making the World GM-Free and Sustainable
http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/gm-free-sustainable.html

By Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, PhD, director of the London-based Institute for Science in
Society (ISIS), (i-sis.org.uk) delivered this article as the keynote
address at Wise Traditions 2006, the 7th annual conference of the Weston A.
Price Foundation.

Genetically modified (GM) crops epitomize industrial monoculture, with its
worst features exaggerated. They are part and parcel of the “environmental
bubble economy,” built on the over-exploitation of natural resources, which
has destroyed the environment, depleted water and fossil fuels and
accelerated global warming. As a result, world grain yields have been
falling for six of the seven past years. Expanding the cultivation of GM
crops at this time is a recipe for global bio-devastation, massive crop
failures and global famine. GM crops are a dangerous diversion from the
urgent task of getting our food system sustainable in order to really feed
the world.

We possess a wealth of knowledge for making our food system sustainable and
for providing food security and health for all, while effectively
mitigating global warming. The greatest obstacle to implementing that
knowledge is the dominant economic model of unrestrained, unbalanced growth
that has precipitated the current crises.

I have proposed to put together all the appropriate technologies in a
potentially highly productive zero-emission, zero-waste food and energy
“Dream Farm 2” based on a model of sustainable systems as organisms. It is
our best way forward to a greener, healthier and more fulfilling life
without fossil fuels.
Stunted Rats

The latest alarming findings on the health hazards of GM food come from the
laboratory of senior scientist Dr. Irina Ermakova at the Russian Academy of
Sciences in Moscow. Her experiments began two years ago, and the initial
results hit the world press when Ermakova was invited to address the 11th
Russian Gastroenterological Week in Moscow in October, 2005.

Female rats given a supplement of GM Roundup Ready soya beginning two weeks
before mating and continuing afterwards through pregnancy and lactation
produced litters in which more than a third of the pups were severely
stunted, and over half of the pups died within three weeks after birth.1
Stunting was five to six times, and mortality six to eight times those of
control litters produced by females on normal rat pellets only, or rat
pellets supplemented with non-GM soya. These results were confirmed in
further experiments. In addition, the surviving pups from the GM soya-fed
females were completely sterile when mated with one another whether they
continued to be fed GM soya or not.
Criminal Negligence

Ermakova’s findings are by no means an isolated case peculiar to a specific
batch of GM soya. They are the latest in a long line of evidence (see
sidebar) from all over the world indicating that GM food and feed may be
inherently hazardous to animal and human health.

Many GM crops–soybean, tomato, maize, cotton, potato, pea–with different
transgenes, fed to rats, mice, cows, sheep, chickens or human beings–have
resulted in illness and deaths. You don’t have to be a scientific genius to
suspect that the genetic modification process itself or the artificial
genetic material used in genetic modification could be causing problems.

Evidence of GM hazards has been emerging since the 1980s, evidence that
should have halted the development of many GM crops.2 But our regulators
have acted with bias in favor of GM from the beginning and have
systematically ignored and dismissed research findings that might harm the
fledgling biotech industry.11 By now, the evidence has accumulated to such
an extent that regulators should be answering a charge of criminal
negligence at the very least in continuing their campaign of denial and
misrepresentation while failing to impose a ban on further releases of all
GM crops until and unless they have been proven safe by thorough
independent investigations.5

A ban on further releases is all the more important, as so many scientists
have tried to tell the public what they know. But instead of decisive
action, Ermakova’s funding has been cut, and she is now strongly
discouraged from continuing with the research. She is pleading for other
scientists to repeat her work to see whether they can replicate her
results.

Meanwhile, the biotech industry is aggressively pushing the next generation
of GM food and feed, and our ever-permissive government regulators are
obligingly reassuring everyone that “GM food is safe.”
Think Again

For those who believe that “GM food is safe” because “people have been
eating GM food since its first release in 1994 and no one has fallen ill or
died from it,” think again. First, there has been no labelling in countries
like the US where GM food and feed are most available. Second, many GM
products are “de-regulated” and hence not known or traceable as such.
Third, there has been no post-release monitoring, so it is impossible to
tell how many people and animals have become ill or have died from eating
GM food and feed, even though in 1999, researchers at the Centers for
Disease Control published a paper suggesting that food-related illnesses
increased two- to ten-fold compared with results of a survey carried out
just before GM food was commercially released in 1994.12,13

Fourth, GM food and feed may be linked to chronic illnesses such as
autoimmune disease, slow viruses or cancer,14 which may be difficult to
detect. Finally, animal feed accounts for up to half the world’s harvest,15
so most of the GM produce so far has probably ended up in animal feed after
being processed for seed oil, corn starch, corn syrup and, increasingly,
ethanol and biodiesel.16,17 That means GM produce is seldom eaten directly
by either animals or human beings so far. But that is soon to change, if
proponents have their way.
New Generation GM foods

The first GM crop, Calgene’s Flavr Savr tomato for prolonged shelf life,
was approved for commercial release in 1992. It was a complete flop. Since
then, however, the area planted to GM crops has been steadily increasing,
and, according to industry sources, reached 90 million hectares in 2005.19
It should be emphasized that this comprises only 1.8 percent of the world’s
agricultural land, and is confined largely to the US, Argentina and Canada.
Two traits–herbicide-tolerance and insect-resistance–currently account
for nearly all GM crops, but not for long.

New GM crops with other traits and other GM gut bacteria are poised to
enter the market, in the guise of nutritional benefits and health
foods.20,21 Food crops genetically modified to overproduce single nutrients
could be public health hazards, as overdoses of many single nutritional
factors are known to be toxic; and genetically modifying natural gut
bacteria could turn into pathogens pre-adapted to invade the human gut.

In addition, the US FDA is set to approve foods derived from genetically
modified animals for commercial release.22,23 These are likely to be
contaminated by potent vaccines, immune regulators and growth hormones, as
well as nucleic acids, viruses and bacteria that have the potential to
create pathogens and to trigger cancer. The Institute for Science in
Society has submitted strong objections to United Nations regulator Codex
Alimentarius on these new developments.
Inherently Hazardous

Let me start with some basics. GM food is derived from genetically modified
organisms (GMOs). A GMO is an organism whose natural genetic material has
been modified by having synthetic genetic material inserted into it in the
laboratory, so as to give it special traits or characteristics.

It is generally not easy to get the synthetic gene or genes to work in an
organism, so a very aggressive signal or promoter is needed for each gene,
literally to force the cell to make the desired protein.25 The cauliflower
mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter is the most popular one used, and is often
accompanied by other “boosters” from a variety of sources. The gene (coding
sequence) itself could also be a composite of pieces copied from other
organisms, with substantial changes in the coding sequence.

For example, MON863 maize is described on the AGBIOS Database as follows:
“The introduced DNA contained the modified cry3Bb1 gene from B.
thuringiensis subsp. kumamotoensis under the control of the 4-AS1 promoter
(CaMV 35S promoter with 4 repeats of an activating sequence), plus the 5′
untranslated leader sequence of the wheat chlorophyll a/b binding protein
(wt CAB leader) and the rice actin intron. The transcription termination
sequence was provided from the 3′ untranslated region of the wheat 17.3 kD
heat shock protein (tahsp17). The modified cry3Bb1 gene encodes a protein
of 653 amino acids whose amino acid sequence differs from that of the
wild-type protein by the addition of an alanine residue at position 2 and
by seven amino acid changes.”26

Thus, MON863 maize contains 9 bits of DNA from different sources including
the coding sequence, which has been quite substantially altered from the
natural gene.

The synthetic genes and combinations of genes inserted into GMOs and
introduced into our food chain have never existed in billions of years. The
genes code for proteins completely foreign to our food chain and are likely
to provoke immune reactions including allergy. That could happen even when
the proteins are copies of those in a closely related species. Thus, a
transgenic (GM) pea with a copy of a normally harmless bean protein
provoked debilitating immune responses in mice,4 simply because each
species processes its proteins differently, decorating them with distinct
carbohydrate chains. Transgenic proteins also differ from the native
proteins in amino acid sequences, some of which are intentional and others
unintentional. And if you just look at the amino acid sequences, 22 out of
33 transgenic proteins in GM crops already commercialized are found to have
similarities to known allergens, and are therefore suspected allergens.27

Direct evidence also exists indicating that the synthetic genes are not the
same as the natural genes. Take the Bt toxins isolated from the soil
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis and incorporated into many GM maize,
cotton and other crop varieties to kill insect pests. Green lacewings
suffer significantly reduced survival and delayed development when fed an
insect pest (lepidopteran) that has eaten GM maize containing the Bt toxin
Cry1Ab, but not when fed the same pest treated with much higher levels of
the natural toxin.28,29 This extremely important effect, which is passed on
through the food chain, has been documented in several laboratories.
Unfortunately, the researchers misrepresented the results only to mean that
natural Cry1Ab does not harm beneficial insect predators.30

The synthetic genetic material is introduced into the cells of organisms
with invasive methods that are far from precise–they are uncontrollable,
unreliable and unpredictable. They end up damaging the natural genetic
material of the organism with many unpredictable, unintended effects,
including gross abnormalities that you can see, and metabolic changes that
may be toxic that you can’t see.31

The transgenic line is essentially derived from a single cell which has
taken up the trans gene, so its properties will depend on where and in what
form in the genome–the totality of the organism’s genetic material–have
landed in the insert or inserts, and what collateral damage is done. That
is why EU regulation now requires “event specific” characterization of the
transgenic insert or inserts, which also provides a way of detecting
transgenic contamination of GM produce, an increasingly frequent occurrence
involving transgenic lines that have not even been approved for commercial
release.32

Even more serious, transgenic lines are genetically unstable, so it is
impossible to control for safety or quality. This instability increases the
dangers from unintended horizontal gene transfer. The expression of the
genes can change from generation to generation and, most worrying of all,
the inserts may rearrange, insert at new sites in the genome or insert into
other genomes by horizontal gene transfer.24,25

The transgenic inserts in practically all the commercially approved lines
were found to have rearranged since they were first characterized by the
biotech companies. A frequent breakpoint is the cauliflower mosaic virus
promoter present in most, if not all transgenic lines, which we have warned
about.35,36 We have also warned about the fact that the promoter is active
in animal and human cells, contrary to the assumption of GM proponents that
it is active only in plant cells37 and this warning has also been recently
confirmed.38 The genetic instability itself is worrying, as the transgenic
variety effectively changed into something else, thereby invalidating all
previous safety assessments and making it difficult to detect contaminating
transgenic material.
Horizontal Gene Transfer

Another major worry is horizontal gene transfer and recombination. Many
foreign synthetic genes are copies of those from bacteria and viruses that
cause diseases and include antibiotic resistance marker genes to help track
the movements of the foreign gene inserts and select for cells that have
taken up the foreign genes.

Right from the beginning of genetic engineering in the mid 1970s,
geneticists themselves were concerned that releasing those synthetic
genetic materials increased the risk of creating new disease-causing
viruses and bacteria and spreading antibiotic resistance that would make
infections untreatable.39 They even imposed a moratorium subsequent to the
1975 Asilomar Declaration, which endorsed sustainable agriculture.
Unfortunately, the moratorium was short-lived, as geneticists were in a
hurry to begin commercial exploitation of genetic engineering. The
guidelines set up were totally inadequate, and remain so to this day.40

It is important to realize that the toolkit of genetic engineering is
precisely the same as that for making biological weapons.41 The US
government has been ostentatiously concerned about “biosecurity” ever since
September 11, which extends to experiments directly or indirectly involved
in creating lethal biological agents. Yet the regulators are still
reassuring us that all genetic engineering experiments and the release of
GMOs and products thereof are safe. I have warned the UK government that
there can be no biosecurity without biosafety.42 The numerous “biodefense”
labs set up in the US and elsewhere to research and genetically engineer
lethal pathogens for the stated purpose of creating vaccines pose the most
serious public health risks.

The genetic material persists long after the cell or organism is dead, and
can be taken up by bacteria and viruses in all environments. This
process–called horizontal gene transfer and recombination–is the main
route to creating dangerous pathogens. Genetic engineering is nothing if
not greatly enhanced horizontal gene transfer and recombination, and nasty
surprises have been sprung already. For example, researchers in Australia
“accidentally” transformed a harmless mousepox virus into a lethal pathogen
that killed all the mice, even those that were supposed to be resistant to
the virus.

Headlines in the New Scientist editorial of January, 2001 proclaimed: “The
genie is out, biotech has just sprung a nasty surprise. Next time, it could
be catastrophic.”43 The lead article continued in the same vein: “Disaster
in the making. An engineered mouse virus leaves us one step away from the
ultimate bioweapon.”44

The researchers added a gene coding for an immune signalling molecule to
the virus, which they thought would boost antibody production; instead, it
suppressed immune responses. The researchers had previously put the same
gene into a vaccinia virus and found that it delayed the clearance of virus
from the animals, so it may well have the same immune suppressive effects
for all viruses. Imagine what would happen if this gene ever got into a
smallpox virus.

More surprisingly, in 2003, researchers at the University of California at
Berkeley reported that disrupting a set of disease-causing genes in the
tuberculosis bacterium resulted in a hyper-virulent mutant strain that
killed all infected mice by 41 weeks, while all the control mice exposed to
the unmodified bacterium survived.45 This goes to show how very little we
understand about the way bacteria and viruses cause diseases.
Cancer Triggers

Genetic engineering poses yet another insidious danger. The synthetic genes
created for genetic modification are designed to cross species barriers and
to jump into the genome of cells. Such constructs jumping into the genome
of human cells can trigger cancer. This is not just a theoretical
possibility; it has happened in gene therapy,46 which is genetic
modification of human cells using synthetic constructs very similar to
those for genetic modification of plants and animals.

In 2000, researchers in the Neckar Hospital in Paris, France, treated
infants with X-linked Severe Combined Immune Deficiency apparently
successfully by isolating bone marrow cells from the patients, genetically
modifying them in the test tube, and then injecting the genetically
modified cells back into the patients. In this way, they thought they had
avoided the widely acknowledged major hazards of gene therapy: creating
replicating viruses and triggering cancer. But since 2002, three infants
have developed leukemia, and one has died. The foreign synthetic gene
carried by the virus vector was inserted near a human gene that controls
cell division, making it overactive, resulting in uncontrollable
multiplication of the white blood cells.
Failure on All Counts

GM crops are industrial monocultures, only far worse. Two traits account
for nearly all GM crops planted: herbicide-tolerance (almost all
glyphosate-tolerant or Roundup Ready) accounting for more than 80 percent
of GM crops, and insect-resistance (Bt-crops engineered with toxins from
the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis to kill insect pests), accounting
for 30 percent.19 (Eleven percent of GM crops have both traits.)

Evidence has been accumulating over the years that both types of GM crops
have failed on every count: yield drag, poor performance in the field, more
pesticides used, reduced profits for farmers (at times drastically so,
causing poor farmers to commit suicide), and bad for health and the
environment;49 so much so that many people, including me, were ready to
say, “Good-bye, GMOs,” in 2002.50 We were too optimistic; we did not
consider how powerful were corporate propaganda and disinformation.51

But a spate of recent findings not only confirms what we already know, but
also completes the debacle. And health hazards of GM food and feed are not
the only worry; Roundup-resistant super-weeds and Bt-resistant insect pests
have now been documented, rendering useless both Roundup-tolerant and Bt
crops.

The problems don’t end there. Roundup herbicide causes sudden crop death.
It is lethal to frogs and highly toxic to human placental cells, even at
one-tenth the recommended dosage. It is linked to cancers, neuro-defects
and spontaneous abortions.52 Bt crops express variable amounts of the
toxins, often insufficient to kill target pests but sufficiently poisonous
to harm beneficial insects including predators, bees and soil decomposers.
And Bt toxins are known to be actual or potential allergens that can
provoke strong immune reactions.53

Farmers from all over the world are now reporting that GM crops require
more water, and are less tolerant to drought than non-GM varieties;63 this
finding may prove to be a final nail in the coffin for GM crops.

It is sheer lunacy to expand the cultivation of GM crops across the world,
as the pro-GM lobby is pushing for. It can lead nowhere else but towards
global bio-devastation, massive crop failures and global famine.
A Dangerous Diversion

GM crops are a dangerous diversion that prevents us from addressing the
global energy and food crises. Perhaps people are still unaware or in
denial of the crises as food54,55 and energy run out56 and as global
warming accelerates.57

World grain yield has fallen for six of the past seven years, bringing
reserves to the lowest level in more than thirty years.58 Chronic depletion
of aquifers in the major bread baskets of the world, droughts, and soaring
temperatures, all from global warming, are taking their toll and are set to
do even more damage to food production. An international team of crop
scientists has already reported that crop yields fall by 10 percent for
each degree Centigrade rise in night-time temperature during the growing
season.59

The Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that the
earth’s average temperature would rise by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees C within this
century.60 But the IPCC model fails to capture the abrupt nature of climate
change, which could be happening over a matter of decades or years.61 A
group based in Oxford University in the UK is predicting a greater
temperature rise of 1.9 to 11.5 degrees C when the carbon dioxide level in
the atmosphere doubles its pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million
sometime within the present century.62
Dream Farm

The good news is that we have a wealth of existing knowledge that can
provide food security and health for all while significantly mitigating
global warming.64,65 We have the knowhow to be food and fuel rich without
fossil fuels. A major obstacle to implementing this knowledge is the
overwhelming commitment of our elected representatives to the dominant
neo-liberal economic model, otherwise known as the environmental bubble
economy.

The dominant model glorifies competitiveness and unlimited growth involving
the most wanton and destructive exploitation of the earth’s natural
resources, laying waste to agricultural land and biodiversity, and
impoverishing billions of souls in the process.

In order to overcome these obstacles to implementing the knowledge, we have
proposed to set up Dream Farm 2.66

Dream Farm 2 is a model, integrated, zero-emission, zero-waste, highly
productive farm that maximizes the use of renewable energies and turns
“wastes” into food and energy resources, thereby completely obviating the
need for fossil fuels. It is our answer to the food and energy crises,
climate change and many other problems. It is a microcosm of a different
way of being and becoming in the world, and in that respect, nothing short
of a social revolution.

In a way, I have dedicated the past 20 years towards developing Dream Farm
2. The technical underpinnings are described in my book The Rainbow and the
Worm – The Physics of Organisms (2nd Edition),67 which presents a theory of
the organism and sustainable systems, and the social and spiritual
revolution this theory entails.

The ideas have been taken further forward recently, thanks to theoretical
ecologist Robert Ulanowicz at the University of Maryland who co-authored a
paper with me entitled Sustainable Systems as Organisms?;68 and George
Chan’s Integrated Food and Waste Management System (IFWMS),69 which
inspired me to extend the theory of sustainable systems as organisms to
include growth and development explicitly. I call his model Dream Farm 1.

The farms are very diverse, depending on local resources, ingenuity and
imagination. Anaerobic digestion is the core waste-treatment and energy
technology in Dream Farm 1. It has numerous advantages over other
waste-treatment and energy technologies, including other biofuels71 The
Chinese gover.nment, by the way, is promoting the widespread use of biogas
digesters to support a burgeoning eco-economy.72
Unsustainable Versus Sustainable Systems

Dream Farm 1 gave me a lot of food for thought on how my theory of the
organism and sustainable systems contrasts with the dominant model.

The dominant model of infinite competitive growth can be represented as the
bigger fish swallowing the smaller ad infinitum, and it describes equally
how a person should behave and how a company should develop in order to be
successful. Another way to represent it is a diagram in Figure 1. The
system grows relentlessly, swallowing up the earth’s resources, laying
waste to everything in its path, like a hurricane. There is no closed cycle
to hold resources within, to build up stable organized social or ecological
structures.

Spiral

Figure 1. The dominant economic model of infinite unsustainable growth that
swallows up the earth’s resources and exports massive amounts of wastes and
entropy.

In contrast, the archetype of a sustainable system is a closed lifecycle,
like that of an organism. It is ready to grow and develop, to build up
structures in a balanced way and perpetuate them, and that’s what
sustainability is all about. Closing the cycle creates a stable, autonomous
structure that is self-maintaining, self-renewing and self-sufficient.

In order to do that, one needs to satisfy as much as possible the
zero-entropy or zero-waste ideal, as shown in Figure 2. All natural systems
tend towards this ideal, which is why we don’t fall apart, and why we grow
old only very slowly. If we were perfect, we’d never grow old. The secret
is described in my book, the Rainbow Worm.

Zero Entropy Model

Figure 2. The zero-entropy ideal of a sustainable system.

The “zero-waste” or “zero-entropy” model of the organism and sustainable
systems essentially predicts balanced development and growth at every
stage, as opposed to the dominant model of infinite, unsustainable growth.
This immediately disposes of the myth that the alternative to the dominant
model is to have no development nor any growth at all, which is how most of
the dominant model critics see it.
Cycles Within Cycles

The system’s cycle contains more cycles within that are interlocked to help
one another thrive and prosper. The minimum integrated farm has the farmer,
livestock and crops. The farmer prepares the ground to sow the seeds for
the crops to grow, which feed the livestock and the farmer; the livestock
returns manure to feed the crops. Very little is wasted or exported to the
environment. In fact, a high proportion of the resources is recycled and
kept inside the system. The system stores energy as well as material
resources such as carbon. The extra carbon is sequestered in the soil as
the soil improves and in the standing biomass of crops and livestock.

The farm can perpetuate itself like that quite successfully and
sustainably, or it can grow by engaging more cycles, that is, units of
devolved autonomy that help support the other cycles so that all become
more productive and efficient.

In the old paradigm, organisms are predominantly viewed as competing for
resources and for space. But in nature there are three space dimensions and
the time dimension also. We’ve got space-time that we can fill up more
thickly with life cycles of different sizes that occupy different
space-times. That is exactly what organisms in a naturally biodiverse
ecosystem do to maximize the reciprocal, symbiotic relationships that
benefit all the species. So you can add fish, algae, poultry, worms,
mushrooms, and so forth, turning the “waste” from one cycle into resources
for another.

The more lifecycles incorporated, the more energy and standing biomass are
stored within the system, and the more productive the farm. It will also
support more farmers or farm workers.

Productivity and biodiversity always go together in a sustainable system,
as generations of farmers have known, and recent academic researchers have
rediscovered. It is also the most energy efficient. Why? Because the
different life cycles are essentially holding the energy for the whole
system by way of reciprocity, keeping as much as possible and recycling it
within the system.

In contrast, industrial monoculture–particularly monoculture based on GM
crops–is the least energy efficient system in terms of output per unit of
input, and often less productive than sustainable systems in absolute
terms, despite high external input, because it does not close the cycle, it
does not have biodiversity to hold the energy within, and it ends up
generating a lot of waste, entropy and soil depletion

In a recent visit to China as part of the Dream Farm 2 project, I was
delighted to discover that something very similar to my model of
sustainable systems as organisms is in the official Chinese mainstream
discourse–they call it the “circular economy.” Chinese farmers have
perfected this elegant system over the past two thousand years73 especially
in the Pearl River Delta of southeast China. This integrated agriculture
and fish farming system is a key component of George Chan’s IFWMS. The
success of this system really disposes of the Malthusian myth that a given
piece of land has only a constant carrying capacity in terms of the number
of people it can support. There is a world of difference between industrial
monoculture and circular integrated farming. The Pearl River Delta
sustained an average of 17 people per hectare in the 1980s, a carrying
capacity at least ten times the average of industrial farming, and two to
three times the world average.

Dream Farm 2 is a particular implementation and extension of George Chan’s
IFWMS concept, in that it consciously integrates food and energy
production, emphasizing consumption of both at the point of production.
While it operates as a farm, it will also serve as a demonstration,
education and research center and incubator for new ideas, designs and
technologies. Its aim is to promote and support similar farms springing up
all over Britain and the rest of the world, not only through publicity
about Dream Farm 2 itself, but also by collating and analyzing data from
all similar farms, and by serving as resource center and center for
information exchange (see Sidebar).66

Most significant of all, it runs entirely without fossil fuels. As Robert
Ulanowicz says, “I’ll bet people will be surprised at how quickly the
carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere can come down if we stop burning
fossil fuels.” I think he may well be right.

Sidebars
Damning Evidence Against the Safety of GM Food and Feed

1. Scientists at the Russian Academy of Sciences reported between 2005 and
2006 that female rats fed glyphosate-tolerant GM soya produced excessive
numbers of severely stunted pups with more than half of the litter dying
within three weeks, and the surviving pups completely sterile (see main
article).

2. Between 2004 and 2005, hundreds of farm workers and cotton handlers in
Madhya Pradesh, India, suffered allergy symptoms from exposure to Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) cotton.2

3. Between 2005 and 2006, thousands of sheep died after grazing on Bt
cotton crop residues in four villages in the Warangal district of Andhra
Pradesh in India.3

4. In 2005, scientists at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organization in Canberra, Australia reported that a harmless
protein in beans (alpha-amylase inhibitor 1) transferred to peas caused
inflammation in the lungs of mice and provoked sensitivities to other
proteins in the diet.4

5. From 2002 to 2005, scientists at the Universities of Urbino, Perugia and
Pavia in Italy published reports indicating that GM-soya affected cells in
the pancreas, liver and testes of young mice.5

6. In 2003, villagers in the south of the Philippines suffered mysterious
illnesses when a Monsanto Bt maize hybrid came into flower; antibodies to
the Bt protein were found in the villagers, there have been at least five
unexplained deaths and some remain ill to this day.5

7. In 2004, Monsanto’s secret research dossier showed that rats fed MON863
GM maize developed serious kidney and blood abnormalities.6

8. Between 2001 and 2002, a dozen cows died in Hesse, Germany after eating
Syngenta GM maize Bt176, and more in the herd had to be slaughtered due to
mysterious illnesses.7

9. In 1998, Dr. Arpad Pusztai and colleagues formerly of the Rowett
Institute in Scotland reported damage in every organ system of young rats
fed GM potatoes containing snowdrop lectin, including a stomach lining
twice as thick as controls.8

10. Also in 1998, scientists in Egypt found similar effects in the gut of
mice fed Bt potato.9

11. The US Food and Drug Administration had data dating back to early 1990s
showing that rats fed GM tomatoes with antisense gene to delay ripening had
developed small holes in their stomach.8

12. In 2002, Aventis company (later Bayer Cropscience) submitted data to UK
regulators showing that chickens fed glufosinate-tolerant GM maize Chardon
LL were twice as likely to die compared with controls.10
The Language of the Dance

The greatest danger is the mindset of the GM proponents. Genetic
engineering of plants and animals began in the mid 1970s under the illusion
that the genetic material is constant and static and the characteristics of
organisms are hardwired in their genes. One gene determines one
characteristic. But geneticists soon discovered to their great surprise
that the genetic material is dynamic and fluid, in that both the expression
and structure of genes are constantly changing under the influence of the
environment. By the early 1980s, geneticists had already coined the term,
“the fluid genome,” to mark this major paradigm shift, as described in my
book, Living with the Fluid Genome.47

The processes responsible for the fluid genome are precisely orchestrated
by the organism as a whole in a dance of life that is necessary for the
organism to survive and thrive. In contrast, genetic engineering in the lab
is crude, imprecise and invasive. The synthetic genes can land anywhere, in
any form, causing a lot of collateral damage to the genome, and tending to
be unstable, basically because these rogue genes do not know the language
of the dance. Genetic engineers haven’t learned to dance with life.
Call for a Ban

In 2003, accumulating evidence on the many dangers of GM organisms prompted
dozens of prominent scientists from around the world to launch themselves
as the Independent Science Panel (ISP). Our stated goal: to overcome the
campaign of disinformation from pro-GM scientists who are working to
promote the corporate agenda, and to reclaim science for the public good.
We compiled all the evidence against GM crops as well as the evidence on
the successes and benefits of sustainable non-GM agriculture in an ISP
report, The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World.48 Based on this evidence,
we have called for a ban on the environmental releases of GM crops and a
comprehensive shift to sustainable agriculture. Please support these
efforts by sending this article, which updates the evidence contained in
the ISP report, to your policy makers and elected representatives.
Advantages of Anaerobic Digestion to Recover Methane

* Potential to provide 11.7 percent of all energy needs or 50.2 percent
of transport fuels in the UK.
* Methane can be used as fuel for mobile vehicles or for combined heat
and power generation.
* Methane-driven cars are already on the market, and currently the
cleanest vehicles on the road by far.
* Biogas methane is a renewable and carbon mitigating fuel (more than
carbon neutral).
* Saves on carbon emission twice over, by preventing the escape of
methane and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere and by substituting for
fossil fuel.
* Conserves plant nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus for soil
productivity.
* Produces a superb fertilizer for crops as a by-product.
* Prevents pollution of ground water, soil and air.
* Improves food and farm hygiene, removes 90 percent or more of harmful
chemicals and bacteria.
* Can be adapted to produce hydrogen either directly or from methane.

Dream Farm 1

Click here to see diagram of Dream Farm 1

The anaerobic digester takes in livestock manure plus wastewater and
generates biogas, which provides all the energy needs for heating, cooking
and electricity. The partially cleansed wastewater goes into the algal
basin where the algae produce by photosynthesis all the oxygen needed to
detoxify the water, making it safe for the fish. The algae are harvested to
feed chickens, ducks, geese and other livestock. The fishpond supports a
compatible mixture of five or six fish species. Water from the fishpond is
used to “fertigate” crops growing in the fields or on the raised dykes.
Aquaculture of rice, fruits and vegetables can be done in floats on the
surface of the fishpond. Water from the fishpond can also be pumped into
greenhouses to support aquaculture of fruits and vegetables. The anaerobic
digester yields a residue rich in nutrients that is an excellent fertilizer
for crops. It could also be mixed with algae and crop residues for
culturing mushrooms after steam sterilization. The residue from mushroom
culture can be fed to livestock or composted. Crop residues are fed back to
livestock. Crop and food residues are used to grow earthworms to feed fish
and fowl. Compost and worm castings go to condition the soil. Livestock
manure goes back into the anaerobic digester, thus closing the grand cycle.
The result is a highly productive farm that’s more than self-sufficient in
food and energy.

Farm animals are central to this model. Dream Farm 1 is strong on animal
welfare.70 The animals are organically fed. The pigs are especially easy to
toilet-train(!) to deposit their manure directly into the digester, so the
animals and their living quarter are spotlessly clean, which makes for
healthy and contented animals.
Dream Farm 2

Click here to see diagram of Dream Farm 2

The complete model of Dream Farm 2 will be implemented at potential sites
now under consideration. Because this is an organic system in the sense I
have described, we don’t have to have all the elements all at once. We can
have a very simple system consisting of biogas digesters, livestock, crops
and algae basins without fishponds, as that essentially does the water
purification already and closes the cycle. The algae can be used to feed
livestock, as an alternative to grain or soybeans.

Notice that three biogas digesters are present, connected both in parallel
and in series. This is advisable, because it provides spares in case one is
not working properly. It also provides for the production of both hydrogen
and methane in a two-stage digestion process. I am also suggesting that we
include human manure in the biogas digestion, as well as restaurant wastes.
That way, we hardly export any waste to the outside.

The challenge now is to make Dream Farm 2 a reality, to put flesh on the
bare bones of the diagram, so we can start building the best when sites are
agreed upon, and we can promote and support a worldwide movement. Already,
we have potential partners in UK, US, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Ethiopia,
Mauritius, and France. We believe this is the best way forward to a
greener, cleaner, healthier and more fulfilling life without fossil
fuels.59
Benefits of Dream Farm 2

1. Assembles in one showcase all the relevant technologies that can deliver
sustainable food and energy and a profitable zero carbon economy.

2. Generates all its own energy for heating and electricity, including
clean fuel for transport.

3. Energy use at the point of production enables combined heat and power
generation and improves efficiency by 70 percent.

4. Runs entirely without fossil fuels.

5. Saves substantially on carbon dioxide emissions, by preventing methane
and nitrous oxide escaping, by substituting for fossil fuels and by
improved energy efficiency.

6. Increases sequestration of carbon in soil and standing biomass.

7. Reduces wastes and environmental pollution to a minimum.

8. Conserves and purifies water and controls flooding.

9. Produces a diversity of crops, livestock and fish in abundance.

10. Fresh and nutritious food free from agrochemicals produced and consumed
locally for maximum health benefits.

11. Provides employment opportunities for the local community.

12. Provides a showcase and incubator for how appropriate new energy and
food technologies are implemented.

13. Provides hands-on education and research opportunities at all levels
from infants to university students and beyond.

14. Supports and promotes similar farms in the UK and all over the world.

References

1. Ho MW. GM soya fed rats: stunted, dead or sterile. Science in Society 33
(in press).
2. Ho MW. More illnesses linked to Bt crops. Science in Society 30, 8-10,
2006.
3. Ho MW. Mass deaths in sheep grazing on Bt cotton. Science in Society 30.
12-13, 2006.
4. Ho MW. Transgenic pea that made mice ill. Science in Society 29, 28-29,
2006.
5. Ho MW. GM ban long overdue. Dozens ill & five deaths in the Philippines.
Science in Society 29, 26-27, 2006.
6. “French experts very disturbed by health effects of Monsanto GM corn”
GMWatch, 23 April 2004. www.gmwatch.org
7. Ho MW and Burcher S. Cows ate GM maize and died. Science in Society 21,
4-6, 2004.
8. Pusztai A, Bardocz S and Ewen SWB. Genetically modified foods: Potential
human health effects. In Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins, (J P F
D’Mello ed.), Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, CAB International,
2003.
9. Fares NH and El-Sayed AK. Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice
fed on dendotoxin-treated potatotes and transgenic potatoes. Natural
Toxins, 1998, 6, 219-33; also “Bt is toxic” by Joe Cummins and Mae-Wan Ho,
ISIS News 7/8, February 2001, ISSN: 1474-1547 (print), ISSN: 1474-1814
(online) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php Agricultural Biotechnology
2006, www.ISAAA.org
10. Novotny E. Animals avoid GM food, for good reasons. Science in Society
21, 9-11, 2004.
11. Ho MW and Steinbrecher RA. Fatal flaws in food safety assessment:
critique of the joint FAO/WHO Biotechnology and Food Safety Report.
Environmental & Nutritional Interactions 1998, 2, 51-84.
12. Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, McCaig LF, Bresee JS, Shapiro C. Griffin
PM and Tauxe RV. Food-related illness and death in the United States.
Emerging Infectious Diseases 1999, 5, 607-25.
13. Ho MW. US foodborne illnesses up two to ten fold. ISIS Report 3
November 2001, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FoodborneIllnesses.php; also ISIS
News 13/14, February 2002.
14. Ho MW. Horizontal gene transfer, the hidden hazards of genetic
engineering. ISIS Report 2001, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/horizontal.php
15. Genetically modified animal feed. Briefing, Friends of the Earth, May
2006, http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/gm_animal_feeds.pdf
16. Ho MW. Biofuels for oil addicts. Science in Society 30, 29-30, 2006.
17. Ho MW. Biodiesel boom for Europe? Science in Society 30, 31-32, 2006.
18. Joensen L and Ho MW. Argentina’s GM woes. Science in Society 20, 2003.
19. Agricultural Biotechnology 2006, www.ISAAA.org
20. Cummins J and Ho MW. GM crops for health? ISIS Report, 24 September
2006, submitted to Codex Alimentarius public consultation.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Crops_for_Health.php
21. Cummins J and Ho MW. GM crops and microbes for health or public health
hazards? Science in Society 32 (in press).
22. Cummins J and Ho MW. Genetically modified food animals coming. ISIS
Report 25 September 2006, submitted to Codex Alimentarius public
consultation,
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Genetically_Modified_Food_Animals_Coming.php
23. Cummins J and Ho MW. GM food animals coming. Science in Society 32 (in
press).
24. Ho MW. Special safety concerns of transgenic agriculture and related
issues. Briefing paper for Minister of State for the Environment, The Rt
Hon Michael Meacher, ISIS Report, April 1999,
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/meacher99.php
25. Ho MW and Cummins J. GM food and feed not fit for “man or beast”. ISIS
Report, ISP Briefing to UK Parliament, 7 May 2004,
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ManorBeast.php
26. Agbios, http://www.agbios.com/main.php
27. Ho MW, Pusztai A, Bardocz S and Cummins J. Are transgenic proteins
allergenic? Science in Society 25, 4-5, 2005.
28. Dutton A, Klein H, Romeis J and Bigler F. “Uptake of Bt-toxin by
herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator
Chrysoperia carnea”, Ecological Entomology 2002, 27, 441-7.
29. Romeis J, Dutton A and Bigler F. “Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab)
has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea
(Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae)”, Journal of Insect Physiology 2004,
in press.
30. Dutton A, Romeis J and Bigler F. “Assessing the risks of insect
resistant transgenic plants on entomophagous arthropods: Bt-maize
expressing Cry1Ab as a case study”, BioControl 2003, 48, 611″36.
31. Ho MW. FAQs on genetic engineering. ISIS tutorial
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/papers2.php#section5
32. Cummins J and Ho MW. USDA poised to deregulate illegal GM rice. Science
in Society 32 (in press).
33. Ho MW. Transgenic lines proven unstable. Science in Society 20 , 2003.
34. Ho MW. Unstable transgenic lines illegal. Science in Society 21, 2004.
35. Ho MW, Ryan A and Cummins J. Cauliflower mosaic viral promoter — a
recipe for Disaster? Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 1999 11,
194-7. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/papers2.php#section5
36. Ho MW, Ryan A and Cummins J. Hazards of transgenic plants with the
cauliflower mosaic viral promoter. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease
2000, 12, 6-11. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/papers2.php#section5
37. Ho MW, Ryan A and Cummins J. CaMV35S promoter fragmentation hotspot
confirmed and it is active in animals. Microbial Ecology in Health and
Disease 2000, 12, 189.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/papers2.php#section5
38. Myhre MR. Fenton KA, Eggert K. Nielsen KM and Traavik T. The 35S CaMV
plant virus promoter is active in human enterocyte-like cells. Eur Food Res
Technol 2005. DOI 10.1007/y00217.005.0154.3
39. Ho MW, Traavik T, Olscik R, Tappeser B, Howard V, von Weizsacker C and
McGavin G. Gene technology and gene ecology of infectious diseases.
Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 1998, 10, 33-59.
40. Ho MW. Ryan A.Cummins J and Traavik T. Slipping through the Regulatory
Net: Naked and Free Nucleic Acids, Biotechnology series, Third World
Network, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/books.php
41. Ho MW. GM & bio-weapons in the post-genomics era. Science in Society
15, 15-19, 2002.
42. Ho MW. No biosecurity without biosafety, biodefence research endangers
the public. Science in Society 26, 44-47, 2005.
43. “The genie is out”, Editorial, New Scientist 13 January 2001.
44. Nowak R. Disaster in the making. New Scientist 2001: 13 Jan. 4-5.
45. Shimono N, Morici L, Casall N, Cantrell S, Sidders B, Ehrt S and Riley
LW. Hypervirulent mutant of Mycobacterium tuberculosis resulting from
disruption of the mce1 operon. PNAS 2003, 100, 15918-23.
46. Ho MW. Gene therapy woes. Science in Society 26, 36, 2005.
47. Ho MW. Living with the Fluid Genome, ISIS & TWN, London & Penang, 2003.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/fluidGenome.php
48. Ho MW and Lim LC. The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, Independent
Science Panel Report, Institute of Science in Society and Third World
Network, London and Penang, 2003; republished as GM-Free, Exposing the
Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of Our Food Supply,
Vitalhealth Publishing, Ridgefield, Ct., 2004 (both available from ISIS
online bookstore http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/books.php#1)
49. Lim LC and Matthews J. GM crops failed on every count. ISIS News 13/14,
31-33, 2002.
50. Ho MW. Goodbye GMOs, Science in Society 16, 10-27, 2002.
51. Gala R. India’s Bt cotton fraud. Science in Society 26, 27-28, 2005.
52. Ho MW and Cummins J. Roundup ready sudden death, superweeds,
allergens…Time to wipe GM crops off the globe. Science in Society 28,
26-27, 2005.
53. Ho MW. Scientists confirm failures of Bt crops. Science in Society 28,
22-24, 2005.
54. Brown L. Outgrowing the Earth, The Food Security Challenge in an Age of
Falling Water Tables and Rising Temperatures, W.W. Norton & C., New York,
2004.
55. Ho MW. The food bubble economy. Science in Society 25, 2005.
56. Ho MW. Is oil running out? Science in Society 25, 50-51, 2005.
57. Ho MW. Global warming is happening. Science in Society 31, 23-24, 2006.
58. Dyer G. How long can the world feed itself? Energy Bulletin, 10 October
2006, http://www.energybulletin.net/21736.html
59. Peng S, Huang J, Sheehy JE, LazAa RC, Visperas RM, Zhong X, Centeno GS,
Khush GS and Cassman KG, Rice yields decline with higher night temperatures
from global warming. PNAS 2004, 101, 9971-5.
60. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contributions of Working
Group 1 to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, New York, 2001.
61. Ho MW. Abrupt climate change happening. Science in Society 20, 23,
2003, 20, 23.
62. “Internet project forecasts global warming. Biggest-ever climate
simulation warns temperatures may rise by 11oC.” Michael Hopkin,
New@nature.com published online: 26 January 2005.
63. “Farmers ask why GM crops perform worse in drought” Network of
Concerned Farmers, 20 June 2005,
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2253
64. Ho MW. Sustainable food systems for sustainable development. Science in
Society 27, 33-35, 2005.
65. Ho MW, Bunyard P, Saunders PT, Bravo E and Gala R. Which Energy? 2006
ISIS Energy Report, Institute of Science in Society, London, 2006.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/books.php#238
66. Ho MW. Dream Farm 2 — story so far. Science in Society 31, 40-43,
2006.
67. Ho MW. The Rainbow and the Worm, The Physics of Organisms. 2nd
(enlarged) ed. World Scientific, Singapore, 1998, reprinted 1999, 2001,
2003 (available online from ISIS website www.i-sis.org.uk).
68. Ho MW and Ulanowicz R. Sustainable systems as organisms? BioSystems
2005, 82, 39-51. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/papers1.php#section3
69. Ho MW. Dream farm. Science in Society 27, 26-28, 2005.
70. Chan G. Dream Farms. Effective & economic possibilities in applying
ecological engineering means to sustainable agriculture & agribusiness.
Presentation at ISIS Dream Farm workshop, Kindersley Centre, Berkshire, UK,
21 January 2006. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/av.php
71. Ho MW. How to be fuel and food rich under climate change, Science in
Society 31, 37-39, 2006.
72. Li K-M and Ho MW. Biogas China, Science in Society 32, 34-37, 2006.
73. Ho MW. Circular economy of the dyke-pond system. Science in Society 32,
38-41, 2006.

About the Author

Mae Wan Ho, PhDMae-Wan Ho, PhD, obtained her B.S. degree in biology in 1964
and her Ph.D. in biochemistry in 1967 from Hong Kong University. She was a
postdoctoral fellow in biochemical genetics from 1968 to 1972 at the
University of California in San Diego, during which time she won a
competitive fellowship of the U.S. National Genetics Foundation.

Since 1994, Ho has been scientific advisor to the Third World Network and
has played a major role in informing policy makers and the public during
negotiations of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an international
agreement regulating the trade of genetically engineered products. Ho
continues to play a prominent part in exposing what she calls “the bad
science” of genetic engeneering that’s driven both by a Darwinian
perspective of the world and the mistaken view that organisms are hardwired
in their genes.

In April 2003, she initiated the Independent Science Panel to oppose the
corporate takeover of science, and drafted an influential report, “The Case
for a GM-free Sustainable World,” in which independent scientists will be
joining forces with all sectors of civil society in a bid to make our food
system sustainable, that would also ameliorate the worst excesses of global
warming and provide food security for all. In April 2006, she co-authored
an extremely influential Which Energy report sponsored by dozens of civil
society organisations which sets out clear options for shifting to a
zero-carbon economy.

She has more than 300 publications and a dozen books spanning several
disciplines, including The Rainbow and the Worm, The Physics of Organisms
(1993, 1998), Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare? (1998, 1999), and
Living with the Fluid Genome (2003). She also edits the radical science
magazine, Science in Society.

Ho heads the Bio-Electrodynamics laboratory at the Open University in
Milton Keynes in the UK. For further information, visit www.i-sis.org.uk.

GM Files: Seeds of Destruction (Review)

Friday, April 18th, 2008

The Natural Solutions Foundation, the leading Global Health Freedom organization, is proud to present this information to you. We protect your right to know about – and to use – natural ways to maintain and regain your health, no matter where in the world you live. Among your freedoms is the right to clean, unadulterated food free of genetic manipulation, pesticides, heavy metals or other contaminants and access to herbs, supplements, frequency devices and other means as therapies that may benefit or to protect your well-being without drugs and other dangerous interventions, if you choose.

For more information on our global programs, including the International Decade of Nutrition, and our US based ones, please visit us at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org and join the free email list for the Health Freedom eAlerts to keep you in the loop, informed and active defending your right to make your own decisions about your health and wellbeing!
Our activities are supported 100% by your tax deductible donations. Please give generously (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189) to the Natural Solutions Foundation. Thank you for your support.
Feel free to disseminate this information as widely as possible with full attribution.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.organics4U.org

“Seeds of Destruction, The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation”

Review of F. William Engdahl’s Book

by Stephen Lendman

Global Research, January 2, 2008

Today, we’re all lab rats in an uncontrolled, unregulated mass human experiment the results of which are unknown. Once GM seeds are introduced to an area, the genie is out of the bottle for keeps.

Reviewing F. William Engdahl’s “Seeds of Destruction” – by Stephen Lendman (Part I)

Bill Engdahl is a leading researcher, economist and analyst of the New World Order who’s written on issues of energy, politics and economics for over 30 years. He contributes regularly to publications like Japan’s Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Foresight magazine, Grant’s Investor.com, European Banker and Business Banker International. He’s also a frequent speaker at geopolitical, economic and energy related international conferences and is a distinguished Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization where he’s a regular contributor.

Engdahl also wrote two important books – “A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order” in 2004. It’s an essential history of geopolitics and the importance of oil. Engdahl explains that America’s post-WW II dominance rests on two pillars and one commodity – unchallengeable military power and the dollar as the world’s reserve currency combined with the quest to control global oil and other energy resources.

Engdahl’s newest book is just out from Global Research: “Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation” and subject of this review. It’s the diabolical story of how Washington and four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting life forms to gain worldwide control of our food supply and why that prospect is chilling. The book’s compelling contents are reviewed below in-depth so readers will know the type future Henry Kissinger had in mind in 1970 when he said: “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”

Remember also, this cabal is one of many interconnected ones with fearsome power and ruthless intent to use it – Big Banks controlling the Federal Reserve and our money, Big Oil our world energy resources, Big Media our information, Big Pharma our health, Big Technology our state-of-the-art everything and watching us, Big Defense our wars, Big Pentagon waging them, and other corporate predators exploiting our lives for profit. Engdahl’s book focuses brilliantly on one of them. To fully cover its vital contents, this review will be in three parts for more detail and to make it easily digestible.

Part I of “Seeds of Destruction”

In 2003, Jeffrey Smith’s “Seeds of Deception” was published. It exposed the dangers of untested and unregulated genetically engineered foods most people eat every day with no knowledge of the potential health risks. Efforts to inform the public have been quashed, reliable science has been buried, and consider what happened to two distinguished scientists.

One was Ignatio Chapela, a microbial ecologist at the University of California, Berkeley. In September, 2001, he was invited to a carefully staged meeting with Fernando Ortiz Monasterio, Mexico’s Director of the Commission of Biosafety in Mexico City. The experience left Chapela shaken and angry as he explained. Monasterio attacked him for over an hour. “First he trashed me. He let me know how damaging to the country and how problematic my information was to be.”

Chapela referred to what he and a UC Berkeley graduate student, David Quist, discovered in 2000 about genetically engineered contamination of Mexican corn in violation of a government ban on these crops in 1998. Corn is sacred in Mexico, the country is home to hundreds of indigenous varieties that crossbreed naturally, and GM contamination is permanent and unthinkable – but it happened by design.

Chapela and Quist tested corn varieties in more than a dozen state of Oaxaca communities and discovered 6% of the plants contaminated with GM corn. Oaxaca is in the country’s far South so Chapela knew if contamination spread there, it was widespread throughout Mexico. It’s unavoidable because NAFTA allows imported US corn with 30% of it at the time genetically modified. Now it’s heading for nearly double that amount, and if not contained, it soon could be all of it.

The prestigious journal Nature agreed to publish Chapela’s findings, Monasterio wanted them quashed, but Chapela refused to comply. As a result, he was intimidated not to do it and threatened with being held responsible for all damages to Mexican agriculture and its economy.

He went ahead, nonetheless, and when his article appeared in the publication on November 29, 2001 the smear campaign against him began and intensified. It was later learned that Monsanto was behind it, and the Washington-based Bivings Group PR firm was hired to discredit his findings and get them retracted.

It worked because the campaign didn’t focus on Chapela’s contamination discovery, but on a second research conclusion even more serious. He learned the contaminated GM corn had as many as eight fragments of the CaMV promoter that creates an unstable “hotspot.” It can cause plant genes to fragment, scatter throughout the plant’s genome, and, if proved conclusively, would wreck efforts to introduce GM crops in the country. Without further evidence, there was still room for doubt if the second finding was valid, however, and the anti-Chapela campaign hammered him on it.

Because of the pressure, Nature took an unprecedented action in its 133 year history. It upheld Chapela’s central finding but retracted the other one. That was all it took, and the major media pounced on it. They denounced Chapela’s incompetence and tried to discredit everything he learned including his verified findings. They weren’t reported, his vilification was highlighted, and Monsanto and the Mexican government scored a big victory.

Ironically, on April 18, 2002, two weeks after Nature’s partial retraction, the Mexican government announced there was massive genetic contamination of traditional corn varieties in Oaxaca and the neighboring state of Puebla. It was horrifying as up to 95% of tested crops were genetically polluted and “at a speed never before predicted.” The news made headlines in Europe and Mexico. It was ignored in the US and Canada.

The fallout for Chapela was UC Berkeley denied him tenure in 2003 because of his article and for criticizing university ties to the biotech industry. He then filed suit in April, 2004 asking remuneration for lost wages, earnings and benefits, compensatory damages for humiliation, mental anguish, emotional distress and coverage of attorney fees and costs for his action. He won in May, 2005 but not in court when the university reversed its decision, granted him tenure and agreed to include retroactive pay back to 2003. The damage, however, was done and is an example of what’s at stake when anyone dares challenge a powerful company like Monsanto.

The other man attacked was the world’s leading lectins and plant genetic modification expert, UK-based Arpad Pusztai. He was vilified and fired from his research position at Scotland’s Rowett Research Institute for publishing industry-unfriendly data he was commissioned to produce on the safety of GMO foods.

His Rowett Research study was the first ever independent one conducted on them anywhere. He undertook it believing in their promise but became alarmed by his findings. The Clinton and Blair governments were determined to suppress them because Washington was spending billions promoting GMO crops and a future biotech revolution. It wasn’t about to let even the world’s foremost expert in the field derail the effort. His results were startling and consider the implications for humans eating genetically engineered foods.

Rats fed GMO potatoes had smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains, damaged immune systems, and showed structural changes in their white blood cells making them more vulnerable to infection and disease compared to other rats fed non-GMO potatoes. It got worse. Thymus and spleen damage showed up; enlarged tissues, including the pancreas and intestines; and there were cases of liver atrophy as well as significant proliferation of stomach and intestines cells that could be a sign of greater future risk of cancer. Equally alarming – this all happened after 10 days of testing, and the changes persisted after 110 days that’s the human equivalent of 10 years.

GM foods today saturate our diet. Over 80% of all supermarket processed foods contain them. Others include grains like rice, corn and wheat; legumes like soybeans and soy products; vegetable oils; soft drinks; salad dressings; vegetables and fruits; dairy products including eggs; meat and other animal products; and even infant formula plus a vast array of hidden additives and ingredients in processed foods (like in tomato sauce, ice cream and peanut butter). They’re unrevealed to consumers because labeling is prohibited yet the more of them we eat, the greater the potential threat to our health.

Today, we’re all lab rats in an uncontrolled, unregulated mass human experiment the results of which are unknown. The risks from it are beyond measure, it will take many years to learn them, and when they’re finally revealed it will be too late to reverse the damage if it’s proved GM products harm human health as independent experts strongly believe. Once GM seeds are introduced to an area, the genie is out of the bottle for keeps.

======================================================================================

Agribusiness Giants Seek to Gain Worldwide Control over Our Food Supply
Review of F. William Engdahl’s “Seeds of Destruction

by Stephen Lendman

Global Research, January 7, 2008

Part II

William Engdahl’s book is a diabolical account of how four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting life forms to gain worldwide control of our food supply and our lives. This review is in three in-depth parts. Part I was published and is available on this web site. Part II follows below.

Washington Launches the GMO Revolution

The roots of the story go back decades, but Engdahl explains the science of “biological and genetic-modification of plants and other life forms first” came out of US research labs in the 1970s when no one noticed. They soon would because the Reagan administration was determined to make America dominant in this emerging field. The biotech agribusiness industry was especially favored, and companies in the early 1980s raced to develop GMO plants, livestock and GMO-based animal drugs. Washington made it easy for them with an unregulated, business-friendly climate that persisted ever since under Republicans and Democrats alike.

Food safety and public health issues aren’t considered vital if they conflict with profits. So the entire population is being used as lab rats for these completely new, untested and potentially hazardous products. And leading the effort to develop them is a company with a “long record of fraud, cover-up, bribery,” deceit and disdain for the public interest – Monsanto.

Its first product was saccharin that was later proved to be a carcinogen. It then got into chemicals, plastics and became notorious for Agent Orange that was used to defoliate Vietnam jungles in the 1960s and 1970s and exposed hundreds of thousands of civilians and US troops to deadly dioxin, one of the most toxic of all known compounds.

Along with others in the industry, Monsanto is also a shameless polluter. It has a history of secretly dumping some of the most lethal substances known in water and soil and getting away with it. Today on its web site, however, the company ignores its record and calls itself “an agricultural company (applying) innovation and technology to help farmers around the world be successful, produce healthier foods, better animal feeds and more fiber, while also reducing agriculture’s impact on our environment.” Engdahl proves otherwise in his thorough research that’s covered below in detail.

In spite of its past, Monsanto and other GMO giants got unregulated free rein in the 1980s and especially after George HW Bush became president in 1989. His administration opened “Pandora’s Box” so no “unnecessary regulations would hamper them. Thereafter, “not one single new regulatory law governing biotech or GMO products was passed then or later (despite all the) unknown risks and possible health dangers.”

In a totally unfettered marketplace, foxes now guard the henhouse because the system was made self-regulatory. An elder Bush Executive Order assured it. It ruled GMO plants and foods were “substantially equivalent” to ordinary ones of the same variety like corn, wheat or rice. This established the principle of “substantial equivalence” as the “lynchpin of the whole GMO revolution.” It was pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo, but was now law, and Engdahl equated it to a potential biologically catastrophic “Andromeda Strain,” no longer the world of science fiction.

Monsanto chose milk as its first GMO product, genetically manipulated it with recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), and marketed it under the trade name, Posilac. In 1993, the Clinton FDA declared it safe and approved it for sale before any consumer use information was available. It’s now sold in every state and promoted as a way cows can produce up to 30% more milk. Problems, however, soon appeared. Farmers reported their stock burned out up to two years sooner than usual, serious infections developed, and some animals couldn’t walk. Other problems included the udder inflammation mastitis as well as deformed calves being born.

The information was suppressed, and rBGH milk is unlabeled so there’s no way consumers can know. They also weren’t told this hormone causes leukemia and tumors in rats, and a European Commission committee concluded humans drinking rBGH milk risk breast and prostate cancer. The EU thus banned the product, but not the US. Despite clear safety issues, the FDA failed to act and allows hazardous milk to be sold below the radar. It was just the beginning.

The Fox Guards the Henhouse

Engdahl reviewed the Pusztai affair, the toll it took on his health, and the modest vindication he finally got. Already out of a job, the 300-year old British Royal Society attacked him in 1999 and claimed his research was “flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysis and that no conclusions should be drawn from it.” It was another blow to a distinguished man who deserved better than what Engdahl called a “recognizable political smear” that also tarnished the Royal Society’s credibility for making it. It had no basis in fact and was done because Pusztai’s bombshell threatened to derail Britain’s hugely profitable GMO industry and do the same thing to its US counterpart.

As for Pusztai, after five years, several heart attacks, and a ruined career, he finally learned what happened after he announced his findings. Monsanto was the culprit. The company complained to Clinton who, in turn, alerted Tony Blair. Pusztai’s findings had to be quashed and he discredited for making them. He was nonetheless able to reply with the help of the highly respected British scientific journal, The Lancet. In spite of Royal Society threats against him, it’s editor published his article, but at a cost. After publication, the Society and biotech industry attacked The Lancet for its action. It was a further shameless act.

As a footnote, Pusztai now lectures around the world on his GMO research and is a consultant to start-up groups researching the health effects of these foods. Along with him and his wife, his co-author, Professor Stanley Ewen, also suffered. He lost his position at the University of Aberdeen, and Engdahl notes that the practice of suppressing unwanted truths and punishing whistleblowers is the rule, not the exception. Industry demands are powerful, especially when they affect the bottom line.

The Blair government went even further. It commissioned the private firm, Grainseed, to conduct a three-year study to prove GMO food safety. London’s Observer newspaper later got UK Ministry of Agriculture documents on it that showed tests were rigged and produced “some strange science.” At least one Grainseed researcher manipulated the data to “make certain seeds in the trials appear to perform better than they really did.”

Nonetheless, the Ministry recommended a GMO corn variety be certified, and the Blair government issued a new code of conduct under which “any employee of a state-funded research institute who dared to speak out on (the) findings into GMO plants could face dismissal, be sued for breach of contract or face a court injunction.” In other words, whisleblowing was now illegal even if public health was at stake. Nothing would be allowed to stop the agribusiness juggernaut from proceeding unimpeded.

The Rockefeller Plan – “Tricky” Dick Nixon and Trickier Rockefellers

Richard Nixon took office at a time of national crisis. Along with the Vietnam morass, the economy was in trouble after the “golden age of capitalism” peaked in 1965 and corporate profits were declining. The globalization phenomenon began at this time when American companies and the nation’s wealthiest families found investing abroad more profitable than at home because more opportunities were available outside the country.

Food was one of them and was about to be renamed “agribusiness.” Engdahl called it “a paradigm shift” with one man having the most decisive role – former New York governor Nelson Rockefeller “who deeply wanted to be President” but had to settle for number two under Gerald Ford.

He and his brothers ran the family’s Rockefeller Foundation and various other tax-exempt entities like the Rockefeller Brothers Trust. Nelson and David were the most influential figures, and their power center was the exclusive New York Council on Foreign Relations. Engdahl states: “In the 1960s the Rockefellers were at the power center of the US establishment (and) Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (was) their hand-picked protege.” It was a marriage made in hell.

Enter the “crisis of democracy” or as right wing Harvard professor, Samuel Huntington, called it, an “excess of democracy” at a time masses of ordinary citizens protested their government’s policies. It captured media attention, posed a threat to the country’s establishment, and had to be addressed. In 1973 it was at a meeting of 300 influential, hand-picked Rockefeller friends from North America, Europe and Japan. They founded a powerful new organization called the Trilateral Commission with easily recognizable member names.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was its first Executive Director, and other charter members included Jimmy Carter (who became David Rockefeller’s favored 1976 presidential candidate over Gerald Ford), George HW Bush, Paul Volker (Carter’s Fed Chairman) and Alan Greenspan who was then a Wall Street investment banker.

The new organization “laid the basis for a new global strategy for a network of interlinked international elites,” many of whom were Rockefeller business partners. Combined, their financial, economic and political clout was unmatched. So was their ambition that George HW Bush later called a “new world order.” Trilateralists laid the foundation for today’s globalization. They also followed Huntington’s advice about democracy’s unreliability that had to be checked by “some measure of (public) apathy and non-involvement (combined with) secrecy and deception.”

The Commission further advocated privatizing public enterprises along with deregulating industry. Trilateralist Jimmy Carter embraced the dogma enthusiastically as President. He began the process that Ronald Reagan continued in the 1980s almost without noticing its originator or placing blame where it’s due.

In 1973, Nixon was in office with Kissinger his Svengali. One observer described him at the time as “like sludge out of a swamp without a spark of life….no soul, a slip of life, a kind of ghoul (and) a sort of lubricant (to keep the ship of state running).” So he did by “tak(ing) complete control (of) US foreign policy” as both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. Further, he “was to make food a centerpiece of his diplomacy along with oil geopolitics.”

In the Cold War era, food became a strategic weapon by masquerading as “Food for Peace.” It was cover for US agriculture to engineer the transformation of family farming into global agribusiness with food the tool and small farmers eliminated so it could be used most effectively. World agriculture domination was to be “one of the central pillars of post-war Washington policy, along with (controlling) world oil markets and non-communist world defense sales.” The defining 1973 event was a world food crisis.

The shortage of grain staples along with the first of two 1970s oil shocks advanced a “significant new Washington policy turn.” Oil and grains were rising three to fourfold in price when the US was the world’s largest food surplus producer with the most power over prices and supply. It was an ideal time for a new alliance between US-based grain trading companies and the government. It “laid the groundwork for the later gene revolution.”

Enter what Engdahl called the “great train robbery” with Kissinger the culprit. He decided US agriculture policy was “too important to be left in the hands of the Agriculture Department” so he took control of it himself. The world desperately needed grain, America had the greatest supply, and the scheme was to use this power to “radically change world food markets and food trade.” The big winners were grain traders like Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and Continental Grain that were helped by Kissinger’s “new food diplomacy (to create) a global agriculture market for the first time.” Food would “reward friends and punish enemies,” and ties between Washington and business lay at the heart of the strategy.

The global food market was being reorganized, corporate interests were favored, political advantage was exploited, and the 1990s “gene revolution” groundwork was laid. Rockefeller interests and its Foundation were to play the decisive role as events unfolded over the next two decades. It began under Nixon as the cornerstone of his farm policy, free trade was the mantra, corporate grain traders were the beneficiaries, and family farms had to go so agribusiness giants could take over.

Bankrupting them was the plan to remove an “excess (of) human resources.” Engdahl called it a “thinly veiled form of food imperialism” as part of a scheme for the US to become “the world granary.” The family farm was to become the “factory farm,” and agriculture was to be “agribusiness” to be dominated by a few corporate giants with incestuous ties to Washington.

Dollar devaluation was also part of the scheme under Nixon’s New Economic Plan (NEP) that included closing the gold window in 1971 to let the currency float freely. Developing nations were targeted as well with the idea that they forget about being food-sufficient in grains and beef, rely on America for key commodities, and concentrate instead on small fruits, sugar and vegetables for export. Earned foreign exchange could then buy US imports and repay IMF and World Bank loans that create a never-ending cycle of debt slavery. GATT was also used and later the WTO with corporate-written rules for their own bottom line interests.

A Secret National Security Memo

In the midst of a worldwide drought and stock market collapse, consider Henry Kissinger’s classified memo in April, 1974. It was on a secret project called National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) that was shaped by Rockefeller interests and aimed to adopt a “world population plan of action” for drastic global population control – meaning to reduce it. The US led the effort, and it worked like this – it made birth control in developing countries a prerequisite for US aid. Engdahl summed it up in blunt terms: “if these inferior races get in the way of our securing ample, cheap raw materials, then we must find ways to get rid of them.”

Kissinger’s scheme was “simpler contraceptive methods through bio-medical research” that almost sounds like DuPont’s old slogan, “Better things for better living through chemistry.” Later on, DuPont dropped “through chemistry” as evidence mounted on their toxic effects and a changing company in 1999 began using “The Miracles of Science” in their advertising. The Nazis also aimed big and sought control. Population culling was part of it that for them was called “eugenics” and their scheme was to target “inferior” races to preserve the “superior” one.

NSSM 200 was along the same idea and was tied to the agribusiness agenda that began with the 1950s and 1960s “Green Revolution” to control food production in targeted Latin American, Asian and African countries. Kissinger’s plan had two aims – securing new US grain markets and population control with 13 “unlucky” countries chosen. Among them were India, Brazil, Nigeria, Mexico and Indonesia, and exploiting their resources depended on drastic population reductions to reduce homegrown demand.

The scheme was ugly and pure Kissinger. It recommended forced population control and other measures to ensure strategic US aims. Kissinger wanted global numbers reduced by 500 million by the year 2000 and argued for doubling the 10 million annual death rate to 20 million going forward. Engdahl called it “genocide” according to the strict definition of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide statute that defines this crime legally. Kissinger was guilty under it for wanting to withhold food aid to “people who can’t or won’t control their population growth.” In other words, if they won’t do it, we’ll do it for them.

The strategy included fertility control called “family planning” that was linked to the availability of key resources. The Rockefeller family backed it, Kissinger was their “hired hand,” and he was well-rewarded for his efforts. It included keeping him from being prosecuted where he’s wanted as a war criminal and could be arrested overseas like Pinochet was in the UK when he was placed under house arrest in 2006.

Besides his better-known crimes, consider what he did to poor Brazilian women through a policy of mass sterilization under NSSM 200. After 14 years of the program, the Brazilian Health Ministry discovered shocking reports of an estimated 44% of all Brazilian women between ages 14 and 55 permanently sterilized. Organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Family Health International were involved, and USAID directed the program. It has a long disturbing history backing US imperialism while claiming on its web site it extends “a helping hand to those people overseas struggling to make a better life, recover from a disaster or striving to live in a free and democratic country.”

Even more disturbing was an estimated 90% of Brazilian women of African descent sterilized in a nation with a black population second only to Nigeria’s. Powerful figures backed the scheme but none more influential than the Rockefellers with John D. III having the most clout on population policy. Nixon appointed him head of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future in 1969. Its earlier work laid the ground for Kissinger’s NSSM 200 and its policy of extermination through subterfuge that was based on a “decades old effort to breed human traits” by the Nazi “Eugenics” process.

The Brotherhood of Death

Long before Kissinger (and his assistant Brent Scowcroft) made population reduction official US foreign policy, the Rockefellers were experimenting on humans. JD III led the effort. In the 1950s, while Nelson exploited cheap Puerto Rican labor in New York and on the island, brother JD III conducted mass sterilization experiments on their women. By the mid-1960s, Puerto Rico’s Public Health Department estimated the toll – one-third or more of them of child-bearing age (unsuspecting poor women) were permanently sterilized.

JD III expressed his views in a 1961 UN Food and Agriculture Organization lecture: “To my mind, population growth (and its reduction) is second only to control of atomic weapons as the paramount problem of the day.” He meant, of course, its unwanted parts to preserve valuable resources for the privileged. He was also influenced by eugenicists, race theorists and Malthusians at the Rockefeller Foundation who believed they had the right to decide who lives or dies.

Powerful figures were behind the effort as well as leading American business families. So were notables in the UK then and earlier like Winston Churchill, John Maynard Keynes and others. Alan Gregg was as well as Rockefeller Foundation Medical Division chief for 34 years. Consider his views. He said “people pollute, so eliminate pollution by eliminating (undesirable) people.” He compared city slums to cancerous tumors and called them “offensive to decency and beauty.” Better to remove them and cleanse the landscape.

This was policy, and it was “key to understanding (the Foundation’s later efforts) in the revolution in biotechnology and plant genetics.” Its mission from inception was to “(cull) the herd, or systematically (reduce) populations of ‘inferior breeds.’ ” The problem for supremacists is too many of a lesser element spells trouble when they demand more of what the privileged want for themselves. Solution – remove them with lots of ways to do it from birth control to sterilization to starvation to wars of extermination.

These ideas were American, they took root 100 years ago, noted names backed it like Rockefeller, Carnegie and Harriman, and they later influenced the Nazis. Hitler praised the practice in his 1924 book, “Mein Kampf,” then used it as Fuhrer to breed a “master race.” Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes also supported it, and consider his 1927 decision in Buck v. Bell. He ruled Virginia’s forced sterilization program was constitutional and wrote: “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime….society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind….Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” This from a noted Supreme Court Justice that would have horrific consequences still in play. It “opened the floodgates” for sterilizing many thousands of women considered “subhuman” detritus and in the way.

JD III was right in step with this thinking. He was nurtured on Malthusian pseudo-science and embraced the dogma. He joined the family Foundation in 1931 where he was influenced by eugenicists like Raymond Fosdick and Frederick Osborn. Both were founding members of the American Eugenics Society. In 1952, he used his own funds to found the New York-based Population Council in which he promoted studies on over-population dangers that were openly racist. For the next 25 years, the Council spent $173 million on global population reduction and became the world’s most influential organization promoting these supremacist ideas.

But it avoided the term “eugenics” because of its Nazi association and instead used language like birth control, family planning and free choice. It was all the same, and before the war Rockefeller associate and family Foundation board member, Frederick Osborn, enthusiastically supported Nazi eugenics experiments that led to mass exterminations now vilified. Back then, he believed this was the “most important experiment that has ever been tried” and later wrote a book. It was called “The Future of Human Heredity” with “eugenics” in the subtitle. It stated women could be convinced to reduce their births voluntarily and began substituting the term “genetics” for the one now out of favor.

During the Cold War, culling the population drew supporters that included the cream of corporate America. They backed private population reduction initiatives like Margaret Sanger’s International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). The major media also spread the notion that “over-population in developing countries leads to hunger and more poverty (which, in turn, becomes) the fertile breeding ground for” international communism. American agribusiness would later get involved through a policy of global food control. Food is power. When used to cull the population, it’s a weapon of mass destruction.

Consider the current situation with the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reporting sharply higher food prices along with severe shortages, and warned this condition is extreme, unprecendented and threatens billions with hunger and starvation. Prices are up 40% this year after a 9% rise in 2006, and it forced developing states to pay 25% more for imported food and be unable to afford enough of it.

Various explanations for the problem are cited that include growing demand, higher fuel and transportation costs, commodity speculation, the use of corn for ethanol production (taking one-third of the harvest that’s more than what’s exported for food) and extreme weather while ignoring the above implications – the power of agribusiness to manipulate supply for greater profits and “cull the herd” in targeted Third World countries. Affected ones are poor, and FAO cites 20 in Africa, nine in Asia, six in Latin America and two in Eastern Europe that in total represent 850 million endangered people now suffering from chronic hunger and related poverty. They depend on imports, and their diets rely heavily on the type grains agribusiness controls – wheat, corn and rice plus soybeans. If current prices stay high and shortages persist, millions will die – maybe by design.

Fateful War and Peace Studies

Engdahl reviewed how American elites in the late 1930s began planning an American century in the post-war world – a “Pax Americana” to succeed the fading British Empire. The New York Council of Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies Group led the effort, and Rockefeller Foundation money financed it. As Engdahl put it: they’d be paid back later “thousands-fold.” First though, America had to achieve world dominance militarily and economically.

The US business establishment envisioned a “Grand Area” to encompass most of the world outside the communist bloc. To exploit it, they hid their imperial designs beneath a “liberal and benevolent garb” by defining themselves as “selfless advocates of freedom for colonial peoples (and) the enemy of imperialism.” They would also “champion world peace through multinational control.” Sound familiar?

Like today, it was just subterfuge for their real aims that were pursued under the banner of the United Nations, the new Bretton Woods framework, the IMF, World Bank and the GATT. They were established for one purpose – to integrate the developing world into the US-dominated Global North so its wealth could be transfered to powerful business interests, mostly in the US. The Rockefeller family led the effort, the four brothers were involved, and Nelson and David were the prime movers.

While JD III was plotting depopulation and racial purity schemes, Nelson worked “the other side of the fence….as a forward-looking international businessman” in the 1950s and 1960s. While preaching greater efficiency and production in targeted countries, he schemed, in fact, to open world markets for unrestricted US grain imports. It became the “Green Revolution.”

Nelson concentrated on Latin America. During WW II, he coordinated US intelligence and covert operations there, and those efforts laid the groundwork for family interests post-war. They were tied to the region’s military because friendly strongmen are the type leaders we prefer to guarantee a favorable business climate.

From the 1930s, Nelson Rockefeller had significant Latin American interests, especially in areas of oil and banking. In the early 1940s, he sought new opportunities and along with Laurance bought vast amounts of cheap, high-quality farmland so the family could get into agriculture. It wasn’t for family farming, however. The Rockefellers wants global monopolies, and their scheme was to do in agriculture what the family patriarch did in oil along with using food and agricultural technology as Cold War weapons.

By 1954, PL 480, or “Food for Peace,” established surplus food as a US foreign policy tool, and Nelson used his considerable influence on the State Department because every post-war Department Secretary, from 1952 through 1979, had ties to the family through its Foundation: namely, John Foster Dulles, Dean Rusk, Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance.

These men supported Rockefeller views on private business and knew the family saw agriculture the way it sees oil – commodities to be “traded, controlled, (and) made scarce or plentiful” to suit the foreign policy goals of dominant corporations controlling their trade.

The family got into agriculture in 1947 when Nelson founded the International Basic Economy Corporation (IBEC). Through it, he introduced “mass-scale agribusiness in countries where US dollars could buy huge influence in the 1950s and 1960s.” Nelson then allied with grain-trading giant Cargill in Brazil where they began developing hybrid corn seed varieties with big plans for them. They would make the country “the world’s third largest producer of (these) crop(s) after the US and China.” It was part of Rockefeller’s “Green Revolution” that by the late 1950s “was rapidly becoming a strategic US economic strategy alongside oil and military hardware.”

Latin America was the beginning of a food production revolution with big aims – to control the “basic necessities of the majority of the world’s population.” As agribusiness in the 1990s, it was “the perfect partner for the introduction….of genetically engineered food crops or GMO plants.” This marriage masqueraded as “free market efficiency, modernization (and) feeding a malnourished world.” In fact, it was nothing of the sort. It cleverly hid “the boldest coup over the destiny of entire nations ever attempted.”

Creating Agribusiness – Rockefeller and Harvard Invent USA “Agribusiness”

The “Green Revolution began in Mexico and spread across Latin America during the 1950s and 1960s.” It was then introduced in Asia, especially in India. It was at a time we claimed our aim was to help the world through free market efficiency. It was all one way, from them to us so corporate investors could profit. It gave US chemical giants and major grain traders new markets for their products. Agribusiness was going global, and Rockefeller interests were in the vanguard helping industry globalization take shape.

Nelson worked with his brother, JD III, who set up his own Agriculture Development Council in 1953. They shared a common goal – “cartelization of world agriculture and food supplies under their corporate hegemony.” At its heart, it aimed to introduce modern agriculture techniques to increase crop yields under the false claim of wanting to reduce hunger. The same seduction was later used to promote the Gene Revolution with Rockefeller interests and the same agribusiness giants backing it.

In the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson also used food as a weapon. He wanted recipient nations to agree to administration and Rockfeller preconditions that population control and opening their markets to US industry was part of the deal. It also involved training developing world agriculture scientists and agronomists in the latest production concepts so they could apply them at home. This “carefully constructed network later proved crucial” to the Rockefeller strategy to “spread the use of genetically-engineered crops around the world,” helped along with USAID funding and CIA mischief.

“Green Revolution” tactics were painful and took a devastating toll on peasant farmers. They destroyed their livelihoods and forced them into shantytown slums that now surround large Third World cities. There they provide cheap exploitable labor from people desperate to survive and easy prey for any way to do it.

The “Revolution” also harmed the land. Monoculture displaces diversity, soil fertility and crop yields decrease over time, and indiscriminate use of chemical pesticides causes serious later health problems. Engdahl quoted an analyst calling the “Green Revolution” a “chemical revolution” developing states couldn’t afford. That began the process of debt enslavement from IMF, World Bank and private bank loans. Large landowners can afford the latter. Small farmers can’t and often, as a result, are bankrupted. That, of course, is the whole idea.

The “Green Revolution” was based on the “proliferation of new hybrid seeds in developing markets” that characteristically lack reproductive capacity. Declining yields meant farmers had to buy seeds every year from large multinational producers that control their parental seed lines in house. A handful of company giants held patents on them and used them to lay the groundwork for the later GMO revolution. Their scheme was soon evident. Tradition farming had to give way to High Yield Varieties (HYV) of hybrid wheat, corn and rice with major chemical inputs.

Initially, growth rates were impressive but not for long. In countries like India, agricultural output slowed and fell. They were losers so agribusiness giants could exploit large new markets for their chemicals, machinery and other product inputs. It was the beginning of “agribusiness,” and it went hand-in-hand with the “Green Revolution” strategy that would later embrace plant genetic alterations.

Two Harvard Business School professors were involved early on – John Davis and Ray Goldberg. They teamed with Russian economist, Wassily Leontief, got Rockefeller and Ford Foundation funding, and initiated a four-decade revolution to dominate the food industry. It was based on “vertical integration” of the kind Congress outlawed when giant conglomerates or trusts like Standard Oil used them to monopolize entire sectors of key industries and crush competition.

It was revived under Trilateralist President Jimmy Carter disguised as “deregulation” to dismantle “decades of carefully constructed….health, food safety and consumer protection laws.” They would now give way under a new wave of industry-friendly vertical integration. Supported by a public campaign, it claimed that government was the problem, it encroached too much on our lives, and it had to be rolled back for greater personal “freedom.”

Early in the 1970s, agribusiness producers controlled US food supplies. They’d now go global on a scale without precedent. The goal – “staggering profits” by “restructur(ing) the way Americans grew food to feed themselves and the world.” Ronald Reagan continued Carter’s policy and let the top four or five monopoly players control it. It led to an unprecedented “concentration and transformation of American agriculture” with independent family farmers driven off their land through forced sales and bankruptcies so “more efficient” agribusiness giants could move in with “Factory Farms.” Remaining small producers became virtual serfs as “contract farmers.” America’s landscape was changing with people trampled on for profits.

Engdahl explained a gradual process of “wholesale merger(s) and consolidation….of American food production….into giant corporate global concentrations” with familiar names – Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Smithfield Foods and ConAgra. As they grew bigger, so did their bottom lines with annual equity returns rising from 13% in 1993 to 23% in 1999. Hundreds of thousands of small farmers lost out for it as their numbers dropped by 300,000 from 1979 to 1998 alone. It was even worse for hog farmers with a drop from 600,000 to 157,000 so 3% of producers could control 50% of the market.

The social costs were staggering and continue to be as “entire rural communities collapsed and rural towns became ghost towns.” Consider the consequences:

— by 2004, the four largest beef packers controlled 84% of steer and heifer slaughter – Tyson, Cargill, Swift and National Beef Packing;

— four giants controlled 64% of hog production – Smithfield Foods, Tyson, Swift and Hormel;

— three companies controlled 71% of soybean crushing – Cargill, ADM and Bunge;

— three giants controlled 63% of all flour milling, and five companies controlled 90% of global grain trade;

— four other companies controlled 89% of the breakfast cereal market – Kellogg, General Mills, Kraft Foods and Quaker Oats;

— in 1998, Cargill acquired Continental Grain to control 40% of national grain elevator capacity;

— four large agro-chemical/seed giants controlled over 75% of the nation’s seed corn sales and 60% of it for soybeans while also having the largest share of the agricultural chemical market – Monsanto, Novartis, Dow Chemical and DuPont; six companies controlled three-fourths of the global pesticides market;

— Monsanto and DuPont controlled 60% of the US corn and soybean seed market – all of it patented GMO seeds; and

— 10 large food retailers controlled $649 billion in global sales in 2002, and the top 30 food retailers account for one-third of global grocery sales.

At the dawn of a new century, family farming was decimated by corporate agribusiness’ vertically integrated powers that surpassed their earlier 1920s heyday dominance. The industry was now the second most profitable national one after pharmaceuticals with domestic annual sales exceeding $400 billion. The next aim was merging Big Pharma with Big food producing giants, and the Pentagon’s National Defense University took note in a 2003-issued paper – “Agribusiness (now) is to the United States what oil is to the Middle East.” It’s now considered a “strategic weapon in the arsenal of the world’s only superpower,” but at a huge cost to consumers everywhere.

Engdahl reviewed the “revolution” in animal factory production that EarthSave International founder and Baskin-Robbins heir, John Robbins, covered honestly, thoroughly and compassionately in two explosive books on the subject – “Diet for A New America” in 1987 and “The Food Revolution” in 2001. They were both stinging indictments of corporate-produced foods – horrifying animal cruelty, unsafe foods, unsanitary conditions, rampant use of anti-biotics humans then ingest, massive environmental pollution, and new unknown dangers from genetic engineering – all allowed by supposed government watchdog regulatory agencies that ignore public health concerns.

Agribusiness was on a roll, government supports it with tens of billions in annual subsidies, and the 1996 Farm Bill suspended the Secretary of Agriculture’s power to balance supply and demand so henceforth unrestricted production is allowed. Food producing giants took full advantage to control market forces. They crushed family farmers by over-producing and forcing down prices. They also pressured land values as small operators failed. It created opportunities for land acquisition on the cheap for greater concentration and dominance.

Next came integrating the Gene Revolution into agribusiness the way Harvard’s Ray Goldberg saw it coming. Entire new sectors were to be created from genetic engineering. It would include GMO drugs from GMO plants in a new “argi-ceutical system.” Goldberg predicted a “genetic revolution (through) an industrial convergence of food, health, medicine, fiber and energy businesses” – in a totally unregulated marketplace. Unmentioned was a threatening consumer nightmare hidden from view.

=======================================================================================

From: David West
Date: January 10, 2008 4:35:13 AM EST
To: prez@usa-exile.org
Subject: Reviewing Engdahl’s ‘Seeds of Destruction’ – Pt 3

Reviewing F. William Engdahl’s ‘Seeds of Destruction’ – Pt 3

By Stephen Lendman
1-5-8

This is the third and final part of William Engdahl’s powerfully important book about four Anglo-American agribusiness giants and their aim to control world food supply, make it all genetically engineered, and use it as a geopolitical weapon. The story is chilling and needs to be read in full to learn the type future they plan for us. Parts I and II were published and are available on this web site. Part III follows below.

Food Is Power

Rockefeller Foundation funding was the Gene Revolution’s catalyst in 1985 with big aims – to learn if GMO plants were commercially feasible and if so spread them everywhere. It was the “new eugenics” and the culmination of earlier research from the 1930s. It was also based on the idea that human problems can be “solved by genetic and chemical manipulations….as the ultimate means of social control and social engineering.” Foundation scientists sought ways to do it by reducing infinite life complexities to “simple, deterministic and predictive models” under their diabolical scheme – mapping gene structures to “correct social and moral problems including crime, poverty, hunger and political instability.” With the development of essential genetic engineering techniques in 1973, they were on their way.

They’re based on what’s called recombitant DNA (rDNA), and it works by genetically introducing foreign DNA into plants to create genetically modified organisms, but not without risks. London Institute of Science in Society chief biologist, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, explained the dangers because the process is imprecise. “It is uncontrollable and unreliable, and typically ends up damaging and scrambling the host genome, with entirely unpredictable consequences” that might unleash a deadly unrecallable “Andromeda Strain.” Research continued anyway amidst lies that risks were minimal and a promised future lay ahead. All that mattered were huge potential profits and geopolitical gain so let the good times roll and the chips fall where they may.

One project was to map the rice genome. It launched a 17 year effort to spread GMO rice around the world with Rockefeller Foundation money behind it. It spent millions funding 46 worldwide science labs. It also financed the training of hundreds of graduate students and developed an “elite fraternity” of top scientific researchers at Foundation-backed research institutes. It was a diabolical scheme aiming big – to control the staple food for 2.4 billion people and in the process destroy the biological diversity of over 140,000 developed varieties that can withstand droughts, pests and grow in every imaginable climate.

Asia was the prime target, and Engdahl explained the sinister tale of a Philippines-based Foundation-funded institute (IRRI). It had a gene bank with “every significant rice variety known” that comprised one-fifth of them all. IRRI let agribusiness giants illegally use the seeds for exclusive patented genetic modification so they could introduce them in markets and dominate them by requiring farmers be licensed and forced to pay annual royalty fees.

By 2000, a successful “Golden Rice” was developed that was beta-carotene (Vitamin A) enriched. It was marketed on the fraudulent claim that a daily bowl could prevent blindness and other Vitamin A deficiencies. It was a scam as other products are far better sources of this nutrient and to get enough of it from any type rice requires eating an impossible nine kilograms daily (about 20 pounds). Nonetheless, gene revolution backers were ready for their next move: “the consolidation of global control over humankind’s food supply” with a new tool to do it – the WTO. Corporate giants wrote its rules favoring them at the expense of developing nations shut out.

Unleashing GMO Seeds – A Revolution in World Food Production Begins

Argentina became the first “guinea pig” nation in a reckless experiment with untested and potentially hazardous new foods. No matter, potential profits are enormous so concerns for public safety and human health are ignored. Let the revolution begin in real time.

By the end of the 1980s, a global network of genetically-trained molecular biologists were ready to kick it off, Argentina was their first test laboratory, and it was hailed as a “Second Green Revolution.” Look what followed. From 1996 to 2004, worldwide GMO crop planting expanded to 167 million acres, a 40-fold increase using 25% of total worldwide arable land. An astonishing two-thirds of the acreage (106 million acres) was in the US. By 2004, Argentina was in second place with 34 million acres while production is expanding in Brazil, China, Canada, South Africa, Indonesia, India, the Philippines, Colombia, Honduras, Spain and Eastern Europe (Poland, Romania and Bulgaria). The revolution was on a roll and looks unstoppable.

Argentina was an easy mark when Carlos Menem became President. He’s a corporatist’s dream, a willing Washington Consensus subject, and he even let David Rockefeller’s New York and Washington friends draft his economic program with Chicago School dogma at its heart – privatizations, deregulation, local markets open to imports, and cuts in already reduced social services.

By the mid-1990s, Menem was “revolutioniz(ing) Argentina’s traditional productive agriculture” to one based on monoculture for global export. He took office in July, 1989. By 1991, Argentina was already a “secret experimental laboratory for developing genetically engineered crops” with its people unknowing human guinea pigs. In effect, the country’s agriculture was handed to Monsanto, Dow, DuPont and other GMO giants to exploit for profit with untested and potentially hazardous new products. Things would never be the same again.

In 1995, Monsanto introduced Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans with its special gene gun-inserted bacterium that allows the plant to survive being sprayed by the glyphosate herbicide, Roundup. GMO soybeans are thus protected from the same product used in Colombia to eradicate drugs that also harms legal crops and humans at the same time.

Foreign investors have large land holdings in Argentina, the late 1990s – early 2000s economic crisis made vast more amounts available, and bankrupted farmers had to give it up for pennies on the dollar. Corporate predators and Latifundista landholders took full advantage, but look what for.

After Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans were licensed in 1996, “a once-productive national family farm-based agriculture system (was turned into) a neo-feudal state system dominated by a handful of powerful, wealthy” owners to exploit for profit. Menem went along. In less than a decade, he allowed the nation’s corn, wheat and cattle diversity to be replaced by corporate-controlled monoculture. It was a Faustian sellout, and it helped Monsanto’s stock price hit an all-time high near year end 2007.

Earlier decades of diversity and crop rotation preserved the country’s soil quality. That changed after soybean monoculture moved in with its heavy dependence on chemical fertilizers. Traditional Argentine crops vanished, and cattle were forced into cramped feedlots the way they are in the US. Engdahl quoted a leading country agro-ecologist predicting these practices will destroy the land in 50 years if they continue. Nothing suggests a stoppage, and by 2004, nearly half the nation’s crop land was for soybeans and over 90% of it solely for Monsanto’s Roundup Ready brand. Engdahl put it this way: “Argentina had become the world’s largest uncontrolled experimental laboratory for GMO” and its people unwitting lab rats.

Mechanized GMO soybean monoculture took over, the country’s dairy farms were reduced by half, and “hundreds of thousands of workers (were forced) off the land” into poverty. Monsanto was on a roll and used various exploitive schemes. Included were ploys to ignore Argentine law against collecting royalty payments. Smuggling Roundup soybean seeds illegally into Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Uruguay also went on sub rosa. In addition, the company got Menem to allow it to collect “extended royalties” in 1999 even though Argentine law prohibited the practice.

Monsanto then pressured the government to recognize its “technology license fee.” A Technology Compensation Fund was established and managed by the Ministry of Agriculture. It forced farmers to pay a near-1% fee on GMO soybean sales. Monsanto and other GMO seed suppliers got the funds. By 2005, Brazil’s government relented. It legalized GMO seeds for the first time, and by 2006, the US, Argentina and Brazil accounted for over 81% of world soybean production. It “ensure(s) that practically every animal in the world fed soymeal (is) eating genetically engineered soybeans.” It also means everyone eating these animals does the same thing unwittingly.

Argentina experienced more fallout as well that threatens to spread. Its soybean monoculture affects the countryside hugely. Traditional farmers close to soybean ones are seriously harmed by aerial Roundup spraying. Their crops are destroyed as that’s how this herbicide works. It kills all plants without gene-modified resistance. It also kills animals with farmers reporting their chickens died and horses were gravely harmed. Humans are affected as well and show violent symptoms of nausea, diarrhea, vomiting and herbicide-inflicted skin lesions. Other reports claimed further fallout – animals born with severe organ deformities, deformed bananas and sweet potatoes, and lakes filled with dead fish. In addition, rural families said their children developed “grotesque blotches on their bodies.”

Forest lands were also damaged as vast acreage was cleared for soybean planting. Their loss “created an explosion of medical problems because Roundup is toxic, kills every non-GMO plant that grows and, it harms animals and humans as well that come in contact with it.

As for higher promised yields, results showed reduced harvests of between 5% and 15% compared with traditional soybean crops plus “vicious new weeds” that need up to triple the amount of spraying to destroy. By the time farmers learn this, it’s too late. By 2004, GMO soybean plantings spread across the country, they cost more to produce and yield less, and Engdahl summarized farmers’ plight: “A more perfect scheme of human bondage would be hard to imagine,” and it was even worse than that. Argentina was the first test case “in a global plan that was decades in the making and absolutely shocking and awesome in its scope.”
Iraq Gets American Seeds of Democracy
http://rense.com/general79/seedsa.htm