http://www.wanttoknow.info/deception10pg
Seeds of Deception
By Jeffrey M. Smith
Exposing Industry and Government Lies
About the
Safety of the Genetically Engineered
Foods You’re
Eating
Praise for the Book
“Outrageous! That’s what you’ll say
over and over
again when you
read how the biotechnology
companies have
manipulated the government, our
food, and the
media, and put an entire generation
at risk.
Notions of independence and integrity in
the nation’s
food regulatory agencies are
shattered in this
well-documented, captivating
book.”
- Ben Cohen, Co-Founder,
Ben & Jerry’s
“Clear, profound, and unerringly
accurate, Seeds
of
Deception tells you what you need to know about
genetically
engineered food — and what Monsanto
won't tell
you. If you care about the safety of
our food
supply, if you care about the future of
life on this
dear planet, if you care what
corporations are
doing to your food and health,
this is the
book to get.”
- John Robbins, author, The
Food Revolution, and Diet For A New
“This pivotal exposé leaves no doubt
that politics
and
corporate influence, not sound science,
allowed these
potentially dangerous GM foods onto
supermarket
shelves.”
- Joe Mendelson,
Legal Director, Center
for Food
Safety
“I have seen first hand how Monsanto
and the FDA
have resorted
to scientific deceit of the highest
order to
market genetically engineered milk. With
captivating style
and a flair for describing
science in
clear, accurate language, Seeds of
Deception unveils the distortions,
omissions, and
lies for all
to see.”
- Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., professor
emeritus
environmental and
occupational medicine
Chairman, Cancer Prevention
Coalition
Chapter Summaries with Excerpts
Introduction
On
Initiative to End Hunger in
genetically modified (GM) foods. He also blamed
foods
for thwarting recovery efforts. Bush was
convinced
that GM foods held the key to greater
yields,
expanded
His rhetoric was not new. It had been passed down
from
president to president, and delivered to the
American people through regular news reports and
industry
advertisements.
The message was part of a master plan
that had
been crafted by
corporations determined to control
the world’s
food supply. This was made clear at
a
biotech
industry conference in January 1999, where
a
representative from Arthur Anderson Consulting
Group explained how his company had helped
Monsanto create that plan. First, they asked
Monsanto what their
ideal future looked like in
fifteen to twenty years. Monsanto
executives
described a world with 100 percent of all
commercial seeds genetically modified and
patented.
backwards from that goal, and developed the
strategy and tactics to achieve it. They
presented
Monsanto with the
steps and procedures needed to
obtain a place of industry dominance in a
world in
which natural seeds were virtually
extinct.
Integral to the plan
was Monsanto’s influence in
government, whose role was to promote the
technology worldwide and to help get the foods
into the marketplace quickly, before
resistance
could get in the way. A biotech consultant later
said,
“The hope of the industry is that over time,
the
market is so flooded that there’s nothing you
can do
about it. You just sort of surrender.”[2]
The anticipated pace of conquest was revealed by a
conference speaker from another biotech company.
He showed graphs projecting the year-by-year
decrease
of natural seeds, estimating that in five
years,
about 95 percent of all seeds would be
genetically modified.
While some audience members were appalled at what
they
judged to be an arrogant and dangerous
disrespect for nature, to the industry this was
good
business. Their attitude was illustrated in
an
excerpt from one of Monsanto’s advertisements:
“So you see, there really
isn’t much difference
between
foods made by Mother Nature and those made
by man.
What’s artificial is the line drawn
between
them.”[3]
To implement their strategy, the
biotech companies
needed to control
the seeds—so they went on a
buying spree,
taking possession of about 23
percent of the
world’s seed companies. Monsanto
did
achieve the dominant position, capturing 91
percent
of the GM food market.[4] But the industry
has not
met their projections of converting the
natural
seed supply. Citizens around the world,
who do
not share the industry’s conviction that
these
foods are safe or better, have not “just
sort of
surrendered.”
Widespread resistance to GM food has resulted in
a
global showdown.
modified
corn and soy are down, and hungry African
nations
won’t even accept the crops as food aid.
Monsanto is faltering financially and is desperate
to open
new markets. The
convinced
that EU resistance is the primary
obstacle
and is determined to change that. On May
13, 2003, the
Trade Organization (WTO), charging that the
European Union’s restrictive policy on GM food
violates
international agreements.
On the day the WTO suit was filed, U.S. Trade
Representative Robert Zoellick
declared,
“Overwhelming scientific research shows that
biotech
foods are safe and healthy.”[5] This has
been
industry’s chant from the start. It is the
key
assumption at the basis of their master plan,
the WTO
challenge, and the president’s campaign to
end
hunger. It is also, however, untrue.
The following chapters reveal that it was industry
influence,
not sound science, which allowed these
foods
onto the market. Moreover, if overwhelming
scientific research suggests anything, it is that
the
foods should never have been approved.
Just as the magnitude of the industry’s plan was
breathtaking, so too are the distortions and
cover-ups.
While many of the stories in this book
reveal
government and corporate maneuvering worthy
of an
adventure novel, the impact of GM foods is
personal.
Most people in
every
meal. These chapters not only dismantle the
you of
the steps you can take to protect yourself
and
your family.
Chapter 1: A Lesson From
Overseas
When eminent scientist Arpad
Pusztai went public
about
his accidental discovery that genetically
modified
(GM) potatoes severely damage the immune
system
and organs of rats, he was suspended from
the
prestigious Scottish research institute where
he had
worked for thirty-five years. He was
silenced
with threats of a lawsuit while the
Institute denied or distorted his findings.
In the ensuing war over public opinion, biotech
advocates
tried to spin the science in favor of GM
foods,
but were thwarted at each attempt by leaked
documents
and compelling evidence. Pusztai, who
describes
this chapter as “the most thorough and
accurate
report on the topic,” was ultimately
vindicated when his potato study was published in
the
Lancet. His remains the only independent
safety
assessment in a peer-reviewed journal. It
contrasts
sharply with the handful of published
industry
studies, an analysis of which reveals how
they
were designed to avoid finding problems.
Excerpt:
When Susan answered the door, she was startled to
see
several reporters standing in front of her.
Several more were running from their cars in her
direction
and she could see more cars and TV news
vans
parking along the street.
“But you all know that we can’t speak about what
happened.
We would be sued and—”[6]
“It’s OK now,” the reporter from Channel Four
Television interrupted, waving a paper in front of
her.
“They’ve released your husband. He can talk
to us.”
Susan took the paper. “Arpad,
come here,” she
called
to her husband.
Arpad Pusztai (pronounced: Are-pod Poos-tie), a
distinguished looking man in his late sixties, was
already
on his way. As his wife showed him the
document,
the reporters slipped past them into the
house.
But Arpad didn’t notice; he was staring at
the
paper his wife had just handed him. He
recognized the letterhead at once—The Rowett
Institute,
world’s
leading nutritional institutes and his
employer
for the previous thirty-five years—until
his
sudden suspension seven months ago. And there
it was,
clearly spelled out. They had released
their
gag order. He could speak.
The document was dated that same day, February 16,
1999. In fact, less than twenty minutes before,
thirty
reporters had sat in the Rowett Institute
press
conference listening to its director,
Professor Phillip James, casually mention that the
restrictions on Dr. Pusztai’s speaking to the
press
had been lifted. Before James had finished
his
sentence, the reporters leaped for the door.
They jumped into their cars and headed straight to
the Pusztai’s house on Ashley Park North, an
address
most were familiar with, having virtually
camped
out there seven months earlier. Now those
thirty
reporters, with TV cameras and tape
recorders,
were piled into the Pusztai’s living
room.
Arpad Pusztai read the document—twice. As he
looked
up, the reporters started asking him
questions
all at once. He smiled, and breathed
more
easily than he had in a long time. He had all
but
given up hope. Now he finally had the chance
to
share what he knew about the dangers of
genetically engineered foods.
The story of Arpad Pusztai made headlines
throughout
some of
the serious health risks of genetically
modified
(GM) foods. It was barely mentioned,
however,
in the
group
Project Censored described it as one of the
ten
most underreported events of the year.[7] In
fact,
major
discussion of the controversy over genetically
modified
organisms (GMOs) until May 1999. But that
was all
about saving the monarch butterfly from GM
corn
pollen, not about human food safety.
It wasn’t until the massive food recall prompted
by StarLink corn that Americans were even alerted
to the
fact that they were eating GM foods
everyday.
Moreover, the American press was forced
to
question whether GM foods were safe. Up until
then,
the media had portrayed European resistance
to
anti-Americanism. But as the story of Arpad
Pusztai
reveals, the European anti-GMO sentiment
had
been fueled, in part, by far greater health
risks
than the scattered allergic reactions
attributed to StarLink.
Between the Chapters: The Wisdom of
Animals
Mice avoid eating GM foods when they have the
chance,
as do rats, cows, pigs, geese, elk,
squirrels,
and others. What do these animals know
that we
don’t? At the end of each chapter is a
one-page
story describing how farmers, students,
and
scientists discovered that animals refuse to
eat the
same GM foods that we consume everyday.
Excerpt:
The Washington Post reported that laboratory mice,
usually
happy to munch on tomatoes, turned their
noses
up at the genetically modified FlavrSavr
tomato.
Scientist Roger Salquist said of his
tomato,
“I gotta tell you, you can be Chef
Boyardee and mice are still not going to like
them.”[8]
The mice were eventually force fed the
tomato
through gastric tubes and stomach washes.
Several developed stomach lesions; seven of forty
died
within two weeks. The tomato was approved
without
further tests.
Chapter 2: What Could Go Wrong—A Partial List
Genetic engineers continually encounter unintended
side effects—plants
create toxins, react to
weather
differently, contain too much or too
little
nutrients, become diseased or malfunction
and
die. This chapter describes the process of
genetic
engineering and twenty-one ways in which
it can
create unexpected, potentially serious
problems.
Excerpt:
New DNA chip technology has recently allowed
scientists to monitor changes in DNA functioning
when
foreign genes are inserted. In one
experiment, there was a staggering 5 percent
disruption of gene _expression. In other words,
after a
single foreign gene had been added through
genetic
engineering, one out of every 20 genes
that
were creating proteins either increased or
decreased
their output. According to Professor
David Schubert, “while these types of unpredicted
changes
in gene _expression are very real, they
have
not received much attention outside the
community
of the DNA chip users.” He adds that,
“there is currently no way
to predict the
resultant
changes in protein synthesis.”[9]
Chapter 3: Spilled Milk
“The scientists’ testimony before a Senate
committee
was like a scene from the conspiratorial
television show The X-Files.”[10] This was how
Canadian government scientists who tried to stand
up to
pressure to approve Monsanto’s genetically
engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH) which they
believed
was unsafe. The scientists were
threatened by senior government officials, files
were
stolen from their locked file cabinets,
Monsanto allegedly offered them a bribe of $1-2
million,
and one senior official suddenly quit and
disappeared, avoiding an appearance before a
Parliamentary Committee.[11]
What was happening to
the
Canadian scientists in 1998 amounted to
“re-runs” of what
in the
1980s. When FDA scientists tried to blow
the
whistle on what was happening, they were
stripped
of responsibilities or fired. The FDA
eventually approved rbGH on the basis of a
research
summary submitted by Monsanto that had
distorted
and deleted data about serious health
effects,
including cancer.
Excerpt:
The FDA’s article states, “it has also been
determined that at least 90 percent of bovine
growth
hormone (bGH) activity is destroyed upon
pasteurization of milk. Therefore, bGH
residues do
not
present a human food safety concern.”[12]
Robert Cohen decided to investigate this claim. He
uncovered
what he considers to be blatant
scientific fraud. The research had been conducted
by
undergraduate Paul Groenewegan. His three
co-authors all had close ties with Monsanto. The
paper
described how they heated milk at 162ºF for
thirty
minutes.
Cohen said, “when I read that, I said, wait a
second,
milk is pasteurized for 15 seconds at that
temperature—not 30 minutes. They intentionally
tried
to destroy the hormone…. That must have been
their
mission. Why else would they heat the milk
for 30
minutes at a high temperature reserved for
a 15
second treatment?” But even after thirty
minutes
only 19 percent of the bGH in milk from
hormone-treated cows was destroyed. According to
Cohen, “They then ‘spiked’ the milk. This is their
word,
‘spike.’ They added artificial bGH
… 146
times
the level of naturally occurring bST in
powdered
form to the milk and heated it. The
powdered
bGH in milk was destroyed! They saved the
day for
Monsanto. The experiment worked. These men
of
science could claim that heat treatment
destroys
bGH.”[13]
Chapter 4: Deadly Epidemic
In 1989, first dozens, then thousands fell sick.
About one hundred people died, others struggled
with
paralysis, unbearable pain, and debilitating
symptoms.[14] Authorities
eventually tracked its
cause:
contaminants produced in one company’s
genetically modified variety of the food
supplement L-tryptophan.[15] This chapter
describes
the evidence implicating genetic
engineering as the cause of the epidemic and the
efforts
by industry and the FDA to divert the
blame.
Current regulations are so loose, they
would
allow that same type of deadly supplement
onto
the market today.
Chapter 5: Government By the Industry, For the
Industry
Henry Miller was in charge of biotechnology issues
at the
FDA from 1979 to 1994. According to Miller,
“
big
agribusiness has asked them to do and told
them to
do.”[16] This chapter reveals how industry
influence
has dictated policy, and how the FDA
ignored
the recommendations by the majority of
their
own scientists by approving GM foods without
requiring
safety tests.
Excerpts:
The biotech industry’s success with these
government leaders became apparent on
in the
Indian Treaty Room of the Old Executive
Building.
There, Vice President Dan Quayle
announced
the Bush administration’s new policy on
genetically engineered food: “The reforms we
announce
today will speed up and simplify the
process
of bringing better agricultural products,
developed
through biotech, to consumers, food
processors and farmers. We will ensure that
biotech
products will receive the same oversight
as
other products, instead of being hampered by
unnecessary regulation.”[17]
By “receive the same oversight as other products,”
Quayle meant that GM foods would be considered
just as
safe as natural, non-GM foods. And
sidestepping “unnecessary regulation” meant that
the
government would not require any safety tests
or any
special labels identifying the foods as
genetically engineered. The rationale for this
hands-off
policy was spelled out in an FDA
document
dated three days after Quayle’s
announcement. “The agency is not aware of any
information showing that foods derived by these
new methods
differ from other foods in any
meaningful or uniform way.”[18] Monsanto had what
it
wanted: government endorsement of safety, and
no
regulations that would interfere with its plans
for
rapid worldwide sales.
Political Science at the FDA
Attorney Michael Taylor was involved in the
development of FDA policy. Prior to working at the
FDA, Monsanto was his personal client.
helped
Monsanto draft pro-biotech regulations that
the
industry would lobby for. While working for
the
FDA,
himself.
For Monsanto, there was no better person
to step
into a leadership role at the FDA.
the
agency. In 1991 the FDA created a new position
for
him: Deputy Commissioner for Policy. He
instantly
became the FDA official with the
greatest
influence on GM food regulation,
overseeing the development of government policy.
According to public interest attorney Steven
Druker,
who has studied the FDA’s internal files,
“During Mr. Taylor’s tenure as Deputy
Commissioner, references to the unintended
negative
effects of bioengineering were
progressively deleted from drafts of the policy
statement
(over the protests of agency
scientists), and a final statement was issued
claiming
(a) that [GM] foods are no riskier than
others
and (b) that the agency has no information
to the
contrary.”[19] In 1994,
administrator at the Department of Agriculture’s
Food Safety and Inspection Service, where he was
also
involved in biotechnology issues. He later
became
Vice President for Public Policy at
Monsanto.
When the FDA announced its policy, the public was
not
aware of any internal dissent. The policy
boldly
claimed that there was no information to
indicate
that GM foods were different or more
risky
than natural varieties. Since the American
public
generally trusts the FDA, people assumed
that no
such risks existed. But nearly a decade
later,
the agency’s internal documents—made public
for the
first time through a lawsuit—told a
different
story.
Linda Kahl, an FDA
compliance officer, protested
that by
“trying to force an ultimate conclusion
that
there is no difference between foods modified
by
genetic engineering and foods modified by
traditional breeding practices,” the agency was
“trying to fit a square peg
into a round hole.”
She insisted, “the processes
of genetic
engineering and traditional breeding are
different,
and according to the technical experts
in the
agency, they lead to different risks.”[20]
One such expert was FDA microbiologist Louis
Pribyl. “There is a profound difference between
the
types of unexpected effects from traditional
breeding
and genetic engineering,” wrote Pribyl in
a
letter to James Maryanski, the FDA’s
biotech
coordinator. Pribyl said that several aspects of
gene
splicing “may be more hazardous.”[21]
According to the New York Times, “Dr. Pribyl knew
from
studies that toxins could be unintentionally
created
when new genes were introduced into a
plant’s
cells.”[22]Moreover, Pribyl wrote “there
is no
certainty that [the breeders of GM foods]
will be
able to pick up effects that might not be
obvious.”
He declared, “This is the industry’s pet
idea,
namely that there are no unintended effects
that
will raise the FDA’s level of concern. But
time
and time again, there is no data to back up
their
contention.”[23]
Pribyl
was only one of many FDA scientists asked
to
provide input during the formulation of the
FDA’s policy on genetically engineered
food.
According to Druker,
records show that the
majority
of these scientists identified potential
risks
of GM foods. Druker was the main organizer
of the
lawsuit that forced the FDA documents into
the
public domain. His nonprofit organization, the
Alliance for Bio-Integrity, was the lead
plaintiff.
Having sorted through tens of thousands
of
pages of FDA documents, he described the
opinion
of the agency’s scientists as follows:
“The predominant view was that genetic engineering
entails
distinct risks and that its products
cannot
be regarded as safe unless they have been
confirmed
to be so through appropriate feeding
studies.”
Druker says several scientists “issued
strong
warnings.”[24]
The Toxicology Group, for example, warned that
genetically modified plants could “contain
unexpected high concentrations of plant
toxicants,”
and described the reasons why these
might
be very difficult to identify.[25] Their
director
wrote, “The possibility of unexpected,
accidental changes in genetically engineered
plants
justifies a limited traditional
toxicological study.”[26]
The Division of Food Chemistry and Technology
outlined
four potential dangers:
1) “Increased
levels of known naturally
occurring
toxins”
2) “Appearance
of new, not previously
identified” toxins
3) Increased
tendency to gather “toxic
substances from the environment” such as
“pesticides or
heavy
metals”, and
4)
“Undesirable alterations in the levels of
nutrients”
They warned, “unless
genetically engineered plants
are
evaluated specifically for these changes,”
these
four “may escape breeders’ attention.” The
division
recommended testing every GM food “before
it
enters the marketplace.”[27]
Gerald Guest, the director of FDA’s
Center for
Veterinary Medicine (CVM) sent a letter to the
FDA’s
Biotech Coordinator, James Maryanski, saying
that he
and the other CVM scientists concluded
that
there is “ample scientific justification” to
require
testing and review of each GM food before
it is
eaten by the public. He stated, “CVM
believes
that animal feeds derived from
genetically modified plants present unique animal
and
food safety concerns.” He pointed out that,
“residues of plant
constituents or toxicants in
meat
and milk products may pose human food safety
concerns.”[28]
In spite of repeated internal memos outlining the
potential
for increased health risks posed by this
new
technology, subsequent drafts of the FDA’s
policy
statement, overseen by
and
more of the scientist’s input. In a fiery memo
to Maryanski, Pribyl challenged the
direction the
policy
statement had taken: “What has happened to
the
scientific elements of this document? Without
a sound
scientific base to rest on, this becomes a
broad,
general, ‘What do I have to do to avoid
trouble’-type
document…. It will look like and
probably
be just a political document…. It reads
very
pro-industry, especially in the area of
unintended effects.”
But while the FDA’s
scientists were emphasizing
caution
and testing, its leaders were beholden to
an
altogether different lobbying effort. A March
1992 memo from FDA Commissioner David Kessler,
confirmed
the White House’s influence in the
crafting
of the agency’s policy. “The approach and
provisions of the policy statement are consistent
with
the general biotechnology policy established
by the
Office of the President…. It also responds
to
White House interest in assuring the safe,
speedy
development of the
industry.”[29]
But even the draft of the policy that Commissioner
Kessler praised as White House-friendly was
subject
to further revision as it went up the
political
chain of command. A memo from the Office
of the
Assistant Secretary for Health, at the
Department of Health & Human Services, expressed
reservations about the length and depth of the
policy
statement’s concern for environmental
effects
of GM crops. The letter said, “The
extensive
twelve page discussion seems to
be…dangerously
detailed and drawn-out.” [30] In
the
end, it was the political, rather than
scientific considerations that prevailed.
The agency not only ignored its scientists, it
claimed
their concerns never existed. For example,
the
State Department’s Melinda Kimble, while
negotiating GMO trade policy said, “I want to make
very
clear that it is the position of the United
States government that we do not believe there is
a
difference between GMO commodities and non-GMO
commodities.”[31] Likewise, a March 2003 statement
by
Speaker of the House Hastert declared, “There
is
general consensus among the scientific
community
that genetically modified food is no
different
from conventional food.”[32]
When the FDA documents eventually became public,
Maryanski
defended the agency’s policy. On
GM Food Safety in
scientists had merely been asking questions about
the
various issues involved in bioengineered food.
Maryanski
was unpleasantly surprised when Druker,
who was
a member of the conference, stood up and
invited
the audience to read the FDA memos that
were
posted on his organization’s website. They
could
see for themselves that the agency’s
scientists were not merely asking questions; many
of
their statements were quite emphatic about the
unique
risks of GM foods.
Maryanski,
other FDA officials, and
representatives throughout the
continue
to claim that there is overwhelming
consensus
among scientists that GM foods are safe.
In an October 1991 letter to a Canadian official,
however,
Maryanski himself had admitted that this
was not
true. He said, “there are a number of
specific
issues… for which a scientific consensus
does
not exist currently, especially the need for
specific
toxicology tests.” Maryanski also said,
“I think the question of the potential for some
substances to cause allergenic reactions is
particularly difficult to predict.”[33]
Commenting on statements made by FDA scientists,
the New
York Times wrote. “The scientists were
displaying precisely the concerns that Monsanto
executives from the 1980’s had anticipated -- and
indeed
had considered reasonable. But now, rather
than
trying to address those concerns, Monsanto,
the
industry and official
dismissing them as the insignificant worries of
the
uninformed.”[34]
Many scientists who understood the dangers,
however,
were not convinced by the FDA’s
assurances. Geneticist David Suzuki, for example,
said,
“Any politician or scientist who tells you
these
products are safe is either very stupid or
lying.
The experiments have simply not been
done.”[35]
A January 2001 report from an expert
panel
of the Royal Society of Canada likewise
supported
the conclusions of the FDA scientists.
The report said it was “scientifically
unjustifiable” to presume that GM foods are safe.
The report explains that the “default prediction”
for any
GM foods is that “_expression of a new
gene
(and its products) … will be accompanied by a
range
of collateral changes in _expression of
other
genes, changes in the pattern of proteins
produced
and/or changes in metabolic activities.”
This could result in novel toxins or other harmful
substances. The report emphasized the need for
safety
testing, looking for short and long-term
human
toxicity, allergenicity, and other health
effects.
The panel began their comprehensive
245-page report by quoting the editors of the
Nature Biotechnology. “The risks in biotechnology
are
undeniable, and they stem from the unknowable
in
science and commerce. It is prudent to
recognize
and address those risks, not compound
them by
overly optimistic or foolhardy
behavior.”[36]
FDA veterinarian Richard Burroughs described the
changes
he saw at the FDA. “There seemed to be a
trend
in the place toward approval at any price.
It went from a university-like setting where there
was
independent scientific review to an atmosphere
of
‘approve, approve, approve.” He said, “the
thinking
is, ‘How many things can we approve this
year?’
Somewhere along the way they abdicated
their
responsibility to the public welfare.”[37] A
congressional aide said, “At FDA morale stinks.
Hundreds of people have either retired or quit in
disgust.
All the best people, who believed in
working
on behalf of public health, have gone.”
Dan Glickman, former
Secretary of Agriculture,
describes
the government’s pro-biotech mind-set.
“It was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good
because
it was going to solve the problems of the
human
race and feed the hungry and clothe the
naked.”
He said, “You felt like you were almost an
alien,
disloyal, by trying to present an
open-minded view…. So I pretty much spouted the
rhetoric…
It was written into my speeches.”[38]
Chapter 6: Rolling the Dice With Allergies
An infant girl in
from
drinking soymilk, but was tested as “not
allergic”
to normal soy. Was she allergic to
something
in GM soy instead? Perhaps it was the
increased
amount of the allergen—trypsin
inhibitor—found in Monsanto’s Roundup Ready
soybeans?
Could this also explain why soy
allergies
in the
Roundup Ready soy was introduced? It’s difficult
to say,
because although scientists have confirmed
that
deadly allergies can be transferred into
foods
via genetic engineering, there are no robust
allergy
tests done on GM foods. This was brought
to the
public’s attention only after StarLink had
been
blamed for severe, potentially fatal allergic
reactions.
It took the FDA nearly a year to
develop
a test to see if StarLink was allergenic.
The test was so poorly designed and unreliable,
even
the EPA rejected the results.
Excerpts:
In March 1999, the
reported
that soy allergies skyrocketed over the
previous
year, jumping 50 percent. The increase
propelled
soy into the top ten list of allergens
for the
first time in the 17 years of testing.
reactions
to a wide range of foods. In previous
years,
soy affected 10 percent of consumers. Now,
15 percent reacted with a range of chronic
illnesses,
including irritable bowel syndrome,
digestion
problems, and skin complaints, as well
as
neurological problems, chronic fatigue
syndrome,
headaches and lethargy. Researchers
confirmed
the link with soy by detecting increased
levels
of antibodies in the blood. Furthermore,
the soy
tested in the study was likely to contain
significant percentages of the genetically
modified
Roundup Ready variety.
The fact that GM soy had just entered the food
supply
was not lost to the researchers, who,
according
to the Daily Express, “said their
findings
provide real evidence that GM food could
have a
tangible, harmful impact on the human
body.”
A spokesman said, “We believe this raises
serious
new questions about the safety of GM
foods.”
The British Medical Association had already
“warned that the technology
may lead to the
emergence
of new allergies.” With the
research
in hand, now British scientists urged
their
government to impose an immediate ban on GM
food
until further testing evaluated their safety.
Pathologist Michael Antoniou said that the
increased
allergic responses “points to the fact
that
far more work is needed to assess their
safety.
At the moment no allergy tests are carried
out
before GM foods are marketed.”[39]
At a business lunch with co-workers, 35-year-old
Grace Booth dined on three chicken enchiladas,
which
she later recalled were very good. Within
about
fifteen minutes, however, something went
wrong.
She felt hot, itchy. Her lips swelled; she
lost
her voice and developed severe diarrhea. “I
felt my
chest getting tight, it was hard to
breathe,”
recalled Booth. “She didn’t know but she
was
going into shock,” reported CBS news. “I
thought,
oh my God, what is happening to me? I
felt like
I was going to die.” Her co-workers
called
an ambulance . . . .[40]
Booth didn’t know what had caused her nearly
deadly
allergic reaction. But this was September
2000 and within a few days she heard the news. A
genetically modified corn product called StarLink,
a
potential allergen not approved for human
consumption, was discovered in tacos, tortillas,
and
other corn products. More than 300 items were
eventually recalled from the grocery store shelves
in what
was to become one of the world’s biggest
GM food debacles.
Chapter 7: Muscling the Media
The biotech industry uses its considerable
resources
to mold public opinion about genetically
modified
foods. In addition to promoting a
one-sided
image of the foods as safe and
necessary,
they stifle coverage about health and
environmental damage. For example, a Fox TV
station
canceled a news series, a publisher
canceled a book contract,[41] scientific journals
refused
papers, and a printer shredded 14,000
magazines,
all due to fear of lawsuits by
Monsanto.
Other stories presented in this chapter
describe
how the industry manipulated news that
was
reported.
Excerpt:
A national TV commercial showed a montage of
smiling
Asian children, caring doctors, rice
paddies,
and a narrator who says that golden rice
can ‘help
prevent blindness and infection in
millions
of children’ suffering from vitamin-A
deficiency.”[42] Time magazine went so far as to
claim
on their cover, “This rice could save a
million
kids a year.” The biotech company Syngenta
claims
one month of a delay in marketing Golden
Rice, would cause 50,000 children to go blind.[43]
The biotech industry had found its poster child,
genetically engineered rice that makes its own
beta-carotene—a precursor to vitamin A. In his New
York Times Magazine article, “The Great Yellow
Hype,” Michael Pollan says
that golden rice
impales
Americans on the horns of a moral dilemma:
“if we don’t get over our
queasiness about eating
genetically modified food, kids in the third world
will go
blind.”
“Yet the more one learns about biotechnology’s
Great Yellow Hope,” Pollan
continues, “the more
uncertain
seems its promise.”[44] A closer look
reveals
some interesting omissions in the
industry’s numbers. According to a Greenpeace
report,
golden rice provides so little vitamin A,
“a two-year-old child would
need to eat seven
pounds
per day.”[45] Likewise, an adult would need
to eat
nearly twenty pounds to get the
daily-recommended dose.
“This whole project is actually based on what can
only be
characterized as intentional deception,”
writes
Benedikt Haerlin, former international
coordinator of Greenpeace’s genetic engineering
campaign.
“We recalculated their figures again and
again.
We just could not believe serious
scientists and companies would do this.”[46]
Even the president of the Rockefeller Foundation,
which
funded development of golden rice, said “the
public-relations uses of golden rice have gone too
far”
and are misleading the public and media. He
adds,
“We do not consider golden rice the solution
to the
Vitamin A deficiency problem.”[47]
There are other considerations as well. No
published
study has confirmed that the human body
could
actually convert the beta-carotene in golden
rice.
Also other nutrients such as fat and
protein,
often lacking in the diets on
malnourished children, are needed in order to
absorb
Vitamin A. And it is not clear whether the
genes
from the daffodil, which are used to create
golden
rice, will transfer known allergens from
the
flower.[48]
The biotech proponents also admit that to persuade
people
to eat yellow rice may require an
educational campaign. But if they are going to
spend
the time to educate, Pollan asks, why not
instead
teach “people how to grow green vegetables
[that are rich in vitamin A
and other nutrients]
on the
margins of their rice fields, and maybe
even
give them the seeds to do so? Or what about
handing
out vitamin-A supplements to children so
severely
malnourished their bodies can’t
metabolize beta-carotene?”
Distributing supplements is precisely what the
Vitamin Angel Alliance is doing. They give
children
who are at risk a high potency tablet,
strong
enough so that only two are required per
year to
prevent blindness. At a cost of only $.05
per
tablet, only $25,000 is needed to prevent
500,000 children from going blind per year.[49]
Contrast this with golden rice, which has cost
more
than $100 million dollars so far, and is not
yet
ready.
Michael Khoo of Greenpeace
says golden rice “isn’t
about
solving childhood blindness, it’s about
solving
biotech’s public relations problem.” If
the
industry were truly dedicated to the problems
of
malnutrition and starvation, a tiny fraction of
their
advertising budget could have been diverted
to make
an enormous difference already. Khoo says,
“It is shameful that the biotech industry is using
starving
children to promote a dubious
product.”[50]
Grains of Delusion, a research report jointly
released
by humanitarian organizations in
Thailand, Cambodia, India, Philippines, Indonesia
and
for
golden rice is not malnutrition but garnering
greater
support and acceptance for genetic
engineering amongst the public, the scientific
community
and funding agencies. Given this
reality,
the promise of golden rice should be
taken
with a pinch of salt.”[51]
Chapter 8: Changing Your Diet
This chapter describes all the sources of GM foods
and
explains how to remove them from your diet. It
also
provides additional motivation to make a
change,
describing how food can dramatically
influence
mood and behavior.
Chapter 9: What You Can Do
This chapter offers some practical ways to stay
informed
and to make a real change. One of these
is to
get this book into the hands of those who
can
make a difference.
Excerpt:
Books have power. Upton Sinclair’s novel The
Jungle exposed the unsanitary conditions of the
meat
packing industry. After Teddy Roosevelt read
the
book on a long train trip, he pushed a bill
through
congress creating meat inspection. At a
press
conference, President Kennedy acknowledged
the
importance of Rachel Carson’s book Silent
Spring, which exposed the dangers of pesticides.
Kennedy then had his scientific advisor look into
the
issue. The book was eventually “credited with
beginning
the American environmental movement, the
creation
of the Environmental Protection Agency,
and the
1972 ban on DDT.”[52]
Officials around the world who are in charge of GM
food
policy need to be made aware of the foods’
dangers
and of how their approval was based on
politics,
not science. They have been subjected to
relentless promotion by the biotech industry and
bullying
by the
and
crops. The revelations in this book might
change
that.
Epilogue
This section ties in recent events with a summary
of some
of the salient points from the book.
Excerpt:
There are the numerous ways in which industry
researchers apparently doctored their studies to
avoid
finding problems with GM foods. For example,
Aventis
heated StarLink corn four times longer
than
standard before testing for intact protein;
Monsanto fed mature animals diets with only one
tenth
of their protein derived from GM soy;
researchers injected cows with
the
amount of rbGH before testing the level of
hormone
in the milk and pasteurized milk 120 times
longer
than normal to see if the hormone was
destroyed;
and Monsanto used stronger acid and
more
than 1,250 times the amount of a digestive
enzyme
recommended by international standards to
prove
how quickly their protein degraded. Cows
that
got sick were dropped from Monsanto’s rbGH
studies,
while cows that got pregnant before
treatment
were counted as support that the drug
didn’t
interfere with fertility; differences in
composition between Roundup Ready soy and natural
soy
were omitted from a published paper; antibody
reactions
by rats fed rbGH were ignored by the
FDA; and deaths from rats fed the FlavrSavr
tomato
remain
unexplained.
Overturning a myth is not easy and cannot be
accomplished by only a few individuals. Please
join
with those of us who are dedicated to getting
the
truth out.
[1] See the White House press release on this at
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030521-2.html.
The comments mentioned are about two-thirds of the
way
down
the web page.
[2] Stuart Laidlaw, “StarLink
Fallout Could Cost
Billions,” The
[3] Robert Cohen, Milk, The
Deadly Poison, Argus
Publishing, Englewood Cliffs,
[4] See
www.foodfirst.org/media/news/2003/butterfliesvsusda.html
[5] See www.ustrade-wto.gov/03052102.html
[6] Unless otherwise indicated, quotes from Arpad
Pustai,
his wife Susan, or Philip James are based on
personal
communications with Arpad Pustai.
[7] Project Censored,
www.projectcensored.org/publications/2001/7.html
[8] Rick Weiss, “Biotech Food Crop Raises a Crop of
Questions,”
[9] David Schubert, “A different perspective on GM
food,”
Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 20, 2002, p. 969
[10] Anne McIlroy, “Pierre Blaise thought it was his
duty,”
Globe and Mail (
[11] James Baxter, The
Ottawa Citizen,
p. A1
[12] Judith C. Juskevich,
C. Greg Guyer, “Bovine Growth
Hormone: Human Food Safety Evaluation,” Science,
1990,
vol. 249, pp. 875-884
[13] Robert Cohen, Milk, The
Deadly Poison, Argus
Publishing,
[14] Phillip A. Hertzman
and others, The
Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome: The
Conference, Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 18, no. 6,
1991, pp. 867-873
[15] William Crist,
Investigative report on
L-tryptophan, found at www.biointegrity.org
[16] Kurt Eichenwald, and
others, “Biotechnology Food:
From the Lab to a Debacle,” The New York Times,
January
25, 2001
[17] Ibid.
[18] “Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New
Plant
Varieties,” Federal Register vol. 57, No. 104 at
22991.
[19] Steve Druker,
www.biointegrity.org
[20] Linda Kahl to James Maryanski, about Federal
Register document “Statement of Policy: Foods from
Genetically Modified Plants,”
www.biointegrity.org
[21] Louis J. Pribyl “Biotechnology
Draft Document,
[22] Kurt Eichenwald and
others, “Biotechnology Food:
From the Lab to a Debacle,”
2001
[23] Louis J. Pribyl
“Biotechnology Draft Document,
[24] Steve Drucker,
www.biointegrity.org
[25] Edwin J. Mathews to the Toxicology Section of
the
Biotechnology Working Group. “Analysis of the Major
Plant Toxicants.”
[26] Samuel
Toxicology Section of the Statement of Policy: Foods
Derived from Genetically Modified Plants,” January
31,
1992, www.biointegrity.org
[27] Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and
Division of Contaminants Chemistry, “Points to
Consider
for
Safety Evaluation of Genetically Modified Foods;
Supplemental Information,”
www.biointegrity.org
[28] Gerald B. Guest to James Maryanski,
“Regulation of
Transgenic Plants--FDA Draft Federal Register Notice
on
Food Biotechnology.”
www.biointegrity.org
[29] David Kessler, “FDA Proposed Statement of Policy
Clarifying the Regulation of Food Derived from
Genetically Modified Plants--DECISION.”
www.biointegrity.org
[30] Eric Katz to John Gallivan,
“Food Biotechnology
Policy Statement,”
[31] Bill Lambrecht, Dinner
at the New Gene Café, p 322
[32] “Speaker Hastert Calls for End of European
Union’s
‘Protectionist, Discriminatory Trade Policies,”
Newswire,
[33] James Maryanski, to
Dr. Bill Murray, Chairman of
the
Food Directorate,
foods
and food ingredients developed through new
biotechnology,”
[34] Kurt Eichenwald, and
others, “Biotechnology Food:
From the Lab to a Debacle,” The New York Times,
January
25, 2001
[35] Andrea Baillie, “Suzuki Warns of Frankenstein
Foods,” CP Wire,
January, 2001,
http://www.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf
[37] Craig Canine, “Hear No Evil,” Eating Well,
July/August 1991
[38] Bill Lambrecht, Dinner
at the New Gene Café, p 139
[39] Mark Townsend, “Why soya
is a hidden destroyer,”
Daily Express,
[40] “Life-Threatening Food?” CBS News,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/05/17/eveningnews/main291992.shtml
[41] Read this unbelievable account at
www.WantToKnow.info/massmediacover-ups, first story
[42] Michael Pollan, “The
Great Yellow Hype,”
Times,
[43] “GE rice is fool’s gold,” Greenpeace,
http://archive.greenpeace.org/~geneng/highlights/food/goldenrice.htm
[44] Michael Pollan, “The
Great Yellow Hype,”
Times,
[45] Greenpeace demands false biotech advertising be
removed
from TV, Letter,
[46] Opinion piece about Golden Rice by Benedikt
Haerlin,
http://archive.greenpeace.org/~geneng/highlights/food/benny.htm
[47] Greenpeace demands false biotech
advertising be
removed
from TV, Letter,
[48] “Grains of Delusion,” Jointly published by
BIOTHAI
(
MASIPAG (
(
www.grain.org/publications/delusion-en.cfm
[49] Vitamin Angel
http://www.vitaminangelalliance.com/vitamina.html
[50] FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), Open
Meeting,
[51] “Grains of Delusion,” Jointly published by
BIOTHAI
(
MASIPAG (
(
www.grain.org/publications/delusion-en.cfm
[52] Dorothy Mclaughlin,
“Fooling with Nature, Silent
Spring Revisited,” PBS,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nature/disrupt/sspring.html
copyright © 2003 Jeffrey M. Smith