SEED POLICE+Genetic Engineering in Food Cost Your Children their "Soul" Force.

Moksha wrote- They (Monsanto et al) would never have put the human infertility gene into the corn unless they first had the antidote to use on themselves. Initially I mistakenly thought it produced a temporary infertility like the pill, later I discovered it meant life long reproductive infertility from just inhaling the pollen blowing in the wind or taking a single bite of a biscuit containing the epicyte gm infertility gene in corn. see the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mA5yQ4_De_M

I made a second mistake in thinking it only affected womens fertility, not realsing it aslo made men infertile. This could easily make all humans infertile forever.

... well at least the cafeteria at monsanto carefully avoids GMO food.. > > feel better now? > > > http://usahitman.com/esgf/

Half of All Children Will Be Autistic by 2025, Warns Senior Research Scientist at MIT

December 23, 2014

Why? Evidence points to glyphosate toxicity from the overuse of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide on our food.

For over three decades, Stephanie Seneff, PhD, has researched biology and technology, over the years publishing over 170 scholarly peer-reviewed articles. In recent years she has concentrated on the relationship between nutrition and health, tackling such topics as Alzheimer’s, autism, and cardiovascular diseases, as well as the impact of nutritional deficiencies and environmental toxins on human health.

At a conference last Thursday, in a special panel discussion about GMOs, she took the audience by surprise when she declared, “At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.” She noted that the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity, and presented data showing a remarkably consistent correlation between the use of Roundup on crops (and the creation of Roundup-ready GMO crop seeds) with rising rates of autism. Children with autism have biomarkers indicative of excessive glyphosate, including zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder.

A fellow panelist reported that after Dr. Seneff’s presentation, “All of the 70 or so people in attendance were squirming, likely because they now had serious misgivings about serving their kids, or themselves, anything with corn or soy, which are nearly all genetically modified and thus tainted with Roundup and its glyphosate.”

Dedicated to White Crow - who wrote: "I saw this in ODE magazine this month and it really gets my hackles up because it is TRUE. - "Farmers in North America already beset by economic woes now must also fear the "seed police." Biotech company Monsanto has 75 police and a budget of $10 million US to nail farmers using their patented seeds in an "improper manner." Including the age old tradition of saving them to plant for following year. Charges have been brought against an elderly Saskatchewan farmer who authorities concede wasn't even a Monsanto client - the company's seeds blew onto his land from a neighboring field. According to the progressive publication Sojourners (April 10,2005) cases have been filed against 150 farmers and 40 other small businesses. Every year Monsanto investigates some 500 farmers. So far, the biotech giant has earned more than $15 million US from court cases it has won. One unlucky farmer even spent eight months behind bars." (end)

So, if you don't thing Corporate America has the world by the short hairs - stay tuned to see what they can come up with next. I had also read that they have gone into South America, found plants and put a copywrite on the DNA; then fined the local farmers for using the seeds they kept from year to year - when it was their plants in the first place! Mankind is totally out of control to let this happen. - White Crow" ('Soylent Green'-here we come...)

http://www.skeptically.org/finc/id2.html There's nothing they are leaving untouched: the mustard, the okra, the bringe oil, the rice, the cauliflower. Once they have established the norm: that seed can be owned as their property, royalties can be collected. We will depend on them for every seed we grow of every crop we grow. If they control seed, they control food, they know it -- it's strategic. It's more powerful than bombs. It's more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world. The story starts in the White House, where Monsanto often got its way by exerting disproportionate influence over policymakers via the "revolving door". One example is Michael Taylor, who worked for Monsanto as an attorney before being appointed as deputy commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1991. While at the FDA, the authority that deals with all US food approvals, Taylor made crucial decisions that led to the approval of GE foods and crops. Then he returned to Monsanto, becoming the company's vice president for public policy.

Thanks to these intimate links between Monsanto and government agencies, the US adopted GE foods and crops without proper testing, without consumer labeling and in spite of serious questions hanging over their safety. Not coincidentally, Monsanto supplies 90 percent of the GE seeds used by the US market. Monsanto's long arm stretched so far that, in the early nineties, the US Food and Drugs Agency even ignored warnings of their own scientists, who were cautioning that GE crops could cause negative health effects. Other tactics the company uses to stifle concerns about their products include misleading advertising, bribery and concealing scientific evidence.

Summary- (for the pictorial series below) - Genetic Power Spectra (Montauk's 'Boson 7': Michael Ash time empath story / Anikin's 'Chloridians' - also see link 'decode' above ) reveals how axes of spin symmetry ('strands') or dimensions are superposed in DNA. This illustrates how the electrical properties of gravity ("God") making implosion are generated in DNA. First the 3 axis cube is tilt spun into the '4th dimension hypercube tesseract': the dodecahedron. (The shape Poincare symmetry suggests makes gravity from charge ,and the shape of palladium - key to cold fusion - pic below). Then that is 'wratcheted' or stepped down the helix stairway into the slinky that is DNA - the 5th dimension. FIVE spins are in that thread.

> Is this the 7th Sign, the 7th Seal, the 7th Veil??>> THEN - the thread is braided into string, the string is braided into rope, the rope is braided into FAT rope - until upon the SEVENTH superposed BRAIDING or nesting-- the DNA in the 7 color DONUT map - becomes TOROIDAL (physics measures: circularDNA, ringlord -links above). This occurs mostly & appropriately at sex, bliss, tantra, kundalini, death etc.
( 7 Spins Outside, 5 Spins Inside should begin to sound a bit familiar - hint Heart of the Sun, the Human and Heart of Hydrogen... the perfect Gordian Slip Knot that is DNA, origin of alphabet, and all of the above! If there are 5 strands or braid threads inside, and then 7 more into the DONUT DNA - does this mean that evolution designed 12 STRANDS in your DNA? - more correctly 12 axes of spin .. So - you new age "12 strand DNA" wu wu's - Anna Hayes et al.. stop talkin STRANDS - you make the biologists laugh- use correct language - refer to harmonic analysis or power spectra. )

This TOROIDAL DNA (see photomicrographs at links) maximizes the DNA designed ability to EMBED and attract / 'eat' the charge from its environment. (To inHAbit is to breath charge into - by gravity making in the fractal center). Only fractality / harmonic inclusiveness triggers the (implosion) compression 'sacred space' necessary to ignite DNA. -This finishes the necessary compression turned into acceleration (gravity ) by recursive heterodyning CONSTRUCTIVE (because of Golden Ratio) interference of the PHASE velocities of charge in DNA (see black hole making in DNA physics reference below). The important connection to make is from the physics - to the 'inner muscle building' psychology. Allow DNA to make the gravity to make you immortal - electrically COHERENT & therefore sustainable as a charge field or KA - measureable at death , the beginning of the SHEM-an.

The downside is if you don't train your DNA to make its own gravity (implode with bliss/ ecstatic coherence) - you become by electrical definition only suitable as food for the borg / parasites (+ join George Bush's America Bushraped generation - invasion of the ET shapeshifters **). The ONLY thing the low grade genetic (Nephalim - fallen DNA) parasites who have shapeshifted into control of most of the planet's military CANNOT withstand is the implosion of charge in the aura of humans who have chosen BLISS ignition / genetic evolution. That is why the global political pressure is immense to keep you in bad air, bad food, bad magnetism - in short in the CITY. Otherwise your DNA might get free and be more star steering than theirs could ever be.

to understand this article visually, please see the new DNA ANIMATED MOVING TOUR..9/23/98,thread to string..to rope.. top fat rope, waves within waves waving..

We would do well to carefully consider what this lost CONTEXT is doing to OUR DNA.

To begin our study I would recommend the book "Grammatical Man, Information Entropy Language and Life" by Jeremy Campbell. Here the author examines the question: as an information conduit, why does DNA have high "signal to noise ratio"? This means that the relative amount of noise or "coding mistakes" which emerge from DNA is incredibly miniscule, compared to the HUGE number of information transactions occurred repeated in translating DNA to RNA to proteins to people... No radio station ever got such a good batting average to acheive successful transmission of info across electrical spaces. Now the author in this book comes around to a lovely answer to his own question. He says that DNA acheives such sustainable accuracy in such a large number of "bookings" is because of what he calls "context dependancy" or context richness. This means that there is such a large scale coherence in what codon groups are arranged in meaningful sets, that if one code comes missing, THEN IT CAN ALWAYS BE REPLACED OR LOGICALLY INTERPOLATED BY CONTEXT ALONE. This is kind of like noticing that large scale distribution of children across huge aunt and uncle families is possible because the discipline and embedding of relationships, ensures that all will be served and none will be lost.

Think of it like this, if you were a software person trying to debug a large mega program you would NEVER attempt to interpret the machine code. No you would go to the code groupings within the code groupings within the code groupings. Words within words within words are what makes waves nestable within waves within waves.

It turns out that another name for exactly what that author has called high "context dependancy" in DNA, is literally the word BRAIDING.

In software this means C++ contains assembler which contains hexadecimal which contains raw machine code. In poetry this means letters within words within sentences within phrases within chapters within books... The overall flavor of meaning ARISES BECAUSE OF CONTEXT. Now mechanically in DNA this means that the discipline of the braid within the braid within the braid, turns the fine thread of the codons, braided into string, into rope, into fat rope, into VERY fat rope. As a wave function this puts a little wave more and more embedded into wave within wave. In radio terms this puts a carrier wave inside an envelope inside a bigger envelope.

Each superposed axis of spin, is actually the discipline of a longer wave braided (envelope to contained carrier wave) on a short. When the ratio of the longer wave envelop to its carrier, is a multiple of the Golden Mean, then wave interference is recursively constructive. This is called being embedability. (accomplished by the HEART's-link- field effect when you feel magnetic implosion's rush called "compassion" ).When this wave on wave in DNA by braid recursion is successively sustained, eventually a wave the size of your back yards magnetic field, is embedded. This superposed axis of spin, is called "dimension" in physics, and explanation behind the new age oversimplification described as "having 12th (dodeca) dimensional DNA". This is how the magnetic worm up the center zipper of DNA implodes, and becomes self organizing/steering/self-aware and superluminal (faster than light). (See "physics of cancer as touch forgotten.")

We have always known that Emotion directly affects DNA. Consider the simple example the if you were depressed this week your chances of getting a cold are very much higher. The cold virus is mostly DNA. What we now can understand is HOW emotion programs the DNA. We have shown that long waves in gland harmonics set up a pony tail braiding in the DNA, which responds like a slinky to heart phonons. The active sites which can receive the RNA to choose replication, in simple terms, just become struturally available to the physical space required to connect RNA to DNA... DEPENDING SPECIFICALLY ON WHETHER THEY ARE INSIDE OR OUTSIDE THE BRAID. So whoever made the braiding decisions IS the programmer of DNA's code. Glen Rein's article on his measured response of DNA wrapping to coherent EKG, was published in ISSEM after he and I discussed this idea.

Well, for one thing it means that the human genome project may not be such a key if we dont add info about frequency harmonics in DNA braiding.

William Pensinger in NM has measured signals propagating along the DNA helix moving faster than light. I now believe that when the ratio of carrier to enveloping in the DNA braid is by powers of the Golden Mean, the recursive adding and multiplying affects wave velocities thru light speed. This I suggest creates the superluminal wormhole which begins to move thru time. This brings us to the threshold of a spiritual language involving what parts of genetic memory survive lucid dreaming and death.

My friend Professor John Hubbard, University Buffalo Medical School, was developing a fascinating theory of aging. He essentially postulated that aging happened when DNA's core hydrogen bond became unstable as the "zipper function". Intertesting because right here would be the most charge dense linear accelerator if something were squirting very fast up the core. Geometrically this fits exquisitely. The codon rung place in the middle has been modeled as having a golden mean rectangle bond geometry. This spark gap COULD BE EMBEDDABLE. This spark gap could launch harmonics "in PHI knitly". This could be another flying finger: Pteradactyl.

You braid the DNA recursively. It becomes more self referential and more self aware and more self organizing as a wave. The result is a superluminal squirt gun to launch light into the time lines. This (this author believes) is directly related to the SPIRITUAL CONCEPT OF SOUL.

Collecting data, tingle in the DNA at the moment of intense emotion, appears to relate directly to the survival of memory thru the lucid dream, and presumeably the bardo (death). www.http://www.goldenmean.info/syllabus

Now my suggestion for this article is that long term long wave coherence, braid embedding by recursion to maximally embed the shape of environment creates superluminal wave sustainability in DNA. This nourishes us spiritually in the birth of "soul force". When the long term context of braid coherence embedded in the world is chopped up and fractionated, I believe "soul force" bleeds.

Take a bee queen. She mimics the dance of each worker creating a complete map to the sweetness/braid in the land in her DNA. Eventually when the DNA braiding to embedd is perfect, the MAP AND THE LANDSCAPE BECOME ONE.

Imagine breakfast where you wish to eat of the spin of the context of the land. You take spelt or quinoa or amaranth, rich and embedded with true millenia of embedding in the land. You soak them overnight in spring water in a non metallic charge holding clay container, in an altar of charge. In the morning you munch on these. You feel totally stimulated, no need for coffee. No need for mucous.

Now consider the opposite approach. You take wheat. You monoculture it for hundreds of generations, so the self-aware gene is screaming in pain at it's emprisonment. You then hack up its beautiful contextual DNA so it hass lost all true electrical mapping of the memory of its catching the charge of the land in its genes as a map of context. (This is called genetic engineering.) Then you strip it bare of germ and husk so that most enzymes and minerals are lost. Then you bleach it so white that rats are too smart to eat it cause they know it will kill them. Then you store it in metal so that all life charge is finally gone. Then you add bad water and form it into something THAT LOOKS LIKE WHOLE GRAIN (cous cous or ) : PASTA. But it is not. Then you store that in more metal for more death of spin. Then you add more bad water, and boil it in the most fractionating microwave.

Then you wonder why your children have no attention span. Attention is how many waves can nest in one place into stillness. The fractionating of the "fractality" of our food could well be the death of us.

See "Mucous" as proof of addictions to external sources of biological fire, home for designer viruses which sort our DNA for what's worth keeping at: The Archeo-Geometry of America's Spiritual Destiny:
It is critical to understand why the required inhabiting substrate for the new virals is mucous
and mucosal linings. Mucous is created quite literally when the ...
http://www.goldenmean.info/america - 74K - 1999-08-17

If we continue to let those WHO DO NOT KNOW WHAT SOUL IS, hack up the DNA in our childrens food, then those children will lose their SOUL. I believe this lies in the physics of the braiding in DNA which responds to charge embedability. If the discipline of braid within braid which creates soul force is lost in our food, these will be less hope for our children.

that the original Niburu/Hiburu ANunaki ADAM AND EVE gene splicing on this planet WAS FOR MORE THAN JUST HACKING UP SOME NEW BORGS FOR GOLD MINING.

The reason they were eating gold powder (manna/spice/ormes) to implode their DNA (ringing in YOUR ears).. (and thus needed TAKadama..-borgs from orion) WAS...

This required a glandular operation of INVERSION called COMPASSION.. to act magnetically on the DNA...

RESULTING in the ideal case... in DNA THAT COULD STEER ITSELF in faster than light.. travel (time penetration, lucid dreaming, bardo navigating, having soul memory that sustained thru death... in short the true upstart of the bumper sticker to the dracos: GET A SOUL..)

The point being there was a much DEEPER REASON the Annunaki/Orion contingent had to wander back to a more gravitically fractal (Hopi called Earth's nexus real estate value of location "Peshmehten" which became the series: "Deep Space Nine") and thus fertile enviornment for getting self reference in the DNA up to speed..

THEY had looked hundreds of years into our future, and seen whole star systems beginning to fractionate/destabilize due to the inability of evolved genepools to INHABIT them. Essential, DNA's magneto force provides the skill to keep megnetic wormholes re-steering themselves recursively back into their own center. Thus the CENTERING FORCE we have called GRAVITY IS ACTUALLY THE cooking soup for self awareness. This is because self-reference magnetically WHICH CREATES GRAVITY BY MAKING CHARGE INTO A FRACTAL.. (and valence shells recursive and embeddable).. and SELF AWARENESS... ARE THE SAME THING..

Another more poetic way to understand this, is the Aboriginal way. Keep squirting your ecstatic gland magnetism down the songline wormholes, and MAGic your tectonics don't break up. Self awareness MAKES THE GLUE. This self organizing wave physics engendered by the skill to EMBED YOURSELF (the physics of "to inhabit"), was called "The SUBSTANCE OF WE" feeling. (Sufic: Doris Lessing's books.)

The local politics noticed that the whole dragon orion contingent genepool, was now:

-unable to get fertile/sustainable immune system cooked up in offspring thru thymus radiance..

so they (annunaki/magdalens dragon blood..) wandered BACKWARDS in time to find the place where the radiating wave of galactically propagating genetic chaos ORIGINATED!

They superluminally scanned multiple timeline/event horizons AND DETERMINED THAT THE SOURCE OF THE EXPLODING GENETIC DISASTER was THIS 2ND MILLENIA TIMELINE ON EARTH HERE NOW!!!!!!

Specifically, they realized that unless they could prevent some of the most cutting edge DNA in the galaxy from doing the stupid mistake OF PREVENTING THEIR OWN DNA FROM BEING FREE....

The tru gold of galactic commerce is quality DNA. GOLD mining on Earth and elsewhere (using ADAM/EVE Golem) is just a little kindergarden primer lesson, in THE PRINCIPLE OF WHAT MAKES DNA SUSTAINABLE..

However, if you should be so foolish, as to EAT THE GOLD POWDER as a mechanical way of imploding your DNA.. NOT FROM SELF EMPOWERMENT... (without doing the COMPASSION work it takes to sort/embed your OWN MEMORIES as in preparing to die but living..)

because your DNA can't keep making it's own recursion mag worms back into itself..

This in short, is the story of the invention of genetic engineering, on our planet. Frankenfoods, borg food, clones, etc... this is the galactic wormwood Cherynobl.. which costs whole genepools their lives! If those gene splicers who hack up our food's heart worm, HAVE NO CLUE WHAT MAKES DNA SUSTAINABLE AS A WAVE BY BRAIDING, then THEY COST YOU YOUR SOUL.

So the rest of the fairy tale is cute: They set up a hex series (based on hive mind) of radiant capacitors in a compound called EDIN (="spaceport")(the garden of eden). (hex fixes, pent sends). These prevented further biological aging at a cellular level while they got more gold powder. See the story of "the golden ones" at http://www.goldenmean.info/origins Not only was the Hiburu (Niburu priest) alphabet simply the software tetrahedral vortex symmetry operations necessary to make DNA splices into a non-re-pent-ant non-imploding tetra helix, the soulless borg called GOLEM Tak-adams..(Takadama means borg or golem adam from Orion).. But the entire Sumerian glyph structures were nothing more than the optical waveguides necessary to focus light into the right cookie cutters to make sub cellular organelles (see George Merkel). This was a planet of gene splicers, pure and simple. But we the cooked up gene-pool might STING back up the worm. This is the angelic agenda..

in order to recapture the SKILL TO MAKE ENOUGH GLANDULAR PASSION, to learn to braid their own DNA for themselves..

IF WE AS A CULTURE NOW CHOOSE TO BORG OUR OWN FOOD.. (imagine what the pissed DNA in ALL the wheat food being fed ALL OF YOUR CHILDREN is doing to the mag force in the species DNA... my blood is literally boiling for the tragedy to the children...)

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 11:53:29 -0800
From: "121" <121@llix.net>
Subject: NEW EVIDENCE OF HARM FROM GM FOOD TRIGGERS CALL FOR IMMEDIATE BAN

>From <MedicalConspiracies@googlegroups.com>
_____________________________________________

Subject: GMW: NEW EVIDENCE OF HARM FROM GM FOOD TRIGGERS CALL FOR
IMMEDIATE BAN
From:"GM WATCH" <info@gmwatch.org>

GM WATCH daily
http://www.gmwatch.org
---
It's worth not just reading the main part of this press release but the
accompanying BRIEFING NOTE, which contains some very interesting
details and comments, including behind the scenes meetings of
scientists and
others that do not seem to have previously been made public.

"We need to change the focus of the debate away from the limited
studies that have been done to date onto the size of the irreversible
legacy
that we are probably going to leave for future generations." - Prof
Vyvyan Howard, Professor of Bioimaging, School of Biomedical Sciences,
University of Ulster

"If the kind of detrimental effects seen in animals fed GM food were
observed in a clinical setting, the use of the product would have been
halted and further research instigated to determine the cause and find
possible solutions. However, what we find repeatedly in the case of GM
food is that both governments and industry plough on ahead with the
development, endorsement and marketing [of] GM foods despite the
warnings of
potential ill health from animal feeding studies, as if nothing has
happened. This is to the point where governments and industry even
seem to
ignore the results of their own research! There is clearly a need more
than ever before for independent research into the potential ill
effects of GM food including most importantly extensive animal and human
feeding trials." - Dr Michael Antoniou, Reader in Medical and Molecular
Genetics, King's College London
---
NEW EVIDENCE OF HARM FROM GM FOOD TRIGGERS CALL FOR IMMEDIATE BAN

UK Government and EC accused of criminal negligence and willful
suppression of facts

Three new studies of the health effects of GM foods have triggered
fresh demands for GM components in human food and animal feed to be
banned
immediately, and have also led to accusations of criminal negligence
aimed at the UK Government and European Commission.

The first of the studies, conducted by Russian scientist Irina
Ermakova, showed that an astounding 55% of the offspring of rats fed
on GM soya
died within three weeks of birth, compared with only 9% in the control
group (1). The second, conducted by Manuela Malatesta and colleagues
in the Universities of Pavia and Urbino in Italy, showed that mice fed
on GM soya experienced a slowdown in cellular metabolism and
modifications to liver and pancreas (2). And the third study,
conducted by CSIRO
in Australia, showed that the introduction of genes from a bean variety
into a GM pea led to the creation of a novel protein which caused
inflammation of the lung tissue of mice (3). So serious was the
damage that
the research was halted, and stocks of the GM pea have been destroyed.
The developers have now made a commitment that the "rogue" variety will
never be marketed.

These studies, all revealed in the scientific literature within the
past few weeks, have caused widespread alarm throughout the world, since
two of them suggest that GM soya (used in a large number of foods) might
be very dangerous, and since they appear to confirm the findings of Dr
Arpad Pusztai and Dr Stanley Ewen, whose paper on physiological changes
in rats fed on GM potatoes caused a worldwide sensation in 1999 (4).
The authors were given the full "shoot the messenger" treatment; they
were widely vilified by the scientific community, and following an
intervention from the office of Prime Minister Tony Blair Dr Pusztai was
sacked, his research team was dismantled, and his funding stopped. The
Ewen/Pusztai research has never been repeated, let alone extended, for
fear that their results will also be replicated. And there has never
been a comprehensive human feeding trial involving GM food.

There is now overwhelming evidence in the literature of deaths
attributable to GM products -- among laboratory and farm animals and
in the
human population. Some of this evidence is presented below. And yet the
GM industry, and the UK and EC regulators who are charged with the
protection of the public, seem to live in a permanent state of denial
reminiscent of that of the early days of the smoking/health debate.
Despite
opposition from European Member States, the European Commission appears
to be intent upon issuing one contentious and dangerous GM
authorization after another, and basing its decisions upon highly
selective and
biased research by the applicants themselves, while taking guidance
from a
despised European Food Safety Authority which has lost the confidence
of NGOs and consumer groups across Europe.

Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said today: "Neither the UK
government nor the European Commission can pretend any longer that GM
foods are harmless. They must stop singing from the hymn-sheets
provided for them by the GM industry, and -- not before time --
recognize
that they have a legal duty to protect residents and consumers. In our
view they are already guilty of criminal negligence and the willful
suppression of facts. There must be no further GM consents, and GM
foodstuffs must be banned immediately -- at least until such time that
independent research on animals and humans gives GM a clean bill of
health
(24). We already know enough to be confident that that will never happen
(25)."

Professor Malcolm Hooper (20) said: "The genetic modification to food
is not without danger to the consumer who may be affected by genetic
changes that subsequently lead to serious chronic illnesses (cancer and
chronic inflammatory disease). Further independent studies, divorced
from any influence of government or corporations, are now imperative and
urgent."

Prof Vyvyan Howard (21) said: "We need to change the focus of the
debate away from the limited studies that have been done to date onto the
size of the irreversible legacy that we are probably going to leave for
future generations."

In spite of concerted efforts from the GM industry and from the
political establishment to prevent truly independent research on the
health
effects of GM food, there is now a mass of information in the public
domain to demonstrate that such food is potentially dangerous. We will
never know how many GM varieties have been developed and then quietly
abandoned before reaching the regulatory process as a result of deaths or
physiological damage during animal feeding trials, since studies by
Monsanto, Syngenta and the other GM corporations are conducted
in-house and
under conditions of great secrecy. But we do know of at least seven
cases where GM varieties have been withdrawn because of direct evidence
of health damage (5) (6) (7); and there are many instances of human and
animal deaths arising from GM feeding trials and premature release onto
the market of GM products (8-12).

In the most deadly case of all, the premature release of the GM food
supplement L-tryptophan in the USA led to a large number of human deaths
(estimates range from 39 to well over 100) and to the development of a
new disease (referred to as eosinophilia myalgia syndrome, or EMS)
which afflicted up to 10,000 people (8). When StarLink maize
(intended and
only approved for animal fodder) found its way into the US human food
chain in 2000, there was a massive food scare when it was realized that
it was potentially capable of triggering severe allergic reactions;
the crop was recalled (far too late), and $9 million had to be paid out
in compensation (6). People may well have died, but the medical impact
of the Starlink fiasco is a closely-guarded secret. In Hesse,
Germany, 12 dairy cows died in 2001-2002 after eating GM fodder maize
Bt176,
which contains the Cry1Ab protein (11). When broiler chickens were fed
on a diet of Chardon LL (T25) maize, the mortality rate was twice as
high as that of the control group. That fodder maize variety has now
been withdrawn. When the infamous Flavr-Savr GM tomato was tested, 7 out
of 40 rats died within two weeks due to necrosis (5). In the case of
the GM bovine growth hormone known as rBGH or BST Monsanto has
persistently attempted to promote its use in spite of abundant
evidence of
cattle deaths and attributable problems including mastitis (10).
Allergic
reactions among farm workers have been preliminarily linked to Monsanto
Bt maize and Bt cotton in the Philippines (2004) and India (2005),
respectively (14).

In 2005 Monsanto was heavily criticised across the world for the
obsessive secrecy with which it sought to keep animal feeding studies for
MON863 maize out of the public domain (6). The company even insisted
on a
"gagging order" on Dr Arpad Pusztai, the scientist retained by the
German Government to assess the scientific dossier submitted with the
Monsanto authorization application to the EU. The study found
"statistically significant" differences to kidney weights and certain
blood
parameters in the rats fed on the GM maize as compared with the control
groups, and a number of scientists across Europe who saw the study (and
heavily-censored summaries of it) expressed concerns about the health and
safety implications if MON863 should ever enter the food chain. There
was particular concern in France, where Prof Gilles-Eric Seralini of the
University of Caen had been trying (without success) for almost
eighteen months to obtain full disclosure of all documents relating to
the
MON863 study. At last, it required a resolute campaign from NGOs and a
German court order to obtain the release of the study, which was then
revealed to have been highly selective, and carefully designed to
minimize
negative health effects.

There have still been virtually no studies of the impact of GM food
consumption on human health. But in one small study, referred to as the
"Newcastle Feeding Study", showed in 2003 that even after one small meal
containing a GM soya component, transgenes could transfer out of GM
food into gut bacteria at detectable levels (15). The study was
commissioned by the FSA in the UK, and that body (which has consistently
promoted the merits of GM food) was so frightened by the implications
of the
result that it has refused absolutely to commission any repeat or
follow-up studies in spite of a flood of requests from NGOs and consumer
groups.

During the past decade, as the giant biotechnology corporations have
extended their power base and have taken over the role as the prime
funders of GM research, politicians worldwide have been happy to promote
the merits of biotechnology and to believe almost everything fed to them
by the spin-doctors of Monsanto, Syngenta and other companies. They
have blindly promoted the interests of these corporations in spite of
on-going and vociferous opposition from the public -- and from concerned
NGOs and consumer groups. Public opinion polls consistently show large
majorities in Europe who are opposed to the use of GMOs in food
supplies. Independent scientists who have had the temerity to
question the
objectivity of studies submitted with applications for GM approvals, or
who have themselves published "uncomfortable" research, have been
victimised, marginalised and "warned off" further involvement with
community
groups. The conclusion is inescapable that the British Government, and
the EC, subscribe to a corrupt scientific system which is based upon
the following contract: "we tell you in advance what the result is, and
you will be paid to get on with your work and provide us with the
evidence we need".

For at least ten years the industry has consistently peddled the line
that nobody has ever died or even been harmed as a result of consuming
GM products. That is a lie, and it is still a lie if it is repeated a
thousand times. These are typical reproductions of the lie:

Eliott Morley, Environment Minister: "In terms of existing products
there has never been any indication that there is a health risk."
Dr Christopher Preston: "Many studies have been published since 2002
and all have reported no negative impact of feeding GM feed to the test
species."
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/peer-reviewed-pubs.html
CSIRO plant industry deputy director T. J. Higgins: "People have been
eating GM food for 10 years and there isn't a single piece of evidence
that it's any less safe than conventional food."

There are signs that the new studies of damage inflicted by GM
foodstuffs is spreading panic in the corridors of power. That is why
representatives of the President of the EC rang up Manuela Malatesta
and her
colleagues in Italy. That is why there is growing mistrust between the
European Parliament and EFSA, which has a long reputation for
"facilitating GM approvals" instead of protecting the European public.
That is
why EFSA has been forced to hold a stakeholders meeting (17) and to
accept a barrage of criticism from NGOs and consumer groups furious
with its
secrecy, its complacency and its easy acceptance of all the evidence
placed before it by Monsanto and other GM corporations (18). That is why
the FAO organized an invitation-only workshop in its Rome HQ in
October 2005 with 12 invited scientists, in order to assess the
likelihood of
health damage in the general population arising from the spread of GM
foods. Dr Stanley Ewen, a practicing consultant histopathologist at
Grampian University Hospital Trust, was invited to give the opening
presentation. He subsequently said: "We laid down a definitive
protocol for
the testing of GM food using animals and, indeed, humans. However, Dr
Harry Kuiper of the European Food Safety Authority made it quite clear
that his organisation was content to accept the results of "objective
studies" carried out by the GM companies. I am concerned that such
objective studies are still only being developed. Additionally, that the
EFSA will only commission animal experiments if there were serious
molecular differences between the parent protein and the genetically
modified
protein. Then there would seem to be the question of who would fund
such experiments and where would they be carried out? I firmly believe
that there continues to be an urgent need for independent animal and
human testing."

We understand from others present at that meeting that there was a
consensus that there are many gaps in scientific knowledge, particularly
related to GM health risks, and that new work on such risks must be
commissioned at the earliest opportunity; but that Dr Kuiper, on
behalf of
EFSA, effectively refused to sanction such new work and refused to
commit funding to it. As far as he is concerned, he is blind to any
ill-effects arising from the consumption of GM foods, and he is also
content
to continue leading the blind European Commissioners who foolishly
depend on him for guidance.

Responding to the three new GM studies, and to the avalanche of new
work demonstrating that GM foods are actually harmful to human beings and
other animals, Dr Michael Antoniou (22) said: "If the kind of
detrimental effects seen in animals fed GM food were observed in a
clinical
setting, the use of the product would have been halted and further
research instigated to determine the cause and find possible solutions.
However, what we find repeatedly in the case of GM food is that both
governments and industry plough on ahead with the development,
endorsement and
marketing GM foods despite the warnings of potential ill health from
animal feeding studies, as if nothing has happened. This is to the point
where governments and industry even seem to ignore the results of their
own research! There is clearly a need more than ever before for
independent research into the potential ill effects of GM food including
most importantly extensive animal and human feeding trials." (24)

Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: "With news of these
three studies, we have come to the inescapable conclusion that there is
something seriously wrong with GM food. Any averagely intelligent
person must also come to that conclusion. We think that GM soya is
particularly dangerous. The GM industry, the regulatory authorities in
Britain and Europe, and the politicians who are supposed to look after
us,
have been living in a permanent state of denial about GM ever since Arpad
Pusztai and Stanley Ewen published their Lancet paper in 1999. If they
persist in the pretence that all is well in the GM garden for a moment
longer, they will compound their criminal negligence and their willful
suppression of facts (23). They have already lost the trust of the
present generation of consumers; if they continue to treat the
protection
of biotechnology multinationals as a greater priority than the
protection of consumer health they will be guilty of a deliberate and
cynical
betrayal of the interests of future generations. We want nothing less
than an immediate ban on all GM crops, all GM food and all GM animal
feed."

1. See Jeffrey Smith: fully referenced article in "Spilling the
Beans," Oct 2005:
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=299
The study was a preliminary study and has not yet been peer-reviewed
and published by the author. But her results were so worrying to
independent scientists that dissemination became imperative.

2. Manuela Malatesta and her colleagues have published five papers
2002-2004.
http://www.greenplanet.net/Articolo9833.html&prev=/search?q=Manuela+Malatesta&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=G)
Mangiare OGM non fa differenza? Non proprio.......
Abstracts of the papers can be found here:
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/GMfeedsafetypapers.html

3. Study conducted by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation.
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jafcau/2005/53/i23/abs/jf050594v.html
New Scientist article:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8347

4. Ewen SWB, Pusztai A (1999) Effect of diets containing genetically
modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small
intestine. Lancet 354:1353-1354

5. The Flavr-Savr tomato was withdrawn in 1996, amid claims that it
was a commercial failure. So was another variety called Endless Summer.
But trials of the Flavr-Savr tomato showed there were health concerns
which contributed to the "commercial" decision.
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/0/80256cad0046ee0c80256d1f005b0ce5?OpenDocument

6. The StarLink maize fiasco occurred in 2000and is well documented.
See also:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/biotechdebacle_updated.php

7. A new GM soya was developed, containing genes from Brazil nuts
(1996). A novel protein was accidentally created which had the potential
to affect people with nut allergies -- so the GM soya was withdrawn:
http://www.health24.com/dietnfood/Food_causing_disease/15-737-740,32410.asp

8. As a consequence of the L-tryptophan scandal (1989) there were c 100
deaths (Jeffrey Smith). See these:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?ObjectID=283&find=L%2Dtryptophan
www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptophan/index.cfm

9. Fares NH, El-Sayed AK. 1998. Fine structural changes in the ileum
of mice fed on delta-endotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic
potatoes. Nat Toxins. 6:219-33.

10. The rBGH bovine growth hormone (BST) has been promoted globally by
Monsanto in the full knowledge of science showing damage to both cattle
and those who consume the milk of cows treated with rBGH.
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?ObjectID=193&find=BST

11. The deaths of cattle in Hesse, Germany, have been linked with
Bt176 maize, but there appear to have been determined efforts to
"lose" key
scientific information and to attribute the cattle deaths to
mismanagement and other factors.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CAGMMAD.php

12. Broiler chickens fed on Chardon LL -- the mortality rate was twice
as high as that of the control group (NB the infamous case of Prof Alan
Gray of ACRE and the failure of that Committee to examine evidence
placed before it........)
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/appeal.php

13. Rats fed on Chardon LL -- weight gain was much reduced
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/appeal.php

14. The work of the Norwegian scientist Terje Traavik and his
colleagues is on-going and has still to be published. But see: "Filipino
islanders blame GM crop for mystery sickness. Monsanto denies scientist's
claim that maize may have caused 100 villagers to fall ill" -- John
Aglionby in Kalyong, southern Philippines, The Guardian, Wednesday 3
March
3, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1160789,00.html
Allergic reactions and cattle deaths 2005 attributable to Bt cotton In
India (Madhya Pradesh):
http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=170692&cat=Health

15. The Newcastle feeding study (published 2003) involved a small
portion of GM soya fed to just seven ileostomy patients:
http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/statement
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=990
Comments by Dr Michael Antoniou
http://www.gmwatch.org/print-archive2.asp?arcid=143

16. Re the Monsanto rat feeding study on MON863 maize, which the
company was desperate to keep out of the public domain (2004):
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=221
Genetically Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and Cover-up, by
Jeffrey M. Smith
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=640430
http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/gmo_opinions/381_en.html
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5270

17. See this for the Stakeholders Meeting:
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5804

19. Workshop on Safety of Genetically Modified Foods held at FAO
Headquarters, Rome, 13 - 14 October
ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/meetings/2005/gm_workshop_info.pdf

20. Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry,
School of Sciences, University of Sunderland, UK

21. Professor of Bioimaging, School of Biomedical Sciences, University
of Ulster, Coleraine campus

23. The regulatory system for GM crops and foodstuffs is a disgrace,
and needs to be scrapped and replaced. The GM authorizations process in
both Europe and the USA is underpinned by the scientifically
nonsensical concept of "substantial equivalence", by which a cow with
BSE would
be considered to be "substantially equivalent" to one without. Further,
the authorities depend almost exclusively upon the "science" submitted
by the biotechnology corporations with their applications, which is
almost always partial and selective. In other words, it is corrupt.
Again, the regulatory process is designed - quite specifically - to
facilitate authorizations rather than to protect the consumer. The
regulatory
bodies themselves are packed with placements from the GM industry --
people whose very careers depend upon a continuation of the GM
enterprise. The precautionary principle, which is supposed to
underpin the
regulatory process, has now been effectively replaced by the
"anti-precautionary principle", by which GMs are assumed to be
harmless unless
opponents can prove otherwise, on a variety-specific basis. But
independent
scientists cannot undertake effective research because the genetic
constructs of new GM varieties are closely guarded secrets, and because
governments will not fund their studies. And finally, in Europe at
least,
the Commission is more concerned about politics than science, and is
determined to issue GM authorizations, come hell or high water, just to
show the Americans and the WTO that there is no GM moratorium in place.

24. Letters have now gone from GM Free Cymru to the UK Food Standards
Agency and to the European Food Safety Authority demanding the
initiation of an urgent programme of independent research into the health
effects of GM food, on the lines discussed at the recent unpublicised FOA
meeting in Rome. Copies of these letters are available on request.

25. According to a letter received 24.11.05 from Arpad Pusztai, "A
consistent feature of all the studies done, published or unpublished,
including MON863, indicates major problems with changes in the immune
status of animals fed on various GM crops/foods, the latest example of
this
coming from the GM pea research in Australia."

By the
way, have you ever heard of a book called Against the Grain: Biotechnology and the Corporate Takeover of your food? If not, contact me. It's right up your alley. This is the scoop: Chemical companies are now buying the largest seed companies in the US and bio-engineering all the seed
to become "resistant" to their herbicides and fungicides.Then, supposedly, you can spray chemicals in vast quantities with total impunity. The
"resistance" lies in the fact that the plant actually "accepts" the chemicals w/o dying itself. Then you eat it. The possibilities of absolute
catastrophy are real and, once discovered, irreversable. The seeds reproduce with the new biological makeup. Once it starts you can't stop it.
And it's starting now - w/o you even knowing about it! These are the same companies that brought us Agent Orange and DDT. They
weredeemed "safe." Yeah, right. Anyway, you (and every other person who makes a habit of eating) need to read this book.Beleive me, it's
scarier than any Steven King novel. Keep up the good work!
Rob

RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #685 .
. ---February 3, 2000--- .
. HEADLINES: .
. TROUBLE IN THE GARDEN .

. Environmental Research Foundation .
. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 .
. Fax (410) 263-8944; E-mail: erf@rachel.org .

. All back issues are available by E-mail: send E-mail to .
. info@rachel.org with the single word HELP in the message. .
. Back issues are also available from http://www.rachel.org. .
. To start your own free subscription, send E-mail to .
. listserv@rachel.org with the words .
. SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME in the message. .
. The Rachel newsletter is now also available in Spanish; .
. to learn how to subscribe, send the word AYUDA in an .
. E-mail message to info@rachel.org. .

Wall Street investors lost confidence in agricultural
biotechnology during 1999.[1,2,3] Agricultural biotechnology is
by no means dead, but investors drove down stock prices of ag
biotech companies during 1999 in a stunning reversal for the
industry. The WALL STREET JOURNAL said Jan. 7, 2000, "With the
controversy over genetically modified foods spreading across the
globe and taking a toll on the stocks of companies with
agricultural-biotechnology businesses, it's hard to see those
companies as a good investment, even in the long term."[2]

Hardest hit was Monsanto, the St. Louis chemical giant that had
spent 5 years and billions of dollars morphing itself into a
"life sciences" company, betting its future on biotechnology in
pharmaceutical drugs and agricultural crops. As the WALL STREET
JOURNAL wrote December 21, 1999, "Billions of dollars later, that
concept of a unified 'life sciences' company -- using technology
to improve both medicines and foods -- has become an affliction
itself for Monsanto. The crop-biotechnology half of the program
has grown so controversial that Monsanto has agreed to a deal
that is likely not only to push biotech to the back burner, but
also to cost Monsanto its independence. And investors are
reacting harshly."[3]

Monsanto agreed late in 1999 to merge with Pharmacia & Upjohn,
Inc. and the combined company will be run not from St. Louis but
from Pharmacia headquarters in Peapack, New Jersey. Monsanto's ag
biotech business will be spun off into a separate company and as
much as 19.9% of it will be sold.

Two other leaders in ag biotech, the Swiss pharmaceutical giant
Novartis AG, and the Anglo-Swiss drug firm AstroZeneca PLC,
announced during 1999 that they will combine their ag biotech
divisions into one and sell it off, "effectively washing their
hands of crop biotechnology," the WALL STREET JOURNAL said.[3]

Thus by the end of 1999, ag biotech companies found themselves in
trouble, worldwide, for the first time. Here is a short list of
reasons why:

** A lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
forced the release of government documents showing that FDA
scientists had expressed grave doubts about the safety of
genetically modified foods even as the agency was publicly
declaring such foods "substantially equivalent" to traditional
crops.[4] It seems clear from these documents that the scientific
integrity of the U.S. regulatory system has been compromised for
political purposes, to provide a "fast track" for the rapid,
large-scale introduction of genetically modified foods.

** The insurance industry has consistently refused to write
policies covering liability for harm caused by genetically
modified organisms. Steven Suppan, research director at the
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) in Minneapolis,
said last June, "It is worth asking what kind of regulatory
system approves for commercialization a technology whose risks
are so undetermined that the products developed from the
technology have not been insur- ed? An intuitive response is that
the U.S. rejection of liability suggests that U.S. agribusiness
and the U.S. government have less confidence than is proclaimed
publicly in the safety of the products approved and in the
integrity of the product review process," Dr. Suppan said.[5]

** A growing body of literature has begun to show that
genetically modified crops are creating new kinds of
environmental problems for farmers, and that genetically modified
crops are exacerbating already-severe economic problems on
American farms.[6]

** Europeans and others overseas have continued to insist that
the safety of genetically modified foods has not been
sufficiently documented and that import of such foods must be
prohibited, or they must be labeled. The doubts expressed by FDA
scientists, and the growing list of economic and environmental
problems are likely to stiffen European resistance to
genetically-modified seeds, crops, and foods.

** It became apparent in 1999 that the public rationale for
promoting genetically modified foods -- that such foods would
"feed the world" -- was based on wishful thinking, not economics.
It is now clear that U.S. genetically modified crops are too
expensive to "feed the world."[6]

** The rationale for refusing to label genetically modified foods
came unraveled in 1999 as biotechnology companies began to
announce new crops with special traits (rice with increased
vitamin A, for example). For years, biotech companies, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and FDA have argued that labeling genetically
modified foods was impossible because it would require food
companies to segregate genetically modified crops from
conventional crops and it simply couldn't be done. All the crops
were mixed together in the grain elevator, so labeling would be
impossible, they said.

This silly and disingenuous argument evaporated in 1999. As soon
as biotech firms announced specialty foods created by genetic
engineering, the labeling problem miraculously disappeared.
Labeling is suddenly easy -- indeed, required -- because
consumer's can't be expected to pay premium prices for specialty
foods if those foods aren't clearly identifiable on the grocery
shelf.

Polls have shown that more than 80% of American consumers want
genetically modified foods labeled as such. Now that labeling is
acknowledged as feasible, will the biotech industry, USDA, EPA,
and FDA bend to the public will and start labeling ALL
genetically modified foods? Not on your life. Government and
industry argue with one voice that labeling is not necessary
because genetically modified foods are "substantially equivalent"
to the conventional foods they have replaced. They even say
labeling would be "misleading" because it would imply that there
are differences between biotech foods and conventional foods.

Federal regulations governing biotech foods are founded on the
premise that there are no "material differences" between
genetically modified crops and conventional crops. This argument,
it turns out, was thoroughly discredited by FDA scientists before
the regulations were issued.

The FDA spent 1989-1992 developing regulations governing
genetically modified foods for humans and feed for animals. This
was back when President Bush and Vice-President Quayle were
advocating "regulatory relief" for industry.

FDA's rules -- which were announced by Mr. Quayle in 1992 --
allow a biotech company like Monsanto or DuPont to decide for
itself whether its food products are "generally recognized as
safe" (GRAS). If a company decides that its new genetically
modified corn or soybean or potato or wheat is "generally
recognized as safe" then no safety testing is required before the
products are introduced into the food supply. FDA said these
rules -- like all their rules -- are based on "sound science."

However, during 1999 a lawsuit filed by the Alliance for
Bio-Integrity in Fairfield, Iowa, forced the FDA to release some
44,000 pages of internal documents for the first time.[4] Among
them was a series of memos from FDA scientists commenting on the
FDA's proposed "substantially equivalent" policy for biotech
foods.

A key issue is whether "pleiotropic effects" will occur when new
genes are inserted into plants to give the plants desirable new
traits. Pleiotropy means that more than one change occurs in a
plant as a result of the new gene. For example, a gene that
allows a plant to grow better under drought conditions might also
make the entire plant grow smaller. The smaller size would be an
unexpected "pleiotropic" effect.

FDA regulations assume that pleiotropic effects will not occur
when new genes are inserted into conventional foods such as corn
or potatoes or wheat or soybeans. Therefore, FDA says,
genetically modified crops are "substantially equivalent" to
conventional crops.

Internal memos make it abundantly clear that FDA's scientific
staff believes pleiotropic effects will occur when new genes are
inserted into food crops. [In the following quotations, words
inside square brackets have been added for clarity but words
inside normal parentheses were in the original memos.--P.M.]

Commenting on the FDA's proposed biotech regulations in early
1992, Louis Pribyl, an FDA microbiologist, wrote March 6, 1992,
"It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended
effects.... This is 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 backup their
contention, while the scientific literature does contain many
examples of naturally occurring pleiotropic effects. When the
introduction of genes into [a] plant's genome randomly occurs, as
is the case with the current [genetic modification] technology
(but not traditional breeding), it seems apparent that many
pleiotropic effects will occur," Dr. Pribyl wrote. "Many of these
effects might not be seen by the breeder [meaning Monsanto or
DuPont or other biotech firm] because of the more or less similar
growing conditions in the limited trials that are performed.
Until more of these experimental plants have a wider
environmental distribution, it would be premature for FDA to
summarily dismiss pleiotropy as is done here," Dr. Pribyl wrote.

On the same subject, a memo from the Division of Contaminants
Chemistry within FDA's Division of Food Chemistry and Technology
said November 1, 1991, "Pleiotropic effects occur in genetically
engineered plants... at frequencies up to 30%. Most of these
effects can be managed by the subsequent breeding and selection
procedures. Nevertheless, some undesirable effects such as
increased levels of known naturally occurring toxicants,
appearance of new, not previously identified toxicants, increased
capability of concentrating toxic substances from the environment
(e.g., pesticides or heavy metals), and undesirable alterations
in the levels of nutrients may escape breeders' attention unless
genetically engineered plants are evaluated specifically for
these changes. Such evaluations should be performed on a
case-by-case basis, i.e., every transformant should be evaluated
before it enters the marketplace."

Instead of heeding the concerns of its scientific staff, FDA
issued biotech food rules that assume no pleiotropic effects will
occur, therefore no safety testing is required. All biotech foods
are assumed to be safe. The stage was thus set for confidence in
biotech foods to plummet as soon as word leaked out that the
scientific underpinnings of the regulatory system had been
compromised.

[1] I am indebted to Steven Suppan, research director at the
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) in Minneapolis,
who provided me with several brief, thoughtful summaries of the
state of agricultural biotechnology. Contact: ssuppan@iatp.org.
Telephone (612) 870-3413.

[2] Christina Cheddar, "Tales of the Tape: Seed Co. May Yet Reap
What They Sow," WALL STREET JOURNAL January 7, 2000, pg. unknown.

[3] Scott Kilman and Thomas M. Burton, "Biotech Backlash is
Battering Plan Shapiro Thought Was Enlightened," WALL STREET
JOURNAL December 21, 1999, pg.A1.

[4] The FDA documents are available at
http://www.bio-integrity.org/list.html. And see Marian Burros,
"Documents Show Officials Disagreed on Altered Foods," NEW YORK
TIMES December 1, 1999, pg. A15.

[5] Steven Suppan, unpublished paper, "National Summit on the
Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods, June 17, 1999, Capitol
Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C. 2 pgs.

[6] Some of this literature is summarized in Charles M. Benbrook,
"World Food System Challenges and Opportunities: GMOs,
Biodiversity, and Lessons From America's Heartland," unpublished
paper presented January 27, 1999, at University of Illinois.
Available in PDF format at http://www.pmac.net/- IWFS.pdf .

Descriptor terms: biotechnology; monsanto; dupont; novartis;
pharmacia; astrozeneca; agriculture; hunger; fda; regulation;
labeling; alliance for biointegrity; pleiotropy;

NOTICE
Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic
version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge
even though it costs the organization considerable time and money
to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service
free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution
(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send
your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research
Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do
not send credit card information via E-mail. For further
information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.
by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at
(410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944.
--Peter Montague, Editor

Subject:
'Veggie Libel'
Date:
Thu, 11 Mar 1999 09:58:28 -0800
From:
"Bob Mueller"

Felt compelled to share some more information on the current
state of genetically modified (GM) foods.

Why Americans are happy to swallow the GM food experiment
By Julian Borger
Saturday February 20, 1999
The Guardian (London)

> More than 50 million acres of US farmland are currently sown with GM foods.
> Four years ago, that acreage was ZERO. More than 75 per cent of processed
> foods on sale in the US are now genetically engineered.

> The links between the GM industry and the US government have been carefully
> cultivated. The dominant corporation in the field, Monsanto, a $7.5
> billion (#5 billion) giant with 25,000 employees, has covered all its
> bases, making significant financial contributions to both Republicans
> and Democrats. It successfully lobbied the Reagan administration in 1986
> to persuade it that no new legislation was required to regulate research
> and production of GM foods. Congress was thus kept out of the argument.
> Monsanto's links with the Clinton presidency are even stronger. One of
> its board members is Mickey Kantor, the chairman of Mr Clinton's 1992
> presidential campaign and a former chief trade negotiator. Marcia Hale,
> another former Clinton aide, is the company's international regulatory
> director.

> when the FDA was drawing up guidelines for deciding
> whether GM foods should be labelled, one of the key decision-makers was
> Michael Taylor, who had hitherto been a lawyer for Monsanto.

> The FDA rules mean that even risk-assessment data can now also be withheld
> as 'confidential business information'. In some states food companies
> can sue competitors under 'veggie libel' laws, if they label their
> products as having no genetically-engineered ingredients, on the basis
> that this might imply superiority to GM products.

This is getting out of hand. Reportedly, 16 states now have these "veggie
libel" laws.

An estimated 30,000 products on our grocery shelves are now genetically
engineered. 90% of all soy products in the US are already genetically nodified
(GM). The only way you can currently ensure that something you eat is NOT GM,
is to buy organic, since GM foods are not allowed under the current guidelines.

They have tried once already, through their links to the FDA, to modify the
organic guidelines to include GM foods. They failed, but have vowed to try
again, and again...every three years.

Obviously, if they pass "veggie libel" laws across the board, we will have NO
way of knowing what we are eating if they also manage to modify the organic
standards.

As you know, I read over 40 magazines a month - most of them health oriented,
some of them research and peer-written. I think the following should be read
and followed through because of the threat that I read in one of my european
magazines. It seems that the U.S. is requesting a global meaning of
"organic". Organic food as we know it today has seen an increase of over 20%
in the last year. Naturally, the large company growers are hurting over this.
The proposal? That anything "grown or alive" is really organic! This would
mean that chemically grown or altered food could be listed as organic, or meat
that has been shot with antibiotics or hormones would be considered organic.
The problem? They are requesting that it be established as the highest
standard and a portion of the bill says that real organic farmers would NOT be
allowed to call their product anything else to differentiate it from the "new"
organic. On top of this, there is a portion that says this will be the
highest acceptable standard and no one has the right to overstep these
standards. The UK magazine was outraged and calling for support to defeat the
U.S. bill.

Please read the following, act, and forward the information on to interested
people!

CNN is conducting a poll on whether you would eat genetically
engineered food. All you have to do is click "yes" or "no"-- it takes two
seconds.
Please vote!

Just click on the link below (or copy it to the address bar of your Internet
Browser):

Re: genetically altered food: It is quite amazing how "The Brains"behind genetically altered food operate. When Adrienne went to India she stayed with a plant scientist. From his point of view they were increasing the food supply - but he recognised the vicious circle that was being created in that the peasant - who normally grew his own seed - was now being forced to buy "good seed" - and this worked in such a way that the rich farmer got richer and the poor farmer got poorer.... along with THE LAND. winifred.

Subject: Monsanto: Sowing the Seeds of Destruction, Tue, 15 Sep 1998 , fr. DolphinBoy <alice1212@yahoo.com>

W and M, This posting I got set the bells off in my head. Especially after our talk with M last night. The Omega must really be scared to do this. But what better way to control people than to have complete control over the entire World food supply. And with their herbacide, they can wipe out everything but crops grown with their seeds. LOVE (Let Omega Violations End) Dolphin Boy

> theldar@ix.netcom.com writes: *Monsanto's ad campaign..."all-out war" over the control of the world's food supply.*

*Monsanto has suggested that within a few years all the major staple crops on Earth should be genetically engineered.*

*Monsanto already sells the world's most popular herbicide, and sells seeds designed exclusively to go with that herbicide.*

A FEW weeks ago, the behemoth multinational "life sciences"corporation Monsanto launched a $1.6 billion pan-European advertising blitz aimed at convincing Europeans that genetically altered crops especially foods - are good for them.

Some have called Monsanto's ad campaign, and the grass-roots resistance that has responded to it, an "all-out war" over the control of the world's food supply.

The Monsanto ads - which have included three full pages in a single issue of the prestigious Financial Times of London -include endorsements from a few prominent African politicians.

Titled "Let the Harvest Begin," these ads attempt to equate the elimination of world hunger to the acceptance of Monsanto's genetic technology. "We all share the same planet - and the same needs. In agriculture, many of our needs have an ally in biotechnology and the promising advances it offers for our future. With these advances, we prosper; without them, we cannot thrive ... Slowing [biotechnology's] acceptance is a luxury our hungry world cannot afford."

Such rhetoric has been met with passionate opposition. Senior African politicians, scientists and agriculturists have drawn the proverbial line in the sand, organizing themselves to combat the enormous resources of one of the world's largest corporations.

A counter-attack by UN delegates representing every African nation save South Africa lambasted the Monsanto ads with this joint statement:

"We strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to us."

The delegates also accused Monsanto of threatening and jailing" U.S. farmers who save seeds and denounced its "interest"in the environment. "[Monsanto's] major focus is not to protect the environment," the African UN representatives stated, "but to develop crops that can resist higher doses of its best-selling pesticide," the delegates claimed.

A few months ago I wrote in this column about the ominous repercussions of Monsanto's acquisition of a patent for the technique known as "terminator technology" - a genetic modification process used to engineer crops so they cannot reproduce. Such a plant forces growers to buy their seeds anew before each growing season - resulting in higher profits and an escalating market share of the world seed market for Monsanto.

Since I first wrote about the dangers of "terminator" technology breaking the natural 12,000-year-old farming practice of saving, sharing and cross-breeding seeds to adapt food crops to constantly changing conditions, Monsanto has moved rapidly to attain their stated goal of "providing better food, better nutrition, and better health for all people."

Monsanto has announced plans to develop "terminator" seed strains for nearly every harvestable crop and institute their usage worldwide. Its European ad campaign is just the latest move in the aggressive pursuit of that objective.

On June 29 Monsanto paid $1.4 billion to purchase international seed operations in Europe, Asia, Africa, Central and Latin America from Cargill -the world's largest grain and oilseed trader. And Monsanto has suggested that within a few years all the major staple crops on Earth should be genetically engineered.

Isn't there anything we can do to stop this?? This is serious!!
"Amazing Grace"
-----Original Message-----
From: Kimberly <kel@softdisk.com>
To: Janis & Raymond <jrgreer@bellsouth.net>; Grace <rainyday@yelmtel.net>
Date: Friday, February 26, 1999 12:36 PM
Subject: Fw: Against The Grain

AGAINST THE GRAIN

A new book by Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey, AGAINST THE GRAIN,
makes it clear that genetic engineering is revolutionizing U.S.
agriculture almost overnight.[1]

In 1997, 15% of the U.S. soybean crop was grown from genetically
engineered seed. By next year, if Monsanto Corporation's
timetable unfolds on schedule, 100% of the U.S. soybean crop (60
million acres) will be genetically engineered.[1,pg.5] The same
revolution is occurring, at the same pace, in cotton. Corn,
potatoes, tomatoes and other food crops are lagging slightly
behind but, compared to traditional rates of change in farming,
they are being deployed into the global ecosystem at blinding
speed.

The mass media have largely maintained silence about the genetic
engineering revolution in agriculture, and government regulators
have imposed no labeling requirements, so the public has little
or no knowledge that genetically altered foods are already being
sold in grocery stores everywhere, and that soon few traditional
forms of food may remain on the shelves.

Genetic engineering is the process whereby genes of one species
are implanted in another species, to give new traits to the
recipient. Traditionally the movement of genes has only been
possible between closely-related species. Under the natural
order established by the Creator, there was no way dog genes
could get into cats. Now, however, genetic engineering allows
scientists to play God, removing genes from a trout or a
mosquito and implanting them in a tomato, for better or for
worse.

Three federal agencies regulate genetically-engineered crops and
foods -- the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The heads of all three agencies are on
record with speeches that make them sound remarkably like
cheerleaders for genetic engineering, rather than impartial
judges of a novel and powerful new technology, and all three
agencies have set policies that:

** No public records need be kept of which farms are using
genetically-engineered seeds;

** Companies that buy from farmers and sell to food
manufacturers and grocery chains do not need to keep
genetically-engineered crops separate from traditional crops, so
purchasers have no way to avoid purchasing genetically
engineered foods;

** No one needs to label any crops, or any food products, with
information about their genetically engineered origins, so
consumers have no way to exercise informed choice in the grocery
store. In the U.S., every food carries a label listing its
important ingredients, with the remarkable exception of
genetically engineered foods.

These policies have two main effects:

(1) they have kept the public in the dark about the rapid spread
of genetically engineered foods onto the family dinner table,
and

(2) they will prevent epidemiologists from being able to trace
health effects, should any appear, because no one will know who
has been exposed to novel gene products and who has not.

Today Pillsbury food products are made from
genetically-engineered crops. Other foods that are now
genetically engineered include Crisco; Kraft salad dressings;
Nestle's chocolate; Green Giant harvest burgers; Parkay
margarine; Isomil and ProSobee infant formulas; and Wesson
vegetable oils. Fritos, Doritos, Tostitos and Ruffles Chips --
and french fried potatoes sold by McDonald's -- are genetically
engineered.[1,pg.92]

By next year, if Monsanto's plans develop on schedule -- and
there is no reason to think they won't -- 100% of the U.S.
soybean crop will be genetically engineered. Eighty percent of
all the vegetable oils in American foods are derived from soy
beans, so most foods that contain vegetable oils will contain
genetically engineered components by next year or the year
after.[1,pg.52]

It is safe to say that never before in the history of the world
has such a rapid and large-scale revolution occurred in a
nation's food supply. And not just the U.S. is targeted for
change. The genetic engineering companies (all of whom used to
be
chemical companies) -- Dow, DuPont, Novartis, and preeminently,
Monsanto -- are aggressively promoting their genetically
engineered seeds in Europe, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, India,
China and elsewhere. Huge opposition has developed to Monsanto's
technology everywhere it has been introduced outside the United
States. Only in the U.S. has the "agbiotech" revolution been
greeted with a dazed silence.

Monsanto -- the clear leader in genetically engineered crops --
argues that genetic engineering is necessary (nay, ESSENTIAL) if
the world's food supply is to keep up with human population
growth. Without genetic engineering, billions will starve,
Monsanto says. However, neither Monsanto nor any of the other
genetic engineering companies appears to be developing
genetically engineered crops that might solve global food
shortages. Quite the opposite.

If genetically engineered crops were aimed at feeding the
hungry, then Monsanto and the others would be developing seeds
with certain predictable characteristics: (a) ability to grow on
substandard or marginal soils; (b) plants able to produce more
high-quality protein, with increased per-acre yield, without
increasing the need for expensive machinery, chemicals,
fertilizers, or water; (c) they would aim to favor small farms
over larger farms; (d) the seeds would be cheap and freely
available without restrictive licensing; and (e) they would be
for crops that feed people, not meat animals.

None of the genetically engineered crops now available, or in
development (to the extent that these have been announced) has
any of these desirable characteristics. Quite the opposite. The
new genetically engineered seeds require high-quality soils,
enormous investment in machinery, and increased use of
chemicals. There is evidence that their per-acre yields are
about 10% lower than traditional varieties (at least in the case
of soybeans),[1,pg.84] and they produce crops largely intended
as feed for meat animals, not to provide protein for people. The
genetic engineering revolution has nothing to do with feeding
the world's hungry.

The plain fact is that fully two-thirds of the genetically
engineered crops now available, or in development, are designed
specifically to increase the sale of pesticides produced by the
companies that are selling the genetically engineered
seeds.[1,pg.55] For example, Monsanto is selling a line of
"Roundup Ready" products that has been genetically engineered to
withstand heavy doses of Monsanto's all-time top money-making
herbicide, Roundup (glyphosate). A Roundup Ready crop of
soybeans can withstand a torrent of Roundup that kills any weeds
competing with the crop. The farmer gains a $20 per acre
cost-saving (compared to older techniques that relied on lesser
quantities of more expensive chemicals), but the ecosystem
receives much more Roundup than formerly. To make Roundup Ready
technology legal, EPA had to accommodate Monsanto by tripling
the allowable residues of Roundup that can remain on the
crop.[1,pg.75] Monsanto's patent on Roundup runs out in the
year
2000, but any farmer who adopts Roundup Ready seeds must agree
to buy only Monsanto's brand of Roundup herbicide. Thus
Monsanto's patent monopoly on Roundup is effectively extended
into the foreseeable future -- a shrewd business maneuver if
there ever was one. However, this should not be confused with
feeding the world's hungry. It is selling more of Monsanto's
chemicals and filling the corporate coffers, which is what it
was intended to do. "Feeding the hungry" is a sales gimmick, not
a reality.

Monsanto's other major line of genetically engineered crops
contains the gene from a natural pesticide called Bt. Bt is a
naturally-occurring soil organism that kills many kinds of
caterpillars that like to eat the leaves of crops. Bt is the
pesticide of choice in low-chemical-use farming, IPM [integrated
pest management] and organic farming. Farmers who try to
minimize their use of synthetic chemical pesticides rely on an
occasional dusting with Bt to prevent a crop from being overrun
with leaf-eating caterpillars. To them, Bt is a God-send, a
miracle of nature.

Monsanto has taken the Bt gene and engineered it into cotton,
corn and potatoes. Every cell of every plant contains the Bt
gene and thus produces the Bt toxin. It is like dusting the crop
heavily with Bt, day after day after day. The result is entirely
predictable, and not in dispute. When insect pests eat any part
of these crops, the only insects that will survive are those
that are (a) resistant to the Bt toxin, or (b) change their diet
to prefer other plants to eat, thus disrupting the local
ecosystem and perhaps harming a neighboring farmer's crops.

According to Dow Chemical scientists who are marketing their own
line of Bt-containing crops, within 10 years Bt will have lost
its usefulness because so many insects will have developed
resistance to its toxin.[1,pg.70] Thus Monsanto and Dow are
profiting bountifully in the short term, while destroying the
usefulness of the one natural pesticide that undergirds the
low-pesticide approach of IPM and organic farming. It is another
brilliant -- if utterly ruthless and antisocial -- Monsanto
business plan.

Ultimately, for sustainability and long-term maximum yield,
agricultural ecosystems must become diversified once again. This
is the key idea underlying organic farming. Monoculture cropping
-- growing acre upon acre of the same crop -- is the antithesis
of sustainability because monocultures are fragile and unstable,
subject to insect swarms, drought, and blight. Monocultures can
only be sustained by intensive, expensive inputs of water,
energy, chemicals, and machinery. Slowly over the past two
decades, the movement toward IPM and organic farming has begun
to take hold in this country -- despite opposition from the
federal government, from the chemical companies, from the banks
that make farm loans, and from the corporations that sell
insurance. Now comes the genetic engineering revolution, which
is dragging U.S. agriculture back down the old path toward vast
monocultures, heavy reliance on machinery, energy, water, and
chemicals, all of which favors the huge farm over the small
family operation. It is precisely the wrong direction to be
taking agricultural technology in the late 20th century, if the
goals are long-term maximum yield, food security, and
sustainability.

It is a wrong direction for another reason as well.

When 100% of the soybeans in the U.S. are grown from Roundup
Ready seed -- next year -- then 100% of America's soybean
farmers- will be dependent upon a single supplier for all their seed and
the chemicals needed to allow those seeds to thrive. In sum,
Monsanto will have achieved a monopoly on a fundamental food
crop. It is clear that Monsanto's goal is a similar monopoly on
every major food crop here and abroad. If something doesn't
change soon, it is safe to predict that a small number of "life
science" corporations (as they like to call themselves) -- the
majority of them American and the remainder European -- will
have
a monopoly on the seed needed to raise all of the world's major
food crops. Then the hungry, like the well-fed, will have to pay
the corporate owners of this new technology for permission to
eat.

[To be continued.]

==========
[1] Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey, AGAINST THE GRAIN;
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF YOUR FOOD [ISBN
1567511503] (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1998).
Available from Common Courage Press, P.O. Box 207, Monroe, ME
04951. Tel. (207) 525-3068.

++++++++++

AGAINST THE GRAIN, PART 2

The corporations that are introducing genetically modified crops
into the global ecosystem want you to think of genetic
engineering as a well-understood science similar to laparascopic
surgery. Indeed, the phrase "genetic engineering" gives the
impression that moving genes from one organism to another is as
straightforward as designing a rocket or a TV set. This is not
the case.

Basically, a plant's genome (all of its genes, taken together)
is a black box. Genetic engineering takes a gene from one black
box and forces it into a second black box (the recipient plant),
hoping that the new gene will "take." Most of the time, the
experiment fails.[1] Once in a few thousand tries, the foreign
gene embeds itself in the recipient plant's genome and the
newly-modified plant gains the desired trait. But that is all
the technicians know. They have no idea where in the receiving
plant's genome the new gene has found a home. This fundamental
ignorance, combined with the speed and scale at which modified
organisms are being released into the global ecosystem, raises a
host of questions of safety for the future of agriculture, for
the environment, and for human health.

** To begin with, genes don't necessarily control a single
trait. A gene may control several different traits in a plant.
Without careful study, plants with undesirable characteristics
may be released into the global ecosystem. And biotechnology is
not like a chemical spill that can be mopped up -- once you
release a new gene sequence into nature, your grandchildren are
going to be living with it because there's no taking it back.

** How a gene affects a plant depends upon the environment. The
same gene can have different effects, depending on the
environment in which the new plant is growing.[2] What appears
predictable and safe after a few years of observation of a small
test plot may turn out to have quite different consequences when
introduced into millions of acres of croplands in the U.S. and
elsewhere, where conditions vary widely.

** Does the new gene destabilize the entire plant genome in some
unforeseen way, leading one day to problems in that crop? Only
time will tell.

** Genes can travel to nearby, related plants on their own. This
is called gene flow. In 1996 gene flow was discovered to be much
more common that previously thought.[3]

According to SCIENCE magazine, many ecologists say it is only a
matter of time before an engineered gene makes the leap to a
weedy species, this creating a new weed or invigorating an old
one. "It will probably happen in far less than 1% of the
products," warns ecological geneticist Norm Ellstrand of the
University of California at Riverside, "but within 10 years we
will have a moderate-to-large scale ecological or economic
catastrophe, because there will be so many [genetically
modified] products being released,"[3] Ellstrand predicts. It is
worth noting that U.S. farmers already spend $4.3 billion
purchasing 628 million pounds of herbicides (active ingredients
only) to control weeds.[4,pg.32]

The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)
recommended that all genetically modified plants should be
considered non-indigenous exotic species, with the power to
disrupt ecosystems.[4,pg.29] Non-indigenous, introduced species
have provided great benefits to humanity (most of U.S.
agriculture relies on introduced species), but we also should
learn from kudzu, purple loosestrife, the gypsy moth, the fire
ant, and the boll weevil that exotic species can be extremely
disruptive and very expensive to control (if indeed they can be
controlled at all).

** A public health disaster was narrowly averted in 1996 when a
group of researchers tried to improve soybeans by giving them a
gene from the Brazil nut.[5] The goal was to improve the
nutritional value of soybeans by forcing them to produce more
methionine, an essential amino acid. The gene from the Brazil
nut was successfully transferred to soybeans. After this had
been accomplished, but before the soybeans were sold
commercially, independent researchers tested the soybeans to see
if it would cause allergic reactions in people. Many people are
allergic to nuts, particularly Brazil nuts. In some people,
allergic reaction to Brazil nuts is swift and fatal.

A series of laboratory tests on humans confirmed that the
genetically modified soybeans did provoke Brazil-nut allergy in
humans. They could not feed the genetically modified soybeans to
people for fear of killing them, but through scratch tests on
skin, they confirmed unequivocally that people allergic to
Brazil nuts were allergic to the modified soybeans. In
discussing their findings in the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF
MEDICINE, the researchers pointed out that tests on laboratory
animals will not necessarily discover allergic reactions to
genetically modified organisms. Only tests on humans will
suffice.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) only requires testing
for allergic reactions if a gene is being taken from a source
that is already known to cause allergic reactions in humans.
Many genes are being taken now from bacteria and other
life-forms whose allergenicity is entirely unknown, so federal
regulations require no allergy testing in these cases. This
reduces regulatory costs for the corporations, but leaves the
public unprotected.

** Crops are being genetically modified chiefly as a way to sell
more pesticides. [See REHW #637.] In some cases, the modified
crops change the pesticides themselves, giving them new
toxicity. The herbicide bromoxynil falls into this
category.[1,pg.41] Bromoxynil is already recognized by U.S. EPA
[Environmental Protection Agency] as a possible carcinogen and
as a teratogen (i.e., it causes birth defects). Calgene (now
owned by Monsanto) developed a strain of cotton plants (called
BXN Cotton) that can withstand direct spraying with bromoxynil.
Unfortunately, the bromoxynil-resistant gene in cotton modifies
the bromoxynil, turning it into a chemical byproduct called
DBHA, which is at least as toxic as bromoxynil itself.

Although humans do not eat cotton, traditional silage for cattle
contains up to 50% cotton slash, gin mill leavings, and cotton
debris. Both bromoxynil and DBHA are fat-soluble, so they can
accumulate in the fat of animals. Therefore, it is likely that
DBHA will make its way into the human food chain through meat.
Furthermore, cotton seed oil is widely used as a direct human
food and as a cooking additive. In licensing bromoxynil for use
on Monsanto's genetically modified BXN Cotton, EPA conducted a
risk assessment that assumed bromoxynil and DBHA had no way to
enter the human food chain. Lastly, cotton dust -- the cause of
brown lung disease -- will now carry the added hazard of
bromoxynil and DBHA, another danger that EPA has disregarded.
Thus genetic engineering -- which is being promoted as a
technology that will reduce the perils of pesticides -- will in
some instances increase them.

In rats and in rabbits, bromoxynil causes serious birth defects,
including changes in the bones of the spine and skull, and
hydrocephaly ("water on the brain"). These birth defects appear
in offspring at doses of bromoxynil that are not toxic to the
mother. Despite these findings, and despite a law (the Food
Quality Protection Act of 1996) that explicity gives EPA the
power to reduce exposure standards to protect infants, EPA in
1997 declined to require a special safety factor to protect
children from bromoxynil.

Lastly, when EPA added up the cancer-causing potential of
bromoxynil, they found it to be 2.7 per million, and they
promptly declared this to be "well within" the one-in-a-million
regulatory limit.[1,pg.46] Is 2.7 less than one?

By all appearances, EPA is more interested in protecting
Monsanto's investment in this new technology than in protecting
public health.

** Because genetically-engineered soybeans will be doused with
increased quantities of herbicides, such as Roundup
(glyphosate), soybeans and soy products will carry increased
chemical residues. Infants who must be reared on soy milk,
because they cannot tolerate lactose in regular milk, will be at
special hazard.

** Crops that are genetically modified to resist herbicides
detoxify the herbicides by producing proteins, which will be
incorporated into our food with unknown results.[1,pg.143]

** When crops are genetically modified to incorporate the
naturally-occurring Bt toxin into their cells (see REHW #636),
those Bt toxins will be incorporated into foods made from those
crops. What will be the effect of these toxins and gene products
on the bacteria and other organisms (the so-called microflora)
that live in the human digestive tract? Time will tell.

** The "life sciences" companies have big plans for turning
agricultural crops into "factories" for producing
pharmaceuticals and specialty chemicals in open fields. They
plan to manufacture vaccines, drugs, detergents, enzymes and
other chemicals by putting the right genes into the right
plants.

The net effect of all this will be to expose soil insects and
microorganisms, foraging and burrowing animals, seed-eating
birds, and a myriad of other non-target organisms to these
chemicals and to the gene products that make them. The Union of
Concerned Scientists says, "Herbivores will consume the
chemicals as they feed on plants. Soil microbes, insects, and
worms will be exposed as they degrade plant debris. Aquatic
organisms will confront the drugs and chemicals washed into
streams, lakes, and rivers from fields."[4,pg.6]

** Most fundamentally, genetically-engineered crops substitute
human wisdom for the wisdom of nature. As genetically-engineered
crops are planted on tens of millions of acres, the diversity of
our agricultural systems is being further diminished. Do we know
enough to select the "right" combination of genes to assure the
stable, long-term yield of our agricultural systems? Our recent
experiences with PCBs, CFCs, DDT, Agent Orange, and global
warming should give us pause. Genetic engineering is by far the
most powerful technology humans have ever discovered, and it is
being deployed by the same corporations that, historically, have
produced one large-scale calamity after another. Is there any
good reason to think things will be different this time?

==========
[1] Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey, AGAINST THE GRAIN;
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF YOUR FOOD [ISBN
1567511503] (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1998).
Available from Common Courage Press, P.O. Box 207, Monroe, ME
04951. Tel. (207) 525-0900 or (800) 497-3207.

[2] Craig Holdrege, GENETICS AND THE MANIPULATION OF LIFE: THE
FORGOTTEN FACTOR OF CONTEXT (Hudson, N.Y.: Lindisfarne Press,
1996). ISBN 0-940262-77-0. Available from Lindisfarne Press, RR4
Box 94 A-1, Hudson, NY 12534.

[3] James Kling, "Could Transgenic Supercrops One Day Breed
Superweeds?" SCIENCE Vol. 274 (October 11, 1996), pgs. 180-181.

[4] Jane Rissler and Margaret Mellon, THE ECOLOGICAL RISKS OF
ENGINEERED CROPS (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996).

[5] Julie A. Nordlee and others, "Identification of a Brazil-nut
Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF
MEDICINE Vol. 334, No. 11 (March 14, 1996), pgs. 688-692.

Subject:
Chernobyl of Biotech -- MORE ON FRANKENFOODS AND ON MONSANTO MISDEEDS
Date:
Sun, 7 Mar 1999 05:02:08 +0000
From:
globalvisionary@cybernaute.com (jean hudon)
To:
globalvisionary@cybernaute.com (Jean Hudon)

Curiously, I received not a single feedback on my recent February 26 post
focussed mainly against BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF OUR
FOOD (now posted on my website (URL below) under the link named Stop
Genetically Engineered "Frankenfoods").

Now I've put together a comprehensive review on the subject of genetically
modified foods which should add some much needed fuel to your reflection on
this crucial issue. Europeans are strongly opposing this terrible scourge
while there has been little reactions here in America thanks mainly to the
silence from the media on this. It is most likely that you already and
unknowingly eat some of those Frankenfoods and that can be very dangerous
for your health as you'll see below. And these plants can also wreak havoc
in the environment. It is a time bomb waiting to explode.

NOTE: I also have another email that I'll send you shortly -- to be
entitled "About Fear, the Elite, Local Currencies and much much more" and
I'm also tracking a "humongous situation" now developing in the US with
potential implications for the rest of the world, but I've still not made
up my mind as to the reality of it all. So stay tuned!

LONDON, Feb 12 (Reuters) - Twenty international scientists on
Friday urged more research into genetically modified foods and
demanded the reinstatement of a British researcher who found
that rats fed on GM potatoes suffered a weakened immune system.

Arpad Pusztai was last year forced to retire from the prestigious
Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland two days after giving a
television interview in which he said it was ``very, very unfair
to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs.''

He was accused of having presented provisional data to the
public without it having been reviewed by fellow scientists.

The Guardian newspaper published the names of scientists from
Britain, other European countries, the United States and Canada
who had signed a public statement in support of Pusztai.

They say they have examined all the published data and concluded
that Pusztai was right to be concerned about the effect on rats,
which after 10 days of feeding trials showed signs of harm to
their kidneys, thymuses, spleens and guts.

They call for further research to establish the risks of
allowing GM crops to be used in foodstuffs.

One of them, Vyvyan Howard, from Britain's Liverpool University,
said Pusztai's findings should have a massive effect on the
world's burgeoning biotechnology industry.

``We are going to have to test these plants rather like pharmaceutical
agents,'' he told BBC radio.

Howard pointed out that it could cost some $400 million to
bring a new drug to the market, largely because of the amount of
testing needed to guard against side effects.

Left wing Labour MP Allan Simpson called for a moratorium on the
use of GM crops while further research was done.

``If we don't want a BSE Mark Two, then we ought to put a halt to
the whole process,'' he said. A mad cow disease, or Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy, epidemic has produced a crisis in
Britain's beef industry and resulted in 35 human deaths.

Jack Cunningham, a former agriculture minister who is now in charge
of the presentation of government policy, said GM foods were not
grown commercially in Britain at present and to stop the growing
of experimental crops would be counter-productive.

``A moratorium on the experimental work is neither necessary nor
sensible in the circumstances,'' he said.

Cunningham said the government was planning to make labelling
of genetically modified foods compulsory.

An opinion poll showed that 31 percent of Britons believe that
GM food poses a health risk to their families and 53 percent
wanted more statutory controls on them.

"If the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) is confirmed as being hazardous
to mammals, this could literally become the "Chernobyl of Biotech" -- since
Roundup Ready soybeans, Bt corn, and most other GE crops are produced
using the CaMV as a genetic splicing vector."

Subject: Food Bytes #17: Global Resistance Against Monsanto GE
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:20:49 -0600
From: Ronnie Cummins <alliance@mr.net>

News and Analysis on Genetic Engineering, Factory Farming, Organics
by: Ronnie Cummins

Dan Verakis, Monsanto PR spokesman in the U.K., quoted in the London
Observer 2/21/99.

Greenpeace banner on their delivery truck Feb. 18 in London as they dumped
four tons of US GE-tainted soybeans on the front steps of #10 Downing
Street, Prime Minister Tony Blair's official residence.

In what the Financial Times of London characterized on Feb. 23 as a "public
relations disaster for transgenic foods," global resistance to Monsanto and
genetic engineering (GE) has sharply intensified over the past 60 days. As
reported previously in Food Bytes (#13 #15 ), the international anti-GE
movement is rapidly developing into a serious threat to Monsanto and other
biotechnology titans.

The growing crisis over gene-foods has reached the point where financial
analysts are warning the Clinton administration that the European Union
will not back off on efforts to label untested GE foods. Many believe this
controversy could spawn a major trade war within the World Trade
Organization (WTO). In Britain commentators have similarly warned Prime
Minister Tony Blair that his cozy relationship with Bill Clinton and Bill's
favorite corporation, Monsanto, could do severe damage to Blair.

It has been a rough last several months for Monsanto and the ag biotech
special interests. Here is a chronological blow by blow account:

* The Fall/Winter 1998 issue of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Gene
Exchange <www.ucsusa.org> warns of recent US research showing that
genetically engineered Bt crops are building up Bt toxins in the soil,
thereby damaging the soil food web and harming beneficial insects.

* On December 15, 1998 attorneys from the Center for Food Safety, on behalf
of a broad coalition, filed a legal petition in Washington, D.C. against
the FDA to have rBGH taken off the market. The legal action received major
attention from the mass media, including a widely-viewed segment on ABC TV
national news. The CFS petition cites mounting evidence that the original
testing of rBGH was flawed. In 1990 the FDA said BGH was "safe for human
consumption." Part of its findings were based on 90-day rat feeding studies
in which they reported "no toxicologically significant changes..." Based
largely on this conclusion, FDA did not require human toxicological tests
usually required for a veterinary drug. However in April of 1998,
researchers from Health Canada, the Canadian equivalent to FDA, issued a
report which contradicted FDA's findings. Canadian researchers found
studies showing that rats were absorbing rBGH after all. In fact, between
20 and 30 percent of the rats were developing distinct immunological
reactions. Additionally, cysts formed in the thyroid of some male rats and
infiltrated the prostate--both warning signs for potential cancer hazards.

"These are toxicologically significant changes in the rats and they should
have triggered a full human health review, including assessment of
potential carcinogenic and immunological effects," said Dr. Michael Hansen,
an expert on rBGH and a scientist with the Consumer Policy Institute, a
division of Consumers Union. According to CFS attorneys it is "unclear" how
or why these results were overlooked in the original FDA review of rBGH.

Monsanto says it submitted the studies to the FDA, while the agency says it
only saw summaries of the rat tests.

Kimbrell, lead counsel for the CFS. "Essentially it was fraud by the agency
and fraud by Monsanto in telling the court that there were no human health
effects possible from consuming these products made with rBGH treated
milk." The EU has already banned rBGH, but this policy comes up for review
later this year. The US government has warned that they will file for
damages under the WTO if the EU continues to ban Monsanto's rBGH.

* Australian trade authorities announced on Jan. 8, the largest shipment of
canola (rapeseed) ever exported from Australia. The $16.5 million dollar
shipment is bound for oilseed crushing plants in Europe. According to
Graham Lawrence, managing director of the New South Wales Grains Board,
"Europe has moved to become a major buyer this year because Australia is
the only country to guarantee non-genetic modified canola." Canada has lost
$300-400 million in canola sales to Europe over the last year because
government authorities have followed the US model of co-mingling GE and
non-GE grains. This year over 50% of Canada's 13.4 million acres of canola
are genetically engineered.

* The mid-January 1999 issue of the California Farmer magazine reports that
Bt resistance has emerged among pink bollworms, a major cotton pest, in
Arizona cotton fields Biotech critics have warned for years that
genetically engineered Bt crops will cause major crop pests to develop
resistance to Bt, thereby destroying the usefulness of the world's most
important natural biopesticide.

going to allow Monsanto's controversial recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone
(rBGH or rBST) to be injected into Canada's dairy cows. The ruling came
after nine years of heavy lobbying by Monsanto and a major nationwide
debate. Although the Canadian government and the media stressed that the
permanent ban on rBGH was based primarily on animal health concerns, the
data posted on their web site by the Canadian scientists who reviewed the
drug made it clear that human health hazards were also a consideration,
namely increased antibiotic residues and elevated levels of a potent human
growth hormone factor and cancer promoter called IGF-1 found in
rBGH-derived milk and dairy products. (For further information on the
hazards of rBGH, see our web sites <www.purefood.org> and <www.icta.org>)

* On Jan. 22, the St. Louis Post Dispatch reported that financial
difficulties were forcing Monsanto to slash 1700 employees from its global
workforce of 28,000. As indicated in previous Food Bytes, Monsanto now
finds itself strapped for cash in the wake of last fall's failed merger
with the American Home Products Corp. Monsanto's recent aggressive
multi-billion dollar acquisitions of seed companies, research labs, and
grain trading operations have increased their power and control over world
markets, but have drastically reduced their available capital and lowered
their stock values, leaving them potentially vulnerable to an unfriendly
takeover by Dupont or Dow or another mega-corporation. Wall Street
investment analyst William Fiala told the St. Louis Post Dispatch, "It
seems like they (Monsanto) bit off more than they could chew after the
merger collapsed. They are taking a risk that they could cut too deep in
terms of personnel or could sell things out of necessity that are still
good investments. Their debt is beyond Monsanto's comfort level and beyond
most analysts' comfort level."

* Almost 200 cotton farmers in Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina are
suing Monsanto for damages after crop failures of Monsanto's Bt and Roundup
Ready cotton seeds, according to a news story in the Augusta (Georgia)
Chronicle on Jan. 25. In a separate lawsuit 25 cotton farmers in Texas,
Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Louisiana are suing Monsanto for fraud and
misrepresentation--also in regard to Bt cotton crop failures.

* On Feb. 5, Carrefour, France's largest supermarket chain, announced that
they were taking all genetically engineered foods off their shelves. A
representative from Greenpeace France, Arnaud Apoteker, told anti-biotech
activists at an conference in Cuernavaca, Mexico on Feb. 7 that Greenpeace
and their allies were planning on driving all GE foods and crops out of
France by the end of next year.

* On Feb. 12 front-page headline stories in the British press revealed
that Dr. Arpad Pusztai's explosive research findings on the potential human
health dangers of genetically engineered potatoes--first aired in the UK
media last August--had been verified by a panel of 20 international
scientists. Dr. Pusztai, a world renowned researcher on plant lectins, was
fired last August from the government-funded Rowett Institute in Scotland,
under very suspicious circumstances, shortly after he went public with
research indicating that laboratory rats fed genetically engineered
potatoes had suffered significant damage to their immune systems, thymuses,
kidneys, spleens, and guts. According to press reports, Pusztai's firing
and the ensuing scientific coverup by the UK government were a direct
consequence of ongoing White House pressure on Tony Blair to keep the door
open to Monsanto and other biotech companies to market and grow GE
products in Britain and across the EU.

When Dr. Pusztai fed conventional potatoes and snowdrop lectin (GNA) to
rats, no damage occurred. But when Pusztai fed the rats an equivalent
amount of potatoes which were gene-spliced with the snowdrop lectin,
significant and startling damage became quickly evident. Despite
deliberately false U.K. government allegations that Dr. Pusztai's
experiments were purely theoretical, a number of biotech companies are
currently carrying out similar lab and field tests on gene-spliced
potatoes, rapeseed, rice, and cabbage, calculating that snowdrop-spliced
food crops will repel crop pests.

Perhaps even more alarming than Pusztai's mutant potatoes, scientists have
subsequently pointed out that Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), a gene routinely
spliced into millions of acres of US corn, cotton, and potatoes is now
considered to be a form of lectin. And more alarming yet, another
scientist, Dr. Stanley Ewen, said that a commonly used vector or production
aid in gene-splicing, the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus, may have caused serious
damage to the stomach and internal organs of the rats in Pusztai's study.
If the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) is confirmed as being hazardous to
mammals, this could literally become the "Chernobyl of Biotech"--since
Roundup Ready soybeans, Bt corn, and most other GE crops are produced using
the CaMV as a genetic splicing vector.

* On Feb. 13, eight days after Carrefour's announcement in Paris, a major
British supermarket chain, Asda, announced that they were going to remove
all genetically engineered ingredients from their own-brand goods. Asda's
move comes in the wake of similar moves by other UK retail chains,
including Iceland and Marks and Spencer. As Sheila McKechnie of the UK
Consumers Association pointed out in the Daily Mail newspaper on Feb. 11,
grocery chains banning GE foods like Carrefour will now "have an enormous
competitive advantage" in the marketplace.

* Bloomberg News reported on February 13 that EU authorities had rejected
Monsanto's request to grow GE Roundup Ready and Bollgard Bt cotton plants
in Europe. Two days earlier the European Parliament voted to tighten GE
regulations, demanding that GE corporations be compelled to purchase
liability insurance to cover any and all damages resulting from
gene-altered crops or foods. The Parliament also demanded stricter measures
for the prevention of gene transfers from GMOs to other crops or wild
species, as well as a ban on antibiotic-resistance marker genes in genetic
crops.

* On February 18, an international coalition of public interest
organizations, led by attorneys from the Center for Food Safety (Food Bytes
and the Campaign for Food Safety are affiliated with the CFS) filed a
lawsuit in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. to have all Bt crops
taken off of the market because of the hazards they pose to the
environment and public health. The February 18 Bt lawsuit was announced at
a well-attended press conference in Washington, and generated significant
coverage in the US press. Last May (see Food Bytes #13) the Center for
Food Safety sued the FDA to have all genetically engineered foods taken off
the market on the grounds that they are neither properly labeled nor
safety-tested, and that lack of mandatory labeling illegally restricts the
freedom of choice of those who would choose--on religious or ethical
grounds--to avoid GE foods.

"Genetically engineered crops are a threat to farmers, consumers, and the
environment," said Charles Margulis, a spokesperson for Greenpeace, one of
the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director of the
Center for Food Safety stated, "EPA has shown a blatant disregard for
federal law and its own regulations by approving Bt crops without fully
assessing their environmental safety. Their continuing failure to regulate
this untested technology forces us to turn to the courts for protection."
For further information on these lawsuits see <www.icta.org>

* On Feb. 23, the Daily Mail newspaper in the UK reported that three of
Britain's fast-food giants--McDonald's, Burger King, and Kentucky Fried
Chicken--are responding to customer pressure by eliminating genetically
engineered soya and corn ingredients from their menus. According to
McDonald's spokesperson Jackie Graveny: "Our aim is to have McDonald's GM
(genetically modified) free as soon as possible." Similarly Burger King
stated: "The company is set to ban GM food as soon as possible." In a
related development the Agriculture Minister in the UK, Nick Brown,
announced on Jan. 31 that UK restaurants will soon be required to start
labeling "meals which contain certain types of genetically modified food."

* With more and more major food retailers, restaurants, and processors in
Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Scandinavia, the UK, and other
nations going "GE-free" a tremendous market now exists for certified
"non-GE" and organic products. This makes it increasingly difficult for
governments such as the US, Canada, and Brazil to keep telling farmers
that their "no labeling and no segregation" policies on co-mingling GE and
non-GE grains and crops make good economic sense.

* On Feb. 23 India's Supreme Court ruled that all field trials of
Monsanto's genetically engineered Bt Cotton must be halted. The court
ruling and temporary legal injunction came in response to a legal petition
filed by veteran Indian activist Dr. Vandana Shiva, director of the
Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology. According to Dr.
Shiva, "This case does not merely have national significance, it has
international significance. Around the world scientists, environmentalists,
consumer groups and farmers are calling for a moratorium on commercial
releases of genetically engineered crops because of growing evidence of
ecological hazards and threats to food safety." The court ruling comes in
the wake of months of protests by Indian farmers and consumers, many of
whom have organized themselves into a Monsanto "Quit India" movement. Dr.
Shiva and other activists brought together over 100 grassroots
organizations in Hyderabad on Jan. 7 to launch a nationwide campaign
against Monsanto. On March 9-10 Food Bytes will be attending an
international meeting of biotech activists in India organized by Dr. Shiva.

* A major backlash has developed against the United States and major
transnational biotech corporations after an international Biosafety
Protocol treaty was sabotaged in Cartagena, Colombia. The Biosafety
Protocol, supported by over 135 nations and public interest groups
worldwide, would have tightened regulations on the international transfer
and trade of genetically engineered seeds, grains, and foods. In a vote on
Feb. 24 the US and five of its allies, the so-called "Miami Group" (Canada,
Australia, Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile) managed to prevent the passage of
the internationally binding treaty. As US biosafety expert Beth Burrows of
the Edmonds Institute told the New York Times, "There was no moral high
ground here (on the part of the US). There was no scientific higher ground.
It was just cheap power politics." According to the Financial Times of
London and other EU sources, the US' bully boy tactics at the Biosafety
Protocol meetings will only serve to exacerbate anti-biotech feelings in

Europe. A recent statement by George Monbiot in the London Guardian (Feb.
19) aptly sums up the mood of EU consumers: "Food scares happen... because
people feel they have no control over what they eat. Our decisions are made
for us by invisible and unaccountable corporations."

* On Feb. 25 a group of US activists in San Francisco calling themselves
fabRAGE (Fabulous Resistance Against Genetic Engineering) stripped off
their clothes and disrupted a conference panel on genetically engineered
cotton featuring a speaker from the Monsanto Corporation. "We'd rather go
naked than wear genetically modified cotton!" shouted Biogrrl, a fashion
diva at the event, as half a dozen activists charged through the room and
stripped off their biohazglam gowns, chanting: "We don't want it, won't buy
it, and won't wear it. Super Gene Girl, in a biohazard suit shouted,
"Gene-spliced cotton is not sustainable!" Monsanto representatives appeared
apoplectic in the face of the action.

"Genetic Imperialism" and the US sabotage of the Biosafety Protocol on a
historic monument, the Angel of Independence, in the center of the city.
Police arrested the demonstrators, but the banner-hanging generated
significant coverage in the Mexican media, where until recently there has
been very little discussion of the GE foods controversy.

* On March 2 the Reuters news agency reported that the UK's Advertising
Standards Authority wil soon "censure" Monsanto for a misleading series of
ads on the safety of genetically engineered foods which appeared last year
in the British press.

Global Days of Action Against Monsanto and Genetic Engineering April 15-30, 1999

On February 7, 1999, over 40 representatives of activist groups from
around the world met in Cuernavaca, Mexico to share experiences and to plan
a global grassroots campaign against the Monsanto Corporation and
genetically engineered foods. While mass-based grassroots campaigns have
partially blocked genetically engineered foods and crops thus far in
Western Europe and India, activists in North America, South America,
Africa, and much of Asia and the Pacific still have a long way to go in
terms of grassroots education, Movement-building, and mobilization.
Especially in the United States activists have been stymied by a powerful
Monsanto lobbying and PR campaign that has coopted or bought off the
Congress and the White House, intimidated the media, and forced several
dozen unlabeled, untested genetically engineered foods onto the
marketplace. At the present time 51.3 million acres (out of a global total
of 69.5 million) of US farmland are planted in genetically engineered
crops, including 45% of all cotton crops; 32% of soybeans; 25% of corn; and
3.5% of potatoes. In addition 700,000 dairy cows are being injected with
Monsanto's rBGH every two weeks. Most non-organic processed food in the US
now contains at least trace levels of genetically engineered ingredients.

To help build the kind of U.S. and global Movement required to bring
Monsanto and the other GE Giants under control, and to move global
agriculture and global economic development in a sustainable and organic
direction, food and agriculture activists at the February 7 Cuernavaca
meeting endorsed the call for Global Days of Action against Monsanto and
genetic engineering on April 15-30. The interim Monsanto Campaign steering
committee of Vandana Shiva (India), Mika Iba (Japan), Tony Clarke (Canada),
and Ronnie Cummins (USA) are calling on activists all over the world to
step up their activism against Monsanto and genetic engineering, using the
fourth annual April 15-30 Global Days of Action as a vehicle for amplifying
our message, building our local and national activist networks, and further
strengthening our international solidarity. Food Bytes was endorsed at the
Cuernavaca meeting as an international clearinghouse for anti-Monsanto and
Global Days of Action activities. If you are planning anti-Monsanto/GDA
activities during April 15-30, please send us the details at Food Bytes so
we can inform the media as well as activists all over the world. And of
course in Western Europe and India, where nearly every day has now become a
Global Day of Action against Monsanto and genetic engineering, keep up the
good work! Further details on the April GDA will be posted on the web at

Ronnie Cummins, Director Campaign for Food Safety/Organic Consumers
Association 860 Hwy 61 Little Marais, Minnesota 55614 Telephone:
218-226-4164 Fax: 218-226-4157 email: alliance@mr.net URL:
http://www.purefood.org

To Subscribe to the free electronic newsletter, Food Bytes, send an email
to: majordomo@mr.net with the simple message in the body of the text:
subscribe pure-food-action

From: betty martini <Mission-Possible-USA@Altavista.net>
Date: Thursday, 4 March 1999

This morning on TV it said Monsanto to be acquired by DuPont? We need to
alert them to the fact that if they go through with this they will be
responsible for the lawsuits on the aspartame issue and that aspartame has
been declared a world epidemic. Monsanto just doesn't know where to turn to
get rid of their bad name.

"" A New York Times report that chemical giants DuPont (DD) and Monsanto (MTC)
are in merger talks sent Monsanto's stock soaring.
Shares in the company gained 2-7/8 to 47-1/4, while DuPont, a Dow component,
barely budged, rising 3/8 to 51-11/16. "

WASHINGTON (AP) - A growing trend of genetically altering crops with an ingrown
biological pesticide is too risky for the environment, a coalition of
environmentalists and organic farmers charged in a lawsuit Thursday.

They want to force the government to end its approval of what are known as Bt
crops.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court by Greenpeace International, the
Center for Food Safety and the International Federation of Organic Agricultural
Movements charges the Environmental Protection Agency with ``wanton
destruction'' of Bt, which it calls the ``world's most important biological
pesticide.''

``This is just another short term fix that industry is willing to use up,'' said
Jane Rissler, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Added Kalee Kreider, a Greenpeace spokeswoman, ``These crops are an
environmental disaster waiting to happen.''

The complainants are concerned that using the pesticide in genetically altered
plants poses environmental risks that will change the ecological balance as well
as hurt organic farmers who don't want to use genetically-altered products. They
complain that EPA has failed to address their concerns since approving the
product.

EPA approved the use of Bt in potatoes in 1995 and has since agreed to its use
in corn and cotton.

The lawsuit demands that EPA cancel registration of all genetically engineered
Bt plants; cease approval of any new Bt plants and immediately perform an
environmental impact assessment.

``We can no longer sit idly by,'' said Joseph Mendelson, legal director for the
Center for Food Safety. ``EPA has shown a blatant disregard for federal law and
its own regulations by approving Bt crops without fully assessing their
environmental safety.''

Bt is actually a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, that produces toxins to
kill insects. It has been used for years as a spray by farmers and gardeners who
like the fact that it kills insects while remaining nontoxic to mammals.

But the use of Bt has changed in recent years with advances in genetic
engineering. Scientists are now able to develop plants that contain a gene for
Bt toxin, giving the crops built-in protection.

The move has been controversial, however, as many groups have raised concerns
that insects will become resistant to Bt, which would seriously hurt organic
farmers who are permitted to use Bt insecticides as their only emergency pest
control option.

``EPA carefully makes sure that the biotech products we review fully comply with
all legal requirements designed to ensure that they are environmentally sound
and environmentally beneficial,'' said spokesman Dave Cohen. ``We believe the
actions we've taken with regard to Bt will be sustained against this legal
challenge.''

Some organic farmers say an even bigger threat is pollination from the
genetically-altered plant seeping from conventional farms to organic farms.

Charles Walker, president of Terra Firma Inc. - an organic food company in
Hudson, Wis., said he was forced to recall over $100,000 worth of organic
tortilla chips that had been contaminated with genetically-engineered corn. He
blames pollination from another farm.

``Unless Bt corn is withdrawn, it will soon contaminate every corn field in the
country,'' Walker said.

This week's Healing Our World article: "Got Milk? - I hope not!" has
just been posted on the LYCOS Environment News Service. You can view it
at http://www.ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-25g.html. This week, I
examine the issues with bovine growth hormone, now present in most milk
in the U.S. Learn some ways to protect yourself in our ever-increasing
toxic world.

P.S. A complete archive of all 80 Healing Our World articles can be seen
at me website, http://healingourworld.com
--
Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D.
Professor of Environmental Studies

Prince Charles is now being hailed by foes of the genetic-industrial
complex as their doughty champion. Near the end of February the Prince was
vainly ordered by Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair to shut down his royal
website

which has been featuring vigorous denunciations by the heir apparent of what
in Britain is termed GM, that is, genetically modified crops. (In the U.S.,
the equivalent term is GE, genetically engineered crops.)

As befits a long-term organic farmer, the Prince links genetically modified
crops to the blight of an agriculture dependent on chemicals, raising
questions of poor land management and baneful ecological practices which
leave "sterile fields offering little or no food or shelter to wild life."
Genetic material, the Prince thunders in one posting, "does not stay where
it is put. Pollen is spread by the wind and by insects to organic crops
growing nearby. This cannot be right."

The Prince continues, "I wonder about the claims that some GM crops are
essential to feed the world's populations. Is it really true? Isn't the
problem sometimes lack of money rather than lack of food? And how will the
companies who own this technology make a sufficient profit from selling
their products to the world's poorest people? Wouldn't it be better to
concentrate instead on the sustainable techniques which can double or
treble the yields from traditional farming systems?"

Prince Charles concludes by zeroing in on one of the paramount political
issues, demanding "effective and comprehensive schemes to ensure that
those consumers like me who do not want to eat GM foods can avoid them."

It might seem an irony to some that the British heir apparent should be
adopting a principled, enlightened position, in marked contrast to the
social democrats and their leader, Blair. But their roles are entirely in
character. Prince Charles has long been conspicuous for sensible and
sometimes radical ecological positions--on the Amazon rainforest, on
appropriate land use and resource management and on organic agriculture.
He's no Johnny-Come-Lately to the issues, having gone into organic farming
in the early 1980s.

On the other hand, Tony Blair's tradition of social democracy has always
had a frenzied enthusiasm for supposed technological progress. It was
Harold Wilson, leader of the Labor Party in the 1960s, who used to hymn
"the white heat of technology." The tradition of rambling and rural hiking
that used to mark British radicals has long since gone.

Far dearer to Blair's heart are the big corporations--most notably
Monsanto--which are now pushing their patents for genetically modified
crops into Europe. The reason why Blair demanded that Prince Charles shut
down his website (on the grounds that it constituted an unwarranted piece
of political meddling by the Prince) is that the whole GM issue is
politically hot in the UK at the moment, as it is throughout Europe.

The stakes are high for Monsanto's GM products. For example, the Consumers'
Union estimates that Monsanto's bovine growth hormone, rBGH, could earn the
company $500 million a year in the United States and another $1 billion a
year internationally. The haul from Monsanto's Round Up Ready soybeans,
potatoes, and corn and its terminator seeds could be substantially--perhaps
tens of billions--more.

Monsanto has always been able to count on the aid of the U.S. government to
promote its products. With the unceasing encouragement of the Dept. of
Agriculture, American farmers have planted more than 50 million acres in
Monsanto's genetically-engineered crops in just the past four years. The
Food and Drug Administration has also played along, acceding to the
company's demand that genetically-engineered crops not be labeled as such.

When faced with the almost certain prospect that the European Union would
ban the import of Monsanto genetically-engineered corn in 1998, the company
unleashed an unprecedented lobbying effort, flying a group of critical
journalists to the U.S., where they visited Monsanto's corporate
headquarters and its labs. Then the scribes were taken to Washington, where
they were given the tour of the White House, including a rare visit to the
Oval Office. Top Clinton aides rallied to the company's defense, including
U.S. Trade Rep. Charlene Barshevsky, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright,
Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, and Commerce Secretary Bill Daley.
All lobbied their European counterparts on behalf of the company. Even Bill
Clinton and Al Gore got in on the act, engaging in some last minute
arm-twisting of the Irish and French prime ministers. Both the French and
Irish caved in to the pressure by July 1998. This spring Monsanto's
genetically-engineered corn will be planted in Europe for the first time.

Back in Britain, the Labor government, secure on top of its vast majority,
is nonetheless embarrassed by blunders on the GM issue. It has emerged that
Lord Sainsbury, Labor's science minister who is deeply involved in GM
decision-making, had financial stakes in GM companies as well as his own
familial connection ($36 million in dividends) to the vast Sainsbury retail
empire, which markets genetically modified tomatoes.

Prince Charles commands a considerable measure of public support from
Britons deeply suspicious of scientific manipulation of their admittedly
dreadful food.