African Center for BioSafety Orders Mnsanto to StopMaking False Claims about GMOs

6 April 2014
by Christina Sarich
Source: Nation of Change

The Advertising Standards Authority in South Africa recently banned a Monsanto radio ad claiming it was making unsubstantiated claims about GMO. Mariam Mayet, the executive director of the African Centre for Biosafety (ACB), is enraged by the arrogance of corporations like Monsanto.

Since the 1970s Monsanto has falsely advertised their products – from insecticides to DDT, even when independent research proved how vile these substances truly were. DDT was eventually banned, overturning Monsanto’s then claims, that the substance was ‘safe.’ It now seems that the African Center for Biosafety is among the clear-headed, realizing that Monsanto’s GMO crops are nothing but another false advertising campaign gone amuck.

Furthermore, the Advertising Standards Authority in South Africa recently banned a Monsanto radio ad claiming it was making unsubstantiated claims about GMO. Mariam Mayet, the executive director of the African Centre for Biosafety (ACB), is enraged by the arrogance of corporations like Monsanto. She believes, like others, that they are trying to control the world of agriculture through falsifying information and promoting their propaganda with deep pockets.

“We are elated with this decision,” said Mariam Mayet, executive director of the African Centre for Biosafety. ”Monsanto has already been warned by the ASA as far back as 2007, that it needs to substantiate its claims from an independent and credible expert … regarding its claims of the so-called benefits of [GMO] crops. However, it appears Monsanto does not have much regard for South African law as it is hell bent on disseminating false information to the South African public.”

Mayet and the ACB lodged a formal complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa, reporting that Monsanto’s radio ads are unsubstantiated, and they upheld the complaint, according to AllAfrica.

The ad played on radio 702 claimed that GM crops used fewer resources and have been “strictly regulated and have been extensively researched and tested for safety.” The ad touted increasing crop yields, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and less pesticide use also — all unproven. Monsanto also claimed that they ‘produced more food sustainably,’ even though their Round Up Ready chemicals and GMOs have destroyed butterflies, bees, and other pollinators. How is this more sustainable farming?

The ASA also warned Monsanto to “ensure that it holds proper substantiation for its advertising claims” or risk attracting further sanctions.Perhaps South Africa is paying heed to other countries who have banned Monsanto from more than their airwaves – but also their agricultural markets. France and Sri Lanka recently banned Monsanto’s seed and Sri Lanka is banning the use of glyphosate – the main ingredient in Round Up, completely.

Link:  nationofchange.org/african-center-biosafety-orders-monsanto-stop-making-false-claims-about-gmos-1396797498.

Vandana Shiva on the Problem with Genetically Modified Seeds | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com

 July 13, 2012
Source: Moyers and Co.
  
BILL MOYERS: We turn now from one champion of the public interest to another. From Sheila Bair fighting for greater oversight of the big banks to a global advocate for social justice named Vandana Shiva.

VANDANA SHIVA: We need a new paradigm for living on the earth because the old one is clearly not working.
BILL MOYERS: The last time we spoke with her, she was battling Coca-Cola and other multinational giants over the privatization of water in her native India—including the waters of the sacred river Ganges. Since then, Vandana Shiva has become a rock star in the worldwide battle over genetically modified seeds. Those are seeds aggressively marketed around the world by big companies like Monsanto to not only increase, but also to monopolize food production and profits. Opponents challenge their safety, claim they harm the environment, are more costly, and leave local farmers deep in debt and dependent on suppliers.
Following Europe’s example, many American consumers are demanding that food products made from genetically modified seeds be labeled. Monsanto, the world’s largest supplier, claims intellectual property rights over its seeds and usually wins when it takes farmers to court for patent infringement. But in India, Monsanto claimed its seeds would produce bountiful crops and when the results fell short, many bankrupted farmers reportedly killed themselves.
Vandana Shiva, founded India’s Navdanya movement to promote the use of native seeds, and she has become a formidable figure in all these battles. Trained in physics, she’s an activist and prolific author whose books include “Earth Democracy,” “Soil Not Oil,” “Water Wars,” and her latest, “Making Peace With The Earth.” I talked with her again recently, when she came to New York to be honored by Union Theological Seminary.
Welcome back.
VANDANA SHIVA: Wonderful to be back with you.
BILL MOYERS: It's an uphill battle you're waging. How do you keep doing it? What drives you really?
VANDANA SHIVA: You know, we have this very beautiful text in India. We have the Gita.
BILL MOYERS: Bhagavad Gita?
VANDANA SHIVA: The Bhagavad Gita. And there's a very simple lesson that Krishna gives. That you do not measure the fruit of your action. You have to measure your obligation of action. You have to find out what's the right thing to do. That is your duty. Whether you win or lose is not the issue. The obligation to do the right thing, for me, you know, I've grown up as an ecologist in a major level, from my very childhood.
And for me, the diversity of species, their intrinsic value, their integrity is vital. The rights of our farmers to be able to have seed, the most fundamental source of livelihood in a poor country. Eighty percent of the food of the world is even, today, produced by those small farmers of the kind that we have in India. Our small farmers are feeding 1.2 billion Indians. We forget the scale of what smallness means multiplied many times. Because we've got used to the dinosaur mentality. We only see the big. We forget that dinosaurs go extinct.
BILL MOYERS: You have obviously seen things differently. Because you studied nuclear physics, right?
VANDANA SHIVA: I studied nuclear physics. But I also studied quantum theory. My thesis was on non-separability and non-locality in quantum theory.
BILL MOYERS: Which means?
VANDANA SHIVA: Which basically means everything is connected. Because the industrial revolution and the scientific revolution gave us a very mechanistic idea of the universe. First, we were told “Nature is dead. There's no living Earth. How can you even imagine the Earth lives? How can other species-- they're just inferior creatures of God. And you've got to have man's empire over God, over the Earth."
The idea that everything is this hard matter, unrelated to each other is still guiding a lot of science. And genetic engineering is based on that hard matter, genes in isolation, you know? Genes determine everything. There's a master molecule that gives orders. Old patriarchal stuff. The real science--
BILL MOYERS: Patriarchal?
VANDANA SHIVA: The real science is the science of interconnection. Whether it's going to--
BILL MOYERS: Of what?
VANDANA SHIVA: Of interconnectedness, of non-separation. That everything is related.
Farming, for example, you must see the soil, the plants, the pollinators, the food that's produced, all of it in the whole.
BILL MOYERS: Let's take that to the system of economics. Because some people have said that globalization, the movement of ideas, of people, of money, across arbitrary boundaries, as if they didn't exist, also reflects the interconnectedness of everything. That globalization is an economic equivalent of what happens in the world of nature in that everything is connected. And you can't stop it Vandana Shiva. This is the way the world rocks.
VANDANA SHIVA: First of all, this is not interconnectedness of the ecological level. It's an extremely artificial, corporate rule on a planetary scale. Some corporations get to control the world. And then all that's flowing around is commodities. Commodities that don't have to be moving. It's still the old, hard, billiard ball model. You know?
You load the ships from China for cheap consumer products in Wal-Mart here. That is not a world of interconnectedness. The world of interconnectedness would recognize that the rivers of China need to flow, clean and free. It would recognize that the people of China need to exercise in work, in freedom, not as slave labor in factories to produce cheap goods.
This corporate globalization, based on more, higher, a deeper reach of corporations in fields where they had no role, food, water, the air, all into commodities—you know, transforming the Earth into commodities. That flow is not a flow of interconnectedness. And in fact, it is leading to a disconnection. If you look at the violence being perpetuated.
The reason I've written my new book, “Making Peace with the Earth,” is because I'm watching every day. I get calls every day from remote areas. "Please come down. They're shooting us. They're trying to tear down our sacred mountain of Niamgri, which has-- for aluminum. We have an iron ore in our mountains. They're displacing us." Every day there's a land war. Every day there's a water war. Because of the appetite of this global commodity-producing, consumption-based interconnection.
And I often say that what we have is an interconnectedness of the world through greed, which is not how nature works, which is not how humanity works. And an exclusion of people, a killing of their humanity. It is not an accident that with the rise of corporate globalization and economic globalization, we have seen the rise of religious conflict, ethnic conflicts, where people get divided, more and more and more.
So we're seeing human divisions. You're seeing a deeper division between human beings and the Earth. And all you see is a global reach. We are seeing a drop in our sense of a common humanity, and definitely a collapse in the planetary consciousness that we need to have. And for me, those are the two elements of making peace with the Earth. Reclaiming our common humanity and reclaiming our recognition that we are Earth’s citizens.
BILL MOYERS: The last time you were here, you were fighting Coca-Cola in India over the privatization of water. Now your bulls-eye is on Monsanto. Why is Monsanto so crucial to this fight overseas?
VANDANA SHIVA: Monsanto is crucial to this fight because they are the biggest seed company now. Monsanto is privatizing the seed. They control 95 percent of the cotton in India, 90 percent of the soy in this country. They've taken over most of the seed companies of the world.
BILL MOYERS: You say it's all about seeds. And that it comes down to corporations wanting to patent seeds. How does that work? What do you mean it comes down to seeds?
VANDANA SHIVA: Well, it comes down to seeds for the simple reason everything begins a seed. The food on our plate. You and me were seed at one point. The little calf that becomes the cow. Seed is the source of life. And seed is the source of renewal of life. That is where life gets renewed in perpetuity.
BILL MOYERS: So what does it mean when a corporation patents the seed?
VANDANA SHIVA: The first thing it means is a lie. That "I have created it. I have created life."
BILL MOYERS: "I, the corporation."
VANDANA SHIVA: The corporations claim that-- and, you know, we joke and say, a G.M.O., a genetically modified organization, which was the path to get patenting on seeds-- I sat at meetings where the corporations said, "The reason we've got to do genetically modified organisms is because it’s the only way we can claim a patent. A patent is a claim to invention, a claim to creation. And it brings with it an exclusive right to exclude anyone else from using, having, distributing the patented product."
BILL MOYERS: What's the claim? Speak from their side. What are they claiming?
VANDANA SHIVA: Well, they're claiming intellectual property. And they changed the language. They say the seed is no more a seed. It's an intellectual property. They make the society shift its thinking of what is at stake. Seed is the first link in the food chain. And therefore, when you control seed, you control food.
BILL MOYERS: You say that corporations have hijacked our food system. How so?
VANDANA SHIVA: Well I come from a country where there were no corporations in the food system until 20 years ago. They weren't allowed to be. Our rules said food was too precious. It was an important source of livelihood. So we had to protect our small farmers. Every law protected the small farmer, land rights, markets, prices, everything worked so a small farmer could have a living. Food processing stayed in what we call the cottage sector, the small scale sector. That's why we didn't have junk food and processed food. Globalization changes the rules. And agriculture agreement is written by a former official of Cargill to represent the U.S. public.
BILL MOYERS: Cargill--
VANDANA SHIVA: Is the world's biggest grain trader. The second is the intellectual property treaty controlled and written by Monsanto. And then you have the so-called food safety agreement called The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement. Every one of these are very highly complex names. Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights, Sanitary and Phytosanitary. All of them are basically saying, "Let there be a monopoly of a corporation to have-- to write the rules so that only they can be players in the food system."
And the final step is the retail, where food reaches our table, Wal-Mart wanting to have foreign direct investment in retail. A big issue in India's parliament, a very big issue on the streets of India. So from the seed to the table, corporations are saying, "We want to be the only players." Five in seed, five in grain trade, five in processing, and five in retail. That is a corporate hijack of our food and a corporate dictatorship over our food system.
BILL MOYERS: But here’s what you’re up against. Several activist organizations—some seed businesses, some farmers, organizations like yours—filed a suit here in New York, challenging Monsanto's seed patents. And the U.S. district judge here in New York threw it out, saying it was “a transparent effort to create a controversy where none exists.”
VANDANA SHIVA: Yes, that case has been a sad ruling, a very sad ruling. In my view, it's the same kind of status that says corporations have freedom of speech and therefore they can hijack our democracy. Let them spend as much money as they can to literally buy elections. But for every case of this kind, there are other cases being won.
We have won cases against Monsanto in India.
BILL MOYERS: But if something like this is as bad as you describe it. If it's a monster roaming the countryside. How is it getting away with it?
VANDANA SHIVA: Well, it's getting away for two reasons. First, freedom, democracy, and choice is taken away. It's taken away from the farmer, by not allowing them to have their seed. It's taken away from the consumer by not letting them have labeling to say what they're eating. If there was labeling of G.M. foods, no one would eat it.
BILL MOYERS: Genetically modified--
VANDANA SHIVA: Genetically modified foods. The second deeper tragedy, which is why I link this always to democracy, is the fact that governments are being hijacked and governments are being influenced.
We stopped a whole agreement in Nepal by building a movement. Haitian farmers said, "We don't want this stuff." And they took it after the earthquake. The French have said, "We don't want this stuff." And the WikiLeaks show the ambassador saying, "We need retaliation.” This is a seed war. This is a war.
President Bush and our prime minister signed an agreement on agriculture, on the board of which sit Monsanto and Wal-Mart. And they then sit and dictate the policies. That means that much more work for us to reclaim our democracy and our freedom. So they're getting away, because they're using governments to shut down alternatives and push seed against the will of people.
And President Bush is on record in a film called “The World According to Monsanto,” senior President Bush, asking Monsanto, "What do you want us to do?"
MAN 1 in The World According to Monsanto: And I would say quite frankly, we have no complaints about the way the USDA has handled it. They’re going through an orderly process. They’re making sure as they deal with these new things they do them properly. No, uh, if we’re waiting until September and if we don’t have our authorization we may say something different.
VICE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH SR. in The World According to Monsanto: Call me. We’re in the dereg business. Maybe we can help.
VANDANA SHIVA: In India, Monsanto, in effect, controls our agricultural ministry and our prime minister's office. And so very, very often, we have to work very closely with our state governments, which are our regional governments, to defend our constitutional rights.
To say, "Why should we be force fed a genetically engineered B.T. eggplant, when we have the most delicious eggplants, 4,000 varieties?" It took a movement, 13 governments, 7 public hearings to put a moratorium. The advisors from here flew in to try and undo that moratorium.
BILL MOYERS: Monsanto advisors?
VANDANA SHIVA: U.S. Government advisors.
BILL MOYERS: On the side of Monsanto?
VANDANA SHIVA: On the side--the White House, the USDA--
BILL MOYERS: Department of Agriculture?
VANDANA SHIVA: And the Department of Agriculture and the FDA all have a revolving door with Monsanto. And this is all on record. So on the top, there's Monsanto, hijacking all our governments. And through that, trying to hijack our food supply. And from the ground, farmers, consumers, regional governments saying, "We want a Monsanto-free food system. We want Monsanto-free, G.M.O.-free, patent-free seed."
BILL MOYERS: Now Vandana, the other side of the argument is made by people like Bill Gates. Bill Gates says that genetically modified seeds are necessary to prevent starvation in poor countries because they enable farmers to double and triple their productivity.
VANDANA SHIVA: Unfortunately, he's so totally wrong on this assumption that genetically modified seeds produce more. In India, Monsanto came in with a claim of 1,500 kilograms of cotton per acre with their genetically engineered cotton. The average yields are 400 kilograms. Our studies show that. The government studies confirm this.
When you grow just genetically modified cotton, you destroy all the associate crops that were feeding the poor families. So it actually leads to less food. When you spray roundup and kill the greens that are necessary for women to have iron, for children to have vitamin A, you're creating hunger. You're creating disease.
Super weeds taking over your fields are a recipe for hunger. Pests overtaking your fields are a recipe for hunger. But worse, seed, patents are a way of getting money out of poor people. This is not a solution to hunger and poverty. This is aggravating the crisis poor people already face.
BILL MOYERS: You know, many people will hear you as they have the others who come on this, at the table and describe what's going wrong in the world. And they always-- they often write me on the web or stop me on the street and say, I heard that diagnosis. But what can I do?
VANDANA SHIVA: I think first thing is each of us has to daily ask a question, "Where am I complicit in a war against the Earth? Where are my daily actions part of a devastation of the planet and with it, a devastation of the lives of people." Because the two go hand in hand. A war against the Earth is a war against people. Peace with the Earth is peace among people.
Getting rid of the inequalities, the violence, the exclusions. And I realize that food is a place where we can all begin. Food is a place which is so loaded with dishonesty and is what keeps a false economy of food alive. The subsidies that go to industrial agriculture.
BILL MOYERS: Subsidies we taxpayers--
VANDANA SHIVA: Taxpayers pay. A high-cost system, which uses a lot of wealth of society, then uses our wealth to cheat on the prices and make costly food look cheap. So our choices are distorted. We go and eat the junk food that then creates the high cost of disease, the high cost of obesity, the high cost of diabetes at an early stage, the high cost of environmental devastation.
And so we need an honest system. And we can begin by creating that honesty and that peace by relating more directly to the food we eat, to the people who grow our food.
To me, the beauty is, every time I come back to this country, there are more farmer's markets. There is more commitment to local food supply. Even in the city of New York, people are saying, "We'll make local food. We'll grow local food." It is an easy step, but it is a very far-reaching step.
BILL MOYERS: You’ve spent time in this country, you know that in inner cities it’s almost impossible to buy fresh fruits and fresh vegetables.
VANDANA SHIVA: That's the challenge we have. It's not that there isn't a food stamp system. Public money is being spent on feeding the poor. But then it's insuring that the only access the poor have with the money they get, again from public money, is to bad food. We could divert this to good food. There's no rule in the book that says healthy food should be a luxury for the rich. Healthy food is a right for all.
BILL MOYERS: For the last 20 years, we've heard and read report after report of progress in India, the creation of a middleclass enjoying its new prosperity. At the same time, we read and hear and see stories of people deprived of their livelihood and their homes from huge environmental projects, big dams, big mines, big infrastructure. I mean, it's always been a lot of poverty there. But are you becoming-- is that great gulf becoming a permanent feature of India in this modern world?
VANDANA SHIVA: Well, you know, my small effort is to not allow it to become a permanent feature. But it's not that these are two separate worlds. They're separated in terms of the status of people, their dignity, their rights. But they are deeply connected at the levels of the Earth's resources.
The reason you have a few families joining the ten richest billionaires of the world in the Forbes list is because they've grabbed the land, the electricity, the resources, the oil, and that is what has left the other India poorer. It wasn't that the other India was left out. They've been pushed out. And that's why while we have some of the highest growth rates in the conventional measure of economic progress, which in my view is not a very reliable measure, we also have two of the most outrageous indicators that are linked to that model. The first is the quarter million farm suicides. If a quarter million farm--
BILL MOYERS: Those have been documented?
VANDANA SHIVA: They're documented. This is Government of India data. This is not our data. It's official statistics. And you can do an overlay. And the highest rates of suicides are in the cotton belt, 95 percent of the cotton today is Monsanto's cotton. So there is a link.
Today ever fourth Indian is hungry and every second Indian child is wasted or stunted, which in effect means that half of India is being robbed of its future. And to me, this is not acceptable. That is why we try and build a kind of agriculture that allows farmers to have a livelihood, for the poorest child or the poorest household to have nutritious food. It is not easy because the whole system is weighed against alternatives that would work for everyone.
It's partly because of the pressure of the corporations, but partly because of not thinking, of just being blind, of having been so fed by what I have called monocultures of the mind, you know, just turning to recipes from somewhere else. And of course the chemical industry will tell you only chemicals grow food. Chemicals grow toxics. Chemicals don't grow food.
That only Monsanto seeds will be able to remove hunger. And all of this new mythology becomes part of the policy framework. But I am deeply committed to make sure that this terrible brainwashing that is robbing our present generation and our future generations, that we are able to work collectively to change it. Because while in your parents’ generation, your generation, and in my generation, the doors of a growing economy were constantly opening up, today we are in a period, where for the majority, the doors are shutting down.
I work with people in Spain, with people in Italy. I advise the governments there, work with the movements there, or Greece, or the Occupy movement right here. They are realizing that what has been created is not going to provide opportunities for all.
BILL MOYERS: As you talk, I remember reading somewhere that Einstein had a big influence on you, right?
VANDANA SHIVA: Yes, I became a physicist because of him. I mean, you know, even as children, you get to, you know, if you read Nightingale, you want to be a doctor or a nurse. I read stuff Einstein wrote and he wrote simple stuff that you could read it. That's why I wanted to be a physicist.
BILL MOYERS: And he said once, I'm paraphrasing it, but "Unless an idea is at first absurd, it has no chance of success."
VANDANA SHIVA: Absolutely. He also said that you cannot solve the problems you face through the same mindset that caused those problems.
BILL MOYERS: Vandana Shiva, thank you very much for being with me again.
VANDANA SHIVA: Thank you, Bill. It's always such a pleasure.

Vandana Shiva on the Problem with Genetically Modified Seeds | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com

Vermont Introduces Monumental GMO Labeling Legislation

February 8, 2012
Anthony Gucciardi
Source:NaturalSociety

Vermont has taken the initiative against Monsanto and other biotechnology corporations in launching new legislation that would require the labeling of products containing genetically modified ingredients. The bill, known as the ‘VT Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act’, was introduced to the Vermont House of Representatives by Representative Kate Webb of Shelburne on February 1st, 2012. The bill would require the labeling of not only products filled entirely with GMOs, but also for those partially created using GM ingredients.

Perhaps most monumental is the fact that the legislation would prohibit GMO food manufacturers from using promotional labels like “natural,” “naturally made,” “naturally grown,” “all natural,” or any words of similar import. The bill, which can be read for free online, would require strict and clear labeling on GMO-containing food items. The wording states that in the case of a raw agricultural commodity, the label ‘genetically modified’ would be clearly visible. As for processed food products, the words ‘partially produced with genetic engineering’ or ‘may be partially produced with genetic engineering’ would appear prominently on the front or back of the package.

Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture , testimony is to begin on the topic later this month.

The introduction of the legislation highlights the growing grassroots opposition against Monsanto and GMOs alike. In addition, the legislation would end phony ‘all natural’ product claims when in actuality they contain very unnatural genetically modified organisms. Just recently one consumer took legal action against major snack-maker Frito-Lay, claiming that the labeling of GMO-filled snack products as ‘all natural’ is deceptive and misleading.

VPIRG Consumer Protection Advocate Falko Schilling spoke in support of the act saying “This is a consumer right to know issue, just as we require nutritional labels on food so that shoppers can make informed choices, consumers should have the same access to information about whether their food has been genetically engineered.”

In the event this bill passes, a political awakening could occur across the nation regarding the true labeling of products filled with genetically modified ingredients.

Bill Gates Foundation Buys 500,000 Shares of Monsanto

August 30, 2010
Anthony Gucciardi
Source:NaturalSociety

Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto’s genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds. “When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising,” said Mayet.

Monsanto’s aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue-and bankrupt-farmers for “patent infringement.” Monsanto was declared company of the year by Forbes magazine in 2009, despite its history of agricultural abuses. Monsanto has also been accused of dumping toxic waste in residential areas, resulting in a variety of severe health disorders.

We have until the end of August to tell the EU we don’t want GM animals in our countryside

August 18, 2012
Source:The Therapy Book

This consultation from Brussels seeking public approval for introducing GM animals into European countrysides has been quietly put out, no doubt in the hope that most of us will be so entranced by the Olympics, we won’t see it. However, we now have until the end of August to respond to it.

European consultation on GM animals

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has issued a consultation on environmental risk assessment of genetically modified GM fish, insects, birds, and mammals (including pets, wild and farm animals) in the European Union (EU).

This consultation is intended to pave the way for the introduction of many different types of GM animals into the European countryside, rivers or seas, their use in factory farming, and even their introduction as pets into people’s homes.

If you are concerned about this, see the “what you can do” section on this page.

EFSA’s remit is to assess risks in the food chain, it therefore has no competence to assess the impacts on other species of releasing these GM animals into the environment.
What is included in the EFSA consultation?

The consultation includes:

GM fish. The section on GM fish is designed to facilitate the introduction of GM salmon produced by the company Aquabounty. There are major concerns that these fish could damage wild salmon populations if they escape into the environment. Other GM fish species are expected to be introduced if GM salmon is approved.
GM insects.The section of the consultation on GM insects has been heavily influenced by the UK company Oxitec, which is developing genetically modified mosquitoes and agricultural pests, with funding from the Swiss multinational agricultural company Syngenta. Oxitec has a patent which lists more than 50 species of insect it wishes to genetically modify and release into the environment. Syngenta wants to market GM insects for use by farmers in Europe and worldwide: one of the main proposed applications is to combine them with GM pest-resistant crops (Bt crops) to try to slow the spread of resistance to these crops. In the longer term potential commercial applications include pesticide-resistant bees.
GM birds. GM chickens are being developed which are supposed to slow the spread of bird flu in factory farms. These birds raise many concerns, including the possibility that they will make the risk of bird flu worse.
GM mammals. The consultation also covers GM mammals, including farm animals such as cows, pets such as cats, and wild animals such as rabbits, all of which could cause harm if they are released or escape into the environment. Products from some of these animals, such as milk from GM cows, may end up in the food chain. Genetically modifying mammals often causes suffering because many attempts fail resulting in aborted fetuses or stillbirths.

You can read more about some of these applications elsewhere on this website: GM fish, GM insects and GM and cloned animals. GeneWatch will add a copy of its response to the EFSA consultation here, when it is completed.
What you can do

There are five things you can do if you are concerned about the proposals in the EFSA consultation:

Contact your MP
Contact your MEPs
Respond to the consultation (by end August 2012)
Contact your local supermarkets
Let other people know.

Contacting your MP and MEPs

You can contact your MP and members of the European Parliament (MEPs) if you are concerned about the EFSA consultation and proposals to introduce GM fish, insects, birds, farm animals and pets into the air, land and sea in Britain.

Things you could point out to them include:

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) does not have the remit or competence to assess environmental harms should any of these GM animals be released or escape into the British countryside or seas.
The consultation ignores the problems there will be keeping a GM-free food supply if these proposals go ahead. There are no plans in the consultation to trace where GM fish or cattle eggs or sperm will end up, or to prevent GM caterpillar eggs from entering the food supply on cabbages or other crops.

The most effective thing to do is to ring your MP’s constituency office and ask to make an appointment to see him or her, but you can also write a letter or send an email. Contacting your MEPs is important too because the European Parliament should have a say about EFSA’s work.

You can find your MP on the They Work for You website or on the UK Parliament website. You can also email your MP and your MEPs directly from the Write to Them website.
Responding to the consultation

The deadline for responses to the EFSA consultation is 31st August 2012.

The EFSA consultation is very poorly written. For example, what is covered and some definitions are different in each section (for fish, insects and mammals and birds) and the structure of the report assumes it is possible to separate the effects of a GM animal on one species from another, as if multiple species did not interact in the environment. Many scientific references are missing.

If you want to comment on the consultation you can only do this online on the EFSA website here and you must make short comments line by line.

However, you do not have to submit comments on the whole document. If you want to make only one comment you could comment on the Background lines 165 to 168, by pointing out that EFSA is not competent to assess environmental risks as it has no remit or expertise in this area.
Contacting your local supermarkets or other food shops

You can write to, email or phone your local supermarkets, or call in and ask to see the manager. Things you can ask them are:

What is their policy on selling GM foods?
What is their policy on selling meat, milk or dairy products from animals fed on GM feed?
What is their policy on selling meat, milk or dairy products from GM animals, such as chicken and cows, if these products enter Britain in the future?
What is their policy on selling vegetables, fruit or other crops which may contain GM insect eggs or caterpillers, should GM insects be used in British agriculture in the future?

Your local food shops might also appreciate being told about what is going on.
Letting other people know

Please share this article to your Facebook page or Twitter feed or any other social networking site, and email it your friends.

Brazil court supports consumers’ resistance to GMO in food items

24/08/2012
Source: moneylife

“It appears another victory has been declared in the battle against Monsanto and GMO ingredients,” comments Nation of Change

A Brazilian court has demanded that multi-billion dollar food giant Nestle label all of its products as genetically modified that have over 1% GMO (genetically modified organisms) content. The ruling reportedly coincides with Brazilian law which demands all food manufacturers alert consumers to the presence of GMOs within their products. This has been reported by Anthony Gucciardi, Nation of Change, which is a non-profit organisation with the motto of progressive journalism for positive action.

Mr Gucciardi reports that instead of grovelling to Brazilian officials and mega biotechnology groups, the Brazilian business wire reports that the court determined the Brazilian government to be illegally working with the food industry entity known as ABIA. Furthermore, the court stated that consumers have the basic right to know what they are putting into their mouths especially when it comes to GMO ingredients.

“It appears another victory has been declared in the battle against Monsanto and GMO ingredients,” comments Anthony Gucciardi, Nation of Change. This confirms the long-standing consumers’ resistance and that of activists to GM ingredients in food in India and abroad, the latest being Brazil.

The Brazilian court issued a fine of $2,478 per product that was found to violate the ruling after finding the presence of GMO ingredients in Nestle’s strawberry Bono cookies, according to Nation of Change.

The injunction also requires that the information on the label must contain the graphic sign designating GM food (a ‘T’ in lowercase, inserted in a triangle with yellow background), accompanied by the term ‘transgenic’, as reported by Jornal DCI, Sao Paulo. The injunction was given in the civil action filed by the Public Prosecutor of Sao Paulo (SP-MP). The analysis found genetically modified products in the composition of ‘Bono’ cookies, strawberry flavour, manufactured and marketed by Nestle. Although more than half of the soyabean used in manufacturing the biscuit are transgenic, this is not declared on the product packaging, as was determined in the civil investigation.

According to Natural Society, where the same activist has written a year ago, in an act of defiance against bloated biotech companies like Monsanto, Peru has officially passed a law banning genetically modified ingredients within the nation for a period of 10 years. Peru’s Plenary Session of the Congress made the decision despite previous governmental pushes for GM legalization. Anibal Huerta, President of Peru’s Agrarian Commission, said the ban was needed to prevent the danger that can arise from the use of biotechnology.

While writing in Natural Society, earlier this year, Mr Gucciardi has commented that in the United States, the government continues to ignore and deny the concerns surrounding genetically modified crops and ingredients, instead streamlining the approval process for Monsanto’s new modified creations.

The safety of GMOs in the food chain has been questioned by environmental groups, with concerns such as the possibilities that GMOs could introduce new allergens into foods, or contribute to the spread of antibiotic resistance. The battle against genetically modified seed companies like Monsanto is continuing and is watched by avid journalists and activists alike.

Opting for This "Cheaper Food" Could Make You Age Faster

May 26 2012
By Dr.Mercola

Twenty years ago today, former Monsanto lawyer and present FDA deputy commissioner Michael Taylor declared genetically engineered foods "substantially equivalent" and declared they would not need to be labeled for consumers.

Today is also the last day of the Money Bomb Against Monsanto Campaign, which launched on May 1. Earlier this month, volunteers and staff from the California Right to Know Campaign submitted nearly 1 million signed petitions from registered voters across the state of California to county officials, to place Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act on the Ballot for November 6.

This Act will require food manufacturers to identify genetically engineered ingredients on the labels of foods sold in California.

When California voters pass this ballot initiative, the Label Genetically Engineered Food Act will also not allow the common practice of mislabeling genetically engineered foods as "natural" or "all natural." But the biotech industry is not about to let this pass without a fight.

Industry Propaganda Aimed at Confusing and Misleading Consumers

The Council for Biotechnology and the Grocery Manufacturers Association have filed as formal opposition to this initiative. Not surprisingly, Monsanto is a member of both groups.

Big Biotech and major processed food manufacturers are pooling tens of millions of dollars together to spread their propaganda in an effort to defeat the California Ballot Initiative. In a recent Organic Consumers Association article, Alexis Baden-Mayer, Esq., Political Director of the Organic Consumers Fund writesi:

"Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman with the Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition, says requiring labels on genetically engineered food would increase food prices.

What she doesn't say is that she's being paid by the trade association that represents both the biotech behemoths like Monsanto that engineer the GMO crops and the food industry giants like PepsiCo that use ingredients made from these crops in their products. PepsiCo., Kraft, Kellogg's and other top food processors market so-called "natural" protects at a premium that rivals what consumers pay for non-GMO and organic foods - even though these so-called "natural" foods contain unlabeled GMOs. The money these companies swindle from us as they trick us into paying top-dollar for GMO foods disguised as "natural" dwarfs the miniscule 0.01% of food costs attributable to GMO labels...

Maryann Marino, Southern California regional director of California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse says GMO labels will make family farmers and small businesses vulnerable to lawsuits.

Her organization is a state chapter of the American Tort Reform Association (funded by Monsanto) which thinks it's okay for Monsanto to sue farmers in 143 different patent infringement lawsuits when their crops are unintentionally contaminated with Monsanto's GMOs, but it isn't okay for farmers to get together and bring one lawsuit against Monsanto to stop the harassment. Think they really care about family farmers or small businesses? Their only interests are protecting Monsanto's market share and helping companies sneak Monsanto's ingredients into their products without letting consumers know."

Why Labeling Genetically Engineered Foods Will Not Significantly Raise Prices

Baden-Mayer also explains why you shouldn't fall for such fear-mongering, as these scenarios have little if any bearing in factual truth. She writes:

"A 2002 Oregon State University study reviewed the true costs of actual laws requiring labels on genetically engineered food in other countries. According to the study, a law in the UK, like the one proposed for CA, increased food spending by only 0.01%. The most any GMO labeling proposal was projected to cost was 1.8%. (This was from a Canadian study where, the authors note, the costs of segregating crops, changing processing procedures and changing the label were exaggerated and came only from expectations expressed by industry spokespersons.)

The 0.01% to 1.8% increase in the cost of labeling GMO foods must be put in perspective by looking at what companies already spend and consumers currently pay to avoid genetically engineered ingredients. A 2005 University of Delaware study showed that consumers would pay 20-30% more for non-GMO or organicii.

The so-called "natural" food industry has taken full advantage of consumer interest in avoiding GMOs and consumer ignorance in where those GMOs may be lurking. A review by the Cornucopia Institute of "natural," non-GMO and organic cereals showed that so-called "natural" cereals that contained unlabeled GMOs were sometimes more expensive than real non-GMO and organic cerealsiii.

Once GMOs are labeled, consumers will easily be able to substitute products that contain non-GMO cane sugar for products made with GMO sugar beet sugar or high-fructose corn syrup and change from vegetable oils made from GMO canola to non-GMO sunflower or olive oil. They'll be able to eat more non-GMO wheat and rice and less GMO corn and soy. They can choose non-GMO fruits and vegetables and avoid the few that are GMO. Eating non-GMO won't involve paying a premium, just making a choice between the foods that are genetically engineered and the ones that aren't. Foods that are GMO won't be able to be falsely labeled as "natural."

Why GE Labeling Will Not Open Up Farmers and Small Businesses to Lawsuits

The claim that farmers and grocers may become more vulnerable to lawsuits as a result of the Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act is also false and nothing but a scare tactic.

Why?

First of all, farmers and grocery stores are not responsible for listing ingredients on food labels. The only way a grocer could get into trouble would be if they knowingly mislabel their own store-brand product. They cannot be held liable if a food processor or food packer fails to comply with the labeling law.

The language in the Act is also very clear—it only requires labeling of foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients. Each new genetically engineered crop must be deregulated by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which makes them easy to track. Once deregulated, farmers clearly know whether their crop is genetically engineered or not since they are required to purchase expensive patented seeds that are clearly branded and marketed as genetically engineered by the seed companies. So when they sell their crops to a food manufacturer, there's no question whether they're dealing with a GE ingredient or not.

Furthermore, under the proposed law, foods containing genetically engineered ingredients cannot be labeled as "natural." Food packers and processors are given 18 months to comply with the new labeling requirements—which is the typical timeframe within which labels are routinely updated anyway—so complying with the new regulations should not be a major problem. Baden-Mayer also points out that:

"Food packers and processors may decide to seek non-GMO sources to avoid the law's labeling requirements, and that may increase markets for farmers who grow non-GMO crops, but that is a different issue than simply complying with a new labeling requirement." And, "If PepsiCo continues to sell unlabeled genetically engineered food in CA once this law is passed, we'll definitely sue them (we'd rather see them comply), but this law creates no incentive to go after small businesses."

The Future of Your Food is at Stake

Although The Future of Food is five years old, this excellent film is more relevant now than ever. If you haven't watched it, please set aside some time to see it. It's required viewing for anyone who wants to understand what they're putting into their belly. If it's been awhile since you saw it, you may want to refresh your memory.

"This is a Flash based video and may not be viewable on mobile devices."
The Time for Action is NOW!

We need to send the biotech and food industry a clear message: We have the right to know what they put into our food!

Can we win? Yes, I believe we can! But we need to get the word out, which requires a strong campaign to educate the citizens of California to vote for the initiative on November 6. If you missed my recent panel interview with Ronnie Cummins with the Organic Consumers Association, Pamm Larry, founder of LabelGMOs.org and Dave Murphy, founder of Food Democracy Now, in which we discuss the California Right to Know Campaign, please take a moment to listen to it now.

According to Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association, we stand a good chance of winning in California because:

This time, we have far more scientific information and greater public awareness on our side. GE contamination is now a mainstream media issue. Monsanto has become the most hated corporation in the world.
This time, we have overwhelming public support. Polls show that more than 8 out of 10 voters in California want mandatory GE labeling.
This time, we have built the strongest coalition of concerned food consumers in history, for the exclusive purpose of passing this law.

So today, I ask you to invest in this Initiative. Invest in your future. And invest as generously as you can. If you've already sent in your donation, thank you! If not, please contribute to this historic and critical campaign today. And then please forward this email to your friends. Share it on Facebook and Twitter. Print it out, hand it to all your friends. Every action counts! As stated by Ronnie Cummins with the Organic Consumers Association:

"Monsanto is one of the most powerful, arrogant and destructive companies in the world. For decades, they have controlled the world's food supply by buying off politicians and regulatory agencies, intimidating small farmers, manipulating the outcome of scientific studies, lying to consumers - and threatening to sue states like Vermont if they dare to pass a GMO labeling law.

... Despite Monsanto's claims to the contrary, scientists are clear: genetically engineered food has been linked to a wide range of health hazards, including kidney and liver damage, infertility, auto-immune disorders, allergies and autism, accelerated aging, and birth defects... We have the right to know if the food we buy has been genetically engineered.... It's time to take back our food. Our farms. Our power. It's time to show Monsanto what ordinary people like us can do when we come together."

Hundreds of thousands of people making small donations can help the coalition behind this initiative run a dynamic, effective campaign to bring down Monsanto and the rest of the Biotech Bullies

Now it's time to organize, educate, and promote this cause. We won't need to spend the tens of millions that the biotech bullies are using to fight this initiative - but we will need several million to combat their propoganda adequately.

So please, join us, and make a donation right now! You can donate online, by phone, or by dropping a check in the mail.

References:

i Organic Consumers Association May 5, 2012
ii Department of Food and Resource Economics University of Delaware, Experimental Investigation of Willingness to Pay for Non-GM and Organic Food Products, Katie Gifford, John C. Bernard, Ulrich C. Toensmeyer, Richard Bacon, Department of Food and Resource Economics University of Delaware
iii Cornucopia Institute, Cereal Crimes 2011 Report

Blatant Corruption Exposed as EU Blocks France's Ban on Monsanto's GMO Maize

24 May 2012
By Anthony Gucciardi
Source: Nation of Change

France legislators and officials moved to ban Monsanto’s genetically modified strain of GMO maize over environmental and health concerns, the European Union has decided to step in and re-secure Monsanto’s presence in the country — against the very will of the nation itself. This should come as no surprise when considering the fact that the United States ambassador to France, a business partner to George W. Bush, stated back in 2007 that nations who did not accept Monsanto’s GMO crops will be ‘penalized’. In fact, ambassador Craig Stapleton went as far as to say that the nations should be threatened with military-styled trade wars.

That’s right, it appears the reason for the unprecedented move to maintain Monsanto’s deeply-rooted foothold in France has to do with the fact that the United States and other nations are continually pushing Monsanto’s agenda — even going as far as to threaten military-styled trade wars to those who oppose the company. Monsanto has major connections with political heads that have actually threatened trade wars against nations opposed to GMOs on record. As I reported back in January, WikiLeaks cables surfaced revealing startling information concerning Monsanto’s deep involvement with back-end politics.

One of the most telling details involves a statement made by Craig Stapleton, in which he said:

“Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.”

NationofChange fights back with one simple but powerful weapon: the truth. Can you donate $5 to help us?
And that is not even the most shocking part. WikiLeaks cables go on to state that United States diplomats actually work directly for Monsanto, furthering the agenda of the company across the globe. Is it any wonder that France is being assaulted by the EU over its decision to secure the health of its citizens?

It becomes even more obvious when examining the ridiculous reasoning as to why the EU had to step in and block France’s in-house legislation. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) rejected the ban on the grounds that “there is no scientific evidence” that shows “risk to human and animal health or the environment.” Of course there is an overwhelming amount of research showing that Monsanto’s creations do in fact threaten not only human health, but the planet as a whole. Even the EPA has warned over the fact that Monsanto’s GMO crops are spawning ‘mutant’ resistant insects and subsequently requiring substantially more pesticides.

Consumers are waking up to Monsanto’s agenda and the dangers associated with their modified creations. Over 45,000 comments were submitted on the USDA website in opposition to Monsanto’s new genetically modified strain, and only 23 in favor. The corruption of Monsanto is now out in the open, and only serves to show how deeply rooted the company is within the United States government. Is it any coincidence that a major head of the FDA was a leading employee of Monsanto?

The seed emergency: The threat to food and democracy

written by:Dr Vandana Shiva
Source: AlJazeera

New Delhi, India - The seed is the first link in the food chain - and seed sovereignty is the foundation of food sovereignty. If farmers do not have their own seeds or access to open pollinated varieties that they can save, improve and exchange, they have no seed sovereignty - and consequently no food sovereignty.

The deepening agrarian and food crisis has its roots in changes in the seed supply system, and the erosion of seed diversity and seed sovereignty.

Seed sovereignty includes the farmer's rights to save, breed and exchange seeds, to have access to diverse open source seeds which can be saved - and which are not patented, genetically modified, owned or controlled by emerging seed giants. It is based on reclaiming seeds and biodiversity as commons and public good.


The past twenty years have seen a very rapid erosion of seed diversity and seed sovereignty, and the concentration of the control over seeds by a very small number of giant corporations. In 1995, when the UN organised the Plant Genetic Resources Conference in Leipzig, it was reported that 75 per cent of all agricultural biodiversity had disappeared because of the introduction of "modern" varieties, which are always cultivated as monocultures. Since then, the erosion has accelerated.

The introduction of the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement of the World Trade Organisation has accelerated the spread of genetically engineered seeds - which can be patented - and for which royalties can be collected. Navdanya was started in response to the introduction of these patents on seeds in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade - a forerunner to the WTO - about which a Monsanto representative later stated: "In drafting these agreements, we were the patient, diagnostician [and] physician all in one." Corporations defined a problem - and for them the problem was farmers saving seeds. They offered a solution, and the solution was to make it illegal for farmers to save seed - by introducing patents and intellectual property rights [PDF] on those very seeds. As a result, acreage under GM corn, soya, canola, cotton has increased dramatically.

Threats to seed sovereignty

Besides displacing and destroying diversity, patented GMO seeds are also undermining seed sovereignty. Across the world, new seed laws are being introduced which enforce compulsory registration of seeds, thus making it impossible for small farmers to grow their own diversity, and forcing them into dependency on giant seed corporations. Corporations are also patenting climate resilient seeds evolved by farmers - thus robbing farmers of using their own seeds and knowledge for climate adaptation.

Another threat to seed sovereignty is genetic contamination. India has lost its cotton seeds because of contamination from Bt Cotton - a strain engineered to contain the pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium. Canada has lost its canola seed because of contamination from Roundup Ready canola. And Mexico has lost its corn due to contamination from Bt Cotton.

After contamination, biotech seed corporations sue farmers with patent infringement cases, as happened in the case of Percy Schmeiser. That is why more than 80 groups came together and filed a case to prevent Monsanto from suing farmers whose seed had been contaminated.

As a farmer's seed supply is eroded, and farmers become dependent on patented GMO seed, the result is debt. India, the home of cotton, has lost its cotton seed diversity and cotton seed sovereignty. Some 95 per cent of the country's cotton seed is now controlled by Monsanto - and the debt trap created by being forced to buy seed every year - with royalty payments - has pushed hundreds of thousands of farmers to suicide; of the 250,000 farmer suicides, the majority are in the cotton belt.

Seeding control

Even as the disappearance of biodiversity and seed sovereignty creates a major crisis for agriculture and food security, corporations are pushing governments to use public money to destroy the public seed supply and replace it with unreliable non-renewable, patented seed - which must be bought each and every year.
Inside Story: Averting a world food crisis

In Europe, the 1994 regulation for protection of plant varieties forces farmers to make a "compulsory voluntary contribution" to seed companies. The terms themselves are contradictory. What is compulsory cannot be voluntary.

In France, a law was passed in November 2011, which makes royalty payments compulsory. As Agriculture Minister Bruna Le Marie stated: "Seeds can be longer be royalty free, as is currently the case." Of the 5,000 or so cultivated plant varieties, 600 are protected by certificate in France, and these account for 99 per cent of the varieties grown by farmers.

The "compulsory voluntary contribution", in other words a royalty, is justified on grounds that "a fee is paid to certificate holders [seed companies] to sustain funding of research and efforts to improve genetic resources".

Monsanto pirates biodiversity and genetic resources from farming communities, as it did in the case of a wheat biopiracy case fought by Navdanya with Greenpeace, and climate resilient crops and brinjal (also known as aubergine or eggplant) varieties for Bt Brinjal. As Monsanto states, "it draws from a collection of germ-plasm that is unparalleled in history" and "mines the diversity in this genetic library to develop elite seeds faster than ever before".

In effect, what is taking place is the enclosure of the genetic commons of our biodiversity and the intellectual commons of public breeding by farming communities and public institutions. And the GMO seeds Monsanto is offering are failing. This is not "improvement" of genetic resources, but degradation. This is not innovation but piracy.

For example, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) - being pushed by the Gates Foundation - is a major assault on Africa's seed sovereignty.

Agribusiness

The 2009 US Global Food Security Act [PDF] also called the Lugar-Casey Act [PDF], "A bill to authorise appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to provide assistance to foreign countries to promote food security, to stimulate rural economies, and to improve emergency response to food crisis, to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and for other purposes".

The amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act would "include research on bio-technological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including genetically modified technology". The $ 7.7bn that goes with the bill would go to benefit Monsanto to push GM seeds.

An article in Forbes, titled "Why Uncle Sam Supports Franken Foods", shows how agribusiness is the only sector in which US has a positive trade balance. Hence the push for GMOs - because they bring royalties to the US. However, royalties for Monsanto are based on debt, suicidal farmers and the disappearance of biodiversity worldwide.

Under the US Global Food Security Act, Nepal signed an agreement with USAID and Monsanto. This led to massive protests across the country. India was forced to allow patents on seeds through the first dispute brought by the US against India in the WTO. Since 2004, India has also been trying to introduce a Seed Act which would require farmers to register their own seeds and take licenses. This in effect would force farmers from using their indigenous seed varieties. By creating a Seed Satyagraha - a non-cooperation movement in Gandhi's footsteps, handing over hundreds of thousands of signatures to the prime minister, and working with parliament - we have so far prevented the Seed Law from being introduced.

India has signed a US-India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture, with Monsanto on the Board. Individual states are also being pressured to sign agreements with Monsanto. One example is the Monsanto-Rajasthan Memorandum of Understanding, under which Monsanto would get intellectual property rights to all genetic resources, and to carry out research on indigenous seeds. It took a campaign by Navdanya and a "Monsanto Quit India" Bija Yatra ["seed pilgrimage"] to force the government of Rajasthan to cancel the MOU.

This asymmetric pressure of Monsanto on the US government, and the joint pressure of both on the governments across the world, is a major threat to the future of seeds, the future of food and the future of democracy.

Dr Vandana Shiva is a physicist, eco-feminist, philosopher, activist and author of more than 20 books and 500 papers. She is the founder of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, and has campaigned for biodiversity, conservation and farmers' rights, winning the Right Livelihood Award [Alternative Nobel Prize] in 1993.

Worse than DDT: When You Eat This, it Ends Up Lingering in Your Gut

January 15 2012
Dr. Mercola

Dr. Don Huber is an expert in an area of science that relates to the toxicity of genetically engineered (GE) foods.

(Alternative terms for GE foods include genetically modified (GM), or "GMO" for genetically modified organism.)

His specific areas of training include soil-borne diseases, microbial ecology, and host-parasite relationships.

Dr. Huber also taught plant pathology, soil microbiology, and micro-ecological interactions as they relate to plant disease as a staff Professor at Purdue University for 35 years.

In part one of this interview, Dr. Huber discussed the shocking discovery of a brand new organism in genetically engineered (GE) crops—an organism that has been clearly linked to infertility and miscarriage in cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, and poultry that are raised on GE feed.

In part one we began the discussion on the hazards of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, and its contribution to a new phenomenon referred to as "Sudden Death Syndrome" (SDS).

Here, we continue the discussion on glyphosate.

The "Biodegradable" Weed Killer that Wasn't…

The public's appreciation of the toxicity of glyphosate is rather limited. The fact that Monsanto marketed Roundup as "environmentally friendly" and "biodegradable" may have quite a bit to do with this general lack of insight. (In 2009, a French court upheld two earlier convictions against Monsanto for false advertising.)

Glyphosate is actually, in many ways, similar to DDT, which is known to cause reproductive problems among other things.

"There are some similarities," Dr. Huber says. "… I am familiar with DDT, and the fact that it's a very difficult compound to degrade. It's biologically degraded primarily by a process we call co-metabolism… [T]here are very few organisms that can utilize this as a direct nutrient source.

There are a few organisms that can utilize glyphosate as a direct nutrient source, but again, most of the degradation appears to be by co-metabolism. In other words, an organism just happens to produce the extracellular enzymes that will degrade it, rather than the organism really getting any benefit from it."

Glyphosate Persists in Soil, and Promotes Disease-Causing Pathogens

According to Dr. Huber, glyphosate can accumulate and persist in the soil for years. Persistence is determined by biological activity, soil PH, clay content, and how firmly it's sequestered or absorbed in the soil. This is bad news, because glyphosate not only decimates beneficial microorganisms in the soil essential for proper plant function and high quality nutrition, it also promotes the proliferation of disease-causing pathogens.

"The organisms that are stimulated are the pathogens," Dr. Huber says. "…all of the natural biological control organisms are very sensitive to that concentration of glyphosate. What we see with the fusaria, which causes sudden death syndrome in soybeans, is that it can be stimulated by glyphosate… so we find [up to] 500 percent increase in root colonization by this fungus. It's a very serious pathogen, not only on soybeans. Fusaria on most of our crops is a major disease organism that we have to deal with."

This 500 percent increase in root colonization of the fusaria fungus occurs even on Roundup-ready crops, because the technology does not 'cancel out' the effects of the glyphosate in the plant in any way.

"All it does is make it possible for that plant to survive and to accumulate more glyphosate. We still change the soil ecology, microbial ecology, and… our intestinal microbiology."

To quickly recap what we discussed in part one of this interview, while glyphosate promotes the growth of more virulent pathogens, it also kills off beneficial bacteria that might keep such pathogens in check—in the soil, and in the gut of animals or humans that ingest the crop.

"[W]ith glyphosate, we also see an additional stimulation of virulence, so we see increased ability to cause disease, as well as the loss of the natural biological controls," Dr. Huber says.

It's important to understand that the glyphosate actually becomes systemic throughout the plant, so it cannot be washed off. It's inside the plant. And once you eat it, it ends up in your gut where it can wreak total havoc with your health, considering the fact that 80 percent of your immune system resides there and is dependent on a healthy ratio of good and bad bacteria.

Glyphosate—The Most Abused Chemical in the History of Man

Interestingly enough, when asked which toxin he would prefer to use if he had to make a choice between two evils, Dr. Huber says he'd take DDT over glyphosate any day.

"A lot of these materials can have a very beneficial use. I'm certainly not anti-chemical. But we have to use some common sense. What we have with glyphosate is the most abused chemical we have ever had in the history of man," he says.

"… When future historians write about our time, they're not going to write about the tons of chemicals that we did or didn't apply. When it comes to glyphosate, they're going to write about our willingness to sacrifice our children and jeopardize our existence, while threatening and jeopardizing the very basis of our existence; the sustainability of our agriculture." … It doesn't mean that it's not reversible… But it means that we need to recognize what the concerns are, what's happening, and then we need to change."

According to Dr. Huber, we're now seeing the results of a massive experiment based on flawed science and failed promises. We jumped in without the basic understanding of what these products do, and this was done just to support the bottom line of a few large companies, such as Monsanto. That's madness!

Assumptions, Presumptions, and Flawed Science—All Potentially Deadly

As explained in part one of this interview, glyphosate is a strong chelator, meaning it immobilizes critical micronutrients, rendering them unavailable to the plant. As a result, the nutritional efficiency of genetically engineered (GE) plants is profoundly compromised. Micronutrients such as iron, manganese and zinc can be reduced by as much as 80-90 percent in GE plants.

Didn't anyone know this could happen? Part of the problem goes back to the fact that Monsanto's scientists were really only looking for a mechanism that would kill weeds. That's what happens when you assume and refuse to double-check your assumptions…

"As I read some of the early documents, it stated that it 'inhibits the EPSPs enzyme. Actual herbicide mode of action unknown.'" Dr. Huber says. "In 1984, it was very well-documented that the way it kills weeds and plants is by compromising the defense mechanisms, making them very susceptible to these soil borne organisms… It's a debilitating type of situation, more like AIDS than a direct killer...

Also, since humans and animals don't have the shikimate pathway, it was assumed that this is a pathway that exists only in plants and microorganisms. Therefore, it's going to be safe for us. It was also assumed that the foreign proteins – whether it's BT; the protein from glyphosate; that new EPSPs gene from the Agrobacterium – would readily be degraded in the gut… It's a flawed science."

The Unfulfilled Promises of Genetically Engineered Crops

The situation is equally disturbing with respects to the genetic engineering of the crop itself. Many experts have admitted that we really do not yet understand genetics enough to dabble in this way and release it into the wild. Because what we do know is that when you insert a foreign gene, you alter not just one feature—you're altering multiple things, and you can end up with some highly unpredictable and unforeseeable results.

Most of the biotech industry's promises have turned out to be false with respect to genetically engineered (GE) foods. For example:

* GE crops are supposed to be more drought resistant, but the opposite turns out to be true. Says Dr. Huber:

“It takes twice as much water to produce a pound of a Roundup-ready crop soybean plant treated with glyphosate, as it does with soybean plant that’s not treated with glyphosate.”
* GE crops are supposed to be nutritionally "better" or at the very least "equivalent" to conventional foods, but they're not. On the contrary, they're nutritionally inferior due to glyphosate's chelating mechanism, which blocks absorption of micronutrients. GE crops contain about 50 percent less manganese, and up to 70 percent less zinc. They also contain less copper, iron and magnesium, just to name a few. This affects the overall health of the plant, and its reproductive ability, and when you eat this nutritionally inferior food, you're not getting the micronutrients your body needs for proper function either. All animal products are similarly affected when raised on GE soy- or corn feed.

Has it Gone Too Far, or is There Still Time to Turn it All Around?

Glyphosate was first introduced as a weed killer in 1974, prior to the introduction of genetically modified crops. According to Dr. Huber, it has been so overused for the past 30 years that many essential soil organisms have been eradicated.

"Typically… when we would apply an herbicide, we would tell our growers, "You rotate the chemistry, just like you rotate the crop." Therefore, when you had an effect on a specific group of organisms, you have an opportunity for nature to rebalance and to reestablish that beneficial and functional relationship. We haven't done that with glyphosate. We just continually hammered for 30 years in one direction on those beneficial organisms… They no longer exist in the environment! We see that we have to start adding them now in order to increase crop productivity and nutritional value.

Dr. Huber has spent about 20 years researching how to remediate the damage caused by glyphosate. Fortunately, Dr. Huber believes we can turn it all around, but we MUST make changes. We cannot keep going the way we are.

"We have to start looking now at mineral supplementations and seed treatments," Dr. Huber says, "because our soil biology isn't going to provide it. The whole system has changed. If we want to change it for the better, we have to recognize what that change is and be willing to change again to compensate or to rectify."

If we continue in the same direction, dousing our crops with ever increasing amounts of glyphosate, we will soon start seeing the same effect on human health as Dr. Huber is seeing in plants and animals. In fact, we may already be seeing the effects of the genetically engineered diet.

"… [W]e're just starting to see the impact on reproductive fertility," he says. "Also the disease potential… You can hardly pick up the paper anymore without seeing that a human disease is involved… We had to recall 20 percent of our total egg production here last year or early this year because of salmonella.

You have to say, "What's changed?"

The newspaper said that when they looked at the egg-producing facilities "they had chicken manure and they had rodent droppings." … I have never seen a chicken coup that didn't have chicken drop. They have manure. Any time you have feed, even with three or four cats around and whatnot, you're going to have some rodents. That's NOT the reason."

Glyphosate May Play a Key Role in Deteriorating Food Safety

Dr. Huber goes on to discuss a German paper that shows certain pathogens such as E. coli and some others have a high tolerance for glyphosate compared to their natural biological controls. What this means is that it may not be the presence or absence of pathogens per se that determines the safety of our food supply, but rather the presence or absence of the natural control organisms, which are effectively destroyed by glyphosate.

"Salmonella, Clostridium, and a lot of these disease organisms are ubiquitous. They're everywhere. Our health is dependent on keeping them in check," Dr. Huber warns.

This is truly important in light of the ongoing war against organically-grown foods, which are often targeted first, when there's an outbreak of foodborne illness. If we can educate those in charge about this, then they would perhaps begin to understand why organic foods are FAR LESS inclined to be the culprit, because the beneficial soil bacteria present in organically farmed lands—as they do not use glyphosate or other chemicals on their fields—actually hinders pathogens in and on the food from multiplying out of control.

"If we're eliminating that check, either through residues in our food or through direct impact in our environment, we're going to continue to see what we're seeing today. Look at Alzheimer's, thyroid problems, autism, Parkinson's – any of those diseases that have a tie with either the endocrine system or the nutrient availability—we're going to see those increase."

Are Genetically Engineered Foods Affecting Your Mood and Behavior?

Dr. Huber recently spent some time in Australia, where he had the opportunity to review an ongoing study into genetically engineered foods.

"It's a continuation of a study that was conducted in Iowa with pigs and cattle. The [Australians] are doing it with mice so that they can define what the toxins are… They're using these one or two-pound, big, white rats that some people call pet rats… You can reach in to the non-GMO-fed rat cage and pull one out. Put it on your lap and it can be patted just like a cat.

But try and reach in to the cage where the rats are being fed the genetically engineered feed. Here they have limited it to one [rat per cage]. The rats are irritated. They don't get along together. They always go off into their own little world. They do backflips. They crawl up and run around the cage. They can't get any peace; can't settle down. That is very typical of what you'd see with autism. Then you start looking and say, "Well, are there any other similarities?"

Dr. Huber also recently met with a doctor in Germany who specializes in working with autistic children. Interestingly, there appear to be many correlations between the rats fed genetically modified feed and autistic children.

"[When] you look at the stomachs of the GMO-fed [animals], they have all of the severe allergy responses, the inflammation and the reddening… When they looked at the intestine, they said that the intestinal lining is deteriorating… The smell of the intestinal contents is very rank. The biology has been drastically changed.

This [German] doctor said, "That's exactly what we're seeing with our children with autism.

We need more research, but certainly, the indicators are there. The research up until very recently hasn't been done, and those who wanted to do it have been prohibited from publishing, or from doing that research. We see those that have dared to come out and raised some concerns have been very severely impacted professionally, as well as in their own personal lives, in that persecution that they've had to endure.

We've got to change.

We've got to recognize that what we have now isn't normal. We got to get back to safe, sufficient, and sustainable production and health for our agriculture community, if we're going to be healthy in that process also."

Scientists warn of link between dangerous new pathogen and Monsanto’s Roundup

February 21, 2011
Rady Ananda, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

A plant pathologist experienced in protecting against biological warfare recently warned the USDA of a new, self-replicating, micro-fungal virus-sized organism which may be causing spontaneous abortions in livestock, sudden death syndrome in Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soy, and wilt in Monsanto’s RR corn.

Dr. Don M. Huber, who coordinates the Emergent Diseases and Pathogens committee of the American Phytopathological Society, as part of the USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System, warned Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack that this pathogen threatens the US food and feed supply and can lead to the collapse of the US corn and soy export markets. Likewise, deregulation of GE alfalfa “could be a calamity,” he noted in his letter (reproduced in full below).

On January 27, Vilsack gave blanket approval to all genetically modified alfalfa. Following orders from President Obama, he also removed buffer zone requirements. This is seen as a deliberate move to contaminate natural crops and destroy the organic meat and dairy industry which relies on GM-free alfalfa. Such genetic contamination will give the biotech industry complete control over the nation’s fourth largest crop. It will also ease the transition to using GE-alfalfa as a biofuel.

“My letter to Secretary Vilsack was a request to allocate necessary resources to understand potential nutrient-disease interactions before making (in my opinion) an essentially irreversible decision on deregulation of RR alfalfa,” Huber told Food Freedom in an email.

But, he cautions:

Although the organism has been associated with infertility and spontaneous abortions in animals, associations are not always evidence of cause in all cases and do not indicate what the predisposing conditions might be. These need to be established through thorough investigation which requires a commitment of resources.

“I hope that the Secretary will make such a commitment because many growers/producers are experiencing severe increases in disease of both crops and animals that are threatening their economic viability.”

On Feb. 16, Paul Tukey of SafeLawn telephoned Dr. Huber who told him, “I believe we’ve reached the tipping point toward a potential disaster with the safety of our food supply. The abuse, or call it over use if you will, of Roundup, is having profoundly bad consequences in the soil. We’ve seen that for years. The appearance of this new pathogen may be a signal that we’ve gone too far.”

Tukey also conveyed that while Huber admits that much further study is needed to definitively confirm the link between Round-Up and the pathogen, “In the meantime, he said, it’s grossly irresponsible of the government to allow Roundup Ready alfalfa, which would bring the widespread spraying of Roundup to millions of more acres and introduce far more Roundup into the food supply.”

Huber, who has been studying plant pathogens for over 50 years and glyphosate for over 20 years, has noticed an increase in pathogens associated with the herbicide. In an interview with the Organic and Non-GMO Report last May, he discussed his team’s conclusions that glyphosate can, “significantly increase the severity of various plant diseases, impair plant defense to pathogens and diseases, and immobilize soil and plant nutrients rendering them unavailable for plant use.”

This is because “glyphosate stimulates the growth of fungi and enhances the virulence of pathogens.” [Image] In the last 15-18 years, the number of plant pathogens has increased, he told the Non-GMO Report. “There are more than 40 diseases reported with use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association (between glyphosate and disease).”

In his undated letter to the USDA, Huber highlighted “the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations.” He reported that spontaneous abortions occurred in nearly half the cattle where high concentrations of the pathogen were found in their feed. Huber notes that the wheat “likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.”

Other Research Supports Huber’s Warning
Last year, Argentine scientists found that Roundup causes birth defects in frogs and chickens. Publishing their paper, “Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling,” in Chemical Research in Toxicology, Alejandra Paganelli, et al. also produced a large set of reports for the public at GMWatch:

In Argentina and Paraguay, doctors and residents living in GM soy producing areas have reported serious health effects from glyphosate spraying, including high rates of birth defects as well as infertility, stillbirths, miscarriages, and cancers. Scientific studies collected in the new report confirm links between exposure to glyphosate and premature births, miscarriages, cancer, and damage to DNA and reproductive organ cells.

One of the researchers, Andrés Carrasco, told GM Watch, “The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy.”

When trying to present these findings to the public in August of last year, Dr. Carrasco and the audience were attacked by 100 thugs who beat them and their cars with clubs, leaving one person paralyzed, Amnesty International reported. Local police and a wealthy GM rice grower were implicated in that attack.

In a 2009 study, researchers linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize, based on Monsanto’s trial data. As we reported last year, Gilles-Eric Séralini, et al., concluded that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal that novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.

In a 2005 paper published in Environmental Health Perspectives, Sophie Richard, et al. compared the toxicity of Roundup with that of just glyphosate, its active ingredient. They found Roundup to be more toxic, owing to its adjuvants. They also found that endocrine disruption increased over time so that one-tenth the amount prescribed for agriculture caused cell deformation. Citing other research, they also reported that Roundup adjuvants bond with DNA.

Such negative findings probably explain why Monsanto and other biotech firms so vociferously block independent research.

Tom Laskawy at Grist estimated that in 2008, nearly 200 million pounds of glyphosate were poured onto US soils. But, he notes that “exact figures are a closely guarded secret thanks to the USDA’s refusal to update its pesticide use database after 2007.” This figure more than doubles what the EPA estimates was used in 2000.

Below is Dr. Huber’s full letter, graciously provided to me by Paul Tukey:

Dear Secretary Vilsack:
A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn—suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science!

This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already be responsible for significant harm (see below). My colleagues and I are therefore moving our investigation forward with speed and discretion, and seek assistance from the USDA and other entities to identify the pathogen’s source, prevalence, implications, and remedies.

We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage, specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of RR alfalfa. Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation at least until sufficient data has exonerated the RR system, if it does.

For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.

A diverse set of researchers working on this problem have contributed various pieces of the puzzle, which together presents the following disturbing scenario:

Unique Physical Properties
This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified. There is strong evidence that this infectious agent promotes diseases of both plants and mammals, which is very rare.

Pathogen Location and Concentration
It is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas.

Linked with Outbreaks of Plant Disease
The organism is prolific in plants infected with two pervasive diseases that are driving down yields and farmer income—sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soy, and Goss’ wilt in corn. The pathogen is also found in the fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani fsp glycines).

Implicated in Animal Reproductive Failure
Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.

The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.
For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlage experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlage, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.

Recommendations
In summary, because of the high titer of this new animal pathogen in Round Ready crops,[sic] and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA’s participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health.

It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders. To properly evaluate these factors, we request access to the relevant USDA data.

I have studied plant pathogens for more than 50 years. We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural infrastructure.

Sincerely,
COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber
Emeritus Professor, Purdue University
APS Coordinator, USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS)

Rady Ananda holds a B.S. in Natural Resources from The Ohio State University’s School of Agriculture. Her work has appeared in several online and print publications. Using years of editorial experience and web publishing, Rady now promotes the ideas and work of a select group of quality writers and artists at Food Freedom and COTO Report.

Monsanto's Leading Soldier in the War on Raw Milk

June 24, 2011
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In recent months there have been many articles dealing with the intensification of the war on milk launched by the FDA. (See here and here. Also here.) I myself, have written articles explaining the dangers of corporate control of the dairy industry and the specific health concerns related to the use of antibiotics and rBGH in the production of milk.

In my book, Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom, I detail these health problems as well as the events surrounding the FDA’s compliance with Monsanto’s wishes regarding the use of rBGH in dairy products. Of course, governmental compliance with corporate wishes is not surprising considering the fact that the ranks of the FDA are filled with former Monsanto employees and affiliates and that there exists a virtual revolving door between the agency and the corporation. Nevertheless, if one wishes to get an idea of the role Monsanto plays in the decisions regarding our food supply, Marie Monique-Robin’s documentary The World According to Monsanto is an excellent place to start. So is Jeffrey Smith’s book Seeds of Deception. The information is readily available to anyone who wishes to engage themselves in even basic cursory research.

Many of these resources will shed light on how we have come so far down the road of corporate control of the food supply and how small farmers and raw milk producers went from being the majority suppliers of dairy products to a persecuted minority who now face the threat of armed SWAT teams and FDA raids. We have come a long way in a short period of time and the speed by which corporate food fascism marches forward is increasing with every day.


It is true that people live and die, but organizations and their agendas continue on. It is also true that many who have walked through the revolving door between multinational corporations like Monsanto and the FDA are no longer with us, at least in the national spotlight. However, there are a few names that continue to appear in the headlines many years after the first attempts at forcing unhealthy and toxic milk products on the public were made.

Indeed, if the new FDA policy on dairy production can be considered a war on milk, then Michael R. Taylor can be considered a veteran. And a highly decorated one at that.

Michael Taylor actually began his career as a lawyer with the FDA in 1976. In 1981, he accepted a position in the law firm King and Spalding where one of his clients was Monsanto. It was discovered that, while he worked for King & Spalding, he drafted a memo regarding the Constitutionality of the state’s ability to create laws regulating the labeling of rBGH. The memo that Taylor had written was part of a much larger discussion by Monsanto and its attorneys as to whether or not the corporation could successfully sue those states and companies who labeled or allowed their products to be labeled as “rBGH-Free.” Taylor’s representation, along with the rest of his law firm, was indispensable to Monsanto and soon the corporation began suing dairies that labeled their products as free from genetically modified hormones.

In 1991, Taylor left King & Spalding (or should I say Monsanto) and returned to the FDA where he would “serve” as Deputy Commissioner of Policy. In this position Taylor oversaw and helped draft the FDA’s guidelines regarding the labeling of rBGH. Not surprisingly, Taylor’s office saw no difference between milk produced with rBGH and milk produced without it, and therefore concluded that there was no reason to include the use of rBGH on the label. As a result of the ensuing controversy, dairies all over the country began marketing the milk they produced without rBGH as “rBGH – Free,” and other similar statements. Thus, in 1994, Taylor drafted FDA guidelines that prevented dairies from labeling their milk as “rBGH – Free” without being accompanied by lengthy statements claiming that the FDA does not see any difference between the rBGH-produced milk and the rBGH-free milk.

Taylor is also known for his significant contributions to the literal support given to the multinational conglomerates that were pushing for approval of genetically modified organisms and other forms of biotechnology. Specifically, he was and still is an advocate for the Orwellian named “Green Revolution” in Africa. For those who are unaware, the Rockefeller Foundation funded Green Revolutions in Asia and Latin America with devastating results, particularly in India. The Rockefeller Foundation has now teamed up with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in an effort to unleash the same agricultural destruction in Africa.

Taylor is openly in favor of launching a Green Revolution in Africa. Indeed, he is quoted as saying, “I’m still frustrated over the fact that the Green Revolution we introduced into India in the 60’s, we haven’t yet introduced into Africa in 2009.”

In his paper, “American Patent Policy, Biotechnology, and African Agriculture: The Case for Policy Change, written in 2003, Taylor states, “The Green Revolution largely bypassed sub-Saharan Africa. African farmers often face difficult growing conditions, and better access to the basic Green Revolution tools of fertilizer, pesticides, improved seeds, and irrigation certainly can play an important role in improving their productivity.”

When Taylor says, “improved seeds,” he means “genetically modified seeds.” When he says “pesticides” and “fertilizer” he means products manufactured by large agribusiness corporations. Agribusiness corporations like Monsanto. Taylor fails to mention that Monsanto stands to make astronomical profits from the introduction of GM seeds in Africa as the corporation owns an estimated 90 percent of the global GM seed market.

Nevertheless, after his mission was accomplished at the FDA, Taylor left the agency once again. He returned to Monsanto, this time directly, where he became the Vice President of Public Policy from 1998 to 2000. In 2010, Michael Taylor returned to the FDA for a third time when he was appointed by Barack Obama to the position of Deputy Commissioner for Foods.

Taylor has proven his worth to Monsanto yet again by his relentless attack against small, local, raw milk producers for erroneous “health concerns,” “contaminations,” or “public hazards. Indeed, it appears he has arrived at just the right time for Monsanto and other major food corporations as the FDA is currently embroiled in writing the regulations that will be used to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act (S.510) passed last year.

Anyone remember S.510? It was the bill that had natural health and organic food supporters up in arms several months back. It was the same bill that was touted by the government and the mainstream media as an improvement in food safety. And it was yet another bill that, if criticized, resulted in charges of “conspiracy theories” and paranoia directed at its detractors. Yet, one year on, we are now witnessing SWAT teams descend upon Amish farms for the crime of selling their milk to an individual (working for the federal government of course) who then carried that milk across state lines. Indeed, events are playing out much as the “conspiracy theorists” predicted.

Yet while one might consider SWAT teaming Amish people over raw milk to be a bit of bad press, Michael Taylor and the FDA see just the opposite. As reported by Carolyn Lockhead of the San Francisco Gate, Taylor considers his war on all that is natural and healthy to be a “public health duty” and a “statutory directive.”

As Lochead writes:

On July 3, the agency will issue its new rule to detain any food it believes is unsafe, or, more critically, “mislabeled.” . . . . .

Before the new law, the FDA could only impound food when it had credible evidence the food was contaminated or posed a public health hazard. The detention powers are part of what Taylor described as a new agency focus on preventing food poisoning outbreaks rather than responding to them after the fact. Taylor described the new law as giving the agency “farm to table” control over food safety.

Taylor outlined an aggressive approach, saying he would seek a “high rate of compliance” with new food safety rules, touted the agency’s “whole new inspection and compliance tool kit,” including access to farm records, mandatory recall authority, and enforcement actions that can be accomplished administratively, “without having to go to court.” He said the agency can now also revoke a farm’s mandatory registration (also a new requirement under the law), meaning the FDA can put any farm it finds in violation of any food safety rule out of business.

Because farmers have no recourse through access to federal courts as a result of S.510 (another “conspiracy theory” proven to be fact), the FDA is now allowed to act with total impunity. The fact that humans have a basic God-given right to eat the food of their choice does not apply here. Neither does the fact that humans have been eating small farm food and drinking raw milk for virtually all of recorded history.

In fact, not only is the American tradition of self-sustainability wrecked under this law, but so is the Constitutional right granted to every American for a redress of grievances and access to the court system. However, since corporations have been granted the status of individuals in the United States, it is likely that they (but not small farmers) might find some legal loophole in the future to avoid the fascist dictates of the FDA. That is, if they ever have to in the first place.

But don’t worry about the loopholes. With Michael Taylor in charge of food safety, the odds of that happening are few and far between.