Tag Archives: GMO

Featured, Health, Politics

Senator Pat Roberts Introduces New GMO Labeling Legislation

Leave a comment

Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) has introduced new legislation that would prohibit states from creating their own labeling laws for foods that contain genetically modified or engineered ingredients.

Genetically modified or engineered seeds are engineered to have certain traits, such as resistance to herbicides. The majority of the United States’ corn and soybean crops are now GE, including a large portion that is used for animal feed.

The Hill reported that a draft of Roberts’ bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to create a “national voluntary labeling standard” for GE foods. The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry Committee will review the bill on Thursday.

“I will continue to work with members of the Agriculture Committee on potential amendments. However, we are out of time,” Roberts said, according to The Hill.  “The time to act is now. Negotiations will continue in an effort to reach committee agreement.”

Roberts’ bill is similar to the controversial Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, which passed the House in June 2015. That bill was also known as the “DARK” (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act by critics because the law would have effectively nullified GE labeling measures, such as the bill recently passed in Vermont. The Vermont law is scheduled to take effect July 2016. Maine and Connecticut have also passed laws requiring labeling, but those measures will not go into effect until bordering states also pass legislation.

Similar to the new bill, the “DARK Act” would have created a federal voluntary standard for GE labeling and block mandatory labeling efforts by states. The bill received support from a coalition of groups representing growers and the food industry who said it would “prevent a costly and confusing patchwork of state labeling laws from taking effect next year and spreading across the country.”

Lisa Archer, the program director for Friends of the Earth Food and Technology, claimed in a statement provided to The Hill that the new bill “is a desperate attempt by the junk food and chemical industries to keep Americans in the dark about what we feed our families.”

“93 percent of Americans want GMO labeling and this effort to try and stop the consumer demand for transparency that has shaken Big Food to its core will ultimately fail,” said Archer.

Individuals on other side of the debate expressed approval for the new legislation.

“We are very pleased that Chairman Roberts has scheduled a markup on legislation that meets an urgent need to avoid the inevitable chaos the food industry faces if left without a federal government-created standard definition that eliminates multiple state approaches,” Jennifer Hatcher, a spokeswoman for the Food Marketing Institute, said according to a statement given to The Hill. “Without immediate action, costs in the supply chain will escalate rapidly and once the resources are expended, consumer costs will inevitably rise.”

Health advocates and anti-GE, pro-labeling activists are preparing for another battle centered around the controversial technology. If the new bill passes, states would lose the ability to decide whether they would like to mandate labels or make the labeling voluntary. By creating a one-size fits all, centralized solution, the federal government will take away states’ and localities’ ability to make decisions which are in line with the needs of the local environment and community.

In 2015, the critics of the “DARK Act” were able to force the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture Nutrition & Forestry to hold a hearing titled Agriculture Biotechnology: A Look at Federal Regulation and Stakeholder Perspectives.

The committee heard testimony from several speakers representing farmers, the GMO lobby, and consumer groups. Officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency also testified. However, the hearing was criticized for being one-sided and favoring corporations who would directly benefit from the passage of the bill.

As Reuters reported, “the Consumers Union and five other consumer organizations sent a letter to the Senate committee complaining that the lineup of speakers was not balanced and did not include a consumer representative.”

Jean Halloran, Director of Food Policy Initiatives for Consumers Union, said “Time and again, a large majority of consumers have expressed strong support for GMO labeling.”

Activism, Health

Yurok Tribe of California Passes Ordinance Banning Genetically Engineered Foods

Leave a comment

Klamath, CA. — In early December, the Yurok Tribal Council unanimously voted to enact the Yurok Tribe Genetically Engineered Organism (“GEO”) Ordinance, according to a press release from the tribe. The Tribal GEO Ordinance prohibits the propagation, raising, growing, spawning, incubating, or releasing genetically engineered organisms within the Tribe’s territory and declares the Yurok Reservation to be a GMO-free zone.

In their monthly newsletter the Yurok wrote, “The Tribe’s position is to support of the protection of Klamath River Wild Salmon and indigenous plants and berries. The Tribe has taken a firm stand against the use of Genetically Modified salmon for any purpose, as it is a threat to the health and wellbeing of our community. An ordinance about GEOs would further the Tribe’s interest in protecting Wild Salmon and against any genetic alteration to Klamath River Salmon.”

Violations of the ordinance will be enforced through the Yurok Tribal Court.

“It is the inherent sovereign right of the Yurok People to grow plants from natural traditional seeds and to sustainably harvest plants, salmon and other fish, animals, and other life-giving foods and medicines, in order to sustain our families and communities as we have successfully done since time immemorial; our Court will enforce any violations of these inherent, and now codified, rights,” Yurok Chief Judge Abby Abinanti stated.

The Yurok People live on the Klamath River in northern California. The tribe has relied upon the salmon for generations and are dependent upon the health of the wild, native Klamath River salmon species and other traditional food resources which could be threatened by the introduction of genetically engineered species.

James Dunlap, Chairman of the Yurok Tribe, said his people “have the responsibility to care for our natural world, including the plants and animals we use for our foods and medicines. This Ordinance is a necessary step to protect our food sovereignty and to ensure the spiritual, cultural and physical health of the Yurok People.” Dunlap said the Yurok are taking a stand against GE food production systems because they are “inherently dependent on the overuse of herbicides, pesticides and antibiotics, are not our best interest.”

In April 2013, the Yurok Tribe also passed a resolution opposing genetically engineered salmon. In November 2015, after years of controversy surrounding the safety of GE salmon, the FDA announced that the AquAdvantage salmon is as safe and nutritious to eat as the non-genetically engineered variety.

The FDA stated, “The FDA scientists rigorously evaluated extensive data submitted by the manufacturer, AquaBounty Technologies, and other peer-reviewed data, to assess whether AquAdvantage salmon met the criteria for approval established by law.”

The FDA says the data shows “that the inserted genes remained stable over several generations of fish, that food from the GE salmon is safe to eat by humans and animals, that the genetic engineering is safe for the fish, and the salmon meets the sponsor’s claim about faster growth.”

Despite the FDA’s decision, AquaBounty has faced criticism and lawsuits for their products. After the decision, The Guardian reported that several environmental groups are suing the Canadian government in an attempt to end the production of GE salmon eggs. The lawsuit claims AquaBounty is operating a “huge live experiment” with the genes of the wild Atlantic salmon. The Canadian government previously gave AquaBounty permission to create GE salmon eggs in Canada and ship them to Panama to be grown before selling them on the market in the U.S. and Canada.

In addition to the GE ban from the Yurok Tribe, Kroger and Safeway, the nation’s two largest grocery chains, announced they would not sell the genetically engineered salmon. The two chains joined Target, Whole Foods, and Trader Joe’s in their opposition to the GE salmon.

Government Accountability, Health

Lawmakers Attempt to Add ‘Monsanto Rider’ to Government Budget Bill

Leave a comment

Critics of a food labeling bill recently passed by the House fear that it could be added as a last-minute provision to the looming federal budget bill.

Known as the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act to supporters and the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act by critics, the law would effectively nullify Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) labeling measures like the bill recently passed in Vermont. The Vermont law is scheduled to go into effect July 2016. Maine and Connecticut have also passed laws requiring labeling, but those measures will not go into effect until bordering states also pass legislation.

Genetically modified or engineered seeds are engineered to have certain traits, such as resistance to herbicides. The majority of the United States’ corn and soybean crops are now GE, including a large portion which goes to animal feed.

The labeling act would create a federal voluntary standard for GMO labeling and block mandatory labeling efforts by states. The AP reports that “the food industry wants the labeling to be voluntary, and it hopes to get a provision in a massive spending bill that Republicans and Democrats want to wrap up this week.”

“It is imperative that Congress take action now to prevent a costly and confusing patchwork of state labeling laws from taking effect next year and spreading across the country,” a coalition of groups representing growers and the food industry said in a letter to House and Senate leaders.

Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, told the AP, “We have a lot of folks on our side of the aisle that are very opposed.” Sen John Hoeven of (R-ND) said he is “trying to come up with a compromise that brings both sides together, and it doesn’t seem like we’ll have that by year-end.”

Reuters reports that a vote on the budget will happen on Friday before the midnight deadline for funding the federal government. According to Reuters, “lawmakers have been unable to reach agreement on a number of policy “riders” some lawmakers would like to add to the bill.” These “riders” include the DARK Act provision.

In response to the criticism of the DARK Act, the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture Nutrition & Forestry recently held a hearing titled Agriculture Biotechnology: A Look at Federal Regulation and Stakeholder Perspectives.

The committee heard testimonies from several speakers representing farmers, the GMO lobby, and consumer groups. Officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency also testified. The hearing was criticized for being one-sided and favoring corporations who will directly benefit from the passage of the bill.

As Reuters reported, “the Consumers Union and five other consumer organizations sent a letter to the Senate committee complaining that the lineup of speakers was not balanced and did not include a consumer representative.” Jean Halloran, Director of Food Policy Initiatives for Consumers Union said, “Time and again, a large majority of consumers have expressed strong support for GMO labeling.”

Ronnie Cummins, international director for the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and a speaker at the hearing, released a scathing review of the events. “Today’s hearing on H.R. 1599 made a total mockery of democracy. Of the eight witnesses allowed to testify, only one could be remotely considered as someone who represents the interests of consumers and public health,” Cummins said. “The other seven have ties to the biotech and corporate food industries, and were there to represent the interests of corporations, not people.”

Please stay tuned to TruthInMedia.com for development on this story and the “government shutdown.”

Government Accountability, Health, Politics

FDA Approves Genetically Engineered Salmon as ‘Safe to Eat’

Leave a comment

Following several years of controversy surrounding the safety of genetically engineered (GE) salmon, the FDA has announced that AquAdvantage salmon is as safe and nutritious to eat as the non-genetically engineered variety.

The FDA stated, “The FDA scientists rigorously evaluated extensive data submitted by the manufacturer, AquaBounty Technologies, and other peer-reviewed data, to assess whether AquAdvantage salmon met the criteria for approval established by law.”

The FDA says the data shows “that the inserted genes remained stable over several generations of fish, that food from the GE salmon is safe to eat by humans and animals, that the genetic engineering is safe for the fish, and the salmon meets the sponsor’s claim about faster growth.”

Assessments of the environmental impact of the GE salmon found that “the approval would not have a significant impact on the environment of the United States.” Critics have long feared that GE salmon might escape from AquaBounty facilities and disrupt salmon in the wild. However, the FDA writes that “the multiple containment measures the company will use in the land-based facilities in Panama and Canada make it extremely unlikely that the fish could escape and establish themselves in the wild.”

Several consumer advocacy and anti-genetic engineering groups condemned the decision. The group Food and Water Watch has launched a petition asking President Obama to overturn the FDA’s approval.

A statement from the Consumers Union reads, “Unfortunately, the evidence of FDA’s evaluation of the AquAdvantage salmon suggests that FDA has set the bar very low.” The group accused the FDA of “sloppy science, small sample sizes, and questionable practices.” The organization also challenged the FDA’s analysis of growth hormone levels in the flesh, accusing the agency of making a decision “despite having no data at all on growth hormone levels due to use of insensitive test methodology.”

The FDA released two guidance documents discussing their position on labeling and outlining what types of voluntary labeling would be accepted for non-GE salmon. The agency said food manufacturers may use phrases like “Not genetically engineered,” “Not genetically modified through the use of modern biotechnology,” and “We do not use Atlantic salmon produced using modern biotechnology.”

Despite the FDA’s decision, AquaBounty has faced criticism and lawsuits for their products. On Tuesday the Guardian reported that several environmental groups are suing the Canadian government in an attempt to end the production of GE salmon eggs. The lawsuit claims AquaBounty is operating a “huge live experiment” with the genes of the wild Atlantic salmon. The Canadian government previously gave AquaBounty permission to create GE salmon eggs in Canada and ship them to Panama to be grown before selling them on the market in the U.S. and Canada.

In April 2013 Food and Water Watch reported:

“When FDA first announced its intent to approve AquaBounty’s application in the fall of 2010, the public sent more than 400,000 comments in opposition. Now that opposition has grown to nearly 1.5 million people.”

The following year Kroger and Safeway, the nation’s two largest grocery chains, announced they would not sell the genetically engineered salmon. The two chains joined Target, Whole Foods, and Trader Joe’s in their opposition to the GE salmon. So although the FDA has approved the fish for human consumption, it may be unlikely that Americans will encounter the product at their local grocer.

What are your thoughts? Will you eat the GE salmon?

Government Accountability, Health

USDA Approves New Monsanto Corn

Video Leave a comment

Last Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved a new genetically modified type of corn produced by Monsanto Company. The announcement comes from the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Reuters reports that APHIS conducted a review and concluded the product posed no significant threat to agricultural crops, other plants or the environment. Monsanto’s MON 87411 maize is designed to protect plants against corn rootworms and have a tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. Glyphosate is not only recognized as the most widely-used herbicide, it is a key ingredient in Monsanto’s popular RoundUp products.

Before officially being allowed on the market, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must conduct their own reviews. According to Reuters, the EPA’s scientific advisory panel has criticized the guidelines as “weak”. The panel is attempting to understand the potential impact on pollinators, such as the dwindling bee population.

APHIS also said it was extending the comment period for genetically-engineered corn developed by Syngenta Seeds Inc. Syngenta’s MZHG0JG corn is also resistant to glyphosate. Critics have long said that perpetual reliance on herbicides like glyphosate is leading to an increase in herbicide-resistant plants which itself leads to an increased use of the chemicals.

The USDA’s preliminary findings of Syngenta’s petition found 14 different glyphosate-resistant weed species as of 2014. The agency also stated the risk of herbicide-resistant weeds will be an ongoing problem as long as herbicides are used.

Fighting herbicide resistance is only one of Monsanto’s current problems, however. In March of this year, Truth In Media reported that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a report in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides.

The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the EPA had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985.
The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.
Glyphosate is not the only one of Monsanto’s products that have been recently connected to cancer. In June the IARC also found that the weed killer 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, known as 2,4-D, “possibly” causes cancer in humans. 

Since the IARC’s rulings, Monsanto has faced a wave of lawsuits as personal injury lawyers are now looking for plaintiffs who have been harmed by the corporations products. 

Monsanto continues to deny the charges against its products. Company spokewoman Charla Lord told Reuters, “Glyphosate is not a carcinogen. The most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product contradict the claims in the suits.”

In 2013, Ben Swann examined several controversies surrounding Monsanto in a Truth in Media episode, seen below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YC7M6j-dGs

Health, Opinion

World Health Organization: Monsanto’s RoundUp ‘Probably’ Causes Cancer

5 Comments

The cancer research agency of the World Health Organization has stated the world’s most popular herbicide “probably” causes cancer in humans, as well DNA and chromosomal damage.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a report in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides. The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985. The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

Glyphosate is not only the most widely-used herbicide, it is a key ingredient in Bio-Tech giant Monsanto’s popular RoundUp products. Reuters reports that Philip Miller, Monsanto’s vice-president of global regulatory affairs, was unsure “how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.” The corporation says scientific data does not match the claims and called for an emergency meeting between Monsanto and WHO officials.

The battle around glyphosate is also closely linked to the debate around Genetically Engineered or Modified foods. The herbicide is typically used on GM crops such as corn and soybeans that have been specifically modified to survive the harmful effects of the herbicide. Corporations like Monsanto are heavily invested in the success of the chemical. The herbicide has been found in food, water, and in the air in areas where it has been sprayed.

In 2014 Anti Media reported on a study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health claims to have found a link between glyphosate and the fatal Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown origin (CKDu), which largely affects rice farmers in Sri Lanka and other nations. In response Sri Lanka has banned glyphosate and Brazil is considering doing the same.

Sri Lanka’s Minister of Special Projects S.M. Chandrasena stated that President Mahinda Rajapaksa issued a directive to ban glyphosate sales in the country. “An investigation carried out by medical specialists and scientists have revealed that kidney disease was mainly caused by glyphosate. President Mahinda Rajapaksa has ordered the immediate removal of glyphosate from the local market soon after he was told of the contents of the report.”

The researchers believe glyphosate could be helping carry toxic heavy metals present in certain agri-chemicals to the kidneys. Chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology (CKDu)  was first seen in the north central areas of Sri Lanka in the 1990s and has taken an estimated 20,000 lives. Before being purchased by Monsanto for use as herbicide, glyphosate was a de-scaling agent to clean mineral deposits in hot water systems.

Although the paper did not offer new scientific evidence, the researchers proposed a theory for how CKDu is spread. The researchers believe that glyphosate is contributing to a rise of heavy metals in drinking water. Dr. Channa Jayasumana, lead author of the study said, “glyphosate acts as a carrier or a vector of these heavy metals to the kidney.”  Glyphosate itself is not the toxic agent, however when combined with metals in the ground water the herbicide becomes extremely toxic to the kidneys.

In recent years there has been a spike in CKD patients in farming areas of El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica.

The Minister stated that a new national program would be launched encouraging Sri Lankan farmers to use organic fertilizer. The Ministry of Agriculture is hoping to plant 100,000 acres of land throughout the country using organic fertilizer.

Monsanto spokesman Thomas Helscher stated,“There are no epidemiologic studies suggesting that exposures to glyphosate-based products are associated with renal disorders either in Sri Lanka or elsewhere. The paper presents a theory, the theory has not been tested, and there are a significant number of publications supported by data that make the Jayasumana hypothesis quite unlikely to be correct.” Despite promises from Monsanto, the evidence indicating dangers related to glyphosate continue to pile up.

With the USDA’s decision late last year to approve a new batch of genetically modified corn and soybean seeds designed to combat glyphosate, we should expect to see an increase in herbicide use overall, and with it, many disastrous health effects. In fact, the approval by the USDA now partners DOW Chemical and Monsanto together, a move which will only further entrench the control that corporate entities have over governments.

This post has been updated to identify glyphosate as an herbicide.

Politics

GMO Awareness: What to Know and How to Avoid The Dangers

31 Comments

Editor of Millennial Magazine, Britt Hysen, reports on the effects of GMOs and what consumers can do to avoid eating such harmful substances.

Sources:

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/cfs-shoppers-guide1_94012.pdf

http://news.rutgers.edu/research-news/most-americans-pay-little-attention-genetically-modified-foods-survey-says/20131101#.UwbCn3mKk8M

 

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs

http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/FDAdocuments.html

US

Lobbyist group seeks to OUTLAW GMO labeling

56 Comments

National lobbying firm “GMA” (Grocery Manufacturers Association) represents Fortune 100 food companies like Kraft, General Mills, Monsanto, PepsiCo, and Kellogg’s. Back in October, they were highlighted for donating $5 Million to defeat a law that would label genetically engineered foods in the state of Washington. The donation, along with their previous donations, brings their total to $7.2 Million. The funds went to the “NO to 522” Campaign. The Grocery Manufacturers Association was the largest donor to the “NO to 522” Campaign.

gma

In the state of Washington, the battle over GMO labeling heated up to the point of lawsuits. A local non-profit called “Moms for Labeling” filed a lawsuit against the “NO on 522” campaign in September, accusing its main donor, the GMA lobbyists, of laundering donation money from its members to conceal where the money came from. “Moms for Labeling” is accusing the “NO on 522” Campaign of concealing the identity of its donors.

Grocery Manufacturers Association is doing what thousands of lobbying firms that cover K St. and downtown DC. http://www.gmaonline.org/about/contact/

Now that the Grocery Manufacturers Association got negative attention via a lawsuit for violation of the Public Disclosure Act by laundering their “NO on 522” donations through shell organizations with pleasant names such as “Teachers against 522,” they have moved on to new strategies.

The GMA is pushing legislation through the federal government to outlaw GMO labeling laws enacted on the state level. The GMA is also seeking to have the FDA declare GMO foods as “natural” to allow food companies to put the label “All Natural” on genetically engineered corn, wheat, soy, dairy, and other food products. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/2013_1205_gma_letter_to_fda_81204.pdf

Regulation is costly and sometimes ineffective, so citizens always have the option of simply being educated on what’s available at the grocery store, and making informed decisions that go beyond a cursory glance at a food label. However, many households have one or two working parents. Non-profits representing parents argue that they don’t have time to always 100% research these issues, and they should be provided with a fair disclosure on a food label so they know what they’re buying.

Many of the non-profits that are fighting Monsanto and GMO giants are related to progressive movements. Progressive and liberal movements tend to want tighter regulations on businesses that they feel prey on the citizenry. However many Libertarians, who are small-government proponents, appear to sympathize with progressives and liberals on the GMO disclosure issue, even though more government regulations is anti-Libertarian. No matter the political leanings, many in the US have taken issue with Monsanto and other food corporations impact on farmers, their evasiveness with consumers, and their refusal to acknowledge lab results showing GMO’s have harmful health effects. GMO’s have been, and will continue to be, a hot button issue across political spectrums.

 

More sources:

Government Accountability, Swann TV, Truth In Media Episodes, US, Videos

Is Monsanto America’s Best Example of Crony Capitalism?

Video 124 Comments

Transcript:

It is a name that Americans are hearing more and more, Monsanto.

An agriculture company that has become connected to the term GMO’s. So what is Monsanto? What exactly are GMO’s? and why are people so up in arms about a company that grows food?

And the big question, is Monsanto one of the best examples of America’s crony capitalist system?

The first step toward truth is to inform.

If the name Monsanto is not familiar to you, lets get you caught up.

According to Monsanto’s website,

“Monsanto is a sustainable agriculture company. We deliver agricultural products that support farmers all around the world. We are focused on empowering farmers—large and small—to produce more from their land while conserving more of our world’s natural resources such as water and energy. We do this with our leading seed brands in crops like corn, cotton, oilseeds and fruits and vegetables.”

Sounds pretty good.

In short, Monsanto is company that among other things, produces the herbicide roundup. But the controversy surrounding Monsanto begins with their development of genetically modified seeds or GMOs that are called “round up ready”. Round up ready crops are reportedly more resistant to weed killer and insects.

According to Natural News, a growing body of evidence does connect GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights.

According to professor John Fagan, an award winning geneticist:

“The process of genetic engineering always involves the risk of altering the genetics and cellular functioning of a food organism in unanticipated ways. These unanticipated alterations can result in (GMO) foods being allergenic, toxic, or reduced in nutritional value”. – Professor John Fagan, Maharishi University of Management, Iowa

Concerns like those have pushed millions worldwide into the streets to protest Monsanto and their GMOs. In May 2013, two million people in over 50 countries expressed outrage over a number of issues surrounding Monsanto.

The first issue with Monsanto is the safety of those GMOs. But there is more.
While there is growing concern over the safety of GMOs, the United States for all of the requirements placed on the food industry, requires no GMO food labeling.

Whether you agree or disagree on whether or not GMO’s are dangerous, 64 other countries require GMO labeling. Again, the United states does not. Could it be that most Americans just don’t care? Actually no. Despite the lack of political will on this issue, a poll, conducted earlier this year by The New York Times found that three-quarters of Americans are concerned about the number of genetically modified or engineered foods. What’s more, a staggering 93% support mandatory labeling of GMO foods.

So to recap, first, there is the concern over GMOs. Second the concerns over labeling and third, there is the issue of Monsanto holding a patent on all of its seeds.

Monsanto explains on their website the need for that patents saying,

“Monsanto patents many of the seed varieties we develop. Patents are necessary to ensure that we are paid for our products and for all the investments we put into developing these products. This is one of the basic reasons for patents. … Monsanto invests more than $2.6 million per day in research and development that ultimately benefits farmers and consumers. Without the protection of patents, this would not be possible.”
You see, when a farmer purchases these genetically modified seeds from Monsanto, they sign a signed a licensing agreement promising to use all the seed and not to use any regenerated seed for future.

So to recap… the issues with Monsanto, questions about the safety of GMOs are out there though we should be clear. there are those who argue that GMO’s are perfectly safe and no issues with consuming them. There are questions about labeling. Regardless of whether GMOs are good or bad shouldn’t the public have the right to know what they are putting in their bodies and have the right to consume or walk away? And questions about the ability of a corporation to be able to patent seeds, preventing farmers from replanting crops without paying a fee?

Ben Swann Monsanto Reality Check

What you need to know, is that all those questions may actually be secondary to this one, is the biggest problem with a company like Monsanto its relationship with government?

In the early 1990’s the FDA took a look at these genetically modified foods. There were a lot of concerns including tests that showed rats were developing stomach lesions from the Genetically modified tomatoes they were fed. According to Jeffery Smith at the Huffington Post, in memo after memo, these experts “described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens,”

So what changed? In 1994 the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service hired a new administrator, Mike Taylor.

Taylor had worked for the FDA in the 1970’s and then in the 1980’s he became a private sector lawyer for a firm that represented Monsanto.

In 1994 Taylor takes over the FSIS and remains in that post until 1996.
1996, GMO foods began showing up on plates in American homes.

After 1996 Mike Taylor goes back into the private sector and goes to work for Monsanto itself.

For the next 16 months he works directly for the company.

In 2009 returns to the public sector now leading the food side of the FDA.

In fairness, Mike Taylor says he is not Monsanto’s man. That claims that he is bought and paid for could not be further from the truth.

In fairness, I don’t know if that is true or not. What I do know is that regardless of whether or not its true the revolving door of government and private sector and the advantages big corporations have in the system is undeniable.

Monsanto’s influence over food supply is troubling. Their ability to seemingly prevent GMO labeling also troubling. Their connections with people like Mike Taylor who have the ability to control what does and does not show up on our families tables, sure smells like crony capitalism

and that is Reality Check.

Sources:
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037678_michael_taylor_monsanto_fda.html#ixzz2bymPGQf3

http://www.pubpat.org/monsanto-seed-patents.htm
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/1notes