GENETICALLY MODIFIED/ENGINEERED ORGANISM/FOOD INFORMATION:
  Page last updated March 16, 2008

Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (SAFE) was involved with the Board of Supervisor's passage of a resolution banning genetically engineered (GE) plants and animals in Trinity County. This makes Trinity County the second county in the nation to ban the growing of genetically engineered (GE) plants and animals.

Since worldwide, 80% of all GM crops were developed by Monsanto, I am including some information about this corporation and how they interact with the rest of the world.

As per Organic Consumers Association: December 2004: A well-respected and popular professor at the University of California in Berkeley has been fired after publishing a scientific paper regarding the uncontrolled contamination of irreplaceable native Mexican corn varieties by genetically engineered corn. Dr. Ignacio Chapela, whose corn contamination article was published in the science journal "Nature," was denied his tenure due to pressure from the biotech company Monsanto on the University (the UC Berkeley tenure review panel had actually voted almost unanimously to approve his tenure). Professor Chapela has been told to have his office cleaned out by December 31. 2004. UPDATE: May 18, 2005: University of California reversed itself & gave tenure to leading Biotech critic Ignacio Chapela. Ignacio Chapela Granted Tenure at UC Berkeley! Read a message from Professor Ignacio Chapela.

Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola. Monsanto's position is that it doesn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene and that he must pay their Technology Fees. He later challenged Monsanto in court for contaminating his yield with their GMO seed. Unbelievably, he lost the case. Although the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Percy does not have to pay Monsanto their court costs, technology fees, or damages, he still has huge legal bills of his own, after years of struggle in the courts. Now his wife has filed suit that Monsanto has contaminated her organic garden. Read the full stories of his David vs. Goliath struggle. 

The Nelsons are a family of farmers in North Dakota, being sued by St. Louis based, Biotechnology giant, Monsanto. Monsanto claims the Nelsons have used their RoundUp Ready® product without permission. Read the full story of their struggle.

About Monsanto:
Since 1901, Monsanto has given us many of the worst carcinogenic, neurotoxic, and teratogenic chemicals in the world, with which we have poisoned our environment and made Monsanto rich. Its history as foremost “corporate criminal,” according to European research source CorporateWatch, began 100 years ago with artificial sweeteners, ammonium nitrate fertilizers, styrene and polystyrene plastics (all carcinogens) and went on to worse with dioxin, Agent Orange, glyphosate (in world’s bestselling herbicide Roundup), the 2,4 D family of pesticides, PCBs (PCBspoly-chlorinated biphenyls), aspartame (NutraSweet), bovine growth hormone, rbGH (bovine somatropin - used in milk), MSG (monosodium glutamate), and — since the 1990s — a devil’s kitchen of genetically engineered food plants. Many more are still inside their laboratories in St. Louis, Missouri, such as their current “genetic improvements” to pigs (Ontario Farmer, June 15) and plants that deliver medicine and vaccines. According to R. Fraley, Monsanto’s agricultural sectors co-president, “What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it’s really a consolidation of the entire food chain.” 

Monsanto’s chemicals were used for war and agriculture, with war being at least an honest pursuit because its stated intent is mass-murder, while agricultural use of the same chemicals requires complex corporate strategies to disguise the slow poisoning of life through side-effects appearing much later. Not surprisingly, Monsanto also makes drugs which are generally also let loose on the market before real safety is established, a legally sanctioned business practice since applicable legislation is not precautionary but damage control oriented. So, by the time the dead can be counted, companies have been laughing all the way to the bank. 

In the early 1990s Monsanto spent US$10 billion to buy up seed companies and introduced genetically engineered products starting with bovine growth hormone (see articles in Vitality Feb. 2000 and July 2001). Worldwide, 80% of all GM crops were developed by Monsanto. Whenever such a crop dramatically fails or causes environmental problems, Monsanto’s deep pockets and their powerful connections with governments work to buy or enforce silence (see **Tokar below). GE soya beans were the first to expose what Dr. Charles Benbrook calls “Monsanto’s Big Lie”: contrary to Monsanto’s claims, they require 2 to 5 times more Roundup herbicide than conventional seeds, and instead of reducing water needed, consumption increases. Ethical Investing lists Monsanto under “Health and Planet Destroying Products” and provides full information from medical science literature and the documented ecological destruction.*

*Source:
How Monsanto became the “World’s Most Unethical and Harmful” company: http://www.corporatewatch.org and http://www.ethicalinvesting.com. 
**See B. Tokar’s history of Monsanto in The Ecologist vol. 28/5, Sept. 5, 1998. 

Learn how Monsanto operates:
See 1999 National Film Board documentary "The Genetic Takeover"; 2002 documentary "Deconstructing Supper" by Moving Images in BC; and Council of Canadians 2000 video "Beyond McWorld." 

Recently, Monsanto created a hormone, rVST that spurs cows to give many times more milk than usual. It turns out that it also causes children to go through puberty at much younger ages - like 7-8 years old; and that just last month Monsanto issued a memo to dairy farmers that they will be cutting production to 50%, and that the farmers should begin cutting back in their usage because supply is going down. What they didn't say is that their milk is creating premature maturation in human children. Additional info about Monsanto products and track record. 

GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM/FOOD INFORMATION:

From "Seeds of Deception" by Jeffrey Smith (2003), Yes Books, Fairfield, IA.

1) Q: GMO stands for genetically modified organism. But what does genetic modification entail?
A: Genetic modification is the practice of inserting pieces of one organism's DNA into the DNA of another organism. This is done in an effort to alter an organism's characteristics, such as a tomato having pieces of arctic flounder DNA in order to prevent frost damage, or rice having pieces of daffodil DNA in order to increase vitamin A levels. This means the DNA of an organism is altered. The DNA chain is broken, and a new element is introduced. The location of the DNA break and the type and quantity of DNA insertion is inexact at best.

2) Q: What is DNA?
A: DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, and is found in the center of every plant and animal cell. Every DNA molecule is very complex, is made up of billions of atoms tightly folded in a double helix formation (picture a ladder twisted into a spiral). If this chain of atoms is unfolded, a single DNA molecule would stretch about ten feet. It is [analogous to] a super computer, a blueprint, or a central switchboard.[p.49] 

3) Q: So genetic modification is analogous to what happens in nature; new organisms get created, and DNA is altered in the course of evolution?
A: Genetic modification is NOT the same as natural evolutionary changes. In nature, the DNA of a species can only be altered if its proteins (ie, DNA) are compatible with a new protein. This compatibility, as far as we currently know, is species specific (ie, fish to fish, human to human or tomato to tomato, NOT fish to tomato or tomato to human). George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and former Higgins professor of Biology at Harvard University, says, [genetic engineering presents] our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on Earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the product of some three billion years of evolution. Such intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural order of living organisms, [which] work within single or closely related species [as opposed to tomatoes sharing genes with fish, rice sharing genes with daffodils][p.50-51]. Likewise, genetic modification is NOT the same traditional mating or grafting practices which leave the genetic structure of each organism intact. [p.51]

4) Q: What are the risks of genetically modified (GM) crops?
A: Genetic modification can lead to: 

Nutritional Changes: 
There are instances where an area of soybean DNA was unidentifiable after the insertion of a foreign gene; the area was neither part of the inserted DNA, nor was it part of the soybean DNA [p.71]. GM foods are constantly being developed, re-developed, and then released into the food chain, so there is no way to track nutritional changes in GM foods or those foods contaminated with GM DNA. One GM potato, for example, contained 20 percent less protein than its own parent line. Second, even the nutritional content of sibling GM potatoes, offspring of the same parent grown in identical conditions, was significantly different. [p. 12]

Allergens:
Dupont created a soybean with increased nutrients by inserting one gene from the Brazil nut and inserting it into soybean DNA. Dupont stated that this new soybean was safe. Subsequent independent (i.e. non-industry sponsored) experiments demonstrated that the modified soy did in fact cause reactions in people allergic to Brazil nuts. [p.162]. Plus, current GM foods get their genes from bacteria, viruses, and other organisms. No one knows if humans are allergic to [these organisms] proteins; they were never before part of the human food supply. [p.163] The length of time GM substances stay in the human body is still undetermined. However, what is known, is that the longer a substance stays in the body, the more chance the body has to develop a resistance or allergy to the substance. [p.60]

Allergy rates have been increasing for currently unknown reasons. There is a distinct possibility that GM foods play a role in this increase. Consider, for example, the results of the accidental introduction of StarLink GM corn into the food supply in 2000. Although StarLink corn was planted on less than 1% of US cornfields and was intended for livestock feed, it became mixed in with non-GM corn in grain silos across the US, causing anaphylactic [serious & potentially fatal allergic] reactions in hundreds of citizens, contaminating 22% of the US corn supply. Three-hundred corn products were recalled, farmers went virtually bankrupt due to grain recalls and falling corn prices, and over a dozen class action suits were filed against Aventis, the creator of StarLink corn. [p.169-170] Even under court order, Aventis never submitted the original protein used to create StarLink corn for objective research. [p.171] Aventis also never honored their agreement to submit data collected on their farm workers who regularly inhaled StarLink pollen. [p.175]

Note: About a quarter of all Americans surveyed state they and/or their children have food allergies. [p.165] Infants under 2 years of age are at greatest risk since they are more prone to allergies than adults. Breast fed infants can be exposed to allergens via their mothers' diet, fetuses could be exposed in utero, and parents using cornstarch as a talc substitute on their children's skin could also expose their children to allergens via inhalation. [p.175]

Unpredicted/Unfamiliar Toxins and Neurological Disease:
A toxin is a substance produced by one organism that is poisonous to another organism. Potential for an increase in plant toxins and toxicity to humans caused by unintended muting or accelerating of natural toxin activity, or the creation of a wholly new toxin, cannot be predicted. Additionally, if a DNA molecule is altered, it could possibly mutate and give rise to infectious neurological disease, similar to what occurs in mad cow disease and Cruetzfeld-Jacob disease in humans. [p.56]

Danger of Developing Biological Resistance to Antibiotics:
Some GM corn is engineered to be resistant to the commonly prescribed antibiotic ampicillin. Elements of the ampicillin DNA are absorbed throughout the body for indefinite period of time. This increases the chance for the body to develop a resistance to ampicillin (ie, the longer a substance stays in the body, the more chance it has to develop a resistance or allergy to the substance) which could render ampicillin useless in treating disease. [p.60] 

Note: The FDA, if it chooses to conduct an investigation, is able to detect toxins based only on known properties of preexisting food. [p.123] In other words, because GM foods are not preexisting foods, the likelihood that contaminants and impurities could easily pass through the FDA's regulations is very high.

Inevitable and Uncontrollable Travel of GM Pollen:
In 1999, it was discovered that pollen from GM corn had destroyed almost half of the Monarch butterfly population [p.206]. After a year and a half of [both objective & sponsored] research it still was not clear to what extent the GM corn's pollen had affected the Monarch population. This research cost about $2-$3 million, more than the [USDA] typically grants each year for the study of environmental risk of GM crops. The head of BIO [Biotechnology Industry Organization] said the public should not look to the private sector to foot the bills. [p.208]

Note: Virtually all traditional corn varieties in Mexico are contaminated by either illegal planting of GM corn intended for food purposes or pollen from GM corn traveling across the country. Even in the remote mountain region of Oaxaca, 6% of its plant life had been contaminated by GM corn. [p.223] In corn crops in Mexico, GM DNA was found in 95% of all tested corn plots, with an average 10%-15% of corn plants having GM kernels. Genetic pollution had occurred. This made headlines across the Mexico and Europe yet was virtually ignored by both the US and Canadian media. [p.229]

Reproductive changes:
Cows injected with genetically modified growth hormones (rBGH) had more birth defects, reproductive disorders, difficulty getting pregnant, foot and leg injuries, metabolic disorders, indigestion, bloat, diarrhea, lesions, increased size of heart, liver, kidneys, ovaries and adrenal glands, and shortened lives. In the face of this data, Monsanto dismissed this evidence in its own report to the FDA as harmless physiological shifts. [p.88-89]

Misrepresentation of the Nutritional Benefits of GM Foods:
For example, golden rice has been touted as the GM food to send to developing countries to feed their children and prevent blindness, due to its boosted Vitamin A content. This is not the case. Golden rice provides so little vitamin A, a two year old child would need to eat seven pounds per day, likewise an adult would need to eat nearly twenty pounds daily to get [an effective dose of vitamin A]. [p.210] There is no published study that confirms if vitamin A can be absorbed in this form, if other nutrients such as fat and protein are needed to absorb vitamin A, and whether genes from the daffodil supplying this extra vitamin A will produce new allergies. [p.211] 

5) Q: Research must have been done regarding GM crops. What has this research yielded?
A: Health and environmental impact studies of GM crops have been rarely subjected to objective peer review, like all other empirical research. As early as 2003, there were only 8 other peer reviewed published feeding studies, all of which were funded directly or indirectly by biotech companies. [p.33] In 1998, for example, the biotech company Novartis gave $25 million to UC Berkeley Department of Plant and Microbial Biology for research. In exchange, Novartis is allowed to: 1) negotiate licenses for a third of discoveries made by the department, 2) delay publication of research up to 4 months to facilitate patent applications and utilize the proprietary information, and 3) has representation on 2 of the 5 seats of the committee which determines how research money is spent. These conditions are unprecedented between universities and donors. 

Note: The faculty of the department voiced their outrage. More than half believed it would have a negative or strongly negative effect on academic freedom, about half believed it would block research for the public good, and 60% stated it would hinder the free exchange of ideas among scientists. [p.41]

Research result: Rats that were fed GM potatoes suffered damaged immune systems. Their white blood cells responded much more sluggishly than those fed a non-GMO control diet. Other GMO-fed rats in this experiment had smaller, less developed brains, livers and testicles, and had enlarged tissues, including pancreas and intestines. Some showed partial atrophy of the liver. Furthermore, significant structural changes and a proliferation of cells in the stomach and intestines of GMO fed rats may have signaled an increased potential for cancer. These rats developed these effects after just ten days. Some of the above changes lasted after 110 days, a time period corresponding to about 10 years of human life. [p.12]

Research result: Lectin is a naturally occurring pesticide in potatoes. One GMO experiment increased lectin levels to increase pesticide content. This additional lectin has not been shown to be harmful. However, rats that did eat the lectin-enhanced potatoes suffered damage due to the PROCESS of genetic engineering that is currently used to create the GM food everyone is already eating. [p.17]

Research result: There were tomatoes on the market in 1994 called FlavrSavr. These tomatoes were genetically engineered to have a prolonged shelf life. As this was the first GM crop to be approved in the US, the manufacturer actually requested the FDA to review their feeding study data - a gesture no subsequent manufacturer has repeated. Documents revealed that many of the rats that ate the FlavrSavr/GM tomatoes developed lesions in their stomachs. For unknown reasons, researchers did not examine tissue elsewhere in the digestive tract. They also did not provide an explanation as to why seven of the forty rats that were fed the FlavrSavr tomatoes died within two weeks. [p.37]. Three years later, FlavrSavr tomatoes were off the market.

Research result: The EPA states that potentially adverse GM ingredients are safe, since these ingredients do not stay in the human body long enough to trigger an allergic reaction. [p.178]. For example, Monsanto stated their GM product - Bt corn had a 90% reduction in its GM toxin (used as a pesticide) in two minutes after being digested. An objective study showed this to be FALSE- this toxin stays intact in the bloodstream for two hours, increasing allergic potential. [p.179] (i.e. the longer a substance stays in the body, the more chance it has to develop a resistance or allergy to the substance). [p.60] 

6) Q: If GM foods are so risky, why haven't I heard more about them?
The GMO/biotechnology industry has very close ties with the US government. Back in 1986, while President Reagan was deregulating business, members of the Monsanto board routinely met with Vice President Bush in an effort to impose more regulations on GM foods. With US regulations, Monsanto would be protected from consumer and environmental groups. Plus, Monsanto could engineer and patent a whole new kind of food. Later, by [purchasing existing seed companies worldwide], Monsanto could replace natural seeds with their patented engineered seeds and control [most of] the world food supply. [p.127] 

In the early 1990s, the New York Times reported that Monsanto used its close ties at the White House to quickly usher through an unusually generous policy of self-policing. [p.129] This means that Monsanto, as a GMO industry leader, [was now dictating policy to] the Agricultural Department (USDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and ultimately the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). According to Henry Miller, who was in charge of biotechnology issues at the FDA from 1979 to 1994, the US government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do, [p.129] including but not limited to FDA scientists subjecting GM foods to a lower safety standard than that normally applied to food additives, and this preferential treatment violates the FDA's own regulations, which state that tests on new foods (such as those produced through genetic engineering) require the same quantity and quality of scientific evidence as is required to obtain approval of the substance as a food additive. [p.140]

The United States Food and Drug Administration therefore made it clear that in their view, genetically modified crops were assumed to be safe and to offer similar nutritional value as their [non-genetically modified] counterparts. This assumption is the cornerstone of US policy, allowing millions of acres of GM food to be planted, sold, and eaten without prior safety testing. [p.11]

The FDA is protected from legal action regarding its subjective criterion for approving GM foods, since the court has ruled that [the FDA's] GM policy is not a rule but rather a non-binding guideline. Therefore the FDA does not have to be scientific; it can be satisfied with research conducted by GMO companies, knowing that GMO companies will protect them in the instances when FDA decisions are called into question. [p.205]

A leading medical journal, The Lancet, states, "It is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992, [and that the FDA] does not believe it is necessary to conduct comprehensive scientific reviews of foods derived from bioengineered plants."[p.30] The Lancet said "This stance is taken despite good reason to believe that specific risks may exist. Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health. The companies should have paid greater attention to the possible risks to [people and environment]."[p.30]

7) Q: What is Monsanto's track record?
Monsanto worked with the US government to approve their biotech product Agent Orange. Monsanto had assured the public that their Agent Orange, the defoliant used during the Vietnam War, was safe for humans. Thousands of veterans and tens of thousands of Vietnamese suffered a wide range of maladies, including cancer, neurological disorders, and birth defects, blame Monsanto.[p.127]

Monsanto also placed PCBs on the market. PCBspoly-chlorinated biphenyls were touted as a safe form of electrical insulation. Later, PCBs were outlawed in 1978, having been linked to cancer and birth defects. PCBs are now ranked as a major environmental hazard. According to the Washington Post, Monsanto executives knew the toxic nature of PCBs at the time, allowing routine dumping of PCBs in the factory's local water supply. Fish in local rivers died as if being dunked in acid, being found to have 7,500 times the legal PCB level, as established by government regulation. Monsanto never alerted the local population, and its justification at the time was, there is little object in going to expensive extremes in limiting [PCB] discharges, and one internal memo stated, "We can't afford to lose one dollar of business."[p.128]

Monsanto makes a practice of muscling US television, magazine and newspapers into being pro-GMO, by threatening them with lawsuits. This book has many examples; here is just one: Reporter [and former CNN anchorwoman] Jane Akre of Fox television and investigative reporter [and three-time Emmy award winner] Steve Wilson generated a report on rbGH [bovine somatropin], which is an antibiotic routinely injected into milk cows. Akre discovered that these hormone injections were causing illness in cows, and higher feed and medical costs to farmers. Monsanto denied these facts, threatening to sue Fox television. Roger Ailes was the head of Fox News in New York and former director for media relations of President George W. Bush. Plus, Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Actmedia, a major advertising agency used by Monsanto. Monsanto threatened to pull its lucrative advertising account with Actmedia. Fox pressured the journalists to change their report, revise, soften, and neutralize the information as Monsanto instructed. The reporters were pressured into burying the story, and when they refused, were suspended for insubordination. Akre and Wilson sued based on whistle-blower laws and won. But the court declared that they pay Fox's legal fees, effectively placing them on the verge of bankruptcy, and effectively rendering whistle-blower laws impotent. [p.183-193]

To defend their own products and practices, Monsanto created the Dairy Coalition, under the auspices of public relations. Monsanto selected third party experts to disseminate sound, scientific information on food safety and nutrition, which were actually university researchers whose work was funded by Monsanto. These types of groups are the ones who defended MSG (monosodium glutamate), aspartame (Nutrasweet), food dyes and olestra (famous for causing anal leakage in many people who eat potato chips containing olestra). [p.195]

An April 2002 study conducted by Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy discovered that thirteen of the largest newspapers and magazines in the US have all but shut out criticism of GM food and crops from their opinion pages. Their report found an overwhelming bias in favor of GM foods not only on editorial pages but also on op-ed pages, a forum usually reserved for a variety of opinions. In fact, the report found that some newspapers did not publish a single critical op-ed on GM foods and crops, while publishing several in support. Anuradha Millat, co-director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy states that all opinions must be [adequately] represented in the media if the public is to be able to exercise its democratic right to make informed decisions about new technologies. [p.197]

8) Q: If GM crops are so unsafe, why is the US interested in them?
A: The overall goal of US government endorsement and self-policing standards of GM foods was to strengthen the economy and make American products more competitive overseas. [p.197] However, after all of Monsanto's (one of the worlds largest GMO/biotech companies) efforts and influence on the US government, international food retailers and manufacturers want nothing to do with GM foods. In Europe, due to public education and subsequent consumer pressure, the entire food manufacturing and retail industry has banned GM ingredients, and the majority of the world's population are covered by restrictions on the sale and use of GM crops. [p.153]

Why? Because of the difficulty of distinguishing GM crops from non-GM crops, many overseas buyers have simply rejected all corn, soy canola, and cotton from the US and Canada. Since these four GM crops and their derivatives are found in most processed foods in the US, American made packaged foods are also off-limits in many [international] markets.[p.153] Governments and consumer groups around the world even reject free GM grain for relief to developing nations, since there is no proof that the food is safe. [p.155]

Note: Citizens have the right to make an informed choice, but we currently are fed misinformation. And the more the public learns about GM foods, the more the public wants to avoid them. The UK, for example, has become GMO-free due to routine education and debate in the public arena. [p.24] Even the British Medical Association urged policy makers to place a ban on planting GM crops commercially, and warned that such food and crops might have a cumulative and irreversible effect on the environment and the food chain. [p.30]

9) Q: How have US farmers coped with the lost markets for US crops (GM and non-GM?)? 
Corn prices dropped to 13%-20%. Government subsidies increased to between $3-$5 billion annually due to the economic damage of GM crops alone, [p.154] resulting in a cost to the US economy of $12 billion net from 1999 to 2001. [p.155]

Once created, they cannot be recalled!

Researched and compiled by Belinda Pearl. For further information, please contact GMO Free Alameda County at 510-527-9898 or email gmofreeac@earthlink.net.

Learn more about Genetically Modified Organisms:
Barstow, C., The Eco-Foods Guide What’s Good for the Earth is Good for You, New Society Publishers, 2003 
Nestle, M., Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism, University of California Press, 2004
Rowell, A., Don’t Worry – It’s Safe to Eat, The True Story of GM Foods, Earthscan 2004
Tokar, B. ed., Redesigning Life?, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001