Whole Foods Should Not Adopt FrankenFoods (R8 Re-Post)

Whole Foods Should Not Adopt FrankenFoods

posted by Vincent Nunes
Wed, 03/09/2011 - 10:46am

I have a huge bone to pick with Monsanto, a company that is steadily suborning our rights to have naturally-grown crops in America and the world over.
Very recently, they have used heavy-handed measures to get Whole Foods to accept their genetically-modified "FrankenFoods" as offerings in their stores. This, I believe, goes against the entire idea of what Whole Foods offered to the public.
Presented below is an interview between Michael Besancon of Whole Foods, and Dr. Joseph Mercola - the entire interview document can be seen at this link:
http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/ExpertInterviewTranscripts/InterviewOrganicValleyConsumerAssscn.pdf
Please become informed about the things you are ingesting and offering to your families.

A Special Interview with Michael Besancon - Whole Foods
DM: Dr. Joseph Mercola, DO
MB: Michael Besancon
INTRODUCTION:
DM: Welcome everyone, this is Dr. Mercola. Today, we have Michael Besancon who is
a representative from Whole Foods to help us understand their position with the recent
approval of the genetically modified alfalfa crops.
It’s just kind of shocking in the light of the fact that the genetically modified alfalfa is
modified to use an herbicide (roundup) in light of the fact that 95% or so of the alfalfa
currently being grown does not require the use of herbicides. It seems an unnecessary
component. One could lightly dismiss this but most people are unaware that it’s the
fourth largest crop grown in the United States so it does have significance.
Whole Foods was involved in some of the initial discussions. We have recently had the
Organic Consumers Association’s Ronnie Cummins express their position. We wanted
to give Whole Foods the opportunity to express theirs.
Thank you for joining us today, Michael.

MB: It’s my pleasure.
DM: Can you tell our listeners what your position is with Whole Foods?
MB: I’m the senior global vice-president of procurement, distribution, and
communications.
DM: Would you care to comment on what I just mentioned with respect to Whole Foods’
involvement to help guide our listeners and understand with respect to Whole Foods
how the position came about.
MB: The observation on GMOs goes back to 1993-1994. We have been consistent for
the last almost two decades in supporting labeling of GMO containing products or GMO
grown grains whatever that is.
The issue around alfalfa is we work with a number of other companies in the industry as
well as other retailers to do what we could to influence the Department of Agriculture to
not approve the unlimited use of the GMO-modified alfalfa.
As we get down to the every end, we discovered that there were going to be only two
options. One was a hundred percent deregulation or what I think was probably
erroneously referred to as a coexistence policy where GMO alfalfa would be grown as
well as conventional or organic alfalfa.
What we were presented with were two options. We did our best to get the lesser of the
two evils which was some protection for seed, some protection for conventional and
organic farmers. In the end, that was fruitless. We were unable to move the machinery
to get what we thought was a last ditch effort and the best case that we could with what
was presented to us.
DM: Were you actually present at those meetings?
MB: I was not but the CEO and co-CEO Walter Robb, as well as the CEOs of
Stonyfield, Organic Valley and other companies were in those meetings as well as
some other representatives of Whole Foods markets.
DM: Do you have any speculation as to why they chose to ignore the recommendation
they initially agreed to, at least the government?
MB: Why the government refused to acknowledge it or to accept it? I think because the
policy of the government at this time appears to be that there is no differentiation
between a genetically modified feed and crop and a conventional organic one and that
there is no harm. That’s their position. We feel that it’s certainly the right of the
consumer to know what’s been grown with genetically modified seeds or processed with
genetically modified ingredients.
DM: What ongoing effort is Whole Foods committed to with respect to helping
consumers identify what foods contain GMO? Do you have a policy to exclude them
from your store?
MB: It’s almost impossible currently to exclude from any product because those crops
that are out there; corn, canola, soy are ubiquitous. They are in many, many products.
We have taken the tactic that we should support. We were founding members of the
Non-GMO Project with the intent of labeling products as containing no more than 0.9%
GMO, the contaminant, because there is the pollen drift that is contaminating
everything.
What really we’re looking for has happened has happened with rBST is that when the
consumers didn’t want the product and didn’t buy it, in California for instance, the
predominant milk is without rBST. That’s because the consumers voted and the market
controlled that ingredient, controlled that process.
What we’re hoping is that with the Non-GMO Project, with the certification of ingredients
in a product being non-GMO that the consumers will vote. The consumers will make
their voices known both with their pocketbooks and their purchase but also with
speaking to their representatives wherever they may be.
The one that we think that we can do the best -- we have committed to it with our private
label product. We are committed to encouraging everyone in the industry that sells
natural or organic products to label their products through the Non-GMO Project as
certified.
DM: We have to update our listeners as to what the current status is or where you are in
that process of identifying the foods that are being sold at Whole Foods whether they’re
part of the Non-GMO Project?
MB: There is a lot of products in the market regardless of whether it’s a Whole Foods
market or anywhere else that has a label on it that says non-GMO. We were concerned
about that because there was no auditing agency for that. That’s why we supported the
Non-GMO Project as we have with organic certification, the various gluten free
certification.
You need somebody that’s a third party that is saying that they have done the audit and
there is no more than 0.9% contamination from GMO organism. That’s really what we’re
pushing.
M: I’m just still a bit unsure as to what the process is as to when the typical consumer
can go into a Whole Foods market and be able to differentiate between the foods there.
MB: That would be the seal on the product, the Non-GMO Project certified. That’s like
the government, the USDA…
DM: The USDA seal.
MB: The seal on organic.
DM: So it’s really being left up to the manufacturers to go through the process of having
their foods certified then having that label included on their food.
MB: That’s correct. As well as with our own.
DM: Sure. What percentage of the food do you sell at your stores are your own brand?
MB: It depends on the category because it can be 16 to 25 percent.
DM: So it’s significant. I believe the volume of food you sell annually is somewhere
about 8 billion dollars or so?
MB: It’s approaching 10. But you have to also consider the fact that outside of those,
you know, canola, soy, cotton, corn -- you don’t get much cotton in food other than
some cotton oil that might be in somebody’s product. There are currently hundreds or
thousands whatever of organisms that have not been modified. The consumer making
the choice to buy organic and to buy products that are labeled and certified non-GMO
hopefully will give us a choice and create a consideration of continuing with any given
crop as a GMO crop.
DM: I’m still curious, about 25% of the food you sell is your own store brand,
approximately, as you said, it depends on the category of food but just roughly in that
ballpark. Where is Whole Foods with respect to labeling the foods as non-GMO in the
process?
MB: All the private labeled products are going through the audit processes; organic and
natural.
DM: When do you anticipate that process being completed?
MB: It will take a year or more.
DM: So we’re looking at some time in mid-2012?
MB: Something like that. You have a lot of products, a lot of ingredients. It becomes
extremely complex. So what you do is you target those that are obvious. There are
many that don’t need a certification today because they’re not genetically modified to
begin with. Broccoli doesn’t need to be certified today because it doesn’t have a GMO
component potentially unless it comes out tomorrow. It’s possible.
DM: That’s a good point but the typical consumer wouldn’t necessarily know that so will
there be some type of labeling to inform the consumer that this is the case?
MB: I think that the intention is to do all of them. I’m saying…I’m directing it. The
intention is to do all of it but you want to do is you want to get to the ones that have the
greatest potential first. It’s like when people were labeling products oil free and there
was never any oil in the product to begin with. You don’t want to make statements like
that, you know, it’s obvious. It’s oil free or it’s salt free or whatever. It never intended
any, you know, there weren’t going to be in. So if there is a crop whether it’s peas or
corn -- not corn because corn is an issue -- but many of the other products are not in
question.
DM: It would seem that would be a relatively easy part of the equation if they at this
point in time whatever those products or crops were are not GMO then they could just
get a label right away and that would inform the consumer. Because even though it’s
not a threat to them the consumer doesn’t know that.
MB: You are correct. There are some economics involved because there are labels.
When the labels are running down then you make that change.
DM: Right sure.
MB: That’s why it goes through that process.
DM: One wants to be somewhat efficient in the resources and not waste your labels that
are already printed of course.
MB: And waste the labels and to have authenticity in the certification that actually has to
have the audit process. As we ramp up with the Non-GMO Project is supported by other
packaged food producers then there will be more auditors and that process can be
expedited. We’re in the beginning stages of this. We’re looking for support from the
manufacturers. Honestly, we’re looking for support from your listeners to buy those
products that have been certified.
DM: We probably have one of the largest group in the United States with respect to
informed consumers making that choice that’s why I think this conversation is so crucial
because they really need the information to make an educated choice.
Right now they just don’t really have the tools because of relatively sophisticated not
necessarily marketing but manipulation by Monsanto through the Federal government
and basically eliminating the labeling of certain foods and making it actually nearly
illegal to put a label on it as not containing GMO without some type of government
warning.
MB: As you know in the beginning with the rBST you weren’t allowed to label it rBST;
milk produced without the rBST. We’re not in that place currently. We would certainly
not like to be in that place. The greatest alternative for your listeners at this time is to
buy organic because that’s your safest bet. If it’s certified organic it has been grown
without genetically modified feed.
That’s been my position for the better part of the decade on a personal level is I would
buy organic. That assures me as much as one can be assured in this world that what
I’m getting is a product that was grown without the genetically modified feed.
DM: There are a number of certifications for organic also, the USDA of course being
one. I’m wondering if you could just comment on those different certifications and the
ones that Whole Foods uses.
MB: There is (indiscernible 16:26). There is organic (indiscernible 16:29). There are a
lot of different organizations. I can’t speak about any one of them individually other than
that they are all reviewed for their authenticity and for their accuracy. That’s something
that we do, we would audit a great deal particularly on fresh produce.
DM: If your audit doesn’t confirm that there is a certification process that’s up to
standards then you don’t accept that label in your store?
MB: Then you wouldn’t accept that label on the store.
DM: That’s the current policy of Whole Foods?

MB: Correct.
DM: It certainly sounds like a good approach and a reasonable process. Of course with
a multi-billion dollar company and hundreds of millions or billions of dollars for the food
industry, this process doesn’t happen overnight. It’s going to take some time. It sounds
like we’re moving in the direction to give consumers the power they need to make an
educated choice and really shift the situation around to more what is currently present in
Europe.
I think that pretty much sums up what we wanted to review just to get a really thorough
understanding of what had happened and transpired and really clear up some of the
confusion that it appears that the Organic Consumer Association was creating with their
campaign.
I think both parties seem to be well intentioned. Looking at it from an overview, it seems
that w would have the same end goal and it seems somewhat foolish to be divisive
when we can really work together to achieve the goal.
MB: What’s the term when you kill your siblings? If you kill your siblings, if you kill the
people and you’re saying family, you know, we should be together on this issue. We
shouldn’t be attacking each other. We do, as you point out, have the same ultimate
goals.
I have talked to the folks at OCA and encouraged them to attack the people who need
to be attacked and not the people who are on your side. Even if you get down to just a
practical business part of it, our business survival requires the integrity of these
products. We certainly wouldn’t join with Monsanto.
DM: Sure. One of the Organic Consumers Association’s concern was what appears
from their perspective to be somewhat of a deceptive practice where the typical
consumer from their perspective is going into the Whole Foods market with the
understanding that they provide a higher quality product and really in many ways is
setting the standard for the contemporary United States food store and really leading
the field from most people’s observations.
The concern is that the thought is that most of the items they are going to be purchasing
there are going to be healthier and there really isn’t a significant effort being done to
differentiate the healthier organic brands versus the ones that are more traditional.
That’s my understanding of the concern. I’m wondering if you can comment on that.
MB: The push for the company from procurement which is my area is to increase the
amount of organic in every category. Fifty-three percent of our total sales in produce are
organic now. There are products that are not available year round.
There are a lot of reasons why it’s only 53%. There are apples you can’t buy on the
East Coast because of the growing conditions but we keep pushing that and there are
also supply issues. People want strawberries year round. If we don’t have strawberries,
they’re going down the street. We need to be able to supply what the consumer is
asking for.
The push is for organic. Our top compete in meetings with vendors are always towards
the organic and organic ingredients. One, that’s our business and two, that’s our
mission. Our first core value is to sell the highest quality natural and organic food
available.
My personal mission has been for 40 years of being in the industry is to provide those
foods to as many people as possible at the best price possible. That’s (indiscernible
22:34)
DM: I guess the concern since the food category that is most appropriate here is the
produce. If you go typically into the produce department which I think for most people
listening is the most important section of the grocery store, you really need to be a
discerning consumer to differentiate between the organic versus the conventional. I
mean it’s there but you have to look really carefully. You just can’t blindly pick up a
cucumber without looking and examining whether it’s conventional or organic. That has
been my experience.
MB: That’s absolutely true. I believe and I have always believed personally and I think
it’s a company position is that while we do our diligence and we sign the product, we
don’t want the consumer to abdicate their own personal responsibility for knowing what
it is they’re buying. I don’t want to be in that position personally. I want folks to be aware
and if they are aware, then they will make the choices that work for them and hopefully
those choices will be organic.
Look at what we have done with seafood rating, with rating products in the case on their
sustainability, and telling people that the product is read and not sustainable and that
we’re going to be eliminating that product over time is I think a fairly courageous
position for a food retailer to take, the same thing with the meat.
We’ve just announced the five step program on our beef, chicken and pork. Those are
all designed to move the continuum forward for in that case animal compassion as well
as the condition that the ingredients whatever the feed and all of that towards organic
and towards as clean as possible.
We’re doing the same thing with the Non-GMO Project. We’ll do the same thing in
pushing the vendors towards organic and featuring organic. I think we’re doing pretty
good job of providing the consumer with an alternative. Well, it say more.
DM: Exactly, I don’t think anyone could argue the fact that on a nationwide basis, if
you’re going to seek out healthy foods, the best place to go is Whole Foods, as a brand.
I mean, there is no brand that beats you. You have really achieved the pinnacle of that
perspective. You’re most in the major markets so it’s relatively easy to find a place to
acquire good food.
The challenge, I’m not sure that I understand that you have addressed it is it’s there. It’s
in the store but I think it could be made a lot easier that the identification of conventional
versus organic. Typically, it’s a small little a word that you really have search for rather
than it being something that’s really obvious. I think that many people are confused
because it’s not clear.
MB: There are regulations because we’re a certified organic retailer. There are
regulations for how you put the produce on the stand and write down what can be
adjacent to the product. You can’t have an organic and a conventional apple touching
each other. So you have to have a break.
It’s isn’t as difficult in my mind to discern the organic in produce because it is signed
organic and it is signed conventional. It is signed local. In fact, at some point we have a
forest of signs. If anything, you were trying to communicate too much, that becomes
confusing because there is so much messaging going on.
But there is also on most organic produce, there is a band on the greens or there is a
sticker on the fruit identifying it as organic as well as the signage. Again, I want people
to look.
DM: So those are key pointers if you’re looking for produce. Say, you have celery, if it’s
an organic celery, it’s going to have an organic label around it or a wire wrap. If it’s a
piece of fruit, it will have an organic sticker and some of the vegetables will have them
also. That’s another good way to differentiate between the two.
MB: You have to pay attention. You can’t go in blindly. That’s why I don’t want the
consumer to not read labels, to not look at signs. I want them to take responsibility for
that person. On a personal level I think that that would be a company policy. You can’t
deluded if you’re eyes are open.
DM: That’s terrific. I thank you for enlightening us as to Whole Foods’ position and also
for being a representative of Whole Foods’ commitment to really educating the
consumer so that we can make a difference and vote with our pocketbook which is
really one of the most powerful economic positions that we can take that would really
influence the industry in the right direction.
MB: I couldn’t agree more. The issue here is that the market and the consumer’s choice
can change policy and it will change policy faster than anything that we could do as an
industry. So whether you’re buying at Whole Foods or you’re buying in a conventional
store, buy organic and support the Non-GMO Project certified product.

You should also view the film, The World According To Monsanto.

GM Foods May Mean The END OF LIFE ON EARTH (R8 Re-Post)

GM Foods May Mean The END OF LIFE ON EARTH

posted by Vincent Nunes
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 11:23am

We are being betrayed by our elected officials who have gone along with the biotech industries, more specifically, Monsanto, in suborning our food supply and the viability of our arable farmland.
Am I being alarmist without cause? I don't believe that I am...from what I have read and researched, these "products" pose a very clear and present danger to our lives on our planet.
I'm going to post William Engdahl's article below, because I think that an excerpt will not do justice in alerting you to the dangers of allowing Monsanto and the biotech industries at large to continue to endanger our crops.
First...let's address the issue of whether RoundUp, the pesticide that Monsanto REQUIRES as part of the agreement for using their "patented" seeds is really "as safe as table salt":

Effects

Glyphosate is rated least dangerous in comparison to other herbicides and pesticides, such as those from the organochlorine family.^[34] Roundup has a United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ (EPA) Toxicity Class of III (on a I to IV scale, where IV is least dangerous) for oral and inhalation exposure.^[35] It does not bioaccumulate, and breaks down rapidly in the environment.^[36]

[edit] Humans

Severe skin burns (chemical burn) are very rare, but possible

The United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ considers glyphosate to be relatively low in toxicity, and without carcinogenic or teratogenic effects.^[37] The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields, and with residue levels remaining at their maximum levels, and concluded that no adverse effects would exist under these conditions^[37] In 2007, the EPA selected glyphosate for further screening for endocrinal disruptor effects, not because of suspected effects, but because glyphosate is a widely-used herbicide (the EPA has stated that selection for screening does not itself imply risk).^[38][39]
Laboratory toxicology studies suggest that other ingredients combined with glyphosate may have greater toxicity than glyphosate alone. For example, a study comparing glyphosate and Roundup found that Roundup had a greater effect on aromatase than glyphosate alone.^[10] Another study has shown that Roundup formulations and metabolic products cause the death of human embryonic, placental, and umbilical cells in vitro even at low concentrations. The effects are not proportional to glyphosate concentrations but dependent on the nature of the adjuvants used in the formulation.^[40] However, exposure methods in the in vitro tests are not representative of how people or animals would be exposed to glyphosate herbicides, so relevance of in vitro tests is unclear. In addition, many common materials that contain surfactants, such as shampoo, can cause similar effects in in vitro experiments.
Statistics from the California Environmental Protection Agency's Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program indicate that glyphosate-related incidents are one of the highest reported of all pesticides.^[41][42] However, incident count does not take into account the number of people exposed and the severity of symptoms associated with each incident.^[42] For example, if hospitalization were used as a measure of the severity of pesticide related incidents, then glyphosate would be considered relatively safe, since, over a 13 year period in California, none of the 515 pesticide-related hospitalizations recorded were attributed to glyphosate.^[42]
A review of the ecotoxicological data on Roundup shows that there are at least 58 studies of the effects of Roundup itself on a range of organisms.^[43] This review concluded that "for terrestrial uses of Roundup minimal acute and chronic risk was predicted for potentially exposed non-target organisms". It also concluded that there were some risks to aquatic organisms exposed to Roundup in shallow water. More recent research suggests glyphosate induces a variety of functional abnormalities in fetuses and pregnant rats.^[44] Also in recent mammalian research, glyphosate has been found to interfere with an enzyme involved testosterone production in mouse cell culture^[45] and to interfere with an estrogen biosynthesis enzyme in cultures of human placental cells.^[46]
There is a reasonable correlation between the amount of Roundup ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death. Ingestion of >85 mL of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults. Gastrointestinal corrosive effects, with mouth, throat and epigastric pain and dysphagia are common. Renal and hepatic impairment are also frequent, and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion. Respiratory distress, impaired consciousness, pulmonary oedema, infiltration on chest x-ray, shock, arrythmias, renal failure requiring haemodialysis, metabolic acidosis and hyperkalaemia may supervene in severe cases. Bradycardia and ventricular arrhythmias are often present pre-terminally. Dermal exposure to ready-to-use glyphosate formulations can cause irritation, and photo-contact dermatitis has been reported occasionally; these effects are probably due to the preservative Proxel (benzisothiazolin-3-one). Severe skin burns are very rare. Inhalation is a minor route of exposure, but spray mist may cause oral or nasal discomfort, an unpleasant taste in the mouth, tingling and throat irritation. Eye exposure may lead to mild conjunctivitis, and superficial corneal injury is possible if irrigation is delayed or inadequate.^[47]

Wow...that pic sure does NOT look too savory.
Next...let's read Engdahl's article, and let's make you familiar with a new term - "super-weed":
Genetically Manipulated Crops: The GMO Catastrophe in the USA. A Lesson for the World

Recently the unelected potentates of the EU Commission in Brussels have sought to override what has repeatedly been shown to be the overwhelming opposition of the European Union population to the spread of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) in EU agriculture. EU Commission President now has a Maltese accountant as health and enviromnent Commissioner to rubber stamp the adoption of GMO. The former EU Environment Commissioner from Greece was a ferocious GMO opponent. As well, the Chinese government has indicated it may approve a variety of GMO rice. Before things get too far along, they would do well to take a closer look at the world GMO test lab, the USA. There GMO crops are anything but beneficial. Just the opposite.
What is carefully kept out of the Monsanto and other agribusiness propaganda in promoting genetically manipulated crops as an alternative to conventional is the fact that in the entire world until the present, all GMO crops have been manipulated and patented for only two things—to be resistant or “tolerant” to the patented highly toxic herbicide glyphosate chemicals that Monsanto and the others force farmers to buy as condition for buying their patented GMO seeds. The second trait is GMO seeds that have been engineered genetically to resist specific insects. Contrary to public relations myths promoted by the agribusiness giants in their own self-interest, there exists not oné single GMO seed that provides a greater harvest yield than conventional, nor one that requires less toxic chemical herbicides. That is for the simple reason there is no profit to be made in such.
Giant super-weeds plague
As prominent GMO opponent and biologist, Dr Mae-Wan Ho of the Institute of Science in London has noted, companies such as Monsanto build into their seeds herbicide-tolerance (HT) due to glyphosate-insensitive form of the gene coding for the enzyme targeted by the herbicide. The enzyme is derived from soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Insect-resistance is due to one or more toxin genes derived from the soil bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis). The United States began large scale commercial planting of GMO plants, mainly soybeans and corn and cotton around 1997. By now, GM crops have taken over between 85 percent to 91 percent of the areas planted with the three major crops, soybean, corn and cotton in the US, on nearly 171 million acres.
The ecological time-bomb that came with the GMO according to Ho, is about to explode. Over several years of constant application of patented glyphosate herbicides such as Monsanto’s famous and highly Roundup, new herbicide-resistant “super-weeds” have evolved, nature’s response to man-made attempts to violate it. The super-weeds require significantly more not less herbicide to control.
ABC Television, a major US national network, made a recent documentary about the super-weeds under the rubric, “super weeds that can’t be killed.”[1]
They interviewed farmers and scientists across Arkansas who described fields overrun with giant pigweed plants that can withstand as much glyphosate as farmers are able to spray. They interviewed one farmer who spent almost €400000 in only three months in a failed attempt to kill the new super-weeds.
The new super-weeds are so robust that harvester combines are unable to harvest the fields and hand tools break trying to cut them down. At least 400000 hectares of soybean and cotton in Arkansas alone have become invested with this new mutant biological plague. Detailed data on other agricultural regions is not available but believed similar. The pro-GMO and pro-agribusiness US Department of Agriculture has been reported lying about the true state of US crop harvest partly to hide the grim reality and to prevent an explosive revolt against GMO in the world’s largest GMO market.
One variety of super-weed, palmer pigweed can grow up to 2.4 meters high, withstands severe heat and prolonged droughts, and produces thousands of seeds with a root system that drains nutrients away from crops. If left unchecked, it takes over an entire field in a year. Some farmers have been forced to abandon their land. To date palmer pigweed infestation in GMO crop regions has been identified in addition to Arkansas, also in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, New Mexico, Mississippi and most recently, Alabama and Missouri.
Weed scientists at the University of Georgia estimate that just two palmer pigweed plants in every 6 meter length of cotton row can reduce yield by at least 23 percent. A single weed plant can produce 450 000 seeds. [2]
Roundup toxic danger being covered-up
Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the US and the world at large. Patented and sold by Monsanto since the 1970s under the trade name Roundup, it is a mandatory component of buying GMO seeds from Monsanto. Just go to your local garden store and ask for it and read the label carefully.
As I detail in my book, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, GMO crops and patented seeds were developed in the 1970’s with significant financial support from the pro-eugenics Rockefeller Foundation, by what were essentially chemical companies—Monsanto Chemicals, DuPont and Dow Chemicals. All three were involved in the scandal of the highly toxic Agent Orange used in Vietnam, as well as Dioxin in the 1970’s, and lied to cover up the true damage to its own employees as well as to civilian and military populations exposed.
Their patented GMO seeds were seen as a clever way to force increased purchase of their agricultural chemicals such as Roundup. Farmers must sign a legal contract with Monsanto in which it stipulates that only Monsanto Roundup pesticide may be used. Farmers are thus trapped both in buying new seeds from Monsanto each harvest and buying the toxic glyphosate.
France’s University of Caen, in a team led by molecular biologist, Gilles-Eric Seralini, did a study that showed Roundup contained one specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA. Seralini’s team demonstrated that POEA in Roundup was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than even the glyphosate itself. Monsanto refuses to release details of the contents of its Roundup other than glyphosate, calling it “proprietary.”[3]
The Seralini study found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns! The French team studied multiple concentrations of Roundup, from the typical agricultural or lawn dose down to concentrations 100,000 times more dilute than the products sold on shelves. The researchers saw cell damage at all concentrations.
Glyphosate and Roundup are advertised as “less toxic to us than table salt” in a pamphlet from the Biotechnology Institute promoting GMO crops as ‘Weed Warrior.’ Thirteen years of GMO crops in the USA has increased overall pesticide use by 318 million pounds, not decreased as promised by the Four Horsemen of the GMO Apocalypse. The extra disease burden on the nation from that alone is considerable.
Nonetheless after introduction of Monsanto GMO seeds commercially in the USA, use of glyphosate has risen more than 1500% between 1994 and 2005. In the USA some 100 million pounds of glyphosate are used on lawns and farms every year, and over the last 13 years, it has been applied to more than a billion acres. When questioned, Monsanto’s technical development manager, Rick Cole, reportedly said the problems were “manageable.” He advised farmers to alternate crops and use different makes of herbicides produced by Monsanto. Monsanto is encouraging farmers to mix glyphosate with its older herbicides such as 2,4-D, banned in Sweden, Denmark and Norway for links to cancer and reproductive and neurological damage. 2,4-D is a component of Agent Orange, produced by Monsanto for use in Vietnam in the 1960s.
US Farmers turn to organics
Farmers across the United States are reported to be going back to conventional non-GMO crops instead. According to a new report from the US Department of Agriculture, retail sales of organic food went up to $21.1 billion in 2008 from $3.6 billion in 1997.[4] The market is so active that organic farms have struggled at times to produce sufficient supply to keep up with the rapid growth in consumer demand, leading to periodic shortages of organic products.
The new UK Conservative-Liberal coalition government is strongly backing lifting a de facto ban on GMO in that country. UK Chief Scientific Adviser, Prof. John Beddington, recently wrote an article in which he misleadingly claimed “The next decade will see the development of combinations of desirable traits and the introduction of new traits such as drought tolerance. By mid-century much more radical options involving highly polygenic traits may be feasible.” He went on to promise “cloned animals with engineered innate immunity to diseases” and more. I think we can pass that one up, thank you.
A recent study by Iowa State University and the US Department of Agriculture assessing the performance of farms during the three-year transition it takes to switch from conventional to certified organic production showed notable advantages of organic farming over GMO or even conventional non-GMO crops. In an experiment lasting four years—three years transition and first year organic—the study showed that although yields dropped initially, they equalized in the third year, and by the fourth year, the organic yields were ahead of the conventional for both soybean and corn.
As well, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) has recently been published, the result of three-year deliberation by 400 participating scientists and non-government representatives from 110 countries around the world. It came to the conclusion that small scale organic agriculture is the way ahead for coping with hunger, social inequities and environmental disasters. [5] As Dr Ho argues, a fundamental shift in farming practice is needed urgently, before the agricultural catastrophe spreads further across Germany and the EU to the rest of the world.[6]
Keep your food freedom, get your non GMO seeds with EmergencySeedBank (Advertisement)
Endnotes:
[1] Super weed can’t be killed, abc news, 6 October 2009. See also,Jeff Hampton, N.C. farmers battle herbicide-resistant weeds, The Virginian-Pilot, 19 July 2009, http://hamptonroads.com/2009/07/nc-farmers-battle-herbicideresistant-weeds
[2] Clea Caulcutt, ‘Superweed’ explosion threatens Monsanto heartlands, Clea Caulcutt, 19 April 2009, http://www.france24.com/en/20090418-superweed-explosion-threatens-monsanto-heartlands-genetically-modified-US-crops
[3] N. Benachour and G-E. Seralini, Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells, Chem. Res. Toxicol., Article DOI: 10.1021/tx800218n
Publication Date (Web): December 23, 2008.
[4] Carolyn Dimitri and Lydia Oberholtzer, Marketing U.S. organic foods: recent trends from farms to consumers, USDA Economic Research Service, September 2009, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB58/
[5] International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, IAASTD, 2008, http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=Press_Materials&ItemID=11
[6] Ho MW.UK Food Standards Agency study proves organic food is better. Science in Society 44, 32-33, 2009.

F. William Engdahl is the author of Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
That not enough to illustrate the dangers? Try this on for size: French GMO Researcher Vilified by Monsanto

His research literally send chills down the spines of people on both sides of the fence in the debate concerning genetically modified foods and use of the weed killer known as Roundup. Opponents of GMO food read his studies and openly weep as their worst fears of the pesticide’s toxicity are confirmed; the proponents of GMOs and Roundup publicly and predictably call his very ethics into question as they privately fear a loss of revenue.
Through it all, Gilles-Eric Séralini, has remained steadfast for nearly 15 years. The professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen in France, and president of the scientific council for independent research on genetic engineering (CRIIGEN), knows for a fact that plants containing inserted genes for resistance to Roundup have the potential to kill us. He has tried to warn government officials worldwide — largely to no avail. He has witnessed a pattern of deceit since foods were genetically modified to resist Roundup in 1996, a scourge that has only worsened in the years since.
“I was asked to be part of the government commissions which were evaluating GMOs at the French Ministry of Environment and Agriculture in 1997,” he said. “I knew the side effects of pesticides on health and I also knew the mode of creation of transgenic (genetically modified) plants that produce or absorb pesticides. From the beginning, I became suspicious of the tests that had been provided by Monsanto and others. And I unveiled the scandal: a consortium of lobbies had taken control of the situation. They were putting a brake on research on the side effects of pesticides on health. Those corporations want to distribute technological products rapidly and without any control, they want to patent the base of the food trade. This moratorium enabled us to make it clear to agricultural associations, agricultural trade unions, consumer associations, as well as to various ecological and environment friendly groups that there was a public health problem. Then we also very quickly warned ministries.”
Despite Seralini’s findings — including his blockbuster report in December of 2009 that one component of Roundup kills human cells — the race to genetically modify more and more plants continues almost unabated by reason or law. The sale of Roundup as a backyard weed killer continues to grow as if Americans still believe the Monsanto’s original advertising slogan: “Roundup is as safe as table salt.”
Allow yourself the nine minutes it will require to watch this Skype interview with Seralini and form your own opinion of the man and his work: http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-videos/6-must-see-videos/12072-prof-gil-seralini-runs-monsantos-numbers-liverkidney-damage-from-gmos. Google his name and read the reports. If you do, you’ll find that last year, just after his study hit at Christmastime of 2009, Monsanto and others organized a widespread smear campaign to discredit Seralini and his colleagues.
Know this, though: More than a thousand scientists worldwide came to Seralini’s defense and protested the defamation campaign — essentially agreeing that his work was accurate.
Ask yourself who you believe about Roundup’s safety? The scientists . . . or Monsanto, the manufacturer, and Scotts Miracle-Go, the sales agents.

Do you see now why I was dismayed by Whole Foods even considering to sell FrankenFoods.
It's not worth the cost.