Bayer-Monsanto: A “Marriage Made in Hell”? (Re-Post from The Truth About Cancer)

We are all aware of the recent takeover of Monsanto by Bayer.

I found a posting at The Truth About Cancer...but I will be remarking upon certain information presented therein. If you are a reader of my work, it will come as no surprise.

Bayer-Monsanto: A “Marriage Made in Hell”?

By Ty Bollinger

Monsanto has agreed to be sold to Bayer for $56.5 billion − a deal worth a total of $66 billion when Monsanto’s debt is taken into account. The combined company would be the world’s largest seller of both seeds and agrichemicals.

Monsanto, arguably the most loathed GMO company on the face of the earth, has been the subject of heated discussions for decades, especially in recent days as their top-selling product (RoundUp) contains glyphosate, which has been linked to cancer, autism, and respiratory sickness.

Monsanto has lobbied widely and even filed lawsuits to prohibit labeling of GMO products and bury the World Health Organization’s report listing glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. If Monsanto joins forces with Bayer (one of the most hated Big Pharma companies in the world), the resulting “marriage made in hell” would be a drug-seed-pesticide company that controls almost 1/3 of the world’s seed market and almost ¼ of the pesticide market. Many would argue that this would equate to a monopoly. More on that topic later in the article.

But this would not be the first time Monsanto and Bayer have teamed up. During the Vietnam War, both firms were involved in the development of Agent Orange. And both firms are currently involved in the GMO market today. Speaking of GMOs, I was watching Fox News Channel a couple of days ago and the “expert” being interviewed said that this was necessary in order to feed the world and that GMO foods are the only solution. WRONG!

Apparently said “expert” is unfamiliar with the recent research, specifically the IAASTD Report, which is the most comprehensive report on the future of food and agriculture (sponsored by the World Bank and the UN, written by over 400 scientists and endorsed by 59 countries).

In this report, they did not endorse GMOs as a solution to world hunger. In addition, genetic engineering has not significantly increased U.S. crop yields, according to the USDA and controlled comparative studies. As a matter of fact, many GMOs have lower yields than non-GMO crops. Did I mention that GMO crops have been linked to cancer and have numerous potential health risks?

Let’s look at the sordid history of both of these companies…

A Brief History of BAYER

• Founded in Barmen, Germany in 1863 by Friedrich Bayer and his partner, Johann Friedrich Weskott.

• During World War 1, Bayer turned its attention to the manufacture of chemical weapons including chlorine gas.

• In 1925, Bayer, BASF, and Hoechst merged to form the massive German conglomerate Interessengemeinschaft Farben (IG Farben) which was the single biggest donor to Hitler’s election campaign.

• IG Farben built the concentration camps at Auschwitz to supply slave labor for the nearby IG Farben plant (also known as IG Auschwitz). Hitler eventually used these same camps in his megalomaniacal attempt to exterminate the Jewish race.

• In 1941, Otto Armbrust, the IG Farben board member responsible for IG Farben’s Auschwitz project, told his colleagues, “our new friendship with the SS is a blessing. We have determined all measures integrating the concentration camps to benefit our company.”

• A subsidiary of IG Farben manufactured and supplied Zyklon B to the SS. This poisonous cyanide-based pesticide, on which IG Farben held the patent, was used during the Holocaust to annihilate more than 1,000,000 people in the concentration/extermination camps. IG Farben also supplied the SS with the Methanol used to burn the corpses.

• In 1946, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal concluded that without IG Farben the Second World War would simply not have been possible.

• At Nuremberg, Fritz ter Meer (an executive of IG Farben) was convicted of slavery, mass murder, and crimes against humanity. After serving 5 years in prison, he became Chairman of the Board at Bayer in 1956, a position which he held for almost a decade.

• In 1962, just fifteen years after they were convicted in the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, Bayer, BASF and Hoechst were again the architects of the next major human rights offence when they established the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

• In the mid-1980s, Bayer was one of the companies which sold a product called Factor VIII concentrate to treat hemophilia. Factor VIII turned out to be infected with HIV. After learning that the product was contaminated, in order to save money, Bayer continued selling this infected product to Asia and Latin America even though a safe product was available. Dr. Sidney M. Wolfe, who investigated the scandal, commented, “These are the most incriminating internal pharmaceutical industry documents I have ever seen.”

• In the 1990s, the federal government launched an investigation on Bayer’s unethical billing practices on Medicaid program and the Department of Justice found Bayer guilty of fraud. Bayer had to pay $14 Million to settle charges of causing inflated Medicaid claims.

• Yaz (approved by FDA in 2006) and Yasmin (2001) were revolutionary birth control pills that use a synthetic hormone called drospirenone (DSP). Yaz or Yasmin have led to hundreds of deaths in young and healthy women.

• The drug Trasylol was banned in 2006 after it contributed to thousands of deaths in patients every single month for over a decade. After a 2006 study showed widespread deaths associated with Trasylol, it took FDA and Bayer almost two years to take the drug off of the market. Later on it was revealed that Bayer had buried evidence of Trasylol’s severe side effects.

• In 2008, the German Coalition against Bayer brought a charge against the Bayer Board of Management, with the public prosecutor in Freiburg accusing Bayer of contributing to the mass death of bees all over the world through its aggressive pesticide marketing. Since then, the bee debacle has only grown worse, with thousands of hives collapsing after poisoning by the pesticide clothianidin, producing a worldwide crisis.

Thanks to this website and this website for much of the above information.

MONSANTO’S Poisonous Past

• Monsanto was founded in 1901 in St. Louis, Missouri, by John Francis Queeny, a 30-year veteran of the pharmaceutical industry. Its first product was the artificial sweetener Saccharin, which Monsanto sold to the Coca-Cola Company.

• In the 1920s, Monsanto Chemical Company was founded and incorporated the town of Monsanto, later renamed Sauget, Illinois. For years, the Monsanto plant in Sauget was the nation’s largest producer of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which were banned in the 1970s. PCBs are potent carcinogens and have been implicated in reproductive, developmental and immune system disorders. According to thousands of pages of released Monsanto documents (many of them emblazoned with warnings such as “CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy”), they knew about the PCB dangers from early on, but decided to conceal what they knew. One Monsanto memo explains their justification: “We can’t afford to lose one dollar of business.”

• During World War II, Monsanto played a significant role in the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb.

• In 1944, Monsanto began manufacturing DDT, which was banned in 1972.

• Following World War II, Monsanto championed the use of chemical pesticides in agriculture, and began manufacturing the herbicide 2,4,5-T, which contains dioxin. During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military initiated an herbicidal warfare program using Agent Orange (a mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D and had very high concentrations of dioxin) as a defoliant.

Monsanto and Dow Chemical were the two largest producers of Agent Orange, which has been linked to cancer and birth defects. According to the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 deaths and disabilities, plus 500,000 children born with birth defects, leading to calls for Monsanto to be prosecuted for war crimes. Internal Monsanto memos show that Monsanto knew of the problems of dioxin contamination of Agent Orange when it sold it to the U.S. government for use in Vietnam.

• In 1973, Monsanto developed and patented the glyphosate molecule and began manufacturing Roundup. In 2015, the World Health Organization declared glyphosate to be a probable carcinogen. Despite this fact, Roundup is still marketed as “safe.”

• In 1982, Monsanto genetically modified a plant cell for the first time.

• In the mid-1980s, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame’s clouded past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it “might induce brain tumors.” The aspartame business became a separate Monsanto subsidiary, the NutraSweet Company.

• In the late-1980s and early-1990s, Monsanto spent almost $500,000 to defeat Proposition 65 (California’s anti-toxics initiative which prohibited the discharge of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects into drinking water supplies) and Proposition 128 (California’s pesticide regulation initiative that would have phased out Monsanto’s product alachlor, which is linked to cancer). During the same time period, Monsanto also conducted the first field tests of genetically engineered (GMO) crops.

• In 1991, Monsanto was fined $1.2 million for trying to conceal discharge of contaminated waste water into the Mystic River in Connecticut.

• In the mid-1990s, Monsanto developed their controversial cattle drug, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST), which is produced through a genetically engineered E. coli bacteria.

• During the same time period, Monsanto was ranked 5th among U.S. corporations in EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, having discharged 37 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, land, water and underground. Monsanto was ordered to pay $41.1 million to a waste management company in Texas due to concerns over hazardous waste dumping.

• In 1996, Monsanto introduced “Roundup Ready Soybeans” and “BT Cotton” then in 1998 “Roundup Ready Corn” was introduced.

• By 2007, Monsanto’s GMO seeds accounted for over 90% of the world’s supply.

• In 2010, former Monsanto lobbyist Michael R. Taylor was appointed as Deputy Commissioner of Food Safety at the FDA (the fox is guarding the henhouse).

• Since 2012, Monsanto has spent more than $25 million to fight state ballot initiatives to label GMOs and millions more to lobby Congress against mandatory GMO labeling.

Thanks to this website for much of the above information.

Bayer Monsanto Union: A Dark and Dangerous Threat

The above bullet points about Bayer and Monsanto are merely the tip of the iceberg. I could have written an entire book detailing the unscrupulous activities that these companies have engaged in over the past century. But I think you get the point. This “hidden” history of Bayer and Monsanto indicates that both of these companies have consistently been involved with malevolent endeavors that wreaked havoc on humanity and caused sickness, pain, and death on a massive scale. These companies are like a cancer eating away at the physical fabric of our world.

If these two companies join forces, the dark and dangerous synergy and malignant power will metastasize and be so great that, figuratively speaking, the universe might explode! To use a Lord of the Rings analogy, it would be like Sauron acquiring the One Ring.

Will this merger actually happen? It’s hard to say. Thankfully, there are anti-trust laws in place that will force the entire deal to undergo tremendous scrutiny and lengthy regulatory processes in the USA as well as the EU. “This merger is not a slam dunk,” said Diana Moss, president of the American Antitrust Institute. Also, a legal opinion written by two former Department of Justice officials (Antitrust Division) argues that the merger would violate the Clayton Act and would also be in direct violation of a 2008 court order.

A Bayer-Monsanto merger certainly threatens the world food supply with domination by GMOs and destructive, carcinogenic agrochemicals. Thanks primarily to the anti-GMO and “Millions Against Monsanto” movements, the behemoth biotech bully is on the ropes.

Perhaps Monsanto thinks that if it changes its name, that we will forget its poisonous past. Think again Monsanto.

On October 14-16, Monsanto’s crimes against humanity will be exposed at the Monsanto Tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands.

Remember, all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. We must stick together and help educate our neighbors in order to continue the good fight together… for our children and every future generation to come.

Perhaps it’s time to put Bayer and Big Pharma on trial as well and build an even bigger worldwide unified assembly. Maybe we could call it “Billions Against Big Pharma and Bayer-Monsanto.”

Please share this important news story with friends and family and together let’s all take action to stop this merger.

 Now, I believe the article is mostly factual, with great information...but one aspect of it doesn't wash.

The claim that I.G. Farben was "instrumental" in World War Two hinges on the soon to be discredited story of the homicidal gas chambers, which, if proven to not have existed, puts the lie to the main reason as to why we needed to intervene in that debacle.

I welcome discussion; ad-hominem attacks, however, will be met as they always have - with the full force of my keyboard.

Why Are The GMO Purveyors Poisoning Our Earth?

I recently came across an article in The Atlantic regarding an Amish farmer who, instead of introducing pesticides to his produce, endeavored to strengthen the immune systems of the produce, found that the plants themselves would then develop their own defenses, eliminating the need for pesticides which end up being less useful while still presenting a danger to you and I.




Here's an excerpt of the dialogue between the interviewer and the farmer:

---

Roc Morin: Can you describe the differences between how you used to farm and how you farm now?
Samuel Zook: The inputs changed drastically. Instead of trying to grow crops that are healthy with fungicides and pesticides, I started to grow crops that are healthy with nutrition.
Morin: What was the hardest part about making the change?
Zook: Well, there was a big psychological block that I had to get through. I’d see a couple bugs out there and feel like I immediately had to do something about it. But, I learned that if I sit back, things will often take care of themselves. That first summer for instance, we saw a lot of horn worms. Before that, I would have sprayed them right away, but this time I waited and a bunch of wasps came along and killed them. Once I saw that, I started getting really excited.
Morin: So, when you use a pesticide you’re killing the predators too, right?
Zook: Right. You’re killing the entire ecosystem.
Morin: Have all of your problems disappeared?
Zook: I wish I could say that, but not entirely. We’re not living in the Garden of Eden yet. The issues I had before have disappeared, but we still have some other issues that we’re working on. One of the main things that has improved is how it feels to farm. Before, if I applied fungicide on my tomatoes, I had to wait three to seven days before I could reenter the area. Now, it’s so nice to just walk in my field any day of the week and not worry a bit. That in itself is huge. The other thing is, when I used to mix these skull-and-cross-bones chemicals to put in my sprayer, I’d have to be suited up. The children would be around and I’d say, “Now, get in the house. It’s not safe.” Now though, if the children want to help, it’s fine. If I want to mix the solutions better, I’ll just put my hand in a stir it around.
Morin: What are some of the problems that you’re dealing with now?
Zook: One of my major issues in the greenhouse is spider mites—little insects that just love a warm, dry environment. It’s very hard to control them, even conventionally. We usually get them under control, but we often lose some yield.
Morin: How do you get them under control?
Zook: Mainly through applying specific trace minerals like iodine and a whole line of ultra-micronutrients. We analyzed the sap of the plants with the help of a lab and I think we’ve narrowed the problem down to excessive ammonium nitrates. If ammonia builds up in the plants, it’s bug food, so we need to figure out a way to convert ammonia fast. I just spent two days with John [Kempf], and he came up with an enzyme cofactor which we’ll use to stimulate that ammonia conversion. We figure things out ourselves now rather than call up the chemical rep.
Morin: What did your chemical rep say when you told him that you didn’t need his services anymore?
Zook: Well, that was an interesting summer. He used to come here every week telling me horror stories about all the diseases in the neighborhood. But, I had made up my made up my mind, “No mas.” He came back every week for eight weeks telling me what I needed to spray. I said, “I’m fine, thanks.” The last time he was here, we were out picking tomatoes and he walked over. He was looking around and talking about this and that, and he didn’t even mention pesticides. “Well,” he said, “your tomatoes look pretty good.” I thought, “Yes!”
Morin: One thing that I immediately noticed is how great everything smells here. Do you still smell it, or are you accustomed to it?
Zook: Oh, I smell it every time I come here. It’s exciting. Those aromas are actually compounds the plants produce to defend themselves from insects and disease attacks. A lot of people don’t realize that plants have immune systems.
Morin: So, you can smell health—can you can smell problems too?
Zook: Yes. There’s a real science to walking through a field and pausing to feel what the plants are feeling. There’s a huge difference between walking in this field and walking in one that has had six fungicide applications. The plants just don’t radiate that same vitality. Another thing I learned is that every time you spray with a fungicide or something, it’s actually suppressing the plant as well as the fungi.
Morin: The same way that antibiotics can weaken a person’s immune system?
Zook: Yes. It might kill the disease, but then because it has weakened the plant, a week later the plant is much more susceptible to that same disease again. That’s the way it is with miticide. If I come in here and spray the mites with it, it would kill some of them, but it kills by messing with their hormones, so the ones that do survive will then mature 50 percent faster. So, it’s pretty much guaranteed that I’d have a huge mite outbreak 10 years later. Instead of doing that, let’s figure out what this plant wants and provide it. They really do respond.
Morin: What else can you tell by looking at your plants?
Zook: Well, one thing we learn is to read the leaves. This asymmetry here indicates zinc deficiency. The spots over here indicate a phosphorus deficiency. And, this here rippling of the leaf usually indicates excess nitrogen.
Morin: Before you started with this method were you able to read the leaves?
Zook: You know, I barely noticed them at all. I just planted and sprayed. Now, it’s much more fun.

---

I find it hard to believe that none of these so-called "scientists" had thought of this before.


That leads me to my big question, one that kept me up for most of last night: if all that's needed is to promote self-defense in our produce, then why the hell are we allowing tons of POISON to be sprayed upon our produce and into our soil?


We've all heard of this purported "gluten intolerance". Is the truth really that we are being poisoned by pesticide residue that doesn't wash off and maintains itself until it reaches our gut and continues to disrupt bodily functions and cause imbalances?




Glyphosate, one of the many compounds used as a "pesticide", works by chelating minerals essential to growth and absorption.




That affects the viability of the plant, as well.




Research has proven beyond doubt that GMO varieties of produce lack the levels of nutrients that organic and conventional produce contains.




For all intents and purposes, you may as well be eating plastic versions of produce when you choose GMOs. Here is a repost of my observations after watching Genetic Roulette by Jeffery Smith:

The human body does not see GMOs as foodstuffs; instead, the "organisms" promote inflammation, disease, etc.

Crossing zones can create mutations in DNA

GMO "science" is equivalent to an episode of Gunsmoke (check out the method by which genes are "fired" into other organisms)

Pesticide-producing crops destroy the stomachs of insects - why do we believe that the stomachs of other organisms are immune to this?

"Scientific consensus" is equivalent to quackery

Long-term studies to gauge effects of GMOs on organisms were never performed

The FDA actually doesn't approve any GMO crops, and biotech firms are free to market their FrankenFoods as viable alternatives to naturally grown/organic crops

The biotech firms have "bad science" down to a science

The main ingredient in Monsanto's BT crops, Bacillus Thurgeniensis, breaks open stomach tissue - that is its primary function...so why would this affect only insects?

The bacteria (BT) in Roundup soybeans persisted in the human gut - this would seem to account for the increase in gastro-intestinal ailments in the last few decades

Food allergies/intolerances are caused by intestinal function disruption

35 years ago, there was no such thing as a "food allergy"

There is a relationship between GMOs and autism, though the firm link has not been established

Roundup functions as a deprivation agent (glyphosate is a chelator - it makes nutrients unavailable to the organism) - by definition, Roundup-ready crops have less nutritional value than conventional crops; Roundup can also affect the human body in the same way - those missing trace minerals adversely affect immune response

Glysophate is genotoxic

Fertility clinics now abound - once, they were scarce and unnecessary

The mystery organism discovered by Dr. Don Huber is transferable and heat-tolerant; in examining aborted fetal tissue, it exhibited the functions of a fungus but was the size of a virus

A number of testimonials from pet owners and from farms report adverse effects from GMO feed/pet foods, and the positive reactions once those GMOs are removed from their diets

Monsanto's rBGH ingredient IGF1 is linked to breast and prostate cancer - scientists performing these experiments later refused to ingest rBGH-laced milk

Children's immune systems are not prepared for GMOs - their young genes are mutable

The WIC Program that assists low-income families with essential supplies actually promote GMO baby formulae (including Similac, Enfamil, Gerber)

WHY GMOs? GMOs are a PRODUCT

Monsanto's true mission statement should read: "To take control of the world's foodstuffs and to marry them with our chemicals"

I didn't copy any of that from any website - those are my own words. I took some time to update some of my points with links.




So, once again, I ask - why are the purveyors of GMOs allowed to poison our produce and our soil with utterly unnecessary pesticides, when one could strengthen the immune systems of our produce instead, and give us all better produce with more benefits for you and I?




I think it's time for us to make that inquiry of Monsanto, BASF, Sygenta, Dow and all of the rest, and if we don't get a satisfactory answer, we need to SHUT THEM DOWN.

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.