Yesterday I  blogged about how there has been a gradual quiet "pushback" from the BRICSA nations on the GMO issue, and how this might issue ultimately in calls for a GMO test ban treaty setting much stricter standards of inter-generational testing for such products than has been the case thus far. As most of you know, I pre-schedule blogs, usually a week, sometimes two or three weeks', in advance, and while I was composing yesterday's blog, Ms. M.W., a regular reader here, sent me the following profoundly disturbing article. Its importance, and why I am sharing it here in the context of yesterday's blog, will be immediately evident(and a deep thank you to Ms. M.W. for sharing it):

Monsanto's love Affair with synthetic biology

Let me point out three paragraphs in this article that caused my current Angst:

"Synthetic Genomics Inc. specializes in an extreme form of genetic engineering called synthetic biology. Instead of transferring genetic material from one species to another, synthetic bioengineering places new, synthetically created genetic material into microorganisms. SGI plans on using its franken-microbes for all sorts of applications including biofuels, renewable chemicals, vaccines and coal bed methane recovery. This technology is even newer than traditional genetic engineering, so it is still unclear how it would be proven safe and regulated. Today’s transgenic crops are at least permitted and commercialized through a three-agency regulatory process, albeit flawed. But these organisms would be tossed into a quagmire of federal regulatory programs involving at least seven agencies including the USDA, FDA, EPA, DOT, NIH, CDC and even the FBI due to biosecurity risks; making it more likely to fall through the bureaucratic cracks.

"What could this mean for the future of agricultural biotechnology? R&D from this agreement will likely fall under Monsanto’s agricultural biological platform BioDirect, which means Monsanto could be developing new, microbial pesticides that could be approved and sprayed on crops to fight weeds, insects and viruses. With further investment in and research with SGI, Monsanto will soon have the means to incorporate synthetic biology into its microbial pesticides without a defined regulatory pathway to check its development along the way.

"The attempt to disguise the use of synthetic biology in agriculture as “sustainable” is an egregious abuse of the word. Releasing microbes with novel traits and functions into the wild and onto our food crops could have devastating effects on the safety of our food and the quality of our environment."(emphasis added)

As most regular readers here, and as readers of the research of F.William Engdahl and others will already know, a "regulatory environment" that already was heavily weighted in a "pro-GMO" fashion, a "regulatory environment" that included a process of "science" that had been corrupted by financial pressures and even - as Engdahl recounts - late night phone calls between presidents and prime ministers is not an environment in which one can expect any reasonable common sense to prevail. The relative lack of adequate inter-generational testing had to be pointed out by Russia, which with many other nations is strictly curtailing GMO usage and planting until real science can be undertaken.

In this same corrupted mercantilist atmosphere, we are now being implicitly asked to trust the already corrupted bought-and-paid for US government, its corrupted agencies, and a bought-and-paid for Congress. We're being asked to trust the human food supply to this chain of greed.

The real consequence here could be geopolitical, for such laxity is inevitably going to provoke a backlash of regulation from countries already looking askance at the whole GMO issues, and the processes of regulation in the USSA.... in this context, a GMO "test ban" treaty of sorts could become a reality, a kind of quarantine against US and western GMO products... At the minimum, one can expect some sort of reaction from the BRICSA nations and even, as we know, from concerned European nations. There will be the usual bland US reassurances, which, as most people are probably aware of, will be hypocritcly ignored by the US government, agribusiness corporations, or both. In other words...

...This merger just dramatically raised the stakes, and if they're paying attention at all in Brasilia, New Delhi, Johannesburg, Beijing, or Moscow(and I suspect they are), it may be time to consider to that "GMO test ban treaty"...

See you on the flip side.

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. henry on April 22, 2014 at 2:09 pm

    In January 2014, Professor Yuan Longping or “Father of Hybrid Rice” said in an interview that genetically modified food is the future direction of food and that he had been working on genetic modification of rice.
    At present, as many as 50 percent of China’s total rice fields grow his hybrid rice species and yield 60 percent of the rice production in China. Given the man’s enormous influence on agriculture in China, his opinion on “GMO” is likely to be taken into consideration by the central government.
    In that interview, while he cited a fact that three-fourths of the soybeans currently consumed by China are produced by the U.S., as to make his point “GMO is the future direction of food”, he also said “one shouldn’t make generalizations”.
    He further explained that, “what have caused people to worry are disease and pest resistance genes or toxic proteins”.
    Presumably referring to substances found in Monsanto’s herbicide and pesticide, as pointed out by a recent article by William Engdahl.

    With regard to “GMO”, what professor Yuan has in his mind is quite different from foreign imported ones. He’s trying to find a way to introduce C4 gene from maize into rice, to increase photosynthesis by 30-50%, thus to increase the crop’s yield. Understandably, during the interview, the professor questioned,”what’s wrong with eating this kind of ‘GMO’?”, since some people from the anti-GM crowd tend to slam both foreign and domestic GMOs as the same when it comes to health related issues. Which isn’t really a scientific assumption given the fact no one has ever tried Yuan’s genetically modified “corn-rice” since its still in the research phase.

    Nevertheless, Yuan did say he would like to see the day his “hybrid-rice” can be recognized by the outside world where half of the world’s rice paddies can taste the benefit of his works, he has even made suggestion to the Chinese government to set up agriculture companies for that.

    The signs are “GMO” is likely to be adopted in China, but the long term application of the technique is quite different from the GMOs under Monsanto.

    Another long term planning concerning agriculture is “The Space Breeding Program”. Begining in the 80s, variety of vegetation have been sent to space, including species of crops, vegetables, fruits, herbs and species for reforestation even preventing extinction. By exposing the seeds and plants to the environment of cosmic rays,microgravity,high vacuum and weak magnetic field etc,the ultimate goal is to emulate these environment on earth. Totally different approach when compared to “Monsanto science”.
    It’s also worth mentioning that the COSTIND is directly involved in the program, the Chinese counterpart of DARPA of the USA. Which means the long term agriculture planning is sort of a “national defense issue”.

  2. marcos toledo on April 22, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    A new image of Uncle Sam would be The Godfather or a drug dealer selling his poisons out of the back of his truck. Or as the the pipe piper with all the pressitutes, congressitutes, scientistitutes following behind him mesmerized by his tune. Welcome to Zombie World everyone ban GMOs save the world.

  3. DanaThomas on April 22, 2014 at 9:25 am

    Maybe we would all feel a lot better if all the Board Members (and of course the Chief Scientists) of these corporations personally tested the wonderful synthetic constructs, liberally sprinkled on their meals every day for a few years…

  4. Robert Barricklow on April 22, 2014 at 8:45 am

    It used to be that the weakness of biological warfare was blowback(literally & figuratively). But now; with biological instruments of precision and the ability to use manufactured “genes” not of, or from “mother nature;, a brave new actor is being prepared for a “Father Knows Best” entrance on the global managed perception-set-stage. Like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War on Cancer; this will be but another of those “Staged Wars” that are, in reality(all fantasy worldviews aside), A War On The People.
    This surgically precision hardware/software can be designed to “hit/strike” specific targets: Race, Geographic Zones, Age Groups, even considering the possibilities of altering the human genome to withstand a toxic chemical onslaught, or…?

    – this new “bag of tricks” is a devil’s brew of…?

  5. Aridzonan_13 on April 22, 2014 at 8:41 am

    GMO is something out of a comic book. But, I’m not laughing. Fortunately, the majority of the rest of the world has drawn a line in the sand on GMO’s. The MSM is once again the main culprit for selling this threat as sheeple friendly. Unfortunately, we have all had a taste. Labeling laws in the US are shite at best and criminal on average. Market forces are working after a several year GMO head start. How, MonSantano, ADM and others have gotten away with this karma free for about a decade floors me. If we’re lucky, the organic food movement will roll back the damage that has been done. However, who knows what the long term consequences are for ingesting these Thern-esque engineered concoctions.

  6. Reno on April 22, 2014 at 6:39 am

    Vermont’s senate recently passed a GMO labeling bill by 26 to 2. They also set up a “fund” to deal with the expected lawsuits. The legislature route seems a better way to go then the “referendum” as the population is spared the anti-labeling commercial bombardment. In WA state the food industry’s commercials paraded out a string of “small” and/or organic “farmers” who looked like 60’s hippies who swore labeling would put them out of business. The industry also pushed hard the “higher food price” angle. The referendum route seems doomed to fail in high population states like NY since the couch potato’s mind can be easily funneled into an anti- labeling vote, and where the “opposition” to GMO’s run rather lame campaigns, as the case in WA. Also in CA there were suspicions of vote rigging. In smaller states like VT, it appears a higher % of the population is better informed even though less affluent in general.

    • justawhoaman on April 22, 2014 at 7:18 am

      It is not just that Vermont is a small, generally rural state. Don’t forget that Bernie Sanders is their Senator. Vermont is a unique blend of New England farmers, the type where there are no dead farm implements appearing like sculptures in weed infested fields, but very efficient, frugal conservatives who pretty much keep to themselves. When land values were still low, hippies in the 60’s also moved to the beautiful countryside of Vermont to grow organic products and raise their families. Then there are the elites from NYC who have fled to Vermont for its beauty and its blend of organics and its low key progressive university environments. These people drove up land prices, created boutique-style subrubs, and sought to be the last ones to move there. It is the rural farm land that provides the backdrop to the best ski mountains in New England/NY, farmers markets are everywhere and people are actually aware of the dangers (especially the inherent battles that organic farmers have faced in Vermont against Monstersanto, et al). Finding organically grown produce in Vermont is not difficult; in fact, you might have a harder time finding GMO products there.

      • Reno on April 22, 2014 at 12:33 pm

        Bernie Sanders votes with the democrats 98% of the time; what’s independent about that? VT has its strong points but many residents are trapped in its low wage serf economy that parasites off the college stdts and Canadian tourists. What has Bernie done about that?. He was Mayor of Burlington during its intense gentrification phase and did NOTHING to slow it down. When it rains hard Lake Champlain is still flooded with human crap. I am sure COSTCO sells a GMO product or two.

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events