User Answers


June 13, 2014 By Joseph P. Farrell

Yesterday I blogged about the recent decision in an Australian court against a farmer raising GMO crops on his fields, by a non-GMO farmer whose fields had been contaminated by the GMO crops brought to his field by processes of nature, causing him to lose his organic farming certification. The lesson of the suit is clear: big agribusiness giants can bring such suits against non-GMO farmers whose fields are found to have GMO crops present for whatever reason, and non-GMO farmers cannot bring such suits on similar grounds against the GMO farmer.

As noted in yesterday's blog, the "lawful" status of GMOs has been one of the principal means by which courts are maintaining such double standards in favor of "agribusiness". But the problem is, and increasingly is, that the "science" behind "lawful" is being challenged by other science. And of course, that is being ignored by courts and buried in advertising, sloganeering, and bribery in the form of political contributions from agribusiness.

Now, in the growing body of reports raising concerns about GMOs, there is this, shared with us by Mr. V.T.:

Genetic Engineers Agree: GMOs Neither Safe Nor Necessary

Note that in the revised and updated report, there are some significant new concerns:

  • "A review that is claimed by pro-GMO lobbyists to show that 1,700 studies show GM foods are as safe in fact shows nothing of the sort. Instead many of the 1,700 studies cited show evidence of risk. The review also excludes or glosses over important scientific controversies over GMO safety issues. (p. 102)
  • "A review purportedly showing that GM foods are safe on the basis of long-term animal studies in fact shows evidence of risk and uses unscientific double standards to reach a conclusion that is not justified by the data. (p. 161)
  • "A laboratory study in human cells shows that very low levels of glyphosate (the main chemical ingredient of Roundup herbicide, which most GM crops are engineered to tolerate) mimicked the hormone estrogen and stimulated the growth of breast cancer cells. The level of glyphosate that had this effect was below the level allowed in drinking water in Europe and far below the level allowed in the USA. It was also below the level found in GM glyphosate-tolerant soy, which is imported into Europe for animal feed and human food. If confirmed in animal studies, this finding would overturn regulatory assumptions of safe levels of glyphosate. (p. 221)
  • "A rat feeding study led by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, which found toxic effects from a GM maize and tiny amounts of the Roundup herbicide it is grown with, was retracted by a journal editor for unscientific reasons. Yet the study is far stronger and more detailed than many industry studies that are accepted as proof of safety for GMOs. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had to reject the study in order to protect its own previous opinions on this and other GMOs, for reasons explained in the report. The findings of this study, if confirmed, would overturn regulatory assumptions of safe levels of glyphosate and Roundup. (pp. 94, 147)" (Emphasis added)

Now we may add to this concern yet another new finding, linking birth defects and glyphosphate:

Monsanto's Darkest Secret: Roundup's Effect On The Fetus

In case you missed it, there is a clear indication of possible suppression of information here:

In 2010, after a dramatic increase in reports of birth defects in Argentina (a four-fold increase) since 2002, a lab study was performed that found low doses of the active ingredient in Roundup known as glyphosate, the most prevalent herbicide worldwide, causes birth defects in frog and chicken embryos. This study was followed by others demonstrating cardiac anomalies, embryonic death, and multifocal malformations suspected to be related to oxidized vitamin A toxicity caused by glyphosate. A more recent study in tropical fish has echoed this dose-related concern with harrowing outcomes:

survival and hatching percentage decreased as glyphosate concentration increased. Absence of pectoral fin(s) and cornea, permanently bent tail, irregular shaped abdomen, and cell disruption in the fin, head and abdomen are among the common teratogenic effects observed.

These studies represent only the tip of a vast, submerged iceberg of research, which clearly show glyphosate causes birth defects, and that the pesticide industry has known about for a surprisingly long period of time.

Earth Open Source, A group of independent scientists (think not paid to scientifically support corporations) published a compendium of literature that they called "Roundup and Birth Defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" stating, "The pesticide industry and EU regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s-1990s that Roundup, the world's best selling herbicide, causes birth defects – but they failed to inform the public."

But now, add to these purely scientific concerns, the geopolitical one. But for that, we'll have to wait until tomorrow.

See you on the flip side...