This artice - or rather, open letter to Mon(ster)santo - was shared by Ms. M.W., and it is, as they say, a "whopper doozie", which any reading of it will convince the reader. Here's the letter, from Mr. Steven Druker, an attorney, to the head of St. Louis based company:
While the whole letter makes for rather stunning - if not overwhelming - reading, there are two points that leaped off of page 4 of the pdf version; they are points 4 and 6:
4. Besides deceiving the public about the risks of GE foods, theFDA allowed them toenter the US market in blatant violation of federal food safety law–and they continue to be on the market illegally....
- Even if GE crops didn’t entail excessive risks, they would still not be the solution for meeting the world’s prospective food needs, which is clear from a major study on the future of farming sponsored by four United Nations agencies and the World Bank that concluded they are not necessary– and also from numerous studies in a variety of African nations demonstrating that safe and sustainable agroecological methods can outperform industrialized approaches (even when GMOs are employed).
Notably, the Mr. Druker's fourth point indicates that a massive illegality has been perpetrated which, if true, could open both the agribusiness industry and the government to legal pressures of an enormous scale. the sixth point highlights something we have blogged about before on this website, namely, the increasing amount of studies that indicate not only is their no increased productivity over the long term of GMOs vs non-GMO crops, that the cost-to-benefit ratio for farmers planing GMOs declines over time. This leads Mr. Druker to the crux of his letter: an open challenge to Mon(ster)santo - and hence to the entire agribusiness industry connected to GMOs (we have called it IG Farbensanto here):
"In that email, you stated: “I would be very pleased to provide you with any additional information.” The time has come to take you up on that offer. But I do not want to receive more of Monsanto’s misleading pronouncements that are passed off as genuine facts. Instead, I’m requesting some information that you had not planned to send. I want you to inform me of any inaccuracies you can find in my book. I want you and your colleagues to attempt to refute Altered Genes, Twisted Truth in the same manner this letter has refuted two of the main assertions in the brochure you submitted. Moreover, I challenge you to do so. I challenge you to read the book and send me a specific list of any inaccurate statements of fact that you detect in it, accompanied by an explanation of why the statement is erroneous and a reference to the evidence that conclusively corroborates your claim.
To clarify, I am referring to simple assertions about concrete facts that can be decisively falsified by incontestable evidence, such as the erroneous statements in your brochure that “every respected organization that has examined the evidence” has concluded that GE foods are as safe as naturally produced ones and that “there have been no documented safety issues.” I am not referring to the broader conclusions the book draws from the primary facts, such as the conclusions (a) that the GE food venture has been chronically and crucially reliant on deception and (b) that its products are unacceptably risky and should be banned. I fully expect that you will disagree with these conclusions, but I am confident that the vast majority of fair-minded men and women who become aware of the basic facts will agree with them.
I also invite the other proponents of GE foods within industry and academia to assist Monsanto by scrutinizing the book and sending you their input. In that way, the response that Monsanto submits will represent the best collective effort of the biotech industry and its supporters.(Emphasis added)
And Mr. Drucker goes on to make it very clear to the addleminded scientismists at Mon(ster)santo exactly what does, and does not, constitute a refutation:
If by July 20th you and your allies have not been able to refute the essential factual accuracy of Altered Genes, Twisted Truth according to the terms set forth above, the world will have a right to assume that it is as sound as the experts who reviewed it have affirmed – and to conclude that GE foods are unacceptably risky and must be banned.
I will send you (in a separate document) the address to which your response to this challenge should be submitted. That response will be posted on the book’s website and Facebook page and also on the website of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity.
Further, I will readily acknowledge (on the above sites) any genuine errors you point out and will correct them in the next printing of the book. Concomitantly, I expect that, if Monsanto is as committed to the scientific spirit as it professes to be, there will be a prompt public acknowledgement and retraction of the erroneous assertions this document has pointed out along with an honest attempt to set the record straight. Please send me the evidence that this has occurred. Moreover, as you read the book, you will discern many other inaccuracies that Monsanto has propagated, and I request that you likewise publicly acknowledge and correct them.
It is well-recognized that although we’re all entitled to our own opinions, no one is entitled to his or her own set of facts. And it is obvious that Monsanto and its allies have been propagating a distinctly different set of facts than are delineated in Altered Genes, Twisted Truth. Both versions of reality cannot be correct, and people have a right to know which one is valid and which is fictitious. The purpose of this challenge is to clearly and conclusively provide the answer.
Now it's interesting to note that Mr. Druker has given a date of July 20th for Mon(ster)santo to respond, and one can only assume that the silence thus far has been deafening, for what Mr. Druker is doing is demanding that real responses to claims be made, rather than merely engaging in a propaganda war. And by calling for other GMO giants to assist Mon(ster)santo, Mr. Druker is making it crystal clear that it is not just an industry that's on trial in the court of public opinion, it is the methods that industry pursued to legitimize and finesse the entrance of the GMO into the world's food supply. By appealing to the United Nations and other studies, he is challenging the notion that no "legitimate or respectable body" disagrees with the corporate-funded scientism studies backing GMOs.
Thus, I suspect, is one to watch, and so far, while it is still rather early, there do not appear to be any responses.
But we can guess why: Mr. Druker's book no doubt is being reviewed by attorneys, and the real name of the game now is that if any claims against the safety of GMOs can reasonably be made, then similarly, claims against GMO giants like Mon(ster)santo and Syncrudda and Duponzanto could come in the form of very different sorts of claims: lawsuits, not just health lawsuits, but lawsuits from all those farmers drug to courts by agribusiness companies for having been found to have fields with GMO crops growing on them through no fault or intention of their own, a practice documented in other books on the subject. In either case, attorneys are expensive. And costs will have to be passed on to the consumer by higher GMO prices. And higher GMO prices will make GMO seeds and corollary products more expensive vis-a-vis their natural non-GMO counterparts, and hence ultimately make them non-competetive and unprofitable.
See you on the flip side...