Professor David Schubert wrote this important article calling for a ban on the use of Monsanto’s Roundup as an herbicide. As the evidence of harm continues to mount, lawyers are beginning to take notice of these scientific studies. Please read and share.
An important new study shows that the most widely used agricultural herbicide on the planet has the potential to cause non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in rats at extremely low levels of exposure. Published in Scientific Reports, a journal in the prestigious Nature portfolio, the study shows that the weed killer, Roundup, causes a serious liver disease in rats at a concentration greatly below that found in the bodies of most Americans.
About one third of US residents are affected by NAFLD, which results from the accumulation of fat in the liver, causing an inflammatory response that can damage the liver and other organs. While NAFLD causes no symptoms in most people, it can lead to liver cirrhosis and cancer. The known risk factors are diabetes or the metabolic syndrome manifested by high cholesterol, insulin resistance, elevated serum lipids, and obesity. But these risk factors alone may not explain the increasing prevalence of NAFLD – it is much more common in young people than in past decades, and liver cancer among Americans has increased almost three-fold since the 1980s.
In the world of drug development, in which I am a participant, before a drug is allowed into the clinic, it must be carefully screened in animals such as rats to determine if it shows toxic effects at the exposure levels where it is expected to be effective in humans. If any toxicity is observed, the drug is not allowed. In addition, once approved, signs of toxicity in patients must be monitored and reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). One would hope that this would also be the case with prevalent agricultural chemicals, but it is not.
In theory, all agricultural chemicals in the US are tested for safety under the guidance of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, the testing is done under the supervision of the manufacturer, not the government agency; it is not made public; and in essentially all cases animal exposure is only to the active ingredient, not the mixture of chemicals that are in the formulation and required for its effective application.
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, is not only used to kill weeds, but it is essential for the successful cultivation of most genetically modified (GM) crops that are in our food supply. Another major source of human exposure is from cereal grains, for glyphosate-based herbicides are sprayed on these crops to kill and desiccate them before harvest. As with GM soy and corn, glyphosate is incorporated into the grain and cannot be washed off. The World Health Organization’s cancer research agency IARC has determined that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen, and there are many published manuscripts by independent academic scientists suggesting its toxicity.
Glyphosate is now found in most, if not all, non-organic food products. It is readily detected in the blood and urine of most Americans. From a public health perspective, the question has always been whether or not the amounts found in people are a cause for concern. The data in this new study in Scientific Reports suggests that the answer is a definitive yes.
Using the same strain of rats that the FDA requires for its drug toxicology studies and state of the art analytical technology, Dr. Mesnage and his colleagues showed that exposing the animals to Roundup at concentrations of glyphosate a thousand times lower than allowable limits in food and drinking water, and even lower than that found in the urine of most Americans, caused changes in the liver that had all of the molecular signatures of NAFLD. It is highly unlikely that the FDA would allow a drug that is this toxic to rats to be given to humans.
An important aspect of this study is that the rats were exposed to Roundup for about two-thirds of their three year lifespan, starting at five weeks of age. We know from the examination of young children in the mid-western part of the US that they have very high levels of glyphosate in their bodies. This contamination will persist throughout life as long as there is such a high level of environmental exposure from food, water and even air in areas where it is sprayed.
The current situation with glyphosate-based herbicides is directly analogous to those of DDT, asbestos, lead and tobacco, where industries were able to block regulatory actions for many years by perpetually muddying the waters with false data, resulting in large numbers of unnecessary deaths. However, in the case of glyphosate, both the US EPA and the European Union are currently considering the fate of this environmental toxin because its current authorization has expired.
In summary, this peer-reviewed study shows that a glyphosate based herbicide, Roundup, causes a serious liver disease in rats at a concentration greatly below that found in the bodies of most Americans. Based upon its long-term toxicity and the likelihood that it will have similar effects on humans as it has in rodents, it is time to eliminate this herbicide. This can be initiated at the local level by not buying products containing glyphosate to kill weeds; at the federal level by engaging the EPA; and internationally through the World Health Organization, the first organization with courage enough to stand up to agricultural chemical companies and publicize the toxicity of this herbicide to humans.
This article is written by Jonathan Latham, PhD with permission to share at robynobrien.com. Latham’s full bio is below.
Who would have thought that at Cornell University, arguably the most highly regarded agricultural university in the world, no scientist would speak for the benefits and safety of GMOs?
Perhaps I should have known, however. Last year I was invited to debate the merits of GMOs at Colby College in Maine. Also invited were food activist Jodi Koberinski, Stephen Moose (University of Illinois), and Mark Lynas of the Cornell Alliance for Science and prominent advocate of GMOs worldwide. Soon after Lynas heard I was coming, however, he pulled out of the debate.
It’s not the first time. Most memorably, in 2001, I attended a court case in which the British government abandoned prosecution of two of its citizens who had pulled up GMOs planted for a scientific experiment. The government preferred to lose the case rather than have the science of GMOs inspected by the judicial system. The defendants were duly and unanimously acquitted, with the judge describing them as the kind of people he would like to invite to dinner.
This avoidance of public debate is part of a pattern and the reasons are simple: in any fair fight, the arguments for the safety and benefits of GMOs fail.
As I have discussed elsewhere, there are strong scientific reasons to doubt the safety of GMO crops. The arguments against them are not limited to the dramatic increases in pesticide use they have engendered. GMOs also created the massive and dangerous consolidation being seen in the agriculture and seed sectors and have greatly reduced options available to farmers. Remarkably, they even yield less.
Most recently, the scientific literature has yielded new concerns over the predicted widespread use of a new generation of GMO crops resistant to the herbicide 2,4-D (Lurquin, 2016). These crops resist the herbicide by breaking it down into a known toxic metabolite called 2,4-DCP and other derivatives that probably remain in the crop until harvest. As the paper states:
“Unfortunately, much reduced phytotoxicity does not necessarily mean that…2,4-D resistant crop plants are safe for consumption. Indeed, 2,4-DCP is cytotoxic to a variety of animals and animal cell lines.” (Lurquin, 2016).
In the final analysis, almost everyone loses from GMOs, except the makers themselves. These harms are often hidden or obfuscated, but in an unbiased debate they cannot be. Proponents of GMOs thus find themselves defending the indefensible and sometimes they collapse into blustering idiocy.
What makes this event particularly noteworthy is that Cornell University is the home of the Cornell Alliance for Science, an organisation funded by the Gates Foundation and by agribusiness to the tune of $5.6million. The purported mission of the Cornell Alliance is to explain the science underlying biotechnology and GMOs. Yet the Alliance has refused to offer a speaker despite numerous requests from Robert Schooler the student organiser of the discussion. Neither, despite numerous direct emails, was Robert able to find Cornell faculty prepared to defend them. So he asked the Dean of its College of Agriculture, Kathryn Boor. She declined to find someone—though she “wished him luck”. Much the same applied to other notable public GMO proponents (Karl Haro von Mogel and Jon Entine of the Genetic Literacy Project). This usually vociferous duo initially accepted subject to funding. When it was offered they backed out.
Anticipating some of this reluctance I reached out to Robb Fraley, Monsanto’s chief technology officer and publicist-in-chief, and to Mark Lynas, who has a position at Cornell, and to Kevin Folta via his blog. Kevin Folta is the go-to travelling academic of the GMO industry. Folta didn’t respond but Lynas said he was abroad. Promoting GMOs perhaps? The only Cornell academic who did respond positively was Joe Regenstein of the Food Science dept. However, his conditions (no “debate” and to request the moderator) were declined by Robert Schooler. Robert Schooler also did not want only one speaker on one side.
So did anyone debate Michael Hanson (of the Consumers Union) and Jonathan Latham, PhD at Cornell University on October 5th at 7pm in Anabel Taylor Hall? They invited anyone who had a PhD in a relevant field and wished to defend GMOs, even offering to fund the travel. It looks like the scientists refused to show up to debate the benefits and safety of GMOs. Maybe the new policy is “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Biotech proponents’ claims that the debate over the safety of genetically modified foods is settled is wrong, according to Sheldon Krimsky, co-editor of the new book, The GMO Deception: What You Need to Know about the Food, Corporations, and Government Agencies Putting Our Families and Our Environment at Risk.
As its title suggests, the book takes a very critical look at GM foods with articles written by leading scientists, educators, and environmentalists. Articles cover the whole range of the GMO debate from human and environmental health, labeling, and corporate control of agriculture to regulation, sustainability, and ethics.
Krimsky has sounded warnings about the risks of GM foods since the 1980s. He has written or edited 13 books that provide a critical examination of breaking issues in science and technology. He is also chairman of the Council for Responsible Genetics, which fosters public debate about the social, ethical, and environmental implications of genetic technologies.
Krimsky is the Carol Zicklin Visiting Professor of Philosophy at Brooklyn College, the Lenore Stern Professor of Humanities and Social Sciences at Tufts University, and adjunct professor in the Department of Public Health and Community Medicine at the School of Medicine at Tufts University.
What led to the publishing of the GMO Deception?
Sheldon Krimsky: Claims were being made that the health effects of genetically modified foods were resolved. The only issue was public perception.
But when I investigated the scientific literature, I found more than a dozen studies showing negative health impacts, and these have to be addressed. You can’t just throw them away.
When dealing with risks, it’s not about having more studies showing no harm than ones showing harm. One negative outcome is worth 99 positive outcomes because many positive outcomes are funded by industry.
When you want to prove something is safe, you have to set conditions that are most likely to find effects. When developing a new airplane, you don’t just fly at normal conditions; you fly at extreme conditions. In the same way, you have to test GMOs under more extreme conditions in order to have confidence that they are safe.
Unfortunately, every time a scientist shows an adverse effect (from GMOs), that scientist is vilified. We saw this most recently with (Professor Gilles-Eric) Séralini (who published a study showing negative impacts to rats fed GM corn and Roundup herbicide). The things that have been done to him are unprecedented in the history of science. Retracting a paper after a year when the editors initially supported the reviewers and retracting it because “the results are not definitive” is not really valid in the ethics of science. Based on that criterion a great amount of published work would also be retracted.
How did you gather the material for the book? What were your criteria for inclusion in the book?
SK: We tried to piece together good articles from the past with good recent articles.
The articles are written by well-respected scientists and environmental activists. There is a preface by Ralph Nader, and an introduction to the science of genetic engineering by John Fagan.
There are segments in the book that deal with environmental impacts. I published a book in 1996, Agricultural Biotechnology and the Environment, when the biotechnology industry was just starting. We raised the issue of herbicide resistant weeds; that if glyphosate were used ubiquitously, then weeds would become resistant to it. That is what has happened.
Readers of the book can see what scientists are saying and raising questions that aren’t raised in the media.
What are you trying to achieve with the book?
SK: I hope that readers of the book develop their own skepticism when they read articles from mainstream press, such as the Wall Street Journal, that have been persistent in calling skeptics luddites and don’t know what they are talking about.
The agricultural biotech business has tried to construct the science for its commercial interests. There is a lack of recognition of studies that don’t conform to their point of view and a vilification of scientists who produce results they don’t like.
Chapter three is a conversation with Árpád Pusztai (who conducted research showing negative impacts to rats fed GM potatoes), an internationally respected scientist and expert on lectins. He was literally driven out of the United Kingdom and lost his job. The things said about him were unconscionable. That story needs to be told.
What concerns do you have about genetically modified foods?
SK: The fact that we have been eating GM corn and soy for 15 years doesn’t convince me that they are safe. We had lead and PCBs in our environment for 40 to 50 years. You don’t determine something is safe by forcing it in the consumer market and then waiting a number of years to say it’s safe.
It is true that people aren’t keeling over. That’s all we’ve shown with the introduction of GM corn and soy.
But there are many ways that GMOs can affect consumers other than an immediate effect. They can produce chronic effects on the immune system and reduce or increase nutrients in food products. We need to know if we are getting the same nutrients from GM corn as from conventional or organic corn. We need to have transparency.
When scientists face controversy, they go to the literature review. I did this. I looked at articles on GMOs and health effects. I found seven from 2008 to 2014. I found that there was disagreement in the review articles. Reviewers arrived at different conclusions. One review article said that animals fed GM crops died. One or two said there were no problems, and several said there were problems.
To argue that there is no controversy left in this field is nonsense. That is what I found by going deep in the literature. You can’t just write it away.
The tobacco industry used to say that cancer is not caused from smoking; that it must be something else.
Skepticism is a really important part of being scientist. To say there is no controversy left and use a preexisting notion of what is safe and apply that to every product is not the way we do science.
Biotech proponents claim the technology is precise. Do you agree with that claim?
SK: When you put a gene into a plant genome you don’t know where it will go. It could cause gene expression of one part to rise or to diminish.
There are circumstances when you don’t want gene expression to rise. There are toxic effects in a plant that you don’t want to rise, but it could happen with GMOs.
We eat certain plants for their nutrient value. An inserted gene could cause gene expression for a nutrient to go down.
It’s a lot more complex than saying I fed it to the mouse and it survived. It’s a very simplistic view of what’s safe and not safe.
This week, I received a note from my local Congressman’s office. His team wanted to make sure that I’d seen it. To try to put into words my gratitude for this man will be tough. He’s been a leader on this issue for years.
Congressman Jared Polis sent the following letter to his constituents about the recent GMO labeling bill passed through both houses of Congress despite massive public opposition. Thank you, Congressman Polis, for what you do for American families and children.
Dear Friend:
Last Friday, I was disappointed to see President Obama sign a bill that overturns food labeling laws in Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The standard set this by this new federal law will actually provide consumers with less information than the state laws it supersedes.
While this Monsanto-backed bill was packaged as a “reasonable” way to label GMOs, it actually infringes on states’ rights by preempting local laws and allows corporations to disclose information using QR codes—an inaccessible technology. I offered a “truth in advertising” amendment to reflect the spirit of a prior version of the bill by renaming it the Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act, since all this legislation does is keep Americans in the dark.
GMO labeling is about transparency, but this bill undermines that concept by allowing QR codes or digital web links to be an approved means of disclosing whether a product contains GMOs.
For approximately 1/3 of the American public who don’t own a smartphone, or the many Americans living in rural areas without reception in their grocery store, the QR code is not an effective method of disclosure. Having a smartphone should not be a prerequisite to obtaining information about what ingredients are in the food you eat. Consumers deserve what they expect: information conveyed in clear text, or a widely recognizable symbol. QR codes and web links are just not an adequate solution.
The labeling conversation centers on consumer access to information. From consumers who applaud the cutting-edge science behind GMOs, to those who might have environmental, ethical, or health concerns with their development, there should be clearly labeled products for everyone. That’s what a free market is all about. But a free market depends on accessible information. Consumers deserve to know what’s in their food, plain and simple.
Despite the passage of this bad bill, I am committed to working in Congress to defend your right to know what’s in your food.
I’m always eager for your input and your ideas. Please don’t hesitate to email me, call one of my offices, or send me a note through Facebook or Twitter.
On July 29, the DARK Act went into effect as President Obama quietly signed the bill despite hundreds of thousands of us asking him not to. This means the GMO labeling many of us across the country have seen on products could soon disappear.
But the fight doesn’t end here. The Center for Food Safety will be filing a federal lawsuit in the next two weeks asking a court to declare the law unconstitutional on a number of grounds and to restore our democratically decided upon labeling laws.
This will be a major battle to defend the rights of consumers and farmers to choose to avoid GMO foods and seeds. Once again, CFS’s legal and science team will be taking on the world’s most powerful industrial food and chemical corporations and their highly paid lawyers.
The Center for Food Safety is used to waging successful legal battles against powerful forces. As a result of past CFS litigation and other efforts, they have stopped numerous GMO crops from being introduced and commercialized; defended county GMO crop bans; banned GMOs from all National Wildlife Refuges in the U.S.; and many other victories protecting our food, our health, and our environment.
As we know, the DARK Act is a legislative train wreck. It preempts the GMO labeling laws of Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut, as well as seed and GMO fish labeling laws. In place of these laws, the bill gives the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) two years to establish standards for GMO labeling allowing companies and producers to use “digital” labeling (a.k.a QR codes) and 1-800 numbers to label food products that contain GMOs.
The idea that consumers would have to call or use their phones on each and every product they buy is absurd. And since more than 100 million Americans, mostly the rural elderly and low income, do not even own smartphones, they will not even have access to the digital labeling the law promotes. What’s worse, the law’s narrow definition would exclude many, and perhaps most, current foods containing GMO ingredients from any form of labeling.
CFS has no intention of letting this anti-democratic, discriminatory, fake labeling bill stand. But in all of their battles to defend our democratic rights and protect farmers and communities, they perform all of their legal work free of charge. In these lawsuits, CFS in-house attorneys and scientists spend many thousands of hours arguing these cases all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Private law firms would charge many millions of dollars for this amount of legal work and expertise. Even working on public interest salaries, these cases cost CFS hundreds of thousands of dollars in work and expenses.
We know this is a fight worth fighting, and they need our help.
Inside your belly is a thriving bacterial world, an eco-system commonly known as the ‘microbiome.’ It’s filled with bacteria—trillions of them, in fact—all going about their daily business of keeping you well. Without you’re being aware of it, they’re busily breaking down food; extracting nutrients; producing vitamins and brain chemicals; fending off microbial invaders; protecting you from disease; and performing hundreds of tasks essential to keeping your systems functioning optimally.
Problem is, few of us reach adulthood with our microbiome in the best of shape—it’s picked up a few dents and dings along the way, from gut-busters like drugs and antibiotics, junk food, GMOs, conventionally or factory farmed meats and other assaults on our inner ecology.
All of the things that impair our microbiome disrupt gut health as well. We’ve come to think of digestive symptoms as normal—doesn’t “everyone” have a bit of gas or bloating?—but, in fact, these symptoms can be the first signs of a microbiome that’s gone off the rails. A damaged microbiome can’t nourish the gut wall. The result—increased intestinal permeability or “leaky gut, ” —in which the one-cell thick, tightly woven net of cells lining the gut loosen, creating spaces that allow bacteria, toxins and pieces of the partially digested food to “leak” through. This ‘prison break’ triggers system-wide inflammation that can produce symptoms almost anywhere in the body.
In my book, repairing a leaky gut and protecting your microbiome, is one of the most important things you can do to sustain health. Fortunately, there are a number of ways to do it—and here’s where to start:
1. Avoid Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Whenever Possible
Why? Because we simply don’t know enough about what negative impact they may have on our bodies in the long-term. To find out which genetically modified foods to avoid, see the Non-GMO Project’s list.
2. Avoid Sweet and Starchy Foods
They feed the bad bacteria in your gut causing overgrowth that overwhelms the good bacteria and upsetting the bacterial balance, which in turn effects how well your microbiome functions.
3. Avoid Junk Food and Processed Foods
These “foods” have been altered and modified and are detrimental to the microbiome—they contain trans fats, additives, preservatives, GMO corn, GMO soy or industrial seed oils.
4. Avoid Preservatives and Artificial Ingredients
Lousy for your body, lousy for your microbiome. ‘Nuff said!
5. Avoid Gluten
This is a compound protein found in wheat, rye, barley, and some other grains, as well as in soy sauce, seitan, beer, and many packaged and processed foods. For many people, gluten is irritating to the gut, triggering the immune system to fight back by launching an inflammatory response.
6. Avoid Conventionally Farmed Meat, Poultry, Dairy Products, and Eggs
The majority of them contain antibiotics and hormones, and the animals were likely raised on genetically modified corn or soy feed, none of which support the health of your microbiome.
7. Avoid Pharmaceutical Antibiotics (if Possible)
We do sometimes need them, but pharmaceutical antibiotics kill indiscriminately, wiping out bacteria, both good and bad. Use herbal “antibiotics” (anti-microbial herbs) whenever possible, as they seem to kill the unfriendly bacteria while leaving the good guys alone.
8. Avoid Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPI’s)
Research has shown that people who regularly take these acid blocking drugs, (such as Nexium, Prevacid, Prilosec and Aciphex), have less microbial diversity, putting them at increased risk for infections.
9. Avoid Artificial Sweeteners
Not only do they disrupt your microbiome, but they also trigger cravings—setting off a vicious cycle for those trying to avoid sweets.
10. Add Fermented Foods to Your Diet
Incorporate regularly—a few servings a week of sauerkraut, kefir (fermented milk), kimchee (Korean fermented cabbage), or fermented vegetables. Fermented foods contain natural bacteria that also protect your microbiome.
11. Incorporate Prebiotics Into Your Diet
Prebiotics are foods that contain the fiber on which friendly bacteria feed, including tomatoes, garlic, onions, radishes, leeks, asparagus, and Jerusalem artichokes.
12. Eat the Stalks
These tough parts of veggies, like the stalks of broccoli, the bottoms of asparagus and the stringy bits of celery contain cellulose fibers, which the good bacteria feed on.
13. Buy Your Produce From a Farm Stand
Produce from a local farm (as opposed to a supermarket), probably has travelled a shorter distance and has more nutrients and dirt on it (and therefore bacteria).
14. Take a Daily Probiotic
This is a capsule or powder containing friendly bacteria that can replenish your own microbiome. Taking a probiotic is especially important if you are taking antibiotics.
15. Get a Water Filter
Although chlorination of municipal tap water may have been successful at eliminating water borne diseases, it is probably negatively affecting good bacteria too. Chlorine in tap water is known to kill microbes in soil. The chances are, its killing microbes in your gut too.
16. Move and Meditate!
Meditation and exercise are wonderfully healthy ways to help decompress and blow off steam, so gift your body with regular doses of both. Developing a yoga practice takes care of both.
17. Sleep Well!
Another essential habit: getting enough restorative sleep. Your gut, your body, and your brain need rest to repair and refresh themselves, so indulge in a regular 7-8 hour nightly session!
To read more on how to keep your microbiome on an even keel and support your gut health, check out 10 Tips for a Happy Healthy Belly.
An excellent perspective on how GMO “science” is pushed in universities today.
My name is Robert, and I am a Cornell University undergraduate student. However, I’m not sure if I want to be one any more. Allow me to explain.
Cornell, as an institution, appears to be complicit in a shocking amount of ecologically destructive, academically unethical, and scientifically deceitful behavior. Perhaps the most potent example is Cornell’s deep ties to industrial GMO agriculture, and the affiliated corporations such as Monsanto. I’d like to share how I became aware of this troubling state of affairs.
Throughout my secondary education, I’ve always had a passion for science. In particular, physics and mathematics captured my fascination. My sophomore AP physics teacher, Mr. Jones, became my main source of motivation to succeed. He convinced us students that our generation was crucial to repairing humanity’s relationship to science, and how we would play key roles in solving immense global issues, such as climate change. Thank you Mr. Jones! Without your vision, I would have never had the chance to attend such an amazing university.
I came to Cornell as a freshman, deeply unaware of our current GMO agriculture paradigm, and my university’s connection to it. After two years of school, however, I was reluctant to continue traditional study. I never felt quite at ease, jumping through hoops, taking classes and tests that didn’t inspire me, in exchange for a piece of paper (degree) that somehow magically granted me a superior life. I know many undergraduates fit right in with the university education model, and that’s fantastic. I certainly didn’t, and my mental and physical health began to suffer as a result. I was left with no choice but to take a leave of absence, and pursue another path.
Instead, I began to self-study nutrition out of pure necessity. Luckily, I found Cornell Professor Emeritus T. Colin Campbell’s legendary epidemiological research on nutrition and human disease. His evidence was so clear that I quickly transitioned to a plant-based diet. This personal dietary shift had profound benefits, dispelled my depression, and led me to a deep fascination with the precursor to nutrition: agriculture. I became particularly interested in agroecology. I was astonished to learn that there existed alternatives to chemical-intensive, corporate-controlled models of agriculture, and that they were far safer, more effective, and more sustainable. During my time away from Cornell, I participated in three unique seasons of agroecological crop production, with incredible results. I am immensely grateful for these experiences.
It’s impossible to study and practice agroecology without becoming deeply aware of the other end of the spectrum: the genetic modification of our food supply, ruled by giant agribusiness corporations.
Currently, the vast majority of US commodity crops (corn, soy, alfalfa, sugar beet) are genetically engineered to either withstand Roundup herbicide or produce Bt toxin pesticide. These “technologies” are ecologically damaging and unsafe. The majority of these crops go to feed animals in factory farms. The remainder generally gets converted into corn syrup, white sugar, vegetable oil, or biofuels — you know, good stuff! This combined approach of growing GMO commodity monoculture crops, and feeding them to factory-farmed livestock, is one of the most ecologically destructive forces our planet has ever seen. It’s also a leading contributor to climate change. In fact, some experts believe it to be the leading cause.
As Professor T. Colin Campbell will tell you, the foods that come from this system (animal products and processed foods) are responsible for causing the vast majority of chronic disease. That’s a story for another day.
Cornell’s GMO Propaganda Campaign
I came back to Cornell a changed person, with a drastically different perspective. I was in for quite a shock, however: I sat in on a course entitled “The GMO Debate.” I was expecting members of an intellectual community coming together, with proponents and critics of GMO food each giving the best verified evidence they had to support their cause. Given all that I had learned about GMO agriculture, I was excited to participate for the “GMO skeptic” side.
The GMO Debate course, which ran in the fall of 2015, was a blatant display of unscientific propaganda in an academic setting. There were a total of 4 active professors in the course, and several guest speakers. They took turns each session defending industrial agriculture and biotechnology with exactly zero critical examination of GMOs. In spite of the course’s name, there was a complete lack of actual “debate.” Here are some of the more memorable claims I heard that fall semester:
GMO food is necessary to feed the world
there is no instance of harm from agricultural GMOs
glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is safer than coffee and table salt
if you believe in science, you must believe in GMO technology
the science of genetic engineering is well understood
“what off-target effects?” … when asked about the proven biochemical risks of GE technology
Vitamin A rice is curing children of Vitamin A deficiency (even though the IRRI, the research institute responsible for rolling it out, says it won’t be ready for some years: http://goo.gl/mHcsoJ)
Current pesticides and herbicides don’t pose an ecological or human health risk
Bt is an organic pesticide, therefore Bt GMO crops are safe and pose no additional risk
Bt crops work just fine — but we are now engineering insects as a complementary technology — to make the Bt work better
“Are you scared of GMO insects? Because you shouldn’t be.”
GMO crops are the most rigorously tested crops in the history of food
“If [renowned environmentalist] Rachel Carson were alive today, she would be pro-GMO”
It gets better. During the semester, emails were released following a Freedom of Information Act request, showing that all four of the professors in the class, as well as several guest speakers, the head of Cornell’s pro-GMO group “Alliance for Science,” and the Dean of the College of Arts and Life Sciences were all copied in on emails with Monsanto. This was part of a much larger circle of academics promoting GMO crops on behalf of the biotech industry. Jonathan Latham PhD, virologist and editor of independentsciencenews.org, documented this in an article titled “The Puppetmasters of Academia.” I highly recommend giving it a read, for further context.
Perhaps saddest of all was the inclusion of several visiting African agriculture-academics in the course. They were brought here by the “Cornell Alliance for Science”. This organization was completely funded by a $5.6 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and appears to espouse only pro-GMO rhetoric. For those of you who are unaware, Bill Gates is a proponent of using agricultural biotechnology in Africa, India, and other developing regions. So in essence, a group of African representatives got indoctrinated into the industrial and GMO agriculture framework, and were sent home to disseminate this information … after all, who could question the expertise of an Ivy League powerhouse such as Cornell?
I then learned of Cornell’s deep historic ties to the biotech industry, which explained what I witnessed in the “GMO Debate” course. Notable examples include the invention of both the controversial bovine growth hormone, and the particle bombardment (“gene gun”) method of creating GMO crops. Both of these cases are connected to Monsanto.
To say the least, I was completely stunned.
What I’m going to do about all of this
You didn’t think I was just going to complain about a pro-GMO, industry-sponsored Cornell all day, did you? Good, because I have come up with a plan to create actual, lasting change on campus.
A student-led, expert-backed, evidence-based GMO course
I have decided to host an independent course on the current GMO paradigm, in response to Cornell’s course. It will be held on campus, but will have zero influence from Cornell or any biotech organization.Every Wednesday evening, from September 7th to November 16, we will host a lecture. This lecture series is completely free, open to the entire Cornell community and broader public, and will be published online (for free, forever) at my project, gmowtf.com.
There will be several experts and scientists coming in to lecture for this course. Frances Moore Lappé, of “Diet for a Small Planet” and “World Hunger: 10 Myths” fame, will be introducing the course on September 7, via video presentation. She will be speaking on how GMO agriculture is unnecessary to end world hunger.
Steven Druker is a public interest attorney and author of the powerful book “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public”, which Jane Goodall (in her foreword) hails as “one of the most important books in the last 50 years”. He will be giving two lectures that elaborate on the themes in the book’s subtitle and demonstrate that the GMO venture has been chronically and crucially dependent on deception, and could not survive without it.
Jonathan Latham PhD will be giving two lectures, on the dangers of Roundup Ready and Bt crops, respectively. He will also be participating in our special October 5 debate, representing the anti-GMO panel, alongside Michael Hansen PhD, a senior scientist for the Consumers Union. Jonathan hasdirect experience genetically modifying organisms, so his expertise is guaranteed.
Allison Wilson PhD is a geneticist and editor/science director of the Bioscience Resource Project. She will be giving a lecture on how GMOs are actually created, to dispel any industry myths of precision, accuracy, or deep genetic understanding.
Belinda Martineau PhD is a geneticist with an interesting history — she was on the team of genetic engineers that created the first commercial GM food crop, the Flavr Savr Tomato. She authored a book on her experience, titled “First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Foods”. Her lecture will be a historical and personal account of the science, regulation, and commercialization of genetically engineered foods, effectively giving context for today’s GMO paradigm.
My personal scientific hero, T. Colin Campbell, who started me on this whole journey years ago, will not be speaking on GMOs per se … but will address some critically important, related topics: academic freedom and scientific integrity. He began his Cornell career over half a century ago, and has “seen it all.” He has fascinating anecdotes that will illuminate these campus-wide issues beautifully.
Jane Goodall, if you’re reading this, you are personally invited to take time out of your busy schedule to come and give the final capstone lecture. I know how passionate you are about saving our species, our planet, and all of its beautiful inhabitants. Your wise presence in this project would take it to the next level. Alternatively, please consider a short video interview. This offer stands indefinitely. Same for you Vandana Shiva!
All in all, our independent GMO lecture series will focus on real threats and real solutions to our current ecological crisis … and perhaps most importantly, will feature 100% less Monsanto influence than Cornell’s course! Sounds good to me.
Taking it further
I’m on my second leave of absence from Cornell to work on this project, and due to my experiences, I have somewhat given up on a Cornell degree … not that I was ever intensely focused on attaining one. This GMO course is by far the most important thing I can do with my Cornell “career”. However, it is just the beginning of my plan.
Remember the $5.6 million Bill Gates gave Cornell through his foundation, to push the pro-GMO propaganda? Well, to coincide with our course, we’re launching an initiative to raise the same amount of money or more to sponsor more appropriate forms of agriculture, educational outreach, and activism. Go to gmowtf.com for more information, but in essence, this would finance:
Continued grassroots educational activism at Cornell, and similar programs in other compromised universities (UC Davis and Berkeley, University of Florida, etc.) across the country.
A plant-based, NON-GMO independent dining hall for Cornell students. It would source as close to 100% organic and local food as possible. Ideally, it would be cheaper than Cornell’s plan (plant-based eaters won’t subsidize expensive meat and dairy for omnivorous eaters).
gmowtf.com as a permanent, free, independent, constantly updated resource for GMO science, policy, news, etc. … also the GMO course would remain online
My dream: a research farm focused on rigorous analysis of agroecological practices. There is an infinitum of fascinatingly effective agroecological techniques that are underrepresented in the scientific community (in favor of faddist, ineffective GMO “technology”).
Completely paying off student debt for a group of 10-15 undergraduates who are willing to help spread this message to the Cornell community.
Mr. Gates, if you truly care about feeding the world in a safe and sustainable manner, and if you are truly dedicated to science and to the kind of open, fact-based discourse on which it depends, I implore you to learn the important facts about which you have apparently been misinformed — and which are being systematically misrepresented by the Cornell organization you are funding. You can easily gain illumination by reading “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth” by Steven Druker, one of the key contributors to our independent GMO course. You might find Chapter 11, on the ramifications and risks of altering complex information systems, of particular interest. You are, after all, the world’s most famous software developer!
As the chapter demonstrates, biotechnicians are significantly altering the most complex yet least understood group of information systems on earth — the ones that undergird the development and function of living organisms. Yet, they fail to implement the kind of safeguards that software engineers have learned are imperative when making even minor revisions to life-critical human-made systems. Can this be legitimately called science-based engineering?
Bill, feel free to reach out to any of the experts in our course, and don’t be hesitant to update your views on GMO agriculture in light of new understanding. A genuine scientist lives by this principle.
I Invite you all to go to gmowtf.com and explore my proposals more. Please bear with the construction of the site in the coming weeks, in preparation for our amazing GMO course!
We live in somewhat of a scientific dark age. Our universities have become extensions of corporate power, at the cost of our health, livelihoods, and ecology. This has to stop, yesterday. We cannot afford to spread lies to our undergraduate students. Cornell, please reconsider your ways. Until you do, I will be doing everything in my power to counter your industry GMO propaganda efforts with the facts.
In 2014, Vermont passed the first legislation in the U.S. to require labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. A year earlier, Connecticut and Maine passed GMO labeling bills though these were dependent on several other states passing similar laws.
Best of Democracy: Lawmakers Respond to the People
Passages of these three bills were textbook examples of democracy in action. The states’ citizens lobbied their legislatures to introduce the bills, public hearings were held, experts spoke for and against the bills and lawmakers debated the measures. The bills ultimately passed because the lawmakers recognized that the People wanted them approved.
Vermont’s bill passed overwhelmingly in both the state’s House of Representatives and Senate and Gov. Pete Shumlin signed the bill shortly thereafter.
This is how democracy is supposed to work, right? Citizens see an issue of concern that needs to be addressed and they contact their elected representatives who respond by passing a law. This is what happened in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine.
As Tara Cook-Littman, who spearheaded Connecticut’s labeling initiative, said: “GMO labeling is about people taking back power and getting lawmakers to take action in the interests of the people and not corporations. If we don’t use our voices it’s not democracy. We proved in Connecticut that we do have power and can make democracy work.”
Worst of Democracy: Lawmakers Pander to Corporations
Contrast those initiatives with U.S. federal government action on GMO labeling in the past year. Heavy lobbying by large food and agriculture corporations and groups such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association led the U.S. House of Representatives to introduce the Orwellian-named “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act.”
The bill, dubbed the “DARK Act” (Deny Americans the Right to Know), aimed to stop Vermont and other state GMO labeling laws and establish a meaningless system of voluntary GMO labeling. The DARK Act passed the House but a similar bill failed to pass the U.S. Senate this past March mainly because the people told their senators to vote against it.
Following the Senate defeat and with Vermont’s GMO labeling law set to take effect July 1, Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Pat Roberts (R-KS) drafted a compromise of the DARK Act, making GMO disclosure mandatory and not voluntary as in the House bill. But there was no requirement for an on-package statement as the Vermont law mandated.
Stabenow’s compromise essentially snatched defeat from the jaws of victory for labeling supporters because many major food companies were already putting GMO labels on their products sold nationwide to comply with Vermont’s law.
The Roberts-Stabenow bill has been described as a “non-labeling GMO labeling bill” since, among its many flaws, it allows food companies to continue their stonewalling of GMO information by putting QR codes on products that can only be read by smartphones. Imagine a busy mother at a supermarket with several children in tow pulling out her smartphone to read QR codes on 20 or 30 food products. Or imagine the many mothers that don’t even have smartphones trying to get GMO information. According to marketing communications expert Peter Quinn, the use of QR codes has virtually been abandoned because they have proven to be so ineffective and a “technology wild goose chase.”
“Needs of the People Have Been Ignored”
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said: “The Stabenow-Roberts GMO bill is confusing, misleading and unenforceable. It does nothing to make sure consumers know what they’re eating.”
In contrast to Vermont’s GMO labeling bill—the Roberts-Stabenow bill had no hearings, no public input, no committee debate and was rushed to be introduced—and passed in both the Senate and House. Behind the push were Big Food and Ag and their millions of dollars in lobbying.
So while the GMO labeling efforts in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine demonstrated the best of democracy—working for the people as America’s founders intended—the Roberts-Stabenow bill showed us the worst of democracy—with its pandering to the narrow interests of big business at the expense of the wishes of the people. And the bill makes the successful democratic efforts in those states null and void.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) said the bill was “not what’s in the interests of the American consumer, but what a few special interests want.”
With their support for this bad piece of legislation and continued obfuscation of GMOs, Big Food and Ag have assured themselves more years of consumer distrust and targeting by advocacy groups, leading to PR disasters. A few food companies, such as Campbell’s and Dannon, have decided that transparency is the best policy, but for many others this may be a tough lesson to learn.
As of July 22, the Roberts-Stabenow GMO labeling bill, S.764, has not yet been signed into law by President Obama but the White House said after Congress passed the bill that he would sign it. More than 80,000 people have petitioned the White House urging Obama to veto the bill. Florida Republican Congressman Vern Buchanan also urged the president to veto the bill. In a letter to Obama, Buchanan called the legislation a “sham bill that pretends to offer disclosure but in truth has so many loopholes that it is meaningless.”
It’s time for the GMO labeling movement to come together like never before.
Both the House and the Senate have passed the DARK Act, Monsanto’s dream bill designed to outlaw state GMO labeling laws and permanently keep consumers in the dark about what’s in our food.
Now, the DARK Act is on President Obama’s desk awaiting his signature. Pro-labeling allies have launched a petition on WhiteHouse.gov to call on the president to VETO the DARK Act, and we need you to help us get to 100,000 signatures.
Even if we lose, we’ll keep fighting. If the DARK Act is signed into law, consumers will be stuck with complicated QR codes that will need to be scanned with a smartphone. The law will also invalidate all state-based labelling requirements, and even prevent states from passing these laws in the future.
This QR code “compromise” is just the latest trick cooked up by Monsanto and their corporate allies. 100,000,000 Americans (most of them poor, people of color, or elderly) don’t have access to smartphones or live in areas with poor internet connectivity — meaning they’ll have no way of knowing what’s in the food they’re feeding their families.
The last few weeks have left many in the food labeling movement reeling. The New York Times editorial board recently chimed in, as Congress looked to pass “A flawed approach to labeling genetically modified food.”
But today, it is critical. Please call your Congressman TODAY and tell them to vote no on S.764. The number is 202-224-3121.
QR codes and apps to download discriminate against those who do not have access to this technology and the data plans to support it. American consumers deserve on package, GMO labeling. American food companies already have on-package label in place, as seen in the image above.
Today, the House votes to overturn this, to overturn the work done by millions of Americans and the food companies responding to them. As Congress tries to pass this legislation that pre-empts the Vermont law and dismisses the concerns of millions of Americans, we’ve received emails, texts and phone calls from many friends and colleagues asking the same questions:
What is going on? What is your take on this? And what can we do?
When I first learned in February of this year that QR codes were being floated as an idea to label GMOs, I was stunned and expressed deep concern in the discriminatory nature of QR code labeling, the ambiguity around them and then answered and responded to hundreds of calls and emails addressing this same concern from consumers.
I’ve been involved in the GMO labeling movement since the inception of my work around allergen labeling. I’ve been a lightning rod since the publication of my book in 2009, because just as allergens, sugars, proteins and fats are labeled on the package. I believe that GMOs also merit on package labels, as they are currently labeled by American food companies in 64 countries around the world. It’s in every presentation that I give.
With friends and colleagues, we’ve worked on state campaigns, served as spokespersons for the Colorado labeling campaign, created articles and videos to encourage consumers to get involved in this critical work and for several years, I served as board member of Just Label It, from which I resigned in February.
A group of us went to Washington DC this spring with the founder of Citizens for GMO Labeling, and we met with Senators on both sides of the aisles.
Because just like parenting, this work does not stop. For the last 20 years, GMOs have been woven into our food system, and addressing this issue takes tenacity, strength and dedication. We have our work cut out for us to bring transparency to our food system, and we have our work cut out in fixing the financing around it so that clean and safe food is affordable to all Americans who want it.
Consumers are making it crystal clear their feelings about GMOs. According to recent surveys by Packaged Facts, “In a global food and beverage market with retail value in U.S. dollars of more than $5 trillion, non-GMO products accounted for $550 billion of that total in 2014, according to market research publisher Packaged Facts. With sales of $200 billion for non-GMO foods and beverages, the United States accounts for 36% of the overall global non-GMO total.”
According to the Houston Chronicle, “the Food and Drug Administration, which has primary responsibility for food safety, said in a memo that narrow definitions in the bill “will likely mean that many foods from GE (genetically engineered) sources will not be subject to this bill,” including products such as oil made from gene-altered soybeans. The FDA wrote that the bill’s digital alternatives are “in tension” with other labeling requirements, such as those for nutrition.”
The bill throws the jurisdiction of both labeling and the definition of GMOs into the hands of the United States Department of Agriculture, presenting a conflict of interest, given their governance of food and farm policy.
And as I reflected on this legislation yet again this morning, I thought about the organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They didn’t try to negotiate a deal between non-alcoholic companies and the alcohol companies, they simply drove change as consumers and concerned citizens.
We have to do the same.
As non-GMO and GMO companies negotiate this legislation, the opportunity shared by millions of consumers is to continue to drive change for on-package GMO labeling.
Consumers, especially mothers, will continue to do push for labels that can be read by their children not a computer.
The companies that understand this, that continue to use the on-pack labels they have already implemented overseas and in response to states’ and consumers’ demand in the U.S., will be the ones who ultimately earn the consumers trust.
Given how many organic companies are now owned by conventional food companies, it’s anybody’s guess who will move first and embrace on-package GMO labeling.
Right now, that landscape is wide open and so is the market share. The CEO who convinces his shareholders that this movement is not going to roll over with QR codes will be the one who ultimately drives shareholder return.
So while Congress may have been sold to the highest bidder, parents haven’t.
Today, it is critically important to take action.
Please call your Congressman TODAY and tell them to vote no on S.764. The number is 202-224-3121.
QR codes and apps to download discriminate against those who do not have access to this technology and the data plans to support it. American consumers deserve on package, GMO labeling.
Biotech proponents’ claims that the debate over the safety of genetically modified foods is settled is wrong, according to Sheldon Krimsky, co-editor of the new book, The GMO Deception: What You Need to Know about the Food, Corporations, and Government Agencies Putting Our Families and Our Environment at Risk.
While this Monsanto-backed bill was packaged as a “reasonable” way to label GMOs, it actually infringes on states’ rights by preempting local laws and allows corporations to disclose information using QR codes—an inaccessible technology. I offered a “truth in advertising” amendment to reflect the spirit of a prior version of the bill by renaming it the Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act, since all this legislation does is keep Americans in the dark.
My name is Robert, and I am a Cornell University undergraduate student. However, I’m not sure if I want to be one any more. Allow me to explain.
