I have been getting cold sores on my lips since I was a teenager. I asked my doctor and she indicated that I had the herpes virus. I could not believe it because I thought herpes was an STD. I bought the audio book Natural Cures and the author kept saying that there is a natural remedy for herpes, but he did not say what it is. Do you know what he is referring to?
I really appreciate any suggestion.
Thanks,
Anonymous
DR. TIM O’SHEA:Cold sores are usually viral and indicate local micro-trauma to oral mucosa. They also indicate microbial imbalance in the whole body; equilibrium is centered in the colon. Cold sores indicate insufficient probiotic intestinal flora, an epidemic in the U.S. Three remedies are:
Take an aspirin tablet (the old fashioned kind, not a capsule) and apply it directly to sore. The aspirin will burn off the sore in 15 minutes.
Take lysine, an amino acid, as a supplement.
If the condition is chronic, you must re-establish floral balance in the colon.
Dr. T
Note: To reestablish floral balance, Dr. O’Shea recommends his 60 Day Program, as described on his site www.thedoctorwithin.com. He recommends a double dose of flora for the first 30 days.
EFT
I enjoyed Ryan Harrison’s article on EFT, but I am a bit skeptical. I am willing to give it a try though. I wonder if you know of people who have had success with it in regard to allergies such as pollen, pets, etc. I have a ton of allergies and I want to get off the drugs and start living a more natural life.
Peter
RYAN HARRISON ANSWERS: Skepticism toward EFT is both understandable and, to some extent, wise. I like to tell people that I am an “optimistic skeptic.” What that means is that I genuinely want things to be/do what people claim they will, but that I’m not ready to simply take it all on faith and start seeing great results that aren’t really there. So, I appreciate your skepticism. The best way to determine whether EFT will work for you is to give it a fair shake. That means finding a skilled, trained EFT Practitioner and going through at least a few sessions together.
Will EFT help with allergies? It may, and it may not. EFT Practitioners typically suggest that all physical complaints will respond to EFT sooner or later, because all aspects of life are at some point energetic, and EFT directly affects your system on an energetic level. My experience is that if an allergy has an emotional component (such as an allergy coupled with a traumatic memory), then EFT may certainly help erase the allergy and with amazing efficiency and speed. If the allergy is an issue of competing or clashing subtle energies, then it may take a while longer for the body’s energy system to reconcile itself with the offending allergen’s energetic “thumbprint.”
Let me offer an example:
I had a client who had an intense allergic reaction to fresh chilies and bell peppers of any shape, size, color, or “heat.” His reaction was so strong that he would have to avoid the produce section of the grocery store, because if he so much as smelled a pepper he’d end up with a migraine. Touching a pepper elicited the same severe response, as did eating one, even if it was “hidden” in a prepared food item – proof enough that this wasn’t psychosomatic.
My suspicion was that there was a clash of subtle energies at play. Something about his body’s energy system rebelled when he was in the presence of bell peppers. Their unique energy signature was enough – even at a distance – to cause his body to respond with a migraine.
Using EFT and a related technique that stimulates certain acupoints while using guided imagery, we were able to radically shift this clash of subtle energies within one session. He left my office and reported the next day that he had enjoyed Mexican food loaded with bell peppers, with no negative response. The shift didn’t hold, however. Within a few days, his “allergy” returned. We worked on this issue for a few more sessions with similar results: great and immediate improvement followed by a return to the original state within a few days. Time and circumstance did not allow us to continue working on this case.
My take on this situation is that there was still work to do. Most likely, we needed to keep “massaging” his energetic response to peppers, making the meeting of their subtle energies copacetic as the norm, rather than the exception.
All this to say that I think EFT could very well help you find relief from your allergies, but you may need to give it time and you should certainly find a qualified EFT Practitioner to work with.
Ryan Harrison, MA
Gluten
Raymond Francis, I’ve read your book, Never Be Sick Again, and was astonished by how similar our stories are. I, too, had my immune system collapse and suffered from many environmental sensitivities (though not as severely as you have suffered). Through diet and naturopathic medicine, I have recovered much of my health. One thing I discovered was a sensitivity to gluten. Do you believe that when I completely restore my health I can reverse my inability to digest gluten?
Carol
RAYMOND FRANCIS ANSWERS: It is impossible to predict if gluten sensitivity can be reversed in a particular person. Whether this can happen depends on too many individual factors, including genetic makeup. That being said, I have observed numerous people overcome gluten sensitivity by rebuilding their immunity, and very importantly, rebuilding the integrity of their gut tissue. Damaged gut tissue and leaky gut are a sure-fire prescription for food allergies. Repairing gut tissue with diet, stress reduction and supplements will often make food allergies and gluten sensitivity go away. At the very least, as you improve your health, your sensitivity will be reduced and it will take exposure to higher amounts of the allergen to get a reaction.
Raymond Francis
Email your questions to questions [at] organicmail.net. Questions may be edited for clarity or length.
If You’re on Prescription Drugs, Don’t Kid Yourself
Since you’re reading this magazine right now, you probably either consider yourself healthy, or you are looking to become healthy. It’s time for some hard truth. If you are taking drugs, whether it be one or sixteen, over the counter or prescription, for prevention or a major illness, YOU ARE NOT HEALTHY!
There is a great misconception in America (and in many other countries) that drugs have something to do with health. They do not. In most cases, drugs are used by people who are looking for a way to make themselves feel better without actually having to change any of their habits. You see this if you ever pay attention to drug commercials. For instance, in a recent commercial for a blood glucose monitor, they talk about how to make diabetes treatment fit into their lifestyle. What about changing your lifestyle?
If you truly want to be healthy, I mean vibrant, no aches and pains, never a headache, hardly ever yawning, etc., you will have to get off of any and all drugs. But please note, there are many prescription drugs that are so dangerous, so addictive, that if you quit cold turkey, and/or without the assistance of a doctor, you may hurt yourself or others. I’ve seen this before. In fact, if you follow scientology and the many headlines scientologists make, you see what happens when people who know very little about drugs try to “cure” someone of their need for prescription drugs. Drugs are dangerous and in many cases getting off of drugs can be even more dangerous.
This magazine is about education. I’m not telling you to “get off of prescription drugs”. But I am saying that you can’t reach a level of optimum health if you are taking drugs. Do your own research. Take steps, baby steps, one step at a time, and start cleaning up your lifestyle. Or not. But don’t kid yourself.
Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com Discusses GMOs with OLM
OLM: Can you tell us a little about the history of the companies that are making GMOs? Who are they? What did they do before they made GMO foods?
Mike Adams: Well, I think Monsanto is one of the most dangerous corporations in the world. I think it has a long history of oppressing the farmers and oppressing developing nations and their farmers. I think it has put profits before the people time and time again to such a degree that it really poses a threat to the sustainability of the human race. That’s about as bluntly as I can state it. [chuckle]
OLM: Are there other companies doing what Monsanto does with GMOs?
Mike Adams: There are smaller companies toying with genetics in the same way, but no one has dominance over the industry like Monsanto. It virtually holds a monopolistic control over seeds. I imagine Arthur Daniel Midland would be next in line in terms of culpability for destroying the food supply, but I don’t know if ADM has a GMO lab or not. That would be interesting to check out.
OLM: We hear that Monsanto bought many seed companies. The FTC didn’t take notice of this action?
Mike Adams: It’s very clear that the FTC is highly selective in its application of anti-trade action. It totally ignores some monopolies such as the pharmaceutical monopoly or the seed monopoly while attacking other things that are beneficial to consumers. For example, the FTC will attack a church that sells anti-cancer herbs. I actually documented one of those cases, so I’ve seen it
firsthand. But the FTC completely ignores these monopolies, which are the most dangerous to human beings. I think that the food supply and the pharmaceutical industries are two of the best examples.
OLM: How did these foods get approved without testing? Wasn’t it true that many FDA scientists took issue with the foods not being tested?
Mike Adams: GRAS – generally regarded as safe. It’s sad. It’s hilarious, but sad. You’re right; there was no testing done. No safety testing, at least not to the degree any reputable scientist would agree to be adequate. Basically, they just swept it under the rug and pushed it through the approval process. They declared it to be safe by decree, you know? Like, “The king declares this poison to be safe.” It’s kind of like the aspartame story—you know where Donald Rumsfeld was pivotal in getting aspartame approved by the FDA despite all the tests showing it to be dangerous. It just proves that decisions about the food supply are political decisions. They do not have anything to do with the actual science, or real safety, or prioritizing the health of the people. They are purely political/commercial decisions. That’s the sad state of the FDA today.
Why aren’t GMO foods labeled?
Mike Adams: It is very clear that the reason they are not labeled is because the industry does not want the consumers to know. This is a censorship campaign to prevent people from being informed. It’s the same reason that irradiated foods are not labeled. The FDA is on the record as saying that they are afraid people might not understand what irradiated means. It’s a remarkable statement all by itself.
OLM: Yeah, when in fact, the statement really means the opposite. They don’t want people to know. They don’t want us to understand.
Mike Adams: Industry is afraid of knowledge. It’s afraid of people being informed and having access to accurate knowledge about GMOs or irradiated foods, or even other toxic chemicals that are in the foods such as acrylamides. Essentially, the food industry supports a delabeling campaign. It wants to remove as much information as possible from the labels so consumers don’t have access to the information they need to make informed decisions.
OLM: Obviously there is an indirect link to the drug companies and the food industry. It seems as if they have made a deal to line each others’ pockets. It seems as though they’re working together.
Mike Adams: I think that’s a really great observation on your part. The food industry feeds the pharmaceutical industry in terms of profits. It’s the foods that make people sick; they cause chronic degenerative disease. So the foods create demand for the drugs, which are real profit centers. Of course these companies are making money off of foods as well, but GMOs fit into this picture in a very clever and insidious way. All the evidence so far shows that GMOs may pose a very real health threat to those who consume them. As you mention, that benefits the pharmaceutical industry by poisoning people, by creating patients who need pharmaceuticals or who can be diagnosed with diseases and sold pharmaceuticals whether they need them or not.
I think at the retail level Walgreens demonstrates it the best. Walgreens is a pharmacy, but it sells some of the most toxic processed junk food that you can find in America. In front of the store they sell foods that cause disease and in the back of the store they sell the drugs that they claim treat disease. It’s a system of toxicity. I have gone into the store to buy samples of processed
foods that I was sending to laboratories for testing. When I walk through the store I cannot believe the depth of the poisons that are in there: personal hair care products, fragrance, cosmetics, sodas, all the foods. Those stores should be completely shut down. They should be banned. They should be outlawed in this country. They are creating
a toxic America.
OLM: What was that quote about GMO consumers not being able to reproduce?
Mike Adams: What I talked about was that GMOs do damage to the ability to reproduce and as a result the future of the human race is going to be inherited by those who do not consume GMOs and who do not expose themselves to toxic chemicals like pharmaceuticals.
Along those lines I just want to clarify that especially in the natural health field, no one wishes death or suffering upon another human being. I’m not happy that unhealthy people die. But what I am pointing out is that they are making a choice. By consuming GMOs they are choosing not to have great- grandchildren. And that choice is given a label—it’s a Darwin Award [chuckle]. These people are all participating in this multi-generational or trans-generational Darwin award. And in the long term, it is probably a great benefit to the future of human civilization that the people who choose to consume poisons do not inherit the future of our race.
OLM: Is it true that executives from these companies are hired in top positions by the USDA and FDA?
Mike Adams: Yeah, definitely. That’s called the revolving door policy. You’ll see many examples of top managers or executives at drug and food companies who become top people at the FDA or the FTC or the USDA. They often go back and forth between the regulators and the industry several times.
OLM: And then they write the laws?
Mike Adams: Well, it’s not laws. They enforce regulations. Sometimes they write regulations. It’s important to distinguish between the two. Laws are passed only by the legislative branch, members of congress. But the USDA, the FDA and the FTC are essentially lawless regulatory agencies. They are not required to follow any law in their day-to-day decision making. They are above
the law. In fact they are violating the law. If you or I did what the FDA or the FTC did, we would be charged with felony crimes. We can’t just pick up an assault rifle and walk into a company that sells products we don’t like and seize all their computers and handcuff their people and march them off to prison. But that is what the FDA does on a regular basis. It’s a violation of law. It’s a violation of the constitution. So these are lawless organizations.
OLM: Does the president appoint the heads of the USDA and the FDA?
Mike Adams: Yes, the president does appoint the heads of those organizations without a public vote. That’s important to note. All that has to happen is that the senate confirms those appointments. The public is never given a chance to vote on them, so it’s bypassing the democratic system.
OLM: What do you think of Obama’s appointee for the Department of Agriculture?
Mike Adams: I’ve been following that on the Organic Consumers Association. Ronnie Cummins there has reported on that appointment with a lot of good details. I think clearly Obama’s siding with big business. He is going to continue the policies of Monsanto and he is not going to speak up for the people, for the farmers, you know. I see a lot of this with the Obama administration which is kinda frustrating because he came in under a platform of change, you know, talking about protecting the people. And certainly, of course, none of us wanted to see the Bush policies continue, at least not on human rights, and war, and all that. But then with Obama in office, not just for agriculture, but for the treasury, and many other areas, the policies are quite disturbing. They show that the Obama administration, at least through its appointments so far, is largely continuing business as usual, at least in my opinion. I’m optimistic that maybe there will be some changes, but you know, I don’t see any big changes so far, other than a whole lot of money being handed out. And that’s not change. That’s just the same old scam.
OLM: Are you keeping up with the new laws they are trying to pass?
Mike Adams: Ronnie Cummins would have a lot more detail on this, but I keep up with some of it. The big picture is very clear. They are working at federal and state levels to destroy small family farms, to destroy even the definition of organic so that anything could be called organic. They are the enemies of anyone who believes in sustainable agriculture or true organic foods.
OLM: What’s going on with GMOs in Europe?
Mike Adams: GMOs had been banned in certain parts of the U.K. I think that issue has come to the surface again with codex and the harmonization of the European Union. They’re trying to keep GMOs in the food supply. But the thing is, GMO labeling is now mandatory in the U.K. At least that’s my understanding of it. And U.K. citizens are much better informed about this issue than U.S. citizens. And in the U.K. they are very vocal in their opposition to GMO foods, as they should be. And it is in America that people have this kind of bizarre acceptance of whatever the government tells them to do. It’s like America has been drugged into a state of complacency. Pharmaceuticals and fluoride maybe have something to do with that.
OLM: What’s your take on Monsanto’s claims that GMOs are a better way to grow food, that they produce better yields and can help stop world hunger?
Mike Adams: Sure, it’s all about short-term thinking versus long-term thinking. Of course, Monsanto and ADM and other such companies are really focused on short term thinking. In the short-term, it’s true that a single planting of a genetically modified crop can out-produce a non-GMO crop. You look at that season and you weigh how much corn came out of the field and so on. But in the long term, what risks are there to the viability of the food supply? How do GMO organisms affect honey bees, for example? We have colony collapse disorder, which is really threatening the global food supply. We had the issue of cross pollination, cross contamination, which is a huge threat to the food supply.
These long-term threats are never factored into the equations that are being decided by Monsanto or these other companies. So they ignore the long-term risks and they just highlight and focus on the short-term benefits. And it is this kind of short-term thinking that could very well spell the destruction of human civilization as we know it today. All it would take is one year of crops being wiped out around the world due to monoculture farming, and perhaps genetically, GM contamination. One season of the food disappearing and the human population collapses by maybe 70 to 80 percent.
That’s a loss of billions of lives. That’s what’s at risk here. These companies are essentially putting billions of lives at risk in order to obtain a short-term profit.
OLM: What are your favorite GMO information sources?
Mike Adams: Well, definitely the Organic Consumers Association is a top source on this issue, but there is also the Environmental Working Group which is doing great work, although they don’t post as much content as the OCA.
Recommended Supplements (These supplements help detoxify GMOs):
Although typical deodorants and any antiperspirants are toxic to skin, antiperspirants are much more dangerous to women. Reports vary as to why; some link the increased risk to the fact that women shave their armpits and therefore cancer-causing substances in antiperspirants are absorbed through razor nicks. Other reports say that women sweat differently and not as effectively on the breast area as men do. The sweat has nowhere to go so it builds up into infectious lumps under the skin around the breasts. These lumps can and often do turn cancerous.
Many so called credible organizations such as the American Cancer Society say that there is no findings or evidence to support this claim. But we don’t really consider them credible, so… We prefer to use common sense. Your body releases much of its toxins through sweat. If you do not allow your body to sweat, where do the toxins go?
It is a little known fact that the very healthy do not have body odor. Believe it or not, your natural smell is a very good indicator of your overall health
All Natural Label
The Department of Agriculture clearly defines “natural” when applied to labeling. For meat and poultry, it means minimal processing, no artificial or synthetic ingredients, and no added hormones.
But the Food and Drug Administration says it has no plans to define natural or to restrict its use in labeling.
With no clear definition, confusion and controversy have been generated. Consumer groups are urging the FDA to restrict use of the word “natural” and they demand that food manufacturers stop freely using it until the government acts. This spring, one organization threatened legal action against a popular soft drink, “100% Natural” 7UP.
“Natural means nothing,” said Urvashi Rangan, a toxicologist and a senior scientist at Consumer Reports , which has urged government action. “You have to flip the box over and examine the ingredient list. You’ve got to do your homework. But there’s no requirement for what the ingredients have to be, to be considered natural.”
Courtesy of The Organic Consumers Association.
Keep in mind, while it’s very important to read ingredient labels, it’s even more important to consume whole, raw, fresh vegetables and fruits which, provided they are organic, are as “all natural” as it gets.
EasyBloom Plant Sensor Product Review
EasyBloom is a great tool for the gardener—especially one born with a black thumb. This little device tells you if your plants need water, diagnoses ailing plants, and makes plant recommendations (based on real conditions) as to which plants will thrive at a particular site.
To begin using EasyBloom, plug the device into one of your computer’s USB ports and choose which of the three functions you want to use: recommend mode, monitor mode, or water mode.
Recommend mode—provides plant recommendations for a particular site, indoors or outside.
Monitor mode—gives expert advice in caring for an existing plant.
Water mode—provides immediate feedback on whether a plant needs water.
Once the mode is set, unplug the device from your computer and connect it to the sensor base. I chose the recommend mode and stuck the EasyBloom into a shady site in my back yard. Twenty-four hours later I plugged the device into my computer to receive my recommendations.
EasyBloom analyzed the site, providing the relative humidity, average temperature, and sunlight, then recommended a list of plants that should thrive in that location. To my surprise, it also gave me the opportunity to add pictures, take notes, and store the information in an archive section called “my readings.”
I also tried EasyBloom in its water mode. In this mode the device beeps when your plants need water. Unfortunately, none of the pots were dry at the time. I have not yet tried the monitor mode, which is designed to aid in diagnosing the problems plaguing an ailing plant.
I loved the design of the battery casing. A band encircles the battery which allows for easy removal and a means to easily disengage the battery when the device is not in use.
The EasyBloom website is user friendly, offering videos to help you learn to use the device and contact information for customer service. It also contains a database of more than 5000 plants with planting and care instructions and a feature that allows you to choose and store a listing of your favorite plants.
EasyBloom is a great device. Even though it does not analyze soil (I do so wish it would at least give me the ph), it is an excellent gardening aid, especially for the novice gardener. Coupled with the online resources, it is well worth its $60.00 price tag.
If ever there was a company that stands for everything Organic Lifestyle Magazine stands against, it’s Monsanto. To us they are the villain, a company that embodies virtually everything we at OLM believe to be wrong with big business today. We would be hard pressed to find a company whose products have done more to harm our planet.
Many argue that Monsanto’s potential to devastate life as we know it is second only to producers of atomic bombs. Ironically, Monsanto was also heavily involved in the Manhattan Project and the creation of the world’s first nuclear bomb.
Monsanto started in 1901 as a chemical company. Their first product was saccharine, a coal tar product, which has had a controversial history. You may know it as Sweet‘N Low, the artificial sweetener sold in little pink packages.
Though saccharin was their first, Monsanto is also well known for many other chemical and chemically based products including Agent Orange, Bovine Growth Hormone, Polychlorinated biphenyl (commonly known as PCBs), Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT), and RoundUp.
Today, Monsanto is a leader in the bio-tech industry selling RoundUp ready GMO seeds. Its main crops are soy, cotton, sugar beets, and canola. Its controversial bovine growth hormone, rBST, was sold to the Eli Lilly Company earlier this year.
We asked Brad Mitchell, Director of Public Affairs for Monsanto if we were dealing with a new Monsanto since our take on Monsanto’s reputation is one of deception, corruption, bribery, and environmental degradation, a company that made significantly bad choices.
“I think more than anything, it’s a new age,” he said. “…I think you’re holding the Monsanto of the middle part of the 20th century against the standards of today. So, for instance, if you look at PCBs we all know today that what Monsanto did there was wrong. It shouldn’t have been done. Did we, Monsanto, or society as a whole know in the 60s or the 50s that that was wrong? I don’t think that we were as environmentally sophisticated as we are today.
“…I’m not saying that we’re not liable, that we shouldn’t have done it, and all that, but you know, when you make these kind[s] of statements about how Monsanto obviously disregarded human health and public safety and the environment for profit, I wasn’t there. I can’t tell you what was in people’s hearts and minds. I do believe, however, that to some extent we’re being held against today’s standards for actions that occurred half a century ago.”
Perhaps we could agree that these actions occurred half a century ago if Monsanto had voluntarily embarked on a clean-up of PCB contamination in Anniston, Alabama, in any decade following the 50s or 60s. If they had, perhaps we could believe the corporation has grown a conscience. According to The Washington Post, it was February 2002 when Monsanto was held liable by an Alabama jury for all six counts it considered: negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage. The Post quotes the legal definition of outrage under Alabama law as conduct, “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”
The Center for Food Safety maintains a website, www.monsantowatch.org. On this site they report, “In August, 2003, Monsanto and its former chemical subsidiary, Solutia, Inc. (now owned by Pharmacia Corp.), agreed to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by more than 20,000 residents of Anniston, AL, over the severe contamination of ground and water by tons of PCBs dumped in the area from the 1930s until the 1970s. Court documents revealed that Monsanto was aware of the contamination decades earlier.”
History tells us Monsanto was well aware of the damage their silence and lack of action brought Anniston as The Center for Food Safety also reports,
The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state. By 1982, nearby Times Beach, Missouri, was found to be so thoroughly contaminated with dioxin, a by-product of PCB manufacturing, that the government ordered it evacuated.”
Monsanto can, however, claim the Monsanto of today is not the Monsanto of yesteryear. According to Wikipedia, the Monsanto of 1901-2000 and the current business are now two legally separate corporations, though they share the same name as well as many of the same executives and workers. The “new” Monsanto is an agricultural company (as opposed to a chemical company).
Are Monsanto’s misdeeds a thing of the past? In 2005, BBC News reported that Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5 million dollar fine for bribing an Indonesian official “to avoid environmental impact studies being conducted on its [bio-tech] cotton.” Monsanto said it accepted full responsibility for its “improper activities” and agreed to three years of close monitoring of its business practices by American authorities.
GMO seeds were approved by the FDA under the GRAS designation—generally recognized as safe. As such, Monsanto’s bio-tech seeds were granted exemption from premarket approval by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Due to this ruling, the onus to ensure the safety of genetically altered food created by Monsanto rests with Monsanto, a company whose actions have revealed an unparalleled disregard for human life and environmental safety.
Opponents of GMOs often quote a cavalier statement made by Phil Angell, Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications to author Michael Pollan. In Pollan’s article, Playing God in the Garden, published in the New York Times Magazine in 1998, Angell is quoted as saying,
Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
We asked Brad Mitchell, Director of Public Affairs for Monsanto if we were dealing with a new Monsanto since our take on Monsanto’s reputation is one of deception, corruption, bribery, and environmental degradation, a company that made significantly bad choices. “I think more than anything, it’s a new age,” he said. “…I think you’re holding the Monsanto of the middle part of the 20th century against the standards of today. So, for instance, if you look at PCBs we all know today that what Monsanto did there was wrong. It shouldn’t have been done. Did we, Monsanto, or society as a whole know in the 60s or the 50s that that was wrong? I don’t think that we were as environmentally sophisticated as we are today.
…I’m not saying that we’re not liable, that we shouldn’t have done it, and all that, but you know, when you make these kind[s] of statements about how Monsanto obviously disregarded human health and public safety and the environment for profit, I wasn’t there. I can’t tell you what was in people’s hearts and minds. I do believe, however, that to some extent we’re being held against today’s standards for actions that occurred half a century ago.”
Perhaps we could agree that these actions occurred half a century ago if Monsanto had voluntarily embarked on a clean-up of PCB contamination in Anniston, Alabama, in any decade following the 50s or 60s. If they had, perhaps we could believe the corporation has grown a conscience. According to The Washington Post, it was February 2002 when Monsanto was held liable by an Alabama jury for all six counts it considered: negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage. The Post quotes the legal definition of outrage under Alabama law as conduct, “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”
The Center for Food Safety maintains a website, www.monsantowatch.org. On this site they report, “In August, 2003, Monsanto and its former chemical subsidiary, Solutia, Inc. (now owned by Pharmacia Corp.), agreed to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by more than 20,000 residents of Anniston, AL, over the severe contamination of ground and water by tons of PCBs dumped in the area from the 1930s until the 1970s. Court documents revealed that Monsanto was aware of the contamination decades earlier.”
History tells us Monsanto was well aware of the damage their silence and lack of action brought Anniston as The Center for Food Safety also reports,
The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state. By 1982, nearby Times Beach, Missouri, was found to be so thoroughly contaminated with dioxin, a by-product of PCB manufacturing, that the government ordered it evacuated.”
Monsanto can, however, claim the Monsanto of today is not the Monsanto of yesteryear. According to Wikipedia, the Monsanto of 1901-2000 and the current business are now two legally separate corporations, though they share the same name as well as many of the same executives and workers. The “new” Monsanto is an agricultural company (as opposed to a chemical company).
Are Monsanto’s misdeeds a thing of the past? In 2005, BBC News reported that Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5 million dollar fine for bribing an Indonesian official “to avoid environmental impact studies being conducted on its [bio-tech] cotton.” Monsanto said it accepted full responsibility for its “improper activities” and agreed to three years of close monitoring of its business practices by American authorities.
GMO seeds were approved by the FDA under the GRAS designation—generally recognized as safe. As such, Monsanto’s bio-tech seeds were granted exemption from premarket approval by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Due to this ruling, the onus to ensure the safety of genetically altered food created by Monsanto rests with Monsanto, a company whose actions have revealed an unparalleled disregard for human life and environmental safety.
Opponents of GMOs often quote a cavalier statement made by Phil Angell, Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications to author Michael Pollan. In Pollan’s article, Playing God in the Garden, published in the New York Times Magazine in 1998, Angell is quoted as saying,
Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
When we asked Mr. Mitchell if he was familiar with this statement, he said he thought the statement had been made by a Monsanto foreman and that it was taken out of context. “I don’t know the gentleman, but I do know the general feeling here. There is nobody here at Monsanto that I know that says, ‘Screw safety, that’s not our problem, it’s FDA’s.’ I think what the gentleman quoted is referring to is that when it comes down to it, the law, by the law, it’s FDA’s responsibility. I don’t know a single person at Monsanto who does not believe that we have the responsibility. But if you want to look at the law, the final say on this, and the final arbiter, and the people legally charged with safely stating whether it’s safe or not is not Monsanto, it’s FDA.”
Mitchell tells us he and Monsanto’s scientific team have never seen a study that shows any significant risk associated with GMO foods.
I’ve worked with our scientific affairs team, so when studies come out to do analysis and that sort of thing, we have yet to see a study which we think shows us any significant risk with these things. So, those studies are best addressed on a one-on-one basis, and I would say that there are just as many studies, independent as well, that show (chuckles) that there are not risks with them [GMOs].”
He argues that the oft referenced study by Árpád Pusztai showing GMO potatoes was flawed. “My understanding is that there were only six animals in each control group, so statistical significance is pretty weak there.” In addition, he states that Pusztai did not go through the basic safety processes. “The premise of biotech safety in virtually every country that allows these things is something called substantial equivalence. You compare a genetically modified potato to a non-genetically modified potato against a whole bunch of parameters on stuff they contain. And essentially if it doesn’t cause any physiological or physiochemical differences in the potato, they’re deemed to be substantively equivalent, which means that they are pretty much the same with the exception of the protein that’s expressed in the genetically modified one. …Now the ironic part is that Pusztai, when he did his test, never analyzed the potatoes for substantial equivalence. And in fact there is very good evidence that snowdrop lectin [used in the study] will actually—the protein itself, will change the physiology of that potato where it would not meet the standards of substantial equivalence. So he’s testing a GM product that was never commercialized, that has never even been even through the most basic level of safety, with a poor study, that basically shows and basically came to the conclusion that all genetically modified crops have risks, when he hasn’t even done the basic tests that genetically modified crops go through before being approved.”
In 1997, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were hired by Fox Television as the researchers and stars of a new investigative news show, called The Investigators. Akre says they were told, “Do any stories you want. Ask tough questions and get answers.” One of the first stories they proposed was an expose on Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone, rBST, also known as Posilac. Their investigation revealed that Canada refused to approve Posilac, citing health concerns, that Posilac was linked to cancer, and that the FDA had rubberstamped the product without proper testing.
While Monsanto’s publicity stated, “Posilac is the single most tested new product in history,” Wilson and Akre’s investigation revealed that the longest test Monsanto had done for human toxicity was for 90 days on 30 rats.
Legal threats from Monsanto prompted Fox to kill the story and set in motion a chain of events that resulting in Fox firing Steve Wilson and Jane Akre for insubordination after several attempts failed to convince them to kill the story, re-write the story, or out and out lie about its contents. Fox even attempted to bribe the pair, offering them the rest of a year’s salary in exchange for their silence about the story and Fox’s part in it.
Brad Mitchell stated, “We would still contend that Monsanto [rBST] is a safe product. The FDA would support us on that. It’s still being used, albeit by a different company.”
Mitchell also tells us recent Internet rumors that Monsanto was opposed to or tried to prevent the labeling of milk as rBST free were absolutely untrue.
What we were trying to prevent was misleading labeling of milk as being rBST free. And many of the milk companies out there who were labeling it were doing so in a way that was in violation of FDA guidelines and made it basically sound like our product wasn’t safe, and the scientific consensus, at least in this country, was that it is.
“You know, we obviously would prefer that it wasn’t labeled that way, but our gripe was not against people who were labeling milk as rBST free; our real concern was people who were labeling it in opposition to what FDA guidelines set. And the vast majority of the state legislation and the things you saw really were just forcing milk labelers to label in accordance to those guidelines.
“I’ll give you an example, where some milk labels said it’s hormone free. Well, no milk is hormone free. It’s just misleading to say so. Now, if you want to say it’s rBST free, that’s better. What the FDA suggested was that it says this milk comes from cows not treated with rBST. Obviously we would prefer that people didn’t put that in writing and that people didn’t see a problem with our products. But if they were labeling milk accurately, we would not have had an issue with them.”
This company Highlight is continued in our next issue. Click to readMonsanto Company Profile Part II, Monsanto’s Turn. We will discuss Monsanto’s stand on patent infringement lawsuits and high yield potentials of GM crops, Europe’s attitude toward GMOs, and more.
