Organicwashing – Companies Greenwashing Our Health Food

Who can you trust? Many products that are designed to appeal to the health consious should be avoided.

There are some great companies out there that are trying to make a positive impact on this world by producing healthy, beneficial, environmentally friendly products. There are companies that obviously put profits above our health and our environment. And then there are companies that pretend to care about consumer health and the environment only because they are able to profit by doing so. This is a form of greenwashing called organicwashing.

Organicwashing: a form of greenwashing where companies market a product in a manner that is meant to convince consumers that the product is produced with people’s health and animal welfare in mind, while secretly not giving a damn about anything but profit. Yeah, we made that up. If you are new to organic foods, trying to eat healthier and trying to reduce your environmental impact, it can be overwhelming to find out that the eggs you have been eating and the milk you drink are no better than conventional products you were purchasing before. It’s often enough to make well intentioned consumers throw their arms up and walk away from the more expensive organic products for good. Not only are we going to list for you companies to avoid when purchasing healthier foods, but we will also give you a list companies that are doing a good job of staying green. Surprisingly, some of them are owned by the least environmentally friendly companies. You can be the judge as to whether or not to purchase their products. We will also list a few of the better options to choose from, like companies that are not owned by big bad businesses, green companies that do everything they can to adhere to their original standards. In our comment section below, feel free to add to the list and help this page be a resource to identify the good companies and the organic washers. Not all of these companies are labeled organic, but they are all appealing to the health minded consumer.

Horizon Foods: Milk, Cheese, and Eggs

Horizon is the largest producer of organic milk and organic eggs in the world. They are owned by Dean Foods, the largest conventional dairy company in the world. Dean Foods does not care about organic standards. Actually, that’s not entirely true. Dean food cares a great deal about reducing organic standards. Horizon is often in trouble for bending and violating organic rules and regulations. Dean Foods lobbies to reduce organic standards. And their eggs and milk actually tastes no better than conventional eggs and milk, because they are not much better. For milk, try not drinking it! Consider this: milk is produced by impregnating a cow (or a sheep, or a goat) and then taking away the infant, putting it on formula, and milking the mother. We are ripping apart a mother-infant bond. If you think for a second that the cows don’t know any better, you need to go to a farm and watch it happen. It’s heart-wrenching. There are many other options available. Soy milk is not one we recommend, but there is almond milk, rice milk, hemp milk, coconut milk, and more! The taste is acquired, but believe it or not, cow’s milk is an acquired taste, too.

Silk Soy Milk

Owned by Dean Foods again. The soy beans are genetically modified. And soy milk IS NOT GOOD FOR YOU ANYWAY!

Cascadian Farms

Owned by General Mills, Cascadian Farms, whose principle investors include: Alcoa, Chevron, Disney, Dupont, ExxonMobil, General Electric, McDonalds, Monsanto, Nike, Pepsico, Pfizer, Philip Morris, Starbucks, Target, and Texas Instruments. Every one of those companies has atrocious human rights and environmental issues. 100% of the brand’s cereal and granola products are certified organic, and yet the corporate owners include the nation’s largest agribusinesses involved in GMO/ chemical agriculture. So while Cascadian Farms has done a good job of staying organic, even after they were bought out by this evil company, supporting Cascadian Farms is supporting the worst of the worst companies and everything Cascadian Farms used to stand against. Plus, most grains and the sugar they sell their grains with, really aren’t good for you anyway.

Kashi

Again, most grains are not good for you. And Kashi is grains and sugar too. They are also owned by Kellogg (who also owns Bear Naked). Kashi makes promises of “all natural” and/or “nothing artificial” on the front labels of most of its products. This lead to the August 2011 class action lawsuit filed against the company by Michael Bates. Processed and synthetic ingredients are in most of their products. The lawsuit indicates that a number of these artificial ingredients are listed as “prescription drugs, irradiated substances, pesticides that are a by-product of uranium mining and federally declared hazardous substances.” Kashi also stated that some of its foods “may contain GMOs.” And they followed with, “Many factors outside our control, such as pollen drift from nearby crops and current practices in agricultural storage, handling, and shipping, have led to an environment in North America where GMOs are not sufficiently controlled.”

Hain Celestial Group

Heinz Co. owns nearly 20% of Hain. And Hain owns Garden of Eatin’, Health Valley, WestSoy, Earth’s Best, Hain Pure Foods, Spectrum Naturals, Walnut Acres Organic, Imagine Foods, Rice Dream, Soy Dream, Ethnic Gourmet, Yves Veggie Cuisine, JASON, Avalon Organics, and Alba Walnut Acres, Westbrae, Imagine, Arrowhead Mills, Breadshop’s, Casbah, The Good Dog,The Good Slice, DeBoles, Lima, Biomarche, Grains Noirs, Earth’s Best, and Nile Spice. The Company is a leader in 13 of the top 15 natural food categories. The Cornucopia Institute put together an Organic Soy Scorecard that reveals which soy product companies are truly trustworthy versus those that are not. Cornucopia took into account thesourcing of soybeans, use of toxic chemicals for soy protein extraction, and the use or avoidance of genetically modified soybeans. Westsoy and SoyDream (both owned by Hain Celestial Group) – Refused to share their sourcing information. Hain Celestial Group routinely uses yeast extract in its foods (a form of hidden MSG). Their personal care products (Avalon Organics, and Alba) contain a wide variety of toxic ingredients as well.

Trader Joe’s

Why is trader Joe’s so popular among the green and health conscious? To their credit, when their consumers have spoken out, Trader Joe’s responded with the proper policy changes: they now carry cage-free eggs and GMO-free foods. And they did recently agree to revamp their seafood policies, after a lengthy campaign by Greenpeace to get red-list fish out of its stores. But why did they have to be pressured to do this? And their produce and other foods tend to come in plastic packaging. You can’t buy a fruit or vegetables without buying them being wrapped in SaranWrap, and typically wrapped on a Styrofoam tray.

Stoneyfield

Stonyfield is owned by Dannon. YoKids Squeezers conatian carrageenan. Carrageenan is a water-soluble polymer, also known as a gum, which is used as a fat substitute in processed meats and can be found in condensed milk and some soy milk products. Stonyfield assures us that the FDA says it is safe. And we all trust the FDA. No, kidding, the FDA cannot be trusted anymore than Monsanto. And carrageenan may cause stomach lesions or cancer. There have also been issues about Stonyfield refusing to pay fair prices for milk. And at 99 cents a yogurt, it’s no surprise.

Odwalla and Naked Juices

Pepsi owns Naked. Odwalla is owned by the Coca-Cola Bottling Company. We can thank Odwalla for the laws that require juice to be pasteurized. Before they were acquired by Coca-Cola they selling unpasteurized juice. But they were juicing rotten fruits and vegetables with filthy equipment. People got sick. Wikiepedian states, “A period of decline occurred as a result of a fatal outbreak of H7 in 1996 that was caused by using bruised fruit that had been contaminated. Following the E. coli outbreak, Odwalla adopted flash pasteurization and other sanitization procedures.”

Organic Companies You Can Trust

Eden Foods is an amazing company. And while they are pretty substantial in size, the people running this company care a great deal about producing healthy, beneficial products for their consumers. The best egg producer we know of is Vital Farms. They really do care about the welfare of their eggs. “There are many elements we consider vital to our methods: organic green pastures, multiple native grasses, herbs, seeds, and other natural foliage, top quality organic feed, plenty of fresh water, relatively small flock sizes, lots of space to roam and forage, protection for the birds, shelter from inclement weather, and a personal attentiveness to the birds’ welfare!” And their eggs taste incredible! Organic Valley is a pretty good company for eggs and milk. They have been in some trouble, but they do take measures to abide by organic standards, and they aren’t looking to greenwash consumers. But they, along with Whole Foods, and Stonyfield, recently decided it’s time to surrender to Monsanto. Top executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto’s controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for “coexistence” with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack. Read more at The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: What Now?

Organic Bureaucracy

According to many farmers, it has become difficult, even prohibitive, for many small farmers to become certified organic.

And there’s more! Watch this video:

Conclusion

The truth is, organic standards mean very little at this point. And a product labeled as organic is likely to not adhere to these almost meaningless standards anyway. But even if the product does meet the qualifications, the standards leave so much room for manipulating the system. And with the big companies wanting to get in on the organic scene, it is only getting worse and worse. The easiest thing you can do to avoid organicwashing is to avoid buying from big companies! If you see a banana labeled organic sold by Chiquita, don’t buy it! Buy from smaller companies that got into the organic business to make a difference.



Organic Agriculture’s Resilience Shows Untapped Potential

New analysis highlights organic agriculture as an eco-friendly means of improving livelihoods and preserving natural resources.

Washington, D.C. – Despite the crippling effects of the recent economic slowdown on many industries, the organic agriculture sector not only sustained itself during this period but also showed signs of growth. “In 2009, organic farming was practiced on 37.2 million hectares worldwide, a 5.7 percent increase from 2008 and 150 percent increase since 2000,” writes policy analyst E.L. Beck, in the latest Vital Signs Online release from the Worldwatch Institute.

The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) defines organic agriculture as: “a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment.”

Although organic agriculture is practiced around the world, certified organic agriculture tends to be concentrated in wealthier countries. The Group of 20 (G20), comprising both developing and industrialized countries, is home to 89 percent of the global certified organic agricultural area. But nongovernmental organizations, including Slow Food International and ACDI/VOCA, are working with farmers to promote organic agriculture in developing countries as a means of bettering livelihoods and rejuvenating the land.

In western Tanzania, organic agroforestry practices have helped rehabilitate some 350,000 hectares of desert land over the span of two decades. And in Ethiopia, coffee farmers are learning how to protect wild coffee plants, fertilize them using organic compost, and process them in a manner that retains the quality of the crop, without damaging the environment.

Although the global organic market has shown growth in the past few years, the rate has slowed since 2000, and there are several challenges that impede large-scale expansion of organic practices. The price premium on organic foods, for example, may dissuade many consumers from buying organic products, despite the potential environmental, ethical, and health benefits these products provide.

Two other challenges are the lack of organic standards and the scarcity of equivalency agreements. An equivalency agreement between two countries acknowledges each other’s organic standards and allows for a smooth flow of certified organic goods between the two countries. The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation finances the Global Organic Market Access (GOMA) project, which facilitates the trade of organic products by establishing organic standards and negotiating equivalency agreements, but more progress is needed in this area.

Rising farmland prices are putting a further strain on organic agriculture. Research by the International Food Policy Research Institute shows that foreign investors have spent up to $20-30 billion on land purchases since 2006. These price hikes are threatening global food security and are especially detrimental to small-scale farmers’ ability to enter the organic agriculture field.

Despite all these challenges, organic agriculture holds untapped potential for helping farmers and consumers alike build resilience to food price shocks, climate change, and water scarcity. By turning to organic agroforestry and switching from synthetic to organic fertilizers, farmers are not only raising their incomes by reducing input costs, but also adapting to the effects of climate change and helping to protect the environment.

“In order to keep feeding humanity for generations to come, and to feed people better, farming must reinforce conservation goals by adding diversity to the food chain and by healing ecosystems,” said Danielle Nierenberg, Worldwatch senior researcher and co-director of the Institute’s Nourishing the Planet project.



Crappy Produce

I buy most of my groceries from DeKalb Farmer’s Market. I also like to shop at local, smaller farmer’s markets as well, but their hours tend to be limited and difficult for me to shop there. Living in the city of Atlanta provides a lot of good choices for fresh and organic produce.

But there are no farmer’s markets close to where I live. There are a few supermarkets within walking distance. Whole Foods, Kroger, and Publix are the three close to me. Every now and then (like this morning) I get hungry before Whole Foods opens. I woke up at 4 a.m. this morning famished after a day of extremely intense physical activity and I wanted breakfast. In fact, I think, after only 4 hours of sleep hunger is what woke me up. I felt like my stomach was about to start eating itself. So I went to Kroger because they are open 24 hours a day.

When I go grocery shopping for the week my diet mainly consists of salads (to see an example of the kind of salads I eat once or twice a day, check out the 80% raw article). I only had a few dollars to spend so I went straight for the produce. I bought three oranges and two apples, a red bell pepper, and a kiwi. This was my breakfast. They were all organic.

It was not pleasant eating this food. Don’t get me wrong, yesterday I bought two apples, two oranges, and an heirloom tomato at Whole Foods and loved them. I ate them in one sitting right before my martial arts class. I absolutely love fruits and vegetables. But every single time I buy any produce at any of the conventional grocery stores the food tastes empty. It’s a chore to eat this produce.

I understand why so many people don’t like fruits and vegetables. I understand why getting a child to eat their vegetables’ is futile power struggle. It’s because most of the produce we purchase in this country looks good on the shelves, but is void of nutrition and consequently, void of taste!

The produce I bought at Kroger was organic. But it was organic produce that was produced by a huge farm that probably produces organic food almost exactly like they produce conventional food. And the produce was probably weeks old. It was bland and hard to eat. I could have as easily swallowed cardboard or Styrofoam. My mouth was getting tired from chewing, but I could barely produce enough saliva to swallow this food that my body didn’t seem to want any more than my taste buds did.

If you are looking to start eating healthy and are looking to incorporate more raw fresh fruits and vegetables into your diet, you must find a farmer’s market or a grocery store that prides itself in quality produce. If you need help locating a farmer’s market, check out Local Harvest.

And grow as much of your own food as you can! If you’re just getting started with growing your own food, Mike Liebermam’s Urban Organic Gardener is a blog you must follow, especially if you have limited space and/or a limited budget.

I feel sorry for anyone who does not have access to good produce. I can’t imagine living the way I do and eating the way I do with the kind of crap I bought this morning.



Monsanto Company Profile Part IV of IV

Monsanto’s Roundup

Roundup is a broad-spectrum herbicide, a weed and grass killer, upon which Monsanto built its empire. Monsanto developed Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, and held the patent until 2000.

As we have come to expect with Monsanto’s products and practices, Roundup is not without controversy, not only for its detrimental effects on the environment, but also due to corporate deception and lies. In 1996, Monsanto was sued by the Attorney
General of the State of New York Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau, Environmental Protection Bureau for consumer fraud “in broadcast and print media, including television, radio, magazines, brochures, and at point-of-purchase displays.” Among the cited examples of Monsanto’s lies are the following:

“Remember that environmentally friendly Roundup herbicide is biodegradable. It won’t build up in the soil so you can use Roundup with confidence along customers’ driveways, sidewalks and fences …”

“Glyphosate is less toxic to rats than table salt following acute oral ingestion.”

“You can feel good about using herbicides by Monsanto. They carry a toxicity category rating of ‘practically non-toxic’ as it pertains to mammals, birds and fish.”

Monsanto, while refusing to admit that it violated any laws or that it agreed with the findings of the Attorney General, did agree to the Assurance of Discontinuance and to refrain from any publicity that expresses or implies Roundup to be safe, non-toxic, harmless, free from risk, biodegradable, non-leaching, good for the environment, or/and is safer or less toxic than other herbicides.  Monsanto also agreed to pay a $50,000.00 fine. 1

This slap on the wrist did not cause
Monsanto to stop making false claims overseas. In 2007, France fined Monsanto for false advertising, for claiming Roundup to be biodegradable and that it leaves the soil clean after use. 2

Roundup is certainly toxic to humans and animals. It can be absorbed by plants that grow in soil sprayed by the herbicide. Studies have shown endocrine disruption and effects on human placental cells. Roundup leaches into groundwater and has a half life of up to 3 months in water.3

Europeans and GMOs

For the most part, Americans have blithely accepted GM crops, assuming the USDA and the FDA would never allow dangerous foods to be grown and sold for human or animal consumption.  Europeans are not so trusting. We asked Brad Mitchell, Director of Public Affairs for Monsanto, why he believes Europeans to be so resistant to GM crops.

“I don’t have any magic answers,” he said. “I have my own beliefs, and it’s not necessarily Monsanto’s. I think a lot of it has to do with mad cow disease, BSE, and the fact that at the time that we moved in with a lot of technology and tried to introduce it into Europe that we weren’t necessarily sensitive to that fact that a lot of citizens at that point had lost faith in the regulatory system, had

sort of lost faith in the ability of the government to protect them. All of the sudden you have this new scary thing. I think some activists moved in who opposed GMOs and sort of filled that vacuum. And I think it was just a ripe environment. I think it was the wrong time and the wrong approach. Again, that’s my personal belief and not Monsanto’s.”

GMO Compass’s website is dedicated to providing information about GMOs to the European people. This pro GMO organization gives clear information about many of the issues surrounding GMOs and how they are tested and approved in Europe.

The European Food Safety Authority or EFSA, established in 2002, serves as the “central authority for the evaluation of food and feed safety in the EU.” The GMO Panel is an expert committee of independent scientists from a range of disciplines who are charged with the task of authorizing or rejecting a GMO food based on scientific evidence.

The first safety issue with GM foods centers around the effects of introducing a new gene into a plant’s DNA, which generally results in the formation of a new protein. If this protein is new to humans, it could have effects on our health. The first concern is an allergic response.

“The safety of a particular protein regarding
toxicity is assessed using animal feeding tests. For food additives or herbicide residues, these kinds of tests are routine. When results from animal trials are applied to humans, considerable extra safety measures must be taken.

“Safety evaluations must include tests to find out if the new protein could trigger allergies. Several criteria are known that suggest allergenic potential. If one or more of these criteria are met, the GM plant expressing this protein is unlikely to receive clearance in the EU.”

The second safety issue is whether unforeseen changes have resulted in the plant’s metabolism as a result of the gene transfer.

Two tests measure these changes. The first is a chemical analysis that measures nutritional value, vitamin content, and toxin levels. This test would indicate that the food is substantially equivalent if these measurements do not differ from those of the same plant’s conventional counterpart. If the results differ, further testing is indicated.

The second test is a feeding test. “In these tests, the whole food is fed to animals such as rats or chickens over an extended period of time. It is anticipated that any dangerous ‘side effects’ of the GM food would be made noticeable by changes affecting, for instance, the animal’s immune system or its internal organs.

This sounds good until reading on.

“Toxicological assessments on test animals are not explicitly required for the approval of a new food in the EU or the US. Independent experts have decided that in some cases, chemical analyses of the food’s makeup are enough to indicate that the new GMO is substantially equivalent to its traditional counterpart. Feeding tests are only requested in cases of doubt.

“Nonetheless, the results of animal tests are routinely presented to the European safety assessment authorities. In recent years, biotech companies have tested their transgenic products (maize, soy, tomato) before introducing them to the market on several different animals over the course of up to 90 days. Negative effects have not yet been observed.”

90 days? 90 DAYS!!!

Oh, wait! There’s more!

“GMO critics claim that feeding studies with authorized GMOs have revealed negative health effects. Such claims have not been based on peer-reviewed, scientifically accepted evaluations. If reliable, scientific studies were to indicate any type of health risk, the respective GMO would not receive authorisation. 4

So, once again, we have a situation where the tests that are approved are conducted by the companies themselves. And all the other tests that say there are problems with GMOs are not scientifically accepted evaluations. And the longest period required for the scientifically approved tests is 90 days. 4

Where are the long term studies? Where are the human studies? Where are the generational studies?

Monsanto’s Brad Mitchell said, “If you look at EFSA, The European Food Safety Authority, they basically said what FDA has and South American authorities. So the opposition to GM foods and AG [agriculture] technology in general in Europe seems to be more based on philosophy and personal feelings versus science. I wouldn’t say that they are any less valid, but we don’t have a conflict in regulatory bodies between the U.S. and Europe. It’s a conflict in social acceptance.”

If Brad Mitchell is right in his first assumption, that Europeans don’t trust regulatory agencies partially due to Mad Cow Disease, perhaps they’ve heard the story told by Monsanto whistleblower, Kirk Azevedo.

Kirk was approached by Monsanto and offered a job back in 1996. Kirk had been

raised on a farm, and had worked with a competitor testing pesticides and herbicides. Kirk was fascinated by Monsanto’s GMO crops and looked forward to being a part of Monsanto as the company forged ahead to make the world a better place.

As a young scientist, Kirk was also interested in Mad Cow Disease and its cause, improperly folded proteins called prions. He had learned about how these strange proteins cause healthy proteins to become misfolded, which over time cause holes in the brains of the cows. Prions survive cooking. In cows, the disease may incubate undetected for 2 to 8 years; in humans, it is thought to incubate up to 30 years.

At Monsanto, Kirk worked with two varieties of GM cotton; one of which was Roundup Ready® cotton.  A Monsanto scientist told Kirk the plant contained several unknown proteins. While the scientist was unconcerned about these new proteins, Kirk became very concerned.

He had learned normal testing protocols in his previous job working with herbicides and pesticides. Plants from test fields were always destroyed.  They were never allowed to enter the food chain. This was a basic safety precaution. But at Monsanto, creating new DNA with rogue proteins that could be toxic or allergenic or could even lead to

another prion-type disease, they were skirting normal safety protocols and feeding their test plants to cows—cows that were part of our food chain.

Kirk explained his concern to the PhD in charge of the test plot. The supervisor refused to destroy the plants. He even told Kirk Monsanto was doing it that way everywhere. So Kirk shared his concerns with co-workers to no avail before going outside the company to the California Agricultural commissioners. He spoke to more commissioners and to people at the University of California, but got nowhere; blank stares told him the technology was beyond their comprehension. They did not understand the threat. Kirk, of course, was ostracized. Any action that did not lead to commercialization of the product was an unwanted intrusion. He left the company and entered chiropractic school.

He continued to research prion disease and its possible relationship to GM crops. He remained concerned that cows and the people who ate them were used as test subjects, and we still don’t know the result of that experiment.

Safety Concerns

The safety concerns over GM or GMO crops will never be addressed unless or until we stop the revolving door governance between big business in general and Monsanto in particular.

Too often, executives who work for Monsanto or have close ties to Monsanto are later placed in positions of power within the government regulatory agencies, and often go right back to working at Monsanto.  Brad Mitchell downplays this using his own experience as a measure.  “Well, you know I came from working for the state ethics commission in my previous job. And you know when I came back, I work for Monsanto. If I went back to the state department, I would not be able to make decisions for a year related to Monsanto…Is a year enough? I don’t know. And there are other provisions. Are they enough? Those

rules are constantly being reviewed, but as a regulator I never made a single decision where there weren’t at least four other people who had some say over that or some responsibility over me.”

These restrictive measures were certainly not in place in the FDA for Margaret Miller. Miller, while working for Monsanto, put together a report for the FDA which was used to determine whether or not Monsanto’s bovine growth hormones were safe. When she went to work for the FDA, her first task was to determine whether or not to approve the Monsanto report, the very one she herself had submitted.  The instances of revolving door appointments and employments are too numerous to list. Simply google revolving door and Monsanto to view them all. 5

The reality is we have no idea what the long term effects of eating GM foods will be for humans. But what do we know?

  • Rat studies have shown liver changes, stomach lesions, and third generation reproductive failure.
  • Farmers who fed their pigs Bt corn report severe reproductive failures and bizarre events such as pigs giving “birth” to bags of water with no fetuses.
  • The only human feeding study proved the modified genes jumped into human gut bacteria and combined DNA.5

If Monsanto is so proud of their GMO foods, why do they resist labels that inform the consumer of what they are eating? On his blog, Brad Mitchell says, “Opposition to GM labeling is not based on anyone wanting to hide this information. Its <sic>just that given our system only requires labeling for information that people need to know about, a significant concern with mandatory GM labeling is that people will assume there is something risky with GMs. To date, every GM crop approved in the US has been determined by the government to be equivalent to its non-GM equivalent. I know some people disagree with this, but this is the determination in the US and most other governments.”

He told us, “Monsanto did not sue a dairy farmer because he labeled his milk, Monsanto sued because of ‘how’ he labeled his milk. 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 where 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.”

And Brad reminds us that we can be sure we are eating GMO free foods by choosing organic foods. And yet, can we be sure our organic foods have not become contaminated?

Aside from not knowing the specific health risks of Bt foods, we are standing on the brink of a greater disaster—contamination of the world’s food supply. GMOs are not contained. The seeds are blown into neighboring tracts of land and carried great distances by birds.

“I can kind of understand why someone who wants pure food wouldn’t want GM, genetic material in his corn,” says Brad Mitchell. “Realistically, he’s not going to be able to tell the difference. It’s not going to taste any different. It’s not going to be substantially different at all and you’re going to need some very sophisticated machinery/equipment to even tell if there has been any movement of genetic material. And in fact there has been genetic material of hybrids and everything moving around between corn for as long as there have been different varieties of corn. So I guess I would ask what the real significance is versus what the philosophical concern is… To date, in my mind, and most of the regulators in the world, the risks have not been demonstrated. Now if we demonstrate real risks, you know, I’ll switch, and say we shouldn’t be doing this. But I haven’t seen them.”

We see reports that regulators are not seeing the risk because they are looking the other way, because they are bribed, because their jobs are threatened, and because no long term studies are required. Again, the greatest threat is the fact that we’ve opened Pandora’s Box. How will we have a choice, how will we “pull the plug” on this great experiment if we confirm the worst, that genetic engineering of plant and animal DNA in our food chain is disastrous to our health and to our food supply?

What we know for certain is that we are dealing with a company that has a history of corruption—lies, bribes, cover-ups. Monsanto brought us Agent Orange, dioxin, PCBs and DDT. They covered up massive contamination of superfund sites in the U.S. and in other countries. Now they bring us GMOs and ask us to trust them—saying they would never hurt us. This, the same company who covered up the contamination in Anniston, dumping toxic waste into unlined landfills and dumping millions of pounds of dangerous chemicals into creeks and rivers before standing by and witnessing health repercussions of the residents including thousands of children whose problems included cancer, birth defects, and cerebral palsy. This company stood by for decades doing nothing. They lied on the stand. Their true culpability was revealed through documents they had tried to conceal.

“Will we look back on it and say we made some mistakes with GMs? Possibly. Some people would say probably,” says Brad Mitchell. “Are we going to look back and say, ‘Oh, my God, this was a huge mistake?’ No, I don’t think so.”

Our point exactly, Mr. Mitchell. “I don’t think so” isn’t good enough. Our health, our lives, and the future of our food depend on our actions today.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:
  1. Mindfully.org, Assurance of Discontinuance
  2. Terra Daily, Monsanto fined in France for ‘false’ herbicide ads
  3. Organic Consumers Association, Multiple Studies Show That Monsanto’s Roundup is Toxic
  4. GMO Compass, Evaluating Safety: A Major Undertaking
  5. Global Research, Monsanto Whistleblower Says Genetically Engineered Crops May Cause Disease, by Jeffrey M. Smith
  6. Healthy Choices BC website
  7. Monsanto Website—Blog entry by Brad Mitchell, GMO Labels: Surveys, Petitions, and Political Theater, March 2, 2009


Monsanto Company Profile part III of IV

Ten to twelve thousand years ago, fertile ground led to the rise of our first civilizations as mankind began the slow shift from full dependence on hunting and gathering food to planting and growing crops.  Seed was saved and sowed from year to year. Wild plants become domesticated. We learned to irrigate fields, to maximize production, to feed nations.

In time, we learned to use selective breeding. Selective breeding produced desired traits such as taste, size, drought resistance, and yields. Experience brought us wisdom. We learned the benefits of crop rotation. Knowing rich soil grew healthy, disease resistant crops, we found natural ways to replenish the land.

But famine has always plagued mankind. Famine is caused by many factors—war; over-population; climate shifts including drought, over abundant rainfall, temperature shifts, decreased sunlight; and so on. Though many would argue we have enough food to feed the world, famines continue. A quick look at the history of famine, and the famine conditions that exist today, explains much about the search for solutions.

Beginning in the 1940s, the agricultural technology of industrialized nations – utilizing fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation techniques, and high yield cultivars (new varieties of

grains developed through selective breeding) – was brought to developing nations. Dubbed the “Green Revolution”, these projects created remarkable increases in yields but they also changed the face of traditional farming.

Indian Farmer Suicides

Search anywhere on the net, and you will find story after story blaming Monsanto for alarming suicide rates among poor rural farmers—200,000 or more farmers in India since 1997. The stories claim poor farmers incur debt to purchase Monsanto seeds at 1000 times the conventional price, believing Monsanto’s exorbitant claims that GMO seeds will require little to no pesticide and yield abundant crops, bounties never before seen. These stories also claim GMO seeds require twice the amount of water as conventional seeds.  Sold in areas of persistent drought, the crops fail. Farmers, with land now indebted to pay for their inputs of seed, fertilizer, and pesticide, are committing suicide by the thousands, many of them by drinking Monsanto insecticide before they lie down in their fields to die an agonizing death.

Brad Mitchell, Monsanto’s Director of Public Affairs, denies the claim that their seeds are priced at 1000 times the cost of conventional seeds, but admits their cost is higher. “Monsanto’s seeds are based on value,” he says, directing us to information on the company website that explains higher yields and lower inputs justify a higher price tag on GMO seeds.  Mitchell also denies the claim that Bt cotton seeds require more water.

Monsanto’s website states, “Bt cotton has been given an unfair reputation when the true culprit is a smorgasbord of repairable socio-economic problems in India. A variety of third-party studies have proven that personal debt is the historical reason behind an Indian farmer’s decision to commit suicide, notbiotech seed. Think about it this way: if Bt cotton were the root cause of suicidal tendencies, then why is it that Indian farmers represent the fastest-growing users of biotech crops in the world? Between 2005 and 2006, India’s adoption of Bt cotton nearly tripled to 9.5 million acres! Today, Bt cotton is currently used in nine states in India on 14.4 million or 63 percent of India’s total cotton acres. So, if the studies don’t disprove the myths relating Bt cotton to Indian farmer suicide, then perhaps the sales figures will.” 1

Brad Mitchell encouraged us to read an independent study by The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Bt Cotton

and Farmer Suicides in India, Reviewing The Evidence.

The study reaches the conclusion that on a national level there is no “resurgence” of farmer suicide and no correlation to Bt cotton and farmer suicide rates. Overall, national cotton production “appears” to have a positive correlation to Bt cotton; pesticide use is down.

The study reports farmer suicides at the rate of 14,000 to 18,000 per year representing 14-16 percent of India’s total suicides, since 1997. It concludes, “Based on the observed national trend from 1997 to 2006, one can clearly reject the assertion that the growth in suicides has accelerated in the last five years or so. The number of farmer suicides is significant and tends to be growing over time, but so is the total number of suicides in the general population…” They also state, “Yes, farmer suicide is an important and tragic phenomenon, but it still only represents three-quarters of the total number of suicides due to pesticide ingestion in India and less than a fifth of total suicides in India. Moreover, even if there has been an increasing trend in total suicides, the reported share of farmer suicides has in fact been decreasing. Of course, all these conclusions are based on available estimates, which may be underestimated, but without better data, onecannot deny that claim.”

The study also reveals that national trends and regional trends on suicide differ as do reports of success with Bt cotton.  At the time of the International Food Policy Research Institute report, Bt cotton was cultivated in more than 10 states across India. Bt seed sold at prices up to 400% higher than conventional seed (down from its original price of 500 times the price of conventional seed), and it promised higher yields with fewer inputs (less need to spray with pesticide). “…Bt cotton is a costly technology compared with non-Bt cotton because of the highly priced seeds. At the same time, some farmers seem to have spent significant amounts on other inputs (fertilizers and so forth) with the planting of Bt cotton, based on the belief that this new technology would result in an extraordinary level of yields in all conditions (even with drought) or on the false perception that high pesticide use was still required. Other farmers seem to have purchased high-cost spurious seeds, thinking the seeds were Bt seeds, but they were duped. Lastly, and more generally, a number of farmers bought Bt seeds without considering the type of Bt variety they were purchasing; therefore they blamed the Bt technology itself, when actually the variety they purchased was inadequate for their  conditions.” 2

India’s first Bt cotton was illegally planted.  The seed company held responsible, Navbharat, claimed they collected seed from a number of fields to produce a new hybrid seed, not knowing the seed carried Bt genes. Whether Navbharat told the truth and Monsanto’s seeds were already sown across the countryside or the company was lying and knowingly sold Bt cotton seeds to farmers, the fact remains that Monsanto’s Bt cotton entered India illegally, bypassing safety testing protocols and endangering non-GMO crops with contamination. At roughly the same time, a Monsanto subsidiary in Indonesia bribed an Indonesian official to repeal or modify a law that prevented the introduction of Bt cotton without a legally required environmental impact study.

Indian cotton farmers have “adopted the methods at higher rates than anywhere else on the planet with any other technology ever introduced into agriculture,” says Brad Mitchell.

Monsanto is certainly perpetuating the second wave of the “Green Revolution” model which began in the last century, a movement that encourages farmers to adopt non-sustainable agriculture and results in a dependence on companies such as Monsanto for seed and other inputs. More >and more small Indian farmers have moved into non-sustainable cash crop farming, planting one crop instead of many, and relying on that one cash crop to make a profit that will pay for all the family’s needs. As a result, small rural farms in India are on the decline, an all too familiar scenario.

Seed Monopoly

Monsanto, now the largest seed company in the world, has bought out many seed companies across the nation. Critics are crying foul, with fears that Monsanto is gaining a monopoly on the world’s seed supply. Brad Mitchell says, “At present, if we dominate—if you want to use the word dominate – we dominate through innovative not through unfair business practices. People buy our product because they like it, and because they find value in it, not because they have to. I ask every farmer I meet, ‘Do you have choices?’ and he’ll say. ‘Hell yes.’ So that’s out there. I’ve been looking for statistics on this, but my understanding, and I can’t cite it, but the best understanding I can come up with from personal sources is that about 80% of the world’s seed remain open source; that they’re not patented, they’re not hybrid.”

Anti-GMO critics aren’t the only sources concerned that Monsanto now holds a monopoly on the seed supply. Monsanto’s GMO competitor, DuPont, has gone public with the same concerns about a monopoly, though DuPont’s concern is a monopoly within the bio-tech seed industry. 3

Monsanto’s latest seed company acquisitions to make the headlines are two of the largest seed companies in the world. While purchasing an overseas company is not addressed under U.S. anti-trust laws, the greater concern now becomes global dominance.

On March  31, 2008, Monsanto announced its agreement to acquire DeRuiter Seeds, a Dutch company, one of the world’s leading vegetable seed companies. This action followed the acquisition of Seminis in 2007 for 1.4 billion in cash plus assumed debt. Seminis was the world’s largest seed company. Monsanto’s news release stated, “Seminis is the global leader in the vegetable and fruit seed industry and their brands are among the most recognized in the vegetable-and-fruit segment of agriculture. Seminis supplies more than 3,500 seed varieties to commercial fruit and vegetable growers, dealers, distributors and wholesalers in more than 150 countries around the world.” The Organic Seed Alliance reports Seminis controlled 40% of the U.S. vegetable seed market and 20 % of the world market. 5

Again, we asked Mr. Mitchell for clarification on the monopoly issue, this time in writing. “What percentage of the world’s marketable seeds is owned by Monsanto (not counting seeds saved by farmers from their own crops)?”

He responded, “Monsanto’s share of the total worldwide seed market is very small. Of the global seed market, it is estimated that greater than 80 percent is ‘open source’ farmer saved seed. So, the commercial seed market is less than 20 percent and Monsanto’s is a fraction of that 20 percent.”

That “fraction” equals 23% of the global proprietary seed market. In 2007, their sales totaled $4,964 million dollars.5

Monsanto is wildly criticized for the fact that farmers are not allowed to save seeds for the next crop. Farmers who purchase GMO seeds enter a contract, fully aware that they will have to buy new seed next season.  Yet critics abound, saying this goes against nature, that farmers have always saved seed.

Brad Mitchell reminds us that this is not always true. “You can’t save hybrids. I’m a little perplexed, frankly, by this whole thing about not being able to save seeds, because it’s nothing new. Beyond that, I guess I look out in the marketplace and I’m a home gardener and I have friends who are organic farmers. I’ve yet to hear one of them who can’t get the heirloom seeds they want.  I look at catalogs like Johnny Seeds and it doesn’t look to me like all those seed varieties are going away. In fact it seems like Johnny Seeds is growing every year. So I don’t see the evidence of us losing these open source varieties of seed.”

Mr. Mitchell tells us farmers would never save and plant hybrid seeds for a second season as they don’t do well for second generation planting—the farmer doesn’t know what he’s getting.

Hybrid seed is not new to India. The traditional relationship between the famer and his seeds has already been disrupted by the “Green Revolution” and the acceptance of hybrid seeds.

The abundance first realized through petroleum-based fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides has taken its toll on the land itself.  “The foundation of all agricultural production is quality soil,” says K. Rashid Nuri, of Truly Living Well Natural Urban Farms. “Conventional agriculture uses soil as simply a receptacle for the roots, and then attempts to add chemical nutrients that plant and soil scientists feel are necessary. These chemicals actually degrade and pollute the environment and do not provide or create life-giving food.”

Lessons we have learned over thousands of years of agriculture are being ignored. Short term gains are realized at the expense of long-term results. It is only through honoring the land itself that we will reap benefits in the long run.

“Farmers who understand agricultural practices holistically,” says Nuri, “realize that all life begins and ends in the soil. Thus, the proper agricultural focus is on building quality soil through application and incorporation of copious amounts of compost and other organic materials. This material feeds the soil and the life found in it. Plants grown in healthy soil that is full of earthworms, fungi and other micro-flora and fauna create an environment that produces healthy, disease resistant plants full of vital nutrients requisite to human health.”

Isn’t it high time we support traditional farming?

Monsanto Part IV (click to read) addresses RoundUp safety and GMOs in Europe as well as other safety issues regarding GMOs

Recommended Reading:
Sources:
  1. Monsanto’s website
  2. Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India, Reviewing The Evidence. 
  3. Monsanto, DuPont Square Off in Crop Seed Turf War, Reuters
  4. And We Have Seeds, Organic Seed Alliance, January 24, 2005
  5. Etc Group, Who Owns Nature? Nov 2008


Monsanto Company Profile part II of IV

Monsanto is a new company. No longer a chemical company, the new Monsanto is an agricultural company, a leader in biotech and GMO technology. Their pledge begins with these words:

We want to make the world a better place for future generations. As an agricultural company, Monsanto can do this best by providing value through the products and systems we offer to farmers.”

 

 

Sustainable Yield Initiative

Monsanto states its goal is to increase yields while maintaining or reducing inputs of energy and pesticides through the use of genetically modified crops. Monsanto’s Sustainable Yield Initiative puts forth a goal to double crop yields in corn, soy, and cotton by the year 2030, from the baseline year, 2000. “That’s in countries that have bio-technology, that have adapted that,” says Brad Mitchell, Director of Public Affairs. “And do that using 1/3 less inputs, so nitrogen, water, etcetera… And by doubling those yields we will improve farmer’s lives because more yield means more money in their pockets, and profitability increases.”

Mitchell brags that their biotech is “…skill neutral technology. A farmer in the middle of Iowa will use it and then you can also have a farmer in Argentina use it and it will yield pretty well. It’s something that both can use on their farm no matter how much–if he has 500 acres or 5 acres, they both benefit.”

Monsanto’s biotech seeds are patented. Farmers are not allowed to retain patented seeds from a crop. Each season they are required to purchase new seeds. For this, Monsanto has come under attack, with critics claiming this practice to be unnatural and unsustainable. Mitchell says, “… a lot of people make a big deal about Monsanto patentingseeds, and how this is going to lead to control over the seed supply and that sort of thing. I have two responses to that. One is, first, patenting of seeds is not new and it’s not unique to either Monsanto or biotech. And if you don’t believe me, go google raspberry and patents and see what you come up with. There are plenty of patent varieties of raspberries out there, and everything from asparagus to zucchini. Basically if people Genetic Modification didn’t have the ability to patent the result of their breeding, there would be no incentive for them to do so.”

Mitchell continues, “The other part of it that I find a little bit amusing and a little bit disheartening is that when people say, ‘Oh well, you can’t save patented seeds. This is the end of the world.’ Well, we’ve had hybrid seeds in production and available to farmers for just about 70 years. And with the vast majority of hybrid seeds, you can’t save those either. And nobody’s made a big deal about that. And the reason you can’t save hybrids, some of them are patented, but more importantly, the offspring seed doesn’t have the genetic consistency of the parent, so no farmer will ever save a hybrid seed because they are not going to know what they are getting. Farmers who have had hybrid seed available for over 70 years they choose them because namely because they give better yields. Some of them have some other traits that they appreciate.”

Due to patent protection and patent infringement investigations, Monsanto employs a number of investigators. Mr. Mitchell could not tell us the exact number, but he estimates the number to be around 40. “And those aren’t all full time, doing this for us, they’re private investigator firms, so a good part of the year they’re not doing save-seed stuff, they’re doing other whatever else investigators do. These are private firms.”

Lawsuits Against Farmers

In films that criticize Monsanto and their relationship with farmers, Monsanto is accused of using their investigators and lawsuits to harass and intimidate. Mitchell says that out of half a million customers, Monsanto has filed 138 lawsuits for patent infringement and nine went to trial; the others settled out of court.

“Now, we kind of have to do this for three reasons,” Mitchell says. “One is we’re not going to make any money if people aren’t buying our products. I mean there’s the patent infringement issue. Two is we owe it to our stockholders, because they invest in this. And a good part of it is, you know, frankly, we put ten percent of our money into research and development, so the third part of this is really if people are getting this technology without paying for it, we’re not going to be able to do that. And we’re not going to see the state of technology today…probably a lot of your readership would like that but not necessarily a lot of the farmers out there.”

“So we’ve got about half a dozen people who have claimed that we have committed these misdeeds. I don’t see it. I was actually outat a farm the other day and we had a seed patent investigation in the neighborhood, and he goes, ‘You know, my neighbor is really upset with you guys. He’s furious with how you handledthis seed patent infringement case.’ (Against the farmer we had a case against and we settled.)’ And I said,’Uh-oh. What’s his problem? And he said, ‘He doesn’t think you went after enough.’ So what we typically hear from farmers is, “Look, I gotta pay for it. Yeah, I’d rather not pay for it and I’d rather not pay for gasoline or my taxes either, but if I’m going to do it, the other guy better, too, because it’s not fair.” Farmers who have
settled cases with Monsanto have said they cannot discuss the terms of the settlements, that Monsanto insisted on non-disclosure clauses. Mitchell insists the opposite is true, that the farmers were the ones who asked for the non-disclosures. “Unfortunately what’s happened is that people have turned that against us and said, ‘Well, Monsanto requested these.’ We don’t request nondisclosure and we never have. We, in the past, have agreed to it, but we don’t do it anymore for that very reason.”    The money from all of the settlements has been donated to agricultural charities and scholarships. “The ones that actually went through full trial [9 cases], we do retain that, mainly because trials are expensive.”

Human Rights

Hugh Grant, Monsanto Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, is quoted on Monsanto’s website. He states, “As an agricultural and technology company committed to human rights, we have a unique opportunity to protect and advance human rights. We have a responsibility to consider not only how our business can benefit consumers, farmers, and food processors, but how it can protect the human rights of both Monsanto’s employees and our business partners’ employees.”

Monsanto identifies nine elements in its human rights policy: child labor, forced labor, compensation, working hours, harassment and violence, discrimination, safety, freedom of association, and legal compliance.

Forced, indentured, or bonded labor is unacceptable to Monsanto and Monsanto rejects corporal punishment of any type. Compensation is to meet or exceed minimum wage standards, regardless of performance measures. Monsanto states they will comply with all laws and industry standards with regard to working hours. Harassment, violence, and discrimination will never be tolerated. Monsanto is committed to safety, to the rights of workers to join or not join organizations of their choosing, to associate
freely and bargain collectively. And last but not least, Monsanto states that it “will comply with all applicable local, state and national laws regarding human rights and workers’ rights where the company does business.”

While Monsanto supports young people working within the agricultural business, it wants to ensure that all applicable local, state, and national laws are followed and that none of its business partners practice exploitive child labor practices. To this end, in India Monsanto has added “no child labor” clauses into farmer and third party contracts, has instigated a massive farmer awareness campaign with posters, door to door visits, leaflets, postcards, field audits 10-12 times during the 45-60 pay pollination period (auditors conducted more than 10,000 field visits in 2007), and written farm attendance reports.

Monsanto has also employed incentive/disincentive schemes, paying farmers an incentive if they employ only adult labor. If a farmer is found to be in violation, the child(ren) are removed from the field, the farmer becomes ineligible for incentives, and Monsanto discontinues production with the farmer the following year. The Monsanto Fund, established in 1964, gives funds to communities in the United States and around the world in the company’s areas of  operations, including a residential learning center for child laborers, in a further effort to stop the practice of using child labor.

In 2007, The Monsanto Fund pledged 12.6 million to numerous causes around the world.

In our final report on Monsanto, we will discuss seed monopolies, Indian farmer suicides, conflicting reports on crop yields, Roundup safety, and bans on GM crops.

Click here to read part III

Recommended Reading:

 

 



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):

Further Reading: