Salt and pepper doesn’t sound like an interesting topic, does it? We didn’t think so either until we opened a box from Sustainable Sourcing LLC and spread their products across our counter. Once we read the enclosed information we found salt and pepper could be very interesting, especially when the company that brings these organic, gourmet products to market is downright inspirational.

HimalaSalt is hand harvested from the Himalayan Mountains. It is pure, pristine sea salt created 250 million years ago from an ancient ocean. Its lovely pink color is due to its high content of essential minerals (it’s high in magnesium, calcium, and iron and contains more than 80 essential trace minerals). It is never heat treated. It is stone ground, all natural, unrefined, and additive free. Its taste is full-bodied and rich. When you taste it, you’ll realize this is how salt is supposed to taste!

HimalaSalt is actually good for you. Its essential minerals replenish vital electrolytes. It alkalizes the body, allowing vital nutrients to be absorbed more efficiently, while aiding the body in releasing acidic waste.

It comes in a surprising variety which includes a 7oz. box of coarse crystals, 4 oz. and 2.8 oz. refillable salt grinders, a 6 oz. fine grain shaker, and a one pound Zen Cube that comes with a stainless steel Inox Italian grater. The Zen Cube looks like a big chunk of rose quartz. It’s unique, beautiful, and fun to use. Sustainable Sourcing also offers organic garlic salt in a shaker.

Sustainable Sourcing’s Organic Heirloom Peppercorn ™ line is equally appealing. Sold in refillable pepper grinders and spice jars, the variety includes Cubeb Pepper grown in the Monsoon Forests of Indonesia, Heirloom Long Pepper from Bali, pink peppercorns from Brazil, green peppercorns from India, white peppercorns from Indonesia, and the Rainbow Blend—black, white, pink, and green peppercorns. Each delivers a distinctive flavor.

Melissa Kushi, the founder and president of Sustainable Sourcing, is a former whole foods cooking teacher, a macrobiotic educator, and a successful organic commodities trader who has devoted much of her life’s work to sustainable foods farming, alternative health, and ethical business models. Her integrity and morality provide the foundation for Sustainable Sourcing, a company that puts health, well-being, and the environment first and insists on ethical sourcing, artisan harvesting and production methods, natural packaging, and a carbon-neutral, zero-landfill footprint. Check out www.himalasalt.com.

As you can imagine, I am frequently asked the question, “What is the most significant thing I can do to improve my health?” I usually tell people that the most important change is to eat a diet high in raw fruits and vegetables. This is the absolute foundation for good health. No supplement or herbal tincture can give you the benefits that the right diet can give you.

The second step is to go organic if possible. USDA certified organic is great, but ideally, fresh, locally grown, truly organic food is the best choice. There is a significant difference between fresh locally grown food and food that was stored, later shipped, only to be piled up again at a distributing center before being shelved for another few weeks or longer. Those fruits and vegetables lose a significant amount of vitamin content and enzymes. We don’t get enough enzymes; eating fresh, locally grown, recently picked raw fresh fruits and vegetables is our best source.

Another benefit of buying organic is avoiding genetically modified foods. Most of today’s processed foods are full of GMOs and much of our produce is genetically modified as well. The only way to ensure you are not eating GMOs is to eat organic.

You can cite studies that seem to prove genetically modified foods are bad for our health, and you can cite studies that show there is no such evidence. I don’t need a study to tell me that a genetically altered vegetable is not going to be good for me.

There are two kinds of science that come to mind with regards to one’s health: the kind of science that works with nature and the kind that works against nature. Genetically modified foods work against nature and seek to overcome nature. If you want optimum health, work with nature and eat what naturally makes sense. Eating food that has been genetically modified to combine DNA from a plant and an animal or food that has been genetically modified to contain an herbicide is not natural.

Infertility and genetic diseases are on the rise. I believe the further we remove ourselves (as well as animals, plants, or any living organism) from nature, the more our health will suffer. Only time will tell what price we will pay for our cavalier attitude towards (or rather, against) nature.

Michael Edwards

Editor in Chief

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):

• Shillington’s Total Nutrition Formula
• FloraMend Prime Probiotic – Thorne Research
• Fundamental Sulfur Powder (MSM Powder) – Douglas Labs
• Shillington’s Intestinal Cleanse Formula
• Shillington’s Intestinal Detox

Further Reading:

• How to Avoid GMOs
• Foods That Are GMO
• The Difference Between Heirlooms, Hybrids, and GMOs
• The Unspoken Link Between GM-Foods and Cancer
• GMO-Bananas are Going Into Human Trials

One of the biggest controversies surrounding food in recent years is the entry of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into our food system. If you don’t know about GMOs by now, here’s the concept in a nutshell: Genetically modified foods have had their DNA changed through genetic engineering, using advanced techniques to insert foreign genes (from such varied sources as bacteria and viruses) in order to enhance or change certain characteristics of the organism. The most common modified foods are derived from plants such as soybean, corn, canola, and cotton, but the list of GMOs also includes hormones given to dairy cattle (rbGH). Now even the animals themselves are being genetically engineered.

Supporters of genetic engineering say that modification of organisms on a genetic level is safe, and is similar to how conventional plant breeding has taken place for thousands of years. They also state that in order to gain efficiency in food production to feed the world, GM foods are necessary. The producers of these GMOs maintain that they are as safe as any other food, and have no negative effect on the people consuming them or the environment.

Critics of GMOs (including me) point out that no true trials or testing have been undertaken in order to prove the safety of these foods. In fact, adverse effects from consuming GMOs have been recorded, and because it’s such a new practice, the full results of releasing these unnatural organisms into the environment still remain to be seen. Since science can measure only what it targets, and the sheer number of variables in our natural environment is enormous, the possibility is great that many unintended consequences will occur through the use and consumption of GMOs.

Unfortunately, due to the prevalence of GMOs and the intermingling of foods in our food system during harvest, storage, and processing, most U.S. consumers have been eating genetically modified foods for years. Even those of us who focus on eating all organic probably have been ingesting these foods if we eat out or dine at someone’s house who isn’t as strict as we are with their food purchases. Some 60 to 70% of the products in a grocery store contain some type of genetically engineered ingredient, with the biggest offenders being soy, corn, canola oil, and cottonseed oil.

So why do companies like Monsanto (the world leader in genetic modification) pursue genetic engineering?

One claimed benefit is that using GM seeds increases crop yields and decreases the use of pesticides and herbicides for food production (hence the claim that GMOs will help feed the world). However, contrary to the information coming from the supporters of genetic engineering, studies have shown that just as many pesticides and herbicides are being applied to GM crops as non-GM crops, and in some cases at even higher quantities. For crops modified to be resistant to herbicides, farmers can spray even heavier without damaging the plants, leading to increased use of herbicides worldwide. These herbicides end up in our groundwater, and may also be present in food even after harvest and processing. A recent study sponsored by the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), published in Chemical Research in Toxicology journal, found that Roundup (glyphosate) diluted 105 times was toxic to three different human cell types. This level is significantly lower than the currently accepted residue levels. What this means is that every bite of GM food (modified to be tolerant of glyphosate application) will also have toxic residues which may be detrimental to your health.

Another reason given is the possible increase in nutrition from genetic modification (a higher vitamin content, such as vitamin A in so-called Golden Rice). Yet another is the production of pharmaceuticals from GM crops, which is touted as being able to increase the global availability of medicines and vaccines. Still another reason is the production of substances like spider silk in mass quantities (from genetically modified goats that can produce the silk protein in their Pesticides and GMOs milk).

The four major GM crops – soy, corn, canola, and cotton – are engineered to survive the applications of herbicides at levels which would otherwise kill the plants. Almost 70% of GM crops are engineered to be herbicide tolerant. Another trait of GM crops is a pesticide produced within the plant itself (Bt, or Bacillus thuringienses) in GM corn and cotton. Proponents claim that Bt is harmless, and is a natural bacteria, but some studies have shown an allergic reaction, a high immune response, and even damaged intestines.

If you aren’t OK with all of that, then you need to learn how to avoid GMOs in the food you buy. The best way to avoid them is to buy 100% certified organic food always (check the PLU number on the produce). Organic produce has a 5 digit PLU number, beginning with 9. Conventionally grown produce has a 4 digit PLU number. In theory, all GM produce has a 5 digit PLU number beginning with 8, but the critics say that because labeling is optional, not all GM produce will be labeled as such. If you eat meat, buy 100% grass-fed (pastured) beef and go for the certified organic meats. If you read labels carefully, you will find foods that have been labeled non-GMO or GMO-free. If it isn’t labeled as such, and the product contains non-organic soybeans, corn, canola, cottonseed oil, or dairy, you’re probably getting GM varieties in there.

For more info, be sure to bookmark Seeds of Deception and the Organic Consumers Association GM page.

I avoid GM food, and I wouldn’t feed it to my friends or family either. I highly recommend you become a careful label reader and keep it out of your diet as well.

Well, it’s getting to be that time of day (night 🙂 when I get to feeling I’ve had enough fun for one day and should be heading towards the ole sack, but I thought I’d leave y’all with this little true story that happened to me a few years back having to do with FrankenFoods.

At one time I was a promoter of Soy Protein Powder as a source of protein especially for some body builders I had as clients, and one day I was queried by one of them as to whether or not it was Genetically Engineered or not. GE had not been talked about very much up to that time and my knowledge on the subject was a bit scarce back then, but I thought I’d better investigate it. One of my friends had done some research on GE foods in general and the findings sent to me were shocking, outrageous, and downright scary.

To be on the safe side, I then decided to investigate this source that all my muscle builders were using, and proceeded to trace back the data trail as to how pervasive this GE thing was and whether or not there was any risk to my personal clients.

I went to our biggest local healthfood store in Clearwater called Nature’s Food Patch and asked the bulk food manager whether or not his Soy Protein Powder was GE or not. He emphatically told me that the Food Patch did NOT sell anything that was Genetically Modified. Absolutely Not! I then asked him what the name of the product was and who was its supplier. He told me it was called Supro 440 and they got it from NOW Foods. Wellllll, I thought this was a good start, as I do business with NOW (still do) as I feel they have the best Vitamin E and COQ10 on the planet at the best price (only a few of the products made by someone else that I am willing to trust and endorse which is why they are on my product and price list).

I then called NOW Foods and asked one of the technical advisors there if the Supro 440 that they were selling was Genetically Engineered. “Absolutely NOT! No way in hell would they sell anything that was GE. Ridiculous!” Welllllll, OK this sounded good so I asked him who the manufacturer was who supplied them with the stuff. He told me it was a company called Protein Technologies and readily gave me their number.

I’m feeling all right and making good headway here, so I next call up Protein Technologies and asked to speak to a technical supervisor there as I had some questions to put to him. I get him on the line and I ask, “Is your Supro 440 a Genetically Engineered product?”. —- Long pregnant pause, and then he returned with, “Well, what exactly do you mean by Genetically Engineered?”. All of a sudden, I wasn’t having a good day and I was starting to feel a little apprehensive. I returned with, “GE, you know, GMO, Genetically Modified Organism???”. He said, “One moment please, and I’ll let you speak to our Head Chemist”. After a wait of about 30 seconds (my apprehension is now building), the Lead Chemist from Protein Tech comes on the line and I ask my question again. He tells me proudly, “Wellllllll, yessss the Supro 440 is GE and most of our soy products are”. I’m feeling a little queasy at this stage and I ask, “do you have any Soy Protein Powder which is Organic and non-GMO?”. He then told me that they did but he had to confess that they used the same machines to process the Organic as they did the GE/GMO and that they did not clean the machines after each usage. The bottom of my stomach dropped about 40 feet but I had one more question, “Is Protein Technologies a solely owned company or is it a subsidiary?”

He said, “The parent company is Dupont.”!

I couldn’t talk for a bit and slowly just hung up the phone, I don’t even remember saying “goodbye” to the man.

I called back NOW Foods, and to their credit, they had the product off the shelf within a week. I then called back the Bulk Foods Manager at Nature’s Food Patch and told him the story. His response was, “Impossible, we sell NO GE/GMO foods in this store”.

Oh well, there are ostriches in this world and he never would believe me or even call up and verify it one way or the other. I then had the realization that one could lose many freedoms through complacency.

And the moral of this bed time story?

LOOK!!! DON’T LISTEN!!!

Yours in Knowledge, Health and Freedom,

Doc Shillington

PS. Since I originally wrote this article back in 2001, the amount of Genetically Engineered Soy products sold in the American marketplace has grown to more than 90%. It is also my conviction that the other 10% is contaminated.  The same goes for all corn products.  You and your family are far safer if you avoid all soy and corn products altogether.  Unless you grow it yourself, or unless you personally know the farmer who’s growing it, ALL SOY & CORN PRODUCTS AND BYPRODUCTS SHOULD BE SHUNNED!

Ian “Doc” Shillington N.D.

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.

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.

• Click here to read part II
• Click here to read part III
• Click here to read part IV

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 read Monsanto 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.

Recommended Reading:

• Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods
• Monsanto part II
• Monsanto part III
• Monsanto part IV