Category Archives: #MarchAgainstMonsanto

Monsanto Chief Makes a Surprising Admission In New Interview

The backlash against genetically modified food, which was introduced without much fanfare and without the general public having much of a say, has reached a fever pitch in this new information age.

Sales of GMO-free and organic products are skyrocketing and more and more farms are being converted to organic as companies scramble to meet consumer demand.

Much of this change has happened as people have discovered how their food is really made; in the case of Americans that process often begins with genetically modified seeds in a laboratory.

Around 20 years ago Monsanto introduced genetically modified food, and how they responded to public concerns was the source of a question asked by the UK’s newspaper The Independent in a recent interview.

The company responded with “hubris” and “naivety” in those days, their CEO Hugh Grant said in the interview.

hugh collage

 

In other words, Monsanto used a “great or foolish amount of pride or confidence (the Webster’s definition of hubris)” when they introduced the seeds to the U.S. market, one whose food consumers essentially had no say in whether they wanted them or not due to a lack of labeling. 

Now it’s 2015 and consumers are still kept in the dark about GMOs, with no mandatory labels for the foods, a right afforded to citizens in over 60 countries.

And despite the growing suspicion of GMOs, the Biotech industry still relies on its own flawed science while ignoring independent studies showing their products cause harm.

Mr. Grant also reiterated another myth: that GMOs are needed to “feed the world,” which was debunked yet again by another new report released a few days ago.

While Grant’s honesty appears to be somewhat refreshing on the surface in admitting the “hubris” that led to the growth these foods that offer no benefits and plenty of risks to the consumer, it’s time we expand the conversation toward discussing the true “hubris” that’s still in play here: Monsanto’s continued insistence of forcing unlabeled GMOs on an unwilling populace.

That would be a true revelation.

Monsanto Chief Makes a Surprising Admission In New Interview

The backlash against genetically modified food, which was introduced without much fanfare and without the general public having much of a say, has reached a fever pitch in this new information age.

Sales of GMO-free and organic products are skyrocketing and more and more farms are being converted to organic as companies scramble to meet consumer demand.

Much of this change has happened as people have discovered how their food is really made; in the case of Americans that process often begins with genetically modified seeds in a laboratory.

Around 20 years ago Monsanto introduced genetically modified food, and how they responded to public concerns was the source of a question asked by the UK’s newspaper The Independent in a recent interview.

The company responded with “hubris” and “naivety” in those days, their CEO Hugh Grant said in the interview.

hugh collage

 

In other words, Monsanto used a “great or foolish amount of pride or confidence (the Webster’s definition of hubris)” when they introduced the seeds to the U.S. market, one whose food consumers essentially had no say in whether they wanted them or not due to a lack of labeling. 

Now it’s 2015 and consumers are still kept in the dark about GMOs, with no mandatory labels for the foods, a right afforded to citizens in over 60 countries.

And despite the growing suspicion of GMOs, the Biotech industry still relies on its own flawed science while ignoring independent studies showing their products cause harm.

Mr. Grant also reiterated another myth: that GMOs are needed to “feed the world,” which was debunked yet again by another new report released a few days ago.

While Grant’s honesty appears to be somewhat refreshing on the surface in admitting the “hubris” that led to the growth these foods that offer no benefits and plenty of risks to the consumer, it’s time we expand the conversation toward discussing the true “hubris” that’s still in play here: Monsanto’s continued insistence of forcing unlabeled GMOs on an unwilling populace.

That would be a true revelation.

New Report Shows Why the Myth That We Need GMOs to “Feed the World” is Patently False

The Environmental Working Group is perhaps best known for its ‘Dirty Dozen’ and ‘Clean Fifteen’ lists showing which fruits and vegetables contain the most and the least pesticide residues, but the organization tackled an even bigger task in its latest report.

World hunger has been a pervasive issue seemingly forever, and “feeding the world,” is the oft-repeated mantra of Biotech companies like Monsanto as to why their products are even needed in the first place.

Despite that slick bit of PR-speak, the GMO companies’ assertions have been repeatedly challenged with high levels of success.

For example the United Nations even admitted that small-scale organic farming is the way to “feed the world” in 2013.

Now the EWG has come out with a report showing the failed promises of GMOs. You can download the full PDF by clicking here.

gmos feed the world?

The report says among other things that:

  • GE crops  – primarily corn and soybeans – have not substantially contributed to global food security and are primarily used to feed animals and cars, not people.
  • Studies show that GE crops in the US are not more productive than non-GE crops in western Europe.
  • A recent case study in Africa found that crops that were crossbred for drought tolerance using traditional techniques improved yields 30 percent more than GE varieties.

Click here to visit the EWG’s site and check out the report, and please feel free to share this with your family and friends (and to march with us on May 23!).

New Report Shows Why the Myth That We Need GMOs to “Feed the World” is Patently False

The Environmental Working Group is perhaps best known for its ‘Dirty Dozen’ and ‘Clean Fifteen’ lists showing which fruits and vegetables contain the most and the least pesticide residues, but the organization tackled an even bigger task in its latest report.

World hunger has been a pervasive issue seemingly forever, and “feeding the world,” is the oft-repeated mantra of Biotech companies like Monsanto as to why their products are even needed in the first place.

Despite that slick bit of PR-speak, the GMO companies’ assertions have been repeatedly challenged with high levels of success.

For example the United Nations even admitted that small-scale organic farming is the way to “feed the world” in 2013.

Now the EWG has come out with a report showing the failed promises of GMOs. You can download the full PDF by clicking here.

gmos feed the world?

The report says among other things that:

  • GE crops  – primarily corn and soybeans – have not substantially contributed to global food security and are primarily used to feed animals and cars, not people.
  • Studies show that GE crops in the US are not more productive than non-GE crops in western Europe.
  • A recent case study in Africa found that crops that were crossbred for drought tolerance using traditional techniques improved yields 30 percent more than GE varieties.

Click here to visit the EWG’s site and check out the report, and please feel free to share this with your family and friends (and to march with us on May 23!).

Ex-Monsanto Employee Removed from Science Journal that Retracted Study Showing GMOs Cause Tumors

The story of Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini and his study showing that GMO food causes tumors in lab rats was reported far and wide, even in mainstream sources, but the narrative was changed when it was retracted by the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology.

That retraction was mysteriously preceded by the appointment of Richard Goodman, an ex-Monsanto employee who was named to the Editorial Board shortly before it happened, casting doubt on its motives.

Now, months after the republication of the Séralini study in another journal, Food and Toxicology is replacing Goodman with a new Editor-in-Chief, José Domingo, who has published papers questioning the safety of GMO crops. From one of Domingo’s papers: 

Critical changes have this year been made at the journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, from which the Editor-in-Chief A. Wallace Hayes retracted the important paper by the Séralini team. The Editorial Board of the journal [19] now has a new Editor-in-Chief, José L. Domingo, who has published papers showing that safety of GM crops is not an established fact; and the Editorial Board no longer includes Richard Goodman, the ex-Monsanto employee who became Associate Editor for Biotechnology not long before the Séralini paper was retracted.”

According to this article from Global Research, the pro-Biotech editor A. Wallace Hayes will also be replaced by the journal, which of course begs the question: What would have happened had these two strong pro-GMO influences not been on the board at the time of the Séralini retraction?

seralini study editors

The infamous tumor-riddled lab rats from the Seralini study, which was retracted only after the appointment of a former Monsanto employee to one journal’s editorial board, and later republished in another peer-reviewed journal.

 

Ex-Monsanto Employee Removed from Science Journal that Retracted Study Showing GMOs Cause Tumors

The story of Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini and his study showing that GMO food causes tumors in lab rats was reported far and wide, even in mainstream sources, but the narrative was changed when it was retracted by the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology.

That retraction was mysteriously preceded by the appointment of Richard Goodman, an ex-Monsanto employee who was named to the Editorial Board shortly before it happened, casting doubt on its motives.

Now, months after the republication of the Séralini study in another journal, Food and Toxicology is replacing Goodman with a new Editor-in-Chief, José Domingo, who has published papers questioning the safety of GMO crops. From one of Domingo’s papers: 

Critical changes have this year been made at the journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, from which the Editor-in-Chief A. Wallace Hayes retracted the important paper by the Séralini team. The Editorial Board of the journal [19] now has a new Editor-in-Chief, José L. Domingo, who has published papers showing that safety of GM crops is not an established fact; and the Editorial Board no longer includes Richard Goodman, the ex-Monsanto employee who became Associate Editor for Biotechnology not long before the Séralini paper was retracted.”

According to this article from Global Research, the pro-Biotech editor A. Wallace Hayes will also be replaced by the journal, which of course begs the question: What would have happened had these two strong pro-GMO influences not been on the board at the time of the Séralini retraction?

seralini study editors

The infamous tumor-riddled lab rats from the Seralini study, which was retracted only after the appointment of a former Monsanto employee to one journal’s editorial board, and later republished in another peer-reviewed journal.

 

Report: Monsanto Released Toxic Chemicals Hundreds of Times Without Giving Proper Notifications

The Monsanto Company is once again dealing with negative publicity after it was announced that they have been fined by the EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice for the release of toxic cheicals into the environment without prior warning.

The incidents occurred at the company’s Soda Springs, Idaho facilities according to the Associated Press and resulted in a $600,000 fine (a paltry sum considering Monsanto’s vast profits).

Officials said that hazardous chemicals that can pose “serious health risks” were released during between 2006 and 2009 as hydogen cyanide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury were all given off.

According to the letter of the law companies are required to report such releases immediately.

“Each of these chemicals are hazardous and can pose serious health risks to workers and the community if mishandled or released in an uncontrolled manner,” federal officials said in a statement.

The Soda Springs facilities are operated by P4 Production LLC, a wholly owned Monsanto subsidiary. The company said it reconciled differences with the EPA, some as early as 2009, and received the EPA’s violation notice in May 2011.

monsanto fined in idaho

The Soda Springs plant in Idaho. Via Wikimedia.

“The protection of our employees, public health and the environment is always our No. 1 priority,” said Roger Gibson, P4’s vice president of operations. “As a long-time neighbor within the Soda Springs community, we care deeply about public health and the quality of our air, land and water, and we are committed to complying fully and transparently with all applicable laws and regulations.”

The company mines phosphate ore in southeastern Idaho which is then refined to make products including aviation fluids, herbicides and fire retardants, the AP report said.

Monsanto has also been in the news this week over a report that glyphosate is a likely carcinogen, but dodged a bullet when a lawsuit against it by the city of San Diego was ignored by the mainstream media.

Top Medical Journal, WHO Confirm: Monsanto’s Flagship Product Probably Causes Cancer

Recently, a major report in one of the world’s top medical journals concluded that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s best selling herbicide Roundup, is a “probable” carcinogen.

The report, which was published by the World Health Organization in The Lancet, said that there is “limited evidence” the weedkiller can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and lung cancer and “convincing evidence” that it can also cause cancer in lab animals.

It was issued after a meeting of 17 cancer experts from 11 countries was convened this month.

In response the United States’ EPA has said it will consider the French agency’s evaluation.

Monsanto has denied the findings of the report saying that “all labeled uses for glyphosate are safe for human health” according to Phil Miller, the company’s global head of regulatory and government affairs.

The EPA has previously ruled that the agricultural chemical could be used “without unreasonable risks to people or the environment,” but considering its widespread use especially in U.S. farming coupled with the Lancet’s findings and other warnings, others remain far from convinced.

Several other studies including this 2013 one in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology have made similar associations.

monsanto roundup linked to cancer

And glyphosate is becoming ubiquitous in the environment as well. A 2014 study of U.S. mothers found glyphosate in their breast milk at rates 760 to 1,600 times higher than what European safety standards allow. The chemical has also been showing up in rain and drinking water samples.

Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are sprayed on U.S. crops every year and many of these sprays contain glyphosate; meanwhile that number is rising each year in large part due to the use of Roundup-resistant genetically modified crops from Monsanto.

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world and is used on various types of crops, including Monsanto’s genetically modified, lab-created ones from seeds designed to withstand large doses of chemicals while the weeds and pesticides around it are killed.

Top Medical Journal, WHO Confirm: Monsanto’s Flagship Product Probably Causes Cancer

Recently, a major report in one of the world’s top medical journals concluded that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s best selling herbicide Roundup, is a “probable” carcinogen.

The report, which was published by the World Health Organization in The Lancet, said that there is “limited evidence” the weedkiller can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and lung cancer and “convincing evidence” that it can also cause cancer in lab animals.

It was issued after a meeting of 17 cancer experts from 11 countries was convened this month.

In response the United States’ EPA has said it will consider the French agency’s evaluation.

Monsanto has denied the findings of the report saying that “all labeled uses for glyphosate are safe for human health” according to Phil Miller, the company’s global head of regulatory and government affairs.

The EPA has previously ruled that the agricultural chemical could be used “without unreasonable risks to people or the environment,” but considering its widespread use especially in U.S. farming coupled with the Lancet’s findings and other warnings, others remain far from convinced.

Several other studies including this 2013 one in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology have made similar associations.

monsanto roundup linked to cancer

And glyphosate is becoming ubiquitous in the environment as well. A 2014 study of U.S. mothers found glyphosate in their breast milk at rates 760 to 1,600 times higher than what European safety standards allow. The chemical has also been showing up in rain and drinking water samples.

Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are sprayed on U.S. crops every year and many of these sprays contain glyphosate; meanwhile that number is rising each year in large part due to the use of Roundup-resistant genetically modified crops from Monsanto.

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world and is used on various types of crops, including Monsanto’s genetically modified, lab-created ones from seeds designed to withstand large doses of chemicals while the weeds and pesticides around it are killed.

Monsanto Settles With Wheat Farmers Over GMO Wheat Contamination

The Monsanto Company is well known for suing farmers, but they found themselves on the other side of the coin after wheat farmers were harmed by the discovery of a genetically modified variety at a farm in Eastern Oregon.

The incident led to costly market rejections from Japan and South Korea, who refused to import potentially contaminated wheat, as well as calls for tougher testing from the EU, which also rejects the crops.

The wheat finding occurred in 2013 despite the fact that there is no commercial GMO wheat on the market, and now Monsanto is settling up by paying out a sum of $350,000.

The donations will go to agricultural schools in Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana; Monsanto will also pay to reimburse a portion of the farmers’ legal costs but did not announce the amount.

There was no admission of liability by Monsanto, according to this report from RT.

monsanto gmo wheat settlement

Monsanto said that money will go into “research and development efforts for the wheat industry,” Monsanto’s chief litigation counsel said (no mention was made of whether or not that would include GMO wheat).

The company also said that an Arkansas farmers’ suit still has not been resolved.

Monsanto also paid about $2.4 million worth of damages for other lawsuits that happened as a result of the Oregon scandal; the company made about $2.74 billion in profits last year, however, with sales of $15.86 billion.