BioTech Lies Exposed: Genetically Modified Corn is Loaded with Chemical Poisons

By Jonathan Benson

Global Research, April 10, 2013


 Biotechnology and GMO


A breakthrough report on the nutritional density of genetically-modified (GM) corn crops demolishes all existing claims that GMOs are “substantially equivalent” to non-GMOs. Entitled 2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn, the paper reveals not only that GMO corn is greatly lacking in vitamins and minerals compared to non-GMO corn, but also that it is highly toxic and filled with deadly crop chemicals like glyphosate (Roundup).

The owners of the blog say the report was shared with them by De Dell Seed Company, Canada’s only non-GMO corn seed supplier, which obtained it from a Minnesota-based agricultural company called ProfitPro. Overall, the paper found that non-GMO corn is 20 times richer in nutrition, energy and protein compared to GMO corn.

Concerning energy content, as measured in terms of ERGS, non-GMO corn was found in tests to give off 3,400 times more energy per gram, per second compared to GMO corn, an astounding variance. And as far as its overall percentage of organic matter is concerned, non-GMO corn was determined to have nearly twice as much of this vital component compared to GMO corn.

Non-GMO corn contains substantially more potassium, magnesium, calcium, sulfur and manganese

The field comparison also evaluated individual nutrient deviations, which revealed some shocking facts. Potassium, which is necessary for energy production and proper cellular function, is barely even present in GMO corn, having clocked in at 0.7 parts per million (ppm). In non-GMO corn, however, potassium levels were more than 13 times higher, testing at 9.2 ppm.

The disparity was even worse for magnesium, which tested at a mere 0.2 ppm in GMO corn. In non-GMO corn, however, magnesium levels were found to be 46 times higher than in non-GMO corn. Similar variances were observed for calcium, sulfur and manganese as well, with the contents of each being 12.4, 14, and seven times higher, respectively.

On the other hand, non-GMO corn was found to be free of chlorides, formaldehyde, glyphosate, and other harmful chemicals, while in GMO corn they were identified in dangerously high levels. According to an analysis of the report by, GMO corn contains about 19 times more glyphosate than is permitted as a maximum in drinking water by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and 130 times more glyphosate than has been found in tests to cause organ damage in animals.

Similarly, GMO corn contains dangerously high levels of formaldehyde, according to the report. A previous study conducted by Dr. Don Huber on GMOs revealed that .97 ppm of formaldehyde is toxic if ingested by animals. As it turns out, GMO corn contains 200 times more formaldehyde than this maximum safety threshold.

These shock findings are at great odds with the claims continually being made by agri-genocide giant Monsanto. On its corporate website, Monsanto claims that approved genetically-modified (GM) crops are “substantially equivalent” to non-GMOs, meaning they are not nutritionally different fromnon-GMO crops. But as this study shows, these claims are patently false, and indicate that Monsanto is engaged in a global agricultural scam based on complete lies.

“Glyphosate is a strong organic phosphate chelator that immobilizes positively charged mineralssuch as manganese, cobalt, iron, zinc, copper, etc. that are essential for normal physiological functions in soils, plants and animals,” explains Dr. Huber about how GMO crop chemicals literally destroy the nutrient content of GMO crops.

To learn more about how to avoid GMOs in the food supply, visit:

Sources for this article include:



Does Genetically Modified (GM) Food Increase the Incidence of Obesity?

Study: Genetically Modified Corn Increases Body Weight in Rats

By Washington’s Blog

Global Research, March 20, 2012


Does Genetically Modified (GM) Food Increase the Incidence of Obesity?

We previously reported:

Many crops in the U.S. are now genetically modified. For example, 93 percent of soybeans grown in the US are genetically engineered, as are:

Some allege that Roundup kills healthy gut bacteria, and that genetically modified crops cause other health problems.

Many people claim that genetically modified (GM) foods increase obesity:

But is there any evidence for that claim?

One study implies that there might be.

Scientists tested GM corn at Monsanto laboratories, and found that the GMs increase body weight in rats. Specifically, a paper published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences reported in 2009:

We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world.


The three animal feeding studies were conducted in two different laboratories and at two different dates; at Monsanto (Missouri, USA) for NK 603 and MON 810 (June 7, 2000) and at Covance Laboratories Inc. (Virginia, USA) for MON 863 (March 14, 2001) on behalf of Monsanto.


Crude and relative liver weights are also affected at the end of the maximal (33%) GM maize feeding level as well as that of the heart which for corresponding parameters to a comparable extent, showed up to an 11% weight increase.


Additional statistically significant differences include … higher … overall body (3.7%) weight …


Several parameters indicate increases in circulating glucose and triglyceride levels, with liver function parameters disrupted together with a slight increase in total body weight. This physiological state is indicative of a pre-diabetic profile.


Our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal [i.e. kidney and liver] toxicity.


This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded [Remember that some GM crops are engineered to have the plants produce their own pesticides, some pesticides can cause obesity, and the pesticides are not magically destroyed beforemaking it into our bloodstream]. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown.

Indeed, even animals are getting fatter … which points to something in the environment.


Monsanto GM Corn in Peril: Beetle Develops Bt-Resistance

By Rady Ananda

Global Research, August 25, 2011


Monsanto GM Corn in Peril: Beetle Develops Bt-Resistance

Nature herself may be the best opponent of genetically modified crops and pesticides.  Not only plants, but insects are also developing resistance.  The Western rootworm beetle – one of the most serious threats to corn – has developed resistance to Monsanto’s Bt-corn, and entire crops are being lost. [Image

Farmers from several Midwest states began reporting root damage to corn that was specifically engineered with a toxin to kill the rootworm.  Iowa State University entomologist Aaron Gassmann recently confirmed that the beetle, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera, has developed resistance to the Bt protein, Cry3Bb1. 

Bacillus thuringiensis – Bt – is a bacterium that kills insects.  Different proteins are engineered into cotton as well as corn plants.

Two-thirds of all US corn is genetically modified per the USDA, and the bulk of that is Bt-corn. Monsanto has the biggest market share in the US, reporting about 35% in 2009.

In response to the July 2011 study, Monsanto said only the “YieldGard® VT Triple and Genuity® VT Triple PRO™ corn products” are affected.

“It appears he has demonstrated a difference in survival in the lab, but it is too early to tell whether there are implications for growers in the field.”

However, Kansas State researchers summarized the study, indicating that the specimens tested came from fields suffering severe rootworm damage and compared them to those from unaffected fields.  In other words, it was a field study.

Resistance developed where the same Bt corn had been grown at least three years in a row.  Gassmann found “a significant positive correlation between the number of years Cry3Bb1 maize had been grown in a field and the survival of rootworm populations on Cry3Bb1 maize in bioassays.”

Ag Professional’s Colleen Scherer explains that “the Cry3Bb1 toxin is the major one deployed against rootworms. There is no ‘putting the genie back in the bottle,’ and resistance in these areas is a problem that won’t go away.”

Monsanto urges farmers to try their “stacked” GM products where more than one trait is engineered and to employ integrated pest management (IPM) techniques.

Kind of like getting on a treadmill of ever increasing DNA manipulation and chemicals to maintain monocultures, instead of reverting to time-honored mixed farms that use companion plants (including weeds) for pest control. IPM does not have to include toxic chemicals or genetic manipulation for success.  (See, e.g., Sepp Holzer’s Permaculture).

This year, Monsanto launched a “triple-stack” sweet corn which it envisions being sold at Farmers Markets.  The FDA’s GMO label ban will certainly help, since most people who buy local are specifically trying to avoid genetically engineered foods.

In line with Monsanto’s goal to enter farmers markets, the Union of Concerned Scientists just came out with a report urging federal financial support in order to create jobs. The report notes that the number of farmers markets has doubled in the past ten years.

But, as we watch the feds target natural producers with raids and product seizure, while leaving Cargill’s 36 million pounds of tainted turkey alone until someone died, we can expect that any federal money put toward farmers markets will be used to support only that produce which is genetically modified, chemically doused and/or irradiated.

Click here to follow Iowa State’s work on the rootworm, and see the following pieces for more reasons to avoid herbicides and biotech foods:

Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? Earth Open Source, June 2011

Herbicide-tolerance and GM crops Greenpeace, June 2011

Per USDA, Herbicide Use Increases with GE Crops, Beyond Pesticides, June 2011

More problems with glyphosate: Rice growers sound alarm, Food Freedom, May 2011

Scientists warn of link between dangerous new pathogen and Monsanto’s Roundup, Food Freedom, Feb 2011

Monsanto’s superweeds come home to roost: 11 million US acres infested, Generation Green, Oct. 2010

GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible? Superweeds and birth defects: A review of scientific evidence on genetically modified soy and the herbicide glyphosate, Sept. 2010

Three Approved GMOs Linked to Organ Damage, Food Freedom, Jan. 2010

Rady Ananda specializes in Natural Resources and runs the sites, Food Freedom and COTO Report.


Genetically Modified Crops and the Contamination of America’s Food Chain

US Supreme Court Lifts Partial Ban on Monsanto’s GM Alfalfa

By Rady Ananda

Global Research, June 23, 2010


Genetically Modified Crops and the Contamination of America's Food Chain

On June 21, the US Supreme Court released its long awaited decision on the first case involving genetically modified crops, allowing the USDA to impose a partial deregulation, should it so choose. This would permit the sale of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa (RRA). However, in its 7-1 ruling, the court also upheld the lower decision to ban complete deregulation.

The US Supreme Court found that the “District Court abused its discretion when banning a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the planting of RRA pending completion of a detailed environmental review,” known as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The decision flies in the face of the facts in this case, and subjects us to further contamination of our food supply.

Monsanto expressed glee: “We have Roundup Ready alfalfa seed ready to deliver and await USDA guidance on its release. Our goal is to have everything in place for growers to plant in fall 2010.”

Adversarial party Center for Food Safety also expressed delight in the decision, calling it a “Victory for Center for Food Safety, Farmers.” In its release, CFS asserts:

“The Justices’ decision today means that the selling and planting of Roundup Ready Alfalfa is illegal.  The ban on the crop will remain in place until a full and adequate EIS is prepared by USDA and they officially deregulate the crop.  This is a year or more away according to the agency, and even then, a deregulation move may be subject to further litigation if the agency’s analysis is not adequate.”

CFS is happy because, as the Court pointed out, “we do know that the vacatur of APHIS’s deregulation decision means that virtually no RRA can be grown or sold until such time as a new deregulation decision is in place, and we also know that any party aggrieved by a hypothetical future deregulation decision will have ample opportunity to challenge it, and to seek appropriate preliminary relief, if and when such a decision is made.”

While CFS may be happy to fight this case again, food freedom suffered a blow by this decision.

An Extremist Court

Dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens clarifies the convoluted decision:

“In this case, the agency [U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, known as APHIS] had attempted to deregulate RRA without an EIS in spite of ample evidence of potential environmental harms. And when the court made clear that the agency had violated NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act], the agency responded by seeking to ‘streamline’ the process … submitting a deregulation proposal with Monsanto that suffered from some of the same legal and empirical holes as its initial plan to deregulate.”

APHIS had offered the lower court a partial deregulation plan, which was rejected. That is the portion of the District Court decision that SCOTUS deemed was beyond its authority to impose.

The High Court condemned the lower court for choosing a middle course of action, instead of taking “more extreme actions on either end.” It found the lower court’s ban on future plantings inconsistent with its allowance of current planting:

“The order enjoining any partial deregulation was also inconsistent with other aspects of the very same judgment. In fashioning its remedy for the NEPA violation, the District Court steered a ‘middle course’ between more extreme options on either end…. On the one hand, the District Court rejected APHIS’s proposal … to allow continued planting and harvesting of RRA subject to the agency’s proposed limitations. On the other hand, the District Court did not bar continued planting of RRA as a regulated article under permit from APHIS … and it expressly allowed farmers to harvest and sell RRA planted before March 30, 2007.”

Justice Stevens, however, applauds the ‘middle road’ taken by the District Court. In defending the lower court’s two-part decision, Justice Stevens pointed out that courts must weigh the diverse equities before it:

“At the outset, it is important to observe that when a district court is faced with an unlawful agency action, a set of parties who have relied on that action, and a prayer for relief to avoid irreparable harm, the court is operating under its powers of equity. In such a case, a court’s function is to ‘do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case.’

“Flexibility and practicality are the touchstones of these remedial determinations, as the public interest, private needs, and competing private claims must all be weighed….

“Exercising its equitable discretion to balance the interests of the parties and the public, the District Court would have been well within its rights to find that NEPA requires an EIS … yet also to find that a partial stay of the vacatur was appropriate to protect the interests of those farmers who had already acted in good-faith reliance on APHIS.” [Internal quote marks removed.]

Geertson Seed Decision Abrogates Food Freedom

No one denies that gene transfer did occur; that GM crops contaminate natural ones.  Instead, like Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan did when defending Monsanto in this case (as Solicitor General), SCOTUS simply ignored this most important fact when deciding to allow partial deregulation.

The US Supreme Court also ignored that APHIS is unable to monitor for contamination. GE alfalfa is planted in 48 states, and, while under the purview of APHIS, contamination of natural fields occurred. The lower court was realistic when determining “that APHIS lacks monitoring capacity.”

Allowing for the spread of GM crops removes the public’s right to not choose GMOs, because the natural supply no longer exists, or becomes nearly impossible to find or afford. We saw this whenBayer’s GM rice contaminated a third of the US supply. And already today:

95% of all US beets are genetically modified (Greenwire);

91% of all US soybeans (USDA);

71% of US cotton (USDA);

And over two-thirds (68%) of all US corn (USDA).

Today, GMO derivatives are found in more than 70% of the foods in the supermarket,” reports activist and author Jeffrey M. Smith, which includes virtually 100% of our processed food.

There are a number of other problems with GM crops, which the Supreme Court ignores, even when presented with some of these issues.

First and foremost, GMOs are created to tolerate or produce pesticide. North America is losing its natural pollinators, specifically bees, butterflies and bats, because of the enormous tonnage of chemicals sprayed in this nation. If we lose our bees, said Einstein, humans will last about six years. We need our pollinators. The entire web of life depends on them.

Those pesticide chemicals have poisoned all of our waters, damaging the biota, or making seafood toxic for humans. Chemical companies like Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, etc. created GMOs so they could sell chemicals. Those chemicals are bad for the environment and for humans.

Another side effect of our toxic spraying is we now have super bugs and super weeds. The overuse of pesticides has allowed those plants that are pesticide resistant to thrive. Resistant pigweed, for example, is destroying cotton farming in the Southeast US. These biotech companies ignore the science of evolution when pushing their dangerous product on us. We are now suffering for their scientific ignorance.

Weed resistance was considered in Geertson Seed, but SCOTUS dismissed that relevancy because “Respondents in this case do not represent a class, so they could not seek to enjoin such an order on the ground that it might cause harm to other parties.”

Second, GM crops contaminate natural crops by cross breeding with them. Thus, GMOs are destroying biodiversity. The Irish potato famine happened because every Irish family grew them – monoculture is a disaster waiting to happen. When the blight hit, there was no natural way to stop it. Phytophthora infestans spread like wildfire because its food source was everywhere.

When you destroy biodiversity, you invite total destruction from widespread infestation. This is basic natural science. GM crops increase the threat to food safety, food security.

SCOTUS ignored the facts, and science, when lifting the ban on partial deregulation.

Third, GM food is dangerous to animals, including humans. We evolved with the bugs and the natural food that exists on this planet. We did not evolve with these new GM creations of the past fourteen years. When studying evolution, the significance of this statement becomes profound. Evolution takes hundreds or thousands of years (or longer). Instead, those who eat GM foods might as well be eating food from a different planet. They did not evolve with that food and the consequences can be generational as well as immediately toxic to the eater (organ damage, sterility,diabetes and obesity, etc.)

Biotechnology may have its uses, but not in the food supply. The Supreme Court’s ruling abrogates our right to GM free food by paving the way for further contamination.

Rady Ananda’s work has appeared in several online and print publications. She obtained a B.S. in Natural Resources from The Ohio State University’s School of Agriculture in 2003.

GMO Scandal: The Long Term Effects of Genetically Modified Food on Humans

Scientific Tests Must Be Approved by Industry First

By F. William Engdahl

Global Research, January 22, 2013

GMO Scandal: The Long Term Effects of Genetically Modified Food on Humans

One of the great mysteries surrounding the spread of GMO plants around the world since the first commercial crops were released in the early 1990’s in the USA and Argentina has been the absence of independent scientific studies of possible long-term effects of a diet of GMO plants on humans or even rats. Now it has come to light the real reason. The GMO agribusiness companies like Monsanto, BASF, Pioneer, Syngenta and others prohibit independent research.

An editorial in the respected American scientific monthly magazine, Scientific American, August 2009 reveals the shocking and alarming reality behind the proliferation of GMO products throughout the food chain of the planet since 1994. There are no independent scientific studies published in any reputed scientific journal in the world for one simple reason. It is impossible to independently verify that GMO crops such as Monsanto Roundup Ready Soybeans or MON8110 GMO maize perform as the company claims, or that, as the company also claims, that they have no harmful side effects because the GMO companies forbid such tests!

That’s right. As a precondition to buy seeds, either to plant for crops or to use in research study, Monsanto and the gene giant companies must first sign an End User Agreement with the company. For the past decade, the period when the greatest proliferation of GMO seeds in agriculture has taken place, Monsanto, Pioneer (DuPont) and Syngenta require anyone buying their GMO seeds to sign an agreement that explicitly forbids that the seeds be used for any independent research. Scientists are prohibited from testing a seed to explore under what conditions it flourishes or even fails. They cannot compare any characteristics of the GMO seed with any other GMO or non-GMO seeds from another company. Most alarming, they are prohibited from examining whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended side-effects either in the environment or in animals or humans.


The only research which is permitted to be published in reputable scientific peer-reviewed journals are studies which have been pre-approved by Monsanto and the other industry GMO firms.

The entire process by which GMO seeds have been approved in the United States, beginning with the proclamation by then President George H.W. Bush in 1992, on request of Monsanto, that no special Government tests of safety for GMO seeds would be conducted because they were deemed by the President to be “substantially equivalent” to non-GMO seeds, has been riddled with special interest corruption. Former attorneys for Monsanto were appointed responsible in EPA and FDA for rules governing GMO seeds as but one example and no Government tests of GMO seed safety to date have been carried out. All tests are provided to the US Government on GMO safety or performance by the companies themselves such as Monsanto. Little wonder that GMO sounds to positive and that Monsanto and others can falsely claim GMO is the “solution to world hunger.”

In the United States a group of twenty four leading university corn insect scientists have written to the US Government Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) demanding the EPA  force a change to the company censorship practice. It is as if Chevrolet or Tata Motors or Fiat tried to censor comparative crash tests of their cars in Consumer Reports or a comparable consumer publication because they did not like the test results. Only this deals with the human and animal food chain. The scientists rightly argue to EPA that food safety and environment protection “depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny.” We should think twice before we eat that next box of American breakfast cereal if the corn used is GMO .

F. William Engdahl

is author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order. He may be contacted via his website at

Seeds of Destruction

The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

by F. William Engdahl

Global Research, 2007 ISBN 978-0-937147-2-2

Seeds of Destruction

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

by F. William Engdahl

Buy Now!

This skillfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO.  Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical World of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

Engdahl’s carefully argued critique goes far beyond the familiar controversies surrounding the practice of genetic modification as a scientific technique. The book is an eye-opener, a must-read for all those committed to the causes of social justice and World peace.

What is so frightening about Engdahl’s vision of the world is that it is so real. Although our civilization has been built on humanistic ideals, in this new age of “free markets”, everything– science, commerce, agriculture and even seeds– have become weapons in the hands of a few global corporation barons and their political fellow travelers. To achieve world domination, they no longer rely on bayonet-wielding soldiers. All they need is to control food production. (Dr. Arpad Pusztai, biochemist, formerly of the Rowett Research Institute Institute, Scotland)

If you want to learn about the socio-political agenda –why biotech corporations insist on spreading GMO seeds around the World– you should read this carefully researched book. You will learn how these corporations want to achieve control over all mankind, and why we must resist… (Marijan Jost, Professor of Genetics, Krizevci, Croatia)

The book reads like a murder mystery of an incredible dimension, in which four giant Anglo-American agribusiness conglomerates have no hesitation to use GMO to gain control over our very means of subsistence… (Anton Moser, Professor of Biotechnology, Graz, Austria).

Order now: Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
by F. William Engdahl


Does Your Food Contain Genetically Modified Organisms?

By Rady Ananda

Global Research, October 10, 2010

Does Your Food Contain Genetically Modified Organisms?

Okay, here’s your chance, with a new way for you to know that your food does not contain genetically modified organisms. TheNon-GMO Project, a collection of top suppliers and advocates in the organic industry, and the only no-GMO certifier in North America, has kicked off a GM-free month.

Ruh-roh — October includes Halloween. Since half of the refined sugar in the US is genetically modified, coming from GM sugar beets, finding GM-free candy might be a little hard. Though GM beets are now illegal until further notice, what’s on the shelves today is most likely made from last year’s crops.

The NGP product page lets you see what’s already verified as being GMO-free and what’s under review. You could pass out candy bars made by:

Endangered Species Chocolates
EnviroKids Organic
Luna & Larry’s Coconut Bliss
So Delicious
Funky Monkey Snacks

Taste of Nature’s 100% certified organic exotic bars are also vegan and Kosher.

Communications Director for the Non-GMO Project, Skylar Boorman, told Food Freedom, “Through our Product Verification Program, a growing number of products have become ‘Non-GMO Project Verified’ and bear our seal.”  Right now, that’s 69 vendors, he said, amounting to over 900 products verified so far.  One company, 365 Everyday Value, submitted over 700 of its products for review, with 29 now GM-free verified.

The non-profit has a technical advisory team that reads like a who’s who of the organic industry. That includes regional organic alliances, universities and names like Whole Foods, Nature’s Way, Organic Valley, Nature’s Path, Whole Soy, and Newman’s Own Organic. Six committees review different aspects of food: Growers & Producers, Processors & Manufacturers, Vitamins & Supplements, Seed, Livestock, and a Policy Committee.

The Public Has a Right to Know

By creating a non-GMO verification program, NGP avoids FDA policy to hide GM food. Boorman explains, “Our label was specifically designed to be a process claim (“Non-GMO Project Verified”) and not an absence claim.”

The right-to-know issue is significant.  The FDA considers claims of  “GMO free” and “Non-GMO” to be “not technically accurate” and “misleading.” Firstly, that’s because the FDA believes “the use of bioengineering is not a material fact.” The FDA recognizes no difference in GM and non-GM foods.  They are “substantially equivalent.”

Secondly, the FDA subscribes to a definition for genetically modified food that is broadly outside the scope of everyone else’s understanding:

“’Genetic modification’ means the alteration of the genotype of a plant using any technique, new or traditional.”

While the public uses the terms ‘genetically modified’ and ‘genetically engineered’ interchangeably to mean the DNA was directly manipulated, the FDA does not. Conveniently, the FDA does not apply such a broad definition to the term ‘biotechnology.’ But, aren’t all plant breeding technologies ‘biotechnology’ by the same broad standard that the FDA applies to ‘genetic modification’?

Thirdly, the FDA asserts that food can accidentally become contaminated with GMOs, so vendors can’t claim their products are GM-free unless they’ve undergone extensive testing and verification. That’s an interesting admission on the part of the FDA.  Now, the FDA recognizes a material difference between GM and non-GM foods.  Now, substantial equivalence doesn’t apply.

When GM crops contaminate natural ones, courts recognize a substantial andpatent difference between them. Already at the appellate level, an Ohio district court just rejecteda similar ban (claiming milk is rBST-free), saying it was “more extensive than necessary to serve the state’s interest in preventing consumer deception.”

Human and Environmental Health

There’s also the food safety factor to keep in mind. GM crops (trees, too) are genetically modified to produce or tolerate pesticides. Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, has beenlinked to birth defects, cancer and miscarriages in humans.

Other studies have linked GM-foods to organ damage and sterility in mammals, while others correlate rising diabetes and obesity rates with GMO introduction. There’s also the question ofallergic reaction to GM foods, proof of which is hidden by lack of labeling.

Environmental concerns cannot be ignored, either. Pesticides are suspected in causing or contributing to mass bee, bat and butterfly die-off, as well as a pandemic amphibian decline. This is ecologically critical — loss of pollinators will cause an Extinction Level Event that takes out most life on Planet Earth.  That includes humans, as our food supply disappears.  Remember, extinction is forever.  No species has ever re-emerged after going extinct.

The Sun Is Fading on Biotechnology

Biotechnology may have had its day in the sun, but that light is fading. The New York Times reported Monsanto’s stock dropped from a peak of $145 a share in 2008 to under $48 a share on Monday. The Christian Science Monitor noted that “the rapid increase in the percentage of US farm acres planted with biotech crops has slowed. It rose only 1 percent last year, from 85 percent to 86 percent, the smallest increase since 2001.”

Check out this interactive map of the history of GMO releases in the US from 1987 thru 2008:

Cataloguing the problems of the biotech industry, CSM states:

“Corn Belt farmers complain loudly about the soaring cost of seed. The federal government is investigating the industry for anticompetitive practices. Farmers are grappling increasingly with weeds that have grown resistant to Roundup, an herbicide widely used with genetically modified crops, and genetic contamination of conventional crops.”

Even the United Nations rebuked biotechnology this year when it concluded that agroecology “improves food production and farmers’ incomes while at the same time protecting the soil, water and climate.” The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, reported:

“The widest study ever conducted on the subject found that agroecological approaches resulted in an average crop yield gain of 79 per cent. The study covered 286 projects in 57 developing countries, representing a total surface of 37 million hectares.” (That’s over 91 million acres.)

Biotech found a friend in billionaire Bill Gates, however, so this fading light still has juice. This is precisely why a home-grown solution like the Non-GMO Project can be so effective.  By verifying which products are GM-free, NGP allows consumers to make informed choices, despite censorship by the FDA.

Use NPG’s PDF shopping guide or their iPhone app to find products verified as GM-free. The Rodale Institute, also involved with NGP, advises to buy organic and grass-fed. Check the PLU code:

“GMO foods contain the number 8 before the four-digit code printed on the produce sticker. Organic foods contain the number 9.”


Beyond Golden Rice: The Rockefeller Foundation’s long-term agenda behind Genetically Modified Food

By Jurriaan Maessen

Global Research, June 11, 2009

Beyond Golden Rice: The Rockefeller Foundation’s long-term agenda behind Genetically Modified Food

‘A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.’ – Ted Turner to Audubon Magazine, 1996

In an April 18th 2009 article on the development of GM-Food for the African continent, ‘Strange Fruit: Could genetically modified foods offer a solution to the world’s food crisis? the author mentions that the Rockefeller Foundation has recently set out to fund the process of ‘biofortified rice’ for third world nations, invented by a Swiss scientist named Ingo Potrykus.

In 2000 a Swiss scientist named Ingo Potrykus modified rice, adding a bacterial gene and two genes from the daffodil, to add Vitamin A to rice. His plan was to find an easy way of countering the vitamin deficiency which causes blindness in around half a million people, mainly children, every year. Half of them die within 12 months of going blind and others die of diseases such as malaria because the deficiency affects their immune system. Professor Potrykus called his invention Golden Rice.’

But there’s nothing recent about the Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement in the research and development of genetically enhanced rice, as we learn from a November 14, 2000 publication by the Rockefeller Foundation in which the director of Food Security of the Rockefeller Foundation Gary H. Toenniessen states that in the early 1990′s the Swiss scientist along with a colleague:

“…approached the Foundation. Dr. Ingo Potrykus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich was a specialist in plant genetic transformation and his lab was one of the first to genetically engineer rice. (…) These two scientists proposed to genetically engineer `rice with daffodil genes to produce nutritionally significant levels of beta-carotene in the rice endosperm. At a foundation-sponsored workshop, other scientists agreed that this task was difficult but achievable, and the effort was funded.’

Ten years later, it seems, the experiments had proven a great success. In a keynote speech by Rockefeller Foundation’s president Judith Rodin on October 17 2008, the speaker points out that the research concerning genetically engineered rice has been underway for at least 65 years- and all this time received the generous support of the Foundation’s deep pockets. Rodin explains:

‘In the sixty-five years since they began, we’ve funded the work of Golden Rice’s engineers, Dr. Peter Beyer, Dr. Ingo Potrykus, and others for more than fifteen of them. (…) I’m delighted to announce, today, that we will be providing funding to the International Rice Research Institute – which we helped establish almost fifty years ago – to shepherd Golden Rice through national, regulatory approval processes in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and the Philippines. And we hope this is just the beginning.’

On behalf of the Rockefeller Foundation, Representative Akinwumi Adesina stated before the Congressional Black Caucus Legislative Conference on September 28 2007 that the continent of Africa was especially chosen as the Foundation’s favourite playing ground. But he laments:

‘Regarding genetic engineering, by and large, African countries do not currently have in place regulatory frameworks that allow their use for food production. Many challenges face the introduction and cultivation of GM crops in Africa, including fear of GE crops.’

Adesina goes on by bringing climate change into the equation, dumping fear upon fear, and hoping perhaps that a new fear will eliminate the former one:

‘Assisting Africa to meet its food needs has other advantages for climate change. (…) Increasing population pressure and reliance on extensive agricultural practises will likely lead to further deforestations and carbon dioxide emissions and contributions to climate change.’

Under the umbrella of “climate change’ all serious concern about playing God with the earth’s flora (and Fauna) can be thrown aside without a second thought it seems. Rockefeller Foundation representative Gary H. Toenniessen stated during a conference in his lecture “Opportunities for and challenges to Plant Biotechnology Adoption in Developing Countries‘:

‘Public acceptance of transgenic crops and genetically modified (GM) food, or rather, lack thereof, is a major constraint to the adoption of plant biotechnology, particularly in Europe. (…) Orchestrated campaigns against GM foods have consequently found a receptive audience amongst urban consumers. The situation in developing countries may well be different’, he adds slyly.

This same opinion is being conveyed in a 2005 “strategic review of the organisation (the Rockefeller Foundation), wherein several “challenges’ are brought forward that might stand in the way of the next level of globalisation that the Foundation has mapped out for all of us, one of these being ‘resistance to the development and use of genetically modified foods’.

Here comes into play the promotion of ‘global warming’. By claiming global warming will affect all nations and all peoples, and coupling the supposed climate hazard to the necessity of GM-crops lest the third world starve and die by the lack of it, the different pieces of this diabolical puzzle come together. The spectre of global climate change hangs over the world food situation, they claim, and the anticipated resistance might well be lessened if the people are adequately bamboozled into accepting the Foundation’s genetically modified foods program for fear of a vengeful God raining his wrath onto their heads. If the globalists would lie to lure the people into accepting GM foods, they would certainly not think twice about lying about the motives behind the development of these foods for mass production.

In an October 8 2006 editorial by Dean Kleckner (member emeritus of the World Food Prize Board of Advisors) on AgWeb.Com, he comments on the announced investments by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in conjunction with the Rockefeller Foundation’s ambition to spark a “Green Revolution’ on the impoverished continent of Africa. He states that ‘The 21st-century’s Green Revolution must also be a Gene Revolution.’

The Foundation itself is strangely upfront about its long-term objectives, when it bragged in the 2006‘The Rockefeller Foundation’s International Program on Rice Biotechnology’:

‘The Rockefeller Foundation has a long, complex, and rich history in promoting agricultural development throughout the developing world. The Foundation began its major field-based program in Mexico in the 1940s, which led to the series of technologies, insights, and processes collectively known as the ‘Green Revolution’. (…) Through a series of strategically placed grants, some of the world’s premier laboratories were invited to participate in the program.’

As we learn from the 1968 Rockefeller Foundation annual report, the term Green Revolution has been around for quite a while. In the report the Foundation’s president J. George Harrah already speaks of the ‘Green Revolution’, built upon ‘miracle rice’ and ‘miracle wheat’.

In a panegyric ten years later, dedicated to the Foundation’s founder John D. Rockefeller III, there is mentioned as one of his merits:

‘Mr. Rockefeller was one of the great guiding spirits of The Rockefeller Foundation over a 47-year period, and was the chairman of the Board of Trustees from 1952 to 1971. During this period, the Foundation carried out a major part of its commitment to agricultural development and the conquest of hunger, resulting in the so-called Green Revolution.’

Further on (page 21) in an unlikely frank revelation, the president of the Foundation elaborates on the true countenance of this supposed ‘Green Revolution.’

‘Because of the Green Revolution, per capita protein consumption kept pace with the doubling of populations in the less-developed countries (LDC’s) which occurred between 1950 and 1975. But it was recognised by most, and certainly by the Foundation staff, that we were merely buying time, and that the geometric expansion of population had to be reduced lest the Malthusian prediction became true globally, as contrasted with just regionally, as now applies.’

In another publication- Africa’s Turn: A New Green Revolution for the 21st century– the foundation states that ‘Before all else, the original Green Revolution was a product of philanthropy, in a carefully negotiated partnership with government.(…) After first seeking and receiving an invitation from the Mexican government, the Foundation created the Oficina de Estudios Especiales within the Mexican Department of Agriculture, initially staffed by scientists on the Rockefeller payroll.’

This is no idle bragging or foundational hubris. In an April 2008 editorial in the journal Science, Nina Fedoroff (plant geneticist, currently serving as senior scientific advisor to the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) wrote:

‘A new Green Revolution demands a global commitment to creating a modern agricultural infrastructure everywhere.’

The Rockefeller Foundation thoroughly agrees with this statement. In fact, it has for decades directed all its resources to create just such an infrastructure. To illustrate how far back the research and its intended international scope go, it will suffice to quote form a Rockefeller Foundation annual report from 1963:

‘The Foundation conducts international projects for the improvement of the world’s four most important foods- corn, wheat, potatoes, and rice.’

It is interesting to note here that in the very same year (1963) the Codex Alimentarius Commission was forced into being by the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. But then it is important to always keep in mind that these international bodies all spring from the same source and are funded by the same families. In 1984 alone, the Foundation allocated funds of millions of US dollars in appropriations to scientists on molecular genetics (Washington State University) and genetic manipulation of rice (University of Leiden). In the years after, the Foundation has energetically allocated funds every single year to research and development in GM-crops.

And the list of allocated funds literally goes on forever, with grants handed to numerous research facilities across the globe all with the aim of producing, promoting and implementing genetically modified crops in the third, second and first world. The next step in the unfolding of the Foundation’s agenda was the creation of an adequate fear on which their “superfood’ might thrive more rapidly. The more people who use the earth’s resources, the more a swift policy is needed to reduce global population.

But originally it was global cooling, not global warming, with which the GM-agenda was to be helped forward. In the 1974 annual report a conference on the topic of climate change was announced called “Climate Change, Food Production, and Interstate Conflict’:

‘This interdisciplinary conference, organised jointly by RF (Rockefeller Foundation) officers from Conflict in International Relations, Quality of the Environment, and Conquest of Hunger programs, will bring together climatologists, scientists concerned with food production (…) to examine the future implications of the global cooling trend now under way and its effects on world food production.’

In the 1973 annual report (page 54), long before the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming was injected into society’s bloodstream, one of the funds approved for allocation to ‘international organisations’ to analyze the implications of climate modification for international affairs. The institute for World Order received a grant for the establishment of university-based world order studies.’

By the time it was decided by the globalists that a global warming hype would serve their interests better than a global cooling trend, they accelerated their program in a great hurry. In 1996, the Foundation mentioned in their annual report that:

‘The Rockefeller Foundation created the Leadership for Environment and Development (LEAD) program to cultivate a network of talented midcareer professionals from diverse disciplines and sectors committed to sustainable development.’

In regards to the many activities of LEAD, the report mentions:

‘Economic advancement and human development are predicated on sufficient supplies of energy. Yet the byproducts of fossil-fuel energy production also pose many of humankind’s greatest threats. Carbon dioxide released form fossil fuels, if allowed to build up in the earth’s atmosphere, has the potential to seal in excess heat that could LEAD to global warming.’

So what is it all about, this elaborate program of ‘magical rice’ and ‘magical wheat’, spanning many decades in slow but strategic progression? And why is “˜global warming’ being mixed in the equation? In the 1968 annual Foundation report the real reason for this determined labour comes to light:

‘Major organisations such as the Population Council and the National and International Planned Parenthood Federations have been supported (read: by the Foundation) in a variety of ways. These and other existing organisations, as well as others that may come into being, represent exceedingly important instrumentalities for the extension of family planning information and contraceptive methods.’

In bone chilling language, the aims and future steps of the Foundation is being outlined (page 54):

‘It will explore potentialities of training programs, seminars, public forums, symposia, and other devices for conveying information about the impact of population growth on economic and social development to government officials from ministries of health, planning commissions, and other appropriate agencies, in the interest of motivating greater action on population policy and population control programs.’

As we know, the call for more family planning in the name of the environment has been increasingly promoted by the Malthusian minded elite. It is clear that one of the ‘other devices’ the report mentions, has been found and thoroughly exploited: the great myth of Anthropogenic Global Warming was created and covered with the subtle sauce of science to give the whole thing an air of credibility. And the eugenics agenda continues.


Stop Monsanto’s GMO Contamination

By Global Research

Global Research, February 14, 2010

During the Bush administration, Monsanto illegally won USDA approval for its genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa by convincing regulators to bypass a mandatory environmental review. In response to a lawsuit by consumer groups, the courts then stepped in and banned GE alfalfa until the USDA followed the law.

In December, the USDA released its belated review of Monsanto’s GE alfalfa seed and determined that Monsanto’s alfalfa met the Obama Administration’s standards, despite the risk of organic contamination.

This conclusion came despite the acknowledgment by USDA researchers that GE alfalfa is virtually certain to “contaminate” normal seeds. Cross-contamination is the number one concern with genetically engineered crops.

Organic contamination is devastating for organic farmers, especially organic dairy farmers, most of whom use organic alfalfa for feed. The presence of even the smallest amount of GE material can cause a farm to lose its organic certification. And court documents indicate that early plantings of GE alfalfa did contaminate conventional alfalfa. Yet the USDA maintains that Monsanto’s existing safety protocols are good enough. This is ridiculous!

Even worse, the USDA concluded that the possibility of contamination of organic fields is of no concern, since consumers won’t care if their organic food or milk contains genetically engineered components. Yet central to the definition of the USDA Organic label is the total absence of genetically modified ingredients. An overwhelming majority of consumers buy organic to avoid GE products and would be shocked to learn the USDA is so cavalier about the risks of transgenetic contamination.

The USDA is accepting public comments on Monsanto’s application through February 16. Make your voice heard today.