Excerpt from The Rice Diet Solution
The Rice Diet Renewal's Genetically Engineered Food Supplement for Chapter 6, Conscious Consumption
How genetically engineered (GE) foods invaded our American food supply, while the majority of Americans do not even believe they are consuming them, is really an amazing story. Please read the 6th chapter of The Rice Diet Renewal, Conscious Consumption, and insert the following information between the first and second paragraphs of page 190. While important and inspiring to know, the following material was just too lengthy to include in such a book. Thanks to computer technology, you can enjoy a more complete summary here. I also invite you to watch The Future of Food DVD listed in the Resource section, then give it to everyone you know who cares about the quality of their health and food. The primary answer to our many food concerns lies at the grass roots level; every bite you take is a vote as to whether you choose to support the GE, big agri-business machine, or sustainable foods grown by your local farmer.
This revolving door between the U.S. government and agribusiness swung past more officials than only Michael Taylor. Although the EPA is responsible for regulating insecticide use, its deputy administrator Linda Fisher (nominated for the post by George W. Bush in 2001) had previously served as the executive vice president for Monsanto, one of the world's largest producers of pesticides. In her position at Monsanto, one of her duties was to head Monsanto's lobbying office, which lobbied Congress and other government agencies to create laws favorable to Monsanto and to defeat health and safety regulations that would be too restrictive. Again, this seems like another "fox in the henhouse" conflict of interest. High-profile political officers influenced by this major corporation include John Ashcroft, the recipient of the largest campaign contribution from Monsanto in the 2000 election; Donald Rumsfeld, the former secretary of defense and former president of Searl (a company owned by Monsanto); and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a former attorney for Monsanto. Companies such as Monsanto make billions from collecting patents on their seed products.
In 1978, Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty (an engineer for General Electric) was the first person to take a living organism to the patent office. He tried to patent an oil-eating microbe, but the Supreme Court ruled that nature could not be patented (Diamond vs. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303). Unfortunately, the first patent on a plant produced through genetic engineering to come through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was granted in 1986 to a type of corn. The question that remains is this: If agribusiness companies tout that genetically modified (GM) foods are so "substantially equivalent" to conventionally grown foods that safety testing is not required, how are they different enough to warrant a patent?
Apparently, these companies feel that their products are uniquely different when they prosecute farmers who use their patented products without a license. These companies are even permitted to trespass on farmers' land to test for traces of their GM plants. Without intentionally planting the GM crop on their land, farmers themselves are being held responsible for keeping windblown pollen from adjacent GM crops off their land because it might contaminate their own crops by cross pollination. Many farmers now face lawsuits for unintentionally growing Monsanto's Roundup Ready seed. Not only have their saved seeds, which they have been growing for generations, been contaminated, but they are now financially responsible for paying agribusiness companies royalties for growing the companies' seeds without a license!
In 2005, the Center for Food Safety released a groundbreaking report, Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers, which documents the Monsanto Company's unprecedented use of patents and restrictive licensing agreements to sue farmers if they are suspected of saving Monsanto's seeds. (http://truefoodnow.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/cfsmonsantovsfarmerreport1-13-05.pdf) Monsanto and its investigators harass, intimidate, and prosecute farmers, primarily in cases that involve the seed saving and replanting of their Roundup Ready soybeans. As of October 26, 2007, Monsanto had filed 112 lawsuits against U.S. farmers for alleged violations of its technology agreement and/or its patents on GM seeds. These cases involved 372 farmers and 49 small farm businesses in 27 different states. And the lawsuits are on the rise; Monsanto filed seven lawsuits against farmers in 2005, nine in 2006, and ten in the first ten months of 2007. The total awarded to Monsanto in fifty-seven recorded judgments (as of October 2007) against farmers was more than $21 million. The scope of Monsanto's aggressive actions against U.S. farmers is not effectively conveyed by these recorded judgments, because the majority of the cases brought by Monsanto end in confidential, out-of-court settlements. The Center for Food Safety compiled information formerly available on Monsanto's Web site to estimate the amounts paid to Monsanto by farmers in what the company calls "seed piracy matters." The estimated total amount of settlements paid to Monsanto by farmers is $85.7 to $160.6 million, which exceeds by four to eight times the total of recorded judgments, which was $21.6 million!
One Canadian farmer has gained worldwide recognition for his stance against an agribusiness giant. Percy Schmeiser's canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Roundup Ready canola. Monsanto's position was that it didn't matter whether Schmeiser knew that his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene or whether he took advantage of the technology. Monsanto filed a lawsuit stipulating that he must pay the company its technology fee of $15/acre. To make a long, horrendous story short, Percy Schmeiser later counter-sued Monsanto. On March 19, 2008, Percy Schmeiser settled his lawsuit with Monsanto. Monsanto agreed to pay all of the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Schmeiser's fields. Part of the agreement stated that there was no gag order on the settlement and that Monsanto could be sued again by Schmeiser, if he later finds this necessary. Schmeiser hopes this precedent-setting agreement ensures that farmers will be entitled to reimbursement when their fields become contaminated with unwanted Roundup Ready canola or any other unwanted GM plants.
While genetic engineering is a growing concern for farmers, it poses a public health concern as well. Judy Carmen, a former senior epidemiologist for the government of South Australia, looks at the complications of GM foods from a public health perspective and says that "GM foods in many countries, including the United States, are not labeled. Neither consumers nor manufacturers know how much GM content is in food. So how can an investigator properly investigate and hence expose the link between GM food and the illness?" Because GM foods are not regulated by the FDA and do not have to be labeled, any adverse health complications associated with their intake could be overlooked or take much longer to identify.
One example of how GM foods can contaminate supermarket shelves without proper monitoring occurred following an article in the Washington Post on September 19, 2000. The article alarmed consumers that StarLink corn, a GM variety that was approved for animal feed but never considered to be safe for human consumption, was found in Kraft brand Taco Bell taco shells. Later after the USDA had tested a wide range of the food supply further, the Boston Globe, May 17, 2001, reported that the more accurate tests of 6,000 samples had found that "22 percent have tested positive for the corn, which the federal government barred for human use because of concerns it might cause allergic reactions" said John C. Giler, chief of the Grain Inspection Service's policies and procedures branch. This article also revealed that a report by a panel of independent scientists to the Environmental Protection Agency stated that StarLink "shows a medium likelihood of causing an allergic reaction in some people". They stated that while initially discovered in Taco Bell taco shells, its' presence has led to the voluntary recall of nearly 300 products, including more than 150 brands of corn chips and taco shells; and has also been found in corn dogs, corn bread, polenta and hush puppies.
In response, U.S. shipments of corn were shut down, the price of U.S. corn plummeted, and more than ten million food items were subject to recall. The very next day, sixty-three cases of acute allergic reactions linked to these taco shells surfaced. All cases included either anaphylactic symptoms within one hour of eating, dermatological symptoms within twelve hours of eating, or gastrointestinal symptoms within twelve hours of eating the taco shells. ABC News also reported in this story that StarLink corn, grown in Iowa, represented only 1 percent of the total U.S. corn crop. Some farmers who planted StarLink corn said that they were not told about the 660-foot buffer zones mandated by the EPA between StarLink corn and corn grown for food, and they said pollen may have drifted even longer distances, leading to cross-pollination with a neighbor's crop. That 1 percent GM crop was reported to contaminate more than 50 percent of the total corn harvest.
While the FDA claimed that the correlation between the adverse reactions and StarLink corn was not definitive, allergy experts on the Environmental Protection Agency's Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) argued otherwise. SAP scientists stated that "The test, as conducted, does not eliminate StarLink Cry9C as a potential cause of allergic symptoms." They did not feel that the testing was completed in a way that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that StarLink corn was not causing these allergic reactions. Furthermore, they felt that the studies conducted were poorly designed and the conclusions should not be so readily accepted.
Although symptoms of allergic reactions that consumers experienced were rare, they came on quickly and were severe. Because of this and because the common denominator shared by all of the allergy sufferers was the fact that they had consumed Taco Bell taco shells, a correlation was easily made. A statement released by the World Health Organization supports this theory. In part, it says that "It is impossible to know whether the introduction of GM food had had any human health effects other than acute toxic reactions." What if side effects came on more slowly and, instead of anaphylactic shock, consumers experienced chronic fatigue, increased headaches, or pancreatic cancer twenty years from now? As mentioned previously, the lack of monitoring would make identification of low-grade or chronic side effects almost impossible to correlate.
StarLink corn was not approved for human consumption, yet it found its way into our nation's food supply. A GM tomato crop, the Flavr Savr tomato, was the first genetically modified crop approved for human consumption in the United States, and it was released into our food supply without scientific evidence showing that it was safe. It was sold beginning in 1994 and was removed from supermarket shelves in 1997, due to safety concerns that eating the GM tomato could cause stomach lesions. Arpad Pusztai, one of the world's leading experts on assessing GM food safety, said that the type of stomach lesions linked to the tomatoes "could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent [blood clots]." Jeffrey Smith further expanded on this story when he revealed that Calgene, the tomato manufacturer, had voluntarily conducted research showing that seven out of twenty female rats fed the Flavr Savr tomato developed stomach lesions. In a follow-up study that Calgene claimed was a "repeat," the company used tomatoes from a different batch and changed the preparation in a way that would not typically be performed. The FDA claimed that the lesions were not related to the GM tomato, and the tomatoes were released back into the U.S. food supply. It wasn't until 1997 that the tomatoes were officially taken off the market. After the Flavr Savr tomato recall, biotech companies stopped submitting detailed data to the FDA. Instead, they now present superficial summaries that critics deem woefully insufficient to gauge safety.
Several other documented health risks have been linked to GM foods. Animal studies have shown that other adverse health effects include decreased fertility rates, impaired liver and pancreatic function, and abnormal cell growth on the walls of the stomach and the intestines. (See the references in Chapter 6 for this research and further information on GE.)
This addendum on the history of GM foods, while sobering, is offered as further inspiration for those desiring to be more aware of what they are ingesting. Conscious consumption of what you are eating can motivate you to choose more organic, locally grown, whole foods, and inspire fewer and fewer cravings for foods that are genetically engineered, and dosed with multitudes of chemicals never tested on a previous generation. You truly are what you eat, so why not eat what you can identify! Vote with your food dollars (every food purchase you make and every bite you take is your vote), support your local farmers, and work toward food labeling laws that require GE ingredients to be identified.
