Why We Don't Feed Our Animals GMO Feed - for Seven Sons

Why We Don’t Feed Our Animals GMO Feed – Part 1

Guest post by Jeff Apthorp

Animals at Seven Sons Farm are raised without feeding genetically modified organisms such as GMO corn or soybeans. I would like to explain why sustainable, pasture based farmers so diligent about keeping GMOs out of your food.

Many people make the assumption that food companies, scientists and the government have our backs when it comes to food safety. They imagine that agencies are carefully taking note of health effects over time and would advise us if there was any legitimate concern.

It would be amazing if it worked that way, but a more accurate picture reveals that scientists have to be paid by someone. There’s also lobbying, politics and cherry picking of studies to advance corporate agendas.

Despite a perception of complexity, the facts surrounding GMOs are well documented and can be boiled down to a brief summary. Here’s what you need to know.

GMOs in 2 minutes

GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism. The term typically refers to crops that have been genetically engineered to resist insects, herbicides (weed killer), viruses and fungal diseases.

The process of genetic engineering involves inserting DNA, from bacteria, into plant cells and then regenerating the plant from the modified cells. The resulting modified plant resists herbicides and/or contains a toxin that insects can’t survive. When ingested, the toxin causes an insects gut to break down, which kills the insect.

This is very different from grafting two similar plants together to create a hybrid.

GMO Patents are owned by a few chemical companies, including Monsanto, Du Pont, Dow, Syngenta and Bayer. The most prevalent is Monsanto. They hold the patent for glyphosate an herbicide you probably know by the name “Roundup”. They also hold the patent for plants resistant to glyphosate and license the seeds to farmers annually.

USDA figures put about 90% of US crops as genetically engineered (88-94% depending on the crop). If your diet contains soy, corn, sugar, potato or packaged/processed foods, you are ingesting lots of GMOs.

Animal products can also be a major source of GMOs and pesticides if the animals were fed GMO feed at any time. Pesticide residue actually accumulates at far higher concentrations in animal fat than on produce, so if you are trying to avoid pesticides, it would be wise to start with 100% grass fed and pastured animal products.

The GMO patent holders claim genetic engineering is safe for humans. In fact, they gained EPA approval without the rigorous testing that is usually required by law. The term proponents used to persuade the EPA to allow GMOs is “GRAS”, which means “Generally Recognized As Safe”.

The EPA leaves it up to the patent owners to conduct their own safety testing and then takes their word for it. Those in favor of GMOs are spending millions of dollars to fight against any requirement to disclose GMO content on product labels.

GMO opponents take issue on a few fronts. First there are risks from the modified bacteria genes themselves. They are also concerned about toxicity from the herbicides sprayed directly on, and absorbed by, the plant.

Opponents point to non-industry studies that closely correlate GMO consumption to major diseases while pointing out that the FDA’s current policy related to GMOs is illegal. Numerous countries even have total or partial GMO bans, including most of the European Union and Russia.

According to the May 2016 edition of Consumer reports magazine, over 90% of Americans would like GMO disclosure on product labels.

My own review of available evidence has led me to avoid exposure to GMOs and support product labelling. In the coming posts, I’ll share some of that evidence and offer some steps you can take to keep your family safe.

Spoiler alert: One of the most important recommendations is to buy only pastured meats or wild-caught fish. Get to know your farmer so you know the animals were never exposed to GMO feed.

Jeff Apthorp writes about optimizing health and performance on WellnessRepair.com. A 30 year veteran broadcaster in Christian radio, Jeff relentlessly researches the work of doctors, nutritionists and scientists that are successfully reversing, supposedly irreversible, diseases – with nutrient dense, real food!

Why We Don’t Feed Our Animals GMO Feed – Part 2

Guest post by Jeff Apthorp of WellnessRepair.com

Last time, I provided a two minute overview of why Seven Sons Farms never exposes animals to GMO feed. We looked at how chemical companies, like Monsanto, have generated new variations of plants with DNA modifications. These DNA-altered plants are commonly referred to as Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

According to the US Department of Agriculture statistics, about 90% of the crops in the US are now genetically engineered, or “Roundup ready”. Crops like soy, corn, sugar and canola are able to survive being coated with Monsanto’s broad spectrum herbicide known as Roundup, which is primarily made of glyphosate. Some GMO plants are also designed to produce toxins that instantly destroy the stomachs of bugs, killing the bugs.

In this post, I want to show how the increased use of glyphosate correlates with government data on various serious health issues. I found the data shocking.

How the rise of Glyphosate correlates with major diseases

The US government tracks the amount of glyphosate used on crops. The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported a 6,504% increase in glyphosate use from 1991 to 2010.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) tracks instances of disease.

Physicist Nancy Swanson Ph.D. wanted to see how the data from NASS compared to the data from the CDC. She used the Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient to produce charts overlaying the NASS/glyphosate figures over CDC data. This was done for several major diseases.

The chart below plots the use of glyphosate on corn and soy against autism. I selected autism because my youngest son is autistic.

The red line shows the CDC increase in instances of autism. The yellow bars represent NASS increase in glyphosate usage.

Autism tracks with a 98.8% correlation to the usage of glyphosate.

Here are the percentages of correlation for other diseases:

Dementia (deaths) 99%
Autism 98.8%
Thyroid Cancer 98.7%
Obesity 96.9%
Diabetes 96%
Liver Cancer 95.7%
Alzheimer’s (deaths) 92.7%
Parkinson’s (deaths) 89.5%

All of the charts and data can be viewed [here].

You can begin to see why Seven Sons Farms decided to never expose animals to GMO feed. The risk is too serious to ignore.

Any good scientist will tell you that correlation does not imply causation. That’s absolutely true. This chart doesn’t prove that glyphosate causes disease.

If the CDC/glyphosate data was the only evidence, the case would have reasonable holes, despite the close correlation. So let’s consider this merely one observation that doesn’t hurt the case against GMOs.

In my next post, I’ll tell you about an animal study that tied a GMO diet to the growth of massive tumors.

Thanks for reading and please help us pass this information along on social media!

Why We Don’t Feed Our Animals GMO Feed – Part 3

This may begin to sound like the plot from a TV show.

In our last two “episodes”, we saw that Genetically Engineered (GE) foods are becoming a large portion of the world’s food supply. Plants are DNA-modified so they can survive being coated with herbicides, like glyphosate, and also so they kill bugs. Chemical companies, like Monsanto, hold the patents and license Roundup Ready seeds and herbicides to farmers.

Last time, we looked at how USDA data tracking glyphosate usage correlates with 99% precision to CDC data showing the rise of dementia and autism. But that was just a correlation; a reason to get our attention.

In this post, I’d like to tell you what happened when a 90 day study to assert GE food safety, was allowed to run longer. The results are alarming and shed new light on the decision process pasture based farmers go through related to GE (GMO) feed.

Monsanto’s own 90 day study showed liver and kidney toxicity

In 2004, Monsanto presented the results of their study that fed Roundup Ready corn (NK603 maize) to rats. The study lasted the customary 90 days (that’s important) and concluded that NK603 maize was “safe and nutritious“.

Independent researcher, Professor Gilles Eric Séralini, obtained Monsanto’s raw data and assembled a team to re-analyze. They discovered that Monsanto’s raw data showed clear signs of liver and kidney toxicity in the rats fed GE corn and published this finding in 2009.

Séralini re-ran the study, only with more measurements and longer

Because of their discovery, Séralini designed a new toxicity experiment, purposely similar to Monsanto’s, but lasting two years and broader in scope. It is often referred to as the the CRIIGEN study.

They measured a greater number of health impacts, more often, and also isolated the effects of the GE corn and the herbicide itself. This was the very first study to distinguish the effects in this manner.

Séralini’s scientists tested three groups of rats. One group was fed GE corn + glyphosate. A second was fed GE corn alone, without glyphosate, and a third was fed a diet of non-GE corn. The amount of GE and glyphosate exposure was at levels permitted in both drinking water and crops in the US.

GE corn and glyphosate doubled or tripled mortality rate

The two-year study found, “all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly.” In this case “treated” means fed GE (or GMO) corn or corn + glyphosate.

This difference was visible. Treated rats developed large tumors, the first appearing 4-7 months into the study.

By the beginning of the 24th month, 50-80% of treated female rats had developed tumors, with up to 3 tumours per animal. These photos are from the study.

The letters at the bottom of each image mean GMO (corn) and R(oundup).

Was Séralini’s experiment a badly designed cancer study?

Critics of the study correctly say that this was not a properly designed cancer study. In actuality, Séralini’s study was never intended to be a carcinogenicity study. It was always meant to be a chronic toxicity study and was properly implemented as such. It just happened to be the first study connecting GE corn and glyphosate to cancer, a result that wasn’t anticipated.

The results clearly called for a carcinogenicity study to be conducted. They also indicated that 90-day studies on GE foods are not long enough. Longer term testing is not currently required anywhere in the world.

Was the study invalid because the rats were prone to tumors?

Critics of the CRIIGEN study also claim the particular strain of rat that Séralini used, known as Sprague-Dawley (SD), is naturally prone to developing tumors. The theory goes that the tumors could have been “spontaneous”, making the findings meaningless.

There are some problems with the spontaneous tumors theory.

First, SD rats are the standard choice for long-term carcinogenicity and toxicology studies. The National Toxicology Program in the US uses the same SD rats Séralini used. No other researchers have been challenged over their use of SD rats. In fact, SD rats are used precicely because they are about as prone to tumors as humans.

Secondly, Monsanto used SD rats for their 90 day study (section 2.1). Séralini would have been criticized if he had not used the standard rat for a toxicity study and the same kind of rat as Monsanto.

And lastly, Séralini correctly compared his rats with tumors to a non-treated control group. The treated SD rats died 2-3 times more than the SD rats in the control group. Any predisposition to developing tumors is a moot point since SD rats were used for all three groups.

To argue that the CRIIGEN study doesn’t prove GE foods and glyphosate are harmful, we must accept that Monsanto didn’t prove they are safe.

Summary

Monsanto’s original 90 day study showed liver and kidney toxicity.
The CRIIGEN study was designed to be similar to Monsanto’s but to run longer and measure more.
Rats fed GE corn and/or glyphosate in the CRIIGEN study began developing tumors 4-7 months into the study and died 2-3 times m0re than the control rats. The tumors were not evident yet at 90 days.
Since the two year CRIIGEN study was set up to be so similar to Monsanto’s study, one cannot object to the method without simultaneously accepting that Monsanto’s 90-day study didn’t prove safety.

For an ocean of additional evidence, see gmoevidence.com.

Tune in next time for evidence showing that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) covered up concerns from its own scientists about GE foods.

Thanks for spreading the word by sharing this post on social media!

Why We Don’t Feed Our Animals GMO Feed – Part 4

Guest post by Jeff Apthorp of WellnessRepair.com

Part 1 provided a two minute overview of GMOs. We noted that animal products can be a major source of GMOs and pesticides if the animals were fed GMO feed at any time. I recommend beginning with part 1 if you landed on this page first.

We saw, in part 2, how the rise of glyphosate usage correlates with 98.8% accuracy to the increase in major diseases since the early 90’s. This was based on data from two government agencies and overlaid in a nifty graph.

Then in part 3, we observed the large tumors that developed when rats were exposed to GMOs and glyphosate during the CRIIGEN study.

In this post, we’ll go one final step back in time to see that genetically engineered (GE) foods have never been proven safe. It’s a tale of coverup, misrepresented facts and explicit violations of U.S. law.

US policy for GE foods violates 2 FDA requirements

On May 29, 1992, the FDA officially announced they would presume GE foods to be “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. In so doing, they violated two regulations that are foundational to the agency.

Attorney Steven M. Druker caught the violations. He’s one of the foremost experts on laws related to GE foods. He also formed a non-profit coalition, known as the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, in an attempt to have the law enforced.

Basically, the law requires that GE foods:

Must be acknowledged as safe by an overwhelming consensus of experts, and…
The consensus must be based on the high testing standards required for any other food additive. GRAS was never meant to bypass careful testing.

Here’s Mr. Druker’s summary of the two requirements violated: “…the FDA’s regulations state that substances added to food that were not in use prior to 1958 cannot qualify as GRAS unless they meet two requirements. Not only must they be acknowledged as safe by an overwhelming consensus of experts, but this consensus must be based on “scientific procedures” – which ordinarily entails studies published in peer-reviewed journals.” GRAS substances “…require the same quantity and quality of scientific evidence as is required to obtain approval of the substance as a food additive.” (21 CFR Sec. 170.30 (a-b) )

The “21 CFR…” means Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). It’s where America writes down it’s laws.

He also referenced “substances added to food” (or food additives), so let me point out that genetically engineered plants have various genetic materials implanted (added). The FDA never disputes the fact that GE foods fall under their authority to regulate as a food additive.

There you have the law and an accusation it was violated. What’s the evidence? Turns out, there were lots of internal FDA memos discussing inadequate data and lack of consensus. When you tally them up…

58% of FDA scientists said there wasn’t enough data to claim safety

The evidence came out during a lawsuit, years after the original policy was published.

In 1998, when the Alliance for Bio-Integrity initiated a suit against the FDA. The case highlighted the fact that no one had ever proven GE food safe for humans.

Aside from raising public awareness, a key success of the suit was the acquisition of approximately 44,000 FDA internal documents.

Below, are numerous excerpts from those internal memos along with pdf links to scans of the originals.

Notice how the experts repeatedly express an inability to assure safety due to lack of adequate testing.

Evidence there was no consensus or adequate testing

October 23, 1991 – Letter from Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator, to Dr. Bill Murray, Chairman of the Food Directorate, Canada. Subject: the safety assessment of foods and food ingredients developed through new biotechnology. Dr. Maryanski candidly stated, “As I know you are aware, there are a number of specific issues addressed in the document for which a scientific consensus does not exist currently, especially the need for specific toxicology tests. Also, the quantity and quality of data that would be required is not addressed and is difficult to specify at this time. I think the question of the potential for some substances to cause allergenic reactions is particularly difficult to predict.” View pdf

October 28, 1991 – Memorandum from Dr. Edwin J. Mathews to the Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology Working Group. Subject: “Analysis of the Major Plant Toxicants.” He said, “…genetically modified plants could also contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants. The presence of high levels of toxicants in the bioengineered food plant could occur by two or more mechanisms. For example, normal levels of toxicants could be amplified through enhancement of toxicant gene transcription and translation. This might occur as a result of up-stream or down-stream promotion of gene activities in the modified plant DNA. In addition, plant toxicant genes which were normally inactive could be expressed in the modified plant gene as a result of insertion of the new genetic material (i.e. positional mutagenesis).” View pdf

November 1, 1991 – Comments from Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of Contaminants Chemistry. Subject: “Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation of Genetically Modified Foods. Supplemental Information.” The comments note, “All the above marker genes produce proteins that are new with respect to plants ¦ They should be considered to be new proteins in the human diet and be subjected to safety evaluation.” View pdf

January 8, 1992 – Comments from Dr. Linda Kahl, FDA compliance officer, to Dr. James Maryanski, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator, about the Federal Register document “Statement of Policy: Foods from Genetically Modified Plants.” She notes they had no data on which to base the FDA policy: “There is no data that addresses the relative magnitude of risk.” View pdf

January 8, 1992 – Memorandum from Dr. Mitchell Smith, Head, Biological and Organic Chemistry Section, to Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator. Subject: “Comments on Draft Federal Register Notice on Food Biotechnology, Dec. 12, 1991 draft.” Dr. Smith was very direct: “My general conclusion is that the issue turns the conventional connotation of Food Additive on its head. It also conveys that the public need not know when it is being exposed to new food additives, for lack of a better descriptor.” (2 pages) View pdf

January 8, 1992 – Comments from Dr. Carl B. Johnson on the “draft statement of policy 12/12/91.” Dr. Johnson noted, “It is my understanding that pleiotropic effects (producing more than one effect) are unpredictable, and may be triggered by gene insertion at a single site, as well as at multiple sites, the plant genome.” View pdf

January 31, 1992 – Memorandum from Dr. Samuel I. Shibko to Dr. James Maryanski, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator. Subject: “Revision of Toxicology Section of the Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Plants.” He stated, “At this time it is unlikely that molecular and compositional analysis can reasonably detect or predict all possible changes in toxicant levels or the development of new toxic metabolites as a result of genetic modifications introduced by the new methods of biotechnology.” View pdf

February 5, 1992 – Memorandum from Dr. Gerald B. Guest, Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine, to Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator. Subject: “Regulation of Transgenic Plants–FDA Draft Federal Register Notice on Food Biotechnology.” Among many statements of concern, Dr. Guest wrote, “We believe that animal feeds derived from GM plants present unique animal and food safety concerns.” He also stated, “Residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human food safety problems.” View pdf

March 6, 1992 – Comments from Dr. Louis J. Pribyl re: the “Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92.” Dr. Pribyl says, “Until more of these experimental plants have a wider environmental distribution, it would be premature for the FDA to summarily dismiss pleiotropy (producing more than one effect) as is done here.” View pdf

More evidence

Also in 1992, a Californian company called Calgene, voluntarily submitted data for the Flavr Savr™ tomato to the FDA.

FDA scientists reviewed the data, and on May 18, 1994, the FDA declared the tomato “as safe as tomatoes bred by conventional means” (pg 771). It became the first commercially grown, GE food to attain FDA approval.

Of special significance in the FDA records: “…the Flavr Savr passed muster so well that the rigor of its testing will not have to be repeated for other bioengineered foods.“

Memos revealed in the ’98 lawsuit revealed a different tenor.

December 17, 1992 – Memorandum from Dr. Murray Lumpkin to Dr. Bruce Burlington. Subject: “The tomatoes that will eat Akron.” Dr. Lumpkin emphasized in the conclusion, “IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD TO INTRODUCE A GENE THAT CODES FOR ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE INTO THE NORMAL FLORA OF THE GENERAL POPULATION.”View pdf

June 16, 1993 – Memorandum from Dr. Fred Hines to Dr. Linda Kahl. Subject: “FLAVR SAVR Tomato:” … “Pathology Branch’s Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions From Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies” … “and an Expert Panel’s Report.” Dr. Hines concluded, “There is considerable disparity in the reported findings of gastric erosions or necrosis lesions from the three studies reported by Calgene, Inc. This disparity has not been adequately addressed or explained by the sponsor or the laboratory (IRDC) where the study was conducted.”View pdf

October 27, 1993 – Memorandum from Robert J. Scheuplein, Ph.D. to the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator and others. Subject: “Response to Calgene Amended Petition.” While not declaring the tomatoes harmful, he concluded, “… the data fall short of ‘a demonstration of safety’ or of a ‘demonstration of reasonable certainty of no harm’ which is the standard we typically apply to food additives. To do that we would need, in my opinion, a study that resolves the safety question raised by the current data.” View pdf

Dec 7, 1993 – Memorandum from Dr. Carl B. Johnson to Dr. Linda Kahl & Others. Subject: “Flavr Savr(TM) tomato; significance of pending DHEE question.” Dr. Johnson: “… unresolved questions still remain.” View pdf

December 10, 1993 – Memorandum from Dr. Fred Hines to Dr. Linda Kahl. Subject: “FLAVR SAVR Tomato”… “Pathology Branch’s Remarks to Calgene Inc.’s Response to FDA Letter of June 29, 1993.” Dr. Hines concluded, “In the absence of adequate explanations by Calgene, the issues raised by the Pathology Branch … remain and leave doubts as to the validity of any scientific conclusion(s) which may be drawn from the studies’ findings.”View pdf

As Steven Druker puts it, “Genetically engineered (GE) foods fail both requirements. There is substantial dispute among experts about their safety; and none has been confirmed safe through adequate testing.“

Evidence of political influence to suppress safety concerns

There’s also evidence of influence from outside the scientific community. A March 21, 1992 memo from the US Office of Management and Budget to President Bush’s White House counsel advised specific changes to the wording of the FDA policy.

The writer and recipient were top US officials, but not scientists.

Here are two excerpts.

The first stressed leaving safety reviews of GE products in the hands of companies with a financial interest in the outcome. It’s a problem because companies tend to only publish studies that favor their product. The request: ‘‘…the policy statement needs to stress the role of decentralized safety reviews by producers; with informal FDA consultation only if significant safety or nutritional concerns arise. It should avoid emphasizing obligatory FDA review and oversight.”

The second directly overruled the concerns of FDAs own scientists and spins a message intended to make the public more receptive: ‘‘…the Notice should state that newer techniques actually may produce safer foods. I suggest the following sentence be added to the bottom of page 13: ‘Since these techniques are more precise, they increase the potential for safe, better characterized, and more predictable foods.’’”

All suggestions were added, some verbatim, and the FDA policy was published in the Federal Register eight days later.

The judge ruled for the FDA anyway

Judge Coleen Kollar-Kotelly was appointed to the United States District Court in May 1997, shortly before the Alliance for Bio-Integrity case began.

On Sept. 29, 2000, she ruled in favor of FDA policy.

Her decision ultimately had nothing to do with GRAS regulations, evidence of harm or lack of consensus among scientists. The judge essentially ruled all the evidence was irrelevant because the FDA was operating under a policy and not a rule. It was a technicality that sidestepped the issue of safety entirely.

From her written opinion:

“…the (FDA Policy) Statement does not declare that transferred genetic material will be considered GRAS; rather, it announces that “such material is presumed to be GRAS.””

“Because the Court finds that the Statement is a policy statement, it does not reach the question of whether the Statement could be viewed alternatively as an interpretive rule.”

You can read the entire decision here.

Here’s an excerpt from Steven Druker’s response to the decision: “…the judge also disregarded the fact (repeatedly pointed out to her) that the FDA’s files demonstrated there was insufficient technical evidence about safety to support a presumption that GE foods are GRAS. Although her opinion initially acknowledged that such technical evidence is legally required, she never returned to the issue – a highly irregular outcome. Thus, the judge did not determine that GE foods are (or ever were) truly GRAS. Nor did she determine that any has been demonstrated safe. She merely held that given the evidence before them in 1992, FDA officials had not acted arbitrarily in presuming that the foods were GRAS. Further, she emphasized that their presumption is, as a matter of law, “rebuttable.””

Judge Kollar-Kotelly is perhaps most famous in recent years for signing the first wire tap order that the NSA used as a basis for years of surveillance activity. The practice was eventually leaked by former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden.

FDA policy remains unchanged to this day

When you visit the FDA website today, you find: “During the (voluntary) FDA consultation process, the food developer conducts a safety assessment.” … “The developer submits a summary of its safety assessment to FDA for FDA’s evaluation. When the (voluntary) safety assessment is received by FDA, our scientists carefully evaluate the data and information.”

Here’s a simplified version of how the system has been dialed in.

Presume that GE products are GRAS without adequate testing or scientific consensus.
Leave it to the biotech industry to determine safety, but minimize that perception to the public. Instead, emphasize that GE products are safe.
Keep biotech consultation with the FDA voluntary.
If food safety is challenged, it’s only a policy, so evidence isn’t legally relevant and can be dismissed. As a bonus, there’s no legal basis to mandate product labelling as long as it remains only a policy.

One last hindsight that’ll make you go, “whoaaa.”

This comes from a special investigation conducted by the General Accounting Office. That’s the investigative arm of Congress.

In 1994 they looked into potential conflicts of interest on the part of FDA Deputy Commissioner, Michael Taylor. It was Mr. Taylor’s job to oversee FDA policies that would regulate GE products.

Before writing policy at the FDA, Mr. Taylor was a partner at King & Spalding, Monsanto’s external legal counsel on regulatory matters. During his tenure at the FDA, references to the possible harmful effects of GE foods were progressively deleted from drafts of the final policy statement.

The investigation did not conclude there were any improprieties, but did highlight a Monsanto-connection to one of the primary authors of FDA GE policy.

After his time at the FDA, Mr. Taylor became Vice-President for Public Policy… at Monsanto.

Highlights from all 4 posts

In the early 90’s, genetically engineered food was presumed safe without being proven safe, despite concerns expressed by a majority of FDA’s own experts.
In 2000, the presumption policy withstood a legal challenge on a technicality. Ample evidence of safety concern was never acted upon.
In 2004, Monsanto presented the results of their 90 day study that fed Roundup Ready corn to rats. The study purported the genetically engineered corn to be “safe and nutritious“.
In 2009, Séralini’s CRIIGEN study showed that rats would develop giant tumors if Monsanto’s study was allowed to run longer than 90 days.
In 2013, Physicist Nancy Swanson Ph.D. published data correlating the rising use of glyphosate with CDC data showing the rising rates of major diseases. You can see a chart of the stunning 98.8% correlation in part 2.
Numerous countries have total or partial GMO bans, including most of the European Union and Russia.
May 2016 – Consumer Reports magazine published the statistic that over 90% of Americans would like GMO disclosure on product labels.
Today – The FDA leaves it to biotech companies to look after the safety aspects of GE foods. Monsanto insists genetic engineering is not a food safety issue.

Mr. Druker continues as a consumer advocate saying, “…genetically engineered foods are on the market only because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has covered up the warnings of its own scientists, misrepresented the facts, and violated explicit mandates of U.S. law.”

What can we do that is meaningful?

I don’t generally consider myself an activist and this problem is world-sized. Nevertheless, here are some meaningful steps we can take:

Don’t buy products that contain GMOs or pesticide residue. Your dollars are a powerful vote that can bypass political complexity. All of the products at Seven Sons Farms meet this standard.
Ask for non-GMO / no pesticide products at restaurants and grocery stores. Politely speak to both staff and management. You can also put pressure on a chain by going to their web site and sending a message to the corporate headquarters. This works!
Contact food manufacturers and ask them to remove GE ingredients.
Share this series of posts on social media and email the links to people you care about. The biotech industry spends millions annually on lobbying and to convince the public that GMOs and pesticides are not a food safety issue.
Share this post with any farmers you know. If they are already producing GMO and pesticide-free food, it will encourage them. If not, this series may reveal information they were not previously aware of.
You can grow your own food. Be sure to use non-GMO seeds!
Buy only pastured meats or wild-caught fish. Get to know your farmer so you know the animals were never exposed to feed containing GMOs or pesticides.

Please leave a comment below to tell us which steps you’re going to try. We would love to hear from you!

Thanks for helping to educate your social circle and a huge thanks for your faithful support of pasture based – no GMO’s or pesticides – farms, like Seven Sons Farms!

Why We Don’t Feed Our Animals GMO Feed – for Seven Sons