(Healingtalks) Because federal laws do not require genetically messed-up food to be labeled, 14 states are debating whether to legally require such labeling. The debate is taking place from NY to California, as legislators consider the impact of also the first genetically messed-up animal (salmon) for our dinner plates
Genetically messed-up food and messed with organisms
By the way I decided to stop using the terms genetically modified, altered or engineered because such terms were invented to sell us on the notion that the use of gene guns to alter genetic codes, or genetic violence is something either positive or equivalent to foods in their natural state.
Genetic codes have evolved consciously over millions of years and now suddenly are being messed up or at least seriously messed with. That something serious will eventually go wrong is so obvious. But where huge sums of money are at stake, many can’t see that obviousness.
Again the terms modified, altered and engineered – or even enhanced – were themselves engineered to deliver the false connotation and propaganda that all is well. But its not. And the evidence is climbing higher than Everest.
Labeling frankenfish
In four states — California, Oregon, Vermont and Alaska - lawmakers are considering just the issue of frankenfish. We encourage you to contact your state legislatures in support these efforts.
Labeling all GMOs
In ten other states the labeling of all GMO-ingredient products is on the table. Contact your state legislators and encourage them to do the same.
(Healingtalks) Are genetically modified foods safe? The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) doesn’t think so.
AAEM’s report
The Academy reported that animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM foods including
Infertility
Immune and food allergy problems
Accelerated aging
Faulty insulin regulation
Changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.
The AAEM asked physicians to advise patients to avoid GM foods.
FDA’s own scientists ignored for political reasons
Before the FDA decided to allow GMOs into food without labeling, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems.
They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored.
Animal studies
Since then, new findings among animals fed GMOs include:
Thousands of farm animals died after grazing on Bt cotton in India
Mice eating GM corn also had fewer and smaller babies. Manyof these babies died within three weeks.
Testicular cells in mice and rats also changed significantly
By the third generation, a GM soy-fed hamster study showed they lost their ability to have babies altogether
Rodents fed GM corn and soy showed immune system responses.
Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen
Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced
Stomach linings of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition akin to cancer.
Organ lesions appeared, along with altered liver, pancreas cells and changed enzyme levels
Human study
Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us. This could mean:
If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics
If the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.
Although no studies have evaluated if antibiotic or Bt-toxin genes transfer, that is one of the key problems.
The safety assessments are too superficial, and dangerously so.
(Healingtalks) When U.S. regulators approved Monsanto’s genetically modified “Bt” corn, they knew it would add a deadly poison into our food supply. That’s what it was designed to do.
GMO Bt-corn
The corn’s DNA is equipped with a gene from soil bacteria called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) that produces the Bt-toxin. It’s a deadly pesticide that breaks open the stomach of certain insects and kills them.
False claims
But Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) swore that it was only insects that would be hurt. The Bt-toxin would be completely destroyed in the human gut and would have no impact on consumers. They were wrong
Quebec findings: the toxins are inside of us
Research doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found that the corn’s Bt-toxins made their way into the blood of pregnant women and their babies, as well as in non-pregnant women.i It was found in 93% of 30 pregnant women, 80% of umbilical blood in their babies, and 67% of 39 non-pregnant women. The study has been accepted for publication in the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology.
Links to many widespread disorders
Evidence shows that Bt-toxins produced in GM corn and cotton plants trigger immune system responses and this helps explain the huge rise in many food-based disorders in the US since this was introduced so widely since 1996.
Upper dark spots indicate Bt reactions in mice; lower represent the control for comparison
Italian mice study shows clear and strong immune response
In g Italyii, mice were fed Monsanto’s Bt corn and soon showed a wide range of immune responses – and after having ingested the same Bt-toxins that were found in the blood of women and fetuses:
Elevated IgE and IgG antibodies associated with allergies and infections
Increase in cytokines associated with allergic and inflammatory responses
Interleukins, a form of cytokines, were elevated as they are in humans suffering with disorders from arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, to MS and cancer
Elevated T cells (gamma delta), associated with asthma, children’s food allergies, juvenile arthritis, and connective tissue diseases.
Elevated interleukins associated with
Rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis, various cancers (multiple myeloma and prostate), allergic rhinitis, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease)MIP-1bAutoimmune disease, colitis, inflammatory bowel disease, and multiple sclerosis
Rats fed another form of BT also had such an immune response
When rats were fed another of Monsanto’s Bt corn varieties called MON 863, their immune systems were also activated, showing higher numbers of basophils, lymphocytes, and white blood cells. These can indicate possible allergies, infections, toxins, and various disease states including cancer. There were also signs of toxicity in the liver and kidneys.iii
Natural Bt is harmful to mammals
When natural Bt-toxin, far less toxic, was used on mice and their affects were also studied in relation to farmers, it was found that
the mice had tissue damage
their immune systems responded as powerful as if exposed to cholera toxinv
the mice started reacting to other foods that were formerly harmless.vi
The Scientific Advisory Panel of the EPA said that these mouse and farm worker studies “suggest Bt proteins could act as antigenic and allergenic sources.”viii
Synthetic Bt is far more dangerous
Farmers have used Bt-toxin from soil bacteria as a natural pesticide for years. But they spray it on plants, where it washes off and biodegrades in sunlight.
The GM version is built-into; every plant cell. The toxin doesn’t wash off. It goes into our digestive juices.
GMO version of Bt is thousands of times more concentrated than the spray; it is designed to be more toxic and actually fails the World Health Organization’s allergen screening tests.iv
The biotech companies ignore any data that doesn’t fit their financial agenda. Then the politically corrupted EPA also ignored the warnings. They overlooked studiesix showing that about 500 people in Washington state and Vancouver showed allergic and flu-like symptoms when they were exposed to the spray used to kill gypsy moths.
Indian farm workers are suffering from rashes and itching and other symptoms after coming into contact with Bt cotton.
Bt cotton linked to human allergies
Now thousands of Indian farm laborers are suffering from the same allergic and flu-like symptoms as those in the Pacific Northwest simply from handling genetically engineered cotton plants that produce Bt-toxin.
All thirteen buffalo of a small Indian village died after grazing
for a single day on Bt cotton plants.
Bt linked to animal deaths
When they allow livestock to graze on the Bt cotton plants after harvest, thousands of sheep, goats, and buffalo have died. I visited one village where for seven to eight years they allowed their buffalo to graze on natural cotton plants without incident. But on January 3rd, 2008, they allowed their 13 buffalo to graze on Bt cotton plants for the first time. After just one day’s exposure, all died. The village also lost 26 goats and sheep.
One small study in Andhra Pradesh reported that all six sheep that grazed on Bt cotton plants died within a month, while the three controls fed natural cotton plants showed no adverse symptoms.
Do we want living Bt pesticide factories inside us?
Bt-toxin now circulating in the blood of North American adults and newborns—how did it get there? The study authors speculate that it was consumed in the normal diet of the Canadian middle class. They even suggest that the toxin may have come from eating meat from animals fed corn
Another monstrosity – roundup-ready GMOs
The only human feeding study every published on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was conducted on Roundup Ready soybeans. Scientists found bacteria growing in a chemical waste dump near their factory, surviving the presence of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The herbicide normally kills bacteria, but this organism had some special gene that allowed it to survive. So Monsanto scientists figured, “Let’s put it into the food supply!”
By forcing that genes from that bacterium into soybean plants’ DNA, the plants then survive an otherwise deadly dose of Roundup herbicide.
In the human studyx, some of the subjects were found to have Roundup Ready gut bacteria! This means they ate one or more meals of GM soybeans, and with the gene that had been discovered in the chemical waste dump and forced into the soy. This had transferred into the DNA of bacteria living inside their intestines—and continued to function there. That means that long after they stopped eating GMOs, they still had these dangerous GM proteins being produced continuously inside.
Are we becoming living pesticide factories?
When the results of the study emerged, the funding from the pro-GMO UK government study mysteriously dried up. Thus they were not able to see if the same type of gene transfer happens with Bt GMOs. If it does, it means that eating Bt corn might turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories—continually manufacturing Bt-toxin from within our digestive systems!
Nature designs us so that if we fast, the body naturally detoxes. What bioengineering apparently does is to flip the coin or do the diabolical opposite, namely to remake us into biotoxic living factories.
The Quebec study seems to be pointing in that direction—where Bt-toxins are found in the blood of a very high percentage of people. If the “living pesticide factory” hypothesis is correct, we might speculate that if Bt-toxins break open the stomach of insects then they could similarly damage our digestive tracts.
More false claims
The biotech companies insist that Bt-toxin doesn’t bind or interact with the intestinal walls of mammals, and therefore humans. But here too they ignore peer-reviewed published evidence showing that Bt-toxin does bind with mouse small intestines and with intestinal tissue from rhesus monkeys.xi In the former study, they even found “changes in the electrophysiological properties” of the organ after the Bt-toxin came into contact.xii
What this likely results in
If Bt-toxins were causing leaky gut syndrome in newborns, the passage of undigested foods and toxins into the blood from the intestines could be devastating. Scientists speculate that it may lead to
autoimmune diseases and food allergies
toxins entering the brain causing serious cognitive problems such as autism
an increase in gastrointestinal problems, autoimmune diseases, food allergies, and childhood learning disorders
Physicians indeed are seeing such an increase since these crops were introduced in 1996.
Call to action
Healingtalks joins the Institute for Responsible Technology and other organizations worldwide calling for an immediate ban on GM food crops, and the commencement of rigorous independent scientific research on the safety of GMOs in general, and Bt-toxin in particular. We also give a deep perspective of why GMOs, based on the mechanical vision of nature, are intrinsically harmfuland cannot serve a beneficial role to humanity or nature.
i Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reprod Toxicol (2011), doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670
ii Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A and Mengheri E. (2008). Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric Food Chem, 16 November 2008
iii Seralini GE, Cellier D, Spiroux de Vendomois J. 2007, “New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity”. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007;52:596-602; and Vendômois, JS, François Roullier, Dominique Cellier and Gilles-Eric Séralini. 2009, “A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health” . International Journal of Biological Sciences 2009; 5(7):706-726
iv Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62. See also: G. A. Kleter and A. A. C. M. Peijnenburg, “Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences indentical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens,” BMC Structural Biology 2 (2002): 8–19; H. P. J. M. Noteborn, “Assessment of the Stability to Digestion and Bioavailability of the LYS Mutant Cry9C Protein from Bacillus thuringiensis serovar tolworthi,” Unpublished study submitted to the EPA by AgrEvo, EPA MRID No. 447343-05 (1998); and H. P. J. M. Noteborn et al, “Safety Assessment of the Bacillus thuringiensis Insecticidal Crystal Protein CRYIA(b) Expressed in Transgenic Tomatoes,” in Genetically modified foods: safety issues, American Chemical Society Symposium Series 605, eds. K.H. Engel et al., (Washington, DC, 1995): 134–47.
Bt protein failed to break down quickly in a simulated digestive solution. In fact, it left fragments that were typically the size of allergens. The Bt also failed the heat stability test, and had shared 9–12 amino acid sequences of vitellogenin, an egg yolk allergen.
v Vazquez et al, “Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice,” 1897–1912; Vazquez et al, “Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice,” Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33 (2000): 147–155; See also L. Moreno-Fierros, N. Garcia, R. Lopez-Revilla, R. I. Vazquez-Padron, “Intranasal, rectal and intraperitoneal immunization with protoxin Cry1Ac from Bacillus thuringiensis induces compartmentalized serum, intestinal, vaginal, and pulmonary immune responses in Balb/c mice,” Microbes and Infection 2 (2000): 885–90.
vi Vazquez et al, “Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant,” Scandanavian Journal ofImmunology 49 (1999): 578–584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000).
vii I.L. Bernstein et al, “Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides,” Environmental Health Perspectives 107, no. 7(1999): 575–582.
viii EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, “Bt Plant-Pesticides Risk and Benefits Assessments,” March 12, 2001: 76.
ix Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993); and M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.
x Netherwood, T. (2004) “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract”. Nature Biotechnology, 22, 204-209.
xi Noteborn et al, “Safety Assessment of the Bacillus thuringiensis Insecticidal Crystal Protein CRYIA(b) Expressed in Transgenic Tomatoes,” 134–47.
xii Vazquez et al, “Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis sp. kurstaki HD73 binds to surface proteins in the mouse small intestine,” 54–58.
5 Terrible Problems With the Way We Eat – And What You Can Do About Them
Most of the problems in our food system stem from the concentration of power, land, wealth, and political influence in the hands of a few large players.
If you ask food experts like Michael Pollan, Marian Nestle, Gary Nabhan, Vandana Shiva, and numerous other writers and scholars what the biggest problems in our global, industrialized food system are, you’ll end up with a lot to chew on.
It’s difficult to separate the problems into discrete categories because everything is connected. Big problems lead to seemingly smaller problems, that, when allowed to fester, become open wounds – much like the foul waste lagoons on industrial pig farms that dot our landscape, or the actual wounds on human flesh caused by antibiotic resistant staph infections, which are a direct result of the overuse of antibiotics in livestock operations.
Most of the problems in the system stem from one giant problem: Concentration of power, land, wealth, and political influence in the hands of a few large players who have gamed the system for their benefit. Here are the biggest issues, as we see them, followed by suggestions for what you can do about them.
1. Food Safety
Big players in the meat, dairy, eggs, and bagged greens industries are unsafe at any speed. Nobody paying attention to the news over the past few years could have missed the biggest food recall stories, nor the very real harm and deaths that have resulted from many of them. E-coli in beef has sickened many, killed some, and ruined lives. Recently, salmonella tainted pasteurized milk was pulled from shelves. Nobody could have missed the recent recall of about a half a billion eggs, and there have been numerous recalls of bagged greens – the most recent in June. These stories are becoming nearly every day occurrences, leaving us to wonder if our food system is DESIGNED to kill us. The problem is a direct result of lax food safety enforcement laws and lack of inspectors. This is at least partially because industry lobbies make sure that inconvenient regulations are not passed. Concentration in the industry also leads to over-crowded, sadistic farm operations requiring the use of massive doses of non-therapeutic antibiotics and grown hormones, and resulting in air and water pollution that contribute to a host of environmental and public health nightmares, and misery for the animals trapped in the system.
What can you do about it?
Know your farmers, ask about their practices and support what they are doing. You’ll eat better, you’ll worry less and you’ll support a better food system. When bagged spinach was first recalled a few years ago, I knew that the spinach in my CSA box was fine. Likewise, during the recent egg recall, I worried not a whit about the pastured eggs I buy at the farmers’ market.
2. Declining Wild Fish Stocks
As Taras Grescoe pointed out in Bottomfeeder and Paul Greenberg most recently outlined in Four Fish, we eat too many of a very few species of wild fish – mostly the ones that are higher on the food chain. Continuing in this vein will cause the eventual decimation of our oceans.
What can you do about it?
Branch out and try something new. Eat bait, or smaller fish, like anchovies, sardines, and small Spanish mackerel. These fish are more sustainable, more plentiful, more resilient, and healthier for you than the larger predators.
3. Poor Aquaculture Practices
Aquaculture may be an important food source in the future (see above) but much of it is practiced in ways that are unhealthy for eaters, native species and the environment. If GMO salmon is approved, (still pending at press time) it will only add to the list of everything that is wrong with farming carnivorous fish in the open ocean. Don’t replace that salmon on your plate with shrimp. Ever wonder why the shrimp is so cheapat restaurants like Red Lobster?
What can you do about it?
Educate yourself on sustainable aquaculture. In general, only eat farmed fish that are natural vegetarians and only buy from suppliers that are transparent about the origins of their fish.
4. Genetically Modified Crops
Besides being untested for their effects on human health, genetically modified seeds don’t necessarily produce greater yields, and can lead to over-application of pesticides that in turn can cause super weeds which have the potential to threaten overall biodiversity, and to contaminate non-gmo crops with their genetic material. The most recent case involving GMOS ended badly when the USDA issued permits allowing GMO sugar beets to be planted in defiance of a federal judge. The judge had issued a decision to stop the planting of GMO sugar beets on the grounds that they may cross-pollinate table beets and Swiss chard. Despite the fact that most other countries have laws outlawing or requiring the labeling of GMO foods, our government continues to bow down to industry.
What can you do about it?
Educate yourself about which crops are commonly genetically modified and only buy organic versions. Better yet, support the companies involved in the non-GMO project. These are the companies willing to go out on a limb and actually test their organic ingredients to make sure they are not contaminated. Also, raise your voice and let the USDA and our legislators know that you don’t want GMOS!
This is a tough one, because buying from local, organic farms isn’t necessarily the answer. Even the nicest local, organic farms don’t pay their workers much and require long hours of backbreaking work. The farmers often work just as hard and can’t even afford health insurance for themselves or their families, so even if they want to do better by their workers, they can’t. This is where raising your voice for a more fair government policy that benefits small farmers equally can help. The new USDA is doing a better job clamping down on the big guys and supporting small-scale farmers than ever before, but we’ve got a ways to go.
Here is an outline of more harmful effects of genetically-modified foods, crops and organisms. For a full text and all the details of these harms seewww.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful
MAJOR CATEGORIES FOR 50 HARMFUL EFFECTS
(1-15) IMPACTS ON HEALTH
Deaths and Near Deaths, Cancer and Degenerative Disease, Viral and Bacterial Illnesses, Allergies, General Health Impacts
(16-31) ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Impacts on: Soil, Seeds, Plants, Trees, Insects and Large Animals, and the Issue of Genetic Uncertainties
(32-43) ON FARMING
Impacts on: Small Farm Livelihood and Survival, Organic Farming and Overall Farm Production, Corporate Control of Farming and Dependency.
(44-47) WIDER ECONOMIC & POLITICAL EFFECTS
Bio-colonization, Violations of Our Right to Know
(48-50) OPPOSING DEEP ECOLOGY
Globally Imposing a Non-living Model of Nature
Once you know the full story of this adulteration and deep corruption of our modern food supply, you will not want to eat anything but WHOLESOME ORGANIC FOODS.
Nathan Batalion, Global Health Activist, Healingtalks Editor
(Healingtalks) Here is the second part of our blog synopsis of the health impacts of GM Foods. Each of these GM-food health impacts is discussed in much greater detail at www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful
RESURGENCE OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
This was the conclusion of an article in The Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease Journal. It is due to the ultiple impacts of forming new viral and bacterial strains via transfers of genetic materials to micro-organisms in our mouth, larynx, stomach and intestines.
INCREASED FOOD ALLERGIES The loss of biodiversity has grown in parallel with the rise in food allergies. Life innately reacts to mechanically-produced foods in our modern factory-farming agriculture.
BIRTH DEFECTS, INFERTILITY, AND SHORTER LIFE SPANS Both experiments with cows and rate have shown higher birth defects when fed genetically modified foods. Other studies have shown infertility, immune problems, organ deformities, and accelerated aging – why the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a total moratorium on the planting and release of GMOs.
INTERIOR TOXINS Certain GM foods have internal pesticide toxins, such with BT corn and BT soy. This is the first time in history that cell-interior toxicity has being sold to the unwary consumer.
LOWERED OR CORRUPTED NUTRITION Several studies have shown that certain GM foods have both lower vital nutrients and much higher levels of bacteria, pus and allergens.
NO REGULATED HEALTH SAFETY TESTING Given that GM foods represent the most radical alteration of our diet in human history, the US government, led by the Bush administration, has embarked on a highly irresponsible policy of not requiring any significant safety testing of GMOs and genetically modified foods.
UNNATURAL AND UNLABELED FOODS According to the FDA’s own studies, pleotropic effects and unpredictable alterations occur at frequencies of 30% in GM Foods. Yet Congress mandated the FDA to require labeling if “there is something tangibly different about the food that is material to the consequences which may result.”
RADICAL/WHOLESALE CHANGE AND CONTROL OF DIET Human diets have evolved for thousands of years yet in the last decade we’ve introduced such radical, violent and widespread changes in our food supply, with no significant safety testing. About 10 companies now control 40-50% of all seed and food production in the US and it is projected that 90% of processed foods will soon have GM food ingredients (up from 2/3rds.
TAKING ACTION Give the adulteration of the modern food supply, this is why we increasingly recommend eating organic foods as much as possible. We also lobby companies and the government to stop the process.
“I have always respected Home Depot for its environmental policies and therefore appreciate your taking my the time and attention to view my correspondence seriously. I am a local contractor who believes in shopping responsibly. I also appreciate the letter from Ed Billmaier, director of Scotts Consumer Service directed to Mike Mahler.
I am aware that Scotts Company LLC, with billion in lawn care product sales, has been the exclusive distributor of Roundup, apparently since 1998, and has been also working with Monsanto on a Roundup Ready turf grass since a little before then. I have heard that Roundup is presumably a biodegradable herbicide that binds to the soil and that the EPA has labeled it with but a “caution” classification. However, this brings up the following issues of much greater concern to me.
First since Scotts obviously has a sizeable financial stake in this issue, I think Home Depot would be wiser to get a broader spectrum of opinions. This could engender further and solid objectivity on this very important issue. May I recommend reviewing the material I will be faxing you and I will aso see if I can get you in touch with Caroline Cox, editor of the Journal for Pesticide Reform who is one of the leading experts on this subject. I can inquire about other experts to give more opinions for your making a sound business decision on Round Up.
Secondly, my concern is not primarily with biodegradability but rather with toxic levels and the overall heath and reverberating environmental impacts. Roundup’s main ingredient has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in a study published by the American Cancer Society. Some have suggested it is the number one herbicide now implicated in farm-worker illnesses. In my home state of New York, Monsanto was sued by the Attorney General for recklessly claiming their product was “safe and environmentally friendly.” In France it was sued for similarly claiming the product is biodegradable and leaves the soil “clean”, which scientific studies do not bear out. They lost both the French and New York State cases and appeals. Since much the same has happened in NY, this is not something concerning far away overseas affairs where different laws may apply.
Thirdly, as to seeking comfort and refuge via the EPA labeling, I think that was reasonable to say a couple of decades ago. I have friends in Washington DC and things have changed there dramatically, These friends have kept me abreast on how the Bush Administration has unprecedentedly downsized the EPA’s and ham-stringed regulatory effectiveness, as it did with the financial industry (resulting in near-catastrophic results for our American economy). The Bush Administration originally had private meetings with Monsanto executives to forcefully push their sales agenda without adequate safety testing these products to protect the public, as the literature I am faxing reiterates. The Bush Administration also pushed the closely related notion that genetically modified foods (Roundup Ready) are essentially equivalent to regular foods, requiring no safety testing or labeling at all – even though the EPA’s own scientists substantially disagreed. In short such labeling decisions were political, not science-based and offer little comfort.
My fourth concern is the most paramount. By creating Roundup-Ready genetically modified crops, they can tolerate a vastly increased (several times more) herbicide load that is one of the most growingly polluting factors in our groundwaters and rivers. Alarm signals were put out by the World Health Organization in regard to this specific impact of increasing Roundup use. Related to this is also thrust of the major players in the biotech seed industry have been monopolizing staple food seeds (including via buying out competitive companies and destroying their heirloom seed stocks) – the foundation of life in earth – and creating only Roudup-ready genetically modified seeds and the like. Farmers cannot (by contract) have these seeds independently tested for safety, nor can they be saved or replanted except as directed by Monsanto. This ownership of the foundation pillars of life by such means represents a gravest ever political, human health and environmental threat faced by our planet and civilization.
I cannot think of a single greater positive environmental step, dwarfing any energy-saving sales of HD, than taking Roundup fully off of Home Depot’s shelves. It would attract an avalanching explosion of positive consumer response that would dwarf the comparative size of any profit lost from Roundup toxic product sales. It would also, in my opinion, be the truely responsible approach sending a positive message of the high-minded, moral, consumer-oriented stance of the executive leaders of Home Depot, a firm I have always deeply respected. It would tell the herbicide industry that business cannot be conducted as usual at the huge expense of our health, our children’s health, the health of the consumer, and of farm workers and our environment.
Thank you again for taking this issue not only to heart but with the utmost of seriousness.”
NOVEMBER 11, 2009 “I have always respected Home Depot for its environmental policies and therefore appreciate your taking the time and attention to view my correspondence seriously. I am a local contractor who believes in shopping responsibly. I also appreciate the letter from Ed Billmaier, director of Scotts Consumer Service.
I am aware that Scotts Company LLC, with billion in lawncare product sales, has been the exclusive distributor of Roundup, apparently since 1998, and has been also working with Monsanto on a Roundup Ready turf grass since a little before then. I have heard that Roundup is presumably a biodegradable herbicide that binds to the soil and that the EPA has labeled it with but a “caution” classification. However, this brings up the following issues of much greater concern to me.
BIASED VIEW
First since Scotts obviously has a sizeable financial stake in this issue, I think Home Depot would be wiser to get a broader spectrum of opinions. This could engender further and solid objectivity on this very important issue. May I recommend reviewing the material I will be faxing you and I will also see if I can get you in touch with Caroline Cox, editor of the Journal for Pesticide Reform who is one of the leading experts on this subject. I can inquire about other experts to give more opinions for your making a sound business decision on Round Up.
TOXICITY
Secondly, my concern is not primarily with biodegradability but rather with toxic levels and the overall heath and reverberating environmental impacts. Roundup’s main ingredient has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in a study published by the American Cancer Society. Some have suggested it is the number one herbicide now implicated in farm-worker illnesses.
MONSANTO SUED
In my home state of New York, Monsanto was sued by the Attorney General for recklessly claiming their product was “safe and environmentally friendly.” In France it was sued for similarly claiming the product is biodegradable and leaves the soil “clean”, which scientific studies do not bear out. They lost both the French and New York State cases and appeals. Since much the same has happened in NY, this is not something concerning far away overseas affairs where different laws may apply.
EPA LABELING NO COMFORT Thirdly, as to seeking comfort and refuge via the EPA labeling, I think that was reasonable to say a couple of decades ago. I have friends in Washington DC and things have changed there dramatically, These friends have kept me abreast on how the Bush Administration has unprecedentedly downsized the EPA’s and ham-stringed regulatory effectiveness, as it did with the financial industry (resulting in near-catastrophic results for our American economy).
SECRET DEALS
The Bush Administration originally had private meetings with Monsanto executives to forcefully push their sales agenda without adequate safety testing these products to protect the public, as the literature I am faxing reiterates. The Bush Administration also pushed the closely related notion that genetically modified foods (Roundup Ready) are essentially equivalent to regular foods, requiring no safety testing or labeling at all – even though the EPA’s own scientists substantially disagreed. In short such labeling decisions were political, not science-based and offer little comfort.
POLLUTION My fourth concern is the most paramount. By creating Roundup-Ready genetically modified crops, they can tolerate a vastly increased (several times more) herbicide load that is one of the most growingly polluting factors in our groundwaters and rivers. Alarm signals were put out by the World Health Organization in regard to this specific impact of increasing Roundup use.
MONOPOLIZATION Related to this is also thrust of the major players in the biotech seed industry have been monopolizing staple food seeds (including via buying out competitive companies and destroying their heirloom seed stocks) – the foundation of life in earth – and creating only Roudup-ready genetically modified seeds and the like. Farmers cannot (by contract) have these seeds independently tested for safety, nor can they be saved or replanted except as directed by Monsanto. This ownership of the foundation pillars of life by such means represents a gravest ever political, human health and environmental threat faced by our planet and civilization.
SINGLE MOST POSITIVE MOVE
I cannot think of a single greater positive environmental step, dwarfing any energy-saving sales of HD, than taking Roundup fully off of Home Depot’s shelves. It would attract an avalanching explosion of positive consumer response that would dwarf the comparative size of any profit lost from Roundup toxic product sales. It would also, in my opinion, be the truly responsible approach sending a positive message of the high-minded, moral, consumer-oriented stance of the executive leaders of Home Depot, a firm I have always deeply respected. It would tell the herbicide industry that business cannot be conducted as usual at the huge expense of our health, our children’s health, the health of the consumer, and of farm workers and our environment.
Thank you again for taking this issue not only to heart but with the utmost of seriousness.”
