New Study Finds “Severe Toxic Effects” of Pervasively Used Monsanto Herbicide Roundup and Roundup Ready GM Corn (Updated)

Although I generally refrain from posting on Big Ag and relegate the topic to Links, I have a special interest in Monsanto. Last year, I had wanted to devise a list or ranking of top predatory companies, but could not find a way to make the tally sufficiently objective to be as useful in calling them out as it ought to be. Nevertheless, no matter how many ways I looked at the issue, it was clear that any ranking would put Monsanto as number 1. Monsanto has (among other things) genetically engineered seeds so that they can’t reproduce, denying farmers the ability to save seeds and have a measure of financial independence. In 2009, Vandana Shiva estimated that 200,000 farmers in India had committed suicide since 1997, and Monsanto was a major culprit:

In 1998, the World Bank’s structural adjustment policies forced India to open up its seed sector to global corporations like Cargill, Monsanto and Syngenta. The global corporations changed the input economy overnight. Farm saved seeds were replaced by corporate seeds, which need fertilizers and pesticides and cannot be saved.

Corporations prevent seed savings through patents and by engineering seeds with non-renewable traits. As a result, poor peasants have to buy new seeds for every planting season and what was traditionally a free resource, available by putting aside a small portion of the crop, becomes a commodity. This new expense increases poverty and leads to indebtness.

The shift from saved seed to corporate monopoly of the seed supply also represents a shift from biodiversity to monoculture in agriculture. The district of Warangal in Andhra Pradesh used to grow diverse legumes, millets, and oilseeds. Now the imposition of cotton monocultures has led to the loss of the wealth of farmer’s breeding and nature’s evolution.

Monocultures and uniformity increase the risk of crop failure, as diverse seeds adapted to diverse to eco-systems are replaced by the rushed introduction of uniform and often untested seeds into the market. When Monsanto first introduced Bt Cotton in 2002, the farmers lost 1 billion rupees due to crop failure. Instead of 1,500 kilos per acre as promised by the company, the harvest was as low as 200 kilos per acre. Instead of incomes of 10,000 rupees an acre, farmers ran into losses of 6,400 rupees an acre. In the state of Bihar, when farm-saved corn seed was displaced by Monsanto’s hybrid corn, the entire crop failed, creating 4 billion rupees in losses and increased poverty for desperately poor farmers. Poor peasants of the South cannot survive seed monopolies. The crisis of suicides shows how the survival of small farmers is incompatible with the seed monopolies of global corporations.

Monsanto’s seeds can also sterilize wild crops via contamination. And Monsanto routinely sues farmers who wind up having some Monsanto seeds by virtue of seeds from neighboring farms blowing onto their property.

I also know a wee bit about Monsanto because I was on its client team as a very junior investment banker at Goldman in the early 1980s. It was then a specialty chemical company, with the herbicide Roundup as the driver of its profits. The Goldman bankers and analysts were aware that Monsanto was effectively a one-trick pony, and that the St. Louis company was exposed both to the end of its patent and the possibility of Roundup-resistant weeds developing. Monsanto managed to extend the life of its patent both legally and far more important, practically, via the genetic engineering described above. The result is that Roundup has been far and away the most widely used herbicide in the US for over 30 years.

And that little fact makes a newly-released study particularly troubling. The study, by Dr. Joel Spiroux and Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology as “Long term toxicity of a herbicide Roundup and Roundup-tolerant genetically has modified maize.” The authors are both members of CRIIGEN (Committee for Research and Independent Information). Per the summary on the CRIIGEN website (furzy mouse):

For the first time, the health impact of a GMO and a widely used pesticide have been comprehensively assessed * in a long term animal feeding trial of greater duration and with more detailed analyses than any previous studies, by environmental and food agencies, governments, industries or researchers institutes.

The two tested products are in very common use : (i) a transgenic maize made tolerant to Roundup, the characteristic shared by over 80% of food and animal feed GMOs, and (ii) Roundup itself, the most widely used herbicide on the planet. The regulatory approval process requires these products to be tested on rats as a surrogate for humans.

The new research took the form of a two year feeding trial on 200 rats, monitored for outcomes against more than 100 parameters. The doses were consistent with typical dietary/ environmental exposure (from 11% GMO in the diet, and 0.1 ppb in water).

The results, which are of serious concern, included increased and more rapid mortality, coupled with hormonal non linear and sex related effects. Females developed significant and numerous mammary tumours, pituitary and kidney problems. Males died mostly from severe hepatorenal chronic deficiencies. Professor Seralini’s team in the University of Caen is publishing this detailed study in one of the leading scientific international peer-reviewed journals of food toxicology, on line on Sept. 19, 2012.

The implications are extremely serious. They demonstrate the toxicity, both of a GMO with the most widely spread transgenic character and of the most widely used herbicide, even when ingested at extremely low levels, (corresponding to those found in surface or tap water). In addition, these results call into question the adequacy of the current regulatory process, used throughout the world by agencies involved in the assessment of health, food and chemicals, and industries seeking commercialisation of products.

The difference between this study and most studies of toxicity is the duration of the exposure. Analyses for regulatory purposes are only 3 months in length, while this was two years (which is pretty close to a normal rat lifespan, or at least for rats as pets). The sample size, 200 animals, is large enough that the findings can’t be dismissed casually. CRIIGEN, a not for profit with a large roster of scientific advisors, is making an aggressive push and launching a related book and documentary. But CRIIGEN can’t be depicted as knee jerk anti GMO. In an interview, Dr. Spiroux stressed that he approved of the use of transgenic GMOs to produce medication, such as insulin, but that he and other CRIIGEN members are opposed to “pesticides plants that are agricultural GMOs and above all are poorly evaluated.” And he is far from alone. A burger eating buddy (as in no sanctimonious health foodie) who is a biomedical engineer whose first job was with the NIH would get agitated on the subject of GMOs, complaining it was a mass scale, uncontrolled experiment on the public at large. He even tried avoiding GMOs but found it too difficult and gave up.

But from my perspective, the more troubling part is the finding of Roundup toxicity. As the study suggests, Roundup is pervasive, it’s even in the water. If it is toxic to the degree this analysis suggests, we may be at the beginning of a large scale legal battle, similar to the suits against Big Tobacco, where the science was initially disputed but the link between smoking and lung cancer was eventually confirmed.

The problem is that if the study’s findings are valid, it will be hard to stuff this evil genie back in the bottle. But Europeans, particularly the French, have long been leery of GMOs and Big Ag generally, and this study may be the opening salvo in a serious pushback effort.

Update 4:30 AM: Below is the published article. Be sure to look at the photos.

Long Term Toxicity of Roundup Herbicide…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. stuhlmann

    “Corporations prevent seed savings through patents and by engineering seeds with non-renewable traits. As a result, poor peasants have to buy new seeds for every planting season and what was traditionally a free resource, available by putting aside a small portion of the crop, becomes a commodity. This new expense increases poverty and leads to indebtness.”

    I don’t see a problem with farmers (in India, the US, or wherever) having to by new seeds every year, so long as the increased yields of the GM seeds make the new seeds a good investment. If the yields aren’t that great, farmers, like any other consumers, will switch to seeds from other sources.

    I do share your concerns about the loss of biodiversity. Nature has a way of punishing people who put too many of their eggs in one basket – think Irish potato famine.

    1. Cletus

      I believe these GMOs do not increase yield significantly, but, instead, reduce the cost of bringing the crop to market.

      As for loss of biodiversity, the food chain is instructive science. When it comes to environmental viability, You DIDN’T build that. No species exists (or goes extinct), without ramifications to the whole system.

    2. kjmclark

      They don’t necessary increase yields – they allow you to use an herbicide, which makes it easier to control weeds. You have to use both the herbicide resistant GMO *and* the herbicide, or there isn’t any yield benefit. If you do use the herbicide, you can eliminate a lot of cultivation (weeding), and your plants will (mostly) benefit from lack of weed competition. (Mostly because that assumes you used the herbicide correctly and you don’t get weeds resistant to the herbicide.)

      If you compared the yield on the best non-GMO corn vs. the GMO corn, without using herbicide or cultivation on either, yields for both would stink. If you used the two crops in a field with cultivation, the non-GMO would win. The advantage to the roundup ready corn is that you can use the herbicide to wipe out most weed competition and reduce (or eliminate) cultivation that season.

    3. scott

      The Roundup weed-control mechanism and associated GMO corn result in less drought-tolerance than normal crops, due to how minerals are absorbed by the plant. I have a section of garden that I stupidly used Roundup on 10 years ago (believing the lies that bacteria in the soil instantly break down the stuff). Nothing grows there now but a few weeds, and they all die, even the dandilions, when it gets hot and dry.

      1. JTMcPhee

        Speaking of straightening records, it was not an embargo that “caused” the famine, but a failure (in Ireland and other European nations) of the potato crops, due PROXIMALLY to a disease called potato blight. The British, who were pursuing their notion of “trade” by stripping Ireland and eventually other colonies of wealth (as rich folk are doing to poor folk by the various mechanisms elucidated by Ms. Smith), certainly had their share of the blame for a whole lot of human misery, but “trade” is kind of worthless if you not only have nothing to “trade” but nothing to eat — since the Brits took, as land rents for the land they had simply taken from the Irish peasants, the bulk of whatever the blilght did not kill. The same strategy that Monsanto and other predators are applying today.

    4. William

      Just to put the record straight, the Irish potato famine was caused by British economic sanctions (embargo), similar to what the US likes to do to small poorer countries. Sure, the Irish were vulnerable, but it’s a very small country with poor soil and few resources. Humans live by trade with other humans. Take that away, and you cripple a society.

    5. Warren Celli

      Stuhlmann says; “I don’t see a problem with farmers (in India, the US, or wherever) having to by new seeds every year, so long as the increased yields of the GM seeds make the new seeds a good investment. If the yields aren’t that great, farmers, like any other consumers, will switch to seeds from other sources.”

      Think it through… how about when Monsanto comes up with a genetic modifying additive for fresh water, distributed planet wide, that makes your sperm swim in circles and die unless you buy sperm stabilizing Round up 32XA for $100,000 per ounce?

      Monsanto is a gross violator of the seed commons that belongs to all people! These arrogant self anointed elite aberrant sociopathic Xrtrevilist sick pricks, and those who shill for them, should be shunned, shamed and institutionalized.

      Good post Yves! The Monsanto killed rat pictures need to be posted and made vilal all over the internet.

      Deception is the strongfest political force on the planet.

      1. brazza

        I concur and applaud your self-control in para 3 of your comment. My own description of Monsanto would be a series of expletives, asterisks and exclamation marks. These are people(?) who may well be single-handedly driving our entire species down the drain for a buck. They demonstrate a degree of irresponsibility and greed which borders on insanity. And what to say of the WTO, and our government agencies who legalized its distribution and to this day don’t require GMO labeling?

      2. pebird

        Next season’s seeds were never “free”, they were the result of the farmers’ work and their savings ethic.

        Monsanto steals from farmers and destroys their communities through predatory practices.

        They should be a bank.

    6. JCC

      Apparently you didn’t read the whole post:

      “When Monsanto first introduced Bt Cotton in 2002, the farmers lost 1 billion rupees due to crop failure. Instead of 1,500 kilos per acre as promised by the company, the harvest was as low as 200 kilos per acre. Instead of incomes of 10,000 rupees an acre, farmers ran into losses of 6,400 rupees an acre. In the state of Bihar, when farm-saved corn seed was displaced by Monsanto’s hybrid corn, the entire crop failed, creating 4 billion rupees in losses and increased poverty for desperately poor farmers.”


      “In 2009, Vandana Shiva estimated that 200,000 farmers in India had committed suicide since 1997, and Monsanto was a major culprit”.

      And on top of that, the survivors have to add the cost of new seeds the following year. You really don’t see a problem here?

    7. Carol Sterritt

      Stuhlman, although there is nothing wrong logically with your statement, the fact is that Monsanto has gone out and done a predatory capture of just about all the seed banks that were available. The seed banks that Monsanto has not acquired have been acquired by Novartis or other Big Ag firms, which do the same things Monsanto does. Monsanto has bought up everything from a seed bank in Malawhi to dozens if not hundreds of mom and pop seed banks here in the USA. Quite often, the first thing that happens after acquiring a seed bank is that Monsanto then oversees the destruction of the heirloom seeds inside that bank. Over a hundred years of heirloom seeds wiped out in one fell swoop!

      In the case of Bt Cotton, and Indian farmers, in most provinces in India, there is no alternative to the Roundup Gm Cotton crops. If you want to grow cotton, you can only buy Monanto!

      Miost peopple reading this board are college educated people who live in cities. Most of us have little ideas of the full picture of what it takes to successfully farm a crop for decades and then turn to another crop. It is not easy to be a farmer and buck he prevailing trend. For instance, an internet buddy of mine mentioned ow her parents wanted to grow sunflowers for sale one year. While raising a very successful crop, in terms of the maturity of the plants, and their nutritional value, they forgot one element of the business plan – needing a silo to store the sunflowers. In their area of Kansas, the silos available all had corn. And of course, they didn’t need a full silo but a partial silo. Even though they had capital to throw into the project, they ended up stymied.

      But the very poor farmer in India doesn’t even have that luxury – of trying something different for a year. To date, over 200,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide, in large part because of the lies the Monsanto Representatives told them when the product was first introduced. The Gm crops never produced a well as they should have in terms of yield. And the Gm crops ended up being vulnerable to various diseases and pests that Monsanto had assured everyone the plants would be immune to.

  2. Middle Seaman

    The fact that commercial entity can force changes in long and proven agricultural traditions is an outrage. Farmers, as any individual anywhere, should be able to avoid Monsanto or any oppressive company.

    The urgency of redefining democracy beyond the traditional one person one vote and freedom of expression cannot be overstated. If banks and Monsantos dictate our life style, we don’t have a democracy.

  3. Bill

    Hierloom seeds for the self subsistance. Nuff said.

    Good piece Yves – May France lead the charge , for once .

  4. Nathanael

    I think there is very definitely an opening here. Monsanto is large and powerful, but it is *one company*, and it has gone out of its way to make farmers hate it, as well as singlehandedly driving people towards the anti-GMO movement.

    I think Monsanto can be destroyed. It’s isolated.

  5. David Lentini

    It’ll be interesting to see how this is handled (if mentioned at all) in the mainstream press after all the attention they gave the Stanford study on nutritional content of pesticide-treated crops, which they hailed as “safe” generally.

  6. Conscience of a Conservative

    I’m not convinced Monstanto creating GMO seeds in sterile form is that nefarious. Since these are GMO seeds do we want to risk having these seeds cross polinate with non GMO seeds?
    I think there’s another side to this debate worth discussing.

    1. Thorstein

      Unfortunately, it appears Monsanto does not manufacture “sterile seeds”. From the Monsanto website:

      Monsanto has never developed or commercialized a sterile seed product. Sharing many of the concerns of small landholder farmers, Monsanto made a commitment in 1999 not to commercialize sterile seed technology in food crops. We stand firmly by this commitment. We have no plans or research that would violate this commitment in any way.

      1. OpenThePodBayDoorHAL

        No, no sterile seeds. Just lawsuits if the pollen from the neighbor’s Monsanto crop drifts over and pollenates your field. They also found the best genes in pigs: the ones that make them fattest, fastest. Patented them. Now running around telling pig farmers they owe a licensing fee or they get a lawsuit.

        It’s hard to imagine a worse crime against humanity: telling farmers they can’t keep the seed from their crops. For 10,000 years farmers have done that to feed the world. Now we’re going to stop that practice so a few shithead Monsanto shareholders can make a few bucks?
        Ranks up there with the guy in Oregon who went to jail for the crime of keeping the rainwater that fell on his roof. What’s next, air? Sun?

  7. Hayek's Heelbiter

    And don’t forget the use of herbicides/pesticides contributes mightily to the endocrine disruptors flooding the enviroment. The daugther breakdown products have synergistic estrogenic effects thousands to millions of times more potent than the single compounds alone. (IMHO, my feeling that the epidemic of breast cancer on Long Island is due to the anti-mosquito spraying in the 1950s – In the TREE OF LIFE you can watch the children following the spray truck). So gals, it doesn’t matter how many pink bracelets you buy, how many marathons you run, as long as the environment, the food you eat, the water you drink, etc. is awash in endocrine disruptors, you’re at risk.

  8. Nonanon

    I’m glad to see this topic discussed mainstream. Mansato has used thuggery to get reports of environment damage caused by their product quashed, specifically getting a research team shut down and years of research destroyed.

    Think DDT

    1. Beth

      Read this study! I always believed GM crops have a hand, in some way, to the myriad of health problems in our society… This study has opened the door and shed light on a likely pathway these products are harming us. A must read and share document!

  9. bhikshuni

    ” But Europeans, particularly the French, have long been leery of GMOs and Big Ag generally, and this study may be the opening salvo in a serious pushback effort. ”

    Dear Yves, I would love to see your thoughts on the French, not only with respect to environmental and food issues, but their recent “tax the rich” initiative (and going after taxes from British-owned French villas/holiday home incomes).

    France isn’t getting enough media attention!

  10. petridish

    This is a gravely serious issue, particularly the inability to avoid GMO and the tremendous efforts of BigAg to keep consumers from actively choosing to avoid it.

    California has a proposition on the November ballot requiring labels to identify GMO food. Since California is such a large market, it has been argued that the passage of this iniative will benefit the entire country. The cost of separate packaging for California and the rest of the country would be prohibitive and so we may all get to know if we are buying GMO food if Californians insist on knowing.

    Everyone should find out about this initiative and support the effort in any way he or she can. GMO inserts genetic material which does not exist in nature into food crops. Quite simply, the effects on humans ingesting this material ARE UNKNOWN, but the increase in many peviously unknown or rare diseases should be a clue.

    As my 5th grade teacher, Sister Judine, used to say, “God gave you a brain and He expects you to use it.”

  11. Susan the other

    Thanks for this info Yves. Also, Monsanto along with Bill Gates is going into Africa in a big way. If they are successful there, the food they grow will be exported back to us. Monsanto’s track record is so bad that it is doubtful they will become successful selling bad promises of good harvests. But Africa is so vulnerable, it really is the place for Monsanto to stake its claim. It was interesting to read that GMO seed is the tactic Monsanto used to extend its patent on Roundup. Roundup is such a terrible long-term poison it should be under direct attack. Just think Silent Spring. Over 50 years ago. Another angle for attack against Monsanto is the fact that consumers are not given a choice because GMOs are not required on food labels.

  12. Watt4Bob

    Both the French and the Japanese consider the small farmer to be a strategic national asset.

    A nation that promotes an agricultural policy that encourages many smaller farms growing diverse crops is far safer from the threat of famine than a country that encourages fewer and larger farms practicing monoculture.

    The fact that greedy, short-sighted American agricultural giants could put America, let alone the world, at greater risk of famine when we have the capacity to guarantee the ability to feed ourselves is psychopathic indifference.

  13. Justicia

    Any reckoning of Monsatan’s crimes has to include poisoning the African-American community of Anniston, Alabama. Monsanto dumped massive amounts of PCBs in Anniston and covered up this environmental crime for decades. It then set up another company, Solutia, in an effort to evade liability — it didn’t work

    Here’s the link to the Washington Post story about the case that Monsanto settled for $700 million after the jury found the company guilty. (Note the “correction” of the “correction” that was based on Monsato’s lies.)

    1. Andy

      Oh, so poisoning “an African American Community” is somehow
      a greater sin that poisoning a White Community? Or just a
      Community? Should White people just ignore what you are saying because it doesn’t apply to them?

      Are there no Whites in Anniston?

      1. comfychair

        Yeah! It’s about time somebody was brave enough to stand up for the rights of the white male property owners!!!11one

        ahem… oh, right. Maybe the comment wasn’t phrased to make it crystal clear that the part of town that was used as a dumping ground was West Anniston, the traditionally black part of town. Gee, I wonder why they didn’t dump it in the ‘nice’ (white) part of town? Could it be that poor & relatively powerless residents make for easier/quieter victims? I mean, what are they gonna do when they get sick, go to the doctor? lol… Nah, most of ’em will just die quietly at home, as God and His Profits intended.

  14. Bert_S

    “The difference between this study and most studies of toxicity is the duration of the exposure. Analyses for regulatory purposes are only 3 months in length, while this was two years (which is pretty close to a normal rat lifespan, or at least for rats as pets).

    I guess I’m sorta grateful that they won’t feed us anything they haven’t fed a rat first, but playing devil’s advocate here (just a figure of speech Beard), I would think at least Iowa should be a completed large scale human trial at this point.

    There are reseachers that look for unusual health/disease trends (maybe the CDC – can’t recall who, but recall reading about someone doing things like that).

  15. grayslady

    According to Wikipedia, this study has been criticized by several non-U.S. scientific bodies for the methodology leading to its conclusions. That being said, as a planet, we still need a reputable, independent scientific research facility to study the effects of chemical “discoveries”. I don’t think most people realize that U.S. universities, for example, have almost no research anymore that isn’t funded by private sources–one of the major negative side effects of our ongoing oligarchy in this country that doesn’t receive much press.
    As part of my masters in science program in Crop Development at the University of Illinois, I took two courses in weed control, one taught by a horticulturist and one taught by an agronomist; the differences were enormous. The agronomist unashamedly promoted such known problem pesticides as atrazine, even though the existing literature at the time was already showing atrazine as a cause of major water pollution. There were clearly enormous conflicts of interest presented by professors whose job security depended on private enterprise rather than public welfare.

      1. Skeptic

        Sorry nobody is listening to science, and experimental design,. Even for scientists, junk science is so much more fun and you can even get paid and tenure.

      2. Shouldn't it be proven safe first?

        If the New Scientist piece is the best refutation they can muster, then the French study is on solid ground, and excellent science. It also follows on decades of research by other scientists not funded by the industry. Obviously, there is room for more research. Let the Precautionary Principle Reign! Let’s hope the California voters can lead the way and clear the world of any more “rush to market” nonsense.

          1. Yves Smith Post author

            Go look at the # of profs on the science board of CRIIG. Pages and pages.

            The Science Media Center is clearly a PR group and its sponsors have heavy concentrations of big pharma and large chemical companies, as well as big biotech players. Think they have a reason to defend Big Pharma and Big Ag? This looks like an effort to get bona fide scientists friendly with an astroturf organization by saying “let up help you communicate with media better”. Oh, and Monsanto UK has been a sponsor in the past.


            The second organization is clearly astroturf. Who is their first “sustaining sponsor”? Ajinomoto, the worlds’ leading manufacturer of MSG. Please. #3 is Archer Daniels Midland. Need we go further? The lead quote in the press release isn’t even by a real academic (as in a prof or assistant prof, just a “Cooperative Extension Specialist”. Lame lame lame.

            I’m not saying the study is definitive, nor did the post say that. But the findings are troubling and suggest further LONG TERM studies are warranted.

    1. Andy

      Well then, since Monsatan is taking in hundreds of billions a year in profits from their genetic engineering, they surely would have provided you with a peer revivewed long, or even short term, human study showing that their product is safe?

      Could you post a link to that as an example of how to
      properly do a study?

      We’re waiting with “baited” breath.

  16. 2little2late

    Monsanto’s pathology is no different from the sick predatory stance the elite are using in a variety of ways….taking over food production and seed, if it collapses there will be hell to pay.

    Taking over the land recordation system, if we try and tamper with MERS they threaten collapse and there will be hell to pay.

    Derivatives and regulation, there will be hell to pay!

    Al qadea and the Taliban? We must fight many wars….or there will be hell to pay!

    Fraudulent foreclosures….hell to pay! Pay your rent!

    TBTF? They’d love us to believe all that nonsense. It’s way passed time to call their bluff. Otherwise, we’re already in hell sharing a world with them. Let them fail.
    Fuck ‘em.

    1. Warren Celli

      Good comment, and that is one deflective oversight negative to this otherwise excellent post, it pins Monsanto as a “major culprit” in these 200,000 farmer suicides without mentioning that most all of these farmers got gang raped by banks with high interest loan rates to buy the Monsanto products in the first place. I would place that as a major contributing factor to their deaths. After all, they could not have afforded the death dealing crop crippling Monsanto supplies without the scum banksters.

      Control of usurious credit and the money supply by the few fat ass greedy sociopathic Xtrevilist (God I love that word!) self anointed Noble lying elite pigs is always in the picture when it comes to misallocating use of the planet’s resources.

      Bankers are pond scum garbage sickos!

      Deception is the strongest political force on the planet.

  17. Andy

    California is now the battleground. Proposition 37 is on the ballot. It will mandate the labeling of genetically modified food.

    Monsanto has donated over 25 million already to keep people in the dark as to what they are eating.

    Here is the best and most detailed video on the effects
    of genetically modified food to humans and animals.

    I knew all this material chapter and verse, but the video put it in great perspective. Any parent that doesn’t watch this is missing a huge opportunity to protect their children and themself.

    Please return here and vouch for the quality of the video so that people don’t think it’s spam.

    1. Arnie Deutch

      Most informative health and environmental
      video that I’ve seen in years. Thank you for linking
      to this.

    2. ClaireB

      Especially interesting is the connection to childhood allergies and infertility. Fertility clinics are springing up in a lot of places.
      What comes first?
      The technology or a wave of barren women?

      I’m recommending this video to all the other teachers in
      our school. Please note that it’s only free to watch for a few more days.

      One thing’s for sure. After watching this, I will never buy non-Organic food again if I can help it. Well, if it’s labeled “Does not contain GMOS” I might buy it, even if it’s not Organic.

  18. OMF

    I’ve got a question: Does this blog get Cease and Desist letters from the likes of Monsanto over posts like this? Its seems to me that this is their usual MO and I’d be interested in the sites policy on this.

  19. Zuzu's Stem

    “…this study may be the opening salvo in a serious pushback effort.”

    Back in the early 90’s, I believe it was, I lobbied at the state house in an unsuccessful effort to label Monsanto milk. Yes, they are as evil as they come. Suing farmers whose crops were contaminated by their junk is about as low as it gets. That Monsanto person should be sitting in jail.

    Where do I sign up for the pushback effort?

  20. Rob

    As big a deal as this mayo well be, I
    Would imagine the legal,colossus ,that is Monsanto will suppress,any contrary research,and have any complaints tied up in court for decades.till any complainers die of complications or old age.
    Butnmonsanto is just, one of the five or so agriconglomerates that control our food destiny,as a whole….and are sitting in and formulating and writing the future trade deals that arebyetbto be birthed into existence….li
    Ke the banks,they take what is the property commons and privatize it.and we will be punished for letting that happen,as always.

  21. umojaresearch

    In California there is already Yes On Proposition 37, demanding GMO foods be labeled. Scientists in Europe and the USA have proved GMO Foods are hazardous to the health of Animals, Humans and Insects. A number of scientists suggested GMO grains fed to animals are responsible for sterility in animals, the chemicals and pollen on GMO Corn is responsible for the destruction of honeybee populations, in addition, scientists have found an increase of human allergies and intestinal problems associated with the consumption of GMO Foods.

    Europe has banned many GMO Crops, due to the dangers associated with cross-pollination and destruction of Organic Crops. The fact that animals have become sterile after consuming GMO Foods and Grains should be recognized as a serious threat to human life.

    If you look up Dioxin, known to cause Cancer, do a search on the Internet for articles on the UK and Germany in January 2011 and April 2012, you’ll find thousands of farms were forbidden to be sold, due to high levels of Dioxin in Beef, Pork, Chickens, Cheese and Organic Eggs. Scientists again suggested the problem was from GMO Grains fed to those animals and the chemicals used to produce GMO plants and grains.

    All of the hazards to animals and humans have been addressed and people in California are demanding the right to know what foods they are consuming. We should expect Monsanto, Fast Food Producers and major grocery outlets to fight against Labeling because tens, if not hundreds of billions are at stake

    1. Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating, by Jeffrey M. Smith
    2. Food Fray: Inside the Controversy over Genetically Modified Food, Lisa H. Weasel
    3. Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Jeffrey M. Smith
    4. GMO Free: Exposing the Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of Our Food Supply, Mae-Wan Ho, Lim Li Ching
    5. DVD, Bad Seed: The Truth About Our Food,
    6. DVD, Hidden Dangers in Kids’ Meals,
    7. DVD, The Future of Food, Deborah Koons Garcia

  22. Zob

    I am willing to suspend my belief that the products of GMO scientists are ominous for the environment and human health – in order to highlight the bigger point of concern to me: the oligopoly (Monsanto s, Calgene Asgrow Seed Co. and DeKalb) ownership of Genetically Modified commodity, staple food that occur ‘naturally’ in nature.

    It seems to me that staple food (rice, corn, soybean, etc.) ‘discoveries’ that are already 99.99% composed of materials existing in nature should not be patented and owned by an monopoly or oligopoly of any kind. Unlike, perhaps, biotechnology products from stem cell research – that are neither food staples or traded as a commodity (societally) and are microeconomic in their impact (though, moral or ethical….? ). However, staple foods are, well, just that: a staple requirement in the diet most humans. They are essential foods for human health and well-being and are macroeconomic in their social impact.

    By simply patenting GMO products – such as Monsanto’s Bt corn, cotton and glyphosate-resistant soybeans , it leads one to expect that companies will charge higher seed prices or a ‘technology fee’ – a fee that will be passed on to the farmer and, ultimately,the consumer. And, for the average farmer/consumer, other than forgo a staple food there’s no choice but to pay – particularly so when the perceived GM seed economies of scale price out (or out-market) the organic alternatives.

    But, surely there is GM seed market choice and competition, (farmers can choose from a range of suppliers these super-GM seeds)? Not so surely….. Look at that ubiquitous staple corn, for example; the oligopoly obfuscates the generally accepted term ‘Bt Corn’ and its variant constructs (e.g.: Cry1B, Cry1AB, Cry1AB-1b etc., along with their respective brand names) as evidence of product choice, options, market competition and diversity. However, the oligopoly has patents for and markets all of the Bt Corn variants – it’s like telling a child he can have any choice of candy so long as it’s any color of M&M and it’s bought from the store of Mr Forrest Mars, Mr Bruce Murrie or Hershey’s; and, once he’s bought it, if he doesn’t eat it quickly it will melt away (terminate).

    Monsanto sells self-terminating Bt Corn and has a monopoly (by definition) on those variants for which it holds the patents, not only in the US but also, significantly, in international/world markets. Aside from the North American market, Monsanto has applied for more than 100 patents on seeds in Europe, and about two dozen have already been granted. Monsanto’s associated companies have well over a thousand ‘Bt’ (and it’s various constructs) seed patents – Calgene has applied for nearly 500 patents, Asgrow Seed Co. claims about 265 US patents, and DeKalb lists about 300 patents. Some patents have been applied and granted in Europe to Monsanto, Calgene and some other companies in the Monsanto imperium throughout Asia and Africa.

    To me, it seems that the focus should be at the point where we started the GMO debate (Funk Bros Seed Co vs. Kalo Inoculant Co 75 USPQ 280 (1948)) not at the point where, by focusing the debate on degree of GMO introduction and GMO product labelling, we have accepted it, de facto.

    If food staples were to remain ‘non –patentable’ (as any ‘discoveries’ of materials already existing in nature should be), largely, there would be no profit in it – it would not be commercially viable for anyone to develop and market GMO staple food products.

    1. different clue

      That which is forcibly listed can be freely avoided. Every forcibly-labeled GMO frankengene product not bought represents some GMO hustler’s revenue stream thereby attrited. Enough such organized “extermicotts” can weaken the GMO hustlers enough to where they can be torn down the rest of the way and destroyed by organized patent-busting movements and lawsuits in the fullness of time.

      Both approaches are worthy of pursuit, and Monsanto and others clearly feel that Forced Labelling is a real threat to their secret undercover hidden-hand advance.

  23. different clue

    This Monsanto-glyphosate problem is being studied in the US, believe it or not. Here is an Acres USA interview with a very senior Professor Emeritus at Purdue University titled: GMOs, Glyphosate, and Tomorrow . . . distinguished professor, scientist reveals growing multifaceted problems in glyphosate and crops created to survive it.

    The professor is named Don Huber and the name Don Huber can be googled to see what-all else he has written/said lately on the matter.

  24. different clue

    There are also efforts to list and describe methods to avoid GMO foods. Googling pulls up a number of books and websites under the general phrase . . . guide to GMO food.

    and . . .

    and many others. There may even be books by now. I believe Japan forbids the import of GMO soybeans in fact as well as in “law”. If that is true, then any soybean product imported from Japan should be “clean-gene” and “franken-free”, to coin a couple of easy-to-remember words.
    I agree that the absolute extermination of Monsanto from existence and its utter enwipement from off the face of the earth is a good starting goal. Hopefully a global citizens food-sanitation and vengeance movement could move on to the extermination of every other player in the agricultural GMO sector.

Comments are closed.