Print Friendly and PDF

Monsanto ‘Biotechnology Book for Kids’ Caught Brainwashing Children

Anthony Gucciardi
by
March 22nd, 2012
Updated 11/03/2012 at 12:42 am
Pin It

biotechnologyactivitybook 220x137 Monsanto Biotechnology Book for Kids Caught Brainwashing Children

Facing direct opposition from the public, biotechnology giants like Monsanto and Dow are now making a disturbing attempt to brainwash developing minds into accepting their genetically modified foods using blatant lies and propaganda. In a last ditch effort to potentially sway public opinion, the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI)  has launched the “Biotechnology Basics Activity Book” for kids. With the intent to be used by ‘agriculture and science teachers’, the activity book spreads absurd lies about GMO crops — even going as far as to say that they ‘improve our health’ and ‘help the environment’.

The book can be seen on the organization’s website, and makes it extremely apparent that it is full of misinformation and propaganda that completely ignores scientific research surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In fact, let’s examine some claims made by this book that serves as an ‘educational’ tool to be used by teachers. The first claim by the activity book is that genetically modified seeds actually grow more food than traditional seeds, and is followed by even more ridiculous statements. The activity book reads:

“Hi Kids! Welcome to the Biotechnology Basics Activity Book. This is an activity book for young people like you about biotechnology — a really neat topic…. You will see that biotechnology is being used to figure out how to: 1) grow more food; 2) help the environment; and 3) grow more nutritious food that improves our health. As you work through the puzzles in this book, you will learn more about biotechnology and all of the wonderful ways it can help people live better lives in a healthier world. Have fun!”

Disproving Monsanto’s Propaganda

According to 900 scientists, GMO crops actually do not grow more food than traditional farming practices. In fact, they are simply not an effective tool to fight starvation in any capacity, thanks to their excessive costs and immense failure to yield crops. Funded by the World Bank and United Nations, an organization was created known as the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Made up of 900 scientists and researchers, the group — whose mission was to examine the issue of world hunger — found that genetically modified crops were not a meaningful solution to the problem.

Instead, the group found that the genetically modified seeds were outperformed by traditional “agro-ecological” farming practices. Therefore, to say that biotech seeds and crops produce more food than traditional agriculture is not only scientifically incorrect according to these 900 scientists, but it is an outright lie.

Do GMOs ‘Improve Our Health’?

But what about the claim that GMOs improve our health? It turns out nothing could be farther from the truth. A prominent review of 19 studies examining the safety of GMO crops found that consumption of GMO corn or soybeans can lead to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice – particularly in the liver and kidneys. Of course the negative effects do not end there. Monsanto’s modified biopesticide, known as Bt, has been found to be killing human kidney cells in conjunction with Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup. That’s right, it exhibits direct toxicity to human cells.

Further adding to the long list of negative health consequences that go against the claim that the biotech inventions ‘improve our health’ , Monsanto’s Roundup ready crops have also been linked to mental illness, obesity, infertility, and DNA damage. Peer-reviewed research shows that Monsanto’s products are far from healthy, and to say that they actually improve our health is truly concerning when you consider the fact that children are reading this information as fact. The biotechnology organization also failed to mention how Monsanto has been caught running slave labor rings, forcing ‘employees’ into illegal working conditions in which they were forced to work 14 hours or more per day on the field. What’s more, the laborers were unable to leave the premises if they expected to ever receive their pay.

‘Helping the Environment’

The next claim that needs addressing is perhaps the most ludicrous of them all. Do Monsanto’s products really help the environment as the book claims? Remember, this is given to teachers as scientific information, not just presented as an opinion. Research has shown that Monsanto’s modified Bt pesticide is actually mutating the very genetic coding of insect life on the planet, creating super resistant ‘mutant’ bugs that are wreaking havoc on farms using Monsanto’s harmful concoctions across the globe. At least 8 populations of insects have developed some form of resistance, with 2 populations resistant to Bt sprays and at least 6 species resistant to Bt crops as a whole.

Perhaps most concerning is the mounting rootworm resistance as a result of Monsanto’s GMO corn usage. A group of 22 academic corn experts recently petitioned the EPA over the extreme danger presented by the crops, urging the EPA to take long awaited action. The experts sent a letter on March 5th to the agency explaining their worries regarding long-term corn production prospects in light of GMO crops failures. If nothing is done, experts worry that the future of agricultural stability is threatened. Experts are also concerned about the mass amount of ‘superweeds’ currently springing up around the globe as a result of Monsanto’s Roundup. These resistant weeds currently cover over 4.5 million hectares in the United States alone, though experts estimate the world-wide land coverage to have reached at least 120 million hectares by 2010. The onset of superweeds is being increasingly documented in Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Europe and South Africa.

The public is not buying the lies regarding Monsanto’s GMO crops, and as a result biotech giants are scrambling to preserve their dwindling role in our society. There is a serious war on for the minds of developing children right now, and it is being waged by government-approved mega corporations who care not for the health of these children but for profits. The claims made within this book are not only scientifically unfounded, but they are seriously dangerous to the health of children and adults alike. This phony book is far from an ‘educational’ resource.

About Anthony Gucciardi:
1.thumbnail Monsanto Biotechnology Book for Kids Caught Brainwashing ChildrenGoogle Plus ProfileAnthony is the Editor of NaturalSociety whose work has been read by millions worldwide and is routinely featured on major alternative and mainstream news website alike, including the powerful Drudge Report, NaturalNews, Daily Mail, and many others. Anthony has appeared on programs like Russia Today (RT), Savage Nation, The Alex Jones Show, Coast to Coast AM, and many others. Anthony is also dedicated to aiding various non-profit organizations focused around health and rehabilitation as well as the creator of the independent political website Storyleak

From around the web:

  • Vibe.Matters

    It's pathetic how many people feel Daniel is trolling and/or a paid shill. You people need to understand the difference between scientific evidence and emotional beliefs.

  • Christel

    I found the article to have little scientific merit. In abstract of the article in "Environmental Sciences Europe" referenced in comments directed to Daniel, the authors themselves noted that, " Some of these tests used controversial protocols which are discussed and statistically significant results that were considered as not being biologically meaningful by regulatory authorities, thus raising the question of their interpretations." in addition, a group of 900 scientists, probably of all fields of science do not know more than the thousands of scientists in biochemistry and agriculture who are using biotechnology to help increase agricultural efficiency and alleviate hunger in the world. I direct you to http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/borlaug.h… an interview with Norman Borlaug, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to alleviate world hunger. There are also links to other articles about biotechnology, both pro and con.

    • ARIZONA

      NOBEL PEACE PRIZE,you have to be kidding,BH OBAMA,who is a known mass murder,has one,either you work for monsanto or your way to stupid to be out doors,and your science is flawed too,go home before your neighbors figure out they have a child predator living next door,and THANK GOD you don't live next door to me………

  • Daniel

    I'm very sorry for all the posts that have appeared. They were not appearing initially so I reposted them, and now all the original posts and reposts have appeared. I realise that this means that I may be labelled a 'spammer' but that wasn't my intention. Also, there doesn't seem to be a way to delete them.

    • Sandy

      Monsanto is a bio-weapon company also.

      Get the connection?

      • Daniel

        And the evidence that they have produced bio-weapons is where?

        • Daniel

          I have found mention of them being involved in the US bio-weapons programme, but not much else. Also, their involvement in bio-weapons does not mean that their current products are dangerous. However, I am not defending Monsanto, but trying to ensure that when people make serious, scientific allegations, they back them up properly, not with emotive language and dubious 'references'.

          • Nick

            Monsanto is the company that produced Agent Orange, the defoliant used in Vietnam that proved to be highly carcinogenic. Now they call it Round Up. Maybe not the same formula, but the herbicide has been proven harmful in the long term.

            • Daniel

              You're right; Monsanto did produce Agent Orange, which is an incredibly nasty chemical. However, 'Round Up' does not contain ANY of the same ingredients as Agent Orange. This means no implications of the toxicity of 'Round Up' can be made from the known properties of Agent Orange. 'Round Up' and Agent Orange are entirely different chemicals.

              To reiterate; I am not defending Monsanto, they seem like a deeply unpleasant company. However, I object to people claiming things based on 'scientific research' that they don't properly back up.

          • ARIZONA

            HEY DANIEL does your mother know your loose out in the neighborhood again,you know how embarrasing it is for them to have to chase you around the neighborhood with that butterfly net,go home…………..

        • ARIZONA

          HEY LOOK MORON,my little brother died from agent orange,so why don't you do some thing useful like drink some roundup………….

    • Yvonne Tayhlor

      Monsanto is already fighting so you cannot protest this. They blacklisted the site to sign a petition from link found on CareTo sight already. Or some BigBother backer? Share this on any sight you can fast before it is gone here too.

    • michael

      Hey daniel,how much are you getting paid?

  • Daniel

    Final part:

    If I am to believe the serious scientific claims against GMO and Monsanto in this article, written on an anti-GMO website (i.e. inherently biased), I need more, and better quality, references than those in evidence.

    P.S. I tried to give a reference for Dr. Ho's CV, but it wouldn't go through.

  • Daniel
  • Daniel

    6. continued:

    Also, they publish exceedingly dubious articles on homeopathy. Finally, the CV of their director, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, has been called into question.

  • Daniel

    Also, they publish exceedingly dubious articles on homeopathy. Finally, the CV of their director, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, has been called into question (http://home.exetel.com.au/ttguy/Mae_Wan_Ho_bibliography.htm)

  • Daniel

    6. continued:

    Also, they publish exceedingly dubious articles on homeopathy. Finally, the CV of their director, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, has been called into question (http://home.exetel.com.au/ttguy/Mae_Wan_Ho_bibliography.htm)

    cont. next post

  • Daniel

    6. I followed some of them through several articles to their source, and found that they were from the website of the 'Institute of Science in Society' (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php). As far as I can tell, they are not a reputable institution, and have not published papers in any respectable journals.

    cont. next post

  • Daniel

    6. I followed some of them through several articles to their source, and found that they were from the website of the 'Institute of Science in Society' (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php). As far as I can tell, they are not a reputable institution, and have not published papers in any respectable journals. Also, they publish exceedingly dubious articles on homeopathy. Finally, the CV of their director, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, has been called into question (http://home.exetel.com.au/ttguy/Mae_Wan_Ho_bibliography.htm)

    cont. next post

  • Daniel

    4. However, your suggestion that the onus is on the reader to find references for scientific claims in an article is wrong. It is the responsibility of the author to back-up their claims with FULL references to the literature. Simply mentioning an article/report is not referencing, no matter how easy it is to find on google.

    5. I have clicked all of the links, and with the exception of the research article that you pointed out, they are all to other articles on this website.

    cont. next post

  • Daniel

    1. I am not trolling; I am merely concerned with people espousing scientific 'facts' without the literature to back them up.

    2. I missed the link to the peer-reviewed research article, apologies. Thank you for pointing that out.

    3. The word 'lies' in my post was inappropriate; again, I apologise.

    cont. next post

    • Yvonne Tayhlor

      yes you are trolling!

  • Daniel

    I shall try this again, apologies if you have already seen this:

    Hi Michelle,

    I did spend a while writing a reply to you, with proper sentences and everything, but I think I took too long and the website timed out. Here is that message, but in shorter form:

    cont.

  • Daniel

    I don't know if this has posted yet, or not, but I can't see it. Here we go:

    Hi Michelle,

    I did spend a while writing a reply to you, with proper sentences and everything, but I think I took too long and the website timed out. Here is that message, but in shorter form:

    1. I am not trolling; I am merely concerned with people espousing scientific 'facts' without the literature to back them up.

    2. I missed the link to the peer-reviewed research article, apologies. Thank you for pointing that out.

    3. The word 'lies' in my post was inappropriate; again, I apologise.

    4. However, your suggestion that the onus is on the reader to find references for scientific claims in an article is wrong. It is the responsibility of the author to back-up their claims with FULL references to the literature. Simply mentioning an article/report is not referencing, no matter how easy it is to find on google.

    5. I have clicked all of the links, and with the exception of the research article that you pointed out, they are all to other articles on this website.

    6. I followed some of them through several articles to their source, and found that they were from the website of the 'Institute of Science in Society' (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php). As far as I can tell, they are not a reputable institution, and have not published papers in any respectable journals. Also, they publish exceedingly dubious articles on homeopathy. Finally, the CV of their director, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, has been called into question (http://home.exetel.com.au/ttguy/Mae_Wan_Ho_bibliography.htm)

    If I am to believe the serious scientific claims against GMO and Monsanto in this article, written on an anti-GMO website (i.e. inherently biased), I need more, and better quality, references than those in evidence.

    • Dog backwards

      How much are the chemical co. paying you?Which one do you work for.I would like to reference that.

  • Michelle

    Daniel,

    the author has provided you a direct link to a full-text, peer-reviewed research article, and a direct reference to the full-text article done by the IAASTD…which comes up under the first hit when you Google it. If you can't be bothered to click the links or do even a basic web search for all the verifiable proof you need, why take the time to post? Unless of course, you're trolling.

    • Daniel

      Michelle,

      I can assure you that I am not 'trolling', merely trying to point out what I see as flaws in this article. Admittedly, there were (at least) 2 things wrong with my post:

      1. I didn't see the link to the research article on http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10. Apologies for that.

      2. My language was poorly-chosen. I should not have used the word 'lies'.

      However, I see no reference to the IAASTD article. Simply mentioning an article is not referencing it. There should be a full reference, detailing when the article was published and in which journal. It is the responsibility of an author to properly reference their article, not of the reader to dig the references up, especially when the article concerns serious scientific research.

      One other claim made in this article is 'Monsanto’s modified biopesticide, known as Bt, has been found to be killing human kidney cells in conjunction with Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup. That’s right, it exhibits direct toxicity to human cells.'

      This is 'backed-up' by a link to another article on this site, which then has a link to an article on the website for the 'Institute of Science In Society'. The full text (with references) is not available unless you are a member or pay for the article. This is not necessarily bad, as other institutes sometimes do this. However, doubt has been cast on the quality of this institute (http://www.dcscience.net/?p=129) and of the credentials of its director (http://home.exetel.com.au/ttguy/Mae_Wan_Ho_bibliography.htm). I would appreciate references to papers appearing in reputable journals before I am prepared to believe claims made against GMO by organisations who are against GMO; i.e. are inherently biased.

    • Daniel

      Hi Michelle,

      I did spend a while writing a reply to you, with proper sentences and everything, but I think I took too long and the website timed out. Here is that message, but in shorter form:

      1. I am not trolling; I am merely concerned with people espousing scientific 'facts' without the literature to back them up.

      2. I missed the link to the peer-reviewed research article, apologies. Thank you for pointing that out.

      3. The word 'lies' in my post was inappropriate; again, I apologise.

      4. However, your suggestion that the onus is on the reader to find references for scientific claims in an article is wrong. It is the responsibility of the author to back-up their claims with FULL references to the literature. Simply mentioning an article/report is not referencing, no matter how easy it is to find on google.

      5. I have clicked all of the links, and with the exception of the research article that you pointed out, they are all to other articles on this website.

      6. I followed some of them through several articles to their source, and found that they were from the website of the 'Institute of Science in Society' (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php). As far as I can tell, they are not a reputable institution, and have not published papers in any respectable journals. Also, they publish exceedingly dubious articles on homeopathy. Finally, the CV of their director, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, has been called into question (http://home.exetel.com.au/ttguy/Mae_Wan_Ho_bibliography.htm)

      If I am to believe the serious scientific claims against GMO and Monsanto in this article, written on an anti-GMO website (i.e. inherently biased), I need more, and better quality, references than those in evidence.

    • Ryan

      Real spit Daniel!!

  • Daniel

    Hi,

    An interesting article. However, you make many claims based on scientific literature here, without referencing any of it. How can your readers know that you are not peddling lies yourselves?

  • Avanti

    By the way, what I think is: the Jews in the prison, hungry for long time… practically didn't die…and the Nazis had a faster other solution…

    What happen with UN… (from Rockefellers) saying to me what to eat. Do you think I'm going to die if the UN don't take some action? No, I don't want any political schemes about food for the world. I can plant what I need!

    And we have to keep in mind that the government like to see our record for everything….and about the history record of Rockefellers and Rothschild?! We can not stop to show to the world!!!