While the Food and Drug Administration has seemingly reached the limit for unbelievable behavior, the company’s decisions continue to astound and appall consumers and health activists alike. In the agency’s latest decision, undoubtedly amazing thousands of individuals yet again, the FDA virtually erased 1 million signatures and comments on the ‘Just Label It’ campaign calling for the labeling of genetically modified foods.

FDA Deletes 1 Million Signatures for GMO Labeling Campaign

The ‘Just Label It” campaign has gotten more signatures than any campaign in history for the labeling of genetically modified foods. Since October of 2011, the campaign has received over 900,000 signatures, with 55 politicians joining in on the movement. So what’s the problem here?

Evidently, the FDA counts the amount of signatures not by how many people signed, but how many different individual letters are brought to it. To the FDA, even tens of thousands of signatures presented on a single petition are counted as – you guessed it – a single comment. This is how, despite over a million supporters being gathered by the petition, the FDA concluded a count of only 394.

“This is an election year and there are more than a million people who say this is important to them. This is petition has nothing to do with whether or genetically modified foods are dangerous. We don’t label dangerous foods, we take them off the shelves. This petition is about a the citizens’ right to know what they are eating and whether or not these foods represent a novel change.” said Andrew Kimbrell an attorney for the Center for Food Safety, one of the partner groups on the Just Label It campaign.

The argument as to whether genetically modified foods are dangerous is a whole discussion on its own, but for the FDA to completely sidestep away from the labeling of GM foods is completely and utterly irresponsible. Consumers have every right to know what they are consuming. Needless to say, biotechology giant Monsanto is against GMO labeling, claiming that it would mislead consumers since GMOs are ‘perfectly safe’. Of course there is plenty of evidence proving that GMOs are not completely safe, and how they affect life in the long-term is questionable to say the least. Either way, there is enough controversy surrounding the issue which is cause for alarm for millions of people, and Monsanto’s opinion on GMOs safety is a sorry excuse for not labeling foods as GM. Is the FDA avoiding such an issue because so many ties exist between genetically modified makers like Monsanto and the agency?

The bottom line is that you have the right to know what is in your food, and what your food IS. Denying that right, whether it be by the essential deletion of millions of signatures on a petition, or by ignoring the voices of thousands of people on the street, is taking power away from the people.

For years Monsanto has been trying to take out American family farms and dominate the agricultural industry with their genetically modified seeds. Between 1997 and 2010, 144 lawsuits were filed by Monsanto against American family farmers, with an additional 700 being settled out of court. Recently, farmers made a firm decision to institute massive resistance against the biotech corporation by launching their own landmark lawsuit against Monsanto for contaminating crop fields with GMOs. The landmark case has now been thrown out by a New York federal court.

Judge Throws out Organic Farmers’ Case Against Monsanto

In a lawsuit originally filed in March of 2011, the Public Patent Foundation represented various individuals and organizations threatened by Monsanto and their GMO crops. Family farmers, farming organizations, and seed businesses all took a stand in a case known as the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) et al v. Monsanto. Seeing as Monsanto is stampeding over much of the farmland with their questionable and dangerous genetic manipulations, it isn’t surprising to see a case safeguarding farmers from Monsanto’s own lawsuits while also disputing the company’s patents on GMO seeds.

Unfortunately, the case seems to be unfolding in Monsanto’s favor. In fact, a New York court yesterday dismissed the lawsuit. The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association was hoping that the judge would disallow the use of Monsanto’s seeds as they drift into organic fields, but instead the judge found the plaintiffs’ allegations to be “unsubstantiated … given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened.” In addition, the ruling said the plaintiffs overstated the magnitude of Monsanto’s patent enforcement.

“Beyond whatever happens with this suit, there are some very legitimate issues behind it,” Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, tells The Salt. “There is already a significant burden to organic food production, and there is more coming. It raises the question: Is it possible for organic agriculture to survive in the face of GM crops?”

Following current trends, genetically modified foods will makeup the majority of the future food supply if a change is not made. Statistics show how GMO crops and ingredients have skyrocketed in even the past few years.

The approval of genetically modified salmon has been a controversial issue for quite some time now, and the heat surrounding the altered fish isn’t dying down. Recently three United States consumer groups petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to enforce a more strict and rigorous review process for the genetically modified fish than is currently in place. The FDA needs to realize that many people simply do not want to knowingly consume this toxic creation.

Consumer Groups Call for Genetically Modified Salmon to be Classified as ‘Food Additive’

A new genetically modified animal hybrid known as genetically modified salmon ignited great concern in September of 2010 due to its threat to human health and the environment. While consumer groups and activists have (and still are) attempting to at the very least require labeling of the frankenfish, government agencies such as the United States Department of Agriculture have been pushing for its approval. The FDA currently classifies the genetically altered salmon to be a new animal drug for the approval process, but the new petition put forth by some consumer groups calls for the fish to be classified as a food additive instead – causing it to go through a much more rigorous process of FDA review and approval.

Consumer groups Food & Water Watch, Consumers Union, and the Center for Food Safety state in their petition that the genetic engineering process drastically alters the composition as well as nutritional value, causing the fish to be a food additive. This change would in turn make it more difficult to approve the salmon as safe, and therefore further protect public health. Given the numerous studies showing that genetically modified organisms threaten your health, this is the least the FDA could possibly do.

The Food & Water Watch received internal documents and emails from the U.S. Department of Interior’s Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) which exposed shocking concerns with AquaBounty’s genetically modified salmon not so long ago. Some of the information within the documents revealed that the FDA did not consult with both FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to determine whether or not the genetically modified fish would impact wild, endangered Atlantic salmon. By not consulting with these groups, the FDA dodged requirements under the Endangered Species Act which was signed into law in the 70′s in order to protect animal species from extinction.

According to Reuters,

Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter said the company’s own study showed that genetically engineered salmon may contain increased levels of a hormone linked to breast, colon, prostate and lung cancer.

Although the approval of AquaBounty’s salmon was once blocked by the U.S. House of Representatives, it seems the push for approval is still hitting hard. If this salmon is approved, it will be the first genetically engineered animal to appear on your dinner plate (and you may not even know it).

Monsanto is not simply a company who sells genetically modified products to those seeking them. This massive corporation is actually very much involved with the passing and proposals of regulations concerning the very GM ingredients they are responsible for. You may think those helping to pass the GMO bills truly believe that genetically engineering the food supply is beneficial to public health, but the scary truth is that many of said individuals couldn’t care less about humankind or the future of the planet. As far as many government regulators are concerned, Monsanto can spread its wings far and wide – so as long as those in power are living large.

Exposing Monsanto’s Financial Interest in Government

During the 3rd quarter of 2011, biotech giant Monsanto spent a whopping $2 million lobbying the federal government. The lobbying focused on issues like regulations for genetically modified crops and patent reforms, a previous report says. The recent lobbying was aimed at the US congress as well as the USDA to weaken regulatory requirements for the production of GM sugarbeets and alfalfa. This kind of lobbying from Monsanto has been going on for years, with over $8 million spent annually over the last few years.

It is this kind of government lobbying that ignites so much backing from government agencies like the USDA. In 2011 the USDA was going to let Monsanto conduct its own environmental studies as part of a two-year USDA experiment. But there is no good that can possibly come of an experiment where the company behind nearly every genetically modified crop in our daily diets is allowed to decide whether its products are causing any environmental harm. Allowing a company with such incredible negative influence to police itself will only result in individual and environmental harm.

More recently, the United States Department of Agriculture has decided to deregulate two of Monsanto’s genetically modified seed varieties, giving the company a further grasp on the already dominated food supply of the nation.

Amazingly, it gets even worse. What may be most shocking is the latest  leaked information regarding Monsanto and its future expansion. The United States is threatening nations who oppose Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) crops with military-style trade wars, according to information obtained and released by the organization WikiLeaks. The WikiLeaks cable reveals that in late 2007, the United States ambassador to France and business partner to George W. Bush, Craig Stapleton, requested that the European Union along with particular nations that did not support GMO crops be penalized. Perhaps the most shocking piece of information exposed by the cables is the fact that these U.S. diplomats are actually working directly for biotech corporations like Monsanto.

Amazingly, this is not the only case of corruption revealed. In similar newly released cables, United States diplomats are found to have pushed GMO crops as a strategic government and commercial imperative. Furthermore, advisers to the pope were specifically targeted by the U.S. This may very well have to do with the fact that many Catholic bishops and figureheads have openly denounced GMO crops.

Given the evidence revealing Monsanto’s ability to ‘legally’ persuade government officials, it seems the company is obviously pulling every move they can possibly make in order to push their health-endangering agenda.

Monsanto’s genetically modified corn, which has been hailed as the answer to many farmers’ prayers, has actually been creating resistant superbugs for years. The genetically modified crop known as Bt corn has been altered to produce its own toxin, a pesticide called Bacillus thuringiensis which was implemented into the crop to kill off rootworms before they have a chance to ruin the crop. However the truth of the matter is that this hybrid crop, taking up 65 percent of all U.S. corn production, has been shown to cause a resistance in rootworm beetles, rendering the crop useless.

So then why is the United States allowing Monsanto to ramp up the usage of this environment-wrecking crop?

Monsanto Bt Corn Failing, Yet U.S. is Slow to ‘Pull the Plug’

The EPA found that the resistant rootworms, which are evolving to resist the insecticide,  are currently found Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska. After the EPA evaluated documented cases of severe crop damage as well as reports from entomologists, they stated that “Monsanto’s program for monitoring suspected cases of resistance is inadequate.” At least 8 populations of insects have developed resistance, with 2 populations resistant to Bt sprays and at least 6 species resistant to Bt crops as a whole. But this is creating a vicious cycle very similar to how humans have become resistant to antibiotics, calling for stronger drugs. As a solution to the Bt resistance, biotech scientists are now creating even stronger genetically modified Bt as farmers use even more pesticides to combat the resistant bugs. And this is just one example of how biotech corporations and GMO crops are threatening the environment and humankind alike.

But the U.S. seems to be rather slow in taking any sort of action on a grand scale. While GMO crops are being rejected by other nations such as Hungary, Peru, and France, the U.S. still decides to push for further genetic modification. This is also reflected by the dominant presence of Monsanto’s rBGH in the U.S. The synthetic hormone is created using molecules and DNA sequences that are a result of molecular cloning, which has been linked to breast and gastrointestinal cancer. Unfortunately, it is estimated that around 1/3 of cows in the United States are injected with this synthetic hormone, which means that you have most likely been highly exposed to rBGH if you live in the U.S. or have eaten U.S. dairy products. All the while, 27 other countries are recognizing these problems, and have subsequently banned the synthetic hormone.

In fact, the U.S. is the only developed nation to allow for humans to consume milk from cows given artificial growth hormone. Are U.S. government officials truly convinced that GMO crops and  even rBGH dairy products are safe for human consumption, or does it have more to do with the fact that key political figures who were instrumental in the approval of GMO crops and rBGH were actually affiliated with Monsanto?

It is sad to see how the U.S. continues to so gracefully step back and give biotech giant Monsanto more power. Not only are government agencies ignoring these dangers, but the USDA seems to be so pleased with Monsanto that they even considered allowing the GMO giant to police itself. Nothing good can come from regulations where the company behind nearly every genetically modified crop in our daily diets is allowed to decide whether its products are causing any environmental harm.

Genetically Modified foods are prominently featured in today’s food supply. In fact, GMOs are so prominent that if a product is not labeled as GMO free, then it can be assumed that there is at least some amount of genetic alteration within the food. GMOs dominate conventional food supplies and popular products, perpetuating their adverse effects on the people who eat them.

Before the whistle was blown on the dangers of GM foods, like any other invariably unpopular thing pushed by corporations, claims were that GMOs could actually be beneficial to the food supply, and provide positive value. But how legitimate are any of these claims?

“GM Crops Require Less Herbicide/Pesticide Usage”

Pesticide toxicity is an obvious concern when dealing with crops. Gene tailoring the crops into producing a pesticide theoretically means that you should have to use less. However, the effectiveness of this method diminishes when insects build an immunity to the pesticide being genetically engineered. This actually creates a need for more additional and more varied application of pesticides to crops, destroying the initial premise that using GM to produce pesticides would lessen their application overall.

“GM Foods Will Help Provide for Poor Starving Populations”

One could argue that the use of GMOs provides more opportunities to give food to the poor, despotic countries. However, genetic engineering of food is often an expensive and extensive process. The application of genetically altered seeds used by farmers also poses a threat to the integrity of a whole environmental food supply. As GMO crops spread, they can easily contaminate surrounding crops that are free of engineering, producing adverse effects. Some crops engineered with ‘terminator’ genes actually cause the seeds of the next generation to be rendered sterile. This would actually limit the ability for any kind of farmer to reliably produce food in cycles, unless they can afford to buy more seeds from a company providing them.

“GM Foods are Normal Foods, Cause no Threat to Your Health, and Can Even be Nutritionally Enhanced”

Various studies suggest that consuming any amount of GMOs lead to a number of adverse side effects, ranging from organ failure, to infertility. The nature of attempting to manipulate genetic boundaries produces an uncontrollable amount of anomalies, all of which diminish the quality and purpose originally intended for the food. Essential nutrients can be rendered ineffective, and the mutagenic nature of genetic tampering can actually destroy any of the benefits that the foods originally held.

In actuality, its better to entirely abstain from the use and advocation of any form of genetic modification on foods. The so called benefits are actually non existent, and the nature of the situation actually threatens the integrity of the world food supply. Genetic tampering opens a figurative Pandora’s box of unforeseen consequences, including the contamination of nutritionally sound foods.

The safety of our food supply must be maintained by foregoing the use of GMOs, and preserving the purity of organically farmed, nutritionally satisfying fruits and vegetables. Being a part of the solution is as easy as refusing to use any GM foods, and maintaining your own form of clean and sustainable produce. Like many countries now are deciding to reject these foods, you also have an individual opportunity to secure your own health by doing the same.

While genetically modified foods are continually being banned in other countries, the US is slow to follow the very necessary trend. The USDA has chosen to step back and give Monsanto even more power over GMO seeds, and now some states are taking similar action. A bill which could be passed in Lansing, Michigan could make Michigan the 15th state to allow for the expansion of GMO seed use, causing Michigan farms to be plagued with disease-riddled, genetically modified crops.

Calling for the Expansion of GMO Seeds

In order to pave way for the expansion of GMO seeds in Michigan, a slight modification must be made to Sen. Bill 777, which has been in the Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Tourism Committee since Septrember 2005. The change seeks to prevent anti-GMO laws, giving biotech corporations even more room to wreak havoc on the environment and humankind alike. The new bill seeks to remove the following:

“Any authority local governments may have to adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit or regulate the labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, use, or planting of agricultural, vegetable, flower or forest tree seeds.”

It is interesting to see how some areas encourage the expansion of GMO crops while others, such as Colorado’s Boulder County, recognize the dangers and choose to heed the warnings. Jeff Cobb, legislative aid to GOP Sen. Gerald Van Woekom, the sponsor of the legislation, says that his boss feels local governments don’t have the scientific capacity to determine the safety of GM seeds. The Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Department of Agriculture are the three government entities which have the power to regulate GMO seeds, and Cobb, along with others, feels that local government should not play a role

The USDA and FDA are Failing to ‘Protect the People’

But if there is any hope for the massive decline of GMO crops, these government entities should be the last to have the power and control. Just recently, the USDA decided to deregulate two of Monsanto’s genetically modified seed varieties, giving the company a further grasp on the food supply of the nation. This is also the same organization that has continually pushed for the approval of genetically modified salmon, which was rejected by Congress due to health concerns. The USDA is so dedicated, in fact, that they decided to help forward the approval of genetically modified salmon by generously funding the cause with nearly $500,000. Not only that, but the organization also illegally approved Monsanto’s GMO sugarbeets, which were to be destroyed some time after.

The FDA is another government entity which doesn’t seem to be doing a great job at protecting the people. The FDA is seeking to outlaw the majority of supplements created after 1994 until they have been heavily proven to be 100% effective and free of any slight side effects, meanwhile the organization allows for harmful genetically modified ingredients to fill the world’s food supply. In another vein, despite seafood showing extremely high levels of contamination, the FDA decided that the food was still safe for consumption.

The Environmental Protection Agency has recently found that Monsanto’s genetically modified corn, which was created to kill insects, may be losing its effectiveness against rootworms. The genetically modified corn has been engineered with Bacillus thuringiensis (BT), an insecticide harnessing an insect-killing protein.

The EPA found that the resistant rootworms, which are evolving to resist the insecticide,  are currently found Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska. After the EPA evaluated documented cases of severe crop damage as well as reports from entomologists, the EPA stated “Monsanto’s program for monitoring suspected cases of resistance is ‘inadequate’”.

This of course is not the first time that genetically modified crops have led to insect populations that are resistant to the biopesticides contained in the crops. As this problem of resistance continues to occur, the amount of insecticides needed to be used soars. As insects adapt to the genetically modified Bt, the biopesticide becomes absolutely worthless, igniting a vicious cycle of further genetic alteration and increased pesticide/herbicide use.

In a similar vein of resistance, it has recently been reported that Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup has created a new category of resistant superweeds. 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.

Monsanto managed to rake in $11.8 billion in sales during the fiscal year ended Aug 31, and it is no wonder why. Not only does the company make incredible profit off of its top-selling products sold to farmers nationwide, but 41 percent of that profit is completely driven by their genetically modified corn. Of course it can’t be too difficult to rake in that kind of money from GM corn when the crop is heavily subsidized by the government.

On the other hand, organic and sustainable farming practices do not require endless amounts of genetic modification, heavy pesticide use, and aren’t subject to the negative health effects that go along with conventional farming. This kind of sustainable and health-promoting farming is what activists and environmentalists have been pushing for years. It seems that when Monsanto isn’t involved, farming becomes much simpler, healthy, and environmentally friendly.

Corporate giants Merck and Monsanto may very well be two of the greatest health-impacting companies in our world today. Unfortunately for the entire global population, the way in which these two mega corporations impact your health is considerably less than benevolent. Although many large corporations are riddled with deception and corruption, these two companies are the two top nominees for the grand prize of worst company award. Even though their messages appear helpful and promising, do they actually benefit humankind in any way? It may be time to reevaluate their place in our society and our world.

Let us take a look at the mission statements of both companies, as well as their commitments to “improving health” and aiding the world.

Vaccines Brought to You by Merck

From developing new therapies that treat and prevent disease to helping people in need, we’re committed to improving health and well-being around the world.

Our vision is to make a difference in the lives of people globally through our innovative medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, consumer health and animal products.  We aspire to be the best healthcare company in the world and are dedicated to providing leading innovations and solutions for tomorrow.

We have made it our mission to provide innovative, distinctive products and services that save and improve lives and satisfy customer needs, to be recognized as a great place to work, and to provide investors with a superior rate of return.

Merck has been under the spotlight recently thanks to their controversial HPV vaccine Gardasil. The Gardasil vaccine has a very questionable timeline, riddled with corruption and devastating side effects. Shockingly, the HPV shot led to 3,589 harmful reactions and 16 deaths between May 2009 and September 2010 alone. Of the 3,589 adverse reactions, many were debilitating. Permanent disability was the result of 213 cases; 25 resulted in the diagnosis of Guillain-Barre Syndrome; there were 789 other “serious” reports according to FDA documents. To add icing on the cake, a California bill was passed that would mandate Gardasil and hepatitis B vaccinations for children as young as 12 — without parental consent.

Even more shocking is the fact that Merck has been pinned for bribery in order to pass the California Gardasil bill, giving financial incentives to key legislators in order to push the bill through.

But it looks like this information isn’t stopping consumers from buying into the shot. Merck is reporting a major increase in third-quarter profits due in part to the skyrocketing sales of death-linked HPV shot Gardasil – up 41 percent to $445 million thanks to government backing and a hugely successful yet deceptive ad campaign targeted at unsuspecting parents and children.

Of course Merck manufactures many other vaccines other than Gardasil. The danger behind these vaccines do not dampen, however, as nearly all vaccines contain toxic chemicals like aluminum, formaldehyde, triton X-100, thimerosal, and lead, to name a few. With vaccines leading to convulsions, killer nerve diseases, immune system disorders, and paralysis, you have to ask yourself: Is this profit-driven company responsible for so many vaccine-induced deaths really focused on bettering our society and our world?

Genetically Modified Food Brought to you by Monsanto

Sharing
We will share knowledge and technology to advance scientific understanding, to improve agriculture and the environment, to improve crops, and to help farmers in developing countries.

Benefits
We will use sound and innovative science and thoughtful and effective stewardship to deliver high-quality products that are beneficial to our customers and to the environment.

Respect
We will respect the religious, cultural, and ethical concerns of people throughout the world. The safety of our employees, the communities where we operate, our customers, consumers, and the environment will be our highest priority.

Monsanto’s phony mission is built around one main concept: Monsanto contributes to farming and agriculture in such a large way that everyone else benefits. The company seems to think that through planting genetically modified seeds and spraying crops with their number one selling pesticide, Roundup, society as well as the environment are better off. But are they truly contributing to our society and the world as a whole?

Well, Forbes magazine seemed to think so. In 2009, the popular magazine honored the company by declaring Monsanto company of the year. It seems that despite the genetic manipulation of our food found to be detrimental to our health, Forbes still remains a huge fan of biotech giant Monsanto. But while Forbes continues to honor the company, nations such as Hungary and Peru are taking a stand against the monopolizing, health-destroying company Monsanto by destroying 1000 acres of maize grown with genetically modified seeds and instituting a 10 year ban on all genetically modified foods.

Monsanto’s genetically modified crops have not only been shown to lead to liver and kidney problems as well as negatively impact fertility (~4:00), but they are also increasingly interfering with organic farmers’ ability to grow 100% organic crops. Genetically modified seeds are carried through the air and land on organic farms, making the already un-labeled GM foods even more difficult to pinpoint. These GM seeds are often created to withstand Monsanto’s ever so popular pesticide, Roundup, which not only damages farmers’ soil, but also leads to super resistant weeds. Despite these facts, Monsanto may soon be able to conduct their own experiments on their genetically modified products as part of a two-year USDA experiment. Nothing positive could come out of a mega-corporation deciding if their own products cause environmental harm, especially when decades more are needed to see the true impact genetically modified foods have on the world.

Sources:

Merck

Monsanto

The month of October has been declared Non-GMO month, and October 16th is being recognized as World Food Day. In celebration of this month, activists and health-conscious individuals will be forming protests around the country to voice their opposition to genetically modified ingredients being deceptively placed into consumer products worldwide by mega biotechnology companies such as Monsanto. Millions Against Monsanto, an organization of the Organic Consumers Association, will be hosting protests nationwide featuring guest speakers and other events.

As government officials continue to ignore the fact that 90% of the public is in favor of labeling products containing GMOs, activists are increasingly voicing their concerns through peaceful protest and political legislation. Of course the protesters have a reason to make a scene, with genetically modified ingredients being linked to conditions such as: