anmlprht asked in Environment · 1 decade ago

Seeds of Deception? We should, at least, question it and ask for answers that are acceptable.?

“Outrageous! That’s what you’ll say over and over again when you read how the biotechnology companies have manipulated the government, our food, and the media, and put an entire generation at risk.

- Ben Cohen, Co-Founder, Ben & Jerry’s

“Clear, profound, and unerringly accurate, Seeds of Deception tells you what you need to know about genetically engineered food — and what Monsanto won't tell you. If you care about the safety of our food supply, if you care what corporations are doing to your food and health, this is the book to get.”

- John Robbins, author, The Food Revolution, and Diet For A New America

“This pivotal exposé leaves no doubt that politics and corporate influence, not sound science, allowed these potentially dangerous GM foods onto supermarket shelves.”

- Joe Mendelson, Legal Director, Center for Food Safety

“I have seen first hand how Monsanto and the FDA have resorted to scientific deceit of the highest order to market genetically engineered milk. With captivating style and a flair for describing science in clear, accurate language, Seeds of Deception unveils the distortions, omissions, and lies for all to see.”

- Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., professor emeritus environmental and occupational medicine

University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health

Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition

Update:

Seeds of deception. Grains of delusion.

Update 2:

"Ways in which industry researchers apparently doctored their studies to avoid finding problems with GM foods. ie, Aventis heated StarLink corn four times longer than standard before testing for intact protein; Monsanto fed mature animals diets with only one tenth of their protein derived from GM soy; researchers injected cows with one forty-seventh the amount of rbGH before testing the level of hormone in the milk and pasteurized milk 120 times longer than normal to see if the hormone was destroyed; and Monsanto used stronger acid and more than 1,250 times the amount of a digestive enzyme recommended by international standards to prove how quickly their protein degraded.

Update 3:

Cows that got sick were dropped from Monsanto’s rbGH studies, while cows that got pregnant before treatment were counted as support that the drug didn’t interfere with fertility; differences in composition between Roundup Ready soy and natural soy were omitted from a published paper; antibody reactions by rats fed rbGH were ignored by the FDA; and deaths from rats fed the FlavrSavr tomato remain unexplained."

2 Answers

Relevance
  • Justin
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Syl... yep I hear you. Problem is there are too many people who just trust what they hear and see on TV at face value - no matter how illogical and or contradictory it seems.

    It has little (even that is a lot) to do with whether genetically modified food (pesticide resistant crops, BGH milks and such). The REAL issue is one of being able to OWN a gene and all knowledge of what the function(s) of a gene is(are). That's like claiming ownership of the number 5.

    This is what Monsanto and others are doing... then turn around and claim ownership of all biologicals that have that gene in their cells. They own genes in say corn crops and use it to make round-up ready corn.

    First of all, round-up ready corn and round-up just makes sure that the only bugs that survive are tougher than the ones that died. Then these super bugs reproduce and next season, same problem all over again. This is why anti-biotics don't work well anymore - we use them so much, we make super bugs that are immune - those are the only ones that survive and reproduce.

    Secondly, since they own the gene, they own the exclusive right to research ways to use, manipulate etc. said gene. This is similar to what big pharmaceuticals companies are doing - basically boils down to only we are allowed to come up with genetic therapies for diseases that relate to gene x. Not only that, but nobody else can compete by doing similar research on the gene because that is a patent infringement. Nice guarantee of profits, but also a nice guarantee of maintaining illness rather than curing it... if its profitable. That's why the human genome project was started - it was a race for the public to sequence and publish the info in the public domain so it can't be patented before big pharm could silence the public knowledge for the sake of profit.

    Essentially, if there are two choices, the legal choice is made to be whichever is profitable for big business, regardless of the industry. That seems to mean that if the situation was the same and roles were reversed, then the little guy would be in the right legally speaking. Wrong! Again, each situation is decided based on whatever supports big business.

    Back to Monsanto....

    Imagine a farmer in Iowa, next to a Monsanto farm. Monsanto grows their engineered crops and the pollen blows down wind to the other farm. Now, Monsanto claims ownership of the farmers crop as it contains their gene.

    This has happened in Mexico and it will happen everywhere.

    Then there is the terminator gene - imagine a cow that is sterile or a corn crop that is sterile - no more saving seed corn - you have to go back to the Monsanto corp every year.... Sure as hell they will make it more profitable to give them more control of the world's food supply by selling the farm rather than paying for seed corn year after year. Don't worry - your neighbor's crops pollinated yours so there IS not seed crop anyway - your seeds, due to the way the wind blows won't grow.

    Its about control - another aspect of the destruction of the middle class to create a new feudalism. Once that happens (is happening now) then regardless if the genetic engineering becomes a large scale biological issue, the 'serfs' will have no choice but to eat what we are given.

    Genetic engineering is not a good or bad thing in and of itself, its another tool that can be used in good ways and bad ways. When profit and control are the reasons its used, that is bad on multiple, repeated and non-reversible levels. Either way, please look past the Monsanto and FDA press releases and see the big picture for what it is rather than what it looks like on the dinner table.

    ..... or go back to watching American Idol and stop voting because its not fair to force everyone into this new feudalism because you are either willfully ignorant or just stupid.

    Not directed any anyone in particular - just those that stop at the safety/taste/convenience issues as fed to them by the very businesses that profit from your belief (that's why they have marketing and legal departments) and neglect to think there may be more to the issue.

    This applies to global warming (big oil), genetically engineered food sources (big agriculture), the fight on terrorism yet allowance of illegal immigration (big oil and big agriculture), genetic therapy, brand name vs. generic drugs (big pharm), Microsoft treated as a victim in patent court after going punishment free being a convicted monopolist using patents in violation of Sherman Anti-Trust laws.... the list goes on and on.

  • HUNG
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    I eat biotech foods all the time.

    And I haven't died yet.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.