The Battle Over GM (genetically modified) Food

We’re all aware that deception can sometimes be widespread in politics.  We know it impacts many facets of our lives.  Yet few of us understand the influence that political deception and cover-up has had on the food we feed ourselves and our families.

We’ve all made the assumption that the food we find in our supermarkets has been tested and found to be safe for human consumption.  Unfortunately, that’s an incorrect assumption.  The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is rampant with deception and cover-ups regarding GM food.  Monsanto, the large biotech company at the helm of GM food introduction into the market, has used their power and influence to infiltrate the FDA,1 taking away any precautions that might normally be in place.

Although FDA scientists were finding results to the contrary, FDA made a statement claiming that GM foods “are no riskier than others” and that “the agency has no information to the contrary.”2  When the FDA was in the process of creating their policy that boldly claimed there “was no information to indicate that GM foods were different and more risky than natural varieties”3 the agency was actually receiving ongoing communication from its scientists and compliance officers urging caution.

In a letter to James Maryanski, the FDA’s biotech coordinator, FDA microbiologist, Louis Pribyl stated, “There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering.”4  But the forward movement for approval of GM foods was being powered by a force much larger than the FDA.  In March of 1992, David Kessler, FDA Commissioner, validated the support of the White House in regard to the “approach and provisions” in the FDA’s policy.5

The Division of Food Chemistry and Technology  recommended testing every GM food “before it enters the marketplace” and warned of specific changes that could “escape breeders’ attention.”  These four changes were:  (1) “Increased Levels of known naturally occurring toxins,” (2) “Appearance of new, not previously identified” toxins, (3) Increased tendency to gather “toxic substances from the environment” such as “pesticides or heavy metals,” and (4) “Undesirable alterations in the levels of nutrients.”6

Steeped in deception and cover-up, the FDA and other governmental agencies ignored scientists’ discoveries and comments and went even further by make statements that concerns did not even exist.  In the process of  negotiating GMO trade policy, Melinda Kimble of the State Department said, “I want to make very clear that it is the position of the United States government that we do not believe there is a difference between GMO commodities and non-GMO commodities.”7

Ordinary people at the FDA who were trying to do their jobs, lost the battle to protect the unsuspecting consumer and make a difference in the world.  A congressional aid was reported as saying, “At FDA morale stinks.  Hundreds of people have either retired or quit in disgust.  All the best people, who believed in working on behalf of public health, have gone.”8

Webster’s New World Dictionary, defines science as “the state of fact of knowing; knowledge.”  The GM controversy is a good case in point that when politics gets involved, fact doesn’t have a chance.

1. Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Chelsea Green Publishing Company, Australia, 2003, Chapter 5
2. Steve Druker, www.biointegrity.org
3. Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Chelsea Green Publishing Company, Australia, 2003, Chapter 5
4. Louis J. Pribyl “Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92,” March 6, 1992, www.biointegrity.org
5. David Kessler, “FDA Proposed Statement of Policy Clarifying the Regulation of Food Derived from Genetically Modified Plants – DECISION.”  March 20, 1992, www.biointegrity.org
6. Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of Contaminants Chemistry, “Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation of Genetically Modified Foods; Supplemental Information,” November 1, 1991, www.biointegrity.org
7. Bill Lambrecht, Dinner at the New Gene Café, p. 322
8. Bill Lambrecht, Dinner at the New Gene Café, p. 139