Currently browsing posts about: GM(Genetically Modified)

In my view, one of the strongest reasons for public distrust of GMOs is the behavior of the GMO industry, with the secretive, aggressive, corporate behavior of Monsanto as the most glaring example.

I saw this myself.

In the late 1990s, I was at a meeting of food industry executives, among them the CEOs or high ranking officials of several agricultural biotechnology companies, including Monsanto.

The others were openly furious with Monsanto’s CEO for ruining public trust in their products: “You have ruined this for us.”

But Monsanto’s reputation did not stop Bayer from buying the company in 2018 (for $63 billion, no less), something it—and its stockholders—must surely regret (some are suing the company).

As Carey Gillam of US Right to Know has just reported, “Appeals court rejects Bayer’s bid to overturn Roundup trial loss and slams company for “reckless disregard” for consumer safety.”

In a decision handed down on Monday, the 1st Appellate District in the Court of Appeal for California rejected Monsanto’s bid to overturn the trial loss in a case brought by husband-and-wife plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod.

This is the third trial in which juries awarded millions of dollars to plaintiffs who claimed that they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma as a result of exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.

To head off subsequent trials, Bayer said it would pay about $11 billion (yes, billion) to settle about 100,000 pending cases, and would pay $4.5 billion more to offset further liability for Roundup claims.  Bayer also announced it would stop selling Roundup and other glyphosate herbicides for home use in the US by 2023 (but it will still sell Roundup to farmers.  And it is taking its case to the Supreme Court to get a reversal of a cancer-claim case.

What I find remarkable about the Pilliod decision is the judge’s scathing comments on Monsanto’s corporate behavior.  As quoted by Gillam:

• “Monsanto’s conduct evidenced reckless disregard of the health and safety of the multitude of unsuspecting consumers it kept in the dark. This was not an isolated incident; Monsanto’s conduct involved repeated actions over a period of many years motivated by the desire for sales and profit.”
• Monsanto acted with a “willful and conscious disregard for the safety of others.” Monsanto “failed to conduct adequate studies on glyphosate and Roundup, thus impeding discouraging, or distorting scientific inquiry concerning glyphosate and Roundup.”
• “But rather than fairly stating all the relevant evidence, Monsanto has made a lopsided presentation that relies primarily on the evidence in its favor. This type of presentation may work for a jury, but it will not work for the Court of Appeal.”
•  “Summed up, the evidence shows Monsanto’s intransigent unwillingness to inform the public about the carcinogenic dangers of a product it made abundantly available at hardware stores and garden shops across the country.”

Or try this footnote:

The effects of all this on Bayer’s stock prices?

Other People vs. Monsanto/Bayer cases are in the works.  Stay tuned.

Food Navigator reminds me that GMO labeling has not yet been implemented.

Compliance with the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS) – which requires firms with annual sales of $2.5m to label ‘bioengineered’ foods, beverages, and supplements – is mandatory from January 1, 2022. So is the industry up to speed? It’s a pretty mixed bag, according to labeling experts.

We know that corn, soybeans, and cotton are genetically modified (also canola and sugar beets).

But what about products that you might buy in supermarkets?  Those remain a mystery.

The FDA lists “completed consultations” for genetically modified foods—effectively, approvals—here.  These include Fuji and other apples, potatoes, and squashes, but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily in supermarket produce sections.

Confusingly, the USDA has its own list.

• Alfalfa (pdf)
• Apple (Arctic^TM varieties) (pdf)
• Canola (pdf)
• Corn (pdf)
• Cotton (pdf)
• Eggplant (BARI Bt Begun varieties) (pdf)
• Papaya (ringspot virus-resistant varieties) (pdf)
• Pineapple (pink flesh varieties) (pdf)
• Potato (pdf)
• Salmon (AquAdvantage®) (pdf)
• Soybean (pdf)
• Squash (summer) (pdf)
• Sugarbeet (pdf)

It would be nice to have supermarket produce labeled, although the label, as I’ve written previously, is not as helpful as it might be.

I can’t wait to see if stickers like this actually appear on GMO squash, apples, and salmon.  The compliance date is coming soon!

Carey Gillam.  The Monsanto Papers: Deadly Secrets, Corporate Corruption, and One Man’s Search for Justice.  Island Press, 2021.

Gillam, the author of Whitewash, a book for which I did a blurb (and who works for U.S. Right to Know) has surpassed herself and written what I can only descxribe as a blockbuster, right up there with page-turning thrillers by John Grisham.

I could not put this book down, and cannot recommend it highly enough.

It is the story of a school groundskeeper, Lee Johnson, who one working day set out to spray Roundup to kill weeds, but had an accident and got soaked with it.  He later developed a form of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma  (NHL) that has been associated with exposure to this weed killer.

Once Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, was judged “probably carcinogenic” by the International Agency for Cancer Research, lawyers got involved and Johnson was chosen for the first case to try.

Gillam documents what the maker of Roundup, Monsanto, did to hide evidence of this chemical’s carcinogenicity, how it funded its own studies, ghost-wrote others, and established cozy relationships with EPA officials (hence “corporate corruption”).

She also tells the legal story.  Even though I knew the outcome before I picked up the book—I track such things—I found the details about the preparation of the case and actual trial riveting.

This is because this book is fabulously written—as I said, I couldn’t stop reading it—but also because she makes the characters in this drama come alive.  It reads like a novel.

It’s also an important book.  Monsanto is infamous for bad corporate behavior (“Monsatan”) but what’s documented here is truly shocking.  I shouldn’t have been shocked because I had written about Monsanto in my 2003 book about food biotechnology, Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety.  I had written my own account of its bad behavior.

Gillam brings the story up to the point where the German pharmaceutical firm, Bayer, bought Monsanto for $63 billion, something I hope this company has regretted ever since.

Spoiler alert: The most recent development in this case happened just last week.

The FDA has a new Agricultural Biotechnology Education and Outreach Initiative to teach the public about GMOs.

Its “Feed Your Mind” Initiative  provides webpages, fact sheets, infographics, and videos developed jointly with the USDA and EPA.

What is this about?

in 2017, Congress provided funding for an Agricultural Biotechnology Education and Outreach Initiative, which calls upon FDA to work with EPA and USDA to share science-based educational information about GMOs, beginning with answers to some basic GMO questions.

Some of this is useful.  For example:

If you want details about any of  FDA-authorized GMOs, you have to go to this obscure website on “completed consultations.”

Most GMOs are crops grown for animal feed (or ethanol for cars).

So the only GMO products you are likely to find at supermarkets are papayas, potatoes, squash, and apples.

How can you tell?    If the papayas are from Hawai’i, you can assume they are GMO.

As for the others, you have no way of knowing unless they are labeled, and good luck with that.

GMOs are supposed to be labeled starting in 2020 and definitely by 2022 (unless overturned by litigation).  The label is supposed to look like this:

The FDA website says nothing about GMO labeling.  It also says nothing about GMO monoculture, corporate control of the food supply, pesticide resistance, or pesticide harm.

But it does have all this:

• Two videos
  • Why do we have GMOs?
  • Do GMOs Affect Your Health?
• Four new fact sheets
  • GMO Crops and Food for Animals
  • GMO Crops and Humanitarian Reasons for Development
  • Types of Genetic Modification Methods for Crops
  • Why Do Farmers in the U.S. Grow GMO Crops?
• Spanish translations of the fact sheets and infographics
• High school curriculum Science and Our Food Supply: Exploring Food Agriculture and Biotechnology

The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) announces that the Philippine Department of Agriculture/Philippine Rice Research Institute (DA-PhilRice) has approved Golden Rice—bioengineered to contain beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A–and ruled it as safe as conventional rice.

 With this approval, DA-PhilRice and IRRI will now proceed with sensory evaluations and finally answer the question that many Filipinos have been asking: What does Golden Rice taste like?

To complete the Philippine biosafety regulatory process, Golden Rice will require approval for commercial propagation before it can be made available to the public.

My prediction: it will taste like rice.

But keeping up with this saga requires a lifetime commitment, apparently.

In 2016, I posted about Golden Rice, the poster child for the benefits of food biotechnology, pointing out that:

Beta-carotene is a precursor of vitamin A and the idea behind this rice was that it could—a conditional word expressing uncertainty—help prevent blindness due to vitamin A deficiency in areas of the world where this deficiency is rampant.

But vitamin A deficiency is a social problem.  Fruits and vegetables containing beta-carotene are widely available in such areas, but are not grown or consumed as a result of cultural or economic issues.  If they are consumed, people cannot absorb the beta-carotene cannot be absorbed because of poor diets, diarrheal diseases, or worms.

Here we are, 16 years after the Time cover, and Golden Rice is still not on the market.

In 2020, we are 20 years after the [in]famous Time Magazine cover—its operative word is the conditional “could”—and Golden Rice is still not on the market.  For an explanation of why, see my book, Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety.

The saga continues.

The USDA has issued a guide for meat and poultry sellers explaining what they need to do to claim that their products are non-GMO.  This, apparently, will do.

What, you may ask, are they to do if their products are GMO?  Here’s your answer.

That USDA is allowing the use of non-GMO rather than non-bioengineered must be considered some kind of miracle or oversight.

AgriPulse says producers want more guidance before trying to comply with whatever the biotech labeling law means.

I can’t wait to see if meat sellers use any of this.

I’m indebted to Jerry Hagstrom’s Hagstrom Report for this one.

The People’s Garden on the grounds of the Agriculture Department headquarters, intended by the Obama administration to highlight organic food, has been renamed and reconfigured.

It now features a “Voice of the Farmer” exhibit extolling the virtues of genetically modified alfalfa, corn and soybeans.

This is part of a “Trust in Food” initiative organized by Farm Journal magazine in partnership with its Foundation’s coalition of Big Ag companies.

It will be there until October 2020.

Will this encourage the public to have greater trust in food?  I doubt it.

▪ Agriculture Through the Voice of the Farmer: The Farm Journal Foundation’s website
▪ Trust in Food: A Farm Journal Initiative

This is the second full-page ad like this I’ve seen in the New York Times.  This one is from June 4.

As far as I’ve been able to tell, ads like these cost on the order of $85,000 or so.

Bayer, you may recall, bought Monsanto some months ago along with all its baggage (some of which is increasing doubts about the safety of glyphosate for human health).

The ad quotes the EPA as saying that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, the agency’s most favorable classification.”

Perhaps, but other agencies—and the courts—come to quite different conclusions.  As the Financial Times explains, Bayer’s

weedkiller woes offer two cautionary tales. The first is the high reputational and financial cost of trying to distort the scientific record. Monsanto’s perceived attempts to game the literature prompted the jury to award punitive damages. Questionable practices allegedly included “ghostwriting” papers: persuading outside academics to put their names to internally written, more flattering research, then publishing in scientific journals.

The second cautionary tale has to do with glyphosate’s induction of weed resistance.

Bayer stocks are not doing well.  Its stockholders are complaining.

Bayer faces more than 13,000 lawsuits over cancers claimed to be caused by glyphosate.

Hence: these ads.