Select Page
Genetic Roulette-The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods - Episode 138

Listen to the Podcast:

Watch the Podcast:

In this week's episode...

In this episode Jeffrey answers a series of questions pertaining to the documented health risks of genetically modified foods and their place in our culture, politics and science.


  • You say that the whole GMO industry is based on a lie where the FDA said in 1992, "the agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way." Why do you say this statement was a lie and why was it accepted by everyone if it wasn't truthful?
  • Why was the FDA under orders from the White House to promote GM crops? Why were scientists warnings about GM crops ignored back in 1992?
  • What conflicts of interest exist between the FDA and Monsanto?
  • Which agencies and parts of government are pro GM crops and why?
  • How many peer reviewed studies have there been on the safety of GM crops on animals and how many on humans?  How was the quality of the studies that have been done?
  • Who has paid for and overseen the studies on GM crops?
  • And many more...

The Institute for Responsible Technology is working to protect you & the World from GMOs (and while we’re at it, Roundup®...)  To find out exactly how we do this and to subscribe to our newsletter visit

Join us at Protect Nature Now to Safeguarding Biological Evolution from GMOs 2.0. The place to get critical up to date information, watch our short film and most importantly, learn easy ways for you to take action against this existential threat. Visit:

Watch "Don't Let the Gene Out of the Bottle"

Get the book: "Seeds of Deception"

IG @irtnogmos

Facebook @responsibletechnology

YouTube @TheInstituteforResponsibleTechinology

Twitter @TheInstituteforResponsibleTechnology

Notes for this week's Podcast
This week's Transcript


Speaker 1: (00:08)
You say that the whole GMO industry is based on a lie where the FDA said in 1992, the agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way. Why do you say this statement was a lie and why was it accepted by everyone? If it wasn't truthful,

Speaker 2: (00:28)
The white house had instructed the FDA to promote GMOs. And so the FDA created a new position specifically for Michael Taylor. Monsanto's former attorney to be in charge of policy. At the time they were creating policy on GMOs and bovine growth hormone. Michael Taylor was in charge of that policy and said, no safety testing was necessary. No labeling was necessary and then became Monsanto's vice president. And then went back to the FDA as the us foods are under Obama. Now the basis of the no testing necessary was the sentence that the agency wasn't aware of information that GMOs were considered different, but a lawsuit pioneered by Steven drer who's the author of altered genes, twisted truth. It found because they had turned over 44,000 secret internal memos. The FDA did that. The overwhelming consensus among the scientists working at the FDA was exactly the opposite of what was stated in the policy.

Speaker 2: (01:26)
That's how we know it was a lie. The scientist said that according to the, this was a summary of almost a quote, according to the technical experts of the age of the agency, the process of genetic engineering is different and leads to different risks. By trying to say that there's no differences like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. So it was not only saying that it was different. It was complaining about earlier drafts of that policy. The scientists were against the drafts. In fact, one of the scientists Lewis PVO said, what's become of this document. It's basically what do I have to do to state of trouble type document it's reads very pro-industry and it doesn't address the consumer concerns like unpredicted side effects. So when you read what the scientist said, you realize it was a completely unscientific policy. And then when you read what the politicians at the white house and the human health health and human services said, they were saying, we need to make it look like GMOs are even less different. We need to eliminate the 12 pages, uh, or shorten the 12 pages on the environmental impacts. We need to indicate that it's just as precise and just as healthy. So as the, as GMOs went up, the political ladder, they got healthier and healthier, but the scientists said they were not, they were not the same. They had unique risks that needed to be tested.

Speaker 1: (02:43)
Why was the FDA under orders from the white house to promote GM crops? And why were scientists warnings about GM crops ignored back in 1992

Speaker 2: (02:53)
During the first Bush administration, there was a deficit, a trade deficit. So Dan quail, the vice president was in charge of a committee, the council on competitiveness. And they were convinced by probably Monsanto that GMOs would increase us exports as well as domination by the us of world food trade. So that was the concept that promote GMOs to reduce the trade deficit. Well, the opposite happened, the us what failed to, uh, export the same degree, the GMOs, because so many countries were rejecting GMOs. So the export shrunk, the prices shrunk and, uh, the amount of money that had to, they had to pay for subsidies increased dramatically.

Speaker 1: (03:38)
What conflicts of interest exist between the FDA and Monsanto?

Speaker 2: (03:43)
I was told by a person who attended a dairy co conference where FDA, deputy commissioner, he later became the commissioner. Lester Crawford gave a talk on the FDA and said that the second of the two major purposes of the FDAs to promote biotechnology. So they're mandated to promote GMOs and also to regulate them, which is a conflict of interest, uh, when they were promoting or approving bine growth hormone. The person in charge of policy was Michael Taylor. Monsanto's former attorney. Monsanto was the one that submitted the bovine growth hormone. The person who was in charge of the review Susan session, she had just previously worked on the rBGH for Monsanto. Uh, Margaret Miller did research for Monsanto as a Monsanto employee on bine growth hormone. And then it took a position heading an FDA branch that evaluated her own research. And Richard burrows, a veterinarian told me that he tried to slow down the approval process because they were going to not do the needed research that needed to be done before releasing this animal drug.

Speaker 2: (04:49)
And then he was kicked out. He then sued the FDA. And in the trial, his boss admitted that they were trying to kick him out because he was slowing down the process. And then when they were forced to take him back, he was an expert at cows said they put him on chickens because they didn't want him to see anything about Mo V growth hormone. And they basically forced him to just push papers until he retired BVI growth hormone was kicked out of most American dairies because of consumer resistance because people realized that eating, uh, dairy products from cows treated with BVI growth hormone, you ended up eating more pots, more antibiotic resistant bacteria and more IGF one, which is linked to cancer as well as more bovine growth hormone. Uh, in fact, a former Monsanto scientist admitted that he's, he knew of three other Monsanto scientists who were doing the safety testing on the milk from treated cows. And after they saw how much cancer promoting hormone, they refused to drink milk unless it was organic. One bought his own cow,

Speaker 1: (05:49)
Which agencies and parts of government are pro GM crops. And why

Speaker 2: (05:53)
The United States government is pro GMO. The FDA's mandated to promote biotechnology. The EPA. Uh, if you look at the secret documents made public from a recent lawsuit, defending people who had Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, uh, it turns out that the texts and emails back and forth between Monsanto and EPA, they had a laptop dog named Jess Roland, who was worked on Monsanto's behalf to try and get another government organization to not do research on the links between Roundup and cancer. And even said to them, if I can stop the research, I should get a medal. And that he was in charge of the committee that reviewed the cancer properties of, of Roundup and said, no problem. So it, it demonstrates the, the situation. In fact, if you look at the Monsanto papers, which are available online, it paints a very scary picture of collusion and manipulation. Uh, the U S a I D is pro as pro Monsanto the state department. If you look at the WikiLeaks, it turns out that the ambassador to Spain wrote a wrote to Washington saying that I, he met with the director of Monsanto in the region. And, uh, he wanted government to help Mon to help the government of Spain to make a more pro GMO, uh, policy, and to put pressure on Brussels. Uh, the ambassador to France wrote to Washington that the countries that were resistant to GMOs, they should draw up a retaliation list and cause some pain. So these are the enforcement wings of Monsanto.

Speaker 1: (07:32)
How many peer reviewed studies have there been on the safety of GM crops on animals and how many on humans, how was the quality of the studies that have been done?

Speaker 2: (07:41)
There are no peer reviewed published human feeding trials, human clinical trials whatsoever. There's only one human fitting study that fed people one meal. And they confirmed that, uh, genes could transfer from genetically modified crops into the DNA of gut bacteria that was published by nature biotechnology in February of 2004. Uh, the independent researchers, handful of studies, a few't, uh, the real safety studies show real problems. The biotech industry studies, they claim, show no problems. And there's only a very few that qualify as safety studies. A lot of them are not published, but when a team in France reanalyze three of Monsanto's studies on corn fed to rats, they found so many abnormalities. They showed consistent signs of toxicity in the livered kidneys of the rats, which Monsanto ignored it covered up,

Speaker 1: (08:35)
Who has paid for and overseen the studies on GM crops.

Speaker 2: (08:39)
Most of the studies on GMOs are paid for by the biotech industry. And we have documented how they have rigged the research to avoid finding problems. They have bad science down to a science. What they do is they overcook samples. They use the wrong statistics, the wrong detection methods they'll use outlandish, uh, assumptions. They'll if they don't get what they want in their own control groups, they'll just look to other control groups from other studies, which is not supposed to be done in real science. And even then when they find problems, they dismiss it out of hand saying it's not treatment related with no justification.

Speaker 1: (09:11)
How is the biotech industry getting away with these practices?

Speaker 2: (09:15)
The biotech industry has a massive machine, which they've created. They, they focus on convincing academics, uh, media, politicians, and farmers. And if anyone comes up with any, uh, statement against GMOs that's of any significance, they'll try and jump all over that with their team of echo chambers, which is the, the false fronts, the so-called scientists, et cetera, they even have a program, uh, to attack anything in social media. So that any statement against Monsanto or GMOs in Facebook gets a troll response. So they have armies of trolls that they've paid and trained to take the pro GMO position and work on behalf of Monsanto, but not disclose that. So they're very, very, uh, well organized and disciplined. And they also have taken over many of the, uh, of the regulatory agencies. Um, I travel to 45 countries and I very often will be talked to by the local activists and told which agencies or which ministers of a government are basically marching lockstep with Monsanto.

Speaker 2: (10:21)
And they don't usually invite me to talk to them, but if they do, they pay little attention to what I say. Uh, whereas the other independent, uh, governments do invite me to speak to them and testify, et cetera, et cetera. So I have talked to minority members of, of approval bodies that pull their hair out, saying the pro GM scientists that have been put on this committee that are in the majority that always pass. They don't even read the submissions. They just rubber stamp everything. And when people actually from the minority show problems, then the majority, they always been discredited, no matter where it's from, no matter where it's published, no matter what it says, they said it's discredited. The, uh, the Supreme court of India asked a very, very prominent scientist PM. Vava to be a part of the approval process in India to evaluate it in response to a citizen's petition.

Speaker 2: (11:11)
And after 10 months, he said, it's a total sham that they, they, they do not evaluate any GMOs properly. And it's a rubber stamp situation. And they tried to discredit Vava. I kind of knew I was making a difference when the biotech machinery, uh, aimed at me and put, put me in their crosshairs, they tried to discredit me. They created websites against me. They were completely just giving false, junk science and wrong information. Uh, they attacked my book, genetic roulette by misquoting the book. Uh, when I put the book out, I said, okay, I'm going to create, I, I said, there's 65 health risks of GMOs that here they are. I have 65 pages ready to listen to and, and record your, uh, criticisms, your oppositions, your questions. I will post them and then we'll have a worldwide debate. I never heard a pee from them. But three years later, they created their own website where they attacked the book, misquoted the book, and just dusted off the same full scientific theories that had been disproven in the book. And it was craftly, uh, named and constructed. So it gives the impression that it's real science, even though later on, we found out that the so-called independent scientists were paid by Monsanto to do it.

Speaker 1: (12:22)
What has been the health impact on countries? After the introduction of genetically engineered foods,

Speaker 2: (12:28)
We surveyed 3000, 256 people,

Speaker 2: (12:33)
Uh, who said that they got better from 28 different conditions when they switched to non GMO and largely organic diets. And this was no surprise because I had already asked people at 150 lectures, the same question and heard the same results, including about two dozen medical conferences, where the doctors were speaking, not on their own behalf, but on behalf, on behalf of thousands of patients. So we are aware that the GMOs and the Roundup sprayed on the GMOs are seriously dangerous to health. And when you put yourself into organics to avoid both people get better from long time, chronic problems

Speaker 1: (13:08)
As of 2018, what kind of company has Monsanto become and where do they aspire to be over the next five years?

Speaker 2: (13:15)
Monsanto is highly reliant on round of herbicide. It's the world's best selling herbicide. And most of their genetically modified seeds are Roundup ready, engineered to be sprayed with Roundup herbicide, but Roundup is failing in the fields, the weeds of outsmart and Roundup. And so they're becoming resistant. And so the fortunes of Monsanto are basically teetering. So they tried to buy Sygenta who said no, but they were in turn bought by bear crop science. So they're waiting for that, that purchase to go through. And so they'll become a mega company between bear, which is bear aspir, but they also have GMOs and pesticides. So, uh, it's kind of like bear through them a lifeline so that they would survive. But, uh, they're also kind of desperate right now in the United States because the tipping point of consumer rejection has started food companies realize that using GMOs is costing the money because consumers are saying no.

Speaker 2: (14:17)
So they're switching to their competitor. And so they're racing to become non GMO, not all companies, but a lot of companies. And so that process is backing Monsanto into a quarter. So they have pulled out all the stops and gotten amazing media covered of, of Newsweek, Businessweek, uh, national geographic, et cetera, to try and tell people the untruth that GMOs are really safe and everything you thought you knew about them was wrong. In January of 1999 in San Francisco at biotech conference, Monsanto's consultant revealed how they had worked with Monsanto executives earlier. They asked the executives to describe their ideal future. And they described the world in which 100% of all commercial seeds were genetically engineered and patented. And then the consultant were backwards from that goal to create the strategy and tactics to achieve it. Monsanto went on a vast buying spree and became the biggest seed dealer in the world. They were a chemical company and they were genetically engineering seeds to take their chemicals. There's only a handful of others there, which is buying Monsanto Sygenta, which was just bought by chem China, Dow DuPont, which are emerging B a S F. And they're in charge of vast amounts of seed resources. And they're eliminating the biodiversity by eliminating or eliminating the number of seeds that they sell, packing the numbers with GMOs. So this raises prices, it limits choice, lowers, biodiversity, and also creates, uh, high risk for food security.

Speaker 1: (15:52)
According to our pod P eye, it is almost impossible to imagine that major lesions in important organs or changes in blood parameters that occurred in GM corned. Rats is incidental and due to simple biological variability, why isn't the FDA or U S D a or EPA or some governmental agency concerned about research results, such as this

Speaker 2: (16:14)
People told me that you are close to the FDA, that there are some excellent scientists there. There's also some really incompetent scientists there. And there's also those that basically do the, the, the water carrying for the industry.

Speaker 2: (16:31)
But the decisions appear to be made not by the scientists of integrity, with respect to GMOs, but by those that either don't understand the situation or have some kind of alternative or auditor your motive or agenda. Uh, I remember speaking to someone at the FDA and I gave them two important pieces of information on food safety on research that had been conducted. And she went, huh, new information. It shouldn't have been new information to her. She should have been studying the research, but the official policy of the FDA is that there's no difference and that no safety studies were needed. In fact, they have a voluntary consultation process. It's also known as a meatless exercise, where at the end of the day, the FDA writes a letter. And it doesn't say, we believe your foods are safe. It says, you believe your foods are safe and we don't have to. It basically reminds them that it's the company's responsibility to make that determination. And that's their extent of it.

Speaker 1: (17:30)
Why isn't the mainstream media reporting? The negative results from GM crop studies?

Speaker 2: (17:34)
The mainstream media have been consistently biased in favor of biotechnology. In fact, that's, especially the United States when a major GMO food safety scandal erupted in Europe and 1999, uh, more than 700 articles on GBO food safety were written in the UK in one month, nothing in the United States major press. And it was described by project centered as one of the most under report events of the year. An analysis of op-eds and opinion pages also showed that there are basically probiotic, uh, there's backroom deals going on. There are people who sit on the boards of these papers who have a lot of influence that I'm not privy to that drive certain agendas. And we've seen that over and over again, if they do report something negative, they're often attacked. In fact, leak documents show that, uh, one of Monsanto's, um, PR companies rated reporters on their coverage of BVI growth hormone Monsanto's genetically engineered cow drug, and that they attacked those that were negative and rewarded.

Speaker 2: (18:37)
Those that were positive. And one was bragging about how they got a certain person taken off of the, of the story at the New York times and described a whole scene that happened at USA today. And so it was a concerted effort to try and minimize coverage, negative coverage, and to maximize positive coverage. They talked to Carrie Gillum who has since written whitewash a book about Monsanto and Roundup. And she told me while she was a senior editor in Reuters, that she believed that the people that she was dealing with at Monsanto were trained in intimidation tactics. And so she was just reporting on information about certain GMO crop. And her boss got called. She got called on her cell phone at home, et cetera. They tried, they put a lot of pressure on her to try not to cover like a normal reporter. And so they, they play the game very well. Uh, fortunately she held out and now, and now has written a book.

Speaker 1: (19:32)
Why aren't the scientists screaming out about the negative results from GM crop studies?

Speaker 2: (19:37)
Monsanto has tremendous influence over academia, and they have convinced many scientists who are not familiar with the research that it's all safe. And it's all the same. Uh, I was talking to a, uh, a breeder in South Africa who was breeding a crop for Monsanto and then ended up not using it. So he buried it. And I said, so you do the, the cross, you do the breeding and you do the testing, and then you hand it off to Monsanto and they do the safety studies and he goes, that's right. So you do the selection. And then they do the human clinical trials and all that stuff. He goes, that's right. I said, there's no safety studies. There's no clinical trials. He had no idea. He was just compartmentalized doing the breeding, getting a particular crop variety that would work for his country. He had no idea of the ridiculous safety measures that are done. And basically most of them are ignored. So a lot of scientists aren't aware of that. And then there's an attack situation where if you come out against GMOs as a scientist, then you face an incredible knee jerk reaction written about in the journal nature, uh, where it's, that you're attacked personally. And I'm told hundreds of scientists have refused to do work in this area because they don't wanna risk the big attack personally. And they want to keep their job and keep their funding, et cetera.

Speaker 1: (20:55)
Why aren't the universities screaming out about the negative results from the GM crop studies?

Speaker 2: (21:00)
A lot of universities receive money from the biotech industry. And if someone is doing research that could damage the reputation in the company, oftentimes the president gets a call. He says, what? You don't like our money. You have a, a professor here who's gonna do research that could hurt us. And I've heard many times the administration tells the professor to stop doing research, or there's even a, a contract where Monsanto gives money with an understanding that no one in the university can do research on a Monsanto product. There was one time when someone was finding downstream of Monsanto factory, all these deformed fish, and he was at a university in Florida, but he couldn't do any research because there was a contract that would not allow him to do research.

Speaker 1: (21:47)
Why isn't the United States, president senators and congressmen concerned about the negative results from the GM crop studies.

Speaker 2: (21:54)
Congress passed a budget that included $3 million for the FDA to promote GMOs to general public.

Speaker 2: (22:04)
Monsanto has focused on the media, on academia, on farmers and also government politicians and regulatory agencies. So they give an interesting echo chamber where they always say the same thing and they get many people to say it, and they get highly qualified people to say it. And then people believe it. And they've, they've done this kind of tag team on visiting. They did it on visiting, uh, president of Ireland that I write about in my book where every single Senator, every single person he's met, talked about, uh, the, the genetically engineered, uh, bill or law he was working on. And he was basically convinced otherwise they did that. Um, at Santo kind of reoriented the Ecuadorian president. They're, they're really good at giving the wrong information well, and so they'll insulate people from the truth and they'll attack it. They'll attack anyone that, and try and discredit those of us who are calling for more science calling us anti-science and we've documented.

Speaker 2: (23:05)
And it's very clear what they're saying. Doesn't is not supported by science. It's sometimes supported by their fake science. So for example, uh, when someone was about to publish a research study, showing that the GM soy had a certain percentage of less, uh, phytoestrogens, which are supposed to be healthy, Monsanto rushed to publication its own study, showing that there was too much variability of phytoestrogens to even get a statistically significant answer. Well, the people who had done the independent study that showed that there was a reduction knew the, the laboratory that had done the research because they had done their research too. He said, how is it that you didn't got a different result when you worked for Monsanto instead of us. And they said, Monsanto forced us to use an obsolete detection method. One that was prone to variability, and that wasn't published in the study that was known only by the people in the laboratory. So they cooked the books, they rigged their research. They were able to counter the research from the other person. And so no one knew that it was more dangerous.

Speaker 1: (24:07)
What are the health impacts on people who grow and farm GM crops, such as BT corn,

Speaker 2: (24:13)
BT toxin is an insecticide produced in corn and cotton. And in south America, also in some soy varieties, and it comes from soil bacteria, and it's used as a natural insecticide. It was sprayed by plane, over areas to kill certain insects. And when it was in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported flu-like symptoms and some had to go to the hospital

Speaker 2: (24:38)
In India. They're also reporting similar symptoms when they work in the BT cotton fields, there was a report on 23 farm workers by some doctors in India. And I compared the two. And it was the same kind of symptoms as those who were sprayed with BT people just leading against cotton ball cotton, uh, that's been collected in the fields, got allergic type reactions. People cleaning cotton in the cotton, in the cotton, uh, cleaning facilities had to take antihistamines every day before working. So there's that, uh, people sprayed with Roundup people working in the fields. They can have higher levels of miscarriages, higher levels of birth defects. In fact, people living near the sprained areas had higher birth defects, higher cancer rates, higher lupus, higher respiratory problems in Argentina, according to report by, by physicians there. And there's plenty of research that show that farm workers are at greater risk to the health dangers of the insect of the insecticides and pesticides that they're using.

Speaker 1: (25:41)
What are the health impacts on animals from eating GM soy versus non GM soy

Speaker 2: (25:46)
Animals that have been fed GMOs have had damage to virtually every organ in every system that multiple massive cell growth or tumors, uh, premature death, uh, toxicity in the liver and kidneys damage to the sperm cells and damage to the testicles changes in the enzymes and the major organs like the heart. Um, they've had, uh, various tumors and cancers. Um, it just, it goes on, it goes on and on. In fact, there's consistencies. Liver is very, very much affected as our kidneys. Um, immune system is also affected digestive system consistently. Uh, when you look at the problems, uh, that are in the animal feeding studies, they correlate with the things that get better when livestock, pets and humans get off the GMOs. So if you look at the 28 different conditions that the humans got better from when they got off of GMOs and the research I published, it, it matches conceptually with the improvements in the livestock, the farmer's report, the veterinarians report, as well as the pet owners and the veterinarian, the pet vets report for dogs and cats. And if you look at the, at the epidemiological evidence, the, the rise of certain diseases in the United States, they rise in parallel with the increased use of GMOs and the Roundup spray on them. And they are very similar in nature to the particular disorders and symptoms that people get better from when they switch to non GMO.

Speaker 2: (27:26)
Thank you for listening to live healthy, be well, please subscribe to the podcast. Using whatever app you listen to podcasts with, or go to live healthy, be to subscribe. This podcast will inform you about health dangers, corporate and government corruption and ways we can protect ourselves, our families and our planet. I interview scientists, experts, authors, whistle blowers, and many people who have not shared their information with the world until now, please share the podcast with your friends. It will enlighten and may even lives safe, eating.


Save this episode...