Select Page
Is The Whole GMO Industry Based On A Lie? - Episode 129

Listen to the Podcast:

Watch the Podcast:

In this week's episode...

In this episode Jeffrey answers 3 questions about the way GMOs have been promoted in coordination with the government and Monsanto/Bayer.

Questions:

  • 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 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 and why were scientists warnings about GM crops ignored back in 1992?
  • What conflicts of interest exist between the FDA and Monsanto/Bayer?

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 https://www.responsibletechnology.org/

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: https://protectnaturenow.com/

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

Get the book: "Seeds of Deception"

Sign the Petition https://protectnaturenow.com/signthepetition/

IG @irtnogmos

Facebook @responsibletechnology

YouTube @TheInstituteforResponsibleTechinology

Twitter @TheInstituteforResponsibleTechnology

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

ROUGH 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. 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 bine 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 FDAs, the us foods CSAR under Obama. Now the basis of the no testing necessary this sentence, that the agency wasn't aware of information that GMOs were considered different, but a lawsuit pioneered by Steven Drucker, who's the author of alter genes, twisted truth. It found because they 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 to 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 PRL said, what's become of this document. It's basically what do I have to do to state of trouble type? It 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 eliminate the 12 pages, uh, or shorten the 12 pages of 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. They 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 of 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 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 STR 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 Bayer?

Speaker 2: (03:43)
I was told by a person who attended a dairy co conference where FDA, deputy commissioner, who 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 their man dated 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 bine growth hormone. The person who was in charge of the review inception, she had just previously worked on the rBGH for Monsanto. Uh, Margaret Miller did research for Monsanto as a Monsanto employ on bine growth hormone. And then it took a position heading an FDA branch that evaluated her own research. And Richard burrows of veterinarian told me that he 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 was an expert at cows said they put him on chickens because they didn't want him to see anything about bine growth hormone. And they basically forced him to just push papers until he retired bine growth hormone was kicked out of most American dairies because of consumer resistance because people realized that eating, uh, dairy products from cow treated with bine growth hormone, you're ending up eating more puffs, more antibiotic resistant bacteria and more IGF one, which is linked to cancer as well as more bine 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 cow. And after they saw how much cancer promoting hormone, they refused to drink milk unless it was organic. One bought his own cow. Thank you for listening to live healthy. Be well, please subscribe to the podcast, using whatever app you're listening to podcasts with, or go to live healthy, be well.com 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 S 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 save lives, safe, eating.

Downloads

Save this episode...

SUBSCRIBE