Saturday, December 05, 2009


If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.
~Thomas Jefferson, president of the USA.


"If the facts don't support the theory, change the facts..." Albert Einstein

Barrack Obama and the US administration, Bill Gates, Rockfeller, Kofi Annan, Monsanto and other agrochemical and biotech multinationals have been fraudulently telling the world that they are on a philanthropic mission to “fight hunger and poverty” in Africa and to "feed the world" in a context of rapid population growth and climate change. However, beyond the deceitful rhetoric and fraudulent claims made by the above self-proclaimed saviors of Africa and the world, the facts and scientific and empirical evidence reveal a different picture altogether.

Monsanto and the other “Big Five” agro-chemical and biotechnilogy companies ( Monsanto, Syngeta, Dow Agro Chemical, Dupont, Bayer, BASF ) and their minions, cronies and butlers falsely claim that their genetic “technology” will be able to “feed the world” and “fight global hunger and poverty” by increasing agricultural yields and reducing pesticides usage - through genetic manipulation of plant DNA (in other words by changing the essence of Life (DNA) and the Laws of Nature)– thus increasing global food production, while decreasing production costs.

However, the following recently published independent scientific reports – based on scientific facts and empirical evidence - clearly rebuke these fraudulent claims.

Do GMO’s REALLY increase yield…?

According to a recently published scientific report - Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops - written by Doug Gurian-Sherman
and published by the Union of Concerned Scientists in March 2009, the scientific and empirical evidence does not support that claim.

Doug Gurian-Sherman writes:

“For years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields. That promise has proven to be empty. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.”

Failure to Yield is the first (independent) scientific report to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States.

Based on those studies, the UCS report concluded that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant (HT) soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant (bt) corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report found, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.

Failure to Yield makes a critical distinction between potential—or intrinsic—yield and operational yield, concepts that are often conflated by the industry and misunderstood by others. Intrinsic yield refers to a crop’s ultimate production potential under the best possible conditions. Operational yield refers to production levels after losses due to pests, drought and other environmental factors.

The study reviewed the intrinsic and operational yield achievements of the three most common genetically altered foods and feed crops in the United States: herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and insect-resistant corn (known as Bt corn, after the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, whose genes enable the corn to resist several kinds of insects).

Herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and Bt corn have failed to increase intrinsic yields, the report found. Herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn also have failed to increase operational yields, compared with conventional methods.

In addition to evaluating genetic engineering’s record, Failure to Yield suggest that it makes little sense to support genetic engineering at the expense of technologies that have proven to substantially increase yields, especially in many developing countries. In addition, recent studies have shown that organic and similar farming methods that minimize the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can more than double crop yields at little cost to poor farmers in such developing regions as Sub-Saharan Africa.

The report concludes that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future. The biotechnology industry has been promising better yields since the mid-1990s, but Failure to Yield documents that the industry has been carrying out gene field trials to increase yields for 20 years without significant results

“If we are going to make headway in combating hunger due to overpopulation and climate change, we will need to increase crop yields,” said Gurian-Sherman. “Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.”

The complete report can be downloaded/read at the following link:

Moreover, another major U.S. study published in 2008 found that GM soya produced by Monsanto actually produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, thus undermining the oft-repeated claim that the use of GM technology is essential to solve the growing world food crisis.

Carried out over a three-year period at the University of Kansas, the study confirmed the findings of researchers from the University of Nebraska, who had previously found that another GM soya produced by Monsanto generated 6 per cent less food than its closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available.


The findings of this study were echoed in a separate report, published by the UK’s Soil Association, which examined the latest available research on GM crop yields over the last ten years. In contrast to the widely trumpeted claims of GM companies that they have the answer to world hunger, the report showed that the yields of all major GM crop varieties in cultivation are lower than, or at best, equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties.


Last but not least, a 2008 draft report produced by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology project – an ambitious, 4-year, US$10-million undertaking involving 4,000 scientists and experts from around the world – raised still further serious concerns about the environmental, human health and economic impacts of GM crops. As well as stating that there is no evidence that GM crops increase yields, the report specifically warned that use of the technology in the developing world could concentrate "ownership of agricultural resources" in the hands of the companies involved and cause problems with patents. Significantly therefore, following the report’s failure to back GM as a tool to reduce poverty and hunger, the biotech companies Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF promptly withdrew from the project.

Do GMO’s REALLY decrease pesticide usage…?

Monsanto and other chemical and biotech companies have also fraudulently been claiming that GMO’s decrease the usage of *pesticides ( * herbicides, insectides and other chemicals used in industrial agriculture),thereby increasing farmers’ income by decreasing production costs while reducing environmental and ecological pollution from agricultural chemical pesticides.

However, once again scientific and empirical evidence debunk that claim.

According to the following (independent) scientific report published in November 2009 - "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years" – authored by Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., Chief Scientist at The Organic Center:

"GE crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly accelerating pace. Farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a result of planting GE seeds."

The report is based on official, U.S. Department of Agriculture pesticide use data to estimate the differences in the average pounds of pesticides applied on GE crop acres, compared to acres planted to conventional, non-GE varieties.

The basic finding is that compared to pesticide use in the absence of GE crops, farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a result of planting GE seeds. This difference represents an average increase of about 0.25 pound for each acre planted to a GE trait.
GE crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly accelerating pace. In 2008, GE crop acres required over 26% more pounds of pesticides per acre than acres planted to conventional varieties. The report projects that this trend will continue as a result of the rapid spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds.

link to the full report:

Pesticide treadmill...

Moreover, according to a report published in 2009 by Friends of the Earth titled "Who benefits from GM crops", the widespread adoption of GM "Roundup Ready" crops combined with the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds has driven a more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on major field crops from 1994 to 2005. The trend continues. In 2006, the last year for which data is available, glyphosate use on soybeans jumped a substantial 28%, from 75,743 million lbs in 2005 to 96,725 million lbs in 2006.

More and more farmers are being told – by agronomists and by Monsanto - to combat glyphosate-resistant weeds by applying other chemicals, such as paraquat, diquat and atrazine, often in combination with higher rates of glyphosate. USDA pesticide data confirm this trend: rising glyphosate use even while use of other more toxic herbicides also increases, or at best remains constant.

The widespread adoption of Roundup Ready GM crops in the US has driven a more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on soybeans, maize and cotton from 1994 to 2005. In 2006, the last year for which data are available, glyphosate use on soybeans jumped by a substantial 28%.

Increasing glyphosate use has driven an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds, which in turn has led to rising use of other herbicides to control them. For instance, the amount of 2,4-D (a component of Agent Orange) applied to U.S. soybeans more than doubled from 2002 to 2006. The use of atrazine (banned in the EU due to links to health problems) on corn/maize increased by 12% between 2002 and 2005.

Brazilian government authorities have documented an 80% increase in glyphosate use from 2000 to 2005, together with the rapid emergence of weeds that are resistant to the chemical. Use of glyphosate grew 79.6% during this period, much faster than the increase in area planted to Roundup Ready soya.

In Argentina, overall glyphosate use has more than tripled from 65.5 million litres in 1999/2000 to over 200 million litres in 2005/6.17 In 2007, agricultural experts reported that a glyphosate-resistant version of Johnsongrass (Sorghum halapense) was infesting over 120,000 ha of the country’s prime cropland. Johnsongrass, an extremely damaging perennial, is a monocot weed that is considered one of the worst weeds in the world, and resistance to glyphosate will make it all the more harder to control. The emergence of glyphosate-resistant Johnsongrass is directly attributable to the huge increase in glyphosate use associated with near total dependence on Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina.

The main recommendation to control resistant weeds is to use a cocktail of herbicides other than glyphosate, including more toxic weedkillers such as paraquat, diquat and triazine herbicides such as atrazine.18 It is estimated that an additional 25 million litres of herbicides will be needed each year to control resistant weeds, resulting in an increase in production costs of between $160 and $950 million per year.

source: Friends of the Earth report: "Who benefits from GM crops"

As Einstein rightly stated: " Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Pest resistance to GM Bt crops

Moreover, pests are also developing resistance to GM Bt crops, forcing farmers to use more insecticides.

Steve Connor, Science Editor of the UK based Independent newspaper write:

"An insect pest that is supposed to be killed by a type of genetically modified cotton crop with an in-built toxin gene has developed resistance and is beginning to spread in parts of the United States, a scientific study has found.

It is believed to be the first documented example in the wild of an insect pest becoming resistant to this particular type of GM crop, which was thought to be immune from the problems that have plagued conventional pesticides. The bollworm moth is one of the most destructive pests of cotton crops. The resistant form of the moth's caterpillar was found in a dozen fields in the southern states of Mississippi and Arkansas between 2003 and 2006, when the surveys were conducted.

The GM cotton was developed by inserting a gene into the plant that is normally found in a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The bacterial gene produces a protein toxin that is poisonous to certain insects, but normally harmless in other animals.

Bruce Tabashnik of the University of Arizona, who led the research team, said: "What we are seeing is evolution in action. This is the first documented case of field-evolved resistance to a Bt crop."

In the case of the GM cotton crop, the bollworm insect developed resistance because of the huge area of land in America and elsewhere where GM crops modified with Bt genes are now grown.This has generated one of the largest forces of natural selection for insect resistance that the world has ever known, according to the researchers, whose study will be published in the journal Nature Biotechnology.



Pests "thriving and reproducing" on Bt cotton fields in India and China

An article in the latest issue of the journal Current Science raises serious questions about the long-term viability of genetically-modified Bt cotton to actually do what it's intended to do, increase pest resistance. Scientists have found for the first time bollworms not only living and surviving on GM cotton, but having offspring that can complete their full lifecycle there.

Looking at two varieties of Bt cotton in commercial use, containing both single and double genes intended to be toxin to the bollworms, the scientists found that the pests were able to survive.

Report co-author Aralimarad Prabhuraj told Kolkata's The Telegraph:

"We saw virtually no differences between the biology of insect populations reared on the GM cotton and the non-GM cotton ... We have indeed seen a dramatic boost to India's cotton, but we had always anticipated that at some point in time, we'll encounter pests that can withstand the modified plants. No one knew when it would happen."


links to the scientific study:

Survival and reproduction of natural populations of Helicoverpa armigera on
Bt-cotton hybrids in Raichur, India

Bt cotton boosting pesticide use

GM WATCH, Tuesday, 16 February 2010

GM lobbyists have tried to paint Bt cotton in India as a massive success story that's cut insecticide use and boosted productivity. Now Keshav Kranthi, a leading Indian entomologist and acting director of India's Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR)] has told the Indian government that the rapid adoption of GM cotton by farmers across the country has coincided with:

*the rise of hitherto unknown insect pests

*increased pesticide applications by farmers

*declining cotton productivity over the past three years

The picture of what's been happening in India emerging from the research of this pro-GM scientist, ties in with the findings of research in China (also undertaken by GM supporters) which showed that seven years after the commercialization of Bt cotton there, the expenditure on pesticides by Bt cotton farmers was more or less the same as for conventional (non-GM) growers, despite the extra expenditure the Bt farmers were making on GM seeds in order to reduce (supposedly) their need to spray.

In India the picture appears to be even worse with pesticide applications on Bt cotton significantly overtaking those on conventional cotton.

EXTRACT: Kranthi says 90 per cent of the current GM cotton hybrids appear susceptible to mealybugs and whiteflies. Insecticide use in cotton appears to have increased from Rs 640 crore [6,400,000 rupees] in 2006 to Rs 800 crore [8,000,000 rupees] in 2008, his report said.

Scientific study by PRO-GMO scientists reveal exponential increase in secondary cotton pests pests and pesticide use/expenditure on Bt cotton fields in China
"Seven years after the initial commercialization of Bt cotton in China, we show that total pesticide expenditure for Bt cotton farmers in China is nearly equal to that of their conventional counterparts, about $101 per hectare. Bt farmers in 2004 on the average, have to spray pesticide 18.22 times, which are more than 3 times higher compared with 6 times pesticide spray in 1999.

Detailed information on pesticide expenditures reveals that, though Bt farmers saved 46% Bollworm pesticide relative to non-Bt farmers, they spend 40% more on pesticides designed to kill an emerging secondary pest. These secondary pests (one example is Mirid) was rarely found in the field prior to the adoption of Bt cotton, presumably kept in check by bollworm populations and regular pesticide spraying. The extra expenditure needed to control secondary pests nearly offsets the savings on primary pesticide frequently cited in the current literature

link to the study:

Tarnishing Silver Bullets: Bt Technology Adoption, Bounded Rationality and the Outbreak of Secondary Pest Infestations in China (Shenghui Wang, David Just, Jul-2006)

Thus, it is crystal clear from both the scientifc and empirical evidence and conclusion from the above (independent) scientific reports that genetic “technology” applied in agriculture (GMO’s) can neither increase crop yields nor reduce pesticides usage, thus directly contradicting the fraudulent claims made by Monsanto and the other agrochemical & biotechnology companies, that GMO’s can “feed the world” by increasing crop yields and reducing pesticides usage, thus increasing both food production and farmers’ revenue while preserving the soil and environment from chemical pollution.


"Let food be thy medicine and let thy medicine be thy food." Hippocrates

Monsanto's Round-Up-Ready herbicide “ causes birth defects, malformations, miscarriages, hormonal problems, reproductive problems, and different types of cancers.”

An (independent) scientific study written by an Argentine scientist earlier this year reports that glyphosate, patented by Monsanto under the name "Round Up "causes birth defects when applied in doses much lower than what is commonly used in soy fields.”

The study was directed by a leading embryologist, Dr. Andres Carrasco, a professor and researcher at the University of Buenos Aires.

The study reports that glyphosate causes birth defects. Frog embryos injected with glyphosate developed obvious defects which would compromise their ability to live in their normal habitats. The frog embryos grown in petri dishes in the photos looked like something from a futuristic horror film, creatures with visible defects—one eye the size of the head, spinal cord deformations, and kidneys that are not fully developed.

"We injected the amphibian embryo cells with glyphosate diluted to a concentration 1,500 times than what is used commercially and we allowed the amphibians to grow in strictly controlled conditions." "On the side where the contaminated cell was injected you can see defects in the eye and defects in the cartilage."
For the past 15 months, Dr. Carrasco's research team documented embryos' reactions to glyphosate. Embryological study is based on the premise that all vertebrate animals share a common design during the development stages. This accepted scientific premise means that the study indicates human embryonic cells exposed to glyphosate, even in low doses, would also suffer from defects.

"When a field is fumigated by an airplane, it's difficult to measure how much glysophate remains in the body," says Dr. Carrasco. "When you inject the embryonic cell with glysophate, you know exactly how much glysophate you are putting into the cell and you have a strict control."

Furthermore, one need not be a scientist to realize what effect eating herbicides-sprayed crops ( HT corn, soya, etc.) and insecticide producing food crops( bt crops that have genetically “engineered” to produce a toxin) will have on animal and human health…

Inhabitants living in proximity of GM soya fields in Argentina have reported that "We have had children born with only two thumbs and no fingers, malformed kidneys, children with six fingers. We have had babies born without an anus, or with malformations in the intestines."

Roundup/glyphosate is the top selling herbicide in the world and is widely used on soy crops in Argentina and other food crops (i.e. GM corn, soya, canola, cotton, etc.) in more than 160 countries & used for both livestock feed ( which are then eaten by humans...) and direct human consumption (note: almost all industrially-processed foods contains at least one or more of GMO ingredients.)

GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible? - New report (2010)

"The cultivation of GM RR soy endangers human and animal health, increases herbicide use, damages the environment, reduces biodiversity, and has negative impacts on rural populations. The monopolistic control by agribusiness companies over GM RR soy technology and production endangers markets, compromises the economic viability of farming, and threatens food security."

A group of international scientists have recently ( sept 2010) released a report detailing health and environmental hazards from the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready soy and the use of glyphosate (Roundup®) herbicide.

The report, GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?,[1] highlights new research by Argentine government scientist, Professor Andrés Carrasco,[2] which found that glyphosate causes malformations in frog and chicken embryos at doses far lower than those used in agricultural spraying.

The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy,” said Carrasco.

Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology, University of Buenos Aires Medical School and lead researcher of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), Argentina, is a co-author of the new report. The report is released with testimonies of Argentine villagers whose lives have been radically disrupted by the cultivation of GM soy.[3]

In Argentina and Paraguay, doctors and residents living in GM soy producing areas have reported serious health effects from glyphosate spraying, including high rates of birth defects as well as infertility, stillbirths, miscarriages, and cancers. Scientific studies collected in the new report confirm links between exposure to glyphosate and premature births, miscarriages, cancer, and damage to DNA and reproductive organ cells.

Residents have also reported environmental damage from glyphosate, including damage to food crops and streams strewn with dead fish. These accounts are backed by studies in the report that show glyphosate is toxic to the environment.
Link to the full report:


Monsanto's Round-Up-Ready herbicide causes cells to die in human embryo...
The study in Argentina is not the only research concluding that Monsanto’s Roundup and other herbicides containing glyphosate as their active ingredient is harmful to human health. Gilles-Eric Seralini, professor at the University of Caen and specialist in molecular biology, led a study that concluded the herbicides in the Round Up Ready package causes cells to die in human embryos.
"Even in doses diluted a thousand times, the herbicide could cause malformations, miscarriages, hormonal problems, reproductive problems, and different types of cancers," said Dr. Seralini

Below is the official press-release statement from the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN)

Press Release CRIIGEN - May 2007

Effects of the herbicide Roundup on human embryonic cells

Professor Séralini’s group (1), in the University of Caen, France, just published a study on the previously unknown toxic effects of Roundup on human embryonic cells.
Roundup is the major herbicide in use worldwide, including on GMOs for food and
feed. The embryonic cells are from a line cultivated in the laboratory and their use does not necessitate embryo destruction. The group wanted to confirm and detail the understanding of the effects already observed on placental cells, as published by Séralini’s group in 2005.

Following comparison, it appears that embryonic cells are far more sensitive. The
deleterious results of Roundup are noticed at very week doses (the product sold in stores is diluted up to 10,000 times). Sensitivity is confirmed in particular for the disruption of sexual hormones at non toxic levels, especially on fresh placental extracts. The maximal active dilutions correspond to less than the residues in discussion to be authorized in GMO feed in the United States.

It is evidenced that the herbicide Roundup, as sold on the market, is far more toxic than the product which is known and approved to be its active ingredient: glyphosate. The gaps in European legislation to study the effects of mixtures and hormonal disruptions are underlined.

This work may be of help in better understating the problems of miscarriages, premature births or sexual malformations of babies, in particular in agricultural workers families.

The paper published on line first (1) on the website of the journal « Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology » directed by Dr. Doerge from the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) in USA, will appear in the July 2007 issue.

Contact : Pr Gilles-Eric Séralini, Biochemistry, Institute of Biology, University of Caen,
Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen, France. Telephone: 33(0)2-31-56-56-84. Fax: 33(0)2-31-56-53-20. Corinne Lepage President of CRIIGEN. E-mail:

(1) Time and Dose-Dependent Effects of Roundup on Human Embryonic and Placental Cells
by Nora Benachour, Herbert Sipahutar, Safa Moslemi, Céline Gasnier, Carine Travert, Gilles-Eric Séralini.


The complete report can be downloaded at the following link:


In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize.

Three varieties of Monsanto’s GM corn – Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 – were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. The data used for this approval, ironically, is the same data that independent researchers studied to make the organ damage link.

The Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen obtained Monsanto’s confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats after a European court made it public in 2005.

The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system,” reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.

Although different levels of adverse impact on vital organs were noticed between the three GMOs, the 2009 research shows specific effects associated with consumption of each, differentiated by sex and dose.

Their December 2009 study appears in the International Journal of Biological Sciences (IJBS). This latest study conforms with a 2007 analysis by CRIIGEN on Mon 863, published in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, using the same data.

link to the study:

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine warns of adverse health effect of GM foods on human health

Furthermore, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has recently issued and published an alarming statement which states that there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects.

The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.” Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans.

Excerpts from the AAEM statement:

Safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of "substantial equivalence" such that "if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food."

However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.”

There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility. The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.

Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS. Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented.
A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn. This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth and disruption of the intestinal immune system."

Precautionary Principle

" Therefore, because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements. The most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

Another often used definition originated from an environmental meeting in the United States in 1998 stating: "When an activity raises threats to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context, the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof (of the safety of the activity)."

With the precautionary principle in mind, because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm, the AAEM asks:

Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.

Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.

Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.

For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.
(This statement was reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine on May 8, 2009.)

Submitted by Amy Dean, D.O. and Jennifer Armstrong, M.D.

Complete/official statement available at:

And the Truth Shall...get you fired!

The first ever (independent) scientific study to look into the effects of GMO food consumption on human health was conducted by the world's leading lectins and plant genetic modification expert, UK-based Arpad Pusztai from the prestigious Scotland's Rowett Research Institute.

Arpad Pusztai - the world's foremost expert in the field - became alarmed by his findings, and was subsequently vilified and fired from his research position at Scotland's Rowett Research Institute for publishing "industry-unfriendly" data ( i.e the Truth) he was commissioned to produce on the safety of GMO foods. His results were startling and considered the implications for humans eating genetically engineered foods.

Rats fed GMO potatoes had smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains, damaged immune systems, and showed structural changes in their white blood cells making them more vulnerable to infection and disease compared to other rats fed non-GMO potatoes. It got worse. Thymus and spleen damage showed up; enlarged tissues, including the pancreas and intestines; and there were cases of liver atrophy as well as significant proliferation of stomach and intestines cells that could be a sign of greater future risk of cancer. Equally alarming - this all happened after 10 days of testing, and the changes persisted after 110 days that's the human equivalent of 10 years.

Safety of meat, dairy products and eggs from GM-fed livestock

Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology makes the following observations in an article written in the Huffington post on the observed detrimental health effects of GM foods on animals and humans.

Dairy cows are usually fed GM feed and sometimes injected with GM bovine growth hormone. Although no studies have looked at the impact of eating meat or milk from GM-fed animals, secret FDA documents(1) made public from a lawsuit revealed that their Center for Veterinary Medicine was very concerned that toxins from GM foods might bioaccumulate in the livestock. If so, their milk and meat may be even more dangerous than the GM plants.


Studies on the impact of bovine growth hormone on the cows' milk are less ambiguous.(2) The dairy products from treated cows contain higher amounts of puss, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). The last on the list is considered most dangerous. IGF-1 is linked to a much higher risk of cancer, and according to one study, may also be responsible for the high rates of fraternal twins born in the US.


Digestive disorders
According to GMO safety expert Arpad Pusztai, PhD, the digestive tract is the first and largest point of contact with GM foods and can reveal reactions to various toxins. Lab animals fed GM feed developed lesions in the stomach, damage intestines, and abnormal and proliferative cell growth in the walls of the stomach and intestines.

Toxic intestinal bacteria

The beneficial bacteria living inside our digestive tract is used for digestion and immunity. Excessive herbicide residues on herbicide-tolerant GM crops may kill beneficial gut flora. More importantly, the only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have dangerous GM proteins continuously produced inside us. Consider, for example, if the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were also to transfer. It might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.

FDA scientists were also quite concerned about the possibility of inserted genes spontaneously transferring into the DNA of bacteria inside our digestive tract. Although the biotech industry confidently asserted that gene transfer from GM foods was not possible, the only human feeding study on GM foods later proved that it does take place. The genetic material in soybeans that make them herbicide tolerant transferred into the DNA of human gut bacteria and continued to function. That means that long after we stop eating a GM crop, its foreign GM proteins may be produced inside our intestines. It is also possible that the foreign genes might end up inside our own DNA, within the cells of our own organs and tissues.

Compromised immune system
Virtually every animal feeding study that looked for immune changes from GMOs found them. GM-fed animals had a sluggish immune responses, damaged organs associated with immunity, altered parameters in the blood, and dangerous inflammatory and immune reactions.

No tests can guarantee that a GMO will not cause allergies. Although the World Health Organization recommends a screening protocol, GM soy and corn fail those tests--because their GM proteins have properties of known allergens.

It is noteworthy that children with autism are often allergic to corn and soy. Both are genetically engineered. Many are also allergic to dairy.

Soon after GM soy was introduced in the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent. A skin prick allergy test verified that some people react to GM soy, but not to natural soy. GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen. Both GM soy and corn contain at least one new unexpected allergen, not found in natural crops.

The biotech industry claims that Bt-toxin is harmless to humans and mammals because the natural bacteria version has been used as a spray by farmers for years. In reality, hundreds of people exposed to natural Bt spray had allergic and flu-like symptoms. Now, farm workers throughout India are getting those same symptoms from handling Bt cotton. Likewise, mice fed natural Bt had powerful immune responses; now mice and rats fed Bt corn also show immune responses.

GMOs may make you allergic to non-GM foods

Since GMOs were introduced in the US, food allergies have become a huge problem, especially for kids. Some of the foods that trigger reactions, however, are not genetically engineered. But studies show how GM foods might create sensitivity to other foods, and may in fact be contributing to this national epidemic.

GM soy, for example, drastically reduces digestive enzymes in mice. If our ability to breakdown proteins was impaired, we could become allergic to a wide variety of foods.

Mice fed Bt-toxin not only reacted to the Bt itself, they started having immune reactions to foods that were formerly harmless. The Bt-toxin in the corn we eat may have a similar impact. Mice fed experimental GM peas also started reacting to a range of other "safe" foods. The allergen responsible for this reaction may be found in GM foods on our supermarket shelves.

GMOs and liver problems
The liver is a primary detoxifier. Its condition can indicate if there are toxins in our food. Mice and rats fed GM feed had profound changes in their livers. In some cases, livers were smaller and partially atrophied. Some were significantly heavier, possibly inflamed. And certain cellular changes indicated a toxic insult from the GM diet.

Reproductive problems and infant mortality
Both male and female animals showed horrific problems when fed GM soy. More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, compared to 10 percent of the non-GM soy controls. The GM babies were also considerably smaller, and were unable to conceive in a subsequent study. Male rats and mice fed GM soy had changed testicles, including altered young sperm cells in the mice. And when both mouse parents ate GM soy, the DNA of their embryos functioned differently. GM corn also had an impact. The longer mice were fed the corn, the fewer babies they had and the smaller their babies were.
Livestock sterility, disease, and death
Many of the problems seen in laboratories are also reported by farmers and investigators in the field. Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants after harvest. Others suffered poor health and serious reproductive problems.

Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties. About two dozen US farmers report that GM corn varieties caused widespread sterility in pigs or cows.


In June, a report published by the US-based Institute for Responsible Technology drew together the findings from more than 100 research papers. Entitled "State-of-the-Science on the Health Risks of GM Foods," it described the conflict of interest among regulators that allowed GM foods on the market; the wide range of adverse findings from animal feeding studies such as higher death rates, organ damage, reproductive failures, and infant mortality; reports by farmers of thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock; toxic and allergic properties of GM foods; numerous scientific assumptions used as the basis for safety claims that have since proven false; inadequate regulatory oversight; biased industry safety studies; manipulation of public opinion; and the mistreatment of scientists critical of the technology. In sharp contrast to the claims of those who disingenuously allege that there is a scientific consensus in favour of GM crops, the report’s contents prove that there are in fact a large number of research scientists who have serious concerns regarding the safety of these products.


Furthermore, Jeffrey Smith states that in addition to the detrimental health effects of GM foods consumption for humans & animals, the process of genetic engineering itself creates unpredicted alterations, irrespective of which gene is transferred. The gene insertion process, for example, is accomplished by either shooting genes from a “gene gun” into a plate of cells, or using bacteria to infect the cell with foreign DNA. Both create mutations in and around the insertion site and elsewhere.11 The “transformed” cell is then cloned into a plant through a process called tissue culture, which results in additional hundreds or thousands of mutations throughout the plants’ genome. In the end, the GM plant’s DNA can be a staggering 2‐4% different from its natural parent.12 Native genes can be mutated, deleted, or permanently turned on or off. In addition, the insertion process causes holistic and not‐well‐understood changes among large numbers of native genes. One study revealed that up to 5% of the natural genes altered their levels of protein expression as a result of a single insertion.

The Royal Society of Canada acknowledged that “the default prediction” for GM crops would include “a range of collateral changes in expression of other genes, changes in the pattern of proteins produced and/or changes in metabolic activities.”13 Although the FDA scientists evaluating GMOs in 1992 were unaware of the extent to which GM DNA is damaged or changed, they too described the potential consequences. They reported, “The possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in genetically engineered plants” might produce “unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants.”14 GM crops, they said, might have “increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins,” and the “appearance of new, not previously identified” toxins.15 The same mechanism can also produce allergens, carcinogens, or substances that inhibit assimilation of nutrients.

The complete report can be downloaded & read at the following link:( highly recommended)

Similarly, in an article published in the New York Times in july 2007 titled "Change to gene theory raises new challenges for biotech", Denise Caruso writes:

"The $73.5 billion global biotech business may soon have to grapple with a discovery that calls into question the scientific principles on which it was founded.

Last month, a consortium of scientists published findings that challenge the traditional view of the way genes function. The exhaustive, four-year effort was organized by the United States National Human Genome Research Institute and carried out by 35 groups from 80 organizations around the world. To their surprise, researchers found that the human genome might not be a "tidy collection of independent genes" after all, with each sequence of DNA linked to a single function, like a predisposition to diabetes or heart disease.

Instead, genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet fully understood. According to the institute, these findings will challenge scientists "to rethink some long-held views about what genes are and what they do."

Biologists have recorded these network effects for many years in other organisms. But in the world of science, discoveries often do not become part of mainstream thought until they are linked to humans.

With that link now in place, the report is likely to have repercussions far beyond the laboratory. The presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built.

The principle that gave rise to the biotech industry promised benefits that were equally compelling. Known as the Central Dogma of molecular biology, it stated that each gene in living organisms, from humans to bacteria, carries the information needed to construct one protein. The scientists who invented recombinant DNA in 1973 built their innovation on this mechanistic, "one gene, one protein" principle.
Because donor genes could be associated with specific functions, with discrete properties and clear boundaries, scientists then believed that a gene from any organism could fit neatly and predictably into a larger design - one that products and companies could be built around, and that could be protected by intellectual-property laws.

This presumption, now disputed, is what one molecular biologist calls "the industrial gene."



Monsanto’s Roundup: “Biodegrable & Environmentally friendly…?
Supreme Court of France finds Monsanto guilty of fraud.
Monsanto fraudulently claimed that its herbicide (Roundup) was “biodegrable” and it “left the soil clean…”

However, the Supreme Court of France has ruled that Monsanto had lied about the safety of its best-selling weed-killer, Roundup. The court confirmed an earlier judgment in 2009 that Monsanto had falsely advertised its herbicide as "biodegradable" and claimed it "left the soil clean."

French environmental groups had brought the case in 2001 on the basis that glyphosate, Roundup's main ingredient, is classed as "dangerous for the environment" by the European Union.

In the latest ruling, France's Supreme Court upheld two earlier convictions against Monsanto by the Lyon criminal court in 2007, and the Lyon court of appeal in 2008, the AFP news agency reports.

Genetic pollution & environmental destruction


Since 2004, “super weeds” (pigweed, horse weed, ragweed, etc. ) have developed a resistance to glyphosate/Roundup and have rapidly spread across Sun Belt states and other grain basket states of the US (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri).

Today, 100,000 acres in Georgia are severely infested with pigweed and 29 counties have now confirmed resistance to glyphosate, according to weed specialist Stanley Culpepper from the University of Georgia. In 2007, 10,000 acres of land were abandoned in Macon country, the epicenter of the super weed explosion, North Carolina State University’s Alan York told local media.

Pesticides treadmill…

Over time, weeds develop resistance to herbicides, explains Javier Souza Casadinho, professor at the University of Buenos Aires and regional coordinator of the Latin American Action Network for Alternative Pesticides. "Producers must use more applications, and in higher doses with higher toxicity—the application has gone from three liters in 1999 to the current dose of 12 liters, per hectare," says Souza.

According to the UK-based Soil Association, which campaigns for and certifies organic food, Monsanto was well aware of the risk of super weeds as early as 2001 and took out a patent on mixtures of glyphosate and herbicide targeting glyphosate-resistant weeds.

“The patent will enable the company to profit from a problem that its products had created in the first place,” says a 2002 Soil Association report.

Monsanto’s technical development manager, Rick Cole, said he believed super weeds were manageable. “The problem of weeds that have developed a resistance to Roundup crops is real and [Monsanto] doesn’t deny that, however the problem is manageable,” he said.

“Solution” offered by Monsanto: Use more toxic pesticides…
Indeed, according to Monsanto press releases, company sales representatives are encouraging farmers to mix glyphosate and older herbicides such as 2,4-D, a herbicide which was banned in Sweden, Denmark and Norway over its links to cancer, reproductive harm and mental impairment to combat weeds resistance to glyphosate, the main active ingredient in Roundup. 2,4-D is also well-known for being a component of Agent Orange, a toxic herbicide which was used in chemical warfare in Vietnam in the 1960s.

As Einstein rightly said:

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

It is clear that the widespread and growing weed-resistance to Roundup seriously threatens food security in both the US and around the world (US is the largest exporter of grain). Moreover the “solution” offered by Monsanto to combat weed-resistance to Roundup ( using more toxic pesticides) further pollutes and endangers both the environment & the entire ecosystem as well as human health, thus directly contradicting Monsanto’s official stated objective mission to“ feed the world" with abundant, healthy & nutrutious food while preserving the environment...

Bt cotton kills the soil as well as farmers…
Over 200,000 cotton farmers have committed suicide in India since 2003 as a result of planting Monsanto's GM Bt cotton. Monsanto's false promises and fraudulent claims of higher yields, lower insecticide use and costs and higher revenue never materialized; instead, farmers were debt-trapped, lost their lands and committed suicide out of desperation...

Bt cotton kills the soil...
A recent scientific study carried out by Navdanya, compared the soil of fields where Bt-cotton had been planted for 3 years with adjoining fields with non GMO cotton or other crops. The region covered included Nagpur, Amravati and Wardha of Vidharbha which accounts for highest GMO cotton planting in India, and the highest rate of farmers suicides (4000 per year).

In 3 years, the study found that Bt-cotton has reduced the population of Actinomycetes by 17%. Actinomycetes are vital for breaking down cellulose and creating humus. Bacteria were reduced by 14%. The total microbial biomass was reduced by 8.9%.

Vital soil beneficial enzymes which make nutrients available to plants have also been drastically reduced. Acid Phosphatase which contributes to uptake of phosphates was reduced by 26.6%. Nitrogenase enzymes which help fix nitrogen were reduced by 22.6%.

At this rate, in a decade of planting with GM cotton, or any GM crop with Bt genes in it, could lead to total destruction of soil organisms, leaving dead soil unable to produce food, concludes the report..
How does Monsanto plan to "feed the world" by killing farmers and the soil...?

The ISAAA in its recent release has stated that there are 7.6 mha of Bt-cotton in India. This means 7.6 mha of dying soils.

The impact of GMO’s on soil organisms is not commonly studied. This is a vital lacunae because Bt toxin crops such as Mon 810 corn or Bt-cotton or Bt Brinjal have serious impact on beneficial soil organisms.

The Navdanya study the first that has looked at the long term impact of Bt cotton on soil organisms is a wake up to regulators worldwide. It also shows that the claims of the Biotechnology industry about the safety of GM crops are false.

To obtain a copy of the report, please contact -

Navdanya A-60, Hauz Khas New Delhi - 110 016
Phone : 91-11-26535422 / 26532124
Email : Website :

Chemical pollution & deforestation

As we have seen above, Monsanto fraudulently claimed that genetic engineering will preserve the environment by decreasing the amount of pesticides used in GMO agriculture. Scientific evidence provided above clearly contradicts and debunks this fraudulent claim.

Furthermore, millions of hectares of forests and other natural landscapes are being savagely and irreversibly destroyed at an alarming rate every day around the world to plant Genetically modified crops to feed cattle and other livestock for consumption in affluent countries and for agrofuel production.

"Soy cultivation has already resulted in the deforestation of 21 million hectares of forests in Brazil, 14 million hectares in Argentina, two million hectares in Paraguay and 600,000 hectares in Bolivia.

Since 1995, total land dedicated to soybean production in Brazil has increased 3.2 percent per year (320,000 hectares per year). Soybean—along with sugar cane—currently occupies the largest area of any crop in Brazil at 21 percent of the total cultivated land. The total land used for soybean cultivation has increased by a
factor of 57 since 1961, and the volume of production has multiplied 138 times. Fifty-five percent of the soy crop, or 11.4 million hectares, is genetically modified. In Paraguay, soybeans occupy more than 25 percent of all agricultural land. Extensive land clearing has accompanied this expansion; for example; much of Paraguay’s Atlantic forest has been cleared, in part for the soy
production that comprises 29% of the country’s agricultural land use."1

1. source: Agrofuels in the Americas, Edited by Richard Jonasse, PhD.
Copyright © 2009 Institute for Food and Development Policy.

Thus, GMO’s are directly & irreversibly destroying the environment and killing the soil – through chemical pollution, deforestation, etc - contrary to the fraudulent claims made by Monsanto and other biotech companies that GMO’s help preserve the environment.

Social consequences

Moreover, small holders’ farmers are often driven off their lands by biotech companies, thereby worsening global hunger and poverty.

As Marie Trigona writes:

Research shows that the mostly rural communities that suffer the negative health effects of fumigations have not benefited from the soy explosion. On the contrary, in most regions families have been pushed off land taken over by soy farming, leading to a loss of livelihood in addition to the severe health risks. According to a 2002 agricultural census, in four years more than 200,000 families were driven from their traditional farms, and most of the families relocated in working class belts outside of major cities.

So on the one hand Monsanto claims to be on a philantrophic mission to "fight global hunger & poverty", and on the other it drives off poor subsistance farmers off their farmland to produce GM crops for livestock feed and for agrofuel production...?


Genetic contamination

Worse, GMO seeds will INEVITABLY and IRREVERSIBLY contaminate and destroy all traditional (non-GMO) seeds worldwide through genetic contamination. This is THE most serious economic, social, human and environmental threat and hazards that GMO’s pose to the future survival of human civilization. Over time all non-GMO seeds will be contaminated, sterilised and patented leaving the entire world exclusively and dangerously dependent on Monsanto and a handful of other biotech companies to buy their GM patented seeds, and eat & to live!

Terminator Technology
Worse yet, Monsanto’s macabre “Terminator Technology” will sterilise all contaminated seeds thereby making farmers and the entire world entirely and dangerously dependant on Monsanto and a handful of biotech companies to eat and thus to live...
As Dr. Mercola writes:

"Perhaps their biggest assault to your food supply is what’s known as Terminator Technology. These are seeds that have been genetically modified to “self-destruct.” In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again each year.

The implications that terminator seeds could have on the world’s food supply are disastrous: the traits from genetically engineered crops can get passed on to other crops. Once the terminator seeds are released into a region, the trait of seed sterility could be passed to other non-genetically-engineered crops, making most or all of the seeds in the region sterile. If allowed to continue, every farmer in the world could come to rely on Monsanto for their seed supply!"


How does Monsanto plans to "feed the world" and to "fight global hunger & poverty" by killing the farmers and the soil and sterilising and patenting all traditional seeds..?

It becomes crystal clear from the above scientific and empirical evidence that the true objectives and agenda of Monsanto and the biotech industry are NOT to “feed the world…” and to " fight global hunger and poverty".

The root causes of poverty and hunger
Hunger - the worst form of violence - is a direct result of unfair global trading rules and exploitative economic practices and suicidal economic policies imposed on Africa by the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation, blindly followed by so-called african "leaders" and governements which result in abject human poverty and hunger.

There is more than sufficient food to feed everyone in Africa and around the world. The problem lies in its inequitable distribution and in the lack of financial resources required to purchase it by the vast majority of the human population.
Thus, simply increasing food production without addressing the root economic, political and structural causes of poverty and hunger and without distributional justice will NOT resolve hunger poverty and hunger in Africa and in the world.
As Mahatma Gandhi rightly stated:

"There is enough food in the world to satisfy everyone's needs but not everyone's greed."


Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under Nixon ( and Nobel Peace Price laureate!)

Of course, the REAL (hidden) objectives and agenda of the US, Monsanto and the biotech industry are are NOT to "fight global hunger & poverty and feed the world"...

On the contrary...

Food used as a weapon

In fact, GMO’s are used as a “weapon” and a Trojan horse by the US and the biotech industry to serve their own economic & financial interests and achieve their (hidden) geopolitical agenda.

(Hidden) geopolitical objectives:

GMO's: Trojan Horse...

1) Total control over the supply of seeds/food worldwide

The first (hidden) geopolitical objective and agenda of the US and the biotech companies is to take total control over the global supply of seeds/food through the following mechanisms:

a)INEVITABLE & IRREVERSIBLE GENETIC CONTAMINATION of traditional seeds in Africa & worldwide

b)STERILISATION of contaminated seeds by using their macabre "Terminator Technology" which renders contaminated seeds sterile

c) PATENTING of contaminated and GMO seed - enforced through (so-called) "intellectual property" laws by the WTO.

2) Energy independence from oil

- Production of biofuels using patented GMO "food" crops on vast industrial plantations in Africa and other so-called " Third World" countries around the world.

In fact, GMO's will be used to produce agrofuels, industrial and pharmaceutical raw materials, livestock feed, etc. on vast seized tracks of land in Africa and in other so-called Third World countries for consumption in affluent countries and NOT food to " feed the hungry in Africa" or to " fight global hunger and poverty."

3) Eugenism and depopulation:
Total global control over the supply of seeds and thus of food will be used as a "weapon" for the massive reduction (genocide) of the world population and of so-called "inferior" races in so-called "overpopulated" Third World countries through famine...

4) Take over & total control over mineral and other natural resources in Africa & "overpopulated Third World" countries

This in turn, will enable the US to secure its geopolitical interests over minerals and other natural ressources in so-called "overpopulated" Third World countries around the world.

THUS, GMO's will lead to the largest GLOBAL FAMINE in the history of human civilisation and the GENOCIDE of both humanity and the planet...

*Pls read Henry Kissinger’s National Security Study Memo 200 NSSM 200 - the official (declassified) US government national policy which clearly outlines these geopolitical and genocidal objectives (blueprint for the genocide of the human population)

Also read the following excellent book and articles that clearly expose the (hidden) geopolitical & genocidal agenda of the US & the biotech companies:

Seeds of Destruction - The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, by F. William Engdahl, available at the following link:

In her review of Engdhal’s book, Arun Shrivastava writes:

“The central question that dominated the minds of the ruling clique was population reduction in resource rich countries but the question was how to engineer mass culling all over the world without generating powerful backlash as it was bound to happen. He traces how the field of Eugenics was renamed "genetics" to make it more acceptable and also to hide the real purpose.

When the US oil reserves peaked in 1972 and it became a net oil importer, the situation became alarming and the agenda took the centre stage. Kissinger, one of the key strategists of Nixon, nurtured by the Rockefellers, prepared what is known as National Security Study Memo (NSSM#200), in which he elaborated his plan for population reduction. In this Memo he specifically targets thirteen countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey, Thailand, and The Phillipines.

The weapon to be used was food; even if there was a famine food would be used to leverage population reduction. Kissinger is on record for stating, "Control oil, you control nations; control food and you control the people." How a small group of key people transformed the elitist philosophy, of controlling food to control people, into realistic operational possibility within a short time is the backdrop of Engdahl's book, the central theme running from the beginning till the end with the Rockefellers and Kissinger, among others, as the key dramatis personae.

Engdahl writes, "It was not surprising that the Pentagon's National Defense University, on the eve of the 2003 Iraq War, issued a paper declaring: 'Agribiz is to the United States what oil is to the Middle East.' Agribusiness had become a strategic weapon in the arsenal of the world's only superpower."

Engdahl provides hard evidences for these seeds of final destruction and utter decimation of world civilizations as we have known.”

The entire book review available at the following link:

Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
Review of F. William Engdahl's book published by Global Research

by Arun Shrivastava

Moreover,Bill Gates, Rockfeller, Monsanto and the biotech companies are collecting and storing seeds from around the world in a giant underground seed vault they have built on an isolated island in the Arctic near the north pole...

To find out why, please read the following article by F. William Engdahl

"Doomsday Seed Vault" in the Arctic:
Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we don’t

It thus becomes crystal clear from all of the above scientific and empirical evidence that GMO’s will NOT "fight hunger and poverty in Africa" or "feed the world..." Rather, GMO's will lead to the greatest human, animal, economic, social and environmental GENOCIDE in the history of human civilization.

“A chain is only as strong as its weakest link…”

What can we do individually & collectively to stop this GENOCIDE?

The solution is literally in your hands and in your wallet.

In fact, all we need to do is to stop purchasing and consuming foods that contains GMO’s. That includes almost all industrially processed foods, except for those that have a “GMO-FREE label on them. ( Not applicable in US because labeling of GMO foods is not required) (i.e. all products containing GM corn, soya, canola (oil, processed foods, etc.) GM fruits & vegetables, meat and other livestock fed with GM soya & corn and injected with GM growth hormones, dairy and other poultry produce such as milk, eggs, cheese, etc.

STOP buying & eating industrially processed foods

STOP buying & eating meat and other livestock - and their produce - which are all fed with GM soya and GM corn and injected with GM growth hormones.

STOP buying & eating GM & conventionally/industrially grown fruits & vegetables

BUY ONLY CERTIFIED ORGANIC FOOD DIRECTLY FROM LOCAL ORGANIC FARMERS IN YOUR AREA ( Build & support “Community Shared Agriculture” networks in your area)

GROW as much of your own food as possible, while you still "legally" can...( research Codex Alimentarius)

All we need to do individually and collectively is to stop purchasing and consuming GMO foods.

Then the whole system will collapse under its own weight...




" In a time of universal deceit, telling the Truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell