Crusador Interviews Jeffrey Smith

October 4, 2007

CRUSADOR Interviews Best-Selling Author Jeffrey Smith

Jeffrey Smith is a leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). His globally respected research captured public attention in 2003 with his first book on the serious yet unknown side effects of genetically engineered foods, Seeds of Deception.

Recently, Smith introduced his latest book on the subject titled Genetic Roulette.  According to Smith, when you eat genetically modified food you are gambling with every bite. In his power-packed new book, the biotech industry’s claim that genetically modified (GM) foods are safe is shattered. Smith documents 65 health risks with GM foods that Americans eat every day. What you will discover will shock you, anger you, and hopefully, prompt you to take action as a consumer to put a stop to this reckless science that treats humans as guinea pigs.

Smith has counseled world leaders from every continent, influenced the first state laws regulating GMOs, and is now uniting leaders for The Campaign For Healthier Eating in America, a revolutionary industry and consumer movement to remove all GMOs from the natural food industry.

CRUSADOR editor Greg Ciola recently met with Jeffrey Smith in person at the conference of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine in Orlando, Florida to discuss his new book and some of the dangers with genetically modified foods.

Crusador:  Jeffrey, it’s good to be with you.  Why did you write your new book Genetic Roulette and what’s the difference between this one and your previous book, Seeds of Deception?
 
Well, Seeds of Deception is laid out in story format, and it relies on experiences of scientists who were threatened, fired, stripped of responsibilities, forced out, or bribed, research that was rigged, reporters who were muzzled or threatened, and regulatory agencies that were hijacked by the biotech industry.  Woven into the stories was the science of genetically engineered foods and the health risks.  The combination was a success.  It became the world’s best-selling book on GMOs, translated into ten languages.  But it was very hard to extract information from it as a reference because it was all imbedded in stories. That’s what led me to write Genetic Roulette.

I realized that what I wanted to do was to provide a book that easily and irrefutably won the argument that genetically engineered foods are not safe.  My challenge was to design a book that could be read quickly by a busy politician, policy-maker, superintendent of schools, or CEO, and yet also have the in-depth information about the science so that their staffers or scientists can read it.  Thus, it’s laid out so that you can scan it very quickly and get the whole picture at once or go in-depth and read the details. 

There are 65 two-page spreads, each devoted to a different risk of genetically engineered foods.  The left side is an executive summary with a conclusion, bullet points, and a quote from a scientist. The right side is detailed, referenced text.  People can simply flip through and read just the left side and be overwhelmed at the thousands of sick, sterile, and dead animals, thousands of people linking toxic and allergic responses to genetically engineered products, and discover the reasons why genetically engineered foods are so unsafe. Or, they can dig deeper into the science and the faulty claims by the biotech companies presented on the right side.

Crusador:  It’s interesting that your book came out when it did.  I received an email several months ago from a supplier of genetically engineered seeds.  He read one of the stories you wrote that was posted on our website. He was furious and basically said there’s no evidence of any harm with this technology, so quit trying to scare people or stop a proven technology.  In your new book you cover some of the serious side effects that are occurring with this technology that shows clear evidence of harm in humans and animals. Can you discuss some of these problems?  

There are two main types of genetically engineered crops.  One produces its own pesticide and one is engineered not to die when sprayed with herbicide.  If we look at the pesticide-producing crops, there’s overwhelming evidence that the pesticide that’s in every cell of the plant, in every bite that we eat – in Bt corn, for example – has an allergic and toxic response.  It’s been traced to death in animals, sterility problems, mysterious illnesses in humans when they breathe in the Bt pollen, and allergic reactions in workers who handle Bt cotton.  Even Monsanto’s own study showed dramatic indications of toxicity in rats that were fed their genetically engineered corn. 

With the Roundup Ready soybeans, which are engineered not to die when sprayed with Roundup herbicide by Monsanto, there’s evidence of both allergenic and toxic reactions as well.  Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%.  We know from one study that there’s an allergenic protein that was found to be unique in the GM soy and not in non-GM soy, and at least one subject showed a skin prick response to the GM and not the non-GM soy.  We also know a naturally-occurring allergen in soy was as much as sevenfold higher in cooked soy, in Monsanto’s own study, compared to non-GM soy. 

We also see reproductive problems. Mice fed GM soy had changes in their testicles, which suggests possible problems in the sperm cells.  The young embryo offspring of mice that were fed GM soy had changes in DNA expression compared to those whose parents were fed natural soy.  With rats whose mothers were fed GM soy, 56% of the offspring died within three weeks compared to 9% of those whose mothers ate non-GM soy.  After the study was completed, the rat food used by that laboratory began incorporating GM soy.  Within two months of all the rats in the facility eating a GM soy diet, infant mortality skyrocketed to above 50%.  This is the same GM soy that’s planted in 89% of the soy fields in the U.S.

Crusador:  How is it that these products are allowed to be on the market with all of this evidence of harm?

Well, there are a couple of things.  First of all, the biotech companies have hijacked the regulatory agencies.  This was clear when thousands of documents were made public from a lawsuit in the 1990s showing that the scientists at the FDA had warned their superiors that GM foods might create allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems; and urged them to require long-term safety studies.  But the person who was hired to be in charge of policy was Monsanto’s former attorney and later Monsanto’s vice president, and he overruled the warnings of the scientists. He created a policy in which the industry completely self-regulates and the FDA requires no safety studies whatsoever.  This was because the White House had instructed the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry. 

The second reason is that there is a very in-depth and effective public relations mechanism which spouts misinformation and disinformation constantly throughout the world.  You hear complete distortions that GMOs are safe -- and they're not; that they're appropriate to feed the world – and they’re not; that they improve yields – and on average they don’t; that they’re safe for the environment – which they’re not.  You hear this over and over again and it’s not only among the general public, but also among politicians. 

For example, Dan Glickman, former secretary of agriculture under Clinton said, “what I saw generically from the pro biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good because it was going to solve the problems of the human race.”

Crusador:  Let’s pick up his statement.  It’s easy to prove that this technology is not going to solve the problems of the human race.  This is a dangerous technology; they’re doing something with science that would never happen in nature on its own.  You’re dealing with corporations that are really interested more, it appears to me, in hijacking the food supply and patenting all these products that people use on a daily basis in order to control the seeds, the food, and the farmers.  It’s all about control, and they use this jargon about feeding the world and helping the environment as a tool of deception. Isn’t that true?

When Arthur Andersen Consulting Group asked Monsanto’s executives, years ago, to describe their ideal future, Monsanto described – in 15 to 20 years – a world in which 100% of all commercial seeds were genetically engineered and patented.  Andersen Consulting created a plan to try and achieve that.  Other companies have the same goal.  The biotech industry bought up a huge percentage of the world’s seed supply.  So the concept of control as you mentioned is accurate.

In addition, there are 1.4 billion farmers that save seeds each year and Monsanto and others want to create a terminator technology which causes the harvest to be sterile and un-plantable, forcing these farmers to have to go back to the biotech seed dealers for their seeds each year.  So it’s an enormous control issue.  There are also patent issues where a seed blows onto your field and grows in your field. If you happen to inadvertently replant it with your other seeds, you can get sued and pay fines and lose the rights to your own plants.

Crusador:  That’s happening on a big scale, from what I understand.  There are hundreds of lawsuits against farmers for that very issue; aren’t there?

As of a couple of years ago, there was about 190 lawsuits already filed and many more settlements, and Monsanto already gained $15 million from farmers that they had threatened, many of which say they had never done the things that Monsanto claimed that they had done. 

Crusador:  You stated that the FDA essentially turned over the regulation of this technology to the biotech companies themselves.  What kind of safety studies have they done to validate, or prove to the world, that this technology is entirely safe for humans to ingest? 

There have been very few safety studies, and the ones conducted by industry are clearly rigged to avoid finding problems.  They use small sample sizes, short duration; mature animals instead of the young, sensitive ones.  They use bogus control groups.  They use insensitive or obsolete detection methods, poor statistical analysis, and poor reporting.  They have got bad science down to a science. 

In Part 3 of my book Genetic Roulette, I go into detail about how industry-funded research is rigged.  It shows clearly that they’re not interested in proper science.  They’re interested in producing a pre-determined conclusion of safety.  However, when they get something approved, they don’t use peer-reviewed studies – they use their lousy science and typically keep it secret, hidden from the public, claiming that disclosure would be confidential business information. 

Well, two industry studies have been made public from lawsuits.  One, for the Flavr Savr tomato, which is no longer on the market, showed that 7 of 20 rats developed stomach lesions.  Another 7 of 40 died within two weeks of eating the tomato.  Another study revealed that rats fed Monsanto’s pestidice creating “Bt” corn showed toxic and other reactions. 

There are only about two dozen peer-reviewed, published animal feeding safety studies on GMOs.  There are GM foods introduced to the market without ever being tested properly on animals or even fed to humans before—they don’t actually do clinical feeding trials.  The only human feeding study ever conducted and published showed that the genes that were inserted into soybeans to cause them to be herbicide tolerant transferred into human gut bacteria and was integrated stably into the DNA.  This means that long after you stop eating a genetically engineered food, your own gut bacteria may be producing these foreign proteins, including the possibility of producing the Bt toxin – a pesticide.  This means that eating a GM corn chip could theoretically turn your intestinal flora into living pesticide factories, possibly for the long-term. 

In general, the FDA allowed the products to be on the market without this type of testing because it was declared that it was “generally recognized as safe.”  According to many attorneys, this declaration was illegal, nonetheless, the U.S. set the precedent for the world, creating a myth that the foods were equivalent and did not need to be substantially tested.  What we see now from mounting evidence is that they’re quite dangerous, that there is an enormous number of ways that unpredicted side effects can and do occur, and that they may be responsible for many of the worsening health statistics in the United States over the last ten years.

Crusador:  Section 5 of your new book dovetails into what you just mentioned about GM genes transferring to gut bacteria and internal organs.  That’s quite concerning.  Can you explain how that happens, how they know that that happens, how many humans they tested to determine that they have traits of these genes in their guts, and expound a little bit more on what’s really happening inside the human body when these foods are consumed?

In one study conducted on pregnant mice fed non-genetically engineered DNA, they discovered fragments of the DNA in the offspring, including in their brains.  It went through the placenta and through the blood/brain barrier. 

While this type of horizontal gene transfer may be relatively rare from normal food, the process of genetically engineering a crop optimizes this transfer into human gut bacteria.  For example, inserted genes are from a bacterial source. Bacterial genes are more likely to swap transfer into bacteria. The inserted genes also have their own “on” switch or promoter, which can keep them functioning once they do the transfer. This might give them a selective advantage, causing them to spread and prosper inside of us. 

In the only human feeding study that looked at this, three of the seven volunteers showed that at least part of the gene from GM soybeans was stably integrated into the DNA of gut bacteria.  They were British subjects and they tend to eat less GM soy than in the U.S.  The incidence here may be much higher.

A scientist in Germany discovered that GM genes had transferred to the micro-organism inside the gut of bees.  In the laboratory, genes from genetically engineered beets also transferred into soil bacteria, demonstrating potential for widespread environmental problems as well.

In fact, when the FDA scientists were asked about the use of antibiotic resistant marker genes in GM crops, they were appalled.  A memo from a department of anti-infective drugs wrote in all capital letters, “IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD TO INTRODUCE A GENE THAT CODES FOR ANTI-BIOTIC RESISTANCE INTO THE NORMAL FLORA OF THE GENERAL POPULATION.”

They were concerned specifically about gene transfer, which might result in super diseases accidentally equipped with genes giving them the ability to survive, even when treated with medicines.  The British Medical Association called for a moratorium on GM crops citing this as one of the main reasons. 

The concern about gene transfer has been prevalent, but very few studies have been done; if they are done, and they find that we are developing super diseases or that our intestinal bacteria are turned into living pesticide factories, it would destroy a multibillion dollar industry. There are very few sources of funds for independent research. In fact, many scientists who discover adverse reactions no longer have access to genetically engineered seeds for their study or to money to follow-up the study.  Sometimes they’re fired, sometimes they’re denied tenure, sometimes they lose status in their departments or censured.  Thus, we have very little research on the safety of GM foods. 

Crusador:  Biotech companies claim that any protein or bacterial genes that could be in a genetically engineered food would be destroyed in the gut by the hydrochloric acid and it would never make it past your stomach.  You’re saying that this is actually going past the stomach acid and into your deep intestinal system where your flora resides. 

There has been a myth propagated by the biotech industry that it was all destroyed in the stomach. The results of a feeding study on seven colostomy patients was a great surprise to the researchers who found a significant percentage of transgenic DNA had survived passage through the stomach and small intestines. But bacteria are also in the mouth. Even before GM food gets to the stomach, it’s possible that it might transform our mouth bacteria.  There’s evidence that the saliva actually can promote gene transfer as well.  This is an example of one of many unscientific assumptions that were used as a basis for safety claims, which have been overturned.  I have a four-page chart in my book Genetic Roulette, showing key safety assumptions that were part of the argument why GM foods would not be a problem – each one has been proven wrong. 

Crusador: If something is happening negatively in the digestive system with your flora, the next in line is your immune system. When you talk about the gut bacteria getting colonized, is this something that can be reversed? 

I know of no curative procedure.  In fact, there’s not even a diagnostic procedure to see if we have been colonized, as you say.  We do know that several animal studies have shown the possibility of potentially precancerous cell growth in the digestive tract due to GM crops. For example, with the Bt crops they found that when the Bt was fed to mice, they had damage in the lower part of the small intestine along the intestinal wall. This could be a double threat, where you colonize the gut bacteria and also harm the cells in the digestive tract that are normally associated with assimilation. 

Crusador:  Digestive problems in the United States are the most common complaint to doctors. There’s a list of different ailments that occur in the digestive system.  Do you think that GM foods have anything to do with some of these problems?

Well, one of the world’s leading researchers in GM foods, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, says that the gastrointestinal tract is the first point of contact with GM foods and should be the most affected; and he’s found that in many cases.  It’s very likely that GM foods may contribute to these types of problems. Another scientist I spoke with is concerned with the cancers associated with the esophagus, colon, and stomach because of genetically engineered foods.  He believes that they may create a growth-promoting effect in the gut.

There is an increase in the number of digestive problems that overlap with the introduction of genetically engineered crops.  I can’t say with confidence that a particular disease is based on a particular crop because we don’t have the studies.  In fact, we don’t even have labeling in this country, so it’s difficult to do epidemiological surveys or post-marketing surveillance. 

The Canadian version of the FDA, Health Canada, promised in 2002 that they would monitor the population in Canada to see if GM foods were causing problems, but within a year they gave up, saying it was too difficult.  So we are being used as guinea pigs in an uncontrolled experiment with no clear benefits for this technology and enormous risks associated with our health and the environment.

The environmental issue may be even worse than the health problems, because genetically engineered crops create self-propagating genetic pollution that could outlast the effects of global warming and outlast nuclear waste.  As long as species exist on the planet, they may be continuing to hand off to their offspring genes that were created in the laboratory.

Crusador:  That’s alarming.  When you say antibiotic marker genes or antibiotic resistant marker genes, my understanding is that they’re using these antibiotic marker genes to somehow detect whether the new genetic traits have been transferred to the plant. Can you explain that process a little bit?

When scientists create genetically engineered crops, they typically identify a gene from bacteria, make changes in it, multiply it millions of times and put it in a gene gun and blast it like a shot gun into millions of cells, hoping that some of those genes make it into the DNA of some of those cells.  But you can’t tell with a microscope which cells have picked up the genes.  So they also put into their transgene this antibiotic resistant marker gene, which, once it’s integrated into the DNA, produces a protein that renders the cell invincible to a particular antibiotic.  They douse these millions of cells with this antibiotic, killing almost all of them; the few that survive do so because the transgene is now integrated into their DNA. They clone the surviving cells into GM plants.  But the antibiotic resistant marker gene that was used only once just to see if the gene made it in stays and becomes cloned and is found now in millions and millions of acres of the food that we eat. 

The scientists at the FDA, as I mentioned, were appalled at this. One particular scientist wrote in a memo which became public due to a lawsuit that the risks did not justify using this method of antibiotic resistant markers.  There are other methods that can be used but this method is less expensive.  So in order to save the biotech industry a few bucks, they’re putting our population at risk.  The FDA website clearly says that antibiotic resistant diseases can give rise to amputations, prolonged sickness, and death.  It’s a huge problem because of the overuse of antibiotics in cleaners, food and in animals. GM crops are not creating this problem, but could potentially worsen it and make it a disaster for people who gain infectious diseases. 

Some of the excuses that have been used by the biotech industry are that most of the crops use a gene resistant to an antibiotic called Kanamycin that is not so important a drug.  I show in my book how their assumptions are not true, that it could lead to multiple resistances to a whole family of popular antibiotics and that they really are risking our health.

Crusador:  It’s like a one-two punch between the gut colonization and the antibiotic resistance. With all the ongoing terrorist threats, flu outbreaks, bird flu scares, and eradicated diseases that are resurfacing, we could potentially be looking at a serious problem if these antibiotics won’t work in a time of crisis. It’s hard for me not to believe that a sinister plan is at work.  I know you’re talking about a lot of things that may just be happening randomly, but it almost seems like some upper echelon has knowledge of how all this is effecting the population and they’re connecting the dots for an evil agenda.  What do you know about any of this?

I’ve never come across documents that spell out intentional destruction of immune systems.  The documents that I see are more in terms of control and profit.  However, the results may be a disaster because of the unpredicted side effects and the huge reach of these dangerous products that are fed to millions of people. In particular, one of the most dangerous at risk groups is children. Toxic reactions can potentially be much more dangerous to fetuses and young children. Kids are three to four times more likely to develop allergies. Nutritional problems will show up more pronounced in a fast growing body rather than an adult.  And if GM crops create antibiotic resistance, it could hurt kids with frequent ear infections, etc.   

Another population at risk is recipients of U.S. food aid.  The United States used food aid to dump surplus grain, including genetically engineered soybeans and corn.  Zambia, for example, after doing an analysis of the potential risks, decided to reject U.S. corn that was genetically engineered and go for food from a different source.  The U.S. pounced on Zambia, claiming that they were willing to starve their people for no particular reason.  But if you look at these food aid recipients, they would have been ingesting 90% of their caloric intake as corn, the majority of which was genetically engineered to produce Bt toxin.  These people were already immune compromised and digestively compromised.  U.S. food aid would pour this toxin into them, possibly colonizing their gut bacteria and creating the recipe for a huge disaster.  We are in a situation where we’re risking the whole population.

Crusador:  Let me pick up on another section of your book and bridge that into everything we’re talking about here with human health. Section 2 says gene insertion disrupts the DNA.  We talked about the gut flora and the antibiotics.  Now let’s look at the cell.  Every single cell in the human body has to replicate.  DNA is the mechanism that sends the message or code to the cells to do that.  What’s happening at the cellular level or to our DNA when we eat GM foods or drink milk that’s been genetically engineered?

Well, the gene insertion process can cause mutations around the insertion site.  It can delete genes, change their functioning, or even turn genes on permanently.  These are the natural genes.  The process of cloning the genes can create hundreds or thousands of additional mutations up and down the DNA. The DNA is typically 2 to 4% different than it was before the mutations produced by cloning. The insertion process also creates massive changes in the amount of protein that other natural genes produce. One study showed that a single gene insertion changed the level of expression of up to 5% of the genes that were functioning in the DNA.  We’re talking about huge collateral damage that occurs within a plant’s genome as a result of gene insertion.  These are not Legos; you can’t snap them into place. 

When the DNA changes that way, it can create toxins, carcinogens, allergens, anti-nutrients, positive nutrients.  It’s a genetic roulette.  There are also thousands of natural products in plants which are synthesized using these primary proteins and enzymes, etc., so they too can be changed.  The number of things that can go wrong is massive, but the amount of study that’s done on these products before they’re put into the market is minimal and superficial. 

One study in particular demonstrated that changes to the DNA were largely responsible for damage to nearly all the systems in rats that were studied.  Potatoes that were engineered to produce an insecticide and fed to rats caused them to develop potentially precancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, and damaged immune systems.  Rats that were just fed the insecticide did not have that problem, so it wasn’t the insecticide itself that caused the problem. Rather it was the unpredicted changes in the DNA and physiology of the plant that somehow caused these drastic changes in the rats within ten days of feeding on GM potatoes.   

Crusador:  You also report on some farmers whose pigs and cows became sterile from GM corn. Tell us about that and why there are concerns with humans as well?

There’s about two dozen farmers that claim that certain varieties of Bt corn caused their pigs and cows to become sterile. In some cases with pigs, they developed pseudo pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water.  When they took these animals off of the genetically engineered corn, the problem went away.  When they put them back on the corn, the problem came back.  Some people didn’t notice this until it had happened a few times, and they noticed whenever the GM corn was fed, the animals would no longer breed or the level of breeding was reduced dramatically. 

There was one study that I highlight in Genetic Roulette that shows two endocrine disrupters in corn that are enormously powerful and might also promote cancer growth according to laboratory tests. Their levels in corn may differ based on the process of genetic engineering.

Crusador: Tell us about the use of the promoter, which comes from a virus, and is used to switch on the foreign gene.

This is an interesting point.  One of the genetic constructs that is put into GM crops is the promoter.  It is designed to turn on the foreign transgene after it has been inserted.  It turns it on at high volume 24/7 around the clock. 

The assumption that was used by the biotech industry was that the promoter would only turn on the gene to which it was attached.  However, we know that this particular promoter that’s used commonly can turn on other genes in the plant genome at random, full time, high volume, 24/7, causing them to overproduce whatever. It could be a toxin, carcinogen, or anti-nutrient. 

Now, let’s say the promoter transfers to our gut bacteria, or worse, perhaps to our own DNA inside our organs.  It’s possible that it could turn on a gene at random. This is a type of genetic roulette, like throwing darts at our genome to permanently turn on a gene and see what happens.

One thing that is of concern to some scientists is that embedded within our genes and the genes of plants are ancient viruses from previous species that have worked themselves into the DNA. They may be intact but simply not turned on. If the promoter transfers from genetically engineered crops into the DNA of humans, or even within the crops themselves, it might awaken a dormant virus which could have catastrophic implications.

Crusador:  Wow.  That sounds like something from an X-files episode. When you talk about a promoter gene, what about cell division?  How do we know that something couldn’t turn on cells to divide faster and by somehow doing that, it could trigger an epidemic of cancer? 

Well, one thing that comes to mind immediately is recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone.  This is a genetically engineered drug injected into cows to increase milk supply.  What it does (in addition to the fact that it increases the incidence of infection in the cows, which increases the pus in the milk, which also tends to increase the use of antibiotics in the cows, which ends up in the milk) is increase a hormone in the milk called IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor-1), which is associated with cell multiplication. 

More than 30 studies present overwhelming evidence linking high levels of circulating IGF-1 in humans with major cancers.  Pre-menopausal women below the age of 50 with high levels of IGF-1 are seven times more likely to develop breast cancer.  Men with high levels are four times more likely to develop prostate cancer.  It’s implicated in lung and colon cancer.  The IGF-1 levels in milk from cows treated with rBGH are in much higher levels.  In my mind, it’s a huge potential danger to increase the levels of IGF-1 in the milk.  There was also a study that came out last year suggesting that the high levels of fraternal twin rates in the U.S. compared to the UK was due to the use of rBGH in the dairy. The drug is banned in Europe. 

Crusador:  Let’s talk about Terminator technology or Terminator seeds.  Biotech companies want to control the technology to the point where farmers won’t even be able to take second generation seeds and replant them in the ground because, as you said, those genetic traits are going to remain indefinitely in that crop.  Monsanto has to basically run a police operation on farmers to make sure that they’re not saving seeds and replanting them in the ground.  So they took the technology to the next level and developed seeds that won’t reproduce; you’ll just be able to use them one time, second generation seeds won’t germinate.  That’s been a big area where the biotech companies have been trying to go; they’ve hit some roadblocks though.  Can you explain where they’re at with Terminator technology and do you see that as something that’s going to eventually happen? If so, do you have any evidence of what that might do in the human body?

There was such concern and resistance raised by world bodies over the Terminator technology that Monsanto agreed years ago not to commercialize it. The Canadian government is acting on behalf of the biotech industry now and trying to get Terminator accepted in international circles.  So far, the non-governmental organizations and other countries have been successful in blocking Canada’s attempt to revive commercialization of the Terminator. The biotech industry is hoping to have the Terminator technology active within a couple of years. 

The impact can be enormous. They originally admitted that the purpose of the Terminator was to focus in developing countries where most farmers save seeds. Terminator would force farmers to go to Monsanto and other biotech companies year after year to get new seeds. This not only makes farmers dependent, it will reduce the biodiversity.  When the biotech industry takes over the seed supply, it reduces the number of seeds available for farmers. Instead of having the enormous diversity of genetics from seeds that have been saved generation after generation and cultured to work properly in a particular climate and geography, there will be a fraction of that available through seed catalogs. By eliminating the biodiversity, we would be risking the entire food supply on earth to potential famine or blight.

We are also risking the farmers’ lives on unproven technologies which is fraught with unpredicted side effects.  For example, in India they convinced thousands and thousands of farmers to try their unproven genetically engineered Bt cotton varieties.  These varieties had erratic performances.  In the first year in one area there was about a 52% reduction in yield.  It worked terribly in areas that didn’t have irrigation, for example.  Thousands of farmers ended up in debt, having borrowed money for the seeds and for the chemicals.  As a result, thousands of farmers have committed suicide in India because of Bt cotton.  It has not stopped Monsanto from aggressively marketing and using Hollywood actors, even religious leaders, and all sorts of ways to convince farmers to give up their traditional seeds and switch over to these more dangerous varieties. 

Crusador:  Most of Europe was opposed to biotechnology.  They’ve put a lot of barriers in place to stop it, however, recently a lot of the roadblocks have been coming down and GM foods seem to be poised to make their way into the European marketplace and on European farms.  What’s happening on that front?

Well, the European rejection of GMOs was driven by consumers.  There was such consumer push-back that in April of 1999, Unilever, Britain’s largest food manufacturer, committed to remove GM ingredients from their European brands.  Within a week, nearly every major food manufacturer did the same, and this tipping point of consumer concern has been the reason why GMOs are not sold in the European marketplace.  GM animal feed continues to be used because the meat and dairy products from GM fed animals don’t have to be labeled as such, but there are efforts to close that loophole.  But by and large it was consumer rejection forcing the hand of manufacturers.  The European Commission is pro-GM, certain member state governments are pro-GM; but what has held fast is the rejection by consumers. 

My Institute for Responsible Technology has launched the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America.  We are organizing an education program through all the health food stores, health-related magazines, and other places, to educate consumers to achieve the same tipping point in the United States that we saw in Europe. Our goal is to force food manufacturers to reject the use of GM ingredients.  We are focusing on the natural products industry first because there are already 28 million Americans who buy organic foods on a regular basis, but many don’t know how to avoid GMOs in their non-organic purchases. 

We are orchestrating a cleanout of GMOs from the entire natural food industry.  We are going to set up GMO education centers in the health food stores and circulate non-GMO shopping guides.  Soon after we’ve given the manufacturers the chance to clean out GMOs, within a couple of years we’ll be setting up in-store, on-shelf labeling voluntarily by the store managers that will identify any of the holdout products that have not participated in this cleanout.  We believe that by giving health-conscious consumers clear choices, and by educating them, for example, about the fact that GMOs might turn their intestinal flora into living pesticide factories, or that it has increased infant mortality in rats five-fold, we'll have a strong loyal base of people who will no longer eat genetically engineered foods.  This, along with our GM-Free Schools campaign and our publicity campaign, we believe, will force the tipping point of U.S. manufacturers within 24 months.

Crusador:  That’s an excellent goal. Is there anything on the legislative front that would mandate manufacturers to label products?  What you’re saying really is true.  The consumer is the one that’s going to drive the market.  Even though the big corporations control many of the farms and seeds, ultimately if consumers do not buy these products because they have knowledge of what they could possibly do to their body and what products they’re in, their game would be up.  I think that’s one of the main reasons why the FDA has not mandated labeling on any of these products, because if consumers saw a label that said “This product contains genetically modified ingredients” they would have drawn questions many years ago and rejected this technology.

You’re right.  The FDA is aware that 9 out of 10 Americans want GM foods labeled and they’re also aware that people say if they were labeled, more than half would avoid eating them.  But the FDA is mandated to promote the biotechnology industry, so they’re willing to deny the requests of 9 out of 10 Americans in order to promote an industry with five transnational corporations.  Labeling legislation has been introduced to Congress in the past. You can go to www.thecampaign.org  to find out the current status.  That’s the campaign to label genetically engineered foods. 

There has also been legislation introduced to get these products safety tested, and to protect farmers from the liability associated with contamination.  But the biotech industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying Washington, and projected so much disinformation that it really is one of their strongholds.  In fact, they are influencing state governments as well. For example, after California citizens created GM-free zones in a number of counties through ballot initiatives or county supervisor ordinances, the biotech industry passed legislation in 14 states that would disallow any such local GM-free zones.   

Crusador:  Is there anything else you would recommend to people reading this interview to do to help stop this technology from advancing further?

Yes.  Our institute has a number of educational programs that I’d like to make available.  If you go to www.seedsofdeception.com you can listen to or download a 60-minute talk of mine. You can burn it yourself and pass it on or buy it on the website for about a dollar.  We have a free syndicated monthly column that you can sign up for and send to your friends.  We have a DVD called “Hidden Danger in Kids’ Meals” which is 28 minutes long; it creates instant activism.  If you show it to community members, a percentage of people will immediately want to be involved in our GM-Free School campaign. We supply each campaign with a large manual, media kit, a website, a list serve, and a strategy. 

I think that for individuals wanting to do something on a local level, the GM-Free School campaign is the best route, for many reasons.  It will highlight to the entire community, not just to the parents and schools, the health risks of GMOs.  School lunch programs are being changed across the country and they are a major issue right now, so it’s a perfect time to introduce the knowledge of the health risks of GMOs. We provide the documentation so that campaigners don’t have to become experts in this.  They can simply play the DVD, show a book, hand materials, and it’s easy to generate hundreds of people who will sign on to participate with the campaign because protecting kids is a natural response, and in this case very appropriate. 

I think the main thing is for people to take steps to avoid eating genetically engineered foods.  As part of the Campaign For Healthier Eating in America, we are endorsing a third party verification program that will validate non-GM claims by the entire natural food industry.  This program has been endorsed by Whole Foods, United Natural Foods, Eden Foods, Nature’s Path, Lundberg Family Farms, Straus Family Creamery and others, and is moving forward.  We will have a non-GMO shopping guide based on third-party verified content, hopefully by the end of this year.  And we’ll have a series of updates. 

Until then, we have an electronic version of a shopping guide on our website based on company claims, as well as strategies of how to avoid eating GMOs. This is accomplished by buying organic, buying products that say non-GMO, or avoiding principally soy, corn, cotton, or canola, and their soy and corn derivatives. By cotton I mean cottonseed oil. The other three GM food crops are Hawaiian papaya, a little bit of zucchini, and a little crook neck squash.  There are also dairy products from cows that have been injected with bovine growth hormone.  Some processed foods also use genetically engineered enzymes, additives, and cooking agents that are harder to avoid.  We give information about these on the website.  Some people also choose to avoid meat and dairy from animals that have been fed GM crops, and that is also more difficult.  People need to choose the non-GMO choices based on their level of comfort and accessibility. 

Now, when we discussed colonizing your gut bacteria earlier in this interview, I want to point out that not every derivative of a GM crop has the ability to colonize gut bacteria because there may not be any DNA left in refined oil or in high fructose corn syrup. Not every derivative has the same risk profile, but all have some risk because of the massive changes of the DNA and the possible toxins and allergens.  I would suggest to “stop gambling with your health in every bite” by avoiding GMOs. 

Crusador:  Excellent.  I appreciate your time, Jeffrey.

Thank you very much, Greg.