USDA senior scientist sends “emergency” warning to US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack on a new plant pathogen in Roundup Ready GM soybean and corn that may be responsible for high rates of infertility and spontaneous abortions in livestock Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

An open letter appeared on the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance founded and run by Judith McGeary to save family farms in the US [1, 2]. The letter, written by Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University, to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, warns of a pathogen “new to science” discovered by “a team of senior plant and animal scientists”. Huber says it should be treated as an “emergency’’, as it could result in “a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies.”

The letter appeared to have been written before Vilsack announced his decision to authorize unrestricted commercial planting of GM alfalfa on 1 February, in the hope of convincing the Secretary of Agriculture to impose a moratorium instead on deregulation of Roundup Ready (RR) crops.

The new pathogen appears associated with serious pervasive diseases in plants – sudden death syndrome in soybean and Goss’ wilt in corn – but its suspected effects on livestock is alarming. Huber refers to “recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.”

This could be the worst nightmare of genetic engineering that some scientists including me have been warning for years [3] (see Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare, ISIS publication): the unintended creation of new pathogens through assisted horizontal gene transfer and recombination.

Huber writes in closing: “I have studied plant pathogens for more than 50 years. We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural infrastructure.”

The complete letter is reproduced below:

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn-suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science!

This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already be responsible for significant harm (see below). My colleagues and I are therefore moving our investigation forward with speed and discretion, and seek assistance from the USDA and other entities to identify the pathogen’s source, prevalence, implications, and remedies.

We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage, specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of RR alfalfa. Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation at least until sufficient data has exonerated the RR system, if it does.

For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.

A diverse set of researchers working on this problem have contributed various pieces of the puzzle, which together presents the following disturbing scenario:

Unique Physical Properties
This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified. There is strong evidence that this infectious agent promotes diseases of both plants and mammals, which is very rare.

Pathogen Location and Concentration
It is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas.

Linked with Outbreaks of Plant Disease
The organism is prolific in plants infected with two pervasive diseases that are driving down yields and farmer income-sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soy, and Goss’ wilt in corn. The pathogen is also found in the fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani fsp glycines).

Implicated in Animal Reproductive Failure
Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.

The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.

For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlege experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlege, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.

Recommendations
In summary, because of the high titer of this new animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA’s participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health.

It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders. To properly evaluate these factors, we request access to the relevant USDA data.

I have studied plant pathogens for more than 50 years. We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural infrastructure.

Sincerely,

COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber
Emeritus Professor, Purdue University
APS Coordinator, USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS)
References

1. “Researcher: Glyphosate (Roundup) or Roundup Ready Crops May Cause Animal Miscarriages”, Jill Richardson, La Vida Locavore, 18 February 2011
http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/4523

2. “Researcher: Glyphosate (Roundup) or Roundup Ready Crops May Cause Animal Miscarriages”, 18 February 2011, http://farmandranchfreedom.org/gmo-miscarriages

3. Ho MW. Genetic Engineering Dream of Nightmare? The Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business, Third World Network, Gateway Books, MacMillan, Continuum, Penang, Malaysia, Bath, UK, Dublin, Ireland, New York, USA, 1998, 1999, 2007 (reprint with extended Introduction). http://www.i-sis.org.uk/genet.php

Source: Institute of Science in Society

“Major crops genetically modified for just two traits – herbicide tolerance and insect resistance – are ravaged by super weeds and secondary pests in the heartland of GMOs as farmers fight a losing battle with more of the same; a fundamental shift to organic farming practices may be the only salvation.”

- Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society

Two traits account for practically all the genetically modified (GM) crops grown in the world today: herbicide-tolerance (HT) due to glyphosate-insensitive form of the gene coding for the enzyme targeted by the herbicide, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), derived from soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens, and insect-resistance due to one or more toxin genes derived from the soil bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis). Commercial planting began around 1997 in the United States, the heartland of GM crops, and increased rapidly over the years. By now, GM crops have taken over 85-91 percent of the area planted with the three major crops, soybean, corn and cotton in the US [1]] (see Table 1), which occupy nearly 171 million acres.

Table 1. GM crops grown in 2009 in the USA

The ecological time-bomb that came with the GM crops has been ticking away, and is about to explode.

HT crops encouraged the use of herbicides, resulting in herbicide-resistant weeds that demand yet more herbicides. But the increasing use of deadly herbicide and herbicide mixtures has failed to stall the advance of the palmer super weed in HT crops. At the same time, secondary pests such as the tarnished plant bug, against which Bt toxin is powerless, became the single most damaging insect for US cotton.

Monster plants that can’t be killed

It is the Day of the Triffids – not the genetically modified plants themselves as alluded to in John Wyndham’s novel – but “super weeds that can’t be killed” [2], created by the planting of genetically modified HT crops, as seen on ABC TV news.

The scene is set at harvest time in Arkansas October 2009. Grim-faced farmers and scientists speak from fields infested with giant pigweed plants that can withstand as much glyphosate herbicide as you can afford to douse on them. One farmer spent US$0.5 million in three months trying to clear the monster weeds in vain; they stop combine harvesters and break hand tools. Already, an estimated one million acres of soybean and cotton crops in Arkansas have become infested.

The palmer amaranth or palmer pigweed is the most dreaded weed. It can grow 7-8 feet tall, withstand withering heat and prolonged droughts, produce thousands of seeds and has a root system that drains nutrients away from crops. If left unchecked, it would take over a field in a year.

Meanwhile in North Carolina Perquimans County, farmer and extension worker Paul Smith has just found the offending weed in his field [3], and he too, will have to hire a migrant crew to remove the weed by hand.

The resistant weed is expected to move into neighbouring counties. It has already developed resistance to at least three other types of herbicides.

Herbicide-resistance in weeds is nothing new. Ten weed species in North Carolina and 189 weed species nationally have developed resistance to some herbicide.

A new herbicide is unlikely to come out, said Alan York, retired professor of agriculture from North Carolina State University and national weed expert.

Glyphosate-resistant weeds from widespread planting of HT crops

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the US and the world at large. It was patented and sold by Monsanto since the 1970s under the trade name and proprietary formulation, Roundup. Its popularity shot up with the introduction of HT crops. Data from the US Department of Agriculture indicate that the use of glyphosate on major crops went up by more than 15 fold between 1994 and 2005 [4]. The EPA estimated in 2000-2001 that 100 million pounds of glyphosate are used on lawns and farms every year [5], and over the last 13 years, it has been applied to more than a billion acres [6].

It did not take long for glyphosate-resistant weeds to appear, just as weeds resistant to every herbicide used in the past had appeared. The Weed Science Society of America reported nine weed species in the United States with confirmed resistance to glyphosate [6]; among them are strains of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), hairy fleabane (Conyza bonariensis), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum), and palmer pigweed (Amaranthus palmeri).

Glyphosate-resistant palmer super weed

Glyphosate-resistant palmer pigweed first turned up in late 2004 in Macon County, Georgia, and has since spread to other parts of Georgia as well as to South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri [7]. An estimated 100 000 acres in Georgia are severely infested with pigweed and 29 counties have now confirmed pigweed resistance to glyhosate, according to weed specialist Stanley Culpepper at the University of Georgia. In 2007, 10 000 acres of glyphosate-resistant pigweed infested land were abandoned in Macon County.

Monsanto’s technical development manager Rick Cole was reported saying that the problems were “manageable”. He advised farmers to alternate crops and use different makes of herbicides. Monsanto sales representatives are encouraging farmers to mix glyphosate and older herbicides such as 2,4-D, banned in Sweden, Denmark and Norway on account of links to cancer and reproductive and neurological damages. It is a component of Agent Orange used in Vietnam in the 1960s.

Farmers in Georgia are reported to be going back to conventional non-GM crops.

Weed scientists at the University of Georgia estimate that an average of just two palmer amaranth plants in every 6 m length of cotton row can reduce yield by at least 23 percent [8]. A single weed plant can produce 450 000 seeds. Many fields in Arkansas, Tennessee, New Mexico, Mississippi and most recently, Alabama are also infested.

Paraquat is recommended for use in conservation tillage programmes, mixed with up to three other herbicides, each with a different mode of action. Scientists at the University of Tennessee have seen palmer weeds resistant not only to glyphosate but also to the sulfonylurea herbicide trifloxysulfuron-sodium.

Glyphosate resistance with the greatest of ease

Critics have been predicting glyphosate-resistant weeds before HT crops were introduced, simply through cross-pollination between HT crops and wild weedy relatives. But they had neglected the ‘fluid genome’ mechanisms that can alter genomes and genes in response to environmental stimuli, enabling most weed plants to become herbicide resistant independently of cross-pollination. I drew attention to these mechanisms in my book Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare, the Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business [9] first published in 1997/1998.

Researchers led by Todd Gaines at Colorado State University, Fort Collins in the United States investigated glyphosate-resistant palmer pigweed populations from Georgia. They found that the gene coding for the enzyme EPSPS responsible for metabolising glyphosate herbicide was amplified (multiplied) 5 to 160-fold in glyphosate-resistant plants compared with glyphosate-susceptible plants [10]. The level of gene expression was positively correlated with gene copy number. Fluorescent staining for the gene showed that the amplified gene copies were present on every chromosome.

Gene amplification is one of the most common physiological responses of cells and organisms to ‘selective’ agents in their environment, known at least since 1980s [9].

Glyphosate resistance has been confirmed in 16 weed species as of 2009 [10]. The mechanisms identified so far include reduced glyphosate uptake, and/or mutations in the EPSPS gene that make it less susceptible to inhibition by the herbicide. Glyphosate-resistant palmer pigweed is the first case of resistance based on gene amplification. It confirms the ease with which resistance to obnoxious agents can evolve [9], and the futility of this ‘chemical warfare’ against nature.

Tarnished plant bug the single most damaging pest for cotton

The tarnished plant bug infested 4.8 million acres of US cotton in 2008 [11] making it the single most damaging pest for cotton. Another insect, the fleahopper ranked 5th, and infested 2.3 million acres.

The Cotton Belt of the United States, extending from the San Joaquin Valley of California to Southeastern Virginia, has largely seen off the boll weevil and tobacco budworm since the introduction of Bt cotton, which now accounts for 65 percent of the area planted with cotton (Table 1 [1]). But, as in India and elsewhere [12, 13] (Farmer Suicides and Bt Cotton Nightmare Unfolding in India, Mealy Bug Plagues Bt Cotton in India and Pakistan, SiS 45), secondary pests are posing serious problems, especially the tarnished plant bug.

The tarnished plant bug (TPB), Lygus lineolaris, has been a cotton pest for as long as records were kept. Before 1995, it was controlled with insecticides targeting other insect pests such as tobacco budworm and boll weevil. According to researchers at the Mississippi State University Delta Research and Extension Center [14], since the widespread adoption of Bt-cotton and eradication of the boll weevil, less insecticide have been used; and as a result, the tarnished plant bug has become the primary insect pest of cotton.

Additional insect control costs are coming from increasing foliar sprays, higher technology fees and pest resistance, said Jeff Gore, research entomologist at the Delta Research and Extension Center, speaking at the 2010 Beltwide Cotton Conferences in New Orleans [15]

In 1995 planting an acre of cotton cost $12.75 to $24; in 2005, planting Bollgard, Roundup Ready cotton with a ‘Cadillac’ seed treatment would have cost about $52 an acre. Now in 2010, with Bollgard II and Roundup Ready Flex, farmers will be spending $85 or more an acre.

“In Mississippi, we have growers who are spending well over $100 for foliar insect control. You add that onto technology fees and seed treatments, you understand why our cotton acreage is decreasing.” Gore said.

To compound the problem, TPB has become resistant to several classes of insecticides, particularly in the Delta regions of the Mid-South states [14].

While TPB is a pest of cotton throughout the growing season, it is particularly damaging during the flowering period, when the pest reproduces copiously, so both adult and immature stages of TPB feed on cotton during the flowering period. Most feeding occurs on reproductive structures. The pests insert their mouthparts into squares and small bolls. It is not uncommon for TPB to cause near-total crop loss in the absence of effective control in some areas of the Delta.

Mid-South growers consulted Gore about planting a non-Bt variety, especially with the higher costs of Bt technology [15]. “We have a few growers planting small acreages of non-Bt cotton, and they’re probably going to see benefits from that.

“But if we start shifting back to non-Bt cotton, I promise you, the tobacco budworm will come back, and we don’t want to be making foliar applications for resistant tobacco budworms, in addition to treating tarnished plant bugs. The amount of money we would have to spend in that situation would be astronomical.”

TPB has been the No. 1 pest in the Mid-South for the past four to five years, and is driving a lot of cotton growers out of the Mississippi Delta, no longer able to afford the cost of sprays.

Gore revealed that spider mites are also gaining a reputation as ‘budget busters’ in the South, along with aphids and stink bugs.

Like TPB, spider mites are becoming resistant to the insecticides used to control them. “Over the past 15 years, we’ve essentially doubled our application rates with Bidrin and tripled our application rates with acephate. So we’re not only spraying more often, we’re applying higher rates that cost more.” Gore said.

He pointed out that a side-effect of relying on neoniccotinoids for plant bug control is some resistance has developed in cotton aphids. “We’re starting to hear lots of complaints from consultants across the Mid-South.”

More of the same is futile

It is disappointing though predictable that the only official academic advice given to farmers is more of the same conventional practices that created the problems in the first place, spraying more and spraying mixtures of different kinds of pesticides, including those banned for being too toxic. Industry, meanwhile, is ready to sell varieties with more stacked GM traits; up to eight at double the seed price [16].

Disappointing too is the persistent effort by some governments and government scientists to promote the failed GM technology, which as I made clear, was already obsolete since the early 1980s [9]. A Sciencexpress paper (indicating quick publication, probably without peer review) entitled “Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people” [17] co-authored by UK chief scientist Prof. John Beddington among others, while somewhat dismissive of current GM crops, nevertheless holds out promises we’ve heard for more than 30 years. “The next decade will see the development of combinations of desirable traits and the introduction of new traits such as drought tolerance. By mid-century much more radical options involving highly polygenic traits may be feasible.” It went on to promise “cloned animals with engineered innate immunity to diseases” and more.

Glyphosate and Roundup, still advertised as ‘less toxic to us than table salt’ in a pamphlet from the Biotechnology Institute promoting HT crops as ‘Weed Warrior’ [18], is in fact highly toxic as new findings indicate [19, 20] (Death By Multiple Poisoning, Glyphosate and Roundup, SiS 42; Ban Glyphosate Herbicides Now, SiS 43). Thirteen years of GM crops in the USA has increased overall pesticide use by 318 million pounds [21] (GM Crops Increase Herbicide Use in the United States, SiS 45). The extra disease burden on the nation from that alone is considerable.

India has learned bitter Lessons from Bt Cotton [22] in a saga of worsening farm suicides and, in common with the USA, an ecological disaster in secondary and new cotton pests, resistant pests, new diseases, and above all, soils so depleted in nutrients and beneficial microorganisms that they would cease to support the growth of any crop in a decade. Their only salvation is a return to organic agriculture, which has already proven far more sustainable and profitable than Bt cotton [12]. This may apply also to the USA.

A fundamental shift in farming practices needed now

The organic market has been booming in the United States despite the economic downturn. According to a new report from the US Department of Agriculture, retail sales of organic food went up to $21.1 billion in 2008 from $3.6 billion in 1997 [23] (see Fig. 1). The market is so active that organic farms have struggled at times to produce sufficient supply to keep up with the rapid growth in consumer demand, leading to periodic shortages of organic products.

Figure 1 Growth in US organic market 1997 to 2008

Certified organic acres more than doubled from 1.3 million acres in 1997 to a little over 4 million acres in 2005 (0.5 percent of all agricultural land in the US). In the same period, the number of organic farms increased from 5 021 to 8 493, and the average size of certified organic farms went from 268 acres to 477 acres.

So why are US farmers failing to taking advantage of the rapidly expanding market? It is thought [23] that potential organic farmers may opt to continue with conventional production methods because of “social pressures from other farmers nearby who have negative views of organic farming”, or because of an inability to weather the effects of reduced yields and profits during the transition period. This is not surprising on account of the persistent negative propaganda carried out by GM proponents, including government regulatory agencies, against organic agriculture. (See for example the recent attempt by UK Food Standards Agency to prove organic food is no more nutritious than conventional food, which backfired [24] (UK Food Standards Agency Study Proves Organic Food Is Better, SiS 44). The usual claims are that organic agriculture yields less and require more energy than conventional agriculture, and organic produce no more nutritious or healthy, but less hygienic than conventional produce. These false claims are all thoroughly refuted in ISIS report Food Futures Now: *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free [25], with evidence from the published scientific literature, as well as other studies.

Most relevant for US farmers is a study by Kathleen Delate of Iowa State University and Cynthia A. Cambardella of the US Department of Agriculture assessing the performance of farms during the three-year transition it takes to switch from conventional to certified organic production [26]. The experiment lasting four years (three years transition and first year organic) showed that although yields dropped initially, they equalized in the third year, and by the fourth year, the organic yields were ahead of the conventional for both soybean and corn.

Our report [25] also documents the enormous potential for reducing greenhouse emissions – even to the extent of freeing us entirely from fossil fuels – through organic agriculture and localised food (and renewable energy) systems. It is a unique combination of the latest scientific analyses, case studies of farmer-led research, and especially farmers’ own experiences and innovations that often confound academic scientists wedded to outmoded and obsolete theories, of which GM technology is one glaring example.

At about the same time our report was released, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was also published. IAASTD was the result of three-year deliberation by 400 participating scientists and non-government representatives from 110 countries around the world [27]. It came to the conclusion that small scale organic agriculture is the way ahead for coping with hunger, social inequities and environmental disasters [28] (“GM-Free Organic Agriculture to Feed the World”, SiS 38).

A fundamental shift in farming practice is needed right now, before the agricultural meltdown is complete.

References

1. Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the U.S.: Extent of adoption. USDA Economic Research Service, 1 July 2009, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/biotechcrops/adoption.htm
2. Super weed can’t be killed, abc news, 6 October 2009, http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8767877
3. “N.C. farmers battle herbicide-resistant weeds”. Jeff Hampton, The Virginian-Pilot. 19 July 2009, http://hamptonroads.com/2009/07/nc-farmers-battle-herbicideresistant-weeds
4. Who benefits from gm crops? The rise in pesticide use, executive summary, Friends of the Earth International, Amsterdam, January 2008.
5. 2000-2001 pesticide market estimates: usage, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/usage2001_3.htm
6. Glyphosate-resistant weeds: can we close the barn door? Weed Science Society of America, 18 November 2009, http://www.wssa.net/WSSA/PressRoom/WSSA_GlyphosateResistance.pdf
7. “’Superweed’ explosion threatns Monsanto heartlands”, Clea Caulcutt, 19 April 2009, http://www.france24.com/en/20090418-superweed-explosion-threatens-monsanto-heartlands-genetically-modified-US-crops
8. “Paraquat fights glypohsate resistant palmer amaranth”, 30 September 2009,

http://paraquat.com/english/news-and-features/archives/paraquat-fights-glyphosate-resistant-palmer-amaranth
9. Ho MW. Genetic Engineering Dream of Nightmare? The Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business, Third World Network, Gateway Books, MacMillan, Continuum, Penang, Malaysia, Bath, UK, Dublin, Ireland, New York, USA, 1998, 1999, 2007 (reprint with extended Introduction). http://www.i-sis.org.uk/genet.php
10. Gaines TA, Zhang W, Wan D et al. Gene amplification confers glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri. PNAS Early Edition 2009, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0906649107
11. ARS survey helps growers track two key cotton pests. PHYSORG.com, 1 December 2009, http://www.physorg.com/news178912351.html
12. Ho MW. Farmer suicides and Bt cotton nightmare unfolding in India. Science in Society 45 (in press)
13. Ho MW. Mealy bug plagues Bt cotton in India and Pakistan. Science in Society 45 (in press)
14. Catchot A, Musser F, Gore J, Cook D, Daves D, Lorenz G, Akin S, Studebaker G, Tindall K, Stewart S, Bagwell R, Leonard BR and Jackson R. Midsouth Multtistate Evaluation of Treatment Thresholds for Tarnished Plant Bug. 2009, Mississippi State University Extension Service, http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/images/p2561_pics/bug_1.jpg
15. “Insect control pushes cotton costs higher”, Elton Robinson, Farm Press, 15 January 2010, http://deltafarmpress.com/cotton/cotton-insect-control-0115/
16. Benbrook C. Critical issue report: the seed price premium. The Organic Center. 2009 December. http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/Seeds_Final_11-30-09.pdf
17. Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, Pretty J, Robinson S, Thomas SM and Toulmin C. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Sciencexpress, 28 January 2010/10.1126/science.1185383
18. Weed Warrior Hebicide-Tolerant Crops, accessed 29 January 2010, http://www.biotechinstitute.org/resources/YWarticles/10.1/10.1.3.pdf
19. Ho MW and Cherry B. Death by multiple poisoning, glyphosate and Roundup. Science in Society 42 , 14, 2009
20. Ho MW. Ban glyphosate herbicides now. Science in Society 43, 34, 2009
21. Cherry B. GM crops increase herbicide use in the United States. Science in Society 45 (in press)
22. Ho MW. Lessons from Bt cotton. ISIS letter to Hilary Benn, UK Secretary of State for the Environment, 4 January 2010, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/lessonsFromBtCotton.php
23. Marketing U.S. organic foods: recent trends from farms to consumers. Carolyn Dimitri and Lydia Oberholtzer, USDA Economic Research Service, September 2009, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB58/
24. Ho MW.UK Food Standards Agency study proves organic food is better. Science in Society 44, 32-33, 2009.
25. Ho MW, Burcher S, Lim LC, et al. Food Futures Now, Organic, Sustainable, Fossil Fuel Free, ISIS and TWN, London, 2008. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/foodFutures.php
26. Delate K and Cambardella CA. Organic production: Agroecosystem performance during transition to certified organic grain production. Agronomy Journal 2004, 96, 1288-98.
27. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, IAASTD, 2008, http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=Press_Materials&ItemID=11
28. Ho MW. “GM-free organic agriculture to feed the world”. Science in Society 38, 14-15, 2008.

An Activist’s Toolkit

How would you react if you discovered that most of the foods you ate every day contained hidden ingredients that could be slowly poisoning you?

Disbelief? Sadness? Fear? Anger? Retribution? All of the above? Well, surely the first thing you should do is: STOP EATING THEM! Genetically modified crops such as corn, canola and soy are being used in over 70% of the processed foods available in your local grocery store. So you might be forgiven for thinking that if genetically modified ingredients are so widespread, they must be safe to eat, right? Wrong. It’s just a shame the FDA and the corporate-controlled North American mainstream media persist in turning a blind eye. (See The Big GMO Cover-Up by Jeffrey M. Smith.)

Of course, the last thing that the pro-GM food companies want is for consumers to get informed and use their immense power to force change in the marketplace. This has already happened in Europe where genetically modified ingredients have to be labeled by law. As a result, food companies don’t use genetically modified ingredients! However, in the absence of equivalent labeling requirements in the US or Canada, North American consumers have been left in the dark for over 13 years and are unwittingly taking place in a huge human feeding experiment.

We asked Jeffrey M. Smith, international bestselling author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, to give us some practical steps on how to get GMOs out of our diet and off the face of the Earth, forever.

Would you choose genetically modified food if given a choice? Some animals won’t.

There’s a bowl of corn chips in front of you made from natural corn. Next to it are genetically modified (GM) corn chips. Which do you choose?

If you were a pig or cow, we know the answer—the natural corn. In 1998 and 1999, several farmers in Northwest Iowa repeatedly let pigs or cows into pens with troughs of GM corn and non-GM corn. The animals would head straight to the closer trough, filled with the genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They’d sniff, maybe take a nibble, then go over to the trough with the natural corn. After finishing off the last kernel, they’d stop by the GM corn one more time just to check it out, but quickly walk away.

An Iowa farmer who read about the finicky livestock decided to see if squirrels had similar dispositions. He nailed ears of GM corn and non-GM corn onto trees by his house. Sure enough, the squirrels ate only the natural stuff, over and over again. When the farmer stopped replacing the natural corn, the squirrels still refused to touch the GMO. After 10 cold winter days, they got up the courage to nibble a few kernels, but that was all they could handle.

Another curious farmer wanted to repeat this with the squirrels in his area. He bought a bag full of GM corn ears, and another of non-GM, and left it in his garage to wait for winter. He waited too long. Mice did the experiment for him. They broke into the natural corn bag and finished it. The GM cobs were untouched.

Farmers, gardeners, reporters, and scientists have noticed similar behavior on at least four continents. Chickens, elk, deer, and raccoons avoided GM corn, while geese, rats, and buffalo refused GM soy, tomatoes, and cottonseed, respectively. Why are animals put off by genetically engineered food? No one knows for sure, but let’s get back to the GM corn chips still sitting in front of you.

Dangerous side-effects

Genetic material from bacteria and viruses are forced into the corn’s DNA, which is then cloned into a plant. This process leads to substantial collateral damage, including changes in hundreds or thousands of natural corn genes, plus widespread mutations. Most of the side-effects are never tested for. We do know, for example, that an allergy-producing gene, normally silent, gets switched on in a Monsanto corn variety. Proteins change shape, which might be a serious health hazard. And a compound called lignin is significantly overproduced. Lignin on its own may not be so bad, but in the process of producing it, the plant also produces rotenone, a natural pesticide linked to Parkinson’s disease. No one has tested your chips to see they contain more rotenone.

Bayer’s Liberty Link corn have added genes that allow the corn to withstand high doses of Roundup or Liberty herbicide. These varieties, therefore, have more weedkiller residues. Other GM varieties have inserted genes from bacteria that produce an insect killing toxin in every cell (and in every bite).

In addition, genes inserted into GM crops don’t necessarily stay put. In the only human GM feeding experiment— done with Roundup Ready soy— functioning genes transferred into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines. This means that millions of Americans probably have Roundup Ready gut bacteria—unkillable with Roundup herbicide. No one has yet looked to see if GM corn genes also transfer. If they do, their insecticide-producing genes could turn your gut flora into living pesticide factories, continuously producing toxins inside you—long after you finish your bowl of chips.

Have you made your decision yet? If you still need encouragement, check out “The Big GMO Cover-Up” in UGM007 to find out why the American Academy of Environmental Medicine wants doctors across the country to prescribe non-GMO diets to everyone.

But aren’t GMOs supposed to feed the world?

If you’re feeling some moral imperative to support GMOs, that’s understandable. The biotech industry spent more than $250 million convincing you that its gene-spliced foods are the answer to the sick and starving. So don’t be embarrassed if you fell for it. Many leading US politicians have likewise been mesmerized by this long-running PR ploy. Clinton’s Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman spoke candidly to a St. Louis Post Dispatch reporter about the pro-GMO attitude embedded in the US government:

“It was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. … And if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. … You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view.”

Glickman acknowledged that he too “spouted the rhetoric,” admitting, “it was written into my speeches.” The current Ag Secretary, Tom Vilsack, is the latest GMO cheerleader. As Iowa’s governor, he gave Monsanto an award in 2000, and the next year was anointed Biotech Governor of the Year by the biotech industry trade organization.

In October 2009, Vilsack tried to play the “feed the world” card at a conference sponsored by the Community Food Security Coalition. Bad move Tom. The people in the room were actually experts at feeding the world. Attendees included numerous PhDs and eminent scholars, such as the co-chairman and several leading authors of the authoritative IAASTD report, the world’s most comprehensive evaluation of agriculture.

This crowd knew that GMOs had no answers for world hunger. The IAASTD report, for example, concluded that the current generation of GMOs does not reduce hunger and poverty, does not improve nutrition, and does not facilitate social and environmental sustainability. A comprehensive analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that GMOs do not increase yield; in fact, on average they reduce yield. A USDA study showed that farmers’ income doesn’t increase, and in some cases, it decreases. And it doesn’t help the overall economy either. The federal government has been spending $3-5 billion per year to prop up the prices of the GM crops no one else wants.

Thus, when Secretary Vilsack invoked “the ever-increasing population of the globe and the capacity to be able to feed all of those people” as the excuse to promote GMOs, he was greeted by moans, groans, hisses, and even boos. That didn’t stop Vilsack from playing the same card two days later, but this time he was at the World Food Prize conference. That’s sponsored by the biotech industry, so they were overjoyed that the Ag Secretary was still supporting their myth.

How Do You Choose Non-GMO?

Are you now ready to choose the bowl of natural chips? If so, you’re not alone. Most Americans, according to a CBS/New York Times poll, would also choose foods made without genetically modified organisms (GMOs) if they knew which was which—if they were labeled. But unlike most other industrialized nations, GMOs don’t have to be labeled in the US or Canada. Therefore, avoiding GM foods here takes some doing.

Tip #1: Buy Organic

The best way is to buy organic foods, which don’t allow the use of GMOs. And you also benefit from organics’ higher average levels of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants, as well as lower pesticide residues.

Tip #2: Look for “non-GMO” labels

Some companies voluntarily label products as “non-GMO.” The best label is now the Non-GMO Project Verified seal. It’s the new uniform, third-party-verified standard for non-GMO claims that is spreading through the industry.

Tip #3: Consult the Non-GMO Shopping Guide

For a handy list of non-GMO brands by category, go to www. NonGMOShoppingGuide.com. View it online, download or order copies, and look for the Mobile Phone Application coming soon.

Tip #4: Avoid at-risk ingredients

If it’s not labeled organic or non- GMO, and the brand is not listed in the Guide, look at the ingredient panel to see if it contains any at-risk GMOs. The most pervasive GMOs are derivatives of corn and soy. Here are some common ones: (A more comprehensive list is available in the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.)

Corn: flour, meal, oil, starch, gluten, and syrups. Sweeteners such as fructose, dextrose, and glucose.

Soy: flour, oil, lecithin, protein, isolate, and isoflavones.

Oil from canola and cottonseed is genetically modified. Sugar from GM sugar beets was introduced in late 2008, but a recent ruling in a federal lawsuit may eventually drive it out of our food supply. For now, if the sugar doesn’t say pure cane, it’s likely blended with beet sugar.

Other than corn, there are only three items in the produce section that may be genetically modified. That includes papaya from Hawaii (yes, only Hawaii) and a small amount of zucchini and yellow squash. Mercifully, popcorn is not GMO.

Aspartame, the artificial sweetener also known as NutraSweet and Equal, is derived from GM microorganisms.

Meat, fish, eggs and dairy: FDA scientists had warned that animals fed GMOs might bioaccumulate toxins, which end up in milk, meat, or eggs. Their concerns were ignored and no safety studies have looked into this. Most US livestock, and even farmed fish, are fed GM soy or corn. To avoid GM-fed animal products, buy organic, wild caught, or 100% grass-fed. Fortunately, there are no genetically modified fish, fowl, or livestock yet approved for human consumption.

Dairy products also carry the risk that the cows were injected with genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbST or rbGH). The milk from drugged cows has more pus, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF- 1). IGF-1 is a powerful hormone and a high risk factor for cancer. That’s primarily why the American Public Health Association, American Nurses Association, and many other groups condemn the use of rbGH. Consumer concerns about rbGH have forced Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and most of the major dairies in the US to stop using the hormone. Look for labels, consult the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, or buy organic dairy products.

How to Avoid GMOs in Restaurants

When eating at restaurants, it is not too hard to identify non-GMO options if your restaurant cooks from scratch. If they use processed foods, which is true of fast food places, they will have hidden GM ingredients.

For meals cooked from scratch, you will be able to easily identify most GMO food items. Corn products include tortillas, corn bread, corn on the cob, polenta, and corn chowder. Soy products include tofu, teriyaki and soy sauce.

The hidden ingredients are usually the oils used for cooking and salad dressing. Most restaurant cooking oil is from soy, corn, cottonseed, and canola—all GMOs. If they say vegetable oil or margarine, it means it is almost certainly one of these.

Therefore, your first question is, “What oil do you cook with?” If they use GMO oils, ask if they have anything that is cooked without oil, or if olive oil or some other oil can be used. If they have olive oil, be sure it’s not a blend. Many restaurants blend canola and olive.

Go through the same routine for the oil used in salad dressing, and for the shortening in desserts.

But for the sweet stuff, the GMO threats include sugar from beets, high fructose corn syrup, and aspartame. Since most processed foods contain GM derivatives (corn and soy, for example), ask what foods are freshly prepared. But check if packaged sauces are used.

Other potential sources of GM foods at restaurants include bread, crackers, and mayonnaise.

Moving GMOs out of the market

The declining fortunes of rbGH demonstrate the power of informed consumers. As more and more people linked the milk hormone to cancer, marketing executives realized that allowing their suppliers to use the controversial drug was bad for sales. Because the mainstream media has been pretty silent on the health effects, it took a few years of a concerted consumer education campaign to start the dominoes falling. If the hazards of rbGH had made headline news, the tipping point would have been swift.

The experience of GMOs in Europe shows us just how swift markets can move. In late January of 1999, biotech representatives predicted that 95% of all commercial seeds would be genetically engineered by 2004. But just a few weeks later, their plans to replace nature crashed. On February 16th, the gag order imposed on a scientist who had conducted GMO safety studies was lifted by order of the UK Parliament. When Dr. Arpad Pusztai, the top scientist in his field, discovered the extensive damage that a GMO diet can cause, he was fired after 35 years and silenced with threats of legal action. When he finally was able to speak, all hell broke loose.

Within the week, the European press reeled off 159 column feet of articles. Within the month, 750 articles on GMOs were circulating. According to one editor, the coverage divided society into two warring blocks. Within just 10 weeks, the tipping point of consumer rejection was achieved. GM ingredients had become a marketing liability. At the end of April, Unilever publicly committed to remove GMOs from its European brands. Within the week, so did nearly every other major food company.

These same companies continue to use GM ingredients in the US, where the Pusztai controversy was not reported. Here, only one in four people are even aware that they’ve ever eaten a genetically engineered food in their lives.

Engineering a North American tipping point

The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to achieve a tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs in the US. Several indicators suggest that it’s not far off. A December 2009 issue of Supermarket News, for example, predicted: “The coming year promises to bring about a greater, more pervasive awareness” of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply. This trade publication, which is used by food executives as a source of industry news and trends, attributed the coming uprising in part to the Campaign’s new Non-GMO Shopping Guide.

The article describes how food “culprits” such as fat, carbs, salt, and added sugar can “define the decade” for the food industry; companies scramble to create new low-culprit or culprit-free options. When the specter of GMO health dangers surfaces onto consumers’ radar screen, however, there will be a significant difference. Whereas traditional ingredient culprits offer some consumer appeal like better taste or texture, GM foods do not. Furthermore, companies can usually eliminate GMOs without even changing recipes. They can simply substitute the non-GMO soy or non-GM corn, without reformulating.

Therefore, when the industry gets hit with the anti-GMO tipping point, they won’t create separate brand options of low GMO or GMO-free. Instead, they will eliminate all GMOs from their brands and proudly proclaim that here as they do in Europe.

The number of shoppers rejecting GMOs need only be a tiny amount, perhaps 5% of Americans, in order to convince food companies to do a brand-wide GMO clean-out. But when you look at the numbers, no matter how you slice it, they add up to a coming non-GMO tidal wave.

More than 9% of Americans regularly buy organic. About 29% are strongly opposed to GM foods and believe they are unsafe. And 53% say they would avoid GMOs if labeled. While most people do not conscientiously avoid brands with GM ingredients, it’s usually because they don’t know how. Hence the importance of the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.

Time to take charge

There are so many people predisposed to reject GMOs, we can achieve a tipping point without ever having to convince those who are resistant. Just by educating the people who want to know why GMOs are unsafe and how to avoid them, we can kick GMOs out of the food supply. The Campaign offers educational tools that are easy to use and to pass onto others. There are right-brain books, left-brain books, videos for the visual learner, brochures, articles, podcasts, CDs, PowerPoints, and of course, shopping guides.

The Campaign also provides strategies and support materials designed specifically for the most receptive targeted groups: healthand environmentally-conscious shoppers, parents, healthcare professionals, chefs and food service professionals, and even religious groups. If you would like to lend a hand and help protect the health of those you care about, visit www.healthiereating.org and look at the action items and tools available.

Little did you know that a bowl of chips would turn you into an activist…

International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology (www. healthiereating.org). His first book, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on GMOs. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, documents 65 health risks of the GM foods Americans eat everyday. To help you choose healthier, non-GMO brands, use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.