Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
FDA Corruption
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

FDA Corruption

107
views

Published on

“The FDA has placed the interest of a handful of biotechnology companies ahead of their responsibility to protect public health. By failing to require testing and labeling of genetically engineered …

“The FDA has placed the interest of a handful of biotechnology companies ahead of their responsibility to protect public health. By failing to require testing and labeling of genetically engineered foods, the agency has made consumers unknowing guinea pigs for potentially harmful, unregulated food substances.”
- Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
107
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. GMO and the FDAFrom the website of Beth H. Harrison, PhD and author of Shedding Light on Genetically Engineered Food:In its 1992 Statement of Food Policy, the FDA asserted:“Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”But wait! According to biotech-giant Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications,“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuringits safety is the FDA’s job.”So, if neither the U.S. government nor the U.S. food producers are responsible for the safety of genetically modified food, who is?“The FDA has placed the interest of a handful of biotechnology companies ahead of their responsibility to protect public health.By failing to require testing and labeling of genetically engineered foods, the agency has made consumers unknowing guinea pigsfor potentially harmful, unregulated food substances.”- Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food SafetySure enough, in April 2011, the FDA moved to allow Monsanto to perform their own environmental impact study on the very GMOs it hasbeen responsible for developing.Home All About GMOs Resources 5 Easy Things Shopping List Avoid List About Search
  • 2. In that same month, the leading scientific journal Science Direct published a study showing a significant conflict of interest in so-called“research” done on the health risks and nutritional assessment of genetically modified products. Speaking of conflict of interest…• Michael Taylor, former Monsanto Vice President, is the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods.• Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto-funded Danforth Plant Science Center, is the director of the USDA National Institute ofFood and Agriculture.• Islam Siddiqui, Vice President of the Monsanto and Dupont-funded pesticide-promoting lobbying group, CropLife, is the AgricultureNegotiator for the US Trade Representative.• Rajiv Shah, former agricultural-development director for the pro-biotech Gates Foundation (a frequent Monsanto partner), served asObama’s USDA Under Secretary for Research Education and Economics and Chief Scientist and is currently the head of USAID.• Elena Kagan, who took Monsanto’s side against organic farmers in the Roundup Ready alfalfa case, is an Associate Justice of theSupreme Court.• Ramona Romero, former corporate counsel to DuPont, is the General Legal Counsel of the United States Department of Agriculture.The Institute of Responsible Technology summarizes the situation in the following FAQs from their “GMO Basics” page:Q. Hasn’t the FDA said that GM foods are safe?The biotech industry claims that the FDA has thoroughly evaluated GM foods and found them safe. This is untrue. The FDA does notrequire safety studies. Instead, if the makers of the GM foods claim that they are safe, the agency has no further questions.Q. Didn’t the scientists at the FDA study GM foods themselves?No. The FDA relies solely on information supplied by the biotech companies.Q. What kind of information did the companies provide?Calgene, the makers of the first GM crop, the FlavrSavr tomato, was the only company to submit detailed raw data from animal feedingstudies to the FDA. The rest provide only summaries and conclusions. Industry research can be rigged; data often is omitted or distorted.In the FlavrSavr tests, lab rats refused to eat the tomatoes and had to be force-fed. Several developed stomach lesions, and seven offorty died within two weeks. Still, the tomato was approved, but has since been taken off the market.Q. Based on the information that was supplied, did the FDA scientist have concerns?Agency scientists and even independent scientists did warn that GM foods might create toxins, allergies, nutritional problems, and newdiseases that might be difficult to identify. Internal FDA memos reveal that the scientists urged their superiors to require long-term safetytesting to catch these hard-to-detect side effects.Q. What did the FDA do about these concerns?Nothing was done that would protect consumers. In fact, in the case of genetically modified bovine growth hormone, some FDA scientistswho expressed concerns were harassed, stripped of responsibilities, or fired. The remaining whistleblowers had to write an anonymousletter to Congress complaining of fraud and conflict of interest at the agencyQ. How could the government approve dangerous foods?A close examination reveals that industry manipulation and political collusion – not sound science – was the driving force.The FDA official in charge ignored all warnings of the FDA staff scientists. The official, a former outside attorney for Monsanto, was apolitical appointee specifically to a new FDA post on GM policy, and left shortly after to become vice president at Monsanto.Q. Why aren’t foods with GMOs at least labeled here?The same political influence and money that got them past the FDA has prevented any labeling laws from being passed. AlthoughPresident Obama had indicated support for labeling laws during his campaign, he has allowed a whole host of genetically engineeredcrops to come to market in just this year alone, including RoundUp resistant Alfalfa (the fourth most widely grown crop in the US, inherentin livestock feed for industrial and sustainable farming alike), Kentucky Bluegrass, and sugar beets.Q. So do the biotech companies always get everything they want?Up until recently the biotech companies have fallen far short of their goals due to consumer resistance. The GM potatoes and tomatoeswere taken off the market, and other GM crops, although approved, were never commercialized.Concerned consumers in Europe were able to get major companies to commit to eliminate GMOs within one week. This was done with
  • 3. Share this:Like this:One blogger likes this.only a small percentage of the overall population. Businesses do not want to lose even a portion of their customer base. Everyone canvote with his or her pocketbook!As early as 1998, the biotech industry tried to get the USDA to let GM products pass as organic. During the public comment period, theDepartment received over 275,000 irate letters of protest from citizens, a public response unprecedented in the USDA’s history. Thanks tothis public protest, GM products cannot be labeled organic in the USA.This graphic may explain how the biotech industry manages to get what they want… (click to enlarge)A New Loophole…Up until now, what little “regulation” that existed was based on the fact that genetic engineering used a bacteria or virus to artificiallyinsert the genetic code for RoundUp into a plant. The FDA’s ability to control (albeit minimally) was tied to the use of a virus or bacteria.But science recently found a sobering loophole: genetic modifications can now be inserted into the plant’s DNA using metal particles.Without the bacteria or virus present, the FDA has lost what little ground it had to regulate the process.The result? Kentucky Bluegrass is inherently a naturally invasive grass. Once it became genetically engineered to withstand RoundUp, it’sbecome even more resistant to control, and its parent company, Scotts Miracle-Gro, has become equally resistant to control under currentregulatory standards. No surprise, Monsanto has a similar regulation-free process for genetically modified soybeans waiting in the wings…Read the related articles on The Scientist, and also on Nature.Leave a ReplyEnter your comment here...Enter your comment here...
  • 4. S U B S C R I B E B Y E M A I LEnter your email address to receive notifications of news and blog posts by email.Join 13,992 other followersSign me up!GMO-AwarenessLike20,211 people like GMO-Awareness.Facebook social pluginWe Proudly Support:
  • 5. Theme: Twenty Eleven |Blog at WordPress.com.