1. Katherine Paul: Sorry, Monsanto. The Science Is on Our Side, Not Yours
By: Katherine Paul, Organic Consumers Association
March 27, 2015 - A few weeks ago, I spoke by phone with Cathleen Enright, executive vice
president of the Biotech Industry Organization (BIO). (Long story).
During the course of our conversation, when we touched on the subject of the science
behind the debate over whether or not GMOs are “safe” (me arguing that there’s no
scientific consensus) Enright said, “Then you must not believe in climate change, either.”
I glossed over that accusation, though it struck me as odd. And random. Until less than a
week later, on March 9 (2015), an article appeared in the Guardian under this headline:
“The anti-GM lobby appears to be taking a page out of the Climategate playbook.”
That’s when I realized what I should have known. Enright’s comment wasn’t random at all.
It’s just a new twist on an old talking point—from an industry on the verge of crumbling
under the weight of an avalanche of new credible, scientific evidence exposing not only the
dangers of GMO crops and the toxic chemicals used to grow them, but the extent to which
both Monsanto and U.S. government agencies like the EPA, FDA and USDA have covered up
those dangers. (Side note: Turns out the authors of the Guardian piece all have ties to,
surprise, the biotech industry).
Here are just a few examples of the latest reports, articles and books exposing the dangers
of GMOs, Big Ag’s toxic chemicals and evidence of a decades-long cover-up to keep
consumers in the dark.
• New study: World Health Organization declares glyphosate a human carcinogen.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) decision was reported in The
Lancet Oncology, on Friday, March 20 (2015). Predictably, Monsanto went on the attack,
demanding the study be retracted.
• New study: Roundup causes antibiotic resistance in bacteria. In the first study of
its kind, a research lead by a team from the University of Canterbury, New Zealand says
that commonly used herbicides, including the world’s most used herbicide Roundup, can
cause bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics. Cause for concern? You bet, when nearly 2
million people die annually from antibiotic-resistant infections.
• New article: “GMO Science Deniers: Monsanto and the USDA,” points out what we
all learned in third-grade science (but what Monsanto and the USDA refuse to
acknowledge): That plants evolve to adapt to their environment, with the stronger ones
winning out. Hence the fact that over time, Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops have bred a
new generation of superweeds. Yet, incredibly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
bought into Monsanto’s anti-science claim that the continuous use of Roundup, over time,
would not produce evolving Roundup-resistant weeds. Of course, that’s exactly what’s
happened.
• New book: Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically

2. Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and
Systematically Deceived the Public, exposes how the U.S. Food & Drug Administration
(FDA) disregarded the warnings of its own scientists in order to foster the biotech industry’s
agenda. According to author Steven Druker, the FDA broke U.S. food safety laws when the
agency made a blanket presumption that GE foods qualified to be categorized "Generally
Recognized as Safe" (GRAS). And they did it in order to push GMOs into the market with no
pre-market safety testing.
• New book: Poison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA, written by
a former (1979-2004) employee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
documents the EPA’s “corruption and misuse of science and public trust.” According to
author E.G. Vallianatos, the EPA allowed our lands and waters to be poisoned with more
toxic chemicals, including glyphosate, than ever, while turning a blind eye to the
consequences.
• New report: “Seedy Business: What Big Food is hiding with Its Slick PR
Campaign on GMOs,” exposes Big Food’s long history of manipulating the media,
policymakers and public opinion with $100-million worth of sleazy public relations tactics.
That’s just a smattering of the latest science—from scientists who have nothing to gain and
everything to lose, based on Monsanto’s history of aggressively discrediting and scientist
who dares to challenge GMOs—that should have every consumer in this country asking,
“What’s going on here?”
Of course the industry response to the latest accusations concerning both its products and
its desperate attempt to keep consumers in the dark, has been the same old same old:
deny, deny, deny. All the while pretending to be incredulous that anyone would question its
motives. This from an industry that (among other crimes) for nearly 40 years, knowingly
poisoned a community in Alabama by dumping millions of pounds of PCBs into open-pit
landfills, according to 2002 article that said:
And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents—many emblazoned with warnings such as
"CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy”—show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed
what it did and what it knew.
One final comment on the climate-denier talking point. How ironic that Enright and the
biotech industry would pretend to side with the scientists sounding the alarm on global
warming—when the largest contributor to global warming is industrial agriculture, with its
GMO monoculture crops. Anyone serious about global warming knows that our best hope is
to ditch our chemical-intensive, soil-destroying industrial agriculture and replace it with
organic, regenerative farming practices that restore the soil’s ability to capture carbon.
That’s a talking point we can all get behind.
Katherine Paul is associate director of the Organic Consumers Association.
The Great California Genocide

3. bygjohnsitFollow

 Tweet
 384 Comments / 384 New
What do you think of when someone says "California"?
Beaches? Sunshine? Hollywood?
How about the largest act of genocide in American history?
"The idea,strangeas it may appear, neveroccurred to them(theIndians) thatthey were suffering for
the greatcauseof civilization,which, in the naturalcourseof things,mustexterminateIndians."
- Special Agent J. Ross Browne, Indian Affairs
California was one of the last areas of the New World to be colonized.
It wasn't until 1769 that the first mission, Mission San Diego de Alcalá, was built in
California at present-day San Diego. It was the first of 21 missions, which would become
the primary means for the Spaniards to subjugate the natives. The leader of this effort was
Franciscan friar Junípero Serra.
Despite whatever the movies portray, the missions were coercive religious, forced labor
camps. Through bribes, military intimidation, and the eventual onslaught of European
diseases (that usually targeted children), the colonizers ensured that eventually sick and
desperate indians would come to the missions for help. That's not to say that they
intentionally spread diseases, but there was a consistent, two century long pattern.
The indians that wound up there had their children taken from them, and harsh, manual
labor was the rule. Beatings and filthy living conditions were common. The death rate at the
missions was appalling. By 1818 the percentage of Indians who died in the missions
reached 86 percent. Over 81,000 indian "converts" eventually managed to successfully
flee the missions.
Soon there were indian revolts.
The San Diego Mission was burnt down in 1775 during the Kumeyaay rebellion. Mohave
Indians destroyed two mission in a dramatic revolt in 1781. Military efforts to punish these
indians and reopen the route to the pueblas of New Mexico failed.

4. San Gabriel Mission indians revolted in 1785, and suffered because of it. The Sant a Barbara
and Santa Inez Missions were destroyed in the Chumash revolt of 1824. Some time after
1810 a large number of guerrilla bands arose that raided the missions and kept them in a
virtual state of siege. This led to draconian laws to restrict the movement of indians and
forced them to carry papers proving their employment.
In 1834, Mexican Governor Jose Figueroa freed the indians from the mission system and
stripped the friars of their power. More than 100,000 indians had died because of the
mission system, out of over 300,000 indians that lived in California before the Catholic
church arrived.
But that didn't mean that things returned to how it was before. The Spanish didn't give the
land back to the indians. Instead the land was distributed to political insiders, and a system
of ranchos developed. By the start of the Mexican-American War, 26 million acres were
controlled by just 813 ranchers.
The True Story of Sutter's Mill
Your high school history book mentioned something about Johann Sutter, and how James
Marshall, who was building a sawmill for Sutter, discovered gold on the morning of January
24, 1848. Thus forever changing the history of California, and they all lived happily ever
after.
Your high school history book left out all the interesting parts.
Sutter traveled to Yerba Buena (now San Francisco) in 1839. He became a Mexican citizen
in 1840, and got a land grant of 48,827 acres on June 18, 1841, that became Sutter's Mill.
The history books left off one important piece of information - there were about 200 Miwok
Indians already living on that land.

5. Wikipedia says that Sutter "employed" indians at his mill. Tour guides at Sutter's Mill will
say the same thing today. But the written history says otherwise:
"I had to lock theIndian women and men togetherin a large roomto preventthem fromreturning to
their homesin the mountainsatnight.Largenumbersdeserted during thedaytime."
- Heinrich Lienhard, one of Sutter's managers
Sutter armed Indian men from nearby villages to steal children from more distant villages
and sold the captives in San Francisco to pay his debts. Another writer wrote that Sutter
"was fond of the young Indian women," implying that Sutter forced the Indian women into
sexual relations.
The real situation was reflected in the testimony of one California Indian who wrote: "My
grandfather was enslaved by Sutter to help in building the Fort. While he was kept there
Sutter worked him hard and then fed him in troughs. As soon as he could, he escaped with
his family and hid in the mountains."
"The Indiansof California makeasobedientand humbleslavesasthe Negro in the south.Fora mere
trifle you can secure their services forlife."
- Pierson Reading, another of Sutter's managers
The gold rush that followed didn't enrich either Sutter or Marshall. Marshall was forced off
his land claim by whites even more ruthless than him. In the chaos of the gold rush, almost
all of the indians enslaved at Sutter's Mill escaped, leaving no one to harvest the wheat.
Sutter's land claim was challenged in court and overturned. Sutter died in poverty.
Ironically, the chief of the Coloma Nisenan Tribe had warned Sutter beforehand, "[the gold
was] very bad medicine. It belonged to a demon who devoured all who searched for it".
Gold Rush and Genocide
"A warof extermination will continueto be waged between thetwo races until the Indian racebecomes
extinct."
- California Governor Peter H. Burnett, January 1851

6. "We hopethatthe Governmentwill render such aid aswill enable the citizens of the north to carry on a
warof extermination untilthe lastredskin of thesetribes hasbeen killed. Extermination is no longer a
question of time--thetime hasarrived,the workhascommenced and let the firstman who saystreatyor
peace beregarded as a traitor."
- Yreka Herald, 1853
In 1840 only about 4,000 Europeans lived in California, only 400 of them were Americans.
Now a hoard of 100,000 adventurers, gold-seekers, and murderous thugs descended on
California. The authorities were completely overwhelmed. The indians faced a catastrophe
of biblical proportions.
Numerous vigilante type paramilitary troops were established whose principal occupation
seems to have been to kill Indians and kidnap their children. Groups such as the Humbolt
Home Guard, the Eel River Minutemen and the Placer Blades among others terrorized local
Indians and caused the premier 19th century historian Hubert Howe Bancroft to describe
them as follows.
"The California valley cannot grace her annals with a single Indian war bordering on
respectability. It can, however, boast a hundred or two of as brutal butchering, on the part
of our honest miners and brave pioneers, as any area of equal extent in our republic......"
The handiwork of these well armed death squads combined with the widespread random
killing of Indians by individual miners resulted in the death of 100,000 Indians in the first
two years of the gold rush. A staggering loss of two thirds of the population. Nothing in
American Indian history is even remotely comparable to this massive orgy of theft and mass
murder. Stunned survivors now perhaps numbering fewer than 70,000 teetered near the
brink of total annihilation.

7. The local authorities not only ignored the genocide in their midst, they encouraged it.
Rewards ranged from $5 for every severed head in Shasta City in 1855 to 25 cents for a
scalp in Honey Lake in 1863. One resident of Shasta City wrote about how he remembers
seeing men bringing mules to town, each laden with eight to twelve Indian heads. Other
regions passed laws that called for collective punishment for the whole village for crimes
committed by Indians, up to the destruction of the entire village and all of its inhabitants.
These policies led to the destruction of as many as 150 Native communities.
The state of California also got involved. The government paid about $1.1 Million in 1852
to militias to hunt down and kill indians. In 1857 the California legislature allocated another
$410,000 for the same purposes.
In 1856 the state of California paid 25 cents for each indian scalp. In 1860 the bounty was
increased to $5.
The most famous of these massacres was the Clear Lake Massacre of 1850, in which
between 80 and 400 Pomo indians were slaughtered. A marker placed there in the 1960's
which called the event "The Battle of Bloody Island" was destroyed by vandals in 2002.
To put this into perspective, around 200 indians were killed at the much more well-known
Sand Creek Massacre of 1863, and just over 300 were killed in the famous Wounded
Knee Massacre of 1890. Yet you would be hard pressed to find a single person living
around Clear Lake today that even knew a massacre had taken place there.
The scale of the genocide in California absolutely dwarfs anything that happened to the
Great Plains indians, and is even larger and more complete than the fate of the eastern
indians.
The number of massacres are too numerous to list here, but a short accounting include the
Bridge Gulch Massacre, the ConCow Maidu Trail of Tears, and the Wiyot Massacre,
just to name a few. I don't even have a name for the massacre of 400 Tolowa indians at
the village of Yontoket in 1853, nor the massacre of hundreds more of the same tribe the
following year.
What does it tell you about the state of American history in which massacres don't even
have names?
On April 22, 1850, the California government passed the Act for the Government and
Protection of Indians. This law allowed for any white settler to enslave an indian child
with the permission of the parents, or if the child was orphaned. Since indians weren't
allowed to testify in court against a white, this gave white settlers free reign to grab up any
indian child that was found. Most didn't even bother with the laws and just purchased them
outright. To give an idea of how the authorities treated the law, consider this letter written
by Indian Commissioner G.M. Hanson in 1861.
In the month of October last I apprehended three kidnappers, about 14 miles from the city
of Marysville, who had nine Indian children, from three to ten years of age, which they had
taken from Eel River in Humboldt County. One of the three was discharged on a writ of
habeas corpus, upon the testimony of the other two, who stated that "he was not interested
in the matter of taking the children:" after his discharge the two made an effort to get clear
by introducing the third one as a witness, who testified that "it was an act of charity on the
part of thr two to hunt up the children and then provide homes for them, because their

8. parents had been killed, and the children would have perished with hunger." My counsel
inquired how he knew the parents had been kill? "Because," he said, "I killed some of them
myself."
The law was later expanded to include indian adults.
According to California law, indians were forbidden to own property, carry a gun, hold
office, attend public school, serve in juries, testify in court, or intermarry. On the statement
of any white an Indian could be declared a vagrant and bound over to a white landowner or
businessman to work for subsistence.
"But it is fromthesemountain tribesthatwhite settlers draw their suppliesof kidnapped children,
educated asservants,and women forpurposesof laborand lust...therearepartiesin the northern
portion of the statewhosesole occupation hasbeen to steal young children and squaws...and disposeof
themat handsomepricesto the settlers who...willingly pay $50 or $60 for a young Diggerto cookor wait
upon them,or$100 for a likely young girl."
- Marysville Appeal
In 1853 the U.S. Senate began negotiating with the indians to set up reservations. The
indian tribes gladly agreed to give up millions of acres of land just to have the promise of
military protection from the genocide that raged. The indians began moving to the
reservation areas in anticipation.
However, the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the treaties. Instead the indians were rounded
up at gunpoint to "a system of military posts". Indians on these "reservations" were hired
out to work naked as pack animals.
Each of these reservations would put into place a "system of discipline and instruction." The
cost of the troops would be "borne by the surplus produce of Indian labor." No treaties were
to be negotiated with the Indians; instead they would be "invited to assemble within these
reserves."
"The attacking partyrushed upon them,blowing outtheirbrainsand splitting their headsopen with
tomahawks.Littlechildren in baskets,and even babes,had theirheadssmashed to piecesor cut open.
Mothersand infantsshared thesamephenomenon....Many of thefugitiveswerechased orshotas they
ran....Thechildren, scarcely ableto run,toddled toward thesquawsforprotection,crying with fright,but
were overtaken,slaughtered likewild animalsand thrown into piles."
- Alta Californian newspaper, 1860
The massacre that the Alta Californian reported, committed by a militia led by Captain W.
S. Jarboe, was not only not discouraged, but on April 12, 1860 the state legislature
approved $9,347.39 for "payment of the indebtedness incurred by the expedition against
the Indians in the County of Mendocino." The governor wrote a personal thank you letter to
Captain Jarboe.
There were some instances of resistance on the part of the indians. The most notable was
the Modoc War of 1872-73, in which 53 warriors held off held off nearly 1,000 soldiers for
several months, killing 57 of the soldiers in the process.
But mostly it was a series of horrific, one-sided massacres. There were simply too many

9. whites, in too short of period of time, that were too ruthless, against tribes of indians that
were mostly peaceful.
By the mid-1860's only 34,000 indians remained alive in California, a 90% attrition rate,
comparable to the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1917. Finally, in the 1870's, the federal
government began moving on creating indian reservations in southern California. 13 were
created between 1875 and 1877. By 1930 another 36 reservations had been created in
northern California.
ORIGINALLY POSTED TO GJOHNSIT ON THU AUG 14, 2008 AT 08:02 PM PDT.