Why was Monsanto's PR Man Violating Newsvine CoH, Again

Great points and one more that may be of interest particularly to Americans is that the Superfund sites created by these polluters were created with the responsible, corporate parties paying for the cleanup but the liability payments expired and now the taxpayers get the whole tab. Who else would like bills to evaporate and the trash you dump become someone else's problem? Must be nice to be Monsanto.

A separate point is about how much consumers and activists are doing to make the public aware of the fleecing that we've been subjected to and one of my current favorites is this video game seeded by you last week some time, ISPY. It's a great educational tool and fun for those of us who have a juvenile streak too!

As I live and breathe, think we've forced a reaction in the MSM. Laura just seeded a 2 hour old CNN piece on the benefits of GM rice. Someone should have told the CNN folks the golden rice charm was broken when it turned out that you need to eat 12 pounds to get the Vitamin A in a cup of leafy greens. Sad offensive plan.

Well the larger problem is all the CNN readers who think it is true.

Once again the MSM water carriers taking the public down a path of deception. Then at some point one of the viewers finds him or herself in an argument about the safety and they believe they have tried to be informed. They think it is true because CNN wouldn't lie about something as simple as the benefits or dangers of food, and that's the kind of story where experts exist and the press knows the fronts from the objective, blah blah

About 14 hours ago CNN dusted off an old Golden Rice story they must have thought sounded good and Laura's seeded it over here. Any other hints of MSM stories on the subject that may cross anyones path we can link to here.

I've left a comment over there though that cuts to the chase for me and ends what is a PR quaqmire with no good way out. Feed it to the Congress and Biotech Executives put it on the menu at the White House.

Give the folks from the halls of power the chance to partake of the great benefits. I'm working on a 100% gmo menu. In honor of Hawai'i as the World Capitol for the density of experimental crops, over 14,000 to date as of July, lovely ring spot virus papayas, covered in fresh whipped POSILAC® bovine somatotropin cream...

Quite simply, put their mouths where their money is, we the people have swallowed quite enough, let Washington eat something now!!

Another question that's always nagged at me and I have no answer, but would love to see tests, is whether all the virus mutated foods has contributed to the epidemic of viral infection from herpies to HPV there is a clear growth of chronic and deadly viral infection in the general population. No one is examining these for any health effects at all. Is there is a relationship between the increases in our diets and bodies?

One of the explanations that has helped me get a clearer grasp of the implications is to think of the genomes as little ecosystems where the elements interact with one another. If you imagine the genome like an island where all the life forms have created a balance and then add a single species, say a snake to the ecosystem you do not have the same ecosystem plus a snake, you have a new set of interactions and changes that come from each small change triggering another. Maybe that will help?

I don't follow, was this posted to the right thread?

Is that like anything like a riddle wrapped in an enigma?

We can see by the refering link theres corporate knowledge of these discussions, do you suppose they're working on a formal apology to us??

Domain Name (Unknown) IP Address 164.144.240.# (Monsanto)
ISP Monsanto
Location Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : Missouri
City : Saint Louis
Lat/Long : 38.6385, -90.3026 (Map)
Language English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; Monsanto; US; STL; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor Resolution : 1680 x 1050
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Oct 24 2007 1:11:58 pm
Last Page View Oct 24 2007 1:16:44 pm
Visit Length 4 minutes 46 seconds
Page Views 11
Referring URLhttp://pameladrew.ne...-newsvine-coh-again-

but if anything untoward were to happen, it's important that the truth be known.

Well if I'm suddenly hit by a bus, I'll expect the full investigative powers of the RAV crew to follow up! :~)

Tee he-he, mine's this group of friendsters. and the list keeps growing so stay tuned.

Nope Frank, sad to tell you but Bill Clinton practically rescued Monsanto in his early years in the White House. Corporate support stuff is not related to parties, as I tend to harp on, greed, corruption and influence is bipartisan. Corporate soldiers are on both sides of the aisle. Clinton is tied into the hormone dairy with Carol Tucker Forman, who ran the Dairy PR assault campaign and whose brother replaced Clinton as Governor of Arkansas until he was forced out by indictment.

ps Frank, some of the connections are more important in terms of what other networks they create on their own. Every single pair isn't of equal value, but Clinton was a biotech dream come true.

We really need public financing of political campaigns

Frank, you're completely right add some public participation to keep them honest we may have a Democracy.

There is one group that I am particularly familiar with that has done and continues with outstanding work in that area, Public Campaign. It's not that there aren't vast numbers of good groups its just that divining the true help from the help themselves fronts is hard so by that token Public Campaign is a fab place to start.

Frank is right about the public taking back the process and we do it one by one and rebuild with a foundation of groups who operate in the public interest and out the scammers manipulating our views for power.

Ah chill, the self control for me to say the name and nothing more should earn me a bit of leeway. *smirk*

In truth there was a time when that crossed my mind and I was worried I'd slip in front of a bus. This article from December is a bit of my reaction when the heavyweights were all at my site before all my relatives had even had a chance to see it. Called, hunting the enemy, me.

Fortunately there were more than a few videos of Osama floated out by the "news" for us, between now and then. My personal fear was predictably displaced by the fear central government had assigned the code red sticker to. They can't label what's in our food but they can tag the fear level we're supposed to have overriding all our desires for government to protect against! I feel so much better now that personal hygiene products are not allowed in the cramped cabins of the aircraft we can be held hostage on for unthinkable times. No, being seized against your will by a corporation is business. *smirk*

Then there was a change in strategy where I think they were trying to buy me off. Silly folks, that's what my Visa cards are for. Don't they watch television? It's everywhere I want to be, "Providing the resources to fund an expose of one of the world's most powerful and toxic corporations, priceless" and thanks to a corporate Congress they let me have a lot of it at sub prime rates along with six pages of microscopic print explaining how the instant one payment on one card is late a Universal default will kick in and give the 35% kicker to the charges that the Carlyle style corpoliticos carve out for themselves.

Once upon a time there were lending laws banning rates like that as usury and only loan sharks had the gall to extort that but make a law make a business, man with the gold writes the rules to waive liabilities and maximize returns. Most people don't know that one of the major conflicts between the corporate Congress and the "Islamic radicals" is that Islamic banking law strictly prohibits the charging of interest on loans.

K Street's best began in the mid to late 1970's to develop Islamic banking specialists and coordinating efforts to move that money. Before that it was just a now since disappeared division within the Treasury, located in the office next door to the White House called Saudi Affairs and operating with a black box budget. When you sell to Uncle Sam the gold ring is the black hole funding and everyone knows that is the turf of the top friends exclusively.

Anyway the oil money coming with religious limits not found with the televangelists, creates a big problem, when some shiek with billions in oil money has religious and cultural obstacles to investing. Gambling, tobacco etc are similarly banned. What's a bunch of loan sharks to do but create webs of nested subs and partners off shore holding companies and pretend that if it moves around like a street hustler doing a tree card Monte no one will know its the scam it is.

We don't need Homeland Security and the CIA, we have Monsanto able to track right down to the DNA of the fields and they are also leading the War on Drugs. How many decades have they been soaking from Vietnam and Afghanistan to the Rainforest in South America?

How much Monsanto herbicide have we purchased with taxpayer dollars on top of the monies that subsidize their entoire product line of Posilac hyped dairy, gmo corn, soy, canola, cotton?

We pay and they spray with Roundup so only the CIA can move the drugs and the rest can grow only Roundup Ready crops because nothing else can survive? What is the downstream effect of a nonstop toxic soaking of the planet, this war on "drugs" waged by Monsanto who also has been merged with Pfiser and Searle, any conflict of interest or just making a market? The operations part run by DynCorp is another first class outfit. Pug Winokur has been the largest outside investor to Dyncorp since 1989, serving as Chairman of the Board until 1997. He was also head of the Enron finance Committee. Smell the home cooking yet?

Based on what appear to be uncontested facts, a group of at least 10,000 Ecuadoran subsistence farmers have been poisoned from aerial assault by your company. Imagine that scene for a moment - you are an Ecuadoran farmer, and suddenly, without notice or warning, a large helicopter approaches, and the frightening noise of the chopper blades invades the quiet. The helicopter comes closer, and sprays a toxic poison on you, your children, your livestock and your food crops. You see your children get sick, your crops die. Mr. Lombardi, we at the International Labor Rights Fund, and most civilized people, consider such an attack on innocent people terrorism. Your effort to hide behind September 11 is shameful, and breathtakingly cynical."

There's not a field on the planet these folks don't know about. They are bulldozing swaths of Amazon Rainforest, the lungs of the planet cleared in Brazil at a rate that equals three times the size of Manhattan every day to total the size of Arizona every year. Why? Rainforest is public and they can force the indigenous peoples out of a self sufficient existence. That's why we need the fence the people are coming to look for a way to eat once their land is gone. The agricorps and convert to private ownership, gmo soy farms that grow only fee based food. Tell me that isn't a sweet deal for them.

That's even running in Iraq where American style corporate freedom rings under CPA-81. Benno added this back in May and he's had quite a few others on CPA-81 as well. No mention of those from the Money Honey delivering the business inside scoop. Investors should be tipped about lucrative contracts, shouldn't they? Maybe reporting doesn't include background and it's all in the delivery, who knows.

Far afield from the hunt for me and the next turn in my relationship with the biotech giants and the olive branch from the mahogany halls of the Boards filled with well heeled titans of commerce. But I digress from this Stewart Little tale of being a corporate enemy.

It's a truly bizarre state of affairs when we have corporations targeting me for surveillance because my kid's body doesn't seem to care about their views and she gets rashes, indigestion, swelling, joint pain and asthma attacks when she swallows the gmo foods. I don't need much more than watching my kid get lips like a blowfish to convince me it's different, but heaven help me for sharing what inconvenient truth that hits the bottom line.

I was invited to a powerful "exclusive" retreat with world's movers and shakers. After seeing who and what they are my reply was was that I'd been to Banff and short of pushing me off the chairlift not sure what they'd want with me and I wrote about that too. So now we are here and the film is wrapped and killing me now would just do what martyrs in all causes do and that's rally the troops. Not a good way to do crisis PR at all; this takes a real benevolent touch like, nevermind let them figure it out for themselves. I've got my own issues on the table and it begins with feeding my child. To me there's nothing scarier that a child with nothing to eat.

Truthfully this was the first time I'd remembered coming across the name though Pug I know from the Harvard HUD fraud and the Enron scam. The only thing I grabbed on him was a bit of a bio tied to an appointment to a Beltway Bandit Board that mentions his former role at PRC, one of those black hole favorite contractors.

Reston, VA - October 5, 2004 - NCI Information Systems, Inc. (NCI), a leading information technology, enterprise management, systems engineering and integration corporation, announced today that it has added three outside directors to its corporate board. James P. Allen, John E. Lawler, and Paul V. Lombardi were officially elected to the Board of Directors at NCI’s shareholders meeting earlier today. These new members will join the existing members: Charles Narang, Mike Solley, Linda Allan and Judy Bjornaas.

Mr. Allen served as the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) at Veridian prior to its acquisition by General Dynamics in August 2003. Prior to Veridian, he served as CFO for both GRC International, Inc. and CACI International, Inc., both publicly traded companies working as federal IT service providers.

Mr. Lawler served in top administrative positions with the U.S. House of Representatives, including Chief of the Office of Finance. Mr. Lawler currently serves on a number of boards including Identix, Inc. (IDNX), a high-end IT company traded publicly on NASDAQ.

Mr. Lombardi served as President and Chief Executive Officer of DynCorp from 1997 until its sale to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) in 2003. Prior to his association with DynCorp, Mr. Lombardi was employed at PRC Inc. where he held a variety of executive level positions including Senior Vice President and General Manager of PRC’s Applied Management Group, where he was responsible for information technology and systems integration within the federal IT market sector.

“NCI is proud to welcome such an experienced cadre of talent to our corporate board,” said Charles Narang, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. “We believe that their tremendous experience will add significant value to NCI as we continue our rapid expansion in the federal IT market space. We are confident that their talents will facilitate the execution of our strategic corporate goals and we are pleased that all three were able to join us and participate in our corporate strategic planning meeting over the past few days.”

About NCI Information Systems, Inc.
Founded in 1989, NCI Information Systems, Inc. – an ISO 9001 certified company – is considered the "partner of choice" by government customers and systems integrators. NCI's award-winning expertise encompasses areas critical to its customers’ mission objectives including enterprise systems management and services, information assurance, network engineering and systems development and integration. Headquartered in Reston, Virginia, NCI is privately held, has 60 locations and over 1,400 employees worldwide.

For more information, visit our Web site at www.nciinc.com, or e-mail lallan@nciinc.com.

They're just genetically modified!

Making friends in high places must be a gift, lucky me! :~)

This is a critical issue. The world's largest seed bank was destroyed at Abu Ghereb and like all the other National treasures of the Iraqi people, we stood by and let the seed bank go to looters along with all the cash and the guns. Almost like the US just wanted to create chaos, there's upside to more than a few in that.

The report from the UK Independent is from June 21, 2006.

Threat faced For every surviving ancient plant variety, with its irreplaceable store of genes to fight pests or inoculate crops against climate change, hundreds have disappeared.

How the seeds are being saved The International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas, in Aleppo, Syria, holds 24,000 varieties of barley, 30,000 varieties of wheat and 7,000 varieties of lentil. It is also home to the seeds rescued from Iraq's national seed bank at Abu Ghraib. Before Saddam's fall, Iraqi scientists shipped out their precious ancient wheat, chickpea and lentil seeds. They were wise. Following the US invasion, the seed bank was destroyed by looters.

It can really blow your mind if you erase most of what you know about policy and just look at where the money has been applied to strip global farmers of independence and destroy all plant life that has no patent protected fee attached. It starts to look like a decades long war on sustainable communities and Nature.

Do you ever get the feeling that these folks are actively trying to foment Biblical Armageddon?

Yes, then the Chariots of Fire theme song comes to mind and I redouble my effort to expose the dirtbags.

Excellent Benno, thank you that was the one I was thinking of, glad it's here.

You hit on a key point and that is the power of consumers to use their purchases to affect policy. One of the groups that I like to encourage people to use is Local Harvest. Because the subsidy system is designed to support agribusiness and the big commodity crops of corn, soy, rice, cotton.

Small farmers have been struggling and failing at record rates. Consumers can help themselves and the farmers by cutting out the agribusiness giants in the middle whenever possible. Local Harvest registers small farms and will return results based on products or zip code. If you are or know any small farmers encourage them to join. One dollar at a time we can stop feeding the problem.

If you'd like more about the subject we have a GMO Group here at Newsvine that tends to focus on the current events and news related to the subject.

It's important to try to find credible sources, when I built the film site content I tried to add as many good starting points, explanations and varied coverage of the topics, by as many voices as possible. Go to the web pages with the resources, one is a flash and one an HTML and not sure which has it all on one page and which on two, anyway, there are links to enough groups, that if you follow from them to their trusted sources you'll do fine.

If there's anything specific you want like an introduction to gmos or more detailed or specialized that doesn't come up just let me know and we'll get you squared away with some links. I get mountains of mail asking for who knows what or whom and it's my pleasure to act as the traffic controller so sources and seekers pair.

One thing that's always nagged at me is that the Bt varieties that produce the toxins, work by eating through the stomach lining of the corn boer. What happens to a human who swallows the stuff for a decade? Is that what became acid reflux disease? Is it just Mother Nature's way of saying this isn't good to swallow? What are we thinking when we need to medicate people to keep the stuff down? A question worth checking up on.

Brian from a nutrient standpoint they are "substantially equivalent" which means the protein, fiber, meinerals etc are close to the same. In some cases there are varieties like the pig corn that has the effect of causing greater weight gain. Won't Americans be tickled if that somehow becomes part of the widespread contamination. Think extra calories per bite, I can see the consumers snappin that up by the car load!

Kidding aside, the term "substantial equivalent" is the crux of the industry. The comparison of nutrients is a critical element, and backbone of the loopholing leagaleese, used to get these altered foods to consumers without any testing or identification.

Now put on your black hat, erase any ideas of common sense, stuff the ethics in a drawer and think like a Beltway Bandit. Monsanto's lobbyist lawer fro King & Spaulding took a few top spots at FDA and Policy divisions. He rewrote the food laws to include a special new category called "substantial equivalent" and along with that, they introduced via their mouthpieces and news releases a term called "sound science" which is the spin tool which we will get to but first, the untested foods.

Michael Taylor's plan was simply brilliant because it's so brilliantly simple. What the new policy said is that they would be compared to traditional foods in terms of nutrients, protein fiber, blah, blah all the stuff on the label and most not worth the space.

Unless there were genes coming from things generally known to give people allergic reactions, all that would be required to sell them would be a conversation with the FDA, advising them that it was "substantially equivalent" and off to market.

Now the industry claims that they are highly regulated and tested and more testing than, on and on.

"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our
interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is
[the U.S. Food and Drug Administration]'s job." A quote from Phil Angell,
Monsanto's director of corporate communications, to the New York Times,
October 25, 1998: Pollan, M., "Playing God in the Garden,"

It is not true. The FDA does not test them. The FDA does not say they are safe.

Here is the first of many documents, now read these words carefully. What this means is that, no one is taking responsibility for them. We read above the Monsanto position that safety is the FDA's job, but the FDA document doesn't say the FDA says these are safe, they say, we heard your claims, peace out and love. Short and sweet, next step pump them into the clueless Americans for a while and see what happens.

CFSAN/Office of Premarket Approval
September 19, 1994
(Effective June 18, 2001, Office of Premarket Approval is now Office of Food Additive Safety. See updated contact information.)

Biotechnology Consultation Memorandum of Conference
BNF No. 000001 September 19, 1994
Participants:

Monsanto:

Bruce Hammond
Steve Padgette
Diane Re
Marty Strauss
Russ Schneider
Roy Fuchs
Kathryn Kolacz
Nancy Taylor
Daryl Thake
Gary Hartnell
Stephen Rogers

FDA:

James Maryanski
Nega Beru
F. Owen Fields
Carl B. Johnson
Thomas A. Cebula
Jeanette Glover Glew
Zofia Olempska-Beer
Linda Kahl
John Wallingford
Gillian Robert-Baldo
Min Song
Bill Price
Mika Alewynse

Subject: Glyphosate-tolerant soybeans.

Keywords: Soybean; glyphosate (herbicide) tolerance; EPSPS from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 (CP4 EPSPS).

This meeting was intended to bring Monsanto's consultation with FDA on the food and feed safety of this product to closure. Monsanto had previously met with the agency on this subject (see memorandum of June 24, 1993 meeting in Subject File 1319 (SBJ 1319)).
Intended Effect and Food/Feed Use

The intended effect of this genetic modification is to render soybean (Glycine max) plants tolerant to commercially relevant levels of the non-selective herbicide glyphosate. Soybeans or processed products derived from soybeans are used for both human and animal food, with the large majority being used in animal feed.
Mechanism of Intended Effect

Glyphosate's herbicidal activity is conferred by its ability to potently inhibit the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), which has an essential function in all plants, fungi, and bacteria in the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids. Monsanto has isolated a gene from the soil bacterium Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 which encodes an EPSPS (hereafter referred to as CP4 EPSPS) which is highly resistant to inhibition by glyphosate. Expression of relatively low levels of CP4 EPSPS renders soybeans tolerant of commercially relevant levels of glyphosate.
Molecular Alterations and Characterization

A map of the pUC119-based vector used for particle gun-mediated transformation of the CP4 EPSPS expression cassette is shown on page 21 of Monsanto's submission of September 2, 1994. Based on PCR analysis and restriction mapping of genomic DNA from the final transgenic line intended for commercialization (line 40-3-2, derived from the parental line A5403), Monsanto has concluded that the inserted DNA spans a maximum of 2280 base pairs (bp) in length and extends from a breakpoint within the enhanced cauliflower mosaic virus 35S (E35S) promoter to a breakpoint 3' of the poly-A site of the nopaline synthase (NOS) transcriptional terminator (refer to page 24 of the submission). This transgene is predicted to express a chimeric primary translation product comprised of an N-terminal petunia chloroplast transit peptide (CTP) fused to the full-length CP4 EPSPS coding sequence. The CTP is intended to target the mature CP4 EPSPS polypeptide to its site of action in the chloroplast.

Based on genomic restriction mapping and genetic analysis, Monsanto has concluded that the CP4 EPSPS-expressing transgene is present in one copy, is integrated at a single locus, segregates as a single dominant Mendelian trait, and is molecularly stable over six generations. Monsanto also stated that the trait is phenotypically stable over several generations.

Monsanto has concluded that other sequences present on the original vector (including the kanr gene, the gene encoding E. coli glucuronidase, a second CP4 EPSPS expression cassette, and sequences derived from the pUC119 parent vector - refer to page 21 of the submission) were not present in line 40-3-2 as judged by Southern analysis.
Safety of the Expressed Protein

According to Monsanto, based on the N-terminal sequence of purified soybean CP4 EPSPS, the CTP, as expected, is cleaved from the primary translation product upon transport into the chloroplast (or plastid stroma), leaving the mature CP4 EPSPS protein. CP4 EPSPS is similar in predicted amino acid sequence to EPSPS enzymes from a wide variety of prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms. Based on comparisons with known protein allergens and toxins carried out by standard methods, Monsanto has concluded that CP4 EPSPS is not significantly similar in amino acid sequence to known protein toxins or allergens. Monsanto also reported that soybeans subjected to heat treatment which is typical of that experienced during normal soybean processing show no detectable EPSPS activity, indicating that typical soybean processing completely destroys both CP4 EPSPS and endogenous soybean EPSPS activity. Virtually all soy products used in food or feed are heat-processed prior to consumption.

In order to produce sufficient material for safety and metabolism studies, Monsanto has produced CP4 EPSPS in E. coli. Based on comparisons of molecular weight, N-terminal sequence, specific activity, immunoreactivity, and the absence of glycosylation, Monsanto has concluded that E. coli-produced CP4 EPSPS is equivalent to CP4 EPSPS purified from soybeans. According to Monsanto, CP4 EPSPS is rapidly digested in simulated gastric and intestinal fluid and, as expected, showed no acute toxicity in a mouse gavage study. Monsanto also stated that CP4 EPSPS does not fit the profile of the typical allergen because 1) it is not heat stable; 2) it is not a major protein in soybeans; 3) it is not resistant to digestion; and 4) it is not glycosylated.
Compositional Analysis

Based on the nature of the genetic modification, it was not expected that glyphosate-tolerant soybeans would differ compositionally from other soybean varieties. To confirm this expectation, Monsanto carried out compositional analyses which focussed on analysis of whole beans but also included compositional analyses of major soy-derived products, including toasted soybean meal, soy oil, defatted soy flour, and soy protein isolate.

Based on their analysis of whole beans (and, for certain parameters, various soy products), Monsanto has concluded that glyphosate-tolerant soybeans are not significantly different from other soybean varieties in protein, fat, fiber, ash, carbohydrate, amino acid, fatty acid, trypsin inhibitor, lectin, isoflavone (genistein and daidzen), phospholipid (lecithin), phytate, stachyose, or raffinose content. Monsanto's analysis of some of these parameters in glyphosate-treated soybeans led them to similar conclusions.

In order to verify that glyphosate-tolerant varieties of soybeans express levels of soybean allergens no greater than traditional varieties, Monsanto carried out immunoblot analysis using pooled serum from individuals allergic to soybeans. Monsanto reported that there was no difference between glyphosate-tolerant and control lines of soybeans in the level of expression of immunoreactive material.
Wholesomeness Studies

Monsanto described the results of wholesomeness studies they carried out in rats, chickens, catfish, dairy cattle, and bobwhite quail. On the basis of their consideration of the totality of these studies, Monsanto has concluded that there is no significant difference in the wholesomeness of glyphosate-tolerant and traditional soybean varieties, as expected from their compositional analysis. These data are summarized on page 49 of Monsanto's September 2 submission.
Conclusions

Monsanto has concluded, in essence, that the glyphosate-tolerant soybean variety they have developed is not significantly altered within the meaning of 21 CFR 170.30(f)(2) when compared to soybean varieties with a history of safe use. At this time, based on Monsanto's description of its data and analysis, the agency considers Monsanto's consultation on this product to be complete.

/s/
F. Owen Fields, Ph.D.

horizontal rule
Biotechnology | Products: Completed Consultations
horizontal rule
CFSAN Home | CFSAN Search/Subject Index | CFSAN Disclaimers & Privacy Policy | CFSAN Accessibility/Help
FDA Home Page | Search FDA Site | FDA A-Z Index | Contact FDA

FDA/Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition
Hypertext updated by jmf/pmg/rxm March 15, 2004

You may think there must be more, there ought more, ooodles and oodles, studies and follow ups, tests, but no, there is not. This is the whole deal, Monsanto says it's safe.

and I've never seen info on them being substantially different

Altering the genetic material is the difference. Ask anyone who has a gene for breast cancer or other deadly health effect if it a small change in the genes really matters. It does, every change has dramatic implications.

Brian White...To be blunt, I doubt the nutritional content of a human with cancer is signifigantly different than the nutritional content of a human without cancer, regardless of the genetic differences and the health effects for that human.

You've got me totally bewildered. I'm not even sure what to say, that is one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read and I don't feel at all sure we are talking about similar issues with a common set of terminology.

To restate my point, the nutritional measures that are taken are "substantially equivalent" but genetically they are not even close. Making a food like corn into something that is toxic, as the Bt varieties are to the "target organisms" is not the same as corn with no toxin and no mutational genetic properties that are impossible within the bounds of Nature.

Goats have been created with the ability to be milked for spider silk protein. Just because that goat meat is pound for pound the same fat and fiber does not make the silk milking goat the same to the natural world.

What long term effect will result from blasting the genomes of species with bacteria and viruses until some event produces a desired characteristic and then setting them into the wild is a question know one knows the answer to. Compounding the wild card effect are the fact of mutations over generations and cross breeding, not only with natural varieties but with other alterd forms.

What do you get when you take some experimental pharma crops and add them into the mix? Does a blend of Starlink and Ht and Bt interact with any medications, do they interact with one another? What happens when you have trace levels of insulin as part of your breakfast? What will the insulin plant do when it crossed with the AIDS drug? Any clues?

Food crops are growing drugs for HIV/AIDS and insulin, a breast milk protein is in a Ventria rice that's an ongoing effort to have a rice cereal to treat infant diahreah, One third of poor people do not have clean water, maybe that's a better place to start than vaccines growing across the landscape. Here's the UCS database of pharma trials in America. This is the map I was looking for showing Hawai'i at 14,000+ but lots of states have big experimental crop totals. High scores go to the states owned by agribusiness growing USDA cash crops.

The claim was made here that due to GM, the crops have less nutrition.

Where? Not by me, because I don't give a hoot what their nutrient variations are; it's a totally moot point to me. I don't mean that to sound snarky, I'm just having trouble getting on to the same page with you Brian

That's comparing growing methods, not different plant forms or gmos.

Advocates of organics have argued that food grown without chemical fertilisers or pesticides must be healthier while critics have said they may be more risky because of naturally occurring infections and because of the liberal use of cow dung.

The agency said: "There is not enough information available at present to be able to say that organic foods are significantly different in terms of their safety and nutritional content ... '

"A varied and balanced diet which includes plenty of fruit, vegetables and starchy foods should provide all the nutrients that a healthy individual requires, regardless of whether the individual components are produced by organic or conventional methods," the report continued.

What a brilliant examole, Yuriy, thank you.

There is no evidence of significant nutritional difference between organic produce and fertilized conventional produce.

That's not quite right. There are nutritional differences in foods based on how they are grown and there are studies which quantify the changes. It may be that in this age of toxic environment and hybridized foods the differences are less than what they once may have been and certainly for foods like oranges with dense protective coverings it might be identical in terms of the fruits because the applied chemicals are far from the plant's root source and uptake may be a very tiny amount. Here's an article in the San Francisco Gate that examined it and gives a fairly straight view of both sides. Haha, sort of funny the straight view, nevermind.

Well until the folks with the big paychecks start doing what we do it's just you, me and a few million dedicated citizens around the globe working on our own. For anyone who wants to learn how to go about researching to find who is behind a site that you are looking at there's a wonderful article by Mykola that's almost a Muckraking for Dummies and I say that in a most complimentary way.

Myk's outlined the steps beautifully and in a way we can all follow along and apply to other situations.

firsty I'm at the top of that list of 96, anyone got a problem, New Yawkas always know someone in Joisey

I'm not saying anything about my friends in Joisey, no one is. :~) Lucky you Seattle is one of my most favorite cities. We lived there when my kiddies were little and it gave them a love of urban living in the least urban way

Ah, it's a two edged sword to see so much that connects in ways others don't really see. The simple truth is though that it was not a noble pursuit but a result of having a child who reacted to foods that could not be identified with current allergy tests. I set out like any other mother to find out why.

I just happened to have the good fortune to be among some of the world's top cancer researchers and was able to ask the questions about immune system reactions to finally identify the gmo ingredients in corn and soy as the offending ingredients in 1999. After that it was a few years of going to the media begging everyone and anyone to do a story about the gmo ingredients. Not only would no one touch the story, the shooed me away like nobody's business so I went on a search to see why it was that this topic of food was taboo.

When I was young food wasn't banned from discussion sex was; suddenly I was in a culture where every sexual perversion was on the airwaves and the truth about our food was banned form discussion. It made no sense at all; so without any real idea who or what was causing this information vacuum I started digging and it became a career.

In the end, still it is a mother's wish to have pure food for not only my children but hundreds of millions of others now beginning life plagued by illness and allergies, disease and obesity. We owe our children a life where they have a chance to be carefree and healthy and can grow to productive adults. In my view there are but a handful of corporate interests stopping that from happening so until mothers and fathers and consumers in America have the freedom to eat what Nature created the fight goes on.

We are a fierce breed as Nature intended, go us!!

Well the kudos really go a long way to make it feel valuable so thanks to all who appreciate it. Speaking of crimes though, isn't there a crime when a professional uses a site like this to promote a corporate PR strategy. In effect they are stealing ad space and that's something the owners should be concerned with.

It's bad enough that corporate giants push down wages and benefits isn't there any free ride they won't take at the expense of the public? We write away supplying content to make pages for paying ads to create value as a package. How is it that any company can break the rules and the trust and get off without any consequence?

I would think that at a minimum there ought to be a corporate apology by Monsanto and some denial that they endorse such actions by agents acting on their behalf. We're not chopped liver anymore we're an MSNBC asset and when one corporate giant kicks another in the shins it's generally accepted a public response, however hollow is forthcoming. It may be they'll just omit putting us in the loop as we were with the acquisition. While I'm sure the MSNBC employees probably got some corporate memo about the new fly on the wall the customary note from the new owner to the acquired workers was conspicuously absent. Having survived enough M&A stuff this is a new record to see no acknowledgment by the acquiring corp at all.

Forest, I read this three times and couldn't for the life of me catch what you were getting at, until I got my glasses on and saw it was steak not streaks and finally got to understand and have a good laugh at me.

I understand that to an extent with the small individual business operators who are struggling to find a living. I still think it's wrong, but they aren't operating with billions of dollars and able to buy ads anywhere they want.

Well it's nice to have feedback from you on that. I tend to track the few biggest and figure everything else is small, live and learn. I do know that I've written about folks like AOL Time Warner doing Craig's List ads for unpaid talent to do stuff like MTV Korean News and such. They even dangle the experience out so they can skip paying anyone on the bottom. Those abuses frost me, some pay for some work ought to be a given. They abuse everything from the NGO fronts as tax write offs to the free labor with interns and volunteers.

That's why they're here, we have all the seeds!

Nice pickup there lauhal.

You could end up like Ardith and be sleeping with the fishes if you don't watch your step around certain authors with connections to power.

What happened there was an unfortunate pattern of lying that is unsustainable in a community where folks know one another. We don't need to agree, or even like one another, but making stuff up can't fly forever.

Nothing can mess it up Dennis this is the perfect storm and we're full of good crew, the rest we toss! *smirk*

Truthfully it never crossed my mind, ever. I thought there was a chance users who were new might wonder about comments that are like an inside joke and it was simply an effort to give them something so they can read the remarks and go oh, don't care and move on as opposed to feeling left out. What's more I don't care whoi is who except in cases like the Monsanto PR situation here or one on one as it comes in the comments. I haven't the memory or interest to worry about silly stuff when there are real issues I've got to work on.

finalcut....Companies and industry spokespeople are going to try and take advantage of the social web - they would be foolish not to. I'm not even sure why this is an article. Great job for unmasking the guy and everything but, really, he is no different than any other spammer who attempts to seed the vine.

I couldn't disagree more. This guy is featured on the Monsanto corporate website that promotes a product that was covertly slipped into the American food supply. The company has never stepped forward to discuss the products they cheat by leaking propaganda into the public by plants pretending to be informed information sources.

This is consumer fraud. Not only is it a cheaters way to do it the information is wrong and riddled with lies. Are we supposed to accept that corporations have no boundaries, no limits, no line that defines where advertising crosses into a propaganda campaign and is stopped by some consumer protections?

Is putting PR professionals on Newsvine, masquerading as an individual participant acceptable for a multibillion dollar business with a highly controversial product? Are there no consumer protection laws that limit their actions? Is there no place where corporations are not free to use whatever manipulations and abuses of public trust under the guise of public opinion?

Over 90% of America's soy is Roundup Ready and if Monsanto wants to advertise "benefits" they should get ad space on Sunday morning along with all the other toxic players like Dow's human element campaign, and ADM's Resourceful by Nature and pay to spin the PR any way they want.

One of the biggest problems in America is that corporate citizens have no accountability for their actions. No corporate officers have ever been held liable for corporate killing. There's no downside to lawbreaking but a fee from the shareholders pockets. How nice would it be to operate without any limits to your actions and no consequences for fraud, recklessness, death and destruction?

For generations they manufactured PCB's, from 1935-1977 when they were outlawed. Residents of Anniston Alabama had PCB's dumped in their town and water supply for generations and it was 2002 by the time the delays and court manuverings ended and the people of Anniston got their judgement. Here's what the judge wrote....

On February 22, 2002, Monsanto was found guilty of "negligence, wantonness,
suppression of truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage" Under Alabama law the
rare claim of outrage requires "conduct so outrageous in character and
extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be
regarded as atrocious and intolerable in civilized society".

Now they're here at Newsvine with one of their featured voices targeting our readers who come specifically to avoid the paid corporate PR that has dominated the mainstream corporate media. This isn't spam it's a very well strategized policy of doing whatever it takes to sell an uninformed public the idea that there is some discussion of the products.

They have had a decade to get information to the public but instead they've gathered a collection of front groups who are steadfast promoters, fine, they pay for that. There needs to be some line where individual rights are not subjugated by corporate profit motives and if its not here then there is no place in America where it exists at all and we may as well replace the flag over the Capitol with the NASDAQ and NYSE flags and declare ourselves a fascist state where the views held by our corporate rulers are part of the measure of our patriotism. We can look forward to praying, give us this day our Roundup Ready bread next, maybe?

No corporate officers have ever been held liable for corporate killing.

Raat...That may possibly be a bit too far. Think of Enron, Andersons and Worldnet to name a few where (I think) perpetrators did get taken to court for fraud and wrongdoing.

Paying a find for white collar crime, especially from corporate coffers hardly seems like a huge price to pay for criminal activity but the larger point is about death. When a company puts a dangerous product on the market, knowing in advance there will be a loss of human life or is so negligent in disposing of toxic waste that a time release death occurs, there is no murder trial. No executive goes before a jury charged with the killing, the corporate shield is like immunity.

Look at Koch Industries another name revered inside the Beltway but unheard of by average Americans.

"Today's landmark fine against Koch Industries for egregious violations of the Clean Water Act sends a strong message that those who try to profit from polluting our environment will pay the price," said EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner. "It is another sign of the Clinton-Gore Administration's strong commitment to protecting our communities from environmental threats."

What the Justice Department announcement omits is how little that is and what the Bush/Ashcroft factor did to reduce it to a laughable minimum in the context of the actions.

Oh sorry this got lost in my tabs hours ago and now I'm not sure where the other links to deaths from corporate responsibility is but there are enough cases of workers dying when they didn't need to if only someone didn't have the luxury of not caring because there's never any skin in the game. My own thoughts always go to my fellow New Yorkers who showed up at Ground Zero as Patriots answering the call only to be tossed aside like the vets at Walter Reed's Building 18.

It's the Congressional view of the balance of powers, private profits and public sacrifice.

Thank you for that MasterNav. I think it's important to know that it is possible as individuals to have dramatically different, even opposing views in concluding what something means, and still both be looking for the same fundamental facts, with which to make an informed decision.

I think we see users at Newsvine struggle to do that on very many levels. It is no problem for us to reach opposite conclusions from the facts if we are able to establish what the facts are. As for Cargill, you're right about them being a huge player with plenty of fodder for a muckraker to dig into.

They are another part in the drive to feed Americans factory food, to control global agriculture and feed from taxpayer funds. The truth is they are not driving economic growth but feeding on the tax dollars of hardworking Americans.

June 9, 2005

U.S. taxpayers provided $264 million in 2004 to a handful of agribusiness firms through an obscure but controversial cotton subsidy program at the center of a fierce global debate over agricultural subsidies

RankCompanyCity/State Total Step-2 Cotton Payments 2004

1 Allenberg Cotton CoCordova, TN $ 34,574,377
2 Dunavant Enterprises IncFresno, CA & Memphis, TN $ 23,885,836
3 Cargill Cotton, Div of CargillCordova, TN $ 22,798,179

Nevermind that the bulk of the cotton in the discussion here comes from Monsanto as does the corn and soy we subsidize. Free markets is a claim business and political leaders promote along with free trade but really it's a free ride for the ones who pay for the Congressional reps.

Here the conservative Cato Institute study quotes the Chairman of ADM who admits the idea of free enterprise is a sham.

Chairman Dwayne Andreas's and ADM's success in farming Washington represents the rational result of contemporary government policies that turn elections into "an advanced auction of stolen goods," as H. L. Mencken quipped. Thanks to its multi-million-dollar hustling in Washington, a company that lives and dies on the generosity of the American taxpayer has managed to get itself revered as a great public servant. Although ADM is not the only corporation with its hand out in Washington, it is easily one of the most successful beggars on the block.(1)

Andreas recently told a reporter for Mother Jones, "There isn't one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country."(2) Andreas's comment about "no free markets" is like the old joke about the son who murdered his parents and then asked for the court's mercy because he was an orphan. ADM champions political control over markets and then invokes that control as an excuse for its continued political manipulation. Andreas has exerted his influence in Washington to ensure that the U.S. form of "socialism" resembles 1930s' Italian corporate statism: the government plunders the citizenry for the benefit of politically connected corporations. And, though Andreas does not like to admit it, there are many markets in the world for agricultural products that are not controlled by politicians.

This past May ADM ran in major newspapers a full-page, full-color ad showing a corn cob decorated with the American flag with a picture of President John F. Kennedy along with Kennedy's most famous slogan, "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country." The advertisement is the ultimate Orwellian agit-prop exercise, the true message being, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for ADM." Such misleading "public service" ad campaigns are the staple of ADM's public relations operation, providing the thin cover necessary to plunder the public till.