This is a question I often ask myself. As you know, much of the food we eat is either genetically modified, sprayed with a myriad of pesticides, or subject to just plain questionable practices.
I was often told by many of my friends that the Monsanto corporation was the "Great Satan" of agribusiness, because of their unfair practices regarding their operations in developing nations, and their lawsuits over GMO's. According to one particularly incensed friend of mine, a farmer can grow his own crops and mind his own business, but if he is anywhere near a Monsanto grow operation his crops can be pollinated by GMO's. This, of course, results in Monsanto filing a lawsuit and essentially divesting the farmer of his land. Fair business, indeed.
But what really scares me about Monsanto is something I read on reddit after waking up this morning. A website called Chemical Industry Archives (the article I reference here: Dirty Secrets: Anniston in Depth) blows the lid off Monsanto's innocence claims that it had no idea of the horrible toxic effects that their products containing PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) had on the human body.
That's all well and good, except for the fact that they are blatantly lying. The compilers of the website have found internal Monsanto memos dating back to the late 1930's that have been detailing the toxic effects PCB's have on organics. The company knew early on their chemical could cause "systemic toxic effects," "liver damage," and a condition known as chloracne. One would think that safety would be a prime concern in the production and application of these chemicals, but surprise surprise, it wasn't really. According to one memo posted on the website, "For a time the Aroclor operators had to bathe on leaving work and a change of work clothing was provided, but this practice was decontinued." These people are criminals for knowingly endangering the health of their workers. Why don't we see any prosecutions about these crimes?
Perhaps the most egregious and disgusting thing posted on this website was that the Navy ran its own toxicity tests on the a product marketed for hydraulics, and found it to be far "too toxic for use on its submarines." Monsanto's reply? "Since the interpretation of toxicity data is quite relative, our interpretation of facts and data would not be sufficient to change their opinions." Since when has toxicity to living beings "relative"? It scares the hell out of me knowing there are people who believe this statement. Does this mean their "interpretation" of the facts are mistruths designed to mislead the average consumer?
All of this begs the bigger question of what exactly is being put in the products we use? As consumers we enjoy warning labels and lists of ingredients in food products and such, but what does it mean when a company isn't as honest about its practices as we'd like it to be? Simple answer: Terrible things can happen. Just ask the workers with cloracne, liver problems, and even the few that died! (I encourage you to read the entire linked article).
There are plenty of examples of institutions that we trust flat out lying to us about things, and they pressure or silence scientists who try to blow the lid off questionable practices. Some prominent ones include: the Bush Administration pressuring scientists about climate change (MSNBC: Bush pressure seen on climate experts), Monsanto pressuring scientists to release more favorable conclusions (above article), the poultry industry in New Zealand hindering research on the use of antibiotics in chickens (Mike the Mad Biologist: Antibiotics and Poultry). The list goes on. Is it right that we are being endangered so that people are allowed to make more money?
Monsanto's questionable practices with PCB's draws one to ask questions about their genetically modified organisms, also known to some as a less endearing term "Frankenfood." If you have been alive in the last 15 years you have probably eaten a GMO. Many of these range from plants that emit pesticides to ward off insects, or food engineered to have more of a certain type of protein. And they're in almost everything we eat!
While much of the modern research says there are little to no risks associated with GM plants, others contend the opposite. Groups like True Food Network (truefoodnow.org) and the Organic Consumers Association (organicconsumers.org) claim that little to no research has been done on the long term effects of GM food. They cite the fact that most of the studies are done by the industry itself, or scientists affiliated with the industry, and thus cannot be trusted to be completely impartial. Does anyone see the connection with this? Monsanto downplayed the toxicity of its PCB's to their consumers in their studies, and now they state their own studies proclaiming genetically modified plants are perfectly safe for human consumption.
Perhaps we need to take a deeper look at what exactly is going on with these plants. As Monsanto has proven in the past, they can't be trusted to be completely honest with their findings. There are too many examples of interests not being completely honest about the effects of their products. Unfortunately for us, research on GM crops is highly restricted due to copyright laws. According to wikipedia, the Food and Drug Administration is sent the data compiled by the producer and then analyzes that. Why can't the FDA conduct their own tests?
But at this point it is anyone's game. Either side could be right. I just think that due to documented cases of companies lying about the effects of their products, more independent research is needed.
EDIT 8:55 PM: GMO Scandal: The Long Term Effects of Genetically Modified Food on Humans Just found this on reddit. Yep, independent research is explicitly forbidden on GMO seeds. Therefore, we don't know for sure whether these products have terrible long term effects on living organisms or the environment. All we know is what the corporations tell us. I feel so much safer!
I was often told by many of my friends that the Monsanto corporation was the "Great Satan" of agribusiness, because of their unfair practices regarding their operations in developing nations, and their lawsuits over GMO's. According to one particularly incensed friend of mine, a farmer can grow his own crops and mind his own business, but if he is anywhere near a Monsanto grow operation his crops can be pollinated by GMO's. This, of course, results in Monsanto filing a lawsuit and essentially divesting the farmer of his land. Fair business, indeed.
But what really scares me about Monsanto is something I read on reddit after waking up this morning. A website called Chemical Industry Archives (the article I reference here: Dirty Secrets: Anniston in Depth) blows the lid off Monsanto's innocence claims that it had no idea of the horrible toxic effects that their products containing PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) had on the human body.
That's all well and good, except for the fact that they are blatantly lying. The compilers of the website have found internal Monsanto memos dating back to the late 1930's that have been detailing the toxic effects PCB's have on organics. The company knew early on their chemical could cause "systemic toxic effects," "liver damage," and a condition known as chloracne. One would think that safety would be a prime concern in the production and application of these chemicals, but surprise surprise, it wasn't really. According to one memo posted on the website, "For a time the Aroclor operators had to bathe on leaving work and a change of work clothing was provided, but this practice was decontinued." These people are criminals for knowingly endangering the health of their workers. Why don't we see any prosecutions about these crimes?
Perhaps the most egregious and disgusting thing posted on this website was that the Navy ran its own toxicity tests on the a product marketed for hydraulics, and found it to be far "too toxic for use on its submarines." Monsanto's reply? "Since the interpretation of toxicity data is quite relative, our interpretation of facts and data would not be sufficient to change their opinions." Since when has toxicity to living beings "relative"? It scares the hell out of me knowing there are people who believe this statement. Does this mean their "interpretation" of the facts are mistruths designed to mislead the average consumer?
All of this begs the bigger question of what exactly is being put in the products we use? As consumers we enjoy warning labels and lists of ingredients in food products and such, but what does it mean when a company isn't as honest about its practices as we'd like it to be? Simple answer: Terrible things can happen. Just ask the workers with cloracne, liver problems, and even the few that died! (I encourage you to read the entire linked article).
There are plenty of examples of institutions that we trust flat out lying to us about things, and they pressure or silence scientists who try to blow the lid off questionable practices. Some prominent ones include: the Bush Administration pressuring scientists about climate change (MSNBC: Bush pressure seen on climate experts), Monsanto pressuring scientists to release more favorable conclusions (above article), the poultry industry in New Zealand hindering research on the use of antibiotics in chickens (Mike the Mad Biologist: Antibiotics and Poultry). The list goes on. Is it right that we are being endangered so that people are allowed to make more money?
Monsanto's questionable practices with PCB's draws one to ask questions about their genetically modified organisms, also known to some as a less endearing term "Frankenfood." If you have been alive in the last 15 years you have probably eaten a GMO. Many of these range from plants that emit pesticides to ward off insects, or food engineered to have more of a certain type of protein. And they're in almost everything we eat!
While much of the modern research says there are little to no risks associated with GM plants, others contend the opposite. Groups like True Food Network (truefoodnow.org) and the Organic Consumers Association (organicconsumers.org) claim that little to no research has been done on the long term effects of GM food. They cite the fact that most of the studies are done by the industry itself, or scientists affiliated with the industry, and thus cannot be trusted to be completely impartial. Does anyone see the connection with this? Monsanto downplayed the toxicity of its PCB's to their consumers in their studies, and now they state their own studies proclaiming genetically modified plants are perfectly safe for human consumption.
Perhaps we need to take a deeper look at what exactly is going on with these plants. As Monsanto has proven in the past, they can't be trusted to be completely honest with their findings. There are too many examples of interests not being completely honest about the effects of their products. Unfortunately for us, research on GM crops is highly restricted due to copyright laws. According to wikipedia, the Food and Drug Administration is sent the data compiled by the producer and then analyzes that. Why can't the FDA conduct their own tests?
But at this point it is anyone's game. Either side could be right. I just think that due to documented cases of companies lying about the effects of their products, more independent research is needed.
EDIT 8:55 PM: GMO Scandal: The Long Term Effects of Genetically Modified Food on Humans Just found this on reddit. Yep, independent research is explicitly forbidden on GMO seeds. Therefore, we don't know for sure whether these products have terrible long term effects on living organisms or the environment. All we know is what the corporations tell us. I feel so much safer!
No comments:
Post a Comment