You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Many Pro-GMO Corporate Biologists Own GMO Patents, in Bed with Monsanto

Anthony Gucciardi
Natural Society / News Report
Published: Sunday 25 November 2012
“Not only did the public begin to further recognize the existence and threat of GMOs thanks to his research, but numerous countries like Russia and others actually enacted a suspension on the import of genetically modified maize due to public health concerns.”
Article image

The lead researcher behind the monumental study that linked Monsanto’s GMOs and best-selling herbicide Roundup to tumor development and early death is now blowing the whistle on many corporate scientists who are not just close to Monsanto and profit-harvesting GMO crops — many of them actually have or are seeking their own GMO patents. These patents, of course, enable them to make bountiful amounts of cash. Other corporate scientists are on (or ‘were’ at one point) Monsanto’s pay roll, including former Monsanto executive turned Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the FDA Michael R. Taylor.

Dr. Gilles-Eric Séralini, a French scientists who has been under assault from Monsanto and pro-GMO scientists, was responsible for perhaps the largest awakening over the dangers of Monsanto’s GMO foods that we have ever seen. Not only did the public begin to further recognize the existence and threat of GMOs thanks to his research, but numerous countries like Russia and others actually enacted a suspension on the import of genetically modified maize due to public health concerns.

This, of course, upset the Monsanto-funded corporate scientists who proverbially ‘unleashed the dogs’ on Dr. Séralini. Even Monsanto released a comment, stating that the lifelong rat study wasn’t sufficient to substantiate any real health concerns. The company itself, amazingly, only conducted a 90 day trial period for its GMOs before unleashing them on the public.

Previous Peer-Reviewed Evidence Highlighting GMO Danger Ignored by ‘Scientists’

It’s important to remember that Séralini’s work may be the most popular within the media, but it’s not the only research linking GMOs and Roundup to serious health effects. Monsanto and fellow goons failed to mention this truth, especially the fact that Monsanto’s Roundup has been associated with over 29 negative health conditions according to peer-reviewed studies available on PubMed. And these conditions are nothing minor. Health effects linked to Roundup include:

  • Cancer
  • Parkinson’s
  • DNA damage
  • Low testosterone
  • Liver damage
  • Infertility
  • Endocrine disease

These are serious disorders that result from the very Roundup that is used on crops by farmers worldwide before hitting your dinner table. In fact an increased amount of usage is now needed thanks to ineffective GMO crops that are now being eaten by mutated superbugs that have developed a resistance to Monsanto’s built-in GMO pesticides. Roundup covered crops that eventually land on dinner tables worldwide.

But perhaps very few scientists around the globe actually dare speak about these dangers due to the overwhelming political influence Monsanto and other biotech companies have over nations around the globe. We know thanks to 2007 WikiLeaks cables that not only are most if not all U.S. ambassadors on Monsanto payroll, but that prominent U.S. political figures have threatened nations who oppose Monsanto with ‘military-style trade wars’. A threat that has managed to strike fear into many nations who would not risk massive retaliation from the United States.

Now, however, the awareness has grown stronger than ever before and consumers worldwide are taking a stand. A stand that countries around the globe can no longer ignore, nor can corrupt corporate scientists dissipate through phony bought-and-paid-for garbage science.

Author pic
ABOUT Anthony Gucciardi

Anthony is an accomplished investigative journalist whose articles have appeared on top news sites and have been read by millions worldwide. A health activist and researcher, Anthony’s goal is informing the public as to how they can use natural methods to revolutionize their health, as well as exploring the behind the scenes activity of the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA.

Perhaps we should refer to

Perhaps we should refer to "trans"genic modified organisms. It is the crossing of species using lab techniques that seems harmful (Yes, there have been many studies showing toxicity and negative effects on animals. Just that some people refuse to acknowledge them.) Human testing is NOT how can one have studies on transgenic modified organisms? The old saw that we've been genetically modifying foods for years is also known as cross pollination! There's a difference! Another huge concern should be what the pesticides/herbicides are doing to our water supply and the oceans. But, why bother? With global warning so denied my most folks, we won't have humanity to worry about much longer!

Many, many years ago I read

Many, many years ago I read an interesting book "In the Name of Profit". This book not only made me aware to check how any study is financed and by whom. Stands to reason that if a certain group pays for a research project, the researcher(s) won't turn (or won't be allowed to turn) into whistleblowers. This book also detailed how many drugs and/or pharmaceutical items get banned in the US, but get peddled in third world countries, knowing that they kill. Truly all is fair in the name of profit.

I LOVE those who say that

I LOVE those who say that GMO's have been shown to be safe. A few years ago a new atrhritis drug was introduced after extensive "testing." Before it was recalled, Vioxx had KILLED OVER 50,000! If you really dig into the research. the TRUE number killed was much greater than that figure. So much for "testing" and "safe." It only takes a little research to find study after study shownig the harm created by GMO's. And we haven't even to take into account long term effects. But an even bigger issue is: "Don't I have the right to know what's in my food, and allow ME to make the decision to eat it or not?" And to JELTEZ, I think you have been watching too much FOX "news." I'd sure like to know your source that Organics contain all of those pesticides and herbicides.

While I'm certain I don't

While I'm certain I don't want to be eating it, Roundup is an herbicide (a weedkiller) and not a pesticide. Thus it is not implicated in the evolution of pesticide-resistant superbugs, many of which have evolved in response to systemic pesticides like the Bt toxins. Pesticides and herbicides seem to be confounded in this article.
Note that we do now have Roundup resistant weeds, which means that more of poison must be applied to keep the weeds down.

Technically, there are 3

Technically, there are 3 families of pesticide; plant (herbicide) disease (fungicides, viricides, etc) and animal (insect/? pesticides)

Until biotechs can prove

Until biotechs can prove without any doubt that their food is safe, then I'm not about to feed it to my kids, and I'd like my food labelled so I have the freedom to choose what's best for my family, simple as that.
If I was proud of what I was producing, and knew it to be 100% safe and beneficial to mankind, I'd want it clearly labelled so as many people as possible would seek out my product(s). Sure I'd have detractors and competition to deal with, but that's just part of doing business, and I'm not afraid of them. Curious that biotechs don't feel the same way about what they produce.

Wow, what a shocker. I would

Wow, what a shocker. I would have never guessed that someone would try and patent their "life's work". I am also totally shocked that these people would believe that their "babies" are not harmful.

I am also so thankful that we have so many mind readers who are able to peg these agricultural researchers as evil mad scientists hell bent on creating plants that will invade our bodies and take over our brains, thus making us zombie slaves to Monsanto.

Maybe if I had not had the opportunity to experience agricultural plant research I might be inclined to be a bit more worked up over this, but knowing the facts and the science, this is really not the evil GMO alarmists are claiming and Organic is NOT at all what it is being sold as. People who buy organics are being played for suckers. Somewhere P.T. Barnum is laughing.

So we should just all shut up

So we should just all shut up and eat eh? OK. Thanks for your contribution Monsanto.

We grow our own organic fruit

We grow our own organic fruit and vegetables. They taste much better than anything else than you could buy in a shop and that's why we do it. Our produce is far more flavorful and fresh than commercially grown produce. Plus my partner and I never get sick... not in the 10 years we've been growing, not even a cold. I firmly believe that growing your own food is growing your own medicine. From reading your posts jeltez42, I think you work for Monsanto, or at least in the biotech industry. I dont think you've ever farmed your own food or you would know what i'm referring to. Additionally, we use our own waste in our compost, some call it humanure. Our garden THRIVES. There's some food for thought...

J - i suggest you read "GMOs

J - i suggest you read "GMOs - MYTH AND TRUTH" and find the reality, science based reality, behind what you deny. All the claims? Not panning out for GMOs, and to patent the DNA? Totally stupid & wouldn't have happened if Clarence Thomas (proven dishonest, and former Monsanto lawyer) had not tipped the majority. Probably. No telling who else would've been bought off.

Fact: science did not invent DNA. To take the best of the best germplasm from standard non-GMO breeding, change a couple pairs in the DNA and claim that you own the whole shebang is audacious and disingenuous.

Monsanto controls the population through it's 34 employee/subsidiary employees that are in govt. They set regs that force the unknown consumption of these toxins. Monsanto's OWN "science" regarding Bt corn is poorly done but STILL shows liver and kidney cell toxicity. The amount of damage depends upon which of the three varieties you eat, your gender, and the amount of "food" eaten.

An intelligent person would immediately look at these results and say as i did (a carpenter) "Hey, there is a gender specific damage correlation here! Perhaps an INTELLIGENT scientist would care to look into the effects of these plants upon the endocrine system and it's hormones?"

As for the mind reading/evil scientist thing, if one has suspicions that there are health issues possible with the products one develops (not to mention all the PROOF we are increasingly seeing re: damages/toxicity) then to support their usage is causing known damage to others for personal profit. In other words: psychopathic behavior.

@Jeltez422 Either you are on

@Jeltez422 Either you are on Monsanto's pay roll or you are one sad fool. Your post suggests that you yourself are heavily invested financially or emotionally, or both, in this GMO crap. If you do even a modicum of research you would find such "science" completely unacceptable. This stuff has been thoroughly researched and found terribly wanting. The seeds produce monstrosities. I have seen them. Payoffs have emboldened government agencies, here and abroad, to stifle the findings of respected laboratories who had the temerity to publish negative reports. Not only is there evidence of cancerous tumors in laboratory animals, mice, rats and monkeys, but, as the article states the products have now created new species of superbugs who eat this GMO shit like popcorn. And yes, the purveyors of these GMO patents are evil, exploitative and criminally underhanded. They do not dare to allow their product to be labeled. WTF is up with that? I'm sick and tired of the same old arguments apologists for GMO inevitably trot out. To wit:

"Human's have always modified plants." A spectacularly specious argument. True, farmers (and monks) have always experimented with plants and some kept meticulous notes on the results. But when you begin to fiddle about inserting fish DNA into corn DNA, and then fucking about with the patent offices so that it has caused absolute havoc, globally.

Yes, it is evil to cause the death of hundreds of thousands of farmers in India. And if you've done any research at all, and I really doubt it, you would know about that horror story and be very ashamed of your advocacy of GMO products. I personally know local farmers of organic produce from our local farmer's market and Co-op. They are good people. Patent holders of GMO seeds who, through forced contracts, require farmers to buy only their seeds --- are totally evil creeps who routinely pay off judges, as happened in Canada with Percy Schmeizer, and politicians, as in California, and, as the article states, ambassadors, not to mention the Tony Blair administration in the UK, all back room pay offs --- I spit on their "science."

From Nashville, TN Your

From Nashville, TN Your writing on gmos is excellent. I wrote a note to
you about a gmo event that was on November 14, 2012. I never received
any response from you. I guess I did not have the right recommendation.
This Global South Summit was held on 11-14-12. They used the term
inappropriately. This conference included several anti- prop 37 folks.
and Rajiv Shah of USAID , pusher of gmos in Africa + Haiti and more.

For participants, check out
The speakers are shown. I was h0rrified from the start. I guess Nation
of Change did not have the time to open the webpage. Too bad.

GSS intended from the start to have no unbiased journalists. I took
that on. They were adamant about no press. They told me that
they had one reporter, and that would be enough. I was sickened.
I pushed in many angles, and found a contractor who was important
to them, who pushed them to open the conference. They did.

Imagine, all these hellacious talks, and no press to report. I was hopeful
for TV, but even the best station did not come. I hope the Tennessean
would do a decent job, but they lied. In fact, they wrote several
articles about this conference and in every article and editorial
they praised the conference, never mentioning gmos at all. This
was worse than stupid or incorrect, it was fraud.

If any of you write me I will share about the other conferences.
Things do happen in Nashville. This was obviously one of them.

It would be nice to show the

It would be nice to show the terms of their contracts they require farmers to sign. . . . BUT that waould be putting a big dent in their plans...
. . Showing the terms would inform the consumers - - and the best consumer is an informed consumer - - - there is a reason for them keeping everyone in the dark......

Truly. The contract gives

Truly. The contract gives Monsanto all legal power if you sign it. Lifetime of never saying ANYTHIN bad about Monsanto, and they have tried to force farmers that fight to sign documents preventing their HEIRS IN PERPETUITY from ever suing or saying ANYTHING negative about Monsanto.
If you grow real crops and ONE PLANT is contaminated - however it happens - Monsanto owns your ENTIRE CROP and gets every dime of it's profits.
Their contract is literally a return to feudal farming systems.

Just when I think you can't

Just when I think you can't get more absurd you do. Seralini is now a whistleblower? Biotech scientists may profit from their work? Stop the presses! Biotech folks want to make money? How about this? Organic farmers sell their products. Perhaps they should give their food away. How dare they make money off it?

You write: "...Monsanto-funded corporate scientists who proverbially ‘unleashed the dogs’ on Dr. Séralini." Right there is where you show yourself as a member of the tinfoil hat brigade. Every major science and gov't food safety group and scientist who weighed in criticizing Seralini's study is on Monsanto's payroll?

It would be one thing if you anti-GMO folks had some sort of evidence based arguments against GMOs, but you don't. Your argument is the science is bad because bad corporations use it.

Bernie. Let me take you aside

Bernie. Let me take you aside and teach you. I'm going to write it so a child can understand and when I'm done that's when you nod your head and say "Ohh! I was wrong. Thanks for setting me straight."

We don't want to eat it. We want that choice. It's not a science all. It has to do with science as much as it has to do with art. Nothing. nada.

Now you know why your opinion isn't valid k?

Go for it - eat your GMO's

Go for it - eat your GMO's for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks. I want to be GMO free. That is choice. Eat them pure, straight off the corn. And eat all those pesticides too. Yum.

How is the saline and liquid

How is the saline and liquid supplement diet working for your? Hope you have a high tolerance to e-Coli and other lethal food borne diseases. Every thing you eat is a GM plant. EVERYTHING, unless you have managed to get seeds from your great, great, great, grandfather and have been growing them in a totally isolated field.

As for pesticides and herbicides, you really don't know what you are talking about there either. Organics have pesticides and herbicides on them too. In many cases, the concentrations are HIGHER in organics. Oh yeah, enjoy that Organic Approved BT pesticide. And enjoy that modified "organic" soy that is really horrible for your health.

The reality is that pesticides easily wash off. Yes, this is bad news for the soil and ground water, but your food is not covered in it. Yes the weeds and insects are adapting, but this is nothing new. We need to go back to the 5 crop rotations.

If GMO is so good for us, why

If GMO is so good for us, why the resistance to labeling?

So sad. I guess I'm an

So sad. I guess I'm an "unleashed dog", even though I have absolutely no ties to MON. I do have strong ties to science. If you hold that Seralini work up as a valid study you are really blowing your credibility.

Right now every plant you use is patented-- not just GMO. It takes years to breed new lines and plant inventors (e.g. plant breeders) need protection to run their programs. It costs millions of dollars and many years to develop a new variety-- why should they be expected to give it away? You can't propagate your own Honeycrisp apples. You can't legally propagate UC-Davis strawberries. You can't legally steal others' hard work. It is like expecting artists to accept that you'll make knockoffs of their work and sell it for a profit-- unacceptable!

You list of health problems is a total sham. If you actually READ those papers you'll find that they are conducted in petri dishes or are massaged data from animal models. There is absolutely no tie between GMO and human diseases.

As usual, I love Nation of Change. Many excellent points I agree with wholeheartedly. But denial of science is a huge blow to the credibility of this venue, which is unfortunate, because important causes are associated with his fear mongering and bankrupt thinking.

Folta. Please read my

Folta. Please read my response to Bernie Mooney as it applies to you also. Then you too can learn why your opinion isn't valid k?

You too, Mr. Folta. Eat GMO's

You too, Mr. Folta. Eat GMO's for your breakfast, eat them for your lunch, eat them for your dinner, and in between as well. Please be sure to consume as much round up as possible. That is fine for you, but not for me or my family and friends, and not other innocent farmers who are victims of Monsanto's greedy reach. EAT EAT EAT GMO's,Mr. Folta the more the better for you.

GMOs are here to stay and

GMOs are here to stay and your dinner plate is full of them. Ok, whine that you only eat organic, but you are eating GMO's. And keep eating organics, I am sure you will eventually become immune to e-coli and the other lethal illnesses that are found on/in the food. And I am sure that you won't mind all the BT on your foods. I hear it is really good for you, so pile the food up higher.

I agree with part of what you

I agree with part of what you say, but totally disagree with the rest. When you state that "plant breeders" should be compensated for propagating new varieties - if you mean by grafting and cross pollination, you are absolutely correct. If you mean by using chemicals to change the genetics of a plant so that it can withstand massive doses of pesticides - pesticides that I will be consuming, it isn't about compensation at that point. These GMOs should have never gone to market without EXTENSIVE testing for safety. And, I really hope that you do not think that 90-days of testing is adequate to gauge long term effects. And if you believe that animal testing is not relevant, then please join me in getting all animal testing banned. We still do not know the long term effects of GMOs, and without labeling my only alternative is to not purchase any processed foods and and to only purchase organic products. Oh, wait - I already do that. But there's also a problem in relying on organics - because as evidenced by many lawsuits - Monsanto cannot prevent cross-pollination from polluting and contaminating the land and vegetation of organic growers.

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...