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

Outrageous Lies Monsanto and Friends Are Trying to Pass off to Kids as Science

Ronnie Cummins
Alternet / News Analysis
Published: Tuesday 27 March 2012
“The claims made in a book from the biotechnology industry are laughable. But these blatant lies are passed off as ‘science’ for schoolchildren.”
Article image

It's not enough that the biotech industry -- led by multinational corporations such as Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, BAS, and Dupont -- is poisoning our food and our planet. It's also poisoning young minds.

In a blatant attempt at brainwashing, the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) has widely circulated what it calls a Biotechnology Basics Activity Book for kids, to be used by "Agriculture and Science Teachers." The book -- called Look Closer at Biotechnology -- looks like a science workbook, but reads more like a fairy tale. Available on the council's Web site, its colorful pages are full of friendly cartoon faces, puzzles, helpful hints for teachers -- and a heavy dose of outright lies about the likely effects of genetic engineering on health, the environment, world hunger and the future of farming.

CBI's lies are designed specifically for children, and intended for use in classrooms.

At a critical time in history when our planet is veering toward a meltdown, when our youth are suffering the health consequences (obesity, diabetes, allergies) of Big Ag and Food Inc.'s over-processed, fat-and sugar-laden, chemical-, and GMO-tainted foods, a time when we should be educating tomorrow's adults about how to reverse climate change, how to create sustainable farming communities, how to promote better nutrition, the biotech industry's propagandists are infiltrating classrooms with misinformation in the guise of "educational" materials.

Brainwashing children. It's a new low, even for Monsanto.

You don't have to read beyond the first page of Look Closer at Biotechnology to realize that this is pure propaganda:

Hi Kids! Welcome to the Biotechnology Basics Activity Book. This is an activity book for young people like you about biotechnology -- a really neat topic. Why is it such a neat topic? Because biotechnology is helping to improve the health of the Earth and the people who call it home. In this book, you will take a closer look at biotechnology. You will see that biotechnology is being used to figure out how to: 1) grow more food; 2) help the environment; and 3) grow more nutritious food that improves our health. As you work through the puzzles in this book, you will learn more about biotechnology and all of the wonderful ways it can help people live better lives in a healthier world. Have fun!

Before we take a closer look at the lies laid out in Look Closer at Biotechnology -- lies that are repeated over and over again, the better to imprint them on young minds -- let's take a closer look at the book's publisher. The Council for Biotechnology Information describes itself as "a non-profit 501(c)(6) organization that communicates science-based information about the benefits and safety of agricultural biotechnology and its contributions to sustainable development."

According to the Internal Revenue Service, a 501(c)(6) organization is a "business league" devoted to the improvement of business conditions of one or more lines of business. The mission of a 501(c)(6) organization "must focus on the advancement of the conditions of a particular trade or the interests of the community."

The bottom line is that CBI exists to advance the interests of the corporations that it was formed to promote -- in this case, the biotech industry. While it purports to communicate "science-based information," in fact, that's not its mission at all. Its mission is to maximize the profits of Monsanto and the biotech industry.

Not surprisingly, CBI is funded largely by the biotech, chemical, pesticide, and seed industry giants: BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow Agro Sciences, Dupont, Monsanto, and Syngenta.

There's nothing new about corporations lying to the public. Corporations routinely lie to their employees. They lie in advertising. They lie in the lopsided so-called studies and research projects that they self-fund in order to guarantee the outcomes that support their often false, but self-serving premises. They buy off politicians, regulatory officials, scientists, and the media.

Although here we're focusing on the biotech industry trying to brainwash our kids, CBI certainly does not limit its propaganda to just children. CBI recently contributed $375,000 to the Coalition Against the Costly Labeling Law -- a Sacramento-based industry front group working to defeat the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act of 2012. If passed in November, this citizens' ballot Initiative will require food manufacturers and retailers to label foods containing genetically engineered ingredients, as well as ban the routine industry practice of labeling or advertising GE-tainted foods as "natural" or "all natural." CBI, the Farm Bureau, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association are campaigning furiously to preserve their "right" to keep consumers in the dark about whether their food has been genetically engineered or not, and to preserve their "right" to mislabel gene-altered foods as "natural."

Clearly, the Council for Biotechnology Information has little or no regard for "science-based" information. But lies aimed directly at kids -- under the guise of science education? In our schools?

Let's take a closer look at the claims made in Look Closer at Biotechnology.

Lie #1: "Biotechnology is one method being used to help farmers grow more food." (page 7)

This statement is patently false.

In 2009, in the wake of similar studies, the Union of Concerned Scientists examined the data on genetically engineered crops, including USDA statistics. Their report -- Failure to Yield -- was the first major effort to evaluate in detail the overall yields of GE crops after more than 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization in the United States. According to the definitive UCS study, "GE has done little to increase overall crop yields." A number of studies indicate in fact that GE soybeans, for example, actually produce lower yields than non-genetically engineered varieties.

Research conducted by the India research group, Navdanya, and reported in The GMO Emperor Has No Clothes turns up the same results:

Contrary to the claim of feeding the world, genetic engineering has not increased the yield of a single crop. Navdanya's research in India has shown that contrary to Monsanto's claim of Bt cotton yield of 1500 kg per acre, the reality is that the yield is an average of 400-500 kg per acre. Although Monsanto's Indian advertising campaign reports a 50-percent increase in yields for its Bollgard cotton, a survey conducted by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology found that the yields in all trial plots were lower than what the company promised. (Page 11).

The claim that GE crops increase agricultural yields is a blatant lie. Equally untrue is the industry's claim that it is motivated by the desire to feed the hungry of the world. As the Union of Concerned Scientists points out: "For the most part, genetic engineering techniques are being applied to crops important to the industrialized world, not crops on which the world's hungry depend." Where does all the genetically engineered soy and corn -- two of the largest GE crops -- end up? In animal feed, processed junk foods -- and school lunchrooms. Precious little goes to feed the hungry in impoverished regions.

One of the sub-arguments related to increasing yields is the biotech industry's claim that GMO crops are more resistant to pests -- hence more of the crops survive. In Look Closer at Biotechnology kids are told that agricultural biotechnology is a "precise way to make seeds with special qualities. These seeds will allow farmers to grow plants that are . . . more resistant to pests . . ." In fact widespread commercialization of herbicide-resistant and Bt-spliced GE crops has engendered a growing army of superweeds and superpests, oblivious to all but the most powerful and toxic pesticides.

What we should be teaching kids in science class is what scientists have been warning for years -- that any attempt to increase resistance to pests through genetic engineering will ultimately fail. Insects -- and diseases -- will build up a tolerance over time, and evolve into stronger and stronger strains. That's how nature works -- and even Monsanto can't fool Mother Nature. Organic agriculture, on the other hand, utilizing crop rotation, biodiversity, natural fertilizers, and beneficial insects, reduces crop loss from pests and weeds, without the collateral damage of toxic pesticides and fertilizers.

Recently, 22 leading scientists told the US Environmental Protection Agency that it should act with "a sense of urgency" to urge farmers to stop planting Monsanto's genetically engineered Bt corn because it will no longer protect them from the corn rootworm. Bt corn is genetically engineered with bacterial DNA that produces an insecticide in every cell of the plant, aimed at preventing corn rootworm. Except that corn rootworms have now developed resistance to these GE mutants.

Just as scientists had predicted years ago, a new generation of insect larvae has evolved, and is eating away at the roots of Monsanto's Bt corn -- a crop farmers paid a high price for on Monsanto's promise that they would never have to worry about corn rootworm again. Scientists are now warning of massive yield loss and surging corn costs if the EPA doesn't act quickly to drastically reduce Bt crops' acreage and ensure that Monsanto makes non-GMO varieties of corn available to farmers.

"Massive yield loss" doesn't sound like "more food" -- whether you're 12 years old or 112.

What we should be telling kids is what responsible scientists and farmers -- experts at the United Nations -- have been saying all along: Eco-farming can double food output. According to a UN study:

  • Eco-farming projects in 57 nations showed average crop yield gains of 80 percent by tapping natural methods for enhancing soil and protecting against pests.
  • Projects in 20 African countries resulted in a doubling of crop yields within three to 10 years.
  • Sound ecological farming can significantly boost production and in the long term be more effective than conventional farming.

Lie #2: "Biotechnology can help farmers and the environment in many ways." (page 8)

Two lies for the price of one.

Biotechnology -- specifically genetic engineering -- helps neither farmers nor the environment, according to the majority of legitimate scientists and economists. In fact, the opposite is true. Genetic engineering of seeds has wreaked havoc on the environment and brought misery to hundreds of thousands of small farmers all over the world.

The majority of farmers in developing countries struggle to afford even the most basic requirements of seeds and fertilizers. Their survival depends on the age-old practice of selecting, saving and sharing seeds from one year to the next. When multinational corporations move into areas previously dominated by small farmers, they force those farmers to buy their patented seeds and fertilizers -- under pretense of higher yields, and under threats of lawsuits if they save or share the seeds. Every year, they're forced to buy more seeds and more chemicals from corporations -- and when the promises of higher yields and higher incomes prove empty, farmers go bankrupt.

Compounding their corporate crimes, when Monsanto's patented seeds contaminate the non-GMO crops of small farmers (because the seeds drift across property lines) Monsanto routinely sues farmers for growing their patented seeds illegally, even though the seeds were actually unwanted trespassers. Further, the company has ruined the livelihoods of small farmers by harassing them for illegally growing patented seeds, even in cases where no patented seeds have been grown, either knowingly or by accident.

As Monsanto and others have expanded worldwide, into India, China, Pakistan, and other countries, the effect on small farmers has been devastating. In India, for instance, after World Trade Organization policies forced the country in 1998 to open its seed sector to companies like Cargill, Monsanto and Syngenta, farmers quickly found themselves in debt to the biotech companies that forced them to buy corporate seeds and fertilizers and pesticides, destroying local economies. Hundreds of thousands of India's cotton farmers have committed suicide.

And according to a Greenpeace report, poorer farmers in the Philippines were sold Monsanto's Bt corn as a "practical and ecologically sustainable solution for poor corn farmers everywhere to increase their yields" only to find the opposite was true: Bt corn did not control pests and was "not ecologically sustainable."

Which brings us to one more of the Council for Biotechnology Information's lies to kids: That agricultural biotechnology is good for the environment.

Study after study, over more than a decade, has warned us of just the opposite. Even the pro-biotech USDA has admitted that GE crops use more pesticides, not less than non-GE varieties. Genetic engineering results in evermore pesticides being dumped into the environment, destroying soil and water, human and animal health, and threatening the biodiversity of the planet.

How about telling kids instead that numerous reports, including one from the German Beekeepers Association, have linked genetically engineered Bt corn to the widespread disappearance of bees, or what is now referred to as Colony Collapse Disorder? And while we're at it, maybe we should remind kids of the Albert Einstein's quote: "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man."

Maybe we should also tell them that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide, Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world, kills Monarch butterflies, fish, and frogs, destroys soil fertility, and pollutes our waterways and drinking water.

The fact is, widespread use of Monsanto's Roundup in all agricultural and urban areas of the United States is destroying the environment, pure and simple. US Geological Survey studies released this month show that Roundup is now commonly found in rain and rivers in agricultural areas in the Mississippi River watershed, where most applications are for weed control on GE corn, soybeans and cotton. Here's the real truth, from an article published this past week: Monsanto's Roundup is actually threatening the crop-yielding potential of the entire biosphere. According to the article, new research published in the journal Current Microbiology highlights the extent to which "glyphosate is altering, and in some cases destroying, the very microorganisms upon which the health of the soil, and -- amazingly -- the benefits of raw and fermented foods as a whole, depend."

Lie #3: "Scientists are using biotechnology to grow foods that could help make people healthier." (page 11)

This is the perhaps the most outrageous lie of all. Telling kids that GE foods are more nutritious is tantamount to telling them Hostess cupcakes and Coca-Cola are health foods.

Genetic engineering -- of human food and food for animals that humans eat -- has been linked to a host of diseases and health issues, including auto-immune disorders, liver and kidney damage, nutritional deficiencies, allergies, accelerated aging, infertility, and birth defects.

There's a growing and alarming body of research indicating that GMO foods are unsafe, and absolutely no research whatsoever proving that they are safe. And yet the USDA and FDA continue to approve, and just this past month even agreed to speed up approval of these crops that scientists and physicians increasingly link to poor health.

Instead of force-feeding kids lies in bogus activity books, how about having them read some truthful articles?

The study Bt Toxin Kills Human Kidney Cells says Bt toxins are not "inert" on human cells, and may indeed be toxic, causing kidney damage and allergies observed in farmers and factory workers handling Bt crops. The article supports previous studies done on rats, showing that animals fed on three strains of GE corn made by Monsanto suffered signs of organ damage after only three months.Or how about this: "19 Studies Find That GMOs Aren't Up to Consumer Safety Protection Standards" which reports:

It is abundantly clear that both GMOs made to be resistant to herbicides (aka "Roundup Ready") and those made to produce insecticides have damaging impacts on the health of mammals who consume them, particularly in the liver and kidneys. We already know that from the trials of 90 days and less. In looking a little deeper into the info, we found a number of issues that point to a probable increased level of toxicity when these foods are consumed over the long term, including likely multi-generational effects.

Multi-generational effects. Eating GMO foods harms not only our health, and our kids' health -- but quite possibly their kids, too -- even if we stop eating them today.

In a recent report to the United Nations General Assembly Human Rights Council by Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, Schutter outlines the case for sustainable agricultural practices (the antithesis of industrial agribusiness, with its GE crops and heavy reliance on chemical fertilizers and pesticides). He also addresses the links between health and malnutrition. In the report, Schutter shows why undernutrition, micronutrient deficiency and overnutrition are different dimensions of malnutrition that must be addressed together through a life-course approach. From the report's summary:

Existing food systems have failed to address hunger, and at the same time encourage diets that are a source of overweight and obesity that cause even more deaths worldwide than does underweight. A transition towards sustainable diets will succeed only by supporting diverse farming systems that ensure that adequate diets are accessible to all, that simultaneously support the livelihoods of poor farmers and that are ecologically sustainable.

Corporate greed plus a complicit government have allowed for the rampant poisoning of our food and environment, and the demise of sustainable agriculture practices -- practices sorely needed if we are going to feed the world's population, and avoid a world health crisis. And we've exported the same misery and destruction to foreign countries far and wide.

Propaganda like the CBI's Look Closer at Biotechnology has brainwashed many of our kids into thinking that the biotech industry has people -- not profits -- in its best interests. The book's claims are laughable. But framing blatant lies as "science" for children in schools borders on criminal.

For parents and teachers out there, here's an alternate lesson plan. Because world hunger is a concern, because saving our planet does matter, and because better health is a worthy and achievable goal, let's ask our kids to think critically, instead of accepting at face value "information" attractively packaged by multinational corporations.

Don M. Huber, emeritus soil scientist of Purdue University puts it in terms everyone, kids included, can understand. Huber talks about a range of key factors involved in plant growth, including sunlight, water, temperature, genetics, and nutrients taken up from the soil. "Any change in any of these factors impacts all the factors," he said. "No one element acts alone, but all are part of a system." "When you change one thing," he said, "everything else in the web of life changes in relationship."

This is what we should be teaching the future stewards of our planet.

Author pic
ABOUT Ronnie Cummins

Ronnie Cummins is founder and director of the Organic Consumers Association. Cummins is author of numerous articles and books, including "Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers" (Second Revised Edition Marlowe & Company 2004).

I've found that truth is

I've found that truth is never black and white, and there are always contradictory opinions with some valid points. However, what doesn't lie is the trail of money: Monsanto has spent millions on lobbying and in particular buying off the USDA. Let's get back to basics here: great products sell themselves. If a product requires political pressure to be marketed, it shouldn't be in the market because corruption inevitably works against those who don't have the money to defend themselves. This observation, together with your breathless, angry rhetoric, demolishes your arguments most effectively, especially the assertion that you are "independent."

Truly "independent" scientists don't get emotionally involved in an argument the way you do, because they don't have a horse in the race.

Another observation that causes me to doubt you is your assertion, "...that's not a GMO problem. That's any herbicide" I don't like being talked down to and that's what you're doing here. The simplest fact is that Monsanto's GMO strains are designed and marketed to be used with herbicides/insecticides *since they're resistant to them.* The conclusion is that they are designed to market herbicides /insecticides (Monsanto's brands, of course), which increases use drastically as well as bringing it into areas it was never used before, accelerating the creation of resistant weeds, bugs, etc. That IS a GMO problem, and your attempt to get us to look elsewhere paints you as dishonest and manipulative.

I know a lot of scientists because of my line of work. They don't have the insincere approach that you do, which unfortunately can cause them not to argue effectively against those pushing a political agenda. But they have honesty on their side. Anti-scientists are a terrible force in our our society, literally a fanatical religious cult that distorts truth and promotes the ends of corporate and religious organizations. Unfortunately, I have to lump you in with them, despite your foxhole attempt to hitch yourself to the climate-change wagon. Whatever the actual truth is about you, you're using the methods of the anti-scientists, and externally, you cannot be distinguished from them.

Monsanto likes Aspertame,

Monsanto likes Aspertame, despite its side-effects

Talk about lies. I'm sad to

Talk about lies. I'm sad to see this article. It is spin, distortion and cherry picking. We really need to discuss the science behind your claims. I'm glad to contribute to that education. I'm a public scientists that is deeply concerned about the environment, worker safety, nutrition and the developing world. I see transgenic technologies as a huge success relative to conventional breeding and mutation breeding.

Your evidence behind the "lies" is easily refuted.
1. Union of Concerned Scientists is an activist group. Failure to Yield looked at one kind of yield from corn and showed it to be equivalent between transgenic and conventional. They didn't show you that it was done with less ag input. They also failed to tell you about the massive increases in yield from other crops that are transgenic.

2. Health claims. Did you actually read the papers you cite as showing harm? Your claim, "has been linked to a host of diseases and health issues, including auto-immune disorders, liver and kidney damage, nutritional deficiencies, allergies, accelerated aging, infertility, and birth defects" is a LIE.

The papers that underlie these claims are in vitro experiments (except for one that was done in mouse) with small numbers, published in low-impact journals, and are mostly from one lab. Nobody else repeats these experiments. If 90% of corn/soy/etc are transgenic and are so deadly, why does nobody else report on this? These experiments have frequent flaws (I explain in my blog Illumination) and even when they have good experimental results (e.g. roundup damage to testicular cell lines at high concentrations in a petri dish) the interpretation is "CAUSES INFERTILITY AND TESTOSTERONE DECREASES IN HUMANS" which has NEVER been demonstrated.

So who is being untruthful? Also, the majority of scientists are in agreement that these are good technologies. Despite what anti-GMO interests believe, we independent scientists that understand the technologies see their great potential.

Sure, you can point to superweeds, etc. That's true, but that's not a GMO problem. That's any herbicide.

I'll end here. I appreciate so much that your website does and we align nicely on most causes. However, I can't sit and let you make accusations of falsehoods using lies. I'm really glad to engage any conversations on this matter and clarify any of the issues. That's my job. I welcome any responses and hope to help.

Unfortunately I usually just get death threats and negative email from people that have made up their minds and can't accept evidence. It is the same response I get when I talk about the evidence supporting human-induced climate change. The anti-scientists are easily fooled by those that drive their dogma and do not want to think about real science. Thanks.

While I agree with much of

While I agree with much of what KevinFolta has to say, he's overlooked the most significant parts of the article. The author has weakened his position severely by including the scientifically unsupportable claims of harmfulness to humans for BT corn and other GMO products. Unlike the evidence for human-caused global climate change via human production of "greenhouse gases" especially CO2 which has convinced well over 95% of scientists, direct harmfulness to humans of transgenic crops is only a contention of a very small minority.

The issue that GM crops are designed to be productive only with copious application of herbicide, insecticide, and chemical herbicide, so they are well beyond the budget of any subsistence farmers, who produce most of the developing world's food, can't be disputed. American aid to developing countries is often given in US grown corn, which undercuts local farmers and also in GM seed as in Haiti, where the effect as usual is to concentrate land into the hands of local plantation owners or corporations. Industrial agriculture works most efficiently with huge monoculture swaths which may be worked more efficiently, but which magnifies the problems of plant and insect resistance, pollution, inadvertent killing of rare/important species, erosion, disease, desertification, etc. Much, much more herbicide has been used to replace weeding since "Roundup-Ready" varieties first were cloned, and doses have been raised since new resistant weed varieties turned up. The possibility that Bt is bad for me is the least of my concerns, among which is articles with junk science clouding the very very real reasons we need to be protecting the planet from industrial agriculture.

This is unbelievable. Thank

This is unbelievable. Thank you so much, Ronnie Cummins, for your commitment to educating the public about Monsanto's evil practices. I am one of the many people working to spread awareness of this important cause, but there are countless others who ignore this important issue. We need to intermix these issues with pop culture so the message will reach the masses and we must speak in a way people will listen. I am working to create a public platform (a tv series) which is intended to reach out to those who don't understand why they need to care about these issues. Education under the guise of entertainment. Those of us working for change must join forces and combine our resources and audiences so we will have more power to make a change. Please reach out if you would like to connect and facilitate this joint movement together.

little solace the war

little solace the war criminals, corporate liars, and one percenters
will die with us too, I do not want their company

Dr. Goebbels would have been

Dr. Goebbels would have been proud.

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...