A shocking new study finds that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, “…may be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment,” capable of contributing to a wide range of fatal human diseases.
Glyphosate is the world’s most popular herbicide and is designed to kill all but genetically modified “Roundup Ready” plants, such as GM corn, soy, beet, cottonseed and canola. Over 180 million pounds of the chemical are now applied to US soils each year,[ii] and while agrichemical manufacturers and government regulators have considered it ‘relatively safe,’ an expanding body of biomedical research indicates that it may cause over 30 distinct adverse health effects in exposed populations at far lower concentrations than used in agricultural applications.
The new report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant from Arthur D. Little, Inc., brings to the forefront concerns voiced by an outspoken minority that Roundup and related glyphosate herbicide formulations are contributing to diseases as far-ranging as inflammatory bowel disease, anorexia, cystic fibrosis, cancer, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, and infertility. In fact, the authors propose that glyphosate, contrary to being essentially nontoxic, “…may be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment.“
The researchers identified the inhibition and/or disruption of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes as a hitherto overlooked mechanism of toxicity associated with glyphosate exposure in mammals.
CYP enzymes are essential for detoxifying xenobiotic chemicals from the body. Glyphosate therefore enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. The researchers also showed how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria (e.g. tryptophan), as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport, a critical biological system for cellular detoxification (e.g. transulfuration pathway which detoxifies metals).
The patent case pits the future of biotechnology innovation against high farm prices. For now, it looks like innovation is winning.
WASHINGTON — Monsanto’s patent for genetically modified soybeans appears safe in the Supreme Court’s hands. And that’s good news for innovations in biotechnology, computer software and other self-replicating products.
The biggest mystery arising from the justices’ 70-minute consideration Tuesday of an Indiana farmer’s challenge to Monsanto, in fact, was why they had agreed to hear the case at all, since two lower courts already had ruled for Monsanto.
In a classic case of David vs. Goliath, 75-year-old Vernon Hugh Bowman is challenging the agribusiness giant’s patent on soybeans that are resistant to the weed killer Roundup. He bought his first batch of “Roundup Ready” seeds from Monsanto but then bought a cheaper mixture from a grain elevator that included some Monsanto seeds.
It’s the third generation of seeds that’s at issue in the case, because Bowman then began replanting his own herbicide-resistant seeds — and that violated Monsanto’s patent, the company claims.
From Tuesday’s oral arguments, it didn’t seem Bowman had a vote in the room. “You cannot make copies of a patented invention,” said Justice Stephen Breyer.
It’s for that reason Monsanto has required farmers using its seeds to sign an agreement promising not to save and replant harvested seeds. But even if there was no license, the justices seemed to doubt Bowman’s right to create new generations of identical seed under patent law.
Bowman’s attorney, Mark Walters, argued that Monsanto’s patent rights were exhausted after the farmer bought his second round of seeds from the grain elevator. If that was not the case, he said, every grain elevator would be violating the patent, because Monsanto seeds are ubiquitous.
Besides, Walters argued, Bowman’s use of grain elevator seeds “is never going to be a threat to Monsanto’s business.”
Michael Pollan and others on what Roundup-resistant weeds mean for American agriculture.
But not this year.
On a recent afternoon here, Mr. Anderson watched as tractors crisscrossed a rolling field — plowing and mixing herbicides into the soil to kill weeds where soybeans will soon be planted.
Just as the heavy use of antibiotics contributed to the rise of drug-resistant supergerms, American farmers’ near-ubiquitous use of the weedkiller Roundup has led to the rapid growth of tenacious new superweeds.
To fight them, Mr. Anderson and farmers throughout the East, Midwest and South are being forced to spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing.
“We’re back to where we were 20 years ago,” said Mr. Anderson, who will plow about one-third of his 3,000 acres of soybean fields this spring, more than he has in years. “We’re trying to find out what works.”
Farm experts say that such efforts could lead to higher food prices, lower crop yields, rising farm costs and more pollution of land and water.
“It is the single largest threat to production agriculture that we have ever seen,” said Andrew Wargo III, the president of the Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts.
The first resistant species to pose a serious threat to agriculture was spotted in a Delaware soybean field in 2000. Since then, the problem has spread, with 10 resistant species in at least 22 states infesting millions of acres, predominantly soybeans, cotton and corn.
The superweeds could temper American agriculture’s enthusiasm for some genetically modified crops. Soybeans, corn and cotton that are engineered to survive spraying with Roundup have become standard in American fields. However, if Roundup doesn’t kill the weeds, farmers have little incentive to spend the extra money for the special seeds.
Roundup — originally made by Monsanto but now also sold by others under the generic name glyphosate — has been little short of a miracle chemical for farmers. It kills a broad spectrum of weeds, is easy and safe to work with, and breaks down quickly, reducing its environmental impact.
Sales took off in the late 1990s, after Monsanto created its brand of Roundup Ready crops that were genetically modified to tolerate the chemical, allowing farmers to spray their fields to kill the weeds while leaving the crop unharmed. Today, Roundup Ready crops account for about 90 percent of the soybeans and 70 percent of the corn and cotton grown in the United States.
But farmers sprayed so much Roundup that weeds quickly evolved to survive it. “What we’re talking about here is Darwinian evolution in fast-forward,” Mike Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, said.
Say you’re a Hollywood studio who spent a couple hundred million dollars on a blockbuster movie. Someone buys it on DVD, and then proceeds to copy the DVD and sell those copies at a profit.
That would be against the law.
Can you make the same argument about buying patented seeds to grow a crop, and then keeping some of that first crop to reap seeds and grow a second crop? A third?
The United States Supreme Court will decide that in a case involving a 75-year-old farmer from Indiana named Vernon Bowman. Monsanto sued Bowman in 2007, claiming the farmer has for years used seeds reaped from a first crop of Monsanto Roundup Ready soybean seeds to grow another crop.
Monsanto said that violates its patent, as farmers sign an agreement when they buy the seeds to only use them once. The resulting crop can be sold for things like feed or oil, not to create another generation of seeds.
From Monsanto’s perspective, what Bowman has done is like the farming version of Napster. From the farmer’s perspective, to force him to buy new seeds every year is a monopoly, and Monsanto’s patent should “expire” after the first crop.
Monsanto won in lower court, but Bowman has appealed, and in a move that caught corporate America off guard, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case next Tuesday.
Yesterday, the city of Cincinnati became the first in Ohio to pass a resolution to require the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods, citing that consumers should have the right to know what is in their food. The consumer advocacy organization Food & Water Watch brought the resolution to city council as a part of their “Let Me Decide” campaign to make GE labeling the law. GE foods have not been fully tested for their impacts on human health and the environment.
Alison Auciello, Ohio-based organizer for Food & Water Watch said, “genetically engineered foods are potentially unsafe, and consumers should have the right to decide for themselves if they want to eat GE foods. It took regulation to get food processors to label ingredients and nutrition facts on labels, and now we’re calling for federal lawmakers to require the labeling of GE food.”
The majority of processed foods are genetically engineered, but unlike fat, sodium and sugar content, labels do not disclose which foods contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. Biotechnology companies submit their own safety-testing data, and independent research is limited on GE foods because licensing agreements that control the use of patented seeds prohibit cultivation for research purposes.
Genetically engineered foods are made by inserting the genetic material from one organism into another to achieve a desired characteristic such as resistance to herbicides or pesticides. Roundup Ready varieties of corn, for example, are engineered to withstand treatment with the Roundup herbicide. But, the unintended consequence of increased use of herbicides has been a rise in “superweeds,” aggressive weed species like ragweed and pigweed that have become immune to Roundup.
Cincinnati Council Member and resolution co-sponsor Wendell Young said, “this is about transparency, about ensuring that people can make informed choices about what they feed themselves and their families. Consumers have a right to know what is in their food, especially until we know for certain whether genetically engineered foods are truly safe.”
Some of the independent research that has been conducted on biotech crops has revealed troubling health implications, including deteriorating liver and kidney function and impaired embryonic development. However, the Food and Drug Administration has no way to track adverse health effects in people consuming GE foods, and because there is no requirement for labeling GE ingredients, consumers don’t know when they are eating them.
“As consumers, we have a fundamental right to know about the safety of the food we’re eating,” said Vice Mayor Roxanne Qualls, who co-sponsored the resolution. “With so much still unknown about the long-term risks of genetically-engineered products to our health and the environment, labeling of these foods is just common sense.”
Food & Water Watch works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from; keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes; protect the environmental quality of oceans; force government to do its job protecting citizens; and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control.
The provider of the best-selling genetically modified soybean seed is looking for evidence of farmers illegally saving them from harvests for replanting next season, which is not allowed under sales contracts. The Wilmington, Delaware-based company is inspecting Canadian fields and will begin in the U.S. next year, said Randy Schlatter, a DuPont senior manager.
DuPont is protecting its sales of Roundup Ready soybeans, so called because they tolerate being sprayed by Monsanto Co.’s Roundup herbicide. Photographer: Paulo Fridman/Bloomberg
DuPont is protecting its sales of Roundup Ready soybeans, so called because they tolerate being sprayed by Monsanto Co. (MON)’s Roundup herbicide. For years enforcement was done by Monsanto, which created Roundup Ready and dominates the $13.3 billion biotech seed industry, though it’s moving on to a new line of seeds now that patents are expiring. That leaves DuPont to play the bad guy, enforcing alternative patents so cheaper “illegal beans” don’t get planted.
“Farmers are never going to get cheap access to these genetically engineered varieties,” said Charles Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources. “The biotech industry has trumped the legitimate economic interests of the farmer again by raising the ante on intellectual property.”
Monsanto controls about 28 percent of the soybean market in the U.S., the largest producer and exporter last year, while Dupont has about 36 percent. The weed-killer tolerant seeds and related licenses generated $1.77 billion in sales for Monsanto in the year through August, 13 percent of the company’s total. DuPont had $1.37 billion in soybean revenue last year, 3.6 percent of total sales, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
The grain is used to make animal feed, cooking oil, tofu and biofuels, and it’s the biggest crop after corn in the U.S.
DuPont dropped 0.5 percent to $43.24 at the close in New York. It has declined 5.6 percent this year, the fifth-worst performer of 31 companies in the S&P 500 Materials Index. (S5MATR) Monsanto has gained 30 percent, the sixth-biggest gain in the index.
Attacks on the modified food industry aren’t new. Farmers criticized Monsanto in the 2008 Oscar-nominated documentary “Food, Inc.” for contracts that keep them from saving seeds. The St. Louis-based company has sued 145 U.S. farmers for saving Roundup Ready soybeans since 1997, winning all 11 cases that went to trial, said Kelli Powers, a Monsanto spokeswoman. The U.S. Supreme Court last month agreed to consider the legality of such planting restrictions.
DuPont currently markets Roundup Ready soybeans under license from Monsanto, which is shifting to a newer version of the crop along with most of the rest of the industry. The new seeds produced an average of 4.5 bushels an acre more than the originals this year, Monsanto said today in a statement. Some farmers were anticipating a return to low-cost seed after patents on the original beans expire, Benbrook said.
Monsanto Chief Executive Officer Hugh Grant raised such a prospect in 2010 when he said that growers could replant Roundup Ready soybeans after the patents lapse.
“Our challenge is to get customers to understand the fact that strong intellectual property protection is a benefit that ends up at the customer level,” Schlatter, who works for DuPont’s intellectual property program office, said by phone. His company holds more than 225 soybean patents, he said.
“If we can’t make a profit, we can’t invest and we can’t bring out new products.”
(NaturalNews) The dangers associated with pesticide exposure are much more far-reaching than previously thought, as illustrated by a shocking study recently published in the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology. It turns out that chronic exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup formula, the active ingredient of which is glyphosate, as well as too many other common pesticides and herbicides is one of the primary environmental factors responsible for causing neurodegenerative disorders in humans.
As originally reported by Sayer Ji over at GreenMedInfo.com, the study brings to light the intricacies of how pesticide and herbicide chemicals induce cell death, which can eventually cascade into a host of chronic neurological illnesses such as Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s. Even at levels significantly lower than the government-established safety thresholds, these persistent chemicals, which are routinely sprayed on conventional food crops and produce throughout the U.S., can cause permanent brain damage.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Parkinson’s disease alone is the 14th leading cause of death in America. Figures from 2010, which are the latest available, illustrate a 4.6 percent increase in the number of deaths from Parkinson’s compared to the year prior. And a 2007 report put out by the Parkinson’s Disease Foundation (PDF) estimates that by 2030, the number of people worldwide with Parkinson’s will more than double
In this latest study, Monsanto’s Roundup was determined to be a primary factor in causing neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s, which is particularly interesting in light of another recent study which found that, even when diluted by a factor of 99.8 percent, Roundup chemicals are still fully capable of destroying both human cells and DNA. Together, these findings speak volumes in regards to rising disease rates, and lend solid credence to the notion that crop chemicals are a primary cause of chronic disease in today’s world.
“A previously healthy 44-year-old woman presented with rigidity, slowness and resting tremor in all four limbs with no impairment of short-term memory, after sustaining long term chemical exposure to glyphosate for three years as a worker in a chemical factory,” cites a 2011 case study published in the journal Parkinsonism Related Disorders about glyphosate’s toxicity.
“The chemical plant produced a range of herbicides including: glyphosate, gibberellins, and dimethyl hydrogen phosphite; however, the patient worked exclusively in the glyphosate production division. She only wore basic protection such as gloves or a face mask for 50 hours each week in the plant where glyphosate vapor was generated.”
A study published this week by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook finds that the use of herbicides in the production of three genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops – cotton, soybeans and corn – has actually increased.
This counterintuitive finding is based on an exhaustive analysis of publicly available data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agriculture Statistics Service. Benbrook’s analysis is the first peer-reviewed, published estimate of the impacts of genetically engineered (GE) herbicide-resistant (HT) crops on pesticide use.
In the study, which appeared in the the open-access, peer-reviewed journal “Environmental Sciences Europe,” Benbrook writes that the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is strongly correlated with the upward trajectory in herbicide use.
Marketed as Roundup and other trade names, glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide used to kill weeds. Approximately 95 percent of soybean and cotton acres, and over 85 percent of corn, are planted to varieties genetically modified to be herbicide resistant.
“Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GE crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent,” Benbrook said.
The annual increase in the herbicides required to deal with tougher-to-control weeds on cropland planted to GE cultivars has grown from 1.5 million pounds in 1999 to about 90 million pounds in 2011.
Herbicide-tolerant crops worked extremely well in the first few years of use, Benbrook’s analysis shows, but over-reliance may have led to shifts in weed communities and the spread of resistant weeds that force farmers to increase herbicide application rates (especially glyphosate), spray more often, and add new herbicides that work through an alternate mode of action into their spray programs.
A detailed summary of the study’s major findings, along with important definitions of terms used in the study, are available online.
Benbrook’s study, “Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. – the first sixteen years,” is available online.
What if the pesticides and herbicides being sprayed on your food was causing your sperm to die? What if GMO crops had the same effect? What would it mean for humanity if this “modern food marvel” (as Monsanto would like you to think) was actually making men infertile, and eventually wipe us out? Sounds pretty end-of-times-ish, but it’s happening right now. Well, studies indicate that factors like glyphosate toxicity and GMO technologies could be playing a significant role in the growing number of men who struggle with fertility.
Glyphosate Toxicity and GMO Technology
One study in particular found that glyphosate (an ingredient in Roundup), leaves a residue on crops and this residue is “actually toxic to testicle cells.” Also, the residue lowers testosterone synthesis—this means the glyphosate toxicity lowers the amount of the male sex hormone available for the body to use.
The negative effects from glyphosate toxicity vary, but some people have been known to develop breasts, have a variety of birth defects, and have been known to experience carcinogenic effects as well. The people are also becoming sterile over time. Given the rate of consumption, they will likely be completely sterile within a decade.
Another study, this one out of Russia, found that hamsters who consume GM soybeans have a slower sexual maturation process and in a few generations, they weren’t able to reproduce.
“We noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs’ growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly.” By the third generation, the hamsters were infertile.
So, what effects are they having on men now, today in the United States and around the world? Plenty.
According to a study out of Denmark, sperm counts have dropped exponentially, from an average of well above 100 million sperm cells per milliliter in 1940 to an average of 60 million per ml now. Some research has found that close to 20 percent of young men have counts as low as 20 million per ml.
Genetically modified soybeans are getting harder and harder to escape, and because we don’t know which products contain genetically modified ingredients in the United States, our safest bet is to simply avoid anything with any soy or corn derivatives—and this is nearly everything in your supermarket that’s not found in the produce aisles.
We can’t be surprised at this research, but we can be angry. Though it sounds like something out of a science fiction/world-domination type movie—it’s real life. Companies like Monsanto are killing people off, by one way or another, and the U.S. government is allowing it to happen.
For now, if you want to stay healthy, cancer free, and fertile, your best bet is to start a garden, eat foods grown locally, and stay away from processed foods at all costs.
Remember when the USDA gave Monsanto’s new GMO crops the fast track to approval? Regardless of the numerous accounts of organ damage, pesticide-resistant weeds, and unintentionally mutated organisms like resistant insects, our own government is manipulating the game to let “biotech bullies” like Monsanto get speedier regulatory reviews. Consequently, the environment, livestock, and consumers will be exposed to even greater danger.
As stated in their press release, the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, envisions transforming the USDA “into a high-performing organization that focuses on its customers.” We’d like to think that we, the consumers, are those customers. The likes of Monsanto, Dow, and Syngenta, however, would probably disagree.
Here’s your chance to tell the USDA otherwise. The first two crops on this list have been on the old, slower-track approval process, which allows 60 days for the public to comment. The remaining four are new additions but are on the fast track, meaning we still only have until September 11th of 2012 to have our say before these seeds hit the soil and, maybe, your dinner table.
6 New GMO Crops to Act Against
Dow 2,4-D and Glufosinate Tolerant Soybean - Since the US first began using GM crops, our herbicide usage has been boosted by 300 million pounds, despite claims by biotech behemoths that other plants like weeds would not grow resistant to glyphosate – commonly known as RoundUp. And now, we have “superweeds.” Of course, biotech (and seemingly the USDA) doesn’t care, and they plan on adding the 2,4-D herbicide and dicamba (see number 4) to the list. Take action here.
Syngenta Corn Rootworm Resistant Corn - Plenty of nations have banned Syngenta’s GM Bt crops—but not the US. This type of corn produces its own pesticides and kills all bugs, good or bad, which also means livestock can get sick from eating it. Research says that 80% of pregnant women have Bt toxins in their blood. Take action here.
Okanagan Non-Browning Apple - Conventional apples are covered in pesticides. That’s why we buy organic, but Okanagan has produced the first GM apple. Take action against genetically modified apples right here.
Monsanto Dicamba Tolerant Soybean - Take action here.
Dow 2,4-D, Dlyphosate and Glufosinate Tolerant Soybean - Take action here.
Genective Glyphosate Tolerant Corn
GM foods are bad news for the earth and all of us who live on it. Have your voice heard while you can.
If you were eating something completely unnatural – something that
could make you sick – give you cancer – make your testicles shrink -
heck, even kill you – wouldn’t you want to know? If you answered yes -
then you’re on the same side as over 90% of your fellow Americans.
Poll after poll over the last few years – has shown that more than 90%
of Americans support specific labeling of genetically modified foods
that they buy in grocery stores. And European and other developed
countries require labeling of GMOs — genetically modified foods. But
even though for years Americans have been demanding the right to know
what’s in their food – and whether or not it’s franken-food – not a
single piece of state or federal legislation has ever been passed to
make it happen. Which brings us to California. Efforts to force the
state legisature to pass laws to require labeling of genetically
modified foods have failed – so now citizens of the state have taken
matters into their own hands. After collecting more than a million
signatures – the citizens of California put proposition 37 on the
ballot for November – which will force all genetically modified foods
to have special labels. Good news, right? Well…now the fight is just
starting. That’s because the biggest purveyors of genetically modified
foods – giant corporations like Monsanto, DuPont, Coca-Cola, Pepsi,
Nestle – all of them are spending enormous amounts of money to defeat
Prop 37. They don’t want you to know what’s in your food. Monsanto
alone has spent more than 4 million bucks – so too has Dupont – and in
total the GMO industry has raised $25 million to kill prop 37 – and to
kill your right to know what’s in the food you eat. On the other hand
- the supporters of Prop 37 – have only raised $2 million. This is
going to be an uphill battle.
Jeffrey M. Smith, author of the #1 GMO bestseller Seeds of Deception, talks about his campaign to force mass rejection of genetically modified foods in order to expunge them form the market entirely. Smith explains how the FDA allowed GMO foods to enter the market with no safety testing whatsoever, and that the man primarily responsible for this is now food safety czar in the Obama administration.
Smith notes how Obama has broken his pre-election promise that every GMO food should be properly labeled, and also installed pro-GMO executives in the USDA and FDA who have close ties to Monsanto and the biotechnology industry.
Smith documents how consumption of genetically modified foods has been directly linked with reproductive problems, immune system deficiencies, accelerated ageing, organ damage and gastrointestinal problems. The immune system problem has been seen consistently in mice and rats who are fed GMO food, explains Smith, and now since humans have started consuming genetically modified foods, auto-immune diseases and allergies have increased.
Smith explains how research exposing the dangers of genetically modified food has been censored and shut down by the establishment, with scientists involved in such studies finding themselves blacklisted and shunned by their peers before being fired from their jobs in many cases as big agriculture throws its weight around.
Smith covers a plethora of vital issues in this one hour interview, and offers workable solutions to phase GMO out of the market, by pushing for proper labeling standards and an intensive education outreach that will help people realize how big a threat genetically modified food poses to their health.
Corn, a crop most likely to be genetically modified – with 70 percent of corn engineered simply to drown in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup – is casting off its GMO contaminants into surrounding waterways, and likely making it into your drinking water.
According to researchers, the insecticides modified into the corn are being detected in streams up to 500 meters away from corn farms, and quite possibly further.
The research was conducted in the states of Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana, where corn fields are abundant. Scientists found the bacterial protein washed off the corn and directly into the streams. While they won’t say for certain what this means for human health, the consensus is that it can’t be good.
According to U.K.’s Independent, U.S. corn has a gene from the Bacillus thuriengensis (BT) bacterium inserted into it to repel bugs. This gene produced the Cry1Ab protein, which “has insecticidal properties.”
It’s this protein that is being found in the water system.
It’s believed the protein is making its way to the water because of the practice of leaving plant material on the field until the next season. This “no till” method is used because it prevents erosion, but it also provides an opportunity for the potentially dangerous protein to be washed away.
And while the GM corn is a culprit in polluting our waters, research has pointed to GMO farming in general and chemicals like glyphosate for being significant causes of water pollution. One explosive study confirmed that glyphosate, the active ingredient residing in the ever-so-popular Roundup product from Monsanto, is making its way into groundwater across the nation through widespread contamination of aquifers, wells, and springs
Needless to say, this isn’t the first time Bt has been in the news. This spring we reported on a study linking Bt insecticide to the death of human kidney cells.
Despite this and other troubling news about GMO crops, the United States remains steadfast in its protection against agri-giants like Monsanto, preferring to please them rather than protect the people.
In 2009, more than 85% of American corn crops were genetically modified, but that number has likely increased since that time. All the while, other countries in Europe don’t even allow the GMO corn or at the very minimum label food sources that contain GMO ingredients. No similar protections are provided in the United States.