"The GMO Deception": How Big Ag and the Government Are Putting Your Food at Risk

Colorado and Oregon could soon become the first states in the nation to pass ballot initiatives mandating the labeling of food products containing genetically modified organisms. Earlier this year, Vermont became the first state to approve GMO labeling through the legislative process, but the decision is now being challenged in the courts. Numerous items are already sold in grocery stores containing genetically modified corn and soy, but companies are currently not required to inform consumers. Advocates of Prop 105 in Colorado and Measure 92 in Oregon say GMO foods can be harmful to human health due to pesticide residues and the altered crop genetics. Opponents say the effort to label genetically modified food is overly cumbersome and will spread misinformation.

Leading corporations opposing the labeling measures include Monsanto, Kraft Foods, PepsiCo Inc., Kellogg Co. and Coca-Cola. By some accounts, opponents of labeling have contributed roughly $20 million for campaigning against the proposed laws, nearly triple the money raised by supporters of the initiatives. In Oregon, the fight for GMO labeling has turned into the most expensive ballot measure campaign in the state’s history. 

Democracy Now! spoke to Tufts University professor Sheldon Krimsky, editor of "The GMO Deception: What You Need to Know about the Food, Corporations, and Government Agencies Putting Our Families and Our Environment at Risk."

Below is part one of an interview with Krimsky, followed by a transcript:

AARON MATÉ: Food fights are raging in Colorado and Oregon—that is, the fights over ballot initiatives that would require the labeling of genetically engineered food. On Election Day, voters will cast a "yay" or "nay" for Proposition 105 in Colorado and Measure 92 in Oregon. The states could become the first to mandate labeling laws for genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, possibly affecting industry labeling practices across the country. [Earlier this year, Vermont became the first state to approve GMO labeling through the legislative process, but the decision is now being challenged in the courts.] Numerous items are already sold in grocery stores containing GMO corn and soy, but companies are currently not required to inform consumers. Advocates of Prop 105 in Colorado say GMO foods can be harmful to human health due to pesticide residues and the altered crop genetics. Several celebrities have banded together to support the Right to Know campaign with this playfully ironic PSA that begins with actor Danny DeVito.

DANNY DEVITO: What makes you think you have the right to know?

JILLIAN MICHAELS: Who do you think you are?

BILL MAHER: You shouldn’t know whether your food is genetically modified.

JOHN CHO: You might do something dumb.

GLENN HOWERTON: Like you’d be looking at labels and making decisions.

DANNY DEVITO: Knowing if you’re eating or buying genetically engineered food is not your right.

KAITLIN OLSON: Ooh, maybe move to Europe or Japan if you want that right.

GLENN HOWERTON: Or a lot of countries where people have the right to know.

BILL MAHER: But not here, baby.

KADEE STRICKLAND: Unless you demand that GMOs get labeled.

GLENN HOWERTON: Vote, and you get to know what’s in your food.

UNIDENTIFIED: Vote yes for the right to know.

AMY GOODMAN: An ad by the Right to Know Colorado campaign. Opponents of Prop 105 say the effort to label genetically modified food is overly cumbersome and will spread misinformation. This ad was released by the No on 105 campaign.

DON AMENT: Agriculture is crucial to Colorado’s economy. Proposition 105 would hurt Colorado food producers by forcing them to use misleading labels that conflict with national standards. It would require many food products that we export to be labeled as genetically engineered, even when they’re not.

AARON MATÉ: That’s an ad by the No on 105 campaign. Leading corporations opposing the labeling measures include Monsanto, Kraft Foods, Pepsi, Kellogg and Coca-Cola. By some accounts, opponents of labeling have contributed roughly $20 million for campaigning against the proposed laws, nearly triple the money raised by supporters of the initiatives. In Oregon, the fight for GMO labeling has turned into the most expensive ballot measure campaign in the state’s history.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by Sheldon Krimsky, editor and author of several contributions in the new book, The GMO Deception: What You Need to Know about the Food, Corporations, and Government Agencies Putting Our Families and Our Environment at Risk. He’s a professor of urban and environmental policy and planning at Tufts University, as well as an adjunct professor in the Department of Public Health and Family Medicine at Tufts School of Medicine. Professor Krimsky is also a board member of the Council for Responsible Genetics.

Sheldon Krimsky, welcome to Democracy Now!


AMY GOODMAN: So, I just flew back from Austria, which is GMO-free. And they’re very puzzled when they look at the United States. I mean, they are GMO-free. They don’t allow genetically modified foods to grow there. They’re puzzled when they look at the United States that we’re not talking about GMO-free country, we’re talking about labeling the foods that are genetically modified. You can be for GMOs and still support labeling for them.


AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about the significance of these ballot initiatives. I mean, what’s going on in Colorado is a true battle, Monsanto and these other corporations pouring in millions. Now Chipotle has joined Ben & Jerry’s and lot of environmental groups in saying that they want the labeling. Why do you think the labeling is such a problem? What is the problem with GMOs?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, I think we have to go back to the history of regulation in the United States. The Dan Quayle commission produced a position paper, basically, on how to regulate biotechnology. Out of that, they said that you don’t have to regulate genetically modified food. So, if you put a chemical into a processed food, you have to go through FDA regulations. But if you put a foreign gene into a plant, according to the FDA, you don’t have to go through regulations. They give the corporations the opportunity to decide whether they want to market the food or not. So when you start with that assumption, where they think and believe that putting foreign genes into food is no different than just creating hybrid crops, once you follow that logic, and they say there’s no need for labeling—Europeans have never followed that logic. They say you have to test each of these products, because you don’t know what the outcome is going to be.

AARON MATÉ: Your book makes the case that the science on GMOs has been corporatized, that companies like Monsanto have had such a huge influence over the research and the conclusions of scientists. How has that come to be, when, for example, on the issue of fossil fuels, we have a consensus of climate scientists that fossil fuel extraction causes global warming and needs to be stopped, even though that would be harmful to major companies? How is it that agribusiness has come to control the science, as you claim in your book?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, there are some independent scientists, and they have produced some animal studies on the effects of GMOs, and some of those studies have shown that the effects are not good. And every time a scientist produces such a study, they are vilified by other scientists and other people who are tied to the industry. So, we have seen from our own research that the science has been politicized, and there are many cases where we can show that scientists have been treated unfairly and unethically, just because they have found negative outcomes with respect to the animal studies.

AMY GOODMAN: While on the campaign trail in 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama promised to label GMO foods, if elected.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Here’s what I’ll do as president: I’ll immediately implement country-of-origin labeling, because Americans should know where their food comes from. We’ll let folks know whether their food has been genetically modified, because Americans should know what they’re buying.

AMY GOODMAN: That was candidate Obama. What has President Obama done?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Nothing. On the biotechnology area, he has not taken any initiatives at all. The FDA has held pretty much to their original position that labeling is irrelevant for GMOs and that it would add no useful information to consumers. The fact is that, when polled, most consumers feel there should be labeling on GMOs to give them a choice. Everyone has the right to be a first user or a late user of a new product or technology. Remember Olestra, the artificial fat substance? Some people said, "Oh, you know, I’ll just go for it." Other people said, "Oh, no. Not me. I’m going to wait until several million people have tried it." And we don’t have that choice with GMOs unless we buy organic, because the government standard does say that organic foods are not supposed to have more than 1 percent GMOs in them. So that’s the only choice people have, and organic is usually more expensive.

AARON MATÉ: On top of labeling, what other measures would you want to see implemented around the issue of GMOs?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, for one thing, the Europeans have taken a position that these products have to be tested, that you cannot assume a priori that they’re going to be safe. The United States has taken exactly the opposite position, that they don’t have to be tested. We have evidence—in the least, I found 22 studies have shown that the animals that are fed GMOs have had some negative effects. We don’t know whether these 22 studies will stand up when they’re retried, but nobody can tell us that these studies in peer-reviewed journals are not important or relevant. And sometimes, the few negative studies that you have are more important than the dozens of positive studies, which show nothing. So, we have to take a very serious look at the studies that have been done which have shown that there are some negative effects.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the major players in the ballot initiatives in Oregon and Colorado who are against labeling? For example, like Monsanto?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, the large corporations don’t want to label, for obvious reasons. They don’t want to have segmented, patchwork communities where they have to present products to different states in different conditions. It doesn’t work well for the efficiency of a corporation. So, they would prefer to have one rule for every state and every city. Now, when California requires labeling on products because of environmental effects, those labels go to every other city and state in the country. So we all benefit from some of the California initiatives on toxic chemicals. And that could also be true with GMOs. If they label in Oregon, if they label in Colorado, they can just label everywhere. And the company is not going to lose out on that.

They’re trying to instill fear in the people that the food prices will skyrocket if they do that. Well, that’s just fear tactics. We have some labeling, voluntary labeling, on genetically modified products used to make milk, bovine growth hormones. You can buy milk that says, you know, "no bovine growth hormone." It hasn’t skyrocketed the products of—the cost of milk.

Below is part two of an interview with Krimsky, followed by a transcript:

AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now! for part two of our conversation. Now, you tell a remarkable story about the scientists who get destroyed as they attempt to look at GMO foods. But before we do, what is the problem with genetically modified foods? Why in the United States are 75 percent of our foods have ingredients that are genetically modified, but in Europe, in state after state, it’s completely outlawed? Why the difference?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: The Europeans operate on the precautionary principle. They say, if you introduce a new product on the market, you should evaluate it before the consumers get a chance to purchase it. In America, we made a decision that genetically modified foods are safe before you even have to test it. So the government never required tests for GMOs in the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: Who made that decision?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, that decision was made by a commission, first of all, in the United States headed by Dan Quayle, and then it was—

AMY GOODMAN: The vice president under President Bush.

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Yes, yes, that’s correct. And by the 1990s, the decision was made how to divide the regulatory authority over genetically modified organisms—plants, animals, etc. And there were three agencies. The EPA would deal with environmental effects. USDA would be dealing with how it affects agriculture. And the FDA would be addressing the questions of human health.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, why are you concerned?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, because we have some evidence that animal studies can produce adverse effects when fed GMOs. There have been many studies. Many of them have said there’s no effects. But a few of them—I found 22 studies.

AMY GOODMAN: Give an example of one of these studies.

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, one of these studies was published in one of the most important journals in international journals. It’s called The Lancet. It started publishing—

AMY GOODMAN: That’s the British medical journal.

SHELDON KRIMSKY: The British medical journal. It’s among the most prestigious journals in the world. And that was published in 1999 by a scientist who lived in Britain for 50 years—originally he was born in Hungary—Árpád Pusztai. And he was a researcher at the Rowett Institute. And he published a study which showed that his animals were harmed when fed a genetically modified potato.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to this scientist, to the biochemist, the nutritionist, Árpád Pusztai, world authority, as you said, actually on plant lectins, authoring some 270 papers, three books on the topic. In 1998, the scientist published research that showed feeding genetically modified potatoes to rats caused harm to their stomach lining and immune system. This led to a backlash against Dr. Pusztai and his subsequent suspension from his academic home, the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. Let’s turn to a clip of Pusztai explaining the experiment he did using these genetically modified potatoes, the experiment that unleashed such a firestorm of criticism.

ÁRPÁD PUSZTAI: What we did was that, first, we took the genetically modified potatoes and put as much as possible of this into the diet, and we fed rats on it for a short time, 10 days. That’s an appropriate time in most of the nutritional studies as a sort of preliminary, short-term study. And we found that there were some problems. And then we said, "Oh, but it is—is it possible that if we dilute it with a good protein, a non-GM protein, would these problems disappear? Would you dilute them out? So when we did that, we found that, no, it didn’t. The problems persisted, and particularly the problems affecting the gastrointestinal tract of the rats.

The problems were that the genetically modified potatoes induced what we call a proliferative growth in the small intestine. And I shall explain what it means. But before I do that, the most important thing was that we pre-selected the gene that its product should not do that. So, we spent six-and-a-half years of selecting out a gene whose product wouldn’t do the thing which we did see in the genetically modified potatoes.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Professor Sheldon Krimsky, that’s Árpád Pusztai.


AMY GOODMAN: Explain further what exactly he’s saying. Now, he was actually not critical of these genetically modified potatoes that he fed to rats, right?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: That’s correct. And his institute had a patent on those potatoes. I mean, after all, if you can produce a potato that would be resistant to insects, then you’d save money on pesticides, and you might be able to, you know, have a product that would be worthy of pesticidal properties. So he took protein from a flower, a snowdrop flower. And that protein—the genetics for that protein was put into the potato. But he honestly believed that he would have a safe outcome. He had already done an experiment with genetically modified peas, which did not show adverse effects on animals. And he felt that—the protein that he used, he fed to the animals when it wasn’t in the potato, so he felt the protein from the plant was going to be safe. And then he put it into the genetically modified potato, and then he fed it to the animals when it was embedded into the potato. And that’s when it caused the effects.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain again the effects.

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, the effects he found were effects of the stomach lining of the animals, that there were proliferative growths in the stomach lining and other abnormalities in the intestines of the animals.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain then—so he did this scientific experiment. That’s what he found. It’s published in this very prestigious journal, Lancet.


AMY GOODMAN: So what happened to him, Dr. Pusztai?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, first of all, he published in Lancet in 1999. And prior to that, 1995, Scotland had put out a request for scientific studies to evaluate genetically modified food. So he put in one of those requests. At the time, he was the project director of eight projects. He was very well respected and had written a number of books on these lectins, which are insecticidal proteins. The plants themselves have proteins that resist insects. That’s how they survived all those years. So, his project was accepted by the council in Scotland, and then he did the research for it. So it was already reviewed before it was accepted for funding. And he got 1.3 million pounds to do the study. That’s where it began.

Prior to publishing his study in The Lancet, he was asked to appear on television. And he’s not a political—you know, he’s not a politicized scientist. He was naive. He went on television, with the approval of the director of the Rowett Institute. And the Rowett Institute, for one day, was very excited, because they got publicity being on TV with his research. The day after, all of a sudden, all of the phone calls started coming into the Rowett Institute, political phone calls from politicians—Tony Blair’s office, etc. And then, within a day, he was dismissed from his position. Within a day, this man who had been working there for decades and had such a prominent position, all of a sudden, lost his entire position.

AMY GOODMAN: Dismissed on what grounds?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: He did not have tenure, the way we do in universities—dismissed because they felt—they believed his research was not good. At least that’s what they said. What they didn’t say was that there were political pressures on the institute to devalue and diminish and marginalize his study.

AMY GOODMAN: What was Blair’s interest, the prime minister at the time, in negating, in going after the scientist, in genetically modified food?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: The United States had been the primary country that’s promoting biotechnology and trying to transfer it all over the world. So, the Clinton administration was very high on biotechnology. It’s going to rejuvenate American high technology and create many jobs, etc., and be able to spread it throughout the world. Blair was very interested in getting biotechnology into Britain. So, the U.S. government and the British government were both very interested in pushing biotechnology. And, of course, in the background were the corporations who were politicking those two governments to make sure that biotechnology had an easy road to success.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to another scientist. In 2012, French scientists carried out a study linking pesticide-treated, genetically modified corn with cancer in lab rats. The journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology initially published the report but later retracted it amidst controversy. The scientists stood by their findings, releasing a statement that read in part, quote, "Censorship of research into the risks of a technology so intertwined with global food safety undermines the value and credibility of science." Their article was republished this year in a different journal, Environmental Sciences Europe. I want to turn for a moment to the lead author on the study, Gilles-Éric Séralini. He recently told ME-TV what happened to the rats that were fed genetically modified corn and Roundup weed killer.

GILLES-ÉRIC SÉRALINI: Abnormalities in livers and kidneys, inflammations and pathologies, and we had also inversion of sexual hormones and also breast tumors.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s the scientist, Gilles-Éric Séralini. If you can, Professor Krimsky, explain further what he found.

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, he found organ failure. First of all, he did one of the first long-term experiments. So, in other words, he did an experiment on the rats that lasted for a couple of years. Usually they would do a 90-day experiment on the animals. So this was a long-term experiment, which really was needed, because some of these effects you won’t see right away. And his results showed damage to organs, kidneys, and also proliferation of tumors at a much higher rate than the controls. And after his results came out, there was another surge of vilification of his work and his research and his reputation, on and on and on.

A few very unusual things happened. The first you mentioned, that his journal first supported him and said, "We have a very good refereed system, and he passed the referees," to get into this peer-reviewed journal. Within a year, however, they changed their mind, because of the political pressure that there was a solid journal, American U.S. journal, that said there were problems with one of the genetically modified products. So, the journal went ahead and retracted his article, without his permission.

And then they gave the reason for the retraction. And this is where a hundred scientists had signed a petition saying that the reasons they gave were not only unorthodox, they violated international standards. The reason they gave was very explicit. They said, "There is no fraud. There is no clear mistakes in this paper. The results were not definitive, and that’s why we’re retracting it." Now, if you use that criteria, you would have to retract 95 percent of all published work.

AMY GOODMAN: What does "definitive" mean?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, "definitive" means that it hasn’t resolved the controversy, that some people still believe that maybe he didn’t have enough rats. Maybe they would have changed the methodology slightly differently. There isn’t an experiment in toxicology that can be done which doesn’t have some shortcomings. Everybody knows that.

AMY GOODMAN: Or you reach a kind of critical mass in your studies indicating a trend; no one study actually proves it.

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Exactly. There’s no single study that can absolutely definitively prove it, so you need follow-up studies to account for criticisms or larger numbers of animals, etc.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Krimsky, can you explain what "the funding effect" is, a term you’ve coined with your colleagues?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Many years ago, we began looking at what happens to scientific research when it’s heavily funded by corporate interests. And we started by looking at drug research. And as a result of publishing a few papers, other people started doing these studies, and there is now a body of research in the drug industry which shows that corporate funding of research tends to produce the outcomes favorable to the financial interests of the corporation. That’s what we mean by "the funding effect." You have to show that the effect exists for any particular area. You can’t just assume it exists. So there are methods for showing that there is a funding effect. We’ve shown it in tobacco, we’ve shown it for drug research, in the best journals that we have, that have accepted these studies. And now people are beginning to look at it in other fields, like chemical toxins and GMOs.

AMY GOODMAN: How are other countries dealing with genetically modified foods?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, it’s interesting, because when you look at the studies that have been done that have negative outcomes—and I say I found 22 of them in the literature—they’re almost all done by European scientists. In order to do a study of a genetically modified plant seed in the United States, you have to have funding. Funding doesn’t come from the federal government, because the federal government has said, "We don’t need information about this." So the only funding that can produce these results is funding from corporations.

Secondly, you have to have permission from the company that manufactures the seeds to do this kind of research, to get the seeds, the special seeds that you need from the company. And they won’t release the seeds. So, people like Pusztai and Professor Séralini—well, Pusztai produced his own potato. Séralini had to get the seeds from some other source, not from the company. Pusztai could not get seeds from Monsanto. Monsanto signs—everyone who purchases seeds from Monsanto has to sign a contract with them. And one of the provisions of that contract is they cannot save their seeds, and they cannot deliver their seeds to some institute for study. In other words, Monsanto has complete control over the seeds, as well as other companies, so that it’s not even possible for researchers to do the work they need to do, unless they get permission from the companies.

AMY GOODMAN: How do you respond to the claim that GMOs will feed the world? Explain also the difference between genetically modified vegetables, plants—wait, can you respond to the claim that GMOs will feed the world, genetically modified organisms?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, this claim has been made by a number of people, but there’s no evidence for it. It may very well be that for a certain farm in a certain region, that a particular GMO might give them higher productivity in that particular area. But the world is filled with different regions of, you know, ecological regions, and seeds that work in one region do not necessarily work in another region. That’s what we call agroecology. We have to understand that you have to match the seed to the region, and not match the region to the seed. That’s why you don’t necessarily have high productivity in every region of the world. Some of the Indian farmers did not get high productivity with GMOs. And unfortunately, some of them committed suicide.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: The Indian farmers had a high rate of suicide in the last few years, and that’s because many of them got into intense debt, and they couldn’t pay their debt. And in their mental capacity, they felt the only way to deal with this was to take their lives, unfortunately. Part of that debt was due to the fact that they were purchasing GMO seeds, which were at a higher rate than the seeds that they were originally purchasing.

AMY GOODMAN: Democracy Now! just traveled to Austria, and I was speaking to an Austrian farmer who was saying, "We recognized in our country, which is why we made it GMO-free," he said, "that you can’t have an organic farm next to a farm that’s growing genetically modified plants, because there is drift, and you can’t honestly have—say something is organic if you’re right nearby something that isn’t."

SHELDON KRIMSKY: That’s correct. And the pollen flows can flow quite a distance, a number of kilometers, so that in the United States, if you have an organic farm, there’s no protections for that organic farmer from the drift of pollen from another farm.

AMY GOODMAN: In fact, hasn’t Monsanto famously sued farmers, saying that they stole their genetically modified seeds, when in fact they drifted onto their property?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: As far as we know, the evidence suggests that the Canadian farmer that had the genetically modified plants didn’t—

AMY GOODMAN: This is Percy Schmeiser?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Yes, Schmeiser. As far as we know, evidence that I have is that he did not plant those seeds, that those seeds had drifted into his farm. And Monsanto sued him for intellectual property theft. And in some bizarre ruling of the Canadian court, Monsanto won. But the penalty was very, very low, like a dollar or something like that. So, Monsanto won, but Schmeiser didn’t have to pay a severe penalty.

AMY GOODMAN: Earlier this year, Vermont became the first state to approve GMO labeling with the passage of HB 112. The legality of the decision is now being challenged by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and other national organizations, which have come together to file a lawsuit in federal court. The Grocery Manufacturers Association put out a statement that read in part, quote, "Consumers who prefer to avoid GM ingredients have the option to choose from an array of products already in the marketplace labeled 'certified organic.' The government therefore has no compelling interest in warning consumers about foods containing GM ingredients, making HB 112’s legality suspect at best." Your response to this, Professor Krimsky?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, it is true that right now, under government standards, if a product is classified as organic—and there are criteria for that, including non-GMO—that there is some level of confidence that they won’t contain GMO products. But organic costs a lot of money. So there might be food companies that want to put out food that wouldn’t be classified as organic, but would be classified as non-GMO. Just like there are plastic companies that want to put out their plastics and say, "We don’t contain bisphenol A in our plastics," because there’s been a lot of evidence that it might be harmful, and therefore consumers have the right to buy something that says, "No bisphenol A in this substance," they should have the right to buy some food products that say, you know, "No GMOs," even though they’re not classified as organic, because the prices might be quite different.

AMY GOODMAN: Backers of GMOs cite the success of genetically modified papaya in Hawaii. It was designed to resist a virus that was killing off the fruit crop. It’s the only commercially grown GMO fruit in the United States. According to The New York Times, "after an outbreak of Papaya ringspot virus in the mid-’90s, only the Rainbow, endowed with a gene from the virus itself that effectively gave it immunity, had saved the crop." Your response to that, Professor Krimsky?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: You know, one of the issues about biotechnology is that they try to put into the crop a pesticidal property. And in theory, you know, one might think that this would be terrific. You include the pesticide or the herbicide-resistant/tolerant into the crop. But nature has its own way of adapting. So if you put in herbicide-resistant into the crop, eventually the weeds will get resistant to the herbicide that you use. And that’s in fact what’s happening with glyphosate, which is the most widely used herbicide now in the United States. So, they have plants which are glyphosate-resistant, so you can spray all the herbicide on your plant; it’ll kill everything else. But the weeds have adapted to it. So now they need a next generation of herbicide in the plant. So, the whole theory that you can introduce into the plants some magical protein that is going to be sustainable is just not a viable theory.

AMY GOODMAN: Are you referring to the superweeds that are growing throughout the West?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: The superweeds, exactly. And now the farmers are saying, "Hey, we bought into this glyphosate resistance, and now we’re getting these weeds that are in fact resistant to the glyphosate." And now they’re introducing a second generation. And one of the products that they’re trying to introduce is 2,4-D, which was used in the Vietnam War as part of the herbicides, defoliants.

AMY GOODMAN: You’re talking about Agent Orange. So—

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Yes, it was part of the Agent Orange mix. And I have to say, Rachel Carson cited 2,4-D as a suspect chemical in her 1962 classic book, Silent Spring.

AMY GOODMAN: Considered the mother of the modern environmental movement, she would later die of cancer herself.


AMY GOODMAN: Finally, the significance of the ballot initiatives in Colorado and Oregon? In California and Washington state, genetically modified labeling bills failed.


AMY GOODMAN: Is there anything different about Colorado and Oregon right now?

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Colorado is always different. It’s a very single-minded, independent state that pushed the boundaries beyond belief in terms of, you know, legislation on marijuana, etc. If any state can do it, they have a very high consciousness for environmental issues. And if they do do it, I think it’ll cascade to other states, because I think the fear that the prices will skyrocket is just a scare tactic, it’s not real. We have companies that issue milk that say, "No bovine growth hormone used to make this milk," and it hasn’t skyrocketed the price of milk. So—

AMY GOODMAN: It’s interesting that Ben & Jerry’s and the Denver-based Chipotle company, the chain, food chain Chipotle—


AMY GOODMAN: —have actually come out in support of GMO labeling, whereas you’ve got Pepsi and Kraft Foods and, well, most importantly, Monsanto pouring millions into the anti-labeling movement.

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Yeah. You know, the corporations don’t want a patchwork of regulations. I could understand that. They always would rather have one regulation that applies to everyone. And so, from their standpoint, they don’t want to have to make an adjustment to Colorado and an adjustment to this other state. But that doesn’t—

AMY GOODMAN: Well, they wouldn’t have to make an adjustment. If it was passed in Colorado and Oregon, they could just identify genetically modified foods all over the country.

SHELDON KRIMSKY: That’s correct. That’s correct.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, so goes Oregon and Colorado, so goes the nation.

SHELDON KRIMSKY: And that’s exactly what happens when California passes as an initiative on a toxic chemical. The companies just list it on the product, and every state, every community, has access to that information. It’s just a question of open information, which is really supposed to be at the groundwork of American capitalism. Keep the information open.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much, Professor Sheldon Krimsky, editor and author of The GMO Deception: What You Need to Know About the Food, Corporations, and Government Agencies Putting Our Families and Our Environment at Risk. You can read an introduction on our website at democracynow.org. Professor Krimsky teaches urban and environmental policy and planning at Tufts University, as well, adjunct professor at the Tufts School of Medicine. Krimsky is also a board member of the Council for Responsible Genetics.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

alternet logo

Tough Times

Demand honest news. Help support AlterNet and our mission to keep you informed during this crisis.