My experience with the three day chemtrail aerial aggression reminded me that we’re being poisoned on all fronts, including the water we drink and the food we eat. This in turn reminded me of my friend and colleague F. William Engdahl’s book Seeds of Destruction, which I consider the most important of his many books, given that our physical, mental, and even spiritual survival is in the subtext of this one.
Coincidentally (or maybe not), William’s current newsletter is an excerpt from this very book; William gave me the okay to publish the piece here. There are a few little glitches from the paste job but nothing serious.
I strongly recommend you all subscribe to William’s newsletter, which covers in real depth many of the issues I merely touch upon. For example, this piece properly dissects (pronounced diss- ects, soft ‘i’, as opposed to ‘die-sects’, which is improper) the 2020 election fraud and the shady foreign and domestic companies behind it. Maybe read it then click the subscribe button.
Okay, here we go, a bit from Seeds of Destruction, after his newsletter note:
Hello dear reader,
In this installment I want to share with you something I have written on one of the
most shocking corruption scandals in the history of a very corrupt European Union
Commission together with corruption by Monsanto and the related GMO
agribusiness industry. Today Monsanto is being fused in a takeover with the giant
German chemical group, Bayer AG, another advocate of GMOs and of toxic
herbicides and pesticides. The arbitrary June 2016 decision by the EU Commission
to ignore massive opposition on health safety grounds to a relicensing of the
widely-used weed-killer, glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsantos Roundup,
and to relicense glyphosate for use in the EU another 18 months indicates the
pervasive extent of this life-threatening corruption. If you find this piece to be
useful, I would suggest you buy a copy of my book, Seeds of Destruction: The
Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation. Thank you for your support,
— F William Engdahl
—————————————————————————————————————————– —————————
—————————————————————————————————————————– —————————
Cancerous rats, corruption and Terminator seeds
© F. William Engdahl
The Cancer of Corruption in Brussels
September 2012 a respected international scientific journal, Food and Chemical
Toxicology, released a study by a team of scientists at Frances Caen University led
by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini. The Seralini study had been reviewed over a fourmonth
period by a qualified group of scientific peers for its methodology and was
deemed publishable.
It was no amateur undertaking but rather, the carefully-documented results of
tests on a group of 200 rats over a two-year life span, with one group of non-GMO
fed rats, a so-called control group, and the other a group of GMO-fed rats.
Significantly, following a long but finally successful legal battle to force Monsanto
to release the details of its own study of the safety of its own NK603 maize,
Seralini and colleagues reproduced a 2004 Monsanto study published in the same
journal and used by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for its 2009
positive evaluation of NK603.
Seralinis group based their experiment on the same protocol as the Monsanto
study but, critically, testing more parameters more frequently. And the rats were
studied for much longer—their full two year average life-time instead of just 90
days in the Monsanto study. The long time span proved critical. The first tumors
only appeared 4 to7 months into the study. In industry’s earlier 90-day study on
the same GMO maize Monsanto NK603, signs of toxicity were seen but were
dismissed as not biologically meaningful by industry and EFSA alike. It seems
they were indeed very biologically meaningful.
The study was also done with the highest number of rats ever measured in a
standard GMO diet study. They tested also for the first time 3 doses (rather than
two in the usual 90 day long protocols) of the Roundup-tolerant NK603 GMO
maize alone, the GMO maize treated with Roundup, and Roundup alone at very
low environmentally relevant doses starting below the range of levels permitted
by regulatory authorities in drinking water and in GM feed. 1
Their findings were more than alarming. The Seralini study concluded, In females,
all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This
difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and
sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females
developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and
before controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex
hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated
males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology
was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe
kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater.
Four times meant four hundred percent more large tumors in GMO fed rats than
in normally fed ones of the control group. Moreover, they reported, By the
beginning of the 24th month, 50–80% of female animals had developed tumors in
all treated groups, with up to 3 tumors per animal, whereas only 30% of controls
[non-GMO-fed—w.e.] were affected. The Roundup treatment groups showed the
greatest rates of tumor incidence with 80% of animals affected with up to 3
tumors for one female, in each group. 3
Such alarming results had not yet become evident in the first 90 days, the length
of most all Monsanto and agrichemical industry tests to date, a clear
demonstration of how important it was to conduct longer-term tests and
apparently why the industry avoided the longer tests.
Seralini and associates continued to document their alarming findings: We
observed a strikingly marked induction of mammary tumors by R (Roundup)
alone, a major formulated pesticide, even at the very lowest dose administered. R
has been shown to disrupt aromatase which synthesizes estrogens (Richard et al.,
2005), but to also interfere with estrogen and androgen receptors in cells (Gasnier
et al., 2009). In addition, R appears to be a sex endocrine disruptor in vivo, also in
males (Romano et al., 2010). Sex steroids are also modified in treated rats. These
hormone-dependent phenomena are confirmed by enhanced pituitary
dysfunction in treated females. 4
Roundup herbicide, by terms of the license contract with Monsanto, must be used
on Monsanto and most other GMO seeds. The seeds are in fact modified only to
resist the weed-killing effect of Roundup, the worlds largest-selling weed-killer.
In plain language, as another scientific study noted, GMO plants have been
modified to contain pesticides, either through herbicide tolerance or by producing
insecticides, or both, and could therefore be considered as pesticide plants 5
Further, Roundup Ready crops [such as Monsanto NK603 maize-w.e.] have been
modified in order to become insensitive to glyphosate. This chemical, together
with adjuvants in formulations, constitutes a potent herbicide. It has been
found in GMOs on a regular and regulatory basis. Therefore, such residues are
absorbed by people eating most GMO plants (as around 80% of these plants are
Roundup tolerant).
Monsanto had repeatedly refused scientific requests to publish the exact
chemicals used in its Roundup aside from one—glyphosate. They argued that it
was a trade secret. Independent analyses by scientists indicated, however, that
the combination of glyphosate with Monsantos mystery added chemicals created
a highly toxic cocktail that was shown to toxically affect human embryo cells in
doses far lower than used in agriculture.7
Mammary tumors that developed in rats fed GMO corn and/or low levels of Roundup. From the paper
“Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,”
published in Food and Chemical Toxicology.
What was more than alarming in the context of that first long-term independent
study of the effects of a GMO diet on rats was that it took place some twenty
years after US President George H.W. Bush gave the commercial release of GMO
seeds the green light and mandated no government safety tests before release.
Bush did so following a closed-door meeting with top officials of Monsanto
Corporation, the worlds largest GMO concern. The US President decreed that
GMO seeds were to be permitted in the United States with not one single
independent precautionary government test to determine if they were safe for
human or animal consumption. It became known as the Doctrine of Substantial
Equivalence, about which more in a subsequent chapter.
EFSA science exposed
What the Seralini study set off was the scientific equivalent of a thermonuclear
explosion. It exposed the fact that the EU scientific controls on GMO were
nothing other than accepting without question the tests given them by Monsanto
and the other GMO companies themselves. As far as the irresponsible bureaucrats
of the EU Commission were concerned, when it came to GMO, the Monsanto fox
could indeed guard the hen house.
Suddenly, with worldwide attention to the new Seralini results, the EU
Commission and its EFSA was under fire as never in their history. How they
reacted was worthy of a bad copy of an Agatha Christie murder novel. Only it was
no novel but a real-life conspiracy (yes, Virginia, there are conspiracies in the real
old…. The ospia eidetl ioled soe fo of ollusio etween
Monsanto and the GMO agrichemical cartel, EU commissioners, the GMO panel
members of EFSA, complacent major media and several member governments of
the EU, including Spain and Holland.
The Brussels EU scientific food regulatory organization, EFSA, was under the gun
from the damning results of the long-term Seralini study. EFSA had recommended
approval of Monsantos NK603 Roundup-tolerant maize in 2009 without first
conducting or insuring any independent testing. They admitted in their official
journal that they relied on information supplied by the applicant (Monsanto), the
scientific comments submitted by Member States and the report of the Spanish
Competent Authority and its Biosafety Commission. EFSA also admitted that the
Monsanto tests on rats were for only 90 days. Seralinis group noted that the
massive toxic effects and deaths of GMO-fed rats took place well after 90 days, a
reason why longer-term studied were obviously warranted. 8
The Spanish report cited by EFSA was itself hardly convincing and was anything
but independent. It stated, according to the current state of scientific knowledge
and after examining the existing information and data provided by the Monsanto
Company, the Spanish Commission on Biosafety could give a favorable opinion to
the oeializatio i the EU of aize NK6… And the scientific comments
submitted by Member States seemed to include Spain and Holland which applied
to license the Monsanto seed in the first place. 9
The EFSA concluded at the time of its approval in 2009 that, the molecular data
provided [by Monsanto-w.e.] are sufficient and do not raise a safety concern. The
Brussels scientific panel further declared amid scientific-sounding verbiage that,
The EFSA GMO Panel is of the opinion that maize NK603 is as safe as
conventional maize. Maize NK603 and derived products are unlikely to have any
adverse effect on human and animal health in the context of the intended uses.
Now, in September 2012, three years after the commercial introduction of
Monsanto GMO maize in the EU, Seralini showed, complete with ghastly photos,
that Monsantos GMO maize demonstrably caused severe rates of cancerous
tumors and early death in rats.
The EU Commission in Brussels had stated clear guidelines that were as revealing
for what they did not say as for what they did say about what precautions are
taken to insure public health and safety from exposure to GMO plants and their
paired toxic herbicides: Toxicological assessments on test animals are not
explicitly required for the approval of a new food in the EU or the US. Independent
experts have decided that in some cases, chemical analyses of the foods makeup
are enough to indicate that the new GMO is substantially equivalent to its
taditioal outepat…I eet years, biotech companies have tested their
transgenic products (maize, soy, tomato) before introducing them to the market
on several different animals over the course of up to 90 days. Negative effects
have not yet been observed.11
Because of US Government arm-twisting and of the obviously powerful lobby
power of the Monsanto-led GMO agrichemical lobby in the US and EU, as of the
time of the Seralini study, no regulatory authority in the world had requested
mandatory chronic animal feeding studies to be performed for edible GMOs and
formulated pesticides. The only studies available were a tiny handful of 90 day rat
feeding trials carried out by the biotech industry and no studies longer than that,
apparently on the principle that conflict of interest in an area as important as the
safety of food should not be taken as a serious matter.
Revealingly, the EU stated publicly the following seemingly reassuring policy:
GMO critics claim that feeding studies with authorized GMOs have revealed
negative health effects. Such claims have not been based on peer-reviewed,
scientifically accepted evaluations. If reliable, scientific studies were to indicate
any type of health risk, the respective GMO would not receive authorization. 12
That was the EU official line until the 2012 Seralini bomb exploded in their faces.
EU Commission coverup
The September 2012 Seralini study was peer-reviewed, and it was published in a
highly respected international scientific journal after such review. What was the
response of the EU Commission and the EFSA? Nothing short of fraudulent
deception and coverup of their corruption by the Monsanto GMO lobby.
On November 28, 2012, only a few weeks after the study was published, EFSA in
Brussels issued a press release with the following conclusion: Serious defects in
the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet
acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety
evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603. Per Bergman, who led EFSAs
work, said: EFSAs analysis has shown that deficiencies in the Séralini et al. paper
mean it is of insufficient scientific quality for risk assessment. We believe the
completion of this evaluation process has brought clarity to the issue. 13 Nothing
could have been farther from the truth.
At the very minimum, the precautionary principle in instances involving even the
potential for grave damage to the human population would mandate that the EU
Commission and its EFSA should order immediate further serious, independent
long-term studies to prove or disprove the results of the Seralini tests. That refusal
to re-examine its earlier decision to approve Monsanto GMO maize, no matter
what flaws might or might not have been in the Seralini study, suggested the EFSA
might be trying to cover for the GMO agrichemical lobby at the very least.
Instead of clarity, the EFSA statement once more fed EFSA critics who had long
argued that the scientists on EFSAs GMO Panel had blatant conflicts of interest
with the very GMO lobby they were supposed to regulate. Corporate Europe
Observer, an independent EU corporate watchdog group noted about the EFSA
response, EFSA failed to properly and transparently appoint a panel of scientists
beyond any suspicion of conflict of interests; and it failed to appreciate that
meeting with Europe’s largest biotech industry lobby group to discuss GMO risk
assessment guidelines in the very middle of a EU review undermines its
credibility.14
More damaging for the shoddy EFSA coverup on behalf of Monsanto was the fact
that over half of the scientists involved in the GMO panel which positively
reviewed the Monsanto’s study for GMO maize in 2009, leading to its EU-wide
authorization, had conflicts of interests with the biotech industry.15
A report by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) found that more than half of the
GMO panel experts who signed the approval had conflicts of interest.
The conflicts ranged from receiving research funding from the biotech industry,
being a member or collaborator in a pro-biotech industry association, to writing or
reviewing industry-sponsored publications. Some conflicts revealed a conflict of
scientific interests, with some panel members involved in working on the creation
of transgenic plants – including potatoes – with antibiotic-resistant marker genes
– including nptII.16
Secondly, although none of EFSAs GMO panel members were medical experts in
the use of antibiotics in human medicine, they decided that neomycin and
kanamycin were antibiotics with no or only minor therapeutic relevance. The
World Health Organisation (WHO) classified these antibiotics as critically
important in 2005.
Dutch scientist Harry Kuiper, chair of the EFSA GMO panel who had close links to
the biotech industry, played a key role in the framing of this disputed key scientific
advice.
Kuiper himself was an open advocate of less controls on GMO seed proliferation in
the EU. He led the EFSA GMO panel since 2003, during which time EFSA went from
no GMO approvals to 38 GMO seeds approved for human consumption. The
criteria for approval were developed by Kuiper for EFSA in cooperation with
Monsanto and the GMO industry and a Monsanto pseudo-scientific front group
called ILSI, the Washington-based International Life Sciences Institute, between
2001 and 2003. The board of the noble-sounding ILSI in 2011 was comprised of
senior people from Monsanto, ADM (one of the worlds biggest purveyors of GMO
soybeans and corn), Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods (major proponent of GMO in foods)
and Nestle, another giant GMO food industry user. 17
One critic of the blatant conflict of interest in EFSA regulator in bed with the
industry whose practices he was mandated to objectively assess noted, During
that period, Harry Kuiper and Gijes Kleter (both members of the EFSA GMO Panel)
were active within the ILSI Task Force as experts and as authors of the relevant
scientific publications. It is a scandal that Kuiper has remained as Chair of EFSA’s
GMO Panel since 2003, and that he is still Chair in spite of the massive criticism
directed at the Panel from NGOs and even from the Commission and EU member
states.” 18
The brazen conflicts of interest between Monsanto and the agribusiness lobby and
the EFSA went further. In May 2012 Professor Diána Bánáti was forced to resign as
Chairman of the EFSA Management Board when it was learned she planned to
take up a professional position at the Monsanto-backed International Life Sciences
Institute (ILSI) in Washington. The same Diána Bánáti had been forced to resign,
not as EFSA chairman but as a simultaneous Board Member of ILSI in 2010. Public
interest groups made calls for her to resign from EFSA but to no avail. 19 At ILSI
she would be able to use expertise and contacts gained from working for the EFSA
to help GMO companies like Monsanto and other food industry companies
influence policy across the world.
In sum, it came as no surprise to those familiar with the notorious revolving
door in Brussels between the GMO industry and the regulatory body entrusted
with making independent decisions on the risks of GMO in the EU, that EFSA
condemned the Seralini study results. Most telling however of the brazen pro-
GMO industry bias of EFSAs GMO Panel members was the fact that the final
ruling statement by the EFSA GMO Panel reviewing Seralinis results announced,
Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean
it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to reexamine
previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize.
The EFSA was not the only source of blatant and reckless pro-GMO sentiment in
Brussels. Some weeks before release of the embarrassing Seralini study, Anne
Glover, chief scientific adviser of the EU Commission, said in an interview on 24
July, 2012, “There is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human
health, animal health or environmental health, so thats pretty robust evidence,
and I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO food
than eating conventionally farmed food.” She added that the precautionary
principle also no longer applies, which means the EU should not err on the side
of caution on the approval of GMOs—equivalent of a damn the torpedoes, full
speed ahead with GMO stance despite polls showing some 60% to 80% of EU
citizens opposed to GMO.21
Were there any pretense of scientific responsibility in the clearly corrupt EFSA
panel, or Professor Glovers office, they would have immediately called for
multiple, independent similar long-term rat studies to confirm or disprove the
Seralini results. They and the Monsanto GMO lobby influencing them clearly had
no desire to do anything but try to slander the Seralini group with vague
accusations and hope the obedient international media would take the headline
and close the embarrassing story. It was typical of the entire history of the spread
of patented GMO seeds and paired toxic herbicides like Roundup.
Pushing GMO on Africans
Some years before the EFSA scandalous ruling, Monsanto had launched a major
project to push its patented GMO seeds and chemicals on unwary or corruptible
African governments. It was called the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa
(AGRA). The Rockefeller and Bill Gates foundations backing the scheme managed
to get former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, a man with a known bent to
corruption, to become the head of the AGRA.22 A black African was reportedly
chosen to overcome criticism among African states that AGRA was a white mans
neo-colonial effort. It was, but now with a face from a black African.
In 2006, the Rockefeller Foundation put up $50 million of initial funding toward
the project and the Gates Foundation put up $150 million, the largest single grant
of the Gates foundation worldwide that year. The stated focus of AGRA was to
increase crop production, which involved the same harmful industrialized farming
practices including heavy pesticide use, planting of GMO crops, and training of
African scientists and farmers to spread that model throughout the continent.
AGRA, as it called itself, was an alliance again with the same Rockefeller
Foundation which created the Gene Revolution. A look at the AGRA Board of
Directors confirmed the fact. In addition to former UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan as chairman, the board numbered almost exclusively people from the
Rockefeller or Gates foundations such as South African, Strive Masiyiwa, a Trustee
of the Rockefeller Foundation, Sylvia M. Mathews of the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation; Rajiv J. Shah of the Gates Foundation; Nadya K. Shmavonian of the
Rockefeller Foundation; Roy Steiner of the Gates Foundation; Gary Toenniessen
the Managing Director of the Rockefeller Foundation and Akinwumi Adesina,
Associate Director, Rockefeller Foundation.
The new Africa Green Revolution was clearly a high priority of the Rockefeller
Foundation. 23 How that fit the decades-long eugenics strategy of the same
Rockefeller Foundation will become clearer during the course of this book.
While they tried hard to keep a low profile, Monsanto and the major GMO
agribusiness giants were accused by researchers of using AGRA to spread their
patented GMO seeds across Africa under the deceptive label, bio-technology, the
new euphemism for genetically engineered patented seeds. To date South Africa
was the only African country permitting legal planting of GMO crops. In 2003
Burkina Faso authorized GMO trials. In 2005 Kofi Annans Ghana drafted biosafety
legislation and key officials expressed their intentions to pursue research
into GMO crops.
Africa was the next target after the EU in a US-government campaign to spread
GMO worldwide. Its rich soils made it an ideal candidate. Not surprisingly many
African governments suspected the worst from the GMO sponsors as a multitude
of genetic engineering and biosafety projects had been initiated in Africa, with the
aim of introducing GMOs into Africas agricultural systems. They included
sponsorships offered by the US government to train African scientists in genetic
engineering in the US, biosafety projects funded by the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) and the World Bank; GMO research involving
African indigenous food crops.
The Rockefeller Foundation had been working for years to promote, largely
without success, projects to introduce GMOs into the fields of Africa. They backed
research that supports the applicability of GMO cotton in the Makhathini Flats in
South Africa.
Green Revolution?
The decision by the Rockefeller Foundation to name their project Alliance for a
Green Revolution in Africa was both calculated Public Relations and revealing. The
original mis-named Green Revolution, developing hybrid sorts of dwarf wheat in
Mexico and later India during the 1960s had also been a Rockefeller Foundation
project. Norman Borlaug came from his post as a research scientist with the
Rockefeller University to Mexico to develop his wheat varieties. For the
Rockefellers the original Green Revolution was an attempt to organize a global
agribusiness monopoly structure based on their experience with oil. Along with
Borlaugs wonder wheat strains came large-scale mechanization of the land in
Mexico, introduction of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and a linking of Mexican
agriculture with a global grain market controlled by Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill
and other grain cartel giants close to the Rockefellers. 24
Now the same Rockefeller circles wanted to globalize into their worldwide
agribusiness food chain the incredibly rich land and food potentials of Africa and
use the project to spread their patented GMO seeds via the back door. AGRA was
being used to create networks of agro-dealers across Africa, at first with no
mention of GMO seeds or herbicides, in order to have the infrastructure in place
to massively introduce GMO later.25
Monsanto, which had a strong foothold in South Africas seed industry, both GMO
and hybrid, conceived of an ingenious smallholders program known as the Seeds
of Hope Campaign, introducing a green revolution package to small scale poor
farmers, followed, of course, by Monsantos patented GMO seeds. Syngenta AG
of Switzerland, one of the Four Horsemen of the GMO Apocalypse was pouring
millions of dollars into a new greenhouse facility in Nairobi, to develop GMO
insect resistant maize. 26
The collusion of the Gates Foundation with Monsanto Corporation was no
accident. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation itself was one of the largest
owners of stock shares in Monsanto and AGRA itself also purchased 500,000 stock
shares in Monsanto stocks, proof of that close relationship. 27
Despite many words by Gates officials since the inception of the AGRA agenda
denying that GMO seeds would be used as part of AGRA, their close relationship
with Monsanto had been uncovered as a key element in their agronomic new
green revolution strategy, more appropriately called Alliance for a GMO
Revolution in Africa. The Gates Foundation gave at least $264 million as of 2011 in
grants to AGRA and hired Dr. Robert Horsch, a former Monsanto executive who
developed Roundup, to head up AGRA.28
Gates Family Eugenics Agenda
Bill Gates and his Gates Foundation, contrary to their well-cultivated public image
as philanthropic, had an evident and clear eugenics agenda for Africa, and it
evidently included a large role for Monsantos patented seeds.
Gates, along with billionaire banker David Rockefeller and a handful of other
billionaires created something they called the Good Club at the home of the
President of the Rockefeller University in New York in May 2009. Its aim, according
to press reports was to impose a global series of programs to reduce population—
in other words eugenics.29
Moreover, the chairman of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Bills father,
William H. Gates Sr., had been head of the Rockefeller-financed eugenics group
Planned Parenthood, an organization spawned from the American Eugenics
Society.30
In a 2010 Long Beach California TED conference, Bill Gates himself spoke
enthusiastically of new vaccines that would reduce the planets birth rate. In his
titled, Innovating to Zero!, along with his scientifically absurd proposition of
reducing manmade CO2 emissions worldwide to zero by 2050, approximately four
and a half minutes into the talk, Gates declared, First we got population. The
world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we
do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services,
we lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent. 31
As one critic described the Monsanto and Gates focus on Africa through AGRA,
African governments are much weaker and easier to persuade than the
governments of Europe to allow for GMO crops to be introduced into their
countries. Public awareness of the threats of GMOs has been slower to develop in
Africa, and the democratic processes of citizen advocacy weaker. 32
Africa was also the focus for a great global land grab by private companies from
the USA to China in search of some of the planets richest fertile soil. It has been
estimated that were proper farming techniques using purely organic methods,
without chemicals introduced across Africa the Continent could feed ten billion
people. Were Africa to fall to the spread of patented GMO seeds as USA and
Argentina had done, the powerful interests behind the creation of GMO would
have reached a major advance in their global agenda to control the seeds of life
on the planet.
Patrick Mulvany the head of a UK watchdog organization, UK Food Group,
identified the strong interest of Monsanto and US-dominated agribusiness in
Africa: Agribusiness corporations see smallholder farmers of the developing
world as only representing an opportunity for securing supplies of food at
relatively cheap prices, using cheap labor and, most importantly, as representing a
burgeoning market for proprietary agrochemicals, compliant GMO seeds and
fertilisers.” Mulvany added, “There are opportunities for smallholders to sustain a
strong and vibrant bio-diverse food system using agro-eologial appoahes … et
the only value for agribusiness are the chains which bind the food serfs to the
food barons.”33
Monsanto’s Terminator Project
The United States Government had been financing research since 1983 on a
genetic engineering technology which, when commercialized, would give its
owners the power to control the food seed of entire nations or regions. Research
grants from the US Department of Agriculture went to a tiny company in
Mississippi, Delta & Pine Land. In 2007 Monsanto completed a successful takeover
of Delta and Pine Land in a move that confirmed there was truly a darker agenda
behind Monsantos GMO engagement than feeding the worlds hungry.
The takeover of the small Mississippi company in 2007 by Monsanto was
significant because Delta and Pine Land, together with the US Government, jointly
held the patent on what popularly was called Terminator technology, or by its
scientific name, Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT).
For almost a quarter century, since 1983, the US Government had quietly been
working to perfect a genetically engineered technique whereby farmers would be
forced to turn to their seed supplier each harvest to get new seeds. The seeds
would only produce one harvest. After that the seeds from that harvest would
commit suicide and be unusable—a high-tech new serfdom.
The patented Monsanto suicide seeds, officially termed GURTs (Genetic Use
Restriction Technologies), represented an unprecedented threat to poor farmers
in developing countries like India, Nigeria or Brazil, who traditionally saved their
own seeds for the next planting. In fact, GURTs, more popularly referred to as
Terminator seeds for the brutal manner in which they kill off plant reproduction
possibilities, was a threat to the food security as well of North America, Western
Europe, Japan and anywhere Monsanto and its elite cartel of GMO agribusiness
partners enters a market.
In March 1998 the US Patent Office granted Patent No. 5,723,765 to Delta & Pine
Land for a patent titled, Control of Plant Gene Expression. The patent was owned
jointly, according to Delta & Pines Security & Exchange Commission 10K filing, by
D&PL and the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of
Agriculture. To quote further from the official D&PL SEC filing, The patent
broadly covers all species of plant and seed, both transgenic (GMO-ed) and
conventional, for a system designed to allow control of progeny seed viability
without harming the crop(sic).34
D&PL claimed, One application of the technology could be to control
unauthorized platig of seed of popieta aieties… akig suh a pactice
non-economic since non-authorized saved seed will not germinate, and,
therefore, would be useless for planting. D&PL calls the thousand-year-old
tradition of farmer-saved seed by the pejorative term, brown bagging as though
it is something dirty and corrupt.
Translated into lay language, D&PL declared the purpose of its Patent No.
5,723,765, Control of Plant Gene Expression, was to prevent farmers who once get
trapped into buying GMO seeds from Monsanto from brown bagging or being
able to break free of control of their future crops by Monsanto and friends. As
D&PL puts it, their patent gives them the prospect of opening significant
worldwide seed markets to the sale of transgenic (GMO-w.e.) technology in
varietal crops in which crop seed currently is saved and used in subsequent
seasons as planting seed.35
Terminator was the answer to the agribusiness dream of controlling world food
production. No longer would Monsanto need to hire expensive detectives to spy
on whether farmers were re-using Monsanto or other GMO patented seed.
Terminator corn or soybeans or cotton seeds could be genetically modified to
commit suicide after one harvest season. The technology would be a means of
enforcing Monsanto or other GMO patent rights, and forcing payment of farmer
use fees not only in developing economies, where patent rights were,
understandably, little respected, but also in industrial OECD countries.
With Terminator patent rights, once a country such as Argentina or Brazil or Iraq
or the USA or Canada opened its doors to the spread of GMO patented seeds
among its farmers, their food security would be hostage to a private multinational
company which, for whatever reasons, especially given its intimate ties to the US
Government, might decide to use food as a weapon to compel a US-friendly
policy from that country or group of countries.
If it sounded implausible that the US Government would back such a private and
dangerous seed technology, one needed only go back to what Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger did in countries like Allendes Chile to force a regime change to a
US-friendly Pinochet dictatorship by withholding USAID and private food exports
to Chile. Kissinger dubbed it food as a weapon. Terminator was merely the logical
next step in food weapon technology.
The role of the US Government in backing and financing Delta & Pine Lands
decades of Terminator research is even more revealing. As Kissinger said back in
the 1970s, Control the oil and you can control entire Continents. Control food
ad ou otol people…
In a June 1998 interview, USDA spokesman, Willard Phelps, defined the US
Government policy on Terminator seeds. He explained that USDA wanted the
technology to be widely licensed and made expeditiously available to many seed
companies. He meant agribusiness GMO giants like Monsanto, DuPont or Dow.
The USDA was open about their reasons: They wanted to get Terminator seeds
into the developing world where the Rockefeller Foundation had made eventual
proliferation of genetically engineered crops the heart of its GMO strategy from
the beginnings of its rice genome project in 1984.
USDAs Phelps stated that the US Governments goal in fostering the widest
possible development of Terminator technology was to increase the value of
proprietary seed owned by US seed companies and to open up new markets in
Second and Third World countries.36
Under WTO rules on free trade in agriculture, countries are forbidden to impose
their own national health restrictions on GMO imports if it is deemed to be an
unfair trade barrier. It begins to become clear why it was the US Government
and US agribusiness which during the late 1980s pushed at the GATT Uruguay
Round for creation of a World Trade Organization, with its supranational arbitrary
powers over world agriculture trade. It all fits into a neat picture of patented
seeds, forced on reluctant WTO member nations, under threat of WTO sanctions,
and now of Terminator or suicide seeds.
Monsanto Terminator deception
What was so attractive about Delta & Pine Land that Monsanto made a second bid
to add it to its global genetically-engineered seeds empire?
It was the patent that Delta & Pine Land, together with the US Government, held
Patent No. 5,723,765, titled, Control of Plant Gene Expression. The USDA through
its Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) worked with Delta & Pine Land since
1983 to perfect Terminator GMO technology. Patent No. 5,723,765 was the
patent for Terminator technology.
In early 1999 Monsanto, the largest producer of GMO seeds and related agrichemicals,
announced it was acquiring Delta & Pine Land along with Deltas
Terminator patents.
In October 1999, however, following a worldwide storm of protest against
Terminator seeds that threatened the very future of the Rockefeller Foundations
Gene Revolution Dr. Gordon Conway, President of the Rockefeller Foundation,
met privately with the Board of Directors of Monsanto. Conway convinced
Monsanto that for the long-term future of their GMO Project, they must go public
to indicate to a worried world that it would not commercialize Terminator.
The Anglo-Swiss Syngenta joined with Monsanto in declaring solemnly that they
would also not commercialize their work on GURTS or Terminator suicide seed
technology.
That 1999 announcement took enormous pressure off of Monsanto and the
agribusiness GMO giants, allowing them to advance the proliferation of their
patented GMO seeds globally. Terminator would come later, once farmers and
entire national agriculture areas like North America or Argentina or India had been
taken over by GMO crops. Then, of course, it would be too late. Despite the
Monsanto declaration of a moratorium on Terminator development, the US
Government and Delta & Pine Land refused to drop their Terminator
development.
In 2000, a year after the Monsanto Terminator moratorium announcement, the
Clinton Administrations USDA Secretary, Dan Glickman, refused repeated efforts
by various agriculture and NGO organizations to drop the Governments support
for Terminator or GURTs. His Departments excuse for not dropping support for
the work with Delta & Pine Land was that it allowed the US Government to put
leverage on D&PL to protect the public interest.
Delta Vice President, Harry Collins, declared at the time in a press interview in the
Agra/Industrial Biotechnology Legal Letter, Weve continued right on with work
on the Technology Protection System (TPS or Terminator). We never really slowed
down. Were on target, moving ahead to commercialize it. We never really backed
off.37
Nor did their partner, the United States Department of Agriculture, back down on
Terminator after 1999. In 2001 the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
website announced: USDA has no plans to introduce TPS into any
geplas…Ou ioleet has ee to help deelop the teholog, ot to
assist companies to use it. They went on to say the USDA was, committed to
making the [Terminator] technology as widely available as possible, so that its
eefits ill aue to all segets of soiet si…ARS iteds to do eseah o
othe appliatios of this uiue gee otol disoe…Whe e applications
are at the appropriate stage of development, this technology will also be
transferred to the private sector for commercial application.38
In 2001, the USDA and Delta & Pine executed a Commercialization Agreement for
Terminator, its infamous Patent No. 5,723,765. The Government and Delta & Pine
Land were not at all concerned about worldwide outcry against Terminator.
The key scientific member of the Delta & Pine Land board since 1993, Dr. Nam-Hai
Chua was also head of the Rockefeller University Plant Molecular Biology
Laboratory in New York, and had been for over 25 years, the labs which are at the
heart of the Rockefeller Foundations decades-long development, and spending of
more than $100 millions of its own research grants to create their GMO
Revolution. Until 1995, Chua was also a scientific consultant to Monsanto
Corporation, as well as to DuPonts Pioneer Hi-Bred International. Chua was at the
heart of Rockefellers Gene Revolution. And their development of Terminator was
in the center of that work. 39
This vast global network combined with Monsantos dominant position in the
GMO seeds and agri-chemicals market along with the unique DP&L Patent No.
5,723,765, Control of Plant Gene Expression, now gave Monsanto and its close
friends in Washington an enormous advance in their plans to dominate world food
and plant seed use. It was an ominous goal and the US Government implemented
it ruthlessly as the 2003 military occupation of Iraq was to prove.40
____________________________________________END NOTES
1 Seralini et al., Op. Cit.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Gilles-Eric Seralini et al, Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements,
Environmental Sciences Europe 2011, 23:10, accessed in http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10.
6 Ibid.
7 Aris, A., Leblanc, S., Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern
Townships of Quebec, Canada, Reproductive Toxicology, 2011 May;31(4):528-33. Epub 2011 Feb 18.
8 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on
applications (EFSA-GMO-NL-2005-22 and EFSA-GMO-RX-NK603) for the placing on the market of the genetically
modified glyphosate tolerant maize NK603 for cultivation, food and feed uses and import and processing, and for
renewal of the authorisation of maize NK603 as existing product, The EFSA Journal (2009) 1137, 1-50.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 GMO-Kompass, Food Safety Evaluation–Evaluating Safety: A Major Undertaking, February 15, 2006, accessed in
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/human_health/41.evaluation_safety_gm_food_major_undertaking.html
12 Ibid.
13 EFSA, Séralini et al. study conclusions not supported by data, says EU risk assessment community, EFSA Press
Release, 28 November 2012, accessed in http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm
14 Corporate Europe Observatory, Op. Cit.
15 Ibid.
16 Corporate Europe Observatory, Approving the GM potato: conflicts of interest, flawed science and fierce
lobbying, CorporateEurope.org, November 7, 2011, accessed in
http://corporateeurope.org/publications/approving-gm-potato-conflicts-in…
17 ILSI, 2011 Annual Report, Board of Trustees, accessed in http://www.ilsi.org/Documents/ILSI_AR2011_rFinal.pdf
18 Tore B. Krudtaa, Harry Kuiper Chair of EFSA GMO panel – Another regulator in the business of deregulation?,
Monsanto.No, 22 September 2011, accessed in http://www.monsanto.no/index.php/en/environment/gmo/gmonews/
166-harry-kuiper-chair-of-efsa-gmo-panel-another-regulator-in-the-business-of-deregulation
19 EFSA, FAQ on the resignation of Diana Banati as member and Chair of EFSA´s Management Board, accessed in
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/faqs/faqresignationdianabanati.htm
20 EFSA, Séralini et al. study conclusions not supported by data, says EU risk assessment community, EFSA Press
Release, 28 November 2012, accessed in http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm.
21 EurAktiv.com, GMOs: “Anne Glover, you are wrong,” 27 July 2012, accessed in
http://www.euractiv.com/cap/gmos-anne-glover-wrong-analysis-514185
22 Ethics Scoreboard, Kofi Annan and the U.N.’s Culture of Corruption, 5 March 2005, accessed in
http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/annan.html
23 Ibid.
24 Cf. Kapitel 9, pp. 172-187.
26 Ibid.
27 La Via Campesina, Global Small Farmers Denounce Gates Foundation Purchase of 500,000 Monsanto Stock
Shares, September 13, 2010, accessed in http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_21606.cfm
28 Ibid.
29 F. William Engdahl, Secret Good Club holds first meeting in New York, 2 June 2009.
30 PBS, Transcript Bill Moyers Interviews Bill Gates, May 9, 2003, accessed in
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_gates.html.
31 F. William Engdahl, Bill Gates talks aout vaies to redue populatio, Mah , aessed i
http://oilgeopolitics.net/Swine_Flu/Gates_Vaccines/gates_vaccines.html.
32 Stephen Bartlett, Wikileaks Documents Gov Complicity with GMO Seed Monopolies, Netline, January 2011,
accessed in http://www.agriculturalmissions.org/netline_2011_002.htm.
33 Matthew Newsome, Does the future of farming in Africa lie in the private sector?, 23 November 2012,
guardian.co.uk, Sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, accessed in
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/nov/23/future-farming-africa-privatesector.
34 F. William Engdahl, Mosato uys Teriator Seeds Copay, August 27, 2006, accessed in
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/GMO/Monsanto/monsanto.html
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.
What customers are saying about Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic
Manipulation:
“Most Important Book of this New Century” — David Chu
“Get ready to have your eyes opened, big-time.” — Laura
“Could not put it down till I read it through.” — Blue Rabbit
“Thank you Mr. Engdahl for this well written book!” — Lori “The Rogue Reader Mom”
“Everyone Should Read This Book” — DeannaF
“This is an absolute must read…” — Eternal Howl
“Five Stars” — lizzee.d
“A must read for anyone new to the GMO controversy” — Rebecca Alden
“An informative, factual wild ride accounting that reads like a good spy novel” — MaryAnn
“I highly recommend that everyone…give this book a read.” — Anne Mendenhall
“WARNING: If you are timid and faint of heart, do not read “SEEDS of DESTRUCTION” by F.
William Engdahl. Instead, go back to sleep, and take comfort in being lied to by American
corporations and U.S. governmental agencies. After all, ignorance is bliss. Otherwise, “SEEDS of
DESTRUCTION” is a MUST-READ book” — Justin Time
“It is a must read…” — Luc REYNAERT
“If the well-being of your family matters, this could be the most important book you read.” — Dr. T
“Highly recommended reading.” — Regina F. Winkles
“The man who wrote the book is remarkably intelligent…” — Angel
“Gives a whole new perspective” — Tangent Girl
“Informative” — Stephen Daignault
You can find Seeds of Destruction on Amazon.com :
But I suggest you get it at William’s site.
41 comments for “Seeds of Destruction by F. William Engdahl (excerpt)”