Seeds of Destruction by F. William Engdahl (excerpt)

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 Monsanto􀍛s 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 France􀍛s 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.

 

Seralini􀍛s 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 world􀍛s 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 Monsanto􀍛s 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 world􀍛s 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

􀇁o􀆌ld…􀍿. The 􀄐o􀅶spi􀆌a􀄐􀇇 e􀇀ide􀅶tl􀇇 i􀅶􀇀ol􀇀ed so􀅵e 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 Monsanto􀍛s 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. Seralini􀍛s 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 􀄐o􀅵􀅵e􀆌􀄐ializatio􀅶 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 Monsanto􀍛s 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 food􀍛s makeup

are enough to indicate that the new GMO is substantially equivalent to its

t􀆌aditio􀅶al 􀄐ou􀅶te􀆌pa􀆌t…I􀅶 􀆌e􀄐e􀅶t 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 EFSA􀍛s

work, said: 􀍞EFSA􀍛s 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 EFSA􀍛s 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 EFSA􀍛s 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 world􀍛s 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 EFSA􀍛s GMO Panel members was the fact that the final

ruling statement by the EFSA GMO Panel reviewing Seralini􀍛s 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 that􀍛s 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 Glover􀍛s 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 man􀍛s

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 Annan􀍛s 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 Africa􀍛s 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 1960􀍛s 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

Rockefeller􀍛s the original Green Revolution was an attempt to organize a global

agribusiness monopoly structure based on their experience with oil. Along with

Borlaug􀍛s 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 Africa􀍛s 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 Monsanto􀍛s 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 Monsanto􀍛s 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, Bill􀍛s 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 planet􀍛s 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 planet􀍛s 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-e􀄐ologi􀄐al app􀆌oa􀄐hes … 􀇇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 Monsanto􀍛s GMO engagement than 􀍞feeding the world􀍛s 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 & Pine􀍛s 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 pla􀅶ti􀅶g of seed of p􀆌op􀆌ieta􀆌􀇇 􀇀a􀆌ieties…􀄏􀇇 􀅵aki􀅶g su􀄐h a p􀆌actice

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 Allende􀍛s 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 Land􀍛s

decades of Terminator research is even more revealing. As Kissinger said back in

the 1970􀍛s, 􀍚Control the oil and you can control entire Continents. Control food

a􀅶d 􀇇ou 􀄐o􀅶t􀆌ol 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.

 

USDA􀍛s Phelps stated that the US Government􀍛s 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 1980􀍛s 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 Delta􀍛s

Terminator patents.

 

In October 1999, however, following a worldwide storm of protest against

Terminator seeds that threatened the very future of the Rockefeller Foundation􀍛s

􀍚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 Administration􀍛s USDA Secretary, Dan Glickman, refused repeated efforts

by various agriculture and NGO organizations to drop the Government􀍛s support

for Terminator or GURTs. His Department􀍛s 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, 􀍚We􀍛ve continued right on with work

on the Technology Protection System (TPS or Terminator). We never really slowed

down. We􀍛re 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

ge􀆌􀅵plas􀅵…Ou􀆌 i􀅶􀇀ol􀇀e􀅵e􀅶t has 􀄏ee􀅶 to help de􀇀elop the te􀄐h􀅶olog􀇇, 􀅶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

􀄏e􀅶efits 􀇁ill a􀄐􀄐􀆌ue to all seg􀅵e􀅶ts of so􀄐iet􀇇 􀍾si􀄐􀍿…ARS i􀅶te􀅶ds to do 􀆌esea􀆌􀄐h o􀅶

othe􀆌 appli􀄐atio􀅶s of this u􀅶i􀆋ue ge􀅶e 􀄐o􀅶t􀆌ol dis􀄐o􀇀e􀆌􀇇…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 Foundation􀍛s 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 DuPont􀍛s Pioneer Hi-Bred International. Chua was at the

heart of Rockefeller􀍛s Gene Revolution. And their development of Terminator was

in the center of that work. 39

 

This vast global network combined with Monsanto􀍛s 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 a􀄏out 􀍚va􀄐􀄐i􀅶es to redu􀄐e populatio􀅶,􀍛 􀏰 Ma􀆌􀄐h 􀏮􀏬􀏭􀏬, a􀄐􀄐essed 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, Mo􀅶sa􀅶to 􀄏uys 􀍚Ter􀅵i􀅶ator􀍛 Seeds Co􀅵pa􀅶y, 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.