Stephen Lendman: Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods


Richard Moore

Potential Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods
By Stephen Lendman

Global Research, February 22, 2008

This article discusses the potential health risks of genetically engineered 
foods (GMOs). It draws on some previously used material because its importance 
bears repeating. It also cites three notable books and highlights one in 
particular - Jeffrey Smith's "Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of 
Genetically Engineered Foods." Detailed information from the book is featured 

Genetically engineered foods saturate our diet today. In the US alone, over 80% 
of all processed foods contain them. Others include grains like rice, corn and 
wheat; legumes like soybeans and soy products; vegetable oils, soft drinks; 
salad dressings; vegetables and fruits; dairy products including eggs; meat, 
chicken, pork and other animal products; and even infant formula plus a vast 
array of hidden additives and ingredients in processed foods (like in tomato 
sauce, ice cream, margarine and peanut butter). Consumers don't know what 
they're eating because labeling is prohibited, yet the danger is clear. 
Independently conducted studies show the more of these foods we eat, the greater
the potential harm to our health.

Today, consumers are kept in the dark and are part of an uncontrolled, 
unregulated mass human experiment the results of which are unknown. Yet, the 
risks are enormous, it will take years to learn them, and when we finally know 
it'll be too late to reverse the damage if it's proved conclusively that 
genetically engineered foods harm human health as growing numbers of independent
experts believe. Once GM seeds are introduced to an area, the genie is out of 
the bottle for keeps. There is nothing known to science today to reverse the 
contamination already spread over two-thirds of arable US farmland and heading 
everywhere unless checked.

This is happening in spite of the risk because of what F. William Engdahl 
revealed in his powerfully important, well documented book titled "Seeds of 
Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation." It's the diabolical 
story of how Washington and four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world 
domination by patenting animal and vegetable life forms to gain worldwide 
control of our food supply, make it all genetically engineered, and use it as a 
weapon to reward friends and punish enemies.

Today, consumers eat these foods daily without knowing the potential health 
risks. In 2003, Jeffrey Smith explained them in his book titled "Seeds of 
Deception." He revealed that efforts to inform the public have been quashed, 
reliable science has been buried, and consider what happened to two 
distinguished scientists - UC Berkeley's Ignacio Chapela and former Scotland 
Rowett Research Institute researcher and world's leading lectins and plant 
genetic modification expert, Arpad Pusztai. They were vilified, hounded, and 
threatened for their research, and in the case of Pusztai, fired from his job 
for doing it.

He believed in the promise of GM foods, was commissioned to study them, and 
conducted the first ever independent one on them anywhere. Like other 
researchers since, he was shocked by his findings. Rats fed GM potatoes had 
smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains, damaged immune systems, and showed
structural changes in their white blood cells making them more vulnerable to 
infection and disease compared to other rats fed non-GMO potatoes. It got worse.
Thymus and spleen damage showed up; enlarged tissues, including the pancreas and
intestines; and there were cases of liver atrophy as well as significant 
proliferation of stomach and intestines cells that could be a sign of greater 
future risk of cancer. Equally alarming, results showed up after 10 days of 
testing, and they persisted after 110 days that's the human equivalent of 10 

Later independent studies confirmed what Pusztai learned, and Smith published 
information on them in his 2007 book called "Genetic Roulette: The Documented 
Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods." The book is encyclopedic in 
depth, an invaluable comprehensive source, and this article reviews some of the 
shocking data in it.

Compelling Evidence of Potential GMO Harm

In his introduction, Smith cites the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) 
policy statement on GM food safety without a shred of evidence to back it. It 
supported GHW Bush's Executive Order that GMOs are "substantially equivalent" to
ordinary seeds and crops and need no government regulation. The agency said it 
was "not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new 
methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way." That single 
statement meant no safety studies are needed and "Ultimately, it is the food 
producer" that bears responsibility "for assuring safety." As a consequence, 
foxes now guard our henhouse in a brave new dangerous world.

FDA policy opened the floodgates, and Smith put it this way: It "set the stage 
for the rapid deployment of the new technology," allowed the seed industry to 
become "consolidated, millions of acres (to be) planted, hundreds of millions to
be fed (these foods in spite of nations and consumers objecting, and) laws to be
passed (to assure it)." The toll today is contaminated crops, billions of 
dollars lost, human health harmed, and it turns out the FDA lied.

The agency knew GM crops are "meaningfully different" because their technical 
experts told them so. As a result, they recommended long-term studies, including
on humans, to test for possible allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional 
problems. Instead, politics trumped science, the White House ordered the FDA to 
promote GM crops, and a former Monsanto vice-president went to FDA to assure it.

Today, the industry is unregulated, and when companies say their foods are safe,
their views are unquestioned. Further, Smith noted that policy makers in other 
countries trust FDA and wrongly assume their assessments are valid. They're 
disproved when independent studies are matched against industry-run ones. The 
differences are startling. The former report adverse affects while the latter 
claim the opposite. It's no secret why. Agribusiness giants allow nothing to 
interfere with profits, safety is off the table, and all negative information is

As a result, their studies are substandard, adverse findings are hidden, and 
they typically "fail to investigate the impacts of GM food on gut function, 
liver function, kidney function, the immune system, endocrine system, blood 
composition, allergic response, effects on the unborn, the potential to cause 
cancer, or impacts on gut bacteria." In addition, industry-funded studies 
creatively avoid finding problems or conceal any uncovered. They cook the books 
by using older instead of younger more sensitive animals, keep sample sizes too 
low for statistical significance, dilute the GM component of feeds used, limit 
the duration of feeding trials, ignore animal deaths and sickness, and engage in
other unscientific practices. It's to assure people never learn of the potential
harm from these foods, and Smith says they can do it because "They've got 'bad 
science' down to a science."

The real kinds show GMOs produce "massive changes in the natural functioning of 
(a) plant's DNA. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently turned off or
on....the inserted gene can become truncated, fragmented, mixed with other 
genes, inverted or multiplied, and the GM protein it produces may have 
unintended characteristics" that may be harmful.

GMOs also pose other health risks. When a transgene functions in a new cell, it 
may produce different proteins than the ones intended. They may be harmful, but 
there's no way to know without scientific testing. Even if the protein is 
exactly the same, there are still problems. Consider corn varieties engineered 
to produce a pesticidal protein called Bt-toxin. Farmers use it in spray form, 
and companies falsely claim it's harmless to humans. In fact, people exposed to 
the spray develop allergic-type symptoms, mice ingesting Bt had powerful immune 
responses and abnormal and excessive cell growth, and a growing number of human 
and livestock illnesses are linked to Bt crops.

Smith notes still another problem relating to inserted genes. Assuming they're 
destroyed by our digestive system, as industry claims, is false. In fact, they 
may move from food into gut bacteria or internal organs, and consider the 
potential harm. If corn genes with Bt-toxin get into gut bacteria, our 
intestinal flora may become pesticide factories. There's been no research done 
to prove if it's true or false. Agribusiness giants aren't looking, neither is 
FDA, consumers are left to play "Genetic Roulette," and the few animal feeding 
studies done show the odds are against them.

Arpad Pusztai and other scientists were shocked at their results of animals fed 
GM foods. His results were cited above. Other independent studies showed stunted
growth, impaired immune systems, bleeding stomachs, abnormal and potentially 
precancerous cell growth in the intestines, impaired blood cell development, 
misshaped cell structures in the liver, pancreas and testicles, altered gene 
expression and cell metabolism, liver and kidney lesions, partially atrophied 
livers, inflamed kidneys, less developed organs, reduced digestive enzymes, 
higher blood sugar, inflamed lung tissue, increased death rates and higher 
offspring mortality as well.

There's more. Two dozen farmers reported their pigs and cows fed GM corn became 
sterile, 71 shepherds said 25% of their sheep fed Bt cotton plants died, and 
other reports showed the same effects on cows, chickens, water buffaloes and 
horses. After GM soy was introduced in the UK, allergies from the product 
skyrocketed by 50%, and in the US in the 1980s, a GM food supplement killed 
dozens and left five to ten thousand others sick or disabled.

Today, Monsanto is the world's largest seed producer, and Smith notes how the 
company deals with reports like these. In response to the US Public Health 
Service concerning adverse reactions from its toxic PCBs, the company claims its
experience "has been singularly free of difficulties." That's in spite of 
lawsuit-obtained records showing "this was part of a cover-up and denial that 
lasted decades" by a company with a long history of irresponsible behavior that 
includes "extensive bribery, highjacking of regulatory agencies, suppressing 
negative information about its products" and threatening journalists and 
scientists who dare report them. The company long ago proved it can't be trusted
with protecting human health.

In his book, "Seeds of Destruction," Engdahl names four dominant agribusiness 
giants - Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Agrisciences and Syngenta in Switzerland from the
merger of the agriculture divisions of Novartis and AstraZeneca. Smith calls 
these companies Ag biotech and names a fifth - Germany-based Bayer CropScience 
AG (division of Bayer AG) with its Environmental Science and BioScience 
headquarters in France.

Their business is to do the impossible and practically overnight - change the 
laws of nature and do them one better for profit. So far they haven't 
independent because genetic engineering doesn't work like natural breeding. It 
may or may not be a lot of things, but it isn't sex, says Smith. Michael 
Antoniou, a molecular geneticist involved in human gene therapy, explains that 
genetic modification "technically and conceptually bears no resemblance to 
natural breeding." The reproduction process works by both parents contributing 
thousands of genes to the offspring. They, in turn, get sorted naturally, and 
plant breeders have successfully worked this way for thousands of years.

Genetic manipulation is different and so far fraught with danger. It works by 
forcibly inserting a single gene from a species' DNA into another unnaturally. 
Smith puts it this way: "A pig can mate with a pig and a tomato can mate with a 
tomato. But this is no way that a pig can mate with a tomato and vice versa." 
The process transfers genes across natural barriers that "separated species over
millions of years of evolution" and managed to work. The biotech industry now 
wants us to believe it can do nature one better, and that genetic engineering is
just an extension or superior alternative to natural breeding. It's unproved, 
indefensible pseudoscience mumbo jumbo, and that's the problem.

Biologist David Schubert explains that industry claims are "not only 
scientifically incorrect but exceptionally make the GE process 
sound similar to conventional plant breeding." It a smoke screen to hide the 
fact that what happens in laboratories can't duplicate nature, at least not up 
to now. Genetic engineering involves combining genes that never before existed 
together, the process defies natural breeding proved safe over thousands of 
years, and there's no way to assure the result won't be a deadly unrecallable 
Andromeda Strain, no longer the world of science fiction.

The industry pooh-pooh's the suggestion of potential harm, and unscientifically 
claims millions of people in the US and worldwide have eaten GM food for a 
decade, and no one got sick. Smith's reply: How can we know as "GM foods might 
already be contributing to serious health problems, but since no one is 
monitoring for this, it could take decades" to find out. By then, it will be too
late and some industry critics argue it already may be or dangerously close.

Today, most existing diseases have no effective surveillance systems in place. 
If GM foods create new ones, that potentially compounds the problem manyfold. 
Consider HIV/AIDS. It went unnoticed for decades and when identified, many 
thousands worldwide were infected or had died.

Then there's the problem of linkage. In the US and many countries, GM foods are 
unlabeled so it's impossible tracing illness and diseases to specific substances
ingested even if thousands of people are affected. It can plausibly be blamed on
anything, especially when governments and regulatory agencies support industry 
claims of reliability and safety.

It's rare that problems like the L-Tryptophan epidemic of the late 1980s are 
identified, but when it was thousands were already harmed. L-Tryptophan is a 
natural amino acid constituent of most proteins and for years was produced by 
many companies including Showa Denko in Japan. The company then got greedy, saw 
a way to increase profits from a product designed to induce sleep naturally, and
gene-spliced a bacterium into the natural product to do it. The result was many 
dozens dead, over 1500 crippled, and up to 10,000 afflicted with a blood 
disorder from a new incurable disease called Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome or 

It's a painful, multi-system disease that causes permanent scarring and fibrosis
to nerve and muscle tissues, continuing inflammation, and a permanent change in 
a person's immune system. It cost the company two billion dollars to settle 
claims. Hundreds have since died, in all likelihood from contracting EMS.

This is the known toll from a single product. Consider the potential harm with 
Ag biotech wanting all foods to be unlabeled GMOs worldwide and governments 
unable to balk because WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and Trade Related 
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) rules deny them. They're also prevented 
under WTO's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS). It states that national 
laws banning GMO products are "unfair trade practices" even when they endanger 
human health. Other WTO rules also apply - called "Technical Barriers to Trade."
They prohibit GMO labeling so consumers don't know what they're eating and can't
avoid these potentially hazardous foods.

The 1996 Biosafety Protocol was drafted to prevent this problem, and it should 
be in place to do it. Public safety, however, was ambushed by Washington, the 
FDA and the agribusiness lobby. It sabotaged talks and insisted biosafety 
measures be subordinate to WTO trade rules that apply regardless of other 
considerations, including public health and safety. The path is thus cleared for
the unrestricted spread of GMO seeds and foods worldwide unless a way is found 
to stop it.

Independent Animal Studies Showing GMO Harm

Rats fed genetically engineered Calgene Flavr-Savr tomatoes (developed to look 
fresh for weeks) for 28 days got bleeding stomachs (stomach lesions) and seven 
died and were replaced in the study.

Rats fed Monsanto 863 Bt corn for 90 days developed multiple reactions typically
found in response to allergies, infections, toxins, diseases like cancer, anemia
and blood pressure problems. Their blood cells, livers and kidneys showed 
significant changes indicative of disease.

Mice fed either GM potatoes engineered to produce Bt- toxin or natural potatoes 
containing the toxin had intestinal damage. Both varieties created abnormal and 
excessive cell growth in the lower intestine. The equivalent human damage might 
cause incontinence or flu-like symptoms and could be pre-cancerous. The study 
disproved the contention that digestion destroys Bt-toxin and is not 
biologically active in mammals.

Workers in India handling Bt cotton while picking, loading, weighing and 
separating the fiber from seeds developed allergies. They began with "mild to 
severe itching," then redness and swelling, followed by skin eruptions. These 
symptoms affected their skin, eyes (got red and swollen with excessive tearing) 
and upper respiratory tract causing nasal discharge and sneezing. In some cases,
hospitalization was required. At one cotton gin factory, workers take 
antihistamines daily.

Sheep grazing on Bt cotton developed "unusual systems" before dying 
"mysteriously." Reports from four Indian villages revealed 25% of them died 
within a week. Post mortems indicated a toxic reaction. The study raises 
questions about cottonseed oil safety and human health for people who eat meat 
from animals fed GM cotton. It's crucial to understand that what animals eat, so
do people.

Nearly all 100 Filipinos living adjacent to a Bt corn field became ill. Their 
symptoms appeared when the crop was producing airborne pollen and was apparently
inhaled. Doing it produced headaches, dizziness, extreme stomach pain, vomiting,
chest pains, fever, and allergies plus respiratory, intestinal and skin 
reactions. Blood tests conducted on 39 victims showed an antibody response to 
Bt-toxin suggesting it was the cause. Four other villages experienced the same 
problems that also resulted in several animal deaths.

Iowa farmers reported a conception rate drop of from 80% to 20% among sows 
(female pigs) fed GM corn. Most animals also had false pregnancies, some 
delivered bags of water and others stopped menstruating. Male pigs were also 
affected as well as cows and bulls. They became sterile and all were fed GM 

German farmer Gottfried Glockner grew GM corn and fed it to his cows. Twelve 
subsequently died from the Bt 176 variety, and other cows had to be destroyed 
due to a "mysterious" illness. The corn plots were field trials for Ag biotech 
giant Syngenta that later took the product off the market with no admission of 

Mice fed Monsanto Roundup Ready soybeans developed significant liver cell 
changes indicating a dramatic general metabolism increase. Symptoms included 
irregularly shaped nuclei and nucleoli, and an increased number of nuclear pores
and other changes. It's thought this resulted from exposure to a toxin, and most
symptoms disappeared when Roundup Ready was removed from the diet.

Mice fed Roundup Ready had pancreas problems, heavier livers and unexplained 
testicular cell changes. The Monsanto product also produced cell metabolism 
changes in rabbit organs, and most offspring of rats on this diet died within 
three weeks.

The death rate for chickens fed GM Liberty Link corn for 42 days doubled. They 
also experienced less weight gain, and their food intake was erratic.

In the mid-1990s, Australian scientists discovered that GM peas generated an 
allergic-type inflammatory response in mice in contrast to the natural protein 
that had no adverse effect. Commercialization of the product was cancelled 
because of fear humans might have the same reaction.

When given a choice, animals avoid GM foods. This was learned by observing a 
flock of geese that annually visit an Illinois pond and feed on soybeans from an
adjacent farm. After half the acreage had GM crops, the geese ate only from the 
non-GMO side. Another observation showed 40 deer ate organic soybeans from one 
field but shunned the GMO kind across the road. The same thing happened with GM 

Inserting foreign or transgenes is called insertional mutagenesis or insertion 
mutation. When done, it usually disrupts DNA at the insertion site and affects 
gene functioning overall by scrambling, deleting or relocating the genetic code 
near the insertion site.

The process of creating a GM plant requires scientists first to isolate and grow
plant cells in the laboratory using a tissue culture process. The problem is 
when it's done it can create hundreds or thousands of DNA mutations throughout 
the genome. Changing a single base pair may be harmful. However, widespread 
genome changes compound the potential problem manyfold.

Promoters are used in GM crops as switches to turn on the foreign gene. When 
done, the process may accidently switch on other natural plant genes 
permanently. The result may be to overproduce an allergen, toxin, carcinogen, 
antinutrient, enzymes that stimulate or inhibit hormone production, RNA that 
silences genes, or changes that affect fetal development. They may also produce 
regulators that block other genes and/or switch on a dormant virus that may 
cause great harm. In addition, evidence suggests the promoter may create genetic
instability and mutations that can result in the breakup and recombination of 
the gene sequence.

Plants naturally produce thousands of chemicals to enhance health and protect 
against disease. However, changing plant protein may alter these chemicals, 
increase plant toxins and/or reduce its phytonutrients. For example, GM soybeans
produce less cancer-fighting isoflavones. Overall, studies show genetic 
modification produces unintended changes in nutrients, toxins, allergens and 
small molecule metabolism products.

To create a GM soybean with a more complete protein balance, Pioneer Hi-Bred 
inserted a Brazil nut gene. By doing it, an allergenic protein was introduced 
affecting people allergic to Brazil nuts. When tests confirmed this, the project
was cancelled. GM proteins in other crops like corn and papaya may also be 
allergenic. The same problem exists for other crops like Bt corn, and evidence 
shows allergies skyrocketed after GM crops were introduced.

Another study of Monsanto's high-lysine corn showed it contained toxins and 
other potentially harmful substances that may retard growth. If consumed in 
large amounts, it may also adversely affect human health. In addition, when this
product is cooked, it may produce toxins associated with Alzheimer's, diabetes, 
allergies, kidney disease, cancer and aging symptoms.

Disease-resistant crops like zucchini, squash and Hawaiian papaya may promote 
human viruses and other diseases, and eating these products may suppress the 
body's natural defense against viral infections.

Protein structural aspects in GM crops may be altered in unforeseen ways. They 
may be misfolded or have added molecules. During insertion, transgenes may 
become truncated, rearranged or interspersed with other DNA pieces with unknown 
harmful effects. Transgenes may also be unstable and spontaneously rearrange 
over time, again with unpredictable consequences. In addition, they may create 
more than one protein from a process called alternative splicing. Environmental 
factors, weather, natural and man-made substances and genetic disposition of a 
plant further complicate things and pose risks. They're introduced as well 
because genetic engineering disrupts complex DNA relationships.

Contrary to industry claims, studies show transgenes aren't destroyed 
digestively in humans or animals. Foreign DNA can wander, survive in the 
gastro-intestinal tract, and be transported by blood to internal organs. This 
raises the risk that transgenes may transfer to gut bacteria, proliferate over 
time, and get into cells DNA, possibly causing chronic diseases. A single human 
feeding study confirmed that genes, in fact, transferred from GM soy into the 
DNA gut bacteria of three of seven test subjects.

Antibiotic Resister Marker (ARM) genes are attached to transgenes prior to 
insertion and allow cells to survive antibiotic applications. If ARM genes 
transfer to pathogenic gut or mouth bacteria, they potentially can cause 
antibiotic-resistant super-diseases. The proliferation of GM crops increases the
possibility. The CaMV promoter in nearly all GMOs can also transfer and may 
switch on random genes or viruses that produce toxins, allergens or carcinogens 
as well as create genetic instability.

GM crops interact with their environment and are part of a complex ecosystem 
that includes our food. These crops may increase environmental and other toxins 
that may accumulate throughout the food chain. Crops genetically engineered to 
be glufosinate (herbicide)resistant may produce intestinal herbicide with known 
toxic effects. If transference to gut bacteria occurs, greater problems may 

Repeated use of seeds like Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans results in vicious 
new super-weeds that need far greater amounts of stronger herbicides to combat. 
Their toxic residues remain in crops that humans and animals then eat. Even 
small amounts of these toxins may be endocrine disruptors that can affect human 
reproduction adversely. Evidence exists that GM crops accumulate toxins or 
concentrate them in milk or animals fed GM feed. Disease-resistant crops may 
also produce new plant viruses that affect humans.

All type GM foods, not just crops, carry these risks. Milk, for example, from 
cows injected with Monsanto's bovine growth hormone (rbGH), has much higher 
levels of the hormone IGF-1 that risks breast, prostate, colon, lung and other 
cancers. The milk also has lower nutritional value. GM food additives also pose 
health risks, and their use has proliferated in processed foods.

Potential harm to adults is magnified for children. Another concern is that 
pregnant mothers eating GM foods may endanger their offspring by harming normal 
fetal development and altering gene expression that's then passed to future 
generations. Children are also more endangered than adults, especially those 
drinking substantial amounts of rbGH-treated milk.


The above information is largely drawn from Smith's "Genetic Roulette." The data
is startling and confirms a clear conclusion. The proliferation of untested, 
unregulated GM foods in the span of a decade is more a leap of faith than 
reliable science. Microbiologist Richard Lacey captures the risk stating: "it is
virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to assess the 
health effects of (GM) foods when introduced into the food chain, nor is there 
any valid nutritional or public interest reason for their introduction." Other 
scientists worldwide agree that GM foods entered the market long before science 
could evaluate their safety and benefits. They want a halt to this dangerous 
experiment that needs decades of rigorous research and testing before we can 

Unchecked and unregulated, human health and safety are at risk because once GMOs
enter the food chain, the genie is out of the bottle for keeps. Thankfully, 
resistance is growing worldwide, many millions are opposed, but reversing the 
tide won't be easy. Washington and Ag biotech are on a roll with big unstated 
aims - total control of our food, making it all genetically engineered, and 
scheming to use it as a weapon to reward friends and punish enemies.

Smith is hopeful that people will prevail over profits. Hopefully he's right 
because human health and safety must never be compromised. Resistance already 
halted the introduction of new crop varieties, and Smith believes that with 
enough momentum existing ones may end up withdrawn. He cites an example he calls
a "Shift away from GM foods in the United States" in 2007. Leading it is an 
initiative launched last spring to remove GM ingredients from the entire natural
food sector. It's led by a coalition of natural food products producers, 
distributors and retailers along with the Institute for Responsible Technology 
(IRT). It's called the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, and its aims 
are big - to educate consumers about GM food risks and promote healthy 
alternatives through shopping guides.

A Pew survey reported that 29% of Americans, representing 87 million people, 
strongly oppose these foods and believe they're unsafe. That's a respectable 
start if backed up with efforts to avoid them, and more information how is at Jeffrey Smith founded IRT in 2003 "to promote the 
responsible use of technology and stop GM foods and crops through both 
grassroots and national strategies." It seeks safe alternatives and aims to "ban
the genetic engineering of our food supply and all outdoor releases of (GM) 
organisms, at least until (or unless scientific opinion) believes such products 
are safe and appropriate based on independent and reliable data."

IRT urges consumers to become educated about the risks, mobilize to combat them 
and act in our mutual self-interest. It's beginning to happen, and Smith 
believes "there is an excellent chance that food manufacturers will abandon GM 
foods in the near future" if a public groundswell demands it. He ends his book 
saying: "Although GMOs present one of the greatest dangers, with informed, 
motivated people, it is one of the easiest global issues to solve." Hopefully 
he's right.

Global Research Associate Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at

Also visit his blog site at and listen to The Global 
Research News Hours on RBN Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for 
cutting-edge discussions of world and national topics with distinguished guests.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of 
the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on 

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on 
community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The 
source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global 
Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, 
contact: •••@••.••• contains copyrighted material the use of which has not 
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such 
material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an 
effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social 
issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational 
purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair 
use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: •••@••.•••

© Copyright Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2008

The url address of this article is:

© Copyright 2005-2007
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

newslog archives:

How We the People can change the world

Escaping the Matrix:

The Phoenix Project

The Post-Bush Regime: A Prognosis

Community Democracy Framework:


Moderator: •••@••.•••  (comments welcome)