Biotechnological "Food" Tyranny: The Dark Side of GMOs and Gene Editing
Chris Spencer
Frankenfood Laced With Chain Molecule Toxins - Ultra-Cheap to Them, Expensive For You
Biotechnological "Food" Tyranny: The Dark Side of GMOs and Gene Editing
Chris Spencer
Frankenfood Laced With Chain Molecule Toxins - Ultra-Cheap to Them, Expensive For You
Their claims of 'equivalency' to real food hide a much darker reality. These companies have used GMOs to consolidate immense power over the agricultural industry, governments, and the populace. While they assure us that GMOs are 'safe,' they are also fostering a system of chemical dependency, environmental degradation, and public health risks—all hidden behind expensive PR campaigns and political lobbying. The urgency of this issue cannot be overstated.
But there are alternatives. Organic farming and alternative sustainable agricultural methodologies would overcome the crisis in diversified forms to keep up with biodiversity and reduced use of chemicals for safety in food. Such a wide, across-the-board adoption of organic methods may create a healthy alternative market and threaten to displace such biotechnology giants and move toward truly healthier, more sustainable systems.
Bayer's acquisition of Monsanto in 2018 gave the company near-total control over genetic engineering and chemical herbicides like glyphosate (Roundup). Monsanto, now part of Bayer, has long promoted GMOs engineered to withstand glyphosate, a toxic, carcinogenic herbicide linked to cancer and numerous environmental issues. Despite mounting evidence of glyphosate's dangers, Bayer continues to push these crops as "safe," benefiting from its influence over regulators, media, and the public.
GMO food crops such as Roundup Ready soybeans and Bt cotton use way too much herbicide/insecticide which seep into our foods and into the environment. This very blind over-reliance upon chemicals has ushered in superweeds resistant to glyphosate, driving forward even more toxic herbicide usage while biodiversity has alarmingly declined.
Syngenta, a subsidiary of the state-owned ChemChina, and German agrochemical giant BASF push for the growth of genetically modified crops with resistance to herbicides and insects. Perhaps one of the most distressing examples is how Syngenta advocates for the use of neonicotinoids, pesticides at the center of the global collapse in the bee population. This linked usage of GMOs with these deadly chemicals portends great threats to biodiversity and food security.
The GM crops developed by BASF are resistant to highly toxic herbicides such as glufosinate, which further contaminates food and water supplies. The notion that GMOs are "equivalent" to non-GMOs is easily dispelled by the sheer volume of pesticides being sprayed on GM crops. These eventually find their way into the food supply, exposing consumers to dangerous chemicals linked to cancer, neurological disorders, and endocrine disruption. These companies declare an all-out war on small organic farms.
Corteva is a spin-off from DowDuPont, promoting weedkiller-tolerant crops designed to be sprayed with toxins such as 2,4-D, an active ingredient in notorious Agent Orange. Such crops are engineered to be resistant to heavy doses of toxic herbicides, perpetuating a vicious cycle of chemical addiction in agriculture. Corteva and other biotechnology giants claim that GMOs are needed to feed the Earth's growing population. The Agrochemicals are getting us prepared for a chemically contaminated food system in the future where citizens' health comes second in front of corporations' super profits.
These chemicals, including glyphosate, neonics, and other pesticides, have been linked to a wide range of health problems—from cancer to developmental defects to neurological disorders. One reason so many of these chemicals are allowed to remain on the market, offering no protection to consumers, is because of the vast political clout these corporations hold over regulators.
One of the most egregious examples is GMO "farmed" salmon. These fishes are farmed with the aid of insecticides, algaecides, fungicides, antibiotics, anti-larval agents, and other chemicals that are harbingers of devastation both to health and the environment. These chemicals destroy health and biodiversity, contributing to growing chemical load in our food supply.
The reach of these biotech giants extends far from just the pesticide residue (your neighborhood grocery store) foods they are producing. Major influence by these corporations takes place over government policy and public opinion. Misleading advertisement budgets combined with heavy lobby efforts further a false claim that GMOs are safety 'approved' and also 'necessary' to feed the world. They finance PR campaigns trumpeting the benefits of GMOs while working diligently to enact laws that reduce pesticide transparency, further blindfolding consumers as to what's in their food. This is an obvious imbalance of power, an injustice that must be addressed by empowering consumers through testing what's on their table.
Grocery chains like Trader Joe's, Vons, Safeway, and Albertsons stock their shelves with plastic-wrapped, pesticide-soaked produce. These factory-farms stores, controlled by factory food conglomerates like Aldi, are complicit in the spread of chemical-laden GMOs. While they market themselves as health-conscious and eco-friendly, they continue to sell food produced with harmful chemicals, contributing to a hidden public health crisis.
Time to act, by testing the food we buy. Using pesticide test kits and strips, we can determine pesticide residues on food. We will show the toxic levels of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides GMOs carry and even the so-called 'organic' produce may well be contaminated, so nothing should go untested. Simple, just buy one of the many pesticide test kits available, follow the enclosed directions to obtain a sample, place the sample in the test kit, and the result will show if pesticides were used or not. USDA Organic or India, Turkey, Chili, Mexico and Guatemala 'Organic' wink? Once the tests are complete, the findings will have to be shared on social media platforms. Pesticide test results published on social media will raise awareness and force supermarkets to be more open. This grassroots movement could lead by informed consumers to take on the corporate dominance of the biotech industry and make these companies responsible for what they do: poisoning our food supply. Your action can make a difference.
Large, billion-dollar biotech firms belonging to Bayer, Syngenta, BASF, and Corteva have hijacked the food chain to adduct our food into chemicals. It is for the pecuniary benefit of the gigantic corporations. GMOs were swimming in a large pool of pesticides and herbicides and posed serious hazards for the environment and public health. And that lie is equivalent to non-GMOs, it's now time for consumers to make the saying, "Enough is enough."
With pesticide testing tools and the power of social media, the truth can be brought to light as it relates to GMOs, and the public will force these companies to disclose what's in the foods they are selling. It is time to hold them accountable and take back our food sovereignty—to take back what goes on our plates.
Fighting for food independence is not an issue of saying no to GMOs but a stand against the chemical tyranny imposed on the food system by the very same corporations. Testing our foods for exposure to pesticides and contamination from pesticides, while demanding transparency, is protection for ourselves and future generations against what GMOs and their associated noxious chemicals represent. It is now time for action. The time has come to push back against the biotech giants and reclaim our food supply, health, and future.
CSAs offer more than just fresh produce! Many programs also deliver a variety of locally sourced products, including meat, fish, cheese, pasta, rice, beans, lentils, and even some canned and jarred foods. By subscribing to a CSA, you can enjoy a diverse selection of high-quality groceries straight from small-scale farms to your doorstep, supporting local agriculture while bypassing crowded supermarkets.
Ready to make the switch? Explore these reputable CSAs in your area:
Sign up today for fresh, sustainable, and delicious food delivered straight to your door!
Michael Taylor has always been a controversial figure, having had critical roles in both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) because of GMOs and relationships with major agribusiness firms like Monsanto. Critics have framed him within the larger context of regulatory capture—that is, the corporate hijacking of public policy-making to defeat public health, environmental, and food safety concerns. The following examines some of the rationales behind the view of Michael Taylor's career as an exemplar of corruption in the context of his involvement with Monsanto, his role and influence regarding regulatory policy, and its larger implications on public trust.
Taylor's career is most frequently cited as a classic example of the "revolving door" phenomenon — where individuals move between regulatory agencies and the industries they are supposed to regulate, often with favorable outcomes for the industries. Before his appointment as FDA Deputy Commissioner for Policy in 1991, Taylor had been working as a lawyer for Monsanto, one of the world's largest agricultural biotechnology companies. He had been a part of Monsanto's team that was promoting GM foods and other controversial products, such as the herbicide Roundup.
After leaving the FDA in 1994, Taylor returned to Monsanto as vice president of public policy. To critics, this career path illustrates a too-cozy relationship between Monsanto and those regulators who would, or should, oversee the company's products with a more careful eye. Taylor's connection with the FDA and Monsanto raises concerns about conflict of interest, especially considering how much influence Monsanto had with government policy at that time.
One of Taylor's most controversial roles was in shaping U.S. food policy regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs). While at the FDA, Taylor played a key role in shaping the policy that GMOs would not be subject to special regulation. The policy, created in 1992, came to the conclusion that genetically engineered foods were "substantially equivalent" to traditional foods in that they did not need additional safety testing before hitting the market. This stance has been widely criticized because, in effect, it gave biotech companies like Monsanto the ability to bring GMOs to market without proof of their safety or health effects in the long run.
Many critics argue that this policy was influenced by the interests of Monsanto, whose products—such as Bt corn and Roundup Ready soybeans—were among the first genetically engineered crops to be commercialized. The policy Taylor helped shape enabled the rapid proliferation of genetically modified crops, without the level of transparency, testing, or public consultation that many believe is necessary to ensure their safety.
Another major bone of contention is Taylor's role in reducing the transparency of regulatory processes related to food safety and biotechnology. While at the FDA, there were concerns about a lack of public hearings or scientific debate over the decision to approve genetically engineered foods. There were also reports that Taylor and his colleagues ignored the dissenting voices within the FDA who had raised their concerns about the potential health risks of GMOs. For instance, FDA scientists raised alarms about the possibility of GMOs causing allergic reactions, but those concerns were reportedly downplayed or ignored.
In addition, Taylor's jump from chief administrator of the USDA to leading Monsanto executive also raised many questions about just how far he might have gone in shaping regulatory decisions to favor the interests of the biotech giant. Critics say that sort of "regulatory capture" hurts the public interest by making it easier for private corporations to circumvent or manipulate government regulations created to ensure public health.
While working as a public policy executive at Monsanto, Taylor didn't stop at the FDA. During his tenure, Monsanto became embroiled in the political fight over the regulation of GMOs. One particularly contentious piece of legislation, often called the "Monsanto Protection Act", was passed in 2013 as part of a spending bill. The provision essentially provided immunity for Monsanto and other biotech companies against judicial review in case a court decided that their products were in violation of environmental or safety regulations. Critics argue that the law was muscled through with the help of industry lobbyists and it was the result of years of influence peddling by Monsanto, to which individuals like Taylor played a central role.
Under Taylor's influence, the FDA not only neglected to regulate GMOs in a manner that could have protected public health, but it also played a major role in promoting the global spread of GM crops. The U.S. government, through agencies like the FDA and USDA, collaborated with multinational agribusinesses to push GMOs into markets around the world. Critics will argue that Taylor's policies accommodated a corporate-led agenda that placed profits over food safety and environmental health. The power of Monsanto grew substantially during this period, as GMOs became a central feature of global agriculture, often with little independent oversight or public input.
Ultimately, Michael Taylor's career raises serious questions about the integrity of government institutions that are supposed to protect the public. By shuttling back and forth between Monsanto and regulatory agencies, Taylor embodied the kind of corporate influence over government policy that undermines public confidence in the regulatory process. His decisions have brought significant and long-lasting impact to food safety, environmental protection, and consumer rights. The lack of any independent scientific inquiry, the complete failure to respond to the public's concerns about GMOs, and the revolving door between government and industry combined to create a growing perception that agencies like the FDA and USDA were more interested in protecting corporate interests than public health.
The career of Michael Taylor is often cited as a cautionary tale about the dangers of regulatory capture, where powerful corporate interests are able to influence or co-opt government agencies to promote their products. His ties with Monsanto, his role in shaping GMO policy, and his influence on U.S. and global agricultural practices are seen by many as emblematic of a corrupt system in which corporate power supersedes public welfare. While Taylor's supporters defend him as having based his policies on sound science, Taylor's critics view him as an emblem of corporations having undue influence over public policy—especially on issues of health, safety, and protection of the environment.
References