In the leaked cable, Stapleton writes, quote, "Europe is
moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a
leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the [European]
Commission...Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path
has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European
pro-biotech voice."
AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador
Stapleton goes on to write, quote, "Country team Paris recommends that
we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the
EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in
part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than
vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not
expect an early victory," he wrote.
Well, for more, we’re going to
Iowa City to speak with Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the
Institute for Responsible Technology, author of two books, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating and the book Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods.
Jeffrey Smith, joining us by Democracy Now! video stream, thanks so much for being with us. Talk about the significance of these documents leaked by WikiLeaks.
JEFFREY SMITH:
Well, we’ve been saying for years that the United States government has
joined at—is joined at the hip with Monsanto and pushing GMOs as part
of Monsanto’s agenda on the rest of the world. This lays bare the
mechanics of that effort. We have Craig Stapleton, the former ambassador
to France, specifically asking the U.S. government to retaliate and
cause some harm throughout the European Union. And then, two years
later, in 2009, we have a cable from the ambassador to Spain from the
United States asking for intervention there, asking the government to
help formulate a biotech strategy and support the government—members of
the government in Spain that want to promote GMOs, as well. And here,
they specifically indicate that they sat with the director of Monsanto
for the region and got briefed by him about the politics of the region
and created strategies with him to promote the GMO agenda.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, they apparently were especially interested in one Monsanto product, MON 810. Could you talk about that?
JEFFREY SMITH:
Yes. This is the first seed that was approved for widespread planting.
You see, the biotech industry was concerned initially about the European
Union accepting genetically modified foods. Although that had been
approved for years by the commission, the food industry had rejected it
because consumers were concerned. And so, there hasn’t been a lot of
food going to the European Union that’s genetically modified.
However,
they had planned to allow the growing of genetically modified seeds.
Now that MON 810 has been allowed, individual countries have stepped
forward to ban in. And so, in 2007, they were concerned about that, and
so they were trying to create a strategy to force these countries to
accept the first of the genetically modified seeds. Since then, there’s
been more evidence showing that this genetically modified corn damages
mice and rats, etc., can cause reductions of fertility, smaller litter
sizes, smaller offspring, immune responses, etc. And these have gone
largely ignored by both the European Food Safety Authority and the
United States FDA.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about these
health effects. Jeffrey Smith, you wrote a fascinating "Anniversary of a
Whistleblowing Hero" piece about a British scientist and about the
repercussions he suffered. He was one of the biggest GMO advocates. And
explain what happened and what he actually learned.
JEFFREY SMITH:
Well, Dr. Arpad Pusztai was actually working on a $3 million grant from
the U.K. government to figure out how to test for the safety of GMOs.
And what he discovered quite accidentally is that genetically modified
organisms are inherently unsafe. Within 10 days, his supposedly harmless
GMO potatoes caused massive damage to rats—smaller brains, livers and
testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, damaged immune system, etc. And
what he discovered was it was the process, the generic process of
genetic engineering, that was likely the cause of the problem. He went
public with his concerns and was a hero.
AMY GOODMAN:
But I think you have to—Jeffrey Smith, if you could explain this. This
is very significant, because he was an expert on the protein that
was—it’s this kind of insecticide. And everyone thought, oh, that might
be the thing that would hurt people. But he said, actually, it wasn’t
the thing that was injected into the—or however it works when you
genetically modify a potato, when you put that chemical inside, the
protein inside the potato—it wasn’t that.
JEFFREY SMITH:
Exactly. You see, he was testing with rats that were eating the
genetically modified potato, engineered to produce an insecticidal
protein. But he also tested other groups of rats that were eating
natural potatoes that were spiked with that same protein, and then a
third group that was just eating natural potatoes without the
insecticide. Only the group that ate the genetically engineered potato
got these problems, not the group that was eating the potatoes along
with the insecticide. So it clearly wasn’t the insecticide; it was
somehow the process of genetic engineering.
Now, that process
creates massive collateral damage inside the DNA of the plant. Hundreds
and thousands of mutations can be formed. There could be hundreds or
thousands of genes that are natural genes in the plant that change their
levels of expression. For example, with MON 810 corn, they found that
there was a gene that is normally silent that is switched on and now
creates an allergen in corn. They found 43 different genes that were
significantly up-regulated or down-regulated, meaning that there’s
massive changes in these crops and they’re not being evaluated by the
U.S.—by the FDA or any other regulatory authority around the world
before being put onto the market.
JUAN GONZALEZ:
Now, was there any indication from the cables or from your research that
the pressure that Ambassador Stapleton and other U.S. officials were
putting on the E.U. had the desired effect? Because obviously Ambassador
Stapleton, or former Ambassador Stapleton, was not just any former
ambassador, he was the former co-owner of the Texas Rangers with former
President George W. Bush.
JEFFREY SMITH: Well,
we’ve seen a consistent effort by the U.S. to bully Europe. But, you
see, European—the European mind on this is kind of divided. Some
countries are clearly in the camp of precautionary principle and
protecting interests for health. Others are basically moving in lockstep
with the U.S. government and Monsanto. So it’s a fiercely pitched
battle on every front in Europe.
A lot of the focus of the State
Department has been on developing countries. They try and push GMOs into
Africa. They deployed the Secretary of State’s chief
advisory—scientific adviser, Nina Fedoroff, to Australia and to India.
They tried to engage the Indian government with a contract or a treaty
that would allow their scientists to be trained in the U.S. So they’ve
been working around the world to try and influence policy on every
single continent. And in some cases, they’re doing—they’re actually
winning, where they’re overtaking the regulatory authorities and making
it quite weak, like it is in the U.S. And in some cases in Europe now,
there’s more resistance than ever, now that it’s "not in my backyard"
politics, "no planting in my country" type of politics.
AMY GOODMAN: Jeffrey Smith, can you compare the Obama administration on biotechnology with the Bush administration?
JEFFREY SMITH:
Unfortunately, we were hoping for a lot more success. President Obama,
while he was campaigning here in Iowa, promised that he would require
labeling of genetically modified crops. And since most Americans say
they would avoid GMOs if labeled, that would have eliminated it from the
food supply. But, you see, he and the FDA have been promoting the
biotechnology. And unfortunately, the Obama administration has not been
better than the Bush administration, possibly worse.
For example,
the person who was in charge of FDA policy in 1992, Monsanto’s former
attorney, Michael Taylor, he allowed GMOs on the market without any
safety studies and without labeling, and the policy claimed that the
agency was not aware of any information showing that GMOs were
significantly different. Seven years later, because of a lawsuit, 44,000
secret internal FDA memos revealed that that policy was a lie. Not only
were the scientists at the FDA aware that GMOs were different, they had
warned repeatedly that they might create allergies, toxins, new
diseases and nutritional problems. But they were ignored, and their
warnings were even denied, and the policy went forth allowing the
deployment GMOs into the food supply with virtually no safety studies.
That person in charge is now the U.S. food safety czar in the Obama
administration.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And what is your
general assessment of the sweeping reform that the Obama administration
pushed through of the FDA, considered one of the biggest reforms of that
agency in decades? Your assessment of it?
JEFFREY SMITH:
Well, if the FDA were absolutely dedicated to protecting public health,
giving them more power makes sense. But investigation after
investigation for years, it turns out that they often serve their,
quote, "clients," which is industry. Even one-third of their own
surveyed members in September revealed that they believe that corporate
and special interests really dictates policy in the area of public
health. So, my opinion is, giving them more power without first
eliminating that bias towards corporations is a dangerous formula. In
fact, they are officially mandated with promoting the biotech industry,
which is obviously a conflict of interest.
AMY GOODMAN:
I know both Eric Schlosser and also Michael Pollan have hailed the food
safety legislation, but on the issue of talking to the State Department
and what they’re pushing abroad, I want to just say we did call the
State Department and did not get a response. We wanted them to come on
today’s broadcast.
Finally, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Jeffrey Smith, your assessment?
JEFFREY SMITH:
Well, he was our governor here in Iowa, and he was the biotech governor
of the year in 2001. And unfortunately, he’s been following that course
of action since he has been put in office. They released today the
environmental impact statement for alfalfa, where they ignore their own
data regarding the increase of pesticides because of GMOs. They ignore
the data of their own scientists and other scientists, which show the
use of Roundup, which will be promoted through this Roundup Ready
alfalfa, is actually very toxic both for the environment and for human
health. And so, he, as well as many others of the Obama administration,
have been taken essentially from the biotech ranks and are now calling
the shots there. And I’m very disappointed.
There was some
indication in the EIS, however, for the alfalfa that he might take into
consideration concerns about contamination, which we all know is
permanent, where the self-propagating genetic pollution of genetically
modified foods can outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear
waste. It’s being released now without—with very little concern.
Finally, we see some ray of light, where they’re actually paying
attention, but it’s not enough. It’s not based really on science.
AMY GOODMAN:
We’re going to leave it there, but we will certainly continue to follow
this issue, Jeffrey Smith, it’s great to be with you, joining us from
Iowa City, executive director of the Institute for Responsible
Technology, author of two books, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating and also Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. This is Democracy Now!,
democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. We’ll link to our stories
on Monsanto over the years and of course to our continued coverage of
the WikiLeaks cables, the largest trove of U.S. diplomatic documents
that have been ever released.