Let’s face it, Monsanto has gotten away with crimes even the most hardened criminals would never even imagine doing.
And while the media has typically been in favor of Monsanto’s business or at least impartial to it, one of the most respected newspapers has finally called them out.
That’s right, the New York Times has just published an article entitled “Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops” written by the well-respected Danny Hakim.
It was published along with a series of graphs in “Broken Promises of Genetically Modified Crops” which was written by Karl Russell and Hakim. You can find it here.
In short, the articles expose the fact that Monsanto’s cancer-causing pesticides and inflammation-promoting GMO seeds do not yield more produce than organic farming methods. This is important because Monsanto’s main argument for its genetically modified produce is that it’s the only way to supply the growing demand of food throughout the world.
Essentially, Monsanto has lied about its very reason for existence.
Plus, the agriculture giant has gone under record saying that the use of GMOs also reduces the need for pesticides. However, these seeds are modified to survive the extremely toxic herbicides and pesticides, which tend to kill all plants and other life they come into contact with. And yet, Monsanto, who also sells the deadly pesticides and herbicides has no intentions of lowering demand for these cash cows.
Looking Towards Europe
Because of the lack of truly organic crops in North America, the writers looked towards the many European countries that banned Monsanto’s products nearly 20 years ago.
Using United Nations data, Hakim found that farmers in the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields from the use of GMO rapeseed when compared to non-GMO farmers in France and Germany (1).
“Twenty years ago, Europe largely rejected genetic modification at the same time the United States and Canada were embracing it,” Hakim explained. “Comparing the results on two continents, using independent data as well as academic and industry research, shows how the technology has fallen short of the promise.”
Some European crops, like sugar beets, have even surpassed American produce in terms of yield.
They also cited a report conducted by the National Academy of Sciences which found that “there was little evidence” that genetically modified crops increased yields when compared to conventional crops (2).
Hakim and Russell also pointed out that herbicide use has actually increased in the United States and pesticide use has only fallen by 33% in the last 20 years, while France has lowered its use of pesticides by 65 percent.
While France and Germany are vocal about their distaste for GMOs, they still consume GMO crops in the form of imports coming in from the USA and elsewhere.
Since agricultural giants like Monsanto sell both the herbicides and herbicide-resistant seeds being used “The industry is winning on both ends —because the same companies make both the genetically modified plants and the poisons,” the author notes.
The Human Cost
In the New York Times article, David Bellinger, a professor at the Harvard University School of Public Health, warns that “These chemicals [used on crops] are largely unknown,” and so are their health effects.
Many farmers and citizens have spoken out about the harmful effects of these chemicals, yet the U.S. government allows the company to legally operate in the United States and abroad. When farmers try to resist Monsanto’s influence, they are often sued or bullied into submission.
Similarly, researchers who publish the results of GMO studies that find that GMO crops and herbicides have a negative impact on the environment and the human body are discredited by Monsanto lobbyists and scientists.
Like a true journalist, Hakim followed up with interviews with both Monsanto’s chief technology officer Robert T. Fraley and a prominent GMO researcher. Regardless of where you stand on the issue of GMO crops, it’s an enlightening read.