Are You a Guinea Pig in the World's Largest Ongoing Experiment?

We are all in a kind of experiment. You never agreed to take part in it. But it’s triggering infertility, tumors, kidney and liver disease and more.

The federal government not only allows it to happen, they’re appointing people to key positions to make the experiment official policy. Case in point: President Obama’s new “food safety czar” is a former vice president at Monsanto, one of the world’s most powerful Big-Agra giants.

The political lobbying, the presidential appointments and their secretive policies are helping to put untested mutations on your dinner table in the form of GMOs – genetically modified organisms.

Genetically modified foods have never been proven safe. And the test results that reveal problems never see the light of day. When you eat them, you’re taking part in a global Franken-foods experiment.

The facts – the few we’re allowed to know – are scary. Today I’ll show you how and why this horror show is unfolding and what you can do to avoid the crippling side effects.

President Appoints Fox to Guard Henhouse

Our president was elected on a platform of change. But when it comes to food safety it’s business as usual.

Why would I say this? Look at President Obama’s choices to head the USDA and the FDA: Tom Vilsack and Michael Taylor.

Mr. Vilsack is a long-time supporter of genetically modified foods. In fact, Vilsack recently pushed his GMO agenda at the Food Security Conference in Iowa.

But Michael Taylor, the new “food safety czar,” is the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse.

Taylor has a long history of lobbying for – and being employed by – Big-Agra companies with a vested interest in GMOs. Not only was Taylor a vice president at Monsanto, he was one of the FDA officials who signed off on an

FDA policy stating that GMOs don’t need safety testing.

And who benefits? You guessed it: Monsanto.

Court Case Uncovers Monsanto Bribes of Government Officials

Back in 2000, Monsanto wanted to plant over 49,000 acres of genetically modified cotton in Indonesia. But hours before the agreement with Indonesia’s government was to be signed, it was shot down by the Ministers of Economy and Environment. There had been no environmental assessment, as required by Indonesian law.

But just five months later, the Minister of Agriculture signed the agreement with Monsanto, without the required environmental assessment.

Why? As it turns out, it was a $50,000 bribe from a Monsanto employee that did the trick.

But that $50,000 was just the tip of the iceberg. As it turned out in U.S. court, Monsanto had paid some $700,000 in bribes to Indonesian officials, and wound up slapped with a $1.5 million fine.1

According to a report in the Asia Times, 140 Indonesian officials received bribes from Monsanto over the deal, including a former Minster of Agriculture, whose wife received a house worth $373,990.

Now, I realize that Indonesia was known at the time for official corruption. But if the genetically modified crop was really safe, wouldn’t it be easier to simply prepare the required assessment?

Even more disturbing is an earlier U.S. government policy that cleared the way for us to become unwilling lab rats.

Mutant Killers Masquerading as Real Food

When giant agricultural corporations wanted to flood the market with genetically modified seeds, there was a problem. What about safety? What were the effects of eating an ear of corn laced with pesticide? What would happen if someone ate soybeans designed to survive the potent herbicide Round-up?

Not a problem, announced the federal government. As long as these “Frankenfoods” are “substantially equivalent” to the real thing, the GMO products would be deemed safe – and made available for sale.

So, if a GMO food – or other plant – is “substantially equivalent” in composition and nutritional characteristics, it doesn’t have to be tested for safety.

Imagine for a moment if we applied this standard to children’s toys.

Let’s say you have the choice between two toy trucks that are nearly identical. One is painted with red, lead-free paint with plastic wheels. The other is identical, except that the paint contains lead. In other words, the two toys are “substantially equivalent,” except for one tiny detail.

Which toy would you choose for your child? Obviously, you’d choose the one without the lead paint.

So what’s the problem? The two toys are substantially equivalent. They’re made of the exact same materials.

There’s just that one tiny difference. But that difference can send you to an early grave.

This may be a simplified example of “substantial equivalence.” But it certainly points out the problems we may face when new or modified foods are allowed on your store shelves without testing.

And responsible scientists weren’t shy about pointing out the problems with the policy of substantial equivalence, either.

Geneva Sounds Alarm Against Using the “Substantially Equivalent” Rule…

In 1998, Geneva’s Center for Environmental Law argued against the World Trade Organization accepting “substantial equivalence” as a standard for GMO safety.

They pointed out that it was inadequate to prove safety… it would undermine meaningful standards in those countries that chose to enact them… and that substantial equivalence ignored scientific research that showed “substantially equivalent” GMO foods had significant negative health impacts.2

Unfortunately for all of us, commercial interests won out over science.

That’s bad news. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine points out, GMO foods have been linked to:

  • Infertility
  • Weakened immune system
  • Accelerated aging
  • Genetic problems with cholesterol, insulin control, cell signaling, and protein formation
  • Changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system3

These Franken-foods may be “substantially equivalent,” but the research shows they’re substantially more dangerous, too.

But I’m not just quoting wild accusations. There’s plenty of solid science at work here. Take a look at some of the studies I’ve found…

You’re Playing Russian Roulette, American Style

In the rush to please the agribusiness giants, your government has sold you out. Today, as many as 85% of the processed foods on store shelves contain genetically modified ingredients.4

And that’s not good, if the few studies on GM foods can be believed.

In 2008, Italian researchers found that GM foods had a negative impact on the immune systems of mice.5 Turkish scientists found evidence of liver and kidney disease in rats fed genetically modified corn.6 And Danish researchers found enough differences in rats fed genetically modified rice to question its safety.7

So where are the studies? A medical researcher in Spain found that there’s an almost complete lack of proof that GM foods are safe.8 And there’s a good reason why.

Scientists Forbidden from Testing GMO Crops

So where is all the research on genetically modified crops? It simply doesn’t exist.

Wouldn’t you think that a new technology – one that holds both great promise and great questions – would be studied to the Nth degree? I sure would. But here’s why GMOs haven’t been studied thoroughly…

The manufacturers won’t allow it.

That’s right. Monsanto – and the handful of other big producers of genetically modified crops – don’t allow scientific testing.

If you want to get your hands on GMO seeds, you have to sign an “end-user agreement,” just as if you were buying software. And these end-user agreements ban testing and comparisons to other products. The only testing that happens is testing that the manufacturers approve.

As Scientific American points out, the only tests approved are those that the manufacturers decide are “friendly.”9

So, are genetically modified foods safe for you to eat? Sorry… That’s on a need-to-know basis. And the manufacturers have decided that you don’t need to know.

That leaves one important question. What can you do? Fortunately, you can do something to protect yourself and your family from Frankenfoods.

Four Simple Steps to Protect You and Your Family

1. Whenever possible, buy organic. The safest foods are certified-organic foods. If your grocer doesn’t carry organic foods, let them know you’ll shop elsewhere if they don’t begin stocking them.

2. Find a farmer’s market in your area: Eating locally is the best way to get the freshest organic food with no trace of GMOs. Try these websites: or

3. For dairy products and other packaged foods, look for a “non-GMO” label. This can be tricky, because the manufacturers of genetically modified foods are lobbying hard to get “non-GMO” labels banned. But for now, they’re still legal. And, in my opinion, a good sign that these foods are safer.

4. When you can, “grow your own.” Non-GMO seed companies have moved much of their seed production to Europe and Asia, where contamination is less likely. American agribusiness giants have less clout in these countries, and untainted seeds are still available.

5. Let your members of Congress and the Senate know you’re concerned about this issue and demand that genetically modified crops be banned until proven safe.

  1. Asia Times, January 20, 2005. See
  2. Stilwell M and Van Dyke B. Codex, Substantial Equivalence and WTO Threats to National GMO Labeling Schemes. Center for Environmental Law.
  3. American Academy of Environmental Medicine. Genetically Modified Foods.
  4. Harlander S. Safety Assessments and Public Concern for Genetically Modified Food Products: The American View. Toxicologic Pathology, Vol. 30, No. 1, 132-134 (2002).
  5. Alberto Finamore, et al. Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice. J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56 (23), pp 11533–11539.
  6. Kiliç A and Akay MT. A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008 Mar;46(3):1164-70. Epub 2007 Dec 5.
  7. Poulsen M, et al. A 90-day safety study in Wistar rats fed genetically modified rice expressing snowdrop lectin Galanthus nivalis (GNA). Food Chem Toxicol. 2007 Mar;45(3):350-63. Epub 2006 Sep 14.
  8. Domingo JL. Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants: a review of the published literature. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2007;47(8):721-33.
  9. Scientific American. August 2009. See,