Excerpts from –

The Food Revolution:

How your diet can help save your life and the world

By John Robbins (Author of Diet for a New America),

2002.

[please print/copy on both sides of the paper if you are able]

Introduction
While this book is not based on religious teachings, a clear message comes
through that relates to how we live our lives as Christians.

Eating is a moral act.

This is not an original idea. In fact, it is a modification used often by the National
Catholic Rural Life Conference of Wendell Berry’s phrase, Eating is an
agricultural act.

John Robbin’s book not only convinced me that both are true, but also that we
must act. We must change our diets for the sake of personal and planetary
health. How we eat and structure our food system – with the myriad implications
on the environment and social justice issues – is one of the supreme challenges
we face in this century.

The situation is unprecedented. Never have so many people – an estimated one

billion – grown fat and obese from over-consuming, while an equal number suffer
debilitating hunger. Never before have so few entities – the giant retailers, seed,
livestock factory, food processing and agricultural chemical corporations –
controlled so much of the global food system. Never have human actions so
affected the health of the global environment and all living creatures.

Can we turn things around?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But certainly, our failure to act would dramatically
compromise so much that we care about and love. So much of God’s wondrous
Creation is at stake. And there are many hopeful ways to improve the diet of our
families and to strengthen local food economies. You can learn more about
these on the Presbyterian Hunger Program’s Food and Faith website at
www.pcusa.org/food, on the wildly-popular Food and Faith Blog and in
Frances Moore and Anna Lappé’s wonderful book, Hope’s Edge.

I offer these excerpts as fodder for understanding and fuel to inspire action.
Many thanks to John Robbins, who could have chosen an ice cream fortune, but
instead chose to exhaustively research and share his findings for the benefit of
all.

The numbers following factual statement refer to the chapter and footnote where the
source can be found. If you would like the references, please contact Andrew Kang
Bartlett in the Presbyterian Hunger Program ~ [email protected]; 502-569-5388.

Special thanks to Deborah Calvert for her enthusiastic transcriptions!

2
table of contents

Costs of a meaty diet .................................................................................................4

Got BS?.....................................................................................................................4
Animal protein and calcium loss..................................................................................5
What we know about dairy, calcium and bone loss...................................................6
Water per pound of beef ............................................................................................7
Biodiversity and livestock ...........................................................................................8
What we know about hamburger meat and rain forests............................................8
Saving forests............................................................................................................8
What we know about food and global warming ...........................................................8
Beef as petroleum by-product................................................................................... 10
Is That So? .......................................................................................................... 10
The globe is warming............................................................................................... 11
Is That So? .......................................................................................................... 11
And warming… ........................................................................................................ 11
Is That So? .......................................................................................................... 12
Traditional vs modern livestock production ................................................................ 13
Who eats and who doesn’t ....................................................................................... 14
World’s bread basket ............................................................................................... 14
Food for livestock, not people................................................................................... 15
What we know about food and land use ................................................................ 16
Even fish?! ~ What we know ................................................................................ 17
Genetically engineered food ~ What we know ........................................................... 18
Hype vs reality ........................................................................................................ 18
More on GE and hunger ........................................................................................... 20
Unexpected results with genetic engineering ............................................................. 20
Dangers of gene splicing .......................................................................................... 22
IS THAT SO? ....................................................................................................... 23
GMOs as allergins .................................................................................................... 23
Health problems from eating genetically engineered foods ......................................... 24
Nutritional and long-term dangers ............................................................................ 24
The need for labeling ............................................................................................... 25

3
Costs of a meaty diet
“The China Health Project, a joint Sino- who headed the China Health Project,
American undertaking, examined the conservatively estimates that excessive
health effects of changes in the Chinese meat consumption is responsible for
diet since the economic reform of 1978 between $60 and $120 billion of health
and concluded that the recent increases care costs each year in the United
in breast cancer, colorectal cancer, States alone. Domestic cash receipts
cardiovascular disease and obesity are for the meat industry totaled roughly
closely linked to increased meat $100 billion in 1997. If Campbell’s
consumption. Moreover, these disease estimates are correct, it’s possible that
changes occurred at a level of meat this industry is a net drain on the
consumption that is only a fraction of the American economy.” (Brian Halweil,
typical American or European intake . . . Worldwatch Institute) 5/41
Dr. Colin Campbell of Cornell University,

Got BS?
I continue to be amazed at how often- The National Dairy Council funded a
dairy industry ads are off the mark. study in which post-menopausal women
You’ve probably seen their ads telling us drank three additional 8-ounces glasses
that consumption of dairy products will of skim milk (to provide a total of 1,500
build stronger bones in the elderly. But mg of calcium daily) compared to the
in 1994, the American Journal of control group of postmenopausal
Epidemiology published a study of women. The council was not thrilled
elderly women and men that found when the results, published in the
something quite different. Elderly American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
people with the highest dairy product found that the women who drank the
consumption actually had double the extra milk actually lost more calcium
risk of hip fracture compared to those from their bones than the control group
with the lowest consumption. 6/19 of women who did not drink it. 6/20

The reason is…

4
Animal protein and calcium loss
The calcium-losing effect of animal the women in the low group, and nearly
protein on the human body is not a four times the rate of hip fractures.
matter of controversy in scientific circles.
Researchers who conducted a recent Might this have been due to other
survey of diet and hip fractures in 33 factors than the ratio of animal to
countries said they found “an absolutely vegetable protein? According to the
phenomenal correlation” between the study’s lead author, Deborah Sellmeyer,
ratios of plant to animal foods. The M.D., Director of the Bone Density Clinic
more plant foods people eat (particularly at the University of California, San
fruits and vegetables), the stronger their Francisco Medical Center, researchers
bones, and fewer fractures they found this to be true even after adjusting
experience. The more animal foods for age, weight, estrogen use, tobacco
people eat, on the other hand the use, exercise, calcium intake, and total
weaker their bones and the more protein intake, and total protein intake.
fracture they experience. 6/22 “We adjusted for all the things that could
have had an impact on the relationship
Similarly, in January 2001, the American of high animal protein intake to bone
journal of Clinical Nutrition published a loss and hip fractures,” Sellmeyer said.
study that reported a dramatic “But we found the relationship was still
correlation between the ratio of animal there.”
to vegetable protein in the diet of elderly
women and their rate of bone loss. In I don’t believe, by the way, that dairy
this seven-year study funded by the products cause osteoporosis. But the
National Institute of Health, more that many studies linking intake of animal
1,000 women, ages 65 to 80, were protein to bone loss, and showing a
grouped into three categories: those worse calcium balance with increased
with a high ratio of animal to vegetable dairy consumption, certainly show how
protein a middle range, and a low range. unfounded are ads that promote dairy
The women in the high ratio category products as the only path to strong
had three times the rate of bone loss as bones.

5
 WHAT WE KNOW

• Countries with the highest consumption of dairy products: Finland,

Sweden, United States, and England
• Countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis: Finland, Sweden, United
States, and England

• Daily calcium intake for African Americans: More than 1,000 mg

• Daily calcium intake for black South Africans: 196 mg
• Hip fracture rate for African American compared to black South Africans:
9 times greater

• Calcium intake in rural China: One-half that of people in the United States
• Bone fracture rate in Rural China: One-fifth that of people in the United
States

• Foods that when eaten produce calcium loss through urinary excretion:
Animal protein, salt, and coffee
• Amount of calcium lost in the urine of a woman after eating a hamburger:
28 milligrams
• Amount of calcium lost in the urine of a woman after drinking a cup of
coffee: 2 milligrams 6/23-30

6
Water used to produce a pound of beef
Here’s one way to look at it. Let’s say California beef than you would by not
you take a shower every single day. showering for an entire year.
And let’s say your showers average
seven minutes long. At that rate, you’d “In California, the single biggest
be in the shower 49 minutes each week consumer of water is not Los Angeles.
(seven times seven). Let’s round that It’s not the oil and chemicals or defense
off, for easier math, to 50 minutes per industries. Nor is it the fields of grapes
week. and tomatoes. It’s irrigated pasture:
grass grown in a near-desert climate for
Now, let’s say the flow rate through your cows . . . The West’s water crisis—and
shower head is 2 gallons per minute. At many of its environmental problems as
the rate of 2 gallons per minute, and 50 well – can be summed up, implausible
minutes per week, you’d be using 100 as this may seem, in a single word:
gallons of water per week in order to livestock.” (Marc Reisner, author,
shower each day. Cadillac Desert)

You can multiply that figure of 100 Meat produced in different parts of the
gallons times 52 (since there are 52 country requires different amounts of
weeks in a year) to discover that you water. Meat produced in the Southeast
would use, at that rate, 5,200 gallons of takes much less water than meat
water to shower every day for a year. produced in other regions; you don’t
need to irrigate nearly as much thanks
When you compare that figure, 5,200 to more rain during the growing season
gallons of water, to the amount of water in the southeast. Arizona and Colorado
the Water Education Foundation meat, on the other hand, take even
calculates is used in the production of more water than California.
every pound of California beef (2,464
gallons) you realize something The reason that more water is used to
extraordinary. In California today, you produce a pound of beef than a pound
may save more water by not eating a of pork or chicken, by the way, is that
pound of beef than you would by not the pork and poultry industries in the
showering for six entire months. Using United States are generally
the figures of the Soil and Water concentrated in areas where grain fields
specialists at the University of California need little or no irrigation, and because
Agricultural Extension is even more pigs and chickens are more efficient at
dramatic. By their analysis, you’d save converting feed to flesh than are cattle.
more water by not eating a pound of

7
Biodiversity and livestock production

What we know
• Number of species of birds in one square mile of Amazon rainforest: More
than exist in all of North America.
• Life forms destroyed in the production of each fast-food hamburger made
from rainforest beef: Members of 20 to 30 different plant species, 100
different insect species, and dozens of bird, mammal, and reptile species.
• Length of time before the Indonesian forest, all 280 million acres of them,
would be completely gone if they were cleared to produce enough beef
for Indonesians to eat as much beef, per person, as the people of the
United States do: 3.5 years.
• Length of time before the Costa Rican rainforest would be completely
gone if it were cleared to produce enough beef for people of Costa Rica
to eat as much beef, per person, as the people of the United States eat:
One year.
• What a hamburger produced by clearing forest in India would cost if the
real costs were included in the price rather than subsidized: $200. 14/7-
11

Saving forests
We need our world’s forest. They are hydroelectric plants, and the roads that
vital sources of oxygen. They moderate go with them, and logging. What can
our climates, prevent floods, and are our we do? We can reuse paper and wood
best defense against soil erosion. products, reduce the amount of paper
Forests recycle and purify our water. and wood we use, and use recycled
They are home to millions of plants and paper whenever possible. We can stop
animals. They provide wood for our all use of tropical hardwoods. (To stop
buildings and cooking fuel for much of importing tropical hardwoods, the United
humanity. In their biological integrity, States would have to reduce its
they are a source of beauty, inspiration, consumption of timber by only 2
and solace. percent.) We can support organizations
involved in rainforest conservation. And
The world’s forests are being depleted most important, we can eat less meat.
as a result of several developments in
addition to beef and cattle ranching A cultural shift toward a plant-based diet
agriculture and population resettlement, would be a substantial step toward
major power projects like dams, saving our remaining forests. It takes

8
far less agricultural land to produce a greenhouse gases, and a more stable
plant-based diet that to produce meat, climate.
so with this shift we could feed our
species without have to clear ever more There is still time to turn things around if
forest land for food production. Since we act now. Every time you choose to
forests absorb carbon dioxide and eat plant foods rather than meat, it’s as
produce oxygen, the movement toward if you were planting and tending a tree,
a plant-based diet would provide our helping to create a greener and
children with more plentiful oxygen to healthier future for all generations to
breathe, an atmosphere with fewer come.

What We Know
• Calories of fossil fuel expended to produce 1 calorie of protein from
soybeans: 2
• Calories of fossil fuel expended to produce 1 calorie of protein from corn
or wheat: 3
• Calories of fossil fuel expended to produce 1 calorie of protein from beef:
54
• Amount of greenhouse-warming carbon gas released by driving a typical
American car, in one day: 3 kilograms
• Amount released by clearing and burning enough Costa Rican rainforest
to produce beef for one hamburger: 75 kilograms 14/39-43

9
Beef as a petroleum by-product
Since beef requires the burning of 54 This is not just the opinion of anti-meat
fossil fuel calories for the production of a activists. In 1996, the Journal of Animal
calorie of protein, and soybeans require Science agreed, in an article titled
only two, people deriving their protein “Ecosystems, Sustainability, and Animal
from soybeans are, in effect, consuming Agriculture.” The article’s authors stated
only 4 percent as much energy—and that results of extensive research at the
producing only 4 percent as much Fort Keogh Livestock and Range
carbon dioxide—as people deriving their Reserve Laboratory at Miles City,
protein from beef. Montana pointedly reveal the high level
of dependency of the U.S. beef cattle
By the same token, since corn or wheat industry on fossil fuels.” 14/44
require the burning of only 3 fossil fuel
calories to produce a calories of protein, Scientists, even those writing in animal
people deriving their protein from beef industry journals, agree that modern
are, in effect, burning 18 times as much meat production is responsible for a
energy—and producing 18 times as vastly disproportionate amount of
much carbon dioxide—as people carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
deriving their protein from corn or wheat. gases. This doesn’t prevent the
cattlemen, however, from denying there
is a problem . . .

IS THAT SO?

“The overall energy efficiency of beef “American feed (for livestock) takes so
often is comparable, or even superior, to much energy to grow that it might as
the energy efficiency of plant-source well be a petroleum byproduct.”
foods.” --Worldwatch Institute 14/46
--National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
14/45

10
The globe is warming
Next to carbon dioxide, the most
destabilizing gas to the plant’s climate is According to the EPA, the world’s
methane. Methane is actually 24 times livestock are responsible for 25 percent
more potent a greenhouse gas than of the world’s anthropogenic methane
carbon dioxide, and its concentration in emissions (those that are based in
the atmosphere is rising even faster. human activity). (14/48) Once again,
(14/47) Concentrations of atmospheric however, when challenged, the U.S.
methane are now nearly triple what they meat industry manages to maintain its
were when they began rising a century unique perspective.
ago. The primary reason is beef
production.

IS THAT SO?

“[It’s a] myth that U.S. cattle produce

large amounts of methane, a “Livestock account for 15 percent to 20
‘greenhouse’ gas, thereby contributing percent of (overall) global methane
significantly to possible global warming emissions.’
problems.” --Worldwatch Institute 14/50
--National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
14/49

and warming…
In 1999, the Union of Concerned vehicles that get poor gas mileage and
Scientists published a book analyzing eat beef. 14/51
American society and explaining how
things we do in our daily lives affect the Deeply implicated, the U.S. meat
environment. Focusing on global industry has joined with the coal and oil
warming, the report concluded that the industries in seeking to deny the
two most damaging things residents of existence of what may well be the most
this country do to our climate are drive momentous development in human
history.

11
IS THAT SO?

“The evidence of global warming has “Global warming has emerged as the
been inconclusive at best . . . whether most serious environmental threat of the
[there exists] a warming trend is 21st century . . . Only by taking action
unclear.” now can we insure that future
--National Cattlemen’s Beef Association generations will not be put at risk.”
14/52 --Letter to the president from 49 Nobel
Prize-winning scientists 14/53

IS THAT SO?

“It’s a myth [that] cattle production uses “In a world where an estimated one in
grain that could be used to feed the every six people goes hungry every day,
world’s hungry.” the politics of meat consumption are
--National Cattlemen’s Association 15/5 increasingly heated, since meat
production is an inefficient use of
grain—the grain is used more efficiently
when consumed directly by humans.
Continued growth in meat output is
dependent on feeding grains to animal,
creating competition for grain between
affluent meat eaters and the world’s
poor.”
--Worldwatch Institute 15/6

12
Traditional versus modern livestock production

In traditional livestock production the nations that eat the most meat
systems, domestic animals turned grass dedicate the largest share of their grain
and other things people could not eat to fattening livestock. In the United
into things people could. And still, in States, livestock now eat twice as much
many parts of the world (including most grain as is consumed by the country’s
of Africa), people depend on animals to entire human population.
convert vegetation that does not
compete with human food crops into The more grain that is fed to livestock,
edible protein. To raise meat output, the less is left to feed people. Dr. M. E.
however, livestock producers in the Ensminger, former Chairman of the
industrialized world have adopted Department of Animal Science at
intensive rearing techniques that rely Washington State University, is one of
heavily on grains and legumes to feed the leading figures in the U. S. beef
their animals. industry. In Animal Science, he writes,
“There can be no question that more
Virtually all of the pigs and poultry in hunger can be alleviated with a given
industrial countries now reside in quantity of grain by completely
gigantic indoor facilities where their diets eliminating animals . . . It’s not
include grain and soybean meal. Most
efficient to feed grain to animals and
cattle spend their last months in feedlots
where they gorge on grain and
then to consume the livestock
soybeans. Overall, nearly 40 percent of products.” 15/7
the world’s grain is fed to livestock. And

13
Who eats? And who doesn’t?

In nation after nation today, the world’s In the early 1990s, China was a net
wealthy are following in the meat-eating exporter of grain, but today, thanks to an
footsteps of the United States. Does this increasing appetite for meat, China is
trend have consequences for the food the world’s second largest grain
security of the world’s poor? As importer, trailing only Japan. 15/9
countries increase their consumption of
animal products, ever more of their grain “As Chinese eat more grain-fed meat,
goes to animals and ever less to people, the country’s need for grain will continue
and they must import ever-increasing to grow. This . . . could quickly made
amounts of grain. In a world where per- China the world’s leading grain importer,
capita grain production stopped rising in overtaking even Japan . . . potentially
1984, and has been falling ever since, disrupting world grain markets . . .
how can this be sustained? meaning rising food prices for the entire
world . . . China cannot import the grain
In the most populous nation in the world, it needs without driving world grain
China, the share of grain fed to livestock prices up, leaving the 1.3 billion people
increased between 1978 and 1997 from in the world who subsist on $1 a day at
8 percent to 26 percent. (15/8) risk.” (Worldwatch Institute) 15/9

The world’s bread basket

Remarkably, the world’s nations depend And with the depletion of the Ogallala
massively on one nation for grain. The aquifer, experts are predicting that
United States is responsible for half of before long the United States will lose
the world’s grain exports, shipping grain much, if not all, of its grain surplus.
to more than 100 countries. Yet the (15/18) With the world’s agricultural
U.S. grain harvest is notoriously economy devouring rapidly increasing
sensitive to climate conditions, including quantities of grain for livestock
droughts. In a time of global warming production, the consequences to the
and climate destabilization, the world’s less fortunate people could be
possibility of a weather-induced drop in tragic.
U.S. grain harvest is all too real. (15/17)

14
Food for livestock replace food for people

“Higher meat consumption among the countries, and what remains is too
affluent frequently creates problems for expensive for any but the wealthy to
the poor, as the share of farmland purchase. 15/20
devoted to feed cultivation expands,
reducing production of food staples. In From 1960 to 1980, beef exports from El
the economic competition for grain Salvador increased more than six fold.
fields, the upper classes usually win.” (15/21) During that same time
(Worldwatch Institute) 15/19 increasing numbers of small farmers lost
their livelihood and were pushed off their
Since 1960, the number of landless in land. Today, 72 percent of all
Central America has multiplied fourfold. Salvadoran infants are underfed. 15/22
International lending agencies such as
the World Bank and the Inter-American Where does the income from the sale of
Development Bank have responded with beef go? Not to the poor, but to the very
billions of dollars in loans. But these few who own the land. A handful of
loans have not challenged the tightly wealthy families own more than half the
concentrated distribution of economic agricultural land in Costa Rica, grazing 2
power, or the use of resources to benefit million cattle. (15/23) In Guatemala, as
the wealthy at the expense of the poor. is typical for Latin American countries, 3
Often, the money has been lent to percent of the population owns 70
support livestock operations. percent of the agricultural land. Most of
Mexico’s wealth is in the hands of about
The hope has been that the resulting 30 families, while half of the people live
heightened beef production would be of on less than a $1 a day. 15/24
used to feed the impoverished masses
of these poor countries. But over half of In country after country the demand for
Latin America’s beef production is meat among the rich is squeezing out
exported to the world’s wealthier staple production for the poor. 15/27

15
 WHAT WE KNOW

Number of people whose food energy needs can be met by the food produced on
2.5 acres of land: 15/54

If the land is producing cabbage: 23 people

If the land is producing potatoes: 22 people
If the land is producing rice: 19 people
If the land is producing corn: 17 people
If the land is producing wheat: 15 people
If the land is producing chicken: 2 people
If the land is producing milk: 2 people
If the land is producing eggs: 1 person
If the land is producing beef: 1 person

• Grain needed to adequately feed every one of the people on the entire
planet who die of hunger and hunger-caused disease annually: 12 million
tons
• Amount Americans would have to reduce their beef consumption to save
12 millions tons of grain: 10 percent

16
Even fish?!

WHAT WE KNOW

• Amount of fish caught per person, worldwide, sold for human

consumption in 1996: 16 kilograms
• Amount of marine life that was hauled up with the fish and discarded, per
person, in 1996: 200 kilograms
• Amount of world’s fish caught fed to livestock: Half
15/62-64

Fish and the interdependence of nature

In order to thrive, forests need the

salmon. Biologists tell us that in a single and the amount of marine carbon and
season, a bear will carry about 700 nitrogen, reflecting the size of that year’s
partially consumed salmon carcasses salmon run.
into the forest. After consuming salmon,
bears (and also eagles, wolves, and Although grizzly bears went extinct in
ravens) defecate, spreading the salmon Oregon in 1931, hides of these animals
remnants throughout the forest, have been preserved and studied, so
providing the trees with their primary we know that up to 90 percent of the
sources of nitrogen fertilizer. There is in nitrogen and carbon in the bears’ bodies
fact a direct correlation between the was of marine origin.
width of tree rings (measure of tree
growth) If we continue to think of fish, and
indeed the whole of the natural world, as
existing primarily to fulfill our immediate
needs, we will pay a stupendous price
for our ignorance.

17
Genetically engineered agriculture

WHAT WE KNOW
• Total global area planted in genetically engineered crops, 1995:
Negligible
• Total global area planted in genetically engineered crops, 1996: 4 million
acres
• Total global area planted in genetically engineered crops, 1997: 27 million
acres
• Total global area planted in genetically engineered crops, 1998: 69 million
acres
• Total global area planted in genetically engineered crops, 1999: 99 million
acres
16/34-38

The hype versus reality

Monsanto and other proponents of One of the clearest independent voices
biotechnology continually tell the public in the sometimes-raucous debate about
that genetic engineering is necessary if genetically modified foods is Rachel’s
the world’s food supply is to keep up Environment and Health Weekly,
with population growth. But even with published by the Environmental
nearly 100 million acres planted in 2000, Research Foundation in Annapolis,
and with genetically engineered crops Maryland. In 1999, the journal noted,
covering one-quarter of all cropland in
the United States, their products had yet “Neither Monsanto nor any of the other
to do a thing to reverse the spread of genetic engineering companies appears
hunger. No commercial acreage had to be developing genetically engineered
been planted in crops which had been crops that might solve global food
engineered to produce greater yields or shortages. Quite the opposite. If
that had any kind of enhanced genetically engineered crops were
nutritional value. There was no more aimed at feeding the hungry, then
food available for the world’s less Monsanto and the others would be
fortunate. In fact, the vast majority of developing seeds with certain
the fields were growing transgenic predictable characteristics: a) ability to
soybeans and corn that were destined grow on substandard or marginal soils;
for livestock feed. 16/39 b) plants able to produce more high-
quality protein with increased per-acre
yield, without the need for expensive

18
machinery, chemicals, fertilizers, or When other researcher compared the
water; c) they would aim to favor small performance of Monsanto’s transgenic
farms over larger farms; d) the seeds soybeans (the number one genetically
would be cheap and freely available engineered crops in the world in terms
without restrictive licensing; and e) they of acreage planted) with those of
would be for crops that feed people, not conventional varieties grown under the
meat animals. None of the genetically same condition, they found nearly a 10
engineered crops now available, or in percent yield reduction for the
development (to the extent that these genetically engineered soybeans.
have been announced) has any of these (16/42) And research done by the
desirable characteristics. Quite the University of Nebraska in 2000 found
opposite. The new genetically the yields of genetically engineered
engineered seeds . . . produce crops soybeans plants to be 6 to 11 percent
largely intended as feed for meat lower than conventional plants. 16/43
animal, not to provide protein for people.
The genetic engineering revolution has Similarly, delegates from 18 African
nothing to do with feeding the world’s countries at a meeting of the UN Food
hungry.” 16/40 and Agriculture Organization responded
to Monsanto’s advertisements with a
If genetically engineered plants were clear statement: “We . . . strongly object
designed to reverse would hunger, you that the image of the poor and hungry
would expect them to bring higher from our countries is being used by
yields. But there is no evidence that giant multinational corporations to push
they do, and in fact increasing evidence a technology that is neither safe,
that they do just the opposite. Ed environmentally friendly, nor
Oplinger, a professor of agronomy at the economically beneficial to us. We do
University of Wisconsin, has been not believe that such companies or gene
conducting performance trials for technologies will help our farmer to
soybean varieties for the past 25 years. produce the food that is needed. . On
In 1999, he compared the soybean the contrary . . . it will undermine our
yields in the 12 states that grew 80 capacity to feed our selves.” The
percent of U.S. soybeans, and found representative from Ethiopia added, “We
that the yields from genetically modified strongly resent the abuse of our poverty
soybeans were 4 percent lower than to sway the interest of the European
conventional varieties. 16/41 public. 16/46

IS THAT SO?

“Biotechnology is one of tomorrow’s

tools in our hands today. Slowing its
acceptance is a luxury our hungry world “Genetically engineered crops were
cannot afford.” created not because they’re productive
but because they’re patentable. Their
--Monsanto advertisement 16/47 economic value is oriented not toward
helping subsistence farmers to feed

19
themselves but toward feeding more --Amory and Hunter
livestock for the already overfed rich.” Lovins, Founders of Rocky Mountain
Institute 16/48

More on GE and hunger

One thing is certain. Monsanto and the Unfortunately not, according to a senior
other biotechnology companies will not researcher from the Union of Concerned
soon stop telling us that genetically Scientist, Dr Jane Rissler. With a Ph.D.
engineered foods can alleviate world in plant pathology, four years of shaping
hunger. In 2000, a coalition of biotech biotechnology regulations at the EPA,
companies began a $50 million and a dozen more in biotech science
marketing campaign to keep fears about and policy, she is one the nation’s
genetically altered foods from spreading leading authorities on the environmental
through the United States. Bankrolling risks of genetically engineered foods.
the campaign, which included $32 Dr Rissler has been closely monitoring
million in TV and print advertising, were the trials and studies. “The
Monsanto, observations that ‘nothing happened’ in
Dow Chemical, Dupont, Swiss-based these . . . tests do not say much,” she
Novartis, the British Zeneca, Germany’s and her colleague Dr. Margaret Mellon
BASF, and Aventis of France. The ads, (a member of the USDA Advisory
complete with soft-focus fields and Committee on Agricultural
smiling children, pitched “solutions that Biotechnology) write, “In many cases,
could improve our world tomorrow” and adverse impacts are subtle and
aimed to convince the public that would almost never be registered by
biotech foods could help end world scanning a field . . .. The field test do not
hunger. 16/49 provide a track record of safety, but a
case of ‘don’t look, don’t find.’” 16/58

Unexpected results with genetic engineering

When scientists actually look, what they production of greenhouse gases. And, it
see can be terrifying. A few years ago, was assumed, the post-process waste
a German biotech company engineered could afterward be added to soil as an
as common soil bacterium, klebsiella amendment, like compost. Everybody
planticula, to help break down wood would win. With the approval of the
chips, corn stalks, wastes from lumber EPA, the company field-tested the
business and agriculture, and to bacterium at Oregon State University.
produce ethanol in the process. It
seemed like a great achievement. As far as the intended goals were
The genetically engineered Klebsiella concerned – eliminating rotting organic
bacterium could help break down rotting waste and producing ethanol – the
organic material and in the process genetically engineered bacterium was a
produce a fuel that could be use instead success. But when a doctoral student
of gasoline, thus lessening the named Michael Holmes decided to add

20
the post-processed waste to actual to persist in the soil, raising the
living soil, something happened that no possibility that, had it been released, the
one expected. The seeds that were genetically engineered Klebsiella could
planted in soil mixed with the have become established – and virtually
engineered Klebsiella sprouted, but then impossible to eradicate. 16/61
every single one of them died. 16/59
“When the data first started coming in,”
What killed them? The genetically says Elaine Ingham, the soil pathologist
engineered Klebsiella turned out to be at Oregon State University who directed
highly competitive with native soil Michael Holmes’ research on Klebsiella,
microorganisms, and to suppress “the EPA charged that we couldn’t have
activities that are crucial to soil fertility. performed the research correctly. They
Plants are only able to take nitrogen and went through everything with a fine
other nourishment from the soil with the toothcomb, and they couldn’t find
help of fungi called “mycorrhysal.” anything wrong with the experimental
These fungi live in the soil and help design – but they tried as hard as they
make nutrients available to plant roots. could . . . If we hadn’t done this
But when the genetically engineered research, the Klebsiella would have
Klebsiella was introduced into living soil, passed the approval process for
it greatly reduced the population of commercial release. 16/62
mycorrhysal fungi in the soil. And
without healthy mycorrhysal fungi in Geneticist David Suzuki understands
soils, no plants can survive. 16/60 that what took place was truly ominous.
“The genetically engineered Klebsiella,”
To me, it is testimony to the amazing he says, “could have ended all plant life
powers of science that researchers were on this continent. The implications of
able to track the mechanism by which this single case are nothing short of
the genetically engineered Klebsiella terrifying.” 16/63
prevented plants from growing. There
are thousands of different species of “The biotechnology industry makes
microorganisms in every teaspoon of anybody who brings up such matters
fertile soil, and they interact in trillions of look hysterical,” he says. “Unfortunately,
ways. history shows us that all kinds of
things—petrochemicals, CFC’s toxic
But the scientist discovered something dumps and nuclear power—that we
else in these experiments, something thought, even insisted, were benign,
that sent chills down their spines. They tuned out to be extremely dangerous.
found that the genetically modified History informs us that caution is well
bacteria were able warranted when it comes to buying into
a powerful new technology. 17/3

21
Dangers of gene splicing
Strohman and others point to the no doubt we will see more emerge in
dangers inherent in gene-splicing coming years. There is much we don’t
techniques. know about these emerging diseases,
but we know they take a terrifying toll on
When scientists snip a bit of DNA from humanity. And we know that many of
one organism and insert it into another, these new pathogens seem to stem
it doesn’t travel alone. It can include from horizontal gene transfer. This
genetic parasites, such as viruses. means that have come from other
Genetic parasites are naturally specific species and have jumped to us.
to certain species. They are contained
by genetic species barriers, and indeed This happens rarely in Nature, which is
this is one of the reasons why Nature fortunate, because when it does, the
has kept species barriers so intact and results can be disastrous. The flu
inviolate. But with genetic engineering, pandemic of 1918, which killed more
we are transgressing the gene-transfer than 22 million people worldwide, is
barriers that normally exist. In the eyes thought to have been caused by
of many scientists, this is deeply horizontal gene transfer. AIDS is now
troubling, because in the past few years, thought to stem from a virus that
there have been an increasing number originated in chimpanzees and
of reports of new pathogens arising from somehow jumped to humans who ate
the kind of horizontal (across species the chips or exchanged blood with them.
barriers) gene transfer that is the basis Mad Cow disease is now understood to
for genetic engineering. be the result of horizontal transfer of an
infectious protein that kills sheep.
Within the past twenty-five years, we
have seen a rash of new diseases With so much at stake, you might think
arising, including Ebola, AIDS, Hepatitis that those involved would be moved to
C, Lyme disease, and Hanta virus, and humility.

22
IS THAT SO?

“Those of us in industry can take “(Genetic engineering) faces our society

comfort . . . after all, we’re the technical with problems unprecedented, not only
experts. We know we’re right. The in the history of science, but of life on
‘antis’ obviously don’t understand the the Earth. It places in human hands the
science, and are just as obviously capacity to redesign living organisms,
pushing a hidden agenda—probably to the products of some three billion years
destroy capitalism.” of evolution . . . up to now, living
-- Bob Shapiro, Monsanto’s CEO 17/10 organisms have evolved very slowly,
and new forms have had plenty of time
to settle in. Now whole proteins will be
transposed overnight into wholly new
associations, with consequences no one
can foretell . . . Going ahead in this
direction may be not only unwise, but
also dangerous. Potentially, it could
breed new animal and plant diseases,
new sources of cancer, and novel
epidemics.”
-- George Wald, M.D., Nobel Laureae in
Medicine and Professor of Biology, Harvard
University

GMOs as allergins
Today, the FDA requires allergy testing experiencing harm from transgenic
when the organism from which the gene foods.
is taken is known and common allergen.
But such test have never been required At present, we can only speculate what
of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready adverse reactions might already be
soybeans, even though the genetic occurring. The lack of labeling
engineering process has incorporated effectively prevents any attempt to
genes from petunias and viruses into monitor the human health impact of
the soybeans, because petunias and consuming these foods.
viruses are not know allergens. Of
course they aren’t; no one’s ever eaten Laura and Robin Ticciati are the authors
them before. How would anyone know of the 1998 book Genetically
if they were allergic to petunias? Since Engineered Foods: Are They Safe? You
soy products are widely dispersed in the Decide. They ask questions like:
American diet, it is entirely conceivable
that members of the public are already “What if we find out in twenty years that
genetically engineered food isn’t safe

23
after all? What if we discover some that produces a reaction that just can’t
bizarre disease in the next generation be cured?” 17/13
that ends up linked to the (soy or
canola) oil we pour on our salads today? When a spokesperson for one of the
What if the French fries our kids largest producers of genetically
devoured last week cause birth defects engineered seeds called the Ticciatis to
in our grandchildren? What if we learn task, comparing them to someone who
that manipulating the DNA of our foods was afraid to cross the street because
has an effect on a growing fetus after “what if” a car came just at that moment
all? Or that genetically engineered and hit them, they had an answer. We
foods contain some unknown allergen look both ways before stepping off the
curb,” they said. “Don’t you?”

Health problems from eating genetically engineered

foods
Does eating genetically engineered marketplace. Since half the soybeans
foods pose potential health risks to grown in the United States are now
people? In 2001, the Los Angeles Monsanto’s Roundup Ready variety,
Times published an exposé revealing and because soy is contained is such a
that Monsanto’s own research had wide array of processed foods, tens of
raised many questions about the safety millions of people are unknowingly
of their Roundup Ready soybeans. eating these experimental foods daily.
(17/25) Remarkably, the FDA did not
call for more testing before allowing
these soybeans to flood the

Nutritional and long-term dangers

According to Monsanto’s own test, And possibly, unexpected and even
Roundup Ready soybeans contain 29 dangerous allergic reactions.
percent less of the brain nutrient
choline, and 27 percent more trypsin Soy products are often prescribed and
inhibitor, a potential allergen that consumed for their phytoestrogen
interferes with protein digestion, that content, but according to the company’s
normal soybeans. test, the genetically altered soybeans
have lower levels of phenylalanine, an
What might be expected from essential amino acid that affects levels
consuming soybeans containing higher of phytoestrogens. And levels of lectins,
levels of trypsin inhibitor and lectins? At which not infrequently are allergens, are
the very least, slower growth in children. nearly double in the transgenic variety.
17/26

24
 potatoes to rats induce major and in
Dr Arpad Puszati, senior scientist at the most instances highly significant
Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, changes in the weights of some or most
Scotland, has published 270 scientific of the vital organs,” he concluded.
papers, and is widely known as the
worlds leading expert on lectins. (17/26) “Particularly worrying was the partial
When he began conducting experiments liver atrophy . . . Immune organs, such
in which he fed genetically engineered as the spleen and thymus were also
potatoes to rats he consider himself a frequently affected. (17/28) Sadly, the
“very enthusiastic supporter” of gene rats’ growth was impaired, and some
splicing biotechnology. However, the developed tumors and showed
rats fed on genetically modified potatoes significant shrinkage of the brain after
showed a variety of unexpected and only ten days of eating genetically
disturbing changes, including smaller modified potatoes. 17/29
livers, hearts, and brains—and weak
immune systems. “Feeding transgenic

The need for labeling

Currently, neither milk made with rBGH She may be right that some people don’t
nor any other genetically engineered know what a gene is, but I’ll bet you
food product in the United States is most people know a reckless and self-
labeled. Biologist Brian Goodwin, who serving industry when they see one.
has been deeply involved in this Certainly in England the public has risen
controversy, understands the up in protest against genetically
consequences. engineered food. Even employees at
Monsanto’s own headquarters,
“You would never allow a new drug to apparently, are less than enamored at
be produced without a clear label, the prospect of ingesting their
without knowing exactly where it was company’s creations. In December
produced and even under what 1999, a statement was posted in the
conditions, what batch it came from and cafeteria of the Monsanto Corporation’s
so on.. Genetically modified foods United Kingdom headquarters in High
ought to be put in the same category as Wycombe, England, that truly gives me
drugs because of their potential harm. pause. It read as follows:
They’re actually even more dangerous
than drugs, because after all, we eat a “In response to concern raised by
lot more food during the course of our our customers. . . we have decided to
lifetime than we take drugs. Even if remove, as far as is practicable,
there are small effects, they can genetically modified soy and maize
accumulate over years. And therefore (corn) from all food products served
people should have the right to say, ‘I’m in our restaurant. We will continue to
not going to eat genetically modified work with our suppliers to replace
food because I have no confidence that GM (genetically modified) soy and
this is going to be safe for the whole of maize with non-GM ingredients. . . We
my lifetime. 17/47 have taken the above steps to ensure
that you, the customer, can feel
confident in the food we serve.” 17/49

25