13.07.2015 Views

The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

scientists suppressed 161<strong>to</strong> all anti-GMO activists. Established in 1978 by major food industrycorporations—the Heinz Foundation, Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, GeneralFoods, Kraft (owned by Philip Morris), <strong>and</strong> Procter <strong>and</strong> Gamble—ILSI callsitself a “non-governmental organization” <strong>and</strong> describes itself on its Web siteas “a global network of scientists devoted <strong>to</strong> enhancing the scientific basisfor public health decision-making.” 20 As the British daily <strong>The</strong> Guardian revealedin 2003, the organization was well connected in the World HealthOrganization <strong>and</strong> the Food <strong>and</strong> Agriculture Organization, two UN bodies itlobbied in favor of GMOs through a document published in 1990 by theIFBC. 21 And it was precisely this document, a statement of principles on theway GMOs should be regulated, entitled “Biotechnologies <strong>and</strong> Food: Assuringthe Safety of Foods Produced by Genetic Modification,” that Hansenhad just pulled out. 22“Remember that Michael Taylor came <strong>to</strong> the FDA in July 1991,” Hansenwent on. “Until then he’d been working at the law firm of King <strong>and</strong> Spalding.His clients included not only Monsan<strong>to</strong> but also the IFBC, the InternationalFood Biotechnology Council. He wrote this document setting out the waythe organization would like GMOs <strong>to</strong> be regulated. If you compare this proposalTaylor wrote for the IFBC <strong>and</strong> the policy statement published by theFDA, you can see they are very similar. If he didn’t write the statement, thensomeone <strong>to</strong>ok his proposal <strong>and</strong> changed it slightly before publishing it.” <strong>The</strong>anonymous IFBC document, oddly unavailable on the Web, is in fact the firstreference cited in the appendix <strong>to</strong> the FDA policy statement. 23“Again, it’s false,” Taylor insisted. “I could not possibly have anything <strong>to</strong> dowith it because I’m not a scientist. So, again, this is why you need <strong>to</strong> be talking<strong>to</strong> Dr. Maryanski <strong>and</strong> people who were actually involved in developing theFDA policy.” When I subsequently interviewed Maryanski, he found it hard<strong>to</strong> get rid of this new hot pota<strong>to</strong>. “Mr. Taylor was the deputy commissionerat the time, <strong>and</strong> he provided leadership for the project <strong>and</strong> served as thechief, sort of the leader . . . policy person, in terms of making sure the projectgot done.”“Did you know that he used <strong>to</strong> work for Monsan<strong>to</strong> as an at<strong>to</strong>rney?”“I think I knew that he had, you know, been at Monsan<strong>to</strong>, but, you know,we often have people come in <strong>and</strong> they’re appointed as commissioner ordeputy commissioner.”“What was the role of Monsan<strong>to</strong> in the FDA?”

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!