The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

170 the world according to monsantothe International Food Biotechnology Council drafted in part by MichaelTaylor, and the report of the WHO/FAO 1990 “consultation.” Like the otherdocuments cited as references, none of these publications involves scientificstudies conducted to assess the safety of GMOs, for a simple reason:there were none.A year later, it was the turn of the WHO to carry the torch for this vigorouslyconducted propaganda campaign. From October 31 to November 4,1994, it sponsored a workshop with an unambiguous title: “Application ofthe Principle of Substantial Equivalence to the Safety Evaluation of Foodsor Food Components from Plants Derived by Modern Biotechnology.” Thistime the “principle of substantial equivalence” was carved in stone, eventhough there was still no new scientific evidence. And to prove that theirwork was indeed serious, the participants in the workshop, including Dr.Roy Fuchs from Monsanto, pointed out that “the comparative approach wasfirst proposed by WHO/FAO, and was further developed by OECD.”The circle was fully completed two years later when the FAO and the WHOhammered home the point—two UN organizations amount to something—by organizing a second joint consultation, from September 30 to October 4,1996 (in which both James Maryanski and Roy Fuchs participated). Thetiming was critical: the first shipments of Roundup Ready soybeans were alreadyon their way to Europe. The final report, which is unavailable online(though I managed to get hold of a copy), is frequently cited as the internationaldocument of reference for the principle of substantial equivalence. Itincludes the following “scientific” information: “When substantial equivalenceis established for an organism or food product, the food is regarded tobe as safe as its conventional counterpart and no further safety considerationis needed. . . . When substantial equivalence cannot be established, itdoes not necessarily mean that the food product is unsafe. Not all suchproducts will necessarily require extensive safety testing.”A Questionable StudyAs Sussex University professor of science policy Erik Millstone pointed outin 1999: “The concept of substantial equivalence has never been properlydefined; the degree of difference between a natural food and its GM alternativebefore its ‘substance’ ceases to be acceptably ‘equivalent’ is not de-