Former Monsanto Employee Exposes Fraud
14 July 12
his week the Food Nation Radio Network
interviewed former Monsanto employee Kirk Azevedo about his concerns
with the leading biotech company's practices, a timely interview as the
battle over genetically engineered (GE) food regulation continues on a
state, national, and international scale.
Azevedo graduated with a biochemistry degree from
California Polytechnic State University and started working for the
chemical industry doing research on Bt (or Bacillus thuringiensis)
pesticides. Around 1996, he became a local market manager for Monsanto,
serving as a facilitator for GE crops for the western states. He
explained to Food Nation Radio how he had assumed that California cotton
that was genetically engineered for herbicide resistance could be
marketed as conventional California cotton (to get the California
premium) since the only difference between the two, he believed, was the
gene Monsanto wanted in the crop. However, one of Monsanto's Ph.D.
researchers informed Azevedo that "there's actually other proteins that
are being produced, not just the one we want, as a byproduct of genetic
engineering process." This concerned Azevedo, who had also been studying
protein diseases (including prion diseases such as mad cow disease) and
knew proteins could be toxic. When he told his colleague they needed to
destroy the seeds from the GE crop so that they aren't fed to cattle,
the other researcher said that Monsanto isn't going to stop doing what
it's been doing everywhere else.
Azevedo recalls his disillusionment:
I saw what was really the fraud associated with
genetic engineering: My impression, and I think most people's impression
with genetically engineered foods and crops and other things is that
it's just like putting one gene in there and that one gene is expressed.
If that was the case, well then that's not so bad. But in reality, the
process of genetic engineering changes the cell in such a way that it's
unknown what the effects are going to be.
Azevedo has since left the chemical industry and now
calls for the enforcement of GE labeling laws. In California, such a law
will appear on voter ballots in the upcoming November election as Proposition 37
– the first of its kind, if passed (although no labels would be
required for livestock that feed on GE crops). Supporters of GE labeling
predict the California rule, which would require labels on most foods
containing GE ingredients, could influence food labeling throughout the
country.
Not so great news on the national front, however. The
U.S. House agriculture committee passed its version of the proposed Farm
Bill this week that includes attached provisions severely weakening USDA's oversight of GE crops.
Not only does the bill provide backdoor approval for any new GE crop
before meaningful environmental review, but it also protects the biotech
industry from lawsuits brought by organic farmers whose crops are
contaminated by GE crops through "genetic drift." According to the Center for Food Safety,
"all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act or
Endangered Species Act would be banned, even if a crop approval would
harm protected species."
If that isn't unsettling enough, news that the European Union is proposing to drop its "zero-tolerance" policy
regarding untested GE ingredients in food really takes the cake. This
would be a significant change from its usual reputation of far
surpassing the United States in holding industry accountable:
The new proposal would allow GM ingredients into
the food supply in levels below a certain threshold. This echoes a
decision made last year to allow GM crops to be used in animal feed
below certain concentration levels. Why this recent "change of heart"?
Opponents of GM crops note that the dropping of the zero-tolerance
policy is due to pressure from the U.S. government, the World Trade
Organization (WTO), and the biotech industry (arguably led by Monsanto).
Perhaps it's not too much of a surprise, given the evidence of Washington's aggressive promotion of GE crops abroad and even threats of retaliation against dissenting countries.
Even so, Azevedo's words of caution regarding the unknown health
effects of Monsanto's and other biotech companies' creations make these
deregulatory efforts very disconcerting. Our government representatives
should be heeding Azevedo and biotech whistleblowers who put public and
environmental health before Big Ag interests.
Sarah Damian is New Media Associate for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization.
