Genetically engineered (GE) foods are a serious threat to our environment and our health.
In this article, Steven Druker, author of Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, continues the fascinating story of how GMOs came into being and have been allowed to permeate our food supply through illegal means and without legally required safety testing.
If you missed the first installment of this interview, you may want to read through Part 1 first.
The subtitle of his book, How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public, is quite descriptive, and Steven has done a wonderful job of exposing this extraordinary fraud.
Not only has he exposed it, but he’s also taken an activist role and actually sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1998 and challenged their 1992 policy statement that presumed genetically engineered foods are Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS).
That ’92 policy serves as the fraudulent foundation by which the biotechnology industry has been able to get away with marketing GE foods without having to first demonstrate that they’re safe. There’s so much information here, I strongly encourage you to get a copy of his book if you have any interest in this topic.
It will give you a clear understanding of what the problems are and how we got to the point where we are now.
Key Facts Overlooked by Federal Judge
In part one of this interview, we reviewed his lawsuit against the FDA, and how the federal judge appointed to the case failed to rule in accordance with the law.
"She actually ignored some very important evidence that was in the FDA files and that the other attorneys and I presented," Steven says.
I cannot speculate as to the judge's motivations other than when I read the opinion, I find it difficult to understand how such an opinion came out because there are some serious facts that were overlooked."
One the main pieces of evidence that came straight from the FDA’s own files was a letter written by the FDA’s biotechnology coordinator, sent to a Canadian health official only seven months before the FDA announced its policy on GE foods in May 1992.
In that policy, the FDA purported there was an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that these foods are safe—so safe in fact that they do not need to be tested.
But in the preceding letter, the FDA’s biotechnology coordinator had admitted that there was not a consensus about safety of these foods in the scientific community at large...
In fact, FDA scientists had overwhelmingly concluded that GE foods present a different array of risks than their conventionally produced counterparts; that none of them can be presumed safe; and that they need to be demonstrated safe through rigorous testing, which also happens to be the law.
“Both what the law was requiring and what the FDA’s own scientists, from their own analysis,, were recommending was the same thing: these foods cannot be presumed safe and they need to be tested,” Steven says.
"Unfortunately, the decision makers of the FDA...who were far more under the influence of political and economic considerations than scientific ones, covered that up, and lied about it.
They said they weren’t aware of any information showing that these foods differ in any meaningful or uniform way from other foods. The problem is that the judge should’ve factored that information in.
She never mentioned that letter and that admission from the FDA’s biotechnology coordinator, although we had called it to her attention several times. There’s something strange when that happens.”