July 17, 2023 • 35 mins
- An old episode from the Red to Green Podcast on Food Tech & Bio Tech. Listen if you are interested in the future of food, but this isn’t Scaling Nerds.
Red to Green was a podcast that investigated how to transition the food industry from harmful to healthy, from polluting to sustainable, from Red to Green. Each season had a different topic
- Season: Cultivated Meat
- Season: Plastic Alternatives
- Season: Food History
- Season: Food Waste
- Season: Biotech in Food
- Season: Book Reviews on the future of food
In May 2019, the husband and wife Alva and Alberta Pilliod won a federal court case against Monsanto. Both of them had developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. This cancer causes white blood cells called lymphocytes to grow abnormally throughout the body. The farmers worked decades with the herbicide, which Monsanto claimed is safe to use. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorized the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, as a “probable carcinogen.” And this was the basis for the judge's decision to decide in favour of the couple.
Bayer AG had to pay a fine of $2 billion because it had acquired Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup. One year after the merger, BAYER's share price was still cut in half.
The pharmaceutical giant had signed up for an ever-increasing burden of legal battles. In 2019, 18.000 lawsuits were pending in the US. Most of them due to cancer cases potentially linked to Roundup.
For numerous decades, Monsanto marketed their herbicide as safe to use for farmers and individuals. Most regulatory bodies categorize glyphosate as safe, including - Health Canada
Why does the International Agency for Research on Cancer come to a different conclusion than all the other agencies? Possibly because they only consider “publicly available and pertinent studies, by independent experts, free from vested interests.”
But apparently, the amount of independent studies on glyphosate-based pesticides is rather limited. How can the world's most-used pesticide have so few independent studies? Is this really a coincidence?
Get funding for your food science research: https://en.raps-stiftung.de/foerderbereiche/lebensmittelforschung
Seeds of Science https://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Science-Why-Wrong-GMOs/dp/1472946987
Connect with the host, Marina https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/
Connect with the host, Frank https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankkuehne/
Please rate the podcast on Spotify and iTunes! <3
DISCLAIMER - The podcast and article represent the personal opinions and interpretations of the participants). The statements may be exaggerated for entertainment and/or comedic purposes. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information presented per the cited sources. However, the participants do not guarantee the completeness or timeliness of the information. Readers are encouraged to verify the information presented and conduct their own research independently. The participants acknowledge that Bayer Crop Science and/or other parties mentioned have the right to an alternative interpretation of matters discussed.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
In May 2000 19 the husband and wife Alva and Albert opilio, I'd
won a federal court case againstMonsanto, according to the
website, top tens, the world's most evil company.
The husband and wife had developed Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.
This cancer causes white blood cells called lymphocytes to grow
(00:23):
abnormally. Throughout the body, the farmers
work decades with the herbicide,which the Open E, Monsanto
claimed is safe to use in 2015, the international Agency for
research on cancer. Categorize the active ingredient
in Roundup glyphosate as a probable carcinogen and this was
(00:44):
the basis for the judge's decision to decide in favor of
the couple, the company buyer had to pay a fine of two billion
because it had acquired Monsantothe manufacture of Roundup.
One year after the merger. Your share price was still cut
in half the pharmaceutical gianthad signed up for an
(01:06):
ever-increasing avalanche of legal battles.
In 2019 18,000 lawsuits were pending in the u.s. most of them
due to cancer cases, potentiallylinked to round up for numerous
decades Monsanto had marketed, their herbicide a safe to use
for farmers and individuals and most regulatory bodies
(01:28):
categorize glyphosate as Safe. So why does the international
Agency for research on cancer? Come to a different conclusion
than all the other agencies possibly because they only
consider I quote publicly available and pertinent Studies
by independent. Experts free from vested
(01:49):
interests, but apparently the amount of independent studies on
glyphosate based herbicides is rather limited.
How can the world's most used pesticides I'd have so few
independent studies. Is this really a coincidence?
Let's first take a look at the history of Monsanto.
(02:09):
We will cover the benefits and downsides of Roundup.
Look at the pesticide study by the French researcher.
Seralini and investigate how Monsanto used various tactics to
take down the study and the researcher.
It is a fascinating and highly insightful.
Story showing us about how corporates may influence, what?
(02:30):
What science is published and what science is taken down.
What you're about to hear is made up of my own research.
So we are not talking about a book and it yet fits.
Right? In with the last episode, we had
already on round up, you will find the transcript of the
episode with all the sources Link in the show notes a
(02:50):
special, thanks to the adult bird, wraps Foundation, funding
food, science research for sustainable food system more on
them in a bit. Let's Jump Right In.
Red to Green is the most in-depth podcast on food
sustainability. And in this season 7 we discuss
key takeaways from books on the food system, I'm your host
(03:13):
Marina Schmidt and I'm joined bymy co-host, Frank Keenan?
Today is a special episode, The podcasts, an article represent,
the personal opinions and interpretations of the
participants, the statements maybe exaggerated for entertainment
and or comedic purposes, every effort has been made to ensure
the accuracy and reliability of the information presented per
(03:36):
the cited sources on the website.
However, the participants do notguarantee the completeness or
timeliness of the information readers are encouraged to verify
the information presented and conduct their own research
independently. The Participants, acknowledge
that buyer crop science and or other parties involved have the
right to Alternative interpretations of matters.
(03:57):
Discussed thank you, Monsanto started out rather innocently in
1901. It was producing the sugar
substitute saccharide and caffeine for one of its biggest
and long-term customers Coca-Cola.
The founder, John Francis Queenie, felt America should
reduce its dependence on German chemical.
(04:19):
Giants like bear. This just adds a bit of irony to
the merger of Monsanto and bear.I think John Francis Queenie
would have not been happy about that.
In 1944 Monsanto started producing DDT, the synthetic
insecticide was used to combat malaria typhus and other insect
(04:41):
induced diseases and here's justa little side note.
So pesticides are like an overarching term.
ERM they include. Insecticides used to kill
insects herbicides, used to killweeds and fungicides used to
destroy fun G. But the insecticide, DDT
(05:02):
Monsanto did not conduct a thorough toxicological studies
and also didn't own a toxicology, lab, yet a claim.
DDT, would be safe to use a pattern that would repeat
throughout company history in the 1940s before it was banned.
DDT was generously sprayed on streets.
(05:22):
In 1965 the company produced agent orange for the US
military. This herbicide was sprayed
during the Vietnam war to uncover hidden troops and
Destroy local food production agent, orange destroys, all
kinds of vegetation across the board in some aspects similar to
round up. It's really an all-in-one
(05:44):
solution after the war had ended.
The u.s. banned the use of Of DDT and agent orange.
Both turned out to be toxic to Wildlife and humans as well as
being probable carcinogens. However, at that time, the
company was already working on the herbicide Roundup.
The main ingredient glyphosate was I quote the ones in a
(06:06):
corporate lifetime Discovery possibly as revolutionary as
penicillin. And quote, within two decades
glyphosate became the world's most used herbicide do two
patents Monsanto was the only producer until the turn of the
century Monsanto had a good timewith glyphosate.
Would Peak popularity was yet About to come the company
(06:29):
started researching genetically modified seeds in the 80s just
in time before the Roundup patent would run out.
It introduced Roundup, Ready soybeans in 1996 beforehand,
Farmers sprayed Roundup pre and post Harvest so imagine you have
your soybeans and you want to get rid of those pesky weeds
(06:51):
Roundup, kills all plants. So if you spray it on your
soybeans, you won't Harvest anything.
Therefore you would only say it before or after seeding the
soybeans. But if you plan GM soybeans,
they won't die. Because of Roundup.
Roundup would kill any weeds? Except the resistant crops
leaving you with a very clean field.
(07:13):
This all-in-one, herbicide solution.
Catapulted, Monsanto to the top,also making it the world's
biggest supplier of seeds. So let's look at how Roundup and
GMO crops are strategically linked.
Just as a side note with this episode, I don't want to talk
about whether GM is bad or good,it's really just technology and
(07:39):
it can be used for many various purposes in this episode.
We are only talking about how Monsanto used GM crops up until
this point in time, Monsanto produced, various pesticides,
but wasn't known as a seed company by 2015.
These two, Categories seed, and pesticides made up thick, Ste 8%
(08:02):
of monsanto's, Revenue, this package deal enabled.
Monsanto to raise seed prices from 19 to 50, five US dollars
per kilogram to be fair. Apparently, this also turned out
to be pretty handy for Farmers. You have one herbicide to rule
them all and you can spray it without worrying about affecting
(08:22):
your soy plant. While it would be much easier to
focus just on the herbicide withOut talking about GMOs, it will
leave half the topic on the table independent studies, show
that monsanto's glyphosate basedherbicides on their own weren't
performing significantly, betterthan other brands.
(08:43):
This highlights, the Strategic importance of the package deal.
According to a study from 2012, approximately 82 percent of GMOs
were herbicide-resistant with Monsanto owning.
The majority of Them as any press or safety problems.
Associated with Roundup, residues directly affect sales
(09:04):
of GMO crops and vice versa. This arguably leads to higher
Stakes for the Monsanto corporation.
This is a very good opportunity to point out the importance of
independent research and independent, research needs
independent funding, the adelbert raps, Foundation,
belongs. As Frank told me to the Roman
(09:28):
people and it offers grants for food science research that is
focused on sustainability that can be an alternative proteins
food waste biotech. All of the topics that we have
covered on red to green and anything else beyond that that
can help practically improve ourfood system located in Germany,
(09:52):
they do fund a lot of research in Europe but it is also
possible to apply if If you're outside of Europe, the
foundation can only sponsor universities or research
institutions. So if you are a start-up
founder, you would then work with a research institution on
the topic that relates to your business.
(10:12):
For example, and benefit from having the insights.
But not having to fund the research yourself, just Google
the adelbert raps Foundation or follow the link in the comments
to find out more. You can also just directly reach
out to Frank. By typing Frank, Alexander kuna
into LinkedIn. And with that back to the
(10:34):
episode, Now, let's look at the blind spots in research
glyphosate, the main active component in Roundup, destroys
an enzyme in Plants, this enzymeis epsps.
It's necessary for synthesizing,the building blocks of proteins,
(10:54):
called amino acids, so Roundup, interferes with important.
Metabolic pathways in the plant and therefore, it kills, most
plants that come into contact. Out with it supposedly without
affecting humans. But if we look at the research
and Regulatory landscape, there are three main issues which are
(11:17):
actually addressed by seralini study that we will discuss in a
bit. The first issue we actually
covered in the last episode already while glyphosate is the
active ingredient 50, to 75 percent of the actual product is
made up of inert ingredients supporting the Permeation.
So the getting into the plant body and Roots inert ingredients
(11:40):
do not need to be disclosed on the ingredient label because
they are considered trade secrets that makes it really
challenging to regulate. Them glyphosate is supposedly
one of the least harmful ingredients in Roundup n
nitroso, compounds are supposed to be some of the most powerful
course, energy ends in the finalformulation the pesticide
(12:04):
Arsenic and also, Italo amines are classified as a nerd and
confidential as well, which enables Monsanto to get away
with them in 2020. The national toxicology program
published a preliminary report confirming that the formula ends
of Roundup where more Gino toxicthan the active ingredient being
(12:25):
Gino. Toxic means being toxic to DNA
so substances that are genotoxicMay bind directly to DNA or act
indirectly. Leading to DNA damage or
affecting enzymes involved in DNA.
Replication so causing mutations, which may or may not
(12:46):
lead to cancer or birth defects that doesn't sound too positive.
I must say well over focusing onthe sole ingredient instead of
the commercial product is at theheart of the issue and actually
something that most of the agencies are doing for example
even in when T20 the US Environmental Protection Agency
(13:08):
the EPA based its regulatory decision merely on the active
ingredient glyphosate. So let's look at this second
issue. Most research does not address
glyphosate resistant crops in combination with herbicides,
what does that mean? In studies where the herbicide
was applied to GM plants? They were usually not analyzed
(13:33):
for residues. And if you remember beforehand,
we were saying, well, if you spray Roundup or non-gm plants,
then you do it before or after harvest, but with GM plants, you
can just spray it all over throughout the entire growing
season and you can spray it directly on the plants.
(13:54):
So it must be super important toactually look at what are the
residues on the plants because they are likely way.
Hire independent research finds that That residues are I quote
at unexpectedly high levels in resistant plants.
There is also an analysis that looks at 20 years, of studies,
(14:16):
of herbicide residues and now one was shocking.
I must say, so 4 out of 30 studies so really very few
actually. Even looked at the issue of
glyphosate residues and none of these were funded by industry.
And then only 1 out of 30 studies has performed an
analysis and Vacation of glyphosate residues.
(14:37):
So actually looked at how much glyphosate is on the plants.
Now, let's move on to the third big gap in the scientific
literature in an e-mail, the sent to her colleagues in 2003,
the Monsanto executive, Donna farmer Road, you cannot say that
Roundup is not a Kirsten age andwe have not done the necessary
(14:59):
testing on the formulation to make that statement.
The testing on the formulations is not anywhere near near the
level of the active ingredient. And quote, she repeated the
statement in 2018. So, Donna Pharma has been in
charge of human safety and she is now also working for buyer
(15:20):
crop Sciences. I'd because sad, like a lot of
the executives were taking over.How can you, as somebody in
charge of safety? Just say, well, you know, we
invented this thing in 1974, Like, 30 years later, we still
(15:40):
haven't really done any tests, whether it's actually cancer
causing and then 45 years later,we still haven't done that
studies conducted by Monsanto, for the approval of Roundup were
too short with a runtime of the mere 90 days.
They used specific rats, they'recalled Spain, she Dolly rats, I
(16:04):
am totally Saying this wrong right now space AG Dolly here,
actually sound funny and these rats, usually develop tumors
after 220 days. Therefore if you do a study with
a runtime of 90 days, the like doesn't tell you anything which
(16:28):
is one of the reasons why the French researcher seralini
decided to prolong the study setup.
So seralini actually, it's a French name, so it's should
sound something. Like, Julia, reek seralini has
been a professor of molecular biology and toxicology at the
(16:49):
University of Cain, since 1991. And according to his own
account, he won several times incourt against industry Lobby,
between 2011 and 2017, the French researchers, arguably the
most prominent and active research.
Sure, on the toxicity of GM crops the most important and
(17:11):
most well-known study is the onefrom 2012 and it's known as part
of the seralini affair. It is a remarkable case, study
on industry, influence on science publication and
discussion seralini conducted the at the time.
Most detailed research on the lifelong consumption of GMOs and
(17:31):
Round Up Until Then NK 503. The genetically engineered corn,
strain had been tested for only 90 days his study addressed all
the three previously mentioned blind spots.
So it was using the whole commercial product instead of
only using glyphosate, it included GM crops that had been
(17:53):
treated with Roundup and it prolonged the study Horizon 22
years. Instead of just 90 days,
seralini carefully, crafted the set up to resemble the original
study by Monsanto. Voluntarily provided to the EPA.
Unfortunately, the original toxicity tests on genetically
modified corn, and Round Up are confidential and not available
(18:15):
to the public nor the scientificCommunity without requesting
special permission. But I must say that is not super
weird. That is sort of typical within
the industry. Seralini is research setup.
Used 100 male and 100 female rats using the same type of rats
that Monsanto used. They got 10 different diets
(18:37):
tested on females and males containing standard laboratory
rat food, but then also different amounts of genetically
modified corn. Treated with Roundup in addition
to drinking water would also contain various levels of
Roundup. A control group was fed a diet
with 33% non-GMO corn, the journal food and chemical
(19:00):
toxicology, published this studyin 2012, in female rats, all
treated group, Oops, died earlier and had two to threefold
increased mortality often due tokidney malfunctions and tumors
GM Maize and Roundup treatments,led to a dis balance of hormones
and up to four times larger tumors in males.
(19:22):
Also starting earlier than in the control group, the vast
majority of Roundup consuming rats developed tumors compared
to only 30% of the control group.
The tumors were also between 32 130 percent larger than in the
control. I will spare you a bit of the
details here. This very point the rats fed
(19:44):
with a level of GMOs present in the American diet came down with
deadly renal and hepatic diseases.
While the control group did not develop, chronic conditions, the
study used exposure below current regulatory thresholds
and requested that the current regulatory status of the GM
(20:05):
maize. Maze and Roundup would be
re-evaluated. Because individually or in
combination. They may increase to more
incidents. At least that was her Ali needs
hypothesis. He also mentioned that, these
exact rat types were recommendedfor chronic toxicology, tests by
the national toxicology program in the u.s.
(20:28):
I have to mention that this was not a carcinogenic study, but
seralini included pictures of Lab Rats, who develop tumors?
If you look up his name that's probably also see what you will
find and you will also find it in the document where I have the
transcript these images of course went viral and they were
shared in the news on the internet everywhere left and
(20:52):
right, no wonder Monsanto absolutely freaked out about
that. Now what can go wrong?
It actually started already. Before the study was published,
this was this is really fascinating to me.
(21:13):
So, the peer review of the studyincluded, the Monsanto
toxicologists. Bill Hayden's the peer review is
the evaluation of scientific work by others working in the
same field and it's one of the most important tools to ensure
the quality. He of scientific research
(21:35):
published. But here, we have an issue
because somebody from Monsanto is peer reviewing a paper
criticizing really a core strategic, absolutely vital.
Part of monsanto's, business model.
One of the most interesting things about the history of
Monsanto is that there was a release of internal company
(21:59):
documents called the Monsanto papers because of some lawsuits.
So the super cool thing about itis that you can actually look up
different emails and documents shared with in Monsanto that are
publicly available now. And that also gives us a lot of
indication that these things actually happened.
(22:20):
The Monsanto papers indicate that Hayden's the toxicologists
from Monsanto actually shared the confidential manuscript with
the team members at Monsanto. Of course, something that
shouldn't happen, right? Arguably, that provided Monsanto
with a head start for its PR campaign to discredit the study.
Even before the paper was published seralini and his team,
(22:43):
experienced a backlash, the research and the research team
were targeted by an industry driven media and lobbying
campaign. I'm going to tell you six ways
in which seralini was affected possibly by activities initiated
from Monsanto. Number one, Together with his
(23:05):
Monsanto team. Bill Hayden submitted, a
detailed rebuttal of the paper. So they they had like a whole
team set together and created this massive file trying to take
apart the study of seralini and it didn't work.
It was unsuccessful, however it did slow down the publication
(23:26):
process. Number two after the publication
industry leaders were immediately speaking out.
Against seralini with something called ad hominem arguments, so
that means these are arguments, which are all about the person,
instead of the actual work. For example, criticizing his
Integrity as a person or his professionality just in general
(23:50):
without actually pointing to evidence.
Number three. His Wikipedia page was I quote,
grossly, falsified quoting blogsand stead of his scientific
sources number for many of the letters to the editor demanding.
A takedown of the study were orchestrated by Monsanto itself.
(24:13):
Number 5, mental, and psychological attacks.
So, while attending official governmental committees
Representatives whispered threats, like your career is
over. For to seralini, according to
his own account. Also, he and his family were
physically, threatened, number six.
This last one really sounds likea, like an abstruse movie and
(24:38):
it's according to his book. He mentions that he was at a
speaking gig in London and for whatever reason instead of going
by cab, he was assured by other attendees of the conference to
rather take the subway and in the subway Sara.
Lee. Nice leg was really harshly
(25:01):
bumped by a suitcase. The spot developed a serious
infection that threatened to take his life within 24 hours
due to an antibiotic resistant streptococcus and apparently no,
other cases of this infection were apparent in London.
Seralini could only walk again after 5 months.
(25:24):
And a year later he still suffered from the effects when
he researched antibiotic-resistant human
streptococcus, the top study wasby the Monsanto company with
contributions from RE Goodman the now International
editor-in-chief for biology. At the magazine were seralini
(25:45):
study was published. You will see why this is
important in a sec as seralini declared.
I quote the link to my mission may have been tenuous but it was
such an unusual coincidence. Okay?
So wild this is so so wild. Other strategies mentioned by
(26:12):
Sir, lini include ghost writing research papers and operating
objective looking science, websites sponsoring and
infiltrating pseudo conferences and ruining his reputation to an
extent that students would not want to be associated with him.
Monsanto dedicated, significant sums of money to accomplish the
(26:34):
objective. For example, there are also
cases in which Monsanto paid researchers like, Aqua, Bella
from Denmark. 20K on top of their salary to produce
favorable study results. And in 2015, it invested 17
million dollars in discrediting the iarc the institution that
(26:56):
classify glyphosate as a carcinogen.
Maybe you remember in the beginning, we talked about the
international Agency for research on cancer and the
agency certainly had a good amount of backlash for making
this claim. Lame.
That glyphosate is an actual Christian origin.
Interestingly various agencies like the FCC in Europe, we're
(27:19):
criticizing surliness studies and they are criticizing the
choice of the rats. Train the study setup, and it's
documentation. There is a review by two German
scientists which highlights the double standards of the Essa
arguing that Monsanto study was seen as totally fine.
(27:41):
Somehow the after was being particularly hard with seralini
and the researchers argue, I quote that FCS criteria are not
standard practice, in 21, other rat, feeding studies.
And quote two months after the publication of the study
seralini and his team answered questions and concerns and a
follow-up paper and due to the increased public interest, the
(28:03):
Absa made some Studies by Monsanto publicly available but
I checked and meanwhile, these documents have been taken down
again. Ha ha.
Well, there is another affair tocover and it's called the good
man Affair. So I briefly mentioned re good
man who was involved in researchon this antibiotic resistant.
(28:26):
Streptococcus that's the guy we're talking about.
Now a few months after the studyby seralini was already
published the journal created a,new position called associate
editor for biotechnology. And this position was given to
that guy. Richard good men formerly an
employee of Monsanto, but the journal already had expertise in
(28:48):
the area of GMOs. And this hiring Choice was
rather surprising because it wasI quote, by passing the normal
scientific editorial culture of gradual promotion from within.
So it was quite peculiar that they suddenly hired good man.
And while working for the journal Goodman had also an
ongoing involvement with an agency called ILS.
(29:11):
I Why don't they all sound the same?
Well, but this specific agency is funded by large biotech
companies, and lobbies Health authorities, like the World
Health Organization regarding GMregulation.
So he was not completely independent.
And as we have actually mentioned in the last episodes,
(29:33):
this is again a perfect example of the revolving door.
Describing the frequent job exchanges between lobbyists and
federal officials. A few months after good men,
joined seralini study was retracted.
According to the editor-in-chief, I quote, there
is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the
(29:55):
numbers of animals in each studygroup and the particular strain
selected. Well, definitely know that the
second argument doesn't make sense these Sprague dawley rats
were used by Monsanto in their study.
And they are also It for chronictoxicology tests.
So it's just weird that Suddenly, It's All About these
(30:19):
rats, being the wrong strain. Anyway, seralini study was open
source, republished in 2014 and is now freely available so you
can check it out. If you like, let's look at what
we can learn from it. Right, there is a larger issue
within the food industry, which is about responsibility.
(30:42):
And Work distribution Monsanto, alongside many other chemical
and food companies hands over responsibility for safety to
regulatory bodies like the FDA or the F sound, right?
The agencies that are supposed to check for food safety, but
the Regulatory Agencies do not have the funding.
(31:02):
Take cannot approve and researchor commercial products and most
of them do not have the budgets to double-check.
And fund independent research therefore, they mostly rely on
company funded studies, possiblydue to the increased funding of
private companies. The university budget for
(31:24):
Toxicology studies is declining and as seralini puts it himself,
it's been quite a while. Since universities have stopped
funding projects of any originality, including those
destined to shed light on the toxicity of products already
authorized by Nations. Colleen, nowadays, foundations
and group funding have taken their place.
(31:46):
This highlights again, how important it is to have
independent funding as well. But even if that is present,
it's not attractive as a researcher to study these
because once reputation, mental health and physical, safety is
on the line, and that's the samething for media personalities
(32:10):
and our food History season. We talked in the episode 5.12
about the pink slime Scandal andthat Oprah was sued for saying
that she wants to eat less meat because mad cows disease was
going around. And he would think who what's
you Oprah she was sued by the national Cattlemen's Association
(32:33):
in the US and she barely won andeven though she won it cost her
so much money and it was a greatsign.
To all other media personalitiesto be extremely, extremely
worried about reporting on thesetopics.
So, let's summarize them Monsanto had quite a few cases
(32:56):
of products, which were banned due to toxicity and the two or
three that we mentioned in this episode were really just a
little snippet of that. When the Roundup patent run out
Roundup, Ready, crops became essential to build monsanto's
position as a market leader. Most of the studies regarding GM
crops and round abuse were funded and are funded by the
(33:19):
industry. The usually analyzed glyphosate
so just the active ingredient, instead of the entire
formulation and study Roundup Ready crops without analyzing
Roundup residues. Before 2012, all studies were
conducted to briefly making it impossible to actually assess
(33:40):
whether this is potentially carcinogenic.
Nick, seralini addressed. These blind spots in his 2012
study, which was peer reviewed by a Monsanto executive.
The study is certainly not perfect, but we also need to
consider that. There was a very intricate PR
and smear campaign as proven by the Monsanto papers were.
So by internal company documents, the needs to be
(34:03):
regulation set in place to avoidconflict of interest in peer
reviews and the publishing of the Monsanto papers was
certainly Crucial step towards transparency, one.
Big criticism for seralini is that he himself was not 100%
transparent in the way. He communicated his research, he
(34:24):
was giving journalist, the axis to the preprint good.
Forbidding them to consult, external experts, for whatever
reason. If you have any points, you
would like to share with me, please reach out.
I'm super happy to hear your feedback.
You can reach me. By typing in Marina Schmidt into
(34:45):
LinkedIn or by looking up red toGreen on LinkedIn, I have
certainly thought many times whether I should make an episode
on this topic. If you want to support
independent research, in the field, consider donating to Red
to Green on patreon.com slash red to green patreon.com slash
(35:07):
red to green. And if you don't feel like
donating well, The second best thing that you can do is sharing
this episode in groups from yourcommunity in working groups.
In any place where you feel likepeople would be interested.
Until next time, let's move the food industry from harmful to
(35:29):
healthy from polluting to sustainable from red to Green.
The second best thing that you can do is sharing this episode
in groups from your community inworking groups.
In any place where you feel likepeople would be interested.
Until next time, let's move the food industry from harmful to
healthy from polluting to sustainable from red to Green.
In May 2000 19 the husband and wife Alva and Albert opilio, I'd
won a federal court case againstMonsanto, according to the
website, top tens, the world's most evil company.
The husband and wife had developed Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.
This cancer causes white blood cells called lymphocytes to grow
(00:23):
abnormally. Throughout the body, the farmers
work decades with the herbicide,which the Open E, Monsanto
claimed is safe to use in 2015, the international Agency for
research on cancer. Categorize the active ingredient
in Roundup glyphosate as a probable carcinogen and this was
(00:44):
the basis for the judge's decision to decide in favor of
the couple, the company buyer had to pay a fine of two billion
because it had acquired Monsantothe manufacture of Roundup.
One year after the merger. Your share price was still cut
in half the pharmaceutical gianthad signed up for an
(01:06):
ever-increasing avalanche of legal battles.
In 2019 18,000 lawsuits were pending in the u.s. most of them
due to cancer cases, potentiallylinked to round up for numerous
decades Monsanto had marketed, their herbicide a safe to use
for farmers and individuals and most regulatory bodies
(01:28):
categorize glyphosate as Safe. So why does the international
Agency for research on cancer? Come to a different conclusion
than all the other agencies possibly because they only
consider I quote publicly available and pertinent Studies
by independent. Experts free from vested
(01:49):
interests, but apparently the amount of independent studies on
glyphosate based herbicides is rather limited.
How can the world's most used pesticides I'd have so few
independent studies. Is this really a coincidence?
Let's first take a look at the history of Monsanto.
(02:09):
We will cover the benefits and downsides of Roundup.
Look at the pesticide study by the French researcher.
Seralini and investigate how Monsanto used various tactics to
take down the study and the researcher.
It is a fascinating and highly insightful.
Story showing us about how corporates may influence, what?
(02:30):
What science is published and what science is taken down.
What you're about to hear is made up of my own research.
So we are not talking about a book and it yet fits.
Right? In with the last episode, we had
already on round up, you will find the transcript of the
episode with all the sources Link in the show notes a
(02:50):
special, thanks to the adult bird, wraps Foundation, funding
food, science research for sustainable food system more on
them in a bit. Let's Jump Right In.
Red to Green is the most in-depth podcast on food
sustainability. And in this season 7 we discuss
key takeaways from books on the food system, I'm your host
(03:13):
Marina Schmidt and I'm joined bymy co-host, Frank Keenan?
Today is a special episode, The podcasts, an article represent,
the personal opinions and interpretations of the
participants, the statements maybe exaggerated for entertainment
and or comedic purposes, every effort has been made to ensure
the accuracy and reliability of the information presented per
(03:36):
the cited sources on the website.
However, the participants do notguarantee the completeness or
timeliness of the information readers are encouraged to verify
the information presented and conduct their own research
independently. The Participants, acknowledge
that buyer crop science and or other parties involved have the
right to Alternative interpretations of matters.
(03:57):
Discussed thank you, Monsanto started out rather innocently in
1901. It was producing the sugar
substitute saccharide and caffeine for one of its biggest
and long-term customers Coca-Cola.
The founder, John Francis Queenie, felt America should
reduce its dependence on German chemical.
(04:19):
Giants like bear. This just adds a bit of irony to
the merger of Monsanto and bear.I think John Francis Queenie
would have not been happy about that.
In 1944 Monsanto started producing DDT, the synthetic
insecticide was used to combat malaria typhus and other insect
(04:41):
induced diseases and here's justa little side note.
So pesticides are like an overarching term.
ERM they include. Insecticides used to kill
insects herbicides, used to killweeds and fungicides used to
destroy fun G. But the insecticide, DDT
(05:02):
Monsanto did not conduct a thorough toxicological studies
and also didn't own a toxicology, lab, yet a claim.
DDT, would be safe to use a pattern that would repeat
throughout company history in the 1940s before it was banned.
DDT was generously sprayed on streets.
(05:22):
In 1965 the company produced agent orange for the US
military. This herbicide was sprayed
during the Vietnam war to uncover hidden troops and
Destroy local food production agent, orange destroys, all
kinds of vegetation across the board in some aspects similar to
round up. It's really an all-in-one
(05:44):
solution after the war had ended.
The u.s. banned the use of Of DDT and agent orange.
Both turned out to be toxic to Wildlife and humans as well as
being probable carcinogens. However, at that time, the
company was already working on the herbicide Roundup.
The main ingredient glyphosate was I quote the ones in a
(06:06):
corporate lifetime Discovery possibly as revolutionary as
penicillin. And quote, within two decades
glyphosate became the world's most used herbicide do two
patents Monsanto was the only producer until the turn of the
century Monsanto had a good timewith glyphosate.
Would Peak popularity was yet About to come the company
(06:29):
started researching genetically modified seeds in the 80s just
in time before the Roundup patent would run out.
It introduced Roundup, Ready soybeans in 1996 beforehand,
Farmers sprayed Roundup pre and post Harvest so imagine you have
your soybeans and you want to get rid of those pesky weeds
(06:51):
Roundup, kills all plants. So if you spray it on your
soybeans, you won't Harvest anything.
Therefore you would only say it before or after seeding the
soybeans. But if you plan GM soybeans,
they won't die. Because of Roundup.
Roundup would kill any weeds? Except the resistant crops
leaving you with a very clean field.
(07:13):
This all-in-one, herbicide solution.
Catapulted, Monsanto to the top,also making it the world's
biggest supplier of seeds. So let's look at how Roundup and
GMO crops are strategically linked.
Just as a side note with this episode, I don't want to talk
about whether GM is bad or good,it's really just technology and
(07:39):
it can be used for many various purposes in this episode.
We are only talking about how Monsanto used GM crops up until
this point in time, Monsanto produced, various pesticides,
but wasn't known as a seed company by 2015.
These two, Categories seed, and pesticides made up thick, Ste 8%
(08:02):
of monsanto's, Revenue, this package deal enabled.
Monsanto to raise seed prices from 19 to 50, five US dollars
per kilogram to be fair. Apparently, this also turned out
to be pretty handy for Farmers. You have one herbicide to rule
them all and you can spray it without worrying about affecting
(08:22):
your soy plant. While it would be much easier to
focus just on the herbicide withOut talking about GMOs, it will
leave half the topic on the table independent studies, show
that monsanto's glyphosate basedherbicides on their own weren't
performing significantly, betterthan other brands.
(08:43):
This highlights, the Strategic importance of the package deal.
According to a study from 2012, approximately 82 percent of GMOs
were herbicide-resistant with Monsanto owning.
The majority of Them as any press or safety problems.
Associated with Roundup, residues directly affect sales
(09:04):
of GMO crops and vice versa. This arguably leads to higher
Stakes for the Monsanto corporation.
This is a very good opportunity to point out the importance of
independent research and independent, research needs
independent funding, the adelbert raps, Foundation,
belongs. As Frank told me to the Roman
(09:28):
people and it offers grants for food science research that is
focused on sustainability that can be an alternative proteins
food waste biotech. All of the topics that we have
covered on red to green and anything else beyond that that
can help practically improve ourfood system located in Germany,
(09:52):
they do fund a lot of research in Europe but it is also
possible to apply if If you're outside of Europe, the
foundation can only sponsor universities or research
institutions. So if you are a start-up
founder, you would then work with a research institution on
the topic that relates to your business.
(10:12):
For example, and benefit from having the insights.
But not having to fund the research yourself, just Google
the adelbert raps Foundation or follow the link in the comments
to find out more. You can also just directly reach
out to Frank. By typing Frank, Alexander kuna
into LinkedIn. And with that back to the
(10:34):
episode, Now, let's look at the blind spots in research
glyphosate, the main active component in Roundup, destroys
an enzyme in Plants, this enzymeis epsps.
It's necessary for synthesizing,the building blocks of proteins,
(10:54):
called amino acids, so Roundup, interferes with important.
Metabolic pathways in the plant and therefore, it kills, most
plants that come into contact. Out with it supposedly without
affecting humans. But if we look at the research
and Regulatory landscape, there are three main issues which are
(11:17):
actually addressed by seralini study that we will discuss in a
bit. The first issue we actually
covered in the last episode already while glyphosate is the
active ingredient 50, to 75 percent of the actual product is
made up of inert ingredients supporting the Permeation.
So the getting into the plant body and Roots inert ingredients
(11:40):
do not need to be disclosed on the ingredient label because
they are considered trade secrets that makes it really
challenging to regulate. Them glyphosate is supposedly
one of the least harmful ingredients in Roundup n
nitroso, compounds are supposed to be some of the most powerful
course, energy ends in the finalformulation the pesticide
(12:04):
Arsenic and also, Italo amines are classified as a nerd and
confidential as well, which enables Monsanto to get away
with them in 2020. The national toxicology program
published a preliminary report confirming that the formula ends
of Roundup where more Gino toxicthan the active ingredient being
(12:25):
Gino. Toxic means being toxic to DNA
so substances that are genotoxicMay bind directly to DNA or act
indirectly. Leading to DNA damage or
affecting enzymes involved in DNA.
Replication so causing mutations, which may or may not
(12:46):
lead to cancer or birth defects that doesn't sound too positive.
I must say well over focusing onthe sole ingredient instead of
the commercial product is at theheart of the issue and actually
something that most of the agencies are doing for example
even in when T20 the US Environmental Protection Agency
(13:08):
the EPA based its regulatory decision merely on the active
ingredient glyphosate. So let's look at this second
issue. Most research does not address
glyphosate resistant crops in combination with herbicides,
what does that mean? In studies where the herbicide
was applied to GM plants? They were usually not analyzed
(13:33):
for residues. And if you remember beforehand,
we were saying, well, if you spray Roundup or non-gm plants,
then you do it before or after harvest, but with GM plants, you
can just spray it all over throughout the entire growing
season and you can spray it directly on the plants.
(13:54):
So it must be super important toactually look at what are the
residues on the plants because they are likely way.
Hire independent research finds that That residues are I quote
at unexpectedly high levels in resistant plants.
There is also an analysis that looks at 20 years, of studies,
(14:16):
of herbicide residues and now one was shocking.
I must say, so 4 out of 30 studies so really very few
actually. Even looked at the issue of
glyphosate residues and none of these were funded by industry.
And then only 1 out of 30 studies has performed an
analysis and Vacation of glyphosate residues.
(14:37):
So actually looked at how much glyphosate is on the plants.
Now, let's move on to the third big gap in the scientific
literature in an e-mail, the sent to her colleagues in 2003,
the Monsanto executive, Donna farmer Road, you cannot say that
Roundup is not a Kirsten age andwe have not done the necessary
(14:59):
testing on the formulation to make that statement.
The testing on the formulations is not anywhere near near the
level of the active ingredient. And quote, she repeated the
statement in 2018. So, Donna Pharma has been in
charge of human safety and she is now also working for buyer
(15:20):
crop Sciences. I'd because sad, like a lot of
the executives were taking over.How can you, as somebody in
charge of safety? Just say, well, you know, we
invented this thing in 1974, Like, 30 years later, we still
(15:40):
haven't really done any tests, whether it's actually cancer
causing and then 45 years later,we still haven't done that
studies conducted by Monsanto, for the approval of Roundup were
too short with a runtime of the mere 90 days.
They used specific rats, they'recalled Spain, she Dolly rats, I
(16:04):
am totally Saying this wrong right now space AG Dolly here,
actually sound funny and these rats, usually develop tumors
after 220 days. Therefore if you do a study with
a runtime of 90 days, the like doesn't tell you anything which
(16:28):
is one of the reasons why the French researcher seralini
decided to prolong the study setup.
So seralini actually, it's a French name, so it's should
sound something. Like, Julia, reek seralini has
been a professor of molecular biology and toxicology at the
(16:49):
University of Cain, since 1991. And according to his own
account, he won several times incourt against industry Lobby,
between 2011 and 2017, the French researchers, arguably the
most prominent and active research.
Sure, on the toxicity of GM crops the most important and
(17:11):
most well-known study is the onefrom 2012 and it's known as part
of the seralini affair. It is a remarkable case, study
on industry, influence on science publication and
discussion seralini conducted the at the time.
Most detailed research on the lifelong consumption of GMOs and
(17:31):
Round Up Until Then NK 503. The genetically engineered corn,
strain had been tested for only 90 days his study addressed all
the three previously mentioned blind spots.
So it was using the whole commercial product instead of
only using glyphosate, it included GM crops that had been
(17:53):
treated with Roundup and it prolonged the study Horizon 22
years. Instead of just 90 days,
seralini carefully, crafted the set up to resemble the original
study by Monsanto. Voluntarily provided to the EPA.
Unfortunately, the original toxicity tests on genetically
modified corn, and Round Up are confidential and not available
(18:15):
to the public nor the scientificCommunity without requesting
special permission. But I must say that is not super
weird. That is sort of typical within
the industry. Seralini is research setup.
Used 100 male and 100 female rats using the same type of rats
that Monsanto used. They got 10 different diets
(18:37):
tested on females and males containing standard laboratory
rat food, but then also different amounts of genetically
modified corn. Treated with Roundup in addition
to drinking water would also contain various levels of
Roundup. A control group was fed a diet
with 33% non-GMO corn, the journal food and chemical
(19:00):
toxicology, published this studyin 2012, in female rats, all
treated group, Oops, died earlier and had two to threefold
increased mortality often due tokidney malfunctions and tumors
GM Maize and Roundup treatments,led to a dis balance of hormones
and up to four times larger tumors in males.
(19:22):
Also starting earlier than in the control group, the vast
majority of Roundup consuming rats developed tumors compared
to only 30% of the control group.
The tumors were also between 32 130 percent larger than in the
control. I will spare you a bit of the
details here. This very point the rats fed
(19:44):
with a level of GMOs present in the American diet came down with
deadly renal and hepatic diseases.
While the control group did not develop, chronic conditions, the
study used exposure below current regulatory thresholds
and requested that the current regulatory status of the GM
(20:05):
maize. Maze and Roundup would be
re-evaluated. Because individually or in
combination. They may increase to more
incidents. At least that was her Ali needs
hypothesis. He also mentioned that, these
exact rat types were recommendedfor chronic toxicology, tests by
the national toxicology program in the u.s.
(20:28):
I have to mention that this was not a carcinogenic study, but
seralini included pictures of Lab Rats, who develop tumors?
If you look up his name that's probably also see what you will
find and you will also find it in the document where I have the
transcript these images of course went viral and they were
shared in the news on the internet everywhere left and
(20:52):
right, no wonder Monsanto absolutely freaked out about
that. Now what can go wrong?
It actually started already. Before the study was published,
this was this is really fascinating to me.
(21:13):
So, the peer review of the studyincluded, the Monsanto
toxicologists. Bill Hayden's the peer review is
the evaluation of scientific work by others working in the
same field and it's one of the most important tools to ensure
the quality. He of scientific research
(21:35):
published. But here, we have an issue
because somebody from Monsanto is peer reviewing a paper
criticizing really a core strategic, absolutely vital.
Part of monsanto's, business model.
One of the most interesting things about the history of
Monsanto is that there was a release of internal company
(21:59):
documents called the Monsanto papers because of some lawsuits.
So the super cool thing about itis that you can actually look up
different emails and documents shared with in Monsanto that are
publicly available now. And that also gives us a lot of
indication that these things actually happened.
(22:20):
The Monsanto papers indicate that Hayden's the toxicologists
from Monsanto actually shared the confidential manuscript with
the team members at Monsanto. Of course, something that
shouldn't happen, right? Arguably, that provided Monsanto
with a head start for its PR campaign to discredit the study.
Even before the paper was published seralini and his team,
(22:43):
experienced a backlash, the research and the research team
were targeted by an industry driven media and lobbying
campaign. I'm going to tell you six ways
in which seralini was affected possibly by activities initiated
from Monsanto. Number one, Together with his
(23:05):
Monsanto team. Bill Hayden submitted, a
detailed rebuttal of the paper. So they they had like a whole
team set together and created this massive file trying to take
apart the study of seralini and it didn't work.
It was unsuccessful, however it did slow down the publication
(23:26):
process. Number two after the publication
industry leaders were immediately speaking out.
Against seralini with something called ad hominem arguments, so
that means these are arguments, which are all about the person,
instead of the actual work. For example, criticizing his
Integrity as a person or his professionality just in general
(23:50):
without actually pointing to evidence.
Number three. His Wikipedia page was I quote,
grossly, falsified quoting blogsand stead of his scientific
sources number for many of the letters to the editor demanding.
A takedown of the study were orchestrated by Monsanto itself.
(24:13):
Number 5, mental, and psychological attacks.
So, while attending official governmental committees
Representatives whispered threats, like your career is
over. For to seralini, according to
his own account. Also, he and his family were
physically, threatened, number six.
This last one really sounds likea, like an abstruse movie and
(24:38):
it's according to his book. He mentions that he was at a
speaking gig in London and for whatever reason instead of going
by cab, he was assured by other attendees of the conference to
rather take the subway and in the subway Sara.
Lee. Nice leg was really harshly
(25:01):
bumped by a suitcase. The spot developed a serious
infection that threatened to take his life within 24 hours
due to an antibiotic resistant streptococcus and apparently no,
other cases of this infection were apparent in London.
Seralini could only walk again after 5 months.
(25:24):
And a year later he still suffered from the effects when
he researched antibiotic-resistant human
streptococcus, the top study wasby the Monsanto company with
contributions from RE Goodman the now International
editor-in-chief for biology. At the magazine were seralini
(25:45):
study was published. You will see why this is
important in a sec as seralini declared.
I quote the link to my mission may have been tenuous but it was
such an unusual coincidence. Okay?
So wild this is so so wild. Other strategies mentioned by
(26:12):
Sir, lini include ghost writing research papers and operating
objective looking science, websites sponsoring and
infiltrating pseudo conferences and ruining his reputation to an
extent that students would not want to be associated with him.
Monsanto dedicated, significant sums of money to accomplish the
(26:34):
objective. For example, there are also
cases in which Monsanto paid researchers like, Aqua, Bella
from Denmark. 20K on top of their salary to produce
favorable study results. And in 2015, it invested 17
million dollars in discrediting the iarc the institution that
(26:56):
classify glyphosate as a carcinogen.
Maybe you remember in the beginning, we talked about the
international Agency for research on cancer and the
agency certainly had a good amount of backlash for making
this claim. Lame.
That glyphosate is an actual Christian origin.
Interestingly various agencies like the FCC in Europe, we're
(27:19):
criticizing surliness studies and they are criticizing the
choice of the rats. Train the study setup, and it's
documentation. There is a review by two German
scientists which highlights the double standards of the Essa
arguing that Monsanto study was seen as totally fine.
(27:41):
Somehow the after was being particularly hard with seralini
and the researchers argue, I quote that FCS criteria are not
standard practice, in 21, other rat, feeding studies.
And quote two months after the publication of the study
seralini and his team answered questions and concerns and a
follow-up paper and due to the increased public interest, the
(28:03):
Absa made some Studies by Monsanto publicly available but
I checked and meanwhile, these documents have been taken down
again. Ha ha.
Well, there is another affair tocover and it's called the good
man Affair. So I briefly mentioned re good
man who was involved in researchon this antibiotic resistant.
(28:26):
Streptococcus that's the guy we're talking about.
Now a few months after the studyby seralini was already
published the journal created a,new position called associate
editor for biotechnology. And this position was given to
that guy. Richard good men formerly an
employee of Monsanto, but the journal already had expertise in
(28:48):
the area of GMOs. And this hiring Choice was
rather surprising because it wasI quote, by passing the normal
scientific editorial culture of gradual promotion from within.
So it was quite peculiar that they suddenly hired good man.
And while working for the journal Goodman had also an
ongoing involvement with an agency called ILS.
(29:11):
I Why don't they all sound the same?
Well, but this specific agency is funded by large biotech
companies, and lobbies Health authorities, like the World
Health Organization regarding GMregulation.
So he was not completely independent.
And as we have actually mentioned in the last episodes,
(29:33):
this is again a perfect example of the revolving door.
Describing the frequent job exchanges between lobbyists and
federal officials. A few months after good men,
joined seralini study was retracted.
According to the editor-in-chief, I quote, there
is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the
(29:55):
numbers of animals in each studygroup and the particular strain
selected. Well, definitely know that the
second argument doesn't make sense these Sprague dawley rats
were used by Monsanto in their study.
And they are also It for chronictoxicology tests.
So it's just weird that Suddenly, It's All About these
(30:19):
rats, being the wrong strain. Anyway, seralini study was open
source, republished in 2014 and is now freely available so you
can check it out. If you like, let's look at what
we can learn from it. Right, there is a larger issue
within the food industry, which is about responsibility.
(30:42):
And Work distribution Monsanto, alongside many other chemical
and food companies hands over responsibility for safety to
regulatory bodies like the FDA or the F sound, right?
The agencies that are supposed to check for food safety, but
the Regulatory Agencies do not have the funding.
(31:02):
Take cannot approve and researchor commercial products and most
of them do not have the budgets to double-check.
And fund independent research therefore, they mostly rely on
company funded studies, possiblydue to the increased funding of
private companies. The university budget for
(31:24):
Toxicology studies is declining and as seralini puts it himself,
it's been quite a while. Since universities have stopped
funding projects of any originality, including those
destined to shed light on the toxicity of products already
authorized by Nations. Colleen, nowadays, foundations
and group funding have taken their place.
(31:46):
This highlights again, how important it is to have
independent funding as well. But even if that is present,
it's not attractive as a researcher to study these
because once reputation, mental health and physical, safety is
on the line, and that's the samething for media personalities
(32:10):
and our food History season. We talked in the episode 5.12
about the pink slime Scandal andthat Oprah was sued for saying
that she wants to eat less meat because mad cows disease was
going around. And he would think who what's
you Oprah she was sued by the national Cattlemen's Association
(32:33):
in the US and she barely won andeven though she won it cost her
so much money and it was a greatsign.
To all other media personalitiesto be extremely, extremely
worried about reporting on thesetopics.
So, let's summarize them Monsanto had quite a few cases
(32:56):
of products, which were banned due to toxicity and the two or
three that we mentioned in this episode were really just a
little snippet of that. When the Roundup patent run out
Roundup, Ready, crops became essential to build monsanto's
position as a market leader. Most of the studies regarding GM
crops and round abuse were funded and are funded by the
(33:19):
industry. The usually analyzed glyphosate
so just the active ingredient, instead of the entire
formulation and study Roundup Ready crops without analyzing
Roundup residues. Before 2012, all studies were
conducted to briefly making it impossible to actually assess
(33:40):
whether this is potentially carcinogenic.
Nick, seralini addressed. These blind spots in his 2012
study, which was peer reviewed by a Monsanto executive.
The study is certainly not perfect, but we also need to
consider that. There was a very intricate PR
and smear campaign as proven by the Monsanto papers were.
So by internal company documents, the needs to be
(34:03):
regulation set in place to avoidconflict of interest in peer
reviews and the publishing of the Monsanto papers was
certainly Crucial step towards transparency, one.
Big criticism for seralini is that he himself was not 100%
transparent in the way. He communicated his research, he
(34:24):
was giving journalist, the axis to the preprint good.
Forbidding them to consult, external experts, for whatever
reason. If you have any points, you
would like to share with me, please reach out.
I'm super happy to hear your feedback.
You can reach me. By typing in Marina Schmidt into
(34:45):
LinkedIn or by looking up red toGreen on LinkedIn, I have
certainly thought many times whether I should make an episode
on this topic. If you want to support
independent research, in the field, consider donating to Red
to Green on patreon.com slash red to green patreon.com slash
(35:07):
red to green. And if you don't feel like
donating well, The second best thing that you can do is sharing
this episode in groups from yourcommunity in working groups.
In any place where you feel likepeople would be interested.
Until next time, let's move the food industry from harmful to
(35:29):
healthy from polluting to sustainable from red to Green.
The second best thing that you can do is sharing this episode
in groups from your community inworking groups.
In any place where you feel likepeople would be interested.
Until next time, let's move the food industry from harmful to
healthy from polluting to sustainable from red to Green.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal: Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a brand new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-4 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.