Are there higher levels of Aminomethylphosponic acid or vitamins in your vegetables? It depends on if you eat genetically modified, conventional, or organic food, according to a new study by independent scientists in Norway. Read about their findings here.

The irony is that GMOs are being promoted in the name of science, yet science and knowledge are being sacrificed daily for untruths to feed the greed machinery, not people.

Without knowledge sovereignty there is no food sovereignty. Without knowledge freedom there is no freedom and democracy.”

-Vandana Shiva, “GMO: The biggest food con

“Imagine if the New York Times or NBC published, under appropriately scathing headlines, a full and detailed analysis of how GMO corporations perennially manipulate the scientific literature? And then Fox News reported the real story of how the FDA, advised by its own scientists that GMOs should receive close scrutiny, took the purely political and probably illegal decision to disregard that advice? And then each story was picked up by all the other radio, print and TV news outlets? Customers would rebel, political support would disappear (not least because this would discredit the official policy information democratic representatives receive) and the industry would probably collapse. Consequently, the agbiotech industry must make sure such a scenario never happens.
…
What is new today, and which wasn’t the case thirty years ago, is that individual industrial sectors such as the life science industry are nowadays sufficiently profitable, monopolistic, and global that they can and do coordinate, to the mutual benefit of their larger members, the flow of information that spans three distinct but interconnected domains of thought: the public domain (TV, radio, print), the scientific domain (peer-reviewed publications), and the policy domain (government reports and bureaucratic discussions).”
-Jonathan Latham, “Fakethrough! GMOs and the Capitulation of Science Journalism”

Imagine if the New York Times or NBC published, under appropriately scathing headlines, a full and detailed analysis of how GMO corporations perennially manipulate the scientific literature? And then Fox News reported the real story of how the FDA, advised by its own scientists that GMOs should receive close scrutiny, took the purely political and probably illegal decision to disregard that advice? And then each story was picked up by all the other radio, print and TV news outlets? Customers would rebel, political support would disappear (not least because this would discredit the official policy information democratic representatives receive) and the industry would probably collapse. Consequently, the agbiotech industry must make sure such a scenario never happens.

What is new today, and which wasn’t the case thirty years ago, is that individual industrial sectors such as the life science industry are nowadays sufficiently profitable, monopolistic, and global that they can and do coordinate, to the mutual benefit of their larger members, the flow of information that spans three distinct but interconnected domains of thought: the public domain (TV, radio, print), the scientific domain (peer-reviewed publications), and the policy domain (government reports and bureaucratic discussions).”

-Jonathan Latham, “Fakethrough! GMOs and the Capitulation of Science Journalism

Did you hear that Monsanto protesters in Argentina were brutally attacked by corporate thugs on Thanksgiving day, the 72nd day of their blockade against the construction of Monsanto’s newest plant in the region, set to be the largest GM seed plant in Latin America?  Most of the protesters were asleep when sixty unidentified people arrived in buses and attacked, ripping tents, destroying property, setting fires in the campsite, and beating the protesters with bricks, stones, and clubs, all while a small group of police officers looked on.

If you didn’t hear about it, maybe it’s because Monsanto has recently been attempting to change its public relations strategy, finally learning the lesson Rockefeller and Carnegie learned a century ago with the help of pioneering “crisis management” PR-men: engage in more, not less, dialogue with the public about the risks of biotechnology and play the “reasonable” party in the “debate.”  And it doesn’t hurt to use the “charm offensive,” creating personal relationships with journalists at news outlets in DC and around the country who might otherwise report the truth about genetic engineering.

Learn about the real risk of GMOs (here and here), and read about Monsanto’s “deep capture,” not just of government, but of all levels of education as well.

Did you hear that Monsanto protesters in Argentina were brutally attacked by corporate thugs on Thanksgiving day, the 72nd day of their blockade against the construction of Monsanto’s newest plant in the region, set to be the largest GM seed plant in Latin America?  Most of the protesters were asleep when sixty unidentified people arrived in buses and attacked, ripping tents, destroying property, setting fires in the campsite, and beating the protesters with bricks, stones, and clubs, all while a small group of police officers looked on.

If you didn’t hear about it, maybe it’s because Monsanto has recently been attempting to change its public relations strategy, finally learning the lesson Rockefeller and Carnegie learned a century ago with the help of pioneering “crisis management” PR-men: engage in more, not less, dialogue with the public about the risks of biotechnology and play the “reasonable” party in the “debate.”  And it doesn’t hurt to use the “charm offensive,” creating personal relationships with journalists at news outlets in DC and around the country who might otherwise report the truth about genetic engineering.
Learn about the real risk of GMOs (here and here), and read about Monsanto’s “deep capture,” not just of government, but of all levels of education as well.

“‘Control oil and you control nations,’ said US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the 1970s.  ’Control food and you control the people.’

Global food control has nearly been achieved, by reducing seed diversity with GMO (genetically modified) seeds that are distributed by only a few transnational corporations. But this agenda has been implemented at grave cost to our health; and if the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) passes, control over not just our food but our health, our environment and our financial system will be in the hands of transnational corporations.”

Read Ellen Brown’s “Monsanto, the TPP, and Global Food Dominance" at CounterPunch

Monsanto Threatens Protesters in Argentina

Protesters in Argentina continue to block construction of what is planned to be the biggest Monsanto plant in Latin America. Monsanto has resorted to intimidation tactics to try and remove them. They have been camped at the construction site in Malvinas, Argentina for 56 days. As of today they have established five blockades, one at each entrance to the construction site.
Monsanto recently mailed letters of intimidation to the protesters threatening them to lift the blockades or face 3 years in prison.
The blockades were recently flooded by heavy rains and protesters lost almost everything they had built including most of their tents. The community rallied to restock and rebuild the camps. Despite floods and threats of imprisonment, they are still showing no signs of going home.

Monsanto Threatens Protesters in Argentina

Protesters in Argentina continue to block construction of what is planned to be the biggest Monsanto plant in Latin America. Monsanto has resorted to intimidation tactics to try and remove them. They have been camped at the construction site in Malvinas, Argentina for 56 days. As of today they have established five blockades, one at each entrance to the construction site.

Monsanto recently mailed letters of intimidation to the protesters threatening them to lift the blockades or face 3 years in prison.

The blockades were recently flooded by heavy rains and protesters lost almost everything they had built including most of their tents. The community rallied to restock and rebuild the camps. Despite floods and threats of imprisonment, they are still showing no signs of going home.

New article on Independent Science News: “The Founding Fables of Industrialised Agriculture,” by Colin Tudge

Synopsis: Industrial agriculture “is a far bigger threat to humanity than North Korea or “terrorism”, or the collapse of banks or dwindling oil.” It is sold on a series of mythological propositions. Principal among them are the high yields and efficiency of monoculture agriculture, the inadequacy of smallholder farming, and the existence of a food productivity crisis. Journalists, politicians, and especially academics, propagate these myths largely unaware of their contradiction by evidence. Demolishing these myths and halting the march of industrial farming, therefore, “is the cause of our age….whatever else we may aspire to do, agriculture is the thing we absolutely have to get right.”

Monsanto tells us that their products are about the best thing to come along since sliced bread. For years they’ve been promising that GMOs would reduce pesticide use, increase yields, reduce water consumption, and offer foods that are  more tasty and more nutritious. But in the 20 years since GMO crops first came on the market, studies have found that they have led to  higher pesticide use, and no meaningful improvement in  flavornutrition, yield or water requirements. Instead, what they’ve created are plants that are engineered to withstand  massive dosing of  toxic herbicides, and plants that function as living pesticide factories. Monsanto’s Bt. corn, for example, is actually registered with the EPA as a pesticide.”

 

Despite what Monsanto’s PR might lead us to believe, “[t]here is no consensus amongst scientific researchers over the health or environmental safety of GM crops and foods, and it is misleading and irresponsible for anyone to claim that there is. Many salient questions remain open, while more are being discovered and reported by independent scientists,” said Professor Brian Wynne of Lancaster University, UK in a recent interview.
The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) agrees that no consensus exists in a statement released Monday, signed by more than 90 scientists, academics, and physicians.
The people of Washington state will vote on Initiative 522 on November 5, which would require labeling of (most) foods produced using genetic engineering. Opponents of the law, including Monsanto and DuPont, have spent more than $17 million campaigning against it, while supporters have raised $5.5 million. (Just today, due to pressure from the Washington Attorney General’s Office, the umbrella lobby group Grocery Manufacturers Association released a list of corporations who have been secretly funding the campaign.) In 2012, a similar bill was defeated in California by a narrow margin after opponents (including Monsanto, DuPont, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Dow, Bayer, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association) spent $46 million compared to supporters’ $9.2 million.
The lone pamphleteer has documented many reasons why we should be deeply skeptical of GMOs and the biotech companies like Monsanto that create them. The biotech industry has effectively captured peer-reviewed journals, obscuring the real science about genetic modification and engineering. There is also plenty of evidence of the capture of every branch of government by biotech giants, from the State Department’s global PR for the industry and Congress’s “Monsanto Protect Act" to the Supreme Court’s dangerous ruling that Monsanto can actually own the living organisms that its genetically modified seeds spawn (and the University of California’s pernicious interest in the outcome of that case). If you want to get really depressed, read about how Monsanto’s PR has made its way into the classroom with the company’s “Biotechnology Basics Activity Book.”
But see also pictures from all over the world of people marching against Monsanto last May, as well as stories of farmers fighting back in the Philippines and India (where Monsanto is contributing to a horrifying suicide epidemic). Like all tyrannical rulers, Monsanto and its counterparts fear the dissemination of the truth— and the inevitable backlash that will ensue— above all else.

Despite what Monsanto’s PR might lead us to believe, “[t]here is no consensus amongst scientific researchers over the health or environmental safety of GM crops and foods, and it is misleading and irresponsible for anyone to claim that there is. Many salient questions remain open, while more are being discovered and reported by independent scientists,” said Professor Brian Wynne of Lancaster University, UK in a recent interview.

The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSERagrees that no consensus exists in a statement released Monday, signed by more than 90 scientists, academics, and physicians.

The people of Washington state will vote on Initiative 522 on November 5, which would require labeling of (most) foods produced using genetic engineering. Opponents of the law, including Monsanto and DuPont, have spent more than $17 million campaigning against it, while supporters have raised $5.5 million. (Just today, due to pressure from the Washington Attorney General’s Office, the umbrella lobby group Grocery Manufacturers Association released a list of corporations who have been secretly funding the campaign.) In 2012, a similar bill was defeated in California by a narrow margin after opponents (including Monsanto, DuPont, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Dow, Bayer, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association) spent $46 million compared to supporters’ $9.2 million.

The lone pamphleteer has documented many reasons why we should be deeply skeptical of GMOs and the biotech companies like Monsanto that create them. The biotech industry has effectively captured peer-reviewed journals, obscuring the real science about genetic modification and engineering. There is also plenty of evidence of the capture of every branch of government by biotech giants, from the State Department’s global PR for the industry and Congress’s “Monsanto Protect Act" to the Supreme Court’s dangerous ruling that Monsanto can actually own the living organisms that its genetically modified seeds spawn (and the University of California’s pernicious interest in the outcome of that case). If you want to get really depressed, read about how Monsanto’s PR has made its way into the classroom with the company’s “Biotechnology Basics Activity Book.”

But see also pictures from all over the world of people marching against Monsanto last May, as well as stories of farmers fighting back in the Philippines and India (where Monsanto is contributing to a horrifying suicide epidemic). Like all tyrannical rulers, Monsanto and its counterparts fear the dissemination of the truth— and the inevitable backlash that will ensue— above all else.

Filipino farmers destroy genetically modified ‘Golden Rice’ cropsby David Ferguson for The Raw Story

A group of activist farmers in the Philippines stormed a government research facility and destroyed an area of genetically modified rice crops the size of 10 football fields. According to New Scientist, the farmers say that genetically modified organism (GMO) foods have not been established to be safe for consumption and that the real solution to world hunger isn’t biologically engineered plants, but a reduction in worldwide rates of poverty.
“The Golden Rice is a poison,” said Willy Marbella to New Scientist. Marbella is a farmer and deputy secretary general of a group of activists known as KMP — Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas or Peasant Movement of the Philippines.
The farmers attacked the fields at the research facility in Pili, Camarines Sur out of concern that their own crops could be pollinated and thereby contaminated by the GMO plants, possibly resulting in a boycott of their products like U.S. farmers of soft white wheat saw when a strain of Monsanto herbicide-resistant wheat abruptly appeared in an Oregon field. South Korea and Japan both halted imports of U.S. wheat in the wake of the discovery.
Golden Rice is a strain of rice that has been modified by scientists to contain beta carotene, a source of vitamin A. An estimated 2 million people die from vitamin A deficiency worldwide every year. Annually, about 500,000 children — mainly in the developing world — go blind from lack of the nutrient.
Golden Rice advocates claim that replacing half of a child’s rice intake with Golden Rice provides them with 60 percent of their daily requirement of vitamin A.
Representatives of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), a fervently pro-Golden Rice organization, say that even though the GMO has yet to be approved for human consumption, research trials suggest that it’s safe, and that scientists can’t find out anything more if people destroy the test plants.
Framing attacks on GMO crops as attacks on the effort to end world hunger, the IRRI issued a series of press releases since the action at Pili on Thursday decrying the farmers as ill-informed “vandals.”
Anti-GMO activists say that too many studies on the effects of GMOs are being undertaken by organizations that have a stake in their success. They also say that Golden Rice is being used as a seeming innocuous “poster boy” crop to sell GMOs to an overly credulous public.
Beau Baconguis of Greenpeace Southeast Asia told New Scientist, “There is not enough safety testing done on any GM crops.”
“I think that the farmers know what they want,” she said. “What they want is a safe environment that they can grow their crops in” without fear of contamination and a subsequent boycott…This is playing with the lives of people when you are using Golden Rice to promote more GMOs in our food.”

Filipino farmers destroy genetically modified ‘Golden Rice’ crops
by David Ferguson for The Raw Story

A group of activist farmers in the Philippines stormed a government research facility and destroyed an area of genetically modified rice crops the size of 10 football fields. According to New Scientist, the farmers say that genetically modified organism (GMO) foods have not been established to be safe for consumption and that the real solution to world hunger isn’t biologically engineered plants, but a reduction in worldwide rates of poverty.

“The Golden Rice is a poison,” said Willy Marbella to New Scientist. Marbella is a farmer and deputy secretary general of a group of activists known as KMPKilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas or Peasant Movement of the Philippines.

The farmers attacked the fields at the research facility in Pili, Camarines Sur out of concern that their own crops could be pollinated and thereby contaminated by the GMO plants, possibly resulting in a boycott of their products like U.S. farmers of soft white wheat saw when a strain of Monsanto herbicide-resistant wheat abruptly appeared in an Oregon field. South Korea and Japan both halted imports of U.S. wheat in the wake of the discovery.

Golden Rice is a strain of rice that has been modified by scientists to contain beta carotene, a source of vitamin A. An estimated 2 million people die from vitamin A deficiency worldwide every year. Annually, about 500,000 children — mainly in the developing world — go blind from lack of the nutrient.

Golden Rice advocates claim that replacing half of a child’s rice intake with Golden Rice provides them with 60 percent of their daily requirement of vitamin A.

Representatives of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), a fervently pro-Golden Rice organization, say that even though the GMO has yet to be approved for human consumption, research trials suggest that it’s safe, and that scientists can’t find out anything more if people destroy the test plants.

Framing attacks on GMO crops as attacks on the effort to end world hunger, the IRRI issued a series of press releases since the action at Pili on Thursday decrying the farmers as ill-informed “vandals.”

Anti-GMO activists say that too many studies on the effects of GMOs are being undertaken by organizations that have a stake in their success. They also say that Golden Rice is being used as a seeming innocuous “poster boy” crop to sell GMOs to an overly credulous public.

Beau Baconguis of Greenpeace Southeast Asia told New Scientist, “There is not enough safety testing done on any GM crops.”

“I think that the farmers know what they want,” she said. “What they want is a safe environment that they can grow their crops in” without fear of contamination and a subsequent boycott…This is playing with the lives of people when you are using Golden Rice to promote more GMOs in our food.”

FBI Calls Destruction of GMO Sugar Beets in Oregon ‘Economic Sabotage’by Sayer Ji
When GM pollen blows into a non-GM farmer’s fields and irreversibly contaminates his crop with ‘biopollution,’ who does the law side with? Historically, Monsanto. Also, it’s not called ‘economic sabotage’ but rather ‘copyright infringement,’ and the victim not the aggressor is threatened with economic ruin.
When Monsanto’s unapproved and therefore illegal GM wheat is found years after open field trials growing freely in an Oregon wheat field, the entire state crop’s export fate is held in limbo, jeopardizing the present and future living of thousands of farmers and their dependents, with Monsanto receiving little more than a reprimand, followed by rapid USDA assurance that despite a lack of approval their GM wheat is “safe.”
Given the unfair rules of the game, no wonder some folks in Oregon, having been treated much like feudal peasants lately, are taking things quite literally into their own hands.
So, when the FBI investigates the destruction of genetically modified sugar beets from two fields in Southern Oregon’s Jackson County this month, the act is immediately labeled “economic sabotage,” presumably against the multinational corporation who owned the plants.
How fitting an FBI description, considering that Monsanto already planted these ‘evil seeds’ of doubt by suggesting their unapproved GM wheat in Oregon was a result of sabotage, and not negligence (or intentional contamination) on their part.
According to the Spokesman Review, “The agency [FBI] said in a statement Thursday that about 1,000 sugar beet plants were destroyed on June 8, and more than 5,000 plants were destroyed on a different plot three nights later.”  
The article went on to explain that the plants were owned by the Swiss-based biotech company Sygenta, and that the FBI spokewoman, Beth Anne Steele, would not comment on the manner in which the crops were destroyed “…because we don’t want to encourage copycats.”  However, an article published on OregonLive.com demystified the FBI’s account, quoting Paul Minehart, head of corporate communications in North America for Syngenta: “It doesn’t look like a vehicle was used. It looks like people entered the field and destroyed the plants by hand.”
When multinational corporations like Monsanto have already succeeded in genetically modifying the political system, splicing in their ex-executives and ex-lawyers into positions of great power within the government [see image above], how can folks rely on these Monsanto, Dow and Sygenta-influenced regulatory agencies, and the enforcement arms within their control, to make decisions in the interest of their health or basic civil rights?
Some resort to pulling up, burning and otherwise destroying the plants themselves. Are they terrorists or freedom fighters? And if you answer affirmatively to the latter definition, will you yourself be defined as sympathizers to these “economic saboteurs,” or terrorists?

FBI Calls Destruction of GMO Sugar Beets in Oregon ‘Economic Sabotage’
by Sayer Ji

When GM pollen blows into a non-GM farmer’s fields and irreversibly contaminates his crop with ‘biopollution,’ who does the law side with? Historically, Monsanto. Also, it’s not called ‘economic sabotage’ but rather ‘copyright infringement,’ and the victim not the aggressor is threatened with economic ruin.

When Monsanto’s unapproved and therefore illegal GM wheat is found years after open field trials growing freely in an Oregon wheat field, the entire state crop’s export fate is held in limbo, jeopardizing the present and future living of thousands of farmers and their dependents, with Monsanto receiving little more than a reprimand, followed by rapid USDA assurance that despite a lack of approval their GM wheat is “safe.”

Given the unfair rules of the game, no wonder some folks in Oregon, having been treated much like feudal peasants lately, are taking things quite literally into their own hands.

So, when the FBI investigates the destruction of genetically modified sugar beets from two fields in Southern Oregon’s Jackson County this month, the act is immediately labeled “economic sabotage,” presumably against the multinational corporation who owned the plants.

How fitting an FBI description, considering that Monsanto already planted these ‘evil seeds’ of doubt by suggesting their unapproved GM wheat in Oregon was a result of sabotage, and not negligence (or intentional contamination) on their part.

According to the Spokesman Review, “The agency [FBI] said in a statement Thursday that about 1,000 sugar beet plants were destroyed on June 8, and more than 5,000 plants were destroyed on a different plot three nights later.”  

The article went on to explain that the plants were owned by the Swiss-based biotech company Sygenta, and that the FBI spokewoman, Beth Anne Steele, would not comment on the manner in which the crops were destroyed “…because we don’t want to encourage copycats.”  However, an article published on OregonLive.com demystified the FBI’s account, quoting Paul Minehart, head of corporate communications in North America for Syngenta: “It doesn’t look like a vehicle was used. It looks like people entered the field and destroyed the plants by hand.”

When multinational corporations like Monsanto have already succeeded in genetically modifying the political system, splicing in their ex-executives and ex-lawyers into positions of great power within the government [see image above], how can folks rely on these Monsanto, Dow and Sygenta-influenced regulatory agencies, and the enforcement arms within their control, to make decisions in the interest of their health or basic civil rights?

Some resort to pulling up, burning and otherwise destroying the plants themselves. Are they terrorists or freedom fighters? And if you answer affirmatively to the latter definition, will you yourself be defined as sympathizers to these “economic saboteurs,” or terrorists?

The World Marches Against Monsanto

Yesterday, May 25, 2013, huge numbers of people all over the world took to the streets to protest Monsanto and demand an end to genetically modified foods. Below are images from just some of those marches.

MAM1LA

Los Angeles, CA

MAM2lasvegas

Las Vegas, Nevada

MAM3DC

Washington, DC

MAM4miami

Miami, Florida

MAM5columbus

Columbus, Ohio

MAM7anchorage

Anchorage, Alaska

Demonstrators hold banners during a rally against Monsanto Co. and GMOs, in Valparaiso

Valparaiso City, Chile

MAM9savanaah

Savannah, Georgia

MAMashevilleNC

Asheville, NC

MAM11buenosaires

Buenos Aires, Argentina

MAMdallas

Dallas, Texas

MAM10sac

Sacramento, California

MAM12portlandME

Portland, Maine

MAM22tokyo

Tokyo, Japan

MAM14sandiego

San Diego, California

MAM18vienna

Vienna, Austria

MAM17NYC

New York, New York

MAMcincinnati

Cincinnati, Ohio

MAM27melbourne

Melbourne, Australia

MAM26capetownsouthafrica

Cape Town, South Africa

MAM25Munich

Munich, Germany

MAM24Amsterdam

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

MAM23London

London, England

MAM21paris

Paris, France

MAM20stpetersburgrussia

St Petersburg, Russia

MAM19chicago

Chicago, Illinois

MAM16olympia

Olympia, Washington

MAM15sanfran

San Francisco, California

PNG - Monsanto protest png0525Ndemo-06

Vancouver, Canada

Food and Water Watch released a new report today summarizing the advocacy group’s analysis of over 900 diplomatic cables obtained by Wikileaks. The report, called “Biotech Ambassadors: How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed Industry’s Global Agenda,” describes the State Department’s “concerted strategy to promote agricultural biotechnology, often over the opposition of the public and governments, to the near exclusion of other more sustainable, more appropriate agricultural policy alternatives.”
According to Food and Water Watch:

The U.S. State Department has also lobbied foreign governments to adopt pro-agricultural biotechnology policies and laws, operated a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology and challenged commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules — even including opposing laws requiring the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods.
Food & Water Watch closely examined five years of State Department diplomatic cables from 2005 to 2009 to provide the first comprehensive analysis of the strategy, tactics and U.S. foreign policy objectives to foist pro-agricultural biotechnology policies worldwide.


Read Food and Water Watch’s press release about the report here.

Food and Water Watch released a new report today summarizing the advocacy group’s analysis of over 900 diplomatic cables obtained by Wikileaks. The report, called “Biotech Ambassadors: How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed Industry’s Global Agenda,” describes the State Department’s “concerted strategy to promote agricultural biotechnology, often over the opposition of the public and governments, to the near exclusion of other more sustainable, more appropriate agricultural policy alternatives.”

According to Food and Water Watch:

The U.S. State Department has also lobbied foreign governments to adopt pro-agricultural biotechnology policies and laws, operated a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology and challenged commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules — even including opposing laws requiring the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods.

Food & Water Watch closely examined five years of State Department diplomatic cables from 2005 to 2009 to provide the first comprehensive analysis of the strategy, tactics and U.S. foreign policy objectives to foist pro-agricultural biotechnology policies worldwide.

Read Food and Water Watch’s press release about the report here.