Steven Druker

GMOs: The Twisted Truth

Date aired: June 30, 2017

Episode Description

Although it purports to be based on solid science and the open flow of information on which science depends, the massive venture to reconfigure the genetic core of the world’s food supply has substantially relied on the propagation of falsehoods. Its advancement and very survival have been crucially and chronically dependent on the misrepresentation of reality — to the extent that more than thirty years after the creation of the first genetically engineered plant, the vast majority of people the world-over (including most government officials, journalists, and even scientists) continue to be misled about the important facts. Moreover, contrary to what people would expect, the biotechnology industry has not been the main source of the deceptions. Instead, the chief misrepresentations have been issued by respected government agencies and eminent scientists and scientific institutions.

Electronic energy meters’ false readings almost six times higher than actual energy consumption

State kept secret guidelines on safe cell phone use

  • Jane Goodall described Steven Druker’s book as “one of most important and frightening books in last 50 years”
  • She also commented on how Steve’s book describes how people subverted science,  corrupted the government and systematically deceived the public


  • Quality of food not as good as in other countries
  • Some countries will not accept US meat or cheeses (hormone, antibiotic, insecticide
  • Other countries send their toxic coffee.
  • Genetically modified foods are reconfiguring the core of the world’s food supply

Steve Druker Sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

  • Through the process of discovery, he received all of the papers and memos concerning genetically modified foods
  • The FDA handed over internal files relevant to GMO in discovery
  • There were over 44,000 pages of documents from the FDA
  • There was a politically influenced cover-up concerning the safety of genetically modified foods.
  • Facts were misrepresented as lies
  • The FDA admits they have a program to promote the biotechnology industry

Legal Issues

  • There was an amendment in 1958 (The Food Additive Amendment) that new additions to our food that do not have the history of safe use prior to 1958 are assumed unsafe, it is the duty of the manufacturers to prove safety.
  • By law every one of the GMO should have gone through safety testing. There is no legal way around this amendment
  • The FDA allowed the genetically modified foods into the marker without safety testing. They have not upheld their duty to follow the law and protect the safety of the food supply
  • Each GMO food has been brought to the market with out any testing
  • The FDA has not followed the law regarding new additives to our food

Scientific Claims

  • The FDA claims they have no information showing that food produced thru genetic engineering differ from other foods
  • The first extensive and objective scientific analysis of genetically modified foods was conducted by the FDA in 1991. Overwhelmingly, those experts concluded that:
    • The processes of genetic engineering (GE) and traditional foods were differed very different from traditional foods according to the technical experts in the agency
    • GE imposes a unique set of risks, many of them unintended.
    • Side effects include the creation of novel toxins or allergens that are difficult to detect without rigorous testing
    • Overwhelming consensus among FDA scientist that these foods need to be tested
    • They repeatedly warned superiors about the above.
    • Without requiring that they give FDA notice
    • FDA does now what GMO foods are on the marketed
  • What the law requires is same as what solid science requires.
  • Let every one of them come on the market without safety testing
  • Without requiring labeling

FDA Scientists Protested

  • One of compliance officers wrote a strong memo to agencies bio technology coordinator it is clear that the agency is “forcing a square peg into a round hole.” They protested the comment where the FDA said there was no debated concerning the safety of GMO foods.
  • The FDAs biotechnology coordinator wrote a letter to a Canadian health official admitting that there was not a consensus of safety among the scientific community.
  • The FDA denied having any information that genetically engineered foods are different from other foods.
  • Somewhere above scientist all the scientist input was covered up and was disregarded
  • The FDA lied and said there was consensus that these foods are safe and that these foods did not need to be tested yet there was no solid evidence in the scientific community
  • There was no data stating that genetically modified foods were safe.
  • The FDA knowingly brought these foods onto the market in violation of the

How Did This Happen?

  • The scientists who were developing GMO through a series of misrepresentations convinced key government officials and Congress
  • Ronald Reagan was against regulation policy to promote and speed products onto market
  • Every president since Ronal Regan supported and pushed genetically modified foods. They were mislead.
  • The Monsantos and other multinational corporations decided to invest millions in agriculture bio technology and applied bio-genetic engineering to  new crops  The applied their own political and economic pressure
  • There is an unholy alliance between large segments of the scientific establishment, the biotechnology industry, and the US Government

Other countries

  • The European commission tries to promote genetically modified foods and want to lessen the standards
  • Canada, Australia and New Zealand have gone through a similar process.
  • Government agencies that are supposed to uphold the precautionary principles are allowing within with out scientific testing.

What happened to scientists who spoke out

  • Those who spoke out about upholding scientific principles were v    ostracized, viciously attacked and denigrated for upholding
  • There were concerted attacks against their reputations
  • Even tenured faculty and emeritus professors still given problems.
  • A UK renowned researcher was viciously attacked with his research on genetically modified foods showed there were problems. One of the main sources was the Royal Academy of Science which was supposed to be the public protector
  • His research was solid and he won a contest conducted by the Scottish government for experts in food testing.  His reputation was smeared. His wife fired.  His career was destroyed although he was one of most respected food researchers.

Example of Unintended Side Effects

  • In the late 1980’s, there was a massive contamination in L tryptophan
  • contamination with eosinophilia resulted in many deaths and sickened thousands
  • The most likely cause was genetic engineering. The Japanese manufacturer decided that using genetic engineering to give the bacteria extra genes would result in generating more tryptophan in a shorter period of time.  By forcing over production of a substance that the bacteria normally produce, a strain of bacteria was produced that resulted in a highly toxic contaminant.
  • Screening did not catch this
  • The pharmacologists proclaimed the samples to be pure
  • GMO was never mentioned.
  • Unpublished research at the Mayo strongly pointed the finger towards genetic engineering.  The bacteria in question were all destroyed.  One of study leaders wrote a sworn avadavat on Mr. Druker’s research
  • Yet GMO proponents say that no component of genetically engineered foods ever harmed a human being

Research on Genetically Modified Foods was systematically suppressed

  • FDA scientists knew that genetically engineered process, contrary to promotional claims, is not surgically precise and that gene/ DNA insertions into target plants is haphazard. They cannot control where the gene goes.
  • Almost in every case, there is a forced overproduction of a gene or other substance. As the tryptophan incident shows, even if it is not forcing, there is a risk of metabolic imbalances that can lead to novel substances hat are hard to detect and that can be toxic. Could be happening with every genetically modified food on the market
  • Scientists who identified with genetically modified foods or who had a financial conflict of interest persistently deny evidence, of harm in genetically modified foods and attacked anyone who found problems with genetically modified foods. These scientists who supported genetically modified foods saw the doubters as attacking science when in fact they were upholding science.
  • Science is supposed to be a dialogue, not dogma


  • The above issues about genetically modified foods are separate from the issues of the glyphosate ( an herbicide which is used on genetically modified crops.)
  • Glyphosate seeps into the plants and dismembers our detoxification processes.
  • Glyphosate is toxic to the liver and kidneys separate from the genetically modified component. This research, which is solid, is attacked as well.
  • Research shows that round up (formula sprayed on plants) is far more toxic than just glyphosate

Revolving door between the GMO industry and the FDA

  • Michael Taylor went back and forth between the genetically modified advocate groups and important positions in the FDA
  • He was an attorney for the FDA
  • He then was a partner in major DC law firm representing Monsanto and the international biotech counsel
  • In 1991 over protests of FDA scientists, the position of deputy commissioner for policy was created especially for Taylor.
  • He was then hired as a vice president in Monsanto as the chief DC lobbyist
  • He came back to FDA under Obama as the “food czar”.

Defeated California Initiative to label genetically modified foods.

  • The industry poured 46 million dollars into confusing the public about this initiative.
  • A poll showed that the public was overwhelmingly in favor of this initiative.

Mr Druker states he is not a conspiracy theorist.  He believes in climate change as there is solid evidence.