What are the Predisposing Factors that make the mentally disordered perpetrators as well as victims of violence?

 This essay will examine the role of mental disorder in the aetiology of violence, using some heinous examples to support the arguments presented.

 It is widely agreed that many prisoners suffer with mental illness and  psychological fragility (Corston Report 2007). However one must be mindful of the fact that the Equality Act of 2010, and similar laws preceding this legislation, stipulate that the disabled must not suffer any discrimination whatsoever. Therefore, even the title of this module “crime, mental illness and dangerousness” may be called into question as it plainly infers that the mentally ill or disabled have a propensity towards violence. This is plainly discriminatory as the prevalence of violence is ubiquitous in our society. Indeed “nature red in tooth and claw” is an accepted truism of the animal kingdom of which we are undoubtedly a part. The doctrine of “survival of the fittest” dictates that the aggressive hunter will bring home the bacon while the timid and timorous will starve to death. Therefore mankind undoubtedly evolved to be an ingenious as well as a vicious enemy (Darwin 1872; Dawkins 1989; Buss 2005).

That healthy and strong specimens of all species are aggressive predators is an accepted truism. However, most of us belonging to the Homo sapiens species endeavour to keep the baser instincts in check via exercising gargantuan self control! This is no mean feat as we are hard wired for aggression. Our brains contain neural structures such as the limbic system and hippocampus that elicit aggressive behaviour when stimulated.

Sometimes these structures become abnormally stimulated as a result of an organic pathology. For example let us take the case of a homicidal killing spree where the crazed perpetrator finally shot himself with his weapon. An autopsy found a massive brain tumour in the limbic system. This interesting case indicates how an organic malfunction of the brain may lead to violent acts. If the limbic system was not wired for aggression then the irritating tumour may have elicited other strange behaviour. An organic pathology of the brain known as Capgras Syndrome, may result in the belief that a loved one is an imposter masquerading as a real person (DePauw & Szulecka 1988). This once caused a sufferer to murder the “robot that is pretending to be my Mother”!  Capgras syndrome is caused by damage to the right hemisphere, possibly as a result of a stroke or epilepsy. Many strange behavioural syndromes may be caused by damage to the delicate brain (Sacks 1985).

 Other cases of explosive violence have occurred after ingestion of red wine containing congeners and histamines. There is no doubt that a strong link exists between alcohol consumption and violence. This is partly due to the disinhibitory effect of alcohol on the brain. This ties in neatly with our previous assertion that our baser impulses need to be constantly reined in by our executive command which is situated in the prefrontal

lobes. The prefrontal lobes are essential for forward planning and self control (Giedd et al 1985; Sowell 1999). Damage to these areas, following a traffic accident, may result in impulsive and aggressive behaviour. Any brain damage can result in personality changes that may lead to violence or even homicidal hypersexuality.

 Drinking alcohol depresses neural activity in the reasoning cerebral cortex with the result that latent lurking tendencies to violence are unleashed. Certain people also have a genetic intolerance to alcohol which means that they are unable to metabolise it in their liver. They may also have a mutation of the liver enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase. This defect is very common in Chinese and Japanese people who may turn bright red if they consume alcohol. Others may react to alcohol by becoming excessively violent and have no recollection whatsoever of their behaviour. We do not tend to call lager louts mentally disordered yet their behaviour clearly represents a risk to the public. The Saturday night is great for a fight ethos may lead to serious injuries, and much violence occurs as a consequence of inebriation.

Following the same line of enquiry of substance misuse, there is a danger that certain drugs may elicit violent behaviour. Stimulants such as cocaine may leave the user vey paranoid (Barton 2003; Bean 2008). Other legal highs such as the bath salt Ivory Wave may lead to a paranoid psychosis. The new super strength Skunk may leave smokers feeling very paranoid owing to the high levels of  tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).This type of  strong cannabis has been bred via genetic modification of seeds. Many of these recreational drugs raise levels of the brain neuro transmitter dopamine. Dopamine levels have been correlated with pleasure. For instance, a strong cup of coffee will raise dopamine levels as does gambling and sex.

However, excess dopamine may cause pleasure to become paranoia. The phenothiazine drugs used to treat schizophrenia work by lowering brain levels of dopamine. Heavy skunk smokers may experience paranoid psychosis and imagine that people are talking about them behind their backs.  A chef high on skunk stabbed Abigail Witchells in the back of the neck leaving her to bring up her children in a wheel chair. A paranoid person may feel that people are mocking him or even following him. The paranoid delusions may become all encompassing and this is when a dangerous scenario may emerge. Paranoia is clearly correlated with the aetiology of violence. A label of paranoid schizophrenia may be given by a forensic psychiatrist or the person may escape unlabelled if the episode is a transitory one.

 The whole issue of labelling mental illness is a large and possibly vexatious one that has been discussed by numerous psychologists (Szasz 1960; 1963; Laing 1960; 1961; 1964)).  There was also an interesting study whereby psychiatrists pretended to be insane and hallucinating and were admitted to hospital. Once inside they behaved normally yet the staff refused to release them or recognise that they were “cured” of their psychosis! (Rosenhan 1973).

  Notwithstanding the difficulties of constructing mental illness it is an indisputable fact that paranoia is the flip side of aggression and is a worrying forensic symptom. Indeed Sigmund Freud wrote that paranoia was the projection outwards of a person` s inner base instincts. He called this murky subconscious repository of evil the ID (Freud 1933; 1940). So, for example, a person who did not like his mother in law might imagine that she hates him. Freud felt that the dislike of the relative had become projected out and then turned back against the perpetrator. So when we dislike someone we automatically deduce that this person does not like us. This is a simple explanation of the mechanics of paranoid thinking. It is therefore easy to understand how paranoia may lead to unpleasant acts being carried out to redress the imagined slights and insults.

For example it is well known that taking anabolic steroids may result in a paranoid syndrome known as Roid Rage (British Medical Journal). Men take steroids to bulk up their physique. However the steroids also induce rage and paranoia. The recent case of Raoul Moat illustrates the dangers of anabolic steroids. Moat was very fond of taking steroids to hone his masculine physique. He managed to continue taking them while in prison.

While in prison he heard that his girlfriend was dating a supposed policeman. Fuelled with a paranoid Roid rage he plotted revenge and as soon as he was released he embarked on a killing spree. One may speculate that had Moat not been taking steroids the tragic events might never have unfolded. Anabolic steroids taken to bulk up muscle are based on testosterone, nature` s own hunting and killing hormone. It has been

reported that there is a culture of steroid use in the Welsh valleys by narcissistic young men keen to look fetching. This desire to be real men may have resulted in the reported street brawls that have been gracing the pages of the popular press in South Wales recently (Messerschmidt 1993; 2000).

The symptom of paranoia is therefore one to be taken extremely seriously by a mental health professional. It is arguably a very salient red flag warning of future violence. A paranoid person is not usually amenable to reason either. If a paranoid person imagines that others are plotting to kill him then he may decide to launch a pre-emptive strike to protect himself.

The paranoid person may think that the person who is following him is intent on harm. A whole set of elaborate and interconnected delusions may be constructed around the delusions of persecution. If he is a patient in a hospital he may suspect that the staff members are out to get him. This scenario has resulted in mental hospital staff sometimes tragically being murdered. Paranoia is an extremely dangerous warning sign, yet it is often ignored. Sometimes patients have indicated that they are experiencing paranoid urges of violence to their psychiatrist and they are inexplicably gaily sent on their way to the outside world. They are then free to commit heinous and barbaric acts as they attempt to eliminate the perceived threats.

Sometimes the paranoia takes the form of voices that encourage wicked deeds. The Yorkshire ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, heard compelling voices telling him to rid the world of prostitutes. It has been speculated that such voices are the result of the inner articulations that are made when one thinks to oneself. In other words these voices are the very own thoughts that have been amplified by unknown neural processes. Thus the Yorkshire ripper spoke angrily to himself and believed that his thoughts were extraneous. There have been numerous murders committed as a result of hearing commanding voices and this schizophrenic symptom must always be taken seriously (Eronen et al 1996; Taylor & Gunn 1999). It is possible that raised dopamine facilitates this process of hearing ones own thoughts aloud. Thus I would originally argue that paranoid schizophrenia as opposed to hebephrenic or silly schizophrenias is the most dangerous form of schizophrenia.

Another precursor of violence may be raised levels of depressive cortisol that is brought on by situations of “helplessness” as described by Seligman (Seligman 1977; 1979). In these cases normally loving Fathers may irrationally murder their children as the cortisol causes a deep and irrational fatalistic despair.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual has a whole list of mental disorders and categories to define the mentally disordered. The manual is constantly being changed and updated in line with the current zeitgeist. It seems that the manual has now become so all encompassing that we are all in danger of finding a description of ourselves in it. If I very much like the sound of my own ideas and pearls of wisdom does that mean I am a histrionic attention seeking narcissist? When does my desire for a spotlessly clean house become an ominous sign of obsessive compulsive disorder?  If I am afraid that my friends will desert me does that indicate a possible needy border line personality disorder? Just as the hypochondriac reading a medical book will start to imagine that he has every symptom so it is easy to be seduced by the fascinating range of symptoms in the DSM 1V. Indeed one may speculate that the only persons to escape a diagnostic label are the authors of such manuals!

The label of DSPD, dangerous, severe personality disorder has recently fallen out of fashion. The DSPD label has been hotly debated in the context of whether it is amenable to treatment. If someone is considered untreatable then there is no ground to detain that person in a mental institution. The whole area of civil liberties of the detention of the unwell was brought into the public arena by the Baxstrom Judgement of 1966. The case set a judicial precedent which facilitated the release of a thousand unlawfully detained inmates from hospitals for the criminally insane in New York. Interestingly there was not widespread carnage or violence as many of the detainees quietly reintegrated back into the community (Steadman & Keveles 1972). This example makes one question the skills of some mental health experts as well as the propensity to label deviant offenders as criminally insane.

Another category of offenders that may be prone to violence are those who lack fear or remorse. The term psychopath has been used to describe a constellation of traits that include callousness, egotism and lack of empathy (Cleckley 1977; Hare 1993; 2003). Recently the terms antisocial and dissocial personality have also been used to categorise those with a callous disregard for others. It has been speculated that there is an evolutionary niche for such ruthless behaviour and hence we see these latent psychopaths in the guise of successful bankers, politicians and businessmen (Babiak & Hare 2006).This type of person may possibly be inclined to ruthless and violent behaviour towards those who cross their path and attempt to thwart their ambitions. The MacArthur actuarial study found a high correlation between this type of antisocial personality and violent acts (Monahan et al 2001). The sociopath does not suffer hallucinations and generally has not lost touch with reality. He is cool and calculating and shows no fear. Indeed he may be cortically under aroused or have an abnormal amygdala which prevents him feeling fear. Therefore he or she is not technically insane according to diagnostic

 criteria. However this is a type of amoral insanity that can lead to dangerous and heartless behaviour. A sociopath running a business may cut corners and endanger the lives of others. If an offender suffers from a dissocial disorder as well as a psychotic illness then the results may be catastrophic. This co-morbidity of traits presents a serious threat to the public and such offenders need to be kept secure.

Let us examine the question of how the mentally disordered might also become the victims of violence. Those who are of a very low I.Q. and substantial learning disabilities may present an attractive opportunity for exploitation by amoral sociopaths or even normal people (Conway 1994). Just as playground children are sometimes drawn to bully the weak and vulnerable so do adults sometimes maltreat those in need of most protection. The feeble minded may unquestioningly obey orders that may endanger their lives and even embark on suicide terrorist missions if told to do so. Causing fires, as in explosions is also part of the MacDonald triad. It has been noted that some DSPD offenders have a triad of behaviours that includes a fascination with setting fires and childhood cruelty to animals. This is known as the MacDonald triad and has been used to predict sociopathic behaviour by criminologists. (MacDonald 1963).The desire to cause explosions via terrorist acts could be considered as a manifestation of this fire starting sociopathic behaviour

 Other cases of abuse may arise when a depressed person antagonises their spouse or partner with their constant moaning and groaning. This may cause the spouse to lose patience and lash out. Domestic abuse is very widespread and the neurotic partner may bring out latent hostility in their husband if they are depressed or annoyingly neurotic (Dobash & Dobash 1979; 1992).

The condition of senile dementia or Alzheimer` s disease may also lead to geriatric abuse by family or professional carers (Nadien 1995). There have been numerous scandals involving abuse of elderly patients in care homes by their supposed nurses. This condition can make the sufferer behave in an extremely exasperating manner and therefore poses a real challenge to the carers. Many have lost patience and slapped their patients (Wolf 1998).

It is often the case that those in a position of power or authority may be tempted to abuse that power. This finding was demonstrated by the infamous Stanford Prison experiment conducted in Stanford University (Zimbardo 1972). The pretend student prison guards behaved in such a bullying manner to the fake prisoners that the experiment had to be halted. People are easily corrupted by power and this has important implications for the weak and vulnerable in our society. Any person who is suffering from a mental disorder is therefore vulnerable to exploitation and even violence. A balance therefore needs to be struck between protecting the public and respecting the human rights and civil liberties of the patient.                                                                       (Words-2500)

     

                                                    

References:-

Babiak, P. and Hare R.D.(2006), Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go To Work, New York: Harper Collins.

Barton,A. (2003) Illicit Drugs, London: Routledge.

Bean, P.  (2008) Drugs and Crime, Cullompton: Willan.

BMJ, British Medical Journal 1996 Personality changes due to “roid rage” published September 21 313-707  http://www.bmj.com/content/313/7059/707.1.extract accesed 2011-02-26

Buss, D. M. (2005) The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind is Designed to Kill. New York: Penguin Press

Cleckley, H. (1977) The Mask of Sanity 5^th edition, St. Louis: Mosby

Conway, R. (1994) “Abuse and Intellectual disability: a Potential Link or an Inescapable Reality?”  Australian  and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities. Vol 19:3, pp. 165-171.

Corston, Baroness, the Corston Report- 13 March 2007- Women in the Criminal Justice System. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice .

Darwin, C. (1872 a) The Origin of Species, New York: Macmillan, 6^th edition, 1962

Dawkins, R. (1989) the Selfish Gene,  Oxford,  OUP.

DePauw, K. W.  and Szulecka, T. K.  (1988)   “Dangerous Delusions, Violence and the Misidentification Syndromes”, British Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 152,  pp.  91 -96.

Dobash, R.E., and  Dobash, R. D (1979) Violence against Wives,  New York; Free Press.

Dobash, R.E. and Dobash, R.D. (1992) Women, Violence and social change, London; Routledge

The Equality Act (1 October 2010) Government Equalities Office, http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_act_2010.aspx accessed 2011-02-26

Eronen, M. Tilhonen, J. and Hakola, P. (1996) “Schizophrenia and Homicidal Behaviour”, Schizophrenia  Bulletin, Vol. 22, pp. 83-89.

Freud, S. (1933) New introductory lectures on Psychoanalysis,  translated by Strachey, J. New York:  Norton 1965.

Freud, S. (1940) An outline of psychoanalysis, translated by Srachey, J.

 New York: Norton 1970

Giedd et al (2005) NIMH, “the  adolescent brain, a work in progress.”

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/resources/pdf/BRAIN.pdf

 Hare, R. D. (1993) Without Conscience: the Disturbing World of Psychopaths Among Us, New York: Pocket Books.

Hare, R. D. (2003)  Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist (2^nd edition) Toronto, Canada Multi Health Systems. 

 Laing, R.D. (1960) the Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and

 Madness. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

 Laing, R.D. (1961)  the Self and Others. London: Tavistock Publications.

 Laing, R.D. and Esterson, A. (1964)  Sanity, Madness and the Family.

  

 London: Penguin Books.

 MacDonald, J.M. (1963) the Threat to Kill, American Journal of Psychiatry, 120; 125-130

Messerschmidt,  J. W. (1993), Masculinities and Crime .Lanham, MD; Rowman and Littlefield..

Messerschmidt, J.W (2000) Becoming real men; adolescent masculinity challenges and sexual violence, Men & Masculinities, 2 (3), pp.266-307.

Monahan, J., Steadman, H., Silver, E., Appelbaum, P., Robbins, P., Mulvey, E., Roth, L., Grisso, T., & Banks, S. (2001)  Rethinking Risk Assessment: The MacArthur Study of Mental Disorder and Violence. New York: Oxford University Press.

  Nadien, M. B.   (1995) Elder Violence (Maltreatment) in Domestic

 Settings:  Some Theory and Research” in  Adler and Denmark (eds) Violence and the Prevention of Violence,    Westport USA: Greenwood Publishing Group.

 Rosenhan, D.L (January 1973) “On being Sane in Insane Places”

  Science (New York, N.Y.) 179 (70): 250–8.

  Sacks, O. W. (1985)   The Man who mistook his Wife for a Hat

t

  Touchstone Books

Seligman, M.E.P. (1975) Helplessness, On Depression Development and Death.  San Francisco;  Freeman.

Seligman, M. E. P (1977) Submissive Death;  Giving up on Life. Psychology Today pp. 80-85.

 Sowell et al, (1999)”In vivo evidence for post adolescent brain maturation in frontal and striatal regions” ; Nature Neuroscience ,vol. 2          p.859 

 Steadman, H.J. and Keveles, G. (1972) “The Community Adjustment and criminal activity of the Baxstrom Patients” : 1966-1970, American

 Journal  of Psychiatry 129:304-310, September 1972

 Szasz, T.S. (1960) the Myth of Mental Illness, AmericanPsychologist,15,

  pp. 113-118.

Szasz, T. S. (1963) Law, liberty and Psychiatry, New York: Macmillan.

Taylor, P.J. and Gunn, J.  (1999) “Homicides by People with Mental Illness” British Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 174, pp. 9-14.

Wolf, R.S. (1998) “Domestic Elder Abuse and Neglect” in Nordus and

VandenBos (eds) Clinical Geropsychology, American Psychological

Society. Washington DC  USA

Zimbardo, P.G. (1972). The Standford Prison  Experiment; A slidetape presentation produced by Philip G. Zimbardo, Inc., P.O. Box 4395, Stanford, California 94305 (b).

Wood burning stoves: Carbon footprint fallacy

Many home owners have rushed to install wood burning stoves in the belief that they are lowering their carbon footprint and helping to save the planet. This idea was originally proposed by Caroline Lucas and the Green Party. They believe that burning wood was preferable to burning coal, which is a fossil fuel that releases carbon when burnt. 


Unfortunately this is a case of not being able to see the wood for the trees. Many trees are now being cut down to provide wood for these fashionable stoves. This is clearly an ecological nightmare. Trees are the lungs of the Earth and keep the air clean and oxigenated. By cutting down trees the Earth's climate will not be improved in the slightest. The people that devised these theories were politicians not scientists. 


It is true we should not be too reliant on burning coal. However, burning wood is not a viable alternative. The wood smoke is extremely injurious and carcenogenic to health. It is very unpleasant for neighbours as well who are forced to enhale the noxious smoke. 


Finally regarding the issue of the climate: cutting down trees will eventually precipitate another ice age. This is because from space trees appear dark and therefore absorb radiation and heat. On the other hand, ice reflects heat back into space via the albido effect. By cutting down trees the world will become rapidly cooler and we are certainly due another ice age soon. Billions of people will die if another ice age arrives. Throughout history we have regularly dipped into ice ages and this is the norm. Remember, pollution has been proven to cool temperatures. We are currently polluting the atmosphere with aircraft and woodstoves, car emissions and so on. If a major volcanic eruption occurs temperatures will become even cooler. 


The Green Party popularised the idea of global warming as a means to gain votes. The carbon myth has proved to be very lucrative for politicians and businessmen. Eminent scientists such as Professor Hal Lewis have spoken out against this myth. We should prepare for another ice age soon and be turning our attention to clean technology such as nuclear fusion.

PHARMACEUTICAL CRIME, SFO AND OPERATION HOLBEIN

  The vast profits to be made from pharmaceuticals encourage sharp business practice. Great caution is needed when appraisal is made of pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZenica, Allergan, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and the hundreds of other brand names. Indeed a cursory glance at the very lengthy list of worldwide pharmaceutical companies will reveal that there must be a huge market for their wares. In the annual Fortune 500 survey the pharmaceutical industry has regularly made an appearance (Fortune Global 500 2007). Sharp business practice is routinely employed by these pharmaceutical giants.

 In December 2010 the premises of Astrazenica were raided by EU officials investigating collusion and price rigging (Duke 2010). A series of co-ordinated raids on Astrazenica offices in Europe unfolded as competition officials swooped without warning. The probe centred on a heartburn medication known as Nexium. Astrazenica deny any violation of EU antitrust rules that prohibit restrictive business practices. If found guilty the companied involved will face a hefty fine. The EU suspects that they planned to delay the entry of a generic drug into the market place. Generic drugs are copycat versions of drugs that are manufactured once the original patent has expired.

This causes the original price to plummet. The EU believes that stalling tactics have been used to delay the entry of generic copies of medicines into the markets in clear violation of competition rules. The very important implication of this sharp business practice is that health authorities such as the NHS lose billions of pounds a year as generic copycat versions are usually much cheaper. The makers of well known heartburn remedy Gaviscon, Reckitt Benckiser, were recently fined ten million pounds for over-charging the NHS (Tobin 2010).Clearly it is in the interests of pharmaceutical companies to behave themselves as such scandals invariably lead to a fall in the share prices.

 The Serious Fraud office (SFO) launched an eight year long investigation into five drug companies known as Operation Holbein in 2002 (SFO 2002). More than a million computer drives and files were seized from the homes and offices of the six companies involved (Bowers 2005). The police arrived with search warrants for six pharmaceutical companies but no arrests were made. The six companies accused were Generics U.K. Ltd., Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Regent-GM Laboratories Ltd., the Gold Shield Group Plc., Norton Healthcare Ltd., and Ranbaxy U.K. Ltd. The SFO accused the drug companies   of conspiring to defraud the NHS through a price fixing cartel. Unfortunately for the SFO the case was thrown out of court on a technicality by Lord Justice Pritchard (Goswami2011) leaving an eight year investigation in tatters. The reason that the case failed was that the indictment by the SFO was for price-fixing and price-fixing in itself is not a criminal offence. This defeat in a Court of Law has also has caused speculation as to the future of this Government body. The case was a very expensive one but all is not lost a fortunately the NHS has managed to recoup £34 million from the drug companies with the assistance of the Department of Health with civil as opposed to criminal proceedings. The civil proceedings were simple because the drug firms did not have a case and could settle without accepting liability. It is rather touchingly poignant that the operation was probably named after a “portrait of a gentleman” by the artist Hans Holbein that hangs on the wall of the office of the SFO deputy chairman. If only there were more true gentlemen in the unscrupulous world of business. The SFO were right to attempt to bring criminal proceedings against these ruthless companies that were attempting to milk the NHS of billions of pounds with the price-fixing of drugs such as Warfarin that is used to thin the blood in those with thrombosis (Bowers 2005). Altogether at least thirty drugs were involved at great expense to the struggling NHS. Although the SFO was unsuccessful in this case it seems that harsh criticism of this taskforce by journals such as The Lawyer is unmerited.

 The SFO has a long list of successful prosecutions to its credit. These include the sentencing in 2008 of five men involved in a ten billion US dollar worldwide Ponzi scheme. Two of the men were former British policemen and one was even a lawyer. The fraudsters were selling gold shares, a commodity, that had did not exist and had not even been mined. Ponzi schemes are fraudulent investment scams that pay the investors dividends using other investors` money rather than from the profits of the actual business venture itself. In effect they are robbing Peter to pay Paul. In some cases there is not even a genuine business venture and the whole edifice is as flimsy as a pack of cards. It is difficult to comprehend that there are so many criminals willing to perpetrate such scams upon naïve and trusting investors. Other high profile examples of Ponzi frauds are the Enron scandal and the Madoff scandal in America.

MONSANTO AND GM FOOD INNOVATION

Monsanto is also heavily involved in genetically modified (GM) food production and other biotech farming innovations.

 Monsanto invented a means to make a hormone to boost milk production in cows using recombinant DNA technology in 1994. This synthetic growth hormone was called recombinant Bovine Somatotrophin or rBST. It is banned for human consumption in Europe and many countries.  Only the United States allows its use for milk production. The Codex Alimentarus Commission has banned rBST as unsafe. This is a United Nations food organisation that sets international safety standards. It was established in 1963 to protect the safety of consumers and to promote fair trade practices. Greenpeace has previously attempted to curb the greed of Monsanto. In 2005 Monsanto tried to lay claim to breeding techniques for ordinary farm house pigs.  The omnipotent Monsanto claimed that its patented discovery uses a special insemination device.Monsanto is also heavily involved in genetically modified (GM) food production.

They would have farmers believe that their heavily patented seeds are the panacea to their farming problems. Many poor third world farmers are vehemently against the technology as it will strip them of their fundamental rights. The patenting of GM seeds mean that impoverished farmers will be forced to purchase the GM seeds for their crops each and every year. The seeds are designed so that crops cannot be sown using last years crop seeds as was done in days gone by. This forces the farmer onto a treadmill that he can never escape from. The farmer becomes completely dependant on the bio technology firm and can never again be truly self sufficient. The genetically modified seeds are designed to maximise the profits of Monsanto at the expense of the farmer`s independence. Meanwhile consumers want to know if eating GM food is safe.

In 1995 a research scientist at the Rowett Institute of Agriculture in Aberdeen conducted an experiment with lab animals to ascertain the safety of GM crops. His name was Arpad Pusztai. To his consternation the scientist observed that all of the animals eating GM transgenic potatoes were malnourished and failing to thrive. He also discovered kidney damage while the control animals eating Desiree potatoes remained healthy. Arpad said that he certainly would never eat GM potatoes himself after seeing the results of his three year study. He published his scientific paper in 1999 in the Lancet and there ensued a witch hunt. The poor scientist was ridiculed and hounded out of his job. One might speculate as to whether dark forces were behind this persecution as his work contract was not renewed. He gave lectures on his work and I was privileged to hear him speak at the Oxford Union Debating Chamber on June 14 1999. The motion was “This House Would Not Continue to Feed GM Food Material to Farm Animals” The Chamber was full and the Gallery was packed.

Proposing and defending the Motion were Dr.Arpad Pusztai, Norman Baker, M.P. and John Ingham, an environment correspondent. Opposing the Motion were Harry Kershaw for Agrevo Ltd., and Novel foods Ltd. Spokesman Professor Burke. They argued unconvincingly that the risks from eating GM food were akin to being run over by a bus. They plucked this argument out of thin air and it was not backed up by any peer reviewed  scientific process. The opposing side argued that no tests had yet shown that GM foods were safe for human consumption. Arpad Pusztai  spoke convincingly of his research and of the potential danger of rushing to embrace the technology. The Motion was won by 478 votes against 207 votes which greatly pleased Dr. Pusztai.The moral high ground may have been won that day but the sad truth is that big business will always ultimately triumph.

 In 2011 the GM lobby has regrouped, and reformed to become even more powerful and unassailable. They are endlessly promoting the wonders and absolute safety of their technology. Today the GM giants have teamed up with the global warming lobby in an unassailable combination. They have argued that GM technology is vital to prevent hunger that is induced by crop failure due to global warming. By teaming together the biotechnology giants have improved their credentials. They have marketed their brand as caring for planet earth. GM multinationals have employed highly credible University professors to lecture on how GM crops are vital to deal with global warming droughts and crop failure. I personally attended such a lecture in Oxford. Some members of the audience walked out in disgust. It was very enlightening of the modus operandi of the GM giants. A very positive spin was put on the technology with an emphasis on how food production would be increased to feed the world. I felt somewhat doubtful of the speaker who was a academic now working to promote biotechnology business. It cannot be just and equitable for companies to take control of farming in this way using IP legislation.

Farming has been around since the Neolithic era when man ceased being solely a hunter gatherer and began to settle in stable communities. The Neolithic era commenced circa 9000 B.C. and heralded a new era of settlement and innovation as energy was freed up from pursuing an itinerant hunter gatherer lifestyle. As communities evolved around the farmed fields so new forms of pottery and culture came into being. The new idea of sowing seeds and reaping corn, oats, barley and maize caused an exponential leap in evolutionary progress for early humans. This wonderful idea of farming that has been around for thousands of years is now completely under threat by this “brave new world” of biotechnology. How can it be possibly right that the age old tradition of farming is now under threat from companies such as Monsanto? If these giants have their way farming, which has been around for ten thousand years, will cease to exist in its traditional sense.

 Many third world farmers are worried and angry but their voices are being drowned out by the powerful GM companies` public relations machines. Slick and clever marketing campaigns embellish a shiny gloss on the transgenic GM seeds. We are constantly being told how wonderful these new patents are. The crops will be free of blight and pests and so on. The biotech giants head hunt reputable academics with long standing professional credentials. They then pay handsome wages to have their wares promoted to the cynical public by such respectable Professors. No mention is made of the lack of safety trials in humans.

There have been a few incidents where things have gone seriously awry but very few members of the public are aware of these. One such incident involved genetically modified celery. The splicing of genes resulted in the celery containing far too much of an ingredient known as psoralen. Psoralens can cause extreme photosensitivity in those who ingest them. This can result in serious skin burns and DNA mutations. In   June 2004 American workers producing   GM celery were so badly affected by psoralens when working with GM celery that they could never go out in the sunlight again. This negligence was all the more startling as the dangers of psoralens in GM celery had already been red flagged on previous occasions by other agricultural scientists (Prakash 2001). The levels of teratogenic psoralens in GM celery have frequently been found to be thousands of times higher than the safety level by agricultural scientists. These celery crops are genetically bred to be resistant to insects.

It is the acme of arrogance for biotech companies to believe that they can surpass Mother Nature.

 The evolution of plants on our planet has taken hundreds of thousands of years of painstaking evolution. Indeed Mother Nature produces her own insecticides to protect her beloved plants from predators. The humble potato and tomato contain a natural alkaloid known as solanin. This alkaloid deters many predators. In experiments to produce GM potatoes and tomatoes it was found that they contained dangerously high levels of solanin . This is potentially very dangerous especially for pregnant women who are advised to avoid consuming the green bits on potatoes or crisps. The reason for this is that the green bits on potato contain the solanin alkaloid that has been proven to harm the unborn child (Solanaceae Factsheet 2000).Since the GM process invariably disrupts the levels of plant alkaloids there is due cause for concern. Let us not forget that deadly nightshade is a member of the same phylogenetic family as the potato and tomato.

Clearly there is cause for consumer concern here as well as for the environment.

It appears woefully apparent that proper trials using human guinea pigs have not been conducted to ascertain safety of GM foods.

In England Government guidelines require buffer zones of 200 metres between GM crops and conventional crops. Fears that bees may carry the GM pollen to distant fields have been found to be correct by the National Pollen and Aerobiology Research Unit (Skogsmyr, 1994). The NPARU study found contaminated pollen can reach a distance of five kilometres away from the GM crop.. This is of great concern to organic farmers whose crops may be ruined. Beekeepers also face a five thousand pound fine if their certified organic honey is sold containing GM pollen.  The technology has already been used a great deal on soya crops which have been genetically modified to work synergistically with Monsanto produced pesticides. Thus the whole farming industry becomes a symbiotic process. Many consumers have already eaten GM soya without being aware of the fact. A decade ago I became partial to a Tesco value soup which was very tasty and cheap. I ate a lot of the product and after a month felt very unwell with no obvious cause. Eliminating all causal factors by a process of elimination I decided to look at the soup that I had recently been consuming with relish. Listed on the ingredients in extremely minute writing was the prime suspect: genetically modified soya. I immediately stopped purchasing the soup and started to recover from the mysterious lethargy. I also wrote to complain to Tesco Head Office and subsequently that particular soup disappeared from the shelves. They must have realised that this product had not undergone human safety tests when they initially placed the product on the shelves.

MONSANTO AND ROUNDUP

The powerful biotechnology company Monsanto is also the manufacturer of Roundup herbicide weed killer that has received massive marketing. It is used all over the world. In England and Wales Roundup is routinely used by all the City Councils to spray the verges by the pavements. The operatives wear masks as they indiscriminately spray the poison at every green living plant in sight. One regularly sees the Roundup being sprayed at homeowners` front gardens and herbaceous borders. Sometimes the weeds are in fact attractive primroses but they are sprayed anyway. The consequences of all this heavy use of weed killer in residential environments should be highlighted.  Monsanto assures us it is harmless but this is hard to believe in the light of their track record. Those who walk their dogs along the pavements should be concerned as the pets are immediately exposed to the herbicide. This may result in expensive trips to the vet. The ugly results of Roundup are everywhere to see. There are brown patches of dead grass bordering green turf and large clumps of yellow vegetation. It looks messy and it is not benefiting the urban environment in any way. City Councils would be wiser to send an operative to manually remove the few weeds that may be covering drains, although the main issue is that of litter obstructing drains. Instead there is the unhealthy situation where Councils have been seduced by Monsanto and entire streets and gardens are being sprayed. I once caught a Council worker spraying weed killer into my front garden path and explained that it was private property. Furthermore weeds are an essential part of the eco system and provide food for insects and butterflies. Let us not forget that Monsanto manufactured Agent Orange in the 1960`s for the Vietnam War. They are devoid of scruples. Monsanto also produced DDT in the 1940`s for crop spraying. DDT was eventually banned after wide publicity from “Silent Spring” a book by environmentalist Rachel Carson.  The planet loving heady days of the sixties and seventies have now been superseded by the twenty first century concerns of global warming.  The new eco warrior of 2011 is far more concerned about temperature rise and the actions of Monsanto` s herbicide Roundup and Aspartame marketing are being somewhat ignored. The biotechnology giant has never had it so good as environmental groups devote their energy to carbon cutting instead of limiting the far more deadly synthetic poisons being produced by Monsanto all over the globe.

MONSANTO AND DIOXIN PRODUCTION

 Monsanto has also produced dioxins as a by product via manufacturing plastics which are some of the most toxic substances known to mankind. Dioxins are fat soluble and may build up in the food chain. Recently in 2011 dioxins entered the food chain when 14 million tons of liquid egg was contaminated with industrial waste dioxin. This liquid egg was then used to make numerous cakes for supermarkets in England and Wales. Despite knowing of the problem the cake distributors did nothing to remove the products for several weeks by which time an unknown number had been purchased and consumed. Morrisons and Tescos had the dioxin egg in its cakes. The dioxin came when biofuel was mixed accidentally with animal feed in Germany. Thousands of tonnes of liquid egg were contaminated and then dispersed through the food chain in the U.K. Clearly the food retailers were putting their profits above consumer safety here. The supermarkets breezily issued a statement saying that there was no health risks involved. The amount of dioxin adulterant found was 77 times the maximum safe dose. Dioxins are dangerous carcinogens and have no place whatsoever in food for human consumption (BBC News 2011). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a statement saying that it did not have a definitive list of the supermarkets that had purchased the contaminated cakes, but Tescos and Morrisons were two that were known to them. This type of vague information does not inspire consumer confidence. Really, it is hardly surprising that many consumers are so concerned about the safety of their food that they are increasingly turning towards organic food that is hopefully of a purer quality. Dioxin contamination of food is not as rare as one might wish for. In 1999 dioxins were found in poultry and eggs in Belgium. Again the source of contamination was waste industrial oil containing PCB which was fed to the poultry. One has to critically question how such potentially dangerous alleged “mistakes” keep occurring. It seems barely credible that an operative could mistake toxic waste for animal feed. It is fortunate that such problems are picked up from time to time. These incidents make one question the safety of food. It is hard to comprehend why farmers would feel that clay should constitute a nutritious constituent of animal feed. No wonder so many consumers are demanding unadulterated or organic foodstuff. One cannot help but wonder how often such errors escape detection and what other strange adulterants are making their way into our food and drink.

In 1997 in America poultry and eggs were found to contain dioxins. Once again the dioxin was found to be in the animal feed. The feed was manufactured using clay as an ingredient. The clay was found to contain dioxin presumably from natural volcanic sources. Even if the dioxin was from a prehistoric eruption, one has to question why the manufacturers thought that clay should be a constituent of animal feed. One of the first visible symptoms of dioxin poisoning is a skin condition known as chloracne, which leaves the sufferer with boils and scarring. In September 2004 the Ukranian Presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned at a dinner party with dioxin. Shortly after eating he felt very ill. Hospital tests found intestinal lesions but the cause was still unknown. Later he developed cutaneous lesions and hard facial lumps known as chloracne. He was diagnosed as having extremely high level of dioxins in his bloodstream and subcutaneous fat. He still went on to win the Presidential election despite the assassination attempt (Stirling 2005). The dioxins will remain in his body fat for years to come and he certainly has had a lucky escape.  In 1976 a huge explosion in Seveso in Northern Italy released a plume of dioxin into the atmosphere. Many animals died but there were no human fatalities (Mocarelli et al 1999).

Another scandal that has contaminated the food chain was the scandal of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), popularly known as “mad cows disease”. This frightening illness emerged when 400,000 infected cattle entered the food chain during the 1980`s. The U.K. was the worst affected country in Europe and millions of cattle were eventually slaughtered. The disease is caused by a prion that homes in on the brain and nervous system, slowly destroying it. The incubation may take as long as ten years after the initial consumption of tainted beef products. The problem originated when cattle that are herbivores, were fed animal bone meal feed contaminated with scrapie, a prion disease from sheep brains (Collee 1990). So far there have been nearly two hundred deaths with many more expected because of the long incubation period of several years. It seems that the consumer has a lot to be wary of.

MONSANTO AND ASPARTAME : PURE WHITE AND DEADLY, THE KILLER SWEETENER

Many years ago Professor John Yudkin wrote an inspiring book detailing the health dangers of consuming too much white sugar. Without doubt his medical analysis that unrefined sugar causes diabetes and a host of other ailments was correct. In days gone by, only the wealthy had access to white sugar and they paid the price with missing teeth. Nowadays sugar is cheap and plentiful and we are paying the price for our love of this sweet addictive nutrient with tooth decay and rising rates of type two diabetes.

There is now an accepted consensus that an unrefined diet including wholegrains is conducive to robust health. Sugar that is unrefined may be purchased as black sweet molasses. Molasses is a delicious product rich in iron, and other micro-nutrients essential for good health such as chromium. Molasses is the discarded product of refining sugar. Jars of this sticky and syrupy substance may be purchased from many health shops. Molasses is seldom used however, despite it being the healthier option. Supermarkets are well stocked with bags of clean, white sugar, convenient and not messy to use. Brown sugar is also sold that may contain varying amounts of the health-giving molasses.

Refined white sugar is a very condensed form of energy and its consumption can lead to weight problems. The whole issue of being overweight is an enormous one. no pun intended! Consumers who have enjoyed the readily available calorie rich and tempting products abundant in supermarkets find themselves with an unwelcome weight problem. This epidemic of obesity has spawned a huge weight loss industry. Part of this industry includes the lucrative market in calorie free sugar substitutes. This huge and profitable global market in artificial sweeteners which will now be discussed. When corporate malpractice impinges on our health and safety then immediate and prompt action is required.

The artificial sweetener saccharin is well known and contains nil calories. This sweet tasting molecule is a petroleum by product and you would be wise to avoid it. It is a proven carcinogen that has been shown to cause bladder cancer. These risks are even greater for cigarette smokers. This sweetener has found its way into many cheap drinks and it would be wise to avoid such drinks. Unfortunately they are very widely available in the drinks displays and fridges of most stores. Sometimes it is impossible to purchase a healthy drink and the consumer is forced to buy the unhealthy option to assuage his or her thirst.

On the one hand there are rows of sugar laden drinks, while on the other there are rows of artificially sweetened drinks. Occasionally there are healthy drinks based on water and a hint of real fruit but this is rare.  Those who frequently consume fizzy drinks containing sugar have increased risk of serious illness. A high correlation with obesity and tooth decay has been shown. There are also concerns that such drinks lead to pancreatic cancer one of the most deadly and incurable of all cancers. The pancreas is involved in sugar metabolism since it produces insulin with the islets of Langerhans. The prognosis for surviving pancreatic cancer is in the region of four per cent. Therefore it is prudent to avoid such drinks containing many spoons of sugar such as Coca Cola and Pepsi.

In January 2011 Coca Cola got into trouble with  the Advertising Standards Authority watchdogs for claiming that their Vitamin Water drinks were highly nutritious. Since these drinks are laden with several spoons of sugar they are not deemed to be health promoting. The ASA watchdog banned Coca Cola from using the word “nutritious in future advertising campaigns.

 Those who turn to Diet Pepsi in the belief that it is the healthier option  are seriously mistaken. They often contain the dangerous artificial sweetener Aspartame which will now be discussed at length.

Aspartame is a trademark product of the huge Monsanto Corporation, having been purchased from the Searle Corporation many years ago. Aspartame may be known as Nutrasweet or Canderel and is widely present in diet foods and drink. Most products designated as “ Lite” contain aspartame including very low calorie yogurts and squash drinks. These products are frequently purchased by weight conscious consumers but they are deadly to health. Indeed these artificially sweetened products may be even more deadly than those sweetened with refined white sugar. Aspartame has been designated as a dangerous neurotoxin shown to cause brain tumours so how did it come to be legally approved?

The substance was first discovered in 1965 by a chemist working for the Searle company named James Schlatter. The sweet tasting substance comprises of forty per cent aspartic acid, fifty per cent phenylalanine, and ten per cent methanol. Searle then began conducting safety trials with animals. Soon after the trials began the laboratory animals, mice and monkeys, began experiencing adverse symptoms. They suffered epileptic type seizure and deaths. Autopsies found their brains to be full of lesions, holes and brain tumours. Methanol is a constituent of Aspartame and is widely known to be damaging to brain cells. To put it bluntly, methanol kills brain cells. The studies showed that Aspartame is a highly neurotoxic, carcinogenic and addictive substance. Despite the dangers the company, Searle, cleverly managed to persuade the Food and Drug administration (FDA) that the product was completely safe. The FDA gave their approval for limited use of Aspartame in 1974. A complaint was launched against the FDA` s decision and the product was banned when investigations showed that Searle had manipulated the data and used poorly designed studies. For example, the animals that had developed brain tumours had the tumours surreptitiously removed by surgery. The FDA revoked its licence and banned Aspartame.

Subsequently Searle hired Donald Rumsfeld in 1977 as their new CEO. Donald Rumsfeld later became famous in his role of United States Defence Secretary in 2001. Rumsfeld set about reviving the company fortune with vim and vigour. He sacked a lot of staff and changed them for political high fliers with powerful connections. The dynamic Rumsfeld and his new team, continued to push for FDA approval for Aspartame. Despite the major offensive to get Aspartame approved the FDA decided in 1980 that the product was conclusively shown to cause brain tumours in animals and was too dangerous to approve for human consumption.

Then in 1981 Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld became an important part of his political team. They managed to appoint a new head of the FDA who would amenable to persuasion. They appointed Dr. Hayes as the new head of the FDA. One of his first actions in his new post was to approve the use of aspartame in dry foods in 1981. In 1983 Dr. Arthur Hayes also approved the use of aspartame in liquids and beverages. Dr. Hayes was criticised for corruption and for accepting bribes and so he left the Government post in 1983. However he was not without a job as he moved straight into the Public Relations offices of Searle the company behind Aspartame.

Within weeks of Aspartame being approved for beverages cans of sweetened drinks flooded the markets. An intensive advertising and marketing campaign began to persuade the public that these drinks were better for them and would keep their weight down. Aspartame has been in use ever since and is now in at least nine thousand different food and drink products world wide. In 1985 the company Searle was bought by Monsanto and Donald Rumsfeld received a twelve million dollar bonus for his marketing skills. One dreads to imagine how many people worldwide have become ill through excessive consumption of Aspartame-laced products. The animal studies provided incontrovertible evidence that the sweetener caused brain tumours and lymphomas but they were over-ruled and suppressed by Searle and now Monsanto.

The metabolites produced in the body after consuming Aspartame are all extremely neurotoxic. Neurotoxicity means that the substances cause the death of neurons or brain cells that cannot be replaced. These metabolites include formaldehyde, formic acid and methanol (Roberts 2001). Aspartame is addictive and so there is the danger of consumers becoming hooked on this poison and ingesting far more than their bodies and minds can deal with. Children are especially at risk due to their size and developing brains. Aspartame kills brain cells as well as causing brain tumours. Aspartame liberates free methyl alcohol which causes chronic methanol poisoning. Drinking “meths” amongst alcoholics is well known to cause blindness and deterioration of the optic nerve. Aspartame contains exactly the same product, as meths, methanol, that is proven to damage eyesight. Many angry Americans allege that Aspartame damaged their eyesight or even caused the deaths of family members from seizures. Every single ingredient in Aspartame can cross the blood brain barrier. These substances are highly neurotoxic and harm the brain. The animal studies that were conducted in America conclusively found that it caused brain tumours. Yet today many children are drinking aspartame sweetened drinks, often without their parents realising what a dangerous additive it is. Many parents are rightly concerned that their children avoid consuming additives and artificial flavourings and colourings. There can be no doubt that the most dangerous additive of all is Aspartame and yet it is very widely prevalent in food and drink. Many children drink low calorie squash. Parents may believe that such drinks are better for them than conventional sugary squash. This low calorie fruit juice is frequently given to children at schools. This dangerous sweetener is worryingly omnipresent and most parents are blissfully unaware of the danger. Since the product is highly neurotoxic one has to question whether learning disorders have increased in children throughout the world since the product was given the green light in 1983. This is a very worrying concern and one that warrants substantial attention. Children are even more vulnerable to toxins than adults and may be consuming dangerous amounts on a daily basis.

Furthermore those who believe that aspartame will facilitate weight loss will be disappointed to hear that there is no evidence that this is the case. In fact the opposite has been found. Aspartame consumption may lead to weight gain. Why should this be the case? It appears that the phenylalanine in aspartame confuses the brain. When a craving for sweet food strikes it is usually because the body is low on energy and needs carbohydrates. Therefore reaching for aspartame sweetened food is not going to provide carbohydrate and the phenylalanine stimulates the protein receptors rather than satiating the glucose receptors. So the person continues to feel hungry and will eventually succumb to an eating binge of high calorie food having attempted first to stave off their hunger with low calorie “lite” products. Phenylalanine is also very dangerous to those who are allergic to it and to those who lack an enzyme to metabolise it. These people are known as having the genetic disease of phenylketonuria known as PKU. Sufferers of PKU must never consume the amino acid phenylalanine from birth or they will incur brain damage. New born babies are now routinely screened for PKU at birth with a small pin prick blood test on their foot.

The breakdown products of Aspartame damage DNA and have been shown to facilitate leukaemia. Donald Rumsfeld may have earned himself a nice bonus but at what cost to innocent lives? Aspartame is also an excitotoxin and consumers rapidly get hooked on it. As it drives the mind into a manic excited state Aspartame simultaneously destroys brain cells. The methanol constituent of aspartame breaks down in the body to formaldehyde, a proven carcinogen. . Formaldehyde is in the same category of poisons as arsenic and cyanide. The products change the actual brain chemistry and this can lead to seizures mimicking epilepsy. The Environmental protection agency gave an absolute  maximum limit for methanol consumption of no more than seven mg a day. It is easily possible to exceed this limit seven fold with diet drinks containing aspartame. A bill was written to try and get the product banned for pregnant women by Senator Howard Metzenbaum and for warnings to be displayed in America but it was thrown out by the powerful corporations involved in the business.  Dr. John Olney founded the medical science of excitotoxicity and attempted to get aspartame banned in 1996 in America without success.

Monsanto is well known as being a company involved in the marketing of genetically modified products known as GMO`s. It was found that Monsanto produced Aspartame using a secret genetic engineering process using bacteria. Aspartame is not only found in food and drink but in many pharmaceutical products such as Gaviscon, Lemsip and cough medicines. The EU has banned aspartame for children` s medicines in Europe but it is so widely present that it is impossible to avoid without a total outright ban.  I once had to take a large sachet of penicillin and it was sickeningly sweetened with Aspartame. I would have preferred an unsweetened version, knowing the toxicity of the sweetener. It seems apparent that the product is finding its way into myriad pharmaceutical products and the consumer sometimes has no choice but to take the poisoned medicine. Even Sugar Free vitamins may contain Aspartame so it is worth reading the small print on the labels. It is often difficult to read the extremely small print on labels. Large health warnings should be placed on products warning consumers. Aspartame, a known toxin, is a constituent ingredient. Following a rash of lawsuits and bad publicity Monsanto sold the product, sometimes known by brand name Nutrasweet to J.W. Childs in the year 2000.  J, W, Childs Associates is a private equity firm that specialises in leveraged buyouts and recapitalisation of middle market companies .