View Full Version : Judge Threatens To Sanction Monsanto

18th March 2017, 15:08

Judge Threatens To Sanction Monsanto For Hiding Information While Overseeing 55
Cancer Lawsuits


16 Mar 2017 Posted by Kalee Brown

For years, Monsanto has been trying to hide the detrimental risks their leading
herbicide, Roundup, poses to human health and the environment. Over the years,
numerous studies have been published proving that the active ingredient in
Roundup, glyphosate, can cause cancer, miscarriages, Parkinson’s disease,
Alzheimer’s, and more.

Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence in support of the harmful effects of
Roundup, Monsanto continues to monopolize the entire North American seed
industry without government intervention. Roundup can be found all over any
non-organic food, golf courses, and soil, (as well as Organics, clothing, the
air, and your urine) despite the fact that it is a known carcinogen. However,
thanks to a federal court judge in California, Monsanto may finally be tried for
its wrongdoings and secrecy, shedding light on the truth about Roundup and the
company’s ties to the U.S. government.
The Court Case That May Change the Fate of Monsanto

On February 27, 2017, Judge Vince Chhabria declared to Monsanto that, despite
the company’s objections, numerous documents will not be kept sealed and turned
over to be used against the company. Judge Chhabria is currently overseeing over
55 lawsuits against Monsanto in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. He even threatened Monsanto that if the company
continues to pursue extensive efforts to keep important documents out of the
hands of the public, he would impose sanctions.

The court cases were filed as a result of numerous claims that Monsanto’s
Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of cancer that originates in the
lymphatic system and could potentially be caused by Roundup. These specific
lawsuits are being handled together as “multi-district litigation” (MDL) in San
Francisco, although there are tons more claims from people all over the U.S. who
developed the same type of cancer after being exposed to the herbicide.

“I have a problem with Monsanto, because it’s —- it is insisting that stuff be
filed under seal that should not be filed under seal,” Judge Chhabria explained
in the hearing. When documents are “relevant to the litigation, they shouldn’t
be under seal, even if they are not – are embarrassing to Monsanto, you know,
even if Monsanto doesn’t like what they say.”

You can read the full court transcript here.

Another questionable subject that was brought up in the hearing is the fact that
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains that glyphosate is
“likely not a carcinogen.” Why would the government knowingly support a false
claim, as it has been proven that glyphosate can cause cancer? As a result of
the EPA’s stance, there was some concern during the hearing as to whether or not
those involved in the trial would even believe experts who explain the science
behind glyphosate being carcinogenic.

People trust the establishment so readily, yet the EPA has, on numerous
occasions, colluded with oil companies and Monsanto, all of which threaten the
environment, which the EPA claims to protect. However, this case is expected to
blow the lid off Monsanto’s close ties to EPA higher-ups, including Jess
Rowland, head of the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC). A report
by that committee was “accidentally” leaked to the public at a time that was
favourable to Monsanto given its latest lawsuits.

According to court filings by plaintiffs’ attorneys, discovery documents
“strongly suggests that Mr. Rowland’s primary goal was to serve the interests of
Monsanto.” Mr. Rowland has yet to publicly address these allegations; however,
he has since left the agency and retired.

Plaintiffs state that the litigation has revealed documents proving that Rowland
was “straining, and often breaking, ethics and rules to benefit Monsanto’s
business.” Internal Monsanto communications exposed that the company pushed this
report to be published immediately in order to “preempt other potential actions
or inquiries about the dangers of glyphosate,” according to a court filing.

Further proof lies in the form of a letter from a former EPA scientist to
Rowland stating that there were significant scientific grounds for the EPA to
reclassify glyphosate from a “possible human carcinogen” to a “probable”
cancer-causing agent, but clearly Rowland ignored this expert’s opinion

The controversy surrounding the cancer-glyphosate relationship is strange, as
even the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified
glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen years ago. Numerous studies have
proven the cancer-glyphosate link (examples 1, 2, 3), but despite the
overwhelming amount of evidence, it is still being debated in U.S. courts.

Fortunately for California consumers, another California judge just ruled
against Monsanto in a case that aimed to enforce mandatory cancer warnings on
Roundup labels. Judge Kristi Kapetan finalized her ruling last week, confirming
that California will now classify glyphosate as a chemical “known to the state
to cause cancer,” in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
Enforcement Act of 1986, otherwise known as Proposition 65.

In January 2016, Monsanto filed a lawsuit against the State of California
Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) over the agency’s notice of intent to list glyphosate as a
Prop 65 chemical. After a long battle, the company finally lost and will be
forced to put cancer labels on their most popular herbicide, Roundup, in

Hopefully, now that these labels will be on their herbicides, the courts can
stop debating on whether or not glyphosate is a carcinogen. This will likely
bode well for the cases in California, but since many of the claims were made
outside of the state where the same laws don’t apply, it may have less of an
impact around the country.

Rowland and some of the higher-ups at Monsanto are set to have depositions later
in March 2017. A key hearing is set for October 2017, at which time expert
witness testimonies are expected to be presented to the judge and then trial
dates will likely begin in early 2018 (source).
Just How Toxic Is Roundup for You?

Numerous countries have banned the use of Monsanto’s Roundup, including Russia,
Sri Lanka, and much of Europe. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich
announced that Russia had “made the decision not to use any GMO in food
productions.” This is namely due to safety concerns surrounding GMOs and
toxicity of the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate.

However, in reality, there’s much more to the herbicide to be concerned about. A
study published in the journal Biomedical Research International showed that
Roundup is 125 times more toxic than its active ingredient glyphosate studied in
isolation.(1) The eye-opening abstract reads as follows:

Pesticides are used throughout the world as mixtures called formulations.
They contain adjuvants, which are often kept confidential and are called inerts
by the manufacturing companies, plus a declared active principle, which is
usually tested alone. We tested the toxicity of 9 pesticides, comparing active
principles and their formulations, on three human cell lines. Glyphosate,
isoproturon, fluroxypyr, pirimicarb, imidacloprid, acetamiprid, tebuconazole,
epoxiconazole, and prochloraz constitute, respectively, the active principles of
3 major herbicides, 3 insecticides, and 3 fungicides. Despite its relatively
benign reputation, Roundup was among the most toxic herbicides and insecticides
tested. Most importantly, 8 formulations out of 9 were up to one thousand times
more toxic than their active principles. Our results challenge the relevance of
the acceptable daily intake for pesticides because this norm is calculated from
the toxicity of the active principle alone. Chronic tests on pesticides may not
reflect relevant environmental exposures if only one ingredient of these
mixtures is tested alone. (1)

Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), revealed an even more disturbing truth: Glyphosate is possibly
“the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and
conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies.” Another study
suggested that glyphosate can cause celiac disease, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma,
kidney failure, miscarriages, infertility, birth defects, obesity, autism,
depression, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and cancer.

“It is commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest pesticides… Despite
its reputation, Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and
insecticides tested. This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial
claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to
falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions.” – R. Mesnage
et al., Biomed Research International, Volume 2014 (2014) article ID 179691

It’s not really a surprise that Monsanto refuses to admit the health risks
associated with GMOs and Roundup, as the company makes billions of dollars every
year from its monopoly on the seed industry. As a result, it’s difficult for
consumers to even know when they’re eating GMOs or other products doused in
Roundup because there’s a lack of transparency. This isn’t surprising from a
corporate perspective; however, it would be reassuring to see the government
step in and help the people instead of the corporations.

18th March 2017, 22:55
The EPA was created by the same person who took the USA off the gold standard, which is what really started the globalization ball rolling and increasing in scope exponentially, into what it is today...:

Richard Nixon.

Note the connection to the two points. Globalization, central control, dumbing down....genetic dumbing down, and population control.

Nazis and eugenicists. Fascists and oligarchy.

It should comes as no surprise that the principle corporations in the Nazi economic and global machine, I.G. FARBEN..should buy Monsanto and bring it back into the 'chemical death' fold, and be connected to the EPA, which was sponsored by US eugenicists, which supported Hitler during the war, and even financed him. And continued trading throughout the war (They manufactured German war hardware and too took the profits home! We're talking GM, ford, and so on) with the Nazis' with no repercussions and no one in the public being in the know of this.

So, the EPA being humanitarian and caring of human life? Not a ****ing chance. The cover story is that it is about health and human life, protectionist, etc.

What it is really about, is looking good, while they force globalization, death, breaking genetics down and changing it to make a serf class of moronic content.... and population control.

So this plan of Trump's to ELIMINATE the EPA (and start again) is possibly a good idea. It appears to be, if one looks at the material that is truly out there, an ANTI-FASCIST and globalization roll back plan. but....done by who, something connected to a City of London based Rothschild Goldman Sachs globalization effort? Or what?

With the right (and correct) data at hand... Trump suddenly looks to not be so weirdly crazy.

What goes on, is that the public has no idea of the backdrop of the story and what exactly the EPA can do to interfere in the USA's ability to serve it's population correctly.

So we are not privy to what is really going on, but investigation will reveal that the story I'm giving you of what the EPA is, and What Monsanto is, will turn out to be true. And what you read will be more extreme... and all provable with good solid data.... and will horrify you even more.

(the Nazis were in control of Germany again by 1952, literally the same people! -which became the core component of the EU, and then.... their fascist misogynistic psychopath friends since 1902, the House of Saud [Saudi Arabia], and this modern 'let the Muslims in' to make that war they lost in 1945 or so... finally take place...note the backdoor deal that Merkel was just caught making with turkey on refugees) (point is, the real players play deep and involved 'long games')

Why fight a violent weaponized war when a long plan with politics will allow the same, via salting the systems in use to suit? the war did not work, so they switched to a long game. Started with their temporary bedfellows and spit swappers/sharers. they both disliked the ruskies, so they blended skills and directions for awhile. The only problem is they each ended up being infected by the other in semi-permanent ways and the US eugenicists and fascists ended up with a permanent Nazi infestation problem.

Is this starting to make more sense now? With more of the hidden connective tissue being pulled from the darkness... does it seem a bit more real, these crazy things going on?

19th March 2017, 05:27
I am in total agreement with everything you have said. The Nazis are seated in all the high places of control and they intend to destroy the entire human race. More room for them.