+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 72

Thread: Monsanto Losing Grounds

  1. Link to Post #41
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,027 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    USDA Censoring Anti-Monsanto Science?

    A USDA hotline is blowing up with complaints from government scientists about censorship of science, begging the question:

    Who does the USDA work for? Consumers and farmers—or Monsanto?



    Last weekend’s Washington Post featured a front-page article about the mounting allegations of scientific censorship at the USDA, often to appease politically powerful agricultural companies like Monsanto.

    You heard that right: when independent, government scientists produce research that threatens corporate agribusinesses, the USDA—according to at least 10 government scientists—censors the results, waters down the findings and punishes the researchers.

    The poster boy of this complaint is USDA scientist Jonathon Lundgren whose scientific work showing the problems with the industrial model of agriculture, including the expanding use of pesticides with GMO production, is threatening the bottom lines of private companies selling these products, like Monsanto.

    And a problem for Monsanto is a problem for the USDA.

    That’s because the line between corporate agribusiness and the USDA is extremely thin. The biotechnology industry pours hundreds of millions of dollars into politics, including campaign contributions and lobbying. This influences who we elect to make laws—and who these elected leaders appoint to important policy positions, like USDA Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, a vocal supporter of GMOs. Or consider Roger Beachy, a leading GMO advocate with Monsanto ties, who, until recently, headed up USDA’s main research funding arm.

    In this climate, the allegations that scientists are having difficulty pursuing research that might challenge corporate agribusiness are hardly surprising. Dr. Lundgren’s notes that he was disciplined by the USDA, among other reasons, for giving a presentation at the National Academy of Sciences but not submitting proper paperwork. As the Washington Post notes, when other researchers commit the same bureaucratic sins, they are not disciplined.

    In a video of Lundgren’s presentation, he discusses Bt crops, which are GMOs engineered to contain an insecticide, which the industry loudly claims is supposed to limit the scope of insecticide use. Lundgren and a few other brave scientists are doing the unthinkable—actually conducting independent investigations into the science and publishing their results. They show that with the widespread use of GMO corn, many parts of the country have seen more acres treated with insecticides, not fewer—including a highly toxic class of insecticides called neonicotinoids, widely attributed to serious environmental safety issues, including declines in bee populations.

    This model of agriculture—vast monoculture acres of GMO corn treated with insecticides—is broken, Lundgren all but said at the National Academy: “The question should not be can we raise crops without the need of insecticides. The question should be what’s going to happen if we don’t?”

    He went on to describe four veteran commodity farmers who have abandoned insecticides and, in one case, synthetic fertilizer, replacing these expensive inputs by planting cover crops, rotating crops, increasing biodiversity and reducing plot sizes. These measures improve production, including yield.

    These farmers’ practices pose a major threat to corporate agribusinesses, which depend on farmers purchasing expensive GMO seeds, fertilizers and pesticides each year. And that appears to be Lundgren’s cardinal sin, advocating for a common-sense model of agriculture that threatens the bottom lines of companies like Monsanto.

    USDA’s position that Dr. Lundgren is a renegade researcher might be more credible if he were the lone whistleblower. But he’s not. Nine other USDA researchers have made similar complaints. And, according to the inspector general of the USDA, a “significant volume” of new claims have been pouring in to her office’s hotline.


    Related:
    USDA whistleblower claims censorship of pesticide research
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  2. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    animovado (28th April 2016), Bill Ryan (28th April 2016), DeDukshyn (12th March 2016), Eram (12th March 2016), fourty-two (13th March 2016), Krist (13th March 2016), onawah (13th March 2016), PathWalker (30th March 2016), peterpam (15th June 2016), seko (13th March 2016), Wide-Eyed (31st March 2016), william r sanford72 (30th March 2016)

  3. Link to Post #42
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,027 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Will Monsanto Feed the People They Poison?

    By Dr. Mercola March 15, 2016


    If you're still on the fence wondering if Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) crops are a good thing or a bad thing for the environment and human health, a look at this company's sordid past may help make up your mind.

    While Monsanto refers to itself as a "sustainable agriculture" company delivering products that support farmers, be aware that they've spent many years to try and rehabilitate their image.

    Prior to their foray into the seed business, Monsanto was (and still is) a producer of toxic chemicals responsible for widespread death and suffering.

    One such chemical was polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Once heralded for its ability to prevent electrical fires, it has since become known as one of the most toxic and environmentally persistent chemicals ever created.

    And now, a chemical safety bill could shield the company from all legal liability related to its widespread destruction.

    'Monsanto Clause' Lets Monsanto off the Hook for Environmental Destruction
    Congress is in the process of updating the Toxic Substances Control Act, a 40-year-old piece of legislation in serious need of overhaul. Once reformed, the Act will determine how the chemical industry is regulated, including which chemicals are allowed and who can sue over any related problems.

    That latter part is important, especially when faced with the type of devastation caused by chemicals like PCBs. But the House of Representatives has slipped in a clause that many are calling a "gift" to chemical giant Monsanto; the paragraph shields the company from legal liability related to PCBs.

    Monsanto produced almost all PCBs sold in the U.S. — all 1.25 billion pounds of them.1 If the clause is allowed to remain in the Toxic Substances Control Act, PCB lawsuits against Monsanto by state and local governments and individuals would be blocked. States would also be blocked from passing PCB regulations.

    As reported by The New York Times, Monsanto insists it did not ask for the clause to be added, and the House denies it is a "gift."2 If you believe Monsanto had nothing to do with this clause, they also have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

    Now city officials and lawyers involved in suing Monsanto to recover cleanup costs associated with PCBs or receive compensation for related health problems are protesting the "Monsanto Clause." According to The Times:3
    Quote "Taxpayers and public entities would be left holding the bag to pay hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions of dollars cleaning up Monsanto's PCBs,' said John Fiske, one of the lawyers representing the six cities suing to collect money from the company to help cover cleanup costs.

    Monsanto has not yet argued that the cities are barred from suing, but Mr. Fiske says he is certain that if the legislation passes, the company will make that argument.

    Ms. [Charla] Lord [a company spokesperson] says Monsanto bears no responsibility for cleanup costs in cities like Seattle, San Jose and San Diego.

    'PCBs served an important fire-protection and safety purpose,' she said in a written statement. 'If these products were improperly disposed of, Monsanto is not responsible.'"
    Monsanto Knowingly Produced Global Environmental Contaminants
    Monsanto was one of the producers of Agent Orange, which is arguably the opposite of a sustainable product — not only in the areas where the chemical was intentionally applied but also in areas near to its manufacture.

    Byproducts from the manufacture of Agent Orange were dumped into New Jersey's Passaic River for decades, and today it is thought to be one of the most contaminated waterways in the U.S.

    Then there are the PCBs, which were manufactured from the 1930s through the 1970s, when they were finally banned in 1979 after their carcinogenic potential was revealed.

    PCBs have also been linked to fertility, reproductive and endocrine damage along with neurological effects, including damage to learning and memory. The chemicals were used in many manufactured products, from electrical equipment and plastics to flooring and industrial products.

    Various lawsuits, from individuals to municipalities, are now trying to hold Monsanto accountable for PCBs' widespread pollution.

    Monsanto (and Monsanto-related entities) is now facing at least 700 lawsuits on behalf of people who claim their exposure to PCBs caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma.4 And their environmental assault is just as bad.

    More U.S. Cities Sue Monsanto for Polluting Local Waterways
    The City of Seattle has filed a lawsuit against Monsanto for PCB pollution. They want Monsanto to pay to help clean up pollution it caused in the Duwamish River and also wants to hold Monsanto responsible for making the river's fish too contaminated to eat.

    The city alleges that Monsanto knew all along that PCBs were toxic but continued to market them anyway. According to The Seattle Times:5

    Quote "The city's arguments in court will include two particularly sobering points: Monsanto has long known of the toxicity of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and the city of Seattle has suffered and will continue to suffer damages.

    … Monsanto's protective veneer is a mantle of corporate restructuring, but there has been a $700 million settlement with an Alabama community … Seattle says Monsanto intentionally concealed the certainty of global contamination in order to maximize profits."
    In 2002, Monsanto was found guilty of decades of "outrageous acts of pollution" in the town of Anniston, Alabama, where it dumped PCBs into the local river and secretly buried the toxic chemical in a landfill.6
    Internal documents revealed Monsanto had full knowledge of the severity of the pollution problem it caused for at least three decades, and decided to ignore it.

    San Diego has also sued Monsanto for polluting the Coronado Bay with PCBs.7 In addition to Seattle and San Diego, San Jose, Oakland and Berkeley, California and Spokane, Washington have also filed lawsuits against Monsanto for continuing to produce and promote PCBs despite knowing their hazards.8

    Monsanto Sues California to Withdraw Glyphosate on Its Carcinogen List
    California environmental officials intend to add glyphosate to their Proposition 65 list of cancer-causing chemicals. Established in California in 1986, Proposition 65 requires consumer products with potential cancer-causing ingredients to bear warning labels.

    Rather than label their products sold in California as likely carcinogenic, most companies reformulated their product ingredients so as to avoid warning labels altogether, and they did this on a national scale, not just in California.

    Monsanto, however, is trying a different strategy. They filed a lawsuit in an attempt to block California from listing glyphosate as a known carcinogen. As reported by Alternet:9

    Quote "The State relies on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) — the world's leading authority on cancer — as the basis for listing chemicals that are known or probable carcinogens under Prop 65.

    In 2015, IARC concluded, by a unanimous decision, that glyphosate is 'probably carcinogenic'

    In its lawsuit, Monsanto is challenging the State's use of the IARC listings, claiming that it is unconstitutional for a State agency to rely on findings from an International organization, no matter how well respected that organization is (one of IARC's major funders is the U.S National Institute of Health, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)."
    The Center for Food Safety (CFS) has filed a motion to intervene to defend the listing of glyphosate under Prop 65. Meanwhile, a group of European NGOs, including environmental group Global 2000, sued Monsanto and the European Food Safety Agency.

    The suit alleges that they distorted scientific data on the cancer-causing effects of glyphosate. The Nation reported:10

    Quote "There are suspicions that EU authorities and the industry tried on the basis of incorrect data analysis to keep glyphosate in the European market despite its likely carcinogenic effects on humans,' said Global 2000's lawyer, Josef Unterweger."
    Monsanto's Grass Gone Wild
    In 2003, with the permission of the USDA, Monsanto and Scotts performed a field trial of experimental GE grass, which, like Roundup Ready crops, is impervious to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. The trial was conducted in Central Oregon on a 400-acre plot near the Crooked River National Grassland.

    The grass, a type of GE creeping bentgrass that was being designed specifically for use on golf courses, turned out to be extremely hardy — so hardy that Oregon Live described it as "nearly impossible to eradicate."11

    The experimental test plot was shut down and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns that the grass could negatively affect endangered species in Oregon. But by then it was too late. The grass had already spread beyond the test plot, including into the national grassland preserve.

    More than a decade later, the invasive GE grass is still a problem in Oregon. Monsanto and Scotts are growing tired of the battle, and, as is the case with Monsanto and PCBs, are looking to be let off the hook.

    So, they petitioned the USDA to deregulate (i.e. remove restrictions) the GE bentgrass seeds, which is typically done when a company wants to bring the product to market. The companies claim they will not sell the seeds in the future, which means they're seeking deregulation for another purpose. Namely, if the GE grass is deregulated, Monsanto and Scotts will not be liable for any damage related to their "grass gone wild."12,13 As explained by Oregon Live:14

    Quote "The reason they are willing to go through the long, expensive deregulation process is simple: If the USDA grants their petition, the ongoing invasion suddenly becomes Oregon's problem, not Scotts' and Monsanto's. Equally troubling is that, once the bentgrass is deregulated, the USDA would no longer have the authority to monitor whether Scotts and Monsanto keep their word about not selling these seeds.

    With the recent approval of Roundup-resistant Kentucky bluegrass and tall fescue turfgrass, these companies are moving aggressively to dominate the grass seed market. And, without any legal hurdles in their way, there could be extreme pressure to eventually sell these seeds."
    Monsanto Wants to Keep You in the Dark About Their Toxic Products
    It's not surprising that Monsanto is trying to keep people in the dark about the health risks associated with PCBs and glyphosate. They've also spent millions to defeat GMO labeling initiatives, so you won't know which foods contain their genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

    In 2013, the company donated nearly $5 million to the anti-labeling campaign in Washington State, and in 2012 they donated more than $7 million to help defeat California's Proposition 37. Together with the food and industrial agriculture industries, biotechnology companies like Monsanto spent more than $101 million on lobbying to avert GMO labeling and preempt state rights, and that was in 2015 alone.15

    They may feel defeat is near, as such lobbying efforts have risen sharply. For instance, these industries spent $66 million on such lobbying efforts in 2014 and just over $25 million in 2013.16 The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), whose 300-plus members include Monsanto, Coca-Cola, and General Mills, is among those pushing a Congressional bill called the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014."

    The bill, dubbed the "DARK" (Denying Americans the Right to Know) Act, would preempt all states from passing GMO labeling laws. It would also bar states from enacting laws that make it illegal for food companies to misrepresent their products by labeling GE ingredients as "natural."

    Last but not least, the DARK Act would also limit the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) power to force food companies to disclose GE ingredients. They are trying to HIDE the presence of genetically engineered ingredients and are pulling out ALL the stops to do so.

    Monsanto Shares and Profits Are Tumbling
    Shares of Monsanto dropped 7.5 percent in early March, a sign that the company's utter disregard for humankind may finally be catching up to them. They also issued a profit warning they're blaming on low global crop prices and a strong U.S. dollar. Barron's reported:17
    Quote "Monsanto (MON) cut its 2016 earnings guidance today, a fact that has made its shares the worst performer in the S&P 500. Its guidance cut could also have an impact on other chemical companies, including DuPont (DD) and Dow Chemical (DOW)."
    If you'd like to get involved, particularly in stopping the "Monsanto Clause" that will shield Monsanto from PCB liability, you can sign the petition "Don't Let Monsanto Get Away with Poisoning Anniston!"

    What You Need to Know About GMOs
    Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or genetically “engineered” (GE) foods, are live organisms whose genetic components have been artificially manipulated in a laboratory setting through creating unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacteria, and even viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.

    GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is “safe and beneficial,” and that it advances the agricultural industry. They also say that GMOs help ensure the global food supply and sustainability. But is there any truth to these claims? I believe not. For years, I've stated the belief that GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet. Genetic engineering is NOT the safe and beneficial technology that it is touted to be.

    The FDA cleared the way for GE (Genetically Engineered) Atlantic salmon to be farmed for human consumption. Thanks to added language in the federal spending bill, the product will require special labeling so at least consumers will have the ability to identify the GE salmon in stores. However, it's imperative ALL GE foods be labeled, which is currently still being denied.

    The FDA is threatening the existence of our food supply. We have to start taking action now. I urge you to share this article with friends and family. If we act together, we can make a difference and put an end to the absurdity.

    QR Codes Are NOT an Adequate Substitute for Package Labels
    The biotech industry is trying to push the QR code as an answer for consumer concerns about GE foods. QR stands for Quick Response, and the code can be scanned and read by smart phones and other QR readers.

    The code brings you to a product website that provides further details about the product. The video below shows you why this is not an ideal solution. There’s nothing forcing companies to declare GMOs on their website. On the contrary, GE foods are allowed to be promoted as “natural,” which further adds to the confusion.

    These so-called "Smart Labels" hardly improve access to information. Instead, by making finding the truth time-consuming and cumbersome, food makers can be assured that most Americans will remain ignorant about the presence of GMOs in their products. Besides, everyone has a right to know what's in the food. You shouldn't have to own a smartphone to obtain this information.

    Vermont's mandatory labeling law is scheduled to go into effect July 1. Now, Monsanto is going with the only strategy it has left to block it — a Senate version of H.R.1599, also referred to as the DARK (Denying Americans the Right to Know) Act. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan) introduced the bill, which would preempt Vermont's GMO labeling law, and replace state mandatory labeling laws with a federal voluntary labeling plan.

    Fortunately, on March 16, the Senate rejected the bill, falling far short of the 60 votes it needed in its favor to pass. This is great news, but though the DARK Act was defeated, it's not over yet.

    Roberts said he would still work to find another way to preempt the law, and majority leader Mitch McConnell changed his vote from YES to NO for procedural reasons. This allows him to bring up the bill again later if a compromise is created, and the creation of such a compromise is certainly already underway.

    Vermont's law is set to take effect on July 1. It's imperative you take action now by contacting your senators. Ask them to oppose any compromise that would block or delay Vermont's labeling law. It's critical that we flood Senators' phone lines — it's now or never for GMO labeling.
    Non-GMO Food Resources by Country
    If you are searching for non-GMO foods, here is a list of trusted sites you can visit.

    Sources and References
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  4. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    animovado (28th April 2016), avid (27th March 2016), Bill Ryan (28th April 2016), BMJ (28th March 2016), Ewan (1st April 2016), genevieve (23rd May 2016), onawah (27th March 2016), PathWalker (30th March 2016), peterpam (15th June 2016), Sammy (28th March 2016), seko (10th June 2016), Wide-Eyed (31st March 2016), william r sanford72 (30th March 2016)

  5. Link to Post #43
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,081
    Thanks
    26,977
    Thanked 47,465 times in 9,655 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    There are also links for important actions you can take at the article above or here:
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...16291709:bump:
    Last edited by onawah; 28th March 2016 at 02:12.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (28th April 2016), Hervé (27th March 2016), seko (10th June 2016), Wide-Eyed (31st March 2016), william r sanford72 (30th March 2016)

  7. Link to Post #44
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,081
    Thanks
    26,977
    Thanked 47,465 times in 9,655 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Breaking news: More Poisonous than Glyphosate
    From: The Pulse of Natural Health Newsletter
    http://www.anh-usa.org/more-poisonous-than-glyphosate/
    BY ANH-USA ON MARCH 29, 2016
    Quote Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini has now found that other, supposedly “inert,” ingredients associated with Roundup are even more dangerous than its primary toxin.
    Action Alert!Take action here:
    https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site...Action&id=2888
    For many months, we at ANH-USA have been telling you about the wide spectrum of negative health effects that are linked to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup. Last year, the World Health Organization finally declared glyphosate a “probable carcinogen.”

    Séralini’s recent study, however, shows that glyphosate alone is actually less toxic than Roundup.

    Regulators evaluate the safety of a pesticide or herbicide mainly by looking at the active ingredient—such as glyphosate—while commercial versions of pesticides contain other adjuvants that may be kept confidential by industry.

    Companies say that they add ingredients to pesticides other than the active ingredient (the chemical designed to kill weeds, pests, etc.) in order to make the product easier to spray, more readily stick to plants, store longer, and less likely to wash off in rain. These additives can make up as much as 95 percent of a pesticide. But based on this study, the adjuvants may be doing much more.

    The EPA requires that only the active ingredient be studied for medium- and long-term toxicity. Companies are not required to list inert ingredients on most pesticide labels.

    The work of Prof. Séralini and his colleagues shows just how dangerous these pesticide adjuvants can be. The team found that eight out of nine pesticides tested were up to 1,000 times more toxic to human cells than just the active ingredient.

    The authors of the study conclude that the distinction by regulators at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) between active ingredients and “declared inert” compounds is “a regulatory assumption with no toxicological basis.”

    This represents a massive failure on the part of the EPA to hold industry accountable to even basic standards of safety. The fact that so little is known about the safety of inert ingredients for human health is a scandal.

    When we do have information, the facts are hardly reassuring: according to one study, more than 200 chemicals used as inert ingredients are listed as hazardous pollutants in federal statutes governing air and water quality. Another report found that a 1995 list of inert ingredients included 394 chemicals that were listed as active ingredients in other pesticides.

    Action Alert! Write to the EPA and tell them to test entire formulations of pesticides, rather than just “active” ingredients. Please send your message immediately here:
    https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site...Action&id=2888
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  8. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (30th March 2016), Bill Ryan (28th April 2016), Ewan (1st April 2016), Hervé (30th March 2016), Omni (30th March 2016), PathWalker (30th March 2016), seko (10th June 2016), Wide-Eyed (31st March 2016), william r sanford72 (30th March 2016)

  9. Link to Post #45
    Avalon Member Omni's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st February 2011
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    3,814
    Thanks
    12,541
    Thanked 22,299 times in 3,448 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds


  10. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Omni For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (28th April 2016), Ewan (1st April 2016), Hervé (7th April 2016), onawah (31st March 2016), PathWalker (30th March 2016), seko (10th June 2016), Wide-Eyed (31st March 2016), william r sanford72 (1st April 2016)

  11. Link to Post #46
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,081
    Thanks
    26,977
    Thanked 47,465 times in 9,655 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    U.S. environmentalists sue to overturn approval of GMO salmon
    Mar 31, 2016 BY TOM POLANSE
    http://www.reuters.stfi.re/article/u...X1PE?sf=raezdw

    Quote U.S. health regulators are facing a lawsuit from a coalition of environmental organizations seeking to overturn the government's landmark approval of a type of genetically engineered salmon to be farmed for human consumption.

    The Center for Food Safety, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the Earth and other groups allege in the lawsuit, filed on Wednesday, that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) failed to consider all of the environmental risks of the fish when the agency approved it in November.

    The FDA also cleared the product, made by Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies, without having the proper authority to regulate genetically engineered animals produced for food, according to the complaint.

    The agency declined to comment on the lawsuit on Thursday. Its approval of AquaBounty salmon followed a 20-year review and was the first such approval for an animal whose DNA has been scientifically modified.

    AquaBounty is confident the FDA's approval will stand, Chief Executive Ron Stotish said in a statement. The agency was "extraordinarily thorough and transparent in the review and approval of our application," he said.

    The company has said its salmon can grow to market size in half the time of conventional salmon, saving time and resources.

    However, the FDA approval process included "an extremely limited environmental assessment" that did not fully evaluate the potential for AquaBounty salmon to escape from the facilities where they are grown, among other risks, according to the lawsuit.

    The legal challenge comes as the U.S. food industry is facing increased pressure from consumers to provide more information about the use of genetically engineered ingredients.

    General Mills Inc and other major food companies are rolling out new disclosures on products to comply with a Vermont law that will require labels on foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

    Major retailers, including Kroger Co and Target Corp, have already said they do not plan to stock AquaBounty salmon on store shelves. It is not yet available for sale.

    Activists worry the FDA's approval of the salmon will serve as a precedent for other genetically engineered food animals.

    Their lawsuit seeks to prohibit the FDA from taking further action on the fish or any other genetically engineered animal for human consumption until Congress grants an agency clear authority over such products.

    The case is Institute for Fisheries Resources et al v Sylvia Mathews Burwell et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 16-cv-01574.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (28th April 2016), Bill Ryan (28th April 2016), Ewan (1st April 2016), Hervé (7th April 2016), seko (10th June 2016), william r sanford72 (1st April 2016)

  13. Link to Post #47
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,027 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Burkina Faso - Top African producer - bans GM cotton

    April 24, 2016

    Burkina Faso, Africa's top cotton producer and the sole West African nation to venture into biotech farming, is dropping genetically-modified (GM) cotton on quality grounds.

    The world's 10th largest cotton producer, with four of its 19 million people dependent on the "white gold", Burkina Faso earlier this month said it was giving up Monsanto's GM Bt cotton because it had proved uneconomical.


    © Reuters/Munish Sharma Farmer Darshan Singh plucks cotton from his damaged Bt cotton field on the outskirts of Bhatinda in Punjab, India, October 28, 2015.

    Burkina took up GM cotton in the 2000s in the hopes of bumping up returns on what was then its top export product, surpassed in 2009 by gold.

    But the country's association of cotton producers now say GM cotton, though producing higher yields, has caused a drop in crop quality.

    "The cotton fibre we are producing today is short," Burkina Faso's new President Roch Marc Christian Kabore told AFP this month.

    Fibre length is key in textiles with longer ones tending to produce stronger yarns because they allow fibres to twist around each other more times, also enabling higher spinning speeds.

    But the shorter fibres now being produced from Burkina's GM cotton "means that in market terms it's an activity which is no longer very attractive for us," the president said.

    The government, he added, has taken steps "to underpin the sector ... and help producers."

    'A battle won'
    Those measures include tens of thousands of dollars worth of seed and fertiliser subsidies as well as price controls for producers to offset market falls.

    Burkina's Inter-professional Cotton Association (AICB), grouping the country's main producers and the national cotton farmers' union, is now targeting "100 percent conventional" production, Wilfried Yameogo, director of Sofitex, Burkina Faso's main cotton company, said earlier this month.

    "It's a battle won," added Christian Legay of the national council of organic food processors, an umbrella organisation of consumer groups and farm workers which wants a five-to-10 year moratorium on transgenic cotton in Burkina Faso.

    But qualms over GM products and "frankenfoods" played no role in the about-face.

    With Burkinabe cotton once prized for its purity and length of fibre, it was the fall in quality that weighed in favour of a return to conventional cotton.

    Producers say this resulted in the sector incurring losses between 2011 and 2016 of some 48.3 billion CFA francs ($82.4 million). They insist these must come back to them in the form of compensation.

    High hopes
    In the 2000s, the emergence of GM had fueled hopes of greater production and also reduced the need for fertiliser.

    This was a key issue in a region prone to drought and where cotton pests had grown resistant to eradication by pesticides.

    Insecticide-resistant caterpillars—the 'Helicoverpa armigera known as the cotton bollworm or Old World (African) bollworm—wreaked havoc on crops and producers' livelihoods in 1991, 1996 and 2000.

    GM crops were supposed to be a win-win solution—reducing the number of pesticide treatments as well as boosting yields by as much as 90 percent, boosting per hectare profits.

    Celestin Dala, a producer in Nayala in the west of the country, said that "with GM cotton two treatments are required—six with conventional."

    In 2003, Burkina authorised experimental planting by US seed giant Monsanto and Swiss multinational Syngenta. Then in 2007, Burkina launched large scale production of transgenic cotton.

    Two years later, the authorities ordered farmers to seed up to 80 percent of their crop with the GM variant, leading to a reduction in labour time and facilitating the backbreaking work involved.

    'Tactical withdrawal'
    Researchers, political and community leaders were critical of the move to launch GM crops from the outset.

    "The principal of precaution was not respected," says Jean-Didier Zongo, a genetician from the University of Ouagadougou, who accuses Monsanto of "criminal" acts. He alleges the firm provided insufficiently tested seed varieties.

    "These allegations are false," fired back Monsanto spokesman Billy Brennan.

    He said Monsanto seeds have brought about "better yields, lower pesticide dosage and greater export volumes" to produce a "positive impact on 350,000 producer farms."

    President Kabore told AFP that Burkina Faso's authorities are "pursuing talks with Monsanto".

    Though the country's producers are demanding redress for the loss of income they say they can think again in the future.

    "If in three, four or five years they (Monsanto) find a solution, there is no reason why we would not go back to towards GM", said Yameogo of Sofitex. "What we have here is a tactical withdrawal—not a total rejection of GM."

    But organic activist Legay says Burkina Faso's decision to step back from transgenic cotton is "a timely warning for other African countries".


    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  14. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    animovado (28th April 2016), avid (28th April 2016), Bill Ryan (28th April 2016), Ewan (28th April 2016), onawah (28th April 2016), PathWalker (28th April 2016), seko (10th June 2016), william r sanford72 (28th April 2016)

  15. Link to Post #48
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,081
    Thanks
    26,977
    Thanked 47,465 times in 9,655 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Last day! Tell the EPA: Ban Monsanto’s Cancer-Causing Roundup Herbicide -
    http://act.credoaction.com/sign/roundup_cancer?
    https://www.organicconsumers.org/cam...ainst-monsanto
    See more at: http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/....VuRE6QBM.dpuf
    Quote Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, is probably causing cancer in humans.

    That’s according to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) panel of cancer experts, which published its latest review of the cancer risks of glyphosate on March 20, 2015.

    The timing of this new report couldn’t be better. Why? Glyphosate is currently under review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has the power to ban its use in Roundup, or anywhere else.

    TAKE ACTION! Tell the EPA to ban glyphosate. Please add your own comments, especially if you or your family members have been sickened from exposure to glyphosate.

    Monsanto has already rushed to attack this latest science, published by credible international scientists at WHO. Just as the Gene Giant has attacked every credible independent scientist in the past.

    And it’s no wonder. Monsanto’s $6 billion in annual sales of glyphosate are at stake.

    At what point will U.S. regulators start believing the scientists, instead of pandering to Monsanto?

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not test foods for glyphosate residues because the agency says it’s “too expensive.”

    In 2013, the EPA raised the allowed limits of glyphosate residue for various crops, including soybean oil and potatoes.

    Driving the increase in glyphosate use are GMO crops that have been engineered to tolerate the constant, direct application of the herbicide. These so-called “Roundup Ready” crops—soy, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa—have generated a tenfold increase. According to Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., of Washington State University, data shows that U.S. farmers used enough glyphosate in 2014 to apply the equivalent of almost three-quarters of a pound on every acre of farmland used to grow crops. Worldwide, 99.7 percent of GMO crops are pesticide plants.

    Now that WHO has made clear that all of this glyphosate is probably causing cancer, it’s time for the EPA to take action and once and for all ban this dangerous chemical that is making people sick and polluting our environment.

    In addition to threatening human health, the use of glyphosate is destroying the monarch butterfly habitat—milkweed plants that use to thrive in corn and soybean fields. The monarch population has suffered a 97-percent loss since the introduction of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops.

    Please tell the U.S. EPA to do its job: Ban glyphosate now.
    As you continue your registration review of glyphosate, please give great weight to the World Health Organization’s panel of cancer experts, which has determined that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

    Their report was published in the Lancet:
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...134-8/fulltext

    They considered the following evidence:

    • Increased rates of non-Hodgkin lymphoma were found in occupational exposure studies of workers who handled glyphosate in the USA, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1740618/ Canada, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract and Sweden. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...3AB176A.f02t01

    • Cancers of the kidney, blood vessels, stomach, and skin were observed in laboratory studies of rats and mice exposed to glyphosate.

    • Our bodies absorb glyphosate. This is indicated by the fact that glyphosate is found in the blood and urine of agricultural workers.

    • Our intestinal microbes metabolize glyphosate just like soil microbes do. When people are poisoned by glyphosate, aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA), a metabolite of glyphosate that’s found in contaminated soil and water, is found in their blood.

    • Glyphosate and Roundup induce DNA and chromosomal damage http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...87390902929741 in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro.

    • Glyphosate, Roundup, and AMPA induce oxidative stress in rodents and in vitro.

    The World Health Organization’s conclusion that glyphosate is probably causing cancer in humans is a strong basis for EPA action to revoke glyphosate’s registration and stop human exposure to this dangerous pesticide. - See more at: http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/....VuRE6QBM.dpuf

    Created On: March 24, 2015

    - See more at: http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/....VuRE6QBM.dpuf
    Last edited by onawah; 2nd May 2016 at 23:32.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (3rd May 2016), Ewan (3rd May 2016), Omni (30th May 2016), PathWalker (3rd May 2016), seko (10th June 2016), william r sanford72 (3rd May 2016)

  17. Link to Post #49
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    1st April 2016
    Posts
    1,507
    Thanks
    2,099
    Thanked 4,852 times in 1,277 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    From their own website, about who they are:

    Prior to Sept. 1, 1997, a corporation that was then known as Monsanto Company (Former Monsanto) operated an agricultural products business (the Ag Business), a pharmaceuticals and nutrition business (the Pharmaceuticals Business) and a chemical products business (the Chemicals Business). Former Monsanto is today known as Pharmacia LLC. Pharmacia is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer Inc., which operates the Pharmaceuticals Business. Solutia is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Eastman Chemical Company, which operates the Chemicals Business. Today’s Monsanto includes the operations, assets and liabilities that were previously the Ag Business.

    To avoid buying their products, you can buy almost nothing that is in the grocery store. Most organics are owned by major players. Quit giving them money and they'll go away.

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to shaberon For This Post:

    avid (3rd May 2016), Ewan (3rd May 2016), william r sanford72 (23rd May 2016)

  19. Link to Post #50
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,027 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    France to ban glyphosate – regardless of EU vote this week


    Amy Forde 5:00 pm - May 18, 2016


    Glyphosate will be banned in France – whether or not the EU decides this week to renew the authorisation of the chemical, the French Minister for Health, Marisol Touraine has said.

    Speaking to France Info Radio, she said that the French President Francois Hollande said clearly during the last environmental conference that glyphosate would not be authorised in France.

    “Regardless of debates around whether it causes cancer or not, the studies we have show it’s an endocrine disruptor,” she said.

    The French Health Minister’s comments come as MEPs from EU Member States vote this week on the continued use of glyphosate in weed killers.

    Earlier this week, a UN committee of FAO and WHO experts found that the chemical is unlikely to pose carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.

    A joint meeting of representatives from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) was held at WHO Headquarters, Geneva (Switzerland), from May 9 to 13, 2016.

    The report comes following an European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) report in November which also found that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.

    This was in contrast to an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in March last year, which found that glyphosate probably has the potential to cause cancer in humans.

    Earlier this year, a poll by the international market research firm YouGov found that two-thirds of Europeans want the chemical banned.

    According to the survey of more than 7,000 people across the EU’s five biggest states, the banning of glyphosate was supported by 75% of Italians, 70% of Germans, 60% of French and 56% of Britons.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    meeradas (23rd May 2016), Omni (30th May 2016), onawah (23rd May 2016), seko (10th June 2016), william r sanford72 (23rd May 2016)

  21. Link to Post #51
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,027 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Great Glyphosate Rebellion Continues as Europe Refuses Temporary License Extension

    Posted on Jun 6 2016 - 1:44pm by Sustainable Pulse


    The Great Glyphosate Rebellion continues at full pace in Europe as a new European Commission proposal for a temporary license extension of 18 months failed to receive support from the European Union members states.



    The European Commission may now submit its temporary extension proposal to an appeal committee of political representatives of the 28 EU member states within one month.

    A spokeswoman for the German Environment Ministry stated Monday; “There was no majority for glyphosate in the consultations today”.

    The Commission’s plan had ignored scientific evidence that glyphosate is a probable cause of cancer and fails to limit human exposure to the herbicide, said Greenpeace.

    In April, the European Parliament called for a ban on all private uses of glyphosate, as well as spraying around public parks and playgrounds. It also opposed glyphosate spraying just ahead of harvesting, and called for the immediate disclosure of all scientific evidence used by the European Food Safety Authority to back up its claim that glyphosate is unlikely to cause harm.

    The Commission had twice failed earlier in 2016 to garner enough support from EU governments for a long-term re-approval of glyphosate, before suggesting the temporary re-approval.
    THE GLYPHOSATE BOX
    1o Things You Need to Know about Glyphosate
    5 Things You Need to Know about Glyphosate Testing
    Glyphosate in Numbers
    Related:
    European Parliament Rejects GMOs in Europe and Africa

    New EPA Report Will Lead to Virtual US Ban on Atrazine Herbicide

    US GMO Soybean Farmers’ Expenses Shoot Up over Glyphosate Resistant Superweeds

    UCSF Presentation Reveals Glyphosate Contamination in People across America

    Quote SOTT Comment: There is a growing Glyphosate 'revolution':
    Public pressure against glyphosate in countries across Europe has been intense, with nearly 1.5 million people petitioning the EU's health commissioner, Vytenis Andriukaitis, for a ban on the substance, the Guardian reported.

    After a Dutch parliament vote opposing the renewal of glyphosate's permit, the Netherlands called for a postponement of the EU-wide decision. "If there is no possibility to postpone the vote, then we will vote against the proposal," said Marcel van Beusekom, a spokesman for the Netherlands agriculture ministry.

    The move by Sweden and the Netherlands follows the announcement on Friday by French Minister of Ecology Ségolène Royal that France will vote against the EU re-licensing of glyphosate.

    Royal also added that France was not backing the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on their recent safety assessment of glyphosate and was instead basing their decision on the report of the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015, which declared glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  22. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Ewan (10th June 2016), Omni (27th June 2016), onawah (11th June 2016), PathWalker (9th June 2016), seko (10th June 2016), william r sanford72 (20th June 2016)

  23. Link to Post #52
    Avalon Member phillipbbg's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th April 2011
    Location
    In a cave learning MorseCode
    Posts
    633
    Thanks
    1,164
    Thanked 1,817 times in 533 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Mmm well it seems whilst everyone is focused on the US game of electorial thones the outgoing king is setting monuments in stone

    OBAMA SIGNS MONSANTO PROTECTION ACT
    http://universepolitics.com/2016/06/...red-senator-2/

    Even the Russians are under constant pressure by the parasitic lobbyists planted within there scientific universe_cities (corporate funded of course)

    https://www.rt.com/politics/345955-s...al-lifting-of/
    Last edited by phillipbbg; 14th June 2016 at 06:41.

  24. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to phillipbbg For This Post:

    avid (14th June 2016), Ewan (15th June 2016), Hervé (15th June 2016), Omni (27th June 2016), onawah (15th June 2016), william r sanford72 (20th June 2016)

  25. Link to Post #53
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,081
    Thanks
    26,977
    Thanked 47,465 times in 9,655 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    UH OH!!!!! bump:
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Hervé (15th June 2016)

  27. Link to Post #54
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,081
    Thanks
    26,977
    Thanked 47,465 times in 9,655 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    I traced the source of that article about Monsanto back to an article from 2013 here:
    https://www.rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill...riculture-006/
    So it's not current, though it will take more research to find out what the status of that Act is today.

    Quote Posted by phillipbbg (here)
    Mmm well it seems whilst everyone is focused on the US game of electorial thones the outgoing king is setting monuments in stone

    OBAMA SIGNS MONSANTO PROTECTION ACT
    http://universepolitics.com/2016/06/...red-senator-2/

    Even the Russians are under constant pressure by the parasitic lobbyists planted within there scientific universe_cities (corporate funded of course)

    https://www.rt.com/politics/345955-s...al-lifting-of/
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  28. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (20th June 2016), Foxie Loxie (27th June 2016), Hervé (20th June 2016), pyrangello (25th November 2017), william r sanford72 (20th June 2016)

  29. Link to Post #55
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,027 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    The GMO Big Lie dies on the vine

    by Jon Rappoport Jun19, 2016

    The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is one the most prestigious mainstream groups in America. Quoting from its website:
    “NAS is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars. Established by an Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology. Scientists are elected by their peers to membership in the NAS for outstanding contributions to research. The NAS is committed to furthering science in America, and its members are active contributors to the international scientific community. Nearly 500 members of the NAS have won Nobel Prizes, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, founded in 1914, is today one of the premier international journals publishing the results of original research.”
    You’d think the major media would dutifully parrot every NAS pronouncement. And with few exceptions, you’d be right.

    Here is an exception. In May, the NAS issued a comprehensive report: “Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects.” The report’s key finding takes in the entire period of US cultivation of GMO crops:
    “The nation-wide data on maize, cotton, or soybean in the United States do not show a significant signature of genetic-technology on the rate of yield increase.”Chapter 6, Page 66.
    A less ponderous translation: the genetic engineering of crops hasn’t resulted in rising output.

    Boom.

    Bigger yield was the whole selling point of GMOs.

    That was the innovation that was going to save the world.

    That was, and is, what the grotesque hype-artist, Bill Gates, has been trying to sell Africa.

    Incompetent scientists, sold-out scientists, brain-damaged scientists, scared scientists have all been assuring us that GMO crops produce much higher yields, and they’ve been accusing critics of standing in the way of progress for all, hatred of humanity, and ignorance of real science.

    Suddenly, their darling of darlings, the National Academy of Sciences, is pelting them with pigeon droppings from above.

    The horror.

    Not higher crops yields? What? All that gene manipulation? All that health-destroying Roundup? And what is there to show for it?

    Let’s see. Oh yes. Larger corporate profits.

    A great deal of stage magic, a host of technical incantations, a heavy dose of shuck and jive, and poof, more money for Monsanto and Dow and the other mystical babbling biotech giants.

    Jon Rappoport
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  30. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (20th June 2016), Ewan (20th June 2016), Foxie Loxie (27th June 2016), onawah (20th June 2016), PathWalker (20th June 2016), pyrangello (25th November 2017), Sierra (27th June 2016), william r sanford72 (20th June 2016)

  31. Link to Post #56
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,027 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Russian State Duma Passes Total Ban on GMO Crops and Animals

    Posted on Jun 25 2016 - 1:20am by Sustainable Pulse



    Russia’s State Duma adopted Friday the third and final reading of a government bill that introduces a total ban on the cultivation and breeding in Russia of genetically modified (GM) plants and animals, except for scientific research purposes.


    Source: tass.ru


    The Sate Duma has also given the Russian Government the right to prevent the import of products containing GMOs in to Russia, if it is revealed that a specific GMO has a negative impact on human health and/or the environment.

    Russia’s Agriculture Minister, Alexander Tkachev, stated Friday; ”The Ministry of Agriculture is strongly against GMOs, Russian products will remain clean.”

    The initial first reading of the government bill was held in 2015 and this was followed by the second reading in the Sate Duma earlier this week. The additions in the final bill included the introduction of fines that will be placed on people or companies that violate the ban: a fine of 10,000-50,000 ($150-$750) rubles for individuals and 100,000-500,000 rubles for legal entities ($1,500-$7,500).7

    The Russian Government has stood strong in the face of increasing pressure from U.S. biotech companies and they have also managed to see through the Russian pro-GMO forces’ misleading claims and pseudoscience.

    In December 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin told the Russian Parliament that Russia should become the world’s largest supplier of organic foods.

    Also in 2015, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich stated that it is not necessary to use genetic modification to feed the world, at the 12th International ‘Science and Technology in Society (STS) forum’ in Kyoto, Japan.

    This strength shown by the Russian government was also shown early in 2016 when they dealt a huge blow to U.S. farmers, by banning all imports of U.S. soybeans and corn due to microbial and GMO contamination.

    Related:
    Great Glyphosate Rebellion Continues as Europe Refuses Temporary License

    EU Appeals Committee Says No to Glyphosate Re-License

    ExtensionEuropean Parliament Rejects GMOs in Europe and Africa
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  32. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (27th June 2016), Eram (27th June 2016), Foxie Loxie (27th June 2016), KiwiElf (9th December 2016), onawah (27th June 2016), Paul (27th June 2016), pyrangello (25th November 2017), Sierra (27th June 2016), william r sanford72 (9th August 2016)

  33. Link to Post #57
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,170 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Carmody just started a separate thread on this report, which I am quite content to leave separate, as this is news that deserves both its place in this thread, and its own thread.

  34. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    avid (27th June 2016), Ewan (28th June 2016), Foxie Loxie (27th June 2016), Hervé (28th June 2016), KiwiElf (9th December 2016), onawah (9th July 2016), pyrangello (25th November 2017), Sammy (15th September 2016), Sierra (27th June 2016), william r sanford72 (9th August 2016)

  35. Link to Post #58
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,027 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Monsanto Losing Millions as Farmers in India Rebel, Plant Indigenous Seed

    Christina Sarich
    August 5, 2016


    (UR) India — Monsanto is losing millions on failed GM cotton. The company illegally pushed a form of Bt cotton into India and Africa more than a decade ago, but farmers are now pushing back by planting their own indigenous seed.

    Monsanto is accused of writing laws and then breaking them to enter the market in India, but after more than 300,000 farmer deaths between 1995 and 2013, many of them attributed to Monsanto, the company is finally paying for their misdeeds. The corporation’s greed is linked to farmer suicides throughout Maharashtra, considered the ‘Cotton Belt’ in India.

    The Indian government is now actively promoting the use of indigenous seed, and has called Monsanto out for profiteering illegally on Bt cotton seed.

    Monsanto has already lost nearly $75 million in royalties this year (5 billion rupees) due to the change in seed choice by farmers. Sales in India have fallen by 15 percent, and though this is a relatively small market share, it is still making a huge impact on the company’s bottom line.

    This could be the end of Monsanto, altogether, in India. Keshav Raj Kranthi, head of India’s Central Institute for Cotton Research said:

    “Just wait for the crucial three to four years to see a complete, natural turnaround. By then most farmers will give up Bt cotton and go for the indigenous variety.”

    Notably, Burkina Fasso in West Africa also recently rejected Monsanto’s Bt cotton seed after finding the seed produced a poor quality cotton that fetched low prices for the farmers who bothered to grow it.

    While Monsanto argues that its genetically modified seed is better, many studies state that their comparisons were not looking at hybridized and indigenous seed (not GM seeds) that give better crop quality and higher yields.

    Bt cotton is genetically modified seed which contains Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium that produces toxins harmful to a variety of insects, including, supposedly, bollworms that attack cotton; however, like weeds that have become impervious to RoundUp, many organisms become even stronger when introduced to genetic mutations of Mother Nature’s perfection. Monsanto even admits that insect resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis is ‘natural’ and ‘to be expected’.

    Indeed, the indigenous varieties of cotton have fared better against the bollworm, whitefly, drought, and other dangers that cotton farmers face.

    Monsanto (doing business in India as Mahyco Monsanto Business Limited) has even threatened to pull out of India completely, calling the bluff of a government who threatened to lower their royalties; but the government was undeterred, cut their seed royalties by 74 percent, and capped seed prices.

    This will bring much relief to cotton farmers in India, but with 96 percent of India’s cotton crop being developed with Monsanto’s Bt cotton, it could take generations to recapture the indigenous crop completely, while bankrupting the corrupt Monsanto simultaneously.

    As Sanjeev Kumar Balyan, India’s Junior Agricultural Minister has said of Monsanto, “The greed has to end.”
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  36. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Eram (8th August 2016), Foxie Loxie (8th August 2016), KiwiElf (9th December 2016), pyrangello (25th November 2017), Sierra (8th August 2016), william r sanford72 (9th August 2016)

  37. Link to Post #59
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,027 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Washington state sues Monsanto over 'omnipresent and terrifically toxic material', damage done to all waterways


    RT Fri, 09 Dec 2016 10:59 UTC


    © Brendan McDermid / Reuters / Reuters

    PCB pollution is in "every waterway in the state," Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said as he announced a lawsuit against Monsanto. It is the first time the agricultural biotech giant has ever been sued by a state.

    Polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, have been at the heart of multiple lawsuits brought against the multinational agrochemical corporation Monsanto by Seattle and Spokane, Washington, as well as cities in California and Oregon. However, this Thursday marked the first time a state government has sued the company over the potentially carcinogenic chemicals.

    The lawsuit, which seeks monetary restitution for damages and cleanup caused by the use of PCBs, was filed in King County Superior Court. Washington Governor Jay Inslee (D) and the state's Attorney General Bob Ferguson jointly announced the lawsuit in a press conference, claiming that Monsanto knew for years that it was polluting bays, lakes and rivers when it used the chemicals in coolants, hydraulic fluids, paints and sealants, Associated Press reported.

    A win for the state could potentially reap hundreds of millions of dollars from Monsanto as well as two subsidiaries, Solutia Inc. and Pharmacia LLC.

    Monsanto quit using PCBs when Congress banned them in 1979, but many say the damage had already been done and the chemicals' impact are still felt today. From 1935 to 1979, Monsanto was the only company to produce PCBs, described by Ferguson as "one of the most pervasive pollutants in history," the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported.

    Inslee called the chemicals "omnipresent and terrifically toxic," adding that "one of the highest recorded [PCB concentrations] for any place on Earth" was in Washington's southern resident orca population, according to the Post-Intelligencer.

    The US Environmental Protection Agency classifies PCBs as a likely human carcinogen that also pose a risk of severe damage to the endocrine, immune, nervous and reproductive systems. Washington state's Department of Health posted 13 different advisories against fish consumption due to risks of PCB pollution. Seattle's Duwamish River is an EPA Superfund cleanup site, and one of its hazardous contaminants is PCB.

    "Monsanto is responsible for producing a chemical that is so widespread in our environment that it appears virtually everywhere we look - in our waterways, in people and in fish - at levels that can impact our health," Inslee said at the Thursday press conference, the Post-Intelligencer reported.

    During the presser, Ferguson reportedly quoted from an internal Monsanto memo from 1937, which acknowledged lengthy exposure to PCB vapors having "systemic toxic effects." Ferguson cited other records as well, charging that the corporation hid this sort of information from the public even though it knew of global PCB pollution in the 1960s.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  38. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Cara (10th December 2016), Foxie Loxie (9th December 2016), KiwiElf (9th December 2016), norman (9th December 2016), onawah (9th December 2016), pyrangello (25th November 2017), william r sanford72 (10th December 2016)

  39. Link to Post #60
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,027 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Mexico revokes Monsanto’s permit to market GMO soy

    RT
    Fri, 24 Nov 2017 11:45 UTC


    A farmer holds corn cobs near other farmers and activists protesting against Monsanto in downtown Mexico City © Henry Romero / Reuters

    The US agrochemical company Monsanto said Mexico's agriculture sanitation authority SENASICA had revoked its permit to commercialize genetically modified soy in seven states. The company criticized the decision as unjustified. According to Monsanto, the permit had been withdrawn on unwarranted legal and technical grounds. It has warned that it would take the necessary steps to safeguard its rights and those of farmers using the technology.

    Quote RT‏Verified account @RT_com

    #Monsanto sued by Brazilian soybean farmers over GMO seed


    Workers harvest soy in a farm in Brazil © Paulo Whitaker / Reuters

    Growers in Brazil’s largest soybean producing state Mato Grosso have asked a court to cancel Monsanto’s Intacta GMO seed patent. They claim irregularities, including the company’s alleged failure to prove it brings de facto technological innovation.

    11:25 AM - 9 Nov 2017 15 replies 170 retweets 160 likes
    Mexican newspaper Reforma cited a SENASICA document saying the permit was revoked due to the detection of transgenic Monsanto soya in areas where it was not authorized. Monsanto rejected the argument, claiming the authorities had not analyzed how the soy on which their decision was based was sown.

    The revocation applies to the Mexican states of Tamaulipas, San Luis Potosi, Veracruz, Chiapas, Campeche, Yucatan and Quintana Roo. It follows a 2016 legal suspension of the permit.

    Quote RT‏Verified account @RT_com

    #Monsanto sues California over weed killer cancer warnings as it 'violate the First Amendment'


    © Charles Platiau / Reuters

    Agrochemical giant Monsanto and US farm groups are suing California to stop the state from issuing cancer warnings on the company's herbicide glyphosate, which farmers use on genetically engineered crops.

    7:18 AM - 15 Nov 2017 22 replies 135 retweets 96 likes
    As the largest producer of genetically modified seeds Monsanto has for a long time wanted to grow corn in the birthplace of maize Mexico. Several years ago, the company submitted two applications for the commercial planting of GMO corn in Mexico. Both sought 700,000 hectares (1.7 million acres) in the northwestern state of Sinaloa, the country's largest corn-producing area.

    In January, a Mexican court upheld a late 2013 ruling that temporarily halted even pilot plots of GMO corn following a legal challenge over its effects on the environment.

    Quote "We have no right to use GMOs until we understand the possible adverse effects, not only to ourselves but to future generations as well"
    - Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov.

    Related:

    GMO soy repeatedly linked to sterility, infant mortality, birth defects

    Confused About Soy?: Soy Dangers Summarized

    Soy, the 'miracle health food' with proven health risks
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  40. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Baby Steps (24th November 2017), Bruno (24th November 2017), Ewan (24th November 2017), Foxie Loxie (24th November 2017), Omni (28th November 2017), Paul (24th November 2017), pyrangello (25th November 2017), william r sanford72 (16th April 2018)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts