+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 4 5 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 83

Thread: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

  1. Link to Post #61
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Bayer to investigate French media claims that Monsanto compiled file of journalists, lawmakers to sway opinions on pesticides

    Patricia Weiss, Ludwig Burger Reuters
    Sun, 12 May 2019 10:27 UTC


    Bayer CEO, Werner Baumann has defended the multi-billion dollar deal, despite huge legal costs.

    Bayer said on Sunday it was hiring an external law firm to investigate French media complaints that Monsanto, the U.S. seed maker it took over last year, had compiled a file of influential personalities.

    The German life sciences and pharmaceuticals group said that, following an internal review, it understood that this initiative had raised concerns and criticism.

    "This is not the way Bayer seeks dialogue with society and stakeholders. We apologize for this behavior," Bayer said in a statement. It added, however, that there was no indication that compiling the lists was illegal.

    French prosecutors opened an inquiry on Friday after newspaper Le Monde filed a complaint alleging that Monsanto had compiled a file of 200 names, including journalists and lawmakers, in the hope of influencing their positions on pesticides.

    The French investigation is the latest fallout from Bayer's $63 billion takeover of Monsanto. It already faces potentially heavy costs from U.S. class-action lawsuits in which plaintiffs argue that its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer.

    Bayer shares have shed more than 40 percent since a first adverse U.S. judgment on Roundup last August, leaving the company with a market capitalization smaller than the price it paid for Monsanto.

    Shareholders delivered a rare rebuke to CEO Werner Baumann's management team at Bayer's annual general meeting last month, with a majority voting against ratifying the executive board's business conduct in 2018.

    Commenting on the French allegations, Bayer said its law firm would inform all of the individuals on the Monsanto list about the information collected about them. Bayer would also "fully support" the French prosecutor's investigation.

    Matthias Berninger, Bayer's new head of public and government affairs, would evaluate the matter internally and assess the behavior of people involved, both inside and outside the company.

    "Our highest priority is to create transparency," Bayer said, adding that the Monsanto manager responsible for the issue had left the company soon after the takeover.

    "Bayer stands for openness and fair dealings with all interest groups," it added.

    "We do not tolerate unethical behavior in our company. Of course, this also applies to data protection regulations in all jurisdictions in which we operate."

    Related:
    Last edited by ThePythonicCow; 13th May 2019 at 23:27. Reason: SOTT images don't show, so copied to my server
    "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 8 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (27th May 2019), Bill Ryan (30th July 2019), Delight (13th May 2019), mountain_jim (14th May 2019), onawah (14th May 2019), Pam (27th May 2019), Satori (13th May 2019), ThePythonicCow (13th May 2019)

  3. Link to Post #62
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Monsanto’s “Rain of Death” on Canada’s Forests

    By Joyce Nelson Global Research
    May 16, 2019


    Featured image is from Maui Independent

    First Nations in Ontario have run out of patience. For 43 years, the forest industry has been conducting aerial spraying of glyphosate herbicide on Indigenous lands – a “rain of death” used in forest management practice that has slowly been killing off a wide range of animals, plants, fish and insects. First Nations have tried to stop this practice since the 1990s through a variety of measures including meetings with logging companies and government officials, protests and reports, but all to no avail. The “rain of death” keeps coming.

    Now, members of the Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) Elders of the North Shore of Lake Huron say they will be going to court to force the Canadian federal government to live up to Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850. That treaty guarantees First Nations in the area the right to hunt, fish, gather berries and use plant medicines in traditional territories. The TEK Elders say that by allowing the aerial spraying to continue, the Trudeau government is violating this treaty and the Constitution Act of 1982, which reaffirms those rights.

    “We’re done waiting,” Raymond Owl, one of the founding members of TEK, told the press in April. [1] Formed in 2014, the TEK Elders group is comprised of Elders from 21 bands in the area.

    Sue Chiblow, a Garden River First Nation Councillor assisting the TEK Elders, has stated:
    “We went to the Ministry of Natural Resources and they said ‘well no we just issued the license so that’s not our problem; it’s Health Canada’s problem’ … So we went to Health Canada and they said ‘we don’t actually do the spraying; we’re just saying that’s it’s ok and it’s up to the companies to use or not use it’.” [2]
    The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry recently provided a statement to APTN News which said in part:
    “Herbicide use is very limited in Ontario and they are only used when absolutely necessary – usually amounts to less than 0.2 per cent of Ontario’s forested area in any given year … Health Canada recently re-evaluated the use of glyphosate, finding no unacceptable risks to human health or the environment when used as directed.” [3]
    Health Canada is taking this stance even as Bayer-Monsanto has been losing court case after court case in the U.S. to juries awarding billions in damages to individuals harmed by the pesticide. Some 13,000 more cancer victims’ cases against Bayer-Monsanto await trial.

    The TEK Elders’ website (tekelders.weebly.com) states that “In Ontario, the forest management planning process begins with Crown approval for aerial spraying already in place.” There has never been any consultation with First Nations on this issue. As TEK Elder Raymond Owl has stated on the website,
    “The announcements for spraying are printed in local newspapers to say when and where – and that’s it. We are told by Health Canada that the chemicals are safe, not harmful to humans, yet we are witness to absolute destruction of natural habitat and ecosystems.”
    Creating a Monoculture
    The forest industry across Canada (and in parts of Oregon and Washington) has relied on aerial herbicide spraying for more than 40 years, in line with its practice of clear-cutting, followed by replanting for monocultures.

    The purpose of the glyphosate and other herbicides is to wipe out the so-called “weed” species that start re-growing after clearcutting. Those species include aspen, alder, birch, oak, maple, willow and other broad-leaf plants and shrubs – all considered of less commercial value than needle-leaf softwoods like Lodgepole Pine and Douglas Fir.

    Forester and Forest Ecologist Herb Hammond told me by email,
    “the presence of dense ‘brush’ following logging is a sign of ecological degradation from logging, which is dominated by clearcutting. There is nothing natural about clearcutting,” he noted, but it is “the cheapest, fastest way to turn forests into money.”
    So after the clearcutting, “natural processes activate restoration procedures for soil and microclimate, resulting in high densities of herbaceous and woody vegetation other than coniferous trees.” These so-called “weed” species “are vital for biological diversity, building soil nutrient capital, slowing the spread of wildfire, and [they are] superior to conifers in sequestering and storing carbon – an important forest assist in this climate change world,” Hammond told me.

    The irony is that “conifers will emerge from under the other vegetation and will grow better over time than those trees where ‘competing vegetation’ was removed” by aerial spraying. But, noted Hammond, “people prescribing pesticides give little value to other life that depend upon the plants being sprayed, or the water, soil and air affected by pesticide treatments.”

    Also a BC Problem
    According to The Prince George Daily News,
    “timber companies are required by government legislation to eliminate the so-called weed trees in area they have logged or face penalties. A preferred way to accomplish this is to dump herbicide in massive doses on the land base. Manual, non-spray brushing could potentially create many more seasonal jobs in the forest. Yet that method is little utilized today.” [4]
    According to the NGO Stop The Spray BC, between 10,000 and 20,000 hectares of BC forests are sprayed with glyphosate and other herbicides every year, mostly in the Central Interior.
    “This vast conversion of our forests from bio-diverse stands with many broadleaf species to conifer monocultures is required by law, signed off on by Registered Professional Foresters, and is supported by the Association of British Columbia Professional Foresters.”
    Stop the Spray BC spokesman James Steidle states that wildlife are “incredibly dependent” on the broadleaf trees considered “weeds” by industry and government. And those same trees in a mixed forest are better at sequestering carbon and controlling wildfires. Steidle notes,
    “As our planet continues to warm, biodiversity fades and forest fires grow worse, does it make sense to keep eliminating the trees with the highest biodiversity values, lower probability of flammability, and best ability to sequester CO2 and reflect solar radiation from our forests? Obviously not.” [5]
    But timber companies and our provincial governments are actually spending millions every year to do precisely that.

    Quebec, however, is the exception. Chemical herbicides were banned on Crown forest lands in Quebec in 2001 – about 90% of the provincial forest land base. In 2008, the Quebec government reaffirmed its commitment to ecosystem-based management of public forests. [6]

    In March, the Prince George Citizen reported that B.C. MLA Mike Morris is working on a private members bill to ban the use of glyphosate on provincial forests. [7]

    Stopping the Rain of Death
    Clearly, the Traditional Ecological Knowledge Elders of Ontario have raised a huge issue with their pending lawsuit. SumOfUs is raising funding for their legal fees and helping to alert the wider community. The TEK Elders are also planning to contact the World Health Organization (WTO) for assistance. The WTO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has already classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”. [8]

    Information about the TEK Elders’ pending lawsuit also comes just days after the UN’s shocking biodiversity report, warning that one million species are at risk of extinction. That report was issued by the UN’s Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). UBC professor Kai Chan, one of the lead authors of the report, told the Toronto Star that “…the scale of change now requires us to pressure political systems and other institutions to overhaul national and global economies. ‘Nature isn’t broken. But you could say that our institutions are not fit for purpose,’ Chan says. ‘Really, what we need to do is fix them’.” [9]

    That comment may be applicable to Health Canada, which seems to have been captured by Bayer-Monsanto and the pesticide industry.

    The UN biodiversity report also specifically urged policy-makers “to recognize and respect Indigenous institutions, values, innovations, practices and knowledge, and to engage with and consider Indigenous communities, something they note is currently sorely lacking.” [10] The Traditional Ecological Knowledge Elders of Ontario know the brutal truth of this, and now they’re going to court. That seems to be the only way to stop the “rain of death”.
    Joyce Nelson is the author of seven books. She can be reached via www.joycenelson.ca

    Notes
    [1] Helen Morley, “TEK Elders will take government to court,” Mid North Monitor, April 4, 2019.

    [2] Quoted in Christopher Read, “Trappers in Robinson Huron treaty want aerial herbicide spraying to end,” APTN News, March 22, 2019.

    [3] Quoted in Ibid.

    [4] Peter Ewart, “Death from the sky in northern B.C.,” The Prince George Daily News, March 31, 2018.

    [6] Dave Mance III, “The Great Glyphosate Debate,” Northern Woodlands, Spring 2012.

    [7] Mark Nielsen, “Morris calling for ban on glyphosate in B.C. forests,” Prince George Citizen, March 7, 2019.

    [8] Read, op. cit.

    [9] Quoted in Kate Allen, “One million species face possibility of extinction, report warns,” Toronto Star, May 6, 2019.

    [10] Ibid.
    "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 3 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (27th May 2019), Bill Ryan (30th July 2019), mountain_jim (17th May 2019)

  5. Link to Post #63
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    New study links Roundup weed killer to liver damage

    Dennis Thompson UPI
    Fri, 24 May 2019 10:31 UTC


    © Bill Greenblatt/UPI

    Monsanto's parent company, Bayer, issued a statement noting that previous research required to bring the product to market has shown that glyphosate is safe.

    The popular weed killer Roundup might be linked to liver disease, a new study suggests.

    A group of patients suffering from liver disease had elevated urine levels of glyphosate, the primary weed-killing ingredient in Roundup, according to researchers at the University of California, San Diego.

    "We found those patients who had more severe disease had higher levels of [glyphosate] excretion, which means they had higher levels of exposure, presumably through their diet," said lead researcher Paul Mills. He is director of UCSD's Center of Excellence for Research and Training in Integrative Health.

    Until now, debate regarding the health effects of glyphosate has largely centered on fears that the chemical causes cancer.

    Earlier this month, a California jury awarded $2 Billion to a couple who said long-term exposure to Roundup caused them to develop the same type of cancer -- non-Hodgkin lymphoma -- four years apart.

    That happened days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a draft conclusion that glyphosate poses "no risks to public health" and "is not likely to be carcinogenic for humans."

    Dr. Kenneth Spaeth is chief of occupational and environmental medicine at Northwell Health in Great Neck, N.Y. He said that the UCSD study findings regarding liver disease raise "a whole other area of potential reason to have concern about this product and its widespread use globally."

    Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the United States, the researchers said. The weed killer was developed and patented by Monsanto in the 1970s, and accounts for about half of the company's annual revenue.

    Monsanto's parent company, Bayer, issued a statement noting that previous research required to bring the product to market has shown that glyphosate is safe.
    "All pesticides, including glyphosate, are tested for their potential to harm liver function in tests that rely on internationally accepted protocols and are conducted according to good laboratory practices," Bayer said.

    "All of this testing demonstrates that glyphosate does not harm liver function."
    Mills said he became interested in glyphosate's potential effects on the liver after studies showing that laboratory rats and mice fed the chemical tended to develop a form of fatty liver disease unrelated to alcohol consumption.

    To see whether the weed killer might be linked to similar disease in humans, Mills and his colleagues examined urine samples from 93 patients who were suspected of having fatty liver disease.

    Liver biopsies were taken to determine whether the patients had liver disease and the severity of their condition. Urine samples were taken to determine their exposure to glyphosate.

    Glyphosate residue was significantly higher in patients with liver disease than in those with a healthier liver, the investigators found. There also appeared to be a dose-dependent relationship -- the more glyphosate in the urine, the worse a person's liver health.

    In its statement, Bayer said:
    "While we are still examining this recently released study, the data indicates that the researchers failed to consider confounding factors including potential existing metabolic disorders in participants, which would make the results of the study unreliable."
    While the study could not prove cause and effect, the researchers said the findings remained significant even after accounting for age, race/ethnicity, body fat and diabetes status.

    Mills said, "Given there are these questions, I'd love for the EPA to say 'we're going to take another look at this.'"

    Glyphosate might harm the liver in a couple of ways, he suggested.

    The chemical might interfere with the liver's ability to process fats, causing them to accumulate in the organ. Or it might damage genes that regulate fat metabolism in the liver.

    Glyphosate is used to improve commercial crop yields by killing weeds that would choke the plants, so much of a person's exposure to the chemical is likely due to diet, Mills said.

    The best way to protect yourself would be to adopt an organic diet, eating only foods that have not been grown with herbicides or pesticides, he explained.

    Noting that his study was small, Mills hopes other researchers will follow up with larger-scale efforts to examine effects of glyphosate on the liver.

    "I'm hoping some other labs around the country that have either liver centers or other samples available will take a look at this also and see what kind of signal they find," he said. "That would help move us forward."

    The new study was published online recently in the journal Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

    Related:
    "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.

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

    Ba-ba-Ra (27th May 2019), Bill Ryan (30th July 2019), Constance (27th May 2019), Delight (27th May 2019), mountain_jim (27th May 2019), onawah (26th May 2019), ThePythonicCow (26th May 2019)

  7. Link to Post #64
    Avalon Member Pam's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th June 2012
    Posts
    3,370
    Thanks
    42,395
    Thanked 27,393 times in 3,308 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Quote "All pesticides, including glyphosate, are tested for their potential to harm liver function in tests that rely on internationally accepted protocols and are conducted according to good laboratory practices," Bayer said.
    It's interesting that a representative allegedly called glyphosate a pesticide, I thought it was strictly classified as an herbicide? Of course in reality it is a pesticide but I didn't think Bayer(Monsanto) would acknowledge it.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Pam For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (27th May 2019), Bill Ryan (30th July 2019), Hervé (27th May 2019), ThePythonicCow (27th May 2019)

  9. Link to Post #65
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Tell EPA they work for us, not Monsanto
    5/31/19
    Sign the petition from Pesticide Action Network:

    http://www.panna.org/take-action/tel...up-is-not-safe

    "Target: EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler
    Three consecutive juries have found Monsanto (now Bayer) guilty of knowingly exposing people to glyphosate, a probable human carcinogen and the active ingredient in their flagship herbicide, Roundup. Yet EPA is poised to reregister the chemical, dismissing science showing it can be harmful to human health.

    Sign our petition today, and we’ll be sure your voice is heard before the comment period closes on July 5."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (30th July 2019), Hervé (31st May 2019), mountain_jim (31st May 2019)

  11. Link to Post #66
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    EPA takes Monsanto’s side on glyphosate
    From: Pesticide Action Network
    5/30/19
    http://www.panna.org/blog/epa-takes-...dup-in-trouble
    "The pesticide world has been abuzz with the outcome of the third glyphosate trial. Earlier this month, Bayer (Monsanto) was found liable for Alva and Alberta Pilliod’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and was ordered to pay over $2 billion total in damages.

    In light of the World Health Organization's determination in 2015 that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s flagship herbicide Roundup, is a 'probable human carcinogen,' more than 10,000 individuals who have been exposed to the herbicide and suffered from cancer are in the process of suing the chemical giant, recently acquired by Bayer.

    You’d think this precedent-setting verdict, the third consecutive against Bayer, would put the gears in motion for EPA to deregister glyphosate. But disturbingly, the agency plans to keep the chemical on the market.

    Seriously EPA?
    Internal memos show that this administration went as far as to reassure Monsanto that they “have their back” when it comes to pesticides like Roundup.

    We’ve already seen this EPA getting cozy with industry executives. Consider the chlorpyrifos fiasco — former Administrator Scott Pruitt decided not to ban the neurotoxic pesticide after meeting with Dow Chemical (chlorpyrifos’ manufacturer) executives.

    But this is a new low. Ignoring the recommendations of the World Health Organization, and dismissing concerns from members of EPA’s own Scientific Advisory Panel over the hazards of glyphosate is a blatant disregard for sound science and public health.

    Glyphosate has to go
    Glyphosate is used on more than 100 crops, including corn, soy, cotton, canola and sugar beets. Use has skyrocketed over the past decade as “Roundup Ready” crops that are genetically engineered to tolerate application of the herbicide have become standard in industrial agriculture systems.

    While dangers are highest for pesticide applicators, farmworkers and rural communities exposed during spraying, residues of the chemical have been found in numerous food and drink products as well.

    The U.S. Geological Survey found glyphosate in nearly all water and air samples taken in recent testing, and a recent study found the chemical in the bodies of pregnant women. In addition to its link to cancer, studies have also linked glyphosate to birth defects, liver damage, and hormone disruption.

    Given the widespread exposure to this chemical that science has shown can harm human health, EPA must revise the recommendation that glyphosate be re-registered without restrictions. It’s time to invest in effective systems of farming and weed control that don’t rely on chemicals that put our health at risk.

    Sign on to PAN’s petition today, telling EPA it’s time to put public health and the environment above the interests of corporations like Monsanto (Bayer)."
    http://www.panna.org/take-action/tel...s-not-monsanto

    I didn't realize until I went to the EPA website at:
    https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used...cts/glyphosate
    ...that the EPA only posted its redetermination that glysophate is safe (in spite of recent reports to the contrary) in April 2019. From their website: "Glyphosate is a widely used herbicide that controls broadleaf weeds and grasses. It has been registered as a pesticide in the U.S. since 1974. Since glyphosate’s first registration, EPA has reviewed and reassessed its safety and uses, including undergoing registration review, a program that re-evaluates each registered pesticide on a 15-year cycle.

    In April 2019, EPA released the Glyphosate Proposed Interim Decision for public comment. As part of this action, EPA continues to find that there are no risks to public health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label and that glyphosate is not a carcinogen. EPA is proposing management measures to help farmers target pesticide sprays on intended pests, protect pollinators, and reduce the problem of weeds becoming resistant to glyphosate."
    "EPA scientists performed an independent evaluation of available data for glyphosate and found:

    No risk to human health from current uses of glyphosate. Glyphosate products can be safely used by following label directions. There are no risks to children or adults from currently registered uses.

    No indication that children are more sensitive to glyphosate. After evaluating numerous studies from a variety of sources, the Agency found no indication that children are more sensitive to glyphosate from in utero or post-natal exposure. As part of the human health risk assessment, the Agency evaluated all populations, including infants, children and women of child-bearing age, and found no risks of concern from ingesting food with glyphosate residues. EPA also found no risks of concern for children entering or playing on residential areas treated with glyphosate.

    No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer. The Agency concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. EPA considered a significantly more extensive and relevant dataset than the International Agency on the Research for Cancer (IARC). EPA’s database includes studies submitted to support registration of glyphosate and studies EPA identified in the open literature.

    EPA’s cancer classification is consistent with other international expert panels and regulatory authorities, including the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority, European Food Safety Authority, European Chemicals Agency, German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority, and the Food Safety Commission of Japan."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (30th July 2019), Hervé (1st June 2019), mountain_jim (3rd June 2019), Satori (3rd June 2019)

  13. Link to Post #67
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Court Docs: Monsanto Paid Chemical Industry Front Group to Claim Cancer-Causing Weedkiller ‘Safe’ and Attack Its Critics

    By Bill Walker Global Research
    June 03, 2019
    EWG 29 May 2019



    Monsanto paid a shadowy chemical industry front group to help push back against the mounting scientific evidence that the company’s signature Roundup weedkiller causes cancer, court documents reveal.
    “If a company like [Monsanto] won’t support us, then who will?” the head of the American Council on Science and Health wrote to a Monsanto scientist in 2015. A day later came the reply: “[T]he answer is yes…. [D]efinitely count us in!!”
    Emails between Monsanto and the American Council on Science and Health, or ACSH, and related internal Monsanto emails were first made public during the trial last July of a lawsuit by a former California school groundskeeper who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup. The jury awarded Dewayne “Lee” Johnson $289 million in punitive and compensatory damages, later reduced by the judge to $78 million.

    The internal Monsanto/ACSH emails reappeared as evidence in the most recent lawsuit to go before a court, brought by a California couple who were both diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after decades of using the herbicide. In May, the jury ordered Bayer-Monsanto to pay Alva and Alberta Pilliod more than $2 billion in damages.

    It was the third verdict in less than a year in which juries found that glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, causes cancer and that Monsanto covered up evidence of its health risk for decades. Last year, Bayer bought Monsanto for $63 billion and is now facing tens of thousands of similar lawsuits.

    The emails – here and here – show that in February 2015, Monsanto was working with ACSH to prepare for the expected fallout from a pending report on the safety of glyphosate by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC. The following month the IARC, part of the World Health Organization, would release a report that classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

    Anticipating the report, Gilbert Ross, then the acting head of ACSH, asked Monsanto for support, “particularly if ACSH’s commentary is needed to critique an adverse outcome.”

    On Feb. 26, Dr. Daniel Goldstein, the head of medical sciences and outreach at Monsanto, wrote to several colleagues, urging them to support continued payment to ACSH for its work.

    Later that day, after his colleagues expressed reservations, Goldstein wrote:

    But on March 16, just days before the IARC’s report, the ACSH’s Ross wrote to Goldstein complaining the group has still not received payment for its work on glyphosate:

    Goldstein replied “count us in!!,” and Ross wrote back: “Great news, thanks Dan.”

    From the emails, it is unclear how much Monsanto paid ACSH to defend the company and its weedkiller. But since the IARC report, ACSH has posted dozens of blogs or releases attacking scientists or organizations that have raised concerns about the health risks of glyphosate exposure. ACSH officials have also been quoted in news media reports, accusing EWG – “an alarmist group” – and other glyphosate critics of scare tactics.

    According to ACSH’s website, the group is a “consumer advocacy organization” that does “not represent any industry.” But in 2013 Mother Jones reported that an internal ACSH document showed the organization received more than $390,000 in that year from corporations and large private foundations, including $30,000 from Bayer Cropscience, $22,5000 from the Chinese-owned pesticide and seed company Syngenta, and $30,000 from chemical giant 3M, among many others.

    The ACSH document also lists Monsanto among “potential sources of support from previous donors.” As the recently released emails show, that potential was soon realized.

    *
    Bill Walker is Vice President and Editor-in-Chief of EWG.
    All images in this article are from EWG
    The original source of this article is EWG
    Copyright © Bill Walker, EWG, 2019

    Related:
    Monsanto Accused of Hiring Army of Trolls to Silence Online Dissent – Court Papers
    Last edited by Hervé; 3rd June 2019 at 18:15.
    "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 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (3rd June 2019), Bill Ryan (30th July 2019), mountain_jim (4th June 2019), Satori (3rd June 2019), ThePythonicCow (5th June 2019)

  15. Link to Post #68
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    From Glyphosate to Front Groups: Fraud, Deception and Toxic Tactics

    By Colin Todhunter Global Research
    June 05, 2019


    Environmentalist Dr Rosemary Mason has just written to the Editor-in-Chief of the British Medical Journal and the British Medical Association Council Chairman, Chaand Nagpaul.

    Her purpose is to not only draw attention to the impact of biocides, not least that of glyphosate, on health and the environment but also to bring attention to the corruption that allows this to continue.

    Along with her letter, she enclosed a 13-page document. Readers can access the fully referenced document here: European Chemicals Agency classifies glyphosate as a substance that causes serious eye damage. It is worth reading in full to appreciate the conflicts of interest and the corruption that has led to the rise in certain illnesses and the destruction of the natural environment.

    By way of a brief summary, the key points raised by Dr Mason and her claims include the following:
    • The European Chemicals Agency classifies glyphosate as a substance that causes serious eye damage. There has been a massive increase in the use of glyphosate in recent years. An increase in cataracts has been verified by epidemiological studies in England and by a 2016 WHO report.
    • There are shockingly high levels of weed killer in UK breakfast cereals. After testing these cereals at the Health Research Institute in Iowa, Dr Fagan, director of the centre, said: “These results are consistently concerning. The levels consumed in a single daily helping of any one of these cereals, even the one with the lowest level of contamination, is sufficient to put the person’s glyphosate levels above the levels that cause fatty liver disease in rats (and likely in people).”
    • The amount of glyphosate in tap water in South Wales has increased tenfold in a very short period.
    • Glyphosate is largely responsible for the destruction of biodiversity and an increase in the prevalence of many serious health conditions.
    • There are massive conflicts of interest throughout various agencies in the EU that ensure harmful agrochemicals like glyphosate come to market and remain there.
    • In fact, a global industry has emerged to give ‘advice’ on biocides regulation. This results in regulatory bodies effectively working to further the commercial interests of the pesticide industry.
    • The European Food Safety Authority sanctioned increased maximum pesticide residue levels (MRL) at the request of industry (Monsanto in this case, to 100 times the previously authorised MRL).
    • The Washington-based International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) is used by corporate backers to counter public health policies. Its members have occupied key positions on EU and UN regulatory panels. It is, however, an industry lobby group that masquerades as a scientific health charity. The ILSI describes its mission as “pursuing objectivity, clarity and reproducibility” to “benefit the public good”. But researchers from the University of Cambridge, Bocconi University in Milan, and the US Right to Know campaign assessed over 17,000 pages of documents under US freedom of information laws to present evidence of influence peddling.
    • ILSI Vice-President, Prof Alan Boobis, is currently the Chairman of the UK Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (CoT) (2015-2021). He was directly responsible for authorising chemicals such as glyphosate, chlorothalonil, clothianidin and chlorpyrifos that are destroying human health and creating a crisis in biodiversity. His group and others have authorised glyphosate repeatedly. He and David Coggon, the previous Chairman of CoT (2008-2015), were appointed as experts on Science Advice for Policy by European Academies (SAPEA), a group allied with the agrochemical industry and is fighting for higher pesticide exposure.
    • Jean-Claude Juncker the President of the European Commission who, against a petition from more than 1.5 million European citizens, re-authorised glyphosate in December 2017 for a further five years. He set up the Science Advisory Mechanism, aiming to put industry-friendly personnel on various committees.
    There are many more claims presented by Rosemary Mason in her report. But the take-home point is that the reality of the agrochemical industry is masked by well-funded public relations machinery (which includes bodies like the UK’s Science Media Centre). The industry also subverts official agencies and regulatory bodies and supports prolific lobby organisations and (‘public scientists’) which masquerade as objective institutions.

    When such organisations or figures are exposed, they frequently cry foul and attempt to portray any exposure of their lack of integrity as constituting an attack on science itself; no doubt many readers will be familiar with the ‘anti-science’ epithet.

    The industry resorts to such measures as it knows its products are harmful and cannot stand up to proper public scrutiny. And under a system of sustainable agroecology that can produce plentiful, nutritious food, it also knows its markets would disappear.

    Motivated by fraud and fear of the truth emerging, it therefore tries to persuade politicians and the public that the world would starve without it and its products. It co-opts agencies and officials by various means and embeds itself within the policy agenda, both nationally and internationally.

    And now, with increasingly saturated markets in the West, from Africa to India the industry seeks to colonise new regions and countries where it attempts to roll out its business model. Whether, say, through trade agreements, the WTO or strings-attached loans, this again involves capturing the policy ground and then trapping farmers on a financially lucrative chemical (-GMO)-treadmill, regardless of the consequences for farmers’ livelihoods, food, public health and the environment.

    *
    Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.
    The original source of this article is Global Research
    Copyright © Colin Todhunter, Global Research, 2019


    Related:
    Poisoning the Public: Toxic Agrochemicals and Regulators’ Collusion with Industry
    "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.

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

    Bill Ryan (30th July 2019), mountain_jim (5th June 2019), onawah (5th June 2019), Philippe (6th June 2019)

  17. Link to Post #69
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Brazil’s toxic pesticides ‘affecting people all over the world’ through agricultural exports

    RT
    Published time: 30 Jul, 2019 05:08
    Edited time: 30 Jul, 2019 08:54
    Get short URL


    © Global Look / Florian Kopp

    Brazil’s embrace of highly toxic pesticides – the government has approved 262 so far this year and loosened regulations on what is considered “extremely toxic” – is affecting people far outside its borders, an expert tells RT.

    EU-banned pesticide[s are] being manufactured in the EU, and then coming back to citizens in the EU, in the food we eat,” environmental journalist and founding member of the Green Economic Institute think tank Oliver Tickell told RT, explaining that as one of the largest soy exporters in the world, Brazil supplies a significant quantity of the feed that cattle and other livestock worldwide consume. European consumers tucking into a juicy steak have no idea that the creature they’re eating might have been nourished on soy sprayed with highly toxic pesticides.

    This is not just a problem for Brazil and Brazilian people and people exposed in the countryside to these pesticides and consumers and farmers,” Tickell warned. “It is actually affecting people all over the world through Brazil’s agricultural exports.”
    ANVISA, the Brazilian public health regulatory agency, relaxed pesticide regulations last week so that only those chemicals with lethal potential can be classified as “extremely toxic,” triggering a massive backlash from environmental groups, human rights organizations, and food safety advocates. The fervently pro-business government of President Jair Bolsonaro has already approved 262 pesticides this year, 82 of which are classed as “extremely toxic,” as he follows through on campaign promises to demolish environmental regulations and open up protected rainforest lands to mining and agriculture.

    Dozens of pesticides banned or strictly regulated in the EU, including paraquat and chlorpyrifos, were already permitted for use in Brazil before Bolsonaro took power, and the country uses approximately 400,000 tons of pesticides per year, according to Human Rights Watch. While Agriculture Minister Tereza Cristina has flatly denied Brazil uses any more pesticides than any other country, attributing such allegations to “data manipulation” and accusing critics of “terrorism,” EcoWatch claims the country consumes more pesticides per capita than any other nation.

    ====================================

    Solution: import from Russia!
    "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.

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

    Bill Ryan (30th July 2019), Delight (30th July 2019), Frank V (30th July 2019), meeradas (30th July 2019), mountain_jim (30th July 2019), Philippe (1st August 2019), Valerie Villars (30th July 2019)

  19. Link to Post #70
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Study finds 90% of families have glyphosate in bodies with significantly higher levels found in children

    Center for Environmental Health
    Wed, 24 Jul 2019 00:01 UTC


    Results released as Trump's EPA poised to approve the continued use of glyphosate in the U.S. for 15 more years
    A new study by Center for Environmental Health (CEH) found over 90% of families tested had glyphosate in their bodies. The study sought to determine whether children are more exposed to Monsanto's toxic weed killer than their parents. The results were unequivocal. Nine of the twelve parent-child pairs tested (in one family both parents and two children participated), the child had higher concentrations of glyphosate in their body than their parent. Six children had twice the amount than their parents and one had nearly a hundred times more. The families tested lived in a variety of states from across the country. CEH's findings corroborate other recent studies that found glyphosate in the bodies of 70 to 93% of those tested.
    "Our findings are particularly alarming for children, whose bodies are still developing," said Caroline Cox, CEH's Senior Scientist.

    "A toxic weed killer known to cause cancer has no business in our bodies or our food. Human health and the health of our children should outweigh the chemical industry's right to profit. These results warrant immediate, long-term, independent follow-up studies with increased sample sizes."
    Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Bayer/Monsanto's Roundup, is the most widely used herbicide in history. 2.4 billion pounds have been sprayed on American farmland in the last decade. The World Health Organization has classified it as a "probable human carcinogen." California's environmental protection agency listed glyphosate as a chemical known to cause cancer. Recent research has found it can increase the risk of some cancers by more than 40 percent, disrupt hormones,damage human cells, genes, and cause birth defects.

    Bayer/Monsanto has also recently suffered three landmark legal defeats in which jury's ruled plaintiffs had contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma in part because of exposure to its glyphosate-based Roundup. The company has been forced to pay plaintiffs approximately $2.4 billion in damages. More than 13,000 similar cases against the company currently await trial.

    The increasing use of the weed killer allows for numerous routes of human exposure, including food and proximity to farms that use it on corn, soybeans, oats, and hundreds of other crops. Children are more exposed to pesticides than adults, and Roundup is increasingly sprayed around homes, schools, and parks, found in popular children's cereals, and the vast majority of oat-based items on public school menus.
    "Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) like glyphosate can have lifelong and even transgenerational health impacts," said Alexis Luckey, Executive Director, Toxic Free North Carolina.

    "These hormone disruptors can cause even more harm
    at low doses. So, there's no assurance that any level of glyphosate exposure is safe. This study highlights the need to protect children and families by promoting organic alternatives to this toxic weed killer that are less harmful to human health and the environment."
    Nonetheless, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is poised to approve the continued widespread use of glyphosate in the U.S. for another 15 years. EPA's evaluation process has been widely condemned, favoring Monsanto-funded studies over independent, peer-reviewed research linking glyphosate exposure to cancer and failure to follow proper protocol. Nearly 150,000 public comments have already been submitted urging the agency to ban its use, with just over a month before the deadline to weigh-in comes.
    "Trump's EPA has ignored a growing body of science and recent jury rulings that contradicts Monsanto's internal studies," said Cox.

    "We urge EPA to put the health of the American people, especially children and the farmers and farmworkers who use this toxic weed killer regularly, ahead of chemical industry profits and end its use for good."

    Cities counties across the U.S. and a growing number of countries are taking a different approach than Trump's EPA by restricting or banning the use of glyphosate. And increasing numbers of U.S. schools are buying more organic food and ending the use of Roundup on school grounds.

    Consumers can reduce glyphosate exposure by purchasing organic food whenever available and affordable. Each of those dollars spent supports more organic farms, none of which use glyphosate. Work with local elected officials to enact organic policies that end the use of glyphosate and other toxic pesticides like it. Use organic/eco-friendly pest management in your yard and garden. If you work with glyphosate herbicides, wash your hands often; after work, remove your shoes before entering your home, wash (including your hair) with soap and shampoo immediately, and change into clean clothes as soon as possible.


    Related:
    "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 7 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Alecs (3rd August 2019), avid (1st August 2019), Cara (1st August 2019), Delight (1st August 2019), mountain_jim (1st August 2019), Philippe (1st August 2019), Valerie Villars (1st August 2019)

  21. Link to Post #71
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Glyphosate Should be Phased Out Worldwide. Devastating Health Impacts

    Far-reaching Statement of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics

    By GMWatch 31 July 2019
    Global Research, August 02, 2019



    The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), the only global organisation representing obstetricians and gynaecologists, wants glyphosate phased out worldwide.

    A statement published by the Federation’s Reproductive and Developmental Environmental Health Committee says:
    “Over the past fifteen years, an expanding body of evidence has implicated the role of environmental exposures on health.

    “Whether scientists are reviewing increased rates of cancer, neurodevelopmental disorders, pregnancy outcomes, or birth defects, there is evidence to support the effect of chemical exposures on health. Chemicals in pregnant women can cross the placenta and, as with methyl mercury, can accumulate in the fetus and have long lasting sequelae.

    “The… statement regarding glyphosate reflects a review of literature and a Precautionary Principle. This principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result. In some legal systems, such as the Law in the European Union, the application of the precautionary principle has been made a statutory requirement in some areas of law.”
    Background
    Glyphosate was patented in 1961 and is the most widely used herbicide worldwide. Six billion kilograms have been released globally in the last decade. It is applied in conjunction with other chemicals to enhance effectiveness. It has been used in weed control, control of marijuana and coca crops, and on GM herbicide-tolerant crops. Glyphosate exposure can be direct because of application or indirect because of persistence in the food chain. It is found in food products and in water supplies because of runoff from agricultural use.

    Global research is under way to understand the potential impact on human health. In 1985, glyphosate was categorized as a Class C carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency. Class C states there is suggestive evidence of causing cancer. In 1991 the EPA changed the classification to E, evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans.

    In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified it (2A) as probably carcinogenic to humans. IARC has a scientific review process that focuses on independence, access to data, and transparency with participation by IARC scientific committee and observation but not participation of many groups (industry and non-industry). IARC looked at animal research, DNA damage, and cancer.

    In 2015, the European Food Safety Authority released a report that concluded glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and they proposed a new safety measure that will tighten the control of glyphosate residues in food. The most recent meta-analysis, published in 2019, states that there is a compelling link between non-Hodgkins lymphoma and glyphosate.

    Also in 2015, in recognition of the need for a global federation to address the threat of toxic environmental chemicals to human reproductive and developmental health on the global stage, FIGO adopted its opinion, Reproductive Health Impacts of Exposure to Toxic Environmental Chemicals.

    When this opinion on environmental exposures was released at the FIGO World Congress of 2015, FIGO also established a global Working Group on the topic of Reproductive and Developmental Environmental Health (RDEH). This working group set a global agenda on the impact of toxic exposures on women’s health. Due to the importance of this issue and the recognised impact on the health and well-being of women and newborn children worldwide, in 2018 the working group was designated a formal FIGO Committee.

    Glyphosate will be up for renewal in 2022 in the European Union; and a panel of member states will review assessment. France has committed to stopping glyphosate use and is seeking safer alternatives. In 2019, HEAL, the Health and Environment Alliance, cited new studies that documented transgenerational effects of glyphosate and stated that if a pesticide shows harm that occurs generations down the line, it offers an opportunity for the European Commission to take precautionary measures to protect health. 1.3 million citizens signed an initiative to ban glyphosate.

    FIGO, which for over 65 years has collaborated with the world’s top health bodies, including working in official relations with the World Health Organization and in a consultative role with the UN, points out an inherent problem with the production of many types of chemicals: that they are released into the environment and with current policy it is up to the public, scientists working for the public interest and physicians to prove harm before chemicals are removed from the market. FIGO says,
    “Contrast this approach with the pharmaceutical industry, where they [industry] must prove safety before use by the public.”
    FIGO adds,
    “Our priorities should be in establishing safety, now and across generations, prior to exposure to chemical products.”
    FIGO invokes the precautionary principle, as noted by the Wingspread Conference:
    “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”
    In conclusion, FIGO says,
    “Global health should be our guiding light. We recommend that glyphosate exposure to populations should end with a full global phase out.”
    *
    The original source of this article is GMWatch
    Copyright © GMWatch, GMWatch, 2019
    Featured image is from the author

    Related:
    Killing Us Softly—Glyphosate Herbicide or Genocide?

    "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 3 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Alecs (3rd August 2019), Delight (2nd August 2019), mountain_jim (5th August 2019)

  23. Link to Post #72
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Report: Monsanto paid Google to bury unfavorable news

    Dan Robitzski Futurism
    Thu, 08 Aug 2019 00:01 UTC


    © Monsanto/Victor Tangermann

    Monsanto, the agrochemical company that's attained notoriety for its agricultural pesticides and genetically modified organisms, reportedly worked overtime to discredit investigative journalists criticizing the company — and even paid the search giant Google to suppress the findings.

    Carey Gillam, a journalist with Reuters, was reporting on the health effects of Monsanto's products a few years back. As part of a massive damage-control campaign, the company worked to discredit her work as much as possible, according to an investigation by The Guardian. Perhaps most troubling: the company reportedly paid Google to promote search results that questioned Gillam's findings — a disturbing look into how readily the flow of online information can be manipulated.

    Coordinated Effort
    As Gillam prepared to publish her 2017 book, "Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science," Monsanto went into overdrive, The Guardian reports. The company assembled a spreadsheet of 23 specific steps it would take to downplay Gillam's key finding while promoting content claiming its chemicals were actually safe.

    The spreadsheet shows how Monsanto planned to launch a new website full of their talking points and pay to make sure it popped up when people googled Gillam's name.

    "I've always known that Monsanto didn't like my work... and worked to pressure editors and silence me," Gillam told the Guardian. "But I never imagined a multi-billion dollar company would actually spend so much time and energy and personnel on me. It's astonishing."


    Related:
    "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.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Alekahn2 (10th August 2019), mountain_jim (11th August 2019), Philippe (10th August 2019)

  25. Link to Post #73
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    'Bill Gates is continuing the work of Monsanto', Vandana Shiva, Nobel Prize laureate tells FRANCE 24
    Oct 23, 2019

    "Our guest is Vandana Shiva, a world-famous environmental activist from India. Her latest book is entitled "One Earth, One Humanity vs. the 1%". She tell us about more her opposition to big multinationals such as Monsanto for their nefarious influence on agriculture. But Shiva also singles out billionaires like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg for criticism. "When Bill Gates pours money into Africa for feeding the poor in Africa and preventing famine, he’s pushing the failed Green Revolution, he’s pushing chemicals, pushing GMOs, pushing patterns", she tells FRANCE 24's Marc Perelman."

    Last edited by onawah; 21st January 2020 at 22:52.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    mountain_jim (23rd January 2020)

  27. Link to Post #74
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    THIS LOOKS INTERESTING!! Monsanto on Trial - to Stream LIVE!!
    From Institute for Responsible Technology's email update today
    1/23/20

    " According to our information, the trial will be live-streamed on Courtroom View Network which is a subscription service:
    https://cvn.com/proceedings/wade-v-m...ial-2020-01-21

    Jeffrey will be speaking at The Real Truth About Health : https://responsibletechnology.org/je...b-af56f87faa4f
    As always, the transcript is provided for your reading pleasure:
    https://responsibletechnology.org/je...b-af56f87faa4f

    Sunday, Jan 26, 2020, 11:00 am - 12:30 pm EST Individual Lecture - Shocking Stories of Corruption, Cover-up and Hidden Epidemics by Monsanto and Friends

    Monday, Jan 27, 2020, 2:00 pm - 3:30 pm EST Individual Lecture - The Earth-Threatening GMO Crisis You Never Heard About

    Monday, Jan 27, 2020, 7:00 pm - 9:30 pm EST Panel - What Everyone Needs To Know About Their Food, Food System, GMOs and Chemicals, if They Want to Stay Healthy

    100% FREE TO ATTEND IN PERSON OR ONLINE- CLICK HERE FOR ALL THE INFO
    https://therealtruthabouthealth.com/...b-af56f87faa4f

    "We are discussing the news from this week and Monsanto tried hard to delay a trial in St. Louis from a plaintiff that wants to sue them for causing their cancer. Then the judge was asked by Monsanto to dismiss it in a summary judgment saying, “Well the EPA has already approved Roundup, therefore, there shouldn’t be any trial.”

    And the judge said, “No one has ever accepted that kind of defense. No other court.” Monsanto gave no example where that was actually used in court successfully so the judge denied them the summary judgment.

    But what’s really interesting is that they tried to stop allowing the trial to be audio or videotaped and streamed live, and the judge said, “No.” They said that because Hugh Grant (the former CEO of Monsanto that got tens of millions of dollars when Bayer bought it)- if he went on live television it would endanger his health. Maybe it would endanger it because people would want to hurt him.

    He’s already gone live all over the world as the figurehead for Monsanto for years. In fact, he’s in the film that I did with Amy Hart, Secret Ingredients, speaking on CBS news trying to claim that there was no problem with Roundup and cancer.

    So the judge completely ignored and dismissed Hugh Grant – this is not the actor Hugh Grant, this is the Scottish former CEO of Monsanto. The judge completely dismissed their bid to say it shouldn’t be recorded and so I think it’s probably going to be streamed live. Check in on our Facebook, our Instagram, our podcast Live Healthy, Be Well to find out when it’s going to be available and how you can tune in.

    Alright, so that’s really good news because the real reason why Monsanto doesn’t want it live is that they keep claiming that the juries were duped by emotionally-driven arguments that had nothing to do with science and that sound science did not rule.

    When people watch the actual trial they will realize that Monsanto doesn’t use sound science, they use “checkbook science.” they use “tobacco science.”

    I’ve mentioned this before, and it’s one of my favorite examples because it’s so typical Monsanto. When they wanted to show that Roundup wasn’t absorbed into human skin they took cadaver skin which is typical and they found it absorbed 10% which is 3.3x higher than the amount allowed by the EPA.

    So they hid that evidence, took the human skin, cut it off the cadaver, baked it in the oven, froze it in the freezer, took that leather-like substance then applied the Roundup and said, “See, it doesn’t get absorbed into the human skin.”

    This is what I call rigged research or Monsanto science. You’ll find if you watch the trial that their first study on Roundup’s carcinogenicity was done by a laboratory that was considered fraudulent and three people went to jail including the executive that went from Monsanto to that laboratory and then back to Monsanto and then he went to jail.

    So it’s incredible how they’re caught red-handed and created such anger in the juries that the last jury awarded punitive damages to this couple of $2 billion. So if people realize just how unscientific Monsanto has been then their line is to say, “Oh, it’s just an emotionally driven decision. Sound science doesn’t prevail in the courtroom.”

    No, sound science doesn’t prevail with Monsanto.

    The next piece of news today. Not surprisingly, CRISPR is the new boy on the block from gene editing. It’s a way to so-called “precisely” cut the double-stranded DNA. Well, it’s not necessarily precise because it can cut it in many places causing collateral damage in hundreds or thousands of locations along the genome.

    But when it is cut they often want to cut it to “knock out a gene,” to turn off the functioning of a gene so it doesn’t produce the protein. So there’s been hundreds of thousands of gene knockouts via CRISPR by laboratories all over the world for research purposes and also to introduce new products.

    This research team made 136 different cuts on different genes from a human cell line and they actually checked to see if the cell line was still producing those proteins. See that’s the missing step; people doing CRISPR will do the cut and then assume that everything that they expected to happen happens.

    But in 1/3 of the 136 cuts of different genes, it continued to produce proteins and many of the proteins remained functional. Some of those proteins were truncated meaning they weren’t the proteins that were there originally.

    Now, Dr. Michael Antoniou – who does gene research and genetic engineering for human genes to help repair defective genes that are not inheritable – he’s been against GMOs for years. He’s a friend of mine, I’ve known him for decades. He says that the new study implies that 1/3 of the hundreds of thousands of gene knockouts that have been done were not complete knockouts but only partial knockouts. In some cases, there was no reduction at all in the gene expression.

    He says, “Unfortunately and worryingly, the most frequent outcome of truncations of the original protein with the central deletion within their structure – these mutant proteins may not only partially retain the function of the full-length protein but also could gain novel function with unknown consequences.”

    Let me translate what he’s talking about. So with CRISPR, you’ll sort of program the scissors to find a particular place along the genome and then cut the double-stranded DNA and then everything that happens after that is out of your control.

    The cell’s mechanism will reattach it and when it attaches, there could be deletions or additions. They cut it let’s say in the middle of a gene that they want to knockout but when it gets put back together, a part of that code of the DNA could be disturbed. It could have additions or deletions and it could remain a coding gene.

    In other words, it could still produce RNA and produce proteins. These truncated proteins could become allergens or toxins or they may change the overall chemistry of the organism and other allergens or toxins may appear.

    This CRISPR study on 136 human genes builds on an earlier observation that showed 50% of a million cells that were investigated by CRISPR resulted in unintended altered code at the intended editing site with the production of unexpected and non-natural RNA and/or proteins.

    So we already have evidence that what’s supposed to happen doesn’t happen but the USDA told a company that submitted information on a non-browning mushroom, made from gene editing, that it doesn’t have to be evaluated because it “doesn’t fall within our regulatory framework.”

    So this non-browning mushroom that doesn’t require any oversight from the United States government, not the FDA, not the EPA, not the USDA, uses gene editing and might be creating allergens or toxins as we just saw.

    The Australian government just last year decided to allow this type of gene editing to be done by companies and individuals who can introduce their product to the environment or to our food supply and the government’s official policy is that it’s not our job.

    Their official policy is that you can introduce a gene-edited animal, plant, or microorganism into the food chain or the environment and it’s not our job to evaluate it. You can just decide on your own whether it’s safe.

    So, this is another example of GMO 2.0, of the new ways of creating GMOs which the companies are saying, “This is safe and predictable.” But it’s obviously potentially deadly – not just unsafe but potentially deadly.

    He’s another study that came out – 2 studies actually just came out that the risk assessments that are done on soybeans are completely inadequate. Well, we knew they were inadequate. I have pages and pages in my book Genetic Roulette how they rig research and how the government regulatory agencies ignore everything that relevant but in this case, here’s some new information.

    When they do an evaluation of soybeans that have been genetically engineered to be resistant to Roundup, Monsanto will submit soybeans that have never been sprayed with Roundup. I think they can get away with that in the United States.

    In Europe, however, you have to have the soybeans sprayed with Roundup during the growing season and then they evaluate the health and environmental impacts of those soybeans. But the amount of Roundup, particularly because of the Roundup-resistant weeds, which now require more Roundup to kill, the Roundup is being sprayed at larger and larger concentrations.

    Instead of two passes per season, you have up to four and that means that the amount of Roundup or glyphosate-based herbicides sprayed on these crops is increased up to 10 fold. You can have 10 times the amount of Roundup on the soybeans of the amount that is actually being used for the tests that evaluate the safety and environmental impact.

    So when Monsanto, now Bayer, submits their soybean data – they do the research, not the government this point, they’ll specifically dumb down, making it clear that they have absolutely no intention to uphold their data for real-world modern conditions.

    There are thousands of tons of glyphosate in the food chain that’s been introduced. It’s all over the place. Now it’s not only sprayed more times on Roundup-ready soy it’s also sprayed as a desiccant just before harvesting of beans and grains. It dries down the crop and forces early maturation or ripening of the crop and it’s all over the food supply.

    It’s interesting that we have all of these together. When we have the extra amount of Roundup and then you have the trial in the St. Louis, happening by the way. That’s next week starting Tuesday, January 21st, 2020.

    We believe it will be televised and streamed live. Not all of it, the jury selection won’t be.You won’t be able to see the jury I’m quite sure. Certain things they’ll have to turn off the TV for but I’ll tell you, it’s very exciting to have this and we’ll try to find the best pieces and make sure that you get them available to you.

    You can catch regular news updates on the podcast, Live Healthy, Be Well because I don’t always do them on Facebook or Instagram but I do very regularly on the Live Healthy, Be Well podcast. You have to be a subscriber and then you’ll get a notification. Subscribe anywhere that you get your podcasts or at livehealthybewell.com.

    Safe eating.

    Jeffrey Smith

    * According to our information, the trial will be live-streamed on Courtroom View Network which is a subscription service:
    https://cvn.com/proceedings/wade-v-m...ial-2020-01-21
    Last edited by onawah; 24th January 2020 at 05:49.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    mountain_jim (24th January 2020)

  29. Link to Post #75
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Monsanto (Bayer) loses a huge crop damage lawsuit that could lead to billions in payouts!
    Podcast #21 - 3/10/20
    From email update: Live Healthy Be Well Team <newsletter@livehealthybewell.com>

    "Monsanto (Bayer) loses a huge crop damage lawsuit that could lead to billions in payouts!Have you heard of the term Dicamba? Well, I didn't, until Monsanto created genetically engineered crops that were resistant to this other herbicide, not just Roundup but also Dicamba. They were warned up and down by experts that this would get them in trouble.

    On February 15th, 2020, a jury awarded a peach farmer, $265 million in a lawsuit against Monsanto and their partner BASF for introducing Dicamba resistant seeds. In this podcast Jeffrey describes how this is extremely significant and that it, combined with other evidence that we now have, could be the payback to Monsanto that we've been looking for.

    Tune in to learn more about how Monsanto (Bayer), BASF, Corteva and other companies have created a chemical merry-go-round for farmers that has a huge impact on human health and the environment

    Listen to Jeffrey Live tonight, Tuesday March 10th on Coast to Coast with George Noory on AM Radio @ 1AM EST/10PM PST!
    In the segment "GMO Battlefront" He will update his work on the epic battlefronts of the war over GMOs including the most recent developments in gene editing and synthetic biology and the latest wave of GMOs which he believes may be one of the greatest threats to the planet and the survival of mankind."

    Click Here: https://www.coasttocoastam.com/stations to find your local station or listen on SIRIUS XM Satellite Radio Channel 146

    IOS App Android SiriusXM
    Click here to listen: https://livehealthybewell.com/podcas...ts-episode-21/
    ble.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  30. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Caliban (11th March 2020), Franny (12th March 2020), mountain_jim (11th March 2020), Philippe (12th March 2020)

  31. Link to Post #76
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Top 5 Anti-Organic Myths Busted
    BY ONLY ORGANIC | MARCH 12TH, 2020
    http://www.onlyorganic.org/top-5-ant...-myths-busted/

    "At Only Organic, we encounter lots of consumer confusion about the value of organics. Our social media team has found that some of the statements causing the confusion originate in fake accounts posing as concerned independent parties.

    These types of comments can quickly flood a post with talking points provided by sites that are funded by or colluding with biotech, Big Ag or Big Food. This leads to confusion about food supply facts and the decision to choose organic, and that is the goal of the program.

    The nonprofit U.S. Right To Know recently discovered Let Nothing Go after it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Let Nothing Go seeks to discredit anti-pesticide efforts using operatives paid for by the biotech company Monsanto.

    Through a series of emails, U.S. Right To Know discovered: “Monsanto’s ‘Let Nothing Go’ program guidelines are ‘to leave nothing, not even Facebook comments, unanswered; through a series of third parties, it employs individuals who appear to have no connection to industry, who in turn post positive comments on news articles and Facebook posts defending Monsanto, its chemicals and GMOs.”

    But unlike Monsanto, organic has nothing to hide. To help consumers can make informed decisions, we offer our response to five fairly typical industry-promoted comments.

    Industry claim: “But organic uses pesticides, too!”
    Organic response:

    Although some organic farmers use pesticides, they’re derived primarily from natural substances and must be approved for organic production. The National Organic Standards Board, or NOSB, and the National Organic Program, or NOP, keep a list of materials approved for use in organic production, which typically includes naturally occurring materials and prohibits synthetic materials, with some exceptions. The list is compiled with input from farmers, business owners, consumer advocates and the public.

    Once the NOSB and NOP add a material to the national list, third-party organizations like the Organic Materials Review Institute evaluate them to make sure they’re in compliance, a process that involves hundreds of technical experts. (Find out more this process from the Rodale Institute.) The approved natural pesticides are allowed for use only when other pest control methods fail. (Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency considers organic-approved pesticides on the national list exempt from specific limits, called tolerance requirements because they are so safe.

    2. Industry claim: “GMOs are necessary to feed the world.”

    Organic response:

    There is more than enough food to feed the global population, according to the World Health Organization. Hunger represents a failure of distribution and infrastructure, and it won’t be eliminated by genetically modified, or GMO, crops. The companies that develop and market GMOs may promise that they’ll produce greater yields and solve the world’s food shortages, but studies show that GMO yields are hardly keeping pace with non-GMO crops. It’s also untrue that there is a significant difference in yields between organic and conventional. In fact, the Rodale Institute says that “organic outperforms conventional in adverse weather conditions like drought by as much as 40%.”

    Safer farming practices exist, according to a United Nations report, and studies show “that agroecology is capable of delivering sufficient yields to feed the entire world population and ensure that they are adequately nourished.” Another study supports this assertion, suggesting that farming methods that reduce pesticide use are already accessible and can be used without any loss of productivity or profitability.” In fact, conventional farmers growing GMO crops have had to rely on increasing their use of toxic weedkillers and now must also determine how to combat the evolution of herbicide-resistant superweeds.

    It’s also a myth that U.S. farms “feed the world.” American producers grow only 4 percent of the world’s fruit, vegetables, wheat and rice (see graphic below) – and less than 8 percent of overall global food calories.

    3. Industry claim: “Organic farmers use more pesticides that are more toxic” than conventional farmers.”

    Organic response:

    Because organic food must be grown without the use of toxic persistent pesticides, eating it is one of the best ways to reduce your exposure. Many farmers never use pesticides. Organic farmers that do use pesticides must, according to national organic standards, show they have first exhausted all ecological pest control methods, such as crop rotation, nutrient management and mechanical weeding. They must provide a history of every substance applied to their land for the past three years and pass a rigorous pesticide residue testing program.

    Furthermore, for a food to be considered organic, every farm, packing facility, processor and distributor involved between the farm and market must be inspected to verify compliance with USDA organic regulations. To renew its certification, which has to do annually, every organic operation must undergo inspection so the certifier and inspector can see whether the applicant complies with USDA organic regulations. More than 30,000 inspections are conducted every year.

    4. Industry Claim: “Conventional pesticides are regulated and proven safe so there’s nothing to be afraid of.”

    Organic Response:

    Because of regulatory flaws and loopholes, it’s impossible to prove the chemicals used in conventional food production are dangerous until after they’re in the marketplace and have already caused significant damage to the environment and to human health. The EPA’s own website acknowledges that it needs improved registration tracking and staff training to avoid continued misuse and overuse of its process of approving pesticide registration conditionally.

    To register a pesticide, a chemical company must submit to the EPA the results from a list of specific tests. The EPA does not conduct its own studies, so it uses these results to assess human exposure, effects on human health, wildlife and the environment, and whether and how the pesticide can be used. The agency may also consider data from peer-reviewed scientific journals, other governments’ regulatory agencies, and other sources, often receiving these additional sources through public comments.

    Approval is at the EPA’s discretion, which then sets usage and “tolerance requirements.” After pesticide registration, the EPA reevaluates the safety of the pesticide every 15 years, taking new research and data into consideration.

    But in many cases, the chemical companies’ studies can be manipulated to serve the approval process. The other problem is the EPA is conditionally registering pesticides with either no or inadequate data. EPA determinations about whether the conditions imposed on registrants have been satisfied are made without public comment.

    An underlying problem is the EPA’s so-called revolving door. According to research from Harvard, problems include a “large number of former lawmakers now lobbying to weaken environmental regulations or seek exemptions for clients; pressure from current lawmakers who are beholden to donors or who fear opposition in their next race, and other factors, including the ‘burrowing in’ of political appointees, and the influence of the White House Office of Management and Budget.” This is how pesticide manufacturers get products onto the market without outside input and before they’ve been proven to be safe.

    5. Industry Claim: “Glyphosate is safe – just ask independent scientists.”

    Organic Response:

    Glyphosate is the key ingredient in Bayer/Monsanto’s signature herbicide Roundup. It has been linked to cancer by the World Health Organization and California state scientists. Stauffer Chemical Company first patented it as a mineral chelator in 1964., Monsanto introduced it as an herbicide, in 1974. Conventional farmers spray the weedkiller on genetically engineered corn, oats, soybeans and wheat before it’s harvested. Consumers also use it on their lawns and gardeners.

    The widespread use has led to an explosion in pesticide-resistant weeds, which can be found on half of all American fields – upward of 100 million acres of cultivated cropland.

    We know a lot about glyphosate, but the research is rapidly evolving. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, categorizes glyphosate as a carcinogen. The IARC said that along with other Monsanto chemicals, Roundup can cause Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, autism and cancer. Both the nature and severity of human health impacts following exposures to glyphosate herbicides are unknown. Despite a 20-fold increase in use and an increase in exposure, over the past two decades, there has been no systematic effort by U.S. research or public health agencies to answer lingering questions. Glyphosate and metabolite residues concentrate in the liver and kidney, and both animal studies and human investigations have highlighted liver and kidney problems.

    Glyphosate has blanketed the news recently because Monsanto was ordered in 2019 to pay $289 million in damages after a jury found the company liable for causing a school groundskeeper’s cancer. A jury last year in California ordered the company to pay a couple more than $2 billion in damages after finding that the weedkiller Roundup had caused their cancer – the third jury to conclude that the company had failed to warn consumers of its flagship product’s dangers. There are 42,000 additional lawsuits against Monsanto queued up in state and federal courts.

    FOIA requests and court documents have demonstrated that Monsanto funnels money to “think tanks” such as the “Genetic Literacy Project” and the “American Council on Science and Health,” organizations intended to shame independent scientists and highlight information helpful to Monsanto and other chemical producers. For example, GMO and pesticide proponent Kevin Folta claimed to be an independent scientist without industry ties but was later exposed for taking $25,000 from Monsanto for his “science communication” activities. There have been reports of other emails among scientists working with Monsanto.

    But the court case findings keep demonstrating a company claiming its chemical is safe and doesn’t cause cancer even when the science doesn’t agree. In response to one critical study about glyphosate exposure, Monsanto’s product protection lead Donna Farmer stated in an email that “you cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer.”

    A lead attorney in the groundskeeper’s case against Monsanto, Brent Wisner cited company emails from decades earlier that provide details of its work with a genotoxicity expert who reviewed a series of 1990s studies. He raised concerns about Roundup effects on humans and suggested further research.

    After the expert’s analysis, Monsanto representatives began to look for a different expert and started work on a press statement saying the product carried no risk. Wisner also read documents that he said showed how Monsanto strategized plans to “ghostwrite” favorable research."
    Find out more about this chemical here: http://www.onlyorganic.org/glyphosat...e-should-know/
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  32. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Frank V (12th March 2020), Franny (12th March 2020), mountain_jim (13th March 2020), Sarah Rainsong (12th March 2020)

  33. Link to Post #77
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    3rd July 2018
    Posts
    4,351
    Thanks
    39,678
    Thanked 33,454 times in 4,331 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Court overturns EPA approval of Bayer dicamba herbicide; says regulator "understated the risks"

    Carey Gillam
    US Right To Know
    Wed, 03 Jun 2020 00:01 UTC



    In a stunning rebuke of the Environmental Protection Agency, a federal court on Wednesday overturned the agency's approval of popular dicamba-based herbicides made by chemical giants Bayer, BASF and Corteva Agrisciences. The ruling effectively makes it illegal for farmers to continue to use the product.

    The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the EPA "substantially understated the risks" of the dicamba herbicides and "failed entirely to acknowledge other risks."

    "The EPA made multiple errors in granting the conditional registrations," the court ruling states.

    Monsanto and the EPA had asked the court, if it did agree with the plaintiffs, not to immediately overturn the approvals of the weed killing products. The court said simply: "We decline to do so."

    The lawsuit was brought by the National Family Farm Coalition, Center for Food Safety, Center for Biological Diversity, and Pesticide Action Network North America.

    The plaintiffs accused the EPA of breaking the law in evaluating the impacts of a system designed by Monsanto, which was bought by Bayer in 2018, that has triggered "widespread" crop damage over the last few summers and continues to threaten farms across the country.
    "Today's decision is a massive win for farmers and the environment," said George Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety, lead counsel in the case.

    "It is good to be reminded that corporations like Monsanto and the Trump Administration cannot escape the rule of law, particularly at a time of crisis like this. Their day of reckoning has arrived."
    The court found that among other problems, the EPA "refused to estimate the amount of dicamba damage, characterizing such damage as 'potential' and 'alleged,' when record evidence showed that dicamba had caused substantial and undisputed damage."

    The court also found that the EPA failed to acknowledge that restrictions it placed on the use of the dicamba herbicides would not be followed, and it determined that the EPA "entirely failed to acknowledge the substantial risk that the registrations would have anticompetitive economic effects in the soybean and cotton industries."

    Finally, the court said, the EPA entirely failed to acknowledge the risk that the new use of dicamba herbicides set up by Monsanto, BASF and Corteva would "tear the social fabric of farming communities."

    Farmers have been using dicamba herbicides for more than 50 years but traditionally avoided applying the herbicide during hot summer months, and rarely if ever over large swaths of land due to the well-known propensity of the chemical to drift far from intended target areas where it could damage crops, gardens, orchards, and shrubs.

    Monsanto upended that restraint when it launched dicamba-tolerant soybean and cotton seeds a few years ago, encouraging farmers to spray new formulations of dicamba "over the top" of these genetically engineered crops during warm-weather growing months.

    Monsanto's move to create genetically engineered dicamba-tolerant crops came after its glyphosate-tolerant crops and widespread spraying of glyphosate created an epidemic of weed resistance across U.S. farmland.

    Farmers, agricultural scientists and other experts warned Monsanto and the EPA that introducing a dicamba-tolerant system would not only create more herbicide resistance but would lead to devastating damage to crops that are not genetically engineered to tolerate dicamba.

    Despite the warnings, Monsanto, along with BASF and Corteva AgriScience all gained approval from the EPA to market new formulations of dicamba herbicides for this widespread type of spraying. The companies claimed their new versions of dicamba would not volatize and drift as older versions of dicamba weed killing products were known to do. But those assurances have proven false amid widespread complaints of dicamba drift damage since the introduction of the new dicamba-tolerant crops and the new dicamba herbicides. More than one million acres of crop damage was reported last year in 18 states, the court noted.

    As predicted, there have been thousands of dicamba damage complaints recorded in multiple states. In its ruling, the court noted that in 2018, out of 103 million acres of soybeans and cotton planted in the United States, about 56 million acres were planted with seeds with Monsanto's dicamba-tolerance trait, up from 27 million acres the year before in 2017.

    In February, a unanimous jury awarded a Missouri peach farmer $15 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages to be paid by Bayer and BASF for dicamba damage to his property.

    Bayer issued a statement following the ruling saying it strongly disagreed with the court ruling and was assessing its options.
    "The EPA's informed science-based decision reaffirms that this tool is vital for growers and does not pose any unreasonable risks of off-target movement when used according to label directions," the company said.

    "If the ruling stands, we will work quickly to minimize any impact on our customers this season."
    Corteva also said its dicamba herbicides were needed farmer tools and that it was assessing its options.

    BASF called the court order "unprecedented" and said it "has the potential to be devastating to tens of thousands of farmers."

    Farmers could lose "significant revenue" if they are not able to kill weeds in their soybean and cotton fields with the dicamba herbicides, the company said.
    "We will use all legal remedies available to challenge this Order," BASF said.
    An EPA spokesman said the agency was currently reviewing the court decision and "will move promptly to address the Court's directive."

    The court acknowledged the decision could be costly for farmers who have already purchased and/or planted dicamba-tolerant seeds for this season and planned to use the dicamba herbicides on them because the ruling disallows that herbicide use.
    "We acknowledge the difficulties these growers may have in finding effective and legal herbicides to protect their (dicamba-tolerant) crops..." the ruling states.

    "They have been placed in this situation through no fault of their own. However, the absence of substantial evidence to support the EPA's decision compels us to vacate the registrations."

    Related:

  34. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gwin Ru For This Post:

    mountain_jim (9th June 2020), onawah (12th June 2020)

  35. Link to Post #78
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Shocking stories of corruption, cover-up and hidden epidemics by Monsanto and friends - Episode 38
    6/17/20
    Article, transcript and audio here: https://livehealthybewell.com/podcas...ds-episode-38/

    "In this episode of Live Healthy Be Well we offer you a live recording of Jeffrey speaking at "The Real Truth about Health” Conference". In this talk Jeffrey tells some amazing stories of corruption, cover-up and other deceptions by Monsanto, the EPA and the biotech industry. These stories are not to be missed and will surprise and confound you with the blatant ways they have tried to deceive and confuse the world about the dangers of GMOs, Roundup and Glyphosate.

    Safe eating.

    The Live Healthy Be Well Team"
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  36. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Gwin Ru (17th June 2020), william r sanford72 (17th June 2020)

  37. Link to Post #79
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    USDA: Reject Monsanto’s petition to approve this GE five-herbicide seed
    Please sign and share
    6/22/20
    "Target: USDA
    Monsanto has petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture to approve a new GE corn seed engineered to tolerate applications of not just one or two chemicals, but five — dicamba, glufosinate, quizalofop, 2,4-D and glyphosate. We know who would benefit from this new seed — and it’s not farmers.
    We’re teaming up with our friends at the National Family Farm Coalition and Friends of the Earth to deliver comments to USDA in advance of their July 7 deadline. Urge USDA to reject Monsanto’s petition to approve this seed, today."
    http://www.panna.org/take-action/usd...ore-herbicides
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  38. Link to Post #80
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Good news this year for Non-GMO & Organic
    Institute for Responsible Technology
    (from their email update 12/21/20)
    https://www.responsibletechnology.or...f-e280bb3c23d0

    "Brand New Evidence of Roundup Harm; New Existential Danger from GMOs 2.0

    Hello, everyone, Jeffrey Smith, and happy New Year coming up soon. I wanted to give you some good news that you probably are happy to hear–various good news from 2020 with respect to GMOs and organic. Next year starting in January, we’re having our 25th year as an activist in the area of GMOs, and I’ve got to tell you a lot of the good news this year is a big “I told you so” to the industry, things that we have been saying for years and doing for years and are now successful. We’re demonstrating we have a mainstream understanding about plenty of the things that we’ve talked about, even though the biotech industry never admits it. One of the things that I think is among the greatest achievements for 2020 is a result of a poll of global consumers, a huge poll. It showed, among other things, that 48% of consumers around the world think that GMOs would be most likely bad for their health over the next 20 years.


    Forty-eight percent – about half of the world’s population – believes that GMO foods are unsafe for their health. This is in huge contrast to what it was like 25 years ago. When I started, no one knew what a GMO was. When I started the Institute for Responsible Technology in 2003, there were no other non-profits who were talking about the health dangers beyond three or four sentences. Don’t ask me to repeat those sentences. I’d seen them for years and they were very ineffectual. So we focused on the health dangers, the book Seeds of Deception, and my tours in 45 countries. That, and other people picking up the behavior change messaging that we helped pioneer, has now convinced 48% of the world’s population–and 51% specifically in the United States–that GMOs are unsafe. This is huge news. This is outstanding. Among the GMOs that we’ve talked about, that I’ve written about, etc., GMO salmon turned out to be a potential catastrophe.

    I reported years ago on a fast-growing salmon that was similar to the one that is being introduced–or really being planned to be introduced–to the human food supply in the United States (it already has been in Canada by AquaBounty); that the outdoor release of this salmon could result in a crash or extinction of salmon from the ocean. The FDA review of the salmon, which was designed to be a fast track, was so poor and so ridiculous that a court viewed it as illegal–that they did not take into account the environmental consequences of a salmon release. So that has been blocked. Thank you to our dear friends at the Center for Food Safety. Woo-hoo! So that salmon is not going to be on our plates in the United States very soon. Another industry myth that we have been challenging: in the olden days, back when I was starting out, the biotech industry claimed that any release of GMOs into the environment would be quickly erased because the GMOs would have a survival disadvantage and that over time we would end up restoring a pristine gene pool

    They were pretending that they were in favor of keeping the nature of nature, but they didn’t have any data to back up their claims that a GMO in the wild would die off. Well, research came out this year showing the opposite: that once released into the wild, GMOs can be more likely to proliferate; the crops would have more seeds or more tendency to survive. Also, the generation after its release could be altered in ways that are completely unpredictable, making any safety assessment completely irrelevant because the genome can change spontaneously. So all of their protestations about our concerns about the environmental impact turned out to be based on disinformation.

    The trials and the settlements for the Roundup cases are moving forward

    The appeals court for Lee Johnson–you remember, Lee was the first trial against GMOs for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. He was in the Benicia school district as a groundskeeper. He had a terminal diagnosis for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, so they rushed his case to trial before others, and he was awarded $295 million by the jury. The judge has reduced it since, but like the other two trials, Monsanto-Bayer continues to attack it in court, attacking at each next level. The next level, which is the appeals court, upheld the decision by the local court, blocking yet again Monsanto/-Bayer’s appeal. In that trial, a lot of documents came out verifying that the tests that were done in the United States for glyphosate and Roundup were fraudulent and completely ridiculous. I don’t want to go into it, but totally fraudulent information came out this year showing that research done in German labs on glyphosate, the chief poison in Roundup, was also fraudulent. Because of the increased attention on the cancer-causing characteristics of glyphosate, a lot of rejection has occur

    Communities have rejected glyphosate. Mexico says they’re going to phase it out, and its future does not look bright. In fact, I was able to publish a talk aimed at Bayer’s shareholders’ meeting, although it was during the pandemic and I wasn’t able to attend in person as planned. I actually released a video and testified on a hundred alternative live streams. I warned Bayer that if they don’t step up and either remove glyphosate completely and/or completely open up their documents to show what Monsanto was hiding, that future juries would give them punitive damages that were very, very severe and that they would face bankruptcy because there’s other diseases associated with Roundup and glyphosate. The number of people, over 125,000, that is part of the plaintiff group are charging that they got their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma from Roundup. But that number is tiny compared to the number of people who suffer from other diseases that are created by Roundup.

    I laid all this out saying they have to come clean, they have to do the research, etc. that the independent scientists had told them to do years ago. If it shows that it’s linked to these diseases, they need to pull it off the market. In fact, I said they should take it off right away, but as a last-ditch effort, that they should at least do the research in case they’re resistant. Anyway, we now have more evidence. More evidence came out linking Roundup as an endocrine disruptor. Endocrine disruptors operate at tiny, tiny amounts. You could have parts per trillion, and we know parts per trillion of glyphosate causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in rats and may be that is the reason why 30 or 35% of U.S. citizens have non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

    Back in 2005, Dr. Seralini, who’s been doing more research on GMOs and Roundup than anyone, found that glyphosate and Roundup had endocrine-disrupting properties, and that one of the things it could disrupt was aromatase, which creates the balance between estrogen and testosterone, so it could affect reproductive health. The Environmental Protection Agency ignored that evidence; they ignore all low dose effects. This year a review paper out of Argentina showed that Roundup was in fact an endocrine disruptor. It fulfilled eight out of the 10 requirements. They said flatly it disrupts endocrine, which means it messes up our hormones. We’ve been talking about this. Now we have much greater evidence, and also several studies that came out this summer verified the reproductive problems of Roundup and glyphosate in a variety of animals and showed that there were problems in the ovaries and the uterus. I also drew attention to the aromatase, which we knew about 15 years ago because of Seralini.

    Another class of GMO crops is the Bt crops, not the ones sprayed with Roundup, but the ones that produce their own toxic insecticide called Bt, which stands for bacillus thuringiensis. Bt toxin is from soil bacteria. It’s used by organic farmers. You can spray it on crops and it will kill certain insects by breaking holes in their guts and killing them and then it’ll wash off and degrade in the sun. But genetic engineers placed the genes from that bacteria into corn, cotton, and soybeans, and they produce it, the Bt toxin at thousands of times the level that is found in the spray. It doesn’t wash off because it’s encapsulated in the cells. It doesn’t biodegrade, it’s eaten, so we think it’s extremely dangerous. But also, by putting out this insecticide in so many millions of acres, we had been predicting that the insects would outsmart Monsanto’s toxins and develop resistance.

    We have been so accurate in this, that the EPA now proposes to phase out nearly all Bt corn and cotton, because there’s the Bt corn and cotton in the United States and soybeans in South America. They want to phase out maybe 40 varieties of Bt corn because it’s failing in the fields. Speaking of failing in the fields, I remember talking to a former Monsanto scientist who said we need GMOs because we need them for the developing countries like India. Well, I’ve reported in the past that the Bt cotton was a disaster, with maybe a quarter of a million Bt cotton farmers committing suicide when after borrowing money on the secondary market from loan sharks, it turns out it was an absolute disaster because they weren’t getting the yield. Sometimes it was a complete failure economically.

    Now a panel of international scientists in August evaluated the 18 years of Bt cotton in India and showed that it has completely failed. So all of the rhetoric that had been put out by the industry that it was such a success turns out to be disinformation. In addition, the industry is still banging the drum that GMO’s increase yields. Trolls online still say,“Well, now we know that GMO crops increase yields.” It turns out they’re still failing to increase yields. That is completely clear, based on peer-reviewed published studies and case studies, etc. all over the world. Fortunately, Mexico is seeing the light and has said no to GMO corn, and their people during the pandemic are now saying, “Yes,” to organic. Realizing that what they eat is so important for their health and immune system, the demand for organic has been through the roof

    We also found out that when you switch to organic, your glyphosate levels in your urine can drop by 70% in just three days, so please eat organic and stay organic. It was also discovered this year that organic farming of soy, corn, and wheat is more profitable than GMOs and that according to the commodity market outlook, the number of certified organic operations in the US will reach 19,888, a 4% increase this year. Organic corn livestock feed is projected to increase by 6%; organic soybean crushed is projected to increase by 13%; soybean planted areas expanded 19%, and corn by 8%.

    Now let’s talk about GMOs 2.0, and our Protect Nature Now campaign. We’ve been talking about the dangers of gene editing and the study came out this year showing that gene edited embryos can create chromosomal mayhem: huge changes that are unpredicted could occur in the human genome when you use gene editing.

    The same type of changes can occur in animals, and also similarly in plants. But the FDA came out surprisingly this year saying we need to have strong regulations for gene edited animals, it didn’t mention the plants, probably because of the lobbyists around the industry and the USDA. What’s also interesting is that the scientist who gene edited actual human embryos (and there’s now twins born with gene edited genome), was sentenced to three years in jail. But to people that genetically engineered corn or soy or microbes they turn a blind eye. If you think about microbes, as we have, they’re actually more dangerous to the planet and to humans than editing the genes of higher organisms. Go to protectnaturenow.com and watch the 2-minute trailer for a film we’re releasing next year highlighting the dangers of GMO microbes.

    So that’s some good news looking backwards at the changes relating to GMO foods, and the plans we have going next year are about locking down GMO microbes to start.

    Okay everyone, Safe Eating and Happy New Year!"
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 4 5 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