Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

[Hervé]

The Complete History of Monsanto, “The World’s Most Evil Corporation”

By E Hanzai
Global Research, June 22, 2014
Waking Times

[The new "Cool-Aid"]

Of all the mega-corps running amok, Monsanto has consistently outperformed its rivals, earning the crown as “most evil corporation on Earth!” Not content to simply rest upon its throne of destruction, it remains focused on newer, more scientifically innovative ways to harm the planet and its people.

1901: The company is founded by John Francis Queeny, a member of the Knights of Malta, a thirty year pharmaceutical veteran married to Olga Mendez Monsanto, for which Monsanto Chemical Works is named. The company’s first product is chemical saccharin, sold to Coca-Cola as an artificial sweetener.

Even then, the government knew saccharin was poisonous and sued to stop its manufacture but lost in court, thus opening the Monsanto Pandora’s Box to begin poisoning the world through the soft drink.

1920s: Monsanto expands into industrial chemicals and drugs, becoming the world’s largest maker of aspirin, acetylsalicyclic acid, (toxic of course). This is also the time when things began to go horribly wrong for the planet in a hurry with the introduction of their polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

“PCBs were considered an industrial wonder chemical, an oil that wouldn’t burn, impervious to degradation and had almost limitless applications. Today PCBs are considered one of the gravest chemical threats on the planet. Widely used as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, cutting oils, waterproof coatings and liquid sealants, are potent carcinogens and have been implicated in reproductive, developmental and immune system disorders. The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state.”(1)

Even though PCBs were eventually banned after fifty years for causing such devastation, it is still present in just about all animal and human blood and tissue cells across the globe. Documents introduced in court later showed Monsanto was fully aware of the deadly effects, but criminally hid them from the public to keep the PCB gravy-train going full speed!

1930s: Created its first hybrid seed corn and expands into detergents, soaps, industrial cleaning products, synthetic rubbers and plastics. Oh yes, all toxic of course!

1940s: They begin research on uranium to be used for the Manhattan Project’s first atomic bomb, which would later be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese, Korean and US Military servicemen and poisoning millions more.

The company continues its unabated killing spree by creating pesticides for agriculture containing deadly dioxin, which poisons the food and water supplies. It was later discovered Monsanto failed to disclose that dioxin was used in a wide range of their products because doing so would force them to acknowledge that it had created an environmental Hell on Earth.

1950s: Closely aligned with The Walt Disney Company, Monsanto creates several attractions at Disney’s Tomorrowland, espousing the glories of chemicals and plastics. Their “House of the Future” is constructed entirely of toxic plastic that is not biodegradable as they had asserted. What, Monsanto lied? I’m shocked!

“After attracting a total of 20 million visitors from 1957 to 1967, Disney finally tore the house down, but discovered it would not go down without a fight. According to Monsanto Magazine, wrecking balls literally bounced off the glass-fiber, reinforced polyester material. Torches, jackhammers, chain saws and shovels did not work. Finally, choker cables were used to squeeze off parts of the house bit by bit to be trucked away.”(2)

Monsanto’s Disneyfied vision of the future:
1960s: Monsanto, along with chemical partner-in-crime DOW Chemical, produces dioxin-laced Agent Orange for use in the U.S.’s Vietnam invasion. The results? Over 3 million people contaminated, a half-million Vietnamese civilians dead, a half-million Vietnamese babies born with birth defects and thousands of U.S. military veterans suffering or dying from its effects to this day!

Monsanto is hauled into court again and internal memos show they knew the deadly effects of dioxin in Agent Orange when they sold it to the government. Outrageously though, Monsanto is allowed to present their own “research” that concluded dioxin was safe and posed no negative health concerns whatsoever. Satisfied, the bought and paid for courts side with Monsanto and throws the case out. Afterwards, it comes to light that Monsanto lied about the findings and their real research concluded that dioxin kills very effectively.

A later internal memo released in a 2002 trial admitted

“that the evidence proving the persistence of these compounds and their universal presence as residues in the environment is beyond question … the public and legal pressures to eliminate them to prevent global contamination are inevitable. The subject is snowballing. Where do we go from here? The alternatives: go out of business; sell the hell out of them as long as we can and do nothing else; try to stay in business; have alternative products.”(3)

Monsanto partners with I.G. Farben, makers of Bayer aspirin and the Third Reich’s go-to chemical manufacturer producing deadly Zyklon-B gas during World War II. Together, the companies use their collective expertise to introduce aspartame, another extremely deadly neurotoxin, into the food supply. When questions surface regarding the toxicity of saccharin, Monsanto exploits this opportunity to introduce yet another of its deadly poisons onto an unsuspecting public.

1970s: Monsanto partner, G.D. Searle, produces numerous internal studies which claim aspartame to be safe, while the FDA’s own scientific research clearly reveals that aspartame causes tumors and massive holes in the brains of rats, before killing them. The FDA initiates a grand jury investigation into G.D. Searle for “knowingly misrepresenting findings and concealing material facts and making false statements” in regard to aspartame safety.

During this time, Searle strategically taps prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld, who served as Secretary of Defense during the Gerald Ford and George W. Bush presidencies, to become CEO. The corporation’s primary goal is to have Rumsfeld utilize his political influence and vast experience in the killing business to grease the FDA to play ball with them.

A few months later, Samuel Skinner receives “an offer he can’t refuse,” withdraws from the investigation and resigns his post at the U.S. Attorney’s Office to go work for Searle’s law firm. This mob tactic stalls the case just long enough for the statute of limitation to run out and the grand jury investigation is abruptly and conveniently dropped.

1980s: Amid indisputable research that reveals the toxic effects of aspartame and as then FDA commissioner Dr. Jere Goyan was about to sign a petition into law keeping it off the market, Donald Rumsfeld calls Ronald Reagan for a favor the day after he takes office. Reagan fires the uncooperative Goyan and appoints Dr. Arthur Hayes Hull to head the FDA, who then quickly tips the scales in Searle’s favor and NutraSweet is approved for human consumption in dried products.This becomes sadly ironic since Reagan, a known jelly bean and candy enthusiast, later suffers from Alzheimers during his second term, one of the many horrific effects of aspartame consumption.

Searle’s real goal though was to have aspartame approved as a soft drink sweetener since exhaustive studies revealed that at temperatures exceeding 85 degrees Fahrenheit, it “breaks down into known toxins Diketopiperazines (DKP), methyl (wood) alcohol, and formaldehyde.”(4), becoming many times deadlier than its powdered form!

The National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) is initially in an uproar, fearing future lawsuits from consumers permanently injured or killed by drinking the poison. When Searle is able to show that liquid aspartame, though incredibly deadly, is much more addictive than crack cocaine, the NSDA is convinced that skyrocketing profits from the sale of soft drinks laced with aspartame would easily offset any future liability. With that, corporate greed wins and the unsuspecting soft drink consumers pay for it with damaged healths.

Coke leads the way once again (remember saccharin?) and begins poisoning Diet Coke drinkers with aspartame in 1983. As expected, sales skyrocket as millions become hopelessly addicted and sickened by the sweet poison served in a can. The rest of the soft drink industry likes what it sees and quickly follows suit, conveniently forgetting all about their initial reservations that aspartame is a deadly chemical. There’s money to be made, lots of it and that’s all that really matters to them anyway!

In 1985, undaunted by the swirl of corruption and multiple accusations of fraudulent research undertaken by Searle, Monsanto purchases the company and forms a new aspartame subsidiary called NutraSweet Company. When multitudes of independent scientists and researchers continue to warn about aspartame’s toxic effects, Monsanto goes on the offensive, bribing the National Cancer Institute and providing their own fraudulent papers to get the NCI to claim that formaldehyde does not cause cancer so that aspartame can stay on the market.

The known effects of aspartame ingestion are: “mania, rage, violence, blindness, joint-pain, fatigue, weight-gain, chest-pain, coma, insomnia, numbness, depression, tinnitus, weakness, spasms, irritability, nausea, deafness, memory-loss, rashes, dizziness, headaches, seizures, anxiety, palpitations, fainting, cramps, diarrhoea, panic, burning in the mouth. Diseases triggered/mimmicked include diabetes, MS, lupus, epilepsy, Parkinson’s, tumours, miscarriage, infertility, fibromyalgia, infant death, Alzheimer’s… Source : U.S. Food & Drug Administration.(5)

Further, 80% of complaints made to the FDA regarding food additives are about aspartame, which is now in over 5,000 products including diet and non-diet sodas and sports drinks, mints, chewing gum, frozen desserts, cookies, cakes, vitamins, pharmaceuticals, milk drinks, instant teas, coffees, yogurt, baby food and many, many more!(6) Read labels closely and do not buy anything that contains this horrific killer!

Amidst all the death and disease, FDA’s Arthur Hull resigns under a cloud of corruption and is immediately hired by Searle’s public relations firm as a senior scientific consultant. No, that’s not a joke! Monsanto, the FDA and many government health regulatory agencies have become one and the same! It seems the only prerequisite for becoming an FDA commissioner is that they spend time at either Monsanto or one of the pharmaceutical cartel’s organized crime corps.

1990s: Monsanto spends millions defeating state and federal legislation that disallows the corporation from continuing to dump dioxins, pesticides and other cancer-causing poisons into drinking water systems. Regardless, they are sued countless times for causing disease in their plant workers, the people in surrounding areas and birth defects in babies.

With their coffins full from the massive billions of profits, the $100 million dollar settlements are considered the low cost of doing business and thanks to the FDA, Congress and White House, business remains very good. So good that Monsanto is sued for giving radioactive iron to 829 pregnant women for a study to see what would happen to them.

In 1994, the FDA once again criminally approves Monsanto’s latest monstrosity, the Synthetic Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), produced from a genetically modified E. coli bacteria, despite obvious outrage from the scientific community of its dangers. Of course, Monsanto claims that diseased pus milk, full of antibiotics and hormones is not only safe, but actually good for you!

Worse yet, dairy companies who refuse to use this toxic cow pus and label their products as“rBGH-free” are sued by Monsanto, claiming it gives them an unfair advantage over competitors that did. In essence, what Monsanto was saying is “yeah, we know rBGH makes people sick, but it’s not alright that you advertise it’s not in your products.”

The following year, the diabolical company begins producing GMO crops that are tolerant to their toxic herbicide Roundup. Roundup-ready canola oil (rapeseed), soybeans, corn and BT cotton begin hitting the market, advertised as being safer, healthier alternatives to their organic non-GMO rivals. Apparently, the propaganda worked as today over 80% of canola on the market is their GMO variety.

A few things you definitely want to avoid in your diet are GMO soy, corn, wheat and canola oil, despite the fact that many “natural” health experts claim the latter to be a healthy oil. It’s not, but you’ll find it polluting many products on grocery store shelves.

Because these GM crops have been engineered to ‘self-pollinate,’ they do not need nature or bees to do that for them. There is a very dark side agenda to this and that is to wipe out the world’s bee population.

Monsanto knows that birds and especially bees, throw a wrench into their monopoly due to their ability to pollinate plants, thus naturally creating foods outside of the company’s “full domination control agenda.” When bees attempt to pollinate a GM plant or flower, it gets poisoned and dies. In fact, the bee colony collapse was recognized and has been going on since GM crops were first introduced.

To counter the accusations that they deliberately caused this ongoing genocide of bees, Monsanto devilishly buys out Beeologics, the largest bee research firm that was dedicated to studying the colony collapse phenomenon and whose extensive research named the monster as the primary culprit! After that, it’s “bees, what bees? Everything’s just dandy!” Again, I did not make this up, but wish I had!

During the mid-90s, they decide to reinvent their evil company as one focused on controlling the world’s food supply through artificial, biotechnology means to preserve the Roundup cash-cow from losing market-share in the face of competing, less-toxic herbicides. You see, Roundup is so toxic that it wipes out non-GMO crops, insects, animals, human health and the environment at the same time. How very efficient!

Because Roundup-ready crops are engineered to be toxic pesticides masquerading as food, they have been banned in the EU, but not in America! Is there any connection between that and the fact that Americans, despite the high cost and availability of healthcare, are collectively the sickest people in the world? Of course not!

As was Monsanto’s plan from the beginning, all non-Monsanto crops would be destroyed, forcing farmers the world over to use only its toxic terminator seeds. And Monsanto made sure farmers who refused to come into the fold were driven out of business or sued when windblown terminator seeds poisoned organic farms.

This gave the company a virtual monopoly as terminator seed crops and Roundup worked hand in glove with each other as GMO crops could not survive in a non-chemical environment so farmers were forced to buy both.

Their next step was to spend billions globally buying up as many seed companies as possible and transitioning them into terminator seed companies in an effort to wipe out any rivals and eliminate organic foods off the face of the earth. In Monsanto’s view, all foods must be under their full control and genetically modified or they are not safe to eat!

They pretend to be shocked that their critics in the scientific community question whether crops genetically modified with the genes of diseased pigs, cows, spiders, monkeys, fish, vaccines and viruses are healthy to eat. The answer to that question is obviously a very big “no way!”

You’d think the company would be so proud of their GMO foods that they’d serve them to their employees, but they don’t. In fact, Monsanto has banned GM foods from being served in their own employee cafeterias. Monsanto lamely responded “we believe in choice.” What they really means is “we don’t want to kill the help.”

It’s quite okay though to force-feed poor nations and Americans these modified monstrosities as a means to end starvation since dead people don’t need to eat! I’ll bet the thought on most peoples’ minds these days is that Monsanto is clearly focused on eugenics and genocide, as opposed to providing foods that will sustain the world. As in Monsanto partner Disney’s Sleeping Beauty, the wicked witch gives the people the poisoned GMO apple that puts them to sleep forever!

2000s: By this time Monsanto controls the largest share of the global GMO market. In turn, the US gov’t spends hundreds of millions to fund aerial spraying of Roundup, causing massive environmental devastation. Fish and animals by the thousands die within days of spraying as respiratory ailments and cancer deaths in humans spike tremendously. But this is all considered an unusual coincidence so the spraying continues. If you thought Monsanto and the FDA were one and the same, well you can add the gov’t to that sorry list now.

The monster grows bigger: Monsanto merges with Pharmacia & Upjohn, then separates from its chemical business and rebrands itself as an agricultural company. Yes, that’s right, a chemical company whose products have devastated the environment, killed millions of people and wildlife over the years now wants us to believe they produce safe and nutritious foods that won’t kill people any longer. That’s an extremely hard-sell, which is why they continue to grow bigger through mergers and secret partnerships.

Because rival DuPont is too large a corporation to be allowed to merge with, they instead form a stealth partnership where each agrees to drop existing patent lawsuits against one another and begin sharing GMO technologies for mutual benefit. In layman’s terms, together they would be far too powerful and politically connected for anything to stop them from owning a virtual monopoly on agriculture; “control the food supply & you control the people!”

Not all is rosy as the monster is repeatedly sued for $100s of millions for causing illness, infant deformities and death by illegally dumping all manner of PCBs into ground water, and continually lying about products safety – you know, business as usual.

The monster often perseveres and proves difficult to slay as it begins filing frivolous suits against farmers it claims infringe on their terminator seed patents. In virtually all cases, unwanted seeds are windblown onto farmers’ lands by neighboring terminator-seeded farms. Not only do these horrendous seeds destroy the organic farmers’ crops, the lawsuits drive them into bankruptcy, while the Supreme Court overturns lower court rulings and sides with Monsanto each time.

At the same time, the monster begins filing patents on breeding techniques for pigs, claiming animals bred any way remotely similar to their patent would grant them ownership. So loose was this patent filing that it became obvious they wanted to claim all pigs bred throughout the world would infringe upon their patent.

The global terrorism spreads to India as over 100,000 farmers who are bankrupted by GMO crop failure, commit suicide by drinking Roundup so their families will be eligible for death insurance payments. In response, the monster takes advantage of the situation by alerting the media to a new project to assist small Indian farmers by donating the very things that caused crop failures in the country in the first place! Forbes then names Monsanto “company of the year.” Sickening, but true.

More troubling is that Whole Foods, the corporation that brands itself as organic, natural and eco-friendly is proven to be anything but. They refuse to support Proposition 37, California’s GMO-labeling measure that Monsanto and its GMO-brethren eventually helped to defeat.

Why? Because Whole Foods has been in bed with Monsanto for a long time, secretly stuffing its shelves with overpriced, fraudulently advertized “natural & organic” crap loaded with GMOs, pesticides, rBGH, hormones and antibiotics. So, of course they don’t want mandatory labelling as that would expose them as the Whole Frauds and Whore Foods that they really are!

However, when over twenty biotech-friendly companies including WalMart, Pepsico and ConAgra recently met with FDA in favor of mandatory labelling laws, this after fighting tooth and nail to defeat Prop 37, Whole Foods sees an opportunity to save face and becomes the first grocery chain to announce mandatory labelling of their GMO products…in 2018! Uh, thanks for nothing, Whore.

And if you think its peers have suddenly grown a conscience, think again. They are simply reacting to the public’s outcry over the defeat of Prop 37 by crafting deceptive GMO-labelling laws to circumvent any real change, thus keeping the status quo intact.

To add insult to world injury, Monsanto and their partners in crime Archer Daniels Midland, Sodexo and Tyson Foods write and sponsor The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009: HR 875. This criminal “act” gives the corporate factory farms a virtual monopoly to police and control all foods grown anywhere, including one’s own backyard, and provides harsh penalties and jail sentences for those who do not use chemicals and fertilizers. President Obama decided this sounded reasonable and gave his approval.

With this Act, Monsanto claims that only GM foods are safe and organic or homegrown foods potentially spread disease, therefore must be regulated out of existence for the safety of the world. If eating GM pesticide balls is their idea of safe food, I would like to think the rest of the world is smart enough to pass.

As further revelations have broken open regarding this evil giant’s true intentions, Monsanto crafted the ridiculous HR 933 Continuing Resolution, aka Monsanto Protection Act, which Obama robo-signed into law as well.This law states that no matter how harmful Monsanto’s GMO crops are and no matter how much devastation they wreak upon the country, U.S. federal courts cannot stop them from continuing to plant them anywhere they choose. Yes, Obama signed a provision that makes Monsanto above any laws and makes them more powerful than the government itself. We have to wonder who’s really in charge of the country because it’s certainly not him!

There comes a tipping point though when a corporation becomes too evil and the world pushes back…hard! Many countries continue to convict Monsanto of crimes against humanity and have banned them altogether, telling them to “get out and stay out!”

The world has begun to awaken to the fact that the corporate monster does not want control over the global production of food simply for profit’s sake. No, it’s become clear by over a century of death & destruction that the primary goal is to destroy human health and the environment, turning the world into a Mon-Satanic Hell on Earth!

Research into the name itself reveals it to be latin, meaning “my saint,” which may explain why critics often refer to it as “Mon-Satan.” Even more conspiratorially interesting is that free masons and other esoteric societies assigned numbers to each letter in our latin-based alphabet system in a six system. Under that number system, what might Monsanto add up to? Why, of course 6-6-6!

Know that all is not lost. Evil always loses in the end once it is widely exposed to the light of truth as is occurring now. The fact that the Monsanto-led government finds it necessary to enact desperate legislation to protect its true leader proves this point. Being evicted elsewhere, the United States is Monsanto’s last stand so to speak.

Yet, even here many have begun striking back by protesting against and rejecting GMO monstrosities, choosing to grow their own foods and shop at local farmers markets instead of the Monsanto-supported corporate grocery chains.

The awakening people are also beginning to see they have been misled by corporate tricksters and federal government criminals poisoned by too much power, control and greed, which has resulted in the creation of the monstrous, out-of-control corporate beast.

Notes:
(1,3) http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/company-history.shtml

(2) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto

[william r sanford72]

nice work!! easy to read sum total history of a truly sick and twisted agenda.also should bee considerd the most important truth above all others when talking about the human race and whats being done to all of us.it our food.med...etc..they will not go down without a fight...and are masters of there dark arts.thank you Amzer Zo.
truth and balance always.
William.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

thank you for your bravery in standing up to these awful people!

a bit of recent news that is truly heartbreaking:

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201311220094

Friday, November 22, 2013
Supreme Court affirms Monsanto pollution settlement in Nitro
Ken Ward Jr.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The West Virginia Supreme Court on Friday upheld approval of the settlement in a landmark lawsuit over pollution of the community of Nitro with dioxin from the former Monsanto chemical plant.

The court voted 4-1 to affirm a January ruling in which Circuit Judge Derek Swope approved the class-action settlement aimed at resolving longstanding allegations that Monsanto contaminated Nitro with toxic pollution from the production of the defoliant Agent Orange. Chief Justice Brent Benjamin dissented.

In a 14-page decision reached without oral argument, the court said it found "no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error" in various appeals filed over Swope's nearly 400-page settlement-approval order.

Under the settlement, thousands of Nitro-area residents will be eligible for medial monitoring and property cleanups as part of the $93 million deal.

For more than 50 years, the Monsanto plant churned out herbicides, rubber products and other chemicals. The plant's production of Agent Orange, a defoliant deployed widely in the Vietnam War, created dioxin as a toxic chemical byproduct.

Dioxin has been linked to cancer, birth defects, learning disabilities, endometriosis, infertility and suppressed immune functions. The chemical builds up in tissue over time, meaning that even a small exposure can accumulate to dangerous levels.

In February 2012, Monsanto agreed to the settlement on the eve of an expected six-month trial in which residents sought medical monitoring for dioxin-related illnesses and a cleanup of what they argued was a contaminated community.

The company agreed to a 30-year medical-monitoring program with a primary fund of $21 million for initial testing and up to $63 million in additional money dependant on what levels of dioxin are found in residents.

Monsanto also agreed to spend $9 million cleaning 4,500 homes in the area to rid them of dioxin-contaminated dust. The cleanups include vacuuming carpets, rugs and accessible horizontal surfaces with High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter vacuums, wet cleaning floors, floor vents, tops of doors and window moldings, interior window sills, ceiling fans, light fixtures and radiators.

The settlement also would allow residents to retain their right to file personal-injury lawsuits against Monsanto if medical tests turn up illnesses potentially related to dioxin exposure. The deal also includes up to $29.5 million in fees and costs for attorneys representing the class-action plaintiffs, the Supreme Court ruling said.

Attorneys for some residents had appealed, arguing that Swope had wrongly rejected their arguments against the settlement worked out by The Calwell Practice, a Charleston firm representing the class plaintiffs.

Among other things, the appeal argued that the settlement was inadequate and unfair because it provides benefits to only some members of the class of residents involved.

Justices, though, said the appeal "ignores the evolution of evidence in the cases," which found "that the significant dioxin contamination" was "not as extensive as originally expected."

The Supreme Court noted that one attorney who had objected to the settlement claimed to have represented 1,600 residents, but that the circuit court found that number "to be unsupported by the documentation" submitted at a hearing on the settlement.

The justices also noted that the case involved more then seven years of litigation, more than 50 hearings, the exchange of more than a million pages of discovery documents and dozens of depositions.

Swope previously had noted the "tenacity" of Charleston lawyer Stuart Calwell's firm in taking on Monsanto over dioxin "at great expense in time and money" in an "almost solitary course to make the defendants accountable for their actions."

Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kward@wvgazette.com or 304-348-1702

I used to drive past that place every day for like... 4 years or something??
On the way to 130th.

[Hervé]

Monsanto Guilty Of Poisoning Farmer: Amid Global Protests Over Toxic Chemicals, French Court Rules Against US Firm

By Cristina Silva @cristymsilva c.silva@ibtimes.com on September 11 2015 9:12 AM EDT

A banner is pictured during a protest against Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, in Rio de Janeiro May 23, 2015. Similar demonstrations took part around the world in May to raise awareness to what the activists claim are dangers surrounding Monsanto's glyphosate-containing herbicide Roundup. The poster reads, "Monsanto bio terrorist." Reuters


Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, was found guilty of chemical poisoning of a French farmer by a French court this week. The decision Thursday by an appeal court in Lyon in southeast France upheld a 2012 ruling in which the farmer claimed he suffered neurological problems after working with the U.S. company's Lasso weedkiller, Reuters reported.

The court found Monsanto was "responsible" for the poisoning and ordered the company to "fully compensate" grain grower Paul Francois, who said he suffered memory loss, headaches and stammering after inhaling Monsanto's Lasso in 2004. The farmer said he was happy with the ruling. “David can win against Goliath," he said. "And a giant like Monsanto is not above the law.”

The case is expected to next be heard in France's highest appeal court. "We are speaking about modest sums of money or even nonexistent. He already received indemnities (by insurers) and there is a fundamental rule that says that one does not compensate twice for a loss, if any," the company's lawyer, Jean-Daniel Bretzner, said.

Other Monsanto herbicide's have also been accused of being harmful. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization (WHO), said in March that the key ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, one of the world's top-selling herbicides, was "probably carcinogenic to humans." Monsanto called the findings by a team of international cancer scientists "junk science."

In May, hundreds of protesters participated in the third annual March Against Monsanto event against the U.S. company’s sale of toxic chemicals.

Francois said the agri-business giant should have provided adequate warnings on the product label. Lasso was a popular herbicide used for decades to control grasses and broadleaf weeds in farm fields. It was outlawed in France in 2007 and has been banned in Canada, Belgium and Britain. It is no longer sold in the United States for commercial reasons, its spokesman in France said.

[Hervé]

Monsanto’s Chemicals Make Their Way Into 85% of Personal Hygiene Cotton Products

Alex Pietrowski, Staff Writer Waking Times

A new study at the University of La Plata in Argentina found that about 85% of cotton products such as gauze, cotton balls, feminine products like pads and tampons, baby wipes, etc. tested positive for glyphosate. Another even more staggering finding is that 62% of the tested products had traces of AMPA, a environmental metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid that is a derivative of glyphosate and is potentially one thousand times more toxic than glyphosate. [1]

“The results of this research are very serious. When you use cotton or gauze to heal wounds or for personal hygiene, you do this thinking that the products are sterilized, but in fact you are using products contaminated with a carcinogenic substance,” said pediatrician Vazquez Medardo Avila, part of the Network of Medical Professions of Fumigated Towns in Argentina. [1]

The concern is now escalating because people often use cotton products on open wound, on highly sensitive areas, and, in the case of tampons, in a mucous membrane close to the woman’s reproductive organs. Yet, it is very unlikely that any typical consumer has considered that glyphosate and AMPA chemicals are seeping into their body through hygienic products (which, by definition, are supposed to help maintain health and prevent disease).

The production of GMO cotton has become very common in several countries, including Argentina and the United States, where farmers were sold on using Monsanto’s GMO seeds and agro-chemical products, with the promise of higher yields. During the process of growing GMO cotton, where the plants were designed to withstand the application of glyphosate found in the common herbicide Roundup, farmers are spraying the chemicals onto the plants when the cotton bud is open. This means that Roundup goes straight into the part of the plant that is then used to produce your personal hygiene products.

“Plantings of herbicide-tolerant cotton expanded from about 10 percent of U.S. acreage in 1997 to 56 percent in 2001, 91 percent in 2014, but declined to 89 percent in 2015.” ~ USDA [2]

“…farmers sprayed 2.6 billion pounds of Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide on U.S. agricultural land between 1992 and 2012, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.” ~ EcoWatch [3]

One way to expose your body to less glyphosate is to reduce the use of cotton products produced in countries such as Argentina and the United States, unless they specifically state that they are GMO-free or organic. There are many new healthier options for personal hygiene, such as organic cotton gauze, organic cotton feminine products, and non disposable silicone replacement for tampons. You can also buy very inexpensive organic cotton balls.

The media in countries where GMO crops account for an overwhelming majority of corn, soy and cotton will not educate the public about the potential dangers of chemically-laden personal hygiene and food products. It is up to you to educate yourself about what you put on and into your body and the possible effects.

Below is a graph that further illustrates just how prevalent GM crops have become in the United States:

Although Monsanto continues to argue the safety of their products, an increasing number of experts continue to reveal through scientific and field research that exposure to glyphosate has potential carcinogenic effects. The World Health Organization has classified glyphosate as a possible carcinogen.


Sources:
[1] http://www.infobae.com/2015/10/20/17...pones-la-plata
[2] http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-product...-adoption.aspx
[3] http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/26/cotto...hosate-cancer/

About the Author
Alex Pietrowski is an artist and writer concerned with preserving good health and the basic freedom to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com and Offgrid Outpost, a provider of storable food and emergency kits. Alex is an avid student of Yoga and life.

This article (Monsanto’s Chemicals Make Their Way Into 85% of Personal Hygiene Cotton Products) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Alex Pietrowski and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

[Hervé]

Zika? Monsanto’s Roundup associated with smaller heads

by Jon Rappoport Jan31, 2016

This is my fourth article on the Zika scam. A virus is being blamed for destruction that actually comes from other forces.

In a previous piece, I listed the top six causes for what is happening in the center of the storm, Brazil, where babies are being born with smaller heads (microcephaly) and brain damage. One of those causes is pesticides/herbicides.

Here I’m presenting information from an animal study that implicates glyphosate, the central ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup, in microcephaly and cranial malformations.

One of authors of this study is the late Argentine researcher, Andres Carrasco, who was subjected to scientific censorship and threats during his career.

The study was published on May 20, 2010 (Chem. Res. Toxicol.). It is titled:

“Glyphosate-Based Herbicides (GBH) Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signalling.”

The study provoked a highly critical response from Monsanto, to which author Carrasco replied in kind, remarking that agenda-driven corporate-dominated research blankets the landscape, whereas truly independent inquiry gets short shrift.

The researchers in the study used xenopus laevis (frog) and chicken embryos. Administering glyphosate to chicken embryos produced “reduction of optic vesicles” and “microcephaly,” which is the key deformation in the so-called “Zika virus outbreak.”

The authors write,

“The direct effect of glyphosate [on the embryos]… opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to GBH [glyphosate-based herbicides] in agricultural fields.”

And if there is any doubt that the authors are talking about the birth defects now being (falsely) attributed to the Zika virus, they follow up with this comment:

“There is growing evidence raising concerns about the effects of GBH [glyphosate-based herbicides] on people living in areas where herbicides are intensely used. Women exposed during pregnancy to herbicides delivered offspring with congenital malformations, including microcephaly [small heads], anencephaly [missing major parts of brain and skull in embryos], and cranial malformations.”

As I keep pointing out—and this is based on 30 years of investigation into phony epidemics—“the virus” is the best false cover story in the world. When researchers and government officials announce that so-and-so virus is loose, causing maiming and death, people automatically stand up and salute.

The cover story is used to obscure what is actually causing great harm, and when the cause is a major, major corporation, the propaganda effort to distract the population swings into high gear.

Monsanto knows how to protect itself. But the veneer is peeling from their operation. Millions upon millions of people now know what the company has been doing all these years.

In March 2015, the World Health Organization announced that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is a probable human carcinogen. A Swiss group, the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, sent out a demand “to immediately and permanently ban, with no exceptions, the production, trade and use in all the EU territory of glyphosate-based herbicides.” And nearly two years ago, Brazil’s Federal Public Prosecutor asked for a ban on all glyphosate use in the country.

Now we have the birth-defect horror in Brazil.

That nation uses more pesticides than any country in the world. Soy is planted on more acres than any other crop—a testament to the strength of Monsanto’s operation. Soy means Roundup use.

Roundup means destruction.

Jon Rappoport

[Hervé]

15 Health Problems Linked to Monsanto’s Roundup

Alexis Baden-Mayer, Organic Consumers Association | January 23, 2015 11:44 am

Monsanto invented the herbicide glyphosate and brought it to market under the trade name Roundup in 1974, after DDT was banned. But it wasn’t until the late 1990s that the use of Roundup surged, thanks to Monsanto’s ingenious marketing strategy. The strategy? Genetically engineer seeds to grow food crops that could tolerate high doses of Roundup. With the introduction of these new GE seeds, farmers could now easily control weeds on their corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa crops—crops that thrived while the weeds around them were wiped out by Roundup.

In the nearly 20 years of intensifying exposure, scientists have been documenting the health consequences of Roundup and glyphosate in our food, in the water we drink, in the air we breathe and where our children play.

Eager to sell more of its flagship herbicide, Monsanto also encouraged farmers to use Roundup as a dessicant, to dry out all of their crops so they could harvest them faster. So Roundup is now routinely sprayed directly on a host of non-GMO crops, including wheat, barley, oats, canola, flax, peas, lentils, soybeans, dry beans and sugar cane.

Between 1996 – 2011, the widespread use of Roundup Ready GMO crops increased herbicide use in the U.S. by 527 million pounds—even though Monsanto claimed its GMO crops would reduce pesticide and herbicide use.

Monsanto has falsified data on Roundup’s safety, and marketed it to parks departments and consumers as “environmentally friendly” and “biodegradable, to encourage its use it on roadsides, playgrounds, golf courses, schoolyards, lawns and home gardens. A French court ruled those marketing claims amounted to false advertising.

In the nearly 20 years of intensifying exposure, scientists have been documenting the health consequences of Roundup and glyphosate in our food, in the water we drink, in the air we breathe and where our children play.

They’ve found that people who are sick have higher levels of glyphosate in their bodies than healthy people.

They’ve also found the following health problems which they attribute to exposure to Roundup and/or glyphosate:

ADHD: In farming communities, there’s a strong correlation between Roundup exposure and attention deficit disorder (ADHD), likely due to glyphosate’s capacity to disrupt thyroid hormone functions.

Alzheimer’s disease: In the lab, Roundup causes the same type of oxidative stress and neural cell death observed in Alzheimer’s disease. And it affects CaMKII, an enzyme whose dysregulation has also been linked to the disease.

Anencephaly (birth defect): An investigation into neural tube defects among babies born to women living within 1,000 meters of pesticide applications showed an association for glyphosate with anencephaly, the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull and scalp that forms during embryonic development.

Autism: Glyphosate has a number of known biological effects that align with the known pathologies associated with autism. One of these parallels is the gut dysbiosis observed in autistic children and the toxicity of glyphosate to beneficial bacteria that suppress pathogenic bacteria, along with pathogenic bacteria’s high resistance to glyphosate. In addition, glyphosate’s capacity to promote aluminum accumulation in the brain may make it the principal cause of autism in the U.S.

Birth defects: Roundup and glyphosate can disrupt the Vitamin A (retinoic acid) signaling pathway, which is crucial for normal fetal development. The babies of women living within one kilometer of fields sprayed with glyphosate were more than twice as likely to have birth defects according to a study from Paraguay. Congenital defects quadrupled in the decade after Roundup Ready crops arrived in Chaco, a province in Argentina where glyphosate is used roughly eight to ten times more per acre than in the U.S. A study of one farming family in the U.S. documented elevated levels of glyphosate and birth defects in the children, including an imperforate anus, growth hormone deficiency, hypospadias (an abnormally placed urinary hole), a heart defect and a micro penis.

Brain cancer: In a study of children with brain cancer compared with healthy children, researchers found that if either parent had been exposed to Roundup during the two years before the child’s birth, the chances of the child developing brain cancer doubled.

Breast cancer: Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors. The only long-term animal study of glyphosate exposure produced rats with mammary tumors and shortened life-spans.

Cancer: House-to-house surveys of 65,000 people in farming communities in Argentina where Roundup is used, known there as the fumigated towns, found cancer rates two to four times higher than the national average, with increases in breast, prostate and lung cancers. In a comparison of two villages, in the one where Roundup was sprayed, 31 percent of residents had a family member with cancer, while only 3 percent of residents in a ranching village without spraying had one. The high cancer rates among people exposed to Roundup likely stem from glyphosate’s known capacity to induce DNA damage, which has been demonstrated in numerous lab tests.

Celiac disease and gluten intolerance: Fish exposed to glyphosate develop digestive problems that are reminiscent of celiac disease. There are parallels between the characteristics of celiac disease and the known effects of glyphosate. These include imbalances in gut bacteria, impairment in enzymes involved with detoxifying environmental toxins, mineral deficiencies and amino acid depletion.

Chronic kidney disease: Increases in the use of glyphosate may explain the recent surge in kidney failure among agricultural workers in Central America, Sri Lanka and India. Scientists have concluded, “Although glyphosate alone does not cause an epidemic of chronic kidney disease, it seems to have acquired the ability to destroy the renal tissues of thousands of farmers when it forms complexes with [hard water] and nephrotoxic metals.”

Colitis: The toxicity of glyphosate to beneficial bacteria that suppress clostridia, along with clostridia’s high resistance to glyphosate, could be a significant predisposing factor in the overgrowth of clostridia. Overgrowth of clostridia, specifically C. difficile, is a well-established causal factor in colitis.

Depression: Glyphosate disrupts chemical processes that impact the production of serotonin, an important neurotransmitter that regulates mood, appetite and sleep. Serotonin impairment has been linked to depression.

Diabetes: Low levels of testosterone are a risk factor for Type 2 diabetes. Rats fed environmentally relevant doses of Roundup over a period of 30 days spanning the onset of puberty had reduced testosterone production sufficient to alter testicular cell morphology and to delay the onset of puberty.

Heart disease: Glyphosate can disrupt the body’s enzymes, causing lysosomal dysfunction, a major factor in cardiovascular disease and heart failure.

Hypothyroidism: House-to-house surveys of 65,000 people in farming communities in Argentina where Roundup is used, known there as the fumigated towns, found higher rates of hypothyroidism.

Inflammatory Bowl Disease (“Leaky Gut Syndrome”): Glyphosate can induce severe tryptophan deficiency, which can lead to an extreme inflammatory bowel disease that severely impairs the ability to absorb nutrients through the gut, due to inflammation, bleeding and diarrhea.

Liver disease: Very low doses of Roundup can disrupt human liver cell function, according to a 2009 study published in Toxicology.

Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS): Sulfate deficiency in the brain has been associated with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). Glyphosatedisrupts sulfate transport from the gut to the liver, and may lead over time to severe sulfate deficiency throughout all the tissues, including the brain.

Multiple Sclerosis (MS): An increased incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBS) has been found in association with MS. Glyphosatemay be a causal factor. The hypothesis is that glyphosate-induced IBS causes gut bacteria to leak into the vasculature, triggering an immune reaction and consequently an autoimmune disorder resulting in destruction of the myelin sheath.

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A systematic review and a series of meta-analyses of nearly three decades worth of epidemiologic research on the relationship between non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and occupational exposure to agricultural pesticides found that B cell lymphoma was positively associated with glyphosate.

Parkinson’s disease: The brain-damaging effects of herbicides have been recognized as the main environmental factor associated with neurodegenerative disorders, including Parkinson’s disease. The onset of Parkinson’s following exposure to glyphosate has been welldocumented and lab studies show that glyphosate induces the cell death characteristic of the disease.

Pregnancy problems (infertility, miscarriages, stillbirths): Glyphosate is toxic to human placental cells, which, scientists say, explains the pregnancy problems of agricultural workers exposed to the herbicide.

Obesity: An experiment involving the transfer of a strain of endotoxin-producing bacteria from the gut of an obese human to the guts of mice caused the mice to become obese. Since glyphosate induces a shift in gut bacteria towards endotoxin-producers, glyphosate exposure maycontribute to obesity in this way.

Reproductive problems: Studies of laboratory animals have found that male rats exposed to high levels of glyphosate, either during prenatal or pubertal development, suffer from reproductive problems, including delayed puberty, decreased sperm production, and decreased testosterone production.

Respiratory illnesses: House-to-house surveys of 65,000 people in farming communities in Argentina where Roundup is used, known there as the fumigated towns, found higher rates of chronic respiratory illnesses.


Related:
Monsanto’s Roundup Found in 75% of Air and Rain Samples
Brazil Seeks Ban on Monsanto Herbicide Due to Alarming Toxicity Risks

[Hervé]

Study: Monsanto’s PCBs Causing ‘Severe Impact’ on Whales and Dolphins

Despite the chemicals being banned for decades

by Christina Sarich Posted on April 14, 2016

John Bowler/RSPB Scotland

It has been highly reported that biotechnology company Monsanto made attempts to hide the true impact that toxic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have on the environment, which has led numerous cities to file lawsuits against the company. Now, new research has surfaced on the true effects behind Monsanto’s PCBs and their impact on wildlife.

The PCBs have been putting European killer whales and bottlenose striped dolphins at risk.

A recently-released study says that the PCB-contamination of the dolphin and whale’s habitats have caused entire populations to suffer. The exposure to PCBs is causing them to become reproductively-stagnate. In other words, the chemicals are causing reproductive impairment. Some scientists warn that some of these animals could experience serious damage if something isn’t done. A pod of killer whales off the coast of the UK has dwindled to just 8 individuals and has reportedly not given birth to a calf since 1992.
The study reports:

“Historic strandings data suggest that multiple BND resident or coastal groups in Europe became depleted or locally extinct in the late-1960s to mid-1970s, including those in the UK (e.g. Morecambe Bay; East coast of England) and the North Sea Dutch coast”

And as reported by The Guardian:

“The UK’s last pod of killer whales is doomed to extinction, with new research revealing western European waters as a global hotspot for the lingering legacy of toxic PCB pollution.”

‘Unprecedented Levels of PCBs’
In the study, published in the journal Scientific Reports, tissue samples from 1,081 marine animals, including killer whales, harbor porpoises and striped and bottlenose dolphins were taken. Researchers found unprecedented levels of PCBs in the tissues, even though PCBs have been banned in the UK since the 1980’s.

Bottlenose, striped dolphins and killer whales had amounts of the chemicals in their bodies that far surpassed the levels known to cause health problems such as reproductive failure.

“…three out of four species:- striped dolphins (SDs), bottlenose dolphins (BNDs) and killer whales (KWs) had mean PCB levels that markedly exceeded all known marine mammal PCB toxicity thresholds”

Though PCB levels have been dropping in US waters, the levels have remained constant in European waters, markedly so in industrialized nations. Paul Jepson of the Zoological Society of London, the study’s lead author, says they don’t know why. He remarked:

“. . . mitigation measures should really involve dealing with historic and current industrial uses in old equipment—transformers and things, in electrical equipment—PCBs leaking out of landfill into rivers, PCBs in marine sediments, which are often dredged to keep shipping lanes open, which makes them more bioavailable to get into the marine food chains.”

He further explained:

“One of the things that is particular about them [PCBs] is they dissolve in fat tissue. Animals will ingest them in their diets and then the PCBs will pass through the gut into the blood stream and then eventually settle out in the fat tissue, in the blubber.”

As larger mammals eat prey that also have PCB contamination, they then become subjected to a process called bioaccumulation. Female dolphins even pass along the chemicals to their offspring when they nurse them. Since much of the contamination is stored in the animal’s fat, the new calf becomes especially vulnerable as it sips from its mother’s PCB-contaminated fat stores.

The UK’s killer whales, which are known to consume a lot of seals, showed PCB levels in excess of 250 milligrams per kilo of fat, Jepson said, while killer whales off the Iceland and Norwegian coasts, which consume mostly herring, showed only 25 milligrams per kilo.

Some marine mammal populations off coasts of Spain, Portugal, and France are also failing to reproduce.

About 1.1 million tons of PCB-contaminated materials in the European Union still await proper disposal.

“Despite regulations and mitigation measures to reduce PCB pollution,” Jepson said, “the levels are so high they will have toxic effects.”

Credit: Reuters

[Sierra]

Heartbreaking. Enough to make one weep.

But *this* is the first year the amount of land planted with GMO crops has decreased...

[onawah]

15 THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT MONSANTO

http://naturallysavvy.com/live/15-th...about-monsanto

I’m sure you’ve probably heard of Monsanto but just in case you haven’t let’s recap some of the things you should know about this company. Monsanto is a multi-billion dollar company that has branches in 100 different countries dominating the global seed market. But before Monsanto monopolized the food and chemical markets they have a varied history in artificial ingredients, plastics, growth hormones, non-biodegradable materials and even created war weapons. Here are 15 things you should know about Monsanto:

1. Monsanto, Coca-Cola Saccharin, Vanillin, Caffeine

In 1902, Monsanto sold its first product, an artificial sweetener called “Saccharin” to the Coca-Cola Company. By 1905 Monsanto began to make profit by selling vanillin and caffeine. In the 1970’s saccharin fell in popularity when a study revealed that it caused cancer in test rats and mice – causing it be listed on the NIH’s carcinogen list. However, saccharin is still being used in drinks, processed foods, medicines, chewing gum, fruit spreads, toothpaste, and junk food.

2. Monsanto and DDT

In 1944, Monsanto and 15 other companies started manufacturing DDT as an insecticide for killing pests. DDT was used in the civil war to take care of lice, and to curb diseases from transferring to soldiers from mosquitos. Hundreds of thousands U.S. soldiers were issued DDT powder and told to sprinkle it in their sleeping bags. Despite all the claims of Monsanto that DDT was safe, the research in the 1970s confirmed that DDT was toxic and due to public pressure DDT was banned in 1972. U.S. and International authorities classify DDT as a probable human carcinogen.

3. Monsanto and War Weapons

During WW2, Monsanto was involved in creation of the first nuclear bomb in what was referred to as the “Manhattan project.” Additionally Army documents have surfaced linking Monsanto to white phosphorus, which has been used against people in the Gaza Strip (most recently), El Salvador, Lebanon, and other countries including in Vietnam during the war. Monsanto’s production of PCBs, DDT and Agent Orange has also played a starring role in various wars throughout the world.

4. Monsanto, Vietnam, Dioxin and Agent Orange

In addition to the Manhattan project Monsanto created chemical weapons that were sprayed on the Vietnamese civilians and American troops during the Vietnam War. “Operation Ranch Hand,” was a campaign where American planes sprayed 72 million liters of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. The effect: over 1 million (roughly the population of Montana) Vietnamese children, women, and men were exposed to one of the most toxic chemicals on the planet, Dioxin. Over 100,000 American troops were also exposed. Monsanto and Dow Chemicals were the primary suppliers of Agent Orange, however Monsanto was able to produce a stronger version both quicker and cheaper, which is why Monsanto was the key defendant in the lawsuit brought on by Vietnam War veterans. Survivors of Operation Ranch Hand, experienced nausea, rashes, headaches, extreme fatigue, depression, suicidal tendencies, violent rage, cognitive problems, birth defects, peripheral neuropathies (nerve damage), cancer, and body deformities. More than 3 million American troops and their offspring were also the victims of Agent Orange. In 1987 Monsanto had to pay 180 million dollars settlement to the veterans of the Vietnam War.

But Agent Orange didn’t just harm those involved in the war. In 2012, Monsanto settled a lawsuit with thousands of plaintiffs in Nitro, West Virginia for $93 million. Residents claimed they had been poisoned by decades of contamination from cancer-causing chemicals used in the manufacturing of Agent Orange produced in a Monsanto plant.

Read more: There's What in our Drinking Water? http://naturallysavvy.com/live/what-s-in-our-water

5. Monsanto, Disneyland and Styrofoam

Yes, you read that correctly. Monsanto even contaminated the “happiest place on earth.” Monsanto was involved in the creation of several Disneyland attractions that were entirely built with non-biodegradable plastic. One of those attractions was called Monsanto’s “house of the future,” an old video of this invention can be seen here. When Disney decided to remove Monsanto attractions, they couldn’t remove the pieces like they had with other plastic attractions. They had to squeeze large intact pieces of the non-biodegradable plastic into a truck and haul it off the property.

Another non-biodegradable disaster created by Monsanto was Polystyrene. Polystyrene production became a focus of Monsanto’s in 1941 and is commonly referred to today as Styrofoam. Polystyrene is a petroleum-based plastic used in everything from packing materials, car parts, and food storage to medical applications. Since Polystyrene is non-biodegradable it has been dubbed the largest environmental waste product on the planet. Polystyrene is also considered the main component of marine debris worldwide. Harvard states “the environmental impacts of polystyrene production in the categories of energy consumption, greenhouse gas effect and total environmental effect ranks second highest, behind aluminum.” Since Polystyrene is made up of styrene and benzene, both neurotoxins, chronic exposure to it has been tied to many health concerns such as depression, headaches, fatigue, kidney failure, and weakness. Polystyrene food containers have been found to leach the toxins when they come into contact with warm food, drinks, alcohol and acidic foods.

Read more: The Truth About Styrofoam http://naturallysavvy.com/live/impor...bout-styrofoam

6. Monsanto, Aspartame and NutraSweet

Aspartame was once on a Pentagon list of bio warfare chemicals yet was approved by the FDA in 1974. It is currently in over 4,000 products worldwide and is consumed by over 200 million people in the United States alone. What those 200 million consumers don’t know is that Aspartame clinically exacerbates predisposed illnesses and complicates illnesses such as Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's, diabetes, and allergies.

By the early 80’s NutraSweet consumers complained of headaches, dizziness, vomiting, nausea, blurred vision, seizures, convulsions and a host of other reactions to aspartame. Despite the fact that complaints about aspartame represent 80-85% of all food complaints registered with the FDA, it is still on grocery shelves.


7. Monsanto and PCBs

Polychlorinated biphenyls, also known as PCBs, were one of Monsanto’s earlier successes at profiting off of a known toxic chemical. In the early 1920’s, PCB’s were used as lubricants, cutting oils and hydraulic fluids until scientific evidences showed that PCBs are one of the deadliest carcinogens and chemicals linked to auto-immune system disorder, birth defects, cancer, organ failure and death.

In 1979, the U.S. Congress banned production as it recognized PCBs as a significant environmental toxin and a persistent pollutant. Rather than disposing their stockpile of PCBs in a manner that was least destructive to the environment, and human health, Monsanto dumped their PCBs in an open pit near Anniston Alabama. There they sat, secretly poisoning local residents for 40 years. In 2003, Monsanto was tasked to clean up it’s mess and paid out over $600 million to residents of Anniston, Alabama, who experienced liver disease, neurological disorders and cancer after exposure to PCBs.

But Alabama wasn’t the only casualty. 99% of all PCBs were manufactured in a plant in Sauget, Illinois and currently Illinois has one of the highest rates of immature birth and fetal death and home to two superfund sites. A Superfund site is defined by the EPA as “an uncontrolled or abandoned place where hazardous waste is located, possibly affecting local ecosystems or people.” Although PCBs were banned in 1970s, they still remain in water along Dead Creek in Sauget where Monsanto had its plant for manufacturing PCBs as well as many other locations in the U.S.

Lawsuits and findings about PCB contamination continue today in the U.S. The city of Oakland, California filed a lawsuit that holds Monsanto accountable for allegedly contaminating of the city’s storm water as well as the San Francisco Bay with PCBs. A new Portland State University study revealed oysters native to the Pacific Northwest contain a cocktail of PCBS, glyphosate and pharmaceuticals. PCBs are another example of how Monsanto poisoned families, destroyed neighborhoods, and sullied renewable resources for profit.

8. Monsanto and the Growth Hormone rBGH

Monsanto’s rBGH is a genetically modified hormone that is injected into dairy cows to increase milk production. By artificially increasing milk output, rBGH also raises the levels of pus, antibiotic residues, and a cancer-accelerating hormone called IGF-1. When consumed by humans it continues to act as a cancer accelerator and has been linked to breast, colon, and prostate cancer. Many producers rejected rBGH and started labeling their products “rBGH free” but it is still in high use in the U.S. Certified organic farmers cannot use hormones like rBGH in dairy production.9. Monsanto, Roundup, and Glyphosate

After DDT was banned Roundup became the new go-to product pushed by Monsanto. Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, was originally used as a scaling agent to clean water deposits from industrial pipes. In 1970, Monsanto chemist John E. Franz discovered Glyphosate to be a strong herbicide. 40 years later, Monsanto has flooded our food, our oceans, our rain, our intestinal flora, our wine, our beer, our breast milk, and our pollinators with Glyphosate.

After selling Roundup, Monsanto’s sale grew by 20% and from 1980s to 1990s Roundup has made up for 45% of the company’s income. Glyphosate is now the most heavily used herbicide on Earth. In 2012, at least 283.5 million pounds were sprayed on American farmlands, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. These wouldn’t be shocking statistics if it weren’t for the fact that Glyphosate has been linked to cancer, infertility, a lowered immune system, and erectile dysfunction.

But it’s not just human health that is in decline due to glyphosate, a 2015 report showed record decline in Monarch Butterflies due to Monsanto’s Roundup-ready crops. A 2010 study at the University of Buenos Aires also found that injecting glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) into chicken and frog embryos caused the same sort of spinal defects that doctors have found to be increasingly prevalent in communities where farm chemicals are used. The World Health Organization declared glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” but the biotech giant continues to discredit and fight those findings.

Just this year Monsanto filed a lawsuit to prevent California from listing glyphosate as a known carcinogen. The EPA has recently been under pressure to release the final findings relating to glyphosate but just three days after posting the results they were removed. The EPA commented, “Glyphosate documents were inadvertently posted to the Agency’s docket. These documents have now been taken down because our assessment is not final. EPA has not completed our cancer review. We will look at the work of other governments as well as work by HHS’s Agricultural Health Study as we move to make a decision on glyphosate. Our assessment will be peer reviewed and completed by the end of 2016.” An investigation into this decision has been launched and the EPA is expected to respond to the science community by mid-May 2016.

The true effects that glyphosate will have on our planet, our food security and our bodies will be revealed in time. Just as we eventually found out about Agent Orange, DDT, PCBs, Saccharin, Aspartame, and rBGH, the truth about glyphosate will become known.

Read more: The Cancer Apocalypse http://naturallysavvy.com/live/the-cancer-apocalypse

10. Monsanto, Patented Life and GMOs

Monsanto is the first company to successfully patent seeds. In 2001, Monsanto owned 91% of GMO crops worldwide. Monsanto’s introduction of genetically modified crops into the food chain started in 1997. Monsanto’s Roundup-ready GMO crops were developed to help farmers control weeds. Because the new crops are resistant to Roundup, the herbicide can be used in the fields to eliminate unwanted foliage. Current Roundup Ready crops include soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cottonseed, and sorghum, with wheat under development. These crops show up in over 75% of processed foods today.

Monsanto sold the GMO technology to farmers by promising worldwide markets, less use of chemicals and higher yields. None of these promises have come to pass, in fact just the opposite. GMOs have caused 99% loss in export of US agricultural products to Europe. According to a report, the use of pesticides has grown by 404 million pounds from the time they were introduced in 1996 through 2011.

11. Monsanto and Your Right To Know

The food movement’s landmark attempt to label GMOs was under a proposed California law called Proposition 37 or “California Right To Know.” This law would have given consumers the right to know about GMO ingredients in their food so they could make an informed choice. The proposition was defeated after Monsanto and allies spent millions of dollars in false advertising and outspent the pro-labeling side ten to one. To date, the right to know about GMOs movement has only secured one victory with legislatures, in the state of Vermont, set to go into effect on July 1, 2016.

A similar proposition that was also challenged by Monsanto was Prop 65. This proposition was targeted with millions of dollars in false advertising but managed to pass in California. Prop 65 required manufacturers to label their products for harmful chemicals and allowed citizens to bring suit to enforce the law if regulators proved lax.

Monsanto’s latest attempt at manipulating democracy in their favor is the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, better known as the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act or DARK Act. The DARK Act would undo state labeling laws FDA to require mandatory national labeling of GMOs. Monsanto has gone to great lengths to say that GMOs are safe, yet they go to greater lengths to keep consumers from knowing what they are eating. It poses the question; if they’re so proud of this product why hide it from consumers?

Read more: The DARK Act Reintroduced in Senate http://naturallysavvy.com/live/the-d...uced-in-senate

12. Monsanto and The Revolving Door

The reason why Monsanto is still polluting the world with toxic chemicals is the company’s cancerous connection within the decision makers. There is a revolving door between Monsanto and the US regulatory and judicial bodies responsible for making key decisions. Although Obama promised to label GMOs in 2007, he appointed the key figures of biotech companies as head of FDA and USDA.

Michael Taylor worked for the FDA, then represented Monsanto as a lawyer, then returned as the FDA's Deputy Commissioner for Policy when rBGH, a growth hormone used to gain higher meat and milk yields in cows, was granted approval.

Tom Vilsack: Former pro-biotechnology governor of Iowa that was assigned as USDA secretary. Roger Beachy: Former director of Monsanto who later became director of USDA. Elena Kagan took Monsanto’s side against organic farmers in Roundup Ready Alfalfa case and later nominated to Supreme Court. Linda Strachan was Monsanto’s representative who later became assistant secretary for USDA and EPA. Islam Siddiqui is a former DuPont and Monsanto VP who became the representative of agriculture negotiator for US trade. Justice Clarence Thomas was a former Monsanto lawyer who later wrote the majority opinion on a key Monsanto case.

13. Monsanto and Farmers

Prior to Monsanto meddling with our food, America was made up of a patchwork of small family farms. There was no such thing as organic, or conventional food. Everything was organic. Farmer’s were left to farm and worked hand in hand with nature. Farmer’s across the globe have fallen victim to a classic bait and switch contract imposed by the agrochemical giant. Monsanto baits them with promises of higher yields, easier weed control, thriving markets and switches those promises out with chemical dependency, terminator seeds, lower yields, and in many cases, the inability to sell their harvest.

GMO Farmers must depend on Monsanto for both seeds, and the chemicals needed to grow them. This alters the century’s old tradition of saving seeds and working with nature to produce the highest yield. Farmers can no longer keep their seeds, share their seeds with local farmers or trade them when funds are low. What’s even more concerning is that entire crops become contaminated with GMO seeds as they neighbor farms or are subjected to cross-pollination issues.

Fast forward to the age of mono-cropping, factory farming, DNA splicing, GMO farming, and subsidy-driven farming where hundreds of pounds of toxic chemicals are used to produce one glass of milk.

Farmer’s in India and around the planet commit suicide daily after falling for Monsanto’s false benefits of GMO farming. Since the introduction of genetically modified crops into the food chain, Monsanto has filed 145 lawsuits against farmers. On average, that is about one lawsuit every three weeks, for 16 straight years. The chemical giant has won more than $23 million from its farmer targets.

But farmers are fighting back against patent lawsuits and contamination complaints. One grain grower said that in 2004 he became ill due to Monsanto’s weed killer, the farmer claimed he suffered from neurological problems, memory loss, headaches and stammering after inadvertently inhaling the herbicide. He won his case in 2012 and after Monsanto appealed that victory, he experienced another historic moment. The appeals court said Monsanto was “responsible” for the intoxication and ordered the company to “fully compensate” François.

Read more: Lawsuit by Widow of California Farmer Says Monsanto Knew About Roundup's Link to Cancer http://naturallysavvy.com/live/lawsu...link-to-cancer

14. Monsanto and Corruption

Monsanto has a long history of corruption and greed dating back to the early 1900’s. Many of Monsanto’s crimes have long since been buried, yet their trajectory has been consistent. Profit at all costs. Sell chemicals, control food and fatten the pockets of its shareholders by all means necessary. As discussed in the points above, Monsanto maintains their control by collecting our elected officials, suing farmers, and blindfolding U.S. consumers. By 1995, Monsanto was ranked 5th among other corporations for releasing more than 37 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the environment.

The corruption of our media becomes apparent when you read FOIA requests that show scientist, academics, and University professors being paid to attack organic enthusiasts, farmers, doctors, and nutritionists. The Monsanto mouthpieces are paid to tout benefits and safety of GMOs. A recent review found 27 articles quoting (or authored by) University professors after they received Monsanto funding, but without disclosing that funding.

Read more: Monsanto Collaborates with University Professor http://naturallysavvy.com/eat/emails...off-professors

15. Monsanto and You

Even if you never purchase a GMO food or eat out at a non-organic restaurant you’re paying for subsidized crops through your tax dollars. GMOs are now in over 75% of the processed foods in the U.S. American taxpayers pay billions in farm subsidies. The top subsidy crops also happen to be the genetically engineered crops.

We also end up paying for the environmental cleanup of all these Monsanto products after they contaminate our environment. As consumers, we often forget how powerful we really are. We CAN change the course of our food and environmental future by simply choosing to opt out of Monsanto’s experimental control. As you read this list, keep in mind, your story with Monsanto doesn’t have to end poorly. Americans are rising up and sharing the truth about the injustices Monsanto has carried out and you can too!

Read more: Top 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs http://naturallysavvy.com/eat/whats-...-to-avoid-them

[Hervé]

Monsanto Loses Major PCBs Poisoning Lawsuit, Forced to Pay $46 Million to Victims

May 26, 2016 | Claire Bernish


(ANTIMEDIA) St. Louis, Missouri — Three plaintiffs have been awarded $17.5 million in damages caused by Monsanto and three other companies for negligence in the production of PCBs.

A jury voting 10-2 in St. Louis found Monsanto, Pfizer, Solutia, and Pharmacia must pay the plaintiffs and assessed an additional $29 million in punitive damages against Monsanto for its continued selling of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, after the compound had been banned, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported. Plaintiffs in this case — three of nearly 100 involved in litigation, some of whom died — said they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma from exposure to PCBs.

“All of us could pretty much agree that Monsanto was negligent,” said juror Nathan Nevius in the Post-Dispatch.

Ashley Enochs, a second juror, noted,

“I think it goes to show that large companies can put stuff out there that’s harmful and they can do it for a long time but that justice is going to be served whether it’s a year after the products are put out, or in this case, 80 years.”

Used in food packaging, paints, and to insulate electronics, among other things, PCBs were manufactured exclusively by Monsanto from 1935 through 1977 and were banned by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1979 after being linked to cancer and birth defects in lab animals — but they also can adversely affect humans’ skin and livers, EcoWatch notes.

According to the lawsuit, Monsanto knew about the dangers of PCBs but continued to sell the product even after the government ban — while maintaining they were safe to the public. PCBs are particularly insidious as they persist in the environment for long periods of time. EcoWatch cited the emergence of internal company documents showing Monsanto knew about problems caused by PCBs long before the ban.

“We know Aroclors [PCBs] are toxic but the actual limit has not been precisely defined,” stated one document, dated September 20, 1955, EcoWatch reported.

Victories in litigation over PCBs have not been met with much success. A Los Angeles jury denied claims of non-Hodgkin lymphoma from exposure, and in July, a different jury in St. Louis County failed to find Monsanto liable for deaths and injuries plaintiffs claimed were caused by PCBs. Over the past three decades a voluminous number of lawsuits against Monsanto over the compound, cited by ThinkProgress, haven’t been successful in holding the now-agrichemical giant responsible for its chemical past. Eight cities — Long Beach, Portland, Seattle, Berkeley, Spokane, San Diego, San Jose, and Oakland — now have pending litigation against Monsanto over PCBs.

“This is the future,” plaintiff’s attorney Steven Kherkher told EcoWatch, explaining his law firm had to ‘pool resources’ to initiate the lawsuit. “The only reason why this victory is rare is because no one has had the money to fight Monsanto.” However, he added, mentioning his firm has around 1,000 plaintiffs surrounding PCBs, “It’s not going to be rare anymore.”

Kherkher also explained as more cases against the company come to court, “every judge allows us to acquire more and more information from Monsanto and discover their documents. There is a lot more information out there yet to be mined.”

Though many remain unaware of the harm caused by PCBs — partly due to the fact the ban is now decades old, and until recently, the compound hasn’t made headlines — as Kherkher explained, it is an ubiquitous substance:

“A lot of people just don’t know that … Monsanto’s PCBs are in the orange juice you drank this morning and the pizza you’ll eat tonight. The air that you’re breathing has PCBs in it. Monsanto has discounted it, saying it’s only parts per billion or parts per trillion, but it adds up.”

Monsanto issued a callous but typical statement about the jury’s findings, which said,

“We have deep sympathy for the plaintiffs but we are disappointed by the jury’s decision and plan to immediately appeal today’s ruling […]

“Previous juries in four straight similar trials rejected similar claims by attorneys that those plaintiffs contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma as a result of eating food containing PCBs. The evidence simply does not support today’s verdict, including the fact that scientists say more than 90 percent of non-Hodgkin lymphoma cases have no known cause.”

Monsanto recently rejected a bid for buyout from Bayer, though the company said it was open to continued negotiations.

[Hervé]

Researchers Find Roundup Responsible for Harmful Algae Blooms In Great Lakes

By Christina Sarich Posted on July 14, 2016

Glyphosate, the main ingredient found in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide, Roundup, has poisoned Lake Erie.

Scientists from Ohio Northern University (ONU) in the U.S. have discovered that glyphosate is largely responsible for an increase in harmful algae blooms that contaminate lake water and kill off life dependent upon this habitat.

Namely, dissolved reactive phosphorous (DRP) has been contaminating Lake Erie and the Maumee watershed. This DRP comes from surrounding farms that rely on Monsanto’s weedkiller to grow their crops. The runoff ends up in the lakes, killing fish and contaminating the water.

Though Lake Erie’s trouble with phosphorous is not new, there has been an alarming increase in DRP, which caused scientists to question its probable origins.

Christopher Spiese, a chemist at Ohio Northern University suggests that an increase in the use of glyphosate is causing the problem. DRP loads in Lake Erie have been increasing since the early 1990s — the same time that Roundup was being sold to farmers across the U.S.

Roundup was first introduced commercially in 1974, but it was in the 90s that farmers started to spray it copiously on genetically modified crops. Roundup is currently Monsanto’s biggest profit-maker, accounting for a whopping one-third of its total sales in recent years.

Despite its worldwide use, members of the E.U. Parliament addressed the “European Commission, Food Safety Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis, and responsible Ministers of the Member States” to try to ban glyphosate across Europe. Traces of it were found in the urine of almost every member of parliament who tested for it.

Ohio Northern researchers have confirmed that glyphosate is causing the harmful algae blooms in Lake Erie, but Drs. R. Michael McKay and George Bullerjahn of Bowling Green State University have been studying this likelihood since 2012. They suspected that the growing ‘dead zones’ in the Great Lakes were caused by this herbicide, killing millions of fish and polluting drinking water every year.

McKay explained:

Our research is finding that Roundup is getting into the watershed at peak farming application times, particularly in the spring.

Bullerjahn explained further:

It turns out that many cyanobacteria present in Lake Erie have the genes allowing the uptake of phosphonates, and these cyanobacteria can grow using glyphosate and other phosphonates as a sole source of phosphorus.

ONU research also attests that the delicate balance of Mother Nature is further disturbed by Roundup. Spiese states:

These crops that are able to grow in the presence of glyphosate have really kind of started to take over, to the point where we’re washed in Roundup.

Spiese figured out that for every acre of GM soy planted with the use of Roundup, you can count on one-third of a pound of phosphorous being dumped into the Maumee. He argues:

The P in glyphosate is what we call phosphonate, a phosphorus-carbon bond. A phosphorus-carbon bond is extraordinarily stable. It’s very difficult to break. We don’t expect this to contribute one bit to the DRP.

But it did. Add one more disaster to Monsanto’s growing list of environmental misdeeds.

[Hervé]

Monsanto’s Illegal Poison Kills Neighbors’ Crops *SHOCK UPDATE* The EPA Does Nothing

Daisy Luther DaisyLuther.com August 20, 2016

Now that glyphosate has been denounced by the World Health Organization, there’s a new spray in town from our friendly neighborhood purveyor of poison, Monsanto. It hasn’t yet been approved, but given the history of blatant collusion between Monsanto and the government, there’s little doubt that it will be.

But there’s a bit of a catch: even though dicamba, the newest toxic ingredient in the Monsanto line-up, hasn’t actually been approved for this use by the EPA, it is already being widely used on genetically modified crops…And the illegal spray is killing the crops of neighboring farmers.

The Environmental Working Group reports:

Farmers in 10 states have now complained that dicamba is hurting their crops, according to a notice issued last week by the Environmental Protection Agency. The reported damage from dicamba has spread from two to 10 states in a matter of weeks, and now includes Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

The EPA has done very little in response to the complaints, and some states are beginning to take matters into their own hands to protect their farmers and prevent further crop loss…

Dicamba easily drifts in the air after it’s sprayed, and damages crops when it lands on neighboring fields. More than 100 Missouri farmers have reported damage to their peaches, tomatoes, cantaloupes, watermelons, rice, cotton, peas, peanuts, alfalfa and soybeans.

In neighboring Arkansas, frustration over dicamba drift has led the state’s Pesticide Committee to propose prohibiting the spraying of certain dicamba formulations during the growing season, from mid-April to mid-September. It has also proposed expanding mandatory buffer zones andincreasing fines for violations.

In other states, experts are urging farmers to hire lawyers if they think drift has affected their crops.

When states and lawyers are forced to take action to protect farmers from pesticides, it’s clear that the federal pesticide law is broken.

Meanwhile, the EPA issued an advisory notice last week to remind farmers that dicamba has not been approved for use on new GMO cotton and soybeans. The agency asserted that farmers must carefully follow the instructions on pesticide labels. But a recent survey by University of Missouri scientists found that 57 percent of farmers don’t read pesticides labels before spraying their fields.

Dicamba, like its predecessor glyphosate, is likely to be carcinogenic. There are serious effects on wildlife, groundwater, and neighboring fields because of dicamba’s strong propensity to drift. (This PDF will give you the down-and-dirty info about dicamba.)

Monsanto invested greatly in dicamba with a $975 million expansion of the facility in Luling, Louisiana where it is produced. They also launched Roundup Ready Xtend soybean and cotton seeds, which have been engineered to withstand dousings of either dicamba or glyphosate. They released the seeds this spring, even though the EPA had not approved the use of dicamba on them. Farmers planted the seeds and began using dicamba anyway. As a result, more than 42,000 acres of crops in nearby fields are dying. Crops affected are peaches, tomatoes, cantaloupes, watermelons, rice, peas, peanuts, alfalfa, cotton, and soybeans.

As always, Monsanto is blithely unconcerned, certain that their friends at the EPA will approve their newest toxin soon. The company appears baffled that farmers are using dicamba incorrectly (and illegally) on their seeds. Meanwhile, as always, the EPA doesn’t give a rats patootie. Who can forget in 2013, despite irrefutable evidence of toxicity and death, when the EPA raised the allowable limit of glyphosate. Perhaps it has something to do with the revolving door between the halls of Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency. (Or as I like to call it, the Environmental Deception Agency.)

One controversy after another can be attributed to the EPA, an agency charged with protecting the air we breathe, the soil in which we grow our food and the water that we drink. At the bottom of each of those controversies can be found ties to the conspiracies of the big businesses that really run the country. Decisions are being auctioned off to industry lobbyists with the most money and influence.

Environmental protection is only the rule of thumb if it goes along with the green agenda in cases that benefit the redistribution of wealth, while the agency completely ignores blatant crimes against the earth if it involves, for example, fracking for the benefit of a natural gas company. (This is an absolute must-read about the billionaires who own the EPA.)

I used to content myself in believing that if something wasn’t safe, it wouldn’t be used in America, that forward-thinking, technically brilliant land that supported life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sadly, in the case of yet another federal agency, safety is in the eye of the highest bidder. Don’t expect anything from the EPA except a quick approval of dicamba.

Don’t expect anything from the EPA except a quick approval of dicamba. And then more toxicity, more dead crops, and more cancer.

[onawah]

MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide will Cause Half of All Children to Have Autism by 2025
http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/mit...utism-by-2025/

Half of All Children Will Be Autistic by 2025, Warns Senior Research Scientist at MIT

By Alliance For Natural Health
anh-usa.org

Why? Evidence points to glyphosate toxicity from the overuse of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide on our food.

For over three decades, Stephanie Seneff, PhD, has researched biology and technology, over the years publishing over 170 scholarly peer-reviewed articles. In recent years she has concentrated on the relationship between nutrition and health, tackling such topics as Alzheimer’s, autism, and cardiovascular diseases, as well as the impact of nutritional deficiencies and environmental toxins on human health.

At a [recent] conference, in a special panel discussion about GMOs, she took the audience by surprise when she declared, “At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.” She noted that the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity, and presented data showing a remarkably consistent correlation between the use of Roundup on crops (and the creation of Roundup-ready GMO crop seeds) with rising rates of autism. Children with autism have biomarkers indicative of excessive glyphosate, including zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder.

A fellow panelist reported that after Dr. Seneff’s presentation, “All of the 70 or so people in attendance were squirming, likely because they now had serious misgivings about serving their kids, or themselves, anything with corn or soy, which are nearly all genetically modified and thus tainted with Roundup and its glyphosate.”

Dr. Seneff noted the ubiquity of glyphosate’s use. Because it is used on corn and soy, all soft drinks and candies sweetened with corn syrup and all chips and cereals that contain soy fillers have small amounts of glyphosate in them, as do our beef and poultry since cattle and chicken are fed GMO corn or soy. Wheat is often sprayed with Roundup just prior to being harvested, which means that all non-organic bread and wheat products would also be sources of glyphosate toxicity. The amount of glyphosate in each product may not be large, but the cumulative effect (especially with as much processed food as Americans eat) could be devastating. A recent study shows that pregnant women living near farms where pesticides are applied have a 60% increased risk of children having an autism spectrum disorder.

Other toxic substances may also be autism-inducing. You may recall our story on the CDC whistleblower who revealed the government’s deliberate concealment of the link between the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps, and rubella) and a sharply increased risk of autism, particularly in African American boys. Other studies now show a link between children’s exposure to pesticides and autism. Children who live in homes with vinyl floors, which can emit phthalate chemicals, are more likely to have autism. Children whose mothers smoked were also twice as likely to have autism. Research now acknowledges that environmental contaminants such as PCBs, PBDEs, and mercury can alter brain neuron functioning even before a child is born.

This month, the USDA released a study finding that although there were detectable levels of pesticide residue in more than half of food tested by the agency, 99% of samples taken were found to be within levels the government deems safe, and 40% were found to have no detectable trace of pesticides at all. The USDA added, however, that due to “cost concerns,” it did not test for residues of glyphosate. Let’s repeat that: they never tested for the active ingredient in the most widely used herbicide in the world. “Cost concerns”? How absurd—unless they mean it will cost them too much in terms of the special relationship between the USDA and Monsanto. You may recall the revolving door between Monsanto and the federal government, with agency officials becoming high-paying executives—and vice versa! Money, power, prestige: it’s all there. Monsanto and the USDA love to scratch each others’ backs. Clearly this omission was purposeful.

In addition, as we have previously reported, the number of adverse reactions from vaccines can be correlated as well with autism, though Seneff says it doesn’t correlate quite as closely as with Roundup. The same correlations between applications of glyphosate and autism show up in deaths from senility.

Of course, autism is a complex problem with many potential causes. Dr. Seneff’s data, however, is particularly important considering how close the correlation is—and because it is coming from a scientist with impeccable credentials. Earlier this year, she spoke at the Autism One conference and presented many of the same facts; that presentation is available on YouTube.

Monsanto claims that Roundup is harmless to humans. Bacteria, fungi, algae, parasites, and plants use a seven-step metabolic route known as the shikimate pathway for the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids; glyphosate inhibits this pathway, causing the plant to die, which is why it’s so effective as an herbicide. Monsanto says humans don’t have this shikimate pathway, so it’s perfectly safe.

Dr. Seneff points out, however, that our gut bacteria do have this pathway, and that’s crucial because these bacteria supply our body with crucial amino acids. Roundup thus kills beneficial gut bacteria, allowing pathogens to grow; interferes with the synthesis of amino acids including methionine, which leads to shortages in critical neurotransmitters and folate; chelates (removes) important minerals like iron, cobalt and manganese; and much more.

Even worse, she notes, additional chemicals in Roundup are untested because they’re classified as“inert,” yet according to a 2014 study in BioMed Research International, these chemicals are capable of amplifying the toxic effects of Roundup hundreds of times over.

Glyphosate is present in unusually high quantities in the breast milk of American mothers, at anywhere from 760 to 1,600 times the allowable limits in European drinking water. Urine testing shows Americans have ten times the glyphosate accumulation as Europeans.

“In my view, the situation is almost beyond repair,” Dr. Seneff said after her presentation. “We need to do something drastic.”

http://www.anh-usa.org/half-of-all-c...entist-at-mit/

[Hervé]

Even Legal Levels Of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Damage The Environment

By Whitney Webb
Posted on September 24, 2016

A new Brazilian study shows that even “safe” levels of glyphosate damage the health of freshwater ecosystems.

Credit – crystalriverfl.org

A new study published by a group of Brazilian researchers in the journal Phycologia shows that Monsanto’s most popular herbicide, RoundUp, negatively affects life in freshwater ecosystems. More specifically, legal levels of RoundUp, as well as those of its main ingredient glyphosphate, can alter and kill macroalgae (i.e. freshwater seaweed) by inhibiting photosynthesis.

The legal limits referenced in the study are those of Brazil, which are 0.28 mg l−1. Compare that to the US legal limit of 0.7 mg l−1. Macroalgae are extremely important in freshwater ecosystems as they function as primary producers, meaning they help form the bottom of the food chain on which other organisms depend. They also recycle nutrients and increase plankton populations, which are a main food source for many fish and other marine animals. Die-offs of macroalgae, regardless of the cause, reduce diversity and the populations of other animals in the ecosystem, which can put the entire ecosystem at risk of collapse if the die-off is sufficiently severe. The species of macroalgae used in the study, Nitella microcarpa, is found throughout the world, meaning that the implications of this study are global.

Even though this study focuses on the chemical’s legal limits, glyphosate, the main ingredient in RoundUp herbicide, is frequently found in the natural environment well above the legally allowed levels, meaning that the damage to the environment is much greater than this study implies. In another study published in Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 41% of 140 groundwater samples in Spain were found to have levels of glyphosate above the legal limit. The study also showed that glyphosate does not break down rapidly in the environment, meaning it persists in ecosystems for long periods of time, causing an accumulation effect. Another study published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry found glyphosate in 60-100% of all air and rain samples tested due to its overuse.

It’s not just the environment that’s in danger due to glyphosate’s abundant use. Studies have found that a majority of people have high concentrations of glyphosate present in their bodies. One study conducted in Germany found that all the people it tested had 5 to 20 times the legal limit of glyphosate present in their urine. This has enormous implications as glyphosate has been linked to cancer. Even the World Health Organization has raised red flags about the carcinogenic properties of glyphosate. However, Monsanto and its supporters maintain that glyphosate is proven to be safe, despite evidence to the contrary. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace and GMO enthusiast, claimed that the herbicide was so safe that “you can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you.” However, when he was offered a glass of it himself, he refused to even touch it because he was “not an idiot.”

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM

Despite its connections to such negative health effects, glyphosate continues to be one of the most commonly used herbicides in the world. In fact, a study in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe called glyphosate the “most widely applied pesticide worldwide.” Since 1974, the US has used more than 3.5 billion pounds (1.6 billion kilograms) of the herbicide, which accounts for 19% of the 18.9 billion pounds (8.6 billion kilograms) that have been used globally. In Brazil, where the study was conducted, herbicides with glyphosate are the most widely used, with nearly 188,000 tons purchased in 2013 and consumption increasing annually.

However, due to the exposure of the dangers of its use, purchases of RoundUp have fallen by 34% in the past year. Concerns over Monsanto’s reputation, which is now infamous around the world, may have been a factor in Bayer’s recent merger with Monsanto. Bayer recently expressed its plans to rebrand Monsanto products in order to “get beyond the image and reputation thing” by using the “trust” that Bayer enjoys in Europe and other countries. Regardless of whether the Monsanto brand name disappears, the natural environment and people’s health will continue to be put in harm’s way due to widespread glyphosate use. The only way to move forward is to eliminate the need for the use of glyphosate as well as other agrochemicals by increasing the demand for and the availability of organic, chemical-free agriculture.

This article (Even Legal Levels Of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Damage The Environment) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com

Related:
Monsanto's most dangerous product? The case against Glyphosate

[Cara]

Monsanto: The Pentagon’s Soldier in Colombia
Posted on Nov 5 2016 - 12:05pm by Sustainable Pulse

In a nationwide referendum on the 2nd October 2016 Colombian voters rejected the government’s peace deal with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the largest extreme-left guerrilla movement FARC (The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People’s Army).
glyphosate-plane


By Elena Sharoykina

Negotiations, preceding the signing of the deal, took four years and were seen as a hope to end half-a-century of civil war, that has taken more than 250 thousand human lives.

The negative results of the referendum with a narrow margin of 0,5 % were completely unexpected and hit the position of the peacemaker president Juan Manuel Santos Calderón. In the last few years he has invested all of his political capital in negotiations with the rebels, despite the lukewarm attitude of the White House towards the peace agreement.

For decades Colombia has been a ‘battlefield’ where the U.S.A has tried to restrain the anti-U.S. tendencies in South America. Washington has been fighting the ideas of neo-marxism, guevarism and the Liberation theology, which inspired the FARC rebels, as well as other left-wing factions. However, it’s not widely known that in the jungles of Colombia there is another war front – the ecological one.

The U.S.A and Colombian governments accuse the rebels of illegal coca production and under cover of the so-called ‘anti-narcotic war’ spray the jungle from the air with glyphosate herbicide. This pesticide is mainly made by the US corporation Monsanto and is widely known under the trademark Roundup. Once it reaches the ground, it destroys not only the coca, but many other plants as well.

The use of glyphosate in the war against the partisans began in the 1980s. And in 1999, after the signing of anti-drug agreements between Washington and Bogota known as ‘Plan Colombia’, this war method acquired an official status.

According to these agreements, the U.S.A government pledged to fund the purchase of pesticide from Monsanto, to supply the project with specially equipped aircrafts and also to train and arm Colombian commandos in order to protect the aircraft from possible ground fire.

This is what FARC leader Timoleón Jiménez (real name is Rodrigo Londoño Echeverri), known as ‘Timochenko’ among partisans (by the way, he is a graduate of the Peoples’ Friendship University in Russia and is a trained doctor), says in his interview to Colombian newspaper VOZ:

“In the regions, where farm communities live close to coca crops, the government accuses landowners of illegal coca production and using this excuse constantly air-sprays their fields with glyphosate. This chemical destroys coca randomly along with other agricultural crops, causing irretrievable harm to animals and people, especially to children, seniors and pregnant women.”

The partisans try to shoot down U.S. crop duster aircraft loaded with chemical death. To escape the fire pilots go higher and the glyphosate crop dusting becomes even less precisely aimed.

Colombia is the only country in the world where the use of glyphosate happens in such a barbaric style. Millions of liters of toxic herbicide are sprayed over ‘the lungs of the planet’, which is how they often call tropical rain forests in South America. The country holds one of the first positions in the world for biodiversity. It is here that almost 10% of all endemic plant species grow.

More than 6 million Colombians were forced to leave their homes in the areas affected by glyphosate. It is comparable to the number of refugees from Syrian conflict areas, but Colombia draws considerably less attention from the western mass media.

The number of diseases, affecting local populations, grows progressively, cancer and birth defects among them. Soil loses its fertility, forests are being eradicated and water is being polluted.

This makes me think about the Vietnam War, when the Pentagon also widely used Agent Orange herbicide as a weapon against rebels, and it was also produced by Monsanto. Around 3 million people suffered illnesses caused by Agent Orange, half a million of them died. The consequences of Agent Orange use are still to be seen in the new generations of Vietnamese children through various inherited diseases.

The land abandoned by Colombians, because they can’t be used anymore for traditional agriculture, are inhabited by biotech corporations to expand their genetically-modified crop empires, which are resistant to glyphosate.

Monsanto has received a carte blanche from the Colombian government to sell their GM seeds in the country. It means that these GM crops will be also consumed by humans and animals. The war against Colombian guerrillas has hugely assisted the expansion of GM technology in the country.

In March 2015 the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) assigned glyphosate to the group of major risk agents probably causing human cancer (group 2A). IARC reports that glyphosate is able to penetrate human cells and to damage DNA and chromosomes.

In May 2015 the National Drug Council of Colombia decided to ‘suspend the use of glyphosate spraying as a method to combat drugs’. This moratorium was demanded by FARC representatives at peace talks in Havana. The IARC report was a good excuse for the peacemaker President Santos to make a compromise with rebels.

Despite the support of the head of the government, the glyphosate moratorium was criticized by the Colombian ‘war faction’ and its U.S. bosses. Juan Carlos Pinzón Bueno, the defense minister, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, the former head of the government, and Kevin Whitaker, the U.S. ambassador in Bogota, have publicly opposed it. They claimed it an undeserved concession for FARC and appealed to continue the aerial spraying of the herbicide‘for the sake of combating narcotics’».

Of course, it’s not only about coca plantations. The U.S. uses the anti-narcotic campaign in Colombia as an easy excuse to eradicate FARC. Washington is usually surprisingly tolerant to drug production, when it brings profit.

Let’s take Afghanistan as an example. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the country became the world’s largest heroin producer right after it had been occupied by American and NATO forces.

Russia repeatedly suggested to start a joint war against opium poppy production in Afghanistan. But official U.S. and NATO representatives declined this proposal, because, in their opinion, it might push local peasants to join Muslim factions and to create an additional threat. No wonder Monsanto’s planes never showed up in the skies above Afghanistan.

Let’s appraise the situation soberly. Nowadays, the estimated number of active FARC members hardly exceeds 5-6 thousand people. It’s naive to think that several thousand of rebels trapped in jungle can control a transnational joint venture known as the ‘Colombian cocaine industry’, worth tens of billions U.S. dollars.

It’s not only left-wing partisans who are involved in the drug industry, there are also extreme right ‘death squads’ covered by the government, and other militant forces, they all form the core of mighty drug cartels. Hordes of corrupted bureaucrats, bankers, law enforcement officers feed on them.

It is remarkable, that the FARC leader Timochenko in his article ‘About Glyphosate: powerful chemical weapon of transnational power’ linked the Pentagon and Monsanto hostilities in the region with ‘the Colombian money-laundering empire’.

‘Glyphosate’ and ‘war’ have become synonyms now in Colombia. That is why the moratorium on the aerial spraying of the herbicide wouldn’t last long. Already in April 2016 the Colombian government under U.S. pressure and on the pretext of fighting the drug business resumed the use of glyphosate.

The Pentagon’s planes spraying Monsanto herbicide came back to the Colombian skies and became the Storm crows, foreboding trouble to the peace talks. The referendum failure in October 2016, could be the start of a true storm for Colombia.

//

From: http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/11/...r-in-colombia/

[Cara]

And another Clinton Email Wikileaks revelation... this time involving Monsanto lobbying payments...

Hillary Clinton Suffers Monsanto Bombshell on Eve of US Election
Posted on Nov 5 2016 - 2:59pm by Sustainable Pulse

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign Chairman, John Podesta, who is at the center of the Wikileaks e-mail storm, has now been linked to lobbying payments by the U.S. biotech giant Monsanto of $150,000 in 2015.



It was also revealed Saturday that Hillary Clinton’s campaign Treasurer Jose H. Villarreal has been linked to Monsanto lobbying payments of $150,000 so far in 2016.

This new Monsanto bombshell for the Clinton campaign was released by Brasil sem Monsanto and Sustainable Pulse following a search of publicly available lobbying records.

Podesta Group

The lobbying disclosure records from the U.S. House of Representatives records show that Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP “on behalf of Monsanto” made payments of $90,000 and $60,000 to the Podesta Group in 2015.

The Podesta Group is a lobbying and public affairs firm based in Washington, D.C.. It was founded in 1988 by John Podesta and his brother Tony Podesta. Tony Podesta is the current Chairman of the company and it was recently revealed in the Washington Examiner that he has been given special access to the White House by his brother John, who is no longer part of the family firm.

John Podesta himself was White House Chief of Staff under President Bill Clinton, an official Counselor to President Barack Obama and is now campaign Chairman to Hillary Clinton.

The Podesta Group has also received $90,000 so far in 2016 from the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), which is the world’s largest biotech trade association.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld

The Hillary Clinton campaign Monsanto lobbying revelations do not stop with the Podesta Group.

Clinton campaign Treasurer Jose H. Villarreal is a consultant with the lobbying firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, which has received $150,000 from Monsanto and $60,000 from BIO so far in 2016. Prior to becoming a consultant for Akin Gump, Villarreal was a longtime partner of the company.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP also receive a regular annual payment of around $200,000 from Monsanto. This lobbying firm also provides lobbying services for Monsanto in India.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, headquartered in Washington, D.C., is an American international law firm and the most profitable lobbying firm in the United States.

This latest Monsanto bombshell for the Clinton campaign follows the news from February this year that the global GMO promoters Cornell Alliance for Science, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are giving Hillary Clinton as an example of one of the ‘powerful people‘ who supports GMOs and the Biotech industry worldwide.

//

From: http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/11/...f-us-election/

[Cara]

More about Monsanto as an aspect of the "war machine". This is an article from a FARC officer.

FARC = The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia—People's Army

About Glyphosate: powerful chemical weapon of transnational power

"A crime against humanity"

It's no casualty that Agent Orange and Glyphosate have been used in two wars led by the United States, and both are produced by the multinational Monsanto. Agent Orange was used during the Vietnam War as a weapon of war and glyphosate is used in Colombia for the same purpose.

The inhumanity of the Vietnam War sparked global outrage and a great solidarity movement was established which demanded an end to the U.S. occupation. Now it seems as if the time of social movements against the war have suddenly stopped, because similar gestures of solidarity are not seen in the case of Colombia.

Silvia Parra wrote in the magazine Semana a column titled "Children of Agent Orange". Her memories go back to the Vietnam War and meet the Vietnamese who loudly demand justice to the inhumane acts of the Americans. And she wonders: Is the Vietnam War over? And she adds: "for the thousands of children that even today, after 40 years, are still carrying the cross of a war that, like all wars, only brought misery and desolation".

The writer rightly points out: "This poison is the evil son from the union between the Department of Defense in the U.S. and Monsanto and Dow Chemical, two U.S. chemical companies that have benefited from the suffering of millions of people and have been harmful to nature, farmers and consumers". I would add that these are the same ones that benefit from glyphosate spraying in Colombia. Moreover, they build a financial empire for drug-money laundering.

Here we arrive to the sad drama of Vietnam, where an average of 80 million liters of Agent Orange has been sprayed and in 10 years they have poisoned three million hectares, 30 thousand villages and victimized two million people. It is said that many died in Vietnam a few years after birth, affected by leukemia or other cancers [1]. According to the Vietnamese Red Cross, in Vietnam at least 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange [2].



In Colombia, 1,5 million hectares have been sprayed with glyphosate at high concentrations. "Formulated glyphosate is causing the early stages of cancerization," told Robert Bellé, French scientist who led an investigation about Roundup to The Universe, and he stated that the aerial spraying of this chemical is "a crazy thing to do" [3].

Many studies have shown that one of the effects of glyphosate on human beings, is that 5% will have cancer problems, 3% will beget children with malformations, and 2% will have fertility problems [4]. For this reason, those who pronounce themselves against this crime do so, using scientific arguments.

Now that they are going to resume aerial spraying, on 15 February, we hear voices of intellectuals and academics, very few in our opinion, in solidarity with the victims of chemical discharges, who also destroy crops, food, animals and territories.Indeed, one of the cases that will be have to investigated by the Commission of Clarification of the historical Truth of the Conflict -if the government were to accept the proposal made ??by the FARC-EP- will be the victims of glyphosate.



Alfredo Molano Bravo says: "The aircraft with its wings full of Roundup - herbicide produced by criminal Monsanto- and with armored bellies to avoid the gringo pilots gutted to the ground with their airplanes, will take off again in Cauca, Putumayo, North Santander, Antioquia, Chocó, Caquetá, Meta, Guaviare and Nariño".

They suspended the spraying while they armored the aircrafts against guerrilla fire. They do care for protecting the airplanes; however, they don't care if the population gets cancer, if congenital malformations occur in the babies of peasants and indigenous women and if children will continue to be born with genetic deformities, as has been happening.The only hope for those affected would be a powerful national and international mobilization. Unfortunately, there is a lack of awareness of the seriousness of this chemical warfare.

And of course it is crazy, as the French scientist Robert Bell? stated. A crime against humanity, on account of monumental gains of multinationals like Monsanto, transnational corporations and US interests.

Faced with this threat, it is urgent to promote a national and international campaign in solidarity with the victims of Glyphosate. And, of course, at least an ethical and political trial to the government of Colombia, Monsanto and the US government.

[1] http://internacional.elpais.com/inte...54_513546.html and http://www.zonamilitar.com.ar/foros/...-golpea.29846/

[2] http://spanish.china.org.cn/photos/t...t_30746351.htm

[3] http://www.eluniverso.com/2007/02/25/0001/12/09AD25DD55214945AC1622D1CECCD3A8.html

[4] http://laniel.free.fr/INDEXES/Graphi...noGenetico.pdf


//

From: http://farc-epeace.org/index.php/blo...nal-power.html

[Hervé]

Roundup causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at very low doses

Claire Robinson GMWatch
Mon, 09 Jan 2017 14:31 UTC

Cutting-edge molecular profiling analyses reveal that the popular weedkiller Roundup causes liver damage at doses permitted by regulators.

The weedkiller Roundup [AKA Glyphosate] causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at very low doses permitted by regulators worldwide, a new peer-reviewed study shows. The study is the first ever to show a causative link between consumption of Roundup at a real-world environmentally relevant dose and a serious disease.

The new peer-reviewed study, led by Dr Michael Antoniou at King's College London, used cutting-edge profiling methods to describe the molecular composition of the livers of female rats fed an extremely low dose of Roundup weedkiller, which is based on the chemical glyphosate, over a 2-year period.

The dose of glyphosate from the Roundup administered was thousands of times below what is permitted by regulators worldwide.

The study revealed that these animals suffered from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

Dr Antoniou said: "The findings of our study are very worrying as they demonstrate for the first time a causative link between an environmentally relevant level of Roundup consumption over the long-term and a serious disease - namely non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

"Our results also suggest that regulators should reconsider the safety evaluation of glyphosate-based herbicides."

Potentially serious implications for human health
The new results demonstrate that long-term consumption of an ultra-low dose of Roundup at a glyphosate daily intake level of only 4 nanograms per kilogram of bodyweight per day, which is 75,000 times below EU and 437,500 below US permitted levels, results in NAFLD.

Regulators worldwide accept toxicity studies in rats as indicators of human health risks. So the results of this latest study have serious implications for human health.

NAFLD currently affects 25% of the US population and similar numbers of Europeans. Risk factors include being overweight or obese, having diabetes, or having high cholesterol or high triglycerides (a constituent of body fat) in the blood. However, some people develop NAFLD even if they do not have any of these known risk factors. The new study raises the question of whether exposure to Roundup is a hitherto unrecognized risk factor.

Symptoms of NAFLD include fatigue, weakness, weight loss, loss of appetite, nausea, abdominal pain, spider-like blood vessels, yellowing of the skin and eyes (jaundice), itching, fluid build-up and swelling of the legs and abdomen, and mental confusion.

NAFLD can progress to the more serious condition, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). NASH causes the liver to swell and become damaged.

Most people with NASH are between the ages of 40 and 60 years. It is more common in women than in men. NASH is one of the leading causes of cirrhosis in adults in the United States. Up to 25% of adults with NASH may have cirrhosis.

Background to the study
The rat body tissues used in this analysis were obtained from a previous study led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, France. In this original investigation, rats were given an extremely low, environmentally relevant dose of a commercial Roundup formulation at 0.1ppb (parts per billion)/50ppt (parts per trillion) glyphosate via drinking water for 2 years. Daily intake of glyphosate from the Roundup was 4 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day, which is thousands of times below what is permitted by regulators.

Analysis of the organs and blood/urine biochemical levels in the original study by Prof Séralini suggested a higher incidence of liver and kidney damage in the animals given Roundup compared to controls given plain drinking water.

Dr Antoniou's group has conducted distinct followup investigations on the rat body tissues from this ultra-low-dose Roundup treatment group, using in-depth molecular analytical procedures and statistical analytical methods that are appropriate for this type of research.

In the first followup investigation, a transcriptomics (gene function profile) analysis was performed on the livers and kidneys from the female animals. The results strongly supported the observations made at an anatomical (organ) and blood/urine biochemical level in the Séralini study - namely that the organs of the animals given Roundup suffered more structural and functional damage than the controls.

The transcriptomics results indicated an increased incidence of fibrosis (scarring), necrosis (areas of dead tissue), phospholipidosis (disturbed fat metabolism) and damage to mitochondria (the centres of respiration in cells) in the Roundup-fed animals.

However, although transcriptomics analysis is able to predict health or disease status of an organ, it does not provide definitive proof of harm. This is mainly because it does not give a direct measure of the actual biochemistry of the organ under study. Also, alterations in gene function resulting from a test do not always result in the types of changes in physical composition that could lead to disease.

Definitive confirmation of liver dysfunction from low dose of Roundup
In the new study the researchers undertook a followup protein composition profile ("proteomics") and small molecule metabolite biochemical profile ("metabolomics") investigation of the same liver samples to confirm the prediction of disease suggested by the transcriptomics gene expression profile analysis. As the proteomics and metabolomics directly measure the actual composition of the organ, these analytical methods provide a definitive assessment of its health or disease status.

Overall, metabolomics and proteomics disturbances showed a substantial overlap with biochemical hallmarks of NAFLD and its progression to steatohepatosis (serious fatty liver disease). Therefore they definitively confirm that serious liver disease has resulted from chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure.

The findings in detail
Proteins significantly disturbed (214 out of 1906 detected), as shown by the proteomics profiling, reflected a type of cell damage from reactive oxygen (peroxisomal proliferation), steatosis (serious fatty liver disease) and necrosis (areas of dead tissue).

The metabolomics analysis (55 metabolites altered out of 673 detected) confirmed lipotoxic (excess fatty tissue) conditions and oxidative stress. Metabolite alterations were also associated with hallmarks of serious liver toxicity.

The new study
Mesnage R, Renney G, Séralini GE, Ward M, Antoniou MN. Multiomics reveal non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in rats following chronic exposure to an ultra-low dose of Roundup herbicide. Scientific Reports, 2016; 6:39328. http://www.nature.com/articles/srep39328


Related:
GMO corn causes liver, kidney problems in rats: study

[Hervé]

Uncovered: Monsanto campaign to get Séralini study retracted

Claire Robinson GM Watch
Wed, 02 Aug 2017 13:21 UTC

Documents released in US cancer litigation show Monsanto's desperate attempts to suppress a study that showed adverse effects of Roundup herbicide - and that the editor of the journal that retracted the study had a contractual relationship with the company. Claire Robinson reports:

Internal Monsanto documents released by attorneys leading US cancer litigation show that the company launched a concerted campaign to force the retraction of a study that revealed toxic effects of Roundup. The documents also show that the editor of the journal that first published the study entered into a contract with Monsanto in the period shortly before the retraction campaign began.

The study, led by Prof GE Séralini, showed that very low doses of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide had toxic effects on rats over a long-term period, including serious liver and kidney damage. Additional observations of increased tumour rates in treated rats would need to be confirmed in a larger-scale carcinogenicity study.

The newly released documents show that throughout the retraction campaign, Monsanto tried to cover its tracks to hide its involvement. Instead Monsanto scientist David Saltmiras admitted to orchestrating a "third party expert" campaign in which scientists who were apparently independent of Monsanto would bombard the editor-in-chief of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), A. Wallace Hayes, with letters demanding that he retract the study.

Use of "third party experts" is a classic public relations tactic perfected by the tobacco industry. It consists of putting industry-friendly messages into the mouths of supposedly "independent" experts, since no one would believe industry attempts to defend its own products. Back in 2012, GMWatch founder Jonathan Matthews exposed the industry links of the supposedly independent scientists who lobbied the journal editor to retract the Séralini paper. Now we have first-hand proof of Monsanto's direct involvement.

In one document, Saltmiras reviews his own achievements within the company, boasting that he "Successfully facilitated numerous third party expert letters to the editor which were subsequently published, reflecting the numerous significant deficiencies, poor study design, biased reporting and selective statistics employed by Séralini. In addition, coauthored the Monsanto letter to the editor with [Monsanto employees] Dan Goldstein and Bruce Hammond."

Saltmiras further writes of how

"Throughout the late 2012 Séralini rat cancer publication and media campaign, I leveraged my relationship [with] the Editor i[n] Chief of the publishing journal... and was the single point of contact between Monsanto and the Journal."

Another Monsanto employee, Eric Sachs, writes in an email about his efforts to galvanize scientists in the letter-writing campaign. Sachs refers to Bruce Chassy, a scientist who runs the pro-GMO Academics Review website. Sachs writes:

"I talked to Bruce Chassy and he will send his letter to Wally Hayes directly and notify other scientists that have sent letters to do the same. He understands the urgency... I remain adamant that Monsanto must not be put in the position of providing the critical analysis that leads the editors to retract the paper."

In response to Monsanto's request, Chassy urged Hayes to retract the Séralini paper:

"My intent was to urge you to roll back the clock, retract the paper, and restart the review process."

Chassy was also the first signatory of a petition demanding the retraction of the Séralini study and the co-author of a Forbes article accusing Séralini of fraud. In neither document does Chassy declare any link with Monsanto. But in 2016 he was exposed as having taken over $57,000 over less than two years from Monsanto to travel, write and speak about GMOs.

Sachs is keen to ensure that Monsanto is not publicly seen as attempting to get the paper retracted, even though that is precisely what it is doing. Sachs writes to Monsanto scientist William Heydens:

"There is a difference between defending science and participating in a formal process to retract a publication that challenges the safety of our products. We should not provide ammunition for Séralini, GM critics and the media to charge that Monsanto used its might to get this paper retracted. The information that we provided clearly establishes the deficiencies in the study as reported and makes a strong case that the paper should not have passed peer review."

Another example of Monsanto trying to cover up its involvement in the retraction campaign emerges from email correspondence between Monsanto employees Daniel Goldstein and Eric Sachs. Goldstein states:

"I was uncomfortable even letting shareholders know we are aware of this LTE [GMW: probably "Letter to the Editor"].... It implies we had something to do with it - otherwise how do we have knowledge of it? I could add 'Aware of multiple letters to editor including one signed by 25 scientists from 14 countries' if you both think this is OK." Sachs responds: "We are 'connected' but did not write the letter or encourage anyone to sign it."

A. Wallace Hayes was paid by Monsanto

The most shocking revelation of the disclosed documents is that the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology, A. Wallace Hayes, entered into a consulting agreement with Monsanto in the period just before Hayes's involvement in the retraction of the Séralini study. Clearly Hayes had a conflict of interest between his role as a consultant for Monsanto and his role as editor for a journal that retracted a study determining that glyphosate has toxic effects. The study was published on 19 September 2012; the consulting agreement between Hayes and Monsanto was dated 21 August 2012 and Hayes is contracted to provide his services beginning 7 September 2012.

The documents also reveal that Monsanto paid Hayes $400 per hour for his services and that in return Hayes was expected to "Assist in establishment of an expert network of toxicologists, epidemiologists, and other scientists in South America and participate on the initial meeting held within the region. Preparation and delivery of a seminar addressing relevant regional issues pertaining to glyphosate toxicology is a key deliverable for the inaugural meeting in 2013."

Hayes should have recused himself from any involvement with the Séralini study from the time he signed this agreement. But he kept quiet. He went on to oversee a second "review" of the study by unnamed persons whose conflicts of interest, if any, were not declared - resulting in his decision to retract the study for the unprecedented reason that some of the results were "inconclusive".

Hayes told the New York Times's Danny Hakim in an interview that he had not been under contract with Monsanto at the time of the retraction and was paid only after he left the journal. He added that "Monsanto played no role whatsoever in the decision that was made to retract." But since it took the journal over a year to retract the study after the months-long second review, which Hayes oversaw, it's clear that he had an undisclosed conflict of interest from the time he entered into the contract with Monsanto and during the review process. He appears to be misleading the New York Times.

The timing of the contract also begs the question as to whether Monsanto knew the publication of the study was coming. If so, they may have been happy to initiate such a relationship with Hayes at just that time.

A Monsanto internal email confirms the company's intimate relationship with Hayes. Saltmiras writes about the recently published Séralini study:

"Wally Hayes, now FCT Editor in Chief for Vision and Strategy, sent me a courtesy email early this morning. Hopefully the two of us will have a follow up discussion soon to touch on whether FCT Vision and Strategy were front and center for this one passing through the peer review process."

In other email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel, Daniel Goldstein writes the following with respect to the Séralini study: "Retraction - Both Dan Jenkins (US Government affairs) and Harvey Glick made a strong case for withdrawal of the paper if at all possible, both on the same basis - that publication will elevate the status of the paper, bring other papers in the journal into question, and allow Séralini much more freedom to operate. All of us are aware that the ultimate decision is up to the editor and the journal management, and that we may not have an opportunity for withdrawal in any event, but I felt it was worth reinforcing this request."

Monsanto got its way, though the paper was subsequently republished by another journal with higher principles - and, presumably, with an editorial board that wasn't under contract with Monsanto.

Why Monsanto had to kill the Séralini study

It's obvious that it was in Monsanto's interests to kill the Séralini study. The immediate reason was that it reported harmful effects from low doses of Roundup and a GM maize engineered to tolerate it. But the wider reason that emerges from the documents is that to admit that the study had any validity whatsoever would be to open the doors for regulators and others to demand other long-term studies on GM crops and their associated pesticides.

A related danger for Monsanto, pointed out by Goldstein, is that "a third party may procure funding to verify Séralini's claims, either through a government agency or the anti-GMO/antl-pesticide financiers".

The documents show that Monsanto held a number of international teleconferences to discuss how to pre-empt such hugely threatening developments.

Summing up the points from the teleconferences, Daniel Goldstein writes that "unfortunately", three "potential issues regarding long term studies have now come up and will need some consideration and probably a white paper of some type (either internal or external)". These are potential demands for

1. 2 year rat/long-term cancer (and possibly reproductive toxicity) on GM crops
2. 2 year/chronic studies on pesticide formulations, in addition to the studies on the active ingredient alone that are currently demanded by regulators, and
3. 2 year rat/chronic studies of pesticide formulations on the GM crop.

In reply to the first point, Goldstein writes that the Séralini study "found nothing other than the usual variation in SD [Sprague-Dawley] rats, and as such there is no reason to question the recent EFSA guidance that such studies were not needed for substantially equivalent crops". GMWatch readers will not be surprised to see Monsanto gaining support from EFSA in its opposition to carrying out long-term studies on GMOs.

In answer to the second point, Goldstein reiterates that the Séralini study "actually finds nothing - so there is no need to draw any conclusions from it - but the theoretical issue has been placed on the table. We need to be prepared with a well considered response."

In answer to the third point, Goldstein ignores the radical nature of genetic engineering and argues pragmatically, if not scientifically, "This approach would suggest that the same issue arises for conventional crops and that every individual formulation would need a chronic study over every crop (at a minimum) and probably every variety of crop (since we know they have more genetic variation than GM vs conventional congener) and raises the possibility of an almost limitless number of tests." But he adds, "We also need a coherent argument for this issue."

EU regulators side with Monsanto

To the public's detriment, some regulatory bodies have backed Monsanto rather than the public interest and have backed off the notion that long-term studies should be required for GM crops. In fact, the EU is considering doing away with even the short 90-day animal feeding studies currently required under European GMO legislation. This will be based in part on the results of the EU-funded GRACE animal feeding project, which has come under fire for the industry links of some of the scientists involved and for its alleged manipulation of findings of adverse effects on rats fed Monsanto's GM MON810 maize.

Apology required

A. Wallace Hayes is no longer the editor-in-chief of FCT but is named as an "emeritus editor". Likewise, Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto employee who was parachuted onto the journal's editorial board shortly after the publication of the Séralini study, is no longer at the journal.

But although they are sidelined or gone, their legacy lives on in the form of a gap in the history of the journal where Séralini's paper belongs.

Now that Monsanto's involvement in the retraction of the Séralini paper is out in the open, FCT and Hayes should do the decent thing and issue a formal apology to Prof Séralini and his team. FCT cannot and should not reinstate the paper, because it is now published by another journal. But it needs to draw a line under this shameful episode, admit that it handled it badly, and declare its support for scientific independence and objectivity.


Related:
Biosafety and the 'Seralini affair': Systemic corruption of science and regulation


SOTT Comment: Leaked Monsanto docs reveal it tried to kill research on Roundup and influence EPA to conceal information about cancer risks

"This is a look behind the curtain," attorney Brent Wisner said. "This show[s] that Monsanto has deliberately been stopping studies that look bad for them, ghostwriting literature and engaging in a whole host of corporate malfeasance.

"They [Monsanto] have been telling everybody that these products are safe because regulators have said they are safe, but it turns out that Monsanto has been in bed with US regulators while misleading European regulators," he added.