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

Thread: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

  1. Link to Post #41
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,046 times in 9,571 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Bayer Monsanto in deep trouble
    Monsanto Tribunal <newsletter@monsanto-tribunal.org>

    "In this newsletter: news on Roundup, dicamba, Bt cotton, Bayer's strategy and a tribute to Fabián Tomasi.

    In August, Monsanto was condemned to pay $289m to DeWayne Johnson, an American gardener who routinely used Roundup at work and is now terminally ill from a rare form of cancer. You probably heard the news since many media sources covered that case (at least in Europe)! Find out more about it in this newsletter, together with other information related to Bayer Monsanto and to the fight for a better food and agricultural system.

    Glyphosate court victory: DeWayne Johnson ruling

    You have probably heard the great news. A US court sentenced Monsanto to pay $289m to a man who suffers from non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a rare condition that can be linked to glyphosate-containing Roundup. Victims of this terrible disease and their lawyer testified in the Monsanto Tribunal. Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, has spent decades working hard on concealing scientific evidence to protect its business. The company’s internal documents known as the ‘Monsanto Papers’ played a big role in convincing the jury that Monsanto’s officials acted with ‘malice or oppression’ in failing to adequately warn of the risks.

    Bayer Monsanto has appealed, of course, but this cannot hide the huge crisis the company is in. Bayer shares dropped almost 20%, wiping out 11 billion in stock value. The value won back some ground but dropped again another 14% early September. And the worst is yet to come.

    The Johnson case is one in 8,000 cases on glyphosate related Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Next similar court case is planned in February in the US and you can find more info and links on Justice Pesticides. Many more glyphosate claims are yet to come, like the 40,000 kidney failure cases in Sri Lanka and the innumerable illnesses and birth defects in the killing soy fields in Latin America. But glyphosate is not the only problem for Bayer Monsanto.

    Their new herbicide-resistant GMOs rely on the herbicide dicamba, that poses serious problems as you can read below. The same accounts for the failing Bt technology, another cash cow for cotton and corn seeds until now. In addition, PCB and Agent Orange court cases are haunting Monsanto and now Bayer. Their answer? Trying to lure the public into the story that their technology is the way forward to sustainably feed 10 billion people on this planet by 2050. Don’t let them succeed in this lie. Help us tell the truth and counteract their misleading information. Support our work now.

    In loving memory of Fabián Tomasi

    This newsletter is a tribute to Fabián Tomasi who passed away on September 7, at the age of 53. Over time, this Argentinian farm worker became an anti-pesticide activist, even though he never described himself as an environmentalist. Fabián’s job was to fill the tanks of fumigation planes with many chemical substances such as glyphosate, 2-4D, gramoxone… Diagnosed with a severe toxic polyneuropathy, Fabián was in constant pain, and he used his body as a symbol for the struggle against agribusiness greed.

    Supporter of the Monsanto Tribunal, he frequently spoke in schools and community centers in Argentina. We will continue to fight against Monsanto and other companies in his memory.

    Brazil: a court tries to suspend pesticides authorizations

    In Brazil, on August 3, a federal judge in Brasilia ruled the immediate prohibition of new licenses for products based on abamectin, glyphosate and tiram. Indeed, the precautionary principle reverses the burden of proof on the pesticides manufacturers and ANVISA, the national sanitary surveillance agency. It requires them to prove that these chemical substances are not safe. Brazil’s Minister of agriculture (and agribusiness proponent) Blairo Maggi was quick to react: to him, a ban would be a disaster for agriculture and there is no alternative to these chemicals.

    Beginning of September, the court reversed its decision after it was contested by ANVISA’s Advocate General. Read more information on this case on Justice Pesticides.

    Dicamba crisis

    Weeds are growing resistant to glyphosate. This is why Monsanto and BASF developed genetically modified seeds that can be used with another weedkiller, dicamba. However, dicamba can vaporize and drift onto nearby fields. So far, 181 growers in at least eight US states have sued Monsanto over the Dicamba and Roundup Ready Xtend Crop System. The farmers are demanding compensation for trees and crops damaged by dicamba spraying. A class-action status will represent thousands of claims.

    Environmental groups argued in federal appeals court in August that the US Environmental Protection Agency failed to analyze the risks and should reverse the approval of XtendiMax. Judge William Fletcher questioned whether the EPA indeed relied on sufficient studies to make its decision. ‘After all, you guys turned out to be wrong,’ Fletcher said, referring to a university study revealing that 3 million acres, or 4 percent of the US soybean crop, was destroyed by dicamba drift during the 2017 planting season. Read more.

    Bt Cotton failure

    Not only the Bayer-Monsanto's pesticide, glyphosate and dicamba products face a crisis, the whole range of herbicide and pesticide-resistant GMO is. Once praised as a miracle technique, the Bt products – plants with the genes of a bacteria that produce insecticide themselves – are in trouble. In India, most of the cotton is Bt. Now crop yields are declining, insects have become resistant to Bt and fertilizer and pesticide use have massively increased since the Bt technology introduction.

    The unique selling point of GM Bt cotton is that it has a built-in insecticide. This is claimed to reduce the need for farmers to spray chemical insecticides, but the data show that while GM Bt cotton did initially reduce the need for insecticide spraying, this trend did not last. Now farmers are spraying as much insecticide as they did before the expensive Bt cotton became widely grown. Besides, the Bt toxin produced by the plants is harmful for other insects.

    This is bad news for Bayer Monsanto, the USAID and Mahyco-Monsanto project in Bangladesh where they try to open up the vegetable seed market and introduce GMO in food crops with Bt Brinjal (eggplant). Policy analyst and farmers' representative from Bangladesh Farida Akhter already warned at the Monsanto Tribunal about the dangers to health, biodiversity and environment. The Bt cotton failure only reinforces her arguments. Read more.

    Vlogging for influence

    ‘Today we hosted an international group of food bloggers and vloggers on our Forward Farm in Abbenes (NL). Dutch farmers tell about sustainable farming.’ Sounds like a project by an agroecology advocacy group, doesn’t it? Nope, it’s not. It is a Bayer project and a Bayer tweet. So what could that bright future look like? See below.

    Will Bayer ditch glyphosate?

    Not exactly. Mid-September Bayer presented a statement in an international press conference in Monheim, Germany. They are preparing a broad coalition in the international agricultural community to keep glyphosate available. ‘Glyphosate is efficient, completely safe and has a low environmental impact’ says Jesus Madrazo, sustainability manager at Bayer CropScience. ‘This product is too important for sustainable and innovative crop systems throughout the world, so it can’t just disappear. Besides, there is no acceptable alternative available in the near future.’

    Bayer is therefore planning to present a lot of information to the public on glyphosate. Madrazo: ‘We want to present the right facts and are preparing dialogues like this to do so. We will use social media to reach out to a wide audience. On top of that we ask governments to base the approval of glyphosate on scientific information and not to play a political game.’ In the meeting, Madrazo was supported by his colleague Bill Reeves, who used to do the approval procedures in the US for Bayer and before Monsanto. British National Farmers' Union representative Guy Smith supported the Bayer story by stating that glyphosate is indispensable. So please do not worry, Bayer will save the world and feed the 10 billion. And please understand: ‘In order to feed the world we had to poison it.’

    Black book on Syngenta, Monsanto’s Swiss twin

    Syngenta is the first pesticides manufacturer in the world: it produces, among other substances, the sadly famous atrazine and paraquat. In ‘March Against Syngenta, Revealing Monsanto’s twin from Switzerland’, the Swiss NGO Multiwatch investigates on Syngenta’s business and lists all the scandals the company is involved in. Corruption, pollution, political violence, you name it… This book is now available in English an e-book (and the PDF is free!) , as well as in French, German and Spanish. It is dedicated to Keno, a landless workers' movement leader assassinated in 2007 by a private security company hired by Syngenta.

    Support our work

    The Monsanto Tribunal has been very helpful to show the world the suffering and damage caused by Monsanto. We have highlighted the legal opinion as widely as possible and will continue to counteract biotech propaganda and hold Bayer Monsanto liable for its crimes against nature and humanity. Please support our work. Thank you!"
    Each breath a gift...

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

    avid (10th October 2018), Bob (7th November 2018), Franny (4th November 2018), Hervé (10th October 2018), ichingcarpenter (10th October 2018), RunningDeer (10th October 2018), seko (1st November 2018), william r sanford72 (4th November 2018)

  3. Link to Post #42
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,046 times in 9,571 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Stand With Jurors Against Monsanto!
    Organic Consumers Assoc.
    "A judge is threatening to overturn a jury’s $289-million verdict for school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson. Johnson has terminal cancer, caused by long-term workplace exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate-based weedkiller.

    TAKE ACTION: Stand with jurors against Monsanto! Tell Judge Suzanne Bolanos to uphold the jury’s unanimous decision!

    On October 10, the Associated Press reported that Judge Suzanne Bolanos issued a tentative ruling saying she intended to toss out the jury’s $250-million punitive damage award and schedule a new trial on that issue. The judge also suggested she would reduce the $39 million in compensatory damages awarded to Johnson to only $8 million—if she upholds the jury’s decision that Monsanto’s weedkiller caused Dewayne Johnson’s cancer.

    Attorneys for both sides submitted written briefs to the judge on Friday. Bolanos’ decision is expected by Monday, October 22.

    For Bayer, which bought Monsanto this year for $63 billion, it’s all about the money.

    When the jury’s $289-million verdict was announced in August, investors feared the award would be multiplied by the 8,000 similar lawsuits pending in courts around the country. Bayer shares fell by as much as 14 percent ($14 billion in value).

    When Judge Bolanos announced she would reverse or reduce the jury’s verdict, Bayer's shares jumped as much as 6.4 percent.

    For the jurors, it’s about justice.

    Eight jurors and two alternates, who had already completed their six weeks of service, voluntarily returned to Judge Bolanos’s courtroom for the October 10 hearing “to support the verdict.”

    Since the hearing, at least four of the jurors have additionally written letters to the judge, according to a report by the San Francisco Chronicle.

    Gary Kitahata, Juror #1, owner of a financial consulting company, wrote to the judge:

    We followed your instructions carefully and took our responsibilities seriously. We decided to assess punitive damages only after determining there was clear and convincing evidence that Monsanto had acted with “malice or oppression” and that such conduct was authorized by “one or more officers, directors or managing agents of Monsanto.” The amount of such damages was the result of careful consideration and discussion, based on the court’s instructions and definitions.

    Robert Howard, Juror #4, an artist and residential contractor, wrote:

    The possibility that, after our studious attention to the presentation of evidence, our adherence to your instructions, and several days of careful deliberations, our unanimous verdict could be summarily overturned demeans our system of justice and shakes my confidence in that system.

    Charlie Kaupp, Juror #11, wrote:

    [O]n August 10th, the jury spoke unanimously on every one of your verdict questions except the one about the amount of punitive damages (and that one was eleven-to-one). Monsanto requested a jury trial, as is their right. The fact that sixteen San Francisco citizens gave up six weeks to participate in the justice system with honor and integrity, only to have our verdict overruled, is an insult to our intelligence and disrespectful of our time, not to mention disrespectful to the process and institution of trial by jury.

    Dewayne Johnson deserves justice. Monsanto should be held accountable. And a carefully considered verdict handed down by jurors who followed the judge’s instructions, should be allowed to stand.

    Otherwise, why have a court system at all?

    TAKE ACTION: Stand with jurors against Monsanto! Tell Judge Suzanne Bolanos to uphold the jury’s unanimous decision here": https://advocacy.organicconsumers.or...458/petition/1
    Each breath a gift...

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

    avid (21st October 2018), Franny (4th November 2018), RunningDeer (23rd October 2018), seko (1st November 2018), Sophocles (23rd October 2018), william r sanford72 (4th November 2018)

  5. Link to Post #43
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,046 times in 9,571 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    House GOP Seeks to Scuttle Playground Bans on Glyphosate
    Local Limits on Spraying Monsanto’s Toxic Weed Killer in Parks, Playgrounds and Schoolyards Blocked by House Republican Farm Bill

    WASHINGTON – "More than 50 city and county ordinances banning the use of the toxic weed killer glyphosate on local playgrounds, parks and schoolyards could be overturned by a provision championed by House Republicans in their version of the farm bill, an EWG analysis found.

    A four-page provision tucked away in the 748-page farm bill passed by the House of Representatives in June would likely preempt local governments from adopting their own pesticide regulations, including ordinances that prohibit the use of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, in parks and playgrounds.

    EWG’s analysis of data from Beyond Pesticides found 58 local ordinances that ban the use of glyphosate. Overall, 155 local ordinances that regulate the use of toxic chemicals in parks and playgrounds could be preempted by Sec. 9101 of the House’s farm bill.

    Glyphosate is classified by the state of California as a chemical known to cause cancer, and as a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization. Earlier this month, a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million to a school groundskeeper who said years of working with Roundup caused his terminal cancer.

    The analysis comes just weeks after tests commissioned by EWG found potentially unsafe levels of glyphosate residues in popular oat-based foods marketed toward children, including Cheerios.

    Cities and counties that may no longer be able to ban glyphosate in places where children play include big cities like San Francisco and smaller communities like Evanston, Ill., among many other locations.

    “Children are especially susceptible to the health impacts of toxic pesticides, so our communities should be able to decide whether our kids are rolling around in weed killers linked to cancer while playing at the park,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s senior vice president of government affairs. “Section 9101 of the House farm bill would block our communities from keeping our kids safe.”

    “As independent science continues to shine light on the dangers pesticides pose to human health and the environment, local communities are responding by successfully eliminating these toxic products from regular use,” said Drew Toher, community resource and policy director at Beyond Pesticides. “Congress must continue to uphold the right of these localities to restrict pesticides linked to cancer, water contamination and pollinator decline.”

    The section of the farm bill that could block cities and counties from adopting their own pesticide safety standards is opposed by the National League of Cities and the National Association of County Officials. Last week, 107 members of the House sent a letter to the farm bill conferees outlining their opposition to pesticide riders like Section 9101 and the “Poison Our Waters Provision,” which would eliminate Clean Water Act safeguards to protect communities from pesticides sprayed directly into water supplies.

    Among the companies and industry groups registered to lobby Congress on pesticide provisions of the farm bill is Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, Dow and CropLife America.

    “Parents and city leaders, not pesticide corporations, should decide whether their kids are playing in pesticides,” Faber said.

    To see all communities with existing pesticide restrictions that could be preempted by the House farm bill, click here:"
    Each breath a gift...

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

    Bob (7th November 2018), Franny (4th November 2018), Hervé (23rd October 2018), ichingcarpenter (3rd November 2018), RunningDeer (23rd October 2018), seko (1st November 2018), Sophocles (23rd October 2018), william r sanford72 (4th November 2018)

  7. Link to Post #44
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Thanked 94,712 times in 15,446 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Monsanto loses appeal on historic Roundup cancer verdict, owes $78mn

    Published time: 23 Oct, 2018 04:52
    Edited time: 23 Oct, 2018 07:57
    Get short URL

    © Reuters / Wolfgang Rattay

    Months after merging with Bayer in a bid to bury a brand that has become as toxic as its products, Monsanto has lost its appeal in a historic lawsuit that found its Roundup herbicide responsible for a man's cancer.

    In August, a San Francisco jury awarded former school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson $289 million in damages in a lawsuit alleging Monsanto's glyphosate weed killer Roundup was responsible for his non-Hodgkins lymphoma. The verdict further confirmed that Monsanto "acted with malice" in concealing the carcinogenic risks of its products for decades.

    California state judge Suzanne Bolanos has rejected Bayer's request for a new trial, instead opting to reduce the punitive part of the damages from $250 million to $39 million, equivalent to the amount the jury had awarded Johnson in compensatory damages. This adds up to a mandated payout of $78mn.

    In addition to spraying Roundup and its analog Ranger Pro 30 times a year, Johnson was doused with the weed killer twice in on-the-job accidents and developed lymphoma within two years of the first mishap. As much as 80 percent of his body is covered in lesions, and his doctors did not think he'd live to see the jury verdict.

    Johnson is satisfied with the verdict and hopes it leads Bayer and consumers alike to behave more responsibly. "I'm hoping that it snowballs and people really get the picture and they start to make decisions about what they eat, what they spray in their farms," he told the Guardian. He hopes to see warning labels on Monsanto products, but isn't holding his breath.

    © Reuters / Wolfgang Rattay ©

    The confirmation of August's verdict opens Bayer up to thousands of similar suits from plaintiffs with similar claims. The World Health Organization deemed glyphosate "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015, yet Johnson and others like him were told in training sessions that the weed killer was "safe enough to drink."

    Evidence emerged during Johnson's case that Monsanto was not only suppressing research that confirmed the link between its products and cancer, but may actually be paying for its own "ghostwritten" research that would portray Roundup favorably.

    Monsanto was sold to Bayer in June for $63 billion, and the massive new firm immediately chose to retire the Monsanto name. With a sordid history that includes Agent Orange and genetically-modified seeds in addition to glyphosate, the brand name had become too toxic.

    Monsanto asks judge to overturn $289m cancer verdict, claims dying man presented lack of evidence
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

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

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

    Bob (7th November 2018), Franny (2nd May 2019), onawah (23rd October 2018), Paul (23rd October 2018), RunningDeer (23rd October 2018), seko (1st November 2018), Sophocles (23rd October 2018), william r sanford72 (4th November 2018)

  9. Link to Post #45
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Thanked 94,712 times in 15,446 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    'The Monsanto Papers': New film exposes egregious crimes of global chemical giant

    Dr. Joseph Mercola mercola.com
    Sat, 20 Oct 2018 00:00 UTC

    The Australian documentary, "The Monsanto Papers," reveals the secret tactics used by global chemical giant Monsanto (now owned by Bayer AG1,2), to protect its bestselling herbicide, Roundup.

    The film starts out with a quick history of Roundup and how its now-clearly absurd safety claims (such as "it's biodegradable," "safe enough to drink," and "safer than table salt") made it into the worlds' most widely used weed killer, used by farmers and private gardeners alike. Indeed, it was at one time known as "the world's most trusted herbicide," but those days are now long gone.

    Between 1974 - the year glyphosate entered the U.S. market - and 2014, glyphosate use increased more than 250fold in the U.S. Today, an estimated 300 million pounds are applied on U.S. farmland annually. Globally, nearly 5 billion pounds (over 2 billion kilograms) of glyphosate are applied to some 70 types of farm crops each year.3

    Roundup Is Far From Harmless

    Mounting evidence suggests Roundup is far from harmless, and evidence unearthed during legal discovery shows Monsanto has been well aware of its product's toxic nature, and has been covering it up.

    As previously discussed in many articles, glyphosate and glyphosate-based weed killer formulations such as Roundup have in recent years been linked to a wide variety of human health consequences, including:
    • Impairing your body's ability to produce fully functioning proteins5
    • Disrupting sulfate synthesis and transport7
    • Interfering with the synthesis of aromatic amino acids and methionine, resulting in folate and neurotransmitter shortages8
    • Disrupting your microbiome by acting as an antibiotic9
    • Impairing methylation pathways10
    • Inhibiting pituitary release of thyroid stimulating hormone, which can lead to hypothyroidism11,12
    Monsanto Papers Reveal Company's Efforts to Squash Evidence of Carcinogenicity
    August 10, 2018, a jury ruled in favor of plaintiff Dewayne Johnson13,14,15,16,17 in a truly historic case against Monsanto. Johnson - the first of 9,000 pending legal cases - claimed Monsanto's Roundup caused his Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

    Forty-six-year-old Johnson sprayed about 150 gallons of Roundup 20 to 40 times per year while working as a groundskeeper for the Benicia school district in California, from 2012 through late 2015.18 His lawsuit, filed in 2016 after he became too ill to work, accused Monsanto of hiding the health hazards of Roundup.

    According to the ruling, Monsanto "acted with malice or oppression" and was responsible for "negligent failure" by not warning consumers about the carcinogenicity of this pernicious weed killer. His court case, presided by Superior Court Judge Suzanne Ramos Bolanos, began June 18, 2018, and ended August 10 with a ruling in his favor.19

    The jury ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages to Johnson - an amount that effectively wipes out Monsanto's reserve fund for environmental and litigation liability which, according to Bloomberg,20 totaled $277 million as of August 2018.

    The evidence presented to the jury, including email correspondence and corporate documents, create a comprehensive narrative of corporate malfeasance and collusion with U.S. regulatory agencies, and it was this evidence that ultimately led to Johnson being awarded a quarter of a billion dollars in damages.

    You can review many of these "Monsanto Papers" on the U.S. Right to Know website.21 To learn more you can also read "Spinning Science & Silencing Scientists: A Case Study in How the Chemical Industry Attempts to Influence Science,"22 a minority staff report dated February 2018, prepared for U.S. House members of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

    In "The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the Scientific Well,"23 a paper published in The International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, June 2018, Leemon McHenry describes the importance of this cache of documents:
    "The documents reveal Monsanto-sponsored ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media, interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on retraction and the creation of a so-called academic website as a front for the defense of Monsanto products ...
    The use of third-party academics in the corporate defense of glyphosate reveals that this practice extends beyond the corruption of medicine and persists in spite of efforts to enforce transparency in industry manipulation."
    What About the 800 Studies Showing Glyphosate Is Safe?
    Following Johnson's verdict, Monsanto vice president Scott Partridge released a statement saying "more than 800 scientific studies and reviews support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer."

    However, as noted by Brent Wisner, lead trial counsel for Johnson and thousands of other plaintiffs, those 800 studies did not address carcinogenicity at all.24 Rather, they were studies looking at safety issues such as whether the chemical causes eye irritation or skin rashes and other random effects.

    Only 13 animal studies and half a dozen epidemiological studies have looked at the chemical's carcinogenic potential, and the vast majority of those studies actually show a correlation between glyphosate - the active ingredient in Roundup - and cancer. They show it causes tumors in mice, and that it causes Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and genetic damage in humans.

    It was evidence such as this that in 2015 led the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) - the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the "gold standard" in carcinogenicity research - to classify glyphosate as a "probable human carcinogen."25,26

    In response, Monsanto launched an all-out attack on IARC and its researchers, and even lobbied to strip IARC of its U.S. funding. The American Chemistry Council, of which Monsanto is a member, also formed a front group called Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research,27 for the express purpose of discrediting the IARC and seeking to reform the IARC Monographs Program, which evaluates and determines the carcinogenicity of chemicals.28

    Monsanto has also fought California's Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment in court,29 trying to prevent the agency from adding glyphosate to its list of chemicals known to cause cancer.

    Under California's Proposition 65, all such chemicals must bear a warning label informing consumers of the potential risks. So far, the company's attempts have all failed, and glyphosate-containing products will indeed be required to carry a cancer warning when sold in California.

    Corrupted Science
    The film also talks to Carey Gillam, a veteran investigative journalist and author of "Whitewash - The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science," who has previously gone on record about how Monsanto tried to discredit her for writing critical pieces about the company and its toxic products.30

    As noted by Gillam, scientific corruption is widespread, and few of those 800 studies that Monsanto clings to are in fact done by unbiased and independent researchers. Doubts about the science actually arose as early as the 1970s, when Monsanto hired a company called Industrial Biotech Laboratories to conduct some of the safety research required for approval in the U.S.

    The lab got caught up in a fraud scandal as it was discovered the researchers had doctored much of the data. After an investigation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared the study results invalid. A study done in the mid-1980s subsequently led the EPA to classify glyphosate as "possibly carcinogenic to humans," but Monsanto refused to accept the findings.

    After nearly a decade of strife, the EPA decided to go against the findings of its own toxicologists and declared glyphosate was not likely to be a human carcinogen. However, several EPA scientists refused to sign that final report. Kraven Laboratories, another lab hired by Monsanto to conduct its research, was also caught falsifying test results, not only for Roundup but also for other pesticides. Fifteen Kraven Lab employees were either fined or imprisoned as a result.

    Monsanto has long argued it was a victim of fraud and had to spend large sums of money to redo the falsified studies. However, according to Gillam, it's extremely difficult to ascertain which of those studies have in fact been redone, and which studies our regulatory agencies have relied on. The film also reviews how Monsanto pushed Roundup using false advertising that grossly overstated its safety.

    Monsanto Never Did Necessary Cancer Testing

    The Monsanto Papers reveal the company's own employees were concerned about (and helped cover up) Roundup's potential risks for decades. For example, in a 2003 email, Monsanto lead toxicologist Donna Farmer, Ph.D., writes, "You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen ... we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement."

    In 2014, when Monsanto learned IARC was planning to investigate glyphosate's carcinogenic potential, Farmer wrote, "... what we have long been concerned about has happened. Glyphosate is on for an IARC review..." Internal documents also reveal how Monsanto orchestrated the campaign to discredit IARC's findings ahead of time.

    As noted in the film, if Monsanto was so sure about the safety of its product, why would it preplan a campaign to discredit the IARC's findings before the scientific review was even completed? In response, Partridge claims the company was simply preparing to educate the public about the truth, as it knew glyphosate "would be besmirched" by inaccurate conclusions.

    IARC scientists disagree, saying they were merely following well-established toxicology procedures; they looked at the evidence, and came to a conclusion that fit the evidence at hand. One of the tactics used to counter IARC's findings was to publish a ghostwritten review that supported glyphosate's safety.

    To this end, Monsanto convened a "panel of independent experts" and tasked them with reviewing the data and publishing an analysis of the evidence. However, email correspondence reveals William Heyden, safety lead for Monsanto, actively wrote and edited the review himself. All of this evidence was shown during Johnson's jury trial, and these outright lies are ultimately what prompted the jury to award such extensive punitive damages.

    How Monsanto Derailed EPA Action Following IARC's Ruling
    Part of Monsanto's defense of glyphosate still hinges on the EPA's ruling that the chemical is "not likely to be carcinogenic" to humans,31 but evidence reveals Monsanto had a strong hand in shaping the EPA's views as well. Following strong criticism, the EPA convened a scientific advisory panel to reanalyze the scientific evidence and evaluate the strength of its decision that glyphosate is an unlikely carcinogen.

    A four-day-long panel meeting was held in December, 2016, and right from the start, some of the experts expressed concerns about the quality of the EPA's analysis.32 Some said the agency had violated its own guidelines by discounting data showing a positive association between glyphosate and cancer, while others questioned exclusion of data showing statistical significance.

    Pointed questions were also raised about the chemical industry's influence over regulators. As a general rule, peer-reviewed, published research, especially by independent scientists, tend to carry more merit than unpublished industry research.

    But as discussed in the film, CropLife America, which represents Monsanto and other agribusinesses, demanded the EPA remove nationally recognized epidemiologist Peter Infante, Ph.D., from the scientific advisory panel, claiming he was incapable of impartiality because he would give more weight to independent research than industry studies.

    The EPA complied, booting Infante off the panel. He still made an appearance at the meeting, though, and in his testimony, Infante urged the advisory panel not to ignore "impressive evidence" linking glyphosate to Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In the film, Infante says he agrees with the IARC review, which found evidence of carcinogenicity, but denies anti-industry bias.

    How Monsanto Killed Safety Assessment by US Health Department
    The film also discusses email correspondence showing an EPA official colluded with Monsanto to prevent the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is part of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, from conducting an investigation into glyphosate.

    The EPA official in question was Jess Rowland, a key author of the EPA's report that found glyphosate was unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans.33 At the time, Rowland was the associate director of the EPA's Pesticide Health Effects Division.34 Email correspondence between EPA toxicologist Marion Copley and Rowland suggests Rowland may in fact have colluded with Monsanto to find glyphosate noncarcinogenic in the first place.35,36

    In one email Copley cites evidence showing glyphosate is toxic to animals, adding "It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer." She directly accuses Rowland of playing "political conniving games with the science" to help Monsanto and other pesticide manufacturers. There's also evidence showing Rowland warned Monsanto of the IARC's determination months before it was made public,37 which gave the company time to plan its attack on the IARC.

    As for the ATSDR investigation, Monsanto regulatory affairs manager Dan Jenkins recounts a conversation he'd had with Rowland in an email, in which Rowland said, "If I can kill this I should get a medal,"38,39 referring to the ATSDR investigation. Jenkins also wrote, "I doubt EPA and Jess can kill this, but it's nice to know they're going to actually make the effort."

    As it turns out, his pessimism was unwarranted. Another Monsanto memorandum notes the ATSDR "agreed, for now, to take direction from EPA," showing Rowland did in fact succeed in his mission to thwart the ATSDR's investigation of glyphosate.

    By colluding with Monsanto to declare glyphosate safe and stopping toxicology evaluations by other federal offices, the EPA has used taxpayers' money to hide the truth about a dangerous toxin and prevent consumers harmed by the chemical from being able to effectively prove their case in court. But despite such collusion, Johnson was able to make his case against Monsanto, and he's not the only one. Another 9,000 plaintiffs are waiting for their day in court.

    Monsanto's Toxic Legacy Remains
    While the Monsanto name has been retired, its toxic legacy will remain for decades to come. As noted by Johnson's attorney, Wisner, nearly all chemicals produced over the past 100 years that have been shown to be extraordinarily toxic can be traced back to Monsanto, including DDT, PCBs, dioxins, Agent Orange and now glyphosate.
    "Monsanto effectively made a business out of poisoning people, and getting away with it," Wisner says.
    "For the last 20 or 30 years, Monsanto has engaged in a systematic and deliberate campaign to attack any science that says their product is not safe, and to attack any scientist that has the courage to say something. They have a corporate culture that has zero interest in safety. It has only an interest in maintaining the ability of them to sell this product."
    Last edited by Hervé; 1st November 2018 at 17:04.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

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

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

    Bob (3rd November 2018), Briggy (1st November 2018), Franny (4th November 2018), onawah (1st November 2018), RunningDeer (1st November 2018), seko (1st November 2018), william r sanford72 (4th November 2018)

  11. Link to Post #46
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,046 times in 9,571 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    New riveting interviews with 'Monsanto Slayer' attorney
    From Institute for Responsible Technology's email update today:
    "On Friday, Dewayne “Lee” Johnson (through his attorneys) accepted the reduced verdict as rendered by the judge resulting in a total verdict of over $78,000,000 against Monsanto. This ended the trial stage of this historic case finding Monsanto’s Roundup caused Mr. Johnson’s cancer and that Monsanto acted with malice.

    Now that the trial stage is over, IRT is excited to announce an exclusive look behind the scenes with Lead Attorney Brent Wisner. These interviews are exclusive to IRT and we’ve been waiting for this moment to make them available to you.

    Watch Jeffrey Smith interview Wisner as he reveals highlights from his years of in-depth research and the heroic lawsuit against the chemical giant.

    Get the inside scoop on Monsanto’s strategic, purposeful programs to discredit the scientists and eliminate the evidence that proves the dangers of Roundup.

    These highly engaging videos * are "must watch TV" for anyone concerned about Roundup, glyphohsate and Monsanto's influence over our food system."

    * Note: unfortunately, the five excellent videos on the site can only be played FROM the site, because of "privacy settings".
    Last edited by Bill Ryan; 3rd November 2018 at 18:55. Reason: embedded the videos
    Each breath a gift...

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

    Bill Ryan (3rd November 2018), Bob (7th November 2018), Franny (4th November 2018), Hervé (3rd November 2018), RunningDeer (4th November 2018), william r sanford72 (4th November 2018)

  13. Link to Post #47
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Thanked 94,712 times in 15,446 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    What does Monsanto's 'Roundup' do to you?

    Pete Bianco Utica Phoenix
    Fri, 09 Nov 2018 00:01 UTC

    © Benoit Tessier / Reuters

    Stephanie Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. In the last few years she has focused her attention on studying the way glyphosate, one of the ingredients in the weed Killer roundup, affects the human body. She has not proven anything yet but has brought some compelling clues to the surface. There is a great need to understand the health effects of the most-used agricultural chemical ever.

    Ms. Seneff's interest in glyposate began when she heard a lecture by Don Huber, Professor Emeritus of Plant Pathology at Purdue University. At the time she was researching what was causing the autism epidemic.

    Most of the research funding for Autism was focused on genetic causes. This would mean the body was inherently defective as opposed to some outside force causing a drastic change in the body. Ms. Seneff knew that genetics do not change very fast but autism among children is increasing at an alarming rate. Because of this she was looking for causes outside the body such as changes in our environment.

    In his lecture Professor Huber was talking about the gut microbes (bacteria in our digestive tract). Ms Seneff was already aware one commonality in those affected by autism is massive disruption and abnormal functioning of the gut but she wanted to know why it was happening to these children. If you look at what glyphosate does to biological systems and look at what is characteristic of autism you will find a multitude of matches said Ms. Seneff. Since hearing Professor Huber she has spent the past six years studying the molecule glyphosate.

    Glyphosate binds to metals or minerals especially cobalt and manganese. This is one way it kills plants. It works by withholding micro-nutrients and depriving plants of nutrients necessary for enzymatic functions. It also turns off these functions in humans. Glyphosate disrupts methylation and liver enzymes that allow our bodies to detoxify harmful substances we come in contact with everyday. This can cause a person to develop chemical sensitivities.

    According to Professor Huber it is one of the most broad spectrum antibiotics whether acting in the soil or in our digestive tract and extremely low levels of glyphosate, levels 40-800 times lower than what is permissible in food products is toxic to the beneficial bacteria that are essential in our own bodies. Among other things these bacteria produce vitamins essential to our well being.

    Monsanto claims glyphosate is safe because it disables the shikamate path way in plants causing them to die. And human cells lack the Shikimate pathway, which is found in plants and bacteria. This is true but the additional truth that is not being told is that our bodies contain trillions of bacteria which play crucial roles in maintaining our health and glyphosate harms them by the same pathway.

    Ms. Seneff states glyphosate starts out by killing the good bacteria in your gut. Once this happens harmful bacteria can thrive and over grow. This causes the immune system to target the gut to fight the harmful bacteria and this causes inflammatory gut. Ms. Seneff hypothesizes the immune cells are then harmed by glyphosate. Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma is a direct attack on immune cells in the body called B-cells. These cells try to build antibodies but cannot. Antibodies are protein, the process that creates them is disrupted by glyphosate.

    She also hypothesizes that these faulty immune cells built with glyphosate are improperly targeting healthy cells in the body causing autoimmune diseases. The protein called AID when built improperly can cause autoimmune disease, immune deficiency or cancer. She came to this conclusion she said because it is what you would expect to happen if glycine were swapped out for glyphosate.

    Glyphosate is a glycine molecule with extra stuff attached to it. Remember when we eat protein, protein is made up of amino acids and glycine is an amino acid. Rich food sources include gelatin, bone broth, various meats and seaweed. When the body is creating new proteins it regularly uses glycine. Ms. Seneff's theory is that the body is mistaking gylphosate for glycine thus building our body out of this weed killer molecule. Therefore glyphosate is getting stuck into random proteins at random places in the body where glycine should be.

    Monsanto says it is not possible for glyphosate to replace glycine in proteins in the body. However Monsanto's own unpublished report from in 1989 obtained by FOIA seems to indicate Ms. Seneff is right.

    Researchers exposed bluegill sunfish to radiolabelled glyphosate and then measured the amount of radiolabel in various tissue samples.

    They also measured for glyphosate using standard techniques, and they found only 20% of the total glyphosate they started with. Where was the rest? They got the idea to apply enzymes to break down the protein into individual amino acids and after this the amount of glyphosate detected rose to 70% of the radiolabel. They concluded perhaps the glyphosate was incorporated into the protein.

    Ms. Seneff notes obesity, autism, diabetes and Alzhiemers, can all be explained by specific proteins being badly affected when glyphosate substitutes for glycine in the body. Our digestive enzymes all have essential glycines in them. If the glycines are replaced by glyposate we won't be able to digest our food properly. Digestive enzymes sourced from pigs tested high for glyphosate. This suggests that it is possible for our enzymes to also become contaminated with glyphosate.

    Because people do not believe glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is toxic it is being used carelessly. Glyphosate has a unique mechanism of toxicity and this is what makes it insidiously cumulatively toxic. Over time various proteins in your body get disrupted and eventually something breaks and you get sick.

    When scientists' research comes to conclusions unfavorable to Monsanto (now Bayer) they pressure the institutions to fire those employees. Monsanto actually has a budget assigned to striking down scientific research that reveals the dangers of their products. We are in a situation with a lot of unknowns.

    Monsanto's own documents as early as 1981 showed rats exposed to glyphosate developed malignant lymphomas. These studies were never published. They were obtained from the EPA.

    Glyphosate is pervasive. Most tobacco is now sprayed with roundup, ethanol in the gasoline is made from roundup ready corn. Live viruses in vaccines particularly the MMR vaccine contain glyphosate. Cotton clothes, tampons and cotton seed oil (in many potato chips) are made with roundup ready cotton. Sugar, vegetable oil, corn and wheat encompass the main ingredients in packaged foods. Sugar can be from roundup ready beets. Most restaurants cook with canola, soybean, or corn oil.

    One researcher found glyphosate in 30% of human breast milk samples the highest concentration being 1,600 times higher than what is allowed in drinking water in Europe. Scientists are finding it in the ambient air and coming down in the rain water. You can avoid it but you can't get away from it.

    You can reduce your exposure by only buying organic foods. Farmers markets can be more affordable than grocery store organic produce. If we refuse to buy food with roundup on it the farmers will have to stop using it. Regarding non organic foods, imports from Mexico have tested lower for glyphosate than those from the US and Canada. And don't buy roundup weed killer.

    Bentonite clay can bind to glyphosate but apple cider vinegar can actually break down the glyphosate because it contains acetobacter. Other foods that also contain acetobacter and can break glyphosate down are sauerkraut, and kimchi yogurt. Chloride and ozone can also break it down non-enzymatically.

    Check out the book 'Poison Foods of North America' by Tony Mitra if you want to know which foods have how much glyphosate. And it is not just in GMO crops. It is sprayed on a lot of crops right before the harvest. Glyphosate is high in oreo cookies, goldfish crackers, and cereals. These are many of the foods children like.

    Last edited by Hervé; 17th January 2019 at 15:36.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

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

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

    avid (17th January 2019), Bob (17th January 2019), Constance (19th January 2019), Franny (2nd May 2019), onawah (19th March 2019), Paul (18th January 2019), RunningDeer (17th January 2019), Tintin (17th January 2019), william r sanford72 (27th February 2019)

  15. Link to Post #48
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Thanked 94,712 times in 15,446 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails


    Practically all epidemics in autoimmune diseases today are linked back to Roundup.

    Dr Stephanie Seneff Presents Roundup, MMR and Autism A Toxic Connection

    Last edited by Hervé; 16th February 2019 at 14:28.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

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

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

    Franny (2nd May 2019), onawah (19th March 2019), william r sanford72 (27th February 2019)

  17. Link to Post #49
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Thanked 94,712 times in 15,446 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    New study questions practice of desiccation with glyphosate herbicide

    Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:07 UTC

    More studies needed on health effects of residues resulting from "burndown" of crops with glyphosate

    The new meta-analysis showing that high exposures to glyphosate herbicides are associated with a 41% increase in risk for a cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma has focused attention on the use of these herbicides to desiccate ("burndown") crops shortly before harvest.

    The authors point to two factors that have led to an increase in the use of glyphosate herbicides. First, in the US, usage increased nearly 16-fold between 1992 and 2009 after the introduction of GM glyphosate-tolerant crops in 1996. In addition, the practice of applying glyphosate-based herbicides to crops shortly before harvest, so-called "green burndown", began in the early 2000s to speed up their desiccation. As a consequence, state the authors, crops are likely to have higher residues of these herbicides.

    The authors add,
    "By the mid-2000s, green burndown became widespread, and regulatory agencies responded by increasing the permissible residue levels for [glyphosate-based herbicides]."
    According to a press release from the University of Washington, where the research was based,
    "Researchers say more studies are needed to account for the effects of increased exposures from green burndown, which may not be fully captured in the existing studies reviewed in this new publication."
    Crops commonly "burned down" with glyphosate prior to harvest include maize, cereals, oilseed rape, legumes including lentils and soybeans, sunflower, and potatoes.

    Commenting on the study as a whole, co-author Rachel Shaffer, a UW doctoral student in the Department of Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences, said,
    "This research provides the most up-to-date analysis of glyphosate and its link with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, incorporating a 2018 study of more than 54,000 people who work as licensed pesticide applicators."
    She continued,
    "These findings are aligned with a prior assessment from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which classified glyphosate as a 'probable human carcinogen' in 2015."

    Bayer/Monsanto defence squashed

    The new meta-analysis effectively blocks an important element of Bayer/Monsanto's defence in the US cancer litigation cases. Thousands of these cases, in which people claim that exposure to Roundup caused their cancer, are waiting in the wings to be heard. Last year a jury awarded groundskeeper Dewayne "Lee" Johnson multi-million dollar damages against Bayer/Monsanto, based on the probability that exposure to Roundup caused his terminal cancer and that the company failed to warn him of the risks.

    In its defence in court Bayer/Monsanto relied heavily on the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), from previous publications which have reported no link between glyphosate herbicide exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The new meta-analysis looked at the most recent data from the AHS study and found that when people with high exposures were separated out from those with low exposures, a strong link with this type of cancer was present.
    SOTT Comment:
    Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini reveals the toxicity of formulants and heavy metals in glyphosate-based herbicides
    "It is time society and government wake up to this threat to protect science and public health. They should ban glyphosate/ Round up/GHB as well as round up resistant crops. A CICR-Nagpur reports in April confirmed that Monsanto has illegally planted unapproved Roundup Ready BT Cotton. They should criminally be investigated for poisoning India with arsenic. Monsanto is also promoting the role of Round up (GHB) as a desiccant, poisoning our wheats, our dahls and our other crops. The government needs to ban the use of Round up as a desiccant (spraying poisonous chemicals on crops to dry them faster) and criminally investigate who is responsible for this public health disaster."
    New study links Roundup herbicide to cancer of the lymph tissue
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

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

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

    Franny (2nd May 2019), onawah (19th March 2019), Paul (23rd February 2019), RunningDeer (23rd February 2019), william r sanford72 (27th February 2019)

  19. Link to Post #50
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Thanked 94,712 times in 15,446 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Glyphosate found in most samples of popular beers and wines

    Irina Ivanova CBS News
    Mon, 25 Feb 2019 14:09 UTC

    © Haven Daley/AP

    As more lawsuits claiming a link between Roundup and cancer move forward, a new report claims the main ingredient found in the weed killer is showing up in organic beer and wine.

    U.S. PIRG tested samples of popular beer and wine brands and found the chemical, called glyphosate, in 19 out of 20 brands. Glyphosate is the main ingredient in Roundup, produced by agrochemical giant Monsanto. Sutter Home Merlot had the highest level of the weed killer of all 20 brands, at 51 parts per billion (ppb). Beringer Estates Moscato and Barefoot Cabernet Sauvignon had slightly smaller quantities of the chemical.

    Tsingtao beer contained 49 parts per billion of the chemical. Corona, Miller Lite and Budweiser had between 25 and 30 ppb of the substance; Guinness and Heineken contained about 20 ppb. Beverages from Stella Artois and Sam Adams had trace amounts of the weed killer.

    These levels are far below those that could potentially cause harm in humans, but suggest a troubling prevalence of the weed killer in nature, Kara Cook-Schultz, U.S. PIRG's toxics program director, told CBS News.
    "If we're finding this level of glyphosate in wine and beer, even when we know the makers aren't using glyphosate, that to me indicates there's glyphosate in a lot of other products," Cook-Schultz said.
    Peak Beer was the only tested brand that showed no levels of the chemical.

    Cancer link disputed

    Monsanto's parent company Bayer disputes that glyphosate causes cancer and called the PIRG report "misleading."
    "The reality is that regulatory authorities have strict rules when it comes to pesticide residues," Bayer toxicologist William Reeves said via a spokesperson.

    "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sets daily exposure limits at least 100 times below levels shown to have no negative effect in safety studies."
    The statement continued:
    "Assuming the greatest value reported, 51.4 ppb, is correct, a 125-pound adult would have to consume 308 gallons of wine per day, every day for life to reach the US Environmental Protection Agency's glyphosate exposure limit for humans. To put 308 gallons into context, that would be more than a bottle of wine every minute, for life, without sleeping."
    Organic brands also affected
    PIRG's investigation also found traces of the weed killer in some organic brands, which are forbidden from using most chemicals in food production. That doesn't mean these producers were circumventing the rules, but rather that glyphosate is so prevalent in the environment it can be hard to avoid, Cook-Schultz said.

    "[At] the levels we found, I suspect they're not using glyphosate," she said of the organic producers, noting that the chemical could be carried to organic fields by irrigation water or could be present in the soil.

    The Environmental Protection Agency does not test for glyphosate in processed foods. But in recent years, tests by nonprofits and advocacy groups have found the chemical in cereals, snack bars and some Ben & Jerry's ice cream.

    First developed by Monsanto (which merged with German pharmaceutical company Bayer last year) in the 1970s, Roundup has been the most widely used herbicide in the U.S. for nearly 20 years.

    How much is too much?
    California regulators have called glyphosate a "probable carcinogen," and France banned a version of Roundup last month due to health concerns.

    How much glyphosate is safe to ingest is a matter of debate. The levels of the chemicals PIRG found are below what the state of California considers an acceptable level to consume, which is about 160 parts per million.

    Monsanto maintains that glyphosate is safe. It will be defending that position in a lawsuit brought by a 70-year-old man alleges that the herbicide led to his cancer diagnosis in 2015.

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

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

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

    avid (27th February 2019), Franny (2nd May 2019), onawah (28th February 2019), Paul (27th February 2019), RunningDeer (28th February 2019), william r sanford72 (27th February 2019)

  21. Link to Post #51
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Thanked 94,712 times in 15,446 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Forbes retracts attack on paper showing link between glyphosate and cancer

    Jonathan Matthews gmwatch.org
    Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:29 UTC

    Forbes has pulled an article by Geoffrey Kabat attacking the new meta-analysis confirming a link between glyphosate and a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

    The American business magazine, most famous for its Forbes 400 rich list, has long been the platform of choice for defending Monsanto's products and attacking the company's critics. It was on Forbes that article after article appeared attacking Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini's study, which found harmful effects from Monsanto's GMO maize and Roundup herbicide, shortly after its publication in 2012.

    The authors of most of those hatchet jobs had links to Monsanto. Jon Entine's PR firm, for instance, consulted for the company. Bruce Chassy made the front page of the New York Times, along with Kevin Folta, because of his remarkably close ties to Monsanto. And Henry Miller, who, along with Chassy, accused Séralini of fraud, subsequently had all his articles for Forbes pulled by the magazine after it emerged that at least one of them had been ghostwritten by Monsanto.

    Conflicted out: Monsanto and Big Tobacco
    But Geoffrey Kabat, a retired cancer epidemiologist, claims to be different. A disclosure at the bottom of his attack on the new meta-analysis told Forbes readers:
    "I have no financial involvement with Monsanto/Bayer or any other conflict of interest relating to this topic."
    However, that isn't true. Kabat is on the board of advisors of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a corporate front group funded by Monsanto. He is also a board member of Jon Entine's Genetic Literacy Project, which was named in a court filing as receiving funding from Monsanto.

    And it's not just the agrichemicals industry that Kabat connects to. As the journalist Paul Thacker has pointed out, a search for Kabat in the tobacco industry documents archive brings up more than 800 hits, including an invoice for over $20,000.

    Perhaps most notorious is Kabat's publication of a paper on passive smoking which concluded that second hand tobacco smoke did not have a causal relation with increased mortality from lung cancer and heart disease. The study, co-written with one of ACSH's trustees, was partly funded by Philip Morris. And in a US racketeering lawsuit, it was cited by the judge as "a prime example" of how tobacco companies "engaged in criminal racketeering and fraud to hide the dangers of tobacco smoke." Kabat's paper also led to calls for better disclosure of conflicts of interest.

    Smearing a veteran journalist
    But it may not have been Kabat's failure to come clean about conflicts of interest that led to Forbes yanking his article. His piece also claimed that the veteran journalist Carey Gillam, who reported on the new meta-analysis in an article for The Guardian, had previously been fired by Reuters for "biasing articles" against GMOs and pesticides.

    This is a favourite smear of ACSH, and one that has been repeated by other Monsanto defenders, despite no convincing evidence ever having been produced to support it. While there is no doubt that Monsanto and its supporters did their level best to get her sacked from her food and agriculture beat at Reuters, Gillam categorically denies that they succeeded. And the only official comment Reuters ever made about the attacks on her reporting was to confirm that they stood by her coverage.

    Gillam certainly seems to be highly regarded by her former Reuters colleagues. On her LinkedIn page her journalistic skills are endorsed by a dozen or more of them, while one of her former editors commends her for her "impeccably reported" stories. And Peter Bohan, who until retiring just a month ago was a giant at Reuters - the executive director of the US domestic Reuters America news service, calls her "an exceptional journalist: smart, tenacious, fearless. Over the years I managed her at Reuters there was no one better at chasing breaking news, engaging sources and pursuing the facts."

    Her former boss also praises her investigations into the agri-industrial complex, saluting "her courage and her work". That work seems to be highly valued by her wider peers too. In 2018, the Society of Environmental Journalists gave her their Rachel Carson Environment Book Award for Whitewash, her book about glyphosate.

    Yet Kabat presents Gillam as a disgraced journalist who was given the boot.

    Smearing the WHO's cancer agency
    Kabat is equally dishonest about the World Health Organisation's cancer agency (IARC), which concluded that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen. According to Kabat, the IARC thinks pretty much everything causes cancer. He writes, "Of the more than 500 agents that have been classified by IARC with respect to carcinogenicity, only one was judged by the Agency to be 'probably not carcinogenic'."

    But again, this is seriously misleading. It is true that IARC has a Group 4 category, for agents that it deems "probably not carcinogenic to humans", and that into this category it has placed just one of the substances that it has examined - thus giving rise to Kabat's claim.

    But IARC has directly rebutted the suggestion that it concludes just about everything causes cancer. It points out that it only evaluates substances ("agents") where there are already grounds for suspecting that they cause cancer, and that despite this careful selection process, around half (502 of 1003) of its evaluations still resulted in agents being classified in Group 3 ("not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans").

    Only 12% of all agents evaluated (120 of 1003) were classified in Group 1 ("carcinogenic to humans"). A further 38% (380 agents) were placed in Group 2B ("possibly carcinogenic to humans") or 2A ("probably carcinogenic to humans").

    As IARC states, "This is far from the finding everything is carcinogenic."

    Cherry-picking data?
    Linking to an opinion piece published in a journal, Kabat also accuses IARC of cherry-picking data in order to conclude that glyphosate is carcinogenic. He says, "IARC has been criticized for selecting the few 'positive' results from rodent studies [on the effects of glyphosate] that seemed to show an increased tumor yield in exposed animals, while ignoring exculpatory results that showed decreasing tumor yield in exposed animals."

    But the truth is that in line with its policy, IARC considered ALL published rodent studies where enough data were available for evaluation, so there was no cherry-picking. It concluded from these data that there was "sufficient" evidence of glyphosate's carcinogenicity in animals.

    This, however, is beside the point. In directing the focus onto IARC, Kabat is distracting us from what is supposed to be the focus of his article - the findings of the new meta-analysis showing a link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

    So let's look at the rodent studies that were in the public domain and thus available to the authors of the meta-analysis. No less than four out of the six available rodent studies, i.e. a majority, showed an increase in malignant lymphoma, the animal study outcome most closely linked to human NHL.

    This was not just the opinion of the meta-analysis authors but that of the regulatory agencies, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). These agencies admitted the findings of increased cancers in glyphosate-exposed animals, yet perversely managed to conclude that glyphosate was not carcinogenic. The agencies' conclusions were criticised by independent scientists as being unscientific and in violation of the agencies' own guidelines. Kabat cites the agencies' conclusions approvingly, while completely ignoring their admissions of the damning findings on glyphosate's cancer-causing ability.

    Revealingly, the opinion piece linked to by Kabat that criticizes IARC for cherry-picking (in Kabat's words) "a few 'positive' results from rodent studies" is authored by Robert E. Tarone. According to information provided by IARC, Tarone has acknowledged that he is a paid consultant to Monsanto. What's more, his opinion piece doesn't address malignant lymphoma in animals at all!

    Smearing the meta-analysis authors
    Of course, the reason that Kabat wants to discredit IARC, an agency that brings together some of the world's foremost experts on cancer and which has been described as "the most authoritative agency in this field", is that its conclusion on glyphosate accords with the main finding of the new meta-analysis. And Kabat's attack on the authors of the new review is just as outrageous as his evidence-free smears against Gillam and IARC.

    For instance, he attributes dishonest motives to the authors, suggesting that they engaged in a statistical "sleight of hand" and "lengthy obfuscatory discussions" in order to create the appearance of "a disinterested academic study" that would hoodwink most scientists and lay people, while grabbing headlines and inspiring fear!

    It should be remembered that several of the authors of this meta-analysis were engaged by the US Environmental Protection Agency to peer review the agency's own assessment of glyphosate. That's how highly their expertise in this field is regarded. Yet Kabat effectively paints them as fraudsters conspiring to deceive the public and their scientific peers about the safety of Monsanto's best-selling product. That's pretty rich coming from someone whose own paper was cited by a judge as "a prime example" of how Big Tobacco "engaged in criminal racketeering and fraud".

    Publishing Monsanto's trolls
    Forbes hasn't said which of Kabat's smears led them to pull his article or whether it was Kabat's failure to disclose his Monsanto connections. After the embarrassment it suffered over the revelation that Monsanto had ghostwritten Henry Miller's attack on IARC, one can well understand why the alarm bells would have been ringing in their editorial offices.

    And so they should. ACSH - the industry front group that Kabat is part of - sets itself up as a gatekeeper of reliable science, even though it has promoted climate change skepticism and has defended many substances found to be hazardous by peer-reviewed research studies.

    Around the time that Kabat's article was pulled by Forbes, it popped up on the Science 2.0 blog run by ACSH's former president, Hank Campbell, who stepped down for undisclosed reasons shortly after the furore over the Nazi eugenics blog posts that Campbell published on Science 2.0.

    No wonder Monsanto's senior science lead Daniel Goldstein wrote in an internal company memo: "I can assure you I am not all starry eyed about ACSH - they have PLENTY of warts", before going on to say: "You WILL NOT GET A BETTER VALUE FOR YOUR DOLLAR than ACSH." He also pointed out that Monsanto did not have many friends or choices and so could not afford to alienate the supporters it had.

    Forbes, however, might want to think about whether it wants to continue risking the blowback from publishing the smears of Monsanto's trolls, or whether such pieces aren't best left on industry-linked attack sites like Science 2.0 and the Genetic Literacy Project.

    Interestingly, according to Carey Gillam, Kabat has apparently now been completely banned as a Forbes contributor, but she told us she wasn't on any mission to get back at him for his attack on her - that was Monsanto's game.

    She added:
    "Monsanto has worked very hard for a very long time to suppress factual news stories that are unfavourable to its profit agenda. They have harassed numerous journalists, so I am not unique by any means. The question that all of this underscores is, 'Why?'

    "Why, if Monsanto's glyphosate herbicides are so very safe, do they need to ghostwrite scientific literature, put forward front men to carry their propaganda, try to censor independent scientists, and try to stop government toxicity testing of their products?

    "If these products really are safe, there would be no need for them to do all that."

    Whitewash: Stunning book on the story of Glyphosate
    It actually was simply a process of doing my job - researching and reporting on the evolving big business of agriculture. Reuters assigned me in 1998 to cover Monsanto and its corporate peers as they competed in what was at that time a new and different way of farming built around genetically engineered seeds. I kept hearing about all the consumer and environmental benefits that these GMO seeds were going to bring, but the reality that was playing out on the ground did not match up with the messaging the corporations were pushing.

    It became clear quite early in my stint covering food and agriculture that the GMOs were primarily about boosting sales of glyphosate herbicide. That GMO trait - glyphosate tolerance - was then in the 1990s, and still today is, the single most planted trait of any of the other traits engineered into crops. Glyphosate use skyrocketed after GMOs were introduced, bringing rich profits to corporations like Monsanto. But with the rising use, environmental problems started showing up, and independent research started calling into question the industry safety studies. As a reporter, your job is to follow facts, and that is all I've done.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

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

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

    avid (2nd March 2019), Baby Steps (2nd March 2019), Franny (2nd May 2019), onawah (19th March 2019), Paul (2nd March 2019), RunningDeer (4th March 2019), william r sanford72 (3rd May 2019)

  23. Link to Post #52
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,046 times in 9,571 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Monsanto Doesn’t Care, says judge (and he should know...)
    From Organic Consumers Assoc.
    "It's hardly surprising that Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) doesn’t care if its Roundup weedkiller kills more than just weeds.

    But when the judge overseeing the trial of a cancer victim who is suing Monsanto says he believes Monsanto probably doesn't care about its victims, that's noteworthy. Especially when that same judge dissed the plaintiff’s attorney in front of the jurors—and also appears to have past ties to Monsanto.

    In a ruling last week, Judge Vince Chhabria wrote:

    . . . there is strong evidence from which a jury could conclude that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue.

    On March 12, both sides in the Edwin Hardeman vs. Monsanto case delivered closing arguments in San Francisco Federal Court. The jury could return its verdict any day now.

    Read ‘Judge in Second Roundup Cancer Trial Worked for Firm that Defended Monsanto’:

    as follows:
    March 13, 2019
    Organic Consumers Association
    by Julie Wilson

    "On March 12, both sides in the Edwin Hardeman vs. Monsanto case delivered their closing arguments in San Francisco Federal Court. Hardeman sued Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), alleging that his longtime use of Roundup weedkiller caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma cancer.

    The jury could return its verdict any day now. The six-juror panel must return a unanimous decision, or a mistrial will be called. A new trial would likely take place in May. If the jury returns a guilty verdict, the case will enter the second phase, where Monsanto’s liability will be determined and damages may be awarded to the plaintiff.

    This week’s closing arguments followed a recent favorable ruling for the plaintiff—this despite new revelations about Chhabria’s past ties to Monsanto.

    A surprising ruling in favor of the plaintiff

    In a boost for the plaintiff, Chhabria last week dismissed Monsanto’s latest move to end the trial, citing evidence that glyphosate herbicides (including Roundup) could have caused Hardeman’s cancer. He ruled:

    The plaintiffs have presented a great deal of evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of its product.

    In his ruling, Chhabria also wrote:

    . . . there is strong evidence from which a jury could conclude that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue.

    Judge once worked for law firm that represented Monsanto

    Chhabria’s ruling in favor of the plaintiff came as a surprise to some, given the his overall handling of the Hardeman case, which ultimately sparked inquiry into whether Chhabria was biased in favor of the defense. The inquiry led to the revelation that Chhabria once worked for a law firm that’s a “well-known defender of a variety of corporate interests, including Monsanto,” according to reporting by Carey Gillam of U.S. Right to Know.

    Chhabria was appointed by then-President Obama in 2013, for the seat he currently holds in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. But prior to that, he worked as an associate, from 2002-2004, at Covington & Burling LLP, a firm that helped Monsanto defend itself over the controversial recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), marketed under the brand name Posilac.

    The judge worked for the firm when Monsanto was engulfed in an all-out legal battle over rBGH, a genetically engineered drug developed by Monsanto. The drug, which is injected into cows to boost milk production, increases levels of another hormone, IGF-1 which has been linked to breast, prostate, colon, lung and other cancers in humans.

    Not only is rBGH dangerous to humans, but its use is considered inhumane as it causes a string of health problems in cows—painful udder infections, hoof problems and birth defects. To counter these health issues, dairy farmers use antibiotics, which in turn contributes to the rising threat of antibiotic resistance, as explained in a report by Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) Oregon Chapter.

    The synthetic growth hormone, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1993, is banned in Europe and Canada.

    Chhabria’s time at Covington & Burling was short-lived. And while there’s no solid evidence he represented Monsanto directly, the judge is “also no stranger to the world of corporate power and influence,” notes Gillam.

    Early on in the trial, Judge Chhabria threatened to “shut down” Hardeman’s lead attorney Aimee Wagstaff for violating the judge’s ban on presenting the jury with evidence that Monsanto attempted to manipulate regulators, including by ghostwriting safety reviews of its flagship herbicide."
    Last edited by onawah; 18th March 2019 at 15:34.
    Each breath a gift...

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

    Franny (2nd May 2019), Hervé (18th March 2019), Philippe (18th March 2019), seko (18th March 2019), william r sanford72 (3rd May 2019)

  25. Link to Post #53
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,046 times in 9,571 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    EWG: Verdict in Roundup Trial Latest Blow to Bayer-Monsanto’s Claims Glyphosate Doesn’t Cause Cancer
    by Alex Formuzis
    "SAN FRANCISCO – Today’s verdict in favor of a California man who said his cancer was caused by exposure to Bayer AG’s Roundup weedkiller is further evidence that glyphosate, the herbicide’s active ingredient, is carcinogenic to humans, said Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook.

    In the first phase of Edward Hardeman v. Monsanto Company, the jury sided with arguments and scientific evidence presented by the attorneys for Edward Hardeman that glyphosate was the cause of his non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

    “Today’s verdict reinforces what another jury found last year, and what scientists with the state of California and the World Health Organization have concluded: Glyphosate causes cancer in people,” said Cook. “As similar lawsuits mount, the evidence will grow that Roundup is not safe, and that the company has tried to cover it up.”

    Bayer AG bought Monsanto last year for $63 billion and is now liable for claims against it. Bayer faces more than 11,000 U.S. lawsuits alleging that glyphosate causes cancer.

    Now the case before the federal district court in San Francisco will enter the second phase of the trial. Hardeman’s lawyers will present evidence to the jury, including internal Monsanto documents, that could show the company knew the dangers of Roundup and glyphosate and attempted to cover them up.

    Judge Vincent Chhabria, who is presiding over this case, unsealed some of those documents in March 2017. The New York Times reported that they show how Monsanto systematically attempted to discredit scientists and independent scientific research, swayed scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency over its review of glyphosate, and even ghostwrote stories that appeared to be authored by scientists not affiliated with Monsanto.

    “The decision by Bayer to purchase Monsanto, a company with a long history of environmental malfeasance, could go down as one of the worst business decisions ever made,” added Cook. “The day of reckoning for Bayer and its cancer-causing weedkiller is getting closer.”

    In August, another California jury awarded Dewayne Lee Johnson, a former groundskeeper who regularly handled Roundup, $289 million in his case against Monsanto. The verdict was later reduced by the court to $78 million.

    Glyphosate is the most heavily used herbicide in the world. People who are not farm workers or groundskeepers are being exposed to the cancer-causing chemical through food.

    Two separate rounds of laboratory tests commissioned last year by EWG found glyphosate in nearly every sample of popular oat-based cereals and other oat-based food marketed to children. The brands in which glyphosate was detected included several cereals and breakfast bars made by General Mills and Quaker.


    The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action."
    Each breath a gift...

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

    avid (19th March 2019), Franny (2nd May 2019), Hervé (19th March 2019), Paul (20th March 2019), Reinhard (21st March 2019), william r sanford72 (3rd May 2019)

  27. Link to Post #54
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Thanked 94,712 times in 15,446 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Roundup, Monsanto, cancer, golf courses, hidden secrets

    by Jon Rappoport Apr 10, 2019

    There are 34,000 golf courses in the world. They make beautiful pictures. But what keeps the grass of the fairways and greens so uniform and undisturbed by weeds?

    Chemical herbicides. One of the herbicide is Roundup, manufactured by Monsanto, the giant corporation owned by Bayer.

    It’s now common knowledge that a link has been drawn between Roundup and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. “The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer…decided in 2015 that glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’.” (Mother Jones, March 14, 2019)

    The research on the Monsanto pesticide Roundup is far from a finished product. Is it possible that Roundup causes other forms of cancer—brain, colon, and blood, for example? It will be hard to prove, in part because Monsanto can produced a hundred studies that contradict each lone study that says Yes.

    But where are the golfers who have cancer? Nowhere, correct? Let’s find out.
    “After the death of his [golf-playing] father, from the blood cancer Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, filmmaker Andrew Nisker starts hunting for answers to his many questions about why this particular cancer, and where it came from. His search, to his surprise, takes him into the manicured world of golf. In this world of pearl white bunkers, and putting greens that look and feel like velvet, Andrew discovers that these ‘greenspaces’ are anything but. There’s a lot more than nature at work creating these perfect carpets. At a golf industry trade show he sees the array of chemicals on offer to achieve that championship perfection. To his surprise, he hears at the show that golfers have consistently shown resistance to caring about any health or environmental impacts of their sport.”
    “Andrew forms a bond with a sportscaster in Pittsburgh who is blaming golf course pesticides for the cancer death of his own father, a golf course superintendent.”

    “As he follows up on his hunt to find out more about pesticide use on golf courses, Andrew asks can golfers themselves learn to kick the chemical habit? He’s convinced that if golfers knew what goes into maintaining the artificial beauty they play on, they’d learn to love dandelions a little more.” (Dad and the Dandelions, CBC TV, March 2, 2017)
    A recent lawsuit involved Roundup as a cause of lymphoma:
    “The groundskeeper who won a massive civil suit against Bayer’s Monsanto claiming that the weedkiller Roundup caused his cancer has agreed to accept $78 million, after a judge substantially reduced the jury’s original $289 million award.”

    “Dewayne ‘Lee’ Johnson, a Northern Californian groundskeeper and pest-control manager, was 42 when he developed a strange rash that would lead to a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in August 2014.”
    “His groundskeeper duties included mixing and spraying hundreds of gallons of Roundup, the company’s glyphosate-containing weedkiller product, court records say.” (NPR, November 1, 2018)
    Buckle up.
    • Australian professional golfer Jarrod Lyle has died after a long battle with cancer [leukemia], his wife announced Wednesday. He was 36…Last week, Lyle and his family announced that he had decided to end his treatment for acute myeloid leukemia and would undergo palliative care at his home.” (Fox News, 8/8/18)
    • “Fifty-one female professional golfers and 142 female amateur golfers were evaluated for skin cancer and skin cancer risk…Four of the professionals had already developed basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Their average age was 25.5 years. Eleven amateurs also developed BCC…” (Skin Cancer in Professional and Amateur Female Golfers, Phys Sportsmed. 1985 Aug) Was the cause sun exposure? Herbicides?
    • “In 2008, not long after playing in his first Champions Tour tournament, [Seve] Ballesteros fell ill in Spain. He was diagnosed with a brain tumor and eventually underwent four surgeries to try to remove the cancer. Ballesteros died on May 7, 2011, at the age of 54.” (ThoughtCo, 9/18/18)
    • [Heather] Farr was a terrific amateur golfer who never really got the chance to become a great LPGA Tour player. She died of breast cancer (that widely metastasized) at the age of 28 in 1993.” (ThoughtCo, 9/18/18)
    • “Once dubbed one of the world’s sexiest men by People magazine, Adam Scott looked a bit more garish after a procedure in 2011 to remove a Basil Cell Carcinoma, a form of non-melanoma skin cancer, from his face…A number of players have had varying degrees of battles with skin cancer…Rory Sabbatini, Brian Davis, Aron Price, among others, have all battled the disease…” (PGATour.com, 6/17/14) Sun exposure? Herbicides?
    • “Professional golfer Tom Lehman understands the importance of detecting cancer early. At 35, he was diagnosed with stage I colon cancer…* (USA Today, 6/26/18)
    • “Bruce Lietzke, a pro golfer who won 13 Professional Golfer’s Association Tour events, died on Saturday after a year-long battle with brain cancer.” (AJC, 7/28/18)
    • “[Pro golfer Randy Jones’ 2011] punch biopsy turned out to be melanoma.” (mdanderson.org, 9/13/16)
    • “A former LPGA Tour member, Shelley Hamlin died on October 15 [2018] at the age of 69 after a long and courageous battle with [breast] cancer.” (golfweek.com, 12/19/18)
    • “Phil Rodgers, a five-time PGA Tour winner and noted golf instructor, died on June 26 age 80 after a 15-year battle with leukemia.” (golfweek.com, 12/19/18)
    • “Charismatic Australian golfer Ian Stanley, who was a prolific winner on his home tour before making his mark on the European seniors circuit, died in July at age 69. He had battled cancer for some time.” (golfweek.com, 12/19/18)
    • “…professional golfer Boo Weekley went public on Thursday in revealing the cause of his prolonged absence from the PGA Tour…discomfort in his right shoulder was revealed to be cancer…” (Pensacola News Journal, 2/15/19)
    • “Forrest Fezler’s career path in golf included 12 years on the PGA Tour…Fezler, a Californian by birth who settled in Tallahassee, died Friday after battling brain cancer. He was 69.” (Tallahassee Democrat, (12/21/18)
    • “[In July of 2006], it was discovered that famous pro golfer, Billy Mayfair, “had testicular cancer.” (Coping with Cancer, undated)
    • A PGA player [Joel Dahmen] who battled [testicular] cancer and lost his mom to the disease is moving into his dream home in Scottsdale…” (azfamily.com, 5/29/18)
    Before you jump to the conclusion that exposure to the sun is responsible for the majority of golf-cancers, think about this statistic: “…the New York State Attorney General’s office published a report entitled Toxic Fairways, a widely cited study of pesticide use on 52 Long Island, New York golf courses. The report, which was particularly concerned with the potential for groundwater contamination, concluded that these golf courses applied about 50,000 pounds of pesticides in one year, or four to seven times the average amount of pesticides used in agriculture, on a pound per acre basis.” (beyondpesticides.org)

    A variety of products are employed on golf courses. They create virtual lakes of chemical poison.

    Or should I say rivers instead of lakes? Underground toxic rivers that affect bordering communities surrounding 34,000 golf courses across the world. If a groundskeeper with cancer can win $78 million in a lawsuit, how many billions of dollars should be awarded in a comprehensive legal action that correctly assigns criminal responsibility to giant chemical corporations?

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

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

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

    avid (13th April 2019), Ba-ba-Ra (27th May 2019), DeDukshyn (13th April 2019), Franny (2nd May 2019), Kryztian (13th April 2019), mountain_jim (14th April 2019), william r sanford72 (3rd May 2019)

  29. Link to Post #55
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,046 times in 9,571 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Roundup adjuvants are 9,661 times more toxic to human cells than the active ingredient glyphosate
    by: Lori Alton, staff writer | April 13, 2019

    "(NaturalHealth365) It’s official – glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed-killer Roundup, has been officially linked to cancer cell growth.

    Last summer, a jury awarded $289 million to a school groundskeeper for Roundup’s role in his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma – and hundreds of lawsuits are ongoing. Now, research reveals a stunning – and dangerous – twist in the story of this toxic chemical: the “inactive” ingredients in Roundup are thousands of times more toxic than glyphosate itself.

    As the most commonly-used herbicide in the world, glyphosate is routinely sprayed on food crops, lawns, roadsides, parks and playgrounds across the United States. While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is mandated to protect the environment, natural health experts say that the agency’s customary method of studying products like Roundup do not allow for a full accounting of all the risks.

    Glyphosate is not the only problem: “Inert” ingredients in pesticides are more toxic than most people think
    Under FIFRA (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) the EPA must approve every pesticide before it can be sold or distributed in the United States. And, it can approve the chemicals only if their use won’t cause “unreasonable adverse effects” on the environment.

    Sounds reassuring,right?

    Here’s the catch: the EPA tends to regulate whole formulations and mixtures, rather than isolated ingredients. So, while the EPA does test glyphosate as an active principle of Roundup, the formulation contains “inactive” or “inert” ingredients as well.

    And, these are not as innocent as they sound.

    A peer-reviewed study in 2006 revealed that over 500 products listed as “inert” in some products actually function as the “main ingredient” in other products – and are hazardous to human health.

    And, most shocking of all – the inert ingredients need not be listed on the product label.

    Shocking study: Single-pesticide testing is ‘insufficient’
    In a 2013 study published in Biomedical Research International, researchers found that some Roundup additives are almost 10,000 times more toxic (9,661 times, to be exact) to human cells than glyphosate.

    The researchers measured mitochondrial activities and membrane degradations to ascertain cell damage – and determined that Roundup was among the most toxic of the 9 different chemicals tested.

    Disturbingly, the usual calculation of the acceptable daily intake, or ADI (the level of exposure claimed to be safe for humans over the long term) is based only on the active principle, or “main ingredient.”

    It is clear that this method doesn’t accurately show the risks of chemical formulations.

    Or, in the words of the researchers: “Chronic tests on pesticides may not reflect relevant environmental exposure if only one ingredient of these mixtures is tested alone.”

    The synergistic effect: A new – and dangerous – wrinkle to the toxicity of “harmless” chemicals
    Not only are many inert ingredients potentially harmful, but their dangers are multiplied by the principle of synergy – in which the effects of one substance are intensified by the effects of another.

    Synergy becomes even more frightening when one considers that the entire purpose of adjuvants (additives) is to make the active ingredients more potent.

    And, synergy appears to be quite a selling point when it comes to touting the effectiveness of weed killers like, Roundup.

    A 2016 report published by the Center for Biological Diversity searched patent applications and found that 69 percent of recently-approved pesticide patent applications either claimed or demonstrated synergy between ingredients in the product.

    And, 72 percent of the applications claiming or demonstrating synergy involved some of the most frequently used chemicals in the United States, including glyphosate, 2,4-D, atrazine, dicamba and the neonicotinoid pesticide imidacloprid.

    Beyond Pesticides, a non-profit environmental organization, points out that the EPA does not test complete formulations for developmental or reproductive toxicity.

    Almost unbelievably – chronic toxicity, neurotoxicity, carcinogenicity (potential to cause cancer) neurotoxicity, subchronic oral toxicity and inhalation toxicity are among other health effects the EPA is not obligated to test mixtures for.

    The environment is at risk, as well. Beyond Pesticides maintains that the EPA does not test the toxicity of whole pesticide products to birds, aquatic life or honeybees.

    Is it so surprising that colony collapse disorder is decimating the honeybee population worldwide?

    UN blockbuster report: “catastrophic” use of pesticides causes up to 41 million adverse reactions and 200,000 deaths globally every year
    Abundant evidence already exists regarding the harm caused by herbicides and pesticides.

    In a report delivered March 8, 2017 before the UN Human Rights Council, the authors detail the adverse effects of chronic exposure to pesticides – including links to cancer, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility.

    Co-author Hilal Elver, a renowned research professor and special UN investigator, characterizes the use of pesticides as “catastrophic,” and says that relying on them is a short-term solution that threatens the right to adequate food and health.

    It should be noted that 99 percent of the poisonings took place in developing countries, which lack protection for farm workers.

    The report noted the disgraceful fact that children – often forced into labor at an early age – are particularly vulnerable to the effects of pesticide contamination of food, with 23 deaths reported in India and 39 in China in 2014 alone.

    The unstinting report bluntly asserts that the global pesticide/herbicide market, a $50 billion dollar a year industry, allows agrochemical companies “unprecedented power” over governments and over the scientific community – and uses “aggressive and unethical “ marketing tactics to deny and suppress the truth about its dangers.

    While proponents insist that these chemicals are needed to combat global hunger, Helver shoots that down as a “myth.”

    The problem is not one of production, notes Helver, but of poverty, inequality and improper distribution.

    Yet Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, cites the $43 billion-dollar organic food industry as proof that toxic chemicals are not required to feed people.

    As the struggle against toxic herbicides and pesticides continues, one thing is abundantly clear.

    Commercial agricultural products – a veritable “witches’ brew” of toxic chemicals – are not being properly tested by the EPA, the agency mandated by federal law to protect the environment and human health.

    And, until individual ingredients in these toxic products are tested, this dangerous situation will continue.

    Sources for this article include:

    Last edited by onawah; 14th April 2019 at 23:01.
    Each breath a gift...

  30. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (27th May 2019), Delight (25th April 2019), Franny (2nd May 2019), Hervé (15th April 2019), Houman (15th April 2019), mountain_jim (15th April 2019), william r sanford72 (3rd May 2019)

  31. Link to Post #56
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Thanked 94,712 times in 15,446 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    WSU researchers see health effects across generations from glyphosate

    Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:01 UTC

    Washington State University biologist Michael Skinner WSU researchers seen health effects across generations from the popular weed killer glyphosate. © Washington State University

    Washington State University researchers have found a variety of diseases and other health problems in the second- and third-generation offspring of rats exposed to glyphosate, the world's most popular weed killer. In the first study of its kind, the researchers saw descendants of exposed rats developing prostate, kidney and ovarian diseases, obesity and birth abnormalities.

    Michael Skinner, a WSU professor of biological sciences, and his colleagues exposed pregnant rats to the herbicide between their eighth and 14th days of gestation. The dose - half the amount expected to show no adverse effect - produced no apparent ill effects on either the parents or the first generation of offspring.

    But writing in the journal Scientific Reports, the researchers say they saw "dramatic increases" in several pathologies affecting the second and third generations.
    The second generation had "significant increases" in testis, ovary and mammary gland diseases, as well as obesity. In third-generation males, the researchers saw a 30 percent increase in prostate disease - three times that of a control population.

    The third generation of females had a 40 percent increase in kidney disease, or four times that of the controls.
    More than one-third of the second-generation mothers had unsuccessful pregnancies, with most of those affected dying. Two out of five males and females in the third generation were obese.

    Skinner and his colleagues call this phenomenon "generational toxicology" and they've seen it over the years in fungicides, pesticides, jet fuel, the plastics compound bisphenol A, the insect repellant DEET and the herbicide atrazine. At work are epigenetic changes that turn genes on and off, often because of environmental influences.

    Skinner said he decided to study glyphosate "due to it being one of the most commonly used compounds worldwide."

    The chemical has been the subject of numerous studies about its health effects. The Skinner study is the third in the past few months out of Washington alone.
    A University of Washington study published in February found the chemical increased the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by as much as 41 percent.

    A Washington State University study published in December found state residents living close to areas subject to treatments with the herbicide are one-third more likely to die an early death from Parkinson's disease.
    The chemical's generational toxicology represents a new downside that Skinner and his colleagues said should be incorporated into estimates of its risk.
    "The ability of glyphosate and other environmental toxicants to impact our future generations needs to be considered," they write, "and is potentially as important as the direct exposure toxicology done today for risk assessment."
    The research was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. The paper's co-authors are Undergraduate Researcher Deepika Kubsad, Research Assistant Professor Eric Nilsson, Research Assistant Stephanie King, Senior Research Associate Ingrid Sadler-Riggleman and Research Associate Daniel Beck.

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

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

  32. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (25th April 2019), Ba-ba-Ra (27th May 2019), BMJ (25th April 2019), Delight (25th April 2019), Franny (2nd May 2019), onawah (27th April 2019), Paul (25th April 2019), Philippe (27th April 2019), Valerie Villars (25th April 2019), william r sanford72 (3rd May 2019)

  33. Link to Post #57
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Thanked 11,726 times in 2,373 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Monsanto papers piling up

    Quote Roundup Cancer Attorneys Release New Monsanto Papers Documents
    April 24, 2019 – Los Angeles, California – – The law firm of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman made public today hundreds of pages of newly de-classified internal Monsanto documents, including company email exchanges, reports, studies and other memoranda.

    (Links in article)

    Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman obtained the documents via discovery (pre-trial civil procedure allowing the parties in litigation to obtain evidence from each other) in the ongoing Monsanto Roundup litigation. The firm sits on the leadership of the federal Roundup multidistrict litigation (MDL) and on the California state court Roundup Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings (JCCP).

    The documents released today are part of the growing trove of documents known as the Monsanto Papers. The Monsanto Papers tell an alarming story of ghostwriting, scientific manipulation, collusion with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and previously undisclosed information about how the human body absorbs glyphosate. These documents allow people to see what is happening “behind the curtain” of secrecy that normally shrouds ongoing litigation and provides a deeper understanding of the serious public health consequences surrounding Monsanto’s conduct in marketing Roundup.

    Baum Hedlund shared the documents with regulators, lawmakers and some media prior to today’s publication. Attorneys Michael L. Baum and R. Brent Wisner also traveled to Canada earlier this year to personally brief Members of Parliament on the issues raised in these and other previously released Monsanto Papers documents.

    “We believe it is important for the public, regulatory agencies, and scientists to be fully informed of the processes that occur behind the thick veil of corporate unaccountability that have a direct impact on public and environmental health,” says Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman attorney R. Brent Wisner.

    “This way, regulators can make informed decisions, the public is provided the opportunity to know what it is consuming (and at what cost), and scientists are able to build upon transparent data as well as know how much weight to place on research that may have an undue corporate profit motive behind it.”

    New Monsanto Papers Documents Reaffirm Efforts to Manipulate Science
    One of the more notable documents made public today is a 2000 email from former Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant to various Monsanto employees. In the exchange, Grant praises several employees for the successful publication of the ghostwritten review, “Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient Glyphosate” in the names of Williams, Kroes & Munro, 2000.

    In a previous release of Monsanto Papers documents, an email from Monsanto executive William Heydens affirms that the Williams, Kroes & Munro review was ghostwritten. In a discussion about producing an expert report for glyphosate, Heydens wrote:

    “An option would be to add Greim and Kier or Kirkland to have their names on the publication, but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak. Recall that is how we handled Williams Kroes & Munro, 2000.”

    In addition to this 2015 admission of ghostwriting, Heydens’ wrote in another newly-released email that he “sprouted several new gray hairs during the writing of this thing…” in reference to the Williams, Kroes & Munro review.

    Another newly released email from senior Monsanto official Lisa Drake thanks several employees for “data collection, writing, review and relationship building with the papers’ authors.” Drake suggests the ghostwritten review paper will be utilized for “continued Roundup FTO [Freedom to Operate]” and “building Roundup sales.”

    Since publication, the Williams, Kroes & Munro review has been cited more than 500 times in the literature and relied upon by the EPA and other regulatory bodies throughout the world in their assessments of glyphosate.

  34. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    avid (3rd May 2019), Ba-ba-Ra (27th May 2019), Franny (2nd May 2019), Hervé (27th April 2019), mountain_jim (27th April 2019), onawah (27th April 2019), william r sanford72 (3rd May 2019)

  35. Link to Post #58
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,046 times in 9,571 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    Bayer and the ownership of all life
    by Jon Rappoport
    May 1, 2019

    "In a recent article, I explained how Bayer—with its $66 billion purchase of Monsanto—is “taking one for the team.”

    The team consists of several biotech giants. Its agenda? The reconfiguring of all life under the rubric of radical genetic manipulation. Bayer aims, long-term, to swallow the universally hated Monsanto whole and make it disappear, as if it never existed. It’s called re-writing history. The goal in this case: protection of the evolving reputation of a genetic Brave New World.

    Here is a very brief background sketch of Bayer—

    After World War 2, the highest ranking scientist on the executive board of IG Farben, the infamous Nazi cartel, Dr. Fritz Ter Meer, was put on trial at Nuremberg. The charges? Mass slavery and murder.

    Farben had built a rubber factory at Auschwitz. In fact, it built Auschwitz in order to ensure cheap labor in its adjoining rubber factory. Farben paid the SS to send over inmates every day of the week to work in that factory. Those who were too weak to make it through the day were killed.

    Well, for all this, Fritz Ter Meer was given seven years in jail. A pathetic seven years.

    …Sixteen years later, on August 1, 1963, the Bayer Corporation was celebrating its hundredth anniversary at Cologne. Big festivities.

    The three largest original components of IG Farben—Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF—were back in business and roaring on profit highs. They were now sanitized separate corporations, no longer parts of an official Nazi-aiding IG Farben.

    The keynote speaker at the Bayer celebration was the one and only Fritz Ter Meer.

    Out of jail.


    Mass murderer.

    Anointed chairman of the supervisory board of Bayer.

    Chairman. Of the Supervisory Board. Of Bayer."

    Each breath a gift...

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

    avid (3rd May 2019), Ba-ba-Ra (27th May 2019), Franny (2nd May 2019), mountain_jim (2nd May 2019), Philippe (3rd May 2019), william r sanford72 (3rd May 2019)

  37. Link to Post #59
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,046 times in 9,571 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    EPA has just declared Monsanto’s carcinogenic weedkiller glyphosate as “SAFE.”

    "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gave Bayer a boost when it decided that its Roundup week killer didn't cause cancer.
    Two recent court cases found just the opposite, ruling against Bayer and Roundup.
    Environmental advocates, including the National Resources Defense Council, denounced the EPA's decision.
    After two recent defeats in court, Bayer has won a round — this one delivered by regulators — as it contends with more than 10,000 lawsuits claiming a chemical in its widely used Roundup weed killer causes cancer. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday said it "continues to find that there are no risks to public health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label and that glyphosate is not a carcinogen."

    The agency said its findings were consistent with those of "many other countries and other federal agencies." But environmental advocates, including the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) denounced the decision.

    "Health agencies and credible non-industry experts who've reviewed this question have all found a link between glyphosate and cancer," Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at NRDC said in a statement. The World Health Organization in 2015 termed glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans." Bayer, which acquired Roundup in 2018 when it purchased U.S. agricultural chemical company Monsanto, called the agency's review "significant," reiterating its stance that "science supports the safety of glyphosate-based herbicide." The EPA's stance reaffirmed earlier findings by the agency on the safety of the glyphosate, but it differs greatly from that of jury rulings in recent years that found the chemical caused cancer in two people.

    Since acquiring Roundup with its purchase of Monsanto last year for $66 billion, Bayer's legal losses have helped knock $39 billion off its market value. In addition to lawsuits, Bayer has found itself trying to tamp down a bout of unwelcome PR that came with reports by consumer groups contending traces of the chemical were showing up in beer and wine, as well as some children's cereals. Bayer dismissed the claims as "misleading."

    Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in U.S. agriculture. Beyond its use by farmers, Roundup is sprayed on golf courses and residential lawns to kill weeds.

    Bayer has also helped finance damage control on behalf of Scotts Miracle-Gro, to which it licenses its consumer business. Scotts CEO Jim Hagedorn told analysts in a conference call that the controversy made the future less than clear. "I can't predict that it's going to be as good next year," Hagedorn said Wednesday. "It's the court of public opinion and consumers that matter here." "
    Each breath a gift...

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

    avid (3rd May 2019), Ba-ba-Ra (27th May 2019), Hervé (3rd May 2019), mountain_jim (3rd May 2019), william r sanford72 (3rd May 2019)

  39. Link to Post #60
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 47,046 times in 9,571 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

    White House Has 'Monsanto's Back on Pesticides,' Newly Revealed Document Says

    "Posted on May 7, 2019 by Carey Gillam
    Internal Monsanto records just filed in court show that a corporate intelligence group hired to “to take the temperature on current regulatory attitudes for glyphosate” reported that the White House could be counted on to defend the company’s Roundup herbicides.

    In a report attached to a July 2018 email to Monsanto global strategy official Todd Rands, the strategic intelligence and advisory firm Hakluyt reported to Monsanto the following:

    “A domestic policy adviser at the White House said, for instance: ‘We have Monsanto’s back on pesticides regulation. We are prepared to go toe-to-toe on any disputes they may have with, for example, the EU. Monsanto need not fear any additional regulation from this administration.”

    In the email accompanying the report, Hakluyt’s Nick Banner told Rands the information related to issues both for the United States and for China. The report notes that “professional” staff has “sharp” disagreement with “political” staff on some areas, but that the concerns of some of the professional staffers would not get in the way.

    “We heard a unanimous view from senior levels of the EPA (and USDA) that glyphosate is not seen as carcinogenic, and that this is highly unlikely to change under this administration – whatever the level of disconnect between political and professional staffers.”

    The report said that a former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lawyer and a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) official confirmed that both agencies see the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen as “flawed” and incomplete.

    “There is little doubt that the EPA supports the use of glyphosate,” the report says. It quotes a current EPA lawyer as saying: “We have made a determination regarding glyphosate and feel very confident of the facts around it. Other international bodies… have reached different conclusions, but in our view the data is just not clear and their decision is mistaken.”

    The report also suggests similarities between the Trump Administration’s support for glyphosate and its actions around a pesticide called chlorpyrifos that is the active ingredient in an insecticide made by Dow Chemical, now DowDupont. There is a large body of science showing that chlorpyrifos is very damaging to children’s brain development and that children are most often exposed through the food and water they consume. Chlorpyrifos was due to be banned from agricultural use in 2017 because of its dangers but the Trump administration postponed the ban at the request of Dow and continues to allow its use in food production. The Hakluyt reports says:

    “The way the EPA under the Trump administration has handled Chlorpyrifos might be instructive in how it would handle new science or new developments related to glyphosate.”

    At the time the report was delivered to Monsanto last July, Monsanto had just been acquired by the German company Bayer AG and was in the midst of defending itself in the first Roundup cancer trial. That San Francisco case, brought by cancer victim Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, resulted in a unanimous jury verdict handed down in August ordering Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages to Johnson. The judge in the case later lowered the amount to $78 million. A second trial, also held in San Francisco in a separate case, resulted in an $80.2 million verdict for plaintiff Edwin Hardeman.

    A third trial is underway now in Oakland, California. Closing arguments are scheduled for tomorrow in that case, brought by a husband and wife who both have non-Hodgkin lymphoma they allege is due to their decades of using Roundup.

    The documents that include the Hakluyt report were filed in Alameda County Superior Court by lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the current case – Alva and Alberta Pilliod.

    The filing is in response to Monsanto’s effort to tell jurors about a recently released EPA glyphosate assessment in which the agency reaffirmed its finding that glyphosate does not cause cancer. The Pilliod lawyers say the Hakluyt communications with Monsanto speak “directly to the credibility of the 2019 EPA glyphosate evaluation, issued by an administration which holds itself out as favoring Monsanto’s business interests.”

    Widening rift reported between political and professional staffers in regulatory agencies

    The Hakluyt report to Monsanto also notes that increasingly professional staffers inside “most” federal agencies are feeling at odds with political staffers on issues such as pesticide regulation, climate science and other matters.

    “While this appears to be true of various agencies – Health and Human Services, Commerce, Education, Interior, the Food and Drug Administration, and so on- the EPA may be the leading example of this phenomenon.”

    The report quotes a prominent Washington DC law firm partner who has “extensive contacts at the EPA as saying:

    “In essence, the political leadership favors deregulation and dismisses the expert risk analysis. It is especially averse to theoretical risk analysis, for example, on the risks of glyphosate, about which a scientific consensus is yet to form… With regard to glyphosate, in particular, the differences between political and professional staff are sharp.”

    The professional staffers, those scientists and others who typically have been within an agency for many years through multiple administrations.

    Within the EPA, professional staffers are said to have “doubts about glyphosate,” but those doubts “are not shared by the EPA’s leadership.”

    The report also provides feedback on Monsanto’s reputation and provides a cautionary note to Bayer, which had just closed the purchase of Monsanto a few weeks before the July 2018 communications:

    “Developments in California on glyphosate are striking a chord with the public… The company regularly goes to ‘DEFCON 1’ on the slightest challenge from the environmental, academic or scientific community.”

    “Even within the EPA there is unease about your ‘scientific intransigence.'”

    According to the Hakluyt report, an official with the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs said: “There is growing unease in this office at what seems like scientific intransigence by Monsanto to give credibility to any evidence that doesn’t fit their view. We would agree with them that such evidence is non-conclusive, but that does not mean that it is without basis.”

    For more information and updates follow @careygillam on Twitter."
    Each breath a gift...

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

    Ba-ba-Ra (27th May 2019), Hervé (9th May 2019), mountain_jim (9th May 2019), william r sanford72 (9th May 2019)

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

Posting Permissions

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