+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Monsanto On Trial For Roundup Cancer

  1. Link to Post #1
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    5th January 2011
    Posts
    835
    Thanks
    2,379
    Thanked 5,466 times in 762 posts

    Default Monsanto On Trial For Roundup Cancer

    More examples of our agencies looking out for us, nothing is what it seems.

    "There's darkness running thru everything"

    Monsanto On Trial For Roundup Cancer

    http://www.thelastamericanvagabond.c...oundup-cancer/

    11 Mar 2017 Posted by James Corbett

    “For once in your life, listen to me and don’t play your political conniving games with the science to favor the registrants. For once do the right thing and don’t make decisions based on how it affects your bonus.”

    These words, penned in 2013 by former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientist Marion Copley, have an urgency seldom found in the dry correspondence that is typically passed between scientists. But this was no ordinary memo; it was an appeal, a desperate plea for action. And it was written on her death bed. The letter is addressed to Jess Rowland, at that time the head of the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC). It begins by noting 14 separate effects of glyphosate (a herbicide marketed by Monsanto under the name “Roundup”) known to the EPA.

    As Copley explains in the letter, “any one of these mechanisms alone listed can cause tumors, but glyphosate causes all of them simultaneously.” She argues that the CARC should change its assessment of glyphosate from a “possible cause of cancer” to the more definitive “probable human carcinogen.” And she excoriates Rowland himself, noting that his “trivial MS degree from 1971 Nebraska is far outdated” and that as a result CARC science is 10 years behind the literature. She charges Rowland and his colleague, Anna Lowit, with intimidating staff and changing reports to favor industry interests. And she ends with these haunting words:

    “I have cancer and I don’t want these serious issues in HED [the Health Effects Division] to go unaddressed before I go to my grave. I have done my duty.”



    She may have done her duty, but she did not get her wish. Just nine months later she was dead, and the EPA still listed glyphosate as a “possible” carcinogen.

    Copley’s letter is just one of the many dramatic pieces of evidence submitted as part of a new filing in a class action lawsuit against Monsanto that is currently before the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleges that Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer (now officially the most-used agricultural chemical of all time!) is responsible for the non-Hodgkin lymphoma of thousands of people across the country.

    Independent scientists, natural health activists and even government agencies have been warning of glyphosate’s dangerous effects on human health for years, but, as Corbett Reporteers will remember, the herbicide came under special scrutiny in 2015, when the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) officially declared it a “probable human carcinogen,” the same status Dr. Copley was arguing for in her 2013 letter to the EPA. Since then, dozens of lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto blaming the company’s Roundup weed killer for their cancer. In October 2016, the cases were consolidated into a single trial, “IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION” (MDL No. 2742, Case No. 16-md-02741-VC).

    The latest remarkable twist in this sordid courtroom drama is that Jess Rowland, the recipient of Dr. Copley’s terminal letter, will likely be compelled to testify in the case after having been subpoenaed by the plaintiffs. Last year a CARC report declaring glyphosate “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” was mysteriously leaked and then retracted, but not before it was used by Monsanto to “refute” the WHO’s assessment. The report bore Rowland’s signature, and he retired from the agency just days after the “inadvertent” leak.

    U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, presiding over the case, did not mince words, declaring Rowland’s actions and his likely collusion with Monsanto to be “highly suspicious” and adding,

    “When you consider the relevance of the EPA’s reports, and you consider their relevance to this litigation, it seems appropriate to take Jess Rowland’s deposition.”



    So as things sit, it is very likely that the former head of the EPA’s cancer review board will be sitting on a very hot seat in a California court room answering some uncomfortable questions about his relationship with Monsanto. The case may not only open the door for thousands of cancer victims in the US to achieve some restitution from the company they believe responsible for their condition, but may also blow the lid off of the EPA’s supposed impartiality when it comes to such assessments.

    And as rewarding as these developments are in themselves, they in turn pay further dividends. Readers of this column will remember how Bayer AG is preparing to swallow Monsanto in an effort to further consolidate the already centralized agrochemical industry. But as Bloomberg notes, reporting on the pending testimony from Rowland:

    The dramatic turn in the litigation comes less than a week after Bayer AG signaled that it may face delays in its deal to buy St. Louis-based Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company, for about $66 billion. Some investors have doubted the takeover will be approved due to regulatory concerns.

    So BayerSanto may not happen after all, and there remains the possibility that the corporate heads of Monsanto may one day face justice for their crimes. It’s hard to imagine “good news” and “Monsanto” appearing in the same news story, but this may be a rare example.

  2. The Following 23 Users Say Thank You to ramus For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (13th March 2017), Calz (13th March 2017), ceetee9 (13th March 2017), DeDukshyn (13th March 2017), dynamo (13th March 2017), Eram (12th March 2017), Ewan (12th March 2017), gnostic9 (13th March 2017), Heavy Duty (12th March 2017), Hervé (12th March 2017), Jantje (16th March 2017), justntime2learn (12th March 2017), Matt P (12th March 2017), Mercedes (13th March 2017), Mike (12th March 2017), Nasu (4th April 2017), Noelle (12th March 2017), Pam (13th March 2017), ponda (13th March 2017), Satori (13th March 2017), Tyy1907 (12th March 2017), william r sanford72 (13th March 2017), wnlight (12th March 2017)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Ecuador Honored, Retired Member. Warren passed on 2 July, 2020.
    Join Date
    28th March 2014
    Location
    Cuenca, Ecuador
    Age
    80
    Posts
    953
    Thanks
    5,175
    Thanked 5,540 times in 864 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto On Trial For Roundup Cancer

    I lived in the middle of roundup soybeans and corn for years on a midwestern farm. I once wondered why all the fireflies, butterflies and nearly all the toads and frogs disappeared. But the mystery faded as I learned more about Monsanto. Well, Monsanto and Budweiser came out of my home town. At least I can feel good after a Bud.

  4. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to wnlight For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (13th March 2017), Calz (13th March 2017), dynamo (13th March 2017), Eram (12th March 2017), Ewan (12th March 2017), gnostic9 (13th March 2017), Hervé (12th March 2017), Jantje (16th March 2017), justntime2learn (12th March 2017), Mercedes (13th March 2017), Pam (13th March 2017), ponda (13th March 2017), ramus (12th March 2017), william r sanford72 (13th March 2017)

  5. Link to Post #3
    UK Avalon Member Frenchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th November 2014
    Location
    On the edge of the Atlantic
    Posts
    322
    Thanks
    434
    Thanked 1,006 times in 285 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto On Trial For Roundup Cancer

    Q ? Had her Cancer been a gift of the Cabal ?

    Seems to me, [ although, despite the fact this was on her Death - Bed ], she is as much a Hero as Karen Silkwood or Francis Oldham Kelsey....

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

    gnostic9 (13th March 2017), Mercedes (13th March 2017), Noelle (12th March 2017), Pam (13th March 2017), ponda (13th March 2017)

  7. Link to Post #4
    Avalon Member Pam's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th June 2012
    Posts
    3,395
    Thanks
    42,674
    Thanked 27,689 times in 3,333 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto On Trial For Roundup Cancer

    Quote Posted by Frenchy (here)
    Q ? Had her Cancer been a gift of the Cabal ?

    Seems to me, [ although, despite the fact this was on her Death - Bed ], she is as much a Hero as Karen Silkwood or Francis Oldham Kelsey....


    I am grateful she spoke up, but she waited till she was dying to do so. How much more effective would she have been if she would have done so before that? Would she have said anything if she was still collecting her bonuses? Just a thought.

  8. Link to Post #5
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,453
    Thanks
    11,366
    Thanked 22,087 times in 2,422 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto On Trial For Roundup Cancer

    If this case ever gets to trial, then a very large part of the trial will be a contest between "experts." The Plaintiffs will have their experts who will attempt to give an opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific probability that Roundup is a carcinogen and was/is the proximate cause of the cancers. Defendants will have their "experts" who will testify that Roundup is not a carcinogen, or at least that there is no reliable scientific evidence that it is, and that there is no reliable scientific evidence or proof that Roundup is the proximate cause of any cancers.

    If there is a trial, the judge and/or the jury will have diametrically opposed and competing "evidence" of scientific proof on the issue of whether Roundup is a carcinogen and whether it is the proximate cause of the cancer(s) at issue. It will be anyone's guess--if this case goes to trial--what the finder of fact, probably a jury, will do. You can also be sure that before any trial, the judge will hold a "Daubert" hearing to take evidence concerning the qualifications of the experts to give any opinions, as well as the relevancy and reliability of any opinions the experts want to give. For a discussion of Daubert please see: http://www.journalof911studies.com/r...eyVol40Mar.pdf

    I emphasize "if the case goes to trial," because most cases do not make it to a trial. They settle or are dismissed on technical grounds before trial. One technical issue in this case is the qualifications of the experts who will testify about Roundup and causation and the reliability of their opinions and conclusions and the means and methods used to reach an opinion/conclusion.

    Also, it is important to know whether the judge in this case has certified the lawsuit as a class action. If he did, then the chances of this case settling without a trial, and the lawyers pocketing big bucks (and the class members getting a few bucks), is higher. If the judge has not certified a class, and if he eventually does not do so, then the case is even less likely to go to trial; or if it does, it will not be for a class of people, but only for the actual named plaintiffs. In the latter event, there is not likely to be any systemic changes to Monsanto's production and use of Roundup. However, if this case is a certified class action, I have to believe that part of the lawsuit involves injunctive relief, seeking systemic changes to the production and use of Roundup--such as either outlawing its use, of changes to the product that are less deleterious to humans, animals, insects, plants etc....

  9. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Blacklight43 (13th March 2017), Ewan (27th March 2017), Hervé (13th March 2017), Jantje (16th March 2017), Mercedes (14th March 2017), Nasu (4th April 2017), ThePythonicCow (14th March 2017)

  10. Link to Post #6
    United States Avalon Member conk's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Language
    Southern English
    Posts
    3,937
    Thanks
    11,067
    Thanked 11,145 times in 2,998 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto On Trial For Roundup Cancer

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    If this case ever gets to trial, then a very large part of the trial will be a contest between "experts." The Plaintiffs will have their experts who will attempt to give an opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific probability that Roundup is a carcinogen and was/is the proximate cause of the cancers. Defendants will have their "experts" who will testify that Roundup is not a carcinogen, or at least that there is no reliable scientific evidence that it is, and that there is no reliable scientific evidence or proof that Roundup is the proximate cause of any cancers....
    And their experts will arrive with large brief cases full of cash. Enough to spread around to anyone who questions the safety of Roundup or any other chemical. Then the prosecutors, witnesses, and experts will be swayed by the very convincing testimony of the cash money.

    This is what happened when the states of Mexico and Hawaii attempted to pass legislation banning the use of Aspartame. Stylish, well dressed Japanese businessmen (all interests in Aspartame was sold to a Japanese company) brought huge piles of cash and successfully laid waste the plans of the state's legislators. What was thought to be a slam dunk turned into a whimpering dribble.
    Last edited by conk; 14th March 2017 at 17:19.
    The quantum field responds not to what we want; but to who we are being. Dr. Joe Dispenza

  11. Link to Post #7
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,453
    Thanks
    11,366
    Thanked 22,087 times in 2,422 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto On Trial For Roundup Cancer

    Quote Posted by conk (here)
    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    If this case ever gets to trial, then a very large part of the trial will be a contest between "experts." The Plaintiffs will have their experts who will attempt to give an opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific probability that Roundup is a carcinogen and was/is the proximate cause of the cancers. Defendants will have their "experts" who will testify that Roundup is not a carcinogen, or at least that there is no reliable scientific evidence that it is, and that there is no reliable scientific evidence or proof that Roundup is the proximate cause of any cancers....
    And their experts will arrive with large brief cases full of cash. Enough to spread around to anyone who questions the safety of Roundup or any other chemical. Then the prosecutors, witnesses, and experts will be swayed by the very convincing testimony of the cash money.

    This is what happened when the states of Mexico and Hawaii attempted to pass legislation banning the use of Aspartame. Stylish, well dressed Japanese businessmen (all interests in Aspartame was sold to a Japanese company) brought huge piles of cash and successfully laid waste the plans of the state's legislators. What was thought to be a slam dunk turned into a whimpering dribble.
    Conk: If you mean New Mexico where you say Mexico I have direct personal knowledge of what happened in New Mexico with the efforts here about 10 years ago to ban aspartame in New Mexico.

    I was asked to and did donate my services pro bono (free) to help the petitioner, Stephen Fox, advance his petition to ban aspartame in New Mexico. Stephen had advanced his petition to the point where it was before the NM Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) and the question was whether the petition should be dismissed or whether there should be an evidentiary hearing on the petition. The EIB is a 5 person board and, in short, it is charged by the NM Legislature with the responsibility of ensuring that products in NM are safe for human consumption. Mr. Fox's petition sought an evidentiary hearing on the safety of aspartame and whether it was safe for human consumption or whether it was toxic and deleterious to humans. aspartame is in hundred of products form soda, gum, candy, myriad foods, and medicines, world wide. It is a known exotoxin and causes multiple health issues. It is a civilian form of a weaponized product from the 1960s. Donald Rumsfeld used his political connection's in the 1970s to get FDA approval of aspartame. Aspartame is essentially poop from micro-biotic organisms. It tricks the brain into thinking something tastes sweet.

    At the first hearing I represented Mr. Fox (free of charge), the person who was asking the EIB to hold a hearing an to ban aspartame in NM. Anjinomoto, the Japanese company that makes aspartame, was represented by paid counsel at the hearing. I was able to convince the EIB to not dismiss the petition, but rather agree to set and hold an evidentiary hearing on whether aspartame is safe or whether it is not and should be banned in NM. The vote was 3-2 in favor of a hearing.

    But, within a week or so of that hearing Anjinomoto hired new lawyers (the Rodey law firm and one of its lobbyist lawyers), began lobbying behind the scenes and out of public view, and got another hearing before the EIB on whether the petition should be sent to a full hearing.

    Long story short, as you say, money talks. At the second hearing before the EIB on the very same question presented at the first hearing, that is, whether Mr. Fox's petition to ban aspartame in NM should be presented at an evidentiary hearing to be held at some future date, the EIB voted to not have the hearing.

    Anjinomoto lawyered-up and the health and welfare of the people of NM took it in the groin again.

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

    conk (15th March 2017), Ewan (27th March 2017), Jantje (16th March 2017), wnlight (25th March 2017)

  13. Link to Post #8
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,453
    Thanks
    11,366
    Thanked 22,087 times in 2,422 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto On Trial For Roundup Cancer

    It is being reported today that a state court judge in Fresno, California, has granted the State of California's motion to dismiss Monsanto's (and some other purveyors of poisons) complaint in which Monsanto requested that glyphosate be removed from California's list of probable carcinogenic substances. That means, for now, that CA will identify glyphosate as a probable carcinogen and that Monsanto has a year to add that disclosure to its products that contain glyphosate and that are sold in CA.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Ewan (27th March 2017), Jantje (16th March 2017)

  15. Link to Post #9
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,898 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto On Trial For Roundup Cancer

    Unsealed court docs reveal Monsanto colluded with EPA, was unable to prove Roundup does not cause cancer

    Tyler Durden Zero Hedge
    Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:10 UTC


    © Dame Magazine

    If we had a dime for every kooky, left-wing theory we've heard alleging some vast corporate conspiracy to exploit the treasures of the earth, destroy the environment and poison people with unknown carcinogens all while buying off politicians to cover their tracks, we would be rich. The problem, of course, is that sometimes the kooky conspiracy theories prove to be completely accurate.

    Lets take the case of the $60 billion ag-chemicals powerhouse, Monsanto, and their controversial herbicide, Roundup as an example. For those who aren't familiar, Roundup Ready is Monsanto's blockbuster weedkiller, credited with transforming U.S. agriculture, with a majority of farm production now using genetically modified seeds resistant to the chemical.

    For years the company has assured farmers that their weed killing product was absolutely safe to use. As proof, Monsanto touted the approval of the chemical by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    That said, newly unsealed court documents released earlier today seemingly reveal a startling effort on the part of both Monsanto and the EPA to work in concert to kill and/or discredit independent, albeit inconvenient, cancer research conducted by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)....more on this later.

    But, before we get into the competing studies, here is a brief look at the 'extensive' work that Monsanto and the EPA did prior to originally declaring Roundup safe for use (hint: not much). As the excerpt below reveals, the EPA effectively declared Roundup safe for use without even conducting tests on the actual formulation, but instead relying on industry research on just one of the product's active ingredients.
    "EPA's minimal standards do not require human health data submissions related to the formulated product - here, Roundup. Instead, EPA regulations require only studies and data that relate to the active ingredient, which in the case of Roundup is glyphosate. As a result, the body of scientific literature EPA has reviewed is not only primarily provided by the industry, but it also only considers one part of the chemical ingredients that make up Roundup."
    Meanwhile, if that's not enough for you, Donna Farmer, Monsanto's lead toxicologist, even admitted in her deposition that she "cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer" because "[w]e [Monsanto] have not done the carcinogenicity studies with Roundup."



    And just in case you're the super skeptical type, here is Farmer's actual email, from back in 2009, which seems pretty clear:
    "you cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer..we have not done carcinogenicity studies with "Roundup".


    And while the revelations above are quite damning by themselves, this is where things get really interesting.

    In early 2015, once it became clear that the World Health Organization's IARC was working on their own independent study of Roundup, Monsanto immediately launched their own efforts to preemptively discredit any results that might be deemed 'inconvenient'.

    That said, Monsanto, the $60 billion behemoth, couldn't possibly afford the $250,000 bill that would come with conducting a legitimate scientific study led by accredited scientists. Instead, they decided to "ghost-write" key sections of their report themselves and plotted to then have the independent scientists just "sign their names so to speak."
    "A less expensive/more palatable approach might be to involve experts only for the areas of contention, epidemiology and possibly MOA (depending on what comes out of the IARC meeting), and we ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections...but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak."



    Finally, when all else fails, you call in those "special favors" in Washington D.C. that you've paid handsomely for over the years.

    And that's where Jess Rowland, the EPA's Deputy Division Director for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Agency's Cancer Assessment Review Committee, comes in to assure you that he's fully exploiting his role as the "chair of the CARC" to kill any potentially damaging research..."if I can kill this I should get a medal."



    All of which begs the question of whether the D.C. swamp is just too large to be drained.


    Related:
    California Judge Kapetan rules against Monsanto, allows Cancer Warning on Roundup
    "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 7 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Ankle Biter (16th March 2017), avid (15th March 2017), conk (15th March 2017), Ewan (27th March 2017), Jantje (16th March 2017), Satori (15th March 2017), william r sanford72 (15th March 2017)

  17. Link to Post #10
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    5th January 2011
    Posts
    835
    Thanks
    2,379
    Thanked 5,466 times in 762 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto On Trial For Roundup Cancer

    HERE IS MORE ON THE MONSANTO TRAIL


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

    http://www.thelastamericanvagabond.c...ncer-lawsuits/
    16 Mar 2017 Posted by Kalee Brown


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

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

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

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



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

    You can read the full court transcript here.

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

    Ewan (27th March 2017), onawah (18th March 2017), william r sanford72 (18th March 2017)

  19. Link to Post #11
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,260
    Thanks
    47,748
    Thanked 116,528 times in 20,692 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto On Trial For Roundup Cancer

    Market Rejection of GMOs Grows — Four-Year Plan to Topple Toxic Agriculture
    March 26, 2017
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...rid=1942350492
    ( Long article, but very informative and inspiring! )

    Quote By Dr. Mercola

    Our annual GMO Awareness Week is upon us, and in this interview, Ronnie Cummins, founder of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) details the current state of the opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

    We first met about six years ago, when we collaborated to create the direct ballot initiative to label GMOs in California.

    A lot has happened since then, including the passing of what's colloquially known as the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act, ironically misnamed "The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" — this despite a full 90 percent of consumers supporting mandatory labeling.

    The Trump administration has also selected or appointed notorious cheerleaders for GMOs and factory farms to his cabinet — Mike Pompeo as head of the CIA, Sonny Perdue as USDA Secretary, and Rick Perry as Energy Secretary.

    Meanwhile, his Tea Party allies in Congress have called for the abolition of the entire National Organic Program!1

    On the upside, in 2016 we saw, for the first time in nearly 20 years, a decrease in the amount of genetically engineered (GE) crops grown around the world, in terms of acreage.

    As noted by Cummins, "This represents the fact that this technology is failing, in the sense of superweeds and superpests are popping up all over the world." In the U.S., three-quarters of farmers growing GE crops like soybeans, corn or canola are having problems with these herbicide- and pesticide-resistant pests.

    Market Rejection of GMOs Has Grown

    Even more importantly, consumers around the world have become aware of the many problems associated with GE crops and the toxic herbicides and pesticides used on them, and do not want any of it on their plates.

    In other words, the market has started rejecting GMOs, and that's what we've been fighting for all along. Nothing can or will change unless consumers apply pressure in the form of refusing to buy GMOs.

    In the European Union (EU), which is the biggest agriculture market in the world, few if any GMOs are found on supermarket shelves.

    In the U.S. — despite industry spending hundreds of millions of dollars to manipulate market preference — about 40 percent of Americans still believe GE foods and GE ingredients are dangerous. Another 20 percent are unsure whether GMOs are dangerous or not.

    "This combination of consumer rejection and, basically, Mother Nature's resistance, has caused a drop-off," Cummins says. "I think this is the beginning of the end of at least this generation, the first generation, of GMO crops.

    Now, industry is saying, 'Don't worry about the fact that we're using more and more toxic pesticides and herbicides … Don't worry about these pests spreading across the fields. We've got a new generation of GMO crops where we can just do gene editing.

    We don't have to pull some DNA from a foreign species and haphazardly splice it into a corn or a soybean crop.'

    But the bottom line is that this gene-splicing and this so-called new gene editing are unnatural processes that disrupt the genetic structure, the natural workings of living organisms. These aren't going to work either."

    Organics and Grassfed Are Increasing in Popularity

    Worldwide, we're also seeing strong growth in organics and grassfed farming and ranching. In the U.S., the organic sector grew 11.5 percent in 2016. Grassfed grew about 50 percent. In France, organics grew by 20 percent.

    "This is because people understand this public health crisis has now spread worldwide, and this environmental crisis and its relationship to the climate crisis are all due to an out-of-control, industrial, chemical-intensive GMO agriculture. People are turning away," Cummins says.

    In the U.S., we now also have a brand new grassfed certification by the American Grassfed Association (AGA), which is the highest certification you can get for dairy, beef and poultry, including chickens, sheep and goats.

    In short, we're seeing a massive demand for healthier foods. A lot more people now know about the drawbacks of factory farmed beef and dairy, for example, and are aware that when herbivores are grazed naturally, without hormones, antibiotics and other drugs, you end up with a far healthier product.

    "What's been driving the growth of the grassfed beef and dairy industry are health concerns," Cummins says. "But also, people have become aware over the years that the factory farm system … is not right. You don't have to be an ethical vegan to have feeling for animals.

    Animals are sentient beings … Industry says if you want cheap food, you've got to go with factory farms. But I think more and more consumers are saying, 'I don't want cheap food if it means it's going to harm my health and the environment, and if you have to be that cruel to animals.'

    I think we're seeing the beginning of the end of the factory farm model, which actually has only existed [for] 40 years or so. Most animals used to be raised naturally …

    It's this wonderful coming together in the United States of the American Grassfed Association, merging in the dairy sector with dairy farmers who are already organic, to produce a higher quality 100 percent grassfed dairy.

    In the beef industry, there has been a tremendous growth in the demand for 100 percent grassfed, grass-finished beef. Unfortunately, most other grassfed beef in the United States is still coming from overseas, from countries like Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil …

    We still don't have the infrastructure in the United States that we had 50 years ago with processing plants in every region of the country and so on, but we're catching up."

    Challenges Involved in Organic Grassfed Beef Production

    Indeed, the lack of processing plants is really slowing down the reversal of the system. While American farmers have the capacity to provide an ample supply of grassfed cattle, the problem is there aren't enough processing plants to accommodate a massive increase.

    In all, the U.S. has about 500,000 ranchers raising livestock, but there are only three or four major buyers. Ranchers may raise the animals on pasture and treat them well, but after a year and a half or so, they must be sold.

    The cattle are sold at auction, and the buyers, such as JBS (a Brazilian firm that has bought out a large part of the beef industry in the U.S.), Cargill and Tyson Foods, will offer you the lowest possible price, regardless of how much you spent on the cattle's health and wellbeing.

    This cartel-like system effectively prevents farmers from recouping what they've invested, and slows down the pace at which a farmer can possibly make positive changes that require greater expenses.

    Once sold, the animals are transported to gigantic feedlots — basically animal factories — where they're placed in tiny pens. GMO grains and drugs are routinely used to fatten the animals up as quickly as possible. However, in doing so, the animals' health and wellbeing suffer. For example, E. coli 0157H, a virulent pathogen, can thrive in the animals' intestines under these conditions.

    "The reason why it's illegal for journalists or concerned citizens to go in and film in these giant feedlots is because the industry … don't want you to see the filth and the cruelty involved," Cummins says.

    Factory Farmed Meat Is No Bargain

    Next, the animals are sent off to mega slaughterhouses, of which there are only a few dozen in the entire country. As in the feedlots, these are hellish places where photographs and video taping is often illegal. As noted by Cummins:

    "The workers are immigrant workers typically, who don't have citizenship papers. Why is this? Because U.S. citizens will not take this kind of job. They would not work under these conditions … They have terrible health problems, terrible psychological problems. They're underpaid and overworked.

    What comes out on the other end is meat that might appear to be cheap … but it's not cheap in terms of what it does to your health … It clogs up your veins. You're ingesting pesticide and hormone residues. You end up supersizing yourself … Yeah, you've got your cheap burger. You've got your cheap steak. But you have damaged your health. That's going to be very costly over time.

    You also contributed to massive supply chain damage to the environment. The GMO corn and soybeans that make up the bulk of the feed in the feedlots, they have been sprayed with a horrendous amount of chemicals. These factory farms are the No. 1 contributors to water pollution … You're part of a long chain of animal cruelty, exploitation of workers, destruction of the environment …

    This paradigm is going to end. But we need more awareness [among] consumers, and we need more ranchers to be able to directly come into contact with consumers who want to buy their products so they can cut out the cartel middlemen …"

    Via Organica Paves Way for Organic Chicken and Egg Production

    Mercola.com and OCA are both founding members of an international network called Regeneration International, which is seeking to replace, among other things, the outdated factory farm system with a natural humane system, whereby herbivores are raised on perennial grasses under a system of holistic management.

    The same problems exist in poultry and pig farming, yet innovative farmers like Cummins and many others have proven there are far better ways of raising chickens and pigs on a larger scale as well.

    Cummins' farm, Via Organica, located in the high desert of Central Mexico, uses a system based on the traditional raising of poultry. In the first phase of the project, they installed a couple of thousand laying hens, which live outside all day in a 2.5-acre paddock filled with 400 olive trees and other crops. While the trees offer protection against predators from above, chicken poop acts as a natural fertilizer for the trees, making additional fertilizer use unnecessary.

    By eating the insects, they also eliminate pests that might otherwise pose a threat to the trees and other crops. "If you're a small farmer, it's very difficult to make a living off just your eggs. But if you've got another cash crop in the paddock where the chickens roam, you're going to be bringing in twice as much money over time," Cummins says.

    The chickens roam free all day, pecking in the dirt for worms, insects and other foraged foods. At sunset, they come into the chicken house, which is where they roost and lay their eggs. The feed provided in the chicken coop, given as a supplement to their foraged diet, is grown by local farmers using traditional, non-GMO seeds and regenerative methods.

    "We have a special plow developed in Australia that's now spreading all across the world," Cummins explains. "It's called a Keyline plow. It doesn't disturb the earth the way that traditional plows do. It creates an environment in your field to where when it rains, there's a built-in filtration of the rain into the soil. It turns the soil into a sponge …

    There are no chemical fertilizers. We work with the farmers to be able to have natural compost … [I]f you look at our eggs, one thing you notice is the yolk is bright orange. They taste really good. If you do a nutritional analysis of these eggs and compare them to the factory farmed eggs in the grocery store, there's a world of difference. If animals can live outside or live in a natural environment and exercise their natural behaviors, it ends up being a superior product."

    Why Vegetarianism May Not Be the Most Environmentally Conscious Choice

    Quite a few people have embraced veganism or vegetarianism as a way of bowing out of the factory farm system that abuses animals for per-pound profit. Cummins was a vegetarian for 40 years for this reason.

    "I was a vegetarian between 1970 and 2010 … until I had some ranchers in New Mexico explain to me this whole system of holistic management and rotational grazing, 100 percent grassfed … [T]hey said, 'Hey, you're an environmentalist, right? You're an animal welfare proponent, right? … You're not any of those things. You're a hypocrite, Ronnie.'

    Because conscious consuming of a moderate level of meat and animal products — where the animals have been raised humanely, where they've been raised naturally, where the end product, the food, is good for your health — is [also] good for the environment. Yes, that last instant of their life, when they're sacrificed for our food, that's not a good moment [for these animals]. But we're all going to have a bad moment at the end of our lives. We're going to physically die.

    When we're in the ground, guess what's going to happen? The little animals eventually are going to eat us. It's all part of this great chain of being. It's natural. There are vegans starting to understand, like David Bronner [CEO of Dr. Bronner's] … David's been a vegan for many years, but he's coined this term — instead of vegetarian — "regenetarian."

    Why Become a Regenetarian?

    A regenetarian is a person who never, ever eats factory farmed meat or dairy products, just like a vegan. A regenetarian will however consume grassfed beef, grassfed dairy and other grassfed animal products.

    "We're talking about fish here, too. Most of the fish in the world are now coming from these factory farm fish operations — horrible industrial trawlers in the oceans that are ripping up everything and killing everything in sight … A conscious consumer who wants to preserve their health, but also knows that we want to preserve the health of the planet — we want regular rainfall. We want climate to be normal again — we have to become regenetarians," Cummins says.

    "I never eat meat or animal products in a restaurant unless that restaurant has on the menu, and has a convincing story, that this is grassfed or genuinely pastured. As soon as enough people start doing that, this system is going to change."

    The average American spends a mere 10 percent of their income on food, which is ridiculously low when you consider what the highest quality, most nutritious food would cost. You cannot expect to get the highest quality at this rock-bottom price. At that level, all you're getting is cheap corn-based meals. As Cummins says, it would be reasonable to spend twice as much on food.

    To pay for it, you may have to consider cutting down on other wasteful spending, such as the trend of treating clothing as single-use, disposable items. Organic foods cost more, and must cost more, because doing it right and not cutting corners costs money. It's the cost-saving measures that have resulted in hormone-laced milk and pesticide-ridden produce. It's cost-saving measures that have turned beef into a metabolic wrecker. Cheap food is cheap for a reason.

    Current State of GMO Movement in the US

    Last August, the so-called "DARK Act" was passed. And while many have placed their hopes on President Trump making sweeping changes, we're not likely to see any difference under Trump when it comes to GMO labeling. As before, the U.S. Congress doesn't seem to care that 90 percent of Americans want to know whether their food has been genetically engineered or not, or contains GMO ingredients.

    To summarize last year's events, on July 1, 2016, Vermont's state law for mandatory GMO labeling took effect, forcing major food companies to start labeling their wares. Alas, the food industry basically bought Congress, sweeping a 100-year tradition of states' rights to implement food safety rules at the state level under the carpet. That's what the DARK Act did. It revoked states' right to impose mandatory labeling of GMOs, and with that, the Vermont law was made null and void.

    In its place, the federal law replaced clear GMO labeling with quick response (QR) codes which, when scanned with your smartphone will bring you to the company's website, where you may or may not find information about the presence of GE ingredients.

    "The only difference under Trump, looks like that we're not even going to have these QR codes, which were ridiculous anyway," Cummins says. Where does this leave us as consumers? I think there's a growing recognition among conscious consumers in this country that right now, we can't count on Congress.

    We can't count on regulatory agencies like the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or the Federal Trade Commission.

    These people are in the pockets of the 1 percent. They do what their financial backers tell them to do. We're left with our power in the marketplace. That is, they can't pass a law that tells you what to do when you pull out your wallet. We still have free choice to choose organic or grassfed foods or non-GMO foods in the marketplace …

    At the rate we're going now, most food in the United States will be organic within three decades. It's taken us three decades to get to the 5 to 10 percent range. Most of the food will be organic and grassfed within 30 years. However, when you look at our public health crisis and our climate crisis and all these other things that the economic crisis in rural areas, we can't wait 30 years."

    New Goal: Double Organic Sales in Four Years

    The consumer revolution platform now is an ambitious one — double organic sales in the next four years. At current rates of growth, we could expect it to increase by about 50 percent. Instead, we need to quadruple sales of organic and grass-fed. As noted by Cummins, by speeding up the rate at which we reach the tipping point where 15 percent of our food supply is organic or grassfed, the acceleration will multiply exponentially thereafter.

    "That's our answer to the gridlock in Washington, to the failure of federal government," he says. "Let's get active in the local and state level where we have more power, [and] intensify our impact in the marketplace where no one can tell us what to do. We're going to bring about our revolution in health and nutrition in the marketplace if they won't let us do it with public policy."

    It's time to launch a #ConsumerRevolution boycott that is larger and more powerful than ever. And at the same time, we apparently have no choice but to launch a #PoliticalRevolution, especially at the local and state level, that will "throw the bums out" from Main Street to Washington D.C. — those politicians and the army of lobbyists and PR gunslingers who continue to represent the corporate and financial elite, the "1 percent," instead of the rest of us.

    In order to carry out this "Resist and Regenerate" strategy, the OCA and its closest allies have come up with an Action platform called Consumer Revolution/Political Revolution 2017-2020, which includes the following.

    #Consumer Revolution 2017-2020

    Overarching goal: Force corporations that sell consumer products, including food, clothing, drugs and personal care products, to respond to consumer demand for truthfully labeled products that have a positive impact on human health and are produced using regenerative processes and practices that not only prevent harm to human health and the environment, but also measurably improve soils and combat global warming.

    Move toward making organic, 100 percent grassfed and regenerative food and farming the norm, not just the 5 percent alternative in the marketplace, by doubling sales of organic to $80 billion by 2020, and by increasing sales of U.S. grassfed meat and dairy, and organic and pastured poultry and pork by at least 400 percent by 2020.
    Achieve a 50 percent reduction in sales of GMO food and animal feed by 2020, with the aim of driving GMO animal feed off the market.

    Force major food brands and companies that fraudulently label their products as "natural," "organic" or "GMO-free" to remove misleading labels and/or transition their products and production methods to organic and/or regenerative practices.
    Increase market share for clothing made from organic cotton, wool and other natural fibers through a high-profile "Care What You Wear" campaign that encourages consumers to boycott GMO cotton and synthetic fibers.
    #PoliticalRevolution 2017-2020

    Overarching goal: Reform the current political process to create a democracy that works for all people, not just wealthy corporations and the 1 percent, by uniting the food, climate, economic and social justice, natural health and peace movements in a coordinated effort to support candidates, elected public officials and policies at the local, state and federal levels, that support our common goals.

    1. Lobby candidates and elected public officials to support OCA's #ConsumerRevolution platform

    2. Lobby candidates and elected public officials to support the "Our Revolution" platform, with the addition of:

    • On food: a focus on food policy that supports consumer health and consumer right to know, and acknowledges the role food production plays in environmental and climate policy

    • On health care: a focus on "Medicare for all" that includes coverage for preventive, natural and alternative health care solutions, and health freedom on vaccines and all medical treatments

    • On living wage: a focus on raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour so that lower-income Americans can afford organic food and natural health products and practitioners

    • On climate: a focus on regenerative agriculture and soil carbon sequestration as a global warming solution, in addition to fossil fuel emissions reduction and renewable energy

    3. Organize local grassroots meet-ups and coalitions to run candidates, for local and state offices, who support our issues

    4. Oppose any candidates or policies that promote racism, sexism, homophobia, militarism and all forms of discrimination, whenever and wherever they arise

    5. Oppose any laws or illegal attempts to disenfranchise voters

    6. Support the decriminalization of drug use, including the legalization of marijuana, and oppose the war on drugs

    7. Promote candidates and policies that advance regenerative food, farming and land use, in addition to fossil fuel emissions reduction and renewable energy

    Biodynamics — The Highest Organic Standard

    Biodynamic farming, which originated with Rudolf Steiner in the early 1920s, is also starting to gain recognition, and might even change or modify the organic standard. There are actually two different types of organic certification in the U.S.

    There's the USDA Organic label standards, which are decent but still allow producers to meet only minimum requirements, and then there are the biodynamic standards, which have always been the highest in terms of organic certification. The biodynamic organic certification is indicated with a Demeter sign.2 "What you need to realize is this is absolutely grade A+ organic," Cummins says.


    Many didn't understand the implications of 100 percent grassfed until very recently. Fortunately, we're now starting to see a merger of the Biodynamic Demeter certification and the AGA's grassfed certification. Many farmers, even those certified organic by the USDA, are now stepping it up to the next level by implementing biodynamic or regenerative methods, which in terms of cattle and other herbivores is the 100 percent grassfed way of doing things.

    "I think biodynamic and regenerative are the wave of the future. We need to still seek out organic products, but more and more conscious consumers are realizing that if you're buying a bottle of wine, look for the organic label on it, because that means it doesn't have any added sulfides.

    It means that the farmer was really conscientious in the way they raised those grapes. But look for the biodynamic label as well. In OCA … we're really happy to be working with the next stage of organics, which is biodynamic and grassfed."

    Routing Out GMOs by Expanding the Net

    Over the past two decades, the majority of the anti-GMO movement was focused on GMOs found in processed foods and a small number of whole GE foods.

    Yet that's only 20 percent of the GMOs in the human food chain. Twice as much (40 percent) goes into the making of animal feed for factory farms. The only way to change that trend is by not buying factory farmed animal products, be it poultry (including eggs), pork or beef.

    Another 40 percent of GMOs grown are used to make ethanol, "which is this crazed idea that it's environmentally sound … to produce an additive for gasoline from GMO corn," Cummins says. In essence, Monsanto makes money every time you drive your car, unless you're buying premium gas, which doesn't have ethanol in it. So, the less gas you use, the less money Monsanto makes. Cutting off your contributions to Monsanto is yet another reason for buying an electric vehicle.

    Most also forget (or failed to understand in the first place) that 95 percent of non-organic cotton clothing is made from Monsanto's GE cotton. You may be boycotting Monsanto's food, but if you buy clothes without thinking about what it's made from, you're still feeding the beast. In short, we have to significantly widen the net and consider all the different ways GE crops sneak their way into our lives.

    "My T-shirt's organic. My jeans are organic. My underwear is organic. My socks are organic. I'm trying to consciously fight against Monsanto with everything I do, not just what I eat," Cummins says. "We've got to expand into the full realm of GMOs. Even more importantly, we need to stop talking about GMOs as if it's some abstract technology that poses this kind of really-hard-to-understand danger, gene splicing, disruption of the genome and all that …

    There is no GMO crop that isn't sprayed with large amounts of poisonous chemicals … Or else it's impregnated with a poison, like the Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) toxin in the plant that expresses itself in every cell of the plant. When we're talking about pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, we're talking about GMO plants. There's no way to fight against GMOs unless we fight at the same time against chemical-intensive, energy-intensive agriculture and factory farms."

    Many Legislative Changes Are Needed

    We also need to continue fighting for legislative changes that help and support organic farmers. The reason France was able to grow the organic sector by 20 percent last year, compared to 11.5 percent in the U.S. was because the French government started paying farmers who quit using pesticides and use compost instead of chemical fertilizers.

    In a nutshell, France decided to pay farmers to do the right thing, whereas the U.S. rewards farmers who agree to do the wrong thing. France also passed a law that at least 40 percent of food for schools must be organic and purchased from local farmers.

    "I mean what kind of rules do we have regarding [this]? We have the worst school lunch programs in the entire industrialized world. Our food stamp program for poor people is basically junk food that the companies would have disposed of, but they get a tax break for giving us their factory-farmed cheese and milk, and so on.

    We do need to change policies as well as the marketplace. But looking at the federal government, our best way to influence public policy is to get involved at the local level — city council, county board, state legislature, our school boards. We have some power there."

    Become Active in Local Government and Expand Alliances

    OCA is also calling for people of different stripes to start working together more — people in the local food movement, the slow food movement, the natural health movement, the environmental movement, the animal welfare movement, even church and spiritual movements. If you're involved in any of these, consider setting up joint meetings with other groups to discuss what you're doing, how and where your concerns intersect and how you may help each other.

    To volunteer to set up or attend a Regenerative House Party or Community Meet-up in your local area this spring with other organic consumers or natural health activists, contact OCA at campaigns@organicconsumers.org.

    Big corporations are trying to stamp out organic, grassfed, natural health, alternative therapies, environmental protections — you name it. As long as we remain divided, they can conquer. By banding together, by connecting the dots between all of our crucial issues, we will prevail.

    "If the food movement united with these other movements, they couldn't have passed the DARK Act even at the federal level. But because it was just the 30, 40 million people who were most conscientious about what they buy, that wasn't enough to scare the hell out of the politicians to do the right thing," Cummins says.

    "If we're going to get involved politically, and I do think we have to, let's get involved where it makes a difference right now, which is the local level. Let's understand that what we do in the marketplace, whether it's the Bush administration, the Obama administration, the Trump administration, these people are not determining your food choices. These people are not forcing you to consume dangerous Big Pharma drugs.

    Get educated. Take control of your health. Take control of your diet. Meet up with the people in your local community who feel the same way. We can have, down the road, the kind of democracy that people have dreamed about for hundreds of years. We've never had it but it doesn't mean that we can't get it down the road."

    Take Control of Your Health by Making Wiser Choices

    For the first time in two decades, the average lifespan in the U.S. has decreased, and the U.S. is the only country in the developed world where this is happening. I for one am convinced our emphasis on factory farmed foods play a major role in this decline. Moreover, if we persist with this industrial farming model, we will eventually run out of topsoil and potable water, and that day is approaching at a rapid clip. Some estimates suggest we have less than 60 years of topsoil left if we keep going as we have been.3

    We're causing potentially irreparable environmental damage. If we destroy this infrastructure for future generations, how can they possibly grow food? This is a serious issue and I'm glad so many of you are beginning to appreciate the enormity of the problem — and are embracing the solutions. As Cummins says, your greatest power lies in your choice of spending.

    By avoiding food not grown in accordance with regenerative measures, non-organic cotton clothing, and ethanol-infused fuel, you help cut off the lifeblood of corporations that are destroying your children and grandchildren's chance of a healthy future. When it comes to food, choose organic produce, ideally biodynamic certified organics, and look for the AGA's grassfed certification for animal products.

    The goal of the AGA is to promote the grassfed industry through government relations, research, concept marketing and public education. Their website also allows you to search for AGA approved producers certified according to strict standards that include being raised on a diet of 100 percent forage; raised on pasture and never confined to a feedlot; never treated with antibiotics or hormones; born and raised on American family farms.

    The FDA is threatening the existence of our food supply. We have to start taking action now. I urge you to share this article with friends and family. If we act together, we can make a difference and put an end to the absurdity. Thankfully, we have organizations like the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) to fight back against these corporate giants. So please, fight for your right to know what’s in your food and help support the GMO labeling movement by making a donation today.

    Donations TRIPLE-Matched During GMO Awareness Week

    I have found very few organizations that are as effective and efficient as OCA. It’s a public interest organization dedicated to promoting health and sustainability. OCA and I thank you for everything you've done to further this cause, and hope you stick with us as we move forward. I strongly encourage you to give OCA your financial support, because we are making a huge difference.

    Food companies have to start being honest and truthful in telling us what's in our food, and we will not quit until they do. We can't do it alone, however. We need your help, and this week, you can seriously maximize the impact of your generosity, because I will match each and every dollar you donate to the OCA with $3, up to $250,000.

    Donate Today!

    Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

    Here are useful resources to help you learn more about GMOs and what you can do to fight back:

    Regeneration International
    GMA Boycott List
    GMA Traitor Brands
    The Ultimate Guide to GMOs eBook
    Buycott App
    Last edited by onawah; 26th March 2017 at 18:11.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Ewan (27th March 2017)

  21. Link to Post #12
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,260
    Thanks
    47,748
    Thanked 116,528 times in 20,692 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto On Trial For Roundup Cancer

    Why Opting for Organic Cotton Matters
    April 04, 2017
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...rid=1954713102
    Quote By Dr. Mercola

    Cotton clothing has a longstanding history of being all-natural and wholesome. Unfortunately, times have changed, and once you delve behind-the-scenes of the cotton industry, its wholesome image quickly frays around the edges.

    Most people forget that a vast majority — about 90 to 95 percent1 — of non-organic cotton clothing is made from Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) cotton. Organic cotton, grown in a sustainable, non-toxic manner, accounts for a mere 1 percent of the global cotton production.

    You may be boycotting genetically modified organisms (GMOs), but if you're still buying non-organic cotton clothes and other items made from cotton, be it towels, drapes or tampons, you're still feeding the beast.

    You're also exposing yourself to potentially heavy doses of toxins, contributing to ever-worsening environmental destruction, and enabling human rights violations.2

    Cotton — One of the Most Toxic Crops on the Planet

    Its toxicity is perhaps one of the most surprising findings you'll discover when researching the conventional cotton industry.

    While making up less than 2.5 percent of global cropland, non-organic cotton receives 16 to 25 percent of all insecticides,3 10 percent of all pesticides4 and nearly 7 percent of all herbicides used worldwide, many of which are among the most hazardous.5

    Herbicide-resistant GE cotton is typically sprayed with copious amounts of Roundup, the active ingredient in which is glyphosate, a likely human carcinogen.

    The 2002 introduction of Bt cotton, which is genetically engineered to produce its own internal pesticide, was supposed to lead to a reduction in the use of insecticides. In reality, Bt cotton actually requires more pesticide sprayings than indigenous cotton, as it has created new chemical-resistant pests.

    To control these resistant pests, farmers now use 13 times more pesticides than they were using prior to the introduction of Bt cotton.6

    Moreover, in addition to being heavily contaminated with topical pesticides, the Bt cotton is itself a pesticide as well — it's even registered as such7 — since Bt toxin is produced in every cell of the plant.

    Uzbekistan's Cotton Industry Is a Modern Form of Slavery

    The featured video, "White Gold — The True Cost of Cotton" created by the Environmental Justice Foundation, reveals the gross human rights violations occurring in Uzbekistan, the second largest cotton exporter in the world, and how the cotton industry has created an environmental catastrophe of unbelievable proportions.

    Here, one-third of the population, including children as young as 7, labor for the government-owned cotton industry. Schools close during harvest time, and teachers bring the children to the cotton fields instead. Students who refuse to pick cotton may lose their schooling privileges.

    Teachers risk being fired from their teaching jobs unless they comply with the mandatory cotton-picking each year, and public protests are beat back with lethal force.

    No protective gear is provided. Everyone picks cotton with bare hands, ensuring exposure to toxic pesticides. Lack of drinking water forces laborers to drink from the irrigation canals — water that not only may be contaminated with chemicals, but also disease-causing pathogens.

    At the end of the harvest season, many workers end up being deeper in debt to the state than before they began. They simply aren't able to pick enough cotton to offset the expenses for food and lodging the government deducts from their earnings.

    Environmental Catastrophe in Uzbekistan

    In addition to being chemical-dependent, non-organic cotton also needs water — lots of water. Enough to drain a sea in a few decades.

    The water level of the Aral Sea — situated between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan — began receding in the early 1970s. Fish also started dying from the chemical runoff from the fields. Aral Sea fishermen of old used to catch 40 tons of fish per year. Today, the area is littered with fishing vessels lying on dry land.

    What used to be a thriving seaport is now nearly 50 miles (80 kilometers) from the water's edge, and the fishing economy has been obliterated.

    The former seabed is heavily contaminated with salt and pesticides, both of which prevent plant growth, and wind-driven toxic dust has led to high rates of cancer and tuberculosis. This is the hidden human and environmental sticker price for cotton.

    Cotton Industry Is Notorious for Human Rights Violations

    Similar human rights violations and environmental tragedies are found in other cotton-producing nations.

    In India, an estimated 300,000 farmers have also committed suicide in the past two decades8 — deaths attributed to despair over unsurmountable debt created by Monsanto's patented seed scheme, which prohibits saving and sharing of seeds and requires the use of expensive chemicals.

    As noted in "Our Cotton Colonies" by In These Times, which starts out by highlighting the often-violent history of the cotton trade and then details the modern-day cotton life cycle from field to sales rack:9

    "The T-shirts we buy at retailers like Gap and H&M may feel far removed from the bloody past of a crop synonymous in the 19th century with slavery and sweatshops.

    But when one follows the global supply chain of cotton growers, workers, traders and factory owners, it becomes increasingly apparent that capitalism has not, in fact, traveled far at all from its bloody origins."

    It's a fascinating read, and I encourage you to review it, but don't expect to feel good about that stack of jeans and cotton T-shirts in your closet when you're done.

    Conventional Cotton Production Is Toxic Business

    The environmental assaults don't end when the cotton leaves the field. The process necessary to turn raw cotton into cotton yarn and fabric involves another round of toxic exposures that result in environmental pollution. The Organic Trade Association explains:10

    "During the conversion of cotton into conventional clothing, many hazardous materials are used and added to the product, including silicone waxes, harsh petroleum scours, softeners, heavy metals, flame and soil retardants, ammonia and formaldehyde — just to name a few.

    Many processing stages result in large amounts of toxic wastewater that carry away residues from chemical cleaning, dyeing and finishing. This waste depletes the oxygen out of the water, killing aquatic animals and disrupting aquatic ecosystems. The North American Organic Fiber Processing Standards prohibits these and similar chemicals."

    Cotton in Our Food Supply

    While you cannot eat cotton per se, 65 percent of conventional cotton production still ends up in the food chain, through:11

    Cottonseed oil, a primary ingredient in Crisco cooking oil and vitamin E supplements
    Cottonseed meal, added to dairy cow and beef cattle feed
    Cotton cellulose, used as a non-caloric filler, thickener and stabilizer in a wide range of processed foods and beverages
    The toxic pesticides sprayed on conventional cotton crops also threaten the health of, and contaminate, other food crops. In Texas, winegrowers fear the approval of new herbicide-resistant cotton crops may wipe out the wine industry altogether. Such dire predictions stem from the fact that pesticides drift wherever the wind blows, and vineyards cannot tolerate the herbicide mixtures now being used on GE plants such as cotton.

    Paul Bonarrigo, who owns a vineyard in Hale County, has been unable to produce grapes for the past two years in a row. They keep dying from chemical damage — damage that will only get worse as cotton plantations in the area start planting the next-generation GE cotton resistant to dicamba and 2,4-D. As reported by The Texas Tribune:12

    "Other Texas winegrowers have seen similar damage, and they blame it on dicamba and 2,4-D, two high-volatility herbicides commonly used on cereal crops, pastures and lawns. Now, the state's vintners are alarmed that use of the chemicals may soon expand to include 3.7 million acres of cotton fields in the High Plains, where cotton is being invaded by weeds immune to the Roundup pesticide long used."

    Are Your Tampons Full of Roundup?

    Cotton is not only used for clothing, of course. In addition to linens, towels, furniture coverings and drapes, women may also be using cotton tampons. A 2016 investigation13 by a French magazine found traces of harmful chemicals in 11 brand name tampons and sanitary pads, including dioxins, organochlorine pesticides — including glyphosate — and pyrethroid insecticides.

    Considering the high probability of cotton being contaminated with pesticides and insecticides, I encourage you, whenever possible, to choose "USDA Certified 100% Organic" cotton tampons. Bt cotton is a particularly questionable choice for tampons, since it contains both internally-produced toxin and topically applied chemicals. Another safer alternative is the Diva Cup, which works in a similar way as a diaphragm, allowing you to avoid tampons altogether.

    Pimacott Resorts to DNA Tagging to Track Cotton Origins

    Unfortunately, it's easy to support human rights violations and environmental destruction even when you're a contentious consumer. You basically have to trust the company you're buying from, and while many will do their best to source cotton responsibly, there's no way to really identify the origin of a piece of cotton. Fraud also exists even in the organic industry.

    For example, seven years ago, Swedish fashion giant H&M was caught in a scandal when testing revealed 30 percent of its "organic" cotton contained genetically modified material. All of the questionable cotton came from India, one of the world's largest producers of organic cotton, which suggests the fraudulent labeling was probably occurring at other retailers as well.

    To ensure the authenticity and purity of its product, Pimacott has developed a novel DNA tagging technology that allows you to verify the origin of its cotton. Pimacott is the developer of pima cotton, grown primarily in the San Joaquin Valley in California and certain Peruvian regions. As noted by David Greenstein, CEO of Himatsingka America Inc., of which Pimacott is a trademark:14

    "In the industry, there was an increasing discrepancy between what was written on the package of a cotton product and what the material was actually made of … We decided that we were going to use technology to change the way that we source cotton and take control of our supply chain."

    Together with the technology firm Applied DNA Sciences, the company has developed a DNA tag for its cotton — a microscopic marker on every grain of cotton that can be read by a DNA scanner, much like you'd read a package barcode. As explained in the featured article:15

    "This insertion process happens at the gin [editor's note: a cotton gin is a machine that separates the fibers from the seed]: Little molecules are released into the cotton and permanently bind to it. From this point onward, it is possible to place a piece of cotton or fabric under a simple DNA scanner to see whether the marker is present."

    Cotton-Blend Fabrics and Microfiber Pollution

    Cotton-blend fabrics also contribute to environmental pollution by introducing microfibers into waterways. Synthetic fabrics such as acrylic and polyester are the primary culprits here, but cotton-blend fabrics are also best avoided.

    In a comparison of acrylic, polyester and a polyester-cotton blend, acrylic was the worst, shedding microfibers up to four times faster than the polyester-cotton blend16,17 Still, your "cleanest" option in this regard is 100 percent organic cotton fabrics, as the synthetic fibers in these other fabrics pose severe hazards to water quality and the survival of sea life.

    According to estimates by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, up to 1.7 million tons of microfibers enter the ocean each and every year.18 In some ocean waters, plastic exceeds plankton by a factor of 6-to-1,19 and the fibers have been found in both table salt20 and various seafood sold for human consumption.21

    Testing reveals 90 percent of freshwater and saltwater fish have microfiber debris in their bodies,22,23 and since these fibers act like sponges, they soak up and concentrate toxins like PCBs and pesticides. As a result, the fish become even more toxic than they normally would be simply by swimming in polluted water.

    Cleaning Up Your Wardrobe in the Name of Humanitarianism

    While some companies are actively investigating ways to produce more environmentally-friendly clothing, each and every one of us can contribute to the solution by curbing your consumption and giving more thought to what you buy and how you care for your items.

    As described in my previous article on "fast fashion," the entire life cycle of a piece of clothing would ideally be taken into account before buying, as most of your discarded clothes actually end up in landfills, or are resold to developing countries where local clothing industries then suffer instead.

    To avoid toxic chemicals, reduce environmental pollution and promote safe and fair labor rights across the world, consider the following recommendations when it comes to buying clothing and other fabric-related items:

    Opt for organic cotton, hemp, silk, wool and bamboo fabrics. While such items typically cost more than non-organic cotton and synthetics, buying fewer items will allow you to spend more on each item. On the upside, higher quality organic items tend to last far longer with proper care, so you get your money's worth in the end.
    Opt for items colored with nontoxic, natural dyes when possible. Businesses investing in organic farming and natural dyes include PACT (undergarments and loungewear), Boll & Branch (bed linens, blankets and towels), Jungmaven (organic hemp and cotton T-shirts), Industry of All Nations (clothing) and many others.
    Avoid screen printed items, as they typically contain phthalates.
    Look for the Bluesign System Certification,24 which tells you the item has been manufactured with a minimal amount of hazardous chemicals, or none.
    Avoid trademarked technical fabrics, as most are coated with chemicals that will eventually wash out.
    Be mindful of when and how you wash synthetic clothing. Wash synthetic clothing as irregularly as possible using a mild detergent. Line dry instead of putting them in the dryer. The heat and agitation will break down fibers. Handwashing or using the gentle cycle with cold water will also minimize the shedding of fibers, as will using a front loading washing machine.

    Avoid commercial fabric softeners and dryer sheets. Not only do they release potentially toxic chemicals into wastewater and air (through the dryer vent), they also leave a film on the fabric that decreases the wicking ability of the fiber.
    Install a microfiber filter on your washing machine. Wexco is currently the exclusive distributor of the Filtrol 160 filter,25 designed to capture non-biodegradable fibers from your washing machine discharge. Here is a link to Google to find sources for them.
    https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...l+160+filter&*
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    East Sun (4th April 2017), Ewan (4th April 2017), Mike (4th April 2017)

  23. Link to Post #13
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,260
    Thanks
    47,748
    Thanked 116,528 times in 20,692 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto On Trial For Roundup Cancer

    Pesticides cause up to 41 million people to suffer from adverse reactions and 200,000 deaths a year
    Posted by: Jonathan Landsman
    April 2, 2017
    (Monsanto isn't the only guilty party, of course, but it would certainly be a good place to start cleaning up..)
    [QUOTE](NaturalHealth365) The UN has released a report that condemns the use of toxic pesticides – and attributes over 200,000 deaths per year, worldwide, to their use.
    The report also attacks the claim of agrochemical manufacturers that the use of pesticides is essential to address global hunger – and highlights the “systemic denial” of the companies regarding deaths and injuries from pesticides.
    The impact of pesticides is characterized as “catastrophic” and a human rights violation
    The report, delivered on March 8 to the UN Human Rights Council, details the adverse effects of chronic exposure to pesticides, including links to cancer, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility. In addition to causing almost a quarter of a million deaths yearly, pesticides cause up to 41 million people to suffer from adverse reactions.
    Co-authored by Hilal Elver – a research professor and special UN rapporteur, or investigator, on the Right to Food – the report bluntly calls the use of pesticides “catastrophic“ and says that relying on these poisonous chemicals is a short-term solution that threatens the right to adequate food and health.
    According to Andrew Kimball, executive director at the Center for Food Safety, the report is historic because it declares that the ability to have non-toxic and safe food is a human right.
    Hilal noted that 99 percent of the poisonings took place in developing countries, due to lack of protections for farm workers. The report also noted that children – who may be forced into labor at an early age in developing countries – are particularly susceptible to pesticide contamination of food, with 23 deaths reported in India in 2013 and 39 deaths in China in 2014. In China, pesticide contamination has put a stop to farming on about 20 percent of the arable land.
    In addition to distributing carcinogenic poisons for human consumption on a massive scale, pesticides deplete the topsoil, threaten the ecosystem and pollute groundwater. The report called for a global treaty to govern the use of these substances, and for incentivizing organically produced food. It also advocated natural methods of pest control, including crop rotation.
    Powerful agrochemical industry uses lies and deception to conceal harm
    The report was co-authored by Baskut Tuncak, the UN’s special rapporteur on toxins. Tuncak voiced his frustration with the difficulty of proving pesticide harms – although scientific studies have demonstrated that they exist.
    The global pesticide market, a $50 billion dollar a year industry, gives agrochemical companies unprecedented power over governments and over the scientific community, Tuncak says.
    And these industrial giants think nothing of using “aggressive and unethical” marketing tactics to systematically deny and suppress the truth about pesticide dangers, Tuncak concludes – adding that lobbying of governments obstructs reform and paralyzes global pesticide restrictions.
    Philosophy justifying the use of toxic pesticides is nothing more than “smoke and mirrors”
    The belief that pesticides are needed to combat the global hunger crisis is a “myth,” according to Helver. In reality, pesticides play no role in reducing world hunger.
    The UN Food and Agriculture Organization points out that we have currently have the ability to feed 9 billion people, the projected population of the world by 2050. The problem is not one of production, Helver says, but of poverty, inequality and improper distribution. (Natural health experts and advocates agree)
    Jay Feldman, executive director of the non-profit environmental group Beyond Pesticides, points to the $43 billion organic industry as proof that toxic chemicals are not required to feed people.
    The upshot: sustainable farming methods can address global hunger – without the use of toxins.
    The U.S. lags behind the EU in protecting its citizens
    Elver praised some countries – including those in the EU – for their “very strong regulations” for pesticides. Since 2013, the EU has banned the use of neonicotinoid pesticides – which are toxic to bees – on flowering crops. Disgracefully, the United States has no such regulation.
    When it comes to developing countries, few have regulatory regimes for pesticides. In some cases, pesticides that are banned in specific countries are still being manufactured there for export to other countries.
    Meanwhile, pesticide manufacturers, including the UK’s Crop Protection Association, are pushing back against the condemnation, insisting that pesticides play a key role in ensuring access to a “healthy, safe, affordable and reliable food supply.”
    However, the UN’s powerful and damning report makes that claim an impossible one to entertain.
    References:
    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...feed-the-world
    http://naturalnews.com/2017-03-22-re...00-deaths.html
    Quote (NaturalHealth365) The UN has released a report that condemns the use of toxic pesticides – and attributes over 200,000 deaths per year, worldwide, to their use.
    The report also attacks the claim of agrochemical manufacturers that the use of pesticides is essential to address global hunger – and highlights the “systemic denial” of the companies regarding deaths and injuries from pesticides.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Baby Steps (4th April 2017), Ewan (4th April 2017)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

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