Monsanto And Its Lethally Toxic Trails

[Hervé]

The Complete History of Monsanto, “The World’s Most Evil Corporation” (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-complete-history-of-monsanto-the-worlds-most-evil-corporation/5387964)

By E Hanzai (http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/hanzai)
Global Research, June 22, 2014
Waking Times (http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/06/20/complete-history-monsanto-worlds-evil-corporation/)



http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/monsanto-roundup.bmp
[The new "Cool-Aid"]


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

1901: The company is founded by John Francis Queeny, a member of the Knights of Malta (http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/dark-history-of-the-evil-monsanto-corporation), a thirty year pharmaceutical veteran married to Olga Mendez Monsanto, for which Monsanto Chemical Works is named. The company’s first product is chemical saccharin, sold to Coca-Cola as an artificial sweetener.

Even then, the government knew saccharin was poisonous and sued to stop its manufacture but lost in court, thus opening the Monsanto Pandora’s Box (http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/03/10/the-monsanto-pandoras-box-nightmare-of-gmo-global-genocide-unleashed-and-irreversible/) to begin poisoning the world through the soft drink.


http://www.wakingtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/toxiclove-300x272.jpg (http://www.wakingtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/toxiclove.jpg)


1920s: Monsanto expands into industrial chemicals and drugs, becoming the world’s largest maker of aspirin, acetylsalicyclic acid, (toxic of course). This is also the time when things began to go horribly wrong for the planet in a hurry with the introduction of their polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
“PCBs were considered an industrial wonder chemical, an oil that wouldn’t burn, impervious to degradation and had almost limitless applications. Today PCBs are considered one of the gravest chemical threats on the planet. Widely used as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, cutting oils, waterproof coatings and liquid sealants, are potent carcinogens and have been implicated in reproductive, developmental and immune system disorders. The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state.”(1)
Even though PCBs were eventually banned after fifty years for causing such devastation, it is still present in just about all animal and human blood and tissue cells across the globe. Documents introduced in court later showed Monsanto was fully aware of the deadly effects, but criminally hid them from the public to keep the PCB gravy-train going full speed!

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

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

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

1950s: Closely aligned with The Walt Disney Company, Monsanto creates several attractions at Disney’s Tomorrowland (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto), espousing the glories of chemicals and plastics. Their “House of the Future” is constructed entirely of toxic plastic that is not biodegradable as they had asserted. What, Monsanto lied? I’m shocked!
“After attracting a total of 20 million visitors from 1957 to 1967, Disney finally tore the house down, but discovered it would not go down without a fight. According to Monsanto Magazine, wrecking balls literally bounced off the glass-fiber, reinforced polyester material. Torches, jackhammers, chain saws and shovels did not work. Finally, choker cables were used to squeeze off parts of the house bit by bit to be trucked away.”(2)
Monsanto’s Disneyfied vision of the future:
1960s: Monsanto, along with chemical partner-in-crime DOW Chemical, produces dioxin-laced Agent Orange for use in the U.S.’s Vietnam invasion. The results? Over 3 million people contaminated, a half-million Vietnamese civilians dead, a half-million Vietnamese babies born with birth defects and thousands of U.S. military veterans suffering or dying from its effects to this day!

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

A later internal memo released in a 2002 trial admitted
“that the evidence proving the persistence of these compounds and their universal presence as residues in the environment is beyond question … the public and legal pressures to eliminate them to prevent global contamination are inevitable. The subject is snowballing. Where do we go from here? The alternatives: go out of business; sell the hell out of them as long as we can and do nothing else; try to stay in business; have alternative products.”(3)
Monsanto partners with I.G. Farben (http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_02.htm), makers of Bayer aspirin and the Third Reich’s go-to chemical manufacturer producing deadly Zyklon-B gas during World War II. Together, the companies use their collective expertise to introduce aspartame, another extremely deadly neurotoxin, into the food supply. When questions surface regarding the toxicity of saccharin, Monsanto exploits this opportunity to introduce yet another of its deadly poisons onto an unsuspecting public.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To counter the accusations that they deliberately caused this ongoing genocide of bees, Monsanto devilishly buys out Beeologics (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_bees31.htm), the largest bee research firm that was dedicated to studying the colony collapse phenomenon and whose extensive research named the monster as the primary culprit! After that, it’s “bees, what bees? Everything’s just dandy!” Again, I did not make this up, but wish I had!

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

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

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

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

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

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

You’d think the company would be so proud of their GMO foods that they’d serve them to their employees, but they don’t. In fact, Monsanto has banned GM foods (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/eat-it-up-monsanto/blog/39002/) from being served in their own employee cafeterias. Monsanto lamely responded “we believe in choice.” What they really means is “we don’t want to kill the help.”

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

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

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

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

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

The monster often perseveres and proves difficult to slay as it begins filing frivolous suits against farmers (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Goliath_and_David:_Monsanto%27s_Legal_Battles_against_Farmers) it claims infringe on their terminator seed patents. In virtually all cases, unwanted seeds are windblown onto farmers’ lands (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto,_Genetic_Pollution_and_Monopolism) by neighboring terminator-seeded farms. Not only do these horrendous seeds destroy the organic farmers’ crops, the lawsuits drive them into bankruptcy, while the Supreme Court overturns lower court rulings and sides with Monsanto each time.

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

The global terrorism spreads to India as over 100,000 farmers who are bankrupted by GMO crop failure, commit suicide by drinking Roundup (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto_in_India) so their families will be eligible for death insurance payments. In response, the monster takes advantage of the situation by alerting the media to a new project to assist small Indian farmers by donating the very things that caused crop failures in the country in the first place! Forbes then names Monsanto “company of the year.” (http://www.infowars.com/blind-health-forbes-magazine-declares-monsanto-company-of-the-year/) Sickening, but true.

More troubling is that Whole Foods, the corporation that brands itself as organic, natural and eco-friendly is proven to be anything but. They refuse to support Proposition 37 (http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/15/the-whole-truth-about-whole-foods-and-gmos/), California’s GMO-labeling measure that Monsanto and its GMO-brethren eventually helped to defeat.

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

However, when over twenty biotech-friendly companies including WalMart, Pepsico and ConAgra recently met with FDA (http://www.infowars.com/is-a-secret-plan-by-big-food-behind-whole-foods-decision-to-label-gmo/) in favor of mandatory labelling laws, this after fighting tooth and nail to defeat Prop 37, Whole Foods sees an opportunity to save face and becomes the first grocery chain to announce mandatory labelling of their GMO products…in 2018! Uh, thanks for nothing, Whore.

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

To add insult to world injury, Monsanto and their partners in crime Archer Daniels Midland, Sodexo and Tyson Foods write and sponsor The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009: HR 875 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr875/text). This criminal “act” gives the corporate factory farms a virtual monopoly to police and control all foods grown anywhere, including one’s own backyard, and provides harsh penalties and jail sentences for those who do not use chemicals and fertilizers. President Obama decided this sounded reasonable and gave his approval.

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

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

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

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

Research into the name itself reveals it to be latin, meaning “my saint,” which may explain why critics often refer to it as “Mon-Satan.” Even more conspiratorially interesting is that free masons and other esoteric societies assigned numbers (http://my.opera.com/therealanodyne/blog/666-an-overview-no-ii) to each letter in our latin-based alphabet system in a six system. Under that number system, what might Monsanto add up to? Why, of course 6-6-6!

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

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

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

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

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

[william r sanford72]

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

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

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

a bit of recent news that is truly heartbreaking:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hervé]

Monsanto Guilty Of Poisoning Farmer: Amid Global Protests Over Toxic Chemicals, French Court Rules Against US Firm (http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-guilty-poisoning-farmer-amid-global-protests-over-toxic-chemicals-french-2092905)

By Cristina Silva (http://www.ibtimes.com/reporters/cristina-silva) @cristymsilva (http://www.twitter.com/cristymsilva) c.silva@ibtimes.com on September 11 2015 9:12 AM EDT


http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2015/09/11/rtx1e9zz.jpg

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


Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, was found guilty of chemical poisoning of a French farmer by a French court this week. The decision Thursday by an appeal court in Lyon in southeast France upheld a 2012 ruling in which the farmer claimed he suffered neurological problems after working with the U.S. company's Lasso weedkiller, Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/10/us-france-monsanto-court-idUSKCN0RA1UM20150910) reported.

The court found Monsanto was "responsible" for the poisoning and ordered the company to "fully compensate" grain grower Paul Francois, who said he suffered memory loss, headaches and stammering after inhaling Monsanto's Lasso in 2004. The farmer said (http://www.rt.com/news/314995-french-court-monsanto-ruling/) he was happy with the ruling. “David can win against Goliath," he said. "And a giant like Monsanto is not above the law.”

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

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

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

Francois said the agri-business giant should have provided adequate warnings on the product label. Lasso was a popular herbicide used for decades to control grasses and broadleaf weeds in farm fields. It was outlawed in France in 2007 and has been banned in Canada, Belgium and Britain. It is no longer sold (http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morning_call/2015/09/french-court-finds-monsanto-guilty-of-chemical.html) in the United States for commercial reasons, its spokesman in France said.

[Hervé]

Monsanto’s Chemicals Make Their Way Into 85% of Personal Hygiene Cotton Products (http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/01/12/monsantos-chemicals-makes-their-way-into-85-of-personal-hygiene-cotton-products/)

Alex Pietrowski (http://www.wakingtimes.com/contributors/alex-pietrowski/), Staff Writer Waking Times (http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/01/12/monsantos-chemicals-makes-their-way-into-85-of-personal-hygiene-cotton-products/)


http://www.wakingtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/tampons-monsanto.jpg (http://www.wakingtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/tampons-monsanto.jpg)


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

“The results of this research are very serious. When you use cotton or gauze to heal wounds or for personal hygiene, you do this thinking that the products are sterilized, but in fact you are using products contaminated with a carcinogenic substance,” said pediatrician Vazquez Medardo Avila, part of the Network of Medical Professions of Fumigated Towns in Argentina. [1] The concern is now escalating because people often use cotton products on open wound, on highly sensitive areas, and, in the case of tampons, in a mucous membrane close to the woman’s reproductive organs. Yet, it is very unlikely that any typical consumer has considered that glyphosate and AMPA chemicals are seeping into their body through hygienic products (which, by definition, are supposed to help maintain health and prevent disease).

The production of GMO cotton has become very common in several countries, including Argentina (http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/12/01/how-monsanto-destroyed-rural-argentina/) and the United States, where farmers were sold on using Monsanto’s GMO seeds and agro-chemical products, with the promise of higher yields. During the process of growing GMO cotton, where the plants were designed to withstand the application of glyphosate found in the common herbicide Roundup, farmers are spraying the chemicals onto the plants when the cotton bud is open. This means that Roundup goes straight into the part of the plant that is then used to produce your personal hygiene products.

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

“…farmers sprayed 2.6 billion pounds (http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/12/monsanto-glyphosate/) of Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide on U.S. agricultural land between 1992 and 2012, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (https://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/).” ~ EcoWatch [3] One way to expose your body to less glyphosate is to reduce the use of cotton products produced in countries such as Argentina and the United States, unless they specifically state that they are GMO-free or organic. There are many new healthier options for personal hygiene, such as organic cotton gauze (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=as_li_qf_sp_sr_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&index=aps&keywords=organic%20cotton%20gauze&linkCode=as2&tag=wakitime09-20&linkId=RWOPRGDQYKAKPHJU), organic cotton feminine products (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0155W643O/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0155W643O&linkCode=as2&tag=wakitime09-20&linkId=SLOY75HPUIJY3NL6), and non disposable silicone replacement for tampons (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=as_li_qf_sp_sr_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&index=aps&keywords=diva%20cup&linkCode=as2&tag=wakitime09-20&linkId=2SYE5WWVNZWRUX3A). You can also buy very inexpensive organic cotton balls (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00E8T2X36/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00E8T2X36&linkCode=as2&tag=wakitime09-20&linkId=STGNUT6RUZMEOQ3P).

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

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


http://www.sott.net/image/s14/295230/large/biotechcrops.png

Although Monsanto continues to argue the safety of their products, an increasing number of experts continue to reveal through scientific and field research that exposure to glyphosate has potential carcinogenic (http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/06/17/glyphosate-roundup-carcinogenic-in-the-parts-per-trillion-range/) effects. The World Health Organization has classified glyphosate as a possible carcinogen.


Sources:
[1] http://www.infobae.com/2015/10/20/1763672-hallaron-glifosato-algodon-gasas-hisopos-toallitas-y-tampones-la-plata
[2] http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx
[3] http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/26/cotton-glyphosate-cancer/

About the Author
Alex Pietrowski (http://www.wakingtimes.com/contributors/alex-pietrowski/) is an artist and writer concerned with preserving good health and the basic freedom to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com (http://www.wakingtimes.com/) and Offgrid Outpost (https://www.offgridoutpost.com/), a provider of storable food (https://www.offgridoutpost.com/healthy-storable-food.html) and emergency kits (https://www.offgridoutpost.com/emergency-essentials/survival-kits.html). Alex is an avid student of Yoga and life.

This article (Monsanto’s Chemicals Make Their Way Into 85% of Personal Hygiene Cotton Products (http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/01/12/monsantos-chemicals-makes-their-way-into-85-of-personal-hygiene-cotton-products/)) was originally created and published by Waking Times (http://www.wakingtimes.com/) and is published here under a Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license with attribution to Alex Pietrowski (http://www.wakingtimes.com/contributors/alex-pietrowski/) and WakingTimes.com (http://www.wakingtimes.com/). It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

[Hervé]

Zika? Monsanto’s Roundup associated with smaller heads (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/zika-monsantos-roundup-associated-with-smaller-heads/)

by Jon Rappoport (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/author/jonrappoport/) Jan31 (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/zika-monsantos-roundup-associated-with-smaller-heads/), 2016

This is my fourth article on the Zika scam (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/category/zika/). A virus is being blamed for destruction that actually comes from other forces.

In a previous piece (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/zika-freakout-the-hoax-and-the-covert-op-continue/), I listed the top six causes for what is happening in the center of the storm, Brazil, where babies are being born with smaller heads (microcephaly) and brain damage. One of those causes is pesticides/herbicides.

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

One of authors of this study is the late Argentine researcher, Andres Carrasco (http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/05/10/rip-prof-andres-carrasco-hero-independent-science-pesticides-passes-away/), who was subjected to scientific censorship and threats during his career.

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

“Glyphosate-Based Herbicides (GBH) Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signalling.” (http://www.gmwatch.org/images/pdf/Carrasco_research_paper.pdf)

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

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

The authors write,
“The direct effect of glyphosate [on the embryos]… opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to GBH [glyphosate-based herbicides] in agricultural fields.” And if there is any doubt that the authors are talking about the birth defects now being (falsely) attributed to the Zika virus, they follow up with this comment:

“There is growing evidence raising concerns about the effects of GBH [glyphosate-based herbicides] on people living in areas where herbicides are intensely used. Women exposed during pregnancy to herbicides delivered offspring with congenital malformations, including microcephaly [small heads], anencephaly [missing major parts of brain and skull in embryos], and cranial malformations.”As I keep pointing out—and this is based on 30 years of investigation into phony epidemics (http://www.amazon.com/AIDS-Inc-Scandal-Century-Paperback/dp/B010EWMCRW/)—“the virus” is the best false cover story in the world. When researchers and government officials announce that so-and-so virus is loose, causing maiming and death, people automatically stand up and salute.

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

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

In March 2015, the World Health Organization announced that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is a probable human carcinogen (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/roundup-cancer-link-30000-doctorshealth-professionals-agree/). A Swiss group, the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, sent out a demand “to immediately and permanently ban, with no exceptions, the production, trade and use in all the EU territory of glyphosate-based herbicides.” And nearly two years ago, Brazil’s Federal Public Prosecutor asked for a ban on all glyphosate use in the country (http://naturalsociety.com/brazils-federal-public-prosecutor-demands-ban-glyphosate-poisons/).

Now we have the birth-defect horror in Brazil.

That nation uses more pesticides than any country in the world (http://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/rio-politics/brazil-is-largest-global-consumer-of-pesticides-shows-report/). Soy is planted on more acres than any other crop—a testament to the strength of Monsanto’s operation. Soy means Roundup use (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SDILA.php).

Roundup means destruction.

Jon Rappoport

[Hervé]

15 Health Problems Linked to Monsanto’s Roundup

Alexis Baden-Mayer, Organic Consumers Association (https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/monsanto%E2%80%99s-roundup-enough-make-you-sick) | January 23, 2015 11:44 am

Monsanto (http://ecowatch.com/2013/04/03/monsanto-corporate-profile-sheds-light-ge-giant/) invented the herbicide glyphosate and brought it to market under the trade name Roundup in 1974, after DDT was banned. But it wasn’t until the late 1990s that the use of Roundup surged, thanks to Monsanto’s ingenious marketing strategy. The strategy? Genetically engineer seeds to grow food crops that could tolerate high doses of Roundup. With the introduction of these new GE seeds, farmers could now easily control weeds on their corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa crops—crops that thrived while the weeds around them were wiped out by Roundup.



http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/roundup600.jpg (http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/roundup600.jpg)
In the nearly 20 years of intensifying exposure, scientists have been documenting the health consequences of Roundup and glyphosate in our food, in the water we drink, in the air we breathe and where our children play.


Eager to sell more of its flagship herbicide, Monsanto also encouraged farmers to use Roundup as a dessicant, to dry out (http://roundup.ca/_uploads/documents/MON-Preharvest%20Staging%20Guide.pdf) all of their crops so they could harvest them faster. So Roundup is now routinely sprayed (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/04/30/306907097/mysterious-kidney-disease-slays-farmworkers-in-central-america) directly on a host of non-GMO crops, including wheat, barley, oats, canola, flax, peas, lentils, soybeans, dry beans and sugar cane.


Between 1996 – 2011, the widespread use of Roundup Ready GMO crops increased herbicide (http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/2190-4715-24-24.pdf) use in the U.S. by 527 million pounds—even though Monsanto claimed its GMO crops would reduce pesticide and herbicide use.

Monsanto has falsified data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Scientific_fraud) on Roundup’s safety, and marketed it to parks departments and consumers as “environmentally friendly” and “biodegradable, to encourage its use it on roadsides, playgrounds, golf courses, schoolyards, lawns and home gardens. A French court ruled (https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/monsanto-fined-france-false-herbicide-ads) those marketing claims amounted to false advertising.

In the nearly 20 years of intensifying exposure, scientists have been documenting the health consequences of Roundup and glyphosate (http://ecowatch.com/?s=glyphosate) in our food, in the water we drink (http://ecowatch.com/2014/02/27/monsantos-roundup-found-in-75-of-air-and-rain-samples/), in the air we breathe (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24549493) and where our children play.

They’ve found (http://omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.pdf) that people who are sick have higher levels of glyphosate in their bodies than healthy people.

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

ADHD: In farming communities, there’s a strong correlation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241196/) between Roundup exposure and attention deficit disorder (ADHD), likely due to glyphosate’s capacity (http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/04/27/dr-swanson-gmos-and-roundup-increase-chronic-diseases-infertility-and-birth-defects/) to disrupt thyroid hormone functions.

Alzheimer’s disease: In the lab, Roundup causes the same type of oxidative stress and neural cell death (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/roundup-weedkiller-brain-damaging-neurotoxin) observed in Alzheimer’s disease. And it affects CaMKII, an enzyme whose dysregulation has also been linked to the disease.

Anencephaly (birth defect): An investigation into neural tube defects among babies born to women living within 1,000 meters of pesticide applications showed (http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2004/07000/Neural_Tube_Defects_and_Maternal_Residential.499.aspx) an association for glyphosate with anencephaly, the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull and scalp that forms during embryonic development.

Autism: Glyphosate has a number of known biological effects that align with the known pathologies associated with autism. One of these parallels is the gut dysbiosis observed in autistic children and the toxicity of glyphosate (http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GlyModern-diseaseSamsel-Seneff-13-1.pdf) to beneficial bacteria that suppress pathogenic bacteria, along with pathogenic bacteria’s high resistance to glyphosate. In addition, glyphosate’s capacity to promote (http://www.autismone.org/content/autism-explained-synergistic-poisoning-aluminum-and-glyphosate-stephanie-seneff) aluminum accumulation in the brain may make it the principal cause of autism in the U.S.

Birth defects: Roundup and glyphosate can disrupt (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749) the Vitamin A (retinoic acid) signaling pathway, which is crucial for normal fetal development. The babies of women living within one kilometer of fields sprayed with glyphosate were more than twice as likely to have birth defects according to a study (http://scielo.iics.una.py/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1683-98032007000200002&lng=en&nrm=iso) from Paraguay. Congenital defects quadrupled (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2013/10/agrochemical_spraying_in_argen.html) in the decade after Roundup Ready crops arrived in Chaco, a province in Argentina where glyphosate is used roughly eight to ten times more per acre than in the U.S. A study (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=22645) of one farming family in the U.S. documented elevated levels of glyphosate and birth defects in the children, including an imperforate anus, growth hormone deficiency, hypospadias (an abnormally placed urinary hole), a heart defect and a micro penis.

Brain cancer: In a study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702394/) of children with brain cancer compared with healthy children, researchers found that if either parent had been exposed to Roundup during the two years before the child’s birth, the chances of the child developing brain cancer doubled.

Breast cancer: Glyphosate induces (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691513003633) human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors. The only long-term animal study (http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14) of glyphosate exposure produced rats with mammary tumors and shortened life-spans.

Cancer: House-to-house surveys of 65,000 people in farming communities in Argentina where Roundup is used, known there as the fumigated towns, found (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2013/10/agrochemical_spraying_in_argen.html) cancer rates two to four times higher than the national average, with increases in breast, prostate and lung cancers. In a comparison (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/26614-monsanto-s-roundup-linked-to-cancer) of two villages, in the one where Roundup was sprayed, 31 percent of residents had a family member with cancer, while only 3 percent of residents in a ranching village without spraying had one. The high cancer rates among people exposed to Roundup likely stem from glyphosate’s known capacity to induce DNA damage, which has been demonstrated in numerous lab tests.

Celiac disease and gluten intolerance: Fish exposed to glyphosate develop (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/) digestive problems that are reminiscent of celiac disease. There are parallels between the characteristics of celiac disease and the known effects of glyphosate. These include imbalances in gut bacteria, impairment in enzymes involved with detoxifying environmental toxins, mineral deficiencies and amino acid depletion.

Chronic kidney disease: Increases in the use of glyphosate may explain (http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/2/2125) the recent surge in kidney failure among agricultural workers in Central America, Sri Lanka and India. Scientists have concluded, “Although glyphosate alone does not cause an epidemic of chronic kidney disease, it seems to have acquired the ability to destroy the renal tissues of thousands of farmers when it forms complexes with [hard water] and nephrotoxic metals.”

Colitis: The toxicity (http://www.netwerkvlv.nl/downloads/2012-Krueger,%20M-glyphosate%20effects.pdf) of glyphosate to beneficial bacteria that suppress clostridia, along with clostridia’s high resistance to glyphosate, could be a significant predisposing factor in the overgrowth of clostridia. Overgrowth of clostridia, specifically C. difficile, is a well-established causal factor in colitis.

Depression: Glyphosate disrupts chemical processes that impact (http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GlyModern-diseaseSamsel-Seneff-13-1.pdf) the production of serotonin, an important neurotransmitter that regulates mood, appetite and sleep. Serotonin impairment has been linked to depression.

Diabetes: Low levels of testosterone are a risk factor for Type 2 diabetes. Rats fed environmentally relevant doses of Roundup over a period of 30 days spanning the onset of puberty had reduced (http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GlyModern-diseaseSamsel-Seneff-13-1.pdf) testosterone production sufficient to alter testicular cell morphology and to delay the onset of puberty.

Heart disease: Glyphosate can disrupt the body’s enzymes, causing (http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GlyModern-diseaseSamsel-Seneff-13-1.pdf) lysosomal dysfunction, a major factor in cardiovascular disease and heart failure.

Hypothyroidism: House-to-house surveys of 65,000 people in farming communities in Argentina where Roundup is used, known there as the fumigated towns, found (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2013/10/agrochemical_spraying_in_argen.html) higher rates of hypothyroidism.

Inflammatory Bowl Disease (“Leaky Gut Syndrome”): Glyphosate can induce (http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GlyModern-diseaseSamsel-Seneff-13-1.pdf) severe tryptophan deficiency, which can lead to an extreme inflammatory bowel disease that severely impairs the ability to absorb nutrients through the gut, due to inflammation, bleeding and diarrhea.

Liver disease: Very low doses of Roundup can disrupt human liver cell function, according to a 2009 study (https://www.organicconsumers.org/scientific/monsantos-roundup-more-deadly-liver-cells-glyphosate-alone) published in Toxicology.

Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS): Sulfate deficiency in the brain has been associated with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). Glyphosatedisrupts (http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GlyModern-diseaseSamsel-Seneff-13-1.pdf) sulfate transport from the gut to the liver, and may lead over time to severe sulfate deficiency throughout all the tissues, including the brain.

Multiple Sclerosis (MS): An increased incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBS) has been found in association with MS. Glyphosatemay be (http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GlyModern-diseaseSamsel-Seneff-13-1.pdf) a causal factor. The hypothesis (http://www.nationalmssociety.org/What-is-MS/Definition-of-MS/Myelin) is that glyphosate-induced IBS causes gut bacteria to leak into the vasculature, triggering an immune reaction and consequently an autoimmune disorder resulting in destruction of the myelin sheath.

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A systematic review (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170) and a series of meta-analyses of nearly three decades worth of epidemiologic research on the relationship between non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and occupational exposure to agricultural pesticides found that B cell lymphoma was positively associated with glyphosate.

Parkinson’s disease: The brain-damaging effects of herbicides have been recognized as the main environmental factor associated with neurodegenerative disorders, including Parkinson’s disease. The onset of Parkinson’s following exposure to glyphosate has been welldocumented (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/roundup-herbicide-linked-parkinsons-related-brain-damage) and lab studies show (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036212000438) that glyphosate induces the cell death characteristic of the disease.

Pregnancy problems (infertility, miscarriages, stillbirths): Glyphosate is toxic to human placental cells, which, scientists say (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/), explains the pregnancy problems of agricultural workers exposed to the herbicide.

Obesity: An experiment involving the transfer of a strain of endotoxin-producing bacteria from the gut of an obese human to the guts of mice caused the mice to become obese. Since glyphosate induces a shift in gut bacteria towards endotoxin-producers, glyphosate exposure maycontribute (http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GlyModern-diseaseSamsel-Seneff-13-1.pdf) to obesity in this way.

Reproductive problems: Studies (http://www.epa.gov/ace/pdfs/ACE3_2013.pdf) of laboratory animals have found that male rats exposed to high levels of glyphosate, either during prenatal or pubertal development, suffer from reproductive problems, including delayed puberty, decreased sperm production, and decreased testosterone production.

Respiratory illnesses: House-to-house surveys of 65,000 people in farming communities in Argentina where Roundup is used, known there as the fumigated towns, found (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2013/10/agrochemical_spraying_in_argen.html) higher rates of chronic respiratory illnesses.


Related:
Monsanto’s Roundup Found in 75% of Air and Rain Samples (http://ecowatch.com/2014/02/27/monsantos-roundup-found-in-75-of-air-and-rain-samples/)
Brazil Seeks Ban on Monsanto Herbicide Due to Alarming Toxicity Risks (http://ecowatch.com/2014/03/27/brazil-ban-monsanto-herbicide-toxic/)

[Hervé]

Study: Monsanto’s PCBs Causing ‘Severe Impact’ on Whales and Dolphins (http://naturalsociety.com/study-monsantos-pcbs-causing-severe-harming-whales-dolphins-6455/)

(http://naturalsociety.com/study-monsantos-pcbs-causing-severe-harming-whales-dolphins-6455/)Despite the chemicals being banned for decades

http://naturalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/userphoto/24.thumbnail.jpg by Christina Sarich (http://naturalsociety.com/author/christina/) Posted on April 14, 2016


http://naturalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/image-whale-dead-uk-735-350.jpg
John Bowler/RSPB Scotland


It has been highly reported that biotechnology company Monsanto made attempts to hide (http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/annistonindepth/toxicity.asp) the true impact that toxic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have on the environment, which has led numerous cities to file lawsuits against the company (http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-just-exempted-from-all-financial-liability-lawsuits-for-pcb-contamination/). Now, new research has surfaced on the true effects behind Monsanto’s PCBs and their impact on wildlife.

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

A recently-released study (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep18573) says that the PCB-contamination of the dolphin and whale’s habitats have caused entire populations to suffer. The exposure to PCBs is causing them to become reproductively-stagnate. In other words, the chemicals are causing reproductive impairment. Some scientists warn that some of these animals could experience serious damage if something isn’t done. A pod of killer whales off the coast of the UK has dwindled to just 8 individuals (https://www.takepart.com/article/2016/01/06/uk-orca-stranded) and has reportedly not given birth to a calf since 1992.
The study reports:

“Historic strandings data suggest that multiple BND resident or coastal groups in Europe became depleted or locally extinct in the late-1960s to mid-1970s, including those in the UK (e.g. Morecambe Bay; East coast of England) and the North Sea Dutch coast” And as reported by The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/14/uks-last-resident-killer-whales-doomed-to-extinction):

“The UK’s last pod of killer whales is doomed to extinction, with new research revealing western European waters as a global hotspot for the lingering legacy of toxic PCB pollution.” ‘Unprecedented Levels of PCBs’
In the study, published in the journal Scientific Reports, tissue samples from 1,081 marine animals, including killer whales, harbor porpoises and striped and bottlenose dolphins were taken. Researchers found unprecedented levels of PCBs in the tissues, even though PCBs have been banned in the UK since the 1980’s.

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

“…three out of four species:- striped dolphins (SDs), bottlenose dolphins (BNDs) and killer whales (KWs) had mean PCB levels that markedly exceeded all known marine mammal PCB toxicity thresholds” Though PCB levels have been dropping in US waters, the levels have remained constant in European waters, markedly so in industrialized nations. Paul Jepson of the Zoological Society of London, the study’s lead author, says they don’t know why. He remarked:

“. . . mitigation measures should really involve dealing with historic and current industrial uses in old equipment—transformers and things, in electrical equipment—PCBs leaking out of landfill into rivers, PCBs in marine sediments, which are often dredged to keep shipping lanes open, which makes them more bioavailable to get into the marine food chains.”
http://naturalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/image-pcb-whales-extinction.jpg


He further explained:

“One of the things that is particular about them [PCBs] is they dissolve in fat tissue. Animals will ingest them in their diets and then the PCBs will pass through the gut into the blood stream and then eventually settle out in the fat tissue, in the blubber.” As larger mammals eat prey that also have PCB contamination, they then become subjected to a process called bioaccumulation. Female dolphins even pass along the chemicals to their offspring when they nurse them. Since much of the contamination is stored in the animal’s fat, the new calf becomes especially vulnerable as it sips from its mother’s PCB-contaminated fat stores.

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

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

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

“Despite regulations and mitigation measures to reduce PCB pollution,” Jepson said, “the levels are so high they will have toxic effects.”
http://naturalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/image-whales-ocean-pcb-e1459799985470.jpg
Credit: Reuters

[Sierra]

Heartbreaking. Enough to make one weep.

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

:blackwidow:

333023330333304

[onawah]

15 THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT MONSANTO

http://naturallysavvy.com/live/15-things-you-should-know-about-monsanto

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

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

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

2. Monsanto and DDT

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

3. Monsanto and War Weapons

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

4. Monsanto, Vietnam, Dioxin and Agent Orange

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

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

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

5. Monsanto, Disneyland and Styrofoam

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

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

Read more: The Truth About Styrofoam http://naturallysavvy.com/live/important-facts-about-styrofoam

6. Monsanto, Aspartame and NutraSweet

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

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


7. Monsanto and PCBs

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

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

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

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

8. Monsanto and the Growth Hormone rBGH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Monsanto, Patented Life and GMOs

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

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

11. Monsanto and Your Right To Know

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

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

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

Read more: The DARK Act Reintroduced in Senate http://naturallysavvy.com/live/the-dark-act-reintroduced-in-senate

12. Monsanto and The Revolving Door

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

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

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

13. Monsanto and Farmers

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

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

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

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

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

Read more: Lawsuit by Widow of California Farmer Says Monsanto Knew About Roundup's Link to Cancer http://naturallysavvy.com/live/lawsuit-by-widow-of-california-farmer-says-monsanto-knew-about-roundup-s-link-to-cancer

14. Monsanto and Corruption

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

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

Read more: Monsanto Collaborates with University Professor http://naturallysavvy.com/eat/emails-reveal-collaborations-between-monsanto-and-paid-off-professors

15. Monsanto and You

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

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

Read more: Top 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs http://naturallysavvy.com/eat/whats-so-bad-about-gmos-top-ten-reasons-to-avoid-them

[Hervé]

Monsanto Loses Major PCBs Poisoning Lawsuit, Forced to Pay $46 Million to Victims (http://theantimedia.org/monsanto-loses-pcbs-lawsuit/)

May 26, 2016 | Claire Bernish


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

A jury voting 10-2 in St. Louis found Monsanto, Pfizer, Solutia, and Pharmacia must pay the plaintiffs and assessed an additional $29 million in punitive damages against Monsanto for its continued selling of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, after the compound had been banned, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/st-louis-jury-orders-monsanto-to-pay-million-in-latest/article_08e25795-0d36-5155-999c-c6bd954a6c2e.html). Plaintiffs in this case — three of nearly 100 involved in litigation, some of whom died — said they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma from exposure to PCBs.

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

Ashley Enochs, a second juror, noted,
“I think it goes to show that large companies can put stuff out there that’s harmful and they can do it for a long time but that justice is going to be served whether it’s a year after the products are put out, or in this case, 80 years.” Used in food packaging, paints, and to insulate electronics, among other things, PCBs were manufactured exclusively by Monsanto from 1935 through 1977 and were banned by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1979 after being linked to cancer and birth defects in lab animals — but they also can adversely affect humans’ skin and livers, EcoWatch notes (http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/26/monsanto-losses-pcb-lawsuit/).

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

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

Victories in litigation over PCBs have not been met with much success. A Los Angeles jury denied claims of non-Hodgkin lymphoma from exposure, and in July, a different jury in St. Louis County failed to find Monsanto liable for deaths and injuries plaintiffs claimed were caused by PCBs. Over the past three decades a voluminous number of lawsuits (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/25/3635657/shocker-monsanto-in-trouble-again/) against Monsanto over the compound, cited by ThinkProgress, haven’t been successful in holding the now-agrichemical giant responsible for its chemical past. Eight cities — Long Beach (https://lbpost.com/news/2000008851-long-beach-sues-pcbs-producing-company-for-contaminating-storm-water-and-port), Portland (http://theantimedia.org/portland-to-sue-monsanto-for-favoring-profits-over-ecological-and-human-health/), Seattle (http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/27/seattle-sues-monsanto-pcb-lawsuit/), Berkeley (http://theantimedia.org/lawsuit-claims-monsanto-contaminated-all-segments-of-the-san-francisco-bay/), Spokane (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/3/spokane-sues-monsanto-over-spokane-river-contamina/), San Diego (http://theantimedia.org/san-diego-launches-lawsuit-against-monsanto-for-polluting-bay/), San Jose (http://www.reuters.com/article/tx-baron-budd-idUSnBw096248a+100+BSW20150709), and Oakland (http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/11/monsanto-pcb-lawsuit/) — now have pending litigation against Monsanto over PCBs.

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

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

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


“A lot of people just don’t know that … Monsanto’s PCBs are in the orange juice you drank this morning and the pizza you’ll eat tonight. The air that you’re breathing has PCBs in it. Monsanto has discounted it, saying it’s only parts per billion or parts per trillion, but it adds up.” Monsanto issued a callous but typical statement about the jury’s findings, which said,
“We have deep sympathy for the plaintiffs but we are disappointed by the jury’s decision and plan to immediately appeal today’s ruling […]

“Previous juries in four straight similar trials rejected similar claims by attorneys that those plaintiffs contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma as a result of eating food containing PCBs. The evidence simply does not support today’s verdict, including the fact that scientists say more than 90 percent of non-Hodgkin lymphoma cases have no known cause.” Monsanto recently rejected (http://theantimedia.org/bayer-make-monsanto-disappear/) a bid for buyout from Bayer, though the company said (http://www.wsj.com/articles/monsanto-rejects-bayer-merger-offer-says-its-open-to-talks-1464110057) it was open to continued negotiations.

[Hervé]

Researchers Find Roundup Responsible for Harmful Algae Blooms In Great Lakes
(http://www.naturalblaze.com/2016/07/researchers-find-roundup-responsible-for-harmful-algae-blooms-in-great-lakes.html)
By Christina Sarich (http://undergroundreporter.org/author/christinas/) Posted on July 14, 2016 (http://www.naturalblaze.com/2016/07/researchers-find-roundup-responsible-for-harmful-algae-blooms-in-great-lakes.html)


http://www.naturalblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/algae.jpg (http://www.naturalblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/algae.jpg)


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

Scientists from Ohio Northern University (ONU) in the U.S. have discovered (http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/07/04/glyphosate-herbicides-cause-tragic-phosphorus-poisoning-of-lake-erie/#.V4U5vo4VhSG) that glyphosate is largely responsible for an increase in harmful algae blooms that contaminate lake water and kill off life dependent upon this habitat.

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

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

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

Roundup was first introduced (http://www.monsanto.com/products/documents/glyphosate-background-materials/back_history.pdf) commercially in 1974, but it was in the 90s that farmers started to spray it copiously (http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-glyphosate-most-used-herbicide-history-69035/) on genetically modified crops. Roundup is currently Monsanto’s biggest profit-maker (http://act.greenpeace.org/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1844&ea.campaign.id=37624), accounting for a whopping one-third of its total sales in recent years.

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

Ohio Northern researchers have confirmed that glyphosate is causing the harmful algae blooms in Lake Erie, but Drs. R. Michael McKay and George Bullerjahn of Bowling Green State University have been studying this likelihood since 2012. They suspected that the growing ‘dead zones (http://ohioseagrant.osu.edu/news/2009/fe052)’ in the Great Lakes were caused by this herbicide, killing millions of fish and polluting drinking water every year.

McKay explained:
Our research is finding that Roundup is getting into the watershed at peak farming application times, particularly in the spring.
Bullerjahn explained further:
It turns out that many cyanobacteria present in Lake Erie have the genes allowing the uptake of phosphonates, and these cyanobacteria can grow using glyphosate and other phosphonates as a sole source of phosphorus.
ONU research also attests that the delicate balance of Mother Nature is further disturbed by Roundup. Spiese states:
These crops that are able to grow in the presence of glyphosate have really kind of started to take over, to the point where we’re washed in Roundup.
Spiese figured out that for every acre of GM soy planted with the use of Roundup, you can count on one-third of a pound of phosphorous being dumped into the Maumee. He argues:
The P in glyphosate is what we call phosphonate, a phosphorus-carbon bond. A phosphorus-carbon bond is extraordinarily stable. It’s very difficult to break. We don’t expect this to contribute one bit to the DRP.
But it did. Add one more disaster (http://earthjustice.org/features/ourwork/timeline-monsanto-s-chemical-romance) to Monsanto’s growing list of environmental misdeeds.

[Hervé]

Monsanto’s Illegal Poison Kills Neighbors’ Crops *SHOCK UPDATE* The EPA Does Nothing (http://daisyluther.com/monsantos-illegal-poison-kills-neighbors-crops-shock-update-the-epa-does-nothing/)

Daisy Luther DaisyLuther.com (http://daisyluther.com/monsantos-illegal-poison-kills-neighbors-crops-shock-update-the-epa-does-nothing/) August 20, 2016


https://www.sott.net/image/s16/339261/large/pesticides_field_crops_chemica.jpg

Now that glyphosate has been denounced by the World Health Organization, there’s a new spray in town from our friendly neighborhood purveyor of poison, Monsanto. It hasn’t yet been approved, but given the history of blatant collusion between Monsanto and the government (http://amzn.to/2b7o3Hf), there’s little doubt that it will be.

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

The Environmental Working Group reports (http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2016/08/illegal-herbicide-used-monsanto-gmos-spurs-bitter-complaints):
Farmers in 10 states have now complained that dicamba is hurting their crops, according to a notice issued last week (http://ifca.com/media/fifra-dicambacomplianceadvisory.pdf) by the Environmental Protection Agency. The reported damage from dicamba has spread from two to 10 states in a matter of weeks, and now includes Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

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

Dicamba easily drifts in the air after it’s sprayed, and damages crops when it lands on neighboring fields. More than 100 Missouri farmers have reported damage (http://ifca.com/media/fifra-dicambacomplianceadvisory.pdf) to their peaches (http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/illegal-herbicide-use-may-threaten-survival-of-missouri-s-largest/article_c4a4a96b-aba3-5e48-83b5-a546f5a9b8b1.html), tomatoes, cantaloupes, watermelons, rice, cotton, peas, peanuts, alfalfa and soybeans.

In neighboring Arkansas, frustration over dicamba drift has led the state’s Pesticide Committee (http://deltafarmpress.com/soybeans/dicamba-drift-arkansas-proposes-cut-dates-increased-fines) to propose prohibiting the spraying of certain dicamba formulations during the growing season, from mid-April to mid-September. It has also proposed expanding mandatory buffer zones andincreasing fines for violations (http://deltafarmpress.com/soybeans/dicamba-drift-arkansas-proposes-cut-dates-increased-fines).

In other states, experts are urging farmers to hire lawyer (http://kticradio.com/agricultural/know-your-legal-options-for-herbicide-damage/)s if they think drift has affected their crops.

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

Meanwhile, the EPA issued an advisory notice (http://ifca.com/media/fifra-dicambacomplianceadvisory.pdf) last week to remind farmers that dicamba has not been approved for use on new GMO cotton and soybeans. The agency asserted that farmers must carefully follow the instructions on pesticide labels. But a recent survey by University of Missouri scientists found that 57 percent of farmers don’t read pesticides labels before spraying their fields (http://www.kttn.com/57-percent-of-those-applying-pesticides-in-missouri-do-not-read-label-instructions/).
Dicamba, like its predecessor glyphosate, is likely to be carcinogenic. There are serious effects on wildlife, groundwater, and neighboring fields because of dicamba’s strong propensity to drift. (This PDF will give you the down-and-dirty info about dicamba (http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/dicamba-NCAP.pdf).)

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

As always, Monsanto is blithely unconcerned, certain that their friends at the EPA will approve their newest toxin soon. The company appears baffled that farmers are using dicamba incorrectly (and illegally) on their seeds. Meanwhile, as always, the EPA doesn’t give a rats patootie. Who can forget in 2013, despite irrefutable evidence of toxicity and death, when the EPA raised the allowable limit of glyphosate (http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/despite-irrefutable-evidence-of-toxicity-and-death-monsantos-friends-at-the-epa-raise-allowable-glysophate-levels-06192013). Perhaps it has something to do with the revolving door between the halls of Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency. (Or as I like to call it, the Environmental Deception Agency.)

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

Environmental protection is only the rule of thumb if it goes along with the green agenda (http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/ordinance/mol3.htm) in cases that benefit the redistribution of wealth, while the agency completely ignores blatant crimes against the earth if it involves, for example, fracking for the benefit of a natural gas company. (This is an absolute must-read about the billionaires who own the EPA (http://amzn.to/2bsvnT0).)

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

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

[onawah]

MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide will Cause Half of All Children to Have Autism by 2025
http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/mit-researcher-glyphosate-herbicide-will-cause-half-of-all-children-to-have-autism-by-2025/


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

By Alliance For Natural Health
anh-usa.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.anh-usa.org/half-of-all-children-will-be-autistic-by-2025-warns-senior-research-scientist-at-mit/

[Hervé]

Even Legal Levels Of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Damage The Environment (http://www.trueactivist.com/even-legal-levels-of-monsantos-glyphosate-damage-the-environment/)

By Whitney Webb (http://www.trueactivist.com/author/whitneywebb/)
Posted on September 24, 2016

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


http://ta1.universaltelegra.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/crystalriver-400x245.jpg
Credit – crystalriverfl.org



A new study (http://www.phycologia.org/doi/full/10.2216/16-12.1) published by a group of Brazilian researchers in the journal Phycologia shows that Monsanto’s most popular herbicide, RoundUp, negatively affects life in freshwater ecosystems. More specifically, legal levels of RoundUp, as well as those of its main ingredient glyphosphate, can alter and kill macroalgae (i.e. freshwater seaweed) by inhibiting photosynthesis.



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



Even though this study focuses on the chemical’s legal limits, glyphosate, the main ingredient in RoundUp herbicide, is frequently found in the natural environment well above the legally allowed levels, meaning that the damage to the environment is much greater than this study implies. In another study published in (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22101424) Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 41% of 140 groundwater samples in Spain were found to have levels of glyphosate above the legal limit. The study also showed that glyphosate does not break down rapidly in the environment, meaning it persists in ecosystems for long periods of time, causing an accumulation effect. Another study published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry found glyphosate in 60-100% of all air and rain samples (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/glyphosphate-pollution-so-omnipresent-us-frequency-detection-ranged-60-100-both-air-and-rain) tested due to its overuse.



It’s not just the environment that’s in danger due to glyphosate’s abundant use. Studies have found that a majority of people have high concentrations of glyphosate present in their bodies. One study conducted in Germany found that all the people it tested had 5 to 20 times the legal limit (http://www.ithaka-journal.net/herbizide-im-urin) of glyphosate present in their urine. This has enormous implications as glyphosate has been linked to cancer (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170). Even the World Health Organization has raised red flags (http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181) about the carcinogenic properties of glyphosate. However, Monsanto and its supporters maintain that glyphosate is proven to be safe, despite evidence to the contrary. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace and GMO enthusiast, claimed that the herbicide was so safe that “you can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you.” However, when he was offered a glass of it himself, he refused to even touch it (http://naturalsociety.com/video-gmo-lobbyist-wont-touch-monsantos-perfectly-safe-chemicals/) because he was “not an idiot.”


ovKw6YjqSfM
Despite its connections to such negative health effects, glyphosate continues to be one of the most commonly used herbicides in the world. In fact, a study in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe called glyphosate the “most widely applied pesticide worldwide (http://www.ecowatch.com/monsantos-glyphosate-most-heavily-used-weed-killer-in-history-1882164311.html).” Since 1974, the US has used more than 3.5 billion pounds (1.6 billion kilograms) of the herbicide, which accounts for 19% of the 18.9 billion pounds (8.6 billion kilograms) that have been used globally. In Brazil, where the study was conducted, herbicides with glyphosate are the most widely used, with nearly 188,000 tons purchased (http://www.ibama.gov.br/areas-tematicas-qa/relatorios-de-comercializacao-de-agrotoxicos/pagina-3) in 2013 and consumption increasing annually.



However, due to the exposure of the dangers of its use, purchases of RoundUp have fallen by 34% in the past year. Concerns over Monsanto’s reputation, which is now infamous around the world, may have been a factor in Bayer’s recent merger with Monsanto (http://www.trueactivist.com/pharmaceutical-and-agrochemical-giant-bayer-buys-monsanto-for-66-billion/). Bayer recently expressed its plans to rebrand Monsanto (https://www.rt.com/business/360020-bayer-monsanto-brand-name/) products in order to “get beyond the image and reputation thing” by using the “trust” that Bayer enjoys in Europe and other countries. Regardless of whether the Monsanto brand name disappears, the natural environment and people’s health will continue to be put in harm’s way due to widespread glyphosate use. The only way to move forward is to eliminate the need for the use of glyphosate as well as other agrochemicals by increasing the demand for and the availability of organic, chemical-free agriculture.



This article (Even Legal Levels Of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Damage The Environment (http://www.trueactivist.com/even-legal-levels-of-monsantos-glyphosate-damage-the-environment/)) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com (http://www.trueactivist.com/)

Related:
Monsanto's most dangerous product? The case against Glyphosate (https://www.sott.net/article/316803-Monsantos-most-dangerous-product-The-case-against-Glyphosate)

[Cara]

Monsanto: The Pentagon’s Soldier in Colombia (http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/11/05/monsanto-the-pentagons-soldier-in-colombia/)
Posted on Nov 5 2016 - 12:05pm by Sustainable Pulse

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

http://sustainablepulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/glyphosate-plane-644x353.jpg
By Elena Sharoykina

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

//

From: http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/11/05/monsanto-the-pentagons-soldier-in-colombia/

[Cara]

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

Hillary Clinton Suffers Monsanto Bombshell on Eve of US Election (http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/11/05/hillary-clinton-suffers-monsanto-bombshell-on-eve-of-us-election/)
Posted on Nov 5 2016 - 2:59pm by Sustainable Pulse

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

http://sustainablepulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/149AE7_pimgpsh_fullsize_distr-644x363.jpg

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

This new Monsanto bombshell for the Clinton campaign was released by Brasil sem Monsanto (https://www.facebook.com/BrasilSemMonsanto/) and Sustainable Pulse following a search of publicly available lobbying records.

Podesta Group

The lobbying disclosure records (http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldxmlrelease/2015/3T/300765438.xml) from the U.S. House of Representatives records show that Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP “on behalf of Monsanto” made payments of $90,000 (http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldxmlrelease/2015/3T/300765438.xml) and $60,000 (http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldxmlrelease/2015/Q2/300746718.xml) to the Podesta Group in 2015.

The Podesta Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_Group) is a lobbying and public affairs firm based in Washington, D.C.. It was founded in 1988 by John Podesta and his brother Tony Podesta. Tony Podesta is the current Chairman of the company and it was recently revealed in the Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tony-podesta-had-special-access-to-the-obama-white-house-through-his-brother-john/article/2604290) that he has been given special access to the White House by his brother John, who is no longer part of the family firm.

John Podesta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Podesta) himself was White House Chief of Staff under President Bill Clinton, an official Counselor to President Barack Obama and is now campaign Chairman to Hillary Clinton.

The Podesta Group has also received $90,000 so far in 2016 (https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000022193&year=2016) from the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), which is the world’s largest biotech trade association.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld

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

Clinton campaign Treasurer Jose H. Villarreal is a consultant (https://www.akingump.com/en/lawyers-advisors/jose-h-villarreal.html) with the lobbying firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, which has received $150,000 from Monsanto and $60,000 from BIO so far in 2016 (https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000000162&year=2016). Prior to becoming a consultant for Akin Gump, Villarreal was a longtime partner of the company.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP also receive a regular annual payment (file:///C:/Users/Admin/Desktop/Akin%20Gump%20Strauss%20Hauer%20&%20Feld%20LLP) of around $200,000 from Monsanto. This lobbying firm also provides lobbying services for Monsanto in India (http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/monsanto-lobbies-with-us-lawmakers-over-regulation-of-gm-products-in-india/286696.html).

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, headquartered in Washington, D.C., is an American international law firm and the most profitable lobbying firm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akin_Gump_Strauss_Hauer_%26_Feld) in the United States.

This latest Monsanto bombshell for the Clinton campaign follows the news from February (http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/02/06/hillary-clintons-support-for-gmos-confirmed-by-gates-foundation/#.WB3V3Wp97IU) this year that the global GMO promoters Cornell Alliance for Science, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are giving Hillary Clinton as an example of one of the ‘powerful people‘ who supports GMOs and the Biotech industry worldwide.

//

From: http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/11/05/hillary-clinton-suffers-monsanto-bombshell-on-eve-of-us-election/

[Cara]

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

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

About Glyphosate: powerful chemical weapon of transnational power (http://farc-epeace.org/index.php/blogs/item/337-about-glyphosate-powerful-chemical-weapon-of-transnational-power.html)

"A crime against humanity"

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

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

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

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

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

http://farc-epeace.org/images/Whatyoushouldknow/agente-naranja_mini.jpg

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

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

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

http://farc-epeace.org/images/Whatyoushouldknow/fumigaciones-glifosato_mini.jpg

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

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

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

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

[1] http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/05/02/actualidad/1367498254_513546.html and http://www.zonamilitar.com.ar/foros/threads/el-%E2%80%98agente-naranja%E2%80%99-a%C3%BAn-golpea.29846/

[2] http://spanish.china.org.cn/photos/txt/2013-11/29/content_30746351.htm

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

[4] http://laniel.free.fr/INDEXES/GraphicsIndex/DanoGenetico.pdf


//

From: http://farc-epeace.org/index.php/blogs/item/337-about-glyphosate-powerful-chemical-weapon-of-transnational-power.html

[Hervé]

Roundup causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at very low doses (http://www.gmwatch.org/news/archive/17402)

Claire Robinson GMWatch (http://www.gmwatch.org/news/archive/17402)
Mon, 09 Jan 2017 14:31 UTC

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


https://www.sott.net/image/s18/369440/large/Fatty_Liver_disease_and_glypho.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s18/369440/full/Fatty_Liver_disease_and_glypho.jpg)


The weedkiller Roundup [AKA Glyphosate] causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at very low doses permitted by regulators worldwide, a new peer-reviewed study (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep39328) shows. The study is the first ever to show a causative link between consumption of Roundup at a real-world environmentally relevant dose and a serious disease.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NAFLD currently affects 25% of the US population (http://www.liverfoundation.org/abouttheliver/info/nafld/) and similar numbers of Europeans (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4101528/). Risk factors include being overweight or obese, having diabetes, or having high cholesterol or high triglycerides (a constituent of body fat) in the blood. However, some people develop NAFLD even if they do not have any of these known risk factors. The new study raises the question of whether exposure to Roundup is a hitherto unrecognized risk factor.

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

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

Most people with NASH are between the ages of 40 and 60 years (http://www.liverfoundation.org/abouttheliver/info/nafld/). It is more common in women than in men. NASH is one of the leading causes of cirrhosis in adults in the United States. Up to 25% of adults with NASH may have cirrhosis.

Background to the study
The rat body tissues used in this analysis were obtained from a previous study (http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14/abstract) led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, France. In this original investigation, rats were given an extremely low, environmentally relevant dose of a commercial Roundup formulation at 0.1ppb (parts per billion)/50ppt (parts per trillion) glyphosate via drinking water for 2 years. Daily intake of glyphosate from the Roundup was 4 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day, which is thousands of times below what is permitted by regulators.

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

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

In the first followup investigation, (http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/s12940-015-0056-1.pdf) a transcriptomics (gene function profile) analysis was performed on the livers and kidneys from the female animals. The results strongly supported the observations made at an anatomical (organ) and blood/urine biochemical level in the Séralini study - namely that the organs of the animals given Roundup suffered more structural and functional damage than the controls.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Related:
GMO corn causes liver, kidney problems in rats: study (https://www.sott.net/article/128526-GMO-corn-causes-liver-kidney-problems-in-rats-study)

[Hervé]

Uncovered: Monsanto campaign to get Séralini study retracted (http://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/17764)

Claire Robinson GM Watch (http://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/17764)
Wed, 02 Aug 2017 13:21 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s20/411495/large/Study_of_toxic_effects_on_rats.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s20/411495/full/Study_of_toxic_effects_on_rats.jpg)


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

Internal Monsanto documents released by attorneys leading US cancer litigation show that the company launched a concerted campaign to force the retraction of a study (http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14/abstract) that revealed toxic effects of Roundup. The documents also show that the editor of the journal that first published the study entered into a contract with Monsanto in the period shortly before the retraction campaign began.

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

The newly released documents show that throughout the retraction campaign, Monsanto tried to cover its tracks to hide its involvement. Instead Monsanto scientist David Saltmiras admitted (http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/8-Monsanto-Scientist-Admits-to-Leveraging-Relationship-with-Food-and-Chemical-Toxicology-Journal.pdf) to orchestrating a "third party expert" campaign in which scientists who were apparently independent of Monsanto would bombard the editor-in-chief of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), A. Wallace Hayes, with letters demanding that he retract the study.

Use of "third party experts" is a classic public relations tactic perfected by the tobacco industry. It consists of putting industry-friendly messages into the mouths of supposedly "independent" experts, since no one would believe industry attempts to defend its own products. Back in 2012, GMWatch founder Jonathan Matthews exposed (http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/science/item/164-smelling-a-corporate-rat) the industry links of the supposedly independent scientists who lobbied the journal editor to retract the Séralini paper. Now we have first-hand proof of Monsanto's direct involvement.

In one document, Saltmiras reviews his own achievements within the company, boasting (http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/8-Monsanto-Scientist-Admits-to-Leveraging-Relationship-with-Food-and-Chemical-Toxicology-Journal.pdf) that he "Successfully facilitated numerous third party expert letters to the editor which were subsequently published, reflecting the numerous significant deficiencies, poor study design, biased reporting and selective statistics employed by Séralini. In addition, coauthored the Monsanto letter to the editor with [Monsanto employees] Dan Goldstein and Bruce Hammond."

Saltmiras further writes (http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/8-Monsanto-Scientist-Admits-to-Leveraging-Relationship-with-Food-and-Chemical-Toxicology-Journal.pdf) of how
"Throughout the late 2012 Séralini rat cancer publication and media campaign, I leveraged my relationship [with] the Editor i[n] Chief of the publishing journal... and was the single point of contact between Monsanto and the Journal." Another Monsanto employee, Eric Sachs, writes (http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/7-Monsanto-Personnel-Discusses-Plan-Seeking-Retraction-of-Serlani-Glyphosate-Study.pdf) in an email about his efforts to galvanize scientists in the letter-writing campaign. Sachs refers to Bruce Chassy, a scientist who runs the pro-GMO Academics Review website. Sachs writes:
"I talked to Bruce Chassy and he will send his letter to Wally Hayes directly and notify other scientists that have sent letters to do the same. He understands the urgency... I remain adamant that Monsanto must not be put in the position of providing the critical analysis that leads the editors to retract the paper." In response to Monsanto's request, Chassy urged (http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/9-Email-from-Monsanto-Collaborator-to-Food-and-Chemical-Toxicology-Journal.pdf) Hayes to retract the Séralini paper:
"My intent was to urge you to roll back the clock, retract the paper, and restart the review process." Chassy was also the first signatory (http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/science/item/164-smelling-a-corporate-rat) of a petition demanding the retraction of the Séralini study and the co-author of a Forbes article accusing (https://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/25/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/#783999b75e59) Séralini of fraud. In neither document does Chassy declare any link with Monsanto. But in 2016 he was exposed (https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/u-of-i-professor-did-not-disclose-gmo-funding/eb99bdd2-683d-4108-9528-de1375c3e9fb) as having taken over $57,000 over less than two years from Monsanto to travel, write and speak about GMOs.

Sachs is keen to ensure that Monsanto is not publicly seen as attempting to get the paper retracted, even though that is precisely what it is doing. Sachs writes (http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/7-Monsanto-Personnel-Discusses-Plan-Seeking-Retraction-of-Serlani-Glyphosate-Study.pdf) to Monsanto scientist William Heydens:
"There is a difference between defending science and participating in a formal process to retract a publication that challenges the safety of our products. We should not provide ammunition for Séralini, GM critics and the media to charge that Monsanto used its might to get this paper retracted. The information that we provided clearly establishes the deficiencies in the study as reported and makes a strong case that the paper should not have passed peer review." Another example of Monsanto trying to cover up its involvement in the retraction campaign emerges from email correspondence between Monsanto employees Daniel Goldstein and Eric Sachs. Goldstein states (http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/14-Monsanto-Emails-Confirming-Undisclosed-Involvement-in-Successful-Retraction-of-Serlani-Study.pdf):
"I was uncomfortable even letting shareholders know we are aware of this LTE [GMW: probably "Letter to the Editor"].... It implies we had something to do with it - otherwise how do we have knowledge of it? I could add 'Aware of multiple letters to editor including one signed by 25 scientists from 14 countries' if you both think this is OK." Sachs responds: "We are 'connected' but did not write the letter or encourage anyone to sign it." A. Wallace Hayes was paid by Monsanto

The most shocking revelation of the disclosed documents is that the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology, A. Wallace Hayes, entered into a consulting agreement (http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/10-Monsanto-Consulting-Agreement-with-Food-and-Chemical-Toxicology-Editor.pdf) with Monsanto in the period just before Hayes's involvement in the retraction of the Séralini study. Clearly Hayes had a conflict of interest between his role as a consultant for Monsanto and his role as editor for a journal that retracted a study determining that glyphosate has toxic effects. The study was published on 19 September 2012; the consulting agreement between Hayes and Monsanto was dated 21 August 2012 and Hayes is contracted to provide his services beginning 7 September 2012.

The documents also reveal (http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/10-Monsanto-Consulting-Agreement-with-Food-and-Chemical-Toxicology-Editor.pdf) that Monsanto paid Hayes $400 per hour for his services and that in return Hayes was expected to "Assist in establishment of an expert network of toxicologists, epidemiologists, and other scientists in South America and participate on the initial meeting held within the region. Preparation and delivery of a seminar addressing relevant regional issues pertaining to glyphosate toxicology is a key deliverable for the inaugural meeting in 2013."

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

Hayes told (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share) the New York Times's Danny Hakim in an interview that he had not been under contract with Monsanto at the time of the retraction and was paid only after he left the journal. He added that "Monsanto played no role whatsoever in the decision that was made to retract." But since it took the journal over a year to retract the study after the months-long second review, which Hayes oversaw, it's clear that he had an undisclosed conflict of interest from the time he entered into the contract with Monsanto and during the review process. He appears to be misleading the New York Times.

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

A Monsanto internal email confirms (http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/12-Monsanto-Email-Confirming-Companys-Intimate-Relationship-with-Wallace-Hayes.pdf) the company's intimate relationship with Hayes. Saltmiras writes about the recently published Séralini study:
"Wally Hayes, now FCT Editor in Chief for Vision and Strategy, sent me a courtesy email early this morning. Hopefully the two of us will have a follow up discussion soon to touch on whether FCT Vision and Strategy were front and center for this one passing through the peer review process." In other email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel, Daniel Goldstein writes (http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/13-Monsanto-Email-Confirming-Attempt-to%20Seek-Retraction-of-Serlani-Study.pdf) the following with respect to the Séralini study: "Retraction - Both Dan Jenkins (US Government affairs) and Harvey Glick made a strong case for withdrawal of the paper if at all possible, both on the same basis - that publication will elevate the status of the paper, bring other papers in the journal into question, and allow Séralini much more freedom to operate. All of us are aware that the ultimate decision is up to the editor and the journal management, and that we may not have an opportunity for withdrawal in any event, but I felt it was worth reinforcing this request."

Monsanto got its way, though the paper was subsequently republished (http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14/abstract) by another journal with higher principles - and, presumably, with an editorial board that wasn't under contract with Monsanto.

Why Monsanto had to kill the Séralini study

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

A related danger for Monsanto, pointed out (http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/13-Monsanto-Email-Confirming-Attempt-to%20Seek-Retraction-of-Serlani-Study.pdf) by Goldstein, is that "a third party may procure funding to verify Séralini's claims, either through a government agency or the anti-GMO/antl-pesticide financiers".

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

Summing up the points from the teleconferences, Daniel Goldstein writes (http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/13-Monsanto-Email-Confirming-Attempt-to%20Seek-Retraction-of-Serlani-Study.pdf) that "unfortunately", three "potential issues regarding long term studies have now come up and will need some consideration and probably a white paper of some type (either internal or external)". These are potential demands for

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

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

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

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

EU regulators side with Monsanto

To the public's detriment, some regulatory bodies have backed Monsanto rather than the public interest and have backed off the notion that long-term studies should be required for GM crops. In fact, the EU is considering doing away (http://bit.ly/2vfx4eY) with even the short 90-day animal feeding studies currently required under European GMO legislation. This will be based in part on the results of the EU-funded GRACE animal feeding project, which has come under fire (https://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/1185) for the industry links of some of the scientists involved and for its alleged manipulation of findings (https://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/1110) of adverse effects on rats fed Monsanto's GM MON810 maize.

Apology required

A. Wallace Hayes is no longer the editor-in-chief of FCT but is named (https://www.elsevier.com/journals/food-and-chemical-toxicology/0278-6915/editorial-board/a-wallace-hayes) as an "emeritus editor". Likewise, Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto employee who was parachuted (https://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science/) onto the journal's editorial board shortly after the publication of the Séralini study, is no longer at the journal.

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

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


Related:
Biosafety and the 'Seralini affair': Systemic corruption of science and regulation (https://www.sott.net/article/281141-Biosafety-and-the-Seralini-affair-Systemic-corruption-of-science-and-regulation)


SOTT Comment (https://www.sott.net/article/358403-Uncovered-Monsanto-campaign-to-get-Seralini-study-retracted): Leaked Monsanto docs reveal it tried to kill research on Roundup and influence EPA to conceal information about cancer risks (https://www.sott.net/article/358277-Leaked-Monsanto-docs-reveal-it-tried-to-kill-research-on-Roundup-and-influence-EPA-to-conceal-information-about-cancer-risks)
"This is a look behind the curtain," attorney Brent Wisner said. "This show[s] that Monsanto has deliberately been stopping studies that look bad for them, ghostwriting literature and engaging in a whole host of corporate malfeasance.

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

[Hervé]

Séralini's Revenge: World's most evil company Monsanto rocked by new court documents (https://www.corbettreport.com/seralinis-revenge-monsanto-rocked-by-new-court-documents/)

James Corbett The Corbett Report (https://www.corbettreport.com/seralinis-revenge-monsanto-rocked-by-new-court-documents/)
Sat, 05 Aug 2017 15:11 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s20/411537/large/monsanto_7_evil_facts_youll_wi.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s20/411537/full/monsanto_7_evil_facts_youll_wi.jpg)
The case against Monsanto is the gift that keeps on giving.


Previously in these pages I discussed how the trial of Monsanto currently taking place in the California Northern District Court-technically known as "Multidistrict Litigation (http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/?page_id=2939)," with the formal title of "In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2741) (http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/VC/roundupmdl)"-is airing some of the agrichemical behemoth's dirtiest laundry. In my article "Monsatan On Trial For Roundup Cancer (https://www.corbettreport.com/monsatan-on-trial-for-roundup-cancer/)," I revealed how dozens of lawsuits filed against Monsanto for its role in causing the non-Hodgkin lymphoma of thousands of people across the US had been rolled into one dramatic court case, and how discovery from that case had yielded the remarkable deathbed testimony (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-pJR4cGo9ckUDBnU2gydHlVYzg/view) of EPA whistleblower Jess Rowland.

Then new documents emerged from the case confirming what many had long suspected: Monsanto has an entire internal corporate program (appropriately entitled "Let Nothing Go") employing an army of internet trolls (https://www.corbettreport.com/monsanto-employing-troll-army-to-silence-online-dissent/) who spam the company's propaganda on every social media post, forum and online comment board where its products and practices are being discussed.

Just this week, one of the law firms working on the trial released an equally explosive collection of "Monsanto's Secret Documents (https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-secret-documents/)," proving another long-suspected claim against the world's most evil company (http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-named-2013s-most-evil-corporation-new-poll-1300217): That it has in fact ghost written many of the key articles (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html) defending its products in the mainstream press-articles that were supposedly written by "independent" journalists. When the embarrassing details of the story came to light, including a suggested "draft" of an article written by Monsanto for Forbes "journalist" Henry Miller in 2015 that was exactly identical (https://twitter.com/garyruskin/status/892385165376278528) to the article that appeared under his name, Forbes pulled the piece (https://twitter.com/garyruskin/status/892385165376278528) from its website and ended Miller's employment. In a different leaked email exchange (http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/6-Monsanto-Consultant-Protests-Ghostwriting.pdf), former Monsanto consultant John Acquavella complained to a Monsanto executive, "I can't be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication," adding, "We call that ghost writing and it is unethical."

But if all that weren't bad enough, the latest documents to emerge from the case also detail exactly how Monsanto attempted to smear the research of Gilles-Éric Séralini, the French scientist who published a groundbreaking study showing an increase in tumors among rats fed genetically modified corn and Monsanto's RoundUp herbicide.

See details of Monsanto's campaigns against Séranlini's study/paper here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?72480-Monsanto-And-Its-Lethally-Toxic-Trails&p=1171321&viewfull=1#post1171321) (<---)

[3(C)+me]

Karma, looking at you monstanto.

[Hervé]

More Dicamba devastation: 'Miracle' weed killer that was supposed to save farms is killing them instead (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/miracle-weed-killer-poisoning-crops-farms-agriculture-herbicide-arkansas-a7919861.html)

Caitlin Dewey
The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/miracle-weed-killer-poisoning-crops-farms-agriculture-herbicide-arkansas-a7919861.html)
Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:47 UTC



https://www.sott.net/image/s20/417007/large/dicamba.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s20/417007/full/dicamba.jpg)

Man-made disaster raises serious questions about the state of US agriculture © The Washington Post


Controversial herbicide dicamba found to poison crops as well as pigweed chemical was intended to root out

Clay Mayes slams on the brakes of his Chevy Silverado and jumps out with the engine running, yelling at a dogwood by the side of the dirt road as if it said something insulting.

Its leaves curl downward and in on themselves like tiny, broken umbrellas. It's the telltale mark of inadvertent exposure to a controversial herbicide (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/herbicide) called dicamba.

"This is crazy. Crazy!" shouts Mayes, a farm manager, gesticulating toward the shrivelled canopy off Highway 61. "I just think if this keeps going on..."

"Everything'll be dead," says Brian Smith, his passenger.

The damage here in northeast Arkansas (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/arkansas) and across the Midwest (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/midwest) - sickly soybeans, trees and other crops - has become emblematic of a deepening crisis in American agriculture (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/Agriculture).

Farmers are locked in an arms race between ever-stronger weeds and ever-stronger weed killers.

The dicamba system, approved for use for the first time this spring, was supposed to break the cycle and guarantee weed control in soybeans and cotton. The herbicide - used in combination with a genetically modified dicamba-resistant soybean - promises better control of unwanted plants such as pigweed, which has become resistant to common weed killers.

The problem, farmers and weed scientists say, is that dicamba has drifted from the fields where it was sprayed, damaging millions of acres of unprotected soybeans and other crops in what some are calling a man-made disaster. Critics contend that the herbicide was approved by federal officials without enough data, particularly on the critical question of whether it could drift off target.

Government officials and manufacturers Monsanto and BASF deny the charge, saying the system had worked as Congress designed it.

The backlash against dicamba has spurred lawsuits, state and federal investigations, and one argument that ended in a farmer's shooting death and related murder charges.

"This should be a wake-up call," said David Mortensen, a weed scientist at Pennsylvania State University.

Herbicide-resistant weeds are thought to cost US agriculture millions of dollars per year in lost crops.

After the Environmental Protection Agency approved the updated formulation of the herbicide for use this spring and summer, farmers across the country planted more than 20 million acres of dicamba-resistant soybeans, according to Monsanto.

But as dicamba use has increased, so too have reports that it "volatilises," or re-vaporises and travels to other fields. That harms nearby trees, such as the dogwood outside of Blytheville, as well as nonresistant soybeans, fruits and vegetables, and plants used as habitats by bees and other pollinators.

According to one 2004 assessment, dicamba is 75 to 400 times more dangerous to off-target plants than the common weed killer glyphosate, even at very low doses. It is particularly toxic to soybeans - the very crop it was designed to protect - that haven't been modified for resistance.

Kevin Bradley, a University of Missouri researcher, estimates that more than 3.1 million acres of soybeans have been damaged by dicamba in at least 16 states, including major producers such as Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota. That figure is probably low, according to researchers, and it represents almost 4 percent of all US soybean acres.

"It's really hard to get a handle on how widespread the damage is," said Bob Hartzler, a professor of agronomy at Iowa State. "But I've come to the conclusion that [dicamba] is not manageable."

The dicamba crisis comes on top of lower-than-forecast soybean prices and 14 straight quarters of declining farm income. The pressures on farmers are intense.

One Arkansas man is facing murder charges after he shot a farmer who had come to confront him about dicamba drift, according to law enforcement officials.

Thirty minutes down the road, Arkansas farmer Wally Smith is unsure how much more he can take.

Smith's farm employs five people - including Wally's son, Hughes, his nephew, Brian, and the farm manager, Mayes. None of the men are quite sure what else they'd do for work in this corner of Mississippi County.

​Dicamba has hit the Blytheville - pronounced "Bly-vul" - region hard. For miles in any direction out of town, the soybeans that stretch from the road to the distant tree line are curled and stunted. A nearby organic farm suspended its summer sales after finding dicamba contamination in its produce.

At the Smiths' farm, several thousand acres of soybeans are growing too slowly because of dicamba, representing losses on a $2 million investment.

"This is a fact," the elder Smith said. "If the yield goes down, we'll be out of business."

The new formulations of dicamba were approved on the promise that they were less risky and volatile than earlier versions.

Critics say that the approval process proceeded without adequate data and under enormous pressure from state agriculture departments, industry groups and farmers' associations. Those groups argued that farmers desperately needed the new herbicide to control glyphosate-resistant weeds, which can take over fields and deprive soybeans of sunlight and nutrients.

Such weeds have grown stronger and more numerous over the past 20 years - a result of herbicide overuse. By spraying so much glyphosate, farmers inadvertently caused weeds to evolve resistant traits more quickly.

The new dicamba formulations were supposed to attack these resistant weeds without floating to other fields.

But during a July 29 call with EPA officials, a dozen state weed scientists expressed unanimous concern that dicamba is more volatile than manufacturers have indicated, according to several scientists on the call. Field tests by researchers at the Universities of Missouri, Tennessee and Arkansas have since found that the new dicamba herbicides can volatilise and float to other fields as long as 72 hours after application.

Regulators did not have access to much of this data. Although Monsanto and BASF submitted hundreds of studies to the EPA, only a handful of reports considered volatility in a real-world field setting, as opposed to a greenhouse or a lab, according to regulatory filings. Under EPA rules, manufacturers are responsible for funding and conducting the safety tests the agency uses to evaluate products.

And although pesticide-makers often supply new products to university researchers to conduct field tests in varied environments, Monsanto acknowledged it did not allow that testing on its commercialised dicamba because it did not want to delay registration, and scientists said BASF limited it.

Frustrated scientists say that allowed chemical companies to cherry-pick the data available to regulators.

"Monsanto in particular did very little volatility field work," said Jason Norsworthy, an agronomy professor at the University of Arkansas who was denied access to test the volatility of Monsanto's product.

The EPA and chemical manufacturers deny that there was anything amiss in the dicamba approval process.

"The applicant for registration is required to submit the required data to support registration," the agency said in a statement. "Congress placed this obligation on the pesticide manufacturer rather than requiring others to develop and fund such data development."

Manufacturers says that volatility is not to blame. In a statement, BASF spokeswoman Odessa Patricia Hines said the company brought its dicamba product to market "after years of research, farm trials and reviews by universities and regulatory authorities."

Scott Partridge, Monsanto's vice president of global strategy, thinks some farmers have illegally sprayed older, more volatile dicamba formulations or used the herbicide with the wrong equipment.

The company, which invested $1 billion in dicamba production plants last year, has deployed a fleet of agronomists and climate scientists to figure out what went wrong.

"We're visiting every grower and every field," Partridge said. "If there are improvements that can be made to this product, we're going to do it."

Regulators in the most-affected states are also taking action. In July, Arkansas banned spraying for the remainder of the season and raised the penalties on illegal applications.

Missouri and Tennessee have tightened their rules on dicamba use, while nearly a dozen states have complained to the EPA.

The agency signalled in early August that it might consider taking the new dicamba herbicides off the market, according to several scientists who spoke to regulators.

The agency would not comment directly on its plans. "EPA is very concerned about the recent reports of crop damage related to the use of dicamba in Arkansas and elsewhere," an agency representative said.

Meanwhile, a class-action lawsuit alleges that dicamba manufacturers misrepresented the risk of their products. The Smiths are considering signing up. Monsanto says the suit is baseless.

There are also early indications that dicamba may not work for long. Researchers have shown that pigweed can develop dicamba resistance within as few as about three years. Suspected instances of dicamba-resistant pigweed have been found in Tennessee and Arkansas.

A spokeswoman for Monsanto said the company was "not aware of any confirmed instances of pigweed resistance" to dicamba.

Some critics of chemical-intensive agriculture have begun to see the crisis as a parable - and a prediction - for the future of farming in the United States. Scott Faber, a vice president at the Environmental Working Group, says farmers have become "trapped on a chemical treadmill" driven by the biotech industry. Many farmers say they think they could not continue farming without new herbicide technology.

"We're on a road to nowhere," said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The next story is resistance to a third chemical, and then a fourth chemical - you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where that will end.

"The real issue here is that people are using ever-more complicated combinations of poisons on crops, with ever-more complex consequences."

In Blytheville, at least, one consequence is increasingly obvious: It's a short, scraggly plant with cupped green leaves and a few empty pods hanging near its stem. At this time of year, this plant should have more pods and be eight inches taller, Mayes said.

"This is what we're dealing with here," he said, before shaking his head and turning back to his truck. "We go to work every day wondering if next year we're still going to have a job."


Related:
Amid post-election fallout, EPA quietly approves Monsanto's volatile, drift-prone herbicide dicamba (https://www.sott.net/article/333808-Amid-post-election-fallout-EPA-quietly-approves-Monsantos-volatile-drift-prone-herbicide-dicamba)

Pesticide drift: USDA says "Yes" to Dicamba -tolerant crops (https://www.sott.net/article/291684-Pesticide-drift-USDA-says-Yes-to-Dicamba-tolerant-crops)

Monsanto to spend $1B to produce Dicamba, yet another toxic herbicide (https://www.sott.net/article/298434-Monsanto-to-spend-1B-to-produce-Dicamba-yet-another-toxic-herbicide)

Monsanto's newest poison is drifting to neighboring fields killing more than 42K acres of crops (https://www.sott.net/article/325953-Monsantos-newest-poison-is-drifting-to-neighboring-fields-killing-more-than-42K-acres-of-crops)

Even more toxic chemicals set to enter the food supply (https://www.sott.net/article/299284-Even-more-toxic-chemicals-set-to-enter-the-food-supply)

[Ewan]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/26/559733837/monsanto-and-the-weed-scientists-not-a-love-story


In a normal year, Kevin Bradley, a professor of weed science at the University of Missouri, would have spent his summer testing new ways to control a troublesome little plant called water hemp.

This has not been a normal year.

"I don't even talk about weed management anymore," Bradley tells me, and he sounds disgusted. "Nobody calls me and ask me those questions. I barely have time to even work with my graduate students. Everything is about dicamba. Every single day."

Dicamba, an old weedkiller that is being used in new ways, has thrust Bradley and a half-dozen other university weed scientists into the unfamiliar role of whistleblower, confronting what they believe are misleading and scientifically unfounded claims by one of the country's biggest seed and pesticide companies: Monsanto.

"It's not comfortable. I'm like anybody else, I don't like [it when] people are unhappy with me," says Mike Owen, a weed specialist at Iowa State University. Then he chuckles. "But sometimes, like John Wayne said, a man's got to do what a man's got to do!"

"Certainly, there's not a weed scientist in any of these states who would back down, who would change their story," says Aaron Hager, at the University of Illinois.

The tensions between Monsanto and the nation's weed scientists actually began several years ago, when Monsanto first moved to make dicamba the centerpiece of a new weedkilling strategy. The company tweaked the genes in soybeans and cotton and created genetically modified varieties of those crops that can tolerate doses of dicamba. (Normally, dicamba kills those crops.) This allowed farmers to spray the weedkiller directly on their soybean or cotton plants, killing the weeds while their crops survived.

It's an approach that Monsanto pioneered with crops that were genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate, or Roundup. After two decades of heavy exposure to glyphosate, however, devastating weeds like Palmer amaranth, or pigweed, developed resistance to it. So farmers are looking for new weedkilling tools.

Dicamba, however, has a well-known defect. It's volatile; it tends to evaporate from the soil or vegetation where it has been sprayed, creating a cloud of plant-killing vapor that can spread in unpredictable directions. It happens more in hot weather, and Monsanto's new strategy inevitably would mean spraying dicamba in the heat of summer.

Monsanto and two other chemical companies, BASF and DuPont, announced that they had solved this problem with new "low-volatility" formulations of dicamba that don't evaporate as easily. Yet the companies — especially Monsanto — made it difficult for university scientists to verify those claims with independent tests before the products were released commercially.

"I wish we could have done more testing. We've been asking to do more testing for several years, but the product was not made available to us," says Bob Scott, a weed scientist at the University of Arkansas. "These are proprietary products. Until they release those formulations for testing, we're not allowed to [test them]."

To make matters worse, Monsanto started selling its new dicamba-tolerant soybeans in 2016, before the new low-volatility formulations of dicamba were even approved for sale. It tempted farmers to use older versions of dicamba on these crops, illegally, and some farmers couldn't resist that temptation. In Arkansas, there were widespread reports that dicamba was damaging neighboring fields that didn't have the benefit of Monsanto's new genes. In one case, a dispute between farmers led to a fatal shooting.

That fall, at a meeting of weed scientists, Hager confronted Monsanto's representatives. According to Hager, he told the company that "you knowingly released these varieties in an area of the U.S. where you knew that glyphosate resistance [in weeds] was rampant. When you did that ... you knew what was going to happen."

"I got a blank stare," Hager recalls.

MORE AT LINK

[Hervé]

The Bayer-Monsanto merger - more bad news for the planet (https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-bayer-monsanto-merger-is-bad-news-for-the-planet/)

Ellen Brown Truthdig.com (https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-bayer-monsanto-merger-is-bad-news-for-the-planet/)
Tue, 03 Apr 2018 14:14 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s23/460914/large/sou_monsantobayer_fb1_1200x630.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s23/460914/full/sou_monsantobayer_fb1_1200x630.jpg)
© Common Dreams


Two new studies from Europe (http://www2.cnrs.fr/presse/communique/5501.htm) show that the number of birds in agricultural areas of France has crashed by a third in just 15 years, with some species being almost eradicated. The collapse in the bird population mirrors the discovery last October (http://www.iflscience.com/environment/europe-is-facing-an-ecological-disaster-as-wildlife-numbers-plummet/) that more than three quarters of all flying insects in Germany have vanished in just three decades. Insects are the staple food source of birds, the pollinators of fruits and the aerators of the soil.

The chief suspect in this mass extinction is the aggressive use of neonicotinoid pesticides, particularly imidacloprid and clothianidin (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/23/europe-poised-for-total-ban-on-bee-harming-pesticides), both made by the Germany-based chemical giant Bayer. These pesticides, along with toxic glyphosate herbicides such as Roundup (https://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/gmos-are-killing-bees-butterflies-birds-and), have delivered a one-two punch to monarch butterflies, honeybees and birds. But rather than banning these toxic chemicals, on March 21 the EU approved (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-2282_en.htm) the $66 billion merger of Bayer and Monsanto, the U.S. agribusiness giant that produces Roundup and the genetically modified (GMO) seeds that have reduced seed diversity globally. The merger will make the Bayer-Monsanto conglomerate the largest seed and pesticide company in the world, giving it enormous power to control farm practices, putting private profits over the public interest.

As Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/12/elizabeth-warren-just-let-loose-on-trump-and-monsanto/) noted in a speech in December at the Open Markets Institute, massive companies are merging into market-dominating entities that invest a share of their profits in lobbying and financing political campaigns, shaping the political system to their own ends. She called on the Trump administration to veto the Bayer-Monsanto merger, which is still under antitrust scrutiny and has yet to be approved in the U.S.

A 2016 survey of Trump's voter base found that more than half disapproved of the Monsanto-Bayer merger (https://www.fitsnews.com/2017/12/21/poll-donald-trump-voters-dont-want-bayer-ag-monsanto-merger/), fearing it would result in higher food prices and higher costs for farmers. Before 1990, there were 600 or more small, independent seed businesses globally, many of them family-owned. By 2009, only about 100 survived, and seed prices had more than doubled. But reining in these powerful conglomerates is more than just a question of economics. It may be a question of the survival of life on this planet.

While Bayer's neonicotinoid pesticides wipe out insects and birds, Monsanto's glyphosate has been linked to more than 40 human diseases (http://action.responsibletechnology.org/o/6236/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1150514), including cancer (https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/28/health/california-glyphosate-cancer-chemical-listing/index.html). Its seeds have been genetically modified to survive this toxic herbicide, but the plants absorb it into their tissues. In the humans who eat the plants, glyphosate disrupts the endocrine system and the balance of gut bacteria, damages DNA and is a driver of cancerous mutations. Researchers summarizing a 2014 study of glyphosates (http://jeffreydachmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Genetically-engineered-crops-glyphosate-deterioration-health-United-States-Swanson-J-Organic-Systems-2014.pdf) in the Journal of Organic Systems linked them to the huge increase in chronic diseases in the United States, with the percentage of GMO corn and soy planted in the U.S. showing highly significant correlations with hypertension, stroke, diabetes, obesity, lipoprotein metabolism disorder, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C, end stage renal disease, acute kidney failure, cancers of the thyroid, liver, bladder, pancreas, kidney and myeloid leukaemia. But regulators have turned a blind eye, captured by corporate lobbyists and a political agenda that has more to do with power and control them protecting the health of the people.

The Trump administration has already approved a merger between former rivals Dow and DuPont, and has signed off on the takeover of Swiss pesticide giant Syngenta by ChemChina. If Monsanto-Bayer gets approved as well, just three corporations will dominate the majority of the world's seed and pesticide markets, giving them enormous power to continue poisoning the planet at the expense of its inhabitants.


The Shady History of Bayer and the Petrochemical Cartel
To understand the magnitude of this threat, it is necessary to delve into some history. This is not the first time Monsanto and Bayer have joined forces. In both world wars, they made explosives and poisonous gases using shared technologies that they sold to both sides. After World War II, they united as MOBAY (MonsantoBayer) and supplied the ingredients for Agent Orange in the Vietnam War.

In fact, corporate mergers and cartels have played a central role in Bayer's history (https://www.alternet.org/environment/monsanto-and-bayers-chemical-romance-heroin-nerve-gas-and-agent-orange). In 1904, it joined with German giants BASF and AGFA to form the first chemical cartel. After World War I, Germany's entire chemical industry merged to become I.G. Farben. By the beginning of World War II, I.G. Farben was the largest industrial corporation in Europe, the largest chemical company in the world, and part of the most gigantic and powerful cartel in all history.

A cartel is a grouping of companies bound by agreements designed to restrict competition and keep prices high. The dark history of the I.G. Farben cartel was detailed in a 1974 book titled World Without Cancer, by G. Edward Griffin, who also wrote the best-selling Creature from Jekyll Island, on the shady history of the Federal Reserve. Griffin quoted from a book titled Treason's Peace, by Howard Ambruster, an American chemical engineer who had studied the close relations between the German chemical trust and certain American corporations. Ambruster warned:
Farben is no mere industrial enterprise conducted by Germans for the extraction of profits at home and abroad. Rather, it is and must be recognized as a cabalistic organization which, through foreign subsidiaries and secret tie-ups, operates a far-flung and highly efficient espionage machine-the ultimate purpose being world conquest ... and a world superstate directed by Farben. The I.G. Farben cartel arose out of the international oil industry. Coal tar or crude oil is the source material for most commercial chemical products, including those used in drugs and explosives. I.G. Farben established cartel agreements with hundreds of American companies. They had little choice but to capitulate after the Rockefeller empire, represented by Standard Oil of New Jersey, did so, because they could not hope to compete with the Rockefeller-I.G. combination.

The Rockefeller group's greatest influence was exerted through international finance and investment banking, putting them in control of a wide spectrum of industry. Their influence was particularly heavy in pharmaceuticals. The directors of the American I.G. Chemical Company included Paul Warburg, brother of a director of the parent company in Germany and a chief architect of the Federal Reserve system.

The I.G. Farben cartel was technically disbanded at the Nuremberg trials following World War II, but in fact it merely split into three new companies-Bayer, Hoescht and BASF-which remain pharmaceutical giants today. To conceal its checkered history, Bayer orchestrated a merger with Monsanto in 1954, giving rise to the MOBAY Corp. In 1964, the U.S. Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against MOBAY and insisted that it be broken up, but the companies continued to work together unofficially.

In Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation (2007), William Engdahl states that global food control and depopulation became U.S. strategic policy under Rockefeller protégé Henry Kissinger, who was secretary of state in the 1970s. Along with oil geopolitics, these policies were to be the new "solution" to the threats to U.S. global power and continued U.S. access to cheap raw materials from the developing world. "Control oil and you control nations," Kissinger notoriously declared. "Control food and you control the people."

Global food control has nearly been achieved, by reducing seed diversity and establishing proprietary control with GMO seeds distributed by only a few transnational corporations, led by Monsanto; and by a massive, taxpayer-subsidized propaganda campaign in support of GMO seeds and neurotoxic pesticides. A de facto cartel of giant chemical, drug, oil, banking and insurance companies connected by interlocking directorates reaps the profits at both ends, by waging a very lucrative pharmaceutical assault on the diseases created by their toxic agricultural chemicals.

Going Organic: The Russian Approach
In the end, the Green Revolution engineered by Kissinger to control markets and ensure U.S. economic dominance may be our nemesis. While the U.S. struggles to maintain its hegemony by economic coercion and military force, Russia is winning the battle for the health of the people and the environment. Russian President Vladimir Putin has banned GMOs (https://www.rt.com/business/403932-russia-organic-food-export-gmo/) and has set out to make Russia the world's leading supplier of organic food.

Russian families are showing what can be done with permaculture methods on simple garden plots. In 2011, 40 percent of Russia's food (http://naturalhomes.org/naturalliving/russian-dacha.htm) was grown on dachas (cottage gardens or allotments), predominantly organically. Dacha gardens produced more than 80 percent of the country's fruit and berries, more than 66 percent of the vegetables, almost 80 percent of the potatoes and nearly 50 percent of the nation's milk, much of it consumed raw. Russian author Vladimir Megre (https://thebovine.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/in-1999-35-million-small-family-plots-produced-90-of-russias-potatoes-77-of-vegetables-87-of-fruits-59-of-meat-49-of-milk-way-to-go-people/) comments:
Essentially, what Russian gardeners do is demonstrate that gardeners can feed the world-and you do not need any GMOs, industrial farms, or any other technological gimmicks to guarantee everybody's got enough food to eat. Bear in mind that Russia only has 110 days of growing season per year-so in the US, for example, gardeners' output could be substantially greater. Today, however, the area taken up by lawns in the US is two times greater than that of Russia's gardens-and it produces nothing but a multi-billion-dollar lawn care industry. In the U.S., only about 0.6 percent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming_by_country) of the total agricultural area is devoted to organic farming. Most farmland is soaked in pesticides and herbicides. But the need for these toxic chemicals is a myth. In an October 2017 article in The Guardian, columnist George Monbiot (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/20/insectageddon-farming-catastrophe-climate-breakdown-insect-populations) cited studies showing that reducing the use of neonicotinoid pesticides actually increases production, because the pesticides harm or kill the pollinators on which crops depend. Rather than an international trade agreement that would enable giant transnational corporations to dictate to governments, he argues that we need a global treaty to regulate pesticides and require environmental impact assessments for farming. He writes:
Farmers and governments have been comprehensively conned by the global pesticide industry. It has ensured its products should not be properly regulated or even, in real-world conditions, properly assessed. ... The profits of these companies depend on ecocide. Do we allow them to hold the world to ransom, or do we acknowledge that the survival of the living world is more important than returns to their shareholders? President Trump has boasted of winning awards (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/06/donald-trump/trumps-environmental-awards-closer-look/) for environmental protection. If he is sincere about championing the environment, he needs to block the merger of Bayer and Monsanto, two agribusiness giants bent on destroying the ecosystem for private profit.


Related:
DuPont & Dow chemical merger: Bad deal for people and the planet (https://www.sott.net/article/308356-DuPont-Dow-chemical-merger-Bad-deal-for-people-and-the-planet)

[Hervé]

Breakthrough in explosive lawsuit against Monsanto (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/05/23/breakthrough-in-explosive-lawsuit-against-monsanto/)

by Jon Rappoport (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/author/jonrappoport/) May 23 (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/05/23/breakthrough-in-explosive-lawsuit-against-monsanto/) , 2018

A San Francisco lawsuit against Monsanto and its weedkiller, Roundup, is moving forward. And it’s just received a new green light from the judge in the case.

Monsanto’s lawyers are bracing for a deep level of attack, which they were hoping to avoid. The judge has ruled the jury can hear testimony on this issue: Monsanto suppressed evidence that Roundup causes cancer.

Reporter Carey Gillam has the story (The Guardian, 5/22):
“At the age of 46, DeWayne Johnson is not ready to die. But with cancer spread through most of his body, doctors say he probably has just months to live. Now Johnson, a husband and father of three in California, hopes to survive long enough to make Monsanto take the blame for his fate.”

“On 18 June, Johnson will become the first person to take the global seed and chemical company to trial on allegations that it has spent decades hiding the cancer-causing dangers of its popular Roundup herbicide products – and his case has just received a major boost.”

“Last week Judge Curtis Karnow issued an order clearing the way for jurors to consider not just scientific evidence related to what caused Johnson’s cancer, but allegations that Monsanto suppressed evidence of the risks of its weed killing products. Karnow ruled that the trial will proceed and a jury would be allowed to consider possible punitive damages.”

“’The internal correspondence noted by Johnson could support a jury finding that Monsanto has long been aware of the risk that its glyphosate-based herbicides are carcinogenic … but has continuously sought to influence the scientific literature to prevent its internal concerns from reaching the public sphere and to bolster its defenses in products liability actions’, [Judge] Karnow wrote.” [Yes, the Judge in the case wrote that statement.]

“Johnson’s case, filed in San Francisco county superior court in California, is at the forefront of a legal fight against Monsanto. Some 4,000 plaintiffs have sued Monsanto alleging exposure to Roundup caused them, or their loved ones, to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Another case is scheduled for trial in October, in Monsanto’s home town of St Louis, Missouri.”

“How the Johnson lawsuit plays out could be a bellwether for how other plaintiffs proceed. If Johnson prevails, there could be many more years of costly litigation and hefty damage claims. If Monsanto successfully turns back the challenge, it could derail other cases and lift pressure on the firm.”

“According to the court record, Johnson had a job as a groundskeeper for the Benicia unified school district where he applied numerous treatments of Monsanto’s herbicides to school properties from 2012 until at least late 2015. He was healthy and active before he got the cancer diagnosis in August 2014. In a January deposition, Johnson’s treating physician testified that more than 80% of his body was covered by lesions, and that he probably had but a few months to live.”
How will Monsanto proceed? First, they’ll argue that Johnson’s cancer could have been caused by other factors. They’ll throw the kitchen sink at the jury. It could have been genetics. It could have been lifestyle. It could have been causes that are still unknown to researchers. It could have been starlight from a galaxy far, far away. Monsanto’s lawyers will try to bury the jury in reams of supposition.

Second, they’ll show the jury an EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) finding that Roundup does not cause cancer. Like the FDA, the EPA has sided with major corporations in efforts to protect them. Monsanto will claim: “The federal government has asserted Roundup is safe, and that’s the end of our responsibility. The federal government is the final arbiter.” Which is to say: the truth isn’t the final arbiter.

Third, Monsanto will execute a series of acrobatic moves to prove they never suppressed evidence that Roundup causes cancer. They were simply “considering all relevant safety issues.” They were “posing various scenarios.” Their internal memos were “temporary work product” on the way to making a final judgment about Roundup’s safety. They were raising valid concerns about flawed studies that claimed Roundup was dangerous.

If all else fails, Monsanto might try to settle with Johnson—and then claim the $$ payout was simply a way to show compassion for his unfortunate condition—and move on—continuing to offer the public a fine and safe product (Roundup). No guilt admitted.

In the extreme—and I need to raise this question—might Monsanto, behind the scenes, secretly and illegally offer Johnson’s lawyer and his client a very large sum to present a weak case in court and let Monsanto win the case?

You decide.

If Monsanto has intentionally hidden the dire effects of Roundup for decades, while people have gotten sick and died, what wouldn’t they do?

Among the myriad scandals and crimes of Monsanto, here is one that sheds light on the mindset of the company. Axisoflogic.com reports (3/22/12):
“In 2001, 3,600 inhabitants of the city of Anniston, Alabama, attacked Monsanto for PCB [a chlorine chemical] contamination. According to a report, declassified by the U.S. Agency of Environmental Protection (EPA), Monsanto for almost forty years dumped thousands of tons of contaminated waste in a stream and an open garbage dump in the heart of a black neighborhood in the city.”

“The way The Washington Post reported the story is instructive: ‘Monsanto documents — many emblazoned with warnings such as ‘CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy’ — show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew. In 1966, Monsanto managers discovered that fish submerged in that creek turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as if dunked into boiling water. They told no one.”

“Monsanto was finally convicted in 2002 of having polluted ‘the territory of Anniston and the blood of its people with the PCB’. The firm was ordered to pay $ 700 million in damages and to guarantee the cleaning-up of the city. No legal action was brought against the company officials.”

[onawah]

Monsanto invests over $100 million to change the DNA of every plant we use for food
May 24, 2018
https://www.naturalhealth365.com/monsanto-food-news-2571.html

Monsanto, ‘the most hated corporation in America,’ plans to take the science of genetic manipulation to a whole new level. According to a March 27 article in Business Insider, the agrichemical giant has joined forces with Pairwise Plants – a California start-up company helmed by a pair of Harvard scientists – and plans to invest a whopping $100 million in a form of gene-editing technology.

While the new technology, known as CRISPR, is being hailed by some as a way to correct genetic diseases, many natural health advocates question its safety – and whether our food is an appropriate target for gene-editing.

Three days after the collaboration was announced, a published study showing that CRISPR induced unexpected mutations in mice was retracted. The timing is highly suspicious, to say the least – especially in light of Monsanto’s long and disgraceful history of suppressing damaging research.

Monsanto: CRISPR-made produce to hit grocery store shelves within 10 years
The gene-editing tool CRISPR (an acronym for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) allows scientists to manipulate DNA to produce traits such as flavor, longer shelf life, convenient sizing or tolerance to drought and disease.

In other words, unlike traditional GMO methods – which add genes from another organism – gene-editing changes (or deletes) existing genes.

Monsanto plans to “gene-edit” corn, soy, wheat, cotton and canola – major crops used in an extensive variety of foods. (Of course, they will then have exclusive rights to the “edited” crops).

The company’s stated goal is to be the first to get CRISPR-made produce into the U.S. marketplace – and to do so within the next 5 to 10 years.

And, they are pulling out all the stops in pursuit of this goal.

Not only has Monsanto invested $100 million in Pairwise, but they are providing leadership as well. The collaboration between the two companies is so cozy that Tom Adams – the head of Monsanto’s biotechnology department – is slated to lead Pairwise as Chief Executive Officer.

Unpredicted mutations appear in study – as safeguards fail
Natural health experts and GMO critics – including the non-profit organization GM Watch – warn that CRISPR could cause unpredictable mutations.

Their suspicions appear to have been confirmed by an explosive study published last May in Nature Methods, in which CRISPR caused hundreds of unintended, “off-target” mutations in mice.

The mice had originally undergone CRISPR gene editing to correct a genetic defect. When researchers sequenced their genomes – their entire collection of genes – they found that two of the mice had sustained more than 1,500 mutations involving the nucleotide (a small block of DNA).

CRISPR technology is believed to be so precise and predictable that the USDA has already given the “green light” to CRISPR-produced foods.

Yet, computer algorithms used by scientists to screen for possible unintended mutations completely failed to predict them. In addition, the mutations were “off-target,” meaning they didn’t occur in the genes that had been edited in the first place.

Leading authority on genetic modification had been expecting these results
Commenting on the study, Dr. Michael Antoniou – a molecular geneticist and authority on genetic modification – called the results “unsurprising.” Chillingly, he remarked that there “wasn’t a question” of unintended mutations appearing. “The only question,” remarked Dr. Antoniou, “is how many.”

These mutations, of course, could have unintended effects. For example, said Dr. Antoniou, the disruption of an enzyme’s function could lead to unpredictable biochemical reactions.

Dr. Antoniou maintains that the entire genome sequences of gene-edited organisms should be submitted to biosafety authorities – and that long-term toxicity studies should also be performed.

GM Watch agrees, stating that new genome editing should be at least as strictly regulated as the original genetic modification technique.

But, the story doesn’t end there.

Scientific study retracted in the wake of biotech corporate announcement
Three days after the announcement of Monsanto’s collaboration with Pairwise, the study was retracted from online versions of Nature Methods. A month later, on April 27, 2018, it was retracted from the printed journal.

Nature Method’s editors explained that “multiple groups” had questioned the researchers’ interpretation that the nucleotide changes were due to CRISPR treatment.

And, without more analysis of the rodents’ genetic background, no one could claim certainty. Ultimately, the editors ruled that the changes discovered by the researchers were actually due to “normal genetic variation.”

Undeterred, the study’s authors are currently carrying out follow-up studies using whole genome sequencing.

Although the study, “Unexpected Mutations after CRISPR-Cas 9 editing in vivo,” has been retracted, you can still view it here.

Are we seeing a kinder, gentler Monsanto? Probably not!
Monsanto is currently using gene editing in order to develop “enhanced premium vegetables,” including “crunchier” lettuce, “sweeter” cantaloupes, and a version of broccoli that is touted as containing more antioxidant, cancer-fighting phytochemicals such as glucoraphanin.

And the company claims it is using old-fashioned crossbreeding to do it.

The twist is, scientists can now examine the offspring’s genome for known markers for desirable traits – then grow plants with those markers. And, they can now scan for genetic variations in the seeds, without waiting for an entire plant to grow.

But are these new fruits and vegetables as healthy as their natural, un-edited counterparts? Among other issues, critics say that many of the products are crossbred for increased sweetness – and as a result, contain more sugar.

Unbelievably, there is no law mandating that Monsanto account for potential long-term effects.

Dr. Robert Lustig, pediatric endocrinologist and the president of the Institute for Responsible Nutrition, scoffed at the idea of a more ecologically responsible Monsanto. “The only result they (Monsanto) care about is profit,” Dr. Lustig remarked.

(Remember, this is the same Monsanto that has sued farmers for regrowing licensed seeds, created a bumper crop of Roundup-resistant superweeds, and – lest we forget – developed Agent Orange. All while maintaining a tradition of blatant lies, deceit and scientific fraud).

“Gene editing” may sound less sinister than “genetic modification.” But, for many, it still adds up to “Frankenfood.”

Sources for this article include:

GMWatch.org
https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/17657-crispr-induced-mutations-what-do-they-mean-for-food-safety
Nature.com
https://www.nature.com/articles/nmeth.4293
BusinessInsider.com
http://www.businessinsider.com/monsanto-gmo-gene-editing-crispr-produce-2018-3
Wired.com
https://www.wired.com/2014/01/new-monsanto-vegetables/
Cen.ACS.org
https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/i13/Monsanto-joins-Pairwise-develop-base.html

[Bo Atkinson]

Thanks all for the heads up and updates on continued findings!

What if normal lifestyles cause this ecocide-driven nightmare? What if earth is constantly ruined, little by little? While the population tacitly accepts and blindly-renews the deceitful-matrix. The god cop, bad cop globalism perpetuates hopeless-hope, as a default.

What if bad dreams fade away, only by a final detachment, to ordinary ways and means? What if we needlessly struggle with consumerist-addictions, like that morning coffee smell, or any marketed-ploy? Knowing full well these never arrest the hell-bent ecocide of the deeper corporate state?

What if the addiction to ecocide is that trick of human imprisonment? Could this earth-life, be more than a persistent mirage? In this game which we accepted to play? Felt as an energetic, hypnotic simulation? Is the suffering just in the movie plot and not in time-trapped beholder, (us)?

[ThePythonicCow]

The jury just found for groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson in this case, fining Monsanto $289 million in damages, as reported on this new thread: Monsanto was Just Fined $289 Million by San Francisco Jury for Failing to Warn of Known Cancer Risk (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103821-Monsanto-was-Just-Fined-289-Million-by-San-Francisco-Jury-for-Failing-to-Warn-of-Known-Cancer-Risk).

[Hervé]

Dangerous grains: Monsanto's toxic glyphosate found in 43 out of 45 popular children's cereals (https://www.rt.com/usa/436069-monsanto-weedkiller-cancer-cereal/)

RT (https://www.rt.com/usa/436069-monsanto-weedkiller-cancer-cereal/)
Thu, 16 Aug 2018 11:55 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s24/483655/large/5b74f7c2fc7e93426e8b45dd.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s24/483655/full/5b74f7c2fc7e93426e8b45dd.jpg)
A farmer sprays crops with glyphosate-based herbicide © Jean-Francois Monier / AFP


A hearty bowl of oatmeal is a healthy way to start your day, but according to a new study, that bowl of oatmeal can contain dangerous levels of glyphosate, a weed-killing chemical linked to cancer.

The study, carried out by the non-profit Environmental Working Group, found that 43 out of 45 popular breakfast cereals tested in three locations in the US contained traces of glyphosate (https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal/#.W3T1aehKhhF). 31 of these contained dangerously high levels of the chemical.

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, a weedkiller manufactured by Monsanto. Roundup is the most popular weedkiller in the US, and last week a court in California ordered the company (https://www.rt.com/usa/435693-monsanto-roundup-cancer-trial/) to pay $39 million in compensation and $250 million in punitive damages to a school groundskeeper who developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after years of using Roundup at work.

The World Health Organization's cancer research agency classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015. In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) labeled glyphosate a carcinogen in 1985, but reversed its position in 1991. In 2017, California listed glyphosate in its Proposition 65 registry of chemicals known to cause cancer.

The cereals tested weren't all lurid-colored Lucky Charms or sugar-crusted Frosties, but oat-based 'healthy' choices. The high levels of glyphosate came from the oats themselves.

The highest levels were found in Quaker Old Fashioned Oats - 1,000 parts per billion (ppb) of glyphosate. The EWG calculated levels above 160 ppb as unsafe for children. Giant Instant Oatmeal contained 760 ppb, and three samples of Cheerios contained concentrations of between 470 and 530 ppb.

250 million pounds of glyphosate are sprayed on American crops (https://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.php?year=2015&map=GLYPHOSATE&hilo=L&disp=Glyphosate) every year, but the highest concentrations of the chemical are found in non-GMO wheat, barley, oats, and beans. Farmers spray these crops with glyphosate right before harvest time, as they kill the crop and dry it out, making it ready for harvest quicker.

All oats are not equal though. The EWG also tested 16 cereals made with organically-grown oats. While five of these contained glyphosate, none were above the group's health benchmark of 160 ppb. While organic foods should by definition be free of chemicals like glyphosate, these chemicals can often drift onto these crops from nearby fields of conventionally-grown crops, or at factories that handle both kinds of crop.

"Glyphosate does not belong in cereal," said the EWG. The organization called on Americans to "urge the EPA to restrict pre-harvest applications of glyphosate and tell companies to identify and use sources of glyphosate-free oats."

Meanwhile, despite several contradictory studies and a multi-million dollar payout, Monsanto's parent company, Bayer, said last week that "glyphosate is safe for use and does not cause cancer when used according to the label."

[Pam]

But as dicamba use has increased, so too have reports that it "volatilises," or re-vaporises and travels to other fields. That harms nearby trees, such as the dogwood outside of Blytheville, as well as nonresistant soybeans, fruits and vegetables, and plants used as habitats by bees and other pollinators.

The idea that Dicamba re-vaporises and then drifts is really terrifying. The question is how many times can it revaporize. When an organic farm has to stop selling because they have detected Dicamba in their crop it makes me wonder. I have to admit that I didn't know that Monsanto also birthed it into the world along with glyphosates. Now, Bayer is planning to change their name as though they can walk away from their much earned reputation.


Russian President Vladimir Putin has banned GMOs and has set out to make Russia the world's leading supplier of organic food.

Russian families are showing what can be done with permaculture methods on simple garden plots. In 2011, 40 percent of Russia's food was grown on dachas (cottage gardens or allotments), predominantly organically. Dacha gardens produced more than 80 percent of the country's fruit and berries, more than 66 percent of the vegetables, almost 80 percent of the potatoes and nearly 50 percent of the nation's milk, much of it consumed raw. Russian author Vladimir Megre comments:

Essentially, what Russian gardeners do is demonstrate that gardeners can feed the world-and you do not need any GMOs, industrial farms, or any other technological gimmicks to guarantee everybody's got enough food to eat. Bear in mind that Russia only has 110 days of growing season per year-so in the US, for example, gardeners' output could be substantially greater. Today, however, the area taken up by lawns in the US is two times greater than that of Russia's gardens-and it produces nothing but a multi-billion-dollar lawn care industry.




On another note the trend in Russia is really encouraging. We, in the US have much to learn from them. Too bad we devote so much effort into making them the enemy of the decade(S).

[ThePythonicCow]

the highest concentrations of the chemical [glyphosate] are found in non-GMO wheat, barley, oats, and beans.

I quoted this just so that I could show it in bigger font.

"non-GMO" doesn't necessarily mean "healthier" ... non-GMO food can have as much, or even more, glyphosate, as measured in this study.

[Satori]

the highest concentrations of the chemical [glyphosate] are found in non-GMO wheat, barley, oats, and beans.

I quoted this just so that I could show it in bigger font.

"non-GMO" doesn't necessarily mean "healthier" ... non-GMO food can have as much, or even more, glyphosate, as measured in this study.

Geez. I frequently eat oatmeal for breakfast thinking "it's the right thing to do..." (Thank you Wilford Brimley.) Apparently not.

[ThePythonicCow]

Dangerous grains: Monsanto's toxic glyphosate found in 43 out of 45 popular children's cereals (https://www.rt.com/usa/436069-monsanto-weedkiller-cancer-cereal/)

RT (https://www.rt.com/usa/436069-monsanto-weedkiller-cancer-cereal/)
Thu, 16 Aug 2018 11:55 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s24/483655/large/5b74f7c2fc7e93426e8b45dd.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s24/483655/full/5b74f7c2fc7e93426e8b45dd.jpg)
A farmer sprays crops with glyphosate-based herbicide © Jean-Francois Monier / AFP


A hearty bowl of oatmeal is a healthy way to start your day, but according to a new study, that bowl of oatmeal can contain dangerous levels of glyphosate, a weed-killing chemical linked to cancer.

The study, carried out by the non-profit Environmental Working Group, found that 43 out of 45 popular breakfast cereals tested in three locations in the US contained traces of glyphosate (https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal/#.W3T1aehKhhF). 31 of these contained dangerously high levels of the chemical.
Chasing down the links one level, here's the Environmental Working Group (EWG) article reporting this study: Breakfast With a Dose of Roundup? (https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal/).

You can see the chart of 16 "Organic" cereals and 45 conventional (not labeled "Organic") cereals that they tested. Some 31 of the conventional and 0 of the Organic cereals had glyphosate levels above the EWG's "Health Benchmark" of 160 ppb (parts per billion). All but 2 of the conventional and even 5 of the Organic cereals had at least some glyphosate.

The glyphosate in cereals with lesser amounts of it, including 5 of the 16 Organic cereals might have been blown onto the crop from nearby fields that were being treated by glyphosate, or might have been cross-contamination at processing facilities that handle both Organic and conventional cereals, or might have been in surface water that drained from contaminated fields.

Stephanie Seneff, a Senior Research Scientist at MIT, has an extensive and powerful body of work explaining the dangers and mechanisms of glyphosate.

I just now did (as I've done in years past) a Google search for the three words "Stephanie Seneff glyphosate" and she's been up to some new results in the last year, including a major breakthrough in treating autism, using chlorine dioxide (aka Jim Humble's MMS), which de-activates glyphosate in the gut. I'll have to start a new thread on that, and link to that thread from the most recently active threads on glyphosate, MMS and autism.

Thank-you, Hervé, for dropping the bread crumb that led down this trail!

[ThePythonicCow]

Geez. I frequently eat oatmeal for breakfast thinking "it's the right thing to do..." (Thank you Wilford Brimley.) Apparently not.
Organic cereals are ok, or, as in my latest post just above, Stephanie Seneff is bringing out remedies, such as chlorine dioxide (CD, aka Jim Humble's MMS) that can help neutralize glyphosate in the gut.

[RunningDeer]

Geez. I frequently eat oatmeal for breakfast thinking "it's the right thing to do..." (Thank you Wilford Brimley.) Apparently not.

Organic cereals are ok, or, as in my latest post just above, Stephanie Seneff is bringing out remedies, such as chlorine dioxide (CD, aka Jim Humble's MMS) that can help neutralize glyphosate in the gut.

Here's Jim Humble site (https://jimhumble.is/buy-mms) where he suggests two reliable suppliers and how to test to see if your product is still usable.

[Hervé]

Monsanto cancer ruling sparks backlash around the globe (https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-glyphosate-lawsuits-2595806398.html?utm_source=EcoWatch%2BList&amp;utm_campaign=4b0a46e39e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_COPY_01&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-4b0a46e39e-86123305)

Lorraine Chow EcoWatch (https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-glyphosate-lawsuits-2595806398.html?utm_source=EcoWatch%2BList&utm_campaign=4b0a46e39e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-4b0a46e39e-86123305)
Tue, 14 Aug 2018 22:09 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s24/484220/large/dwayne.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s24/484220/full/dwayne.jpg)
Plaintiff Dewayne Johnson leaves the courtroom after hearing the verdict to his case against Monsanto at the Superior Court of California in San Francisco on Aug. 10. © JOSH EDELSON / AFP / Getty Images


Glyphosate (https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate), the world's most popular herbicide, is at the center of international scrutiny after a San Francisco court on Friday decided in favor (https://www.ecowatch.com/jury-finds-monsanto-liable-in-the-first-roundup-cancer-trial--2595446068.html) of a California school groundskeeper with terminal cancer.

The jury ruled that the plaintiff, Dewayne "Lee" Johnson, developed cancer from repeated exposure to Roundup (https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/roundup), Monsanto (https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto)'s widely used glyphosate-based weedkiller, and ordered the company to pay $289 million in damages.

The landmark jury ruling, which could open the door for roughly 4,000 similar U.S. lawsuits against Monsanto, sparked outcry around the world.

Europe
Germany's Bayer (https://www.ecowatch.com/jury-finds-monsanto-liable-in-the-first-roundup-cancer-trial--2595446068.html), which purchased Monsanto this year for $63 billion (https://www.ecowatch.com/bayer-monsanto-merger-2575082668.html), also purchased a potential mountain of legal costs. Shareholders are certainly spooked. Bayer's stock tumbled as much as 14 percent on Monday, losing about 12 billion euros ($14 billion) in market value, Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-cancer-lawsuit-bayer/roundup-cancer-verdict-sends-bayer-shares-sliding-idUSKBN1KY0M5) reported.

Bayer defended the safety of glyphosate and said it would appeal the verdict. "The jury's verdict is at odds with the weight of scientific evidence, decades of real world experience and the conclusions of regulators around the world that all confirm glyphosate is safe and does not cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma," the company said in a statement to Reuters.

Glyphosate, the most-used herbicide in the European Union, has been the subject of fierce debate in Europe for years. Last year, the European Commission extended its license for five years, but the ruling in San Francisco has reinvigorated calls for a ban.
"We must fight the invasion of this substance in our market, a threat that exists due to monstrous commercial agreements signed only in the name of profit," Italy's Deputy Prime Minister Luigi Di Maio wrote on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/LuigiDiMaio/posts/1851921711511033) over the weekend.
France's Environment Minister Nicolas Hulot described the verdict as the "beginning of a war" against glyphosate in Europe.

"If we wait, such poisons will not be prevented from doing their damage and the victims will be excessively numerous," he said (https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2018/08/11/apres-une-condamnation-historique-le-glyphosate-toujours-defendu-par-son-proprietaire_5341610_3244.html) to BFM radio.
Italy and France are moving towards a phase-out of the chemical. Germany aims to end use of glyphosate in this legislative period, which ends in three years, Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-cancer-lawsuit-germany/germany-aims-to-end-use-of-glyphosate-in-this-legislative-period-spokesman-idUSKBN1KY12U) reported. In April, German Agriculture Minister Julia Kloeckner announced (https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Interviews/O-Toene/18-04-17-Glyphosat-Video.html) she was drafting rules to stop use of glyphosate in the country's home gardens, parks and sports facilities.

India
Activists told Times of India (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/after-monsanto-fined-for-cancer-activists-seek-ban-on-glyphosate/articleshow/65379214.cms) on Monday that Friday's verdict in California should prompt a nationwide ban.
"Our organization has already filed a petition with the ministry of agriculture with thousands of signatures seeking the ban on glyphosate. However the government has not taken any action so far," Kathiva Kuruganti of Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture told the publication.
Glyphosate is widely used on herbicide-tolerant cotton in India. In May, India's Supreme Court refused to stay the Delhi High Court's ruling (https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-india-cotton-gmo-2559650068.html) that Monsanto cannot claim patents for Bollgard and Bollgard II, its genetically modified (https://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/) cotton seeds, in the country. Monsanto first introduced its GM-technology in India in 1995. Today, more than 90 percent of the country's cotton crop is genetically modified.

Australia
On the heels of the ruling in California, Greenpeace is urging the Australian government to restrict sales of Monsanto's weedkillers, which is sold in shops across the country.
"Use of this dangerous product should be severely restricted," Jamie Hanson, Greenpeace's head of campaigns, told Guardian Australia (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/13/australia-urged-to-restrict-monsantos-roundup-after-us-court-rules-it-caused-cancer).

"Roundup is widely available for sale in Australia ... potentially exposing millions of people to its harmful effects. This case is only the first of hundreds that have been filed in the U.S. claiming Roundup causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma. We have no idea how far this will spread and how many more are to come." Hanson added. Shares of Australia's Nufarm, which contains glyphosate, fell 17 percent Monday after the cancer finding in California, Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-cancer-nufarm/australias-nufarm-shares-plunge-17-percent-after-monsanto-weedkiller-cancer-finding-idUSKBN1KY05K) reported.
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and regulatory authorities around the world, including Australia, support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer," spokeswoman for Monsanto in Australia told Guardian Australia.

[avid]

I explained the dangers of this environmental toxin to our MP, why isn’t it banned here? Got a two page platitudinous letter agreeing but multiple waffling about corporations, lobbying, literally being blackmailed by these poisoners totally sidetracked.
She is aware, just like she is aware of this enclave of west Cumbria being poisoned against our will by fluoridation. Now folk are being made very ill due to newly introduced borehole water, as our local clean water supplies are being ‘sequestered’ by ‘re-wilding’ projects (in the guise of burying nuclear waste under Ennerdale) and the need for clean ‘run-off’ for the nuclear industry. Are we ‘guinea-pigs’ in this neck of the woods?
Sorry, although digressing, I fear it’s all inter-linked.

[onawah]

RESEARCHERS FIND ROUNDUP RESPONSIBLE FOR HARMFUL ALGAE BLOOMS IN GREAT LAKES
http://undergroundreporter.org/roundup-responsible-algae-blooms/
Toxic algae blooms are showing up more and more in our lakes, rivers and streams. They are so toxic, it's not even safe to swim in the water.
Some years ago, Drunvalo Melchizadek claimed to have found a way to easily clean up large bodies of water. I remember seeing a video demonstration, where he had a big glass container of some very dirty water taken from one of the Great Lakes, I think. He poured a liquid into it, and in minutes the dirty water became crystal clear. I don't know if anything ever came of that.

[Hervé]

Poison Papers reveal: Monsanto knew PCBs were dangerous and kept profiting for decades (https://www.inlander.com/spokane/despite-knowing-pcbs-were-dangerous-monsanto-kept-profiting-for-decades-spokane-is-now-suing-and-the-poison-papers-show-why/Content?oid=12730378)

Samantha Wohlfeil inlander.com (https://www.inlander.com/spokane/despite-knowing-pcbs-were-dangerous-monsanto-kept-profiting-for-decades-spokane-is-now-suing-and-the-poison-papers-show-why/Content?oid=12730378)
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:05 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s24/489293/large/news1_1_e9b80720dda843c4.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s24/489293/full/news1_1_e9b80720dda843c4.jpg)
The city continues to deal with a legacy of PCB contamination in the Spokane River. © James Nisbet


Spokane is now suing, and the 'Poison Papers' show why
It's one thing to hear rumors that major chemical companies knew their products were harming people for decades. It's another to see physical proof, in the form of internal meeting minutes, questionable studies, and other documents from the 1930s to 1970s that all show companies strategically continued to sell chemicals despite clear evidence they could hurt animals, people and the environment.

That's exactly why investigative journalist Peter von Stackelberg and a small but dedicated team worked to digitize and post more than 100,000 pages of documents dubbed the "Poison Papers" online last year, so everyone could see for themselves.

The papers show wide-ranging issues not only with companies, but more importantly with the regulatory agencies meant to oversee the industry, von Stackelberg explains.

"As I got deeper and deeper into it, I couldn't continue to ignore the fact that there was something seriously wrong with the industry and the regulatory system," says von Stackelberg, who first started reporting on the chemical industry decades ago.

The documents, including private corporate minutes, were largely obtained by Oregon woman Carol Van Strum and others through legal battles and public records requests starting back in the 1970s.

Among many other issues, some documents show that chemical manufacturer Monsanto knew a family of chemicals known as PCBs were harmful, persistent contaminants back in the '50s, '60s and earlier, yet continued to prioritize their sale for years.

Those same explosive revelations are part of the basis for a lawsuit the city of Spokane filed against Monsanto, as the city continues to deal with a legacy of PCB contamination in the Spokane River. Washington state has also filed a similar suit.

Von Stackelberg, now a college lecturer and futurist, will speak about the damning evidence contained in the documents during a free event at Gonzaga on Thursday, Sept. 27, hosted by the university's Environmental Law and Land Use Clinic.

The event, "Monsanto, PCBs, and the Spokane River," will start at 6 pm in the Barbieri Courtroom, 721 N. Cincinnati St., and will focus on contamination in Spokane, the city's lawsuit, and offer a look at new technological developments and how they might need to be regulated into the future.

'Jaw Dropping'
In about 1980, when von Stackelberg was a young reporter at a daily paper in Regina, Saskatchewan, he heard rumors that the provincial government might be looking to ban more than 100 chemicals commonly used in agriculture.

As a political reporter who also covered the ag industry, he knew that would be a huge deal, so he started digging.

He learned the Canadian government was actually trying to learn about a long list of chemicals that had been safety tested at Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (IBT) in the United States, because the lab's practices had been questioned. Then, he obtained the list.

"The list of chemicals was actually jaw dropping in terms of the ones where there were serious questions about the safety studies," von Stackelberg says.

Over the course of about nine months, he reported about questionable pesticides, drugs, food additives such as artificial sweeteners and more. It appeared there were issues at dozens of labs, and that chemical companies had known about concerns around their products for years, von Stackelberg says.

Eventually, multiple criminal charges came against those who ran IBT.

But while there was some initial publicity around the chemical industry's alleged misdeeds, the stories eventually dwindled. The other labs and chemical companies weren't taken to task for their roles.

"The whole thing sort of faded away and 40 years later, we're still dealing with the pollution, the corruption, the fraud and so on," von Stackelberg says. "I call IBT the original sin of the EPA regulatory system. It's never been something I would say can be trusted."

While he went into the story not having a position one way or the other, von Stackelberg says it was hard not to lose faith in government agencies that were supposed to be regulatory checks on the industry.

"You've got to be an absolute idiot after unearthing that information not to come to the position that there's something wrong with the regulation system when dozens of chemical companies, and more than 50 labs have a pattern of incompetence, fraud and criminal conduct in some cases," he says.

Now, von Stackelberg and the Poison Papers team, which includes the Bioscience Resource Project and the Center for Media and Democracy, are trying to make sure that story and others like it don't die there.

Monsanto and Spokane
In 2015, the city of Spokane sued Monsanto over pollution in the Spokane River from polychlorinated biphenyls, more commonly called PCBs, claiming the city "has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary damages to be proven at trial," due to Monsanto's actions. The case is ongoing and deals with what Monsanto knew while continuing to sell the products.

PCBs were used in some household products, including waxes, swimming pool paints and chlorinators, but were more commonly used as coolants and lubricants in electrical equipment.

Congress banned production of the extremely persistent chemicals by the late 1970s, but they continue to leach out of the products they were used in and into the river. PCBs are believed to cause reproductive issues as well as increased risks for some cancers. In some places, fish from the Spokane River are not safe enough to eat due to PCB levels.

"The city's argument is, 'Hey now we're stuck with paying for this cleanup, so Monsanto, you need to come pay for part of this,'" says Rick Eichstaedt, a Gonzaga law professor and director of the Environmental Law and Land Use Clinic.

The lawsuit relies on some of the same evidence now posted on poisonpapers.org (http://poisonpapers.org/).

One such document is a report of an internal ad hoc committee within Monsanto, dated Oct. 2, 1969.

The document notes there was little chance that Monsanto could stop the incrimination of PCBs "as nearly global environmental contaminants leading to contamination of human food (particularly fish), the killing of some marine species (shrimp), and the possible extinction of several species of fish-eating birds."

But while the report notes the right thing to do is warn customers and start working with federal agencies to control the substances, it and other documents make it clear that internal company deliberations came with the constant reminder not to forget the bottom line: Sales of the chemicals were worth millions.

The first objective of that ad hoc committee? To "protect continued sales and profits" from PCBs.

"Your city's paying the bill for Monsanto's behavior in the '60s, '70s and '80s," von Stackelberg says. "They profited then, you're paying the bill now."


Related:

Inside the "Poison Papers" (https://www.sott.net/article/360244-Inside-the-Poison-Papers)



The Poison Papers: Secret concerns of industry & regulators on the hazards of pesticides and other chemicals (https://www.sott.net/article/357986-The-Poison-Papers-Secret-concerns-of-industry-regulators-on-the-hazards-of-pesticides-and-other-chemicals)



Poison Papers project: Believing we have a functional EPA is worse than having a non-functional EPA (https://www.sott.net/article/391504-Poison-Papers-project-Believing-we-have-a-functional-EPA-is-worse-than-having-a-non-functional-EPA)



'Poison Papers': Monsanto knew of grave health risks from toxic PCB chemicals it sold for years before ban (https://www.sott.net/article/358818-Poison-Papers-Monsanto-knew-of-grave-health-risks-from-toxic-PCB-chemicals-it-sold-for-years-before-ban)

[onawah]

Bayer Monsanto in deep trouble
Monsanto Tribunal <newsletter@monsanto-tribunal.org>
https://en.monsantotribunal.org/main.php?name=main&obj_id=342306859

"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.
https://en.monsantotribunal.org/upload/asset_cache/85296571.jpg?rnd=5vcXih
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!"

[onawah]

Stand With Jurors Against Monsanto!
Organic Consumers Assoc.
https://advocacy.organicconsumers.org/page/7458/petition/1
"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.org/page/7458/petition/1

[onawah]

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
https://www.ewg.org/release/house-gop-seeks-scuttle-playground-bans-glyphosate?utm_campaign=EWG+Content&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=1536154763

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:"
https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2018_local_pesticide_laws/#.W4ax9i2ZPBL

[Hervé]

Monsanto loses appeal on historic Roundup cancer verdict, owes $78mn (https://www.rt.com/usa/441989-monsanto-roundup-verdict-confirmed/)

RT
Published time: 23 Oct, 2018 04:52
Edited time: 23 Oct, 2018 07:57
Get short URL (https://on.rt.com/9h1h)


https://cdni.rt.com/files/2018.10/article/5bce8086dda4c896798b45cc.jpeg
© 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 (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/25/monsanto-dewayne-johnson-cancer-verdict). He hopes to see warning labels on Monsanto products, but isn't holding his breath.


https://cdni.rt.com/files/2018.10/original/5bcea8cbfc7e93644b8b458a.jpeg
© 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.

Related:
Monsanto asks judge to overturn $289m cancer verdict, claims dying man presented lack of evidence (https://www.rt.com/usa/438879-roundup-monsanto-court-cancer/)

[Hervé]

'The Monsanto Papers': New film exposes egregious crimes of global chemical giant (https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/10/20/documentary-reveals-tactics-used-by-global-chemical-giant.aspx)

Dr. Joseph Mercola mercola.com (https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/10/20/documentary-reveals-tactics-used-by-global-chemical-giant.aspx)
Sat, 20 Oct 2018 00:00 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s24/495222/large/monsanto193_01.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s24/495222/full/monsanto193_01.jpg)

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



JszHrMZ7dx4

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:

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/07/03/roundup-linked-to-non-hodgkin-lymphoma.aspx)4



Impairing your body's ability to produce fully functioning proteins5



Inhibiting the shikimate pathway (https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/05/14/glyphosate.aspx) (found in gut bacteria)Interfering with the function of cytochrome P450 enzymes (https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/19/cholesterol-sulfate.aspx), required for activation of vitamin D (https://www.mercola.com/Downloads/bonus/vitamin-d/report.aspx) and the creation of nitric oxide Chelating important minerals6



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 (https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/08/28/bayer-inherits-toxic-legacy.aspx). 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 (https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/)" 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 (https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/Final-minority-report-glyphosate-spinning-science-silencing-scientists.pdf),"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 (https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/01/14/avoiding-pesticides-improve-health.aspx)," 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."
Related:

khfdjPbecwM

[onawah]

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."
http://responsibletechnology.org/wisnerinterviews/watch-the-wisner-interviews (http://responsibletechnology.org/wisnerinterviews/watch-the-wisner-interviews/)

* Note: unfortunately, the five excellent videos on the site can only be played FROM the site, because of "privacy settings".

[Hervé]

What does Monsanto's 'Roundup' do to you? (https://www.uticaphoenix.net/2018/11/09/what-does-monsantos-roundup-do-to-you/)

Pete Bianco Utica Phoenix (https://www.uticaphoenix.net/2018/11/09/what-does-monsantos-roundup-do-to-you/)
Fri, 09 Nov 2018 00:01 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s24/484808/large/5b7ffe7cdda4c8076e8b458f.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s24/484808/full/5b7ffe7cdda4c8076e8b458f.jpg)
© 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.

Related:

EU approval of glyphosate weed killer heavily based on Monsanto's own biased studies (https://www.sott.net/article/405040-EU-approval-of-glyphosate-weed-killer-heavily-based-on-Monsantos-own-biased-studies)



Willful blindness: Health Canada stands by glyphosate approval, rejecting evidence of carcinogenicity (https://www.sott.net/article/404980-Willful-blindness-Health-Canada-stands-by-glyphosate-approval-rejecting-evidence-of-carcinogenicity)



Study shows gluten-free foods found to contain more arsenic and glyphosate than wheat (https://www.sott.net/article/403693-Study-shows-gluten-free-foods-found-to-contain-more-arsenic-and-glyphosate-than-wheat)



Another tool in the trade war: China to introduce low glyphosate residue limits in food imports (https://www.sott.net/article/402984-Another-tool-in-the-trade-war-China-to-introduce-low-glyphosate-residue-limits-in-food-imports)



Avoiding Glyphosate: A summary of recent work in progress by Anthony Samsel & Stephanie Seneff (https://www.sott.net/article/402982-Avoiding-Glyphosate-A-summary-of-recent-work-in-progress-by-Anthony-Samsel-Stephanie-Seneff)



High levels of glyphosate discovered in K-12 school breakfast foods across America (https://www.sott.net/article/402593-High-levels-of-glyphosate-discovered-in-K-12-school-breakfast-foods-across-America)



The Health & Wellness Show: News of the Weird: Vaccinated Transgender GMO Babies Drink Glyphosate And Go To Jail For Scientific Discoveries (https://www.sott.net/article/402326-The-Health-Wellness-Show-News-of-the-Weird-Vaccinated-Transgender-GMO-Babies-Drink-Glyphosate-And-Go-To-Jail-For-Scientific-Discoveries)



Bayer Acquisition: Exit glyphosate, enter glufosinate? (https://www.sott.net/article/401561-Bayer-Acquisition-Exit-glyphosate-enter-glufosinate)

[Hervé]

...

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


QTgGjp3ryPI
Dr Stephanie Seneff Presents Roundup, MMR and Autism A Toxic Connection

[Hervé]

New study questions practice of desiccation with glyphosate herbicide (https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18770-new-study-questions-practice-of-desiccation-with-glyphosate-herbicide?fbclid=IwAR0QZWsjI7OILiCuHncVKYQEExTj8fsMOnxBR162IrTZjqU0BZFgMmIqplg)

gmwatch.org (https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18770-new-study-questions-practice-of-desiccation-with-glyphosate-herbicide?fbclid=IwAR0QZWsjI7OILiCuHncVKYQEExTj8fsMOnxBR162IrTZjqU0BZFgMmIqplg)
Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:07 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s25/510917/large/crop_desiccation_with_glyphosa.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s25/510917/full/crop_desiccation_with_glyphosa.jpg)
More studies needed on health effects of residues resulting from "burndown" of crops with glyphosate


The new meta-analysis showing (https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18763) 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 (https://www.newswise.com/articles/uw-study-exposure-to-chemical-in-roundup-increases-risk-for-cancer) 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 (https://www.sott.net/article/407865-New-study-questions-practice-of-desiccation-with-glyphosate-herbicide):
Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini reveals the toxicity of formulants and heavy metals in glyphosate-based herbicides (https://www.sott.net/article/374388-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."
Related:
New study links Roundup herbicide to cancer of the lymph tissue (https://www.sott.net/article/278258-New-study-links-Roundup-herbicide-to-cancer-of-the-lymph-tissue)

[Hervé]

Glyphosate found in most samples of popular beers and wines (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/glyphosate-in-beer-wine-pirg-finds-traces-of-weed-killer-in-19-of-20-brands/)

Irina Ivanova CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/glyphosate-in-beer-wine-pirg-finds-traces-of-weed-killer-in-19-of-20-brands/)
Mon, 25 Feb 2019 14:09 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s25/511917/large/Roundup_bottles.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s25/511917/full/Roundup_bottles.jpg)
© 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 (https://calpirg.org/feature/cap/glyphosate-pesticide-beer-and-wine) 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 (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/glyphosate-roundup-chemical-found-in-childrens-breakfast-foods/), snack bars (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oat-cereals-snack-bars-from-general-mills-quaker-oats-test-positive-for-trace-amounts-of-weed-killer-in-roundup/) and some Ben & Jerry's ice cream.

First developed by Monsanto (which merged with German pharmaceutical company Bayer (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bayer-monsanto-merger-closes-a-toxic-corporate-name-to-be-retired/) 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 (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roundup-trial-high-stakes-trial-over-cancer-claim-to-begin/) brought by a 70-year-old man alleges that the herbicide led to his cancer diagnosis in 2015.


Related:


Roundup's reach: Present in all tested human and animal samples (https://www.sott.net/article/276281-Roundups-reach-Present-in-all-tested-human-and-animal-samples)



What's your "Daily Value" of Glyphosate? (https://www.sott.net/article/294322-Whats-your-Daily-Value-of-Glyphosate)



Interview with Dr. Stephanie Seneff: Glyphosate herbicide and how to detox it (https://www.sott.net/article/379848-Interview-with-Dr-Stephanie-Seneff-Glyphosate-herbicide-and-how-to-detox-it)

[Hervé]

Forbes retracts attack on paper showing link between glyphosate and cancer (https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18778-forbes-pulls-hatchet-job-on-paper-showing-link-between-glyphosate-and-cancer)

Jonathan Matthews gmwatch.org (https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18778-forbes-pulls-hatchet-job-on-paper-showing-link-between-glyphosate-and-cancer)
Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:29 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s25/512358/medium/download.png (https://www.sott.net/image/s25/512358/full/download.png)


Forbes has pulled an article by Geoffrey Kabat attacking the new meta-analysis (https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18763) confirming a link (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887?mc_cid=23c18e62e7&mc_eid=ff8c3a64ef) 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 (http://spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/science/item/164-smelling-a-corporate-rat) 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 (https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18507) for the company. Bruce Chassy made the front page (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html?_r=0) of the New York Times, along with Kevin Folta, because of his remarkably close ties (https://usrtk.org/gmo/following-an-email-trail-how-a-public-university-professor-collaborated-on-a-corporate-pr-campaign/) 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 (https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/) 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 (https://www.acsh.org/profile/geoffrey-kabat) of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a corporate front group (https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/) funded by Monsanto. He is also a board member of Jon Entine's Genetic Literacy Project (https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18507-the-three-stooges-of-science-denial-the-genetic-literacy-project-sense-about-science-and-stats), which was named in a court filing (https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18507) 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 (https://twitter.com/thackerpd/status/1097860761601433600), a search (https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/results/#q=%22geoffrey%20kabat%22&h=%7B%22hideDuplicates%22%3Atrue%2C%22hideFolders%22%3Atrue%7D&subsite=tobacco&cache=true&count=804) for Kabat in the tobacco industry documents archive brings up more than 800 hits, including an invoice (https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=khxw0219) for over $20,000.

Perhaps most notorious is Kabat's publication of a paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12750205) 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 (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/James_E._Enstrom), was partly funded by Philip Morris. And in a US racketeering lawsuit, it was cited (https://writedit.wordpress.com/2007/03/14/misconducted-tobacco-funded-research/) 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 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7944944_The_limits_of_competing_interest_disclosures) 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 (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/14/weed-killing-products-increase-cancer-risk-of-cancer) 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 (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-roseboro/biotechs-assault-on-balan_b_5432699.html) 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 (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-roseboro/biotechs-assault-on-balan_b_5432699.html) that they stood by her coverage.

Gillam certainly seems to be highly regarded by her former Reuters colleagues. On her LinkedIn page (https://www.linkedin.com/in/carey-gillam-584a1913/) 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 (https://www.sej.org/winners-sej-17th-annual-awards-reporting-environment#Book) 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 (https://monographs.iarc.fr/agents-classified-by-the-iarc/) that it has examined - thus giving rise to Kabat's claim.

But IARC has directly rebutted (https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/IARC_response_to_criticisms_of_the_Monographs_and_the_glyphosate_evaluation.pdf) 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 (https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/IARC_response_to_criticisms_of_the_Monographs_and_the_glyphosate_evaluation.pdf) 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 (https://monographs.iarc.fr/iarc-monographs-on-the-evaluation-of-carcinogenic-risks-to-humans-4/) 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 (http://escholarship.org/uc/item/08z12232) by independent (https://jech.bmj.com/content/72/8/668) scientists as being unscientific (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28620672) 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 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230018302277?via%3Dihub%22) 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 (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/monsanto-spin-doctors-target-cancer-scientist-in-flawed_us_594449eae4b0940f84fe2e57) that he is a paid consultant to Monsanto. What's more, his opinion piece (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230018302277?via%3Dihub%22) 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 (https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/expert-opinion/independent-rigorous-vilified-why-attacks-international-agency-research) 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 (https://writedit.wordpress.com/2007/03/14/misconducted-tobacco-funded-research/) 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 (https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/) 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 (https://www.desmogblog.com/american-council-science-and-health) 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 (https://www.science20.com/geoffrey_kabat/paper_claims_a_link_between_glyphosate_and_cancer_but_fails_to_show_evidence-236698) run by ACSH's former president, Hank Campbell, who stepped down for undisclosed reasons shortly after the furore (https://medium.com/@Keira_Havens/science-2-0-refuses-to-remove-nazi-eugenics-blog-posts-d0ef7e782806) 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 (https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/): "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 (https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18507).

Interestingly, according to Carey Gillam, Kabat has apparently (https://twitter.com/careygillam/status/1098637090965864448) 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."

Related:
Whitewash: Stunning book on the story of Glyphosate (https://www.sott.net/article/389539-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.

[onawah]

Monsanto Doesn’t Care, says judge (and he should know...)
From Organic Consumers Assoc.
3/17/19
"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’:
https://www.organicconsumers.org/blog/judge-second-roundup-cancer-trial-worked-firm-defended-monsanto?utm_medium=email&utm_source=engagingnetworks&utm_campaign=OB+617&utm_content=OB+617+Sunday

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."

[onawah]

EWG: Verdict in Roundup Trial Latest Blow to Bayer-Monsanto’s Claims Glyphosate Doesn’t Cause Cancer
https://www.ewg.org/release/ewg-verdict-roundup-trial-latest-blow-bayer-monsanto-s-claims-glyphosate-doesn-t-cause?utm_campaign=EWG+Content&utm_content=1553031563&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=facebook
by Alex Formuzis
3/19/10
"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."

[Hervé]

Roundup, Monsanto, cancer, golf courses, hidden secrets (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2019/04/10/roundup-monsanto-cancer-golf-courses-hidden-secrets/)

by Jon Rappoport (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/author/jonrappoport/) Apr 10 (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2019/04/10/roundup-monsanto-cancer-golf-courses-hidden-secrets/), 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

[onawah]

Roundup adjuvants are 9,661 times more toxic to human cells than the active ingredient glyphosate
by: Lori Alton, staff writer | April 13, 2019
https://www.naturalhealth365.com/roundup-glyphosate-2940.html

"(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:

BeyondPesticides.org
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2019/03/take-action-whats-in-the-bottle-bag-or-box-is-not-tested-fully-for-adverse-effects/
USAToday.com
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/08/10/jury-orders-monsanto-pay-289-million-cancer-patient-roundup-lawsuit/962297002/
"

[Hervé]

WSU researchers see health effects across generations from glyphosate (https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-04/wsu-wrs042319.php)

EurekAlert! (https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-04/wsu-wrs042319.php)
Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:01 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s25/519571/large/Michael_Skinner_WSU.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s25/519571/full/Michael_Skinner_WSU.jpg)
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.

Related:

Glyphosate Use is Far Worse Than We Could Imagine (https://www.sott.net/article/411231-Glyphosate-Use-is-Far-Worse-Than-We-Could-Imagine)



Soil degradation in Europe: Concerns over glyphosate pass from human health to the soil (https://www.sott.net/article/411000-Soil-degradation-in-Europe-Concerns-over-glyphosate-pass-from-human-health-to-the-soil)



The impact glyphosate can have on your health (https://www.sott.net/article/409876-The-impact-glyphosate-can-have-on-your-health)



Forbes retracts attack on paper showing link between glyphosate and cancer (https://www.sott.net/article/408329-Forbes-retracts-attack-on-paper-showing-link-between-glyphosate-and-cancer)



Glyphosate found in most samples of popular beers and wines (https://www.sott.net/article/408105-Glyphosate-found-in-most-samples-of-popular-beers-and-wines)



New study questions practice of desiccation with glyphosate herbicide (https://www.sott.net/article/407865-New-study-questions-practice-of-desiccation-with-glyphosate-herbicide)



Glyphosate found to raise the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by 41% (https://www.sott.net/article/407319-Glyphosate-found-to-raise-the-risk-of-non-Hodgkin-lymphoma-by-41)

[Delight]

Monsanto papers piling up


Roundup Cancer Attorneys Release New Monsanto Papers Documents (https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/4-19-new-monsanto-papers-docs/)
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.

[onawah]

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.

Murderer.

Mass murderer.

Anointed chairman of the supervisory board of Bayer.

Chairman. Of the Supervisory Board. Of Bayer."

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2019/05/01/bayer-and-the-ownership-of-all-life/

[onawah]

EPA has just declared Monsanto’s carcinogenic weedkiller glyphosate as “SAFE.”
5/1/19
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roundup-weed-killer-is-safe-epa-says-giving-bayer-a-win/

"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." "

[onawah]

White House Has 'Monsanto's Back on Pesticides,' Newly Revealed Document Says
5/7/19
https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/white-house-has-monsantos-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."

[Hervé]

Bayer to investigate French media claims that Monsanto compiled file of journalists, lawmakers to sway opinions on pesticides (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-france-monsanto/bayer-hires-law-firm-to-investigate-monsanto-stakeholder-file-issue-idUSKCN1SI0CA)

Patricia Weiss, Ludwig Burger Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-france-monsanto/bayer-hires-law-firm-to-investigate-monsanto-stakeholder-file-issue-idUSKCN1SI0CA)
Sun, 12 May 2019 10:27 UTC


http://thepythoniccow.us/sott_baumann.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s25/515400/full/baumann.jpg)
Bayer CEO, Werner Baumann has defended the multi-billion dollar deal, despite huge legal costs.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

Who Owns the US Congress, Really? (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?106374-Who-Owns-the-US-Congress-Really)



New Monsanto documents expose cozy connection to Reuters reporter Kate Kelland (https://www.sott.net/article/412417-New-Monsanto-documents-expose-cozy-connection-to-Reuters-reporter-Kate-Kelland)



New trial evidence suggests government colluded with Monsanto (https://www.sott.net/article/411603-New-trial-evidence-suggests-government-colluded-with-Monsanto)



Letter from dead EPA scientist Marion Copley reveals Monsanto's bribes to hide scientific evidence of glyphosate causing cancer (https://www.sott.net/article/347505-Letter-from-dead-EPA-scientist-Marion-Copley-reveals-Monsantos-bribes-to-hide-scientific-evidence-of-glyphosate-causing-cancer)



Families in crime: Monsanto & FDA, the trillion-dollar hustle (https://www.sott.net/article/282586-Families-in-crime-Monsanto-FDA-the-trillion-dollar-hustle)



World's most evil company - Monsanto rocked by new court documents (https://www.sott.net/article/358556-Worlds-most-evil-company-Monsanto-rocked-by-new-court-documents)

[Hervé]

Monsanto’s “Rain of Death” on Canada’s Forests (https://www.globalresearch.ca/monsantos-rain-death-forests/5677614)

By Joyce Nelson (https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/jnelson) Global Research
May 16, 2019


https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/monsanto-400x400.jpg
Featured image is from Maui Independent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Joyce Nelson is the author of seven books. She can be reached via www.joycenelson.ca (http://www.joycenelson.ca/)



Notes

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



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



[3] Quoted in Ibid.



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



[5]http://stopthespraybc.com/



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



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



[8] Read, op. cit.



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



[10] Ibid.

[Hervé]

New study links Roundup weed killer to liver damage (https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/05/24/New-study-links-Roundup-weed-killer-to-liver-damage/4941558707583/)

Dennis Thompson UPI (https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/05/24/New-study-links-Roundup-weed-killer-to-liver-damage/4941558707583/)
Fri, 24 May 2019 10:31 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s26/523749/large/Bayer.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s26/523749/full/Bayer.jpg)
© Bill Greenblatt/UPI


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

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

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

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

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

Earlier this month, a California jury awarded $2 Billio (https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/05/13/Jury-awards-couple-2B-in-Roundup-weedkiller-cancer-case/8791557795089/)n to a couple who said long-term exposure to Roundup caused them to develop the same type of cancer -- non-Hodgkin lymphoma -- four years apart.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In its statement, Bayer said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:


Epic Fail: The EPA is meant to protect us - the Monsanto trials suggest it isn't doing that (https://www.sott.net/article/412839-Epic-Fail-The-EPA-is-meant-to-protect-us-the-Monsanto-trials-suggest-it-isnt-doing-that)



EPA 'in bed' with Monsanto? Regulator ignores risks, affirms 'safety' of Roundup and Dow pesticide (https://www.sott.net/article/412348-EPA-in-bed-with-Monsanto-Regulator-ignores-risks-affirms-safety-of-Roundup-and-Dow-pesticide)



Roundup-Cancer lawsuit exposes cozy relationship between the EPA and Monsanto (https://www.sott.net/article/411450-Roundup-Cancer-lawsuit-exposes-cozy-relationship-between-the-EPA-and-Monsanto)



Spider Papers reveal how Monsanto & the EPA bury cancer research (https://www.sott.net/article/402299-Spider-Papers-reveal-how-Monsanto-the-EPA-bury-cancer-research)



Séralini's Revenge: World's most evil company Monsanto rocked by new court documents (https://www.sott.net/article/358423-Seralinis-Revenge-Worlds-most-evil-company-Monsanto-rocked-by-new-court-documents)



Uncovered: Monsanto campaign to get Séralini study retracted (https://www.sott.net/article/358403-Uncovered-Monsanto-campaign-to-get-Seralini-study-retracted)



Biosafety and the 'Seralini affair': Systemic corruption of science and regulation (https://www.sott.net/article/281141-Biosafety-and-the-Seralini-affair-Systemic-corruption-of-science-and-regulation)



Roundup causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at very low doses (https://www.sott.net/article/339052-Roundup-causes-non-alcoholic-fatty-liver-disease-at-very-low-doses)



Long term exposure to small amounts of Roundup herbicide changes gene expression leading to kidney, liver damage (https://www.sott.net/article/300847-Long-term-exposure-to-small-amounts-of-Roundup-herbicide-changes-gene-expression-leading-to-kidney-liver-damage)



Objective:Health #16 - 2 Billion Rea$ons to Avoid Glyphosate (https://www.sott.net/article/413810-Objective-Health-16-2-Billion-Rea-ons-to-Avoid-Glyphosate)

[Pam]

"All pesticides, including glyphosate, are tested for their potential to harm liver function in tests that rely on internationally accepted protocols and are conducted according to good laboratory practices," Bayer said.

It's interesting that a representative allegedly called glyphosate a pesticide, I thought it was strictly classified as an herbicide? Of course in reality it is a pesticide but I didn't think Bayer(Monsanto) would acknowledge it.

[onawah]

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

http://www.panna.org/take-action/tell-epa-they-work-us-not-monsanto?utm_source=action&utm_medium=alert&utm_campaign=glyphosate&link_id=4&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&email_referrer=email_556466&email_subject=no-roundup-is-not-safe

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

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

[onawah]

EPA takes Monsanto’s side on glyphosate
From: Pesticide Action Network
5/30/19
http://www.panna.org/blog/epa-takes-monsantos-side-glyphosate?utm_source=blog&utm_medium=groundtruth&utm_campaign=gt-05-31&link_id=3&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&email_referrer=email_556605&email_subject=epa-on-monsantos-side-pesticides-on-playgrounds-roundup-in-trouble
"The pesticide world has been abuzz with the outcome of the third glyphosate trial. Earlier this month, Bayer (Monsanto) was found liable for Alva and Alberta Pilliod’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and was ordered to pay over $2 billion total in damages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hervé]

Court Docs: Monsanto Paid Chemical Industry Front Group to Claim Cancer-Causing Weedkiller ‘Safe’ and Attack Its Critics (https://www.globalresearch.ca/court-docs-monsanto-paid-chemical-industry-front-group-claim-cancer-causing-weedkiller-safe-attack-its-critics/5679404)

By Bill Walker (https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/bill-walker) Global Research
June 03, 2019
EWG (https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/05/court-docs-monsanto-paid-chemical-industry-front-group-claim-cancer) 29 May 2019


https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/monsanto-glyphosate.png


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

The internal Monsanto/ACSH emails reappeared as evidence in the most recent lawsuit to go before a court, brought by a California couple (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/business/monsanto-roundup-cancer-verdict.html) who were both diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after decades of using the herbicide. In May, the jury ordered Bayer-Monsanto to pay Alva and Alberta Pilliod more than $2 billion in damages.

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

The emails – here (https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/johnson-trial/PTX-0321-Monsanto-Email-Re-ACSH-2015.pdf) and here (https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents-2/Monsanto-Email-Dan-Goldstein-confirms-that-Monsanto-will-contribute-to-ACSH.pdf) – show that in February 2015, Monsanto was working with ACSH to prepare for the expected fallout from a pending report on the safety of glyphosate by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC. The following month the IARC, part of the World Health Organization, would release a report that classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” (https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MonographVolume112-1.pdf)

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

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

https://cdn3.ewg.org/sites/default/files/u352/EWG_MonsantoEmails-1_C01.jpg

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

https://cdn3.ewg.org/sites/default/files/u352/EWG_MonsantoEmails-2_C01.jpg

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

https://cdn3.ewg.org/sites/default/files/u352/EWG_MonsantoEmails-3_C01.jpg

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

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

According to ACSH’s website, the group is a “consumer advocacy organization” that does “not represent any industry.” But in 2013 Mother Jones reported that an internal ACSH document (https://cdn3.ewg.org/sites/default/files/acsh-financial-summary.pdf) showed the organization received more than $390,000 in that year from corporations and large private foundations, including $30,000 from Bayer Cropscience, $22,5000 from the Chinese-owned pesticide and seed company Syngenta, and $30,000 from chemical giant 3M, among many others.

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

*

Bill Walker is Vice President and Editor-in-Chief of EWG.

All images in this article are from EWG
The original source of this article is EWG (https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/05/court-docs-monsanto-paid-chemical-industry-front-group-claim-cancer)
Copyright © Bill Walker (https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/bill-walker), EWG (https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/05/court-docs-monsanto-paid-chemical-industry-front-group-claim-cancer), 2019

Related:
Monsanto Accused of Hiring Army of Trolls to Silence Online Dissent – Court Papers (https://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-accused-of-hiring-army-of-trolls-to-silence-online-dissent-court-papers/5588396)

[Hervé]

From Glyphosate to Front Groups: Fraud, Deception and Toxic Tactics (https://www.globalresearch.ca/glyphosate-front-groups-fraud-deception-toxic-tactics/5679596)

By Colin Todhunter (https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/colin-todhunter) Global Research
June 05, 2019


https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/glyphosate-test-400x299.jpg

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

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

Along with her letter, she enclosed a 13-page document. Readers can access the fully referenced document here: European Chemicals Agency classifies glyphosate as a substance that causes serious eye damage (http://rinf.com/alt-news/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/European-Chemicals-Agency-classifies-glyphosate-as-a-substance-that-causes-serious-eye-damage-.pdf). It is worth reading in full to appreciate the conflicts of interest and the corruption that has led to the rise in certain illnesses and the destruction of the natural environment.

By way of a brief summary, the key points raised by Dr Mason and her claims include the following:


The European Chemicals Agency classifies glyphosate as a substance that causes serious eye damage. There has been a massive increase in the use of glyphosate in recent years. An increase in cataracts has been verified by epidemiological studies in England and by a 2016 WHO report.



There are shockingly high levels of weed killer in UK breakfast cereals. After testing these cereals at the Health Research Institute in Iowa, Dr Fagan, director of the centre, said: “These results are consistently concerning. The levels consumed in a single daily helping of any one of these cereals, even the one with the lowest level of contamination, is sufficient to put the person’s glyphosate levels above the levels that cause fatty liver disease in rats (and likely in people).”



The amount of glyphosate in tap water in South Wales has increased tenfold in a very short period.



Glyphosate is largely responsible for the destruction of biodiversity and an increase in the prevalence of many serious health conditions.



There are massive conflicts of interest throughout various agencies in the EU that ensure harmful agrochemicals like glyphosate come to market and remain there.



In fact, a global industry has emerged to give ‘advice’ on biocides regulation. This results in regulatory bodies effectively working to further the commercial interests of the pesticide industry.



The European Food Safety Authority sanctioned increased maximum pesticide residue levels (MRL) at the request of industry (Monsanto in this case, to 100 times the previously authorised MRL).



The Washington-based International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) is used by corporate backers to counter public health policies. Its members have occupied key positions on EU and UN regulatory panels. It is, however, an industry lobby group that masquerades as a scientific health charity. The ILSI describes its mission as “pursuing objectivity, clarity and reproducibility” to “benefit the public good”. But researchers from the University of Cambridge, Bocconi University in Milan, and the US Right to Know campaign assessed over 17,000 pages of documents under US freedom of information laws to present evidence of influence peddling.



ILSI Vice-President, Prof Alan Boobis, is currently the Chairman of the UK Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (CoT) (2015-2021). He was directly responsible for authorising chemicals such as glyphosate, chlorothalonil, clothianidin and chlorpyrifos that are destroying human health and creating a crisis in biodiversity. His group and others have authorised glyphosate repeatedly. He and David Coggon, the previous Chairman of CoT (2008-2015), were appointed as experts on Science Advice for Policy by European Academies (SAPEA), a group allied with the agrochemical industry and is fighting for higher pesticide exposure.



Jean-Claude Juncker the President of the European Commission who, against a petition from more than 1.5 million European citizens, re-authorised glyphosate in December 2017 for a further five years. He set up the Science Advisory Mechanism, aiming to put industry-friendly personnel on various committees.

There are many more claims presented by Rosemary Mason in her report. But the take-home point is that the reality of the agrochemical industry is masked by well-funded public relations machinery (which includes bodies like the UK’s Science Media Centre). The industry also subverts official agencies and regulatory bodies and supports prolific lobby organisations and (‘public scientists’) which masquerade as objective institutions.

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

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

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

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


*



Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Colin Todhunter (https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/colin-todhunter), Global Research, 2019


Related:
Poisoning the Public: Toxic Agrochemicals and Regulators’ Collusion with Industry (https://www.globalresearch.ca/toxic-agrochemicals/5669949)

[Hervé]

Brazil’s toxic pesticides ‘affecting people all over the world’ through agricultural exports (https://www.rt.com/news/465348-brazil-pesticides-regulation-banned/)

RT
Published time: 30 Jul, 2019 05:08
Edited time: 30 Jul, 2019 08:54
Get short URL (https://on.rt.com/9z2c)


https://cdni.rt.com/files/2019.07/article/5d3fd017dda4c8046a8b45d7.jpg
© Global Look / Florian Kopp


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

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


[video at: https://www.rt.com/news/465348-brazil-pesticides-regulation-banned/]


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

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

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

Solution: import from Russia!

[Hervé]

Study finds 90% of families have glyphosate in bodies with significantly higher levels found in children (https://www.ceh.org/news-events/press-releases/content/study-finds-90-families-toxic-weed-killer-bodies-significantly-higher-levels-found-children/)

Center for Environmental Health (https://www.ceh.org/news-events/press-releases/content/study-finds-90-families-toxic-weed-killer-bodies-significantly-higher-levels-found-children/)
Wed, 24 Jul 2019 00:01 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s26/525797/large/34518043_l.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s26/525797/full/34518043_l.jpg)


Results released as Trump's EPA poised to approve the continued use of glyphosate in the U.S. for 15 more years
A new study (https://www.ceh.org/wp-content/uploads/Glyphosate-Factsheet.pdf) by Center for Environmental Health (CEH) found over 90% of families tested had glyphosate in their bodies. The study sought to determine whether children are more exposed to Monsanto's toxic weed killer than their parents. The results were unequivocal. Nine of the twelve parent-child pairs tested (in one family both parents and two children participated), the child had higher concentrations of glyphosate in their body than their parent. Six children had twice the amount than their parents and one had nearly a hundred times more. The families tested lived in a variety of states from across the country. CEH's findings corroborate other recent studies that found glyphosate in the bodies of 70 (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2658306) to 93 (https://detoxproject.org/1321-2/)% of those tested.
"Our findings are particularly alarming for children, whose bodies are still developing," said Caroline Cox, CEH's Senior Scientist.

"A toxic weed killer known to cause cancer has no business in our bodies or our food. Human health and the health of our children should outweigh the chemical industry's right to profit. These results warrant immediate, long-term, independent follow-up studies with increased sample sizes."
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Bayer/Monsanto's Roundup, is the most widely used herbicide in history (https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0). 2.4 billion (https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0) pounds have been sprayed on American farmland in the last decade. The World Health Organization has classified it as a "probable human carcinogen." California's environmental protection agency (https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/crnr/glyphosate-be-listed-under-proposition-65-known-state-cause-cancer#_ftn5) listed glyphosate as a chemical known to cause cancer. Recent research has found it can increase the risk of some cancers by more than 40 percent (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887?via%3Dihub), disrupt hormones, (https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0)damage human cells, genes (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh-rtecs/MC106738.html), and cause birth defects.

Bayer/Monsanto has also recently suffered three landmark legal defeats in which jury's ruled plaintiffs had contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma in part because of exposure to its glyphosate-based Roundup. The company has been forced to pay plaintiffs approximately $2.4 billion in damages (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-09/lawsuits-against-bayer-are-sprouting-like-weeds). More than 13,000 similar cases against the company currently await trial.

The increasing use of the weed killer (https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0) allows for numerous routes of human exposure, including food and proximity to farms that use it on corn, soybeans, oats, and hundreds of other crops. Children are more exposed (https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/60001MWG.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2006+Thru+2010&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C06thru10%5CTxt%5C00000012%5C60001MWG.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL) to pesticides than adults, and Roundup is increasingly sprayed around homes, schools, and parks, (https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0) found in popular children's cereals (https://www.ceh.org/glyphosate-herbicide-found-popular-cereals/), and the vast majority of oat-based items on public school menus (https://www.ceh.org/news-events/press-releases/content/new-report-toxic-weed-killer-menu-k-12-schools-across-country/).
"Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) like glyphosate can have lifelong and even transgenerational health impacts," said Alexis Luckey, Executive Director, Toxic Free North Carolina.

"These hormone disruptors can cause even more harm at low doses (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22419778). So, there's no assurance that any level of glyphosate exposure is safe. This study highlights the need to protect children and families by promoting organic alternatives to this toxic weed killer that are less harmful to human health and the environment."
Nonetheless, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is poised to approve the continued widespread use of glyphosate in the U.S. for another 15 years. EPA's evaluation process has been widely condemned, favoring Monsanto-funded studies (https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/05/30/727914874/safe-or-scary-the-shifting-reputation-of-glyphosate-aka-roundup) over independent, peer-reviewed research (https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-018-0184-7) linking glyphosate exposure to cancer and failure to follow proper protocol (https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ORDcommentsonOPPglyphosate.pdf). Nearly 150,000 public comments have already been submitted urging the agency to ban its use, with just over a month before the deadline to weigh-in comes.
"Trump's EPA has ignored a growing body of science and recent jury rulings that contradicts Monsanto's internal studies," said Cox.

"We urge EPA to put the health of the American people, especially children and the farmers and farmworkers who use this toxic weed killer regularly, ahead of chemical industry profits and end its use for good."
Cities counties across the U.S. (https://www.texasorganicresearchcenter.org/organic-research-page/Glyphosate-Where-is-it-Restricted-or-Banned-in-the-United-States_vq13273.htm) and a growing number of countries (https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/where-is-glyphosate-banned/) are taking a different approach than Trump's EPA by restricting or banning the use of glyphosate. And increasing numbers of U.S. schools (https://www.newhope.com/people-and-company-profiles/back-roots-and-nature-s-path-team-expand-organic-cereal-line) are buying more organic food and ending the use of Roundup (https://www.beyondpesticides.org/resources/state-pages/ca/school-policies) on school grounds.

Consumers can reduce glyphosate exposure by purchasing organic food whenever available and affordable. Each of those dollars spent supports more organic farms, none of which use glyphosate. Work with local elected officials to enact organic policies that end the use of glyphosate and other toxic pesticides like it. Use organic/eco-friendly pest management (http://ourwaterourworld.org/Portals/0/Weeds_4-25-18%20reduced.pdf?ver=2018-05-22-064512-727) in your yard and garden. If you work with glyphosate herbicides, wash your hands often; after work, remove your shoes before entering your home, wash (including your hair) with soap and shampoo immediately, and change into clean clothes as soon as possible.


Related:

Glyphosate is being inserted into your proteins — by mistake (https://www.sott.net/article/417299-Glyphosate-is-being-inserted-into-your-proteins-by-mistake)



Sacking of wildlife biologists and chief medical officer linked to glyphosate (https://www.sott.net/article/417232-Sacking-of-wildlife-biologists-and-chief-medical-officer-linked-to-glyphosate)



Glyphosate Ban: Is your country or county safe from the agrichemical behemoth RoundUp? (https://www.sott.net/article/416397-Glyphosate-Ban-Is-your-country-or-county-safe-from-the-agrichemical-behemoth-RoundUp)



Breakfast cereals marketed to kids are loaded with glyphosate, says new report (https://www.sott.net/article/414887-Breakfast-cereals-marketed-to-kids-are-loaded-with-glyphosate-says-new-report)



Glyphosate & Autism: Scientist Stephanie Seneff explains the indisputable link (https://www.sott.net/article/414779-Glyphosate-Autism-Scientist-Stephanie-Seneff-explains-the-indisputable-link)



Impossible Burger attacks Moms Across America for publishing glyphosate results (https://www.sott.net/article/414739-Impossible-Burger-attacks-Moms-Across-America-for-publishing-glyphosate-results)



Those 'healthy' plant-based protein smoothies are full of glyphosate...and that includes the organics! (https://www.sott.net/article/413862-Those-healthy-plant-based-protein-smoothies-are-full-of-glyphosate-and-that-includes-the-organics)

[Hervé]

Glyphosate Should be Phased Out Worldwide. Devastating Health Impacts (https://www.globalresearch.ca/international-federation-gynecology-obstetrics-wants-glyphosate-phased-out/5685413)

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

By GMWatch (https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19072-international-federation-of-gynecology-and-obstetrics-wants-glyphosate-phased-out) 31 July 2019
Global Research, August 02, 2019


https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/pregnant-woman-400x200.jpg


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

A statement (https://www.figo.org/statement-glyphosate-removal) published by the Federation’s Reproductive and Developmental Environmental Health Committee says:
“Over the past fifteen years, an expanding body of evidence has implicated the role of environmental exposures on health.

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

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

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

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

In 2015, the European Food Safety Authority released a report that concluded glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and they proposed a new safety measure that will tighten the control of glyphosate residues in food. The most recent meta-analysis (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31342895), published in 2019, states that there is a compelling link between non-Hodgkins lymphoma and glyphosate.

Also in 2015, in recognition of the need for a global federation to address the threat of toxic environmental chemicals to human reproductive and developmental health on the global stage, FIGO adopted its opinion (https://www.figo.org/news/congress-news-global-ob-gyn-group-urges-greater-efforts-prevent-toxic-chemical-exposure-0015052), Reproductive Health Impacts of Exposure to Toxic Environmental Chemicals.

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

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

FIGO, which for over 65 years has collaborated with the world’s top health bodies, including working in official relations with the World Health Organization and in a consultative role with the UN, points out an inherent problem with the production of many types of chemicals: that they are released into the environment and with current policy it is up to the public, scientists working for the public interest and physicians to prove harm before chemicals are removed from the market. FIGO says,
“Contrast this approach with the pharmaceutical industry, where they [industry] must prove safety before use by the public.”
FIGO adds,
“Our priorities should be in establishing safety, now and across generations, prior to exposure to chemical products.”
FIGO invokes the precautionary principle, as noted by the Wingspread Conference:
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”
In conclusion, FIGO says,
“Global health should be our guiding light. We recommend that glyphosate exposure to populations should end with a full global phase out.”
*
The original source of this article is GMWatch (https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19072-international-federation-of-gynecology-and-obstetrics-wants-glyphosate-phased-out)
Copyright © GMWatch (https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gmwatch), GMWatch (https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19072-international-federation-of-gynecology-and-obstetrics-wants-glyphosate-phased-out), 2019
Featured image is from the author

Related:
Killing Us Softly—Glyphosate Herbicide or Genocide? (https://www.globalresearch.ca/killing-us-softly-glyphosate-herbicide-or-genocide/5617502)

[Hervé]

Report: Monsanto paid Google to bury unfavorable news (https://futurism.com/the-byte/monsanto-google-hide-unfavorable-news)

Dan Robitzski Futurism (https://futurism.com/the-byte/monsanto-google-hide-unfavorable-news)
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 00:01 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s26/533540/large/roundup_google.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s26/533540/full/roundup_google.jpg)
© Monsanto/Victor Tangermann


Monsanto, the agrochemical company (https://futurism.com/gmo-wheat-escapes-lab-grows-wild) that's attained notoriety for its agricultural pesticides and genetically modified organisms, reportedly worked overtime to discredit investigative journalists criticizing the company — and even paid the search giant Google to suppress the findings.

Carey Gillam (https://careygillam.com/articles/article/new-monsanto-documents-expose-cozy-connection-to-reuters-reporter), a journalist with Reuters, was reporting on the health effects (https://www.reuters.com/article/monsanto-herbicide/monsanto-seeks-retraction-for-report-linking-herbicide-to-cancer-idUSL2N0WP0UM20150324) of Monsanto's products a few years back. As part of a massive damage-control campaign, the company worked to discredit her work as much as possible, according to an investigation (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/07/monsanto-fusion-center-journalists-roundup-neil-young) by The Guardian. Perhaps most troubling: the company reportedly paid Google to promote search results that questioned Gillam's findings — a disturbing look into how readily the flow of online information can be manipulated.

Coordinated Effort
As Gillam prepared to publish her 2017 book, "Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science," Monsanto went into overdrive, The Guardian reports. The company assembled a spreadsheet (https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Monsanto-Project-Spruce-Carey-Gillam-1.pdf) of 23 specific steps it would take to downplay Gillam's key finding while promoting content claiming its chemicals were actually safe.

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

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


Related:


How Monsanto manipulates journalists and academics (https://www.sott.net/article/414361-How-Monsanto-manipulates-journalists-and-academics)



Epic Fail: The EPA is meant to protect us - the Monsanto trials suggest it isn't doing that (https://www.sott.net/article/412839-Epic-Fail-The-EPA-is-meant-to-protect-us-the-Monsanto-trials-suggest-it-isnt-doing-that)



New Monsanto documents expose cozy connection to Reuters reporter Kate Kelland (https://www.sott.net/article/412417-New-Monsanto-documents-expose-cozy-connection-to-Reuters-reporter-Kate-Kelland)



NYC proposes ban on glyphosate as public awareness of its toxicity grows (https://www.sott.net/article/411460-NYC-proposes-ban-on-glyphosate-as-public-awareness-of-its-toxicity-grows)



Who is paying for Monsanto's crimes? (https://www.sott.net/article/410864-Who-is-paying-for-Monsantos-crimes)



Glyphosate found to raise the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by 41% (https://www.sott.net/article/407319-Glyphosate-found-to-raise-the-risk-of-non-Hodgkin-lymphoma-by-41)



One man's suffering exposed Monsanto's secrets to the world (https://www.sott.net/article/393354-One-mans-suffering-exposed-Monsantos-secrets-to-the-world)



Landmark lawsuit: Monsanto hid cancer danger of glyphosate for decades (https://www.sott.net/article/386302-Landmark-lawsuit-Monsanto-hid-cancer-danger-of-glyphosate-for-decades)

[onawah]

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

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

MNM833K22LM

[onawah]

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

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

Jeffrey will be speaking at The Real Truth About Health : https://responsibletechnology.org/jeffreys-take-monsanto-trial-will-stream-live-new-evidence-shows-greater-dangers-from-gmos/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=6b7f5a05-7c78-448f-9d0b-af56f87faa4f
As always, the transcript is provided for your reading pleasure:
https://responsibletechnology.org/jeffreys-take-monsanto-trial-will-stream-live-new-evidence-shows-greater-dangers-from-gmos/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=6b7f5a05-7c78-448f-9d0b-af56f87faa4f

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

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

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

100% FREE TO ATTEND IN PERSON OR ONLINE- CLICK HERE FOR ALL THE INFO
https://therealtruthabouthealth.com/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=6b7f5a05-7c78-448f-9d0b-af56f87faa4f

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, sound science doesn’t prevail with Monsanto.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safe eating.

Jeffrey Smith

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

[onawah]

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

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

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

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

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

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

IOS App Android SiriusXM
Click here to listen: https://livehealthybewell.com/podcast/monsanto-bayer-loses-a-huge-crop-damage-lawsuit-that-could-lead-to-billions-in-payouts-episode-21/
ble.

[onawah]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organic response:

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

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

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

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

Organic response:

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

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

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

Organic Response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organic Response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gwin Ru]

Court overturns EPA approval of Bayer dicamba herbicide; says regulator "understated the risks" (https://usrtk.org/pesticides/court-orders-epa-approvals-of-bayer-dicamba-herbicide-vacated-says-regulator-understated-the-risks/)

Carey Gillam
US Right To Know (https://usrtk.org/pesticides/court-orders-epa-approvals-of-bayer-dicamba-herbicide-vacated-says-regulator-understated-the-risks/)
Wed, 03 Jun 2020 00:01 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s28/571394/large/EPA_symbol.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s28/571394/full/EPA_symbol.jpg)


In a stunning rebuke of the Environmental Protection Agency, a federal court on Wednesday overturned the agency's approval (https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Court-decision-on-dicamba.pdf) of popular dicamba-based herbicides made by chemical giants Bayer, BASF and Corteva Agrisciences. The ruling effectively makes it illegal for farmers to continue to use the product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

Dicamba goes on trial: The history behind Monsanto's friendship-wilting weed killer (https://www.sott.net/article/428808-Dicamba-goes-on-trial-The-history-behind-Monsantos-friendship-wilting-weed-killer)



Pumping up the herbicides: Roundup, dicamba and 2,4-D (https://www.sott.net/article/410798-Pumping-up-the-herbicides-Roundup-dicamba-and-2-4-D)



With Roundup on the rocks, Monsanto hatches plan for replacement with drift-prone crop destroying dicamba (https://www.sott.net/article/366685-With-Roundup-on-the-rocks-Monsanto-hatches-plan-for-replacement-with-drift-prone-crop-destroying-dicamba)



Monsanto sues Arkansas plant board for banning disputed dicamba herbicide (https://www.sott.net/article/365135-Monsanto-sues-Arkansas-plant-board-for-banning-disputed-dicamba-herbicide)



More Dicamba devastation: 'Miracle' weed killer that was supposed to save farms is killing them instead (https://www.sott.net/article/360852-More-Dicamba-devastation-Miracle-weed-killer-that-was-supposed-to-save-farms-is-killing-them-instead)



Tennessee restricts use of Monsanto's dicamba pesticide as problems spread (https://www.sott.net/article/356475-Tennessee-restricts-use-of-Monsantos-dicamba-pesticide-as-problems-spread)



Dicamba devastation: Farmers in 10 states sue Monsanto (https://www.sott.net/article/343050-Dicamba-devastation-Farmers-in-10-states-sue-Monsanto)



Monsanto celebrates approval of deadly herbicide "Dicamba", continues to suppress cancer research (https://www.sott.net/article/334571-Monsanto-celebrates-approval-of-deadly-herbicide-Dicamba-continues-to-suppress-cancer-research)

[onawah]

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

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

Safe eating.

The Live Healthy Be Well Team"

[onawah]

USDA: Reject Monsanto’s petition to approve this GE five-herbicide seed
Please sign and share
6/22/20
"Target: USDA
Monsanto has petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture to approve a new GE corn seed engineered to tolerate applications of not just one or two chemicals, but five — dicamba, glufosinate, quizalofop, 2,4-D and glyphosate. We know who would benefit from this new seed — and it’s not farmers.
We’re teaming up with our friends at the National Family Farm Coalition and Friends of the Earth to deliver comments to USDA in advance of their July 7 deadline. Urge USDA to reject Monsanto’s petition to approve this seed, today."
http://www.panna.org/take-action/usda-reject-monsantos-petition-approve-ge-5-herbicide-seed?utm_source=action&utm_medium=alert&utm_campaign=ge&link_id=0&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&email_referrer=email_837371&email_subject=usda-no-we-dont-need-corn-designed-for-more-herbicides

[onawah]

Good news this year for Non-GMO & Organic
Institute for Responsible Technology
(from their email update 12/21/20)
https://www.responsibletechnology.org/jeffreys-take-good-news-this-year-for-non-gmo-organic/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=e6ddc41a-b0d4-40c3-b04f-e280bb3c23d0

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay everyone, Safe Eating and Happy New Year!"

[onawah]

Monsanto-Bayer still selling cancer-causing Roundup to US consumers
Email from: Organic Consumers Association <campaigns@organicconsumers.org>
8/6/23

kyKC8Yk7Yks

"Remember when all the news headlines said Monsanto’s cancer-causing Roundup weed killer was going to be pulled from the shelves in 2023?
Well, it’s 2023 now, and we’ve been tricked!

TAKE ACTION: Tell your state lawmakers to ban Roundup!
https://advocacy.organicconsumers.org/page/15280/action/1?utm_medium=email&utm_source=engagingnetworks&utm_campaign=OCA+Glyphosate+Tricks-PM&utm_content=OCA+Glyphosate+Tricks-PM&ea.url.id=1916080

Bayer is still selling Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide directly to consumers for home use.
What happened?
Bayer never took glyphosate-based Roundup herbicides off the shelves, it just began offering glyphosate-free alternatives alongside it.
The new versions of Roundup are also toxic.
According to Beyond Pesticides, “Roundup® Dual Action … contains the following active ingredients: triethylamine salt of triclopyr, fluazipop-P-butyl, diquat dibromide, and ammonium salt of imazapic—ingredients that are reproductive and developmental toxicants, sensitizers, and toxic to aquatic and other organisms.”

It turns out Bayer never meant to stop selling Roundup.
It was just buying time, time it used to buy off and infiltrate decision making bodies, while paying industry “scientists” to craft new cover-stories claiming glyphosate is perfectly safe.
The plot got exposed in Europe, where litigation by a group of European Parliament lawmakers led to the release of 53 corporate studies, only two of which met current internationally recognized scientific standards.
Bayer continues to poison us with their carcinogens.

Four out of five people in the US are contaminated with glyphosate, primarily because of glyphosate residues in our food, as demonstrated by testing conducted by the Detox Project, Moms Across America and the Environmental Working Group, as well as contamination of our water.
Cancer is just one risk of glyphosate contamination.

Contact your state legislators to let them know how important it is to get glyphosate out of agriculture and lawn care
Read more about the dangers of this toxic herbicide and what you can do to get glyphosate out of your body.

TAKE ACTION: https://advocacy.organicconsumers.org/page/15280/action/1?utm_medium=email&utm_source=engagingnetworks&utm_campaign=OCA+Glyphosate+Tricks-PM&utm_content=OCA+Glyphosate+Tricks-PM&ea.url.id=1916080
Thanks!
Alexis
For the OCA Team"

https://advocacy.organicconsumers.org/page/15280/action/1?utm_medium=email&utm_source=engagingnetworks&utm_campaign=OCA+Glyphosate+Tricks-PM&utm_content=OCA+Glyphosate+Tricks-PM&ea.url.id=1916080

"Make Your State the First to Ban Monsanto’s Roundup Weedkiller!
In 2015, the World Health Organization confirmed that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, is a probable human carcinogen, based on strong evidence linking it to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Since then, 140,000 glyphosate-exposed cancer victims have filed lawsuits against Bayer. The company is expected to pay $16 billion in jury awards and settlements by the time all the cases have been adjudicated.

Cancer is just one risk of glyphosate contamination.

Recent research from the UC Berkeley School of Public Health shows that childhood exposure to glyphosate is linked to liver inflammation and metabolic disorder in early adulthood, which could lead to liver cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease later in life.

Glyphosate was found in 99 percent of pregnant Midwestern women tested by the Indiana University School of Medicine between 2013 and 2016. Higher maternal glyphosate levels in the first trimester were associated with lower birth weights and higher NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) admissions.

The good news is that glyphosate isn’t a forever chemical and it can be removed from the body.

Glyphosate drops 70 percent after six days on an organic diet.

Around the world legislators are taking action to protect their citizens.

Take Action: Make your state the first in the U.S. to ban Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller!

people in hazmat suits in a farm field spraying roundup herbicides

*SAMPLE TEXT TO YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS*

You will be able to modify this text on the next page, after entering your information.

Dear [Member of Congress],

In 2015, a panel of 17 scientists at the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), after reviewing the latest science on glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto (now Bayer)’s Roundup weedkiller, unanimously agreed to reclassify the chemical as a probable human carcinogen.

Since then, countries around the world and localities across the U.S. have banned the herbicide. Approximately 140,000 lawsuits have been filed by Roundup-exposed cancer victims in the U.S. alone. Judging by the first verdicts and awards, Bayer will eventually be forced to pay an estimated $16 billion in compensation and punitive damages.

The evidence that glyphosate is dangerously detrimental to human health is staggering:

-Increased rates of non-Hodgkin lymphoma were found in occupational exposure studies of workers who handled glyphosate in the US, Canada and Sweden.

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

-Our bodies absorb glyphosate. This is indicated by the fact that glyphosate is found in the blood and urine of not only agricultural workers but also people in urban areas who are exposed to glyphosate through the food they eat.

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

-Glyphosate and Roundup induce DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro.

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

It is none too soon for our state lawmakers to respect the independent science and to honor the suffering of those of us who have or will get cancer because of exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.

Cancer is just one risk of glyphosate contamination.

Recent research from the UC Berkeley School of Public Health shows that childhood exposure to glyphosate is linked to liver inflammation and metabolic disorder in early adulthood, which could lead to liver cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease later in life.

Glyphosate was found in 99 percent of pregnant Midwestern women tested by the Indiana University School of Medicine between 2013 and 2016. Higher maternal glyphosate levels in the first trimester were associated with lower birth weights and higher NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) admissions.

Please ban glyphosate in our state!

Thank you,

[Your Name]"

[onawah]

Stop Glyphosate's Catastrophic Threat
Organic Consumers Association
11/2/23
https://organicconsumers.org/organic-bytes-newsletter-825-stop-glyphosates-catastrophic-threat/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=engagingnetworks&utm_campaign=OB+825&utm_content=OB+825

(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here)

"BAN GLYPHOSATE
Make Your State the First to Ban Monsanto’s Roundup Weedkiller!
Monsanto/Bayer has duped, assaulted, injured and killed farmers, farmworkers, rural villagers and urban consumers with its reckless use of toxic chemicals and pesticides (PCBs, DDT, Agent Orange, Dioxin, Roundup, 2,4D), and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The insidious political clout and growing control over the world’s seeds and food by Bayer/Monsanto and a new global agribusiness cartel constitute a serious, indeed catastrophic, threat to our health as well as to the health of our soils, watersheds, oceans, wetlands, forests and climate. But there is good news!

With two recent multi million dollar awards to Roundup cancer victims from Bayer/Monsanto and another almost 40,000 Roundup-related cases in store for the chemical, biotech and seed behemoth, the timing is right to make your state the first to ban Monsanto’s Roundup Weedkiller!

Take Action now! Make Your State the First to Ban Monsanto’s Roundup Weedkiller!

Acclaimed trial lawyer Brent Wisner says ‘glyphosate’s days are numbered’ after two huge cancer verdicts against Monsanto.

Watch this presentation by the heroic French toxicologist Dr. Gilles Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, France, from the Regeneration International People’s Food Summit 2023, about his groundbreaking research surrounding the hidden ingredients found in pesticides such as Roundup and the effects of Genetically Modified Organisms.

ROUNDUP & CANCER
‘My Wife Was Not a Weed’: One Family’s Roundup Cancer Story
“They knew they were selling death and outright saying they weren’t. All the judges, lawyers and dollar settlements in the world can’t make that right.”

—Paul Spreadbury

Beyond Side Affects, Drug watch

“Kathy Spreadbury was an avid gardener. The Florida woman’s love of caring for plants and watching them grow was a passion. At one time she even had over 100 plumeria,” her husband, Paul Spreadbury, said fondly. “Papers and magazines published articles about her success and talent with plants. She worked in greenhouses, nurseries and with lawn maintenance companies.”

That is where she was exposed to the weedkiller Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate — a chemical that the International Agency for Research on Cancer has deemed a probable human carcinogen.

But Roundup was marketed as safe. Neither Kathy nor Paul Spreadbury ever imagined that something she loved would expose her to a dangerous chemical that would lead to a cancer diagnosis. After a long battle with B-cell lymphoma, Kathy Spreadbury died on Christmas Eve, 2020.”

Read Kathy’s story: ‘My Wife Was Not a Weed’: One Family’s Roundup Cancer Story

Watch The Glyphosate Effect: How The World’s Most Common Herbicide Is Undermining Your Health And What You Can Do About It"

[Eva2]

'Chlormequat: A Dangerous New Pesticide Now in People and the U.S. Food Supply

In a groundbreaking study, EWG found chlormequat, a toxic pesticide, in 80% of people tested. Linked to serious reproductive health issues in animals, its presence in people and popular oat-based foods like Cheerios and Quaker Oats raises serious human health concerns.'


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vSHkCfth6c?si=9FMQ0rzu8fUnaMoT

[kfm27917]

Fungi expert holds the patent that could destroy Monsanto and change agriculture forever

https://www.sott.net/article/297699-Fungi-expert-holds-the-patent-that-could-destroy-Monsanto-and-change-agriculture-forever

[onawah]

That article is from 2015. Any news since then?

Fungi expert holds the patent that could destroy Monsanto and change agriculture forever

https://www.sott.net/article/297699-Fungi-expert-holds-the-patent-that-could-destroy-Monsanto-and-change-agriculture-forever

[onawah]

Glyphosate's Growing Presence in Agriculture and Its Effects on Human Health

Understanding Glyphosate's Growing Presence in Agriculture and Its Effects on Human Health
Analysis by Ashley Armstrong
January 28, 2025
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/01/28/glyphosate-agriculture-human-health.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20250128&foDate=true&mid=DM1695055&rid=215114129

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2025/January/PDF/glyphosate-agriculture-human-health-pdf.pdf

(Bold letters my emphasis)

"Story at-a-glance
Glyphosate has become the most widely used herbicide in history, with usage increasing 100 to 300-fold since the late 1970s, resulting in its presence in 60% to 80% of the general population through food, water, and air exposure
Research has shown glyphosate can accumulate in the kidney, liver, colon, and brain, cross the blood-brain barrier, and has been found in human breast milk, indicating it doesn't simply get excreted as claimed
A two-year study found that exposure to Roundup (a glyphosate-based herbicide) at doses far below permissible levels caused organ damage and increased tumor incidence, particularly mammary tumors in female test subjects
Glyphosate has been identified as an endocrine disruptor, showing eight out of 10 key characteristics associated with endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and can affect future generations through epigenetic changes
Studies show switching to an organic diet can reduce urinary glyphosate levels by about 71% within six days, with the highest sources of exposure being conventional grains, processed foods, and the "Dirty Dozen" produce items

A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances designed to kill, repel, or control pests. Let’s break it down into the two components: The term "pest" refers to any organism (insects, weeds, rodents, fungi, bacteria, etc.) that is considered harmful or undesirable, particularly in agricultural settings. And then "-cide" is a suffix derived from the Latin word "caedere," meaning "to kill."

It is commonly used in words to indicate something that kills or destroys, such as herbicide (kills plants), insecticide (kills insects), and fungicide (kills fungi).

Pesticides serve as an umbrella term for substances targeting pests, with subcategories defined by the type of pest being addressed, such as herbicides for weeds, insecticides for insects, fungicides for fungi, and rodenticides for rodents.

There are natural options that can be highly effective in controlling pests, including neem oil, pyrethrins extracted from specific flowers, rotenone derived from plant roots, diatomaceous earth, Bacillus thuringiensis (a bacteria-based solution), sulfur, garlic and pepper extracts, and copper-based compounds. Many of these options are used in organic agriculture.

And then there are chemical agents. The types of synthetic pesticides commonly used in conventional agriculture include:

Pesticide category Main target Examples
Insecticides Insects Cypermethrin, chlorpyrifos, malathion, imidacloprid, and the now banned DDT
Herbicides Weeds Glyphosate, 2,4-D, atrazine, dicamba, paraquat, glufosinate
Fungicides Fungi, molds and mildew Mancozeb, chlorothalonil, azoxystrobin, propiconazole
Rodenticides Rodents like rats and mice Warfarin
Nematicides Parasitic nematodes (roundworms) Fenamiphos, oxamyl, 1,3-dichloropropene
Bactericides Bacteria Kasugamycin, streptomycin, oxytetracycline
Miticides/acaricides Mites and ticks Abamectin, bifenazate, fenpyroximate

Waging chemical warfare against natural biological systems inevitably has consequences — Mother Nature will always prevail! While the widespread use of synthetic pesticides in global agriculture is driven by their ability to boost crop yields and produce cheap, abundant food.

This chemical-dependent farming system is deeply rooted in government policies and the profit-driven business models of Big Ag corporations.

Government subsidies, shaped by powerful agricultural lobbying, prioritize high-yield, chemical-intensive methods, which inadvertently fosters conditions that favor pesticide use, and favor chemical solutions over natural alternatives.

This system is further entrenched by the business model of major chemical corporations. These companies develop and patent pesticides, securing exclusive rights to their products for years. This monopolistic control allows them to command premium prices and substantial profits.

Their market power is further amplified by offering comprehensive agricultural packages that bundle pesticides with seeds and fertilizers, creating a cycle of dependency that reinforces their industry dominance.

It is important to keep this in mind when assessing mainstream messaging about the "safety" of glyphosate and other pesticide usage — of course they don’t want you to think these are bad since that is a threat to their business model!

Occasional pesticide use may not be that big of a deal, but our current agricultural system's heavy dependence on these chemicals has severe implications for both environmental and human health.

In this article, let’s focus on glyphosate and why we should be concerned that it dominates our agriculture system. (There are of course problems with other pesticides, too!). The evidence as a whole suggests we need to be cautious of our long-term exposure!

yMG2HvYaZls

So What Is Glyphosate?
Glyphosate is a synthetic, non-specific, systemic herbicide that kills many types of weeds and other vegetation by disrupting with the "shikimate pathway," a biochemical pathway that essential for plant survival. Since this pathway is absent in human cells, international "authorities" consider glyphosate to have no toxicity in humans. However, increasing evidence suggests otherwise.1

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in many herbicide products, including the popular "Roundup" product. These are referred to as glyphosate-based formulations (GBFs). GBFs unfortunately contain a range of other problematic chemicals in addition to glyphosate.2 GBFs are used in agriculture, commercial, industrial, and residential settings due to its broad-spectrum herbicidal properties.

The second most common use of glyphosate, after agriculture, is in landscape and turf management which include gardens, lawns, public spaces, parks, alongside roads and on golf courses.

In the grand scheme of things, glyphosate is still relatively "new." And it is a common trend in industry that many things aren’t officially labeled as a "health hazard" *until* they start causing major health problems, since there’s way too much money to be made by big businesses in the meantime! (Two examples include DDT and agent orange — which weren’t banned until they were proven to cause serious health problems). Science often lags industry!

So let’s recap briefly — In 1964, the patent was issued for use of glyphosate as a metal chelating and descaling agent to clean out mineral deposits in pipes and boilers. Then in 1971, glyphosate was patented as an herbicide after the discovery of its herbicidal properties.

In 1974, glyphosate was first sold to farmers by Monsanto, the company that was recently acquired by Bayer. Since the late 1970s, the use of glyphosate-based herbicides has increased between 100 to 300-fold!3

Glyphosate has become the most widely used chemical herbicide in history (for agriculture, commercial, industrial and residential settings) due to its broad-spectrum herbicidal properties. Tragically, this compound, which has been classified as a "probable carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer,4 is now pervasive in our food, water, and air.

The surge in global pesticide use can be traced to a fundamental shift in agricultural practices — the transition to industrial farming, particularly through the advent of genetically engineered crops in the mid-1990s. These GMO crops were engineered with a specific purpose: to either produce their own insecticides or withstand powerful herbicides, or both.

Today, this technology dominates major crops, with approximately 94% of soybean production now using genetically engineered seeds designed to resist Monsanto-Bayer's glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide.

Before "Roundup Ready" crops, farmers had to carefully limit herbicide application to avoid damaging their crops. But with plants engineered to withstand glyphosate, farmers could spray more frequently and intensively. Between 1990 and 2014, glyphosate use exploded from 7.7 million pounds to 250 million pounds — a staggering 1,347% increase.

However, glyphosate's reach extends beyond just GMO agriculture through an unexpected practice: pre-harvest desiccation. So, Glyphosate isn’t just used to kill weeds — farmers have discovered they can use glyphosate as a drying agent on non-GMO crops, particularly in regions with short growing seasons and wet harvests. This "desiccation" practice involves spraying crops with glyphosate shortly before harvest to force uniform drying and enable earlier harvesting.

Originally developed in 1980s Scotland to address unreliable grain drying conditions, the technique has spread globally, leading to a 400% increase in glyphosate use on non-GMO wheat alone over the past two decades.5

"The herbicide, glyphosate, is applied to wheat crops before harvest to encourage ripening resulting in higher glyphosate residues in commercial wheat products within North America."6

Desiccation has now expanded to numerous crops including barley, oats, corn, lentils, beans, chickpeas, potatoes, millet, sugar beets and others. This widespread adoption of glyphosate, both in GMO cultivation and as a pre-harvest desiccant in non-GMO crops, helps explain why the global glyphosate market is projected to grow from $10.92 billion in 2024 to $11.89 billion in 2025, representing an 8.9% annual growth rate.

A common misconception is that "non-GMO" labeling equates to chemical-free farming. However, the "non-GMO" label only signifies that the crops have not been genetically modified; it does not address whether pesticides or herbicides were used during cultivation. In fact, pesticides are commonly applied to non-GMO crops.

It also unfortunately means we are being exposed to much higher levels than ever before, in the food we eat and in the feed consumed by livestock.

When animals consume grains and other feed crops treated with glyphosate, traces of the chemical can accumulate in their systems, ultimately resulting in higher levels of glyphosate residues in meat and dairy products, raising concerns about the potential health implications of chronic low-level glyphosate exposure throughout the food chain.

Health Consequences of Glyphosate
Now that we understand a little more of the backstory of glyphosate infiltration into the food system — what’s the big deal? Why should we care?

Monsanto originally claimed Roundup was safe based on a 90-day trial in rats. Well, one research group wanted to put this to the test and extend this 90-day trial to two years.7 The results are very concerning!

"Our study design was based on that of the Monsanto investigation in order to make the two experiments comparable, but we extended the period of observation from Monsanto's 90 days to 2 years. We also used three doses of GMOs (instead of Monsanto's two) and Roundup to determine treatment dose response, including any possible non-linear as well as linear effects.

This allowed us to follow in detail the potential health effects and their possible origins due to the direct or indirect consequences of the genetic modification itself in the NK603 GM maize, or due to the R herbicide formulation used on the GM maize (and not G alone), or both ...

We then also tested for the first time three doses (rather than the two usually employed in 90-day protocols) of the R-tolerant NK603 GM maize alone, the GM maize treated with R, and R alone at very low environmentally relevant doses, starting below the range of levels permitted by regulatory authorities in drinking water and in GM feed ...

Our findings show that the differences in multiple organ functional parameters seen from the consumption of NK603 GM maize for 90 days escalated over 2 years into severe organ damage in all types of test diets. This included the lowest dose of R administered (0.1 ppb, 50 ng/L G equivalent) of R formulation administered, which is well below permitted MRLs in both the USA (0.7 mg/L) and European Union (100 ng/L).

Surprisingly, there was also a clear trend in increased tumor incidence, especially mammary tumors in female animals, in a number of the treatment groups. Our data highlight the inadequacy of 90-day feeding studies and the need to conduct long-term (2 years) investigations to evaluate the life-long impact of GM food consumption and exposure to complete pesticide formulations."

There was organ damage when the study was extended to two years at a Roundup dose far below permissible levels in the U.S. and the E.U. Additionally, tumor incidence, particularly mammary tumors in females, increased in several treatment groups.

The results emphasize the inadequacy of short-term (90-day) studies and the importance of long-term research to fully assess the health risks of GM food and pesticide formulations. Unfortunately, there is currently no long-term data on the effects of glyphosate exposure in humans (this is pretty hard to accomplish in a well-controlled environment).

But does this mean we shouldn’t be concerned of the alarming data in animals? NO! Just because something doesn’t immediately kill you does not make it safe. Long term chronic exposure is a huge health threat.

And since glyphosate is present in 60% to 80% of the general population,8 we actually may be part of an ongoing, real-time experiment on its long-term health effects as we speak. Let’s dive in a little more to see what recent research says about the potential health concerns of glyphosate exposure. (There is plenty of evidence showing us it is not safe!)

Stored in the Body/Bioaccumulates
While many point to the fact that glyphosate is water soluble, so it is "easily excreted" by the body — they forget about these glyphosate-based-formulations where other ingredients are mixed in, such as surfactants.

Studies show accumulation in the kidney, liver and colon9,10,11 and in human biological fluids, representing a severe human health risk.

Studies also demonstrate that glyphosate can cross the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in the brain in a dose-dependent manner, increasing the risk of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s.12

The presence of glyphosate in human breast milk13 is concerning for many health experts since it suggests that this chemical, despite being ‘water soluble, is accumulating in tissues and passing through biological barriers in ways that are not well understood!

Inflammation and DNA Damage
There are several studies documenting that it can induce inflammation and oxidative stress in various types of cells.14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24 As a result, glyphosate can increase DNA damage, significantly increasing cancer risks25,26,27,28,29 and kidney and liver dysfunction.30,31,32,33

Endocrine Disruption
Glyphosate has been shown to disrupt endocrine function34,35,36 and can lead to hormonal imbalances by influencing key hormonal pathways in the body.37,38

A 2020 review paper concluded that glyphosate exhibits eight out of 10 key characteristics associated with "endocrine disrupting chemicals," suggesting that glyphosate-based herbicides alter the biosynthesis of sex hormones.39

Roundup concentrations in the range of 10^3 times below the "MRL" can induce endocrine disturbances in human cells.40

Other alarming findings include that glyphosate can reduce sperm motility41,42 can interfere with protein synthesis, which can suppress spermatogenesis and cell growth,43 and decrease serum testosterone in young male rats.44

Impacts Next Generation Through Epigenetics
There is also data demonstrating that glyphosate not only impacts an individual’s health but also impacts the health of their descendants through epigenetic changes by interfering with normal methylation processes and gene expression.45,46

Perinatal exposure to low doses of glyphosate formulations impaired female reproductive performance and induced fetal growth retardation and structural congenital anomalies in mammal F2 offspring.47

Exposure to glyphosate at doses deemed "safe" for human health during gestation significantly increased anogenital distance (AGD) in both male and female rat pups. AGD is the measurement between the anus and the genitalia and is often used as a biological marker in toxicology and reproductive studies to assess the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Changes in AGD, particularly during development, can indicate hormonal imbalances or disruptions caused by environmental exposures, such as pesticides or other chemicals. Additionally, treatment with Roundup delayed the onset of first estrus and was associated with elevated serum testosterone levels in adult rats.48

Disrupts Gut Health
Regulatory agencies claim glyphosate is harmless to humans because we don’t have the shikimate pathway that glyphosate targets. Well, the microbes in our gut contain this pathway! Oops! Humans are made up of approximately 30 trillion human cells and about 39 trillion microbial cells, meaning the microbes in our gut slightly outnumber our human cells.

Glyphosate targets the shikimate pathway by inhibiting the activity of a key enzyme in this pathway, 3-phosphoshikimate 1-carboxyvinyltransferase (EPSPS), which is present in many of the microbes in our gut, disrupting gut health and throwing off our natural gut balance.

Glyphosate-sensitive Class I EPSPS enzymes are found in all bacteria, but its impact varies significantly among species. The Human Microbiome Project found that 732 out of 941 bacteria species in our gut have at least one copy of the gene that glyphosate targets. This means that 55% of our gut bacteria are sensitive to glyphosate, 38% are resistant, and 7% are unclassified.49

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2025/January/human-microbiome.jpg

"Commensal bacteria (the ‘good guys’) appear to be more susceptible to glyphosate, as they are more likely to possess glyphosate-sensitive Class I EPSPS enzymes than potentially pathogenic bacteria, thereby promoting dysbiosis."

Beneficial bacteria are more likely to possess Class I EPSPS enzymes which makes them susceptible to dying off, and opportunistic pathogens in the gut are more likely to possess glyphosate-resistant Class II EPSPS enzymes, allowing them to thrive under glyphosate exposure.

In other words — glyphosate hinders the growth of beneficial gut bacteria while promoting the growth of pathogenic bacteria, leading to dysbiosis.

"Glyphosate residues on food could cause dysbiosis, given that opportunistic pathogens are more resistant to glyphosate compared to commensal bacteria.50

Here, we evaluate the literature surrounding glyphosate’s effects on the gut microbiome and conclude that glyphosate residues on food could cause dysbiosis, given that opportunistic pathogens are more resistant to glyphosate compared to commensal bacteria."51

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2025/January/dysbiosis.jpg

Glyphosate is designed to kill weeds and microorganisms in the soil, but our digestive systems contain trillions of microorganisms. So yes, glyphosate and glyphosate-based-herbicides negatively impact gut health52,53,54 by inducing inflammation55 and causing dysbiosis.

This has negative systemic implications since gut health impacts the whole body including mood, brain function, and immunity. And unfortunately, this gut impact wasn’t really considered when the "safe" human intake standards were created.

Scientists frequently discuss how the negative gut impacts are not considered when "regulatory agencies" set the "acceptable daily intake" (ADI), which is determined by dividing the no-observed-effect-level (NOEL) by a safety factor.

"However, only direct glyphosate toxicity was considered when determining the NOEL. Alarmingly, glyphosate’s influence over health through secondary means, such as the gut microbiome, was never considered. Given that the gut microbiome is critical for our overall health and disease susceptibility, glyphosate residues on wheat may contribute to dysbiosis, thereby affecting our overall health."56

Compounding Impacts
Research suggests that the health risks associated with glyphosate exposure are even more pronounced when it comes to glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs), or "Glyphosate-Based-Formulations (GBFs)," rather than pure glyphosate,57,58,59 likely due to the cumulative toxic effects of the additional chemicals involved.

While pure glyphosate is used in some cases, it is typically found as part of a GBH/GBF, where it is combined with other ingredients to enhance its ability to penetrate plant tissues more effectively.

For example — it has been shown that Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate alone.60 Roundup includes the co-formulant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) which has been demonstrated to have toxic effects.61,62

The issue is further complicated by the proprietary nature of most of these GBHs/GBFs, where the ingredients and their relative proportions remain undisclosed. This lack of transparency poses a significant challenge for researchers, who are left in the dark about the specific components, their quantities, and the potential synergistic effects when these chemicals interact.

Adding to the concern, crops are often treated with a "cocktail" of agrochemicals in industrial ag, including other herbicides alongside GBHs. For example, research has shown that glyphosate’s cytotoxic effects can intensify when combined with other herbicides, such as Paraquat.63 This synergistic interaction suggests that even low levels of glyphosate residues in our food supply could have serious health consequences when combined with other widely used agrochemicals.

Alarmingly, this synergistic phenomenon has never been thoroughly studied, leaving a critical gap in our understanding of the full risks posed by these chemical concoctions.

Highest Sources
Glyphosate enters the human body through inhalation, ingestion, or contaminated food.64 And as a systemic herbicide, it is deeply absorbed by plants and moves throughout, including the roots, stems, and fruits. This means glyphosate cannot be washed off produce and isn’t broken down by cooking or heating.65,66

So, the best strategy is to reduce exposure through mindful food sourcing when you can. Processed foods are the most likely source of glyphosate contamination, making it another compelling reason to reduce or eliminate their consumption!

Studies consistently show that switching to an organic diet (since glyphosate is not allowed in organic agriculture) or choosing foods that are tested to be low in glyphosate, dramatically reduce glyphosate levels in the body.67,68 In one study, an organic diet intervention reduced urinary glyphosate levels by 70.93% and its main metabolite AMPA by 76.71% within six days.69 A diet higher in organic food is also associated with a reduced risk of cancer.70

When it comes to grains, choosing organic (or knowing a chemical free, regeneratively grown source) is essential. Grains, including wheat, corn, soy, rice, oats, and beans, often contain the highest concentrations of pesticides since many are genetically modified (and thus sprayed throughout the season), and non-GMO grains are frequently desiccated with glyphosate-based-herbicides before harvest, which increases pesticide residue.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) routinely tests food for pesticides, and one of the highest sources tested are a common breakfast staple in many homes: Quaker Oatmeal Squares (since the oats are likely desiccated right before harvest).71 A light glyphosate bath on your breakfast cereal — yum!

For produce, aim to buy organic whenever possible, but try to prioritize sourcing organic for the "Dirty Dozen" to reduce your pesticide exposure — the 12 fruits and vegetables with the highest pesticide residues, according to the EWG’s 2024 report,72 include strawberries, spinach, kale, collard greens, mustard greens, grapes, peaches, pears, nectarines, apples, peppers, cherries, blueberries, and lettuce.

When it comes to meat, eggs, and dairy, if you are buying these at the grocery store — organic is the best choice. Glyphosate accumulates in eggs73,74,75,76 and glyphosate is present in the meat of cattle and in the urine of cows that consume contaminated food.77

But better yet is getting to know your local farmer. Not all farmers can afford the organic certification process, but many are committed to sustainable, chemical-free practices. And "organic" is not required for something to be chemical free. Instead, know your farmer and ask about their farming practices!

Supporting these farmers and farm cooperatives is a great way to make a positive impact on your health, the agricultural system as a whole, and the environment.

Conclusion
Regulatory agencies establish "tolerable limits" for glyphosate, but these limits overlook potential long-term and cumulative effects, fueling concerns about its safety in animal feed and the broader food chain. While some food samples may fall below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) "allowable daily intake" (ADI) of 1.75 mg per kg of body weight, critics argue that this threshold is fundamentally flawed.

Plus, why is the U.S. limit nearly six times higher than the European Union’s ADI of 0.3 mg per kg? Why does such a significant disparity exist?

The ADI fails to account for recent evidence linking glyphosate to probable carcinogenicity, its pervasive presence in food and water, the evidence of severe gut disruption, and its potential role as an endocrine disruptor, which could affect hormone levels differently across various stages of human development.

Additionally, safety tests were based only on isolated glyphosate, ignoring the compounded toxicity of commercial formulations containing other harmful chemicals. Compounding the risk, glyphosate residues from multiple food sources accumulate, amplifying exposure day to day.

In conclusion, the widespread presence of glyphosate in our bodies, combined with regulatory gaps and the herbicide’s persistent nature in food, calls for urgent action. By being more mindful of our food choices, we can take meaningful steps to reduce exposure and protect our health from the potential long-term effects of this pervasive chemical.

Supporting food systems that do not rely on toxic pesticides is a crucial step toward shifting agriculture from the bottom up. You can make a difference by supporting organic and regenerative farmers.

Think of it as voting with your fork (or spoon) — you're essentially voting against the chemical-based conventional farming system!

Real, lasting change will likely not come from the top down, as Big Ag continues to profit from harmful practices. By empowering and supporting sustainable, pesticide-free farming, we can create a healthier future for future generations to come."

About the Author
Ashley Armstrong is passionate about helping others restore metabolic health and in creating an alternative food system low in PUFAs and low in toxic agrochemicals like glyphosate.

Armstrong is the co-founder of Angel Acres Egg Club, which specializes in low-PUFA (polyunsaturated fat) eggs that are shipped to all 50 states. Recent laboratory testing has confirmed that Angel Acres eggs are completely free of glyphosate!

This achievement reflects a commitment to quality and a unique partnership with row crop farmers who practice regenerative agriculture practices to produce the low-PUFA chicken feed ingredients and do not use agrochemicals.

Armstrong also co-founded Nourish Food Club, which ships low-PUFA chicken, low-PUFA pork, beef, cheese, A2 dairy and traditional sourdough to all 50 states. While the egg club has memberships open, Nourish Food Club has a temporary waiting list.

- Sources and References
1, 11, 24, 57 Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Nov 22;22(22):12606
2 Mass.gov, Glyphosate Scientific Review Revised Draft Phase 2 Report
3 North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science, March 2018, Pre-harvest Glyphosate Timing in Oats and Final Oat Quality
4 WHO, International Agency for Research on Cancer, March 20, 2015
5 The Healthy Home Economist, The Real Reason Wheat Is Toxic (it’s not the gluten)
6, 50, 51, 56 Front Microbiol. 2020 Sep 25;11:556729
7, 40 Environ Sci Eur. 2014 Jun 24;26(1):14
8 J. Verbr. Lebensm. 10, 3–12 (2015)
9 Front. Toxicol., September 18, 2024, Sec. Regulatory Toxicology, Volume 6
10 Journal of Immunotoxicology, 17(1), 163–174
12 J Neuroinflammation 19, 193 (2022), Abstract
13 Moms Across America, April 7, 2014
14 Environ Mol Mutagen. 1998;32(1):39-46
15 Mutat Res. 1998 Jul 17;403(1-2):13-20
16 Toxicology. 2017 Jul 15:387:67-80
17 Environ Int. 2020 Feb:135:105414
18, 30 Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2009 Nov;28(3):379-85
19, 31 Environ Health. 2015 Aug 25:14:70
20, 32 Dose Response. 2019 May 23;17(2):1559325819843380
21, 33 Front Immunol. 2014 Oct 7:5:491
22 Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Oct 26;107(43):18581-6
23 Toxicology. 2014 Nov 5:325:42-51
25 International Agency for Research on Cancer, Some Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides
26 J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016 Aug;70(8):741-5
27 Leuk Lymphoma. 2002 May;43(5):1043-9
28 Food Chem Toxicol. 2018 Oct:120:510-522
29 Exp Mol Med. 2015 Aug 28;47(8):e179
34 3 Biotech. 2018 Oct;8(10):438
35 Food Chem Toxicol. 2013 Sep:59:129-36
36 Vet Anim Sci. 2020 Jun 24:10:100126
37, 59 Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021 Mar 15;12:627210
38 Beyond Pesticides, November 25, 2022
39 U.S. Right to Know, November 13, 2020
41 Toxics. 2017 Dec 21;6(1):2
42 Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 May 30;15(6):1117
43 ACS Omega. 2021 Jun 2;6(23):14848–14857
44 CDC, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Glyphosate
45 Toxicol In Vitro. 2020 Mar:63:104736
46 Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021 May 21:12:671991
47 Arch Toxicol. 2018 Aug;92(8):2629-2643
48 Environ Health. 2019 Mar 12;18(1):15
49 J Hazard Mater. 2021 Apr 15:408:124556
52, 54 Life (Basel). 2022 May 9;12(5):707
53 Interdiscip Toxicol. 2013 Dec;6(4):159–184
55 Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2020 Jan 15:187:109846
58 Toxicology. 2009 Aug 21;262(3):184-91
60 Biomed Res Int. 2014:2014:179691
61 Chem Res Toxicol. 2009 Jan;22(1):97-105
62 Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2017 Jan:49:156-162
63 Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Jul 31;16(15):2734
64, 66 Sustainability 2018, 10(4), 950
65 Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2012 Nov;215(6):570-6
67 EWG, August 11, 2020
68 Environmental Health News, August 11, 2020
69 Environ Res. 2020 Oct:189:109898
70 JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(12):1597-1606
71 EWG, October 24, 2018
72 EWG, The Dirty Dozen™
73 The Alliance for Natural Health USA, April 19, 2016
74 Sci Rep. 2020 Apr 14;10(1):6349
75 Sci Rep. 2021 Sep 29;11:19290
76 SciELO, Food Sci. Technol 37 (3), July-Sept 2017
77 J Environ Anal Toxicol 2014, 4:2

"https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/01/28/glyphosate-agriculture-human-health.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20250128&foDate=true&mid=DM1695055&rid=215114129

Also see: Dr. Stephanie Seneff – HOW GLYPHOSATE DESTROYS YOUR GUT
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91081-The-poisoning-of-America-Glyphosate-Statins-and-Vaccines&p=1330468&viewfull=1#post1330468

[onawah]

Tell Costco: Stop Pushing Toxic Roundup!
Organic Consumers
5/12/25
https://organicconsumers.org/organic-bytes-newsletter-893-costco-stop-pushing-toxic-roundup/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=engagingnetworks&utm_campaign=OB+893&utm_content=OB+893

https://organicconsumers.org/wp-content/uploads/2000/05/49.99.png

"In 2019, Costco reportedly stopped selling Roundup weed killer, but now it’s back. What’s up with that? The Roundup Costco sells now has an “Exclusive Formula” where glyphosate has been replaced with other ingredients, including two, diquat dibromide and imazapic, that are banned in the E.U. It’s 45 times more toxic than the glyphosate-based version (a potent carcinogen).

Diquat dibromide is 200 times more toxic than glyphosate. The E.U. considers it too dangerous to use. Even when workers wore coveralls, gloves, and boots, they were still exposed to three-and-a-half times the maximum acceptable level of diquat. This can cause paralysis, blindness, vomiting, irritation, convulsions, organ damage and even death.

Imazapic‘s harms include eye irritation, muscle degeneration, liver damage, anemia, increased blood levels of cholesterol, and birth defects.

This does not bode well for people buying Roundup at Costco—who aren’t being warned of the product’s new dangers or how to protect themselves or others. It’s crazy for Costco to sell something so toxic directly to homeowners who will unknowingly poison themselves and their neighbors.

TAKE ACTION! Tell Costco: Stop Selling Roundup! Costco doesn’t have a publicly available email address, so the best way to submit your feedback is to call your local Costco, or the online store at 1-800-955-2292, or to communicate with them via social media on Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest. For an easy, one-click action, like and share our posts on Facebook, X and Instagram.

READ: Costco Stopped Selling Glyphosate, but Still Sells Roundup—With a “45 Times More Toxic” Formula: https://organicconsumers.org/costco-stopped-selling-glyphosate-still-selling-roundup-with-a-45-times-more-toxic-formula/ "

[onawah]

Bayer CEO Warns that Company May Stop Making Roundup
April 18, 2025
Farm Policy News
by Ryan Hanrahan
https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/2025/04/bayer-ceo-warns-that-company-may-stop-making-roundup/

https://organicconsumers.org/wp-content/uploads/2000/05/RoundupBayer-600x315.jpg

"The Wall Street Journal’s Patrick Thomas reported that “Roundup’s time may be up. Pharmaceutical and agriculture conglomerate Bayer said it could stop producing the world’s most popular weedkiller, unless it gets court protection against lawsuits blaming the herbicide for causing cancer.”

“Roundup has generated tens of billions of dollars in sales over time for Bayer and Monsanto, the biotech seed giant and developer of Roundup that Bayer acquired in 2018,” Thomas reported. “Bayer currently produces about 40% of the world’s glyphosate, which farmers spray across fields to tame crop-threatening weeds.”

“But over the past decade, the herbicide has also brought Bayer a wave of litigation, pressuring its share price and costing about $10 billion in payouts to plaintiffs,” Thomas reported. “In early March, Bayer told farmers, suppliers and retailers that it may stop selling Roundup, which would leave U.S. farmers reliant on imported glyphosate from China.”

“‘We’re pretty much reaching the end of the road,’ Bayer Chief Executive Bill Anderson said in an interview,” according to Thomas’ reporting. “‘We’re talking months, not years.'”

“Since taking over as Bayer’s CEO in 2023, Anderson has said one of his goals is to get the glyphosate litigation under control by 2026. He said that in some years, Roundup-related litigation expenses eclipse Bayer’s agriculture research-and-development budget,” Thomas reported. “‘We barely break even on glyphosate production and distribution, and if you then factor in litigation, you’re talking $2 billion to $3 billion in losses a year,’ Anderson said. Bayer said it brought in $2.8 billion from glyphosate sales last year.”

Bayer Continues to Lobby State Legislatures
Reuters’ Rachel More reported Thursday that “Bayer is lobbying U.S. states to adjust their regulations in the battle to control costly litigation targeting its herbicide glyphosate but is also prepared for a possible exit from the market, the group’s CEO said on Thursday.”

“Facing weak earnings, rising legal costs and a lagging share price, Bayer hopes the strategy will provide it with a way to stem damages out of court, having already paid about $10 billion to settle disputed claims that Roundup, its weedkiller based on glyphosate, causes cancer,” More reported. “‘We’re making this case to lawmakers, and we appreciate the bi-partisan support we see,’ Chief Executive Bill Anderson said in a transcript of his speech for the company’s annual shareholders’ meeting on April 25.”

“Georgia and North Dakota have already passed legislation, Anderson said, adding: ‘we hope other states follow their lead,'” More reported. “Bills recently passed in both states on pesticide labelling have yet to be passed into law by the governors.”

Bayer Has Even Approached the Supreme Court
The Associated Press’ David A. Lieb reported at the beginning of April that “global agrochemical manufacturer Bayer has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether federal law preempts thousands of state lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people that its popular weedkiller could cause cancer.”

“Bayer’s new request to the nation’s highest court comes as it is simultaneously pursing legislation in several states seeking to erect a legal shield against lawsuits targeting Roundup, a commonly used weedkiller for both farms and homes,” Lieb reported. “Bayer disputes the cancer claims but has set aside $16 billion to settle cases and asserted Monday that the future of American agriculture is at stake.”

“In a court filing Friday, Bayer urged the Supreme Court to take up a Missouri case that awarded $1.25 million to a man who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after spraying Roundup on a community garden in St. Louis,” Lieb reported. “The federally approved label for Roundup includes no warning of cancer. Bayer contends federal pesticide laws preempt states from adopting additional labeling for products and thus prohibits failure-to-warn lawsuits brought under state laws.”

“The Supreme Court in 2022 declined to hear a similar claim from Bayer in a California case that awarded more than $86 million to a married couple,” Lieb reported. “But Germany-based Bayer, which acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, contends the Supreme Court should intervene now because lower courts have issued conflicting rulings.” "


Ryan Hanrahan
Ryan Hanrahan is the Farm Policy News editor and social media director for the farmdoc project. He has previously worked in local news, primarily as an agriculture journalist in the American West. He is a graduate of the University of Missouri (B.S. Science & Agricultural Journalism). He can be reached at rrh@illinois.edu.

Related News Summaries

[onawah]

Global Glyphosate Study Webinar
Institute for Responsible Technology
7/15/25
https://api.neonemails.com/emails/content/qL1bMjOGIIT5SrbUZnNvBSn3e9dlYokid00VnHHQ98w=

https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/meips/ADKq_NaQGxaWFAMH7hOHOq6Cusfyke7MDRyqHntNxMbcQni-O4f0Y-GKDhtuxJVQa5TCrMqIQw6dR6mbC076Xl3RS0y9zHbqug67JrHgf-OFxOPpgo-M22kWbTZ46qmUK63z-q26yrUzPClwQIJ-knhUbyoWxDi7dD5RKfUDCQGQ23mOby6qg7nY3SzgyFyBOY8sptC9bRq5izpHpqm-nQ=s0-d-e1-ft#https://responsibletechnology.app.neoncrm.com/neon/resource/responsibletechnology/images/Email%20Header-Yellow%20White-600x100-v3.jpg
Institute for Responsible Technology PO Box 469 Fairfield, IOWA 52556 USA

"You've likely read about the Global Glyphosate Study, the most comprehensive study ever conducted on glyphosate, in our recent newsletters. The study's only UK based contributor, Professor Michael Antoniou (Professor of Molecular Genetics and Toxicology at Kings College London), presented the results and consequences of the study in an exclusive webinar.
A recording of the PAN UK webinar is now available to watch and share.
The study confirms that glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides cause multiple types of cancer, even at exposure levels deemed to be “safe” by the EU. It was coordinated by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy and involved scientists from the US, South America and Europe.
In response to this landmark study, the European Commission has said it will review the new data and “act immediately to amend or withdraw the approval” of glyphosate if it “no longer meets” the EU’s safety standards. This decision would have huge implications in the UK and beyond.
Watch and share this webinar recording with your family, friends, colleagues, and other networks":

Glyphosate: A groundbreaking global study on the controversial weedkiller
PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK UK
454 subscribers
2,123 views Jul 9, 2025

"New, groundbreaking research linking Glyphosate to cancer is forcing governments to review their support for the world’s most popular weedkiller.

This webinar is an exclusive opportunity to hear about the most comprehensive, global study ever conducted on Glyphosate from its only UK-based contributor, Professor Michael Antoniou (Professor of Molecular Genetics and Toxicology at Kings College London).

Published on the 10th June in the prestigious Environmental Health journal, the study confirms that Glyphosate and Glyphosate-based herbicides cause multiple types of cancer, even at exposure levels deemed to be “safe” by the EU. It was coordinated by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy and involved scientists from across the US, South America and Europe."

RbOmX4n2xw0

[onawah]

The Scientific Evidence That Justifies Banning GMOs and Glyphosate/NEW STUDY
7/31/25
Dr. André Leu, IProf., D.Sc., BA Com., Grad Dip Ed, International Director of Regeneration International
https://organicconsumers.org/organic-bytes-newsletter-905-the-scientific-evidence-that-justifies-banning-gmos-and-glyphosate/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=engagingnetworks&utm_campaign=OB+905&utm_content=OB+905

"There are an enormous number of published scientific studies showing that GMOs and their associated pesticides are responsible for multiple serious health problems for people, animals, and the wider environment.

The widespread adoption of GMO crops in the U.S. has resulted in a massive increase in the application of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as the primary method of weed control.

A landmark study on glyphosate by Panzacchi et al. was published on June 10, 2025, examining total lifetime exposure to the so-called ‘safe’ levels to which most people are subjected.

The study found that the lowest dose of 0.5 mg/kg, which is four times lower than the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed ‘safe’ level, led to increased rates of both benign and malignant tumors at various anatomical sites compared to the controls. These tumors included leukemia, skin, liver, thyroid, nervous system, ovary, mammary gland, adrenal glands, kidney, urinary bladder, bone, endocrine system, pancreas, uterus, and spleen.

It also validates the accuracy of Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America, where Dr. Nancy Swanson, our co-authors, and I demonstrated how glyphosate and GMOs are linked to over 20 chronic diseases in the U.S.

Read about the first credible peer-reviewed lifetime study of GMOs and Roundup –This article is from a new series where André examines the latest research, news, and historical context on agricultural topics, sounding the alarm on the dangers of toxic farming practices and with detailed information to help us move towards a more healthier, regenerative and organic future through agroecology.
"

Read the new series on pesticides here: https://organicconsumers.org/glyphosate-and-gmos-are-damaging-our-health-its-time-to-ban-them/

TAKE ACTION:

Tell Sec. Kennedy: Ban Insecticide-Producing GMOs! https://advocacy.organicconsumers.org/page/81755/action/1

Make Your State the First to Ban Monsanto’s Roundup Weedkiller! https://advocacy.organicconsumers.org/page/15280/action/1

[onawah]

Will EPA Use ‘Scientific’ Paper Ghostwritten by Monsanto to Rule on Safety of Glyphosate?
by Alexander Kaurov and Naomi Oreskes/ Undark
August 19, 2025
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/epa-decision-glyphosate-safety-monsanto-ghostwritten-study/?utm_source=cc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20250819s#btn-share-1

(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here)

"As the deadline approaches for the EPA to rule on whether to re-register glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup weedkiller, the agency’s research staff is shrinking. That leaves EPA officials more dependent on external studies — including a study that, according to internal corporate emails, was largely conceived and drafted by Monsanto employees.

In October 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must release its decision on the use of America’s most widely used herbicide, glyphosate. It will mark a milestone in the 15-year registration review cycle for pesticides (the umbrella legal term in the U.S., which includes herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and rodenticides) mandated under federal law.

The deadline for the decision, originally scheduled for 2022, was extended to 2026 after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the EPA to reconsider its preliminary conclusion that glyphosate was “not likely” to cause cancer.

This time, however, the EPA heads into the review under dramatically reduced capacity. President Donald Trump’s 2026 budget proposes a 55% cut for the agency.

In July, the Trump administration began to dismantle the agency’s Office of Research and Development, with plans to lay off more than 3,700 employees — roughly three‑quarters of its research staff and about a fifth of its total workforce.

Former EPA administrators warn that this will strip the agency of its in‑house toxicologists, chemists and epidemiologists — the experts who generate much of the primary data that undergird almost every rule the agency writes.

Besides increasing the possibility that glyphosate and reviews of other pesticides will be further delayed, what else can we expect from this situation?

Already, we’ve seen numerous reversals of policy and cancellations of data collection projects under the new EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect more antiregulatory moves.

Limiting the agency’s internal scientific capacity increases its reliance on external expertise and scientific literature, so the agency will have to trust the robustness of published research. But is the scientific record robust enough?

Peer review is supposed to safeguard the accuracy of published science, including keeping it clean from contamination by paper mills, undisclosed conflicts of interest, manipulated data, corporate misconduct and other forms of malpractice. Unfortunately, the scientific literature has proven far too easy to compromise.

Consider a single review paper published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology in 2000 about Roundup, the trade name for Monsanto’s widely used glyphosate-based herbicide.

Authored by three researchers — Gary M. Williams, Robert Kroes and Ian C. Munro — who disclosed no conflicts of interest, the paper concluded that “under present and expected conditions of use, Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans.”

In 2017, internal corporate emails released during federal litigation against Monsanto revealed that the paper was largely conceived and drafted by Monsanto employees. (The company denies this, but the evidence is overwhelming.)

In these communications, employees praised one another for contributing to the manuscript, including “writing” it — despite not being listed as authors and only thanked in the acknowledgements for providing “scientific support.”

In short, the paper was ghostwritten — a clear violation of any imaginable standard of scientific ethics.

A Monsanto employee expressed hope that the review would become “‘the reference on Roundup and glyphosate safety,” and it did. In our recent research published in Environmental Science and Policy, we show that this paper is in the top 0.1% of cited academic literature on glyphosate.

The vast majority of papers that cite it offer no acknowledgment of its questionable origins. This fraudulent paper has become deeply integrated into and influential in the scientific record.

The paper’s influence has spread far beyond academia. Government documents from public health agencies around the world — including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Health New Zealand: Te Whatu Ora — cite this ghostwritten paper without caveats even after the 2017 revelations, affecting policy and shaping public perception of glyphosate’s safety.

A 2011 Canadian Forest Service publication, for instance, answers a question about whether glyphosate causes cancer and is an endocrine disruptor with the following:

“No. Based on the weight of available scientific evidence, several regulatory and independent scientific review panels conclude that glyphosate is non-carcinogenic, does not cause birth defects or genetic alterations, and does not act as an endocrine disruptor in whole animal systems under realistic exposure regimes.”

The answer references the paper and continues, saying, “Such reviews conducted by highly qualified professional toxicologists and risk assessment specialists provide the most credible and reliable sources of information.”

The public has also been influenced by this paper. Who among us hasn’t turned to Wikipedia for information? It is a frequent top Google search result, and now it is part of the training datasets for many artificial intelligence models.

The paper is mentioned in popular Wikipedia articles about Roundup and glyphosate-based herbicides (though there are ongoing attempts to remove it).

We analyzed the editing history of these entries and found that although several editors had attempted to note the review’s ghostwritten origins, these notes were systematically excluded by higher-level editors.

On Wikipedia’s discussion pages, users report how influential these Wikipedia articles are in their local communities.

One comment reads:

“The content of this article is dangerous. I work in the agricultural sector in Southern France. I was at a meeting with some farmers discussing safety when a guy addressed the crowd and literally quoted this article stating that glyphosate does not cause cancer and is less dangerous than table salt.” It goes on to say, “This article is used by active farmers as an excuse not [to] bother with safety equipment and appropriate practices.”

In 2018, after the revelations, some Wikipedia editors expressed frustration when the paper persisted as a reference: “I’m not sure why editors are pushing so hard for inclusion of this particular source when multiple non-controversial and more authoritative sources exist for this content.”

Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines encourage citing peer-reviewed literature, but the rules on which sources should be used are flexible. Its editors justify including the paper on the grounds that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal and has never been retracted.

The journal the paper appeared in had been previously implicated in scandals for publishing industry-friendly studies, specifically ones for the tobacco industry. One 2017 analysis showed that 96% of the tobacco or nicotine papers in this journal published between January 2013 and June 2015 had authors with tobacco industry ties, and none of the papers drew negative conclusions.

Since then, the journal has changed editors and now states: “Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, as the journal serving developments for improvement of human health and environment, will not consider manuscripts that have been supported by tobacco companies.”

But what about papers supported by other companies with an interest in promoting their products, even in the face of science that shows their harms? What about companies that are trying deliberately to manipulate science and regulatory decision-making?

We have formally submitted a retraction request for the Roundup paper to the current editors of the journal, and they have promised to review the case.

But this is just one example among what seems to be a growing number of papers contaminating the scientific literature. And it’s doubtful that retractions alone can compensate for the sheer volume of questionable research now circulating.

Glyphosate, moreover, is just one of many herbicides and other pesticides for which the EPA is expected to make regulatory decisions in the near future.

Even before the current dismantling of its scientific infrastructure, the EPA’s stance on glyphosate had drawn criticism for being out of step with the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, which classifies glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

Adding further complexity is the involvement of U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a central figure in the “Make America Healthy Again” movement.

He served as co-counsel in a 2017 lawsuit against Monsanto in state court in Alameda County, California, representing plaintiffs seeking damages for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma allegedly caused by exposure to Roundup.

Regulation of agricultural chemicals also figured prominently in his presidential campaign. Some of his recent statements, however, raise questions about whether he still intends to prioritize the issue.

In the current environment, options for recourse may be limited. The public comment period on glyphosate is expected to open later this year or early next year. During the last round of consultation in 2019, the EPA received 283,300 comments across 12,000 individual submissions.

Some studies suggest that public attention during these periods can influence regulatory decisions. Leaving a substantive comment can matter.

But how is the public expected to write one when any attempt to “do your own research” leads straight into a compromised literature, whether through search or artificial intelligence conversation, both of which heavily rely on Wikipedia and the academic corpus?

In the long run, the scientific community must step up to protect the integrity of science as an independent and objective enterprise.

With governmental scientific capacity decimated, individual researchers, scientific unions and professional associations must take a stronger stand to ensure that scientific literature remains a reliable foundation for critical decisions."

Originally published by Undark.

Alexander Kaurov is a Ph.D. astrophysicist and Ph.D. candidate in the School of Science in Society at Victoria University of Wellington, specializing in computational analysis of scientific discourse.

Naomi Oreskes is a historian of science at Harvard University whose scholarship traces corporate influence on research and regulation, and author of the books “Merchants of Doubt” and “Why Trust Science?”

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

Undark is a non-profit, editorially independent digital magazine exploring the intersection of science and society.

*************

Leaked MAHA Report Goes Strong on Vaccines, Soft on Pesticides
by Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.
August 19, 2025
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/leaked-maha-report-strong-vaccines-soft-pesticides/?utm_source=cc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20250819s#btn-share-1

(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here)

"A leaked draft of the Make America Healthy Again Commission’s report outlines new priorities on vaccine safety, medical freedom and wireless radiation studies, but its failure to call for pesticide bans drew criticism from food and environmental groups.

The document addressed vaccine safety, medical freedom and possible health risks linked to wireless radiation, but failed to mention pesticide bans.

“Although this is a draft document, we are very encouraged by the MAHA Commission’s recommendations to President [Donald] Trump,” Children’s Health Defense (CHD) CEO Mary Holland said. She added:

“The strategies in the draft report show a clear shift in government focus toward protecting public health and preventing childhood chronic diseases, instead of relying on the same failed approaches that have only made our children sicker.”

Still, she said the draft left room for improvement — especially when it comes to eliminating pesticides. “Every category of pesticide has been linked to neurological disorders in humans, posing severe health risks,” Holland said.

On Monday, Politico leaked the draft, calling the document “quite industry-friendly.” The draft is being circulated among White House officials and has yet to be finalized, Politico said.

Last week, The New York Times reported it had obtained an earlier draft that suggested “good news for the food and agriculture industries.”

However, at the time, White House Spokesman Kush Desai told CNN, “Any documents purporting to be the second MAHA Report should be disregarded as speculative literature.”

The document was leaked close to 100 days after the MAHA Commission — led by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — issued its initial report on May 22.

The earlier report focused on identifying key drivers of the childhood chronic disease epidemic. This month’s report contains recommendations for steps the federal government can take to address the epidemic.

As of press time today, the final report had yet to be published. Here are a few highlights from the draft.

Vaccine injuries, medical freedom and conflicts of interest

The draft spelled out a “vaccine framework” to guide the government’s approach to vaccines that ensures the U.S. has “the best” childhood vaccine schedule and addresses vaccine injuries.

The framework also focuses on “correcting conflicts of interest and misaligned incentives” and “ensuring scientific and medical freedom.”

The commission charged the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the federal government’s Domestic Policy Council to develop the framework.

HHS has already taken actions this year in support of the new framework.

In March, Kennedy announced a plan to create an agency within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) focused on vaccine injuries, as well as long COVID and Lyme disease.

In June, the CDC’s new group of vaccine advisers committed to studying the cumulative effect of the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule. The CDC currently recommends at least 70 doses of 15 different vaccines for children and adolescents up to age 18.

These recent actions stand in stark contrast to past federal regimes, Holland said. “Creating a new vaccine framework is long overdue. Correcting conflicts of interest, improving transparency, and removing incentives are all welcome changes.”

The draft also stated that HHS would launch a vaccine injury research program at the National Institutes of Health’s Clinical Center to improve vaccine injury data collection and analysis. The program may expand to centers across the U.S.

Holland said she was “most encouraged” by this addition. CHD Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker agreed:

“The study of the long-term safety and efficacy of vaccines, vaccine components and the cumulative vaccine schedule has never been done with any type of scientific rigor or veracity.

“My hope is that HHS will capitalize on this opportunity to prevent vaccine adverse events and acknowledge the very high prevalence of vaccine injury due to the past ‘fox guarding the hen house’ via pharma capture of HHS agencies.”

A lawsuit filed late last week against the CDC alleges the agency violated federal law by failing to study the cumulative impact of the childhood vaccine schedule on children’s health.

Wireless radiation and health risks

According to the draft report, HHS will partner with other federal agencies and departments to study the effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) on health and highlight areas that need more attention, including “new technologies to ensure safety and efficacy.”

Miriam Eckenfels, director of CHD’s EMR & Wireless Program, pointed to a 2008 report by the National Research Council that called for research on the impact of wireless devices and cell towers on kids, fetuses and pregnant women.

“We’ve known about gaps in knowledge for a long time,” she said. “It’s important the government follows through quickly by launching the study soon.”

HHS needs to outline how it plans to conduct the study with independent scientists “to avoid industry influence and capture, which has been one of the main problems in the EMR space to date,” Eckenfels said.

The MAHA draft also addressed the mental and physical health risks for children associated with heavy screen use. Several initiatives were announced to reduce the time kids spend on screens.

Pesticides and precision agriculture

The draft report made no mention of banning pesticides. It also didn’t reference the widely used herbicide glyphosate — even though the May “MAHA Report” linked the chemical to cancer, reproductive disorders and other health conditions.

Instead, the draft stated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would partner with “food and agricultural stakeholders … to ensure that the public has awareness and confidence in EPA’s robust pesticide review procedures.”

The draft also praised precision agriculture methods as a means to reduce pesticide application, saying the EPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture “will launch a partnership with private-sector innovators to ensure continued investment in new approaches and technologies to allow even more targeted and precise pesticide applications.”

The Center for Food Safety said in a press release that it is “extremely disappointed” that the draft lacked “concrete or meaningful recommendations to improve pesticide regulation.”

Recent news does not instill confidence in the EPA’s review procedures, according to the group.

“Since the release of the May report, EPA has proposed to greenlight several concerning new pesticides, and to re-approve the volatile herbicide dicamba for the third time, despite courts twice already holding its prior approvals unlawful,” the press release stated.

Scott Faber, Environmental Working Group’s senior vice president of government affairs, told Politico, “This report is all hat and no cattle. Consumers want action to get the worst chemicals out of their food and water, not a plan to plan.”

Holland urged the MAHA Commission to take a more critical stance on companies that influence public health. She said:

“Granting blanket immunity to corporations that have a fiscal responsibility to their shareholders, and not a responsibility to consumer safety, is one of the most dangerous propositions imaginable. We hope that the MAHA Commission Report deals with this issue head-on.”

Pesticide industry lobbyists have been working to pass state and federal legislation that would make it impossible for someone harmed by their products to sue pesticide makers. The proposed laws mirror the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which granted vaccine makers immunity from liability for their products."

Related articles in The Defender

RFK Jr.: MAHA Report a ‘Clarion Call’ to End the Chronic Disease Epidemic
MAHA Report Falls Short on Pesticides, Experts Say
MAHA Report ‘Falls Short’ on Linking Wireless Radiation to Chronic Disease, Experts Say
Did MAHA Commission Go Far Enough on Vaccines? Fans and Critics Weigh In
MAHA Movement Faces Uphill Battle as Trump Administration Wages War on Organic Agriculture

Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa.

[onawah]

The Deadly Campaign to Shield All Pesticides from Legal Liability
Analysis by A Midwestern Doctor
August 22, 2025
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/08/22/bayer-monsanto-liability-shield-roundup-lawsuits.aspx

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2025/August/PDF/bayer-monsanto-liability-shield-roundup-lawsuits-pdf.pdf

(Hyperlinks in the article are not embedded here.)

Story at-a-glance:

For over a century, Monsanto has produced toxic products that have injured millions and rendered many areas uninhabitable
Recently, this changed due to RFK Jr. successfully suing them for cancers caused by Roundup (glyphosate)
In 2018, Bayer acquired Monsanto
This backfired due to billions in Roundup judgments, causing Bayer to rapidly lose two-thirds of its value
To save the company, Bayer is conducting measures to end those lawsuits within the Courts, States, Congress, and EPA
Many involve creating liability shields making it impossible to sue pesticide manufacturers for injuries, even if they deliberately concealed known toxicity
Presently a bill is working through Congress containing a covert provision designed to shield Bayer and other manufacturers from these lawsuits
This can only pass if the public is unaware
As such, it's vital to expose what is happening and the dark history behind it

To neutralize corruption and abuses of power, the United States utilizes a brilliant set of checks and balances to constrain bad actors from going too far. It provides avenues through which the public can be mobilized if things become too egregious.

Overcoming this framework hence, requires bad actors to take a multi-pronged approach and co-opt anything that can constrain their misdeeds. For example, COVID-19 was only possible because virtually every institution that should have prevented unconstitutional lockdowns, suppression of treatments, and vaccine mandates failed, instead working in concert to advance the COVID cartel.

Yet even here, due to independent media, liberty-minded politicians, and egregious policies, a check eventually formed and neutralized the COVID cartel. Furthermore, this newfound public awareness shattered the trust used to market medicine, and COVID is now costing the medical industry more than was made from the pandemic — illustrating our system has robust checks once things get too out of line.

https://odysee.com/@DoctorMercola:2/OD_8.22_Lead-Pesticide-Makers-Want-Legal-Immunity---Will-They-Get-It:f

@DoctorMercola:2/OD_8.22_Lead-Pesticide-Makers-Want-Legal-Immunity---Will-They-Get-It:f
Exempting Liability

Since the pharmaceutical industry has co-opted most of our institutions, those that still protect us are critical to protect. As the courts often fulfill that role, a holy grail of predatory industries has been to neutralize the court by passing laws that shield corporations from liability.

For example, the DTwP vaccine was long recognized as particularly dangerous, frequently causing brain damage and death, yet for decades the medical community and government covered it up, and industry refused to bring the safer acellular DPT vaccine to market.

As grassroots awareness spread (aided by a 1982 NBC program), more lawsuits were filed against vaccine manufacturers, mostly for DTwP injuries.1

“Information provided by the three commercial manufacturers indicates a striking increase in lawsuits alleging vaccine damage.2 Only one case was filed in 1978, whereas 73 were filed in 1984. The average amount claimed per suit rose from $10 million to $46.5 million.”

DTwP manufacturers rapidly left the market (due to rising liability costs)3 and by 1984, only one remained.4 This led to a deal being brokered between advocates for vaccine injured children and pharmaceutical lobbyists.

However, while that law accomplished some positive things (e.g., safer DTaP vaccine and VAERS being created), since many provisions were at the H.H. Secretary's discretion and the government paid for compensation, it created a massive incentive to deny that injuries could occur.

As such, many were never implemented. That’s why there's still little reliable vaccine injury data (as VAERS was systematically undermined), required science linking vaccines to injuries never got done, and it's nearly impossible for "unsupported" vaccine injuries to be compensated. Worse still, a 2011 Supreme Court ruling further gutted the act,5 by making it impossible to directly sue vaccine manufacturers.

This birthed a massive industry, as removing the primary check (injury lawsuits) incentivized the production of new vaccines and removed safety incentives. An apparatus was developed, ensuring investors could expect successful returns by guaranteeing approvals and mandates, with countless dubious vaccines flooding the market (eventually culminating in the COVID catastrophe).

Fortunately, the unrestrained proliferation ultimately went so far that a new check emerged — public loss of trust, MAHA's political ascendency, and RFK becoming H.H.S. (Health and Human Services). The Secretary is implementing key safety provisions that every Secretary before refused to do.

Note: RFK's tenure has crippled the vaccine industry’s ability to obtain investor funding for new vaccines (which is creating an existential threat to the industry).

Monsanto's Legacy

Monsanto (founded 1901) has long been one of my least favorite corporations, conducting extremely damaging and cruel business practices:

1.Agent Orange — Monsanto invested heavily in dioxins they knew were toxic but claimed were "safe." The most notorious was Agent Orange, mass-sprayed on 12% of South Vietnam.6 This caused at least 400,000 deaths and 500,000 birth defects, with victims left with no recourse.7 It also severely harmed Vietnam veterans, eventually resulting in a 180 million dollar settlement8 (although in numerous cases, veterans who died from it, including close friends of mine, never received a settlement).

Agent Orange’s primary issue was TCDD, a toxic dioxin produced during manufacturing that contaminated the product.9 Dow had warned Monsanto10 about TCDD contamination, but Monsanto used a high temperature "dirty" process.11 Ultimately, a roughly 1,000-fold variation was found in Agent Orange’s TCDD content.12

Note: I recently learned from an excellent vaccine safety book that the same US agencies and scientists (e.g., the CDC and the IOM) who covered up vaccine injuries also spent decades claiming there was "no evidence" for much of Agent Orange's toxicity.

For context, a classic symptom of dioxin poisoning frequently seen at these companies was chloracne.13

2.PCBs — Polychlorinated Biphenyls persist for centuries and are highly toxic (causing cancer, immune suppression, reproductive issues, neurological impairments). Monsanto produced over 99% of America's PCBs. Despite knowing toxicity as early as the 1930s, Monsanto claimed safety until stopping sales in 1977.14

Eventually, successful PCB lawsuits awarded billions against Monsanto, including 600 million in 2003,15 698 million in 2022,16 and 160 million in 2024 for destroying the environments of communities.17

3.rBGH — In 1993, Monsanto released synthetic growth hormone ending up in milk.18 Health concerns suggested cancer,19,20,21 allergy22 and obesity23 risks. So Monsanto began an infamous PR campaign that legally intimidated news stations24 into pulling critical stories and firing journalists who refused to echo (unproven) "safe and effective" claims.

4.GMO monopolization — Monsanto created divisions to sue small farmers25 replanting GMO seeds, maintained FDA revolving doors,26 and locked farmers into poverty cycles,27 notably causing mass Indian farmer suicides.

Hawaii became popular for GMO cultivation,28 comprising 92% of agricultural revenue.29 This required heavy restricted (toxic) pesticide use,30 causing health effects and community resistance. Eventually Kauai banned spraying within 500 feet of schools,31 Hawai'i banned GMO cultivation,32 and Maui’s voters paused GMO cultivation (despite being outspent 87-1).33 Tragically, Monsanto immediately secured a court ruling that overturned all three of these.34

Note: Monsanto also received a $10 million fine35 for using banned pesticides on Maui and Molokai and a $12 million fine36 for improperly using restricted pesticides.

Since Monsanto's cutthroat lawyers repeatedly find ways to escape culpability for their misdeeds, this suggests giving them additional legal leverage is quite dangerous.

Bayer, Monsanto, and Glyphosate

Bayer rose to prominence by developing aspirin, selling heroin as a cold remedy, and producing chemical weapons. Following this:37

“In 1925, Bayer merged with five companies forming IG Farben ... Following WWII, the Allied Control Council seized IG Farben's assets due to its Nazi war effort role and Holocaust involvement, including slave labour and human medical testing, and Zyklon B production. In 1951, IG Farben split, Bayer was reincorporated. After the war, Bayer re-hired several former Nazis, including convicted war criminals.”

Note: Bayer has engaged in other controversial actions such as producing contaminated blood products38 for hemophiliacs and promoting Yaz birth control causing clots and strokes (resulting in thousands of lawsuits).39

In 2018, Bayer acquired Monsanto for $66 billion. When glyphosate was discovered, it was revolutionary because it was significantly less toxic than alternatives. After its introduction in 1974,40 it occupied a small market portion, but once Monsanto introduced Roundup-resistant crops (Roundup Ready Soybeans in 1995), it rapidly took off.41

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2025/August/widespread-glyphosate-contamination.jpg

This excellent business model allowed Monsanto to corner the herbicide market, incentivized farmers to use more Roundup, and generated revenue from GMO seeds — particularly since overuse created resistant weeds requiring even more glyphosate.

Before long, concerns grew about the chemical (e.g., glyphosate likely underlies our widespread magnesium deficiency and hypermobility, while others have linked it to the autism epidemic).42 Yet, Monsanto continued claiming safety.

RFK Jr. hence spearheaded many more Roundup cancer lawsuits. There, they obtained industry documents proof that Monsanto had doctored science to conceal known risks while selling "safe and effective" Roundup.

This “failure to warn” resulted in massive payouts and many successful lawsuits: 25 million in 2019,43 $86.7 million in 2019,44 175 million in 2023,45 611 million in 2023,46 400 million in 2024,47 78 million in 2025,48 and 2.1 billion pending appeal.49 In turn, as of May 2025,50 Monsanto settled nearly 100,000 lawsuits paying approximately $11 billion, with roughly 61,000 active lawsuits pending.

This dropped Bayer's value from 100 billion to 33 billion,51 making this one of history's worst merger decisions.

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2025/August/bayers-value.jpg

Bayer's Counterattack

In 2023 Bayer hired CEO52 Bill Anderson, taking aggressive approaches including:

• Phasing out glyphosate from consumer Roundup, replacing it with formulations more toxic than glyphosate.53

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2025/August/mammalian-toxicity-glyphosate.jpg

• Amassing $16 billion to settle lawsuits (over $10 billion spent).54

• Aggressively lobbying55 for liability shields and funding industry-friendly politicians.56

• Petitioning the Supreme Court. After unsuccessful 2022 attempts,57 this April58 Bayer again asked the Court to overturn a Roundup case (and is presently awaiting a response from the Supreme Court).

• Passing state liability shield laws, which passed in Georgia59 and North Dakota,60 failed in Idaho,61 Wyoming,62 Montana63 and Mississippi,64 are working through Tennessee,65 Florida,66 Oklahoma,67 and passed one chamber in Missouri,68 North Carolina69 and Iowa.70

• Conducting a vast PR and marketing operation to turn public opinion against these laws:

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2025/August/pr-and-marketing-operation.jpg

Failure to Warn and FIFRA

Roundup litigation succeeded by focusing on Monsanto's failure to warn users of glyphosate cancer risks despite having internal evidence it caused cancer. Bayer's counter-strategy has been arguing:71

• EPA can deem pesticides "safe" and then not require warnings on their label.

• The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) makes EPA requirements trump state requirements.72

• So, if the EPA didn't require specific warnings, companies can't be liable regardless of state laws or individual injuries. FIFRA suffers major problems:

• EPA safety determination relies on industry data — if false/misleading, little recourse exists.

• While FIFRA prohibits withholding/falsifying data, violations are rarely detected or enforced.

• EPA rarely updates warning labels despite independent findings of pesticide dangers.

• EPA only is required to re-evaluates pesticides every 15 years,73 taking decades to remove toxic pesticides.74,75,76

As such, almost 100 pesticides banned in Europe remain legal in America.77

Note: Remarkably, the EPA recently reinstated toxic pesticides that courts had ordered removed.78

Federal Exemptions

Since billions are at stake, considerable effort has gone into developing legal strategies. One involves sneaking last minute provisions into unrelated bills — in this case, Mike Simpson's annual funding bill for the Department of the Interior.79 The rider states:80

“Sec. 453. None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to issue or adopt any guidance or policy, take any regulatory action, or approve any labeling inconsistent with or different from the conclusion of —

(a) a human health assessment performed pursuant to FIFRA; or

(b) a carcinogenicity classification for a pesticide.”

Critical issues with this rider:

• Specifically restricts carcinogenicity classifications for pesticides, likely shielding Bayer.

• Incredibly broad language ("this or any other Act") easily abused in courts.

• Restricts EPA's ability to pay for updating toxicity assessments.

• Blocks new findings if FIFRA previously concluded "safety."

• Broadens FIFRA coverage to restrict state pesticide warnings and usage limits (presently only state labeling requirements get superseded by FIFRA and overturned in the courts).

Simpson’s rider is a gift for the pesticide industry.

Note: At a vote to remove this deceptive rider, Simpson gave an irate defense of it that oddly had no relationship to what was actually in its text.

Toxic Sludge

American industry has developed a solution for costly toxic waste disposal: claim it's healthy and sell it to the public (like fluoride81). Since sewage contains nutrients plants need, it became attractive to sell processed sludge to farmers rather than pay immense disposal costs. To sell it, PR firms rebranded sewage sludge as "biosolids."

UxdD_XIkNbo

Note: Biosolids are heavily contaminated82 with bacteria (which can cause foodborne illness outbreaks)83 along with toxic heavy metals,84 pharmaceutical drugs,85 PFAS (persistent fluoride compounds like Teflon),86 microplastics,87 and chemical pollutants.

PFAS contamination has proven particularly problematic, causing soil to go hundreds of times over legal limits,88 contaminating neighboring farms and waterways.89 Many farmers have been forced to close farms, with livestock dying90 and farmers getting sick.91

As making farmland permanently unusable is an existential threat requiring immediate action, requests began for the EPA to evaluate PFAS risks in the 1990s. Eventually, in January 2025,92 the EPA published an assessment concluding:

“Risks exceed acceptable thresholds for cancer and non-cancer effects (e.g., hepatic, immunological, cardiovascular, and developmental effects) in scenarios involving:

• Drinking milk from pasture-raised cows on contaminated land

• Consuming contaminated groundwater/surface water

• Eating fish from affected lakes

• Consuming beef/eggs from contaminated pastures

• Eating fruits/vegetables from sludge-amended soils”

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2025/August/pfoa-pfos-risk-assessment.jpg

In June, the sewage industry met with EPA leadership,93 and shortly after, another (likely illegal)94 and blatantly corrupt rider appeared in Simpson's bill:95

“Sec. 507. None of the funds may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the [PFAS] draft risk assessment ... published January 15, 2025.”

MAHA and Political Shifts

Prior to Obama, I generally identified as a Democrat and hence was shocked at how things flipped during Obama's presidency (e.g., the party becoming devoted to the pharmaceutical industry and the military industrial complex).

As such, when childhood vaccine mandates swept the nation (starting with California in 201596), Democrats essentially ignored distraught witnesses while Republicans eventually listened to constituents, resulting in virtually every Democrat voting for the mandates and every Republican opposing them.

Since much of the progressive base identifies with natural health, the pharmaceutical shift made many "politically homeless." Trump used this disenfranchisement to win 2024 by agreeing to advance their agenda through empowering RFK Jr. to Make America Healthy Again.

Remarkably, on pesticides, allegiances have flipped — Democrats all voted against the pesticide industry while most Republicans have favored liability freedom. Likewise, one pro-vaccine Senator (Democrat Cory Booker) introduced legislation significantly increasing pesticide manufacturers' lawsuit liability (setting the stage to steal Making America Healthy from Trump’s party).97

Most recently, MAHA attempted to stop the "glyphosate" rider through representatives and committee votes — but failed due to a Republican majority. The vote was done by unrecorded roll call (protecting its supporters from MAHA backlash). It appeared to have had near unanimous Democratic support, while almost every Republican favored protecting the pesticide industry.

Conclusion

Providing liability shields incentivizes a race to the bottom for product safety. When penalties for harming the public are removed, the public is practically begging to be harmed.98

While these riders are terrible, what is even more alarming are their broader implications, such as decades of environmental work being undone, and it is now becoming impossible to take dangerous pesticides off the market (or even to warn farm workers about their dangers). As such, when people learn of them, they are horrified and reject them.

In February,99 the Idaho Conservation League released survey results from Idaho, Iowa, and Missouri residents.100 90% of Idahoans opposed pesticide bills. "It was overwhelming to the point that the polling firm said they had never seen numbers this high."

As such, it is critical to bring awareness to this issue so that the deceptively crafted rider cannot hide in the background and become coded into law. Likewise, please consider contacting your representatives (here) and Senators (here) about HR 4754 and demanding the removal of sections 453 and 507.

Note: I suspect solving this problem will also ultimately require developing safer alternatives to glyphosate. Likewise, it’s critical to remember that MAHA has much less influence in the Department of Agriculture than the H.H.S.

My fear is that Trump may repeat his 2020 mistake (stating during the campaign he had major concerns about vaccines, then abandoning that project and helping to birth one of the most devastating vaccines in history during COVID. This time around, he ran on Making America Healthy Again and clearing up what’s sprayed on our food, but should these riders pass the incentives to produce “safer pesticides” (e.g., avoiding being sued) will disappear, and it will likely usher in a deluge of dangerous pesticides.

In short, there's darkness behind these seemingly innocuous provisions. Fortunately, we exist in an era where things are malleable and we can overturn corrupt, previously unchallengeable policies — provided we make our voices heard. I'm grateful for the work each of you has done throughout the last four years, making this shift possible, and for what we will accomplish together over the next four.

A Note from Dr. Mercola About the Author

A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician from the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate AMD's exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and am grateful to share it. I also respect AMD’s desire to remain anonymous since AMD is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD's work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.[SIZE="4"]"

There are 3 pages of [B]References here (!!):
https://media.mercola.com/PDF/References/bayer-monsanto-liability-shield-roundup-lawsuits-ref.pdf

[onawah]

Stop the Bayer-Monsanto Protection Act on Steroids
Institute for Responsible Technology/IRT
11/18/25
https://toxinfreeusa.org/take-action/stop-the-monsanto-protection-act/

"The Bayer-Monsanto Protection Act on Steroids is Being Considered in the Backrooms of Congress: Tell your U.S. Representatives and Senators to reject immunity for the pesticide industry.

What happens when agrichemical companies are sued en masse by people who have been harmed by exposure to the manufacturers’ toxic pesticides? Answer: Bayer-Monsanto, Big Ag and Chemical lobbyists buddy up with politicians to try to pass bills that give the corporate poison pushers immunity.

Bayer-Monsanto, headquartered in Germany, has been hardest hit by pesticide litigation. Roundup weedkiller lawsuits are a huge financial drain. Over 170,000 lawsuits have been filed by people who developed cancer, primarily non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, from exposure to glyphosate-based Roundup. The litigation has cost the company billions of dollars and its shares have plummeted. Bayer’s market capitalization is now at less than half of what it paid to acquire Monsanto in 2018. And its legal woes are not over by a long shot.

Bayer isn’t alone. China-owned ChemChina-Syngenta also faces nearly 6,000 lawsuits alleging that its paraquat-based herbicide, Gramoxone, caused plaintiffs’ Parkinson’s disease.

Bayer’s latest strategy has been to pass laws, state by state, that take away the ability of farmers, landscapers, and other individuals to sue if they get sick. If passed, the bills would protect Bayer (and all pesticide corporations) against claims it “failed to warn” people about the potential health harms of Roundup, or any other pesticide produced, as long as the product is labeled in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) weak regulations. This means that Bayer’s cancer victims would no longer be given their day in court and no future lawsuits would be allowed.

The revolving door between industry and regulatory agencies swings wide and often, and corruption at the EPA is well documented. Pesticide regulations and product label requirements are not protective of human or environmental health, only providing illusions of protection while allowing chemical makers to keep selling dangerous toxins.

Bayer’s lobbying efforts have resulted in the introduction of immunity bills in at least 11 states — Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Wyoming. The bills were written by industry attorneys and sponsored by Republican politicians. These Monsanto Protection Acts have only passed in North Dakota and Georgia, signed into law by Governors Kelly Armstrong and Brian Kemp, respectively.

The state-level bills are not moving fast enough to save this evil empire, which is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. And we’ve already stopped the bills in many states.

In desperation, Bayer is pulling out all the stops to save itself.

Bayer has petitioned the EPA to modify pesticide labeling regulations that would effectively give it, and the entire pesticide industry, nation-wide immunity.
Bayer submitted a petition to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) arguing that the court should hear its case to resolve a split among lower courts on whether federal labeling laws preempt state labeling laws, betting that the Republican supermajority of justices will side with it. If SCOTUS rules in Bayer’s favor, it could bring all Roundup-cancer and Paraquat-Parkinson’s disease lawsuits to a close.
Meanwhile, Bayer and Big Ag lobbying groups like CropLife America and the American Farm Bureau Federation are using their political influence in Washington D.C. to ramp up campaigns for a legal shield. House Republicans have added Section 453, a provision giving the pesticide industry immunity from pesticide-harm lawsuits, to the Appropriations Bill Fiscal Year 2026 (federal budget bill). And Republicans plan on adding an amendment into the next Federal Farm Bill that would provide the pesticide industry with permission to poison without accountability.
House Agriculture Committee Chair Representative Glenn Thompson (R‑PA), having taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the industry, is pushing his fellow lawmakers to do Bayer’s bidding.

We’ve seen it all before. In the spring of 2013, Monsanto’s minions worked hard to pass the first Monsanto Protection Act, which would have allowed Monsanto and others to sell genetically modified seeds even when courts blocked them from doing so.

The bill became law. But a groundswell of people across the U.S., including many of you, contacted their Congresspeople demanding the law be rescinded. By the fall of 2013, we succeeded in stopping the Monsanto Protection Act. People Power can and does work.

These evil corporations don’t care who they harm. Maximizing profit is all they care about. We must step up again to stop the insanity. This new Monsanto Protection Act on Steroids must not see the light of day in the U.S. Congress."

Sign here: https://toxinfreeusa.org/take-action/stop-the-monsanto-protection-act/

[onawah]

Tell the EPA to Ban Glyphosate Now
The Glyphosate Crisis: Why Immediate Action is Needed
Organic Consumers Association <campaigns@organicconsumers.org>
1/8/26

https://acb0a5d73b67fccd4bbe-c2d8138f0ea10a18dd4c43ec3aa4240a.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.com/10031/Ban-GL-now2.png?v=1767803921000

"The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is facing an October 1, 2026, deadline to reassess the safety of glyphosate, a widely used weedkiller linked to serious health concerns.

With a major scientific 25-year-old landmark study relied upon to prove the safety of glyphosate recently retracted, it’s clear that the EPA must take immediate action to move up the reassessment date!

The facts should be alarming to us all: the key paper relied on by the EPA for glyphosate safety assessments was retracted due to serious ethical concerns and questions about the validity of the research findings. The study’s conclusions were based on unpublished data from Monsanto, and the authors did not disclose financial compensation they received from Monsanto for their work.

Bayer has paid out over $10 billion in 100,000 Roundup cancer cases, and faces massive liability from thousands of additional lawsuits alleging its Roundup herbicide (with glyphosate being the active ingredient) causes cancer, so it is no surprise that Bayer is seeking to avoid liability in ongoing lawsuits related to glyphosate exposure by including pursuing appeals, lobbying for legislation, and seeking U.S. Supreme Court intervention.

Due to mounting scientific evidence linking glyphosate to cancer and other severe health issues in humans and animals, and concerns about its impact on pollinators and ecosystems, we need to act now!

TAKE ACTION NOW: Tell the EPA to prioritize public health and safety over industry interests by reopening the decision on glyphosate’s safety immediately and ban glyphosate to end the ongoing chemical assault on our land, water, and health! "
https://advocacy.organicconsumers.org/page/92596/action/1