GMO Science Deniers: Monsanto and the USDA

Perhaps no group of science deniers has been more ridiculed than those who deny the science of evolution. What you may not know is that Monsanto and our United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are among them. That's right: for decades, Monsanto and its enablers inside the USDA have denied the central tenets of evolutionary biology, namely natural selection and adaptation. And this denial of basic science by the company and our government threatens the future viability of American agriculture.

Third Grade Science

Let's start with interrelated concepts of natural selection and adaptation. This is elementary school science. In fact, in Washington D.C. it is part of the basic third grade science curriculum.

As we all remember from biology class, when an environment changes, trait variation in a species could allow some in that species to adapt to that new environment and survive. Others will die out. The survivors are then able to reproduce and even thrive under the new environmental conditions. For example, if a drought were to occur, some plants might have traits that allow them to survive while other plants in the same species would perish. The drought-resistant plants then become the "evolved" species, and they are able to reproduce in the drought environment.

Obvious, you are thinking. But let's explore how Monsanto's top scientists and government regulators would have failed a third grade science class in D.C. and the dire consequences that it is bringing to us all.

Biotech's Dirty Little Secret

First a little background. Since the early 1980s, Monsanto has endlessly hyped genetically engineered (GE) crops they claim could reduce hunger, reduce pesticide use, and survive droughts. In reality, no such "miracle" crops exist. No significantly greater yielding crops, no more effective drought resistance crops. And as for the claim of less pesticide use, behind this myth lies the "dirty little secret" of agricultural biotechnology. Namely, that GE crops actually add hundreds of millions of pounds of pesticides to our fields and crops, and create greater agrochemical residues on our food. Why? Because around 85 percent of all genetically engineered crops in the United States and around the world have been engineered to withstand massive doses of herbicides, mostly Monsanto's Roundup. Usually, if toxic weed-killing chemicals such as Roundup come into contact with a crop they will destroy it as well as the weeds around it. But Monsanto scientists genetically engineered a cassette of bacterial and viral DNA into plants that allowed them to tolerate these herbicides. So the weeds are killed, but the crops remain.

In the United States, more than 50 percent of all our cropland is devoted to GE corn, soy and cotton. They are commodity crops that feed cars, animals in industrial meat production and are used for additives like high fructose corn syrup. Almost none directly feeds people. So rather than feeding the hungry, this technology is about chemical companies selling more chemicals, a lot more chemicals. So as noted, each year 115 million more pounds of Roundup are spread on our farmlands because of these altered crops.

Profits versus Science: Science loses

If half of our nation's cropland is doused year after year with a particular herbicide, that is a significant change in the environment. The accompanying problem of adaptation and selection has probably already occurred to you. Wouldn't that massive increase in Roundup use over that huge a portion of our cropland cause some weed populations to develop resistance? Wouldn't weeds with natural resistance thrive in this new environment? Wouldn't these new "superweeds" eventually become a major problem for U.S. farmers, overrunning their crops?

As government regulators were considering whether to approve these plants in the mid-1990s, they asked Monsanto just that question. No doubt considering the billions they were going to make selling more Roundup, this is a moment when Monsanto's scientists seemed to find it convenient to their bottom line to deny basic evolutionary science. They stated, "Evolution of weed resistance to glyphosate (Roundup's active ingredient) appears to be an unlikely event." They also suggested that massive use of Roundup would lead to "no resistant weeds." Independent scientists were aghast. They mocked Monsanto's view that Roundup was somehow "invincible" from the laws of natural selection, and pointed out that the company's scientists purposely ignored numerous studies that showed there would be weed resistance. But incredibly, despite the strong contrary evidence, the USDA regulators just nodded in science denying agreement with Monsanto.

Of course, adaptation and natural selection did take place. As a result, in less than 20 years, more than half of all U.S. farms have some Roundup resistant "superweeds," weeds that now infest 70 million acres of U.S farmland, an area the size of Wyoming. Each year we see major expansion of this "superweed" acreage. Texas has gone so far as to declare a state of emergency for cotton farmers. Superweeds are already causing major economic problems for farmers with a current estimate of $1 billion lost in damages to crops so far.

Last year in a panel discussion with Robert Fraley, Chief Technology Officer for Monsanto and a founder of these herbicide tolerant crops, I confronted him. How could he and the other Monsanto scientists have claimed that natural selection would not take place? How could they ignore basic evolutionary science and clear contrary evidence? He just shook his head and said "You're right, weeds have evolved resistance." But apparently, Monsanto and their government regulators still haven't learned this third grade science lesson. They're denying science once again, and the stakes are even higher.

"Agent Orange Crops" and More Science Denial

Now Monsanto and Dow Chemical have received government approval to market new genetically engineered corn, soy and cotton, that are "stacked" with engineered DNA that make them resistant to Roundup as well as 2,4-D (one of the chief elements of "Agent Orange"). Monsanto has also gained approval from the USDA for the same three crops that can tolerate Dicamba. 2,4-D and Dicamba are older, more toxic herbicides than Roundup, and these companies are reverting to them because they have brought us to the point of peak herbicides. They simply don't have any new ones, similar to the current crisis in antibiotics.

But won't the weeds simply become resistant to these herbicides as well? Not according to the science deniers at Monsanto and Dow Chemical. Despite predictions that their new crops will add hundreds of millions more pounds of these herbicides each year, they say not to worry. They claim -- as they did 20 years ago -- that natural selection will not happen; that it is extremely unlikely for weeds to survive simultaneous attacks from two or more different herbicides with different methods.

Weed scientists have shredded this argument, noting that weeds in the past, through adaption, have done this and will almost certainly do it again. So in a few years we will be overrun with "superweeds" that are virtually indestructible by any known chemical. But by then Monsanto and Dow will have made billions selling their chemicals and can leave the "superweed" agronomic nightmare for others to solve. Nor will they have to deal with the other nightmares that could possibly occur: increased rates of cancer and diseases like Parkinson's associated with exposure to these herbicides.

A Better Way

A science-based, and safer, way forward is to abandon this doomed-to-fail chemical arms race against weeds and use ecologically based weed control. There are proven organic and agroecological approaches that emphasize weed management rather than weed eradication, soil building rather than soil supplementing. Crop rotation and cover crops can return productive yields without ridding the land of genetic biodiversity, and could reduce herbicide use by 90 percent.

So it's long past due that our government required real and rigorous science when regulating GE crops. It's time for them to say "no" to these herbicide-promoting crops, and prevent the looming agronomic disaster they will inevitably bring with them.

In the meantime, the next time you read hear about "GMO science deniers" -- think of 70 million acres of superweeds; think cancer, Parkinsons and other diseases caused by this growing use of herbicides; think Monsanto and its enablers at the USDA.

Roundup Herbicide: A Kidney-Killer?

A new observational study confirms the hypothesis that Roundup herbicide (glyphosate) is behind the mysterious global epidemic of chronic kidney disease that has taken thousands of lives. 

Roundup Herbicide 

Back in early 2014, in an article titled "Roundup Weedkiller Linked To Global Epidemic of Fatal Kidney Disease," we first reported on a paper proposing a causal link between exposure to the world's most popular herbicide (glyphosate) and a mysterious and deadly kidney disorder afflicting agriculture intensive areas in Sri Lanka.

The paper would eventually garner such widespread attention that it compelled the Sri Lankan government to order a ban on Roundup in March of 2014, but it has since been reported that it is still being made widely available for purchase.

You can review the study abstract to get further background on their hypothesis:

"Abstract: The current chronic kidney disease epidemic, the major health issue in the rice paddy farming areas in Sri Lanka has been the subject of many scientific and political debates over the last decade. Although there is no agreement among scientists about the etiology of the disease, a majority of them has concluded that this is a toxic nephropathy. None of the hypotheses put forward so far could explain coherently the totality of clinical, biochemical, histopathological findings, and the unique geographical distribution of the disease and its appearance in the mid-1990s. A strong association between the consumption of hard water and the occurrence of this special kidney disease has been observed, but the relationship has not been explained consistently. Here, we have hypothesized the association of using glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the disease endemic area and its unique metal chelating properties. The possible role played by glyphosate-metal complexes in this epidemic has not been given any serious consideration by investigators for the last two decades. Furthermore, it may explain similar kidney disease epidemics observed in Andra Pradesh (India) and Central America. 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 a localized geo environmental factor (hardness) and nephrotoxic metals."

Since the publication of this paper, critics have argued the hypothesis suffers from a lack of data, and that any discussion of health concerns associated with this herbicide are simply anti-biotech propaganda.

Roundup Linked to Kidney Disease Epidemic In First Observational Study of Its Kind

In answer to critic's concerns, a newly published study titled "Drinking well water and occupational exposure to Herbicides is associated with chronic kidney disease, in Padavi-Sripura, Sri Lanka," fills the alleged data gap. Researchers sought to identify risk factors associated with chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology (CKDu) among paddy farmers; a disease which they described as 'the most important health issue in the dry zone of Sri Lanka.'

The study method was described as follows:

"A case control study was carried out in Padavi-Sripura hospital in Trincomalee district. CKDu patients were defined using health ministry criteria. All confirmed cases (N = 125) fulfilling the entry criteria were recruited to the study. Control selection (N = 180) was done from people visiting the hospital for CKDu screening. Socio-demographic and data related to usage of applying pesticides and fertilizers were studied. Drinking water was also analyzed using ICP-MS and ELISA to determine the levels of metals and glyphosate." [Read the entire study here]

Up to 5 Times Higher Risk of Kidney Disease In Those Exposed To Glyphosate 

JUMP for much more and links

Monsanto's Herbicide Causes DNA Damage, Cell Death

A new peer-reviewed scientific study has found that soybean farmers in Brazil who are using Monsanto's flagship product Roundup suffer from DNA damage and high cell death, reported RT on Wednesday.

The scientific team focused on farmers in Rio Grando do Sul, Brazil, exposed to fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides from the company, especially the chemicals  Glyphosate and 2,4-D.

While the former is currently sprayed on crops twice more than it used to be five years ago, the latter has been used since the 1940s, meaning that soil and water are likely highly contaminated by the substance.

The study, published by the Elsevier, recommends “monitoring [of] genetic toxicity in soybean farm workers exposed to pesticides.”

However,  farmers would not be the only ones contaminated, according to the Natural Society, citing a German study published in Ithaca that found that glyphosate levels in the blood and urine of city dwellers were often up to 20 times the allowable levels in drinking water.

Although the U.S. Department of Agriculture does not regularly test the toxicity of the chemical in humans; allegedly because of its high cost, other previous studies have already assessed it, coming to similar conclusions. The famous research team led by Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen, France, revealed in particular that the Roundup product completely destroyed kidney cells, even under low exposure.

Meanwhile, thousands of farmers using Monsanto's products still “mysteriously” died from kidney diseases – as the World Health Organization refused to directly indicate Monsanto's responsibility, but rather evoked a “possible cause” of their deaths.

LINK

Top 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOS

If you don’t know whether or not you’re eating genetically modified organisms, you’re not alone—at least in the U.S. Despite the many petitions and appeals for state or federal regulations on labeling foods that contain GMOs, none have passed. And that means companies still don’t have to disclose whether or not a product includes genetically modified organisms. What’s the big deal, you ask?

More than 60 countries require GMO labeling (or ban GMOs altogether) for a number of reasons. While there are many, these are some of the most common concerns:

1. Are they safe? Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, Dow—they’ll all tell you their GMO products have met safety requirements, but the truth is, long term studies haven’t been done on their impact to the human body. USDA approval requires several processes that prove safety, but GMOs have only been in our diet since the mid-’90s, so it’s difficult to know what the long-term health impacts truly are.

2. Known health risks: What we do know is that when genetic modification happens, genes are forced to express certain traits (including pesticides). To do this, the scientists “turn on” all the gene’s components, which can mean releasing allergens that would normally not be expressed in a non-GMO variety. Experts like Jeffrey Smith suggest this is directly related to the rise in health issues.

3. Heavy use of toxic pesticides and herbicides: By design, genetically modified seeds require pesticides and herbicides. While some manufacturers have claimed the pesticide use would decrease over time, it’s only increased, according to a peer-reviewed 2012 study.

4. Pesticides and digestive health: The main function of herbicides and pesticides is to kill unwanted plants and insects. Glyphosate—the most common herbicide used on GMO crops—has been shown to negatively impact the gut bacteria of humans.  Jeffrey Smith’s recent film Genetic Roulette highlights the parallel of GMOs in our diet and the rise in digestive health issues and food allergies.

5. Cancer: Both pesticides and GMOs have been connected with an increased risk of certain types of cancer. There are additonal health concerns too including reproductive issues, autism and even heart disease.

6. Environmental impact: GMO crops and their companion pesticides and herbicides wreak havoc on the environment including polluting air, water and soil. Glyphosate—marketed by Monsanto as the herbicide Roundup—is in effect, an antibiotic, which can destroy soil quality and thus impair the plant’s nutritional value as well. Cross-polination between GMO and non-GMO crops is common as well, and can destroy natural plant varieties in the wild.

7. Superbugs and superweeds: Despite the claims that pesticides and GMO crops can relieve farmers of crop-destroying insects and plants, the opposite is showing to be true. Farmers in the Midwest are now battling superbugs and superweeds resistant to pesticides. They’re damaging crops and farm equipment and costing the farmers more money in having to apply heavier doses of toxic pesticides.

8. Patent issues: At the core of the GMO industry is the corporate ownership of seed and seed patents. Companies like Monsanto are notorious for suing small farmers for saving seeds or if GMO crop drift pollinates on their land.

9. Corporate protection: Earlier this year, the U.S. government passed a bill nicknamed the “Monsanto Protection Act.” In essence, it grants biotech companies immunity from the courts, even if a judge determines it’s unlawful to plant GMO crops, the companies can do it anyway.

10. Prolific presence: Whether or not GMOs are safe has yet to be determined, yet every day, millions of Americans eat them unknowingly due to the lack of labeling requirements. Are you a lab rat?  Don’t you at least have the right to know what you’re eating?

This article was originally published on www.NaturallySavvy.com

Alot of Links HERE

The Dirt on "Agent Orange" GMOs

Last week, news broke that the USDA is recommending the approval of new, herbicide-resistant, genetically engineered corn and soybeans, sometimes referred to as “Agent Orange” GMOs. Here’s what you need to know:

Right after the announcement, concerns sprung up that this new GMO would be “an environmental catastrophe,” since the herbicide, 2,4-D, was an ingredient in the Vietnam War defoliant Agent Orange.

The USDA issued its initial draft of its environmental impact statement on the corn and soybeans (engineered by Dow AgroSciences and branded under the name Enlist), while the Environmental Protection Agency is working to decide on the environmental effects of the new herbicide, Enlist Duo. So, there’s still a chance that a pin could get put in the whole operation. Good news, of course, for those who are worried about the outcome.

So what’s really at stake? According to Grist.org, if Enlist is approved, there are some positives and negatives. The positive part is that fewer farmers would “adopt aggressive tillage strategies,” according to the USDA assessment. “Aggressive tilling releases a lot of greenhouse gas and leads to topsoil erosion and water pollution.” However, on the negative side, farmers will be spraying more herbicide. “We are already looking at a 75 percent increase in the use of 2,4-D in U.S. agriculture by 2020 even if Enlist flunks the regulatory process.” If approved, “2,4-D use will further increase by another two fold to six fold,” according to the USDA.

Many are wondering if an approval will mean that more and more of these types of GMOs are released. The thing is – 2,4-D-resistant weeds already exist. So the hope is that no matter what happens, Enlist farmers will be willing to change up their weed management practices more often, slowing the spread. But what if it’s used willy-nilly? USDA responds to that questioning saying that it “depends on management practices” and “cannot be predicted.” Not exactly comforting.

The fact remains that while 2,4-D was in Agent Orange, it wasn’t the really nasty stuff. We know a lot about it, given its history and the microscope it’s under. You can check this out for details on toxicity.

Grist.org‘s Nathanael Johnson maintains that “we’ve got to figure out a better way of doing conservation tillage rather than just relying on more and more herbicides. It would be nice if the government could use its regulatory authority to promote big-picture solutions. But in this case, the USDA is firmly focused on the small-picture tradeoff between tilling and herbicide. And in that small picture, it has determined that tilling is more harmful.”

Some of the potential dangers of ‘Agent Orange’ via FoodandWaterWatch.org:

Corn with 2,4-D resistance could be dangerous to eat because a metabolite of 2,4-D is known to cause skin sores, liver damage and sometimes death in animals. 2,4-D is a potential endocrine disruptor and can affect development.

Rats exposed to 2,4-D exhibited depressed thyroid hormone levels, which can affect normal metabolism and brain functioning.  Studies found that men who applied 2,4-D had lower sperm counts and more sperm abnormalities than those unexposed to the herbicide.

Not only is 2,4-D dangerous for human health, but it also spurs weed resistance. According to the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds, there have been 29 weeds found to be resistant to 2,4-D’s family of synthetic auxin herbicides.

The FDA’s Biotechnology Consultation Note for 2,4-D-resistant corn lists several amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins and minerals that differed from conventional corn and were statistically significant, including glutamic acid, oleic acid, vitamin C and zinc.

On February 23, 2012, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit against the EPA for failing to respond to a 2008 petition to cancel registration of 2,4-D, citing its common use despite links to cancer, cell damage, reproductive problems and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. With the approval of 2,4-D resistant corn, NRDC claims that use of 2,4-D could grow 50-fold.

Aside from its harmful endocrine and carcinogenic effects, 2,4-D is a very volatile herbicide, which can easily drift onto nearby crops, vegetables and flowers. In fact, a comparative risk assessment found that 2,4-D was 400 times more likely to cause non-target plant injury than glyphosate (also known as Roundup, the herbicide many currently used GE crops are engineered to survive.)

If you’re concerned about the USDA approving 2,4-D herbicide, sign the petition below.

Source: Grist.org

Links and Petition HERE

The Rise of Superweeds—and What to Do About It

It sounds like a sci-fi movie: American farmers fighting desperately to hold back an onslaught of herbicide-defying "superweeds."

But there's nothing imaginary—or entertaining—about this scenario. Superweeds are all too real, and they have now spread to over 60 million acres of our farmland, wreaking environmental and economic havoc wherever they go.

How did we get into this mess, and how do we fix it? A 2013 UCS briefing paper, The Rise of Superweeds—and What to Do About It, answers these questions.

Roundup: the cure that super-sized the disease

The superweed problem began as a promised solution.

In the 1990s, Monsanto introduced a new line of seeds called "Roundup Ready," which were genetically engineered to be immune to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the company’s patented herbicide, Roundup.

Roundup Ready seeds were expensive, but they were widely adopted because they made weed control easier. And because glyphosate is less toxic than other common herbicides, the Roundup Ready system was hailed as an environmental breakthrough.

But there was a catch: as more and more farmers used more and more Roundup, genes for glyphosate resistance began to spread in weed populations. The growth of resistance was accelerated by a trio of factors:

• Monoculture. Growing the same crop on the same land year after year helps weeds to flourish.
• Overreliance on a single herbicide. When farmers use Roundup exclusively, resistance develops more quickly.
• Neglect of other weed control measures. The convenience of the Roundup Ready system encouraged farmers to abandon a range of practices that had been part of their weed control strategy.
  
  
  
  This “perfect storm” of accelerating factors has quickly turned the Roundup resistance problem into a superweed crisis. And because many farmers can no longer rely on glyphosate alone, overall herbicide use in the United States—which Roundup was supposed to help reduce—has instead gone up (see graph at right).

  Industry doubles down

  The pesticide and seed industry has responded to the superweed crisis with a predictable refrain: let's do it again. A new generation of herbicide-resistant crops is awaiting USDA approval, engineered to tolerate older herbicides, such as 2,4-D and dicamba, in addition to glyphosate.
  What's wrong with that?
• 2,4-D and dicamba belong to a chemical class that has been associated with increased rates of diseases, including non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
• They are highly toxic to broadleaf crops, including many of the most common fruit and vegetable crops.
• They are more prone to volatilization (air dispersal) than glyphosate, so their increased use is likely to harm neighboring farms and uncultivated areas.

On top of all these drawbacks is a more fundamental one: weeds that developed glyphosate resistance can develop resistance to the new herbicides as well—and this has already begun to happen. When major weed species develop widespread multi-herbicide resistance, farmers will really be in a bind, because there are no new herbicides coming over the horizon to save the day.

A science-based solution: healthy farms

There's a better way. Farmers can control weeds using practices grounded in the science of agroecology, including crop rotation, cover crops, judicious tillage, the use of manure and compost instead of synthetic fertilizers, and taking advantage of the weed-suppressing chemicals that some crops produce.

Such practices have benefits beyond weed control: they increase soil fertility and water-holding capacity, reduce water pollution and global warming emissions, and make the farm and its surroundings more welcoming to pollinators and other beneficial organisms.

In short, agroecological practices make the farm healthier. And recent research shows that they work.

What we should do

Despite their promise, agroecological practices have been held back by farm policies and research agendas that favor monoculture, as well as a lack of information and technical support for farmers who want to change their methods.

To encourage the adoption of these healthier practices, UCS recommends that Congress and the USDA should take the following actions:

• Fund and implement the Conservation Stewardship Program, which provides support for farmers using sustainable weed control methods.
• Institute new regional programs that encourage farmers to address weed problems through sustainable techniques.
• Support organic farmers and those who want to transition to organic farming with research, certification, cost-sharing, and marketing programs. (Organic farming serves as a "test kitchen" for integrated weed management practices that can be broadly applied to conventional farm systems.)
• Support multidisciplinary research on integrated weed management strategies and educate farmers in their use.
• Bring together scientists, industry, farmers, and public interest groups to formulate plans preventing or containing the development of herbicide-resistant weeds, and make the approval of new herbicide-tolerant crops conditional on the implementation of such plans.
• Fund and carry out long-term research to breed crop varieties and cover crops that compete with and control weeds more effectively.

 DOWNLOAD: The Rise of Superweeds--and What to Do About It

LINK

More veterans eligible for benefits as agent orange perimeter expands

A recently declassified Department of Defense report contains evidence that there was a significant use of herbicides on the fenced-in perimeters of military bases in Thailand to remove foliage that provided cover for enemy forces.

This new information means that Vietnam-era veterans whose service involved duty on or near the perimeters of military bases in Thailand anytime between Feb. 28, 1961 and May 7, 1975, may have been exposed to herbicides and may qualify for VA benefits.

Veterans and areas include:

• U.S. Air Force veterans who served on Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF) bases at U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, and Don Muang, near the air base perimeter between aforementioned dates

• U.S. Army veterans who provided perimeter security on RTAF bases in Thailand between aforementioned dates

• U.S. Army veterans who were stationed on some small Army installations in Thailand anytime between aforementioned dates. However, the Army veteran must have been a member of a military police unit or was assigned an MP occupational specialty whose duty placed him or her at or near the base perimeter.

“What this means is we are now able to help many more Vietnam veterans to get benefits they deserve,” said Fayette County Veterans Affairs Executive Director John Hintz of Oelwein. “This has been a long time coming, and now some more of these veterans can qualify.”

Hintz explained his county office is made up of five commissioners who work to find veterans and/or dependents/survivors that qualify for benefits. Hintz then handles the paperwork and helps them get the benefits that are due to the veterans or survivors. These are federal claims that are processed through the county director’s office.LINK

Toxicology Expert Speaks Out About Roundup and GMOs

Story at-a-glance:

*There are NO peer-reviewed scientific papers establishing the safety of GMO crops. There are, however, both clinical and peer-reviewed scientific papers showing the hazards of GMO crops, including harmful secondary effects

*Epidemiological patterns show there’s an identical rise in over 30 human diseases alongside our increased usage of glyphosate and the increased prevalence of genetically engineered proteins in our food

*Glyphosate is not “just” an herbicide. It was originally patented as a mineral chelator. It immobilizes nutrients, making them unavailable for your body. It’s also patented as a potent antibiotic that can devastate human gut bacteria

*The EPA recently doubled the amount of glyphosate allowed in food. Soybean oil is now allowed to contain a whopping 400 times the limit at which it can impact your health

Jump for Much More

GMO fail: Monsanto foiled by feds, Supreme Court, and science

It’s been a good week if you enjoy a little GMO schadenfreude. The FDA has reportedly bowed to public pressure to extend the comment period on its approval of genetically engineered salmon, and Illinois, Maryland, and Iowa are the latest states to buck GMOs by introducing labeling bills into state legislature.
Even the Supreme Court has an opportunity to take Monsanto down a peg. On Feb. 19, the court will hear arguments in a patent infringement case between an Indiana farmer and Monsanto (I covered it in detail here). If Monsanto prevails, it’ll move a few more paces towards agricultural monopoly; if it loses, the company will take a couple steps back. It’s encouraging that the Supreme Court chose to hear the case over the solicitor general’s urging to dismiss it, but Monsanto could have an inside man: As in other Monsanto-related cases, former Monsanto-lawyer-turned-Supreme-Court-Justice Clarence Thomas has no plans to recuse himself.

Jump to the Rest of the Story Here