Monsanto Faces Hundreds of New Cancer Lawsuits

Soon after a California judge required a cancer warning to be displayed on the popular weedkiller, Roundup, in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Monsanto is suddenly finding itself knee deep in cancer lawsuits. The lawsuits are being filed over the health risks associated with glyphosate, a chemical classified by the WTO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a “probable human carcinogen.”

The new round of lawsuits was filed in St. Louis County Circuit Court last week by Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, a law firm based in Los Angeles. It was filed on behalf of “136 plaintiffs from across the country who allege that exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” Additionally, the firm has also filed similar lawsuits in Alameda County, California, Superior Court on behalf of 40 people who “allege that exposure to the herbicide caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

According to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a co-counsel in the lawsuit, the law firm decided to file the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs “to address the injuries that have been caused by Roundup and glyphosate to mainly farmers and farm workers, but we think that consumers and home gardeners have also been affected.”

Plaintiffs from both cases are seeking compensatory and punitive damages for wrongful death and personal injuries against Monsanto, according to EcoWatch. Other defendants include Osborn & Barr Communications, Inc. and Osborn & Barr Holdings, Inc of St. Louis, Missouri, and Wilbur Ellis Company, LLC of San Francisco, California.

With this latest round of lawsuits, the number of cancer claims that have been filed in federal courts against the agriculture giant is more than 700! And that number is expected to continue climbing. Kennedy even suggested that “claims could increase to 3,000 in the next few months” in light of the new cancer warnings being displayed on Roundup.

However, the lawsuits aren’t just sounding the alarm on the cancer risk associated with Roundup. It’s also shining a light on the corruption that exists throughout Monsanto. For example, just last week, “a federal judge in San Francisco unsealed documents suggesting that company employees had ghostwritten scientific reports that U.S. regulators used to determine glyphosate does not cause cancer.” In simple terms, Monsanto tried to hide Roundups risks from the public and regulators so the company could go on, business as usual.

Kennedy summed up the company’s corruption in a recent statement, saying:

“Monsanto’s newly released documents expose a culture corrupt enough to shock the company’s most jaded critics. Those papers show sociopathic company officials ghostwriting scientific studies to conceal Roundup’s risks from Monsanto’s regulators and customers, including food consumers, farmers, and the public…One wonders about the perverse morality that incentivizes executives to lie so easily and to put profits before human life. All humanity will benefit when a jury sees this scheme and gives this behemoth a new set of incentives.”

The scary thing is, despite reports and tests classifying glyphosate, as a carcinogen, Monsanto continues to claim that “Roundup creates no risks to human health or to the environment.” But according to reports like the one from the WTO classifying the chemical as a probable carcinogen, it does, and that’s why consumers across the globe should be ecstatic that Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman has decided to take a stand against Monsanto to shed light on just how crooked the company is.

So what does Monsanto have to say in its defense? Well, in addition to continuing to claim that glyphosate is perfectly safe, Monsanto spokesperson Charla Lord issued a statement saying:

“We empathize with anyone facing cancer. We can also confidently say that glyphosate is not the cause. No regulatory agency in the world considers glyphosate a carcinogen.”

There’s no denying that this is shaping up to be a whopper of a case, and it will be interesting to see how things unfold in coming weeks and months.

http://www.legalreader.com/monsanto-faces-hundreds-of-new-cancer-lawsuits/

MONSANTO AND THE EPA ALLEGEDLY HID EVIDENCE LINKING ROUNDUP TO CANCER

There is growing evidence that the agricultural giant Monsanto and the EPA allegedly worked together to hide evidence which links Roundup to cancer, as a new court filing shows. Sixty people that contracted cancer have been named on behalf of the recent court filing which purports that the Environmental Protection Agency worked with Monsanto officials to hide evidence that Roundup is toxic.

Included in the court filing is evidence from an EPA scientist who worked with the agency for 30 years and specifically singles out Jess Rowland, one of the top EPA officials, for using “political conniving games with the science” in order to hand out favors to Monsanto.

The reason Rowland is being named is because this official was in charge of the assessment for glyphosate, which is the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup and other weed killers and Rowland was also responsible as the main author of a report which found that glyphosate was not deemed to be toxic. However, in correspondence, Marion Copley, a top EPA toxocologist, stated, “It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer,” which came after numerous animal studies. Marion Copley’s correspondence was written on May 4, 2013.

This letter was dated after Marion Copley stopped working for the EPA in 2012, but before she passed away from breast cancer in 2014. Marion alleged that the EPA’s Jess Rowland “intimidated staff” by colluding with Monsanto to change reports in their favor. Copley also wrote that there has been ample research conducted which proves that glyphosate and Monsanto’s Roundup should be considered a “human carcinogen,” as Huffington Post reported.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, A branch of the World Health Organization, has also said that glyphosate was a carcinogen in March 2015. Monsanto, meanwhile, has gone out of their way to try to discredit the IARC and any scientific studies they have conducted or cited.

If the communication from Marion Copley is proven to be legitimate, this could have a major effect on this multi-district litigation case with Monsanto and the EPA. The plaintiffs that are involved in this lawsuit have all either contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma or have lost someone to the disease. These plaintiffs are citing growing evidence that Monsanto was able to sell their allegedly toxic Roundup because the agricultural company has so much influence within the Office of Pesticide Program, run by the EPA.

JUMP

Related to the Above Piece

Monsanto is Scrambling to Bury This Breaking Story – Don’t Let This Go Unshared!

We all know Monsanto has their fingers in all areas of the food industry, but did you know how skilled they are at burying news stories? It's pretty alarming — but we're here to tell you how we can help reverse that trend by making our voices heard!

Perhaps you've heard of glyphosate. It's an extremely, dangerous toxic chemical — found in Monsanto's Roundup. What you may not know — because of Monsanto's skill in burying stories — is that it's found in tons of American founds, and at extremely high levels!

We have to tell everyone we know, or else Monsanto will succeed in continuing to bury this story.

Recently an FDA-registered food safety lab tested a wide range of iconic American foods - and found glyphosate at crazy alarming levels.

Consider this: Glysophate is considered harmful at levels as low as 0.1 ppb - but many foods were found to contain levels more than 1,000 times greater!

Independent research links glyphosate to cancer and it has been deemed a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s team of international cancer experts.

The childhood cancer rate is steadily rising and experts say that they don’t know why. Hmm...

Research also indicates that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor, which disrupts hormones and leads to reproductive problems, early onset puberty, obesity, diabetes, and some cancers.

When it comes to endocrine disruptors, very small exposures are the most damaging - any amount of glyphosate can do tremendous damage!

Glyphosate is also a broad-spectrum antibiotic and kills the good bacteria in your gut. Poor gut health is linked to inflammation and a whole host of diseases.

As GMOs laced with glyphosate are commonly fed to farm animals, this could very well be contributing to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

This chemical has gone so mainstream that glyphosate has infiltrated every facet of our environment – our water, air, soil.

There are still thousands of other brands and whole foods that have not been tested for glyphosate residues, so we can’t be so sure that our own organic, non-GMO, and unprocessed food is safe.

Americans are effectively being forced to eat this poison until something is done to stop the rampant use of this chemical.

Monsanto doesn’t want the public to know these findings for obvious reasons. They have our regulatory agencies in their back pocket to make sure they can continue to make a hefty profit while poisoning the masses.

Our public agencies are allowing corporations to poison Americans for profit.

It is shameful that the American media has thus far failed to cover this breaking news, but WE HAVE THE POWER to make this information go viral.

If you really want to stop the corruption perpetuated by Monsanto and the large chemical companies – this is how we shut them down!

http://www.organicandhealthy.org

California Clears Hurdle for Cancer Warning Label on Roundup

California can require Monsanto to label its popular weed-killer Roundup as a possible cancer threat despite an insistence from the chemical giant that it poses no risk to people, a judge tentatively ruled Friday.

California would be the first state to order such labeling if it carries out the proposal.

Monsanto had sued the nation's leading agricultural state, saying California officials illegally based their decision for carrying the warnings on an international health organization based in France.

Monsanto attorney Trenton Norris argued in court Friday that the labels would have immediate financial consequences for the company. He said many consumers would see the labels and stop buying Roundup.

"It will absolutely be used in ways that will harm Monsanto," he said.

After the hearing, the firm said in a statement that it will challenge the tentative ruling.

Critics take issue with Roundup's main ingredient, glyphosate, which has no color or smell. Monsanto introduced it in 1974 as an effective way of killing weeds while leaving crops and plants intact.

It's sold in more than 160 countries, and farmers in California use it on 250 types of crops.

The chemical is not restricted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which says it has "low toxicity" and recommends people avoid entering a field for 12 hours after it has been applied.

But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a Lyon, France-based branch of the U.N. World Health Organization, classified the chemical as a "probable human carcinogen."

Shortly afterward, the most populated U.S. state took its first step in 2015 to require the warning labels.

St. Louis-based Monsanto contends that California is delegating its authority to an unelected foreign body with no accountability to U.S. or state officials in violation of the California Constitution.

Attorneys for California consider the International Agency for Research on Cancer the "gold standard" for identifying carcinogens, and they rely on its findings along with several states, the federal government and other countries, court papers say.

Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan still must issue a formal decision, which she said would come soon.

California regulators are waiting for the formal ruling before moving forward with the warnings, said Sam Delson, a spokesman for the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Once a chemical is added to a list of probable carcinogens, the manufacturer has a year before it must attach the label, he said.

Teri McCall believes a warning would have saved her husband, Jack, who toted a backpack of Roundup for more than 30 years to spray weeds on their 20-acre avocado and apple farm. He died of cancer in late 2015.

"I just don't think my husband would have taken that risk if he had known," said Teri McCall, one of dozens nationwide who are suing Monsanto, claiming the chemical gave them or a loved one cancer.

But farmer Paul Betancourt, who has been using Roundup for more than three decades on his almond and cotton crops, says he does not know anyone who has gotten sick from it.

"You've got to treat it with a level of respect, like anything else," he said. "Gasoline will cause cancer if you bathe in the stuff."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/california-fights-monsanto-labels-popular-weed-killer-45082502

California Widow Sues Monsanto For Killing Her Husband

Teri McCall of Cambria, California, lost her husband of 40 years, Anthony “Jack” McCall, to terminal cancer in December 2015. For nearly 30 years on his 20-acre fruit and vegetable farm, Jack had used Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup.

Now, Teri has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Monsanto Co., alleging that Monsanto had known for years that exposure to glyphosate—the main ingredient in the agribusiness giant’s flagship weedkiller Roundup—could cause cancer and other serious illnesses or injuries.

And she just might win.


A growing body of evidence is accumulating, which indicates that Jack’s death might, indeed, be linked to his exposure to glyphosate.

Glyphosate, which is the most widely applied pesticide worldwide, was declared as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in March of 2015 by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

Besides the “convincing evidence” the herbicide can cause cancer in lab animals, the IARC also found:

“Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the U.S.A., Canada, and Sweden reported increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustments to other pesticides.”

Teri’s husband, Jack, died shortly after being diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The evidence linking glyphosate to cancer is continuing to mount.

California’s Environmental Protection Agency issued plans in September of 2015 to add glyphosate to the state’s list of chemicals known to cause cancer — making it the first state in the U.S to do so.

And then, just weeks ago, a team of 94 scientists co-authored a report, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, which stated:

“The most appropriate and scientifically based evaluation of the cancers reported in humans and laboratory animals as well as supportive mechanistic data is that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.”

Glyphosate is applied to 89% of U.S. corn crop and 94% of the soybeans, as well as being used with dozens of other crops. Since the herbicide (and the genetically engineered crops that were created to withstand its use) is a core component of today’s industrial farm landscape, the results of this debate will have far reaching consequences.

The United States now uses about 280 million pounds of glyphosate per year, compared to only about 30 million pounds a year before genetically engineered crops were first commercialized 20 years ago.

Thanks to genetic engineering, we’re now literally spraying our food crops with a pesticide that, increasing numbers of scientists believe, is causing cancer.

The truth is that Jack and Teri McCall are just the tip of the iceberg. How many farmers and consumers, are being exposed to glyphosate on a daily basis? And what is real the impact of 280 million pounds of a probable carcinogen being sprayed on our croplands?

Monsanto and its spokespeople insist that glyphosate is completely safe. Some have even said you can drink it. Although, as this hilarious video illustrates, they may not actually mean it.

Jump for Video and Links

If you want to avoid eating glyphosate, the top thing you can do is to choose organically grown foods. And when you avoid GMOs, you’re also making a big difference.

What’s for Breakfast? How About Some Monsanto Weed Killer?

A study finds the world’s most widely used herbicide turning up in a bunch of morning favorites.

Just how much of Monsanto’s most popular weed killer are you eating every morning for breakfast?

In an unsettling report released Tuesday by the Alliance for Natural Health, the nonprofit advocacy group details the results of a study that shows a host of breakfast foods—from cereal to eggs to coffee creamer—contain residues of glyphosate, the chemical herbicide more commonly known by Monsanto’s trade name for it, Roundup. The report comes one year after the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization made headlines by classifying glyphosate, which has long been regarded by U.S. regulators as posing little risk to public health, as a probable human carcinogen.

The ANH tested 24 store-bought breakfast items, including organic products, and found glyophosate residues in almost half of them. Given that glyphosate is the most widely used agrochemical on the market, sprayed on upwards of 90 percent of staple crops such as corn and soybeans, the findings might at first glance seem like a surprise that really comes as no surprise.

But what’s alarming is that glyphosate residues were found on a bunch of products that either in and of themselves or based on their primary ingredients aren’t typically associated with heavy use of the herbicide. Conventionally grown wheat, for example, which would be used to make whole-wheat bread, isn’t a crop on which glyphosate is often heavily applied, and you’d certainly expect organic multigrain bagels to be free of the chemical. Yet both were shown to have traces of the herbicide. Furthermore, the ANH analysis found glyphosate in organic dairy-based coffee creamer and eggs—and the amount detected in cage-free organic eggs actually exceeded the federal government’s tolerance levels for the chemical. Overall, the results further underscore the out-of-control pervasiveness of glyphosate across the American farmscape.

JUMP for more

Monsanto’s Roundup Kills and Damages More than Weeds

Protests against Monsanto’s Roundup, with its poisonous, weed-killing glyphosate, have spread around the globe. An arm of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared it a probable cause of cancer in 2015. California’s Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA) recently decided to label it as such.

Environmental groups and activists in Northern California, a region known for its wines, advocate a moratorium on this herbicide as health concerns mount. Roundup is the world’s most widely used pesticide.

Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, was the focus of a January 28 informational event. It was initiated by the Watertrough Childrens Alliance as a fundraiser for a lawsuit against winemaker Paul Hobbs for converting an apple orchard into a vineyard adjacent to schools, thus putting the health of around 500 children at risk by spraying Roundup. The Sierra Club, Sonoma Group, co-sponsored the evening.

Sebastopol Mayor Sarah Glade Gurney welcomed a panel of three experts and around 60 people from Sonoma and Napa counties attended and moderated an active discussion. Attorney Jonathan Evans of the Tucson, Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity, organizer Ella Teevan of the Washington, D.C.-based Food and Water Watch (FWW), and former Petaluma Vice-Mayor and City Council member Tiffany Renee spoke.

Monsanto also makes Roundup Ready, which are Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). “93% of soy beans and 80% of corn in the U.S. are grown with Monsanto GMO seeds,” reported Teevan. “Food and Water Watch wants a moratorium on more GMOs and their labeling.”

“Our food system and how we interact with our environment is broken. Instead of serving people, profit is served. We need to fix our food system,” Teevan added.

“Glyphosate has become a pervasive presence in the environment. 65% of water in some countries has traces of it,” said Evans. “Exposure can create a number of problems, including liver and kidney damage. It can even change ones DNA. Our goal is to protect health and keep these products out of the market.”

“After the CA EPA decision to label Roundup, Monsanto filed a lawsuit against them. They claimed that their First Amendment rights to free speech were being violated,” Evans reported.

“BECOME EDUCATED CONSUMERS”

“We need to become educated consumers and not buy these products. We need to empower elected officials to act, Evans suggested. “We need to get involved in grassroots actions and push for a just food system,” added Teevan. “Become active participants in democracy.”

“The California city of Richmond banned all pesticide a year ago,” reported Renée. “We advocate such a ban in Petaluma, which must include neonicotinoids. Portland, Oregon has banned neonicotinoids, systemic pesticides that damage bees. Glyphosate is a public health threat. The many costs are suffered by humans, animals, and plants. The benefits are only to a few humans,” she added.

“The highest use of glyphosate in Sonoma County is for winegrapes, yet non-toxic alternatives are available,” said Evans. “Monsanto is a bad actor. They sue farmers when GMO seeds blow onto their lands from neighbors,” he said.

The Huffington Post’s January 26 article “8 Reasons to Avoid Doing Business with Monsanto,” by business editor Alexander C. Kaufman, reports that the giant bioengineering firm has been dubbed “the world’s ‘most evil corporation.’”

Mounting criticism of Monsanto’s “litigious, secretive, and combative” practices have made it financially vulnerable, asserts Kaufman. It plans to cut 3,600 jobs, which would be 16% of its global workforce. Roundup and Roundup Ready constitute 90% of Monsanto’s revenue. “Several countries, cities, and retail chains worldwide have banned or severely limited glyphosate products,” notes Kaufman.

“Hundreds of Moms Across America groups exist nationwide,” he adds, and “more than 2 million people in 52 countries internationally took to the streets to ‘March Against Monsanto.’”

Monsanto is desperately seeking a merger, according to the January 25 issue of GMWatch from the United Kingdom (www.gmwatch.org). One of their goals seems to be to abandon their tarnished name.

CITIZENS SPEAK UP

When Mayor Gurney opened the discussion to the crowd, more than a dozen people promptly came to the microphone. The first speaker quoted a study of seven wines from Sonoma, Mendocino, and Lake counties conducted by the Biochemical Working Group in Ukiah. It documented that traces of glyphosate exceeding EPA safe levels were found in all of them. People are drinking Roundup in their wine. Glyphosate has been banned in Europe.

“We’re tired of our children and babies being damaged by Roundup. We need to mandate a real school protection zone,” declared Janus Matthes of Wine and Water Watch (www.winewaterwatch.org). Instead, “the vineyards are being protected,” she added.

“It is so easy to use Roundup. The breads that you eat that are not organic have glyphosate in them,” noted geologist Jane Nielson, Ph.D.

“Roundup is an antibiotic that kills gut bacteria,” said Amy Martenson of Label GMOs Napa County. She added that “we are having problems with the vineyards. Napa County has the highest rate of cancer in California.”

“We want a GMO free zone up and down the coast. Most counties on the North Coast have prohibited growing GMO crops,” explained Pam Gentry of Citizens for Healthy Farms and Families. They are collecting signatures to place an initiative on this year’s ballot that would ban growing genetically engineered crops in Sonoma County

Monsanto controls an area in South America larger than California called “soybean republic.” Jim Stoops noted, “Sixty doctors have complained about higher cancer rates in that area.”

Meanwhile, GM Watch reported the following: “Monsanto’s attempts to build its GMO seed plant in Argentina have met with three years of unflinching popular opposition. Protesters received an eviction notice, but local activists mobilized to strengthen the blockade, and a prosecutor suspended the order. The demand was, ‘Monsanto, get out of Latin America!’

Back in the U.S., GM Watch reports the following: “Campbell Soup Company said it supports the enactment of federal legislation for a single mandatory labeling standard for GM foods. The company said, ‘Printing a clear and simple statement on the label is the best solution for consumers and for Campbell.’ Campbell says its prices will not increase as a result of labeling.”

The article “Half of All Children Will Be Autistic by 2025” appears in the December 23, 2014, newsletter of the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), with the subtitle “Warns Senior Research Scientist at MIT.”

MIT’s Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., “noted that the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity. Children with autism have biomarkers indicative of excessive glyphosate, including zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder.”

ANH describes “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 scratch each others’ backs.”

Food and Water Watch’s booklet Monsanto: A Corporate Profile, further documents this: “Monsanto’s board members have worked for the EPA, advised the U.S. Department of Agriculture and served on President Obama’s Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations.”

Renee concluded that “we need activism. Eat locally, hopefully organic or biodynamic. Grow part of your own food.”

link

Pesticide Peddler Monsanto Wins 2015 Rubber Dodo Award

TUCSON, Ariz.— Monsanto, producer and seller of Roundup and its toxic active ingredient glyphosate, is the recipient of the Center for Biological Diversity’s 2015 Rubber Dodo Award, given annually to those who have done the most to destroy wild places, species and biological diversity. Glyphosate is now used in more than 160 countries, and more than 1.4 billion pounds are applied each year. It has been classified as a “probable human carcinogen” by the World Health Organization and its heavy use, particularly on herbicide-resistant GMO crops, also developed by Monsanto, is considered a leading cause of the recent, drastic 80 percent decline in monarch butterflies.

Previous Rubber Dodo winners include U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services (2014), the Koch brothers (2013), climate denier James Inhofe (2012), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (2011), former BP CEO Tony Hayward (2010), massive land speculator Michael Winer (2009), Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (2008) and Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne (2007).

“The science is increasingly clear that glyphosate is damaging wildlife and putting people at serious risk, yet Monsanto continues to aggressively peddle the stuff to farmers and really any customer it can find,” said Kierán Suckling, the Center’s executive director. “It’s hard to fathom the depth of the damage that glyphosate is doing, but its toxic legacy will live on for generations, whether it’s through threatening monarchs with extinction or a heightened risk of cancer for people where it’s spread.”

Earlier this week the Center released an analysis that found more than half of the glyphosate sprayed in California is applied in the state’s eight most impoverished counties, where the populations are predominantly Hispanic or Latino.

“Those sitting in Monsanto’s boardrooms and corporate offices won’t pay the price for this dangerous pesticide. It’s going to be people on the ground where it’s sprayed,” Suckling said. “This kind of callous pursuit of profits is at the core of what’s driving the loss of wildlife and diversity on a massive scale around the globe.”

More than 15,000 people cast their votes in this year’s Rubber Dodo contest. Other official nominees were Volkswagen, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Exxon and notorious Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy.

Background on the Dodo

In 1598 Dutch sailors landing on the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius discovered a flightless, 3-foot-tall, extraordinarily friendly bird. Its original scientific name was Didus ineptus. (Contemporary scientists use the less defamatory Raphus cucullatus.) To the rest of the world, it’s the dodo — possibly the most famous extinct species on Earth after the dinosaurs. It evolved over millions of years with no natural predators and eventually lost the ability to fly, becoming a land-based consumer of fruits, nuts and berries. Having never known predators, it showed no fear of humans or the menagerie of animals accompanying them to Mauritius.

Its trusting nature led to its rapid extinction. By 1681 the dodo had vanished, hunted and outcompeted by humans, dogs, cats, rats, macaques and pigs. Humans logged its forest cover while pigs uprooted and ate much of the understory vegetation.

The origin of the name dodo is unclear. It likely came from the Dutch word dodoor, meaning “sluggard,” the Portuguese word doudo, meaning “fool” or “crazy,” or the Dutch word dodaars meaning “plump-arse” (that nation’s name for the little grebe).

The dodo’s reputation as a foolish, ungainly bird derives in part from its friendly naiveté and the very plump captives that were taken on tour across Europe. The animal’s reputation was cemented with the 1865 publication of Lewis Carroll’s Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

Based on skeleton reconstructions and the discovery of early drawings, scientists now believe that the dodo was a much sleeker animal than commonly portrayed. The rotund European exhibitions were likely produced by overfeeding captive birds.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 900,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

Monsanto’s GMO Herbicide Doubles Cancer Risk

Glyphosate – the main ingredient in Monsanto’s widely used herbicide Roundup – is a colorless, odorless chemical and might seem innocuous to those who spray it on crops. But in the past few months the truth has come out: This chemical can be dangerous to farmers who are exposed to it and to people living close to farming areas.

In fact, glyphosate has been found to double the risk of one blood cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and increase the risk of a related cancer, multiple myeloma. (Multiple myeloma was recently classified as a sub-type of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, but they used to be considered distinct diseases.)

In a report released in late July, the world’s leading cancer experts at the International Agency for Research on Cancer shed new light on the cancer-causing properties of glyphosate. The report, which took an in-depth look at the latest research, concluded that glyphosate is definitely carcinogenic to animals in laboratory studies and that human exposure is linked to a higher risk of developing blood cancers such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

The report confirmed the findings of the Agency’s previous meta-analysis, which combined the results of several studies and concluded that occupational exposure to glyphosate doubles the risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The more recent report also highlighted studies that found that farm workers’ glyphosate exposure increases their risk of multiple myeloma by 70 to 100 percent.

It’s no wonder, then, that two farmers have filed lawsuits against Monsanto charging that they had been exposed them to a chemical that is “unreasonably dangerous.” Bottles of Roundup carry no warning that it is a probable human carcinogen.

In response to the International Agency’s recent findings, California has moved to add glyphosate to the state’s list of known carcinogens. This would require that Roundup bottles come with some sort of label warning of its dangers.

And farm workers aren’t the only ones exposed to the herbicide. Researchers have found glyphosate residues in food as well. The cancer research agency points out that a 2007 study found glyphosate residues on six of eight tofu samples made from Brazilian soybeans. Soybeans are the largest genetically modified crop produced globally and account for about half of the total area dedicated to growing GMO crops.

It’s time to label genetically modified food and let consumers decide whether they want to support an agricultural system that exposes farmers ­– and potentially themselves – to unreasonable risks.

Plenty of Links HERE

Monsanto hid Roundup’s Cancer Risk According to California Lawsuit

Not that it is a stranger to product liability considering it was the primary maker of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, but St. Louis-based chemical giant Monsanto may be facing a plethora of class-action lawsuits over one of its flagship products, Roundup weed killer. In March, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the herbicide in Roundup, glyphosate, a “probable human carcinogen.” The declaration was followed-up by several countries banning or severely restricting the use of glyphosate, including the Netherlands, Bermuda, and Sri Lanka, with France banning it for use in gardens in June. Glyphosate is the world’s most common herbicide, with the most recent data from the U.S. Geological Survey estimating that 280 million pounds of it was used in the U.S. in 2012. Out of the 130 countries that still permit the product; the U.S. is by far the Monsanto’s largest consumer with over 20 percent of global sales.  That may change, however, as California has followed the WHO’s lead earlier in the month. The state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued a “notice of intent” that it will also list glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, which is required by the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 for any product that the WHO’s cancer division lists as a carcinogen. The OEHHA classification requires companies with 10 or more employees in the state to provide a “clear and reasonable warning” of any product on the list of its dangers.

JUMP

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 Roundup Found in Animals with Birth Defects

Danish farmer Ib Borup Pederson had reared hogs for decades. So he was alarmed when he observed a growing incidence of malformations and birth defects in his newborn piglets. The deformities included: gaps in piglet’s skulls, deformed bones, missing limbs, and a female piglet with testicles.

Realizing that he had switched the feed three years earlier to Monsanto’s genetically-modified seed and because he had never witnessed such high numbers of birth defects in his piglets before, he suspected that the GM-seed or the glyphosate could be to blame. He had the piglets assessed by the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Leipzig, Germany and Hvidsten, Denmark and by the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Sadat City University in Egypt (source: Townsend Letter, January 2015).

Glyphosate, a pesticide used in Monsanto’s genetically-modified seed, has also been called the “Darth Vader chemical.” The researchers found glyphosate in the lungs, livers, kidneys, brains, muscles, and gut walls of the piglets. Their findings were published in the journal Environmental and Analytical Toxicology. It was found in the highest concentration in the lungs and hearts of the animals, with lower concentrations in the muscles. The researchers conclude that “further investigations are urgently needed” to determine whether there is a link between the glyphosate concentrations and the birth defects.

In an earlier study in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, researchers identified a link between glyphosate pesticides and lymphoma—a type of cancer of the lymph nodes and lymphatic system. The scientists found that glyphosate exposure doubled an individual’s risk of the cancer.

Glyphosate, also known as Roundup, has been linked to other serious health conditions and environmental degradation.

As far back as 2009, France’s highest court found Monsanto guilty of lying about the safety of Roundup, including falsely advertising it as “biodegradable,” “environmentally-friendly,” and even claiming that it “left the soil clean.”

In an interview, Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) discussed glyphosate as possibly “the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies.”

Glyphosate has been linked to other diseases, including: breast cancer, kidney failure, and celiac disease. For more information about glyphosate and genetically-modified seeds, check out the excellent book Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically-Engineered Foods You’re Eating by Jeffrey M. Smith, a former executive at an independent laboratory testing for genetically-modified organisms in food.

Related:

*Exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup Pesticide Doubles Cancer Risk
*Monsanto Partners with Media Conglomerate to Share its Message
*Is Monsanto Making Us Sterile?

 A Lot of LINKS Here

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

Veteran Fights for $250K in Benefits for Agent Orange-Caused Condition

Don Rabush says he is owed more than $250,000 in retroactive benefits from the VA

Frustrated and fed-up, Vietnam veteran Don Rabush calls his fight to get Veterans Affairs benefits for an ailment caused by Agent Orange one of the worth battles he’s ever faced.

The Army second lieutenant has been working to get nearly 40 years of retroactive benefits after suffering a heart attack in 1974.

Though a doctor at the time told him the attack was not war-related, the decision was reversed in 2010 when doctors discovered Rabush suffered a heart condition from contact with Agent Orange. He encountered the chemical during his five and a half years of service.

“In Vietnam, I was fighting the Viet Cong. This is a more vicious enemy. These are people who hide behind bureaucracy not to serve veterans," Rabush told NBC 7 Tuesday.

When Rabush filed for benefits in 2010, the VA granted them. Officials are not disputing Rabush’s ailments or their cause, but when the benefits should start.
Rabush said he should get them retroactively to 1974, but the VA says they should start in 2010 when he filed his new claim.

At issue, says VA Pension Management Center Manager Gary Chesterton, is a form Rabush submitted in 1974, which the VA says was a procedural form, not a claim form.

Disabled American Veterans representative Guy Anastasia told NBC 7 Rabush’s checks say otherwise.

“I did research. I went to the legal staff here and in D.C. to verify it can be used for adjudication purposes. It can be,” Anastasia said.

VA officials say it could be months before a decision is made in Rabush’s case.

The veteran said the fight isn’t about the more than $250,000 he stands to get if he wins. Instead, Rabush said it’s more about making sure he and other veterans who risked life and limb get the benefits they need to lead a healthy life.
“It’s common knowledge that VA claims their motto is — for those that are veterans — is ‘Delay, deny until they die.’ And believe me, I’ve felt all of that,” said Rabush.

Chesterton said 87 percent of the people who work in the office are veterans, and they grant benefits as the law allows.

The Disabled American Veterans office is working with congressional leaders to craft legislation to prevent similar issues in the future.

LINK

‘No Bugs, More Food?’ Parent Finds GMO Propaganda In Common Core Science Book

Over the last couple of years, some parents have become cautious of what foods to feed their children, especially with the discovery that genetically modified (GM) foods may be hazardous to a child’s health. The Inquisitr has assisted these parents by reporting on the latest pertaining to GM foods, which could start as early as infancy with GM baby formula and continuing to elementary school with lunch milk containing GM bovine growth hormone (rBGH).

As a result, cautious parents are reporting pros with their children on GM-free diets, and no-GM product businesses, such as Chick-fil-A and Chipotle, are prospering.

However, parents aren’t the only ones who assist in a child’s upbringing, though they should be the most important. Following the old phrase, “It takes a village to raise a child,” teachers accompany in a child’s development, eight hours a day, five days a week, on average. Sometimes, what they teach is in defiance to a parent’s lessons. In this case, a parent is upset that children are being taught genetically modified organism (GMO) propaganda in sixth grade.

According to AltHealth Works, Dawn Jordan, a parent in Missouri (Monsanto’s home state), was shocked to find a section in her niece’s science book, Science: A Closer Look, dedicated to GMOs, specifically GM crops. The section touted four positive bullet points about GMOs which are listed below.

*GMOs can produce more food.
*GMOs have more nutrients.
*GMOs fight disease and insects.
*GMOs need fewer chemical pesticides.

Of course, none of the negatives discovered through scientific testing and research have been included in the textbook. Also, the teacher assisted in the GMO agenda by writing in an answer for one of the questions that asked children to list three ways GMOs could be helpful to humans. Dawn Jordan provides a statement on the teacher’s assistance in promoting GMOs.

“When my niece sent me her homework, I noticed her teacher wrote ‘no bugs, more food’ as a suggestion to her as to what to write about… which disgusts me that a teacher in a public school system has no knowledge whatsoever on the actual truth about GMOs and is merely doing what she is told, without proper research first.”

In a follow-up article by Buy Non-GMO Seeds, it reports that the textbook is published by McGraw-Hill, and is being distributed to schools across the country. It is unknown how many of the books were actually distributed.

This is not the first time Monsanto or another pro-GMO organization or entity has influenced the children of America to support their agenda. Monsanto funded the production of a coloring book titled Look Closer to Biotechnology that was riddled with pro-GMO propaganda. A heavily-biased activity book that listed alleged positives of GMOs but none of the negatives would have been distributed among the public if it weren’t for activists. Summarized, this isn’t the first time Monsanto has attempted to manipulate the minds of children in their favor, and it won’t be the last.

To all you parents out there, now that you’ve read of Monsanto’s agenda of teaching your children about GMOs in their favor, what are your views? Do you find Monsanto and GMOs to be an issue best stopped through education, or are activists just paranoid?

LINK

GMO Farmer: ‘I Won’t Eat My Own Crops’

Thanks to Monsanto, he feels he has no choice

Like a thousand other farmers across the US, Kirk Bair is a farmer looking for ways to grow food economically and with as little labor as possible – but what are the moral implications of planting food you are aware is toxic, and selling it to your friends and neighbors? Is Bair in the right for planting GMO seed, even if conventional seed is hard to come by?

Bair has said:

“When you put a herbicide gene inside a corn seed, soybean, wheat, whatever you’re working with, you’re eating that. You’re ingesting it.”

It is clear that Bair realizes the health dangers of GM crops, but he plants them anyway? Why? He feels he has no choice, and there is a multi-billion dollar industry calling the shots.

“I’ve got some good looking ears coming,” said Kirk Bair, admiring his genetically modified corn crop, developed with Monsanto’s technology.

When asked why he has planted GM corn, Blair states:

“To use conventional corn, non-GMO, I’d have to till, apply pre-emergence herbicide. It’s more economical and more convenient to use GMO corn on real ground. I only use it because I felt like I had to. My seed supplier said, ‘Kirk it’s harder and harder to get a hold of conventional seed.’”

In less than a decade, the US has gone from planning 100% conventional seeds to almost 90% genetically modified seeds. Corn, soybeans and cotton are some of the most commonly grown GM crops – all considered staples.

Even though Blair grows GM crops, he says:

“I want to know what I am eating and I don’t want to eat GMO foods.”

Imagine that – a farmer who won’t eat his own crops. He has even supported labeling initiatives in California stating:

“People need know what they’re eating. People want to know what they’re eating.”

Read: 800 Scientists Demand Global ‘GMO Experiment’ End

This is a strange phenomenon – when farmers will knowingly plant crops they realize are dangerous to human health. Are they right about giving in to Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta when banned GM crops are being found in Europe, or when they are growing in Oregon and Minnesota fields without permission?

What about cross-pollination? Is a farmer’s ability to grow non-GMO completely compromised already to such a degree that she or he has to just shut down their tilling machines like a defeated warrior laying down his sword?

One biotech company claims the following reasons that farmers plant GM crops:

“Because they benefit from the technology – after all, 17.3 million farmers around the world do so, and their numbers grow each season.

In addition to higher yields and higher farm income, their reasons include:

Increased management flexibility

Easier adoption of no- or reduced till farming, which saves time, equipment usage, and carbon emissions

Improved weed control

Soil preservation

Less worry about pest damage

Less time spent on crop walking and/or insecticide application

Savings in energy use – mainly associated with less spraying and tillage

Savings in machinery use (for spraying and possibly reduced harvesting times)

Improved quality (e.g., lower levels of mycotoxins in GM insect-resistant maize)”

To the astute reader, there are several items on this list that are completely false – ‘less worry about pest damage’ could elicit an entire book of refutation. GM crops have increased worry about pest infestation. The emergence of superweeds and superbugs was in tandem with GM planting.

The ‘savings in machinery’ is arguable too, as more and more herbicide and pesticide use likely eats up any saved costs from having to spray more often – not less. The soil is also not preserved with GM crop planting – but destroyed. This has been proven many times over.

Multiple studies have looked at GM planting and its effects on the soil. One such study explains:

. . .residues of Bt maize plants that are ploughed into the soil following harvest suppress its ability to respire (produce carbon dioxide), it also reduces mycorrhizal colonisation and seriously alters bacterial populations within the soil ecosystem. This function of soil is vitally important for regulating plant growth and vitality, and for increasing availability of minerals and nutrients.

. . . Bt toxins persist in the soil for a considerable amount of time, which impedes the soil flora recovery and impacts upon plant health and growth in subsequent growing seasons.”

Addressing the other items on the list like improved quality are questionable, as are many other of the fallacious reasons given by EuropaBio.

Many farmers simply won’t accept the biotech misinformation that has been dished out for decades. The Rodale Research Institute on Organic Farming and Gardening lists thousands of farmers who know a better way. Since the 1940s and prior, this country has been growing food without chemicals and GM technology. It is more than possible, and now more than ever, vital.

It is understandable how farmers could initially feel drawn to the Big Ag model, based largely on the calculating lies of the biotech industry – but hopefully more farmers are seeing through biotech’s façade.

Bair seems to have seen behind Oz’s curtain to some degree, but he and other farmers like him obviously need public support to choose non-GM seeds and grow them.

You don’t fight a multi-billion dollar industry on a few acres. Perhaps Bair will join the ranks of Dr. Theirry Vrain, a former pro-GMO scientist who now whistleblows on the entire industry. That would be redemption.

Jump for Live Links

Eating GMOs? You May be Playing Roulette With Your Life

What’s Wrong With GMOs?
“Round-Up Ready” is the name given to soy and corn that was developed by Monsanto and involves the pesticide Round Up being integrated right into the seeds before they are planted. The theory they are trying to sell is that this will require less pesticides to be sprayed, but according to experts at Cornell University, this practice has ended up requiring a more intense use of pesticides as the plants around the corn and soy (and the corn and soy themselves) grow resistant to the Round Up. Mistake?

Coincidence?

Don’t be naive.

It gets worse with GM corn. When an insect eats GMO corn, their stomachs, for lack of a better description, explode. At first, studies showed us that there was no impact on human health. Now studies reveal that tiny tears in the cells of human intestines occur when we eat GMO food. The result is a rise in leaky gut, which leads to a rise in food allergies and auto-immune disorders. This is terrifying stuff. The documentary ‘Genetic Roulette’ by Jeffrey Smith, one of the world’s leading consumer advocates should make you sit up and take notice…and never question whether or not to buy organic again.

And these are just two of the thousands of genetically modified foods being mixed into the ingredients in many foods today.

Messing With Mother Nature
Genetic modification also allows for cross-breeding that is far removed from natural hybridization, although manufacturers of these products would have you believe otherwise with their propaganda. The theory behind GMOs is simple. Scientists select specific genes from one organism and introduce them into another to confer a specific trait. This technology can be used to create new varieties of plants and animals more quickly than conventional methods and produce traits not possible through traditional, natural techniques. The mad scientists behind GMOs would have you believe that their process is just like mixing red and yellow peppers’ DNA to create an orange pepper, but it isn’t. For example, genetic material from salmon can be injected into strawberries to make them more resistant to cold weather. That’s messing with Mother Nature in the most unnatural way.

Look at it this way. Two peppers, even of different colors, would hit on each other in a bar, date, and mate. But a strawberry and a salmon, well, not so much. The consequences of this work are alarming with ramifications we cannot begin to imagine.

While marketers try to sell us on the concept of GMOs as foods that improve yields, are more nourishing for developing countries struggling with famine, and require less use of toxins to grow them, nothing could be further from the truth. While Monsanto and other chemical giants continue to promote these false ideas, there has been no independent proof to support their claims. Only studies conducted within their companies have shown the results they market in their public relations campaigns.

There is, however, increasing concern among independent scientists about the safety of these crops and the resulting foods. The spread of pesticide-resistant plants, the possible toxicity to natural habitats and the species that thrive there, and the impact on human health all remain unanswered questions and are of paramount concern to experts.

Who Benefits From GMOs?
So why do these companies do this? Why take such risks with the collective health of humanity and the planet?

GMO crops and foods would give companies like Monsanto and DuPont the ultimate control over human life . . . the control of food. They have already changed the way commercial farmers farm; this is just the next step to world domination, in the sense of food.

Do you think that the chemical executives sitting in their high-rise glass-walled offices with spectacular views care for one moment about the health of populations in developing countries? Or in the industrialized world, for that matter?

How Did We Get Here?
With more than 167 million acres of GMO crops planted in the United States, making our farmers the largest producers of these crops, there is solid reason for concern. The United States accounts for more than all GMO crops grown around the world. And if you are thinking it’s just about corn and soybeans, here is the laundry list of crops now grown using GMO technology (and don’t you think it’s weird to even use the word “technology” when talking about growing food?): corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, squash, sugar beets, rice, dairy products, farm-raised salmon, papaya, and alfalfa, to name a few. GMO ingredients play a role in more than 70 percent of our food overall.

How can this be? How did these potentially disastrous organisms get into our food in such a high concentration? Public relations would have you believe that the FDA approved GMOs after rigorous testing and long-term studies. Nope. In fact, there are no safety testing requirements, according to their own website. The only testing done on GMOs is done by the companies themselves and are meticulously designed to avoid problems: this, according to Dr. Arpad Pusztai, the leading researcher in this field. (When Dr. Pusztai expressed his concern over GMO issues, he was fired from his job after thirty-five years at a biotech plant.)

The FDA, under the first President George Bush, was specifically directed to promote the research of biotechnology and not ironically, the person in charge of developing the policy was the former attorney to the biotech giant Monsanto, who later became their vice president. The results of his policy showed that GMO crops were not different from traditional crops in “any meaningful or uniform way.” Therefore, testing was not required.

It didn’t stop there. The outrage was perpetrated on Mother Nature came under the Obama administration. In one week, this administration deregulated two very important crops that can affect our future: alfalfa and sugar beets. Deregulation of alfalfa, the nation’s fourth largest crop and a prodigious pollinator, could spell disaster for natural crops. Used mainly in animal feed, GMO alfalfa would contaminate not only soil and crops, but the meat you eat as well. In January of 2011, this important crop was completely deregulated, meaning that there are no restrictions on the growing of GMO, Round-Up Ready alfalfa by Monsanto and no labeling is required . . . so you, the consumer will have no idea. This deregulation also removed what are known as “buffer zones,” specific distances designed to prevent the contamination of organic alfalfa crops by GMO crops, making it virtually impossible to produce organic alfalfa. Indirectly, this means that it could become impossible to produce organic meat and dairy products since alfalfa is such a big part of their feed.

And the hits continued! In February 2011, sugar beets were deregulated allowing for GMO sugar beet crops to be grown without restriction or labeling requirements to avoid “a sugar shortage,” according to Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture for the Obama administration. God, forbid we should consider using a wee bit less sugar. We’d rather screw up the natural order to feed the hungry mouths of business and lobby groups!

We Need GMO Labeling
Tom Vilsack says that to regulate GMO crops would be “burdensome” to business, but whose business? The deregulation of these crops and the resulting contamination puts an unreasonable burden on all those dedicated farmers and business people working hard to produce and create organic foods. The deregulation of these crops significantly threatens the ability to produce certified organic products, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (author of the original Organic Foods Prodution Act). The biotechnology industry has declared war on the organic food industry and through shrewd lobbying has won a decisive victory . . . and will continue unopposed with the onslaught of genetically modified foods that are controlled by only a handful of multinational corporations.

Are you mad as hell yet? It gets better.

Scientists who worked for the FDA came to the overwhelming consensus that GMOs were distinctly different from other crops and could lead to unpredictable and hard-to-detect toxins, allergens, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to conduct long-term studies.

They were ignored.

As a result, only one in four Americans knows that they have eaten or are eating GMO foods. The Campaign for Healthier Eating is committed to educating Americans about what is really in their food. One of the goals is to change the regulations so that GMO ingredients in food must be listed as such. The labeling is voluntary now.

What You Can Do
Read labels, when you can find them, and work to understand them. Begin with your produce. You know those pesky little stickers that are so hard to remove from everything we buy? They could turn out to be your best pals.

If produce is grown with GMO influence, the little stickers will show a 5-digit number beginning with “8.” If the produce is organically produced, the stickers will show a 5-digit number beginning with “9,” and conventionally produced veggies and fruits will have stickers with a 4-digit number. But don’t get your hopes too high that you’ll beat them at their own game. With voluntary labeling you have no idea what you are getting most of the time unless it’s certified organic.

With processed foods, there is no way to tell what GMOs may be lurking in your food, well, foodlike substances. GMO ingredients are widespread and well-hidden. Even some so-called natural food companies employ GMO ingredients so you really have to know the players to win at this game . . . unless you are buying certified organic foods. And with all of the deregulation going on around us, certified organic could become a moot point. At this time, there is only one organization dedicated to rooting out GMOs and letting the consumer know if the products they are using contain GMOs, whether the product is organic or not. The Non-GMO Project’s mission is simple: They are “committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO sources.”

Most important, you can get involved. Go to www.carighttoknow.org and support the cause in any way that you can. And vote with your dollar. Cornucopia Institute has information on who is doing what with this most important campaign. Use your dollar to tell these companies we will settle for no less than the truth. Finally, get your hands on a copy of the documentary, Genetic Roulette and watch it with friends and family. Genetically modified foods and other toxic additives in our foods should scare us witless and have us all mad as hell.

JUMP for links

GMOs Proven Harmful To Human Health

Do you ever wonder why “pro gmo” people simply refuse to acknowledge the science?  The truth is, we don’t know enough about GMOs to deem them safe for human consumption. Believe it or not the very first commercial sale of them was only twenty years ago. There is no possible way that our health authorities can test all possible combinations on a large enough population, over a long enough period of time to be able to say with absolute certainty that they are harmless.

“GM Crop Production is Lowering US Yields and Increasing Pesticide Use…There is no reason GM foods should be approved safe for consumption, we just don’t know enough about them. We could easily feed the planet through organic, GMO-free methods, so there is absolutely no reason we need GM foods around… the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable…Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease.“

GMOs Prove Harmful To Humans In These Ten Scientific Studies :

15 GMO Safety Studies LINKS HERE

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