Monsanto…Everyone That Studies Round Up Except Monsanto is Guilty of Junk Science

If you haven’t guessed, I hate Monsanto. There. I feel better now that it’s out in the open. They have long known the ill effects of their products on everything living, but they just don’t care. If you point out the scientific papers that show negatives associated with their products, they quickly dismiss them as “junk science”. However, their “science” that they use to continue the experimentation on us is “pure”. But they won’t do long term studies on exposure, and they won’t release their “proof” in detail.

Science isn’t the problem. It’s that false, incomplete, “recommended by owner” science is used to justify the continued proliferation of not just chemicals, but novel organisms in our food.

They lie. They cover up. They use money to buy their desired outcomes. They pay people to surf the internet and confuse legitimate conversations about genetically modified foods. They sue farmers for their own pollution of the environment. They are providing the pharmaceutical companies, of which they are part, with a steady supply of sick people.

Here’s an excellent article on the issue of Monsanto’s continual maligning of any science but their own and other improprieties in relation to Monsanto. Link to original is in the title:

The Case of Glyphosate: Product Promoters Masquerading as Regulators?

roundup

On 20 March, the World Health Organisation International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic to humans. This is just one step below the risk designation of ‘known carcinogen’. The European Unioin is currently in the process of assessing the IARC’s research and will re-evaluate glyphosate.

Aaron Blair, a scientist emeritus at the National Cancer Institute who chaired the 17-member working group of the IARC that classified glyphosate as “probably” cancer-causing, says that the classification is appropriate based on current science. Blair also states that there have been hundreds of studies on glyphosate with concerns about the chemical growing over time and added that in its review the IARC group gave particular consideration to two major studies out of Sweden, one out of Canada and at least three in the US.

He stressed that the group did not classify glyphosate as definitely causing cancer:

“We looked at, ‘Is there evidence that glyphosate causes cancer?’ and the answer is ‘probably.’ That is different than yes… It is different than smoking and lung cancer. We don’t say smoking probably causes cancer. We say it does cause cancer. At one point we weren’t sure, but now we are.”

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, which was primarily responsible $5.1 billion of Monsanto’s revenues in 2014.  The herbicide is also used to support Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops, which comprise the vast bulk of the balance of its revenue stream. Unsurprisingly, Monsanto has wasted no time in trying to rubbish the WHO findings. The work of cancer specialists from 11 countries was speedily dismissed by Monsanto. In a press release, the company argued the findings are based on ‘junk’ science and cherry picking and are agenda driven.

In 2011, Earth Open Source said that official approval of glyphosate had been rash, problematic and deeply flawed. Its comprehensive review of existing data suggested that industry regulators in Europe had known for years that glyphosate causes birth defects in the embryos of laboratory animals. The review raised questions about the role of the powerful agro-industry in rigging data pertaining to product safety and its undue influence on regulatory bodies.

Despite its widespread use, there has been little monitoring of glyphosate in food, water or the wider environment. In 2013, Friends of the Earth (FoE) and GM Freeze commissioned a study based on urine samples from volunteers in 18 countries across Europe. It found that on average 44 percent of samples contained glyphosate. The proportion of positive samples varied between countries, with Malta, Germany, the UK and Poland having the most positive tests, and lower levels detected in Macedonia and Switzerland. All the volunteers who provided samples lived in cities, and none had handled or used glyphosate products in the run-up to the tests. The study was the first time monitoring has been carried out across Europe for the presence of the weed killer in human bodies.  

According to a peer-reviewed report in the scientific journal Entropy, residues of glyphosate have also been found in food. These residues enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease, according to the report’s authors, Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and science consultant Anthony Samsel. The study says that negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body.

In Mississippi, 75 percent of air and rain samples contained levels of glyphosate that could have serious physiological consequences for humans. Even if you are careful about what you eat, there is no escaping this poison. Sayer Ji from GreenMedInfo:

“The reality is that the environment is becoming so saturated with the ‘fall out’ from the ever-expanding GM agricultural/agrichemical farming grid that even if you somehow find a way to avoid eating contaminated food, you will be forced to have to deal with its adverse health effects, as long as you need air to breath and water to drink.”

In 2010, the provincial government of Chaco province in Argentina issued a report on health statistics from the town La Leonesa. The report showed that from 2000 to 2009, following the expansion of genetically-modified soy and rice crops in the region (and the use of glyphosate), the childhood cancer rate tripled in La Leonesa and the rate of birth defects increased nearly fourfold over the entire province.

As in Chaco, the introduction of Roundup Ready crops in the US has resulted in an increase of glyphosate use. Using official US government data, Dr Charles Benbrook, research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University, states that since 1996 the glyphosate rate of application per crop year has tripled on cotton farms, doubled in the case of soybeans and risen 39 percent on corn. The average annual increase in the pounds of glyphosate applied to cotton, soybeans, and corn has been 18.2 percent, 9.8 percent, and 4.3 percent, respectively, since herbicide tolerant crops were introduced.

According to the US Department of Agriculture, herbicide-tolerant biotech plants were grown on virtually all (94%) soybean fields in the US during 2013 and on 89% of all cornfields. Food & Water Watch found the volume of glyphosate applied to those crops increased almost 1,000% between 1996 and 2012, from 15 million pounds to 159 million pounds. The increase in usage has been accelerating in recent years.

Glyphosate was approved for EU-wide use in 2002. Yet there is a mounting body of evidence that links glyphosate with a range of serious health problems and diseases, including Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, birth defects, autism, infertility and cancers. If regulatory bodies had done their job properly, we would not now be in this situation.

FoE argues that the European regulatory agencies did not carry out their own safety testing, relying instead on data provided by the manufacturers. Of course, it has for some time been noted that regulatory agencies in Europe, the US and Canada have shown a dereliction of duty by prioritising the needs of big food and agro-industry concerns and their products over any notion of public safety or the public interest. We know that outright corruption and serious conflicts of interest have been major factors in this respect [see this, this, this and this].

Something to hide

Regulators have much to answer for, but they are silent. Claire Robinson from GM Watch notes that a group of Chinese food safety volunteers submitted a request to China’s Ministry of Agriculture to disclose the study that justified issuing the safety certificate for the import into China of Monsanto’s Roundup. Writing on the GM Watch website, she says:

“The Ministry replied that Roundup was registered in China in 1988 based on a toxicology test report issued by a testing company called Younger Laboratories in St Louis, Missouri. The test was an acute exposure toxicity test (such tests last a maximum of a few days), with Roundup being given to rats by mouth and applied to the skin of rabbits. It claimed to find no effect on the eyes or skin, and no allergy. The volunteers asked the Ministry to release the study, and the Ministry in turn asked Monsanto. Monsanto replied that the study constituted its own commercial secret, adding that the company had never disclosed the study anywhere in the world and did not agree to disclose it now. The volunteers are appealing against the decision.”

In Europe, Tony Tweedale, a Brussels-based advisor to NGOs on toxicity and risk assessment issues, asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to disclose the two key chronic toxicity studies on glyphosate that the German regulatory agencies relied upon to set the Acceptable Daily Intake of the chemical.

Robinson notes that both the German government regulatory agencies (their decisions form the basis for the widespread use of glyphosate) and EFSA have refused Tweedale’s requests to release the studies, on the grounds that they are commercially confidential information. Pesticide Action Network Europe previously asked the German regulatory agencies to release the full range of long-term toxicity studies on glyphosate. They refused, again for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

Such official stonewalling raises the question of what could be in these industry studies that that public is not allowed to see. The assumption is that the industry – and regulators – have something to hide.

The Earth Open Source review found that the biotech industry’s own studies conducted in the 1980s and 1990s showed that glyphosate causes birth defects in experimental animals. While the industry studies themselves are held by the German government and remain secret, the Earth Open Source authors examined Germany’s summary report on the studies, which is in the public domain. This report was submitted to the EU Commission and led to glyphosate’s European approval in 2002.

The Earth Open Source authors found that the German regulator consistently dismissed evidence of birth defects using unscientific reasoning.

Claire Robinson says:

“… if the German government or EFSA were to release the industry studies, independent academic scientists could reanalyze the data (and methodology) and form their own conclusions about the safety of glyphosate. Given the past failures of risk assessment, these could well be at odds with the conclusions of the German regulator.”

In his recent book, ‘Poison Spring’, former US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) worker Evaggelos Vallianatos quotes the EPA scientist Adrian Gross as saying that his colleagues, EPA toxicologists, “go straight to the company’s summary and lift it word for word and give it as their own evaluation of those studies.”

In a similar vein to the claims by Valliantos, former Monsanto boss in India during the eighties has said that the company faked data and so-called regulators just accepted such data at face value.

And here lies the crux of the matter: proper, independent analyses of risks being sidelined and ‘regulation’ amounting to little more than blindly accepting dubious industry claims or studies that merely say its products are safe. And yet, this is an industry that tried to rubbish the now republished the Seralini team’s study into GMOs and glyphosate (with unscientific polemics masquerading as scientific critique). While the Seralini team’s two-year study has now undergone three rounds of peer-review, the industry keeps its own inadequate three-day or three-month studies secret by hiding behind the all too convenient notion of ‘commercial confidentiality’ and restricts, controls and censors independent research concerning its products; if that fails, it sets out to smear, intimidate, bully and discredit researchers whose findings are not to their liking [see this and this].

If the Serlani-led study and the rest of the evidence alluded to in this article show one thing, it is that regulators ought to do what they are supposed to and go back and properly reassess the products which they have allowed agribusiness to contaminate and poison us with. However, based on reactions to the Seralini-led study, the EFSA may had already made up its mind. William Engdahl states:

“A spokesman for the EFSA announced just a few weeks after the publication of Seralini’s bombshell study and without proof, “EFSA’s analysis has shown that deficiencies in the Séralini et al. paper mean it is of insufficient scientific quality for risk assessment. We believe the completion of this evaluation process has brought clarity to the issue…. Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603.” No mention of what the “serious defects” nor of why that would not call for repeating the two-year tests with other independent scientific groups around the EU to determine whether or not Seralini’s results were accurate… “Case closed, ladies and gentlemen and don’t ask us for more on this…” The mainstream media in Germany and across the EU dutifully swallowed that nonsense as the end of the discussion. Monsanto maize and Monsanto Roundup herbicide were ‘safe’.”

If Monsanto is going to accuse others of ‘junk’ science and ‘bias’, it has a serious credibility issue given that is has been a long-time leading exponent of  junk science and biased agendas. Moreover, Sustainable Pulse has discovered documents from 1991 that show how the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was fully aware of glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential. In 1985, the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate was first considered by an EPA panel. This committee went on to classify glyphosate as a Class C Carcinogen with “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.”

This Class C classification was changed by the EPA six years later to a Class E category which suggests “evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans.” Sustainable Pulse concludes that the US government is to blame for allowing glyphosate onto the commercial market because it wanted to push it as part of as global campaign to support the US biotech industry in its attempt to dominate global agriculture. In other words, the health of the public was not put before the need to protect company profits and foreign policy aims.

Our health is being sacrificed for the commercial interests of a few powerful corporations. At the very least, the public would like regulators to regulate, not product promote.

Colin Todhunter is an extensively published independent writer and former social policy researcher based in the UK and India.

Great Monsanto Infographic!

Today I received this excellent Monsanto History infographic. It is jam packed with the history of one of the most evil corporations on the face of the planet. I was asked to share it with my readers, and I am quite happy to do so! Here is the link for the full view. Thanks, Elly!

Monsanto Infographic

New England Journal of Medicine Calls for GMO Labeling!

I don’t think this could have come at a better time. The Senate is due to vote on the Dark Act soon, and with such a prestigious medical journal now publishing an article stating that we should be labeling GM crops, it is not going to be easy for the Senators to keep holding the Monsanto line of “It’s great! And all the studies that show it isn’t are wrong because we say so.”  Mind you, I am not going to hold my breath thinking the US Federal Government will do the right and decent thing, but this is still fantastic ammo. Here is an excerpt from an article. The link to the article is in the title below:

New England Journal of Medicine article calls for labeling of GM foods

In the August 20 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, two respected experts on pesticides and children’s environmental health call for the FDA to require mandatory labeling of GMO foods.

Currently, the FDA does not require labeling of genetically modified foods, even though 65 countries mandate the labeling of GM foods, and more than 90 percent of Americans support it. Last month, the DARK Act, which would block states and federal government from making mandatory labeling laws, passed in the House. Next, it goes to the Senate.

What the article says

In the article, titled “GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health,” Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, the Dean for Global Health at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and co-author Charles Benbrook, a crop and soil scientist, say the time has come for three important steps.

One of these is GMO labeling. They write: “We believe the time has come to revisit the United States’ reluctance to label GM foods.”

As they explain, two recent developments are dramatically changing the GMO landscape:

  1. The number of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops has increased sharply and is scheduled to increase even more in the next few years.
  2. This year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate, the herbicide used most widely on GM crops, as a “probable human carcinogen.” And the agency classified 2,4-D, another herbicide, as a “possible human carcinogen.”

The authors believe labeling will have multiple benefits. It will help track the emergence of new food allergies and better evaluate the effects of chemical herbicides applied to GM foods. And also, it will respect the wishes of the growing numbers of consumers who insist they have a right to know what is in the foods and beverages they are buying.

The article also calls for the National Toxicology Program to urgently assess the nature, effects, and possible poisons in pure glyphosate, formulated glyphosate, and mixtures of glyphosate and other herbicides.

Finally, the article calls for the EPA to delay its implementation of its decision to allow the use of Enlist Duo, a combination herbicide made with both glyphosate and 2,4-D that is designed for use on GMO crops…..(rest here)

GMO Meeting in Ava, Missouri September 3rd

I’ll be speaking at a meeting in Ava next week about GMO’s and many of the issues and concerns surrounding these man made life forms. If you’re in the area, it would be great to see you there! Here’s the advertisement that has gone out to promote the event:

Screen shot 2015-08-26 at 12.24.21 PM

And now, We Drop the Farm Gate Price

As we all know, there are cycles in things. There are natural ups and downs in production of food stuffs as well as in consumption. Guess what? The natural growing season makes it easy for prices to seriously fluctuate. The unnatural economic situation makes it very difficult for farmers to make a profit from their actual labor without government subsidies (handcuffs) and with very limited buyers able to enter the market. I think we are not supposed to remember that not only does the “Federal Reserve” have no reserves, but the entire nation has no grain reserve any longer.

So, now that oil has crashed, it’s time for farm gate prices to crash. :)

August 25, 2015 6:00 pm
US farm incomes cut by half as low grain prices bite
Gregory Meyer in New York
©Bloomberg
An extended run of low grain prices will slash US farm incomes by more than half from their peak, the government said, deflating a surge in land values and pressuring fertiliser and equipment makers.
Net income on US farms will total $58.3bn this year, the lowest since 2002 when adjusted for inflation, and down nearly 53 per cent from a record high of $123.7bn in 2013,
the US Department of Agriculture said in a forecast updated on Tuesday.
The sharp decline shows how two years of mammoth harvests and easing biofuel mandates have ended what a University of Illinois expert called a “golden age in
agricultural incomes”, similar to previous ones in the 1910s and 1970s.
Now, farmers, their bankers and investors in land and food production are facing a period of retrenchment.
Land in the fertile Corn Belt region encompassing Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri and Ohio is down 0.3 per cent this year to $6,350 per acre, according to USDA. Farmers are negotiating lower rents
with reluctant landlords, but adjustments have been modest so far, said
needs corn above $4.10 and soyabeans above $10 to break even at expected crop yields, Prof Schnitkey said.
Livestock prices have also begun to reverse after hitting highs in 2014, pulling down incomes for pig and dairy farmers. CME October lean hogs were 0.66775 a pound on Tuesday, off 29 per cent from a year ago.
Farm expenses will decline by only 0.5 per cent, less than receipts, as rises in labour, interest, taxes and fees partly offset cheaper feed, fuel and fertiliser, the USDA said. The agency’s net income forecast was $15bn less than its previous one made in February.
Ken Wright, president of State Bank of Bement in central Illinois, said farmers were seeing tighter credit lines.
“Most of them were able to build up some cash reserves during the good years, but those reserves are being tapped,” said Mr Wright.
Last week Deere & Co, the equipment maker, forecast a 25 per cent drop in US and Canadian
agricultural sales in 2015. Its shares have fallen 4.8 per cent in the past year.

Agenda 21 Grows Up

As though Agenda 21 in it’s current form isn’t tyrannical enough, the architects of global government have plans to ramp it up and manage the herd even more thoroughly. Here’s an article by Michael Snyder with some very telling excerpts from the plan:

 

If you didn’t like “Agenda 21″, then you really are not going to like “The 2030 Agenda”. Next month, the United Nations is going to launch “The 2030 Agenda” at a major conference that will be held from September 25th to September 27th in New York City. The Pope is actually traveling to New York to deliver an address which will kick off this conference. Unlike
Agenda 21 which primarily focused on the environment, the 2030 Agenda is truly a template for governing the entire planet. In addition to addressing climate change, it also sets ambitious goals for areas such as economics, health, energy, education, agriculture, gender equality and a whole host of other issues. As you will see below, this global initiative is being billed as a “new universal Agenda” for humanity. If you are anything like me, alarm bells are going off in your head right about now.

This new agenda is solidly rooted in a document known as “Agenda 21″ that was originally adopted by the United Nations back in 1992. The following comes from Wikipedia…

The full text of Agenda 21 was made public at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janeiro on June 13, 1992, where 178 governments voted to adopt the program. The final text was the result of drafting, consultation, and negotiation, beginning in 1989 and culminating at the two-week conference.

Since that time,
Agenda 21
has been modified and amended numerous times. Noteworthy changes occurred in 1997, 2002 and 2012.

But now the UN’s sustainable development program is being given an entirely new name, and the scope of this agenda is being broadened dramatically. The following is what the official United Nations website has to say about it…

The United Nations is now in the process of defining Sustainable Development Goals as part a new sustainable development agenda that must finish the job and leave no one behind. This agenda, to be launched at the Sustainable Development Summit in September 2015, is currently being discussed at the UN General Assembly, where Member States and civil society are making contributions to the agenda.

Just a few days ago, the core document for the 2030 Agenda was finalized. When what is in this document starts getting out, it is going to create a huge stir among Americans that are concerned about the ambitions of the globalists. The following comes from the preamble of this document…

This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom. We recognise that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development.

All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan. We are resolved to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want and to heal and secure our planet. We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path. As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind.

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets which we are announcing today demonstrate the scale and ambition of this new universal Agenda. They seek to build on the Millennium Development Goals and complete what these did not achieve. They seek to realize the human rights of all and to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.

As you can see, this is not just a plan to fight climate change.

This is literally a blueprint for transforming global society.

The core of the plan is a set of 17 specific goals…

Goal 1 End poverty in all its forms everywhere

Goal 2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

Goal 3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

Goal 4 Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

Goal 5 Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Goal 6 Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

Goal 7 Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

Goal 8 Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

Goal 9 Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

Goal 10 Reduce inequality within and among countries

Goal 11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

Goal 12 Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

Goal 13 Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*

Goal 14 Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

Goal 15 Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

Goal 16 Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

Goal 17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

Many of those sound very good.

After all, who wouldn’t want to “end poverty” or “halt biodiversity loss”?

But as you read through that list, ask yourself what forms of human activity would be excluded from it.

Personally, I have a hard time coming up with much of anything.

As I discussed earlier this week, the globalists want to use “sustainable development” as an excuse to micromanage the lives of every man, woman and child on the entire globe.

We are told that individual liberty and freedom are “dangerous” because when everyone just runs around doing whatever they want it is “bad for the planet”.

For example, one of the goals of the sustainable development crowd is to push the human population into giant “megacities” and to allow nature to recapture much of what has already been settled by humanity.

The following map that comes from America 2050 is one example of what they want to do. A recent piece by Dave Hodges alerted me to this map, and it shows what the United States may look like in a few decades if the globalists have their way…America-2050

And of course this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Eventually, the globalists want to fundamentally transform virtually everything about our society. This includes our economy, our government, our entertainment, our social interactions, our families and even our religious beliefs.

So don’t let all of the nice language fool you.

This “new universal Agenda” is far, far more dangerous than Agenda 21 ever was, and it is a giant step forward into a one world system governed by bureaucratic control freaks.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/08/september-2015-agenda-21-will-be-transformed-into-the-2030-agenda/#o8PtMVp6l2Fgixvx.99

Germany to Ban GMO Seeds

Some good news for a change! Germany and Scotland appear to be standing up to the biotech cartel in a very positive way.

Germany Joins Scotland in Seeking Ban on Gene-Modified Seeds

Germany is taking steps to outlaw the cultivation of genetically modified crops in Europe’s biggest economy.

The Agriculture Ministry plans to officially request that producers of GMOs exclude Germany when applying to sell seeds in European Union, Christian Fronczak, a spokesman for the ministry, said Tuesday. Scotland took similar measures earlier this month.

“The German government is clear in that it seeks a nationwide cultivation ban,” Fronczak said by phone from Berlin. “There’s resistance from all sides, from the public to the farmers.”

Germany is taking advantage of new measures allowing countries to opt out of growing gene-modified crops. Switzerland’s Syngenta AG and U.S. rival Monsanto Co. have been among the strongest proponents of the seeds, which are mostly banned in the EU because of what some say are uncertain environmental and health effects. Monsanto maintains the products are safe.

The Agriculture Ministry has asked for the backing of state ministries in a letter sent in the past few days, Fronczak said. Germany gave state governments a deadline until Sept. 11 to reply. If it doesn’t hear any objections from the states, it will ask that companies exclude Germany from their applications to sell GMO seeds, Fronczak said.

There is one genetically modified crop, a variety of corn designed to be pest-resistant, already grown in the EU and eight pending applications for GMO seeds, according to an April statement from the European Commission.

Previous Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 92 other followers