Did Bayer AG Do A Sly Deal On Glyphosate With The European Union Commission?

Did Bayer AG do a Sly Deal on Glyphosate with EU Commission?

Source: WilliamEngdahl.com
F. William Engdahl
January 24, 2017

There is growing evidence that the EU Commission’s extraordinary ruling of June 29, 2016 granting the toxic weed-killing agent Glyphosate a reprieve of 18 months until December, 2017 was made in order to allow sufficient time for Bayer AG, the new owner of Monsanto since December time to bring its substitute weed-killer on the market once the merger is complete. The issue is highly controversial not the least owing to a determination from an agency of the Geneva WHO that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen.” The EU Commission ignored that WHO determination, relied on a fraudullent German government safety assessment and ignored the will of a majority of EU Governments to give glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s world-leading weed-killer, Roundup, an artificial life extension.

Early in 2016, the EU Commission recommended re-approval for another 15-years of the license for the controversial glyphosate toxin, the most widely used weed-killer in the world, the main ingredient in Roundup of Monsanto. The Commission, a decidedly anti-democratic, non-elected body of faceless bureaucrats, declared then that their “yes” decision was based on the determination by the EU’s European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that there was no reason to believe glyphosate is a carcinogen. That all was before the decision by Germany’s Bayer AG to takeover Monsanto.

The snag in that early EU Commission decision to renew for another 15 years glyphosate lies in the fact that the EFSA refused to make open disclosure of the relevant health and safety studies EFSA claimed to rely on. Most alarming in that initial EU decision to renew was the fact that EFSA’s decision went totally against the 2015 determination by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate, was a “probable human carcinogen.” In lay terms that means odds greater than 50% are that it causes human cancers on exposure. Glyphosate presence has been tested in ordinary drinking water or in food crops sprayed with Roundup of other glyphosate-based weed-killers.

German Government Corrupt Science

EFSA based its initial early 2016 glyphosate renewal approval solely on a report by Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), which in turn took its decision from a clearly biased report by Monsanto and other agrochemical industry groups. Using the Monsanto-linked assessment for glyphosate, the German BfR went against the professional and highly-respected WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer, stating, again using Monsanto’s self-interested claim, that glyphosate was “unlikely” to pose a cancer risk. IARC used only data that was in the public domain, but the corrupt German BfR based its report on secret industry studies by Monsanto and other agrichemical firms that it refused to release to IARC or to the public

Public pressure, the objections of several EU states and an EU-wide petition signed by more than one million EU citizens demanding an end to glyphosate use as well as a letter of protest signed by almost one hundred leading scientists to EU Health and Food Safety Commissioner (also known as DG SANTE) Vytenis Andriukaitis, were ignored.

The fact that the member states of the EU were unable to reach a required Qualified Majority vote in favor of renewing glyphosate, allowed the decision, through an EU Commission technical loophole, to fall to the clearly biased Vytenis Andriukaitis.

To little surprise, Andriukaitis ruled to extend. Until now however, the bizarre aspect was that he stated a renewal for only 18 months and not the 15 years requested by Monsanto and approved by him only a few months before.

Bayer Swallows Monsanto

The EU Commission extrordinary ruling flew in the face of the widely-accepted and even EU law that requires decisions based on the “precautionary principle,” namely that when there is the slightest doubt about health risks of a crop or chemocal, err on the side of precaution and ban.

Notably, Andriukaitis’ ruling for limited renewal of glyphosate was made on June 29 just as the boards of the German pesticide giant, Bayer AG and Monsanto were finalizing weeks of discussion of a friendly $66 billion takeover of Monsanto to create the largest agribusiness leviathan on the planet, with an alarming 29 percent of the world’s seeds, most of the market share of GMO patented seeds, and 24 percent of its pesticides and agrichemicals.

To make the situation more alarming for those of us seeking a healthy diet, in 2016 a huge cartelization of world agrichemicals and GMO seed makers took place. In addition to the Bayer swallow of Monsanto, ChemChina, a China state chemical company bought the large Swiss GMO and pesticide company, Syngenta. And the two other US GMO and agrichemical giants, Dow Chemical and DuPont, have also merged in the past twelve months. The Swiss company fended off that offer only to agree later to a takeover by China’s state-owned ChemChina. The effect is that these now three giant behemoth companies control nearly 70 percent of the world’s pesticide market and 80 percent of the U.S. corn-seed market, most all the latter GMO seed.

Bayer Takes Liberty

At this point, since the WHO determination that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen,” glyphosate’s days were clearly numbered. Now once the technical corporate takeover by Bayer of Monsanto is completed, expected towards the end of this year, 2017, just as the renewal for glyphosate expires, Bayer AG plans to push its fast-growing substitute for glyphosate known by the trade name, Liberty and Basta, a so-called systemic Glufosinate weed-killer similar to glyphosate but without (so far) the WHO stigma of carcinogenic.

Moreover, since the Monsanto patent on glyphosate-based Roundup expired, other companies have been flooding the market globally with cheap substitutes. Three Chinese companies — Jiangsu Sevencontinent, Hebei Veyong, and Sichuan Lier — have been aggressively exporting glufosinate since 2015. Production of glufosinate on the other hand is far more limited allowing Bayer AG, minus Roundup, to emerge as the dominant weed-killer giant. Moreover, by offering to sell off its Roundup busiess, the new Bayer AG appears to be making a noble sacrifice in the interest of reducing anti-trust concerns.

There is no aspect of the Bayer AG takeover of Monsanto that is positive for the world. To mention “anti-trust” violations is putting it mildly. Government anti-trust, certainly in the agribusiness sector is a dead letter. True protection of consumer health and safety is a dead letter, certainly in Brussels. How the Trump Presidency and his Agriculture Secretary nominee, former Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue, weigh in on this will be more than interesting to see. After all, Bayer-Monsanto is not “America First,” but a German company.

Read More At: WilliamEngdahl.com
__________________________________________________

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

Pesticide linked to Parkinson’s disease being sold in US, already banned in Europe

Image: Pesticide linked to Parkinson’s disease being sold in US, already banned in Europe
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
January 20, 2017

Like other pesticides, paraquat has been the subject of controversy for some time now. In Switzerland, for example, the toxic substance has been banned since 1989. The rest of the European Union has followed the Swiss’ lead, including England — even though there is still a factory there where paraquat is manufactured for export. (RELATED: Follow more news headlines on pesticides at Pesticide.news)

Even China has phased out the use of paraquat. In 2012, the Chinese government announced that the pesticide would no longer be used in order to “safeguard people’s lives.” China is not a nation that is recognized for its environmental protection policies. If they’re concerned about this pesticide, it stands to reason we should be too.

And yet, for some reason, paraquat is still available in the United States — even in spite of the growing body of research that suggests it is an extremely harmful chemical that likely causes Parkinson’s disease.

You’d think that as Europe and China ceased to use paraquat, the US would follow suit. But instead, use of this pesticide has only begun to increase. Last year, some 7 million pounds of paraquat were used on 15 million acres of land. To make matters worse, more weeds are becoming resistant to more popular pesticides like Roundup, and paraquat is being marketed as a substitute.

(Related: Learn more about glyphosate at Glyphosate.news)

The Paraquat Controversy

Paraquat first became heavily scrutinized for its use in suicide attempts; just a single sip of this stuff can be lethal. But now, a wave of research on this contentious product has shown that there are less-immediate effects of exposure to paraquat — like Parkinson’s disease.

The New York Times has even reported that the Environmental Protection Agency made note of paraquat’s toxicity in a recent regulatory filing. The EPA itself said, “There is a large body of epidemiology data on paraquat dichloride and Parkinson’s disease.” The Times writer Danny Hakim writes that the EPA is currently debating on whether or not the pesticide should still be allowed to be sprayed on our country’s farmland. A decision is not expected to be reached until sometime in 2018.

Europe is known for their cautious approach to pesticides; several bans and moratoriums on a number of different products have taken place over the years. While often criticized by industry officials, paraquat shows that caution is truly necessary when dealing with toxic chemicals — even if they supposedly not intended to be toxic to humans.

Research on paraquat and Parkinson’s disease

Perhaps what is most disturbing about paraquat is that science has indicated that the pesticide was possibly linked to Parkinson’s disease for more than twenty years. Over the last five years, however, research on the matter has grown more extensive.

In 2011, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) led a study that found two pesticides — rotenone and paraquat — were linked to a substantially higher risk of Parkinson’s disease. The study found that use of either pesticide were 2.5 times more likely to develop the condition. The research was a collaborative effort that included National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which is part of the National Institutes of Health, and the Parkinson’s Institute and Clinical Center in Sunnyvale, CA.

Freya Kamel, Ph.D. is a researcher in the intramural program at NIEHS and co-author of the paper appearing online in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. She stated that “Paraquat increases production of certain oxygen derivatives that may harm cellular structures. People who used these pesticides or others with a similar mechanism of action were more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease.”

A meta-analysis that was published in 2013 by the journal Neurology also found that exposure to paraquat and other similar pesticides could increase Parkinson’s disease risk. In their conclusion, the team states that current literature supports the theory that pesticide exposure increases Parkinson’s disease risk.

In 2000, which was almost 2 decades ago, research confirmed a potential link between pesticide exposure and Parkinson’s. Later, a 2006 study would show that exposure to paraquat resulted in a 70 percent higher chance of developing Parkinson’s disease. Research has been indicative of paraquat’s dangers for the last 20 years or so, and more recent research has only confirmed these suspicions.

The call to ban paraquat in the US has been a long time coming, but will the EPA listen?

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

NYTimes.com

Neurology.org

NIH.gov

Dove’s ‘natural’ beauty products contaminated with cancer causing chemicals, fake dyes and toxic fragrances

Image: Dove’s ‘natural’ beauty products contaminated with cancer causing chemicals, fake dyes and toxic fragrances
Source: NaturalNews.com
Amy Goodrich
December 7, 2016

Every day we are bombarded by unattainable standards of beauty. Magazines, TV, adverts, and social media all picture perfect models which undervalue the real beauty in ourselves. These beauty advertisements shape our expectation in terms of how we see ourselves.

The desperate need for the perfect body makes us buy the same products these models are promoting in the hopes it will make us flawless and beautiful like them. Unlike most other companies, Dove uses ‘real people’ in their campaigns, which makes us feel much better about the way we look.

This is one of the main reasons why people opt for Dove products that offer real and genuine beauty made from natural components. Or that is what they claim. In truth, Dove isn’t any better than all the other highly promoted toxic beauty products. Their so called ‘real’ or ‘pure’ products are one big scam since Dove, together with all the other companies, uses many toxic ingredients in their products.

What “Real Beauty” looks like

Today, Dove is one of the leading brands of cosmetics generating $2.5 billion in purchases worldwide. With their ‘Real Beauty’ campaign they have lured many insecure, health-conscious people to their side who believe they are buying a ‘pure’ or ‘natural’ product.

Sadly, Dove’s beauty products are one great cocktail of toxic chemicals that have been associated with a wide range of health issues ranging from simple allergies and obesity to more severe problems such as infertility and cancer.

In contrast to its pure messaging, Dove’s foundation product called ‘White Beauty Bar’ is loaded with substances you’d rather not apply to your skin. Marketed as the number one moisturizing product recommended by dermatologists, this traditional soap bar contains chemicals such as stearic acid, sodium tallowate, tetrasodium edta, cocamidopropyl betaine, and synthetic fragrances. Do these substances sound natural or real to you?

Here are just a few examples of harmful chemicals found in most Dove products and what they do to your body.

Methylisothiazolinone

Methylisothiazolinone is a widely-used preservative that has been shown to contribute to allergic reactions, neurodegenerative disorders, and seizures.

Fragrance/perfume

Since the law does not currently require a detailed list of what makes up a fragrance, a manufacturer can hide any substance it wants under the term fragrance or perfume. One of these unlisted chemicals is diethyl phthalate, which is a synthetic liquid commonly used to make plastics more flexible.

Tetrasodium edta

Tetrasodium edta breaks down skin tissue thus letting other chemicals enter the bloodstream more easily. Furthermore, it is made from formaldehyde which is a known carcinogen.

Retinyl palmitate

Retinyl palmitate is a synthetic version of retinol (vitamin A). When applied to the skin in the presence of sunlight, it may speed up the development of cancerous lesions and skin tumors.

Sodium laureth sulfate (SLS)

As reported by Organic and Healthy, approximately 16,000 studies have linked exposure to SLS to irritation of skin and eyes, organ toxicity, developmental and reproductive issues, neurotoxicity, ecotoxicology, endocrine disruption, mutations, and cancer.

These damaging substances are only the tip of the iceberg of the toxic chemicals found in Dove products. The complete list is so overwhelming that it is a surprise that these products are still allowed on the market. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG) Dove has a whopping 215 different chemicals in their products that range from highly toxic to tolerable and innocuous.

To make sure none of these chemicals mess up your body opt for natural, organic, chemical-free beauty products instead.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

OrganicAndHealthy.org

DailyHealthPost.com

TimeForYouMag.com

EPA just approved another toxic herbicide linked to infertility, birth defects and lung cancer in both humans and animals

Image: EPA just approved another toxic herbicide linked to infertility, birth defects and lung cancer in both humans and animals

Source: NaturalNews.com
Daniel Barker
December 7, 2016

The EPA has just approved the widespread use of a highly toxic herbicide called dicamba, a chemical which poses serious health risks to both animals and people. In doing so, the agency has turned its back on its legal obligation to assess any threat to endangered species, as well as its responsibility to protect human health.

Dicamba has been in use for years, and is an ingredient in more than 1,000 farming and gardening products. Under the EPA’s new guidelines, however, its use is expected to increase on a massive scale.

Dicamba use will increase current levels more than 20 times

The EPA approval covers the use of dicamba for spraying dicamba-resistant GMO cotton and soybean crops that were developed by (you probably already guessed it) Monsanto as an alternative to its glyphosate-resistant GM crops.

From The Daily Sheeple:

“Dicamba is part of Monsanto’s two-point plan: replace glyphosate (the main ingredient in the company’s best-selling RoundUp weed killer), as it increasingly comes under fire, and create public acceptance of the GM crops engineered to withstand dicamba.

“Monsanto’s own conservative estimates predict that dicamba use on soybeans will likely rise from around 233,000 pounds per year to 20.5 million pounds per year — and dicamba use on cotton could go from 364,000 pounds per year to 5.2 million pounds per year.”

Dicamba health risks

Like many other toxic herbicides, Dicamba can cause a range of serious negative health effects in both humans and animals. Dicamba exposure has been linked to lung cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, reproductive damage, birth defects and hormonal disruption.

Monsanto would like for people to believe that dicamba represents a safer alternative to glyphosate, but it is also a highly toxic herbicide that will have an as-yet unknown impact on the environment and human health when its use is so dramatically increased.

The danger posed to other crops by dicamba

Dicamba has recently been making headlines due to crop damage caused by drift. At least 10 states have reported widespread damage to thousands of acres of “non-target” crops, and in one case, a farmer was allegedly killed over a dicamba drift incident:

“Allegedly, a farmer on the Missouri-Arkansas border applied dicamba without a permit and caused significant damage to a neighboring farmer’s soy crop. An argument bubbled over, which led the shooting death of one farmer, and the arrest of the other.”

Much of the recent drift problem was caused by illegal spraying of dicamba, and Monsanto has been highly criticized for selling its dicamba-resistant seed before the EPA approved the herbicide for use.

This resulted in widespread illegal spraying and incidents of herbicide drift – one peach farmer in Missouri lost 30,000 trees. Drift damage from dicamba also affected watermelon, tomato, rice and many other crops as well as non-dicamba-resistant strains of soybean and cotton.

Monsanto’s new dicamba-based herbicide product – designed to work with its dicamba-resistant GM soybean and cotton seeds –  is theoretically formulated to minimize drift contamination, but some are highly skeptical about its true effectiveness, while others worry that many farmers will continue illegally using the old drift-prone dicamba products.

At any rate, the EPA’s approval means that tens of millions more pounds of carcinogenic poison will be dumped yearly into our soil, water and air as the result of a money-making scheme propagated by an evil monopoly bent on owning and genetically manipulating the world’s seed supply, while destroying biodiversity and marginalizing those who would rather rely on organic farming techniques.

Monsanto wins a major victory with the help of the EPA

It sounds like the plot of an improbable Hollywood disaster film, but it’s all too real. Monsanto – after losing much of its company’s stock value and being forced to lay off a sizable portion of its workforce in recent years – seems to be rebounding with new strategies to maintain its stranglehold on global agriculture and food production.

Of course, having the EPA in its pocket hasn’t hurt Monsanto’s cause, either. In the war against food freedom and biodiversity, it appears Monsanto has just won a decisive battle.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

TheDailySheeple.com

BiologicalDiversity.org

EcoWatch.com

While the nation was watching the election, the EPA just approved another toxic herbicide for Monsanto

Monsanto
Source: NaturalNews.com
L.J. Devon
November 18, 2016

As universities across the country hold cry-ins, counseling sessions, and post-election therapy events for narcissistic, cry-baby college students, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has quietly approved Monsanto’s new drift-prone herbicide, which will further poison, emasculate, and weaken the population.

The soils are suffering from persistent over farming, bio-solid toxins, and chemical-intense agriculture. Soil and crops are so nutritionally depleted; the effect can be witnessed in the panicky, easily manipulated, fragile-minded behaviors of people.

EPA bows to Monsanto again, keeping farmers trapped in the herbicide-dependent agricultural cycle

The EPA is run by people who have worked for the biotech industry, who buckle under the pressure of the demands of multinational corporations like Monsanto. The EPA cannot protect anything if they lack the courage to say no to compounding use of damaging herbicides. The EPA has no discernment or integrity if the chemicals they approve are the very toxins that pollute the air, water, soil, and the people’s health. The EPA disrespectfully keeps American farmers trapped in the horrid cycle of spraying new chemicals to battle nature.

On the morning after the election, the EPA rushed a decision to allow a massive increase in the use of Monsanto’s toxic dicamba-based herbicide – XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology. Monsanto says this herbicide is less “volatile” than previous dicamba-based compounds that have damaged crops and led to lawsuits in the past.

This product is destined to enter the marketplace at the start of the next growing season, but Monsanto still needs approval from individual states before they can sell it to the farmers.

“We chose to launch this year to allow growers to experience the industry-leading varieties of Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans,” Monsanto spokesman Dan Urnikis told Delta Farm Press. “They can plant with confidence this year in anticipation of the chemical approval for the 2017 growing season.”

Herbicide drift wiping out various food crops across the country

Dicamba-based herbicides are a threat to the entire ecosystem and agricultural system because these chemicals vaporize from treated fields and drift to neighboring farms, fields, and woodlands. This causes crop damage to farms that don’t use the corresponding genetically engineered seeds that are designed to withstand the chemical. This also causes damage to other species of wild plants and herbs and hurts organic farms that don’t participate in the genetic engineering of food.

This dicamba-based herbicide wiped out countless crops in 2016, including soybeans, tomatoes, cantaloupes, watermelons, rice, cotton, peas, peanuts, alfalfa and even peaches. Missouri’s largest peach producer, Bader Peaches, lost 30,000 trees this year because of herbicide drift. After approving XtendiMax for 2017, the EPA ruled that the herbicide cannot be applied by aircraft or when wind speed is greater than 15 mph.

Monsanto was already positioned for the EPA’s approval of their newest herbicide

Monsanto has already positioned their company to monopolize on their drift-prone herbicide. They have already rolled out genetically engineered seeds, Bollgard II XtendFlex cotton and Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans. These GE seeds will be sold en masse to farmers whose current seeds cannot withstand the damages of drifting dicamba-based herbicides and failed glyphosate herbicides. This is precisely how the biotech industry controls farmers and enslaves them to genetically modified seeds and continuous use of new herbicides.

Monsanto faces bold ideological opposition from powerful groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity. Nathan Donley, a senior scientist for the center, says, “We can’t spray our way out of this problem. We need to get off the pesticide treadmill,” said in a prepared statement. “Pesticide resistant superweeds are a serious threat to our farmers, and piling on more pesticides will just result in superweeds resistant to more pesticides. We can’t fight evolution – it’s a losing strategy.”

Wake up and protest the experimentation being carried out on your fields, foods, and minds

Instead of throwing temper tantrums about an election result, poisoned America should instead bind together and protest the experiments that are being carried out on their soil, air, food, and water. These herbicides directly impact people’s health. Without healthy soils, food loses its nutrition profile and doesn’t nourish the body like it should. Accumulating herbicides and pesticides become more toxic to the body because the nutritionally depleted body can no longer detoxify like a healthy body should. The herbicides affect digestion, endocrine system and nervous system functions, leading to lowered states of immunity and cognitive function.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

RT.com

FoxNews.com

FoodForensics.NaturalNews.com

Colgate toothpaste found to contain cancer-causing chemical

Triclosan

Source : NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
November 15, 2016

Triclosan has been a prized ingredient in Colgate toothpastes for a number of years now. While its use in antibacterial soaps has been banned by the FDA, somehow this chemical has managed to retain its approval for use in toothpaste.

According to the FDA, substantial and convincing evidence of triclosan’s benefits in toothpaste has been presented. Because the evidence indicates it is indeed effective against gum inflammation and plaque, it will be allowed to remain in toothpaste. The FDA claims that it will monitor research on the safety of triclosan on a consistent basis, but so far, “medical literature does not change the risk benefit assessment for Colgate Total Toothpaste.”

However, over the years, research has indicated that triclosan may contribute to antibiotic resistance and hormone disruption, and it may also negatively effect immunity and contribute to cancer development. Most recently, a joint research effort led by researchers from the University of California’s San Diego and Davis campuses found that the chemical agent’s effects on health may be more sinister than we’re being led to believe.

The paper, boldly titled “The Commonly Used Antimicrobial Additive Triclosan is a Liver Tumor Promoter,” was published in 2015 by the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. NIEHS-funded scientists Robert Tukey, director of the Superfund Research Program at University of California (UC) San Diego, and Bruce Hammock, director of the UC Davis Superfund Research Program, spearheaded the study. The study leaders say that their findings contribute to previous reports of triclosan disrupting hormones and impairing muscle contractions.

To conduct their study, the researchers exposed mice to triclosan for a period of six months, which equates to about 18 human years. While animal testing is not something to be condoned, the results of this study were nonetheless shocking. The researchers found that mice exposed to triclosan exhibited cell proliferation, liver fibrosis and pro-inflammatory responses – all the trappings of a perfect environment for cancer growth, according to the scientists.

The team also found that triclosan had profound impacts on liver tumor growth. Mice with liver tumors that were exposed to triclosan showed a profound increase in tumor size, frequency and multiplicity when compared to unexposed mice.

Kathy Keatley Garvey from UC’s Entomology & Nematology News writes, “Hammock said the findings suggest that triclosan’s negative effects on the liver may result from interference with the constitutive androstane receptor, which plays a role in clearing foreign chemicals from the body.”

Tumor growth is just one of many concerns surrounding triclosan. The chemical agent has also come under fire for other negative health effects, such as its impact on muscle function and skeletal muscle contractions. A previous study out of UC reported that triclosan exposure reduced cardiac function by up to 25 percent – the scientists noted that this effect was “really dramatic.” It certainly sounds rather concerning, doesn’t it?

The researchers also exposed human muscle cells to an amount of the chemical equivalent to average exposure. They found that even in normal amounts, triclosan impeded muscle function, and could even cause cardiac and skeletal muscle failure. The study authors noted, “[Triclosan is] found in virtually everyone’s home and is pervasive in the environment. These findings provide strong evidence that the chemical is of concern to both human and environmental health.”

Even Consumer Reports seems to be suspicious of triclosan’s actual value to consumers. Their chief medical adviser, Dr. Marvin M. Lipman, has said that unless your dentist recommends you use triclosan-containing toothpaste, it would be best avoided.

“There’s enough concern now with triclosan ubiquity and safety that it makes sense to avoid it on your own, even if there is some demonstrable value at reducing plaque and gingivitis.”

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

AmRedeemed.com

ConsumerReports.org


Collective-Evolution.com


UCANR.edu

Woman awarded $70M after contracting cancer from Johnson & Johnson talcum powder

Talc

Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
November 2, 2016

Once again, a St. Louis jury has ruled that Johnson & Johnson damaged women’s health by engaging in a decades-long coverup about the potential risks of talcum powder (“baby powder”) as a feminine hygiene product. On October 27, Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay $70.1 million to Deborah Giannecchini of Modesto, California, who received an ovarian cancer diagnosis in 2012.

For 40 years, Giannecchini had used Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder to keep her genital area dry, a use promoted by the company.

The main ingredient in talcum powder is talc, a mineral widely used in paints and plastics as well as cosmetics, where it is used to absorb moisture. Some evidence suggests that regular exposure to talc, particularly in the genital area, can increase the risk of ovarian cancer.

The jury found Johnson & Johnson guilty of negligence for failing to warn customers of this fact.

Conspiracy to conceal risks

Ovarian cancer is a rare but highly lethal disease. Well-established risk factors include obesity, not having children, estrogen therapy after menopause, and a family history of ovarian or breast cancer.

The evidence linking talc to ovarian cancer is compelling but not yet conclusive. The International Agency for Research on Cancer lists talc as a “possible” carcinogen.

Among the robust studies suggesting a connection are two meta-analyses that found a roughly one-third increase in ovarian cancer risk among women who were regularly exposed to talc. The first, published in 2003, found the connection in all cases. The second, published in 2013, found it only in women who applied talc directly to the genital area.

The case marks the third guilty verdict against Johnson & Johnson over this issue. St. Louis juries have previously slapped the company with $55 million and $72 million judgments.

The first case was filed by the family of Jackie Fox of Birmingham, Alabama, who had died of ovarian cancer after long-term use of talcum powder. In that case, the jury found the company guilty not just of negligence, but also of “failure to warn and conspiracy to conceal the risks of its products.”

Another 2,000 lawsuits are pending.

Thirty years of deception

Even after the recent verdict, Johnson & Johnson continues to insist on the safety of its product, including for genital use. In its home state of New Jersey, the company has successfully gotten two lawsuits over the issue dismissed. It is appealing all three guilty verdicts from Missouri.

Investors seem to believe the company will prevail. Its stock price seemed unaffected by the recent guilty verdict.

Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research at Women’s Voices for the Earth, has characterized Johnson and Johnson’s behavior as typical of Big Pharma and other companies that go to extreme lengths to keep selling products even as evidence mounts of their dangers.

Scranton said that documents uncovered during the Fox trial show that for decades, Johnson & Johnson sought to take advantage of the scientific uncertainty over the talc-ovarian cancer link, downplaying the potential risk rather than pursing a “clearly more ethical role, to take a precautionary approach.” Indeed, Scranton notes, the company “poured money over years into defending talc.”

Among the documents revealed during the Fox case are internal memos showing that Johnson & Johnson had been preparing to be sued over the health risks of talc for 30 years. In one 1997 memo, a medical consultant warned that anyone who continued to deny a connection between ovarian cancer and genital talc use would eventually be seen as on par with tobacco companies denying a cancer link: “denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the contrary.”

Another memo laid out a strategy to counter falling talc sales caused by health concerns by more aggressive marketing to minority communities.

Sources for this article include:
http://www.ctvnews.ca
http://www.naturalnews.com/053112_Johnson_&_talc_ovarian_cancer.html