Zika Spraying Enriches Chemical Companies While Endangering Public Health

Image result for zika pesticide dangers
Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mecola
September 14, 2016

As you may recall, the Zika virus made big headlines back in January and February when the Brazilian government blamed Zika-carrying mosquitoes for an uptick in reports of microcephaly,1,2 a condition in which babies are born with unusually small heads.

Like many other nations, the U.S. overreacted to the news by increasing states’ mosquito eradication efforts. 3 Some early models estimated that 200 million Americans, about 60 percent of the U.S. population, would become infected with Zika this summer4 — estimates that were clearly vastly overblown.

Sounds just like President Bush who 11 years ago claimed that over 200 million would not only get infected with Bird Flu but would actually die from it. They must have figured most people forgot about this and it was time for another scare to sell more chemicals and vaccines.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics5 reveal we’ve come nowhere near such numbers.

The two states with the highest rates of laboratory-confirmed Zika infections, New York and Florida, have had 625 and 507 cases respectively so far. New York accounts for 23 percent of all U.S. cases; Florida accounts for 19 percent of the total.

It’s worth noting though that the vast majority of all Zika cases in the U.S. occurred during travel elsewhere. Florida alone had 35 cases of locally acquired infections. All other states report zero locally-acquired cases.

Among the U.S. territories, Puerto Rico was worst beset, with 13,791 locally-acquired cases as of August 31, 2016. The U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa report 221 and 47 locally-acquired cases respectively.

Call for DDT Has (Fortunately) Been Left Unanswered

As the Zika scare grew to a fever pitch, groups like the Manhattan Institute and various journalists for prominent media outlets started calling for the return of DDT6 to address the mosquito problem. For example, in a June 6 article, The New York Post wrote:7

“The Zika virus outbreak makes it clearer than ever: It’s time to end the ban on DDT — a ban that was never sensible in the first place, but now is downright unjustifiable.”

Never mind the fact that DDT passes freely through the placenta during pregnancy,8 where it gains direct access to the developing fetus and its brain.9 DDT has also been linked to decreased fertility, premature delivery, Alzheimer’s10 and even microcephaly,11 making this recommendation about as ignorant as it gets.12

Fortunately, the ban on DDT has not been lifted. However, there’s no shortage of other dangerous insecticides on the market, and they’ve been heavily employed in many states.

Florida and New York Being Heavily Sprayed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPHmzZMIINs

In Miami-Dade County, Florida, the aerial spraying campaign against Zika-carrying mosquitoes has been referred to as a “blitz” that “could be one for the record books if the [CDC] records it as a success.”13 The area began spraying the insecticide Naled from low-flying planes on August 4.

Naled is banned in the European Union (EU), and when residents in Puerto Rico found out the CDC was going to use the chemical against Zika-carrying mosquitoes there, the streets filled with protesters. Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla finally forced the CDC to take the shipments back.14

Concerned residents took to the streets in Wynwood, Miami, as well, but it didn’t have much of an impact.

Neighborhoods in Queens and Brooklyn, New York, were doused with Duet15 and Anvil insecticides from trucks on the nights of August 31 and September 1, 2016, to combat mosquitoes known to carry either the Zika or West Nile virus (Asian Tiger, Aedes Aegypti and Culex mosquitoes).16,17 Duet has also been used in Orange County, California.18

Duet19 contains two pyrethroid pesticides, Sumithrin and Prallethrin, plus a synergistic compound called piperonyl butoxide (PBO), which boosts the effectiveness of the former two.

Sumethrin is an endocrine disruptor, neurotoxin and likely carcinogen, and PBO has been shown to be harmful to the fetal brain, causing “profound developmental defects in children exposed in utero.”

According to recent research, children living in areas exposed to annual aerial spraying of pyrethroids (such as Duet and Anvil) have a 25 percent higher risk of autism compared to areas where mosquito control is done primarily through pellets distributed on the ground.

This suggests the method of application can make a big difference when it comes to human health.20,21 In another study, exposure to pyrethroids during the third trimester increased the chances of the child having autism by 87 percent.22

Low-flying helicopters also released pellets of Altosid and VectoBac over four New York City boroughs earlier this summer, including Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and The Bronx. As noted by The Vaccine Reaction:23

“What might be of particular concern to the New York City’s residents is the ironic possibility that using these chemicals against mosquitoes to control the perceived threat of the Zika virus could actually have the effect of creating a serious local health crisis where there was previously none.

While the CDC seems convinced that Zika is behind the microcephaly cases in Brazil … other organizations such as Médicos de Pueblos Fumigados (Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Villages) of Argentina … has argued that an insect growth regulator similar to Altosid may be responsible for the microcephaly cases.”

Aerial Spraying Is Not an Effective Strategy for Controlling Zika

Many have also argued that aerial sprayings against the Zika-carrying mosquito Aedes aegypti is futile, exposing the population to toxic chemicals for no good reason.24

These tiny black and white striped mosquitoes have a very limited range of flight, and since it’s so difficult to catch them airborne, insecticidal sprays and foggers are mostly useless for controlling them.25 Reporting on recent research, WebMD writes:26

“Female mosquitoes can transmit the Zika virus to their eggs and offspring, and this may make it harder to contain outbreaks, a new lab study suggests. Control programs that focus only on adult mosquitoes may not halt Zika’s spread, the researchers warned …

‘Spraying affects adults, but it does not usually kill the immature forms — the eggs and larvae,’ said [study co-author Dr. Robert] Tesh. As a result, ‘spraying will reduce transmission, but it may not eliminate the virus’ …”

CDC Relies on Unpublished Data to Support Aerial Spraying

Curiously, CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden defended the use of aerial insecticide sprayings in a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) citing a non-peer-reviewed presentation by a New Orleans mosquito control board employee named Brendan Carter.

According to Carter, aerial disbursement of “ultra-low volumes of insecticide” reduced caged Aedes aegypti by more than 90 percent in a New Orleans field trial. However, as reported by Kaiser Health News:27

“Carter earned his master’s degree in 2014 from the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine … Even so, other experts in mosquito-borne diseases were unconvinced when asked about Carter’s finding as described in Frieden’s commentary for JAMA.

‘I know of no published reports that support this figure,’ said Durland Fish, [Ph.D.] a Yale University professor emeritus of microbial diseases as well as a professor of forestry and environmental studies there.

Fish worked with public officials in Dominica in 2014 to counter chikungunya virus, another disease spread by the Aedes aegypti mosquito. ‘This is a domestic mosquito, meaning they live inside the house — in closets, under the bed, in the sink. Spraying outside won’t be very effective,’ he said.”

Micro-Mist May Work by Entering Your Home, but Is That Wise?

Many others agree with Fish’s conclusion, noting there’s virtually no scientific evidence to support the use of aerial spraying to control Aedes mosquitoes. However, Joseph Conlon, spokesman for the American Mosquito Control Association, is not on that list.

According to Conlon, the idea that aerial spraying against Aedes mosquitoes doesn’t work is an outdated notion, since Naled can now be sprayed in a micro-fine mist, “capable of wafting into homes through screen doors and bathroom vents.”28 But what about the residents, including infants and pregnant women, inside those homes who then breathe in this super-fine mist?

Naled, an organophospate insecticide is known to interfere with cholinesterase activity, an enzyme essential for the proper working of your nervous system. Organophosphates as a group are also linked with shortened pregnancies, lowered IQ and increased risk of attention deficit disorder (ADD).29

According to the Extension Toxicology Network, “Naled is moderately to highly toxic by ingestion, inhalation and dermal adsorption. Vapors or fumes of Naled are corrosive to the mucous membranes lining the mouth, throat and lungs, and inhalation may cause severe irritation.”30

It is also readily absorbed through your skin and should be immediately washed off if contact occurs. High temperatures and/or UV light enhances its toxicity — an added concern when sprayed in hot and sunny areas like Florida.

I live in Florida full-time now and this is a significant issue for me personally. This is one of the reasons why I use my infrared sauna three times a week to help me detox not only from these admitted exposures but also from all the other ones that we have no idea of but nevertheless have exposure to.

Naled Decimates Bee Populations in South Carolina

Naled was also sprayed in Dorchester County, South Carolina, in the morning hours between 6:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. on August 28, 2016 — with devastating consequences. In one Summerville apiary, 46 hives totaling 2.5 million bees died that same morning. Many other beekeepers also claim massive losses. As reported by The Washington Post:31

“[T]o the bee farmers, the reason is already clear. Their bees had been poisoned by Dorchester’s own insecticide efforts, casualties in the war on disease-carrying mosquitoes … Given the current concerns of West Nile virus and Zika … Dorchester decided to try something different … It marked a departure from Dorchester County’s usual ground-based efforts. For the first time, an airplane dispensed Naled in a fine mist, raining insect death from above …”

Naled is known to be highly toxic to bees, which is why counties that use it will typically spray it at night, when honey bees are not out foraging. Provided they have sufficient warning, beekeepers can also shield their hives to prevent exposure. According to Dorchester County administrator Jason Ward, all but one beekeeper on the county’s contact list was notified of the spraying.

However, many local beekeepers were not on the county’s list to begin with, and the county only requested a more complete list from the Lowcountry Beekeepers Association after the fact. In a WCSC-TV interview, local beekeeper Juanita Stanley said: “Had I known, I would have been camping on the steps doing whatever I had to do, screaming, ‘No you can’t do this.'”

Florida Governor Has Financial Stake in Zika Mosquito Control

Considering the limited risks of Zika and the significant risks of aerial insecticides on critical pollinators like bees and human health, one wonders what’s really driving the decision process. When you start to dig, you’ll often find financial incentives. In Florida, people are now wondering whether Governor Rick Scott may have a personal stake in unleashing chemical warfare.

On June 23, 2016, Scott allocated $26.2 million in state emergency funds to combat Zika. As it turns out, an undisclosed conflict of interest could potentially have influenced this generous release of funds. According to Florida Bulldog:32

“… Rick Scott has an undisclosed financial interest in a Zika mosquito control company in which his wife, Florida First Lady Ann Scott, owns a multi-million dollar stake through a private investment firm she co-owns. The company is Mosquito Control Services LLC of Metairie, LA. According to its website,

MCS ‘is a fully-certified team of mosquito control experts — licensed throughout the Gulf Coast, including Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida’ … It is not known whether MCS, whose services include monitoring and aerial spraying, stands to benefit from Florida government funds … MCS did not respond to two requests for comment.”

Is Zika Being Hyped to Save Toxic Insecticides From Being Banned?

In a recent Health Nut News article,33 Erin Elizabeth pieces together a long list of events and players suggesting the real reason for the Zika hype may be related to the fact that the primary chemical weapons against Zika — Naled and Malathion — are both up for re-evaluation at the EPA under a special provision of the Endangered Species Act. If found to harm endangered species, they will be banned — unless there’s sufficient political pressure to keep them on the market, that is.

Moreover, the Clean Water Act stipulates you must have a NPDES permit34 in order to be “allowed” to discharge pollutants into U.S. waters. Insecticides are a significant water pollutant, and mosquito control applications that result in water discharges must have an NPDES permit, which includes limits on the discharges and has certain monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure the chemical does not hurt water quality and human health.

Should Naled and/or Malathion be found harmful to endangered species, operators would not likely be able to get an NPDES permit for the chemicals even if they somehow were not outright banned under the Endangered Species Act.

Interestingly enough, the American Mosquito Control Association has lobbied Congress to pass HR 935, which would exempt mosquito control operations from the NPDES permit requirement altogether, allowing them to discharge whatever chemical without limits, monitoring or reporting requirements.

When Congress remained unreceptive to the idea, HR 935 was suddenly renamed the “Zika Control Act.” Once Congress comes back from recess, they could potentially be forced to vote yes on this disastrous bill if there’s sufficient panic about Zika.

The Senate is also scheduled to vote on whether to set aside another $1.1 BILLION in funding to fight Zika — a virus that so far has not seriously harmed a single person in the U.S., and has not conclusively been proven responsible for the microcephaly cases in Brazil either. In short, this whole thing appears to be little more than a gift to the chemical industry at the expense of public health. As noted by Erin:

“The American Mosquito Control Association and the chemical companies can only benefit from huge hype and fear surrounding Zika. They NEED the populace to fear Zika so that Congress is forced to approve a terrible bill that would pollute/erode the Clean Water Act and eventually allow for Malathion and Naled [to] continue to be used despite data showing their effect on endangered species.”

Some States Now Offer Free Mosquito Repellents

In related news, in addition to boosting mosquito sprayings across entire neighborhoods, some states have decided to hand out free mosquito repellents. Universal Studios, Walt Disney World and SeaWorld in Orlando, Florida, now offer free bug repellents to visitors35 and, in Texas, pregnant women on Medicaid are eligible to receive free DEET mosquito repellent at pharmacies without a prescription.36

However, DEET is by no means harmless. On the contrary, DEET has been shown to harm brain and nervous system function and is so poisonous that even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says you should wash it off your skin when you return indoors, avoid breathing it in and not spray it directly on your face. Why focus on distributing a highly toxic chemical to pregnant women rather than giving them something that’s actually safe?

Neem-based products, for example, are a viable alternative that can keep mosquitos at bay without risking your and your baby’s health. Citronella oil and geraniol can also be used, and both are safe for the whole family, including infants. Products containing either 20 percent picaridin or 30 percent oil of lemon and eucalyptus have also been shown to outperform DEET in tests.

Picaridin resembles the natural compound piperine, an essential oil in black pepper. Lemon eucalyptus oil and picaridin are not actual repellents; they primarily work by masking the environmental cues that mosquitoes use to locate their target. Side effects of both picaridin and lemon eucalyptus include potential skin or eye irritation, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states picaridin should not be used on children under age 3. Still, they’re both likely FAR safer than DEET!

Biological Warfare Is a Risky Game

Are we doing the right thing by waging war against pests with toxic chemicals? It needs to be understood that there’s a price to pay, both in human and environmental health. We’re poisoning our world, and ourselves, in the name of protecting public health. There’s something inherently wrong with that position. Some are quick to say we have no other options. But this isn’t necessarily true.

In the short term, there are safer options to guard against mosquitos than aerial insecticides and topical DEET. But we also need to take a much wider view. What’s needed is the political and societal will to make necessary changes, and this involves fully embracing ecologically sound, regenerative methods of agriculture. Why? Because when nature is in balance, pests fail to gain the upper hand. They still exist, but they’re kept in check naturally.

It may not be as effective as releasing a potent toxin, but if we keep going the way we’re headed, we’re just going to encounter more of the same problems. Is it really worth putting our children’s health and future at risk? Is it worth decimating pollinators, on which our food supply depends? I believe the answer is no, but at the very least, we need a more open discussion about what we’re doing and what the options are. We also need to implement more farsighted solutions.

Again, this is all based on the likely flawed assumption that what the media, CDC and public health authorities are saying about Zika is true. In my view, this is merely a repeat of the Bird Flu Hoax, which is a New York Times best-selling book I previously wrote. They just fast-forwarded the clock a decade and hoped they could use the fear-based tactics to push their pernicious agenda yet again.

Read More At: Mercola.com

Advertisements

Monsanto’s Dirty Dozen: 12 MORE Crimes Against Humanity & The Environment Concocted By The World’s Most Evil Corporation

Monsanto

Source: NaturalNews.com
Ethan A. Huff
July 25, 2016

Most of the backlash today against Monsanto comes from the public’s growing awareness about the dangers of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), Roundup (glyphosate), and the systemic poisoning of our food supply with these unlabeled chemical additives. But did you know that the world’s most evil corporation actually got its start in the artificial sweetener business?

The following 12 products – we’ll refer to these as Monsanto’s Dirty Dozen – are included among the other major crimes against humanity besides GMOs that Monsanto has pumped out over the years for consumer use. Some of these products will be familiar to you, but chances are you weren’t aware of their Monsanto ties:

1) Saccharin (Sweet ‘N Low). Monsanto’s founding was predicated on finding a way to mass produce saccharin, an artificial sugar substitute, for Coca-Cola. With some regulatory arm-twisting, the chemical sweetener, which was shown back in the 1970s to cause cancer in test mice, was a boon for Monsanto, despite its threat to human health, and helped propel the company towards other endeavors.

2) Aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal). An accidental discovery that first emerged from research into chemical weaponry, aspartame, another artificial sugar substitute, gained access to the Monsanto portfolio in 1985. Since then, Monsanto has profited to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, the blood money from a genetically-engineered chemical that’s been linked to neurological damage and cancer.

3) Glyphosate (Roundup). Currently the world’s most widely used herbicide, glyphosate is the result of Monsanto’s aggressive entrance into the agricultural sector following its sweetener successes. Monsanto’s Roundup line of glyphosate products maintains a ubiquitous presence in both the commercial and consumer markets, but these chemicals are linked to organ damage, tumors, infertility and cancer.

4) Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). Monsanto’s obsession with genetic engineering hasn’t been limited to just tweaking plants and sweeteners; the company is also responsible for unleashing recombinant bovine growth hormone, or rBGH, a genetically-modified animal bulking chemical that causes cows to produce more milk and grow faster. rBGH also causes serious infections, and has been linked to multiple varieties of cancer in humans.

5) “Terminator” seeds. When left in their natural form, plants produce an endless supply of new seeds from which humanity can grow new food for “free” – minus labor and other inputs. But thanks to Monsanto, much of our processed food supply is now derived from so-called “terminator” seeds that only survive one growing season before self-destructing, enriching the pockets of Monsanto executives at the expense of our agricultural heritage.

6) Petroleum-based fertilizers. Back in the old days, manure, compost and other organic materials served as natural fertilizer for growing food. Today, many farmers apply synthetic, petroleum-based fertilizers produced by none other than Monsanto. Many of these fertilizers deplete soil nutrients and microbes, producing “dead” foods deficient in vitamins and minerals – foods that are making people chronically ill at an alarming rate.

7) Agent orange. Perhaps you’re beginning to notice a pattern: Monsanto has mastered the art of producing destructive chemicals that harm the environment and humans. And, if you’re at all familiar with the history of Agent Orange, you’ll also recognize that many of today’s consumer chemicals were previously wartime chemicals. This chemical defoliant-slash-herbicide is what American soldiers sprayed across Vietnam during the Vietnam War, and components of Agent Orange like 2,4-D are still used today in industrial agriculture.

8) Dioxins. Speaking of Agent Orange, dioxins are another noxious byproduct of its manufacture. Dioxins are persistent environmental pollutants present in all sorts of chemical compounds and solutions, and once they enter the body they accumulate in fatty tissue, causing all sorts of chronic health issues over time.

9) DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). We’re often told that the only way to effectively combat pests is to carpet-bomb them with chemicals like DDT, a mosquito repellent of old that’s been shown to damage hormones, interfere with reproduction and potentially cause cancer. DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1970, despite years of propaganda from Monsanto claiming DDT was completely safe.

10) The atomic bomb and nuclear weapons. During WWII, Monsanto acquired a chemical company that it incorporated into its “Central Research Department.” This department was responsible for coordinating the efforts of the Manhattan Project, which included the purification and production of plutonium for nuclear weapons and the atomic bomb.

11) PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyl). Another industrial experiment, PCBs were long used in coolant products for cars and electric motors – that is, until toxicity tests conducted some 50 years after their initial use showed serious harm to mammals. Liver disease, neurological disorders and cancer are among the many consequences of PCB exposure.

12) Polystyrene (styrofoam). Despite its immense environmental impact, polystyrene continues to be used in food packaging. Polystyrene contains the toxic substances styrene and benzene, both of which are known neurotoxins and suspected carcinogens. When exposed to hot liquids and foods, polystyrene leaches out these chemicals, which are directly absorbed into the bloodstream and cell tissue.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Monsanto & Bayer Finding It Tough To Be Agriculture Conglomerates These Days

agribusiness
Source: TheDailyBell.com
June 15, 2016

Is it conceivable that the planet’s most vilified company could be the one that feeds it?  That, in short, is precisely what Monsanto hopes it can do. “They believe they’re feeding the world, and there’s no other good way,” Connelly says. “Confidence that they’re doing the right thing has blinded them to the fact that they need to be out there defending it.” – Fortune

As usual, Monsanto is the center of a lot of attention. Bayer is making a huge bid for the company and Monsanto is trying to reinvent itself as a kind of agricultural data guru.

Monsanto is going to combine farming and various kinds of agricultural and climate data with its core ag-chem products to increase yields and offer innovative approaches on a massive scale.

So its execs believe.

Monsanto has never focused on data as an ag tool from what we can tell. But the company has certainly made an impact with its chemical products.

Monsanto produced the toxic defoliant Agent Orange during the Vietnam war and developed and marketed DDT, as well, a pesticide that apparently proved so deadly it is now banned.

Today, the company is under regular fire for its GMO emphasis – the production of genetically modified foods and seeds. Some studies have shown GMOs cause cancer. Others have not.

The public generally distrusts Monsanto. In fact, “distrust” is probably too mild a description of public sentiment when it comes to Monsanto.

Monsanto has been attacked for its treatment of farmers. It regularly sues farmers who by mistake grow Monsanto modified crops because M0nsanto seeds have accidentally drifted into their fields.

Large parts of Bayer’s businesses are similar to Monsanto’s, but Bayer is not currently so deeply despised as Monsanto by environmental groups and the general public.

The company produces pesticides and seeds, just as Monsanto does but is losing share in the agricultural market. A merger with Monsanto would make Bayer the undisputed king of various forms of agricultural supply, including seeds.

Of course, Bayer has its own problems with environmentalists because of its GMO production and some believe the combined company would simply infect Bayer with Monsanto’s PR problems.

Monsanto, itself, doesn’t seem overly-enthusiastic about Bayer’s advances. It  just turned down a bid by Bayer of some $67 billion, though Monsanto officials claim they are still willing to pursue talks.

Monsanto is probably better off with Bayer than without, given the continually rising antipathy it is experiencing. The Fortune article points out that Monsanto executives don’t even seem to realize how much the company is hated.

This is probably affecting the company’s value. Over the past year or so, the company’s share price has dropped by double digits.

The downturn has a number of causes, including slumping agricultural prices. But certainly the ongoing barrage of criticism the company faces (and resultant lawsuits) are generating increasingly negative results.

And here is a more radical, libertarian thought: Ideally, neither Bayer nor Monsanto would exist.

As we’ve often pointed out, such large corporations are artificial constructs of judicial decisions. Corporate personhood, guarantees of intellectual property rights and patents and central bank fiat money all make multinationals possible.

The “market” has nothing to do with it. Without such judicial fiat, no company could grow to the size of Monsanto or Bayer.

With such size and wealth, abuses inevitably occur. The very dominance of such entities encourages business practices and products that would not be produced by more modest-sized entities.

The products and services that such titanic companies must produce may not be necessary or even beneficial, but they will be produced and aggressively marketed because they are necessary to the bottom line.

Continue Reading At: TheDailyBell.com

The Amazing Glyphosate Revolt Grows – F. William Engdahl

34534534544

Source: Journal-Neo.org
F. William Engdahl
May 23, 2016

I must make a confession. I never thought it would get this far. There is an absolutely amazing international revolt against the most deadly and most widely used weed killer in world agriculture–glyphosate. Those of you who have followed my earlier writings can detect my feeling of pessimism that mere “democratic” grass-roots protest, combined with a scientific assessment from an agency of WHO that glyphosate was a “probable carcinogen” would be enough to stop the pending, twice-postponed EU Commission renewal of the expiring license for glyphosate in the EU. It almost doesn’t matter at this point what the ultimate vote is when the next EU Commission glyphosate meeting is convened. The genie is out of the bottle. One of the world’s most important eugenics projects to maim and ultimately reduce human population is on the brink of being banned much as DDT decades ago.

On May 19, a revised proposal by the European Commission to re-approve glyphosate for use in Europe for 9 more years (rather than the original 15 years), but with almost no restrictions on use, failed to secure the required qualified majority among EU governments. This is an amazing and very positive development for democratic empowerment against an institution increasingly seen–not only by the British population–as an anti-democratic, even totalitarian structure irresponsive to the most basic concerns for the health and safety of EU citizens.

The agri-chemical industry bigs—Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and friends–are stunned at their failure. Corruption in government corridors whether in Berlin or Brussels seems to be losing its efficacy.

The next step for the troubled glyphosate renewal process will be for the EU Commission, those faceless, unelected bureaucrats, to come up with a new revised proposal that will bring Germany to approval by end of June when the old license expires or order glyphosate withdrawn from the entire EU market within six months according to Henry Rowlands’ international GMO watchdog media, Sustainable Pulse.

They cite Brussels EU Commission sources who report that the Commission did not even dare call for a formal vote, realizing that they would fail the EU requirement of Qualified Majority “yes” vote of the 28 EU states. France and Italy would have voted against in an informal polling. Germany would have abstained along with six other EU states.

Under current EU rules incorporated in the Treaty of Rome, a matter coming for a vote in the Council of Ministers of the 28 member states requiring a Qualified Majority approval, must satisfy two criteria. First, that 55% of member states vote in favor. Second, that the proposal is supported by member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population. Under the rules, an abstention under qualified majority voting counts as a vote against.

According to official statements of various EU governments in March before the latest May 19 meeting, in addition to open opposition to glyphosate license renewal on EU Commission terms expressed by France, Sweden and the Netherlands, the governments of Bulgaria, Denmark, Austria, Belgium and Italy had joined the “no” group. Their combined populations equal 53% of total EU population when Germany as abstainer is added. In that case the “yes” to glyphosate side would have a mere 47% not the required 65%.

An EU glyphosate ban today could deal a possible death blow to the global GMO project as more of the world wakes up to the fact that the entire GMO crop cultivation is part and parcel of the consumption of deadly glyphosate. It can be said that the Rockefeller Foundation’s funding of genetic manipulation, of genetics since World War II, as I document in my Seeds of Destruction book, is about eugenics or race purity as the Nazis practiced during the Third Reich. Little known is the fact that the Nazi eugenics, otherwise known as creation of the “Master Race,” was financed by…the Rockefeller Foundation. Monsanto has been in the orbit of Rockefeller core assets, now joined by Bill Gates, since World War I.

Industry Panic

At this point the global agrichemical cartel–one getting dramatically smaller from proposed mergers between ChinaChem with Syngenta and now Bayer AG with Monsanto are approved–is in a clear panic mode, and making stupid mistakes in the process. What’s at stake is huge for the health and safety of world citizens and for the future of the deadly agrichemicals industry. Glyphosate is the major component of Monsanto’s proven-toxic Roundup, the most profitable product of the GMO giant and the world’s most widely-used weed-killer.

Now Washington wants the EU to drop all health and environmental safeguards on GMOs to pave the way for a transatlantic trade agreement (TTIP). TTIP negotiations started on 25 April in New York. EU Health Commissioner Andriukaitis’ rush to ram through a re-licensing of glyphosate in May, shortly after his New York TTIP talks, was clearly another reflection of immense Washington pressure on the unaccountable EU Commission bureaucracy.

On May 16, timed for release just hours before the scheduled EU Council of Ministers vote on approval of glyphosate license renewal, the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) released what it claimed was a scientific study. They admit in the first sentence that it was rushed to publication. The study concluded regarding glyphosate:

“The overall weight of evidence indicates that administration of glyphosate and its formulation products at doses as high as 2000 mg/kg body weight

by the oral route, the route most relevant to human dietary exposure, was not associated with genotoxic effects in an overwhelming majority of studies conducted in mammals, a model considered to be appropriate for assessing genotoxic risks to humans. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is

unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures…the meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.”

This means that one part of the WHO says glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet,” while another arm of WHO, the very respected World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that glyphosate, the weed-killer used in most every GMO plant worldwide, and most other crops and even home gardens as well, was a “probable human carcinogen.”

The new FAO/WHO rush job however is no science. It’s fatally flawed bought-and-paid for prostitution science, with no offense to the world’s oldest profession meant.

As one critic points out, “this announcement was made without one single regulatory or industry glyphosate study ever having been performed at a real-life dietary exposure level (under 3 mg/kg body weight/day). This is a huge hole in the risk assessment process for glyphosate, as low levels of the herbicide may hack hormones even more than high levels and hormone hacking chemicals are often carcinogens.”

Conflicts of Interest

Moreover, the FAO/WHO rush job study committee is riddled with members with glaring conflicts of interest in terms of ties to the chemical industry desperately trying to ram through glyphosate re-approval until 2031. According to a report in the UK Guardian, Professor Alan Boobis, who chaired the UN’s joint FAO/WHO meeting on glyphosate, is vice-president of the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) Europe. The co-chair of the sessions was Professor Angelo Moretto, a board member of ILSI’s Health and Environmental Services Institute, and of its Risk21 steering group too, which Boobis also co-chairs. The Guardian report pointed out that in 2012, “the ILSI group took a $500,000 (£344,234) donation from Monsanto and a $528,500 donation from the industry group Croplife International, which represents Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta and others, according to documents obtained by the US Right to Know campaign.”

Continue Reading At: Journal-Neo.org

___________________________________________________________________

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”

 

Monsanto’s Next Weedkiller Uses RNA and It’s Far Worse Than RoundUp

monsanto

Source: UndergroundReporter.org
Christina Sarich
April 20, 2016

(URThe main ingredient in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide, glyphosate, has already been named the most-used herbicide in history — and the company hopes you will continue to focus on the nefarious ramifications of a two-decades-long spraying spree with this carcinogenic chemical concoction while its patents on ‘RoundUp Ready’ seeds expire.

While you and I are obsessed with glyphosate, Monsanto is turning to other genetically-modified atrocities — like RNA pesticides.

This is the next chemical attack the company will likely wield just as it has before, by using crony capitalism, skewing scientific factssuing non-compliant organic farmers, and trying to monopolize food crops by buying up land and forcing ubiquitous trade deals that only well-appointed lobbyists in government capitals support.

Monsanto calls RNA Interference a ‘natural process’ in plants in the same manner they have vowed that glyphosate is ‘safe,’ while industry-discredited scientists have shown that glyphosate exposure, even in infinitesimal amounts, causes cancerous tumor growth. The company explains the process:

RNA interference (RNAi) is a natural process cells use to turn down, or suppress the activity of specific genes. This is done through the cell’s natural ability to review RNA instructions inside the cell and then “decide” whether to process the instructions or not. As a result, the process can turn down or stop production of a specific protein, much like a dimmer on a light switch. This cellular process was discovered in the 1990’s and additional research in the area led to Drs. Fire and Mello winning a Nobel Prize for their work in 2006. Their award-winning work, and that of countless other scientists, has opened many new areas of research in human, animal and plant health.”

Notice that nowhere in this explanation does Monsanto describe what this technology really does, which is silence genes. Of course this technology is meant to silence genes in bugs that eat crops, but there is no proof RNA pesticides won’t silence the genes of unintended recipients, like wildlife, and human beings.

In fact, University of Canterbury Professor Jack Heinemann released results from genetic research he conducted on Monsanto’s GM wheat, which showed with “no doubt” molecules created in the wheat, that are intended to silence genes to change its carbohydrate content, may match human genes and potentially silence them.

According to Heinemann’s analysis, dsRNA-mediated silencing is becoming the basis of novel traits in GM plants, including bio-pesticides. These RNA pesticides are altering nutritional characteristics, and they can lead to significant changes in the way glucose and carbohydrates are stored in the human body, causing potentially lethal outcomes.

So after Monsanto developed PCBs, DDT, Agent Orange, and Roundup (glyphosate), it now wants to silence our genes with RNA pesticides to help grow its $47 billion empire. Is there no end to Monsanto’s ravenous appetite for destruction?

Read More At: UndergroundReporter.org

GMOs & Health – The Scientific Basis For Serious Concern & Immediate Action

GMOs and Health: The Scientific Basis for Serious Concern and Immediate Action
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Nathan Daley, MD, MPH

You might ask, “why all the fuss about agricultural genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?” After all, regulatory agencies have approved these technologies for widespread application and consumption, so they must be safe, right?  Well, the truth is that there is no agency and no industry that  works to protect our health.  At best, the EPA, USDA, and FDA attempt to respond to our disease after the cause is widespread.  At that point only risk reduction, rather than risk avoidance, can be achieved.  This has been the case historically with radium paint, tobacco, particulate air pollution, water pollution, asbestos, lead, food-borne illnesses, and DDT.  A number of the various 80,000 chemicals in production will likely be added to this list in the future while the majority of them that actually do contribute to disease (often in combination and in complex ways) will never be scientifically associated with disease.  This is because science is far from perfect, scientific methodology is always biased and often manipulated, and scientific interpretation by stakeholders and decision makers is alarmingly inept (I’m not being political or condescending, these are well known and easily observed facts).

The situation with agricultural GMOs is unique compared to other technologies. While genetic engineering of food crops has been ongoing for 15 years, it is currently experiencing a major boom with the potential for widespread worldwide application.  Yet, few people understand how a GMO food could really be so much different than a non-GMO food in regard to health and disease effects.  GMO foods look like non-GMO foods and so we don’t experience the same hesitation and aversion to consuming them like we would, say, a clearly labeled bottle of virus and pesticide in tomato juice.  Therefore, the quality of public education, consumer awareness, and informed public discussion about this technology has the potential to alter the future of GMO agriculture for better or worse.

In this article, I’ll first briefly mention the relative paucity of risk assessment studies on GMOs and the unbelievable weaknesses of the industry studies that have been done.  Then, drawing from numerous independent studies, I will explore the routes by which agricultural GMOs may cause adverse health effects.

GMOs Have Never Been “Proven” Safe

Let me be clear; despite the following negative review of industry science, this article is not a hatchet job against the agricultural GMO industry but, rather, a vehicle for consolidated scientific information on the safety or risks of GMO foods intended to allow readers to make informed choices about this technology.  It is just that, well, the science coming from the industry tends to raise serious concerns and suggests that the agricultural GMO industry has little concern for protecting public and ecosystem health.  Before we dive into the independent non-industry studies which suggest potential harm from GMO crops and foods, we must first look at the studies which supposedly demonstrate the safety of GMO crops and foods.  A critique of these studies remained impossible for some time as the data was kept private, until French researchers obtained a court order for their release.  This team of researchers, lead by Joel Spiroux de Vendomois, then analyzed the raw data from studies on three varieties of GMO corn owned by Monsanto.  Yet, it immediately became apparent that this data was not extremely helpful as the study methodology was profoundly insufficient.  In a 2010 paper published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences[1], the researchers summarize several major flaws in the study.  I’ll list just a few of them here:

  1. For each of the three varieties of GMO corn tested, only a single study was done.  However, a central tenet of sound science is that the results are reproducible and replicated by other studies, preferably those done by different researchers.
  2. Only the rat was used as a toxicological model.  Rats are useful models for the human detoxification systems, but poor models for human reproductive and embryological systems.  Remember, rat studies “proved” that thalidomide was safe for pregnant women to use… but the rabbit studies done AFTER thousands of babies were harmed “proved” that it caused birth defects!  Scientific proof is only as good as the scientific studies, which are always limited and narrowly focused.
  3. The studies lasted only 3 months and were done on young adult rats.  Yet, captive rats live about 24 months.  No studies looking at late life outcomes from this brief exposure or studies which used lifelong exposure to GMOs were performed.  This is clearly a problem unless human consumers are only supposed to eat GMO foods for no longer than 9 years between the ages of 10 and 20.  Yet, GMO food technology has been released (without labeling) with the intention of lifelong consumption.
  4. No reproductive or developmental studies were done.  Yet GMO foods do not carry a label declaring that their safety during pregnancy has not been evaluated.  Instead, they are unlabeled and meant to be consumed by both genders, at all ages and developmental stages, including during pregnancy and infancy.
  5. Adverse outcomes were only considered if they occurred in both genders!  Clearly genders are different.  For instance, women are much more likely to get breast cancer than men, and one must have a prostate to get prostate cancer.  In the industry studies, increases in prostate cancer in male rats and increases in mammary tumors in female rats would apparently have been omitted since they differed between genders.  This explains exactly what happened to their findings that male rats eating GMO corn had an 11% increase in heart size while female rats eating GMO corn had a 40% increase in serum triglycerides[2].   It is not clear what to make of these findings, but they should not have been omitted and, instead, should have been used to encourage more numerous and longer duration (lifespan) studies before the worldwide release of GMO corn.
  6. Adverse outcomes which are consider “normal” in old rats were omitted in this young rat population.  For instance, the researchers did not consider “chronic progressive nephropathy”, a kidney disease common in older rats, to be a problem even though it was occurring in young, 5 month old, rats eating the GMO corn.

Now, I can attest that modern toxicology students training at respectable universities are taught to do much better work than this. We can only speculate about the reasons such limited study methodologies were chosen.  Nonetheless, these are the studies which the FDA determined to be sufficient for the approval of the three GMO corn varieties represented.  As if the major flaws in the study methodologies were not enough to warrant a different decision, the French team of researchers found a number of concerning associations upon re-analyzing the raw data[3].  They summarize:

Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and hematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn.

This is not the only group of researchers to demonstrate an association between GMO consumption and adverse health outcomes.  Despite the industries resistance to providing GMO varieties to outside researchers for independent studies, there are still dozens of studies available to the public for review.  I’ll synthesize the findings of several of these studies below in considering the possible mechanisms by which agricultural GMOs may cause problems.  In general, the health effects of agricultural GMOs are mediated through at least three routes; 1. Directly though ingestion, 2. Indirectly through GMO associated pesticide exposure and ingestion, and 3. Indirectly through environmental and ecosystem effects.

Effects of GMO ingestion:

Ingesting GMOs can affect both the microbiome and human cells.  The microbiome is the microorganism population which lives on and in the human body.  Most of it exists in or on the mouth, nose, stomach, intestines, and skin.  The gut microbiome has received considerable attention due to its apparently profound effect on the immune system, not to mention its effect on food digestion.  The gut microbiome is involved in determining the risk of autoimmune diseases, allergic diseases, cardiovascular disease, and some infectious diseases like osteomyelitis.  The microbiome can get out of balance (called dysbiosis) and produce severe diseases such as Clostridium difficile overgrowth and more mild disorders like small bowel bacterial overgrowth and irritable bowel syndrome.  The bottom line is that a balanced microbiome is critical for health and we are just now beginning to appreciate how serious the consequences of dysbiosis may be.

Continue Reading At: GreenMedInfo.com