Monsanto Sued About False, Misleading Roundup Ads


Source: ActivistPost.com
Catherine Frompovich
April 14, 2017

Finally, Monsanto, the giant chemical company which produced Agent Orange and other horrendous environmental and health-damaging herbicides including its ‘star’ GMO-agriculture and harvest staging product Roundup®, has been sued alleging “it actively advertises and promotes its Roundup Products as targeting an enzyme ‘found in plants but not in people or pets’. These claims are false, misleading, and deceptive [1],” according to a draft of the complaint and lawsuit filed in Superior Court in the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).

The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Beyond Pesticides (Washington, DC) and Organic Consumers Association (Finland, MN) due to “false and labeling of the company’s flagship product, Roundup herbicide.” [2]

The plaintiffs cite as scientific evidence the 2013 research study published by Samsel and Seneff in the journal Entropy “Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases.” [3] The Abstract for that paper states:

Abstract:

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, is the most popular herbicide used worldwide. The industry asserts it is minimally toxic to humans, but here we argue otherwise. Residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. Glyphosate’s inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology, one of which is to detoxify xenobiotics. Thus, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins.   [CJF emphasis]

Plaintiffs allege, By deceiving consumers about the nature and effects of Roundup, Monsanto is able to sell a greater volume of Roundup, and to command a higher price for Roundup.” [1, Pg.2 (10)]

Furthermore, “Monsanto affirmatively states that the enzyme targeted by glyphosate is not found in people and pets, and fails to disclose to consumers the material information that the enzyme targeted by glyphosate, and the shikimate pathway it’s designed to inhibit, are found in people and pets.” [1, Pg.3 (13)]

Clauses 15, 16 and 17 allege:

  1. Monsanto intended for consumers, including consumers throughout the District of Columbia, to rely on its representations, and reasonable consumers did, in fact, so rely. As a result of its false and misleading labeling, and omission of fact, Monsanto was able to sell Roundup to the general public of the District of Columbia and realize sizeable profits.
  2. Monsanto’s false and misleading representations and omissions violate the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“DC CPPA”), D.C. Code §§ 28-3901, et seq.
  3. Because Monsanto’s labeling and advertising of Roundup tend to mislead and are materially deceptive about the true nature of the product, Plaintiffs bring this deceptive advertising case on behalf of the general public and seek equitable relief for the sale of Roundup Products in the District of Columbia.

In Complaint clause 56, we find something that may not be very surprising, “Monsanto omits the material fact that peer-reviewed scientific research studies have shown that the enzyme targeted by glyphosate in fact is present in human and animal gut bacteria.”

However, the crux of the lawsuit, in my opinion, can be found in clause 58, “Consumers have been deceived into believing that Roundup targets an enzyme found only in plants and not in people or pets.”  That allegation also should be filed against all federal government alphabet agencies involved in the ‘approval’ processes regarding safety and environmental impact studies, if any were done, prior to saturating the globe with an apparent disastrous herbicide, which now has become ubiquitous.

Its main active ingredient, glyphosate, has been found in ground, well and drinking water [6] sources—including human breast milk [6]; as residues in foods [4]; in vaccines [7]; and in 93% of urine samples tested [5].   Regarding human blood cells, erythrocytes (red blood cells that transport oxygen and carbon dioxide to and from human body tissues), this 2014 study about glyphosate’s effects explains “The results clearly show that the changes induced in the erythrocytes can occur only as a result of poisoning with these compounds,” apparently referring to glyphosate’s metabolites and their impurities.

Complaint clause 78 states, “Monsanto misrepresented the nature of Roundup and/or failed to adequately disclose the fact that Roundup’s key ingredient targets an enzyme found in the gut bacteria of people and pets, which was and is false, misleading, and/or likely to deceive reasonable consumers,” an apparent serious health hazard plus chronic-disease-inducing factor for unsuspecting consumers—something not only the legal and court systems in the USA have to address, but federal and state public health agencies everywhere in the world!

According to Seattle Organic Restaurants’ website, here are the top ten environmental and chemical harms that are Monsanto’s legacy:

  1. Low calorie sweeteners, aspartame and saccharine
  2. PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls)
  3. DDT
  4. Roundup
  5. Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH)
  6. Genetically Modified Crops (GMOs)
  7. Dioxin and Agent Orange
  8. Polystyrene
  9. Monsanto influence and domination over seeds and foods!
  10. Monsanto was involved in the Manhattan Project that produced the atom bomb and nuclear weapons of mass destruction!

Don’t you think the federal government should be called to account for approving such horrific toxic chemicals being allowed to be sold as part of consumer products?

The plaintiffs BP and OCA request a jury trial.  What do you think a jury of twelve Americans will do?

Will their decision depend upon how much Roundup® they use, since everyone probably thinks it’s as ‘safe’ as water?

How much Roundup® do you use?

Read More At: ActivistPost.com
__________________________________________________________________________

References:

[1] https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/roundup_dc_complaint_final_1.pdf
[2] OCA Newsletter Organic Bytes, April 13, 2017 “Trouble in St. Louis?”
[3] http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416/htm
[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/tests-show-monsanto-weed_b_12950444.html
[5] http://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-found-in-urine-of-93-percent-of-americans-tested-1891146755.html
[6] http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/glyphosate_testing_results
[7] http://www.activistpost.com/2016/09/another-vaccine-bombshell-glyphosate-think-monsantos-roundup-confirmed-in-most-vaccines.html

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)

Catherine’s NEW book: Eat To Beat Disease, Foods Medicinal Qualities ©2016 Catherine J Frompovich is now available

 

Advertisements

How I Got My Neighbor to Stop Using Roundup & His Organic Weed Killer Alternative that Really Works

Source: GrowingYourGreens
John Cole
November 23, 2016

John from http://www.growingyourgreens.com/ shares with you how he got his neighbor to stop using roundup aka Glyphosate and how he made a recipe for a organic weed killer alternative that really works.

Roundup aka Glyphosate is said to be probably carcinogenic to humans. It is also damaging to the health of your soil, and poisonious to many plants. In this episode, you will discover a much safer, natural and organic alternative.

First, John will share with you some edible plants he plants on purpose in his garden that many may consider “weeds”. You will learn how some of these edible wild foods got a little out of control and started spreading out all over.

You will discover how John usually manages his weed issues. Next, you will learn about an organic and natural solution that costs a fraction of synthetic, chemical weed killers.

John will then head over to his neighbors house and share with you what his neighbor thinks of his garden.

Then Don, Johns neighbor will explain to you how to make a simple organic weed killer that can be made with some common ingredients that can be found at any grocery store.

Finally Don and John will talk a little about why its important to use less chemicals and how you can actually save money by becoming a producer in our society instead of a consumer.

After watching this episode, you will have a sure-fire way to kill weeds on your property by using a very simple, non-toxic spray that can be made from common items from a grocery store including: Vinegar, Sugar and Dish Detergent.

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

The beginning of the end for glyphosate?

Glyphosate

Source: GMWatch.org
Peter Melchett, Soil Association
August 18, 2016

The European Parliament just voted to re-authorise glyphosate, writes Peter Melchett, but with significant restrictions on its use. So what does the vote mean for the world’s biggest selling herbicide?

EXCERPT: From a UK perspective, the most significant aspect of the European Parliament’s advisory vote on glyphosate reauthorisation is the call “for restrictions on use in agricultural fields shortly before harvesting”, saying the currently allowed practice of spraying glyphosate on wheat and other crops before harvest is “unacceptable”.

The beginning of the end for glyphosate?

Peter Melchett, Soil Association
The Ecologist, 15 April 2016
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2987564/the_beginning_of_the_end_for_glyphosate.html

* The European Parliament just voted to re-authorise glyphosate, writes Peter Melchett – but with significant restrictions on its use. So what does the vote mean for the world’s biggest selling herbicide? And how come the UK’s National Farmers’ Union welcomed the decision as an unqualified victory?

The European Parliament voted in favour of re-authorising the use of glyphosate – but crucially, qualified this approval with a number of significant restrictions.

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely sold weed-killer – most commonly sold as Monsanto’s Roundup. For decades it has been claimed to be completely safe by the pesticide industry and its supporters.

But there’s a growing body of evidence of the dangers of glyphosate, beginning with the IARC’s warning that it is a probable human carcinogen. The Soil Association believes it should be banned altogether.

From a UK perspective, the most significant aspect of the European Parliament’s advisory vote on glyphosate reauthorisation is the call “for restrictions on use in agricultural fields shortly before harvesting”, saying the currently allowed practice of spraying glyphosate on wheat and other crops before harvest is “unacceptable”.

Since last year, our “Not in my Bread” campaign has called for a UK ban on the use of glyphosate as a pre-harvest weed-killer and as a desiccant to allow faster harvesting. Spraying a probable carcinogen on food crops to kill them so they can be harvested faster sounds ridiculous, but it’s happening all across the UK on the wheat that makes our bread, flour, and other food like biscuits and cereals.

In the last year for which government figures are available, nearly a third of UK cereals, like wheat, barley, oats, and rye, were sprayed with glyphosate – a total of just over one million hectares.

Huge setback for pesticide claimed to be the “safest ever”

Just a few months ago everyone assumed that glyphosate would sail through re-authorisation in the EU without any problems. The decisions by the European Parliament are a dramatic blow, not just to the future use of glyphosate but to the pesticide industry generally. MEPs even proposed halving the extension of the license called for by the pesticide industry from 15 years to seven.

Globally, the most significant moves were the call for “full disclosure of the scientific evidence behind an assessment of glyphosate by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)” – overturning over 50 years of unpublished, industry funded studies being used in secret to get pesticides authorised in countries like the UK.

Full disclosure of almost all scientific evidence is already a requirement for medicines – but it’s not for pesticides and it’s not for GM crops. If the European Parliament’s recommendation is implemented, it would open up what’s been a secret, industry-dominated process to scientific, public and political scrutiny for the first time.

In March last year, an independent team of scientists from the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that “glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans”.

In contrast, in November 2015 the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) concluded that it was safe to use – but given that this review of glyphosate relied in part on industry funded, unpublished studies, the public, and many European politicians no longer trust the EFSA’s judgement.

This significant inconsistency between these two organisations spurred 96 prominent scientists from 25 countries to voice strong opposition to the EFSA report.

Published, peer reviewed science vs. secret industry studies

The reason that other eminent international scientists advising the WHO have already come to different conclusions is, as the EFSA themselves admit, partly because the WHO scientists are considering publicly available, peer-reviewed scientific evidence, and not secret industry studies. The WHO looked at glyphosate acting alone, and at the impacts of glyphosate as it is actually used. They found the cancer risk for both.

Although glyphosate is always used in combination with a range of other often toxic chemicals, and although researchers have found that glyphosate mixes as sold to farmers and gardeners can be up to 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate acting on its own, EFSA insists on only looking at the impact of glyphosate alone.

It is blindingly obvious that the WHO approach is right from the perspective of public safety, and that the EFSA approach simply serves the interests of the pesticide companies.

This extraordinary argument is between two very different international teams of scientists – the IARC committee who are all named, all independent and have no vested interest in the chemical industry, and EFSA team who are nearly all anonymous, while we have no idea what connections they have to the industry.

This argument has, for the first time for more than 50 years, opened up how pesticides are regulated to scientific, political and public scrutiny – and what we are seeing doesn’t look good.

Not safe. Anywhere

In a dramatic move which will give heart to local campaigners all over the world, the European Parliament said that there should be a total ban the use of glyphosate in public spaces. This would mean no more glyphosate-based herbicides in private and public green areas, including public parks, streets, playgrounds and gardens.

This is a particularly positive result as Monsanto has been actively trying to stop local authorities and town councils across the world from banning the use of Roundup. Monsanto knows that if glyphosate has a reputation as unsafe for people to be exposed to in parks, playgrounds and streets, then it’s hard to see how it can continue to be used as an agricultural pesticide, where both farm workers and rural residents are at even greater risk.

This week’s vote saw 374 MEPs supporting the resolution only to authorise glyphosate with these significant qualifications, with 225 against and 102 abstaining, according to the European Parliament Committee on Environment.

So how come the NFU chose to welcome the vote as “positive for agriculture”? Maybe they were simply relieved that MEPs did not reject reauthorisation altogether. Maybe they were trying to mislead the public – and their own members – about the scale of the setback for glyphosate that this vote actually is.

No doubt they are hoping that the main restriction MEPs want to impose on farmers’ use of glyphosate – the ban on pre-harvest application to crops – will be dropped by ministers at the final hurdle. Or just maybe, if their press release is to be believed, the NFU really are happy to accept that restriction, recognising its benefits for consumers and the safety and good reputation of Europe’s food – in which case we should be glad of their support.

A number of EU member states like France remain opposed to any relicensing of glyphosate, while others like the UK are all for it, so the future will likely involve a compromise.

It is now crucial that the EU’s member states at the Council of Ministers include in any reauthorisation all the major demands set down by the EU Parliament this week – whether the NFU really does support them or not!

Read More At: GMWatch.org
__________________________________________________________________

Join the Soil Association’s “Not in Our Bread” campaign to get a permanent ban on pre-harvest use of glyphosate.

Peter Melchett has been Policy Director of the Soil Association, the UK’s main organic food and farming organisation, working on campaigns, standards and policy, since 2001. He runs an 890-acre organic farm in Norfolk, with beef cattle and arable seed crops.

He is a member of the BBC’s Rural Affairs Committee, and was a member of the Government’s Rural Climate Change Forum and Organic Action Plan Group, and the Department of Education’s School Lunches Review Panel. He received an honorary doctorate from Newcastle University in 2013, was on the Board of the EU’s £12m “Quality Low Input Food” research project, and is a Board member for two EU research projects on low input crops and livestock.

57 Different Linked To The Rapidly Declining Bee Population

Honey bees
Source: NaturalNews.com
S. Johnson
August 11, 2016

Upwards of 57 pesticides are responsible for poisoning European honey bees and contributing to the rapidly declining bee population worldwide.

Multiple studies have confirmed that there is a strong link between herbicide use and bee deaths. Although there are various factors at play, multiple lines of research converge on herbicide use as a significant variable. So much so, that the European Union has issued a ban on the use of neonicotinoid herbicides.

A recent study focused on this link was published in the Journal of Chromatography.

Weeding through a jungle of herbicides

Researchers are faced with the challenge of trying to understand which combination of herbicides impacts honeybees in different ways. In order to examine this more quickly, researchers from the National Veterinary Research Institute in Poland have developed a way to analyze 200 pesticides at once.

“Bee health is a matter of public concern — bees are considered critically important for the environment and agriculture by pollinating more than 80% of crops and wild plants in Europe,” Tomasz Kiljanek, lead author of the study from the National Veterinary Research Institute in Poland, said in a press statement. “We wanted to develop a test for a large number of pesticides currently approved for use in the European Union to see what is poisoning the bees.”

Given the vast range of herbicides currently in use, it is hard to determine which ones are detrimental to bees. Kiljanek and his colleagues used a method known as QuEChERS – often deployed to detect the presence of herbicides in food – to investigate over 70 bee poisoning cases. Approximately 98 percent of the herbicides they analyzed were allowed to be used in the European Union.

The sting of extinction

The researchers found that 57 herbicides were present in poisoned bees. Herbicides, even in low concentrations, can impair the bees’ immune systems, enabling viruses and parasites to destroy the colony. The team hopes that their findings will broaden the knowledge of different herbicides that are dangerous to bees.

“This is just the beginning of our research on the impact of pesticides on honeybee health,” Kiljanek said.

“Honeybee poisoning incidents are the tip of the iceberg. Even at very low levels, pesticides can weaken bees’ defense systems, allowing parasites or viruses to kill the colony,” he added.

“Our results will help expand our knowledge about the influence of pesticides on honeybee health, and will provide important information for other researchers to better assess the risk connected with the mix of current used pesticides.”

Previous research centered on other factors attributed to the decline of the global bee population, like climate change and disease. It has been suggested that diesel exhaust, for example, could be altering half of the floral scents that bees use to seek flowers, which could be responsible for the death of some bees.

A United Nations alert issued last February warned that hundreds of billions of dollars worth of crops could be wasted because of the declining bee population, putting the global food supply at risk.

One out of every six species of vertebrates are facing extinction, while two out of every five bee, butterfly and pollination insects are also in grave danger, reports TechTimes.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources include:

ScienceDaily.com

ScienceDirect.com

TechTimes.com

Metro.co.uk

Monsanto’s Creation of Herbicide-Resistant Superweeds Grows in Several States

pesticides soybean field
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
August 7, 2016

Soybean fields in parts of Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee are plagued by “superweeds” that have become resistant to glyphosate, the main ingredient in biotech company’s Monsanto’s RoundUp herbicide. Farmers are now dousing the plants with illegal chemicals to try and kill the rogue weeds.

The Root of the Problem

When agritech giant Monsanto rolled out its “RoundUp Ready” GMO seeds, the mammoth corporation made farmers a promise: the new crop system would allow them to use less chemicals on their crops.

The worrisome weeds would surely die, Monsanto said, but the RoundUp Ready plants would withstand the chemicals and thrive, producing greater yields. Yup, farmers were told RoundUp was all they would ever need.

This promise has led to a more than tenfold increase in RoundUp use in the past decade, and a lot of the weeds aren’t having it anymore. They’re stronger than glyphosate now, stronger than Monsanto’s promise, and stronger than the American farmer’s best efforts. [1]

But if you don’t strangle the weeds to death, they’ll strangle crops to death. Something has to be done. That “something” involves growers illegally spraying a powerful herbicide that is damaging hundreds of thousands of crops in the aforementioned states.

Regulators, farmers, and academics alike are pointing their fingers at Monsanto’s introduction this year of a new variety of genetically modified soybean.

The new mutant soybean was designed to resist not just glyphosate, but also the dicamba herbicide, which has been used for decades. [2]

Read: Monsanto Spent $1 Billion on New Herbicide

The Road to Hell was Supposedly Paved with Good Intentions

The thinking behind “Xtend,” the new version of the herbicide-tolerant soybeans, was that it would give farmers the option of also spraying dicamba. This, Monsanto believed, would kill off the weeds that RoundUp couldn’t touch.

The problem with dicamba is that it’s known for evaporating quickly and drifting into neighboring fields. What’s more, ridiculously small amounts of the chemical can wreak havoc on soybeans.

Source: AGFAX.com

Read: Study Finds Dicamba Harms Non-Targeted Plants and Insects

Monsanto sold farmers the new biotech soybean seeds before the company could provide an updated version of dicamba, one that was designed not to drift. [3] [2]

To Make Matters Worse

The new dicamba, you see, is still awaiting approval from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). When and if it gains approval, the agency may impose restrictions on how and when the chemical may be used.

Monsanto didn’t care that it was unapproved, and it wasn’t going to sit around waiting on the silly government to give it the go-ahead. It went ahead and started selling its dicamba-resistant soybeans anyway, handing farmers a new weed-killing tool that wasn’t approved yet.

According to Philip Miller, vice president of global regulatory affairs for Monsanto, the company “took quite a bit of effort” instructing farmers and pesticide dealers to avoid spraying older versions of dicamba over the new biotech fields and, for the most part, the farmers have complied.

Those that haven’t are likely breaking the law out of desperation.

soybeans-crop-800Barber said this threat only adds to the farmers’ frustration:

“They’re afraid that they’re not going to be able to grow what they want to grow. They’re afraid that they’re going to be forced to go with that technology.” [3]

Farmers have always had to contend with drifting, but Bob Scott, a weed specialist at the University of Arkansas, said he’s never seen it this bad before:

“This is a unique situation that Monsanto created.”

Farmers whose fields have been damaged are especially angry, said Tom Barber, another scientist at the University of Arkansas who studies weeds, and rightly so. They’re already struggling financially due to low crop prices. Barber explained:

“They see their soybeans out there all cupped up and stunted, their reaction is not good.

We’ve seen cases of herbicide drift before. Usually the farmers work it out among themselves. But it’s getting to the point now, it’s made a lot of farmers upset with their neighbors. It’s an unfortunate thing.”

In Missouri, more than 1,000 farmers have filed formal complaints with the state’s Department of Agriculture. In Arkansas, 25 complaints have been filed. If the department determines that a farmer has sprayed dicamba illegally, the farmer can be fined.

In Arkansas, fines can reach $1,000. State regulators are considering raising the maximum fine to $5,000 because the lower fines aren’t stopping farmers from spraying dicamba.

Even if the EPA approves the use of Monsanto’s reformulated version, the Arkansas Plant Board may implement new regulations that could drastically restrict the use of dicamba.

There is also evidence that Monsanto’s new glyphosate-dicamba mixture might not work for very long. Recent research suggests that weeds may evolve to resist dicamba over just 3 years.

Of course, Monsanto and other chemical companies like Dow have vowed to create other, new toxic mixtures and crops designed to withstand them. [4]

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

[1] TakePart

[2] The Wall Street Journal

[3] NPR

[4] Environmental Working Group

AGFAX.com

Calif. Rancher Sues Monsanto Claiming Four Decades of Roundup Use Caused Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Roundup
Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
July 20, 2016

A California rancher has filed a lawsuit against Monsanto in federal court, accusing the country of misleading customers into believing that the blockbuster herbicide Roundup was as safe as table salt.

Plaintiff Peter Johansing says that he used Roundup for 40 years, and has now been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a form of cancer that has been particularly linked with Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate.

The lawsuit notes that the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen.”

Johansing’s lawsuit is just one of a flurry of lawsuits Monsanto is currently defending itself against from farmers claiming that Roundup gave them non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Evidence against Roundup builds

Roundup is one of the top-selling herbicides in the world. Its use has been heavily driven by the widespread adoption of the genetically modified (GM) crops engineered to resist it. In the United States, for example, more than 90 percent of soybeans grown are engineered for resistance to herbicides, including Roundup.

In 2014, a groundbreaking study conducted by French researchers showed that people who were exposed to glyphosate had twice the risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as non-exposed people. This was one of the studies that the IARC reviewed before concluding that Roundup is probably carcinogenic. The IARC noted that the evidence for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was stronger than for other types of cancer.

Farmers are at the greatest risk of exposure, the IARC said, but also noted that traces of glyphosate have been detected in water, soil and even air following application. Other studies have detected traces of the chemical in food.

Movement to hold Monsanto accountable

Johansing’s suit was filed just weeks after a federal judge denied Monsanto’s request to dismiss a lawsuit by Christine Sheppard, a former coffee grower from Hawaii. Sheppard is accusing Monsanto of having knowingly concealed the risks of Roundup, which she says gave her non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Sheppard used Roundup from 1996 to 2004, before beginning the process of converting her farm to organic production. She was diagnosed with cancer in 2003.

Monsanto claimed that the lawsuit fell outside of Hawaii’s two-year statute of limitations for tort claims. The judge rejected this argument, however, citing the IARC’s ruling on glyphosate less than two years ago.

The company also tried claiming that it cannot be sued for the content of its product labels, which are regulated by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

“The complaint is not attempting to impose a different warning label,” the judge wrote in dismissing the argument.

“Rather, plaintiffs contend that Monsanto’s existing label (or the label used from 1995 to 2004) is ‘misbranded’ because it misrepresents Roundup’s safety, and is an inadequate warning. A pesticide is ‘misbranded’ under FIFRA if its label is ‘false or misleading in any particular,’ or omits necessary warnings or statements. The product is ‘defective’ under either theory.”

Other lawsuits include one filed by three Nebraska farmers and another by the widow of a California farmer who died of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In the latter case, the farmer’s dog also developed lymphoma. Both cases accuse Monsanto of actively concealing the truth about its product’s risks.

“Monsanto championed falsified data and has attacked legitimate studies that revealed Roundup dangers,” the Nebraska complaint reads. “Monsanto led a campaign of misinformation to convince government agencies, farmers and the general population that Roundup is safe. Its continuing denial extends to the date of this Complaint.”

Avoid glyphosate and other toxic chemicals by growing your own herbs, vegetables and fruits with the Food Rising Mini-Farm Grow Box 2.0, available from the Natural News Store. The grow box is an electricity-free, bottom-fed, constant-height, self-watering, non-circulating, hydroponics system developed by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger. It requires only 1/20th the water of a soil-based system.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com