Tag Archives: Monsanto

Government Accountability, Politics, US

Trump Continues Practice of Nominating Industry Insiders

Leave a comment

In early March, President Donald Trump nominated Peter C. Wright to be the assistant administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM). The nomination of Wright is another indication that the Trump administration will continue the practice of nominating industry insiders and corporate lawyers to positions of power. The White House stated that Wright would help develop “legal strategies regarding Superfund sites and other federal and state-led remediation matters.”

The EPA released a statement detailing the nomination and Wright’s employment history:

Since 1999, Mr. Wright has worked at The Dow Chemical Company where he serves as managing counsel for environmental health and safety and principle counsel for all significant mergers and acquisitions. Throughout his career, Mr. Wright has provided legal support for Superfund and other remediation sites. In 2017, he was recognized with a special award for the oversight and reorganization efforts of the remediation portfolio.

Scott Pruitt, administrator of the EPA, applauded the decision, stating that Wright has “the expertise and experience necessary to implement our ambitious goals for cleaning up the nation’s contaminated lands quickly and thoroughly.” Interestingly, Pruitt himself is currently under fire for his recently-exposed connections to lobbyists.

In addition to his work with Dow, Wright’s LinkedIn page lists him as an Environmental Attorney for Monsanto from 1989 to 1996. Wright’s association with The Dow Chemical Company and Monsanto— corporations known for producing hazardous chemicals and pesticides along with genetically engineered seeds— could be an indication that the Trump Administration may have a sympathetic ear for these industries. If so, it would be the continuation of a trend that has extended through the last few American presidencies.

[RELATED: EPA Reverses Approval of Controversial Herbicide]

As far back as the Reagan Administration, the U.S. presidency has been bending to the will of biotechnology giants like Monsanto, Dow, and Syngenta. Former President George H.W. Bush appointed Monsanto attorney Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Former President George W. Bush was also friendly to the pharmaceutical and biotech industry, appointing individuals like Donald Rumsfeld, a former president of Searle Pharmaceuticals, to Secretary of Defense. The younger Bush also appointed Linda J. Fisher, a Monsanto representative from 1995 to 2000, to second-in-command at the EPA.

One of the most well known examples of this revolving door between chemical companies and the U.S. government is Michael Taylor, a former lawyer for Monsanto. Taylor worked in the Food and Drug Administration during the Nixon and Reagan administrations before serving as a lawyer for Monsanto. In 1991, President George H. W. Bush appointed Taylor as the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Policy. Taylor was also reappointed to the FDA by the Obama administration.

Health, Politics

European Scientists Split Over Glyphosate Cancer Claims

Leave a comment

European Union scientists are facing off over a World Health Organization study which indicated the popular herbicide glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic” to humans.

The head of the EU’s European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) disagrees with the conclusions of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

In March 2015, Truth In Media reported that the IARC published a report in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides. The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985.

The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

Glyphosate is not only the most widely-used herbicide, it is a key ingredient in biotech giant Monsanto’s popular RoundUp products. Glyphosate is only one of Monsanto’s products that have been recently connected to cancer, however. In June the IARC also found that the weed killer 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, known as 2,4-D, “possibly” causes cancer in humans.

Bernhard Url, Executive Director of the EFSA, does not support the conclusions of the IARC study.

The EFSA issued an official opinion on the matter in November 2015, stating “glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential.”

Url’s position did not sit well with environmental activists who agreed with the study’s findings.

As Reuters reports, “Ninety-six academics from around the world signed an open letter to European Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis, dated Nov. 27, urging EU authorities to ignore the European watchdogs’s opinion.”

“We urge you and the European Commission to disregard the flawed EFSA finding on glyphosate in your formulation of glyphosate health and environmental policy for Europe,” the letter said.

The letter was written by Christopher Portier of the non-governmental organization the Environmental Defense Fund. Portier was a specialist consulted as part of the IARC study on glyphosate. Portier’s letter called for “a transparent, open and credible review of the scientific literature”.

On Wednesday, Bernhard Url responded to Portier’s letter. “I strongly disagree with your contention that EFSA has not applied open and objective criteria to its assessment,” Url wrote.

“We should not compare this first screening assessment with the more comprehensive hazard assessment done by authorities such as EFSA, which are designed to support the regulatory process for pesticides in close cooperation with member states in the EU,” Url told Reuters.

Url also said representatives of the EFSA and the IARC will likely meet to clarify their differences. Reuters reported the meeting would likely take place in Brussels in mid-February.

If the European Union’s 28 members decide to yield to the EFSA’s opinion, it could lead to overturning the ban on glyphosate.

Stay tuned to Truth In Media for more details.

Government Accountability, Health

Lawmakers Attempt to Add ‘Monsanto Rider’ to Government Budget Bill

Leave a comment

Critics of a food labeling bill recently passed by the House fear that it could be added as a last-minute provision to the looming federal budget bill.

Known as the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act to supporters and the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act by critics, the law would effectively nullify Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) labeling measures like the bill recently passed in Vermont. The Vermont law is scheduled to go into effect July 2016. Maine and Connecticut have also passed laws requiring labeling, but those measures will not go into effect until bordering states also pass legislation.

Genetically modified or engineered seeds are engineered to have certain traits, such as resistance to herbicides. The majority of the United States’ corn and soybean crops are now GE, including a large portion which goes to animal feed.

The labeling act would create a federal voluntary standard for GMO labeling and block mandatory labeling efforts by states. The AP reports that “the food industry wants the labeling to be voluntary, and it hopes to get a provision in a massive spending bill that Republicans and Democrats want to wrap up this week.”

“It is imperative that Congress take action now to prevent a costly and confusing patchwork of state labeling laws from taking effect next year and spreading across the country,” a coalition of groups representing growers and the food industry said in a letter to House and Senate leaders.

Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, told the AP, “We have a lot of folks on our side of the aisle that are very opposed.” Sen John Hoeven of (R-ND) said he is “trying to come up with a compromise that brings both sides together, and it doesn’t seem like we’ll have that by year-end.”

Reuters reports that a vote on the budget will happen on Friday before the midnight deadline for funding the federal government. According to Reuters, “lawmakers have been unable to reach agreement on a number of policy “riders” some lawmakers would like to add to the bill.” These “riders” include the DARK Act provision.

In response to the criticism of the DARK Act, the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture Nutrition & Forestry recently held a hearing titled Agriculture Biotechnology: A Look at Federal Regulation and Stakeholder Perspectives.

The committee heard testimonies from several speakers representing farmers, the GMO lobby, and consumer groups. Officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency also testified. The hearing was criticized for being one-sided and favoring corporations who will directly benefit from the passage of the bill.

As Reuters reported, “the Consumers Union and five other consumer organizations sent a letter to the Senate committee complaining that the lineup of speakers was not balanced and did not include a consumer representative.” Jean Halloran, Director of Food Policy Initiatives for Consumers Union said, “Time and again, a large majority of consumers have expressed strong support for GMO labeling.”

Ronnie Cummins, international director for the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and a speaker at the hearing, released a scathing review of the events. “Today’s hearing on H.R. 1599 made a total mockery of democracy. Of the eight witnesses allowed to testify, only one could be remotely considered as someone who represents the interests of consumers and public health,” Cummins said. “The other seven have ties to the biotech and corporate food industries, and were there to represent the interests of corporations, not people.”

Please stay tuned to TruthInMedia.com for development on this story and the “government shutdown.”

Featured, Government Accountability, Health

EPA Reverses Approval of Controversial Herbicide

Leave a comment

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency decided to reverse their approval of Dow Chemical’s Enlist Duo which contains the herbicides 2,4-D and glyphosate.

The EPA told the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco that they had discovered new information which suggests 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, known as 2,4-D, could be more toxic than the agency previously believed. The agency claimed it initially did not recognize that glyphosate and 2,4-D were possibly a toxic combination.

“E.P.A. can no longer be confident that Enlist Duo will not cause risks of concern to nontarget organisms, including those listed as endangered, when used according to the approved label,” the agency said in a court filing. The EPA also said they realized they “did not have all relevant information at the time it made its registration decision.”

The EPA’s decision is related to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of U.S. farmer and environmental groups represented by Earthjustice and Center for Food Safety who are seeking to overturn the approval of Enlist Duo.

Enlist Duo is part of a partnership between Monsanto and Dow known as the Enlist Weed Control system. The weed controls system is the latest effort to combat the growing problem of so-called “super weeds” that have resulted from the abundant use of glyphosate-based herbicides. In order to fight off the tougher weeds, Dow and Monsanto partnered together to produce Enlist Duo.

 “Glyphosate is a probable carcinogen and is wiping out the monarch butterfly, 2,4-D also causes serious human health effects, and the combination also threatens endangered wildlife,” said Earthjustice’s Managing Attorney Paul Achitoff. “This must not, and will not, be how we grow our food.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council reports that more than 200,000 people signed a petition they circulated which asked Dow to cancel its plans to sell Enlist Duo. Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist at the NRDC, said her organization was “delighted” by the news but also called on regulators do a proper job the first time. “EPA needs to do better in protecting human health and the health of the plants and animals in the ecosystem,” she said.

Dow has until December 7 to respond to the EPA’s decision and then the court will decide if 2,4-D should be removed from commercial products. If the court agrees with the EPA, it will likely delay the introduction of genetically engineered foods that were created to be resistant to 2,4-D.

The New York Times reports that in September the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the E.P.A.’s approval of another Dow pesticide known as sulfoxaflor because of concerns the chemical was insufficiently studied and possibly harmful to bee populations.

Earlier this year, Truth In Media reported that both 2,4-D and glyphosate had been linked to cancer in studies conducted by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The IARC found that Glyphosate “probably” causes cancer and found 2,4-D to be “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” a step below “probably carcinogenic”.

Stay tuned to Truth In Media for more details on this developing story.

Featured, Government Accountability, Health

EPA Proposes Ban on Common Pesticide

Leave a comment

Last Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new proposal which would ban the use of chlorpyrifos on citrus fruits, almonds and other crops. Chlorpyrifos is a common insecticide which is used on a number of crops that also includes oranges, apples, cherries, grapes, broccoli and asparagus.

The Associated Press reports:

“The pesticide, in use since 1965, has sickened dozens of farmworkers in recent years. Traces have been found in waterways, threatening fish, and regulators say overuse could make targeted insects immune to the pesticide. U.S. farms use more than 6 million pounds of the chemical each year – about 25 percent of it in California.”

The EPA stated that a recent analysis did not show risks from exposure to chlorpyrifos in food, but combined with estimates for exposure from drinking water, the “EPA cannot conclude that the risk from aggregate exposure meets the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act safety standard.”

The agency will take public comments on the proposed ban for at least two months. A final ruling is expected in December 2016 with the rule going into effect in 2017.

In the early 2000’s the EPA banned home use of chlorpyrifos and in 2012 placed “no-spray” buffer zones around schools and other sensitive areas.

The AP reported the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a federal lawsuit asking for a national ban on chlorpyrifos, citing evidence the chemical interferes with brain development of fetuses, infants and children.

Veena Singla, a scientist with NRDC’s health and environment program, said that the proposal “is a huge step in the right direction, but we think there’s enough evidence to ban all its uses now.”

The proposal from the EPA came just days after a researcher with the United States Department of Agriculture filed a whistleblower complaint alleging his supervisors suspended him in retaliation for his research on pesticides. The complaint follows calls for investigation of both the USDA and the EPA.

The Anti Media reported that Jonathan Lundgren, an entomologist and 11-year veteran of the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, filed the complaint with the federal Merit Systems Protection Board after his supervisors allegedly began to “impede or deter his research and resultant publications.” Lundgren is well-known in the scientific community for previously alleging that the USDA attempted to prevent him from speaking about his research for political reasons.

Lundgren previously published a study that found soybean seeds pre-treated with neonicotinoid pesticides “offer little benefit to soybean producers.” He also served as a peer reviewer in a report published by the Center for Food Safety. That study found further evidence that neonicotinoids adversely affect bees.

Although Lundgren’s work is examining a different class of pesticides, his story highlights a dangerous trend around the science of pesticides: the suppression of research and retaliation against those who challenge the safety of pesticides.

In early May of this year, Truth In Media reported that 25 organizations representing farm workers, food safety organizations, and the environment issued a letter to officials with the USDA and EPA. They called for an investigation into claims that scientists are facing pressure and retaliation for research that presents the controversial neonicotinoid insecticide in a negative light.

A number of pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides have now been linked to health problems in animals and humans, as well as environmental degradation.

In March of this year it was reported that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a report on the herbicide glyphosate which concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”  The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the EPA had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985.

The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

Since the IARC’s rulings, Monsanto has faced a wave of lawsuits as personal injury lawyers are now looking for plaintiffs who have been harmed by the corporations products. 

The rise in the use of pesticides and herbicides comes with the increased use of genetically engineered or genetically modified crops. In September 2014, I wrote about the USDA’s decision to approve GE corn and soy and how this decision would lead to an increase in pesticide use.

This happens because the food products being approved by the government are engineered to resist widely-used chemicals such as glyphosate. This has led to an increase in “super-weeds” which are immune to the effects of glyphosate. This leads to an increase in spraying of these chemicals, as well as newer, stronger chemicals to fight the super weeds.

This cycle of spraying, and nature responding and adapting, will likely continue as the USDA recently approved another GE corn from Monsanto. Fellow bio-tech giant Syngenta is also applying for approval of a glyphosate-resistant GE corn. The USDA’s preliminary findings stated the risk of herbicide-resistant weeds will be an ongoing problem as long as herbicides are used.

The EPA’s latest proposal to ban the use of chlorpyrifos may indicate a shift towards more nuanced policies on herbicides, pesticides, and insecticides.

Government Accountability, Health

USDA Approves New Monsanto Corn

Video Leave a comment

Last Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved a new genetically modified type of corn produced by Monsanto Company. The announcement comes from the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Reuters reports that APHIS conducted a review and concluded the product posed no significant threat to agricultural crops, other plants or the environment. Monsanto’s MON 87411 maize is designed to protect plants against corn rootworms and have a tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. Glyphosate is not only recognized as the most widely-used herbicide, it is a key ingredient in Monsanto’s popular RoundUp products.

Before officially being allowed on the market, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must conduct their own reviews. According to Reuters, the EPA’s scientific advisory panel has criticized the guidelines as “weak”. The panel is attempting to understand the potential impact on pollinators, such as the dwindling bee population.

APHIS also said it was extending the comment period for genetically-engineered corn developed by Syngenta Seeds Inc. Syngenta’s MZHG0JG corn is also resistant to glyphosate. Critics have long said that perpetual reliance on herbicides like glyphosate is leading to an increase in herbicide-resistant plants which itself leads to an increased use of the chemicals.

The USDA’s preliminary findings of Syngenta’s petition found 14 different glyphosate-resistant weed species as of 2014. The agency also stated the risk of herbicide-resistant weeds will be an ongoing problem as long as herbicides are used.

Fighting herbicide resistance is only one of Monsanto’s current problems, however. In March of this year, Truth In Media reported that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a report in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides.

The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the EPA had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985.
The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.
Glyphosate is not the only one of Monsanto’s products that have been recently connected to cancer. In June the IARC also found that the weed killer 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, known as 2,4-D, “possibly” causes cancer in humans. 

Since the IARC’s rulings, Monsanto has faced a wave of lawsuits as personal injury lawyers are now looking for plaintiffs who have been harmed by the corporations products. 

Monsanto continues to deny the charges against its products. Company spokewoman Charla Lord told Reuters, “Glyphosate is not a carcinogen. The most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product contradict the claims in the suits.”

In 2013, Ben Swann examined several controversies surrounding Monsanto in a Truth in Media episode, seen below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YC7M6j-dGs

Health, US

Monsanto Asks California to Halt Plan Listing Glyphosate as Cancer Cause

Leave a comment

Monsanto Company is fighting back against California’s recent decision to list glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s popular herbicide RoundUp, as a cancer-causing chemical.

In late September, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued a notice stating that glyphosate would be added to the state’s list of cancer-causing chemicals under the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65.

The decision was made after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the research agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), published a report in March that classified glyphosate “as probably carcinogenic to humans.” State officials said this decision is a requirement following the IARC’s findings.

[Read more: World Health Organization: Monsanto’s RoundUp ‘Probably’ Causes Cancer]

In response to the IARC report in March, Monsanto announced its plans to hire Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy to provide a third-party review of IARC’s claims. The Guardian later reported that a separate assessment performed by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessments (BfR) “has drawn contrary conclusions from the IARC’s data. The BfR paper also relied heavily on unpublished papers provided by the Glyphosate Task Force, an industry body dedicated to the herbicide’s relicensing. Its website is run by Monsanto UK.”

[Read more: Monsanto Seeks Third-Party Review of Cancer Claims]

Monsanto filed formal comments on Tuesday stating that California’s plan may be illegal, and claimed that the state was insufficient in seeking valid scientific studies before moving forward with adding glyphosate to its Proposition 65 list. The IARC said that before making its classification, the agency had examined several scientific studies including two from Sweden, one from Canada and at least three from the United States.

Monsanto stated in its filing that California’s decision “has the potential to deny farmers and public agencies the use of this highly effective herbicide.” Monsanto further claimed that “global regulatory authorities… agree that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.”

The WHO’s classification of glyphosate as a probable cause of cancer has led to several lawsuits filed against Monsanto. A number of the lawsuits claim that the glyphosate in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide caused cancer in individuals exposed to the ingredient. Monsanto responded that those claims are “without merit,” according to Reuters.

Health, US

Monsanto Facing Wave of Lawsuits After WHO Cancer Study

Video Leave a comment

Monsanto Company, one of the world’s leading Agri-chemical companies, has had a difficult year regarding public relations. Not only has Monsanto been the focus of two studies by the World Health Organization which found its products are “possibly” and “probably” carcinogenic, but the company has been forced to cut 12% of its employees due to declining stock value. Monsanto’s problems only seem to be increasing as personal injury lawyers are now looking for plaintiffs who have been harmed by the corporations products.

Reuters reported:

“The latest lawsuit was filed Wednesday in Delaware Superior Court by three law firms representing three plaintiffs.

The lawsuit is similar to others filed last month in New York and California accusing Monsanto of long knowing that the main ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, was hazardous to human health. Monsanto “led a prolonged campaign of misinformation to convince government agencies, farmers and the general population that Roundup was safe,” the lawsuit states.”

Monsanto continues to deny the charges against its products. Company spokewoman Charla Lord told Reuters, “Glyphosate is not a carcinogen. The most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product contradict the claims in the suits.”

The California lawsuit was filed by 58-year-old Enrique Rubio, a former farm worker in California, Texas, and Oregon. The Anti Media reported on his case:

“One of his main duties included spraying fields with RoundUp and other herbicides. Mr. Rubio maintained these tasks until he was diagnosed with bone cancer in 1995, the lawsuit states.

Attorney Robin Greenwald, a representative in the Enrique Rubio case, says she believes additional lawsuits will emerge because RoundUp is the most widely-used herbicide and the WHO statements support ongoing concerns surrounding glyphosate.”

Another lawsuit filed against Monsanto comes from 63-year-old New Yorker Judy Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald claims that her cancer was caused by exposure to RoundUp when she worked in a horticulture company during the 1990s. Judy Fitzgerald was diagnosed with leukemia in 2012.

In March of this year Truth In Media reported that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a report in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides. The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985.
The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

Glyphosate is not only the most widely-used herbicide, it is a key ingredient in biotech giant Monsanto’s popular RoundUp products. Glyphosate is only one of Monsanto’s products that have been recently connected to cancer, however. In June the IARC also found that the weed killer 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, known as 2,4-D, “possibly” causes cancer in humans.

The IARC reviewed the latest scientific research before deciding to classify 2,4-D as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” a step below “probably carcinogenic.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been receiving pressure to restrict or prohibit the use of 2,4-D, while some farm group and pesticide industry groups say the chemical does not need any more restriction.

Of particular interest with the recent findings is the fact that in April the EPA approved the use of Dow AgroScience’s Enlist Duo herbicide which contains 2,4-D and glyphosate. Enlist Duo is part of a partnership between Monsanto and Dow known as the Enlist Weed Control system.

Monsanto has not released a statement on whether or not they will also convene a panel to study the IARC’s claims about 2,4-D.

In 2013, Ben Swann examined several controversies surrounding Monsanto in a Truth in Media episode, seen below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YC7M6j-dGs

Health

Monsanto Seeks Third-Party Review of Cancer Claims

3 Comments

In March of this year TruthInMedia reported that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a report in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides. The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

 The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985. The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

Glyphosate is not only the most widely-used herbicide, it is a key ingredient in Bio-Tech giant Monsanto’s popular RoundUp products. At the time Reuters reported that Philip Miller, Monsanto’s vice-president of global regulatory affairs, was unsure “how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.” The corporation stated that scientific data does not match the claims and called for an emergency meeting between Monsanto and WHO officials.

Now Reuters reports that Monsanto has announced they have hired Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy to form “a panel of internationally recognized scientific experts to review IARC’s work. The experts include medical doctors, cancer experts, and individuals with doctoral degrees who are specialists in public health, the Creve Coeur, Missouri-based company said.”

Monsanto President Brett Begemann told Reuters that Monsanto is “confident in the safety of its herbicide products” but the review is being done to reassure consumers of the safety of the popular herbicide.

“It has created a lot of confusion,” Begemann told Reuters. “This panel is going to review the data thoroughly, and they are going to make their findings available to everyone for review.”

 

Monsanto promised a fair and transparent review.

Glyphosate is only one of Monsanto’s products that have been recently connected to cancer, however. In June the IARC also found that the  weed killer 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, known as 2,4-D, “possibly” causes cancer in humans.

The IARC reviewed the latest scientific research before deciding to classify 2,4-D as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” a step below “probably carcinogenic”. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been receiving pressure to restrict or prohibit the use of 2,4-D, while some farm group and pesticide industry groups say the chemical does not need any more restriction.

Of particular interest with the recent findings is the fact that in April the EPA approved the use of Dow AgroScience’s Enlist Duo herbicide which contains 2,4-D and glyphosate. Enlist Duo is part of a partnership between Monsanto and Dow known as the Enlist Weed Control system.

Monsanto has not released a statement on whether or not they will also convene a panel to study the IARC’s claims about 2,4-D.

 

Government Accountability, Health

EPA Will Study Effect of Glyphosate on Endangered Species

2 Comments

As part of a settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity, the Environmental Protection Agency will be forced to study the impacts of the two most commonly used herbicides on endangered plants and animals within the United States.

The Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit conservation organization dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places, filed a lawsuit with the EPA for not studying the effects of pesticides and herbicides on endangered species. The nonprofit also agreed to a settlement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requiring the agency to analyze impacts on endangered species across the country from five pesticides.

The EPA will now analyze the impacts of atrazine and glyphosate. The agency will complete the assessments by June 2020. Atrazine has been linked to an increased risk of birth defects. Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp, has also been called “probably carcinogenic” by the World Health Organization.

Brett Hartl, endangered species policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the settlement was “the first step to reining in the widespread use of dangerous pesticides that are harming both wildlife and people.”

“This settlement will finally force the EPA to consider the impacts of glyphosate — widely known as Roundup — which is the most commonly used pesticide in the United States, on endangered species nationwide,” said Hartl.

The EPA has not studied the ecological impacts of glyphosate since 1993.

In other herbicide news, the EPA also rejected a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), that was seeking a review of glyphosate “to prevent unreasonable adverse effects” to the monarch butterfly.

“The agency at this time has not determined that glyphosate causes unreasonable adverse effects to the monarch butterfly,” noted EPA in its response. The EPA highlighted the fact that President Obama recently launched the White House Pollinator Task Force Plan.

Agri-Pulse reports that the NRDC also sued the EPA in October in an attempt to block the approval of Monsanto and DOW’s Enlist Duo herbicide, which they say is also responsible for the loss of monarch butterflies. The product is a combination of glyphosate and another herbicide known as 2,4-D.

NRDC said in a statement that since 1993 use of glyphosate “has increased 10-fold, yet the agency has never considered the herbicide’s impact on monarchs.”

 

Government Corruption, Health

Another Popular Herbicide Ingredient ‘Possibly Causes Cancer’

1 Comment

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has found another popular herbicide “possibly” causes cancer in humans.

The weed killer 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, known as 2,4-D, is the latest herbicide to be linked to cancer just months after the IARC found that Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp herbicide, “probably” causes cancer. 

The IARC reviewed the latest scientific research before deciding to classify 2,4-D as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” a step below “probably carcinogenic”. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been receiving pressure to restrict or prohibit the use of 2,4-D, while some farm group and pesticide industry groups say the chemical does not need any more restriction.

Of particular interest with the recent findings is the fact that in April the EPA approved the use of Dow AgroScience’s Enlist Duo herbicide which contains 2,4-D and glyphosate. Enlist Duo is part of a partnership between Monsanto and Dow known as the Enlist Weed Control system. 

The weed controls system is the latest effort to combat the growing problem of so-called “super weeds” that have resulted from the abundant use of glyphosate-based herbicides. In order to fight off the tougher weeds, Dow and Monsanto partnered together to produce Enlist Duo.

At the time of the EPA’s approval of Enlist Duo, the Environmental Working Group condemned the decision, stating that it endangers humans, animals, and the environment. The USDA expects use of 2,4-D to increase by 200 to 600 percent by 2020.

The new herbicide works in conjunction with Genetically Modified Corn and Soybean seeds from Dow AgroSciences that are engineered to withstand both chemicals. Last fall the United States Department of Agriculture announced that it would approve the GE seeds.

Dow did not comment on the IARC classification of 2,4-D. The IARC said it chose “possibly” rather than “probably” because there was “inadequate evidence in humans and limited evidence in experimental animals” of ties between 2,4-D and cancer. The IARC said, “epidemiological studies did not find strong or consistent increases in risk of NHL (non-Hodgkin lymphoma) or other cancers in relation to 2,4-D exposure.”

Dana Loomis, a deputy section head for IARC, told Reuters the review showed mixed results, and that a “sizable minority” judged the evidence as stronger than others did.

The announcement comes just one month after 25 organizations representing farm workers, environment, and food safety organizations sent a letter to officials with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency calling for an investigation into claims that scientists are facing pressure and retaliation for research that presents the controversial neonicotinoid insecticide in a negative light.

The groups say they are concerned with a report from Reuters detailing threats to scientists who speak out about the dangers of the pesticide. These threats included suspension without pay, and threats of damage to careers. The scientists filed a petition in March asking for more protection

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility executive director Jeff Ruch told Common Dreams that the petition was “based on the experiences of 10 USDA scientists” who allegedly faced backlash for research on neonicotinoid insecticides and glyphosate, as well as other topics, including genetically modified crops.

Activism, Government Accountability, Government Corruption

Activists Prepare for 4th Global March Against Monsanto

Video 3 Comments

For the fourth time since 2013, the March Against Monsanto will take place in cities around the world. On May 23, 2015, concerned activists, urban farmers, and environmental activists will hit the streets of 428 cities spread across 38 countries.

The MAM movement was started in late 2012 in an effort to raise awareness to the potential dangers surrounding Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds, as well as the carcinogens present in the company’s top herbicide, Round-Up.

Within the decentralized protests there are a range of solutions offered. Some activists are taking part in campaigns calling for labeling of all food products that have been genetically engineered. Others are marching in support of community gardens and urban farms as a strategy to defeat Monsanto. There are even marchers that are in support of the technology but weary of the collusion between biotech companies and the government.

In September 2013 Ben Swann reported on Monsanto and Crony Capitalism:

Also, Truth In Media recently reported on a group of scientists blowing the whistle on corruption at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“On May 5, 25 organizations representing farm workers, environment, and food safety organizations sent a letter to officials with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency calling for an investigation into claims that scientists are facing pressure and retaliation for research that presents the controversial neonicotinoid insecticide in a negative light.

The groups say they are concerned with a report from Reuters detailing threats to scientists who speak out about the dangers of the pesticide. These threats included suspension without pay, and threats of damage to careers. The scientists filed a petition in March asking for more protection:

Jeff Ruch, executive director with the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, told Common Dreams that the petition was “based on the experiences of 10 USDA scientists” who allegedly faced backlash for research on neonicotinoid insecticides and glyphosate, an ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide, as well as other topics, including genetically modified crops.”

The letter highlights two issues with Monsanto. First, the increase in Genetically Engineered crops from Monsanto and other biotech companies has led to an increase in the use of pesticides and herbicides. Second, one of these herbicides is Monsanto’s Round-Up, which contains glyphosate.

Earlier this year the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a report in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides. The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985. The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

Monsanto Co. said the study was based on “junk science” and at odds with the global consensus on glyphosate. The scientists are standing by the work. Aaron Blair, a scientist emeritus at the National Cancer Institute and lead author of the study, told Reuters, “There was sufficient evidence in animals, limited evidence in humans and strong supporting evidence showing DNA mutations and damaged chromosomes.”

In 2014 Anti-Media reported on a study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health which claims to have found a link between glyphosate and the fatal Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown origin (CKDu), which largely affects rice farmers in Sri Lanka and other nations. In response Sri Lanka has banned glyphosate and Brazil is considering doing the same.

Sri Lanka’s Minister of Special Projects S.M. Chandrasena stated that President Mahinda Rajapaksa issued a directive to ban glyphosate sales in the country. “An investigation carried out by medical specialists and scientists have revealed that kidney disease was mainly caused by glyphosate. President Mahinda Rajapaksa has ordered the immediate removal of glyphosate from the local market soon after he was told of the contents of the report.”

There is a growing resistance to Monsanto. Following the revelations from the WHO, a union of 30,000 doctors and health professionals announced efforts to eliminate the use of glyphosate-based herbicides.

“There’s no question that March Against Monsanto is the most powerful grassroots initiative we have in the fight to reclaim our food supply from the GMO seed juggernaut known as the Monsanto Company,” said Anthony Gucciardi, March Against Monsanto speaker and founder of the natural health website NaturalSociety.com.

“With the new admission by the World Health Organization that Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup is causing cancer worldwide, now is the most important time to join the movement and take a stand.”

What are your thoughts on Genetically Engineered foods? What do you think about Monsanto? Leave your thoughts below.

March Against Monsanto protests will begin May 23rd with extensive physical protests and related online coverage throughout the day on news media platforms as well as www.March-Against-Monsanto.com.

Government Accountability, Health, US

UPDATE: Environmental Protection Agency May Begin Testing Food For Glyphosate Residue

6 Comments

Following a recent study which found the popular herbicide Glyphosate  ‘probably’ causes cancer, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has stated they may begin testing food for residue of the product.

On Friday the EPA released a statement to Reuters discussing the possible changes.

“Given increased public interest in glyphosate, EPA may recommend sampling for glyphosate in the future.”

The move comes after a study in March by the World Health Organization‘s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The IARC published a report in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides. The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985. The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

Glyphosate is not only the most widely-used herbicide, it is a key ingredient in Bio-Tech giant Monsanto’s popular RoundUp products. Reuters reports that Philip Miller, Monsanto’s vice-president of global regulatory affairs, was unsure “how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.” The corporation says scientific data does not match the claims and called for an emergency meeting between Monsanto and WHO officials.

However, WHO scientists say they stand behind their assessment. Aaron Blair, a scientist emeritus at the National Cancer Institute and lead author of the study, told Reuters, “There was sufficient evidence in animals, limited evidence in humans and strong supporting evidence showing DNA mutations and damaged chromosomes.”

The battle around glyphosate is also closely linked to the debate around Genetically Engineered or Modified foods. The herbicide is typically used on GM crops such as corn and soybeans that have been specifically modified to survive the harmful effects of the herbicide. Corporations like Monsanto are heavily invested in the success of the chemical. The herbicide has been found in food, water, and in the air in areas where it has been sprayed.

Currently, the EPA tests thousands of food for pesticide residues, but does not test for glyphosate. This is because the EPA, and the European Union, believe glyphosate to be safe. The agency also told Reuters that the decision to test depends on the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its Pesticide Data Program. However, Peter Wood, spokesman for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, told Reuters that the “EPA makes the determination which commodities and pesticides are tested.” Until the WHO study, the EPA was unwilling to believe glyphosate might be harmful and previously said the chemical did not pose a risk to human health.

What are your thoughts? Is the fear of glyphosate and Monsanto legitimate? Is it unnecessary?

Health, Opinion

World Health Organization: Monsanto’s RoundUp ‘Probably’ Causes Cancer

5 Comments

The cancer research agency of the World Health Organization has stated the world’s most popular herbicide “probably” causes cancer in humans, as well DNA and chromosomal damage.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a report in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides. The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985. The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

Glyphosate is not only the most widely-used herbicide, it is a key ingredient in Bio-Tech giant Monsanto’s popular RoundUp products. Reuters reports that Philip Miller, Monsanto’s vice-president of global regulatory affairs, was unsure “how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.” The corporation says scientific data does not match the claims and called for an emergency meeting between Monsanto and WHO officials.

The battle around glyphosate is also closely linked to the debate around Genetically Engineered or Modified foods. The herbicide is typically used on GM crops such as corn and soybeans that have been specifically modified to survive the harmful effects of the herbicide. Corporations like Monsanto are heavily invested in the success of the chemical. The herbicide has been found in food, water, and in the air in areas where it has been sprayed.

In 2014 Anti Media reported on a study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health claims to have found a link between glyphosate and the fatal Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown origin (CKDu), which largely affects rice farmers in Sri Lanka and other nations. In response Sri Lanka has banned glyphosate and Brazil is considering doing the same.

Sri Lanka’s Minister of Special Projects S.M. Chandrasena stated that President Mahinda Rajapaksa issued a directive to ban glyphosate sales in the country. “An investigation carried out by medical specialists and scientists have revealed that kidney disease was mainly caused by glyphosate. President Mahinda Rajapaksa has ordered the immediate removal of glyphosate from the local market soon after he was told of the contents of the report.”

The researchers believe glyphosate could be helping carry toxic heavy metals present in certain agri-chemicals to the kidneys. Chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology (CKDu)  was first seen in the north central areas of Sri Lanka in the 1990s and has taken an estimated 20,000 lives. Before being purchased by Monsanto for use as herbicide, glyphosate was a de-scaling agent to clean mineral deposits in hot water systems.

Although the paper did not offer new scientific evidence, the researchers proposed a theory for how CKDu is spread. The researchers believe that glyphosate is contributing to a rise of heavy metals in drinking water. Dr. Channa Jayasumana, lead author of the study said, “glyphosate acts as a carrier or a vector of these heavy metals to the kidney.”  Glyphosate itself is not the toxic agent, however when combined with metals in the ground water the herbicide becomes extremely toxic to the kidneys.

In recent years there has been a spike in CKD patients in farming areas of El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica.

The Minister stated that a new national program would be launched encouraging Sri Lankan farmers to use organic fertilizer. The Ministry of Agriculture is hoping to plant 100,000 acres of land throughout the country using organic fertilizer.

Monsanto spokesman Thomas Helscher stated,“There are no epidemiologic studies suggesting that exposures to glyphosate-based products are associated with renal disorders either in Sri Lanka or elsewhere. The paper presents a theory, the theory has not been tested, and there are a significant number of publications supported by data that make the Jayasumana hypothesis quite unlikely to be correct.” Despite promises from Monsanto, the evidence indicating dangers related to glyphosate continue to pile up.

With the USDA’s decision late last year to approve a new batch of genetically modified corn and soybean seeds designed to combat glyphosate, we should expect to see an increase in herbicide use overall, and with it, many disastrous health effects. In fact, the approval by the USDA now partners DOW Chemical and Monsanto together, a move which will only further entrench the control that corporate entities have over governments.

This post has been updated to identify glyphosate as an herbicide.

Politics

Food Activists Concerned: Monsanto acquires “big data” company Climate Corporation

10 Comments

On Wednesday, Monsanto announced its plan to purchase the climate data company, Climate Corporation.  The controversial biotech giant claims that this will help the company in its goal to help farmers maximize production using a minimum of natural resources, and with an eye to climate change, which the company has spoken against since 2009.  In fact, the merger represents yet another step in the centralization of the agriculture industry.

Climate Corp., was founded by a group of engineers from companies like Google, and funded by Google Ventures, the Founders Fund, Index Ventures and others.  The company got its start collecting vast amounts of localized climate data and using that to provide information and weather insurance to farmers, house painters, and other people whose professions relied on the weather.  It will continue these and other services with Monsanto.

Monsanto will use Climate Corp.’s data to create online and mobile device information which will tell farmers when, how deep, and how far apart to plan their crops for maximum productivity.  They predict that this will help increase productivity by up to 7%.  The company would also ask farmers to share data about their own farms so they can provide customized recommendations.

The combination of data collection about individual farms and farmers, as well as software and mobile technology combines with Monsanto’s already vast political and economic presence in the agriculture industry.  The company has already come under scrutiny, not only for its genetically modified seeds, but also for its ruthless and corrupt business practices.  In recent years, the company has been protected from lawsuits regarding health problems and sued farmers whose organic crops it had contaminated.  Numerous “Monsanto Protection Acts” have emerged at both the state and federal levels.

Other government actions have also helped to damage small American farms, both organic and not, in recent years.  Estate taxes, for instance, render it virtually impossible to pass family farms down from one generation to the next.  Increasing government regulations, such as those preventing farmers’ children from working on the farm, requiring commercial drivers’ licenses, and even tax changes in Obamacare have all helped to push farming toward a corporatized state by making family farms virtually impossible to sustain.

Monsanto’s actions and growing influence are only helping to solidify that trend.  Along with organic food advocates, anyone who opposes crony capitalism, corruption and corporatization of traditionally family-based industries must oppose the growth of Monsanto.  Climate Corp. executives also expressed the hope that the merger would allow for more to be done to create “sustainable” farming practices, whether or not those practices are truly helpful for people, animals, or the environment.

Monsanto’s purchase of Climate Corporation illustrates a few things.  It is a facet of the ever more centralized and corporatized agriculture industry.  It shows the connections of large industries to each other, and combined with prior knowledge of Monsanto and other corporations’ connections to government, perfectly represents the relationship between corporations and government which effectively eliminate the say of American citizens in matters as personal as what we eat.

monsanto activists

Three activists taking part in an anti-Monsanto protest were arrested by Capitol Police after dumping bags of money on the floor of the atrium to the Senate’s Heart building.

US

Oregon passes the “Monsanto Protection Act”

394 Comments

This week, Oregon passed SB 633, known by many as the Monsanto Protection Act, in a special legislative session.

The act would prevent local governments from enacting or enforcing any measures which regulate agricultural, flower, nursery and vegetable seeds or their products.  Essentially, it would prevent counties and municipalities from banning GMO crops.  The Oregon Farm Bureau claims that this is because it does not want local governments to be able to elevate some farming practices over others.

The effect of the bill, however, is the elevation of GMO farming over regular farming and organic farming.  Cross pollination of GMO crops to organic crops can lead to contamination of both produce and seeds, leading to massive monetary losses for organic companies and family farms, as well as unreliable organic produce for consumers.  Oregon is the country’s fifth highest organic producer, and is home to some of the country’s main organic seed companies.

gmos

Local governments should be able to protect their constituents from this economic impact, product contamination and, as many believe, health risk.  The Monsanto Protection Act would infringe on the rights of local governments and their constituents.  GMO crops shouldn’t be banned nationally, or even on the state level, but food activists believe that an organic community seeking to prevent Monsanto or another biotech company from moving in and damaging their crops should have this right.

This is made even more important in light of an appeals court ruling last June.  Monsanto had filed 144 patent infringement lawsuits against organic farmers between 1997 and 2010.  It claimed that the farmers had used its seed without paying the required royalties, while the farmers said that their fields were inadvertently contaminated without their knowledge.  Monsanto should probably have paid damages to those farmers, but instead, it sued them for patent infringement and won.

The farmers appealed their case to the Supreme Court in September.  Also in September, the federal “Farmer Assurance Provision,” also referred to as a “Monsanto Protection Act,” expired and was not renewed.  The provision – attached to the March 28 emergency spending bill – prevented the government from halting the sale and planting of GMO seeds while the USDA was in the process of reviewing their safety.  It also, however, offered Monsanto immunity from federal courts with regards to those very experimental crops.

Oregon’s Monsanto Protection Act is not only the latest example of government protection of biotech corporations at the expense of small-scale farmers and individuals.  It also connects with other legal issues and legislation to take away the ability of organic farmers to oppose the company.

The issue of Monsanto is not an illustration of the problems with free markets, it’s an illustration of the problems which arise when corporations and government are too closely connected.

Ben Swann questioned this close connection last week stating, “Monsanto’s influence over food supply is troubling. Their ability to seemingly prevent GMO labeling is also troubling. Their connections with people like Mike Taylor who have the ability to control what does and does not show up on our families tables, sure smells like crony capitalism.” See article here.

 

Government Accountability, Swann TV, Truth In Media Episodes, US, Videos

Is Monsanto America’s Best Example of Crony Capitalism?

Video 124 Comments

Transcript:

It is a name that Americans are hearing more and more, Monsanto.

An agriculture company that has become connected to the term GMO’s. So what is Monsanto? What exactly are GMO’s? and why are people so up in arms about a company that grows food?

And the big question, is Monsanto one of the best examples of America’s crony capitalist system?

The first step toward truth is to inform.

If the name Monsanto is not familiar to you, lets get you caught up.

According to Monsanto’s website,

“Monsanto is a sustainable agriculture company. We deliver agricultural products that support farmers all around the world. We are focused on empowering farmers—large and small—to produce more from their land while conserving more of our world’s natural resources such as water and energy. We do this with our leading seed brands in crops like corn, cotton, oilseeds and fruits and vegetables.”

Sounds pretty good.

In short, Monsanto is company that among other things, produces the herbicide roundup. But the controversy surrounding Monsanto begins with their development of genetically modified seeds or GMOs that are called “round up ready”. Round up ready crops are reportedly more resistant to weed killer and insects.

According to Natural News, a growing body of evidence does connect GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights.

According to professor John Fagan, an award winning geneticist:

“The process of genetic engineering always involves the risk of altering the genetics and cellular functioning of a food organism in unanticipated ways. These unanticipated alterations can result in (GMO) foods being allergenic, toxic, or reduced in nutritional value”. – Professor John Fagan, Maharishi University of Management, Iowa

Concerns like those have pushed millions worldwide into the streets to protest Monsanto and their GMOs. In May 2013, two million people in over 50 countries expressed outrage over a number of issues surrounding Monsanto.

The first issue with Monsanto is the safety of those GMOs. But there is more.
While there is growing concern over the safety of GMOs, the United States for all of the requirements placed on the food industry, requires no GMO food labeling.

Whether you agree or disagree on whether or not GMO’s are dangerous, 64 other countries require GMO labeling. Again, the United states does not. Could it be that most Americans just don’t care? Actually no. Despite the lack of political will on this issue, a poll, conducted earlier this year by The New York Times found that three-quarters of Americans are concerned about the number of genetically modified or engineered foods. What’s more, a staggering 93% support mandatory labeling of GMO foods.

So to recap, first, there is the concern over GMOs. Second the concerns over labeling and third, there is the issue of Monsanto holding a patent on all of its seeds.

Monsanto explains on their website the need for that patents saying,

“Monsanto patents many of the seed varieties we develop. Patents are necessary to ensure that we are paid for our products and for all the investments we put into developing these products. This is one of the basic reasons for patents. … Monsanto invests more than $2.6 million per day in research and development that ultimately benefits farmers and consumers. Without the protection of patents, this would not be possible.”
You see, when a farmer purchases these genetically modified seeds from Monsanto, they sign a signed a licensing agreement promising to use all the seed and not to use any regenerated seed for future.

So to recap… the issues with Monsanto, questions about the safety of GMOs are out there though we should be clear. there are those who argue that GMO’s are perfectly safe and no issues with consuming them. There are questions about labeling. Regardless of whether GMOs are good or bad shouldn’t the public have the right to know what they are putting in their bodies and have the right to consume or walk away? And questions about the ability of a corporation to be able to patent seeds, preventing farmers from replanting crops without paying a fee?

Ben Swann Monsanto Reality Check

What you need to know, is that all those questions may actually be secondary to this one, is the biggest problem with a company like Monsanto its relationship with government?

In the early 1990’s the FDA took a look at these genetically modified foods. There were a lot of concerns including tests that showed rats were developing stomach lesions from the Genetically modified tomatoes they were fed. According to Jeffery Smith at the Huffington Post, in memo after memo, these experts “described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens,”

So what changed? In 1994 the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service hired a new administrator, Mike Taylor.

Taylor had worked for the FDA in the 1970’s and then in the 1980’s he became a private sector lawyer for a firm that represented Monsanto.

In 1994 Taylor takes over the FSIS and remains in that post until 1996.
1996, GMO foods began showing up on plates in American homes.

After 1996 Mike Taylor goes back into the private sector and goes to work for Monsanto itself.

For the next 16 months he works directly for the company.

In 2009 returns to the public sector now leading the food side of the FDA.

In fairness, Mike Taylor says he is not Monsanto’s man. That claims that he is bought and paid for could not be further from the truth.

In fairness, I don’t know if that is true or not. What I do know is that regardless of whether or not its true the revolving door of government and private sector and the advantages big corporations have in the system is undeniable.

Monsanto’s influence over food supply is troubling. Their ability to seemingly prevent GMO labeling also troubling. Their connections with people like Mike Taylor who have the ability to control what does and does not show up on our families tables, sure smells like crony capitalism

and that is Reality Check.

Sources:
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037678_michael_taylor_monsanto_fda.html#ixzz2bymPGQf3

http://www.pubpat.org/monsanto-seed-patents.htm
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/1notes