California Free Press

New Study Raises Alarm About Exposure to Glyphosate Pesticides at Levels the EPA Claims Are "Safe"

Published on Wednesday, May 16, 2018 by Common Dreams

"These early warnings must be further investigated," said one researcher, espeically "given the planet-wide use of the glyphosate-based herbicides."

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer

 

10 Comments

Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, is the most heavily-used agricultural chemical in history. (Photo: Mike Mozart/Flickr/cc)

A new study on glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup—one of the world's most widely used weedkillers—is fueling persistent concerns about the pesticide's impact on sexual development, genotoxicity, and intestinal bacteria, even when exposure is limited to a level currently considered "safe" by U.S. regulators.

"What your average consumer needs to know is that there's absolutely no scientific evidence backing up the EPA's claims of 'safe levels.'"
—Katherine Paul, Organic Consumers Association/span>

While the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization (WHO), and California have classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, U.S. and European regulators have continued to authorize farmers to use it, and Republicans in Congress have even threatened to cut off funding to the WHO over the issue.

Researchers at the Ramazzini Institute in Italy collaborated with experts from the U.S. and Europe to conduct the new crowdfunded pilot study, which will be detailed in three peer-reviewed papers set to be published in the journal Environmental Health later this month. They exposed rats to glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) in drinking water at the "safe" level set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over a three-month period, "starting from prenatal life until 13 weeks after weaning."

"The results show that GBHs—even at doses deemed safe and over a relatively short exposure time (which in human-equivalent terms correspond from embryo life to 18 years of age)—are able to alter certain important biological parameters, markers chiefly relating to sexual development, genotoxicity, and alteration of the intestinal microbiome...especially in females," according to the study's website.

Daniele Mandrioli, associate director of the institute's cancer research center, explained to the Guardian that this "shouldn't be happening," and noted that in humans, "disruption of the microbiome has been associated with a number of negative health outcomes, such as obsesity, diabetes, and immunological problems."

Philip J. Landrigan, a member of the study's research team and a professor at New York's Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, expressed worries that glyphosate may pose a long-term cancer risk "that might affect a huge number of people, given the planet-wide use of the glyphosate-based herbicides."

Acknowledging that "by its very nature and purpose, the pilot study does not resolve the uncertainties puzzling the various agencies," Landrigan concluded that "these early warnings must be further investigated in a comprehensive long-term study."

Consumer advocates in the U.S. also responded with calls for further studies, pointing out that "there have been no long-term, peer-reviewed studies of the potential health impact of glyphosate exposure at levels lower than the EPA's guidelines."

"This new pilot study confirms what many responsible scientists have been saying all along: There is no such thing as 'safe' levels when it comes to glyphosate, especially when it comes to children," remarked Ronnie Cummins, international director of the U.S.-based Organic Consumers Association (OCA), which supports the testing food products—including Ben & Jerry's ice cream—for levels of glyphosate.

"What your average consumer needs to know is that there's absolutely no scientific evidence backing up the EPA's claims of 'safe levels,'" OCA U.S. director Katherine Paul told Common Dreams. "So when Ben & Jerry's says it doesn't matter that there's glyphosate in their ice cream—because the levels are beneath EPA guidelines—that's total bunk."

Meanwhile, Monsanto—which has tried to influence scientific health reports about Roundup—maintains that "there is no link between glyphosate and cancer," and accused the Ramazzini Institute of being "an activist organization with an agenda." The institute has supported the study of cancer for more than two decades and, according to its website, its top priorities are conducting scientific research, performing early diagnosis, and spreading information about "environmental toxic and carcinogenic risks."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

Now the Brits Have to Eat Chlorinated Chicken

by John Lawrence, April 18, 2018

One of the consequences of dropping out of the EU is that Britain is no longer protected by EU restrictions on American food products. It seems that American farmers have been washing their dead chickens in water containing chlorine in order to get rid of pathogens such as salmonella and e coli. Little did we Americans know that we are eating chlorinated chicken but the European Commission has regulations against that because ingesting the chlorine over time may cause cancer.

Here's what the UK Independent had to say:

US farms are allowed to dip or wash chicken carcasses in water containing chlorine dioxide in order to kill potentially harmful organisms such as E coli, campylobacter and Salmonella on the surface of the meat. This happens after animals have been slaughtered and before the meat is packaged.

The process is known as pathogen reduction treatment (PRT) in the industry. Other chemicals are also used instead of chlorine dioxide with the most common being acidified sodium chlorite, trisodium phosphate and peroxyacids. Meat besides poultry can also be treated.

Now since the UK is not protected by EU regulations they are going to be forced to eat chlorinated chicken as part of a trade deal with the US. The argument by British authorities is that chlorinated chicken will not hurt anybody. Look, Americans have been eating it for years! Yes, and Americans have been experiencing rising cancer rates for years as American authorities deregulate anything that does not favor corporations and the heck with American consumers. Think of that next time you eat Kentucky Fried Chicken or McNuggets. All that chlorinated chicken is, of course, sold to fast food restaurants as well as super markets. At least super markets are also selling organic chicken now so all the chlorine laced, pesticide lace, chicken loaded with artificial flavorings and other ingredients is mainly going to fast food places. Tastes good though.

In 2008, the Council of Europe rejected a European Commission proposal to allow the use of antimicrobial chicken rinses containing chlorine, which it said can, “lead to the formation of chloroorganic compounds, several of which are persistent, bioaccumulable or carcinogenic”. In other words the compounds can cause cancer, are hard to get rid of and have a tendency to build up over time when repeatedly absorbed by living in organisms.

The aforementioned 2008 Council of Europe decision said that washing chicken with chlorine, “can pose a risk to the aquatic environment, the health of staff working in waste water systems and the operation and performance of sewerage systems and/or wastewater treatment plants”.

All member countries voted against the proposal to allow the practice, apart from the UK, which said it needed more time to consider its position.

You see the EU actually does care about its consumers while the US could care less. Besides how would oncologists and cancer researchers make a living if Americans ate healthy organic foods instead of foods laced with carcinogens.

In 2014, an investigation by the respected independent US non-profit organisation, Consumer Reports, found that 97 per cent of 300 chicken breasts it tested from across America contained harmful bacteria including Salmonella, campylobacter and E.Coli.

A 2013 study by the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control - the US federal health protection agency - analysed outbreaks of foodborne illnesses between 1998 and 2008 and found that “more deaths were attributable to poultry than any other commodity”.

More than half of the samples in the Consumer Reports study contained fecal contaminants and a similar amount harboured at least one bacterium that was resistant to three or more commonly prescribed antibiotics.

See we Americans are tough. We don't give a rat's ass about the environment, we eat pesticides, herbicides and fossil fuels for breakfast and we develop miracle cures for cancer that only cost $100,000 a year. So only millionaires and billionaires can afford it. The rich will live and the poor will die. So be it; the market has decreed. After all aren't they the best people? Don't they deserve the best treatment. They are the movers and shakers who have contributed amazing inventions and products to the market place. I mean, intellectual property alone is worth billions. Look at the products we couldn't live without like Facebook and SnapChat. These are the people that deserve to live while peons like Joe Blow, if they can't come up with the money, it's just that they will have to suffer their fate: benign neglect or maybe hospice, certainly not Frederick Manor.

The Bayer-Monsanto Merger Is Bad News for the Planet

by Ellen Brown, from truthdig, April 3, 2018

A Monsanto office in Enkhuizen, Netherlands. (Karen Eliot / Wikimedia)

Two new studies from Europe show that the number of birds in agricultural areas of France has crashed by a third in just 15 years, with some species being almost eradicated. The collapse in the bird population mirrors the discovery last October that more than three quarters of all flying insects in Germany have vanished in just three decades. Insects are the staple food source of birds, the pollinators of fruits and the aerators of the soil.

The chief suspect in this mass extinction is the aggressive use of neonicotinoid pesticides, particularly imidacloprid and clothianidin, both made by the Germany-based chemical giant Bayer. These pesticides, along with toxic glyphosate herbicides such as Roundup, have delivered a one-two punch to monarch butterflies, honeybees and birds. But rather than banning these toxic chemicals, on March 21 the EU approved the $66 billion merger of Bayer and Monsanto, the U.S. agribusiness giant that produces Roundup and the genetically modified (GMO) seeds that have reduced seed diversity globally. The merger will make the Bayer-Monsanto conglomerate the largest seed and pesticide company in the world, giving it enormous power to control farm practices, putting private profits over the public interest.

As Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren noted in a speech in December at the Open Markets Institute, massive companies are merging into market-dominating entities that invest a share of their profits in lobbying and financing political campaigns, shaping the political system to their own ends. She called on the Trump administration to veto the Bayer-Monsanto merger, which is still under antitrust scrutiny and has yet to be approved in the U.S.

A 2016 survey of Trump’s voter base found that more than half disapproved of the Monsanto-Bayer merger, fearing it would result in higher food prices and higher costs for farmers. Before 1990, there were 600 or more small, independent seed businesses globally, many of them family-owned. By 2009, only about 100 survived, and seed prices had more than doubled. But reining in these powerful conglomerates is more than just a question of economics. It may be a question of the survival of life on this planet.

While Bayer’s neonicotinoid pesticides wipe out insects and birds, Monsanto’s glyphosate has been linked to more than 40 human diseases, including cancer. Its seeds have been genetically modified to survive this toxic herbicide, but the plants absorb it into their tissues. In the humans who eat the plants, glyphosate disrupts the endocrine system and the balance of gut bacteria, damages DNA and is a driver of cancerous mutations. Researchers summarizing a 2014 study of glyphosates in the Journal of Organic Systems linked them to the huge increase in chronic diseases in the United States, with the percentage of GMO corn and soy planted in the U.S. showing highly significant correlations with hypertension, stroke, diabetes, obesity, lipoprotein metabolism disorder, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C, end stage renal disease, acute kidney failure, cancers of the thyroid, liver, bladder, pancreas, kidney and myeloid leukaemia. But regulators have turned a blind eye, captured by corporate lobbyists and a political agenda that has more to do with power and control them protecting the health of the people.

The Trump administration has already approved a merger between former rivals Dow and DuPont, and has signed off on the takeover of Swiss pesticide giant Syngenta by ChemChina. If Monsanto-Bayer gets approved as well, just three corporations will dominate the majority of the world’s seed and pesticide markets, giving them enormous power to continue poisoning the planet at the expense of its inhabitants.

Off the Top of My Head

Glyphosate in Organic Wine and German Beer

by John Lawrence, April 3, 2018

Moms Across America recently tested wines and beers for Monsanto's Roundup (glyphosate) and found that there were substantial quantities in all kinds of wines from Napa Valley, even organic wines. They even found it in German beer which prides itself on its purity! Glyphosate is a carcinogen. Rather than spend millions trying to figure out a cure for cancer, why not simply get at the causes of cancer, one of which undoubtedly is Monsanto's glyphosate which is ubiquitous in crops even crops that had not been directly sprayed with the stuff.

The highest conventional wine test result for glyphosate was 28 times higher than the glyphosate levels found in the organic and biodynamic wines. Biodynamic wines are wines made employing biodynamic methods both to grow the fruit and during the post-harvest processing. Biodynamic wine production uses organic farming methods (e.g. employing compost as fertilizer and avoiding most pesticides) while also employing soil supplements prepared according to Rudolf Steiner's formulas, following a planting calendar that depends upon astronomical configurations, and treating the earth as "a living and receptive organism."

This is from the Moms Across America website:

Because Roundup/glyphosate is not permitted on organic or biodynamic vineyards, the results are unexpected and can only be explained by the drift of chemical sprays from neighboring vineyards. This could mean legal ramifications for the contamination and devaluation of another company’s product.

Zen Honeycutt, Director of Moms Across America, states “We have recently learned that the detection of glyphosate is an indicator of the presence of many other co-formulants in glyphosate-based herbicides which, combined, are 1000 times more toxic than glyphosate alone. French scientist Gilles-Éric Seralini and his team have also discovered that these co-formulants are also endocrine hormone disruptors, which can lead to breast cancer, miscarriages, birth defects and many other health issues. There should be zero glyphosate and related chemicals in our wine, food or personal products.”

Consumers may wonder how Roundup/glyphosate is getting into their wine. Roundup/glyphosate is sprayed every year in conventional vineyards. A 1-2 ft strip is sprayed on either side of the grape vines which are planted in rows, to kill weeds when the vines are dormant in late winter or early spring. According to plant pathologist, Don Huber from Purdue University, the vine stems are inevitably sprayed in this process and the Roundup is likely absorbed through the roots and bark of the vines from where it is translocated into the leaves and grapes.

All the wines tested were from the Napa Valley, Sonoma and Mendocino County areas. According to the CA Dept of Health, breast cancer rates in the Sonoma, Napa and Mendocino counties is 10 to 20 percent higher than the national average. 700 lawsuits are currently pending against Monsanto for the connection between non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and Roundup.

Currently the FDA does not require end product testing or labeling for pesticides. Therefore the public is unable to know the type or amount of any pesticides that are present in the wines.

Moms Across America and other groups call for the protection of organic and biodynamic brands, farm workers and consumers by requesting that all food producers STOP spraying toxic chemicals on their crops.

In the Trump era fat chance anything will be done to curb the growing presence of herbicide Roundup in our diet. Cancer rates will probably continue to rise. Moms Across America probably does not have the lobbying presence in Washington that Monsanto has. Germans, however, will be outraged at this report.

California lists Roundup ingredient as a chemical linked to cancer; Monsanto vows to fight

by Geoffrey Mohan

from the LA Times, June 27, 2017

The main ingredient of the pesticide Roundup will be added to a list of chemicals that California believes are linked to cancer, and products that contain the compound will have to carry a warning label by next year.

That designation under the state’s Proposition 65 rules won’t keep the chemical, glyphosate, off fields or garden store shelves. That’s because the proposition does not set rules on how chemicals are used. It just requires a warning that ingredients are “known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects and other reproductive harm.”

Federal and state officials who can restrict or ban pesticides so far have said the chemical, one of the most widely used weed killers, has low toxicity and can safely be sprayed on food crops, gardens, parks and golf courses if users follow instructions.

Last year the federal Environmental Protection Agency decided glyphosate was not a carcinogen, setting off howls of protest from advocacy groups, and shifting their long-running battle with Monsanto to California.

continue reading

America's Largest Pension Fund Has Dumped a Fortune Into Monsanto Stock

by Zen Honeycutt from Alternet, May 17, 2017

Investing in a company that sells harmful products like the toxic herbicide Roundup is counter to CalPERS' mission

March Against Monsanto in Akron, Ohio (April 8, 2011). Photo Credit: Bill Baker/Flickr

I was recently informed by a former California public health employee, that CalPERS, the state's pension and health care fund, the largest in the nation, has invested $136 million in Monsanto.

As a California activist committed to healthy communities, I see this investment as a huge conflict of interest. For its health plan subscribers, the CalPERS mission to “advance the financial and health security” of the participants does not align with the detrimental effects of the toxic herbicide Roundup, Monsanto’s number-one product.

The day after finding out about this ill-advised investment, I sent a letter to CalPERS urging it to divest from Monsanto. It hasn't responded.

Concerned Californians should be outraged by this investment by CalPERS in Monsanto and the harm that inevitably impacts the very retirees CalPERS is responsible to protect.

We listed several items for the board to review which will hopefully initiate a decision by CalPERS to divest from any investment in Monsanto.

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization's cancer agency, deemed that glyphosate, Roundup's key ingredient, is a probable carcinogen. In addition to this, the California EPA decided that glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) like Roundup must be labeled as containing a carcinogen.

Roundup has been proven to cause liver disease at levels lower than what is allowed in our food. One out of 10 Americans now suffer from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Due to the spraying of this herbicide on crops as a drying agent and on GMO crops for weed control, glyphosate is now found in the majority of our food, streams, rain, tapwater and even our urine. It's also been detected in breast milk, vaccines and pregnant mothers.

Glyphosate is a patented antimicrobial, causing gut dysbiosis and inflammation, which can lead to diabetes, obesity, autoimmune diseases and dementia.

Glyphosate-based herbicides are also endocrine disruptors, which can lead to miscarriages, infertility and infant death. The U.S. has 50 percent more babies who die on the first day of life than all of the industrialized nations combined.

Glyphosate-based herbicides are also neurotoxins, which can lead to learning disabilities, mental illness, addiction, depression and even acts of violence. 1 in 6 U.S. children have developmental delays.

Glyphosate also acts a chelator, which causes mineral deficiency, which can lead to cancer.

According to the California State Department of Public Health, 1,382,200 people were diagnosed with cancer in 2014, and 155,920 Californians are diagnosed with new cases of cancer every year. This is equivalent to nearly 18 new cases every single hour.

Monsanto's products have also been shown to kill bees. One third of our nation's food is dependent on bees, many of which are now on the endangered list. Without California's agriculture industry, the United States will be unable to feed its own citizens. It's a matter of national security to divest from a company that manufactures chemicals that kill bees.

It is critical to inform and educate all investors in Monsanto of the dangers of glyphosate in their food and the environment. In the past, my organization, Moms Across America, has sent over 100 letters to the top hedge fund investors of Monsanto requesting divestment. Investing in a company that causes tremendous harm to our country is immoral and self sabotaging.

We understand Monsanto was once considered a safe investment. But times have changed and new studies and discoveries have emerged. These new developments do not bode well for Monsanto. They are legitimate reasons for divesting.

Monsanto's Roundup and hundreds of other brands containing glyphosate will soon be labeled as carcinogens in California's Prop 65 list, according to a newly passed California state ruling.

An EPA staffer, Jess Rowland, has been accused of colluding with Monsanto to downgrade carcinogenic effects of glyphosate. And Monsanto has been accused of ghostwriting the Roundup cancer studies, which show "safety."

New studies show that Roundup causes liver disease and glyphosate-based herbicides are decisively linked to cancer in Argentina. Another study shows endocrine disruptors, such as those found in Roundup and glyphosate-based herbicides, are the major contributing factor to the drastic decline in the quality of men's sperm.

In a groundbreaking turn of events, Moms Across America has been informed that the EPA has confirmed that the National Toxicology Program will assess the final formulation of glyphosate-based herbicides and the EPA will take its assessment into consideration for its review and decision on whether to renew or revoke the license of glyphosate.

Investing in a company that sells toxic products is counter to CalPERS' mission. CalPERS should fully divest from Monsanto immediately.

Trump Administration OKs Pesticide That Hinders Children's Brain Development

by John Lawrence

Trump's Environment Protection Agency's chairman, Scott Pruitt, announced he was reversing an Obama era ban on Dow Chemical's chlorpyrofos pesticide which has been shown to have an adverse affect on children's brains. Even a tiny amount of the pesticide sprayed on food is detrimental to children, but Trump has demanded an end to regulations which hinder corporate profits. So children who eat food sprayed with this chemical will be subjected to a chemical which will be bad for their development. So a word to the wise for mothers: feed your children organic foods or you will be feeding your children poison from this and other pesticides, herbicides and other unnatural food additives which the Trump administration has given the green light to.

Mothers Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Eat Pesticides

More affluent families are already getting wise to the fact that foods which aren't organic are probably GMO foods which have been sprayed with toxic chemicals. Dow Chemical is a corporation that has Trump's ear because they wrote a million dollar check to underwrite Trump's inauguration festivities. Dow's chairman, Andrew Liveris, heads a White House manufacturing working group. Trump's attempts at deregulation will "make America great again" if your sole measure of greatness is corporate profits. If your measure of greatness is the health of your children, forget about it.

There will be a resultant two tier food group consisting of healthy organic foods and GMO foods which have been sprayed with Dow and Monsanto products. Guess which foods will be more expensive? Guess which foods the poor will largely consume because they can't afford organics? Fast food which is cheap will be mainly GMO foods which have been sprayed with cancer causing pesticides and herbicides. Restaurant foods, except those which have been specifically identified as organic, will also be larded with GMOs which have been given a generous dose of toxic substances. The only protection will be to buy organic and prepare foods at home. That way you know where they came from.

Mother Jones reported:

The pesticide in question, chlorpyrifos, is a nasty piece of work. It's an organophosphate, a class of bug killers that work by "interrupting the electrochemical processes that nerves use to communicate with muscles and other nerves," as the Pesticide Encyclopedia puts it. Chlorpyrifos is also an endocrine disrupter, meaning it can cause "adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects," according to the National Institutes of Health.

Major studies from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, the University of California-Davis, and Columbia University have found strong evidence that low doses of chlorpyrifos inhibits kids' brain development, including when exposure occurs in the womb, with effects ranging from lower IQ to higher rates of autism. Several studies—examples here, here, and here—have found it in the urine of kids who live near treated fields. In 2000, the EPA banned most home uses of the chemical, citing risks to children.

It will be up to mothers and fathers to do their own research and keep their kids away from these toxic foods. Those who don't will consume them at their own risk. Caveat Emptor. Isn't that the watchword of American capitalism? We don't want to live in a nanny state, do we, that protects its citizens at every turn especially at the expense of corporate profits?

Of course Dow and Monsant have hired their own scientists to write studies refuting the claims of the scientists who claim that chlorpyrifos, in particular, is detrimental to children's brains. And that can happen in utero as well so even before a child has set foot in the world, he or she may have absorbed a heapin' helpin' of toxicity depending on his or her mother's diet.

About a fifth of all the chlorpyrifos applied on US farms happens in California. There, the main target crops are alfalfa, almonds, pistachios, walnuts, tomatoes, and strawberries.

In other news:

Federal Scientists Have Identified Pesticides Which Are Harmful to 1800 Threatened Species

Dow Chemical wants the Trump administration to ignore these findings so they can proceed to sell this class of pesticides called organophosphates. Chemical corporations' profits will undoubtedly soar as a result of Trump's and Scott Pruitt's deregulations. Animals and people will suffer, but that will just be collateral damage. The important thing is the corporate bottom line, and these corporations might even hire a few more chemical engineers so the Job Creator-in-Chief will have his bragging rights over that as well as every other polluting industry that will be able to pollute to their hearts' content without having to pay for any clean-up or otherwise take precautions to keep the food supply, air and water clean and pure.

The Independent reported:

As with the recent human studies of chlorpyrifos, Dow hired its own scientists to produce a lengthy rebuttal to the government studies showing the risks posed to endangered species by organophosphates.

The EPA's recent biological evaluation of chlorpyrifos found the pesticide is “likely to adversely affect” 1,778 of the 1,835 animals and plants accessed as part of its study, including critically endangered or threatened species of frogs, fish, birds and mammals. Similar results were shown for malathion and diazinon.

In a statement, the Dow subsidiary that sells chlorpyrifos said its lawyers asked for the EPA's biological assessment to be withdrawn because its “scientific basis was not reliable.”

...

Originally derived from a nerve gas developed by Nazi Germany, chlorpyrifos has been sprayed on citrus fruits, apples, cherries and other crops for decades. It is among the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the United States, with Dow selling about 5 million pounds domestically each year.

As a result, traces of the chemical are commonly found in sources of drinking water. A 2012 study at the University of California at Berkeley found that 87 percent of umbilical-cord blood samples tested from newborn babies contained detectable levels of chlorpyrifos.

Childhood Cancer Increasing

Is it any wonder that there is an increase in childhood cancer? Envirohealth.net reports that especially childhood brain cancer is increasing. Maybe that's because chlorpyrifos has been found in umbilical cord samples. You think?

In the Trump era, it's up to you to protect the health of your family. Instead of the EPA reading the reports and the government taking action to ban toxic substances, you must take on that role yourselves. It's your decision. So inform yourselves and make your own decisions just like you have to with any other consumer product. It's a new era when you have to research what foods are acceptable for you and your family to eat and what foods are poisonous.

Recently Dow put out a statement:

"Dow AgroSciences is committed to the production and marketing of products that will help American farmers feed the world, and do so with full respect for human health and the environment, including endangered and threatened species." Yeah, right.

Why Stop There? Let's Let the Coal Industry Dump Refuse in Rivers

The Trumpster, in his effort to dismantle every Obama era effort to protect the environment persuaded the Senate, which didn't need much persuasion, to vote to reverse the Stream Protection Rule, which seeks to protect the nation’s waterways from debris generated by a practice called surface mining. The Interior Department had said the rule would protect 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forests by keeping coal mining debris away from nearby waters.

Stream restoration requirements would reduce human exposure to contaminants in the drinking water, and the probability of adverse health effects, according to a report released by the Congressional Research Service that laid out the environmental and health benefits of the rule. The replanting of trees also required by the rule would increase carbon storage and reduce emissions, aiding in the fight against climate change.

But Trump and his cohorts are barking up the wrong tree. Coal mining jobs are not coming back. Robots have taken over much of the drudge work. Utility companies have drastically reduced their reliance on coal with 300 coal-fired power plants closing since 2008. This industry is adopting self-driving trucks, automated loaders and automated drilling and tunnel-boring systems. It is also testing fully autonomous long-distance trains, which carry materials from the mine to a port, according to a report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

So coal miners, you better move on to other jobs like being a barista at Starbucks or asking "Would you like fries with that? at McDonalds.

Monsanto Polluted San Diego with PCBs and GMOs

by John Lawrence from the San Diego Free Press

PCBs Pervade San Diego Bay

A San Diego group of attorneys is suing Monsanto to get millions of dollars for remediation projects to clean up San Diego Bay. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) have been linked to cancer, neurological damage, thyroid problems and reproductive complications. Monsanto is all about the profits even when it has knowledge that what it's selling is poison. Cases have been filed in Federal Court in San Jose, Oakland and Spokane in addition to San Diego. Dozens more cities across America may soon follow suit.

Municipalities have been forced to shell out millions to clean up rivers, creeks and bays. It has been established that fishing in such places and consuming those fish is dangerous to human health. PCBs have shown up in breast milk and sea lions among other places. They are ubiquitous in our environment.

Monsanto marketed the PCBs under the trade name Aroclor. The chemicals accumulate in fish that are devoured by humans with the result that almost everybody who eats fish has a certain amount of PCBs in their system. PCBs were used in electrical equipment, highway paint, caulk and many other products. Monsanto's position is that, if their product was improperly disposed of, it was not their fault. Under California's public nuisance laws, however, a company may be held responsible if it knowingly marketed a product even though it knew it was hazardous.

Monsanto officials knew as early as 1969 that Aroclor was dangerous, but decided to keep manufacturing and marketing it anyway in order to increase profits. Their official discussions went so far as to say that Aroclor was likely a "global contaminant." Monsanto employees had thrown fish into a heavily contaminated creek and discovered that they started bleeding and losing their skin in about 10 seconds.

The Oakland city attorney said that the chemical giant "chose profits over people, and American cities and citizens are still suffering the consequences."

Robert Reich Nails Monsanto's Modus Operandi

In an excellent book, Saving Capitalism (For the Many, Not the Few), Robert Reich has a great section on Monsanto. I, therefore, give over the rest of this article to a quotation from this book:

Monsanto, the giant biotech corporation, owns the key genetic traits in more than 90 percent of the soybeans planted by farmers in the United States and 8o percent of the corn. Its monopoly grew out of a carefully crafted strategy. It patented its own genetically modified seeds, along with an herbicide that would kill weeds but not soy and corn grown from its seeds.

The herbicide and herbicide-resistant seeds initially saved farmers time and money. But the purchase came with a catch that would haunt them in the future: The soy and corn that grow from those seeds don't produce seeds of their own. So every planting season, farmers have to buy new seeds. In addition, if the farmers have any seeds left over, they must agree not to save and replant them in the future. In other words, once hooked, farmers have little choice but to become permanent purchasers of Monsanto seed. To ensure its dominance, Monsanto has prohibited seed dealers from stocking its competitors' seeds and has bought up most of the small remaining seed companies.

Not surprisingly, in less than fifteen years, most of America's commodity crop farmers have become dependent on Monsanto. The result has been higher prices far beyond the cost-of-living rise. Since 2001, Monsanto has more than doubled the price of corn and soybean seeds. The average cost of planting one acre of soybeans increased 325 percent between 1994 and 2011, and the price of corn seed rose 259 percent. Another result has been a radical decline in the genetic diversity of the seeds we depend on. This increases the risk that disease or climate change might wipe out entire crops for years, if not forever. A third consequence has been the ubiquity of genetically modified traits in our food chain. At every stage, Monsanto's growing economic power has enhanced its political power to shift the rules to its advantage, thereby adding to its economic power.

The Fight to Label GMOs

Beginning with the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970, and extending through a series of court cases, Monsanto has gained increased protection of its intellectual property in genetically engineered seeds. It has successfully fought off numerous attempts in Congress and in several states to require labeling of genetically engineered foods or to protect biodiversity. It has used its political muscle in Washington to fight moves in other nations to ban genetically engineered seed. To enforce and ensure dominance, the company has employed a phalanx of lawyers. They've sued other companies for patent infringement and sued farmers who want to save seed for replanting. Monsanto's lawyers have also prevented independent scientists from studying its seeds, arguing that such inquiries infringe the company's patents.

You might think Monsanto's overwhelming market power would make it a target of antitrust enforcement. Think again. In 2012, it succeeded in putting an end to a two-year investigation by the antitrust division of the Justice Department into Monsanto's dominance of the seed industry. Monsanto has the distinction of spending more on lobbying—nearly $7 million in 2013 alone—than any other big agribusiness. And Monsanto's former (and future) employees frequently inhabit top posts at the Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department, they staff congressional committees that deal with agriculture policy, and they become advisors to congressional leaders and at the White House. Two Monsanto lobbyists are former congressman Vic Fazio and former senator Blanche Lincoln. Even Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas was at one time an attorney for Monsanto. Monsanto, like any new monopoly, has strategically used its economic power to gain political power and used its political power to entrench its market power.

It's useful to view the strategy of the new monopolists as integrating economic and political dominance. They acquire key patents and then spend vast sums protecting them and charging others with patent infringement. In addition, they use mandatory licensing agreements to require potential competitors to use whole lines of their products and prevent customers from using competing products, thereby creating de facto industry standards. Favorable court rulings, advantageous laws, and administrative decisions to forgo antitrust lawsuits or bring them against competitors extend these de facto standards to entire sectors of the economy. [end quote]

And so, dear reader, we live in a world in which large corporations feel free to pollute and despoil the environment including the food we eat because they have not only market dominance but because they have political dominance as well. The revolving door between government and corporations swings ever so easily, the hinges are well lubricated. Congresspersons and their staff have easy access to lucrative jobs once they have established their contacts on the inside. They just have to lobby their old friends on behalf of Monsanto and other large corporations giving them a free license to pollute and purvey dangerous products. The hallmark of these products is not that they will kill you immediately like the poor fish that Monsanto employees threw into a PCB polluted river, but that the symptoms will show up as cancer and other related diseases years later when Monsanto can no longer be linked to those outcomes.

More Bad News for Monsanto

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA), IFOAM International Organics, Navdanya, Regeneration International (RI), and Millions Against Monsanto, joined by dozens of global food, farming and environmental justice groups announced December 4th, 2015 that they will put Monsanto on trial for crimes against nature and humanity, and ecocide, in The Hague, Netherlands, next year on World Food Day, October 16, 2016.

Vandana Shiva, physicist, author, activist and founder of Navdanya, and member of the RI Steering Committee said: “Monsanto has pushed GMOs in order to collect royalties from poor farmers, trapping them in unpayable debt, and pushing them to suicide. Monsanto promotes an agro-industrial model that contributes at least 50 percent of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Monsanto is also largely responsible for the depletion of soil and water resources, species extinction and declining biodiversity, and the displacement of millions of small farmers worldwide.”

Andre Leu, president of IFOAM and a member of the RI Steering Committee, said: “Monsanto is able to ignore the human and environmental damage caused by its products, and maintain its devastating activities through a strategy of systemic concealment: by lobbying regulatory agencies and governments, by resorting to lying and corruption, by financing fraudulent scientific studies, by pressuring independent scientists, and by manipulating the press and media. Monsanto’s history reads like a text-book case of impunity, benefiting transnational corporations and their executives, whose activities contribute to climate and biosphere crises and threaten the safety of the planet.”

Get set for an epic battle between a corporation that is destroying the planet and those who are pushing back against this monstrous corporate behemoth.

Glyphosate, Favored Chemical of Monsanto & Dow, Declared 'Probable' Source of Cancer for Humans

Published on

Monday, March 23, 2015

by

Common Dreams

World's most widely used herbicide ingredient shown to cause variety of cancers by research arm of World Health Organization

by

Jon Queally, staff writer

 

6 Comments

 

Monsanto’s popular weedkiller is mainly used on crops such as corn and soybeans, which are genetically modified to survive it. It also"probably causes cancer" in humans, says IARC. (Photo: Studioshots/Alamy)

In a determination that could have far-reaching implications for the agro-chemical giants like Dow Chemical and Monsanto, the research arm of the World Health Organization has declared that glyphosate—the key ingredient of widely-used herbicides such as Roundup—should now be categorized as a "probable carcinogen" for humans.

In a report published on Friday in The Lancet Oncology medical journal, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), based in France, announced its findings after a meeting of 17 oncology experts from 11 countries met to review the available scientific research exploring the connection between glyphosate, as well as several organophosphate insecticides, and various human cancers. Though sometimes such chemicals are lumped together as pesticides, glyphosate is technically a herbicide, which targets other plants, not pests.

"Consumers have the right to know how their food is grown and whether their food dollars are driving up the use of a probable carcinogen." —Ken Cook, EWGAccording to IARC, glyphosate is used in more than 750 different herbicide products and its use has been detected in the air during spraying, in water and in food. The panel of experts concluded that "limited evidence" exists to show the herbicide can cause non-Hodgkins lymphoma in humans and additional "convincing evidence" that it can cause other forms of cancer in both rats and mice. Researchers noted that glyphosate has been found in the blood and urine of agricultural workers, showing the chemical has been absorbed by the bodies of those who work most with it.

As the Associated Press explained, the research agency—which provides academic and scientific research FOR the WHO—has four levels of risks for possible cancer-causing agents: known carcinogens, probable or possible carcinogens, not classifiable and probably not carcinogenic. Glyphosate now falls in the second level of concern.

Though Monsanto immediately and predictably rejected the findings of the IARC, scientists who have long-warned of the public health impacts and wider dangers of glyphosate say the announcement should add urgency to the debate about whether or not such products should be allowed to dominate the world's agricultural systems.

"The widespread adoption of GMO corn and soybeans has led to an explosion in the use of glyphosate – a main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup and Dow’s Enlist Duo," said Ken Cook, president and co-founder of the Environmental Working Group. "Consumers have the right to know how their food is grown and whether their food dollars are driving up the use of a probable carcinogen."

Emily Marquez, Ph.D., a staff scientist at the Pesticide Action Network, in a statement on Monday, said, "Given glyphosate’s widespread usage with crops genetically engineered to tolerate herbicides, IARC’s finding comes none too soon."

"This increasingly dangerous pesticide treadmill calls into question the logic of genetically engineered herbicide technologies that rapidly lose their utility to farmers and put human health at risk." —Emily Marquez, Pesticide Action Network

Though the IARC's finding have no regulatory bearing on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency determinations about glyphosates and the other compounds studied, they do add weight to the body of evidence showing how harmful such chemicals are.

According to Marquez and her colleagues at PAN, since Monsanto’s signature "RoundUp Ready" corn and soy crops were introduced in 1996, more than 500 million additional pounds of glyphosate and other herbicides have been used in the United States.

"It should be noted that in well over a decade’s use of glyphosate in GE crops, hundreds of millions of pounds of this chemical have been released into the environment," said Marquez. "USGS surveys document widespread water contamination, and — as documented in a recent Consumer Reports study — residues of glyphosate also show up in our food. Even though glyphosate is so widely used, the U.S. does not currently conduct biomonitoring for glyphosate residues, and USDA conducts only minimal testing for food residues."

What's more, the pesticides and herbicides on which farmers have now been forced to rely may no longer be working. As Marquez explains: "The dramatic growth in herbicide use in the U.S. driven by GE technology has resulted not only in increased human exposure to these chemicals, but also in the development of herbicide-resistant ‘superweeds.’ Farmers are offered more toxic mixes of herbicides as a so-called solution to this new problem. Dow’s recently approved Enlist seeds — designed for use with a mixture of glyphosate and the antiquated, highly toxic herbicide, 2,4-D — offer a case in point."

In other words, the more these chemicals are used, the less effective they become.

According to Marquez, "This increasingly dangerous pesticide treadmill calls into question the logic of genetically engineered herbicide technologies that rapidly lose their utility to farmers and — as IARC’s recent finding makes clear —put human health at risk."

As Al-Jazeera notes, scientists and farmers from around the world have raised other concerns over glyphosate and tried to ban its use:

Channa Jayasumana,with Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, published a study in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health in 2014 on a possible link between glyphosate and chronic kidney disease in farmworkers. His research found that excessive heat and dehydration may weaken the workers' bodies, making them more susceptible to pesticides and heavy metals, which can lead to kidney disease.

Based on that research, the Sri Lankan government moved to ban glyphosate in spring of 2014. But Monsanto raised objections to the report's findings, and the ban was lifted. The chemical was, and continues to be, widely used on farms in the country.

The research also suggested a link between glyphosate and a mysterious kidney disease that has killed thousands of farmworkers in Central America. At least 20,000 farm workers have died of chronic kidney disease in Nicaragua in the last two decades, The Guardian reported in February. Researchers who have studied the disease in Central America say that it mainly affects agricultural laborers working under conditions of excessive heat and dehydration, but other factors, including pesticides, may play a role.

In addition, a peer-reviewed paper in 2014—titled "Genetically Engineered Crops, Glyphosate and the Deterioration of Health in the United States of America"(pdf)—linked glyphosate to a huge increase in the incidence of 22 chronic diseases across the United States.

The Reason Europe Bans American Apples

by Christina Sarich

Natural Society       / News Analysis

 

Published: Wednesday 18 June 2014

 

Apples treated with diphenylamine (DPA), a substance which keeps them from turning brown for months at a time when they are kept in storage, is now a sore spot for importers of American apples.

 

                                    

It’s sad when one of the biggest ‘super powers’ can’t even export a quintessentially American food to another country because it is too toxic to eat. But apples treated with diphenylamine (DPA), a substance which keeps them from turning brown for months at a time when they are kept in storage, is now a sore spot for importers of American apples.

DPA isn’t harmful all by itself, but it breaks down into carcinogogenic elements. It’s been used since 1962, but was banned in the European Union in 2012 since producers couldn’t answer inquiries about its safety. European food safety regulators wanted more information on it, but none could be summoned. The apple industry simply responded with one study “that detected three unknown chemicals on DPA-treated apples, but it could not determine if any of these chemicals, apparently formed when the DPA broke down, were nitrosamines.”

British scientists, John Barnes and Peter Magee, in 1956, reported that dimethylnitrosamine produced liver tumors in rats, and later went on to test other nitrosamines and N-nitroso compounds. They found that the compounds caused all kinds of problems, including liver cancer, lung cancer, and even botulism.

Caution: GMO, Non-Browning Arctic Apple Coming Soon“Nitrosamines occur commonly because their chemical precursors–amines and nitrosating agents–occur commonly, and the chemical reaction for nitrosamine formation is quite facile. Research on the prevention or reduction of nitrosamine formation has been productive, and most of the items shown in the table contain considerably lower amounts of nitrosamines than they did a few decades ago.”

No wonder European officials were concerned. In 2012, they slashed the allowable levels of DPA on apples to 0.1 parts per million, but now they don’t want those gleaming, spot-free apples normally seen on super market shelves in the States, at all. DPA residues were found on over 80 samples taken from US imports, with an average reading of 0.42 parts per million, well above their ‘allowable’ level.

Funny then, how the U.S. EPA Office of Pesticides tasked with reviewing all pesticides and chemicals on our agricultural produce told the EWG that they had no idea their was a ban on DPA. The EPA then had the nerve to tell the EWG that they had no intention of reviewing DPA safety standards, in light of European’s refusal to eat our poisoned fruit.

Reminds you of the Snow White fairy tale, doesn’t it. Here, little lady, eat the fruit. The Europeans said no thanks, and the rest of us would be better off getting our apples from a bunch of cutely named dwarves.

 

Most news sources are funded by corporations and investors. Their goal is to drive people to advertisers while pushing the corporate agenda. NationofChange is a 501(c)3 organization funded almost 100% from its readers–you! Our only accountability is to the public. Click here to make a generous donation.

 

                                        ABOUT Christina Sarich

Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. She also writes exclusive articles for NationofChange. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga.

Three Studies Proving Toxic Glyphosate Found in Urine, Blood and Even Breast Milk

by Mike Barrett

Natural Society/ News Analysis

Published: Monday 5 May 2014

Very recently, the Organic Consumers Association have demanded that U.S. regulators such as the FDA, EPA, and USDA ban glyphosate as many other communities and even nations have. Why? Because a new piece of research found that the toxic ingredient is actually found in the breast milk of women, leading to damage to underdeveloped human beings.

Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are sprayed on crops in the United States alone every single year. Thanks to pesticide/herbicide-resistant GMO crops, that number is growing every year. Much of this pesticide spraying contains a toxic ingredient known as glyphosate – the primary poisonous active ingredient in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide RoundUp. Regulators as well as Monsanto claim that this ingredient is excreted from the body, but numerous studies have shown that not only is it causing numerous health problems, but it is showing up in urine samples, blood samples, and even breast milk.

1. Glyphosate Found in People’s Urine

It has been revealed by numerous scientists that herbicides and pesticides bioaccumulate in the body, eventually leading to a toxic overload of sorts. One study conducted by a German university found very high concentrations of glyphosate in all urine samples tested. The amount of glyphosate found in the urine was staggering, with each sample containing concentrations at 5 to 20-fold the limit established for drinking water. But this is just a single piece of evidence that pesticides are out of control.

Another more recent study found thatanimals and humans who consume pesticide-laden GMO foods have extremely high levels of glyphosate in their urine. What’s more, chronically sick people have higher levels than healthy people. Conversely, people who eat primarily organic foods, and animals that are given feed from non-GMO plants, have lower levels of glyphosate in their urine. The study was published in the Journal of Environmental & Analytical Toxicology.

Very recently, the Organic Consumers Association have demanded that U.S. regulators such as the FDA, EPA, and USDA ban glyphosate as many other communities and even nations have. Why? Because a new piece of research found that the toxic ingredient is actually found in the breast milk of women, leading to damage to underdeveloped human beings. 

2. Glyphosate Found in Breast Milk

Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse found ‘high’ levels in 3 out of the 10 samples tested. The levels found in the breast milk testing of 76 ug/l to 166 ug/l are 760 to 1600 times higher than the European Drinking Water Directive allows for individual pesticides.

“The mothers tested are mostly familiar with GMOs and glyphosate. Most of them have been trying to avoid GMOs and glyphosate for several months to two years, so the levels of mothers who are not aware of GMOs and glyphosate may be much higher,” Moms Across America Founder and Director, Zen Honeycutt, stated.

3. Glyphosate Found in our Blood

In addition to being found in urine and breast milk, glyphosate has also been found in people’s blood in 18 different countries. A new study entitled, ‘The effect of metabolites and impurities of glyphosate on human erythrocytes (in vitro),’ explains just how RoundUp chemicals are invading our human blood.

Researchers exposed participants’ blood to different levels of glyphosate consistent with the ranges and concentrations which have already been well established in our drinking water, air, soil and food – between .01-5 millimolar (mM) for 1, 4, and 24 hours. What they found was that glyphosate and other ingredients in RoundUp lead to ‘slightly significant’negative effects on red blood cells. In other words, our blood is simply not ‘RoundUp Ready’.

It seems that regulatory authorities as well as the biotech industry can no longer claim that toxic ingredients such as glyphosate don’t bioaccumulate in the body and are excreted. As anyone may have guessed, these toxins really are doing some damage.

The Pesticide Industry vs. Consumers: Not a Fair Fight

By pouring money into politics, pesticide companies have beat back attempts to protect the public.

by Lee Fang  March 11, 2014 This article appeared in the March 31, 2014 edition of The Nation.

 

       

(Paolo Vescia)

This story was reported in partnership with The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.

In a small regulatory office 
in Sacramento, California, in 2007, a handful of farmworkers and scientists gathered to explain to state officials why chlorpyrifos, a widely used pesticide, should be considered a toxicant under Proposition 65, a state law that pro
hibits businesses from discharging substances known to cause birth defects and reproductive harm into the drinking water.

Chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate insecticide, was first developed as a cousin to the nerve agents stockpiled during World War II. The chemical has been banned for household use for more than a decade, and studies have shown that infants born to mothers with high levels of chlorpyrifos in their bodies have significantly higher rates of neurodevelopmental disorders, problems with in utero development, brain impairments, low birth weights and endocrine disruption.

Workers who handle produce, though less at risk, are also endangered by exposure to chlorpyrifos, a chemical sprayed to kill worms and other pests. Many have been found to experience headaches, seizures and bouts of vomiting.

But in the agricultural fields of America, where mostly migrant laborers and their families work to produce almonds, corn, peaches, grapes, alfalfa and other crops, chlorpyrifos is still applied with regularity. The chemical is known to stay on the bodies and clothing of workers when they return home to their families, and it easily drifts with the wind into local community 
buildings—from daycare centers and hospitals to churches and playgrounds. California farmers use about
1.3 million pounds of it every year.

Remembering that meeting in Sacramento, Margaret Reeves, a senior scientist with the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), recalls that people critical of chlorpyrifos “each got one to two minutes to speak.” Then came the scientists working for Dow Chemical, the principal manufacturer of the chemical in the United States.

“There were five Dow scientists, and they each got five to ten minutes. It was mind-boggling, the preference for their input over the victims and the consumer rights advocates and the farmworker advocates,” says Dr. Reeves.

The advocates have also been overpowered financially by the industry. Over the last decade, PAN has spent about $21,000 on lobbying in Sacramento. Dow, meanwhile, has spent more than $1.2 million on lobbying in the California capital during the same period.

In the end, chlorpyrifos was not deemed by the state to be a toxic substance subject to regulation under California’s Prop 65.

This imbalance of power in favor of industry also prevails at the national level, stalling progress in Washington on protecting farmworkers from dangerous chemicals used in agriculture.

In 1996, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act, which required the EPA to create standards for protecting children from pesticide use by 2006. That deadline has long since passed, and critics argue there has not been enough regulatory action. The EPA has also refused a request from PAN North America and the Natural Resources Defense Council for a ban on chlorpyrifos.

Finally, in January of this year, the EPA opened for public comment a rule on evaluating the environmental and human health risks caused by pesticide drift from farms into nearby areas, including homes and schools. And last month, the agency released a long-awaited proposal to update safety laws regarding the handling of pesticides by farmworkers.

But pesticide manufacturers are poised to beat back the EPA’s efforts. CropLife America—a trade group for companies including Dow, Bayer and DuPont that spends more than $14 million a year on research and advocacy—is not only in close communication with the EPA; it has worked with congressional allies to block the agency’s attempts at regulation. The organization called on Representative Darrell Issa of California, chair of the House Oversight Committee, to investigate the administration for pursuing agricultural regulations, including the so-called “spray-drift” rules. According to CropLife officials, these reforms “unnecessarily cost farmers time, money and liability, and significantly impact U.S. agriculture and the economy.” In response, Issa has held multiple hearings to undermine the EPA—under the guise of protecting “Job Creators Still Buried by Red Tape,” as one session relating to the EPA regulations on pesticides was titled.

Dow Chemical and other companies are relying on close ties forged with other legislators, particularly those in the Republican Party. In addition to Issa’s committee, a number of GOP legislators have sponsored amendments to appropriation bills that would block EPA action on pesticide rules. The recently passed farm bill included a bipartisan amendment exempting certain forms of pesticide pollution from enforcement under the Clean Water Act.

Farmworker advocates can bring few political resources to the table, but the pesticide industry extends the promise of re-election to its allies. After the 
Supreme Court enabled unlimited corporate spending 
in politics with its Citizens United decision, Dow Chemical increased its contributions to politically active nonprofits. The company hiked donations to the US Chamber of Commerce from $1.7 million in 2009 to more than $2.9 million in 2012. These funds augmented the $644,143 in direct contributions made by Dow’s political action committee to largely Republican federal candidates in the last election.

In a troubling display of post–Citizens United politics, the American Chemistry Council, another trade group funded by Dow and other pesticide producers, began airing campaign-style advertisements in favor of industry-friendly politicians, even those in safe seats. In many cases, the ads have aired well more than a year before the election, a visible reminder that allegiance to chemical companies comes with political rewards.

Although studies in California suggest that a shift from chlorpyrifos to less toxic pesticides would come at minimal cost to farmers, the transition has been slow. And for Dow, which manufactures two chlorpyrifos-based products, Dursban and Lorsban, the status quo is quite lucrative: the company, which produces a range of chemical products, generated over $4.8 billion in profits last year.

Dow has not only emerged as a powerhouse 
of traditional lobbying; it has also kept up the pressure on regulators in other ways. The company maintains a website, Chlorpyrifos Protects (chlorpyrifos.com), that gives the public an accessible platform for sending letters to the EPA opposing regulation.

Meanwhile, informational fact sheets distributed by Dow attempt to sow doubt about the potential health risks. “Since any substance can cause harm given sufficient exposure, nothing can be called ‘safe’ in absolute terms,” reads one chlorpyrifos white paper sponsored by the company. “A couple tablets of aspirin, for example, can relieve a headache. But an overdose of aspirin can be fatal.”

These efforts, however extensive, are only the more aboveground forms of advocacy. If the battle over atrazine, another controversial pesticide, is any indication, more subterranean lobbying is probably afoot.

As recent court documents reveal, Syngenta, the producer of atrazine, doled out grants to a wide array of public relations firms, political pundits and think tanks to discredit Berkeley professor Tyrone Hayes, whose research found that atrazine causes reproductive deformities in frogs. (A recent article in The New Yorker by Rachel Aviv chronicled the company’s years-long campaign against Hayes.) Some tactics used by Syngenta were reminiscent of the ’90s-era tobacco wars, or the more recent attempts by the fossil-fuel industry to block action on climate change. Right-leaning think tanks—including the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, the American Enterprise Institute and the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise—were listed in Syngenta’s internal “third party stakeholder” database. Officials from some of the organizations on that list received contributions from Syngenta to place opinion pieces in local media defending atrazine. To win over journalists and scientists, Syngenta offered expense-paid trips to Switzerland, where the company is based.

But there were also some innovations in building influence. A Syngenta public relations document instructs company officials to purchase “Tyrone Hayes” as a search term on the Internet, “so that anytime someone searches for Tyrone’s material, the first thing they see is our material, not his,” according to filings with the Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois.

Syngenta officials also debated whether to encourage CropLife America, the pesticide trade association now fighting the spray-drift rule, to lead a pro-pesticide campaign to shift public opinion. Citing recent industry efforts to reshape the perception of biotechnology and the plastics industry, Syngenta concluded that “the public image of Syngenta would improve if the public image of pesticides/pesticide companies 
improved overall.”

Dow, meanwhile, is accused of conducting an underhanded campaign against critics of chemicals like chlorpyrifos and di-
oxin. “Dow hired a private security firm to obtain confidential information about Greenpeace,” charges Charlie Cray, a research specialist with the environmental group. “The firm hired former intelligence and off-duty police officers to steal documents from Greenpeace’s offices and plant paid informants inside allied organizations.” Last year, after Greenpeace filed a lawsuit against Dow and other defendants, a Superior Court judge in Washington, DC, dismissed four of its claims—a decision the group is appealing—but allowed part of the suit to move forward. (Dow officials did not respond to requests for comment.)

In the current battle over pesticide regulation, Dow has given presentations to agricultural officials portraying groups like PAN as outside the mainstream. Last year, a Dow lobbyist in New Zealand attempted to downplay PAN’s arguments about chlori-
pyrifos. In one slide, he argued that the pesticide must be safe because it is not listed as a toxicant under Prop 65 in 
California—a state in which Dow dominates the political process.

* * *

While the larger efforts to control and
 regulate chlorpyrifos may have stalled, the EPA in February released a long-awaited rule to at least inform farmworkers of better safety standards for handling harmful pesticides. The original safety rule was created in the mid-1990s. Advocacy groups criticized it as weak and poorly enforced. An updated version was supposed to be released in 2008; why the EPA took another five-plus years to act remains a mystery.

The newly released rule builds on the existing regulations to ensure that all workers handling pesticides are at least 16 years old (except in cases of family farms). The rule also updates the law to ensure that workers will undergo training every year (rather than the previous standard of every five years) to learn about the health risks associated with pesticide use and how to handle these chemicals safely during application.

But along with that step forward, there has also been a step back. The EPA’s new standard removes a requirement that farms provide a central posting of information about pesticides. Under the new proposal, workers may obtain pesticide information if they ask for it, but the requirement that such information must be posted in an area where workers congregate has been eliminated.

So why the delays, and the arguably weakened pesticide safety rules? “Our best guess is that there has been very strong industry pushback,” says Dr. Reeves.

She might be on to something. White House logs show that just weeks before the EPA released the new worker-protection standard, there was at least one major meeting between administration officials and four senior officers from CropLife America.

Read all of the stories in this special report:

“How Pesticides Harm the Young Brain,” by Susan Freinkel A pathbreaking study detects a range of developmental problems in children born to mothers who toiled in pesticide-treated fields—but will anything be done?

“6 Ways to Avoid Eating Pesticide Residue,” by Susan Freinkel With regulation inadequate and children especially vulnerable, it makes sense for consumers to try to minimize exposure.

 

Monsanto Bt Pesticide Damages Red Blood Cells, Organs

by Christina Sarich from Nation of Change

June 22, 2013

The bad news about Monsanto can seem like an overwhelming highway car pileup, but thankfully the news is leading to a larger response by activists.

Studies are now showing that Monsanto crops damage red blood cells which are responsible for delivering oxygen to the body. And without functioning red blood cells, our bodies are in critical condition — desperate for life support.

The bad news about Monsanto can seem like an overwhelming highway car pileup, but thankfully the news is leading to a larger response by activists. Movements like the Monsanto Video Revolt, announced by Anthony Gucciardi last week, are taking the fight to Monsanto following the major success of movements like March Against Monsanto. Studies like these only lend more aid towards the cause that we fight for each day.

The study found that red blood cells suffer due to a bacterium commonly used as a pesticide in Monsanto’s crops, called Bacillus thuringenesis (Bt). Specifically, the Bt toxin affects mammals in ways that previously were not understood. Heretofore the Bt bacterium were only thought to harm insects, but this is proving to be grossly erroneous.

Dr. Mezzomo and a team of scientists at the Department of Genetics and Morphology and the Institute of Biological Sciences, at University of Brasilia published their findings in a recent issue of the Journal of Hematology and Thromboembolic Diseases.

Poisons known as Cry toxins are used for gene pyramiding (a method in which multiple genes are assembled to have desirable traits from parent genes for a new, altered, single genotype) in GMO foods. These Cry toxins specifically alter the hematoxic levels, which means they poison our blood. “Cry toxins are disruptive even at the lowest administered doses,” says Mezzomo. The number of red blood cells in Monsanto Cry-toxin-exposed mammals (in this study, unfortunately rats were used) was not only lowered through the destruction of the cells themselves, but the toxins also disrupted blood clotting and caused organ degeneration and tissue damage.

Further, the levels of hemoglobin for oxygen were also significantly reduced.

Other scientists are backing Dr. Mezzomo’s findings with their own studies. Professor Joe Cummins from the University of Western Ontario has also concluded that Bt toxin is directly impactful to human health. He points out that the Bt toxin damages the ileum, the final section of the small intestine responsible for the absorption of vitamin B. While Bt toxin does appear naturally in the environment, it does not normally occur in conjunction with soil, insects and plant surfaces, so the spreading of this bacterium through GMO is quite possibly going to create yet another super bug that can cause additional human deaths.

Our meat, including beef and chicken, has already been found to contain unwarranted amounts of super bugs that have become resistant to antibiotics. Natural Society reported on this back in April, but now it seems yet another bacterium is brewing that can cause more havoc on the food supply and the public’s health – all thanks to your favorite, greedy, industrialist company – Monsanto.

 

Prop 37 and Corporate Lies in the Post Truth Era

Published on Saturday, November 3, 2012 by Common Dreams

by Zack Kaldveer

As a historic vote with profound implications for the future of our food system nears, the question becomes whether a campaign with limitless resources and a disdain for the truth can defeat an overwhelmingly popular idea supported by a grassroots army, and over 3000 public interest organizations: the right to know what's in the food we eat and feed our families.

Poll after poll showed 90% of Americans (and Californians) favored labeling foods that have been genetically engineered (GMOs) and nearly a million signatures were gathered by California volunteers in just 10 weeks - easily qualifying Prop 37 for the ballot. And as of the first week of October, the Yes on 37 campaign enjoyed a 2 to 1 lead in the polls.

This broad statewide (and national) support - across party lines - made perfect sense. Prop 37 posits a simple question: Do we have the right to know what's in the food we eat and feed our children, or is that a decision better left to the pesticide and junk food companies bankrolling the opposition campaign?

Prop 37 isn't a referendum on genetically modified foods. It's not a ban, or a warning, it's a label.

The debate over the efficacy of genetically engineered foods should and will continue. In the meantime, Californians have a right to know, and for good reason.

A growing body of research links GMO foods to potential health risks, increased pesticide use, biodiversity loss, the emergence of super bugs  and  "super weeds" and the unintentional contamination of conventional crops.

Prop 37 simply adds a line of ink to a label -- as is currently required for 3,000 other ingredients -- so consumers know which products have been altered in a laboratory. 61 other countries have provided their citizens with this right, and choice, it's time we do the same.  

Corporate Backlash Against Our Right to Know

In response to this growing outcry for food transparency a who's who of the world's most notorious corporate bad actors, with long histories of deceiving the public, polluting the environment, and endangering public health, converged on California to convince us we don't deserve this basic, human right. A right that nearly half the world's population already enjoys.

The No on 37 campaigns two largest contributors are pesticide giants Monsanto ($8.1 million) and Dupont ($5.4 million) - who for decades assured us Agent Orange, DDT, and Tobacco were safe. At the same time, Monsanto has actively advocated for labeling in Europe

So how do companies like these go about persuading us that we don't deserve the right to know what they're doing to our food?

The Only Recourse: An Unprecedented Campaign of Deception

The campaign against the right to know has relied on three essential components: unlimited resources, a willingness to repeatedly lie, and a willingness to double and triple down on those lies-even when they are debunked by independent fact checkers.

Seriously, when was the last time giant, out-of-state pesticide and junk food companies spent $45 million to improve your health, protect the environment or save you money?

Spoiler Alert-they never have.    

The No On 37 campaign knows that the less you know about your food, the more money they are likely to make.  Their goal is literally that simple, even though their campaign of deception is far more elaborate.

They've set up phony AstroTurf groups, misrepresented spokespeople and embellished their credentials, and misrepresented leading science, government, professional and academic organizations-including (but not limited to) the National Academy of Sciences, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,US Food and Drug Administrationand World Health Organization. They've bankrolled demonstrably phony "economic studies," made repeated false statements in advertisements, deceived voters with mailers sent by obvious front groups, and repeated one falsehood after another---hoping somehow that no one would ever notice.

Well, someone just did. We filed a complaint to the Department of Justice about the potentially fraudulent use of the FDA seal in No on 37 campaign propaganda, and the DOJ has referred the matter to FDA to look into.

The No on 37 Campaign and the "Post Truth Era"

After four weeks of million dollar a day advertising by out of state pesticide and junk food corporations, No on 37 shrunk a 40 point deficit into a lead.  Not because they were right on the facts-because they don't care about the facts.  

No on 37's red herring arguments around common sense exemptions, phony lawsuit scares, bogus "big bureaucracy claims", and "cost increase hysteria", has been painstakingly documented.

Ultimately, we believe that "No on 37's" financially motivated corporate "sting operation" constitutes a profound disdain for the democratic process and the citizens of this state.

Why Spend $45 Million To Prevent A Simple Label?

Just follow the money: If we know what's in our food, and what's being done to our food, many of us will seek alternatives, and that would reduce the profit margins of companies like Monsanto and DuPont.

Their fears are well founded: since Europe instituted labeling 15 years ago, only 7 percent of its food now contains genetically engineered ingredients - compared to approximately 70% in the United States. Imagine what that would mean to these corporations if a similar shift in purchasing habits took place in California?

Multi-billion dollar pesticide and junk food companies believe there is no greater threat than an informed consumer - and with transparency comes accountability.

Prop 37 threatens their monopoly of our food system - which prevents small farmers, the organics industry, and truly natural food producers from competing on an equal playing field.

Whose Side Are You On?

On Tuesday more than a label is on the ballot. Democracy itself is. Will voters allow out of state, multinational pesticide and junk food corporations tell us what we can and can't know about the food we eat, and what they're doing to that food? Are we going to allow television ads based on one demonstrable lie after another convince us that information is somehow a radical concept that we don't deserve?

This right to know movement began with a farmer, a grandmother, and former midwife, organizing women across the state two years ago toward a 2012 ballot drive.  

Prop. 37 is about one and only one thing-- our right to know what's in our food, and make an informed choice about what we eat and feed our children.  

We can't allow our democracy to be hijacked by unscrupulous corporate interests willing to say and spend anything to protect their profits at the expense of real people, and our rights as free citizens.

We must ask every voter that will take the time to listen a few simple questions:

• Who do you trust with the health of your family: Pesticide and junk food companies and the $45 million they've spent lying to you, or Prop 37 supporters like the California Nurses Association, the Breast Cancer Action Fund, the California Council of Churches, and the American Public Health Association?
• Who do you trust when it comes to protecting our natural environment and food supply: Monsanto and DuPont, or Prop 37 supporters like the Sierra Club, California League of Conservation Voters, and the Natural Resources Defense Council?
• And finally, who do you trust to make decisions about what you know about the food you eat, pesticide and junk food companies or Prop 37 supporters like the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and Public Citizen?

Prop 37 is not just about our health and our environment, and the future of our food supply. It's also about the health of our democracy, and whether something so simple, so popular, and so "people driven" can be stomped out by giant out of state corporations polluting our state with $45 million of lies to protect their profits, at our expense.

Say yes to democracy. Say yes to your right to know. Vote Yes on Prop 37. And please tell everyone you know to do the same.

Zack Kaldveer is the assistant media director for the Yes on Prop 37 campaign.

Stanford Scientists Shockingly Reckless on Health Risk And Organics

Published on Thursday, September 6, 2012 by Common Dreams

by Frances Moore Lappé

I first heard about a new Stanford "study" downplaying the value of organics when this blog headline cried out from my inbox: "Expensive organic food isn't healthier and no safer than produce grown with pesticides, finds biggest study of its kind."

What?

Does the actual study say this?

No, but authors of the study -- "Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? A Systematic Review" -- surely are responsible for its misinterpretation and more. Their study actually reports that ¨Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."

The authors' tentative wording -- "may reduce" -- belies their own data: The report's opening statement says the tested organic produce carried a 30 percent lower risk of exposure to pesticide residues. And, the report itself also says that "detectable pesticide residues were found in 7% of organic produce samples...and 38% of conventional produce samples." Isn't that's a greater than 80% exposure reduction?

In any case, the Stanford report's unorthodox measure "makes little practical or clinical sense," notes Charles Benbrook -- formerly Executive Director, Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences: What people "should be concerned about [is]... not just the number of [pesticide] residues they are exposed to" but the "health risk they face." Benbrook notes "a 94% reduction in health risk" from pesticides when eating organic foods.

Assessing pesticide-driven health risks weighs the toxicity of the particular pesticide. For example the widely-used pesticide atrazine, banned in Europe, is known to be "a risk factor in endocrine disruption in wildlife and reproductive cancers in laboratory rodents and humans."

"Very few studies" included by the Stanford researchers, notes Benbrook, "are designed or conducted in a way that could isolate the impact or contribution of a switch to organic food from the many other factors that influence a given individual's health." They "would be very expensive, and to date, none have been carried out in the U.S." [emphasis added].

In other words, simple prudence should have prevented these scientists from using "evidence" not designed to capture what they wanted to know.

Moreover, buried in the Stanford study is this all-critical fact: It includes no long-term studies of people consuming organic compared to chemically produced food: The studies included ranged from just two days to two years. Yet, it is well established that chemical exposure often takes decades to show up, for example, in cancer or neurological disorders.

Consider these studies not included: The New York Times notes three 2011 studies by scientists at Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, and Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan that studied pregnant women exposed to higher amounts of an organophosphate pesticide. Once their children reached elementary school they "had, on average, I.Q.'s several points lower than those of their peers."

Thus, it is reprehensible for the authors of this overview to even leave open to possible interpretation that their compilation of short-term studies can determine anything about the human-health impact of pesticides.

What also disturbs me is that neither in their journal article nor in media interviews do the Stanford authors suggest that concern about "safer and healthier" might extend beyond consumers to the people who grow our food. They have health concerns, too!

Many choose organic to decrease chemicals in food production because of the horrific consequences farm workers and farmers suffer from pesticide exposure. U.S. farming communities are shown to be afflicted with, for example, higher rates of: "leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma" -- in addition to skin, lip, stomach, brain and prostate cancers," reports the National Cancer Institute. And, at a global level, "an estimated 3 million acute pesticide poisonings occur worldwide each year," reports the World Health Organization. Another health hazard of pesticides, not hinted at in the report, comes from water contamination by pesticides. They have made the water supply for 4.3 million Americans unsafe for drinking.

Finally, are organic foods more nutritious?

In their report, Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, and co-authors say only that "published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods." Yet, the most comprehensive meta-analysis comparing organic and non-organic, led by scientist Kirsten Brandt, a Scientist at the Human Nutrition Research Center at the UK's Newcastle University found organic fruits and vegetables, to have on "average 12% higher nutrient levels."

Bottom line for me? What we do know is that the rates of critical illnesses, many food-related --from allergies to Crohn's Disease -- are spiking and no one knows why. What we do know is that pesticide poisoning is real and lethal -- and not just for humans. In such a world is it not the height of irresponsibility to downplay the risks of exposure to known toxins?

Rachel Carson would be crying. Or, I hope, shouting until -- finally -- we all listen. "Simple precaution! Is that not commonsense?"

Frances Moore Lappé just released EcoMind: Changing the Way We Think to Create the World We Want (Nation Books) on the fortieth anniversary of her Diet for a Small Planet.