Monsanto's Roundup disaster

[vapedg13]

 

[NorC@liGrower]

Glyphosate is BAD. Hard to find ANY good news on glyphosate. Is there any?

 

[mexcurandero420]

More problems are coming for the farmers with resistant weed.

[YOUTUBEIF]jEX654gN3c4#at[/YOUTUBEIF]

Keep on growing your own food

 

[StRa]

 

[icon]

(for the home grower) i was reading that Burpee buys their seeds from Seminis which is owned by monsanto they claim its non gmo but i really dont trust them they would simply loose millions in sales if they admitted it, wether they are or not dont buy anything from burpee if you do your supporting monsanto..........did a ton of research & found some companies that sell non gmo seeds & signed a list agreement that they do not support monsanto (burpee isnt on that list) & recently bought some non gmo seeds that are just as cheap as any other seeds out there.

heres a few i purchased from mypatriotsupply

LINKS
http://www.mypatriotsupply.com/Top_Survival_Gear_s/12.htm

http://www.seedsnow.com/

http://www.starkbros.com/products/berry-plants/additional-berry-plants

some good reads
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

http://www.undergroundhealth.com/plant-against-monsanto/

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/july09/whole_foods_joins_non-gmo_project.php

 

[StRa]

yo man....Monsanto and all the big corporations are trying to own and patent all seeds even the non gmo!

thanks to mexi ;-)

http://www.naturalnews.com/041014_Monsanto_seed_patents_GMOs.html

(NaturalNews) Monsanto's efforts to usher genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) into the European Union (EU) have been largely stagnant in recent years, so the multinational corporation and others in the industry are taking a new and more evil approach to gain more market control. According to a recent announcement put forth by the human rights advocacy group No Patents on Seeds!, the European Patent Office (EPO) is now granting biotechnology companies patents on all-natural crops such as broccoli, which was recently handed over as private property to Monsanto.

Exploiting an egregious loophole in European patent law, Monsanto and others have been feverishly filing for patents on all sorts of natural crops, presumably in response to widespread resistance by members of the European public to its GMO offerings. Most recently, EPO granted Monsanto a patent on conventionally-bred broccoli, which includes not only broccoli seeds but also the "severed broccoli head" and the "plurality of broccoli plants ... grown in a field of broccoli" - in other words, broccoli in all of its natural forms.

Though vehemently opposed by the European Parliament, EPO's decision to legitimize private ownership of nature - in this case broccoli - is apparently becoming the norm throughout Europe. Since the biotechnology industry has failed at replacing nature with its own "Frankencrops" throughout Europe, it has set its sights on seizing ownership of nature itself by claiming patents on it. And unless the people step up to forcibly stop this, using whatever means necessary, then these crimes against humanity will only continue.

"We are calling for broad support of our opposition against the patent on 'severed broccoli'," said Christoph Then from the group No Patents on Seeds! recently. No Patents on Seeds! has formed a petition in opposition to patents on natural crops that recently topped two million signatures, and the group is joined by a cohort of other environmental advocacy and health freedom groups throughout Europe in its efforts. "We intend to send a clear signal that we will not let our food be monopolized."

You can access this petition here:
http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041014_Monsanto_seed_patents_GMOs.html#ixzz2XyS1T4g3

and here we have nestlé

http://www.globalresearch.ca/nestle-is-trying-to-patent-the-fennel-flower/5332329?print=1

Nestlé is Trying to Patent the Fennel Flower
By Global Research News
Global Research, April 21, 2013
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/nestle-is-trying-to-patent-the-fennel-flower/5332329

Nigella sativa — more commonly known as fennel flower — has been used as a cure-all remedy for over a thousand years. It treats everything from vomiting to fevers to skin diseases, and has been widely available in impoverished communities across the Middle East and Asia.

But now Nestlé is claiming to own it, and filing patent claims around the world to try and take control over the natural cure of the fennel flower and turn it into a costly private drug.

Tell Nestlé: Stop trying to patent a natural cure

In a paper published last year, Nestlé scientists claimed to “discover” what much of the world has known for millennia: that nigella sativa extract could be used for “nutritional interventions in humans with food allergy”.

But instead of creating an artificial substitute, or fighting to make sure the remedy was widely available, Nestlé is attempting to create a nigella sativa monopoly and gain the ability to sue anyone using it without Nestlé’s permission. Nestlé has filed patent applications — which are currently pending — around the world.

Prior to Nestlé’s outlandish patent claim, researchers in developing nations such as Egypt and Pakistan had already published studies on the same curative powers Nestlé is claiming as its own. And Nestlé has done this before — in 2011, it tried to claim credit for using cow’s milk as a laxative, despite the fact that such knowledge had been in Indian medical texts for a thousand years.

Don’t let Nestlé turn a traditional cure into a corporate cash cow.

We know Nestlé doesn’t care about ethics. After all, this is the corporation that poisoned its milk with melamine, purchases cocoa from plantations that use child slave labor, and launched a breast milk substitute campaign in the 1970s that contributed to the suffering and deaths of thousands of babies from poor communities.

But we also know that Nestlé is sensitive to public outcry, and that it’s been beaten at the patent game before. If we act fast, we can put enough pressure on Nestlé to get it to drop its patent plans before they harm anyone — but if we want any chance at affecting Nestlé’s decision, we have to speak out now!
Copyright © 2013 Global Research

 

[StRa]

Monsanto Protection Act

Monsanto Protection Act

Monsanto Protection Act Signed By Obama, GMO Bill “Written By Monsanto” Signed Into Law

The Monsanto Protection Act, essentially both written by and benefiting Monsanto Corporation, has been signed into law by United States President Barack Obama. The infamous Monsanto Corporation will benefit greatly and directly from the bill, as it essentially gives companies that deal with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds immunity to the federal courts, among other things.

The bill states that even if future research shows that GMOs or GE seeds cause significant health problems, cancer, etc, anything, that the federal courts no longer have any power to stop their spread, use, or sales.

20130330-194119.jpg

There are of course arguments to be made that not enough research has been done yet to accurately determine the effects that GMOs have on human and animal health (though the research already done should make you stop and think). This bill sidesteps that completely though, and simply states that even if there are problems, that the federal courts can no longer do anything about it. And this bill is now law, thanks to President Obama and the U.S. Congress.

Some other interesting things to keep in mind:

- The bill was apparently written by freshman Sen. Roy Blunt in collusion with Monsanto, with them helping to craft the exact language of the document.

- “The Center for Responsive Politics notes that Sen. Blunt received $64,250 from Monsanto to go towards his campaign committee between 2008 and 2012. The Money Monocle website adds that Blunt has been the largest Republican Party recipient of Monsanto funding as of late.”

- Many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the “Monsanto Protection Act” was a part of the spending bill that they were voting on.

- Obama had no problem signing it into law (not really a surprise, he’s been rather soft on GMO policy).

- The bill will only remain in effect for a limited time, but it’s a bad sign. With the ease that this bill passed, it’ll be interesting to see what future bills look like.

As the Daily News asks, “Who’s more powerful, the world’s largest producer of genetically modified crops or the U.S. government?”

“On Tuesday, Pres. Obama inked his name to H.R. 933, a continuing resolution spending bill approved in Congress days earlier. Buried 78 pages within the bill exists a provision that grossly protects biotech corporations such as the Missouri-based Monsanto Company from litigation.”

“In light of approval from the House and Senate, more than 250,000 people signed a petition asking the president to veto the spending bill over the biotech rider tacked on, an item that has since been widely referred to as the ‘Monsanto Protection Act.’”

“But Obama ignored [the petition],” as the IB Times notes, “instead choosing to sign a bill that effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of GMO or GE crops and seeds, no matter what health consequences from the consumption of these products may come to light in the future.”

GMOs, while they may cause problems for human health, are primarily a problem for other reasons, mostly to do with crop/genetic diversity and overly complex industrial systems. And also the fact that they often don’t even work the way that they are “supposed” to.

When taken in context though, GMOs are really just another in a long line of environmentally damaging practices that people have done for short term gain/profit. From the large-scale deforestation of the world’s old-growth forests, to sustenance farming, to modern imported-fertilizer/pesticide/herbicide/fossil-fuel dependent industrial agricultural, the trend has been consistent, GMOs are just another in that line of attempts to temporarily maintain/raise crop yields. Regardless of the type of agriculture or the location, there are limits to how long any land can remain productive, applying imported fertilizers, or utilizing GMOs, only provides, at best, a temporary halt to the land’s transition to non-productive “wasteland”, and to desertification.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsan...l-written-by-monsanto-signed-into-law/5329388

 

[StRa]

http://occupymonsanto360.org/blog/d...-ordered-to-pay-fine-to-agent-orange-victims/

The Supreme Court of South Korea has for the first time declared that Monsanto and Dow must pay a fine for the damages caused by Agent Orange used in the Vietnam War, finally, after all this time. The 39 plaintiffs should soon receive 466 million won ($415,000) from the two multinational chemical companies, both made infamous by being the two top producers of Agent Orange, one of the most notorious and deadly toxins in the world.

Sticking to their usual character, Monsanto claimed that the defoliant was perfectly safe and harmless at the time despite having known of the dangers and carcinogenicity of the unavoidable dioxin contained within for more than a decade prior to the war.

South Korea sent about 300,000 troops to the Vietnam war where the US was spraying Agent Orange in Operation Ranch hand, 16,000 of which sued Dow and Monsanto for the pain and suffering endured from the toxic exposure for approximately $4.4 billion in a smaller court in 1999 but they lost the suit.

Agent Orange is known for it’s teratogenicity, it’s ability to cause birth defects and cause damage for many generations, not only are the original victims of these chemical companies’ poison suffering with numerous diseases and cancers but the legacy of pain has now reached the fourth generation of victims. Millions have died or are suffering with cancer and other illnesses from this gene disrupting toxin around the world, both companies continue to deny responsibility for it and the US government continues to not acknowledge the results of its actions as well.

Dow Chemical responded to the lawsuit in disagreement to the results, claiming that there wasn’t sufficiently clear evidence that the damage was caused by Agent Orange, citing U.S. court rulings.

 

[mexcurandero420]

Monsanto's patent appeal rejected Indian government saving farmers food and lives

Less than a week ago, Monsanto got more than a slap on the wrist from the Indian government – they were delivered two fat rejections – one from the patent appeals court and another rejection that was upheld by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.

Dismissing Monsanto’s appeal were the Honorable Justice Prabha Sridevi, Chair of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board of India, and the Honorable Shri DPS Parmar, technical member. If you would like to personally thank these individuals for standing up to corporate greed and the domination of the world food supply, you can contact them via the web addresses listed below:

Intellectual Property Appellate Board of India


NationofChange is a 501(c)3 nonprofit funded directly by our readers. Please make a small donation to support our work.
Monsanto’s patent application was refused for both“Methods of Enhancing Stress Tolerance in plants and methods thereof,” and “A method of producing a transgenic plant, with increasing heat tolerance, salt tolerance or drought tolerance.” The patent office refused the claims because:

“ . . .there were no ‘inventive steps’ and as of the Patents act of 1970. . .as structure and function of cold shock protein was already known in cited prior art and it is obvious to person skilled in plant to make transgenic plant; (iii) It is mere application of already known cold shock protein in producing cold stress tolerant plant and tolerant to heat, salt and drought conditions, claims fall within the scope of Section 3(d) of The Patents Act, 1970. (iv) The patent office found that it is not patentable under 3(j) as claims also include essential biological process of regeneration and selection, which includes growing of plant in specific stress condition.”

Part of the reason Monsanto was not able to pass their patents is because the 1970 Patent Act excluded patents in agriculture and medicine. The act had to be amended when India signed the World Trade Agreement (including sections covering Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights). Strong sections of the Act, like ‘what are not inventions’ in clause 3 and the especially 3d, “excludes as inventions the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance,’ were key in Monsanto’s refusal. It was this same clause that kept the Novartis pharmaceutical company from patenting a known cancer-curing drug. They tried to challenge this in the Supreme Court of India, but lost. Many are saying that what the Novaris case is to our global Right to Health, the new refusal of Monsanto’s patents are the same Right to Seed and Right to Livelihood for farmers.

There are supposedly 27000 farmers who have committed acts similar to a farmer in Bhiwandi taluka, India, who consumed pesticide after his crops failed miserably due to draught and increased debts to companies like Monsanto. Farmers have been petitioning the Indian government to help lift them out of poverty. While not every farmer blames Monsanto directly, the majority of these farmer suicides happen in the cotton belt, where Monsanto controls 95% of the cotton seed supply with Bt cotton. The costs of the seeds jumped more than 8000% with the introduction of Bt cotton. If you haven’t already heard, Bt damages red blood cells.

Monsanto’s attempts to patent further seeds and bankrupt entire generations of farmers and their families that have successfully farmed for centuries have been halted – at least in India – for now.

http://www.nationofchange.org/monsanto-s-patent-appeal-rejected-indian-government-saving-farmers-food-and-lives-1373891665

Keep on growing your own food

 

[StRa]

US Staple Crop System Failing from GM and Monoculture Resilience, yields, pesticide u

US Staple Crop System Failing from GM and Monoculture Resilience, yields, pesticide u

US Staple Crop System Failing from GM and Monoculture
Resilience, yields, pesticide use, and genetic diversity, all worse than Non-GM Europ

Date Added to website 12th July 2013

ISIS Report 10/07/13

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/US_Staple_Crop_System_Failing_from_GM_and_Monoculture.php

Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji

A new study shows that the US Midwest staple crop system - predominantly genetically modified (GM) - is falling behind other economically and technologically equivalent regions. Western Europe, matched for latitude, season and crop type as well as economic and technological development, outperforms the US (and Canada) with regards to yields, pesticide use, genetic diversity and crop resilience, as well as farm worker wellbeing.

The study, headed by Jack Heinemann at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, is a damning indictment of the large-scale, monoculture model in the US, the world's largest producer of maize since the records began in 1961, and is increasingly relied upon to provide more and more of the world's calorie intake [1]. This serves as a warning to the UK environmental minister Owen Paterson, who proposes to introduce GM crops into the UK [2].

US Midwest and European yields compared

Maize, rapeseed, soybean and cotton yield data were obtained from the United Nations Food and Agriculture organisation (FAO) FAOSTAT database for the United States, Canada and the total group Western Europe (Austrian, Belgium-Luxembourg, France, Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland). Records from 1961 to 2010 were used, while 2011 and 2012 data were included through projections and additional statistics. They conducted statistical covariance (ANCOVA) analyses to test whether the yield differed significantly between locations, year, percentage of GM crops used and any other interactions.

First compared was rapeseed and maize, which have similar agroecosystems (latitude, growing seasons and equally developed agriculture systems across the two continents as well as access to biotechnological and intellectual property (IP) rights options, which are legal protection for so-called creations of the mind, allowing industry to own GM seeds through claiming them as novel inventions. The major difference between the continents is the near saturation of GM varieties in N. America compared to a virtual absence in W. Europe. Between 1961 and 1986, the US maize yield averaged

5 700 hectogram/hectare (hg/ha) more than W. Europe, totalling 54 379 hg/ha. (A hectogram = 100 g). However, after 1986, there was a significant change in yield between the compared regions. W. Europe averaged 82 899 hg/ha, slightly more than the 82 841 hg/ha in the US (see Table 1 on original web site). This suggests that GM has offered no benefit whatsoever in the US – contrary to what has been claimed - while the overall increase in yields in both regions were due to improved management and conventional breeding (see Figure 1 on original web site).

Further, the difference between the estimated yield potential and the actual yield, or the 'yield-gap' appears smaller in Europe. Over the entire period of 1961 to 2010 the US reached marginally significantly higher yield averages, but when taking into account the interaction between year and location, a steeper increase in European maize yield was found in recent years, as consistent with the actually higher yields in Europe than in the US, despite the latter's use of GM. Yield data from 2011 and projected yields for 2012 reveal a downward trend in the US compared with Europe. Fluctuations in yield are more severe in the US, a sign of reduced resilience to environmental stressors, which can also spark dramatic price changes in agricultural markets.

Rapeseed (or canola) shows a similar pattern when comparing yields from Canada, the next earliest adopter of GM after the US, with W. Europe. The average yield has always been lower in Canada by an average of 11 000 hg/ha during 1961-1985, and an even larger average difference between 1986 and 2010 of 17 300 hg/ha, the period when Canada moved to GM and Europe did not. Wheat yields have consistently increased in both regions, but increasing at a steeper rate in Europe. Neither region grows GM wheat, again highlighting that gains in yields over recent years are not dependent on GM technologies and that the combination of biotechnologies used in Europe is demonstrating greater productivity than in the US.

Low genetic diversity of US crops

Despite its size, the US agro-ecosystem has had very low levels of on-farm genetic diversity, with 80-85 % of maize in the 1980s for example being based on a single innovation – the T cytoplasm. Across the world, the low genetic diversity is a concern, with varieties of many staple crops decreasing in recent years. As FAO pointed out, China went from having 10 000 varieties of wheat in 1949 to 1 000 in the 1970s, while the US has lost 95 % of the cabbage, 91 % of field maize, 94 % of the pea, and 81 % of their tomato varieties in the last century.

Powerful economic and legislative forces continue to drive uniformity. There are two major farming policies in the US that affect sustainability – innovation (through development of licensing and IP rights) and public subsidies. Subsidies increase with higher acreage, promoting monoculture farming. The larger and more uniform the crop, the bigger the cost reduction on pest control, harvesting mechanisation and planting, which has been a major driver of GM crop adoption. With the huge subsidies given to industrial farms, the US is able to sell its staple crops including maize, wheat, sugar and milk at 73, 67, 44 and 61 % of cost price to the world market, which likely undermines the emergence of more sustainable production systems. Historically, low on-farm diversity has led to food production and price uncertainty.

The huge scale of production of staple crops has led to a reduction in seed varieties available to small-scale farmers and poorer farmers, as well as organic farmers. While staple crops are being used on a large-scale for non-food industries, with maize being put into 'household' products such as cosmetics and medicines e.g. asparin and deodorant, antibiotics, tobacco, fuel, pastes and adhesives, textiles, building supplies and solvents among other things. The concentrated control of such products by large corporations and companies in these breadbasket regions of the world has far reaching consequences beyond national borders. The US has gone from a system based on public seed saving and exchanges between large and small farmers in the 19th century to one based on strict patents and patent-like protections of varieties, forcing seed saving to disappear. The advent of hybrid varieties in the 1970s which act as a 'biological patent', with the next generations seeds not transmitting the commercial traits uniformly, the power of seed control is left in the hands of the commercial breeders, along with the 'legal patent' system. This has driven the US industry away from mainly small-scale, specialist breeders to even larger and fewer specialist breeders. Patents on GM crops are only exaggerating this trend. Seed saving on crops such as soybean was still common until they became available as GM cultivars and came under the control of patents in the 1990s.

Breeder concentration may lead to a loss of agrobiodiversity. The corn leaf blight epidemic of 1970 is a clear example of how the lack of genetic diversity can create a huge risk to food security, revealing the dangers and unsustainability of monoculture practices and genetic uniformity.

What has happened to seed diversity as a result of American agricultural innovations? Using the seed catalogue provided by Monsanto to the US Department of Justice antitrust investigation of the seed industry, Heinemann's team analysed the number of seed cultivars on offer. They found that the true genetic base of corn was much narrower than the numbers of names and numbers would suggest. One single variety of corn, "Reed Yellow Dent", contributes to 47 % of the gene pool used for creating hybrid varieties. The germplasm is limited to around 7 founding inbred lines in the US Maize belt. Similar findings were made for soybean varieties, with a decrease in the number of cultivars by 13 % from the years 2005-2010. A reduction in diversity is consistent with a trend towards reduced yields over the last decade or so, with adverse high temperatures and droughts. Maize and soybean yield predictions for 2012 were the lowest since 2003.

With this worrying trend of reduced yields comes a global increasing dependence on cereal crops for our calorie intake. Though the world produces more calories for food than it did in 1970, the proportion of calories derived from maize grew from 4 % in 1970 to 5 % in 2007. This heavy reliance on a crop that shows the large variability in losses due to biotic and abiotic stresses as highlighted by the authors is a sign of instability and not sustainability. This is in clear contrast to the agro-ecological advances made based on increased on-farm diversity that has seen significant increases in rice yields, reduced pesticide use as well as higher farmer incomes. Intercropping of maize with tobacco, maize with sugarcane, maize with potatoes and wheat with broad beans have all been shown to increase yields of at least one of the crops, or even overall yields as well as reduced disease [3].

Pesticide use higher in US

Pesticide use has increased overall since the introduction of GM crops (see [4] Study Confirms GM Crops Increase Pesticide Use, SiS 56), largely a result of the most common GM trait providing tolerance to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup. Insecticide use has officially gone down slightly, though dwarfed by the increases in herbicide use. This coincides with the introduction of Bt crops genetically engineered to produce an insecticide (which is not included in official 'pesticides applied' when insecticide use is analysed). However, Europe also showed a reduction in pesticide use during the same period. In the US in 2007, herbicide use was up by 108 % from 1995 levels, while insecticide use dropped to 85 % of 1995 levels. In Europe however, more impressive reductions were found, with France reducing herbicide use to 94% of 1995 levels and chemical insecticide levels to 24% of 1995 levels. By 2009, herbicide and pesticide use was down to 82 % and 12 % of 1995 levels respectively. Similar trends were seen in Switzerland and Germany.

Farm workers role sacrificed for monoculture farming

Another symptom of the American monoculture farming system is the sacrifice of farm workers. The number of farms has decreased since its peak in 1935, with the loss of 2 million farms by 2007 despite the acreage of the agroecosystem remaining the same to this day. For corn, 69 % is grown by Large or Very Large Farms as defined by the USDA, i.e., having sales in excess of $250 000 and $500 000 respectively. This comes with the inability of farmers to innovate and breed new varieties due to the monopolisation of the seed market and IP patent agreements which have all but abolished public breeding programmes. As the authors state [1]: "Loss of farmer experimentation will likely reduce resilience and adaptation to climate change, natural disasters or as an outcome of conflict." The GM crop system, with its strict IP patent agreements and commercial development, contributes to the concentration of the seed market, as exemplified by the soybean varieties planted today: 0.5 % of soybean varieties were developed by the public sector in 2007, compared to 70 % in 1980. Seed prices have risen as a result, climbing by 140 % since 1994. With climate change affecting the global yields since the 1980s and 1990s for soybean, there is no evidence that strict IP instruments or biological patents have increased resilience so far.

A warning to the US and the rest of the world

The lessons of the 1972 epidemic of 'corn leaf blight' have still not been learnt. The Committee on Genetic Vulnerability of Major Crops at the US National Research Council at the time posed the question: "How uniform genetically are other crops upon which the nation depends, and how vulnerable, therefore, are they to epidemics? The answer is that most major crops are 'impressively genetically uniform and thus vulnerable and results from government legislative and economic policy'.

The authors recommend important strategies that need to be employed to bring the US back to being one of the largest seed saving and exchange cultures, instead of the current undemocratic and unsustainable system they currently force on farmers in the US and the rest of the world.

Three main suggestions include collection of annual statistics on on-farm genetic diversity along with environmental stress events, to see get a picture of performance resilience. Second, on-farm diversity should be encouraged through policies such as subsidies. Lastly, instead of looking to peak yields of crops, the goal should be to select crops with long-term sustainable yields.

GM crop cultivation, which is an extreme version of industrial farming, is obstructing a shift to more sustainable methods of food production and in addition to reducing yields, is now associated with a plethora of negative human health and environmental impacts as documented in Ban GMOs Now - Special ISIS Report [5]. To increase crop yields, protect the environment and protect the health of citizens across the world, GM crops need to be banned.

References

(1) Heinemann JA , Massaro M, Coray DS, Agapito-Tenfen SZ, Wen JD. Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408

(2) "Owen Paterson: UK must become global leader on GM crops", Guardian.com

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jun/20/owen-paterson-uk-global-leaders-gm-crops

26th June 2013-06-267

(3) Lee EA & Tracy WF. Modern maize breeding. In: J. Bennetzen and S. Hake, eds. Handbook of maize: genetics and genomics. New York, NY: Springer, 141–160

(4) Sirinathsinghji E. Study Confirms GM crops lead to increased Pesticide Use.Science in Society 56, 8-10, 2012

(5) Ho MW & Sirinathsinghji E. Ban GMOs Now. Health and Environmental Hazards Especially in Light of the New Genetics. ISIS Special Report, 2013. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Ban_GMOs_Now.php

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/documents/failing.html

 

[VerdantGreen]

"Roundup weedkiller can 'probably' cause cancer, warns WHO"

One of the world's most popular weed killers – and the most widely used kind in the US – can "probably" cause cancer, according to United Nations health chiefs.

The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) cancer arm has announced that best-selling 'Roundup', produced by Monsanto, contains an active ingredient that is "classified as probably carcinogenic to humans".

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...probably-cause-cancer-warns-who-10124812.html

 

[StRa]

Monsanto Faces Lawsuits on Cancer Linked to Roundup

(Beyond Pesticides, October 19, 2015) Monsanto, the major producer of Roundup (glyphosate), has found itself in hot water recently, as personal injury lawsuits pile up over the link between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL). Personal injury law firms around the U.S. have found a multitude of plaintiffs and are preparing for what could be a “mass tort” action against Monsanto for knowingly misinforming the public and farmworkers about the dangers of the chemical.

The latest lawsuit was filed October 14 in Delaware Superior Court by three law firms representing three plaintiffs. One plaintiff in the Delaware lawsuit, Joselin Barrera, 24, a child of migrant farmworkers, relates her non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) to glyphosate exposure. Elias de la Garza, a former migrant farm worker and landscaper diagnosed with NHL, has a similar claim. These follow other lawsuits filed last month in New York and California that accuse Monsanto of knowing that 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.

Glyphosate is touted as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and industry and is widely used in food production and on lawns, gardens, parks, and children’s playing fields. However, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is a part of the World Health Organization) released its finding in March, concluding that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity based on laboratory studies. IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable” carcinogen finds that glyphosate is anything but safe. The ranking represents the highest order carcinogen when no human data is available –and since chemicals are not tested on humans, a higher ranking is rare. According to IARC, Group 2A means that the chemical is probably carcinogenic to humans based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. The agency considered the findings from an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel report, along with several recent studies in making its conclusion. The agency also notes that glyphosate caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells. Further, epidemiologic studies have found that exposure to glyphosate is significantly associated with an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Following IARC’s review, California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced that it intended to list glyphosate and three other chemicals as cancer-causing chemicals under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65).

EPA, in 1985, originally classified glyphosate as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’ based on tumors in laboratory animals, but changed its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans years later, most likely due to industry influence, allowing the chemical to be the most widely used pesticide in the U.S. USDA has contributed to its greatly expanded use by deregulating crops, including the vast majority of corn and soybeans, that are genetically engineered to be tolerant to the chemical. In recent years, weeds have exhibited resistance to glyphosate and its efficacy has been called into question. Additionally, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) routinely finds glyphosate in U.S. waterways especially in the Midwestern states and the Mississippi River valley. Ecological data also reports that glyphosate and glyphosate formulated products are toxic to aquatic organisms, and is extremely lethal to amphibians.

The mounting evidence of glyphosate’s hazards is piling up and environmental groups, like Beyond Pesticides, are urging localities to restrict or ban the use of the chemical. A recent success in grassroots activism comes through Tracy Madlener, a mother of two, who got her neighborhood in Laguna Hills, California to eliminate the use of the widely-used weedkiller. Beyond Pesticides promotes these actions and many more through our Tools for Change page. This page is designed to help activists and other concerned citizens organize around a variety of pesticide issues on the local, state, and national level. Learn how to organize a campaign and talk to your neighbors about pesticides with our factsheets.

Another way to avoid glyphosate and other harmful pesticides is to support organic agriculture and eat organic food. Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for organic management practices as a means to foster biodiversity, and research shows that organic farmers do a better job of protecting biodiversity than their chemically-intensive counterparts. Instead of prophylactic use of pesticides and biotechnology, responsible organic farms focus on fostering habitat for pest predators and other beneficial insects, and only resort to judicious use of least-toxic pesticides when other cultural, structural, mechanical, and biological controls have been attempted and proven ineffective. For more information on why organic is the right choice, visit our Organic Agriculture webpage.


Source: Reuters

http://beyondpesticides.org/dailyne...-faces-lawsuits-on-cancers-linked-to-roundup/

 

[sprinkl]

I wonder if they've got an even more cancerous alternative lined up or what. How come Roundup is suddenly not acceptable anymore, when the facts must've been known for years?

 

[LostTribe]

Screw all of the gmo producers Monsanto, Eli Lilly and DuPont!

 

[_tessarecting]

I wonder if they've got an even more cancerous alternative lined up or what. How come Roundup is suddenly not acceptable anymore, when the facts must've been known for years?

For the same reason triclosan was sold as antibacterial soap until recently for 40 years.

And I know it's been a couple years, but natural news is one of the least credible sources out there.

 

[LostTribe]

http://s888.photobucket.com/user/vapemaster/media/IMG_1966.jpg.htmlView Image

I have been telling people for years its only a matter of time until Monsanto moves on to trying to kill of all the non-gmo eating vegan hippies by tainting their smoke!

Stop Big Weed Now!

 

[HidingInTheHaze]

Monsanto sales are sinking again, and they are laying off 1000 employees this follows 2600 layoff this past fall, this is a major victory for the people of the World.

Keep up the good work activists, we are winning slowly but surely. Keep spreading the word of the horrors of Roundup and GMO foods and preach the gospel of Organics.

Lets drag down their sales again this year, inform others and boycott known GMO products, it's the only way to behead the beast.

 

[MJPassion]

Place their heads in the guillotine & wait for the drop!

CHOP!

 

[OPO]

Monsanto is realy one of the badest things for the future of our Planet!
+Everbody who works for this Kartell is realy a criminal,-who helps to destroy the planet for money

 

[aridbud]

Monsanto is realy one of the badest things for the future of our Planet!
+Everbody who works for this Kartell is realy a criminal,-who helps to destroy the planet for money

Yep, it's traded on the stock exchange, the cartel of the world ruining food, products....everything.