GMO Foods

[Blue Frost]

Monsanto my guess is partly owned by the Rothschild family, or Rockefeller. I know Bill Gates owns a big share now.

[Gary Oak]

Monsanto's Willing Executioners
Wednesday, 06 April 2016 09:47
By JP Sottile, Truthout | News Analysis

Is Monsanto "evil"?

Just pop that question into Google and you'll find out quickly why Monsanto ranks near the top of every "most hated company" list. And ask any news editor ... the name "Monsanto" is guaranteed clickbait that reels in readers by the bushel.

It's probably why you are reading this right now.

Perhaps you, like many anti-GMO farmers, environmental watchdogs and consumer advocates, see Monsanto as the embodiment of everything that's wrong with corporate America. Its name is synonymous with unbridled greed, indifference to the environment, bipartisan cronyism and a demonstrated willingness to steamroll the little guy.

To wit, Monsanto wields a three-decade-old Supreme Court patent ruling like a scythe as it cuts down farmers who dare to save seeds for the next planting season. It has also beaten back challenges from organic farmers who fell victim to "genetic drift" when Monsanto's patented crops cross-pollinated with their non-GMO neighbors and therefore rendered them unsellable.


Monsanto keeps pushing genetically modified food through the approval process in spite of widespread public revulsion.

Monsanto acts like a corporate Borg, methodically amalgamating conventional farmers while also quietly eliminating their organic competition through the sheer ubiquity of its patented pollen. With 90 percent of soybean, corn and cotton acreage in the United States now planted with genetically modified (GM) seeds -- and with other common food crops quickly following suit -- noncompliant farmers are quite literally surrounded.

Interestingly enough, Monsanto spent decades as a fairly typical industrial chemical company, producing PCBs, DDT and even Agent Orange. But it pivoted away from its chemical business -- which it oddly calls "former Monsanto" -- in the mid-1970s. Luckily for the new Monsanto, Congress recently inserted a paragraph into a pending revamp of the Toxic Substances Control Act. It shields the new Monsanto from "hundreds of millions" of dollars in lingering liability from the PCBs made by the former Monsanto.

Today's Monsanto took shape when its patented formula for glyphosate hit the market in 1974. Sold under the name "Roundup," glyphosate demonstrated an uncanny ability to kill every plant it touched -- an ability that eventually transformed Monsanto into a globe-spanning, gene-patenting agrochemical empire worth $47 billion. Monsanto also became a consumer market titan as millions of weekend warriors strapped on their "sharpshooter" spray nozzles to do battle with the dreaded weeds they simply don't have the patience to pull or the willingness to mulch.

Monsanto's perennial "Wild Western-style" ad campaign sells convenience with the sound of ricocheting bullets and the kind of satisfied look that only comes with shooting first and not asking questions later. Roundup is the United States' "second most widely used" lawn and garden poison. Roundup products populate the best-seller list on Amazon. And it's used by gardeners around the world, bureaucracies seeking weed-free parks and, of course, farmers running on the agrochemical treadmill.


Monsanto's "innovations" wouldn't be needed if its scientists weren't perfecting poison and playing poker with evolution.

Monsanto's globe-spanning agrochemical business model came together in 1982 when it developed the first engineered plant cell and, quite presciently, it acquired the Jacob Hartz Seed Company and its soybean seed empire. Monsanto ultimately launched Roundup Ready soybeans in 1996. Those glyphosate-resistant soybeans literally killed the competition. They also sparked an industry-wide race to modify crop seeds. By 2013, Monsanto controlled 90 percent of the United States' soybean seed market. It's now the world's largest seed company and it's one of six titanic agrochemical companies that together control 75 percent of the world's agricultural inputs (seeds, plant material, fertilizers and pesticides).

That catalyzing role is why Monsanto -- but not DuPont, Dow, BASF or Syngenta -- became the face of agrochemical evil. The "new" Monsanto is a mega-monopolizing, life-patenting, food-controlling colossus many have rechristened "Monsatan."

That dark image wasn't helped by its recent push to get the comically named Safe and Accurate Food Labeling (SAFE) Act through Congress. Opponents shrewdly renamed it the "Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act" because it would've nullified state-level GMO labeling laws in favor of a national, "voluntary" labeling standard. Perhaps it's not surprising that the SAFE/DARK Act failed in an election year.

The public simply isn't on board the GMO train.

A Pew Research Center survey found that 57 percent of Americans think "GM foods are generally unsafe to eat." And a survey by Consumer Reports found "more than 70 percent of Americans say they don't want genetically modified organisms in their food." But Monsanto keeps pushing GM food through the approval process in spite of widespread public revulsion and vitriol.


RNA interference opens a Pandora's box full of unanswered ethical questions.

Understanding this "Monsanto Mania," as journalist Lee Allen aptly termed it, is a zero-sum game. Allen points out that Monsanto's status as hero or villain depends on "who's wielding the paintbrush." More to the point, "Those who work for the multinational giant feel they're the good guys, wearers of white hats -- 'delivering agricultural products that support farmers all around the world.'"

Bill Nye echoed their enthusiasm after his infamous "Come to Monsanto" moment. Despite years of skepticism, the beloved Science Guy now believes GM crops hold the promise of safely meeting the growing demand for food in a rapidly changing climate. He joins 88 percent of scientists recently surveyed by the Pew Research Center who believe "GM foods are generally safe to eat." There is actual hard science that seems to support their comfort, including a much-cited "trillion meal study" based on 29 years of animals "safely" eating GM feed.

However, a defiant article published last year in a peer-reviewed journal points out that there is no epidemiological data to support the "trillion meal" hypothesis nor do most studies even gather the type of toxicological data needed to properly assess risk. And it bluntly states that there is no scientific consensus on GMO safety outside of an "internal circle of stakeholders."

As a key influencer, Bill Nye is now one of those stakeholders.

The Science Guy spoke about his conversion in Monsanto's experimental greenhouse after it gave him the tools to assemble his own genetically engineered "foster grand-plants" in its high-tech laboratory. Let's face it, if you're a scientist it must be intoxicating to go into a lab and cook up a whole new form of life. Nye sure thought so. And so do the other stakeholders who benefit from practicing Monsanto's patented brand of science.

Who Is Monsanto, Anyway?

Monsanto certainly has its fair share of faceless "suits."

They are the lawyers, lobbyists, salespeople and business-schooled bottom-liners who make such easy targets for critics of corporate greed. The company's board of directors certainly is a target-rich environment with a former CEO of Peabody Energy, a professor of economics, a former president of McDonald's, the CFO of Procter & Gamble, a retired CEO of Sara Lee Corporation and, just for kicks, a retired CEO of Lockheed Martin among its members.

Additionally, just four of Monsanto's 12 executives have science degrees, but of those four, two also happen to be Monsanto's biggest wigs. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Hugh Grant has a degree in molecular biology and an annual compensation package worth nearly $12 million. Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer Dr. Robert T. Fraley holds a Ph.D. in microbiology and biochemistry, received the National Medal of Technology from President Bill Clinton in 1999 and received the World Food Prize in 2013. He earns a tidy $3.4 million for his efforts.

In fact, Fraley was literally present at the creation of the first GM plant cell in a Belgian laboratory in 1982. Now, as Monsanto's lead scientist, he directs a staff of 5,000 researchers who earn an average of $96,638 per year. So, who are these well-paid scientists who do the gene-altering, chemical-concocting work that makes Monsanto go?

Well, you are cordially invited to meet them on Monsanto's well-designed website. As it happily points out, Monsanto employs "a diverse group of thinkers with one common goal: helping to make a balanced meal accessible."

Sounds great, right?


Humans have used enough glyphosate "to spray nearly half a pound of Roundup on every cultivated acre of land in the world."

Monsanto even has a YouTube page brimming with professionally produced videos and, if you're curious, you can find out why Laura -- a geneticist and mom -- works at Monsanto. As Laura quite earnestly points out, she and her fellow scientists just want to "improve the seeds that the farmers are planting." Oddly enough, Laura fails to mention that the seeds need to be "improved" because the plants will die if they're not genetically altered to withstand Monsanto's flagship product -- Roundup.

And therein lies the rub.

Monsanto's scientists are not engineering seeds that generate extra seeds so farmers can expand planting during the next season or even eat during times of famine. That would certainly help African farmers who lack seeds and assist Indian farmers struggling to afford Monsanto's seed monopoly. Instead, the company developed a "Terminator gene" that rendered offspring seeds infertile. Monsanto says it will never commercialize this "genetic use restriction technology," which is good news. The bad news is that Monsanto can afford to keep that ace in the hole so long as its patents are enforced and farmers keep buying its pricey, patented seeds -- and the herbicide those seeds are built upon.

What's more, Monsanto's "white hats" in the white coats are not working on "open-source" drought-resistant crops for cash-starved farmers in poor nations. They are not working on "open-source" technologies to increase yields for a growing global population. No, they get paid to produce proprietary products for a profit-making company that ruthlessly enforces its monopoly.

They can argue that this is "science" and "progress." And they might point out that science is expensive. Patents help pay for the innovations that will "feed the world." Sadly, their science isn't really about true "sustainability." It's about sustaining an otherwise unsustainable agrochemical model that denudes soil, poisons water and stokes counter-evolutionary responses from Mother Nature. It's not "pure science." It's a business model. Frankly, Monsanto's "innovations" wouldn't be needed if its scientists weren't perfecting poison and playing poker with evolution. And now they're doubling down with a sci-fi-sounding surfactant that could literally change life with one simple spray.

Resistance Is (Almost) Futile

Monsanto is upgrading the Borg.

It's called the "BioDirect" initiative and it will eliminate costly resistance to glyphosate, eradicate vexingly resilient insects with "biopesticides" and even modify the genetic code of a plant by simply spritzing it with an RNA-infused surfactant spray. The technology is called "RNA interference" (RNAi) and it heralds a brave new world of profitability for agrochemical corporations. It also opens a Pandora's box full of as-yet unanswered ethical questions about genetic drift, patenting plants on the fly and, most ominously, whether RNAi can, should or will be weaponized like another Monsanto product -- Agent Orange.

RNAi technology hijacks DNA's messenger system -- the ribonucleic acid (RNA) that carries out DNA's instructions. In effect, RNAi sends human-made messages that can, in turn, alter or kill its target by scrambling cellular functions, turning off organs, dropping resistance to a herbicide (glyphosate) or altering the DNA's command system to produce an artificial gene expression.


The real issue is whether the next best move after drenching the planet in pesticides is to then start pumping out RNAi biopesticides.

BioDirect is an end run around the DNA-altering process Monsanto used to create Roundup Ready crops and "Bt" corn and cotton. Bt-infused crops have the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin built directly into the plant. That toxic protein kills hungry insects. But, like Roundup-doused weeds, insects are developing resistance to Bt crops. Whether it's lice in Texas, bacteria in India or superweeds choking American farms, resistance to human-made poison is literally a textbook response by Mother Nature.

Now this predictable evolutionary response is casting a pall over the agribusiness model.

The Union of Concerned Scientists pointed out that the superweed "plague" overshadows "60 million acres of U.S. cropland" and is "wreaking environmental havoc, driving up farmers' costs and prompting them to resort to more toxic weed-killers." Even worse, scientists at the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds found "467 unique cases of herbicide resistant weeds globally" and that weeds evolved resistance to "160 different herbicides" in "86 crops in 66 countries."

So here's the upshot: Using poison causes the farmers using the poison to have to buy ever-more toxic poison to deal with the resistance caused by the use of poison. Go figure.

Of course, Monsanto's scientists assured the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1993 that glyphosate posed a "low risk for weed resistance." Now, instead of conceding and working with nature, they are counterattacking with RNAi technology. Why? Because sales are flagging. The market is literally oversaturated with glyphosate. And Monsanto wants to extend the life and profitability of Roundup by knocking out resistance at the cellular level.

As a result, we face the unknown consequences of introducing a tidal wave of RNA into ecosystems that are not adapted to a sudden influx of genetic messages. Just think about that for a minute. Antonio Regalado pointed out in MIT Technology Review, "RNA may be natural ... but introducing large amounts of targeted RNA molecules into the environment is not."

The USDA and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have already signed off on RNAi apples engineered by a Canadian company and although Monsanto is still awaiting approval, a 2014 statement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates that their RNAi may already be baked into your cake: "Indications are that the majority, if not all, orally administered [RNAi] ... is degraded by the acid environment of the stomach and the action of pancreatic" enzymes. The EPA believes this should "lessen the probability" that RNAi will survive digestion and trigger responses in the consumer eating the material. The EPA does note, however, that "questions remain" about the survival of RNAi past the acid and enzymes in the human gut, but claims that "a number of reports" indicate it is unlikely, including "a paper co-authored by Monsanto researchers."

With Monsanto's scientists pushing favorable papers at the EPA and with farmers who are supportive of agrochemical options clamoring for new GMO herbicide technology, it sure seems like resistance to their solution to glyphosate resistance is futile.

A Killer Business Model

How does the "Great Monsatan" persist in spite of widespread antipathy in Europe, Africa, India, South America and the United States?

The simple fact is that Monsanto's power is based on transactions.

Monsanto's model relies on transactions with industrial-scale agribusinesses running on a treadmill of petrochemical-based fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides.

Its de facto monopoly forces farmers around the world into transactions as they struggle to compete with industrial-scale farming, superweeds and seed scarcity.

Monsanto negotiates transactions with political players in both parties who, in turn, drive regulatory agencies like a giant corporate-government combine that harvests short-term profits -- future fallowness be damned.

There is the key transaction with convenience-minded consumers who've helped make Roundup weed killer quite literally a household name. It's a subtle psychological "buy-in" that gets a little herbicide on everybody's hands.

And then there are the transactions with Monsanto's own scientists who make a killing off of the killing. And Big Agrochemical -- much like Big Oil and Big Tobacco -- actively purchases consensus by funding academic studies, public interest groups, high-profile "experts," key influencers and media outlets.

Crucial are the "independent" scientists and academics who tout the whiz-bang wonders of GMOs, while also enjoying Monsanto's largess. It's a practice Monsanto employed in the 1980s when it was under fire for the toxic, mutagenic effects of Agent Orange.

It took four decades for the World Health Organization (WHO) to list glyphosate as a "probable" carcinogen. Interestingly enough, the EPA listed glyphosate as a possible carcinogen from 1985 to 1991. But that was reversed -- some believe "mysteriously" -- when the science was called into question. Now Monsanto's multimillionaire CEO Hugh Grant predictably questions the WHO's science. And finally the FDA has been spurred into testing for glyphosate in food.

It shouldn't be hard to find.

Glyphosate has shown up in nearly everything, including: German beers, German dairy cows, actual Germans, French panty liners and tampons, a shocking number of American waterways, 75 percent of air and rain samples in Mississippi and, quite predictably, in "high levels," on 70 percent of genetically modified soy. As Douglas Main reported in Newsweek, humans have used enough glyphosate "to spray nearly half a pound of Roundup on every cultivated acre of land in the world."

Meanwhile, as the debate rages over genetically modified food, the real issue is whether or not the next best move after drenching the planet in pesticides, fungicides and herbicides is to then start pumping out RNAi biopesticides and spraying RNAi messages onto plants.

But that's a debate we're not having.

Sadly, this non-debate reflects a casual willingness to use poison that ultimately drives the entire agrochemical model. Monsanto is banking on the farmers who escalate their war on their own fields and on the trigger-happy consumers who don't realize that convenience is their true enemy. Most importantly of all, Monsanto's power comes from the scientists who should know better than to relentlessly challenge Mother Nature to an evolutionary showdown. It's a no-win situation -- unless, of course, you're one of Monsanto's well-paid stakeholders.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/3551 ... ecutioners


JP Sottile


JP Sottile is a freelance journalist, published historian, radio co-host and documentary filmmaker (The Warning, 2008). His credits include a stint on the Newshour news desk, C-SPAN and as newsmagazine producer for ABC affiliate WJLA in Washington. His weekly show, "Inside the Headlines With The Newsvandal," co-hosted by James Moore, airs every Friday on KRUU-FM in Fairfield, Iowa. He blogs under the pseudonym "the Newsvandal."


Related Stories
Monsanto and Syngenta Tighten Stranglehold on Global Food Supply
By Paul Barbot, Truthout | Op-Ed
Monsanto's Roundup Kills and Damages More Than Weeds
By Shepherd Bliss, Speakout | Op-Ed
Monsanto's Pesticide Is Top Suspect Behind Mysterious Kidney Disease
By Armin Rosencranz, Gaurav Bhawnani, Ashrutha Rai, Truthout | News Analysis

[Gary Oak]

Monsanto is ambitiously becoming even more evil.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more articles from Christina Sarich.

About the Author

Christina Sarich is a staff writer for Waking Times. She is a writer, musician, yogi, and humanitarian with an expansive repertoire. Her thousands of articles can be found all over the Internet, and her insights also appear in magazines as diverse as Weston A. Price, Nexus, Atlantis Rising, and the Cuyamungue Institute, among others. She was recently a featured author in the Journal, “Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and Healing Arts,” and her commentary on healing, ascension, and human potential inform a large body of the alternative news lexicon. She has been invited to appear on numerous radio shows, including Health Conspiracy Radio, Dr. Gregory Smith’s Show, and dozens more. The second edition of her book, Pharma Sutra, will be released soon.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/05/04/m ... e-roundup/

[Blue Frost]

Now that sounds bad, we do carry so much genetic code with insects even if people don't want to believe it.

[Gary Oak]

Do we really need GMO mushrooms ? Are farmed mushrooms really so under attack by weeds and other pests that we really need genetically modified mushrooms ? I son't believe so and believe that there must be other reasons that they know buyers wouldn't approve of if they knew.

GMO Mushroom Waved Through by USDA, Potentially Opening Floodgates for Wave of Frankenfoods
A new gene-editing technology doesn't seem to bother our federal food regulator.
By Steven Hoffman / AlterNet May 10, 2016

checking food mushrooms on the content herbicides and pesticides

Repeat after me: Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats.

That’s CRISPR, a new GE technology that uses an enzyme, Cas9, to cut, edit or remove genes from targeted region of a plant’s DNA. Because it doesn’t involve transgenics, i.e. inserting genes from foreign species into an animal or plant, foods produced in this manner just received a free pass from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to be sold into the marketplace.

In an April 2016 letter to Penn State researcher Yinong Yang, USDA informed the associate professor of plant pathology that his new patent-pending, non-browning mushroom, created via CRISPR technology, would not require USDA approval.

“The notification apparently clears the way for the potential commercial development of the mushroom, which is the first CRISPR-Cas9 gene-edited crop deemed to require no regulatory review by USDA,” reported Chuck Gill in Penn State News.

Why does this anti-browning mushroom not require USDA regulation? ”Our genome-edited mushroom has small deletions in a specific gene but contains no foreign DNA integration in its genome," said Yang. "Therefore, we believed that there was no scientifically valid basis to conclude that the CRISPR-edited mushroom is a regulated article based on the definition described in the regulations."

The USDA ruling could open the door for many genetically engineered crops developed using CRISPR-Cas9 technology, said Penn State. In fact, just days after USDA's notification regarding Yang's anti-browning mushroom, the agency announced that a CRISPR-Cas9-edited corn variety developed by DuPont Pioneer also will not be subject to the same USDA regulations as traditional GMOs.

In response to Pioneer's "Regulated Article Letter of Inquiry," about the new GE corn product, the USDA said it does not consider the CRISPR corn "as regulated by USDA Biotechnology Regulatory Services," reported Business Insider.

Not so fast, cautions Michael Hansen, senior scientist for Consumers Union. Just because USDA says CRISPR needs no regulation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which uses the international CODEX definition of “modern biotechnology,” would “clearly include” the new Penn State CRISPR mushroom, says Hansen.

“The biotechnology industry will be trying to argue to USDA that these newer techniques are more "precise and accurate" than older GE techniques and should require even less, or no scrutiny,” he says. “Thus, the issue of what definition to use for GE is a crucial one,” Hansen points out.

“The government does realize that there is a disconnect between USDA and EPA and FDA about what the definition of genetic engineering is, and that is part of the reason why it is in the process of reviewing the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology,” Hansen says. “Thus, the last sentence in USDA’s letter to Dr. Yang at Penn State would say, ‘Please be advised that your white button mushroom variety described in your letter may still be subject to other regulatory authorities such as FDA or EPA.’”

Yang does plan to submit data about the CRISPR mushroom to the FDA as a precaution before introducing the crop to the market, he says. While FDA clearance is not technically required, Yang told Science News, “We’re not just going to start marketing these mushrooms without FDA approval.”

Gary Ruskin, co-director of the advocacy group U.S. Right to Know, told Fusion on April 25 that the organization’s concerns about genetically engineered food crops extend to Penn State’s new CRISPR mushroom. “What are the unknowns about CRISPR generally, and in particular, in its application in this mushroom?” he asked. “Regulators should determine whether there are off-target effects. Consumers have the right to know what’s in our food.”

In Europe, however, where anti-GMO advocates have strongly opposed CRISPR, Urs Niggli, director of the Swiss Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) was recently quoted in the German newspaper Taz that CRISPR may be different from traditional GMO technologies and could alleviate some concerns groups like FiBL have with older gene-editing techniques. His comments have since been subject to much interpretation and criticism among both pro- and anti-GMO circles.

While biotech proponents claim that CRISPR has much to offer, Nature reported in June 2015 that scientists are worried that the field's fast pace leaves little time for addressing ethical and safety concerns. The issue was thrust into the spotlight in April 2015, when news media reported that scientists had used CRISPR technology to engineer human embryos. The embryos they used were unable to result in a live birth. Nature reported that the news generated heated debate over whether and how CRISPR should be used to make heritable changes to the human genome. Some scientists want to see more studies that probe whether the technique generates stray and potentially risky genome edits; others worry that edited organisms could disrupt entire ecosystems, Nature reported.

Steve Hoffman is a communications consultant for Regeneration International, a project of the Organic Consumers Association.

http://www.alternet.org/food/gmo-mushro ... ankenfoods

[Blue Frost]

I don't like the organic kind let along any more. Maybe if they made them taste like cake, or marshmallows

[Gary Oak]

I thought that Obama signed the Monsanto Protection Act [ with that gleeful smile of his too ] Fortunately Monsanto isn't totally free to poison Americans.

Monsanto Loses Major PCBs Poisoning Lawsuit, Forced to Pay $46 Million to Victims

http://theantimedia.org/monsanto-loses-pcbs-lawsuit/

[Blue Frost]

If people really know about how their health is being sold out in America they would all pick up pitchforks, and burn the monster.

[Gary Oak]

The EU can say no to GMO's

EU may ban Monsanto weedkiller over health concerns

Leading European countries have decided not to extend the license for glyphosate, a herbicide used in Monsanto’s top selling weedkiller. The EU is worried about growing public concerns it could cause cancer.

© Global Justice NowMonsanto weedkiller relabeled by activists to expose alleged cancer-causing properties
The EU had offered a 12 to 18-month extension of the license to give more time for further scientific study by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Before that, a proposal to renew the glyphosate license for 15 years had failed at two meetings.

Twenty member states are reported to have voted for the license renewal, with Germany, France, Italy, Greece, Austria, Portugal and Luxembourg abstaining from the vote with Malta voting against.

German Green Party MEP Martin Häusling said that by choosing to abstain the countries are skirting their own responsibilities.

“It would have been right to prohibit glyphosate immediately,” he said.

After Brussels failed to extend permission to use glyphosate, Monsanto’s top product is likely to lose its license, if there’s no decision reached by the end of June. As the June 30 deadline approaches, the deadlock could lead to an EU-wide recall by Monsanto.

In May, officials in Brussels told the Guardian that if no agreement is reached, the EU will have to start recalling Monsanto’s best-selling weed killers Roundup, Dow and Syngenta.

“Our position is clear. If we can reach a qualified majority on a text we will go ahead. Otherwise, we have to leave the authorization to expire and on 30 June member states will need to start withdrawing products containing glyphosate from the market,” the official said.

The EU decision was praised by food safety spokesperson Bart Staes, who represents the Green group in the European Parliament. Staes says glyphosate is a carcinogen and an endocrine disruptor that has a “devastating impact on biodiversity.”

“Thankfully, the significant public mobilization and political opposition to re-approving glyphosate has been taken seriously by key EU governments, who have forced the EU commission to back down,” he told the Guardian.

Glyphosate is one of the world’s most widely-used agricultural herbicides, and a key ingredient of Monsanto’s Roundup. A ban on the chemical has long been demanded by environmentalists due to health concerns, including its alleged link to cancer. EU and UN scientists, such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), do not share this opinion, although last year the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) named glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

[Blue Frost]

i hope that others will follow, it's sick we have it still, and ban stuff that's not as bad.
I hope in the end it goes bankrupt.

[Gary Oak]

Just when you thought Monsanto couldn't get more evil.....

Whole Foods goes ROGUE... partners with Monsanto to kill GMO labeling across America and replace with fake labeling deception... SENATE VOTE PLANNED AS EARLY AS TOMORROW

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054514_Whole ... z4D5E8VolZ

[Gary Oak]

I imagine that they have PHD's working together trying to figure out all these evil plans

Whole Foods CAUGHT LYING to customers about its support for Monsanto-pushed GMO fake labeling bill in the U.S. Senate: VIDEO

Wednesday, June 29, 2016
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Tags: Whole Foods, GMO labeling bill, Walter Robb

Whole Foods

(NaturalNews) Whole Foods Market (WFM) was caught in a blatant, brazen lie today after Natural News published a report that showed Whole Foods joining with Monsanto to support a GMO "fake labeling" bill in the U.S. Senate. The proposed new law would outlaw GMO labeling nationwide for up to two years, then roll out a GMO labeling "compromise" that would allow companies to use QR code (machine language) labeling that isn't readable by humans.

The proposed law, in other words, is a fraud. It would not require any sort of GMO labeling that's readable by human beings, and it would destroy the only existing labeling law that requires real, honest labeling (the Vermont law).

As news of the betrayal spread across the internet, the Whole Foods Big Lie machine went into action, deliberately spreading false and misleading information via social media to deny the fact that Whole Foods' own CEO, Walter Robb, is on the record openly supporting this Monsanto-engineered GMO fake labeling law (see below).

Today, in response to a widely publicized article on Natural News that quoted a breaking story from Food Democracy Now, Whole Foods posted the following lie on its Facebook page:

There is no truth to these claims. We have always advocated for more transparency in the marketplace, because we believe people have a right to know what's in their food... Our commitment is to true transparency, and our policy will not accept QR codes or 1-800 numbers as valid ways of identifying foods that may contain GMOs.




Whole Foods CEO contradicts the Whole Foods social media liars who try to deceive the public
Yet, this fraudulent denial flies in the face of Whole Foods CEO Walter Robb's own statements to the media, reported in Politico Pro and also recorded on video (see video link below). In this article entitled, "‘Good food’ industry leaders back Senate GMO compromise" by Helena Bottemiller Evich, Politico published the following: (bolding added)

ASPEN, Colo. - Three leading voices in the so-called "good food" sector today urged support for the Senate's bipartisan compromise on GMO labeling, a bill that would preempt Vermont's labeling law and provide options for companies to disclose genetically modified ingredients.

Walter Robb, co-CEO of Whole Foods Market, Jeff Dunn, president of Campbell Fresh, and Sam Kass, a former White House adviser who now works with food tech companies, all praised Sens. Pat Roberts and Debbie Stabenow for coming to an agreement on a national solution during a panel discussion at the Aspen Ideas Festival.

"It's not perfect, but it's progress not perfection," said Dunn, who noted that Campbell's was the first major food company to voluntarily label its products. "It's a step in the right direction."

[Walter] Robb said it was an "incredible thing" that the senators came together and compromised during a dysfunctional time. He said he hopes that lawmakers can soon move on to other things.

...Kass, who has already lauded the Senate for the compromise, said he'd prefer on-pack labels, but argued that advocates got 75 percent of what they wanted and the deal should be supported.


Whole Foods CEO Walter Robb captured on video openly supporting Monsanto-engineered GMO fake labeling law
For further proof that Whole Foods' deceptive spin social media team is lying to your face, just watch this Aspen Institute video recorded three days ago.

Go to 36:21 in the video to watch Whole Foods CEO Walter Robb talk just like a Monsanto operative, claiming the Vermont labeling law is too complex to follow and therefore a federal labeling compromise needs to become law (even if it only requires labeling in machine code that's unreadable by humans): (bolding added)

Question: What's your take on is this a bill that should get passed or not?

Whole Foods CEO Walter Robb:

My view on the bill is that, and I'm pretty intimately aware of it, is that I think it's an incredible thing that Sen. Stabenow has put together with Sen. Robert, when you take a look at the atmosphere up there on Capitol Hill, that this much was accomplished together.

Whether it passes or not is an open question of the next couple of weeks. The alternative is that Vermont goes into effect and then there's a number of other states behind that, it makes it difficult for manufacturers to be able to label and label to that different standard... and frankly the Vermont bill while it's... the national bill would have never happened if Vermont had not passed. There just wouldn't have been the pressure... it's a very imperfect bill. It doesn't cover a lot of products, there's gaps and inconsistencies that ultimately are probably better addressed through some sort of a national standard.

And I think the way she's put the bill together, which is to give manufacturers choices, is I think the marketplace and the customers will take it from here... so obviously, I think she's done a great piece of work... we are already are out there further with our commitment to full transparency by 2018. We're not gonna... we're looking at how these two live with each other, but we're already past that, but I think in this day and age, to come together, to create some sort of a reasonable standard that manufacturers can... and gives the customer a lot more information is a pretty good thing.

Walter Robb, in other words, loves the idea that the new federal mandate would "give manufacturers choice" instead of requiring mandatory, clear labeling. And he praises the compromise just as Monsanto operatives do. It's a huge WIN for Monsanto, and Whole Foods CEO Walter Robb just can't praise it enough!


ACTION ITEM: Go to the Whole Foods Facebook page now and tell them to stop lying
Click here for the Whole Foods Facebook page. Tell them to stop lying to their customers. Walter Robb has been caught red-handed, on video, admitting to his support for the Monsanto GMO "fake labeling" law. Yet the Whole Foods social media people just keep on LYING, hoping nobody will notice...


Indisputable FACTS about the Whole Foods supported law: It would kill the existing Vermont labeling law (and worse)
Even the Politico story was very mild in its description of what this Monsanto / Whole Foods law actually does. Here are some irrefutable facts about the new law:

• The new law would immediately kill the Vermont GMO labeling law due to kick in this Friday, denying the citizens of Vermont the right to know whether they are eating GMOs.

• It would permanently outlaw state GMO labeling laws nationwide.

• It allows NO LABELING for up to two years while the USDA figures out what sort of labeling to require.

• It gives food manufacturers "choices" to use non-human-readable labels that can only be read by bar code scanners. This allows food companies to hide the truth about GMOs behind digital machine code.

• It does not require the GMO labeling of meats or dairy products from animals raised entirely on GMO feed.

• It allows the USDA to arbitrarily decide what percentage of GMOs in a food item trigger a required GMO label (or bar code). This level could theoretically be set at 50% or even 90%.

• The proposed law was masterminded by Monsanto-influenced lawmakers as a way to destroy state GMO labeling laws while falsely claiming to have a "national GMO labeling mandate" that's pure fraud.

• Whole Foods CEO Walter Robb fully supports this proposed law, calling it an "incredible thing" that was "accomplished together."


The Whole Foods LIE MACHINE goes into overdrive while betraying its own customers over GMO labeling
As is obvious here, Whole Foods own CEO Walter Robb is on the record supporting the GMO fake labeling "compromise" that was pushed through the Senate by Monsanto. This is undeniable. Yet the Whole Foods social media liars and deception artists ridiculously proclaim "There is no truth to these claims. We have always advocated for more transparency in the marketplace..."

It's complete B.S., of course, but that's what Whole Foods is peddling these days. Remember: This is also the same retailer that trained its managers to lie to the public about GMOs, all while selling protein powders containing alarming levels of toxic heavy metals (and refusing to do anything about it). Whole Foods has a long history of being so deceptive about GMOs that some people now call it Wholesanto.

The truth on this is simple: For the last two decades, Whole Foods has been selling unlabeled GMOs, heavy metals and pesticides to health-conscious customers who now demand honest labeling. And now when Monsanto twists the U.S. Senate into advancing a law that would outlaw the existing Vermont GMO labeling law, Whole Foods' own CEO Walter Robb publicly praises it, followed by the Whole Foods propaganda liars denying any such thing ever happened. Just WOW.

Watch the video yourself here (forward to 36:21)

The truth about Whole Foods is finally coming out: Pro-Monsanto, anti-labeling and LYING to its own customers at every opportunity
Now we finally see the truth come out as Whole Foods joins Monsanto in supporting a GMO labeling bill that would deny consumers the right to know what they're eating with clear, human-readable labeling. Not only is Whole Foods joining forces with Monsanto to destroy the courageous, pioneering Vermont labeling law, it's also blatantly lying to its own customers and denying any of this is true.

As an investigative journalist and food lab science director, the one thing I've learned about Whole Foods over the last few years is that Whole Foods has long abandoned integrity and seeks only profit via deception.

In other words, Whole Foods is just like Monsanto. Except that instead of selling poisons to farmers, Whole Foods is selling GMO poisons to the end customer, all while working hard to support a law that would destroy Vermont's existing GMO labeling law. I think I'm going to write an entire chapter about the lies and deceptions of Whole Foods in my next edition of Food Forensics, coming out in 2017. I'm told the book will not be available at Whole Foods Market stores, for some reason...


More news on Whole Foods

Whole Foods caught in GMO marketing deception, false advertising - here's the proof


Whole Foods confirms it knowingly sells products containing Monsanto's genetically modified corn: Don't ask, don't tell!


Natural News exclusive: Whole Foods Market whistleblower says employees were deliberately trained to lie about GMOs - new Organic Spies video


Whole Foods announces mandatory GMO labeling by 2018; here's how it happened


YouTube censors 'Organic Spies' video exposing Whole Foods employees lying about GMOs


Why I'm thankful for Whole Foods Market stores


Whole Foods knowingly engages in massive GMO deception, says undercover video by 'Organic Spies'

About the author:Mike Adams (aka the "Health Ranger") is a best selling author (#1 best selling science book on Amazon.com) and a globally recognized scientific researcher in clean foods. He serves as the founding editor of NaturalNews.com and the lab science director of an internationally accredited (ISO 17025) analytical laboratory known as CWC Labs. There, he was awarded a Certificate of Excellence for achieving extremely high accuracy in the analysis of toxic elements in unknown water samples using ICP-MS instrumentation. Adams is also highly proficient in running liquid chromatography, ion chromatography and mass spectrometry time-of-flight analytical instrumentation.

Adams is a person of color whose descendents include Africans and American Indians. He self-identifies as being of American Indian heritage, which he credits as inspiring his "Health Ranger" passion for protecting life and nature against the destruction caused by chemicals, heavy metals and other forms of pollution.

Adams is the founder and publisher of the open source science journal Natural Science Journal, the author of numerous peer-reviewed science papers published by the journal, and the author of the world's first book that published ICP-MS heavy metals analysis results for foods, dietary supplements, pet food, spices and fast food. The book is entitled Food Forensics and is published by BenBella Books.

In his laboratory research, Adams has made numerous food safety breakthroughs such as revealing rice protein products imported from Asia to be contaminated with toxic heavy metals like lead, cadmium and tungsten. Adams was the first food science researcher to document high levels of tungsten in superfoods. He also discovered over 11 ppm lead in imported mangosteen powder, and led an industry-wide voluntary agreement to limit heavy metals in rice protein products.

In addition to his lab work, Adams is also the (non-paid) executive director of the non-profit Consumer Wellness Center (CWC), an organization that redirects 100% of its donations receipts to grant programs that teach children and women how to grow their own food or vastly improve their nutrition. Through the non-profit CWC, Adams also launched Nutrition Rescue, a program that donates essential vitamins to people in need. Click here to see some of the CWC success stories.

With a background in science and software technology, Adams is the original founder of the email newsletter technology company known as Arial Software. Using his technical experience combined with his love for natural health, Adams developed and deployed the content management system currently driving NaturalNews.com. He also engineered the high-level statistical algorithms that power SCIENCE.naturalnews.com, a massive research resource featuring over 10 million scientific studies.

Adams is well known for his incredibly popular consumer activism video blowing the lid on fake blueberries used throughout the food supply. He has also exposed "strange fibers" found in Chicken McNuggets, fake academic credentials of so-called health "gurus," dangerous "detox" products imported as battery acid and sold for oral consumption, fake acai berry scams, the California raw milk raids, the vaccine research fraud revealed by industry whistleblowers and many other topics.

Adams has also helped defend the rights of home gardeners and protect the medical freedom rights of parents. Adams is widely recognized to have made a remarkable global impact on issues like GMOs, vaccines, nutrition therapies, human consciousness.

In addition to his activism, Adams is an accomplished musician who has released over a dozen popular songs covering a variety of activism topics.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054515_Whole ... z4D5Eu6z8X

[Gary Oak]

No doubt muslim groups have thought about ways to use biologicals but I doubt any of them have enough brains to create GMO diseases. China, Russia and the USA have some very horrible ones safely tucked away somewhere. Now that Iran has been given billions of $$$$ it's possible that they are working on some themselves.


Genetic Manipulation - The New Weapon Of Mass Destruction


Biological warfare is a frightening possibility that has recently become more accessible and, potentially, far more powerful due to recent advances in genetic manipulation called CRISPR.

Early this year, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper cited genetic manipulation made possible by the new technique as a threat to national security, adding genetic manipulation to the list of threats of weapons of mass destruction. But just what is CRISPER and how much of a threat does this pose?

The technique's full name is Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat and it refers to a component of the immune systems of bacteria that seek to protect themselves against viruses.

The short and palindromic DNA sequences in bacterial and microorganism cells precisely cut up and modify virus DNA to protect the cell. Researchers have now figured out how to harness this process for both industrial and research purposes.

This is a classic example of a dual-use technology that has powerfully beneficial civilian applications as well as devastating military potential. In an industrial context, the system can be used to create hardier antibiotics, yogurts and yeasts. The benefit to food production alone can be substantial.

In research, there is enormous medical potential in the ability, very precisely, to alter the DNA of a specific cell or organism. Cures for disease and genetic disorders are much closer with such a powerful tool for precise genetic manipulation, but so are engineered bio-weapons.

Bio-weapons present a unique challenge to nation states. Officially, the development of biological weapons is prohibited by the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention of 1975, signed by 175 countries, including the US, China and Russia.

But without continuing research into bio-warfare, a nation is left defenseless against an enemy that does have continued development. Several secret programs out of Russia, China and the US have already been discovered, highlighting the weakness of the treaty itself.

But what was previously a resource-intensive endeavor only within the reach of powerful nations, the increased precision and efficiency of the CRISPR techniques have put far more powerful weapon development possibilities within reach of any regime or sophisticated criminal organization.

Biological warfare is not new. The US Army distributed smallpox infected blankets to American Indian populations in an act of biological warfare and even the early Mongols broke sieges by launching diseased bodies over the walls of castles.

During World War II, the Japanese dropped bubonic plague infected fleas in ceramic jars onto Chinese cities, releasing plagues that killed untold thousands.

The US military conducted tests of bio-weapons on an industrial scale during the Cold War and in September of 1950, purposely tested bacteria called Serratia marcescens on 800,000 residents of San Francisco, resulting in eleven illnesses and one death, in their attempt to increase its spread.

The research into bacteria such as anthrax and far more deadly viruses was conducted in secret on a massive scale.

But CRISPR allows even greater capabilities to be had in the garages or low-cost laboratories of any bad actor. Now able to tailor viruses to specific populations and for very specific effect, it is theoretically possible to produce pathogens that could render certain populations sterile or cause genetic mutations in their victims.

As is the case with bio-weapons, they may be easily loosed upon the world but are very difficult to contain or control.

Whereas the benefits of editing the human genome to remove inherited heart defects is a great leap forward for science, this technique brings with it the chance for easily-accessible and precisely-tailored viruses that are far more difficult to stop.

The double edged sword of genetic engineering that can produce hardier crops, improved food supplies and remove genetic defects also threatens to kill millions with man-made plagues.

Imagine this system in the hands of a terrorist group or malicious nation-state that modifies the Ebola virus to have a longer incubation period and increase the transmission rate by a thousand fold, or build into Zika the ability severely to alter a victim's DNA and render 95% of its victims infertile.

Spread by mosquitoes or person to person, these new diseases would speed across borders, breaching all conventional defenses.

After the incredible advances and proliferation of the use of the CRISPR technique in the past several years, experts believe we are now looking at a genetic arms race that is being conducted in research labs across the globe.

Expect advances in medicine and food sciences, but don't be surprised if the next global pandemic is man-made and far worse than any we have seen before.

Read more at http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/articl ... Vh6OBZb.99

[Blue Frost]

Just eat soy filled foods, and canola oil, it's been making bitches out of men, and poisoning people for decades now.
It really angers me people are so dumb down, they don't even consider what they are eating. Just because the Tv says it's healthy they eat it, just because it says diet they eat the crap.
We don't have to worry about the terrorist, we need to worry about the enemies within.

genetic engineering is not new, they have been messing up foods for a long time now, maybe unrepeatable.

[Gary Oak]

The Complete History of Monsanto
Posted on September 17, 2016 by Soren Dreier
Author: Global Research
01a-Monsanto Masthead

Of all the mega-corps running amok, Monsanto has consistently outperformed its rivals, earning the crown as “most evil corporation on Earth!” Not content to simply rest upon its throne of destruction, it remains focused on newer, more scientifically innovative ways to harm the planet and its people.

1901: The company is founded by John Francis Queeny, a member of the Knights of Malta, a thirty year pharmaceutical veteran married to Olga Mendez Monsanto, for which Monsanto Chemical Works is named. The company’s first product is chemical saccharin, sold to Coca-Cola as an artificial sweetener.

Even then, the government knew saccharin was poisonous and sued to stop its manufacture but lost in court, thus opening the Monsanto Pandora’s Box to begin poisoning the world through the soft drink.

1920s: Monsanto expands into industrial chemicals and drugs, becoming the world’s largest maker of aspirin, acetylsalicyclic acid, (toxic of course). This is also the time when things began to go horribly wrong for the planet in a hurry with the introduction of their polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

“PCBs were considered an industrial wonder chemical, an oil that wouldn’t burn, impervious to degradation and had almost limitless applications. Today PCBs are considered one of the gravest chemical threats on the planet. Widely used as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, cutting oils, waterproof coatings and liquid sealants, are potent carcinogens and have been implicated in reproductive, developmental and immune system disorders. The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state.”(1)

Even though PCBs were eventually banned after fifty years for causing such devastation, it is still present in just about all animal and human blood and tissue cells across the globe. Documents introduced in court later showed Monsanto was fully aware of the deadly effects, but criminally hid them from the public to keep the PCB gravy-train going full speed!

1930s: Created its first hybrid seed corn and expands into detergents, soaps, industrial cleaning products, synthetic rubbers and plastics. Oh yes, all toxic of course!

1940s: They begin research on uranium to be used for the Manhattan Project’s first atomic bomb, which would later be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese, Korean and US Military servicemen and poisoning millions more.

The company continues its unabated killing spree by creating pesticides for agriculture containing deadly dioxin, which poisons the food and water supplies. It was later discovered Monsanto failed to disclose that dioxin was used in a wide range of their products because doing so would force them to acknowledge that it had created an environmental Hell on Earth.

1950s: Closely aligned with The Walt Disney Company, Monsanto creates several attractions at Disney’s Tomorrowland, espousing the glories of chemicals and plastics. Their “House of the Future” is constructed entirely of toxic plastic that is not biodegradable as they had asserted. What, Monsanto lied? I’m shocked!

“After attracting a total of 20 million visitors from 1957 to 1967, Disney finally tore the house down, but discovered it would not go down without a fight. According to Monsanto Magazine, wrecking balls literally bounced off the glass-fiber, reinforced polyester material. Torches, jackhammers, chain saws and shovels did not work. Finally, choker cables were used to squeeze off parts of the house bit by bit to be trucked away.”(2)

Monsanto’s Disneyfied vision of the future:

1960s: Monsanto, along with chemical partner-in-crime DOW Chemical, produces dioxin-laced Agent Orange for use in the U.S.’s Vietnam invasion. The results? Over 3 million people contaminated, a half-million Vietnamese civilians dead, a half-million Vietnamese babies born with birth defects and thousands of U.S. military veterans suffering or dying from its effects to this day!

Monsanto is hauled into court again and internal memos show they knew the deadly effects of dioxin in Agent Orange when they sold it to the government. Outrageously though, Monsanto is allowed to present their own “research” that concluded dioxin was safe and posed no negative health concerns whatsoever. Satisfied, the bought and paid for courts side with Monsanto and throws the case out. Afterwards, it comes to light that Monsanto lied about the findings and their real research concluded that dioxin kills very effectively.

A later internal memo released in a 2002 trial admitted

“that the evidence proving the persistence of these compounds and their universal presence as residues in the environment is beyond question … the public and legal pressures to eliminate them to prevent global contamination are inevitable. The subject is snowballing. Where do we go from here? The alternatives: go out of business; sell the hell out of them as long as we can and do nothing else; try to stay in business; have alternative products.”(3)

Monsanto partners with I.G. Farben, makers of Bayer aspirin and the Third Reich’s go-to chemical manufacturer producing deadly Zyklon-B gas during World War II. Together, the companies use their collective expertise to introduce aspartame, another extremely deadly neurotoxin, into the food supply. When questions surface regarding the toxicity of saccharin, Monsanto exploits this opportunity to introduce yet another of its deadly poisons onto an unsuspecting public.

1970s: Monsanto partner, G.D. Searle, produces numerous internal studies which claim aspartame to be safe, while the FDA’s own scientific research clearly reveals that aspartame causes tumors and massive holes in the brains of rats, before killing them. The FDA initiates a grand jury investigation into G.D. Searle for “knowingly misrepresenting findings and concealing material facts and making false statements” in regard to aspartame safety.

During this time, Searle strategically taps prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld, who served as Secretary of Defense during the Gerald Ford and George W. Bush presidencies, to become CEO. The corporation’s primary goal is to have Rumsfeld utilize his political influence and vast experience in the killing business to grease the FDA to play ball with them.

A few months later, Samuel Skinner receives “an offer he can’t refuse,” withdraws from the investigation and resigns his post at the U.S. Attorney’s Office to go work for Searle’s law firm. This mob tactic stalls the case just long enough for the statute of limitation to run out and the grand jury investigation is abruptly and conveniently dropped.

1980s: Amid indisputable research that reveals the toxic effects of aspartame and as then FDA commissioner Dr. Jere Goyan was about to sign a petition into law keeping it off the market, Donald Rumsfeld calls Ronald Reagan for a favor the day after he takes office. Reagan fires the uncooperative Goyan and appoints Dr. Arthur Hayes Hull to head the FDA, who then quickly tips the scales in Searle’s favor and NutraSweet is approved for human consumption in dried products.This becomes sadly ironic since Reagan, a known jelly bean and candy enthusiast, later suffers from Alzheimers during his second term, one of the many horrific effects of aspartame consumption.

Searle’s real goal though was to have aspartame approved as a soft drink sweetener since exhaustive studies revealed that at temperatures exceeding 85 degrees Fahrenheit, it “breaks down into known toxins Diketopiperazines (DKP), methyl (wood) alcohol, and formaldehyde.”(4), becoming many times deadlier than its powdered form!

The National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) is initially in an uproar, fearing future lawsuits from consumers permanently injured or killed by drinking the poison. When Searle is able to show that liquid aspartame, though incredibly deadly, is much more addictive than crack cocaine, the NSDA is convinced that skyrocketing profits from the sale of soft drinks laced with aspartame would easily offset any future liability. With that, corporate greed wins and the unsuspecting soft drink consumers pay for it with damaged healths.

Coke leads the way once again (remember saccharin?) and begins poisoning Diet Coke drinkers with aspartame in 1983. As expected, sales skyrocket as millions become hopelessly addicted and sickened by the sweet poison served in a can. The rest of the soft drink industry likes what it sees and quickly follows suit, conveniently forgetting all about their initial reservations that aspartame is a deadly chemical. There’s money to be made, lots of it and that’s all that really matters to them anyway!

In 1985, undaunted by the swirl of corruption and multiple accusations of fraudulent research undertaken by Searle, Monsanto purchases the company and forms a new aspartame subsidiary called NutraSweet Company. When multitudes of independent scientists and researchers continue to warn about aspartame’s toxic effects, Monsanto goes on the offensive, bribing the National Cancer Institute and providing their own fraudulent papers to get the NCI to claim that formaldehyde does not cause cancer so that aspartame can stay on the market.

The known effects of aspartame ingestion are: “mania, rage, violence, blindness, joint-pain, fatigue, weight-gain, chest-pain, coma, insomnia, numbness, depression, tinnitus, weakness, spasms, irritability, nausea, deafness, memory-loss, rashes, dizziness, headaches, seizures, anxiety, palpitations, fainting, cramps, diarrhoea, panic, burning in the mouth. Diseases triggered/mimmicked include diabetes, MS, lupus, epilepsy, Parkinson’s, tumours, miscarriage, infertility, fibromyalgia, infant death, Alzheimer’s… Source : U.S. Food & Drug Administration.(5)

Further, 80% of complaints made to the FDA regarding food additives are about aspartame, which is now in over 5,000 products including diet and non-diet sodas and sports drinks, mints, chewing gum, frozen desserts, cookies, cakes, vitamins, pharmaceuticals, milk drinks, instant teas, coffees, yogurt, baby food and many, many more!(6) Read labels closely and do not buy anything that contains this horrific killer!

Amidst all the death and disease, FDA’s Arthur Hull resigns under a cloud of corruption and is immediately hired by Searle’s public relations firm as a senior scientific consultant. No, that’s not a joke! Monsanto, the FDA and many government health regulatory agencies have become one and the same! It seems the only prerequisite for becoming an FDA commissioner is that they spend time at either Monsanto or one of the pharmaceutical cartel’s organized crime corps.

1990s: Monsanto spends millions defeating state and federal legislation that disallows the corporation from continuing to dump dioxins, pesticides and other cancer-causing poisons into drinking water systems. Regardless, they are sued countless times for causing disease in their plant workers, the people in surrounding areas and birth defects in babies.

With their coffins full from the massive billions of profits, the $100 million dollar settlements are considered the low cost of doing business and thanks to the FDA, Congress and White House, business remains very good. So good that Monsanto is sued for giving radioactive iron to 829 pregnant women for a study to see what would happen to them.

In 1994, the FDA once again criminally approves Monsanto’s latest monstrosity, the Synthetic Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), produced from a genetically modified E. coli bacteria, despite obvious outrage from the scientific community of its dangers. Of course, Monsanto claims that diseased pus milk, full of antibiotics and hormones is not only safe, but actually good for you!

Worse yet, dairy companies who refuse to use this toxic cow pus and label their products as“rBGH-free” are sued by Monsanto, claiming it gives them an unfair advantage over competitors that did. In essence, what Monsanto was saying is “yeah, we know rBGH makes people sick, but it’s not alright that you advertise it’s not in your products.”

The following year, the diabolical company begins producing GMO crops that are tolerant to their toxic herbicide Roundup. Roundup-ready canola oil (rapeseed), soybeans, corn and BT cotton begin hitting the market, advertised as being safer, healthier alternatives to their organic non-GMO rivals. Apparently, the propaganda worked as today over 80% of canola on the market is their GMO variety.

A few things you definitely want to avoid in your diet are GMO soy, corn, wheat and canola oil, despite the fact that many “natural” health experts claim the latter to be a healthy oil. It’s not, but you’ll find it polluting many products on grocery store shelves.

Because these GM crops have been engineered to ‘self-pollinate,’ they do not need nature or bees to do that for them. There is a very dark side agenda to this and that is to wipe out the world’s bee population.

Monsanto knows that birds and especially bees, throw a wrench into their monopoly due to their ability to pollinate plants, thus naturally creating foods outside of the company’s “full domination control agenda.” When bees attempt to pollinate a GM plant or flower, it gets poisoned and dies. In fact, the bee colony collapse was recognized and has been going on since GM crops were first introduced.

To counter the accusations that they deliberately caused this ongoing genocide of bees, Monsanto devilishly buys out Beeologics, the largest bee research firm that was dedicated to studying the colony collapse phenomenon and whose extensive research named the monster as the primary culprit! After that, it’s “bees, what bees? Everything’s just dandy!” Again, I did not make this up, but wish I had!

During the mid-90s, they decide to reinvent their evil company as one focused on controlling the world’s food supply through artificial, biotechnology means to preserve the Roundup cash-cow from losing market-share in the face of competing, less-toxic herbicides. You see, Roundup is so toxic that it wipes out non-GMO crops, insects, animals, human health and the environment at the same time. How very efficient!

Because Roundup-ready crops are engineered to be toxic pesticides masquerading as food, they have been banned in the EU, but not in America! Is there any connection between that and the fact that Americans, despite the high cost and availability of healthcare, are collectively the sickest people in the world? Of course not!

As was Monsanto’s plan from the beginning, all non-Monsanto crops would be destroyed, forcing farmers the world over to use only its toxic terminator seeds. And Monsanto made sure farmers who refused to come into the fold were driven out of business or sued when windblown terminator seeds poisoned organic farms.

This gave the company a virtual monopoly as terminator seed crops and Roundup worked hand in glove with each other as GMO crops could not survive in a non-chemical environment so farmers were forced to buy both.

Their next step was to spend billions globally buying up as many seed companies as possible and transitioning them into terminator seed companies in an effort to wipe out any rivals and eliminate organic foods off the face of the earth. In Monsanto’s view, all foods must be under their full control and genetically modified or they are not safe to eat!

They pretend to be shocked that their critics in the scientific community question whether crops genetically modified with the genes of diseased pigs, cows, spiders, monkeys, fish, vaccines and viruses are healthy to eat. The answer to that question is obviously a very big “no way!”

You’d think the company would be so proud of their GMO foods that they’d serve them to their employees, but they don’t. In fact, Monsanto has banned GM foods from being served in their own employee cafeterias. Monsanto lamely responded “we believe in choice.” What they really means is “we don’t want to kill the help.”

It’s quite okay though to force-feed poor nations and Americans these modified monstrosities as a means to end starvation since dead people don’t need to eat! I’ll bet the thought on most peoples’ minds these days is that Monsanto is clearly focused on eugenics and genocide, as opposed to providing foods that will sustain the world. As in Monsanto partner Disney’s Sleeping Beauty, the wicked witch gives the people the poisoned GMO apple that puts them to sleep forever!

2000s: By this time Monsanto controls the largest share of the global GMO market. In turn, the US gov’t spends hundreds of millions to fund aerial spraying of Roundup, causing massive environmental devastation. Fish and animals by the thousands die within days of spraying as respiratory ailments and cancer deaths in humans spike tremendously. But this is all considered an unusual coincidence so the spraying continues. If you thought Monsanto and the FDA were one and the same, well you can add the gov’t to that sorry list now.

The monster grows bigger: Monsanto merges with Pharmacia & Upjohn, then separates from its chemical business and rebrands itself as an agricultural company. Yes, that’s right, a chemical company whose products have devastated the environment, killed millions of people and wildlife over the years now wants us to believe they produce safe and nutritious foods that won’t kill people any longer. That’s an extremely hard-sell, which is why they continue to grow bigger through mergers and secret partnerships.

Because rival DuPont is too large a corporation to be allowed to merge with, they instead form a stealth partnership where each agrees to drop existing patent lawsuits against one another and begin sharing GMO technologies for mutual benefit. In layman’s terms, together they would be far too powerful and politically connected for anything to stop them from owning a virtual monopoly on agriculture; “control the food supply & you control the people!”

Not all is rosy as the monster is repeatedly sued for $100s of millions for causing illness, infant deformities and death by illegally dumping all manner of PCBs into ground water, and continually lying about products safety – you know, business as usual.

The monster often perseveres and proves difficult to slay as it begins filing frivolous suits against farmers it claims infringe on their terminator seed patents. In virtually all cases, unwanted seeds are windblown onto farmers’ lands by neighboring terminator-seeded farms. Not only do these horrendous seeds destroy the organic farmers’ crops, the lawsuits drive them into bankruptcy, while the Supreme Court overturns lower court rulings and sides with Monsanto each time.

At the same time, the monster begins filing patents on breeding techniques for pigs, claiming animals bred any way remotely similar to their patent would grant them ownership. So loose was this patent filing that it became obvious they wanted to claim all pigs bred throughout the world would infringe upon their patent.

The global terrorism spreads to India as over 100,000 farmers who are bankrupted by GMO crop failure, commit suicide by drinking Roundup so their families will be eligible for death insurance payments. In response, the monster takes advantage of the situation by alerting the media to a new project to assist small Indian farmers by donating the very things that caused crop failures in the country in the first place! Forbes then names Monsanto “company of the year.” Sickening, but true.

More troubling is that Whole Foods, the corporation that brands itself as organic, natural and eco-friendly is proven to be anything but. They refuse to support Proposition 37, California’s GMO-labeling measure that Monsanto and its GMO-brethren eventually helped to defeat.

Why? Because Whole Foods has been in bed with Monsanto for a long time, secretly stuffing its shelves with overpriced, fraudulently advertized “natural & organic” crap loaded with GMOs, pesticides, rBGH, hormones and antibiotics. So, of course they don’t want mandatory labelling as that would expose them as the Whole Frauds and Whore Foods that they really are!

However, when over twenty biotech-friendly companies including WalMart, Pepsico and ConAgra recently met with FDA in favor of mandatory labelling laws, this after fighting tooth and nail to defeat Prop 37, Whole Foods sees an opportunity to save face and becomes the first grocery chain to announce mandatory labelling of their GMO products…in 2018! Uh, thanks for nothing, Whore.

And if you think its peers have suddenly grown a conscience, think again. They are simply reacting to the public’s outcry over the defeat of Prop 37 by crafting deceptive GMO-labelling laws to circumvent any real change, thus keeping the status quo intact.

To add insult to world injury, Monsanto and their partners in crime Archer Daniels Midland, Sodexo and Tyson Foods write and sponsor The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009: HR 875. This “act” gives the corporate factory farms a virtual monopoly to police and control all foods grown anywhere, including one’s own backyard, and provides harsh penalties and jail sentences for those who do not use chemicals and fertilizers. President Obama decided this sounded reasonable and gave his approval.

With this Act, Monsanto claims that only GM foods are safe and organic or homegrown foods potentially spread disease, therefore must be regulated out of existence for the safety of the world. If eating GM pesticide balls is their idea of safe food, I would like to think the rest of the world is smart enough to pass.

As further revelations have broken open regarding this evil giant’s true intentions, Monsanto crafted the ridiculous HR 933 Continuing Resolution, aka Monsanto Protection Act, which Obama robo-signed into law as well.This law states that no matter how harmful Monsanto’s GMO crops are and no matter how much devastation they wreak upon the country, U.S. federal courts cannot stop them from continuing to plant them anywhere they choose. Yes, Obama signed a provision that makes Monsanto above any laws and makes them more powerful than the government itself. We have to wonder who’s really in charge of the country because it’s certainly not him!

There comes a tipping point though when a corporation becomes too evil and the world pushes back…hard! Many countries continue to convict Monsanto of crimes against humanity and have banned them altogether, telling them to “get out and stay out!”

The world has begun to awaken to the fact that the corporate monster does not want control over the global production of food simply for profit’s sake. No, it’s become clear by over a century of death & destruction that the primary goal is to destroy human health and the environment, turning the world into a Mon-Satanic Hell on Earth!

Research into the name itself reveals it to be latin, meaning “my saint,” which may explain why critics often refer to it as “Mon-Satan.” Even more conspiratorially interesting is that free masons and other esoteric societies assigned numbers to each letter in our latin-based alphabet system in a six system. Under that number system, what might Monsanto add up to? Why, of course 6-6-6!

Know that all is not lost. Evil always loses in the end once it is widely exposed to the light of truth as is occurring now. The fact that the Monsanto-led government finds it necessary to enact desperate legislation to protect its true leader proves this point. Being evicted elsewhere, the United States is Monsanto’s last stand so to speak.

Yet, even here many have begun striking back by protesting against and rejecting GMO monstrosities, choosing to grow their own foods and shop at local farmers markets instead of the Monsanto-supported corporate grocery chains.

The awakening people are also beginning to see they have been misled by corporate tricksters and federal government criminals poisoned by too much power, control and greed, which has resulted in the creation of the monstrous, out-of-control corporate beast.

http://sorendreier.com/the-complete-his ... -monsanto/

[Blue Frost]

Sick, and people keep on supporting them unknowingly in most cases. The government is useless, and bought off to the extreme letting them keep on doing all that stuff. .

[Gary Oak]

I saw a picture of Obama signing the Monsanto protection act with that big happy smile on his face. Signing this Monstanto protection would make a person as evil as Obama happy knowing all the pain and suffering Monsanto will be responsible. I am sure that Obama knows full well why Monsanto needs to have this protection act as well.

[Blue Frost]

Of course he did, he has made millions off them, and even the FDA is ran by a Monsanto clown. He got $50.000 for his campaign last time I believe from them.

[Gary Oak]

I was under the impression that Obama's Monsanto Protection Act protected Monsanto from al these legitimate lawsuits. Unfortunately I couldn't post the entire article due to all the websites for reference on it however you can of course open the page at the bottom..

Lawsuits Against Monsanto’s Roundup

By Catherine J. Frompovich

When I published the article, “Glyphosate Contaminates the Global Ecosystem: The Damning New PAN Report,” I mentioned a law firm as a resource because of the lawsuits it has filed on behalf of persons damaged by the use of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup®. Roundup’s prime active ingredient is glyphosate, a chemical that the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC] designated a “probable human carcinogen.”

That law firm is Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles, California. The firm’s Director of Public Relations and Marketing emailed a thank you for mentioning that lawsuit. Robin McCall’s email prompted me to want to know more about their clients and the lawsuits, so I asked her some questions about the firm’s glyphosate case load.

Incidentally, there is a Spanish language link “Demanda Monsanto Roundup” for folks who may want to access the law firm’s information in that language.

.What follows are the questions I asked that Ms. McCall so graciously answered, which I think ought to give readers some “food for thought,” especially if you have used Roundup® and have contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

What is your law firm’s Monsanto Roundup® case load and how many cases do you have?

McCall: So far, we represent about 140 people since we started accepting cases in February of 2016. We expect to represent at least 500 people in this litigation and continue to get new cases every week.

What are the ages of your Roundup-damaged clients?

McCall: Most of our clients are in their 50s and 60s but we represent a boy as young as 10 and adults in their late 70s. One third of the people we represent are farmers. The rest are professional landscapers, weekend gardeners, and government workers working for the city, county or state, spraying Roundup® to kill weeds on highways, near ditches, flood control areas, etc.

Are any children among the plaintiffs, since glyphosate has been documented in vaccines? [1]

McCall: The youngest person we represent is a 10-year-old boy with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. His exposure to Roundup started when he was a toddler. His father would spray weeds on a regular basis, as they live out in the country. The boy did what boys do, running all over the yard.

Are your attorneys aware of the fact that glyphosate has been documented in pharmaceutical vaccines given to children?

McCall: Yes, our attorneys are familiar with the latest claims being made about glyphosate, including the one about vaccines.

Although this could change, we are currently only filing cases where a person has been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after exposure to Roundup® or other glyphosate-based herbicides made by other manufacturers.

Can you please explain the legal aspects of damage to humans, pets and the environment?

McCall: The crux of the individual cases against Monsanto are allegations that the Monsanto Company failed to adequately warn farmers and landscapers that its blockbuster herbicide, Roundup®, causes cancer.

The Monsanto lawsuit also alleges that the agro-chemical giant designed a dangerous and defective product; committed gross negligence in the creation and promotion of Roundup®; and defrauded millions of people about the safety of the herbicide.

Last year, the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm (the International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC]) completed a comprehensive analysis on the toxicity of glyphosate, finding the chemical to be a “probable human carcinogen” [Group 2A] [2]

Pets are most definitely affected by Roundup®. You can find much about it on the web. The U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health published a study in December 2013 from the Interdisciplinary Toxicology journal, titled Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance [3]:

In plants, aromatic amino acids collectively represent up to 35% of the plant dry mass (Franz, 1997). This mode of action is unique to glyphosate among all emergent herbicides. Humans do not possess this pathway [shikimate], and therefore we depend upon our ingested food and our gut microbes to provide these essential nutrients. Glyphosate, patented as an antimicrobial (Monsanto Technology LLC, 2010), has been shown to disrupt gut bacteria in animals, preferentially killing beneficial forms and causing an overgrowth of pathogens. [3] [CJF emphasis added]
McCall: Included in the lawsuit that we filed on behalf of the McCall Family from Cambria, California, for the wrongful death of Jack McCall [4], was a claim for the death of the family’s dog, Duke. Duke died of lymphoma a few years before Jack McCall died of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in December 2015. Duke ran all over the McCall Farm where Roundup® was sprayed.

We are not aware of other lawsuits that include pets, but that doesn’t mean they are not out there. We have another client who lost a pet due to cancer, but we have yet to file that case.

Environmental litigation: There are many lawsuits against Monsanto. These involve PCBs, GMO seeds, Roundup® cancer cases, etc. Wikipedia has a page dedicated to these lawsuits. There are many claims about the environmental impact of glyphosate, including in wine (even organic), honey, beer, oats, etc., as well as affecting bees, butterflies, etc.

[Here’s a website listing various trade names of herbicides containing glyphosate.

http://www.ehow.com/list_7240737_trade- ... osate.html ]

Are there health problems other than non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)?

McCall: Yes. In addition to NHL there are studies that link glyphosate to these other forms of cancer: bone, kidney, liver, melanoma, pancreatic and thyroid. While we do represent some clients with these other cancers, we are only filing non-Hodgkin lymphoma cases at this time.

Where have the lawsuits been filed: courts and cities?

McCall: So far, at least 40 cases have been filed in state and federal courts in at least 15 different states. This litigation is still in its early stages but as the lawsuit filings are increasing and collectively law firms have hundreds of cases, it is predicted that this litigation will grow into thousands of cases.

Therefore, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) decided in early October [2016] that all of the cases filed in federal courts anywhere in the nation, will be consolidated under one judge for purposes of the determining liability against Monsanto. This means that 37 federal cases are being transferred to U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria [5] of the Northern District of California in San Francisco [6].

As cases continue to be filed in federal courts, they will be transferred to the MDL (multidistrict litigation). Lawyers who are aware of the consolidation will simply file new cases into the MDL unless they choose to file in state court instead. The MDL is officially named In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL number 2741, in the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Ten states where federal cases were filed (but are being transferred to the Northern District of California) include: California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska and Wisconsin.

In addition to the federal cases, dozens of state court cases over Roundup® are pending in California, Delaware, Missouri and Pennsylvania, according to the National Law Journal.

According to Brent Wisner, lawyer and partner in Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC, “These cases are ideally suited for pretrial coordination and we were, quite frankly, shocked that Monsanto opposed it. We are excited to get these cases moving before Judge Chhabria and we hope to press these cases to trial as soon as possible.”

Are there any comments from Monsanto about the lawsuits?

McCall: Monsanto has opposed all of the Roundup® litigation as they deny there is any link between glyphosate and cancer. They file motions in opposition to the lawsuits; to the consolidation of the cases; and they are attacking the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research (IARC), which determined glyphosate is probably carcinogenic.

Monsanto is fighting California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) for deciding to list glyphosate as a carcinogen per Prop 65:

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/11/law ... undup.html

[Gary Oak]

There now are pests and weeds that are immune to roundup ? Is this insecticide really less unhealthy ? If enough pests become immune to these poisons that have serious side effcts for humans and everything else then perhaps we will have to go organic again. Unfortunately it's probably not just a quick money grap.

Monsanto’s ‘less-volatile’ dicamba herbicide receives quiet EPA approval
Published time: 14 Nov, 2016 00:46Get short URL
© Denis Balibouse / Reuters The EPA has quietly approved the usage of Monsanto’s brand new herbicide, which the company says is less “volatile” than all alternative dicamba-based compounds that have caused massive crop damage, lawsuits and even bloodshed in the past.
The US Environmental Protection Agency approved the usage of the dicamba-based herbicide XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology, on Wednesday, although the event went almost unnoticed by the media and activists, who have been otherwise preoccupied with the US Presidential elections' fallout.

The company still needs to get approval from individual states before the product can be sold to farmers, but according to Monsanto’s spokesman Kyel Richard, it should be in the market by the start of next growing season.

qBreaking news: morning after the election, EPA rushes out decision that will massively increase use of toxic pesticide on GE crops #dicambahttps://t.co/GRkYqMSSka

— Lori Ann Burd (@LoriAnnBurd) 9 ноября 2016 г.Q
Dicamba is a decades-old herbicide, proven to be extremely volatile and drift-prone, vaporizing from treated fields and potentially affecting neighboring crops. Dicamba functions basically by increasing a plant’s growth rate to the point that it outgrows its nutrient capabilities and dies.

The weed killer has seen a surge in usage this year, since Monsanto’s new dicamba-resistant seeds entered the market before XtendiMax. Monsanto introduced Bollgard II XtendFlex cotton in 2015 and Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans were introduced earlier this year.

Farm feud: Monsanto and its clients under fire for damaging crops Farmers had to use third-party older dicamba-based herbicides with Monsanto’s seeds, despite the company’s warnings. According to multiple reports, such activities caused a massive damage to off-target non-GM crops in at least ten states in America.

The affected crops included soybeans, tomatoes, cantaloupes, watermelons, rice, cotton, peas, peanuts, alfalfa and even peaches. Bill Bader, owner of Bader Peaches, Missouri's largest peach producer, estimated a loss of 30,000 trees.

“We need to go after Monsanto. These farmers are being hung out to dry,” said Bader.

Arguments over dicamba drifts between farmers even led to a shooting in Arizona, which left one farmer dead, according to local law enforcement.

Even with the approval of the brand new herbicide, some farmers affected by the drifts, said they would have to switch to Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant crops to protect themselves from possible incidents in the future, by way of insurance, St. Louis Dispatch reported. EPA launched a criminal investigation in October into the illegal application of drift-prone herbicides onto new plants. It’s uncertain, whether these measures will prevent dicamba-related crop damage in the future, since some farmers might continue using extremely volatile third-party herbicides.

Meanwhile, the notorious agrochemical giant fell under fire for releasing new GM crops into the market before their new, supposedly, “less-volatile” dicamba-based herbicide. Monsanto officials said that the farmers themselves asked the company to release the new seeds, believing it would boost production.

“We chose to launch this year to allow growers to experience the industry-leading varieties of Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans,” company spokesman Dan Urnikis told Delta Farm Press. “They can plant with confidence this year in anticipation of the chemical approval for the 2017 growing season.”

EU approves imports of genetically modified Monsanto soybeans The farmers and their unwitting neighbors have certainly “experienced” the effect of premature release of Monsanto’s new GM seeds. And since Monsanto’s “best products [continued] to sit on the shelf,” it’s the farmers to blame for usage of “illegal” chemicals.

Monsanto’s claims of the new product being “less-volatile” appeared even more suspicious after EPA published a list of the very specific and strict rules of how to apply XtendiMax. To mitigate the possibility of drift, the new brand cannot be applied from aircraft or when wind speed is over 15 mph (6.7 m/s).

“Buffer zones to protect sensitive areas when the wind is blowing toward them” must be observed, as well as some very specific Monsanto-manufactured nozzles must be used.

“If done correctly, this is all a terrific tool for farmers to fight glyphosate-tolerant weeds,” Tamara Nelsen, Illinois Farm Bureau (IFB) senior director of commodities, said.
Some scientists believe however, that this “terrific tool” does not battle the most terrifying problem – superweeds. Basically, XtendiMax can kill weeds, resistant to Monsanto’s other famous product Roundup, while overuse and misuse of herbicides create new superweeds. Besides that, dicamba is not a new chemical, and the first plants resistant to is were discovered in early 1990s.

“We can’t spray our way out of this problem. We need to get off the pesticide treadmill,” said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist for the Center for Biological Diversity, in a prepared statement. “Pesticide resistant superweeds are a serious threat to our farmers, and piling on more pesticides will just result in superweeds resistant to more pesticides. We can’t fight evolution – it’s a losing strategy.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/366812-epa-monsa ... herbicide/