The Seeds Of Suicide: How Monsanto Destroys Farming


Note: Originally published in April 2013

Monsanto’s talk of ‘technology’ tries to hide its real objectives of control over seed where genetic engineering is a means to control seed,

“Monsanto is an agricultural company.

We apply innovation and technology to help farmers around the world produce more while conserving more.”

“Producing more, Conserving more, Improving farmers lives.”

These are the promises Monsanto India’s website makes, alongside pictures of smiling, prosperous farmers from the state of Maharashtra. This is a desperate attempt by Monsanto and its PR machinery to delink the epidemic of farmers’ suicides in India from the company’s growing control over cotton seed supply — 95 per cent of India’s cotton seed is now controlled by Monsanto.

Control over seed is the first link in the food chain because seed is the source of life. When a corporation controls seed, it controls life, especially the life of farmers.

Monsanto’s concentrated control over the seed sector in India as well as across the world is very worrying. This is what connects farmers’ suicides in India to Monsanto vs Percy Schmeiser in Canada, to Monsanto vs Bowman in the US, and to farmers in Brazil suing Monsanto for $2.2 billion for unfair collection of royalty.

Through patents on seed, Monsanto has become the “Life Lord” of our planet, collecting rents for life’s renewal from farmers, the original breeders.

Patents on seed are illegitimate because putting a toxic gene into a plant cell is not “creating” or “inventing” a plant. These are seeds of deception — the deception that Monsanto is the creator of seeds and life; the deception that while Monsanto sues farmers and traps them in debt, it pretends to be working for farmers’ welfare, and the deception that GMOs feed the world. GMOs are failing to control pests and weeds, and have instead led to the emergence of superpests and superweeds.

The entry of Monsanto in the Indian seed sector was made possible with a 1988 Seed Policy imposed by the World Bank, requiring the Government of India to deregulate the seed sector. Five things changed with Monsanto’s entry: First, Indian companies were locked into joint-ventures and licensing arrangements, and concentration over the seed sector increased. Second, seed which had been the farmers’ common resource became the “intellectual property” of Monsanto, for which it started collecting royalties, thus raising the costs of seed. Third, open pollinated cotton seeds were displaced by hybrids, including GMO hybrids. A renewable resource became a non-renewable, patented commodity. Fourth, cotton which had earlier been grown as a mixture with food crops now had to be grown as a monoculture, with higher vulnerability to pests, disease, drought and crop failure. Fifth, Monsanto started to subvert India’s regulatory processes and, in fact, started to use public resources to push its non-renewable hybrids and GMOs through so-called public-private partnerships (PPP).

In 1995, Monsanto introduced its Bt technology in India through a joint-venture with the Indian company Mahyco. In 1997-98, Monsanto started open field trials of its GMO Bt cotton illegally and announced that it would be selling the seeds commercially the following year. India has rules for regulating GMOs since 1989, under the Environment Protection Act. It is mandatory to get approval from the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee under the ministry of environment for GMO trials. The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology sued Monsanto in the Supreme Court of India and Monsanto could not start the commercial sales of its Bt cotton seeds until 2002.
And, after the damning report of India’s parliamentary committee on Bt crops in August 2012, the panel of technical experts appointed by the Supreme Court recommended a 10-year moratorium on field trials of all GM food and termination of all ongoing trials of transgenic crops.

But it had changed Indian agriculture already.

Monsanto’s seed monopolies, the destruction of alternatives, the collection of superprofits in the form of royalties, and the increasing vulnerability of monocultures has created a context for debt, suicides and agrarian distress which is driving the farmers’ suicide epidemic in India. This systemic control has been intensified with Bt cotton. That is why most suicides are in the cotton belt.

An internal advisory by the agricultural ministry of India in January 2012 had this to say to the cotton-growing states in India — “Cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011-12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers.”

The highest acreage of Bt cotton is in Maharashtra and this is also where the highest farmer suicides are. Suicides increased after Bt cotton was introduced — Monsanto’s royalty extraction, and the high costs of seed and chemicals have created a debt trap. According to Government of India data, nearly 75 per cent rural debt is due to purchase inputs. As Monsanto’s profits grow, farmers’ debt grows. It is in this systemic sense that Monsanto’s seeds are seeds of suicide.

The ultimate seeds of suicide is Monsanto’s patented technology to create sterile seeds. (Called “Terminator technology” by the media, sterile seed technology is a type of Gene Use Restriction Technology, GRUT, in which seed produced by a crop will not grow — crops will not produce viable offspring seeds or will produce viable seeds with specific genes switched off.) The Convention on Biological Diversity has banned its use, otherwise Monsanto would be collecting even higher profits from seed.

Monsanto’s talk of “technology” tries to hide its real objectives of ownership and control over seed where genetic engineering is just a means to control seed and the food system through patents and intellectual property rights.

A Monsanto representative admitted that they were “the patient’s diagnostician, and physician all in one” in writing the patents on life-forms, from micro-organisms to plants, in the TRIPS’ agreement of WTO. Stopping farmers from saving seeds and exercising their seed sovereignty was the main objective. Monsanto is now extending its patents to conventionally bred seed, as in the case of broccoli and capsicum, or the low gluten wheat it had pirated from India which we challenged as a biopiracy case in the European Patent office.

That is why we have started Fibres of Freedom in the heart of Monsanto’s Bt cotton/suicide belt in Vidharba. We have created community seed banks with indigenous seeds and helped farmers go organic. No GMO seeds, no debt, no suicides.

Vandana Shiva is a philosopher, environmental activist, and eco feminist.Shiva, currently based in Delhi, has authored more than 20 books and over 500 papers in leading scientific and technical journals. She was trained as a physicist and received her Ph.D. in physics from the University of Western Ontario, Canada. She was awarded the Right Livelihood Award in 1993. She is the founder of Navdanya http://www.navdanya.org/

If you would like more information about GMOs, F. William Engdahl‘s book “Seeds of Destruction” is available from the Global Research online store.

Advertisements

Brazilian State Suspends Larvicide Used to Combat Zika, Monsanto Slams ‘Rumors’ Regarding Virus


EcoWatchZikaI

Source: Eco Watch
Lorraine Chow | February 15, 2016 |

Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil’s southernmost state, has suspended the use of the pyriproxyfen—a pesticide that stops the development of mosquito larvae in drinking tanks—to combat the spread of the Zika virus, according to a report from Fox News Latino.

The state government’s move came after separate reports from the Argentine group Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns (PCST) and Brazilian Collective Health Association (Abrasco) suggested that the larvicide, not the Zika virus, was responsible for the alarming spike in microcephaly.

In its report, PCST claims that in 2014 the Brazilian Ministry of Health introduced pyriproxyfen to drinking-water reservoirs in the state of Pernambuco, where the proliferation of the Zika-carrying Aedes aegypti mosquito is very high. As it happens, the northeastern state holds roughly 35 percent of the total microcephaly cases across the country. Abrasco’s report also linked the pesticide to the abnormality.

The PCST report said that the larvicide, known by its commercial name SumiLarv, is manufactured by Sumitomo Chemical, a “Japanese subsidiary of Monsanto.” As word spread of the report, the St. Louis-based agribusiness giant clarified its relationship to Sumitomo, calling them “one of our business partners in the area of crop protection.”

According to Fox News Latino, Rio Grande do Sul government officials said Sunday that “the suspension was communicated to the 19 Regional Health Coordinating Authorities, which in turn will inform the respective Municipal Monitoring services” in all cities in the state.

The state’s health secretary, Joao Gabbardo dos Reis, said that the “suspicion” of the larvicide’s link to microcephaly led the organizations to decide to “suspend” the use of the chemical, even though the relationship between the larvicide and microcephaly has not been scientifically proven.

“We cannot run that risk,” Gabbardo added.

Gabbardo sent this tweet Sunday that translates to: “RS [Rio Grande do Sul] suspends larvicide that can be related to microcephaly.”

He also tweeted today: “In a moment I’ll be in Gente, talking about prohibition of larvicide and Zika.” 

Brazil’s health minister, Marcelo Castro, however, dismissed the larvicide’s link to the congenital condition which causes abnormal smallness of the head.

That is a rumor lacking logic and sense. It has no basis. (The larvicide) is approved by (the National Sanitary Monitoring Agency) and is used worldwide. Pyriproxyfen is recognized by all regulatory agencies in the whole world,” Castro told reporters in the city of Salvador.

Castro said he is “absolutely sure” that the virus is connected to the rare birth defect. According to the Associated Press, “Brazil has reported 5,079 suspected cases of microcephaly since October, of which 462 cases have been confirmed while 765 have been discarded. Of the confirmed microcephaly cases, 41 have been connected to Zika.”

Brazil’s federal government issued a similar statement, the Telegraph reported:

“Unlike the relationship between the Zika virus and microcephaly, which has had its confirmation shown in tests that indicated the presence of the virus in samples of blood, tissue and amniotic fluid, the association between the use of pyriproxyfen and microcephaly has no scientific basis. It’s important to state that some localities that do not use pyriproxyfen also had reported cases of microcephaly.”

The government said it only used larvicides recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and indicated that no scientific study has linked pyriproxyfen to microcephaly.

Sumitomo Chemical issued a statement to Fox News Latino saying, “There is no scientific basis for such a claim,” adding that the product has been approved by the WHO since 2004 and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since 2001.

Monsanto issued a response on Saturday to the “misinformation and rumors on social media.”

Monsanto’s post, The truth about Monsanto and the Zika virus, reads:

You may have seen misinformation and rumors on social media regarding Monsanto, the Zika virus and microcephaly. Unfortunately, this misinformation causes unwarranted fear and distracts from the health crisis at hand and how you can take steps to protect you and your family. Here are some facts:

  • Neither Monsanto nor our products have any connection to the Zika virus or microcephaly.
  • Monsanto does not manufacture or sell Pyriproxyfen.
  • Monsanto does not own Sumitomo Company. However, Sumitomo is one of our business partners in the area of crop protection.
  • Glyphosate is not connected in any way to the Zika virus or microcephaly.
  • GMOs have no role in the Zika virus or microcephaly.

The Zika virus is a tragic and critical health issue. Dealing effectively with such an important health threat requires a focus on the facts. As a science-based company working to help meet some of the world’s biggest challenges we support all efforts to combat this health crisis. We hope all efforts will be taken based on the facts, not rumors.

 

 

Au Brésil, l’ombre de Monsanto derrière Zika


Le Nordeste brésilien, avec 1 447 notifications de microcéphalies, est l’épicentre du phénomène. Photo : Reuters

Le Nordeste brésilien, avec 1 447 notifications de microcéphalies, est l’épicentre du phénomène.
Photo : Reuters

 

Source: L’Humanité.fr

Et si l’épidémie Zika n’était pas le bon coupable  ? Des chercheurs argentins mettent en cause un pesticide, injecté dans l’eau et produit par une filiale de Monsanto, d’être à l’origine des microcéphalies.

Le virus Zika serait-il vraiment responsable de la multiplication des cas de microcéphalie au Brésil ?

Un groupe de chercheurs argentins et brésiliens, coordonné par le docteur Avila Vazquez, pédiatre spécialisé en néonatalogie (spécialité médicale qui s’attache à prendre en charge les nouveau-nés) a, en tous les cas, soulevé cette interrogation.
Dans une étude parue le 3 février dernier, ceux-ci ont en effet mis en doute la responsabilité du seul virus Zika dans l’augmentation exponentielle de microcéphalies enregistrées chez les nouveau-nés ces derniers mois. Selon eux, les cas de malformations à la naissance seraient dus, non pas au fameux moustique, mais à l’utilisation d’un pesticide : le Pyriproxyfen, produit par Sumitomo Chemical, filiale japonaise de la multinationale américaine Monsanto.
Ce pesticide utilisé plus particulièrement au Brésil, et injecté dans le réseau d’eau potable de certaines régions, sert à la lutte contre la prolifération du moustique-tigre, vecteur de la dengue.

Un futur scandale sanitaire et financier

Partis d’un simple postulat, les chercheurs se sont demandés pourquoi Zika (virus identifié dès les années 1950 en Ouganda), une maladie relativement bénigne, ne provoquait pas partout des malformations chez les nouveau-nés. Et de s’appuyer sur la constatation qu’en Colombie, où il sévit également, mais où le produit chimique n’est pas utilisé, aucun cas de microcéphalie n’a été enregistré jusqu’à ce jour.
Plus étonnant encore, ils font remarquer que, dans certaines zones où 75 % de la population a été testée positive à Zika, il n’y avait jamais eu de malformations comme celles observées au Brésil : « Les malformations détectées chez des milliers d’enfants nés de femmes enceintes dans des régions où l’État brésilien a ajouté du Pyriproxyfen ne sont pas une coïncidence et ce, même si le ministère de la Santé incrimine directement le virus Zika », ont déclaré dans un communiqué les chercheurs à l’origine peut-être d’un futur scandale sanitaire et financier.
La solution serait donc non pas à chercher dans les eaux stagnantes, mais dans l’eau potable des régions infectées et notamment celles du Nordeste brésilien, qui, avec 1 447 notifications de microcéphalies, est l’épicentre du phénomène. Depuis plus de dix-huit mois, les autorités brésiliennes, sur les recommandations de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS), y injectent dans le système hydrique cet insecticide.
Une solution pour le moins expéditive de lutter contre le virus, dans cette région qui est l’une des plus pauvres du Brésil où « 70 % des mères d’enfants atteints par la maladie vivent dans une extrême pauvreté », dixit le Diario de Pernambuco (quotidien du Nordeste).
Crise que ne connaît décidément pas le géant Monsanto, une nouvelle fois mis à l’index. Crise que ne connaîtront pas non plus les laboratoires pharmaceutiques, qui ont dix-huit mois pour trouver la solution et enlever le marché : « Une quinzaine de laboratoires et agences nationales de recherche sont sur les rangs », a déclaré la sous-directrice de l’OMS, le Dr Marie-Paule Kieny.
Dans le lot, deux vaccins sembleraient des plus prometteurs : l’un est développé par l’Institut national de la santé américain – institution gouvernementale – et l’autre par le laboratoire indien Bharat Biotech. Mais les États-Unis pourraient très vite avoir une longueur d’avance.
Barack Obama ne vient-il pas de demander au Congrès américain 1,8 milliard de dollars (1,6 million d’euros) pour combattre Zika ?

Le Brésil est en première ligne, mais l’épidémie s’étend. Le Brésil est aujourd’hui le pays le plus touché par le virus Zika. Ce sont en effet un million et demi de personnes qui ont été contaminées depuis 2015. Derrière lui se trouve la Colombie. Jusqu’en 2014, le virus n’était pas recensé sur le continent américain. Il est connu, en revanche, depuis les années 1950 en Afrique.

27 Examples of Journalists Failing to Disclose Sources as Funded by Monsanto


99% vs Monsanto

By Gary Ruskin, U.S. Right to Know 29 November 15
Source: Reader Supported News

Following a Columbia Journalism Review article on whether science journalists should accept money from corporate interests and whether there is adequate disclosure of sources’ corporate ties and conflicts of interest, U.S. Right to Know reviewed recent articles to assess how often journalists and columnists quote academic sources without stating that they are funded by the agrichemical giant Monsanto.

Our review found 27 articles quoting (or authored by) university professors after they received Monsanto funding, but without disclosing that funding.

This is a collapse of journalistic standards. When reporters quote sources about food issues such as GMOs or organic food, readers deserve to know if the sources have been funded by Monsanto or have other conflicts of interest.

The principal effect of failing to reveal these conflicts of interest is to unfairly enhance the credibility of Monsanto-funded academics and their support of GMOs and criticism of organic food, while detracting from the credibility of consumer advocates.

Our review found that many top media outlets quoted either University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta or University of Illinois Professor Emeritus Bruce Chassy without disclosing that the professors received funding from Monsanto. According to documents published by the New York Times, Professor Folta received Monsanto funding in August 2014 and Professor Chassy in October 2011, if not before.

Many of these journalistic failures occurred at influential news outlets: newspapers such as the New York Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune; science publications such as Nature, Science Insider and Discover; magazines such as the New Yorker, Wired and The Atlantic; as well as broadcast outlets like ABC and NPR.

Following is a list of news articles quoting (or authored by) Professors Folta and Chassy—after they received their Monsanto funding—but failing to disclose that they had received the Monsanto funding.

New York Times: Taking on the Food Industry, One Blog Post at a Time.” By Courtney Rubin, March 13. (Also ran in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune).

New York Times: Foes of Modified Corn Find Support in a Study.” By Andrew Pollack, Sept. 19, 2012.

Washington Post: Kraft Mac & Cheese Just Got Duller. You Can Thank (Or Blame) ‘The Food Babe.” By Michael E. Miller, April 21. (Also ran in the Chicago Tribune).

Washington Post:Proof He’s the Science Guy: Bill Nye Is Changing His Mind About GMOs.” By Puneet Kollipara, March 3.

Nature:GM-Crop Opponents Expand Probe Into Ties Between Scientists and Industry.” By Keith Kloor, Aug. 6.

NPR:Is The Food Babe A Fearmonger? Scientists Are Speaking Out.” By Maria Godoy, Feb. 10.

New Yorker: The Operator.” By Michael Specter, Feb. 4, 2013.

The Atlantic:The Food Babe: Enemy of Chemicals.” By James Hamblin, Feb. 11.

Wired: Anti-GMO Activist Seeks to Expose Scientists Emails with Big Ag.” By Alan Levinovitz, Feb. 23.

ABC News:Scientists Developing Hypo-Allergenic Apples.” By Gillian Mohney, March 22, 2013.

Science Insider: Agricultural Researchers Rattled by Demands for Documents from Group Opposed to GM Foods. By Keith Kloor, Feb. 11.

Columbia Journalism Review: Why Scientists Often Hate Records Requests.” By Anna Clark, Feb. 25.

Discover: Open Letter to Bill Nye from a Plant Scientist.” By Keith Kloor, Nov. 10, 2014.

Discover: How to Balance Transparency with Academic Freedom? By Keith Kloor, Feb. 27.

Discover: Anti-GMO Group Seeks Emails from University Scientists.” By Keith Kloor, Feb. 11.

Forbes: Zombie Retracted Séralini GMO Maize Rat Study Republished To Hostile Scientist Reactions.” By Jon Entine, June 24, 2014.

Forbes: Did The New Yorker Botch Puff Piece On Frog Scientist Tyrone Hayes, Turning Rogue into Beleaguered Hero? By Jon Entine, March 10, 2014.

Forbes:You Can Put Lipstick On A Pig (Study), But It Still Stinks.” By Bruce M. Chassy and Henry I. Miller, July 17, 2013.

Forbes: Anti-GMO Scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, Activist Jeffrey Smith Withdraw from Food Biotech Debate.” By Jon Entine, May 29, 2013.

Forbes: Malpractice On Dr. Oz: Pop Health Expert Hosts Anti-GM Food Rant; Scientists Push Back.” By Jon Entine, Oct. 19, 2012.

Forbes: Scientists Smell a Rat In Fraudulent Genetic Engineering Study.” By Henry I. Miller and Bruce Chassy, Sept. 25, 2012.

Forbes: The Science of Things That Aren’t So.” By Bruce Chassy and Henry I. Miller, Feb. 22, 2012.

Des Moines Register: Consumers Are Misled About Organic Safety.” By John Block, Oct. 10, 2014.

Gainesville Sun: Genetically Modified Foods Face Hurdles.” By Jeff Schweers, June 29, 2014.

Peoria Journal Star:Hybrid Crops That Used to Offer Resistance to Rootworm No Match for Mother Nature.” By Steve Tarter, June 21, 2014.

Gawker: The ‘Food Babe’ Blogger Is Full of Shit. By Yvette d’Entremont, April 6.

Louis Post-Dispatch: California Labeling Fight May Raise Food Prices for All of Us.” By David Nicklaus, Aug. 19, 2012.

This is merely one example of two professors who were not identified as received funding from Monsanto and yet these two professors received major traction in the media as “independent” experts on GMOs and organics. The only reason the professors admitted to receiving Monsanto funding was due to emails uncovered by Freedom of Information Act requests filed by U.S. Right to Know, a consumer group.

How often does it happen that journalists present other academics funded by food or agrichemical companies as “independent” sources and without disclosing their corporate funding?

One remedy for this problem is that when journalists write about food, that they carefully ask their sources whether they have any conflicts of interest, where they get their funding from and whether they receive any funding from food or agrichemical companies like Monsanto or their PR front groups.

That, however, may not be enough. Professor Kevin Folta received Monsanto funding, yet repeatedly denied ties to or funding from Monsanto. Reporters—and readers—should be aware that such deceit by Monsanto-funded academics has recently occurred and be on their guard against it.

Toxic Weed Killer Glyphosate Found in Breast Milk, Infant Formula


breastfeeding_mom_roundup_hand

By Environmental Working Group, 12 April 15

The widely-used herbicide glyphosate, now classified as probably carcinogenic to humans by the World Health Organization (WHO), has been found in a number of items, including honey, breast milk and infant formula, according to media reports.

“When chemical agriculture blankets millions of acres of genetically engineered corn and soybean fields with hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate, it’s not a surprise babies are now consuming Monsanto’s signature chemical with breast milk and infant formula,” said Ken Cook, president and co-founder of Environmental Working Group. “The primary reason millions of Americans, including infants, are now exposed to this probable carcinogen is due to the explosion of genetically engineered crops that now dominate farmland across the U.S.”

“Through their purchasing power, the American consumer is fueling this surge in GMO crops and the glyphosate exposure that comes with it,” added Cook. “It’s time the federal FDA require foods made with GMOs be labeled as such so the public can decide for themselves if they want to send their dollars to the biotech industry that cares more about profits than public health.”

According to a report by Carey Gillam of Reuters, laboratories are receiving a surge in requests to have everything from food to urine samples tested for glyphosate in the aftermath of last month’s announcement by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer that the weed-killer is probably carcinogenic to humans.”

“The requests keep coming in,” Ben Winkler, laboratory manager at Microbe Inotech Laboratories in St. Louis, told Gillam. Winkler said his lab is getting several testing requests a week since the announcement by the WHO, up from three to four requests a year for glyphosate, Gillam Reported.

“People should be concerned,” Cook said. “If a few lab tests have found glyphosate in honey, soy sauce, baby formula and breast milk, it’s a fair bet the herbicide is in a number of other products most Americans are consuming or in contact with daily.”

According to press reports, food companies have submitted a number of products, including breakfast cereals, for testing. Many mainstream cold cereals are made with genetically engineered ingredients, including GMO corn where the bulk of glyphosate is used.

“The food companies should come clean with their test results and let customers know if they’ve been buying and eating products that contain glyphosate,” said Cook. “People should be aware if the food they and their families are eating include a pesticide so strongly linked to cancer.”

Source: Reader Supported News

Relative articles:
So Roundup “Probably” Causes Cancer. This Means What, Exactly?
Inside Monsanto’s Demented Spin Campaign
WHO: Ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup ‘Probably Carcinogenic’

Monsanto Strikes Back Against IARC : EPA Says Our Products are Safe


roundup

 

Susanne Posel (OC) : The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research outreach of the World Health Organization (WHO) have classified insect and weed killers containing glyphosate as “probable carcinogens”.

Glyphosate now falls under the second level of concern; meaning it is classified as a “probable or possible carcinogen” and those exposed to the chemical could have an elevated risk for developing cancer.

Industrial use of glyphosate is of concern to IARC, not “use by home gardeners”. However, the chemical is present “in more than 750 different herbicide products and its use has been detected in the air during spraying, in water and in food.”

The IARC states that there is “convincing” evidence that glyphosate can cause the development of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Since the chemical was discovered in the blood and urine of agricultural workers, the IARC believes the chemical is absorbed by the body during exposure.

Researchers explained that although the chemical is present in recreational weed killers, “home use is [not] the issue. It’s agricultural use that will have the biggest impact. For the moment, it’s just something for people to be conscious of.”

Conversely, Monsanto vehemently disagreed with the IARC: “All labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health and supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product. In fact, every glyphosate-based herbicide on the market meets the rigorous standards set by regulatory and health authorities to protect human health.”

Monsanto goes on: “We believe conclusions about a matter as important as human safety must be non-biased, thorough and based on quality science that adheres to internationally recognized standards. We join others in viewing IARC’s process and its assessment with strong skepticism. IARC has previously come under criticism for both its process and demonstrated bias.”

The chemical giant argues that “the IARC classification is not based on new data. Other regulatory agencies, including the German government, have previously reviewed the same studies. The Germans concluded that glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk in humans.”

Concerning the dangers of glyphosate use, in 2001 Don Huber, retired plant pathologist and professor from Purdue University (PU), wrote a letter to Tom Vislack, secretary of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Huber told Vislack that a “new unidentified” pathogen, i.e. glyphosate, was causing spontaneous abortions in livestock, triggering disease in soybeans and corn, and could cause a significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies.”

The plant pathologist continued: “It is well documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases. It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts.”

According to Joseph Mercola: “Increasing exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, may be at least partially to blame for rising rates of numerous chronic diseases in Westernized societies.”

A study published in 2013 on the adverse effects of glyphosate coalesces the many effects on the human body and how they work together to trigger health issues such as:

• Gastrointestinal disease
• Diabetes
• Heart disease
• Obesity
• Alzheimer’s disease

The researchers explained: “humans exposed to glyphosate have decreased levels of the amino acid tryptophan, which is necessary for active signaling of the neurotransmitter serotonin. Suppressed serotonin levels have been associated with weight gain, depression, and Alzheimer’s disease.”

Susanne Posel, Occupy Corporatism

Source: nsnbc

Related articles:
Study: Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide Probably Causes Cancer – Mother Jones
Le désherbant Roundup classé cancérogène – Le Monde

Monsanto’s Trojan Horse will eat in EU Fields


Anti GMO vienna_march

24.02.2015 Author: F. William Engdahl

Monsanto just succeeded in getting a mammoth Trojan Horse inside the European Union. A rotten compromise has just been approved, amid great fanfare from both pro-GMO and anti-GMO sides, which will allow national governments to individually decide whether or not to ban GMO crops on their lands. The German Environmental Ministry immediately announced that it plans to introduce a German ban on planting of all GMO crops.
Sounds like a victory for sanity and a sound defeat for Monsanto of the USA, the world’s largest purveyor of patented GMO seeds and the toxic Roundup herbicide chemical paired to their seeds. In fact it is a stunning defeat and will result in a massive spread of GMO crops in the EU for the first time.

The EU Parliament in Strasbourg has passed a final law that allows member states to decide on the production of GMO, by 480 votes to 159, with 58 abstentions on January 13. It is being sold as a “win-win” when it is in fact a lose-lose. The strong EU resistance over more than two decades to the destructive spread of GMO crops has just crumbled and many believe the opposite has taken place.

The situation before January 13 in the EU was that despite a corrupt European Food Safety Authority in Brussels and despite corrupt EU commissioners who have repeatedly shown they are ready to compromise fundamentals of EU food security, health and safety, Monsanto and the powerful USA and EU agribusiness lobby that is so “persuasive” in the dark corridors of Brussels had only been able to get away with cultivation of one single GMO plant since 1998—Monsanto’s MON810 maize. And more than 90% of all EU MON810 GMO maize is being grown in Spain where Dutch and other giant agribusiness groups have enormous influence. The small remainder is grown in Portugal and the Czech Republic. ii

That meant that in practice before this new law, except for southern Spain, the EU was virtually GMO free. That was something Monsanto and their friends in the Rockefeller Foundation were not at all happy about. The GMO resistance of the EU was used by many smaller developing countries in Africa, Asia and elsewhere to argue for refusing to allow planting of GMO on their soil. Now Monsanto has just managed to ride a giant Trojan GMO Horse into the EU.

Devil in details

The devil is in the details of the new compromise law. Brussels and its corrupt EFSA has seven other GMO plants in the pipeline for approval for commercial cultivation aside from MON810. The new EU Parliament vote means that now those seven will likely begin to be planted on EU soil. The pro-GMO governments of Britain and Holland both are expected to OK GMO planting. Both are dominated by international agribusiness and pro-GMO companies like the Anglo-Dutch giant, Unilever.

The European Parliament’s Environment Committee voted last November to impose strong safeguards on GMO cultivation. But then the draft law went to the “Trilogue” – the European Council, the EU Commission and representatives from the Parliament – for amendment. Finally on December 3 a deal was forced through which stripped out most of the safeguards. While national GMO opt-outs remained, any such opt out will only be allowed under highly restricted circumstances.

Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director said, “Environment ministers say they want to give countries the right to ban GM crop cultivation on their territory, but the text they have agreed does not give governments a legally solid right. It ties their hands by not allowing them to use evidence of environmental harm to ban GMO cultivation. This leaves those countries that want to say ‘no’ to GMO crops exposed to legal attacks by the biotech industry.” The Green French Member of European Parliament, José Bové, a campaigner against GMO crops, adds, “In the short term, this change will allow multinationals like Monsanto to challenge national bans at the WTO or, if free trade deals like TTIP are finalized, in arbitration tribunals.”

The new law has eliminated and liability of farmers or GMO companies who plant GMO if their seeds are spread to neighboring farmland by airborne vectors, a common reality. As well the rules that govern EU trade will make it illegal for member states to control imports of GMO foods, even if they forbid their cultivation. Until now the only import of GMO was in the loophole agreement with the USA grain cartel that allowed animal feed containing GMO corn and soybeans to come into the EU. The new law will spread that to GMO crops generally that will now begin to be grown inside the EU for the first time on a large scale.

Peter Melchett of the UK Soil Association said the new law “fails to require countries to ensure that any GMO crops grown will not contaminate GMO free farms, nor to ensure that the cost of any contamination will fall on the shoulders of the GMO companies who own the patented products, not on farmers or food businesses that suffer from pollution. Indeed, the entire organic sector, growing rapidly in Europe and which may double by 2020, is in danger – as are the rights of anyone who wants to buy GM free foods.”

Certain is that this new rotten compromise will result in more proliferation of GMO crops and their toxic chemical glyphosate herbicides across the EU as now the situation will be exploited ruthlessly by Monsanto and company to establish “facts on the ground” and introduce GMOs as widely as possible with a minimum of regulation.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
First appeared: New Eastern Outlook
http://journal-neo.org/2015/02/24/monsanto-s-trojan-horse-will-eat-in-eu-fields/

Read also:  GMOs in Europe
TTIP: Διατλαντική χαριστική βολή στη δημοκρατία
About TTIP   http://rosalux.gr/sites/default/files/publications/ttip_web.pdf