Monsanto - From Agent Orange To GM Foods To Pesticides & More

[Peter Lemkin]

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/...ovie080307

One of the worst corporate monsters - from their lack of ethics - to their products - to their connections/influence in Government/Military et al.

NB-I've been putting up a number of films about various aspects of the environmental-corporate-capitalist agenda - some without much comment on my part. I'd be most welcome to start a discussion on any or all of them...just respond with questions or comments......

If you are in the USA 70% of the food you eat is GM food....are your aware of this, and the consequences for your health and that of the planet....? Are you aware of how Bush 41 & 43 were connected to Monstanto [biggest manufactuer of GMOs] - but so was Clinton [biggest manufactuer of GMOs]? Is there a link from the Secret Government to Monsanto and GMOs - I say yes.

[Keith Millea]

Monsanto GM Sugar Beets

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles..._16766.cfm

A lawsuit filed last year to stop sales of Monsanto's Roundup Ready genetically modified sugar beet seed will be argued in a US District Court of Northern California on April 3. One man's livelihood may hang in the balance.

The plaintiffs, which include Organic Seed Alliance, Sierra Club, High Mowing Organic Seeds, and the Center for Food Safety, want the court to stop sales of Roundup Ready GM sugar beet seed and require the US Department of Agriculture to thoroughly assess the environmental, health, and economic impacts of the GM beets.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/09/23-4

Court Rejects Genetically Modified Sugar Beets
by Bob Egelko
SAN FRANCISCO -- The government illegally approved a genetically modified, herbicide-resistant strain of sugar beets without adequately considering the chance they will contaminate other beet crops, a federal judge in San Francisco has ruled.

Sugar beet at harvest time (Flickr photo by grabe)
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White rejected the U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision in 2005 to allow Monsanto Co. to sell the sugar beets, known as "Roundup-Ready" because they are engineered to coexist with Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.
Sugar beets produce 30 percent of the world's sugar and, according to consumer groups, half the granulated sugar in the United States. This year's planting, centered in Oregon's Willamette Valley, is the first to include a full crop of the Monsanto product.
White said the USDA, in concluding that the new crop would have no significant environmental effects, discounted the likelihood that wind-borne pollen would spread to fields where conventional sugar beets, table beets and the beet variety known as Swiss chard are grown.
Planting genetically modified sugar beets has a "significant effect" on the environment, White said in his ruling Monday, because of "the potential elimination of a farmer's choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or a consumer's choice to eat non-genetically engineered food."
He said the department must prepare an environmental impact statement, which would include public input.
White did not immediately prohibit distribution of the genetically modified sugar beets, but a lawyer for plaintiffs in the case said they would ask the judge for an injunction against sales until the review was completed.
The ruling "sends a very clear message to the USDA to protect American farmers and consumers and not the interests of Monsanto," said Kevin Golden, a San Francisco attorney for the nonprofit Center for Food Safety, which opposes genetically modified foods and supports organic farming.
Golden said the ruling could also affect herbicide use, because the Environmental Protection Agency has allowed more herbicide spraying in areas where the resistant crops are grown.
Representatives of the Agriculture Department and Monsanto were unavailable for comment. Luther Markwart, spokesman for the 10,000-member American Sugar Beet Growers Association, said the group is "looking forward to aggressively advocating" for farmers who want to use the altered beets.
The ruling followed a similar decision in 2007 by another federal judge in San Francisco, Charles Breyer, to halt the nationwide planting of Monsanto's genetically engineered strain of alfalfa until the USDA conducted an environmental study. A federal appeals court upheld Breyer's decision last year.
The department's 2005 decision on sugar beets acknowledged that pollen from the genetically modified crop could spread to other beet crops. But the USDA said farmers would not be harmed because they would still be able to buy non-genetically modified seeds.
White, however, cited studies that said winds can carry sugar beet pollen at least 2 1/2 miles, much farther than the voluntary buffer zones between beet crops recommended by Oregon agriculture officials.
He said the department had failed to consider the economic effects of its decision and had provided no evidence for its conclusion that non-genetically modified sugar beets would remain available to farmers.

[Peter Lemkin]

Monsanto's Roundup Ravaging Butterfly Populations, Study Shows
Friday 9 March 2012
by: Mike Barrett, Natural Society

Monsanto's Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate, has been tied to more health and environmental problems than you could imagine. Similar to how pesticides have been contributing to the bee decline, Monsanto's Roundup has been tied to the decrease in the population of monarch butterflies by killing the very plants that the butterflies rely on for habitat and food. What's been shown to be an even greater threat to the population, though, is Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn and soybeans.

Roundup Ready Crops and Glyphosate Leading to Downfall of Insect Populations

A 2011 study published in the journal Insect Conservation and Diversity found that increasing acreage of genetically modified Roundup Ready corn and soybeans is heavily contributing to the decline in monarch butterfly populations within North America. Milkweed, a plant butterflies rely on for habitat and food, is being destroyed by the heavy use of glyphosate-based pesticides and Roundup Ready crops. Over the past 17 years, the monarch butterfly population in central Mexico has declined, reaching an all-time low in 2009-2010.

"This milkweed has disappeared from at least 100 million acres of these row crops," said Dr. Taylor, an insect ecologist at the University of Kansas and director of the research and conservation program Monarch Watch. "Your milkweed is virtually gone…this [glyphosate use on RR crops] is the one main factor that has happened…you look at parts of the Midwest where there is a tremendous use of these crops and you see monarch populations dropping. It's hard to deny the conclusion."

According to the Department of Agriculture, in 2011 94 percent of soybeans and 72 percent of corn grown in the United States were herbicide-tolerant. Due to this increase, the amount of Roundup used on crops in 2007 was 5 times higher than in 1997, only one year after Roundup Ready crops were available.

Another study published int he journal Crop Protection and conducted by Robert G Hartzler, an agronomist at Iowa State, found that milkweed on farms in Iowa declined 90 percent from 1999 to 2009. Additionally, his study found milkweed only on 8 percent of corn and soybean fields surveyed in 2009, which is 51 percent lower than in 1999.

Although the butterfly population may be suffering, humans are taking heat from Monsanto's creations as well. Past research has shown that Monsanto's Roundup ready crops are leading to mental illness and obesity, primarily by destroying the amount of good bacteria found in the gut. The corporation's Roundup, containing glyphosate, has also been shown to cause infertility and birth defects.

Glyphosate is so present today that it has been found to be polluting the world's drinking water through the widespread contamination of aquifers, wells, and springs. What may be most shocking is that very high concentrations of glyphosate have been found in 100 percent of urine samples tested in a recent study.

[Magda Hassan]

Blamed for Bee Collapse, Monsanto Buys Leading Bee Research Firm

Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety
April 19, 2012
Monsanto, the massive biotechnology company being blamed for contributing to the dwindling bee population, has bought up one of the leading bee collapse research organizations. Recently banned from Poland with one of the primary reasons being that the company's genetically modified corn may be devastating the dying bee population, it is evident that Monsanto is under serious fire for their role in the downfall of the vital insects. It is therefore quite apparent why Monsanto bought one of the largest bee research firms on the planet.

It can be found in public company reports hosted on mainstream media that Monsanto scooped up the Beeologics firm back in September 2011. During this time the correlation between Monsanto's GM crops and the bee decline was not explored in the mainstream, and in fact it was hardly touched upon until Polish officials addressed the serious concern amid the monumental ban. Owning a major organization that focuses heavily on the bee collapse and is recognized by the USDA for their mission statement of "restoring bee health and protecting the future of insect pollination" could be very advantageous for Monsanto.
In fact, Beelogics' company information states that the primary goal of the firm is to study the very collapse disorder that is thought to be a result at least in part of Monsanto's own creations. Their website states:

While its primary goal is to control the Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) infection crises, Beeologics' mission is to become the guardian of bee health worldwide.

What's more, Beelogics is recognized by the USDA, the USDA-ARS, the media, and leading entomologists' worldwide. The USDA, of course, has a great relationship with Monsanto. The government agency has gone to great lengths to ensure that Monsanto's financial gains continue to soar, going as far as to give the company special speed approval for their newest genetically engineered seed varieties. It turns out that Monsanto was not getting quick enough approval for their crops, which have been linked to severe organ damage and other significant health concerns.
Steve Censky, chief executive officer of the American Soybean Association, states it quite plainly. It was a move to help Monsanto and other biotechnology giants squash competition and make profits. After all, who cares about public health?

"It is a concern from a competition standpoint," Censky said in a telephone interview.

It appears that when Monsanto cannot answer for their environmental devastation, they buy up a company that may potentially be their experts' in denying any such link between their crops and the bee decline.



Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-bee-c...z1sZw0mkAZ

[Magda Hassan]

Is Vermont's Governor Surrendering to Monsanto?

Vermont's governor has 2 weeks to stand with 90 percent of his constituents who favor labeling genetically engineered foods, or cave to Monsanto.
April 19, 2012 |

Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin has less than two weeks to either stand with the 90 percent of his constituents who support a mandatory labeling bill for genetically engineered foods -- or cave in to Monsanto's threat to sue the state if legislators pass H.722.
If the Governor's words this past week are any indication, he's already surrendered to Monsanto. But Vermonters, not known for backing down from a fight, are challenging legislators to take on the biotech industry. They're even offering to raise money for the state's defense.
Last week thousands of Vermonters flooded the Governor's office with petitions, phone calls and emails, to make the case for GMO labeling of all food sold in Vermont and to demand a vote on the bill. Under Vermont's constitution, the Governor can extend the state's legislative session indefinitely, ultimately forcing a vote on the bill. If he doesn't extend the session, or urge legislators to vote on the bill, it will die in committee.
But while supporters were emailing and phoning and signing, Governor Shumlin was sending out a canned response to the thousands of supporters who emailed his office. In the Governor's own words:

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me about labeling genetically modified foods. I agree with those who advocate for clear labeling of genetically modified foods. GMO labeling makes sense and would give Vermonters key information about their food choices. However, we know from attempts to pass similar legislation in the past that such a requirement would not stand up to federal legal scrutiny. I don't think it is fair to ask Vermonters to bear the burden of the cost of those legal challenges...

On April 12, in the hope once again of forcing a vote, more than 300 people packed the Vermont statehouse for public testimony on H.722, with more than one hundred of them testifying -- every single one in favor -- of passing the bill. When legislators brought up the burden of a potential legal battle, supporters of the bill called for a legal defense fund -- not a retreat.
However, a bill that once appeared destined to pass on the merits of scientific evidence, overwhelming public support, and support of the majority of Vermont's progressive legislators, now appears doomed -- unless Vermont voters succeed in changing the Governor's mind.

A brief history of Vermont H.722
In mid-December, a coalition of farmers and Vermont NGOs asked the state to revive a GMO labeling bill that in 2011 had stalled in the house agricultural committee. Supporters proposed revising the bill's language to conform to language in a similar bill currently being proposed in California, through a citizens' ballot initiative process. Both Carolyn Partridge, chairman of the House agricultural committee, and Will Stevens, a member of the agriculture committee, responded favorably. Several legislators stepped forward to sponsor and co-sponsor the bill.
Despite the support of Partridge, Stevens and the majority of Vermont voters, the committee didn't even begin hearings on the bill until March. Finally, during the first round of testimony the legislature heard from pro-labeling witnesses including organic farmers concerned about seed contamination, consumers worried about food safety, and scientists who refuted Monsanto's claims that genetically engineered food is perfectly safe. Still, no vote. Instead, the committee called for more hearings.
Although Partridge publicly voiced support, privately she told Andrea Stander, executive director of Rural Vermont, that H.722 was a "hot potato" that she got "stuck" with because no other committee wanted to host it, according to Stander.
How does a bill backed by strong scientific evidence and 90 percent of the voters become a "hot potato"? When Monsanto threatens to sue the state if it passes. It's now common knowledge that Vermont officials are worried about the cost of a legal battle with Monsanto. Last week, the online newspaper VTdigger.orgreported: "Rachel Lattimore, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer who has represented the Biotechnology Industry Association, Monsanto, and other biotechnology companies, told the committee and one of its attorneys that Vermont would face a lawsuit from the industry if it passed this bill."
Monsanto's intimidation tactics appear to have succeeded. However, Vermont voters continue to pressure Governor Shumlin to sit down with his lawyers and the lawyers who drafted Bill H722 to determine, after a careful legal analysis, if he wants to promote the bill or obstruct it.
In support of Vermont farmers and consumers, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has launched its own offensive, in the form of a legal defense fund for Vermont and any other state Monsanto threatens to sue over mandatory GMO labeling laws. The OCA is a nationwide organization of organic farmers and consumers that has fought for consumers' right to know about GMOs for more than a decade. According to Katherine Paul, OCA fundraising coordinator, "Over the past four days we've already received commitments of more than $50,000 to defend Vermont or any other state that passes a GMO labeling bill. The only way to back down a legal bully like Monsanto or the Biotechnology Industry Organization is with a bigger legal stick and the moral high ground. Let's make sure we have both of those."
Fifty countries have passed GMO labeling laws, in large part based upon peer-reviewed studies suggesting that GMO crops and foods are hazardous to animal and human health and the environment. Recent GMO feeding studies have found liver abnormalities in 30.8 percent of the female test animals, kidney abnormalities in 43.5 percent of the male test animals, and a thickening of the stomach lining in almost all the tests. These results and results from numerous other tests were troubling enough for all these other countries to label genetically engineered foods so that there was traceability and so that consumers could make a choice.
Currently in the U.S., consumers are not allowed to choose whether they want to be part of a vast GMO feeding experiment. If they become ill or have an allergic reaction to a food product that has been genetically engineered, they cannot trace it back to the source. Consumers have no way of knowing which foods contain genetically modified ingredients and which do not. Most have no idea that 75 percent or more of non-organic processed foods do contain GMOs. Even fewer understand that thousands of foods labeled or advertised as "natural" or "all natural" contain genetically modified ingredients.
Vermont, perhaps more than any other state, has traditionally done the right thing to protect its citizens and the environment. This time fear of Monsanto and the other gene giants has sapped the courage and commitment of the current Governor and the legislature.
Please call Governor Shumlin (802 828-3333) and tell him to stand up to Monsanto bullying. Tell him to publicly speak out and encourage the House and Senate to speed up the review process, pass the GMO labeling bill, and sign it before the legislative session ends on May 1.
And please support the OCA's "Millions against Monsanto" campaign so that Governor Shumlin and all the other states can feel secure in fighting Monsanto in court. If the Governor and legislators surrender now, they will perpetuate claims that progressive politicians are good at promising change, but lack the backbone to follow through on their rhetoric. If they show real courage and pass H.722, they will send a strong message to Monsanto and Big Biotech that the growingMillions against Monsanto movement will do whatever it takes -- includingmounting a legal defense -- to stop the corporate bullying and take back our food supply.
http://www.alternet.org/story/155060/is_...age=entire

[Jan Klimkowski]

Steve Censky, chief executive officer of the American Soybean Association, states it quite plainly. It was a move to help Monsanto and other biotechnology giants squash competition and make profits. After all, who cares about public health?
"It is a concern from a competition standpoint," Censky said in a telephone interview.

It appears that when Monsanto cannot answer for their environmental devastation, they buy up a company that may potentially be their experts' in denying any such link between their crops and the bee decline.

And then potentially make another fortune in finding a GM solution to the devastation their own toxic products cause.

A case study in why unregulated free market crony capitalism is a huge part of the problem.

[Magda Hassan]

From the same people who brought us Barack 'Drone' Obama the Nobel War is Peace Prize.

In an obscene development, a Monsanto executive is winning this year's "Nobel Prize of agriculture" -- the prestigious World Food Prize -- for creating GMOs.Receiving it legitimizes the sort of rampant genetic modification Monsanto pioneered, and helps validate a ruthless business model that impoverishes farmers and monopolizes our food.If that wasn't baffling enough, the founder of Syngenta, the same biotech giant joining Bayer in suing Europe to keep selling bee-killing pesticides, will also win the prize -- and with it, a share of the $250,000 prize money. We cannot allow this prize to legitimize frankenfoods and bee killers. The ceremony is in less than two weeks, so we need to act now.
Tell the World Food Prize Foundation not to reward Monsanto and bee-killer Syngenta's outrageous practices.
Winning this prize will encourage the wider use of genetically engineered cropsand be a huge obstacle to those fighting to investigate the long-term effects of its frankenseeds -- which is exactly what Monsanto wants. In 2008, Monsanto made a $5 million pledge to the World Food Prize Foundation, part of its plan to buy the credibility it can't legitimately earn. By handing its benefactor this award, the Foundation risks undermining the credibility of the most respected prize in agriculture.
In protest, 81 Councilors of the World Future Council have penned a statement blasting the World Food Prize Foundation for betraying its purpose. In the words of the esteemed authors: "GMO seeds reinforce a model of farming that undermines sustainability of cash-poor farmers, who make up most of the world's hungry… The most dramatic impact of such dependency is in India, where 270,000 farmers, many trapped in debt for buying seeds and chemicals, committed suicide between 1995 and 2012."
Despite the criticism, Monsanto and Syngenta executives are set to receive their prize on World Food Day, October 16 -- a slap in the face to everyone harmed by their products. We don't have much time, so we need to publicize this obscene decision -- if enough of us get word of this out, and let people know the World Food Prize is threatening its reputation, we can shame it into choosing a more suitable candidate.
Genetically-modified crops do not deserve the highest praise. Don't reward Monsanto and Syngenta.

http://action.sumofus.org/a/world-food-p...ta/?sub=tw

[Peter Lemkin]

From the same people who brought us Barack 'Drone' Obama the Nobel War is Peace Prize.

In an obscene development, a Monsanto executive is winning this year's "Nobel Prize of agriculture" -- the prestigious World Food Prize -- for creating GMOs.Receiving it legitimizes the sort of rampant genetic modification Monsanto pioneered, and helps validate a ruthless business model that impoverishes farmers and monopolizes our food.If that wasn't baffling enough, the founder of Syngenta, the same biotech giant joining Bayer in suing Europe to keep selling bee-killing pesticides, will also win the prize -- and with it, a share of the $250,000 prize money. We cannot allow this prize to legitimize frankenfoods and bee killers. The ceremony is in less than two weeks, so we need to act now.
Tell the World Food Prize Foundation not to reward Monsanto and bee-killer Syngenta's outrageous practices.
Winning this prize will encourage the wider use of genetically engineered cropsand be a huge obstacle to those fighting to investigate the long-term effects of its frankenseeds -- which is exactly what Monsanto wants. In 2008, Monsanto made a $5 million pledge to the World Food Prize Foundation, part of its plan to buy the credibility it can't legitimately earn. By handing its benefactor this award, the Foundation risks undermining the credibility of the most respected prize in agriculture.
In protest, 81 Councilors of the World Future Council have penned a statement blasting the World Food Prize Foundation for betraying its purpose. In the words of the esteemed authors: "GMO seeds reinforce a model of farming that undermines sustainability of cash-poor farmers, who make up most of the world's hungry… The most dramatic impact of such dependency is in India, where 270,000 farmers, many trapped in debt for buying seeds and chemicals, committed suicide between 1995 and 2012."
Despite the criticism, Monsanto and Syngenta executives are set to receive their prize on World Food Day, October 16 -- a slap in the face to everyone harmed by their products. We don't have much time, so we need to publicize this obscene decision -- if enough of us get word of this out, and let people know the World Food Prize is threatening its reputation, we can shame it into choosing a more suitable candidate.
Genetically-modified crops do not deserve the highest praise. Don't reward Monsanto and Syngenta.

http://action.sumofus.org/a/world-food-p...ta/?sub=tw

Absolutely disgusting news! ::vomit:: GMO's developed for profit alone and without the most rigorous long-term not-for-profit testing should be illegal; even then, only a very very very few should ever be approved. Likely best to just make them all illegal, given the present profit over health and people dominant system. Montsanto, as a company, is one of the worst polluters of nature and killers of humans and other living things. They deserve NO awards. Since corporations are [in the minds (sic) of the Supremes] 'people', they ought to be sentenced to a life in prison term, IMO.

[Peter Lemkin]

Monsanto Buys Climate Corp For $930 Million :: [Looks to me that Montsanto wants to help control the global warming 'debate''; and profit through insurance on the very problems they create.] ::fury::






Who knew betting on the weather could make a billion dollars? It just did for The Climate Corporation, which underwrites weather insurance for farmers. Monsanto broke the news this morning that it was buying Climate for approximately $930 million. The idea is to sell more data and services to the farmers who already buy Monsanto's seed and chemicals. Climate (formerly known as Weatherbill) has raised $107 million from a plethora of backers since it began fund raising in 2007. Its biggest investors include Khosla Ventures, New Enterprise Associates, Google Ventures, Index Ventures and Founders Fund.
Climate's cofounders were early Google employees who saw a self-service approach to weather insurance, which had previously been sold in custom, over-the-counter negotiations. Clients go to its site and outline what range of temperatures and/or rainfall they want protection from, for a set period of time. In 100 milliseconds Weatherbill crunches forecasts and 30 years of National Weather Service and geological survey data for the user's location. After adjustingminutelyfor climate change, Weatherbill names a price and acts as the underwriter. Policy holders get their checks automatically if the weather doesn't go their way. Originally Climate pitched its insurance to any weather-dependent businesses (farmers, housepainters, golf ranges), but it soon realized its biggest market was in agriculture. "It had the most significant opportunity, the most significant product, and had the greatest impact," cofounder David Friedberg told Forbes in a 2011 post.

Climate brings to Monsanto some impressive data expertise. "Climate Corp developed expertise in agronomy in order to understand how climate variability affects different crops," Index Ventures partner Neil Rimer gushed about the deal this morning in a blog post. "To price its insurance products, Climate Corp's platform ingests weather measurements from 2.5 million locations and forecasts from major climate models, and processes this data along with 150 billion soil observations to generate 10 trillion weather simulation data points, requiring it to manage 50 terabytes of live data at any given time. Needless to say, this company has built daunting barriers to entry."Climate was a strategic pickup for Monsanto's planned move into services and data. In its release this morning, Monsanto says data science could be a $20 billion revenue opportunity beyond its core business of seeds and chemicals. In the announcement today the company estimated that "the majority of farmers have an untapped yield opportunity of up to 30 bushels to 50 bushels in their corn fields… advancements in data science can help further unlock that additional value for the farm." Monsanto grossed $13.5 billion in revenue in the year ending August 2012. It earned $3.50 a share last year and is expected to report earnings per share of $4.58 when it reports after the close today. The stock's up 11% this year, short of the Dow's performance. [Update: Monsanto reported after the close it missed earnings per share estimates by 2 cents and its $14.9 billion in fiscal 2013 fell just shy of the consensus estimate of $15 billion. Shares sold off about one percent.]

[Peter Lemkin]

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 84%"]

Monsanto's Roundup: new deadly scam exposed

By Jon Rappoport [/TD]
[TD="width: 16%"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Source: Jon Rappoport Blog

(image by seattle organic restaurants)

Roundup is the Monsanto herbicide that is touted as the cornerstone of GMO food crops. Monsanto claims these crops are genetically engineered to withstand heavy spraying of Roundup. Therefore, the crops live and the weeds die.


Breakthrough.

There are several key lies associated with these claims -- but a new one has surfaced. A study to be published this month indicts Roundup and, in fact, the general class of insecticides and herbicides. On what grounds? When they're tested for safety, only the so-called "active ingredients" are examined.
The untested ingredients are called "adjuvants," and they are said to be inert and irrelevant. But the new study concludes this is far from true. The adjuvants are actually there to INCREASE the killing power of the active ingredient in the herbicide or insecticide. Safety tests don't take this into account. "Active ingredients" are already toxic, but the adjuvants ramp up their poisonous nature even higher.
And the worst offender is Roundup.
Here are key quotes from a January 31 article at GM Watch, "Pesticide approvals misleading -- and Roundup most toxic of nine pesticides tested."

"Pesticide formulations as sold and used are up to 1,000 times more toxic than the isolated substance that is tested and evaluated for safety." "Roundup the most toxic of herbicides and insecticides tested."
"...the complete pesticide formulations as sold and used also contain additives (adjuvants), which increase the pest- or weed-killing activity of the pesticide. These complete formulations do not have to be tested in medium- and long-term tests -- even though they are the substances to which farmers and citizens are exposed."
"This is a serious defect of the regulatory process, according to a newly published study by the team of Professor Séralini (Mesnage et al. 2014, Biomedical Research International). The study found that for eight major pesticides (out of a total of nine analyzed), the commercial formulation is up to 1000 times more toxic than the active ingredient assessed for safety by regulators."
"The study was carried out in vitro on three types of human cells."
"The study produced another surprise outcome. Roundup is often claimed to be a benign herbicide that is widely used in public spaces and by home gardeners as well as by farmers. Yet the researchers found it was by far the most toxic of all the herbicides and insecticides they tested."

Obviously, we are looking at a major crime and major scam here. It boils down to this: the manufacturers who put these adjuvants in their pesticides and herbicides know very well why they are there -- to increase the killing power of the "active ingredient." But this fact is overlooked and ignored. The pretense is, the adjuvants are inert and harmless.
The new study that exposes this crime is led by French scientist Gilles Eric Seralini. He previously published a study showing rats developed tumors when fed GMO food. A firestorm of criticism was leveled against him. He was "discredited." But in case you think we should reject Seralini's latest findings, here is my piece on the earlier manufactured firestorm:

"Remember a researcher named Gilles-Eric Seralini, his 2012 GMO study, and the controversy that swirled around it? "He fed rats GMOs, in the form of Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn, and they developed tumors. Some died. The study was published in the journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology. Pictures of the rats were published.
"A wave of biotech-industry criticism ensued. Pressure built. 'Experts' said the study was grossly unscientific, its methods were unprofessional, and Seralini was biased against GMOs from the get-go. Monsanto didn't like Seralini at all."

The journal which published the Seralini study caved in and retracted it.


Why? Not because Seralini did anything unethical, not because he plagiarized material, not because he was dishonest in any way, but because: He used rats which (supposedly) had an inherent tendency to develop tumors (the Sprague-Dawley strain), and because he used too few rats (10). That's it. Those were Seralini's errors.
Well, guess what? Eight years prior to Seralini, Monsanto also did a rat-tumor-GMO study and published it in the very same journal. Monsanto's study showed there were no tumor problems in the rats. But here's the explosive kicker. Monsanto used the same strain of rats that Seralini did and same number of rats (10). And nobody complained about it.
Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumer's Union, explains in an interview with Steve Curwood at loe.org:

"Well, basically what Dr. Séralini did was he did the same feeding study that Monsanto did and published in the same journal eight years prior, and in that study, they [Monsanto] used the same number of rats, and the same strain of rats, and came to a conclusion there was no [tumor] problem. So all of a sudden, eight years later, when somebody [Seralini] does that same experiment, only runs it for two years rather than just 90 days, and their data suggests there are problems, [then] all of a sudden the number of rats is too small? Well, if it's too small to show that there's a [tumor] problem, wouldn't it be too small to show there's no problem? They already said there should be a larger study, and it turns out the European Commission is spending 3 million Euros to actually do that Séralini study again, run it for two years, use 50 or more rats and look at the carcinogenicity. So they're actually going to do the full-blown cancer study, which suggests that Séralini's work was important, because you wouldn't follow it up with a 3 million Euro study if it was a completely worthless study."

Boom.
I can just hear Monsanto felons gibbering:

"Well, we the biotech industry people published our study. We used 10 rats and we used the Sprague-Dawley strain. And that was fine. It was especially fine because our study showed GMOs were safe. But then this guy Seralini comes along and does the same study with the same kind of rat and same number of rats, and he discovers tumors. That's not fine. That's very bad. He...he...used the wrong rats...yeah...and he didn't use enough rats. He's a faker. Well, I mean, we used the same kind of rat and same number of rats, but when we did the experiment, we were Good, and Seralini was Bad. Do you see?"

Yes, the mists are clearing and things are coming into focus.

Any comments, Monsanto? I'd be happy to pass them along to Michael Hansen.