Lab-grown mosquitoes armed with bacterium Wolbachia pipientis have just been approved by the EPA. The agency is saying that these mosquitoes could be the key to killing off insects that often transmit dangerous viruses such as Zika.
Nothing can go wrong, right? The government would never do that to us. Famous last words, but nonetheless, the created mosquitoes are very real! Mosquitoes are annoying the way it is, and adding the Zika virus has been exactly no fun for anyone. But is it worth infecting mosquitoes with bacteria in order to help stop the Zika virus? The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) says “yes.”
On November 3, the Environmental Protection Agency approved a new approach from the biotech company MosquitoMate. The goal is to destroy populations of wild mosquitoes that could be carrying nasty viruses, according to a report from Nature magazine. –CNET
MosquitoMate infects lab-grown mosquitoes with the common bacterium Wolbachia pipientis, which affects mosquitoes but they claim, it does not affect not animals or humans. They chose to infect lab-grown mosquitoes over genetic modification, although the reason for this decision is not yet known. MosquitoMate will release these insects in 20 states (which include Washington D.C., and Kentucky) this summer.
The Wolbachia-infected male mosquitoes (which don’t bite) mate with the wild populations of female Asian tiger mosquitoes (which do bite). The eggs fertilized by MosquitoMate’s male mosquitoes won’t hatch because the paternal chromosomes don’t form properly due to the effects of the bacterium.
But the process to create these mosquitoes is time-consuming, and millions must be made and infected for the insects to do their job, and make a dent in the Zika virus.
MosquitoMate hopes its GMO-free solution to destroying deadly mosquitoes will earn the praise from those of us who want a more natural way keeping mosquitoes that could end up making us sick out of our yards. “Unlike traditional mosquito control, we don’t show up after you have a problem,” according to MosquitoMate’s FAQ. “By acting proactively, your population of Asian Tiger mosquitoes will not reach a nuisance level.”
Let’s just hope they are right that the bacterium being used is not harmful to humans or animals…
In 2015, the fake news website, World News Daily Report created a massive internet hoax that still gets spread around today. The hoax claimed that Monsanto was creating a genetically modified cannabis to supply to the cannabis industry. Although it’s not entirely unbelievable, this was proven completely false. However, fast-forward to 2017 and GMO cannabis is now a reality which is getting coverage in the mainstream media.
In an article from Reuters this week, on biotechnology being used to lower nicotine in tobacco, the biotech company, 22nd Century Group was highlighted for their work in trying to make cigarettes less addictive by genetically engineering tobacco to have less of the drug.
However, also in the article was the admission that the company has more than 200 patents that give it the ability to increase or decrease the level of nicotine in tobacco plants, as well as the level of cannabinoids in cannabis plants.
What was once fake news, is now a reality.
According to 22nd Century Group, they were granted an exclusive sublicense in the United States and a co-exclusive sublicense in the remainder of the world, excluding Canada, to patents and patent applications relating to the cannabis plant that are required for the production of cannabinoids, the major active ingredients in the cannabis plant.
Advertisment
The company claims that their intention is to foster the growth of the hemp industry in the United States by creating a cannabis that has zero THC, thus making it legal under the government’s tyrannical standards.
However, without this GMO cannabis, headway is already being made in states across the country in regards to hemp through states refusing to listen to the feds. As TFTP reported in June, Nevada became the latest state to defy the federal government’s apparent “War on Nature” by legalizing commercial industrial hemp production.
READ MORE:Exclusive: Shona Banda Speaks Out on How the State Brainwashed Her Son After Kidnapping Him
Industrial hemp already contains little to no THC, so the need to genetically modify it to make it ‘legal’ in the eyes of the state is as absurd as it is unnecessary. However, given the shift toward a more sustainable society, it is highly likely that hemp production will skyrocket over the next decade.
Those who own patents on the hemp which will be allowed by the federal government first will essentially create a monopoly on their product using the state to block other, natural, growers.
In essence, through the use of government granted monopolies, 22nd Century Group and others like them could become to hemp what Monsanto has become to corn and soy.
While this is speculation at this point, it is important to raise awareness now before the only hemp allowed to be grown in the United States requires massive amounts of chemical inputs like most agriculture on the planet today.
“The cannabis industry should be aware that sooner rather than later, there will be big ag at play in this industry,” Dr. Reggie Gaudino of the Berkeley-based Steep Hill cannabis laboratory said, according to the Eureka Standard-Times. “And big ag uses exactly these techniques. We’re working to help the current population of farmers and breeders retain relevance when big ag comes knocking on the door.”
The good news is that if 22nd Century Group or other biotech firms like them ever attempt to market a high THC version of their GMO cannabis for medicinal or personal consumption, survey says—people won’t buy it.
READ MORE:Sheriff Says Cannabis Makes People Murderers Because "Rational Thought" Leads to Violence
“I don’t think there is anything that GMOs could do for cannabis that we need that couldn’t be done by advanced plant breeding techniques,” Phylos Bioscience’s CEO Mowgli Holmes in Oregon said to High Times in May. “GMOs can make cannabis that glows in the dark, but we don’t need that.”
As Maureen Meehan writes, while we all would like to know more about cannabis science—especially as CBD and medical marijuana become increasingly important—most of us want our weed to be grown as naturally as possible and preferably outdoors.
For now, however, Dr. Gaudino has a strategy to ensure a sufficient fight against big ag’s GMO inevitable attempt to take over the cannabis industry — breed your butts off and make every strain you can to have them all open source.
“At some point, big agriculture, Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, the pharmaceutical industry, they’re all going to jump on the bandwagon once everything goes from schedule I to schedule II… A savvy observer of the industry will see that the movement is gaining momentum and is moving towards that direction. Why is that important?”
“That’s important because every strain that is publicly available for sale right now basically becomes open source. Patent law states that you can’t apply for a patent of any kind on anything that’s been being sold for a year or more. The message that Steep Hill is trying to get out is, if you’re a breeder, the best thing that you can be doing right now is breeding your butt off.”
“Finding those nuances, going after those new unique strains, trying to develop better phenotypes so that you can have some relevance a few years down the line. There’s not a single grower who seriously has the power to compete with the likes of the Monsanto or Dow AgroSciences.”
“The only thing left then is to put your stake in the ground and to really protect your strains so that when everything that’s on the shelves now becomes open source, you have something better to offer the community. That’s exactly the message we’re trying to do.”
The doctor behind the technology that helped birth one of the world’s first 3-parent babies has been told by the FDA that he must stop marketing the experimental procedure.
According to the agency, John Zhang, a New York fertility doctor who helped a Jordanian couple give birth to a baby boy in 2016, had promised the FDA his companies wouldn’t use the technology in the U.S. without the agency’s permission, but they continued to promote it.
The procedure is not approved in the U.S., so a team of American doctors headed by Zhang traveled to Mexico (where the technique is not illegal) to help the Jordanian couple conceive.
According to a medical journal, the procedure occurred at Zhang’s clinic, but the embryo itself was taken to Mexico, where it was implanted. Zhang is under fire by the FDA for skirting the rules by traveling outside of the country to conduct the procedure. The regulatory body says the doctor may not modify embryos and ship them overseas again. [1] [2]
Paul Knoepfler, professor of cell biology at the University of California at Davis, said:
“It does seem like they’re pretty serious about this.” [2]
Zhang’s New Hope Fertility Clinic boasts on its website that it achieved the “first live birth” using the technology. The FDA took exception to that claim, as well others on the site, including a reference to “the first proven treatment for certain genetic disorders.” [1]
Leigh Turner, associate professor of bioethics at the University of Minnesota, said:
“The letter to me is like a shot across the bow. This seems like an area where you’d want to do careful cautious incremental research and not race into the clinic making strong marketing claims.” [2]
The FDA requested that Zhang address the violations immediately.
The experimental technique at the center of the controversy involves removing some of the mother’s DNA from an egg, and leaving the defective DNA behind. The healthy DNA gets inserted into a donor’s egg, which is then fertilized. That way, the baby inherits DNA from both parents as well as the egg donor, though the DNA contribution from the egg donor is very small. [1]
Source: The Guardian
The baby’s mother carries DNA that could have resulted in the child being born with a severe neurological disorder called Leigh syndrome that usually kills within a few years of birth.
In 2016, a panel of U.S. government advisers said in a report that it is ethical to start testing the procedure in pregnancy, but the first studies must follow stringent safety steps. Women at high risk of passing on a severe disease must be included in the research, and only male embryos may be implanted at first, to ensure the edits won’t be passed down to future generations.
Last year, Britain’s fertility regulator gave approval for the “cautious use” of techniques to create 3-parent babies, saying it would start accepting applications from fertility clinics that wish to become licensed to perform the procedure.
The child born with the help of Zhang’s clinic was not the first baby born to 3 parents. In the 1990’s, some children were born using a different technique, and are reportedly doing well.
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
On August 2, 2017, documents released as part of a lawsuit against Monsanto raised more questions over whether or not the mammoth biotech company suppressed information about the potentially carcinogenic nature of its Roundup weedkiller and its primary ingredient, glyphosate. [1]
Glyphosate is one of the most widely-used weedkillers in the world and is available for both agricultural and home use.
It came to light in early 2017 that the same EPA official responsible for evaluating the cancer risk associated with glyphosate may have colluded with Monsanto to tilt research on glyphosate in favor of Monsanto’s claim that the chemical is not carcinogenic to humans.
As of August 2, 2017, more than 75 documents containing over 700 pages, including text messages and discussions about payments to scientists, were posted for all the world to see by attorneys who are suing Monsanto on behalf of people who allege Roundup caused them or their loved ones to develop a type of blood cancer known as non-Hodgkin lymphoma. [2]
More than 100 of the lawsuits have been consolidated in multidistrict litigation in federal court in San Francisco. Similar lawsuits are pending in state courts, including Missouri, Delaware, and Arizona.
The lawyers claim they will send copies of the documents to European authorities, the EPA’s OIG, and to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).
According to the newest document leak, Henry I. Miller, an academic and outspoken supporter of genetically modified (GM) crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that all but mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’ website in 2015. [1]
Miller is a notorious American lobbyist who tried to discredit scientists who linked tobacco use with cancer and heart disease to protect the industry.
In the Forbes article, Miller attacked the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization (WHO), which labeled glyphosate a probable carcinogen in 2015. Several other regulatory bodies have challenged that finding, and Monsanto tried to get the IARC to retract the link to cancer.
The documents show that when Monsanto asked Miller if he would be interested in writing an article on the topic, he responded:
“I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft.”
The article was published under Miller’s name, with the assertion that “opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own,” and with no mention of Monsanto’s involvement in the writing of the piece.
Scott Partridge, vice president of global strategy for Monsanto, defended Miller’s Forbes article by calling it a “collaborative effort, a function of the outrage we were hearing from many people on the attacks on glyphosate.”
Partridge went on:
“This is not a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. It’s an op-ed we collaborated with him on.”
Forbes removed the article from its website on August 2, 2017, and said that it ended its relationship with Miller over the matter.
Mia Carbonell, a Forbes spokesperson, said:
“All contributors to Forbes.com sign a contract requiring them to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and only publish content that is their own original writing. When it came to our attention that Mr. Miller violated these terms, we removed his blog from Forbes.com and ended our relationship with him.”
Even former Monsanto employee John Aquavella appeared to view the “collaborative effort” as dishonest and unethical, writing in a 2015 e-mail to a company executive:
“I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.”
He added:
“We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.”
A Monsanto official said Aquavella’s remarks were based on a complete misunderstanding and that the situation had been “worked out.” Aquavella has changed his story, as well, saying in an e-mail to The New York Times that “there was no ghost writing” and that his remarks had actually been about an early draft and a question over authorship that has since been resolved.
The documents also suggest that Monsanto scientists weren’t wholly confident in the safety of glyphosate or the other ingredients in Roundup – at least not confident enough to guarantee Roundup does not cause cancer.
In an e-mail dating back to 2001, a company scientist wrote:
“If somebody came to me and said they wanted to test Roundup I know how I would react – with serious concern.”
In 2002, a Monsanto executive wrote in an e-mail:
“What I’ve been hearing from you is that if this continues to be the case with these studies – Glyphosate is OK but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.”
A different Monsanto executive said in a 2003 e-mail:
“You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … and we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”
However, she added that “we can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.”
handshake
Additionally, the documents show that A. Wallace Hayes, the former editor of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, has had a contractual relationship with Monsanto – something which Hayes vehemently denies.
In 2013, while Hayes was still editor, he retracted a crucial study which found that Roundup, and GM corn, could be carcinogenic to rats, causing premature death. Biotech trolls and shills point to this deceptive retraction as proof that any research indicating that glyphosate causes cancer is bunk.
In an interview, Hayes said that he was under no contractual obligation with Monsanto at the time of the study’s retraction, and was paid only after he left the journal.
He explained:
“Monsanto played no role whatsoever in the decision that was made to retract. It was based on input that I got from some very well-respected people, and also my own evaluation.”
Hayes was fired from the journal in 2015, after hundreds of scientists queried the publication to find out why the Roundup study had been retracted, and arguing that it was giving into pressure from the biotech industry.
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
One of the largest chicken producers in the United States, Perdue Farms recently released its first-ever chicken welfare report in July 2017. The company says it has taken important steps to follow through on plans it announced a little over a year ago to change the way it raises and slaughters chickens. [1]
Perdue says in the report that it implemented new breeding methods which allow chickens to grow at a faster rate without causing them harm. The company additionally claimed that it would install stunning systems that minimize stress to the birds as they’re headed to slaughter.
Over time, the changes will be rolled out to about 1,500 contract farmers and 5,000 chicken houses, according to company chairman Jim Perdue and senior vice president Bruce Stewart-Brown.
Factory Farms Have a Serious Negative-Image
In recent years, Perdue Farms has had its share of problems. One I can recall off-hand was in 2014, when farmer Craig Watts – a contractor for Perdue at the time – revealed shocking video footage of the filthy, unhealthy, and downright inhumane living conditions suffered by chickens produced for the company.
Watts, who eventually left the chicken farming industry in disgust, went on to release equally disturbing video footage of the horrid living conditions and treatment of chickens produced for Pilgrim’s Pride.
In both videos, over-large chickens are seen crammed together in a filthy warehouse. They have no natural light in to bask in, and the birds must literally trample each other just to get to their feed.
‘Positive Changes are Coming’
Perdue Farms, the 4th-largest poultry producer in the country, is the largest poultry producer to ensure chickens in its supply chain are treated better, according to Humane Society of the U.S. vice president Josh Balk.
The new chicken houses have lots of windows, space for the chickens to move about, even ramps and straw bales for the birds to perch on. [2]
Leah Garces, executive director of Compassion in World Farming, who recently took a tour of Perdue’s vision of the future, said “It’s a big difference.” She added that chickens in the house with natural light are “running around, climbing on things, pecking, perching,” compared with the chickens in the the windowless house, which are “quiet, they’re sitting, they’re not moving.”
Company executives say they’ve seen a substantial difference in the health and quality of the chickens raised in better conditions. Jim Perdue said the company found that when chickens are more active and not left squatting in cramped conditions, the meat is of higher quality, something they learned when they started raising their birds according to organic rules.
Jim said:
“We’re finding that meat from organic chickens is better. More tender. Different color. Activity is the key. [Organic chickens] are more active, they’re running around.”
Any person who has ever eaten organic, humanely-raised meat can attest that there is an elephantine difference in the quality and flavor of organic meat. The superior birds – the organic ones – are better for human health, too.
Source: The Guardian
Even without Perdue Farms’ revelations about the virtues of organic chicken farming, pressure from big corporate customers certainly would have forced the poultry producer to alter its behavior. These customers include food service companies and other institutions, such as Aramark and Compass, both of which have announced that by 2024, they will only purchase chickens from companies that improve the lives of its birds.
The food service companies say they’ll only purchase chickens from companies that raise them according to new animal welfare rules set in place by Global Animal Partnership, an organization originally launched by the grocery chain Whole Foods.
Those rules include:
Chicken houses will have natural light.
Chicken producers will use a new slaughtering process that knocks the birds unconscious with gas before they are killed. This will replace electrical stunning, which involves hanging the birds by their feet on a sort of conveyor belt and their heads come into contact with electrically charged water.
More Progress Needs to be Made
Perdue is on the path to meeting the requirements, but there is one hurdle that could be hard for the company to hop over: growing a chicken that can freely move about because it doesn’t fatten up as quickly.
In the secret videos recorded by Craig Watts, hugely fat chickens endeavor to navigate the facilities, balanced on its 2 scrawny legs, only for their legs to give out under the birds’ weight – an image described by Watts as “2 toothpicks sticking out a grape.”
Chickens are raised for breast meat, and for the last, oh, 60 years or so, chicken producers have been on a mission to increase the size of their birds in order to compete. The competition reaches as far down as the farmers themselves, whose pay depends on the amount of meat their birds produce. Chickens have quadrupled in size since the 1950’s, according to a 2014 study in the journal Poultry Science.
Source: Seattle Organic Restaurants
The Global Animal Partnership demands that companies use slower-growing breeds. The animal welfare group hasn’t decided which breeds will meet its standard, but Perdue Farms is studying 6 alternative breeds at a research farm.
Unfortunately, the switch to slower-growing chickens is likely to have a palpable impact on business. And because certain breeds of slower-growing chickens produce less breast meat and bigger legs, buyers can expect to feel the impact, too. They may have to pay more for poultry, or eat more dark meat.
Jim Purdue said:
“This is a big change for our company as well as the industry. Getting everyone aligned is the big challenge. From that aspect, I think things are going well as far as people understanding what we want to look like.” [3]
Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.
A group of scientists in Oregon have edited the genes of human embryos for the first time in the United States, using CRISPR-Cas9, a cut-and-paste gene-editing tool. [1]
The experiments were conducted by Shoukhrat Mitalipov and colleagues at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. The single-celled embryos Mitalipov edited were discarded after the experiments to ensure they could not become too developed.
Live Science explains how the CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing tool works:
“The CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing system is a simple “cut and replace” method for editing precise spots on the genome. CRISPRS are long stretches of DNA that are recognized by molecular “scissors” called Cas9; by inserting CRISPR DNA near target DNA, scientists can theoretically tell Cas9 to cut anywhere in the genome. Scientists can then swap a replacement gene sequence in the place of the snipped sequence. The replacement sequence then gets automatically incorporated into the genome by natural DNA repair mechanisms.”
Source: Daily Mail
CRISPR was used by scientists in China in 2015 to edit several human embryos that had severe defects. Like the scientists in Oregon, the team in China discarded the embryos before they could become too developed.
The Chinese technique led to genetic changes in a few of the embryos, and in a few cases, CRISPR sometimes snipped out the wrong place in the DNA.
Mitalipov’s experiments were reportedly successful in that they edited far more embryos than scientists did in past research. Additionally, Mitalipov and his colleagues claim they managed to do so without causing as many errors as previous scientists. [2]
Someday – perhaps much sooner than we realize – scientists could use this technique to edit not just the offspring of people with genetic diseases, but their offspring, as well. Theoretically, this could eradicate diseases caused by mutated genes, such as Huntington’s, sickle-cell anemia, Tay-Sachs, and many others.
But it’s risky…
Gene-editing is rife with controversy and ethical concerns. While many say CRISPR-Cas9 will help reduce the occurrence of genetic diseases, Marcy Darnovsky, Executive Director of the Center for Genetics and Society, says there are ways to do that which don’t involve editing the human genome.
“This is just not needed for preventing inheritable disease. There are [other techniques that] can already be used safely to prevent the births of children with serious genetic diseases in almost every case.”
For example, preimplantation diagnosis (PGD) allows parents to screen embryos for certain disease-causing genes before implanting them via in-vitro fertilization (IVF). However, in cases where someone carries 2 copies of a defective gene, PGD won’t work because all their embryos would also carry that gene.
Darnovsky is also greatly worried about the safety of CRISPR gene-editing. He said:
“Despite whatever the claims are about safety, [like] no mosaicism, we still don’t know if that would mean it’s safe to create a new human being and anyone who tried it would be taking an enormous and unacceptable risk with that future person’s life.”
Right now, scientists are supposed to focus their efforts on editing disease-causing genes. But CRISPR could potentially open the door to the creation of “designer babies,” in which parents are permitted to edit their children to be better at sports or math, for example, or to be more physically attractive.
Source: Metro news
Darnovsky explained:
“That would be layering new forms of inequality and discrimination onto the ones we already live with.”
He’s not alone in his concerns.
In 2016, the U.S. intelligence community called CRISPR a potential “weapon of mass destruction.” [3]
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
The EPA’s inspector general has launched an investigation into possible collusion between a former high-ranking EPA official and Monsanto, the maker of RoundUp. [1]
The probe was initiated in response to a request from Rep. Ted Lieu, a Democrat from California, for an investigation into whether the EPA official colluded with the biotech giant to tilt research on glyphosate in favor of Monsanto’s claim that the chemical does not cause cancer in humans.
This, despite Monsanto having never conducted carcinogenicity studies on RoundUp.
Source: Zero Hedge
Lieu’s request was based on media reports of documents released as part of a lawsuit against Monsanto alleging that glyphosate is carcinogenic and that the company may have spun research and hired scientists to cover it up.
Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins Jr. wrote in a letter he sent to a lawmaker on 31 May, 2017:
“As you are you aware, there is considerable public interest regarding allegations of such collusion. As a result, I have asked the EPA OIG Office of Investigations to conduct an inquiry into several agency review-related matters.” [1]
The lawsuit-related documents refer to internal Monsanto e-mails that mention Jess Rowland, a former manager in the EPA’s pesticide division.
In a press release, the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting endangered species, notes that the documents contain these potentially incriminating revelations:
The chair [Rowland] of the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee on glyphosate was in regular contact with Monsanto, providing insider information that guided Monsanto’s messaging;
The chair warned Monsanto that the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm had found glyphosate to be probably carcinogenic months before the 2015 determination became public, allowing the pesticide-maker to mount a public relations attack on the finding;
The chair promised to thwart the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ review of glyphosate’s safety, saying that if he was successful he deserved a medal. The department never did review glyphosate’s safety;
A Monsanto executive e-mailed other company officials that they could hire academics to put their names on glyphosate research papers written by Monsanto, citing a previous instance where this was done. The referenced paper was used in the EPA pesticide program’s own cancer analysis.
Source: Zero Hedge
It appears that at the time the original e-mail was sent, Monsanto was trying to recruit Rowland to help shut down a review of glyphosate within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry division.
Rowland has since retired after spending 26 years at the agency, and plaintiffs’ lawyers have been deposing him about accusations that Monsanto may have paid him off for his efforts via third parties. [1] [2]
OIG investigators will likely begin interviewing Rowland’s former colleagues and bosses, pulling records and poring through e-mails, according to Michael Hubbard, a retired Special Agent in Charge for the EPA’s criminal investigations division. It’s also likely that investigators at the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section will be pulled into the mix. Additionally, subpoenas could be granted to allow access to Rowland’s bank records.
Said Hubbard:
“You want to start looking at money trails. Has he benefitted from Monsanto? Was the money changing hands with him or his significant other?” [1]
It wouldn’t be shocking to learn that Monsanto was working with an EPA official to quash damaging research. This is the same company that allegedly has its own department of Internet “trolls” tasked with trashing negative articles and comments about RoundUp.
Monsanto will do anything to cover up the toxic truth about glyphosate. After the IARC declared glyphosate “probably carcinogenic,” the company pressured the WHO agency to reassess the herbicide, and continues to insist that “there is no evidence of carcinogenicity” in RoundUp’s main ingredient.
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
The FDA has resumed testing food for glyphosate residues, as questions about the safety of the RoundUp chemical continue to grow.
In 2016, the FDA launched what it refers to as a “special assignment” to analyze certain foods for glyphosate residues. The move was sparked by the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s criticism of the agency for failing to include glyphosate in annual testing programs which analyzes foods ‘less-used’ chemicals in food.
The testing only lasted a few months, however, due to haggling among agency officials over how to establish a standard testing methodology across the FDA’s multiple U.S. laboratories.
Rumors swirled that the halt on testing was politically motivated – the FDA announced that it would cease testing food for glyphosate after an FDA chemist detected glyphosate in U.S. honey and oat products, including baby food.
Glyphosate is one of the world’s most widely-used herbicides, so it’s not difficult to draw parallels between the discovery of the herbicide in honey and oats, and the FDA’s decision to shelve testing for the product. Why test for less-used herbicides but skip RoundUp, when it is obviously so prevalent?
In April 2017, the USDA was set to start testing some food samples for the herbicide, documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act revealed, but the agency ultimately decided against it.
The FDA quietly resumed it’s testing for glyphosate in early June 2017, as well as for 2,4-D, and other “acid herbicides.” Chemical companies have started to combine 2,4-D and the herbicide dicamba with glyphosate in new weed-killing products. Use of these multi-chemical herbicides is expected to grow, making testing more important than ever.
Source: GMO Awareness
In addition to being one of the most widely-used herbicides in the world, glyphosate is the most controversial. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans.
But U.S. and other world regulatory agencies have said that conclusion lacks the scientific evidence to back it up. This led to biotech giant Monsanto (the maker of glyphosate-containing Roundup) requesting that the link between glyphosate and cancer be retracted.
Meanwhile, Monsanto is facing hundreds of lawsuits filed on behalf of people who allege glyphosate caused their cancers. The biotech giant is also embroiled in a legal battle over allegations the company colluded with a former high-ranking EPA official to downplay – and, in some cases, completely cover up – glyphosate’s health risks.
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently and quietly approved Monsanto’s new genetic engineering technology, known as RNAi. [1]
The insecticide DvSnf7 dsRNA is not sprayed on crops. Instead, instructions for manufacturing it in the DNA of the crop itself must be encoded in crops. The plants’ self-made DvSnf7 dsRNA disrupts a crucial gene in western corn rootworms – a major threat to corn – and kills the pests.
All that’s left after that is RNA interference, or RNAi, and the EPA approved this final step in making corn rootworm-resistant in mid-June 2017. RNAi was the source of both hype and controversy just a few years ago, The Atlantic reports. But the EPA so quietly approved the technology that the media and environmental groups barely noticed.
The first DvSnf7 dsRNA product will be used in SmartStax Pro genetically modified corn seeds made in collaboration between the world’s top agrotech giants, Monsanto and Dow. Monsanto will supply the RNAi technology, and it already has its eye on several RNAi applications. The company expects corn seed with RNAi to be on the market by the end of this decade.
The western corn rootworm is known as the “billion dollar pest” because of the damage it wreaks on cornfields. The insect keeps becoming resistant to the other insecticides that farmers use against it – including the kind you spray on crops and corn genetically modified to product Bt toxin, another technology commercialized by Monsanto.
The SmartStax Pro corn will contain both Bt toxin and DvSnf7 dsRNA.
RNAi works by “turning off” 1 specific gene in 1 specific species by leaving other crops unharmed, at least theoretically. In nature, plants and animals use this process to “silence” their own genes. The technology has already been used to create genetically modified apples and potatoes that don’t brown. (The apples, called Arctic Apples, are expected to reach supermarkets in the U.S. by the end of 2017.)
However, with Monsanto and Dow’s GMO corn, the DvSnf7 dsRNA silences a gene in another living organism, in this case the western corn rootworm. It modifies its environment, rather than itself.
Environmental Groups Stunned by Quiet Approval
Groups like the Center for Food Safety, who vocally opposed the RNAi-made apples and potatoes, said they were a bit stunned by the EPA’s approval. The agency only allowed a 15-day comment period, instead of the traditional 30 days, and it did not post its proposed decision in the Federal Register. It’s not the first time the EPA has done that, but Bill Freese, CFS’ science policy analyst, says the unparalleled use of RNAi as insecticide should have warranted more public scrutiny.
Freese – who has received funding from Monsanto to study the western corn rootworm – has reason to be concerned. A scientific paper published in 2011 questions the safety of DvSnf7 dsRNA, after Chinese scientists found that people eating genetically modified rice had naturally occurring RNA molecules in their bloodstream. It should be noted, however, that scientists have struggled to replicate the study’s findings, and the report received much criticism.
Freese told The Atlantic that the real problem goes beyond RNAi itself. He explained:
“There’s faddish interest in the latest technology. It often neglects the basic issues of the unhealthy practices used in planting corn.”
For example, rotating crops versus planting corn multiple years in a row in the same field can make a dent in the western corn rootworm problem.
Freese says planting non-GMO corn is also vitally important, because overplanting of Bt corn led to Bt resistance.
“We need to treat these things carefully because we really can’t just afford to throw them away.”
Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.
Agrotech giant Monsanto is facing another class-action lawsuit, but this time it has nothing to do with glyphosate or any of its other products, but rather labor conditions for some of the company’s migrant workers. [1]
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 2 migrant workers who allege that Monsanto violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Agricultural Workers Protection Act while the workers were employed in fields where the company grows its seed-corn. The class-action is believed to be the first lawsuit of its kind.
The plaintiffs in the case allege that Monsanto failed to pay its workers the minimum wage and that it failed to pay its employees when compensation was due. The workers further allege that Monsanto misrepresented the way the employees would be paid, and didn’t bother to keep accurate payroll records.
The lawsuit states that the migrant workers, called farm labor contractors, or FLCs, were hired to detassel and rogue corn in the Midwest, but those contractors failed to pay them a promised wage. [2]
Detasseling involves removing the top “tassel” part of the corn plant, and rogueing refers to removing undesirable plants from the fields so that they do not grow to maturity.
However, the farm labor contractors are not listed as defendants in the lawsuit, which was filed June 29, 2017 in the U.S. Northern District Court of Illinois Western Division.
Teresa Hendricks, co-counsel for the plaintiffs and director of the Michigan Migrant Legal Assistance Project, said the reason the contractors weren’t named was because they:
” … are not the ones with any real control. They are typically undercapitalized and struggle themselves with Monsanto, some have sued Monsanto even for pay. They will be deposed as witnesses in our case.”
By Hendricks’ estimates, the potential damages could reach $2 million. What’s more, the fact that it’s a class-action suit means that hundreds of workers could be affected.
Two-million is chump change to Monsanto, however, and $2 million divided among hundreds of people doesn’t add up to much compensation.
“I’m not aware of any other multi-state class action against Monsanto over its labor practices in production of seed corn. Potentially, it could be the highest amount of damages of this type of suit.” [1]
According to the lawsuit, the FLCs:
“… did not receive funds from Monsanto for detasseling work until Monsanto approved particular areas for detasseling, which could take several weeks and could require as many as four pass throughs by the workers.”
It further states that because the contractors:
“… were generally very small entities with little capitalization or available funds to pay workers, the Monsanto FLCs, upon information and belief, would not pay workers the full piece rate they should have earned, in accordance with the disclosures, each week after the detasseling workers finished their work. Instead, the FLCs would pay the workers a partial rate, with a promise to make up the missing funds later, even at the end of the season when the detasseling work was completed.”
It goes on to say:
“For example, Plaintiffs Perez and Nieves were promised by Monsanto FLC Benito Vasquez/B&F Detasseling that they would receive additional pay after they completed their work for Monsanto and left the Midwest. However, this pay was never provided, and these Plaintiffs were underpaid by thousands of dollars as a result.”
Agrochemical company DuPont Pioneer has also faced allegations of hiring contractors who mistreat and underpay workers in its seed-corn fields.
Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.
Scientists in Hungary say toad tadpoles that have been exposed to the herbicide glyphosate (also known as Glyphogan in Australia) may produce considerably more of the toxic chemicals the toads use to ward off predators. The findings are especially relevant to Australia’s cane toad population. [1]
The fear is that feral cane toads in Australia could become even more toxic due to a combination of environment and the amount of pollutants and chemicals the amphibians come into contact with.
Study author Veronika Bokony said:
“Our results indicate that pesticide pollution might exacerbate the problem of invasive toxic species. For example, in Australia, the survival of native tadpoles is reduced by poisoning from ingestion of toxic cane toad eggs, and predators suffer drastic mortality due to ingesting or mouthing cane toads.”
The tadpoles the researchers studied were found to have higher levels of the toxic chemical bufadienolide as adults. Bufadienolide is stored in glands in the toads’ shoulders, and it is delivered to predators via poisonous blasts. [2]
The increased toxicity makes the cane toads a threat to the native ecosystem and other organisms. Bokony said:
“Pesticide pollution might exacerbate the problem of invasive toxic species.”
The toxins are also dangerous for pets. Large doses of cane toad toxin can be deadly for dogs and cats. Symptoms of poisoning include vomiting, difficulty breathing, foaming at the mouth, or dilated pupils.
Frog Safe Inc coordinator Deborah Pergolotti, who is outspoken about the risks posed by RoundUp, said the study only confirms that glyphosate is a dangerous weedkiller. [3]
“There are many reasons not to use RoundUp, which not only does damage to frogs, it does damage to the human gut. It’s a systemic chemical, which means that it will get around to a lot of things.
This chemical is taken up the whole plant, so any pollen, nectar, flowers, or fruit will have the chemical in those things.”
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
As of July 7, 2017, glyphosate, a chemical found in Monsanto’s RoundUp herbicide, has officially been listed as a carcinogen in California under the state’s Proposition 65 law. [1]
Under the law, RoundUp, the most widely-used herbicide in the world, must carry a warning about its potential to cause cancer in humans. It is the first time that any governmental authority has created such legislation based on glyphosate’s possible carcinogenicity.
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) must still complete the task of setting a limit for acceptable daily exposure to the weedkiller. Agency scientists have proposed a limit of 1.1 mg a day, which is 127 times less than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) legal allowance for the average-sized adult.
Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) said:
“With this action today listing glyphosate as a cancer-causing chemical, California continues to lead the nation in implementing laws to protect human health and the environment. This is a significant blow to Monsanto, but a victory on behalf of the public, which could set the stage for similar actions in other states across the nation.”
EWG says the law doesn’t go far enough, and believes the OEHHA should set a daily limit of 0.01 mg of glyphosate, which would protect all Californians, including the state’s most vulnerable population: children. The lower estimate is based on a recent analysis by EWG.
Said Cook:
“While we applaud today’s action, we do believe the state can take additional steps to further protect its most vulnerable populations from this dangerous chemical.”
Based on the IARC’s classification, California OEHHA decided to add glyphosate to a list of cancer-causing chemicals the agency maintains as required under the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, or Proposition 65. Under the law, businesses must warn California residents about significant exposure to chemicals that can cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.
Monsanto reportedly attempted to keep glyphosate off the Proposition 65 list by getting a Reuters reporter to author a misleading article designed to undermine the IARC’s decision. However, it didn’t take long for the article to be debunked.
Lawsuits have been filed on behalf of more than 1,000 people who allege that glyphosate caused them or a loved one to develop a potentially deadly cancer known as non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Nearly 200 of those lawsuits involve Californians. [2] [3]
In addition, a now-retired EPA employee was discovered to have colluded with Monsanto to “kill” an unfavorable glyphosate study. The biotech giant also had ghostwriters author some of its research, but attributed the findings to academics. In March 2017, The New York Times wrote:
“The court documents included Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics and indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.”
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
On July 7, 2017, officials in Arkansas and Missouri enacted a temporary ban on dicamba, the herbicide blamed for vaporizing and damaging crops which have not been genetically engineered to withstand the weedkiller. The Arkansas Plant Board had voted June 23, 2017 to temporarily ban the spraying of dicamba on any crops except pasture land for 120 days. [1]
The newest ban, set to start July 11, 2017, extends the 120-day moratorium.
The bans come as complaints about suspected dicamba drift continue to snowball. More than 130 cases of dicamba drift have already been reported in Missouri this year, eclipsing last year’s totals, which resulted in heavy crop losses for farmers in the Bootheel region of the southeastern part of the state.
Source: Ohio State University
Missouri Director of Agriculture Chris Chinn announced in a July 7 news release that, effective immediately, sales and on-farm use of dicamba products would be suspended. The Missouri Department of Agriculture said the move is being made “with an abundance of caution and is temporary until a more permanent solution is reached.”
Chinn said in the release:
“We want to protect farmers and their livelihoods. At the same time, my commitment to technology and innovation in agriculture is unwavering. That’s why I am asking the makers of these approved post-emergent products, researchers and farmers to work with us to determine how we can allow applications to resume this growing season, under certain agreed upon conditions.”
In Missouri, dicamba drift damaged nearly 45,000 acres of crops, including soybeans, commercial tomatoes, watermelons, cantaloupes, grapes, pumpkins, and residential trees and gardens. According to the Missouri Soybean Association, that’s too conservative, by far. The group estimates that 200,000 acres of soybean crops have been damaged by dicamba. [1] [2]
In 2016, Missouri’s largest peach grower, Bader Farms, sued Monsanto, one of the manufacturers of dicamba, alleging the herbicide caused extensive damage to the farm’s peach trees over the previous 2 years.
Monsanto released a statement saying the biochemical company is complying with the Missouri order, and encourage “all growers, retailers, and distributors to do the same.” [2]
It goes on to say:
“We spent years developing the XtendMax with VaporGrip Technology to minimize the potential for off-site movement. We want to stress how important it is that growers and applicators who use our product follow the label requirements and any local requirements. Monsanto is committed to remaining actively engaged in this conversation and doing our part to help farmers use the Roundup Ready Xtend Crop System successfully.”
No dicamba products have been approved for use in Arkansas, but some farmers applied the herbicide illegally.
About the Arkansas ban, Monsanto said:
“We sympathize with any farmers experiencing crop injury, but the decision to ban dicamba in Arkansas was premature since the causes of any crop injury have not been fully investigated. While we do not sell dicamba products in Arkansas, we are concerned this abrupt decision in the middle of a growing season will negatively impact many farmers in Arkansas.”
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
California will add glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s blockbuster herbicide RoundUp, to its list of chemicals known to cause cancer, effective July 7, 2017. [1]
Monsanto promises to fight the listing, required under state law Proposition 65, calling the decision “unwarranted on the basis of science and the law.”
The seeds and chemical company unsuccessfully tried to block the listing in trial court and requests for stay were denied by a state appellate court and the state’s Supreme Court. Monsanto has appealed the trial court decision.
Monsanto is entrenched in legal problems at the moment, including hundreds of lawsuits filed by people who allege glyphosate caused them cancer. The biotech giant and its products have always been controversial, but the company’s problems snowballed after the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared the chemical “probably carcinogenic” to humans.
In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) inspector general is currently investigating whether a former staffer colluded with Monsanto to “kill” a study linking glyphosate to cancer.
Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy, said:
“This is not the final step in the process, and it has no bearing on the merits of the case. We will continue to aggressively challenge this improper decision.”
Glyphosate’s designation as a carcinogen under Proposition 65 means that companies selling the weed-killing chemical in California would be required to add warning labels to packaging. Additionally, warnings will need to be issued if glyphosate is sprayed at levels deemed harmful by regulators. The majority of glyphosate applicators are landscapers, golf courses, orchards, vineyards, and farms.
Monsanto and other glyphosate manufacturers will have about a year from the listing date to add the warnings to their products or pull them from the market if it is unsuccessful in challenging the decision.
It’s not clear whether RoundUp will receive a warning label. State regulators must still decide if the name brand weed killer contains high enough levels of glyphosate to endanger human health. More than 1,300 public comments have flooded state regulators on the matter. [2]
Sam Delson, a spokesman for California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), said:
“We can’t say for sure. We’re reviewing those comments.”
Glyphosate, an odorless, colorless chemical, was introduced by Monsanto in 1974, and skyrocketed in popularity for its ability to kill weeds without harming other plants. It is sold in 160 countries, and it is applied to 250 types of crops in California alone.
The fight to protect Californians from toxic substances like glyphosate is far from over, says Michael Baum, an attorney who represents more than 300 people who have filed suit against Monsanto, claiming glyphosate caused a loved one to get sick or die due to exposure to RoundUp.
Nathan Donley, a former cancer researcher and senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, in an emailed statement, echoed similar sentiments. He said:
“California’s decision makes it the national leader in protecting people from cancer-causing pesticides. The U.S. EPA now needs to step up and acknowledge that the world’s most transparent and science-based assessment has linked glyphosate to cancer.” [3]
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
Source: The Guardian
