Silicon Valley Exec Creates New Religion Worshipping A "Godhead" Based On Artificial Intelligence

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

I know that the headline sounds absolutely crazy, but this is actually a true story. 

A Silicon Valley executive named Anthony Levandowski has already filed paperwork with the IRS for the nonprofit corporation that is going to run this new religion.  Officially, this new faith will be known as “Way Of The Future”, and you can visit the official website right here. 

Of course nutjobs are creating “new religions” all the time, but in this case Levandowski is a very highly respected tech executive, and his new religion is even getting coverage from Wired magazine…

The new religion of artificial intelligence is called Way of the Future. It represents an unlikely next act for the Silicon Valley robotics wunderkind at the center of a high-stakes legal battle between Uber and Waymo, Alphabet’s autonomous-vehicle company. Papers filed with the Internal Revenue Service in May name Levandowski as the leader (or “Dean”) of the new religion, as well as CEO of the nonprofit corporation formed to run it.

So what will adherents of this new faith actually believe?

To me, it sounds like a weird mix of atheism and radical transhumanism.  The following comes from Way of the Future’s official website…

We believe in science (the universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago and if you can’t re-create/test something it doesn’t exist). There is no such thing as “supernatural” powers. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

We believe in progress (once you have a working version of something, you can improve on it and keep making it better). Change is good, even if a bit scary sometimes. When we see something better, we just change to that. The bigger the change the bigger the justification needed.

 

We believe the creation of “super intelligence” is inevitable (mainly because after we re-create it, we will be able to tune it, manufacture it and scale it). We don’t think that there are ways to actually stop this from happening (nor should we want to) and that this feeling of we must stop this is rooted in 21st century anthropomorphism (similar to humans thinking the sun rotated around the earth in the “not so distant” past).

But even though Way of the Future does not embrace the “supernatural”, they do believe in a “God”.

In this new religion, the worship of a “Godhead” that will be created using artificial intelligence will be actively encouraged…

The documents state that WOTF’s activities will focus on “the realization, acceptance, and worship of a Godhead based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) developed through computer hardware and software.”

 

That includes funding research to help create the divine AI itself.

 

The religion will seek to build working relationships with AI industry leaders and create a membership through community outreach, initially targeting AI professionals and “laypersons who are interested in the worship of a Godhead based on AI.”

 

The filings also say that the church “plans to conduct workshops and educational programs throughout the San Francisco/Bay Area beginning this year.”

So how “powerful” will this newly created “God” actually be?

Well, Levandowski says that he envisions creating an artificially intelligent being that will literally be “a billion times smarter than the smartest human”…

“What is going to be created will effectively be a god,” he said. “It’s not a god in the sense that it makes lightning or causes hurricanes. But if there is something a billion times smarter than the smartest human, what else are you going to call it?”

 

He added, “I would love for the machine to see us as its beloved elders that it respects and takes care of. We would want this intelligence to say, ‘Humans should still have rights, even though I’m in charge.’”

But what if this “super-intelligence” gets outside of our control and turns on us?

What then?

I am not sure that Levandowski has an answer for that.

Other transhumanists also believe that artificial intelligence will grow at an exponential rate, but instead of AI ruling over us, they see a coming merger between humanity and this new super intelligence.  In fact, world famous transhumanist Ray Kurzeil believes that this will enable us to “become essentially god-like in our powers”…

Kurzweil and his followers believe that a crucial turning point will be reached around the year 2030, when information technology achieves ‘genuine’ intelligence, at the same time as biotechnology enables a seamless union between us and this super-smart new technological environment.

 

Ultimately the human-machine mind will become free to roam a universe of its own creation, uploading itself at will on to a “suitably powerful computational substrate”. We will become essentially god-like in our powers.

And prominent transhumanist Mark Pesce takes things even further.  He in absolutely convinced that rapidly advancing technology will allow ordinary humans “to become as gods”…

“Men die, planets die, even stars die. We know all this. Because we know it, we seek something more—a transcendence of transience, translation to incorruptible form.

 

An escape if you will, a stop to the wheel. We seek, therefore, to bless ourselves with perfect knowledge and perfect will; To become as gods, take the universe in hand, and transform it in our image—for our own delight. As it is on Earth, so it shall be in the heavens. The inevitable result of incredible improbability, the arrow of evolution is lipping us into the transhuman – an apotheosis to reason, salvation – attained by good works.”

Throughout human history, there has always been a desire to create our own gods or to become our own gods.

But no matter how hard these transhumanists try to run from death, it will eventually find them anyway, and at that point all of their questions about who God really is will be answered once and for all.

*  *  *

Michael Snyder is a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District, and you can learn how you can get involved in the campaign on his official website. His new book entitled “Living A Life That Really Matters” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.

Iran Urges Russia To Ditch The Dollar, Isolate America

Iran has suggested isolating the US by ditching the dollar during a meeting yesterday with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Tehran.

Remonstrating against US threats to impose new sanctions and cancel the nuclear agreement, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei branded the US an enemy and urged Moscow to completely sever ties with the US currency:

"By ignoring the negative propaganda of the enemies, that seek to weaken relations between countries, we can nullify US sanctions, using methods such as eliminating the dollar and replacing it with national currencies in transactions between two or more parties; thus, isolate the Americans.”

As The Express reports, Putin met Iranian political leaders in an effort to nurture a warming relationship strengthened since Donald Trump recently threatened to abandon the international nuclear deal with Iran reached in 2015.

The Russian premier criticised American interference in the region and described his country’s warm relations with Tehran. Despite the sanctions, Putin said:

“We devoted our funds to scientific and technological progress, and we had significant growth in the fields of biotechnology, IT, agriculture and space industries. Now, in spite of the initial concerns, we have realised that we can do whatever we decide to.”

Khamenei wants to step up cooperation to enable peace in the Middle East, Iranian state TV reported.

During the meeting with Putin, Khameini said:

"Full resolution of Syria"s crisis needs strong cooperation between Iran and Russia. Our cooperation can isolate America. This cooperation will restore stability in the region.”

Mr Putin praised cooperation with Iran as "very productive," adding that "we are managing to coordinate our positions on the Syrian issue."

Scientists Cross Hurdle in Growing Pig Organs for Human Transplant

For many years, some members of the scientific community have been absolutely engrossed in trying to solve one of the biggest health conundrums in the United States: how to get more people to donate their organs. And if that can’t happen on a grand scale, well, scientists are turning to cloned pigs for organs.

In 2016, there were just 33,600 organ transplants, while there were 116,800 patients on transplant waiting lists. Since you can’t force people to become organ donors, scientists figure the only other option is to look elsewhere for organs. Now, through gene-editing and cloned some pigs, scientists have come a step closer to solving the problem, but the process is risky. [1]

You can’t transplant pig organs into humans because the body would assuredly reject them. There is also a concern that pig retroviruses could spread to human cells. With the help of pig cloning and CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology, researchers have been able to solve the latter problem. [2]

The CRISPR-Cas9 is a medical and scientific advancement like no other that holds the potential to eradicate genetic diseases and create transplantable organs for humans. However, the technology is still relatively new and hasn’t been around long enough for scientists to know if gene-editing could cause serious, irreversible damage to animals and the environment.

(One recent study by researchers at Columbia University found that while CRISPR-Cas9 did correct blindness in mice, using the technique also resulted in unintentional mutations in more than 1,000 other genes.)

Humans, Organs, and Pigs

Researchers took cells from the pigs, then snipped the viral DNA from their genomes using CRISPR technology. [1]

Each pig cell was restored to its earliest developmental stage and then placed in an egg, giving it the genetic material to allow the egg to develop into an embryo. The embryos, now genetically identical to the pig that supplied the initial cell, were implanted in sows, who eventually gave birth to the piglets.

Read: Scientists Create Human-Pig Embryo for Transplant Research

Most of the cloned piglets died shortly after birth, but 15 of them lived, and the oldest is now 4 months old. Scientists will monitor the genetically-modified piglets throughout their lives looking for any long-term adverse effects from the procedure.

Pigs are considered one of the “best” viable sources for organ transplants for humans because their organs are similar in size. Studies have looked specifically at the possibility of transplanting swine hearts, kidneys, livers, and lungs into human patients. [2]

Dixon Kaufman, president-elect of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons and a transplant surgeon at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, believes kidneys and pancreases will be the first animal organs to be transplanted into humans.

Humans can live without a pancreas and can survive with only 1 working kidney, so if the body were to reject the organs, someone who needs a kidney could still receive dialysis, and someone who needed a pancreas could still receive insulin. [3]

Read: Mouse Pancreas Grown in GMO Rats Reverses Diabetes in Mice

To many patients facing suffering and death, receiving a genetically-modified pig organ probably doesn’t sound much more life-threatening than not finding a human donor.

But it could be.

Kaufman said:

“The field is inherently sort of risky to begin with, and I think a lot of patients have already processed that. I tell patients in the grand design we were not meant to swap body parts between ourselves.”

The pig experiments were conducted by scientists from eGenesis, a company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and is detailed in the journal Science.

Sources:

[1] The New York Times

[2] Reuters

[3] Newsweek

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	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.

Did an EPA Official Collude with Monsanto by Tilting Research?

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.

Read: EPA Official Accused of Helping Monsanto “Kill” Glyphosate-Cancer Link

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.

Sources:

[1] The Huffington Post

[2] Center for Biological Diversity

Images Source:

Zero Hedge

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	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.

In Case You Missed It: EPA Quietly Approved Monsanto’s RNAi Genetic Engineering Technology

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.

Read: Monsanto’s GMO Bt Toxins Found in 93% of Pregnant Women

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.”

Sources:

The Atlantic

---

---

About Mike Barrett:
	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.

California Will Get Swamped by Millions of Mosquito-Killing … Mosquitoes

Researchers at the Google-linked science company Verily are in the process of releasing 20 million sterile mosquitoes into the Fresno County, California, area in an attempt to actually stop the disease-carrying menaces from breeding. [1]

The effort is dubbed the “Debug Fresno” project, the goal of which is to greatly reduce the number of invasive Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in the area. The Zika-carrying insects first arrived in California’s Central Valley in 2013. The mosquitoes also have the ability to spread dengue fever and chikungunya viruses. Officials say the bugs adapted rapidly to the area’s residential neighborhoods. [2]

Steve Mulligan, district manager for the region’s Consolidated Mosquito Abatement District (CMAD), explained:

“It’s a terrible nuisance, a terrible biting nuisance. It’s changed the way people can enjoy their backyard and it’s a threat for disease transmission. So we’re looking for new ways to eliminate it.”

The Bloodline Stops There

The tens of millions of mosquitoes are being infected with Wolbachia bacteria and raised inside a laboratory. Wolbachia makes male Aedes aegypti mosquitoes sterile. Then, once the insects have matured, they will be released to mate with credulous female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes.

Read: Wolbachia Mosquitoes Released in Australian Towns

The altered males don’t bite, but, obviously, you wouldn’t know that as you swat at them at your family barbecue.

If the naive females lay eggs, it won’t matter; they will never hatch.

Ultimately, the scientists’ plan is to eliminate the mosquitoes, generation by generation.

Source: Science News

Mulligan said:

“It’s kind of contrary to what a person would think. ‘What, you’re doing what? You’re releasing mosquitoes to control mosquitoes?’ We are releasing male mosquitoes because male mosquitoes do not bite and cannot transmit disease.”

Verily, a subsidiary of Alphabet (formerly Google Life Sciences), estimates they will release 1 million mosquitoes a week in Fresno County. That’s upwards of 25 times the numbers in 2016. This is made possible because scientists have developed ways to breed the mosquitoes, and separate the sexes on a larger scale.

Verily spokeswoman Kathleen Parkes explained:

“Automated sex-sorting is a key advancement for this research. Traditionally, mosquito sex-sorting is a very labor-intensive process. Verily has developed a system that uses computer vision algorithms to identify the sex of the mosquitoes and only let the males through.”

Future field studies will let scientists know whether or not Verily’s plan lowered the number of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in Fresno County.

If all goes as planned, those 20 million mosquitoes will get released between mid-July and the fall of 2017.

Theoretically, if the program is successful, it could be used to stomp out all mosquito-borne illnesses on Earth. [2]

Linus Upson, a senior engineer at Verily, said:

“If we really want to help people globally, we need to be able to produce a lot of mosquitoes, distribute them to where they need to be, and measure populations at very-very low costs.” [3]

Verily blog wrote:

“To measure our outcomes, we will compare the adult population density and egg hatching of Aedes aegypti in these targeted areas to two control neighborhoods. Over time, we hope to see a steep decline in the presence of Aedes aegypti in these communities.”

The Other Side of the Card

Wow, can you imagine eradicating malaria and yellow fever? It would certainly be a medical and technological breakthrough that redefines life for millions of people around the world who would have died without the technology.

To read about it, it seems quite simple and sure-fire.

But That’s Not Necessarily the Case

A July 2014 study by researchers at Penn State University found that:

“Mosquitoes infected with the bacteria Wolbachia are more likely to become infected with West Nile virus and more likely to transmit the virus to humans, according to a team of researchers.”

The scientists say “that caution should be used when releasing Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes into nature to control vector-borne diseases of humans.”

In a March 2016 letter published in Science magazine, researchers point out that few experiments with Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes have looked at “the probability of Wolbachia strains being transferred to other insects and the potential environmental and economic impacts of this host shift.”

The scientists explain that in a brief evolutionary period, “Wolbachia strains are capable of transferring horizontally among distantly related arthropods.”

Additionally, according to the researchers, parasites are able to carry Wolbachia strains to other species.

The question is: Which is riskier – mosquito-borne disease, or a potential mishap in trying to eradicate the sources of those diseases?

Sources:

[1] Mic

[2] The Washington Post

[3] Newsmax

Science News

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	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.

Migrant Workers File Class-Action Against Monsanto over Labor Standards

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.

Read: Busted: Monsanto Abusing Illegal Workers in “Slave-Like” Conditions

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.

Sources:

[1] Mother Jones

[2] Investigate Midwest

---

---

About Mike Barrett:
	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.

Is Glyphosate Making These Australian Toads more Deadly?

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.”

Read: More Wildlife Fish are Experiencing “Intersex” – What Could be Causing This?

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.

Read: Even Legal Levels of Glyphosate Herbicide May Harm Freshwater Fish Ecosystems

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.”

The findings are published in The Royal Society.

Sources:

[1] Sustainable Pulse

[2] The Courier Mail

[3] The Cairns Post

Tenplay

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	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.

It’s Official: California Lists Monsanto’s Glyphosate as a Carcinogen

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.”

A Little History

In March of 2015, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) declared glyphosate “probably carcinogenic” to humans. Monsanto called the decision “junk science.” [2]

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.”

Sources:

[1] Environmental Working Group

[2] Organic Consumers Association

[3] CBS News San Francisco

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	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.

Complaints About Crop Damage Spur Temporary Ban on Dicamba in 2 States

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.”

Read: Monsanto’s Creation of Herbicide-Resistant Superweeds Grows in Several States

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.”

Sources:

[1] St. Louis Post-Dispatch

[2] GMWatch

Ohio State University

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	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.

Witness In Shkreli Trial Says "Most Hated Man In America" Made Him Millions

Benjamin Brafman, attorney for former Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Martin Shkreli has based Shkreli"s defense on the notion that, while his client may have misled investors in hedge funds and pharmaceutical companies that he controlled, most of them made money thanks to Shkreli"s business acument and investing prowess.

Even Sarah Hassan, a witness for the prosecution, admitted as much when she testified that Shkreli paid her back with $400,000 in cash, plus shares in Retrophin, a biotech company founded by Shkreli – though Shkreli’s repeated evasions felt like “a betrayal.”

And on Wednesday, testimony from another witness supported Brafman’s assertion: Darren Blanton, a Dallas-based biotechnology investor, told the jury that, although Shkreli lied to him repeatedly about his investing track record and the amount of capital he managed, the former pharma entrepreneur helped him make millions in profits.

Here’s Reuters:

“Darren Blanton, a Dallas-based biotechnology investor who appeared in Brooklyn federal court as a witness for U.S. prosecutors, told jurors he invested in Shkreli"s hedge fund MSMB Capital after being told the fund was managing $35 million in assets and had an independent auditor.

He said he later learned both of those claims were false and found Shkreli evasive when he tried to get some of his money back. Blanton said he eventually filed a whistleblower complaint with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Under cross-examination by Shkreli"s lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, Blanton conceded that despite his misgivings, his $1.25 million investment with Shkreli paid off, largely through an agreement in which Shkreli gave him shares in his drug company Retrophin Inc.”

Blanton said he still holds 150,000 shares of Retrophin, a biotech company that Shkreli co-founded ad briefly ran before being pushed out by the board. Blanton’s stake is worth nearly $3 million at Wednesday"s closing price of $19.83 per share.

And – in an admission that’s sure to tug at the jury’s heartstrings - Blanton said Shkreli founded Retrophin after learning that a friend of Blanton"s had lost a son to a rare disease, myotubular myopathy, and vowed to find a cure. Brafman"s cross-examination is expected to continue Thursday.

Shkreli, 34, gained notoriety in 2015 when he raised the price of a life-saving drug by 5,000 percent as CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, sparking outrage among patients and US lawmakers and leading the press to brand him "the most hated man in America." Shkreli has since embraced the role of provocateur, reveling in the negative publicity. His Twitter harassment of freelance journalist Lauren Duca led to him being banned from the social media platform, according to Reuters.

Federal prosecutors on Monday asked judge Kiyo Matsumoto for a gag order to prevent Shkreli from speaking with the press, claiming that he risks tainting jurors’ opinions by waging his own publicity campaign independent of the advice of his defense counsel. The request came after Shkreli lambasted the prosecution as incompetent and "junior varisty" during an impromptu conference with reporters.

The prosecution is alleging that, though Shkreli went to great lengths to ensure that all the investors in his fund were made whole, he still committed fraud by looting money from Retrophin to pay them back. Shkreli’s trial is expected to last between four and six weeks.

WIN! California to List Glyphosate as a Carcinogen

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.

Source: Institute for Responsible Technology

Read: RoundUp Chemicals Linked to Cancer of the Lymph System

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.

Read: EWG: Monsanto’s Herbicide Chemical Glyphosate Doubles Cancer Risk

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]

Sources:

[1] Reuters

[2] ABC News

[3] Newsweek

Institute for Responsible Technology

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	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.

Arkansas Temporarily Bans the Sale and Use of Dicamba Herbicide

After hundreds of Arkansas farmers claimed their crops had been harmed by the weed-killer dicamba, which was sprayed on neighboring fields, the Arkansas Plant Board voted June 23, 2017, to impose an unprecedented ban on the herbicide.

David Hundley, who manages grain production for Ozark Mountain Poultry in the town of Bay, said:

“It’s fracturing the agricultural community. You either have to choose to be on the side of using the product, or on the side of being damaged by the product.”

Monsanto created dicamba-resistant soy beans and cotton plants several years ago, but the chemical itself wasn’t a practical option for farmers prior to that.

Dicamba killed the weeds threatening the crops, all while leaving the soybeans unharmed, and farmers thought they’d finally found the answer to a devastating weed called pigweed (Palmer amaranth). Out of desperation to beat back the weeds, some farmers started spraying dicamba illegally, before it was approved for use.

But dicamba drifts easily in the wind, and it can land on and damage other crops. Non-GMO soybeans are especially susceptible to it. The herbicide can also damage fruit and vegetable farms, and ornamental trees. Dicamba was great news for farmers of GMO crops, but a nightmare for farmers that plant non-GMO seeds. [1] [2]

Read: Study: Dicamba Herbicide Chemicals DO Harm Non-Targeted Plants and Insects

Bob Scott, a specialist on weeds with the University of Arkansas’ agricultural extension service, said:

“Nobody was quite prepared, despite extensive training, for just how sensitive beans were to dicamba.” [1]

Earlier in 2017, a group of farmers filed a class-action lawsuit against the makers of dicamba – Monsanto and German chemical company BASF – over damage to their crops. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for damage to crops, fruits and trees that weren’t dicamba-resistant.

BASF is the only company that makes dicamba approved for use in the United States. [2]

Farmers in Arkansas began registering their displeasure as soon as Spring rolled in. By June 23, some 242 complaints had been sent to state regulators regarding dicamba-damaged crops. [1]

The problem is clearly worsening; in 2016, the state received just over 2 dozen complaints about dicamba-related crop damage. [2]

Plant board member Terry Fuller after the vote:

“We don’t have an emergency. We have a disaster. It’s damage everywhere you look.”

Also in 2016, Missouri’s largest peach grower sued Monsanto alleging that the company was responsible for illegal herbicide use that the group claimed had caused widespread crop damage in the southeast part of Missouri and neighboring states. Other states eventually joined the suit, including Illinois.

Said Scott:

“This has far eclipsed any previous number of complaints that we’ve gotten, and unfortunately, this number seems to just keep growing. Every day we get an update with 8 or 10 more complaints.” [1]

Hundley said that “any soybean that’s not [resistant to dicamba] is exhibiting damage. I can name 15 farmers within 3 or 4 miles who have damage, and I can only name 3-4 farmers who have used the technology.”

So the Arkansas Plant Board gathered on June 20, 2017, to mull over an emergency ban on further spraying of dicamba, and farmers crowded the meeting to make an impassioned plea for their side.

A bit of procedural confusion at the initial meeting prevented the board from holding a vote that day. The meeting reconvened on June 23, however, and voted, 9-5, to ban any spraying of dicamba on any crops except for pasture land for 120 days.

Sources:

[1] NPR

[2] U.S. News & World Report

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	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.

Traders Scramble To "Explain" Sudden Nasdaq Swoon

After surging in early trading, the Nasdasq - together with various cryptocurrencies - suddenly slumped and dropped as much as 1% from its intraday highs two hours into trading. That"s what traders could agree with; where they clearly disagreed, was on the reason for the swoon with everything from the velocity of last week’s rally, this morning’s economic data and the Supreme Court’s decision to hear arguments on the Trump administration’s travel ban and being cited according to Bloomberg.

In other words, everyone blissfully rode the momentum on the way up, and now it"s time to come up with the most convincing story why there are more sellers than buyers.

Here is what did happen: From a high of 5,845.15 touched at 9:34 a.m. New York time, the Nasdaq 100 fell as low as 5,770.15 at 11:23 a.m., trimming its 2.1 percent rally from last week. Nvidia lost 2%, bringing its three-day drop to 5.3%, while Amazon.com, Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft each declined more than 2 percent. The Nasdaq Biotechnology Index slipped 0.8 percent, paring last week’s 9.6 percent advance.

Here are the wildly speculative explanations:

• Yousef Abbasi, global strategist at Jonestrading Institutional Services in New York: “Tech names have lost momentum. I doubt traders care [about the Supreme Court decision] -- algos, probably. They might have seen that headline and decided to de-risk in tech or other sectors it sees as ‘immigration ban’ impacted.”


• Mark Kepner, managing director and equity trader at Themis Trading LLC in Chatham, New Jersey, says the Supreme Court decision is probably not related: “Utilities are really strong -- I think it’s the weaker durable goods and some of the commentary from Fed officials being not necessarily sold on another rate rise this year. It’s a lower inflation outlook, oil gave up gains too.”


• Thomas Garcia, head of equity trading at Thornburg Investment Management Inc. in Santa Fe, New Mexico: “Tech has for sure led the way this year and I think some profits are being taken. Depends on how you crunch the numbers as to how expensive or inexpensive some of these stocks are. What do investors value? Earnings, cash flow, growth etc.”


• Larry Weiss, head of trading for Instinet LLC in New York: “The market has shown the ability to shrug off political uncertainty, so any review of the travel ban by SCOTUS not really driving the market. Volume is light, so spreads are wide, and we would expect to bounce around in a range in the absence of market moving news.”

Source: Bloomberg

Uh Oh: House Passes Bill Nicknamed “Poison Our Waters Act”

On May 24, 2017, the House passed a measure reversing an EPA requirement that those spraying pesticides on or near rivers and lakes file for a permit. Opponents are referring to the legislation as the “Poison Our Waters Act.” The bill’s real name is the “Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017.” [1]

The permitting system for the use of pesticides under the Clean Water Act was redundant, according to Rep. Bob Gibbs, a Republican from Ohio, who added that the bill will protect farmers, ranchers, and local pest control agencies from regulatory burdens. He says:

“This is important legislation that fixes a bad court decision requiring a costly, unnecessary, and duplicative permit when cities and municipalities use pesticides already approved and regulated by the EPA for mosquito abatement. It’s just another layer of red tape that diverts resources from their mission of protecting the public from insect-borne diseases.”

Under the act, anyone applying a pesticide approved by the EPA under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act would no longer need to acquire a Clean Water Act “general permit” for their activities.

The Clean Water Act had the biggest impact on the largest-volume applicators. Most of the pesticide applicators can obtain a permit with minimal restrictions on spraying.

According to the group Beyond Pesticides, signing the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act into law would:

• Undermine federal authority to protect the U.S. waters under the Clean Water Act

• Allow spraying of toxic chemicals into waterways without local and state oversight

• Contaminate drinking water sources and harm aquatic life

• Not reduce claimed burdens to farmers, as there currently are no burdens

Source: U.S. Geological Survey – How pesticides make their way into drinking water in agricultural areas

Beyond Pesticides says that, contrary to the bill’s backers’ claims that the permit requirements place unnecessary burdens on farmers, the reality of the situation is that most pesticide applicators can easily obtain a permit with little restriction, and agricultural activities are exempt from the requirement. [3]

In truth, according to the group, the bill would remove Americans’ right to know what chemicals are entering the nation’s waterways.

Mae Wu, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s health program, said in a statement:

“This bill takes away the public’s right to know about toxic pesticides we may be exposed to. It eliminates the current commonsense requirement that communities should have access to basic information about what’s being sprayed in waters that can pose risks for public health.”

Our Water is Already Contaminated

The environmental group Earthjustice states that nearly 2,000 U.S. waterways do not meet water quality standards because of pesticide contamination. In fact, a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report from 2014 revealed pesticide levels continue to threaten aquatic life in many of the nation’s rivers and streams in agricultural and urban areas.

The study found pesticides and their breakdown products in U.S. streams more than 90% of the time. Water contaminants, such as atrazine, metolachlor, and simazine are still being detected in streams over 50% of the time. Fipronil is the pesticide most frequently found at levels deemed potentially hazardous to aquatic organisms in urban streams.

Additionally, a 2015 USGS report showed that neonicotinioid insecticides contaminate more than half of urban and agricultural streams across the U.S. and Puerto Rico.

Read: Pesticides Known to Kill Bees Found in U.S. Drinking Water

Marjorie Mullhall, Earthjustice’s senior legislative counsel, says:

“To get to the bottom of and address this pesticide pollution, we need to know what is causing it — but this bill does the exact opposite, making it harder to keep our communities safe and putting people’s health at risk.” [2]

Republicans attempted to use the Zika virus emergency last year as a scare tactic to enact the legislation into through its Zika Vector Control Act, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.

Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, says:

“A day after the Trump administration’s budget proposed eviscerating the EPA, the House voted to begin making that vision a reality.

This dangerous loophole would benefit pesticide giants like Dow Chemical and leave the rest of us totally unaware of toxic chemicals going into our rivers and lakes.”

It does indeed appear that the act would benefit pesticide makers and not farmers. Ken Kopocis, EPA’s deputy assistant administrator for water, said at a 2015 congressional hearing that the EPA had not been made aware of any issues associated with the pesticide general permit system. No one had been kept from applying a pesticide in a timely manner.

Sources:

[1] Chem.info

[2] Think Progress

[3] Beyond Pesticides

U.S. Geological Survey

---

---

About Mike Barrett:
	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.

EPA Delays Rule That Would Help Prevent Pesticide Poisoning

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has delayed a safety rule aimed at ensuring that pesticides (which are linked to human health problems) are safely applied by adult agricultural workers. This, just days after 50 farm workers in California were sickened by pesticide poisoning. [1]

The Certification of Pesticide Applications safety rule had been scheduled to go into effect on March, 2017, but the EPA has proposed delaying it until May, 2018. The rule would require that workers be 18 years old to apply atrazine, chlorpyrifos, and other restricted-use pesticides for agricultural use. In addition, the rule would enforce other protections for workers applying pesticides out in the field.

Source: U.S. Geological Survey

The public was given less than a week to comment on the EPA’s proposed delay, which falls short of the 30 days federal agencies traditionally give for open comment periods, according to Colin O’Neil, the agriculture policy director at Environmental Working Group (EWG).

“In general, federal agencies normally hold open comment periods ranging from 30 to 60 days and in certain circumstances, when the issue is complex or the rule-making is complex, they extend it up to 180 days. It’s nearly unheard of, and very unprecedented, for agencies to have such short public comment periods.”

O’Neil’s fear: That the move sets a precedent for future public comment solicitations.

“This has an alarming tone for how the EPA under the Trump administration plans to solicit public comments and shows how the brazen disregard for the public’s input on issues important to parents, families, and kids’ health.”

The EPA says that “the agency has determined that a full 30-day comment period is impractical, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.”

Pesticide Dangers – Atrazine and Chlorpyrifos

Atrazine is one of the most commonly-applied pesticide in the United States. It’s mainly applied to corn, and is a known hormone disruptor that is linked to decreased fetal development, and increased risk of miscarriage and abdominal defects. It is also a possible carcinogen, according to the Pesticide Action Network.

Chlorpyrifos is similar to atrazine, but is mainly applied to oranges, apples, and other fruits. It attacks the nervous system, and short-term exposure can cause weakness, nausea, and headaches. Exposure to the pesticide over longer periods can lead to neurodevelopmental issues, lower IQ among children, and can act as an endocrine disruptor.

The Obama administration mulled banning chlorpyrifos, but Trump’s EPA has rejected calls to ban it outright, citing a need to “provide regulation certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on chlorpyrifos.”

The Need for more Research and Safety Protocols

There is currently no minimum age to how old farmworkers must be to apply pesticides, and it’s a downright crime. Research has shown that children who live near pesticides applied to soy – including chlorpyrifos – suffer serious genetic damage. Chlorpyrifos has also been linked to brain disorders in children.

O’Neil said:

“For the first time, EPA was going to make sure that kids and youths are not applying restricted-use pesticides. We felt it was alarming and appalling that the Trump administration would put aside health and safety in further delaying this important rule aimed at protecting farmworkers and young Americans from dangerous pesticides.”

Restricted-use pesticides are defined by the EPA as those with the “potential to cause unreasonable adverse effects to the environment and injury to applicators or bystanders without added restrictions.” [2]

By law, anyone who applies restricted-use pesticides must complete safety training. The proposed rule would have required workers who use the pesticides to be re-trained every 5 years, as well as to “verify the identity of persons seeking certification.”

In early May, more than 50 farmworkers in Bakersfield, California, were sickened when a nearby mandarin orchard was sprayed with a chlorpyrifos-based pesticide. A dozen farmworkers sought medical attention, but the others left before medical personnel and local authorities arrived. Officials believe they may have left because they were undocumented workers. [1]

Jeannie Economos, the project coordinator for Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health at the Farmworker Association of Florida, said:

“We had farmworkers tell us outright that their contractors or their supervisors will tell them ‘if you complain, I’m going to turn you into immigration. Whether they would or they won’t isn’t the point, but it’s enough of an intimidation and threat to the farmworkers to not stand up for their rights.”

Sources:

[1] Think Progress

[2] Mother Jones

U.S. Geological Survey

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	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.