Roundup ‘Weedkiller’ Feeds Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria, Study Finds

The nightmarish toxicological profile of Roundup herbicide (glyphosate) continues to emerge within the peer-reviewed research, this time revealing its role in supporting the growth of a pathogenic bacteria of great medical significance.

A concerning new study published in the Brazilian Journal of Microbiology titled, “Influence of glyphosate in planktonic and biofilm growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa,” indicates that the world’s most widely used herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) may be contributing to the enhanced growth of the pathogenic bacteria P. aeruginosa in our environment.

The Brazilian team responsible for the study expressed concern over the “virtual nonexistence” of research evaluating glyphosate herbicide-pathogenic microbiota interactions, and conducted a series of microbial experiments to fill this data gap.  They noted:

“Glyphosate is probably the herbicide most discharged into the environment. Due to its extensive use in the protection of crops, it is inevitable that it will reach surface and deep waters (Pournaras et al., 2007), especially after rainfalls.”

P. aeruginosa is commonly found in watercourses and reservoirs in both oxygen (aerobic) and non-oxygen preferring forms (anaerobic), and can be a source of waterborne infection.

The results of the new study indicate that when exposed to varying concentrations of both glyphosate (a common contaminant found in GM agricultural runoff) and oxygen, both the aerobic the anaerobic and biofilm forming strains of this bacteria can thrive:

“Aerobic planktonic growth was superior to anaerobic one. This points to the possibility of P. aeruginosa, although a facultative organism (Davies et al., 1989; Yoon et al., 2002), has its growth significantly favored by the presence of molecular oxygen. Continuous bacterial exposure to low concentrations of glyphosate leads to increased rates of aerobic growth, which is somehow in agreement with previously published findings (Fitzgibbon and Braymer, 1988). By the contrary, in conditions of inaccessibility of molecular oxygen, the bacterium started to grow better in a concentration-dependent manner. It is possible that this phenomenon results from the use of the molecule as a source of phosphorus, as previously reported for the genus Pseudomonas (Peñaloza-Vazquez et al., 1995; Moore et al., 1983; Talbot et al., 1984). Glyphosate could also serve as a carbon source, which would be processed by both aerobic and anaerobic metabolisms (Rueppel et al., 1977), with increased rates in presence of oxygen. To support such theory, it has been found that different bacterial genera may promote catalysis of glyphosate using C-P lyases (van Eerd et al., 2003). Once broken up this connection, Pseudomonas spp. can produce glycine (Kishore and Jacob, 1987), which can also enhance growth.”

The researchers also focused on the ability of glyphosate to support the growth of so-called biofilms, a closely adhering colony of bacteria embedded in a self-produced matrix of a “slimy” extracellular polymeric substance (EPS), revealing:

“Our results revealed that the xenobiotic tends to favor the formation of biofilms of P. aeruginosa, especially those anaerobic and that such increase seems to be concentration-dependent.”

This finding has significant medical implications, as P. aeruginosa biofilm colonies are far more virulent and exhibit the kind of antibiotic resistance found in serious infections in humans, such as skin infections and pulmonary complications associated with fatal conditions such as cystic fibrosis.[1]

The study concluded:

“The results from this study point to the fact that the indiscriminate use of agricultural formulations containing glyphosate may result in an increase in growth rates of planktonic and biofilm phenotypes of P. aeruginosa in watercourses or reservoirs.”

As Roundup – now a ubiquitous agrochemical contaminant found in our rain, air and water — continues to accumulate in larger amounts in the environment, concern grows that it may be upsetting the natural microbial balance upon which our own microbial health depends on.

Previously, we have looked at the way that Roundup herbicide is altering the microbial biodiversity of our environment by destroying soil microbes that have indispensable importance in the production of food. Research also now exists showing this agrochemical can shift the gut bacteria of animals towards pathogenic strains of bacteria, including the deadly botulism-associated Clostridium botulinum strain.  Also, a new study raises concern that as a water pollutant glyphosate may be contributing to the decline of the coral reefs, underscoring how profoundly this environmental contaminant may be affecting the future health of our planet as a whole.

As the public continues to rally behind the non-GMO movement, expending the bulk of its political efforts on labeling GMO-containing foods, it is important to also focus on the clear and present danger of Roundup herbicide, which a growing number of groups support banning entirely. When we understand the true extent of harm represented by this agrochemical (and which research now links to over 50 adverse health effects), then the argument that GM foods and non-GM (e.g. organic) foods are ‘substantial equivalent‘ is immediately disproved.  GM foods are universally contaminated with glyphosate and AMPA (a glyphosate metabolite) residue and owing to the fact that infinitesimal (parts-per-trillion) concentrations of glyphosate may have endocrine disrupting/carcinogenic properties present regulations on glyphosate are not protecting the public or environment at large from its known risks. (Learn more by reading: ‘EPA to the Public: Let Them Eat Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Cake’).

To get more involved follow the Global GMO Free Coalition.

---

References

[1] Antibiotic Susceptibilities of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolates Derived from Patients with Cystic Fibrosis under Aerobic, Anaerobic, and Biofilm Conditions J. Clin. Microbiol. October 2005 vol. 43 no. 10 5085-5090

© April 19, 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post Roundup ‘Weedkiller’ Feeds Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria, Study Finds appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Israel Caught Illegally Spraying Toxic Herbicides On Palestinian Farms, Destroying Their Food

Israel is being accused of destroying Palestinian crops by spraying excessive toxic herbicides that damaged both their food and water supply.

The post Israel Caught Illegally Spraying Toxic Herbicides On Palestinian Farms, Destroying Their Food appeared first on The Free Thought Project.

‘Expensive’ Food

Two new studies call attention—yet again—to the link between pesticides and health problems—and how widespread those health issues are.

The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems and The Global Alliance for the Future of Food published a 120-page report that says, among other things, that the industrial food system is mostly to blame for our “staggering” healthcare costs.

And a new study in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine found that women who consume fruits and vegetables with high amounts of pesticide residue are less likely to conceive—and if they do, more likely to miscarry.

The Rodale Institute pulled these numbers, representing the healthcare-related costs of our industrial food system, from the IPES-Food report:

• $760 billion yearly cost of obesity (global estimate for 2025)


• $673 billion yearly cost of diabetes (global number for 2012)


• $3.5 trillion global cost of malnutrition


• $557 billion cost of endocrine disruptor exposure (the U.S. and the EU)

Not on the list? The cost—financial, physical and emotional—of infertility treatments.

More from the IPES-Food report:

. . . many of the most severe health impacts trace back to some of the core industrial food and farming practices, e.g., chemical-intensive agriculture; intensive livestock production; and the mass production and mass marketing of ultra-processed foods.

The next time someone tells you organic food is “too expensive,” um . . .

Read ‘Expert Panel Identifies Unacceptable Toll of Food and Farming Systems on Human Health’

Read ‘Unraveling the Food-Health Nexus’

Read ‘Study ties pesticides in food to reduced fertility in women

h/t: Organic Consumers Organization

The post ‘Expensive’ Food appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Meet Monsanto"s Other Herbicide Problem...

Earlier this year we wrote about a series of court documents that were unsealed and seemingly revealed a startling effort on the part of both Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work in concert to kill and/or discredit independent, albeit inconvenient, cancer research conducted by the World Health Organization"s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) related to their key herbicidal product, RoundUp.  The efforts to kill the research came even as Monsanto"s own lead toxicologist, Donna Farmer, admitted that she "cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer" because "[w]e [Monsanto] have not done the carcinogenicity studies with Roundup" (see: Monsanto Colluded With EPA, Was Unable To Prove Roundup Does Not Cause Cancer, Unsealed Court Docs Reveal).

But, as Reuters points out today, RoundUp isn"t the only Monsanto herbicide causing outrage in the ag community these days as state regulators all across the country say they"re being flooded with reports from farmers that Dicamba, Monsanto"s other herbicide, is increasingly becoming airborne and killing crops far away from the fields where they were actually applied.

U.S. farmers have overwhelmed state governments with thousands of complaints about crop damage linked to new versions of weed killers, threatening future sales by manufacturers Monsanto Co (MON.N) and BASF SE (BASFn.DE).

 

Monsanto is banking on weed killers using a chemical known as dicamba - and seeds engineered to resist it - to dominate soybean production in the United States, the world’s second-largest exporter.

 

The United States has faced a weed-killer crisis this year caused by the new formulations of dicamba-based herbicides, which farmers and weed experts say have harmed crops because they evaporate and drift away from where they are applied.

Regulators in several major soybean-growing states, including Arkansas, Missouri and Illinois, each say they received roughly four years’ worth of complaints about possible pesticide damage to crops this year due to dicamba use.

Now agriculture officials face long backlogs of cases to investigate, which are driving up costs for lab tests and overtime. Several states had to reassign employees to handle the load.

 

“We don’t have the staff to be able to handle 400 investigations in a year plus do all the other required work,” said Paul Bailey, director of the Plant Industries division of the Missouri Department of Agriculture.

 

In Missouri, farmers filed about 310 complaints over suspected dicamba damage, on top of the roughly 80 complaints about pesticides the state receives in a typical year, he said.

 

Nationwide, states launched 2,708 investigations into dicamba-related plant injury by Oct. 15, according to data compiled by the University of Missouri.

Of course, Monsanto has bet on dicamba-tolerant soybeans to replace those that withstand glyphosate, the key ingredient in RoundUp, because it has become less effective over the years as weeds develop resistance...and because of that pesky European research which suggests the product causes cancer.

The problem is that if you"re not planting dicamba-resistant soybean seeds then you could quickly find yourself among the growing list of Monsanto"s spray drift victims....so you better buy Monsanto seeds...see how that works?

Of course, Monsanto has decided to simply blame spray companies saying that the "herbicides are safe when properly applied."

Monsanto and BASF say the herbicides are safe when properly applied. They need to convince regulators after the flood of complaints to state agriculture departments.

 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last year approved use of the weed killers on dicamba-resistant crops during the summer growing season. Previously, farmers used dicamba to kill weeds before they planted seeds, and not while the crops were growing.

 

However, the EPA approved such use only until Nov. 9, 2018, because “extraordinary precautions” are needed to prevent dicamba products from tainting vulnerable crops, a spokesman told Reuters in a statement last week. The agency wanted to be able to step in if there were problems, he said.

 

Next year, the EPA will determine whether to extend its approval by reviewing damage complaints and consulting with state and industry experts. States are separately considering new restrictions on usage for 2018.

In conclusion, with Dicamba usage up for regulatory review, it seems that it may be time for Monsanto execs to start pulling some strings at the EPA again...

Over 3 Million Acres Damaged by ‘Chemical Arson’ as Plants Wither and Die From Chemical Burns (VIDEO)

 

The lawsuits against chemical technology giant Monsanto are multiplying fast these days. Not only is there a class-action lawsuit¹claiming the company’s best-selling herbicide Roundup caused Non-Hodgkin lymphoma in hundreds of plaintiffs^2,3 — the outcome of which might influence Bayer’s decision to acquire Monsanto or back out of the deal — farmers are also ganging together to sue Monsanto over crop damage caused by its latest dicamba-containing herbicide.

As feared by many critics, any crop that is not genetically engineered (GE) to be resistant to dicamba is severely damaged by even small amounts of the herbicide — be it food crops, gardens or trees; even other GE crops resistant to herbicides other than dicamba will shrivel and die in its presence. Monsanto promised the XtendiMax with VaporGrip formula is engineered to be less volatile and prone to drift, but real-life effects suggest otherwise.

Dicamba Is an Indiscriminate Plant Killer

In July, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture reported investigating two dozen complaints involving dicamba damage caused by drift.⁴ As of late September, 368 complaints had been filed in Illinois,⁵ and Iowa had received 258 reports — a “record number” — by early September.⁶

Farmers in Arkansas are reporting the same problem. In October 2016, a soybean farmer named Mike Wallace was shot to death in a dispute over dicamba damage caused by drift from a neighboring farm growing dicamba-resistant soy. The damage is so extensive, a number of states, including Arkansas, Missouri and Mississippi, imposed temporary bans on the use of dicamba-containing pesticides this past summer.⁷ As reported by Star Tribune:⁸

“Losses blamed on accidental chemical damage could climb into the tens of millions of dollars, if not higher, and may have a ripple effect on other products that rely on soybeans, including chicken. The number of complaints ‘far exceeds anything we’ve ever seen,’ Arkansas Plant Board Director Terry Walker recently told lawmakers.”

More Than 3 Million Acres Damaged by Next-Gen Herbicide

According to The New York Times, 25 million acres of dicamba-resistant soybeans and cotton were planted this year, and Monsanto has its sights set on expanding that to 40 million acres in 2018. Hailed as “the answer” to growing glyphosate resistance⁹ (thanks to its excessive use on Roundup Ready, i.e., glyphosate-resistant crops), dicamba-resistant plants have quickly turned into a nightmare for those who plant them, and their neighbors:¹⁰

“’I’m a fan of Monsanto. I’ve bought a lot of their products,’ said Brad Williams, a Missouri farmer. ‘I can’t wrap my mind around the fact that there would be some kind of evil nefarious plot to put a defective product out there intentionally.’

Yet he has been dismayed both by damage to his soybean crops, which were within a wide area of farmland harmed by dicamba, and by the impact even to trees on his property. Leaves, he said, were ‘so deformed you couldn’t even really identify the differences between them.’”

So far, more than 3 million acres have been damaged by dicamba.¹¹ Speaking with Ohio Valley Resource,¹² Kentucky soybean farmer Jacob Goodman compares dicamba drift to “chemical arson” — a reference to the fact that affected plants will curl and shrivel from the chemical burns. He also notes that drift from neighboring farms growing dicamba-resistant crops is making it exceptionally difficult for non-dicamba farms to plan their production.

“Not only can we not tell the amount of crop that we can get at the end of the year, but we can’t price the market ahead in advance and make contracts because we don’t want to over-book and not be able to deliver this fall, because we have to pay the difference.”

Arkansas farmer Kenneth Qualls told The New York Times, “’It’s really divided the farming community … Some of these people who got victimized by this product are probably going to go out of business because of it. They’ll have to put up their equipment for auction, and the people bidding on it will be the ones who put them out of business.”

Dicamba Makers May Face Largest Chemical Liability Lawsuit Ever

On September 10, 2017, Morgan & Morgan filed a class-action lawsuit¹³ against Monsanto, BASF and DuPont, the three largest manufacturers of dicamba-based herbicide formulations in the U.S.

The complaint alleges dicamba “is highly volatile and can travel considerable distances and cause injuries to plants several miles away,” and that dicamba makers “deceptively marketed their latest dicamba formulations as ‘low-volatility’ herbicides that would not be as prone to off-target movement.” In a statement, Morgan & Morgan attorney Rene Rocha said:

“This has been a major issue for American agriculture. Farmers across the country relied upon the defendants’ assurances that these new formulations of dicamba could be used safely and without harm to others. That simply isn’t true, and as a result thousands of farmers are staring down lean harvests and uncertain futures.”

The fact that dicamba is extremely potent and volatile (referring to its ability to turn into a gas) does not come as a surprise. The chemical has not been permitted to be used during growing season for this very reason. Older dicamba herbicides were only allowed to be used to kill weeds prior to planting — it could not be used on growing crops because it will kill everything.

Chemical Maker Forbid Independent Volatility Testing

Monsanto’s weed killer, XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology^14,15 — which goes along with its Roundup Ready Xtend cotton and soybeans — is made with “chemical technology” said to make the dicamba less prone to vaporization and drift. However, the real-world effects clearly indicate there are serious flaws.

What’s more, Monsanto appears to have willfully prevented key testing of the herbicide. Normally, when a new pesticide is developed, the company will commission tests that are then shared with regulators. Samples of the chemical are also shared with universities for analysis and testing. Together, regulators and researchers then assess the product’s safety and effectiveness.

In this case, Monsanto actually forbid university researchers to test XtendiMax with VaporGrip for its vaporization and drift potential (volatility testing),^16,17 despite that being a crucial feature of the new herbicide. Monsanto has defended its decision to prevent testing calling it “unnecessary” because the company believes it to be “less volatile than a previous dicamba formula that researchers found could be used safely.”¹⁸

However, summary notes from an Arkansas legislature’s joint budget committee meeting suggest there might have been a different incentive to prevent testing. Notes from the meeting state that Monsanto employee Boyd Carey “is on record on August 8 stating that the University of Arkansas nor any other university was given the opportunity to test VaporGrip in fear that the results may jeopardize the federal label.”

Dicamba Formulation Is Nearly Impossible to Apply Safely

According to Monsanto’s chief technology officer Robert Fraley, XtendiMax with VaporGrip “will not move off target and damage anyone” as long as it’s applied according to label instructions. Mind you, those instructions are nine pages long, and include strict limitations on when and how you can apply it. For example, proper application requires the farmer to spray while wind speeds are between 3 and 10 miles per hour.

The reason for the bottom wind speed is that when air is very still, it can signal a temperature inversion,¹⁹ which acts much like a lid. Pollutants are easily trapped below the inversion, where they can build up. But since wind speeds vary from one hour to the next on any given day, proper application becomes nearly impossible. Some university scientists have also noted that even if you manage to comply with these stringent application rules, the volatility of dicamba may still be an issue.

According to Aaron Hager, associate professor of crop sciences at the University of Illinois,²⁰ soy is so sensitive to dicamba, all you need to destroy 1 acre of soybeans is an amount equal to the spray when you open a can of Coke! In light of that, it’s hard to see how farmers growing dicamba-resistant crops could possibly avoid damaging other farms, not to mention other plant life and nearby trees.

Indeed, according to extension weed specialist Larry Steckel, many farmers complain they “can’t keep dicamba in the field” no matter how hard they try to follow the application rules.²¹ He also notes that temperature inversions “occur most days in Tennessee during June and July,” which makes it next to impossible to avoid off-target damage.

According to Ohio Valley Resource, there also appears to be a correlation between dicamba damage and areas located by rivers and in floodplains. Ohio farmer Jacob Goodman suspects “It’s something about the chemistry and the temperature inversions that happen in river bottoms that is causing this chemical to freely roam.”

Dicamba Maker Blames Farmer Ineptitude

Not surprisingly, Monsanto blames damage resulting from XtendiMax on farmer misapplication. Monsanto’s vice president for global strategy told The New York Times,²² “New technologies take some time to learn. Thus far, what we’ve seen in the field, the vast majority, more than three-quarters of them, has been due to not following the label.”

The question is, can the instructions actually be followed in real life? According to Bob Hartzler, an agronomy professor and weed specialist at Iowa State University, “The restriction on these labels is unlike anything that’s ever been seen before.”²³ The class-action lawsuit filed by Morgan & Morgan claims the label instructions are “unrealistic,” and that the restrictions on wind speed disallow timely application of the weed killer.

As noted by a Missouri farmer, “You have to be a meteorologist to get it exactly right.”²⁴ While some farmers admit to having difficulty following the label instructions, due to their complexity,²⁵ other farmers rebuke Monsanto’s attempts to shift blame. As Arkansas farmer Qualls said, “We may be rural hicks, but we’re not stupid. We know how to apply chemicals. They are going to blame it on the farmer to reduce their liability.”

What’s more, because dicamba-resistant GE crops allow the chemical to be applied much later in the growing season, when temperatures and humidity levels are higher, it’s far more susceptible to volatility, meaning it turns into a gas. As a gas, it can no longer be controlled and spreads wherever the wind blows.

While Monsanto claims XtendiMax is 90 percent less volatile than old versions,²⁶ without rigorous volatility testing, one has to question the accuracy of such claims. As noted by The New York Times, “While Monsanto and BASF modified the new versions of the herbicide they are selling, they have not entirely solved the problem. So much dicamba is being used that even a small percentage of drift can cause widespread damage.”

Bizarre Conflict of Interest Claims Emerge

A task force is now recommending the Arkansas State Plant Board ban use of all dicamba formulations on crops after April 15 in the 2018 growing season. Monsanto challenged the ban in September, claiming the decision was “tainted by the involvement” of University of Arkansas weed scientists Ford Baldwin and Jason Norsworthy.

According to Monsanto, the scientists’ ties to Bayer and its competing weed technology makes them less than objective in their critique of dicamba.²⁷ The irony of the accusation has not gone unnoticed. As noted by The New York Times,²⁸ “Considering that Bayer is acquiring Monsanto, it was an awkward step,” adding that “Bayer called the men ‘pre-eminent weed scientists.’” It remains to be seen if Monsanto’s accusations will backfire, rendering their position even more tenuous.

September 9, Mark Cochran, vice president of the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, issued a statement defending the university’s scientists.²⁹ According to Cochran, Monsanto’s petition to the Arkansas Plant Board is “an attack on the whole profession, scientists whose careful work is meant to be of benefit to everyone.” As a result of the allegations, Cochran vowed “to publish all data relevant to our dicamba work over the last few years.”

Farmers Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place

The problem many farmers now face is whether to hop on the bandwagon and start growing dicamba-resistant crops just to avoid having their harvest destroyed by other growers — thus rewarding Monsanto for its ill-conceived product and poor conduct. According to previous estimates, the approval of dicamba-resistant cotton and soy is expected to increase dicamba sales from less than 1 million pounds to more than 25 million pounds annually.³⁰

If growers start switching to dicamba-resistant seed just to protect themselves from drift damage, that number might go even higher. As noted by Missouri farmer Michael Kemp,³¹ “If you don’t buy Xtend [seeds], you’re going to be hurt. You’re going to have to buy their product because their chemical is drifting around.”

This, truly, would be a worst-case scenario, possibly endangering our environment as a whole. It would also pose extreme financial risks to farmers. If dicamba-resistant soybeans start monopolizing the market, makers will be able to charge whatever price they see fit for the seeds and chemicals.

Naturally, such a monopoly would also pose serious health risks to consumers, whose food choices would become more limited. Dicamba has been linked to a number of health risks, including Non-Hodgkin lymphoma,³² developmental and reproductive problems.

How to Reduce Your Exposure to Toxic Pesticides

There’s no doubt the dicamba problem needs to be addressed, and fast. Farmers will not be able to survive several seasons’ worth of crop destruction. I also worry about its impact on our environment at large. What if it starts to destroy forests and protected lands? There’s also no doubt in my mind that dicamba-resistant GE crops might cause serious health problems when consumed, and since the U.S. does not label GE foods, this really raises the stakes for those who are unaware of these issues.

What we need is more regenerative agriculture, and the most effective way for you to support that is by buying locally grown organic or biodynamic foods. If you live in the U.S., the following organizations can help you locate farm-fresh foods:

American Grassfed Association The goal of the American Grassfed Association is to promote the grass fed industry through government relations, research, concept marketing and public education. Their website also allows you to search for AGA approved producers certified according to strict standards that include being raised on a diet of 100 percent forage; raised on pasture and never confined to a feedlot; never treated with antibiotics or hormones; born and raised on American family farms.

EatWild.com EatWild.com provides lists of farmers known to produce raw dairy products as well as grass fed beef and other farm-fresh produce (although not all are certified organic). Here you can also find information about local farmers markets, as well as local stores and restaurants that sell grass fed products.

Weston A. Price Foundation Weston A. Price has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.

Grassfed Exchange The Grassfed Exchange has a listing of producers selling organic and grass fed meats across the U.S.

Local Harvest This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass fed meats and many other goodies.

Farmers Markets A national listing of farmers markets.

Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, hotels and online outlets in the United States and Canada.

Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.

FoodRoutes The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs and markets near you.

The Cornucopia Institute The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO “organic” production from authentic organic practices.

RealMilk.com If you’re still unsure of where to find raw milk, check out Raw-Milk-Facts.com and RealMilk.com. They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund33 also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws.34 California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com.

Tobacco Doesn’t Just Kill Smokers; It Kills the Environment

About 90% of all lung cancers are caused by cigarette smoking. Smoking kills 7 million people a year, speeds aging, destroys the heart and cardiovascular system, and leads to asthma and COPD. But cigarettes don’t just wreak havoc on the human body; they also wreak havoc on the environment through deforestation, pollution, and littering. [1] [2]

In May, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a study detailing the environmental costs of tobacco, adding to the mind-blowing $1.4 trillion in healthcare costs and lost productivity. The report looks at the immediate environmental damage caused by tobacco consumption, as well as “the post-consumption waste and health implications that continue to play out long after the tobacco has been smoked.” [3]

WHO Director-General Dr. Margaret Chan said:

“Tobacco threatens us all. Tobacco exacerbates poverty, reduces economic productivity, contributes to poor household food choices, and pollutes indoor air.” [2]

Source: TobaccoFreeCo.org

A few of the main take-aways from the report:

• There are more than 7,000 toxic chemicals in tobacco waste – some of them cancer-causing – and these substances also pollute the environment.

• Tobacco smoke has created thousands of tons of human carcinogens, toxicants, and greenhouse gases.

• Cigarette butts and other tobacco waste account for a huge amount of trash. According to a 2014 study, tobacco waste constitutes more than a third of the refuse collected during coastal cleanups. Additionally, nearly two-thirds of all cigarettes purchased every day wind up tossed in the streets, grass, and water. Too few people “flick their butts” into a trash receptacle. [3]

Tobacco-leaf curing requires burning enormous quantities of wood, which contributes to deforestation. Larger tobacco growers also use coal, which emits carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas implicated in global warning. [4]

Read: The True Cost of Smoking Revealed

As if that’s not disgusting enough, the planet is littered with millions of kilograms of non-biodegradable cigarette butts.

Pollution aside, tobacco is a drain on the world’s resources, including energy and water, and requires the extensive use of harmful chemicals. [2]

The report states:

“From start to finish, the tobacco life cycle is an overwhelmingly polluting and damaging process.” [4]

Mammoth amounts of insecticides, herbicides, GMOs, fungicides, and fumigants are applied to tobacco plants. Many of these products are so harmful to health and the environment that they’ve been banned in some countries.

The WHO is calling on world governments to work toward controlling tobacco pollution by enacting measures such as banning tobacco marketing and advertising, promoting plain product packaging, and making all public spaces and workplaces smoke-free. [3]

World health experts are also urging governments to implement tobacco taxes. It is one of the least-used tobacco control methods, but raising tobacco taxes and prices is remarkably effective, according to Dr. Oleg Chestnov, the WHO’s Assistant Director-General for NCDs and Mental Health.

At the moment, governments rake in about $270 billion in yearly tobacco excise tax revenues. But the WHO says this could increase by more than 50% to bring in an additional $141 billion by simply increasing taxes on packs of cigarettes by $0.80 a pack.

Additionally, the WHO wants to make it mandatory for tobacco companies to supply information on the amount of environmental damage their operations contribute to. At the moment, some large manufacturers do report on their use of environmental resources and waste streams, but ‘the data is limited and opaque.” [4]

The authors wrote:

“All producers should be required to compensate for the environmental harms caused by deforestation, water use, waste, etc. through offsets in order to ultimately reduce the long-term ecological harm their business causes.” [4]

Read: Tobacco Industry Forced to List Ingredients in their Products

Chan said:

“By taking robust tobacco control measures, governments can safeguard their countries’ futures by protecting tobacco users and non-users from these deadly products, generating revenues to fund health and other social services, and saving their environments from the ravages tobacco causes.” [3]

Sources:

[1] Web MD

[2] CNN

[3] Consumerist

[4] RTT News

TobaccoFreeCo.org

---

---

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.

One More Reason to get Rid of Glyphosate

Date: August 13, 2017

(image: Getty)

We can probably all agree that Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller and its key ingredient, glyphosate, in our food and in our drinking water, poses a risk to our health—especially in light of the latest revelations about how Monsanto has conspired to deceive us on just how toxic Roundup is.

But a topic that gets less attention, is how damaging widespread use of Roundup is to soil. And lest we need a reminder civilizations “rise and fall” depending on the quality of their soil.

Last month, Beyond Pesticides reported on a review of studies what Roundup and glyphosate do to the quality of soil.

The review, by Robert J. Kremer, PhD, of the University of Missouri School of Natural Resources, cites concerns that include: reduction of nutrient availability for plants and organisms; disruption to organism diversity, especially in the areas around plant roots; reductions of beneficial soil bacteria; increases in plant root pathogens; disturbed earthworm activity; reduced nitrogen fixing at plant roots; and compromised growth and reproduction in some soil and aquatic organisms.

Just one more reason, as if we needed it, to rid the world of Roundup.

Read the full study: ‘Soil and Environmental Health after Twenty Years of Intensive Use of Glyphosate’

Create your own review

Average rating:  

 0 reviews

Smoking Gun Docs Released Proving EPA/Chemical Companies Conspiracy—MSM Silent

Secrecy, collusion, deception, cover-up, concealment. These are some of the words used in a bombshell report to describe how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal regulators sacrificed human and environmental health on the altar of corporate profit.

Through the determined work of watchdogs at the Bioscience Resource Project and the Center for Media and Democracy, over 20,000 hidden documents have come to light proving that U.S. regulatory agencies betrayed the public trust to unleash highly toxic chemicals – many of which are still in use today.

“The “Poison Papers” represent a vast trove of rediscovered chemical industry and regulatory agency documents and correspondence stretching back to the 1920s. Taken as a whole, the papers show that both industry and regulators understood the extraordinary toxicity of many chemical products and worked together to conceal this information from the public and the press. These papers will transform our understanding of the hazards posed by certain chemicals on the market and the fraudulence of some of the regulatory processes relied upon to protect human health and the environment…

Corporate concealment is not a new story. What is novel in the Poison Papers is abundant evidence that EPA and other regulators were, often, knowing participants or even primary instigators of these cover-ups. These regulators failed to inform the public of the hazards of dioxins and other chemicals; of evidence of fraudulent independent testing; even of one instance of widespread human exposure. The papers thus reveal, in the often-incriminating words of the participants themselves, an elaborate universe of deception and deceit surrounding many pesticides and synthetic chemicals.”

Many Americans believe the EPA and agencies like the FDA work in the best interest of the public, giving peace of mind as we breathe the air, drink the water and buy food and consumer products.

Advertisment

READ MORE:  Cop Fires On Minivan Full Of Kids

However, while obvious environmental calamities like acid rain and burning rivers were being addressed in the 1970s – only after massive public outcry – a less noticeable assault was taking place. Highly toxic chemical compounds made by Dow, Monsanto, DuPont and other companies were being developed and marketed in ever greater quantities, and federal agencies were rubber-stamping their approval based on fraudulent safety testing.

These included herbicides, pesticides, dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), some of the most toxic and persistent chemicals ever manufactured. A large portion of toxicology tests for these regulated products and chemicals was based on “nonexistent, fraudulent, or invalid” data.

Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (IBT), which conducted up to 40 percent of all toxicology tests on regulated products and chemicals in the U.S., had “serious, invalidating problems” with 90 percent of their studies submitted to regulators. The fraud was exposed in the 1970s, and three IBT officials went to jail.

But EPA still had the problem of countless chemical products being on the market based off the fraudulent data. Recalling them would have had profound impacts on the chemical industry and would have been highly embarrassing for the newly formed EPA.

The Poison Papers reveal that, instead of acting to protect the public and reassess the chemicals, EPA held a secret meeting with chemical companies to assure them that their products would continue being sold.

At the meeting, regulators determined they would bend over backward to validate the faulty studies, including accepting unsigned studies from IBT. David Clegg of Canada’s Health Protection Branch was also at the meeting, and summed up the sentiment.

READ MORE:  Three Fiercely Dangerous Mass Surveillance Scandals that Vindicate Edward Snowden

“I can’t say that I am very happy about this on scientific grounds, but we are trying to run this as a salvage operation and, if we can come up with something which gives us a reasonable base line for controls which may be applicable to a number of studies, then, when controls are not available, we’ll compare them against those controls.”

A majority of the IBT studies were never redone, and they still underlie the U.S. chemical regulatory system.

The secret meeting between EPA and chemical companies is the most poignant example of a long history of collusion at the expense of human and environmental health. The Poison Papers reveal several other disturbing realities, as outlined in the introductory briefing.

“Secrecy — They disclose EPA meeting minutes of a secret high level dioxins working group that admitted dioxins are extraordinarily poisonous chemicals. The internal minutes contradict the Agency’s longstanding refusal to regulate dioxins or set legal limits.

Collusion — They demonstrate EPA collusion with the pulp and paper industry to “suppress, modify, or delay” the results of the congressionally-mandated National Dioxin Study, which found high levels of dioxins in everyday products, such as baby diapers and coffee filters, as well as pulp and paper mill effluents.

Deception — They provide important new data on the infamous Industrial Bio-Test (IBT) scandal. By the late 1970s, it was known that more than 800 safety studies performed by IBT on 140 chemicals produced by 38 chemical manufacturers were nonexistent, fraudulent, or invalid. The Poison Papers, however, show that EPA and its Canadian counterpart, the Health Protection Branch (HPB), colluded with pesticide manufacturers, to keep invalidly registered products on the market and covered up problems with many IBT tests.

Cover-up — The papers also show that EPA staff had evidence that this IBT scandal involved more independent testing companies and more products than ever officially acknowledged.

Concealment — The papers show that EPA concealed and falsely discredited its own studies finding high levels of dioxin — 2,3,7,8-TCDD — in environmental samples and human breast milk following routine use of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T (Agent Orange) by the federal Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.

Intent — They show Monsanto chief medical officer George Roush admitted under oath to knowing that Monsanto studies into the health effects of dioxins on workers were written up untruthfully for the scientific literature such as to obscure health effects. These fraudulent studies were heavily relied upon by EPA to avoid regulating dioxin. They also were relied upon to defend manufacturers in lawsuits brought by veterans claiming damages from exposure to Agent Orange.”

The significance of the Poison Papers cannot be understated, as EPA remains one of the primary agencies supposedly keeping us safe from chemical threats. We continue to see evidence that the agency puts corporate interests above the public interest, as evidenced by its report on hydraulic fracturing which downplayed the risks to the U.S. water supply.

In Case You Missed It: FDA is Testing Food for Glyphosate Amid Public Concern

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.

Source:

The Huffington Post

---

---

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.

Parkinson’s Disease: Could Pesticides Be A Cause?

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a movement disorder that generally impairs speech and motor skills and is characterized by tremors and muscular rigidity. There is still a lot to learn about the symptoms and effects of Parkinson’s disease, but recently, a new study concluded with interesting results.

How Is Parkinson’s Disease Contracted?

There are many forms of Parkinson’s disease that appear to be idiopathic, meaning doctors aren’t sure of the causes. Some cases are linked to drug toxicity, medical disorders, or head trauma. The latest observation that medical scientists are exploring is a possible link between pesticides and Parkinson’s Disease.

According to new research ^[1] into the causes of Parkinson’s Disease, two specific insecticide classes were cited as significantly associated: organochlorines and organophosphorus compounds. While the research isn’t exhaustive or definitive, the results compiled thus far are enough to warrant closer examination by the medical community.

Did Anyone Know that These Chemicals Posed a Health Risk?

The answer is yes. It’s not news that pesticides are harmful. The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) was set up by the World Health Organization to create international safety guidelines for food. They researched the threat, dismissed the evidence of dangers presented to them, and approved seven dangerous toxic chemical compounds, including organochlorines in pesticides.

The Price We Pay for Scientific Advancement?

I have provided a wealth of health-related information explaining even more about the dangers of pesticides and other chemicals that we’re exposed to regularly, with the sanction of the government.

With this new link to Parkinson’s disease, perhaps more attention will be paid to the poisons known as pesticides, insecticides and herbicides. Scientists will have to seriously rethink their ideas about excessive use of chemicals in lieu of non-toxic crop rotation practices, and other such safe practices.

References:

1. Dana B Hancock, Eden R Martin, Gregory M Mayhew, Jeffrey M Stajich, Rita Jewett, Mark A Stacy, Burton L Scott, Jeffery M Vance and William K Scott. Researching causes of Parkinson’s disease. BMC Neurology 2008 March 6, 8:6.

6 Facts About Pesticides That Will Make You Angry

Many Americans recognize pesticides in produce as a problem, but should you really be worried? Well, it definitely pays to be aware, if nothing else. Pesticides are linked to all sorts of health problems, after all. Let me share 6 facts about pesticides that are sure to make you angry.

1. Pesticides Have Completely Ruined Strawberries

Toxic pesticides like fumigants are all over our strawberries—even organic ones! These poisons are released into the soil to kill off diseases, weeds, and pests before they become a problem, but now you’re left with a toxic gas in the environment—and on the berries. Fumigants are also linked to cancer. ^[1] Is that really something you want in your body? And while the USDA is researching alternatives, no projects are looking at strawberries. ^[2]

2. Pesticides Are Destroying Male Fertility

So if strawberries are treated with fumigants, it stands to reason other fruits and vegetables use pesticides as well. When it comes to pesticides, though, there’s no such thing as safe conventional produce, but avocado, sweet corn, and pineapple seem to have the lowest residue levels. ^[3] But residues could even be harming male fertility. A study suggested men who eat lots of produce could have sperm counts 50% lower than men who consume smaller amounts of vegetables and fruits, and that the men who at the most fruits containing pesticides experienced 32% more abnormally shaped sperm. ^[4]

     3. Pesticides Are Polluting the Water Supply

In the Midwest, where farming can be big business, fertilizer runoff is polluting the water supply. Iowa’s largest water utility is even “threatening to sue three rural counties” under the Federal Clean Water Act because of drinking water contamination. ^[5] The main concern here is nitrates in the water, which could poison—even kill—infants. Pesticides are such a widespread problem that they’re even making their way into our oceans. Whale meat from Norway was imported to Japan; tests confirmed that it had twice the legal limit of the toxins. ^[6]

4. Pesticides Are Ruining Good Wine

In some places, toxic pesticides have even made drinking to escape your problems impractical. Take some wines in France, for instance. A report found that some “300 French wines from the 2007 and 2008 vintages of the Rhône and the wider Aquitaine region,” 90 percent of those had pesticide contamination. ^[7]

5. Pesticides Lead to Antibiotic Resistance

A recent study suggested glyphosate—the main ingredient in the weed killer Roundup—and two other common herbicides (2,4-D and dicamba) could be connected to antibiotic resistance. ^[8] After exposure to the toxins, bacteria reacted differently to common antibiotics like ampicillin, ciprofloxacin, and tetracycline. And with glyphosate also recently ruled “possibly carcinogenic to humans” by the World Health Organization (WHO), this latest study is just one more reason to stay away from herbicides. ^[9]

6. Pesticides Linked to Autism

Clearly, glyphosate is bad news, but Monsanto Company—its creator—doesn’t think so: it even wants a retraction of that WHO report! But it’s not just cancer that could be a concern; one study suggested that because of glyphosate toxicity in our food supply, 1 in 2 children will have autism by the year 2025. ^[10] That’s a radical claim, yes, but also a potentially devastating one that can’t be ignored.

One Final Thought

We can’t even rely on the government to protect us. The EPA just says to not worry about pesticide exposure; the agency has even set “tolerance levels” for the consumer—how reassuring. And, in many cases, the laws about pesticides aren’t even being enforced. In Europe, however, they’re trying to further regulate toxic pesticides, and the U.S. is having a fit. After all, if Europe were to strictly regulate the toxins, the U.S. could stand to lose out on a multi-billion dollar import business. Unfortunately, even when our health is on the line, our government can only see dollar signs.

What do you think about pesticides? Tell us your thoughts in the comments below.

References:

1. Weisenburger, D. Human health effects of agrichemical use. Human Pathology. 24 (6).


2. United States Department of Agriculture. National Program 308: Methyl Bromide Alternatives. United States Department of Agriculture.


3. Environmental Working Group. EWG’s 2015 Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™. Environmental Working Group.


4. Chiu, Y. H. et al. Fruit and vegetable intake and their pesticide residues in relation to semen quality among men from a fertility clinic. Human Reproduction.


5. Rao, M. A closely watched fight brewing over nitrates in Iowa water. Star Tribune.


6. The Japan Times. Norway whale meat dumped in Japan after pesticide finding. The Japan Times.


7. Sciolino, E. In France, Pesticides Get in Way of Natural Wines. New York Times.


8. Kurenbach, B. et al. Sublethal Exposure to Commercial Formulations of the Herbicides Dicamba, 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, and Glyphosate Cause Changes in Antibiotic Susceptibility in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. mBio. 6 (2).


9. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides. World Health Organization.


10. Alliance for Natural Health. Half of All Children Will Be Autistic by 2025, Warns Senior Research Scientist at MIT. Alliance for Natural Health.

Monsanto Troubles in St. Louis

(Organic Consumers Association) Is it any wonder Monsanto wants to hire a journalist to help improve its image (i.e. spread false facts)? The Biotech Bully is facing a raft of bad press—again. Here’s the latest.

1. OCA, Beyond Pesticides sue Monsanto. This week, we teamed up with Beyond Pesticides to sue St. Louis, Mo.-based Monsanto in Washington, D.C. for false and misleading labeling of the company’s flagship product, Roundup herbicide.

Here’s why. The label on Monsanto’s Roundup, sold in stores like Home Depot and Walmart and online by Amazon, clearly states that the herbicide targets an enzyme “found in plants but not in people or pets.”

Not true. Studies show that the enzyme targeted by glyphosate, the key active ingredient in Roundup, is found in people and pets. So when humans and pets ingest, absorb or inhale glyphosate, it negatively affects gut bacteria, which can ultimately lead to health problems.(See page 9 of the lawsuit for a more detailed explanation of the science).

Read the press release

Read the full complaint

2. Monsanto Tribunal press conference this week. On Tuesday, April 18, the five Monsanto Tribunal judges will announce their opinions, after having spent the past six months reviewing written testimony, and the oral testimony they heard during the two-day citizens’ tribunal held in October.

Will the judges decide that Monsanto has violated the right to food, health, a healthy environment and scientific freedom? Will they conclude that these violations represent a new crime—ecocide?

OCA will report on the judges’ opinions live from The Hague, Netherlands. Be sure to follow us on Facebook and twitter for live updates and interviews with the judges. You can also livestream the press conference, which will start at 6 a.m. PST, 9 a.m. EST (3 p.m. in the Netherlands).

Livestream the Monsanto Tribunal press conference on April 18

3. Call for Congressional investigation heats up. Last week we reported on how a visit to a town hall meeting led to a letter by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, to Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chair of the same committee, asking for an investigation into possible collusion between Monsanto and the EPA.

This week we urged all Oregonians to attend Walden’s town hall meetings, being held this week in six Oregon cities, to push him on Pallone’s request.

Pallone gave Walden until April 14 to respond “yes” or “no” to the investigation—so let’s keep up the pressure!

(Everyone) Call Rep. Greg Walden: (202) 225-6730 Tweet him @RepGregWalden

Is your Congress Member on the Energy and Commerce Committee? Find out, then call and tweet!

TAKE ACTION: Demand Congress investigate the collusion between Monsanto and the EPA to bury the truth about Roundup herbicide!

Monsanto Troubles in St. Louis

(Organic Consumers Association) Is it any wonder Monsanto wants to hire a journalist to help improve its image (i.e. spread false facts)? The Biotech Bully is facing a raft of bad press—again. Here’s the latest.

1. OCA, Beyond Pesticides sue Monsanto. This week, we teamed up with Beyond Pesticides to sue St. Louis, Mo.-based Monsanto in Washington, D.C. for false and misleading labeling of the company’s flagship product, Roundup herbicide.

Here’s why. The label on Monsanto’s Roundup, sold in stores like Home Depot and Walmart and online by Amazon, clearly states that the herbicide targets an enzyme “found in plants but not in people or pets.”

Not true. Studies show that the enzyme targeted by glyphosate, the key active ingredient in Roundup, is found in people and pets. So when humans and pets ingest, absorb or inhale glyphosate, it negatively affects gut bacteria, which can ultimately lead to health problems.(See page 9 of the lawsuit for a more detailed explanation of the science).

Read the press release

Read the full complaint

2. Monsanto Tribunal press conference this week. On Tuesday, April 18, the five Monsanto Tribunal judges will announce their opinions, after having spent the past six months reviewing written testimony, and the oral testimony they heard during the two-day citizens’ tribunal held in October.

Will the judges decide that Monsanto has violated the right to food, health, a healthy environment and scientific freedom? Will they conclude that these violations represent a new crime—ecocide?

OCA will report on the judges’ opinions live from The Hague, Netherlands. Be sure to follow us on Facebook and twitter for live updates and interviews with the judges. You can also livestream the press conference, which will start at 6 a.m. PST, 9 a.m. EST (3 p.m. in the Netherlands).

Livestream the Monsanto Tribunal press conference on April 18

3. Call for Congressional investigation heats up. Last week we reported on how a visit to a town hall meeting led to a letter by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, to Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chair of the same committee, asking for an investigation into possible collusion between Monsanto and the EPA.

This week we urged all Oregonians to attend Walden’s town hall meetings, being held this week in six Oregon cities, to push him on Pallone’s request.

Pallone gave Walden until April 14 to respond “yes” or “no” to the investigation—so let’s keep up the pressure!

(Everyone) Call Rep. Greg Walden: (202) 225-6730 Tweet him @RepGregWalden

Is your Congress Member on the Energy and Commerce Committee? Find out, then call and tweet!

TAKE ACTION: Demand Congress investigate the collusion between Monsanto and the EPA to bury the truth about Roundup herbicide!