Vilsack Not "Change We Can Believe In"

.....

"Obama's choice for Secretary of Agriculture points to the continuation of agribusiness as usual, the failed policies of chemical- and energy-intensive, genetically engineered industrial agriculture," said Cummins. "Americans were promised ˜change, not just another shill for Monsanto and corporate agribusiness. Considering the challenges we collectively face as a nation, from climate change and rising energy costs to food insecurity, we need an administration that moves beyond ˜business as usual to fundamental change ”before it's too late, concluded Cummins.

Vilsacks business as usual positions have included the following:

- Vilsack has been a strong supporter of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn.
- The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He is also the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership.
- When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child for economic development was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.
- The undemocratic 2005 seed preemption bill was the Vilsack's brainchild. The law strips local government’s right to regulate genetically engineered seed.
- Vilsack is an ardent supporter of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more energy to produce as they generate and drive up world food prices, literally starving the poor.

.....

www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16156.cfm

Monsanto Investor Bill Gates Says GMO Crops Needed to Fight Starvation

Bill Gates, the heavy Monsanto investor who purchased 500,000 shares of the biotech giant in 2010, has been touting Monsanto’s genetically modified creations as a tool that is necessary to prevent starvation in poor nations. The same poor nations where thousands of farmers routinely commit suicide after being completely bankrupt by Monsanto’s overpriced and ineffective GM seeds. The same company that we recently exposed to be running ‘slave-like’ working conditions, forcing poor workers to operate the corn fields for 14 hours per day while withholding pay.

According to Gates, this is the company whose GMO crops are going to save the world from starvation. Of course along with ‘saving the world from starvation’, GMO crops also bring along a large number of unwanted health and environmental effects. A prominent review of 19 studies examining the safety of these crops found that consumption of GMO corn or soybeans can lead to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice – particularly in the liver and kidneys.

Are Monsanto’s Devastating Creations Really the Answer to World Hunger?

What’s more is that Monsanto’s best selling herbicide Roundup has been completely devastating farmlands for years through the creation of resistant superweeds. Experts estimate Roundup usage to result in the destruction of over at least 120 million hectares of farmland thanks to these superweeds.

Is it any wonder that in 2008 a startling report uncovered Monsanto’s blatant abuse of poor farmers in the very poor countries that will supposedly benefit from GMO crops? Thanks to an article in the Daily Mail, it was revealed that thousands of farmers were committing suicide after using Monsanto’s GM seeds. Due to failing harvests and drastically inflated prices, the bankrupt poor farmers began taking their lives — oftentimes drinking the very same chemical concoctions provided by Monsanto as a method of suicide.

‘We are ruined now,’ said the dead man’s 38-year-old wife. ‘We bought 100 grams of BT Cotton. Our crop failed twice. My husband had become depressed. He went out to his field, lay down in the cotton and swallowed insecticide.’

Monsanto actually conned the farmers into buying their GM seeds, majorly overpriced and performing far worse than even traditional seeds. Monsanto went as far as to charge these poor farmers £10 for 100 grams of GM seed, while they could have purchased 1,000 times more traditional seeds for the same amount. The result? A career-ending harvest that led to mass farmer suicide.

It is quite clear that Monsanto really has no intention of helping these farmers fight starvation in their communities, as Monsanto investor Bill Gates would have you think. You can view Bill Gate’s speech about how GMO crops are the answer to starvation and see for yourself how he puts such strong emphasis on that selling point.
540x80 papaya leaf extract Monsanto Investor Bill Gates Says GMO Crops Needed to Fight Starvation

Explore More:

1. Bill Gates Foundation Buys 500,000 Shares of Monsanto
2. Sorry Gates: GMO Crops Shown to be Ineffective at Fighting World Hunger
3. World Bank Nominee Tied to Monsanto Shareholder Bill Gates, Soros
4. Genetically Engineered Rice Pushed Through by Bill Gates & Monsanto
5. How the Bill Gates Foundation is Genetically Manipulating Nature and Devastating Our Health
6. Monsanto Threatens Lawsuit Over GMO Labeling Bill


Linked referrences available at: naturalsociety.com/monsanto-investor-bil...ation/#ixzz1zQdA5rxR

The Real Victor in Iraq: Monsanto

Five years of occupation, more than $558 billion spent, 4,182 U.S. soldiers and 655,000 Iraqi civilians dead, and it now looks like Monsanto (NYSE.MON - $71.95) is going to be the real victor in Iraq thanks to a postwar document known as Order 81.

Part of the infamous 100 Orders, Order 81 mandates that Iraq’s commercial-scale farmers must now purchase "registered” seeds. These are available through agribusiness giants like Monsanto, Cargill Corporation (a private company) and the World Wide Wheat Company (also private), but Monsanto is far and away the most significant player in the registered seed market.

Monsanto’s seeds are “terminator” seeds. This means they are inherently sterile, and any seed they produce does not give birth to more plants.

The technology behind registered seed is called genetic modification, and genetically modified (GM) seeds supposedly can’t reproduce, though “drift,” via wind currents and bird consumption, has resulted in a great many instances where GM crops ended up in fields where they were not planted.

A classic example is Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, whose canola fields inexplicably sprouted GM varieties from Monsanto. Monsanto promptly sued Schmeiser for patent infringement.

Originally developed to avert world hunger (at least according to Monsanto), these GM crops not only do not produce more than their non-modified cousins, but the herbicide Roundup, developed in tandem by Monsanto to treat GM fields, is becoming increasingly ineffective. This has led to more herbicide purchases among farmers, greater profits for Monsanto, increasingly smaller yields, and greater environmental pollution overall.

Roundup, a glyphosate, is the direct descendant of Agent Orange (also produced by Monsanto), and is especially toxic to marine animals. Glyphosates, known as endocrine disruptors, are being increasingly implicated in neurological disorders, DNA damage and even death. However, as often (and mistakenly) reported, Roundup does not contain pesticide. Pest control is part of the genetic modification of seeds.

In the U.S., these GM varieties of corn, soy and rapeseed may have cost the U.S. economy $12 billion since 1999 in rising farm subsidies, lower crop prices, loss of major export orders and product recalls, according to Britain’s premiere organic food association, the Soil Association.

Contrary to popular belief, farm subsides do not protect small American farmers. They do drive down the profit on crops. In the US, 10 percent of farms receive 75 percent of subsidies, and all these farms are run by agribusiness giants like Monsanto. Exporting GM crops is hampered by the fact that many countries refuse to buy genetically modified crops, including Australia, the EU (except Spain), and Japan. Product recalls, involving the use of GM crops in food products sold to countries where GM food is forbidden, is not only costly but represents an ongoing bone of contention on the world market which hampers international trade relations.

In India, where regional governmental studies show Monsanto’s GM cotton producing seven times less than an indigenous variety of cotton, farmers are drinking the toxic chemicals they formerly used to treat their fields in an effort to escape rising debt and poverty. This so-called “suicide by pesticide” is the final solution for farmers locked into Monsanto contracts that benefit no one but Monsanto.

In Columbia, where Monsanto’s RoundUp Ultra has been deployed in the war against drugs (under the name Plan Columbia), local communities and human right’s organizations are charging that Ultra is destroying indigenous food crops, water sources and indeed entire protected ecologies in the Andes. Ironically, cocaine production has jumped almost 10 percent since the plan's inception, moving higher into the mountains and decimating even more remote ecologies.

Monsanto’s share of this American taxpayer-funded drug eradication enterprise ($1.3 billion) is more than $25 million. Ultra, a concentrated version of Roundup with added surfactants to increase its toxicity, has been implicated in the deaths of a number of children. DynCorp International (NYSE.DCP - $10.83), the company doing the spraying, is under contract to the U.S. government.

Order 81, by first forcing Iraq’s farmers to use GM seeds, and then by declaring natural seeds an infringement on Monsanto technology, will result in the sorts of tragedies seen elsewhere in the developing world, reducing Iraq’s farmers to drinking field-grade herbicides to escape financial catastrophe.

Nor will the Iraqi people benefit in terms of more food. Order 81, mandated under the dystopian title "Plant Variety Protection,” turns the agricultural world on its head by defining indigenous crops as invasive and GM crops as uniform and stable. Moreover, the six varieties of wheat developed for Iraq are primarily used in pasta. Since the Iraqis don’t eat pasta, one can only assume these food crops are destined for Western nations, leaving the average Iraqi that much closer to starvation.

Order 81, carefully crafted to look like humanitarian legislation aimed at rescuing a country decimated by half a decade of war, is in fact a Monsanto power play under U.S. government sponsorship. Farmers who do not comply will have seeds, farm implements and even land seized.

The infamous 100 Orders, of which 81 is only an instance, are clearly a ploy to allow multinationals like Monsanto to take over an entire nation. As Iraqi resentment over this privatization grows, expect continued resistance, more deaths, and ultimately a failure of democracy.

And that is perhaps the greatest tragedy of all.

Linked referrences available at: www.thepanelist.net/opinions-culture-100...tor-in-iraq-monsanto

Monsanto in Iraq and Afghanistan

* By Alexis Baden-Mayer, Esq.
Organic Consumers Association, September 2, 2009

From the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, OCA has been tracking the opportunities for Monsanto, a well-known war profiteer (Agent Orange, Vietnam), to take advantage of the current occupations. These include pushing glyphosate (Monsanto's Roundup herbicide) for poppy eradication in Afghanistan and opening the Iraqi market to the patenting of plants and seeds while preventing farmers from saving registered seed varieties.

As Vanity Fair reported last year, "In Iraq, the groundwork has been laid to protect the patents of Monsanto and other G.M.-seed companies. One of L. Paul Bremer’s last acts as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority was an order stipulating that 'farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties.' Monsanto has said that it has no interest in doing business in Iraq, but should the company change its mind, the American-style law is in place."

In fact, Monsanto has already been doing business in Iraq. According to a 2004 USAID Transition Plan for the Agriculture Sector in Iraq, "All the major international players in the pesticide field are now present in Iraq: Dow (USA), Syngenta (Swiss), Dupont (USA), Bayer (Germany), Monsanto (USA), Novartis, FMC (USA), Dupont and Uniroyal, BSF and Cynamide."

Monsanto's latest opportunity to do business in the US's occupied territories has been created by the National Guard's "Agri-Business Development Teams." The Missouri National Guard, which has maintained Agri-Business Development Teams in Nangarhar Province in Afghanistan since fall 2007, hosted Safi Mohammed Hussein, agriculture director of Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province, on a recent visit to Missouri. While in St. Louis, Safi toured the headquarters of biotech giant Monsanto.

Linked referrences available at: www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18999.cfm

Monsanto's Poison Pills for Haiti

Monsanto: Haiti's "New Earthquake"

"A new earthquake" is what Haitian peasant farmer leader Chavannes Jean-Baptiste of the Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP) called the news that Monsanto will be dumping 60,000 seed sacks (475 tons) of hybrid corn seeds and vegetable seeds on Haiti, seeds doused with highly toxic fungicides such as thiram, known to be extremely dangerous to farm workers. Hybrid seeds, like GMO seeds (in contrast to Creole heirloom or organic seeds) require lots of water, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides. In addition, if a small farmer tries to save hybrid seeds after harvest, hybrid seeds usually do not "breed true" or grow very well in the second season, forcing the now-indentured peasant to buy seeds from Monsanto or one of the other hybrid/GMO seed monopolies in perpetuity. Monsanto wanted initially to dump GMO seeds on Haiti, but even the corrupt Haitian government knew that this would spark a rebellion, so Monsanto cleverly decided to dump hybrid seeds instead. The Haitian small farmers organization has committed to burning Monsanto's seeds, and has called for a march to protest the corporation's presence in Haiti on June 4, for World Environment Day.

Since gaining their independence from France more than 200 years ago in a bloody slave uprising, Haitian farmers have wisely protected their seeds and nurtured native crop varieties. They know that true food security is maintained by farmers who save, trade and breed indigenous seeds using traditional organic methods.

As Chavannes Jean-Baptiste, the Executive Director of the Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP), wrote earlier this year, "We need to establish seed banks and have silos where we can store our Creole seeds. Local, organic seeds are the basis of food sovereignty. It's urgent that Haitians buy local seeds. ... What's the danger we face today? It's that food aid from USAID and others is getting dumped in the country."

Monsanto's seeds will be distributed by the United States Agency for International Development's (USAID) WINNER program. USAID is a tax-payer funded agency that promotes the United States' interests abroad. It is run by Dr. Rajiv Shah, an Obama appointee that the Organic Consumers Association opposed because of his work with the explicitly pro-GMO Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation works closely with Monsanto.

Please click here to contact President Obama and USAID administrator Dr. Rajiv Shah today to tell them to support Haitian farmers' demands for sustainability and food security, not Monsanto's poison pill.

USAID and Monsanto's poison pill for Haiti is designed to the make the island nation into a slave colony once again, except this time they won't be slaves for France, but rather for Monsanto and corporate agribusiness. Join the Haitian people and the growing global movement of Millions Against Monsanto.

www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummins/mo...7340.html?view=print

GMO Giant Monsanto Loses Another Day in Court

France`s highest court has ruled that Monsanto lied about the safety of its weed killing herbicide Roundup. The decision came just days ago and confirms an earlier court judgment in France finding that Monsanto had falsely advertised Roundup as being "biodegradable" and that it "left the soil clean."

The original case was brought to court in 2001 by several French environmental groups alleging that Roundup's main ingredient, glyphosate, has a classification as "dangerous to the environment" by the European Union. That case drug on for years and finally ended in a ruling against Monsanto in 2007. 1

The GMO giant quickly appealed and that appeal was heard in 2008 in the Lyon court. Monsanto lost that case as well. They appealed again. This time it went to France's Supreme Court; it lost that hearing and now faces fines and nowhere else to go for further appeals.

The court levied a 13,800 Euro fine against the company (about $22,400USD). Monsanto is also looking at continued losses with fourth quarter losses of $233 million (US), mostly due to plummeting sales of the Roundup brand.2 So far, Monsanto has made no public statement about the court`s ruling, but it is also possible that the ruling could mean civil cases from farmers and communities harmed by the false advertising. That could mean millions of dollars more in losses.

Roundup is the world`s best-selling herbicide and is marketed as a weed-killer to both commercial farmers and home owners. Monsanto is also the world`s largest purveyor of genetically modified seeds (GMO seeds). Often, the seeds are sold in conjunction with Roundup, the seeds being modified to be "herbicide tolerant" (HT-ready).

Some have argued that these GM crops and seeds are worse for the environment and could be a real problem. Crop failures of GMO seeds in Africa have highlighted the lack of a crop diversity issue while other studies have found that GM versus non-GM seeds have little or no bearing on higher yields, as seed companies like Monsanto have claimed.

Currently, in the United States, nearly all of our soybean plants and most of our corn crops are now GMO, and most of the seed crops for those plants are Monsanto-owned. In fact, at least 68% of corn and 90% of soy is a GMO (HT-ready) crop in the U.S. now and Monsanto is working hard to make that a fact worldwide.3

Recent decisions, such as this one in France and a court finding in the U.S. earlier this month, as well as a common blockade in many European countries, are pushing back against the Monsanto takeover of our food crops. Other initiatives, such as Shelly Roche`s "Replace Roundup Challenge," are using consumer boycotts to further take it to Monsanto`s pocketbook.4, 5, 6

Resources:
1- BBC News Monsanto guilty in `false ad' row

2- BBC News Low herbicide sales hit Monsanto

3 - Huffington Post Racing Towards a Roundup-Ready Food Future

4 - NaturalNews Judge rules GMOs violate environmental law

5 - NaturalNews How to fight back against genetically modified foods

6 - Bytestyle.tv Take the "Replace Roundup" Challenge

Resources linked at source ... www.NaturalNews.com/z027352_Monsanto_GMO_Roundup.html

“What counts for us is making money,” said a Monsanto vice-president to a new employee at an induction session in 1998, reminding the idealistic novice that there is a simple, and crude, capitalist philosophy at the heart of the US chemical and biotechnology giant.

All Monsanto's talk about the ecological and humanitarian miracles of its chemicals and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is so much hot air, says Marie-Monique Robin in The World According To Monsanto.

The reduction of pesticide pollution, the end of world hunger, plants producing biodegradable plastics, corn containing antibodies against cancer — none of these promised GMO solutions have been delivered.

This is because what really matters to Monsanto, as Robin documents, is control of the world seed market and the genetic engineering of those seeds to be resistant to, and therefore dependent on, Roundup, Monsanto's herbicide with the real miracle; gigantic profits.

GMOs and Roundup, says Robin, are amongst the "most dangerous products of modern times", joining a list that is heavily populated by other Monsanto products such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin and bovine growth hormones.

In all cases, Monsanto has been fully aware of their harmfulness yet has lied about their dangers with an impunity conferred by the collusion between the company and the public health and environmental authorities of successive US governments.

Monsanto’s criminal tale began in the 1930s with PCBs which are heat-resistant industrial coolants and lubricants. PCBs polluted the planet for four decades until they were banned in 1977, leaving a continuing trail of cancers and other diseases.

PCBs are resistant to natural biological decay and are accumulative in fatty tissue through the food chain to maximum levels in top predator species like us.

Internal Monsanto memos that documented the toxic effects of PCBs reiterated the company’s obsessive concern to not “damage our sales position in the synthetic hydraulic fluid field”, arguing that “we can’t afford to lose one dollar of business”.

It said “continued sales and profits' are overriding priorities and that public lying about PCB toxicity is essential to 'protect the image of ... the Corporation'.”

The song was the same with 2,4,5-T, a powerful herbicide containing highly toxic dioxin. This product was the basis for Agent Orange, which poisoned much of southern Vietnam's crops, forests and people during the Vietnam War.

The toxicity of 2,4,5-T was denied by Monsanto, which "hid the data in a drawer and said nothing to the health authorities.”

After 2,4,5-T was banned and US soldiers and Vietnamese civilians had undertaken legal action against their dioxin poisoning, the company presented falsified scientific studies to government authorities, fraudulently claiming dioxin was not carcinogenic.

Bovine growth hormone (BGH) was a variation on the same theme.

BGH is an artificial, genetically engineered cow hormone designed to increase milk production.

It also increases mastitis (a serious infection). There are 22 recognised serious side effects, including the risk of cancer, amongst BGH milk users.

Suppression and manipulation of data from veterinary tests by Monsanto, however, secured government approval of BGH in 1994.

This well-worn theme has been continued with Roundup (Monsanto’s trade name for glyphosate).

Roundup has become the herbicide most widely used by the world’s farmers and gardeners. But its ecological claims to 100% biodegradability and non-toxicity are false and misleading.

Animal health studies find that either glyphosate or the other principal ingredients in Roundup are implicated in miscarriages, premature births, spontaneous abortions and pre-cancerous morbidities.

Monsanto maintained its usual silence on these health outcomes, however, to protect Roundup’s major revenue-stream for the company.

When Monsanto’s patent monopoly on glyphosate expired in 2000, Roundup's profitability was protected by Monsanto's move into GMO agriculture.

Monsanto now dominates the world food seed market and has genetically modified its “Roundup-Ready” transgenic seeds to withstand Roundup.

In 2005, Roundup-Ready crops made up 85% of all soybeans grown in the US, 84% of all canola, and 45% of all corn, ensuring a continued, large market for Roundup.

Again, Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready GMOs, with their glyphosate-resistant genes, escaped the regulatory net. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) declared toxicological testing unnecessary because of the “substantial equivalence” between GMOs and their natural cousins, a concept widely disputed in the independent scientific community.

Monsanto's extraordinary power grows out of the barrels of many guns. The private industry-government “revolving door” puts Monsanto officials in the right place to ensure regulatory conditions satisfy the needs of Monsanto. Monsanto’s presence in US representation on United Nations bodies guides the rest of the world to follow the US lead.

Monsanto’s armory also includes bribery (election funding to Republicans and Democrats) and the use of the notorious Pinkerton Detective Agency to spy on farmers suspected of illegally saving transgenic crop seeds for replanting rather than purchasing seeds anew each season from Monsanto, whose “intellectual property” rights to the genetic information in the seeds is recognised in law.

Monsanto’s deep pockets and readiness to threaten costly litigation against its critics keeps many of its opponents muted. Government whistleblowers are harassed, marginalised, defamed, fired or otherwise intimidated into silence.

The compliance of some in the scientific community is bought through Monsanto's funding of cash-strapped scientists and universities while Monsanto’s advertising dollars help to keep investigative journalists in line.

Robin’s incisive case study of Monsanto observes that ethics and public health are “abstract concepts foreign to the logic of capitalism”.

Would you trust the company that gave us Agent Orange yesterday to give us the food on our plates tomorrow? Not if you value your life.

Monsanto Assault on U.S. Farmers Detailed in New Report

First-of-its-Kind Analysis Reveals Thousands of Monsanto Investigations, Nearly 100 Lawsuits and Numerous Bankruptcies

Toll-Free Hotline Established for Farmers Facing Lawsuits or Threats from Monsanto to Get Guidance and Referrals

WASHINGTON — Jan 13, 2005 - (NATURALWIRE) - The Center for Food Safety released today an extensive review of Monsanto’s use and abuse of U.S. patent law to control the usage of staple crop seeds by U.S. farmers. The Center (CFS) launched its investigation to determine the extent to which American farmers have been impacted by litigation arising from the use of patented genetically engineered crops. Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers details the results of this research, discusses the ramifications for the future of farming in the U.S. and outlines policy options for ending the persecution of America’s farmers.

“These law suits and settlements are nothing less than corporate extortion of American farmers,” said Andrew Kimbrell executive Director of CFS. “Monsanto is polluting American farms with its genetically engineered crops, not properly informing farmers about these altered seeds, and then profiting from its own irresponsibility and negligence by suing innocent farmers. We are committed to stopping this corporate persecution of our farmers in its tracks.”

The report finds that, in general, Monsanto’s efforts to prosecute farmers can be divided into three stages: investigations of farmers; out-of-court settlements; and litigation against farmers Monsanto believes are in breach of contract or engaged in patent infringement. CFS notes in the report that, to date, Monsanto has filed 90 lawsuits against American farmers in 25 states that involve 147 farmers and 39 small businesses or farm companies. Monsanto has set aside an annual budget of $10 million dollars and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers.

“Monsanto would like nothing more than to be the sole source for staple crop seeds in this country and around the world,” said Joseph Mendelson, CFS legal director. “And it will aggressively overturn centuries-old farming practices and drive its own clients out of business through lawsuits to achieve this goal.”

The largest recorded judgment CFS has found thus far in favor of Monsanto as a result of a farmer lawsuit is $3,052,800.00. Total recorded judgments granted to Monsanto for lawsuits amount to $15,253,602.82. Farmers have paid a mean of $412,259.54 for cases with recorded judgments. Many farmers have to pay additional court and attorney fees and are sometimes even forced to pay the costs Monsanto incurs while investigating them.

“Monsanto is taking advantage of farmers with their marketing and their threats and lawsuits,” said Rodney Nelson, a North Dakota farmer sued by Monsanto. “It’s hard enough to farm as it is. You don’t need a big seed supplier trying to trip you up and chase you down with lawyers.”

Farmers even have been sued after their fields were contaminated by pollen or seed from a previous year’s crop has sprouted, or “volunteered,” in fields planted with non-genetically engineered varieties the following year; and when they never signed Monsanto’s Technology Agreement but still planted the patented crop seed. In all of these cases, because of the way patent law has been applied, farmers are technically liable. It does not appear to matter if the use was unwitting or if a contract was never signed.

Various policy options supported by CFS include passing local and state-wide bans or moratoriums on plantings of genetically engineered crops; amending the Patent Act so that genetically engineered plants will no longer be patentable subject matter and so that seed saving is not considered patent infringement; and legislating to prevent farmers from being liable for patent infringement through biological pollution.

CFS has established a toll-free hotline for farmers facing lawsuits or threats from Monsanto to get guidance and referrals: 1-888-FARMHLP.

www.percyschmeiser.com/MonsantovsFarmers.htm

Glyphosate Toxic & Roundup Worse

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins call for urgent regulatory review of the most widely used herbicide in the light of new scientific evidence

New research findings are raising serious concerns over the safety of the most commonly used herbicide, and should be sending shockwaves through proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops made tolerant to the herbicide, which now account for 75% of all GM crops in the world.

Worse yet, the most common formulation of the herbicide is even more toxic than the herbicide by itself, and is made by the same biotech giant that created the herbicide tolerant GM crops.

Broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine), commonly sold in the commercial formulation Roundup (Monsanto company, St. Louis, Missouri USA) has been frequently used both on crops and non-crops areas world wide since it was introduced in the 1970s. Roundup is a combination of glyphosate with other chemicals including a surfactant (detergent) polyoxyethyleneamine that enhance the spreading of the spray droplets on the leaves of plants. The use of Roundup has gone up especially in countries growing Roundup-tolerant GM crops created by Monsanto.

Glyphosate kills plants by inhibiting the enzyme, 5-enolpyruvoyl-shikimate-3-phosphate synthetase (EPSPS), essential for the formation of aromatic amino acids such as phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan; which leads onto vitamins and many secondary metabolites such as folates, ubiquinones and naphthoquines. It is believed to be rather specific in action and less toxic than other herbicides, because the shikimate pathway is not present in mammals and humans. However, glyphosate acts by preventing the binding of phosphoenol pyruvate to the active site of the enzyme, and phosphoenol pyruvate is a core metabolite present in all organisms; thus it has the potential to affect other metabolic pathways. This is borne out by many reports of toxicities associated with the herbicide reviewed in the Independent Science Panel Report, The Case for a GM-free Sustainable World [1].

An epidemiological study in the Ontario farming populations showed that glyphosate exposure nearly doubled the risk of late spontaneous abortions [2], and Prof. Eric-Giles Seralini and his research team from Caen University in France decided to find out more about the effects of the herbicide on cells from the human placenta.

They have now shown that glyphosate is toxic to human placental cells, killing a large proportion of them after 18 hr of exposure at concentrations below that in agricultural use [3]. Moreover, Roundup is always more toxic than its active ingredient, glyphosate; at least by two-fold. The effect increased with time, and was obtained with concentrations of Roundup 10 times lower than agricultural use.

The enzyme aromatase is responsible for making the female hormones estrogens from androgens (the male hormones). Glyphosate interacts with the active site of the enzyme but its effect on enzyme activity was minimal unless Roundup was present.

Interestingly, Roundup increased enzyme activity after 1 h of incubation, possibly because of its surfactant effect in making the androgen substrate more available to the enzyme. But at 18h incubation, Roundup invariably inhibited enzyme activity; the inhibition being associated with a decrease in mRNA synthesis, suggesting that Roundup decreased the rate of gene transcription. Seralini and colleagues suggest that other ingredients in the Roundup formulation enhance the availability or accumulation of glyphosate in cells.

There is, indeed, direct evidence that glyphosate inhibits RNA transcription in animals at a concentration well below the level that is recommended for commercial spray application Transcription was inhibited and embryonic development delayed in sea urchins following exposure to low levels of the herbicide and/or the surfactant polyoxyethyleneamine. The pesticide should be considered a health concern by inhalation during spraying [4].

New research shows that a brief exposure to commercial glyphosate caused liver damage in rats, as indicated by the leakage of intracellular liver enzymes. In this study, glyphosate and its surfactant in Roundup were also found to act in synergy to increase damage to the liver [5].

Three recent case-control studies suggested an association between glyphosate use and the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma [6-8]; while a prospective cohort study in Iowa and North Carolina that includes more than 54 315 private and commercial licensed pesticide applicators suggested a link between glyphosate use and multiple myoeloma [9]. Myeloma has been associated with agents that cause either DNA damage or immune suppression. These studies did not distinguish between Roundup and glyphosate, and it would be important for that to be done.

There is now a wealth of evidence that glyphosate requires worldwide health warnings and new regulatory review. Meanwhile, its use should be reduced to a minimum as a matter of prudent precaution.
References

1. The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, Chapter 7, ISIS & TWN, London & Penang, 2003.
2. Savitz DA, Arbuckle , Kaczor D, Curtis KM. Male pesticide exposure and pregnancy outcome. Am J Epidemiol 2000, 146, 1025-36.
3. Richard S, Moslemi S, Sipahutar H, Benachour N and Seralini G-E. Differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and aromatases
4. Marc J, Le Breton M, CormierP, Morales J, Belle´R and Mulner-Lorillo O. A glyphosate-based pesticide impinges on transcription. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 2005, 203, 1-8.
5. Benedetti AL, de Lourdes Vituri C, Trentin AG, Dominguesc MAC and Alvarez-Silva M. The effects of sub-chronic exposure of Wistar rats to the herbicide Glyphosate-Biocarb. Toxicology Letters 2004, 153, 227–32.
6. De Roos AH, Zahm SH, Cantor KP, et al. Integrative assessment of multiple pesticides as risk factors for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among men. Occup Environ Med 2003, 60, E11 oem.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/60/9/e11
7. Hardell L, Eriksson M, Nordstrom M. Exposure to pesticides as risk factor for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia: pooled analysis of two Swedish case-control studies. Leuk Lymphoma 2002, 43,1043–1049.
8. McDuffie HH, Pahwa P, McLaughlin JR, Spinelli JJ, Fincham S, Dosman JA, et al. 2001. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and specific pesticide exposures in men: cross-Canada study of pesticides and health. 2001, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001,10,1155–63.
9. De Roos AJ, Blair A, Rusiecki JA, Hoppin JA, Svec M, Dosemeci M, Sandler DP and Alavanja MC. Cancer incidence among glyphosate-exposed pesticide applicators in the agricultural health study. Environ Health Perspect 2005, 113, 49-54.


www.percyschmeiser.com/Toxic.htm

Monsanto fined $1.5m for bribery

The US agrochemical giant Monsanto has agreed to pay a $1.5m (£799,000) fine for bribing an Indonesian official.

Monsanto admitted one of its employees paid the senior official two years ago in a bid to avoid environmental impact studies being conducted on its cotton.

In addition to the penalty, Monsanto also agreed to three years' close monitoring of its business practices by the American authorities.

It said it accepted full responsibility for what it called improper activities.

Payout

A former senior manager at Monsanto directed an Indonesian consulting firm to give a $50,000 bribe to a high-level official in Indonesia's environment ministry in 2002.

The manager told the company to disguise an invoice for the bribe as "consulting fees".

Monsanto was facing stiff opposition from activists and farmers who were campaigning against its plans to introduce genetically modified cotton in Indonesia.

Despite the bribe, the official did not authorise the waiving of the environmental study requirement.

Monsanto also has admitted to paying bribes to a number of other high-ranking officials between 1997 and 2002.

'Full responsibility'

The chemicals-and-crops firm said it became aware of irregularities at a Jakarta-based subsidiary in 2001 and launched an internal investigation before informing the US Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Monsanto faced both criminal and civil charges from the Department of Justice and the SEC.

"Companies cannot bribe their way into favourable treatment by foreign officials," said Christopher Wray, assistant US attorney general.

Monsanto has agreed to pay $1m to the Department of Justice, adopt internal compliance measures, and co-operate with continuing civil and criminal investigations.

It is also paying $500,000 to the SEC to settle the bribe charge and other related violations.

Monsanto said it accepted full responsibility for its employees' actions, adding that it had taken "remedial actions to address the activities in Indonesia" and had been "fully co-operative" throughout the investigative process.

www.percyschmeiser.com/Bribe.htm

The major advantages thanks to double-digit, 12 million acres of genetically bred (GM) crops increase the size of the area in 2011. This corresponds to an increase of 8 percent compared to 2010, resulting in 148 to 160 million hectares of cultivated area expanded. In 1996 to 1.7 million hectares compared to 94 times in 2011, 160 million hectares of this history was the fastest technológiájává of plant biotech crops. The most convincing testimony of GM crops, the farmers by millions of the world's 29 countries in the period between 1996 and 2011, has over 100 million independent decisions regarding sowing of GM crops, which are due each year from 1.25 billion acres have been added to the soil GM crops. The risk-averse farmers' confidence in GM crops, the main reasons for supporting a sustainable conviction and considerable social, economic and environmental benefits. Of the 29 biotech crop countries, 19 developing and 10 in industrialized countries. The top ten in each of the 1 million hectares of GM crops over the area, and all of them in the future to form a broad, diversified growth. In 2011, a record number of 1.3 million compared to 2010, or 8 percent more farmers undertook the cultivation of GM crops. 90 percent of 15 million, generating a small area, farming in developing countries. The risk of production experienced in the treatment of farmers, seven million small farms in China, India, the same amount of 14.5 million hectares cultivated Bt cotton (resistant pest moth larvae) in 2011. In 2011, the country was developing GM crops sown half, while in 2012 is expected to exceed the acreage of GM's advanced industrial countries. In 2011, twice as fast, and twice the area by 11 percent, increased by 8.2 million hectares of land in developing countries than in developed, where 5% or 3.8 million hectares in the gain. The GM is an important characteristic combination of attributes - in 2011, 12 countries planted two or more additional traits of GM crops. 9 out of the 12 developing country.

The 160 million hectares, roughly one-quarter, 42.2 million hectares of GM crops was sown in combination, compared with 32.3 million hectares in 2010, which was 22 percent of the 2010 total 148 million acres of land. The use of plants genetically bred five leading developing countries, China and India in Asia, Brazil and Argentina, South America, South Africa and the African continent. They together account for 40 percent of world population, which by 2100 may reach 10.1 billion. Brazil was the third year of the engine of global growth to 4.9 million hectares, 20 percent in 2010 compared with a surplus. Due to the fast approval process 6 new GM product went on sale in 2011, a domestically developed GM virus resistant bean varieties with the Brazilian Association for Agricultural Research (EMBRAPA). 69 million hectares, the United States remains the world leader in GM crops in the state. On average, a 90 per cent share of GM varieties of the plant species. 200 thousand hectares of reviving the herbicide resistance of Roundup Ready crops Lucena, and 475 hectares of Roundup Ready sugar beet. Japan in December 2011 was authorized for fresh consumption in the United States produced virus-resistant papaya. Bt cotton in India celebrated the tenth anniversary of when the land for the first time exceeded 10 million hectares. 10.6 million hectares of the 12.1 million acres of cotton area is 88 percent. The majority of farmers, farmer 7 million, an average of 1.5 hectares of GM cotton is grown. In India, cotton production increased by USD 9.4 billion in total revenues between 2002 and 2010, of which 2.5 billion was additional revenue in 2010. 7 million farmers in China (average 0.5 ha), 3.9 million hectares of Bt cotton grown in the field record. This is 71.5 percent of the total area. The golden rice in the Philippines 2013/14-ben licensing is expected it will be important for China as well. Mexico had 161,500 hectares of biotech cotton area, which is 87 percent of the total surface area. In 2010, 58 thousand hectares, the increase was 178 percent.

The use of GM varieties are self-seeking Mexican cotton and GM maize in the northern states to the annual authorization of $ 10 million plan to bring down maize imports. Africa, progress has been made in the regulations. In South Africa, Burkina Faso, Egypt, together with 2.5 million hectares of GM crops were grown. Three other countries, Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda, field trials have been set. Six European countries, 114,490 hectares sown Bt maize, 26 percent more than in 2010. In addition, both countries planted "Amflora" GM potatoes. 1996 and 2010, the genetically bred crops have contributed to food security, agricultural production, sustainability and climate change to slow down. During this time, the value of crops produced by increased 78.4 billion dollars, less than 443 million kilograms of pesticides were used, and only in 2010 decreased by 19 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions, which is about 9 million in annual carbon dioxide emissions of cars are equal. Nearly 91 million hectares of GM crops had higher crop area continued. Furthermore, the poorest in the world, with 15 million active in the area of ​​the living conditions of farmers of GM crops is javulhattak thanks. In addition, it is important to establish that the genetically bred crops are not a panacea, because if used too - just like the traditional varieties - there is a need for good agricultural practices to follow, such as crop rotation, resistance prevention techniques. Europe and some developing regions need science-based, cost-effective in terms of time spent and authorization schemes that are responsible, rigorous but not exaggerated REQUIREMENTS.

The magnitude of the global GM seed market is estimated at $ 13 billion in 2011, while it produced a crop was valued at $ 160 billion. Future prospects: the Millennium Development Goals (UN MDG target) by 2015 may grow by ten countries planting biotech crops camp, in North America in 2013, Africa in 2017 will start in the drought-tolerant GM maize cultivation; 2013/14-ben resumption of golden rice grown in the Philippines, GM corn, 30 million acres of potential in China, followed by Bt rice. The plants genetically bred largely contribute to the 2015 target and beyond UN goals, halved the number of the poor, the optimized crop production through the implementation, which may be private and public collaboration. A good example is drought tolerant maize in Africa, which is supported by charitable organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ISAAA in sharing knowledge - innovation - represents the triple unity and partnership, which is in line with the Gates Foundation, the G20 towards the recommendation in November 2011. Detailed information is available on the Clive James compiled by "genetically bred (GM) crops in the World: 2011, ISAAA 43 publications. For more information, please visit our website or contact www.isaaa.org contact the ISAAA SEAsiaCenter center of the phone 0063 49 536 7216 or send an email to the address This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

In commercial GM crops GLOBAL STATUS KEY DATA: 2008

Author: Clive James, ISAAA founder and president

This summary contains genetically modified (GM) crops in 2008 the application of the most important information, which comprehensively analyzes the ISAAA brief statement of the number 39 (www.isaaa.org/). The significant and stable economic, environmental and welfare benefits as a result of 13.3 million large and small, are increasingly resource-needy farmers continued the cultivation of GM crops in 2008. Other important areas of progress could be observed this year. A significant increase in the number of countries planting biotech crops, has been remarkable progress in Africa, where the challenges are greatest, raising the number of additional traits of GM crops for money, and new properties were GM varieties cultivation. These are very important developments as they contribute to humanity is facing great difficulties to solve: the food, feed and fiber security, the price of food, sustainability, poverty and hunger, and climate change issues be reduced.

A number of countries planting biotech crops soared to 25 - a historical milestone - the use of GM crops by this new wave of broad-based global growth.

Progress in Africa - the number of countries planting biotech crops in 2007, and one of them (South Africa) has increased to three in 2008 Burkina Faso (cotton) and Egypt (maize) connectors.

Bolivia (RR ® soybean) to adopt biotech crops in the ninth country in Latin America.

In 2008, now the thirteenth year of biotech crops continued its strong growth crop. 10.7 million more hectares, which corresponds to 9.4% of 125 million ha of GM's total cultivated area. The cultivated trait in the area of ​​166 million hectares, which is 15 percent higher than the 2007 figure. 1996, compared to 74-fold increase in GM crop area, which is the most of new technologies to make the fastest terjedővé biotechnology.

In 2008, biotech crops for the first time the total production area of ​​more than 2 billion acres (800 million hectares). In 2005, 10 years after the first billionth, billion, while the second was sufficient to achieve 3 years. Notably, of the 25 countries planting biotech crops, 15 developing and 10 industrialized countries.

As a novelty, was first commercialized in 2008, herbicide-tolerant (RR ®) sugar beets in the United States and Canada.

In five countries, Egypt, Burkina Faso, Bolivia, Brazil and Australia, had only been introduced in other countries, a new biotech crops.

The additional features in combination with GM plants carrying increasingly important. 10 countries, some 27 million hectares of stacked traits in 2008. The 23% increase over one property containing the spread of GM crops.

1.3 million in 2008, 13.3 million in the 25 countries in the number of farmers planting biotech crops. Of these, 12.3 million, or 90 percent of the developing countries have been, and are typically small areas, resource-poor farmers and work.

The improved GM crops in developing countries and small farmers in need of sources of revenue and quality of life, contributing to poverty alleviation. Of case studies cited in the No. 39 Extract from India, China, the Republic of South Africa and the Philippines.

Five principal developing countries: China, India, Argentina, Brazil and South Africa, with 2.6 billion people, leadership is sought and the driving force of global change applications. The benefits of GM crops, and a strong political will generate major new investments in biotechnology induced in these five countries.

It is noteworthy that the seven EU countries growing GM maize by 21%, increased to 107,000 hectares of crop acreage in 2008.

This paper gives an overview of GM crops impressive contribution to sustainability is: 1) to contribute to the food, feed and fiber security, including affordable priced food, 2) Biological diversity is increasing, 3) poverty and hunger; 4) agriculture's environmental footprint; 5) mitigate climate change and promote green house gases and reducing; 6) The cost-effective production of biofuels promotion; 7) Contributing to sustainable economic benefits from 1996 to 2007, 44 billion dollars. In summary, these seven thrusts are seriously promoted sustainability and tremendous potential for the future.

As for the economic gains of U.S. $ 44 billion, 44% of the termésnövekedésből, while 56% reduction in the cost of production is made up by amount of 359 000 tonnes, including low pesticide use. The 141 million tons of surplus production, 43 million hectares of GM crops without growing larger area would be needed. Thus, the technology can save space for other purposes.

The agriculture-based and transforming developing countries, the growth of GM crops in the region of the motor, which can contribute substantially to the national economy.

The world's population, more than half (55%) live in the 25 countries of the 125 million hectares of GM area was in 2008. This one and a half million acres of land, the cultivated area of ​​8%. In 2007, biotech crops saved 14.2 billion kilograms less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which is equal to the withdrawal of 6.3 million cars.

In developing countries, an urgent need for appropriate, cost-effective and time-management, licensing systems for GM crops that do not pose a heavy burden, but also feasible.

GM plants are grown in 25 countries, and another 30 to the left, and their intake of food, feed their use, a total of 55 approving countries.

GM's global product in 2008 was $ 7.5 billion, the accumulated historical 1996-2008 period a total of $ 50 billion.

Future prospects: the remaining seven years of the second decade, from 2006 to 2015, the period of the commercial use of GM crops promising. The ISAAA 2005 forecast seems to be proved that the GM growing countries, the beneficiary farmers will double during this period. As a new crop of rice for drought tolerance such properties will be central to future growth. 39, No. extracts pays special attention to the drought-tolerant maize, cultivation of account in 2012 in the United States in 2017, and sub-Saharan African countries.

Detailed information is available on the market of GM plants by Clive James compiled 39 number of extracts (Brief 39). More information can be found: www.isaaa.org, ISAAA SEAsiaCenter at +63-49-536-7216 or by email request This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Monsanto, the U.S. corporation controlling an estimated 90 percent of the world's seed genetics, is gearing up for a return to Vietnam.

Monsanto isn't a household name in Vietnam. But one of its former products, the killer Vietnam War-era military defoliant Agent Orange, remains infamous.

According to this impressive report by Vietnam's Thanh Nien news outlet, a contingency of activists feel the firm has no right doing business in the country, where the chemical is estimated to have killed 400,000, deformed another 500,000 and stricken another 2 million with various diseases.

These days, Monsanto's interests in Vietnam are strictly agricultural. The Vietnamese government, according to Thanh Nien's magazine Vietweek, is courting Monsanto to bring in genetically modified seeds that could boost crop yields.

Monsanto is, of course, highly aware of Agent Orange's reputation and has fought numerous lawsuits filed by chemical's victims both Vietnamese and American. The chemical, commissioned by the U.S. military, was dumped over jungles to kill vegetation and rout communist forces.

In Monsanto's own primer on the Agent Orange era, it casts the chemical as patriotic -- it was meant "to save the lives of U.S. and allied soldiers," Monsanto says -- and contends that the matter "should be resolved by the governments that were involved."

Keeping Monsanto out of Vietnam already appears to be an uphill fight.

A Vietnamese legislator and former deputy defense minister has, according to Thanh Nien, faced evasion when he tried to raise the issue with the ruling communist government.

Chemicals giant Monsanto has reached a settlement with US residents who claimed they were poisoned by chemicals used in the manufacturing of the Vietnam-era chemical weapon Agent Orange.

The long-running suit was brought by residents living near a now-defunct Monsanto plant in Nitro, West Virginia that between 1949 and 1971 produced the agricultural herbicide 2,4,5 trichlorophenoxyacidic acid, a key ingredient in Agent Orange.

The weapon was used extensively during the Vietnam war, killing and maiming an estimated 400,000 people and leading to 500,000 birth defects. In 2005 a US court rejected a case brought by Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange.

The suit – filed on behalf of tens of thousands of people who lived, worked and went to school in Nitro after 1949 – claimed Monsanto spread toxic substances including dioxins, which have been linked to cancer, all over the town.

The plaintiffs say they were exposed to levels of dioxins 100,000 times higher than acceptable levels. "Dioxin is a known human carcinogen and is so hazardous to human health that no "safe" level of exposure has been established," the suit claimed.

As part of the settlement, the chemicals firm has set up a 30-year medical monitoring programme. Thousands of people who lived or worked in the Nitro area during the time period covered by the lawsuit will be eligible to apply for benefits. The company said that a $21m fund has been set up to pay for medical testing with a further $63m available over the 30-year life of the screening programme.

In addition Monsanto agreed to pay $9m for the professional cleaning of eligible homes in the Nitro area. The company also agreed to the Nitro residents' court-approved legal fees and litigation costs.

The settlement made no findings of wrongdoing against Monsanto.

Scott Partridge, Monsanto's vice president, said: "These settlements ensure that both individual and community concerns are addressed, and services are made available for the people of Nitro. We are pleased to resolve this matter and end any concerns about historic operations at the Nitro plant."

Nitro has a long history with warfare manufacturing. The town was given its explosive name when it was created in 1917 to service one of the US's main ammunition plants.

Up to Reintroduce Agent Orange Pesticide in the MidWest

In a match that some would say was made in hell, the nation’s two leading producers of agro-chemicals have joined forces in a partnership to reintroduce the use of the herbicide 2, 4-D, one half of the infamous defoliant Agent Orange, which was used by American forces to clear jungle during the Vietnam War. These two biotech giants have developed a weed management program that, if successful, would go a long way toward a predicted doubling of harmful herbicide use in America’s corn belt during the next decade.

The problem for corn farmers is that “superweeds” have been developing resistance to America’s best-selling herbicide Roundup, which is being sprayed on millions of acres in the Midwest and elsewhere. Dow Agrosciences has developed a strain of corn that it says will solve the problem. The new genetically modified variety can tolerate 2, 4-D, which will kill off the Roundup resistant weeds, but leave the corn standing. Farmers who opt into this system will be required to double-dose their fields with a deadly cocktail of Roundup plus 2, 4-D, both of which are manufactured by Monsanto.

But this plan has alarmed environmentalists and also many farmers, who are reluctant to reintroduce a chemical whose toxicity has been well established. The use of 2, 4-D is banned in several European countries and provinces of Canada. The substance is a suspected carcinogen which has been shown to double the incidence of birth defects in the children of pesticide applicators in a study conducted by University of Minnesota pathologist Vincent Garry.

Researchers say that the effect of 2,4-D on human health is still not fully understood. But it may be a risk factor for conditions like non-Hodgkins lymphoma, which was often found in Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange. The EPA has stated that the chemical has “endocrine disruption potential” and interferes with the human hormonal system. It has also been shown to be toxic to honeybees, birds and fish according to research conducted by the US Forest Service and others.

In 2004, a coalition of groups spearheaded by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pesticide Action Network, wrote a letter to the EPA taking it to task for underestimating the health and environmental impacts of 2,4-D. America’s agriculture department, the USDA, however, may soon sign off on the pesticide’s use, and is accepting final public comments on the matter until the 27th of this month.

Large scale industrial farming has grown dependent on ever-increasing applications of agrochemicals. Some have compared this to a drug addict who requires larger and larger fixes to stay high. Herbicide use has increased steadily over time as weeds develop resistance and need to be doused with more and deadlier chemicals to kill them. This in turn requires more aggressive genetic engineering of crops that can withstand the escalating chemical assault.

Agricultural scientists warn that this growing addiction to agrochemicals is unsustainable in the long run. The fertility of the soil decreases as earthworms and vital microorganisms are killed off by pesticides and herbicides. They also pollute the groundwater, and may compromise the health of farm animals that are fed with the chemical-infused grain.

These impacts are poised to grow. US Department of Agriculture figures reveal that herbicide use rose by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008. Significantly, nearly half of this increase (46 percent) took place between 2007 and 2008 as a result of the hawking of new herbicide resistant crops like the new corn hybrid developed by Dow.

Nobody knows what effect introducing this hybrid would have on the health of American consumers. Corn laced with high levels of 2,4-D could taint everything from breakfast cereals to the beef of corn-fed cattle. Given that corn and high-fructose corn syrup are key elements in so many processed foods, some public health experts warn that all Americans will soon be guinea pigs in an ill-conceived mass experiment with one of the staples of our food supply.

Until recently, genetically engineered herbicide resistant crops were popular with farmers who benefited from higher yields and nearly effortless management of weeds. But now that the weed problem is coming back with a vengeance, some are reconsidering the wisdom of this chemical-intensive mode of farming. Dow biotech corn costs nearly three times more than conventional seed. And the projected doubling of pesticide use in the years ahead will be expensive, as well as destructive to farmland and ecosystems.

There are viable alternatives to chemical intensive farming, time tested methods like crop rotation, use of cover crops and other practices which allow farmers to compete naturally with weeds. The time has come for farmers to revive the knowledge of their ancestors in this regard.

Some agricultural scientists advocate developing a system of Integrated Weed Management to replace the unsustainable use of chemicals. But the big agrochemical companies have no interest in supporting the sustainable agriculture that would put them out of business. So long as there are billions of dollars to be made in selling herbicide and herbicide-resistant genetically-modified seed, there won’t be much research money available to explore the natural alternatives to the destruction of our nation’s heartland.

Agent Orange is the combination of the code names for Herbicide Orange (HO) and Agent LNX, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects.[1] The Red Cross of Viet Nam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange.[2]

A 50:50 mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, it was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical.

Prior to the controversy surrounding Agent Orange, there was already a large body of scientific evidence linking 2,4,5-T to serious negative health effects and ecological damage.[15] But in 1969, it was revealed to the public that the 2,4,5-T was contaminated with a dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), and that the TCDD was causing many of the previously unexplained adverse health effects which were correlated with Agent Orange exposure.[16] TCDD has been described as "perhaps the most toxic molecule ever synthesized by man".[17] Internal memoranda revealed that Monsanto (a manufacturer of 2,4,5-T) had informed the U.S. government in 1952 that its 2,4,5-T was contaminated.

Since at least 1978, several lawsuits have been filed against the companies which produced Agent Orange, among them Dow Chemical, Monsanto, and Diamond Shamrock.

In 1984, the class-action suit was settled out of court for $180 million; slightly over 45% of this was ordered to be paid by Monsanto alone.[58][59] Many veterans who were victims of Agent Orange exposure were outraged the case had been settled instead of going to court, and felt they had been betrayed by the lawyers. "Fairness Hearings" were held in five major American cities, where veterans and their families discussed their reactions to the settlement, and condemned the actions of the lawyers and courts, demanding the case be heard before a jury of their peers. Federal Judge Julius Weinstein refused the appeals, claiming the settlement was "fair and just". By 1989, the veterans' fears were confirmed when it was decided how the money from the settlement would be paid out. A totally disabled Vietnam veteran would receive a maximum of $12,000 spread out over the course of 10 years. Furthermore, by accepting the settlement payments, disabled veterans would become ineligible for many state benefits that provided far more monetary support than the settlement, such as food stamps, public assistance, and government pensions. A widow of a Vietnam veteran who died of Agent Orange exposure would only receive $3700.[60]

In 2004, Jill Montgomery, a spokesperson for Monsanto, said Monsanto should not be liable at all for injuries or deaths caused by Agent Orange, saying: "We are sympathetic with people who believe they have been injured and understand their concern to find the cause, but reliable scientific evidence indicates that Agent Orange is not the cause of serious long-term health effects."

On January 31, 2004, a victim's rights group, the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/dioxin (VAVA), filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn, against several U.S. companies for liability in causing personal injury, by developing and producing the chemical. Dow Chemical and Monsanto were the two largest producers of Agent Orange for the U.S. military, and were named in the suit, along with the dozens of other companies (Diamond Shamrock, Uniroyal, Thompson Chemicals, Hercules, etc.)

In January 2006, the South Korean Appeals Court ordered Dow Chemical and Monsanto to pay $62 million in compensation to about 6,800 people. The ruling acknowledged that "the defendants failed to ensure safety as the defoliants manufactured by the defendants had higher levels of dioxins than standard", and, quoting the U.S. National Academy of Science report, declared that there was a "causal relationship" between Agent Orange and 11 diseases, including cancers of the lung, larynx and prostate. The judges failed to acknowledge "the relationship between the chemical and peripheral neuropathy, the disease most widespread among Agent Orange victims" according to the Mercury News.

Alarming new research published in the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology supports the emerging connection between glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, and neurodegenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s disease and Parkinsonian disorders.

Published this month (April, 2012), the new study entitled “Glyphosate induced cell death through apoptotic and authophagic mechanisms,” investigated the potential brain-damaging effects of herbicides, which the authors stated “have been recognized as the main environmental factor associated with neurodegenerative disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease.”1

They found that glyphosate inhibited the viability of differentiated test cells (PC12, adrenal medula derived), in both dose-and-time dependent manners. The researchers also found that “glyphosate induced cell death via authophagy pathways in addition to activating apoptotic pathways.”

Roundup herbicide is now a ubiquitous contaminant in our air, rain, groundwater, and food, making complete avoidance near impossible. A growing body of experimental evidence now indicates that it in addition to its neurotoxicity it also has the following.

Modes of Toxicity

Carcinogen
Endocrine Disruptor
Genotoxic
Biocide
Cytotoxic
Bioaccumulator
Hepatotoxic
Teratrogenic
Clastogenic
Oxidant
Aquacidal
Mutagenic
Aromatase Disruptor
Glutathione Down-regulator
Malondialdehyde Up-regulator
Necrotic
Nephrotoxic

Once marketed as “safe as table salt” by Monsanto, the original patent holder and manufacturer of this glyphosate-based herbicide, evidence now indicates it is toxic to human DNA at concentrations diluted 450-fold lower than used in agricultural applications.

This study only adds to human case reports of glyphosate-poisoning and/or occupational exposure where neurological damage was a direct consequence. A 2011 case study published in the journalParkinsonism Related Disorders, entitled “Parkinsonism after chronic occupational exposure to glyphosate,” reported the following incident:

Here we report a patient with parkinsonism following chronic occupational exposure to glyphosate. A previously healthy 44- year-old woman presented with rigidity, slowness and resting tremor in all four limbs with no impairment of short-term memory, after sustaining long term chemical exposure to glyphosate for 3 years as a worker in a chemical factory. The chemical plant produced a range of herbicides including: glyphosate, gibberellins, and dimethyl hydrogen phosphite; however, the patient worked exclusively in the glyphosate production division. She only wore basic protection such as gloves or a face mask for 50 h each week in the plant where glyphosate vapor was generated. She frequently felt weak. Two months before she came to our clinic, she had expe- rienced severe dizziness and blurred vision.

Another case study published in 2003 reported a case of parkinsonism subsequent to glyphosate exposure.

These case studies are also backed up by animal research. In the roundworm model of glyphosate exposure the chemical results in neurodegeneration directly associated with damage to the dopamine and GABA producing neurons. In the rat model, glyphosate exposure results in oxidativebrain damage, particularly the substantia nigra, where the highest concentration of dopamine-producing cells reside, and which is the primary locus of neurological damage in Parkinson’s disease.

So do i understand correctly each Monsanto seed has a patent and when the farmer buys from Monsanto he signs an agreement that only allows the farmer to use his Monsanto seeds he has agreed to use,if the plant which grows from the Monsanto seeds through its natural process creates more seeds farmer cannot use these seeds as Monsanto have not given permission for the farmer to use these seeds?

Each time the farmer wishes to grow crops he has to purchase a fresh batch of seeds from Monsanto and enter a new contract?

Most likely in the future Monsanto will only allow farmers to buy seeds that produce crops that cannot reproduce seeds and they will have a complete strangle hold on crop production?

I would also recommend:



He gets a bit shouty in this one for my liking, but does get the point across!