The EPA intervened on Monsanto’s behalf, sabotaging another government agency’s safety review of glyphosate

Image: The EPA intervened on Monsanto’s behalf, sabotaging another government agency’s safety review of glyphosate

(Natural News)
Monsanto, the agrichemical company that produces genetically modified seeds and the herbicide Roundup, among others, has become known as the “world’s most evil corporation.” Their callous disregard for the welfare of humans and the environment certainly makes them deserving of this label. Now, imagine this scenario for a moment: The world’s most evil corporation as a puppeteer pulling the strings of the federal watchdog organizations that are supposed to regulate them and protect public health. Nothing good could come from such a scenario, could it? Well, sadly it’s exactly what’s been going on in the United States for a long time.

This was recently illustrated once more when Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests brought documents to light that show how much control Monsanto has over the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – the very agency tasked with regulating Big Agri.

In March of 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released a report that would finally prove what anecdotal evidence has been telling us for decades: Glyphosate – the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer – is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

The report added:

For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The evidence in humans is from studies of exposures, mostly agricultural, in the USA, Canada, and Sweden published since 2001. In addition, there is convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals.

This report led to a slew of lawsuits being brought against Monsanto by people who believe that they or their loved ones developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma as a direct result of glyphosate exposure. Lawsuits are currently either in progress or pending in Missouri, California and Delaware.

Of course, Monsanto was always aware that any real, unbiased and unmanipulated scientific study would discover their dirty little secret, and it has fostered relationships with all the right people to ensure that no such study would ever see the light of day. (Related: Seralini study on GMOs republished after unprecedented scientific censorship.)

Unfortunately for them, they didn’t have sufficient reach to block the IARC report, but they had already successfully blocked two other reports with equal potential for damage.

In February of 2015, shortly before the IARC released its report, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) announced that it, too, would be looking into the toxicity of glyphosate. The report was due to be released in October of that same year. This was a logical thing for the agency to do, since it is tasked with evaluating the potentially toxic effects to humans of exposure to hazardous substances.

Somehow, however, that report was never compiled or released, and the FOIA documents requested for the glyphosate trials have finally explained why.

Baum, Hedland, Aristei and Goldman, attorneys representing some of the plaintiffs in these cases, explain:

Lawyers and the news media have already reported on Jess Rowland, formerly the deputy division director within the health effects division of EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), who bragged to Monsanto that he “should get a medal” if could kill the ATSDR glyphosate review.

But according to the trove of newly obtained internal emails, assistance to Monsanto in stopping the ATSDR glyphosate review came not only from Rowland, but also from several other high-ranking EPA officials. Instead of allowing the ATSDR to perform its function as a hazardous materials watchdog agency, Monsanto and EPA both told ATSDR that a review of glyphosate was “duplicative” and unnecessary.

Between May 19 and October 23 2015, multiple emails were exchanged between executives at Monsanto; the office of chemical safety and pollution at the EPA; the ATSDR; and the National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), which oversees ATSDR, stressing that an investigation by the ATSDR into glyphosate would be a “duplicative government effort,” since the EPA was completing its own risk assessment for glyphosate. Such an investigation, the EPA insisted, would not “be a good use of government resources.”

The result? The ATSDR’s review was placed on hold, and two years later, the EPA still hasn’t released its own report on glyphosate. (Related: Learn more at Corruption.news)

Monsanto had the situation firmly under control.

Sources include:

BaumHedlundLaw.com

ATSDR.CDC.gov

IARC.fr

<!–

–>

Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-05-the-epa-intervened-on-monsantos-behalf-sabotaging-another-government-agencys-safety-review-of-glyphosate.html

For Snubbing Glyphosate Hearing, EU Parliament Bans Monsanto Lobbyists

Monsanto lobbyists were officially barred by the European Parliament on Thursday after refusing requests to participate in hearings about the U.S. corporation’s efforts to influence regulations of its controversial glyphosate within the 28-nation bloc.

The ban was announced by the parliament’s presidential council under rules designed to combat misbehavior by those lobbying the EU’s lawmaking body. It is the first time, the Guardian notes, that

“MEPs have used new rules to withdraw parliamentary access for firms that ignore a summons to attend parliamentary inquiries or hearings.”

The Greens/EFA Group in the parliament, which had requested Monsanto’s removal after the biotech giant’s refusal, welcomed the decision.

“This is strong democracy. Those who escape democratic accountability must be excluded from access to lobbying,” said MEP Sven Giegold, financial and economic policy spokesperson for the Greens/EFA and parliament’s rapporteur for Transparency, Accountability and Integrity. “If Monsanto does business in Europe, it must also face up to its responsibilities before the European Parliament.”

The Guardian reports:

The lobby ban will be a bitter blow to Monsanto’s advocacy campaign ahead of a decision later this year about the relicensing of glyphosate, which has been linked to cancer by one expert WHO panel.

Another deemed it safe for public use, but Monsanto’s outreach to regulatory agencies in the US and Europe sparked controversy and prompted the parliamentary hearing.

Philippe Lamberts, president of the Greens/EFA, added,

“Those who ignore the rules of democracy also lose their rights as a lobbyist in the European Parliament. US corporations must also accept the democratic control function of the parliament. Monsanto cannot escape this. There remain many uncertainties in the assessment of the pesticide glyphosate. Monsanto has to face the questions of parliamentarians and should not hinder the clarification process.”

In response to the decision in Brussels, critics of the powerful company wondered if the U.S. would ever take such measures:

Copyright Information: This article was reprinted with permission from Commondreams.com. Please contact the author directly for republishing information.

Source Article from http://govtslaves.info/2017/10/for-snubbing-glyphosate-hearing-eu-parliament-bans-monsanto-lobbyists/

Dozens Of Pages of Analysis From A Monsanto Study Found Copy-Pasted in European Food Safety Report

By Fattima Mahdi Truth Theory

Monsanto, are a multinational corporation that was once known for manufacturing Agent Orange for use as a chemical weapon in the Vietnam War. In September 2016, the German chemical company Bayer merged with Monsanto and became one of the world’s biggest agricultural conglomerates.

Monsanto are notoriously known for their super-corporation approach to nutrition. The company and its genetically modified organism (GMO) seeds have been the subject of global protests around the world. They have reaped huge profits from selling its popular weedkiller, glyphosate (known as “RoundUp”) in tandem with crops genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate (“RoundUp Ready”) crop. Last year, RoundUp brought in around £3.5bn.

The weedkiller has been linked to increased cancer rates, autism, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. As a result, Monsanto are currently locked in battle over relicensing the brand RoundUp in the European Union. The final decision on its authorisation is expected in November. The decision to continue or discontinue the brand will be informed by the European food safety authority (Efsa). It was recently revealed that Efsa based a recommendation that glyphosate was safe for public use on a EU report that copied and pasted analyses from a Monsanto study.

An Efsa spokesperson said: “It is important to stress that these are extracts from and references to publicly available studies submitted by

Source Article from https://truththeory.com/2017/09/30/dozens-pages-analysis-monsanto-study-found-copy-pasted-european-food-safety-report/

Forbes.com exposed as a Monsanto propaganda rag after caught publishing Henry Miller "editorial" that was actually ghostwritten by Monsanto

Image: Forbes.com exposed as a Monsanto propaganda rag after caught publishing Henry Miller “editorial” that was actually ghostwritten by Monsanto

(Natural News)
Newly uncovered documents that the Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, and Goldman law firm has dubbed the “Monsanto Papers” reveal yet again the dirty lengths to which the world’s most evil corporation is willing to go to protect the reputation of its beloved Roundup herbicide. As recently reported by CBS News in San Francisco, it has now come to light that Forbes published a pro-Roundup editorial back in 2015 that readers were led to believe was written by the infamous Henry I. Miller of Stanford University, but that we now know was actually ghostwritten by Monsanto’s marketing team.

A Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, Miller is a well-known Monsanto shill and propagandist. He’s repeatedly gone to bat for Monsanto in trying to stave off honest scientific scrutiny of its top-selling agricultural poison, which independent studies have continually shown is linked to causing cancer in laboratory rats. The World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has also classified glyphosate, the primary active ingredient in Roundup, as a probable cause of cancer in humans.

But it wasn’t known, at least until now, that Miller has actually stooped so low as to slap his name on articles that he didn’t actually write as part of Monsanto’s efforts to spin the truth. This includes the 2015 piece published by Forbes that attempted to “discredit” IARC’s research into glyphosate’s carcinogenic properties. Miller apparently agreed to allow Monsanto to write the article behind the scenes, only to later add a few words and have it published in his name on it to make it appear more authoritative and independent.

“For two years, Miller was believed to be the writer of those words,” CBS San Francisco recently reported about the scandal. “But now, emails between Miller and Monsanto employees show the company wrote the piece and Miller added a couple of words to it prior to publication.”

Monsanto claims its article forgery was simply a ‘collaboration’ with Miller

These emails show that Monsanto had first tried to petition Miller to write a complete article condemning IARC while promoting glyphosate. Miller responded by saying that he would first need Monsanto to write him a “high-quality draft” from which to expand upon, as he was “inundated with projects” at the time of the request. Within just a few days, Monsanto had drummed up a draft and sent it to Miller for review and revision.

As shown by CBS San Francisco, the Monsanto draft and the final article that Miller submitted to Forbes are almost word-for-word identical, with the exception of a few changes here and there. CBS San Francisco says it’s been unable to reach Miller for comment, nor has it been able to touch base with the Hoover Institution where Miller works.

Meanwhile, Monsanto is attempting to defend its egregious actions (as it always does) by denying that it did anything wrong. The company’s vice president of global strategy, Scott Partridge, insists that its ghostwriting of the article to which Miller attached his name was simply “a collaborative effort,” and a “function of the outrage we were hearing from many people on the attacks on glyphosate … It’s an op-ed we collaborated with him on.”

This is obviously a lie, in light of what the emails had to say, which is part of the reason why Monsanto has become the subject of a massive lawsuit over the safety of Roundup. Attorneys say that Monsanto has deliberately withheld honest data about Roundup that proves its dangers, instead claiming publicly, with the help of its spin doctors, that the weedkiller is completely safe and poses no threat to human health.

Sources for this article include:

CBSLocal.com

NaturalNews.com

<!–

–>

Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-09-29-forbes-com-exposed-as-a-monsanto-propaganda-rag-after-caught-publishing-henry-miller-editorial-that-was-actually-ghostwritten-by-monsanto.html

How Monsanto Genetically Modifies Our Food Compared To What Happens Naturally In Nature







Next Story

Are you concerned about Genetically Modified Foods? Here’s (GMOs Revealed) a great documentary that addresses many of the questions and concerns most people have today. 

In March 2014, scientists from Indiana University announced that they had conducted research to examine the operations of the fruit fly genome “in greater detail than ever before possible” and had identified “thousands of new genes, transcripts and proteins.” Their results indicated that the fly’s genome is “far more complex than previously suspected and suggests that the same will be true of the genomes of other higher organisms.” Of the approximately 1,500 new genes that were discovered, 536 of them were found within areas that were previously assumed to be gene-free zones. Furthermore, when the flies were subjected to stresses, small changes in expression level at thousands of genes occurred, and four newly modelled genes were expressed altogether differently.

Why is this important? Because it reveals how little we know about this planet and the organisms dwelling on it, yet also how much we think we know. This kind of hubris is found within all areas of human knowledge, but particularly when it comes to science.

Another great example that I’ve used before is when the populace first realized that the Earth wasn’t flat. Another is a statement made by physicist Lord Kelvin, who stated in 1900 that “there is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” This assertion was shattered only five years later when Einstein published his paper on special relativity.

When it comes to our genes, and the genes of other organisms, we really do know next to nothing. Unfortunately, proponents of the biotech industry (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, etc.) claim otherwise, and have developed multiple, flawed assumptions that undergird agricultural bioengineering.

The information presented in this article comes from a variety of different sources, but my primary sourceis Steven Druker, a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity. He initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug (FDA) to release its files on genetically engineered foods, and recently published a book about it, which has received dozens of rave reviews from the world’s most accredited scientists in the field. I draw primarily from his book for this article.

“This incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well reasoned and scientifically solid, it’s a pleasure to read – and a must-read. Through its masterful marshalling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don’t entail abnormal risk.” 

– David Schubert, PhD, molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

Natural Genetic Modification Versus Human Induced Genetic Modification

Biotech proponents have an unshakable faith in their GE crops, and these corporations also hold major sway over mainstream media outlets, and close relationships with government agencies like the FDA. Indeed, several high level industry employees have also held positions at these institutions. One example is the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods, Michael Taylor, who is also Monsanto’s former Vice President for Public Policy. While at the FDA, he was instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

Druker outlines in his book how the commercialization of genetically engineered foods was enabled by the fraudulent behaviour of these government agencies, and how this actually violates explicit mandates for federal food safety law. The evidence shows that the “FDA’s falsehoods have been abundantly supplemented with falsehoods disseminated by eminent scientists and scientific institutions, and the entire GE food venture.”

This is why it’s so amazing to see so many scientists within the field supporting the dissemination of truth, and bringing the falsehoods to light. So if you still think this type of thing is a conspiracy theory, we now have the documents as well as the science, which stands on its own, to show that something is terribly wrong here.

Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. and Professor Emeritus of Genetics at Western University in London, Ontario, believes that Druker’s book is a “landmark” and that “it should be required reading in every university biology course.” 

There are several presumptions on which the bioengineering venture was based, and one of them is that natural breeding is more random and unruly than bioengineering. The standard argument holds that genetic modification has been occurring for thousands of years, and what we do now is simply that process sped up and made better.

Key Presumptions on Which the Bioengineering Venture Was Based

Genetic engineering is based on the presumption that the genome is just a linear system, where the action of a single gene will not impact the action of other genes, or disrupt their normal function.

In 2007, the New York Times published an article outlining how “the presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built.” 

Basically, genes are viewed as autonomous, adding to the whole without acting holistically because they don’t express their proteins in a closely coordinated matter. Another assumption used to justify genetic engineering is that genes aren’t organized in a specific way, that the sequence in which they occur is meaningless From this point of view, a gene would function normally if it were relocated to a different chromosome or came from a neighbouring gene. Quite a big assumption, don’t you think? Giorgio Bernardi, a biologist at the University of Rome III who specialized in the study of genome evolution, calls this perspective a “bean-bag view of the genome” because it regards the genes as “randomly distributed.”

Druker explains:

Together, these two assumptions supported the belief that a chunk of recombinant DNA could be put into a plan’s genome without inducing disturbance — because if the behavior of the native genes was largely uncoordinated and their arrangement was irrelevant, there would be no important patterns that could be perturbed by such insertions. Accordingly, they engendered confidence in the precision of genetic engineering, because they implied that the outcome of a gene insertion would be exactly what the bioengineers expected.

How could biotech proponents push the idea that the target organism would continue to function just as it had before, and that the change would be limited to the new trait endowed by the inserted gene? How can it simply be assumed that this would not alter any of the organism’s other qualities?

These presumptions still underly genetic engineering today. The example of the fly above serves well here. In the New York Times article cited earlier, the author noted that “genes appear to operate in a complex network,” and states that “evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today’s commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals.”

Molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, who testified at New Zealand’s Royal Commission in 2001, notes that agricultural bioengineering “was based on the understanding of genetics we had 15 years ago, about genes being isolated little units that work independently of each other.” He also presented evidence showing that genes actually “work as an integrated whole of families.”

Despite the grave possibility that these presumptions are indeed wrong, they still form the backbone of genetic engineering today.

Antoniou himself was even selected to represent multiple nongovernmental organizations to present precaution reasons to the UK’s GM Review Panel, and a plethora of studies that clearly justify it. Despite his presentation, and many others’, the 11 other scientists on the panel, who were biotech proponents, dismissed these studies and continued to argue that it makes absolutely no difference how genes are arranged.

How can a scientist make such a statement?

What do we have as a result? As Druker says:

Such disregard, denial, or avoidance in regard to the evidence was essential for maintaining faith in the venture, because its predictability and safety have always relied on the genome being largely disjointed; and the more the genome instead appears to function as a tightly coordinated system, the more potentially disruptive and unpredictable are the interventions of the bioengineers.

Geneticist, activist, and environmentalist David Suzuki weighed in on this very subject a few years ago in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC):

By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment. . . . Essentially, the FDA has said that genetically modified organisms, or food, are basically not much different from regular food, and so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this: Geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, in what we call a vertical fashion . . . [but] what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it, what we call horizontally, into a totally unrelated species. Now, David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot plant and exchange genes. What biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other, without regard for the biological constraints. . . . It’s very very bad science. We assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion.

More Differences

This is a common argument made by GE-food proponents, and commonly used whenever an expert brings up a challenge to the technology’s safety. For example, David Schubert, PhD, a molecular biologist and the Head of Cellular Neurobiology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, commented in Nature Biotechnology that there was mounting evidence that the insertion of even one gene into a cell’s DNA alters the expression patters of genes throughout the entire cell. He said facts like this one, among many others, “cast doubt on the soundness of agricultural bioengineering — and entail the conclusion that it ‘is not a safe option.’ “

Predictably, when a professor and a laboratory director of one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions makes a comment like this, there’s going to be a response. This time it came in the form of a letter, published by 18 biologists at respected universities and institutions, stating that Dr. Schubert failed to properly consider “the genetic realities.” The main reality he allegedly failed to recognize is that the natural method of plant breeding is inherently more random than bioengineering.

A portion of the letter reads as following:

We do not take issue with Schubert’s basic contention that unintended genetic and metabolic events can take place. The reality is that ‘unintentional consequences’ are much more likely to occur in nature than in biotechnology because nature relies on the unintentional consequences of blind random genetic mutation and rearrangement to produce adaptive phenotypic results, whereas GM technology employs precise, specific, and rationally designed genetic modification toward a specific engineering goal.

In his book, Steven Druker offers the following counterargument: “This letter thus reveals how strongly the GE food venture relies on the presumption that the natural process driving biological development are intrinsically more disorderly and risk-bearing than the genetic interventions instigated by the human mind. And it confirms that this belief forms the ideological bedrock on which the venture rests.”

In fact, a report published in 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences couldn’t uphold “even the more modest notion that bioengineering and natural breeding pose the same risks.” The panel that produced the report ranked various modes of plant breeding in terms of their disposition to produce unintended effects. They were forced to acknowledge that bioengineering produces far greater effects than pollen-based sexual reproduction. Despite this fact, they still insisted that this does not mean a difference in risks.

Druker says in response:

Thus, there’s no rational way to reconcile the fact that natural breeding is less disruptive and more predictable than bioengineering with the claim that it poses equal or greater risk, which is why the admission in the 2004 report is a rarity — and why biotech proponents almost always ignore or deny that fact and instead assert that natural breeding is more disorderly and unpredictable.

Randomness

According to the biotech industry, natural plant breeding could actually result in crops that are dangerous to human consumption, which is why we should be grateful for genetic engineering. For example, in the same NAS report mentioned above, they portrayed what are known as “jumping genes” as more randomly mobile and threatening, but failed to recognize, as Druker points out, that although these entities do not pose risks within natural pollen based breeding, when bioengineering is employed they do because that process alone “tends to stir them up and get them jumping.”

When it comes to sexual reproduction, it’s yet another area where biotech proponents state that it’s a random phenomenon, despite the fact that we now know that it’s not random, and that there are multiple factors that can and do influence the genetics of life.   Genetic engineering, be it human induced or naturally occurring, requires a genetic “rearragnement,”  a recombination of DNA. The difference between the artificial way and the natural way is that the natural way does not disrupt the entire organism, as was discussed a little earlier in the article and touched upon in the Suzuki quote above.

As Druker explains:

This natural form of recombination occurs during the formation of gametes (the sperm and egg cells). It includes a step called crossover in which two partner chromosomes break at corresponding points and then exchange complementary sections of DNA; and every time a gamete is produced, every set of paired chromosomes engages in it. In this way, all the chromosomes end up with genes from both parents instead of from only one. However, all the genes are preserved, as is the sequences in which they’re positioned. The only changes are in the relationships between aleles. . . . So this natural recombination augments diversity while maintaining stability. And without it, except for the occasional favorable mutation, the composition of chromosomes would stay the same from generation to generation, and genetic diversity would grow at far too sluggish a pace.

He goes on to mention how natural recombination preserves the order of the genes, and is predictable in the way it cuts DNA. The entire process displays a great deal of order.

Despite this fact, scientists who support GE state, as in, for example, the 2004 NAS report, that “genetic engineering methods are considered by some to be more precise than conventional breeding methods because only known and precisely characterized genes are transferred.” They use the idea that the randomness and unpredictability of natural engineering make bioengineering safer.

Yet, as Druker so brilliantly captures:

This misleading tactic fixates on the predictability of the plant’s specific agronomic traits; and it portrays traditional breeding as less predictable than bioengineering because undesired attributes are often transferred along with the one that is desired. However, those who employ this ploy don’t acknowledge that if both parents are safe to eat, the unwanted traits hardly ever pose risk to human health. Rather, they’re undesirable for reasons irrelevant to risk (such as aesthetic appearance or seed size), and breeders must then perform back-crossing to eliminate them while retaining the trait they want. However,  although the inclusion of unwanted traits entails more work, it does not increase attendant risks. Therefore, while breeders can’t fully predict what traits will appear, they can confidently predict that the resulting plant will be safe to eat.

This is why the GE stance on natural modification is so flawed and misleading.

Druker goes on:

Although it describes the sexual reproduction of food-yielding plants as a messy and risky affair that involves the transfer of “thousands of unknown genes with unknown function,” we actually know quite a lot about those genes. And what we know is far more important than what we don’t know. We know that they’re all where they’re supposed to be, and that they’re arranged in an orderly fashion. And we know that during the essential process in which some of them are traded between partnered chromosomes in order to promote the diversity that strengthens the species, their orderly arrangement is marvelously maintained. Most important, we know that their functions mesh to form an exquisitely efficient system that generates and sustains a plant that regularly provides us with wholesome food.

This sharply contrasts with genetic engineering.

As you can see, comparing natural modification to biotech modification is not an easy process, and this isn’t even the tip of the iceberg. Research shows that it’s not natural modification that’s more random and risky, but biotech genetic modification:

The inserted cassettes are haphazardly wedged into the cell’s DNA, they create unpredictable disruptions at the site of insertion, the overall process induces hundreds of mutations throughout the DNA molecule, the activity of the inserted cassettes can create multiple imbalances, and the resultant plant cannot be deemed safe without undergoing a battery of rigorous tests that has yet to be applied to any engineered crop.

RELATED CE ARTICLES: 

Below are a few of many articles we’ve published on GMOs, if you’re interested in reading more please browse through our website.

Reviewed Science Loosing Credibility As Large Amounts of Research Shown To Be False

Wikileaks Cables Reveal The US Government Planned To Retaliate Cause & Cause Pain On Countries Refusing GMOs

Federal Lawsuit Forces The US Government To Divulge Secret Files On Genetically Engineered Foods

New Study Links GMOs To Cancre, Liver/Kidney Damage & Severe Hormonal Disruption

Why Bill Nye Is Not A Science Guy: What He Gets Wrong About GMOs


Having Trouble Losing Excess Weight?

Having trouble losing excess weight? This could be one of the biggest reasons why.

We know so much about food now yet much of the population is overweight and unhealthy because of the quality of our food and our perception about food.

Luckily there’s a quiz that you can take to find out where you stand on food addiction. You can take it here.

After you will get results and specific information based on your score. Try the quiz!

×

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Collective-evolution/~3/9Vwc30k-HUk/

How Monsanto & Bayer Are Trying To Take Over The Cannabis Industry







Next Story

Responsible for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the pesticides that are sprayed on them, Monsanto is on the tips of everyone’s tongues lately. Health conscious individuals are doing everything they can to boycott this company and support others instead, even if that means opting for much pricier organic produce.

There are a number of reasons for their concern, including the fact that no long-term studies have been done to show the potential health effects of consuming genetically modified foods or the high levels of pesticides that came with them. The mere fact that this company is responsible for some of the worst chemicals ever created, including Agent Orange, DDT, asbestos, and aspartame, also contributes to this widespread mistrust.

Last September, Bayer, the largest pharmaceutical company in the world, made a deal to buy out Monsanto for $66 billion, even though Monsanto was voted “the most evil company in the world” back in 2013. Unfortunately, this buyout only strengthened Monsanto’s lobbying power.

This corporate giant has now set its sights on another product, one that has garnered increasing attention lately as laws relax and medicinal uses become better understood: cannabis. Despite claiming otherwise, evidence suggests Monsanto may already have ties to cannabis production, a worrisome connection for anyone who uses cannabis medically or even enjoys an occasional puff.

How Is This Connection Made?

Monsanto and Miracle-Gro already have a business partnership. Hawthorne is a front for Miracle-Gro and has already purchased three of the largest cannabis producers in the business, Botanicare, Gavita, and General Hydroponics. A number of other companies have already received buy-out offers, but have refused.

According to a Hydroponics Lighting Representative, “They want to bypass hydroponics retail stores. . . . When we said we won’t get in bed with them they said, ‘Well, we could just buy your whole company like we did with Gavita and do whatever we want.’ ”

Miracle-Gro CEO Jim Hagedorn has gone so far as to announce his plans for reefer referendums. “Invest, like, half a billion in [taking over] the pot business,” he recommends. “It is the biggest thing I’ve ever seen in lawn and garden.”

One only has to connect the dots to see where this is heading, and it’s not surprising. The cannabis industry is on the brink of a major boom, and it makes sense that a huge corporation like Monsanto would like to get in on the action.

Now What?

Nothing has been decided at this moment, but we can see clearly that it is a possibility, and even if Monsanto/Bayer does take over the cannabis industry, it is not certain that they will create genetically modified strains. Even if they don’t, however, it is up to you to decide if this is a company you would like to support or not. If you actively choose non-GMO products, then you’ll certainly need to do your research to ensure the strains you are getting are not coming from a Monsanto-owned grow business.

Unfortunately, Bayer and Monsanto could create a monopoly on marijuana seeds in the same way we have seen them do with corn and soy. They have an incredible amount of corporate power and through enforcing international patent law, could end up with total control over the cannabis industry, including medicinal cannabis use and research.

Don’t Forget, As the Consumer, You Hold the Power

There will undoubtedly be some backlash against Monsanto — as if they haven’t gotten enough already — but it is absolutely necessary to call out this company for their ruthless business practices. DO NOT SUPPORT Monsanto or Bayer by buying any cannabis products coming from companies that they own. More information about Monsanto’s involvement in the cannabis industry, whether direct or indirect, will surely surface soon, and it is up to you to stay informed and make the appropriate decisions. A safe bet would be to grow your own and keep the seeds, if you are living in an area where this is legal. Spread this information far and wide; we cannot let Monsanto take over the cannabis industry.

Much Love

 


Get Your In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

×

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Collective-evolution/~3/IUCdpvv2PqM/

REUTERS now in bed with Monsanto, committing journalistic fraud to cover up evidence of harm from toxic agricultural poisons

Image: REUTERS now in bed with Monsanto, committing journalistic fraud to cover up evidence of harm from toxic agricultural poisons

(Natural News)
House Republicans are going to bat for Monsanto, the world’s most evil corporation, which is having a very difficult time maintaining any semblance of a positive reputation in the public eye after it was revealed that its most famous weed killer causes cancer in humans.

In an effort to steer the narrative back in its favor, Monsanto has seemingly co-opted the services of a journalist at Reuters who recently published an article defending Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide as being safe. And none other than House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy is said to be leading the charge in treating this article as scientific fact, even though it’s quite obviously just Monsanto spin.

According to reports, Gowdy is demanding answers about “possibly withheld information” that he says “could change” the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) landmark designation of glyphosate, the primary active ingredient in Roundup, as a probable human carcinogen. In a letter, Gowdy pointed to a June 14 Reuters article by Kate Kelland, the journalist in question, as supposedly showing that glyphosate isn’t all that bad and shouldn’t be treated as such.

But upon closer look, it’s been revealed that Kelland’s article is deeply flawed and filled with unsubstantiated Monsanto talking points and lobbying spin – something that Gowdy, if he was honest in this matter, would have noticed. Instead, he’s chosen to push Kelland’s article as evidence that Monsanto has somehow been treated unfairly, and that there’s really nothing wrong with Roundup.

Writing for AlterNet, Stacy Malkan points out that Kelland has been writing all sorts of pro-Monsanto articles for a while now, and that Reuters has been publishing them without question. And this latest piece is no exception, following the same narrative that Monsanto has been pushing for its ongoing “war on science.”

Kate Kelland at Reuters has ties to Science Media Centre, an industry PR group

As pointed out in Malkan’s rebuttal, Kelland is deliberately shrouding the truth about the IARC report, which looked at many years’ worth of published and peer-reviewed research on glyphosate before making its conclusion. Contrary to what Kelland claims, such research spanned way back, and wasn’t simply limited to Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini’s research paper.

Kelland’s so-called evidence backing glyphosate is further flawed because, as Malkan points out, almost all of its is pro-industry propaganda, i.e. papers by researchers who were obviously working in tandem with Monsanto and who failed to disclose their industry and financial connections. Much of what Kelland presented was also cherry-picked and deliberately taken out of context.

Kelland herself has undisclosed ties to the industry as well, ones that Malkan uncovered as centering around the Science Media Centre, a “nonprofit” public relations firm that connects industry scientists with reporters. The Science Media Centre is also funded by industry groups like Monsanto with an agenda to push.

The Science Media Centre was actually launched for the very purpose of tamping down on news stories that drew attention to the environmental and human health risks of chemical concoctions like Roundup. By downplaying these stories, the Science Media Centre essentially functions as the PR arm of corporations like Monsanto trying to clean up their image.

“Kelland’s bias in favor of SMC is evident; she appears in the PR agency’s promotional video and promotional report, regularly attends SMC briefings, speaks at SMC workshops and attended meetings in India to discuss setting up an SMC office there,” writes Malkan.

“It is clear … that Kelland’s reporting on glyphosate and IARC mirrors the views put forth by SMC experts and industry groups on those topics – and also raises serious concerns about bias and fairness in science reporting.”

Sources for this article include:

Alternet.org

NaturalNews.com

<!–

–>

Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-28-reuters-now-in-bed-with-monsanto-committing-journalistic-fraud-to-cover-up-evidence-of-harm.html

Monsanto and Bayer are maneuvering to take over the cannabis industry

It has been rumored for years that Monsanto plans to take over the cannabis industry with genetic engineering just as they’ve taken over the corn and soy industries.

Although they have always denied having any intentions to do so, at this point it is unlikely that anybody really believes them. In contrast, many in the cannabis sphere are prepared to resist any kind of GMO takeover of marijuana by Monsanto or any of their cohorts.

Evidence is mounting, though, which points strongly to the notion that Monsanto does indeed plan to take control of the cannabis plant, and it doesn’t look good for medical users, or anyone planning on getting into the industry.

Former Nazi Collaborator Bayer Buys Out Monsanto for $66 Billion

You may remember hearing back in September that Bayer, the largest pharmaceutical company in the world, made a deal to buy out Monsanto for $66 billion. Although Monsanto was voted the most evil company in the world in 2013 and its reputation has continued to fall since, Bayer still went ahead with the buyout.

A merger between these two companies is unsurprising, as though they both have long histories of involvement with Nazism and chemical weapons like agent orange which have devastated Vietnam since the war. In fact, Bayer began as a break-off company of the infamous IG Farben, which produced the chemical weapons used on the Jews during the Nazi reign. After the war, Farben was forced to break up into several companies, including BASF, Hoeschst, and Bayer.

Soon after at the Nuremberg trials, 24 Farben executives were sent to prison for crimes against humanity. However, in a matter of just 7 years each of them was released and began filling high positions in each of the former Farben companies, and many of them began working for the Russian, British, and American governments through a joint intelligence venture called “Operation Paperclip”.

“IG (Interessengemeinschaft) stands for “Association of Common Interests”: The IG Farben cartel included BASF, Bayer, Hoechst, and other German chemical and pharmaceutical companies. As documents show, IG Farben was intimately involved with the human experimental atrocities committed by Mengele at Auschwitz. A German watchdog organization, the GBG Network, maintains copious documents and tracks Bayer Pharmaceutical activities.” – Alliance for Human Research Protection

After all these years, Bayer is now richer and more powerful than their predecessor company I.G. Farben ever was.

Monsanto And Miracle-Gro Have Intimate Business Ties

According to Big Buds Magazine, Monsanto and Scotts Miracle-Gro have a “deep business partnership” and plan on taking over the cannabis industry. Hawthorne, a front group for Scotts, has already purchased three of the major cannabis growing companies: General Hydroponics, Botanicare, and Gavita. Many other hydroponics companies have also reported attempted buyouts by Hawthorne.

“They want to bypass hydroponics retail stores…When we said we won’t get in bed with them they said, ‘Well, we could just buy your whole company like we did with Gavita and do whatever we want.’” – Hydroponics Lighting Representative

Jim Hagedorn, CEO of Scotts Miracle-Gro, has even said that he plans to “invest, like, half a billion in [taking over] the pot business… It is the biggest thing I’ve ever seen in lawn and garden.”

He has also invested in companies such as Leaf, which grows cannabis in an electronically regulated indoor terrarium accessible via smartphone.

Bayer and Monsanto Trade Industry Secrets On Producing GMO Marijuana

It is logical that Bayer, being the parent company, would work together with Monsanto in order to share secrets which would advance mutual business. Many people in the cannabis industry have been warning about this, including Michael Straumietis, founder and owner of Advanced Nutrients.

“Monsanto and Bayer share information about genetically modifying crops,” Straumietis notes. “Bayer partners with GW Pharmaceuticals, which grows its own proprietary marijuana genetics. It’s logical to conclude that Monsanto and Bayer want to create GMO marijuana.” – Michael Straumietis

Conclusion

It is possible that Bayer and Monsanto could create a monopoly on marijuana seeds in the same way that they have created a monopoly on corn and soy. Through immense corporate power and the enforcement of international patent law, these corporations could place themselves in a position of total control over cannabis as a medicine as well as for recreational use by using the same model as they do with the food crops they control.

But not all hope is lost. There is still a chance to fight back against the Bayer-Monsanto monopoly by boycotting genetically engineered products, Miracle-Gro and other Scotts brand products, Bayer pharmaceuticals, and companies that do business with any of these. You could even store seeds if you live in an area where it is legal and grow your own, while supporting hydroponics and nutrient companies that don’t do business with these corporate behemoths.

“Corporations and people with hundreds of billions of dollars know marijuana is a miracle plant. They want to come in and steal our plants, seeds, and industry from us, [and] we must stop them.” – Straumietis

Via Waking Times

Featured Image: Mark/Flickr

Source Article from https://www.intellihub.com/monsanto-and-bayer-are-maneuvering-to-take-over-the-cannabis-industry/

Monsanto’s Weed Killer Crisis






Monsanto’s Weed Killer Crisis


August 9th, 2017

Via: Reuters:

As the U.S. growing season entered its peak this summer, farmers began posting startling pictures on social media: fields of beans, peach orchards and vegetable gardens withering away.

The photographs served as early warnings of a crisis that has damaged millions of acres of farmland. New versions of the herbicide dicamba developed by Monsanto and BASF, according to farmers, have drifted across fields to crops unable to withstand it, a charge authorities are investigating.

As the crisis intensifies, new details provided to Reuters by independent researchers and regulators, and previously unreported testimony by a company employee, demonstrate the unusual way Monsanto introduced its product. The approach, in which Monsanto prevented key independent testing of its product, went unchallenged by the Environmental Protection Agency and nearly every state regulator.

Typically, when a company develops a new agricultural product, it commissions its own tests and shares the results and data with regulators. It also provides product samples to universities for additional scrutiny. Regulators and university researchers then work together to determine the safety of the product.

In this case, Monsanto denied requests by university researchers to study its XtendiMax with VaporGrip for volatility – a measure of its tendency to vaporize and drift across fields.

The researchers interviewed by Reuters – Jason Norsworthy at the University of Arkansas, Kevin Bradley at the University of Missouri and Aaron Hager at the University of Illinois – said Monsanto provided samples of XtendiMax before it was approved by the EPA. However, the samples came with contracts that explicitly forbade volatility testing.

“This is the first time I’m aware of any herbicide ever brought to market for which there were strict guidelines on what you could and could not do,” Norsworthy said.















<!–

–>











<!– AD CAN GO HERE

Buy gold online - quickly, safely and at low prices

END: AD CAN GO HERE –>

Leave a Reply


You must be logged in to post a comment.







Source Article from http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=51478

Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews






Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews


August 9th, 2017

Via: Bloomberg:

Academic papers vindicating its Roundup herbicide were written with the help of its employees.















<!–

–>











<!– AD CAN GO HERE

Buy gold online - quickly, safely and at low prices

END: AD CAN GO HERE –>

Leave a Reply


You must be logged in to post a comment.







Source Article from http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=51476