Monsanto Must Give Docs In Syngenta MDL

Monsanto may soon need to add some provision in its employment contracts to keep former employees from testifying in other GMO matters. A former Monsanto lawyer is giving the company something else to think about as he has testified as a GMO expert in a matter that didn’t even concern Monsanto directly in the first place.

In its endless quest to hide its poison programs and the way it does business, Monsanto had refused to let its former company lawyer hand over documents in a recent multi-district litigation action. Two judges responded by saying the former Monsanto attorney must give up some of the questionable documents in the Syngenta MDL.

On March 24, 2017, a Kansas federal court partially granted a demand from a group of corn producers to force a former Monsanto in-house lawyer to hand over Monsanto documents. Plaintiffs argued that the Monsanto lawyer could be holding relevant information in what the plaintiffs called Syngenta’s false promotion of genetically modified corn.

Two Judges say Monsanto must hand over docs
Former Monsanto Associate General Counsel J. Thomas Carrato, one of Syngenta’s designated experts, was ordered by U.S. Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara and Minnesota Special Master John B. Van de North to produce documents related to industry standards for commercialization of new genetically modified (GMO) crops. Mr. Carrato has opined that Syngenta acted in a manner consistent with those standards.

Privileged & Confidential?
Law360 reported that Monsanto tried in two actions to quash subpoenas from the corn producers. The poison giant had argued that complying would require Mr. Carrato to produce privileged and confidential documents which came to him while he was on Monsanto’s payroll. The corn producers had filed in each of the two actions a cross-motion to compel Mr. Carrato to produce documents from his personal files. They argued the documents would let them assess and challenge Mr.  Carrato’s opinions.

Monsanto can withhold some documents
Judge O’Hara and Special Master Van de North jointly granted in part and denied in part Monsanto’s motion to quash and granted in part and denied in part the corn producers’ motion to compel.

“Mr. Carrato and Monsanto assert that Mr. Carrato should not be required to produce documents subject to the confidentiality agreements between them,” the joint order said. “Mr. Carrato cites Snowden v. Connaught Labs Inc., in which the court held that the defendants were not required to produce documents in violation of a confidentiality agreement with a third party. The undersigned respectfully decline to follow the Snowden result, which is not supported in the opinion by any reasoning or caselaw.”

On Jan. 19, 2017, the U.S. magistrate partly granted Monsanto’s emergency request to intervene in the MDL to seek a protective order relating to Mr. Carrato’s deposition. The barrister was Monsanto’s in-house counsel for nearly 22 years and then a Monsanto consultant until 2016.

The U.S. magistrate refused what he termed Monsanto’s “implied request” to exclude Mr. Carrato from serving as a witness. The judge held that the deposition would go forward, but said Monsanto could send lawyers to advise Mr. Carrato.

Syngenta sued for $1 Billion
In September 2016, U.S. District Judge John W. Lungstrum granted certification to a nationwide group of corn producers who had brought Lanham Act claims in the multidistrict litigation. The MDL court plaintiffs allege that Syngenta’s promotion of genetically modified corn cost them at least $1 billion.

Judge Lungstrum certified a nationwide class of corn producers who priced any corn for sale after Nov. 18, 2013, and have brought claims under the Lanham Act. He excluded those who bought Syngenta GMO seed strains Viptera and Duracade, and also excluded statewide classes from Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota.

China Refused GMO Strains
The producers charge that they lost an enormous amount of money when the presence of the unapproved GMO strains in U.S. exports all but shut down the Chinese market to U.S. corn.

The parties filed dueling summary judgment motions on Feb. 6, 2017. The plaintiffs asked for partial summary judgment on several of Syngenta’s affirmative defenses. Syngenta asked for a quick win on the nationwide Lanham Act class claims, as well as the Kansas state class’ negligence claims.

Court filings show that the trial on those claims is scheduled for June, 2017. Judge Lungstrum said in January that the non-Kansas certified class actions will also be tried in the present court. He told plaintiffs to file a consolidation motion after he rules on the summary judgment requests.

Many of the motions in the case are sealed at the request of Syngenta and Monsanto; so it’s difficult to get many helpful details.

Bellwether Cases for Corn Producers
Bellwether cases had been set in August 2017 for corn producers and nonproducers in the MDL. Court records show that each side has selected one nonproducer and two producer plaintiffs for a total of six indicator trials. Farmers from four states will serve as the four producer bellwether cases. Trans Coastal Supply Co. Inc. and Rail Transfer Inc. will serve as the two nonproducer bellwethers.

Monsanto told Law360 through a spokesman that during Mr. Carrato’s time as a consultant from 2014 to 2016, he had confidentiality agreements with Monsanto, and also legal ethical obligations that govern the client-lawyer relationship.

The Monsanto mouthpiece said: “Monsanto’s sole objective in intervening into the Syngenta litigation is to prevent the disclosure of Monsanto confidential information or any information that may be subject to the attorney client privilege or attorney work product doctrine.”

Law360 said reported that representatives for the corn producers and Syngenta did not immediately respond to requests for comment on March 24.

Monsanto Must Give Docs In Syngenta MDL
The case is In re: Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litigation, case number 2:14-md-02591, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

RELATED

Share

Monsanto, U.S. Regulators Poison World

Two new reportsrats show how chemical companies like Monsanto and U.S. regulators poison the world. On March 17, 2017, Alternet detailed the reports which prove once for all that growing food with poisons is a very bad idea. (Who’d have thunk it? Only anybody who doesn’t work for Monsanto, and anybody capable of thinking.) There’s good reason why most of the civilized world outside the U.S. fights Monsanto to keep the company from further poisoning the world’s food supply and people.

Monsanto’s cozy Relationship with Regulators

Writer Katherine Paul has detailed how two new reports just published add to the already huge body of convincing evidence — from more than 50 years of research —  that pesticides and other toxic chemicals used in agriculture are poisoning us all.

Both reports issue scathing indictments of the cozy relationships between U.S. and global regulatory systems and chemical companies. Together they work to hide the truth in order to increase industry profits at the expense of our health and Mother Earth (one and the same).

Pollution, Pesticides Killing Children
The World Health Organization report focused on a range of environmental risks. It found the cost of a polluted, pesticided environment leads to the deaths of some 1.7 million children each year.

A Myth that Kills
The Special Rapporteur on the right to food presented a report to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The report focused on agricultural chemicals. That report states unequivocally that Monsanto’s story line about feeding the world by using pesticides is completely false. Monsanto is not feeding the world nutritious food, despite all the company’s shameless propaganda; and the need for pesticides is a myth that kills.

Both reports made headlines in a handful of mainstream outlets like the Washington Post and the Guardian, but far more exposure is needed for people to wake up to to prevent their own undoing.

Silent Spring
In the early 1960’s, Rachel Carson eloquently outlined the insanity of poisoning our environment in her book Silent Spring. But since that time, U.S. regulators bought and paid for by Monsanto and other biotech bullies have paid little heed to that insanity. We seldom follow the reasonable, precautionary principle when it comes to allowing poisons to be unleashed on us all.

More Poisons assured as Trump guts EPA
President Trump now wants to gut the EPA and further “deregulate” our protections from corporate insanity, greed, cruelty, stupidity. The most corporate-friendly administration in history is doing everything possible to dismantle what little remains of the U.S. government’s power to stop the runaway poisoning of our land, food, water, air, wildlife.

The Environment Card

Calling the world we live in our “environment” is misleading. The environment is not separate from us. It IS us, where we live. We swim in it from cradle to grave, like fish in a tank. Our very lives depend on it; but life is cheap in this political climate. Those with money or working for Monsanto apparently think they breathe different air than the rest of us, drink different water, eat different food. They are partly right, (if the reports we hear of Monsanto’s HQ serving only organic food are right), but in the larger sense they are not right at all. Nobody can entirely escape the poisoned world, the “environment,” anymore than we can.

EPA Captured by Industry
While Trump is working to gut the EPA with a $2.6 billion budget cut, it is instructive to note that even before the combover king decided to de-fang the agency, it was already captured and compromised by industry. E. G. Vallianatos worked for the EPA for 25 years, then wrote a book called Poison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA.

Mr. Vallianatos wrote:

“It is simply not possible to understand why the EPA behaves the way it does without appreciating the enormous power of American’s industrial farmers and their allies in the chemical pesticide industries, which currently do about $40 billion per in year business. For decades, industry lobbyists have preached the gospel of unregulated capitalism, and Americans have bought it. Today, it seems the entire government is at the service of the private interests of America’s corporate class.”

That was written in 2014. Now it is much worse. Though public opinion has shifted against poisoning our food with toxic chemicals, U.S. public health and safety officials appear more determined than ever to uphold the “rights” of corporations to poison us all, and everything else they can.

‘UN experts denounce “myth” pesticides are necessary to feed the world’
That Guardian story headline on the report delivered this week to the UN Human Rights Council nicely summed up the mess Monsanto and others have made of our food supply. The Guardian said:

“A new report, being presented to the UN human rights council on Wednesday, is severely critical of the global corporations that manufacture pesticides, accusing them of the ‘systematic denial of harms,’ ‘aggressive, unethical marketing tactics’ and heavy lobbying of governments which has ‘obstructed reforms and paralysed global pesticide restrictions.’”

Pesticides’ Catastrophic Effects

The report says pesticides have “catastrophic impacts on the environment, human health and society as a whole,” including an estimated 200,000 deaths a year from acute poisoning. Its authors said: “It is time to create a global process to transition toward safer and healthier food and agricultural production.”

The UN report was written by Hilal Elver, special rapporteur on the right to food, and Baskut Tuncak, special rapporteur on “toxics.” The report stated that chronic exposure to pesticides has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s diseases, hormone disruption, developmental disorders, sterility. Populations most at risk include farmers, agricultural workers, others living near plantations, indigenous communities, pregnant women, and especially children, who require special protections which they seldom get from U.S. regulators.

The Crop Protection Association, a lobbying group representing the $50-billion agri-chemical industry, fired back at the report with its standard propaganda, false on its face, that pesticides “play a key role in ensuring we have access to a healthy, safe, affordable and reliable food supply.”

The Myth that Pesticides are useful and necessary

Mr. Elver told the Guardian:

“ It (the need for pesticides) is a myth. Using more pesticides is nothing to do with getting rid of hunger. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), we are able to feed 9 billion people today. Production is definitely increasing, but the problem is poverty, inequality and distribution.

Monsanto, U.S. Regulators Poison World

Sustainable Pulse (SP) also reported on the story. SP noted that the report warns that some pesticides can persist in the environment for decades. It remains to be seen whether the rest of us will last for decades given the extent of Monsanto’s poisoning of our bodies, minds, and politics.

RELATED

 

Share

Glyphosate makes Cancer List, says Court

Glyphosate makes Roundupthe Cancer List, said a California state judge March 13, 2017. Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan rejected a Monsanto lawsuit which claimed a state agency has no authority to list glyphosate – from Roundup – on a list of cancer-causing chemicals.

Related:  Roundup Cancer Lawsuits

The judge rejected all of Monsanto’s claims. Lawyers for the biotech giant from Missouri had alleged that the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment violated the state’s Constitution by acknowledging that the International Agency for Research on Cancer listed glysophate as a probable human carcinogen. Several environmental groups sided with California, while several chemical agriculture industry front groups funded by Monsanto backed Monsanto.

Glyphosate makes Cancer List, says Judge

Judge Kapetan cited the California Supreme Court’s 1968 decision in Kugler v. Yocum. The judge in that case ruled that a proposed ordinance which would have required one city to match another’s minimum wage for firefighters was not an unconstitutional delegation of its authority.

Judge Kapetan said, “Likewise, in the present case, the … listing mechanism does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of authority to an outside agency, since the voters and the Legislature have established the basic legislative scheme and made the fundamental policy decision with regard to listing possible carcinogens under Proposition 65, and then allowed the IARC to make the highly technical fact-finding decisions with regard to which specific chemicals would be added to the list.”

Proposition 65 snares Monsanto & Glyphosate
Proposition 65, a state Monsanto eats GMO Studiessafety initiative approved in 1986, requires California to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive damage. Monsanto fears that listing glyphosate as carcinogenic will give away the company’s whole game of poisoning the entire world under the guise of feeding it.  Just ask Seralini’s rats how fed GMO corn poisoned with glyphosate worked for them. Besides causing cancer, Roundup with glyphosate has been linked to kidney and liver damage, and more.

Monsanto loses Quasi-Legislative Act Argument
Monsanto had also alleged that California’s listing mechanism violates due process clauses of both the state and federal constitutions, because Monsanto’s property interest in the Roundup trademark and its reputation will be damaged if glyphosate is listed. Judge Kapetan again disagreed, ruling that the state office’s decision is not subject to due process claims because it’s a quasi-legislative act.

Monsanto argues Free Speech Violation
The judge also denied Monsanto’s claim that listing glyphosate as carcinogenic would violate the company’s right to free speech under the state and federal constitutions. In this failed argument, Monsanto lawyers claimed that a cancer listing would force Monsanto to include a warning label regarding the possible cancerous effects of glyphosate. (Imagine that – a cancer warning on a probable carcinogen.) Monsanto claimed that such a warning would be “false and misleading,” and would not advance any legitimate or substantial government interest. (In this argument, a citizen’s right to avoid carcinogens is, of course,  mute.)

Judge Kapetan agreed with the state office that Monsanto’s First Amendment claim is not ripe for adjudication because the mere listing of glyphosate does not require Monsanto to provide a warning.  Indeed, even with a carcinogenic listing for glyphosate, Monsanto may never be required to give such a warning. (Did you expect any of this to make sense?)

Monsanto gets an Out

The judge also noted that the hazard assessment office has the discretion to determine that glyphosate poses no significant risk of causing cancer even if glyphosate is placed on the Proposition 65 list.

Monsanto spokesman Cole Waggoner argued that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the European Food Safety Authority and the State of California have determined that glyphosate does not cause cancer.

Said Mr. Waggoner: “The agency’s flawed and baseless proposal to list glyphosate under Proposition 65 not only contradicts California’s own scientific assessment, but it also violates the California and U.S. Constitutions. We disagree with the court’s ruling, and we will continue to fight the decision on the basis of sound science and the law.”

Environmentalists and others opposed to glyphosate and Monsanto’s entire chemical poisoning business model point out that all those entities Mr. Waggoner lists are compromised by Monsanto and the biotech industry. Money is, as everyone knows, a highly corrupting influence that can make black appear white and evil good, just so long as somebody is willing to pay the freight to turn truth on its head.

Glyphosate makes Cancer List, says Court

The case is Monsanto Co. v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment et al., case number 16 CE CG 00183, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno.

RELATED

 

 

Share

Americans forcefed Glyphosate

Rats with ratsgiant tumors are not the only ones being forcefed Monsanto’s glyphosate. Americans are all being exposed daily to varying levels of Roundup and glyphosate, even those “health nuts” who avoid processed foods like cereals, breads and crackers – organic or not.

Got Glyphosate?

Cheerios, Wheaties, Trix, Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, Raisin Bran, Special K, Frosted Flakes, Cheese It, Ritz Crackers, Triscuit, Oreos, Stacy’s Simply Naked Pita Chips (Frito-Lay), Doritos, Fritos, Goldfish crackers (Pepperidge Farm), Little Debbies Oatmeal Cream Pies, 365 Organic Golden Round Crackers, Back to Nature Crispy Cheddar Crackers – all these popular foods have been found contaminated with Monsanto’s glyphosate. That is the only active ingredient listed in Roundup. There are plenty more where that came from, but Monsanto doesn’t list them as active, so they remain unaccounted for, undetected. Glyphosate has also been found in premium German beer and expensive California wine, even in organic wine.

Related:  Glyphosate Unsafe on Any Plate

Glyphosate Glyphosate Everywhere
Widespread glyphosate contamination affects even organic foods. Fencing can’t stop the wind from blowing glyphosate onto everything around it. This is not good news for anyone who appreciates a healthy liver and kidneys.

Roundup causes Liver and Kidney Damage
New research has shown Roundup causes liver and kidney damage in rats at a mere 0.05 parts per billion (ppb) glyphosate equivalent indicating damage. Other studies have shown levels as low as 10 ppb can have toxic effects on the livers of fish and cause significant damage to livers and kidneys of rats at 700 ppb. Alarmingly, 700 ppb is the allowable level of glyphosate found in U.S. drinking water. Cheerios, meanwhile, was found to contain levels as high as 1,125.3 ppb, and many other popular foods were also found to contain hazardous levels of Monsanto’s No. 1 poison.

It’s Raining Glyphosate
Glyphosate contaminates not only many popular foods but also our water. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has found glyphosate in more than 75 percent of rain and rainwater samples across America’s breadbasket, the Midwest. When farmers spray Roundup on the crops Americans eat, the chemicals not only run off into local rivers and streams, they also evaporate into the air, into clouds. Consequently, even people downwind hundreds of miles from the source can also be contaminated.

Monsanto-spawned Superweeds Choke the Land
Monsanto-spawned superweeds now choke the land in all directions. The weeds have evolved as corporate farm workers have sprayed greater and greater amounts of Roundup on the land. The USGS estimates glyphosate accounted for 54% of total agricultural herbicide use in 2009. More than 80 million acres of U.S. farmland are now covered with the glyphosate-resistant superweeds. Monsanto’s answer to that problem has been to use its sweetheart status with the FDA to win approval for additional “herbicides” like 2.4-D and dicamba. The result will expose us all to even greater toxic combinations of pesticides in our food and water.

Americans forcefed Glyphosate
Herbicides need quotation marks because this is a word Monsanto and other biotech giants use as a euphemism. Herbicides are supposed to target only plants but not animals or humans, but research into the actual toxic agents going to work on killing plants is also killing the plant materials in us and in animals, birds, and insects. Monsanto is being sued in California for false advertising for claiming that Roundup targets an enzyme found only in plants but not in people or pets. This claim has been shown to be demonstrably false. That very same enzyme in plants is also in us, in the (otherwise) healthy flora of the human gut. Monsanto’s Roundup attacks the healthy flora in the human gut just as it attacks plants. The result is an unhealthy gut, as rat studies have shown, and as Monsanto’s 20-year experiment on people has now shown.

Roundup Cancer Lawsuits
Some lawyers are fighting back against Monsanto’s toxic onslaught on our environment, on ourselves. Roundup Cancer Lawsuits are being filed for agriculture workers and others who have developed leukemia after being exposed to Roundup. People diagnosed with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma (NHL), Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL), and Multiple Mylemoa have been filing lawsuits against Monsanto for their loss of health, and in some cases, life.

RELATED

Share

Monsanto wants to add new poison

Monsanto wantsmonsanto-sign to add new poison to its toxic assault on our food. Monsanto’s Roundup (glyphosate) has spawned superweeds which have grown resistant to Roundup. Monsanto’s answer to this problem it has created has been to lobby the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to give Monsanto permission to put more and different poisons into our food supply.

Glyphosate contaminates Everything

Glyphosate has been found virtually everywhere contaminating our food and water. As Roundup is being sprayed daily on crops and public areas, we are almost constantly breathing, drinking, and eating it. Testing throughout the world proves our constant exposure, whether in California wineGerman beer, or General Mills Granola bars. The U.S. EPA rolled over on Monsanto’s latest request as it usually does for Monsanto, granting the biotech bully license to further pollute and poison the country, its people, pollinating insects, plants, animals (what else you got?).

Environmental Groups move against Monsanto

To slow this endless onslaught, environmental groups have asked the Ninth Circuit court to strike down the U.S. EPA’s approval of Monsanto’s toxic answer to its self-created problem — a new weed killer aimed at killing the Roundup-resistant weeds. On Jan. 23, 2017, the groups told the court that the new Monsanto poison could lead to “superweeds” resistant to both the older and the newer poisonous products.

According to Law 360, the Center for Food Safety, National Family Farm Coalition, Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network North America filed their petition on Jan. 23. It seeks to overturn the FDA’s conditional registration for a new use of dicamba, an herbicide (plant poison) now being sold under the brand name XtendiMax. FDA issued its rubber stamp approval in November 2016. XtendiMax had previously been approved for pre-planting, during planting and as a “pre-emergent.” The latest approval allows it to be sprayed directly on Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant cotton and soybeans.

FDA Violated U.S. Law for Monsanto

The environmental groups’ petition said FDA violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act when it approved XtendiMax. The agency also violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in order to address potential threats to wildlife or critical habitat.

Earthjustice, which represents the environmental groups, said in a Jan. 23 statement that dicamba will only continue the problem of weed resistance started by Monsanto’s Roundup.

Earthjustice Statement

The Earthjustice Statement reads: “The huge increase in dicamba spraying will trigger an outbreak of dicamba resistance in weeds, just as massive use of Roundup on first generation [genetically engineered] crops created an epidemic of weeds immune to glyphosate. (While) Monsanto spins its new dicamba crops as a fix to the current weed resistance problems its own Roundup Ready crop system caused, many scientists, and even the U.S. Department of Agriculture, predict the opposite: the rapid emergence of more superweeds, resistant to both herbicides.”

Monsanto Statement

In a November 2016 statement announcing XtendiMax’ approval, Monsanto said it “is intended to provide farmers with more consistent, flexible control of weeds, especially tough-to-manage and glyphosate resistant weeds, and to help maximize crop yield potential.”

The EPA tepidly addressed the issue of weed resistance in its approval for the pesticide in November. The agency said herbicide resistance has become a “significant issue to growers” and required Monsanto to come up with an Herbicide Resistance Management plan as a condition of the approval.

EPA Statement

In genuflecting to Monsanto as it typically does, the EPA said that if the new product is not working, Monsanto must “investigate the issue.” It is hard to imagine a more toothless, industry friendly stance than this one taken by the  U.S. EPA. You will be hard pressed to find such an agency in all the world as industry friendly as this one entrusted with our food supply. France, for one, has moved to ban glyphosate, acknowledging that Roundup causes liver disease. Roundup has also been found to raise the risk of cancer; it has  triggered Roundup Cancer Lawsuits.

The EPA did, however, throw us all a bone, setting the registration to automatically expire in November 2018, unless EPA determines before then that it’s not causing unintended problems. (What about intended problems, which will only trigger more toxic spraying, as Roundup already has, in order to battle the superweeds it has created, along with the cancer?)

Dicamba increases Farmer Cancers

The environmental groups also said in their statement that dicamba has been linked to increased cancer in farmers, though the EPA said in its November 2016 approval that it has classified the chemical as “not likely” to be carcinogenic in humans. The EPA drew that conclusion following the results of Monsanto’s own laboratory studies on mice and rats. Third party studies have found the opposite is true. The EPA also claims glyphosate is safe, while the World Health Organization classifies it as “probably carcinogenic.”

Center for Food Safety Statement

Center for Food Safety attorney George Kimbrell said in a Jan. 23 statement: “Federal regulators have abandoned the interests of farmers, the environment, and public health,”  “We won’t allow our food to be dragged backward into a pesticide-soaked nightmare — not without a hell of a fight.”

A spokeswoman for Monsanto reached for comment by Law 360 defended XtendiMax in an emailed statement: “[F]armers need new tools for weed control, and the EPA approved XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology for in-crop use after more than seven years of exhaustive scientific review and evaluation. Dicamba-based herbicides have a 40-year history of safe use, and we are confident the government’s exhaustive assessment will prevail.”

Those “40-year history” studies, of course, were virtually all done by employees of Monsanto or by scientists hired by Monsanto. Researchers not working for Monsanto have found kidney and liver damage and tumors in rats, other life-threatening “side effects.” Monsanto has also been sued for false advertising, for a blatant lie which it prints on the Roundup label. It claims glyphosate targets an enzyme found only in plants, but not in people or pets.  The scope of that lie is astonishing, as elementary science  shows that same enzyme Roundup targets also lives in the guts of humans and animals.

Monsanto wants to add new poison

The plaintiffs are represented by George Andreas Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety and Paul Achitoff of Earthjustice.

The EPA is represented by Jon Michael Lipshultz of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The case is National Family Farm Coalition, et al v. USEPA, et al, case number 17-70196 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

RELATED

Share

Roundup causes Liver Disease

Roundup causes Monsantolandliver disease. State-of-the-art molecular profiling analyses has shown that Monsanto’s weedkiller Roundup causes liver damage at doses allowed by regulators.

Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease 
A new peer-reviewed study shows Roundup causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at doses permitted by regulators worldwide. The study is the first to demonstrate a causative link between Roundup consumption at a real-world environmentally relevant dose and a serious disease.

Dr. Michael Antoniou, King’s College London

Led by Dr. Michael Antoniou at King’s College London, the study used cutting-edge profiling methods to describe the molecular composition of female rats’ livers after therats were fed an extremely low dose of Roundup weedkiller for more than two years.  The glyphosate dose from the Roundup given rats was thousands of times below the level permitted by regulators all over the world. Animals in the study suffered from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

Roundup and Liver Disease Causative Link
Dr Antoniou said: “The findings of our study are very worrying as they demonstrate for the first time a causative link between an environmentally relevant level of Roundup consumption over the long-term and a serious disease – namely non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. (Our) results suggest regulators should reconsider the safety evaluation of glyphosate-based herbicides.”

Potentially serious Implications for Humans
The new results demonstrated that long-term consumption of an extremely low dose of Roundup at a daily glyphosate intake of only four (4) nanograms per kilogram of bodyweight per day – 75,000 times below EU and 437,500 below US permitted levels – resulted in NAFLD.

Rat Studies mirror Human Reactions
Regulators worldwide accept that toxicity studies in rats fairly indicate human health risks. This study consequently raises alarms for humans exposed to even tiny doses of glyphosate.

25% U.S. affected by NAFLD
NAFLD already affects 25% of the US population. Risk factors include being overweight or obese, having diabetes, high cholesterol, or high triglycerides (a constituent of body fat) in the blood. Some people, however, develop NAFLD even without any of these known risk factors, which raises the question of whether Roundup exposure is an unrecognized risk factor.

NAFLD Symptoms
Symptoms of NAFLD include fatigue, weakness, weight loss, appetite loss, nausea, abdominal pain, spider-like blood vessels, yellowing of the skin and eyes (jaundice), itching, fluid build-up, swelling of legs and abdomen, mental confusion.

NAFLD can progress to the more serious condition of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which causes liver swelling to the point of damage. Most with NASH are 40 – 60, and it is more common in women than men. NASH is one of the leading causes of cirrhosis in U.S. adults, and some 25% of adults with NASH may have cirrhosis.

Study Background
Rat body tissues used in the Antoniou study were obtained from a previous study led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, France. In Prof. Séralini’s original investigation, rats were for two years given drinking water containing an extremely low, environmentally relevant dose of a commercial Roundup formulation at 0.1ppb (parts per billion)/50ppt (parts per trillion) glyphosate. Daily intake of glyphosate from the Roundup was four (4) nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day, thousands of times less than levels regulators permit.

Analysis of the organs and blood/urine biochemical levels in the original study by Prof Séralini suggested a higher incidence of liver and kidney damage in the animals given Roundup compared to controls given plain drinking water.

Dr Antoniou’s group has conducted distinct followup investigations on the rat body tissues from this ultra-low-dose Roundup treatment group, using in-depth molecular analytical procedures and statistical analytical methods calibrated to fit this type of research.

Atranscriptomics (gene function profile) performed on the livers and kidneys from the female animals strongly supported the observations made at an anatomical (organ) and blood/urine biochemical level in the Séralini study, namely that the Roundup-fed animals’ organs suffered more structural and functional damage than the control animals given plain water.

Roundup-fed animals Transcriptomics results showed increased incidence in:
•   fibrosis (scarring)
•   necrosis (areas of dead tissue)
•   phospholipidosis (disturbed fat metabolism)
•   damage to mitochondria (the centres of respiration in cells)

Transcriptomics analysis can predict organ health or disease status, but does not provide definitive proof of harm. It does not give a direct biochemistry measure of the organ studied. Alterations in gene function resulting from a test do not always result in physical composition changes that could lead to disease.

Now we shall stand by and wait for Monsanto to attack these researchers and their research.  This study is not good news for the toxic chemical king. Roundup has already been found to raise the risk of leukemia and other cancers.

RELATED

Share

Roundup Lymphoma Lawsuit Filed

A Virginia man Rounduphas filed a Monsanto lawsuit in Missouri after developing a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. His lawsuit petition alleges that his cancer was caused by Monsanto’s weedkiller Roundup. The man developed splenic marginal zone lymphoma, which attacks the spleen and bone marrow, after long exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer.

Michael Dowling filed a product liability lawsuit against Monsanto in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in December 2016. Mr. Dowling alleges Monsanto failed to adequately warn about risks associated with exposure to glyphosate and surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), a Roundup ingredient.

Mr. Dowling’s petition states that he began using Roundup in the mid-1980s. He sprayed the weedkiller on a regular and consistent basis for many years before being diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

Splenic Marginal Zone Lymphoma
Splenic marginal zone lymphoma, a type of B-cell lymphoma associated with Roundup exposure, is extremely rare. It accounts for about 1% of all cases of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. If the cancer is limited to the spleen, it can sometimes be successfully sent into remission through spleen excision. Without removing the spleen, it can sometimes be successfully treated through a cancer drug called Rituxan.

WHO declares Glyphosate a Probable Carcinogen
According to his petition, Mr. Dowling was unaware of the link between Roundup and cancer until last year, when the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that glyphosate in Roundup likely causes cancer. The IARC report linked Roundup with an increased risk of non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

Roundup Lawsuits Grow
Mr. Dowling’s case joins a growing list of Roundup lawsuits filed against Monsanto by farmers, landscapers, agricultural workers and others exposed to Roundup throughout the country. Each plaintiff raises similar allegations. All indicate their various forms of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) were caused by Monsanto’s reckless promotion of carcinogenic Roundup. Monsanto’s blitzkreig promotions pushed more and more Roundup saturation without disclosure of the potential health risks. Monsanto is also charged in the petitions with providing insufficient safety instructions to minimize exposure.

Monsanto Response
Monsanto has denied that there is a link between Roundup and lymphona. The company has called the IARC’s findings “junk science,” which is exactly what many critics of Monsanto call the pesticide maker’s own research into the toxic effects of Roundup and Monsanto’s genetically modified organisms and seed programs.

Roundup Lymphoma Lawsuit Filed
Mr. Dowling’s lawsuit states:

“[S]cientific evidence has established a clear association between glyphosate and genotoxicity, inflammation, and an increased risk of many cancers, including, but not limited to, NHL, Multiple Myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma. Despite the IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a class 2A probable carcinogen, Defendant continues to maintain that glyphosate and/or Roundup is safe, noncarcinogenic, non-genotoxic, and falsely warrants to users and the general public that independent experts and regulatory agencies agree that there is no evidence of carcinogenicity or genotoxicity in glyphosate and Roundup.”

Roundup Poisons All
A recent U.S. Geological Survey on glyphosate used nationwide found some 2.6 billion pounds of the herbicide has been sprayed on American land since the mid-1990s, when Monsanto first produced “Roundup Ready” crops. These crops are engineered to survive glyphosate spraying, which is meant to kill only the weeds but not the crops. Of course it also kills pollinators and birds and other bright and necessary creatures, along with human gut microbes which humans require in order to remain healthy. (Though that’s not what this lawsuit is about.)

Monsanto Failed to Warn
Monsanto “failed to warn” is the charge in every Monsanto lawsuit. Roundup lawsuit plaintiffs all allege that they might have avoided being diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or other cancers if they had been warned about Roundup risks for farmers, landscapers and other agricultural industry workers. Had they been properly warned, they could have taken safety precautions or used other products or methods to manage weeds.

Roundup Lawsuits Consolidated in California

Mr. Dowling’s lawsuit will be consolidated with all the other Roundup cases pending in the federal court system. They are now all centralized before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in the Northern District of California, for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. After coordinated proceedings, if parties don’t reach Roundup settlements or some other resolution, each separate complaint may be remanded back to the federal courts where they were originally filed.

RELATED

Share

Washington State sues Monsanto

Washington is suing monsanto-logoMonsanto over PCB contamination in the state. Monsanto is accused of negligent handling of PCBs. Polychlorinated biphenyls are a banned and highly toxic group of chemicals that Monsanto made for decades. The biotech bully from Missouri has been sued by several cities over PCB contamination, but Washington is the first state to pursue litigation.

Related: Monsanto sued for Roundup Cancer 

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced the lawsuit at a press conference December 10, 2016. It was filed in King County Superior Court in Seattle.

Washington seeks damages on several grounds. They include product liability for Monsanto’s Failure to Warn about PCB dangers; Negligence; Trespass for harming the state’s natural resources, including fish and wildlife.

Monsanto was the only manufacturer of the PCB compound that was used to insulate electronics from 1935 until 1977. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally banned PCBs in 1979, because of PCBs’ link to birth defects and cancer in laboratory animals. PCBs are also known to trigger adverse skin and liver effects in humans. The toxic chemical also survives to poison everything it touches for many decades.

PCBs contaminate Washington State
“PCBs have been found in bays, rivers, streams, sediment, soil and air throughout Washington state,’ explained AG Bob Ferguson, “with more than 600 suspected or confirmed contamination sites from Puget Sound to the Wenatchee River, Lake Spokane to Commencement Bay.”

Mr. Ferguson said Washington has spent tens of millions of dollars on cleaning up PCB contamination, but the toxic pollutants have nevertheless caused grievous harm to protected salmon and orcas. Washington consequently seeks hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars from Monsanto.

Monsanto hid PCB Dangers – Petition
Similar to others who have sued Monsanto for PCB contamination, Mr. Ferguson further claimed that “Monsanto produced PCBs for decades while hiding what they knew about the toxic chemicals’ harm to human health and the environment.”

Mr. Ferguson said Monsanto’s own documents show the company knew about the dangers of PCBs way back in 1937. One document stated that tests on animals revealed “systemic toxic effects” from prolonged exposure from inhaling PCB fumes or ingesting PCBs.

Monsanto Profits Trump Safety
As the Associated Press reported, in 1969, a Monsanto committee on PCBs declared:

“There is too much customer/market need and selfishly too much Monsanto profit to go out … There is little probability that any action that can be taken will prevent the growing incrimination of specific polychlorinated biphenyls … as nearly global environmental contaminants leading to contamination of human food (particularly fish), the killing of some marine species (shrimp), and the possible extinction of several species of fish eating birds.”

Monsanto lied to New Jersey
Despite sitting on this damning information, Monsanto told the public not to worry. Also in 1969, a Monsanto letter to New Jersey’s Department of Conservation stated: “Based on available data, manufacturing and use experience, we do not believe PCBs to be seriously toxic.”

Cities sue Monsanto
Monsanto also faces similar PCB contamination lawsuits from at least eight other West Coast cities, which include Seattle and Spokane in Washington state; Portland in Oregon; Berkeley, San Diego, San Jose, Oakland, Long Beach in California.

Monsanto spokesman Scott S. Partridge said in a statement to the Associated Press that the “[Washington] case is experimental because it seeks to target a product manufacturer for selling a lawful and useful chemical four to eight decades ago that was applied by the U.S. government, Washington State, local cities, and industries into many products to make them safer.”

Monsanto has usually won in lawsuits filed against it over human illness related to PCBs. But in May 2016, a St. Louis jury awarded $46.5 million in damages to three plaintiffs who claimed PCB exposure caused their non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Washington sues Monsanto

That Washington lawsuit also accuses Monsanto of continuing to sell PCBs even after the company knew the dangers and falsely assured people they were safe.

Related

 

Share

Glyphosate Poisons Cereal

The Nov. 14 release Roundupof ‘Glyphosate: Unsafe On Any Plate’ reveals alarming levels of Monsanto’s glyphosate in popular American foods. The story puts Monsanto shills into full attack mode. The main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup poison, glyphosate was shown to be everywhere, contaminating all kinds of foods. The problem is, Monsanto mainstream presstitute minions have  had to admit the reports were true. Glyphosate  contaminates some of the world’s most popular foods, including many breakfast cereals.

See the Report: Glyphosate: Unsafe on Any Plate

Cheerios, Corn Flakes, Raison Bran Glyyphosated
The testing report published by Food Democracy Now! and The Detox Project revealed alarming levels (5 to 1125 ppb) of glyphosate in General Mills’ Cheerios, Honey Nut Cheerios; Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, Raisin Bran, Frosted Flakes; PepsiCo’s Doritos Cool Ranch, Ritz Crackers; Stacy’s Simply Naked Pita Chips; and many other popular food products. All were found to have glyphosate levels that present significant risks, according to the latest independent peer-reviewed science on glyphosate, the main active ingredient in Monsanto’s toxic Roundup.

Related: Roundup more Toxic than Glyphosate

Criticism of Testing Methods Fails
The publishing of ‘Glyphosate: Unsafe On Any Plate’ was attacked by some of Monsanto’s main supporters, whose financial ties to Monsanto need to be properly parsed, either personally or through “grants” or other payments made to the universities that employ them. Dr. Kevin Folta (University of Florida) and Dr. Michelle McGuire (Washington State University) are two such individuals.

Doctors Folta and McGuire fired Monsanto salvos at the report on November 14, via  Twitter. They both criticized the testing methods used, even before they understood what those were. However, after holding an e-mail conversation with the FDA-registered Anresco Laboratories, Dr. Folta withdrew his criticism, which he had already fed to several pro GMO journalists across the U.S.

On November 24, according to SustainablePulse.com, Dr. Folta stated: “I was contacted by the laboratory that did the analysis for them and I am comfortable that they did the detection 100% correctly.  No question.”

Glyphosate Poisons Cereal

The statement of Anresco Laboratories’ expert statement regarding their new era of glyphosate testing can be found here:  Anresco Lab Statement

Misinformation regarding  safety of glyphosate

After failing in their first line of attack, Monsanto propagandists moved on to other possible ways to discredit the report.

They first tried the old  ‘dose makes the poison’ argument.  This fallacy has always been used by logically lazy and/or desperate industry-funded scientists. Dr. Folta is one of those industry scientists who still ‘believe’ low doses of chemicals are not dangerous despite mainstream scientific evidence that proves many chemicals can wreak havoc on hormones at extremely low levels (e.g. 0.1 to 3000 ppb).

Chemical industry funded science still suggests that dose and danger levels coincide; however modern independent science has discovered many toxic chemicals have as much or more of an influence on our health at low doses, especially when they are mixed, as is the chemical cocktail of Roundup.

A study from March 2015 noted the health costs to the European Union of hormone hacking chemicals is over $ 150 Billion yearly.  The study stated that lower IQ, adult obesity, and 5% or more of autism cases are linked with exposure to endocrine disruptors.

Glyphosate a Hormone Hacker

Glyphosate is likely to be one of these hormone hacking chemicals according to independent science. See the evidence here.

Peer Review Criticism Absurd

Dr. Folta and colleagues have now taken to stating that they cannot trust the results because they are not peer-reviewed, even though they are all clearly aware of the difference between University studies and commercial laboratory reports.

This is an absurd attack. Minus any peer reviews whatsoever, millions of food samples in the U.S. are tested yearly and reported by FDA-registered labs, such as Anresco Laboratories, which has more than 70 years of testing experience.

Monsanto and its global poisoning business will be defended just as long as junk science researchers are rewarded by Ag-business giants like Monsanto.

Related

 

Share

Roundup more Toxic than Glyphosate

Roundup is much Roundupmore toxic than glyphosate alone. Most studies of Roundup have focused solely on glyphosate, ignoring its so-called “inert” ingredients. Nothing in our world is inert. When glyhosate is mixed with the other ingredients in Roundup, which it always is before being sprayed on food crops – like corn, soy,  beets – then it becomes carcinogenic.

Related: Roundup Cancer Lawsuit

Roundup not tested
Glyphosate herbicide formulations with Roundup have never been tested for long-term safety. The only industry testing prior to regulatory authorizations for glyphosate were carried out with glyphosate alone. The glaring problem is that commercial glyphosate herbicide formulations (as sold and used) contain many other chemicals, or adjuvants. Not only are these adjuvants toxic in themselves; their toxicity increases with glyphosate, up to 1,000 times.

Toxic Adjuvants not inert
These toxic adjuvants partly increase the toxicity of glyphosate by enabling it to penetrate plant and animal cells more easily. These adjuvants are widely found in the environment, so people and animals are likely to be affected by them. The half-life of the Roundup adjuvant POEA is (21–42 days), for one example, longer than the life of glyphosate alone, which can be 7–14 days.

Examining glyphosateimages toxicity in itself is patently absurd. In real life, humans and animals are never exposed solely to glyphosate; we are exposed to the complete formulations. Sadly, and criminally, Roundup and other glyphosate formulations have never been tested for long-term safety.

Fundamental Regulatory Flaw
Testing so-called active ingredients separately instead of in the witches brew formulations to which we are all exposed is a fundamental regulatory flaw. It’s also a flaw that applies to all regulatory authorizations of pesticides worldwide. The presumed active ingredients are the only ingredients tested and assessed for safety, before they are mixed into the complicated formulations that are released on us all.

Formulations up to 1,000 times more toxic
In one in vitro study, eight out of nine major pesticides tested in their complete formulations – including Roundup – were up to 1000 times more toxic to human cells than their isolated active ingredients or adjuvants. This increased toxicity of the complete formulation compared with the active ingredient alone was found to be a general principle of pesticide toxicology.

Roundup more Toxic than Glyphosate
This principle farming before and after monsanto any questionshas been confirmed by experiments in mammals. An in vivo study in pigs showed the adjuvant POEA and commercial glyphosate herbicide formulations were toxic and lethal to the pigs, whereas glyphosate alone had no such effects. An in vivo study in rats showed POEA and Roundup formulations containing POEA were more toxic than glyphosate by itself.

Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini also found that other, supposedly “inert,” ingredients associated with Roundup are even more dangerous than its primary toxin, glyphosate. Séralini and others have shown that Roundup is much more toxic than glyphosate alone. Any true assessment of glyphosate toxicity must be considered with its so-called inert ingredients which mix in the real world.

WHO declares Glyphosate probably carcinogenic

In 2015, the World Health Organization finally declared glyphosate a “probable carcinogen.” The state of California also labeled Roundup a probable carcinogen. Monsanto promptly sued the state because it could. If something Monsanto makes causes cancer, it simply hires lawyers so that it can continue spraying Roundup on the public and its food crops. Hence, many know the company as Monsatan.

Adjuvants hidden from Public Scrutiny

Regulators evaluate the safety of a pesticide or herbicide mainly by looking at the active ingredient – such as glyphosate – while commercial versions of pesticides contain other adjuvants which Monsanto and other companies may keep confidential, with the help of corporate-friendly judges.

Companies say that they add ingredients to pesticides other than the active ingredient in order to make the product easier to spray, easier to stick to plants, easier to store longer, easier to stick if it rains. These “additives” (as if they aren’t really there at all) can make up as much as 95 percent of a given pesticide. Based on this study, how much longer will Monsanto get away with keeping the whole Roundup formulation untested. This study shows ‘adjuvants’ are part and parcel of the whole poison package, despite the fact that companies are not required to list inert ingredients on most pesticide labels.

EPA Regulations Woefully Inadequate
EPA regulations regarding glyphosate and other poisons are obviously woefully inadequate. The EPA requires that only the active ingredient be studied for medium- and long-term toxicity. This must change. We deserve better from our government agencies, and the politicians who work for and with Monsanto to poison us all.

Related

Share