WebMD shills for Monsanto & Big Pharma

WebMD shills for Monsanto, Big Pharma, and other corporate giants.  Natural News has revealed how WebMD has never seen a Monsanto product or a Big Pharma drug or vaccination that it didn’t like.  It promotes them all, without question or critical comment.  Why?

It’s the Advertising Money, Stupid
WebMD takes most of its advertising money from Big Pharma corporations like Merck, maker of the dubious shingles vaccine, the dangerous MMR vaccine, and other troublesome vaccines that are far from as safe or as effective as advertised by Merck and WebMD.  The company known as WebMD is one that clearly knows which industry giants are paying its bills.  WebMD is, in point of fact, little more than a tireless promoter of not only Big Pharma drugs and ethically-challenged Monsanto, but any and all vaccination, regardless of real science (or lack thereof) or circumstances.

Related:  Five Most Dangerous Vaccines

Passive GMO Promotion
Corporate sponsorships taint WebMD’s recommendations and “passive” promotion techniques. WebMD advertisements are often designed to look more like editorials to disguise their real intent, fooling readers into thinking that the advertising they see is actually news of some sort.

Monsanto WebMD Partnership
Monsanto uses WebMD’s influence to serve its own agenda.  Monsanto produces several sponsored “advertorials” that can easily be mistaken for “real” content rather than marketing propaganda.  Monsanto also uses independent third parties to manipulate GMO content on WebMD’s web site. (Monsanto also colludes with the EPA to play down the dangers of Roundup and promote it.)

Web MD Internet’s Most Visited Health Site
WebMD is, unfortunately for the truth, the internet’s most visited health site.  Public perception is that it’s a trustworthy source of “independent and objective” health information.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  WebMD is a thinly-disguised corporate shill masquerading as a news site.  WebMD uses its influence to shamelessly promote corporate-backed health products and protocols.

WebMD’s Journalistic Subterfuge destroys Credibility
WebMD “Partnerships” destroy any credibility the site may have once had.  Partnerships and sponsorships infect WebMD’s recommendations across the board. “Passive” promotion techniques include advertisements designed to look like editorials.  This is journalistic subterfuge at its worst, and its most sophisticated.

Web MD Rigs Phony Test for Depression
The pharmaceutical drug industry’s capture of WebMD has been clear for a long while and is nearly complete.  In just one egregious example, Dr. Mercola has reported how WebMD’s free online depression test in 2010 was rigged to make any person responding feel like she needed professional help.  The only result a test respondent could receive was that she was at risk for major depression and should discuss her options with a doctor.

That phony “test” was sponsored by Cymbalta maker Eli Lilly.  The test’s intent was obvious – to make a person inquire about antidepressants, and hopefully start taking them, preferably forever.

This advertisement dressed up as a “consumer aid” to make people go from feeling normal to depressed caught the attention of Senator Charles Grassley.  He launched an investigation, but that announcement changed no laws and apparently no perceptions.  WebMD continues to hide advertising business as usual.  Consumer Beware!

Web MD Aids Monsanto
Monsanto is one of the latest multinational corporate giants to use WebMD for its own hidden agenda.  Nearly every WebMD article now includes a Monsanto-sponsored ad that boldly declares: “It’s time for a bigger discussion about food.”  This clever propaganda then links to Monsanto’s corporate take on soil, water, and honey bee-disappearance, with no other contributor’s point of view allowed.

Marketing Strategists Tout “Advertorial Sponsorships”
Marketing strategists say “advertorial sponsorships” are the best way to sell something today.  They are designed to fool consumers, so that they don’t realize they’re being sold something.

Back in the day, before deep-pocketed advertisers called the shots and completely ruled the publishing world, the line between editorial and advertising content was clear.  You knew whether you were reading an advertisement or an editorial.  Today, readers practically need degrees in journalism and science to know what they’re reading, who sponsored it, and why.

A business has to pay for a sponsorship/advertorial just like it would a regular ad.  In some cases, businesses pay significantly more than they would for a regular ad.  But corporations consider the expense of a sponsorship/advertorial ad well worth the cost.

As Dr. Mercola explains: “The venue where your sponsored advertorial is going (in this case, WebMD and its affiliates) has no input on the content – the advertiser has full control over the text of the ‘informative’ ad.  The advertiser can control how the information is presented on the page, as opposed to having to select a regular display ad format.”

The sponsored advertorial can be used in multiple publications.  Companies can reuse a sponsored advertorial as a stand-alone ad in other places.

Native Advertising’ further Blurs the Line Between Ads and Independent Content

Another form of this type of shrouded sales presentation is called “native advertising.” The key difference between a native ad and an advertorial is that a native ad fits more seamlessly into the Website which features it, making it even less noticeable as a sales pitch.

This sneaky ad is designed to make you think you’re reading a regular content article, when in fact it’s all marketing. In the case of WebMD, the advertorial/native ad line is so thin as to be non-existent. Many of WebMD’s disclaimers are barely noticeable, and rendered in a typeset which manipulates readers into skipping them entirely.

Dr. Mercola explains:  “This all amounts to massive collusion on the part of the industries partnering with WebMD to sell THEIR health goals and products without you realizing you’ve been sold something that may or may not be in your best interest at all.”

WebMD pushes Vaccination

When it comes to vaccination, WebMD publishes only those articles which make it seem as if vaccination is a tried and true science without enormous problems, which include lawsuits for dubious vaccines like Merck’s Zostavax.  Vaccination “science” is far from settled, but you wouldn’t know that if you read only WebMD’s narow take on the subject.  The same goes for Monsanto products, and Big Pharma drugs.

WebMD shills for Monsanto & Big Pharma

If you want to find out what is really going on in the world of GMO foods, Big Pharma drugs, and vaccination safety and efficacy, the best thing you could do is avoid WebMD.  You will find little truth there not colored by WebMD’s fealty to its corporate and government sponsors.  Selah!



Monsanto-funded Journalists fail to disclose Industry ties

An EcoWatch story broke the news two years ago of how Monsanto fakes news.  Time and again, Monsanto-funded journalists fail to disclose industry ties.  Journalists whom the company secretly pays write pro-GMO articles, or hit pieces against organic foods.  Those ostensible “journalists” fail to disclose their monetary (and career) conflicts of interest.  Those “journalists” work for Monsanto to produce fake news.

Fake Monsanto News – 27 Examples

In Nov. 2015, EcoWatch uncovered 27 examples of so-called journalists failing to disclose they were paid by Monsanto.

A Columbia Journalism Review story on whether science journalists should accept money from corporate interests triggered the research. The authors wanted to know whether journalists were disclosing their sources’ corporate ties and conflicts of interest. U.S. Right to Know reviewed recent articles to assess how often journalists, columnists and other writers quote academic sources without disclosing that they were funded by the chemical giant Monsanto.

The review found 27 articles quoting (or authored by) university professors after they received Monsanto funding.  Alarmingly, the university professors failed to disclose their funding.  If even university professors – who obviously know better – fail to disclose their funding, how many other Monsanto-funded writers fail to disclose that the biotech bully from Missouri is paying them to promote Monsanto or help shield the company from liability?  Monsanto is now being sued by farmers and others for causing their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, for failing to warn people that Roundup is carcinogenic.

Collapse of Journalistic Standards, Personal Integrity

This is a failure of journalistic standards as well as personal and civic integrity.  Whenever a writer quotes sources about food controversies such as GMOs or organic food, readers have a right to know if Monsanto funded that writer or whether the writer has any conflicts of interest.

Cuttlefish Squirt Ink for Monsanto
These writers are like cuttlefish squirting ink for Monsanto, covering up the truth of the matter in a morass of disinformation, misinformation, or outright propaganda.  Failing to reveal obvious conflicts of interest fools the reading public about the credibility of Monsanto-funded academics, their support of GMOs, their criticisms of organic food.  It also detracts from the credibility of consumer advocates, or anyone else (like this writer, writing because science shows GMOs are neither safe nor nutritious) who wants the world to know the truth about Monsanto’s poison products and business model.

University Professors Shill for Monsanto, hide Secret Funding

EcoWatch found that many top media outlets quoted either University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta or University of Illinois Professor Emeritus Bruce Chassy, while failing to disclose that the “professors” had received funding from Monsanto.  The New York Times published documents that showed Professor Folta received Monsanto funding in August 2014, while Professor Chassy received Monsanto funding in October 2011, if not also prior to that date.

Fake Monsanto News from NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, etc.

Failure to disclose Monsanto funds occurred at well-known news outlets, including the New York Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune. Other Monsanto-funded fake news appeared in science publications, such as Nature, Science Insider and Discover. Other fake Monsanto news came from magazines such as the New Yorker, Wired, The Atlantic. But fake Monsanto news was not and has not been limited to print and internet media. Well known broadcast outlets like ABC and NPR also published fake Monsanto news without revealing they were funded by Monsanto itself.

EcoWatch published this list of news articles quoting (or authored by) Professors Folta and Chassy after they received their Monsanto funding, yet failed to disclose that Monsanto funding.

•  New York Times: “Taking on the Food Industry, One Blog Post at a Time.” By Courtney Rubin, March 13. (Also ran in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune).
•  New York Times: “Foes of Modified Corn Find Support in a Study.” By Andrew Pollack, Sept. 19, 2012.
•  Washington Post: “Kraft Mac & Cheese Just Got Duller. You Can Thank (Or Blame) ‘The Food Babe’.” By Michael E. Miller, April 21. (Also ran in the Chicago Tribune).
•  Washington Post: “Proof He’s the Science Guy: Bill Nye Is Changing His Mind About GMOs.” By Puneet Kollipara, March 3.
•  Nature: “GM-Crop Opponents Expand Probe Into Ties Between Scientists and Industry.” By Keith Kloor, Aug. 6.
•  NPR: “Is The Food Babe A Fearmonger? Scientists Are Speaking Out.” By Maria Godoy, Feb. 10.
•  New Yorker: “The Operator.” By Michael Specter, Feb. 4, 2013.
•  The Atlantic: “The Food Babe: Enemy of Chemicals.” By James Hamblin, Feb. 11.
•  Wired: “Anti-GMO Activist Seeks to Expose Scientists Emails with Big Ag.” By Alan Levinovitz, Feb. 23.
•  ABC News: “Scientists Developing Hypo-Allergenic Apples.” By Gillian Mohney, March 22, 2013.
•  Science Insider: “Agricultural Researchers Rattled by Demands for Documents from Group Opposed to GM Foods.” By Keith Kloor, Feb. 11.
•  Columbia Journalism Review: “Why Scientists Often Hate Records Requests.” By Anna Clark, Feb. 25.
•  Discover: “Open Letter to Bill Nye from a Plant Scientist.” By Keith Kloor, Nov. 10, 2014.
•  Discover: “How to Balance Transparency with Academic Freedom?” By Keith Kloor, Feb. 27.
•  Discover: “Anti-GMO Group Seeks Emails from University Scientists.” By Keith Kloor, Feb. 11.
•  Forbes: “Zombie Retracted Séralini GMO Maize Rat Study Republished To Hostile Scientist Reactions.” By Jon Entine, June 24, 2014.
•  Forbes: “Did The New Yorker Botch Puff Piece On Frog Scientist Tyrone Hayes, Turning Rogue into Beleaguered Hero?” By Jon Entine, March 10, 2014.
•  Forbes: “You Can Put Lipstick On A Pig (Study), But It Still Stinks.” By Bruce M. Chassy and Henry I. Miller, July 17, 2013.
•  Forbes: “Anti-GMO Scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, Activist Jeffrey Smith Withdraw from Food Biotech Debate.” By Jon Entine, May 29, 2013.
•  Forbes: “Malpractice On Dr. Oz: Pop Health Expert Hosts Anti-GM Food Rant; Scientists Push Back.” By Jon Entine, Oct. 19, 2012.
•  Forbes: “Scientists Smell a Rat In Fraudulent Genetic Engineering Study.” By Henry I. Miller and Bruce Chassy, Sept. 25, 2012.
•  Forbes: “The Science of Things That Aren’t So.” By Bruce Chassy and Henry I. Miller, Feb. 22, 2012.
•  Des Moines Register: “Consumers Are Misled About Organic Safety.” By John Block, Oct. 10, 2014.
•  Gainesville Sun: “Genetically Modified Foods Face Hurdles.” By Jeff Schweers, June 29, 2014.
•  Peoria Journal Star: “Hybrid Crops That Used to Offer Resistance to Rootworm No Match for Mother Nature.” By Steve Tarter, June 21, 2014.
•  Gawker: “The ‘Food Babe’ Blogger Is Full of Shit.” By Yvette d’Entremont, April 6.
•  St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “California Labeling Fight May Raise Food Prices for All of Us.” By David Nicklaus, Aug. 19, 2012.

Related:  Writer Henry Miller Outed as Monsanto Puppet, again

Two Compromised Professors, Thousands of “Others”
If university professors are this easy to capture and compromise, how much easier is it for Monsanto to pay “journalists,” bloggers and other hack writers (not on a university salary) to promote GMOs and attack organic foods and those who believe in and support them?

Fake “Independent” Experts
These two compromised professors who failed to disclose their Monsanto funding have received major media attention as “independent” experts on GMOs and organics.  The professor fakers only admitted to receiving their Monsanto funding after they were unmasked by emails uncovered by Freedom of Information Act requests filed by a consumer group – U.S. Right to Know.

Monsanto News Fakers Like Fleas
Now, how many other news fakers are out there with “scientist” and “professor” titles defending Monsanto and attacking organics while hiding their secret Monsanto funding?  Think of them like fleas.  If you can find two, you know you’ve got a thousand you can’t yet see. “Independent” indeed!

Monsanto-funded Journalists Fail to Disclose Industry Ties

In future, one would hope that when “journalists” write about food, they carefully question their sources regarding any conflicts of interest.  Who or what corporation is funding this so-called food “expert”?  What PR or front group is used to fund this “expert” person to hide his ties with Monsanto, the real source of the funding?  This is a shell game played for decades, but the stakes have never been higher. Roundup is very likely killing people, while “professors” and other corporate shills provide desperately-needed cover for what is arguably a criminal enterprise.

Readers beware!



Roundup Carcinogenicity Evidence Clear since 1985

Monsanto’s official position is that no evidence shows Roundup or glyphosate can cause cancer.  The problem for Monsanto is that plenty of evidence shows Roundup, as well as its only identified active ingredient, glyphosate, is carcinogenic.  A Roundup lymphoma lawsuit petition from April 2016 outlined some history of which Monsanto cannot help but be aware.  Roundup carcinogenicity evidence has been clear since at least 1985, if not earlier.

Monsanto Knows Glyphosate Carcinogenic
Monsanto knew of glyphosate’s carcinogenic properties as early as the 1980s.

Related:  Monsanto Lawsuit

Roundup Carcinogenicity Evidence Clear since 1985

March 4, 1985: A group of the EPA’s Toxicology Branch published a memorandum classifying glyphosate as a Category C oncogene. Category C oncogenes are possible human carcinogens with limited evidence of carcinogenicity.

1986: EPA issued a Registration Standard for glyphosate (NTIS PB87-103214). The Registration standard required additional phytotoxicity, environmental fate, toxicology, product chemistry, and residue chemistry studies. All the data required was submitted and reviewed and/or waived.

October 1991: EPA published a Memorandum entitled “Second Peer Review of Glyphosate.” The memorandum changed glyphosate’s classification to Group E (evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans). Two peer review committee members did not concur with the committee’s conclusions. One member refused to sign.

Roundup Toxicity Dwarfs Glyophosate Alone
Besides the toxicity of the active molecule in glypohosate, many studies support the hypothesis that glyphosate formulations found in Monsanto’s Roundup products are more dangerous,more toxic than glyphosate alone.

Since glyphosate is rarely, if ever, used alone, it is irresponsible, at best, for Monsanto to test only glyphosate. It is duplicitous, disingenuous, and quite possibly criminal, at worst, to test only glyphosate alone.

Related:  Roundup Cancer Lawsuit

1991 (or earlier): Evidence had demonstrated glyphosate formulations were significantly more toxic than glyphosate alone.

2002: Julie Marc published a study titled “Pesticide Roundup Provokes Cell Division Dysfunction at the Level of CDK1/Cyclin B Activation.” The Marc study found Monsanto’s
Roundup caused delays in the cell cycles of sea urchins, while the same concentrations of glyphosate alone proved ineffective and did not alter cell cycles.

2004:  Ms. Marc published a study titled “Glyphosate-based pesticides affect cell cycle regulation.” The study demonstrated a molecular link between glyphosate-based products and cell cycle dysregulation. The study noted: “[C]ell-cycle dysregulation is a hallmark of tumor cells and
human cancer. Failure in the cell-cycle checkpoints leads to genomic instability and subsequent
development of cancers from the initial affected cell.” Further, “[s]ince cell cycle disorders such
as cancer result from dysfunction of unique cell, it was of interest to evaluate the threshold dose
of glyphosate affecting cells.”

2005:  Francisco Peixoto published a study showing Roundup’s effects on rat liver mitochondria are much more toxic and harmful than the same concentrations of glyphosate alone.

The Peixoto study suggested the harmful effects of Roundup on mitochondrial bioenergetics could not be exclusively attributed to glyphosate.  They could be the result of other chemicals, namely the surfactant POEA, or alternatively due to the possible synergy between glyphosate and Roundup formulation products.

Roundup Adjuvants NOT INERT
2009:  Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Seralini published a study examining the effects of Roundup and glyphosate on human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells. The study used dilution levels of Roundup and glyphosate far below agricultural recommendations, corresponding with low levels of residues in food. The study concluded that so-called “inert” ingredients, and possibly POEA, change human cell permeability, amplifying toxicity of glyphosate alone. The study further suggested glyphosate toxicity determinations must take adjuvants into account – the chemicals used in the formulation of the complete pesticide. The study confirmed adjuvants in Roundup are not inert; so Roundup is always more toxic than its so-called lone active ingredient, glyphosate.

Monsanto Knew or Should Have Known
The Delaware petition reads: “The results of these studies were confirmed in recently published peer-reviewed studies and were at all times available and/or known to (Monsanto).

“(Monsanto) knew or should have known that Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate alone and that safety studies on Roundup, Roundup’s adjuvants and “inert” ingredients, and/or the surfactant POEA were necessary to protect Plaintiff from Roundup.”

Monsanto Failed to Test Roundup for Safety

The petition further charges that Monsanto “knew or should have known that tests limited to Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate were insufficient to prove the safety of Roundup.”

Monsanto is then charged in the petition with failing to appropriately and adequately test Roundup, Roundup’s adjuvants and “inert” ingredients, and/or the surfactant POEA to protect Plaintiff from Roundup.”



Monsanto sued in Delaware for causing non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Monsanto was sued in the state of Delaware (Roundup Petition) for causing a man’s non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.  The plaintiff is New York resident Kenneth Panthen, who was diagnosed with NHL after using Roundup for several years.

Roundup Lawsuit Petition
The lawsuit petition says Mr. Panthen was injured “as a direct and proximate result of (Monsanto’s) negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup®, containing the active ingredient glyphosate.”

Related:  Roundup non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Lawsuit

Mr. Panthen maintains that “Roundup® and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce.”  He also alleges Roundup lacked proper warnings and directions regarding its dangers.

All Formulations of Roundup

“Roundup,” says the petition, “refers to all formulations of Defendant’s Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Prodry Herbicide, Roundup Promax, Roundup Quik Stik Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Quikpro Herbicide, Roundup Rainfast Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Rainfast Super Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer 1 Plus Weed Preventer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed and Grass Killer 2, Roundup Ultra Dry, Roundup Ultra Herbicide, Roundup Ultramax, Roundup VM Herbicide, Roundup Weed & 3Complaint for Damages Grass Killer Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass killer Ready-to-Use Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer1 Ready-to-Use, Roundup WSD Water Soluble Dry Herbicide Deploy Dry Herbicide, or any other formulation of containing the active ingredient glyphosate.”

Injuries were Avoidable
The Monsanto lawsuit petition also states that Mr. Panthen’s injuries, “like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable.”

The petition also explains that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7. U.S.C. § 136 et seq.: “FIFRA requires that all pesticides be registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prior to their distribution, sale. . .”

EPA does not verify Roundup Safety
Part of the EPA registration process requires a chemical maker to perform a variety of tests to evaluate the potential for exposure to pesticides, toxicity to people and other potential so-called “non-target organisms,” and other adverse effects on the environment.  EPA registration, however, is no assurance or finding of safety, says the petition:

“The determination the EPA makes in registering or re-registering a product is not that the product is safe (emphasis ours), but rather that use of the product in accordance with its label directions ‘will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.’” 7 U.S.C. § 136(a)(c)(5)(D).

FIFRA defines “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” to mean “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(bb).  FIFRA thus requires the EPA to make a risk/benefit analysis in determining whether a registration should be granted or allowed to continue to be sold in commerce.

EPA does not Test Monsanto Products
FIFRA generally requires that a registrant like Monsanto conduct health and safety testing of its pesticides.  However, most people are surprised to learn that Monsanto and other pesticide makers perform their own tests; an agency like the EPA simply peruses those tests.  The government does no safety testing of its own.

The petition explains: “The government is not required, nor is it able, to perform the product tests that are required of the manufacturer.”

Just as drug companies attempt to hide behind “FDA approval,” despite the fact that FDA does no drug testing of its own, Monsanto has attempted to hide behind EPA registration as some sort of official government certification of safety.

The other problem with that dubious position is that secret Monsanto emails between Monsanto executives and EPA officials in charge of registering (and, one can only hope, regulating)  Roundup show that EPA employees worked to help Monsanto.  Recently-released documents show that EPA officials helped slow reviews of Roundup/Glyphosate, and helped Monsanto sidestep any meaningful regulations.  Several EPA officials have helped engineer public perception for the benefit of Monsanto.

Glyphosate a Probable Carcinogen
Monsanto became gravely concerned with public perception and legal problems after the World Health Organization declared in 2015 that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen.  Many of the legal cases regarding glyphosate in Roundup are based on that World Health Organization’s declaration.  But the WHO is far from the only organization to find deeply troubling problems with glyphosate.



Kill weeds without Monsanto’s Roundup

Monsanto’s Roundup is controversial, to say the least.  Dozens of studies not sponsored by Monsanto have found reasons why people would be wise to use something besides Roundup (glyphosate) to kill weeds.

Seralini Study threatens Monsanto

Cancerous tumors grew in rats after four weeks of glyphosate exposure.  In a similar experiment sponsored by Monsanto, industry scientists conveniently stopped following the development of glyphosate-exposed rats after three weeks. That’s just one example of how Monsanto manipulates science to give glyphosate the appearance of being safe.  In another, Monsanto secretly put its own man into an editor’s position to have Seralini’s famous rat study retracted.  An international outcry from outraged scientists, however, got the study re-published in another peer-reviewed scientific journal, one with an editor not tied to Monsanto.

Ten More Reasons not to support Monsanto

•  A high-ranking U.S. EPA official has been caught red-handed exchanging emails with Monsanto executives to help silence growing consumer fears over a glyphosate-cancer link.

•  Glyphosate has been declared a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization.

•  California has added glyphosate to its list of chemicals likely to cause cancer.

•  New revelations occur almost daily of Monsanto’s cozy relationship with US “regulators” as well as politicians.

•  France has banned glyphosate.  Norway has announced Monsanto GMOs lack safety evidence.

•  Studies have shown Roundup attacks kidney and liver function.

•  Monsanto has used its deep pockets and far-reaching legal and political connections to sue at least 140 independent farmers.  With more lawyers than R&D people on its payroll, Monsanto rarely loses a legal fight.

•  Monsanto has used its cozy connections in the U.S. government to force its products and nasty farming methods on the survivors of murdered and tortured people in Iraq and elsewhere. Monsanto and the U.S. government “help” destroyed countries (Disaster Capitalism at its finest) that never wanted our “help” in the first place.

•  Glypohosate and other pesticide herbicides (same thing) have been shown now beyond doubt to contribute significantly to the massive bee die-offs that threaten all of civilization as we know it.

•  Monsanto is being sued by at least 100 people who were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and other types of cancer following years of Roundup exposure.

Practical Reasons not to Support Monsanto
These and many other reasons should give a thinking person pause for buying Monsanto’s poison products.  There are also simple, practical reasons why purchasing Roundup makes little sense.

Besides being a probable carcinogen, Roundup is expensive. It has also been found to be an odd-duck chemical. The old adage that the dose makes the poison fails to hold for the killer chemical combo that is Roundup.  Some studies have shown that glyphosate (in Roundup) is even more dangerous at lower (chronic) levels than at higher doses.  Monsanto has used that oddity to its advantage, so far.  This counter-intuitive facet of glyphosate either fools unwitting regulators, or it allows former Monsanto employees now working for the US government (like Michael Taylor) a tidy platform on which to promote Roundup as safe, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Kill weeds without Monsanto’s Roundup
The good news is that natural methods work for killing weeds that won’t give one lymphoma or kill one’s pets or pollinating bees.  One can kill weeds with kitchen pantry items as cheap as they are non toxic: white vinegar, table salt, dishwashing liquid.

The Ingredients: Vinegar, Salt, Dish Washing Liquid
•  White vinegar: Ordinary distilled white vinegar with 5% acidity works great.  A higher acidity, even up to 20%, will work faster, but results will be the same.

•  Table salt: The cheapest table salt is fine, iodized or un-iodized generic salt, also known as sodium chloride (NaCl).

•  Dishwashing liquid: A few drops.  Brand doesn’t matter.  Soap breaks the surface tension of the vinegar, so it sticks to weeds, forcing them to more readily absorb it.

Weed Killer for Areas to be Replanted
For weeds in areas you want to replant, fill an ordinary garden sprayer with white vinegar and add about one teaspoon liquid dish washing soap. Apply sprayer top and follow the instructions on the sprayer to get it ready.  It’s that simple.  Pick a hot, dry day to spray weeds to saturation. They will wilt and shrivel up within hours, so be careful to not spray anything you want to survive.  Don’t worry about the vinegar killing anything below the soil.  Vinegar will not harm the soil. You can safely replant the area once the weeds have died.

Weed Killer for Areas Never to Grow Again
The Romans pounded salt blocks into the land of their enemies to make their fields barren, so this method is as old as the Bible.  Beware how you apply it.

To kill all vegetation in walkways, driveways and other areas where you don’t want any living thing to grow again, mix two cups of ordinary table salt with one gallon of white vinegar.  Use a container larger than one gallon to leave room for the salt.  Apply the lid and shake it to dissolve the salt.  Salt dissolves more quickly in vinegar than in water, but it still takes time.  It’s okay if the salt doesn’t completely dissolve.  Add one teaspoon of liquid dish washing soap. Pour it all into an ordinary garden sprayer.  Apply the concoction to weeds or grass on a dry, sunny day.

The salt will eventually penetrate and leach into the soil, killing weeds forever (unlike Roundup, which has spawned superweeds). It may take several applications, but eventually salt will “sterilize” the soil, so that nothing will grow there.

And please remember to plan well before you decide to kill any plot of ground forever.



Roundup, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Linked – Studies

While Monsanto continues to claim (publicly) that Roundup is not carcinogenic, several studies have shown Roundup exposure raises one’s risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Recently released Monsanto documents also show Monsanto executives were told by their own lead scientist that no studies have proved Roundup safe.

Roundup, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Linked – Studies

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma cases have increased significantly in the last 30 years, according to a scientific review published in 2014.  The study suggests chemical pesticides and herbicides – especially glyphosate from Roundup – are a major contributing factor to that increase.

The 2014 Roundup cancer study is titled, “Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Occupational Exposure to Agricultural Pesticide Chemical Groups and Active Ingredients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.”  It was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. The paper focused on reviews and meta-analyses of nearly 30 years worth of epidemiological research on pesticides. It examined the link between non-Hodgkin lymphoma and occupational exposure to 80 active pesticide ingredients and 21 chemical groups. The study notes pesticides are often grouped according to the type of pests that they control. It noted the difference between fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides – respectively used to kill fungi; insects; weeds and plants.

Glyphosate Doubles Lymphoma Risk
Authors of the 2014 glyphosate cancer study tried to reconcile a trend among farm workers with low mortality but high cancer rates.  Researchers believe Roundup exposure best explains this (apparent) contradiction.  The Roundup cancer study found glyphosate exposure doubled one’s risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Glyphosate, B-Cell Lymphoma Link
Besides showing occupational pesticide exposure in agriculture as a risk factor for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the study also found glyphosate exposure linked to a common non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtype, B-cell lymphoma.

More Studies Show Roundup Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma Link
Several older Roundup cancer studies also researched occupational glyphosate exposure in Sweden, the U.S. and Canada. They also found increased incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, even after adjustments which considered other pesticides.

  • In 2008, the International Journal of Cancer published a Swedish study which found glyphosate exposure doubled one’s risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma within 10 years.
  • In 2003, Occupational and Environmental Medicine published a U.S. study that examined thousands of Midwestern farm workers. The workers had increased incidences of non-Hodgkin lymphoma which the study authors linked with glyphosate exposure.
  • In 2001, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention published Canadian research that found a dose response relationship between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Farming Communities Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
Leukemia and Lymphoma Society reported a higher incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in farming communities.  Several studies (including those above) have suggested certain herbicide and pesticide ingredients are linked to lymphoma.  The true number of lymphoma cases caused by these herbicide and pesticide exposures is not yet known.  Consequently, there is an urgent need for more glyphosate exposure research.

Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Victims File Roundup Cancer Lawsuits
Several farmers and others working in agriculture have filed lawsuits against Monsanto, the maker of Roundup.  The plaintiffs allege their non-Hodgkin lymphoma was caused by Roundup (glyphosate) exposure.

Roundup Cancer Lawsuits Filed

March 2016 – The family of California farmer Jack McCall filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Monsanto.  Their petition alleges Roundup exposure caused Mr. McCall’s cancer.  He was diagnosed with a rare form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup for nearly 30 years. According to the lawsuit petition, Mr. McCall used Roundup liberally on his 20-acre fruit and vegetable farm in Cambria.  He died in December of 2015 after suffering a massive stroke due to complications from cancer.

February 2016 – James and Brenda Huerta filed a Roundup cancer lawsuit in California against Monsanto. The couple claim glyphosate exposure caused Brenda to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The Roundup cancer lawsuit claims both were exposed to Roundup while living on a sod farm sprayed with glyphosate from 2004 to 2008.

November 2015 – Christine Sheppard worked on a coffee farm she owned in Hawaii from 1995 to 2004. For roughly eight years, Ms. Sheppard sprayed Monsanto’s Roundup (glyphosate)] to kill weeds. She alleges her Roundup exposure caused her non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Her Roundup lawsuit petition claims Monsanto failed to warn the public and her about the dangers of glyphosate.

October 2015 – Joselin Barrera and Elias de la Garza of Texas filed Roundup cancer lawsuits. Their petition claims their non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnoses are related to glyphosate exposure. Joselin Barrera is the child of farm workers. Elias de la Garza is a former farm worker and landscaper.

Monsanto’s Own Documents show Roundup not proven safe

Monsanto continues to claim publicly that Roundup (glyphosate) is not a carcinogen, despite the pronouncement of the World Health Organization in 2015 that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen.”  Behind company doors, however, recently released Monsanto emails and documents  show the company never performed adequate studies to settle the safety question.  Lead Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer told Monsanto management wrote in an internal email:  “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen.  (We) have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”

The studies above did the “necessary testing,” as did the WHO.  They have found that Roundup looks more and more like a carcinogen.  Meanwhile, Monsanto looks more and more guilty of, at the very least, failing to properly test its herbicide/pesticide, as new evidence comes to light in the Discovery phase of Roundup Cancer Litigation.



Herbicide, Pesticide: What’s the Difference?

Question:  What’s the difference between an herbicide and a pesticide?

Answer:  The EPA classifies herbicides as pesticides; so for all practical purposes, there is no significant difference between an herbicide and a pesticide.

Euphemism Lies

The word herbicide is a euphemism for pesticide.   A euphemism is a “lesser substitute,” according to Webster’s Dictionary.  A euphemism is used to massage the truth, or make it more palatable.  (The Nazis couldn’t say, “Let’s kill all the Jews,” so they trotted out “The Final Solution” for maximum marketability and subterfuge.)  The truth, the reality of a thing, doesn’t change because one pastes a different name on it.   An herbicide may be designed to target plants (hence, “herb”) and a pesticide may be designed to target “pests,” but they both kill or cause indiscriminate harm.  An herbicide IS a pesticide, a poison hostile to living things.

EPA Glyphosate Promotion
The EPA’s web site reads like an advertisement for glyphosate.  It simply ignores glyphosate’s hugely controversial reality.   EPA says, “Glyphosate is a widely used herbicide that controls broadleaf weeds and grasses.  Glyphosate has been used as a pesticide since the 1970s.  Glyphosate acid and several related glyphosate salt compounds are also registered pesticides.”

The EPA clearly promotes glyphosate, saying, “[P]roducts can be safely used by following label directions.”   It also claims, “glyphosate has low toxicity for humans.”  (At what levels?  Where’s the research not done by Monsanto, which shows all kinds of glyphosate safety problems.)

EPA also claims on its web site: “Glyphosate is no more than slightly toxic to birds and is practically nontoxic to fish, aquatic invertebrates, and honeybees.”  (What, exactly, does “slightly toxic” mean?   Ever see a red winged blackbird in a cornfield anymore?  Twenty years ago one could see dozens or hundreds of such birds in every cornfield all over the country.)

EPA Liars or Illiterates?
It is now established as a well-known fact that pesticides are largely responsible for massive bee die-offs in the last 20 years. So is the EPA lying, or are the people running the agency illiterate?  (Trump is famous for not reading anything, so perhaps his appointees also fail to read relevant material?)  Or is the EPA simply so captured by industry that it doesn’t have time to do anything but promote industry?  In the Trump administration, a longtime hater of the EPA, former Okla. Attorney General Scott Pruitt, is now head of the EPA.  Similarly, a man who wanted to abolish the Dept. of Energy is now the head of that department – former Texas governor (and TV dancer) Rick Perry.  For education, a person who has promoted charter schools to the detriment of public ones for decades, Betsy DeVos, has been appointed Secretary of Education.  Fox have now completely taken over the hen house.

The EPA does tepidly admit on its website that “Glyphosate and the related acid and salt compounds are currently undergoing registration review, a program that re-evaluates all pesticides on a 15-year cycle.”  (Don’t hold our breath for the agency to do the right thing.  Its incestuous ties with Monsanto are well documented. )

Agent Orange “Herbicide” Injured People
American soldiers who served in Vietnam during the U.S. occupation of that country were indiscriminately sprayed with an “herbicide” called Agent Orange. It may not have been designed to harm them, but harm them it did. Many thousands of former soldiers have since received compensation from the U.S. government for nerve damage, painful debilitating rashes, and other health problems caused by Agent Orange.  The targeted Vietnamese were not as lucky. Vietnamese peoples have seen at least three generations of birth defects from the tons of Agent Orange dumped on them, their rice patties and jungles during America’s unconscionable attacks on their lands and ways of life.

Where have all the bees and songbirds gone?
Bees and songbirds have been disappearing at a staggering rate over the last 20 years, directly in proportion to the poisoning of the air, ground, and water by Monsanto and other pesticide profiteers.  Roundup and other herbicide pesticides have been dumped indiscriminately all over the world, winding up in rivers, streams and ocean basins.  (Florida has seen parts of its tourism industry severely damaged by glyphosate’s destruction of coral reefs and oceanfront property.)  Pliant “regulatory” agencies like the EPA and FDA, along with top-level judges and politicians, have been captured or compromised by former Monsanto employees and lawyers (like Monsanto/FDA revolving door puppet Michael Taylor, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and former Monsanto lawyer Hillary Clinton, to name just a few.)

Why are Americans so Fat Today?
Why are Americans now chronically obese compared to past generations? More than half of us weren’t morbidly obese just 25 years ago, which is the case today. Part of the blame for obesity, and the rising healthcare costs it triggers, can be placed squarely on Monsanto’s broad chemically-enhanced shoulders. High fructose corn syrup, courtesy of Monsanto’s GMO corn, helps make Americans fatter. GMO foods also strip (or chelate, which is what glyphosate is designed to do) the flora from a healthy person’s stomach, making foods less bio-available and causing the stomach to falter in its most natural function – to digest food, uptake nutrients from it, and provide needed energy to the brain and body.

Monsanto Crimes Against Humanity
Monsanto has been tried for crimes against humanity in the Hague. The company was found guilty.



Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream Tainted with Glyphosate

Ben and Jerry may need to add “Glyphosate” to their long list of popular flavors.  The probable carcinogen made by Monsanto and sprayed all over the world was recently found to taint ten of 11 samples of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream.

Monsanto apologists immediately said the amounts found were very small, and that it would take thousands of helpings to develop ill health effects.  But like all things regarding Monsanto, the truth is not so simple or clear cut.  Several other recent studies have shown that chronic exposure to Glyphosate at levels far below those sanctioned by the EPA maybe be hazardous to kidney and liver function.  Studies have shown that even tiny amounts of chronic glyphosate exposure can raise one’s risk of liver and kidney problems.  In addition, there is evidence of EPA officials colluding with Monsanto to conceal the very real problems of glyphosate.  So who’s to say what levels of the pesticide are “safe”?

Related:  Roundup Cancer Lawsuit

Organic Consumers Association
Since the FDA doesn’t test for the probable carcinogen glyphosate, private groups have been forced to take action. The Organic Consumers Association tested 11 samples of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. They reported that ten contained traces of glyphosate or a related chemical.

Glyphosate is the main active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup.  Also known as AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid), it can appear in soils poisoned with Roundup.

The OCA called for Ben & Jerry’s to either begin transitioning to organic ingredients or face a national and international consumer boycott. The group also called on stores to drop Ben & Jerry’s unless the company complies.

Poisoned Environment, Pesticided Foods
OCA director Ronnie Cummins blasted dairy farmers and Ben & Jerry’s.  He said company profits “are built on the back of an industrial dairy system that poisons the environment and produces pesticide-contaminated food products.”

An independent lab tested all flavors, the group said.  ‘Cherry Garcia’ was the sole flavor that tested negative for glyphosate.

Ben & Jerry’s prides itself on its environmental and social impacts, so these findings are especially concerning.  Ben & Jerry’s touts “fair trade” policies and support for GMO labeling.  The company has claimed glyphosate traces could be due to “add-ins” such as peanut butter or cookie dough. (But does it matter how the ice cream is tainted?)

Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream Tainted with Glyphosate

A Ben & Jerry’s spokeswoman responded to a request for comment July 26 from The Republican:

“While we have not yet seen the results, we can confirm all Ben & Jerry’s products are safe to consume,” wrote Laura Peterson. “Even if the reported results are accurate, as the laboratory that conducted the test stated, a person would have to consume 145,000 eight-ounce servings PER DAY to reach the limit set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”

Glyphosate Probable Carcinogen

While the World Health Organization in 2015 classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic,” the European Food Safety Authority determined it is unlikely it causes cancer. The Environmental Protection Agency recently determined glyphosate is not carcinogenic, but cozy EPA relations between Monsanto executives and a key EPA researcher have made it clear there is at least the appearance of impropriety if not outright collusion.

Glyphosate also has a checkered past. Back in the 1990s the agency rubber stamped the poison over the objections of two of its senior scientists, who made it clear they did not agree that it had been proven safe.

Glyphosate Probably Carcinogenic
In June 2017, California added glyphosate to a list of chemicals “known to cause cancer.” Monsanto vowed to fight the designation, but a judge determined Monsanto can’t force the state to violate its own laws regarding the designation of cancerous substances.

Science for Sale
Virtually all studies paid for by Monsanto – mostly short-term and cleverly designed to clear Roundup of any health issues – have deemed glyphosate safe. Many studies not financed by Monsanto have found the opposite is true. Gyphosate mixed into the toxic killer Roundup has been shown to cause liver and kidney damage, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Multiple Myeloma, and other life-threatening problems.

Monsanto has, beyond any doubt, paid for science findings sensitive to company profits. Any careful review of the research proves that. Monsanto-connected scientists routinely criticize and attempt to dismiss any science or scientists who find Roundup problems. Monsanto mouthpieces try to tattoo any Monsanto questioners as “activists.  In a straight case of the pot calling the kettle black, Monsanto shills routinely shrill that any person or persons who find Roundup cancerous are politicized and guilty of shoddy “advocacy science.”

Monsanto Shoots the Messenger
That ad hominem fallacy of attacking its critics may fail Monsanto in the courts, however. The undisputed pesticide king is facing several lawsuits from people who claim their non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma was caused by Roundup.

Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream Tainted with Glyphosate

Glyphosate, no matter how you cut it (literally) with several adjuvants to make carcinogenic Roundup, is not as safe or as innocuous as advertised by Monsanto. So you may want to ask Ben & Jerry to hold the glyphosate on your next ice cream order.



Monsanto Sued again for Roundup Labeling

Monsanto is being sued again for its Roundup labeling. The latest lawsuit calls the label “misleading.”  It is the second lawsuit filed against Monsanto for misleading people with its Roundup label. The first was filed in California.

Monsanto “Intentionally Mislabels”
In the latest Monsanto lawsuit petition, two nonprofit groups charge that Monsanto intentionally mislabels Roundup. They call foul on Monsanto’s claim that Roundup “target[s] an enzyme found in plants but not in people or pets.”  The lawsuit charges that Monsanto’s statement is “false, deceptive and misleading.” The enzyme targeted by glyphosate is, in fact, also found in people and pets.

Beyond Pesticides and the Organic Consumers Association filed the lawsuit in Washington, DC, court on July 14, 2017. It was filed under the District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act.

Glyphosate a Probable Carcinogen

The petition states: “Monsanto aggressively markets Roundup as safe for humans and animals, despite newer studies indicating (glyphosate) may be carcinogenic. [It may] affect human and animal cardiovascular, endocrine, nervous and reproductive systems.”

The complaint further says that “consumers must and do rely on Monsanto to report honestly Roundup’s effects on humans and animals and whether the enzyme it targets is found in people and pets. No reasonable consumer seeing these representations would expect that Roundup targets a bacterial enzyme that is found in humans and animals and that affects their immune health.”

Monsanto profits from Falsehood
The plaintiffs claim Monsanto knows its Roundup representations are false, and it profits from the falsehood.

The Shikimate Pathway
The lawsuit complaint further states: “Monsanto is aware of how glyphosate works on the shikimate pathway. (Monsanto) is aware of studies showing that the shikimate pathway is present in bacteria integral to the digestive systems of people and pets. Monsanto therefore knows that glyphosate targets an enzyme present not only in plants, but also in people and pets.

“By deceiving consumers about the nature and effects of Roundup, Monsanto is able to sell a greater volume of Roundup, and to command a higher price for Roundup.”

The consumer groups seek equitable relief on behalf of the general public. They want all profits earned by Monsanto Roundup sales in DC to be deposited into a charitable fund that would be used for raising consumer awareness of Roundup’s health effects.

Glyphosate Makes California Cancer List
Glyphosate was recently added to California’s Proposition 65 list of cancer-causing agents. In another Roundup lawsuit, court documents suggest Monsanto may have ghostwritten research later attributed to academics. This research was used to cover up glyphosate’s cancer risks. The documents further suggest that a senior U.S. EPA official may have worked secretly for Monsanto to quash glyphosate reviews.

Glyphosate Contamination Everywhere
Independent studies have detected glyphosate residues in popular processed foods such as cookies, crackers, popular cold cereals, chips. Another study found trace amounts of glyphosate in cat and dog foods, including Purina, Friskies, Iams, 9 Lives, Kibbles ‘n Bits, Rachael Ray.  Glyphosate has also been found to contaminate California wines, and virtually all vaccines (which are all heavily contaminated already).

Monsanto denies Cancer Link     

Monsanto spokesmodels all adamantly deny that Roundup causes cancer.

Beyond Pesticides
Meanwhile, the executive director of Beyond Pesticides, Jay Feldman, said “Monsanto is falsely telling the public that its product cannot hurt them.”

Organic Consumers Association
Ronnie Cummins, the Organic Consumers Association’s international director, said, “For decades, Monsanto has used false labeling claims to dupe consumers into believing that they can spray Roundup on their yards and in their gardens, without risk to themselves, their children or their pets. It’s time for the courts to step in.”

Monsanto Sued for False Roundup Labeling
The case is Beyond Pesticides et al v Monsanto Co. et al.



Glyphosate Poison’s History

Monsanto’s glyphosate is poison. That’s the first thing to understand about it. It is toxic. It kills. Glyphosate is a pesticide. Monsanto likes to call it an herbicide, a euphemism for a weed killer, and a euphemism for a pesticide. All weed killer herbicides are also classified as pesticides. Roundup, with glyphosate, is a pesticide. There’s a good reason Monsanto is being dragged to court in Roundup Cancer Lawsuits.

EPA: Herbicide is Pesticide

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s definition of a pesticide includes the designation that an herbicide (or weed killer) IS a pesticide. The EPA is the federal agency that regulates (or pretends to regulate) and registers all pesticide products in the U.S. All (US) applicators apply pesticides under regulation of the EPA and their state, territorial, or tribal pesticide regulatory authorities.

EPA defines a pesticide as “any substance or mixture of substances intended for:
•  preventing,
•  destroying,
•  repelling, or
•  mitigating any pest.”

Though often misunderstood to refer only to insecticides, the term pesticide also applies to herbicides (like Roundup), fungicides, and various other substances used to control pests.

Under United States law, a pesticide is also any “substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant (growth) regulator, defoliant, or desiccant.”

Glyphosate Poison’s History
Glyphosate poison’s history begins in 1964. That’s the year glyphosate was originally patented to clean pipes, like Drano, another famous poison you’d be wise not to drink or breathe in. The Stauffer Chemical Company of Westport, Connecticut patented glyphosate to remove unwanted mineral deposits from pipes. Yes, just like Drano removes deposits from pipes, so does glyphosate.

Monsanto’s John E. Franz found that glyphosate also killed plants. Consequently, Monsanto brought glyphosate to market, in 1974, to do some killing. Glyphosate works as a non-selective, water-soluble pesticide with a specific mechanism of action. It directly interrupts plant development, killing plants by metabolically poisoning them. When something is unable to process nutrients for its health, it dies. People also die in this fashion. People die in many ways, but in the main, people die when their bodies can no longer process food for nutritional value needed to boost the immune system and sustain life.

How Glyphosate Kills Living Things

As with the pipe-cleaning patent, glyphosate binds (chelates) vital nutrients such as iron, manganese, zine, and boron in the soil. By binding these nutrients, glyphosate prevents plants from absorbing them.  Likewise, humans, farm animals, pets who consume Roundup Ready crops are also (likely) nutritionally starved. GMO soy plants (glyphosated) have lower levels of essential nutrients compared with non-GMO soy.  Depleted nutrient uptake may also account for GMO soy’s higher susceptibility to disease. An unhealthy plant can’t protect itself as well as a healthy (non genetically modified) one.

Cows Poisoned with Glyphosate
A German Egyptian research team found all cows tested from Danish dairy farms excreted glyphosate in their urine and had low levels of manganese and cobalt. This again could be a direct result of glyphosate’s chelation powers, designed for killing, for stripping away a living thing’s nutrient absorption abilities.

Glyphosate Anti-biotic Resistance
Monsanto was also “awarded” a patent (in 2010) to use glyphosate as a potential antibiotic. Glyphosate has antimicrobial activity by “virtue” of its ability to chelate, to strip living things of their ability to uptake minerals. So, on top of glyphosate’s other “virtues,” it may also be “helping” to unleash superbugs impervious to anti-biotics because of the overuse of antibiotics. Got glyphosate yourself?  You can bet that you do. You would be nearly insane to bet against it. Even if you think you avoid glyphosate as best you can, it’s found in most rain water, it’s found in many popular foods, in California wine (including organic wine), even in most vaccines.

People poisoned with Glyphosate
Virtually every man, woman and child in the U.S. is contaminated with glyphosate. Evidence from independent researchers is showing glyphosate can alter human and animal intestinal flora, leading to a harmful imbalance in the stomach’s microbiome, thus stripping away (chelating) beneficial (and necessary) gut bacteria and increasing more toxic or harmful bacteria, just as it does in the soil.