Judge calls Expert Testimony Against Roundup “Shaky”

A California judge has indicated that lawsuits against Monsanto’s Roundup in his court may be difficult to pursue.  The federal judge dealt a potential death blow to a lawsuit claiming Roundup causes cancer when he concluded last week that the plaintiff’s experts’ testimony against Roundup is “shaky.”  The case, as well as hundreds of others filed in the federal MDL, now stands in danger of not getting to trial.

First Judge to Opine on Roundup Toxicity

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria is the first judge to opine on the toxicity of Roundup, the world’s most popular poison. Roundup has been the center of controversy for more than 30 years, since the U.S. EPA bent its own rules and regulations to allow it on the market. The judge has indicated he may cut several or all of the plaintiff’s key witnesses, which could make the case impossible to pursue in his court. Such a move could also profoundly impact the outcome of more than 300 Monsanto lawsuits in his court. That’s the number of cases in federal courts trying to hold Monsanto liable for failing to warn about Roundup’s cancer risks.

Chhabria heard from about a dozen witnesses including toxicologists, statisticians and an oncologist. He took special interest in two epidemiologists who study how humans contract disease.

Chhabria said on March 14 that he has a “difficult time understanding how an epidemiologist in the face of all the evidence that we saw and heard last week can conclude that glyphosate is in fact causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma in human beings.” The judge called the evidence that glyphosate is currently causing NHL in human beings “pretty sparse.”  The judge was apparently impressed by all the Monsanto-sponsored studies the chemical giant had trotted out earlier to exonerate glyphosate.

The judge also seemed to have fallen for Monsanto’s ploy, which it has gotten away with for decades, through the EPA and other regulatory bodies, to test only glyphosate, instead of the entire concoction of Roundup, which experts estimate to be 1,000 more toxic than glyphosate alone.  Nobody uses glyphosate alone, but Monsanto has been able to make that substance the key to the whole poison puzzle.

Reuters reported that it remains to be seen which witnesses the judge will allow to testify at trial on behalf of more than 700 farmers, landscapers and gardeners. All claim that exposure to glyphosate – through skin contact or inhalation — caused their non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Judge Chhabria appeared to give some credit to Beate Ritz, a public health professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, for having conducted independent analysis.  Still, he called Ms. Ritz’ conclusion that glyphosate causes NHL in humans “dubious.”  He indicated she might be the only witness he allows to testify for the plaintiffs, but even she is at risk of elimination.

Why Not Let a Jury Decide?

Monsanto isn’t completely off the hook, based on what Chhabria said last week.  At this stage he is acting as a corporate gatekeeper to exclude evidence not backed by what he calls scientific rigor, or to at least give the appearance that he is doing so. (Politics frequently prevails in federal court; there’s no way around that fact.)  His position allows him to decide which witnesses are qualified as “experts” who can present their conclusions to a jury. Chhabria said his role is to decide whether the testimony is “in the range of reasonableness,” not whether glyphosate causes cancer.  If you think “reasonableness” is an awfully broad, subjective term, you are exactly right, in your own subjective way.  Why not let a jury decide?

Chhabria also termed the epidemiology for Roundup causing cancer as “loosey-goosey” and called it a “highly subjective field.” (Isn’t that what trials are for?)  But Chhabria may not be able to ride roughshod over all the plaintiffs’ cases.  Some constraints for eliminating witnesses may leave the plaintiffs’ room for Ritz to testify, he conceded.  Maybe Ritz “is operating within the mainstream of the field,” he said.  “Maybe that means it’s up for the jury to decide if they buy her presentation.”

Chhabria’s use of the word “buy” clearly shows his bias against the plaintiff’s case(s).

The judge noted that Ritz was the only plaintiff’s expert not to rely on a 2015 determination that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization.  He said that wasn’t enough to argue exposure to glyphosate is more likely than not the cause of the plaintiffs’ cancer.  (A fair legal assessment)

A lawyer for the group suing Monsanto, said “the weight of the epidemiology, toxicology and mechanistic science strongly supports” the conclusion that Roundup causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma.  “Our experts used valid methodologies to arrive at their conclusions,” he said in a  statement emailed to Reuters.  “Ultimately, we think courts will agree.”

Judge calls Expert Testimony Against Roundup “Shaky”

Judge Chhabria apparently already does not agree, so good luck to plaintiffs in these cases. Our prayers go out to them, and to the truth of Roundup toxicity, that the facts  may all come clear in this litigation.  Let the truth come out!

The case is In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2741, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

Related

Share

Roundup attacks vital gut bacteria

(March 15, 2018) While Monsanto attorneys argue in California federal court this week that those attacking Roundup for causing cancer are using junk science to do so, more science has found that Roundup attacks and destroys vital bacteria in the human gut.

Gut bacteria has gained a lot of attention lately as being crucial for every facet of human health: mental, physical, and spiritual.  (The Holy Bible and other religious tracts are full of stories about Jesus and others fasting in spiritual purification rituals.)  Recent studies have found that poor gut health can lead to heart disease, or to Alzheimer’s, and a host of other tragic maladies. Several studies have found gut health to be indispensable for sound mental functioning. Children with autism are routinely found to have terrible gut health.  One prominent researcher has recently offered evidence to implicate Monsanto’s glyphosate in autism spectrum disorder.

Related:  Glyphosate Unsafe on Any Plate

Gut bacteria, beyond any doubt, profoundly influences immune function, digestion, brain function, virtually every job tasked to the human body and mind.  A trove of recent research has repeatedly shown the power of healthy gut bacteria as well as the dangers of an unhealthy gut.

The good news is we now KNOW the importance of gut health.  The bad news is that our human guts are all under attack by a ubiquitous chemical which has been show to destroy gut microbes. Monsanto’s glyphosate, which was first used to strip metal off of pipes, now strips healthy flora and fauna from our own guts.

Glyphosate Glyphosate Everywhere

Every glyphosate exposure study done has shown that most of us have become contaminated with the toxic chemical, whether we eat GMO foods directly, or whether we adhere strictly to a non-GMO diet and do all we can to steer clear of Monsanto’s most lucrative poison.  At this moment, we cannot escape this toxic soup.  Glyphosate is everywhere in our environment, in the air, water, and in most of our food, if not directly, then through simple drift across neighboring fields.

Roundup Cancer Lawsuits

Glyphosate is already at the center of hundreds of Roundup cancer lawsuits, filed by people stricken with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after they were exposed to Roundup.  A judge overseeing the litigation in California federal court is showing signs of buying Monsanto’s claim that no hard evidence links glyphosate to cancer.  Regardless of any trial outcomes, glyphosate will continue to poison the world for a very long time, killing plants, bees, and people.

Roundup attacks vital gut bacteria

Medical problems linked to an imbalance of gut bacteria include:

•  colorectal cancer

•  diabetes

•  liver disease

•  cardiovascular disease

•  asthma

•  inflammatory bowel disease

•  autism

•  obesity

Glyphosate Gut Damage Regardless of Exposure Levels

The latest study over glyphosate and gut microbes was led by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen.  The study team examined rats’ fecal samples and assessed their gut microbiomes.  Female rats exposed to glyphosate experienced significant changes regardless of their dose. As an added horror, glyphosate also damages the microbial activity of soil, so it’s the poison that keeps on poisoning.

The researchers suggest glyphosate could be linked with the recent spike in gut disease in industrialized nations that genetic reasons alone can’t explain.

Because glyphosate is only one active ingredient in Roundup, experts see a need to repeat the study using a bigger group of animals to compare the effects of glyphosate alone as well as to Roundup.  Other ingredients in Roundup, called adjuvants, could be making any effect much more pronounced.

Sadly, even criminally, in regulatory evaluations of pesticides, only glyphosate alone is tested for long-term safety, which means calculations of safe levels are obviously inaccurate.

Professor Seralini believes the full toxic effects of Roundup on us could easily be 1,000X more awful than glyphosate alone. He believes the glyphosate levels allowed in our food and drinks are at least 1,000X too high.  He said: “The acceptable levels of glyphosate residues in food and drinks should be divided immediately by a factor of at least 1,000 because of these hidden poisons.”

Related

•  Montanto Lawsuit | Lawyer

•  Roundup Cancer Lawsuit

•  Roundup non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Linked

•  Roundup attacks vital gut bacteria

 

Share

Roundup causes Cancer, Experts tell Judge

(March 6 2018) A parade of experts testified to a judge in California this week that Monsanto’s Roundup causes cancer.  The testimony came as part of the first trial in the country against Monsanto over its popular weedkiller Roundup.  U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria heard evidence from several plaintiffs’ experts who said Roundup causes cancer, and then he heard testimony from several Monsanto experts who claimed Roundup is perfectly safe and no evidence suggests otherwise. What conclusion could anyone draw but that “Science” takes on a whole new meaning where Roundup is concerned.

Related:  Monsanto Lawsuit

Before jury selection gets underway in this first scheduled trial, Monsanto seeks to stop the Roundup litigation in its tracks by having the judge dismiss the case on the grounds that no science links Roundup with cancer.  If Judge Chhabria were to rule that no credible evidence shows Roundup causes cancer, or that plaintiffs don’t have the right “experts” to prove up the cases, Monsanto could escape prosecution in some 350 cases in California, and, potentially, in all 3,500 cases filed against the company for Roundup cancer cases nationwide.

The arguments from both sides came in a six-hour hearing before Judge Chhabria, presiding over the federal multidistrict litigation, and California Superior Court Judge Iona Petrou, handling similar claims in state court.  The experts testified that there was statistically significant evidence showing prolonged exposure to glyphosate – Roundup’s primary active ingredient – raises one’s chances of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

A hematopathologist employed at City of Hope National Medical Center testified that several epidemiological studies he examined showed glyphosate could double one’s chance of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Dennis Weisenburger said that between those studies and several animal studies explained two possible ways glyphosate causes cancer. He said he was convinced of a correlation between glyphosate and the disease.

Glyphosate Genotoxic in Living Cells
Mr. Weisenburger said he synthesized all the information and weighed it as a whole.  He said, “There’s good data to conclude exposure to glyphosate increases the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.  (There’s) a body of evidence that’s pretty compelling that glyphosate and its formulations are genotoxic in living cells.”

Monsanto has tried to have the case thrown out on a technicality concerning “expert” testimony. Law360 reported that Monsanto’s motion for summary judgment argues that the Roundup cases should be thrown out because “testimony proposed by six plaintiffs’ experts failed to meet the admissibility requirements for scientific evidence as set by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Daubert standard.”  Monsanto argued that the plaintiffs’ experts used “results-driven methods” to show evidence that links Roundup’s glyphosate with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Testimony: Glyphosate Doubles Cancer Risk

Dr. Beate Ritz testified at length. An occupational and environmental epidemiologist, she reviewed the validity of studies based on sample size, statistical significance and research biases.  She lauded a famous Swedish study which found glyphosate doubles the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and also a Canadian study which found similar results for farmers exposed to Roundup more than two times per year.

A Monsanto attorney on cross examination pointed out that most of the studies Dr. Ritz referred to did not consider other possible pesticide exposures.

Judge Chhabria said, “This continues to be an issue for me.  I still don’t understand how or why it would be a bad idea to adjust for other pesticide exposure.”

AHS Study Deeply Flawed
Dr. Ritz also attacked the Agricultural Health Study, a National Institute of Health analysis begun in 1993 which found no correlation between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in North Carolina and Iowa farmers.  Dr. Ritz acknowledged some merits of the study, but said its glyphosate results were deeply flawed.  She said the AHS first surveyed the farmers in the 1990s, but when NIH returned for an update years later, a third of the original farmers failed to follow up.  She also said that glyphosate use was rare at the beginning of the study, but heavy by the follow-up date.

“The use of glyphosate changed mid-baseline,” she testified.  “I have to downgrade the importance of the AHS study that otherwise, I really love.  I just can’t take it seriously.  All the other effects are drowned out in the noise of exposure misclassification.”

Roundup causes Cancer, Experts tell Judge

The AHS study was obviously on both sides’ minds as potentially pivotal in these cases. Monsanto’s VP of Global Strategy lauded it, telling Law360 after the testimony that AHS was “the largest epidemiological study of glyophosate ever.”

We haven’t heard the last word from the AHS study, or from Monsanto, or plaintiffs who believe their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was caused by Roundup exposure.

Stay tuned. . .

Related

Share

Evidence Monsanto, EPA Colluded to delay Glyphosate Review

New evidence shows Monsanto and EPA colluded to delay a glyphosate review that was potentially damning for Monsanto.  The documents show senior Environmental Protection Agency officials didn’t worry about protecting anyone but Monsanto, and perhaps their own jobs.  Emails show EPA officials genuflecting to the chemical giant in an effort to help Monsanto continue selling Roundup without a hitch while taxpayers awaited a fair safety review after previous studies showed Roundup was a probable human carcinogen.

Related:  Roundup non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Lawsuit

It took a Freedom of Information Act request to uncover the damning documents. The emails reveal Monsanto’s influence over the EPA and show just how far the biotech bully goes to spin science for profit. The communications show EPA officials working closely with Monsanto to delay a toxicology review on glyphosate that was supposed to be conducted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.  The ATSDR is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but the emails show it to be a subsidiary of Monsanto.

Roundup Carcinogenicity Clear since 1985

EPA collusion with Monsanto stretches back to at least 1993, when the agency reversed its 1985 ruling that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen.  See: EPA’s 1985 Roundup Cancer Ruling.  We didn’t then have the benefit of emails to prove the collusion, but now we do.

The latest Monsanto-EPA collusion began in early 2015, when glyphosate was finally red-flagged by the World Health Organization (which is normally a corporate lapdog).  In 2015, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, a “probable human carcinogen.”  That finding made Monsanto executives apoplectic.  Monsanto had poisoned so many people and their lands with Roundup for so many years, what could the company do then but what it did – feign moral outrage?

Roundup and non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Lawsuits
With Roundup lawsuits reigning down on them after the IARC ruling, Monsanto senior officials knew that something had to be done, and fast.  Monsanto needed to discredit the IARC,  or “neutralize” it, as corporations say.  Monsanto needed to make glyphosate appear safe again in the public eye, because appearance, not reality, is the ALL.  Monsanto’s immediate fear was that ATSDR might make a similar ruling about the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.  If ATSDR followed IARC’s lead, it could spell the death knell for Roundup, Monsanto’s best-selling poison.  Monsanto promptly kicked into gear and used its EPA connections to halt the toxicological review.

Evidence Monsanto, EPA Colluded  to delay Glyphosate Review
The emails show how EPA officials worked closely with Monsanto executives, updating the company on their progress to keep the ATSDR’s from completing a toxicological review. The emails detail Monsanto’s M.O.: its naked attempts to squelch or manipulate real scientific reviews of the company’s chemical poisons.  The emails vindicate Monsanto lawsuits.  The emails show how Monsanto tried – successfully, in this case – to cover up glyphosate’s deadly links with cancer.

Roundup Lawsuits
Make no mistake.  Roundup is a prominent pillar in Monsanto’s whole toxic business model.  The genetically modified seeds it sells are called “Roundup Ready.” The Roundup-Ready corn and soy and other genetically-perverted seeds Monsanto patents and sells – as it attempts to monopolize the seed industry – are chemically engineered to resist Roundup’s toxic assault.  Roundup kills everything not genetically modified to withstand it.  Any threat to Roundup – whose only listed active ingredient is glyphosate – is a direct threat to Monsanto’s whole business model.

Related:  Roundup more toxic than glyophosate

Because glyphosate plays such an outsized role in U.S. agriculture and lawn care, and Roundup is Monsanto’s best selling killer, the company could not let the IARC classification that it was a probable carcinogen go unpunished, or unanswered.  Monsanto could not let the IARC ruling  stand.  Because desperate times call for desperate measures, Monsanto employees got sloppy with their normally quieter collusion with EPA.

After the IARC ruling, it was absolutely essential for Monsanto that ATSDR publish a positive safety review to refute the IARC.  Monsanto’s collusion with EPA worked just as Monsanto knew it could – they seamlessly follow the golden rule; whoever has the gold rules.

EPA Stifles Glyphosate Review for Monsanto
In February 2015, the ATSDR promised a toxicology review on glyphosate by October 2015, but Monsanto’s EPA collusion got it halted. No toxicological profile from ATSDR has been published as of February 2017.  We now know why.  Monsanto’s emails to EPA worked just as the company hoped they would.

Jess Rowland, Monsanto’s EPA Insider
Jess Rowland, former deputy division director in the health effects division of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), retired in 2016 with a giant black mark on her career. Emails between her and Monsanto showed Ms. Rowland telling the biotech bully that she hoped to kill the ATSDR review.  And according to the email dump courtesy of FOIA, she was not the only high level EPA official working with Monsanto to stop the toxicology review.

Monsanto EPA Collusion Systemic
At the behest of Monsanto, a collection of (colluding) EPA officials aggressively pressured the ATSDR and HHS for Monsanto. The “officials” claimed a toxicology review on glyphosate would be unnecessarily “duplicative” because the EPA was putting its own review together.  Lo and behold, the EPA’s assessment in 2016 refuted IARC’s scientific proof that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen.  Its evidence was scant, fictional, or non-existent; but so is lots of “evidence” that finds its way into “scientific studies.” That review also failed the public entirely because it focused only on glyphosate – Roundup’s only named active ingredient – which is never applied alone but becomes at least 1,000 more toxic when mixed into a Roundup concoction.

In addition, in sharp contrast with EPA, the IARC looked only at glypohosate studies independent of industry, while EPA takes Monsanto at its word (as it did when it unleashed Roundup on the world) and allows Monsanto-funded studies the same weight as independent ones.

Gov’t Official: ATSDR Study not Duplicative
OPP Director Jack Housenger genuflects to Monsanto repeatedly through the recent FOIA-released email communications.  In his ultimately successful efforts to suppress the ATSDR review, Housenger bowed to Monsanto pressure, wondering “whether this is a good use of government resources.” (Millions and millions of gallons of Roundup have been dumped on us all, but Housenger is worried over OPP expenses in examining the most-used poison of our time ?)  At first, officials with the ATSDR review didn’t bend.  ATSDR division director James Stephens wrote back. He said their review overlaps the EPA’s review “but isn’t totally duplicative…”

Monsanto Muscle at Work
Monsanto’s chief “scientist” William Heydens forcefully convinced EPA officials to bury any ATSDR review.  ATSDR officials said their review was distinguishable and not duplicative, which contradicted the EPA’s opinion. But ATSDR finally agreed with Housenger not to say anything about glyphosate’s carcinogenicity. When our government regulator – OPP Director Housenger – confirmed to Monsanto that the ATSDR was backing off the glyphosate review, Monsanto’s William Heydens snapped, “Distinguishable and not duplicative’? Seriously? And I will believe the not ‘making a call on cancer’ part when I see it. Anyway, at least they know they are being watched, and hopefully that keeps them from doing anything too stupid…”

Indeed, government agencies have kowtowed to corporate bullies like Monsanto for so long that many have learned to look over their shoulders for people like Heydens. If Monsanto complains enough to the right Senators or congressional reps whose campaigns, junkets and pork barrel projects they help fund, could they have not only a review but also a troublesome reviewer removed?  We now see how easily they can remove a review.  How else are we to take Heydens’ thinly-veiled threat?

Heydens sheds light on the fact that our government of wolves is controlled by corporate wolves. Meanwhile, Monsanto continues to poison us all with relative impunity.

Related

 

Share

Monsanto Money drives Newsweek Newspeak Organic Hit Piece

(2/13/2018) We’ve always known Monsanto money drives organic hit pieces and pro-GMO propaganda; but now we have hard evidence that just keeps piling up.  Newsweek was outed as a fake news outlet using Newspeak this month, publishing an organic hit piece authored by a paid Monsanto shill. Stanford academic Henry I. Miller was outed once again as a Monsanto promoter when readers noted his slanted hit piece in Newsweek denigrating organic food and the people who eat it.

Miller had tried a similar trick in Fortune magazine a couple of years ago when he put his name on a Monsanto-promotional piece.  He got away with it for quite a while, until he was outed by savvy readers who connected the dots of his Monsanto ties through his main employer, Stanford University.  In the Fortune magazine propaganda caper, Miller’s email exchanges with Monsanto employees gave the game away.  They showed Miller didn’t even write the bulk of the propaganda in question. Monsanto employees wrote most of the pro-Monsanto piece to which Miller put his name.  Most pointedly, Miller failed to divulge his direct financial conflict of interest.  Fortune eventually removed the piece from its web site, but Newsweek learned nothing from the experience and neither did Miller.

Stanford captured by Industry

Most land grant universities receive 25% or more of their funds from corporations, and Stanford is no exception.  GMO giant Cargill, the country’s largest privately held corporation, has “donated” millions of dollars to Stanford.  Its professors, like Miller, have rarely seen a GMO they didn’t like, nor an organic food that they did.

Newsweek Newspeak Implodes

The fallout at Newsweek was more pronounced than the one at Fortune, which, at least, names itself for what it is – a promotional publication to celebrate business and avaricious corporations in any form.  One might expect more from a publication calling itself “Newsweek.”  Newspeak would be a more accurate name for this propaganda rag.  It has recently been outed time and again as an Orwellian disinformation machine, and it turns out that, like most major media, it has been one for a very long time.

“The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”  – Former CIA Director William Colby

The corporation that owns Newsweek fired its top executive, editor-in-chief, executive editor, and several veteran investigative reporters following an uproar over the organic food attack piece from savvy readers, though the publication was apparently fraught with other difficulties as well, most of which had to do with putting out lots of other fake news (and fake advertising numbers – see below), which upset both its readership and its advertisers.

Newsweek has plenty of credibility problems in addition to its poor copy.  Newsweek is facing allegations of advertising fraud, and the NYPD and the Manhattan District Attorney’s office recently raided Newsweek’s New York City headquarters.

Organics.news writes:
“Monsanto and their paid shills are not going to convince the public to hate on nutrition, sustainable growing methods, and chemical-free foods. The public is sick of being polluted by Roundup and tired of subsidizing the genetic modification of their food. The public has grown weary of Monsanto’s claims, the volatility of pest resistance, and the toxicity of pesticides. The public cannot stand the control that corporate agriculture patents have over farmers, the food insecurities of monoculture, the ecological destruction and the nutrient depletion of soils.”

Stanford, Monsanto Work Together
Stanford and Monsanto have a cozy relationship, just as Monsanto has a cozy relationships with many other land grant universities on which it bestows “donations.”  A Stanford study on organic foods in 2012 was also linked with Monsanto. The company used its deep pockets to pay academics in order to fool Californians into voting against food labeling laws. See it here:
Stanford Organic Study linked to Monsanto, Tobacco Industry

And that’s hardly the only tie between Monsanto and Stanford.  Here’s another:  Stanford author bashing organics who’s tied to Monsanto.

Monsanto Money drives Newsweek Newspeak Organic Hit Piece

Reader, beware!  We live in an age where money increasingly calls the shots, makes things up as it goes along, regardless of consequences to the earth or its people.  One needs more than a grain of salt to read anything concerning Monsanto or organic foods in mainstream publications.

Related

 

Share

Monsanto pays farmers to use troubled poison

Monsanto has announced it will pay farmers to use one of its troubled poisons. (And why not? It’s a tried and true method that has worked for drug sales, illegal and otherwise.  Give the customer a free sample to hook him, then start charging, raising the price with the demand you’ve created.)

Monsanto’s latest version of its dicamba poison has been the subject of several lawsuits from farmers and homeowners. Dicamba has been shown to blow into neighboring farms and fields, damaging or killing plants. Monsanto and some farmers have consequently been sued by farmers or homeowners whose plants or property has been damaged by dicamba.

Farmers tend to get upset when you threaten or kill their livelihood. One Arkansas farmer was murdered over a Monsanto dicamba feud.  Others have developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma from Monsanto Roundup exposure.

Monsanto’s answer to the dicamba drifting problem has been to make it cheaper for farmers to use its beleaguered poison. It is offering cash to farmers who will use it. The ploy is clearly part of Monsanto’s continuing strategy to own everything that grows. If Monsanto can make everyone use its poison products, there will be nothing left to grow except patented Monsanto-poisoned seeds sprayed with Monsanto poisons. If you don’t think full spectrum market domination is not the company’s goal, you don’t know Monsanto.

Monsanto Lesson for India
American farmers lured into using dicamba by the promise of being paid to use it may want to consider the lesson of Indian farmers lured into the promise of easier farming and bigger yields.

Monsanto Farmer Suicides
In third-world countries such as India, Monsanto lured thousands of farmers into using its Roundup and GMO seeds by initially making them cheaper to purchase and use.  Then it lowered the boom, jacking up prices to where farmers couldn’t turn a profit.  Monsanto’s engineered crops also spectacularly failed in India.  So miserable did so many of the farmers become in their awful farming arrangement with Monsanto that thousands of them committed suicide.  Death became preferable to doing business with the biotech bully from Missouri.

In America today, Reuters reports – without the India farmers’ perspective – that “Monsanto Co will give cash back to U.S. farmers who buy a weed killer that has been linked to widespread crop damage, offering an incentive to apply its product even as regulators in several U.S. states weigh restrictions on its use.”

Monsanto wants farmers to use XtendiMax with VaporGrip, a poison (herbicide) based on the chemical known as dicamba. Reuters reportrs that Monsanto could refund farmers over half the sticker price of the poison in 2018 if they spray it on Monsanto’s GMO soybeans altered to resist it.

Monsanto is using its “generous offer” in an attempt to override the fact that the U.S. faced an agricultural crisis in 2017 which was caused by new formulations of Monsantio’s dicamba-based poisons.  Both farmers and weed experts say dicamba spraying harmed crops because it evaporated and drifted onto neighboring plants, gardens, trees, and other green growing areas that were not genetically altered to withstand the poison.

Monsanto claims XtendiMax is safe when properly applied.  Monsanto is banking on dicamba and soybean seeds engineered to resist it, called Xtend, to dominate soybean production in the U.S.

Meanwhile, if Monsanto’s latest dicamba product doesn’t kill non GMO plants, BASF SE and DowDuPont also sell versions of dicamba-based herbicides that can.

Monsanto competes against other chemical farming monsters such as Bayer AG (which is now trying to buy Monsanto) to sell farmers genetically perverted soybean seeds and chemicals.  Bayer is selling its LibertyLink soybean brand, a main rival to Xtend, to BASF as part of a deal to acquire Monsanto for $63.5 billion.  (Yes, Virginia, there’s good money in poisoning the land and monopolizing the seed industry.)

States prohibit Monsanto Poison
North Dakota in December 2017 said that it planned to ban dicamba herbicides after June 30, 2018, and when temperatures top 85 degrees Fahrenheit. The state think those restrictions may prevent dicamba from drifting beyond where it is sprayed.

Missouri may finalize restrictions on XtendiMax soon, after banning sprayings of BASF’s dicamba herbicide, called Engenia, in ten counties after June 1, 2018, and statewide after July 15, 2018.

Arkansas wants to stop dicamba sprayings after April 15, 2018.

Minnesota is also considering dicamba restrictions.

The farming states are taking action after the U.S. EPA (normally a rubber stamp agency for Monsanto) mandated special training for dicamba users for 2018. They will require that farmers keep records proving they were complying with label instructions.  (As if farmers don’t already have enough to do.)

Monsanto pays farmers to use troubled poison

Will Monsanto be able to lure in more customers with cheaper poison?  The company sure thinks so. Reuters reports Monsanto predicts it will double Xtend soybean plantings to about 40 milion acres next year, despite the millions of dollars in crop damage dicamba unleashed in 2017.

Related

•  Dicamba Pesticide Lawsuit

•  Monsanto Lawsuit

•  Roundup Cancer Lawsuit

•  Monsanto pays farmers to use troubled poison

Share

Monsanto sues Arkansas for Dicamba Ban

Monsanto sued Arkansas agricultural officials in October 2017 for a proposed ban on dicamba, which has damaged millions of acres of crops.  Arkansas proposed a summer ban on Monsanto’s dicamba weed killer, which has been linked to widespread crop damage in the state as well as beyond its borders.

Arkansas faces a tough task in taking on the chemical giant from neighboring Missouri. Loaded with lawyers, Monsanto has used its legal army (which includes former Monsanto lawyer Clarence Thomas as well as employees of the EPA) to sue more than 100 American farmers, and it has never lost against them.  Though this case is admittedly somewhat different.

Related: Arkansas Farmer Murdered in Monsanto Poison Feud

The Monsanto lawsuit is attempting to block the Arkansas State Plant Board from prohibiting the use of Monsanto’s dicamba herbicides. Arkansas wants them banned during summer.  The poisons are meant to be sprayed on GMO soybeans and cotton.  Monsanto genetically modifies staple money plants like soy, cotton, and corn; so that they become resistant to Monsanto-patented poisons like Roundup and dicamba.  But dicamba has caused some serious problems for neighboring farmers and residents.

Farmers across America’s farm belt said in summer 2017 that dicamba drifted onto areas beyond where it was sprayed, damaging millions of acres of crops that were not genetically engineered to absorb and tolerate the herbicides.  Poison experts say dicamba is likely to vaporize in high temperatures in a process known as volatility.

Monsanto blames Farmers
Companies like Monsanto selling the herbicide/pesticide poisons have blamed the crop damage on farmers they say are misusing dicamba.  Farmers, in turn, have responded by saying the dicamba directions are nearly impossible to follow.  Farmers suffering possible damages from lawsuits against them for dicamba drift have also said Monsanto sold them the seeds meant to be sprayed with dicamba, but failed to sell them the latest formulation of dicamba.  In some cases, Monsanto sold them seeds before the dicamba formulation meant to go with them had not yet been approved by the U.S. EPA.

To prevent damage, the Arkansas plant board proposed at a September 2017 meeting to limit or stop dicamba spraying.  That put Arkansas one step away from banning dicamba sprayings after April 15, 2018.

Monsanto wants its own studies made evidence
Monsanto argued in its latest lawsuit that the Arkansas board did not review 14 studies on volatility Monsanto submitted at the meeting. Monsanto’s own studies virtually always exonerate Monsanto products, despite what independent studies find.  But Monsanto did not mention that fact in its lawsuit.  Most likely the Arkansas board was not interested in studies performed by a company with vested interests in the outcomes.  It was looking at what was happening on the ground, at millions of acres of crop damage seen firsthand and reported by experienced farmers.

Monsanto’s lawsuit said that the Arkansas board’s action hurt Monsanto and its dicamba herbicide brand through the loss of direct sales and indirect business through distribution and licensing agreements.  Scott Partridge, vice president of global strategy for Monsanto, claimed, “The plant board’s action disadvantages Arkansas farmers.”

Director of Arkansas’ plant board, Terry Walker, said in October that he had not seen Monsanto’s lawsuit, and he declined to comment.

Arkansas previously forbid farmers from using Monsanto’s dicamba herbicide, called XtendiMax with VaporGrip, in 2017.  Arkansas did allow sales of a version made by Monsanto’s rival BASF SE.

The U.S. EPA approved use of the herbicide poisons on crops that had emerged from the ground only through next year.  It could stop sprayings after 2018 if farmers suffer another year of damage.

Monsanto sues Arkansas for Dicamba Ban
The case is Monsanto Co v Arkansas State Plant Board et al, Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, No. CV-17-5964.

Related

Arkansas Farmer Murdered in Monsanto Feud

•  Monsanto Lawsuit

•  Roundup Cancer Lawsuit

•  Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear

•  Monsanto sues Arkansas for Dicamba Ban

 

Share

Dicamba Pesticide Damages Crops

Monsanto is being sued by several farmers and homeowners who claim dicamba drifted onto their property and harmed their crops, trees, and gardens. Iowa State University has reported that more than 106 dicamba-related complaints from Iowa farmers or homeowners have been filed in 2016. That is a record number of reported pesticide problems.  In past years, university officials said they never received more than 200 complaints regarding all pesticides in the state.

Dicamba harms or kills green leafy plants that are not genetically modified to withstand it. Farmers who plant dicamba-resistant soy or corn spray dicamba to kill weeds.  But when that poison drifts onto neighboring properties, it kills or harms non GMO plants or even GMO plants which are not engineered to be dicamba resistant. (If you suspect at this point that the entire model of pesticide-based chemical farming may have a major problem growing – pun intended – you may be right. Runaway chemical farming methods are demonstrably killing land, animals, and people.)

Dicamba Controversy Grows (pun intended)
Monsanto’s rollout of its latest version of Dicamba is the largest in the company’s history, so the chemical giant from Missouri is fighting hard to defend its popular poison.  Meanwhile, more and more farmers are joining the fight to ban or limit its use. Nationally, according to a University of Missouri report, 2,242 farmers say dicamba has damaged an estimated 3.1 million acres.

Iowa agriculture leaders are investigating a record 258 crop damage reports from pesticides this year. About 100 complaints on 150,000 acres are tied to dicamba.

Monsanto and other chemical giants like DuPont and BASF have developed seeds that are genetically modified (GMOs). The GMO seeds can then be sprayed with a weed-killing pesticide (or herbicide) that takes out weeds but leaves the crop unharmed (though nutritionally compromised and full of GMO toxins).

Dicamba Drift
Dicamba critics say the new dicamba products don’t stay where they’re sprayed.  They move onto neighboring fields, where they can damage non-resistant crops, fruits, vegetables, trees, flowers.

Volatility vs. Applicator Error
Monsanto claims dicamba problems come mostly from farm application errors.

“We did 1,200-some odd tests in connection with registration of our product with EPA,” said Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy. “They confirmed to us what the label says — if it’s followed … there will be no off-target movement of dicamba by wind or volatization.”

This defense is similar to the one Monsanto is using in Roundup cancer lawsuits. Monsanto claims it tested Roundup hundreds or even thousands of times, while critics say those tests were all done with Monsanto money, or at the behest of Monsanto; so the results cannot be trusted.

More than a few university weed scientists disagree with Monsanto’s user error defense of dicamba.

“The big debate is whether or not [dicamba] is volatilizing,” or turning from liquid to vapor, enabling it to easily move, potentially over a few days, said Robert Hartzler, an Iowa State University weed scientist.  “New formulations were supposed to have taken care of the volatility problem,” he said, “but all the research suggests that they’ve reduced the volatility, but not to a level that’s safe” after plants have emerged from the ground.

Toxipedia.com lists volatility as a dicamba problem.  It also cautions that dicamba can be highly mobile in soil and can easily contaminate water.  One must take care not to harm desirable plants and be very cautious near water sources.  One wonders if this is being done at all.

The U.S. EPA (Monsanto’s regulatory friend) is speaking with academic researchers, state farm regulators, Monsanto and other pesticide makers to determine whether new restrictions should be placed on dicamba’s use.

An EPA official told the Des Moines Register, “The underlying causes of the various damage incidents are not yet clear, as ongoing investigations have yet to be concluded.”

Monsanto said that it is cooperating with the EPA’s review and expects a decision soon.

Monsanto Challenges Arkansas’s Dicamba Regulation
In October 2017, Monsanto challenged an Arkansas task force recommendation to ban the use of dicamba-related products after April 15 next year.  In July, Arkansas issued a four-month prohibition on dicamba use.  Arkansas farmers have logged 963 dicamba-related complaints in 2017.

Bob Hartzler, weed specialist, Iowa State University
Bob Hartzler said he and other weed scientists support EPA restrictions on dicamba product-use after plants have emerged from the ground, a time that can vary depending on the state.

“If it is volatilizing, it’s nearly impossible to use, in my opinion, post-emergence,” he said.

Monsanto Profits Threatened

Mr. Hartzler said Monsanto and BASF are fighting restrictions because they would “greatly reduce the value” of their chemical and seed systems, which required “a huge investment” to develop over several years.

“The seed is where they make the majority of their money,” Hartzler said. “So if the chemical is restricted and it no longer controls waterhemp or Palmer amaranth, farmers would not see the need to pay additional money” for that technology.

Glyphosate Overuse triggers Dicamba Overuse
The vicious pesticide cycle dicamba continues began with overuse of glyphosate.  Used in Roundup and other pesticides/herbicides, glyphosate has been overused so much that it has spawned superweeds which have evolved to withstand it.  Monsanto’s answer, chemical farming’s answer, has been to pour more of another toxic cocktail on the problem, this time dicamba.

Iowa and U.S. farmers want some answer to battle weeds that can no longer be killed with glyphosate.

The Des Moines Register reports that several Southern states are struggling with glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth, a rapidly growing, fast-adapting “super weed” that can quickly overrun cotton and soybean fields.

Palmer amaranth is creeping across Iowa, moving into about half of its counties. So far, the weed can be killed with glyphosate, but weed scientists say it’s only a matter of time until it adapts to the the widely used chemical.

The Iowa Department of Agriculture has asked farmers in the state to check fields this harvest for Palmer amaranth, which can grow more than seven feet tall.

And so it goes. Many farmers fearing Palmer amaranth will turn to dicamba, and continue the awful chemical cycle of poisoning themselves and the land to produce substandard food.  GMO food and GMO food-growing methods have been found to be not only bad for the environment, but they also produce less nutritious food than conventional or organic farming.

Related

•  Dicamba Pesticide Lawsuit

•  Monsanto Lawsuit

•  Arkansas Farmer Murdered in Monsanto Feud

•  States move to restrict Monsanto Herbicide Use

•  Glyphosate devastates Brain Development

•  Kill Weeds without Monsanto’s Roundup

•  Monsanto Campaign to retract Seralini Study Revealed

•  Dicamba Pesticide Damages Crops

 

Share

Arkansas Farmer Murdered in Monsanto Feud

An Arkansas farmer was murdered in a Monsanto related feud in October 2016.  Mike Wallace had objected to neighboring farmers illegally spraying Monsanto’s Dicamba, which drifted onto Mr. Wallace’s property.  The Dicamba began killing Mr. Wallace’s cotton and soy fields.  When Mr. Wallace objected, he was killed himself.  The murderer, who used a rifle, was seen arguing near a field with Mr. Wallace before he was shot.

Related: Dicamba Lawsuit

Monsanto’s Poison Products
Only one thing is certain:  Monsanto’s poison products were at the center of the conflict that led to Mr. Wallace’s murder.  He and most of his neighbors had used Monsanto’s Roundup themselves over many years.  Too many years.  So many years that pigweed evolved to resist the poison.  It had become nearly impossible to kill.  Pigweed is every farmer’s mortal enemy.  It can destroy entire fields.  Monsanto’s answer to the pigweed problem was to pour more poison on it.  (This is chemical farming 101; when one type of poison no longer works, use more of it, then use another.  It is a toxic, insane cycle that cannot, in the long run, benefit the land, animals, or the people who live off it.)  The other, bigger problem that never goes away with chemical farming is that Monsanto’s poison had caused the problem in the first place.  Mike Wallace’s neighbor had begun to use Dicamba to kill his own pigweed.  But Mr. Wallace’s crops had not been genetically engineered to withstand Dicamba; so it began to kill them.

Roundup Dependence Bites Farmers

Mr. Wallace’s “crop consultant,” Dave Pierce, told NPR in June 2017:  “Roundup made a lot of people good farmers.  It was a once-in-a-lifetime chemistry.  I mean, we depended on it for years and years.  And we depended on it too much.”

“Too much,” said Marianne McCune of NPR, “because after a decade or so, the pigweed did its own genetic morphing and became immune to Roundup.”

Then two years ago, the big chemical companies unveiled a new GMO seed to go with a new/old Monsanto poison called Dicamba.  But the new Dicamba spray concoction that Monsanto planned to sell with the seeds wasn’t approved.  Some farmers, meanwhile, had an old formulation of Dicamba, one especially prone to drift onto neighboring fields.

The murdered farmer’s cousin, Maleisa Finch, told NPR that farmers had always dealt with some drift, but had always just talked it out, and amicably paid one another for any damages.

But talking didn’t work for Dicamba, Ms. McCune reported, because it was illegal to spray the old Dicamba formulation during growing season.  Once farmers started planting Dicamba-tolerant seeds, they saw pigweed invading their fields, and started spraying Dicamba.

Question:  Why was Monsanto selling seed before the new Dicamba was approved?  Did the company think farmers would buy seed without using it?  Was Monsanto unaware that farmers had old Dicamba formulations and would use them?

Ms. McCune said, “When Mike saw the leaves on some of his cotton curling and puckering from Dicamba, he, like many farmers, filed a complaint with the Plant Board.  They’re like the pesticide police. And they tracked the cause of Mike’s damage to a neighboring farmer, Donald Masters.”

Ms. McCune spoke with Donald’s son Douglas about the Plant Board’s visit to the Masters’ farm in search of Dicamba.  Douglas said, “[E]verybody got in trouble.”  He laughed when she asked if he knew he wasn’t supposed to be spraying it.

Then Mr. Masters said, “It goes back to economics.”  He explained that, “Farmers take out huge loans every year to pay for seeds, pesticides and everything else. And with crop prices low, their profit margins are very thin.”  So when the pigweed started threatening his crops, he needed a “cheap and effective solution,” he said.  Dicamba was his only option left, he said.

Then she spoke with Donald Masters.  The patriarch of the Masters clan admitted to spraying Dicamba, even though he knew he wasn’t supposed to.

“Why’d I do it?” said Mr. Masters.  “Because I’ve got weeds you can’t kill otherwise.  But anyway, I paid the fine – and supposed to be done with, I hope.”

200,000 Acres of Crop Damage
The maximum fine then was just $1,000.  But a farmer could save tens of thousands of dollars by using the cheap Dicamba.  In 2016, farmers in the region saw damage on nearly 200,000 acres of crops – millions of dollars’ worth.  And Mike Wallace continued to speak out.

Mr. Wallace’s complaint to the Plant Board that summer led investigators to another neighboring farm. That farmer contested the accusation and refused to give over his pesticide records.  Tensions were still high after harvest, when farmers find out how much the damage is worth.  It was then that for reasons Mike’s family members say they don’t know, Mike got a phone number for an employee of that second farm.  The two men met to talk on a quiet county road, and Mike wound up dead.

Arkansas Farmer Murdered in Monsanto Feud

A man in Mississippi County was arrested for Mike’s murder.  Mike’s wife Karen said that more than a thousand people showed up for his funeral at their church.

Monsanto Lawsuit over Dicamba

Arkansas is now raising its fines for illegal spraying, and fighting to ban it altogether during certain growing periods.  Monsanto is, of course, fighting any ban.  Missouri’s biggest peach farmer is suing Monsanto for selling Dicamba-tolerant seeds without the new spray to go with it.  Monsanto claims the suit is baseless, that it’s not Monsanto’s fault if someone sprayed a chemical they weren’t supposed to.

Monsanto did warn people not to use the spray.  (But how else were they going to use the seeds they were sold?)  Meanwhile, a new, approved Dicamba has hit the market.  The new Dicamba is not supposed to “drift so much,” according to NPR, but how much is too much?  Crop damage is already being reported, whether from legal or illegal use of Dicamba.  Weed scientists’ concerns are that once everyone starts using Dicamba like they used Roundup, the pigweed will grow immune again.  Monsanto’s answer will again be to spray yet greater amounts of poison on the land and crops, into the air, onto the people.  Monsanto lawsuits have already been filed by the hundreds for people exposed to cancerous Roundup who were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Arkansas and other states are moving to ban Dicamba for certain growing periods.  Arkansas held a hearing this summer on the poison subject.  The most impassioned plea for banning Dicamba came from an Arkansas’ beekeeper, who said he has lost at least half his hives from Dicamba poisoning the land.  It’s now a well-known fact that pesticides are playing a major role in massive bee die offs.  Einstein said humanity wouldn’t last four years if our pollinator bees died off.  If true, we are now about halfway down the road to extinction.

Related

Share

States move to restrict Monsanto Herbicide Use

Several states are moving to restrict the use of a Monsanto herbicide.  Monsanto’s poison Dicamba has drifted into neighboring farms, homes, and gardens, killing indiscriminately.

Writer Rhonda Johansson reported for Natural News on Oct. 29, 2017 that Tennessee just became the fourth state to restrict the use of Monsanto herbicide.

Dicamba drifts, kills Neighboring Lands

Tennessee farmers have stated that Monsanto’s poison Dicamba has drifted to neighboring farms. It has damaged neighboring crops and garden life not genetically-modified to withstand it.  Nor are bees, birds, and people genetically modified to withstand this poison.  Consequently, we now see massive pollinator bee and bird die-offs, along with Monsanto lawsuits being filed for hundreds of people with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Tennessee joins Arkansas, Missouri, and Kansas in holding Monsanto responsible for environmental damage. Dicamba is the main ingredient in herbicides produced by Monsanto, BASF, and DuPont for use on genetically modified soybeans and cotton. Part of that genetic perversion makes the seeds impervious to toxic assaults.  It also strips them of nutritional value and attacks otherwise healthy flora in the human gut. (This is also how glyphosate kills plants and bees and sickens people.) The U.S. EPA approved dicamba in 2016 to kill broadleaf weeds, using Monsanto’s own studies as “proof” of its safety. In much the same way, the Monsanto-captured agency approved Monsanto’s cancerous Roundup.

Related: One EPA Scientist calls out another for Monsanto Support

Monsant Poison kills Indiscriminately
Farmers in the southern United States say dicamba has cost their neighbors thousands of dollars in lost crops by drifting onto surrounding farms.  Several lawsuits have already been filed against dicamba producers.  A Wyatt, Missouri farmer, Hunter Rafferty, told Reuters, “We’ve had damage across just about every acre of soybeans we farm in southeast Missouri.  In our small town, the azaleas, the ornamentals, people have lost their vegetable gardens.  It’s a big problem.”

Mr. Rafferty says 3,000 to 4,000 acres of soybeans on his family farm have been compromised because of dicamba drifting onto his property.  He says plant leaves have constricted into cup-like shapes – a warning sign that the soybeans have been altered.

Monsanto has dismissed these claims (of course).  Monsanto insists these are only challenges faced by any and every “early-adoption strategy.”  Monsanto representatives liken this cross-contamination to similar problems Monsanto faced launching Roundup Ready glyphosate-resistant crops 20 years ago.  Monsanto claims that situation was “fixed.”  Other recent reports and hundreds of Roundup cancer lawsuits against the toxic giant suggest otherwise.  Monsanto has a long, sordid history of contaminations and cover-ups.

Monsanto blames Farmers
“In almost every technology in the first year there are kinks that you need to work out,” said Robb Fraley, Chief Technology Officer of Monsanto, in response to the dicamba lawsuits.

Fraley joins spokespeople from BASF and DuPont who blame improper application as the cause for the damaged crops. They flatly deny any inherent chemical issues.  Mr. Fraley claims farmers fail to follow application labels, use contaminated equipment, or buy older formulations which save on costs but are more prone to drift.  However, he did say Monsanto will look over additional safeguards for using Dicamba.

Monsanto likes to blame farmers.  It has sued more than 145 of them over the years, never losing in Monsanto-friendly courts.  Litigation-happy Monsanto is the first to claim “frivolous lawsuit” anytime the company is sued for its civil and criminal behavior.

Monsanto unleashed Dicamba to match its Monits Xtend line of soybeans and cottons which have been designed to withstand the poison. The line was meant to replace earlier products that contained only glyphosate.  In 1970, Monsanto introduced glyphosate-resistant crops to battle the rapid buildup of plant-destroying weeds.  Glyphosate’s performance has been less than stellar over the long run.  Early Roundup crop yields matched conventional yields, but heavier and heavier chemical applications of Roundup have spawned superweeds and superpests.  The monoculture farming methods Roundup engenders have stripped fields of needed nutrients, destroying thousands of acres of once-fertile farmland.  Monsanto’s chemical farming methods also require greater amounts of water than conventional or organic farming.  That’s anther problem for Monsanto, since water has become more valuable than oil.

What is Dicamba?

Monsanto introduced its new dicamba formulation late in 2016, marketing it as XtendMaxTM.  Dicamba was reported to have low-volatility, which Monsanto described as being less likely to drift while being more “flexible,” (not sure what that means).  Monsanto also claimed Dicamba is    better able to “maximize crop yield potential.” (Great buzz phrase, that.  Time will tell if it’s true.  It wasn’t true for Roundup in the long run.)  In its official press release, Monsanto projected over 15 million Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybean acres, as well as three million Bollgard II XtendFlex cotton acres by the end of 2017.

These estimations might not apply, given the latest restrictions filed by Tennessee.  Part of these guidelines include allowing application only from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., and banning the use of older dicamba formulations.

Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Jai Templeton has said, “I’m confident that we can address this issue as we have in other cases to ensure the safe and effective use of these tools.”

States move to restrict Monsanto Herbicide Use

“Safe and effective use of these tools”?  Since when is poison a tool?  Is Jai Templeton also another tool, like the EPA’s Jess Rowland, or the FDA’s Michael Taylor?  Keeping dicamba from contaminating neighboring corn or soy fields is like having a no-peeing section in a swimming pool.  Can fences be made impermeable to drifting winds?  Monsanto’s game is the same as it has always been.  It moves closer and closer to monopolizing seeds.  The company seeks to own every growing thing in the world.  Anyone who doesn’t understand that yet doesn’t know much about Monsanto.  Please study its rancid history, and its latest move to join war criminal Bayer in a nightmare merger of chemical giants.

Related

Share