Monsanto Corn Plant Losing Bug Resistance By SCOTT KILMAN
Widely grown corn plants that Monsanto Co. genetically modified to thwart a voracious bug are falling prey to that very pest in a few Iowa fields, the first time a major Midwest scourge has developed resistance to a genetically modified crop.
The discovery raises concerns that the way some farmers are using biotech crops could spawn superbugs.
Iowa State University entomologist Aaron Gassmann's discovery that western corn rootworms in four northeast Iowa fields have evolved to resist the natural pesticide made by Monsanto's corn plant could encourage some farmers to switch to insect-proof seeds sold by competitors of the St. Louis crop biotechnology giant, and to return to spraying harsher synthetic insecticides on their fields.
"These are isolated cases, and it isn't clear how widespread the problem will become," said Dr. Gassmann in an interview. "But it is an early warning that management practices need to change."
The finding adds fuel to the race among crop biotechnology rivals to locate the next generation of genes that can protect plants from insects. Scientists at Monsanto and Syngenta AG of Basel, Switzerland, are already researching how to use a medical breakthrough called RNA interference to, among other things, make crops deadly for insects to eat. If this works, a bug munching on such a plant could ingest genetic code that turns off one of its essential genes.
Monsanto said its rootworm-resistant corn seed lines are working as it expected "on more than 99% of the acres planted with this technology" and that it is too early to know what the Iowa State University study means for farmers.
The discovery comes amid a debate about whether the genetically modified crops that now saturate the Farm Belt are changing how some farmers operate in undesirable ways.
These insect-proof and herbicide-resistant crops make farming so much easier that many growers rely heavily on the technology, violating a basic tenet of pest management, which warns that using one method year after year gives more opportunity for pests to adapt.
Monsanto is already at the center of this issue because of its success since the 1990s marketing seeds that grow into crops that can survive exposure to its Roundup herbicide, a glyphosate-based chemical known for its ability to kill almost anything green.
These seeds made it so convenient for farmers to spray Roundup that many farmers stopped using other weedkillers. As a result, say many scientists, superweeds immune to Roundup have spread to millions of acres in more than 20 states in the South and Midwest.
Story continues at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904009304576532742267732046.html
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
Is the Soap Lobby Right That Antibacterials Are Safe?
Is the Soap Lobby Right That Antibacterials Are Safe? By Kiera Butler - Mon Aug. 29, 2011 2:30 AM PDT
By now, you've probably heard of triclosan, an antimicrobial agent present in all kinds of personal hygiene products, from soap to deodorant to toothpaste. The New York Times recently reported on the raging debate between public health advocates and the soap industry over the product's safety.
If you're waiting for the FDA to weigh in with a final verdict on triclosan, don't hold your breath: The agency has been dragging its feet on the subject for 37 years. In 2010, it finally promised to release the results of its scientific review of triclosan by spring 2011. But spring came and went with no word, and as NRDC attorney Mae Wu noted on her blog, the agency quietly extended its own deadline to winter 2012 on its website, without publicly announcing the delay. When I asked FDA spokeswoman Shelly Burgess about the silence on the delay, she told me, simply, "FDA doesn't normally make public announcements on the status of its rulemakings." So why'd you promise spring 2011 in the first place?
But far be it from the soap industry to sit idly by while the FDA deliberates. In April, the trade group American Cleaning Institute launched Fight Germs Now, a site that claims to be "the official source on antibacterial hygiene products." Fight Germs Now's FAQ assures consumers that despite the rumors they may have heard, triclosan and other antibacterial agents are safe, effective, and completely necessary in the fight against germs.
I was curious as to whether the ACI's claims could withstand scientific scrutiny, so I checked in with Wu and her colleague Sarah Janssen, a senior scientist at the NRDC. They handily debunked a few of the major points that Fight Germs Now tries to make:
1. "Sometimes plain soap and water is not good enough."
Actually, says Jannsen, there's plenty of evidence that triclosan is no more effective than soap and water: See this study and this review of several studies for starters. (The one exception is toothpaste; there's some evidence that triclosan helps fight gingivitis.) Fight Germs Now likes to tout a study from 2007 that found that people who washed their hands with triclosan carried less bacteria onto their food than those who used soap and water, but Jannsen points out that before you buy this line, you might want to consider the fact that the study was performed by Henkel, makers of Dial antimicrobial soap.
2. "Triclosan does not accumulate in food-chains because it is excreted by animals and man by their metabolism."
While it's true that we do excrete triclosan, that doesn't mean it disappears from the environment. A 2008 study found that earthworms take up triclosan from the soil, showing that organisms "can be contaminated with these chemicals and raising concerns that this will make its way up the food chain," says Jannsen. More worrisome, a 2010 study found that soy beans grown in greenhouses also absorb triclosan from the soil, which, considering the vast amounts of soy that we feed livestock, has major implications for our food supply.
3. "Credible scientific data indicates that triclosan does not disrupt hormonal activity."
Au contraire, say Jannsen and Wu. There's mounting evidence that triclosan and its close relative triclocarban do interfere with our thyroid hormone and sex hormones in both females and males. This 2008 study showed that triclosan disrupted puberty in rats, and this one found that male rats' sex organs got bigger when triclocarban was added to their food. Industry likes to claim that rats and people aren't comparable, but " the hormone systems in lab animals are actually extremely similar to our hormone systems," says Jannsen.
4. "Insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that the use of antiseptic drug products harms human health."
A number of recent studies have shown that antibacterial products might be contributing to antibiotic resistance (here are a few to start with). Then there's the fact that triclosan is known to be completely ineffective against "gram negative" bacteria like Pseudomonas and Serratia, both of which cause major infections in hospitals. In fact, notes Jannsen, a hospital outbreak of Serratia was traced back to antibacterial soap dispensers.
For a good list of which products contain triclosan, check out this fact sheet from Beyond Pesticides.
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/antibacterial/products.htm
By now, you've probably heard of triclosan, an antimicrobial agent present in all kinds of personal hygiene products, from soap to deodorant to toothpaste. The New York Times recently reported on the raging debate between public health advocates and the soap industry over the product's safety.
If you're waiting for the FDA to weigh in with a final verdict on triclosan, don't hold your breath: The agency has been dragging its feet on the subject for 37 years. In 2010, it finally promised to release the results of its scientific review of triclosan by spring 2011. But spring came and went with no word, and as NRDC attorney Mae Wu noted on her blog, the agency quietly extended its own deadline to winter 2012 on its website, without publicly announcing the delay. When I asked FDA spokeswoman Shelly Burgess about the silence on the delay, she told me, simply, "FDA doesn't normally make public announcements on the status of its rulemakings." So why'd you promise spring 2011 in the first place?
But far be it from the soap industry to sit idly by while the FDA deliberates. In April, the trade group American Cleaning Institute launched Fight Germs Now, a site that claims to be "the official source on antibacterial hygiene products." Fight Germs Now's FAQ assures consumers that despite the rumors they may have heard, triclosan and other antibacterial agents are safe, effective, and completely necessary in the fight against germs.
I was curious as to whether the ACI's claims could withstand scientific scrutiny, so I checked in with Wu and her colleague Sarah Janssen, a senior scientist at the NRDC. They handily debunked a few of the major points that Fight Germs Now tries to make:
1. "Sometimes plain soap and water is not good enough."
Actually, says Jannsen, there's plenty of evidence that triclosan is no more effective than soap and water: See this study and this review of several studies for starters. (The one exception is toothpaste; there's some evidence that triclosan helps fight gingivitis.) Fight Germs Now likes to tout a study from 2007 that found that people who washed their hands with triclosan carried less bacteria onto their food than those who used soap and water, but Jannsen points out that before you buy this line, you might want to consider the fact that the study was performed by Henkel, makers of Dial antimicrobial soap.
2. "Triclosan does not accumulate in food-chains because it is excreted by animals and man by their metabolism."
While it's true that we do excrete triclosan, that doesn't mean it disappears from the environment. A 2008 study found that earthworms take up triclosan from the soil, showing that organisms "can be contaminated with these chemicals and raising concerns that this will make its way up the food chain," says Jannsen. More worrisome, a 2010 study found that soy beans grown in greenhouses also absorb triclosan from the soil, which, considering the vast amounts of soy that we feed livestock, has major implications for our food supply.
3. "Credible scientific data indicates that triclosan does not disrupt hormonal activity."
Au contraire, say Jannsen and Wu. There's mounting evidence that triclosan and its close relative triclocarban do interfere with our thyroid hormone and sex hormones in both females and males. This 2008 study showed that triclosan disrupted puberty in rats, and this one found that male rats' sex organs got bigger when triclocarban was added to their food. Industry likes to claim that rats and people aren't comparable, but " the hormone systems in lab animals are actually extremely similar to our hormone systems," says Jannsen.
4. "Insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that the use of antiseptic drug products harms human health."
A number of recent studies have shown that antibacterial products might be contributing to antibiotic resistance (here are a few to start with). Then there's the fact that triclosan is known to be completely ineffective against "gram negative" bacteria like Pseudomonas and Serratia, both of which cause major infections in hospitals. In fact, notes Jannsen, a hospital outbreak of Serratia was traced back to antibacterial soap dispensers.
For a good list of which products contain triclosan, check out this fact sheet from Beyond Pesticides.
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/antibacterial/products.htm
Friday, August 26, 2011
'Smoking Gun' Documents Show Science Ignored in Approval of Cancer-Causing Strawberry Pesticide.
Thursday, 25 August 2011
'Smoking Gun' Documents Show Science Ignored in Approval of Cancer-Causing Strawberry Pesticide
Press Release Science and Environmental
OAKLAND, Calif--(ENEWSPF)--August 25 - Newly released documents show that a Schwarzenegger political appointee within the state agency that approved the cancer-causing strawberry pesticide methyl iodide favored the input of the chemical’s manufacturer, Arysta LifeScience, over the recommendations of its own scientists. The new documents—released in accordance with a court order in the California-based litigation challenging methyl iodide—show that top scientists in the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) warned of the dangers of methyl iodide and strongly criticized the methods by which the “acceptable” levels of exposure were set by DPR management.
“These smoking gun memos show that state officials cherry-picked calculations to support their preferred outcome of approving methyl iodide instead of letting science guide their decision-making,” said Susan Kegley, PhD, Consulting Scientist with Pesticide Action Network North America. “Ignoring the science and prioritizing the needs of the manufacturer has put the health and safety of Californians at great risk.”
A team of independent scientists, convened by the state, determined that agricultural uses of methyl iodide would likely result in farmworkers and rural communities facing exposures far above levels of concern, unless the size of the buffer zone, where no pesticides are applied, was “several hundred feet to several miles.” In one memo outlining buffer zone options to protect bystanders and workers, DPR decision makers characterized large buffer zones as “excessive and difficult to enforce” noting that“[t]he registrant [manufacturer Arysta LifeScience] may find these buffer zones unacceptable due to its economic viability.”
The documents show that DPR management selected the desired buffer zones first and then mixed and matched methods of risk assessment to obtain an “acceptable” level of exposure. Current approved buffer zones are 200 feet for a broadcast fumigation of a 10-acre field. Had the scientists’ risk assessment methods been followed, this application would have required a buffer zone of at least a mile.
One document from DPR’s own scientists suggests that DPR management misused data to justify their conclusions, stating that numbers “appear to have been extracted from different MeI [methyl iodide] risk assessment methodologies that are not interchangeable… It is not scientifically credible to select a value or assumption from one and combine it with a value or assumption from another.”
A judge ordered the documents released on August 12, after DPR lost a battle to hide them from the public, ruling that, “…the public’s interest in disclosure under these circumstances clearly outweighs the interest in keeping them confidential. The documents are important to an understanding of the decision to permit the use of the pesticide at issue in this litigation.”
“State officials fought hard in the courts to make sure that these documents would never see the light of day," said Earthjustice attorney Greg Loarie. "The public has a right to know how officials arrived at their dangerous decision to register methyl iodide and now they do.”
Approval of the pesticide was rushed through in the final days of the Schwarzenegger
Administration. Responding to requests to reverse the decision, Governor Brown said he would “take a fresh look” at the chemical, while his administration said it would consider any “new evidence. ”
“Governor Brown has the opportunity to show that his administration respects science by reversing his predecessor’s indefensible decision on methyl iodide,” said Tracey Brieger, Co-Director at Californians for Pesticide Reform. “Basic public health protection requires that the state not allow broad scale release of ‘one of the most toxic chemicals on earth’ into the state’s fields and water supplies.”
State experts weren’t alone in warning about the dangers of widespread use of this cancer causing poison. Fifty-four eminent scientists, including six Nobel Laureates in Chemistry, said methyl iodide is “one of the more toxic chemicals used in manufacturing” and questioned the wisdom of U.S. EPA’s initial approval of the chemical.
The state-commissioned independent Scientific Review Committee agreed. Dr. John Froines, chair of the Committee, told press, “I honestly think that this chemical will cause disease and illness. And so does everyone else on the committee.” Theodore Slotkin, another panel member and professor of pharmacology and cancer biology at Duke University, wrote, “It is my personal opinion that this decision will result in serious harm to California citizens, and most especially to children.”
The lawsuit challenging approval of methyl iodide was filed in January by Earthjustice and California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. on behalf of Pesticide Action Network North America, United Farm Workers of America, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Pesticide Watch Education Fund, Worksafe, Communities and Children, Advocates Against Pesticide Poisoning and farmworkers Jose Hidalgo Ramon and Zeferino Estrada. The suit claims state approval of methyl iodide violates the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Birth Defects Prevention Act, and the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act.
“I’m mad that the Department that is supposed to protect us from pesticides was hijacked by a pesticide company,” said plaintiff Jose Hidalgo. “As a strawberry picker, we frequently see pesticide tarps blowing in the wind and experience the pain of pesticide exposure.”
Methyl iodide causes late term miscarriages, is a known carcinogen, and puts California’s scarce groundwater supplies at risk of iodide contamination. The pesticide poses the most direct risks to farmworkers and neighboring communities because of the volume that would be applied to fields and its tendency to drift off site through the air. Methyl iodide is currently approved to be applied to California’s strawberry fields at rates up to 100 pounds per acre on much of the state’s 38,000 acres in strawberry production, totaling potentially millions of pounds of use. In addition to strawberries, it is also registered for use on tomatoes, peppers, nurseries and on soils prior to replanting orchards and vineyards.
Unlike California and Florida, New York and Washington states have refused to approve methyl iodide as a pesticide.
eNews Park Forest is an independently owned and operated electronic publication and has no affiliation whatsoever with the governing bodies of the Village of Park Forest.
http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science-a-environmental/26399-smoking-gun-documents-show-science-ignored-in-approval-of-cancer-causing-strawberry-pesticide.html
'Smoking Gun' Documents Show Science Ignored in Approval of Cancer-Causing Strawberry Pesticide
Press Release Science and Environmental
OAKLAND, Calif--(ENEWSPF)--August 25 - Newly released documents show that a Schwarzenegger political appointee within the state agency that approved the cancer-causing strawberry pesticide methyl iodide favored the input of the chemical’s manufacturer, Arysta LifeScience, over the recommendations of its own scientists. The new documents—released in accordance with a court order in the California-based litigation challenging methyl iodide—show that top scientists in the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) warned of the dangers of methyl iodide and strongly criticized the methods by which the “acceptable” levels of exposure were set by DPR management.
“These smoking gun memos show that state officials cherry-picked calculations to support their preferred outcome of approving methyl iodide instead of letting science guide their decision-making,” said Susan Kegley, PhD, Consulting Scientist with Pesticide Action Network North America. “Ignoring the science and prioritizing the needs of the manufacturer has put the health and safety of Californians at great risk.”
A team of independent scientists, convened by the state, determined that agricultural uses of methyl iodide would likely result in farmworkers and rural communities facing exposures far above levels of concern, unless the size of the buffer zone, where no pesticides are applied, was “several hundred feet to several miles.” In one memo outlining buffer zone options to protect bystanders and workers, DPR decision makers characterized large buffer zones as “excessive and difficult to enforce” noting that“[t]he registrant [manufacturer Arysta LifeScience] may find these buffer zones unacceptable due to its economic viability.”
The documents show that DPR management selected the desired buffer zones first and then mixed and matched methods of risk assessment to obtain an “acceptable” level of exposure. Current approved buffer zones are 200 feet for a broadcast fumigation of a 10-acre field. Had the scientists’ risk assessment methods been followed, this application would have required a buffer zone of at least a mile.
One document from DPR’s own scientists suggests that DPR management misused data to justify their conclusions, stating that numbers “appear to have been extracted from different MeI [methyl iodide] risk assessment methodologies that are not interchangeable… It is not scientifically credible to select a value or assumption from one and combine it with a value or assumption from another.”
A judge ordered the documents released on August 12, after DPR lost a battle to hide them from the public, ruling that, “…the public’s interest in disclosure under these circumstances clearly outweighs the interest in keeping them confidential. The documents are important to an understanding of the decision to permit the use of the pesticide at issue in this litigation.”
“State officials fought hard in the courts to make sure that these documents would never see the light of day," said Earthjustice attorney Greg Loarie. "The public has a right to know how officials arrived at their dangerous decision to register methyl iodide and now they do.”
Approval of the pesticide was rushed through in the final days of the Schwarzenegger
Administration. Responding to requests to reverse the decision, Governor Brown said he would “take a fresh look” at the chemical, while his administration said it would consider any “new evidence. ”
“Governor Brown has the opportunity to show that his administration respects science by reversing his predecessor’s indefensible decision on methyl iodide,” said Tracey Brieger, Co-Director at Californians for Pesticide Reform. “Basic public health protection requires that the state not allow broad scale release of ‘one of the most toxic chemicals on earth’ into the state’s fields and water supplies.”
State experts weren’t alone in warning about the dangers of widespread use of this cancer causing poison. Fifty-four eminent scientists, including six Nobel Laureates in Chemistry, said methyl iodide is “one of the more toxic chemicals used in manufacturing” and questioned the wisdom of U.S. EPA’s initial approval of the chemical.
The state-commissioned independent Scientific Review Committee agreed. Dr. John Froines, chair of the Committee, told press, “I honestly think that this chemical will cause disease and illness. And so does everyone else on the committee.” Theodore Slotkin, another panel member and professor of pharmacology and cancer biology at Duke University, wrote, “It is my personal opinion that this decision will result in serious harm to California citizens, and most especially to children.”
The lawsuit challenging approval of methyl iodide was filed in January by Earthjustice and California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. on behalf of Pesticide Action Network North America, United Farm Workers of America, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Pesticide Watch Education Fund, Worksafe, Communities and Children, Advocates Against Pesticide Poisoning and farmworkers Jose Hidalgo Ramon and Zeferino Estrada. The suit claims state approval of methyl iodide violates the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Birth Defects Prevention Act, and the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act.
“I’m mad that the Department that is supposed to protect us from pesticides was hijacked by a pesticide company,” said plaintiff Jose Hidalgo. “As a strawberry picker, we frequently see pesticide tarps blowing in the wind and experience the pain of pesticide exposure.”
Methyl iodide causes late term miscarriages, is a known carcinogen, and puts California’s scarce groundwater supplies at risk of iodide contamination. The pesticide poses the most direct risks to farmworkers and neighboring communities because of the volume that would be applied to fields and its tendency to drift off site through the air. Methyl iodide is currently approved to be applied to California’s strawberry fields at rates up to 100 pounds per acre on much of the state’s 38,000 acres in strawberry production, totaling potentially millions of pounds of use. In addition to strawberries, it is also registered for use on tomatoes, peppers, nurseries and on soils prior to replanting orchards and vineyards.
Unlike California and Florida, New York and Washington states have refused to approve methyl iodide as a pesticide.
eNews Park Forest is an independently owned and operated electronic publication and has no affiliation whatsoever with the governing bodies of the Village of Park Forest.
http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science-a-environmental/26399-smoking-gun-documents-show-science-ignored-in-approval-of-cancer-causing-strawberry-pesticide.html
Airline pays passenger €50,000 because of pesticide on board.
Airline pays passenger €50,000 because of pesticide on board
Life-threatening asthma attack in airplane triggered by Permethrin
An Irish businessman suffered from a severe allergic reaction during an Air France flight because the airline sprayed the pesticide permethrin on board. James Lapham sued Air France and received €50,000 compensation for damages for the first time in history as was stated in the Irish Independent newspaper. Mr. Lapham, an asthmatic, barely survived the incident and is still receiving medical treatment after 8 months.
Pesticides are often part of everyday life on board
The spraying of pesticides on planes is not unusual. For hygiene reasons, and because it is feared that pests could be transported, many countries require the spraying of pesticides. Normally, the passengers are not informed or warned. The estimated number of passengers who suffered health problems during a flight due to pesticide on board is most likely high. Airlines worldwide now fear that this case could constitute a precedent, and that other passengers suffering from ailments may call upon this case.
A German lawyer led a lawsuit against Air France in 2008. He had also suffered health problems caused by the spraying of pesticides on board. The airline denied him the information as to what pesticide had been used. The Frankfurt regional court’s verdict in December 2008 gave the attorney only half right.
An even bigger worry for the airlines than the single passenger cases, is complaints from flight staff who have become ill due to pesticides and may take advantage of the current case.
Asthma attacks caused by pesticides
The Independent writes that James Lapham was on a flight from Rabat to Dublin when the incident occurred. He had only been on board for 10 minutes when he experienced breathing difficulties. The Irish Independent reports that the flight attendants had sprayed permethrin, a neurotoxic pesticide, in the cabin. Permethrin is a Pyrethroide, and is a pesticide which is known for, among other things, triggering allergic and non-allergic asthma. Permethrin is prohibited on flights in the U.S. because the pesticide has been classified by the EPA as carcinogenic since 1997.
Emergency landing due to asthmatic’s reaction to pesticide
The Irish businessman reacted so violently to the permethrin that the flight attendants had to give him oxygen. This intervention was not enough and Mr. Lapham’s asthmatic condition worsened and the aircraft was forced to make an emergency landing in Morocco. The businessman was brought by ambulance to a hospital, where he was stabilized with cortisone. The Independent stated that Mr. Lapham might indeed work again, but is still in need of medical treatment.
Sick due to pesticides in airplane – not an isolated case
The Irish businessman James Lapham is not an isolated case. Particularly flight staffs on long-haul flights in hot regions have been complaining for years about the use of pesticides and the damaging health effects caused by the toxic chemicals. Court cases in different countries are pending and flight attendants have organized internationally for years.
James Lapham pled at the Irish High Court at the Montreal Convention. Passengers cannot receive more than € 100,000 damages under this convention, the Irishman won half, €50.000. Whether more cases will be recognized can not be predicted, because airlines still claim that permethrin had been recommended by the WHO, although scientific studies on the health damaging effects of neurotoxic pesticide are increasing.
Author: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, 21. August 2011
Literature: Independent, Airline pays out €50,000 in pest-killer spray case, August 09, 2011
Support for sufferers of Aerotoxic Syndrome: AEROTOXIC ASSOCIATION
http://www.csn-deutschland.de/blog/en/airline-pays-passenger-e50000-because-of-pesticide-on-board/
Life-threatening asthma attack in airplane triggered by Permethrin
An Irish businessman suffered from a severe allergic reaction during an Air France flight because the airline sprayed the pesticide permethrin on board. James Lapham sued Air France and received €50,000 compensation for damages for the first time in history as was stated in the Irish Independent newspaper. Mr. Lapham, an asthmatic, barely survived the incident and is still receiving medical treatment after 8 months.
Pesticides are often part of everyday life on board
The spraying of pesticides on planes is not unusual. For hygiene reasons, and because it is feared that pests could be transported, many countries require the spraying of pesticides. Normally, the passengers are not informed or warned. The estimated number of passengers who suffered health problems during a flight due to pesticide on board is most likely high. Airlines worldwide now fear that this case could constitute a precedent, and that other passengers suffering from ailments may call upon this case.
A German lawyer led a lawsuit against Air France in 2008. He had also suffered health problems caused by the spraying of pesticides on board. The airline denied him the information as to what pesticide had been used. The Frankfurt regional court’s verdict in December 2008 gave the attorney only half right.
An even bigger worry for the airlines than the single passenger cases, is complaints from flight staff who have become ill due to pesticides and may take advantage of the current case.
Asthma attacks caused by pesticides
The Independent writes that James Lapham was on a flight from Rabat to Dublin when the incident occurred. He had only been on board for 10 minutes when he experienced breathing difficulties. The Irish Independent reports that the flight attendants had sprayed permethrin, a neurotoxic pesticide, in the cabin. Permethrin is a Pyrethroide, and is a pesticide which is known for, among other things, triggering allergic and non-allergic asthma. Permethrin is prohibited on flights in the U.S. because the pesticide has been classified by the EPA as carcinogenic since 1997.
Emergency landing due to asthmatic’s reaction to pesticide
The Irish businessman reacted so violently to the permethrin that the flight attendants had to give him oxygen. This intervention was not enough and Mr. Lapham’s asthmatic condition worsened and the aircraft was forced to make an emergency landing in Morocco. The businessman was brought by ambulance to a hospital, where he was stabilized with cortisone. The Independent stated that Mr. Lapham might indeed work again, but is still in need of medical treatment.
Sick due to pesticides in airplane – not an isolated case
The Irish businessman James Lapham is not an isolated case. Particularly flight staffs on long-haul flights in hot regions have been complaining for years about the use of pesticides and the damaging health effects caused by the toxic chemicals. Court cases in different countries are pending and flight attendants have organized internationally for years.
James Lapham pled at the Irish High Court at the Montreal Convention. Passengers cannot receive more than € 100,000 damages under this convention, the Irishman won half, €50.000. Whether more cases will be recognized can not be predicted, because airlines still claim that permethrin had been recommended by the WHO, although scientific studies on the health damaging effects of neurotoxic pesticide are increasing.
Author: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, 21. August 2011
Literature: Independent, Airline pays out €50,000 in pest-killer spray case, August 09, 2011
Support for sufferers of Aerotoxic Syndrome: AEROTOXIC ASSOCIATION
http://www.csn-deutschland.de/blog/en/airline-pays-passenger-e50000-because-of-pesticide-on-board/
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Leaked document: EPA knowingly approved bee-killing pesticide.
Leaked document: EPA knowingly approved bee-killing pesticide
(NaturalNews) A Colorado beekeeper recently obtained a leaked document revealing that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knows a popular crop pesticide is killing off honey bees, but has allowed its continued approval anyway. Despite opposition from its own scientists, EPA officials first gave the a-okay to Bayer CropScience's toxic pesticide clothianidin in 1993 based on the company's own flawed safety studies. But now it has been revealed that the EPA knew all along about the dangers of clothianidin and decided to just ignore them.
By now, most people know that honeybees are dying off at an incredibly disturbing rate. Colony collapse disorder (CCD), a condition where bees stray from the hive and never find their way back, is nixing millions of nature's pollinators every year. Previous studies have pinpointed various environmental toxins as the primary culprits, including toxic pesticides like clothianidin ( http://www.naturalnews.com/028429_colony_collapse_disorder_chemicals.html ...).
And the leaked document, which was written by the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, explains clearly that "lothianidin's major risk concern is to nontarget insects (honey bees)" and that "cute toxicity studies to honey bees show that clothianidin is highly toxic on both a contact and an oral basis." The letter was in response to a request from Bayer to have clothianidin approval expanded for use on cotton and mustard in addition to its other approved uses.
So if clothianidin poses a significant threat against honey bees, and the EPA has known about this all along, why was it ever approved in the first place? And if Bayer's original safety studies have been shown to be contradictory to actual science, why has the EPA failed to go after Bayer for falsifying safety data? Apparently those who make the final decisions at the EPA have no actual interest in the truth and would rather cater to corporate interests at the expense of public health.
http://www.naturalnews.com/030921_EPA_pesticides.html
(NaturalNews) A Colorado beekeeper recently obtained a leaked document revealing that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knows a popular crop pesticide is killing off honey bees, but has allowed its continued approval anyway. Despite opposition from its own scientists, EPA officials first gave the a-okay to Bayer CropScience's toxic pesticide clothianidin in 1993 based on the company's own flawed safety studies. But now it has been revealed that the EPA knew all along about the dangers of clothianidin and decided to just ignore them.
By now, most people know that honeybees are dying off at an incredibly disturbing rate. Colony collapse disorder (CCD), a condition where bees stray from the hive and never find their way back, is nixing millions of nature's pollinators every year. Previous studies have pinpointed various environmental toxins as the primary culprits, including toxic pesticides like clothianidin ( http://www.naturalnews.com/028429_colony_collapse_disorder_chemicals.html ...).
And the leaked document, which was written by the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, explains clearly that "lothianidin's major risk concern is to nontarget insects (honey bees)" and that "cute toxicity studies to honey bees show that clothianidin is highly toxic on both a contact and an oral basis." The letter was in response to a request from Bayer to have clothianidin approval expanded for use on cotton and mustard in addition to its other approved uses.
So if clothianidin poses a significant threat against honey bees, and the EPA has known about this all along, why was it ever approved in the first place? And if Bayer's original safety studies have been shown to be contradictory to actual science, why has the EPA failed to go after Bayer for falsifying safety data? Apparently those who make the final decisions at the EPA have no actual interest in the truth and would rather cater to corporate interests at the expense of public health.
http://www.naturalnews.com/030921_EPA_pesticides.html
Cacao - An ancient medicine validated by modern science
Cacao - An ancient medicine validated by modern science
http://www.naturalnews.com/030603_cacao_medicine.html
by Carolanne Wright, citizen journalist
(NaturalNews) Legendary cacao has a long history of medicinal use throughout Mesoamerica and South America. Today, science confirms chocolate has many favorable qualities that support health and psychological well-being. This magical bean offers great benefits when the cacao is high-quality, raw and organic.
The native people of the Americas extolled the merits of cacao with oral histories, pottery, stonework, and colored documents that chronicled its use in rituals as well as in everyday life. The Mayan and Mexica religions believed cacao had divine origins. According to Mayan legend, after humans were created by the goddess Xmucane, the God Sovereign Plumed Serpent gave cacao to the Maya.
When Europeans began exploring the New World, Columbus and his crew were the first to encounter cacao when they seized a canoe at Guanaja that was filled with strange 'almonds'. Eventually it was discovered the 'almonds' were actually cacao beans used as a source of currency in Mesoamerica.
Chocolate is not only a food, but also a medicine. Preparations are well documented by the explorers who came in contact with cacao during their travels. Cacao medicinal properties were noted to alleviate fever, anemia, poor appetite, metal fatigue and poor breast milk production, as well as tuberculosis, gout, kidney stones and low virility. This delicious bean was famous for healing the nervous system and improving digestion and elimination.
Jump to the modern day and numerous studies celebrate the many virtues of chocolate. Research confirms that chocolate helps to relieve emotional stress. Stress hormones and stress-related biochemical agents were reduced when volunteers, who rated themselves as highly stressed, consumed 1.4 ounces of dark chocolate per day for a period of two weeks.
Another study found that cacao flavanols (CF) improve cognitive function. In a randomized, double-blind trial, 30 healthy adults consumed either 520 mg or 994 mg of a CF infused beverage. Both groups showed significant improvement in mental acuity, while a reduction in 'mental fatigue' was only found with the lower consumption of 520 mg. The researchers suspect the results may be related to the effects of CF on blood flow.
Cacao mass also contains potassium, phosphorus, copper, iron, zinc, and magnesium which contribute to cardiovascular health. Chocolate has the ability to trigger the release of dopamine and the endorphin phenylethylamine, both of which soothe the symptoms of premenstrual syndrome and depression. Due to its high valeric acid content, cacao has stress relieving properties despite the presence of the stimulants theobromine and caffeine.
Yet not all chocolate is created equal. Organic, raw cacao reigns supreme with maximum nutrient content compared to other forms. Since raw chocolate is processed at low temperatures, it retains much more of its famed nutritional value than if it were roasted. As seen in David Wolfe's, "Naked Chocolate: The Astounding Truth About the World's Greatest Food", raw chocolate has many high-quality nutrients such as manganese, vitamin C, and omega 6 fatty acids. Raw cacao also contains powerful antioxidants along with a significant amount of chromium, which balances blood sugar levels. Additional benefits are found in neurotransmitter modulating agents that act as natural antidepressants. "They allow our neurotransmitters like serotonin to remain in our bloodstream longer that usual. This makes us younger," explains Wolfe. He believes that raw cacao is an excellent way to enhance health while calming the heart, amplifying sensuality and enriching one's love life.
Live your bliss and savor the wisdom of the ancients. Invigorate modern vitality with the many extraordinary traits of raw cacao.
Sources for this article:
Teresa L. Dillinger, Patricia Barriga, Sylvia Escarcega, Martha Jimenez, Diana Salazar Lowe, Louis E. Grivetti, "Food of the Gods: Cure for Humanity? A Cultural History of the Medicinal and Ritual Use of Chocolate", The Journal of Nutrition. Retrived on November 28, 2010, from http://jn.nutrition.org/content/130/8/2057S.full.pdf
Francois-Pierre J. Martin, Serge Ressi, Emma Per-Trepat, Beate Kamlage, Sebastiano Collino, Edgar Leibold, Jurgen Kastler, Dietrich Rein, Laurent B. Fay, Sunil Kochhar, "Metabolic Effects of Dark Chocolate Consumption on Energy, Gut Microbiota, and Stress-Related Metabolism in Free-Living Subjects", Journal of Proteome Research, October 7, 2009, 8 (12), pp 5568-5579
Andrew B Scholey, Stephen J French, Penelope J Morris, David O Kennedy, Athea L Milne, Crystal F Haskell, "Consumption of coca flavanols results in acute improvements in mood and cognitive performance during sustained mental effort". Journal of Psychopharmacology, October 2010, 24 (10)
pp 1505-1514
Pamela Moyers Scott, MPAS, PA-C, "Is chocolate really good for me?" JAAPA, January 2007, 20 (1) pp 55-56
Marisa Belger, "The raw, tasty truth about natural chocolate. Skip the average bar and reach for nutrient-packed cacao treats instead". Today GreenDAY, August 2009. Retrieved on November 30, 2010, from http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32271092/ns/today-green/
Kevin Gianni, "Nutritional Authority David Wolfe Discusses Metabolism and Chocolate", Natural News, August 22, 2008. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from
http://www.naturalnews.com/023939_food_chocolate_cacao.html
About the author
Carolanne enthusiastically believes if we want to see change in the world, we need to be the change. As a nutritionist, natural foods chef, and wellness coach, Carolanne has encouraged others to embrace a healthy lifestyle of organic living, gratefulness, and joyful orientation for over 13 years. Through her website www.Thrive-Living.com she looks forward to connecting with other like-minded people from around the world who share a similar vision.
http://www.naturalnews.com/030603_cacao_medicine.html
by Carolanne Wright, citizen journalist
(NaturalNews) Legendary cacao has a long history of medicinal use throughout Mesoamerica and South America. Today, science confirms chocolate has many favorable qualities that support health and psychological well-being. This magical bean offers great benefits when the cacao is high-quality, raw and organic.
The native people of the Americas extolled the merits of cacao with oral histories, pottery, stonework, and colored documents that chronicled its use in rituals as well as in everyday life. The Mayan and Mexica religions believed cacao had divine origins. According to Mayan legend, after humans were created by the goddess Xmucane, the God Sovereign Plumed Serpent gave cacao to the Maya.
When Europeans began exploring the New World, Columbus and his crew were the first to encounter cacao when they seized a canoe at Guanaja that was filled with strange 'almonds'. Eventually it was discovered the 'almonds' were actually cacao beans used as a source of currency in Mesoamerica.
Chocolate is not only a food, but also a medicine. Preparations are well documented by the explorers who came in contact with cacao during their travels. Cacao medicinal properties were noted to alleviate fever, anemia, poor appetite, metal fatigue and poor breast milk production, as well as tuberculosis, gout, kidney stones and low virility. This delicious bean was famous for healing the nervous system and improving digestion and elimination.
Jump to the modern day and numerous studies celebrate the many virtues of chocolate. Research confirms that chocolate helps to relieve emotional stress. Stress hormones and stress-related biochemical agents were reduced when volunteers, who rated themselves as highly stressed, consumed 1.4 ounces of dark chocolate per day for a period of two weeks.
Another study found that cacao flavanols (CF) improve cognitive function. In a randomized, double-blind trial, 30 healthy adults consumed either 520 mg or 994 mg of a CF infused beverage. Both groups showed significant improvement in mental acuity, while a reduction in 'mental fatigue' was only found with the lower consumption of 520 mg. The researchers suspect the results may be related to the effects of CF on blood flow.
Cacao mass also contains potassium, phosphorus, copper, iron, zinc, and magnesium which contribute to cardiovascular health. Chocolate has the ability to trigger the release of dopamine and the endorphin phenylethylamine, both of which soothe the symptoms of premenstrual syndrome and depression. Due to its high valeric acid content, cacao has stress relieving properties despite the presence of the stimulants theobromine and caffeine.
Yet not all chocolate is created equal. Organic, raw cacao reigns supreme with maximum nutrient content compared to other forms. Since raw chocolate is processed at low temperatures, it retains much more of its famed nutritional value than if it were roasted. As seen in David Wolfe's, "Naked Chocolate: The Astounding Truth About the World's Greatest Food", raw chocolate has many high-quality nutrients such as manganese, vitamin C, and omega 6 fatty acids. Raw cacao also contains powerful antioxidants along with a significant amount of chromium, which balances blood sugar levels. Additional benefits are found in neurotransmitter modulating agents that act as natural antidepressants. "They allow our neurotransmitters like serotonin to remain in our bloodstream longer that usual. This makes us younger," explains Wolfe. He believes that raw cacao is an excellent way to enhance health while calming the heart, amplifying sensuality and enriching one's love life.
Live your bliss and savor the wisdom of the ancients. Invigorate modern vitality with the many extraordinary traits of raw cacao.
Sources for this article:
Teresa L. Dillinger, Patricia Barriga, Sylvia Escarcega, Martha Jimenez, Diana Salazar Lowe, Louis E. Grivetti, "Food of the Gods: Cure for Humanity? A Cultural History of the Medicinal and Ritual Use of Chocolate", The Journal of Nutrition. Retrived on November 28, 2010, from http://jn.nutrition.org/content/130/8/2057S.full.pdf
Francois-Pierre J. Martin, Serge Ressi, Emma Per-Trepat, Beate Kamlage, Sebastiano Collino, Edgar Leibold, Jurgen Kastler, Dietrich Rein, Laurent B. Fay, Sunil Kochhar, "Metabolic Effects of Dark Chocolate Consumption on Energy, Gut Microbiota, and Stress-Related Metabolism in Free-Living Subjects", Journal of Proteome Research, October 7, 2009, 8 (12), pp 5568-5579
Andrew B Scholey, Stephen J French, Penelope J Morris, David O Kennedy, Athea L Milne, Crystal F Haskell, "Consumption of coca flavanols results in acute improvements in mood and cognitive performance during sustained mental effort". Journal of Psychopharmacology, October 2010, 24 (10)
pp 1505-1514
Pamela Moyers Scott, MPAS, PA-C, "Is chocolate really good for me?" JAAPA, January 2007, 20 (1) pp 55-56
Marisa Belger, "The raw, tasty truth about natural chocolate. Skip the average bar and reach for nutrient-packed cacao treats instead". Today GreenDAY, August 2009. Retrieved on November 30, 2010, from http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32271092/ns/today-green/
Kevin Gianni, "Nutritional Authority David Wolfe Discusses Metabolism and Chocolate", Natural News, August 22, 2008. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from
http://www.naturalnews.com/023939_food_chocolate_cacao.html
About the author
Carolanne enthusiastically believes if we want to see change in the world, we need to be the change. As a nutritionist, natural foods chef, and wellness coach, Carolanne has encouraged others to embrace a healthy lifestyle of organic living, gratefulness, and joyful orientation for over 13 years. Through her website www.Thrive-Living.com she looks forward to connecting with other like-minded people from around the world who share a similar vision.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Aspartame Confession at Diabetic Conference, Wow! Two New Studies!
Note: They even put this stuff in drugs, including the most frequently used anti-seizure drugs like Dilantin, Tegretol, Depacate, efc.
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2008/07/17/seizure_inducing_aspartame_added_to_antiseizure_drugs.htm
Aspartame Confession at Diabetic Conference, Wow! Two New Studies
http://www.laleva.org/eng/2011/07/aspartame_confession_at_diabetic_conference_wow_two_new_studies.html
Dr Betty Martini, D.Hum Founder
Mission Impossible International
July 1, 2011
For 30 years the American Diabetes Assn has rejected all evidence that aspartame is deadly, you see, they've been on the take from the poison producers whom they really represent. At last the truth is confessed by two reports at an ADA Conference. Like they say: **Murder will out**. See my analysis following their confession.
http://www.beveragedaily.com/content/view/print/383456
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/255633/Diet-drinks-make-you-fat
http://www.fitsugar.com/Diet-Soda-Leads-Weight-Gain-New-Studies-Find-18073646
Another Study Says It: Diet Soda Leads to Weight Gain
Study after study has told us to watch out for those empty, sugary calories in sweetened drinks like soda, but two new studies remind us about the dangers of diet soda http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/29/studies-why-diet-sodas-are-no-boon-to-dieters/ - they too can lead to weight gain and may raise your risk for developing diabetes.
The studies were presented at a diabetes conference this weekend, and together they show that drinking diet soda may just be another thing in our diets that is making us fat. One study followed 474 older-age diet-soda drinkers and found that their waistlines grew 70 percent more than non-diet-soda drinkers, even when the researchers accounted for differences in age, physical activity level, and diabetes status.
The news gets worse; read on for how bad a two-diets-a-day habit is for your waistline.
Those who drank two diet sodas a day or more had waistlines that were 500 percent larger than the nondrinkers. All that extra bulge around the belly
http://www.fitsugar.com/Spare-Tire-Could-Fatal-Even-Healthy-BMI-2499503 is a risk factor for diseases like diabetes and high blood pressure.
This isn't the first study to point out diet soda's role in weight gain. Others have found that artificial sweeteners like aspartame, which is used in diet sodas, make our bodies crave calories http://www.fitsugar.com/Diet-Healthier-Than-Regular-Soda-4403721 . The result? We give in to those cravings by eating even more sweet, high-calorie foods; not only that, noncalorie sweeteners may also trigger our bodies to start storing more calories as fat.
The other study presented at the conference was performed on mice and found that those whose food was sweetened with aspartame had higher fasting blood sugar levels than the mice who ate nonartificially sweetened food. That, the researchers say, can lead to diabetes.
More and more, diet sodas seem to be getting a bad rap. But if you're a fan of the occasional Diet Coke, do studies like these worry you, or is your philosophy "everything in moderation"? Source: Thinkstock End of article
The News Is Everywhere! If you want to get fat (and diabetic) NutraSweet is where it‚s at! How long was this known? Since the beginning! On the bottom of Dr. Sandra Cabot's article "Aspartame Makes You Fatter" see the reference to the May 1985 Congressional Record which quotes Dr. Richard Wurtman's affidavit declaring that aspartame makes you crave carbohydrates, producing weight gain.
http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_makes_you_fatter.htm Note also his observation that it produces unstable blood-sugar levels.
Sugar soda is often blamed for obesity, but aspartame and MSG are the real culprits.
Uninformed school boards remove regular sodas and replace them with diet drinks so the children get fatter and develop toxic symptoms named on the 1995 FDA list of 92 reactions to aspartame gathered from over 10,000 consumer complaints. (FDA now denies there ever was such a list, but you can see it at mpwhi.com. There was nobody driving, Officer, we were all in the back seat singing!)
World famous diabetic specialist H. J. Roberts, M.D., F.A.C.P., F.C.C.P., has authored four books and numerous peer-reviewed articles describing the aspartame plague, including the 1,038 page ‚Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, presenting hundreds of case histories and detailing the specific toxic mechanisms by which it poisons millions of unwarned consumers. www.sunsentpess.com
Aspartame is 50% phenylalanine, normally a nutrient when accompanied by the other amino acids in our foods, but isolated and un-buffered by them it depletes serotonin and lowers the seizure threshold triggering psychiatric and behavioral problems. Aspartame interacts with all antidepressants. See Report for Schools: http://www.mpwhi.com/report_on_aspartame_and_children.htm
The second recent study reveals elevated fasting glucose levels but equal or diminished insulin levels, consistent with early declines in pancreatic beta-cell function. Dr. Gabriel Fernandes, who led this research said, "These results suggest that heavy aspartame exposure might potentially directly contribute to increased blood glucose levels and thus contribute to the associations observed between diet soda consumption and the risk of diabetes in humans.
How long have we known aspartame can precipitate diabetes? For 30 years! Dr. H. J. Roberts, now retired, was a member of the American Diabetes Assn for 35 years. He repeatedly warned them that not only does aspartame precipitate diabetes but also it simulates and aggravates diabetic retinopathy and neuropathy, destroying the optic nerve, causing diabetic convulsions and blindness, and it even interacts with insulin. The free methyl alcohol which is converted from aspartame's methyl ester causes them to lose limbs. This alcohol is so addictive that patients willingly undergo amputations rather than relinquish their *diet* drinks. See Lane Shore's report on mpwhi.com [http://www.mpwhi.com], above.
The American Diabetes Assn is funded by the aspartame industry. At their walks you can see people in their **Equal** shirts. ADA had a decision to make: payola or public interest. They took the ca$h and let the diabetics die. For years Mission Possible activists have walked along diabetics at their walks, giving them life saving information. Afterwards many diabetics called saying they eliminated it and their blood sugar came under control and other problems disappeared as well.
Finally Dr. Roberts asked the ADA to publish an aspartame diabetic abstract. THEY REFUSED! It was published in Clinical Research. In 2004 because the ADA not only refuses to warn but tells diabetics aspartame is safe, a racketeering suit was filed, although against ADA*s power it didn't get far. ADA continues telling diabetics aspartame is safe, knowing full well it can take their lives.
Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D. author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, www.russellblaylockmd.com said in an interview about the ADA:
**They receive huge amounts of money from the makers of aspartame. They fund their walk-a-thon and all that kind of stuff, so they get tremendous amounts of money from the makers of aspartame, and money talks. Whether they're just deluding themselves and choosing not to believe it's toxic, refusing to look at the evidence http://www.naturalnews.com/evidence.html , or they're just concerned about the money and could care less, I don't know, but when you look at the pathophysiology of diabetes http://www.naturalnews.com/diabetes.html and the effect of aspartame, it's absolute nonsense for anybody who has diabetes to be on aspartame. Particularly in a neurological aspect, it's going to make it a lot worse.**
Dr. Ralph Walton said, **The world-wide epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes obviously has multiple causes, but I am convinced aspartame is a major factor.**
Jim McDonald of the UK Aspartame Awareness Campaign has told the government agencies that the methyl alcohol from aspartame is 35 times too high in the UK and 44 times in the US. EFSA, European Food Safety Authority, has been asked to do another review on aspartame, and take another look at the independent studies they haven't accepted. Interestingly today a report from "Beverage" says "EFSA confirms access to 1980's aspartame data as it calls for fresh science." There are several who have all the studies from the beginning such as Dr. John Olney. Still, this is an interesting statement. One informant said **when Don Rumsfeld took over G. D. Searle they came in and cleaned out all the studies, everyone knows its poison**.
Studies in the 1980's: Norma Vera, translator, said G. D. Searle did studies in 6 countries in 1983/84 which showed aspartame causes seizures, brain tumors, hardens the synovial fluids and damages the brain. They used consumers from poor villages who wouldn't be missed. The pregnant woman, lost her baby, hemorrhaged and disappeared. When Searle got the results they closed down their offices in Florida and went back to Illinois. Then in 1985 they sold to Monsanto.
In the early 80's one of the scientists who worked on aspartame was on the Phil Donahue*s show stating that aspartame should never have been marketed, it causes seizures and interacts with anti-seizure medication.
Then another informant, Jana Marie, wrote me:
**Dear Betty: (Jana Marie bodefan_skateusa@yahoo.com)
**I lived near Columbia, MD and worked as a temp. It was the late 80's and Regan had been elected president. I was a national officer in the largest christian singles organization and needed to travel a lot so I worked as a professional temp. I was sent from a Laural, Md temp agency to an office complex at a corner intersection near Jessup, Md ( I can find out the exact location if you really need it). I am an executive secretary w/ high skills and made top dollar. This job paid top dollar. I was asked to take piles of paper and COPY, THEN SHRED them. I was told very sternly NOT to read the material and that if I did I would be fired. Well, I grew up in the military in the 60's w/ secrets all around and I'm very curious. I am after all a paralegal. So, I read while copied and read while shredded.
**Here's what was going on. The copies were being sent to France, then I was shredding them, too and the originals were being shredded. They were about the new product not yet on the market, EQUAL. They were the lab results from the tested rats and other animals. The results were outrageous. This stuff killed everything it touched.
**I overheard a conversation on the second day by the *boss* and the girl who was telling me what to do. She told him what I was doing and that I was also doing the faxing to France. He was livid and started screaming at her, **What if she reads some of this stuff?** she told him I was too stupid to know what I was reading, even if I did.
**What she didn't know was that I was a doctor's daughter, that I had 3 years of college and I was extremely intelligent. Nor did she know that all during my father's college years when he was in charge of the animal lab at his college, he would take me to help give the rats their injections. I knew what I was reading.
**We know that you know some of this information, but did you know the originals are in France? I should have told someone then, but WHO? I just never touched the stuff when it came out and tell everyone I know it is dangerous stuff. I didn't know it was the Aspartame in it that was the problem until recently. A friend of mine sent me to this web site so that I could finally tell what I know. I hope you find that the Reagan Administration (which I believe is the case) did this intentionally. though I'm a republican, that has nothing to do with what happened here.
**If they can take Neuronton or other drugs off the market because of their effect on people, they can take this off the market. The cover-up is horrific.
Thx for what you do. God Bless and have a good day, Jan**
When Monsanto bought Searle and word got out about the seizures triggered by aspartame and other diseases and cancer, they decided to do their own studies to defend this poison. Here Mark Gold of the Aspartame Toxicity Center shows you the scientific abuse in their studies on aspartame. http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/
Even the original studies were the target of an indictment for fraud by the FDA. Unfortunately the defense team hired the US Prosecutors and the statute of limitations expired. The FDA revoked the petition for approval but the political chicanery of Donald Rumsfeld is how aspartame got marketed.
What does all this tell us? They couldn't get aspartame to show safety in original studies and were caught doing such things as excising brain tumors from rats, putting them back in the study and when they died they resurrected them on paper. They were filtering out cancers and things they didn't want the FDA to see. Then Searle decided to do studies in foreign lands where they wouldn't be observed but the studies got leaked. Next they tried destroying the evidence. Finally they sold the company. Monsanto could do no better. Their studies have been exposed as well. They just didn't get it - you can't get a deadly poison to show safety no matter what you do.
If you took every study ever done on aspartame whether independent or industry funded and mixed them up, it would be very easy to return them to two stacks. All the ones that show safety would be industry funded or influenced, and all the ones showing aspartame not to be safe would be independent. Dr. Ralph Walton did research for 60 Minutes and put this issue to rest.
Dr. Walton's research on Scientific Peer Reviewed Studies and Funding: http://www.dorway.com/doctors.html#w This showed 92% of all independent scientific peer reviewed studies showed the problems. He considered 6 studies by the FDA to be independent but knowing the controversy stated that if you remove these 6 studies and one pro-aspartame summary, 100% of independent, scientific peer reviewed studies show the problems.
So how can agencies of the government continue to say aspartame is safe when they know that is simply not so? They have great loyalty to the aspartame industry. When Dr. Koeter left EFSA his release stated, "We were pressured by industry to hijack science."
When Jack Samuels (www.truthinlabeling.org) filed suit against FDA in the labeling of MSG, it is of interest that he found the glutamate people had been using aspartame as the placebo for a quarter of a century, even though this is against the law. They knew they couldn't show MSG not to react, so this way they could say it didn't react anymore than the placebo. The aspartic acid in aspartame is an excitotoxin just like MSG. The FDA was forced to admit this was wrong but did nothing about it, and for all we know the glutamate people could still be doing this.
In 2002 Felicity Mawson, Mission Possible UK, and myself went to Brussels and provided the EU with a lot of damning studies and records on the aspartame issue, because of an aspartame review. So what do you think they did with them? They deleted them. OLAF, (European Fraud organization) found no committee decided on the safety of aspartame, only one man.
Obviously, they had made up their mind in advance of our visit. I was wired. So there is no more European Commission on Food and EFSA was born.
Now comes the EU and Parliament wanting the review again, with particular attention to current studies that EFSA has not accepted in the past, and the methanol issue. Plus we now add two new studies above. Sounds like a soap opera. See the whole movie on the issue, **Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World** - Cori@sweetremedyradio.com In the UK, Play it again Sam! What interesting information will we see in the l980's studies this time?
Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder
Mission Possible International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth Georgia 30097
www.mpwhi.com
www.dorway.com
www.wnho.net
Aspartame Toxicity Center, www.holisticmed.com/aspartame
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Scientists say Roundup herbicide harms soils and hinders yields
Scientists say Roundup herbicide harms soils and hinders yields
http://www.thecanaryreport.org/2011/08/13/roundup-herbicide/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheCanaryReport+%28The+Canary+Report%29
Repeated use of the chemical glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup herbicide, impacts the root structure of plants, and 15 years of research indicates that the chemical could be causing fungal root disease.
Reuters reports that Roundup herbicide research shows plant and soil problems.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/12/us-glyphosate-idUSTRE77B58A20110812
**The heavy use of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide appears to be causing harmful changes in soil and potentially hindering yields of the genetically modified crops that farmers are cultivating, a government scientist said on Friday.
[Bob] Kremer is among a group of scientists who have been turning up potential problems with glyphosate. Outside researchers have also raised concerns over the years that glyphosate use may be linked to cancer, miscarriages and other health problems in people and livestock.**
Glyphosate is an organophosphorus compound, one of three classes of pesticides that research shows can initiate Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. http://www.thecanaryreport.org/mcs-definition/
The three classifications of pesticides linked to the initiation of MCS are organophosphorus and carbamate pesticides, the organochlorine pesticides, and the pyrethroid pesticides.
Hungary Destroys All Monsanto GMO Corn Fields.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/09/hungary-destroys-all-monsanto-gmo-corn-fields.aspx?e_cid=20110814_SNL_MT_1
Hungary Destroys All Monsanto GMO Corn Fields
Posted By Dr. Mercola | August 09 2011 | 48,848 views
In March, Hungary introduced a new regulation that states seeds must be checked for GMO before they are introduced to the market. However, some GMO seeds made it to the farmers without their being aware of it.
As a result, almost 1,000 acres of maize found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds have been destroyed throughout Hungary. The deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar said that the GMO maize has been ploughed under, and pollen has not spread from the maize.
Planetsave reports:
"Unlike several EU members, GMO seeds are banned in Hungary. The checks will continue despite the fact that seed traders are obliged to make sure that their products are GMO free, Bognar said."
The United States, meanwhile, is beginning to see the consequences of widely planted GMOs. In the mid-'90s, Monsanto introduced seeds genetically engineered to withstand its Roundup brand of herbicide. Today, these "Roundup Ready" crops are planted all across the U.S. -- 94 percent of soybeans and more than 70 percent of corn and cotton contain the Roundup-resistant gene.
But when the land is dosed with a single herbicide for years on end, the ecosystems adapt. Roundup-defying "superweeds" are getting out of control. And the problem is only accelerating, because the resistant weeds are driving out their non-resistant counterparts.
According to Mother Jones:
"These weeds adapt faster and more vigorously than their weed cousins, choking fields and clogging irrigation ditches so badly water can't pass through."
Sources:
Planetsave July 21, 2011
Mother Jones July 19, 2011
Hungary Destroys All Monsanto GMO Corn Fields
Posted By Dr. Mercola | August 09 2011 | 48,848 views
In March, Hungary introduced a new regulation that states seeds must be checked for GMO before they are introduced to the market. However, some GMO seeds made it to the farmers without their being aware of it.
As a result, almost 1,000 acres of maize found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds have been destroyed throughout Hungary. The deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar said that the GMO maize has been ploughed under, and pollen has not spread from the maize.
Planetsave reports:
"Unlike several EU members, GMO seeds are banned in Hungary. The checks will continue despite the fact that seed traders are obliged to make sure that their products are GMO free, Bognar said."
The United States, meanwhile, is beginning to see the consequences of widely planted GMOs. In the mid-'90s, Monsanto introduced seeds genetically engineered to withstand its Roundup brand of herbicide. Today, these "Roundup Ready" crops are planted all across the U.S. -- 94 percent of soybeans and more than 70 percent of corn and cotton contain the Roundup-resistant gene.
But when the land is dosed with a single herbicide for years on end, the ecosystems adapt. Roundup-defying "superweeds" are getting out of control. And the problem is only accelerating, because the resistant weeds are driving out their non-resistant counterparts.
According to Mother Jones:
"These weeds adapt faster and more vigorously than their weed cousins, choking fields and clogging irrigation ditches so badly water can't pass through."
Sources:
Planetsave July 21, 2011
Mother Jones July 19, 2011
Court Rules Pesticide Drifting Onto Organic Farm Constitutes Trespass.
Wafting poison makes fertile ground for suit in Stearns County
Court Rules Pesticide Drifting Onto Organic Farm Constitutes Trespass
By: Josephine Marcotty
Star Tribune, July 25, 2011
Oluf Johnson's 12,000-acre farm in Stearns County is an organic island in a sea of chemically treated corn and soybeans.
Improperly applied pesticides repeatedly drift over from neighboring farms, often with dire consequences for Johnson. But now, thanks to a new court ruling, he and other farmers can sue to recover their losses.
Letting damaging chemicals cross property lines is trespassing, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled on Monday. Moreover, since those pesticides made his crop unsalable in the organic market, Johnson is entitled to damages from the company that applied it, the Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co., the court said.
"Whenever this happens it will give people with overspray a legal avenue to pursue," said Doug Spanier, an attorney with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, which administers pesticide enforcement regulations in the state. And that could go for any farmer whose crop is made inedible by someone else's chemical spray and even homeowners whose property has been damaged by a neighbor's overuse of RoundUp, legal experts said.
It's one case among many across the country that illustrate how the fight over pesticide use is becoming increasingly contentious. Consumers and health experts are worried about the consequences of pesticides and herbicides in the food chain, and the demand for organically grown food is rising in lockstep.
Courts are responding
Recently, an organic farmer in California won $1 million in damages when pesticides were carried by fog from faraway fields to his own. He had to throw away a season's worth of herbs destined for organic markets.
The Minnesota court's decision on Monday "puts it in line with how other jurisdictions have dealt with this," said Alexandra Klass, a professor of environmental law at the University of Minnesota. "The vast majority of jurisdictions find that pesticide drift is a trespass."
The state Agriculture Department said it fields 100 to 150 complaints a year from farmers about overspraying. But only about 35 a year result in some kind of financial penalty, state agriculture officials said.
For Johnson and his wife, Debra, it's been a long, hard fight. Their attorney, Arlo Vande Vegte of Long Lake, said they would not comment on the decision because talking about it publicly could jeopardize their case. It will get another hearing in Stearns County District Court, where it was originally dismissed, he said.
But their story was detailed by the appeals court.
The Johnsons made the decision to become organic farmers in the 1990s, an arduous process that takes at least three years of careful planning and scrupulous record keeping. They asked the local pesticide cooperative, Paynesville Farmers Union, to take precautions with spraying around the farm.
Nonetheless, the cooperative repeatedly sprayed pesticide and herbicide on neighboring fields in a way that violated Minnesota law, the court said in its decision.
The attorney representing the cooperative did not return phone calls on Monday.
The first time it happened in 1998, the cooperative apologized but refused to pay the Johnsons for the damage caused by the overspraying. When it happened again in 2002, Johnson complained to the Agriculture Department, which determined the chemicals had been sprayed illegally, tainting Johnson's crop.
He sold it at lower, nonorganic prices, and, following federal rules, removed the contaminated field from production for three years. That time the cooperative settled out of court with the Johnsons.
But it happened again in 2005, 2007 and 2008. In all, the state cited the cooperative four times for violating pesticide laws by applying the chemicals on windy days.
But the Johnsons also paid a price each time it happened. They had to burn fields and plow under soybeans and take their fields out of production. In 2009 they sued the co-op, charging negligence and trespassing.
But the district court threw out the suit, saying Minnesota does not recognize trespassing "by particulate matter," and that the Johnsons could not prove damages. The Appeals Court disagreed. It said that thrown objects and even bullets constitute trespass, and that the state Supreme Court has ruled that beekeepers can collect damages for pesticide-contaminated bees that destroyed their hives.
Perhaps even more significant for other organic farmers, the Johnsons' attorney said, they are entitled to damages because they couldn't sell their tainted crops in the organic market.
Josephine Marcotty · 612-673-7394
********************
John E. Peck
Executive Director
Family Farm Defenders,
P.O. Box 1772, Madison, WI 53701
tel./fax. 608-260-0900
www.familyfarmdefenders.org
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Experts: Fukushima 'off-scale' lethal radiation level infers millions dying.
Experts: Fukushima 'off-scale' lethal radiation level infers millions dying.
Fukushima nuclear power plant radiation recordings of external gamma radiation have been so high this week, they went off scale said veteran nuclear expert Arnie Gunderson on Thursday after the famous physicist, Dr. Chris Busby told the
Japanese people this week that radioactive air contamination there is now 300 times that of Chernobyl and 1000 times the atomic bomb peak in 1963, inferring that hundreds of millions of people are now dying from Fukushima radiation, including people in the United States.
If noticing unusual amounts of hair falling out, confusion, nose bleeds or other odd symptoms typical of radiation sickness, it might be due to the United States record high levels of radiation, now multiple times acceptable safety limits not only on the west coast, but also in other locations around the nation. Because Fukushima radiation data retrieval and interpretation has been so complex or non-existent for the concerned public, citizen reporters in Japan and United States have now established easily accessible ways to view radiation levels on the internet.
Fukushima radiation depopulation unfathomable: Possibly 100s of millions deaths.
Dr Janette Sherman, a highly respected physician and acknowledged expert in radiation exposure who has reported a north-east United States 35% baby death spike since Fukushima fall-out reached the nation, concurs with estimates that world wide, the Chernobyl Kill is one million people killed to date reported NOVA News. Extrapolating, worldwide deaths by Fukushima radiation could eventually be hundreds of millions of people, becoming the most significant depopulation event to date.
Dr. Chris Busby, world famous physicist, said tests conducted at the respected Harwell Radiation Laboratory in England demonstrate that airborne radiation in Japan is 1,000 times higher than radioactive **fallout** at the peak in 1963 of H-Bomb detonations by nuclear powers. In March, Busby had estimated that Fukushima radiation to be 72,000 times greater than what the United States released at Hiroshima.
Article continues at: http://weeklyintercept.blogspot.com/2011/08/experts-fukushima-off-scale-lethal.html
Fukushima nuclear power plant radiation recordings of external gamma radiation have been so high this week, they went off scale said veteran nuclear expert Arnie Gunderson on Thursday after the famous physicist, Dr. Chris Busby told the
Japanese people this week that radioactive air contamination there is now 300 times that of Chernobyl and 1000 times the atomic bomb peak in 1963, inferring that hundreds of millions of people are now dying from Fukushima radiation, including people in the United States.
If noticing unusual amounts of hair falling out, confusion, nose bleeds or other odd symptoms typical of radiation sickness, it might be due to the United States record high levels of radiation, now multiple times acceptable safety limits not only on the west coast, but also in other locations around the nation. Because Fukushima radiation data retrieval and interpretation has been so complex or non-existent for the concerned public, citizen reporters in Japan and United States have now established easily accessible ways to view radiation levels on the internet.
Fukushima radiation depopulation unfathomable: Possibly 100s of millions deaths.
Dr Janette Sherman, a highly respected physician and acknowledged expert in radiation exposure who has reported a north-east United States 35% baby death spike since Fukushima fall-out reached the nation, concurs with estimates that world wide, the Chernobyl Kill is one million people killed to date reported NOVA News. Extrapolating, worldwide deaths by Fukushima radiation could eventually be hundreds of millions of people, becoming the most significant depopulation event to date.
Dr. Chris Busby, world famous physicist, said tests conducted at the respected Harwell Radiation Laboratory in England demonstrate that airborne radiation in Japan is 1,000 times higher than radioactive **fallout** at the peak in 1963 of H-Bomb detonations by nuclear powers. In March, Busby had estimated that Fukushima radiation to be 72,000 times greater than what the United States released at Hiroshima.
Article continues at: http://weeklyintercept.blogspot.com/2011/08/experts-fukushima-off-scale-lethal.html
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Cancers can re-seed themselves after chemo, surgery or radiation
Cancers can re-seed themselves after chemo, surgery or radiation
http://www.naturalnews.com/028241_cancer_tumors.html
Researchers from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York have published findings in the journal Cell that explain how tumor cells can re-seed and spread throughout the body after they have been removed through conventional chemotherapy, surgery, or radiation treatments. Tiny tumor cells that circulate throughout the body often begin to send out seeds to the places where the tumor originated, essentially planting the cancer back into the body.
Joan Massague and her colleagues at the Center are finding that conventional treatments leave behind malignant cells that relocate to other areas of the body to avoid being destroyed. Eventually they return as stronger and more aggressive tumors, having gathered back the worst leftover cells from the previous cancer. The result is a second cancer that is worse than the first.
Chemicals present in the immune system also appear to signal tumor cells in circulation to return to their source. Following conventional treatment, the immune system actually works against the body by drawing the vagrant cancer cells back to where they originally seeded, kick starting a relapse.
Medical professionals typically attribute recurrences of cancer following conventional treatment to a few remaining cells that survived treatment and remained at the source. However this study illustrates definitively that lingering cells hide throughout the body and later return to self seed back where they originally started.
What these findings illustrate is that conventional cancer treatments are not effective at eradicating cancer from the body. The targeting of a specific area with surgery, radiation treatment, and chemotherapy cannot successfully remove the cancer from the body because its cells will find another place to live temporarily, only to return even stronger the next time.
Biopsies cause cancer to spread
A conventional biopsy is usually recommended as the best way to identify the presence of cancer, both before and after treatments. Needle biopsies involve taking tissue samples at various places in order to identify the presence of cancer cells. Official diagnosis of cancer cannot take place without a biopsy, resulting in the pressuring of patients to get one if they suspect a tumor.
Many doctors will insist that a person needs a biopsy, but the threat of spreading cancer far outweighs any perceived benefits. Those who receive biopsies will most likely experience unnecessary cancer spread and, following conventional treatment, will probably experience cancer reseeding. Cancer is known to develop at the puncture sites of biopsies.
Chemotherapy leads to reseeding
Chemotherapy treatments involve targeting cancer cells that are rapidly dividing and spreading with harsh chemicals designed to kill them. While treatment may kill the primary tumor, it fails to eradicate the cells that divide more slowly, resulting in a continued replication of cancer cells following treatment.
Many who believe they are in remission following their chemotherapy treatments later discover that their cancer has returned. Not only do they undergo the horrors of the treatment which leaves their body and health in shambles, but they often end up with a more severe version of their original cancer.
Conventional therapies are a failure
Conventional medicine is at a loss for how to deal with the problem of reseeding. Within their paradigm, chemotherapy, radiation, drugs, and surgery are the only options for treating someone with cancer. Now that these are proving to be largely ineffective, scientists are searching for yet another new drug to combat the tendency of cancers to re-seed in order to continue promoting these accepted forms of cancer treatment. They are even investigating the possibility of developing vaccines that will allegedly use the body's immune system to stop vagrant cancer cells.
The problem with drugs, surgery, and radiation is that they will never be able to systematically rid the body of the problem because they are only capable of targeting a confined area. These methods are also wrought with negative side effects so severe that many people end up dying simply from the treatment.
Conventional treatment is also extremely expensive, heavily burdening an already overwhelmed health care system. It is simply assumed that there are no alternative methods by which cancer can be treated, let alone prevented.
Many recently published studies have found that pomegranates, mangoes, and other natural foods contain valuable phytonutrients that effectively prevent and stop malignant cancer cells while preserving good cells. These nutrients holistically rid the body of harmful cells, targeting them wherever they hide in the body and eliminating them.
Conventional medicine would do best to begin focusing heavily on the compounds found in nature that are designed to deter cancer without inflicting negative side effects as an alternative to the mainstream methods that are only making the problem worse. Whether in aloe vera, peach pits, raw almonds, or the many fruits and vegetables found around the world, anti-cancer nutrients are everywhere and modern medicine is only beginning to recognize them. They may not result in the next big blockbuster drug but they work and they are inexpensive. Perhaps this is the reason they are generally marginalized and looked down upon by the cancer industry.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news...
http://www.healingcancernaturally.c...
Friday, August 5, 2011
Court rules organic farmers can sue conventional, GMO farmers whose pesticides trespass and contaminate their fields.
Court rules organic farmers can sue conventional, GMO farmers whose pesticides trespass and contaminate their fields
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033216_GMO_contamination_lawsuits.html#ixzz1U7X63vQm
(NaturalNews) Purveyors of conventional and genetically-modified (GM) crops -- and the pesticides and herbicides that accompany them -- are finally getting a taste of their own legal medicine. Minnesota's Star Tribune has reported that the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that a large organic farm surrounded by chemical-laden conventional farms can seek damages for lost crops, as well as lost profits, caused by the illegal trespassing of pesticides and herbicides on its property.
Oluf and Debra Johnson's 1,500-acre organic farm in Stearns County, Minn., has repeatedly been contaminated by nearby conventional and GMO farms since the couple started it in the 1990s. A local pesticide cooperative known as Paynesville Farmers Union (PFU), which is near the farm, has been cited at least four times for violating pesticide laws, and inadvertently causing damage to the Johnson's farm.
The first time it was realized that pesticides had drifted onto the Johnson's farm in 1998, PFU apologized, but did not agree to pay for damages. As anyone with an understanding of organic practices knows, even a small bit of contamination can result in having to plow under that season's crops, forget profits, and even lose the ability to grow organic crops in the same field for at least a couple years.
The Johnson's let the first incident slide. But after the second, third, and fourth times, they decided that enough was enough. Following the second pesticide drift in 2002, the Johnson's filed a complaint with the Minnesota Agriculture Department, which eventually ruled that PFU had illegally sprayed chemicals on windy days, which led to contamination of the Johnson's organic crops.
PFU settled with the Johnson's out of court, and the Johnson's agreed to sell their tainted products as non-organics for a lower price, and pull the fields from production for three years in order to bring them back up to organic standards. But PFU's inconsiderate spraying habits continued, with numerous additional incidents occurring in 2005, 2007, and 2008, according to the Star Tribune.
After enduring much hardship, the Johnson's finally ended up suing PFU in 2009 for negligence and trespass, only to receive denial from the district court that received the case. But after appealing, the Johnson's received favor from the Appeals Court, which ruled that particulate matter, including pesticides, herbicides, and even GM particulates, that contaminates nearby fields is, in fact, considered illegal trespass, and is subject to the same laws concerning other forms of trespass.
In a similar case, a California-based organic farm recently won a $1 million lawsuit filed against a conventional farm whose pesticides spread through fog from several miles away, and contaminated its fields. Jacobs Farm / Del Cobo's entire season's herb crop had to be discarded as a result, and the court that presided over the case acknowledged and agreed that the polluters must be held responsible (http://organicfood.einnews.com/arti...).
Precedent has now been set for organic farmers to sue biotechnology companies whose GMOs contaminate their crops
The stunning victories of both the Johnson's and Jacob's Farm / Del Cobo against their chemical-polluting neighbors is huge, in that it represents a new set legal precedent for holding conventional, factory farming operations responsible for the damage their systems cause to other farms. And with this new precedent set, many more organic farmers, for instance, can now begin suing GMO farmers for both chemical and genetic pollution that drifts onto their farms.
Many NaturalNews readers will recall the numerous incidents involving lawsuits filed by Monsanto against non-GMO farms whose crops were inadvertently contaminated by GM material. In many of these cases, the defendants ended up becoming bankrupted by Monsanto, even though Monsanto's patented materials were the trespassers at fault.
Be sure to check out the extensive and very informative report compiled by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) entitled Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers for a complete history of Monsanto's war against traditional American agriculture: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/...
But it appears that the tables are now turning. Instead of Monsanto winning against organic farmers, organic farmers can now achieve victory against Monsanto. In other words, farmers being infringed upon by the drifting of GM material into their fields now have a legal leg to stand on in the pursuit of justice against Monsanto and the other biotechnology giants whose "frankencrops" are responsible for causing widespread contamination of the American food supply.
Genetic traits are highly transmissible, whether it be through pollen transfer or seed spread, and organic and non-GMO farmers have every right to seek damages for illegal trespassing when such transmission takes place. It is expected that many more organic farms will step up and begin seeking justice and compensation for damage caused by crop chemicals, GM materials, and other harmful invaders.
For too long, Monsanto has been getting away with suing farmers whose crops have become contaminated by Monsanto's patented genetic traits and chemical materials, and winning. Thankfully, the justice system seems to now recognize the severe error in this, and is now beginning to rightfully hold polluters and trespassers responsible. Monsanto, your days are numbered.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033216_GMO_contamination_lawsuits.html#ixzz1U7Xlk9ar
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033216_GMO_contamination_lawsuits.html#ixzz1U7X63vQm
(NaturalNews) Purveyors of conventional and genetically-modified (GM) crops -- and the pesticides and herbicides that accompany them -- are finally getting a taste of their own legal medicine. Minnesota's Star Tribune has reported that the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that a large organic farm surrounded by chemical-laden conventional farms can seek damages for lost crops, as well as lost profits, caused by the illegal trespassing of pesticides and herbicides on its property.
Oluf and Debra Johnson's 1,500-acre organic farm in Stearns County, Minn., has repeatedly been contaminated by nearby conventional and GMO farms since the couple started it in the 1990s. A local pesticide cooperative known as Paynesville Farmers Union (PFU), which is near the farm, has been cited at least four times for violating pesticide laws, and inadvertently causing damage to the Johnson's farm.
The first time it was realized that pesticides had drifted onto the Johnson's farm in 1998, PFU apologized, but did not agree to pay for damages. As anyone with an understanding of organic practices knows, even a small bit of contamination can result in having to plow under that season's crops, forget profits, and even lose the ability to grow organic crops in the same field for at least a couple years.
The Johnson's let the first incident slide. But after the second, third, and fourth times, they decided that enough was enough. Following the second pesticide drift in 2002, the Johnson's filed a complaint with the Minnesota Agriculture Department, which eventually ruled that PFU had illegally sprayed chemicals on windy days, which led to contamination of the Johnson's organic crops.
PFU settled with the Johnson's out of court, and the Johnson's agreed to sell their tainted products as non-organics for a lower price, and pull the fields from production for three years in order to bring them back up to organic standards. But PFU's inconsiderate spraying habits continued, with numerous additional incidents occurring in 2005, 2007, and 2008, according to the Star Tribune.
After enduring much hardship, the Johnson's finally ended up suing PFU in 2009 for negligence and trespass, only to receive denial from the district court that received the case. But after appealing, the Johnson's received favor from the Appeals Court, which ruled that particulate matter, including pesticides, herbicides, and even GM particulates, that contaminates nearby fields is, in fact, considered illegal trespass, and is subject to the same laws concerning other forms of trespass.
In a similar case, a California-based organic farm recently won a $1 million lawsuit filed against a conventional farm whose pesticides spread through fog from several miles away, and contaminated its fields. Jacobs Farm / Del Cobo's entire season's herb crop had to be discarded as a result, and the court that presided over the case acknowledged and agreed that the polluters must be held responsible (http://organicfood.einnews.com/arti...).
Precedent has now been set for organic farmers to sue biotechnology companies whose GMOs contaminate their crops
The stunning victories of both the Johnson's and Jacob's Farm / Del Cobo against their chemical-polluting neighbors is huge, in that it represents a new set legal precedent for holding conventional, factory farming operations responsible for the damage their systems cause to other farms. And with this new precedent set, many more organic farmers, for instance, can now begin suing GMO farmers for both chemical and genetic pollution that drifts onto their farms.
Many NaturalNews readers will recall the numerous incidents involving lawsuits filed by Monsanto against non-GMO farms whose crops were inadvertently contaminated by GM material. In many of these cases, the defendants ended up becoming bankrupted by Monsanto, even though Monsanto's patented materials were the trespassers at fault.
Be sure to check out the extensive and very informative report compiled by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) entitled Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers for a complete history of Monsanto's war against traditional American agriculture: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/...
But it appears that the tables are now turning. Instead of Monsanto winning against organic farmers, organic farmers can now achieve victory against Monsanto. In other words, farmers being infringed upon by the drifting of GM material into their fields now have a legal leg to stand on in the pursuit of justice against Monsanto and the other biotechnology giants whose "frankencrops" are responsible for causing widespread contamination of the American food supply.
Genetic traits are highly transmissible, whether it be through pollen transfer or seed spread, and organic and non-GMO farmers have every right to seek damages for illegal trespassing when such transmission takes place. It is expected that many more organic farms will step up and begin seeking justice and compensation for damage caused by crop chemicals, GM materials, and other harmful invaders.
For too long, Monsanto has been getting away with suing farmers whose crops have become contaminated by Monsanto's patented genetic traits and chemical materials, and winning. Thankfully, the justice system seems to now recognize the severe error in this, and is now beginning to rightfully hold polluters and trespassers responsible. Monsanto, your days are numbered.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033216_GMO_contamination_lawsuits.html#ixzz1U7Xlk9ar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)