The Federation of German Scientists has given the 2015 Whistleblower award to Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini, who was the first to publish animal test results demonstrating the toxic and carcinogenic properties of the most commonly used herbicide worldwide, the glyphosate-based “Roundup” by carrying out a two-year feeding test on rats. Immediately after the publication of his research study in 2012 in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), published by Elsevier, he was attacked in a vehement campaign by ‘interested circles’ from the chemical industry as well as the industry-financed British Science Media Centre.
BioChecked™ launches Glyphosate Free Certified™ certification for food and produce products. BioChecked™ a leading independent 3rd party certification company is offering packaged food producers and fresh produce producers a service where they can get their produce, ingredients and products tested and be reviewed and placed into their new Glyphosate Free Certified™ program. This program consist of regular testing of a producers produce or products for a chemical that is used as a herbicide on plants that normally are genetically modified. With the current industry hype for GMO labeling, one of the more critical issues that is not being talked about is the actual contamination of this herbicide into our food.
It’s quite crucial to understand that glyphosate contamination is systemic, meaning it is present in every cell of the plant, from root to tip. It’s not just an issue of topical contamination, as with many other agricultural chemicals sprayed on crops. Normally, you need to thoroughly wash your produce to remove topical residues, but you simply cannot remove glyphosate from your produce. And neither can food and animal feed manufacturers who use GE ingredients in their products.
"Of the 205 permit applications listed at the end of 2003 for GMO trees, 73.5% originated in the USA. A whopping 32% of the permits were asked for based on herbicide tolerance. Who is the biggest maker of herbicides? There are ten big ones in the world, but Monsanto is at the top of the list, even though regulators of these chemicals knew they would cause birth defects when used."
GMO Propaganda and the Sociology of Science - 10/4/15
Research has shown that upstream scientists -- such as biotechnologists, agricultural technicians, or any scientists who create technologies -- carry far less concern for potential risks than do downstream scientists -- such as public health practitioners, epidemiologists, and environmental toxicologists. Where was the voice of the downstream scientist on the Daily Show? I've worked with biotechnologists personally who have expressed to me that they do not even consider risk or unintended consequences of GM technology. I also sat in a toxicology class where an upstream scientist said that he and his colleagues could never have imagined the rapid and prolific emergence of superweeds in response to Monsanto's glyphosate-resistant GM crops (and the copious use of glyphosate). Meanwhile, environmentalists immediately and fully predicted the resultant herbicide-resistant superweeds that these agricultural experts did not.
Perhaps 20% of the scientists in the Pew poll work directly or indirectly on GM technology -- either upstream of downstream. But science, like every other industry, is a social structure. For career purposes and in order to maintain ties to the larger community, scientists tend to support other scientists -- especially the scientists who have the money and prestige. The scientists with money and prestige are largely upstream scientists. Upstream scientists are not threatened, discredited, defamed, and scrutinized the way downstream scientists are. Downstream scientists have to produce immaculate, indisputably rigorous research -- and even when they do they are questioned by the ubiquitous industrial PR machine. Downstream scientists are not a large part of the community.
Recently updated version was released -- an entire chapter on glyphosate being carcinogenic. So if you have the previous version (released in August), be sure to update with this one, updated on September 15, 2015
Monsanto Fights Back Against Cancer Lawsuits as Company Eliminates 12% of Workforce - 10/9/15
[Update: EcoWatch was provided documentation today, Oct. 9, regarding the Judi Fitzgerald vs. Monsanto Company lawsuit. The documentation dated Oct. 6, says, “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4l(a)(l)(A)(i), Plaintiff Judi Fitzgerald, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby gives notice that the above-action against Defendant Monsanto Company is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.”]
Pest blights India's GM cotton crop, fuelling debate over risks - 10/9/15
The farmers' union allied to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's ruling party is stepping up its opposition: It wants Bt cotton banned and is trying to block the introduction of crops like GM mustard - an oilseed - now in development.
We live in a society that becomes upset when learning of an automobile manufacturer that hid evidence of faulty mechanicals resulting in the injury or death of numerous people; or of one that manipulated engine software to give false data regarding air pollution that had adverse effects on many people and the environment. Such concern is totally warranted. But, oddly, we seem almost inured to the consequences of all-pervasive pesticides such as GLY that have resulted in a far greater loss of life and quality of life on a global scale — whether it be human, animal, microbe, or the environment, all suffer.
Consolidation has increased in the international seed industry in recent decades. The chart below depicts changes in ownership involving major seed companies and their subsidiaries, primarily occurring from 1996 to 2013.1 The largest firms are represented as circles, with size proportional to global commercial seed market share.2
Millennials are driving an $18 billion food revolution
$18 billion. That’s the market share lost by the top 25 U.S. food and beverage companies in the last five years.
"This is not rocket science, folks. If you use rodents for toxicology testing that are already being fed a toxic substance such as Glyphosate, a patented metal chelator, herbicide and antibiotic during the trial, doesn’t it stand to reason that these tests would be inaccurate? To not even consider the ramifications of this and to dismiss Dr. Samsel’s findings outright is outrageous."