The EPA Quietly Approved Monsanto's New Genetic-Engineering Technology - It’s the first time RNA interference will be used to kill insect pests.
The EPA was the last of three agencies—along with the FDA and USDA—that signed off on the safety of DvSnf7 dsRNA. Critics often point to a 2011 paper to question the safety of tinkering with RNAi. In that study, Chinese scientists found naturally occurring RNA molecules from rice circulating in the bloodstream of people eating it. That paper has gotten a lot of criticism, and scientists have had trouble replicating its findings. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/monsanto-rna-interference/531288/?utm_source=twb
Moms Exposed To Monsanto Weed Killer Means Bad Outcomes For Babies - Researchers tested and tracked 69 expectant mothers.
...the team is scheduled to present their findings on Thursday at a conference put on by the Children’s Environmental Health Network (CEHN) in Washington, D.C.
“This is a huge issue,” said Paul Winchester, medical director of the neonatal intensive care unit at the Franciscan St. Francis Health system and professor of clinical pediatrics at Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis, Indiana. He said this is the first U.S. study to demonstrate glyphosate is present in pregnant women. “Everyone should be concerned about this.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/58e3f715e4b02ef7e0e6e172
Prop 65 with Dr. Anthony Samsel - “Actually, there are no safe levels of glyphosate.” Horses hooves collapsing!
Dr. Samsel is the researcher, who discovered that Glyphosate is in vaccines. In this video he talks about how he came to find out this important piece of information. This is a very informative video taped in California where they are trying to determine what level of Glyphosate should be allowed in food. As we know, no level should be in any of our food products or in our vaccines. Every person should view this video. https://www.facebook.com/WeAreJoshuaColeman/videos/1693558907605601/?pnref=story
Anthony Samsel on Glyphosate safety tests - The untold story of sealed files - 2016
Dr. Samsel talks about how he was able to obtain Monsanto sealed “secret” files from the EPA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIUwn_AORuI&feature=youtu.be
Glyphosate Causes Changes to DNA Function Resulting in Chronic Disease, According to Study - 2016
(Beyond Pesticides) A review of the scientific literature links glyphosate, one of the most popular weed killers in the U.S. and the active ingredient in Roundup, to a wide range of diseases through a mechanism that modifies DNA functioning, adding a new even more troubling dimension to the herbicide’s cancer classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. According to the most recent review, Glyphosate pathways to modern disease V: Amino acid analogue of glycine in diverse proteins, conducted by independent scientists Anthony Samsel, Ph.D. and Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), glyphosate acts as a glycine analogue that incorporates into peptides during protein synthesis. In this process, it alters a number of proteins that depend on conserved glycine for proper function. According to the authors, glyphosate substitution for glycine correlates with several diseases, including diabetes, obesity, asthma, Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and Parkinson’s disease, among others. http://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblo...hronic-disease/
What’s With Wheat
Seneff: “This documentary is well done with an engaging story that makes it entertaining as well as informative on the science behind gluten intolerance.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN6xdCx_TrU
10 Banned Foods Americans Should Stop Eating Infographic http://www.mercola.com/infographics/10-b...10-banned-foods
Moms Across America's documentary on GMO's and our food supply. Watch. Share. This is a great eye opener and we need everyone to understand what Monsanto and GMOs and glyphosate mean. http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/communities-rising
Inspector General Investigating Potential Collusion Between Monsanto, Top EPA Official
The inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency is investigating possible collusion between Monsanto and a top EPA pesticide official who recently retired. Documents released by court order indicate that the possible collusion may have resulted in a biased review of cancer risks associated with glyphosate, the most commonly used pesticide in the world and the active ingredient in Roundup. https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/20...nsanto-top-epa#
A.G. Schneiderman Challenges Trump EPA Over Toxic Pesticide
NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, leading a coalition of seven state Attorneys General, announced a challenge to President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for violating federal law regarding toxic pesticides. Chlorpyrifos, a widely-used pesticide on food crops – including those consumed by infants, young children, and pregnant women – is shown to negatively impact proper development and functioning of the central nervous system and brain.
“The EPA’s first job is ensuring the health and safety of New Yorkers and all Americans – especially our children. Yet the Trump administration is jeopardizing our children's health by allowing continued exposure to this toxic pesticide at levels it has not found to be safe,” said Attorney General Schneiderman. “If the Trump Administration won’t follow the law – and put our children’s wellbeing first – we will fight back.” http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2017/jun/15-2
LIGHTHIZER WARNING: BUY GMOS OR EXPECT A FIGHT
The Trump administration will attack overseas regulations that restrict the export of GMO crops and other products resulting from American technological innovation, said U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer at the first meeting of a newly created interdepartmental task force on rural America. “We are going to bring cases at the WTO and other venues, we’re going to insist that any barrier be science-based, and the United States will increase exports,” he said. http://www.agriculture.com/news/business/lighthizer-warning-buy-gmos-or-expect-a-fight
PARLIAMENT VOTES AGAINST GMO CROPS
Luxembourg’s parliament has voted unanimously in favour of a resolution which calls for the ban of cultivating genetically modified maize in Luxembourg. http://delano.lu/d/detail/news/parliament-votes-against-gmo-crops/149066
Non-GMO Foods Market to Grow at 16.23% CAGR by 2021: Key Driver, Top Vendors, Industry Application Analysis and Outlook
The global non-GMO foods market is growing at a steady pace. The increase in the number of health-conscious people and increasing demand for non-GMO food products by middle class families are the primary reasons for the growth of the market. The rising demand for organic food products has also increased the demand for non-GMO food products from consumers. However, premium pricing of non-GMO food products is expected to act as one of the major barriers for the growth of the global non-GMO foods market. The increased adoption of non-GMO seeds by farmers and the growing number of food companies in the non-GMO food sector are expected to fuel the global non-GMO foods market positively during the forecast period. http://www.gmoutlook.com/non-gmo-foods-m...look-78132.html
Chef aims to be catalyst for change to non-GMO corn in tortilla industry
“This evolution is about something much bigger than our brand,” says Calderon. “We want to create a catalyst for change in our industry, both locally and worldwide. We intend to do so by selling our GMO-free corn masa and tortillas to other restaurants and by furthering the evolution of our brand by creating a replicable model that will take GMO-free corn and true Mexican cuisine overseas.” http://non-gmoreport.com/articles/chef-aims-catalyst-change-non-gmo-corn-tortilla-industry/
Non-GMO Milk Is On The Rise https://livingnongmo.org/2017/06/21/non-gmo-milk-is-on-the-rise/
CRISPR CREATOR JENNIFER DOUDNA ON THE PROMISES—AND PITFALLS—OF EASY GENETIC MODIFICATION
For $150, you can buy a Crispr kit online and use it to engineer heartier gut bacteria in your kitchen. That’s thrilling, but the technology is giving Jennifer Doudna, an inventor of the gene-editing method, nightmares. Easy genetic modification could mean cures for cancer (yay!), kitty-sized pigs (squee!), and, yes, designer babies (ack). In her new book, A Crack in Creation, Doudna urges innovators to slow their roll. Here she considers the daunting prospects and promises of the monster-maker she created. https://www.wired.com/2017/05/jennifer-doudna-what-crispr-can-do/
Farm Groups Call on Ag Minister to Stop Genetically Modified Alfalfa Seed Release
The risk of GM alfalfa spreading to where it is not wanted is acknowledged as particularly high because alfalfa is a perennial crop that is pollinated by bees, it often grows wild in uncultivated areas, and it has tiny seeds. http://www.nfu.ca/story/farm-groups-call-ag-minister-stop-genetically-modified-alfalfa-seed-release
Damage reports from dicamba pouring in over the last 2 weeks
...The thought during the development of these restrictions was an attempt to minimize the amount of injury from off target movement this season. Unfortunately that has not been the case. As of this morning (6/12/17) approximately 40 complaints from off target dicamba movement have been filed with the Arkansas State Plant Board. This is up from the 32 total last year and complaints are increasing daily. To be fair numerous other drift complaints have been filed this year including Paraquat (13) and Roundup (11) but these drift events have been much more localized and at most damaging around 100-200 acres in extreme cases. Dicamba complaints however have been much more widespread and may cover 1000 acres or more each time… http://www.arkansas-crops.com/2017/06/12/reports-dicamba-pouring/
Africa's big little anti-GM revolution
And yet, it is to India that Burkina Faso farmers owe a debt for getting their act together to tackle the biotech giant. From across continents has come their learning of how to collect data and use it effectively to demand more sustainable agriculture practices. As Bt cotton began to envelop the cotton-growing areas of Burkina Faso rapidly, farmers, initially happy with Monsanto's Bollgard II, found their problems increasing. The Indian experience showed them they needed to act quickly.http://www.millenniumpost.in/opinion/opinion-248224
Taiwan to Control Imports of GMO Potatoes http://www.potatobusiness.com/storage/control/1972-taiwan-to-control-imports-of-gmo-potatoes
Report: GMOs in Tasmania
The government will introduce legislative amendments to continue the moratorium, and to reaffirm the declaration that the whole of Tasmania is GMO free.” https://www.slowfood.com/report-gmos-tasmania/
A “Brutal Multi-Pronged Assault:” Monsanto’s War on Science Exposed in French Newspaper Investigation
The tactics chronicled and allegations brought up by the La Monde investigation are detailed and thorough, and paint the picture of a company desperate to do everything in its power to bend or control the perception, and truth, about its products.
You can check out the summary from GMWatch.org by clicking here, and read part one of the original report in French (translation is available online) by clicking here. http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/a-...ench-newspaper/http://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-ne...g-investigationhttp://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/20...l#meter_toaster
“A Blatant Display of Unscientific Propaganda:” Cornell Student Exposes GMO Propaganda in Scathing New Letter - 2016 http://althealthworks.com/10640/a-blatan...ing-new-letter/
China Greenlights Imports of Two New GMO Products -- Update http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017...ts-update0.html
Nonprofits Sue Third-Largest Poultry Co. for False Advertising of Drug-Contaminated Chicken
Sanderson Chicken claims its chicken is 100% Natural or “nothing but chicken.” But recent testing conducted by the National Residue Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) found 49 instances in which samples of Sanderson products tested positive for residues of synthetic drugs that are not “100% Natural.” Thirty-three percent of the 69 FSIS inspections, conducted in five states, uncovered residues that no reasonable consumer would consider “natural.”https://www.organicconsumers.org/press/n...minated-chicken
Sanderson Farms: Stop Advertising Your Contaminated Chicken as '100% Natural'!https://action.organicconsumers.org/o/50865/p/dia/action4/common/public/?action_KEY=20846
Short Film Reveals the Lunacy of Water Fluoridationhttps://www.organicconsumers.org/news/short-film-reveals-lunacy-water-fluoridationhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mUUrZJaHPU https://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/organic-bytes-553-you-wont-believe-whats-chicken-seriously
Food: Weapon of MASS Destruction - The Endless Trail of Clues
Nitrogen, soil, mineral deficiency, gmo food... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpIN-8Q9Ahw&feature=youtu.be
Of mice, Monsanto and a mysterious tumor.
Call it the case of the mysterious mouse tumor.
It’s been 34 years since Monsanto Co. presented U.S. regulators with a seemingly routine study analyzing the effects the company’s best-selling herbicide might have on rodents. Now, that study is once again under the microscope, emerging as a potentially pivotal piece of evidence in litigation brought by hundreds of people who claim Monsanto’s weed killer gave them cancer.
This week tissue slides from long-dead mice in that long-ago research study are being scrutinized by fresh eyes as an expert pathologist employed by lawyers for cancer victims looks for evidence the lawyers hope will help prove a cover-up of the dangers of the weed killer called glyphosate.
Glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s branded Roundup products, is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and is applied broadly in the production of more than 100 food crops, including wheat, corn and soy, as well as on residential lawns, golf courses and school yards.
Residues have been detected in food and human urine, and many scientists around the world have warned that exposure through diet as well as through application can potentially lead to health problems. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen in 2015 based on a review of scientific literature, triggering the wave of lawsuits against Monsanto, and pushing California regulators to announce they would add glyphosate to a list of known carcinogens.
What the expert finds, or doesn’t find, is expected to be key evidence in hearings slated for the week of Dec. 11 in dozens of consolidated cases being overseen by a federal judge in San Francisco.
Rewind to 1983
Monsanto, as well as many other scientists and regulatory bodies, have defended glyphosate’s safety. They say research showing a cancer connection is flawed and hundreds of studies support its safety.
And yet—rewind to July 1983 and a study titled “A Chronic Feeding Study of Glyphosate (Roundup Technical) in Mice.” Following the document trail that surrounds the study offers an illuminating look into how science is not always clear-cut, and the lengths Monsanto has had to go to in order to convince regulators to accept scientific interpretations that support the company’s products.
The two-year study ran from 1980-1982 and involved 400 mice divided into groups of 50 males and 50 females that were administered three different doses of the weed killer or received no glyphosate at all for observation as a control group. The study was conducted for Monsanto to submit to regulators. But unfortunately for Monsanto, some mice exposed to glyphosate developed tumors at statistically significant rates, with no tumors at all in non-dosed mice.
A February 1984 memo from Environmental Protection Agency toxicologist William Dykstra stated the findings definitively: “Review of the mouse oncogenicity study indicates that glyphosate is oncogenic, producing renal tubule adenomas, a rare tumor, in a dose-related manner.” Researchers found these increased incidences of the kidney tumors in mice exposed to glyphosate worrisome because while adenomas are generally benign, they have the potential to become malignant, and even in noncancerous stages they have the potential to be harmful to other organs. Monsanto discounted the findings, arguing that the tumors were “unrelated to treatment” and showing false positives, and the company provided additional data to try to convince the EPA to discount the tumors.
But EPA toxicology experts were unconvinced. EPA statistician and toxicology branch member Herbert Lacayo authored a February 1985 memo outlining disagreement with Monsanto’s position. A “prudent person would reject the Monsanto assumption that Glyphosate dosing has no effect on kidney tumor production,” Lacayo wrote. ”Glyphosate is suspect. Monsanto’s argument is unacceptable.”
Eight members of the EPA’s toxicology branch, including Lacayo and Dykstra, were worried enough by the kidney tumors in mice that they signed a consensus review of glyphosate in March 1985 stating they were classifying glyphosate as a Category C oncogen, a substance “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”
That finding did not sit well with Monsanto, and the company worked to reverse the kidney tumor concerns. On April 3, 1985, George Levinskas, Monsanto’s manager for environmental assessment and toxicology, noted in an internal memorandum to another company scientist that the company had arranged for Dr. Marvin Kuschner, a noted pathologist and founding dean of the medical school at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, to review the kidney tissue slides.
Kushner had not yet even accessed the slides but Levinskas implied in his memo that a favorable outcome was assured: “Kuschner will review kidney sections and present his evaluation of them to EPA in an effort to persuade the agency that the observed tumors are not related to glyphosate,” Levinskas wrote. Notably, Levinskas, who died in 2005, was also involved in efforts in the 1970s to downplay damaging findings from a study that found rats exposed to Monsanto’s PCBs developed tumors, documents filed in PCB litigation revealed.
Kuschner’s subsequent re-examination did —as Monsanto stated it would—determine the tumors were not due to glyphosate. Looking over slides of the mouse tissue from the 1983 study, Kuschner identified a small kidney tumor in the control group of the mice – those that had not received glyphosate. No one had noted such a tumor in the original report. The finding was highly significant because it provided a scientific basis for a conclusion that the tumors seen in the mice exposed to glyphosate were not noteworthy after all.
Additionally, Monsanto provided the EPA with an October 1985 report from a “pathology working group” that also rebutted the finding of the connection between glyphosate and the kidney tumors seen in the 1983 study. The pathology working group said “spontaneous chronic renal disease” was “commonly seen in aged mice.” Monsanto provided the report to the EPA stamped as a “trade secret” to be kept from the prying eyes of the public.
The EPA’s own scientists still did not agree, however. An EPA pathologist wrote in a December 1985 memo that additional examination of the tissue slides did not “definitively” reveal a tumor in the control group. Still, the reports by the outside pathologists brought into the debate by Monsanto helped push the EPA to launch a reexamination of the research.
And by February 1986 an EPA scientific advisory panel had dubbed the tumor findings equivocal; saying that given the tumor identified in the control group by some pathologists, the overall incidences of tumors in the animals given glyphosate were not statistically significant enough to warrant the cancer linkage.
The panel did say there may be reason for concern and noted that the tumor incidences seen in the mice given glyphosate were “unusual.”
The advisory panel told the EPA the studies should be repeated in hopes of more definitive findings, and that glyphosate be classified into what the agency at that time called Group D—“not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.” The EPA asked Monsanto for a repeat of the mouse oncogenicity study but Monsanto refused to do so.
The company argued “there is no relevant scientific or regulatory justification for repeating the glyphosate mouse oncogenicity study.” Instead, the company provided EPA officials with historical control data that it argued supported its attempt to further downplay the tumor incidences seen in the worrisome 1983 study.
The company said the tumors in mice appear “with some regularity” and were probably attributable to “genetic or environmental” factors. “It is the judgement of Monsanto scientists that the weight-of-evidence strongly supports a conclusion that glyphosate is not oncogenic in the mouse.” Monsanto said repeating the mouse study would “require the expenditure of significant resources... and tie-up valuable laboratory space.”
The discussions between Monsanto and the EPA dragged on until the two sides met in November 1988 to discuss the agency’s request for a second mouse study and Monsanto’s reluctance to do so. Members of the EPA’s toxicology branch continued to express doubts about the validity of Monsanto’s data, but by June of 1989, EPA officials conceded, stating that they would drop the requirement for a repeated mouse study.
By the time an EPA review committee met on June 26, 1991, to again discuss and evaluate glyphosate research, the mouse study was so discounted that the group decided that there was a “lack of convincing carcinogenicity evidence” in relevant animal studies. The group concluded that the herbicide should be classified far more lightly than the initial 1985 classification or even the 1986 classification proposed by the advisory panel. This time, the EPA scientists dubbed the herbicide a Group E chemical, a classification that meant “evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans.” At least two members of the EPA committee refused to sign the report, stating that they did not concur with the findings. In a memo explaining the decision, agency officials offered a caveat. They wrote that the classification “should not be interpreted as a definitive conclusion that the agent will not be a carcinogen under any circumstances.”
Despite the EPA’s ultimate conclusion, the mouse study was among those cited by IARC for classifying glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Indeed, many other animal studies have similarly had questionable results, including a 1981 rat study that showed an increase in incidences of tumors in the testes of male rats and possible thyroid carcinomas in female rats exposed to glyphosate and a 1990 study that showed pancreatic tumors in exposed rats. But none have swayed the EPA from its backing of glyphosate safety.
Christopher Portier, who was an invited specialist to the IARC review of glyphosate and is former director of the National Center for Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, believes the evaluations applied to glyphosate data by regulators are “scientifically flawed” and putting public health at risk.
"The data in these studies strongly supports the ability of glyphosate to cause cancer in humans and animals; there is no reason to believe that all of these positive studies arose simply by chance,” Portier said.
Monsanto fought the plaintiffs’ request to view the mouse tissue slides, calling it a “fishing expedition,” but was overruled by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria who is overseeing the roughly 60 combined lawsuits under his purvey. Monsanto has confirmed that roughly 900 additional plaintiffs have cases pending in other jurisdictions. All make similar claims – that Monsanto manipulated the science, regulators and the public in ways that hid or minimized the danger posed by its herbicide.
“The importance of the original kidney slides and the re-cut kidney slides is immense to the question of general causation and played a critical role in the EPA’s decision to re-categorize glyphosate…” the plaintiffs’ attorneys stated in a court filing.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Aimee Wagstaff reiterated that in a recent court hearing, telling Judge Chhabria that the events surrounding the 1983 mouse study “sort of dominoed,” and potentially are “extremely relevant” to the cancer litigation. http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2017/june/of-mice-monsanto-and-a-mysterious-tumor