Federal lawsuit against Monsanto filed by Portland, Oregon

monsantoMonsanto. Just the name itself inspires terrifying images of organically mutated super vegetables with a potential for causing sickness and even death. It has been a hotbed of discussion and debates for at least the past decade, despite continued federal government support from various agencies. It seemed as though the giant was unstoppable, at least on a national level, until recently. Unfortunately, it isn’t the company’s genetically modified farming that is drawing judicial backlash, although the foundation could be laid for larger future accountability.

This month the city of Portland, Oregon has filed a federal lawsuit against Monsanto over waterways being contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs are tasteless, odorless, lab-created chemicals which contain chlorine, carbon and hydrogen atoms. While the manufacture of PCBs has been banned since 1979, it was produced in mass quantity for at least 50 years prior. (RELATED: Read more news about the environmental impacts of toxic chemicals at Enviro.news)

PCBs have a broad range of consistencies, from light colored liquids to dark waxy solids. The initial benefits of PCBs include their electrical insulating properties, chemical stability and being non-flammable. Due to these capabilities, PCBs were used in a broad spectrum of industrial and commercial instances prior to 1979, such as: pigments and dyes, plasticizers in paint and rubber products, and electrical and heat transfer equipment.

Because these chemicals do not easily break down easily, they can remain for years and even decades circulating through the environment. Because of this, PCB materials can still be found present in many products and materials that were manufactured prior to the 1979 ban.  Many common items, often found in homes or businesses, could possibly contain PCBs.  Some of these items include caulking, cable insulation, floor finish, transformers and capacitors, plastics and even fluorescent light ballasts. This list represents just a portion of possible places that PCB contamination can still be found in modern daily life.

The Portland lawsuit alleges that Monsanto produced more than 1 billion pounds of PCBs and then knowingly discharged them into Portland area waterways and landfills. City attorney Tracy Reeve made the following statement regarding the issue: “Portland’s elected officials are committed to holding Monsanto accountable for its apparent decision to favor profits over ecological and human health…Monsanto profited from selling PCBs for decades and needs to take responsibility for cleaning up after the mess it created.”

The agricultural giant fired back, continuing their stance that they had stopped producing PCBs in any capacity following the 1979 ban. This is in stark contrast to released documents stating that Monsanto actually had knowledge that PCBs were contaminating fish, oysters and birds a decade prior in 1969 and that global contamination would endanger human health. The city of Portland is taking this one step further, contending that Monsanto had full knowledge as far back in time as 1937 that the products they were manufacturing would contribute to the degradation of a human being’s health.

Monsanto also released a statement that PCBs had not been produced in the United States for four decades and that Portland’s lawsuit against them was experimental with previously unheard of grounds. The response from Portland’s Port Deputy Director, Curtis Robinhold, is a reminder that the company did in fact generate incredible amounts of revenue and profit from products manufactured with PCBs and should therefore be held accountable for the cleanup of their contaminants.

Should Portland win this lawsuit, it will be an uphill battle as Monsanto has proven time and again that their influence in the government is strong and unwavering. It could also be the first domino to fall against the corporate giants as six other West Coast cities have also taken to holding Monsanto accountable through federal lawsuits. Should Portland, Seattle, Spokane, Berkeley, San Diego, San Jose and Oakland win their lawsuits, it would be the first steps toward victory over a company that has consistently bought its way out of regulations. (See also MonsantoMafia.com)





Originally Posted: http://naturalnews.com/2017-01-16-federal-lawsuit-against-monsanto-filed-by-portland.html

First Human Injected with Controversial Genetically Modified Genes

dna-genes-science-medical-735-270For the first time in history, a human has been injected with genes edited using the CRISPR-Cas9 method. [1]

The experiment took place on 28 October 2016, when a team of Chinese scientists, led by oncologist Lu You at Sichuan University in Chengdu, delivered the genetically modified (GM) cells into a patient with aggressive lung cancer as part of a clinical trial at the West China Hospital in Chengdu. [2]

To protect the patient’s privacy, the details of the trial have not been released; but Lu said the trial “went smoothly.”


CRISPR is a tool that allows scientists to edit genomes “with unprecedented precision, efficiency, and flexibility,” according to Gizmodo. Dr. Marco Herold, laboratory head of the CRISPR facility at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne, Australia, explains it this way:

“The CRISPR technology relies on two components — an enzyme and a guide molecule. The guide molecule takes its enzyme to a gene which you want to modify, the enzyme cuts the gene, and then it can be repaired in many different ways. You can either change the function of the gene, take away the gene completely, or make the gene more active.”

Mad Science

The method is highly controversial. While CRISPR holds potential for new developments in medicine, agriculture, and other fields, there are deep concerns over the ethics of altering the human genome. For the Chinese trial, researchers had to gain approval from an ethics board at the West China Hospital. [1]

The cells involved in this particular trial are considered less of an ethical gray area because they won’t be passed down to offspring. But eventually, CRISPR could be used to edit embryo and sperm cells, which would usher in the age of “designer babies.” [3]

Source: Metro News

British researcher Kathy Niakin was given approval in February to edit human embryos, but only for basic research. The embryos will not be implanted, and must be destroyed after 14 days.

The Chinese experiment involved modifying the patient’s own immune cells to make them more effective at combating cancer cells, and then injecting them back into the patient.

The patient will receive a second injection; and the team plans to treat a total of 10 people, who will receive either 2, 3, or 4 injections. The primary purpose of the trial was to test the safety of the procedure. All the participants will be monitored for six months to determine whether the injections are causing serious adverse effects. The team will also be watching beyond the six-month mark to see whether the patients are benefiting from the treatment.

However, Naiyer Rizvi of Columbia University Medical Center in New York City doesn’t have much confidence that the trial will be successful in attacking the participants’ cancer. He said the process of extracting, genetically modifying, and multiplying cells is “a huge undertaking and not very scalable.” He added:

“Unless it shows a large gain in efficacy, it will be hard to justify moving forward.”

“Biomedical Sputnik”

Nature reports that the breakthrough could be a “biomedical sputnik,” referring to the Soviet Sputnik satellite that is believed to have sparked the space race between the Soviet Union and the United States. [4]

Back in June, the first U.S. human trial involving CRISPR-Cas9 was approved by a federal biosafety and ethics panel. The gene-editing method will be used to alter immune cells to attack three types of cancer. [3]


The first U.S. CRISPR trial was supposed to be conducted by Editas Medicine to try to treat a rare form of blindness called Leber congenital amaurosis. The condition affects only a few hundred people in the United States. The fact that the trial will occur in cancer patients instead suggests that CRISPR might be used against common diseases sooner than originally thought.

News of the Chinese trial could signal the beginning of an international race to implement CRISPR gene-editing techniques in clinics around the world. Carl June, who specializes in immunotherapy at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said:

“I think this is going to trigger ‘Sputnik 2.0′, a biomedical duel on progress between China and the United States, which is important since competition usually improves the end product.” [4]

June is the scientific adviser for the impending U.S. trial, which is expected to take place in early 2017.

In March 2017, a group at Peking University in Beijing hopes to launch three clinical trials using CRISPR against bladder, prostate, and renal-cell cancers. However, those trials currently lack approval and funding.


[1] CNBC

[2] ABC

[3] PBS

[4] Nature

Metro News

Originally Published: http://naturalsociety.com/first-human-patient-injected-genetically-altered-genes-6264/
Author: Julie Fidler

Obama’s new policy registration may very well have ended all non-GMO agriculture in the US

gmobamaPresident Obama’s pen has stayed so busy signing executive orders (EO) that it’s surprising it hasn’t yet run dry, and as his days in the Oval Office wind down, he has added another one to his lengthy list of such orders. The recent “Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda to Achieve a World Safe and Secure from Infectious Disease Threats” EO is particularly significant in that it may have put a halt to all non-GMO agriculture in the United States.

Key points of the EO

Section 1 of the EO includes some disturbing points:

“As articulated in the National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats and implemented in Presidential Policy Directive 2 (PPD-2), promoting global health security is a core tenet of our national strategy for countering biological threats. No single nation can be prepared if other nations remain unprepared to counter biological threats; therefore, it is the policy of the United States to advance the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), which is a multi-faceted, multi-country initiative intended to accelerate partner countries’ measurable capabilities to achieve specific targets to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats (GHSA targets), whether naturally occurring, deliberate, or accidental.” [Emphasis added]

Coordinated effort with military backup

Section 2 of the EO states that the “Council” will include personnel from a multitude of federal government agencies, including the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Department of Defense (DOD) may “facilitate implementation and coordination of Department of Defense programs to further the GHSA, as well as provide technical expertise to measure and evaluate progress in countries the United States has made a commitment to assist.” In other words, the military will enforce this EO if deemed necessary.

Connection to GMOs

How does this tie in with GMOs? The government claims that farm animals are supposedly infected (but typically are not) and must be slaughtered to make way for their “vastly upgraded” counterparts, which are genetically engineered and thus patented and owned by global organizations. The public receives a fear-based agenda riddled with hysteria over disease threats, and they respond to that by willingly going along with the GMO agenda. It’s a convenient agenda for the powers that be, as it allows them to maintain tight control of the food supply while attempting to obliterate small and organic farms.

Unrealistic aims and better alternatives

The EO is titled “Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda to Achieve a World Safe and Secure from Infectious Disease Threats,” but achieving a world like that is unrealistic.  Infectious disease threats have always existed on this planet. The title implies a fear of infections, which is portrayed in the popular music video Vaccine Zombie by Mike Adams. As the lyrics say, “I’m afraid of invisible germs … .” Rather than promoting GMOs and toxic initiatives to address infectious disease concerns, a more effective approach involves educating people to lead healthy lifestyles through nutrition and other immune system-fortifying natural strategies.

Action steps

Don’t be fooled by the impressive- and altruistic-sounding title of this EO. Spread the word about GMO dangers by working to inform family and friends through intelligent conversations and the sharing of relevant online content. We can take back our food supply and end the danger of GMOs for ourselves and future generations. Stay tuned as the GMO issue continues to unfold, and be grateful that Obama’s days of signing his name to oppressive executive orders are rapidly winding down as the January inauguration approaches.





Originally Posted:

Hundreds of GMO Studies BUSTED By Discovery of Major Conflicts of Interest

conflict_of_interest_1200x600By Brandon Turbeville

Researchers affiliated with France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research recently announced the results of their study regarding potential conflicts of interest and published studies on GM crops.

The study was published by the journal PLOS One and determined that a large portion of studies on genetically modified crops were rife with conflicts of interest.

Most of these studies were tainted because someone working on the study was also an employee of a GM-producing company either as an author or having received funds directly from the company.

Explore: Scientist Group Slams GMO-Pushing Nobel Laureates In Damning Letter

Out of 579 published studies that were analyzed, around 40% showed a conflict of interest. “We found that ties between researchers and the GM crop industry were common, with 40% of the articles considered displaying conflicts of interest,” said the authors of the study.


The researchers also noted that studies with conflict of interest had a much higher likelihood of presenting a favorable outcome for GMOs when compared to those without.

The authors stated,

In particular, we found that, compared to the absence of COI (conflict of interest), the presence of a COI was associated with a 50% higher frequency of outcomes favorable to the interests of the GM crop company.

The majority of these studies were American – 404 in total – and 83 Chinese.

“The most important point was how we also showed there is a statistical link between the presence of conflicts of interest and a study that comes to a favorable conclusion for GMO crops,” said Thomas Guillemaud, Director of Research at Francis National Institute for Agricultural Research. “We thought we would find conflicts of interest, but we did not think we would find so many.”

See: GMO Propagandist Who Said ‘Trust Science’ Got Funds From Monsanto

It should also be noted that the study itself was limited because it only investigated direct financial conflict of interest. It did not include conflicts of interest such as authors being members of advisory boards, co-holders of patents, or consultants to GM companies.

This study, thus, shows the incredible level of corruption, politicization, and deceit now present in the scientific community, particularly in the Western world. If academics and scientists want to know why more and more people distrust their claims, this is a perfect example.

This article (Hundreds of GMO Studies BUSTED By Discovery of Major Conflicts of Interest) can be republished under a Creative Commons license with  attribution to Brandon Turbeville, source and Natural Blaze.com, keeping links and bio intact. Image: GM Watch

Get a nifty FREE eBook – Like at Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Brandon Turbevillearticle archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies,Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria,and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 600 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Originally Posted: http://www.naturalblaze.com/2016/12/gmo-studies-conflicts-of-interest.html

Common insecticides found to be far more dangerous to health than previously believed

Neonicotinoidssunset-farm-crops-field-e1471505264490, a class of pesticides in wide use, may be more destabilizing to agriculture than previously presumed, according to a new study from Penn State.

“The team’s research challenges the previously held belief that neonicotinoid seed coatings have little to no effect on predatory insect populations,” ScienceDaily summarized.

The findings suggest that more work needs to be done to “work the bugs out,” as it were.

As Natural News has outlined, seeds are coated with neonicotinoids before planting instead of being sprayed on growing crops. Thus, a plant absorbs the entire insecticide component.

The seven different chemicals that make up the neonicotinoid family are reportedly known to be extremely toxic to the environment despite being promoted as a safer alternative to traditional pyrethroid pesticides.

The “dysfunctional” family includes acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, nitenpyram, nithiazine, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam.

Resembling nicotine, neonicotinoids exert an impact on the central nervous systems of insects and are sometimes called neonics for short. They are commonly deployed for crops such as corn, soybeans, and cotton.

In 2013, the European Union imposed a temporary, multi-year ban on neonicotinoids out of concerns for the harm to the bee population through nectar and pollen. Earlier this year, Maryland became the first state to ban neonicotinoids, as of  January 1, 2018, while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency launched a review project that is due to report its findings in 2018.

In 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on an incremental basis ended its use of neonicotinoids because of concerns over the global decline in pollinators such as bees and butterflies.

In the newly published Penn State study, researchers performed a statistical meta-analysis of about 1000 observations from 20 field studies in North America and Europe that evaluated the effect of neonicotinoids on predatory insects.

The results suggest that neonicotinoids may have a disruptive effect ecosystem, explained co-author Margaret R. Douglas. “Predatory insects contribute billions of dollars a year to agriculture through the elimination of crop pest insects. We have found that neonicotinoid seed coatings reduce populations of these natural enemies 10 to 20 percent.”

“This result suggests that neonicotinoids are reducing populations of natural enemies at least partly through their toxic effects rather than simply by reducing the availability of their crop pest foods,” she added.

As published in the PeerJ journal, the researchers wrote that “Our finding that insects were more strongly affected by seed-applied neonicotinoids than were non-insect groups (mainly spiders and mites) suggests that toxin exposure is at least partly responsible for the overall negative effect we observed, and raises the question of how insect natural enemies are being exposed to these seed-applied toxins.”

The study seemed to suggest that neonicotinoids and pyrethroids had about the same effect on native predators, but that more research is necessary in this area.

Co-author John F. Tooker proposed that farmers adopt an integrated pest management strategy that takes a combination of techniques into consideration, with insecticides possibly included as an option, depending on the circumstances.

“The researchers note that their results may help farmers and pest management professionals better weigh the costs and benefits of neonicotinoid seed treatments versus alternatives,” Science Daily explained.

IPM “is the best chance we have of conserving beneficial insect species while maintaining productivity in our agricultural systems,” the professor noted.

In a prior study published in 2014, the same researchers similarly concluded that neonicotinoids may reduce crop yields by wiping out native predators of crop pests.

Some 800 scientific studies previously reached the conclusion that neonicotinoids pose an ominous DDT-like threat to wildlife and the ecosystem. Plants treated with neonicotinoids have also been shown to poison birds and fish in addition to insects.




Originally Published: http://naturalnews.com/2016-12-21-common-insectidies-found-to-be-far-more-dangerous-to-health-than-previously-believed.html

If you believe in liberty and freedom, stop buying emergency food products made with Monsanto ingredients

freedom-enlightened-healthOne of the biggest threats that society currently faces is the very real prospect of a massive food system collapse precipitated by chemical overuse and the spread of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). And ironically enough, many storable survival food kits designed to help mitigate an emergency situation such as this are loaded with the very same GMOs that threaten to destroy our ability to grow real food in the first place.

It’s decisively counter-intuitive to purchase such storable food products, not only for reasons of principle but also because GMOs have never been proven safe for human consumption. In a survival-type situation, eating GMO-laced food simply isn’t going to provide the same level of nutrition and nourishment as non-GMO food, and yet the storable food industry is peddling the stuff at a premium to millions of unsuspecting consumers.

As you shop around for survival goods, including storable food, it’s important to pay close attention to what you’re actually buying. Many of the most popular storable food brands are using ingredients and additives made by corporations like Monsanto that, if you actually care about living, you’ll want to avoid.

Practically every major brand of storable food uses hidden GMOs

A quick look at some of the more popular storable food brands reveals the presence of ingredients like corn syrup solids, textured vegetable proteins, partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, and other additives that, in most cases, are derived from GMO sources. Any food product containing corn, soy, or canola ingredients, for instance, likely contains GMOs unless it’s specifically labeled as being non-GMO.

WISE Food Storage is one such offender that uses all sorts of GMO additives, trans fats, and chemical fillers in its storable food products, all while claiming to offer the highest quality storable food in the industry. Monsanto byproducts like these are hardly what anyone who knows anything about healthy food would ever consider high quality.

The same is true for Mountain House storable food products, many of which contain various GMO ingredients like modified corn starch, corn gluten, and partially hydrogenated soybean oil. My Patriot Supply is another brand that uses plenty of corn syrup solids in its storable food products, as does Chef’s Banquet, one of the more common storable food product brands found at wholesale warehouses.

On and on the list goes, with other major brands like Backpacker’s Pantry and Augason Farms using many of these same ingredients as well as others, including soy protein and autolyzed yeast extract, which is really just hidden monosodium glutamate (MSG) labeled under a different name. What about HoneyVille, eFoodDirect, Valley Food Storage, and Food for Health? You guessed it: they all use GMOs, too.

Numanna organics: the only safe choice on the market today

The good news, though, is that there is a better and safer alternative. Numanna Organic Survival Food, a product line developed by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, is the only storable food option on the market today that’s made with certified organic ingredients, none of which contain hidden GMOs or MSG.

Unlike its competitors, Numanna is made without any ingredients grown with pesticide or herbicides; no transgenic ingredients; no artificial colors or flavors; no hydrogenated oils; no chemical preservatives, and no heavy metals. It’s quite literally the safest and most nutritious storable food you’ll find anywhere, and it was developed as such to provide true survivalists the nourishment they need in an emergency situation.

“When I realized that the storable foods industry did not offer anything that I would dare eat, I decided to create my own line of delicious, nutritious meals using 95 percent organic ingredients and absolutely NO JUNK,” says Adams about Numanna.

Sources for this article include:



Originally Published: http://www.naturalnews.com/056195_survival_food_GMOs_pesticides.html

Author: Ethan A. Huff

Girl Scout Cookies Announces Non-GMO Cookie, But Advocates For GMOs Overall

1918211_550675818443298_4420304706874591245_n-696x464By AnonWatcher

Girl Scout Cookies has announced their release of a GMO free cookie for 2017, but their reluctance to mention the acronym in an official statement has everyone wondering.

Remove GMOs from Girl Scout Cookies Facebook page has announced their success of their online petition to have Girl Scout Cookies release a non-GMO cookie. According to their page, Girl Scout Cookies announced their intentions to release a non-GMO verified cookie in their seasonal release for 2017.

March Against Monsanto also celebrated the good news, stating that a “non-GMO has officially gone mainstream: one of the country’s most recognized institutions, the Girl Scouts of the USA (formerly known as America) has announced its first-ever (officially speaking, anyway) non-GMO cookie.”

Unfortunately, when something appears too good to be true, it usually is, and this celebration may be a little early on its timing.


According to the official statement released, the two new flavors that Girl Scouts is set to release in 2017 for their 100thanniversary, commemorating the selling of Girl Scout Cookies, are nothing but new flavors. Yes, they are a little healthier in some of the ingredients they have changed, but not once is this an indicator that we have a fully non-GMO cookie in our cookie jar.

The description of the two cookies – as enticing as they sound – is this:

“The chocolatey coated Girl Scout S’mores™ cookie is vegan, free of artificial colors, preservatives, and partially hydrogenated oils.” It’s vegan, not non-GMO.


On the other hand, although they don’t come right out and say it, the sandwich cookie offers more hope:

“The sandwich Girl Scout S’mores cookie contains no artificial flavors or colors, high fructose corn syrup, or hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils. All current and new Girl Scout Cookie varieties are kosher and free of trans fats.”

Trans fats are bad for you – so a good move by Girl Scouts; the kosher thing is a positive step, too. No mention of GMOs … however, in their FAQs sheet, if you dig for the information, you will see that they are, for the moment, non-GMO.

Girl Scout Cookies

To further clarify the non-GMO/GMO debate about the cookies, Girl Scouts – on their official FAQs page (updated this year), does clarify that there is indeed GMOs in most of their products:

“At the current time, there are genetically modified agricultural crops (GMOs) in some Girl Scout Cookies based on a range of market-related factors and depending on specific cookie recipes.”

They do, however, speak about the sandwich Girl Scout cookie being specialist, not containing GMOs at this point in time:

“In some markets, the specialty-ingredient Girl Scout S’mores sandwich cookie baked by Little Brownie Bakers is made with ingredients that are verified as not containing genetically modified organisms.”

Going on to say that “It is also important to note that in the future, GMO ingredients may offer new, cost-effective alternatives to feeding the world’s growing population,” as they cite the WHO and other world authorities about how safe the “genetically modified agricultural crops” are, suggesting that the sandwich cookie isn’t a permanent fixture unless cost effective.


This latest move is just to appease the masses they haven’t reached yet. It’s all about the dollar. Their reluctance to make an outright statement proves this, and the amount of reading between the lines and searching that one has to go about, just to discover that one single line of cookie is made without using GMO products isn’t positive, it’s disconcerting. It feels as though Girl Scouts is folding the evidence away, worried their dirty little secret may be discovered by big corporations supporting them.

The work done by all those who have petitioned Girl Scouts is to be commended and applauded. But their breaking out of the champagne is premature.

This article (Girl Scout Cookies Announces Non-GMO Cookie, But Advocates for GMOs Overall) is a free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under aCreative Commons license with attribution to the author AnonWatcher and AnonHQ.comTwitter: Follow @AnonymousNewsHQ

Customers as young as 10 damaged by ‘Roundup’ weed-killer now suing Monsanto

courtA Los Angeles law firm is taking on biotech giant Monsanto on behalf of those who have developed illnesses after being exposed to the company’s glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup.

Glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in history, has been linked to cancer and other serious illnesses. The law firm Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman is currently representing around 140 people, all of whom are suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma caused by glyphosate exposure.

The plaintiffs include individuals from 10 to 70 years old, but most are in the 50 to 60 age group. New lawsuits are being filed each week, and the firm eventually expects to represent as many as 500 clients in the glyphosate litigation.

Nutritionist and author Catherine J Frompovich recently interviewed Robin McCall, director of Public Relations and Marketing at Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, regarding the firm’s role in the ongoing litigation against Monsanto and other makers of glyphosate-based products.

One-third of victims are farmers

In the interview, which was published by Natural Blaze, McCall described the type of people involved in the lawsuits:

“One third of the people we represent are farmers. The rest are professional landscapers, weekend gardeners, and government workers working for the city, county or state, spraying Roundup® to kill weeds on highways, near ditches, flood control areas, etc.”

The youngest of the plaintiffs, a 10-year-old boy, was exposed to glyphosate starting at a very early age. “His father would spray weeds on a regular basis, as they live out in the country,” said McCall. “The boy did what boys do, running all over the yard.”

When asked to explain the legal implications regarding glyphosate damage to humans, pets and the environment, McCall replied:

“The crux of the individual cases against Monsanto are allegations that the Monsanto Company failed to adequately warn farmers and landscapers that its blockbuster herbicide, Roundup®, causes cancer.

“The Monsanto lawsuit also alleges that the agro-chemical giant designed a dangerous and defective product; committed gross negligence in the creation and promotion of Roundup®; and defrauded millions of people about the safety of the herbicide.”

Glyphosate also has a negative health impact on pets, said McCall. The chemical has been shown to destroy healthy gut bacteria in animals, leading to the development of such conditions as celiac disease and gluten intolerance.

The death of a family dog was included in one of the lawsuits. The dog, which died of lymphoma a few years before its owner died of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, was exposed to glyphosate on the family farm. McCall said she was not aware of other lawsuits involving pets, “but that doesn’t mean they are not out there, she said. “We have another client who lost a pet due to cancer, but we have yet to file that case.”

Although the law firm is currently only filing lawsuits involving non-Hodgkin lymphoma, McCall acknowledged that glyphosate has also been linked to melanoma and bone, kidney, pancreatic, liver and thyroid cancer.

Federal courts consolidate cancer lawsuits against Monsanto

Dozens of cases have already been filed in state and federal courts in at least 15 states, but the number is expected to grow into the hundreds. For that reason, the federal government has moved to consolidate all the cases against Monsanto under one judge. “This means that 37 federal cases are being transferred to U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California in San Francisco,” said McCall.

After many years of deceiving the public regarding the dangers of glyphosate, Monsanto is finally being held accountable in the courts. It is hoped that the settlements will reflect the magnitude of Monsanto’s criminal actions against the citizens of the United States.

Ban glyphosate now!




Originally posted: http://www.naturalnews.com/056115_glyphosate_lawsuits_Monsanto_cancer.html
Author: Daniel Barker

While the nation was watching the election, the EPA just approved another toxic herbicide for Monsanto

MonsantoAs universities across the country hold cry-ins, counseling sessions, and post-election therapy events for narcissistic, cry-baby college students, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has quietly approved Monsanto’s new drift-prone herbicide, which will further poison, emasculate, and weaken the population.

The soils are suffering from persistent over farming, bio-solid toxins, and chemical-intense agriculture. Soil and crops are so nutritionally depleted; the effect can be witnessed in the panicky, easily manipulated, fragile-minded behaviors of people.

EPA bows to Monsanto again, keeping farmers trapped in the herbicide-dependent agricultural cycle

The EPA is run by people who have worked for the biotech industry, who buckle under the pressure of the demands of multinational corporations like Monsanto. The EPA cannot protect anything if they lack the courage to say no to compounding use of damaging herbicides. The EPA has no discernment or integrity if the chemicals they approve are the very toxins that pollute the air, water, soil, and the people’s health. The EPA disrespectfully keeps American farmers trapped in the horrid cycle of spraying new chemicals to battle nature.

On the morning after the election, the EPA rushed a decision to allow a massive increase in the use of Monsanto’s toxic dicamba-based herbicide – XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology. Monsanto says this herbicide is less “volatile” than previous dicamba-based compounds that have damaged crops and led to lawsuits in the past.

This product is destined to enter the marketplace at the start of the next growing season, but Monsanto still needs approval from individual states before they can sell it to the farmers.

“We chose to launch this year to allow growers to experience the industry-leading varieties of Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans,” Monsanto spokesman Dan Urnikis told Delta Farm Press. “They can plant with confidence this year in anticipation of the chemical approval for the 2017 growing season.”

Herbicide drift wiping out various food crops across the country

Dicamba-based herbicides are a threat to the entire ecosystem and agricultural system because these chemicals vaporize from treated fields and drift to neighboring farms, fields, and woodlands. This causes crop damage to farms that don’t use the corresponding genetically engineered seeds that are designed to withstand the chemical. This also causes damage to other species of wild plants and herbs and hurts organic farms that don’t participate in the genetic engineering of food.

This dicamba-based herbicide wiped out countless crops in 2016, including soybeans, tomatoes, cantaloupes, watermelons, rice, cotton, peas, peanuts, alfalfa and even peaches. Missouri’s largest peach producer, Bader Peaches, lost 30,000 trees this year because of herbicide drift. After approving XtendiMax for 2017, the EPA ruled that the herbicide cannot be applied by aircraft or when wind speed is greater than 15 mph.

Monsanto was already positioned for the EPA’s approval of their newest herbicide

Monsanto has already positioned their company to monopolize on their drift-prone herbicide. They have already rolled out genetically engineered seeds, Bollgard II XtendFlex cotton and Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans. These GE seeds will be sold en masse to farmers whose current seeds cannot withstand the damages of drifting dicamba-based herbicides and failed glyphosate herbicides. This is precisely how the biotech industry controls farmers and enslaves them to genetically modified seeds and continuous use of new herbicides.

Monsanto faces bold ideological opposition from powerful groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity. Nathan Donley, a senior scientist for the center, says, “We can’t spray our way out of this problem. We need to get off the pesticide treadmill,” said in a prepared statement. “Pesticide resistant superweeds are a serious threat to our farmers, and piling on more pesticides will just result in superweeds resistant to more pesticides. We can’t fight evolution – it’s a losing strategy.”

Wake up and protest the experimentation being carried out on your fields, foods, and minds

Instead of throwing temper tantrums about an election result, poisoned America should instead bind together and protest the experiments that are being carried out on their soil, air, food, and water. These herbicides directly impact people’s health. Without healthy soils, food loses its nutrition profile and doesn’t nourish the body like it should. Accumulating herbicides and pesticides become more toxic to the body because the nutritionally depleted body can no longer detoxify like a healthy body should. The herbicides affect digestion, endocrine system and nervous system functions, leading to lowered states of immunity and cognitive function.





Originally Published: http://www.naturalnews.com/056051_Monsanto_herbicide_dicamba.html
Author: L.J. Devon

Sonoma County Voter Success Leads To Largest GMO-Free Zone In U.S.


It’s taken some time for word to spread due to the focus on Presidential-elect Donald Trump, but on November 8th, voters in Sonoma County successfully passed Measure M to make growing genetically modified crops illegal.

Measure M passed 55.9% to 44.1% in the county, and led to the largest ever GMO-free zone in the U.S. being formed. Jumboldt, Marin, Mendocino, Santa Cruz, and Trinity Counties have all successfully banned the cultivation of GMO crops in the past. Now, a total of 13,734 square miles is GMO-free, reports Sustainable Pulse.

Karen Hudson, the campaign manager for Measure M, told SF Gate: 

“What’s exciting is, we have a northwest coast GMO-free growing zone that’s growing, and Sonoma County is the missing link.” 

“The fact is, more and more people want non-GMO food, and our local farms have a right to grow without contamination. It’s that simple,” she said in a statement.


Originally called the Sonoma County Transgenic Contamination Ordinance, the ballot initiative bans all GMO crops and seeds from being grown or used in unincorporated areas of the country. Reportedly, farmers who are now growing GMO crops or who have already purchased genetically modified seeds for next season will be allowed to continue growing this season as a grace period before the ban is implemented.

This monumental Measure was passed despite opposition by the Biotech industry. In fact, supporters of the ban raised a total of $255,000 to ensure it passing – making it one of the most expensive ballot initiatives in the history of Sonoma County. Those who supported the ban include organic dairy farms, natural food co-ops, and heirloom seed companies.

Natural and Non-Toxic Products. Up to 50% Off – Every Day (Ad)

The county has come a long way since a similar measure was voted on ten years ago. At that time, $850,000 was raised, but it was eventually voted down by a ten percent margin. At present, citizens in Sonoma County can feel good about contributing to a region which is now the largest GMO-free zone in the U.S.

Source: http://www.naturalblaze.com/2016/11/sonoma-county-voter-success-leads-to-largest-gmo-free-zone-in-u-s.html
Author: Amanda Froelich