Court Rules Against Monsanto, Allows California To Put Cancer Warning On Roundup | CBS Sacramento

California can require Monsanto to label its popular weed-killer Roundup as a possible cancer threat despite an insistence from the chemical giant that it poses no risk to people, a judge tentatively ruled Friday.

California would be the first state to order such labeling if it carries out the proposal.

ALSO READ: Cancer Patient Donates Year’s Worth Of Pizza He Won To Food Bank

Monsanto had sued the nation’s leading agricultural state, saying California officials illegally based their decision for carrying the warnings on an international health organization based in France.

Monsanto attorney Trenton Norris argued in court Friday that the labels would have immediate financial consequences for the company. He said many consumers would see the labels and stop buying Roundup.

“It will absolutely be used in ways that will harm Monsanto,” he said.

After the hearing, the firm said in a statement that it will challenge the tentative ruling.

ALSO READ: What Is The EPA And Why Is It In The Hot Seat With Donald Trump?

Critics take issue with Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, which has no color or smell. Monsanto introduced it in 1974 as an effective way of killing weeds while leaving crops and plants intact.

It’s sold in more than 160 countries, and farmers in California use it on 250 types of crops.

The chemical is not restricted by the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, which says it has “low toxicity” and recommends people avoid entering a field for 12 hours after it has been applied.

But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a Lyon, France-based branch of the U.N. World Health Organization, classified the chemical as a “probable human carcinogen.”

Shortly afterward, the most populated U.S. state took its first step in 2015 to require the warning labels.

St. Louis-based Monsanto contends that California is delegating its authority to an unelected foreign body with no accountability to U.S. or state officials in violation of the California Constitution.

Attorneys for California consider the International Agency for Research on Cancer the “gold standard” for identifying carcinogens, and they rely on its findings along with several states, the federal government and other countries, court papers say.

Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan still must issue a formal decision, which she said would come soon.

California regulators are waiting for the formal ruling before moving forward with the warnings, said Sam Delson, a spokesman for the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Once a chemical is added to a list of probable carcinogens, the manufacturer has a year before it must attach the label, he said.

Teri McCall believes a warning would have saved her husband, Jack, who toted a backpack of Roundup for more than 30 years to spray weeds on their 20-acre avocado and apple farm. He died of cancer in late 2015.

“I just don’t think my husband would have taken that risk if he had known,” said Teri McCall, one of dozens nationwide who are suing Monsanto, claiming the chemical gave them or a loved one cancer.

But farmer Paul Betancourt, who has been using Roundup for more than three decades on his almond and cotton crops, says he does not know anyone who has gotten sick from it.

“You’ve got to treat it with a level of respect, like anything else,” he said. “Gasoline will cause cancer if you bathe in the stuff.”

Source: CBS Sacramento

Media Blackout As France And Russia Both Announce Monsanto GMO Bans | Collectively Conscious

media-blackout-as-france-and-russia-both-announce-monsanto-gmo-bansBy 

When two of the most modernized and economically powerful countries in the world decide to ban a type of food crop that has made its way into roughly 70-80% or more of the U.S. food supply, you’d think it would be considered newsworthy.

But the United States media has missed the boat yet again on major happenings relating to GMO crops overseas.

Both Russia and France officially announced bans on Monsanto’s genetically engineered crops this past week, cementing their positions and upholding the will of the people in nations where public opinion is dead set on keeping the food and farming system natural.

“As far as genetically-modified organisms are concerned, we have made decision not to use any GMO in food productions,” Russia’s Deputy PM Arkady Dvorkovich announced at worldwide conference on biotechnology in the Russian city of Kirov according to the website RT.

“This is not a simple issue, we must do very thorough work on division on these spheres and form a legal base on this foundation,” he said. Russia has announced similar plans in the past but the announcement feels even more official considering the wave of GMO bans sweeping Europe these days.

France Plans to “Opt-Out,” Stay GMO Free

Meanwhile France also announced its plans to stay GMO Free by opting exercising its “opt-out” clause through the European Union.

In total, five nations in Europe have announced plans to ban the growth of Monsanto’s GMOs within their borders including Germany, Scotland, Latvia, and Greece.

The crops are allowed to be grown within the European Union but each country has its own ability to opt-out.

As noted in this article from Eco WatchFrance’s main concerns stem from the environmental risks created by the crops, which are capable of contaminating non-GMO crops via wind pollination and causing other harm, especially when used with the herbicide, glyphosate, they are designed to withstand.

Monsanto’s MON810 genetically engineered corn, the only crop of its kind allowed in Europe, is a specific threat to natural agriculture in the country because of this concern.

American Media Silent on GMO Bans

A quick Google News search turns up virtually no results for the bans by Russia and France, aside from a few scattered alternative news sites.

With more Americans than ever before learning about GMOs and making their own decisions on whether to include such foods in their diet, and a huge vote looming in the Senate over a possible ban on mandatory GMO labeling in America (click here to learn more and take action), you’d think the news giants like NBC, Fox News, CNN and others would be chomping at the bit to get this news out to their readers and viewers.

But alas, they have chosen not to cover these stories, once again giving the American people an incomplete picture about the ongoing food experiment that they never consented to in the first place.
www.march-against-monsanto.com

Biotech Outraged After China Rejects Several Billion Tons of GMO Corn |Natural Society

CornfieldBiotech corporation Syngenta’s GMO corn (known as MIR 162 or ‘Agrisure Viptera’) was recently refused by Chinese officials when shipped to the country, yet a spokesperson from the Big Ag company, Paul Minehart, “expects that the Chinese government will still approve” their prematurely released crop which is now in the subject of several US lawsuits by miffed corn-growers.

Those who grew MIR 162 were assured by Syngenta that China had already approved the corn before they even started growing it. Obviously this is not the case, since China has refused several billion tons of GM corn coming from the US already. Syngenta claims the current lawsuits directed against them by US farmers are baseless. Minehart says that he will make an official announcement when China does approve the crop for import.

If China does indeed approve the GM corn, it would reverse a decision to refuse shipments since November of 2013. It is still not understood whether the commentary by Syngenta represents wishful thinking, or an actual break-through to China’s officials concerning the approval of their MIR 162 product. Syngenta has waited four years thus far for approval.

The U.S. grain Council – who has also taken heat from farmers based on Syngenta’s premature declaration of the Chinese acceptance of Syngenta’s GM corn crop – was hoping that approval would come in the next few days, but this was reported in early December of 2014.

One of the only reasons for China to have a change of heart about accepting the Syngenta corn is that rival exporters in the Ukraine are struggling to honor contracts due to shortages.

Another factor is the recent jump in ethanol refined corn which comes from dried corn grain.

Representatives from China’s embassy in Washington, D.C., could not be reached for comment by Reuters.

Gary Martin, chief executive of the North American Export Grain Association says that:

“Chinese approval of imports would represent “news that’s four years coming.”

Martin believes it should have been done in 2011 and something held it up.

Quite possibly, like Russia, China has realized that GM crops are toxic, and don’t wish to import more of them into their food supply.

Cargill Inc and Archer Daniels Midland Co, along with dozens of U.S. farmers have sued Syngenta for selling MIR 162 corn without obtaining import approval from China, one of the major buyers for US grown corn.

In April 2014, the National Grain and Feed Association estimated that farmers would lose at least $1 billion in the refusal of MIR 162 corn shipments to China.

Source: Natural Society

Proposed Federal Bill Would Prevent States, FDA, And Anyone Else From Informing Consumers Whether Food Is Bioengineered | Emord & Associates Blog

By Eric Awerbuch

EmordandAssociatesIn April, 2014, five members of Congress introduced a bill, H.R. 4432 (hereinafter “the Bill”) seeking to regulate, among other things, the labeling of bio-engineered food products.[i]  The Bill, also known as the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014,” is remarkable in that it:  1) prohibits the States from regulating the labeling of bio-engineered foods; 2) gives the FDA the sole authority to regulate the labeling of bio-engineered foods, but severely restricts how the FDA can regulate the labeling of bio-engineered foods; 3) allows companies to voluntary label their products as bio-engineered when they so desire, subject to very few restrictions; and 4) prohibits under any circumstances the FDA’s ability to decide in the future whether bio-engineered foods are less safe than foods not bio-engineered.  Each of these points is discussed in detail below.

First, if the Bill passes, States will not be able to enact any laws regulating the labeling of bio-engineered foods.  Section 104(c) of the Bill explicitly states that:

No State or political subdivision of a state may directly or indirectly establish under any authority or continue in effect as to any food in interstate commerce any requirements for the labeling of a food by virtue of its having been developed using bioengineering, including any requirements for claims that a food is or contains an ingredient that was developed using bioengineering.

The quoted language would have the effect of nullifying efforts in at least 20 states to require mandatory labeling for foods that contain genetically modified organisms.[ii]  For example, Vermont enacted a law, effective July 1, 2016, that will require foods produced from genetic engineering be labeled as such.[iii]

Instead of allowing states to regulate the marketing of bio-engineered foods, the Bill purports to give the FDA such authority.  However, the FDA’s authority to regulate labeling of bio-engineered foods is greatly restricted by the terms of the Bill.  Specifically, the FDA may only require bio-engineered food labeling when it determines that 1) there is a “material difference” between the bio-engineered food and its comparable marketed food, and 2) where that difference “is necessary to protect health safety” or to prevent false or misleading labeling.[iv]  Even if those two elements exist, the FDA can only require specific labeling that “would adequately inform consumers of such material difference.”[v]  Stated differently, not only can the States not require genetically modified foods to be labeled as genetically modified, the FDA cannot even require that labeling, unless the FDA can meet the two elements identified above.  Even where the FDA can meet those two elements, the mandatory labeling must be narrowly tailored to inform consumers of the specific “material” difference between the bio-engineered food and its similar, non-bio-engineered counterpart.

What exactly is a “material difference” requiring that companies inform consumers of the difference?  The bill provides three types of differences which are considered to be material.  The first type of “material difference” is a difference that “significantly alters the characteristics, including the functional or compositional characteristics, of a food, such that the common name no longer adequately describes the food.”[vi]   It is difficult to know when such a situation would arise because “significantly alters” is not defined.  Therefore, should the Bill pass, the FDA would be entitled to a great amount of discretion to determine whether or not a bio-engineered product is “significantly altered.”  See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984) (explaining that an agency’s construction of a statute it administers is owed deference when “the statute is silent or ambiguous” on the issue).  Given the FDA’s conclusions that there is no material difference between bio-engineered food and non-bio-engineered food, it is highly unlikely that the FDA would ever require mandatory labeling when left to their discretion.[vii]  Indeed, while the statute does not define differences that are not material, it does state that the “use of bio-engineering does not, by itself, constitute a material difference.”  Id. at § 424(e).

GMOCornFurthermore, even if there was such a material difference, given that the labeling must only “adequately inform consumers of such material difference,” this requirement could be met, for example, if the company selling the bio-engineered product simply markets the product in a different name than the “similar” non-bio-engineered product.  It seems that sweet and firm, bio-engineered “tomatoes” would be able to be marketed as “specially formulated sweet and firm tomatoes.”  That label would inform consumers of the material difference—that the new tomatoes are sweet and firm—without even revealing the fact that they are bio-engineered.

The second type of “material difference” is a difference that “results in a significantly different nutritional property in the food produced from, containing or consisting of the bio-engineered organism.”[viii]    Once again, given that the labeling must only “adequately inform consumers of such material difference,” a company could label bio-engineered corn with higher protein content than non-bio-engineered corn as “high protein corn,” without ever revealing the fact that the corn is bio-engineered.

The third difference resulting in a “material difference” is where the bio-engineered food contains an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present based upon the name of the food.[ix]  A company could simply label the product with a warning such as, “warning: this product contains [allergen.]”  Again, the company would not have to disclose the fact that the product is bio-engineered.  Indeed, given that the labeling must only “adequately inform consumers of such material difference,” it is likely that the FDA will never be authorized to require that companies disclose the fact that a product is bio-engineered when narrower labels adequately inform consumers of the material differences.

While mandatory labeling is allowed only in narrow circumstances under the Bill, companies would have great opportunity to voluntarily label their bio-engineered products as they so choose.  The Bill prevents the FDA from prohibiting persons “from disclosing voluntarily on the labeling of food developed with the use of bio-engineering the manner in which the food has been modified to express traits or characteristics that differ from its comparable marketed food.”[x]  Thus, a company is free to market the differences between their bio-engineered product and similar, non-bio-engineered foods. For example, a company selling bio-engineered tomatoes may claim that “our bio-engineered tomatoes benefit the environment more than non-bio-engineered tomatoes because our tomatoes consume less water during the growing process than non-bio-engineered tomatoes.”  Companies will also be free to voluntary advertise, other than in labeling, that the food was developed with the use of bio-engineering.[xi]

The Bill also regulates the labeling of foods that are not bio-engineered.[xii]  It explicitly prohibits the labeling of non-bio-engineered foods from suggesting that “foods developed without the use of bio-engineering are safer than foods produced from, containing, or consisting of a bio-engineered organism.”[xiii]  In a day and age where courts routinely defer to agencies because agency’s have “expertise” in certain, factual issues, see Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 377 (1989) (explaining that the Court defers to the agency’s analysis when the issue requires a high level of technical expertise), it is alarming that, through the Bill, Congress is making a scientific determination that non-bio-engineered foods are not safer than bio-engineered foods.  While the FDA does not currently consider non-bio-engineered to be safer than bio-engineered foods,[xiv] the Bill prevents FDA from ever reconsidering that opinion.

The Bill will have the ultimate effect of keeping Americans in the dark about information they may deem material to their purchasing decisions.  By legislating that the fact that a food is bio-engineered is not per se material, without any supporting evidence, the Bill seeks to foreclose any opportunity for a party to prove with empirical evidence that, in fact, the fact that a food is bio-engineered is indeed material to consumers’ purchasing decision.  It is plausible that, if the Bill passes, no federal agency or any other governmental entity would be allowed to require companies to disclose the fact that their product is bio-engineered in any circumstances.  The Bill will act to, at best, fail to inform consumers that they are consuming bio-engineered products, and, at worst, mislead consumers into believing that there are no bio-engineered products on the market.


[i] See H.R. 4432, 113th Cong., 2d Sess. (2014), available at https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr4432/BILLS-113hr4432ih.pdf.

[ii] Jenny Hopkinson, GMO labeling bill would trump states, Politico (Apr. 9, 2014, 4:57 PM), http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/gmo-labeling-bill-105548.html.

[iii] See 9 V.S.A. §§ 3043(a)–(b).

[iv] H.R. 4432, supra note 1, at § 104(c).

[v] Id. at § 424(e).

[vi] Id. at § 424(g)(4)(A).

[vii] See Draft Guidance for Industry Voluntary Labeling Indicating whether Foods have or have not been Developed using Bioengineering, 2001 WL 34768203 (F.D.A. Jan. 17, 2001), available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm059098.htm.

[viii] Id. at § 424(g)(4)(B).

[ix] Id. at § 424(g)(4)(C).

[x] Id. at § 425(b)(3)(A).

[xi] Id. at § 425(b)(3)(B).

[xii] See generally, Id. at § 425.

[xiii] Id. at § 425(a)(2)(C).

[xiv] See supra, note vii.

Source: Emord & Associates Blog

The Complete History of Monsanto, “The World’s Most Evil Corporation” | Global Research

monsanto roundup

Of all the mega-corps running amok, Monsanto has consistently outperformed its rivals, earning the crown as “most evil corporation on Earth!” Not content to simply rest upon its throne of destruction, it remains focused on newer, more scientifically innovative ways to harm the planet and its people.

1901: The company is founded by John Francis Queeny, a member of the Knights of Malta, a thirty year pharmaceutical veteran married to Olga Mendez Monsanto, for which Monsanto Chemical Works is named. The company’s first product is chemical saccharin, sold to Coca-Cola as an artificial sweetener.

Even then, the government knew saccharin was poisonous and sued to stop its manufacture but lost in court, thus opening the Monsanto Pandora’s Box to begin poisoning the world through the soft drink.

1920s: Monsanto expands into industrial chemicals and drugs, becoming the world’s largest maker of  aspirin, acetylsalicyclic acid, (toxic of course). This is also the time when things began to go horribly wrong for the planet in a hurry with the introduction of  their polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

“PCBs were considered an industrial wonder chemical, an oil that wouldn’t burn, impervious to degradation and had almost limitless applications. Today PCBs are considered one of the gravest chemical threats on the planet. Widely used as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, cutting oils, waterproof coatings and liquid sealants, are potent carcinogens and have been implicated in reproductive, developmental and immune system disorders. The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state.”(1)

Even though PCBs were eventually banned after fifty years for causing such devastation, it is still present in just about all animal and human blood and tissue cells across the globe. Documents introduced in court later showed Monsanto was fully aware of the deadly effects, but criminally hid them from the public to keep the PCB gravy-train going full speed!

toxiclove1930s: Created its first hybrid seed corn and expands into detergents, soaps, industrial cleaning products, synthetic rubbers and plastics. Oh yes, all toxic of course!

1940s: They begin research on uranium to be used for the Manhattan Project’s first atomic bomb, which would later be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese, Korean and US Military servicemen and poisoning millions more.

The company continues its unabated killing spree by creating pesticides for agriculture containing deadly dioxin, which poisons the food and water supplies. It was later discovered Monsanto failed to disclose that dioxin was used in a wide range of their products because doing so would force them to acknowledge that it had created an environmental Hell on Earth.

1950s: Closely aligned with The Walt Disney Company, Monsanto creates several attractions at Disney’s Tomorrowland, espousing the glories of chemicals and plastics. Their “House of the Future” is constructed entirely of toxic plastic that is not biodegradable as they had asserted. What, Monsanto lied? I’m shocked!

“After attracting a total of 20 million visitors from 1957 to 1967, Disney finally tore the house down, but discovered it would not go down without a fight. According to Monsanto Magazine, wrecking balls literally bounced off the glass-fiber, reinforced polyester material. Torches, jackhammers, chain saws and shovels did not work. Finally, choker cables were used to squeeze off parts of the house bit by bit to be trucked away.”(2)

Monsanto’s Disneyfied vision of the future:

1960s: Monsanto, along with chemical partner-in-crime DOW Chemical, produces dioxin-laced Agent Orange for use in the U.S.’s Vietnam invasion. The results? Over 3 million people contaminated, a half-million Vietnamese civilians dead, a half-million Vietnamese babies born with birth defects and thousands of U.S. military veterans suffering or dying from its effects to this day!

 Monsanto is hauled into court again and internal memos show they knew the deadly effects of dioxin in Agent Orange when they sold it to the government. Outrageously though, Monsanto is allowed to present their own “research” that concluded dioxin was safe and posed no negative health concerns whatsoever. Satisfied, the bought and paid for courts side with Monsanto and throws the case out. Afterwards, it comes to light that Monsanto lied about the findings and their real research concluded that dioxin kills very effectively.

A later internal memo released in a 2002 trial admitted

“that the evidence proving the persistence of these compounds and their universal presence as residues in the environment is beyond question … the public and legal pressures to eliminate them to prevent global contamination are inevitable. The subject is snowballing. Where do we go from here? The alternatives: go out of business; sell the hell out of them as long as we can and do nothing else; try to stay in business; have alternative products.”(3)

Monsanto partners with I.G. Farben, makers of Bayer aspirin and the Third Reich’s go-to chemical manufacturer producing deadly Zyklon-B gas during World War II. Together, the companies use their collective expertise to introduce aspartame, another extremely deadly neurotoxin, into the food supply. When questions surface regarding the toxicity of saccharin, Monsanto exploits this opportunity to introduce yet another of its deadly poisons onto an unsuspecting public.

1970s: Monsanto partner, G.D. Searle, produces numerous internal studies which claim aspartame to be safe, while the FDA’s own scientific research clearly reveals that aspartame causes tumors and massive holes in the brains of rats, before killing them. The FDA initiates a grand jury investigation into G.D. Searle for “knowingly misrepresenting findings and concealing material facts and making false statements” in regard to aspartame safety.

During this time, Searle strategically taps prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld, who served as Secretary of Defense during the Gerald Ford and George W. Bush  presidencies, to become CEO. The corporation’s primary goal is to have Rumsfeld utilize his political influence and vast experience in the killing business to grease the FDA to play ball with them.

A few months later, Samuel Skinner receives “an offer he can’t refuse,” withdraws from the investigation and resigns his post at the U.S. Attorney’s Office to go work for Searle’s law firm. This mob tactic stalls the case just long enough for the statute of limitation to run out and the grand jury investigation is abruptly and conveniently dropped.

1980s: Amid indisputable research that reveals the toxic effects of aspartame and as then FDA commissioner Dr. Jere Goyan was about to sign a petition into law keeping it off the market, Donald Rumsfeld calls Ronald Reagan for a favor the day after he takes office. Reagan fires the uncooperative Goyan and appoints Dr. Arthur Hayes Hull to head the FDA, who then quickly tips the scales in Searle’s favor and NutraSweet is approved for human consumption in dried products.This becomes sadly ironic since Reagan, a known jelly bean and candy enthusiast, later suffers from Alzheimers during his second term, one of the many horrific effects of aspartame consumption.

Searle’s real goal though was to have aspartame approved as a soft drink sweetener since exhaustive studies revealed that at temperatures exceeding 85 degrees Fahrenheit, it “breaks down into known toxins Diketopiperazines (DKP), methyl (wood) alcohol, and formaldehyde.”(4), becoming many times deadlier than its powdered form!

The National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) is initially in an uproar, fearing future lawsuits from consumers permanently injured or killed by drinking the poison. When Searle is able to show that liquid aspartame, though incredibly deadly, is much more addictive than crack cocaine, the NSDA is convinced that skyrocketing profits from the sale of soft drinks laced with aspartame would easily offset any future liability. With that, corporate greed wins and the unsuspecting soft drink consumers pay for it with damaged healths.

Coke leads the way once again (remember saccharin?) and begins poisoning Diet Coke drinkers with aspartame in 1983. As expected, sales skyrocket as millions become hopelessly addicted and sickened by the sweet poison served in a can. The rest of the soft drink industry likes what it sees and quickly follows suit, conveniently forgetting all about their initial reservations that aspartame is a deadly chemical. There’s money to be made, lots of it and that’s all that really matters to them anyway!

In 1985, undaunted by the swirl of corruption and multiple accusations of fraudulent research undertaken by Searle, Monsanto purchases the company and forms a new aspartame subsidiary called NutraSweet Company. When multitudes of independent scientists and researchers continue to warn about aspartame’s toxic effects, Monsanto goes on the offensive, bribing the National Cancer Institute and providing their own fraudulent papers to get the NCI to claim that formaldehyde does not cause cancer so that aspartame can stay on the market.

The known effects of aspartame ingestion are: “mania, rage, violence, blindness, joint-pain, fatigue, weight-gain, chest-pain, coma, insomnia, numbness, depression, tinnitus, weakness, spasms, irritability, nausea, deafness, memory-loss, rashes, dizziness, headaches, seizures, anxiety, palpitations, fainting, cramps, diarrhoea, panic, burning in the mouth. Diseases triggered/mimmicked include diabetes, MS, lupus, epilepsy, Parkinson’s, tumours, miscarriage, infertility, fibromyalgia, infant death, Alzheimer’s… Source : U.S. Food & Drug Administration.(5)

Further, 80% of complaints made to the FDA regarding food additives are about aspartame, which is now in over 5,000 products including diet and non-diet sodas and sports drinks, mints, chewing gum, frozen desserts, cookies, cakes, vitamins, pharmaceuticals, milk drinks, instant teas, coffees, yogurt, baby food and many, many more!(6) Read labels closely and do not buy anything that contains this horrific killer!

Amidst all the death and disease, FDA’s Arthur Hull resigns under a cloud of corruption and is immediately hired by Searle’s public relations firm as a senior scientific consultant. No, that’s not a joke! Monsanto, the FDA and many government health regulatory agencies have become one and the same! It seems the only prerequisite for becoming an FDA commissioner is that they spend time at either Monsanto or one of the pharmaceutical cartel’s organized crime corps.

1990s: Monsanto spends millions defeating state and federal legislation that disallows the corporation from continuing to dump dioxins, pesticides and other cancer-causing poisons into drinking water systems. Regardless, they are sued countless times for causing disease in their plant workers, the people in surrounding areas and birth defects in babies.

With their coffins full from the massive billions of profits, the $100 million dollar settlements are considered the low cost of doing business and thanks to the FDA, Congress and White House, business remains very good. So good that Monsanto is sued for giving radioactive iron to 829 pregnant women for a study to see what would happen to them.

In 1994, the FDA once again criminally approves Monsanto’s latest monstrosity, the Synthetic Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), produced from a genetically modified E. coli bacteria, despite obvious outrage from the scientific community of its dangers. Of course, Monsanto claims that diseased pus milk, full of antibiotics and hormones is not only safe, but actually good for you!

 Worse yet, dairy companies who refuse to use this toxic cow pus and label their products as“rBGH-free” are sued by Monsanto, claiming it gives them an unfair advantage over competitors that did. In essence, what Monsanto was saying is “yeah, we know rBGH makes people sick, but it’s not alright that you advertise it’s not in your products.”

 The following year, the diabolical company begins producing GMO crops that are tolerant to their toxic herbicide Roundup. Roundup-ready canola oil (rapeseed), soybeans, corn and BT cotton begin hitting the market, advertised as being safer, healthier alternatives to their organic non-GMO rivals. Apparently, the propaganda worked as today over 80% of canola on the market is their GMO variety.

A few things you definitely want to avoid in your diet are GMO soy, corn, wheat and canola oil, despite the fact that many “natural” health experts claim the latter to be a healthy oil. It’s not, but you’ll find it polluting many products on grocery store shelves.

 Because these GM crops have been engineered to ‘self-pollinate,’ they do not need  nature or bees to do that for them. There is a very dark side agenda to this and that is to wipe out the world’s bee population.

 Monsanto knows that birds and especially bees, throw a wrench into their monopoly due to their ability to pollinate plants, thus naturally creating foods outside of the company’s “full domination control agenda.” When bees attempt to pollinate a GM plant or flower, it gets poisoned and dies. In fact, the bee colony collapse was recognized and has been going on since GM crops were first introduced.

To counter the accusations that they deliberately caused this ongoing genocide of bees, Monsanto devilishly buys out Beeologics, the largest bee research firm that was dedicated to studying the colony collapse phenomenon and whose extensive research named the monster as the primary culprit! After that, it’s “bees, what bees? Everything’s just dandy!” Again, I did not make this up, but wish I had!

During the mid-90s, they decide to reinvent their evil company as one focused on controlling the world’s food supply through artificial, biotechnology means to preserve the Roundup cash-cow from losing market-share in the face of competing, less-toxic herbicides. You see, Roundup is so toxic that it wipes out non-GMO crops, insects, animals, human health and the environment at the same time. How very efficient!

 Because Roundup-ready crops are engineered to be toxic pesticides masquerading as food, they have been banned in the EU, but not in America! Is there any connection between that and the fact that Americans, despite the high cost and availability of healthcare, are collectively the sickest people in the world? Of course not!

 As was Monsanto’s plan from the beginning, all non-Monsanto crops would be destroyed, forcing farmers the world over to use only its toxic terminator seeds. And Monsanto made sure farmers who refused to come into the fold were driven out of business or sued when windblown terminator seeds poisoned organic farms.

This gave the company a virtual monopoly as terminator seed crops and Roundup worked hand in glove with each other as GMO crops could not survive in a non-chemical environment so farmers were forced to buy both.

Their next step was to spend billions globally buying up as many seed companies as possible and transitioning them into terminator seed companies in an effort to wipe out any rivals and eliminate organic foods off the face of the earth. In Monsanto’s view, all foods must be under their full control and genetically modified or they are not safe to eat!

 They pretend to be shocked that their critics in the scientific community question whether crops genetically modified with the genes of diseased pigs, cows, spiders, monkeys, fish, vaccines and viruses are healthy to eat. The answer to that question is obviously a very big “no way!”

You’d think the company would be so proud of their GMO foods that they’d serve them to their employees, but they don’t. In fact, Monsanto has banned GM foods from being served in their own employee cafeterias. Monsanto lamely responded “we believe in choice.” What they really means is “we don’t want to kill the help.”

It’s quite okay though to force-feed poor nations and Americans these modified monstrosities as a means to end starvation since dead people don’t need to eat! I’ll bet the thought on most peoples’ minds these days is that Monsanto is clearly focused on eugenics and genocide, as opposed to providing foods that will sustain the world. As in Monsanto partner Disney’s Sleeping Beauty, the wicked witch gives the people the poisoned GMO apple that puts them to sleep forever!

2000s: By this time Monsanto controls the largest share of the global GMO market. In turn, the US gov’t spends hundreds of millions to fund aerial spraying of Roundup, causing massive environmental devastation. Fish and animals by the thousands die within days of spraying as respiratory ailments and cancer deaths in humans spike tremendously. But this is all considered an unusual coincidence so the spraying continues. If you thought Monsanto and the FDA were one and the same, well you can add the gov’t to that sorry list now.

The monster grows bigger: Monsanto merges with Pharmacia & Upjohn, then separates from its chemical business and rebrands itself as an agricultural company. Yes, that’s right, a chemical company whose products have devastated the environment, killed millions of people and wildlife over the years now wants us to believe they produce safe and nutritious foods that won’t kill people any longer. That’s an extremely hard-sell, which is why they continue to grow bigger through mergers and secret partnerships.

Because rival DuPont is too large a corporation to be allowed to merge with, they instead form a stealth partnership where each agrees to drop existing patent lawsuits against one another and begin sharing GMO technologies for mutual benefit. In layman’s terms, together they would be far too powerful and politically connected for anything to stop them from owning a virtual monopoly on agriculture; “control the food supply & you control the people!”

 Not all is rosy as the monster is repeatedly sued for $100s of millions for causing illness, infant deformities and death by illegally dumping all manner of PCBs into ground water, and continually lying about products safety – you know, business as usual.

The monster often perseveres and proves difficult to slay as it begins filing frivolous suits against farmers it claims infringe on their terminator seed patents. In virtually all cases, unwanted seeds are windblown onto farmers’ lands by neighboring terminator-seeded farms. Not only do these horrendous seeds destroy the organic farmers’ crops, the lawsuits drive them into bankruptcy, while the Supreme Court overturns lower court rulings and sides with Monsanto each time.

At the same time, the monster begins filing patents on breeding techniques for pigs, claiming animals bred any way remotely similar to their patent would grant them ownership. So loose was this patent filing that it became obvious they wanted to claim all pigs bred throughout the world would infringe upon their patent.

The global terrorism spreads to India as over 100,000 farmers who are bankrupted by GMO crop failure, commit suicide by drinking Roundup so their families will be eligible for death insurance payments. In response, the monster takes advantage of the situation by alerting the media to a new project to assist small Indian farmers by donating the very things that caused crop failures in the country in the first place! Forbes then names Monsanto “company of the year.” Sickening, but true.

 More troubling is that Whole Foods, the corporation that brands itself as organic, natural and eco-friendly is proven to be anything but. They refuse to support Proposition 37, California’s GMO-labeling measure that Monsanto and its GMO-brethren eventually helped to defeat.

Why? Because Whole Foods has been in bed with Monsanto for a long time, secretly stuffing its shelves with overpriced, fraudulently advertized “natural & organic” crap loaded with GMOs, pesticides, rBGH, hormones and antibiotics. So, of course they don’t want mandatory labelling as that would expose them as the Whole Frauds and Whore Foods that they really are!

 However, when over twenty biotech-friendly companies including WalMart, Pepsico and ConAgra recently met with FDA in favor of mandatory labelling laws, this after fighting tooth and nail to defeat Prop 37, Whole Foods sees an opportunity to save face and becomes the first grocery chain to announce mandatory labelling of their GMO products…in 2018! Uh, thanks for nothing, Whore.

 And if you think its peers have suddenly grown a conscience, think again. They are simply reacting to the public’s outcry over the defeat of Prop 37 by crafting deceptive GMO-labelling laws to circumvent any real change, thus keeping the status quo intact.

 To add insult to world injury, Monsanto and their partners in crime Archer Daniels Midland, Sodexo and Tyson Foods write and sponsor The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009: HR 875. This criminal “act” gives the corporate factory farms a virtual monopoly to police and control all foods grown anywhere, including one’s own backyard, and provides harsh penalties and jail sentences for those who do not use chemicals and fertilizers. President Obama decided this sounded reasonable and gave his approval.

 With this Act, Monsanto claims that only GM foods are safe and organic or homegrown foods potentially spread disease, therefore must be regulated out of existence for the safety of the world. If eating GM pesticide balls is their idea of safe food, I would like to think the rest of the world is smart enough to pass.

As further revelations have broken open regarding this evil giant’s true intentions, Monsanto crafted the ridiculous HR 933 Continuing Resolution, aka Monsanto Protection Act, which Obama robo-signed into law as well.This law states that no matter how harmful Monsanto’s GMO crops are and no matter how much devastation they wreak upon the country, U.S. federal courts cannot stop them from continuing to plant them anywhere they choose. Yes, Obama signed a provision that makes Monsanto above any laws and makes them more powerful than the government itself. We have to wonder who’s really in charge of the country because it’s certainly not him!

There comes a tipping point though when a corporation becomes too evil and the world pushes back…hard! Many countries continue to convict Monsanto of crimes against humanity and have banned them altogether, telling them to “get out and stay out!”

The world has begun to awaken to the fact that the corporate monster does not want control over the global production of food simply for profit’s sake. No, it’s become clear by over a century of death & destruction that the primary goal is to destroy human health and the environment, turning the world into a Mon-Satanic Hell on Earth!

 Research into the name itself reveals it to be latin, meaning “my saint,” which may explain why critics often refer to it as “Mon-Satan.” Even more conspiratorially interesting is that free masons and other esoteric societies assigned numbers to each letter in our latin-based alphabet system in a six system. Under that number system, what might Monsanto add up to? Why, of course 6-6-6!

 Know that all is not lost. Evil always loses in the end once it is widely exposed to the light of truth as is occurring now. The fact that the Monsanto-led government finds it necessary to enact desperate legislation to protect its true leader proves this point. Being evicted elsewhere, the United States is Monsanto’s last stand so to speak.

Yet, even here many have begun striking back by protesting against and rejecting GMO monstrosities, choosing to grow their own foods and shop at local farmers markets instead of the Monsanto-supported corporate grocery chains.

 The awakening people are also beginning to see they have been misled by corporate tricksters and federal government criminals poisoned by too much power, control and greed, which has resulted in the creation of the monstrous, out-of-control corporate beast.

 Source: Global Research
Notes: (1,3) http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/company-history.shtml
(2) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto

Vermont just passed the nation’s first GMO food labeling law. Now it prepares to get sued | Washington Post

By Niraj Chokshi

Vermont on Thursday became the first state in the nation to require the labeling of genetically engineered foods.

Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) signed that mandate into law on Thursday afternoon, saying in a statement “we believe we have a right to know what’s in the food we buy.” The new law represents a significant victory for advocates who have for years pushed such measures at the state and local level. But there remains one more hurdle to overcome: a likely lawsuit.

There’s no guarantee of legal action, of course, but legislators, officials and advocates are preparing for the state to be sued over the new law. Last month, state Attorney General Bill Sorrell told Vermont Public Radio that he would be “very surprised” if the state isn’t sued. And officials were so sure of a challenge that the measure itself creates a $1.5 million legal defense fund, to be paid for with settlements won by the state. They think it’s coming, but they also say they’re ready.

“The threat of a lawsuit worked for a while, but now it doesn’t work anymore,” says Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association, whose organization has for years worked with activists and lawmakers in Vermont on the issue. “I think they may go ahead and sue and do it rather quickly in the hopes that it may gather momentum,” he added, referring to biotech industry groups.

Other states have pursued similar measures, but Vermont’s law will be the first of its kind. Connecticut and Maine passed labeling requirements, but with trigger clauses requiring multiple other states to pass labeling requirements before their own go into effect. At least 25 states have considered such legislation, according to a recent report on labeling requirements from the nonprofit Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. And advocates are hopeful they will get a measure on the Oregon ballot this year.

Industry groups argue that such laws are costly and bad for consumers. But even some academics have questioned the reasons for implementing a labeling requirement.

That recent report — authored by professors from the universities of California, Illinois and Missouri — found no science-based reason for singling out genetically engineered foods. They also suggested that such requirements could have possible trade implications — many of the labeling requirements in other countries violate World Trade Organization agreements, they write — and that food costs could potentially rise if companies decide to use non-modified ingredients instead of simply slapping a genetically modified organism (GMO) label on products. (If they opt to comply with labeling requirements instead, costs could be minimal.)

Proponents argue that the science behind genetically modified food is far from conclusive and ask why consumers should take risks without knowing what they’re eating. If companies truly stand behind the safety of GMO foods, they shouldn’t worry about having to identify them, advocates for labeling argue.

Whatever the wisdom of labeling policies, though, Vermont is set to move forward with its requirement. Cummins and others are relatively calm about the prospect of lawsuits, though, because they’re prepared. Advocates expect industry will challenge the law on three constitutional grounds, none of which they expect to be successful (of course). Here’s how the food industry may fight back and why labeling proponents think they can win, according to their legal analyses.

Sponsor Generated Content Smart parking to the rescue

Through technology and data, parking systems are improving city congestion. READ MORE

1. The First Amendment argument

The first argument that industry is expected to make in challenging Vermont’s GMO law is that it violates commercial free speech rights under the First Amendment. (Businesses have limited free speech protections based on the benefit of free-flowing information to an open society.)

The Supreme Court has established two tests for reviewing whether such rights have been violated, according to two legal analyses of Vermont’s law. Under one test — from Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio — the U.S. Supreme Court found that requiring commercial speech is considered constitutional if the required speech conveys “purely factual information in support of a legitimate government interest,” according to a memo from Emord & Associates, a food and drug law firm. In other words, government can require businesses to make factual statements if it’s in the service of the public good in some way.

The other First Amendment test revolves around whether a state can restrict commercial speech. It stems from New York’s attempt,  in the interest of conserving energy, to ban utilities from promoting use of electricity. The Supreme Court overturned the ban, challenged by Central Hudson Gas & Electric. In so doing, the court set up a four-part test, according to another memo from the Vermont Law School’s Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic, which represents the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. A limit on commercial speech must meet four requirements, the court found:

  1. First, the court has to decide that the speech is protected, meaning it must be about legal activity and not be misleading.
  2. Second, the government has to claim a substantial interest in limiting the speech.
  3. Third, the policy in question has to “directly advance” that interest.
  4. Fourth, that policy must not overreach in achieving its goal.

Both legal memos and labeling advocates come to the same conclusion: a labeling law will likely pass either test.

2. Does federal law trump state law?

Another argument that proponents of GMO labeling expect to hear is that Vermont’s new law stomps on territory covered by the federal government. There are three conditions under which federal law trumps state law, a process known as preemption, according to the Law Clinic memo. They are known as express preemption, field preemption and conflict preemption.

Express preemption is when Congress explicitly says a federal law trumps state laws. Both memos conclude that it has not done so with such labeling requirements, which don’t explicitly govern genetically modified foods. A conflict preemption exists when it’s impossible to comply with both federal and state law. Again, federal regulations don’t touch on the use of “genetically enginereed,” “natural” or similar terms, so it’s possible for a business or individual to comply with federal and state labeling requirements, both memos find. Finally, federal law trumps state law when it’s clear that the federal interest in a field is so great that it’s assumed to be the one in charge. In that instance, “congressional intent to supersede state laws must be ‘clear and manifest,’” which neither memo finds it is.

3. Does it interfere with interstate commerce?

The third challenge labeling proponents expect to hear is that the GMO law unconstitutionally interferes with interstate commerce. While the Constitution’s Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, it is also understood to implicitly limit state powers to do the same.

The Supreme Court has in the past applied two tests in assessing whether a policy violates the clause. The first is whether a law discriminates against interstate commerce — in other words, does it explicitly favor commerce within the state over commerce between states.

Vermont’s GMO law treats Vermont companies the same as companies based in other states, so advocates are confident it would survive that first test. The second test would ensure that any burden on interstate commerce — e.g. increased costs of labeling GMO foods — are fairly balanced with the local benefits the law provides, such as protecting public health and the environment. Again, advocates conclude the law is balanced.

Source: Washington Post
Read Also: Vermont GMO Labeling Law is Constitutional Under the First Amendment