Monsanto now refers to itself as a “sustainable
agriculture” company with no concept of what
“sustainable” really means, as they recklessly
violate all of its principles
USDA data shows that glyphosate use has increased
12-fold since 1996, when the first GE crops were
introduced. This dramatic increase has cut the
monarch butterfly population by 90 percent
San Diego is suing Monsanto for polluting the
Coronado Bay with PCBs; the city says Monsanto knew
the risks but chose to protect profits when
prolonging the use of PCBs prior to the chemical
being banned
By Dr. Mercola
Monsanto, leading the pack of chemical technology companies that
have infiltrated the seed business with their patented genetically
engineered (GE) seeds, has spent many years trying to rehabilitate
its reputation as a producer of toxic chemicals responsible for
death and suffering.
It's not working very well however, and the reason for that is
because despite the user-friendly rhetoric, they still haven't found
a moral compass that points due North. They're still producing toxic
goods, and they're still going to extreme means to hide it.
Monsanto now refers to itself as a "sustainable agriculture"
company,1
delivering agricultural products that "support farmers" around the
world. But it seems Monsanto has no concept of what "sustainable"
really means, as its solutions are anything but.
Glyphosate Labeled 'Probable Carcinogen' by WHO Research Group
Further tarnishing Monsanto’s “sustainable ag” claims is the
labeling of glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” (Class 2A) by the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is the
research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO).
“A report3
published by the WHO in the journal Lancet Oncology said Friday
there is “limited evidence” that the weedkiller can cause
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and lung cancer and “convincing evidence”
it can cause cancer in lab animals.”
IARC’s report also notes that glyphosate and glyphosate
formulations have been shown to induce DNA and chromosomal damage in
mammals, as well as human and animal cells in vitro.
IARC is considered the global gold standard for carcinogenicity
studies, so this determination is of considerable importance. The
determination was published on March 20, 2015.4,5
The IARC working group consists of 17 experts from 11 countries,
and most noteworthy is the fact that these members were selected not
only for their expertise, but also for the absence of real or
apparent conflicts of interest.6
Along with glyphosate, the commonly used insecticides malathion
and diazinon were also classified as “probably carcinogenic to
humans” (Group 2A), and the insecticides tetrachlorvinphos and
parathion were classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”
(Group 2B).
Monsanto has Consistently Lied and Covered Up Toxicity Issues
In response, a Monsanto spokesman said: “All labeled uses of
glyphosate are safe for human health,” and the company has gone so
far as to request a retraction of the IARC’s report.7
However, Monsanto feigned ignorance on the dangers of PCB’s for
several decades, which turned out to be a bold-faced lie. Its
assurances that Roundup is biodegrade and “leave the soil clean”
also turned out to be a lie, so why should anyone believe Monsanto’s
assurances that Roundup is safe?
Especially when you take into account the mounting research
demonstrating that (as usual) Monsanto’s assessment of its product
is severely flawed. For example, research by Samsel and Seneff
reveals that
glyphosate wrecks human health by way of your gut bacteria.
Cancer is but one of the potential health outcomes.
In Sri Lanka, drinking water contaminated with glyphosate and
spraying glyphosate on rice fields without protective gear has also
been linked to chronic kidney disease.8
Roundup also Tied to Antibiotic Resistance, New Research Shows
Right on the heels of the IARC’s reclassification of glyphosate
as a Class 2 carcinogen, another breakthrough study9
published in the peer-reviewed journal mBio on March 24 ties
Monsanto’s weedkiller to antibiotic resistance.
According to this study, sublethal doses of Roundup (the actual
formulation of Roundup, not just glyphosate in isolation) alter
disease-causing bacteria's response to commonly used antibiotics,
including tetracycline and ciprofloxacin, thereby raising resistance
to drugs used in medicine. As reported by Rodale News:10
“The way Roundup causes this effect is likely by causing
the bacteria to turn on a set of genes that are normally off,
[study author] Heinemann says. "These genes are for 'pumps' or
'porins,' proteins that pump out toxic compounds or reduce the
rate at which they get inside of the bacteria...
Once these genes are turned on by the herbicide, then the
bacteria can also resist antibiotics. If bacteria were to
encounter only the antibiotic, they would instead have been
killed.
In a sense, the herbicide is 'immunizing' the
bacteria to the antibiotic:...This change
occurs at levels commonly used on farm field crops, lawns,
gardens, and parks.” [Emphasis mine]
Study author Jack Heinemann, PhD, professor and lecturer of
genetics at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand said:
“Antibiotic resistance is a big and growing problem. I
think that a key lesson of this work is that we have to think
more broadly, holistically, about medicine and the environment
and not think that because herbicides are used on plants and
antibiotics are used on people that they don't have any
relevance when they mix together somewhere.”
I would not be at all surprised if in the end glyphosate’s
toxicity becomes well-recognized and Monsanto ends up spending
decades fighting lawsuits over it, just as it’s still being sued
over its PCB’s pollution, decades after the fact. Glyphosate is now
massively polluting both land and waterways. So much so it’s even
detected in
air and rain samples. Disturbingly, the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) appears to have suppressed or minimized
evidence in order to raise the allowable limits for glyphosate in
food, which was done in 2013.
As noted by the Institute for Science in Society:11“The amount of allowable glyphosate in oilseed crops (except for
canola and soy) went up from 20 ppm to 40 ppm, 100,000 times
the amount needed to induce breast cancer cells.”
[Emphasis mine]
GE Foods Sold in California Will Likely have to Carry Cancer Warning
The IARC’s determination may end up having a significant impact
on the sale of genetically engineered (GE) foods. As reported by
PoliticoPro March 24:12
“The World Health Organization cancer research body’s
determination that exposure to a key pesticide used on
genetically modified crops is linked to cancer is another reason
why lawmakers should move ahead with a national GMO labeling
mandate, Rep. Jim McGovern said this morning.
“They are saying that glyphosate is a likely cause of
cancer, that may be something people want to know,” McGovern
said this morning during a House Agriculture Committee hearing
on the costs of GMO labeling. “Don’t you think people should
have a right to know how their food is grown?”
Indeed, the IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a probable
carcinogen is more significant than you may realize. IARC is one of
the five research agencies from which the OEHHA—which is the
California agency of environmental hazards—gets its reports to
declare carcinogens under Prop 65. What this means is that in a few
years’ time, foods containing glyphosate will have to have a Prop 65
Warning label to be sold in California. While it will take time,
that process is now in motion with the IARC classifying glyphosate
as a Class 2 carcinogen.
Why Monsanto Will Never Be a Sustainable Ag Company
Part of being sustainable includes minimizing or eliminating
agricultural chemicals, as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides
decimate soil microbes, and Monsanto is not doing anything to limit
the use of chemicals on our crop fields.
Why would it, considering the fact that its patented seeds are
designed to promote and secure the expanded use of pesticides, not
lessen it. As noted in a Food & Water Watch report13
on Monsanto:
"Sales from Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides
accounted for 27 percent of Monsanto's total 2011 net sales.
Monsanto engineers its GE seeds to resist Roundup and Roundup
alone, so that the sale of the herbicide is absolutely necessary
for those who buy Roundup Ready seeds."
In his paper "Pesticide Use on Genetically Engineered Crops,"14
Dr. Ramon J. Seidler, Ph.D., a former senior scientist with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), presents USDA data showing
that glyphosate use has increased 12-fold since 1996, when
the first GE crops were introduced.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto's broad spectrum
herbicide Roundup, and its Roundup Ready seed varieties are designed
to tolerate otherwise lethal doses of this chemical.
The problem is, while the crop may survive, it's saturated with
glyphosate—you cannot wash the chemical off as it is integrated
systemically into all the plant's cells. Recent research has also
revealed how glyphosate promotes chronic disease, in part by
inhibiting enzymes that catalyze the oxidation of organic
substances.
Overall, annual herbicide use has risen by more than 500 million
pounds—an increase that in part is driven by expanded use of GE
crops, and in part by escalating weed resistance. This includes
pesticide use on Bt plants, which are genetically engineered to
produce their own internal pesticide, ostensibly to reduce the need
for topical pesticide applications.
According to the latest data,15
insecticide use on Bt crops has dramatically increased since 2010.
So to suggest that Bt crops has led, or will lead, to a decrease in
pesticide use is patently false.
The United States now uses about 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides
each year,16,17
and mounting research has linked pesticides to an array of serious
health problems. Land, waterways, and food itself is also becoming
increasingly toxic, thanks to companies like Monsanto. What's
sustainable about that?
Monsanto's Best-Selling Herbicide Has Cut Monarch Population by 90
Percent
In 1996, when GE crops made their entrance, there were close to 1
billion
monarch butterflies across the US. Today, their numbers have
dwindled by 90 percent. Their rapid demise is tied to
escalating glyphosate use, which kills the monarchs' sole food
source, the milkweed.
In the past, even as prairies and forests in the Midwest were
converted to cropland, the deep, extensive root system of the common
milkweed allowed it to survive tillage, mowing, harsh winters, and
even the application of most herbicides, which typically didn't
affect their roots.
This changed when farmland was converted to GE crops and heavy
Roundup application became the norm. Between 1995, the year before
the first Roundup Ready crops were introduced, and 2013, total use
of glyphosate on corn and soybeans increased 20-fold, according to a
report18
by the Center for Food Safety (CFS).
A 2013 paper19
published in Insect Conservation and Diversity also links
the monarchs' decline to increased use of glyphosate, in conjunction
with increased planting of genetically modified (GM)
glyphosate-tolerant corn and soybeans.
Monsanto—A Champion for Monarchs?
Monsanto now claims to be committed to "doing their part" to
protect monarch butterflies—but don't think for a second that this
commitment extends to curtailing the use of Roundup. It does not.
Instead, Monsanto states:20
"Effective control of weeds in their fields, however,
doesn't prevent farmers from contributing to a conservation
effort aimed at finding places outside farm fields for monarchs
to thrive...
That's why we are collaborating with experts from
universities, nonprofits, and government agencies to help the
monarch by restoring their habitat in Crop Reserve Program land,
on-farm buffer strips, roadsides, utility rights-of-way, and
government-owned land."
The article also includes the following curious statement:
"Saying a species is closing in on extinction when most
disagree... makes for a great news headline. It doesn't do
anything to help solve the problem."
What's confusing about that is that I'm really not aware of any
experts on monarch butterflies disagreeing with the statement that
these
butterflies are on the verge of extinction, let alone "most"
disagreeing...
As for solving the problem, Monsanto has not only failed to
accept responsibility for causing the problem in the first place,
it's also unwilling to support strategies that involve cutting the
use of Roundup, which is part and parcel of the solution.
Instead, it wants you to believe that because it supports the
planting of milkweed in private gardens and on public lands and
along roadways, Monsanto is somehow "doing its part" in solving the
problem. What a joke.
Meanwhile, the answer, not only to dwindling monarch populations,
but also to soil destruction, top soil erosion, water shortages,
loss of biodiversity, and the threat of increased famine, is being
aggressively opposed by Monsanto and other industry
leaders.
I'm referring of course to
regenerative land management practices and organic farming,
which has been shown to outperform both GE and conventional chemical
agriculture.
Part and parcel of such sustainable agriculture practices is
cutting the use of chemicals, and that's undoubtedly why Monsanto
won't have anything to do with it. It's truly an irony of gargantuan
proportions for one of the most unsustainable companies in the world
to proclaim itself a leader in sustainability.
Veterans for Peace Want Monsanto to Offer Restitution for Agent
Orange Before Discussing Food Security
Voice of America recently reported21
that Monsanto co-sponsored a workshop in Ho Chi Minh City, trying to
sell people on their brand of sustainable farming. The feedback was
mixed however, with many Vietnamese being less than enthusiastic.
Monsanto was one of nine manufacturers of Agent Orange, which killed
and maimed an estimated 400,000 people during the Vietnam War,22
and has continued to affect the health of millions. And, as noted in
the article, some are not fooled by Monsanto's efforts to create a
new image:
"Chuck Palazzo, a founding member of the Vietnam chapter
of Veterans for Peace, accused Monsanto of trying to 'brainwash'
locals, especially young people. The company is on a public
relations push to align itself with the positives of food
security, he said, instead of its controversial products, Agent
Orange and genetically modified seeds.
'Even if Monsanto has pure intentions, it should wait to
get involved in sustainable agriculture and first compensate
Vietnamese who suffer birth defects like missing limbs and
distended bodies,' Palazzo said. 'The first thing they need to
do is benefit, somehow, the victims of Agent Orange, they need
to show some good faith,' he said. 'Doing the right thing, in my
mind, is giving financial benefits, medical benefits, and social
benefits...'
[H]e can't divorce these different sides of the company
-- its role in food security today, versus its role as purveyor
of a wartime herbicide. Palazzo also opposes genetically
modified seeds, which some fear could render long-term health
problems. 'In my mind it's just about impossible to
compartmentalize each of those and say, this is the good
Monsanto and this is the bad Monsanto,' he said."
Remember Anniston?
Monsanto cannot rid itself of its toxic past for the simple
reason that it hasn't changed the way it does business. It's still a
major purveyor of toxic chemicals, and acts with reckless disregard
for who gets hurt in the process of making a buck. In 2002, Monsanto
was found guilty of decades of "outrageous acts of pollution" in the
town of Anniston, Alabama. Residents accused the company of dumping
PCBs into the local river—a chemical that the US government ended up
banning in 197623
due to its carcinogenic potential. Monsanto also buried PCBs in a
landfill, and PCBs can linger in the environment for centuries. In
the end, they won. According to an article24
discussing the case:
"Lawyers claimed Monsanto had deliberately covered up
evidence that the PCBs were harmful, including evidence of fish
dying in nearby creeks. Internal memos were produced that
insisted they should protect the image of the corporation. One
said: 'We can't afford to lose one dollar of business.' Although
a clear link between the chemicals and cancer has not been
proven, the people of Anniston have argued for years that their
cancer rate is abnormally high. Some of the plaintiffs were
found to have PCBs in their blood 27 times higher than the
national average.
Monsanto's defense was that it closed the plant in 1971,
eight years before the government ban. The company said it was
not aware the chemicals were being released or that they could
be dangerous. It has spent $40m (£27m) on a clean-up
operation...The company has paid $80m in out of court
settlements...
The jury in Gadsden, Ala., a town 20 miles from
Anniston... held Monsanto and its corporate successors liable on
all six counts it considered: negligence, wantonness,
suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage. Under
Alabama law, the rare claim of outrage typically requires
conduct so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to
go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as
atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society."
Documents revealed that Monsanto had known about the severity of
the pollution problem it caused for at least three decades. Anniston
residents didn't learn the horrid truth until 1996; 30 years prior,
in 1966, Monsanto managers found that fish placed in the river
floated to the surface within 10 seconds, "spurting blood and
shedding skin." In 1969, the company found a fish in another creek
that had a PCB level 7,500 times the legal limit. Yet Monsanto never
told anyone, and decided it wasn't worth going through "expensive
extremes" to limit its toxic discharges.
San Diego Sues Monsanto for Polluting Bay with PCBs
Now San Diego is suing Monsanto for polluting the Coronado Bay
with PCBs.25
According to the complaint, "PCBs manufactured by Monsanto have been
found in bay sediments and water and have been identified in tissues
of fish, lobsters, and other marine life in the Bay." In its
complaint, the city also claims that "the risks did not deter
Monsanto from trying to protect profits and prolong the use of PCB
compounds such as Aroclor, as shown in a report from an ad hoc
committee that Monsanto formed in 1969."
According to a Food & Water Watch report26
on Monsanto, the company produced 99 percent of all the PCBs in the
US prior to it being banned, and the documentation revealed in the
Anniston case over a dozen years ago shows that Monsanto was far
from unaware of its extreme toxicity. Yet it put profits before all
else—including the health of women, children, wildlife, and
waterways—and hid what it knew while doing nothing to curtail its
pollution. This company now proclaims to be a leader in "sustainable
agriculture," and Robert T. Fraley, Monsanto's Vice President and
Chief Technology Officer sends out tweets wondering why so many
people "doubt science"...
"[T]he answer to the question "Why do people doubt
science" is not because... a bunch of 'irrational' activists
have scared them witless about GM crops or some other issue. It
is because they can see how science is used, corrupted, and
manipulated by powerful corporations to serve their own ends. It
is because they regard these large corporations as largely
unaccountable and their activities and products not properly
regulated by governments. That's why so many doubt science – or
more precisely the science corporations fund and promote to
support their interests."
That's precisely right, I think, yet Monsanto along with all the
other chemical technology companies are trying their best to make
you think that if you don't believe their corrupted science, you're
somehow intellectually deficient. The problem is, Monsanto is like
the boy who cried wolf too many times. Too many times it has assured
us that its products are safe, if not harmless, only to later be
proven wrong. Remember France found
Monsanto guilty of lying when it said Roundup was biodegradable?
A few years later France again found
Monsanto guilty in a pesticide poisoning case.
Tens of thousands of residents in Nitro, West Virginia also sued
Monsanto in a class-action lawsuit over carcinogenic dioxins, which
they claim the company spewed all over the city over the course of
20 years. The plant in Nitro produced the herbicide 2,4,5-T, which
is a component of Agent Orange. As noted by Reuters28
in July last year:
"In lieu of going to trial over the contamination, the
biotech company agreed in 2012 to spend millions of dollars on a
program that for the next three decades will assist residents of
Nitro impacted by the plant."
And these are just a handful of examples of Monsanto's brand of
"sustainability." For a rundown on Monsanto's checkered history,
check out this Waking Times' article29
from last year.
PR Firm Boasts Doubling Positive Media Coverage on GMOs by
Supervising Social Media
In February, US Right to Know posted a series of press releases30,31,32,33
"outing" the Grocery Manufacturers Association's new lobbying firm,
hired to combat GMO labeling, and how the GMO industry's PR firm
made the mistake of bragging about using well-known propaganda
tactics to double positive GMO messages.
"Food company CEOs worried about losing the trust of the
American public... might want to take note: their trade
association has taken another tone-deaf step into the abyss by
hiring the law firm of a famous felon to do their dirty work...
[T]he Grocery Manufacturers Association has retained the law
firm K&L Gates to lobby against GMO labeling. K&L Gates was
formed in a 2007 merger between Kirkpatrick & Lockhart and
Preston Gates – which was Jack Abramoff's law firm from 1994 to
2000. Jack Abramoff, as we know, was sentenced to four years in
prison for political corruption, and ended up as the poster
child for corruption in Washington."
Monsanto, as most of you may already know, has long been referred
to by those in the know as "the most evil company on the planet."
But it has stiff competition. Before there was Monsanto, junk food
companies were already hard at work influencing American politics to
further their own agenda.
In 2014 I named the GMA "the
most evil corporation on the planet," considering the fact that
it consists primarily of pesticide producers and junk food
manufacturers who are going to great lengths to violate some of your
most basic rights—just to ensure that subsidized, genetically
engineered and chemical-dependent, highly processed junk food
remains the status quo.
Indeed, Jack Abramoff went on 60 Minutes (below) revealing in
shocking detail how he spent years
illegally influencing Congress as a lobbyist. Considering the
fact that the GMA was caught red-handed in an illegal
money laundering scheme during the Washington State GMO labeling
campaign, their choice of lobbying firm is certainly an ironic but
fitting one.
According to the PR firm, Ketchum, it was hired by the
Council for Biotechnology Information to improve GMO's public
image and "balance" the online conversation. US Right to Know calls
attention to a video ad in which the firm talks about how it doubled
positive GMO coverage using online social media monitoring—a tactic
that smacks of Internet "sockpuppets"—fake Internet personas who
interject themselves into social media conversations to steer the
debate.
(In 2008, Mother Jones34
implicated Ketchum in an espionage effort against nonprofit
organizations, including the Center for Food Safety and Friends of
the Earth.) Ketchum also created the GMO Answers website, in which
professors at public universities answer GMO questions from the
public—supposedly without remuneration from the industry.
In late January, US Right to Know filed state public records
requests35
to obtain "correspondence and emails to and from professors at
public universities who wrote for the agrichemical industry's PR
website, GMO Answers... and agrichemical companies such as Monsanto,
as well as to and from PR firms such as Ketchum or Fleishman
Hillard, and to and from trade associations such as the Grocery
Manufacturers Association and the Council for Biotechnology
Information." It remains to be seen just how independent all these
GMO experts answering questions on GMO Answers really are.
The Way Out of This Nightmare Starts at Home
The way off this out-of-control chemical treadmill will decimate
profits for the chemical technology industry, and THAT is why they
do not want you to know which foods contain genetically modified
organisms (GMOs). If Americans started making dramatically different
food choices, it could quickly revolutionize the US agricultural
system because farmers will grow that which sells. If people want
uncontaminated organic foods, that's what farmers will grow—and
there's already evidence that biodynamic farming can be done even on
the large scale. In fact, using
regenerative agriculture principles, you can grow a lot more
food on fewer acres.
Real solutions are available. What's lacking is the
political will to stand up to the chemical technology industry and
break its iron grip on our food supply. But we can still get it
done, by making conscious choices each and every time we shop for
food. Remember, your money either goes to support the chemical-based
system that threatens the survival of the Earth and your
descendants, or it supports a system that can regenerate and
revitalize the soil and the environment so that healthy food and
healthy people can thrive. To make conscious choices, we need
information, and that is why GMO labeling is so crucial.
Help Support GMO Labeling
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—Monsanto’s Evil
Twin—is pulling out all the stops to keep you in the dark about
what’s in your food. For nearly two decades, Monsanto and corporate
agribusiness have exercised near-dictatorial control over American
agriculture.
Finally public opinion around the biotech industry's
contamination of our food supply and destruction of our environment
has reached the tipping point. We're fighting back.
The insanity has gone far enough, which is why I encourage you to
boycott every single product owned by members of the GMA, including
natural and organic brands. More than 80 percent of our support
comes from individual consumers like you, who understand that real
change comes from the grassroots.
Thankfully, we have organizations like the Organic Consumers
Association (OCA) to fight back against these corporate giants. So
please, fight for your right to know what’s in your food and help
support the GMO labeling movement by making a donation today.
Together, Let's Help OCA Get The Funding They Deserve
Let’s Help OCA get the funding it deserves. I have found very few
organizations who are as effective and efficient as OCA. It’s a
public interest organization dedicated to promoting health justice
and sustainability. A central focus of the OCA is building a
healthy, equitable, and sustainable system of food production and
consumption.
Please make a donation to help OCA fight for GMO labeling.
Copyright 1997- 2015 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.