150 X 3 = 450 EARS PER STALK!!!
OMG, an anti-GMO site that is not also anti-vaxxer, although I did not look too closely.
vox_mundi wrote:KJ has been watching too many Jolly Green Giant commercials - thinks they're all real.
dohboi wrote:????
Are you knee-jerk prejudices showing again?
I know of no major Anti-GMO group that has anti-vaccination as a major (or really even minor) part of their program. But it's not something I spend a lot of time looking into, so let's just check the first few groups that pop up on google from seaching 'anti-gmo':
Stuff like that makes you sound like a hopeless nutcase.dohboi wrote:But I'll let you go back to be further programmed now by your overlords so they can tell you exactly what to think and say next.
dohboi wrote:You talked about sites. I showed you that the top sites on google indicate no such overlap.
Anyone can always find one person that believes any kind of weird combination of things. Proves precisely nothing.
KaiserJeep wrote:As an experiment in groupthink, this is a fascinating thread. Certain members are now advocating positions very different from those they held in the 2013 debate on Permaculture, and in some cases, diametrically opposed positions. Yet they have the mass disfunction I described just yesterday in the thread on IQ decline. They do not doubt that they have held their current opinions forever, and deny their own words which are still accessible in the Forum archives.
The Environmental Protection Agency official who was in charge of evaluating the cancer risk of Monsanto Co.’s Roundup allegedly bragged to a company executive that he deserved a medal if he could kill another agency’s investigation into the herbicide’s key chemical.
The boast was made during an April 2015 phone conversation, according to farmers and others who say they’ve been sickened by the weed killer. After leaving his job as a manager in the EPA’s pesticide division last year, Jess Rowland has become a central figure in more than 20 lawsuits in the U.S. accusing the company of failing to warn consumers and regulators of the risk that its glyphosate-based herbicide can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
“If I can kill this I should get a medal,” Rowland told a Monsanto regulatory affairs manager who recounted the conversation in an email to his colleagues, according to a court filing made public Tuesday. The company was seeking Rowland’s help stopping an investigation of glyphosate by a separate office, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, that is part of the U.S. Health and Human Service Department, according to the filing.
A federal judge overseeing the glyphosate litigation in San Francisco said last month he’s inclined to order Rowland to submit to questioning by lawyers for the plaintiffs, who contend he had a "highly suspicious" relationship with Monsanto. Rowland oversaw a committee that found insufficient evidence to conclude glyphosate causes cancer and quit last year shortly after his report was leaked to the press.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers say Rowland’s communications with Monsanto employees show the regulator who was supposed to be policing the company was actually working on its behalf.
The unsealing of the court documents "represents a huge development in public health," said Tim Litzenburg, one of the lawyers suing Monsanto. Regulatory agencies, scientists, consumers and physicians "can see some of what Monsanto was actually engaging in behind the scenes, and how they have manipulated the scientific literature to date. That’s important to their decision-making, not just our lawsuits."
Plaintiffs’ lawyers said in another filing made public Tuesday that Monsanto’s toxicology manager and his boss, Bill Heydens, were ghost writers for two of the reports, including one from 2000, that Rowland’s committee relied on in part to reach its conclusion that glyphosate shouldn’t be classified as carcinogenic.
The EPA “may be unaware of Monsanto’s deceptive authorship practice,” the lawyers said.
Among the documents unsealed was a February 2015 internal email exchange at the company about how to contain costs for a research paper. The plaintiff lawyers cited it to support their claim that the EPA report is unreliable, unlike a report by an international agency that classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.
... Asked about emails specifically describing Monsanto working with Rowland to kill the glyphosate investigation by the toxic substances agency, a Monsanto spokesperson said he would review the messages and respond at a later date.
The company on March 10 lost a court bid to keep glyphosate off California’s public list of cancer-causing chemicals.
Ancient Monsanto Proverb: "Profit Over Life"
Glyphosate, an herbicide and the active ingredient in Monsanto Co's popular Roundup weed killer, will be added to California's list of chemicals known to cause cancer effective July 7, the state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) said on Monday.
The listing is the latest legal setback for the seeds and chemicals company, which has faced increasing litigation over glyphosate since the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer said that it is "probably carcinogenic" in a controversial ruling in 2015.
Dicamba, a weed killer designed for use with Monsanto's next generation of biotech crops, is under scrutiny in Arkansas after the state's plant board voted last week to ban the chemical.
OEHHA said the designation of glyphosate under Proposition 65 will proceed following an unsuccessful attempt by Monsanto to block the listing in trial court and after requests for stay were denied by a state appellate court and the California's Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s top environmental regulator is set to speak privately to chemical industry executives next week during a conference at a luxury oceanfront golf resort.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt is listed as the featured speaker at a board meeting of the American Chemistry Council, a group that has lobbied against stricter regulations for chemical manufacturers. The three-day conference is being held at The Sanctuary resort on Kiawah Island, South Carolina. Corporate members of the American Chemistry Council include such industry giants Dow Chemical, DuPont, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Arkema.
Council spokeswoman Anne Kolton said Pruitt’s speech will not be open to the public or the news media. Admission to the members-only event where Pruitt is speaking ranges between $7,500 and $2,500, depending on sponsorship level. Rooms at the resort are being offered to conference attendees at a discounted rate of $389 a night, not including taxes and fees.
Travel and lodging expenses for Pruitt, four aides and his security team will be borne by taxpayers.
... Pruitt overruled the recommendation of his agency’s own scientists to ban the Dow pesticide chlorpyrifos after federal scientists concluded it can interfere with the brain development of fetuses and infants. Pruitt also delayed by until at least 2019 Obama-era rules that would have tightened safety requirements for companies storing large quantities of dangerous chemicals after the industry opposed the regulations.
Pruitt has also named chemical industry insiders to key posts within EPA overseeing chemical and pesticide safety. EPA’s top public affairs official, Liz Bowman, worked until March as the director of issue and advocacy communications for the American Chemistry Council.
Pruitt has crisscrossed the country to meet with top executives of industries his agency regulates. Unlike past EPA leaders, Pruitt’s speaking engagements are typically disclosed only after the fact and are rarely open to the public.
EPA’s inspector general is reviewing Pruitt’s frequent taxpayer-funded trips, which often include weekend layovers at his home in Oklahoma, to determine whether they adhere to federal travel polices.
So Monsanto has dodged the bullet — for now. The European Union has just voted to relicense the controversial herbicide glyphosate — marketed as Roundup — for another five years. That's far less than the 15 years initially sought, but much better than the total immediate ban sought by some countries and legions of vocal environmental activists.
The glyphosate saga is a fascinating case study in how easily politics can derail science. In watching the glyphosate issue evolve I found myself gradually becoming more and more aghast at how quickly and thoughtlessly evidence-based policymaking was thrown away in European centers of power.
I don't want to over-hype it, but it felt a little like mob rule. You can still burn the witch in Europe — if the witch is called Monsanto. Over glyphosate Monsanto was stitched up good and proper, as we say in England.
But no one feels comfortable being in the position of defending a company with a reputation as terrible as Monsanto, so despite the obvious perversion of both science and natural justice, the activists very nearly got away with it.
All in all this was a textbook case of how science and reason so easily lose out to hysteria and emotion, especially when you can find a good pantomime villain. This was never about glyphosate as a chemical. It was about glyphosate as a symbol, a symbol for opposition to Monsanto, pesticides, GMOs and a modern farming system which populist factions of different political stripes, led by the Greens, now love to hate.
Here's roughly what happened, so far as I can tell. At some point before 2015, anti-Monsanto activists, seeking a way to deal the company a severe blow, discovered that a little-known and rather flaky offshoot of the World Health Organization — the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — could be co-opted to declare the hated Roundup carcinogenic.
IARC was the perfect target because it finds almost everything carcinogenic. Glyphosate was eventually placed by IARC in its 2A category of “probably carcinogenic,”' a designation it now shares with red meat, wood smoke, manufacturing glass processes, drinking “very hot beverages over 65C” and even the occupation of being a hairdresser.
In IARC’s higher Category 1 “carcinogenic to humans” designation you will find familiar and uncontroversial villains such as tobacco smoke and plutonium, but also sunshine, soot, salted fish ('Chinese style') and — latterly — bacon and other processed meats.
The activists needed IARC because every other scientific and chemical safety agency that had assessed the toxicity of glyphosate had found it pretty non-toxic, and certainly by far the most benign herbicide on the market. Those giving glyphosate a clean bill of health in terms of carcinogenicity included the European Food Safety Authority, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, the European Chemicals Agency and the US Environmental Protection Agency.
The activists likely guessed that far as media headlines were concerned, WHO and IARC would be perceived as pretty much the same thing. They were right. "Roundup weedkiller 'probably' causes cancer, says WHO study" was how the Guardian and most of the rest of the world's media covered the resulting March 2015 IARC decision.
As a strategy it was frankly Machiavellian, but also quite brilliant. I can only admire the campaigners who came up with it. And it very nearly paid off.
Here's how the plan was put into action: a statistician called Chris Portier, previously attached to the Environmental Defense Fund, a US-based campaign group, worked closely with IARC and seems to have been influential in its decision. I don't have any special insight into this, so can't offer any great scoops, though I think we're all indebted to the dogged persistence of “Risk Monger” David Zaruk and also reporters at Reuters for what we know so far.
In particular, we now know that early drafts of the IARC assessment were extensively altered at a late stage to point towards a carcinogenicity finding - even when the science they were assessing pointed away from this. As Reuters reported:
“Reuters found 10 significant changes that were made between the draft chapter on animal studies and the published version of IARC’s glyphosate assessment. In each case, a negative conclusion about glyphosate leading to tumors was either deleted or replaced with a neutral or positive one."
We also know now that Portier had an enormous financial conflict of interest because he was contracted by a US-based legal firm that hoped to hoover up millions in a class-action lawsuit that would be based on the expected IARC carcinogenicity decision. Portier, it was revealed last month, was paid $160,000 by a legal firm that expected to clean up in a class-action lawsuit against Monsanto.
Imagine if glyphosate had been given a clean bill of health, and the scientist leading the assessment had been paid $160,000 by Monsanto. Yet double standards are such that when eye-watering conflicts of interest like this are exposed, they are waved away because, well, we're environmentalists, so we’re supposedly always on the side of the public interest.
What I still find shocking is that the activists were clearly not interested in whether glyphosate was actually harming anyone in the real world. If the environmental groups had really been concerned with ecological or human health issues, they would not have started with campaigning to remove the most benign chemical in world farming. They would have started with the most toxic. Glyphosate would have been last on the list, not first.
Likewise, if Greenpeace, Avaaz, Corporate Europe Observatory, Pesticide Action Network and all the other campaigning groups that flocked to the cause with their million-strong clicktivist petitions were really concerned about human cancer risks, they surely would have focused first on bacon.
I'm not joking. According to IARC, bacon is “carcinogenic to humans.” Bacon is something people actually ingest voluntarily in large quantities via eating it in sandwiches and breakfasts, whereas glyphosate is present at only trace exposures in the parts per million range, if that. As always, the poison is the dose.
Many of these same groups have waged a long campaign to downgrade evidence-based policymaking in general in Europe, and were instrumental in removing the position of EU Chief Science Advisor in 2014.
So why focus on glyphosate? Because glyphosate is a “chemical,” and chemicals are bad, especially those that can be called “pesticides.” Bacon is familiar, and to most of us smells nice while frying. Not a good subject for an international campaign.
Roundup was targeted to strike out at Monsanto and GMOs.
But why glyphosate rather than one or other of the more toxic pesticides still widely used by farmers? The answer is obvious: Monsanto makes glyphosate. (Partly: since it came off patent, Chinese generic glyphosate has flooded the market.) Therefore getting IARC to pronounce it a "probable carcinogen" would be a way to strike out at both Monsanto, and — by proxy — GMOs in general.
It would also be great PR for the green groups, by keeping Monsanto in the headlines, linking it with "pesticides" and cancer, and keeping GMOs firmly locked out of Europe by giving a continuing chemophobic tinge to the ongoing hysteria about GMOs.
As an example, here's the kind of language the activists were using in the 1.3 million signatures campaign:
"Did you know a poisonous, potentially cancer-inducing chemical could be present in your body? This is possible because our food is being sprayed with it. In fact, scientists have found traces of the hazardous chemical Glyphosate in the urine of nearly 1 in 2 people tested... The World Health Organization has labelled it as “probably carcinogenic”."
And so on. This kind of thing makes me ashamed to call myself an environmentalist. I do not want to be part of a movement that so explicitly sides with ignorant, emotive populism against rigorous scientific evidence.
The activist campaign was successful in recruiting several EU member states in blocking the renewal of the glyphosate license. In particular Italy and France were steadfast in the anti-GMO — ahem — anti-glyphosate camp. In the latter, President Macron had pledged to ban glyphosate anyway within three years, or earlier if a substitute is developed.
Macron clearly understands nothing about chemistry. Glyphosate was first discovered in 1974 after decades of searching. Nothing since has come close to its profile of non-toxicity and broad-spectrum activity. Glyphosate was called a “once in a century” herbicide for good reason.
This is precisely why the European farming community, realizing what a threat it was under, belatedly mobilized against the looming ban. I know a lot of people here in the UK who had begun stockpiling Roundup. There really is no viable substitute, and banning the herbicide would have meant a lot more plowing and associated soil erosion in an expensive effort to control weeds and stop crop yields from falling too far.
I even use glyphosate myself, in small doses on my vegetable garden. It is good at knocking back perennial weeds that can't easily be pulled, and nothing else on the market has such low toxicity. I found it infuriating that environmentalists would remove it and leave much more toxic chemicals unopposed.
But this isn’t just about glyphosate. It’s about the principle at stake here. Decisions about licensing chemicals should be based on scientifically objective risk assessment, not on activist campaigns or on industry reassurances. It's a tough thing to say, but science is not democratic. One person's opinion is not as valid as another's. Expertise counts — just as it does with airplane pilots and heart surgeons.
An even deeper principle is that the truth is for everyone. Scientific truth is there to defend people against corporations, but equally sometimes to defend corporations against people. Truth is truth, and fairness is not selective. Otherwise, it’s not fair.
Chemical giant Monsanto has been ordered to pay $289m (£226m) damages to a man who claimed herbicides containing glyphosate had caused his cancer.
In a landmark case, a Californian jury found that Monsanto knew its Roundup and RangerPro weedkillers were dangerous and failed to warn consumers.
It's the first lawsuit to go to trial alleging a glyphosate link to cancer.
The claimant in the case, groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson, is among more than 5,000 similar plaintiffs across the US.
Correspondents say the California ruling is likely to lead to hundreds of other claims against Monsanto, which was recently bought by the German conglomerate Bayer AG.... Jurors found on Friday that the company had acted with "malice" and that its weedkillers contributed "substantially" to Mr Johnson's terminal illness.
vox_mundi wrote:Monsanto Ordered To Pay $289 Million Damages in Roundup Cancer TrialChemical giant Monsanto has been ordered to pay $289m (£226m) damages to a man who claimed herbicides containing glyphosate had caused his cancer.
dissident wrote:vox_mundi wrote:Monsanto Ordered To Pay $289 Million Damages in Roundup Cancer TrialChemical giant Monsanto has been ordered to pay $289m (£226m) damages to a man who claimed herbicides containing glyphosate had caused his cancer.
Too bad some rotten appeals court will cut down the fine to less than 10% of its current amount. The jury should have imposed a $28.9 billion fine and no appeals court should have the right to cut this amount down unless the original verdict was 100% wrong.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests