Saturday, June 10, 2017

PUBLIC COMMENTS NOW!!! HOW MUCH POISON GLYPHOSATE IS OK WITH YOU IN OUR FOOD-WATER-AIR?

    ZERO - ZILCH
          NADA!


Here's what
ONE PART PER 

TRILLION (1ppt)
looks like.................. 

It is ALSO THE CONCENTRATION LEVEL
THAT STIMULATED THE PROLIFERATION OF BREAST CANCER CELLS IN VITRO!!
CalEPA (OEHHA) has Proposed 1100 micrograms allowabledaily exposure to glyphosate  (ingredient in RoundUp), on the State’s PROP 65 Toxics List

WE DEMAND LEVEL: ZERO - ZIP - NADA!


PUBLIC COMMENTS  not limited to Californians must be received by 5:00 p.m., Wed. 6-21-2017  
Our GOAL:  One Million - 1,000,000 - COMMENTS!


LINKS to Choose From:
CA State Website or Email  to Comment
(Please do not comment on both):



2)      Email CA OEHHA:
P65public.comments@OEHHA.ca.gov
Include In Subject Line: “GLYPHOSATE NSRL”

Please consider including the following message:   
I/We demand that the Prop 65 NSRL (No Significant Risk Level) for glyphosate must be a validly arrived at NSRL, per CA regulations, substantially lower than the proposed 1100 micrograms per day, in order for this Safe Harbor to actually be safe to Californians. Until a comprehensive independent study is done, showing real life exposure levels, regulatory authorities should use a NSRL of well below, the concentration where it stimulated breast cancer cells in vitro at levels as low as 1 ppt  (Thongprakaisang et al., 2013), in keeping with The Precautionary Principle. There IS NO SAFE LEVEL. Simply: WE DEMAND ZERO ZILCH NADA!

19055080_10155309113384590_1544510998883160619_o.jpg


Sunday, June 4, 2017

HEARING-PRESS CONFERENCE 6-7-17 CA Prop 65 Glyphosate Levels

 
 California Guild  &  Moms Across America
                                                       URGENT ACTION!!! 
CA EPA to determine amount of allowable GLYPHOSATE
exposures on CA PROP 65 Toxics List
    HEARING Wednesday June 7, 2017
    & PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD EXTENDED to JUNE 21, 2017


Sacramento, California
BREAKING: CA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), State Agency which administers Proposition 65* (Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986), announced a PUBLIC HEARING, PRESS CONFERENCE and NEW PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD to DECIDE adoption of No Significant Risk Level (NSRL). Proposed is 1100 micrograms allowable daily exposure to glyphosate  (ingredient in RoundUp), on the State’s Prop 65 toxics list.   LIVE HEARING WEBCAST: https://video.calepa.ca.gov/

California OEHHA, (part of the Cal/EPA, California Environmental Protection Agency), confirmed in 2017, that glyphosate (in RoundUp) will be added to the *CA State Proposition 65 toxics list), to be labeled a carcinogen,
due to the record-breaking 9,100+ Public Comments like ours! It’s time to BREAK THAT RECORD!

Studies globally show 1100 micrograms daily to be far too high an exposure level. Glyphosate, herbicide, endocrine disruptor and antibiotic, one of the most commonly used herbicides in the world, is most closely associated with GMO (genetically modified organism) crops, engineered to resist glyphosate.

COMMENTS not limited to Californians must be received by 5:00 p.m., Wed. June 21, 2017    (See: Pg. 2 for talking points) Please consider including the following message:   I/We request that the Prop 65 NSRL (No Significant Risk Level) for glyphosate must be a validly arrived at NSRL, per CA regulations, substantially lower than the proposed 1100 micrograms per day, in order for this Safe Harbor to actually be safe to Californians. Until a comprehensive independent study is done, showing real life exposure levels, regulatory authorities should use a NSRL of well below, the concentration where it stimulated breast cancer cells in vitro at levels as low as 1ppb (Thongprakaisang et al., 2013), in keeping with The Precautionary Principle.   

LINKS to Choose: CA State Website or Email  to Comment (Please do not comment on both):

2)      Email CA OEHHA: Esther Barajas-Ochoa esther.barajas-ochoa@oehha.ca.gov Include In Subject Line: “GLYPHOSATE NSRL”
3)      PUBLIC HEARING: Wed., June 7, 2017 - 1:30pm to 5:00pm LIVE WEBCAST:https://video.calepa.ca.gov/
(Please attend and bring friends/family if you possibly can, to Pack The House!)
PRESS CONFERENCE IMMEDIATELY following HEARING.
Proposed Specific intent to adopt a No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) of 1100 micrograms Regulatory Level Chemical Causing Cancer: Glyphosate
https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/events/notice-public-hearing-proposed-specific-regulatory-level-chemical-causing 
California Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Building,
Byron Sher Auditorium  -  1001 “I” Street  -  Sacramento, CA 95814 
(916) 322-2068


*What is California Proposition 65?  Proposition 65 requires the State to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. This list, which must be updated at least once a year, has grown to include approximately 800 chemicals since it was first published in 1987. Proposition 65 requires businesses to notify Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in the products they purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment.


Please feel free to consider including some of the following in your Public Comments:


v  A March 20, 2015 finding by the IARC of the WHO (World Health Organization) confirms that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen to humans.
See: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf
 
v  Glyphosate is the most pervasive, widely applied herbicide in California and the world’s most widely used herbicide.  More than 10 million pounds of glyphosate are applied each year in California, according to government estimates. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/ca-glyphosate-is-carcinogenic/article_35fe706a-29cf-11e7-87c0-f3f2bc18a860.html
v  There is no safe level because glyphosate bio-accumulates in our bodies, so no matter how small an amount is set by NSRL levels, that amount is certain to increase in our brains, tissues, bodily fluids, as we eat more food and drink water that contain it. "Because it bio-accumulates, there is no safe level of exposure to Glyphosate herbicides." –Prof. Dr. Giles-Eric Seralini
v  A single oatmeal cookie from the CA State Capitol Building’s Café, tested in 2016 for glyphosate, contained 311 micrograms (ppb, or micrograms).  The 1,100 micrograms that OEHHA is proposing is far too high and can be easily consumed daily by the average human, According to a report by Dr. Oz, more than 80 percent of the foods we eat on a daily basis contain one or more types of GMOs https://draxe.com/genetically-modified-foods-get-the-facts/
v  California surface waters containing glyphosate at the lowest level are 0.02micrograms, (which is lower than the 0.1 micrograms fed to the lab rats), so these waters will be unprotected. (USGS Survey)
v  U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) planned in 2016, to begin testing food for residues of glyphosate. As of April 1, 2017, the agency quietly canceled the plan. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/usda-drops-plan-to-test-for-monsanto-weed-killer-in_us_58d2db4ee4b062043ad4af84
v  According to “The Detox Project” sponsored by Food Democracy Now, glyphosate has been found at alarming levels in a wide range of best-selling foods across the United States in the first independent glyphosate residue testing study using liquid chromatography.  https://detoxproject.org/food-testing-results/
v  The average level of glyphosate in the U.S. population is 3.3 parts per billion (ppb), significantly higher than the average of 0.2 ppb found in Europeans. UCSF-UC-Berkeley Joint Medical Program, Berkeley, CA scientific poster presentation, April 2016 , BUND, June 2013, Determination of Glyphosate residues in human urine samples from 18 European countries (PDF)
v  Organic Consumers Association tests found 93 percent of Americans have glyphosate in their urine. The Detox Project, May 25, 2016
v  The USGS tests for glyphosate have found it in nearly all rivers, lakes and streams in California.
v  Allowable glyphosate levels: European Union (EU) — 0.3 milligrams per kilo per day (mg/kg/day) compared to 1.75 mg/kg/day for U.S.  (Benbrook 2016).
v  The U.S. allows 700 micrograms of glyphosate in drinking water. EU allows only 0.05 micrograms. http://dwi.defra.gov.uk/research/completed-research/reports/DWI70_2_215_Monitoring_Data.pdf
v  2014: over 1,382,000 people with cancer in California.60,000 Californians die from cancer each year.
www.ccrcal.org/pdf/Reports/ACS_2014.pdf



            California Guild  3810 U Street  Sacramento, CA  916-448-4637
                                       Not Affiliated with the California State Grange

HEARING 6-7-17 CA Prop 65 GLYPHOSATE LEVELS -OEHHA Sacramento


Friday, May 19, 2017

CA PROP 65 GLYPHOSATE LEVELS - 6-7-2017 LIVESTREAM HEARING & PUBLIC COMMENTS ANNOUNCEMENT

Notice of OEHHA Public Hearing – Proposed Specific Regulatory Level Chemical Causing Cancer: To Determine CALIFORNIA Prop 65 Toxics List NSRL (No Significant Risk Level) On Glyphosate Exposure:
*OEHHA is Proposing No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) of 1100 micrograms per day exposure. 



1.  PUBLIC HEARING  Wednesday, June 7, 2017 - 1:30pm to 5:00pm (Please attend and bring friends/family if you possible can, to Pack The House!) OEHHA Proposed: Intent to adopt a specific
No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) of
1100 micrograms Regulatory Level Chemical Causing Cancer: Glyphosate

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/events/notice-public-hearing-proposed-specific-regulatory-level-chemical-causing
at: California Environmental Protection (OEHHA) Agency Headquarters Building,
Bryon Sher Auditorium   -  1001 “I” Street  -  Sacramento, CA 95814  
(916) 322-2068 
-LIVE WEBCAST: https://video.calepa.ca.gov/
2. To directly comment: CA.gov comments page, please:  Ask for ZERO, but let them know 
    1100 micrograms a day exposure is far too high!LINK to CA State Website to Comment:
 CA OEHHA Online Comments: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/comments/proposed-specific-regulatory-level-chemical-causing-cancer-glyphosate
   
OR- 
Email CA OEHHA: Esther Barajas-Ochoa  esther.barajas-ochoa@oehha.ca.gov
OR: 
P65Public.Comments@oehha.ca.gov
Please include “GLYPHOSATE NSRL” in the subject line.

Hearing Link: 
https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/events/notice-public-hearing-proposed-specific-regulatory-level-chemical-causing

Public Comments: 
https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/comments/proposed-specific-regulatory-level-chemical-causing-cancer-glyphosate
P65Public.Comments@oehha.ca.gov


Thursday, April 27, 2017

UNSEALED DOCS BLOW MONSANTO CANCER LAWSUITS WIDE OPEN

MDL Monsanto Glyphosate Cancer Case Key Documents & Analysis

More than 50 lawsuits against Monsanto Co. are pending in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, filed by people alleging that exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and that Monsanto covered up the risks. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.
On March 13th, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled — over Monsanto’s objections — that documents obtained by plaintiffs through discovery could be unsealed. The following is a list of documents that have been unsealed to date, and other noteworthy filings. 
Court documents:
— Judge Chhabria orders Jess Rowland to answer questions about his post-EPA work (1 page) (4.24.17)
— Plaintiffs request for hearing to address Jess Rowland’s refusal to answer questions (2 pages) (4.24.17)
— Plaintiffs motion to compel the production of all original and re-cut slides of kidney tissue from mice in study BDN-77-420 (8 pages) (4.21.17)
— Monsanto’s response to plaintiffs’ request for production of documents (14 pages) (4.21.17)
— Plaintiffs reply in support of motion to strike confidentiality of Heydens deposition (5 pages) (4.20.17)
— Judge Chhabria’s order on pretrial redaction of identifying information (1 page) (4.18.17)
— Judge Chhabria’s order on additional discovery about IARC (1 page) (4.18.17)
— Monsanto letter on privacy of non-party individuals (6 pages) (4.14.17)
— Plaintiffs’ amended notice to take videotaped deposition of Jesudoss Rowland (3 page) (4.6.17)
— Plaintiffs: administrative motion to file under seal (25 pages) (4.6.17), see especially pp. 6-10
— Monsanto: discovery dispute (10 pages) (4.4.17)
— Monsanto Company’s answer to plaintiff’s complaint (31 pages) (3.24.17)
— Plaintiffs’ notice to take videotaped deposition of Jesudoss Rowland (4 pages) (3.23.17)
— Plaintiffs’ case management statement (28 pages), new documents unsealed (355 pages), key documents on p. 136pp. 220-1 (3.16.15)
— Jess Rowland documents unsealed (115 pages), key documents on pp. 99-102. (3.14.17)
— Documents unsealed (227 pages), key documents on pp. 203-4. (3.14.17)
— Plaintiffs submission in response to pretrial order no. 8 (3.14.17)
— Judge Vince Chhabria’s ruling to unseal documents (3.13.17)
— Plaintiffs’ reply in support of motion to compel deposition of Jess Rowland (2.27.17). Key document: Marion Copley letter on p. 11 (2.27.17)
— Pretrial order no. 8: order requesting briefing re relevance of EPA and IARC (1.25.17)
— Summary of ORD comments on OPP’s glyphosate cancer assessment (12.14.15)
Reporting, analysis and other related documents:
— E&C Dems Urge Walden to Investigate EPA’s Permitting of Toxic Chemicals (4.3.17)
— Inside the Academic Journal That Corporations Love, by Paul Thacker (Pacific Standard) (3.28.17)
— Split Within EPA on Glyphosate Carcinogenicity, by Jennifer Sass (NRDC) (3.28.17)
— Monsanto Knowingly Sold Human Carcinogen to Consumers (The Young Turks) (3.27.17)
— Letter on glyphosate from Members of the European Parliament to European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker (3.24.17)
— “Monsanto Papers”: des eurodéputés veulent la révision de l’expertise du glyphosate, by Stéphane Foucart (Le Monde) (3.24.17)
— Roundup Lawsuits Raise Doubts About EPA’s Integrity, by Matthew Renda (Courthouse News) (3.20.17)
— Ce que les “Monsanto Papers” rélèvent du Roundup, by Stéphane Foucart (Le Monde) (3.18.17)
— Monsanto Weed Killer Deserves Deeper Scrutiny As Scientific Manipulation Revealed, by Carey Gillam (Huffington Post/USRTK) (3.17.17)
— Les experts européens blanchissent le glyphosate, by Stéphane Foucart (Le Monde) (3.16.17)
— Unsealed Documents Raise Questions on Monsanto Weed Killer, by Danny Hakim (New York Times) (3.15.17)
— Glyphosate: discorde à l’agence de protection de l’environnement américaine, by Stéphane Foucart (Le Monde) (3.14.17)
— EPA Official Accused of Helping Monsanto “Kill” Cancer Study, by Joel Rosenblatt, Lydia Mulvany and Peter Waldman (Bloomberg) (3.14.17)
— Monsanto Accused of Ghostwriting Papers on Roundup Cancer Risk, by Joel Rosenblatt (Bloomberg) (3.14.17)
— Plaintiffs in U.S. Lawsuit Say Monsanto Ghostwrote Roundup Studies, by Brendan Pierson (Reuters) (3.14.17)
— Monsanto did not ghostwrite the Williams et al. (2000) glyphosate paper (Monsanto blog) (3.14.17)
— Judge Threatens to Sanction Monsanto for Secrecy in Roundup Cancer Litigation, by Carey Gillam (Huffington Post/USRTK)) (3.10.17)
— Monsanto Cancer Suits Turn to EPA Deputy’s “Suspicious” Role, by Joel Rosenblatt (Bloomberg) (2.27.17)
— Questions Raised About EPA-Monsanto Collusion Raised in Cancer Lawsuits, by Carey Gillam (Huffington Post/USRTK) (2.13.17)
— Monsanto, EPA Seek to Keep Talks About Glyphosate Cancer Review a Secret, by Carey Gillam (Huffington Post/USRTK) (1.18.17)

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

BREAKING! MONSANTO TRIBUNAL JUDGES' DECISIONS

Monsanto Tribunal: The Outcomes

Today, judges delivered their legal opinion on the evidence and witness statements presented at the Monsanto Tribunal that was held in The Hague (NL) in October 2016.
The tribunal concluded that:
  • Monsanto has violated human rights to food, health, a healthy environment and the freedom indispensable for independent scientific research.
  • ‘ecocide’ should be recognized as a crime in international law.    
  • human rights and environmental laws are undermined by corporate-friendly trade and investment regulation.
During the hearings that took place in The Hague in October 2016, judges heard testimonies from witnesses from all over the world, who testified how Monsanto has violated human rights and has committed crimes against the planet by aggressively promoting its products, lobbying politicians and attacking independent scientists.
Based on these testimonies, and considering both existing international law and ongoing legal initiatives aiming to improve the protection of human rights and the environment, the judges concluded that Monsanto has indeed infringed on the public’s rights to food, health, a healthy environment and the freedom indispensable for independent scientific research.
The Tribunal is also of the opinion that “international law should now precisely and clearly assert the protection of the environment and the crime of ecocide”. If such a crime of ecocide would be recognized in international criminal law, “the activities of Monsanto could possibly constitute a crime of ecocide”, the judges stated.
In their final conclusion, the judges highlighted the current imbalance in the international system, which offers much better protection to corporations and their financial interests (through trade and investment law including ISDS courts) than it does to human rights and the environment. It is now crucial for the UN to act on this widening gap, they warned, as “otherwise key questions will be resolved by private tribunals operating entirely outside the UN framework”.
Corporate Europe Observatory's Nina Holland welcomed the Tribunal’s outcome:
The verdict of the Monsanto Tribunal has our fullest support. Its legal opinion makes it crystal clear that corporations like Monsanto violate our right to live in a healthy environment and how they get around the international laws meant to protect people and planet.
“With the current wave of mega-mergers in the agribusiness sector, the biggest pesticide producers are becoming even more powerful. But so is our call to regulate them!

Source:  https://corporateeurope.org/food-and-agriculture/2017/04/monsanto-tribunal-outcomes