Wednesday, July 12, 2017


Glyphosate Residue Free Food Label Starts Wave of Transparency for US Brands

12th July 2017

Chosen Foods and Heavenly Organics have started a wave of Glyphosate Residue Free certified brands in the U.S., in what is being described as a “consumer-based push for transparency”.

The past week has seen the first wave of Glyphosate Residue Free brands entering the U.S. grocery market and many large brands including USDA organic and non-GMO certified brands have shown deep interest in the new certification.

Why are brands interested in Glyphosate Residue Free certification?

Glyphosate is the most used pesticide in the World and has the highest public profile of any chemical used in food production. It has been found in a range of popular American food products and in the urine of 93% of people tested by the University of California San Francisco (UCSF).

The revelation from WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015 that glyphosate is a ‘probable human carcinogen’ has led to consumers around the World asking for transparency regarding the levels of glyphosate in their food.

Henry Rowlands, Director of The Detox Project (owner of the Glyphosate Residue Free label), stated on Tuesday that “Glyphosate Residue Free certification enables food manufacturers to give consumers what they really want – glyphosate residue free food.

“Currently the toxic chemical testing standards for both non-organic and organic food are very weak but we aim to change this by certifying ingredients and food products – consumers have the right to know what toxic chemicals are in the food they buy at grocery stores across the U.S.”

Information Box
Verified Products
Verification FAQs
The Process
The Standard
Get Verified

Chosen Foods

9 products certified Glyphosate Residue Free, including their famous 100% Pure Avocado Oil.

Chosen Foods was founded by a well-traveled Naturopathic Doctor who discovered the powerful effect traditional foods were having in their native cultures. He was inspired to share these ancient superfoods with the rest of the world - and so their journey began.

In the last 3 years, Chosen Foods has launched 15 cooking oils, condiments, ancient grains and snacks. They have gone from 5 to 30 employees and seen their products reach more then 24,000 grocery store shelves around the United States and Canada.

Heavenly Organics

9 products certified Glyphosate Residue Free, including their Acacia, Neem and White Honey

Heavenly Organics supports nearly 600 family farmers in India and produces 100% Organic Raw Honey, Chocolate Honey Patties and 100% Organic Whole Cane Sugar.

Their work helps displaced people find markets to sell their goods and ensures them a reliable income.  Without it, their means of livelihood would be very limited.  For the past decade, Heavenly Organics has been leading the authentic fair trade movement and creating big change.  Their goal is to increase the number of farmers they work with to 5,000 in the next five years and to extend this business model into other countries to help create long-lasting sustainable economies in other isolated areas and conflict zones.

Media Contact:
Henry Rowlands, Director, The Detox Project –
About The Detox Project
The Detox Project is a research and certification platform that brings awareness to the public by testing for toxic chemicals.
We believe you have the right to know what toxic chemicals are in your body and in your food!
Useful Links

Monday, July 3, 2017


On July 7 2017!! 
Celebrate BOTH the Addition of Glyphosate 
(RoundUp main ingredient)

to the CA Prop 65 Toxic List 

Image result for National return roundup day

National Return RoundUp Day!

Use your dollar to send the message: on daily "acceptable levels" of exposure to glyphosate: ZERO! ZILCH! NADA!

Tuesday, June 27, 2017


Monsanto’s war on science – hard-hitting investigation

Monsanto sign
France’s leading daily details Monsanto’s brutal multi-pronged assault on the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)  Published: 19 June 2017
Last week saw an important debate in the European Parliament on the health risks of glyphosate. One of the triggers for that debate, and for more in-depth Parliamentary inquiries that look set to follow, were revelations about Monsanto’s “war on science” published in the French daily paper Le Monde

In Le Monde’s two-part investigation, the journalists Stéphane Foucart and Stéphane Horel detailed the different attacks that Monsanto has been waging on the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – the body that set the cat among the pigeons by concluding that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen. 

The severity, scale and duration of those attacks are unprecedented, according to IARC’s director. And they show no sign of abating any time soon. In fact, no sooner had Members of the European Parliament voiced their unhappiness with the re-approval process for glyphosate, than the news agency Reuters ran an article containing damning accusations against the man who chaired the IARC’s glyphosate review. 

It quickly emerged, however, that Reuters reporter Kate Kelland had been spoon-fed selective and misleading material by Monsanto. It also turned out that a “scientist independent of Monsanto” that Kelland had relied on in the article was actually a paid Monsanto consultant.

In a devastating critique of Kelland’s piece, former Reuters journalist Carey Gillam pointed out that it should be seen as “part of an ongoing and carefully crafted effort by Monsanto and the pesticide industry to discredit IARC’s work.”

And what the Le Monde investigation makes clear is that misleading media attacks are merely one element in the brutal multi-pronged assault Monsanto is waging.

Our summary of the first part of Le Monde’s investigation follows below.


Monsanto’s assault on IARC began back in March 2015 when the agency published its report classifying glyphosate – the main component of the company’s best-selling herbicide Roundup – as genotoxic (DNA damaging), carcinogenic to animals, and a “probable carcinogen” for humans. 

That was bad news for a company that has built its fortunes selling Roundup and the genetically engineered Roundup Ready seeds that go with it. Determined to protect its flagship product, the pesticide giant undertook to harm the United Nations’ cancer agency by any means possible. 

As a result, even though the agency has come under attack before, they have never, according to the IARC’s Director Christopher Wild, known anything like the brutal offensive conducted against them by Monsanto. 

Wild told Le Monde, “This time we are the target of an orchestrated campaign of unseen scale and duration.” 

“For the past two years,” Foucart and Horel report, “a raging fire has targeted the institution he is running: the credibility and integrity of his work is being challenged, his experts are denigrated and harassed by lawyers and his finances weakened. For nearly half a century IARC has been charged, under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO), to draw up an inventory of carcinogens. But now the venerable agency is beginning to waver under the assault.”

Monsanto’s campaign was launched with a statement declaring the IARC’s verdict on glyphosate “junk science”, and the result of selective “cherry-picking” of data, based on an “agenda-driven bias”, leading to a decision made after only “hours of discussion at a one-week meeting.”

This was complete nonsense, as Monsanto knew full well. Their “one-week meeting” was merely the climax of a year’s work on the issue undertaken by a group of leading experts.

Monsanto had even been able to have its own “observer” present at that final meeting, who was able to assure the company that everything had been done properly. Indeed, he told them his input to the meeting had been received in a friendly and interested manner. We know this because his account of the meeting was revealed in the so-called “Monsanto papers” – internal company documents released in early 2017 in the course of ongoing lawsuits brought by cancer victims in the US. 

But for Monsanto, the smearing of the IARC process was merely the start of operations. In the coming months non-US based members of the IARC panel on glyphosate received letters from Monsanto’s law firm. These instructed them to surrender all the files that related to their work on glyphosate. Pathologist Consolato Maria Sergi, a professor at the University of Alberta in Canada, described the letter he received as not just lacking in common courtesy but as deliberately “intimidating and noxious”. He told Monsanto’s lawyers, “I consider your letter pernicious, because it maliciously seeks to instill some anxiety and apprehension in an independent group of experts.”

American members of the IARC group fared no better. Those working for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), Texas A & M University, and the Mississippi State University, not only had their institutions targeted under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), intended to allow citizens to request access to documents produced by public bodies and their officials, but also found them being cited by Monsanto lawyers as part of ongoing legal proceedings involving glyphosate.

Foucart and Horel ask if it is the aim of these intimidatory manoeuvers to silence criticism. They note that world-renowned scientists who are usually open to media requests did not respond to Le Monde’s inquiries, even requests for informal talks. Some did agree, but only on condition of speaking to the journalists on a private line outside of office hours.

Attacking IARC’s funding

Another line of attack on the IARC has come via Monsanto’s allies in the US Congress. Foucart and Horel report that a member of the House of Representatives who chairs the State Control and Reform Commission, Republican Jason Chaffetz, wrote to NIH director Francis Collins on September 26, 2016. Chaffetz said he wanted all the details and the justification for IARC’s “substantial taxpayer funding” via the NIH. 

Chaffetz’s intervention was cheered on by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a powerful lobbying organization of which Monsanto is a member.

Meanwhile, Croplife International, the equally powerful global lobby for pesticide and seed companies like Monsanto, approached some of the twenty-five member states of the Governing Council of the IARC to complain about the quality of the agency's work. These states contribute about 70% of IARC’s total budget.

The mysterious Mr Watts

But it wasn’t just Monsanto’s lawyers and lobby groups that were springing into action. According to Le Monde: “Throughout 2016, characters almost out of a novel by John Le Carré also made their appearance in the glyphosate saga.”

In June, a “Mr Watts”, who presented himself at times as a journalist, turned up at an IARC conference, trying to extract detailed information about the IARC’s functioning and funding. A few months later this same character, who reminded one conference participant of the kind of shadowy figure that one assumes to be part of the intelligence community, reappeared at the annual conference of the renowned and respected cancer research organization, the Ramazzini Institute, based near Bologna in Italy. The Ramazzini had recently announced it was also going to conduct a carcinogenicity study on glyphosate, and Christopher Watts now wanted to know all about the Institute’s functioning and funding. 

Watts used an email address that ended with "," and so people naturally assumed he worked for The Economist. When pressed, Watts said he worked for the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a consulting firm subsidiary of The Economist. Although the EIU subsequently claimed Watts “was working on a story for The Economist” when he attended these conferences, the editorial office of the weekly told Le Monde, “There's no one of that name on our staff.”

Foucart and Horel did manage to connect him to one company though, one that he says he created at the end of 2014: Corporate Intelligence Advisory Company. Mr Watts, whose personal address is in Albania, according to the administrative documents, did not wish to answer questions from Le Monde.

Christopher Watts wasn’t the only one suddenly interested in the procedures and funding of the IARC. Over the next few months, a succession of individuals presenting themselves as journalists, independent researchers or law firm assistants approached scientists and researchers associated with the IARC’s work, looking for similar kinds of specifics.

Identity theft

According to Le Monde, one of these people, Miguel Santos-Neves, who works for Ergo, a New York-based economic intelligence company, has been caught by the US justice system for identity theft. As the New York Times reported in July 2016, Mr Santos-Neves investigated on behalf of Uber a person who was in dispute with the company, and questioned his professional entourage on false pretenses. The company Ergo did not respond to Le Monde’s questions.

Two other organizations with dubious reputations also targeted IARC and the Ramazzini Institute: Energy and Environmental Legal Institute (E & E Legal), which claims to “hold accountable those who seek excessive and destructive government regulation that’s based on agenda-driven policy making, junk science, and hysteria”, and the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, which seeks "to provide a counter-weight to the litigious environmental movement that fosters an economically destructive regulatory regime in the United States”.

According to the article in Le Monde, these two outfits have initiated no fewer than 17 requests for access to documents from the NIH and the US Environmental Protection Agency. In what Le Monde terms “legal, bureaucratic, intrusive guerrilla warfare,” they have demanded US officials’ correspondence containing terms like “IARC” and “glyphosate”. They have asked for the smallest details about scholarships, grants and other financial and non-financial relationships between the US agencies, IARC, certain scientists, and the Ramazzini Institute.

Both organisations are headed by the same man, David Schnare – a climate sceptic known for harassing climate scientists. The infamous former Monsanto salesman and tobacco lobbyist, Steve Milloy, is also part of the same set-up, according to Le Monde.

Media onslaught

There has also been a media onslaught against the IARC, notably in The Hill, a news website that Le Monde describes as obligatory reading for every political figure in Washington. The authors of these attack pieces come from “a squadron of propagandists, whose longstanding ties with agrochemical companies or conservative think tanks, such as the Heartland Institute or the George C. Marshall Institute, known for their major role in manufacturing climate skepticism, have been documented by US Right to Know (USRTK).” 

These authors not only deploy the same arguments under their bylines but sometimes they use exactly the same phrases: the “shoddy science” of IARC is criticized; the agency itself, eaten up by conflicts of interest, is “widely criticized” – without it being said who by.”

There’s also, Foucart and Horel note, a Monsanto campaign being waged via social media. This is something the lawyers involved in US court proceedings over glyphosate and cancer discovered.

“Let Nothing Go”

Monsanto’s executives have revealed a confidential programme called ‘Let Nothing Go’, which aims to make sure no criticisms of the company go unanswered. According to memos from the law firms involved, Monsanto uses third-party companies that “employ individuals who appear to have no connection to the industry, who in turn post positive comments on news articles and Facebook posts, defending Monsanto, its chemicals, and GMOs.”

At the end of January 2017, the American Chemistry Council also opened a front on social media directly targeting the IARC. Its Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research (CAPHR) used Twitter and a dedicated website to ridicule IARC’s findings. 

Le Monde also notes that ominously, Trump has made the chief lobbyist of the American Chemistry Council deputy director of the Chemicals and Pesticides Regulatory Service at the US Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA oversees the re-examination of the glyphosate file. Andrew Liveris, the head of Dow Chemical and a member of the American Chemistry Council, is also part of the new Trump administration.

Meanwhile in Congress, the Republican chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology is demanding an investigation into the financial links between the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the Ramazzini Institute, in order to "ensure that grant recipients adhere to the highest standards of scientific integrity.”

Propagandists join the attack

The move has won the support of two well known propagandists, Julie Kelly – a pro-GMO blogger whose husband is a lobbyist for agribiz giant ADM, and Jeff Stier, an “expert” at the climate change-denying Heartland Institute. Their article in the National Review personally attacked the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for promoting a “chemophobic agenda”, and the institute’s former assistant director, Professor Christopher Portier, who contributed his expertise to the IARC's work as an invited specialist. This high-level scientist was described in the article as a “well-known anti-glyphosate activist” and both were described as “Ramazzini Fellows”. The infamous extreme right-wing Breitbart News also took up Kelly and Stier’s story.

The Le Monde article concludes by saying that the attacks on the Ramazzini and the IARC are unlikely to stop any time soon. This is because, after glyphosate, the Ramazzini will be investigating other well-known pesticides and strategic chemicals, the latter including bisphenol A (BPA) and aspartame. 

As it happens, the NIEHS is one of the world's leading funders of research on the toxicity of BPA. As for aspartame, the study that first alerted the world to the carcinogenic properties of the sweetener was carried out several years ago – by the Ramazzini Institute.

The final word in Le Monde’s article goes to Fiorella Belpoggi, the Head of the Research Department at the Ramazzini Institute and the director of the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Centre. She told Foucart and Horel, "I hadn’t realized we were so important before this. But if you get rid of IARC, NIEHS and the Ramazzini Institute, you get rid of three symbols of independence in science." 

And that, Le Monde concludes, is a type of science that has become a threat to economic interests worth hundreds of billions of euros.

Saturday, June 10, 2017



Here's what

looks like.................. 

CalEPA (OEHHA) has Proposed 1100 micrograms allowabledaily exposure to glyphosate  (ingredient in RoundUp), on the State’s PROP 65 Toxics List


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:
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!


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

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:

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 Include In Subject Line: “GLYPHOSATE NSRL”
3)      PUBLIC HEARING: Wed., June 7, 2017 - 1:30pm to 5:00pm LIVE WEBCAST:
(Please attend and bring friends/family if you possibly can, to Pack The House!)
Proposed Specific intent to adopt a No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) of 1100 micrograms Regulatory Level Chemical Causing Cancer: Glyphosate 
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
v  2014: over 1,382,000 people with cancer in California.60,000 Californians die from cancer each year.

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


Friday, May 19, 2017


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
at: California Environmental Protection (OEHHA) Agency Headquarters Building,
Bryon Sher Auditorium   -  1001 “I” Street  -  Sacramento, CA 95814  
(916) 322-2068 
2. To directly comment: 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:
Email CA OEHHA: Esther Barajas-Ochoa
Please include “GLYPHOSATE NSRL” in the subject line.

Hearing Link:

Public Comments:

Thursday, April 27, 2017


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)