FRAUD, INCOMPETENCE PROMPTS INVESTIGATION: EPA REFUSE TO PROTECT USA

US House Committee launches investigation into US EPA’s removal of glyphosate report

Details

Published: 09 May 2016

Committee’s motivation may not be to protect the public interest

Recently the US EPA yanked off its website a report concluding that the weedkiller glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic. The EPA said it had made a mistake in publishing the report before its review of glyphosate was finalised.

Now the US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology has launched an investigation into the ‘mistaken’ release of the report – see the article below.

However, this investigation into the EPA’s workings is highly unlikely to be in the public interest. It is far more likely to be a hostile move against the EPA in order to pressure it into pleasing industry and approving glyphosate, rather than protecting the public.

This is because of who is spearheading the investigation. The committee’s chair is Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas and a climate science denier who has received major funding from the oil and gas industry. 

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Smith is is on a mission to make it more difficult for the EPA to carry out its job to protect public health and the environment.

Secret Science Reform Act

Smith is sponsoring a bill called the Secret Science Reform Act, which would “prohibit the EPA from implementing a regulation unless it makes public all related data, scientific analyses and materials”. Smith says the bill’s intent is to increase transparency at the agency so that it can’t use “hidden and flawed” science.

Interestingly, we and many other NGOs are also arguing for transparency of the science used in regulatory decisions. We don’t trust the commercially secret industry data that regulators use to approve pesticides and want to force them into the open so that independent scientists can review them. 

But the UCS is concerned that the bill introduced by Smith “would obstruct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies from enacting science-based rules, setting back public health and environmental protections for decades to come… They would tie up federal agencies with bureaucratic red tape, limit the data they could use, deter independent scientists from participating, and give corporations even more influence over the rulemaking process.” The UCSsays, “The legislation may sound reasonable, but it’s actually a cynical attack on the EPA’s ability to do its job.”

One part of the bill that certainly seems ill-advised is its demand that only reproducible data should be considered in regulatory assessments. Reproducibility has an important place, such as in controlled laboratory studies. But insisting that all the data used has to be reproducible would exclude epidemiological studies and clinical case studies of people exposed to toxins, as well as data gathered from environmental disasters. By their very nature, such data are restricted to certain times, places, or individuals and cannot be reproduced.

If such data were excluded by law from regulatory processes, this would undoubtedly suit the interests of polluting industries.

TTIP would give corporations influence over regulatory lawmaking

A parallel process that could increase corporate influence over lawmaking has been proposed by the US in the talks for the TTIP trade deal.

According to Corporate Europe Observatory, if the TTIP passes, corporations and industry groups will be able to influence the development of regulatory cooperation by making what is referred to as a “substantial proposal” to the working agenda of the Commission and US agencies. Kenneth Haar, researcher for CEO, said, “EU and US determination to put big business at the heart of decision-making is a direct threat to democratic principles. This document shows how TTIP’s regulatory cooperation will facilitate big business influence – and US influence – on lawmaking before a proposal is even presented to parliaments.”

The way forward

So what’s the way forward for transparency of regulatory processes? We believe it must happen, but it cannot be a case of privileged and unilateral access for industry and its allies, as in TTIP. Transparency of data and decision-making must apply for the public as well as industry, and must occur at the same time.

Meanwhile Smith’s challenge to the US EPA over the ‘inadvertent’ publication of its conclusion that glyphosate isn’t carcinogenic is likely to be based on a concern that the agency might change its mind and conclude that it is a cancer risk after all. Hence the committee’s investigation could be a way of increasing pressure on the agency to toe the industry line and keep to its prematurely publicised verdict that the chemical is non-carcinogenic.
—

US House Committee launches investigation into EPA glyphosate cover up

Sustainable Pulse, May 8 2016
http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/05/08/us-house-committee-launches-investigation-into-epa-glyphosate-cover-up-2/#.Vy9azz_hUyC
[links to sources at the URL above]

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology has launched an investigation into the ‘mistaken’ release of a draft report by the U.S. EPA on the World’s most used herbicide, glyphosate.

The EPA ‘mistakenly’ published a draft report online on April 29 by the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC). The report stated that glyphosate is ‘not likely to be carcinogenic to humans’, which is in direct contradiction to the World Health Organization cancer agency IARC’s much more comprehensive report, which stated in 2015 that glyphosate is a ”probable human carcinogen”.

An EPA assessment on the herbicide atrazine was also posted on the agency’s website on April 29 but subsequently taken down. The documents are available here. The assessment said atrazine was found to cause reproductive harm to birds and mammals.

In a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on Wednesday, committee chairman Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, announced his committee is launching an investigation into the matter.

“…EPA’s removal of this report and the subsequent backtracking on its finality raises questions about the agency’s motivation in providing a fair assessment of glyphosate — an assessment based on the scientific analysis conducted by CARC,” Smith said in the letter.

“Furthermore, EPA’s apparent mishandling of this report may shed light on larger systemic problems occurring at the agency.”

Smith has asked EPA to provide “documents and communications” from January 1, 2015, to the present between agency personnel on the glyphosate assessment to the committee by May 18.

According to expert Sustainable Pulse sources in the U.S. the EPA allegedly attempted “to take the legal pressure off  the pesticide industry and specifically large producers of glyphosate-based herbicides such as Monsanto,” by releasing the CARC draft report.

The legal pressure on glyphosate has come in the form of many lawsuits in the U.S.  that have been started against Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (a glyphosate-based herbicide), since the IARC classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen last year.

Monsanto has repeatedly asked regulators to publicly protect their number one product, however the EPA has not been able to meet Monsanto’s timeline for a full re-licensing of glyphosate, which is now expected later in 2016 or even early 2017.

Sustainable Pulse Director Henry Rowlands stated; “The EPA’s ‘mistaken’ release of the main part of  their report that is designed to protect the pesticide industry seems rather a strange coincidence.

“Glyphosate is now on the agenda for consumers and farmers across the World. The discovery of the herbicide in our bodies and our food at hormone hacking levels is very alarming. The EPA should be protecting us all by providing a fully independent scientific analysis of the chemical. However, this is not what is happening and the EPA is again working against public health protection,” Rowlands concluded.

Glyphosate: The Hormone Hacker

Stone-Age industry funded science suggested that the higher the dose of a chemical the more dangerous it was, however modern independent science has discovered that many toxic chemicals have as much or more of an influence on our health at low doses– these chemicals are known as hormone hackers (endocrine disruptors).

A study from March 2015 stated that the health costs to the European Union of hormone hacking chemicals is over $ 150 Billion per year! The study stated that lower IQ, adult obesity and 5% or more of autism cases are all linked to exposure to endocrine disruptors.

Glyphosate is likely to be one of these hormone hacking chemicals according to independent science. Find more information on this here.

Source: http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16926-us-house-committee-launches-investigation-into-us-epa-s-removal-of-glyphosate-report

COOK ORGANIC AT HOME & AVOID BAG, BOTTLE, BOX & CANNED "FOODS"

How Processed Foods Wreak Havoc on Your Health

AddThis Sharing Buttons

May 9, 2016

 

Organic Consumers Association

 by Elaine Catherine R. Ferrer and Ronnie Cummins

Food Safety, 

Health Issues

Spam 420x280

It’s safe to say that most American consumers probably can’t recall the last time they ate a meal prepared entirely from wholesome, farm-to-table ingredients, without any canned or prepackaged products. That’s because most Americans today consume mostly processed foods—foods produced with pesticides, GMOs and synthetic chemicals, routinely laced with too much sugar, salt and unhealthy fats.

In fact, processed foods make up as much as 70 percent of people’s diets– meaning only 30 percent of what they consume consists of wholesome, natural, or organic foods!

But here’s the truth about processed foods: Long-term consumption of these “food products” spell bad news for your health.

Processed vs. ultra-processed: What’s the difference?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines “processed food” as any raw agricultural commodity that has been subjected to processing methods, including canning, cooking, dehydration, freezing or milling. This means that the only time a food can be classified as “fresh” is when you’ve taken it straight from the source (washing it is okay, and would not be classified as a form of processing) and eaten it. By this definition, most foods would be considered processed.

However, in layman’s terms, processed foods can refer to sodas, potato chips, candy, baked pastries with extended shelf life–basically, “convenient,” easy-to-eat products that have been altered through the addition of artificial or ingredients, synthetic flavorings, fillers and chemical or genetically engineered additives. But this type of description actually refers to “ultra-processed food.” Researchers from the University of São Paulo and Tufts University define “ultra-processed” as:

Formulations of several ingredients which, besides salt, sugar, oils, and fats, include food substances not used in culinary preparations, in particular, flavors, colors, sweeteners, emulsifiers and other additives used to imitate sensorial qualities of unprocessed or minimally processed foods and their culinary preparations or to disguise undesirable qualities of the final product.

But most people use the term “processed food” and “ultra-processed food” interchangeably when talking about these consumer products. Conventional processed foods today come in a variety of forms. These include:

• Canned and frozen fruits and vegetables
• Canned meats (luncheon meat and sausage, corned beef, and meatloaf)
• Breakfast foods, including cereals, oatmeal, energy bars
• Canned, bottled, or tetra-packed fruit juices, energy drinks, and soda
• Jarred baby foods and infant cereals
• Foods “fortified” with nutrients
• Ready to eat meals, microwave dinners
• Ramen noodles
• Pastries, including cookies, breads, frozen pizza, and pies
• Condiments, seasonings and marinades, salad dressing, and jams
• Yogurt and other commercially made fermented foods

The simplest way to determine if a food is processed is by looking at the ingredient list at the back of its packaging. The longer the ingredient list, the more processed a food is likely to be.

After more than 20 years of struggle by consumer activists and public interest groups such as the Organic Consumers Association, major food manufacturers are finally being forced to label GMO ingredients in processed foods sold in grocery stores. Because of this, many of them are starting to remove GMOs from their products, along with other artificial chemicals and additives.

The history of ‘processing’

Humans have been “processing” food through traditional methods for thousands of years. Egyptians have used salt for 4,000 years to extend the shelf life of food. In ancient sites in Italy, Russia and the Czech Republic, there was evidence that early humans pounded cattails and ferns into flour and mixed it with water to bake bread.

Other methods of food preservation, including fermentation, pickling and curing, have also been used for thousands of years, in different cultures. The food was used to help survive long winters and voyages, and also as rations when soldiers went to war. This led to the production of foods like beer, wine, cheeses, yogurt and butter.

The 19th century saw the rise of modern food processing methods. Canning and bottling began mainly to serve military needs, although the initial cans used were hazardous, as they were contaminated with lead.

Pasteurization, a method that prolongs the shelf life of dairy and wine to allow increased production and distribution, was discovered and patented by Louis Pasteur in the mid-1800s.

In the 20th century, the rising consumer society in the U.S. contributed to the growth of food processing. Advances such as freeze drying, spray drying and juice concentrates were developed. At the same time, coloring agents, preservatives and artificial sweeteners were introduced. Self-cooking meals, “TV dinners,” reconstituted fruits and juices and other “instant” foods like coffee and noodles became popular. These were mostly marketed to working wives and mothers who were tired of preparing foods from scratch.

To convince people that processed foods were as good, or even better, than wholesome foods, they were marketed as a means for people to save time and money–hence the term “convenience foods.”

But do the time and money you save by choosing these processed goods make up for the havoc that they wreak with your health?

Not what the human body needs, or wants

The human body is not designed to thrive on processed foods. And foods are not meant to be altered. The more altered they are, the worse they are for your health.

Processed foods are actually lacking in nutritional content compared to natural foods. For example, processed bread and other snacks use refined grains that have the bran and germ removed and, along with it, important nutrients like fiber, iron and B-vitamins.

Dehydrated foods not only have reduced amounts of vitamin C and fiber, but they also become more energy dense, which causes them to contribute to weight gain. When dehydrated foods are constituted and cooked with water, even more nutrients leach out.

Processed foods are also loaded with sugar, unhealthy fats and sodium, all of which your body is not designed to handle in high amounts, and all of which can endanger health. Particularly damaging are refined sugars, like high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which convert into fat in your body. This wreaks havoc on your insulin and leptin levels, and leads to chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes and cancer. Meanwhile, synthetic trans fats, in the form of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, have been linked to heart disease.

And of course processed foods are routinely laced with hazardous genetically engineered and pesticide-drenched ingredients derived from GMO corn, soybeans, canola, sugar beets and cotton (cottonseed oil is common in low-grade vegetable oils). According to the Grocery Manufacturers of America, 80 percent of all (non-organic) supermarket processed foods contain GMOs. Only now are those ingredients being labeled, as food manufacturers are being forced to comply with Vermont’s GMO labeling law.

Loaded with health-harming synthetic additives

Close to 5,000 additives are now allowed to be used in food products. And this number keeps growing. If you factor in the additives found in the packaging (which can also leach into your food), that number of additives can rise to 10,000!

What’s worse, most of these food additives have not undergone any safety testing, and very few have been tested according to the way that they are ingested–meaning in combination with other additives. Some of these additives are downright dangerous. For example:

• Diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione (PD), both of which are added to microwave popcorn to give it a buttery aroma, are linked to brain health, Alzheimer’s disease and respiratory toxicity.

• Monosodium glutamate (MSG), which is found in chips, processed meats and a wide array of other foods, is an excitotoxin that can lead to cell damage, triggering brain dysfunction and leading to learning disabilities, Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and more.

• Artificial food dyes like Red #40, Yellow 5, and Blue #2 are linked to brain tumors, hyperactivity, hypersensitivity and other behavioral effects in children.

• Preservatives like butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxyl toluene (BHT) can mess with your brain’s neurological system, causing behavioral problems and even cancer. Another preservative,tertiary butylhydroquinone (TBHQ), is also deadly. In fact, just five grams can kill you, according to the FDA.

Giving up processed foods—easier said than done

If you think you can simply shake off your processed food cravings, you’re wrong. These foods are intentionallyaddictive. They stimulate dopamine, a “feel-good” neurotransmitter that affects your brain similarly to how drugs affect you. Manufacturers are fully aware of this, and actually engineer their products to produce this “delicious” yet dangerous effect. (Michael Moss details this in his book, “Salt, Sugar, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us.”)

Sadly, many people still consume GMO and pesticide-tainted, highly processed foods because of their affordability, convenience and “delicious” flavor. But what you save in terms of money and convenience will ultimately put a double whammy on your health.

Instead, go for a diet composed mostly of wholesome foods, like organic fruits and vegetables, grass-fed and pasture-raised meat and raw (unpasteurized and unhomogenized) dairy, and healthy saturated fats like coconuts, coconut oil, avocados and raw nuts. For your beverage, choose pure water and fresh green juice instead of processed fruit juices, soda and energy drinks.

In addition, make sure to cook these wholesome foods in your home, so you can be sure that nothing harmful goes into your meals. Cooking at home will also help you avoid dining at fast foods and restaurants (which also use processed ingredients). Encouraging your whole family to sit down and have a hearty meal together not only cultivates good health, it cultivates good relationships.
 

Elaine Catherine R. Ferrer is a contributing writer to the Organic Consumers Association and Mercola.com.

Ronnie Cummins is international director of the Organic Consumers Association.

SAY 'NO' TO ANYTHING BUT MANDATORY PACKAGE LABELS FOR GMOs! NO TO DARK ACT!

ACTION ALERT

Calm before the Chaos?

Politico reports that Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) is working on "new language" for a federal GMO labeling bill to keep Vermont’s law from taking effect July 1. And that Sen Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), architect of the Senate version of the DARK Act, a voluntary federal labeling bill intended to preempt Vermont, is waiting to see that language, before the two engage in another round of negotiations.

Stabenow and Roberts both have dug in their heels. Under relentless pressure from constituents, Stabenow is calling for a compromise of some sort that would include mandatory QR codes or toll-free numbers or some such technological fix.

Roberts wants nothing short of a voluntary scheme.

Both Senators are determined to preempt Vermont, no doubt thanks to thelavish spending by biotech and food industry lobbyists. One of those lobbyists, Randy Russell, president and CEO of The Russell Group, toldBloomberg: “As we get closer to July 1, the reality and chaos in the marketplace looms, and I think it's going to drive people to the table to get a deal.”

"Reality and chaos" in the market? If Russell and his fellow lobbyists succeed in knocking down Vermont’s law, consumers will unleash our own brand of “chaos” in the market—and it won’t be pretty.

We’ve all had our sights set on July 1, thinking if that date comes and goes, we’ve won.But let’s not forget that while the law takes effect July 1, Vermont’s attorney general has given food companies until January 1, 2017, before the law will actually be enforced.

That could mean another six months of battling the preemptors in Washington D.C.

It is absolutely critical that we all continue to call, email and visit our Representatives and Senators. The minute we slow down, the minute things get quiet on our end, the more opportunity for Roberts, Stabenow and others to ram a bill through Congress during the lull.

TAKE ACTION: Stop the DARK Act Comeback! Tell your Senators: Protect Vermont’s GMO labeling law.

Dial 888-897-0174 to tell your Senators to vote against any compromise that would block or delay Vermont's bill from taking effect

If you live in Michigan, call Debbie Stabenow today! 202-224-4822

Help us protect Vermont’s GMO labeling law!

CALL 703-308-8187 NOW TO REVOKE CARCINOGEN GLYPHOSATE LICENSE

May 10, 2016

Tonight a second segment on the glyphosate (RoundUp) in wine report ran on ABC7- something we did not think would happen.

The first segment was pulled off the ABC7 website and the segment was cancelled from being aired the next night. We have reason to believe , as usual, that Monsanto pressured them.

ABC World News was also supposed to air the piece nationally and it was cancelled.
Moms Across America supporters called, emailed and spoke up to stop the censorship of our news.

In addition, the EPA posted last Friday that they found glyphosate "NOT likely to be a carcinogen.".. then on Monday, they changed their minds and took that finding down off their website, saying that further investigation is needed. They have been reviewing glyphosate for 7 years....Congress is now investigating.

What is going on ?

Watch the news piece and please contact the EPA to tell them, enough nonsense, delays and pandering to the chemical companies.

Revoke the license of glyphosate NOW. 703-308-8187

https://www.facebook.com/MomsAcrossAmerica/videos/595070273992847/

Thank you!!

--
Zen Honeycutt
Founder, Moms Across America
Mission Viejo CA 92691
Empwered Moms, Healthy Kids

http://momsacrossamerica.org

------------------------------------------------

http://www.facebook.com/MomsAcrossAmerica

BRING ON THE CLASS ACTION! PCB POISONED CA BAY AREA CITIES SUE MONSANTO

Friday, May 06, 2016Last Update: 3:51 PM PT

Bay Area Cities Eager to Take on Monsanto By MATTHEW RENDA  ShareThis        SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) - An attorney for three cities suing Monsanto over the presence of dangerous chemicals in the San Francisco Bay told a federal judge Thursday he was eager to take the matter to trial.      "We would like to push this case toward trial," John Fiske, attorney representing the cities of San Jose, Berkeley and Oakland in their respective lawsuits against Monsanto, said during a case management conference on Thursday.      U.S. District Judge Edward Davila labeled Fiske's push to put the trial on the 2017 calendar as "ambitious."      Monsanto attorney Robert Howard agreed, telling Davila that the local claims of each of the three cities would take time to parse.      "There are 40 years of history here. This is not the set-up for a quick trial," Howard said.      Nevertheless, Davila did schedule the initial motions for the case, establishing deadlines for a motion to dismiss for July and scheduling a hearing for August. The judge also agreed to consolidate the motions to dismiss, rather than making the Monsanto file a motion for each city.      Thursday's hearing came a month after a request to consolidate lawsuits by several West Coast cities suing the chemical company in Federal Court claiming that the company's manufacture of polychlorinated biphenyles (PCBs) is responsible for contaminating bodies of water in proximity to their respective cities.      Since January, the city of Seattle sued Monsanto related to the costs of removing PCBs from the Duwamish River; Spokane, Washington sued over the same contamination in the Spokane River; Oakland, Berkeley and San Jose all brought actions related to contamination in the San Francisco Bay and San Diego sued Monsanto for the presence of PCBs in the San Diego Bay.      On April 7, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied a motion to move the cases to the Northern District of California — finding that while the cases all related to PCBs, the specifics of each case were likely to differ substantially.      "It is undisputed that these actions share questions of fact arising from allegations that PCBs manufactured by Monsanto between 1935 and 1977 have contaminated certain marine environments and that plaintiffs have or will incur costs to remediate PCBs from urban runoff, stormwater, sediment, and bodies of water," the ruling reads. "That, however, is where the commonality among these actions ends."      While Fiske indicated more municipalities in Southern California were likely to join the legal fray — without disclosing which — he said the three cities in the Bay Area were firm and advocated for moving through the process expeditiously.      The dispute arises from the manufacture of PCBs, conducted solely by Monsanto beginning in 1935 and ending with the Toxic Substances Control Act. The chemical compound has disseminated throughout the United States, bioaccumulating in marine environments, trees, wildlife and human beings, according to the cities.      PCBs are known to cause adverse health effects in humans and are listed as a known carcinogen. The chemicals also have other ill effects primarily related to the nervous system and child development, the cities say.      PCBs have entered the San Francisco Bay in a number of ways, as the compound was included in many industrial and commercial applicants such as paint, caulking, transformers, capacitors, coolants, sealants, inks, lubricants and other uses.      The compounds regularly leak out of their applications, enter into stormwater runoff and make their way to the Bay, where they accumulate.      "San Francisco Bay is contaminated with PCBs, which have been detected in the Bay's water, sediments, fish and wildlife," the Bay Area cities say in their complaint.      Monsanto says the case should be dismissed because it did not place the PCBs in the San Francisco Bay, claiming instead that it manufactured the compound in good faith outside of California in order to assist the production of important industrial products.      In its original motion, filed in August last year before the case was stayed to consider consolidation, the company's attorneys gave eight different reasons Davila should dismiss the case.      Davila said attorneys from both sides had to refile their motions by June 20, giving them the option to file the same motions or update them.      Fiske is with Gomez Iagmin Trial Attorneys in San Diego. Howard is with Latham and Watkins, also in San Diego. Source: http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/05/06/bay-area-cities-eager-to-take-on-monsanto.htm

MULTIPLE LAWSUITS ON ROUNDUP POISONING - ON FARMS AROUND THE GLOBE

What killed Jack McCall? A California farmer dies and a case against Monsanto takes root

Questions about what triggered the farmer’s cancer are part of what some legal experts see as a potential landmark legal claim against Monsanto

EXCERPT: Attorney Brent Wisner, who is representing the McCall family, said he is confident in the strength of the evidence against Monsanto. “It’s going to be a fairly large litigation when it’s all said and done. We’re confident we’ll be able to show that Monsanto controlled research and suppressed science,” he said. — What killed Jack McCall? A California farmer dies and a case against Monsanto takes root Carey Gillam Huffington Post, 6 May 2016 http://gmwatch.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=29cbc7e6c21e0a8fd2a82aeb8&id=5d2e88a46f&e=872a621ccb [links to sources at the URL above] Standing on the ridge overlooking her central California farm, new widow Teri McCall sees her husband Jack nearly everywhere. There, atop the highest hill, is where the couple married in 1975- two self-described “hippies’ who knew more about how to surf than farm. And over there, surrounded by the lemon, avocado and orange trees Jack planted, sits the 800-square-foot house the young Vietnam veteran built for his bride and a family that grew to include two sons and a daughter. Solar panels Jack set up in a sun-drenched stretch of grass power the farm’s irrigation system. And down there, clasped in the cusp of the velvet green valley sits the century-old farmhouse Jack and Teri eventually made their permanent home. Jack installed a stained glass window featuring a heart and flowers over the front door. “Literally hundreds of times a day, something reminds me of him,” McCall says, as she and a visitor strolled through the orchards on a recent sunny spring morning. “That’s part of why it’s so hard to believe... I can never see him again.” Anthony ‘Jack’ McCall, 69, died Dec. 26 after a painful and perplexing battle with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The loss is certain, fixed forever into his family’s heartbreak. But questions about why and how he was stricken - a man who never smoked, stayed fit and had no history of cancer in his family - are part of what some legal experts see as a potential landmark legal claim against one of the world’s largest agrichemical companies, Monsanto Co. McCall shunned pesticide use on his farm, except for the herbicide called Roundup - marketed by Monsanto as having extremely low toxicity. He used Roundup regularly, spraying it himself around the farm to drive back worrisome weeds. He even recommended Roundup to friends, telling them it was supposed to be much safer than alternatives on the market, and touting its effectiveness. But now in his death, McCall is one of several plaintiffs in more than a dozen lawsuits that claim the active ingredient in Roundup - a chemical called glyphosate - gave them cancer, and that Monsanto has long known glyphosate poses “significant risks to human health, including a risk of causing cancer.” The lawsuits, brought by plaintiffs in California, Florida, Missouri, Delaware, Hawaii, and elsewhere over the last several months, claim Monsanto has hidden evidence, and manipulated regulators and the public into believing in the safety of glyphosate, which annually brings in about $5 billion, or a third of total sales, for the agribusiness giant. Like McCall, many farmed, or worked in agricultural jobs in which they regularly were using or exposed to glyphosate. The claims come at a critical time for Monsanto and its signature product as regulators in the United States and other countries evaluate whether or not to continue to allow glyphosate herbicides. Last year the World Health Organization’s cancer experts classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. That team, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), said glyphosate shows a “positive association” for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The outcomes of the legal battle and the regulatory reviews could have broad implications. Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide on the planet, sprayed on fields for row crops like corn, soybeans and wheat, as well as a variety of fruits, nuts and vegetable crops such as almonds, apples, cherries and oranges. That ubiquitous role played by glyphosate means the litigation, plaintiffs’ lawyers say, marks the beginning of a potential wave of legal actions against Monsanto. Teams of attorneys have been criss-crossing the country lining up potential plaintiffs who they say will likely number in the hundreds and possibly thousands. It’s a time-tested practice by plaintiffs’ attorneys who have brought similar mass actions in the past against tobacco, pharmaceutical and chemical industries. “Monsanto has deliberately concealed or suppressed information about the dangers of its product,” said environmental and chemical pollution attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is assisting in litigating glyphosate cases. “This is big. It’s on every farm in the world.” Kennedy predicts glyphosate liability litigation will become as widespread as has been decades of litigation over asbestos, which is seen in legal circles as the longest-running mass tort action in U.S. history. Asbestos was used for years as a safe and effective flame retardant in the construction industry but has been tied to lung diseases and cancers, and spawned hundreds of millions of dollars in legal claims. The glyphosate litigation partly mirrors courtroom battles Monsanto has been fighting for years involving the polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs it once manufactured. Plaintiffs in those cases also claim PCBs caused them to fall ill while Monsanto hid the risks. Monsanto claims plaintiffs cannot definitively link illnesses to PCB exposure. AMONG THE SAFEST OPTIONS Patented by Monsanto and commercialized in 1974, glyphosate herbicide has long been considered among the safest pesticide options on the market. The weed-killer came off patent in 2000 and is now used in more than 700 products around the world, beloved by farmers, homeowners, and groundskeepers. The chemical is the world’s most widely used herbicide with an estimated 1.8 billion pounds applied in 2014, up 12-fold from 1994, according to recently published research. But as use has grown, concerns about safety have also mounted. Residues have been documented by public and private researchers in waterways, air, food and in human bodily fluids. Several scientific studies tied the chemical to cancers and other health problems before the March 2015 classification by IARC. Lawyers for plaintiffs in the glyphosate cases say that among the evidence that glyphosate’s toxicity has long been known is an EPA memo detailing how glyphosate was classified by agency scientists as a possible human carcinogen in 1985 before classified in 1991 as a having “evidence of non-carcinogenicity” for humans. The classification was changed despite the fact that some peer review members did not concur. The lawsuits also cite evidence of fraud at laboratories used by Monsanto to perform toxicology studies of glyphosate, and point to fraud convictions of executives at those labs. St. Louis-based Monsanto, a global agrichemical and seed powerhouse, cites its own evidence to counter both the validity of the allegations in the lawsuits, as well as the IARC findings. Last year, the company hired a team of experts to review the safety of glyphosate, and said that team found no cancer links. “Comprehensive long-term toxicological studies repeated over the last 30 years have time and again demonstrated that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a cancer risk in humans,” Monsanto states on its website. ‘Regulatory authorities and independent experts around the world have reviewed numerous long-term/carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies and agree that there is no evidence that glyphosate... causes cancer, even at very high doses.” Monsanto attorneys have been seeking to dismiss and/or delay several cases thus far filed, asserting that federal law and approvals by the Environmental Protection Agency for labels on Roundup herbicide products protect Monsanto from the claims in the lawsuits. In recent arguments in U.S. District Court in Northern California, for example, lawyers for Monsanto argued that “EPA repeatedly has concluded that glyphosate is not a carcinogen.” But in April a federal judge in California ruled that Monsanto was not protected from liability by the EPA registration and approved labels. In a Missouri case that Monsanto also was unable to get dismissed, discovery is starting, and plaintiffs’ lawyers are eagerly awaiting what they hope will be a treasure trove of evidence for their clients. The legal claims come at the same time that European and U.S. regulators are conducting their own assessments of the safety of glyphosate and considering restrictions, processes that have become fraught with infighting and accusations of bias from both fans and foes of glyphosate. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said in November that evidence shows glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic. But the European Parliament has said the herbicide use should be reined in with a ban on non-professional use and around parks and playgrounds because of the health worries. The EPA was due to release a fresh risk assessment on glyphosate nearly a year ago, but has stalled the process amid the uproar. And in an odd twist to the saga, on April 29, the agency posted an internal document to its website, showing that the EPA’s cancer assessment experts have determined that glyphosate is “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.” On May 2, EPA withdrew the memo from its website and said it was not supposed to have been released because the cancer assessment is ongoing. But Monsanto heralded the release of the document as proof of what it has been saying about glyphosate’s safety. Wall Street is keeping a wary eye on the litigation. But generally market watchers care less about Monsanto’s risk from potential liability payouts and more about any potential long-term revenue hit if regulators were to restrict or ban glyphosate, said Piper Jaffray analyst Brett Wong, who tracks Monsanto’s business strategies and financial health. The courtroom battles could influence regulators, he said. “There are obviously a lot of lawsuits,” Wong said. “They aren’t intrinsic to impacting their business but there is always some sentiment pressure on investors. If it were to impact the regulatory structure and glyphosate was banned... that could obviously have an impact.” Legal experts with experience defending the chemical industry are watching the cases with interest, and many say given a lack of regulatory support for the cancer linkage, plaintiffs’ attorneys have an uphill climb to make such claims stick. “The evidence to support the claims isn’t there, said one prominent lawyer, declining to be quoted by name. “It’s not mothers’ milk by any means. I wouldn’t mix it in my drink, but it’s one of the safest chemicals out there,” he said. Attorney Brent Wisner, who is representing the McCall family, said he is confident in the strength of the evidence against Monsanto. “It’s going to be a fairly large litigation when it’s all said and done. We’re confident we’ll be able to show that Monsanto controlled research and suppressed science,” he said. Back in Cambria, Jack McCall’s son Paul McCall is running the farm in his father’s place. His eyes tear quickly when asked about his father’s diagnosis in September 2015 and death only three months later, the day after Christmas. He doesn’t want to talk about the lawsuit, other than to say he has no use for glyphosate now, and wants to warn others away from it. “This is a battle that has to be fought,” he said. How big and how bloody the litigation becomes is still an open question. The shouting from both sides of the issues is getting louder with each passing day. But the deep questions about the safety of this herbicide deserve serious and scientific review as the answers hold implications for our food production, our environment and the health of our families well into the future. __________________________________________________________ Website: http://gmwatch.us6.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=29cbc7e6c21e0a8fd2a82aeb8&id=27e21e4a73&e=872a621ccb Profiles: http://gmwatch.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=29cbc7e6c21e0a8fd2a82aeb8&id=57f2b982e3&e=872a621ccb Twitter: http://gmwatch.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=29cbc7e6c21e0a8fd2a82aeb8&id=e431989337&e=872a621ccb Facebook: http://gmwatch.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=29cbc7e6c21e0a8fd2a82aeb8&id=4733b5ee94&e=872a621ccb

CARTOONIST FIRED ASKING WHO OWNS THE MEDIA?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/political-cartoonist-loses-job-corporate-complaint-article-1.2624089

Political cartoonist for Iowa newspaper loses job after corporate advertiser complains about his latest drawing

BY  CHRISTOPHER BRENNAN 

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Updated: Wednesday, May 4, 2016, 7:32 AM