Follow by Email

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

US Farm Workers Sue Monsanto Over Cancer Likely Caused by Roundup Herbicide

Tuesday, October 06, 2015 by: L.J. Devon, Staff Writer

(NaturalNews) Monolithic science experiments are frequently being carried out on humans and the environment through the use of agro-chemicals and genetically modified seeds. Every time a new agro-chemical is invented, stronger than the one before it, the hypothesis remains the same — these agricultural experiments are safe and pose no threat to the health of mankind or the environment. As proven by the numerous lawsuits filed against corporations like Monsanto, however, the dangers are apparent and real.

Despite the growing concern against the negative effects of its experiments and products, Monsanto continues to get Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval and government subsidies so they can continue with their operations. In fact, the most popular herbicide in America, glyphosate, can now allegedly "be used without unreasonable risks to people or the environment," according to a statement made by the US EPA in 2013.

Monsanto experiments turn food into pathway to modern disease

How does Monsanto's experiments operate, anyway? Scientists genetically splice natural, God-given seeds by inserting foreign DNA into the seed genome. Monsanto's most nefarious and far-reaching method of agricultural control came about when they started genetically altering seeds so that crops could only be grown using their very own herbicide, called Roundup (glyphosate).

Since the seed is designed to withstand Roundup, Monsanto can now control the entire industrial agricultural system by simply making crops glyphosate-immune and having Roundup dominate the market. Today, 80% of genetically modified crops, including corn, soy, canola, cotton, beets and alfalfa, contain Monsanto's original Roundup Ready gene.

Like rats in a cage, many people are unaware that the food they consume have been modified specifically to withstand Monsanto's famous herbicide. The food products that many people blindly consume on a daily basis come directly from crops sprayed with Roundup. Crops sprayed with Roundup are no longer healthy at all. Food that should nourish our system have instead become toxic pathways to many disease processes in the human body.

How glyphosate kills

Glyphosate kills weeds by disrupting their shikimate pathway, where amino acids essential for their survival are synthesized. The shikimate pathway of Roundup Ready crops, on the other hand, are genetically engineered to withstand this attack.

Monsanto concludes that glyphosate is safe for humans because mammals do not have a shikimate pathway. However, what the biotech industry fails to recognize is that the shikimate pathway is also present in human gut bacteria. This diverse network of gut microbes (which are being destroyed by glyphosate) helps the human host digest food, synthesize vitamins and maintain immune system homeostasis. Additionally, gut microbes protect the gastrointestinal tract from being permeated by heavy metals and other foreign toxins. Glyphosate literally initiates disease processes in the body by suppressing and killing off these beneficial gut microbes, particularly through the inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes.

Farmer with bone cancer sues Monsanto

Monsanto's claim about glyphosate's safety is continually being debunked. In March 2015, the consensus of independent scientists at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) revealed that there is "convincing evidence" that glyphosate causes cancer in lab animals.

As more and more data are published on the matter, people are starting to make the connection between Roundup exposure and cancer.

Enrique Rubio, a 58-year-old farmer from California who was diagnosed with bone cancer in 1995, was able to make a connection. For several years, he worked directly with Monsanto's Roundup in California, Oregon and Texas. He sprayed cucumbers, onions and other vegetable crops with glyphosate. He was always told the chemical was safe and posed no risk to his health — until one day, he was suddenly diagnosed with bone cancer. Today, he is accusing Monsanto of downplaying the risks of the herbicide he used countless times over several years.

On the same day Enrique filed suit, Judi Fitzgerald joined the fight from New York. The 64-year-old woman was diagnosed with leukemia in 2012. She worked directly with Roundup in the 1990s while working at a horticultural products company.

Both lawsuits claim that Monsanto's Roundup is a "defective" product that is "unreasonably dangerous." It also claims that Monsanto pressured the EPA to give Roundup the green light.

Even though the World Health Organization agrees and describes glyphosate as a "probable or possible carcinogen," the biotech industry has always fought back against scientifically validated allegations, not caring one bit about the people they have harmed, and — if all these experiments continue — will continue to harm in years to come.


Friday, October 23, 2015

Senate Panel Warms to GMOs

By Nathanael Johnson on 22 Oct 2015

On Wednesday morning, for the first time in a decade, there was a U.S. Senate hearing on agricultural biotechnology. Lawmakers are tuning into the issue for two reasons: First, the Obama administration has said that it’s time to update and modernize GMO regulations; and second, there are bills pending that would either force, or ban, mandatory labeling of GMOs in food products.

The hearing, held by the Senate agriculture committee, provided a chance to gauge how senators are thinking about this issue. The Senate is currently mulling a bill, already passed by the House, that would set a federal standard for voluntary labeling, while also invalidating any mandatory labeling laws that states — like Vermont — have passed or might pass. I’ve gotten the sense from Politico’s reporting on this that Republicans are having a hard time finding Democratic senators to sign on to the bill, so I was a bit surprised to see a fairly pro-GMO sentiment prevailing in the hearing Tuesday morning.

Of course this was the agriculture committee — and I’d expect some pro-GMO sentiments from Democrats with big constituencies of farmers. But I was also expecting to see some senators from more liberal states channelling anti-GMO concerns as well. Instead, I heard strong pro-GMO statements, and no senator planted a flag on anti-GMO ground.

An exchange between regulators and Heidi Heitkamp, a no-nonsense Democrat from North Dakota, was illustrative of the general tenor of the hearing. The regulators had been saying time and time again that the GMOs they approved were just as safe as any other food. So Heitkamp asked William Jordan, from the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, to explain how he shared the information he used to determine that safety with the public. Jordan began talking about making every effort toward transparency against a broader backdrop of a general decline in trust in government.

Heitkamp jumped in: “Except what people hear is blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah.”

Jordan: “I know that.”

Heitkamp: “I believe the science is so strong in this area — that these are products that will not have an adverse effect in any way on health, in fact can improve health by making food more available worldwide. And yet we seem to be losing the fight, not just on labeling but on how we are going to make these products more accessible.”

Then, turning away from Jordan, she threw the question to a USDA regulator, who began to give a similar homily about the importance of press releases and emailing stakeholders.

Heitkamp cut him off: “The data you are presenting and the information you are presenting is not presented in a way that is accessible to the public.” There was a pregnant pause — it had all been blandly congenial, up that point, and Heitkamp’s bluntness, in comparison, sounded downright accusatory. “It’s easier to say this is bad than explain why this is good, especially when the technology is so elevated. So I would really challenge all of you to think about how you discuss your findings with the public, so we can advance this beyond regulation, but actually have a conversation with the consumers.”

As the hearing went on, I started scanning through the members of the agriculture committee to see who might claim the anti-GMO position. Patrick Leahy from Vermont? New York’s Kirsten Gillibrand? But it never happened.

Gillibrand used her time to ask how regulations might be updated. (Will foreign companies engage in our regulatory process and get our approval if they want to sell GMOs here? Do we have enough of a regulatory hook to regulate organisms that have had their DNA edited, but don’t contain any DNA introduced from another species?)

Leahy stuck around just long enough to introduce Joanna Lidback, a small dairy farmer with 50 grass-fed cows in Vermont. Lidback turned out to be forcefully pro-GMO, arguing that small farmers need all the tools they can get to be responsible stewards of their land.

The only anti-GMO points brought up at the hearing came from Gary Hirshberg, chair of Stonyfield Farm Inc. and founder of the GMO labeling advocacy group Just Label It. And Hirshberg moderated his message for the audience: Instead of lecturing the committee on the evils associated with GMOs, as I’ve heard him do in other contexts, he said that all his group wanted was a “value neutral disclosure” that would allow consumers to make their own decisions. The history of other countries that have instituted mandatory labeling show that these sorts of labels don’t produce sudden shifts in consumer behavior, he said.

The senators pushed back against this, asking for responses from other panelists. One of those panelists, Ronald Kleinman, a chief physician at MassGeneral Hospital for Children, said that labels and transparency were all for the good. But he also pointed out that everyone was urging transparency only about genetic engineering. Why not, he asked, be transparent about crops produced with chemical or radiation mutagenesis? Why not disclose whether low-wage immigrant labor went into foods?

I’d tuned into this hearing to gauge the Senate’s appetite for taking on the GMO controversy in some way. And again, the agricultural committee may well be a biased sample. But still, it seems like Republicans could get at least a few votes from Democrats for their voluntary labeling bill. Then again, it’s one thing to support farmers who want to use genetically engineered seeds, and another thing to tell states they can’t make their own rules about GMO labeling.

If you want to see for yourself, the hearing is available here.

Are You Putting Monsanto in Your Vagina? 85% of Tampons and Feminine Hygiene Products

Thursday, October 22, 2015

(NaturalNews) In the late 1970s and early 1980s, over 50 American women were killed by their tampons. Although the FDA and the feminine hygiene industry have gone to tremendous lengths to try to memory hole this true history (and label it just a "rumor"), tampons made from certain non-natural fibers were found to harbor deadly bacteria and release a sufficient quantity of chemicals to kill or injure over a thousand women.

As the Organic Consumers Association has published:

The worst offenders were Procter and Gamble’s ultra-absorbent Rely tampons. According to the book Soap Opera: The Inside Story of Procter and Gamble, the company dismissed consumer complaints about the tampons for years. 

A 1975 company memo disclosed that Rely tampons contained known cancer-causing agents and that the product altered the natural organisms found in the vagina. Rely tampons were taken off the shelves in 1980, but many women claim they left a legacy of hysterectomies and loss of fertility.

Among health-conscious women, the toxicity of mainstream tampons has long been an issue of concern. "Just as I say heck no to Cottonseed oil, it is for the same reason I say heck no to sticking toxic cotton up into my nethers," writes Meghan Telpner. "Did ya know that 84 million pounds of pesticides are sprayed on 14.4 million acres of conventional cotton grown each year in the US."

She continues:

The rayon/viscose used in Tampax is made from wood pulp. Last I checked, there were no such thing as rayon trees and trees don't magically turn into rayon- it takes hundreds of chemicals. The chlorine bleaching of wood pulp is where the greatest danger lies. 

The process creates chlorinated hydrocarbons, a hazardous group of chemicals with byproducts that includes dioxins, some of the most toxic substances known. Parts per million my cooch! There are no safe levels dioxins, they are impossible to break down and so keep building up in our tissues.

Now Monsanto's toxic herbicide has been found in 80% of feminine hygiene products.
Fast forward to 2015. Now glyphosate, the chemical found in Monsanto's "RoundUp" herbicide used on genetically modified cotton crops, is being discovered in the vast majority of feminine hygiene products.

The research team from National University of La Plata headed by Damian Marino revealed their research findings last weekend. Note carefully that such research would never be conducted in a U.S. university because they've been infiltrated and bought off by Monsanto

Example: Discredited professor Kevin Folta at the University of Florida, who was caught receiving $25,000 from Monsanto after publicly lying that he had no financial ties to the herbicide company. Even though Folta has been exhaustively exposed as a liar and a violator of university ethics, the University of Florida sees nothing wrong with such deceptions. Click here to read the secret letter where Monsanto agrees to pay him $25,000.

"A team of Argentine scientists found traces of glyphosate in 85% of personal care and feminine hygiene products containing cotton and commonly purchased in drugstores and supermarkets," writes Revolution News.

"The study looked at a sampling of products from pharmacies and supermarkets in the area of La Plata, and analyzed cotton swabs, gauze and articles for feminine use. The results from all commercial products detected 85% glyphosate and 62% AMPA (metabolite or derivative of glyphosate). Almost 100% of the cotton produced in Argentina is transgenic and glyphosate applications are made while the cocoon is open."

Also reported by Revolution News:
“The report left us shocked,” said Dr. Medardo Ávila Vázquez, a conference participant and from Cordoba.

“We had focused our attention on the presence of glyphosate in food, but did not think the products we use in all hospitals and health centers in the country to cure patients are contaminated with a carcinogenic product. The authorities must give an immediate response to this situation.”

Glyphosate is known to cause cancer, but propagandists are paid to cover up the truth

Glyphosate is a known cancer-causing chemical. The World Health Organization has classified it as "probably carcinogenic," and many other studies clearly link it to an endocrine disruption process that leads to cancer.

The EPA conspired with Monsanto for decades to deceive the public into thinking glyphosate was harmless, even after knowing the molecule was extremely dangerous., named "America's most evil news publisher" by, has been instrumental in publishing Monsanto's propaganda via the corporation's paid professional propagandists such as Henry Miller and Jon Entine. Both have been exposed as "GMO mercenaries" who betray humanity and advocate the chemical poisoning of the world in exchange for money.

Glyphosate has even been found to promote cancer at parts per trillion concentrations, meaning that even low-level exposure from tampons might lead to deadly cancers in women. (The GMO industry says women who are concerned about GMOs are "anti-science" and too stupid to understand technology.)

It is inarguable that the human vagina readily absorbs chemicals found in tampons. When those tampons are made from GMO cotton -- the vast majority of cotton that's commercially grown -- they almost always contain glyphosate that gets absorbed through vaginal walls and enters the bloodstream.

This means that even beyond glyphosate contamination in food, women must now consider the possibility that they are being poisoned from glyphosate in the vagina via genetically modified cotton used in tampons and other hygiene products.

To all the bought-off female journalists who are pushing Monsanto's agenda -- like Tamar Haspel of the Monsanto-infiltrated Washington Post -- SHAME ON YOU for advancing the chemical industry's war on women.

Why you should only use organic feminine hygiene products
The only sure way to avoid GMOs in your vagina is to source certified organic feminine hygiene products made from organic cotton or other organic materials.

It's easy for consumers to forget that their blue jeans are made from GMO cotton saturated with glyphosate... or that the cotton gauze in their first aid kits are also made with GMO cotton and glyphosate. In fact, even cotton swabs and cotton balls are usually GMO.

So if you really want to stop putting Monsanto in your vagina (or your ears, nose and other place in your body), you'll need to meticulously source organic, non-GMO products for such needs.

Monitor all the real-time breaking news on organics at or visit throughout the day.

Sources for this article include:

Learn more:

Saturday, October 10, 2015

Monsanto to Cut 2,600 Jobs as GMO Seed Sales Fall

Published: October 9, 2015


And this isn’t the first time Monsanto has experienced a serious slump in sales. Back in February of this year, I told you about the ‘beginning of the serious decline’ for both Monsanto and McDonald’s. It’s a notion that would be considered absolutely absurd not too long ago, really. McDonald’s and Monsanto were the two ‘juggernauts’ that everyone loved to hate, but felt powerless against.

They were ‘too big to fail,’ we thought. And perhaps the corporate executives thought so, too. The truth is, however, that both of these companies had decades to actually improve their practices and regain public opinion. Why didn’t McDonald’s stop using cheap fillers and toxic compounds in favor of something that’s at least somewhat higher quality? Monsanto could have actually done something about the numerous reports by mainstream media organizations that detailed Indian farmer suicides as a result of the company’s terrible farming contracts.

Better yet, maybe Monsanto’s deep ties with the US government shouldn’t have threatened ‘trade wars’ with nations that would dare to oppose their GMOs. It’s all in The Guardian report about the 2007 WikiLeaks revelations surrounding Monsanto. The U.S. State Department was apparently even paying for Monsanto’s marketing material overseas.

But back to Monsanto shedding cash. Here’s what Reuters had to report:

“Monsanto Co, one of the world’s largest seed and agrichemical companies, said on Wednesday that it was slashing 2,600 jobs and restructuring operations to cut costs in a slumping commodity market.

Sales of corn seeds and traits, Monsanto’s key products, fell 5 percent to $598 million in the quarter. And sales at the company’s agricultural productivity unit, which includes Roundup herbicide, dropped 12 percent to $1.1 billion.”

Unless Monsanto magically decides to turn around and clean up its act, or manages to buy up Syngenta and enter an entire new world of genetic modification, I expect to see similar headlines in the future.

Sunday, October 4, 2015

Half of Europe Opts Out of New GM Crop Scheme

Oct. 4, 2015

Bid for exclusion by 14 countries and three regions would make two-thirds of Europe’s population and arable land GM-free

 An advert warning against genetically modified food at a subway station in Paris. Photograph: Miguel Medina/AFP/Getty Images

Arthur Nelsen, Brussels

Thursday 1 October 2015 

Half of the European Union’s 28 countries and three of its regions have opted out of a new GM crop scheme, in a blow to biotech industry hopes.

Under new EU rules agreed in March, 15 countries have now told Brussels they will send territorial exclusion requests to the big agricultural multinationals including Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta and Pioneer.

Applications from Latvia and Greece have already been accepted by the firms and if that pattern is extended, around two-thirds of of the EU’s population – and of its arable land – will be GM-free.

Industry sources warned that Europe could soon become a “graveyard” for biotech products but environmentalists hailed the news.

“A growing number of governments are rejecting the commission’s drive for GM crop approvals,” said Greenpeace’s EU food policy director Franziska Achterberg. “They don’t trust EU safety assessments and are rightly taking action to protect their agriculture and food. The only way to restore trust in the EU system now is for the commission to hit the pause button on GM crop approvals and to urgently reform safety testing and the approval system.”

On Wednesday, Germany became the largest EU country to snub GM crops, when the agricultural minister, Christian Schmidt , told Brussels that his country had no appetite for the biotech produce.

Other countries that have exercised an opt out or said they plan to include Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Italy, Hungary, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovenia.

Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wallonia will also be opting out on a regional basis. Wales has more recently opted out, making England the only country in the British Isles to allow GM crop cultivation. The final deadline for withdrawals is 3 October, and at least two more EU countries are expected to join the list by then.

EU sources say that agribusiness companies are most likely to object to opt-outs from big nations such as Germany. But these countries could then exercise the option of a national ban on public interest grounds, not related to environmental assessments by the EU’s regulator, the European Food Safety Authority.

The news was greeted with weary resignation by the biotech industry which complains that only 140,000 hectares of Europe’s land are being cultivated with GM products – compared to 181m hectares in the rest of the world.

“We deeply regret that some EU countries have decided to make use of the new licensed ban on the cultivation of safe and approved GM crops on their territory,” said Beat Spath, the director of the industry group Europabio. “The new EU legislation allowing these bans is a ‘stop’ sign for agricultural cultivation that sends a negative signal for all innovative industries considering investing in Europe.”

Commission proposals to extend the rules to imported biotech grains would set a disturbing precedent likely to “further extend the graveyard for this technology,” he added.