At the intersection of cocaine and Roundup in rural South America, Monsanto and the U.S. government are struggling to keep up appearances. That’s becoming more and more difficult as the unanticipated hazards of genetic modification become clearer.

Back in April, Argentinean embryologist Andrés Carrasco gave an interview with a Buenos Aires newspaper describing his recent findings suggesting the chemical glyphosate, a chemical herbicide widely used in agriculture as well as in U.S. anti-narcotic efforts, could cause defects in fetuses in much smaller doses than those to which peasants and farmers in his country were already being exposed. Loud calls for a ban on the substance were issued by Argentinean environmental lawyers, and the country’s Ministry of Defense banned the planting of glyphosate-resistant soya crops in its fields.

Then came the backlash. An article in an Argentinean paper recently reported that Carrasco was assaulted in a way he described as “violent” by four men associated with agricultural interests:

Two of the men were said to be members of an agrochemical industry body but refused to give their names. The other two claimed to be a lawyer and notary. They apparently interrogated Dr. Carrasco and demanded to see details of the experiments. They left a card Basílico, Andrada & Santurio, attorneys on behalf of Felipe Alejandro Noël.

It’s still unclear who these people are. But the interest in keeping such information quiet or discrediting Carrasco and his findings are strongest with Monsanto, the agricultural company who first patented a glyphosate product (sold as Roundup) and also created genetically-modified crops specifically to resist the herbicide.

http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/894

The Pitchfork Rebellion founder involved in a 2008 police conflict puts Monsanto “on trial”

BY KAREN MCCOWAN
The Register-Guard
Appeared in print: Sunday, Aug 30, 2009

News Updates: Story

The Pitchfork Rebellion, organized to restrict or halt aerial herbicide spraying on Oregon’s forests, went to the local doorstep of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Saturday to lampoon what they said were the agency’s ties to pesticide manufacturer Monsanto.

Triangle Lake area resident Day Owen, a co-founder of the activist group, donned a jester’s hat to preside over mock trials of Monsanto and the state Department of Forestry before a crowd of more than 100 people.

Owen’s wife, his daughter and neighbor Maya Gee also said they were personally affected after helicopters sprayed the Monsanto product Round-Up on forests near their farms in 2007. The women said they were sickened by their exposure to drifted spray, immediately suffering breathing problems and muscle weakness, followed by diarrhea, early and painful menstrual cycles, and muscle and joint pain lasting for months.

Owen accused the St. Louis-based multinational company of covering up evidence that the herbicide poses human health risks. According to Monsanto’s Web site, increased sales of Round-Up helped the corporation post record net sales of $11.4 billion in 2008.

Monsanto’s Web site also states that regulatory agencies around the world, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency, have concluded that glyphosate herbicides such as Round-Up “pose no unreasonable risks to human health and the environment when used according to label directions.”

Rally organizers set a nonviolent tone early in Saturday’s event, with Owen inviting attendees to walk in a circle around the building’s plaza to the song “We Are All in This Together.” Before beginning the music, he addressed several law enforcement officers monitoring the rally from inside the building, saying the song’s “we” included Eugene police and Homeland Security officers.

The last public encounter between Owen and those agencies did not end peacefully.

Owen was among several people arrested at a downtown Eugene anti-pesticide rally in May 2008, when a Eugene police officer used a Taser to apprehend a University of Oregon student later convicted of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Owen said he was slammed to the grand and knocked unconscious after he questioned a different Eugene officer about use of the Taser when the student, Ian Van Ornum, was already face down on the ground.

Owen, who was never charged with a crime, said he was also kicked in the knee by a Homeland Security officer assisting in his arrest. Owen has filed an excessive use of force complaint with Eugene’s police auditor.

Eugene police testified at Van Ornum’s trial that they had been summoned to the downtown protest by a Department of Homeland Security agent monitoring the May 2008 demonstration. The agent, Tom Keedy, testified that he was there because Owen, a featured speaker, had urged people attending a March 2008 rally at the federal courthouse to “commit acts of civil disobedience … in a peaceful, nonviolent revolution.”

Owen on Saturday disputed that reason, charging that the federal agency was monitoring him because of the title of his talk at the May 2008 rally: “The Need to Reform Homeland Security.” He also said top officials at Homeland Security don’t want him to publicize what he alleges are ties between Homeland Security and Monsanto, including what he says is the agency’s financing of the development of genetically engineered food by Monsanto.

He called Monsanto and clear-cutting timber companies “the real bioterrorists.”

Rally participants were invited to launch a boycott of all crops treated with Round-Up and to sign a petition calling for aerial spraying buffer zones around homes and schools.

The following article is from GRAIN, also found at Organic Consumers Association website;

“Scientist Warning of Health Hazards of Monsanto’s Herbicide Receives Threats”

GRAIN: Seeds of Information, July 2009

Straight to the Source

“I expected a reaction but not such a violent one”

“In April 2009 Andrés Carrasco, an Argentinian embryologist, gave an interview to the leading Buenos Aires newspaper Página 12, in which he described the alarming results of a research project he is leading into the impact of the herbicide glyphosate on the foetuses of amphibians. Dr Carrasco, who works in the Ministry of Science’s Conicet (National Council of Scientific and Technical Investigations), said that their results suggested that the herbicide could cause brain, intestinal and heart defects in the foetuses. Glyphosate is the herbicide used in the cultivation of Monsanto’s genetically modified soya, which now covers some 18 million hectares, about half of Argentina’s arable land. [1]

Carrasco said that the doses of herbicide used in their study were “much lower than the levels used in the fumigations”. Indeed, as some weeds have become resistant to glyphosate, many farmers are greatly increasing the concentration of the herbicide. According to Página 12, this means that, in practice, the herbicide applied in the fields is between 50 and 1,540 times stronger than that used by Carrasco. The results in the study are confirming what peasant and indigenous communities – the people most affected by the spraying – have been denouncing for over a decade. The study also has profound consequences for the USA’s anti-narcotics strategy in Colombia, because the planes spray glyphosate, reinforced with additional chemicals, on the coca fields (and the peasants living among them).

Three days after the interview, the Association of Environmental Lawyers filed a petition with the Argentine Supreme Court, calling for a ban on the use and sale of glyphosate until its impact on health and on the environment had been investigated. Five days later the Ministry of Defense banned the planting of soya in its fields. This sparked a strong reaction from the multinational biotechnology companies and their supporters. Fearful that their most famous product, a symbol of the dominant farming model, would be banned, they mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats. He was accused of inventing his whole investigation, as his results have not yet been peer-reviewed and published in a prestigious scientific journal.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/08/30/18620188.php

By Chris Dickerson -Putnam Bureau

WINFIELD – Three weeks after an original 50 were filed, nearly 100 more lawsuits have been filed alleging Monsanto and related companies are responsible for causing cancer.

Like the other 50 filed earlier this month, the 97 newest complaints filed Aug. 24 in Putnam Circuit Court say Monsanto and its successor companies caused cancer by exposing the plaintiffs to dioxins/furans contamination of the air and property in and around Nitro. The cases mention the “negligent and otherwise unlawful release of dioxin from defendants’ waste disposal practices on properties … located in and about Nitro, West Virginia.”

These individual cases, filed by Stuart Calwell and The Calwell Firm of Charleston, are not part of an ongoing class action involving thousands of current and former Nitro residents alleging Monsanto polluted the area with dioxin. The class action case specifies no specific damages, and the class-action plaintiffs seek medical monitoring.

The plaintiffs in the 147 new cases, also represented by Calwell, are residents and former residents of Nitro or one or more of several surrounding communities of the now defunct chemical plant located near Nitro. They lived, worked or attended school in Nitro. Some of the plaintiffs are deceased, and those suits are filed by family members.

Monsanto owned and operated the plant from 1934 to 2000. From 1949 to 1970, the company produced an herbicide that was heavily contaminated with dibenzo dioxins and dibenzo furans. The complaints say the company disposed of the dioxin-contaminated waste in a way which caused dioxins to escape into the air.

The plaintiffs say their property and soil was contaminated.

“During the years that Old Monsanto was operating it’s trichlorophenol plant, it adopted an unlawful practice of disposing of dioxin waste materials by a continuous process of open ‘pit’ burning,” the complaints state. “This practice was largely denied by Old Monsanto whose representatives characterized the practice as an ‘incineration process’ when asked by regulatory authorities.

“Old Monsanto and its successors … failed to adequately control the dioxin contaminated soils and other dioxin contaminated waste materials both on and off the plant site. Dioxins/furans continued to be re-deposited and re-distributed from the plant site and the off-site dumps so as to continue the process of air and property contamination.”

The complaints say the defendants knew of the dangers.

The defendants “should have known of the highly toxic properties of dioxin and that dioxin was and is a known promoter of cancer and that dioxin was and is a known human carcinogen,” the complaints state. The defendants “knew that the area around the Monsanto plant was populated with permanent residents who would likely live out their lives in the area contaminated.”

The complaints also detail the history of Monsanto and the company’s knowledge regarding dioxin. The Nitro plant produced herbicides, rubber products and other chemicals, including Agent Orange.

Dioxin has been linked to cancer, birth defects, learning disabilities, endometriosis, infertility and suppressed immune functions.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for medical bills past and future, lost wages, pain and suffering, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life. They also seek punitive damages for the “willful, wanton and reckless” actions of the defendants “evidencing a callous disregard for the health and wellbeing of the residents of the Nitro area.”

Putnam Circuit Court case numbers 09-C-243 through 09-C-282 and 09-C-315 through 09-C-411

http://www.wvrecord.com/news/220760-nearly-100-more-cancer-lawsuits-filed-against-monsanto

In a word, yes. To learn more, read on.

Mention the word organic and many people immediately see dollar signs. They may understand that organic products are grown without pesticides, are not genetically modified, and do not come from chemically fertilized fields. But they may not realize what those words really mean and certainly still do not understand or realize the added health benefits of eating this cleaner, more nutritious food. Mention organic milk or dairy products and the average consumer will cringe. That’s because organic dairy products typically cost a significant amount above conventional dairy and people still do not understand that there is more to think about than just the cost of the product.

According to an article in the New York Times from earlier this year, there is a glut of milk. This, obviously, affects the price paid to the farmer and ultimately the price paid for the product. In this economy many people welcome the slowly lowering price of dairy products. The difficulty comes from not understanding the difference between the types of products available. Conventional milk comes from cows who are confined to feedlot operations, crowded and not given access to fresh pasture. They are also still fed products that are pesticide, herbicide and drug laden as well as having genetically modified organisms (GMO) in their food. They may also be given large amounts of antibiotics. Natural milk comes from cows who are not given growth hormone (which increases their production of milk) however all the other conventional practices apply from crowding in feedlots to chemicals and GMO feed. Organic milk comes from cows who have none of the above. They are required to be pastured for at least part of the day and to have clean feed and a clean environment. This costs more and is part of the reason for the increased cost of the end product.

Dean Foods has now taken over a well-respected organic brand, Horizon. They are planning to change their production process and offer a “natural” product line aimed at young children. Dean Foods claims that this natural product will be less expensive and that they are providing a service to help consumers. The question is with a well-known, well-respected, profitable organic label already on the market why are they trying to adulterate the brand?

Unfortunately Dean’s previous foray into tampering with a well-respected organic brand, Silk organic soy milk, did not go well. According to an article found in the Organic Consumers Association newsletter Dean switched from organic, USA-grown to Chinese-sourced conventionally grown soy beans, relied on the name, and charged the same price. All without mentioning anything to consumers or retailers. In fact many of the retailers only noticed when their customers began to complain. Not only did Dean not lower the price of their reformulated “natural” soy products, they then turned around and raised the price on the organic soy that they were producing. One wonders how long it will be until they try the same profiteering methods with Horizon dairy. It is one way of increasing profits in the face of a glut of product.

In the end it all comes back to remaining vigilant and concerned about what you eat. Read the labels. That point is so important it bears repeating. Read the labels. Because you never know when a profit hungry huge agri-business producer will attempt to capitalize on brand identity to make a change that negatively affects your food and your health.

For more information:

Why chose organic milk
Organic Consumers Association

Farmers reveal: The truth about GM corn

News Today Online – Iloilo City, Iloilo, Philippines

Ms. Eloisa Bosito, MASIPAG-National Secretariat presented & discussed the results of the socio-economic study which shows that almost all of the farmers in both municipalities are dependent with the local financiers in the area, with 57% of the corn farmers in Dumarao are paying an interest of 7% per month. In Maayon, most of the farmers are paying as high as 10% per month. On the health aspect, most farmers do not wear protective gears while planting and spraying pesticides thus the results showed that some of the RR corn farmers suffered eye & skin irritation, dizziness and respiratory problems.

In summary, the study shows RR corn farmers incurred, high cost of production (seeds, fertilizers & herbicides), lower yield & net income, cycle of indebtedness and loss of control over the technology and high health risk with the use of Roundup herbicide.

EU, Bayer’s GM rice to be approved
GreenPlanet – April 10, 2009

According to APCOM, this would be the first EU authorization to a GMO directly destined to human consumption and not to be fodder for livestock, like the several GM maize types allowed until now. LL62 rice type has been modified with a gene that makes the plant tolerant to glufosinate weed-killer produced by Bayer under the brands “Basta” and “Libery” (LL stands for Liberty Link). The genetic modification allows farmers to spread the weed-killer on rice cultivations, thus destroying all infesting plants without affecting the rice itself. IN 2007 glufosinate has been re-allowed in the EU for 10 years, according to pesticide regulations at that time. EFSA, however, in 2007 gave its technical “all clear” to LL62 rice, though in 2005 its opinion was quite alarming about this herbicide’s toxicity for reproduction, concluding that there were “high risks” for mammals in case of swallowing, “acute risk” for children, and – in few cases – also for farmers who have been exposed for too long. Precisely for this “repro-toxicity”, indeed, glufosinate is to be banned in EU from 2017 (the authorization won’t be renewed anymore), according to what is provided by the “black list” in the new EU regulation on pesticide, voted by the European Parliament last January.

Soybean growers protest water-quality research
Minneapolis Star Tribune – April 9, 2009

What started as a $600,000 project to improve water quality in rural Minnesota is in jeopardy after soybean growers protested, causing funders to reconsider and send the money to more cooperative states. The controversy centers around a $5 million initiative that Monsanto Co., which produces seeds and herbicide, announced last December in an attempt to reduce fertilizer runoff and sediment in the Mississippi River. It planned to work with farmers and conservation groups to measure whether different methods of fertilizing, tilling, and filtering runoff improved stream water quality or affected crop yields.