For future updates, please visit http://non-gmoreport.com for monthly information on a safe and healthy food supply along with sustainable and regenerative agriculture and other non-GMO updates. You may also visit https://sustainablepulse.com/pulse/pulse-news-sustainable-agriculture/ and other LINKS or search for more resources.
This new certification is great news for food manufacturers who want to certify their food with this important quality attribute: food free from Glyphosate residues! Consumers will benefit as well because organic and nonGMO Verified Project labels do not necessarily mean foods are Glyphosate or Roundup-free. Glyphosate is the most used and abused herbicide in history! Roundup is a pesticide toxin sprayed on GMO crops as part of the pesticide-dependent GMO crop system, but many people are unaware it is often used as a pre-harvest crop ripener on nonGMO crops. In this application, it essentially kills the plant to facilitate harvesting of many conventional crops like beans, peas, chick peas, and other plants. The Glyphosate toxin remains on the food part of the plant and accumulates on foods, lacking Federal government review or limits on residue accumulation from multiple sprays. So many people have no idea they are regularly ingesting a pesticide toxin (which has also been patented by Monsanto as an antibiotic) at their dining tables. Over time, the sublethal chemical doses of Glyphosate can lead to a myriad of health problems.
Monsanto appears to be falling behind when it comes to defending against harmful health findings in farmers, farm workers, animals and others exposed to toxic pesticide chemicals in Roundup’s Glyphosate herbicide formulations. In fact, California has become the first state to declare Glyphosate as carcinogenic, following the World Health Organization’s finding last year. As a result of this cancer classification, Monsanto is now required to post”clear and reasonable warning” that the chemical is known to cause cancer. The mounting lawsuits allege farmers are developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among other health harms from the Roundup chemical exposure to people and pets. People have been misled and lied to by industry and its surrogate speakers about Roundup’s so-called “safety” profile since the 1990’s.
An article by Dr. Mercola published April 12, 2017 states: “To date, there are over 700 individual cases being brought against Monsanto at the state and federal level.In one of those cases in San Francisco, California, a judge unsealed documents that suggest employees of Monsanto ghost wrote studies attributed to academics — studies that were then used to determine glyphosate does not cause cancer.
Documents indicate a senior officer at the EPA worked with Monsanto to suppress independent reviews of the ingredients. Insider information was shared with Monsanto to guide the message they published to the public. The chair of the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee even promised to obstruct a Department of Health and Human Services review of glyphosate, and indeed that safety review never took place. One of the attorneys for the McCall family, environmental activist and author Robert F. Kennedy Jr., commented:
“Mounting evidence suggests that Monsanto knew about the hazards posed by glyphosate exposure, but failed to disclose this information to the public. Any time a corporation markets a harmful product to consumers as safe for use, it must be held accountable for the damage caused by that product.
Glyphosate is the product of both modern chemistry and a profoundly corrupt corporate culture. It is sad for our country and our people that such a powerful economic leader can only be trusted to put private greed before public health.”
In 1987 11 million pounds of glyphosate were applied in the U.S, compared to the now nearly 300 million pounds applied each year.” Continue reading article here.
4-11-17 NEWS: Monsanto has been using false information to consumers indicating Roundup was biodegradable and not harmful to humans for years. Now there are 2 lawsuits to bring independent science (instead of company PR-contrived science) into the court room- Monsanto sued for misleading consumers in Roundup label
Science and scientists for hire to lie to the public? Tracy Malkan has done a meticulous sleuthing job to expose the layers covering Monsanto’s capture of academics and their “contrived industry PR -driven science”substituting for authentic science in agricultural food biotechnology. Her recent piece, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-malkan/monsanto-fingerprints-fou_b_10757524.html exposes the farmer and consumer deception since 2010 in a report titled “Academics Review” and passed off as an independent source from a nonprofit industry organization. Ms. Malkan had to employ the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get access to the information.
“Academics Review has no conflicts-of-interest associated with this publication, and all associated costs for which were paid for using our general funds without any specific donor’ influence or direction.What was not mentioned in the report, the news release or on the website: Executives for Monsanto Co., the world’s leading purveyor of agrichemicals and genetically engineered seeds, along with key Monsanto allies, engaged in fund raising for Academics Review, collaborated on strategy and even discussed plans to hide industry funding, according to emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know via state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Monsanto’s motives in attacking the organic industry are obvious: Monsanto’s seeds and chemicals are banned from use in organic farming, and a large part of Monsanto’s messaging is that its products are superior to organics as tools to boost global food production.”
If there is a glimmer of hope, it is that Monsanto is choking on its own pesticide-dependent GMO technology , employed since the 1990’s, and fostered by a mostly captured and compliant US regulatory framework. However, as Monsanto has been working on a merger with German Bayer to spread its global influence and profits, there are growing problems of more weed and pest resistance to the chemical crop technology.
F. William Engdahl, a strategic risk consultant recently authored an article in NEO: Will Superweeds Choke GMO to a Timely Death in USA? As nature revolts with chemical resistant weeds, and farmers choke on the endless cost path to using more and more chemicals to try to kill the super weeds, their soils health and fertility declines. As a consequence the nutritional content of crops and foods produced from this GMO chemical dependent agriculture has been declining and human health and fertility issues have been on the upswing. Additionally chemical toxins from Roundup, 2,4-D, Dicamba and pre-harvest dousings with more Glyphosate mount on the way to consumers’ food plates. An alarming study from University of Illinois researchers found 75% of fields contain resistant weeds. Coupled with USDA’s November 2016 deregulation action to a runaway resistant GMO bent grass, more GMO infiltration of organic crops is inevitable and containment cost burdens are being shifted from the federal government to states at an inopportune time. More and more farmers are shifting back to sustainable and organic farming methods as the GMO cost affordability and weed problems have exposed GMO as a flawed, failing, and unsustainable agricultural technology.
“It seems that the lies of Monsanto-Bayer, Dow-Dupont, ChemChina-Syngenta are coming back to haunt them. Far from their widely advertised claim that their patented GMO seeds need far less chemical weed-killers, USA farmers are finding out, over a period of years, that their crop acreages sprayed with ample doses of Roundup or other glyphosate-based weed-killers are fostering the growth of toxic Superweeds. Those superweeds are “glyphosate-resistant” meaning the Monsanto and other glyphosate weed-killers are useless. Farmers are forced to pour on other toxic weed-killer options to salvage their crops.”
What can you do to expedite the end of GMOs in our food ? Contact food companies such as with Nestle in this link . Current federal law allows food labeling and companies listen to consumers to protect their brands.
Can badly risk-assessed GMO grass genes be contained? It looks like Oregon will unfortunately be the 1st test case of the federal government shifting the job of managing GMO grass escapees to a state. Federal government regulatory failure, exacerbated by Obama’s USDA Secretary Vilsack, has essentially backed shifting GMO escapee control costs to states. In November of 2016, at the request of Scott’s and Monsanto, the USDA APHIS Biotechnology Regulatory Services section deregulated the grass stating: ” there is no longer any authority for APHIS to require a permit or notification for the importation, interstate movement, or environmental release of the regulated article pursuant to 7 CFR part 340.” In short, the federal government mismanaged the GMO grass control, and came up with this scheme for states to bear a dreadful burden. Can the promiscuous GMO genes be controlled or has the federal government opened up a wild Pandora’s Box?
A couple of years ago, the Connecticut legislature, under the forward looking leadership of Senate President Pro Tem Don Williams, put forth a pre-emptive initiative to keep promiscuous and pesticide-dependent GMO bluegrass genes out of CT lawns and ecosystems. However, Scott’s seed company, biotech industry interests and other political and industry interests, worked behind the scenes to stymie the legislation despite approval at the legislative committee level. Not only is GMO grass gene spread a critical issue wherever it has been tested, but containment is very problematic. The Federal government should not unfairly offload costly and risky control burdens to states via deregulation of the GMO grasses. Many states do not have the wherewithal to address these Pandora’s Box runaway genes, which independent scientists, researchers and many legislators have warned about for years. Instead , with the Oregon bentgrass deregulation and USDA easing the way, Scott’s has exploited a loophole to test the viability of GMO pesticide-dependent bluegrass in undisclosed locations, without public knowledge and lacking robust risk assessment. Instead of due diligence employing the Precautionary Principle as Europe has done to protect the public, the federal government has allowed Scott’s and other companies to situate test plots in unposted areas (unbeknownst to adjacent land owners) which could result in contamination of neighboring lands, nonGMO farm produce and more.
Consumers are at a serious disadvantage of being informed about Scott’s GMO pesticide-dependent lawn seed because is unlabeled due to negligent government risk assessment and industry-orchestrated PR science. It will also contribute to homeowner well water and surface water toxin contamination from applications of Roundup. And what if stronger pesticides like 2,4-D, Dicamba (and worse!) are used in a fruitless attempt to contain the Kentucky bluegrass and other GMO escapee grasses? Pesticide resistance is continuing to increase and more will have to be applied. Additionally, risks of export crop infiltration by unknown GMO genes could continue to result in losses to American export crops, particularly as many nations that will not accept GMO gene contamination.
Do you like your food, wine, and other beverages pesticide free? GMO-related approvals lacking robust risk assessment, and open marketplace experimentation (without consumer consent!), will continue to pose obstacles to source healthy, untainted food…..unless consumers keep wallets closed to GMO. Monsanto’s flawed and failing GMO technology continues to be exposed with increasing pesticide resistance to Roundup’s active Glyphosate ingredient. Meanwhile, USDA continues to dangerously greenlight triple-stacked GMO pesticide tolerant and next generation engineered plants, with inadequate risk assessment. Resultant casualties can include those individuals growing and wanting to eat crops from organic and sustainable farming methods, as well as toxic pesticide fallout on whole ecosystems! Unless a plant is genetically engineered to tolerate 2 additional chemical sprays (that have been approved for GMO crops without appropriate consideration to farmers’ non GMO plants and homeowner gardens), all vegetation can be harmed due to atmospheric drift of volatile Dicamba and 2,4-D. http://www.ecowatch.com/wine-monsanto-dow-dicamba-2-4-d-2177053648.html
Soils and ecosystems will also be receiving much higher pesticide dousings in the New Year as more toxic pesticide technology is rolled out. As a consequence, health care costs will likely rise from the toxic spray drift residues ending up on food you consume. The US government doesn’t routinely measure or inform consumers about such contamination.
In a further development to expand this pernicious GMO monoculture agricultural technology, a Monsanto merger with Bayer, will likely expedite the global spread of this newer genetically engineered plant technology. What is very sinister about this new triple stacked GMO pesticide-dependent technology is that it is truly intolerant of native plant ecosystems and nonGMO farming, including your backyard garden patch. You won’t know you’re on the receiving end of pesticide toxins until your plants silently succumb or your health is compromised. So in this new year we must all remain vigilant and actively hold our decision makers to be accountable to the American people, especially when health care and agriculture are on the table.