|Back to Back Issues Page|
August 27, 2018
We had two plus inches of lovely rain.
Yes, a couple of thunderstorms moved through over night.
I can't recall the last time we had a good old fashion thunderstorm.
Pictures from this past week.
Sophie seems to enjoy laying on her back.
Snickers, a deer family, a hummingbird, and Goldfinch.
At the bottom are two butterflies that seem to have had a bad week.
An Eastern Tiger Swallowtail and a Monarch with clear evidence of escaping to live another day.
A lot to get to this week, I'm sorry, I must continue into next week to get into food and your heath.
I hope you are learning some, and taking this serious.
I continue to learn more, and more, as I continue the discovery process.
The dangers of some chemicals.
Some strange hand holding and bed fellows.
Who can you trust?
This is why you need to be your own advocate at times.
Feel free to click on the sites posted here as well.
The Rolling Stone:
Internal Documents produced in court indicated Monsanto had reason to believe glyphosate was dangerous as early as 1983, when a study conducted by the company discovered a statistically-significant increased risk of cancer in mice who were treated with glyphosate. The EPA was alarmed by the finding, but Monsanto dismissed the results, saying it wasn’t definitive because a single mouse who was not exposed to the pesticide also developed a tumor. The agency wanted the study replicated, but Monsanto refused. “They fought over that one mouse’s kidney for years, spent millions of dollars on
experts, instead of just doing the test again,” Litzenburg says. “The EPA even offered a compromise — let’s just do a kidney and liver test. Monsanto said ‘no.’ It’s amazing how often they’re able to say no to the EPA.”
The reason the company was able to say ‘no’ to the agency ostensibly charged with regulating its products, says Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, is because the pesticide companies quite literally bankroll the EPA’s pesticide office. Under the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, pesticide manufacturers are required to pay registration fees, and those fees amount to about a third of the office’s operating budget.
The system was originally conceived as a way to make sure the companies who profit from the products pay for the costs associated with regulating those products, rather than the taxpayers. But, in Donley’s view, the plan has backfired spectacularly. “If industry is paying for 30-to-40 percent of the operating cost — the salaries — of the pesticide office, who are they working for?”
Think about that one for a moment.
This next part goes into paying universities and some professors to pretty much agree with Monsanto and we will reward you.
Former University of Illinois food science professor Bruce Chassy is known for his academic gravitas. Now retired nearly four years, Chassy still writes and speaks often about food safety issues, identifying himself with the full weight of the decades of experience earned at the public university and as a researcher at the National Institutes of Health. Chassy tells audiences that before he retired in 2012, he worked “full time” doing research and teaching.
Monsanto gifts and grants from $10,000 to as much as $250,000 to to the university of Illinois for 'Agriculture-Related Projects. At least 1.9 million the last five years.
Dr. Folta said that he had joined the campaign to publicly defend genetically modified technologies because he believes they are safe, and that it is his job to share his expertise. “Nobody tells me what to say, and nobody tells me what to think,” he said, adding, “Every point I make is based on evidence.”
Put your name on a ghost written article an BAM, money appears.
Or so it seems.
Multiple EPA officials colluded with Monsanto to slow a safety review of the company’s glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup, according to email communications obtained by Freedom of Information Act requests.
Monsanto officials first reached out to the EPA in early 2015 regarding the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s planned toxicology review of the herbicide, which the CDC said would be published by October 2015.
This review has yet to be published, something EcoWatch notes was “no accident, no bureaucratic delay, but rather was the result of a collaborative effort between Monsanto and a group of high-ranking EPA officials.”
" I think it’s very clear… that EPA officials and Monsanto employees worked together to accomplish a goal of stopping that analysis,” Brent Wisner, a lawyer representing many of the cancer victims who are suing Monsanto, told EcoWatch. “That is collusion. I don’t know what else you’d call that.”
The following year, the EPA released a cancer assessment report contradicting the findings of the IARC, declaring that glyphosate was not likely to cause cancer.
In late July of this year, a New Zealand Green Party report revealed local scientists were “highly critical” of the EPA’s review.
“It’s really unclear to me why the EPA decided to essentially ignore the IARC report, commission a report by a single author who is just not able to provide the same level of expertise as 17 experts across the globe and then come up with different conclusions,” Jeroen Douwes, director of Massey University’s centre for Public Health Research, told Radio New Zealand, adding that he wasn’t sure if the EPA was bowing to outside influence or otherwise “incompetent.”
These are only the latest FOIA-obtained documents that show collusion between Monsanto and outside entities to hide the dangers of glyphosate. More than 75 documents released by the law firm Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman during the lawsuit against Monsanto on behalf of people who have become ill with non-Hodgkin lymphoma as a result of exposure to the company’s Roundup product show that Monsanto was aware of the dangers of Roundup and colluded with academics as well as with the news media to hide these dangers from the public.
Folks, this isn't the first time I have read about government agencies and Monsanto as strange bed fellows.
The FDA and USDA seem to be holding hands with Big AG as well.
Monsanto and Big AG in Politics.
And it's not like both companies decided to start lobbying the government in anticipation of this big merger. In fact, both companies have a long history of political spending; over the past decade, Bayer and Monsanto have spent a combined $120 million on lobbying.
On June 7, 2018, the deal is done.
After $63 Billion Dollar purchase, name will change.
The closing sets the stage for the 117-year-old agribusiness brand name "Monsanto" to be dropped by Bayer. Monsanto's efforts to promote genetically modified crops have been the subject of much controversy from anti-GMO activists, and the U.S. company has spent millions of dollars over the years on brand and corporate ad campaigns to improve its overall image.
I am adding this:
Depending on the year and elections, Monsanto contributes serious money to political campaigns.
It doesn't matter what side of the isle either.
In my opinion, contributions are to who they think will serve Monsanto best.
This can also be looked up online.
Big food, farm and biotechnology companies and trade associations working to prevent labeling of food containing genetically engineered ingredients reported spending $101.4 million on lobbying last year.
As the fight over GMO labeling heats up this year, spending trends in Washington’s point sharply higher.
The food companies that spent the most last year for anti-GMO-labeling legislation and other issues were Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kellogg’s, Kraft Heinz Co., Land O’Lakes and General Mills.
Disclosures filed by these companies reported $20.6 million in expenditures on lobbying to fight GMO labeling and other legislative priorities.
One last thing.
All told, since 2013, the food, farm and biotech industries have disclosed spending $192.8 million for lobbying to influence federal GMO labeling legislation and for other issues.
GMO labeling garners overwhelming support from Americans. Polls show that nine of 10 Americans support mandatory GMO food labeling.
The practice is widely accepted internationally: Some 64 other nations have labeling laws.
Labeling foods that contain GMOs has not increased food prices in those nations that require such disclosures. Studies show that a simple GMO disclosure on food labels will have no impact on food prices or food security.Indeed, Money Talks.
From higher education, to greedy politicians.
Big Ag is banking on your ignorance and having a trusting soul.
I know I could have done a much better job presenting this to you.
Time issues, a boggles mind, and I'm simply not trained to be a writer.
That is all I can squeeze in this week.
Feel free to look up the sites I gave you.
Do more digging, it is a real eye opener my friend.
Glyphosate and your health.
Well, it is time to fly for now.
Before I go, here is your positive thought for the week.
"I believe that the greatest gift you can give your family and the world is a healthy you.
Eve the bible mentions eating healthy.
"Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;
you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies".
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God".
1 Corinthians 10:31
"Treat the earth well:
It was not given to you by your parents,
It was loaned to you by your children.
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors,
We borrow it from our Children."
Ancient Indian Proverb.
Your friend indeed,
Better yet, have them sign up so they can receive their own letters.
|Back to Back Issues Page|