Monsanto. Breaking Story. Don’t Let This Go Unshared!

Banana seeds are why we need to stop spraying.
Look it up.

a reply to: luthier

See here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TJames

How did you let this happen America?

What?

European farmers feared losing the ability to use glyphosate herbicides, after European lawmakers nearly implemented a ban on its use.

www.abc.net.au...

Which means they loose their ability to compete? The same reason why the US and EU wont let Africa soar and grow, coz it means big competition!? money money money...

a reply to: MysterX
"Millions will probably die an early death or at least become seriously ill...tragic how people can become so addicted to money and greed so they can recklessly endanger huge amounts of people and even potentially and ultimately kill and injure more people that the biggest killers throughout history, it might turn out that murderers like Hitler might have nothing on Monsanto."

I brought this article up a few years ago
Monsanto Merges with Pharmecuetical Giant

Again I beg to ask the question. What does monsanto look to gain from making people sick?
one only must ask the pharmaceutical branch to find the asnwer.

a reply to: PainGod

No hyperbole there. No sir.

a reply to: Phage

What I am seeing is a fast reaction by the EU when new information comes out. Something the US rarely does.

It was severely restricted in 2017 and also has banned some of the chemicals that were shown to be immediately harmful to cells.

a reply to: luthier

Some might call it a knee-jerk reaction.

a reply to: Phage

Why? The studies have shown problems. The class action in the US continues to move forward?

a reply to: luthier

I suppose what I mean is that there are conflicting studies. I understand the idea of erring on the side of caution but I also understand that it is not uncommon for politics to outweigh science. For example, in the US politics are currently outweighing climate science and there is not a lot of conflict in that science.

a reply to: Phage

What conflicting studies? The only conflict I see is that the studies that say it's fine in small doses don't actually check the round up formula. They isolate the active ingredient.

a reply to: luthier

Sorry, my fault. I was not on the topic of adjuvants. You are correct and, as I said, I'm aware of those studies.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: smurfy

I don't see the point that they prosecute on their patent being relevant any more than I see the product being relevant any more.

The patent expired in 2000.
Glyphosate works and is certainly less toxic than alternatives.

 

That the WHO, in a very convoluted way now say the Glyphosate is, "probably Carcinogenic" should be enough for most to say no more...get it OTF.

That statement was in regard to direct exposure of agricultural workers.

For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The evidence in humans is from studies of exposures, mostly agricultural, in the USA, Canada, and Sweden published since 2001.

www.iarc.fr...

In regard to diet:

In view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.

www.who.int...

In regard to patent Monsanto says this on their site, April 2017,

"In many cases, these farmers remain our customers. Sometimes however, we are forced to resort to lawsuits. This is a relatively rare circumstance, with 147 lawsuits filed since 1997 in the United States. This averages about 8 per year for the past 18 years. To date, only 9 cases have gone through full trial. In every one of these instances, the jury or court decided in our favor." eight per year then..instead of 147 in the space of three years..1997 to 2000, give or take for the time to come to court...why the deceptiveness

In regard to WHO, they actually say, it is, "probably carcinogenic" ..with the caveats as you point out, but, at the end of the day, that does not make anything conclusive one way or the other. However, nor does it say how fatalities could be caused by abnormalities in body organs, long lived or otherwise..it just limits the possible, or perhaps even documented elsewhere, long term effects, that could be fatal, just by eating your cornflakes so to speak, that's not even in regard to anything else being in them..like old rusty nails whatever, for instance...iron rust..where's the advisory/ies?
Why, easy to eat the crap if you don't know if it can harm you, as in you ..or not. However the logic should tell you by the same process, that something that needs to be interfered with to make a new process has to pass proper muster as much as can be done by humans versus nature and we ain't anyway near that yet, factor in the politique, and you could easily say that Monsanto is the Arthur Daly of chemical companies.

a reply to: smurfy

In regard to patent Monsanto says this on their site, April 2017,

That isn't about Roundup. Is it? Because their patent expired in 2000.

The rest of your post got a little word salady but I did agree earlier that it would be nice if no one used any chemical fertilizers or pesticides.

Sorry if this has been asked but how in the world is it in organic products?

Aren't organic foods supposed to be free of chemicals?

a reply to: FamCore

Organic does not allow for this, however cross polination and cross contamination is rife. The biggest problem being run off into the ground water, so the glyphosphate is getting into everything. Its an endocrine disrupter amongst other things...
The best food purchases are dual certified...IE Organic and non GMO verified as they do assays in nongmo verified. Non GMO on its own however probably means a witches brew of chemicals as the Organic standards dont apply...its a tricky world for the average person if they are unaware of food science.

a reply to: Phage

"No hyperbole there. No sir."

A simple question based on established fact is an exaggeration?

As leader of the plant Safety program I had to deal with tons of MSDS sheets on all of the hazardous materials at our facility. It is not uncommon to see safe limits as low as .1ppb. Exceeding what is considered safe is usually not right at the boundary between life and death. 'Safe limits' fall far short of immediately life threatening. Some cause illness, some cause fertility issues, some cause immune system issues, etc. The effects of these chemicals may not be known until years after exposure. And of course then the argument is how many other harmful chemicals were you exposed to and how do you separate the damage of one from the other. While these legal battles rage on year after year plaintiffs slowly die off or go bankrupt and end up dropping their case.

Our food is literally killing us. And now with nation of origin labeling no longer required I bet its going to get even worse.

a reply to: PainGod

Millions will probably die an early death or at least become seriously ill

Yes. Hyperbole.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

It is not uncommon to see safe limits as low as .1ppb.

Sounds nasty. I sure wouldn't want to eat anything like that.

a reply to: silo13

How is this just hitting ATS? I thought this was common knowledge. Even the posted story/meme. I saw it a long time ago.