MONSANTO "Knowingly Poisoned Workers" Causing Devastating Birth Defects -

page: 2
28
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Urantia1111

Originally posted by Snoopy1978
reply to post by Helious
 


Ill be surprised if he pm's you. Some have no interest in the truth but ample concern for spreading doubt publicly.



I really doubt anyone is listening to him. The "piece by piece quote with rebuttal" format is a well-known hallmark of a shill/troll/derailer. People recognize it and scroll right on by, as they should.


Thanks for calling me a shill. Thats pretty mean when I am just trying to ask questions and spark a debate.




posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


Well, you did sorta act like a shill.
That's because Google is out there, it's easy to find information on Monsanto, there's tons of movies and documentaries.

Everyone that I know that has spent 30 minutes looking at Monsanto links and stuff already out there all seem to come to the conclusion: Monsanto is evil.

When you want to derail a thread, take a page from the every other shill and challenge the person repeatedly to provide you with evidence while denying it exists if they do come up with it - but it's really not their place if you want to learn, it is yours.

You can search, if you want, Anniston + Monsanto for court documents. That's a good place to start, imo, because I live close to there. The sheer number of cancer death coming out of that area floors me - I don't know the stats, I just know several people that have died of cancer from that area. Lots of endocrine and brain cancers.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by hadriana
 





That's because Google is out there, it's easy to find information on Monsanto, there's tons of movies and documentaries.


Simple concept to understand.

It is not my responsibility to prove your claims. What you don't seem to be getting is that I have done my research, I have not found any evidence that Moansanto' "GMO's" are dangerous. I have seen those youtube videos, I have read those blogs.

I get why you are not posting evidence of your claims though. You dont have any.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by skitzspiricy
 


I don't think that suing Monsanto is the way to go. That's because, like you said, they have their finger in so many pies, including GOVERNMENT pies. The laws are written to aid them and KEEP them from being sued.

That's what has to change. Law suits are good in that they bring public attention, but the public needs to quit being sheep that think we have no power.

I don't KNOW what the answer is, but a big part of it has to be educating ourselves and others about them, and making a demand for alternative products.

The State Dept needs to answer for what they've done - starving millions in order to push Monsanto onto people. The whole Monsanto/Govt Bed needs to be stripped bare and the dirty laundry aired. Then it needs to become a big hot button political issue. IF ONLY it were a fourth of the issue abortion was! IF ONLY!!!!

I mean, why isn't it? It affects the unborn - probably MORE die from Monsanto than get aborted. We have those state department documents that show how many were starved - how many were pregnant? How many unborn weren't born because of that? How many infants and children die?

Why are they pushing Monsanto and not permaculture on Africa? (to exploit Africa more!)
Why is Bill Gates foundation pushing Monsanto? (because we all just love that foundation, oh it helps so many people - he just gives that money away!!!! Reality check - The Gates Foundation is a FOR PROFIT foundation, no matter what they call themselves.)

Educate yourself and talk about these things. Don't say, I am scared, people will think I am a conspiracy nut. Say just enough that people start looking at it for themselves.

I am glad Occupy took up the Monsanto issue. I wish they'd have done it better and more publically though. That is the kind of thing that it will take. Law Suits won't go far because they own the law makers.
edit on 16-4-2012 by hadriana because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Urantia1111

Originally posted by Snoopy1978
reply to post by Helious
 


Ill be surprised if he pm's you. Some have no interest in the truth but ample concern for spreading doubt publicly.


Absolutely what I was thinking.... there are more and more shills and disinfo agents on this board, all the time. Another sign is thousands of posts on a few months time... come on. Quit spreading your lies to confuse those that are trying to learn something. Go get another job you damn sellouts.


I really doubt anyone is listening to him. The "piece by piece quote with rebuttal" format is a well-known hallmark of a shill/troll/derailer. People recognize it and scroll right on by, as they should.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


Well, you did sorta act like a shill.
That's because Google is out there, it's easy to find information on Monsanto, there's tons of movies and documentaries.

Everyone that I know that has spent 30 minutes looking at Monsanto links and stuff already out there all seem to come to the conclusion: Monsanto is evil.

When you want to derail a thread, take a page from the every other shill and challenge the person repeatedly to provide you with evidence while denying it exists if they do come up with it - but it's really not their place if you want to learn, it is yours.

You can search, if you want, Anniston + Monsanto for court documents. That's a good place to start, imo, because I live close to there. The sheer number of cancer death coming out of that area floors me - I don't know the stats, I just know several people that have died of cancer from that area. Lots of endocrine and brain cancers.


glyphosate has been shown to be an endocrine disrupter and it increases mortality of placenta cells.. Anyone claiming it's perfectly safe is delusional.

As you've pointed out, there's a wealth of information out there.. some people are just too lazy to use it and like to argue instead.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by hadriana
 





That's because Google is out there, it's easy to find information on Monsanto, there's tons of movies and documentaries.


Simple concept to understand.

It is not my responsibility to prove your claims. What you don't seem to be getting is that I have done my research, I have not found any evidence that Moansanto' "GMO's" are dangerous. I have seen those youtube videos, I have read those blogs.

I get why you are not posting evidence of your claims though. You dont have any.


You just narrowed your argument to GMO .. the thread is about Monsanto pesticides and poisoning that resulted, not about the dangers of GMO although that is debatable.. the question about GMO is less in my mind how dangerous they are, but the fact they go largely unchecked in this area. there's not nearly enough oversight into what they do .. The FDA sure isn't capable.. they are a joke..

But given how bad Monsanto is in most areas of their business, I don't trust them to alter my food either.. Besides, when you introduce GMO into the food supply, you introduce patenting of those modifications.. that's a BAD idea when you're dealing with a food source..



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


I'll humor you.. in just a quick 5 minute search.. I found plenty to be worried about... you honestly found nothing?

FDA finds toxins, even though they found it questionable they didn't require it to be withdrawn .. WAY TO GO FDA
Monsanto and GM Foods - Health Risks


The very first crop submitted to the FDA’s voluntary consultation process, the FlavrSavr tomato, showed evidence of toxins. Out of 20 female rats fed the GM tomato, 7 developed stomach lesions.4 The director of FDA’s Office of Special Research Skills wrote that the tomatoes did not demonstrate a “reasonable certainty of no harm,”5 which is their normal standard of safety. The Additives Evaluation Branch agreed that “unresolved questions still remain.”6 The political appointees, however, did not require that the tomato be withdrawn.1


More...


The state of the liver—a main detoxifier for the body—is another indicator of toxins.

* Rats fed the GNA lectin potatoes described above had smaller and partially atrophied livers.11
* Rats fed Monsanto’s Mon 863 corn, engineered to produce Bt-toxin, had liver lesions and other indications of toxicity.12
* Rabbits fed GM soy showed altered enzyme production in their livers as well as higher metabolic activity.13
* The livers of rats fed Roundup Ready canola were 12%–16% heavier, possibly due to liver disease or inflammation.14
* And microscopic analysis of the livers of mice fed Roundup Ready soybeans revealed altered gene expression and structural and functional changes.15 Many of these changes reversed after the mice diet was switched to non-GM soy, indicating that GM soy was the culprit. The findings, according to molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, PhD, “are not random and must reflect some ‘insult’ on the liver by the GM soy.” Antoniou, who does human gene therapy research in King’s College London, said that although the long-term consequences of the GM soy diet are not known, it “could lead to liver damage and consequently general toxemia.”16



www.naturalnews.com...


A large number of studies and incidents have implicated GM foods in a wide variety of health problems, including accelerated aging, immune dysfunction, insulin disorders, organ damage and reproductive disruption.

For example, female rats fed a diet of GM soy experienced a drastically higher infant death rate, and their surviving infants were smaller and less fertile than the offspring of rats fed on a non-GM soy diet.



Top 10 dangers of GMO foods
www.invigorate360.com...

I'm only citing the point I find relevant to this.. there is NOT enough testing done..


The small amount of information available about genetically modified foods is skewed and not accurate at times. When the application for Roundup Ready genetically modified soybeans was completed for market approval of the soybeans, the information in the application was based on the safety level and compound concentration levels of traditional soybeans and not from testing on the genetically modified version.
edit on 4/16/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I have given up driving because I didn't want to be a contributing factor in the pollution of this planet or complacent in the deaths of US service men and women in the middle east. Now I must consider giving up my smokes as well now It gets harder and harder every day to try and insure I am not feeding into the type of evil that is destroying lives as well as the planet I am living on.

Someone should start a "who's the most evil thread" I am betting Monsanto is in the top three.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Sorry, but when it comes to Monsanto and the United States, it's already too late.

Many countries, including several in the EU, have banned Monsanto products completely. It's not likely the USA will ever be able to do the same - Monsanto has Congresspeople and Senators bought and paid for by what is laughingly called "lobbying" in the United States.

USA - the most corrupt political system on the planet, bar none.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


Environmental and health record

According to an anonymous 2001 _27] obtained by the Center for Public Integrity, Monsanto has been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as being a "potentially responsible party" for 56 contaminated sites (Superfund sites) in the United States. Monsanto has been sued, and has settled, multiple times for damaging the health of its employees or residents near its Superfund sites through pollution and poisoning.[5][28][29] In 2004 The Wildlife Habitat Council and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Environmental Performance Track presented a special certificate of recognition to Monsanto Company during WHC's 16th Annual Symposium.

Monsanto is the largest producer of glyphosate herbicides through its popular brand, Roundup. A report released in June 2011 linked glyphosate to birth defects in frog and chicken embryos at dilutions much lower than those used in agricultural and garden spraying.[30]

Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications (referring to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) explained the company's regulatory philosophy to Michael Pollan in 1998: "Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA's job."[31]

[edit] Genetically modified organisms

Main article: Genetically modified organism





This section requires expansion.


Many of Monsanto's seed products are specifically genetically modified to make them resistant to Monsanto produced agricultural chemicals, such as "Round Up" herbicide. In a study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences, researchers applied a different statistical analysis on raw data obtained from Monsanto and concluded that these GM corn (maize) varieties induced a state of hepatorenal toxicity.[32] They suggested that the presence of the new pesticides associated with the inserted genes were responsible, although the possibility that this could be due to a mutation during the transformation process was not excluded.[32]

Monsanto was drawn into the Genetically modified food controversies over the Pusztai affair.[33] Dr. Arpad Pusztai's experiments suggested that it was the process of genetic engineering, not the presence of the inserted lectin gene that altered the thickness of the gut epithelium in rats when fed genetically modified potatoes.[34] In other words it was the process of genetic engineering itself, not the presence of pesticides caused by the engineering which caused the damage to rats. The publication of this study has resulted in much controversy.[35]

[edit] Terminator seed controversy

Main article: Genetic use restriction technology

In June 2007,[36] Monsanto acquired Delta & Pine Land Company, a company that had patented a seed technology nicknamed Terminators. This technology, which was never known to have been used commercially, produces plants that have sterile seeds so they do not flower or grow fruit after the initial planting. This prevents the spread of those seeds into the wild, however it also requires customers to repurchase seed for every planting in which they use Terminator seed varieties. In recent years, widespread opposition from environmental organizations and farmer associations has grown, mainly out of the concerns that seeds using this technology could increase farmers' dependency on seed suppliers.

In 1999, Monsanto pledged not to commercialize Terminator technology.[37] Delta Vice President, Harry Collins, stated in an October 2000 press interview in the Agra/Industrial Biotechnology Legal Letter, ‘We’ve continued right on with work on the Technology Protection System (TPS or Terminator). We never really slowed down. We’re on target, moving ahead to commercialize it. We never really backed off.’[38]

[edit] rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone)

Main article: Bovine somatotropin

Monsanto sparked controversy nationwide with the introduction of recombinant Bovine somatotropin, abbreviated as rBST and commonly known as rBGH. It is a synthetic hormone that is injected into cows to increase milk production. Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1) is a hormone stimulated by rBGH in the cow's blood stream, which is directly responsible for the increase in milk production. IGF-1 is a natural hormone found in the milk of both humans and cows causing the quick growth of infants.[citation needed] IGF-1 is also normally present in saliva.[39]

Though this IGF-1 occurs naturally in mothers' milk to be fed to their infants it produces adverse effects in non-infants, behaving as a cancer accelerator in adults and non-infants; this biologically active hormone is associated with breast cancer (correlation shown in premenopausal women),[40] prostate cancer,[41] lung cancer[42] and colon cancers.[42][43]

A Monsanto-sponsored survey of milk showed no significant difference in rBST levels in milk labeled as "rBST-Free" or "organic milk" vs milk not labeled as such.[44]

According to The New York Times[45] Monsanto's brand of rBST, Posilac, has recently (March 2008) been the focus for a pro-rBST advocacy group called AFACT, made up of large dairy business conglomerates and closely affiliated with Monsanto itself. This group has engaged in large-scale lobbying efforts at the state level to prevent milk which is rBST-free from being labeled as such. As milk labeled as hormone-free has proved enormously popular with consumers, the primary justification by AFACT for their efforts has been that rBST is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and that the popularity of milk sold without it is damaging what they claim to be the right of dairy producers to use a technology that maximizes their profits.

Thus far, a large-scale negative consumer response to AFACT's legislative and regulatory efforts has kept state regulators from pushing through restrictions that would ban hormone-free milk labels, though several politicians have tried, including Pennsylvania's agriculture secretary Dennis Wolff, who tried to ban rBST-free milk labeling on the grounds that "consumers are confused". The statement by Agriculture Secretary Wolff was reported by pro-biotech site Earth Friendly-Farm Friendly which elaborated on the issues of rBGH/rBST labelling:


"Consumers are getting confused with the extra labels," said Pennsylvania Ag Secretary Dennis Wolff. "They deserve a choice, and so do producers. But from the standpoint of safety, all milk is healthy milk. Our milk is a safe product. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is not in a position to say use rBST or not. The key word is: choice. I used rBST from day one of its approval to the last day that I milked cows. It was an important management tool on my dairy farm. What we oppose is the negative advertising or the selling of fear. If producers are asked to give up a production efficiency, and if that efficiency nets them $3000 or $10,000 a year for their dairy farm… That's a lot of money.[46]

Proposed labeling changes have been floated by AFACT lobbyists in New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Utah, Missouri and Vermont thus far.[citation needed]

In October 2008, Monsanto sold this business, in full, to Eli Lilly for a price of $300 million plus additional considerations.[47]

[edit] Pollution in Anniston, Alabama

In 2002, The Washington Post carried a front page report on Monsanto's legacy of environmental damage in Anniston, Alabama related to its legal production of polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs), a chemical once used as a common electrical insulator, 40 years ago. Plaintiffs in a pending lawsuit provided documentation showing that the local Monsanto factory knowingly discharged both mercury and PCB-laden waste into local creeks for over 40 years.[48] In a story on January 27, The New York Times reported that during 1969 alone Monsanto had dumped 45 tons of PCBs into Snow Creek, a feeder for Choccolocco Creek which supplies much of the area's drinking water. The company also buried millions of pounds of PCB in open-pit landfills located on hillsides above the plant and surrounding neighborhoods.[49] In August 2003, Solutia and Monsanto agreed to pay plaintiffs $700 million to settle claims by over 20,000 Anniston residents related to PCB contamination.[50]

[edit] Legal issues

Monsanto is notable for its involvement in high profile lawsuits, as both plaintiff and defendant. It has been involved in a number of class action suits, where fines and damages have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, usually over health issues related to its products. Monsanto has also made frequent use of the courts to defend its patents, particularly in the area of biotechnology.

Monsanto has received media coverage for its alleged unfair suing of farmers, highlighted in the documentary The World according to Monsanto.[51]

[edit] As defendant

In 1971, the US government filed suit against Monsanto over the safety of its original product, saccharin; Monsanto eventually won, after several years in court.[52]

It was sued, along with Dow and other chemical companies by veterans for the side effects of its Agent Orange defoliant, used by the US military in the Vietnam War.[53]

Monsanto was the defendant in the longest civil jury trial in U.S. history, Kemner v. Monsanto. This case ran from February 1984 through October 1987. The case involved a group of plaintiffs who claimed to have been poisoned by dioxin in a 1979 chemical spill that occurred in Sturgeon, Missouri.[54]

In 2000, GLC sued Monsanto for the $71 million shortfall in expected sales.

In 2004, the world's largest agrichemical company, Switzerland's Syngenta, launched a US lawsuit charging Monsanto with using coercive tactics to monopolize markets.[55] There are several lawsuits going both ways between Monsanto and Syngenta.

In 2005, the US DOJ filed a Deferred Prosecution Agreement[56] in which Monsanto admitted to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1) and making false entries into its books and records (15 U.S.C § 78m(b)(2) & (5)).

In late 2006, the Correctional Tribunal of Carcassone, France, ordered two directors of Monsanto subsidiary Asgrow to pay a €15,000 fine related to their knowledge of the presence of unauthorized GMOs in bags of seeds imported by Asgrow on 13 April 2000.[57]

In November 2010, a federal judge ordered the destruction of plantings of genetically modified sugar beets developed by Monsanto after ruling previously that the U.S. Agriculture Department had illegally approved the biotech crop.[58]

[edit] As plaintiff

Since the mid-1990s, it has sued 145 individual US farmers for patent infringement in connection with its genetically engineered seed.[59] The usual claim involves violation of a technology agreement that prohibits farmers from saving seed from one season's crop to plant the next, a common farming practice.[60] One farmer received an eight-month prison sentence for violating a court order to destroy seeds,[61] in addition to having to pay damages, when a Monsanto case turned into a criminal prosecution.[62]

In 2003, Monsanto sued Oakhurst Dairy in Maine for advertising that its milk products did not come from cows treated with bovine growth hormone, claiming that such advertising hurt its business. The president of Oakhurst responded by saying, "We ought to have the right to let people know what is and is not in our milk."[63]

In 1998, Monsanto's patented genes were discovered in the canola grown on Percy Schmeiser's farm. As a result, Monsanto sued Percy Schmeiser for patent infringement for growing genetically modified Roundup-resistant canola. The trial judge ruled that Schmeiser had intentionally planted the seeds, ruling that the "infringement arises not simply from occasional or limited contamination of his Roundup susceptible canola by plants that are Roundup resistant. He planted his crop for 1998 with seed that he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant."[11] This high profile case, Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, went to the Supreme Court level.

Monsanto representative Trish Jordan commented: "This is very good news for us, Mr. Schmeiser had infringed on our patent." After years of legal wrangling, in 2004 the case was heard by the Canadian Supreme Court. The Court ruled in favor of Monsanto, rejecting Schmeiser's argument that by not using Roundup herbicide on the canola, he did not "use" the plant gene. The Court ruled that farming is an activity that requires human intervention, and so by planting the crops, Schmeiser was "using" the plant gene. However, Schmeiser also won a partial victory, with the Supreme Court disagreeing with the damages given by the trial judge. The Supreme Court stated that since Schmeiser did not gain any profit from the infringement, he did not owe Monsanto any damages. Though the amount of damages were low (C$19,382), this also meant that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto's substantial legal bills.

The case did cause Monsanto's enforcement tactics to be highlighted in the media over the years it took to play out.[64]

Monsanto has asked Spanish customs officials to inspect soymeal shipments to determine if they use Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" technology.[citation needed]

[edit] Related legal actions

[edit] In USA

In 1997, it was alleged the news division of WTVT (Channel 13), a Fox-owned station in Tampa, Florida, cooperated with Monsanto in suppressing an investigative report on the health risks associated with Monsanto's bovine growth hormone product, Posilac.[65] Posilac, a synthetic hormone used to increase milk production in cows, while banned in many first-world countries, is used in the United States. Steve Wilson and Jane Akre reported on the dangers of the hormone. They were asked to recant their story and refused. Both reporters were eventually fired. Wilson and Akre alleged the firing was for retaliation, while WTVT contended they were fired for insubordination. The reporters then sued Fox/WTVT in Florida state court, claiming they could not be fired for refusing to do something that they believed to be illegal. In 2000, a Florida jury found that while there was no evidence Fox/WTVT had bowed to any pressure from Monsanto to alter the story, Akre, but not Wilson, was unjustly fired.[66] Fox appealed the decision citing that the FCC CODE that stated the news stations must report the truth, is just a "policy" not a law. The court overturned the decision.[67] The decision in Akre's favor was then overturned in 2003 by an appeals court because the whistleblower's statute under which the original case had been filed did not actually apply to the case.

[edit] Monsanto vs Andhra Pradesh Government in India

The state of Andhra Pradesh, India, at first resisted Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton, and having failed to block imports of the seed, has more recently attempted to control its price. In 2005, after the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the Indian regulatory authority, released a fact-finding statement,[68] the state agriculture minister barred the company from selling cotton seeds in the state of Andhra Pradesh.[69] The order was later lifted. More recently, the Andhra Pradesh state government filed several cases[70] against Monsanto and its Mumbai based licensee Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds, after they challenged the order directing the company not to charge a trait price of more than Rs. 900 per pack of 450 grams of Bt. Cotton seed.[71] The Andhra Pradesh State Government has also sought a compensation package of about Rs 4.5 crore (about 1 Million US$) to be paid by the company to farmers affected in some districts.

[edit] In USA and Canada

On 30 March 2011 a group consisting of over 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations in Canada and the US, filed a lawsuit against Monsanto Company to challenge the chemical giant’s patents on genetically modified seed. The plaintiffs say they are being forced to sue pre-emptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed. The case, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed in federal district court in Manhattan.[72] On January 31, 2012, in New York, a U.S. district court heard arguments to determine whether or not to proceed forward with the suit.[73] The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the lawsuit on February 24. District Court Judge Naomi Buchwald criticized the plaintiffs for a “transparent effort to create a controversy where none exists.”[74][75] The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association and others already plan to appeal the decision.[76]

[edit] Dumping of toxic waste in the UK

Between 1965 and 1972, Monsanto paid contractors to illegally dump thousands of tons of highly toxic waste in UK landfill sites, knowing that their chemicals were liable to contaminate wildlife and people. The Environment Agency said the chemicals were found to be polluting groundwater and the atmosphere 30 years after they were dumped.[77]

The Brofiscin quarry, near Cardiff, erupted in 2003, spilling fumes over the surrounding area, but the local community was unaware that the quarry housed toxic waste.

A UK government report shows that 67 chemicals, including Agent Orange derivatives, dioxins and PCBs exclusively made by Monsanto, are leaking from one unlined porous quarry that was not authorized to take chemical wastes. It emerged that the groundwater has been polluted since the 1970s.[78] The government was criticised for failing to publish information about the scale and exact nature of this contamination. According to the Environment Agency it could cost £100m to clean up the site in south Wales, called "one of the most contaminated" in the UK.[79]

[edit] Indonesian bribing convictions

In January 2005, Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5m fine for bribing an Indonesian official. Monsanto admitted a senior manager at Monsanto directed an Indonesian consulting firm to give a $50,000 bribe to a high-level official in Indonesia's environment ministry in 2002, in a bid to avoid Environmental impact assessment on its genetically modified cotton. Monsanto told the company to disguise an invoice for the bribe as "consulting fees". Monsanto also has admitted to paying bribes to a number of other high-ranking Indonesian officials between 1997 and 2002. Monsanto faced both criminal and civil charges from the Department of Justice and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Monsanto has agreed to pay $1m to the Department of Justice and $500,000 to the SEC to settle the bribe charge and other related violations.[80]

On 5 March 2008 the deferred prosecution agreement against Monsanto was dismissed with prejudice (unopposed by the Department of Justice) by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, thereby indicating that Monsanto had complied fully with the terms of the agreement.

[edit] Fined in France for false advertising

Monsanto was fined $19,000 in a French court on 26 January 2007 for misleading the public about the environmental impact of its herbicide Roundup. A former chairman of Monsanto Agriculture France was found guilty of false advertising for presenting Roundup as biodegradable and claiming that it left the soil clean after use.

Environmental and consumer rights campaigners brought the case in 2001 on the basis that glyphosate, Roundup's main ingredient, is classed as "dangerous for the environment" and "toxic for aquatic organisms" by the European Union. Monsanto's French distributor Scotts France was also fined 15,000 euros. Both defendants were ordered to pay damages of 5,000 euros to the Brittany Water and Rivers association and 3,000 euros to the CLCV consumers group.[81]



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 





I'll humor you.. in just a quick 5 minute search.. I found plenty to be worried about... you honestly found nothing?


No, I have found plenty. All of them are inconclusive or acute toxicity studies on small animals. Just like the ones you posted. Of course, your sources had outright conjecture thrown in.

Your sources admit that they don't know if its dangerous for human consumption or not. Outright saying the tests that have been performed are skewed in some way or another. How am I supposed to make a decision based on incomplete tests, skewed data, acute toxicity tests and whole bunch of conjecture that says nothing about its safety for human consumption?

Through out my 30 mins of reading your sources and your sources sources it was admitted several times that no statistics exist for the safety of it in regards to normal human consumption. Which, you should be aware is totally different from acute toxicity tests on small animals.

So, again, I am not going to take it upon myself to decide that they are dangerous for normal dosed human consumption when your sources themselves admit they don't even know if that's true.

I do, however, thank you for jumping into the discussion and giving me something to work with in forming my opinion.
edit on 16-4-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 1   >>

log in

join