Monsanto is currently being sued by two workers who developed cancer after being exposed to the herbicide chemical Roundup.

Monsanto is famous for its bad reputation, but it seems that the consequences of the company’s actions are finally catching up.

Two individuals exposed to Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup are suing the multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation for causing their cancer.

Former Workers Taking Legal Action

Monsanto’s underhanded tactics have been widely protested. The lawsuits claim that Monsanto hid the dangerous effects of its herbicide Roundup. 
Image: Common Dreams

The lawsuits were seperately filed by a farmer and a horticultural assistant who both developed cancer after coming into contact with Monsanto’s herbicide.

On top of that, the plaintiffs claim that Monsanto attempted to cover up the risks of working with the Roundup chemical in order to trick regulators into approving its use.

Enrique Rubio is a 58-year-old farm worker who labored in California, Texas and Oregon. He toiled cucumbers, onions and other vegetable crops. Rubio was given the task of spraying fields with Roundup and other pesticides.

He was diagnosed with bone cancer in 1995. On Sept. 22, he filed for legal action in a U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

Judi Fitzgerald is a 64-year-old horticultural assistant who worked at a horticultural products company in the ’90s where she was exposed to Roundup.

Fitzgerald filed a New York suit on the same day as Rubio. She was diagnosed with leukemia in 2012.

A Predicted Increase In Lawsuits

Roundup, originally classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” is now thought to be “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
Image: The Ecologist

Roundup is a weed killer with an active chemical called glyphosate. The World Health Organization (WHO) recently categorized glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

Now that the WHO has publicly outed the cancer-causing effects of Roundup, attorneys expect more people to come forward and take legal action against Monsanto.

“I believe there will be hundreds of lawsuits brought over time,” attorney Robin Greenwald said.

According to Charla Lord, a Monsanto spokeswoman, Glyphosate is safe if used as intended.

“Decades of experience within agriculture and regulatory reviews using the most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product contradict the claims in the suit which will be vigorously defended,” she said.

Attorneys will argue that Roundup is “unreasonably dangerous” to consumers and that the company willingly hid or ignored the carcinogenic risks associated with glyphosate.

According to the lawsuits, the Environmental Protection Agency changed glyphosate from “possibly carcinogenic to humans” to “evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans” after being pressured by Monsanto.

However, the WHO cites studies that link glyphosate to cancer despite disagreements from Monsanto. Lawyers will continue to support plaintiffs in class-action lawsuits for the cancer-causing effects of glyphosate.

The post Monsanto Sued For Cancer-Causing Herbicide appeared first on Citizens Report.

Many consider G.M.O foods to be unnatural and unsafe, but a group of academics votes against labeling G.M.O products to avoid instilling fear in consumers.

The sale of genetically modified seeds is booming. Monsanto, the largest seed producer in the world, wants to keep it that way.

Critics continue to attack genetically modified products, which has prompted the food producing giant to call upon academics and scholars to stand up for the safety of their seeds.

The company, along with its organic opponents, have used academic researchers to promote or destroy the idea of G.M.O foods.

The mixed academic opinions,  which come with a hefty amount of authority, are leading to confused consumers. But it appears the anti-G.M.O trend may be changing.

Paying Professors To Research GMO Foods

Kevin Folta, the chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida, is one of the academic voices supporting the safety of G.M.O products.
Image: American Seed

The billion-dollar labeling battle has pitted Monsanto and other G.M.O seed manufactures against organic producers like Stonyfield Farm. The stakes are high, and each side has recruited academic researchers to defend their position. In a situation like this, it’s hard to tell who’s fighting for what’s right.

“Professors/researchers/scientists have a big white hat in this debate and support in their states, from politicians to producers,” Bill Mashek, a vice president at Ketchum, a public relations firm hired by the biotechnology industry, said in an email to a University of Florida professor. “Keep it up!”

Both sides are using research gathered by academics minds, which is meant to be unbiased. But many have wondered if hidden motives are at play.

Reports of unrestricted grants and entirely funded trips have left some to question the legitimacy of the supporting arguments.

Kevin Folta, the chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida, has been paid to travel in defense of genetically modified foods. But Folta asserts that he makes his own decisions.

“Nobody tells me what to say, and nobody tells me what to think,” Folta said. “Every point I make is based on evidence.”

Many believe that accepting payouts to promote an industry or a product is a conflict of interest. However, Charla Lord, a Monsanto spokeswoman, believes that the food producer’s partnership with academics has helped to detract from the confusion.

“It is in the public interest for academics to weigh in credibly, not only to consumers but to stakeholders like lawmakers and regulators as well,” she said.

Supporters of G.M.O foods argue that labeling genetically modified organisms would create unnecessary consumer fear of government-approved products.

Legislators Reacting To The Debate

A prominent argument for product labels to include G.M.O ingredients is that customers have the right to know what’s in their food.
Image: Food Navigator

Legislators are using the information to make a decision about G.M.O labeling, but it’s important to realize that the fight isn’t about the safety of genetically modified seeds. The fight is truly over the safety of herbicides used to grow and manage G.M.O crops.

“The organic food proponents argue that herbicide use has surged, and that some of these herbicides may be unsafe. The biotech companies say that data relating to herbicide use on genetically engineered crops is being misinterpreted — and that these new crops, more resistant to pests and disease, are helping to feed the world,” the NY Times reports.

The consensus could be changing if G.M.O foods are safer than scientists originally thought. A new website, GMO Answers, is meant to shed light on misinformation about GMO products. The plan was to provide the academics with questions from the public, such as, “Do GMOs cause cancer?”

“This is a new way to build trust, dialogue and support for biotech in agriculture that will help explain in an independent voice what GMOs are,” an executive at Ketchum wrote to Dr. Folta.

The Senate is preparing to adopt legislation, already passed by the House, that would “ban states from adopting laws that require the disclosure of food produced with genetically modified ingredients,” according to the NYTimes.

Among the conflicting information, the Agriculture Department has developed a new label to notify consumers about foods that are G.M.O free. If the labeling is approved, the non-G.M.O food producers could elect to have their products read “U.S.D.A. Process Verified.”

Participation in the labeling is voluntary, but some argue it’s being done in order to support peace of mind, not scientific evidence.

Regardless, the labeling battle rages on with professors at the forefront. Despite the fact that the government says G.M.O products are safe, people still have the right to know what they’re consuming.

The post Academics Pulled Into Battle For G.M.O Labeling appeared first on Citizens Report.

Who is Monsanto?

Today, Monsanto markets itself as a “sustainable agriculture company” that produces “high-yielding conventional and biotech seeds,” “advanced traits and technologies that enable more nutritious and durable crops” and “safe and effective crop protection solutions.”

However, Monsanto’s controversial history and its association with a variety of harmful chemicals that are believed to contaminate food, affect biodiversity, alter the environment and disenfranchise small-time farmers have made it one of the most publicly distrusted industrial companies.

Modern Farmer

Founded in 1901, Monsanto is credited with producing toxic chemicals such as PCBs; Agent Orange, the herbicidal warfare chemical used during the Vietnam War; the insecticide DDT; the dairy cow hormone rGHB; and the possible cancer-causing soft drink sweetener Aspartame, according to Modern Farmer.

Reinventing itself as an agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation, Monsanto’s GMO agricultural seeds include alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, sorghum, soybeans, sugarbeets and wheat, as well as over 2,000 vegetable seed varieties. A sizeable amount of Americans foods include ingredients from the corporate giant.

Weeds create a problem for farmers. Monsanto’s seeds have an ability to tolerate powerful herbicides like their cheap, effective weed-killer Roundup Ready (also known as glyphosate), which seemed to solve that problem. But when the weeds became resistant to the herbicide, Monsanto further modified its seeds to endure an even stronger version of the chemical. And the cycle continues. At this point, the practices that produce the food, as well as the products themselves, have become a relevant topic of debate.

Mercola

Effects of Consumption and GMO-labeling

Providing healthy, affordable food is an international political and economic issue that has yet to be solved. But, until that solution is found, many Americans believe that it should be up to them to decide if they want to consume Monsanto’s “Franken foods.” As is mandated in certain European countries, health-conscious individuals in the states are rallying for more comprehensive, honest labeling of products.

Scientific research on the effects of consuming GMOs is somewhat divided. The Institute for Responsible Technology cites 65 Health Risks of GMOs, whereas other organizations claim that the studies are flawed and that more information is needed. Regardless, many people do not want to be a part of this science experiment, refusing to become human guinea pigs, even if the chemicals are not actually harmful.

Daily Finance

Monsanto: At Home and Abroad

Monsanto’s agricultural domination extends far beyond Western markets. The multinational corporation uses the land in developing countries to mass-produce its products, which has major implications on the health of low-income communities. To be frank, Monsanto has been accused of poisoning third world countries. However, there is a difference between the GM crops themselves and the herbicides that are sprayed on them.

In some countries, protective policies are either nonexistent or disregarded without consequence. Roundup Ready chemicals are sprayed near schools and homes, and the toxic waste and the bins that carry it are disposed of improperly. Individuals in these communities are reported to have more cases of cancer, disease and birth defects, as seen in the photo series “Argentina: The Country that Monsanto Poisoned?”

Critics claimed that Monsanto is corrupt in documentaries such as “The World According to Monsanto” and “Food, Inc.,” and people are protesting Monsanto products all over the world, specifically in countries like the United States and Mexico. But many believe that genetically modified foods are a good thing if produced and developed properly.

Radical Glasgow Blog

“I think that GMOs are good for making the crops more effective, and in addition to that, making them more nutritious and resistant to pesticides. A better food crop for people in developing countries is definitely necessary. As far as long-term effects, I’m sure more studies would have to be done on what consuming GMOS does to the human body in 50 years. For the foreseeable future, it just seems like we don’t know,” said Ben Duong, a sophomore microbiology and political science major at UF.

Monsanto is a leader of genetically modified seeds and claims that its agricultural innovations will increase production yield and nutritional value, and hopefully, put an end to world hunger. Although opponents still question the long-term effects of altering the natural composition of food, it is clear that these herbicidal chemicals need to be handled with caution, and that more research must be conducted on the long-term effects of the process in its entirety.

Health concerns are only one issue in the debate that surrounds the agribusiness giant.

To be continued.

Featured photo courtesy of:Vegan Magazine

The post Understanding Monsanto: Health Effects appeared first on Citizens Report.

The internationally-powerful “Big Six” chemical companies are flooding the Measure 15-119 ballot campaign in Jackson County, Oregon with lucrative donations that have helped opponents of the measure amass an eight-to-one spending advantage, according to state figures.

Monsanto ($183,294), DuPont Pioneer ($129,647), Syngenta ($75,000), Bayer ($22,353), BASF ($22,353), and Dow AgroSciences ($22,353) have donated a combined $455,000 to Good Neighbor Farmers, the political action committee fighting Measure 15-119, which county voters will consider on the May 20 ballot.

“This is a staggering amount of money for a local ordinance,” said Center for Food Safety senior attorney George Kimbrell. “For every vote they might get, Monsanto and its pals could afford to take each voter out for a fancy steak dinner.”

Read More

The post Monsanto is buying their way into your supermarkets appeared first on Citizens Report.