by Katherine Paul
October 31, 2019
Source

“I’d say Roundup is our public enemy number one probably, but that’s one of 260 chemicals that are now prevalent in our food system. So, we have completely chemicalized the human experience and the planet itself, and so the level of toxicity has superseded the planet’s capacity for life.” – Dr. Zach Bush, October 14, 2019, interview published in Salon.

Two important articles about pesticides, food and health were published this week.

One highlights the insanity of allowing the unleashing of billions of pounds of glyphosate into our environment and food systems every year.

The other raises this question: Who’s the real Public Enemy No. 1?

Is it Monsanto (now owned by Bayer)?

Or is it the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) which defends the use of Roundup weedkiller and other toxic chemicals on our food?

In an interview with Salon, Dr. Zach Bush outlines the, literally, gut-wrenching impact of Monsanto’s Roundup on human health.

And in an article by Carey Gillam, Gillam reveals the extent to which our food is contaminated by not just Roundup, but also by a host of other dangerous toxins, including chlorpyrifos and DDT.

Gillam also reveals the lengths to which the FDA goes to protect the agri-chemical industry by insisting that all these chemicals on our food are nothing to worry about.

All roads lead to Monsanto’s weedkiller

Dr. Zach Bush used to research and develop chemotherapy treatments. But he told Salon that at some point he realized he was “missing the point” because he was doing nothing to prevent cancer.

So Bush started to focus on nutrition. That led him down the path toward chemical agriculture, its impact on the soil, and the relationship between soil health and human health.

Bush told Salon:

“So, I was studying soil, found some carbon molecules made by bacteria and fungi in soil, and therefore, in our gut, as well, that had medicinal qualities similar to the chemotherapy [drugs] I used to make. And that was the sudden “Aha!” moment that closed the question of, “How come, when we’re missing some bacteria, we get cancer?”

Eventually, all roads led Bush to glyphosate.

According to Bush, glyphosate acts as an antibiotic in the soil, and in the human gut. We think that our exposure to glyphosate is limited to the residue that remains on our foods.But glyphosate is actually taken up by the plants that become our food. Bush says:

 . . . it’s not something you can wash off. It’s actually in the flesh of the tomato, corn, soybean, whatever it hits. And so, it’s integrated in that water structure, and as it hits your gut microbiome [it] acts as an antibiotic to kill the microbial diversity in your intestines. We now know [this] is the beginning of chronic disease, many chronic diseases are now being mapped back to injuries in the microbiome. And so, as we wipe out the bacteria and fungi with this broad spectrum antibiotic in our food, we are killing the health of our animals, the livestock we consume, beef, poultry, pork, and everything else.

Bush blames today’s epidemic of chronic disease on the collapse of the microbiome—a condition commonly referred to as “leaky gut,” and for which consumers are now bombarded with remedies they can buy to solve the problem.

Bush thinks we should focus instead on preventing the problem. That means getting rid of pesticides, and going back to farming using methods that restore biodiversity and soil health.

FDA: so many pesticides, so little concern

Roundup is “probably public enemy no. 1,” according to Bush, but it’s only one of 260 chemicals now prevalent in our food system.

And that brings us to the article Carey Gillam wrote this week, on the FDA’s latest analysis of pesticide residues in the U.S. food system.

According to Gillam’s account, “pesticides were found in 84 percent of domestic samples of fruits, and 53 percent of vegetables, as well as 42 percent of grains and 73 percent of food samples simply listed as ‘other.’ The samples were drawn from around the country, including from California, Texas, Kansas, New York and Wisconsin.”

In other words, good luck finding any non-organic fruits, veggies or grains that aren’t contaminated with pesticides.

The volume of pesticide residues on our food is staggering. But it’s not even the worst news. The worst news is that the FDA found significant traces of some of the worst chemicals for human health. The list includes DDT, banned more than 40 years ago for causing cancer, infertility and nervous system damage, and chlorpyrifos, banned (finally) in the U.S., only to have the Trump administration overturn the ban.

Does any of this concern the FDA? Not really, according to Gillam, who writes:

The regulators echo the words of Monsanto executives and others in the chemical industry by insisting that pesticide residues pose no threat to human health as long as the levels of each type of residue falls under a “tolerance” level set by the EPA.

In fact, the FDA—under increasing pressure from agribusiness and agrichemical industry lobbyists—continues to raise the allowed “legal” limits for pesticides on food. This despite the fact that no test exists than can prove without a doubt that any of these chemicals are “safe,” at any level, according to Andre Leu, author of “The Myth of Safe Pesticides.” Leu makes that same article in another of his books, “Poisoning Our Children.”

Meanwhile, as Gillam notes, the $215-billion agrichemical industry continues to ignore the evidence and defend its right to poison our food. Gillam reports that this month, a group of three researchers with “long-standing close ties to the companies that sell agricultural pesticides” released a report “seeking to soothe consumer worries and discount the scientific research.” Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, the report claims that there’s “no direct scientific or medical evidence indicating that typical exposure of consumers to pesticide residues poses any health risk.”

That leaves consumers to try to minimize their risk by choosing certified organic whenever possible, and by relentlessly hounding our lawmakers to ban chemicals like glyphosate (sign here) and chlorpyrifos (sign here).

Katherine Paul is associate director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). To keep up with OCA news and alerts, sign up for our newsletter.

by Jefferey Jaxen
October 6, 2019
Source

Two new studies add to the body of science, showing glyphosate— a key ingredient in Bayer AG-Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup—is harmful to living systems. The studies point to convincing evidence the chemical can alter DNA by actively working at the epigenetic level.

These alarming studies strongly suggest glyphosate is affecting human chemistry at the genetic level to turn on negative, disease-causing traits – even into future generations. These study results indicate glyphosate progressively weakens the genome of living systems exposed to the chemical. It increases susceptibility to health problems and increased infertility.

These discoveries come from a collaboration of scientists from Purdue University and the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)/Institut de Cancérologie de L’Ouest (ICO) in Nantes, France. Together, they found glyphosate can lead to mammary cancer when combined with another risk factor. Their work was published in Frontiers in Genetics and shows that glyphosate primes mammary cells for tumor growth by reprogramming epigenomes.

“This is a major result and nobody has ever shown this before,” says Sophie Lelièvre, a professor of cancer pharmacology at Purdue’s College of Veterinary Medicine. “Showing that glyphosate can trigger tumor growth, when combined with another frequently observed risk, is an important missing link when it comes to determining what causes cancer.”

What other frequently observed risks propelled breast cancer growth?

It is assumed that only 5–10% of cancers are directly caused by inherited genetic abnormalities. The remaining 90% of cancers are linked to environmental factors that directly or indirectly affect DNA.

The researchers discuss environmental and lifestyle factors as other “oncogenic hits,” including diet, tobacco, infections, obesity, alcohol, radiation, stress, physical activity, exposure to heavy metals, and other pollutants.

Therefore, glyphosate is one “oncogenic hit” that, combined with another oncogenic hit, promotes the development of mammary tumors. A+B=C(ancer)

For the study, scientists exposed noncancerous human mammary epithelial cells to glyphosate in vitro over a course of 21 days. The cells were placed in mice to assess tumor formation. Although cells exposed to glyphosate alone did not induce tumor growth, cancerous tumors did develop after glyphosate was combined with molecules that were linked to oxidative stress.

Oxidative stress is a chemical reaction that occurs as a result of aging, diet, alcohol consumption, smoking, or other stressors. It alters the organization and integrity of the genome of the breast, aiding cancer development.

“What was particularly alarming about the tumor growth was that it wasn’t the usual type of breast cancer we see in older women,” Lelièvre said. “It was the more aggressive form found in younger women, also known as luminal B cancer.“

Another first-of-its-kind study from Washington State University exposed pregnant rats to just half the rate of the commonly used herbicide Roundup that is considered safe for exposure. Researchers found that roughly 90 percent of the next two generations developed health problems by the time they were one year old, including kidney disease, obesity, or issues with their ovaries, testicles, or prostate.

The most dramatic finding, says WSU professor of biological sciences Michael Skinner, showed about one-third of the future generations had miscarriages and/or died during pregnancy.

“It’s not just a decision of our own right now to say, ‘I don’t mind being exposed to this,‘” Skinner says. “If those have effects generations down the line, we have a responsibility to our future generations.“

The WSU study builds on findings of a 2018 study that looked at glyphosate exposure in U.S. pregnant women, using urine samples as the measure of exposure. Published in the journal Environmental Health, the authors concluded, “We found that > 90% of pregnant women had detectable glyphosate levels and that these levels correlated significantly with shortened pregnancy lengths.“

Termed “Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Adult-Onset Disease,” the findings add yet another layer of evidence why countries like the U.S., who haven’t announced outright bans on the product, should reconsider their policy.

Currently, 17 countries have issued outright bans on glyphosate as global favor rapidly turns against the product and its manufacturer Bayer AG-Monsanto.

With the Environmental Protection Agency unwilling to budge on setting stricter limits or considering a ban on glyphosate in the U.S., people must take individual action to avoid exposure. Costco has pulled Roundup from its shelves due to public pressure (and perhaps sensing that future lawsuits may involve retailers). Lowes and Walmart are now named in legal action due to their unwillingness to drop the product from their stores.

Meanwhile, Bayer AG has lost three high-profile cases against its Roundup product, causing the company to lose investor confidence, stock price, and public favor. The highly anticipated, upcoming ‘Winston lawsuit’ held in Monsanto’s backyard of St. Louis is set for October 15 as Bayer AG-Monsanto desperately attempts to delay and block the trial’s start.

The Winston lawsuit, filed in March of 2018, would be the first trial to take place in the St. Louis area. Two trials that had been set to start in St. Louis in August and September have been delayed, as reported by food industry watchdog, U.S. Right To Know.

USRTK.org writes, “The plaintiffs in the Winston case are among more than 18,000 people in the United States suing Monsanto claiming that exposure to the company’s glyphosate-based herbicides caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto hid the risks associated with its weed killers.”

Judge Vince Chhabria presided over the San Francisco federal court case in which a civil jury awarded California’s Edwin Hardeman $80 million on evidence that Roundup was a substantial factor in causing his non-Hodgkin’s lymphona. In that case, Judge Chhabria wrote the following conclusion:

“There is strong evidence from which a jury could conclude that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue.”

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
October 1, 2019
Source

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

Data Gaps in Phosphate Fertilizer Supply Chain

According to estimates by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, reported in its “World Fertilizer Trends and Outlook to 2020” report,¹ the global demand for phosphate fertilizer is expected to exceed 45.8 million tons by 2020.And, as noted by Science Daily,² food demand is expected to increase by 60% by 2050, which means that unless changes are made, even greater amounts of phosphate will be required in coming decades.

A major problem with conventional agriculture is the use of toxic fertilizers. Phosphorous (an element) is mined from phosphate rock (which contains phosphorous), and much of it ends up being lost in the process, ending up as water pollution.³

In water, phosphorous triggers toxic algae overgrowth and deoxygenation, which has led to massive dead zones where no marine life can survive. The nitrogen portion of fertilizer has also been identified as a leading cause of air pollution.

In a September 4, 2019, paper,⁴ “Opening Access to the Black Box: The Need for Reporting on the Global Phosphorous Supply Chain,” researchers in Sweden and Iceland warn that lack of information about the global supply chain could trigger a phosphate supply crisis and lead to social, political and environmental upheaval.

Lead author Eduard Nedelciu, a researcher at the Department of Physical Geography at Stockholm University, told Science Daily:⁵

“Cradle-to-grave reporting along the phosphorus supply chain can reveal the untold story about the social, environmental, ethical and economic price we pay for the food we see on our supermarket shelves. It can also help countries — most of which are dependent on phosphate imports — tailor better policies to decrease the vulnerability of their agricultural sector.”

Majority of Phosphorous Is Wasted

The researchers present four primary problems relating to the reporting of phosphorous and phosphate fertilizers:^6,7

1. Terminologies and methodologies used when reporting data on phosphate deposits lack transparency and harmonization, making estimations of reserves unreliable
2. Up to 90% of the phosphorous is lost through the supply chain, and the losses are poorly documented, making it difficult to improve efficiency and prevent losses — which ultimately end up as pollution
3. Societal and environmental consequences that occur along the supply chain remain unaddressed
4. Access to data along the supply chain is lacking, which prevents assessment of sustainability goals

Co-author Marie Katharine Schellens told Science Daily:⁸

“Phosphorus information is power. Reliable and regular data gathering can leverage corporate social responsibility as well as political action. Both are needed to tackle many of the issues identified along the supply chain. Transparency can foster a sustainable and socially just supply chain for decades to come.”

Must We Use Phosphate Fertilizers?

While the general consensus is that phosphate is a prerequisite for food production, we now know that this isn’t entirely true. The only reason it’s required is because the agricultural system is not currently set up to take advantage of natural ecosystems.

As farmers transitioned over to monocropping and chemical-based agriculture, those ecosystems were lost, and with them, everything that makes growing food without chemicals possible. There is in fact compelling evidence showing we do not need synthetic fertilizers to grow food, provided the soil is nurtured properly, as it is in biodynamic and regenerative farming systems.

There’s also plenty of evidence showing fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals are a leading source of environmental pollution, thereby threatening all life on earth. The idea that food production is a primary destroyer of the environment is inexcusable and intolerable. It doesn’t have to be that way.

Hidden Health Hazards Associated With Phosphate Fertilizers

Aside from polluting waterways, phosphate fertilizers may pose a more direct risk to human health by way of food. Being a fertilizer, the phosphorous is taken up by the plants, of course, but it’s not the nutrient itself that is the problem. No, the problem is the fact that phosphate contains a radioactive element, which may be taken up by the plant as well.The concern is an outgrowth of tobacco science^{9,10,11,12,13} showing one of the reasons cigarette smoking causes lung cancer is due to polonium-210 — a decay product of natural uranium and a highly radioactive element.¹⁴ It’s also chemically toxic.¹⁵

While naturally present in small amounts in the environment, one of the primary sources of exposure is via calcium phosphate fertilizers, used on nonorganic tobacco fields and food crops respectively. As noted in a 2009 study:¹⁶

“… in a person smoking one and a half packs of cigarettes (i.e., 30 cigarettes) per day, the radiation dose to the bronchial epithelium in areas of bifurcation is … (8000 mrem) — the equivalent of the dose to the skin from 300 x-ray films of the chest per year.”

Similarly, a 2011 paper¹⁷ in the Journal of Oncology, “Polonium and Lung Cancer,” explains:

“The alpha-radioactive polonium 210 (Po-210) is one of the most powerful carcinogenic agents of tobacco smoke and is responsible for the histotype shift of lung cancer from squamous cell type to adenocarcinoma. According to several studies, the principal source of Po-210 is the fertilizers used in tobacco plants …

Tobacco leaves accumulate Pb-210 and Po-210 through their trichomes, and Pb-210 decays into Po-210 over time. With the combustion of the cigarette smoke becomes radioactive and Pb-210 and Po-210 reach the bronchopulmonary apparatus …”

As has become typical, investigation¹⁸ revealed the tobacco industry was aware of this as early as 1959. What’s worse, they opted to not use an acid wash, which has been shown to effectively remove polonium-210 from the tobacco leaves, because the wash made the nicotine less absorbable, and hence less addictive.

Could Nonorganic Food Be Radioactive and We Don’t Know It?

Now, if radioactive polonium-210 makes tobacco leaves carcinogenic, what is it doing to our food? In the 1988 document, “Release of Radium and Other Decay-Series Isotopes From Florida Phosphate Rock,” the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research concedes:¹⁹

“It has been known for many years that phosphate ore contains 50 to 150 parts per million (ppm) of natural uranium, and hence its radioactive decay products … most other soils and rocks … average 1 or 2 ppm …

A fundamental question arises as to the nature of population exposure to natural radiation … and how that exposure is influenced by the presence and extraction of deposits of phosphate.”

While that 1988 report does not address polonium exposure through food, another, even earlier document does.

Remarkably, according to a long-forgotten 1983 report²⁰ by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, “Polonium-210 and Lead-210 in Food and Tobacco Products: A Review of Parameters and an Estimate of Potential Exposure and Dose,” meat and dairy products may expose consumers to radiation doses equivalent to that received by smokers from cigarette smoke. As noted in this paper:²¹

“Tobacco smoking appears to provide a dose equal to or greater than that provided by dietary ingestion for both Pb-210 and Po-210 in bone tissues, liver and kidneys; and for Po-210 in the spleen for the three Western-style diets … The smoking dose estimates are most comparable to those obtained for dietary intake by Arctic dwellers.”

Fluoridated Water May Also Contain Polonium-210

Yet another route of polonium-210 exposure is consumption of fluoridated water, courtesy of the fluorosilicic acid used. This chemical byproduct, created during the phosphate fertilizer manufacturing process, is what is typically used to fluoridate municipal water supplies.

In 2015, Mosaic Fertilizer, one of the largest phosphate mining and fertilizer companies in the world, was fined $2 billion by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over improper storage and disposal of waste, which was found to pose a hazard to groundwater resources.

A cruel irony is that fluorosilicic acid, another toxic waste product, is suddenly proclaimed “healthy” when purposely added to drinking water. Uranium and radium are two known carcinogens found in fluorosilicic acid used for water fluoridation, and polonium-210 is one of two decay products of uranium.

Furthermore, polonium decays into stable lead-206, which also has significant health risks — especially in children — and research has indeed shown that drinking fluoridated water increases lead absorption in your body.

Toxic Glyphosate Found in Most Foods and Water Supplies

Another chemical that is turning our food toxic is glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Glyphosate was identified as a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)^22,23 in 2015.

More recently, a meta-analysis^{24,25,26,27,28} of six epidemiological studies published between 2001 and 2018 concluded glyphosate increases the risk of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) — a group of blood cancers — by 41% in highly exposed subjects.

Even if you’re not exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides via application (which is the case with most who claim glyphosate exposure caused their NHL), your health is still at risk, as testing^{29,30,31,32,33,34} reveals most foods (processed foods in particular) are contaminated with this chemical, and more than 70% of Americans have detectable levels of glyphosate in their body.^35,36

Glyphosate kills weeds by inhibiting the shikimate pathway in the plant, and Monsanto has long defended the chemical’s safety, saying it cannot affect humans because we do not have this pathway. However, the shikimate pathway is found in human gut bacteria, which we now know play a vital role in human health. Glyphosate has also been shown to:

• Trigger DNA damage³⁷
• Cause pineal gland pathology, which in turn was linked to gut dysbiosis and neurological diseases such as autism, depression, dementia, anxiety disorder and Parkinson’s disease³⁸
• Inhibit pituitary release of thyroid stimulating hormone, which can lead to hypothyroidism³⁹
• Act as a substitute for glycine in your body, thereby causing damaged proteins to be produced.⁴⁰ Glycine also plays a role in quenching inflammation, as explained in “Glycine Quells Oxidative Damage by Inhibiting NOX Superoxide Production and Boosting NADPH,” and is used up in the detoxification process. As a result of glyphosate toxicity, many of us may not have enough glycine for efficient detoxification.
• Chelate important minerals, including iron, cobalt and manganese. Manganese deficiency, in turn, impairs mitochondrial function and can lead to glutamate toxicity in the brain⁴¹
• Impair serotonin transport and kill beneficial gut bacteria, thereby contributing to a wide range of mood disorders, including major depression⁴²
• Interfere with cytochrome P450 enzymes, thereby inhibiting vitamin D activation and the creation of both nitric oxide and cholesterol sulfate, the latter of which is needed for red blood cell integrity⁴³

Glyphosate Adds to Phosphorous Saturation

In related news, research⁴⁴ published in December 2018 shows glyphosate is now so widely used that it’s contributing to the phosphorous load in agricultural land, and thus to the phosphorous loading in watersheds. As reported by Phys.org:⁴⁵

“In many agricultural areas, decades of phosphorus-based fertilizer use have led to a saturation of the soil’s capacity to hold the nutrient. This increases the likelihood that any additional phosphorus applied to the land will run off into waterways, where it is a known cause of harmful algal blooms …

Until now, regulations to limit phosphorus pollution have focused on the use of fertilizers, which remain the largest artificial source of phosphorus. But as the use of glyphosate increases — the past two decades alone have seen global use increase 15-fold — the herbicide’s relatively small phosphorus content starts to add up …

‘Our study argues that the recent and rapid rise in glyphosate use has magnified its relative importance as a source of anthropogenic phosphorus, especially in areas of intensive corn, soybean and cotton cultivation,’ [lead author Marie-Pier] Hébert says.”

Biosolids — A Most Toxic Fertilizer

Last but certainly not least, we have biosolids, more accurately referred to as toxic sewage sludge. Not only is it notorious for containing industrial waste, loaded with heavy metals, as noted in a September 12, 2019, AP News article,⁴⁶ concerns over the use of this toxic fertilizer is now growing because it’s also been found to be a source of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) chemicals.

“The concern is that certain PFAS chemicals, which studies have associated with increased risk of cancer and damage to organs such as the liver and thyroid, could be absorbed by crops grown in soils treated with polluted sludge and wind up in foods.

The Food and Drug Administration this year reported finding substantial levels of the chemicals in random samples of grocery store meats, dairy products, seafood and even off-the-shelf chocolate cake …” AP states.⁴⁷

In my 2015 interview with David L. Lewis, Ph.D., a microbiologist who spent three decades working as an Environmental Protection Agency scientist, he reveals the history of biosolids, why it’s a complete scam, and how the truth about this toxic fertilizer has been swept under the rug for years.

How to Safeguard Your Diet

As I mentioned at the beginning, phosphate fertilizers, biosolids and glyphosate are just three of many different sources of toxins in our diet. Once you begin to survey the field and realize just how many different toxic sources there are and the types of questionable chemicals involved, you start to get an idea of why organic food is growing in popularity.

Many are now starting to realize the many problems associated with conventional foods, which include both health and environmental issues, and are taking proactive measures. The most logical step is to transition to an organic or biodynamic diet, to the degree that you’re able. This goes not just for produce but also for meat and dairy products.

The reason for this is because most conventional cattle are fed an unnatural diet of grains rather than grass, and most of the grain is also genetically modified. So, animal products can actually be even more contaminated than fruits and vegetables. So, remember to buy organic, grass fed beef, poultry and dairy, as well. If you live in the U.S., the following organizations can help you locate farm-fresh foods:

• Demeter USA — Demeter-USA.org provides a directory of certified Biodynamic farms and brands.
• American Grassfed Association (AGA) — The goal of the American Grassfed Association is to promote the grass fed industry through government relations, research, concept marketing and public education.Their website also allows you to search for AGA approved producers certified according to strict standards that include being raised on a diet of 100% forage; raised on pasture and never confined to a feedlot; never treated with antibiotics or hormones; and born and raised on American family farms.
• EatWild.com — EatWild.com provides lists of farmers known to produce raw dairy products as well as grass fed beef and other farm-fresh produce (although not all are certified organic). Here you can also find information about local farmers markets, as well as local stores and restaurants that sell grass fed products.
• Weston A. Price Foundation — Weston A. Price has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.
• Grassfed Exchange — The Grassfed Exchange has a listing of producers selling organic and grass fed meats across the U.S.
• Local Harvest — This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass fed meats and many other goodies.
• Farmers Markets — A national listing of farmers markets.
• Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals — The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, hotels and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
• Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) — CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
• The Cornucopia Institute — The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO “organic” production from authentic organic practices.
• RealMilk.com — If you’re still unsure of where to find raw milk, check out Raw-Milk-Facts.com and RealMilk.com. They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund⁴⁸ also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws.⁴⁹ California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com.

by Del Bigtree
September 6, 2019
Source

When common people take on multinational corporations, violent rhetoric, inhuman directives, abuse, and bullying are often the methods chosen to quell the activist spirit.

In 2009, CBS News reported that pharmaceutical giant Merck made a “hit list” of doctors who criticized its deadly, and now withdrawn, drug Vioxx. The list, emailed between Merck employees, contained doctors’ names with the labels “neutralise,” “neutralised” or “discredit” next to them according to testimony in a Vioxx class action case in Australia. Merck emails from 1999 showed company execs complaining about doctors who disliked using Vioxx. One email said: We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live…”

Fast forward to present day and the public is discovering a similar, expanded and well-funded operation was in play at chemical giant Monsanto. In May, it was found in an investigation by a French news outlet that Monsanto kept “watch lists” of around 600 politicians, journalists and others across seven European countries and in Brussels.

Recently, internal emails showed that Monsanto operated a military-style “fusion center” to monitor and discredit journalists and activists, target reporters and strategize how to counter Neil Young’s 2015 album The Monsanto Years.

Now, new emails revealed from the Monsanto trials and placed into public record show another disturbing perspective of Monsanto’s culture. Dan Goldstein, Monsanto’s lead Medical Science and Outreach, Distinguished Science Fellow and pediatrician, Bruce Chassy, a professor at the University of Illinois, and Wayne Parrot from the University of Georgia called activist Moms “dumb mothers” suggesting, “There you have it. That’s your enemy. Beat the shit out of them and put them on the defensive and you won’t have this problem.”

The email exchange was focused an open letter to Monsanto from consumer group Moms Across America sent to the chemical company in 2013.

The directive to “beat the shit out of moms” was not just a harmless figure of speech. Just five months after these emails, it was reported that Sofia Gatica, an activist mother in Argentina who lost one of her babies to pesticide poisoning while living near a GM/agrochemical farm, was beaten.

Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America, recently sat down with HighWire host Del Bigtree to discuss the threats and internal emails. She stated,

“I’m glad that this is out because it shows the corporate mentality of arrogance and aggression, misogyny, and complete disregard for public health. And this is very important for people to know, especially our politicians, our policy makers, and our President who are currently trying to allow these corporations to self-determine whether or not their products are safe.”

https://youtu.be/lCOzmFfgXO4?t=38

x

by F. William Engdahl
April 14, 2019
Source

As new studies continue to point to a direct link between the widely-used glyphosate herbicide and various forms of cancer, the agribusiness lobby fights ferociously to ignore or discredit evidence of human and other damage. A second US court jury case just ruled that Monsanto, now a part of the German Bayer AG, must pay $ 81 million in damages to plaintiff Edwin Hardeman who contracted non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer. The ruling and a line-up of another 11,000 pending cases in US courts going after the effects of glyphosate, have hit Bayer AG hard with the company announcing several thousand layoffs as its stock price plunges.

In a trial in San Francisco the jury was unanimous in their verdict that Monsanto Roundup weed-killer, based on glyphosate, had been responsible for Hardeman’s cancer. His attorneys stated, “It is clear from Monsanto’s actions that it does not care whether Roundup causes cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about Roundup.” It is the second defeat for the lawyers of Monsanto after another jury ruled in 2018 that Glyphosate-based Roundup was responsible for the cancer illness of a California school grounds-keeper who contracted the same form of cancer after daily spraying school grounds with Roundup over years, unprotected. There a jury found Monsanto guilty of “malice and oppression” in that company executives, based on internal email discovery, knew that their glyphosate products could cause cancer and suppressed this information from the public.

New independent study shows that those with highest exposure to glyphosate have a 41% increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) cancer. A meta-analysis of six studies containing nearly 65,000 participants looked at links between glyphosate-based herbicides and immune-suppression, endocrine disruption and genetic alterations. The authors found “the same key finding: exposure to GBHs (glyphosate-based herbicides) are associated with an increased risk of NHL (Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma).” Further, they stated that glyphosate “alters the gut microbiome,” and that that could “impact the immune system, promote chronic inflammation, and contribute to the susceptibility of invading pathogens.” Glyphosate also ”may act as an endocrine disrupting chemical because it has been found recently to alter sex hormone production” in both male and female rats.

In a long-term animal study by French scientists under Gilles Eric Seralini, Michael Antoniou and associates, it was demonstrated that even ultra-low levels of glyphosate herbicides cause non-alcoholic liver disease. The levels the rats were exposed to, per kg of body weight, were far lower than what is allowed in our food supply. According to the Mayo Clinic, today, after four decades or more pervasive use of glyphosate pesticides, 100 million, or 1 out of 3 Americans now have liver disease. These diagnoses are in some as young as 8 years old.

But glyphosate is not only having alarming effects on human health. Soil scientists are beginning to realize the residues of glyphosate application are also having a possibly dramatic effect on soil health and nutrition, effects that can take years to restore.

Killing Soils too

While most attention is understandably drawn to the human effects of exposure to glyphosate, the most widely used agriculture chemical in the world today, independent scientists are beginning to look at another alarming effect of the agrochemical– its effect on essential soil nutrients. In a study of the health of soils in the EU, the online journal Politico.eu found that the effects of spraying of glyphosate on the major crops in European agriculture is having disastrous consequences on soil health in addition to killing weeds.

Scientists at Austria’s University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna showed that casting activity of earthworms had nearly disappeared from the surface of farmland within three weeks of glyphosate application. Casting is the process of the worm pushing fertile soils to the surface as they burrow, essential for healthy soil and plant nutrition. A study at Holland’s Wageningen University of topsoil samples from more than 300 soil sites across the EU found that 83% of the soils contained 1 or more pesticide residues. Not surprisingly, “Glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA, DDTs (DDT and its metabolites) and broad-spectrum fungicides… were the compounds most frequently found in soil samples and at the highest concentrations.”

The use of various pesticides, above all glyphosate-based ones like Roundup, has exploded over the past four decades across the EU much as across the USA. The agribusiness industry claims that this has been the key to the dramatic rise in farm crop productivity. However if we look more closely at the data, while average yields of major grains such as rice, wheat and maize have more than doubled since 1960, the use of pesticides like glyphosate-based ones has risen by 15-20-fold. Oddly enough, while the EU requires monitoring of many things, monitoring of pesticide residues in soil is not required at the EU level. Until recently the effects of heavy use of pesticides such as Roundup have been ignored in scientific research.

Evidence of soil experts is beginning to reveal clear links between use of pesticides such as glyphosate and dramatic drops in soil fertility and the collapse of microbe systems essential to healthy soil. Worms are one of the most essential.

It’s well-established that earthworms play a vital role in healthy soil nutrients. Soils lacking such are soils that deprive us of the essentials we need for healthy diets, a pandemic problem of soil depletion emerging globally over the past four decades, notably the same time frame that use of pesticides has exploded worldwide. Earthworms are beneficial as they enhance soil nutrient cycling and enhance other beneficial soil micro-organisms, and the concentration of large quantities of nutrients easily assimilable by plants.

The EU puts no limits on how much glyphosate can be put on crops even though it is established that glyphosate can kill specific fungi and bacteria that plants need to suck up nutrients in addition to its effects on earthworms. That is a major blind spot.

Where now?

What is becoming clearer is the colossal and obviously deliberate official blind eye given to potential dangers of glyphosate-based pesticides by regulatory bodies not only in the EU and the USA, but also in China, which today produces more glyphosate than even Monsanto. Since the Monsanto Roundup patent expired, Chinese companies, including Syngenta, Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Company, SinoHarvest, and Anhui Huaxing Chemical Industry Company, have emerged as the world’s major producers of the chemical as well as largest consumers, a not good omen for the future of the legendary Chinese cuisine.

Glyphosate is the base chemical component for some 750 different brands of pesticides worldwide, in addition to Monsanto-Bayer’s Roundup. Glyphosate residues have been found in tap water, orange juice, children’s urine, breast milk, chips, snacks, beer, wine, cereals, eggs, oatmeal, wheat products, and most conventional foods tested. It’s everywhere, in brief.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, however, EU Commission bureaucrats and the USA EPA continue to ignore prudence in not banning the toxic chemical pending thorough independent investigation over longer time. If I were cynical, I would almost think this continued official support for glyphosate-based herbicides is about more than mere bureaucratic stupidity or ignorance, even more than simply corruption, though that for sure plays a role. The nutritional quality of our food chain is being systematically destroyed and it is about more than corporate agribusiness profit.

Source:  Dr. Mercola

Source:  Dr. Mercola

Source:   No More Fake News

Huge organic farm under threat: County will invade and spray Roundup if not stopped

What?? A county government is going to destroy a massive organic farm?

by Jon Rappoport
May 15, 2017

“I have a great idea. We’re the Sherman County government. We have power. Let’s claim Azure Farms can’t control their weeds. Let’s come in and invade them with Roundup and other toxic chemicals. Let’s destroy their organic farm. We know the spraying won’t wipe out the weeds—it’ll make the situation worse. But who cares? Let’s open up ourselves to massive lawsuits. I’m sure Monsanto will give us some legal help. We can set a fantastic precedent. No organic farm is safe. No organic farmer has the right to protect his land from the government. Isn’t that a terrific idea?”

Government trespass, invasion?

So far, I have seen no coverage of this issue in Oregon newspapers. Why not? Also, I find nothing on the Sherman County, Oregon, government website about a massive spraying program.

A local government is going to decimate a huge organic farm with herbicide?

Azure Farms, a 2000-acre organic farm in Oregon, states it is under threat from the local Sherman County government. Why? Because Sherman County officials are re-interpreting a law concerning the “control of noxious weeds,” so it means “eradication.”

These weeds can be controlled on an organic farm, but the only way they can be eliminated (according to conventional “science”) is by spraying. And that means Roundup and other toxic chemicals. That would decimate the organic nature of the farm. That would decertify it as an organic farm.

Further, according to Azure, Sherman County plans to put a lien on the farm, forcing it to pay for the spraying.

The deadline for expressing opposition is May 22. A better deadline is May 17.

Here is the complete press release from Azure Farms and the ways to register your concern:

Azure Farms is a working, certified organic farm located in Moro, central Oregon, in Sherman County. It has been certified organic for about 18 years. The farm produces almost all the organic wheat, field peas, barley, Einkorn, and beef for Azure Standard.

Sherman County is changing the interpretation of its statutory code from controlling noxious weeds to eradicating noxious weeds. These weeds include Morning Glory, Canada Thistle, and Whitetop, all of which have been on the farm for many years, but that only toxic chemicals will eradicate.

Organic farming methods – at least as far as we know today – can only control noxious weeds—it is very difficult to eradicate them.

Sherman County may be issuing a Court Order on May 22, 2017 to quarantine Azure Farms and possibly to spray the whole farm with poisonous herbicides, contaminating them with Milestone, Escort and Roundup herbicides.

This will destroy all the efforts Azure Farms has made for years to produce the very cleanest and healthiest food humanly possible. About 2,000 organic acres would be impacted; that is about 1.5 times the size of the city center of Philadelphia that is about to be sprayed with noxious, toxic, polluting herbicides.

The county would then put a lien on the farm to pay for the expense of the labor and chemicals used.

Contact Sherman County Court before May 17 when the next court discussion will be held.
Contact info:
1. Via email at lhernandez@co.sherman.or.us or
2. Call Lauren at 541-565-3416.

Show Sherman County that people care about their food NOT containing toxic chemicals.

Overwhelm the Sherman County representatives with your voices!

—end of Azure Farms statement—

Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor to jonathanturley.org, has been covering this story. He reached out and obtained a devastating letter from agricultural scientist, Charles Benbrook. Benbrook has his critics within the conventional pesticide and GMO research community. Here is Smith’s piece and Dr. Benbrook’s letter:

Yesterday I fielded an article concerning a rather distressing mandate by an Oregon county weed control agency seeking to force the application of hazardous herbicides onto a 2,000 acre organic farm owned by Azure Farms. Sherman County Oregon maintains this scorched earth policy is necessary to abate, or more specifically “eradicate”, weeds listed by state statute as noxious.

Now, the scientific community is responding to this overreaching government action by acting in the interests of health and responsible environmental stewardship through advocacy in the hopes that officials in Sherman County will reconsider their mandate.

Dr. Charles Benbrook is a highly credentialed research professor and expert serving on several boards of directors for agribusiness and natural resources organizations. Having read news of Sherman County’s actions, he penned an authoritative response I believe will make informative reading for those concerned by present and future implications in the forced use of herbicides under the rubric of noxious weed eradication, and the damage to organic farming generally arising from such mandates.

Charles Benbrook has a PhD in agricultural economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and an undergraduate degree from Harvard University. He currently is a Visiting Professor at Newcastle University in the UK…

He was a Research Professor at Washington State University from 2012-2015, and served as the Chief Scientist of The Organic Center from 2006-2012. He was the Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture in the National Academy of Sciences from 1984-1990. He was the staff director of the Subcommittee on Department [USDA] Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture of the House Committee on Agriculture (1981-1983). He worked as an agricultural and natural resources policy expert in the Council for Environmental Quality in the last 1.5 years of the Carter Administration. He began Benbrook Consulting Services (BCS) in 1990, and continues to carry out projects with a wide range of clients via BCS

He coauthors an informative website Hygeia-Analytics.com.

I reached out to Dr. Benbrook and received permission to reprint his letter in the hope that with more attention, including that from the scientific community, we can arrive at a reasonable solution to the county’s concerns. Here is Dr. Benbrook’s letter:…

Tom McCoy
Joe Dabulskis
Sherman County Commissioners
Lauren Hernandez
Administrative Assistant
Sherman County, Oregon
Rod Asher
Sherman Country Weed District Supervisor
Moro, Oregon
Alexis Taylor
Director
Oregon Department of Agriculture

Dear Ms. Hernandez el al:

I live in Wallowa County. I learned today of the recent, dramatic change in the Sherman County noxious weed control program and the plan to forcibly spray a 2,000-acre organic farm in the county.

Over a long career, I have studied herbicide use and efficacy, public and private weed control efforts, the linkages between herbicide use and the emergence and spread of resistant weeds, and the public health and environmental impacts of herbicide use and other weed management strategies.

I served for six years, along with fellow Oregonian Barry Bushue, past-president of the Oregon Farm Bureau, on the USDA’s AC 21 Agricultural Biotechnology Advisory Committee. Issues arising from herbicide use were a frequent topic of discussion during our Committee’s deliberations.

I have published multiple scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals on glyphosate, its human health risks, and the impact of genetically engineered crops on overall herbicide use and the spread of resistant weeds. In a separate email, I will forward you copies of my published research relevant to the use of herbicides, and glyphosate in particular.

The notion that Sherman County can eradicate noxious weeds by blanket herbicide spraying is deeply misguided. I cannot imagine a single, reputable university weed scientist in the State supporting the idea that an herbicide-based noxious weed eradication program would work (i.e., eradicate the target weeds) in Oregon, or any other state. To hear another opinion from one of the State’s most widely known and respected weed scientists, I urge the County to consult with Dr. Carol Mallory-Smith, Oregon State University.

I also doubt any corporate official working for Monsanto, the manufacturer of glyphosate (Roundup), would agree or endorse the notion that any long-established weed in Sherman County, noxious or otherwise, could be eradicated via blanket spraying with Roundup, or for that matter any combination of herbicides.

Before proceeding with any county-mandated herbicide use justified by the goal of eradication, I urge the County to seek concurrence from the herbicide manufacturer that they believe use of their product will likely eradicate your named, target, noxious weeds.

Given that almost no one with experience in weed management believes that any long-established weed, noxious or otherwise, can be eradicated with herbicides, one wonders why the County has adopted such a draconian change in its noxious weed control program. I can think of two plausible motivations – a desire by companies and individuals involved in noxious weed control activities, via selling or applying herbicides, to increase business volume and profits; or, an effort to reduce or eliminate acreage in the Country that is certified organic.

Weeds are classified as noxious when they prone to spread, are difficult to control, and pose a public health or economic threat to citizens, public lands, and/or farming and ranching operations. Ironically, by far the fastest growing and mostly economically damaging noxious weeds in the U.S. are both noxious and spreading because they have developed resistance to commonly applied herbicides, and especially glyphosate.

There is near-universal agreement in the weed science community nationwide, and surely as well in the PNW, that over-reliance on glyphosate (Roundup) over the last two decades has created multiple, new noxious weeds posing serious economic, environmental, and public health threats.

In fact, over 120 million acres of cultivated cropland in the U.S. is now infested with one or more glyphosate-resistant weed (for details, see http://cehn-healthykids.org/herbicide-use/resistant-weeds/.

The majority of glyphosate-resistant weeds are in the Southeast and Midwest, where routine, year-after-year planting of Roundup Ready crops has led to heavy and continuous selection pressure on weed populations, pressure that over three-to-six years typically leads to the evolution of genetically resistant weed phenotypes, that can then take off, spreading across tens of millions of acres in just a few years.

Ask any farmer in Georgia, or Iowa, or Arkansas whether they would call “noxious” the glyphosate-resistant kochia, Palmer amaranth, Johnson grass, marestail, or any of a dozen other glyphosate-resistant weeds in their fields.

It is virtually certain that an herbicide-based attempt to eradicate noxious weeds in Sherman County would fail. It would also be extremely costly, and would pose hard-to-predict collateral damage on non-target plants from drift, and on human health and the environment. But even worse, it would also, almost certainly, accelerate the emergence and spread of a host of weeds resistant to the herbicides used in the program.

This would, in turn, leave the county, and the county’s farmers with not just their existing suite of noxious weeds to deal with, but a new generation of them resistant to glyphosate, or whatever other herbicides are widely used.

Sherman County’s proposal, while perhaps well meaning, will simply push the herbicide use-resistant weed treadmill into high gear. Just as farmers in other parts of the county have learned over the last 20 years, excessive reliance on glyphosate, or herbicides over-all, accomplishes only one thing reliably – it accelerates the emergence and spread of resistant weeds, requiring applications of more, and often more toxic herbicides, and so on before some one, or something breaks this vicious cycle.

I urge you to take into account two other consequences if the County pursues this deeply flawed strategy. Certified organic food products grown and processed in Oregon, and distributed by Oregon-based companies like Azure and the Organically Grown Company, are highly regarded throughout the U.S. for exceptional quality, consistency, and value.

Plus, export demand is growing rapidly across several Pacific Rim nations for high-value, certified organic foods and wine from Oregon. Triggering a high-profile fight over government-mandated herbicide spraying on certified organic fields in Sherman County will come as a shock to many people, who are under the impression that all Oregonians, farmers and consumers alike, are committed to a vibrant, growing, and profitable organic food industry.

Does Sherman County really want to erode this halo benefiting the marketing of not just organic products, but all food and beverages from Oregon?

Second, if Sherman County is serious about weed eradication, it will have to mandate widespread spraying countywide, and not just on organic farms, and not just for one year. The public reaction will be swift, strong, and build in ferocity. It will likely lead to civil actions of the sort that can trigger substantial, unforeseen costs and consequences. I am surely not the only citizen of the State that recalls the tragic events last year in Malheur County.

Plus, I guarantee you that the County, the herbicide applicators, and the manufacturers of the herbicides applied, under force of law on organic or other farms, will face a torrent of litigation seeking compensatory damages for loss of reputation, health risks, and the loss of premium markets and prices.

I have followed litigation of this sort for decades, and have served as an expert witness in several herbicide-related cases. While it is obviously premature to start contemplating the precise legal theories and statutes that will form the crux of future litigation, the County should develop a realistic estimate of the legal costs likely to arise in the wake of this strategy, if acted upon, so that the County Commissioners can alert the public upfront regarding how they will raise the funds needed to deal with the costs of near-inevitable litigation.

—end of Dr. Benbrook’s letter—

Yesterday, Sunday, I emailed the Sherman County government asking them whether they really intend to pursue this lunatic program. If and when I receive an answer, I’ll post it.

I also emailed Azure Farms, asking why they believe there is no coverage of this issue in Oregon newspapers. If I get an answer, I’ll post that, too.

Ordinarily, local papers will print a stories about contentious issues, however one-sided they may be. In this case, I find nothing.

Is it possible the threat of herbicide spraying has been overstated? Why would Azure issue a release claiming the spraying is imminent if it weren’t true? Why would Azure risk getting into a wrangle with the County government if the threat weren’t real? Why isn’t there any mention of the spraying program on the Sherman County website? Does the County actually think they can keep their intentions under wraps?

“I have a great idea. Let’s claim Azure Farms can’t control their weeds. Let’s come in and invade them with Roundup and other toxic chemicals. Let’s destroy their organic farm. We know the spraying won’t wipe out the weeds—it’ll make the situation worse. But who cares? Let’s open up ourselves to massive lawsuits. I’m sure Monsanto will give us some legal help. We can set a fantastic precedent. No organic farm is safe. No organic farmer has the right to protect his land from the government. Isn’t that a terrific idea?”