sustainablepulse--2020-09-01--Dewayne Johnson Asks California Supreme Court to Restore $250 M Damages in Roundup Cancer Trial

The school groundskeeper , Dewayne Johnson , who won the first-ever trial over allegations that Monsanto ’ s Roundup causes cancer is asking the California Supreme Court to restore $ 250 million in punitive damages awarded by the jury who heard his case but then slashed by an appeals court to $ 20.5 million , USRTK reported Monday .
Notably , the appeal by plaintiff Dewayne “ Lee ” Johnson has larger implications than his own individual case .
Johnson ’ s lawyer are urging the court to address a legal twist that can leave people such as Johnson who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with lower damage awards than others expected to live many years in suffering and pain .
“ It is long past time for California courts to recognize , as other courts do , that life itself has value and that those who maliciously deprive a plaintiff of years of life should be made to fully compensate that plaintiff and be punished accordingly , ” Johnson ’ s attorneys wrote in their request for the state supreme court review .
“ The jury ascribed meaningful value to Mr. Johnson ’ s life , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asks this Court to respect the jury ’ s decision and restore that value .
” A unanimous jury found in August 2018 that exposure to Monsanto ’ s glyphosate-based herbicides , known best by the brand name Roundup , caused Johnson to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma .
The jury further found that Monsanto acted to hide the risks of its products in conduct so egregious that the company should pay Johnson $ 250 million in punitive damages on top of $ 39 million in past and future compensatory damages .
Upon appeal from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ German company Bayer AG in 2018 , the trial judge reduced the $ 289 million to $ 78 million .
Monsanto appealed seeking either a new trial or a reduced award .
Johnson cross-appealed seeking reinstatement of his full damage award .
The appeals court in the case then cut the award to $ 20.5 million , citing the fact that Johnson was expected to live only a short time .
The appeals court reduced the damages award despite finding there was “ abundant ” evidence that glyphosate , together with the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s cancer and that “ there was overwhelming evidence that Johnson has suffered , and will continue to suffer for the rest of his life , significant pain and suffering.
” The Johnson trial was covered by media outlets around the world and put a spotlight on Monsanto ’ s efforts to manipulate the scientific record on glyphosate and Roundup and its efforts to quiet critics and influence regulators .
Lawyers for Johnson presented jurors with internal company emails and other records showing Monsanto scientists discussing ghostwriting scientific papers to try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the company ’ s products , along with communications detailing plans to discredit critics , and to quash a government evaluation of the toxicity of glyphosate , the key chemical in Monsanto ’ s products .
Johnson ’ s trial victory spurred a frenzied filing of tens of thousands of additional lawsuits .
Monsanto lost three out of three trials before agreeing this June to pay more than $ 10 billion to settle close to 100,000 such claims .
The settlement is still in flux , however , as Bayer wrestles with how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview , Johnson said he knew the legal battle with Monsanto could continue for many more years but he was committed to trying to hold the company accountable .
He has managed to keep his illness in check so far with regular chemotherapy and radiation treatments , but is not certain how long that will continue .
“ I don ’ t think any amount would be enough to punish that company , ” Johnson said .

The school groundskeeper, Dewayne Johnson, who won the first-ever trial over allegations that Monsanto’s Roundup causes cancer is asking the California Supreme Court to restore $250 million in punitive damages awarded by the jury who heard his case but then slashed by an appeals court to $20.5 million, USRTK reported Monday.
Source: USRTK By Carey Gillam
Notably, the appeal by plaintiff Dewayne “Lee” Johnson has larger implications than his own individual case. Johnson’s lawyer are urging the court to address a legal twist that can leave people such as Johnson who are facing death in the near term with lower damage awards than others expected to live many years in suffering and pain.
“It is long past time for California courts to recognize, as other courts do, that life itself has value and that those who maliciously deprive a plaintiff of years of life should be made to fully compensate that plaintiff and be punished accordingly,” Johnson’s attorneys wrote in their request for the state supreme court review. “The jury ascribed meaningful value to Mr. Johnson’s life, and for that he is grateful. He asks this Court to respect the jury’s decision and restore that value. ”
Glyphosate Box Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure
A unanimous jury found in August 2018 that exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides, known best by the brand name Roundup, caused Johnson to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The jury further found that Monsanto acted to hide the risks of its products in conduct so egregious that the company should pay Johnson $250 million in punitive damages on top of $39 million in past and future compensatory damages.
Upon appeal from Monsanto, which was purchased by the German company Bayer AG in 2018, the trial judge reduced the $289 million to $78 million. Monsanto appealed seeking either a new trial or a reduced award. Johnson cross-appealed seeking reinstatement of his full damage award.
The appeals court in the case then cut the award to $20.5 million, citing the fact that Johnson was expected to live only a short time.
The appeals court reduced the damages award despite finding there was “abundant” evidence that glyphosate, together with the other ingredients in Roundup products, caused Johnson’s cancer and that “there was overwhelming evidence that Johnson has suffered, and will continue to suffer for the rest of his life, significant pain and suffering.”
The Johnson trial was covered by media outlets around the world and put a spotlight on Monsanto’s efforts to manipulate the scientific record on glyphosate and Roundup and its efforts to quiet critics and influence regulators. Lawyers for Johnson presented jurors with internal company emails and other records showing Monsanto scientists discussing ghostwriting scientific papers to try to shore up support for the safety of the company’s products, along with communications detailing plans to discredit critics, and to quash a government evaluation of the toxicity of glyphosate, the key chemical in Monsanto’s products.
Johnson’s trial victory spurred a frenzied filing of tens of thousands of additional lawsuits. Monsanto lost three out of three trials before agreeing this June to pay more than $10 billion to settle close to 100,000 such claims.
The settlement is still in flux, however, as Bayer wrestles with how to forestall future litigation.
In an interview, Johnson said he knew the legal battle with Monsanto could continue for many more years but he was committed to trying to hold the company accountable. He has managed to keep his illness in check so far with regular chemotherapy and radiation treatments, but is not certain how long that will continue.
“I don’t think any amount would be enough to punish that company,” Johnson said.


sustainablepulse--2020-09-03--Assassination of Afro-Colombian Community Leader Linked to Fight against Aerial Glyphosate Spraying

One of the leaders of the Afro-Colombian communities in northwestern Colombia , Patrocinio Bonilla a.k.a Patrón , was assassinated on August 11 , in a killing that has been linked to his support for agroecology and his struggle against the aerial spraying of glyphosate in the region , which is being pushed by the Trump Administration and the Colombian central government to control Coca crops .
Patrón was one of the founders of ‘ Kinchas for Agroecological and Community Production ’ in Chocó , northwestern Colombia , where 96 % of the people identify as Afro-Colombian or as part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been leading the fight against aerial spraying of glyphosate in the region , which is set to soon be used again by the Colombian government to control Cocaine production , after a 5 year ban of the practice following a 2015 court ruling .
Patrón was one of the leaders in the region who have found themselves fighting against the growing of Coca by drug traffickers at the same time as fighting against the use of aerial spraying of glyphosate – instead he and his colleagues believed there was a better way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the region from the ‘ toxic rain ’ and the toxic drug trade at the same time , by teaching local communities how to support themselves through agroecology .
Local Colombian media have suggested that Patrón was killed by right-wing paramilitaries in the region who have been supporting the governments ’ plans to renew aerial glyphosate spraying by removing dissent through force .
Patrón had also been a peace builder in the region through his agroecology and political work and this was allegedly not looked on kindly by the more extreme paramilitaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had labeled the central Colombian government , the paramilitaries and the Trump Administration , as the “ Alliance of Death ” .
CNN reported this week that in 2015 , then-president Juan Manuel Santos halted the practice of aerial spraying but his successor President Ivan Duque – prodded by Donald Trump – is now pushing for a hearing before Colombia ’ s environmental licenses authority , in order to obtain permission to restart the controversial practice .
Duque ’ s government says eradicating coca crops will limit trafficking and violence by drug gangs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dispute its effectiveness , saying the practice does little to reduce cocaine production and as glyphosate is a ‘ probable human carcinogen ’ the dangers to local communities are clear .
Aerial fumigations destroy all crops in a targeted area , not just coca plants but also agricultural products such as plantains , maize , yucca that farmers often grow in the same parcels , as the Colombian constitutional court recognized in a 2015 case .
“ I can tell you from direct experience , if a farmer doesn ’ t want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and spray over his field with produce , I guarantee the first thing the farmer will do is start growing coca , because what else can he do once all his produce is destroyed ?
” local farmer Jose David Hernandez told CNN .
Toby Muse , a cocaine expert and the author of Kilo : Inside the Deadliest Cocaine Cartels , told CNN that destroying coca crops through aerial fumigations was an ineffective response : “ The solution is always going to be working with coca farmers to produce an alternative to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substitution saw thousands of Colombian farmers swapping coca for coffee , cocoa and other crops following the 2016 peace agreement .

One of the leaders of the Afro-Colombian communities in northwestern Colombia, Patrocinio Bonilla a.k.a Patrón, was assassinated on August 11, in a killing that has been linked to his support for agroecology and his struggle against the aerial spraying of glyphosate in the region, which is being pushed by the Trump Administration and the Colombian central government to control Coca crops.
Patrón was one of the founders of ‘Kinchas for Agroecological and Community Production’ in Chocó, northwestern Colombia, where 96% of the people identify as Afro-Colombian or as part of the Emberá Indigenous community.
Kinchas have been leading the fight against aerial spraying of glyphosate in the region, which is set to soon be used again by the Colombian government to control Cocaine production, after a 5 year ban of the practice following a 2015 court ruling.
Patrón was one of the leaders in the region who have found themselves fighting against the growing of Coca by drug traffickers at the same time as fighting against the use of aerial spraying of glyphosate – instead he and his colleagues believed there was a better way to save the flora, fauna and people of the region from the ‘toxic rain’ and the toxic drug trade at the same time, by teaching local communities how to support themselves through agroecology.
Local Colombian media have suggested that Patrón was killed by right-wing paramilitaries in the region who have been supporting the governments’ plans to renew aerial glyphosate spraying by removing dissent through force. Patrón had also been a peace builder in the region through his agroecology and political work and this was allegedly not looked on kindly by the more extreme paramilitaries.
Patrón and his fellow community leaders had labeled the central Colombian government, the paramilitaries and the Trump Administration, as the “Alliance of Death”.
The “Alliance of Death”
CNN reported this week that in 2015, then-president Juan Manuel Santos halted the practice of aerial spraying but his successor President Ivan Duque – prodded by Donald Trump – is now pushing for a hearing before Colombia’s environmental licenses authority, in order to obtain permission to restart the controversial practice.
Sustainable Pulse Fact Check: This CNN source was checked against the White House records of the meeting between Donald Trump and Ivan Duque. The exact quote is below here: Q: President Trump, what do you think about the efforts of Colombian government to fight against drugs? Do you agree with the aerial spraying with glyphosate? PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, you’re going to have to spray. If you don’t spray, you’re not going to get rid of them. So you have to spray, with regard to the drugs in Colombia. Yeah.
Duque’s government says eradicating coca crops will limit trafficking and violence by drug gangs.
Critics of aerial fumigation however, dispute its effectiveness, saying the practice does little to reduce cocaine production and as glyphosate is a ‘probable human carcinogen’ the dangers to local communities are clear.
Aerial fumigations destroy all crops in a targeted area, not just coca plants but also agricultural products such as plantains, maize, yucca that farmers often grow in the same parcels, as the Colombian constitutional court recognized in a 2015 case.
“I can tell you from direct experience, if a farmer doesn’t want to grow coca, and the Army come and spray over his field with produce, I guarantee the first thing the farmer will do is start growing coca, because what else can he do once all his produce is destroyed?” local farmer Jose David Hernandez told CNN.
Toby Muse, a cocaine expert and the author of Kilo: Inside the Deadliest Cocaine Cartels, told CNN that destroying coca crops through aerial fumigations was an ineffective response: “The solution is always going to be working with coca farmers to produce an alternative to growing coca.”
Such programs of crop substitution saw thousands of Colombian farmers swapping coca for coffee, cocoa and other crops following the 2016 peace agreement.
Glyphosate Box Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure


sustainablepulse--2020-09-02--DDT – Why I’m Keeping My Backyard Chickens But Throwing All My Eggs Out

Backyard chickens are all the rage , but there are some situations that can arise making their eggs less desirable to eat .
Finding a persistent banned pesticide DDT breaking down in your soil and inside your backyard eggs would be an example of that .
So how do you go about finding out if your land is contaminated with toxic persistent pesticides AND if those pesticides are getting into your backyard eggs ?
… Pesticide Hair Test Led to Testing my Soil & Then Backyard Chicken Eggs This year I participated in a study by The Detox Project looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are exposed to .
I sent a sample of my hair to a laboratory and got results back months later and I was dumbfounded .
They found a pesticide in my hair that is so toxic , it ’ s banned in most countries around the world .
Leah Segedie ’ s Hair Sample DDT Results : 4,4′-DDD–not detected 4,4′-DDE– 4.5 ppb ( high range for this specific chemical according to the lab ) 4,4′-DDT–not detected What do these results mean ?
Well , it means that I ’ m being exposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s DDE , which is what DDT breaks down into over decades in the soil .
Read the whole story here on Mamavation !
Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure

Backyard chickens are all the rage, but there are some situations that can arise making their eggs less desirable to eat. Finding a persistent banned pesticide DDT breaking down in your soil and inside your backyard eggs would be an example of that. So how do you go about finding out if your land is contaminated with toxic persistent pesticides AND if those pesticides are getting into your backyard eggs?…
Pesticide Hair Test Led to Testing my Soil & Then Backyard Chicken Eggs
This year I participated in a study by The Detox Project looking at Americans and the types of pesticides we are exposed to. I sent a sample of my hair to a laboratory and got results back months later and I was dumbfounded. They found a pesticide in my hair that is so toxic, it’s banned in most countries around the world.
Leah Segedie’s Hair Sample DDT Results:
4,4′-DDD–not detected
4,4′-DDE– 4.5 ppb (high range for this specific chemical according to the lab)
4,4′-DDT–not detected
What do these results mean? Well, it means that I’m being exposed to DDT, but not DDT exactly, it’s DDE, which is what DDT breaks down into over decades in the soil.
Read the whole story here on Mamavation!
Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure


sustainablepulse--2020-09-07--Food Safety Experts Reveal First Open Source Detection Test for a Gene-Edited GM Crop

A group of non-governmental organisations , non-GMO food associations and a food retailer have announced that the first-ever public detection method for a gene-edited crop has been successfully developed and published .
The gene-edited crop in question is a herbicide-tolerant rapeseed produced by US company Cibus ( SU Canola ) , GMWatch reported Monday .
The new research refutes claims by the biotech industry and some regulators that new genetically modified ( GM ) crops engineered with gene editing are indistinguishable from similar , non-GM crops and therefore can not be regulated .
Some such claims are published here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ variety that was developed using gene editing , a new form of genetic engineering .
It allows European Union ( EU ) countries to carry out checks to prevent this unauthorised GM crop from entering EU food and feed supply chains illegally .
Until now , EU countries were unable to test their imports for the presence of this GM rapeseed , which is grown in parts of the US and Canada .
The new method also allows food companies , retailers , certification bodies and national food safety inspectors to verify that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The new detection test shows that the claimed difficulties of detecting gene-edited organisms are overstated .
It represents a specific detection method for a gene-edited crop in which only small alterations ( point mutations ) have been made .
Moreover , the test distinguishes this crop from genetically similar crops developed via chemical mutagenesis – in this case BASF ’ s Clearfield rapeseed .
Heike Moldenhauer , EU policy advisor at the German Association Food without Genetic Engineering ( VLOG ) , said : “ The new detection method is a milestone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Authorities can now start identifying unauthorised gene-edited crops .
This helps beekeepers , farmers , breeders , feed and food processors and retailers keep these new GMOs out of their supply chains and meet consumers ’ demand for non-GMO food ” .
Alexander Hissting of VLOG added , “ We have developed this test because authorities have failed to do so.
” The new method was published in the scientific journal Foods after peer review .
It detects SU Canola , an oilseed rape variety engineered by the American gene-editing company Cibus to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Umweltbundesamt ) , a member of the European Network of GMO Laboratories , has validated the method , which meets all EU legal standards .
The European Court of Justice ruled two years ago that gene-edited organisms fall under the EU ’ s GMO laws .
The Court said excluding new GMOs from the regulations would go against the purpose of the legislation .
It also said this would fail to respect the precautionary principle that is enshrined in the EU ’ s founding treaties and is the basis for the EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new test shows that EU law governing GM organisms ( GMOs ) can also be applied to new types of GMOs produced through gene editing , maintaining the EU ’ s high food safety standards .
Greenpeace EU food policy director Franziska Achterberg said : “ The EU ’ s highest court has ruled that gene-edited crops are regulated under the EU ’ s GMO regime and that this is necessary to protect consumers and the environment .
Some claim that gene-edited crops can not be found and therefore can not be regulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We have shown that GM crops created with gene editing can be detected .
There are no more excuses for failing to apply existing GMO safety and labelling requirements to these new GMOs .
The European Commission and governments must build on this success and develop screening procedures that can identify gene-edited products.
” Lead scientist Dr John Fagan from the Health Research Institute ( Iowa , USA ) said : “ The method we have developed detects what is probably the most challenging class of gene edits – a modification of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blueprint .
Since the scientific community has been using similar approaches for two decades to detect more complex GMOs , it is likely that this approach can be used to develop detection methods for most , if not all , gene-edited crops .
And the good news is that it uses procedures and equipment similar to those that regulatory and commercial laboratories are already familiar with .
”

A group of non-governmental organisations, non-GMO food associations and a food retailer have announced that the first-ever public detection method for a gene-edited crop has been successfully developed and published. The gene-edited crop in question is a herbicide-tolerant rapeseed produced by US company Cibus (SU Canola), GMWatch reported Monday.
The new research refutes claims by the biotech industry and some regulators that new genetically modified (GM) crops engineered with gene editing are indistinguishable from similar, non-GM crops and therefore cannot be regulated. Some such claims are published here.
The new method detects a herbicide-tolerant rapeseed variety that was developed using gene editing, a new form of genetic engineering. It allows European Union (EU) countries to carry out checks to prevent this unauthorised GM crop from entering EU food and feed supply chains illegally. Until now, EU countries were unable to test their imports for the presence of this GM rapeseed, which is grown in parts of the US and Canada.
The new method also allows food companies, retailers, certification bodies and national food safety inspectors to verify that products do not contain this GM rapeseed.
The new detection test shows that the claimed difficulties of detecting gene-edited organisms are overstated. It represents a specific detection method for a gene-edited crop in which only small alterations (point mutations) have been made. Moreover, the test distinguishes this crop from genetically similar crops developed via chemical mutagenesis – in this case BASF’s Clearfield rapeseed.
Heike Moldenhauer, EU policy advisor at the German Association Food without Genetic Engineering (VLOG), said: “The new detection method is a milestone in EU consumer and business protection. Authorities can now start identifying unauthorised gene-edited crops. This helps beekeepers, farmers, breeders, feed and food processors and retailers keep these new GMOs out of their supply chains and meet consumers’ demand for non-GMO food”.
Alexander Hissting of VLOG added, “We have developed this test because authorities have failed to do so.”
The new method was published in the scientific journal Foods after peer review. It detects SU Canola, an oilseed rape variety engineered by the American gene-editing company Cibus to withstand certain herbicides. Environment Agency Austria (Umweltbundesamt), a member of the European Network of GMO Laboratories, has validated the method, which meets all EU legal standards.
The European Court of Justice ruled two years ago that gene-edited organisms fall under the EU’s GMO laws. The Court said excluding new GMOs from the regulations would go against the purpose of the legislation. It also said this would fail to respect the precautionary principle that is enshrined in the EU’s founding treaties and is the basis for the EU’s food safety rules.
The new test shows that EU law governing GM organisms (GMOs) can also be applied to new types of GMOs produced through gene editing, maintaining the EU’s high food safety standards.
Greenpeace EU food policy director Franziska Achterberg said: “The EU’s highest court has ruled that gene-edited crops are regulated under the EU’s GMO regime and that this is necessary to protect consumers and the environment. Some claim that gene-edited crops cannot be found and therefore cannot be regulated under the EU’s GMO regime. We have shown that GM crops created with gene editing can be detected. There are no more excuses for failing to apply existing GMO safety and labelling requirements to these new GMOs. The European Commission and governments must build on this success and develop screening procedures that can identify gene-edited products.”
Lead scientist Dr John Fagan from the Health Research Institute (Iowa, USA) said: “The method we have developed detects what is probably the most challenging class of gene edits – a modification of just a single letter in the genetic blueprint. Since the scientific community has been using similar approaches for two decades to detect more complex GMOs, it is likely that this approach can be used to develop detection methods for most, if not all, gene-edited crops. And the good news is that it uses procedures and equipment similar to those that regulatory and commercial laboratories are already familiar with.”


sustainablepulse--2020-09-07--Belgium’s Superior Health Council Call for Phase-Out of Glyphosate Herbicides

Belgium ’ s Superior Health Council has called for the use of herbicides containing glyphosate ( the world ’ s most used herbicide ) in the country to be phased out before December 2022 to help protect public health .
The full Press Release from the Superior Health Council can be seen below : NEED FOR A CONTROLLED , PLANNED AND PROGRESSIVE PHASE OUT OF GLYPHOSATE IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC HEALTH The EU extended the permission for using glyphosate and glyphosate containing formulations till December 2022 with some restrictions and installed the special PEST committee to review the procedure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EU .
The conclusions of the committee were approved by the EU-Parliament in January 2019 .
In December 2019 , the procedure for extension of the permission using glyphosate in the EU beyond December 2022 has been initiated by a cluster of companies , Bayer being the most important one .
Taking the mission of the Superior Health Council ( SHC ) into account and being aware of the importance of the glyphosate file , the SHC expresses his point of view on the matter .
It is not the aim to perform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but rather to obtain a bird ’ s-eye view on the complexity of the situation and to provide recommendations for Belgian public health authorities .
This report was validated by the SHC Board in January 2020 .
However , the SHC preferred to postpone its publication due to the general – and justified – attention paid to the coronavirus epidemic .
In fact , the SHC ‘ s role in public health has meant that the Council too has issued advisory reports in the context of the epidemic .
The report on glyphosate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with on the fringes of other important situations requiring special attention ( Covid-19 ) .
Yet it is time to turn to the future once again and seize the opportunity presented by the necessary economic recovery to ensure that a more sustainable economy is built in which glyphosate ( as well as other products ) no longer has a place .
Toxic effects of glyphosate ” the tree that hides the forest ” !
Glyphosate has a complex toxic profile beyond carcinogenicity , and also its endocrine disrupting properties , its effects on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ animals and its effects on pollinators ( besides the effects of neonicotinoïds ) are of concern .
The SHC notices that the controversial nature of the literature on carcinogenicity of glyphosate is less pronounced for the other types of toxicity .
The conclusion of the SHC is that , although the carcinogenicity of glyphosate is the focus of the current discussions , other aspects of toxicity might be also important and less controversial .
These non-carcinogenic effects of glyphosate can be already a sufficient reason for action .
The SHC concludes that glyphosate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compounds .
Carcinogenic effects , where does the debate stand ?
The scientific literature shows that glyphosate has genotoxic , oxidative stress inducing and endocrine disrupting properties which point to carcinogenic activity but this activity is difficult to demonstrate in animal studies and the epidemiological evidence for carcinogenicity on humans is limited .
A meta-analysis that includes the most recent update of the largest USA study including over 50,000 users of glyphosate along with five case-control studies revealed that only a small group of users with the highest exposure to glyphosate shows a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For the majority of users , no difference with non-users is found .
The SHC concludes that there are reasons to assume that glyphosate is a weak carcinogen and that the risk for humans is limited .
In the absence of non-toxic alternatives , the economic stakes are important The PEST committee has thoroughly studied the current situation on pesticide use in the EU .
The resulting report contains some strong points .
However , no conclusions on the toxicity of glyphosate neither on the way to proceed ahead are provided , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view of the massive worldwide use of this herbicide , the SHC is aware of the important role of glyphosate not only in agriculture but also in economics in general .
At the same time , the SHC notices that there is no valid alternative yet for glyphosate .
The conclusion of the SHC is that the glyphosate file is complex not only because of its toxicity but also because of the societal aspects .
In view of its internal procedure for the management of conflicts of interest , the SHC offers the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independence of this opinion .
In addition , particular attention has been paid to this point through a thorough analysis of the key publications used in the document .
• The SHC recommends that , although the risk of negative effects for humans following exposure to glyphosate is limited , in view of the toxic profile based on carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects , the use of glyphosate should stop as soon as possible and preferentially before 15/12/2022 , i.e .
the end of the running permission period .
• The SHC recommends that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ glyphosate , either another chemical with comparable properties or other non-chemical methods for weed control should be intensively stimulated .
Preferentially – if not necessarily – these efforts should be organized and coordinated at an international level in view of the world wide importance of glyphosate .
• In accordance with its advice 9404 on the importance of exposures early in life the SHC recommends that the competent authorities – preferentially at a EU level – should establish a coherent plan before the end of the running permission period ( December 2022 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This plan must include strict deliverables well defined in time , all aspects should be considered and all stakeholders should participate in this multidisciplinary approach .
Although it is not the aim of the SHC to perform risk management , the SHC is willing to participate in this stakeholder process as a scientific institution .
The precautionary principle should be applied with caution .
What is the Superior Health Council ?
The Superior Health Council is the Federal Public Service Health , Food Chain Safety and Environment advisory body .
In order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council draws up scientific advisory reports that aim at providing guidance to political decision-makers and health professionals .
Thanks to its network of experts and in-house staff , the Council produces impartial and independent advisory reports that are based on a multidisciplinary assessment of the state of the art of science .
Thus , the SHC applies a system for managing potential conflicts of interest .
The Council formulates these advisory reports on request or on its own initiative and publishes them .

Belgium’s Superior Health Council has called for the use of herbicides containing glyphosate (the world’s most used herbicide) in the country to be phased out before December 2022 to help protect public health.
The full Press Release from the Superior Health Council can be seen below:
NEED FOR A CONTROLLED, PLANNED AND PROGRESSIVE PHASE OUT OF GLYPHOSATE IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC HEALTH
The EU extended the permission for using glyphosate and glyphosate containing formulations till December 2022 with some restrictions and installed the special PEST committee to review the procedure allowing the use of pesticides in the EU. The conclusions of the committee were approved by the EU-Parliament in January 2019. In December 2019, the procedure for extension of the permission using glyphosate in the EU beyond December 2022 has been initiated by a cluster of companies, Bayer being the most important one.
Taking the mission of the Superior Health Council (SHC) into account and being aware of the importance of the glyphosate file, the SHC expresses his point of view on the matter. It is not the aim to perform another systematic review of the scientific literature but rather to obtain a bird’s-eye view on the complexity of the situation and to provide recommendations for Belgian public health authorities. This report was validated by the SHC Board in January 2020. However, the SHC preferred to postpone its publication due to the general – and justified – attention paid to the coronavirus epidemic. In fact, the SHC ‘s role in public health has meant that the Council too has issued advisory reports in the context of the epidemic.
The report on glyphosate was considered too important to be dealt with on the fringes of other important situations requiring special attention (Covid-19). Yet it is time to turn to the future once again and seize the opportunity presented by the necessary economic recovery to ensure that a more sustainable economy is built in which glyphosate (as well as other products) no longer has a place.
Toxic effects of glyphosate ” the tree that hides the forest ” !
Glyphosate has a complex toxic profile beyond carcinogenicity, and also its endocrine disrupting properties, its effects on the intestinal microbiome of humans and experimental animals and its effects on pollinators (besides the effects of neonicotinoïds) are of concern. The SHC notices that the controversial nature of the literature on carcinogenicity of glyphosate is less pronounced for the other types of toxicity. The conclusion of the SHC is that, although the carcinogenicity of glyphosate is the focus of the current discussions, other aspects of toxicity might be also important and less controversial. These non-carcinogenic effects of glyphosate can be already a sufficient reason for action. The SHC concludes that glyphosate has hazardous properties like many other synthetic compounds.
Carcinogenic effects, where does the debate stand?
The scientific literature shows that glyphosate has genotoxic, oxidative stress inducing and endocrine disrupting properties which point to carcinogenic activity but this activity is difficult to demonstrate in animal studies and the epidemiological evidence for carcinogenicity on humans is limited. A meta-analysis that includes the most recent update of the largest USA study including over 50,000 users of glyphosate along with five case-control studies revealed that only a small group of users with the highest exposure to glyphosate shows a limited increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma cancer. For the majority of users, no difference with non-users is found. The SHC concludes that there are reasons to assume that glyphosate is a weak carcinogen and that the risk for humans is limited.
In the absence of non-toxic alternatives, the economic stakes are important
The PEST committee has thoroughly studied the current situation on pesticide use in the EU. The resulting report contains some strong points. However, no conclusions on the toxicity of glyphosate neither on the way to proceed ahead are provided, which is considered a weakness.
Glyphosate Box Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure
In view of the massive worldwide use of this herbicide, the SHC is aware of the important role of glyphosate not only in agriculture but also in economics in general. At the same time, the SHC notices that there is no valid alternative yet for glyphosate. The conclusion of the SHC is that the glyphosate file is complex not only because of its toxicity but also because of the societal aspects.
In view of its internal procedure for the management of conflicts of interest, the SHC offers the best possible Belgian guarantees of transparency and independence of this opinion. In addition, particular attention has been paid to this point through a thorough analysis of the key publications used in the document.
And Now?
The SHC recommends that, although the risk of negative effects for humans following exposure to glyphosate is limited, in view of the toxic profile based on carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects, the use of glyphosate should stop as soon as possible and preferentially before 15/12/2022, i.e. the end of the running permission period. The SHC recommends that efforts to find an acceptable alternative for glyphosate, either another chemical with comparable properties or other non-chemical methods for weed control should be intensively stimulated. Preferentially – if not necessarily – these efforts should be organized and coordinated at an international level in view of the world wide importance of glyphosate. In accordance with its advice 9404 on the importance of exposures early in life the SHC recommends that the competent authorities – preferentially at a EU level – should establish a coherent plan before the end of the running permission period (December 2022) to abandon the use of glyphosate. This plan must include strict deliverables well defined in time, all aspects should be considered and all stakeholders should participate in this multidisciplinary approach. Although it is not the aim of the SHC to perform risk management, the SHC is willing to participate in this stakeholder process as a scientific institution. The precautionary principle should be applied with caution.
What is the Superior Health Council?
The Superior Health Council is the Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment advisory body. In order to guarantee and enhance public health, the Council draws up scientific advisory reports that aim at providing guidance to political decision-makers and health professionals. Thanks to its network of experts and in-house staff, the Council produces impartial and independent advisory reports that are based on a multidisciplinary assessment of the state of the art of science. Thus, the SHC applies a system for managing potential conflicts of interest. The Council formulates these advisory reports on request or on its own initiative and publishes them.


sustainablepulse--2020-09-09--Center for Reproductive Rights Calls for Ban on Aerial Glyphosate Spraying in Colombia over Health R

Center for Reproductive Rights Calls for Ban on Aerial Glyphosate Spraying in Colombia over Health Risks

As Colombia prepares to restart its aerial fumigation program , the global Center for Reproductive Rights and its local partners at the Cali , Colombia-based Universidad del Valle have published a research report showing that the herbicide used in the program has negative effects on people ’ s reproductive health .
Using the findings from their study , the partners have called on the Colombian government to stop the fumigation program from moving forward .
The new Spanish-language report , Salud Reproductiva y Glifosato en el Contexto de Conflicto Armado ( “ Reproductive Health and Glyphosate in the Context of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is based on a comprehensive scientific study conducted by the Universidad del Valle and supported by the Center .
According to this research , the controversial herbicide , glyphosate—which is sprayed over coca fields to eradicate cocaine and other illicit crop production—can cause harmful effects on fertility .
Glyphosate has also been linked to miscarriages and possible future problems with pregnancy .
For more than 20 years , the Colombian government utilized aerial fumigation of coca fields as a weapon against the country ’ s illegal cocaine trade .
Colombia suspended this program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had damaging effects on both environmental and human health .
However , in response to increased coca cultivation , the country plans to reinstate the use of glyphosate this year , despite the known risks .
The scientific study , conducted by the Universidad de Valle and supported by the Center , is a systematic review of other animal , human and in-vitro studies , as well as insights from public health , medicine , and legal experts .
The research concludes that there is “ clear evidence of the negative effects of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impacting hormone levels and reproductive tissue , as well as causing miscarriage .
This week the Center and partners have launched a digital campaign that aims to educate the public about this issue on social media and in video .
As part of the campaign , the Center and its partners urge Colombia to protect its citizens and avoid causing any harm that affects the health , life , and reproductive autonomy of all people in the country .
“ If a woman has chosen to have children as part of her life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should not put her at any risk that might harm her physical or mental health , ” explained Catalina Martinez Coral , regional director of the Center for Reproductive Rights , explained .
“ Reproductive rights are human rights and they become a reality when women are guaranteed autonomy over their bodies ; this is the only way to advance towards equality.
” The Center and partners plan to present their research to the Truth Commission of Colombia , as a step toward recognizing reproductive violence and moving toward gender equity , justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an organization established to investigate human rights violations from Colombia ’ s decades-long armed conflict .
What is the Center for Reproductive Rights ?
The Center for Reproductive Rights ( CRR ) is a global legal advocacy organization that seeks to advance reproductive rights , such as abortion .
The organization ’ s stated mission is to “ use the law to advance reproductive freedom as a fundamental human right that all governments are legally obligated to protect , respect , and fulfill.
” Founded by Janet Benshoof in 1992 , its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Law and Policy .
The Center for Reproductive Rights is headquartered in New York City .
The Center continually monitors the treatment of reproductive rights in various media in the U.S. and abroad .

As Colombia prepares to restart its aerial fumigation program, the global Center for Reproductive Rights and its local partners at the Cali, Colombia-based Universidad del Valle have published a research report showing that the herbicide used in the program has negative effects on people’s reproductive health. Using the findings from their study, the partners have called on the Colombian government to stop the fumigation program from moving forward.
The new Spanish-language report, Salud Reproductiva y Glifosato en el Contexto de Conflicto Armado (“Reproductive Health and Glyphosate in the Context of the Colombian Armed Conflict”), is based on a comprehensive scientific study conducted by the Universidad del Valle and supported by the Center. According to this research, the controversial herbicide, glyphosate—which is sprayed over coca fields to eradicate cocaine and other illicit crop production—can cause harmful effects on fertility. Glyphosate has also been linked to miscarriages and possible future problems with pregnancy.
For more than 20 years, the Colombian government utilized aerial fumigation of coca fields as a weapon against the country’s illegal cocaine trade. Colombia suspended this program in 2015 after experts found that glyphosate had damaging effects on both environmental and human health. However, in response to increased coca cultivation, the country plans to reinstate the use of glyphosate this year, despite the known risks.
The scientific study, conducted by the Universidad de Valle and supported by the Center, is a systematic review of other animal, human and in-vitro studies, as well as insights from public health, medicine, and legal experts. The research concludes that there is “clear evidence of the negative effects of glyphosate on reproductive health,” including impacting hormone levels and reproductive tissue, as well as causing miscarriage.
Digital Campaign Educates Colombian Public
This week the Center and partners have launched a digital campaign that aims to educate the public about this issue on social media and in video. As part of the campaign, the Center and its partners urge Colombia to protect its citizens and avoid causing any harm that affects the health, life, and reproductive autonomy of all people in the country.
Glyphosate Box Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure
“If a woman has chosen to have children as part of her life plan, the actions of the State should not put her at any risk that might harm her physical or mental health,” explained Catalina Martinez Coral, regional director of the Center for Reproductive Rights, explained. “Reproductive rights are human rights and they become a reality when women are guaranteed autonomy over their bodies; this is the only way to advance towards equality.”
The Center and partners plan to present their research to the Truth Commission of Colombia, as a step toward recognizing reproductive violence and moving toward gender equity, justice, and peace. The Truth Commission is an organization established to investigate human rights violations from Colombia’s decades-long armed conflict.
What is the Center for Reproductive Rights?
The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) is a global legal advocacy organization that seeks to advance reproductive rights, such as abortion. The organization’s stated mission is to “use the law to advance reproductive freedom as a fundamental human right that all governments are legally obligated to protect, respect, and fulfill.” Founded by Janet Benshoof in 1992, its original name was the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy.
The Center for Reproductive Rights is headquartered in New York City. The Center continually monitors the treatment of reproductive rights in various media in the U.S. and abroad.
Charity Watch rates the Center for Reproductive Rights “A-“.


sustainablepulse--2020-09-17--Thailand’s Reversal on Glyphosate Ban Came after Bayer Scripted US Intervention, Documents Show

A year ago Thailand was set to ban the widely used weed killing chemical glyphosate , a move applauded by public health advocates because of evidence the chemical causes cancer , along with other harms to people and the environment , USRTK reported Thursday .
But under heavy pressure from U.S. officials , Thailand ’ s government reversed the planned ban on glyphosate last November and delayed imposing bans on two other agricultural pesticides despite the fact that the country ’ s National Hazardous Substances Committee said a ban was necessary to protect consumers .
A ban , particularly on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thai imports of soybeans , wheat and other agricultural commodities , U.S. Department of Agriculture Undersecretary Ted McKinney warned Thailand Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-Ocha in pushing for the reversal .
Imports could be impacted because those commodities , and many others , typically are laced with residues of glyphosate .
Now , newly revealed emails between government officials and Monsanto parent Bayer AG show that McKinney ’ s actions , and those taken by other U.S. government officials to convince Thailand not to ban glyphosate , were largely scripted and pushed by Bayer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Freedom of Information Act request by the Center for Biological Diversity , a nonprofit conservation organization .
The group sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) and the U.S. Department of Commerce on Wednesday seeking additional public records regarding the actions of the departments of trade and agriculture in pressuring Thailand on the glyphosate issue .
There are several documents the government has thus far refused to release regarding communications with Bayer and other companies , the organization said .
“ It ’ s bad enough that this administration has ignored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s self-serving assertions of glyphosate ’ s safety , ” said Nathan Donley , a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity .
“ But to then act as Bayer ’ s agent to pressure other countries to adopt that position is outrageous.
” Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup herbicides and other brands developed by Monsanto , which are worth billions of dollars in annual sales .
Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018 and has been struggling ever since to suppress mounting global concerns about scientific research showing that glyphosate herbicides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lymphoma .
The company is also fighting off lawsuits involving more than 100,000 plaintiffs who claim their development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma was caused by exposure to Roundup and other Monsanto glyphosate-based herbicides .
Glyphosate weed killers are the most widely used herbicides in the world , in large part because Monsanto developed genetically engineered crops that tolerate being sprayed directly with the chemical .
Though useful to farmers in keeping fields free of weeds , the practice of spraying herbicide over the tops of growing crops leaves varying levels of the pesticide in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monsanto and U.S. regulators maintain pesticide levels in food and livestock feed are not harmful to humans or livestock , but many scientists disagree and say even trace amounts can be dangerous .
Different countries set different legal levels for what they determine to be safe amounts of the weed killer in food and raw commodities .
Those “ maximum residue levels ” are referred to as MRLs .
The U.S. allows the highest MRLs of glyphosate in food when compared to other countries .
If Thailand banned glyphosate , the allowed level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zero , Bayer warned U.S. officials .
The emails show that in September 2019 and again in early October of 2019 James Travis , senior director for Bayer international government affairs and trade , sought assistance in reversing the glyphosate ban from multiple high-level officials from the USDA and the Office of the United States Trade Representative ( USTR ) .
Among those Bayer sought aid from was Zhulieta Willbrand , who at that time was chief of staff of trade and foreign agricultural affairs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban on glyphosate , Willbrand was hired to work directly for Bayer on international trade matters .
When asked if the assistance from Willbrand while she was a government official helped her get a job at Bayer , the company said that it “ ethically strives ” to hire people from “ all backgrounds ” and any “ inference that she was hired for any reason other than the immense talent she brings to Bayer is false.
” In an email to Willbrand dated Sept. 18 , 2019 , Travis told her Bayer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for U.S. government engagement on the glyphosate ban , and he noted that Bayer was organizing other groups to protest the ban as well .
“ On our end , we are educating farmer groups , plantations and business partners so that they too can articulate concerns and the need for a rigorous , science based process , ” Travis wrote to Willbrand .
Willbrand then forwarded the email to McKinney , the USDA ’ s Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs .
In an Oct. 8 , 2019 , email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Thailand Ban – Developments Moving Quickly , ” Travis wrote to Marta Prado , deputy assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Southeast Asia and the Pacific , copying Willbrand and others , to update them on the situation .
Travis wrote that Thailand looked poised to ban glyphosate at a “ dramatically ” accelerated pace , by December 1 , 2019 .
Along with glyphosate , the country was planning to also ban chlorpyrifos , an insecticide made popular by Dow Chemical that is known to damage babies ’ brains ; and paraquat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nervous system disease known as Parkinson ’ s .
Travis pointed out the risk a glyphosate ban would pose to sales of U.S. commodities because of the MRL issue and provided other background material the officials could use to engage with Thailand .
“ In light of recent developments , we are growing more concerned that some policymakers and lawmakers are rushing the process and will not thoroughly consult all farming stakeholders nor fully consider the economic and environmental impact of banning glyphosate , ” Travis wrote to the U.S. officials .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials discussed potential personal motivations of Thai officials and how such intelligence could be useful .
“ Knowing what motivates her may help with USG counter arguments , ” one U.S. official wrote to Bayer about one Thai leader .
Travis suggested that U.S. officials engage much as they had with Vietnam when that country moved in April 2019 to ban glyphosate .
Shortly after the appeal from Bayer , McKinney wrote to the Thailand Prime Minister about the matter .
In an Oct. 17 , 2019 letter McKinney , who previously worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Washington for an in-person discussion about glyphosate safety and the Environmental Protection Agency ’ s determination that glyphosate “ poses no meaningful risk to human health when used as authorized.
” “ Should a ban be implemented it would severely impact Thailand ’ s imports of agricultural commodities such as soybean and wheat , ” McKinney wrote .
“ I urge you to delay a decision on glyphosate until we can arrange an opportunity for U.S. technical experts to share the most relevant information to address Thailand ’ s concerns.
” A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Nov. 27 , Thailand reversed the planned glyphosate ban .
It also said it would delay bans on paraquat and chlorpyrifos for several months .
Thailand did finalize bans of paraquat and chlorpyrifos on June 1 , of this year .
But glyphosate remains in use .
When asked about its engagement with U.S. officials on the issue , Bayer issued the following statement : “ Like many companies and organizations operating in highly regulated industries , we provide information and contribute to science-based policymaking and regulatory processes .
Our engagements with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ routine , professional , and consistent with all laws and regulations .
The Thai authorities ’ reversal of the ban on glyphosate is consistent with the science-based determinations by regulatory bodies around the world , including in the United States , Europe , Germany , Australia , Korea , Canada , New Zealand , Japan and elsewhere that have repeatedly concluded that our glyphosate-based products can be used safely as directed .
Thai farmers have used glyphosate safely and successfully for decades to produce essential crops including cassava , corn , sugar cane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rubber .
Glyphosate has helped farmers to improve their livelihoods and meet community expectations of safe , affordable food that is produced sustainably .
”

A year ago Thailand was set to ban the widely used weed killing chemical glyphosate, a move applauded by public health advocates because of evidence the chemical causes cancer, along with other harms to people and the environment, USRTK reported Thursday.
Source: USRTK By Carey Gillam
But under heavy pressure from U.S. officials, Thailand’s government reversed the planned ban on glyphosate last November and delayed imposing bans on two other agricultural pesticides despite the fact that the country’s National Hazardous Substances Committee said a ban was necessary to protect consumers.
A ban, particularly on glyphosate, would “severely impact” Thai imports of soybeans, wheat and other agricultural commodities, U.S. Department of Agriculture Undersecretary Ted McKinney warned Thailand Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-Ocha in pushing for the reversal. Imports could be impacted because those commodities, and many others, typically are laced with residues of glyphosate.
Now, newly revealed emails between government officials and Monsanto parent Bayer AG show that McKinney’s actions, and those taken by other U.S. government officials to convince Thailand not to ban glyphosate, were largely scripted and pushed by Bayer.
Glyphosate Box Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Out Your Long-Term Exposure
The emails were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit conservation organization. The group sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of Commerce on Wednesday seeking additional public records regarding the actions of the departments of trade and agriculture in pressuring Thailand on the glyphosate issue. There are several documents the government has thus far refused to release regarding communications with Bayer and other companies, the organization said.
“It’s bad enough that this administration has ignored independent science to blindly support Bayer’s self-serving assertions of glyphosate’s safety,” said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “But to then act as Bayer’s agent to pressure other countries to adopt that position is outrageous.”
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup herbicides and other brands developed by Monsanto, which are worth billions of dollars in annual sales. Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018 and has been struggling ever since to suppress mounting global concerns about scientific research showing that glyphosate herbicides can cause a blood cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The company is also fighting off lawsuits involving more than 100,000 plaintiffs who claim their development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma was caused by exposure to Roundup and other Monsanto glyphosate-based herbicides.
Glyphosate weed killers are the most widely used herbicides in the world, in large part because Monsanto developed genetically engineered crops that tolerate being sprayed directly with the chemical. Though useful to farmers in keeping fields free of weeds, the practice of spraying herbicide over the tops of growing crops leaves varying levels of the pesticide in both raw grain and finished foods. Monsanto and U.S. regulators maintain pesticide levels in food and livestock feed are not harmful to humans or livestock, but many scientists disagree and say even trace amounts can be dangerous.
Different countries set different legal levels for what they determine to be safe amounts of the weed killer in food and raw commodities. Those “maximum residue levels” are referred to as MRLs. The U.S. allows the highest MRLs of glyphosate in food when compared to other countries.
If Thailand banned glyphosate, the allowed level of glyphosate in food likely would be zero, Bayer warned U.S. officials.
High-level help
The emails show that in September 2019 and again in early October of 2019 James Travis, senior director for Bayer international government affairs and trade, sought assistance in reversing the glyphosate ban from multiple high-level officials from the USDA and the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
Among those Bayer sought aid from was Zhulieta Willbrand, who at that time was chief of staff of trade and foreign agricultural affairs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. After Thailand’s decision to reverse the ban on glyphosate, Willbrand was hired to work directly for Bayer on international trade matters.
When asked if the assistance from Willbrand while she was a government official helped her get a job at Bayer, the company said that it “ethically strives” to hire people from “all backgrounds” and any “inference that she was hired for any reason other than the immense talent she brings to Bayer is false.”
In an email to Willbrand dated Sept. 18, 2019, Travis told her Bayer thought there was “real value” for U.S. government engagement on the glyphosate ban, and he noted that Bayer was organizing other groups to protest the ban as well.
“On our end, we are educating farmer groups, plantations and business partners so that they too can articulate concerns and the need for a rigorous, science based process,” Travis wrote to Willbrand. Willbrand then forwarded the email to McKinney, the USDA’s Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs.
In an Oct. 8, 2019, email string with the subject line “Summary of Thailand Ban – Developments Moving Quickly,” Travis wrote to Marta Prado, deputy assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Southeast Asia and the Pacific, copying Willbrand and others, to update them on the situation.
Travis wrote that Thailand looked poised to ban glyphosate at a “dramatically” accelerated pace, by December 1, 2019. Along with glyphosate, the country was planning to also ban chlorpyrifos, an insecticide made popular by Dow Chemical that is known to damage babies’ brains; and paraquat, a herbicide scientists say causes the nervous system disease known as Parkinson’s.
Travis pointed out the risk a glyphosate ban would pose to sales of U.S. commodities because of the MRL issue and provided other background material the officials could use to engage with Thailand.
“In light of recent developments, we are growing more concerned that some policymakers and lawmakers are rushing the process and will not thoroughly consult all farming stakeholders nor fully consider the economic and environmental impact of banning glyphosate,” Travis wrote to the U.S. officials.
The email exchanges show that Bayer and U.S. officials discussed potential personal motivations of Thai officials and how such intelligence could be useful. “Knowing what motivates her may help with USG counter arguments,” one U.S. official wrote to Bayer about one Thai leader.
Travis suggested that U.S. officials engage much as they had with Vietnam when that country moved in April 2019 to ban glyphosate.
Shortly after the appeal from Bayer, McKinney wrote to the Thailand Prime Minister about the matter. In an Oct. 17, 2019 letter McKinney, who previously worked for Dow Agrosciences, invited Thailand officials to Washington for an in-person discussion about glyphosate safety and the Environmental Protection Agency’s determination that glyphosate “poses no meaningful risk to human health when used as authorized.”
“Should a ban be implemented it would severely impact Thailand’s imports of agricultural commodities such as soybean and wheat,” McKinney wrote. “I urge you to delay a decision on glyphosate until we can arrange an opportunity for U.S. technical experts to share the most relevant information to address Thailand’s concerns.”
A little more than a month later, on Nov. 27, Thailand reversed the planned glyphosate ban. It also said it would delay bans on paraquat and chlorpyrifos for several months.
Thailand did finalize bans of paraquat and chlorpyrifos on June 1, of this year. But glyphosate remains in use.
When asked about its engagement with U.S. officials on the issue, Bayer issued the following statement:
“Like many companies and organizations operating in highly regulated industries, we provide information and contribute to science-based policymaking and regulatory processes. Our engagements with all those in the public sector are routine, professional, and consistent with all laws and regulations.
The Thai authorities’ reversal of the ban on glyphosate is consistent with the science-based determinations by regulatory bodies around the world, including in the United States, Europe, Germany, Australia, Korea, Canada, New Zealand, Japan and elsewhere that have repeatedly concluded that our glyphosate-based products can be used safely as directed.
Thai farmers have used glyphosate safely and successfully for decades to produce essential crops including cassava, corn, sugar cane, fruits, oil palm, and rubber. Glyphosate has helped farmers to improve their livelihoods and meet community expectations of safe, affordable food that is produced sustainably.”


sustainablepulse--2020-09-17--Bayer Inks Deals with Three Roundup Cancer Law Firms as Settlement Progresses

Bayer AG has reached final settlement terms with three major law firms representing thousands of plaintiffs who claim exposure to Monsanto ’ s glyphosate-based herbicides caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma , USRTK reported Tuesday .
The new deals have been made with California-based Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman law firm ; the Andrus Wagstaff firm from Colorado ; and the Moore Law Group of Kentucky .
The firms each filed notification of the deals with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Monday .
The deals come after allegations by the three law firms that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already made months earlier .
The firms told the court Monday that they each now have a “ fully-executed and binding Master Settlement Agreement with Monsanto.
” Notably , the deals mark a critical step toward bringing closure to the five-year-old mass tort litigation that now tallies more than 100,000 claims brought by people from around the United States who used Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides made by Monsanto before they developed cancer .
Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018 just as the first Roundup cancer trial was getting underway .
It has since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held to date and has lost the early rounds of appeals seeking to overturn the trial losses .
Juries in each of the trials found that Monsanto ’ s herbicides do cause cancer and that Monsanto spent decades hiding the risks .
The jury awards totaled well over $ 2 billion , though the judgments have been ordered reduced by trial and appellate court judges .
Bayer had threatened to file for bankruptcy if no nationwide settlement was reached , according to communications from the plaintiffs ’ firms to their clients .
Bayer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a $ 10 billion settlement with U.S. law firms to resolve most of more than 100,000 Roundup cancer claims .
But at that time only two of the major law firms in the sweeping litigation had final signed agreements with Bayer – The Miller Firm and Weitz & Luxenburg , according to sources close to the negotiations .
The Baum firm , the Andrus Wagstaff firm and the Moore firm had memorandums of understanding but not final agreements , sources said .
The company ’ s efforts to resolve the litigation have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to head off claims that could be brought in the future by people who develop cancer after using the company ’ s herbicides .
Bayer tried to get court approval for a plan that would have delayed the filing of new Roundup cancer cases for four years , and would have established a five-member “ science panel ” to determine whether Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma , and if so , at what minimum exposure levels .
If the panel determined there was no causal connection between Roundup and non-Hodgkin lymphoma then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future such claims .
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria rejected the plan , sending Bayer back to the drawing board .
Bayer had said Thursday that it was making progress in the development of a “ revised ” plan to resolve potential future Roundup litigation .
The details of the revised class plan will be finalized over the coming weeks , according to Bayer .
Several plaintiffs have been unhappy with the settlement , saying they will not receive very much money despite years of expensive cancer treatments and ongoing pain and suffering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while waiting for a resolution .
On September 9 , lawyers for Marie Bernice Dinner and her husband Bruce Dinner filed notice with the court that 73-year-old Marie died on June 2 from the non-Hodgkin lymphoma she and her husband alleged was caused by her exposure to Monsanto ’ s weed killers .
Lawyers for Bruce Dinner asked the court to allow them to amend the complaint against Monsanto to add a claim for wrongful death .
The couple was married 53 years and have two children and four grandchildren .
“ Marie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death should have been prevented , ” said lawyer Beth Klein , who is representing the family .

Bayer AG has reached final settlement terms with three major law firms representing thousands of plaintiffs who claim exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, USRTK reported Tuesday.
Source: USRTK By Carey Gillam
The new deals have been made with California-based Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman law firm; the Andrus Wagstaff firm from Colorado; and the Moore Law Group of Kentucky. The firms each filed notification of the deals with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Monday.
The deals come after allegations by the three law firms that Bayer was reneging on terms of agreements already made months earlier. The firms told the court Monday that they each now have a “fully-executed and binding Master Settlement Agreement with Monsanto.”
Notably, the deals mark a critical step toward bringing closure to the five-year-old mass tort litigation that now tallies more than 100,000 claims brought by people from around the United States who used Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides made by Monsanto before they developed cancer.
Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018 just as the first Roundup cancer trial was getting underway. It has since lost all three of the three trials held to date and has lost the early rounds of appeals seeking to overturn the trial losses. Juries in each of the trials found that Monsanto’s herbicides do cause cancer and that Monsanto spent decades hiding the risks.
The jury awards totaled well over $2 billion, though the judgments have been ordered reduced by trial and appellate court judges.
Bayer had threatened to file for bankruptcy if no nationwide settlement was reached, according to communications from the plaintiffs’ firms to their clients.
Glyphosate Box Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure
Bayer announced in June that it had reached a $10 billion settlement with U.S. law firms to resolve most of more than 100,000 Roundup cancer claims. But at that time only two of the major law firms in the sweeping litigation had final signed agreements with Bayer – The Miller Firm and Weitz & Luxenburg, according to sources close to the negotiations. The Baum firm, the Andrus Wagstaff firm and the Moore firm had memorandums of understanding but not final agreements, sources said.
The company’s efforts to resolve the litigation have been stymied in part by the challenge of how to head off claims that could be brought in the future by people who develop cancer after using the company’s herbicides. Bayer tried to get court approval for a plan that would have delayed the filing of new Roundup cancer cases for four years, and would have established a five-member “science panel” to determine whether Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and if so, at what minimum exposure levels. If the panel determined there was no causal connection between Roundup and non-Hodgkin lymphoma then the class members would be barred from future such claims.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria rejected the plan, sending Bayer back to the drawing board.
Bayer had said Thursday that it was making progress in the development of a “revised” plan to resolve potential future Roundup litigation. The details of the revised class plan will be finalized over the coming weeks, according to Bayer.
Several plaintiffs have been unhappy with the settlement, saying they will not receive very much money despite years of expensive cancer treatments and ongoing pain and suffering. Indeed, many plaintiffs have died while waiting for a resolution.
On September 9, lawyers for Marie Bernice Dinner and her husband Bruce Dinner filed notice with the court that 73-year-old Marie died on June 2 from the non-Hodgkin lymphoma she and her husband alleged was caused by her exposure to Monsanto’s weed killers.
Lawyers for Bruce Dinner asked the court to allow them to amend the complaint against Monsanto to add a claim for wrongful death. The couple was married 53 years and have two children and four grandchildren.
“Marie Bernice was an extraordinary person. Her death should have been prevented,” said lawyer Beth Klein, who is representing the family.


sustainablepulse--2020-09-23--Glyphosate Residue Free Certification Market Reaches USD $ 204 Million as Clean Food Booms

The Detox Project released the first ever data on the Glyphosate Residue Free certification market on Tuesday , after reviewing Q2 2020 data provided by their exclusive data partners SPINS .
SPINS , which is the leading provider of data and insights for the natural , organic and specialty products industry , revealed through their data that the Glyphosate Residue Free certification market has reached USD $ 204 Million , an increase of 58.2 % year on year .
Glyphosate Residue Free certification is a relatively new seal , having been launched by The Detox Project in 2017 .
Since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of brands and consumers alike , with a concentration of interest in the U.S. and more recently also internationally .
Linkage Research & Consulting also recently revealed , in a large-scale Internet-based study , that consumer recognition of Glyphosate Residue Free certification has surged .
It is now one of the fastest growing certifications in North America .
Brands such as Oatly , MegaFood , Chosen Foods , Puris and Once Upon a Farm are amongst the 70+ brands that have certified some or all of their products as Glyphosate Residue Free .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has also thrown its support behind the certification .
“ Six years ago , Thrive Market became the first national retailer to go entirely non-GMO in our food catalog due to the health and environmental risks of round-up resistant crops .
We vet every product on Thrive Market to ensure they meet the highest standards in the industry , ” said Nick Green , Thrive Market CEO .
“ In September of 2019 , we were proud to go one step further by supporting a new gold standard to ensure that our members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contamination .
We ’ re proudly positioned as a leader in providing affordable , easy access to healthy groceries and the highest quality , sustainably and ethically sourced products .
We ’ re thrilled to watch the industry evolve , offering more transparency for the consumer , something we ’ ve valued since inception ” , Green concluded .
“ While COVID-19 concerns mean some consumers are now buying less fresh , unpackaged food , the pandemic is fueling demand for more healthful choices , ” said Jeannette O ’ Brien , vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York , to Food Business News recently .
“ Clean and clear labels are a vital part of that .
The recent 2020 Food & Health Survey showed consumers see food products as healthier when they ’ re free from artificial ingredients , non-GMO , plant-based and have shorter ingredient lists.
” Greg Stucky , chief research officer for InsightsNow , Inc. , Chicago , a research consultancy , called the clean label trend a “ phenomenon ” and said it is continuing to grow .
Mr. Stucky ’ s comments were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the Institute of Food Technologists ’ SHIFT20 virtual meeting that replaced the canceled live event scheduled to take place in mid-July .
Citing data from Mordor Intelligence , Mr. Stucky said sales of clean label ingredients are projected to grow 6.75 % annually to $ 51.1 billion by 2024 .
He added that the impact of COVID-19 on consumer purchasing patterns may push the ingredient sales figure higher .
The Detox Project , a research and certification platform that supports transparency in the food and supplement industries on the subject of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Free certification with the hope of educating more people about the dangers of the world ’ s most used weedkiller entering the food supply .
Henry Rowlands , Director of The Detox Project , stated Tuesday that “ it is encouraging to see that consumers are becoming more aware of the harm that environmental toxins such as glyphosate can cause to themselves and their families .
We support a toxic free future for our children and this can only be reached through mass public awareness .
“ Food and supplement brands play a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toxic chemicals .
The unsustainable industrial agricultural system , which has been poisoning the planet for so many decades , is based on one single chemical – glyphosate .
It is about time that we move towards a more regenerative future with glyphosate-based weedkillers left in the past , where they belong .
”

The Detox Project released the first ever data on the Glyphosate Residue Free certification market on Tuesday, after reviewing Q2 2020 data provided by their exclusive data partners SPINS.
SPINS, which is the leading provider of data and insights for the natural, organic and specialty products industry, revealed through their data that the Glyphosate Residue Free certification market has reached USD $204 Million, an increase of 58.2% year on year.
Glyphosate Residue Free certification is a relatively new seal, having been launched by The Detox Project in 2017. Since its introduction it has caught the attention of brands and consumers alike, with a concentration of interest in the U.S. and more recently also internationally.
Linkage Research & Consulting also recently revealed, in a large-scale Internet-based study, that consumer recognition of Glyphosate Residue Free certification has surged. It is now one of the fastest growing certifications in North America.
Brands such as Oatly, MegaFood, Chosen Foods, Puris and Once Upon a Farm are amongst the 70+ brands that have certified some or all of their products as Glyphosate Residue Free. The American e-commerce membership-based retailer Thrive Market has also thrown its support behind the certification.
“Six years ago, Thrive Market became the first national retailer to go entirely non-GMO in our food catalog due to the health and environmental risks of round-up resistant crops. We vet every product on Thrive Market to ensure they meet the highest standards in the industry,” said Nick Green, Thrive Market CEO.
“In September of 2019, we were proud to go one step further by supporting a new gold standard to ensure that our members and our planet are safe from glyphosate contamination. We’re proudly positioned as a leader in providing affordable, easy access to healthy groceries and the highest quality, sustainably and ethically sourced products. We’re thrilled to watch the industry evolve, offering more transparency for the consumer, something we’ve valued since inception”, Green concluded.
Clean Food Booms as Covid-19 Changes Consumer Choices
“While COVID-19 concerns mean some consumers are now buying less fresh, unpackaged food, the pandemic is fueling demand for more healthful choices,” said Jeannette O’Brien, vice president of GNT USA, Tarrytown, New York, to Food Business News recently. “Clean and clear labels are a vital part of that. The recent 2020 Food & Health Survey showed consumers see food products as healthier when they’re free from artificial ingredients, non-GMO, plant-based and have shorter ingredient lists.”
Greg Stucky, chief research officer for InsightsNow, Inc., Chicago, a research consultancy, called the clean label trend a “phenomenon” and said it is continuing to grow. Mr. Stucky’s comments were made during a webinar presentation that was part of the Institute of Food Technologists’ SHIFT20 virtual meeting that replaced the canceled live event scheduled to take place in mid-July.
Citing data from Mordor Intelligence, Mr. Stucky said sales of clean label ingredients are projected to grow 6.75% annually to $51.1 billion by 2024. He added that the impact of COVID-19 on consumer purchasing patterns may push the ingredient sales figure higher.
The Detox Project Predicts More Transparency
The Detox Project, a research and certification platform that supports transparency in the food and supplement industries on the subject of toxic chemicals, set up Glyphosate Residue Free certification with the hope of educating more people about the dangers of the world’s most used weedkiller entering the food supply.
Henry Rowlands, Director of The Detox Project, stated Tuesday that “it is encouraging to see that consumers are becoming more aware of the harm that environmental toxins such as glyphosate can cause to themselves and their families. We support a toxic free future for our children and this can only be reached through mass public awareness.
“Food and supplement brands play a vital role in keeping consumers safe from toxic chemicals. The unsustainable industrial agricultural system, which has been poisoning the planet for so many decades, is based on one single chemical – glyphosate. It is about time that we move towards a more regenerative future with glyphosate-based weedkillers left in the past, where they belong.”


sustainablepulse--2020-10-01--Bayer Slumps as Bleak Crop Outlook Saps Monsanto Rationale

Bayer AG slumped after the agriculture and pharma giant said it would have to slash costs as the pandemic ’ s impact on farm commodities extends into next year , further undermining the rationale for its $ 63 billion purchase of Monsanto Co , Bloomberg reported Thursday The stock fell as much as 13 % in German trading , knocking 6.6 billion euros ( $ 7.7 billion ) from a market value that has sagged well below the price paid for Monsanto .
Bayer , already reeling from a legal battle over its Roundup herbicide , said late Wednesday it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs and may also eliminate jobs and sell businesses .
Chief Executive Officer Werner Baumann is confronting multiple challenges just after getting his contract extended .
Besides Roundup , the German company faces slumping crop prices and weakening demand for biofuel that threaten its agriculture unit two years after the controversial Monsanto takeover .
“ It was already quite clear that the growth prospects of Monsanto had deteriorated over the last 2.5 years , though the magnitude of this decline is greater than expected , ” Sebastian Bray , an analyst at Berenberg @ @ @ @ @ @

Bayer AG slumped after the agriculture and pharma giant said it would have to slash costs as the pandemic’s impact on farm commodities extends into next year, further undermining the rationale for its $63 billion purchase of Monsanto Co, Bloomberg reported Thursday
The stock fell as much as 13% in German trading, knocking 6.6 billion euros ($7.7 billion) from a market value that has sagged well below the price paid for Monsanto. Bayer, already reeling from a legal battle over its Roundup herbicide, said late Wednesday it would cut 1.5 billion euros of annual costs and may also eliminate jobs and sell businesses.
Chief Executive Officer Werner Baumann is confronting multiple challenges just after getting his contract extended. Besides Roundup, the German company faces slumping crop prices and weakening demand for biofuel that threaten its agriculture unit two years after the controversial Monsanto takeover.
“It was already quite clear that the growth prospects of Monsanto had deteriorated over the last 2.5 years, though the magnitude of this decline is greater than expected,” Sebastian Bray, an analyst at Berenberg Bank, said by e-mail.
Read More Here.