sustainablepulse--2020-02-15--Bayer On The Edge as Jury Awards $265 M to US Peach Farmer over Illegal Dicamba Drift

A jury on Saturday awarded US $ 250 million in punitive damages to a southeastern Missouri peach farmer who argued that weedkiller dicamba that had drifted onto his orchards from other farms had severely damaged his trees — an award that could bode well for over 140 other farmers suing the chemical ’ s makers – Bayer ( Monsanto ) and BASF .
The punitive damages awarded to farmer Bill Bader , of Campbell , came a day after the jury awarded him $ 15 million in actual damages , agreeing with his argument that dicamba had drifted over from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is one of the largest peach farms in Missouri .
Bader ’ s attorneys argued that his trees likely wouldn ’ t survive the dicamba exposure , The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported .
The jury verdict is the latest litigation nightmare for Bayer , which is also seeking to settle tens of thousands of lawsuits claiming exposure to its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer .
This latest court decision was also issued amidst reports of an ongoing dicamba drift crisis — reported cases of dicamba drift are up in Indiana , Arkansas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wells , Pesticide Action Network Organizing Director , issued the following statement : “ This verdict is just the tip of the iceberg — there is a long queue of farmers who have been impacted by dicamba drift and deserve their day in court .
The internal Monsanto ( now Bayer ) documents uncovered in this case show that the company released a highly destructive and intentionally untested product onto the market , and used its influence to cheat the regulatory system .
While farmers who don ’ t use the Xtend system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loss from dicamba drift , Bayer and BASF are reaping the financial gains of an increase in acreage planted to dicamba resistant soybeans , and an increase in use of dicamba formulations .
Bader Farms ’ victory in this case signals a turning tide , and opens opportunities for farmers to hold Bayer and BASF legally accountable for the dicamba drift crisis more broadly.
” Dozens of farmers around the United States are suing the former Monsanto Co. , purchased in 2018 by Bayer AG , and conglomerate BASF in an effort to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acres of crop damage the farmers claim is due to widespread illegal use of the weed killing chemical dicamba , use promoted by the companies .
Dicamba has been used by farmers since the 1960s but with limits that took into account the chemical ’ s propensity to drift far from where it was sprayed .
When Monsanto ’ s popular glyphosate weed killing products , such as Roundup , started losing effectiveness due to widespread weed resistance , Monsanto decided to launch a dicamba cropping system similar to its popular Roundup Ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ glyphosate herbicides .
Farmers buying the new genetically engineered dicamba-tolerant seeds could more easily treat stubborn weeds by spraying entire fields with dicamba , even during warm growing months , without harming their crops .
Monsanto announced a collaboration with BASF in 2011 .
The companies said their new dicamba herbicides would be less volatile and less prone to drift than old formulations of dicamba .
The Environmental Protection Agency approved the use of Monsanto ’ s dicamba herbicide “ XtendiMax ” in 2016 .
BASF developed its own dicamba herbicide that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were first sold in the United States in 2017 .
Monsanto started selling its dicamba-tolerant seeds in 2016 , and a key claim by the plaintiffs is that selling the seeds before regulatory approval of the new dicamba herbicides encouraged farmers to spray fields with old , highly volatile dicamba formulations .
The Bader lawsuit claims : “ The cause of such destruction to Plaintiff Bader Farms ’ crops is Defendant Monsanto ’ s willful and negligent release of a defective crop system – namely its genetically modified Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Xtend crops ” ) – without an accompanying , EPA-approved dicamba herbicide.
” Farmers claim that the companies knew and expected that the new seeds would spur such widespread use of dicamba that drift would damage the fields of farmers who did not buy the genetically engineered dicamba-tolerant seeds .
The farmers allege this was part of a scheme to expand sales of the genetically engineered dicamba-tolerant seeds .
Many allege the new dicamba formulations sold by the companies also drift and cause crop damage just as the old versions have done @

A jury on Saturday awarded US$ 250 million in punitive damages to a southeastern Missouri peach farmer who argued that weedkiller dicamba that had drifted onto his orchards from other farms had severely damaged his trees — an award that could bode well for over 140 other farmers suing the chemical’s makers – Bayer (Monsanto) and BASF.
The punitive damages awarded to farmer Bill Bader, of Campbell, came a day after the jury awarded him $15 million in actual damages, agreeing with his argument that dicamba had drifted over from other farms and severely damaged Bader Farms, which is one of the largest peach farms in Missouri. Bader’s attorneys argued that his trees likely wouldn’t survive the dicamba exposure, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.
The jury verdict is the latest litigation nightmare for Bayer, which is also seeking to settle tens of thousands of lawsuits claiming exposure to its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer.
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
This latest court decision was also issued amidst reports of an ongoing dicamba drift crisis — reported cases of dicamba drift are up in Indiana, Arkansas, Iowa, and Illinois.
Linda Wells, Pesticide Action Network Organizing Director, issued the following statement: “This verdict is just the tip of the iceberg — there is a long queue of farmers who have been impacted by dicamba drift and deserve their day in court. The internal Monsanto (now Bayer) documents uncovered in this case show that the company released a highly destructive and intentionally untested product onto the market, and used its influence to cheat the regulatory system.
While farmers who don’t use the Xtend system are hit with crop damage and yield loss from dicamba drift, Bayer and BASF are reaping the financial gains of an increase in acreage planted to dicamba resistant soybeans, and an increase in use of dicamba formulations. Bader Farms’ victory in this case signals a turning tide, and opens opportunities for farmers to hold Bayer and BASF legally accountable for the dicamba drift crisis more broadly.”
BACKGROUND (Source: USRTK):
Dozens of farmers around the United States are suing the former Monsanto Co., purchased in 2018 by Bayer AG, and conglomerate BASF in an effort to hold the companies accountable for millions of acres of crop damage the farmers claim is due to widespread illegal use of the weed killing chemical dicamba, use promoted by the companies.
Dicamba has been used by farmers since the 1960s but with limits that took into account the chemical’s propensity to drift far from where it was sprayed. When Monsanto’s popular glyphosate weed killing products, such as Roundup, started losing effectiveness due to widespread weed resistance, Monsanto decided to launch a dicamba cropping system similar to its popular Roundup Ready system, which paired glyphosate-tolerant seeds with glyphosate herbicides. Farmers buying the new genetically engineered dicamba-tolerant seeds could more easily treat stubborn weeds by spraying entire fields with dicamba, even during warm growing months, without harming their crops. Monsanto announced a collaboration with BASF in 2011. The companies said their new dicamba herbicides would be less volatile and less prone to drift than old formulations of dicamba.
The Environmental Protection Agency approved the use of Monsanto’s dicamba herbicide “XtendiMax” in 2016. BASF developed its own dicamba herbicide that it calls Engenia. Both XtendiMax and Engenia were first sold in the United States in 2017.
Monsanto started selling its dicamba-tolerant seeds in 2016, and a key claim by the plaintiffs is that selling the seeds before regulatory approval of the new dicamba herbicides encouraged farmers to spray fields with old, highly volatile dicamba formulations. The Bader lawsuit claims: “The cause of such destruction to Plaintiff Bader Farms’ crops is Defendant Monsanto’s willful and negligent release of a defective crop system – namely its genetically modified Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans and Bollgard II Xtend cotton seeds (“Xtend crops”) – without an accompanying, EPA-approved dicamba herbicide.”
Farmers claim that the companies knew and expected that the new seeds would spur such widespread use of dicamba that drift would damage the fields of farmers who did not buy the genetically engineered dicamba-tolerant seeds. The farmers allege this was part of a scheme to expand sales of the genetically engineered dicamba-tolerant seeds. Many allege the new dicamba formulations sold by the companies also drift and cause crop damage just as the old versions have done.


sustainablepulse--2020-02-11--Fraud in German Laboratory Casts Doubt on 2017 EU Re-Approval of Glyphosate

Fraud in a German laboratory has cast additional doubts on the 2017 re-approval of glyphosate and on the entire EU pesticide safety evaluation procedure , Pesticide Action Network Europe reported on Tuesday .
A new study has revealed Laboratory of Pharmacology and Toxicology ( LPT ) Hamburg was found to commit fraud in a series of regulatory tests , several of which had been carried out as part of the glyphosate re-approval process in 2017 .
Even though “ Good Laboratory Practice ” ( GLP ) certification is required for such studies , at least 14 % of such glyphosate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The laboratory was caught manipulating GLP toxicity studies by replacing dead animals with living ones , changing tumour data to “ inflammations ” and generally distorting the data to please its clients .
It is highly concerning that GLP studies are still considered the golden scientific standard by regulatory authorities who seem to believe that cheating under GLP is impossible .
PAN Europe has asked the European Commission to discard the studies carried out by LPT laboratory from the glyphosate dossier currently undergoing re-evaluation at EU-level , and from any other dossier .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees and evidence of fraud carried out in LPT Hamburg , a major GLP laboratory in Germany , the survey carried out by the organisations PAN Germany , Global2000 and Corporate Europe Observatory reveals that at least 14 % of the new regulatory studies submitted for the re-approval of glyphosate in 2017 were conducted by LPT Hamburg .
The number could be higher , as this information in the dossiers often remains undisclosed to the public .
The laboratory is currently facing criminal charges , and although it is impossible to know whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies , any tests delivered by LPT Hamburg must be considered unreliable and thus discarded from the re-assessment procedure .
Good Laboratory Practice is a mandatory standard in regulatory studies obliging laboratories to write down a series of endpoints in a specific format .
This system allows for a higher level of standardisation of the reporting and easier control by regulatory authorities .
Angeliki Lyssimachou , environmental toxicologist at PAN Europe , said : “ The vast majority of studies leading to the approval of a pesticide are carried out by the pesticide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contract laboratories such as LPT Hamburg .
We have criticized this conflict of interest for many years .
Our 140+ NGO coalition “ Citizens for Science in Pesticide Regulation ” regularly calls on the Commission to quit this scandalous process : tests must be carried out by independent laboratories under public scrutiny , while the financing of studies should be supported by industry ” .
Hans Muilerman , chemical policy officer at PAN Europe , added : “ For years , European Member States , EFSA and the Commission have been defending the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more reliable than a non-industry , non-GLP study .
Thousands of relevant independent pesticide studies showing harm to humans or nature have been discarded by regulators because they are not GLP , under the Klimisch scoring principle ” .
“ By including non-GLP studies , the International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ) has classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen .
It is by giving so little weight to all non-GLP studies that the European Commission and Member States came to a different conclusion .
It is time for citizens ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profit !
” Lyssimachou concluded .

Fraud in a German laboratory has cast additional doubts on the 2017 re-approval of glyphosate and on the entire EU pesticide safety evaluation procedure, Pesticide Action Network Europe reported on Tuesday.
A new study has revealed Laboratory of Pharmacology and Toxicology (LPT) Hamburg was found to commit fraud in a series of regulatory tests, several of which had been carried out as part of the glyphosate re-approval process in 2017. Even though “Good Laboratory Practice” (GLP) certification is required for such studies, at least 14% of such glyphosate regulatory studies came from LPT Hamburg. The laboratory was caught manipulating GLP toxicity studies by replacing dead animals with living ones, changing tumour data to “inflammations” and generally distorting the data to please its clients. It is highly concerning that GLP studies are still considered the golden scientific standard by regulatory authorities who seem to believe that cheating under GLP is impossible.
PAN Europe has asked the European Commission to discard the studies carried out by LPT laboratory from the glyphosate dossier currently undergoing re-evaluation at EU-level, and from any other dossier.
Based on testimonies from LPT’s employees and evidence of fraud carried out in LPT Hamburg, a major GLP laboratory in Germany, the survey carried out by the organisations PAN Germany, Global2000 and Corporate Europe Observatory reveals that at least 14% of the new regulatory studies submitted for the re-approval of glyphosate in 2017 were conducted by LPT Hamburg. The number could be higher, as this information in the dossiers often remains undisclosed to the public. The laboratory is currently facing criminal charges, and although it is impossible to know whether the fraud occurred only in the glyphosate-related studies, any tests delivered by LPT Hamburg must be considered unreliable and thus discarded from the re-assessment procedure.
Good Laboratory Practice is a mandatory standard in regulatory studies obliging laboratories to write down a series of endpoints in a specific format. This system allows for a higher level of standardisation of the reporting and easier control by regulatory authorities.
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
Angeliki Lyssimachou, environmental toxicologist at PAN Europe, said: “The vast majority of studies leading to the approval of a pesticide are carried out by the pesticide industry itself, either directly or via contract laboratories such as LPT Hamburg. We have criticized this conflict of interest for many years. Our 140+ NGO coalition “Citizens for Science in Pesticide Regulation” regularly calls on the Commission to quit this scandalous process: tests must be carried out by independent laboratories under public scrutiny, while the financing of studies should be supported by industry”.
Hans Muilerman, chemical policy officer at PAN Europe, added: “For years, European Member States, EFSA and the Commission have been defending the belief that an industry-funded GLP study is more reliable than a non-industry, non-GLP study. Thousands of relevant independent pesticide studies showing harm to humans or nature have been discarded by regulators because they are not GLP, under the Klimisch scoring principle” .
“By including non-GLP studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. It is by giving so little weight to all non-GLP studies that the European Commission and Member States came to a different conclusion. It is time for citizens’ health to take precedence over companies’ profit!” Lyssimachou concluded.


sustainablepulse--2020-02-10--Chemical Toxicity and The Baby Bust – Jeremy Grantham

In today ’ s society people are choosing to have fewer children , and delaying having children at all into later , less fertile years .
These two factors have driven fertility rates below replacement level in most of the world , but a crucial third factor gets little attention and is having a profound impact on fertility : toxicity .
The economic and social ramifications will be severe .
Source : Chemical Toxicity and The Baby Bust , By Jeremy Grantham Who Is Jeremy Grantham ?
: Robert Jeremy Goltho Grantham CBE is a British investor and co-founder and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , & van Otterloo ( GMO ) , a Boston-based asset management firm .
GMO has more than US $ 118 Billion in assets under management as of March 2015 .
Grantham is regarded as a highly knowledgeable investor in various stock , bond , and commodity markets , and is particularly noted for his prediction of various bubbles .
A profound and largely unexpected phenomenon is occurring : we are choosing to have fewer children .
The most significant drivers of this choice appear to be higher income and better education , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , we are choosing to postpone these fewer births into our later , less fertile years .
Because of these two factors , fertility rates are below replacement level almost everywhere in the developed world and China .
This development , despite its economic and social importance , is not yet receiving as much attention as it deserves , but now there is a new third factor that gets almost none : toxicity .
Human “ fecundity ” ( the number of children you are able to have ) is being affected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hormones .
This interference is growing at such a rapid rate that if left alone it is likely to leave us sterile in a few decades with only the rich able to easily afford the healthy lifestyles and the exotic medical help required to have babies .
One of the most measurable and most nerve-racking results of increased chemical damage is our very rapid decline in sperm quality and concentration , which appears to have fallen to one-third of its probable pre-industrial level .
If we do not ban whole classes of chemicals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will face a crash in the number of new births .
The effects of this will be felt to very different degrees by country : those countries that do not act will quickly fall behind in both births and general health .
There are in fact indications that health and longevity in the U.S. are already being affected by high levels of toxicity .
It is important both for society and the economy that this new information be correctly and quickly processed and that the back-up medical data , which is thin in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ larger studies .
Time is not on our side .
Read The Full Article By Jeremy Grantham Here

In today’s society people are choosing to have fewer children, and delaying having children at all into later, less fertile years. These two factors have driven fertility rates below replacement level in most of the world, but a crucial third factor gets little attention and is having a profound impact on fertility: toxicity. The economic and social ramifications will be severe.
Source: Chemical Toxicity and The Baby Bust, By Jeremy Grantham Who Is Jeremy Grantham?: Robert Jeremy Goltho Grantham CBE is a British investor and co-founder and chief investment strategist of Grantham, Mayo, & van Otterloo (GMO), a Boston-based asset management firm. GMO has more than US$118 Billion in assets under management as of March 2015. Grantham is regarded as a highly knowledgeable investor in various stock, bond, and commodity markets, and is particularly noted for his prediction of various bubbles.
A profound and largely unexpected phenomenon is occurring: we are choosing to have fewer children. The most significant drivers of this choice appear to be higher income and better education, especially for women. At the same time, we are choosing to postpone these fewer births into our later, less fertile years. Because of these two factors, fertility rates are below replacement level almost everywhere in the developed world and China. This development, despite its economic and social importance, is not yet receiving as much attention as it deserves, but now there is a new third factor that gets almost none: toxicity.
Human “fecundity” (the number of children you are able to have) is being affected by endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which interfere with hormones. This interference is growing at such a rapid rate that if left alone it is likely to leave us sterile in a few decades with only the rich able to easily afford the healthy lifestyles and the exotic medical help required to have babies.
One of the most measurable and most nerve-racking results of increased chemical damage is our very rapid decline in sperm quality and concentration, which appears to have fallen to one-third of its probable pre-industrial level. If we do not ban whole classes of chemicals in the next 10 years, we will face a crash in the number of new births. The effects of this will be felt to very different degrees by country: those countries that do not act will quickly fall behind in both births and general health. There are in fact indications that health and longevity in the U.S. are already being affected by high levels of toxicity. It is important both for society and the economy that this new information be correctly and quickly processed and that the back-up medical data, which is thin in parts, be supported by new and larger studies. Time is not on our side.
Read The Full Article By Jeremy Grantham Here


sustainablepulse--2020-02-06--Main US Manufacturer Stops Production of Pesticide Chlorpyrifos after Links to Child Health Damage

Corteva Agriscience will end production of the highly toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos by the end of this year .
The company , formerly part of Dow Chemical , has been under increasing scrutiny from environmental and public health advocates for decades and the Natural Resources Defense Council ( NRDC ) has been in court over the toxic agricultural chemical repeatedly .
Dr. Jennifer Sass , senior scientist at the NRDC stated Thursday : “ This is a victory for our kids , farmworkers and rural communities nationwide .
After years of pressure and increasing public concern , the end of chlorpyrifos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , policy and public pushback all aligned around this chemical being too dangerous for use on our food and in our fields , making today ’ s announcement an eventual forgone conclusion .
“ We will be watching the manufacturer ’ s statements to ensure that the sunset of chlorpyrifos is as quick and as complete as possible .
Ridding the American marketplace of this pesticide is a huge step , but it can not be allowed to continue to threaten the health of kids in other global markets , ” Sass concluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European Member States in the EU Committee on Plants , Animals , Food and Feed ( SCOPAFF ) voted to ban the neurotoxic pesticides chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl from the EU market , a historic move that has been applauded by health and environment groups globally .
Adapted from World War II-era nerve gases , chlorpyrifos was banned from use in household products , like roach sprays , nearly two decades ago but is still widely used on many U.S. food crops , including children ’ s favorites like apples , oranges and strawberries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than two decades to get chlorpyrifos out of our food supply , and first petitioned EPA to ban it in 2007 with the Pesticide Action Network .
EPA was finally on track to ban it at the end of 2016 .
Shortly after taking office , however , the current U.S. administration reversed course and continues to fight to keep it on the market .
EPA ’ s own assessment of the chemical ’ s risks shows that exposure to low levels of the pesticide in early life can lead to increased risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IQ , developmental delay and ADHD .
This assessment is based on dozens of scientific studies including from Dow Chemical .

Corteva Agriscience will end production of the highly toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos by the end of this year. The company, formerly part of Dow Chemical, has been under increasing scrutiny from environmental and public health advocates for decades and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has been in court over the toxic agricultural chemical repeatedly.
Dr. Jennifer Sass, senior scientist at the NRDC stated Thursday: “This is a victory for our kids, farmworkers and rural communities nationwide. After years of pressure and increasing public concern, the end of chlorpyrifos is finally in sight. The science, policy and public pushback all aligned around this chemical being too dangerous for use on our food and in our fields, making today’s announcement an eventual forgone conclusion.
“We will be watching the manufacturer’s statements to ensure that the sunset of chlorpyrifos is as quick and as complete as possible. Ridding the American marketplace of this pesticide is a huge step, but it cannot be allowed to continue to threaten the health of kids in other global markets,” Sass concluded.
In December 2019 representatives from the European Member States in the EU Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCOPAFF) voted to ban the neurotoxic pesticides chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl from the EU market, a historic move that has been applauded by health and environment groups globally.
Background:
Adapted from World War II-era nerve gases, chlorpyrifos was banned from use in household products, like roach sprays, nearly two decades ago but is still widely used on many U.S. food crops, including children’s favorites like apples, oranges and strawberries.
NRDC has been fighting for more than two decades to get chlorpyrifos out of our food supply, and first petitioned EPA to ban it in 2007 with the Pesticide Action Network. EPA was finally on track to ban it at the end of 2016. Shortly after taking office, however, the current U.S. administration reversed course and continues to fight to keep it on the market.
EPA’s own assessment of the chemical’s risks shows that exposure to low levels of the pesticide in early life can lead to increased risk of learning disabilities, including reductions in IQ, developmental delay and ADHD. This assessment is based on dozens of scientific studies including from Dow Chemical.


sustainablepulse--2020-04-17--GMA $18 Million Fine Reinstated over Cover Up in GMO Labeling Fight

The Washington State Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Grocery Manufacturer ’ s Association intentionally violated Washington ’ s campaign finance laws , and reinstated the historic $ 18 million penalty in Attorney General Bob Ferguson ’ s campaign finance lawsuit against the trade organization .
“ Today ’ s Supreme Court ruling constitutes a tremendous victory for fair and transparent elections , ” Ferguson said .
“ The court ruled that the Grocery Manufacturers Association , an association of large corporations , including PepsiCo , Inc , Nestle USA , Inc , and The Coca Cola Company , intentionally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
GMA ’ s unlawful conduct was intentional — and unprecedented .
” They concealed from Washingtonians $ 14 million contributed by their members to win an election in Washington state .
My philosophy is straightforward – penalties must be more than a cost of doing business for those , like GMA , who intentionally violate our transparency laws .
After an extensive trial , the Superior Court judge ordered GMA to pay an $ 18 million penalty for their intentional , unlawful conduct – appropriately the largest campaign finance penalty ever assessed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the $ 18 million penalty.
” “ The court ’ s decision sends a ringing message to any group that might try to circumvent Washington ’ s campaign finance laws , ” Washington State Public Disclosure Commission Chair David Ammons said .
“ Voters have a right to know who the players are in a campaign – whether they support or oppose a ballot measure .
And this case demonstrates the Commission ’ s crucial role in ensuring transparency on the part of those who spend money to influence voters.
” Internal GMA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s lawsuit revealed an intentional , systematic effort to conceal the true sources of those contributions to “ No on 522.
” In one GMA Executive Committee meeting , the Executive Vice President for Government Affairs noted that the fund would “ shield individual companies from public disclosure and possible criticism.
” In its ruling , the high court remanded the case back to the state Court of Appeals to consider GMA ’ s argument of whether the penalty is excessive under the state and federal constitutions .
The lawsuit against GMA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accused the organization of collecting over $ 14 million for a new “ Defense of Brands ” account from its members — including PepsiCo , Nestle , Coca-Cola and others — and then contributing $ 11 million of that money to the “ No on 522 ” campaign without disclosing that the money came from its member companies .
Instead , the money was listed as coming from GMA , not the actual donors .
Internal GMA documents obtained as a result of Ferguson ’ s lawsuit revealed an intentional , systematic effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributions to “ No on 522.
” In November of 2016 , Thurston County Superior Court Judge Anne Hirsch ruled that GMA violated state campaign finance laws .
In addition , she found that GMA did so intentionally .
As a result of her finding that GMA hid the donations intentionally , Judge Hirsch tripled GMA ’ s $ 6 million penalty to historic $ 18 million .
In September of 2018 , the state Court of Appeals upheld all of Judge Hirsch ’ s ruling except the tripling of GMA ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state Supreme Court reinstates the $ 18 million penalty and remands the case back to the Court of Appeals .
Former Deputy Solicitor General Callie Castillo , former Senior Assistant Attorney General Linda Dalton , Senior Assistant Attorney General Garth Ahearn , Deputy Solicitor General Karl Smith and Solicitor General Noah Purcell handled this case for the state .
Castillo argued the case before the state Supreme Court .

The Washington State Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association intentionally violated Washington’s campaign finance laws while supporting the “No on 522” campaign against GMO labeling in the State, and reinstated the historic $18 million penalty in Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s lawsuit against the trade organization.
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling constitutes a tremendous victory for fair and transparent elections,” Ferguson said. “The court ruled that the Grocery Manufacturers Association, an association of large corporations, including PepsiCo, Inc, Nestle USA, Inc, and The Coca Cola Company, intentionally violated our voter-approved campaign finance transparency law. GMA’s unlawful conduct was intentional — and unprecedented.
”They concealed from Washingtonians $14 million contributed by their members to win an election in Washington state. My philosophy is straightforward – penalties must be more than a cost of doing business for those, like GMA, who intentionally violate our transparency laws. After an extensive trial, the Superior Court judge ordered GMA to pay an $18 million penalty for their intentional, unlawful conduct – appropriately the largest campaign finance penalty ever assessed. Today, the Supreme Court reinstated the $18 million penalty.”
“The court’s decision sends a ringing message to any group that might try to circumvent Washington’s campaign finance laws,” Washington State Public Disclosure Commission Chair David Ammons said. “Voters have a right to know who the players are in a campaign – whether they support or oppose a ballot measure. And this case demonstrates the Commission’s crucial role in ensuring transparency on the part of those who spend money to influence voters.”
Internal GMA documents obtained as a result of Ferguson’s lawsuit revealed an intentional, systematic effort to conceal the true sources of those contributions to “No on 522.”
In one GMA Executive Committee meeting, the Executive Vice President for Government Affairs noted that the fund would “shield individual companies from public disclosure and possible criticism.”
In its ruling, the high court remanded the case back to the state Court of Appeals to consider GMA’s argument of whether the penalty is excessive under the state and federal constitutions.
Case background
The lawsuit against GMA, filed in October of 2013, accused the organization of collecting over $14 million for a new “Defense of Brands” account from its members — including PepsiCo, Nestle, Coca-Cola and others — and then contributing $11 million of that money to the “No on 522” campaign against GMO labeling without disclosing that the money came from its member companies. Instead, the money was listed as coming from GMA, not the actual donors.
Internal GMA documents obtained as a result of Ferguson’s lawsuit revealed an intentional, systematic effort to conceal the true sources of those contributions to “No on 522.”
In November of 2016, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Anne Hirsch ruled that GMA violated state campaign finance laws. In addition, she found that GMA did so intentionally. As a result of her finding that GMA hid the donations intentionally, Judge Hirsch tripled GMA’s $6 million penalty to historic $18 million.
In September of 2018, the state Court of Appeals upheld all of Judge Hirsch’s ruling except the tripling of GMA’s penalty. Today’s ruling from the state Supreme Court reinstates the $18 million penalty and remands the case back to the Court of Appeals.
Former Deputy Solicitor General Callie Castillo, former Senior Assistant Attorney General Linda Dalton, Senior Assistant Attorney General Garth Ahearn, Deputy Solicitor General Karl Smith and Solicitor General Noah Purcell handled this case for the state. Castillo argued the case before the state Supreme Court.


sustainablepulse--2020-04-22--German GMO-Free Market Increased by 15% in 2019

In 2019 , manufacturers and processors achieved a turnover of around 8.8 billion euros with goods carrying the “ Ohne GenTechnik ” ( Without Genetic Engineering ) seal .
In shops , consumers spent about 11.3 billion euros on them .
Compared to 2018 , this represents an increase of 15 percent , reports the German Association of Food Without Genetic Engineering ( VLOG ) .
It expects consumer spending to increase to at least 11.8 billion euros in 2020 .
In the meantime , “ Ohne GenTechnik ” products already account for more than five percent of total food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enormous growth in milk and dairy products , we are now seeing a consolidation of our growth , ” commented VLOG Managing Director Alexander Hissting on the figures .
“ Compared to milk , there is still a lot to be done with pork in order to finally meet consumer expectations for “ Ohne GenTechnik ” goods .
Contrary to what consumers assume , 99 percent of the pigs in Germany are still fed genetically modified soy .
Around three quarters of all German soy imports end up in their feed troughs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ success of the “ Ohne GenTechnik ” seal and to ensure transparency and freedom of choice for consumers in the future , the EU Commission must finally take action and initiate research into detection methods for products of new genetic engineering .
Economic operators and national authorities must be able to track them down reliably , ” demands Heike Moldenhauer , EU Policy Advisor of the VLOG in Brussels .
“ Even though canola and soybeans are currently only two plants that are cultivated in only two countries , our members must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GMO contamination entering their commodity flows via imports from the USA and Canada.
” In 2019 , the processing industry with food products carrying the “ Ohne GenTechnik ” seal reported sales of 8.78 billion euros .
Milk and dairy products played the most important role with 6.02 billion euros ( 69 percent ) .
Poultry meat products accounted for 1.59 billion euros ( 18 percent ) and eggs for around 850 million euros ( 9.7 percent ) .
The figures are based on information from licensed users of the “ Ohne GenTechnik @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sales of the manufacturers .
The consumer spending for “ Ohne GenTechnik ” products are increased by the margin of the food retailers and the value-added tax and is likely to be on average approximately 27 percent higher than the manufacturers ’ sales , estimates VLOG , bringing the total to 11.3 billion euros .
On the basis of the forecasts of the current licensees alone , the association expects “ Ohne GenTechnik ” sales to increase by at least five percent in 2020 .
The legal basis for the seal is provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EGGenTDurchfG ) .
In 2009 , the then Federal Minister of Agriculture , Ilse Aigner , had the uniform “ Ohne GenTechnik ” seal designed .
In 2010 , she transferred licensing and control of the “ Ohne GenTechnik ” seal exclusively to VLOG .
The Association of Food Without Genetic Engineering ( Verband Lebensmittel ohne Gentechnik , VLOG e.V . )
represents over 750 food manufacturers and retailers as well as the upstream and downstream sectors of food production .
It grants licences for the uniform “ Ohne Gentechnik ” seal for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14,500 foodstuffs are currently advertised with this seal .

In 2019, manufacturers and processors achieved a turnover of around 8.8 billion euros with goods carrying the “Ohne GenTechnik” (Without Genetic Engineering) seal. In shops, consumers spent about 11.3 billion euros on them. Compared to 2018, this represents an increase of 15 percent, reports the German Association of Food Without Genetic Engineering (VLOG). It expects consumer spending to increase to at least 11.8 billion euros in 2020.
In the meantime, “Ohne GenTechnik” products already account for more than five percent of total food sales in Germany. “After the enormous growth in milk and dairy products, we are now seeing a consolidation of our growth,” commented VLOG Managing Director Alexander Hissting on the figures. “Compared to milk, there is still a lot to be done with pork in order to finally meet consumer expectations for “Ohne GenTechnik” goods. Contrary to what consumers assume, 99 percent of the pigs in Germany are still fed genetically modified soy. Around three quarters of all German soy imports end up in their feed troughs.
“In order not to jeopardize the success of the “Ohne GenTechnik” seal and to ensure transparency and freedom of choice for consumers in the future, the EU Commission must finally take action and initiate research into detection methods for products of new genetic engineering. Economic operators and national authorities must be able to track them down reliably,” demands Heike Moldenhauer, EU Policy Advisor of the VLOG in Brussels. “Even though canola and soybeans are currently only two plants that are cultivated in only two countries, our members must be able to reliably exclude the possibility of GMO contamination entering their commodity flows via imports from the USA and Canada.”
In 2019, the processing industry with food products carrying the “Ohne GenTechnik” seal reported sales of 8.78 billion euros. Milk and dairy products played the most important role with 6.02 billion euros (69 percent). Poultry meat products accounted for 1.59 billion euros (18 percent) and eggs for around 850 million euros (9.7 percent). The figures are based on information from licensed users of the “Ohne GenTechnik” seal. All figures refer to sales of the manufacturers. The consumer spending for “Ohne GenTechnik” products are increased by the margin of the food retailers and the value-added tax and is likely to be on average approximately 27 percent higher than the manufacturers’ sales, estimates VLOG, bringing the total to 11.3 billion euros. On the basis of the forecasts of the current licensees alone, the association expects “Ohne GenTechnik” sales to increase by at least five percent in 2020.
Background Information
The legal basis for the seal is provided by the “EG-Gentechnik-Durchführungsgesetz” act (EGGenTDurchfG). In 2009, the then Federal Minister of Agriculture, Ilse Aigner, had the uniform “Ohne GenTechnik” seal designed. In 2010, she transferred licensing and control of the “Ohne GenTechnik” seal exclusively to VLOG.
The Association of Food Without Genetic Engineering (Verband Lebensmittel ohne Gentechnik, VLOG e.V.) represents over 750 food manufacturers and retailers as well as the upstream and downstream sectors of food production. It grants licences for the uniform “Ohne Gentechnik” seal for food produced without genetic engineering. Over 14,500 foodstuffs are currently advertised with this seal.


sustainablepulse--2020-04-22--New Academic Paper Slams EU Pesticide Risk Assessment Practices

A new peer-reviewed paper authored by a group of experts in law , policy , and toxicology , including GMWatch editor Claire Robinson , has identified systemic failings in Europe ’ s pesticide risk assessment process .
The experts have proposed a comprehensive agenda for far-reaching reform after their paper outlined how these failings could seriously undermine ambitions for sustainable agriculture and a “ green recovery ” from the COVID-19 pandemic .
Calls for such a “ green recovery ” have arisen from 13 European climate and environment ministers , from 180 policy makers , business leaders , researchers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WWF , and from Frans Timmermans , executive vice-president of the European Commission in charge of the European Green Deal , a growth strategy that aims to protect the environment and make food and farming more sustainable .
According to the new paper , published in the European Journal of Risk Regulation , Europe is consistently failing to implement and enforce its own regulations on pesticides .
While the EU ’ s pesticides Regulation 1107/2009 is , in theory , one of the most stringent in the world , it has yet to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , objective and transparent assessment of pesticides and achieve a high level of protection for health and environment ” .
The paper presents a series of recommendations to resolve these problems .
Focusing on glyphosate as a case study of scientific and regulatory controversy , the paper highlights : * Widespread misuse and misinterpretation of scientific research , with cherry-picking of favorable studies , plagiarism and uncritical repetition of findings presented as independent validation , and misuse of statistical and analytical tools * Ongoing failure to address mixture effects , including of additives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the toxicity profile of the active ingredient , are not part of the pesticide approval process * Failure to properly address conflicts of interest within regulatory agencies , undermining the independence and objectivity of pesticide assessments .
As a result of these failings , multiple pesticides are passing through the regulatory process and being authorized in spite of their potential to harm human and animal health and the environment .
The authors find that for the most part , the law itself is not at fault .
Instead , the problem lies with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bodies to implement or enforce the hard or “ soft ” laws governing how pesticides are regulated .
The authors propose ways to improve the system , requiring changes in the way in which regulators carry out the risk assessment process , as well as in the way that current scientific knowledge and scientific analytical tools are applied .
* Wider use of “ systematic review ” methods to ensure objectivity and transparency in evaluating scientific research results * Proper use of the “ weight-of-evidence ” approach to integrate different lines of evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different types of evidence indicating that a pesticide is carcinogenic are not evaluated and dismissed separately but are considered together in an integrated fashion * Evaluating the toxicity of pesticide formulations as sold and used rather than just the isolated “ active ” ingredients that are tested and assessed for safety in regulatory purposes – since the formulations can be far more toxic * Avoidance by regulators of the common practice of plagiarising industry ’ s own interpretations of safety data – instead , regulators must carry out objective and independent evaluations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s authors , Prof Christopher Portier , senior contributing scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund and former director of the US National Center for Environmental Health , commented : “ Scientific rigour and complete transparency are critical to both the evaluation of data used in regulatory decision making and to the trust the public will have in those evaluations .
Our article describes improvements that will strengthen both scientific rigor and transparency.
” Achieving a High Level of Protection from Pesticides in Europe : Problems with the Current Risk Assessment Procedure and Solutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Aleksandra ČAVOŠKI , Robin MESNAGE , Apolline ROGER , Peter CLAUSING , Paul WHALEY , Hans MUILERMAN and Angeliki LYSSIMACHOU European Journal of Risk Regulation , 16 April 2020 DOI : doi.org/10.1017/err.2020.18 www.cambridge.org/ The new paper builds on the work of an interdisciplinary group of scientists , lawyers , and policymakers – including the authors of this paper – who in 2018 formed the coalition Citizens for Science in Pesticide Regulation ( citizens4pesticidereform.eu/ ) .
More than 140 NGOs signed up to the Coalition ’ s manifesto demanding reform in risk assessment in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no harm to humans , animals , and the environment .
The new paper is published as the EU Commission prepares to publish its Farm to Fork ( F2F ) Strategy as part of the European Green Deal .
F2F aims to “ secure a fair , healthy and environmentally friendly food system ” and will include “ measures to significantly reduce the use and risk of chemical pesticides ” .
Dr Angeliki Lyssimachou , one of the authors of the new paper and science policy officer at Pesticide Action Network Europe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen unless the risk assessment is done properly .
Some pesticides that have passed through the authorization process should not be on the market at all as they are toxic .
Regulators must ensure that the latest scientific knowledge and objective assessment methods are implemented throughout the whole evaluation procedure.
” As well as the F2F , the Commission will publish its long overdue REFIT evaluation of the EU pesticide legislation assessing “ if the regulations meet the needs of citizens , businesses and public institutions in an efficient manner ” and giving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been raised that REFIT appears to be focused on making EU regulations “ better ” for industry and that the pesticides regulations will be deliberately weakened as a result .
The publication of F2F as well as the REFIT of the pesticide Regulation has been postponed due to the COVID-19 crisis , and the farmers ’ association COPA-COGECA has lobbied for the publication to be delayed until autumn – or for an impact assessment to be carried out first .
But Claire Robinson , editor at GMWatch and first author of the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us that human health must be the priority and that sustainable food production is crucial .
We can not afford more delays in implementing a healthy , sustainable , and resilient food system.
” Dr Apolline Roger , Law and Policy Advisor , ClientEarth , Brussels , Belgium , said : “ The pesticides Regulation has great elements .
For the most part , it is not the law that needs to be reformed , but the way it is implemented .
We detail the reforms that are needed in our recommendations.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University in the UK specializing in novel methods for evaluating health risks from chemical exposures , said : “ The European Food Safety Authority has been a world-leading agency in proposing reforms to how scientific research is used in pesticide risk assessment , particularly in applying systematic review methods to analyze evidence of potential health risks .
The problem is , these reforms are being implemented too slowly and too unevenly , leaving too many chemicals being assessed with methods which are obsolete , opaque , and produce unreliable results.
” Dr Peter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Germany , said : “ The ‘ weight-of-evidence ’ approach is an important concept to consolidate scientific data .
Our paper shows that there is considerable room for improvement in the way the European authorities make use of this concept during risk assessment of pesticides.
” Professor Aleksandra Čavoški , University of Birmingham , said : “ EFSA has made significant strides in improving its independence policy with the aim of preventing the revolving door effect .
However , EFSA ’ s independence policy does not go far enough to prevent conflicts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of research funding .
”

A new peer-reviewed paper authored by a group of experts in law, policy, and toxicology, including GMWatch editor Claire Robinson, has identified systemic failings in Europe’s pesticide risk assessment process.
The experts have proposed a comprehensive agenda for far-reaching reform after their paper outlined how these failings could seriously undermine ambitions for sustainable agriculture and a “green recovery” from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Calls for such a “green recovery” have arisen from 13 European climate and environment ministers, from 180 policy makers, business leaders, researchers and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), from WWF, and from Frans Timmermans, executive vice-president of the European Commission in charge of the European Green Deal, a growth strategy that aims to protect the environment and make food and farming more sustainable.
Regulatory failings
According to the new paper, published in the European Journal of Risk Regulation, Europe is consistently failing to implement and enforce its own regulations on pesticides. While the EU’s pesticides Regulation 1107/2009 is, in theory, one of the most stringent in the world, it has yet to achieve its aim of “an independent, objective and transparent assessment of pesticides and achieve a high level of protection for health and environment”. The paper presents a series of recommendations to resolve these problems.
Focusing on glyphosate as a case study of scientific and regulatory controversy, the paper highlights:
* Widespread misuse and misinterpretation of scientific research, with cherry-picking of favorable studies, plagiarism and uncritical repetition of findings presented as independent validation, and misuse of statistical and analytical tools
* Ongoing failure to address mixture effects, including of additives which, even though they can change the toxicity profile of the active ingredient, are not part of the pesticide approval process
* Failure to properly address conflicts of interest within regulatory agencies, undermining the independence and objectivity of pesticide assessments.
As a result of these failings, multiple pesticides are passing through the regulatory process and being authorized in spite of their potential to harm human and animal health and the environment.
Proposed solutions
The authors find that for the most part, the law itself is not at fault. Instead, the problem lies with a failure on the part of regulatory bodies to implement or enforce the hard or “soft” laws governing how pesticides are regulated.
The authors propose ways to improve the system, requiring changes in the way in which regulators carry out the risk assessment process, as well as in the way that current scientific knowledge and scientific analytical tools are applied.
These include:
* Wider use of “systematic review” methods to ensure objectivity and transparency in evaluating scientific research results
* Proper use of the “weight-of-evidence” approach to integrate different lines of evidence, so that, for example, different types of evidence indicating that a pesticide is carcinogenic are not evaluated and dismissed separately but are considered together in an integrated fashion
* Evaluating the toxicity of pesticide formulations as sold and used rather than just the isolated “active” ingredients that are tested and assessed for safety in regulatory purposes – since the formulations can be far more toxic
* Avoidance by regulators of the common practice of plagiarising industry’s own interpretations of safety data – instead, regulators must carry out objective and independent evaluations of data.
One of the paper’s authors, Prof Christopher Portier, senior contributing scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund and former director of the US National Center for Environmental Health, commented: “Scientific rigour and complete transparency are critical to both the evaluation of data used in regulatory decision making and to the trust the public will have in those evaluations. Our article describes improvements that will strengthen both scientific rigor and transparency.”
The new paper
Achieving a High Level of Protection from Pesticides in Europe: Problems with the Current Risk Assessment Procedure and Solutions
Claire ROBINSON, Christopher J. PORTIER, Aleksandra ČAVOŠKI, Robin MESNAGE, Apolline ROGER, Peter CLAUSING, Paul WHALEY, Hans MUILERMAN and Angeliki LYSSIMACHOU
European Journal of Risk Regulation, 16 April 2020
DOI: doi.org/10.1017/err.2020.18
www.cambridge.org/
Background
The new paper builds on the work of an interdisciplinary group of scientists, lawyers, and policymakers – including the authors of this paper – who in 2018 formed the coalition Citizens for Science in Pesticide Regulation (citizens4pesticidereform.eu/). More than 140 NGOs signed up to the Coalition’s manifesto demanding reform in risk assessment in order to ensure that pesticide use causes no harm to humans, animals, and the environment.
The new paper is published as the EU Commission prepares to publish its Farm to Fork (F2F) Strategy as part of the European Green Deal. F2F aims to “secure a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system” and will include “measures to significantly reduce the use and risk of chemical pesticides”.
Dr Angeliki Lyssimachou, one of the authors of the new paper and science policy officer at Pesticide Action Network Europe, said, “Risk reduction cannot happen unless the risk assessment is done properly. Some pesticides that have passed through the authorization process should not be on the market at all as they are toxic. Regulators must ensure that the latest scientific knowledge and objective assessment methods are implemented throughout the whole evaluation procedure.”
As well as the F2F, the Commission will publish its long overdue REFIT evaluation of the EU pesticide legislation assessing “if the regulations meet the needs of citizens, businesses and public institutions in an efficient manner” and giving recommendations on future actions. Concerns have been raised that REFIT appears to be focused on making EU regulations “better” for industry and that the pesticides regulations will be deliberately weakened as a result.
The publication of F2F as well as the REFIT of the pesticide Regulation has been postponed due to the COVID-19 crisis, and the farmers’ association COPA-COGECA has lobbied for the publication to be delayed until autumn – or for an impact assessment to be carried out first.
But Claire Robinson, editor at GMWatch and first author of the new paper commented, “COVID-19 has shown us that human health must be the priority and that sustainable food production is crucial. We cannot afford more delays in implementing a healthy, sustainable, and resilient food system.”
Quotes from the authors
Dr Apolline Roger, Law and Policy Advisor, ClientEarth, Brussels, Belgium, said: “The pesticides Regulation has great elements. For the most part, it is not the law that needs to be reformed, but the way it is implemented. We detail the reforms that are needed in our recommendations.”
Paul Whaley, an academic at Lancaster University in the UK specializing in novel methods for evaluating health risks from chemical exposures, said: “The European Food Safety Authority has been a world-leading agency in proposing reforms to how scientific research is used in pesticide risk assessment, particularly in applying systematic review methods to analyze evidence of potential health risks. The problem is, these reforms are being implemented too slowly and too unevenly, leaving too many chemicals being assessed with methods which are obsolete, opaque, and produce unreliable results.”
Dr Peter Clausing, toxicologist at Pesticide Action Network Germany, said: “The ‘weight-of-evidence’ approach is an important concept to consolidate scientific data. Our paper shows that there is considerable room for improvement in the way the European authorities make use of this concept during risk assessment of pesticides.”
Professor Aleksandra Čavoški, University of Birmingham, said: “EFSA has made significant strides in improving its independence policy with the aim of preventing the revolving door effect. However, EFSA’s independence policy does not go far enough to prevent conflicts of interest that may result from the provision of research funding.”


sustainablepulse--2020-05-06--US National Institutes of Health Study Links Dicamba to Increased Cancer Risks

Researchers at the U.S. National Institutes of Health have found that use of the pesticide dicamba can increase the risk of developing numerous cancers , including liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancers , acute and chronic lymphocytic leukemia , and mantle cell lymphoma .
The findings come as use of the drift-prone herbicide has skyrocketed across millions of acres throughout much of the Midwest and South in the past three years due to the Environmental Protection Agency ’ s approval of dicamba on genetically engineered soybeans and cotton .
The study , published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Epidemiology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on dicamba ’ s association with cancer to date .
It followed nearly 50,000 pesticide applicators in Iowa and North Carolina for over two decades , documenting pesticide use and cancer incidence .
“ This sweeping study exposes the terrible human cost of the EPA ’ s reckless decision to expand the use of dicamba , ” said Nathan Donley , a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity .
“ For the EPA to approve widespread use of this poison across much of the country without assuring its safety to people and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the agency ’ s persistent practice of rubber-stamping dangerous pesticides.
” In addition to studies in humans showing dicamba use is associated with certain types of cancers , animal studies have found that dicamba can alter liver function in a way that is known to induce liver tumors and promote liver cancer in combination with other carcinogens .
Dicamba is also known to cause DNA mutations and induce oxidative stress , two pathways known to cause cancer .
In 2015 the World Health Organization ’ s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be “ probably carcinogenic to humans ” based on similar human , animal and mechanistic criteria .
“ Just as with glyphosate , we were falsely told that dicamba was completely safe for humans and there was nothing to worry about , ” said Donley , who was not involved in the NIH study .
“ With dicamba ’ s ability to drift for miles , people in many areas of the country are now routinely forced to breathe in this dangerous pesticide.
” In approving dicamba for over-the-top use on genetically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concluded that the herbicide was “ not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
” Due to that designation , the EPA approved the expanded use of dicamba in 2016 without analyzing the cancer risk posed by the herbicide .
In addition , in 2018 the EPA reapproved the expanded dicamba use despite documented reports that the drift-prone pesticide damaged an estimated 5 million acres of crops , trees and backyard gardens between 2016 and 2017 .
The EPA is expected to re-approve dicamba again by the end of this year .
A report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the recently expanded dicamba use threatens the already imperiled monarch butterfly : it harms flowering plants that provide nectar for the adults as they travel south for the winter and harms the milkweed that provides an essential resource for reproduction .
National Family Farm Coalition , Pesticide Action Network , Center for Food Safety and Center for Biological Diversity have challenged the approval of the new dicamba use on GE crops .
A decision on that case is expected soon .
The organizations are asking for the court to vacate , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which would prevent millions of pounds of dicamba being applied this year .

Researchers at the U.S. National Institutes of Health have found that use of the pesticide dicamba can increase the risk of developing numerous cancers, including liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancers, acute and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and mantle cell lymphoma.
The findings come as use of the drift-prone herbicide has skyrocketed across millions of acres throughout much of the Midwest and South in the past three years due to the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of dicamba on genetically engineered soybeans and cotton.
The study, published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Epidemiology, is the most comprehensive epidemiological study on dicamba’s association with cancer to date. It followed nearly 50,000 pesticide applicators in Iowa and North Carolina for over two decades, documenting pesticide use and cancer incidence.
“This sweeping study exposes the terrible human cost of the EPA’s reckless decision to expand the use of dicamba,” said Nathan Donley, a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “For the EPA to approve widespread use of this poison across much of the country without assuring its safety to people and the environment is an absolute indictment of the agency’s persistent practice of rubber-stamping dangerous pesticides.”
In addition to studies in humans showing dicamba use is associated with certain types of cancers, animal studies have found that dicamba can alter liver function in a way that is known to induce liver tumors and promote liver cancer in combination with other carcinogens. Dicamba is also known to cause DNA mutations and induce oxidative stress, two pathways known to cause cancer.
In 2015 the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate, another widely used herbicide, to be “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on similar human, animal and mechanistic criteria.
“Just as with glyphosate, we were falsely told that dicamba was completely safe for humans and there was nothing to worry about,” said Donley, who was not involved in the NIH study. “With dicamba’s ability to drift for miles, people in many areas of the country are now routinely forced to breathe in this dangerous pesticide.”
In approving dicamba for over-the-top use on genetically engineered cotton and soybeans, the EPA concluded that the herbicide was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Due to that designation, the EPA approved the expanded use of dicamba in 2016 without analyzing the cancer risk posed by the herbicide.
In addition, in 2018 the EPA reapproved the expanded dicamba use despite documented reports that the drift-prone pesticide damaged an estimated 5 million acres of crops, trees and backyard gardens between 2016 and 2017.
The EPA is expected to re-approve dicamba again by the end of this year.
A report released by the Center in 2018 found that the recently expanded dicamba use threatens the already imperiled monarch butterfly: it harms flowering plants that provide nectar for the adults as they travel south for the winter and harms the milkweed that provides an essential resource for reproduction.
National Family Farm Coalition, Pesticide Action Network, Center for Food Safety and Center for Biological Diversity have challenged the approval of the new dicamba use on GE crops. A decision on that case is expected soon. The organizations are asking for the court to vacate, or cancel, the new dicamba use, which would prevent millions of pounds of dicamba being applied this year.


sustainablepulse--2020-05-13--Glyphosate Overuse Leads to Serious Immune System Concerns

In a time when the COVID-19 pandemic is dominating the global psyche , it is of course important to delve deeper into the background reasons for the failure of our immune systems to be able to cope with the serious threat of infectious diseases , which are likely to be a feature of the 21st century .
People all over the world are urgently trying to find out how to boost their own immunity as recent online data has shown ; “ Immune system ” in food chatter on social media is up 66 % month over month , Israeli @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as we are getting closer to the end of winter we expect to see less of this function — but Covid-19 changed that.
” There is also a massive rise in the public ’ s understanding that certain human driven forces , including air pollution , have a direct link to the current crisis , which has been backed up by some excellent peer-reviewed scientific papers .
However , there has been very little discussion so far about the unsustainable overuse of the toxic chemicals that are used to produce the food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so obviously having a direct impact on our immune systems , thus leaving us exposed to attack by infectious diseases .
Glyphosate , found in products such as Bayer/Monsanto ’ s Roundup , is a particularly serious culprit in this sphere , as it is the most used herbicide in the world and has also been shown to damage our immune system in a number of ways .
It is of course true that glyphosate and other pesticides are not directly responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic but they are clearly responsible for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are sure that you have heard about the high-profile Non-Hodgkin lymphoma cases in the U.S. , which have proven that glyphosate-based herbicides cause this lethal cancer .
You may not know however that Non-Hodgkin lymphoma ( also known as non-Hodgkin ’ s lymphoma , NHL , or sometimes just lymphoma ) is a cancer that starts in white blood cells called lymphocytes , which are part of the body ’ s immune system .
Lymphoma affects the body ’ s lymph system ( also known as the lymphatic system ) , which helps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bayer/Monsanto recently settled claims in a proposed class action alleging that it falsely advertised that the active ingredient in Roundup Weed & Grass Killer only affects plants with a $ 39.5 million deal that includes changing the labels on its products .
The suit stated that Monsanto falsely claimed through its labeling that glyphosate , the active ingredient in Roundup , targets an enzyme that is only found in plants and would therefore not affect people or pets .
That enzyme is in fact found in people and pets and is critical to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brain function .
A groundbreaking pilot study published in May 2018 by Italian and U.S. scientists showed that exposures to commonly used Glyphosate-Based Herbicides , at doses considered safe , are capable of modifying the gut microbiota in early development , particularly before the onset of puberty in rats .
Proof that glyphosate herbicides can inhibit the EPSPS enzyme and the shikimate pathway in gut bacteria had also been lacking until recently .
But a new study from late 2019 proved beyond doubt that this does indeed happen .
Various peer-reviewed studies have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gut microbiota and immunity .
They suggest that the interactions between the host ’ s gut and the bacteria that colonize our intestines help control how our body responds to illness .
There are of course many other important peer-reviewed studies that have made the direct link between glyphosate and other pesticides and the severe damage they are causing to our immune system , some of which were covered in a major review published as early as 1996 – so this is not new or questionable science .
It is the perfect time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world that was widely accepted before the COVID-19 pandemic – it is now time for a major change to support global immunity and that change can be led by a glyphosate-free and pesticide-free food and farming system !

In a time when the COVID-19 pandemic is dominating the global psyche, it is of course important to delve deeper into the background reasons for the failure of our immune systems to be able to cope with the serious threat of infectious diseases, which are likely to be a feature of the 21st century.
Editorial By Henry Rowlands, Sustainable Pulse Director
People all over the world are urgently trying to find out how to boost their own immunity as recent online data has shown; “Immune system” in food chatter on social media is up 66% month over month, Israeli data experts Tastewise revealed. “Usually, as we are getting closer to the end of winter we expect to see less of this function — but Covid-19 changed that.”
There is also a massive rise in the public’s understanding that certain human driven forces, including air pollution, have a direct link to the current crisis, which has been backed up by some excellent peer-reviewed scientific papers.
However, there has been very little discussion so far about the unsustainable overuse of the toxic chemicals that are used to produce the food we eat every day, which are so obviously having a direct impact on our immune systems, thus leaving us exposed to attack by infectious diseases.
Glyphosate, found in products such as Bayer/Monsanto’s Roundup, is a particularly serious culprit in this sphere, as it is the most used herbicide in the world and has also been shown to damage our immune system in a number of ways.
It is of course true that glyphosate and other pesticides are not directly responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic but they are clearly responsible for a severe worsening of global immunity.
The Legal and Scientific Proof:
Glyphosate Causes Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma – A Lethal Immune System Cancer
We are sure that you have heard about the high-profile Non-Hodgkin lymphoma cases in the U.S., which have proven that glyphosate-based herbicides cause this lethal cancer.
You may not know however that Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (also known as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, NHL, or sometimes just lymphoma) is a cancer that starts in white blood cells called lymphocytes, which are part of the body’s immune system. Lymphoma affects the body’s lymph system (also known as the lymphatic system), which helps fight infections and some other diseases.
Glyphosate Targets Vital Enzyme for Maintaining Immune Systems
Bayer/Monsanto recently settled claims in a proposed class action alleging that it falsely advertised that the active ingredient in Roundup Weed & Grass Killer only affects plants with a $39.5 million deal that includes changing the labels on its products.
The suit stated that Monsanto falsely claimed through its labeling that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, targets an enzyme that is only found in plants and would therefore not affect people or pets. That enzyme is in fact found in people and pets and is critical to maintaining the immune system, digestion and brain function.
Global Glyphosate Study Pilot Results Show Microbiota Damage
A groundbreaking pilot study published in May 2018 by Italian and U.S. scientists showed that exposures to commonly used Glyphosate-Based Herbicides, at doses considered safe, are capable of modifying the gut microbiota in early development, particularly before the onset of puberty in rats.
Proof that glyphosate herbicides can inhibit the EPSPS enzyme and the shikimate pathway in gut bacteria had also been lacking until recently. But a new study from late 2019 proved beyond doubt that this does indeed happen.
Various peer-reviewed studies have been slowly unraveling the complex relationship between gut microbiota and immunity. They suggest that the interactions between the host’s gut and the bacteria that colonize our intestines help control how our body responds to illness.
You can support the Global Glyphosate Study Here
There are of course many other important peer-reviewed studies that have made the direct link between glyphosate and other pesticides and the severe damage they are causing to our immune system, some of which were covered in a major review published as early as 1996 – so this is not new or questionable science.
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
It is the perfect time for us all to take stock of the world that was widely accepted before the COVID-19 pandemic – it is now time for a major change to support global immunity and that change can be led by a glyphosate-free and pesticide-free food and farming system!


sustainablepulse--2020-05-19--US Government Weakens Regulations on GMOs Despite Public Distrust

On Monday the U.S. Dept .
of Agriculture ( USDA ) released final regulations overhauling the nation ’ s decrepit regulatory system for genetically engineered ( GE ) organisms ( commonly referred to as GMOs ) .
The finalized regulations differ little from USDA ’ s draft regulations proposed last summer .
Under the new regime , many GMOs that are currently regulated will no longer be subject to agency oversight , with developers ( e.g .
chemical companies creating these GMOs , such as Monsanto/Bayer ) allowed to “ self-determine ” the regulatory status of their experimental GE organisms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reviews for potential harms , including potential economic harms to farmers .
“ With these new regulations , USDA once again ignores the elephant in the room , ” said Sylvia Wu , senior attorney at CFS .
“ The vast majority of GMOs sold and grown today are herbicide-resistant crops , which encourage over-reliance on particular weedkillers and have thus proven instrumental in generating noxious weeds immune to multiple herbicides .
Yet USDA pointedly refuses to use its noxious weed authority to address this serious and rapidly growing threat to U.S. agriculture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only do these herbicide-resistant crop systems foster noxious weeds , ” said Bill Freese , science policy analyst at CFS , “ they have caused unprecedented damage to millions of acres of susceptible crops through herbicide drift , ” he added .
“ Herbicide drift with GMOs has been one of the biggest problems in U.S. agriculture over the past three years , destroying crops and livelihoods , yet USDA and its new regulations do nothing to protect farmers from this threat.
” “ The new regulations also promise to worsen rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made it so difficult for many organic and non-GE farmers to survive in GE crop-dominated agricultural landscapes , ” Wu added .
GE crops contaminate organic and conventional crops in various ways , including cross-pollination .
Numerous GE contamination episodes have cost farmers billions of dollars in losses , disrupted world trade as export markets reject contaminated U.S. supplies , and even led major importers of U.S. supplies like China to source from U.S. competitors better able to meet the importers ’ GMO-related demands .
For more than a decade , CFS has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broad legal authority under the Plant Protection Act to : ( 1 ) Regulate all GMOs , whether developed with older or newer techniques , as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences in 2002 ; ( 2 ) Strengthen regulation to prevent GMO contamination of other crops and economic damage to non-GMO farmers ; and ( 3 ) Regulate herbicide-resistant GMOs to mitigate the extremely serious and growing problem of weeds evolving resistance to multiple herbicides .
CFS delivered these messages in comprehensive , science-based comments as a response to USDA ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and made similar demands together with 46 other public interest and farm groups .
Nevertheless , the final regulation continues to suffer from the deficiencies alluded to above , and does not protect farmers , the public , or the environment from the risks posed by GE crops .

On Monday the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) released final regulations overhauling the nation’s decrepit regulatory system for genetically engineered (GE) organisms (commonly referred to as GMOs).
The finalized regulations differ little from USDA’s draft regulations proposed last summer. Under the new regime, many GMOs that are currently regulated will no longer be subject to agency oversight, with developers (e.g. chemical companies creating these GMOs, such as Monsanto/Bayer) allowed to “self-determine” the regulatory status of their experimental GE organisms. GMO crops will also not undergo reviews for potential harms, including potential economic harms to farmers.
“With these new regulations, USDA once again ignores the elephant in the room,” said Sylvia Wu, senior attorney at CFS. “The vast majority of GMOs sold and grown today are herbicide-resistant crops, which encourage over-reliance on particular weedkillers and have thus proven instrumental in generating noxious weeds immune to multiple herbicides. Yet USDA pointedly refuses to use its noxious weed authority to address this serious and rapidly growing threat to U.S. agriculture,” she added.
“Not only do these herbicide-resistant crop systems foster noxious weeds,” said Bill Freese, science policy analyst at CFS, “they have caused unprecedented damage to millions of acres of susceptible crops through herbicide drift,” he added. “Herbicide drift with GMOs has been one of the biggest problems in U.S. agriculture over the past three years, destroying crops and livelihoods, yet USDA and its new regulations do nothing to protect farmers from this threat.”
“The new regulations also promise to worsen rather than ameliorate the GMO contamination problems that have made it so difficult for many organic and non-GE farmers to survive in GE crop-dominated agricultural landscapes,” Wu added.
GE crops contaminate organic and conventional crops in various ways, including cross-pollination. Numerous GE contamination episodes have cost farmers billions of dollars in losses, disrupted world trade as export markets reject contaminated U.S. supplies, and even led major importers of U.S. supplies like China to source from U.S. competitors better able to meet the importers’ GMO-related demands.
For more than a decade, CFS has been advocating for USDA to exercise its broad legal authority under the Plant Protection Act to: (1) Regulate all GMOs, whether developed with older or newer techniques, as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences in 2002; (2) Strengthen regulation to prevent GMO contamination of other crops and economic damage to non-GMO farmers; and (3) Regulate herbicide-resistant GMOs to mitigate the extremely serious and growing problem of weeds evolving resistance to multiple herbicides.
CFS delivered these messages in comprehensive, science-based comments as a response to USDA’s proposed regulation in August 2019, and made similar demands together with 46 other public interest and farm groups. Nevertheless, the final regulation continues to suffer from the deficiencies alluded to above, and does not protect farmers, the public, or the environment from the risks posed by GE crops.


sustainablepulse--2020-05-25--Bayer Reaches Verbal Deal to Settle Up to 85,000 Roundup Cancer Lawsuits

Bayer AG has reached verbal agreements to resolve a substantial portion of an estimated 125,000 U.S. cancer lawsuits over use of its Roundup weedkiller , according to people familiar with the negotiations , Fortune reported Monday .
The deals , which have yet to be signed and cover an estimated 50,000 to 85,000 suits , are part of a $ 10 billion Bayer plan to end a costly legal battle the company inherited when it acquired Monsanto in 2018 , the people said .
While some lawyers are still holding out , payouts for settled cases will range from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each , said the people , who asked not to be identified because they aren ’ t authorized to speak publicly .
A surge in Roundup claims , along with some big court losses , have weighed on Bayer since the Leverkusen , Germany-based company spent $ 63 billion to buy agricultural giant Monsanto — which developed the weedkiller .
The shares have dropped about 40 % since the deal closed two years ago , wiping out some $ 39 billion of Bayer ’ s market value .
In May 2019 , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a California jury ordered Monsanto to pay just over $ 2 billion in punitive and compensatory damages to a married couple who both developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma they say was caused by their many years of using glyphosate-based Roundup products .
In March 2019 , a unanimous jury in federal court in San Francisco ordered Monsanto to pay roughly $ 80 million in damages for failing to warn plaintiff Edwin Hardeman of the cancer risks of Roundup herbicide .
In August 2018 , jurors in state court in San Francisco ordered Monsanto to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school groundskeeper Dewayne “ Lee ” Johnson , who is dying of non-Hodgkin lymphoma the jury found was caused by his exposure to Monsanto ’ s glyphosate herbicides .
The judge in that case lowered the total verdict to $ 78 million and the verdict is now on appeal .
Evidence laid out in the three trials included numerous scientific studies that showed what plaintiffs ’ attorneys said was proof Monsanto ’ s herbicides can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma .
As well , the attorneys presented jurors with many internal Monsanto communications obtained through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manipulated the public record to hide the cancer risks .
Among the many revelations that have emerged from the trials : • Monsanto never conducted epidemiology studies for Roundup and its other formulations made with the active ingredient glyphosate to evaluate the cancer risks for users .
• Monsanto spent millions of dollars on covert public relations campaigns to finance ghostwritten studies and articles aimed at discrediting independent scientists whose work found dangers with Monsanto ’ s herbicides .
• When the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry sought to evaluate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the assistance of EPA officials to delay that review .
• Monsanto enjoyed a close relationship with certain officials within the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) , who have repeatedly backed Monsanto ’ s assertions about the safety of its glyphosate products .
• The company internally had worker safety recommendations that called for wearing a full range of protective gear when applying glyphosate herbicides , but did not warn the public to do the same .
Studies have repeatedly linked glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup and Ranger Pro brands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a type of blood cancer .
In 2015 , the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen .

Bayer AG has reached verbal agreements to resolve a substantial portion of an estimated 125,000 U.S. cancer lawsuits over use of its Roundup weedkiller, according to people familiar with the negotiations, Fortune reported Monday.
The deals, which have yet to be signed and cover an estimated 50,000 to 85,000 suits, are part of a $10 billion Bayer plan to end a costly legal battle the company inherited when it acquired Monsanto in 2018, the people said. While some lawyers are still holding out, payouts for settled cases will range from a few million dollars to a few thousand each, said the people, who asked not to be identified because they aren’t authorized to speak publicly.
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 surge in Roundup claims, along with some big court losses, have weighed on Bayer since the Leverkusen, Germany-based company spent $63 billion to buy agricultural giant Monsanto — which developed the weedkiller. The shares have dropped about 40% since the deal closed two years ago, wiping out some $39 billion of Bayer’s market value.
More on Fortune.com
In May 2019, after less than two full days of deliberations, a California jury ordered Monsanto to pay just over $2 billion in punitive and compensatory damages to a married couple who both developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma they say was caused by their many years of using glyphosate-based Roundup products.
In March 2019, a unanimous jury in federal court in San Francisco ordered Monsanto to pay roughly $80 million in damages for failing to warn plaintiff Edwin Hardeman of the cancer risks of Roundup herbicide.
In August 2018, jurors in state court in San Francisco ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages to school groundskeeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, who is dying of non-Hodgkin lymphoma the jury found was caused by his exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicides. The judge in that case lowered the total verdict to $78 million and the verdict is now on appeal.
Evidence laid out in the three trials included numerous scientific studies that showed what plaintiffs’ attorneys said was proof Monsanto’s herbicides can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma. As well, the attorneys presented jurors with many internal Monsanto communications obtained through court-ordered discovery that show Monsanto has intentionally manipulated the public record to hide the cancer risks.
Among the many revelations that have emerged from the trials:
Monsanto never conducted epidemiology studies for Roundup and its other formulations made with the active ingredient glyphosate to evaluate the cancer risks for users.
Monsanto spent millions of dollars on covert public relations campaigns to finance ghostwritten studies and articles aimed at discrediting independent scientists whose work found dangers with Monsanto’s herbicides.
When the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry sought to evaluate glyphosate toxicity in 2015, Monsanto engaged the assistance of EPA officials to delay that review.
Monsanto enjoyed a close relationship with certain officials within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), who have repeatedly backed Monsanto’s assertions about the safety of its glyphosate products.
The company internally had worker safety recommendations that called for wearing a full range of protective gear when applying glyphosate herbicides, but did not warn the public to do the same.
Studies have repeatedly linked glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup and Ranger Pro brands, to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a type of blood cancer. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.


sustainablepulse--2020-06-04--US Appeals Court Bans Dicamba in Massive Shock for Bayer

On Wednesday , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of farmers and conservationists in a dispute over Bayer/Monsanto ’ s dicamba pesticide .
The 56-page opinion held the Trump administration ’ s 2018 registration of that pesticide and related ones to be unlawful , and disallowed it .
Over 25 million pounds of the dicamba was set to be sprayed again this summer using the now-unlawful pesticides .
“ Today ’ s decision is a massive win for farmers and the environment , ” said George Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is good to be reminded that corporations like Monsanto and the Trump Administration can not escape the rule of law , particularly at a time of crisis like this .
Their day of reckoning has arrived.
” The case involved three formulations of the pesticide dicamba – Monsanto ’ s XtendiMax , Corteva ’ s FeXapan , and BASF ’ s Engenia – that EPA first registered for the 2017 season for “ new uses ” on Monsanto ’ s genetically-engineered , dicamba-resistant soybeans and cotton .
Though introduced in the 1960s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its propensity to volatilize and drift , damaging neighbors ’ crops .
In approving the new uses , EPA defied numerous warnings that the pesticide would cause far more widespread drift damage than ever before , relying entirely on dubious industry studies and complex usage restrictions to supposedly “ eliminate ” any damage to crops from drift .
What ensued was historical — from 2017 to 2019 farmers reported thousands of dicamba drift episodes causing damage to millions of acres of soybeans as well as vegetables , fruit trees , gardens , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approval unlawful , the opinion cited “ enormous and unprecedented damage ” caused by dicamba in the last few years , damage that has “ torn apart the social fabric of many farming communities.
” “ For the thousands of farmers whose fields were damaged or destroyed by dicamba drift despite our warnings , the National Family Farm Coalition is pleased with today ’ s ruling , ” said National Family Farm Coalition president Jim Goodman , who is also a retired dairy farmer .
The court found that EPA “ refused to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by characterizing it as ‘ potential ’ and ‘ alleged , ’ when in fact the record showed that “ dicamba had caused substantial and undisputed damage.
” Similarly , EPA ignored the consensus views of scientists , farmers , and even EPA officials that formal complaints of dicamba damage understated actual damage , solely because Monsanto had claimed the contrary .
The court ’ s ruling was far-reaching , touching on risks that EPA entirely ignored and that are seldom raised in cases on pesticide law .
For instance , the judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs imposed on soybean farmers who purchased Monsanto ’ s dicamba-resistant seed solely to preserve their crops from dicamba drift damage – an “ anti-competitive economic effect ” of the registrations .
“ This is a massive victory that will protect people and wildlife from uses of a highly toxic pesticide that never should ’ ve been approved by the EPA , ” said Lori Ann Burd , director of the Center for Biological Diversity ’ s environmental health program .
“ The fact that the Trump EPA approved these uses of dicamba @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of acres of farmland , tree groves and gardens highlights how tightly the pesticide industry controls EPA ’ s pesticide-approval process .
But this ruling is a powerful rejection of their lawlessness.
” Also stunning was the court ’ s acknowledgement that these uses of dicamba “ tear the social fabric of farming communities ” by engendering strife among those spraying dicamba and those suffering drift damage .
The judges noted that EPA had ignored this outcome , despite the fact that federal pesticide law requires an accounting of the “ social costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as health and environmental harms .
The court singled out a gunshot death involving such a dicamba dispute .
Finally , the court chastised EPA for piling so many restrictions on the dicamba labels , in a vain attempt to reduce drift , that even highly trained pesticide applicators found it virtually impossible to follow all of them .
“ Justice has finally prevailed , ” said Marcia Ishii-Eiteman , senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network .
“ EPA , Bayer and Corteva knew all along that the highly drift-prone herbicide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to farmers , their livelihoods , crops , surrounding rural communities and landscapes .
Unfortunately , we have already seen three seasons of devastation that could have been avoided had EPA done its job .
”

On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of farmers and conservationists in a dispute over Bayer/Monsanto’s dicamba pesticide. The 56-page opinion held the Trump administration’s 2018 registration of that pesticide and related ones to be unlawful, and disallowed it. Over 25 million pounds of the dicamba was set to be sprayed again this summer using the now-unlawful pesticides.
“Today’s decision is a massive win for farmers and the environment,” said George Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety, lead counsel in the case. “It is good to be reminded that corporations like Monsanto and the Trump Administration cannot escape the rule of law, particularly at a time of crisis like this. Their day of reckoning has arrived.”
The case involved three formulations of the pesticide dicamba – Monsanto’s XtendiMax, Corteva’s FeXapan, and BASF’s Engenia – that EPA first registered for the 2017 season for “new uses” on Monsanto’s genetically-engineered, dicamba-resistant soybeans and cotton. Though introduced in the 1960s, dicamba had been little-used due to its propensity to volatilize and drift, damaging neighbors’ crops. In approving the new uses, EPA defied numerous warnings that the pesticide would cause far more widespread drift damage than ever before, relying entirely on dubious industry studies and complex usage restrictions to supposedly “eliminate” any damage to crops from drift.
What ensued was historical — from 2017 to 2019 farmers reported thousands of dicamba drift episodes causing damage to millions of acres of soybeans as well as vegetables, fruit trees, gardens, and residential trees.
In ruling the pesticide approval unlawful, the opinion cited “enormous and unprecedented damage” caused by dicamba in the last few years, damage that has “torn apart the social fabric of many farming communities.”
“For the thousands of farmers whose fields were damaged or destroyed by dicamba drift despite our warnings, the National Family Farm Coalition is pleased with today’s ruling,” said National Family Farm Coalition president Jim Goodman, who is also a retired dairy farmer.
The court found that EPA “refused to estimate the amount of dicamba damage” by characterizing it as ‘potential’ and ‘alleged,’ when in fact the record showed that “dicamba had caused substantial and undisputed damage.” Similarly, EPA ignored the consensus views of scientists, farmers, and even EPA officials that formal complaints of dicamba damage understated actual damage, solely because Monsanto had claimed the contrary.
The court’s ruling was far-reaching, touching on risks that EPA entirely ignored and that are seldom raised in cases on pesticide law. For instance, the judges ruled that EPA had ignored the substantial costs imposed on soybean farmers who purchased Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant seed solely to preserve their crops from dicamba drift damage – an “anti-competitive economic effect” of the registrations.
“This is a massive victory that will protect people and wildlife from uses of a highly toxic pesticide that never should’ve been approved by the EPA,” said Lori Ann Burd, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health program. “The fact that the Trump EPA approved these uses of dicamba despite its well-documented record of damaging millions of acres of farmland, tree groves and gardens highlights how tightly the pesticide industry controls EPA’s pesticide-approval process. But this ruling is a powerful rejection of their lawlessness.”
Also stunning was the court’s acknowledgement that these uses of dicamba “tear the social fabric of farming communities” by engendering strife among those spraying dicamba and those suffering drift damage. The judges noted that EPA had ignored this outcome, despite the fact that federal pesticide law requires an accounting of the “social costs” of a pesticide’s use as well as health and environmental harms. The court singled out a gunshot death involving such a dicamba dispute.
Finally, the court chastised EPA for piling so many restrictions on the dicamba labels, in a vain attempt to reduce drift, that even highly trained pesticide applicators found it virtually impossible to follow all of them.
“Justice has finally prevailed,” said Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network. “EPA, Bayer and Corteva knew all along that the highly drift-prone herbicide, dicamba, would cause grave harm to farmers, their livelihoods, crops, surrounding rural communities and landscapes. Unfortunately, we have already seen three seasons of devastation that could have been avoided had EPA done its job.”