WikiLeaks Cables Show US Diplomats Promote Genetically Engineered Crops Worldwide

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by The Wrong Guy, Aug 28, 2011.

  1. The Internet Member

    Mike Adams is probably crazier than Alex Jones. You can count on him for anti-psychiatry, anti-vax, anti-GMO, truther madness, Zeitgeist, and all the secrets that your doctor doesn’t want you to know. The Scientologists on Facebook like him a lot.

    • Like Like x 1
  2. White Tara Global Moderator

    Now that is spooky. :(
  3. The Internet Member

    Activists destroying a GMO research site in about 20 minutes, due to having heads filled with misinformation.

    Misinformation causes good people to do bad things.

    We really need to do something to raise the status of evidence based memes above the slick propaganda memes spamming all of us everywhere.
    • Like Like x 3
  4. The Internet Member

    Aw that is nothing. Have you met David Dees, illustrator to the cranks and Scientologists?


    I like the font.

    • Like Like x 2
  5. The Internet Member

    This is pretty good:

    • Like Like x 2
  6. DeathHamster Member

    He keeps it on the down-low, but Mike Adams is a Scientologist, or at least was without saying when and why he quit.
  7. DeathHamster Member

    Why is that guy ranting about MSG? What does that have to do with GM? (It's also debatable on the health effects, considering the long-term use in traditional Chinese cooking.)
  8. The Internet Member

    There’s a list of scary things someplace and sometimes they add extras to their dominant meme.

    The Monsanto black PR is working. I read that they’re not gonna try to sell GMO in Europe.
  9. muldrake Member

    Something that pisses me off about anti-Monsanto activities is they are so often not directed at Monsanto's predatory and vicious practices, but at the whole idea of genetically modified anything. There is a distinctly anti-science and anti-intellectual bent to so many of these activists that I cannot, in good conscience, support protests basically rooted in a hatred of science itself.

    I detest the kind of anti-science activists like Jeremy Rifkin so much I can't even for a good cause sign on to their bullshit. I hate that fucking pinhead and all of his ilk.

    There's plenty to hate about Monsanto, from their abuse of intellectual property law to just the simple fact that virtually every product this corporate entity has spewed into the world is pure evil, like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and Agent Orange and DDT and. . .well fuck. . .name ANYTHING good this company has ever produced. DDT is probably the LEAST evil thing they ever produced.
    • Like Like x 3
  10. The Internet Member

    Monsanto sponsored that one ride in Futureland at Disneyland, where you get shrunk down really small so you can visit with atoms. That ride was cool.

    Maybe Monsanto is evil. I dunno. But I kinda doubt it. Because most of those big companies have people who went to school with people at the other similar big companies and they’re not so different from each other. And if they’re helping to advance our scientific understanding of plant genetics through research funding, that counts for something.

    Most of the problems mentioned, like with RoundUp resistance, aren’t due to Monsanto being evil but natural selection. The resistance might mean more herbicide gets used, but that may still be better than other options out there (I personally don’t know but am willing to give the agricultural scientists the benefit of the doubt here).

    Like with antibiotic resistance. Doesn’t mean antibiotics are bad and we should stop using them. We just need to be careful and we need to try to stay one step ahead of the resistance problem, if possible.

    As for the intellectual property issue --I looked into that a few months back and it was blown out of proportion. Farmers were claiming Monsanto was doing stuff they weren’t actually doing. I can dig up a link if you want.
    • Like Like x 2
  11. muldrake Member

    Going to have to disagree. Monsanto is evil, its products are evil, its practices are evil.

    Even if they've sometimes been exaggerated by its critics. And again, I defy anyone to name a product this corporate entity has birthed that is not utterly atrocious. The more you study Monsanto, the more you will be horrified.

    Even the non-exaggerated versions of the horrors they've perpetrated make them, at best, utter bullies. Frankly, I put them more on the level of the Nazis, without any irony whatsoever.
    • Like Like x 3
  12. The Wrong Guy Member

    Monsanto Threatens People and Planet | Global Research

    International March Against Monsanto, May 24

    An international March Against Monsanto is scheduled for May 24. Hundreds of events around the world have already been scheduled to protest against the world’s biggest agricultural biotechnology company.
    • Like Like x 2
  13. anon33 Member

    The Internet, you cannot tell between misinformation and information. Roundup itself is poisonous. That's not evil itself but Monsanto said they were not, and fined in France at least. The purpose of GMO is to allow you to use a lot more chemicals to kill everything else except the GMO plant. They are selling GMO, sell a lot more poisonous chemicals, which you have to buy and use more and more because of natural selection.
    • Like Like x 2
  14. anonysamvines Member

    Yes please I would like the link/s.
    Especially to check out the credibility of the pro Montsana

    So many people just parrot the Montsana PR without even realising that is what they are doing.
    Smh at the blind faith in science that so many have. Just like religion in that sense.
    Science like anything, has its limitations and can be skewed to prove anything as easily as statistics.
    That it may or may not fulfill criteria in one aspect does not mean it is benign in other criteria

    As for the increased herbicide etc
    Did we learn NOTHING from DDT and its ilk?
    Or that DDT is legally allowed to still be manufactured in the US but NOT used there! (Except in strict emergencies). It can only be sold in countries without a strong environmental health legislature!
  15. anonysamvines Member

    Thank you RG!

    That article was the best articulated précis of some of the MANY concerns that Montsano critics have

    It isn't a glib science = good/evil debate, for everyone (especially critics) but rather a complex, integrated issue. Scientifically. Especially when one has an understanding of science and its limitations as well as its greatness. It is so easy when making judgements to be too narrowly focused as well as too broadly. Especially in the biological sphere. In biology especially too little is known and understood about the complex relationship between predator and victim. Or the relationship between those who live on the predators.
    Hell, nature and its complex relationships we cannot even predict the weather with consistent accuracy. Let alone the food chain - which involves a complex apparent disarray of various states of vegetable, soil, bacteria and insects and animals.

    How many of us are convinced that bacteria = bad?
    How many are convinced, because of the mix of science and marketing for profit, that it is a good thing to kill 99.9% of all known germs (bacteria)?

    Yes it is good to not have certain germs/bacteria
    How many are not only beneficial but also absolutely necessary?
    Where is the mention of that Scientific Fact?

    No fucking where - unless you really look
    And how much are such concerns dismissed as woo?

    Where is the research into a disinfectant that can differentiate between beneficial bacteria/germs and the unwanted ones?

    Where is the research into whether the benefits outweigh the negatives?

    Please someone show me the research that has even considered the benefit/negative issue

    Montsano won't address those issues.
    It doesn't enhance the profit.

    Nor is it only an issue about Montsano only..
  16. The Internet Member

    Anonysamvines, you have to use science to argue that GMOs are bad, right? So science is the way to go, right?

    Well the current science we have says GMOs, if properly managed, are reasonably safe and provide greater crop yields per acre of land. This is significant because farmland is terrible for wildlife and waterways.

    Mother nature herself is doing GMO all the time but in a haphazard, random way. Against that background the tiny bit of gene alteration humans do is nothing. Still, it is important to go slow with GMOs, with careful monitoring for any problems in the areas where they are used, just to be on the safe side.

    I would have to Google for a bit to find that article about the organic farmers and their lawsuit that got thrown out of court. But this is some useful background on the GMO controversy:
  17. anon33 Member

    Scientology is not evil, but depends on how it is used? How believers are regged? Sound like cult apologist to you?

    Discussions are driven to what companies want to discuss. They would let you believe that you must learn enough to decide on scientific merits. Activists are using disinformation tactics that doesn't help. But why? Disinformation works and moving goal posts works.

    Given them half the chance, banks will bankrupt you. Proven guilty. Why do you give them the chance? Why do you have to possibly save the world by allowing companies not to label GMO? Honestly, you are dumb enough not to know who's right and who's wrong by reading all weekend. Personally, what do you have to lose by knowing that you eat GMO everyday?
  18. The Wrong Guy Member

    The Sinister Monsanto Group: From ‘Agent Orange’ to Genetically Modified Corn | Global Research

    The Americans do not only spy on governments, authorities and private individuals across the world with the help of their secret services; they also understand how to push forward the global interests of their companies with full force. An impressive example of this is the agriculture giant Monsanto, the leading manufacturer of genetically modified seeds in the world. A glimpse into the world of Monsanto shows that companies which delivered the pesticide ‘Agent Orange’ to the US military in the Vietnam war had close connections with the central power in Washington, with tough people from the field of the US secret services and with private security companies.
    • Like Like x 2
  19. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  20. The Wrong Guy Member

    Farmers settle with Monsanto over wheat dispute | Associated Press

    Monsanto Co. said Wednesday it will pay nearly $2.4 million to settle a dispute with farmers in the Pacific Northwest over genetically modified wheat.

    No genetically engineered wheat has been approved for U.S. farming, but it was found in Oregon in 2013. That discovery prompted Japan and South Korea to temporarily suspend some wheat orders, and the European Union called for more rigorous testing of U.S. shipments.

    Agriculture Department officials said the modified wheat discovered in the Oregon field is the same strain as a genetically modified wheat that was designed to be herbicide-resistant and was tested by seed giant Monsanto a decade ago but never approved.

    St. Louis-based Monsanto said that it is settling the case rather than pay for an extended legal battle. The company will put roughly $2.1 million into a settlement fund to pay farmers in Washington, Oregon and Idaho who sold soft white wheat between May 30 and Nov. 30 of 2013.

    Monsanto will also pay a total of $250,000 to wheat growers' associations, including the National Wheat Foundation, the Washington Association of Wheat Growers, the Oregon Wheat Growers' League and the Idaho Grain Producers Association.

    Continued here:
    • Like Like x 1
    • Like Like x 1
  21. The Wrong Guy Member

    March Against Monsanto Happening Worldwide on May 23

    By Nick Bernabe

    On May 23, 2015, hundreds of thousands of concerned individuals will gather across 38 countries and 428 cities to join in peaceful protest against the Monsanto Company as a part of the March Against Monsanto grassroots campaign. This movement seeks to raise awareness to the dangers surrounding Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds and cancer-linked herbicide Roundup.

    The campaign comes as the demand for GMO labeling and non-GMO food alternatives continues its exponential climb, with states like Vermont enacting mandatory GM labeling legislation that will require food corporations to let consumers know if their products contain GM ingredients.

    In polls conducted by the New York Times, Washington Post, Consumer Reports, and many others, over 90% of respondents were in support of national GMO labeling – an initiative that has been defeated time and time again at the state level thanks to heavy spending by Monsanto-backed lobbying groups.

    Highlighting the concern over Monsanto’s creations is the latest report from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research group, which listed Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup as a ‘probable carcinogen’. This finding has drawn many researchers and health experts to stand behind the goals of March Against Monsanto.

    “There’s no question that March Against Monsanto is the most powerful grassroots initiative we have in the fight to reclaim our food supply from the GMO seed juggernaut known as the Monsanto Company,” said Anthony Gucciardi, March Against Monsanto speaker and founder of the natural health website

    “With the new admission by the World Health Organization that Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup is causing cancer worldwide, now is the most important time to join the movement and take a stand.”

    Despite claims by the multinational biotech giant that genetically modified crops would actually lead to a decrease in Roundup use, U.S. Geological Survey data reveals the use of Roundup’s key component glyphosate has increased 16-fold since the mid-1990s when GMO crops were first introduced.

    March Against Monsanto protests will begin may 23rd with extensive physical protests and related online coverage throughout the day on news media platforms as well as

    For more information on the 2015 March Against Monsanto, and to start a march in your area, visit or contact the event coordinator via email at

    This is a media advisory released by the March Against Monsanto and may be reproduced in part or in whole. Tune in to the Anti-Media radio show Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos:

    • Like Like x 1
  22. Hugh Bris Member

    Just saw this article with video:
    Nye the science guy is working with Monsanto
    Love it.
  23. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  24. The Wrong Guy Member

    Lawsuit Accuses Federal Government of Withholding Info on GMO Crops for 10 Years

    By Derrick Broze, The Anti Media, August 31, 2015


    On August 25th, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for failure to adequately respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests related to genetically engineered (GE) crops. This marks the fourth time the CFS has sued APHIS to force the release of records.

    The CFS accuses APHIS of failing to respond within a timely manner to at least 29 of their FOIA requests or appeals. The lawsuit is the center’s latest attempt to force APHIS to respond to FOIA requests and to order the agency to “stop its practice of failing to respond to FOIA requests related to GE crops.”

    Cristina Stella, staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety, says that APHIS has a history of inadequate regulation of GMO crops. “In the absence of thorough government oversight, public access to information about these crops becomes all the more critical,” Stella said. “This lawsuit is necessary to stop APHIS from continuing to ignore its duty to provide the public with information that affects farmers, communities, and the environment.”

    Stella also says that the longer APHIS fails to regulate the GMO crops, the more the environment will face damage, including transgenic contamination of nearby crops, pesticide drift, and endangerment of protected species.

    CFS has been seeking information about these harms for over ten years—and for over ten years, APHIS has continually ignored our requests. It cannot continue to do so,” she noted.

    The CFS argues that APHIS has failed in several ways, including not responding to a FOIA request related to GE sorghum. The CFS says crops like GE sorghum were engineered by inserting genes that are not on APHIS’s “plant pest” list. This means the USDA does not have the authority to regulate the crops. CFS says this is allowing GE crops to spread without proper studies or public knowledge.

    The CFS also says APHIS’s silence has made it more difficult to mitigate harm caused by GE crops that escape from field trials, known as “unauthorized releases.” Crops that escape could possibly contaminate traditional or organic crops. The group also charges that APHIS ignored requests for information related to field trials of Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” creeping bentgrass.

    Advancing the public’s knowledge on controversial topics like genetically engineered crops is vitally important. After all, in late July the U.S. House of Representatives passed a measure that would prohibit the labeling of GE crops, with the Senate expected to take up the bill in September.

    Anti-Media recently reported that “independent GMO researcher” Kevin Folta, a professor and chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Gainesville, received a $25,000 grant from Monsanto. The revelation is a brutal reminder that every individual should do their own research and be skeptical of all official sources of information.

    This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Derrick Broze and

    • Like Like x 2
  25. The Wrong Guy Member

    No, GMOs Didn't Create India's Farmer Suicide Problem, But… | Mother Jones

    Since the mid-1990s, around 300,000 Indian farmers have killed themselves — a rate of about one every 30 minutes, which is 47 percent higher than the national average. The tragedy has become entangled in the rhetorical war around genetically modified seeds.

    Some anti-GMO activists, including Indian scientist and organic-farming champion Vandana Shiva, have blamed the high suicide rates directly on biotech seeds — specifically, cotton tweaked by Monsanto to contain the Bt pesticide, now used on more than 90 percent of India's cotton acreage. Shiva has gone so far as to declare them "seeds of suicide," because, she claims, "suicides increased after Bt cotton was introduced."

    GMO enthusiasts, by contrast, counter that Monsanto's patented seeds are a boon to India's cotton farmers: They've boosted crop yields, driven down pesticide use, and alleviated rural poverty, a 2010 paper by the pro-industry International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) argued.

    So which is it? According to a recent peer-reviewed paper from a team led by Andrew Gutierrez, a professor emeritus at the University of California-Berkeley's department of environmental policy, science, and management, the situation is way too complicated to be aptly described by sound bites in a rhetorical war.

    For their analysis, the team looked closely at yields, pesticide use, farmer incomes, and suicide rates in India's cotton regions, both before and after the debut of Bt seeds in 2002.

    They found that on large farms with access to irrigation water, genetically modified cotton makes economic sense — paying up for the more expensive seeds helps control a voracious pest called the pink bollworm in a cost-effective way.

    But 65 percent of India's cotton crop comes from farmers who rely on rain, not irrigation pumps. For them, the situation is the opposite — reliance on pesticides and the higher cost of the seeds increase the risk of bankruptcy and thus suicide, the study finds. The smaller and more Bt-reliant the farm in these rain-fed cotton areas, the authors found, the higher the suicide rate. (An analysis that largely jibes with Shiva's, apart from her heated rhetoric.)

    Even so, the paper does not present Bt cotton as the trigger for India's farmer-suicide crisis. Rather, it provides crucial background for understanding how India's shift to industrial farming techniques starting in the 1960s left the majority of the nation's cotton farmers increasingly reliant on loans to purchase pricey fertilizers, pesticides, and hybrid seeds, and eventually GM seeds, making them vulnerable to bankruptcy when the vagaries of rain and global cotton markets turned against them.

    The authors note that cotton has been cultivated in India for 5,000 years, and until the emergence of the slavery-dependent cotton empire in the southern United States in the early 1800s, "India was the center of world cotton innovation." In the 1970s, Indian cotton farmers turned to hybrid seeds that delivered higher yields as long as they were doused with sufficient fertilizer. Until then, the pink bollworm — the pest now targeted by Bt seeds — "was not a major pest in Indian cotton," they write. But higher-yielding plants draw more insect pests, and so the new hybrid seeds also triggered an increasing reliance on insecticides. Bollworms evolved to resist the chemical onslaught and many of their natural predators (other insects) saw their populations decline, giving the bollworms a niche. Hence when Monsanto's bollworm-targeting Bt seeds hit the market in the early 2000s, they were essentially an industrial-ag solution to a problem that had been caused by industrial agriculture.

    Continued here:
    • Like Like x 2
  26. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  27. The Wrong Guy Member

    New Evidence About the Dangers of Monsanto’s Roundup

    By Sharon Lerner, The Intercept, May 17, 2016

    John Sanders worked in the orange and grapefruit groves in Redlands, California, for more than 30 years. First as a ranch hand, then as a farm worker, he was responsible for keeping the weeds around the citrus trees in check. Roundup, the Monsanto weed killer, was his weapon of choice, and he sprayed it on the plants from a hand-held atomizer year-round.

    Frank Tanner, who owned a landscaping business, is also a Californian and former Roundup user. Tanner relied on the herbicide starting in 1974, and between 2000 and 2006 sprayed between 50 and 70 gallons of it a year, sometimes from a backpack, other times from a 200-gallon drum that he rolled on a cart next to him.
    The two men have other things in common, too: After being regularly exposed to Roundup, both developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a blood cancer that starts in the lymph cells. And, as of April, both are plaintiffs in a suit filed against Monsanto that marks a turning point in the pitched battle over the most widely used agricultural chemical in history.

    Until recently, the fight over Roundup has mostly focused on its active ingredient, glyphosate. But mounting evidence, including one study published in February, shows it’s not only glyphosate that’s dangerous, but also chemicals listed as “inert ingredients” in some formulations of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers. Though they have been in herbicides — and our environment — for decades, these chemicals have evaded scientific scrutiny and regulation in large part because the companies that make and use them have concealed their identity as trade secrets.

    Now, as environmental scientists have begun to puzzle out the mysterious chemicals sold along with glyphosate, evidence that these so-called inert ingredients are harmful has begun to hit U.S. courts. In addition to Sanders and Tanner, at least four people who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup have sued Monsanto in recent months, citing the dangers of both glyphosate and the co-formulants sold with it. As Tanner and Sanders’s complaint puts it: Monsanto “knew or should have known that Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate alone and that safety studies of Roundup, Roundup’s adjuvants and ‘inert’ ingredients” were necessary.

    Continued here:
  28. The Wrong Guy Member

  29. RightOn Member

  30. The Wrong Guy Member

    Exclusive: Monsanto to reject Bayer bid, seek higher price - sources | Reuters

    Monsanto will reject Bayer AG's $62 billion acquisition bid and seek a higher price, two people familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.

    While Monsanto sees industrial logic in a combination with Bayer and believes a deal would be approved by antitrust and other regulators, the company also has confidence in its standalone plan and believes shareholders deserve a better offer, the people said.

    Continued here:
  31. The Wrong Guy Member

    Monsanto, America's Monster

    Published by Empire Files on June 14, 2016

    Few corporations in the world are as loathed — and as sinister — as Monsanto. But the threat it poses to people and planet could be reaching new heights, as the World Health Organization has recently upgraded Monsanto's main product as carcinogenic to humans.

    With protests against the agrochemical giant held in over 40 countries in May, learn why the global movement against Monsanto is of critical importance to our future.

    In this episode of The Empire Files, Abby Martin issues a scathing expose on the corporate polluter, chronicling it's rise to power, the collusion of its crimes by the US government, and highlighting the serious danger it puts us in today.
  32. The Wrong Guy Member

    Bayer Just Bought Monsanto. Here's Why You Should Care | Motherboard


    A giant company just bought another giant company, but if you’re not an investor or a farmer, you may not have noticed. Bayer — the aspirin company that also makes farm products like pesticides — announced on Wednesday it was merging with Monsanto, the massive genetically-modified seed producer that owns about a third of the seed market in the US.

    The $66 billion merger is the largest this year, and means Bayer now controls more than a quarter of all seeds and pesticides on the planet, according to the BBC. But what’s even crazier is that this is just the latest in a long list of big mergers of agricultural companies this year, meaning the options for where farmers buy their seeds, pesticides, and fertilizers are shrinking at lightning speed.

    If this all sounds vaguely threatening but you’re not sure why, it’s because there’s a chance these mergers could put additional pressure on farms, leading to higher food prices, or even threaten food security.

    “The world’s biggest suppliers of pesticides and seeds have gone from six players — ChemChina, Syngenta, Dow, DuPont, Bayer, and Monsanto — to three,” said John Colley, a professor at Warwick Business School in the UK, who researches large takeovers. “There’s an awful lot fewer companies to compete with. They stand a much better chance of being able to increase pricing.”

    Colley explained that these mergers are largely the result of falling crop prices. We’ve had more than enough major crops like corn and soybean to meet demands, which drove the prices down, which in turn led farmers to start tightening belts and spend less on products such as pesticides and fertilizers. This ripple effect made it more difficult for these major agricultural companies to pay off debts, and increased the incentive to merge. Merging allows corporations to occupy a bigger share of the market, and potentially drive up prices to make up for slowed sales, even for consumers.

    Continued here:
  33. The Wrong Guy Member

    International Monsanto Tribunal in The Hague - October 2016

    The Monsanto Tribunal is an international civil society initiative to hold Monsanto accountable for human rights violations, for crimes against humanity, and for ecocide. Eminent judges will hear testimonies from victims, and deliver an advisory opinion following procedures of the International Court of Justice. A distinct and parallel event, the People's Assembly, provides the opportunity for social movements to rally and plan for the future we want. The Tribunal and People's Assembly take place between 14 and 16 October 2016 in The Hague, Netherlands.
  34. DeathHamster Member
  35. The Internet Member

    GMOs are really important and the black PR against them is doing a lot of harm.

    BTW, insulin is a GMO product.
  36. DeathHamster Member
    I wouldn't have used RT, but there's no trace on the net of the story in my dead tree newspaper this week.
  37. The Wrong Guy Member

    Jury returns $2 billion verdict against Monsanto for couple with cancer

    By Michael Nedelman, CNN, May 13, 2019


    A jury handed a $2.055 billion verdict in favor of a couple in California who say their cancer was caused by long-term exposure to Monsanto's popular weed killer Roundup, according to the plaintiffs' attorneys.

    The verdict in Oakland includes more than $55 million in compensatory damages to the couple and $2 billion in punitive damages, a statement said.

    It follows several recent losses the company has faced in court concerning Roundup. Thousands of similar cases are pending at the federal or state level.

    Bayer, the parent company of Monsanto, insists that glyphosate -- the key ingredient in Roundup -- is safe.

    "Bayer is disappointed with the jury's decision and will appeal the verdict in this case," it said in a statement following Monday's verdict.

    The septuagenarian plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod of Livermore, used the weed killer on their property for more than three decades and were diagnosed with the same type of cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, four years apart, according to their attorneys.

    Bayer said the jury was presented with "cherry-picked findings" inconsistent with a statement last month by the US Environmental Protection Agency, which announced that glyphosate was not a carcinogen and posed no public health risk when used as directed.

    "The contrast between today's verdict and EPA's conclusion that there are 'no risks to public health from the current registered uses of glyphosate' could not be more stark," Bayer said.

    However, not all groups have mirrored the EPA's announcement. Cases like the Pilliods' surged after a World Health Organization report in 2015 suggested that glyphosate might cause cancer.

    The report, by WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer, said glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans." Bayer's statement on Monday said the plaintiffs "relied heavily" on the agency's 2015 assessment but called it "an outlier among international health regulators and scientific bodies."

    Most lymphoma cases have no known cause, according to the American Cancer Society.

    There have also been concerns about whether Monsanto has had undue influence over regulators, with internal company documents playing a key role in Monday's verdict, according to the plaintiffs' lawyers.

    In a statement, Michael Miller, one of the Pilliods' lawyers, said their case is different from two previous Monsanto trials "where the judges severely limited the amount of plaintiffs' evidence." He said the jury was shown a "mountain of evidence showing Monsanto's manipulation of science, the media and regulatory agencies to forward their own agenda."

    A Monsanto spokeswoman previously denied that the company had ever paid, given gifts to or done anything else to curry favor with anyone from the EPA.


Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins