Saturday, November 24, 2018

Organic? Grass Fed? Cage Free? What’s It All Mean?

Dairy Cows in Collins Center New York 1999In general, there is a lot of confusion about the terminology used when describing food. With everyone vying for your dollar and trying to find their market niche, it’s no wonder consumers find themselves confused about what it all means.

The following is a brief overview of what some commonly used words and terms mean. As always, one of the great benefits of buying local food products is you can always personally ask the farmer what they mean when using a word or term you aren’t familiar with. Never be afraid to ask questions.

Certified Organic means that the food is grown or produced following guidelines established by the USDA. The organic guidelines address many factors including soil quality, animal raising practices, pest and weed control, and the use of additives. Independent organic certifying agencies complete inspections and evaluations to determine initial organic certification of a farm and continuing compliance. While the basic standards for organic production are consistent across regulatory agencies, some certifying agencies may be more or less stringent as far as what is considered a deviation from the standards.

Organic practices is a term commonly used by farmers who follow many or all standard organic practices, but are not officially certified organic. This allows the farmer to tailor their management practices to what they and their customers want without a lot of regulatory oversight. You probably won’t see this on labels in the grocery store, but if you buy local food products you will most likely hear it or see it when farmers are promoting their products. Don’t hesitate to ask them to explain what that means to them and their farm.

Natural is a relatively vague word when used to describe food. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency responsible for overseeing and regulating food production, does not define or regulate the use of the word “natural” on labels. The FDA official policy is that “the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances”. This is obviously a very broad policy that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. On the other hand, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) does regulate use of the word “natural” when applied to meat, poultry, and eggs, and states that a “natural” food is “a product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed”. However, the use of the word “natural” does not necessarily mean hormone-free or antibiotic-free; these are separate labels, that are also regulated by the USDA.

Cage Free and Free Range are two common terms found on egg cartons. These terms are regulated by the USDA if the eggs are packed in USDA grade marked packages. Even if you are not buying eggs in USDA marked packages, it is good to know the definitions so if management practices are important to you, you can ask the right questions from whoever you are buying from. According to the USDA, cage free eggs are laid by “hens that are able to roam vertically and horizontally in indoor houses, and have access to fresh food and water. Cage-free systems must allow hens to exhibit natural behaviors and include enrichments such as scratch areas, perches and nests. Hens must have access to litter, protection from predators and be able to move in a barn in a manner that promotes bird welfare.” The USDA definition of free range is almost exactly the same as that of cage free, with the difference being the hens must have “continuous access to the outdoors during their laying cycle. The outdoor area may be fenced and/or covered with netting-like material.” The USDA does not specify exactly how much space each bird must be given in the outdoor area.

Grass Fed and Pastured are two more words that cause a lot confusion. It is important to note that grass fed does NOT mean organic. The USDA defines grass fed as: “grass and/or forage shall be the feed source consumed for the lifetime of the ruminant animal, with the exception of milk consumed prior to weaning. The diet shall be derived solely from forage and animals cannot be fed grain or grain by-products and must have continuous access to pasture during the growing season.” Therefore, an animal can be called pastured, but not grass fed if it is raised on pasture or given access to pasture, but is also fed other feed sources such as grain. This difference is especially important if you, the consumer is paying a premium for “grass fed” products. In general, it is less efficient to produce meat and milk solely on grass which is the reason why 100% grass fed products are more expensive.

Now let’s throw grain finished into the mix. Often times a beef animal can be fed one hundred percent grass for the majority of its life, but then supplemented with grain for final few weeks before slaughter. This will give the meat a different flavor and a little more marbling (less lean) than if the animal was solely grass fed. If you, the consumer is concerned about the amount of grain the animal gets, once again, this is a great time to ask your local producer exactly what the animal is being fed. There is a very broad spectrum of feeding practices between large feedlots that finish cattle on diets consisting of well over 60% grain to small, local producers who only feed a few pounds to finish an animal.

A couple of other words I would like to touch on are pasteurized and homogenized. These are words almost always seen on milk containers, and surprisingly, many people are confused about what they mean. Pasteurized simply means that the milk has been heat treated to kill bacteria and pathogens that may or may not be present that could be harmful to humans. Pasteurization also plays an important role in extending the shelf life of milk. Homogenized means that the fat globules in the milk have been processed and broken down into smaller particle sizes so that the milk fat doesn’t separate from the milk. In non-homogenized milk, the cream with float to the top. Homogenization prevents this and leaves the consumer with a consistently mixed product.

Hopefully these definitions and description have helped to clarify any question or confusion you may have in regards to food labels and descriptions. If food production practices are important to you, educate yourself, never be afraid to question, and always be aware of the source of information.

Photo of Dairy Cows in Collins Center New York 1999 courtesy Wikimedia user Daniellagreen.

Related Stories

26 Responses

  1. James B says:

    You forgot the most important one: ((( Healthier NON-GMO! )))
    After 150 years of Monsanto giving us DDT, PCB, Dioxin & Agent Orange; now it’s poison toxic GLYPHOSATE. Over 10,000 cancer victims are presently in court proceedings litigating against proven carcinogen Monsanto’s Glyphosate (Roundup). TWO BILLION POUNDS of poison Glyphosate are sprayed worldwide yearly. Don’t eat Monsanto’s GMO poison toxic weedkiller Glyphosate, unless you desire multiple cancers!
    Shocking 42 minute “Monsanto Papers” ABC News video may save your life.
    “Free Case Evaluation
    If you or a loved one was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and have a history of using Roundup weed killer products, contact a lawyer now and find out if you have a case.”
    (888) 222-7777
    Monsanto Roundup Cancer Lawyers
    Roundup – Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz L.P.A.
    “Roundup is the most widely used herbicide for killing weeds and grass across the globe. The Monsanto Roundup herbicide lawsuit alleges that Monsanto failed to warn users of the increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other forms of cancer.“
    ““Monsanto markets Roundup weed killer as safe because its active ingredient, glyphosate, targets an enzyme found only in plants.
    This claim is “false, misleading and deceptive,” according to Roundup cancer attorneys.
    Human microbiota (bacteria, fungi, etc.), mucous membranes and skin depend on the enzyme glyphosate targets.
    Health risks follow when glyphosate disrupts human microbiota.
    On June 20, 2017, six people from California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin filed a class action lawsuit against Monsanto. The class action involves allegations that accuse Monsanto of falsely promoting Roundup products as interfering with an enzyme that is found only in plants, but not “in people or pets,” even though beneficial bacteria in the human gut, mucus membranes and skin depend on the same enzyme that Roundup targets.
    Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, the lawsuit names Monsanto Co. of Missouri and Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. of Ohio, which markets and distributes Roundup in several U.S. states. The law firm of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman and six other law firms filed the class action on behalf of the plaintiffs and class members.
    At the heart of the class action litigation is Monsanto’s claim throughout their marketing that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, targets an enzyme that is found only in plants. This assertion continues to appear in Monsanto’s video advertisements for their websites and YouTube channel.
    However, according to the class action lawsuit, Monsanto’s claim that glyphosate targets an enzyme found only in plants is “false, misleading, and deceptive, as the enzyme that glyphosate targets is found in people and pets—specifically, in beneficial gut bacteria critical to their health and well-being, including their immune system, digestion, allergies, metabolism, and even their brain function.”
    Glyphosate Targets an Enzyme That is Vitally Important for the Gut.
    “Health risks follow when glyphosate disrupts the microbiota cells that regulate numerous biological processes such as the immune system and digestion.” – R. Brent Wisner, Roundup Cancer Attorney
    It is undisputed that glyphosate kills weeds by interfering with the “shikimate pathway,” a metabolic sequence that synthesizes vital amino acids. Glyphosate interferes with 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP), disrupting the fifth of six enzymatic steps in the shikimate pathway, which processes aromatic amino acids. Inhibiting the shikimate pathway causes an aromatic amino acid deficiency, which eventually causes plants to die by starvation.
    Beneficial bacteria in the human gut (and the guts of other mammals), on which our immune systems rely, produce and utilize EPSP. A 2013 study conducted by Awad A. Shehata found that: “A reduction of beneficial bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract microbiota by ingestion of glyphosate could disturb the normal gut bacterial community.”
    Another study from 2014 entitled ‘Rheumatic Diseases and the Microbiome’ reported the following:
    “Over the first several years of life each of us establishes a community of microorganisms that are commensal and inhabit niches on skin and mucous membranes. These microorganisms are collectively known as the microbiome, or microbiota, and are predominately obtained from one’s mother…gut-associated organisms are critical to the development and activation of the immune system, especially with regard to cell types intimately associated with autoimmunity.” – Scofiled R.H., Rheumatic Diseases and the Microbiome. International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases 2014; 17: 489–492.”
    “The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), one of the foremost cancer research authorities in the world, classified glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as a “probable human carcinogen.”
    IARC Monograph 112 further concluded that the cancer most associated with glyphosate exposure is non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Additionally, IARC found strong evidence that glyphosate and commercial formulations can be genotoxic and produce oxidative damage.
    According to the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), glyphosate is a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer and should be labeled as such under the terms of Proposition 65.
    What are the Side Effects of Monsanto’s (Glyphosate) Roundup?
    In addition to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, exposure to Roundup weed killer has been linked to the following:
    Birth Defects
    Brain Cancer
    Breast Cancer
    Celiac Disease
    Chronic Kidney Disease
    Gluten Intolerance
    Heart Disease
    Inflammatory Bowel Disease
    Liver disease
    Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS)
    Multiple Sclerosis
    Parkinson’s Disease
    Reproductive Issues
    Respiratory Illness“
    End quote.
    How I know: I own 5% of the world’s largest NON-GMO soybean processor conglomerate. Thank Goodness for wholesome & healthier NON-GMO!
    ~ Aloha Nui Loa

    • Paul says:

      The National Academy of Science has drafted two comprehensive reports on the science generated over the past two decades (1994-2004 and 2004-2014). The scientific consensus on this issue is as strong or stronger than it is for climate change. GMO’s are safe as far as the science we have to date. I trust the scientists, but that is just me.

      • Antirepub says:

        Your 2014 data is not up to date, per proofs in the above 1st post on toxic poison GMO Monsanto ( Roundup ) Glyphosate as being carcinogenic & causing multiple cancers.

        2014 is almost five years old, & wrong, incomplete, & biased with proven ‘WHITEWASHED’ corrupted data now; as exemplified by recent Frisco court documents at the Monsanto trial.
        Read the book ‘WHITEWASH’ by Carey Gillam about Monsanto’s paid for pseudoscience.
        Off the cuff opinions are never currently accurate without up to date research reading.
        Watch ‘The Monsanto Papers’ by ABC News:

  2. Antirepub says:

    Your 2014 data is almost 5 years ago before all my mentioned multiple credibly credentialed 100% proofs listed in my text posted illustrate. You are totally wrong, & that’s a dangerous opinion to have.
    Your agenda & intention must be to sell for profit, poison toxic GMO corn, soybeans, apples, et al.
    GMO apples are the worst rated pesticide/herbicide loaded Monsanto poison Glyphosate food there is!
    Otherwise, why would you put sheer greed ahead of THOUSANDS of people’s lives proven diseased by multiple cancers?
    Selfish greed can be your only motive for desperate selling Glyphosate toxins, Thousands of Midwest farmers are committing suicide & have gone bankrupt not only from the idiotic tariff wars, but POISONING GLYPHOSATE, as elaborated in my post. See NYT, Wash Post, Guardian News, et al.
    Over 10,000 Monsanto multiple cancer victims are on the court docket ready to litigate right now. You should read up to get current knowledge by googling it all. Watch the ABC News video below for proofs!

    ‘MOMSACROSSAMERICA’ on Monsanto’s poison Glyphosate:

    Dr. Mercola on Monsanto’s toxic Glyphosate:

    Proof positive from credentialed scientific links in this post & many more in my last post above prove undeniable & indisputably that Monsanto’s (Roundup) Glyphosate causes multiple CANCERS!
    Never put your selfish greed above people’s health & safety! They should be LABELED as most other countries already do. In fact, most countries BAN GMO’s for human consumption. Your off the cuff opinions will never suffice for solid science that’s UP TO DATE in 2018. ALL GMO’s ARE POISON!
    Watch how the dying man got $298 million in judgements from Monsanto in Frisco just this last August 2018.
    It was reduced to $78 million WITH MALICE PROVEN AGAINST MONSANTO, but $5.7 million was spent on 24,000 tv ads to seek more litigants against Monsanto; with almost 1,000 more adding to suing Monsanto every month.
    Watch “The Monsanto Papers” by ABC TV News:
    Save your health, as it’s the most precious thing you have my friend.

  3. Charlie S says:

    “The National Academy of Science has drafted two comprehensive reports on the science generated over the past two decades 1994-2004………. GMO’s are safe as far as the science we have to date. I trust the scientists, but that is just me.”

    There’s trust and there’s blind faith Paul. Where a dollar is being made trust is something this here cowboy will put on the back-burner, at least until a solidification sets in which oftentimes occurs only after a long duration has passed. We believe what we wish to believe. GMO’s…. .a can of worms. I am not the only one who believes.
    Most of the food we eat, especially in the good old USA, contains GMO’s. In the meanwhile there have been many reports over the years pro and con relative to GMO’s. In general you will find that the Pro people are the ones who capitalize on them and so the true nature of capitalists comes to light nothing less. There is so much information… which do we place reliance on? There was a study done by the Journal Nature in 1999 which revealed that Monarch butterfly caterpillars suffered from retarded growth and increased mortality after eating leaves dusted with pollen from genetically engineered corn. They have done bee studies which proved to have negative effects relative to GMO’s. They’ve done soil studies which showed that genetically engineered microorganisms were out-competing microorganisms which normally lived in the soil. Who’s lying who’s telling the truth?

    There’s a whole horde of people in this country who see God in our president and then there’s a legion of others who see him as, in scientific terminology…idiosis numbskullis. Who is right who is wrong? We all know the famous song by now ‘Time will tell.’ Unfortunately time is not always on our side.

    • Paul says:

      Chuck, it has nothing to do with faith. It’s about peer reviewed facts. You don’t trust the most renowned scientists in the worlds assessment on the subject that is fine. You believe a bunch of manufactured nonsense. Join our current president in not trusting the scientific community. Keep on believing all the false rhetoric that the anti-GMO activists have filled you with, there is plenty in the comments above. I can’t help you.

      • Charlie S says:

        So you’re suggesting I should believe what you say and trust your sources more than I should trust my own gut feeling and the sources I gather my “facts” from? Nobody has filled me with anything Paul. I can think for myself!

      • Antirepub says:

        This is from the U.S. National Institute Of Health, & NOT RHETORIC.
        ( The August 2018 Frisco Court judgement PROVED Monsanto’s lies forever worldwide. Monsanto’s so called (‘peer-reviewed research facts’) were proven corrupted hundreds of times intentionally. ) Get up to speed with 2018 proven peer-reviewed research that’s been amended corrected & Frisco 2018 court judgements on Monsanto’s previous bogus ‘whitewashed’ data. Read the book ‘Whitewash’ by Carey Gillam as well. It exposes Monsanto’s deception that was so extremely extensive.
        “The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the scientific well.”

        Examination of de-classified Monsanto documents from litigation in order to expose the impact of the company’s efforts to influence the reporting of scientific studies related to the safety of the herbicide, glyphosate.
        A set of 141 recently de-classified documents, made public during the course of pending toxic tort litigation, In Re Roundup Products Liability Litigation were examined.
        The documents reveal Monsanto-sponsored ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media, interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on retraction and the creation of a so-called academic website as a front for the defense of Monsanto products.
        The use of third-party academics in the corporate defense of glyhphosate reveals that this practice extends beyond the corruption of medicine and persists in spite of efforts to enforce transparency in industry manipulation.”
        End quote.

        “NYTimes: Monsanto Emails Raise Issue of Influencing Research on Roundup Weed Killer.”
        “Documents released in a lawsuit against the company raised new questions about its efforts to influence the news media and scientific research.”

        “Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews.”
        Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

        “Monsanto’s ghostwriting and strong-arming threaten sound science—and society”

        “Secret Documents Expose Monsanto’s War on Cancer Scientists”

        “The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the scientific well.”

        Update your knowledge to 2018 & protect your health from Glyphosate multiple cancers!
        ~ Submitted with all due respect in total honesty.

  4. Antirepub says:

    Paul: This is from the U.S. National Institute Of Health, & NOT RHETORIC.
    ( The August 2018 Frisco Court judgement PROVED Monsanto’s lies forever worldwide. )
    “The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the scientific well.”

    Examination of de-classified Monsanto documents from litigation in order to expose the impact of the company’s efforts to influence the reporting of scientific studies related to the safety of the herbicide, glyphosate.
    A set of 141 recently de-classified documents, made public during the course of pending toxic tort litigation, In Re Roundup Products Liability Litigation were examined.
    The documents reveal Monsanto-sponsored ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media, interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on retraction and the creation of a so-called academic website as a front for the defense of Monsanto products.
    The use of third-party academics in the corporate defense of glyhphosate reveals that this practice extends beyond the corruption of medicine and persists in spite of efforts to enforce transparency in industry manipulation.”
    End quote.

    “NYTimes: Monsanto Emails Raise Issue of Influencing Research on Roundup Weed Killer.”
    “Documents released in a lawsuit against the company raised new questions about its efforts to influence the news media and scientific research.”

    “Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews.”
    Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

    “Monsanto’s ghostwriting and strong-arming threaten sound science—and society”

    “Secret Documents Expose Monsanto’s War on Cancer Scientists”

    “The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the scientific well.”

    PROOF POSITIVE! Update your Poison GMO truthful knowledge to ( 2018 ) & protect your health from Glyphosate cancers! The August 2018 Frisco trial proved Monsanto strategic deception & ghostwriting to everyone worldwide. Off the cuff opinions & OLD PREVIOUS ghostwritten research are corrupted, folks. The 8/2018 Frisco Monsanto court case proved Monsanto strategically corrupted research in many of their 800 bogus studies. IMHO: Use caution: Buy NON-GMO or Organic without carcinogenic weedkiller pesticides & herbicides, & avoid CANCER. We don’t sell anything. We desire NO CANCER.
    Watch ABC News “The Monsanto Papers”

  5. Boreas says:

    Glyphosate may have consequences other than being a carcinogen. It may also be a contributor to honey bee decline.

  6. Antirepub says:

    The Monsanto Papers: Roundup (Glyphosate) Cancer Case Key Documents & Analysis

    An estimated 9,300 plaintiffs are suing Monsanto, which in 2018 became a unit of Bayer AG. The lawsuits have been filed by people alleging that exposure to Roundup herbicide and other Monsanto glyphosate-based herbicides caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and that Monsanto covered up and failed to warn of the risks. As part of the discovery process, Monsanto has had to turn over over millions of pages of its internal records and communications to plaintiffs’ attorneys. These “Monsanto Papers” are contained within the records below.

    FEDERAL COURT – There are 580 lawsuits pending against Monsanto Co. in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. The cases have been combined for handling as multidistrict litigation (MDL) under Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC. The first trial in the federal court is set for Feb. 25, 2019.

    STATE LITIGATION: Several thousand plaintiffs have made similar claims against Monsanto in state courts. The first trial in the Roundup litigation started June 18, 2018 in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco. The trial concluded on Aug. 10 with the jury ordering Monsanto to pay $289.25 million in damages, including $250 million in punitive damages to plaintiff DeWayne “Lee” Johnson’. The judge in the case reduced the punitive damages to $39 million in an order dated Oct. 22, 2018.

    * Additional cases are set for trial in 2019. Many are filed in St. Louis, Missouri. The next case currently set for trial is RONALD PETERSON and JEFF HALL V. Monsanto. The trial date is Feb. 5, 2019.
    * Plaintiffs in a case in Montana are seeking an expedited trial. The case is Cazier v. Monsanto. Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court Gallatin County Cause No. DV 17-883C
    * An additional case of interest is Pilliod V. Monsanto filed in Alameda County Superior Court in California. The plaintiffs are married and both have non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They are seeking a trial date this December. A hearing on their request for an expedited trial is set for Nov. 7 at 9 a.m.”
    End quote.

    Since 2012, the agrichemical and food industries have mounted a complex, multifaceted public relations, advertising, lobbying and political campaign in the United States, costing more than $100 million, to defend genetically engineered food and crops and the pesticides that accompany them. The purpose of this campaign is to deceive the public, to deflect efforts to win the right to know what is in our food via labeling that is already required in 64 countries, and ultimately, to extend their profit stream for as long as possible. This campaign has greatly influenced how U.S. media covers GMOs. The industry’s PR firm, Ketchum, even boasted that “positive media coverage has doubled” on GMOs. Due to this influence over the media, the public hears mostly what the industries claim: GMOs are safe, and anyone who disagrees or raises questions is not trustworthy. This will show how the industries have manipulated the media, public opinion and politics with sleazy tactics, bought science and PR spin. It will describe fifteen things that Big Food is hiding with its slick PR campaign on GMOs.

    #1: The agrichemical companies have a history of concealing health risks from the public. Time and again, the companies that produce GMOs have hidden from consumers and workers the truth about the dangers of their products and operations. So how can we trust them to tell us the truth about their GMOs?

    #2: The FDA does not test whether GMOs are safe. It merely reviews information submitted by the agrichemical companies.

    #3: Our nation’s lax policy on GMOs is the work of former Vice President Dan Quayle’s anti-regulatory crusade. It was designed and delivered as a political favor to Monsanto.

    #4: What the agrichemical and tobacco industries have in common: PR firms, operatives, tactics. The agrichemical industry’s recent PR campaign is similar in some ways

    to the most infamous industry PR campaign ever – the tobacco industry’s effort to evade responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans each year.

    #5: Russia’s PR firm runs the agrichemical industry’s big PR salvo on GMOs. We don’t trust the PR firm Ketchum when it spins for Russia and President Putin. Why should we trust its spin on GMOs?

    #6: The agrichemical industry’s key front groups and shills aren’t trustworthy. Many of the industry’s leading advocates have records of defending the indefensible, or other scandals and conduct that inspires no confidence.

    #7: The agrichemical companies have employed repugnant PR tactics. These tactics include attacks on scientists and journalists, and brainwashing children.

    #8: The agrichemical companies have a potent, sleazy political machine. They have allies in high places, and employ their power vigorously – and sometimes corruptly — to protect and expand their markets and their profits from GMOs.

    #9: Half of the Big Six agrichemical firms can’t even grow their GMOs in their own home countries. Because of the health and environmental risks of GMOs, citizens of Germany and Switzerland won’t allow farming of BASF, Bayer and Syngenta’s GMO seeds.

    #10: Monsanto supported GMO labeling in the UK but opposes it in the USA. Although Monsanto is based in St. Louis, Missouri, Monsanto believes that British citizens deserve stronger consumer rights than Americans do.

    #11: The pesticide treadmill breeds profits, so it will likely intensify. It is in the financial interest of the agrichemical companies to promote the evolution and spread of the most pestilential superweeds and superpests, because these will spur the sale of the greatest quantities of the most expensive pesticides.

    #12: GMO science is for sale. Science can be swayed, bought or biased by the agrichemical industry in many ways, such as suppressing adverse findings, harming the careersof scientists who produce such findings, controlling the funding that shapes what research is conducted, the lack of independent U.S.-based testing of health and environmental risks of GMOs, and tainting scientific reviews of GMOs by conflicts of interest.

    #13: There are nearly no consumer benefits of GMOs. The GMOs that Americans eat are not healthier, safer or more nutritious than conventional foods. They do not look better, nor do they taste better. By any measure that consumers actually care about, they are not in any way an improvement. Profits from GMOs accrue to the agrichemical companies, while health risks are borne by consumers.

    #14: The FDA and food companies have been wrong before: they have assured us of the safety of products that were not safe. Many drugs and food additives that the FDA allowed on the market have subsequently been banned because they were toxic or dangerous.

    #15: A few other things the agrichemical industry doesn’t want you to know about them: crimes, scandals and other wrongdoing. The agrichemical industry’s six major firms

    — Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, DuPont, Bayer and BASF — have been involved in so many reprehensible activities that documenting them would require at least an entire book.

  7. Antirepub says:

    Sailing friend Neil Young’s “Monsanto Years” Music for your pickin’ & jammin’ enjoyment!

    “You never know what the future holds in the shallow soil of Monsanto, Monsanto
    The moon is full and the seeds are sown while the farmer toils for Monsanto, Monsanto
    When these seeds rise they’re ready for the pesticide
    And Roundup comes and brings the poison tide of Monsanto, Monsanto

    The farmer knows he’s got to grow what he can sell, Monsanto, Monsanto
    So he signs a deal for GMOs that makes life hell with Monsanto, Monsanto
    Every year he buys the patented seeds
    Poison-ready they’re what the corporation needs, Monsanto

    When you shop for your daily bread and walk the aisles of Safeway, Safeway
    Find the package to catch your eye that makes you smile at Safeway, at Safeway
    Choose a picture of an old red barn on a field of green
    With the farmer and his wife and children to complete the scene at Safeway, at Safeway

    Dreams of the past come flooding back to the farmer’s mind, his mother and father
    Family seeds they used to save were gifts from God, not Monsanto, Monsanto
    Their own child grows ill near the poisoned crops
    While they work on, they can’t find an easy way to stop, Monsanto, Monsanto

    Don’t care now what the Bible said so long ago not Monsanto, Monsanto
    Give us this day our daily bread and let us not go with Monsanto, Monsanto
    The seeds of life are not what they once were
    Mother Nature and God don’t own them anymore”

    2015 ~ by Neil Young, who started a whole paradigm shift towards truthful healthier crop science for safer NON-GMO agriculture! His donations of hundreds of thousands of dollars made it happen so compassionately.

    Sailing friend Neil Young’s ‘Monsanto Years’ music for your enjoyment & groovin’ good health!


  8. Antirepub says:

    Stratospheric Legends supporting NON-GMO!
    Our legendary friend CHUCK LEAVELL ON PIANO hugely supports NON-GMO!
    ‘Southbound’ & ‘Jessica’ on keyboards magnifico! (3:00 minute mark piano solo)
    “Leavell and Joel Babbit are the co-founders of “The Mother Nature Network”, an environmental news and information website that launched in January 2009. The site has grown to be the MOST VISITED independent environmental website in the world. Leavell serves as Director of Environmental Affairs, and sits on the board of directors for the company.”
    “In addition to his work with The Rolling Stones, Leavell has worked with George Harrison, Eric Clapton, Gov’t Mule, Train, Tinsley Ellis, The Black Crowes, The Fabulous Thunderbirds, Montgomery Gentry, John Mayer, Miranda Lambert, Blues Traveller, & The Allman Brothers amongst many others in the studio and on the road, in addition to recording five solo albums.”

    Legends Neil Young & Chuck Leavell are just a couple of the many multitude of talented stars who do so much more to support NON-GMO & ORGANIC than people know; with Environmental Justice WORLDWIDE.
    Support what you love!
    Save people from ingesting poisonous pesticides, herbicides, carcinogens & toxic GMO’s!!!

  9. Antirepub says:

    “California man accepts $78 million award in Roundup lawsuit.”
    “Groundbreaking case was the first to link the product with cancer.”
    Quoted from link above: “A case that raised questions about what the maker of Roundup knew about the dangers of its popular Roundup product has turned a new page. Dewayne “Lee” Johnson has agreed to accept a $78 million settlement after a judge upheld the jury’s original ruling but slashed the civil case’s $289 million award.

    Johnson’s case was the first to directly connect Roundup with deadly cancer. Bayer, which acquired Roundup earlier this year, faces about 8,000 more lawsuits, according to Reuters. The company says it plans to appeal.

    In August, Judge Suzanne Bolanos lowered the punitive damages from $250 million to $39 million, the same amount awarded for compensatory damages. Bolanos gave Johnson and his attorneys until Dec. 7 to either accept the new amount or ask for a new trial, a call they answered this week. At the time, Bolanos said she was considering eliminating the entire $250 million in punitive damages because she said there was no compelling evidence that Monsanto ignored evidence that Roundup caused cancer. In the end, Bolanos decided to honor the jury’s ruling and instead lowered the amount of punitive damages.

    It was an outcome DeWayne Johnson’s family wasn’t sure he would see in person.

    Lawyers for Johnson focused their efforts on proving Monsanto suppressed evidence that its Roundup herbicide has cancer-causing properties. Opening statements began in San Francisco on July 9.

    Johnson’s attorney said Monsanto took away his client’s freedom to choose, reported KGO. “If you don’t give someone a choice and somebody gets hurt or, God forbid, gets cancer, then I personally believe and I think you will as well that you should be responsible for the consequences of that,” attorney Brent Wisner said.

    “I don’t think it’s a surprise that after 20 years, Monsanto has known about the cancer-causing properties of this chemical and has tried to stop the public from knowing it,” said attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

    Monsanto argued that Johnson developed cancer before using Roundup. “The scientific evidence is overwhelming that Glyphosate-based products do not cause cancer and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer,” said defense attorney George Lombardi. “The single most relevant study — best study, study of human beings who, like Mr. Johnson, are licensed pesticide applicators — concluded glyphosate is not associated with Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Mr. Johnson’s cancer.”

    Weeding out the truth
    DeWayne Johnson, 46, worked as a groundskeeper for the Benicia Unified School District in California from 2012 to 2015. In that role, he sprayed Roundup herbicides on school properties. Johnson was healthy when he started the job, but in August 2014, he received a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

    By January 2018, Johnson’s body was 80 percent covered in lesions, according to the deposition of his physician; he is often unable to speak or leave his bed, despite a new treatment he started in January. At the time, his doctors thoughts he might only have months to live.

    Johnson’s lawsuit alleged that Monsanto’s product caused his cancer, and that Monsanto was aware of the medical risks posed by its glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, but covered it up through a campaign of misinformation and attacks on studies that proclaimed the dangers.

    In May, Judge Curtis Karnow ordered that jurors in the trial may consider the scientific evidence regarding Johnson’s cancer as well as the allegations that Monsanto knowingly suppressed findings regarding glyphosate’s potential cancer-causing dangers.

    “The internal correspondence noted by Johnson could support a jury finding that Monsanto has long been aware of the risk that its glyphosate-based herbicides are carcinogenic … but has continuously sought to influence the scientific literature to prevent its internal concerns from reaching the public sphere and to bolster its defenses in products liability actions,” Karnow wrote in the order. “Thus there are triable issues of material fact.”

    The California-filed lawsuit is just one of many pending, The Guardian reports, with around 4,000 plaintiffs or their families suing Monsanto over NHL allegedly developed because of exposure to Roundup. One such case is scheduled to go to trial in October in Monsanto’s home town of St. Louis. Also, a judge in San Francisco ruled earlier this summer that hundreds of lawsuits could proceed to trial.

    The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015, and California declared it one in 2017.

    For its part, Monsanto has denied the allegations and disputes various studies that found glyphosate poses risks to human health. Instead, the company points to studies conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency, among others, that found that Roundup isn’t carcinogenic.

    “Glyphosate-based herbicides are supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health and environmental effects databases ever compiled for a pesticide product,” Monsanto writes in a glyphosate safety document. “Comprehensive toxicological and environmental fate studies conducted over the last 40 years have time and again demonstrated the strong safety profile of this widely used herbicide.”

    In the Johnson case, Monsanto argued that other factors led to Johnson’s cancer and disputed the scientific claims and studies Johnson’s lawsuit used to build its case.

    Editor’s note: This article was originally published in May 2018 and has been updated with more recent information.”
    End quote. ~ 11/2/2018 Mother Nature Network

  10. Antirepub says:

    “Roundup cover-up? Book paints troubling portrait of the world’s most popular weed killer. Book ‘Whitewash’ finds disturbing evidence of corporate suppression.”

    12/4/2017 Mother Nature Network. Quoted from above link: “If you’re a gardener — or have even a casual interest in keeping your yard free of weeds — there’s a good chance you’ve used Roundup. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup that kills weeds, is the most widely used herbicide in the world. It’s used to kill weeds in home gardens, patios, driveways and fence lines, school playgrounds, parks, golf courses, utility rights of way and along railroad tracks. Most significantly, it’s used on more than 100 different GMO and non-GMO food crops on commercial farms.
    What people may not know about Roundup, the flagship product of the agribusiness giant Monsanto, is the story Carey Gillam tells in her book, “Whitewash, the Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science.” Gillam says glyphosate use is so pervasive that it’s in the air we breathe, on our dinner plates and breakfast cereals and, increasingly, in our bodies. “It is undeniable,” she writes, “that we’ve allowed our food, our water, our soil, our very selves to become dangerously doused with chemicals, and one of the most pervasive of those pesticides is the subject of this book.”

    “Whitewash” (Island Press, hardcover, 272 pages) explores how glyphosate and Roundup have prompted legal claims by thousands of Americans that it caused their cancers. Gillam exposes in alarming detail how the powerful agrichemical industry has kept consumers in the dark about the chemical that once was called “safe enough to drink.” The company discredited scientists who dug too deeply into the effects of glyphosate on human health and used its powerful political influence in regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect corporate products and profits rather than people.

    A former senior correspondent for Reuters, Gillam covered the big business of food and agriculture for the international news agency for 17 years. During that time, she established a nationwide reputation as one of America’s leading experts on biotech crop technology, agrichemicals and pesticide product development, and environmental impacts on American food production. She currently is the research director for the nonprofit consumer group U.S. Right to Know. In November, she presented her research on glyphosate to members of the European Parliament.

    “I am a bit surprised, but happily so, at the level of interest in this topic,” said Gillam. “I believe it is a reflection of how consumers are waking up to the fact that they need to educate themselves to protect themselves because on many levels our lawmakers and regulators are not doing that.”

    The wake-up call issued in “Whitewash” has been compared to the one 55 years ago in Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” which led to the creation of the EPA and the modern environmental movement. Gillam’s tenacity in pursuing the story has also been compared to the work of Erin Brockovich in exposing the contamination of drinking water in the Southern California town of Hinkley.

    Gillam visited Atlanta recently to present the findings from her research at Emory University. During that visit, Gillam spoke to Mother Nature Network about her work on the book, the efforts of Monsanto to censor and discredit her and the pervasiveness of glyphosate in our lives. Here’s what she had to say:

    MNN: Why did you decide to write ‘Whitewash?’ Was there an aha moment, for instance, where you knew that this was a story you had to tell?

    Carey Gillam: The answer is not very exciting, I’m afraid. The publisher came to me in 2014 or 2015 and said, “We’ve followed your work with Reuters and we think that you have some important stories and information. We would like for you to write a book.” And I said, “I don’t have time to write a book.” But once I had left Reuters and joined U.S. Right to Know in 2016, I felt I had the time and space to take on such a project. I called the publisher and said, “I think I have time to write a book. The question is do you still want a book?” And they said sure. And then I said, “Well then, it needs to be about glyphosate and this campaign by the chemical industry to whitewash or cover up what has been emerging about the safety of this chemical.” And they just let me run with it. I knew the title would be ‘Whitewash’ before I wrote a single word because that’s what I had in my mind and how I view this and think about this. The chemical industry has taken this pesticide and hidden, covered up or made it appear to be clean and safe and environmentally friendly and the answer to feeding the world. When in fact, there are some very worrisome implications for the widespread use of this chemical. I’ve been researching it for 20 years, and it is a very compelling story that I feel touches all our lives because it’s so pervasive in our food system. It’s found in our surface water, in our drinking water and it’s the most widely used herbicide in the world. To me, it’s not a feel-good story but it’s a story that has to be told.

    Most people have heard of Roundup and may even have it among their garden supplies. But they may not be aware that glyphosate is also used on food crops. Could you explain how it’s used in food production?

    The most widespread use of glyphosate, which is the key active ingredient in Roundup, is in agriculture, for food production. Farmers in the United States use it in conjunction with the production of more than 100 different food crops. This is everything from avocados and almonds and cherries to wheat and corn and soybeans. Hundreds of millions of pounds are used annually on average. It is used most predominantly on crops like corn and soybeans, which have been genetically altered to be sprayed directly with glyphosate and to tolerate it so they don’t die. The weeds surrounding them will die, but these crops will not. And that’s the genesis of genetically engineered crops. While the chemical industry and the seed industry — which are actually one and the same — like to tell us that these seeds were designed to help feed the world and to be more bountiful, to yield more and to be more nutritious, but they really were designed with the primary genetic trait to be tolerant of glyphosate, to allow for more use of glyphosate.

    And that’s exactly what has happened. We’ve gone from 40 million pounds a year before genetically engineered crops to about 300 million pounds a year in the United States. That increase started right after the GMO crops were introduced. Even today, if you look at cultivated acres or hectares around the world, the majority of the crops that are harvested are genetically engineered to be sprayed directly with glyphosate. There are other traits, but that is the primary trait. So, farmers who have genetically engineered crops will spray it directly on top of them. If crops aren’t genetically engineered, like wheat, the farmer can’t spray it directly over the crop until the crop is ready to be harvested and the grain is fully formed. They’ll do the same thing with oats. It works for the farmer. It maybe makes harvest more efficient. But, it leaves higher residues of glyphosate in the finished food product because it’s sprayed just days before harvest.

    So, there are a number of different uses and a number of different applications. It’s used in our citrus groves in Florida. The farmers there are spraying it around the root structure to try and keep weeds from competing for things like moisture and nutrients. The science on that I have read … is more the impact on the soil because glyphosate kills the beneficial microbes in the soil that help the plant to remain healthy. So, when you’re killing those beneficial microbes in the soil, the plant is more susceptible to disease, or perhaps needs more fertilizer. It’s detrimental overall. There are a number of scientists who believe the citrus greening problem we have in Florida – which has resulted in a dramatic decline in orange production, like 70 percent since 2007, it’s been quite harmful for the farmers down there – they attribute that to the widespread use of glyphosate in the citrus groves and the degradation of the soil health. So, there are a lot of different implications. Some of the orange producers I have talked with have told me, “Boy, consumers would just lose it if they knew the levels of pesticides in our orange juices.”

    What’s the difference between casual residential use of Roundup and using it on commercial farms?

    The application techniques are different. Licensed applicators on farms are supposed to be adhering to certain safety measures. Depending on what they are spraying and what quantities, the safety measures could be gloves and masks and all sorts of things to protect them from it. The casual gardener is probably just going to go out there and spray it around and might get some on their skin that would be absorbed. It really depends on frequency, it depends on the safety measures that you take or don’t take. Farmers are spraying it, obviously, in much larger quantities than you would be on your garden or lawn. But it will affect the soil in your garden just as it would the soil in a farm field.

    You write about how Roundup is used on golf courses, parks and playgrounds. It sounds like we can’t get away from it. How pervasive is Roundup in our daily lives, not just in food but in places and ways we may not anticipate?

    It is incredibly pervasive. Utilities use it to spray around their facilities. It’s used by railroads along the tracks. It’s used in forestry management. It’s the most widely used weed killer in the world.

    If our federal government was measuring this, we would have much better answers. What we are having to rely on is a lot of private academic testing and assessment. We do have some data from different governmental bodies like the U.S. Geological organization that has tracked it in surface waters. But we know from many studies, including a recent study released in October, that it’s found in human urine. So, it’s so pervasive in our water and our food and our environment and we now know it’s pervasive in our bodies. Researchers from the University of California at San Diego tracked people for more than 20 years and what their data shows is that exposure in the U.S. population has increased about 500 percent in the last 20 years.

    Do I need to ask my doctor to test the amount of glyphosate in my urine?

    What your doctor will probably ask you, if your doctor is like my doctor, is “What is glyphosate? I’ve never heard of glyphosate.” This is what my doctor said to me. I spelled it out for her and wrote it down. She looked on her chart of what she could order from the lab and a glyphosate test was not available. It’s not commonly known by doctors. So, your doctor may not have even heard of it and may not even be able to order it for your lab report. There are a number of doctors who are integrative medicine practitioners who work with laboratories where they will test your urine or your blood or your DNA if you send a hair sample. And they’ll test for glyphosate or other pesticides or heavy metals. But our modern-day mainstream medical community doesn’t do any bio-monitoring of this.

    Monsanto pushed back strongly on your reporting and attempted to censor and discredit you. How did that make you feel?

    As a journalist, I’m used to corporate entities or anyone that you are writing about critically in a way that doesn’t support their agenda pushing back. That to me wasn’t something that was intimidating. It didn’t trouble me. It didn’t influence me in any way. What I’ve always been concerned about is being truthful and factual in my reporting. So, if they can’t find anything factually wrong with my reporting, I’m not worried about it. So that didn’t bother me.

    The extreme efforts to discredit me during the recent years, especially with this book coming out, has been alarming because they do a have a lot of power, a lot of influence. It’s also disheartening because it is such an effort to manipulate and to mislead the public. And that’s what really upsets me. We seem to be living in a time where truth is not valued like it used to be, or facts are up for sale to the highest bidder, perhaps or whomever has the loudest megaphone. So, yeah, it’s troubling. It’s alarming. And I’m hoping that people will be motivated to try and seek out the truth. Because it’s there. It’s there in documents. The facts are facts, and you can’t change them. But they can be hidden, as I show in the pages of this book. So, we all need to be committed to digging them out and knowing the truth and sharing the truth.

    Was there ever a point at which you became discouraged and thought, maybe Monsanto is so big and so powerful it will keep this story from being told?

    Well, it is discouraging. It’s discouraging right now. There are so many false stories out there circulating that cite details that are just not even remotely true. Apparently, nobody’s fact checking. So, that’s just discouraging, but it will never get to the point where I say I’m not going to do my work, I‘m not going to do my job, I’m just going to go away. I think as a good journalist the more somebody pushes back on you the more motivated you are to keep doing what you are doing.

    You persisted in telling the story in the face of enormous pressure. Would you talk about the courage it took to do that?

    In terms of courage, people have asked me a lot lately … or have made comments that “Oh, you are so brave.” Again, that strikes me as kind of odd. I don’t think it takes courage or bravery to just tell the truth. I think that’s the job of journalists, to dig up information, to bring facts to light that are timely and relevant that people need to know for their own lives, for the protection of the public, for public policy matters. It’s our job to bring truth to light. People are going to try and stop you, sure, but it doesn’t require bravery. It requires tenacity. I certainly have that in spades. And it requires an ability to not be intimidated or be afraid of upsetting people. And, I have that. So, I don’t believe that it that takes bravery or courage. It’s just the job of a journalist.

    Erin Brockovich says she hopes your book will be a wake-up call for more transparency about the dangers surrounding chemicals in the workplace. How optimistic are you that the book will indeed be that wake-up call?

    I certainly hope that it will. I don’t know if we’re at a place right now with our administration and our regulatory system that anything in the United States will change anytime soon. I think the Europeans, from what I have seen in my visits over there recently, certainly have a more precautionary view of pesticide use and the dangers to human health and the dangers to the environment. They seem to be exploring this and trying to understand this concern at a much deeper level than we are here in the United States. That’s encouraging. Maybe the United States one day will decide that public safety should trump corporate profits. But, I’m not sure that we are there right now.

    The legal proceedings in the lawsuits against Monsanto regarding Roundup are coming up. Can you share your thoughts about these? What chance do you think the plaintiffs have of prevailing?

    There currently are about 3,500 plaintiffs who are suing Monsanto, alleging specifically that Roundup gave them non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and that Monsanto knew and covered up the risks. That’s sort of the general claim in all these lawsuits. That’s 3,500 plaintiffs, not 3,500 lawsuits. There are several hundred lawsuits. I do not have the total number. There are more that 280 lawsuits that have been combined in multi-district litigation in federal court in San Francisco, and that federal court proceeding has a very important hearing coming up in March. This is a Daubert hearing. This is where the plaintiffs get to lay out their scientific evidence that Roundup causes NHL. And Monsanto gets to lay out their best scientific evidence that it doesn’t. The judge will determine essentially whether the case can go forward, whether they [the plaintiffs] have enough evidence to move forward with more discovery and to eventually take it to a jury. So, this is sort of a very important interim step in that federal litigation.

    There are hundreds of lawsuits in state courts in St. Louis and Delaware and all around the country that are proceeding separately that are not tied to that Daubert hearing. They could be influenced by it, but they are separate proceedings. And there is a trial slated for June 18 next year. That is the state court case out in California.

    I am just naturally skeptical that you can ever really establish a direct causation from one chemical to one specific disease in one specific individual. That’s a pretty high hill to climb, as I say in my book. But the plaintiffs’ attorneys certainly believe and have told me repeatedly that they have the evidence to meet the standard that the law requires to show this. So, we shall see. They are also supported not just by research studies that show an association between NHL and glyphosate but by some of Monsanto’s own internal documents, that have come out through discovery, that show Monsanto being aware of these concerns and being active in trying to cover up or suppress research information associating glyphosate and Roundup with disease. So, we’ll see.

    When you think about the people you met researching ‘Whitewash,’ what stays with you the most?

    Probably Teri McCall. She and her family and her son, Paul, just resonated with me. She is a quiet woman who really didn’t want to be part of a crusade. She just really mourned her husband’s loss, and she kind of got caught up in all of this. She is someone who sits in my heart. She also suffered breast cancer after her husband died of NHL. So she has had a very hard time of it. But she is still out on her farm in Cambria, still trying to produce avocados. Her son is running the farm since Jack [her husband] died. You meet people who stick with you. A lot of the farmers do. I have other farmer stories. It was emotional, especially with Teri. I cried when I was on her farm with her.

    ‘Whitewash’ has been compared to Rachel Carson’s book ‘Silent Spring,’ which 55 years ago alerted the world to the dangers of unchecked pesticide use, particularly DDT, and launched the modern environmental movement. What outcomes do you hope your book will have and how do you think it will be remembered 50 years from now?

    What I hope the book will accomplish is that people will be awakened and be motivated to be more cautious about pesticide use. In a broad sense, I would hope our government and our regulators would become much more precautionary in their approvals and in the levels that they allow this to be used.

    I think everything needs to be in balance. I think the risks need to be known and publicized along with the rewards. And that if we are going to use pesticides that needs to be done in a responsible manner and in as limited a way as possible to protect the public and the environment. This idea that unchecked and pervasive use of pesticides is the answer to everything, everyplace and everyone is just irresponsible and it’s dangerous. And it’s not even hard to know that. You just have to pay attention and see what’s going on in the world. The United Nations, our medical communities, even in the EPA it’s known and acknowledged that pesticides are contributing to incidences of disease and ailments in the population. We know that. Nobody disputes that.

    The problem lies in when you want to talk about one particular pesticide, and particularly if that pesticide is highly profitable for a very powerful corporation. Then we don’t want to talk about it or assign it to a specific disease. That needs to change. We need public policies that protect the public. That, ultimately, would be what I would hope that “Whitewash” would contribute to. I hope the work will be respected and regarded as useful to informing this discussion and this debate on pesticide use. I worry about my kids, and their kids. We need a better, healthier, cleaner future. We cannot keep this pesticide treadmill running forever and expect anything good to come out of it.

    Roundup has been in use through Republican and Democratic administrations for years. Is the use of pesticides and herbicides a systemic problem that is not restricted to just one administration or party?

    Yes. Definitely. I am not a policy wonk or a government analyst, but my layman’s view is that we have come to a point where we so worship wealth and profit and powerful corporate interests that we forget all else. Wealth and power is what these corporations represent. That’s what they wield in Washington, and our lawmakers and regulators and everybody seem to follow that and want to promote that. We want to promote jobs, economic growth and all of this. The trade-off many times is public safety, and the protection of our environmental resources. You see that in oil and gas and drilling … you see that throughout all these issues that are so worrisome to us today. This is just one more example of what we’re losing in order to promote big business and million-dollar bonuses.

    Is there anything else you would like MNN’s readers to know about your work?

    What I hope people understand is that the book is not just about glyphosate and Monsanto. The book tells the story of Monsanto and this one chemical really as an example and a wake-up call of a larger problem. If you could make Monsanto and glyphosate go away tomorrow, you haven’t solved the problem because we have many other dangerous pesticides and many other powerful corporations that are pushing these into our food system and throughout our communities and our environment. So, it’s a big picture and we need to take a big look at it and take a broad approach to reigning these pesticides in.” End quote. ( 12/4/2017 ) ~ Mother Nature Network.

    • Boreas says:


      Why post a link and then go on to post the entire interview? We get your point, but these posts are bordering on obnoxious. Few people are even arguing with you.

      • Antirepub says:

        11/28/2018 Boreas quoted: “Why post a link and then go on to post the entire interview? We get your point, but these posts are bordering on obnoxious. Few people are even arguing with you.” End quote.

        Our posts are not to please your fancy. Our posts intend to ‘SAVE LIVES’ from cancer, et al.
        If you consider argument as success, you need to prove your point, not argue more.
        If the goal is to save lives from Monsanto’s poison toxic carcinogen Glyphosate, why is style of posting or exchange of arguments count towards achieving avoidance of misery & suffering disease?
        We’re not chatters, & don’t care about social media or chat etiquette. We’re here to make people aware of serious carcinogens in our food system that cause extreme suffering. (( Recent storm power outtages, server & carrier errors has made double or partial posts.))
        What’s vitally important is to alert the public to danger & disease, not please your fancy.

        Quote: “6 in 10 of you will share this link without reading it, a new, depressing study says – The Washington Post”

        Quote: “59 Percent Of You Will Share This Article Without Even Reading It.”

        Frivolous complaints often have hidden agendas. Yours is censorship, based on mere style.
        We don’t believe contemptuous argument is necessary for successful communication.
        We stand by our truthful & essential content intended to ‘SAVE LIVES’ from suffering cancerous diseases.
        Our last post, regardless. This site is a treasure. With all due respect, sincere kind regards.

        Mark Twain in 1912:
        ( In his book ‘Innocents Abroad’, he stated: “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, & narrow-mindedness, & many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men & things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime.” )

        SAIL OFFSHORE!!!!!!!!!
        Fair winds & following seas & long may your big jib draw!

        • Boreas says:

          “Frivolous complaints often have hidden agendas. Yours is censorship, based on mere style.”


          We will see how long the editors allow it. Has nothing to do with MY fancy (as I tend to agree with YOUR AGENDA), but rather the readers of AA. And again, TO MY POINT – why post a link, then post the entire interview contained in the link?? It isn’t censorship, as you allude, just common internet courtesy.The whole idea of posting a link is to reduce the amount of verbiage readers need to wade through. Why not start your own blog? This is just eating up bandwidth with the same information.

          • John Warren says:

            Boreas is right. Please just make your point and post a link, not the whole piece.

            Thanks for reading the Almanack.

            John Warren
            Founder & Editor

      • Paul says:

        Arguing with this person is pointless. There could be some effect on bees from roundup use. There could be effects on bees from using other more toxic herbicides that would replace roundup, we would have to do that study as well if it comes to that. The national academy reports focus on human safety, much of what this persons nonsense is trying to refute. My trust is with the scientists.

        • Boreas says:


          I assume you mean independent scientists… Is there still such an animal?? I only hope so! If, as we are constantly told by the existing administration that there is no such thing as truth or facts in science, then you can find all of the Truth you want, but it will be ignored if it isn’t “their” truth. The swamp is getting murkier. Totalitarianism?

  11. Antirepub says:

    “Apples have the most pesticides, herbicides & fungicides, et al.
    Apples are also listed as one of the foods with the most pesticide residue.
    Environmental Working Group, a non-profit organization, listed apples in its 2012 “dirty dozen” list. It came in first place as the top fruit or vegetable with pesticide residues found.

    Although EWG advises consumers not to stop eating fruits and vegetables because of pesticide concern, it is interesting to many chemists, farmers and consumers to know exactly which chemicals are on U.S. apples when they are purchased in the store. Here are a few of the most common pesticides used for this major crop.

    Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide that has been used since the mid-1960s. Chemically named O,O-Diethyl O-3,5,6-trichloropyridin-2-yl phosphorothioate, chlorpyrifos is also known as Dursban, Lorsban, Whirlwind, Warhawk and Eraser. More than 10 million pounds of chlorpyrifos are used on crops each year, with more than half being applied to corn. Chlorpyrifos may lead to nervous system damage for humans, including paralysis and death in high doses, the Environmental Protection Agency explained.

    Diphenylamine shows up on apples more than any other pesticide, possibly because it is used post harvest rather than in the orchard to prevent scald, which is a browning of the skin. This pesticide has been used since 1947, although since the 1990s the U.S. government has begun regulation changes. It is banned in Europe for use on apples. Written as C12H11N, diphenylamine is also known as DPA, N-phenylaniline, anilinobenzene, N-phenylbenzenamine and benzenamine.

    Captan is a thiophthalimide chemical compound used on apples as a fungicide. Captan, or (3aR,7aS)-2-[(trichloromethyl)sulfanyl]-3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro-1H-isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione, is chemically written as C9H8Cl3NO2S and used for a number of personal care and industrial products, such as cosmetics and vinyl. It is applied to apples during growth to prevent fungi that could ruin the crop. Negative effects of Captan use include conjunctivitis and dermatitis in low quantities and gastrointestinal stress in higher quantities.

    There are many other herbicides, insecticides and fungicides used for apple production, some of which carry potentially damaging side effects. This highlights the importance of correct pesticide use and standards testing for anyone involved. ” – End quote.

    Bottom line takeaway:
    Why risk your health to disease?


  12. Antirepub says:

    Bayer AG recently acquired Monsanto for $63 billion dollars.

    Since the 10/2018 Frisco Monsanto trial judgement of $298 million to $78 million for one dying man with multiple cancers; ( BAYRY ) Bayer AG stock fell over 50% costing shareholders a loss of another $60 billion dollars of their Market Capital.

    With 10,000+ suffering Monsanto cancer litigants now proceeding on the U.S. court dockets, Bayer AG will pay a third time as much possibly again. …So much for Bayer AG investors zero confidence of conviction; as they know there will be more huge losses in trial judgements to come.

    If shareholders have lost faith in Bayer’s Monsanto, where does that leave any sound rationale?

    Bayer AG even buried the ‘Monsanto’ name immediately, as it was & still is the most hated company in history, worldwide.

    Something to think about!

  13. JohnL says:

    You’re probably explained this before to other curious readers, so I apologize if I should already know the answer to my question, which is, Your Almanac moniker (Antirepub). Is that short for Anti-Republican as in the Republican political party or is it something else. Not trying in any way to figure out who you really are. I truly don’t care. I’m just curious.

  14. Kat says:

    Honestly, all of these practices are really messed up because a majority of the time, even if the animals get to see the light of day, won’t have enough space, or they will just end up being poked, prodded, and tortured at the end of their life because all animals raised for food go to a slaughterhouse where there aren’t as many guidelines. And all of that fear and trauma that the animal experiences then goes into the meat you eat and you are absorbing that negative energy second hand.

    Also I just want to say that whoever wrote this article probably has 0 compassion for animals considering they called a cow a “beef animal”