Huge: Monsanto Going to Trial for Crimes Against Humanity
In the Hague, Netherlands, International Criminal Court
Latest News
If you’ve been waiting to finally see Monsanto – one of the most hated companies in the world – to pay for its ecocide, knowing harm of human life, and devastation of our pollinators, then you won’t have to wait much longer. Several activist groups joined by food and farming experts are suing Monsanto for their crimes against humanity. [1]
Finally, Monsanto, the US-based, transnational company responsible for introducing multiple genetically modified crops and numerous toxic chemicals into our environment – including saccharin, aspartame, polystyrene, DDT, dioxin, Agent Orange, petroleum based fertilizers, recombinant bovine growth hormones (rGBH), Round Up (glyphosate), Lasso (an herbicide used in Europe), Bt toxic plants, and more – will have to answer to the world for its reign of terror. Monsanto has acted with severe negligence, and the hubris and supremacy of a corporation given personhood, but no longer.
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA), IFOAM International Organics, Navdanya, Regeneration International (RI), and Millions Against Monsanto, along with dozens of global food, farming, and environmental justice groups announced at the United Nations conference held recently in Paris that an international court of lawyers and judges will assess Monsanto’s criminal liability for their atrocious acts.
The court, in The Hague, Netherlands, will use the UN’s ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ developed in 2011 to assess damages for Monsanto’s acts against human life and the environment.
The court will also rely on the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002, and it will consider whether to reform international criminal law to include crimes against the environment, or ecocide, as a prosecutable criminal offense.
This International Criminal Court, established in 2002 in The Hague, has determined that prosecuting ecocide as a criminal offense is the only way to guarantee the rights of humans to a healthy environment and the right of nature to be protected.
Speaking at the press conference, Ronnie Cummins, international director of the OCA (US) and Via Organica (Mexico), and member of the RI Steering Committee, said:
“The time is long overdue for a global citizens’ tribunal to put Monsanto on trial for crimes against humanity and the environment. . . Corporate agribusiness, industrial forestry, the garbage and sewage industry and agricultural biotechnology have literally killed the climate-stabilizing, carbon-sink capacity of the Earth’s living soil.”
The proceedings will take place on World Food Day, October 16, 2016.
Sources:
Petition – Change.org
[1] SustainablePulse
|
| Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga. |
But nice mumbo-jumbo. I am not going to post all again what I already did. Say hi in bureau; ))
I am not any director, I just cited his response :)))))
And I proved you otherwise 🙂
We really need to indict the Nathan Rothschild family who have for hundreds of years been more responsible for genocide and ecocide than any other entity on the planet.
Long overdue. The CEO and Board should not be able to avoid being indicted and sentenced to prison, just because they think belonging to a corporation as a fiction when they do things and act as real person. And why the ITNLJ International Tribunal for Natural Law Justice, I am more in line with cuz the Vatican and the UN are also global estate trust corporations.
We have to end this *ull*hit corporate paradigm for profit system that uses competition over resources versus cooperation.
My comments have been deleated. My response about references used by Well_Actually and response to Cardinal Fang. I saw them in the thread and now for couple of days they are gone from thread and show itself as pending in my account.
Monsanto is a death warrant for we the people of the USA……and little if anything is done in the usa to alert the people of the toxic and alteration of our foods….money talks and that is the shared thing between our gov and the monster Monsanto.
I only buy organic and Non GMO products as done many people. Here in my state I hope there will be major laws by our state government to keep these poisons off the grocery shelves.
Can’t speak for Mr Actually Daryl, but google “Cardinal Fang” and you’ll find the origin of the name.
And whilst we’re on the issue of google-ing for information, perhaps take a moment to google “shill fallacy” at the same time, before you accuse people you disagree with of being employed by the big bad (which you are implying by hints about “large resources, and well developed spin”).
And still no refutation of anything Well Actually has actually said.
You know what – instead of smearing Mr Actually (I’m assuming a Mr!), you should be taking him as an example – although he admits not keen on GMOs, he’s prepared to have a sensible discussion that is based on actual evidence rather than the same bullsh*t myths, lies and half-truths that normally passes for the stuff anti-GMO people normally end up spouting.
One student asked what Monsanto was doing to counter the “bad
science” around their work. Dr. Moar, perhaps forgetting that this was a
public event, then revealed that Monsanto indeed had “an entire
department” (waving his arm for emphasis) dedicated to “debunking”
science which disagreed with theirs. As far as I know this is the first
time that a Monsanto functionary has publically admitted that they have
such an entity which brings their immense political and financial weight
to bear on scientists who dare to publish against them. The Discredit
Bureau will not be found on Monsanto official website, nor any cardinals or well actualls :)))
So still not refuting what Well Actually said, and still trying to use the shill fallacy rather than actually engaging with any of the points made. If you think that what people have said is wrong, give specifics backed up with evidence.
By just trying to dub them shills, or of being paid for by Monsanto or other, all you are doing is telling people that you are prepared to make up information on the basis of NO evidence, and that you are not able or prepared to engage with any arguments that don’t tally with your world view. Is this really the impression you really wish to give?
They should replace you with somebody, you were stop being funny 🙁
Whatever this is, or is not, it is a start. And, I am thrilled to see it, and fully support these efforts to hold Monsanto accountable. There is so much misinformation out there, spread by those with a vested interest, or who derive benefit in some way from the Monsanto’s of this world. That said, there are some very informative books that I have personally read on the subject, and I would love to see anyone read, and even attempt to dispute, including: The Hundred Year Lie, by Randall Fitzgerald, GMO Free, by Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D., and Lim Li Ching, Seeds of Deception, by Jeffrey M. Smith (Institute for Responsible Technology), & probably one of the most in depth, and important books you will read on the subject: Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, by Steven M. Druker, with a forward by Jane Goodall. “How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government and Systematically Deceived the Public.
It is not an ideal situation but at least they have to make the effort to defend themselves in what is the indefensible. Hopefully the media will give this a great deal of coverage. Let us make sure that they do.
www dot icc-cpi dot int/EN_Menus/icc/Pages/default.aspx
en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court
Some interesting information.
I am surprised we have found out about it. Considering the news media is totally corrupt and in the pockets of these oligarchs who are behind Monsanto and such others , we are not likely to see a lot of information about that trial, coming from them. They will still cover the ridiculous circus of elections contenders, as a distraction while emotional responses build. All wasted energy since they also control these elections. Who believes the voting machines are not rigged and controlled by electronics ? there is no way the shadow government will allow the masses to have that much power. It is all a controlled game and we are not winning.
Great ! it will make a huge difference. They will have nowhere to hide. That is the transparency we need !
Uh… Its like 3 guys sitting around a bong saying “Hey bruh… Lets have a tribunal for Monsantuh!” Dumb.
I’ve understood this to be a mock trial. But everyone is writing like it’s the real deal. So where’s Bobo when we really need him? Instead of screwing around in fairyland, I’d love to see this become the real thing!
Does anybody commenting on this even understand its a farce? There is no scheduled trial, it will not be heard before Judges on the bench or in the court proper. This is a bunch of anti groups banning together in a Hotel conference room and calling themselves a Tribunal as if that makes it official. Considering who the attendee’s actually are we already know what kind of preposterous statement will be made after this little pony show is done. Please spare me from the lies that big organic and march against monsanto have spread about the safety of Organic products what a load of bull. The chemicals they use are just as lethal as anything else on the market. The Dose Makes the Poison.
I hope those commenting on this realise that this isn’t actually any form of properly legally constituted trial, or a legally backed tribunal.
It’s a load of long-term and well known anti-GM activists, including Vandana Shiva and Gilles-Eric Séralini), who will be meeting in one of the conference rooms of the Holiday Inn in The Hague (no, I’m not making this up – conference room 3 if you’re interested in attending), to go, in effect, “ooooh isn’t Monsanto horrible”.
There will be no attempt at impartiality, and I doubt any facility for anyone to disagree. Then they will announce something along the lines of “this tribunal has found that Monsanto is indeed horrible”, and hope that because they’ve called themselves a tribunal, that people will fall for it, and just accept what they’re saying with no critical thinking.
They’re hoping that the fact their holding their little meeting in the same city as the ICC, that people will look at it and go “ooh it must be genuine”.
You’d think that if even half the allegations levelled against Monsanto were true, then there would be enough evidence to actually put them before a proper court of law, rather than this daft PR stunt. It will not serve any purpose other than just makes those who disagree with GMOs look silly.
I don’t know what your overall point of vieuw is on the subject of GMO, but i would not dismiss any movement how awkwardly started, in the direction of prosecution even if it can only present a moral -legal stance, it is a start. Sometimes big things have to start small and even with a few mistakes thrown in, that’s the learning ground and always better than the opposite ,doing nothing at all, You negative nay-sayers have to learn that nothing was ever accomplished by just sitting on your ass, you have to go into the field and you will be rediculed in the beginning and it takes balls to stick your neck out, but hey everything is better than just being a lame old sitting duck.What we need now in this info age is to grow some balls and stand up to these monsters !!!
Maybe then the anti-GM lobby should put their money where their mouth is and launch an actual proper private prosecution against Monsanto. People like Mercola are certainly rich enough to fund it if they wanted. If the allegations are genuine, then there’s no reason why they wouldn’t succeed. Seriously – you’re talking about sticking your neck out. Then do it!
Maybe the reason the anti-GM lobby doesn’t is because they’re not sure that the allegations they make stand up to scrutiny. That’s why these people are instead having their little fake “tribunal”, rather than putting their heads above the parapet.
I stand by may statement – all this will serve to do is to make those who disagree with GMOs look silly.
(For reference, I’m ambivalent at best about GMOs, although I don’t buy a lot of conspiracy theories that mill around any discussion on GM. There are enough genuine issues to do with GM to deal with without being side tracked by people going “oooh they’re trying to take over the world’s food supply and poison us all”. What I am definately against is bullsh*t PR stunts, and the deliberate misleading of people).
Maybe if the anti-GM lobby were to fund some controlled, double-blind repeatable experiments to prove their points, I might be open to supporting any of their beliefs.
But not until then, and I’ve seen NO signs that they’re willing to put their allegations to that kind of rigorous, scientific test.
Gee, come to think of it…. Why Haven’t They?
cuz they pay Gov to allow them to do their own tests, robot
Nothing is stopping anyone from doing their own tests. Not Monsanto.Not the Gov… Derrrrr Robot.
people have done their own tests, found animals and children and environment soaked in cancer causing glyphosate but not removed from environment cuz Monsanto pays off fda and the like…. thanks,you made my point now back to your leader Monsanto, robot…..
See reply here: https://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-going-to-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-the-hague-netherlands-international-criminal-court/#comment-2406751540
That and there is no scientific link between glyphosate and cancer… soo… you know… there is that. People have dont their own tests you say? Wow… science.
And if you believe scientists paid off by Monsanto , mug….World Health Organization is more believable, slightly,……
private labs are doing these studies and it is obvious what they have found. The FDA is a corrupt institution which is controlled by these very people who are connected to Monsanto. That’s what they do….it is conflict of interest but it is not picked up. Research when Rumsfeld got involved with the FDA to have Aspartame released. While scientists knew it caused cancer in lab rats, it was released due to Rumsfeld appointing more guys on the FDA board, that were, in his pocket. He also made a lot of money from that deal. That is how our system works. It is all about $$ for the crooked few on top who control our country. The masses ( us ) just do the grunt work while we get poisoned and lied to. Very difficult to respect these people. They should all be in jail.
@alumette:disqus – independent labs e.g. universities, NGOs and Government safety bodies are doing these studies and getting absolutely the same results as the industry funded ones. This is shown by the conclusions of meta-analyses that look at the totality of evidence dispassionately, and which repeatedly conclude that glyphosate is safe.
Most scientists would say that this independent verification demonstrates that the overall accuracy of the results produced.
However I know that anti-GM campaigners would just say that it proves that all scientists, whether independent or industry funded are all corrupt, and that only those who are producing the results they agree with are honest.
If anti-GM people (and I am including you if you think this) believe that people are so easily bribed to stay silent, just so that something that could potentially harm themselves and their loved ones can be sold, maybe it’s saying more about your own ethics than it is about theirs.
you read like your reading from Monsantos book of BS by the way…. you all do. Something you can work on at the next BS round table perhaps, your welcome, it doesnt even matter cuz nobodys buying the BS anymore,you needed this tip years ago…..maybe too brain sick with the glyphosate……
@disqus_HVs4jPdazU:disqus – You have chosen to employ an ad hominem personal attack, rather than addressing any of my points.
I must only conclude therefore that you are unable to, and that you are conceding to my points.
However, if you wish to have a sensible discussion about this subject, rather
than just indulging in ad hominem name-calling, I will be happy to help.
A Monsanto shill answer if I ever heard one, you and GMO Roberts must be cubicle buddies there at Cancer Central…..93% wont be ignored, how bout those numbers of people not buying your BS? Ignore them? yes you will cuz you work for Monsatan, back to your book to deal with the 93% fact… Im sure youll tell us were ignorant, I mean your paychecks at stake here right….. I get why your so desperate to convince, sadly the jigs up, like I say, best line up a new job for your ecoterrorist self….
@Sandy – You have chosen to employ an ad hominem personal attack, rather than addressing any of my points.
I must only conclude therefore that you are unable to, and that you are conceding to my points.
However, if you wish to have a sensible discussion about this subject, rather
than just indulging in ad hominem name-calling, I will be happy to help.
Labeling is also considered as an ad hominem attack, ie anti GMO people, which selects the individual, ie personal attack.
As such we are all concerned citizens.
As you stated,
However, if you wish to have a sensible discussion about this subject, rather
than just indulging in ad hominem name-calling, I will be happy to help.
Only if it doesn’t accurately reflect a position Mommieslittleboy
There are many who are so implacably against GMOs that it is unlikely that any amount of argument, evidence, reason, or discussion will ever change their minds. Such are people like Vandana Shiva and Gilles-Eric Séralini, and the others behind this little “tribunal”. For these, the title of “anti-GMO” is completely accurate and warrented.
Then there are those of us who might reasonably be called concerned citizens, who perhaps have genuine concerns, but who are also able and willing to examine the evidence, consider it reasonably, and perhaps change our minds. Calling the open-minded “anti-GM” might (and only might) be considered an ad hominem.
Cardinal Fang has been making some valid points, and unlike many commentators has actually cited sources. The response from Sandy was not to engage rationally in that debate, and counter his points with a reasoned argument. Instead s/he chose to just dismiss Cardinal Fang as a Monsanto employee without any evidence. Suggests, at least to me, that Sandy probably lands in the first category – someone who is not prepared to consider any arguments, and will not change their minds. Therefore, IMHO, I wouldn’t say that calling Sandy “anti-GMO” was a personal ad hominem attack.
Please let me quote one of your GM advocates
Treasonous, terrorist, pedophile, liar, coward, etc etc.
Your advocates have the same traits, make your point.
People are concerned and simple historical evidence would serve to dispel the concerns.
As we progress into the unknowns and full well know that GE technology is in its infancy, the claims that the science is proven and conclusive is of great concern. Those claims might be an indicator of the scientific community’s direction from, for the good of mankind, to, for the good of the investors.
Really think about it…
We all have a lot at stake here, what’s it going to be?
I have thought about it Mommieslittleboy, and done an aweful lot of reading about it as well.
Whilst I believe that there are legitimate concerns about GM, I will be utterly honest that safety is not one of them. GMOs have been in use for, what, over 30 years, not no-one can point to a single verifiable case of harm arising from normal consumption of GMOs, either by animals or humans. Seriously – if it was as bad as Shiva and Séralini like to pretend, there would be bucket loads of cases. They’d stand out like a sore thumb. And there have been something like 2000 odd safety studies, all of which give GM crops a thumbs up (going to take a leaf from the Cardinal’s book and cite a source: from the GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas, or GENERA – http://genera.biofortified.org/).
The fact is that we should stop making up bogus stories about GMOs being dangerous, or that Monsanto is trying to take over the worlds (and why is it always Monsanto that gets mentioned – why not Syngenta or Dow?), and actually starting on the genuine issues to do with GMOs e.g. the supply of seeds being controlled by a small number of multinational corporations, the development of pesticide resistance (although I appreciate that this is also a problem with conventional crops as well), and things like that.
People might like to reflect that if we started discussing the REAL issues rationally, without all that scaremongering and “oooh they’re ecoterrorists” bullsh*t, then people might actually take use concerned citizens seriously.
Well maybe they can not afford to do the kind of double – blind randomized experiments, because they haven’t made big bucks by killing of and giving health problems to animals and people. And one other thing, stop calling concerned and critical citizens without financial back up to do the tests you believe in, as anti- this and that, most of us are one thing and one thing only …pro – life. One of the first pillars of science was the empirical way of studying and you just have to have experience and be critical to what you are studying , those are the elemental instruments. Most studies nowaday’s are being rigged anyway, sometimes the outcomes are changed and some are completely faked, there are so many incidences of this happening everywhere, science unfortunately is in cahouts with big money and has become something way worse then a streetcorner whore!!!
which has been precisely Monsantos M.O, B.S science….plus they know people are stupid, that always helps…..enjoy non hodgkins lymphoma….
Unfortunately, a meta-analysis of 21 cohort and case-controlled studies (Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2012 Aug;63(3):440-52.Mink et al. Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: a review. ) concluded that there is “no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate”.
Meta-analyses are considered the “gold standard” of evidence, because they look at the totality of the available evidence, and produce an independent and unbiased summary of all of the information, rather than relying on just cherrypicked papers or blog posts that just happen to reinforce your pre-existing prejudices. The fact the overall conclusion was that there is no evidence of a causal relationship between cancer and exposure to glyphosate is powerful evidence that glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer and is unrelated to cancer.
The claims of links between cancer and glyphosate originate from a tiny handful of poorly designed animal studies in animals such as mice or rats. They tend to involve force-feeding the animals large quantities of glyphosate (far more than a person (or indeed a mouse) could ever be routinely exposed to), and then assuming that those wildly inaccurate studies are the only ones that are applicable.
If however you have any new evidence to support your claims of a link between glyphosate and cancer, please provide the reference (by evidence I, of course, mean proper peer reviewed scientific papers, not echo-chamber blog posts)
WHO deemed it a possible carcinogen and that should be good enough to take it off the market even if theres a small chance, but hey who gives a rats ass about kids health lets err on the side of money….. your all shitty parents…even Monsanto employees are suing them for cancer illness….go get your Monsanto paycheck and use it to to convince folks asbestos is just fine as long as there some profit to be made that is…..
The IARC classified glyposate as category 2A – “probably carcinogenic to humans”. That puts in exactly the same category as eating red meat, working night shifts that disrupt your circadian rhythms, working as a hairdresser or barber, and burning wood in a wood-burning stove.
This is because the classification is a risk assessment that does not reflect real-world exposure. It doesn’t say whether that possible increase in the lifetime risk of cancer is as a result of a small exposure to something, or whether that exposure needs to be in quantities that no-one could ever in their lifetimes be exposed to. When studies have tested glyphosate under real world exposure levels, they have not found any connection between cancer and glyphosate.
It’s also worth knowing that the IARC conclusion was, in part, based on some studies that have been discredited (and in some cases withdrawn) as being of poor quality, yet it somehow managed to exclude a number of larger, and better conducted studies (which incidentally concluded no link between glyphosate and cancer).
And BTW @disqus_HVs4jPdazU:disqus – you’ve accused me of being in the pay of Monsanto.
When you accuse someone of being paid by ‘X’ or of being a shill, it reveals a few things about you:
1) That you are willing to make stuff up in the absense of evidence.
2) That nothing I say is valid in your opinion
3) It says that you are unwilling to consider any other view points
4) It says that you are willing to try and use disinformation to try and influence others.
Is this really the message you want to give?
If you wish to have a sensible discussion about this subject, rather than just indulging in ad hominem name-calling, I will be happy to help.
If the definition of wisdom is experience and knowledge and because of that a good judgement, I dying to know how many decades you spent in farming.
Might it be to do with the sheer amount of scaremongering and myths being bandied about about GMOs?
How many decades of hard labor as farmer….:))
I refer you to my answer to that question here: https://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-going-to-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-the-hague-netherlands-international-criminal-court/#comment-2501326470
http://www.worldhealth.net/forum/thread/101059/gmo-studies-half-of-the-studies-find-ca/?page=1#post-101059
Glyphosate has been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural
workers, indicating absorption. Soil microbes degrade glyphosate to
aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA). Blood AMPA detection after
poisonings suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in humans.
Glyphosate and glyphosate formulations induced DNA and chromosomal
damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro. One
study reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage
(micronuclei) in residents of several communities after spraying of
glyphosate formulations.
Firstly the obvious question – could you provide references for those claims?
Detection of absorption is not evidence of harm. Studies have shown that the maximim exposure that could be derived from dermal and inhalation of glyphosate spray is about 40 μg/kg of body weight per day – this assumes someone spraying it on themselves with no protective clothing.The LD50 of glyphosate is 1950 to >5000 mg/kg (so orders of magnitude greater than what a person could get exposed to (International Programme on Chemical Safety monograph, 1994 – hereafter referenced as IPCS, 1994). To put this in context, it would take about 12.5 oz of glyphosate to kill an average 140 lb human being. This equates to drinking about three gallons of Roundup Original.
Biotransformation of glyphosate to AMPA occurs at a low level in the body, with about 0.2–0.3% of the applied dose of glyphosate being converted to AMPA. AMPA is only moderately absorbed. Only approximately 20% is actually absorbed. Of the absorbed AMPA, approximately 99.9% of it is excreted unchanged via the urine, with less than 0.1% of the dose expired as carbon dioxide. (IPCS, 1994). This means that although yes glyphosate can be metabolised in the body, the amount is small, and it is not harmful. The safe exposure limits for AMPA for
humans is 1.0 mg/kg. If you consider that a person can only absorb 40 μg/kg of glyphosate, and that only 20% of that would convert to AMPA (so about 8 μg/kg), you can see that this is an order of magnitude lower than the safe exposure levels,
I am always a bit wary when an effect is only reported in vitro rather than in whole animals, for the simple reason that cell cultures are a bitch to work with and often will show results that are not replicated in a whole animal model. Something that causes a reaction
in naked cells may not react the same when applied to your skin or taken
in through your digestive system (both of which have evolved to keep
you safe from many things). This is particularly true when you consider that the quantities of chemicals used in in vitro studies are often far in excess of what a person could ever be exposed to in real life.
A single cherry picked study (and I note that we don’t have a reference for, so we cannot read it, evaluate the methodology, or even see whether that conclusion is genuine) is not a good way of proving something. Good scientific practice is to look at lots of studies and see what they say in their entirity. So when you look at epidemiological studies that examine multiple papers (for example Mink PJ et al.Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: a review. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2012 Aug;63(3):440-52; or Williams AL et al. Developmental and reproductive outcomes in humans and animals after glyphosate exposure: a critical analysis. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2012;15(1):39-96), then these show that routine exposure to glyphosate does not result in harm.
I did.
Scientists from 11 countries vs Cardinal…yeaaah!
The Lancet Oncology, Published Online: 20 March 2015
In March, 2015, 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC; Lyon, France) to assess the
carcinogenicity of the organophosphate pesticides tetrachlorvinphos,
parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate (table). These
assessments will be published as volume 112 of the IARC Monographs:
Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide, currently with the highest
production volumes of all herbicides. It is used in more than 750
different products for agriculture, forestry, urban, and home
applications. Its use has increased sharply with the development of
genetically modified glyphosate-resistant crop varieties. Glyphosate has
been detected in air during spraying, in water, and in food. There WAS
limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.
Glyphosate has been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural
workers, indicating absorption. Soil microbes degrade glyphosate to
aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA). Blood AMPA detection after
poisonings suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in humans.
Glyphosate and glyphosate formulations induced DNA and chromosomal
damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro. One
study reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage
(micronuclei) in residents of several communities after spraying of
glyphosate formulations.
Monsanto holds up the sheer abundance of their own well-funded studies
citing the safety of Glyphosate, done over only the past twenty years
which is a short period of time in scientific inquiry particularly when
dissenting research is actively suppressed. They also hold up the
findings of regulatory bodies, particularly in the United States where
the revolving door between agrochemical corporations and government
spins at high speed.
Id rather look silly than grey with the cancer……obviously your health is worth risking, hate your life?
Pity then that glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer…
However, as Mr Actualy suggests, fake witch-hunts DO cause mocking
Monsanto shills do spread lies for their paycheck, genocidal maniacs, cant make an honest buck to save their lives…weve found you out….what a shame the boondoggle is ending …..maybe you can get a job in China skinning dogs or breeding lions for killing, anything eco terroristy would be right up your ally, chop old growth trees or something….cuz you know better than mother nature of course…..
When you accuse someone of being paid by ‘X’ or of being a shill, it reveals a few things about you:
1) That you are willing to make stuff up in the absense of evidence.
2) That nothing I say is valid in your opinion
3) It says that you are unwilling to consider any other view points
4) It says that you are willing to try and use disinformation to try and influence others.
Is this really the message you want to give?
If you wish to have a sensible discussion about this subject, rather than just indulging in childish ad hominem name-calling, I will be happy to help.
and if you want to be an eco terrorist than expect backlash, you’ve been able to poison in hiding but the jigs up hence Monsanto pays you to plant the seed of doubt. Who do we believe World Health Org or Monsanto paid shill? If you weren’t a paid shill you would err on side of caution, $$$$$ rules your world, don’t procreate…..I have considered other view points WHO’s view point…anyone lobbys the GOv that hard my red flag flies high, your either have no flag or your paid…..
I believe the good Cardinal has covered the claim that glyphosate causes cancer here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/naturalsociety/huge_monsanto_going_to_trial_for_crimes_against_humanity/#comment-2406751540 (but if you want a summary – no link between glyphosate and cancer)
Through patents on seed, Monsanto has become the “Life Lord” of our
planet, collecting rents for life’s renewal from farmers, the original
breeders.
Patenting seeds is not new to GMOs. It is a very common practice for both food crops and decorative plants. Even seeds developed and sold as organic are often patented. And it has happened for a long time – Thomas Jefferson set up the original legal framework that allows organisations in the US to patent plants. There are literally thousands of varieties of patented seeds, and the patent holders range from big agribusiness, to universities, to small scale farmers.
New varieties of plant can take a lot of time and money to develop, whether that new variety has been produced through conventional means e.g. cross breeding, forced hybridisation, mutagenesis, or creation of polyploids, or by newer biotechnological means e.g. GM. Patenting allows the developers to make their money back on their innovations.
If your opposition is to patenting seeds, then you have an objection to the current capitalist system rather than specifically to GMOs, or to Monsanto.
Nice mumbo jumbo. But somewhat guts of so many people are telling otherwise. I would also say that current crony capitalist deregulated totality is the father of Monsanto and others, or isn’t it 🙂
From petition of PEER to USDA secretary:
The USDA Scientific Integrity Policy actively enables agency managers to
suppress and alter scientific work products for their policy
implications, regardless of their technical merit. It also appears clear
that agribusiness interests, such as Monsanto Corporation,
have access to top agency managers and are invited to lodge complaints
and concerns about the published work of agency scientists.
Significantly, the Policy lacks any mechanism to effectively challenge
this political manipulation of science. This gap is compounded by the
lack of whistleblower protection for scientists. As a result, scientists
whose work raises troublesome implications or who have the temerity to
file complaints about inappropriate skewing of science face the prospect
of official retaliation.
Reuter’s senior journalist based in Kansas City, Missouri, Carey Gillam:
PEER’s Executive Director Jeff Ruch said on Friday that at least 10 USDA
scientists have been investigated or faced other consequences arising
from research that called into question the safety of certain
agricultural chemicals.
Ruch said his organization had received mounting complaints over the
last year from USDA scientists claiming they have been ordered to
retract studies, water down findings, remove their names from authorship
and experienced delays in approvals for publication of research papers.
Could you actually provide a source to that claim, so that it can be verified?
I gave you a lemon, you can easily google the rest…
OK, it happened here:
Friday
Pest control talk, 3 p.m., room 107, Richardson Hall, 3180 S.W. Jefferson Way. Bill
Moar, a senior entomologist and resistance specialist at Monsanto and
an Oregon State University alumnus, will speak on Monsanto’s novel
pest-control technology based on RNA interference. The lecture is titled
“RNAi in Agriculture: A New, Highly Specific Pest-Control Method.”
After the lecture, Moar will present “Monsanto and Agriculture
Biotechnology: Who We Are, What We Do, and Where Do We Go from
Here?,” and answer questions on Monsanto’s efforts to communicate and
interact with the public and its stakeholders.
You can contact writer Stephanie Hampton, easily found contact on google, and ask her all. She was there and can give you contacts to other people to confirm that.
So no proper evidence, just anecdote?
You can get with one twit proof right in a front of your eye plus other contacts to verify it, but nice try. I didn’t post this for you, I post this for potential readers. I never talk to you like to somebody who are looking for something, accept to get paid by bureau :))
Hey Everyone: ‘Well_Actually” keeps getting called out for working for pro GM lobby group. He’s standard reply is I’m a biologist who is helping the educate the people in my spare time.. the other reply is: oh the old sham call.. and then adds list designed to debunk any claim made by anyone or any research that contradicts the FDA positions. Never mind undone science, never mind lobby groups, never mind methodologically flawed ‘evidence’.. no no no – none of that exists! Move along people – nothing to see here..
I’m sorry Darryl Kerrigan – was there a refutation to any of my comments somewhere in there?
Nothing creepy about reading public comments to track the trends of paid lobbyist. Cardinal Fang- “trawling” ? hardly – one click and you can read the “opinions” people engaged in public commentary.
Calling me creepy is a projection.
And what kind of name is that? Well, Actually.. and Cardinal .. Both imply a superiority and both are names you hide behind.
No disinfectant like sunshine.
You guys are backed by large resources, and well developed spin.
Check this out and get back to me: http://jodeswarren.wix.com/devilsadvocate#!about_us/c14e3
One student asked what Monsanto was doing to counter the “bad
science” around their work. Dr. Moar, perhaps forgetting that this was a
public event, then revealed that Monsanto indeed had “an entire
department” (waving his arm for emphasis) dedicated to “debunking”
science which disagreed with theirs. As far as I know this is the first
time that a Monsanto functionary has publically admitted that they have
such an entity which brings their immense political and financial weight
to bear on scientists who dare to publish against them. The Discredit
Bureau will not be found on Monsanto official website though :))
Wow – bit creepy, trawling through someone’s comments history.
New to the stalking game are we Daryl, or have you been at it a while?
Actually, now you mention it, it is a bit creepy.
Profile being set to private.
And Darryl – I’m not ashamed of being a biologist (I analyse amino acids and things in children with metabolic diseases) who takes the time to read about the issue from all sides. Neither am I ashamed to call out the more extreme of the commentators about GM (the ones I think Cardinal Fang calls the “antis”), because their conspiracy theory scaremongering doesn’t actually help the discussion in any way, and prevents any conversation about the GENUINE issues surrounding GMOs. That’s why I’ve been called a shill in the past, because I refuse to blindly accept some of the more ridiculous claims made by some – for example the claim that Monsanto is committing crimes against humanity (which I believe is the original subject of this article), and unfortunately there are those who cannot accept that there are some of us who aren’t totally opposed to GMOs (as I’ve said before, I’m ambivalent about them at best).
Perhaps if an argument is getting debunked, instead of moaning about it, perhaps people should be asking if that argument had any merit in the first place. A little bit of thought, and a little bit of reading would save us all a great deal of time.
Ok …so you’ve attacked Well_actually… was anything he said wrong? If you want to discredit his position do so by countering his claims effectively.
How many people committed suicide/hour in India, when the rain didn”t come an they have no cotton to sell, no money to pay for seeds which were designed as one year only seeds by Monsanto?
The tale of Indian farmers committing suicide because of GMOs is a purvasive, but utterly false myth, peddled, in large part, by the same Vandana Shiva who is one of the anti-GMO activists organising this fake and misleading show “trial”.
The problem with this myth is that the facts say something completely different.
Since Bt cotton was officially approved in 2002, it has been adopted by over 90% of Indian cotton farmers (it was being grown and sold on the black market even before then). Since then, multiple studies have shown significant reductions in pesticide use of over 40%, representing a significant cost saving to farmers. In addition cotton yeilds have grown – according to the Indian Agriculture Ministry, in 2012 that the country “has harvested an average of 5.1 million tons of cotton per year, which is well above the highest production of 3 million tons before the introduction of Bt
cotton”. In other words, more cotton is being produced for lower cost. A 2013 study in PLOS ONE found that in India “the adoption of GM cotton has significantly improved calorie consumption and dietary quality, resulting from increased family incomes”.
You should perhaps ask this question of those promoting this myth: If Indian farmers found the GM seeds to be uneconomic, then why aren’t they abandoning them? Non-GM cotton seed is still readily available on the market.
The issue of farmer suicides first gained media attention in 1995 as the southern state of Maharashtra began reporting a significant rise in farmers killing themselves. Other states across the country also began reporting an increase in farmer suicides around this time. Please note the date: 1995 – seven years before the approval of Bt cotton.
Studies on possible causes of this have pointed to a number of factors NONE OF WHICH is the adoption of GMOs. For example, a 2012 paper in The Lancet that surveyed India’s suicide mortality rate noted: “Studies from south India have shown that the most common contributors to suicide are a combination of social problems, such as interpersonal and family problems and financial difficulties, and pre-existing mental illness”. In particular, studies have suggested a link between agricultural suicides and banking reforms the country undertook since the early-1990s. States with the highest incidence of farmer suicides were those that offered the least institutional credit to farmers. This forces small farmers to turn to loan sharks who charge exorbitant interest rates (as high as 45%). In those states where farmers had better access to institutional credit and farm insurance, there were markedly fewer suicides.
Whilst the number of farm suicides rose sharply between 1995 and 2002, the trend since 2002 has been flat or downwards. If Bt cotton was driving people to suicide, as has been alleged, why would suicides go down when it was approved?
Please don’t be myth-informed about GMOs. All of this information is easily and freely available if you look beyond those anti-GM websites. Perhaps I might suggest this as a starting point: https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/files/2014/01/GMOsuicidemyth.pdf
References:
– Patel, V et al. Suicide mortality in India: a nationally representative survey. The Lancet, Volume 379, No. 9834, p2343–2351, 23 June 2012
– Qaim M, Kouser S (2013) Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security. PLoS ONE 8(6): e64879.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064879
– Suicide statistics: Indian National Crime Records Bureau
– Yield data – Indian Ministry of Agriculture.
I found your response today, I am not using Disqus at all, so:
The first reference you used is concerned with “quantify suicide mortality in India in 2010”, was funding by US National Institutes of Health and the findings were, that 50% of 187 000 suicides in 2010 were due to a poisoning from pesticides and “restrictions in access to pesticides might prevent many suicide deaths in India”
The second reference bringing up the positives of GM on under nourish small farmers, on both their wealth and health.
The third reference (INCRB):
“At least 15 suicides took place every hour in the country during last
year, which saw over 1.31 lakh people ending their lives, with
government data also noting that Maharashtra saw the highest number of
such cases while Chennai heads the list among cities.
Data released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) also said that as
many as 69.7% of those who committed suicide had an annual income of
less than Rs 1 lakh while one out of every six persons who took the
extreme step last year was a housewife”.
Your 4th reference (Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture) didn’t mentioned suicides and its reasons.
I don’t see any contradiction with my statement.
So you’re confirming Pank that the first one reference shows no connection between the adoption of Bt cotton and suicides (but that pesticides are being used to commit suicide – which is a well known problem. Paraquat was banned in Europe precisely because it was too easy to use it to kill yourself), the second shows that it improves the wealth and health of farmers, and the third shows that that there seems to be a connection between suicide and poverty (which I belive Mr Actually was suggesting and is hardly a controversial hypothesis).
Meanwhile the 4th one (which didn’t mention suicide), looks like it was posted to back up the claim that yields have actually increased since the adoption of Bt cotton.
Which seems to support the contention that the “Bt cotton causes suicides” is a myth, as I belive Mr. Actually was suggesting.
From the director of Bitter Seeds Micha Peled:
I’m the director of the film Bitter Sees and happy to respond. Farmer
suicide crisis began in India in 1997. GM seeds appeared five years
later. The suicide wave was triggered by farmers’ cost going so high
they weren’t able to pay their debts. Costs went high already with
hybrid seeds, because they were not sustainable. The high use of
fertilizers was depleting the soil, the cost of pesticides was rising
because the insects developed resistance. GM cotton seeds were
originally attractive because they grew plants which were toxic to
cotton’s main enemy, the bollworm. Farmers were told ‘your pesticide
costs will be drastically reduced and you’ll have a higher yield.’ This
did not come to pass on neither the cost nor the income aspects, and
suicide rates have actually increased since the arrival of GM seeds in
2002/4.
So yes, this problem is way more complex than reduce it to your mumbo jumbo about one issue. We have to answer other thing first, to get to the real bottom of this problem:
1. Why we have poor, who were excluded from the wealth of their countries, where only to some citizens were given guaranties about its distribution according their will
2. Why we have hungry people, if in two last decades was produced food enough for 10 billion people
3. You brought comparison of capitalism and Monsanto, and didn’t answer, how they differ
4. You are spreading wisdom about farming and didn’t answer how many decades you are working in farming to have any wisdom about it at all
5. What is the PEER petition?
I can answer 2 of those questions (kind of)
– In answer to why we still have hungry people. That is nothing to do with GMOs, or glyposate. There was a global campaign in 2013 called “Enough Food for Everyone If…” which suggested some factors that contribute to global hunger, including land grabs, corporate tax dodging, insufficient aid, and unequal access and influence in global food systems. If you are interested in trying to end world hunger, getting cross about GMOs or Monsanto is not the way to do it. I would suggest getting involved in the anti-poverty campaigns of groups like Oxfam instead.
– In response to question 4 – why should only farmers disuss GMOs or pesticides. I am a scientist. I find the subject interesting – as I also find interesting issues concerning the misuse and abuse of science for political and idological ends. The anti-GM lobby seems to be full of poor science and myths. That is where I have issues. One of the other posters on here (Well Actually) is honest about not being fond of GMOs but seems happy to have a sensible discussion with actual evidence. There seems to be a shortage of this in this thread.
I can’t answer the other 2 questions because I don’t actually understand what you’re asking.
Yes, we will still have hungry, I didn’t ask you for that. But unless you will know WHY, if we have enough to feed them, we cannot move forward with this BS of yours 🙂 SO WHY we have poor and hungry and what GMO has in common with that.
You are the smartest cardinal I know, you can very well understand my little two unanswered questions, righ? :)))
What? Still not sure what you’re asking
I know you don’t understand a thing. In one respond you told me that I am not satisfied with capitalism, is not Monsanto I am against. I answered you that capitalism is the father of Monsanto (and imperialism as well I can add now). You don’t know why we have hungry with plenty food for them, why poor if there is tons of wealth for everybody, you call a prime witness with contact anecdote, paper made by scientists from 11 countries a not good enough proof and the rest you ignore. You never planted one single seed yet know better than farmers what is the best for them.
I’ve explained why the IARC risk assessment about glyphosate is not sufficient evidence that glyphosate has a link with cancer, and also provided the reference of a a meta-analysis of 21 cohort and case-controlled studies (Regul Toxicol
Pharmacol. 2012 Aug;63(3):440-52.Mink et al. Epidemiologic studies of
glyphosate and cancer: a review.) that finds no link between glyphosate and cancer (did you not read them, or not understand them?); you claim a witness by reporting second hand what someone else supposedly said with no supporting evidence, and wonder why it’s not considered particularly compelling evidence. My comment about capitalism was related to patenting seeds, and that that is something that is different from either GMOs or Monsanto (and that if you have an issue with patenting seeds then your beef is with something different from those two things). Why people are hungry or poor is likewise nothing to do with either GMOs or Monsanto, so, whilst a big issue in itself, is not pertinent to this discussion thread on some fake show trial about Monsanto. And I still cannot see why not being a farmer excludes someone from this discussion – although if you want to talk about people claiming to know what is best for farmers, you should perhaps turn that gaze a bit wider. Many farmers accept and support GMOs, so the anti-GMO lobby trying to impose those biases on farmers who have freely chosen to grow GMOs (for example the 90% of Indian cotton farmers who’ve chosen to plant Bt cotton, or the farmers in these blogs:
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/04/20/why-farmers-buy-omg-gmo-seeds-from-wtf-evil-corporations/
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2014/04/25/gmos-from-a-farmers-perspective
http://www.capitalpress.com/Opinion/Editorials/20150129/why-some-farmers-choose-to-grow-gmo-crops
what would you call that other than one group thinking they know better than another group about farming?
(and BTW – you say you’re the director of the film “Bitter Seeds”. So by your OWN QUESTION – what qualifies you to join this discussion any more than me?)
How it was with the Europe again: dump Europeans would love to have GMO, but there is a risk they can poison themselves…hahahaha
So, I try one more time to ask for this incredible link so we can compare it with mine 🙂
The Lancet Oncology, Published Online: 20 March 2015
In March, 2015, 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC; Lyon, France) to assess the
carcinogenicity of the organophosphate pesticides tetrachlorvinphos,
parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate (table). These
assessments will be published as volume 112 of the IARC Monographs:
Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide, currently with the highest
production volumes of all herbicides. It is used in more than 750
different products for agriculture, forestry, urban, and home
applications. Its use has increased sharply with the development of
genetically modified glyphosate-resistant crop varieties. Glyphosate has
been detected in air during spraying, in water, and in food. There WAS limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.
Glyphosate has been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural
workers, indicating absorption. Soil microbes degrade glyphosate to
aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA). Blood AMPA detection after
poisonings suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in humans.
Glyphosate and glyphosate formulations induced DNA and chromosomal
damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro. One
study reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage
(micronuclei) in residents of several communities after spraying of
glyphosate formulations.
Regarding the IARC classification – I refer you to my answer here: https://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-going-to-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-the-hague-netherlands-international-criminal-court/#comment-2406785894
And in regard to the claims about glyphosate and AMPA that you have posted for a second time, I refer you to my answer to the first time you posted it: https://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-going-to-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-the-hague-netherlands-international-criminal-court/#comment-2501306437
The tale of Indian farmers committing suicide is a myth, in part peddled by the same Vandana Shiva who is one of the anti-GMO activists organising this fake and misleading show “trial”. It does not bear any relationship to the truth, which is that since Bt cotton was approved in India in 2002, yeilds have gone up, whilst pesticide use (and therefore costs) have gone down.
Might I suggest moving beyond the echo-chamber anti-GMO sites to find accurate information about this issue – might I suggest this:
https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/files/2014/01/GMOsuicidemyth.pdf
as a start?
We have to take out ALL these evil corporations, one by one, we will get rid of all these horrible evil people.
Finally the monster is going down.
LOL. I guarantee this is not going before the International Criminal Court. This is just a PR stunt, being held in The Hague to give the impression it is a real court case.
It is truly amusing how delusional you are.
Silliness.
Bogus court case using bogus science. Basically, a load of nonsense.
This sounds great, but it wouldn’t be the first time Monsanto has been sued. Plus, law (not to mention international law) is an incredibly complex tapestry of hurdles that could take years to sort through, before we see any real justice take place against Monsanto.
Lastly, there is a concerted effort by the criminal elite that run this planet to keep Monsanto and companies like it propped up.
It says nothing about being sued.
but they will be, when it becomes obvious of what is going on. Big law firms will love to bring them down. They will have plenty information to make winning cases.
inspirational and sadly…TRUE.
@disqus_MV7oJZv00a:disqus – Wow. Anti-GM, and anti-vaxx in one go.
There are a lot of similarities between these two groups:
– dismissal of the wider scientific consensus. Science is only accepted if it agrees with pre-existing views; anything else is wrong.
– demonisation of critics, opponents etc as “shills” in the pay of some corporation.
– both are grounded in the “natural is good” fallacy – GMOs are supposed to be bad
because the crops aren’t as nature intended them to be; vaccines are supposed to be bad
because we are injecing ourselves with unnatural synthetic chemicals.
– both movements argue that people should be able to know what is going
into their own bodies and decide on their own whether they want to
accept “foreign” or “synthetic”” chemicals (and both have this paranoia about chemicals in the first place).
– both are strongly
anti-corporate: GMOs are linked to “Big Ag” and vaccines are peddled by
“Big Pharma”. Yet both are unblinkingly and uncritically accepting of “big organic”
– not surprisingly, there is a lot of overlap in the most high
profile “leaders” of these movements, including hucksers like ‘natural
doctor’ Joseph Mercola and Mike Adams, head of NaturalNews.com.
– no actual basis in fact.
We need to keep the presure up, in fact let us never give up. Monsanto are responsible for a lot more than just putting pesticides in our food chain. It is no surprise at all that the planet is tottering on the brink of destruction because of what Monsanto and other multi Nationals are doing in the name of the ” New World Order” .
George Bernard Shaw often said: Every Government deserve the people who elect it.
Every people deserve the Government they elect. This is eminently applicable on a world scale.
The condition of the planet is the result of the electoral decisions we have made.
Let us make some real changes. Get rid of those not fit to be suitable leaders and politicians. We should work our butts off to get rid all those who are about the business of reducing the planets population from 7 billion to 500 million, get rid of the whole lot.
Dump them and be done with the past. Let us be brave and plunge into the breach.
Let the future be ours to make mistakes and remake our world the paradise that it should be.
The main aspects of our political, social and economic problems will then be a work in progress. It is doable now.
I hear what your saying (I used go be an activist for a living) But you have to remove all belief in democracy. There is no democracy. It’s democrazy…. The top 1% are the ones RUiNNING this planet. They have the power. All these little politicians including the house and senate in congress, they are just pawns for the bigger suits, making the sheeple believe it all matters (meaning elections). ONce elected, they take an oath that is loyal to the top 1% , not to the people they elected. As evident with just about EVERY promise made by a politician that breaks it.
I completely agree Bea. Still 0001% is measurably less than 7 billion and we can’t give up. We have to take them out!!
What difference will this make? Monsanto ignores anything but profit. Unless they can capture the top management, bring them to the Hague and incarcerate them for war crimes, the company will go untouched.
In the US, Mt. Satan and Big Pharma are protected by laws that exempt them from being held accountable for damages caused by their products and practices. But that is US law; if the right decisions can issue out of The Hague, then perhaps their products can be banned worldwide and some of their execs tried and convicted internationally. Normally, I’m not in favor of World Court or most of these vestiges of world government, but in this case, I think it’s a good thing.
What a breakthrough. It is about time that officialdom started taking citizens seriously and instituted co-ordinated investigation into their concerns, especially as in the case of Monsanto’s cavalier approach to its dubious products and business practices. This illustrates one of the most serious examples of how the growth in global corporations, with their consolidation of capital and wealth are riding roughshod over individuals’ freedoms. There is so much money available by these corporations and connected persons, that is able to be marshalled against citizens’ challenges to their adverse practices, that it makes a nonsense of the ideal of democracy. It has become rule by the Corporatocracy, where they do what they like with impunity. They have corrupted officialdom to an extent never before witnessed and as voters, we don’t hold them to account or demand better governmental structures, that are truly representative of the electorate.
LOL … Nobody is taking this mock trial seriously except for maybe readers of this site. I promise you Monsanto wont even show up.
ProNuto in South Africa is all made with GMO crops.
Time to BOYCOTT
And its hurt nobody. see how that works?
This is not news. NONE of these organizations responded to requests to help me with my petition. Glad to know they are using all the citations I published here:https://www.change.org/p/chief-zeid-ra-ad-al-hussein-charge-monsanto-with-crimes-against-humanity
Thats because your petition means nothing anymore than this trial does.
@disqus_DzAh11UFw3:disqus – if you have genuine evidence that Monsanto is employing illegal or corrupt practices, then the thing normal people do is to go to the cops. Simple. That’s what people do when they know a crime is being committed. They don’t, as a rule, start a petition about it instead.
US law also provides for a financial reward of up to 10% of the resulting fine for the informant if the company is convicted – so you could be quids in if you could actually prove those accusations that the anti-GM lobby like making without any evidence.
The FDA is getting off scott-freeeeee…they should be HELD JUST AS ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN. Monsanto is gonna play the FDA card…..just watch and see.
You’re right, Bea.
If there were such a thing as a national initiative process, We The People could enact a law to repeal Congress’ actions in exempting Big Pharma and companies like Mt. Satan from being held accountable for the damages they do.
In fact, if we even held a Convention of States and enacted Mark Levin’s suggested constitutional amendments, one or two of those give the states authority to repudiate laws made by Congress or bad decisions made by the SCOTUS.
the exemption cannot extend to overseas damages and that is exactly how they will be put in their rightful places.
You can sue Monsanto. It happens all of the time.
A Constitutional Convention wouldn’t be wise.
It’s funny when a so called “friend” throws the other under a bus when they screw up.
And the EPA for calling itself the EPA.
fda’s jurisdiction is USA person. Even with all ex-monsanto and ex-pharma cronies in the FDA to insure bias stateside, this is the world court and it wont fly there.
Is it possible for the children of Vietnam Vets to get in on this since many offsprings have neurological issues due to the exposure and that the US government has prevented any US citizen from suing them?
sounds totally appropriate. But the language barrier needs to be broken with someone vietnamese informing them and finding out which party to contact to join the lawsuit.
Yeah, no doubt but i wonder if one can even do that? The other thing as well, what would one give to show that you have exposure from father to offspring?
Uh…exposure from father to offspring? What like exposed sperm? Come on man… get real. Dioxin aint Asbestos.
Different Monsanto.
How is it a different Monsanto?
Monsanto the chemical company and Monsanto the seed company became two separate companies in 2000.
Either way, Monsanto were not the guilty ones as far as Agent Orange was concerned (and weren’t alone in producing it – Dow rarely get the pointy finger like Monsanto do). Those who developed it warned the US government and military that it was contaminated and opposed its use as a weapon. The blame lies mostly with the US administration.
However, it’s a bit more complicated than a simple paragraph would allow. I recommend reading about it though.
Time to start burning gmo crops en masse….Id rather eat scorched earth than anything grown from Monsatan….
Go ahead and try try to burn my crops. How about instead you just buy organic ya psychopath?
Because you farmers pay a 3rd party to label product as organic ya dumbass
psycopaths use chemiacls to do a job your lazy eco terrorists a$$ should have been doing….youll be out of biz soon whether burning en masse or forced go organic yourself…screw the kids, we want it easier…., don’t procreate….
I think it was Turkey or maybe Albania that already did that. Great common sense!
So your approach is to destroy the private property of other people in order to ‘prove your point’?
Which liberal college taught you That “Solution” is in the least moral or ethical? Let me guess…
The one you went to.
Hey, start with the GMO rice that can cure River Blindness… I’m sure that a lot of the poor, desperate people of the world will stand behind you… [NOT.]
Oh, sorry… just noticed the URL of this site. Nothing I could possibly say, nor any argument or evidence I could provide would or will change anyone’s beliefs or opinions here…
Thanks… don’t bother replying to insult or rip me up for my comments… I won’t be back.
good, take off hype believing propaganda tool, a poor child would have to eat 32 buckets of poison rice to cure blindness and it’d die of cancer first….robot.
Yea these people are nuts. Just look at Sandy all freaking out over nuthin.
thank you.
Hopefully that will be the end of monsatan but the corrupt govt and the parasites that be won’t let that happen.
https://www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=3fmfcINQiY0
Dude…its not real trial.
I’m sure but it would be nice. I no nothing will happen look no farther than the head of the fda is from monsatan.
Hopefully that will be the end of monsatan but the corrupt govt and the parasites that be won’t let that happen.
https://www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=3fmfcINQiY0
lol @ parasites that be! lol So true..TPTB are the ones who are RUiNNING this country…and essentially the planet by messing with the ecosystem. We know first hand how their food messes with our system with every body getting GERD, diabetes, heart problems, cancers….They ARE ruling this world. I’m frustrated all over again! I should never have replied here!!!LOL
Im not sure how it could be the end of Monsanto.. Its a mock trial.
a real trial that will bring a lot of publicity…well…not on your FOX channel…..but publicity is everything ! it will get the ball rolling.