Update: 5 Scientific Experts Join Lawsuit to Bring Down Monsanto
A case against health-destructive chemicals
In my ongoing exposure of Monsanto’s illegal and immoral tactics, I was excited to announce that many lawsuits are looking to take Monsanto down. Now, under penalty of perjury, 5 experts in the field have signed their names to a statement that will hopefully put Monsanto out of business for good.
The scientific experts are all powerful women who have been vocal advocates of more stringent scientific studies of both GM crops and the chemicals used to grow them. To add power to the California class action suit, Nancy L. Swanson, PhD, Stephanie Seneff, PhD, Rosemary Mason, MB, ChB, FRCA, Mae-Won Ho, PhD, and Michelle Perro, MD, have all added their names to the following statement, which left Monsanto attorneys speechless recently in court:
“This testimony was filed in July at the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, and is vital considering that the entire case which T. Matthew puts forth is based on Monsanto’s claims on their Round Up bottles that, ‘Glyphosate targets an enzyme in plants, but not in people or pets.'”
This could not be further from the truth since EPSP synthase, also known as (3-phosphoshikimate 1-carboxyvinyltransferase) is found in the microbiota that reside in our intestinal tracts, and therefore the enzyme is “found in humans and animals.” It is partly responsible for immunity activation and even helps our gut and our brains communicate with one another.
Furthermore, EPSP synthase is among other beneficial microbes that produce neurometabolites that are either neurotransmitters or modulators of neurotransmission.
These enzymes are part of our gut’s intelligence. As we have seen now in numerous studies, GMOs and Roundup in particular alter gut flora, and negatively affect ‘beneficial bacteria.’
There are two studies conducted over the past decade that showed, undeniably, that glyphosate and Roundup were toxic to beneficial gut bacteria (this is what makes up our immune system, in large part, by the way).
One study showed a correlation between botulism-causing bacteria in cattle that ate Roundup treated, GM feed. Another found that gut bacteria in the poultry were highly pathogenic, even with very low exposure to Roundup, allowing an overgrowth of harmful bacteria such as Clostridium botulinum, Salmonella spp, and E. coli – all organisms that would have been eradicated by a healthy immune system.
Dr. Seneff, an MIT scientist and one of the signatories to the class action statement above, has her own studies about the harmful effects of Roundup on gut flora. She has shown a statistically significant correlation between Roundup exposure in children and the rising epidemic of autism, which is theoretically caused partly due to a compromised immune system via altered gut flora.
According to the Centers for Disease Control 1 in 68 children is now born with autism.
Furthermore, Nancy L Swanson, another signatory, points out in her paper the prevalence of Roundup exposure in the American diet due to regulatory approvals. She states:
“How many and what kind of GE crops have been approved? As of August, 2012, there have been a total of 144 crops approved by the FDA. The most widely and rapidly adopted transgenic crops in the United States are those with herbicide-tolerant traits. Of the 144 crops approved by the FDA, 75% have been genetically engineered to either withstand direct applications of herbicides or they contain an insecticide Bt toxin, or both. In the mid-’90s, scientists figured out how to combine more than one trait in the same plant. These were first released in 1997 and are called ‘stacked gene traits.’”
It looks as though we can thank Monsanto and other biotech corporations for this epidemic of ill health.
You can learn more about the class action lawsuit against Monsanto at https://www.monsantoclassaction.org.
The latest litigation update as per the FB page is as follows:
“Mon. Aug. 31, 2015, the federal judge has NOT yet ruled on Monsanto’s request to dismiss our lawsuit. Thank you for your inquiries. We will notify you as soon as we get word. To recap, we argue that Monsanto is guilty of “false advertising” on the Roundup label — “Glyphosate targets an enzyme found in plants, but not in people or pets” — and this is false! In response, Monsanto’s lawyers argue that no American can sue Monsanto for “false advertising.” They argue that — because EPA approved the Roundup label — it must therefore be true. Notably, Monsanto lawyers make no effort to demonstrate the truth of the labeling statement — rather, they simply argue that the gov’t has a monopoly on truth. We disagree.”
 | 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. |
Christina, I am astounded by this list of supposed science experts. Have you actually looked into their backgrounds?
Mae-Wan Ho — the same person who wrote an article on “DNA Sequence Reconstituted from Water Memory”—an electromagnetic transfer of DNA sequence information to pure water. She also suggests that a whole living organism could be reconstructed from water memory! Pure, undiluted woo.
Nancy Swanson — a physicist and former Defense Department employee, but has never done any biological research. She has a strange habit of drawing charts with “interpolated” data. (This is another way of saying that she made up the data).
Stephanie Seneff — a computer scientist, also with no biological research experience. She has published a number or articles in very obscure journals claiming that glyphosate is the cause of a host of diseases. In a recent interview about the evils of glyphosate, she stated that “organic tobacco might not be so bad for you”.
Rosemary Mason — wrote a bizarre 53-page article (unpublished) proposing that glyphosate exposure results in at least 14 major diseases. She claims that this is related to supposed toxicity to gut microbes and metal chelation, relying heavily on the claims of Swanson and Seneff. She does not appear to have ever done any biological research.
Michelle Perro — a homeopath. Need I say more?
And you frequent some very questionable internet sites, so what.
So what your saying these folks have no common sense, because their education made them unable to connect dots?
Then you might also question your regular sites also, they were trained through the same .edu’s.
This is where science is failing by your own omission, any scientific research should be reviewed on occasion due to rapidly advancing technologies. Questions will always be present, why aren’t they being properly addressed?
Perhaps I’m wrong, and they really are “scientific experts” on this topic. Please tell us why you are willing to defend them. Specifics would help.
“Specifics would help” Good luck with that one.
Because, there is an obvious and serious internal struggle. This need to be addressed for the good of the scientific community.
Internal issues are determined by many factors, but the results are always the same, reduced productivity, reduced creativity, fear within a working hostile environment, just to name a few.
These scientists worry about their jobs and the quality of their work, but worrying about their job should not be the most pressing issue.
Competition is good, but hostile environments sitfle every aspect of productivity and the genius of innovation and creativity.
You sure do defend the government/industry propaganda line. Since you use the common troll trait of bashing any researchers that do not support the fascist agenda, I will ask, what are your qualifications that make you think you know more than everyone you condemn?
Not that I will believe anything you say
Christina, according to the blurb for one of her recent presentations, Michelle Perro is a ”… pediatrician who integrates Western medicine with homeopathy…”
Yet you call her a “scientific expert”!
I rest my case.
A Medical expert and their findings would be relevant.
More so than someone who experiments on rats.
The Medical field is after all called, Medical Sciences for a reason.
Not always. homeopathy is not medicine
So let me see if I’m understanding correctly what your trying to imply,
Michelle Perro MD is downgraded to Michelle Perro because of homeopathy?
Or is she still a Pediatrician with 30 years of experience?
I’m into preparedness, self reliance and survival, what does that down grade me to?
In your case if I could confirm knowledge in self reliance and survival and survival. It would mean an upgrade. In the case of any DR. that tries to sell me on homeopathy. That Dr. is fired on the spot and I find other medical help.
Since the Medical sciences and modern cures are derived from known natural substances and an attempt to replicate natural cures…
Homeopathy has played a very major role in modern medicine.
Again, what’s wrong with it?
Look it up. They reduce the concentration by diluting with water until there is nothing of significance left but water. That is not modern medicine. that is superstition. Homeopathy has played a role only in folks imagination and in proving the placebo effect.
Labeling all, by the mistakes or the crimes of the few. That would mean that the Agro industry should be shunned by you all, based on that premise. Everything in existence for that matter.
Where does aspirin come from?
Pretty effective isn’t it.
No, deliberate misunderstanding of what is actually at stake here will not assist you. “crimes of a few” No, the entire homeopathic movement is bunk. There is no mistake. Just lies. Homeopathy is a con, that has nothing to do with real use of aspirin.
That’s an opinion, not relevant.
Homeopathy has no place in modern medicine, even though it is remarkably popular. Placebo-based treatment can be appropriate for mild and psychologically driven conditions, especially where current mechanism-based treatment is lacking. However, I believe it is unethical for a medical doctor to publicly endorse woo.
Perro is no scientist.
Duh a MD isn’t a scientist, but scientists don’t treat the public either.
There are obvious differences there.
Again 30 years employ in the Medical field, hmmm.
No Hmmm needed. If after 30 years a vet give advice and performs treatments that is no longer science based or effective. I fire the vet. Same happens even quicker for someone working on my family.
Amazingly, there are some vets that practice homeopathic medicine. I can understand how a placebo might work occasionally for a human — but a cow?
Yeah, we have a couple around here that I will not take my dogs to. However for the most part I have had excellent results from the vets I have been pleased to patronized.
Veterinarians and MD’s recommend unneeded procedures everyday. Why, for profit of course.
Prescribed medications are one of the highest rated killers of people within the US, These are under doctors orders.
So where is the line?
“doctors orders” Doctors may order their nurses and employees to comply. I, on the other hand am the customer and do not take orders. I had a laminotomy done last week. I researched it in a manner similar to how I would do any major purchase. Then I made the decisions. The customer draws the line where he or she chooses. Just as they do when evaluating my produce and plants at market.
Many people rely on the Medical experts for their knowledge, and many medical experts stand up to their profession proudly. But sadly many use their position for the wrong reasons, even conducting crimes.
Employee’s are vastly different than the general public, usually an employee follows policies and conducts themselves under their job description, therefore protecting their ability to make money and progress in their chosen profession. Many will just do as asked, job preservation. I could provide a vast amount of crimes undertaken in the name of medicine, but I won’t.
Again, the few give a bad name to the group.
I didn’t do the back procedures, because in most cases, 5 years and your worse off than before. I did my research before agreeing to procedures also.
In my field there are lots of people who have had back surgeries and the real stories out weigh the MD’s advice.
A big pharma cheerleader as well, no surprise there
Yes. This is a clear example of the infiltration of the medical profession by quacks.
top grade medical Marijuana of several strains like Sour diesel,Girl
nnscout cookies,Blueberry yum yum, Blue dream, purple kush, og
kush,pineapple express,white widow, super silver haze etc.for cancer insomnia pain .we do also provide medical cards.. Al
donations are for the recuperation of growing costs associated with
medicinal cannabis, including but not limited to: Nutrients, Soil,
Electricity, Co2, and Hydroponic Equipment.xxxxxxxTEXT ME AT (937) 453_3919)nnnnnnnnSKYPE:hansbrook.james///
top grade medical Marijuana of several strains like Sour diesel,Girl
nnscout cookies,Blueberry yum yum, Blue dream, purple kush, og
kush,pineapple express,white widow, super silver haze etc.for cancer insomnia pain .we do also provide medical cards.. Al
donations are for the recuperation of growing costs associated with
medicinal cannabis, including but not limited to: Nutrients, Soil,
Electricity, Co2, and Hydroponic Equipment.xxxxxxxTEXT ME AT (937) 453_3919)nnnnnnnnnnSKYPE:hansbrook.james///
Clearly this author is not well educated on the topic as these so-called experts have been proven false repeatedly seneff”s papers are simply a correlation is causation fallacy The truth is tha organic food consumption correlates more tight ly to her goofy allegations that anything she brings up. Further this author is no humanitarian. By advocating the destruction of a company that provides products that are sage to use. This alleged person is also advocating for the unemployment of it’s employees. A truly heartless position to take.
Couldn’t have said it better, but the first seven words was enough.
So how can we be absolutely certain that an correlation between two events indicates a causal
relationship? We can’t, actually – the knowledge provided by the scientific method is never
absolutely certain. Science forces us to remain open to the possibility that new evidence will
cause a change in what we know and believe. Science doesn’t allow us to become complacent,
assuming that we already know everything.
Technological advances would also suggest review should be periodically under taken, all your heroes did was deny a peer review.
The review was later submitted into the, I think, scientific journal, after the conflict of interest was discovered, redacted by a former Monsanto employee hired under the regulating authority.
The causation fallacy is a misguided attempt to explain the industrial scientific communities refusal to accept any peer reviewed findings, ie the common cause.
Christina is a Journalist.
If your stupid enough to work for a unethical Corporation and lose your job, that isn’t a reporters fault, that fault belongs to the individual for not being smart enough to see clearly and use common sense in choosing, or bailing from,their job.
Correlation, Causation, Common Cause.
Christina is not a journalist. the lack of facts in this article shows that clearly. She is not a humanitarian as she is advocating hardship for folks who have done nothing wrong. If you are referring to the retraction of the serralini study. Please try to do so in an understandable manner. The new editor actually recused himself from the actions. Also you are disregarding the possibility that he hated working there. Unethical corporation. You have not even proved that.
This is going to be a common response to many here and for good reason,
Never forget that to an expert in a
completely different field, you are the public.
So, Christina, has still not done her fact checking and if the “public” can show stuff like this. That the Swanson quote actually proved no presence of glyphosate in food. “epidemic of ill health” not only did she prove no epidemic. She showed no proof that biotech companies are responsible. She is not a journalist. And you are following her bad lead by making this comment “all your heroes did was deny a peer review” You failed to realize that I named no heroes. So, strawman at best. You did not name the study or why the peer review was “denied” So, neither of you is qualified. Though you clearly both have the right to continue proving so.
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html and http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/glyphosate-toxic/
Funded research through .edu is questionable in the least, results commonly favor future funding. That’s not science and would demonstrate the need for continual peer review research. Though due to the rapid advances in technology, peer or just plain simple review of research findings should be conducted with the applicable newest technology.
I have been involved in not for profits (501’s) also, so I’ll disregard that report also.
And the not for profit members have, due to their past affiliations, demonstrated questionable ethics.
So, you disregard 2 reports without reading them or showing even one error. Also showing not any history of either one as being historically bad sources.
I’m not going to show what my research has shown about your questionable sources. It is there, find it for yourself.
The main point would be that, research needs to be continued.
Again as technology advances so does research and applicable procedures. If your going to show studies that have used antiquated procedures, because they meet industry standards, your denying the validation of past, present and future scientific discovery.
I don’t have to be a scientist to know the industrial scientific community is holding back real progress in scientific research and development. Or should I say politics is infecting the scientific community?
It’s easy to look at some research report, but that isn’t the real problem.
As the title would suggest, this case is going to court and more researchers and experts are joining the cause. Again to assume that they would go against a large corporate legal dept without a well founded case is your problem.
Reporting is as much about reporting as it is about making an income.
Headlines generate income. And these responses to the article also create income, I’m sure she is glad to have your support.
You immediately attacked the author, your creation deal with it.
And your not a scientist, which renders, yours and my, arguments as non-credible.
Guess what? I just saw a new “study” by you so-called expert seneff get thoroughly debunked. Seems she claimed that glyphosate and gmos are causing concussions. Yup, you got a real winner there. Reporting is about finding and reporting facts. saarich does not do that. therefore not a journalist. And it is entirely possible for a nonscientist to post a credible BTW do you realize opinion backed by facts. You could even do so if you tried. Saarich, I doubt.
So what, scientists aren’t perfect and it’s good they peer reviewing findings. Make a valid point.
From the study, which would be related to common cause based on correlation and causation,
Essentially they argue that concussions are on the increase because the
general population had poor nutrition, disordered gut microbiota, and
increased exposure to toxins (specifically glyphosate and GMOs) which
render the brain less resilient to injury and less able to repair itself
after injury.
Though, based on my lack of scientific knowledge, glyphosate and GMO’s might not be the major attributing factor. Nutritional studies would narrow down the common cause.
Their study would be a relevant indicator, that more studies need to be conducted, instead of totally dismissing the indicated problem.
Maybe fast food is a part of the problem, not as many parents providing as many home cooked meals today due to economic needs, work.
Just don’t dismiss the problem, because the scientific community did it’s job.
Continue to research, the problem still exists.
The only person who is a quack would be those who demonize effort and continued imagination and efforts at gaining a better understanding of today’s many nutritional imbalances.
MSN CNN NBC CBS ABC, EVERYONE INDEPENDENT OR NOT, of the media outlets have marketing strategies and provide falsehoods, so what. Again make a valid point.
These are facts.
The valid points are that the athletes in question are much larger, stronger and faster. To question the work seneff does is not to “demonize” No one has accused her of joining the illuminatti. Knock off the drama. “today’s many nutritional imbalances” Where? proved by whom? “totally dismissing the indicated problem” Nobody did that. Just dissed seneff. Media outlets may or may not provide “falsehoods” There is a difference between a falsehood and an error.
There is also a difference between reading to satisfy oneself and reading for information and knowledge.
Here are the athletes we are dealing with,
His ego is literally addicted to the praise/good grades of whatever godlike Professor is instructing him. The hard-earned (and expensive!) diploma represents the ultimate doggie treat and confirmation, in his mind, that he knows it all.
Thanks to the tomatobubble for this wonderfully fitting explanation of societies experts.
You know if they can’t play well together, there is a problem that needs to be resolved.
The only facts relative to the athletes and concussion is their strength, the speed at which they collide, the equipment, and the coaching techniques relative to safety. That other stuff you brought up is just psycho-babble.
That’s assuming that every human is exactly the same.
Even a second rate scientist knows that we are not all alike.
Environmental conditions are relevant to our growth, therefore not all the same and there will be varying conditions within the same circumstances.
Environmental conditions being the key in support of the findings.
I’d like to be a party to any action against Monsanto, its owners the ill-umiNaughty, multinational corporations, governments, banks, courts, lawyers and/or other enemies of Humanity. Where do I sign up?
The International Agency for the research of Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organisation (WHO) , revised scientific tests on Glyphosate and concluded that there is sufficient
evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and that Glyphosate also caused DNA and Chromosomal damage in human cells. Big Business putting our health at risk for the all-mighty dollar. What’s new.
Did you know that alcohol is a class 1 carcinogen? That’s a higher classification than glyphosate. I’m not saying I think glyphosate is perfectly safe. I am concerned about herbicide residues too. But it’s worth putting things into perspective.
If I choose to drink alcohol, then I take the risk. People don’t choose Roundup, it is without our knowledge that our children’s food is laced with its cancer causing residue. Label GMO’S and then say, “Put things into perspective” .Thanks for your reply. 😉
“If I choose to drink alcohol, then I take the risk.”
No you dont, alcohol is only listed as an ingredient if it is added to food. Many foods contain up to 1% alcohol, including breads, puddings, sauerkraut, fruit juices, and many processed meats. You eat alcohol all the time.
Anything fermented can be called alcohol. The difference is Roundup is a pesticide and it is designed to kill. We dont have to worry about alcohol residue destroying our water or environment but toxic residue from Roundup is now found in our environment and in breast milk. Go and have a beer mate, its all ok, just don’t bash your misses or smash your car.
“Anything fermented can be called alcohol. “
Hmmm, I think you mean that anything that is fermented could have alcohol in it, am I correct? cause sauerkraut is fermented, but no one calls it alcohol.
Round up is designed to kill plants, and I am assuming that you are not a plant, so to you Round Up is as toxic as table salt. And Table salt is extremely toxic to some invertebrates, but that does not mean that it is toxic to you.
“We dont have to worry about alcohol residue destroying our water or environment”
Funny, I saw this earlier today.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222526/Streams-whiskey-Lightning-destroys-Jim-Beam-factory-Kentucky-releasing-800-000-gallons-bourbon-lake-catches-fire-struck-Firenado.html
“toxic residue from Roundup is now found in our environment and in breast milk.”
Nope, very little is found in the environment, and there is non in breast milk. It is not even found in regular milk and dairy cows eat far more of it than any human would.
“Go and have a beer mate”
Way ahead of ya! 🙂
EPSP synthase is among other beneficial microbes
*facepalm* EPSP synthase is not a microorganism. Maybe instead of having a yoga instructor, who pretends to be a science writer, Natural Society should get actual experts. Oh but that might lead to accurate information that doesn’t support the agenda of this website.
As we have seen now in numerous studies, GMOs and Roundup in particular alter gut flora, and negatively affect ‘beneficial bacteria.’
GMOs and RoundUp are not the same thing. Not even close. But I can see how falsely conflating the two helps promote the agenda of the anti-GMO camp. The only studies Sarich refers to deal with glyphosate. None present any evidence for GMOs themselves.
Dr. Seneff, an MIT scientist and one of the signatories to the class action statement above, has her own studies about the harmful effects of Roundup on gut flora.
Yeah….that’s total BS. Seneff has never conducted any original research on the subject. Her “study” is little more than a cherry picking and selective interpretation of existing research. All done by a person without any expertise in the relevant fields. Might as well get the yoga teacher to do the “study”!
[Seneff ]has shown a statistically significant correlation between Roundup exposure in children and the rising epidemic of autism
And the exact same correlation can be shown for autism and organic food sales. Remember kids, correlation and causation are two different things. That’s why you shouldn’t get your science information from a person with absolutely no scientific background.
Stephanie Seneff, received the a degree in Biophysics in 1968?
In recent years, Dr. Seneff has focused her research interests back
towards biology. She is concentrating mainly on the relationship between
nutrition and health. Since 2011, she has written over a dozen papers
(7 as first author) in various medical and health-related journals on
topics such as modern day diseases (e.g., Alzheimer, autism,
cardiovascular diseases), analysis and search of databases of drug side
effects using NLP techniques, and the impact of nutritional deficiencies
and environmental toxins on human health.
Source, MIT .edu
Your questionable due to giving false information.
Seneff has a BSc in biophysics. No one cares what anyone’s BSc is in. BSc are merely the minimum required for scientific literacy. Having a BSc does not make you an expert. That’s what a PhD does.
Didn’t you say,
Stephanie Seneff has a PhD in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science?
Now you mention her degree in biophysics?
My point,
Your questionable due to giving false information. She has verifiable credentials, you don’t. I’ll take her word, thanks.
And
Anything you say from this point, will be regarded as one of the many
Dis-information agents that have sprung up and are now becoming a rather
big business industry.
This would also be a significant example of the scientific communities mindset,
Seneff has a BSc in biophysics. No one cares what anyone’s BSc is in.
BSc are merely the minimum required for scientific literacy. So your calling her stupid?
I’ll bet she works beside PhD’s.
Bash your fellow scientist like that?
That would also bring anything you say under question., only a bigger question since you make claim your within their community.
Isn’t that called a back stabber?
No. She doesn’t have relevant credentials. A BSc does NOT make her an expert. Claiming her opinion is relevant based on her credentials is an argument from authority fallacy. In contrast to her, I actually do have a PhD in a relevant field.
You can choose to ignore me and take her word for it. You have the freedom to be just as wrong as she is. Science is not a friendly enterprise. It is very competitive and can be highly cutthroat. If you start making claims that aren’t supported by evidence, your respect as a scientist is done. I have no problem going after fellow scientists who attempt to use their credentials in place of empirical evidence.
#2
Dr. Nancy Swanson graduated from Western Washington University with a B.S. degree in physics and math in 1986.
She received her Ph.D. in physics from The Florida State Univ. She then worked as a staff scientist for the United States Navy.
Best to ignore you, you seem to be very experienced in disinformation, half truths.
I’m very experienced at what I do also, so what?
Science is bought and paid for.
Who was the monsanto fool that got hired into the some Gov agency and
started redacting scientific studies, even redacted one from monsanto’s own
scientific experts, but those were negative to their goals, monopoly. Yeah
cutthroat.
Both of these scientists have credentials, you have
none. And you have twice been caught in the same post providing
disinformation, minimizing the capabilities of various scientists, because your better that them. Very impressive scientist.
Your
also expressing discriminatory attitudes regarding your, presumed,
fellow scientists, followed with justifying your stereotyping your own,
presumed, colleges.
You should be thrown out of the scientific community for your attitude. But alas your needed for disinfo.
Your comment is designed right in line with agenda of disinformation agents. Again disinformation is a big business.
You’re wilfully ignorant. But that’s your right.
Much better, one liners, easier not to discredit yourself.
I can train you how to act as a Disinfo agent, if you want?
You think these folks would go up against the Monsanto multi million dollar funded legal dept without, what they believe, to be a solid case?
Yes, that is exactly what they are doing. they will lose. They have no real evidence.
And you have no inside knowledge as to the case being presented, so your statement is unfounded. It’s called assumption.
Just the fact that it is being presented before a judge provides some confidence as to their ability to defend their statements. And with the addition of 5 more experts adds credence to the fact that they are well prepared.
One does not need inside information. I am aware that seneff etc. specialize in correlation and have found no causal mechanism. So, until they find one they are doomed. The so-called experts add no credence. Fancy papers and degrees mean relatively little when used incorrectly. https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=273976 http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/glyphosate.asp
You are making links to far too many questionable sources.
Show one example of deceit or fraud from either of these organizations.
I have a right to my opinions and my research methods.
Based on my experience, always beware of 501’s.
Look for indicators of members past, if any doubt presents itself ignore and seek expertise elsewhere.
I would seek expertise elsewhere, your have a right to follow your paths.
Personally, I prefer Wranglers to Levis.
One doesn’t need inside information. Just a few facts about glyphyosate safety and correlation is not causation. Also awareness of the necessity of a causal mechanism. To those who like to post facts in the form of links. The so-called moderators on this site are starting to delete such in order to protect christina’s nonsense from being exposed.
Tell me about the law and legal precedence?
Your link was from snopes, lmao.
They will post it, that’s why I spell out the dotcom and don’t use the wwwdot, it avoids the moderation.
That should help all in posting links, try it again.
If I remember correctly I posted a glyphosate tecjhnical fact sheet and an article from Biofortified that included several clickable links by Anastasia Bodnar.
Yes, thank you, but it needs a peer review before it can be validated.
No, The fact sheet is well established and is the result of many years of reviewed studies and experience. The article from Biofortified makes many points and uses links to reviewed studies to back up the points made. Further not everything needs to be peer reviewed. Many articles refer to established facts are use logic and reasoning to teach. Others that were reviewed like serralini’s rat paper turned out to be garbage. So, validation can be done without peer review. Here is an example I chose because you won’t like it. http://www.biofortified.org/2014/02/industry-funded-gmo-studies/
“Bought and paid for” Got any specific evidence? Any studies other than by seneff serralini, and huber being regularly proved false?
Yes, Corporate lobbyists.
That is not specific, nor is it evidence. Just another vague accusation without backing.
You can research it, I’m not privy to congressional notes, and I can’t afford to go to the Library of Congress.
But it’s also on the internet in plain view.
No, not on the internet in plain view. You made the “bought and paid for” accusation regarding science. Yet can not name a single specific example. That is shameful.
The shameful thing is, there are many examples of “bought and paid for” research and unethical conduct throughout history and you are denying it.
It never ends, it’s still going on.
That is why history needs to be revisited and included in any research efforts.
Evil will never end and something that went on years ago is not relevant The only bought and paid for accusations relevant to monsanto, biotech in general and herbicides are the ones that are specifically relate to these subjects. not vague generalities.
Unfortunately the Corporations are having a hay day.
Doesn’t matter what their name is, so vague?
You applied the names to narrow the accusation down to meet your specific needs.
That is an opinion reserved for the individual, not relevant to reality.
But is should be considered as a clue.
As a scientist should know, further research is warranted to to resolve any conflicts.
What conflicts? Also there are plenty of scientists always researching. More will be done
Get your head out of papers and scientific procedures, there are many other aspects influencing the world in any given area.
It’s called the business model, which has a lot of considerations.
This is a crime scene, and there are many well funded players involved.
I remember when I was a kid and went to the store, the potato’s were huge.
Now they are all small, why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCer5NmEw5U#t=145
Nope, not back stabber. Telling the truth in a public.
Nor should you get your science information from a paid Monsanto shill. I don’t care if an automechanic did a study on Roundup and found it to be toxic if it was based on sound science. I’m used to being attacked for my background, that’s what you guys do – try to discredit and defame anyone who speaks out against these chemicals and the crops that they are meant to be grown with. No one said that glyphosate was the same thing as a GMO, but GMOs sure as heck are developed to withstand copious amounts of glyphosate exposure, so no one needs to ‘conflate’ the facts. They are apparent already. Are you actually trying to say that glyphosate isn’t highly toxic. GET REAL! Why don’t you go ahead and have a glass of the stuff at breakfast then? Oh, that’s right – it causes cancer!
I get my knowledge from the peer-reviewed literature and from first-hand experimentation. Unlike the people mentioned as signatories in this article, I actually have a PhD in a relevant field and have published work that involves transgenic plants (for research, not commercial purposes).
I get my knowledge from the peer-reviewed literature and from first-hand experimentation. Unlike the people mentioned as signatories in this article, I actually have a PhD in a relevant field and have published work that involves transgenic plants (for research, not commercial purposes).
No one said that glyphosate was the same thing as a GMO
Good. But unfortunately, I see these two falsely conflated on a regular basis. Perhaps you can help me correct this common misconception.
GMOs sure as heck are developed to withstand copious amounts of glyphosate exposure
Incorrect. Glyphosate resistance is a particular genetic modification. It is not a common trait among all GMOs. It is a common trait among current commercialized GM crops. But there are GM crops that are not glyphosate resistant and many non-plant GMOs that have nothing to do with herbicide resistance. You’re overgeneralizing.
Are you actually trying to say that glyphosate isn’t highly toxic.
Yes. Glyphosate is not highly toxic. Unless you consider table salt and caffeine to be highly toxic? Table salt and caffeine have lower LD50 values than glyphosate. That’s a fact, one I bet you didn’t know.
Why don’t you go ahead and have a glass of the stuff at breakfast then? Oh, that’s right – it causes cancer
I had a glass of beer the other night. Alcohol is a known carcinogen. In fact, ethanol in alcoholic beverages is classified as a class 1 carcinogen, which is a higher classification than glyphosate. That’s also a fact, and yet another one I bet you didn’t know.
My point is, there are valid reasons to be concerned but you have to put the risks into perspective. You lack perspective.
Paid shill? got any evidence. Clearly you know nothing about science. Evidence is needed before coming to conclusions. Your background should be questioned.
5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP) synthase is an enzyme that catalyzes the chemical reaction:
phosphoenolpyruvate + 3-phosphoshikimate phosphate + 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP)
Thus, the two substrates of this enzyme are phosphoenolpyruvate and 3-phospho-shikimate, whereas its two products are phosphate and 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate.
It is the BIOLOGICAL target of the herbicide, glyphosate and a glyphosate-resistant version of this gene has been used in genetically modified crops.
I know what EPSP synthase is.
Good
Bacteria and fungi are the microorganisms best suited to the production of enzymes – so yea, among IMPORTANT enzymes for good immunity and overall health, as was stated in the article. Face palm back to you.
Bacteria and fungi are the microorganisms best suited to the production of enzymes
This sentences doesn’t make any sense. “Best suited” based on what criteria and in comparison to what? Every living organism produces enzymes. Your statement is profoundly unscientific.
Try reading again, “These ENZYMES are part of our gut’s intelligence. As we have seen now in
numerous studies, GMOs and Roundup in particular alter gut flora, and
negatively affect ‘beneficial bacteria.” You don’t have to have a degree in science to understand that Roundup is poison. If you believe that, which I’m sure you don’t, you are likely just paid to comment here, then we have nothing more to argue over. We’ll just agree to disagree, and you can continue to be exposed to chemicals made by a corporation that has polluted out environment with PCBs, saccharin, agent orange, and GLYPHOSATE, among others!
You’re wrong. I am concerned about pesticide residues in our food. But the degree of my concern is based on science, not my imagination. I take measures to avoid pesticide residues, which include thoroughly washing fruits and vegetables or buying organic products whenever I can.
And I did re-read that sentence. As it is worded, it indicates that EPSP synthase is a microbe.
And you don’t need to have a degree to make a shill accusation that you have no evidence for nor a claim that there is such a thing as “gut’s intelligence.Also you need to realize that the company is no longer the same one it was back in the bad old days. The people are different and were no part of the decision makers from the 60s.
Yes, the 70’s scientific experts warned us not to release GMO’s until extensive research had been conducted.
And 90 days in china isn’t extensive research.
The research has been conducted. Even the EFSA says so. 90 days in china is nothing I have referred to. So, not relevant.
Not in a narrow minded view, then I would have to agree not relevant.
EFSA is a part of the Europeon Union, ie UN. Not a very good resource.
Besides this civil suit is being done in California.
Yup, best chance to find an ignorant enough judge that might not throw out this bunk is in Ca. Also I mentioned the EFSA research as many of you who do not accept the truth of glyphosate and g.e. safety often accept European science as more accurate the American. I was catering to a common bias. While EU states have made the error of joining the U.N. EFSA studies were performed independently of the U.N.
Ok here is the legal precedence,
California’s Cancer-Label on Monsanto’s Roundup to ‘Come Within 30 Days’
They have already lost, it’s a civil suit about their stating “will not harm humans.”
Legal precedence,
French Court: Monsanto Guilty of Chemical Poisoning
It doesn’t and your understanding is incorrect. Further the feds will likely overturn any Ca. decision.
Feds have no authority in the States actions.
Law is based on evidence, if there is enough conflicting evidence the court can order a peer review, as well as disregard conflict of interest evidence.
These aren’t 5 year old’s holding a kindergarten court session.
The legal field is a profession.
This is now a legal matter.
Look up the Commerce clause and the results of The War Between the States. The feds will have a lot to say. Also there is no precedents set until after a verdict is rendered.
California provides over 40% of the Nations food products, And that number is rapidly dropping.
This is a full blown assault on the agriculture in California, as the states produce out put is intentionally being diminished, poverty is created and land becomes available.
Open your eyes and look at the big picture.
They will get their label warning, because it will raise prices and ruin agriculture for the little people, benefiting the large corporations.
It’s called creating a monopoly, and poverty favors a monopoly.
California politics is a cesspool, the people are being destroyed and have been for a long time.
Look at the history of California and it’s politicians and their politics.
Look at the current drought and the favoritism, the drought was created.
Nestle continues to market over 750 million gallons of water from Cali a year, no reduction during the drought.
Your California agriculture is being attacked, the large agro-industries will survive, and the smaller farms will have to sell, but many will default, to survive.
So again, without a full historical knowledge and a narrow view on the problem, the real reasons are completely missed.
I predict the label will be changed, and the costs will rise, which will affect every price within the Cali market. Poverty is created through economic warfare.
Nancy Swanson has a PhD in math.
Stephanie Seneff has a PhD in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.
Rosemary Mason and Michelle Perro appear to be medical doctors.
Mae-Wan Ho background is in biochemistry, which makes her the closest to an expert in a relevant field among the five.
That being said, unless any of these five have empirical evidence to supporting their claims, their opinions amount to argument from authority fallacies (especially in the case of Swanson and Seneff who have no relevant expertise whatsoever).