EWNZ comment: do review our glyphosate pages at the main menu. I looked at this topic in the Rangitikei during 2013-2016, attempting to switch the council’s weed control to steam. At the end of the day, it appears that councils NZ wide prefer to use poison … surprised?Comfortably in bed with Agrichem.
“Millions of pounds of glyphosate were approved, defended, and sprayed worldwide on the basis of a paper we now know was fundamentally compromised and scientifically invalid.“
In a long-overdue move, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology has formally retracted the landmark 2000 glyphosate “safety” review by Williams, Kroes, and Munro — a paper Monsanto and global regulators have relied on for decades to assert that Roundup poses no carcinogenic risk to humans.
Crucially, the Editor-in-Chief confirms that Monsanto employees likely secretly wrote substantial portions of the paper, despite never being listed as authors or acknowledged — a revelation uncovered through U.S. litigation.
The retraction states that the article’s integrity has collapsed entirely, citing undisclosed corporate authorship, omitted carcinogenicity data, financial conflicts of interest, and a complete failure by the surviving author to respond to the journal’s investigation.
THE RETRACTION
1. Based almost entirely on Monsanto’s unpublished studies The review’s “no cancer risk” conclusion relied solely on Monsanto-generated data. Even worse, the authors ignored multiple long-term mouse and rat carcinogenicity studies that already existed at the time — including multi-year toxicity studies showing tumor signals. None were incorporated.
2. Evidence of ghostwriting by Monsanto Litigation records revealed that Monsanto employees secretly co-wrote portions of the paper, despite never being listed as authors or acknowledged. This alone violates the most basic principles of scientific integrity.
3. Undisclosed financial ties The authors appear to have received direct compensation from Monsanto for producing the paper — again undisclosed, again violating journal standards.
4. Misrepresentation of authorship and contributions By hiding Monsanto’s role, the paper created the illusion of independent scientific evaluation — even as corporate employees shaped the conclusions.
5. Regulatory capture revealed This paper heavily influenced global risk assessments — including U.S. EPA, WHO/FAO, and Health Canada evaluations — setting the tone for “glyphosate is safe” messaging for more than two decades.
While I am strongly opposed to politically motivated retractions and scientific censorship, this retraction was unquestionably warranted. The integrity failures were not ideological — they were structural, factual, and undeniable.
And the independent evidence that has emerged since 2000 only underscores how dangerous that original “all clear” truly was.
A recent controlled animal study demonstrated that glyphosate and Roundup can induce rare, aggressive, and fatal cancers across multiple organs — even at doses considered “safe” by U.S. and EU regulatory thresholds. These findings directly contradict the original review’s core conclusions.
Zhang et al found a statistically significant association between glyphosate exposure and increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans. Their 2019 meta-analysis pooled data from over 65,000 participants across six studies—including more than 7,000 NHL cases—and reported a 41% increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma among those with the highest glyphosate exposure:
In other words, independent science was pointing to serious cancer risks while Monsanto’s fraudulent ghostwritten review was actively minimizing them.
Millions of pounds of glyphosate were approved, defended, and sprayed across the world on the basis of a review that we now know was fundamentally compromised and scientifically invalid.
The collapse of this paper is not just a correction, it is an indictment of an entire regulatory era built on deception.
Sugar Industry Falsified Science to Sell America on Fluoride
A new study reveals the sugar industry has manipulated fluoride science since the 1930s — exaggerating benefits, concealing risks and steering attention away from sugar’s role in tooth decay. The findings show that industry influence shaped fluoridation policies, raising urgent questions about the public health guidance that persists today.
The sugar industry has manipulated scientific research on fluoride since the 1930s — exaggerating its benefits, suppressing concerns about serious side effects and shifting attention away from sugar’s role in tooth decay, according to a study published Monday in the journal Environmental Health.
Internal sugar industry and dental organization documents, analyzed by the study’s author Christopher Neurath, detail how the sugar industry helped shape the public health policies that, for decades, touted fluoride as a “magic bullet” against tooth decay.
The documents also show how the tobacco and chemical industries later adopted those tactics.
Neurath, research director for the American Environmental Health Studies Project, told The Defender that his research builds on work by Dr. Cristin Kearns. Kearns revealed how the sugar industry paid scientists to downplay links between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as a risk factor.
The sugar industry — and the industrial food industry as a whole — “have played a huge role in manipulating not just the science, but the policy,” Neurath said of his findings. “I think this helps to show they are likely culprit No. 1 in the chronic disease epidemic.”
Controversy over water fluoridation exploded after plaintiffs won a landmark lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in September 2024. The ruling — now on appeal — compels the agency to set new rules for regulating fluoride in water because fluoride poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s neurodevelopment.
Since then, numerous communities — and two states — have decided to stop fluoridating their water.
The “Make Our Children Healthy Again” strategy report, published earlier this month under the direction of U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., called on the EPA to review new science on fluoride’s potential health risks. The report also instructed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to update its water fluoridation recommendations.
Neurath’s study traces the sugar industry’s influence on fluoride policy back nearly 100 years, through major research institutions, the ADA and U.S. government programs.
“Chris Neurath’s new article shows how the sugar industry used fluoridation as a smoke screen — a tactic that raises troubling questions about the science that supported it,” Dr. Bruce Lanphear, an expert on the neurotoxic effects of environmental chemicals at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, told The Defender.
“These findings make it imperative for dentists, physicians and public health authorities to urgently re-examine the risks and benefits of fluoridation,” he said.
Lanphear is the principal investigator in one of the seminal cohort studies linking maternal exposure to fluoridated water to cognitive deficits in their children.
Industry established ‘Sugar Fellowship’ to investigate fluoride in 1930s
“The Sugar Fellowship was intended to produce evidence that would exonerate sugar from causing tooth decay (dental caries) or failing that, find ways to reduce caries without restricting sugar consumption,” Neurath wrote.
Cox studied the impact of sugar consumption on cavities in rats. In 1939, his flawed experiments — sometimes showing more decay in fluoride groups — led him to propose adding fluoride to drinking water.
Cox wrote major portions of a 1952 National Research Council report on the prevention of cavities that emphasized fluoride’s role. He never disclosed his links to the sugar industry.
That work gave the industry its “magic bullet” against tooth decay, Neurath said.
ADA agrees to ‘cooperate’ with sugar industry
In the decades that followed, the sugar industry quietly worked behind the scenes to use Cox’s flawed science to drive public health policy.
In 1944, Fice Mork, son of the president of the New York State Dental Society, left his position as public relations counsel for the ADA to become SRF’s public relations consultant.
That year, Mork and Robert Hockett, who directed SRF from its founding until 1953 — when he left to work for the tobacco industry — met with ADA executives who agreed to “cooperate” with SRF.
According to Neurath, Mork and Hockett persuaded the ADA to reverse its position on cavities. Instead of blaming cavities on nutritional deficiencies like excessive sugar consumption and vitamin D deficiency, the ADA began to promote fluoride as a solution for cavities.
Mork and Hockett organized a 1944 symposium for thousands of dentists, without disclosing that SRF was funding the event.
“The symposium was an opening salvo in a public campaign to promote fluoride and fluoridation as the solution to prevent tooth decay,” Neurath wrote. The “founding fathers of fluoridation” gave presentations on its benefits, according to Neurath.
SRF paid to print and mail 100,000 copies of the symposium proceedings to every dentist in the U.S., and also to pediatricians, public health officials and dental schools.
Mork and Hockett also met with the new editor of the Journal of the American Dental Association, Harold Hillenbrand, who agreed to “unofficially” inform Hockett about the positions of various people inside the ADA regarding the policy shift toward fluoride.
Hillenbrand later became the executive director of the ADA and held the position until 1970.
Kellogg’s teams up with dental industry to promote fluoride
During that same period, an executive from Kellogg’s — maker of sugary cereals — became chair of the ADA committee that set its dental health policy. The organization stopped pushing to reduce sugar consumption and started pushing fluoride.
Philippe Hujoel, DDS, Ph.D., a professor at the University of Washington whose own research exposed conflicts of interest regarding fluoride at the ADA, said Neurath’s revelations “add a substantial number of details on how organizations hide/obscure/protect their internal deliberations, their internal conflicts of interest.”
He added:
“Maybe more importantly, his report documents in detail the long, difficult, and arduous process of trying to uncover what happens behind the walls of confidentiality of organizations. The amount of work done by Chris is astounding.
“Reading Chris’s article, I was reminded of a quote by Alberto Brandolini, a Programmer: ‘The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.’ Chris’s work suggests it may be several orders of magnitude bigger.”
Hillenbrand was one of the first dentists to be elected to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), which raises questions about other IOM appointments, according to Hujoel.
“One wonders about all the other appointments at this Institute of Medicine and to what extent these appointments are partly responsible for the current diabetes epidemic,” he said.
Dentists ‘largely unaware’ of how sugar industry manipulated science
Neurath told The Defender that the sugar industry’s deceptive tactics have been going on for so long that many dentists and public health officials who embrace the use of fluoride are “largely unaware of any industry manipulation of the science.”
“The sugar industry very consciously targeted dentists,” he said. “They went to the top of the dentistry profession and got the ADA on board,” and the leaders of the ADA “hid the fact that they were essentially cooperating with the sugar industry from practicing dentists.”
The sugar industry also targeted dental schools and universities, Neurath said.
At Harvard School of Public Health, Fredrick Stare championed the idea that water fluoridation would prevent cavities. He founded Harvard’s Department of Nutrition largely with donations from the sugar industry and Big Food, according to Neurath.
Extracted from one of Fredrick Stare’s hundreds of weekly syndicated newspaper column articles. Credit: Christopher Neurath.
Neurath also reveals evidence that the industry influenced the National Institutes of Health National Caries Program, funded by Congress and launched in 1971 to fight tooth decay. He said the policy agenda for the program used language written by the International Sugar Research Foundation, the SRF’s successor organization.
Sugar industry, Big Food suppress facts on fluoride’s dangers
Today, the influence of the sugar industry is embodied in the giant food and beverage corporations, including Coca-Cola, the largest purveyor of sugar globally. Neurath said it is “almost the equivalent of the sugar industry today.”
In 2003, Coca-Cola donated $1 million to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, which has a “long-standing policy of promoting water fluoridation.”
More recently, as evidence emerged linking water fluoridation to reduced IQ in children, industry-backed scientists have gone on the attack.
Sugary food and beverage corporations, including Coca-Cola and Kellogg’s, contributed tens of millions of dollars to the National Academies of Science, Engineering & Medicine, which interfered with the publication of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) seminal report linking fluoride to neurotoxicity in children.
The review found “no cause for concern,” according to the press release that accompanied its publication, and has been touted by fluoridation promoters in their claims that water fluoridation is safe.
ILSI was founded by a vice president of Coca-Cola and has been funded by the beverage maker “along with a long list of major companies in the sugary foods, processed foods, infant formula, chemical, pesticide, oil and pharmaceutical industries,” Neurath said.
Documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests by plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the EPA revealed that the Oral Health Division of the CDC — the agency largely responsible for promoting fluoridation at the governmental level — privately met with some authors of the German review for help in counteracting the NTP’s findings.
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.
The ADA, together with organizations like the American Fluoridation Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics, continues a national campaign to push water fluoridation as safe and effective.
Government records requests show that these activities include coordinating behind the scenes with government officials — in ways that violate rules of federal grants — and bullying local officials who raise concerns.
The evidence on fluoride’s benefits has changed, and proof of its harms to children’s health is substantial, Neurath told The Defender.
In October 2024, an updated Cochrane Review concluded that adding fluoride to drinking water provides very limited, if any, dental benefits, especially compared with 50 years ago.
Numerous recent studies have shown fluoride’s links to reduced IQ and other neurodevelopmental issues in children.
Many major professional medical organizations have quietly dropped their previous long-term support for water fluoridation. These include the American Cancer Society, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Physicians, and the American College of Preventive Medicine.
The ADA did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment on the study.Related articles in The Defender
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
Whangarei, Far North, Kaipara, and Auckland communities share the concerns of many New Zealanders about the controversial Gene Technology Bill, quietly released just days before Christmas 2024.
The Bill proposes removing all ethical considerations and the Precautionary approach to outdoor GE/ GMO applications and the authors of the Bill have failed to adequately consult with the farming sector. In addition, the Bill proposes stripping local councils of their authority and jurisdiction in regard to outdoor GE experiments, field trials, and releases.
Removal of the authority of these councils would destroy what they have worked hard to achieve – much needed additional protection for the biosecurity of particular regions and the wider environment. These were put in place to address significant risks that would be faced by farmers and other ratepayers.
The Northland and Auckland Region, along with the Hastings District, are established GE Free food producing zones that provide protection from outdoor GE field trials, and releases.
“The Northland /Auckland Councils collaborated in a fiscally responsible manner to meet the needs of farmers and other ratepayers, after robust public consultation over a period of many years. “
“The councils wisely prohibit the release of any Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and make any EPA approved outdoor GE experiments and field trials a Discretionary activity, subject to liability provisions including the posting of bonds,” said GE Free Northland spokesman Martin Robinson.
“We fully support council rules without which GM free primary producers, including conventional, IPM, and organic, would be at risk of serious financial consequences, if not the complete loss, of their valuable enterprises, in the case of GE contamination from EPA approved activities,” said Robinson. “We urge concerned Northlanders and Aucklanders to make a submission opposing the Gene Technology Bill by the deadline of 17 January 2025.”
The proposals in the Coalition government’s plans to remove the rights of councils to prohibit GMO activities are in clauses 248 to 253 of the Bill* (1).
“This is a political fight any government would be foolhardy to pick, given the huge backing from the Northland and Auckland communities, the significant biosecurity risks, the concerns of Kiwi farmers, and the importance of our existing valuable GE free status, says GE Free Northland spokesman Martin Robinson.
Councils’ concerns about GE relate mainly to uncertainties over the economic, environmental, biosecurity, and socio-cultural risks, including risks to farmers and other primary producers.*(2)
Without a strict liability regime, unsuspecting third parties and local authorities are at risk of GE contamination. This would result in them being unable to sell their produce on the export market. The issue of liability for any adverse effects of GMOs grown in the area needs to be resolved before any outdoor experiments are permitted in Auckland/Northland Peninsula.
Instead of there being provisions in this Bill to compensate farmers for GE contamination, the opposite is proposed. Farmers and growers whose crops or stock are adversely affected must pay the clean up costs and suffer the losses of cancelled export orders. This would mean the loss of access to key markets and the current non-GMO market premiums they earn.
There has been no economic cost-benefit analysis carried out in the Bill on the effects of GE contamination on our primary sector exports.
“Farmers cannot afford to experiment with their income and livelihood. There’s no hardcore evidence to suggest anything is practical or feasible with this technology. Co-existence between GE and other crops is impossible without significant contamination threshold levels, as documented in North America and other countries.”
“Agriculture in New Zealand is worth around $56 billion in exports. Why would anyone in their right mind want to gamble all of that on something that might not even work and is highly likely to cause irreversible harm,” said horticulturist Zelka Grammer, GE Free Northland chair.
Analysis of the Bill has been carried out by a team of researchers from the University of Canterbury headed by Professor Jack Heinemann. Their area of expertise includes the biosafety of GMOs and risk assessment protocols. *(3) This analysis indicates that a robust scientific case has not been made for the proposed reforms to gene technology law and that we would be much better off sticking with the current laws under the HSNO Act (1996).
The right of communities to decide was confirmed by a landmark Environment Court decision in 2015. This decision gave councils the power, under the RMA, to control the outdoor use of GMOs in their regions.
The National Party’s previous attempt to take away communities’ ability to ban or control GM releases in their territories was strongly opposed by farmers and all councils from South Auckland to Cape Reinga as well as Hastings District Council and its ratepayers.*(4)
GE Free Northland urges NZ First to no longer support the unscientific, unsafe, and economically risky proposals in this Bill, and to respect the right of councils to choose sustainable integrated planning. *(5)
“NZ’s reputation in the global marketplace must be protected. GE crops have failed to perform overseas, with lower yields, higher herbicide use, and the creation of herbicide resistant invasive “super weeds”.
“This combined with ongoing consumer and market aversion to GE food means that this is not the path NZ should go down. We must continue to protect our valuable “Northland, Naturally brand” and high value agricultural economy against GMO contamination,” said Grammer.
The operative Northland “Regional Policy Statement”, Regional Plan, the Auckland Unitary Plan, and the Whangarei and Far North District Plans all have strong precautionary and prohibitive GE/GMO provisions, policies, and rules in place in keeping with the wishes of local farmers and other ratepayers. *(6)
Northland Regional Council is holding a workshop today at Whangārei council chambers in response to widespread concerns about the proposed legislative changes. *(7)
The explanatory notes in the Gene Technology Bill state:
“Subpart 9—Amendments to Resource Management Act 1991 Clauses 246 to 254 amend the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). In particular, these clauses— • define genetically modified and Regulator (clause 247): • prohibit a regional council or territorial authority from performing its functions under sections 30 and 31 of the RMA in a manner that treats genetically modified organisms differently from other organisms, including in regional plans, district plans and regional rules (clauses 248 to 253).”
All councils from south Auckland to Cape Reinga in Far North/ Te Tai Tokerau have precautionary and prohibitive GE/GMO provisions, policies, and rules- set up in keeping with the wishes of local farmers and other ratepayers, in order to protect our regions biosecurity, wider environment, economy, and existing GM free farmers/ primary producers, including conventional, IPM, regenerative,and organic.
Hastings District Council has achieved outright prohibition of all outdoor GE/GMO experiments, field trials, and releases for the duration of the District Plan.
*(2)
Whangarei District Council “Genetic Engineering Review” webpage, detailing the good work of the Northland/ Auckland INTER COUNCIL WORKING PARTY ON GMO RISK EVALUATION & MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
“Three major reports commissioned by the working party have identified a range of risks involved with the trialing and release of GMOs. They also include approaches to managing those risks.
GMO Reports [link to documents]
Environmental risks
GMOs becoming invasive and affecting other species including native flora and fauna
the development of herbicide or pesticide resistance creating ‘super-weeds’ or ‘super-pests’
long term effects on ecosystem functioning.
Socio-cultural risks
effects on Maori cultural beliefs of whakapapa, mauri, tikanga
ethical concerns about mixing genes from different species including human genes
concerns about the long term safety of genetically engineered food.
Economic risks
loss of income through contamination (or perceived contamination) of non-GMO food products
negative effects on marketing and branding opportunities such as ‘clean and green’ or ‘naturally Northland’
costs associated with environmental damage such as clean-up costs for invasive weeds or pests.
Associated with these risks are limited liability provisions under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996. “
*(3)
A comprehensive analysis of the Bill by Professor Jack Heinemann, an international expert in the biosafety of organisms created by gene technology, and his colleagues indicates that a robust scientific case has not been made for the proposed “reforms” to gene technology law.
See
Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety submission to the Parliament Health Select Committee on the Gene Technology Bill 2024.
Despite their reservations about a number of extreme proposals, NZ First supported the first reading of the Bill. Their support of the Bill is at odds with what they signed up to in the Coalition agreement, that is to “Liberalise genetic engineering laws, while ensuring strong protections for human health and the environment”.*
“Coalition Agreement between the National Party and the New Zealand First Party”
Primary Sector
• Liberalise genetic engineering laws while ensuring strong protections for human health and the environment
The Gene Technology Bill in its current form removes strong protections for human health and the environment, as well as undermining our biosecurity and proposing the removal of ethical considerations and the Precautionary approach. NZ First has previously had a strong precautionary GE/GMO policy.
*(6)
Northland operative Regional Plan and RPS provisions
Policy D.1.1 When an analysis of effects on tāngata whenua and their taonga is required – p 235
Policy D.5.32 Precautionary approach to assessing and managing genetically modified organisms -p 275
Policy D.5.33 Adaptive approach to the management of genetically modified organisms -p 275
Policy D.5.34 Avoiding adverse effects of genetically modified organism field trials -p 275
Policy D.5.35 Liability for adverse effects from genetically modified organism activities -p 275
Policy D.5.36 Bonds for genetically modified organism activities -p 276
Policy D.5.37 Risk management plan for genetically modified organism field trials -p 276
Objective F.1.15 Use of genetic engineering and the release of genetically modified organisms – p 294
The Northland RPS includes Precautionary policy 6.1.2 and Method 6.1.5, as well as the GE/GMO issue correctly identified as an Issue of Significance to Northland tangata whenua/ issue of concern to Northland communities…and the specific concerns of Maori regarding the risks of outdoor use of GE/GMOs to indigenous biodiversity
(as directed by Judge Newhook on 12 April 2018, the wording of Policy 6.1.2 and Method 6.1.5 has the following wording
“Policy 6.1.2 – Precautionary approach
Adopt a precautionary approach towards the effects of climate change and introducing genetically modified organisms to the environment where they are scientifically uncertain, unknown or little understood, but potentially significantly adverse.
This is confirmed by method 6.1.5 in the Northland RPS which states that:
“6.1.5 Method- Statutory Plans and Strategies
The regional and district councils should apply 6.1.2 when reviewing their plans or considering options for plan changes and assessing resource consent applications.
Policy D.1.1 of the Proposed Regional Plan includes a reference to genetic engineering. The policy requires effects on tāngata whenua to be addressed in resource consent applications where specified effects or activities are likely, including release of GMO’s to the environment.
*(7)
Northland Regional Council Workshop Wednesday, 12 February 2025 Council Chambers, Rust Avenue,
“12.45 – 1.45pm 3.0 Recent Central Government Legislative Changes
Reporting Officers: GM Environmental Services, Ruben Wylie, and Policy and Planning Manager, Tami Woods”
Further information:
According to an independent study by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), New Zealand’s primary sector exports could be reduced by $10 – $20 billion annually, if GMOs were to be released into the environment. The report was commissioned by Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ) to evaluate the cost of proposed regulatory changes governing gene technology. OANZ says that the costs, as well as supposed benefits of deregulating gene technology, need to be carefully considered.
The NZIER study authors note that the proposed changes to the regulations as outlined by Wellington bureaucrats at the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE), do not include a Regulatory Impact Statement, economic assessment, cost-benefit analysis or address the practicality of “co-existence” of GE and non GE crops..given the known vectors for GMO contamination (seeds, pollen, vegetative material, soils, waterways, machinery, animals, insects, extreme weather events).
The report was commissioned by Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ) to evaluate the cost of proposed regulatory changes governing gene technology. OANZ says that the costs, as well as supposed benefits of deregulating gene technology, need to be carefully considered.
26 November 2024 OANZ media release
Media Statement: “NZ exports risk multi-billion dollar hit if GMO rules deregulated”
“There is no ban on gene technology in NZ. This misleading hyperbole is used to obscure a failure to engineer products that will have a market or social value that exceeds the cost of compliance with reasonable regulations.”
– Professor Jack Heinemann, Genetics/ Molecular Biology, Canterbury University, and director- Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety
National Party previous attempts to strip local councils of their authority and jurisdiction, falsely claiming that council plans (Northland, Auckland, Hawke’s Bay, etc) prohibited ethical and humane medical research in the laboratory
Organic fruits and vegetables cost more than conventional ones — sometimes a lot more. But if you want to avoid pesticide exposure, is it always necessary to choose organic? Or are some conventional fruits and veggies less contaminated? In this article, we go in depth into the Environmental Working Group’s US-based report on the 12 dirtiest and 15 “cleanest” items of produce, to help you make smart decisions to protect yourself and your loved ones from harmful pesticides.
The agricultural industry is addicted to pesticides, and the entire world is paying the price. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that global pesticide use in 2012 amounted to approximately six billion pounds. Unfortunately, they haven’t published a report since then, but the number likely hasn’t improved and may have gotten worse.
While the term “pesticide” implies that these chemicals target and kill “pests,” a better name would be “biocides” (destroyers of life) because they do a lot more than poison pests.
Pesticides poison insects and pollinators; contaminate soil, water, and air; and can cause harm to farmworkers, agricultural communities, and people who eat produce sprayed with pesticides.
How common is it for US produce to have pesticide contamination? “Nearly 75% of nonorganic fresh produce sold in the US contains residues of potentially harmful pesticides,” according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
In this article, we’re going to review the most and least pesticide-contaminated produce, so you can make more informed fruit and vegetable purchases.
In this series, we explore the contentious findings surrounding fluoridation of the U.S. public water supply and answer the question of whether water fluoridation poses a risk and what we should do about it.
Previously: A confounding factor in the fluoride debate is the arsenic that contaminates the industrial sources of fluoride added to public water systems.
A groundbreaking federal lawsuit could ban fluoride from drinking water, overturning a decades-long program aimed at preventing cavities that has been challenged by mounting evidence of harm.
The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act in 2017, and it appears to be nearing its conclusion. Under the act, citizens can challenge the EPA in court when the agency rejects a petition to ban or regulate a toxic substance. The FAN’s suit is the first in the 44-year history of the act to actually get to trial.
The lawsuit has included pointed testimony from leading experts on environmental toxins and admissions from both EPA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials that fluoride could be linked to specific harms. The lawsuit has also revealed government interference in crucial scientific findings.
Note: Due to censorship of Dr Mercola’s articles he archives them to paid sub soon after publishing. I’ve therefore published this in its entirety however you may find the source link will no longer work. EWR
Story at-a-glance
Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) cause massive mitochondrial dysfunction, thus raising the risk for, and worsening, chronic and degenerative diseases
A perfect storm of DNA and cellular protein and membrane destruction is created when you aren’t burning fat for fuel (which creates excess superoxide) and then get exposed to EMFs
By creating doubt and controversy, the wireless industry effectively prevents the public from knowing the truth and demanding safer products. Another wireless industry strategy that prevents the problem from becoming public knowledge is the capturing of our federal regulatory agencies
Elon Musk’s Starlink project, which was slated to deploy up to 42,000 satellites into orbit around the earth, will blanket the entire planet with 5G internet frequencies. You won’t be able to escape it
Based on the studies already done on previous generations of wireless, we know it’s harmful, and 5G is only going to make matters worse, as it will dramatically increase our exposures
I was recently interviewed by Siim Land about my new book, “EMF*D,” described by Siim as “the most comprehensive guide … to everything you need to know about EMF.”
In it, I explain what electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are, the different types of EMFs you’re exposed to, the harms associated with exposure, the concerns surrounding 5G and, ultimately, how to protect yourself and limit your exposure.
As I explain in the interview, the thing that catalyzed me to write “EMF*D” was my deep appreciation of the impact of mitochondrial function in health and disease. Once I realized how EMFs impact mitochondrial function — because it’s very clear that EMF causes massive mitochondrial dysfunction — the danger our wireless society poses became very clear to me.
I also read a study1 stressing the importance of mitochondrial numbers for improving senescent cells — cells that are, in a manner of speaking, “senile” and have stopped reproducing properly. Instead, senescent cells produce inflammation, contributing to old age and, ultimately, death.
The fewer mitochondria you have, and the more dysfunctional they are, the faster you’ll age and the more prone you’ll be to chronic degenerative disease. By inducing mitochondrial dysfunction, our wireless world may well be driving us all into an early grave.
Cellphone Industry Hides Truth by Manufacturing Doubt
Considering the research data now available, you’d think everyone would understand and accept the fact that EMF is a serious health danger, yet many are still completely in the dark. With “EMF*D,” I hope to help more people understand this biological threat.
In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency EMFs as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”2 Then, in 2018, the U.S. National Toxicology Program published two lifetime exposure studies conclusively showing cellphone exposure causes cancer.
The NTP’s findings were also duplicated by the Italian Ramazzini Institute just a couple of months later. In the wake of these studies, Fiorella Belpoggi, principal investigator and director of the Ramazzini Institute, urged the IARC to upgrade RF-EMF to “probably carcinogenic” or higher.3
Now, just like smoking cigarettes, EMF exposure takes decades before its effects become evident (and even then, the health problem might not be directly linkable to EMF exposure), and this is a significant part of the problem as it allows the telecom industry to — just like the tobacco industry before it — whitewash concerns, manipulate research and prevent proper safety studies from being done.
There’s no doubt cellphone manufacturers are aware that EMFs from cellphones contribute to health problems, though. The evidence has been published for decades, and new research is constantly being added.
However, by downplaying positive findings and saying that findings of harm are inconclusive — in other words, by creating doubt and controversy — they effectively prevent the public from knowing the truth and demanding safer products.
Wireless Industry Is Even Worse Than the Tobacco Industry
Another wireless industry strategy that prevents the problem from becoming public knowledge is the capturing of our federal regulatory agencies, which the tobacco industry wasn’t even capable of.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Surgeon General and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention all warned people about smoking, yet the tobacco industry continued successfully selling cigarettes for another 20 or 30 years. The wireless industry, on the other hand, has captured the federal regulatory agencies, which prevents those warnings from being issued in the first place.
For example, the chief lobbyist for the wireless industry, Tom Wheeler, was appointed by President Obama to be the head of the Federal Communications Commission, which is a most egregious example of the fox guarding the hen house. Not surprisingly, then, in December 2019 the FCC announced they’re going to fund rural 5G deployment to the tune of $9 billion!4
The telecom industry has engaged in a vast and illegal fraud where, for decades, basic telephone rate payers — wire line customers — have funded the deployment of wireless in general, and now 5G in particular, through their phone bills.
This illegal redirection of funds amounts to about $1 trillion over the past 15 years, and without this money, 5G would not have been possible in the first place. Were the wireless industry forced to pay its fair share of infrastructure costs, 5G simply wouldn’t be economically feasible as a consumer product.
What’s so Great About 5G?
What exactly is 5G and why do some people want it? In short, it’s all about improving speed. Compared to 4G, 5G is 100 times faster. On a side note, you can determine what your bandwidth is by pulling up fast.com on your cellphone’s browser. If you’re on 4G, your bandwidth is probably not going to exceed 10 megabytes per second (mb/s). If you’re on 5G, it’s going to be between 500 and 800 mb/s.
So, the primary benefit of 5G is noticeably faster speed. The vast majority of people simply don’t need this kind of bandwidth, but it has great applications for commercial uses such as self-driving cars.
The problem is, 5G may end up making the earth uninhabitable for many who are already struggling with electrosensitivity, and the countless others for whom 5G may prove to be the thing that tips them over the edge into electrohypersensitivity syndrome.
Elon Musk’s Starlink project, which was slated to deploy up to 42,000 satellites into low earth orbit, will blanket the entire planet with 5G internet. You won’t be able to escape it, no matter how far into the wilderness you go.
5G Is a Prescription for Biological Disaster
Then there are the long-term dangers of 5G, which we still do not have a complete picture of. There has not been a single safety study done on 5G. Studies using 2G, 3G and 4G, however, including the NTP and Ramazzini studies, clearly show there’s cause for concern.
5G is more complex, as it uses a variety of frequencies, which makes it a potentially greater threat. The frequency of 4G is typically around 2 to 5 gigahertz (GHz), while 5G will be around 20 to 30 GHz, initially.
Eventually, it may go as high as 80 GHz, which will cause problems for people trying to remediate exposures because there are currently no inexpensive meters that can measure frequencies that high.
Based on the studies already done on previous generations of wireless, we know it’s harmful, and 5G is only going to make matters worse, as it will dramatically increase our exposures. 5G requires what essentially amounts to a mini cellphone tower outside every fifth or sixth house on every block.
We also have studies showing the impact of millimeter waves, which is what 5G is using, on insects, animals and plants, and those hazards are well-documented. So, it doesn’t just pose a problem for human health, but for the ecosystem as a whole.
Martin Pall, Ph.D., wrote an excellent paper explaining how EMFs affect your voltage gated calcium channels (VGCCs) — channels in the outer plasma membrane of your cells. Each VGCC has a voltage sensor, a structure that detects electrical changes across the plasma membrane and opens the channel. EMFs work through the voltage sensor to activate the channel and radically increase intracellular calcium levels into dangerous ranges.
Similar channels are found in most biological life, including animals, insects, plants and trees. So, flooding the planet with these frequencies will undoubtedly have serious biological consequences across the ecosystem. As such, it’s an existential threat to humanity.
One biological consequence is arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat). Other potential consequences include autism and Alzheimer’s. Heart and neurological problems top the list because your heart and brain have the greatest density of VGCCs. Men’s testes also have a very high density of VGCCs and, indeed, we have evidence showing EMFs increase men’s risk of infertility.
Everything points to these frequencies being a prescription for biological disaster, and between skyrocketing autism, Alzheimer’s and infertility rates, how can a society be sustained? It can’t. It will be extinguished.
We Don’t Need Wireless 5G
In reality, we can still get the bandwidth of 5G without 5G wireless. The alternative would be to deploy fiber optic cable. It’s faster, safer and less expensive.
Unfortunately, the money originally set aside to implement nationwide fiber optics was rerouted and illegally used to build the wireless infrastructure instead. This is why a group called The Irregulators5 are now suing the FCC to put a stop to the illegal subsidy to the wireless industry.
Wireline customers paid for an upgrade to fast and safe fiber optic wiring across the nation, but now we’re getting harmful 5G wireless instead. This lawsuit has the potential to alter the telecommunications industry from the ground up, and may be the “weapon” we need to halt to the 5G rollout in the U.S.
The Importance of EMF Avoidance to Protect Your NAD+ Level
Along with practical remediation strategies, “EMF*D” also covers things you can do to protect yourself on a biochemical level. A perfect storm of DNA and cellular protein and membrane destruction is created when you aren’t burning fat for fuel (which creates excess superoxide) and then get exposed to EMFs.
This causes a radical increase in nitric oxide release that nearly instantaneously combines with superoxide to create enormous levels of peroxynitrate, which triggers a cascade of destructive events to your cellular and mitochondrial DNA, membranes and proteins.
Although all biologic damage is of concern, it is the DNA strand breaks that are most concerning as they will lead to a radical increase in inflammation and virtually all degenerative diseases.
The good news is your body has the ability to repair this damaged DNA with a family of enzymes called poly ADP ribose polymerase or PARP It is a very effective repair system and works wonderfully to repair the damage as long as it has enough fuel in the form of NAD+.
The bad news is many of us are running low on this fuel. When excess peroxynitrate activates PARP to repair the DNA damage, it consumes NAD+, and if you run out, you can’t repair the damage. This appears to be a central cause for most of the diseases we now see in the modern world.
Optimizing your NAD+ levels may be the single most important strategy for improving your mitochondrial health. The first step is to reduce NAD+ consumption by the correct diet (low in processed foods and net carbohydrates and higher in healthy fats), along with EMF avoidance, as recent research shows NAD+ levels dramatically drop when exposed to EMFs.
Time restricted eating is also very helpful, as is exercise, both of which are powerful, inexpensive and safe ways to boost your NAD+ level.
Helpful Strategies to Limit EMF Damage
In “EMF*D” I also cover the Nrf2 pathway and the importance of minerals such as magnesium to limit the biological damage caused by EMFs. As explained in this interview, upregulating your Nrf2 pathway activates genes that have powerful antioxidant effects, thus helping protect against EMF damage, while magnesium — which is a natural calcium channel blocker — helps reduce the effects of EMF on your VGCCs.
On a side note, molecular hydrogen tablets are an excellent source of ionic elemental magnesium. Each tablet provides about 80 milligrams of ionic elemental magnesium.
Addressing EMF Pollution — A 21st Century Health Imperative
There’s no doubt in my mind that EMF exposure is an important lifestyle component that needs to be addressed if you’re concerned about your health, which is why I spent three years writing “EMF*D.”
My aim was to create a comprehensive and informative guide, detailing not only the risks, but also what you can do to mitigate unavoidable exposures. If you know or suspect you might already be developing a sensitivity to EMFs (full-blown hypersensitivity can often strike seemingly overnight), mitigating your exposures will be particularly paramount.
Many sufferers become obsessed with finding solutions, as the effects can be severely crippling. My book can be a valuable resource in your quest for relief.
The EMF Experts website6 also lists EMF groups worldwide, to which you can turn with questions, concerns and support. Should you need help remediating your home, consider hiring a trained building biologist to get it done right.
Brian Hoyer, a leading EMF expert7 and a primary consultant for “EMF*D” also has a company called Shielded Healing that can provide a thorough analysis of the EMF exposure in your home, and help you devise a remediation plan.
For decades, Swiss chemical giant Syngenta has manufactured and marketed a widely used weed killing chemical called paraquat, and for much of that time the company has been dealing with external concerns that long-term exposure to the chemical may cause the dreaded, incurable brain ailment known as Parkinson’s disease.
Syngenta has repeatedly told customers and regulators that scientific research does not prove a connection between its weed killer and the disease, insisting that the chemical does not readily cross the blood-brain barrier, and does not affect brain cells in ways that cause Parkinson’s.
But a cache of internal corporate documents dating back to the 1950s obtained by The New Lede in a reporting collaboration with the Guardian suggests that the public narrative put forward by Syngenta and the corporate entities that preceded it has at times contradicted the company’s own research and knowledge.
And though the documents reviewed do not show that Syngenta’s scientists and executives believed that paraquat can cause Parkinson’s, they do show a corporate focus on strategies to protect product sales, refute external scientific research and influence regulators.
In one defensive tactic, the documents lay out how the company worked behind the scenes to try to keep a highly regarded scientist from sitting on an advisory panel for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The agency is the chief US regulator for paraquat and other pesticides. Company officials wanted to make sure the efforts could not be traced back to Syngenta, the documents show.
And the documents show that insiders feared they could face legal liability for long-term, chronic effects of paraquat as long ago as 1975. One company scientist called the situation “a quite terrible problem,” for which “some plan could be made….”
That prediction of legal consequences has come to pass. Thousands of people who allege they developed Parkinson’s because of long-term chronic effects of paraquat exposure are now suing Syngenta. Along with Syngenta, they are also suing Chevron USA, the successor to a company that distributed paraquat in the US from 1966 to 1986. Both companies deny any liability and continue to maintain that scientific evidence does not support a causal link between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease.
“Recent thorough reviews performed by the most advanced and science-based regulatory authorities, including the United States and Australia, continue to support the view that paraquat is safe,” Syngenta said in a statement.
Chevron issued a statement saying that the company and predecessors had no role in causing the plaintiffs’ illnesses, and it “will vigorously defend against the allegations in the lawsuits.”
As part of a court-ordered disclosure in the litigation, the companies provided plaintiffs’ lawyers with decades of internal records, including hand-written and typed memos, internal presentations, and emails to and from scientists, lawyers and company officials around the world. And though the files have not yet been made public through the court system, The New Lede and the Guardian reviewed hundreds of pages of these documents.
Among the revelations from the documents: Scientists with Syngenta predecessor Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. (ICI) and Chevron Chemical were aware in the 1960s and 70s of mounting evidence showing paraquat could accumulate in the human brain.
In a new study, Arizona State University (ASU) and the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGEN) have explored the effects of glyphosate exposure on the brains of mice. The research demonstrates, for the first time, that glyphosate successfully crosses the blood-brain barrier and infiltrates the brain. Once there, it acts to enhance levels of a critical factor known as TNF-α.
TNF-α is a molecule with two faces. This pro-inflammatory cytokine performs vital functions in the neuroimmune system, acting to enhance the immune response and protect the brain. When levels of TNF-α are dysregulated, however, a host of diseases linked with neuroinflammation can result. Among these is Alzheimer’s disease.
Neurodegenerative illnesses, such as Alzheimer’s disease, are among the most perplexing in medical science. The underlying causes of such diseases range from genetic factors and overall cardiovascular health to dietary influences and lifestyle choices. Various environmental contaminants have also been implicated as possible players in the development or advancement of neurodegenerative disease. Among these is a broad-spectrum herbicide known as glyphosate. Glyphosate is the most used pesticide in the world.
This latest study further demonstrates in cell culture studies that glyphosate exposure appears to increase the production of soluble beta amyloid (Aβ) and reduce the viability of neurons. The accumulation of soluble beta amyloid, the sticky protein responsible for the formation of soluble beta amyloid plaques, is one of the central diagnostic hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease.
Further evidence suggestive of potential hazards to neurological health were observed when the researchers examined changes in gene expression via RNA sequencing in the brains of mice following glyphosate exposure.
Glyphosate Box
Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here
Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here
Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure
These RNA transcripts hinted at disruptions in the expression of genes related to neurodegenerative disease, including dysregulation of a class of brain cells responsible for producing the myelin sheath critical for proper neuronal communication. These cells, known as oligodendrocytes, are affected by elevated levels of TNF-α.
“We find increases in TNF-α in the brain, following glyphosate exposure,” said Dr. Ramon Velazquez, the senior author of the paper. “While we examined (Alzheimer’s disease) pathology, this might have implications for many neurodegenerative diseases, given that neuroinflammation is seen in a variety of brain disorders.”
An enigmatic disease; a path of destruction
A hundred years have passed since the first diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Despite vast investments in research and drug development, the affliction remains without effective treatment. A suite of therapies, developed over many decades at extravagant cost, have one by one failed to alleviate the symptoms of the disease.
Alzheimer’s disease is the most common form of dementia. The progression of the disease usually begins with mild memory loss. As the disease develops, increasing confusion and a breakdown in communication abilities often result, as the affliction attacks brain pathways involved in memory, language and thought.
Some 5.8 million Americans are living with Alzheimer’s disease, as of 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unlike heart disease or cancer, the death toll for Alzheimer’s disease is on a frightening upward trajectory. By 2040, costs of the disease are projected to rise dramatically to between $379 billion and more than $500 billion annually. The staggering toll of the illness is currently projected to nearly triple to 14 million people by 2050.
The onset of symptoms typically occurs after age 60, and the risk to individuals doubles every five years after age 65. Although genetics are believed to play a role in some cases of Alzheimer’s disease and a family history of the disorder is considered a significant risk factor, environmental factors are believed to play a significant role in the disease.
Researchers are trying to learn how genetic correlates may subtly interact with environmental and other factors to decrease or enhance the likelihood of developing the affliction. Some recent research suggests that lifestyle changes, including proper physical activity, nutritious food, limited alcohol consumption and not smoking may help prevent or slow cognitive decline, noting that brain and cardiovascular health are closely linked.
Glyphosate toxic effects
This new study examines the neurological effects of glyphosate, the most ubiquitous herbicide. Each year, around 250 million pounds of glyphosate are applied to agricultural crops in the U.S. alone. Although the chemical is regarded as generally safe to humans by the Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority, researchers are taking a second look.
Little is known about possible long-term effects from prolonged exposure to glyphosate. One issue of considerable concern is that glyphosate can cross the blood-brain barrier, a layer of endothelial cells preventing dissolved substances in the circulating bloodstream from readily passing into the extracellular fluid of the central nervous system, where the brain’s neurons reside.
Potential risks to brain health posed by glyphosate should be critically evaluated, particularly for those consistently exposed to the herbicide.
“The Alzheimer’s connection is that there’s a much higher prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease in agricultural communities that are using this chemical,” paper co-author Joanna Winstone said. “We’re trying to establish a more molecular-science based link between the two.”
The study exposed mice to high doses of glyphosate, then detected elevated levels of TNF-α in their brains. The researchers then exposed extracted mouse neurons in petri dishes to the same levels of glyphosate detected in the brains of mice, observing elevated amyloid beta and cell death in cortical neurons. Dysregulated oligodendrocyte RNA transcripts, which could indicate disruption of myelination, were detected in brain tissue.
Taken together, the results demonstrate a correlation between glyphosate exposure and classic symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, though the authors stress that much more work will be required before a causative link can be established.
Nevertheless, the widespread use of the chemical and the disturbing correlation highlighted in the study underscore the need for intensified investigation. Among the pressing questions to be answered: How does prolonged, low-dose exposure to glyphosate affect the brain; does glyphosate act synergistically with other chemicals present in common herbicides; and can glyphosate be detected post-mortem in patients who died of Alzheimer’s disease?
On the horizon, new drugs designed to reduce TNF-α in the brain are being explored, offering renewed hope for those with Alzheimer’s disease as well as other neurodegenerative ailments.
Why the FDA and the EPA aren’t set up to protect us from contaminants in the food we eat.
In July 2017, The New York Times ran a story titled The Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese. Researchers, the article explained, had found plasticizers—known as phthalates—in the popular kids’ food. Fewer than two weeks later, the Timesreported that traces of the herbicide glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, had been found in Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. Several people asked me: Should we be worried? My answer: Yes, we should, but not just because researchers found plasticizers (which are chemicals that make plastics more durable) in our mac and cheese or herbicide in our ice cream. We should be worried because these kinds of environmental chemical contaminants are literally everywhere, in nearly all our foods. We know they exist in these two foods because researchers specifically looked for them. Roughly 9,000 environmental chemicals on the market end up in our foods, including food additives, colorings, flavorings, pesticides, and food-packaging chemicals. Even though they are ever-present in our environment and our bodies, many are never thoroughly tested for safety—and some are never tested at all.
An investigation in an aerial drop of 1080 that killed eight cattle in the King Country in September 2018 has found that the Department of Conservation breached one of its operating procedures.
The DOC pest control operation was conducted over the 1400ha Mapara Wildlife Reserve, 35km southeast of Te Kuiti.
The livestock got into the area via an insecure fence – something the farm owners dispute – and ate the poison.
The inquiry by the Environmental Protection Authority found that DOC did not advise the cattle’s owners, Mark and Paula Stone, of a decision to exclude a pocket of bush that they had given consent to include in the operation.
The EPA said however that the breach wasn’t a factor in the cattle deaths.
The Stones’ property borders onto the DOC land.
The EPA is recommending a better consultation process for 1080 drops, including providing more clarity for operators and landowners and better mapping.
It wants DOC to provide better information about how 1080 behaves once spread in terms of bioaccumulation and biodegradation.
The EPA also wants improvements to information, particularly for farmers, regarding withholding-periods, caution periods, before cattle are allowed back.
In September 2019, the Stones were critical of the delay the investigation was taking and said they were thinking about taking legal action.
In the months before the 1080 operation, DOC gained permission from the Stones to extend its operation onto 65ha if bush on their land.
Two months after the incident, the EPA decided it was appropriate to independently investigate.
Video from the GrafBoys YT channel. It questions the independence of the investigation following the poisoning of 8 cows during a 1080 drop in 2018. Intriguing information you likely weren’t aware of about the various players involved.
Chemtrail Artifacts: Real Cause of Global Insect Die-Off Covered Up By Media
From globalskywatch.com
I’ve seen it with my own eyes.
A year ago, there were easily 1,000 insects hanging around my porch light at night. Now, you are lucky to find 100. This change occurred in the past 12 months.
I personally witnessed the bee die-off in two separate locations. Both die-offs occurred within 12 months of dramatic increases in chemtrail spray activity. I also witnessed a ladybug colony die during a historic 3-day peak in chemtrail spraying. The spraying was so intense, that it finally prompted me to contact the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
Let me clear. All 3 sudden insect die-offs I witnessed occurred in direct correlation with the chemical aerosol spray program.
The Telegraph came out with a story 2 days ago that attempts to explain away the dramatic decrease in insect-splat on cars. They suggest that it may be due to an increase in the number of cars, or to new, more aerodynamic shapes of cars.
Our world is in huge trouble, and it is the direct result of chemical aerosol (“chemtrail”) spraying. Propagandic journalism is certainly do it’s part to cover up the largest crime against humanity in human history.
Remember what NZ’s retired MD Charlie Baycroft said recently …‘if you die from 1080 poisoning, nobody will know because the Ministry of Health is bullying NZ Doctors into not testing for 1080′. There is no evidence of 1080 poisoning he says, because it is not allowed to be looked for. EWR
Heart disease and Cancer dominate mortality in Whanganui where the Government owned 1080 poison factory used to burn 1080 to dispose before residents complained about the smell of toxic fumes. Eighty tonnes gets buried there and they signed off by digging up some baits that are well known to leach and then called that environmental testing. USA EPA have proved 1080 binds specifically and doesn’t flush off with water meanwhile Landcare have never tested for adsorption of 1080 to sand.. they don’t have an accredited test for gravel either. Take a look at where they buried 80 tonnes of baits that were defective due to moisture in the grains.. not because of defective 1080.. the place is coastal so has sandy soils. What monitoring of the local people’s health has been done to see if there is a link.. none. That’s the quality of the science here in New Zealand.
RELATED:Transforming a Whanganui wasteland to a wetland
THE CONTINUING PRIVATISATION OF NZ 1080 BAIT MANUFACTURE IS A CONCERN! – NOW CONNOVATION LTD HAVE APPROVAL AS WELL!
By Carol Sawyer
“Infant formula blackmailer, Jeremy Kerr, imprisoned in 2016.. ‘was named as one of the original directors of Connovation..’ “
“… the infant formula blackmail threat led to 60 anti-1080 people being interviewed by NZ Police (from 2,600 suspects), some as many as four times, yet all along it was a crime committed by a member of the poison industry itself.”
Here we have yet another would-be 1080 bait manufacturer, Connovation, about to try to grab a dwindling share of the 1080 bait market. I wonder if they are planning on making the bait in Auckland?
This was an application from Invasive Pest Control Limited (Connovation Ltd) …
“to generate efficacy data for an extruded pellet bait containing 0.8% cholecalciferol and an extruded pellet bait containing 0.15% 1080″
Decision: Approved with Controls and decision notified on 26 March 2019
This came out in the EPA Hazardous Substances Update for April. Link here:
Invasive Pest Control and Connovation are the same it appears. If you type Invasive Pest Control Ltd into Google, this is what you get: https://www.connovation.co.nz/about-us
********************************************************************
NEW 1080 BAIT FACTORY TO BE RUN BY CONNOVATION, …. CONNOVATION HAS A PAST WORTH LOOKING AT !
Infant formula blackmailer, Jeremy Kerr, imprisoned in 2016.. “was named as one of the original directors of Connovation..
Kerr developed an encapsulating system for cyanide and also pill manufacture for poison baits (also recreational drugs). The encapsulated cyanide (Feratox) came out in the mid ’90’s which Connovation manufactures and distributes to this day. The directors of Connovation were so upset that none of their products gained much traction in the animal poisoning market that Kerr eventually made his threat to put 1080 in the baby formula. Cholecalciferol is one of Connovation’s inventions and they have had it ready to drop from the air for 20 years.” –
John Veysey, Coromandel, 30 April, 2019
********************************************************************
For those who were not around or aware at the time, the infant formula blackmail threat led to 60 anti-1080 people (out of 2,600 suspects) being interviewed by NZ Police, some as many as four times, yet all along it was a crime committed by a member of the poison industry itself.
Jon Morgan, editor of NZ Farmer magazine, won the International Federation of Agricultural Journalists Star Award last October, the first New Zealander to do so. He is an amazing example of a totally bigoted journalist! Read here:
And all along a corrupt and greedy poisoner, Jeremy Kerr, was behind the infant formula threat, which cost the NZ taxpayer millions and millions of dollars!
Search the Register for every hazardous substance & new organism…
A must watch also is Poisoning Paradise, the doco made by the GrafBoys (banned from screening on NZ TV, yet a 4x international award winner). Their website is tv-wild.com. Their doco is a very comprehensive overview with the independent science to illustrate the question marks that remain over the use of this poison. There are links also on our 1080 resources page to most of the groups, pages, sites etc that will provide you with further information.
Check out the 1080 pages at the main menu, particularly the sub tab, ‘suspected 1080 poisoning cases’. Finally, remember what the retired MD Charlie Baycroft said recently …‘if you die from 1080 poisoning, nobody will know because the Ministry of Health is bullying NZ Doctors into not testing for 1080′.
NOTE:Comment by the author … ” I saw a news item that said he is out of hospital now. According to Kathy White’s research he spent a month in ICU, however, having opened a container in which something had spilt. But Worksafe is not going to release any findings until May, 2020.”
Seen anything sustainable happening since Rogernomics? Since the inception of the Agenda 21 plans? All that seems to be happening really is more rape & pillage with the blessing of the respective governments which really aren’t too different (in case you hadn’t noticed) … same bird different wings, offering you the illusion of choice. The Agenda 21 buzz word ‘sustainable’ is a bit of a joke really … three decades on and all we have to show for the outworking of that scheme by the various authorities (namely district & regional councils) is more pollution, more debt, more ‘austerity measures’ (for some… guess who) more poverty, more suicide, more homelessness and little of anything worth celebrating at all. They would like us to swallow the line that they are CONSERVING biodiversity … so they approve mining exploration in a dolphin sanctuary? They also bomb our native & non native species with a Class 1A Ecotoxin under the same guise. I think folk are waking up to the big sustainable lie now. It’s shot full of holes. EWR
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, of Ngati Ruanui, says she was shocked to hear of the permit being granted. The iwi is one of 11 organisations appeal Trans Tasman Resources consent to mine off the South Taranaki Coast
From stuff.co.nz
A mining exploration permit has been quietly granted inside a marine sanctuary off the Taranaki coast to protect the endangered Māui’s dolphins.
The decision, which was approved in May, has shocked conservation groups who were unaware of it.
But the Department of Conservation (DOC) had been aware of Ironsands Offshore Mining Ltd’s application since March. It has voiced “significant concerns” about the safety of the dolphins if the exploration proved successful and mining was to go ahead.
In March DOC warned Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage that it was uncertain whether the public was aware of the application and there would be a “high level of interest” if people were told of the development.
The exploration permit was later granted without seeking resource consent from the Taranaki Regional Council because its coastal plan rules exploration is a permitted activity.
Ironsands also has a permit to explore the seabed of Waihi Beach, in the Bay of Plenty, but this will require recourse consent from the regional council because its coastal plan requires it.
A Taranaki iwi already fighting mining plans off the coast of Pātea in South Taranaki said the approval raised alarm bells.
In an emailed statement, Te Runanga o Ngati Ruanui Trust kaiarataki Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said granting the five year exploration permit in the sanctuary, which runs from Oakura to Maunganui Bluff in Northland, set a dangerous precedent.
“Taranaki has been instructed by this coalition government to transition our economy away from fossil-fuelled industry. To do that we must have certainty that our unique appeal, including natural resources, will be protected,” she said.
In April, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced the end of offshore oil and gas exploration, about one month before Ironsands Offshore Mining’s exploration permit was granted.
The permit covers an area almost four times the size of that granted by the Environmental Protection Authority to Trans Tasman Resources (TTR) for mining of the coast Pātea.
The EPA’s decision was appealed by 11 parties and an appeal hearing was held in the High Court at Wellington in April. Justice Peter Churchman has yet to reveal his decision.
(Natural News) Do you know what’s really in the foods you eat? Sure, there’s a list of ingredients on the package, but your food could contain one very toxic substance that isn’t disclosed: glyphosate. You might not be too surprised to find this deadly herbicide ingredient in non-organic fruits and vegetables, but the truth is that it has also made its way into a surprising number of popular foods – and countless unsuspecting people are ingesting this dangerous carcinogen.
The Guardian reports that U.S. government scientists found glyphosate in foods like crackers, cornmeal, and granola cereal. Of course, this information wasn’t publicized; it was uncovered in emails that were obtained through a Freedom of Information request.
For two years, the FDA has been testing food samples for glyphosate residues, but they have yet to release the official results. Nevertheless, one email written by a chemist for the FDA, Richard Thompson, to his colleagues showed how pervasive the problem is.
“I have brought wheat crackers, granola cereal and corn meal from home and there’s a fair amount in all of them,” the Arkansas-based chemist wrote, adding that broccoli was the only food that he happened to have on hand that turned out to be free of glyphosate.
That email was dated in January of 2017. Unfortunately, because he made the discovery while validating his methods of analysis rather than as part of the official checks, the residues are unlikely to make it into any official reports. The FDA’s official findings aren’t usually released until around 2 to 2.5 years after the data is collected.
Meanwhile, FDA chemist Narong Chamkasen discovered levels of glyphosate that exceeded the acceptable levels in corn; the 6.5 parts per million found were well above the legal limit of 5.0 parts per million. Although such levels normally must be reported to the EPA, a supervisor with the FDA informed an EPA official in writing that the corn was not part of an “official sample.” It looks like Americans will never know which corn is going to give them cancer!
In 2016, Chamkasen also found glyphosate in several honey samples, along with oatmeal products. His lab was promptly “reassigned” to other tasks.
Each year, the FDA tests food samples for residues of pesticides to see if any are above the limit. However, they’ve only recently started looking out for glyphosate, despite the fact that it has been used for four decades. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer labeled the chemical a “probable human carcinogen.”
This article is from the ‘NO to 1080 use in NZ’ facebook page, and points to the conflicts of interest that exist regarding the funding of our universities. Universities that will not be biting the hand that feeds them. There is also funding from OSPRI, EPA and TBFree. So are you still feeling confident that DoC’s research on 1080 is safe & reliable? I’m certainly not. Any research you roll out from the independent scientists is quickly ‘debunked’ by the mainstream media. Some of the ‘debunkers’ write to this site but I decline to air their propaganda. Read the short article below.
Who stands to lose? Who stands to lose the most financially when New Zealand’s Department of Conservation (DoC) finally gets closed down, after being exposed as the corrupt government agency that it is? Sixty four years is a long time for Government departments to be operating without the proper accountability, reviews and transparency that tax-payers deserve to see. DoCs propaganda has been repeatedly protected by so-called ‘experts’ in positions of power.
One of the main sectors benefiting from perpetuating the disinformation about the harm from so-called ‘pest’ species and the ‘safe as a cuppa tea’ propaganda about the risks of 1080 poison in our drinking water and food chain is Higher Education.
Official Information Act (OIA) responses have revealed that over the past 5 years, over NZ$3 million has been provided by DoC alone (additional funds have come from Ospri, TBFree and the EPA etc) to the eight main New Zealand Universities. Massey University has gained the most (nearly $1m), much of this money is in ‘consultancy fees’ (rather than research funding) via their ‘College of Sciences’. Massey has approximately the same number of students as Otago, Victoria and AUT, which begs the question: How are students – our potential future scientists – benefiting from this funding? Clearly there are many staff at Massey and other New Zealand Universities who rely heavily upon DoC cash to support their salaries.
This potential conflict of interest breaks all the rules in terms of staff codes of conduct, ethical research and integrity of scientific facts. Education needs to be as unbiased as possible, not reliant upon conflicts of interest.
When will it end and when will rigorous, independent, valid scientific research into the harm done by 1080 poison operations begin?
NOTE: For further articles on 1080 use categories at left of the news page.
If you are new to the 1080 poisoning program, a must watch is Poisoning Paradise, the doco made by the GrafBoys (banned from screening on NZ TV, yet a 4x international award winner). Their website is tv-wild.com. Their doco is a very comprehensive overview with the independent science to illustrate the question marks that remain over the use of this poison. There are links also on our 1080 resources page to most of the groups, pages, sites etc that will provide you with further information to make your own informed decision on this matter.
If you are pro poisoning of the environment, EnvirowatchRangitikei is not the place to espouse your opinions. Mainstream would be the place to air those. This is a venue for sharing the independent science you won’t of course find there.
And finally, we don’t advocate violence in any way shape or form.
They are taking human sewage, laden with literally thousands of chemicals derived from prescribed medications, PLUS waste chemical discharges, and turning it into ‘nice’ soil for your gardens people. It is spread across the US into crops that YOU eat. I was always skeptical about the bags of compost we buy here in NZ with warnings about breathing the fumes, or not touching with bare hands … and read not that long ago a long article which I will try to find again, that gave warnings about the contents of our bagged compost that has been all hushed up. As I always repeat & is illustrated in this shocking scenario (thanks to the likes of Mike Adams’ work) CORPORATIONS TELL BOLD FACED LIES. Please watch ‘The Corporation’ movie. It’s on our Corporation pages. Oh and lastly folks, this is called ‘sustainable development’ by the liars who are poisoning your food. They call it that so you won’t question what they do. Put on your thinking caps & ruminate on what is really going down here. There has been nothing sustainable happening that I can see since their sustainable blather began in the early 90s, same time as the Agenda 21 kicked in & they signed up all of our countries, now outworking in our local increasingly fascist councils. The only sustainable items to be seen are corporate bank balances. Poverty is up, unemployment up, sickness up, homelessness up, debt up, I could go on. ‘Sustainable’ is not working. Not for us anyway. Not for we the people.
Please watch Mike’s doco. It’s offered free for viewing and will not be a waste of the half hour it takes. You will be shocked.
(Natural News) The bombshell documentary has now dropped: Biosludged exposes the criminal pollution enterprise known as the “EPA,” which produced fake, fraudulent science in order to “legalize” the mass pollution of America’s soils and croplands with toxic sewage sludge.
The film, available to view for free at this link on BrighteonFilms.com, features former EPA scientist and whistleblower Dr. David Lewis, author of Science For Sale, who reveals the shocking extent of the EPA’s criminal activities and scientific fraud.
To this day, the EPA continues to operate as a criminal pollution enterprise, faking the science while America’s soils are contaminated with a toxic brew of biological organisms, heavy metals, synthetic chemicals and pharmaceuticals. This is the same EPA that has, for years, actively conspired with Monsanto and other biotech companies to look the other way as their toxic herbicides and pesticides decimate honey bee pollinator populations.
As you’ll see in the Biosludged film, the EPA has essentially become a bioterrorism organization, and this dangerous situation where a prominent department of the U.S. government has been weaponized against the environment continues under President Trump, just as it did under Obama, Bush and Clinton before.
Who will stop the EPA before the rogue agency destroys the viability of food-producing crop lands across North America?
Watch the full trailer at the link, then go to BrighteonFilms.com to view the full film and download the full movie files that you can openly share with others.
Well I’m blown away. Herald has published a piece about alternatives to 1080. Just on the heels of my post on mainstream media. Either there’s progress on that front, or there’s more to their agenda than meets the eye. I would have to say I get a little suspicious when MS does a turn around. However… in the meanwhile, this is good news. It comes specifically from Hawke’s Bay Today & is a scathing commentary on a previous opinion piece about 1080.
*Norm Brown: There are alternatives to 1080 poison
Norm Brown says dropping 1080 with no due care of the results is ‘despicable’ Photo: Hawke’s Bay Today
In reply to Mark Story’s opinion piece that claimed 1080 angst is “unhinged and ill-informed”.
You call me unhinged because I argued with Ospri about aerial spreading 1080 over tracks and river edge in the Kawekas where we take students tramping and which is used frequently by tourists and New Zealand public.
You call me unhinged when I then find out a couple of weeks later that the MoH had actually told Ospri to ground treat the area concerned. That Ospri also told me that the area would be safe and just wash the students’ shoes is even more insulting.
To say I am ill-informed when I am working to the only official regulations available by law to me, the label and the chemical data sheet, is slander and fraudulent.
To say that other anti-1080 people are ill-informed is also slanderous and fraudulent.
You are saying that the label and the chemical data sheet are false science. Are you really saying that everyone should ignore chemical labels and data sheets or do you just wish to pick on 1080?
If you are saying that the regulations are fraudulent then I suggest that you very quickly get the Government to change the EPA personnel because you have just called them incompetent and mischievous.
To be 100 per cent truthful you should be saying that anti-1080 people believe in the regulations while the pro-1080 people such as Ospri have been given dispensation not to work to the regulations.
Even then the pro-1080 people are disobeying the few restrictions placed on them when given the dispensation. There are two rules governing 1080. This is the essence of the issue. This has been stated often.
So now it comes down to who is actually ill informed, the anti-1080 people or Ospri and commentators like yourself?
When Ospri forces non-compliant applications of 1080 on the populous with no due care of the results it is despicable.
It builds the fear, anger, frustration and a genuine need to protest. Your article ridicules those affected and only adds heat to this.
To tell anti-1080 people they are using false science, when they are working to the label and data sheets (the regulations), builds the anger to contempt and accusations of fraud and corruption.
Your opinion piece has just drawn all these on to you and your paper. Integrity would require your words to be withdrawn and an apology offered to all of New Zealand for helping expose them to this horrendous deadly poison that has no antidote, has horrendous side effects on all mammals (humans are mammals) birds, insects, and plant life.
1080 breaks down at 200C, dissolves easily in water and is known to create secondary and tertiary poisoning, and in many cases leaves the carcasses to rot over many months in catchment areas (insects die if they try to eat the carcass), creating a bacterial contamination.
It is time you did some research to find what is driving the fear and anger and the frustration. It is columns like yours that are ill-founded, ill-informed and somewhat unhinged.
You say anti-1080 people create havoc with the environment, which is also slanderous.
Most of us are well aware of the environment and the protection of it. Especially when it comes to humanity.
Awareness is driven by fear that we will have more effects like thalidomide, 245T, 24D, DDT, and asbestos, to name some. These were all declared safe by the manufacturers and our own EPA and yet created social trauma. The 1080 label and EPA say 1080 is not safe.
If you get a chance, look at the photos the New Plymouth nurse took over several years of fetal defects in the Paratutu area where the Dow factory was located. I am sorry, humanity comes first.
To try to tell New Zealand that there is no alternative to 1080, is crap.
Pests are very well controlled in all farmland and It was not aerial dropping of 1080.
Alternatives are controlled and precise.
However, I would prefer the expansion of these alternatives to the short and long term results of current uncontrolled aerial spreading by people who have no credibility or ethical behavior.
* Norm Brown is a director of Mohaka Rafting on State Highway 5
Becoming a familiar story isn’t it? (They legally have around 21 days to come up with the requested info).
Recently we saw they’d declined to notify the public of the presence of 1080 in storage which they should be doing (remember Whitianga?). Or if it is burnt which they also recently declined to do in Levin. And increasingly, info is declined in the OI requests. I’ve also been hearing lately information about the burial/dumping of 1080 & also of asbestos in ‘unknown’ locations! If folk know anything they need to blow the whistle. This is an area of total cover up in more ways than one. Yet another illustration that the ‘sustainable’ verbiage on the council websites is just that & of no particular use except to pull the wool as the saying goes. Sustainable practices stopped with Rogernomics. The history is long and damning. EnvirowatchRangitikei
Horizons Regional Council’s chairman has blasted the Defence Force for keeping his organisation in the dark about contamination from firefighting foam used at Ohakea airbase.
The regional council was not told groundwater and water supplies might be contaminated until December last year – many months after the Defence Force knew of a potential problem.
“We are the environmental agency and they wanted to keep it from us,” Horizons chairman Bruce Gordon said.
“We found out from the media [about the contamination] because the Defence Force didn’t want to share it with us.”
It was revealed last week Horizons Regional Council was asked for information about water systems near Ohakea Air Force Base in Rangitīkei three times before it was told there was a contamination problem involving firefighting foam.
The first request for information came as early as April 2016 – a year after the Defence Force received the first results of tests – but officials didn’t let on to the regional council that some water was contaminated until December 2017.
(Natural News) State politicians and conservation groups urged the United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) to hold off approval of bee-killing neonics in order to conduct a full scientific review of the pesticides involved, reported an EcoWatch article.
Congressmen Earl Blumenauer and Jim McGovern recently reintroduced the Saving America’s Pollinators Act, a bill that blocks new neonicotinoid insecticides while the EPA is investigating the full extent of their effects on bees, humans, other animals, and the environment.
Various conservation groups and environmental organizations have also presented a huge collection of public comments to the EPA. More than 100,000 individuals are pressing the agency to reduce the widespread use of neonicotinoid pesticides.
The EPA is currently investigating the preliminary ecological and human health risks posed by the neonicotinoids clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran. It is also performing a preliminary ecological risk assessment for the widely-used imidacloprid.
According to the agency’s initial risk assessments, neonics turned out to be lethal to birds that consumed grass, seeds, and dead insects contaminated by the insecticides.
“EPA’s recent assessment confirms what the science has already shown,” remarked Nichelle Harriott of the environmental group Beyond Pesticides. “[That] neonicotinoids are highly toxic not just to bees, but to aquatic species and birds [also]. She stressed the importance of the EPA taking actions against those chemicals to protect U.S. waterways and pollinators.
“Our nation’s beekeepers continue to suffer unacceptable mortality of 40 percent annually and higher,” said Andrew Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety.
According to him, neonicotinoid contamination of numerous water sources endanger both wild pollinators and wetland birds. Kimbrell urged the EPA to accept the findings of numerous scientific literature and take appropriate actions to reduce the negative effects of these insecticides.
Research efforts showed that even small amounts of neonics can deprive migrating songbirds of their sense of direction when they need it most. And a United States Geological Survey study determined that the pesticide level in the Great Lakes are endangering important aquatic insects.
“By harming pollinators like bees and butterflies, and natural pest control agents like birds and beneficial insects, neonicotinoids are sabotaging the very organisms on which farmers depend,” said Cynthia Palmer of the American Bird Conservancy.
Neonics have already contaminated U.S. food supplies. A joint study by the American Bird Conservancy and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health discovered neonicotinoids in food samples taken from dining halls in the U.S. Capitol building.
As many as five different neonics were found in meals that congressmen, senators, and their staff eat every day.
EPA dragging feet on neonics crisis
Neonicotinoids are banned in Europe, while the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Canada urges a similar ban on imidacloprid, the most widely-used neonic formula.
“The only thing that is keeping the U.S. from joining other nations in banning the use of these devastating poisons is the immense profit that fuels PR campaigns, intense lobbying efforts, and questionable studies designed to mislead us on the harm these poisons do,” accused Dr. Luke Goembel of the Central Maryland Beekeepers Association.
Dr. Stephanie Seneff and host Elaine McFadden, MPH, RD go through disturbing research information uncovered in the 10,000 pages of Monsanto long term studies done decades ago before it was buried by the EPA. A colleague of Dr. Seneff repeatedly petitioned the EPA for the information. Monsanto did long term studies back then, and it is frightening that the cumulative and destructive results of those studies did not stop the government from approving its use, but instead choose to hide the information from the public. Monsanto learned that if they did studies longer than 3 months the truth starts to reveal itself. Seralini did not start to see the abnormalities until after 4 months and then large tumors after two years: http://www.smarthealthtalk.com/gmo-fr…. Join us as we go through many of those results and break it down on how it can impact your body/health. Please subscribe to our channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2MS… for future updates. Note from Dr. Stephanie Seneff: I wanted to make a correction that it was Dr. Anthony Samsel who repeatedly approached the EPA to get the documents, and he has them in his possession. But they asked him to sign a statement that he would not let anyone else see them, so I have not actually seen the documents. He and I jointly wrote a paper on glyphosate and cancer where Monsanto’s early results on glyphosate and cancer and other disorders are discussed, as well as glyphosate uptake into the tissues and dangerous glyphosate metabolites that are produced in the body.
(Natural News) Great food is made naturally from preparation to serving, and how it is prepared has been a been a key component in the reduction of babies born with low weight and brain damage, based on a study published by the New York University (NYU) School of Medicine.
The report, published in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, states that eliminating chemicals that were used to make non-stick coating, like Teflon, have stymied more than 118,000 low-weight births as well as brain damage related to it. This finding was derived after a thorough examination of blood samples from women who had just given birth as part of a national health study.
Earlier studies have long connected the chemicals, which were known for making sure food does not stick to the pans, with hypertension, birth defects, and lower-than-average weights. These points were the key issues behind the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) stewardship program on the reduction of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) — one of the main components in non-stick materials — as well as subsequent efforts to eliminate production in 2014.
Researchers assess that the sharp dip in chemically-linked births have helped save the country at least $13.7 billion in health costs caused by long-term hospital stays for infants and the continued treatment for the cognitive damage sustained. This figure also accounts for future gains made when the children accomplish higher education levels and gain employment.
“The evidence is overwhelming that the EPA-industry accord to phase out chemicals once used in nonstick coatings has been a major success in protecting children’s health,” according to lead investigator and epidemiologist Dr. Leonardo Trasande, who is also an associate professor at NYU. “[The] policy designed to lessen human exposure has spared thousands of newborns from damage to their health and saved U.S. taxpayers over a billion dollars in unnecessary health care costs.”
Kiwis love this product and most I’ve found won’t hear a bar of the voluminous body of independent research. You will see them walking the streets with their backpacks, no protective gear in sight, spraying often in high winds. I’ve seen them & filmed them. They can also be alarmingly aggressive if you cross them. Councils are just as bad, many of them farmers, they refuse to hear anything bad of the manufacturers. With cancer rates now at 1 in 3 surely you would think they would want to err on the safe side and desist from using it but no, we must have our yellow berms, ditches and garden edges mustn’t we? And Monsanto wouldn’t lie to us? Would they? See our glyphosate pages. EnvirowatchRangitikei
“Migratory monarch populations have declined by 80 percent in the past two decades, and their decline has been driven in large part by the surge in glyphosate use ” Sustainable Pulse
A NZ paddock sprayed with Glyphosate .. the ground is later plowed and stock will later feed on the new grass … right into the food chain
A federal advisory panel of independent scientists unanimously found earlier this year that in assessing glyphosate the pesticides office at the EPA failed to follow its own guidelines for determining whether a chemical can cause cancer. In the final draft released today, the EPA stated that the guidelines “… are intended as a guidance only …” and do not necessarily have to be followed.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released Monday a controversial analyses that rely heavily on industry studies to conclude that glyphosate poses no significant risks to humans.
The EPA review, which ignored the agency’s own guidelines for assessing cancer risks, contradicts a 2015 World Health Organization analysis of published research that determined glyphosate is a probable carcinogen.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup and most widely used pesticide in the world; 300 million pounds of it are used in the U.S. each year.
“The only way the EPA could conclude that glyphosate poses no significant risks to human health was to analyze industry studies and ignore its own guidelines when estimating cancer risk,” said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The EPA’s biased assessment falls short of the most basic standards of independent research and fails to give Americans an accurate picture of the risks posed by glyphosate use.”
A federal advisory panel of independent scientists unanimously found earlier this year that in assessing glyphosate the pesticides office at the EPA failed to follow its own guidelines for determining whether a chemical can cause cancer. In the final draft released today, the EPA stated that the guidelines “… are intended as a guidance only …” and do not necessarily have to be followed.
Scientists typically use previously agreed upon guidelines to prevent biases from swaying the analysis in one direction or another.
The chair of the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee, Jess Rowland, resigned in 2015 amid controversy. Emails obtained in litigation brought against Monsanto by cancer victims and their families uncovered a disturbingly cozy relationship between the EPA and Monsanto on matters involving the glyphosate risk assessment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that popular pesticides linked to declining bee populations also pose a threat to birds and, in some cases, small mammals and insects.
The EPA released preliminary scientific assessments of four chemicals from the neonicotinoid or “neonic” class of insecticides on Friday as part of an ongoing review that environmentalists and farmers are watching closely. Previous EPA assessments echoed researchshowing that neonics can harm the bees we rely on to pollinate crops when sprayed on cotton and certain fruits and vegetables.
“The EPA’s assessments confirm neonicotinoid pesticides are extremely harmful to birds and aquatic life at the very center of our ecosystems,” said Lori Ann Burd, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health program, in a statement.
Environmentalists blame all four of the neonic pesticides under review at the EPA — clothianidin, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran and imidacloprid — for declining populations of honey bees, butterflies and other pollinators, including several endangered species. Of the four, imidacloprid is probably the most widely used and controversial.
In their most recent assessment, EPA scientists determined that imidacloprid poses an “acute risk” to birds when sprayed on crops. Birds, small mammals and insects could also be harmed if they eat crop seeds treated with the pesticide.
The findings echo a report published earlier this year that found imidacloprid and the controversial organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos can impair songbirds’ ability to find their way while migrating. Environmentalists are also concerned that the chemical may pose health risks to humans, including cancer and increased rates of autism in young children.
In 2016, the EPA also found that imidacloprid “potentially poses risk to [bee] hives when the pesticide comes in contact with certain crops that attract pollinators,” according to a preliminary assessment released at the time.
Following our recent approval in clean green, GE free Enzed of GM potato crops this is a bit of a farce given Helen Clarke (Labour note for those who are rejoicing at the other wing of the same bird that’s currently now in) approved the growing to harvest of GM corn in 2000 or thereabouts. It was uncovered, having already been planted, then ordered to be pulled up by Clarke who then flip flopped after a bit of corporate persuasion. So here it is again, some 17 odd years later … yes it is farcical. They’ve been tampering with the genes of all sorts including animals, all along. This kind of food has already been independently researched & found seriously wanting. Eat it at your own risk I would say. EnvirowatchRangitikei
Story at-a-glance
Corporate GMO propaganda is hitting the big screen. Forty-five scientists, academics and writers have signed a statement calling the food industry-funded film, “Food Evolution,” a piece of corporate propaganda that misrepresents the GMO issue
EPA has approved RNAi corn for human consumption, which is based on “gene silencing” technology. Research suggests RNA may have the ability to silence genes inside your body as well
A new generation of GMO crops resistant to dicamba is wreaking havoc across the U.S., as neighbors to farms growing dicamba-resistant crops report massive crop destruction from dicamba drift
By Dr. Mercola
Pesticides are taking a major toll on health across the globe. According to a recent United Nations (UN) report,1 pesticides are responsible for 200,000 acute poisoning deaths each year, and chronic exposure has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility.2
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization and the “gold standard” in carcinogenicity research, found glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world — is a probable human carcinogen.3,4 As of July 2017, glyphosate is listed as a known carcinogen under California’s Proposition 65,5 which means products containing glyphosate must carry a cancer warning label.
Pesticides like Roundup also threaten the health of the soil, thereby threatening the very future of agriculture itself, as healthy soils are key for growing food.6 So grave are the concerns over the health and environmental effects of pesticides, the UN’s report proposes a global treaty to phase them out and transition to a more sustainable agricultural system.
All of this is terrible news for the chemical industry in general, and Monsanto in particular. Last year, Monsanto accepted a $66 billion takeover bid from Bayer AG,7,8,9 which would make the new entity the largest seed and pesticide company in the world. The merger is expected to be finalized by the end of 2017. However, as noted in the Bloomberg video report above, suspicions of carcinogenicity now pose a serious threat to this deal.
Court Will Determine Roundup’s Role in Cancer
Plaintiffs10 in a class-action lawsuit against Monsanto claim Roundup caused or contributed to their non-Hodgkin lymphoma.11,12 The outcome of this lawsuit may influence Bayer’s decision to acquire Monsanto or back out of the deal. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) reevaluation of glyphosate’s toxicity may also have a bearing on the planned merger, although it will not influence the litigation against Monsanto.
U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria, who presides over multi-district litigation currently involving 310 cancer victims’ lawsuits against Monsanto, has stated that the scientific evidence presented at trial is what will settle the question of whether glyphosate can cause cancer — not the determination by the IARC or the EPA. According to Bloomberg:13
“Chhabria has allowed the plaintiffs wide latitude to collect evidence on Monsanto’s health-effects research over the years, which the plaintiffs hope will show the company manipulated the data.
In March he unsealed dozens of Monsanto’s confidential documents for the public to see. The records show internal deliberations on how to present the science on glyphosate’s health impacts and manage a global public-relations campaign to assure consumers and regulators that Roundup is safe.”
EPA Has a History of Protecting Chemical Industry
The litigation has brought to light evidence showing how the EPA has colluded with Monsanto to protect the company’s interests. For example, email correspondence reveals Jess Rowland — who was the associate director of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs and a key author of the EPA’s controversial glyphosate report — helped stop a glyphosate investigation by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) on Monsanto’s behalf.14,15
For example, a secret high-level dioxins working group at the EPA acknowledged thatdioxins are extraordinarily poisonous chemicals – yet the agency suppressed the fact that dioxins were found in everyday products such as diapers and coffee filters. And, the EPA suppressed its own research that found high levels of dioxin in environmental samples and human breast milk following routine use of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T (Agent Orange) by the federal Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
(NaturalHealth365) A massive cache of documents and correspondence between regulatory agencies and the chemical industry has now seen the light of day – and it exposes a stunning pattern of collusion and deceit. Over 200,000 documents – including study summaries, internal secret memos, meeting minutes and sworn testimonies – attest to the fact that both industry and regulators were aware of the extreme toxicity of many chemical products, and conspired to hide this information from the public.
The explosive papers became news on July 26, when the online publication The Intercept published an interview with author and archivist Carol Van Strum. To learn more about the incredible pattern of corruption and collusion, read on.
Undeniable evidence: Federal agencies and chemical manufacturers were “in bed” together
Naturally, the most obvious question is, ‘who are the major players in the Poison Papers?’ The answer reveals many people at the highest levels of government regulation and corporate industry.
Federal regulatory agency sources implicated in the scandal include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Department of Defense. The chemical manufacturers include Dow, Monsanto, DuPont and Union Carbide.
In addition, the toxic chemicals referenced in the documents include 2,4-D, Dicamba, permethrin, atrazine and Agent Orange – all of which continue to be manufactured and sold. In fact, it’s “business as usual” for 2,4-D, which has just been authorized by the EPA for use on Dow’s new GMO 2,4-D-tolerant soybeans – in spite of the fact that it is contaminated with dioxins.
To be clear, the Poison Papers are not just testament to deception and collusion that occurred in the past – they also reflect betrayals of the public that are ongoing to this day.
The Environmental Protection Agency official who was in charge of evaluating the cancer risk of Monsanto Co.’s Roundup allegedly bragged to a company executive that he deserved a medal if he could kill another agency’s investigation into the herbicide’s key chemical.
The boast was made during an April 2015 phone conversation, according to farmers and others who say they’ve been sickened by the weed killer. After leaving his job as a manager in the EPA’s pesticide division last year, Jess Rowland has become a central figure in more than 20 lawsuits in the U.S. accusing the company of failing to warn consumers and regulators of the risk that its glyphosate-based herbicide can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
“If I can kill this I should get a medal,” Rowland told a Monsanto regulatory affairs manager who recounted the conversation in an email to his colleagues, according to a court filing made public Tuesday. The company was seeking Rowland’s help stopping an investigation of glyphosate by a separate office, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, that is part of the U.S. Health and Human Service Department, according to the filing.
A federal judge overseeing the glyphosate litigation in San Francisco said last month he’s inclined to order Rowland to submit to questioning by lawyers for the plaintiffs, who contend he had a “highly suspicious” relationship with Monsanto. Rowland oversaw a committee that found insufficient evidence to conclude glyphosate causes cancer and quit last year shortly after his report was leaked to the press.
“There’s no problem with the ban of DBCP [dibromochloropropane] within the United States. In fact, it was the best thing that could have happened to us. You can’t sell it here anymore but you can still sell it anywhere else. Our big market has always been exports anyway.” (Executive, AMVAC Corporation)
Toxic herbicides are sprayed liberally around public places with no requirement to warn the public, and often little or no protective clothing worn by the operators
We are living in a world now that is awash with chemicals, found not only in sprays and pesticides, but in our food, water and air. Their use has become largely acceptable now with scant regard often for researching into their possible harmful effects. Any alarms sounded about possible risks are greeted with cries of ‘scaremongering’ or ‘over reaction’ … and yet the independent research is usually there and often ignored. I’m constantly dismayed at this lack of regard for the evidence, especially since our recent generations consider themselves more enlightened than those of our forbears. We have
the knowledge alright, but who will listen and heed it? A video which has encouraged me to keep speaking up about these environmental risks to our health has been that produced by TED talks (they’re on Youtube also) called ‘The Dangers of Willful Blindness’ (the video is on our Home page). Gayla Benefield was just doing her job — until she uncovered an awful secret about her hometown that meant its mortality rate was 80 times higher than anywhere else in the U.S. Worse, when she tried to warn people of her discovery they didn’t want to know! How often we are faced with fact but choose not to believe. We adopt what I call the ‘three monkeys’ approach where it’s assumed, if we neither see, hear nor speak we’re safe … a lot like the ostrich really. But somewhere down the track we run the high risk of it all coming back to bite us on the proverbial rear end!
The Environmental Justice Foundation on pesticide poisoning states that … Across all agricultural sectors, an estimated 1 to 5 million cases of pesticide poisoning occur every year, resulting in 20,000 reported deaths among agricultural workers and at least 1 million requiring hospitalisation….While developing countries account for less than 30% of global pesticide consumption, the bulk of pesticide poisonings occur in a developing world scenario, including an estimated 99% of pesticide-induced deaths…
Check our our Chemicals and Glyphosate pages … particularly note under Chemicals the 1080 page and how NZ is being bombarded with it. We consume the highest amount in the world, gradually ensuring there is a rapidly diminishing wild food supply. Another excellent source of information, a Kiwi site, is the Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa NZ (PANANZ).
Don’t mess with Monsanto Co. That is the message being delivered right now by the agrichemical industry as it makes a full fledged assault on the team of international cancer scientists who dared to declare cancerous connections to the widely used herbicide called glyphosate, the chief ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup brand.
Industry swagger is on full display in Washington where Monsanto and its friends at CropLife America are driving efforts to cut off U.S. funding for the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) after IARC scientists declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen in March 2015. The industry is also demanding that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fully repudiate the IARC classification and green-light continued use of glyphosate herbicides, which spell billions of dollars in sales annually to Monsanto and the agrichemical brethren.
The EPA has been evaluating glyphosate as part of a re-registration review process for more than five years, and was initially expected to complete that review last year.The EPA then said it would complete the review by the end of 2016, and now says it will be 2017 before it offers a final report.
Remember those rats in the header image were fed for two years on very diluted Roundup plus GE corn which is laced with Roundup being sprayed on it during its growing time. Yes this supposedly harmless herbicide is IN your GE food which of course isn’t labeled because they consider you don’t need to know, it being so safe. You can watch the video on the rat experiment on our Glyphosate pages. You could sign our petition on glyphosate use in the Rangitikei, praps also like our FB pages & spread the word. Thank you. EnvirowatchRangitikei
You must be logged in to post a comment.