Genetically modified food safe?

FARMERS have been modifying crops for millennia. They introduce new and desirable qualities to improve the food's taste, colour or smell; and eliminate unfavourable traits. All this has been done through conventional breeding – using selective breeding or artificial cross breeding of plants within a species.

Posted on 13 June 2017 - 08:07am
Last updated on 17 June 2017 - 01:17pm

Gurdial Singh Nijar

Now there is modern biotechnology. It inserts new traits into plants and animals by "cutting" a specific gene from an organism (say a plant or animal) and "pasting" it onto another organism. Things that never happen in nature. For example, a particular fish gene can be introduced into a tomato to preserve its shelf life.

Loads of food crops have been thus modified. A common soil bacteria that produces toxins has been introduced into plants to make them resistant to insects or herbicide tolerant.

A large part of some crops produced in the US (and shipped overseas) are thus modified – soy, sugar beet, canola and corn (88%). Other crops include papaya, tomato and sweet potato. This makes it much easier to spray them with Monsanto's weed killer, glyphosate. There is a raging controversy over a probable causal link between exposure to glyphosate and cancer.

Consumers are concerned about adverse health impacts of eating these genetically modified (GM) foods, despite the producers' assurance that they are as safe to eat as non-GM food. Some big food retailers in the UK – like Sainsbury and Safeway – have pledged that none of their house brand products contain GM ingredients.

Last month, the European Parliament passed a resolution opposing plans to authorise imports of products made from GM herbicide-resistant maize and cotton. And it called for an overhaul of the EU's authorisation procedure for these genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The position in Malaysia

Malaysia has approved GM soybeans and corn for human consumption. Lecithin (from soya) is used in a very large number of products that we consume – such as ice cream.

Malaysia imports GMOs, mainly from the US. Almost all of the feed for animals in Malaysia is genetically modified.

We are also experimenting to create GM crops – such as rice, papaya, bananas, pineapples and chillies; to resist virus infection, prolong shelf life, and delay ripening. We are also developing genetically-engineered oil palm to increase its beneficial oil content and create nutraceuticals (vitamin A and E); not quite into commercialising it for export yet, as European consumers oppose GM products.

Protection

We have enacted the Biosafety Act 2009 – to protect the environment and consumers from the health risks of GMOs and their products. Now any GMO intended for cultivation, contained use, field trials or consumption must be approved by the National Biosafety Board – assisted by an advisory committee. A large number of products have been approved.

In 2010, GM mosquitoes were released for field trials by the Institute of Medical Research to control dengue. The expectation was that the offspring of the GM mosquito would die before reaching adulthood. The plan was shelved shortly after – because, reportedly, its implementation was not cost effective.

Improvements

There remain several areas for biosafety improvement as highlighted in a recent Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment seminar.

First, GM products should be labelled – as mandated by the Act. So that consumers have the right to choose what they eat.

Second, the advisory committee – though doing a commendable best-effort work – must be beefed up with full-time professionals. Presently, they work part-time, in addition to their present heavy work-load. Besides the committee mainly assesses materials submitted by the industry. There is no independent verification or evaluation – as done by countries such as India.

Third, the committee should include civil society representatives to provide consumer perspectives.

Fourth, our laws on feed for animals must require disclosure of the possible GMO content of any imported GM feed – as required under the UN Cartagena Protocol.

Finally, we should explore non-GMO options before embarking on, what turned out in the case of the GM mosquitoes, to be a costly and wasteful project.

Industry measures

Commendably, the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers has formulated best-practices to prevent non-GMO food crops from GMO contamination; from the selection of the seed for planting until the final crop reaches the consumer.

The measures include: ensuring that pure seeds are used for planting; the sowing machinery is free from any contamination and not co-mingled with GM seeds; maintaining an adequate distance and buffer zone from fields planted with GM crops – to avoid wind and insect-borne cross pollination contamination; cleaning thoroughly harvesting equipment; sealing harvested crops to reduce the risk of contamination as the products are transported through a number of operators in the supply chain; inspecting and cleaning the elevators (used to load the grains for storage); making sure the mills used are cleaned; and avoiding contamination at the processing stage of food and feed through careful monitoring by trained staff buttressed by an efficient raw material analysis.

These, however, are voluntary non-binding, industry guidelines. There is no official regulatory oversight for their enforcement.

Unfortunately, as a National Biosafety Board study showed, most Malaysians (88%) are not aware of GMOs, their potential impact and our biosafety regulations.

It is time then to address all these shortcomings. To ensure that our food chain is not contaminated; and our environment not adversely affected.

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/2017/06/17/genetically-modified-food-safe

Roundup Gave Us Cancer

More than 800 people now believe Monsanto's Roundup contributed to their development of cancer, and it's likely thousands more lawsuits may be filed soon. Meanwhile, this ubiquitous toxic herbicide continues to be sprayed onto US farm fields with no restriction.


May 30, 2017

Story at-a-glance

• More than 800 people with cancer are suing Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, over claims the glyphosate-based herbicide caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
• Decades ago, Monsanto was able to persuade the EPA to change the classification of glyphosate from a Class C Carcinogen (suggestive carcinogenic potential) to Class E, which means there is evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans
• New research revealed a strong connection between large-scale Monarch butterfly deaths and glyphosate application

By Dr. Mercola

More than 800 people with cancer are suing Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, over claims the glyphosate-based herbicide made them ill — and Monsanto did little to warn the public, despite knowing cancer risks existed.1 In 2015, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, was determined to be a "probable carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is the research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), rather than taking immediate steps to protect Americans from this probable cancer-causing agent, decided to reassess its position on the chemical and, after doing so, released a paper in October 2015 stating that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.2

In April 2016, the EPA posted the report online, briefly, before pulling it and claiming it was not yet final and posted by mistake. The paper was signed by Jess Rowland (among other EPA officials), who at the time was the EPA's deputy division director of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC).

EPA Official Helped Stop a U.S. Investigation Into Glyphosate

Email correspondence showed Rowland helped stop a glyphosate investigation by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, on Monsanto's behalf.

In an email, Monsanto regulatory affairs manager Dan Jenkins recounts a conversation he'd had with Rowland, in which Rowland said, "If I can kill this I should get a medal,”3 referring to the ATSDR investigation, which did not end up occurring. Jenkins also noted that Rowland was planning to retire in a few months and "could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense."4 And it gets even worse. According to The New York Times:5

“Court records show that Monsanto was tipped off to the determination by a deputy division director at the E.P.A., Jess Rowland, months beforehand. That led the company to prepare a public relations assault on the finding well in advance of its publication.”

The court records also show that in making the decision that glyphosate does not cause cancer, the EPA used two studies that had been ghostwritten by Monsanto’s toxicology manager but were published using names of academic researchers.6 Timothy Litzenburg's law firm represents more than 500 people with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma who are suing Monsanto. He told CNN he expects the number of lawsuits to keep rising:7

"It would not surprise me in the least if there are 2,000 to 3,000 cases by the end of the year … This is the most-used herbicide in the world ... from the largest farm operations to backyard gardens. It's ubiquitous."

Thirty-Year Glyphosate Cancer Cover-Up Revealed

Monsanto has used the EPA’s supposedly-not-final report in court hearings to suggest glyphosate is safe, but the plaintiffs’ attorneys asked for documents detailing Monsanto’s interactions with Rowland to be released. In March 2017, a judge unsealed the documents, which revealed disturbing information.

According to Sustainable Pulse, Monsanto was able to persuade the EPA to change the classification of glyphosate from a Class C Carcinogen (suggestive carcinogenic potential) to Class E, which means there is evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans.8 The change occurred while Monsanto was creating Roundup Ready genetically engineered (GE) crops.

The news outlet also uncovered 1991 EPA documents detailing a Monsanto-funded study that found it may cause cancer. They reported, “[The study] was ‘reviewed’ again until it mysteriously showed no carcinogenic potential.” What’s more, the late Dr. George Levinskas, Monsanto’s former director of environmental assessment and toxicology, was reported involved in covering up the cancer risks of both PCBs in the ‘70s and, later, glyphosate in the ‘80s:9

“He wrote an internal company letter in 1985 stating the following: ‘Senior management at the EPA is reviewing a proposal to classify glyphosate as a class C ‘possible human carcinogen’ because of kidney adenomas in male mice. Dr. Marvin Kuschner will review kidney sections and present his evaluation of them to the EPA in an effort to persuade the agency that the observed tumors are not related to glyphosate.’”

California Labels Glyphosate as a Chemical Known to Cause Cancer

Meanwhile, while the federal EPA is allowing glyphosate usage to continue unchecked, California's Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced in 2015 that they intended to list glyphosate as a chemical known to cause cancer under Proposition 65, which requires consumer products with potential cancer-causing ingredients to bear warning labels.

Monsanto then filed formal comments with OEHHA saying the plan to list glyphosate as a carcinogen should be withdrawn. When they didn’t give in, Monsanto took it a step further and filed a lawsuit against OEHHA in January 2016 to stop the glyphosate/cancer classification. OEHHA filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and a Fresno, California superior court judge ruled on their behalf in February 2017.

This means new labels will be appearing in California that include a cancer warning on Roundup and other glyphosate-containing weed killers, including Ortho Groundclear, KleenUp, Aquamaster, Sharpshooter, StartUp,Touchdown, Total Traxion, Vector and Vantage Plus Max II and others. Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity and a former cancer researcher, told the Press Banner:

“When it comes to Roundup, California has become a national leader in flagging the very real danger posed by this vastly over-used pesticide … The state based its decision on the findings of the world’s most reliable, transparent and science-based assessment of glyphosate.”10

Scotts Pushes Cancer Chemical

Many people believe Scotts Miracle-Gro is owned by Monsanto. This isn’t true, but the two companies do have a close link. Scotts is the exclusive marketer of Roundup and generates about $154 million in total sales from the herbicide.11 With Monsanto’s reputation quickly tanking, however, The Motley Fool pointed out, “it's clear the Scotts Miracle-Gro name is getting besmirched by its association, and that … is tough to put a price tag on.”

While Monsanto brought in more than $3.5 billion from herbicide (primarily Roundup) sales in 2016, this pales in comparison to the $10 billion generated by Monsanto’s seed and genomics sector. Monsanto profits not only off the sales of Roundup but also, and more so, off the sale of the GE Roundup Ready seeds to go with it.

Scotts, on the other hand, enjoys no such double-dipping, but still paid Monsanto $300 million in 2015 to gain the rights to sell Roundup in China, Latin America and other markets.12 Another blow to their joint reputation occurred in 2003 when, with the permission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Monsanto and Scotts performed a field trial of experimental GE grass which, like Roundup Ready crops, is impervious to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

The grass, a type of GE creeping bentgrass that was being designed specifically for use on golf courses, turned out to be extremely hardy, so much so that the test plot was shut down and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns that the grass could negatively affect endangered species in Oregon. But by then it was too late.

The grass had already spread beyond the test plot, including into a nearby national grassland preserve. More than a decade later, the invasive GE grass is still a problem in Oregon. This certainly didn’t help Scotts’ reputation, and some, including The Motley Fool, have suggested the company should simply stop selling Roundup:13

“It's hard to quantify exactly how many sales Scotts Miracle-Gro foregoes because of this partnership, and it is possible Roundup sales actually outweigh those lost, but there is still harm to the brand reputation, which seems like a preventable forced error. It might be one the lawn-care specialist would be better off not committing simply by not having Roundup in its portfolio.”

Roundup May Be Killing Butterflies

Numbers of Monarch butterflies have decreased by 90 percent since 1996. As usage of glyphosate has skyrocketed, milkweed, which is the only plant on which the adult monarch will lay its eggs, has plummeted.

In 2013, it was estimated that just 1 percent of the common milkweed present in 1999 remained in corn and soybean fields and, tragically, while milkweed is not harmed by many herbicides, it is easily killed by glyphosate.14 A 2017 study published in the journal Ecography further noted a strong connection between large-scale Monarch deaths and glyphosate application.15,16 Sarah Saunders, Michigan State University integrative biologist and lead study author said in a press release:17

“Our study provides the first empirical evidence of a negative association between glyphosate application and local abundance of adult monarch butterflies during 1994 [to] 2003, the initial phase of large-scale herbicide adoption in the Midwest."

2,4-D Is Another Toxic Agricultural Chemical

2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, which was used to defoliate battle fields in the jungles of Vietnam, with horrendous consequences to the health of those exposed.

It’s also a common ingredient in “weed and feed” lawn care products, because it kills weeds without harming grass, fruits or vegetables, the latter of which makes it very popular among farmers. It’s also very popular among backyard gardeners, however, and this population may spread it on even heavier than farmers do on their crops. As reported by KCET news:18

“In several studies, 2,4-D was the most common herbicide found in suburban areas, and other studies have detected the herbicide in two-thirds of interior air samples taken from households. The herbicide breaks down in around a month in rich, moist soils but can linger indefinitely in other settings, for instance as a constituent of household dust.

An Ohio study found 2,4-D in 98 percent of the homes tested, though just one of the homeowners reported having used the herbicide in recent weeks.”

This is concerning because, like glyphosate, IARC ruled 2,4-D a possible human carcinogen in 2015, and there is concern it may increase the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and soft-tissue cancer known as sarcoma. Further, it’s an endocrine-disrupting chemical that may negatively affect thyroid hormones and brain development.

It may also be associated with birth defects, reduced fertility and neurological problems. Despite this, in 2014 the EPA approved the use of Enlist Duo — an herbicide manufactured by Dow Chemical that combines 2,4-D with Roundup, to be used on corn and soybeans genetically engineered to tolerate both 2,4-D and glyphosate.

“The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that by 2020, the use of 2,4-D on America's farms could rise between 100 percent and 600 percent now that it has been approved as part of Enlist Duo,” the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) stated, continuing:19

“According to [NRDC staff scientist Kristi] Pullen, ‘When you combine increased use with the potential for increased developmental, cancer, and other health impacts, you could create a perfect storm of hazard and exposure coming together.’”

Test Your Personal Glyphosate Levels

If you’d like to know your personal glyphosate levels, you can now find out, while also participating in a worldwide study on environmental glyphosate exposures. The Health Research Institute (HRI) in Iowa developed the glyphosate urine test kit, which will allow you to determine your own exposure to this toxic herbicide.

Ordering this kit automatically allows you to participate in the study and help HRI better understand the extent of glyphosate exposure and contamination. In a few weeks, you will receive your results, along with information on how your results compare with others and what to do to help reduce your exposure. We are providing these kits to you at no profit in order for you to participate in this environmental study.

In the meantime, eating organic as much as possible and investing in a good water filtration system for your home are among the best ways to lower your exposure to glyphosate and other pesticides.

In the case of glyphosate, it’s also wise to avoid crops like wheat and oats, which may be sprayed with glyphosate for drying purposes prior to harvest. As for the collusion between Monsanto and EPA, the lack of independence among regulators and promoters and distributors of health information has become of tremendous concern.

Due to a dramatic rise in scientific fraud and rampant conflict of interest, it's more important than ever to be able to gain access to the full set of data on research studies and identify potential conflicts of interest, as well as seek opinions from experts you know and trust, before making or taking a health recommendation.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/05/30/roundup-causes-cancer.aspx

Monsanto Mayhem

While the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mulls whether to restrict the use of glyphosate (active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide) amidst cancer concerns, Monsanto faces increasing lawsuits over environmental and health damages caused by their past manufacture of PCBs and for selling farmers dicamba-resistant GE crops, which resulted in crop losses due to illegal dicamba spraying.

27 December 2017

Story at-a-glance

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency held a series of public meetings to review evidence that glyphosate may cause cancer in humans
• Biotech trade group CropLife America has been weighing in heavily on the EPA’s decision and even succeeded in getting a supposedly “anti-industry” expert removed from the EPA’s advisory panel
• Washington became the first U.S. state to sue Monsanto over PCB pollution, noting that despite millions of dollars spent by the state for cleanup, the chemicals are still causing harm to protected salmon and orcas
• Missouri’s largest peach farmer is suing Monsanto for damage caused by dicamba drift; Monsanto sold dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybean seeds to farmers before the herbicide designed to go with them had gotten federal approval, which led to some farmers spraying older, drift-prone and illegal formulations of dicamba

By Dr. Mercola

In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is the research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), determined glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, to be a "probable carcinogen" (Class 2A).

This determination was based on evidence showing the popular weed killer can cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and lung cancer in humans, along with "convincing evidence" it can also cause cancer in animals.

Monsanto has maintained that the classification as a carcinogen is wrong and continues to tout glyphosate (and Roundup) as one of the safest pesticides on the planet. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), meanwhile, has yet to take an official position regarding the virtually unchecked use of this poison on U.S. soil.

The EPA postponed — at the behest of the industry — a series of public meetings it intended to hold earlier this year to discuss glyphosate research, particularly that linking it to cancer. In December 2016, those meetings finally took place.

Will the EPA Side With Industry or Move to Protect Americans' Health?

More than 250,000 public comments were filed with the EPA prior to the glyphosate meetings, at which another 10-plus hours of in-person public commentary is expected from scientists, activists and industry giants.

"The exercise is academic by design, but powerful economic forces are hard at work hoping to influence the outcome," The Hill reported, adding:1

"An official regulatory nod to cancer concerns could be devastating to Monsanto's bottom line, not to mention its planned $66 billion merger with Bayer AG, as well as to other agrichemical companies that sell glyphosate products.

Monsanto is also facing more than three dozen lawsuits over glyphosate cancer concerns and needs EPA backing to defend against the court actions."

Already, in September 2016, the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs released its glyphosate issue paper to evaluate the chemical's carcinogenic potential,2 in which it proposed glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.

Many experts disagree, however, and have suggested glyphosate is not only a probable cause of cancer in humans but also a "likely cause."

In a review published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, a team of scientists thoroughly reviewed the research behind the IARC's ruling, noting an association between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was found based on available human evidence.3

Associations between the chemical and rare kidney tumors, genotoxicity and oxidative stress and even DNA damage in the blood of exposed humans were also revealed.

EPA Removed 'Anti-Industry' Scientist From Panel at Industry's Request

After the public commentary period and meetings end, a scientific advisory panel will get to work offering the EPA its best sound scientific advice on whether glyphosate poses a risk of cancer to humans. At least, that's how it's supposed to work.

But industry is working hard to ensure that any science not on their side is overlooked by their friends in high places. Biotech trade group CropLife America is one group worth watching. They've launched a "full-fledged assault" against the team of IARC scientists who determined glyphosate's carcinogenic status.

Not only is CropLife trying to get IARC's U.S. funding cut, but it's demanding the EPA reject IARC's classification of glyphosate and allow for its continued virtually unchecked use in the U.S. First they tried to convince the EPA to forgo the scientific meetings over glyphosate entirely.

When that didn't work (although they did succeed in getting the EPA to postpone the meetings for several months), they sent the EPA criteria to use in selecting their expert panel.

After the EPA panel was in place, they told the EPA to remove epidemiologist Peter Infante, doctor of public health, saying he was biased against the industry. The EPA complied, even though Infante denied the allegations, but gave no explanation as to why the expert consultant was removed.4

This, coupled with an earlier snafu in which the EPA posted, then promptly removed, a favorable glyphosate safety assessment, has left environmental and consumer groups doubtful that the EPA will uphold its mission to protect public health. Patty Lovera, assistant director of the advocacy group Food & Water Watch, told The Hill:5

"Their track record is awful … We don't want to throw in the towel entirely. We want to try to hold them to their mission. But there is clearly evidence of industry influence. They aren't doing anything to inspire confidence that they're taking a serious look at this."

Does Glyphosate Contribute to Lou Gehrig's Disease (ALS)?

MIT scientist Stephanie Seneff and colleagues have published a new study detailing the mechanism by which glyphosate may contribute to the fatal neurodegenerative disease ALS.

A significantly increased risk of ALS has been noted in glyphosate-exposed workers.

The disease involves several protein mutations in glycine-rich regions, and the researchers suggested glyphosate may play a role in ALS by mistakenly substituting for glycine, an amino acid essential for the synthesis of DNA, during protein synthesis as well as by disrupting mineral homeostasis and setting up a state of gut dysbiosis.6They wrote in the Journal of Bioinformatics and Proteomics Review:7

" … [W]e paint a compelling view of how glyphosate exerts its deleterious effects, including mitochondrial stress and oxidative damage through glycine substitution.

Furthermore, its mineral chelation properties disrupt manganese, copper and zinc balance, and it induces glutamate toxicity in the synapse, which results in a die-back phenomenon in axons of motor neurons supplying the damaged skeletal muscles."

Monsanto Sued Over PCB Pollution

Monsanto's mayhem doesn't start or end with glyphosate, unfortunately. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) were produced from the 1930s through the 1970s.

Their high burning temperature made them a sought-after chemical for use as fire retardants and insulators, primarily in electronic devices although also in plastics, flooring and other industrial products.

After an estimated 1.5 billion pounds of PCBs were manufactured in the U.S. — the majority by Monsanto — it was revealed that they're incredibly toxic and persistent in the environment.

They were finally banned in 1979 after their carcinogenic potential and ability to accumulate in the environment were revealed; however, their toxicity was known to Monsanto long before that, perhaps as early as the 1950s and likely by 1970.8

PCBs have also been linked to infertility and reproductive and endocrine damage along with neurological effects, including damage to learning and memory. They're known neurodevelopmental toxins as well.

Monsanto (and Monsanto-related entities) is now facing at least 700 lawsuits on behalf of people who claim their exposure to PCBs caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma.9

In December 2016, Washington became the first U.S. state to sue Monsanto over PCB pollution. The state is seeking damages on several grounds, including Monsanto's failure to warn about PCBs, and its negligence and trespass for harming the state's natural resources.

Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson said they expect to win hundreds of millions or billions of dollars from Monsanto, noting that despite millions of dollars spent by the state for cleanup, the chemicals are still causing harm to protected salmon and orcas. As reported by CBS News, Ferguson stated:10

"It is time to hold the sole U.S. manufacturer of PCBs accountable for the significant harm they have caused to our state … Monsanto produced PCBs for decades while hiding what they knew about the toxic chemicals' harm to human health and the environment."

In addition, an increasing number of U.S. cities, including Seattle, Washington, Spokane, Washington and San Diego, San Jose, Oakland and Berkeley, California, have filed lawsuits against the company for causing disastrous environmental pollution.

Peach Farmer Sues Monsanto Over Illegal Dicamba Drift

As an increasing number of weeds develop resistance to glyphosate, biotech giants are working on a number of new GE crops that are "stacked" with a number of genetically engineered (GE) traits that, for instance, make the crops resistant to multiple pesticides.

Monsanto's new GE Roundup Ready Xtend soybean, for instance, is not only resistant to Roundup but to the herbicide dicamba, which is prone to drifting, as well. The U.S. EPA approved Monsanto's new weedkiller, XtendiMax, which goes along with its Roundup Ready Xtend cotton and soybeans — GE plants designed to tolerate both glyphosate and dicamba — in November, 2016.

However, Monsanto sold dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybean seeds to farmers before the herbicide designed to go with them (which is supposedly less prone to drifting) had gotten federal approval. Earlier this year, when farmers sprayed their new GE crops with older, illegal formulas of dicamba, and it drifted over onto their neighbors' non-dicamba-resistant crops, devastating crop damage was reported in 10 states.11

Bader Farms, Missouri's largest peach grower, is now suing Monsanto, claiming that dicamba drift damaged more than 7,000 of their peach trees in 2015, adding up to $1.5 million in losses, and another 30,000 trees, totaling millions in losses, in 2016.12

Dicamba Drift Leads to Alleged Murder

Tensions are rising as an increasing number of desperate farmers plant Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant crops and spray the damaging herbicide illegally without permits. In November 2016, a dispute over dicamba drift turned deadly, when Arkansas soybean and cotton farmer Mike Wallace was allegedly fatally shot by another farmer.

Wallace had complained to the Arkansas Plant Board that his crops were damaged by dicamba, which had drifted over after being sprayed on a farm just over the state border in Missouri. Allan Curtis Jones, who allegedly shot Wallace, worked at the farm where the dicamba was illegally sprayed. Modern Farmer reported:13

“According to a news release by the Mississippi County Sheriff’s Office, Jones allegedly told deputies he and his cousin … met up with Wallace to discuss the dispute concerning the alleged spraying of dicamba on the farm where Jones works. When Wallace grabbed Jones by the arm during the argument, Jones pulled out a gun and shot the older man, who was unarmed.”

Dicamba damage was also noted in 200,000 acres of soybeans in Arkansas, Tennessee and Missouri in the summer of 2016, along with 42,000 acres of peaches, watermelons, alfalfa and other crops in Missouri alone.

“The damaged crops have pitted farmer against farmer and strained relationships in the region, especially in light of the fact that insurance companies won’t compensate farmers for losses caused by wrongful or ‘off label’ herbicide applications due to drift,” Modern Farmer reported.14

Meanwhile, dicamba-resistant weeds have already sprouted in Kansas and Nebraska, raising serious doubts that piling more pesticides on crops will help farmers. " … [P]iling on more pesticides will just result in superweeds resistant to more pesticides. We can't fight evolution — it's a losing strategy," Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, told EcoWatch.15

To protect not only the people on earth now, but also those that will make up future generations, it's important that the widespread environmental contamination caused by chemicals like dicamba, glyphosate and PCBs is not allowed to happen all over again.

Test Your Personal Glyphosate Levels

If you'd like to know your personal glyphosate levels, you can now find out, while also participating in a worldwide study on environmental glyphosate exposures. The Health Research Institute (HRI) in Iowa developed the glyphosate urine test kit, which will allow you to determine your own exposure to this toxic herbicide.

Ordering this kit automatically allows you to participate in the study and help HRI better understand the extent of glyphosate exposure and contamination. In a few weeks, you will receive your results, along with information on how your results compare with others and what to do to help reduce your exposure. We are providing these kits to you at no profit in order for you to participate in this environmental study.

In the meantime, eating organic as much as possible and investing in a good water filtration system for your home are among the best ways to lower your exposure to glyphosate and other pesticides. In the case of glyphosate, it's also wise to avoid crops like wheat and oats, which may be sprayed with glyphosate for drying purposes prior to harvest.

Find Out the Glyphosate Levels in Your Body

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, and is the most widely used weed-killing chemical on farms, lawns, schoolyards and other public spaces. It’s also extensively applied to many crops before harvest. The World Health Organization (WHO) performed its own independent analysis in March 2015, and determined glyphosate is a probable carcinogen.

The Health Research Institute (HRI) in Iowa has developed a glyphosate test kit that will allow you to learn your personal glyphosate levels. I’ve recently gained access to a limited number of kits that I’m now able to offer on Mercola.com at cost, so no profit will be made on their sales. Ordering also allows you to participate in a worldwide study on environmental exposure to glyphosate.

Once you order the kit, simply follow the instructions on the package and mail to the address provided. Within a few weeks, you will receive your personal analysis, along with information on how your results compare with others, as well as tips to help reduce your exposure. Test kits are extremely limited, so please order yours today.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/12/27/monsanto-mayhem.aspx