IOPList.Org

Unless I'm mistaken the only flavor that did not show up positive-for

" weed " killer was the Jerry Garcia flavor

Is that ironic ?


And it was not really the ice cream fault that round up is getting into the food supply

I do not believe!

More news about this subject

Not very good on the company Monsanto

I hope this product is banned, Just my opinion . And I do not take that comment lightly


Was st a home products type store the other day and they had the Round Up on wooden pallets stacked real high
I cringed thinking what it is doing, as it appears

---

---

..
Monsanto’s Sway Over Research Is Seen in Disclosed Emails
By DANNY HAKIM
August 1, 2017

The weed killer Roundup, Monsanto’s highest-profile product. Documents revealed internal debate at the company over Roundup’s safety.
Jasper Juinen / Bloomberg


Documents released Tuesday in a lawsuit against Monsanto raised new questions about the company’s efforts to influence the news media and scientific research and revealed internal debate over the safety of its highest-profile product, the weed killer Roundup.

The active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, is the most common weed killer in the world and is used by farmers on row crops and by home gardeners. While Roundup’s relative safety has been upheld by most regulators, a case in federal court in San Francisco continues to raise questions about the company’s practices and the product itself.
The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment.

A similar issue appeared in academic research. An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, “I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.” He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: “We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.”

A Monsanto official said the comments were the result of “a complete misunderstanding” that had been “worked out,” while Mr. Acquavella said in an email on Tuesday that “there was no ghostwriting” and that his comments had been related to an early draft and a question over authorship that was resolved.
The documents also show internal talk about Roundup’s safety.
“If somebody came to me and said they wanted to test Roundup I know how I would react — with serious concern,” one Monsanto scientist wrote in an internal email in 2001.
Monsanto said it was outraged by the documents’ release by a law firm involved in the litigation.

“There is a standing confidentiality order that they violated,” said Scott Partridge, vice president of global strategy for Monsanto. He said that while “you can’t unring a bell,” Monsanto would seek penalties on the firm.
“What you’re seeing are some cherry-picked things that can be made to look bad,” Mr. Partridge said. “But the substance and the science are not affected by this.”

R. Brent Wisner, a partner at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, the firm that released the documents, said Monsanto had erred by not filing a required motion seeking continued protection of the documents. Monsanto said no such filing was necessary.
“Clearly Monsanto’s lawyers made a mistake,” Mr. Wisner said. “They didn’t properly take action to preserve the confidentiality of these documents.”
He added, “Now the world gets to see these documents that would otherwise remain secret.”

Mr. Miller’s 2015 article on Forbes’s website was an attack on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization that had labeled 
glyphosate a probable carcinogen, a finding disputed by other regulatory bodies. In the email traffic, Monsanto asked Mr. Miller if he would be interested in writing an article on the topic, and he said, “I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft.”

The article appeared under Mr. Miller’s name, and with the assertion that “opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.” The magazine did not mention any involvement by Monsanto in preparing the article.
Mr. Miller did not respond to a number of calls or a Twitter message asking for comment, and the Hoover Institution, where he is a fellow, could not reach him.

“That was a collaborative effort, a function of the outrage we were hearing from many people on the attacks on glyphosate,” Mr. Partridge of Monsanto said. “This is not a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. It’s an op-ed we collaborated with him on.”
Mia Carbonell, a Forbes spokeswoman, said in a statement, “We take this matter seriously and are in the process of looking into it.”
Mr. Miller’s work has also appeared in the opinion pages of The New York Times.

“We have never paid Dr. Miller,” said Sam Murphey, a spokesman for Monsanto. “Our scientists have never collaborated with Dr. Miller on his submissions to The New York Times. Our scientists have on occasion collaborated with Dr. Miller on other pieces.”

James Dao, the Op-Ed editor of The Times, said in a statement, “Op-Ed contributors to The Times must sign a contract requiring them to avoid any conflict of interest, and to disclose any financial interest in the subject matter of their piece.”

The documents also show that a debate outside Monsanto about the relative safety of glyphosate and Roundup, which contains other chemicals, was also taking place within the company.

In a 2002 email, a Monsanto executive said, “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies — Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.”

In a 2003 email, a different Monsanto executive tells others, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”
She adds, however, that “we can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.”

The documents also show that A. Wallace Hayes, the former editor of a journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, has had a contractual relationship with Monsanto. In 2013, while he was still editor, Mr. Hayes retracted a key study damaging to Monsanto that found that Roundup, and genetically modified corn, could cause cancer and early death in rats.

Mr. Hayes said in an interview that he had not been under contract with Monsanto at the time of the retraction and was paid only after he left the journal.

“Monsanto played no role whatsoever in the decision that was made to retract,” he said. “It was based on input that I got from some very well-respected people, and also my own evaluation.”

There is an INSANE documentary on the company "Monsanto" that makes round up on Netflix right now, and there twisted chemicals and GMO's as previously mentioned in this post.


I really recommend giving this documentary a look if your interested in how evil this company is

"the world according to monsanto" is the name... Netflix

Will have to look for that on netflix here,though i think in the UK we get different films than in other countries.
I have been aware of the toxic dangers of weed killer for a while now, more and more people are turning away from it.
As for Monsanto, they have been getting away with so many things that can harm us probably, GM crops, i dont want to be eating anything GM, i dont think GM is labelled here yet. So could be putting it into myself without knowing, no surprise they are going to court about this, they are really interested in one thing, massive profits.
Doubt they are doing this to make the world a better place, if they were they wouldn't be introducing harmful chemicals into the environment or our food,hopefully they can be stopped.No doubt they have several politicians in their pockets to get their poison into wherever they want it.
I wish i could afford to eat organic and/or farmers markets everyday, some of us just dont have the luxury of choice due to being on low incomes that seem to be getting even lower.

New Information.....


Monsanto Ordered To Pay Former Groundskeeper Nearly $290 Million In Damages


SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) — 

A San Francisco jury Friday ruled in favor of a former Benicia Unified School District groundskeeper who claimed the chemical glyphosate – contained in the popular herbicide “Roundup” – caused his cancer.

The jury ordered that Roundup manufacturer Monsanto pay Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, who is suffering from terminal non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, nearly $290 million in damages. 

The breakdown was $819,882 for loss of past earnings; $1,403,327 in future earnings; $4 million in past non-economic losses and $33 million in future non-economic losses.

When it came to punitive damages, the jury awarded Johnson $250 million of the $373 million he had sought.

“This jury found Monsanto acted with malice and oppression because they knew what they were doing was wrong and doing it with reckless disregard for human life,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a member of Johnson’s legal team. “This should send a strong message to the boardroom of Monsanto.”

Johnson told the court that during his four years as the groundskeeper at the school district, he sprayed 150 gallons of Roundup 20-30 times a year. 

On the stand, he described what he called his careful use of the product.

“I figured if it could kill weeds it could kill me,” said Johnson. “I took it seriously. That’s why I wore anything I could to protect myself.”

He described two days where he ended up accidentally drenched in the herbicide. He called Monsanto’s consumer hotline, but said the company never called back.

“They could have called him back. It’s a phone call. They could have said there’s studies that show its related to cancer, but they didn’t call him back,” said Johnson’s attorney Brent Wisner.

Following the verdict, Scott Partridge, a Monsanto vice president, issued the following statement: “We are sympathetic to Mr. Johnson and his family. 

Today’s decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews – and conclusions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and regulatory authorities around the world – support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer. 

We will appeal this decision and continue to vigorously defend this product, which has a 40-year history of safe use and continues to be a vital, effective, and safe tool for farmers and others.”

Jurors were shown some difficult pictures. Johnson’s cancer has caused him to develop lesions over 80 percent of his body. He spoke in court about how the lesions tore into his self-confidence, embarrassed his children, and kept him from going out in public.

“One of the issues in this case is the jury has to decide how has cancer affected his life and I think this goes straight to the heart of it,” said Wisner.

Johnson said the case has forced him to come to terms with his mortality. The case had been expedited because of his poor health.

---

More news about this potentially company devestating case for Monsanto.

---

.






Monsanto Slammed With $289 Million Verdict In Historic 'RoundUp' Cancer Lawsuit
A San Francisco Jury awarded $289 million in damages to a former school groundskeeper, Dewayne Johnson, who said Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller gave him terminal cancer. The award consists of $40 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages. 
Johnson's trial was fast-tracked due to the severe state of his non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph system he says was triggered by Roundup and Ranger Pro, a similar glyphosate herbicide that he applied up to 30 times per year. His doctors didn't think he'd live to live to see the verdict. 
Johnson testified that he had been involved in two accidents during his work in which he was doused with the product, the first of which happened in 2012. Two years later, the 46-year-old father of two was diagnosed with lymphoma - which has covered as much as 80% of his body in lesions. 
[img=500x0]safari-reader://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/johnson%20cancer%20%281%29.jpg[/img]
Monsanto says it will appeal the verdict. 

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]“Today’s decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews -- and conclusions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and regulatory authorities around the world -- support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer,” Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge said in a statement.[/color]

Monsanto is a subsidiary of Germany’s Bayer AG, which closed on its $66 billion purchase of the agrochemical company in June. 

On Tuesday, Johnson’s attorney Brent Wisner urged jurors to hold Monsanto liable and slap them with a verdict that would "actually change the world" - after arguing that Monsanto knew about glyphosate's risks of cancer, but decided to ignore and bury the information. 

[img=500x0]safari-reader://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/roundup%20shelves%20%281%29.jpg[/img]

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]According to The Guardian, Johnson is the first person to take Monsanto to trial over allegations that the chemical sold under the Roundup brand is linked to cancer although thousands have made similar legal claims across the United States.

This lawsuit focuses on the chemical glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, which Monsanto began marketing as Roundup in 1974.  The company began by presenting it as a “technological breakthrough” that could kill almost every weed without harming humans or the environment. -SHTFplan.com[/color]

In September, 2017 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that glyphosates were not likely carcinogenic to humans, based on a decades-long assessment. In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO)’s cancer arm issued an opposite statement - warning that glyphosate was "probably carcinogenic to humans." 

[img=500x0]safari-reader://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/johnson.jpg[/img]
Johnson's case isn't part of the consolidated proceedings in Missouri, Delaware or California state court, where some 2,000 similar cases are pending. It’s also separate from a federal multidistrict litigation waiting to be heard by US District Judge Vance Chabria of San Francisco - who allowed hundreds of Roundup lawsuits to proceed to trial after ruling that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to hear the cases despite calling a plaintiff's expert opinions "shaky." 

Documents released in August of 2017 led to questions over Monsanto’s efforts to influence the news media and scientific research and revealed internal debate over the safety of its highest-profile product, the weed killer Roundup. 

As the New York Times noted last year, new internal emails, among other things, reveal ethical objections from former employees to “ host writing" research studies that were pawned off as 'independent' analyses.

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment.
A similar issue appeared in academic research. An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, “I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.” He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: “We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.”[/color]

The newly disclosed emails also reveal internal discussions which cast some doubt over whether internal scientists actually believed in the company’s external messaging that Roundup was, in fact, safe.

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]“If somebody came to me and said they wanted to test Roundup I know how I would react — with serious concern."[/color]

And, here’s more:

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]The documents also show that a debate outside Monsanto about the relative safety of glyphosate and Roundup, which contains other chemicals, was also taking place within the company.
In a 2002 email, a Monsanto executive said, “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies — Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.”
In a 2003 email, a different Monsanto executive tells others, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”[/color]

Not surprisingly, Monsanto’s lawyers have argued that the comments above have simply been taken out of context... 

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]Monsanto said it was outraged by the documents’ release by a law firm involved in the litigation.
“There is a standing confidentiality order that they violated,” said Scott Partridge, vice president of global strategy for Monsanto. He said that while “you can’t unring a bell,” Monsanto would seek penalties on the firm.
“What you’re seeing are some cherry-picked things that can be made to look bad,” Mr. Partridge said. “But the substance and the science are not affected by this.”[/color]

Glyphosphate - Roundup's main ingredient, was first approved for use in weed killers in 1974, and has grown to become the world's most popular and widely used herbicide. 

Audrey I still need and want to watch the Documentry on Food Inc.

Here is a follow-up to the earlier article about what monsanto has done to our food chain supply .

not good at all.

---

.
Tests Reveal More of Monsanto’s Weedkiller in Kids’ Cereals Than Common Vitamins


A shocking amount of the popular herbicide glyphosate, marketed by Monsanto/Bayer as RoundUp, has been found in breakfast cereals marketed to children. 

Even more appalling is the revelation that some of the cereals contain more glyphosate than common vitamins.

According to the results of laboratory tests commissioned by the Environmental Working Group, the amount of the toxic herbicide glyphosate “exceeded the amount of both Vitamin D and Vitamin B12” in General Mills’ Honey Nut Cheerios. More glyphosate than Vitamin A was found in Quaker Oatmeal Squares.

Glyphosate has been linked to a host of health problems that include cancer, digestive issues, and reduced fertility. A California court recently found Monsanto liable for damages relating to a cancer patient who alleged his disease was caused by exposure to the herbicide.


Despite its classification as “probably carcinogenic” to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and its distinction as a chemical known to cause cancer by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the herbicide is one of the most widely used in the world.

Environmental Working Group president Ken Cook responded to the recent findings:

“If General Mills and Quaker refuse to remove glyphosate from these children’s cereals, then the companies should at least let parents know how much of this toxic weedkiller they may be feeding their kids. When there is more weedkiller linked to cancer than essential vitamins in kids’ cereal, parents and all consumers have the right to know.”

Gary Hirshberg, Chairman of Just Label It, added:

“The fact that these cereal makers could easily remove glyphosate from their products but have so far refused to do so should raise alarm bells with consumers and shareholders. A weedkiller linked to cancer has no place in any food, especially those overwhelmingly eaten by kids.”

---

My comment before another article...

This chemical should be banned world wide right now.

---

Study Finds Links Between RoundUp (Glyphosate) and Fetal Defects
July 25th, 2018

BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA – A new study conducted by Argentinian researchers has found that glyphosate – the controversial herbicide marketed by Monsanto (now Bayer) as RoundUp – causes significant damage to pregnant lab rats and their fetuses at relatively low doses. 

The study, published in Archives of Toxicology, found that not only was the female fertility of pregnant rats impaired, but fetal growth was retarded and malformations were detected in their second-generation offspring.

Researchers tested the glyphosate-based chemical in pregnant female rats at two different doses. The higher dose (200 mg glyphosate per kg of bodyweight per day) was chosen based on the no-observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for maternal toxicity of 1000 mg/kg bw/day promoted by the agrochemical industry as safe for mothers and fetuses.

The lower dose, in contrast, was only 2 mg/kg bw/day and was 1 mg higher than the reference dose set for glyphosate by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. That EPA-approved reference dose is the level that the government claims is safe to ingest on a daily basis over one’s lifetime.

 However, the researchers asserted that the 2 mg level in the lower dose tested is consistent with glyphosate residue on soybeans and is in keeping with the level of glyphosate detected throughout Argentina.
[img=789x0]https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MEDIA-BLACKOUT_-YEMEN.png[/img]
While the study did find that the tested glyphosate levels did not result in toxicity to the embryo or abnormal maternal behavior, it did show that female fertility in first-generation offspring was significantly reduced as those females showed a lower number of fertilized egg implantations compared to controls.

The most striking findings, however, were the consequences seen in second-generation offspring, with all rats exposed to glyphosate (low and high doses) showing delayed growth, lower fetal weight and length and a significantly higher rate of abnormally small fetuses.

In the high-dose group – and to the authors’ surprise – severe malformations, such as conjoined fetuses and abnormal limbs, were detected in second-generation offspring, with such fetal abnormalities being found in three out of 117 fetuses. 

Each of the affected fetuses had a different mother within the first-generation offspring. The study showed a significant statistical correlation between glyphosate exposure and the fetal abnormalities observed.


This result led the authors’ to claim that the industry-declared NOAEL for maternal toxicity is unreliable, given that the high dose that resulted in abnormalities (200 mg) was significantly lower than the NOAEL (1,000 mg). Notably, industry studies that determined the NOAEL did not use glyphosate, but instead aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), a degradation product of glyphosate.

A growing body of evidence, a growing threat to health

The troubling results of this study only add to the growing body of evidence that has linked glyphosate to a host of health problems — including cancer, digestive problems, and reduced fertility. Another recent study, published in May, found that the commonly used herbicide can have major disruptive effects on mammalian sexual development, gene health and the presence of beneficial gut bacteria, even at doses considered safe. 

That study and this most recent one both come just months after the European Union voted late last year to approve the use of glyphosate for another five years, despite widespread opposition to the chemical’s re-approval.

However, this recent study’s focus on the dangerous multigenerational effects of glyphosate are particularly alarming given that the presence of the chemical — now produced by Bayer Crop Science, after the Bayer/Monsanto merger — is not only increasingly present in the environment, but in our bodies. 

Indeed, a studypublished last year in JAMA found that the presence of RoundUp in the blood of southern Californians had spiked by over 1,200 percent since the early 1990s. Given the findings of this latest study on glyphosate, the ever-increasing presence of this toxic chemical in the environment and within our bodies poses not only a major, current health risk but a risk to future generations.

Top Photo | Activists protest the acquisition of the US agrochemical company Monsanto by the German Bayer in Bonn, Germany, May 25, 2018. Martin Meissner | AP
Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

My additional comments;

....and the bad news of this common used chemical is so overwhealming ....

has to be the big profits being put to use to pay off the decision makers.

because the right one would be to stop it now and begin the cleasing of the food chain supply..

---

.
article news.

Glyphosate shown to disrupt microbiome 'at safe levels', study claims



[color=rgba(27, 27, 27, 0.65098)]Study on rats said to show that the chemical, found in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, poses ‘a significant public health concern’[/color]

[color=var(--body-font-color)]Arthur NeslenWed 16 May 2018 04.30 EDT[/color]

A chemical found in the world’s most widely used weedkiller can have disrupting effects on sexual development, genes and beneficial gut bacteria at doses considered safe, according to a wide-ranging pilot study in rats.

Glyphosate is the core ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide and levels found in the human bloodstream have spiked by more than a 1,000% in the last two decades.

The substance was recently relicensed for a shortened five-year lease by the EU. But scientists involved in the new glyphosate study say their results show that it poses “a significant public health concern”.

One of the report’s authors, Daniele Mandrioli, at the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, Italy, said significant and potentially detrimental effects from glyphosate had been detected in the gut bacteria of rat pups born to mothers, who appeared to have been unaffected themselves.

“It shouldn’t be happening and it is quite remarkable that it is,” Mandrioli said. “Disruption of the microbiome has been associated with a number of negative health outcomes, such as obsesity, diabetes and immunological problems.” 

Prof Philip J Landrigan, of New York’s Icahn School of Medicine, and also one of the research team, said: “These early warnings must be further investigated in a comprehensive long-term study.” He added that serious health effects from the chemical might manifest as long-term cancer risk: “That might affect a huge number of people, given the planet-wide use of the glyphosate-based herbicides.”

Controversy has raged around glyphosate since a World Health Organisation agency – the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – judged it to be a “probable human carcinogen” in 2015.

However, US and European regulators subsequently deemed it acceptable for use, a move campaigners condemned because of regulators’ use of secret industry papersand experts with alleged ties to Monsanto. 

The US firm, which recently merged with Bayer in a deal worth more than $60bn, argues that it is being unfairly targeted by activist scientists with ulterior motives.


Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s VP for global strategy told the Guardian: “The Ramazzini Institute is an activist organisation with an agenda that they have not disclosed as part of their crowdfunding efforts. 

They wish to support a ban on glyphosate and they have a long history of rendering opinions not supported by regulatory testing agencies.”

“This is not about genuine research,” he added. “All the research to date has demonstrated that there is no link between glyphosate and cancer.”

In 2017, the Ramazinni Institute was criticised by members of the US Congress, which has provided it with funding. US congress members have also probed funding for the IARC. 

The new crowdfunded pilot study which the Ramazzini Institute compiled with Bologna University, the Italian National Health Institute, George Washington State University and the Icahn School of Medicine observed the health effects of glyphosate on Sprague Dawley rats, which had been dosed with the US EPA-determined safe limit of 1.75 micrograms per kilo of body weight.

Two-thirds of known carcinogens had been discovered using the Sprague Dawley rat species, Mandrioli said, although further investigation would be needed to establish long-term risks to human health.

The pilot research did not focus on cancer but it did find evidence of glyphosate bioaccumulation in rats– and changes to reproductive health.

“We saw an increase in ano-genital distance in the formulation that is of specific importance for reproductive health,” Mandrioli said. “It might indicate a disruption of the normal level of sexual hormones.” 

The study’s three peer-reviewed papers will be published in Environmental Health later in May, ahead of a €5m follow-up study that will compare the safe level against multiple other doses.

A new Silent Spring??…..Book by Rachel Carson published in 1962 and was the 
first to outline DDT effects and eventual banning of DDT...…………….

Of course one of the side effects is that bedbugs- which were almost eliminated by DDT- are on the rise everywhere.

Pros & cons in the modern chemical world we live in, where we need to produce 'perfect' food ie. no blemishes
and the most bushels per acre because of growing world population and the fact that all the arable land is already in use.
…………….Folken

Another issue, if I may point out. Herbicides (GRAZON for example) used in industrial agriculture for production of grass family crops i.e. Hay, straw, wheat, corn etc. Can take up to 3-4 years to fully breakdown. They pass directly through grazing animals so manures destroy soils of Gardners who incorporat scraps or manures from these crops.

GRAZON, 2,4-D and others are extremely effective at damaging/killing all broad leaf crops and will complete destroy vegitable garden soil for up to 3 years before usable again.

Affected crops:

"Beans; Carrots; Compositae family; Cotton; Dahlias; Eggplant; Flowers, in general; Grapes; Legumes; Lettuce; Marigolds; Mushrooms; Peas; Peppers; Potatoes; Roses, some types; Spinach; Sugar beets; Strawberries; Sunflowers; Tobacco; Tomatoes; Umbelliferae family; Vegetables, in general."


I'm lucky I have manure sources but have to check all manures before they touch the soil. Also and unfortunately, hot composting only exacerbates the situation: The organic material breaks down and decreases by volume only to increase herbicide concentration. Very unfortunate situation.

You can see for yourself if you'd like. Here's some videos describing what happens.



This poor lady is completely distraught. So much labor and time put into the garden and these herbicides ruined her soil. For years possibly. Very sad situation....





EDIT: Heck I didn't notice this thread was so long. this may have already been covered

If I can find the article I will add to this thread

It talks about BAYER going to lay off 10,000 workers because of the unexpected expenses of this RoundUp thing with MONSANTO.
The companies merged

Might be the end cause if this

DOW / DUPONT merger has the Teflon issue but not nearly as bad for the companies involved IMO

Weed killer in your wine and beer? 

That's what a new U.S. PIRG study found



[color=var(--body-font-color)]Zlati MeyerUpdated 5:45 p.m. ET Feb. 25, 2019[/color]
Your favorite cereal, instant oatmeal or granola bar might also contain the main ingredient for weed killer. USA TODAY

A new report by the public-interest advocacy group U.S. PIRG reveals that tests of five wines and 15 beers, including organic ones, found traces of the controversial weed killer glyphosate in 19 out of the 20.

They include brands like Coors Light, Miller Lite, Budweiser, Corona, Heineken, Guinness, Stella Artois and Samuel Adams.

“The levels of glyphosate we found are not necessarily dangerous but are still concerning given the potential health risks,” U.S. PIRG said.

Glyphosate, a pesticide and herbicide best known as an ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, is a probable human carcinogen, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization.

Start the day smarter: Get USA TODAY's Daily Briefing in your inbox
Noting the report's acknowledgment that levels are below EPA risk for beverages, a spokesperson for national trade association the Beer Institute responded to USA TODAY saying, "Our members work with farmers who go to great lengths to raise their crops sustainably and safely. ... The results of the most recent federal testing showed farmers’ use of glyphosate falls well below federal limits."
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)][img=540x0]https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2019/02/22/USAT/2564d5b6-63cc-4dc3-b9ef-ac69603d693a-GettyImages-921709018.jpg?width=540&height=&fit=bounds&auto=webp[/img]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]The public-interest advocacy group U.S. PIRG said it tested five wines and 15 beers, including organic ones, and found traces of weed killer in 19 of them. (Photo11: Getty Images/iStockphoto)[/color][/color]



Super Bowl aftermath: MillerCoors, Anheuser-Busch fight over farmers in aftermath of Bud Light's ad
Massive deal: Bayer wins EU approval for $62.5-billlion Monsanto buy

"An adult would have to drink more than 140 glasses of wine a day containing the highest glyphosate level measured just to reach the level that California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has identified as 'No Significant Risk Level,'” wrote a spokesperson for the Wine Institute in a statement to USA TODAY. 

USA TODAY reached out to companies whose products were tested. Many contested the accuracy of the PIRG study. Others acknowledged the potential for the presence of herbicides in "trace amounts" beyond their control.

Organic winery Frey Vineyards noted that, while no herbicides "have ever been used" in its farming practices, "glyphosate in trace amounts is now found in rainwater because of its application to conventionally farmed agricultural land. Glyphosate in trace amounts can be found in many food products across the United States. We urge consumers to speak up to ban all use of glyphosate.”

Stating that a pesticide is "the last thing you want to think about" as you raise a glass, PIRG wanted to highlight what it sees as a potential danger.

“No matter the efforts of brewers and vintners, we found that it is incredibly difficult to avoid the troubling reality that consumers will likely drink glyphosate at every happy hour and backyard barbecue around the country,” said U.S. PIRG Education Fund’s Kara Cook-Schultz, who authored the study.

The 2018 Sutter Home Merlot was the wine with the highest concentration of glyphosate at 51.4 parts per billion, or ppb, while in the beer category, it was Tsingtao from Hong Kong with 49.7 ppb. The American beer with the largest trace was Coors Light with 31.1. ppb.





[img=701x0]https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2019/02/25/USAT/ef7f1f7d-1706-43cc-8c0a-51e466660256-022519-beer-wine-new_Wine-online_.png[/img]
Organic adult beverages were also implicated in the U.S. PIRG research. For example, A 2016 Inkarri Malbec had 5.3 ppb and a 2017 Samuel Smith Organic Lager, 5.7 ppb.
William Reeves, a toxicologist for Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, accused the group of publicizing misleading information about pesticide residues in food.





[img=700x0]https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2019/02/25/USAT/d76007ad-80ae-4ada-af9b-aadd9487630b-022519-beer-wine-new_Beer-online.png[/img]
"Assuming the greatest value reported, 51.4 ppb, is correct, a 125-pound adult would have to consume 308 gallons of wine per day, every day for life to reach the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s glyphosate exposure limit for humans," he said "To put 308 gallons into context, that would be more than a bottle of wine every minute, for life, without sleeping.”

The EPA regulates pesticides growers use on crops grown for human food and setting limits, called tolerances, on how much may remain in or on food in the U.S. For glyphosate, that ranges from 0.1 parts per million for coconuts and peanuts to 400 parts per million for certain non-grass animal feed.

The EPA "found no meaningful risks to human health, including infants and children, when the product is used according to the pesticide label," the EPA said in an email, adding the EPA has so far concluded that glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic" to humans.
The EPA said it's currently reviewing public comments received on its draft human health risk assessment and plans to publish later this year. 

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)][img=540x0]https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2019/02/22/USAT/f0ab7481-8488-4bff-ae24-81968e8449fb-GettyImages-922999310.jpg?width=540&height=&fit=bounds&auto=webp[/img]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]The public-interest advocacy group U.S. PIRG said it tested five wines and 15 beers, including organic ones, and found traces of weed killer in 19 of them. (Photo11: Zakharova_Natalia, Getty Images/iStockphoto)[/color][/color]






Food safety: Why are chicken nuggets and other poultry products recalled?
Bye, everyone: These are the best places to retire in every state

The U.S. PIRG said it purchased all beers and wines in Denver and shipped them in sealed containers to a San Francisco lab they've declined to name.

The first court trial over whether Monsanto's Roundup causes cancer ended in October when a San Francisco judge upheld a jury's verdict that the weed killer did make a groundskeeper who used the herbicide sick but cut the amount due to him from $289 million to $78 million.
 DeWayne Johnson was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in when he was 42.

This PIRG report comes as the first federal case brought against the company over this issue is to begin in federal court in San Francisco.

 Plaintiff Edwin Hardeman alleges the Roundup he sprayed caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

"With a federal court looking at the connection between Roundup and cancer today, we believe this is the perfect time to shine a spotlight on glyphosate," Cook-Schultz said. "This chemical could prove a true risk to so many Americans' health, and they should know that it is everywhere – including in many of their favorite drinks.”

More than 9,300 people have filed similar lawsuits across the U.S.
Should you start with a beer and then have some wine, or is it more prudent to do it the other way around? Buzz60's Tony Spitz has the details. Buzz60
Follow USA TODAY reporter Zlati Meyer on Twitter: @ZlatiMeyer
Dig Deeper
You may also be interested in

---

High-stakes trial starts in Roundup weed killer cancer claim
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)][img=736x0]https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/media:f3265ae0c43e4e38bfef9824f06a8c84/2000.jpeg[/img][/color]
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A jury in federal court in San Francisco will decide whether Roundup weed killer caused a California man’s cancer in a trial starting Monday that plaintiffs’ attorneys say could help determine the fate of hundreds of similar lawsuits.

Edwin Hardeman, 70, is the second plaintiff to go to trial of thousands around the country who claim agribusiness giant Monsanto’s weed killer causes cancer.

Monsanto says studies have established that the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, is safe.
“There is a mountain of evidence,” Hardeman’s attorney, Brent Wisner, said outside court.
 
“This company needs to get straight and be honest with its customers and say, listen, there is evidence it’s associated with cancer and let people make a choice about whether or not they use the product.”

A San Francisco jury in August awarded another man $289 million after determining Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A judge later slashed the award to $78 million, and Monsanto has appealed.

Hardeman’s trial is before a different judge and may be more significant. U.S. Judge Vince Chhabria is overseeing hundreds of Roundup lawsuits and has deemed Hardeman’s case and two others “bellwether trials.”

“If we are able to succeed here then it really sends a signal to Monsanto and specifically to Bayer that they have a real problem,” Wisner said.



The outcome of bellwether cases can help attorneys decide whether to continue fighting similar suits in court or settle them.

 A jury verdict in favor of Hardeman and the other test plaintiffs would give their attorneys a strong bargaining position in any settlement talks for the remaining cases before Chhabria, said David Levine, a professor at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law who has followed the Roundup litigation.

Thousands of other Roundup lawsuits are pending in state courts around the country.

Many government regulators have rejected a link between cancer and glyphosate. Monsanto has vehemently denied such a connection, saying hundreds of studies have established that the chemical is safe.

Monsanto developed glyphosate in the 1970s, and the weed killer is now sold in more than 160 countries and widely used in the U.S.

The herbicide came under increasing scrutiny after the France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization, classified it as a “probable human carcinogen” in 2015.

Lawsuits against Monsanto followed. Monsanto has attacked the international research agency’s opinion as an outlier. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says glyphosate is safe for people when used in accordance with label directions.

Hardeman started using Roundup products to treat poison oak, overgrowth and weeds on his 56-acre Sonoma County property in the 1980s and continued using them through 2012, according to his attorneys. He was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2015.

In a setback for Hardeman, Chhabria issued a ruling last month breaking his trial up into two phases. Hardeman’s attorneys will first have to convince jurors that his use of Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma before they can make arguments for punitive damages.
The trial is expected to last about a month.