Pesticide-Resistant Insects Are Destroying GMO Crops Like Never Before — So Corps Are Manufacturing Even Stronger, More Dangerous Chemicals

Rootworm - Photo by Sarah Zukoff.

By Christina Sarich
Bt corn was originally created, or so Monsanto claims, to eradicate a farming nuisance known as rootworm. But as evidence from a GMO corn lab comes in, we are learning how the pests are living the lives in fields planted with GM Bt corn seed.

In 2011, a cornfield planted in Iowa with Bt corn was found to be completely decimated by rootworm. A study, just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, describes the western corn rootworm’s rapid evolution after dining on the engineered crop.

The study’s lead author, Aaron Gassmann, states that:

“The widespread planting of crops genetically engineered to produce insecticidal toxins derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) places intense selective pressure on pest populations to evolve resistance.

Western corn rootworm is a key pest of maize, and in continuous maize fields it is often managed through planting of Bt maize. During 2009 and 2010, fields were identified in Iowa in which western corn rootworm imposed severe injury to maize producing Bt toxin Cry3Bb1. Subsequent bioassays revealed Cry3Bb1 resistance in these populations.

Here, we report that, during 2011, injury to Bt maize in the field expanded to include mCry3A maize in addition to Cry3Bb1 maize and that laboratory analysis of western corn rootworm from these fields found resistance to Cry3Bb1 and mCry3A and cross-resistance between these toxins.

Resistance to Bt maize has persisted in Iowa, with both the number of Bt fields identified with severe root injury and the ability western corn rootworm populations to survive on Cry3Bb1 maize increasing between 2009 and 2011.”

The authors also found that not only did the rootworm thrive in Bt corn fields, but the pest had the potential to “develop resistance rapidly” when Bt crops don’t produce a high enough level of Bt toxin, and therefore would require farmers to use more pesticides to eradicate the pest.

In short, Bt corn didn’t eradicate the pest it was meant to destroy; it only made it stronger, thereby causing even more pesticide use. Sounds like a perfect biotech creation made in cahoots with companies that sell chemicals for a living – and yet we trust them to make our food?

______________
Copyright © Christina Sarich, Natural Society, 2015

Reprinted with permission from Center for Research in Globalization.

With EPA Lawsuit, Environmental Groups Step Up Fight Against 'Super-Toxic Chemical Cocktail'

'Our federal regulators have again unlawfully bowed to the chemical industry,' says Center for Food Safety

A new lawsuit is challenging the EPA's approval of herbicides, with key ingredients found
in Agent Orange and Monsanto's Roundup, on farms in 15 states nationwide. (Photo: Mike
Mozart/flickr/cc)

By Nadia Prupis
A coalition of health and environmental organizations on Monday challenged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to expand the use of a new herbicide in nine states, which the groups say could endanger wildlife and public health.

The lawsuit (pdf) is the most recent step in a fight to push back against the use of the weed killer, Dow's Enlist Duo, which combines glyphosate, found in Monsanto's Roundup, and 2,4-D, the key ingredient in the infamous warfare herbicide Agent Orange.

As the coalition points out in a press release following its lawsuit, 2,4-D "has been linked to serious illnesses like Parkinson's disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and reproductive problems. It also threatens endangered species that reside in the approved states, like the whooping crane, the Louisiana black bear, and the Indiana bat."

In March, the research arm of the World Health Organization declared that glyphosate was a "probable" source of cancer in humans and should be considered a carcinogen.

The EPA first approved use of Enlist Duo in six states in October, but recently widened that list to include an additional nine. The 15 total states where Enlist Duo may now be used are Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

"Our federal regulators have again unlawfully bowed to the chemical industry, rather than protect our communities, land, and farms," said George Kimbrell, senior attorney for the Center for Food Safety, one of the groups challenging the EPA's decision. "We will continue to defend them vigorously."

Also in the coalition are Earthjustice, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Pesticide Action Network North America. The groups initially sued the EPA in October in response to its first approval, charging that the agency violated the Endangered Species Act by allowing the use of those chemicals, but the case was dismissed.

"In expanding its approval for this super-toxic chemical cocktail, EPA has shown an utter disregard for human health, our drinking water, and endangered species like the iconic whooping crane," said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity, on Monday. "EPA has left us with no choice but to go to court."

As the coalition points out, the EPA approved Enlist Duo to address the rash of glyphosate-resistant "super weeds" infesting tens of millions of acres of U.S. farmland. But using 2,4-D to kill the weeds is nothing more than a "quick fix," the coalition said.

"Independent and USDA scientists... predict that the Enlist Duo 'crop system' will only foster resistance to 2,4-D in addition to glyphosate, continuing the GE crop pesticide treadmill," the Center for Food Safety said in a statement.

Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at the Pesticide Action Network North America, added, "Rural communities rely on EPA to take its job seriously... Communities across the Midwest are furious, knowing that they now face unprecedented levels of 2,4-D drift each summer."

Reprinted with permission from Common Dreams.

Monsanto’s Deep Legacy Of Corruption and Cover-Up: The History of a Chemical Company

Photo by Donna Cleveland.

By Barbara Minton, Natural Society
Monsanto is now instantly recognized as the company dominating the global food supply with its more than 7000 current worldwide patents. But today’s Monsanto is not a corporate newcomer. Although its literature heralds the company as having a clear and principled code of conduct and a pledge to demonstrate integrity, respect, ethical behavior, and honesty in everything they do, the truth is that this company has a legacy of contamination and cover-up that dates back more than a century.

The Rise of one of ‘The Worst Corporations in the World’

At the turn of the 19th century, John Queeny founded Monsanto Chemical Works to produce such nefarious products as saccharin, synthetic vanillin, and laxative and sedative drugs. The company was well positioned as a leading force in the dawning American chemical industry.

From the 1920’s until the late 1960’s, Queeny’s son, Edgar Monsanto Queeny, expanded the company into a global franchise, and changed its name to Monsanto Chemical Company in 1933. He added sulfuric acid, PCBs, DDT, synthetic fibers, and an array of plastics that included polystyrene to the product line.

During this time, Monsanto also created Agent Orange, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971.

Agent Orange was a combination of equal parts of two herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange threw off dioxin as a byproduct, a compound the World Health Organization classes as highly toxic. Dioxin can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage to the immune system, hormone disruption, and the initiation of cancer. Dioxin persists in the environment and accumulates in the body, even at minimal exposure.

In areas where Agent Orange was used, the concentration of dioxin was hundreds of times greater than the levels considered safe by the Environmental Protective Agency (EPA). This resulted in a host of terrible health consequences for anyone exposed. and led to decades of litigation during which Monsanto fought tooth and nail to avoid paying for the horrific damage military personnel suffered from. The class action case that followed was settled out of court in 1984 for $180 million, reportedly the latest settlement of its kind at the time.

Read: Sorry Monsanto – Organic Food Demand is Exploding
More than 60 years of Contamination and Cover Up
Dioxin Leak at Nitro – $93 Million Settlement

From 1929 until 1995, Monsanto operated a chemical plant in the small town of Nitro, West Virginia, where it manufactured Agent Orange. In 1949, a pressure valve blew on a tank of the herbicide, sending plumes of smoke and vapors containing dioxin throughout the town, coating residents and the homes they lived in with powdery residue.

In a short time, some people developed skin eruptions and were diagnosed with an enduring and disfiguring condition known as chloracne. Others had prolonged pain extending from their chest to their feet. According to a medical report following the explosion, “It caused a systemic intoxication in the workers involving most major organ systems.”

Monsanto’s reaction? The company down-played it, claiming the chemical was slow-acting and just a minor irritant.

To get rid of the dioxin, the company dumped it into storm drains, streams and sewers, and stored it in landfills. Dioxin persisted in waterways and in the fish that lived in them. When residents sued for damages, they were told by Monsanto that their allegations had no merit and that the company would defend itself vigorously.

The residents of Nitro or their descendants finally received $93 million from Monsanto in 2012.

PCBs Contaminate the Town of Anniston, Alabama

PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are used in many industries as hydraulic fluids, sealants, and lubricants. These chemicals have been demonstrated to cause cancer, as well as a variety of other adverse health effects on the immune, reproductive, nervous, and endocrine systems.

Monsanto’s plant in Anniston, Alabama produced PCBs from 1929 to 1971. Since then, tons of contaminated soil have been hauled away from the plant, but the site continues to be one of the most highly polluted areas in the country.

Why was it such a mess? During its production years, waste PCBs were dumped into a nearby open landfill, poured into a creek that ran alongside the plant, or just allowed to run off the property during storms. During those years, the townspeople drank from their wells, ate fish they caught, and swam in the creeks, oblivious of the PCBs. When public awareness began to mount, authorities found high levels of PCBs all over the place, and in the bodies of those people, where it will remain forever.

In 1966, a Monsanto biologist testing waterways near the Anniston plant found that when live fish were added to the water, “All 25 fish lost equilibrium and turned on their sides in 10 seconds and all were dead in 3 1/2 minutes.”

In 1970, the FDA found high levels of PCBs in fish near the Anniston plant, and Monsanto jumped into cover-up mode. A leaked internal memo from a company official outlined steps for the company to take to limit disclosure. The strategy called for engaging public officials to fight the battle for them. “Joe Crockett, Secretary of the Alabama Water Improvement Commission will try to handle the problem quietly without release of the information to the public at this time,” the memo promised.

A statement eventually released from Monsanto’s world headquarters in St. Louis stated, “Quoting both plant management and the Alabama Water Improvement Commission, the PCB problem was relatively new, was being solved by Monsanto and, at this point, was no cause for public alarm.”

The class action suit for Anniston was finally settled in 2003, when Monsanto was forced to pay $700 million.

More PCBs Dumped into the Environment

In 1977, Monsanto closed its PCB plant in Whales, but not before dumping thousands of tons of waste into the quarry of the town of Groesfaen. Authorities there say the site is still one of the most contaminated in Britain.

Internal papers indicate that Monsanto knew about the PCB dangers as early as 1953, when toxicity tests on the effects of PCBs killed more than 50% of the lab rats subjected to them. In 2011, Monsanto reluctantly agreed to help in the clean up after an environmental agency found 67 chemicals at the quarry site that were exclusively manufactured by Monsanto. Yet that effort remained underfunded and the quarry remains contaminated.

The Guardian reported that Monsanto wrote an abatement plan in 1969 which admitted “the problem involves the entire United States, Canada, and sections of Europe, especially the UK and Sweden.”

Navy Rejects Monsanto Product Because it was ‘Too Toxic’

Monsanto tried to sell its hydraulic fluid, known as Pydraul 150, to the navy in 1956, and supplied test results in their sales pitch. But the navy decided to do its own testing, and the company was informed that there would be no sale because the product proved to be too toxic. In an internal memo divulged during a court proceeding, Monsanto’s medical director stated that“no matter how we discussed the situation, it was impossible to change their thinking that Pydraul 150 is just too toxic for use in submarines.”

Monsanto Moves into Food, Biotechnology

Monsanto’s move into biotech began in the 1970’s, and in 1983 the first genetic modification of a plant cell had been achieved. Synthetic bovine growth hormone (rBST) was on the horizon. Monsanto’s public relations department portrayed GM seeds as a panacea for alleviating poverty and feeding the hungry. In 1985, the company bought NutraSweet artificial sweetener, a branded version of aspartame – the compound responsible for 75% of the complaints reported to the FDA’s adverse reaction monitoring system.

Monsanto Seeks Clean Image, Creates Solutia

In the late 1990’s, Monsanto created a new company known as Solutia, and off-loaded its chemical and fiber businesses. L. Bartlett and James B. Steele, chronicling the rise of Monsanto for Vanity Fair magazine, noted the reason for the spinoff was to channel the bulk of Monsanto’s mounting chemical lawsuits and liabilities into the spun-off company, thereby creating a clean image for Monsanto. Solutia became Monsanto’s solution!

As the company, now known simply as Monsanto, moves through the 21st century, it has a ‘new cleaned-up image,’ and a fine sounding mission statement. It refers to itself as a relatively new company that promotes sustainable agriculture and delivering products that support farmers around the world.

Except Monsanto is the 3rd most hated company in the world.

Monsanto’s legacy of contamination and cover-up should be a wake up call for you to run from the GMOs they have spawned. Remember the old adage that says leopards can’t change their spots?

Reprinted with permission from Center for Research in Globalization.

Much Pesticide Residue on Your Produce?: The FDA Doesn't Know — Does Scant Testing for Pesticides

The Center for Biological Diversity says FDA has "dropped the ball when it comes to pesticides."
(Photo:  Dean Hochman/flickr/cc)

By Andrea Germanos
The Food and Drug Administration is carrying out little testing for pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables, a new report by a federal watchdog reveals.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report (pdf) found that in 2012, the FDA tested less than one-tenth of 1 percent of imported shipments.

FDA does not test for some commonly used pesticides—like glyphosate—for which the EPA has established tolerance levels, nor does FDA disclose in its annual reports that it doesn't do this testing, the GAO analysis states.

In addition, GAO charges, "FDA does not use statistically valid methods consistent with Office of Management and Budget standards to collect national information on the incidence and level of pesticide residues."

The Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit conservation organization, says the report shows that inadequate safeguards are in place and urged the FDA to take appropriate action.

"The FDA is supposed to be protecting the American people from dangers in their food and it’s clear they’ve dropped the ball when it comes to pesticides," Lori Ann Burd, endangered species campaign director for the organization, said in a statement.

"As scientists continue to uncover information regarding the harmful effects of pesticides on human health and the environment, the American public deserves to be able to rely on FDA to provide the basic monitoring required to protect the health of people, wildlife and our waterways," Burd added.

Reprinted with permission from Common Dreams.

Apples From America Banned From Europe: US Still Treating Apples With Potentially Cancer Causing 'DPA' — Europe Banned DPA in 2012

Photo by SPT Photographe.

By Christina Sarich

It’s sad when one of the biggest ‘super powers’ can’t even export a quintessentially American food to another country because it is too toxic to eat. But apples treated with diphenylamine (DPA), a substance which keeps them from turning brown for months at a time when they are kept in storage, is now a sore spot for importers of American apples.

DPA isn’t harmful all by itself, but it breaks down into carcinogogenic elements. It’s been used since 1962, but was banned in the European Union in 2012 since producers couldn’t answer inquiries about its safety. European food safety regulators wanted more information on it, but none could be summoned. The apple industry simply responded with one study “that detected three unknown chemicals on DPA-treated apples, but it could not determine if any of these chemicals, apparently formed when the DPA broke down, were nitrosamines.”

British scientists, John Barnes and Peter Magee, in 1956, reported that dimethylnitrosamine produced liver tumors in rats, and later went on to test other nitrosamines and N-nitroso compounds. They found that the compounds caused all kinds of problems, including liver cancer, lung cancer, and even botulism.

“Nitrosamines occur commonly because their chemical precursors–amines and nitrosating agents–occur commonly, and the chemical reaction for nitrosamine formation is quite facile. Research on the prevention or reduction of nitrosamine formation has been productive, and most of the items shown in the table contain considerably lower amounts of nitrosamines than they did a few decades ago.”

No wonder European officials were concerned. In 2012, they slashed the allowable levels of DPA on apples to 0.1 parts per million, but now they don’t want those gleaming, spot-free apples normally seen on super market shelves in the States, at all. DPA residues were found on over 80 samples taken from US imports, with an average reading of .42 parts per million, well above their ‘allowable’ level.

Funny then, how the U.S. EPA Office of Pesticides tasked with reviewing all pesticides and chemicals on our agricultural produce told the EWG that they had no idea their was a ban on DPA. The EPA then had the nerve to tell the EWG that they had no intention of reviewing DPA safety standards, in light of European’s refusal to eat our poisoned fruit.

Reminds you of the Snow White fairy tale, doesn’t it. Here, little lady, eat the fruit. The Europeans said no thanks, and the rest of us would be better off getting our apples from a bunch of cutely named dwarves.

Additional Sources: EWG
 

Reprinted with permission from Center for Research in Globalization.

How Toxic is the Produce You're Buying — Study Shows Apples, Strawberries, Grapes, Etc. Are Saturated With All Kinds of Pesticides

Photo by the_moment.

By Sally Painter
Most people are aware of the harmful chemicals sprayed on the nation’s foods; and for the largest majority of Americans, it’s impossible to avoid purchasing these crops.

Not everyone can afford to buy only organic foods, since these non-chemically grown foods typically cost more than non-organics.

One group that’s well-known within the circle of those working to protect not just the environment but especially human health is the Environmental Working Group (EWG). Each year this health watchdog publishes its “Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce”. Consumers can quickly assess the produce that perhaps they wish to avoid or at least eat less.

It’s noted on the EWG website that children are the most vulnerable to pesticides. For conscientious mothers who believe they are providing their children a healthy diet with fresh fruits and vegetables, they may be upset and disappointed that this isn’t always the case.

The 2014 EWGs Shoppers Guide to Pesticides in Produce

The EWG gives an annual checkup with a rating for most “conventional foods” that test for pesticide residues. In 1996, the US Congress tasked the EPA to provide “right to know” information on “behalf of consumers”.

The EWG states on its website that they “fill the void left by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)”. The group continues with how it feels the EPA “has largely failed to tell Americans they have a right to know about the risks of pesticide exposure and ways they can reduce pesticides in their diets”.

In the EWG’s annual rating, Americans can quickly find which foods contain the highest levels of pesticide residues and which ones typically have the lowest levels. This information is vital to Americans wishing to avoid ingesting harmful chemicals and making better and healthier food choices for their families.

Read More

The Honey Bees Are Facing Extinction — And Pesticide Firms Are Using the Tobacco Playbook to the Spin the Honey Bee Crisis

Follow the Honey: report

By Rebekah Wilce
One out of every three bites of food we eat requires pollination by bees, but America's bee population is taking a pounding, with initial reports indicating greater losses of hives this winter than the last.

Many scientists believe that neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides could be playing a role in the bee die-off. Rather than taking action on problem that threatens food production worldwide, pesticide companies have taken a leaf from the tobacco industry playbook, ramping up efforts to sow doubt about the extent of the problem and their own potential role in the crisis, says a new report by the non-profit environmental organization Friends of the Earth and Michele Simon, author of Appetite for Profit.

The report, "Follow the Honey: 7 Ways Pesticide Companies are Spinning the Bee Crisis to Protect Profits," compares the public relations strategies of multinational pesticide companies Bayer, Syngenta, and Monsanto (and their trade associations and front groups) to those of the tobacco industry in delaying policy action on smoking. According to the report:

"Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto are using a 'kitchen sink' approach to divert attention from the problem of neonic pesticides while creating an elaborate appearnace of being 'out in front' and taking a lead role in 'saving bees.' Accompanying these tactics are relentless lobbying and new litigation based on similar messages of diversion and denial. Their goals: manufacture doubt about their products' contribution to the bee crisis and delay action, or defeat bans or limits on neonic pesticides, in order to allow them to continue profiting from these products as long as possible."

Bayer: Road Show and Children's Books

(Source: Bayer Bee Care)

Part of the pesticide industry PR strategy, according to the report, is creating the appearance of being "out in front" of the bee crisis and leading the charge to "save the bees." One example is Bayer's "Bee Care Tour," which launched last year and continues this year with stops at universities on the west coast as well as Indiana and South Dakota. Its star appearance will be in Washington, DC in June for National Pollinator Week. The tour comes complete with a truck wrapped with corporate logos and pretty pictures of bees and flowers.


Of the three pesticide companies in the neonic market, Bayer may stand to lose the most if limits are placed on their use. Its two neonic products, imidacloprid and clothianidin, are worth more than $1.5 billion. It make sense that Bayer be worried, but how does the firm manifest its concern?

(Source: Bayer)

According to the report, Bayer publishes a children's book called Toby and the Bees, "in which a friendly neighborhood beekeeper tells young Toby that the bees are getting sick, but 'not to worry' it's just a problem with mites, and there is special medicine to make bees healthy. Bayer manufactures that 'medicine' -- miticide Check-Mite Plus (coumaphos) . . . The book fails to mention the role of pesticides in bee declines and the role that neonicotinoids play in making bees more vulnerable to mites and pathogens."


Bayer even distributes plush bees with tags saying, "We care for bees."

Syngenta: Blaming Human Fear, Producing Fake News

Syngenta also has a share in the neonic market. Its product, thiamethoxam, is worth $627 million. In an attempt to deemphasize the possible role of pesticides in bee declines, the company's PR materials go so far as to blame the problem in part on human fear. A "Plight of the Bees" page on its website explains, "Many people are afraid of bees, wasps, hornets, and many other flying insects. This fear converts, unfortunately, into a major health threat to bees, as too many people simply kill them if they fly into a home or too near to people as they eat, sleep, talk or drink. The number of bees killed by humans each year dwarfs the number of bees killed by any of its other predators."

Syngenta has also produced stanged interviews masquerading as news distributed via YouTube and its website, in which company officials deny and spin the science. The report cites one video in which chief operating officer John Atkins "assures a seemingly sincere actor-journalist, that 'we are completely convinced … that bee declines have nothing to do with this class of chemistry [neonics]' and 'millions of hectares have been tested to verify that these products are safe to bee populations … [T]he combination of their benefits and the lack of impact on the bee populations is why they are so important worldwide.'"

Monsanto: Buying Credibility ... and a Bee Research Firm

While Monsanto does not directly manufacture any neonicotinoids, it does sell seeds pre-treated with the insecticides. In the United States, about 90 percent of corn, for example, is treated with neonicotinoids, according to Mother Jones. Monsanto's overall sales of "Seeds and Genomics" were $9.8 billion in 2012.

Monsanto announced the formation of a Honey Bee Advisory Council consisting of Monsanto executives as well as scientists and beekeepers from around the country in June 2013. The FOE report suggests that Monsanto "may be using the council's scientific credibility to emphasize bee threats other than pesticides" because a company press release says that, "based largely on HBAC's counsel, it has focused its bee health research efforts on finding a way to control the varroa mite . . ."

Monsanto bought Beeologics, a $113 million bee research firm, in what the FOE report describes as a "fox-buys-henhouse" situation in September 2011. Beelogics had developed an antiviral product that it indicated has the potential to ease the bee crisis. Simon writes that the acquisition and attendant PR effort "has presented the company as a conscientious and effective leader in addressing the bee crisis."

"Be Aware of the Tobacco-Style Tactics Pesticide Companies Are Using"

In an appeal to reporters and the media, the "Follow the Honey" report urges awareness of these tobacco-style tactics being used to "deflect blame from pesticides." And it asks how long the public will allow these tactics to "delay meaningful action in protecting these small but essential pollinators."

Europe has implemented a continent-wide two-year suspension on the use of the three most-used neonicotinoids -- imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam. Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a joint report in May 2013 concluding in part that "pesticide exposure to pollinators continues to be an area of research and concern, particularly the systemic pesticides such as neonicotinoids." But although the EPA is currently required to review the use of neonicotinoids as pesticides, the review is not scheduled to be completed until at least 2018. And the EPA and USDA have stated that a U.S. neonicotinoid ban is unnecessary.

FOE asks supporters to call on the EPA and Congress to act now to restrict neonicotinoids.

Reprinted with permission from PRWatch.

The Anniliation of the Globe's Honeybees Linked To Globes Most Used Pesticides: Imidacloprid and Clothianidin

Give Bees a Chance campaign launch, European Parliament - Jan 22, 2013. (Photo by
greensefa)

By Fabien Tepper
A new study from Harvard implicates two neonicotinoid pesticides, imidacloprid and clothianidin, in the ongoing plague of honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder. Imidacloprid is the most widely used pesticide in the world, and both are approved by the EPA.

RELATED STUDY: Do Not Replace Honey Bees With RoboBees

A team of Harvard biologists has come closer to cracking the mystery of honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), eight years after its appearance.

CCD persists in transforming bee colonies around the world into ghost towns: by the end of each winter, some colonies wind up littered with dead bees and emptied of many more, with no signs of renewal.

"One of the defining symptomatic observations of CCD colonies is the emptiness of hives in which the amount of dead bees found inside the hives do not account for the total numbers of bees present prior to winter when they were alive," states the report, published May 9 in the Bulletin of Insectology.

The exact mechanism behind these collapses remains dauntingly unclear, but they have been linked with pathogen infestation, malnutrition, and pesticide exposure.

Read More

Do Not Replace Honey Bees With RoboBees

Honey bee. (Photo: Andrew / Flickr)

By REV. BILLY TALEN
On May Day, we marched honey bee-pollinated food (a cornucopia of fruits, vegetables, berries) into the Microrobotic Lab at Harvard University. We wore our bee-swarm costumes and the Queen Bee was regal (see video here). In this facility, scientists are sinning big time. They are accepting government money to design a replacement for the honey bee. The robot bee is called the RoboBee.

Two of the RoboBee project goals on the Microrobotics Lab website are artificial pollinaton and military surveillance. With the RoboBee research we have a blend of the visions of Monsanto's industrial agriculture and of world-wide military surveillance and control.

The project director, Dr. Robert J. Wood, is a wunderkind in drone technology, receiving grants and awards from the Navy and Air Force, as well as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency - also known as DARPA. The notorious terror of the skies has long heralded the arrival surveillance and bombs that would have the flight capabilities of insects.

Monsanto and the Big Chem companies like Bayer, BASF and Syngenta are waiting in the wings for the robot bees to fly, not yet showing public support for the SmartBee. Perhaps their marketing people are telling them that they would look like opportunists if they seemed glad about the fake bees, since it is their neuropathic pesticides that are the main suspect in the "Colony Collapse" of the bees, with a 50 percent drop in its population since 2006. Big Chem is both a cause and beneficiary of this research.

Read More

Monsanto Herbicide Ban Placed On Hold in Sri Lanka After Pressure From Lobbyists: Kidney Disease Linked To Herbicide — But Lobbyists Questioned The Science

Photo by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

By  Sasha Chavkin
Facing political opposition and questions about its scientific evidence, Sri Lanka’s government has placed on hold its decision to ban the top-selling Monsanto herbicide glyphosate based on the weed killer’s alleged role in a deadly epidemic of kidney disease.

The delay represents a setback to efforts by some scientists and health officials, primarily in Sri Lanka and El Salvador, to remove the herbicide for its potential link to the mysterious kidney disease that has killed tens of thousands of agricultural workers.

Monsanto, other agrochemical producers and Sri Lankan officials, including Registrar of Pesticides Anura Wijesekara, have pushed back, noting that the ban rests on a theory that has not been proven.

“It is an interesting hypothesis, but we don’t have any evidence for it,” said Dr. Wijesekara, a consistent skeptic of curbs on agrichemicals. Banning glyphosate, he said, “will affect the tea plantations and also the [rice] paddy cultivation drastically.”

For more than two years, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists has examined a rare form of kidney disease devastating agricultural workers in Central America, Sri Lanka and India. Scientists suspect the malady is caused by a combination of factors including chronic dehydration from hard labor in tropical heat, and exposure to toxins such as pesticides.

As death tolls mount, the disease’s origins have yet to be fully uncovered. Now, the search for a cause has triggered a scientific back-and-forth spanning continents, with potential international repercussions.

On March 12, a Sri Lankan minister announced that President Mahinda Rajapaksa, after receiving a scientific report that “revealed that kidney disease was mainly caused by glyphosate,” was banning the herbicide. The decision followed publication of a scientific paper that laid out a new theory attributing widespread kidney failure among farmers to the popular herbicide. The study did not include new scientific data; its authors say they have original data supporting their conclusion, and are working to publish that information. Since the announcement, Sri Lanka’ government-sponsored Pesticide Technical Committee, Monsanto and agrochemical industry groups have objected — and the ban has been placed on hold.

Read More

Pesticides In Your Brain: How Pesticides Harm the Young Brain - Warning Signs

"Herbicide"  (Photo by Kevin Wood)

Since 1945, the use of pesticides in the United States has quintupled. More than 1 billion pounds of pesticides—a broad term that includes weed killers, insecticides and fungicides—are now used in the United States each year. As it turns out, these chemicals can pass through the placenta, gaining access to the baby's bloodstream and, eventually, its delicate, developing brain.


By Susan Freinkel
Driving along Highway 101 through California's Salinas Valley, it's hard to miss the fact that you are traveling through one of the most bountiful farm belts in the country. No matter the time of year, it seems, green fields unfurl toward the mountains that flank the valley, and crews of workers are stooped in the act of picking. Some unique alchemy of air, soil and climate exists here to create a place where dozens of crops flourish, from artichokes to zucchini. Growers plant red and green lettuces side by side in rows so they can be picked and packaged directly as ready-mixed salads. Eighty percent of the country's leafy greens come from the valley, thus its longtime nickname: "America's Salad Bowl."

RELATED STORY: Monsanto’s Pollution is EVERYWHERE - Their Roundup Herbicide Found in 75% of Air and Rain Samples

For all the natural blessings, that bounty also depends on pesticides—more than 8 million pounds of them in 2011. Farmland is expensive here, which puts the farmers under constant pressure to keep increasing their yields. So they rely on an ever-evolving chemical arsenal to fight weeds, insects and diseases in order to grow the blemish-free produce that consumers want to buy. Pesticides are so deeply ingrained in the way agriculture is practiced here that people scarcely notice the noisy helicopters spraying the crops, or the warning signs—complete with skulls—posted in the fields after they're treated.

Maria (she asked that her last name not be used) has been a farmworker in the valley for twenty-three years, since her parents moved the family from central Mexico in search of jobs. Her husband is also a farmworker. Now 38, Maria has worked in the fields picking produce, among other jobs. Even when she's not working, she's never far from the fields. They edge the roads she drives. There's a vineyard a stone's throw from her front door. Maria always knew she was in contact with pesticides; sometimes the smell burned her nose or left her with a headache. But she didn't pay it much mind. Many farmworkers figure that poco veneno no mata—a little poison won't kill you.

Then she started having children.

Read More

Monsanto’s Pollution is EVERYWHERE: Their Roundup Herbicide Found in 75% of Air and Rain Samples

"Herbicide"  (Photo by Kevin Wood)

In recent years, Roundup was found to be even more toxic than it was when first approved for agricultural use, though that discovery has not led to any changes in regulation of the pesticide. 

By John Deike
A new U.S. Geological Survey has concluded that pesticides can be found in, well, just about anything.

Roundup herbicide, Monsanto’s flagship weed killer, was present in 75 percent of air and rainfall test samples, according to the study, which focused on Mississippi’s highly fertile Delta agricultural region.

GreenMedInfo reports new research, soon to be published by Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry journal, discovered the traces over a 12-year span from 1995-2007.

In recent years, Roundup was found to be even more toxic than it was when first approved for agricultural use, though that discovery has not led to any changes in regulation of the pesticide. Moreover, Roundup’s overuse has enabled weeds and insects to build an immunity to its harsh toxins.

To deal with the immunity issue, Monsanto’s solution has been to spray more and stronger pesticides to eliminate the problem.

The health effects of Roundup are also hard to ignore as research has linked exposure to the pesticide to Parkinson’s disease and various cancers.

For instance, children in Argentina, where Roundup is used in high concentrations, struggle with health problems, with 80 percent showing signs of the toxins in their bloodstreams.

However, Roundup isn’t the only widespread threat to public health. The U.S. Geological Survey, along with others, have identified additional pesticides in the air and water that become more toxic as they mix and come in contact with people.

Spraying Roundup may have short-term economic benefits for Monsanto, but the potential long-term risks could present significant challenges to people in affected regions of the country.

______________________
Copyright © John Deike, Ecowatch, 2014 

Reprinted with permission from Center for Research in Globalization..