Tell EPA to Stop Glyphosate Use Now!

I wonder how many gallons a day you have to drink to maybe get cancer?

When a CEO of Syrgenta was offered a glass full of Roundup, during an interview, immediately, after saying it was safe enough to drink, he flipped out left the interview in a huff.Needless to say," He declined."

Don't sign the petition if if you don't like it.

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/this-earth-day-pledge-to-ditch-these-7-toxic-chemicals.html?onswipe_redirect=no&oswrr=4#comments

This Earth Day, Pledge to Ditch These 7 Toxic Chemicals

Diane MacEachern
Apr 15, 2015

Why not make Earth Day matter this year? Pledge to ditch these
7 toxic chemicals in favor of more natural and healthy products.

1) Triclosan – Triclosan is an antibacterial agent found in soaps, shampoos, hand sanitizers, sanitary wipes and many cleaning products. Doctors worry that its overuse – and our overexposure to it – are reducing the effectiveness of antibiotics to fight germs. In fact, triclosan and other antibacterials may be giving rise to a group of “super bugs” that can’t be controlled with normal courses of treatment. Fortunately, the way to reduce the impact of most household germs is simply by washing our hands, bodies and surfaces with warm soapy water. Skip the antibacterial wipes and dispensers of antibacterial lotion that seem to be everywhere.

2) BPA – Bisphenol-A is a chemical compound that makes plastic soft and malleable, which is why for years it was used in baby products like baby bottles and nipples, water bottles, and water hoses. In animal studies, it’s been show to mimic hormones like estrogen. It’s also been linked to problems with the development of the reproductive and nervous systems. Many companies have phased it out of bottles, but it still shows up in the lining of cans used for canned food. To be safe, use a stainless steel or glass water bottle, glass baby bottles, and food that’s either frozen or in its natural state.

3) The Nail Polish ‘Toxic Trio’ – Many conventional nail polishes contain three chemicals that have been linked to birth defects, cancer and general malaise. The chemicals are toluene, dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and formaldehyde. Fortunately, it is now possible to find non-toxic nail polish that’s water and mineral-based, and some of those are “5-free,” meaning they also are free of formaldehyde resin and camphor. You can see a list of safer nail polishes here.

4) Glyphosate – Glyphosate is what’s called a “broad spectrum herbicide.” It’s used to kill weeds, especially broadleaf weeds and grasses that compete with agricultural crops, or lawns or ornamental plants around our homes. It’s marketed as Roundup, Rodeo or Pondmaster; you have probably heard of “Roundup Ready Seeds,” which are used to produce many of the foods we eat. Use of Roundup, or glyphosate, has become so widespread that it is now contaminating drinking water. The World Health Organization (WHO) has classified it as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” It is also leading to antibiotic resistance, reports Civil Eats. If your week-killer is either Roundup or contains glyphosate, stop using it and take it to your community’s nearest toxic waste drop-off facility. You can find safer, more natural weed control options here, or forego grass altogether in favor of native ground covers that require little maintenance to look beautiful.

5) Neonics – Neonics is a nick name for neonicotinoids, a class of insecticides that are chemically related to nicotine. They are toxic to insects and popular with farmers and gardeners because they can be applied to the soil and when the soil is watered, they will be taken up by plants. When an insect sucks on a treated plant, it will die. Neonics show up on an insecticide label as something like acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, or imidacloprid. They kill wood boring pests, flies, and many other insects – including bees. In fact, the “colony collapse” being experienced by bees all over the U.S. could be directly attributable to bees feeding on nectar and pollen on plants that have been treated with neonics. The evidence has led Lowe’s to promise to phase out the sale of plants raised from seeds treated with neonics. Before you buy garden plants this year, make sure to inquire whether they have been treated with neonics in any way.

6) Lead – Even though lead is a toxic chemical, it is frequently found in the pigments used to color lipstick and make it shimmer. Lead has long been linked to harming the intellectual development of infants and children; women who unknowingly apply leaded lipstick and lick their lips all day could be susceptible, as well. Fortunately, there are some safe alternatives, including plant-based lip balms and products made by companies that are committed to safer cosmetics. No matter what you use, keep your lipstick out of the reach of kids, who might not just play with it. They might eat it!

7) Parabens - Parabens are a chemical compound used as a preservative in cosmetics, moisturizers, hair care products, some deodorants, and shaving products, among others. On a product label, you might see the ingredient listed as methylparaben, propylparaben, butylparaben or benzylparaben. Typically, only tiny amounts of parabens are added to a product. However, because consumers apply so many different products to their bodies, and those products are used every day, questions have been raised about the cumulative impact that parabens could have on human health. Parabens have been associated with certain forms of breast cancer, notes WebMD, which has prompted many people to switch to products that are parabens-free.

This Earth Day, take a moment to read the labels of the products you have around your home. Put aside those containing the chemicals listed above, and switch them out for safer, healthier options, many of which you can find in your local grocery store. You can definitely find them online!

When a CEO of Syrgenta was offered a glass full of Roundup, during an interview, immediately, after saying it was safe enough to drink, he flipped out left the interview in a huff.Needless to say," He declined."

Don't sign the petition if if you don't like it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)

Patrick Moore is many things. An early Greenpeace member. A climate change denier. An ardent proponent of GMOs. He is not affiliated with Monsanto or Syngenta. I understand your passions but spreading misinformation is not the way to facilitate change. For perspective being a hairdresser is listed in same category as glyphosate for probable human carcinogen. Sun, alcohol are KNOWN carcinogens. Eggplant contains nicotine a known carcinogen. Potatoes create a compound when fried which is a known carcinogen.

Brazil's National Cancer Institute Names GM Crops as Cause of Massive Pesticide Use

April 9, 2015

GM Watch
by Claire Robinson

After the WHO’s classification of glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen”, Brazil’s cancer institute condemns GM crops for placing the country in the top ranking globally for pesticide consumption.

The release of GM crops in Brazil has helped make it the largest consumer of agrochemicals in the world, according to a hard-hitting new report from Brazil’s National Cancer Institute José Alencar Gomes da Silva (INCA), part of the country’s Ministry of Health.

The report says that national consumption of agrochemicals is equivalent to 5.2 litres of agrochemicals per year for each inhabitant. Agrochemical sales increased from USD 2 billion in 2001 to 8.5 billion in 2011.

The report names GM crops as a key cause of the trend: “Importantly, the release of transgenic seeds in Brazil was one of the factors responsible for putting the country in first place in the ranking of agrochemical consumption – since the cultivation of these modified seeds requires the use of large quantities of these products.”

The report continues: “The cropping pattern with the intensive use of pesticides generates major harms, including environmental pollution and poisoning of workers and the population in general. Acute pesticide poisoning is the best known effect and affects especially those exposed in the workplace (occupational exposure). This is characterized by effects such as irritation of the skin and eyes, itching, cramps, vomiting, diarrhea, spasms, breathing difficulties, seizures and death.

“Already chronic poisoning may affect the whole population, as this is due to multiple exposures to pesticides, that is, the presence of pesticide residues in food and the environment, usually at low doses. Adverse effects of chronic exposure to pesticides may appear long after the exposure, and so are difficult to correlate with the agent. Among the effects that can be associated with chronic exposure to pesticide active ingredients are infertility, impotence, abortions, malformations, neurotoxicity, hormonal disruption, effects on the immune system, and cancer.”

According to the report, the most recent results of the Analytical Program on Pesticide Residues of Brazil’s health agency ANVISA revealed samples with pesticide residues above the maximum permissible limit, as well as the presence of chemical substances not authorized for the food in question. It also noted the presence of pesticides that were in the process of being banned by ANVISA or that had never been registered in Brazil.

Regarding sources of exposure, the report says, “It is noteworthy that pesticide residues not only occur in fresh food, but also in many processed food products, such as cookies, chips, breads, breakfast cereals, lasagna, pizza and other ingredients that contain wheat, corn and soybeans, for example. Pesticide traces may still may be present in meat and milk of animals fed with these crops, due to the process of bioaccumulation.

“Therefore, the concern over pesticides must not mean a reduction in the consumption of fruits and vegetables, which are key foods in healthy eating and of great importance in preventing cancer. The main focus must be on combating the use of pesticides, which contaminate all vital resources, including food, soil, water, breastmilk and air. In addition, methods of cultivation free from pesticide use can produce fruits, vegetables and legumes such as beans, with the greatest anticancer potential.”

In 2012, the report states, INCA organized a seminar on pesticides and cancer in partnership with the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) and the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz). The event brought together health professionals, researchers, farmers and consumers to discuss the risks to human health from exposure to pesticides, particularly its relationship with certain types of cancer. And in 2013, together with Fiocruz and Abrasco, INCA signed a declaration warning of the dangers of the pesticide market.

Alana. Do you believe scientists who say global warming is man made?
Do you believe scientists who say vaccines are safe and effective?
The overwhelming majority of scientists and peer reviewed studies have shown GMOs to be safe. Why not believe them?

The appeal to nature fallacy works hand in hand with Isaac Asimov's Frankenstein Complex
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein_complex

We don't agree on this subject.
You say misinformation, I say information.

So the guy wasn't a CEO but "an ardent proponent of GMOs."
The result was the same. He freaked out when asked if he'd drink a glass of the stuff.

Thought you recently put down Wikipedia as an reliable source of info?

The readers can decide for themselves.
They can do their own research, if interested enough and draw their own educated conclusions. Not getting drawn into yet another ongoing debate with you as it's tiresome.
Start you own post on how great glyphosphate and it's related products are.

Personally, I think pesticides are way overused on our planet, there is getting to be not enough crop diversity and that people/consumers have a right to choose what food products they wish to purchase and have it properly labeled, just like everything else is.

That's all.

It is BLATANT misinformation to call someone a CEO of a company. Do your own research? I'm going to wait for the links to your peer reviewed papers.. *crickets* you have a hobby. I'm all for hobbies. I'm all for being passionate about things in life. I'm not about deception and misinformation. Back to my question.. Why do you not believe the overwhelming scientific majority on the safety and values of GMO crops?

I'll put a glass of rotenone in front of you.. It's an approved pesticide in organic agriculture. Going to drink it?

I believe in man made global warming. I believe in vaccine safety and efficacy. I believe in GMOs. I believe in ALL science. GMOs have a way less carbon footprint than organic (helping global warming)

When a CEO of Syrgenta was offered a glass full of Roundup, during an interview, immediately, after saying it was safe enough to drink, he flipped out left the interview in a huff.Needless to say," He declined."

Don't sign the petition if if you don't like it.

It was not the CEO of Syrgenta. It was Patrick Moore who is in no way an employee or paid spokesperson for the company. Unless you can link otherwise, but I can't find anything to support that Michael T. Mack , the CEO of Syrgenta, ever was at a public meeting where this claim occurred.

You're right, the guy wasn't a CEO but an advocate and lobbyist for Monsanto. I read the article a while ago and was going on memory, which apparently, was faulty.

He still bolted when presented with a glass of Roundup, which was the point. Hey, he's the one that said it was safe enough to drink.
I don't blame him for not doing so and bolting.

He wasn't a lobbyist for Monsanto either..

http://www.newsweek.com/patrick-moore-scientist-who-offered-and-then-refused-drink-glyphosate-weed-317289

Good news!

Last week (April 9, 2015), Lowe’s announced it would begin phasing out neonics and working with growers to source alternatives. In Lowe’s own words:

"Lowe's is committed to regularly reviewing the products and information it offers customers. Following studies that say many factors, including neonicotinoid pesticides, could potentially damage the health of pollinators, Lowe's has committed to take several steps to support pollinator health. Lowe's will phase out the sale of products that contain neonic pesticides within 48 months as suitable alternatives become commercially available. Lowe's will include greater organic and non-neonic product selections, work with growers to eliminate the use of neonic pesticides on bee-attractive plants it sells and educate customers and employees through in-store and online resources."

As previously stated, Sparty:

"Personally, I think pesticides are way overused on our planet, there is getting to be not enough crop diversity and that people/consumers have a right to choose what food products they wish to purchase and have it properly labeled, just like everything else is.

That's all."

You have the right to choose. Buy certified organic or GMO FREE project foods. They will love you to pay them way more for the exact same product.

edited

You always resort to personal attacks which is unbecoming, rude and completely unnecessary. Knock it off!

I removed it. It is also unbecoming and intellectually dishonest to make crazy claims without evidence.

I hope your boss is getting a full days work out of you for his money since you seem to have so much to to spend posting and taking cheap shots at me.

We get breaks thank you. I am done again. Need to stay away from under coconut tree

I removed it. It is also unbecoming and intellectually dishonest to make crazy claims without evidence.

(tu)(tu)

Nice breaks! 9:19AM - 12:34 PM! You does be on island time now, mon.!*-)

Lol, yup. Exactly

GMO and the Corporate Patenting of Living Organisms: Monsanto’s Patents on Life

By Ronnie Cummins
Global Research, September 07, 2013
By Katherine Paul, Ronnie Cummins

In May 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments in a seed patent infringement case that pits a small farmer from Indiana, 75-year old Vernon Hugh Bowman, against biotech goliath Monsanto.

Reporters from the New York Times to the Sacramento Bee dissected the legal arguments. They speculated on the odds. They opined on the impact a Monsanto loss might have, not only on genetically modified crops, but on medical research and software.

What most of them didn’t report on is the absurdity – and the danger – of allowing companies to patent living organisms in the first place, and then use those patents to attempt to monopolize world seed and food production.

The case boils down to this. Monsanto sells its patented genetically engineered (GE) “Roundup Ready” soybean seeds to farmers under a contract that prohibits the farmers from saving the next-generation seeds and replanting them. Farmers like Mr. Bowman who buy Monsanto’s GE seeds are required to buy new seeds every year. For years, Mr. Bowman played by Monsanto’s rules. Then in 2007, he bought an unmarked mix of soybeans from a grain elevator and planted them. Some of the soybeans turned out to have been grown from Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready soybean seeds. Monsanto sued Mr. Bowman, won, and the court ordered the farmer to pay the company $84,000. Mr. Bowman appealed, arguing that he unknowingly bought soybeans grown from Monsanto’s seeds, not the seeds themselves, and that therefore the law of “patent exhaustion” applies.

The press and public have fixated on the sticky legal details of the case, and the classic David vs. Goliath nature of the fight. But win or lose, Mr. Bowman’s predicament is part of a much bigger problem.

The real issue is this: Why have we surrendered control over something so basic to human survival as seeds? Why have we bought into the biotech industry’s program, which pushes a few monoculture commodity crops, when history and science have proven that seed biodiversity is essential for growing crops capable of surviving severe climate conditions, such as drought and floods?

As physicist and environmentalist Vandana Shiva explains, we have turned seed, which is the heart of a traditional diversity-rich farming system across the world, into a powerful commodity, used to monopolize the food system. According to a recent report by the Center for Food Safety and Save our Seeds, three companies – Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta – control 53 percent of the global commercial seed market. They have pressured farmers to replace diverse, nutritional seeds, seeds that are resilient because they’ve been bred by small-scale farmers to adapt to local climates and soil conditions, with monocultures of genetically engineered seeds. In the U.S. these crops are predominately corn and soybeans. According to the report, entitled “Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers,” 93 percent of soybeans and 86 percent of corn crops in the U.S. come from patented, genetically engineered seeds.

Monsanto profits handsomely from selling its patented seeds. But the real profits are in selling farmers its proprietary pesticides, like Roundup. Farmers can spray huge amounts of Roundup on Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans, killing everything except the soybean plants. It’s a win-win for Monsanto. And it’s sold as a win to farmers, who have been told that by following the Monsanto method, they’ll increase their yields and make more money. Monsanto even claims that its GE crops are the answer to world hunger.

But little of what Monsanto has promised, to farmers and the world, has proven true.

Since farmers first began buying into Monsanto’s scheme in 1995, the average cost to plant one acre of soybeans has risen 325 percent, according to the Center for Food Safety’s report. Corn seed prices are up by 259 percent. Those increases don’t include the cost of the lawsuits Monsanto has aggressively filed against farmers the company claims have violated patent agreements. By the end of 2012, Center for Food Safety calculates that Monsanto had received over $23.5 million from patent infringement lawsuits against farmers and farm businesses.

And the rest of us? What have we gained from this aggressive monopoly of seeds and crops? Nothing. In fact, the losses continue to mount.

Monsanto promised that its GE crops would help the environment by reducing the need for pesticides. But according to the USDA, farmers used up to 26 percent more chemicals per acre on herbicide-resistant crops than on non-GE crops. And as several dozen aggressive “superweeds” have become resistant to glyphosate, the primary herbicide used on GE crops, the biotech industry is ramping up its war on weeds with a new generation of GE crops that can surviving spraying with 2,4 D, paraquat, and other super-toxic herbicides.

As for GE crops being necessary to feed the world, that promise has also been debunked. In 2010, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) warned that the loss of biodiversity will have a major impact on the ability of humankind to feed itself in the future.

According to “A Global Citizens Report on the State of GMOs: Failed Promises, Failed Technologies:”

The fable that GMOs are feeding the world has already led to large-scale destruction of biodiversity and farmers’ livelihoods. It is threatening the very basis of our freedom to know what we eat and to choose what we eat. Our biodiversity and our seed freedom are in peril. Our food freedom, food democracy and food sovereignty are at stake.

It’s safe to say that the majority of the general public would love to see the small farmer from Indiana knock Monsanto down a peg.
Last year, a Monsanto ally threatened to sue the state of Vermont
if legislators passed a law requiring labels on all foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Lawmakers capitulated, despite the fact that voter support was running at more than 90 percent. Later in the year, Monsanto and large food corporations spent $46 million to defeat a citizens’ initiative in California that would have required mandatory labeling of GMOs.

Monsanto may be Public Enemy Number One, but a win for Mr. Bowman is hardly a win for mankind. It’s time we ask ourselves: How long are we going to let Monsanto bully farmers and politicians into controlling the very source of life on earth? How long will we tolerate the growing monopolization and genetic engineering of seeds by an aggressive cabal of chemical and pesticide corporations who pose a deadly threat to our health, our environment and the future of our food? And when does “how long” become too late?

Ban neonicotinoids now – to avert another silent spring

This pesticide is destroying life across the natural world: the evidence cannot be denied. Only a global moratorium will stop it.

President Kennedy launched a commission to investigate the DAY pesticide. Within 10 years it was banned. Compare this with the British response to attempts to control neonicotinoids.

GeorgeMonbiot
Tuesday 15 July 2014

Here’s our choice. We wait and see if a class of powerful pesticides, made by Bayer and Syngenta, is indeed pushing entire ecosystems to oblivion, or suspend their use while proper trials are conducted. The natural world versus two chemical companies: how hard can this be?

Papers published over the past few weeks suggest that these neonicotinoids, pesticides implicated in killing or disabling bees, have similar effects on much of life on Earth. On land and in water, these neurotoxins appear to be degrading entire food chains. Licensed before sufficient tests were conducted, they are now the world’s most widely used pesticides. We are just beginning to understand what we’ve walked into.

A paper in Nature last week showed a strong correlation between neonicotinoid concentrations and the decline of birds such as swallows, skylarks, yellowhammers, wagtails, starlings and whitethroats. It couldn’t demonstrate causation, but it was elegantly designed to exclude competing factors. The precipitous loss of insects caused by neonicotinoids is the simplest and most obvious explanation, as all these birds depend on insects to feed their young. Where the chemical was heavily used, bird populations fell by 3.5% a year; where it was not, they held up. At this rate, it doesn’t take long to engineer a world without song.

Another paper reports that residues of neonicotinoids were found in all the soil samples the researchers took: these chemicals are highly persistent. Sold to farmers as precise and targeted, they are some of the least discriminate pesticides ever produced. When used to treat seeds, just 5% is absorbed by the plant; the rest soaks into the soil, with potentially lethal impacts on the animals that maintain its structure and fertility.

They are also water soluble. Recent papers suggest a collapse in the diversity and abundance of invertebrates in water running off farms where neonicotinoids are used. Mayflies and caddis flies, essential to the survival of many aquatic ecosystems, are especially vulnerable.

Another new paper provides compelling evidence linking these chemicals to colony collapse disorder: the sudden disappearance of honey bee colonies that’s now trashing the livelihoods of beekeepers in the US. Half the colonies exposed to neonicotinoids disappeared in the course of one winter; none of the untreated swarms vanished.

Worldwide contamination, indiscriminately wiping out wild animals, including those on which farming depends: these are the findings of an analysis of 800 scientific papers, also just published. How much more obvious does the case for action need to be?

Sure, there is plenty that we don’t yet know. We know almost nothing about the long-term, cumulative effects of these chemicals, or about what neonicotinoids do to birds that eat contaminated seeds, to mammal and amphibian populations, to coral reefs or marine life of any kind. Governments went into it blind, approving neonicotinoids before they had even a fraction of the necessary knowledge.

Far from being essential to food production, these pesticides are a serious threat to food supplies, through their likely impacts on bees and soil animals. They are well designed for lazy farming, but their advantages vanish in the face of more sophisticated methods such as integrated pest management. The only sensible response to the little we know so far is a global moratorium pending further research for all purposes except the control of human diseases.

In August 1962, after extracts from Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring were published, President Kennedy launched a commission to investigate the impacts of the pesticide DDT. Within 10 years it was banned from use in the US, except for public health emergencies.

This was despite lawsuits and a massive lobbying and disinformation campaign by the chemicals industry. Alongside the usual accusations of hysteria and other alleged female pathologies, it suggested that Carson was seeking to destroy US farming on behalf of the Soviet Union. The smears continue to this day. Corporate front groups concocted a myth that DDT was banned worldwide as a result of Carson’s book, causing the deaths of millions through malaria. In fact the DDT ban (still in place through the Stockholm convention) is for agricultural purposes but not disease control. DDT would soon have become useless against malaria had it continued to be used by farmers: the wider their exposure, the more quickly mosquitoes become resistant. Kennedy and his successors held firm.

Compare this with the British government’s response to attempts to control neonicotinoids. It threw everything it had against an EU proposal to suspend their use on flowering crops. Owen Paterson, the worst environment secretary this country has ever suffered – who was struck down by the Curse of Monbiot on Monday night in the cabinet reshuffle – wrote privately to Syngenta to reassure the company that “our efforts [to stop the suspension] will continue and intensify in the coming days”. His department commissioned a study claiming to show that bees were not being harmed. It was so flawed that no journal would take it. The lead author soon left to work for Syngenta.

The government’s chief scientist, Sir Mark Walport, made wildly misleading statements about the science and used scare tactics and emotional blackmail to try to keep the pesticides in circulation. Fortunately the government’s campaign failed, and a two-year moratorium, though limited only to certain flowering crops, came into force across the EU in December 2013.

The case for a global moratorium is just as strong, so once more the government weighs in on the wrong side. Ian Boyd, chief scientist at the environment department, sought last week to dismiss the new Nature paper. His article was so slapdash that he couldn’t even get the lead author’s name right. He insisted that there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions. So did he announce a massive research programme to resolve the uncertainties? Did he hell. Uncertainty suits these people, and they will exploit it as ruthlessly as they can.

Will Liz Truss, the new environment secretary, champion science, not chemical companies? I would love to believe that there might be a remaining glimmer of recognition that governments exist to protect us from exploitation and destruction. Kennedy knew it, for all his faults. Like him, our politicians have a clear choice: surrender to corporate bullies or defend the living world. What will they do?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/15/ban-neonicotinoids-another-silent-spring-pesticide-moratorium

Pesticides in Paradise

http://earthjustice.org/features/pesticides-in-paradise?utm_source=crm&utm_content=sonartitle&curation=ebrief