Food & Water Watch Releases Report on the Corporate Giant Monsanto

Anyone and everyone who is even slightly into food, politics, or government conspiracy theories has at least heard something about Monsanto.

Whether it's the company's development of Agent Orange or farmer lawsuits, the consensus is that the company is pretty evil.

Well, to separate fact from fiction, Food & Water Watch compiled a report, Monsanto: A Corporate Profile, documenting the company's history and influence. Read on for details.

See Also:
- Oregon Saying No to GMO Frankenfish: Florida Senate GMO Labeling Bill Waiting to Be Added to Agriculture Committee Agenda
- Obama Signs Monsanto Protection Act
- GE Mandatory Labeling Laws Introduced in Florida

Food & Water Watch's team of researchers put together the report that outlines the corporation's history and strong ties to lawmakers, regulators, and academic researchers.
According to Lynna Kaucheck, senior organizer for Food & Water Watch, "We wrote the report to show that Monsanto is responsible for the fact that the vast majority of our food supply is both genetically engineered and not labeled as such."

Currently, Monsanto holds patents on 1,676 seeds, plants, and other agricultural applications. These products are grown on more than 282 million acres across the world, including 40 percent of croplands in the United States.

Started in 1901 by John Francis Queeney, the company released its first product, the sugar substitute saccharin -- a product feared to cause cancer. Since its inception, Monsanto has gone on to produce the notorious Vietnam War chemical Agent Orange, Roundup herbicide, GE Roundup Ready seed, and the dairy industry artificial growth hormone rBGH.

Sounds healthy, huh?

The report goes on to call out the numbers. In 2011, Monsanto brought in $11.8 billion in net sales. From 2000 to 2012, the corporation donated $829,662 to U.S. political campaign contributions. In addition, during the same period, Monsanto spent $62,356,730 on U.S. lobbying efforts.

Not exactly a bunch of farmers with pitchforks.

Food & Water Watch's report concludes with recommended actions for regulators.
"From seeds to grocery stores and every place in between, our food system is tremendously consolidated with a handful of corporations dictating what we eat," said Kaucheck. "This new report shows just what a huge influence Monsanto has on the entire food system, and I hope it will motivate concerned citizens everywhere to join the fight to label GE foods, because we all deserve the right to know what we are feeding our families."

In Florida, there are two mandatory labeling bills stuck in committee. Sponsored by Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda,  H.B. 1233 is awaiting approval from the Agriculture Natural Resources subcommittee in the House. Sen. Maria Sach's S.B. 1728 has not been added to Monday's Committee on Agriculture in the Senate.

To view the full Food & Water Watch Report, click here.

How To Read Organic Labels

It's easier to read the ingredient list, that way you'll known which individual items are organic and which are conventional pesticide ridden toxins

What Is Organic Food?

A conflict of interest question has been raised regarding who makes the decisions about what contractors and consultants conduct technical or TAB reviews of materials on the National List of approved organic ingredients. Currently, the NOSB does not hold the final decision in this; instead, the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP), the designated federal officer that participates in NOSB meetings, and the USDA Office of Ethics are said to carry an unethical influence over these decisions. NOTE: Would you believe that there are almost 300 synthetic ingredients allowed in the production or end product under the USDA Organic label? Also USDA is in bed with Monsanto, they are pushing for allowing GMO to be included under their organic label as well. Vote with your $$$$ and your fork! Reject all GMO What Is Organic, Really? According to USDA Organic Label Certifications: "100 percent organic," means that products must contain only organically produced ingredients and "approved processing aids." "Organic," products must consist of at least 95 percent organically produced ingredients. The remaining ingredients must consist of USDA approved nonagricultural (non-organic) substances. "Made with organic ingredients," processed food products must contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients. The perception that there is nothing better than USDA Organic Certification is just a perception, the reality is that in the growing and processing of USDA Organic foods, about 275 "approved non agricultural (synthetic chemicals) are allowed. That also includes anything for which there isn't an organic equivalent. So, stretching the imagination, horse manure or Mercury could be included in food and the food could still be certified as Organic, since there isn't commercially available organic horse manure or mercury. That is how Soy lecithin slithered it's way into so many organic foods, a substance considered to be a dangerous industrial toxin. There are many different organic certifications and if eating pure wholesome, natural, unadulterated foods is important to you, it will take buying from farmers & manufacturers that you know and trust or a learning curve to wade your way through the various certifications to see what's allowed that you might not want to eat. If you haven't tasted authentic grass fed meat you will be amazed?

Scientists study risks of contracting fatal brain diseases from eating farmed fish fed rendered cows

How do you know whether the farmed fish you buy has been fed soy bean pellets or rendered cows? Where do consumers go for objective, validated evidence and the latest information when research is ongoing on whether to eat farmed or wild-caught fish?

Do they go to their doctors? Farmed fish start out by having the rous sarcoma virus implanted into a specialized gene early in their embryonic development in order to amplify the fish’s growth hormone. The virus acts as a carrier. It’s called a vector (meaning a carrier virus). The farmed fish are made to grow faster and larger.

This specific rous sarcoma virus has been known since 1911 to cause cancer in chickens. See the article titled, "The Rous Sarcoma Virus (RSV)."  For more information, also see The Cholersterol Hoax, by Sherry A. Rogers, M.D., page 193. In the book, The Cholesterol Hoax, the section on page 193 specifically mentions that farmed fish are implanted with the rous sarcoma virus. On page193, the reader also is referred to the doctor's newsletter, Total Wellness, 2001.

On top of this retrovirus type of implant, farmed fish also may be getting a diet of byproducts rendered from cows. See the article, "Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Aquaculture," published in the June 2009 issue of  the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease. Reference to the study also appears in the June 26, 2009 Reuters article, "Risk of Mad Cow Disease From Farmed Fish?"

A brief Journal of Alzheimer's Disease abstract of pages 277-279 reports that, "Dietary consumption of fish is widely recommended because of the beneficial effects of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids on the risks of cardiovascular and Alzheimer’s diseases.

The American Heart Association currently recommends eating at least two servings of fish per week. We are concerned that consumption of farmed fish may provide a means of transmission of infectious prions from cows with bovine spongiform encephalopathy to humans, causing variant Creutzfeldt Jakob disease."

And what about the implant of  the rous sarcoma virus into a specialized gene early in the fish's embryonic development? Experts are going to refute that based on FDA laws forbidding genetic alteration of farmed fish.

Yes, everyone knows the FDA doesn't allow farmed fish to be genetically altered, but what do you say to a doctor and the doctor's book and newsletter articles that insist the rous sarcoma virus is implanted into a farmed fish embryo not to genetically change the fish's DNA, but merely to enhance the ability of the fish to produce more of a hormone that makes it grow faster?

The faster the farmed fishes grow, the sooner they'll reproduce. And maybe they'll get a bit bigger, too, but growing faster means higher turnover and more generations of fish to be sold, hence more money to be made. Follow the money. If consumers ask too many questions, experts might give details or they might try to confuse consumers by pulling out the 'misinformation' card.

Then consumers are left to validate on their own which information is correct and which is flawed or so-called 'misinformation,' a word commonly used by public relations executives for industry to silence blue-flamers, that is reporters or consumers that ask too many questions of scientists or industry spokespersons. So where do you go next? To physicians?

Do you ask your doctor where the information came from? And when the doctor cites a medical journal article that's not that recent, where do you go to validate it if the article's authors are not easy to find?

You might ask a scientist is the DNA altered or not altered during the fish's fetal stage? You could ask when the fish is implanted with the rous sarcoma virus, does the carrier virus only strengthen and nourish the fish's growth hormone without genetically altering the genes of the fish?

The outcome is that the fish grows faster. Or is the DNA of the fish altered anyway, but with some loophole that consumers haven't been told about to get around the FDA laws of not genetically altering farmed fish?

Where can consumers go for answers? What happens when consumers question authority? Do public interest research groups help? Is there a way to bridge the communication gaps between scientists and physicians sharing information?

Consumers won't know the answer unless they talk to scientists. But would scientists have the time to talk to consumers asking questions? Then there's the problem of farmed fish being fed rendered cows.

The consumer is questioning whether or not this practice is safe. These are not scare tactics. It's realistically and objectively being concerned, and wanting to know how farmed fish are treated, fed, and cared for medically.

How healthy are farmed fish? What's injected or implanted into fish? What's the difference between farmed and wild caught fish? Are fish treated with insecticide-type chemicals? Why? But consumers aren't going to learn about all the diseases of fish if there's no one to interview.

So who do you turn to?

The most approachable with a phone call would be the public relations department of a fish farm business. You could ask your doctor, but your doctor may or may not have the time to discuss fish choices with you. If doctors and scientists had a choice of what to feed their children, would they choose wild caught or farmed fish and why? 

It has been said that you are what you ate. Do you realize how much the food industry has changed since 1959? My son and my son in law both are physicians dealing with neuroradiology specializations and internal medicine. My grandchildren are in medical school. Our family sits down together for a meal and discusses genetics. Our family's goal is to discuss answers based on evidence.

So which type of fish is safest for consumers? The problem is that although the fish may not be genetically altered, the embryonic fish are implanted with a carrier virus not to change their DNA. No, that would be genetically altering them. Instead, they're implanted with a carrier virus to stimulate their own body's growth hormone. It makes fish grow faster.

There's a difference between genetically altering a fish and giving the fish a boost of strength in its growth hormone. So is there a loophole to get around the FDA's rules?

Can you inject a fish or a cow with a chemical that makes the creature grow faster by stimulating its hormone levels without changing its genes or DNA? The question keeps me up at night, but the doctors around my dinner table shrug their shoulders and joke, "there's power in numbers." And that leaves me standing alone wondering whether the consumer has the right to have a voice of confidence and resilience as a party of one.

The rous sarcoma virus (RSV) is an oncogenic virus — that is, a virus capable of causing cancer. This virus originally came from tumors of sick chickens back in 1911. The tumors were sarcomas, tumors of connective tissue. The virus was named the rous sarcoma virus (RSV) during those first 1911 experiments. Back then, healthy chickens were vaccinated with the virus from sick chickens that had cancer.

The purpose of the 1911 experiment showed that healthy chickens could be made to get cancer from a specific virus. The rous sarcoma virus is a retrovirus. Cancer can be induced in healthy chickens by injecting them with a cell-free extract of the tumor of a sick chicken. There's another problem.

Aids also is a retrovirus.

So are a lot of other tumor viruses taken from one animal and put into another. Why genetically alter fish with retroviruses just to increase the growth hormone? There's a reason why farmed fish are implanted with the rous sarcoma virus in order to increase their growth hormones.

The faster and bigger farmed fish grow, the more money they make. Each business and each hired scientist has a reason for genetically engineering farmed fish. But there's more. Omega 6 fatty acids replace much of the omega 3 fatty acids in farmed fish.

You’ll find more omega 3 fatty acids in wild caught fish than you'll find in genetically engineered farmed fish. The elevated levels of omega 6 fatty acids in farmed fish keep rising year after year, replacing the omega 3 fatty acids. Part of the reason why is because farmed fish are fed increasingly more commercial soybean pellets that contain pesticides.

The soybean pellets also have been genetically engineered (unless you’re raising fish yourself and feeding them organic fish foods). The commercial soybean pellets fed to farmed fish are full of pesticides such as Roundup that originally had been sprayed on the commercial soybean pellets along with other commercial insecticides, sometimes even with herbicides (for getting rid of weeds around the soybeans) and various pesticides.

On top of the insecticides in the soybean fish food pellets, the levels of PCBs in farmed fish are higher, in fact, ten times higher (in numerous studies) than you find in wild-caught fish from cleaner waters. So now you’re also getting PCBs in the fish. The farmed fish is exposed to more pollutants than wild fish in the open ocean. Yes, there are still some pockets of ocean not as polluted as some fish farms.


There are some cleaner spots in the ocean. Some of those oceanic areas include parts of the Arctic and Alaska. Wild-caught fish may not be irradiated, but farmed fish are irradiated so they won’t spoil while in transit to local supermarkets.

Wild-caught fish are more expensive than farmed fish.

When there's an overrun of wild fish, the overrun is canned and costs less per pound than fresh fish. The overrun is still the safe wild-caught fish in the can for three or four dollars that you'd buy in the supermarket for $17.00 per lb.

The irradiation of farmed fish not only destroys the bad bacteria. It also neutralizes some of the vitamins. So now you have fewer vitamins in farmed fish than in wild fish. When you get the cheaper farmed fish home, perhaps the fish are microwaved.

Now the fish coming out of the microwave oven has had all the antioxidants destroyed. Microwaved food destroys almost all of the nutrients, about 95% of them, according to the study, “Microwaved cooking zaps nutrients,” J. Randerson, New Scientist, Oct 25, 2003, page 14. Also, see the book titled, Optimal Nutrition for Optimal Health, by T.E. Levy. Keats Publishing, a division of McGraw-Hill, NY, 2001.

According to the article,  Microwaved cooking zaps nutrients, “Steaming left antioxidants almost untouched, while microwaving virtually eliminated them, the team found” (Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, vol 83, p 1511). Also see the article, "Looking at the Science on Raw vs. Cooked foods," by Jean Louis-Tu.

If you're interested in reading about what antibiotics are given to farmed fish for human consumption, see the book, Improving Farmed Fish Quality and Safety, edited by Torger Borresen. There's also a problem of how to improve disease immunity in order to reduce antibiotic use in farmed fish. How will the antibiotics given to farmed fish effect your resistance to antibiotics when you need them?

The solution to this problem is to eat wild-caught canned salmon packed in water with the “no salt added” label. It’s less costly than buying wild salmon for $16-17 per lb. Wild salmon usually is Alaskan king salmon caught from the overrun and canned.

It’s the same type of wild Alaskan salmon that you pay a lot more money for in the supermarket fish and meat department. A can of wild salmon usually costs three or four dollars. And there are two servings in the can.

One excellent brand is Crown Prince Wild Caught Natural Alaskan Pink Salmon. The low in sodium variety that comes with only 50 mgs sodium. The can notes that it contains 1.5 grams of omega 3 oils per serving. There are about 3.5 servings per can.

A serving size is ¼ cup of salmon. It also comes in a variety containing more salt. To stretch a serving further, you can mix it with chopped vegetables and a teaspoon of extra virgin olive oil. That way you get a balance of the omega 3 and omega 6 oils from the fish and olive oil.

Another possibility is to add a tablespoon of grape-seed oil mayonnaise to canned fish such as sardines or salmon. Sardines also are good if they are wild caught and canned in water without added salt. An excellent brand is Brunswick sardines canned in spring water, no salt added.
There are already 200 mg of sodium per serving in the sardines, even with no salt added. A serving size of the sardines is one can drained, which contains one gram of omega-3 fatty acids per serving and also is a good source of calcium.

Risks and benefits of eating fish are hot topics. Then again, you can always buy a bottle of contaminant-free Carlson's cod liver oil or take two Nordic Naturals (no mercury) brand of fish oil capsules. The controversy surrounding farmed versus wild-caught fish is all about what the research tells you. Consumers often follow the money.

Look for the $4 cans labeled "wild caught" when you buy Alaskan pink salmon. They contain the overrun of the same king salmon that is sold as fresh wild-caught fish in supermarkets and marked up to $17 per lb. You'll find a variety of those cans in local grocery and produce markets that offer organic foods.

Are Farmed Fish Fed Rendered Cows? 

What type of animal feed is safe from any risks of passing prions into both the human and animal food chain?

 Farmed fish are being fed too high on the food chain. Instead of fish eating fish and seaweed, farmed fish commonly are being fed rendered cows and bone meal from animals that never lived in the oceans.

See the article, "You Are What They Eat" on animal feed at the Consumer Reports.org site. Also see the June 2009 article on farmed fish and what types of food that farmed fish are fed in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease by Robert P. Friedland, M.D.

There are a lot more details to know regarding animal feed. Some cows may be born with a gene variation that gives them a higher risk of later developing mad cow disease or of being carriers, passing that gene to other animals, or the prions to humans, without being infected with outward symptoms.

The quick solution to this dilemma is for government regulators to ban the feeding of cow meat byproducts or bone meal to farmed fish (and to other animals) until the safety or danger of this common practice can be ascertained. The basic problem is that farmed fish are not being fed what they normally would eat.

When restaurants buy farmed fish, or when you buy farmed fish from supermarkets, are there prions in the farmed fish that could cause mad cow disease in humans? According to a Science News article, published June 17, 2009, "Farmed Fish May Pose Risk For Mad Cow Disease," University of Louisville neurologist Robert P. Friedland, M.D., questions the safety of eating farmed fish in Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, adding a new worry to concerns about the nation’s food supply.

For those people anywhere in the world that have been diagnosed with fatal mad cow disease, did they get it from previous farmed fish meals or from beef? Are other prion-caused diseases of the brain, including Creutzfeldt Jakob disease caused by eating meat from infected animals?

Most consumers know it's not safe to eat fish that ate bonemeal. How long will it take to prove it? And is Alzheimer's also linked to what people eat? Who's studying prions in the brain related possibly to diet?

A press release on neurologist Robert P. Friedland's  research results, titled, "Farmed Fish May Pose Risk for Mad Cow Disease," appeared in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease  on June 16, 2009. Based on his research, he and his team question the safety of eating farmed fish that are fed byproducts rendered from cows.

Recently, Dr. Friedland also has been working on the patterns of disease occurrence, including risk and protective factors, with studies of the Kikuku in Kenya, Jews and Arabs in Israel, and Caucasian and African-American subjects in Cleveland.  Friedland and his co-authors suggest farmed fish could transmit Creutzfeldt Jakob disease--commonly known as mad cow disease--if the farmed fish are fed byproducts rendered from cows.

The scientists researching the question of whether there are prions in farmed fish urge government regulators to ban feeding cow meat or bone meal to fish until the safety of this common practice can be confirmed.

“We have not proven that it’s possible for fish to transmit the disease to humans. Still, we believe that out of reasonable caution for public health, the practice of feeding rendered cows to fish should be prohibited,” Friedland said. “Fish do very well in the seas without eating cows,” he added.

Creutzfeldt Jakob disease (CJD) is an untreatable, universally-fatal disease that can be contracted by eating parts of an animal infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or mad cow disease). An outbreak in England attributed to infected beef prompted most countries to outlaw feeding rendered cow material to other cattle because the disease is so easily spread within the same species.

The risk of transmission of BSE to humans who eat farmed fish would appear to be low because of perceived barriers between species. But, according to the authors, it is possible for a disease to be spread by eating a carrier that is not infected itself. It’s also possible that eating diseased cow parts could cause fish to experience a pathological change that allows the infection to be passed between the two species.

“The fact that no cases of Creutzfeldt Jakob (CJD) disease have been linked to eating farmed fish does not assure that feeding rendered cow parts to fish is safe. The incubation period of these diseases may last for decades, which makes the association between feeding practices and infection difficult. Enhanced safeguards need to be put in place to protect the public,” Friedland said.

What if any prions remain in the fish's digestive tract? All you need is one molecule, and the prion will replicate itself. Fish or any animal infected with prions also might be a carrier without getting symptoms. That's one way prions might possibly get into the human food chain.
There are three major categories of CJD: sporadic CJD, hereditary CJD, and acquired CJD. There have been 163 deaths from Creutzfeldt Jakob disease (CJD) in the United Kingdom attributed to eating infected beef. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy has been identified in nine Canadian and three U.S. cattle.

There's a food safety problem with feeding animal by-products that contain mad cow disease prions in meat and bone meal. Yet rendered cow meat and bone meal is routinely fed to farmed fish. A few years ago people even fertilized vegetable gardens and fruit trees with bovine bone meal.

There is no single diagnostic test for CJD yet. The only way to confirm a diagnosis of CJD is by brain biopsy or autopsy. Whereas CJD can be transmitted to other people, the risk of this happening is extremely small. There is no treatment that can cure or control CJD.

 Patients are made comfortable and given opiates to relieve pain. Other drugs relieve the muscle jerks.

You'll still see calcium or mineral supplements containing bone meal from animals. How do you know the animals didn't carry a gene for mad cow disease or had been infected with it or some other disease fatal to humans? You've seen flu jump species from bird and pig to human, why not mad cow disease prions from cows to humans? Of course the mad cow prions jumped species from cow to human.

Can they jump from cow to fish to human?

 Prions for mad cow disease can't be killed by cooking. Research will eventually confirm or deny whether fish can pass along mad cow disease based on whether the fish ate rendered meat or bone meal from cows infected with mad cow disease. Meanwhile, the nation's food supply is at risk as evidence mounts.

How do farmed fish get the prions in their flesh that are then eaten by humans so that the fish and the human comes down with mad cow disease? It's a genetic mutation within a gene called the Prion Protein Gene that causes mad cow disease.

Prion proteins are proteins expressed abundantly in the brain and immune cells of mammals. The questions researchers are trying to answer is whether prions are found in farmed fish after the fish consume meat or bone meal containing prions from cows that are carriers but not infected themselves.

Another issue being researched is whether the meals that the fish are fed contain prions that the fish pass on to human consumers. And is it possible or not that humans can get mad cow disease from consuming farmed fish?

 If mad cow disease actually is a genetic  mutation in the cow, can a cow that doesn't become infected with mad cow disease act as a carrrier, and still pass on the prions to humans to cause mad cow disease in people or other animals--from farmed fish to chickens?

It's not only the ongoing research on whether farmed fish are transmitting diseases to humans--diseases that range from mad cow disease to possibly Alzheimer's or other brain diseases theoretically caused by prions. Think of commercial pet food also made up largely of meat by-products.

It's easy for pet food to get into the human food chain by handling pet food and touching one's mouth, nose, or eyes, or handling human food in the same room, dishes, or dishwasher, or transfering fluids or dust from canned or dry pet foods to human foods.

For now, the question is whether farmed fish contain mad cow disease prions. That's what Dr. Friedland and his co-authors want consumers to know about as the research continues. The goal is to see whether it's safe or not to feed farmed fish rendered cows. The research team so far thinks it's not safe but will continue researching to confirm or not confirm safety beyond a doubt.

Dr. Friedland wants consumers to know that scientists have not proven that it’s possible for fish to transmit the disease to humans. But researchers want consumers to be cautious. The warning is out of reasonable caution for public health. Friedland believes rendered cows should not be fed to fish. Friedland explained, "feeding rendered cows to fish should be prohibited.”

His group also is using animal models to better define the pathophysiology of Alzheimer’s disease and develop new treatments. Dr. Friedland has documented a series of important determinants of the disease, including physical and mental inactivity, smoking and diet. This work has focused on interactions of genetic and environmental lifestyle elements.

Who's studying the health of the rendered cows that are currently fed to farmed fish? Creutzfeldt Jakob disease is an untreatable, universally-fatal disease that can be contracted by eating parts of an animal infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or mad cow disease).

According to "Farmed Fish May Pose Risk For Mad Cow Disease," the mosts recent outbreak in England attributed to infected beef prompted most countries to outlaw feeding rendered cow material to other cattle because the disease is so easily spread within the same species.

Now people eating farmed fish have to worry not only about the hormones and antibiotics given to the farmed fish to make them grow faster, or the pollutants and insecticides in the farmed fish. Now consumers have to worry about the rendered cows, those meat byproducts fed to the fish that might be full of mad cow disease prions.

The barriers between species could be breaking down. But scientists will have to study how a disease jumps from one species to another. Rather than rely on a prion mutating, a person could get infected from a fish even if barriers between species are perceived as low.

Maybe the infection barrier between species is no longer low if the fish eats the sick mammal or infected cow as ground meal byproducts, and then the human eats the sick farmed fish? If a disease infects a fish that once infected a cow, could that disease also infect a human?

 It's easy for a disease to jump between a cow and a human. Mad cow disease spread to humans through infected cows that might even have a gene variant that makes them susceptable to mad cow disease.

The risk of transmission of mad cow disease, also known as BSE to humans who eat farmed fish could be higher than most people thought. According to the authors of the research, "it is possible for a disease to be spread by eating a carrier that is not infected itself. It’s also possible that eating diseased cow parts could cause fish to experience a pathological change that allows the infection to be passed between the two species."

According to the press release, Friedland notes, "The fact that no cases of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease have been linked to eating farmed fish does not assure that feeding rendered cow parts to fish is safe."

Scientists know it takes decades, sometimes up to 30 years, for certain brain diseases similar to mad cow disease infections to incubate in a human. Most people don't make the association between what meat they ate and what that animal or fish ate before it was cooked or sold in the market. When you go out to a restaurant for a fish sandwich, do you think that the farmed fish in the sandwich contains mad cow disease prions or similar infections?

 Dr. Friedland and the authors of the research studies would like consumers to know that "enhanced safeguards need to be put in place to protect the public.” People in Europe that came down with mad cow disease after eating infected beef never had to wait very long. Certainly not for decades.

Those people that caught mad cow disease in Europe didn't have to wait 30 years between the time they ate the beef and the time they came down with Creutzfeld Jakob, the human form of Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease).

 In recent years, mad cow disease, always fatal in humans and cows, also has been identified in nine Canadian and three U.S. cattle.

The moral compass of this finding is that farmed fish need to be fed safer foods, and in the meantime, eat wild-caught fish from some ocean areas that are relatively cleaner than others.
Even wild-caught fish can be bought in cans, without added salt, because they are canned from the overrun of wild-caught fish.

 Worse yet, some commercial chicken ranches feed their chickens rendered cow meat and bone meal. When you buy organic chicken, do you know what they were fed? All you know is that they weren't given hormones or anti-biotics if the label says so.

What are turkeys fed? You are told that they're not getting hormones. But what else is in the food animals eat if you're eating the animals?

 Think about whether cows were fed grass or grain. They should have been grazing on grass. Cows shouldn't be feeding on bone meal and rendered other cows. And dogs/cats shouldn't be eating meat byproducts that have been genetically altered and then injected with all types of chemicals, hormones, or antibiotics.

Be aware of what the animal ate and what hormones, antibiotics, and insecticides that animal absorbed before you ate it. If you're a vegetarian, ask what herbicides, genetic alterations, or insecticides went into the plants you eat. At least you'll know what's going into your body. And the research continues on whether farmed fish present a mad cow disease problem.

If a loved one has come down with CJD, you might wish to contact a disability attorney of your choice in order to find out related information. Also some of the associations listed below may be able to direct you to the information you'll need.

Here's a thought and helpful links to consider--posed by viewer, Terry Singeltary: "Even if fish could not contract a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE), disease, it would still be possible for the TSE agent to survive the digestinal tract. And then if that fish was added as an ingredient for feed, the agent could further spread to infect other species."

Undiluted Coke Or Pepsi Much Cheaper Pesticide Solution

See, these products are not worthless, great to spray as pesticides, but would you really want to drink them?

A Farmer's Perspective On Prop 37

Vote YES On 37

Is There A Difference Between GMO Toxic Food Like Substances & Real Organic Food?

7 Things Pesticides Do To Your Body

Pesticides are designed to kill, although the mode of action they use to put the stranglehold on pests varies. Whether it's nerve gas–like neurological disruption, the unbalancing of key hormones, or the stunting of a plant's ability to absorb life-sustaining trace minerals from the soil, none of the chemical interventions seems all that appetizing, especially considering that chemical residues routinely wind up on and even inside of the food we eat everyday. Pesticides are also blamed for diminishing mineral levels in foods.

 


Agrochemical supporters tend to fall back on a "the dose makes the poison" theory, meaning tiny exposures aren't really that harmful. Increasingly, though, independent scientists are debunking that belief, even proving that incredibly tiny doses could set a person up for health problems that might not crop up until decades down the line. Luckily, eating organic, less processed foods can cut back on your pesticide exposure.

Here are 7 health problems associated with pesticide-based agrochemicals.

Diabetes
Scientists have been noticing a link between pesticides and diabetes for years. The latest evidence comes out of the Endocrine Society's 94th Annual Meeting, where Robert Sargis, MD, PhD, released the results of a study that suggest tolyfluanid, a fungicide used on farm crops, creates insulin resistance in fat cells. A 2011 study published in Diabetes Care found that overweight people with higher levels of organochlorine pesticides in their bodies also faced a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

Prevent it: To save money on organic fare raised without pesticides, cook with organic dried beans. In the home, avoid using chemical air fresheners and artificially scented products—these things are also blamed for inducing type 2 diabetes.

Read more: 11 Surprising Diabetes Triggers

Cancer
More than 260 studies link pesticides to various cancers, including lymphoma, leukemia, soft tissue sarcoma, and brain, breast, prostate, bone, bladder, thyroid, colon, liver, and lung cancers, among others.

Prevent it: The President's Cancer Panel suggests eating organic and avoiding plastic to lower your risk of environmentally triggered cancers.

Autism & Other Developmental Diseases
How do you get autism? The world's leading autism researchers believe the condition develops from a mix of genes and the pollutants encountered in the mother's womb and early in life. Many insecticides effectively kill bugs by throwing off normal neurological functioning. That same thing appears to be happening in some children. A 2010 Harvard study found that children with organophosphate pesticide breakdown materials in their urine were far more likely to live with ADHD than kids without the trace pesticide residues.

Prevent it: Switching to an organic diet rapidly eliminates pesticide residues in the body.

Obesity
Some agrochemical pesticides act as hormone disruptors, meaning they act like a fake version of a naturally occurring hormone in your body, they block important hormone communication pathways in the body, or they interfere with your body's ability to regulate the healthy release of hormones. More than 50 pesticides are classified as hormone disruptors, and some of them promote metabolic syndrome and obesity as they accumulate in your cells, according to 2012 study appearing in Environmental Health Perspectives.

Parkinson's Disease
More than 60 studies show a connection between pesticides and the neurological disease Parkinson's, a condition characterized by uncontrolled trembling. The association is strongest for weed- and bug-killing chemical exposures over a long period of time, meaning it's important to keep these toxic compounds out of your household routine.

Prevent it: Don't turn to chemical interventions to kill bugs in your home or garden. Instead, use natural pest control measures.

Infertility
Pesticides spell trouble in the baby-making department, thanks to their bad habit of not staying put. For instance, atrazine, a common chemical weed killer used heavily in the Midwest, on Southern sugar cane farms, and on golf courses, has been detected in tap water. Doctors and scientists point to published evidence tying atrazine to increased miscarriage and infertility rates. Other pesticides cause a plunge in male testosterone levels. A 2006 study found chlorpyrifos, a chemical used in nonorganic apple and sweet pepper farming, and carbaryl, a go-to pesticide in strawberry fields and peach orchards, caused abnormally low testosterone levels.

Prevent it: Avoid the worst summer fruit, the kinds most likely to be laced with toxic pesticides. Instead, choose organic grapes, strawberries, and imported plums.

Birth Defects
Babies conceived during the spring and summer months—a time of year when pesticide use is in full swing—face the highest risk of birth defects. During these months, higher pesticide levels turn up in surface waters, increasing a mother's risk of exposure. Spina bifida, cleft lip, clubfoot, and Down syndrome rates are higher when moms become pregnant during high season for pesticides.

Prevent it: To protect yourself, use a water filter that is certified by NSF International to meet American National Standards Institute Standard 53 for VOC (volatile organic compound) reduction. This will significantly reduce levels of atrazine and other pesticides in your tap water.

100 Pesticides Licensed For Lettuce

More than a 100 pesticides are licenced for spraying on the humble lettuce. As well as posing a threat to consumers, workers harvesting the crop can face contamination and poisoning

Pesticides of one sort or another are used to produce 95 per cent of the produce grown in the UK and are promoted by the companies that make them as being the only way to ensure that yields remain high, prices remain low, and that growers can make a living. However, this is far from the truth, and many studies show that it is possible to maintain yields and profitability with reduced pesticide inputs by working with nature rather than against it.

The problem is that reliance on agrochemicals, and pesticides in particular, is hardwired into our current agricultural system. Factors such as the demands of supermarkets for perfect produce, the limited range of varieties available to farmers, monocrop systems and crop rotations that create ideal conditions for pests to develop all place pressure on farmers to use more and more pesticides with devastating consequences for the environment and human health.

From field to fork the use of pesticides ensures that people and the environment are exposed to potentially harmful risks from these toxic chemicals that are designed to kill. In the UK over 20 000 tonnes of pesticides are sprayed on farmland annually to grow the food that we eat.

Toxic threats

A great number of these chemicals are potentially toxic to humans, pollute waterways and have harmful effects on our biodiversity as has been seen by the recent loss of bees and other pollinators here in the UK and elsewhere.

We know that the impacts of pesticides are incredibly serious. In 2008, a European parliament commissioned study concluded that the families of farm workers are far more susceptible to childhood leukaemia’s than the general population. It is also estimated that 25 million agricultural workers suffer at least one incident of pesticide poisoning annually. And you can add to this all the unreported poisonings of bystanders and residents that occur throughout the pesticide spraying season.

All along the production trail people – whether it is the grower, the picker, the packager, local residents and bystanders or the end consumer – are exposed to pesticides.

Pesticides are used from the very earliest stage of production – and can be applied to the very seeds themselves. Dressing seeds with pesticides prior to planting is touted as a ‘safe’ way of applying pesticides that will reduce human exposure. Under this approach, the insecticides are taken up into the structure of the plant as it grows making the plant itself poisonous to its pests. What this also means is that the pesticide remains in the plant even after harvesting and no amount of washing or cooking will eradicate it.

But farmers and farmworkers are also exposed through handling the seeds. Many do not realise that the seeds are toxic and they – and neighbouring residents – can be contaminated by the pesticides covered dust that is kicked up and dispersed.

Exposure risks

Other fungicides, herbicides and insecticides are applied throughout the growth cycle of the plant to opening up yet further potential routes of exposure. The pesticide applicator, while at greatest risk, is usually required to wear protective equipment to reduce exposure. But others are not so lucky.

One particular group, that has been neglected by successive UK governments, is rural residents. People who live in the countryside can be exposed to pesticides during and after spraying in fields close to their homes. This exposure can go on for years and increases the risk of chronic illnesses including some cancers and neurological diseases like Parkinson’s.

Workers in the fields are also open to exposure as they walk amongst the crops and particularly if they are put in the fields soon after the crops are sprayed.

In particular, labourers employed to harvest the crops can be exposed to pesticides that remain on the crops whilst they pick them. Even after leaving the field, exposure is still possible on clothes that have been contaminated with pesticides taken home for washing or often used again the next day.

The problems can be exacerbated by the fact that many of the labourers used to harvest and pack produce in the UK do not have English as their first language and so cannot understand warnings about what they need to do to minimise or avoid the risk of pesticide contamination. Their status also often limits their ability to report any incidents of pesticide poisoning that might occur and so these incidents go largely unreported in the UK.

And finally, the end consumer will come into contact with pesticides as residues on the food that they eat. The DEFRA Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food (PRiF) samples a range of produce each year. This sampling shows that 30-40 per cent of the food purchased in the UK has pesticide residues present on it - and often multiple residues are present.

Chemical warfare

Multiple pesticide residues are particularly concerning because some pesticides can interact with one another and increase their toxicity – the so-called cocktail effect. If we take lettuce as an example there are 122 registered professional pesticides that can be used for growing lettuces in the UK of those:

• 20 are fungicides
• 45 are herbicides
• 57 are insecticides

Amongst them are some particularly unpleasant actives:

Mancozeb, a fungicide that is also classified as a carcinogen, a developmental or reproductive toxin, a suspected endocrine disruptor and a potential groundwater contaminant. Pirimicarb, an insecticide and also classified as a carcinogen and a cholinesterase inhibitor. Lambda-cyhalothrin, an insecticide and suspected endocrine disruptor. Cypermethrin, an insecticide and classified as a possible carcinogen and suspected endocrine disruptor.

Fungicides are applied to the soil even before sowing. If the lettuce is grown under cover, it is possible that two to three applications of fungicides could be used as well as an insecticide.

The Pesticide Action Network UK has analysed the figures made available by PRiF between the years 2000 and 2006 and found that of 826 non-organic lettuces tested, 36.7 per cent contained pesticide residues with 19.5 per cent containing a cocktail of residues.

Because lettuces along with many other crops such as soft fruits are considered to be high value crops, farmers will often use pesticides prophylactically in a bid to head off pest damage rather than to treat an existing pest problem. Unnecessary applications result in higher usage and on the whole don’t ensure that the crop will actually be any better protected.

Significant reductions in pesticide use are easily achievable simply by changing crop rotations, or using resistant varieties can dramatically. But this requires a fundamental shift in the approach away from pesticides first to pesticides last. This means that pesticides would only be used when all other methods have failed and then they would be used in a targeted manner ensuring that what is used is the least toxic option available. It requires working with, rather than against, nature and if we do so, we will all benefit.

UK Fights Stricter Pesticide Laws

UK opposition to restricting the use of pesticides in the 1990s and 00s has at times even seen the intervention of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown to lobby the case for the farming industry

The UK Government has come under sustained pressure - through a high profile campaign, the UK courts and the EU legislative system - to toughen up its pesticides legislation over the past decade.

But throughout, both the previous Labour administration and current Coalition Government have stood firm and sought to maintain the status quo. The justification is twofold. Ministers and their advisers have maintained that the UK’s mix of statutory and voluntary pesticide controls are ahead of the game and already provide sufficient protection for the general public and the environment.

They have also become increasingly vociferous in warning of the impact of cutting back on pesticide usage on crop yields at a time of heightened concern about food security. 'Defra’s pesticide policy aims to minimise risk without losing the benefits,' is how the relevant Department neatly sums up its position on its website.

The UK’s approach is best illustrated by its response to a huge chunk of EU legislation that has been grinding its way through Brussels since 2006. The backdrop was growing concern among member states about the potential risks for human health and the environment associated with crop spraying. In 2007, for example, French president Nicolas Sarkozy pledged, as part of a ‘green revolution’, to dramatically cut back pesticide use in France, including banning 47 pesticide products. In 2009, the EU published four pieces of legislation under the banner of the Thematic Strategy for Pesticides.

One strand, the Sustainable Use Directive, sought to harmonise the various regimes governing pesticide usage in place across the EU, covering areas like training pesticide users, inspection of spraying equipment, aerial spraying and protecting waterways, public spaces and conservation areas. Following public consultation in 2010, the UK is about to implement the Directive. Defra recently revealed that, in line with the Government’s commitment to avoid unnecessary regulation, only ‘a small number of changes’ will be made to the UK’s existing arrangements.

It points out that, unlike most EU member states, the UK has had an ‘extensive domestic regime’ in place since the 1980s. This is implemented through a mix of statutory controls and the Voluntary Initiative, an industry-led programme set up 10 years ago to minimise the environmental impacts from pesticide use in order to stave off a pesticides tax. 'Our long-standing and rigorous regulatory regime means we have safety and environmental standards that are among the highest in Europe. Our regime already covers most of the areas set out in the Sustainable Use Directive, and in some areas (notably a requirement for pesticide users to hold a certificate of competence) goes even further,' a Defra spokesman said.

A far more contentious strand of the EU legislative package is the Plant Protection Products Regulation, which came into force in the UK in June 2011. It establishes a new pesticide authorisation system based on ‘hazard’ rather than ‘risk’ with new cut-off criteria designed to exclude the most hazardous compounds.

Explaining the UK’s opposition to the change at a recent conference, David Barnes, the Scottish Government’s Deputy Director of Agriculture, said the risk based system enabled policymakers ‘put rules around’ potentially dangerous products to ensure they can be used safely. 'The hazard based approach means if there is any danger attached to a product at all we simply say it’s not acceptable and can never be used under any circumstance. That is just too inflexible,' he said.

Gordon Brown leads fight against EU rules

The UK Government, with intervention by Prime Minister Gordon Brown at one point, often appeared to be a lone voice as it vehemently opposed the proposals as they were bring debated. Based on impact assessments by Defra’s Pesticides Safety Directorate, it argued that the potential removal of the triazole group of pesticides as ‘endocrine disruptors’ (chemicals with potential adverse effects on human hormone systems) could result in a 20 per cent drop in UK wheat yields.

Even though it is now in place, the finer details of the Regulation are still being pored over by the European Commission and individual member states. According to Dominic Dyer, chief executive of the Crop Protection Association (CPA), the UK’s resistance and changing priorities in Europe mean it is now being interpreted ‘on a more ‘rational basis’.

It is now increasingly likely, he believes, that key chemicals that fall into the hazard criteria will be retained under a derogation that allows temporary approvals where no alternatives are available. 'In 2008, the UK was quite isolated. Since then its position has resonated with other member states,' Mr Dyer said. 'We are in a different world now. No-one among the major players in Europe wants to lose large numbers of very important chemicals like triazoles because they now understand that a 15 -20 per cent reduction in food production in Europe would be disastrous.'

He described a recent EU Parliament vote against calls to ban neonicotinoid pesticides because of their impact on bee health as a further ‘sign of changing times’.

Britain's Forgotten Sheep Farmer Poisoned By Pesticides

Government orders to use dangerous organophosphate chemicals left hundreds of sheep farmers with debilitating ill health, Tom Levitt reports on the UK's forgotten pesticide tragedy

David Layton's voice is quiet and trembling. He used to be so busy that he 
never took a holiday. Life running the family sheep farm on the English/Welsh border was a swirl of constant activity. Today, he can't even get out of bed by himself and relies on the 24-hour care of his wife, Teresa, for every one of his needs. 



David is one of an estimated several hundred farmers around the UK who have suffered the consequences of pesticide poisoning. You won't hear much, if anything, about them though. Many were poisoned long ago in the 1980s and early 90s. 

But for the ones still alive, the suffering goes on. It is a scandal largely forgotten by the government, medical profession and farming industry, each of whom would prefer the remaining victims to quietly pass away into history. 



What makes it even more tragic, is that it is a scandal that could have ended before it even started. 

In 1951, the highly-influential Lord Zuckerman, later to be the government's chief scientist, warned of the dangers of allowing farmers to use the newly emerging organophosphate pesticides (OPs).

Developed as a nerve gas before the 2nd World War, OPs were then being championed as an insecticide for killing bugs and pests that damaged livestock and crops. 

Zuckerman said the chemicals could be absorbed through the skin or inhalation and, as such, farmers should receive detailed instructions on protecting themselves and that all containers should be clearly labelled as 'deadly poison'. It wouldn't be until the 1990s that this last recommendation was finally implemented. 



Farmers ordered to use 'deadly' sheep dip

In an era when government policy was pushing to modernise farming with newly emerging technology and pesticides, the health warnings were soon brushed aside. OPs quickly become vital in tackling sheep scab, a highly contagious disease that causes suffering and weight loss in animals, and resulting loss in production and lambing. 



By the late 1970s, sheep farmers were under compulsory government orders to treat their animals twice a year with OPs, individually dipping them in specially constructed baths, full of the chemical to kill the insects spreading the disease. 



David remembers helping to dip neighbouring farms' sheep. 'We had the facilities to dip sheep in a big tank on the farm so the neighbours all came to us to get their flock dipped. I must have helped dip thousands of sheep every year, always preparing the chemicals. I suspect I was doing the most dangerous part of the job. Breathing it it for weeks on end but I was never given any instructions about using protective clothing.' 



It wouldn't be until much later as farmers like David began to suffer terrible side-affects, that many would realise the dangers using the sheep dips posed to their own health. 

'I would never have done such a thing if I had known what it was going to do to me,' says David, who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1993 and later confirmed as having suffered OP poisoning. 'It completely ruined my life. I was running this farm with little help and expanding and now I am totally reliant on others for my every need. It's been so difficult for my family to see me like this.' 



The earlier Zuckerman warnings weren't the only public record of the health 
risks of using OPs. In 1981 the health and safety executive (HSE) produced an advice leaflet on how to use OPs describing how the chemical can be absorbed through the skin or inhalation. It warned of the dangers of repeated low-level exposure, explaining how toxicity could slowly accumulate in the bodies of farmers if they did not take precautions and use protective clothing.

But this critically important advice was never passed onto farmers or even doctors, only emerging a decade later during investigations by campaigners and victims. Ironically, officials were often present at farms during the use of OPs, but the role of local constabulary and or health officials was to ensure all sheep were being dipped in the chemical rather than the farmers' own safety. 



Farmers' OP chemical fears ignored

For David's wife Teresa, the discovery that such critical safety information existed but was never given to farmers was devastating. 'Farming is supposed to be such a healthy occupation, outdoors in the lovely countryside and yet there was this dreadful hazard. Its so frustrating to think of all the things we could have done as a family and with our children which we haven't now been able to do. And all because of this sheep dip product that the government and chemical companies knew was dangerous yet let so many peoples lives be ruined.' 



Former agricultural journalist Anthony Gibson, who worked for the National Farmers Union for much of the past thirty years, says his employee, the main lobby group for UK farmers, has to take on some of the blame for the lack action of tackling OP poisoning. 



Gibson says the growing numbers of farmers reporting illness in the South-West of England in the late 1980s and early 1990s were largely ignored by the farming hierachy at the NFU. 'A lot of sheep farmers were not affected and it was for the greater good of the sheep industry that diseases like sheep scab were kept under control. The NFU high command saw it as a south-west problem and one of "southern softies".' Sir Ben Gill, NFU president at the time, didn't want me to 'rock the boat' on it and go against their pro-government line, says Gibson. 



Some go as far as suggesting it was 'sheer snobbery' on the part of the NFU as hill farmers didn't contribute as much to the organisation’s coffers. 

In the end it was the persistence of a small group of MPs and Lords who convinced the government to accept the evidence of health problems. Paul Tyler, an MP in Cornwall between 1992-2005, says the Conservative government was well-aware of the problem with sheep dips by the early 1990s but was reluctant to ban OP chemicals.

The agricultural minister John Gummer told campaigners that he feared being sued by OP manufacturers, if they could not prove a link between OPs and ill health.

 In the event, Gummer did end the twice-yearly compulsory order to dip sheep in OPs in 1992, arguing that dipping was 'not effective' in tackling sheep scab. A clever piece of political manoeuvring on the part of the government, suggests Tyler. While bringing an end to the enforced use of the pesticide by farmers - labelling and safety advice was also improved - it did not ban OPs outright nor did it state that they were a health risk. As a result, existing victims were left in limbo about seeking recognition or compensation for their ill health. 



The forgotten sheep dip victims

Even today, farmers suffering ill health are in some cases, unaware that it could be linked to their use of OP chemicals. Norfolk arable and beef farmer Peter Dixon used OPs throughout the 1980s, 90s and 00s before suffering worsening health five years ago. ‘I felt ill, lethargic and weak all the time,‘ he says, ’my GP couldn’t work out what was wrong with me.’ It was only after visiting a private physician that he was told his symptoms were linked to OP poisoning. After detox treatment, Dixon has partially recovered, but believes many farmers may still be suffering without knowing the cause.



The difficulty in directly linking chronic ill health and a use of OP chemicals means successive prosecution cases, against the chemical companies and government for failing to pass on adequate warnings to farmers, have also never succeeded. 

The lone successful legal case was brought by John Amos Hill in 1997, a farm worker who was using the OP pesticide to spray on harvested crops to protect them against vermin while they were being stored. He suffered deteriorating health problems in the days after using the OP spray, eventually collapsing and being admitted to hospital.

John still suffers poor health today and says he was given no warning of the health hazards of using the chemical or protective clothing by his employer. He successfully won his case for compensation against his employer and the chemical company, as this was his one and only instance of using OPs, enabling him to prove the link between using the chemical and his ill health.



After an initial delay, the government did eventually begin commissioning research into the links between exposure to OP chemicals and health problems. Researchers found evidence that even low-level exposure to OPs could damage the nervous system of farmers. They also found that some people may be genetically predisposed to OP poisoning and less able to break down the organophosphate once it gets into their body.



One of the leading researchers into OP poisoning, Dr Sarah McKenzie Ross, says research findings so far are strong enough to justify a review of the use of organophosphates and that victims in the farming sector deserve compensation.

 However, so far there has been a reluctance by government officials to accept the study findings, with officials insisting there has been 'no definitive' link between using organophosphates and chronic ill-health and that more research is needed. 



Many suspect there is a deliberate attempt by the government to 'string out' the research programme long enough to allow the pesticide manufacturers to find alternatives and for compensation to be avoided as victims die. Former farming minister Lord Rooker confirmed as much in a House of Lords debate on OPs in 2009 saying, 'I do not want to be controversial but ones gets the impression of a natural reluctance of the centre to investigate...Why? "Oh, because there are no new cases; because of the issue of compensation; because the science is not quite clear"'.

Monsanto Poisons 400,000,000 Acres US Farm Land

Monsanto and Dow Chemical were the largest producers of 2,4,5-T herbicide that created dioxin as a byproduct and was used as an agricultural herbicide before the 1950′s. Monsanto, Dow Chemical and other makers of dioxin-contaminated herbicide 2,4,5-T produced 50 MILLION pounds of these chemicals per year for agricultural uses in the US! Since 1947, more than 300 million pounds of dioxin laden 2,4,5-T was sprayed on more than 400 MILLION acres of US land, mostly on farms and agricultural property.

The 2,4,5-T dioxin-containing herbicide was later combined with 2,4-D to create Agent Orange for chemical warfare against Viet Nam.

Both Monsanto and Dow Chemical were aware, since the 1950′s, that German company Boeringer was able to produce herbicide 2,4,5-T without any detectable dioxin by slow cooking the chemical for about 12 hours. But Monsanto and Dow ignored this information and cooked their 2,4,5-T batches in 45 minutes or less, thus contaminating the product with dioxin — presumably for higher profits.

Monsanto and Dow Chemical were also aware that dioxin caused health problems. Monsanto and Dow Chemical would go bankrupt if they were actually held accountable for their crimes against humanity and the environment. The herbicide 2,4,5-T was phased out in the late 1970′s.

Dioxin is an umbrella term for a class of super toxic chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, liver disease, immune system damage and many other health problems. There is no safe ‘threshold’ dose as our bodies have zero defense against dioxin, according to health consultant Jonathan Campbell.

Dioxin has a half life of over 100 years in the environment when it is below the surface or dumped in waterways.

Chemical Warfare On Fresh Tomatoes

The 'Immokalee babies' were born with severe deformities after their mothers were each exposed to pesticides whilst harvesting tomatoes. Barry Estabrook reports on the case that shocked the US

Tower Cabins is a labour camp consisting of about thirty drab wooden shacks and a few deteriorating trailers crammed together behind an unpainted wooden fence just south of Immokalee, a city in the heart of southwest Florida’s tomato-growing region.

When Yaffa knocked on the door, Herrera answered. He was struck by the fact that the petite, round-faced woman was barely older than a child herself. All the men who lived in the trailer were in the fields. Carlitos was propped up in a baby seat. Strips of drying meat hung from a clothesline stretched across the living room, and the humid air was rank and pungent. Flies buzzed everywhere.

When Carlitos began fussing, Herrera took the six-month-old baby out of the seat and laid him on the floor. An orphaned puppy that the trailer’s residents had adopted came bouncing around, and the child watched it, smiling and cooing.

'No arms, no legs'

The puppy yipped, pounced, and started nipping at the baby. Carlitos began to scream, and Herrera rushed to pick him up. Yaffa was powerfully affected. The child, who did not even have the ability to flick away a fly or push back against a puppy, faced a lifetime of need. 'The pesticides got into her system and affected this child that was forming and lo and behold, he ends up being born with no arms and no legs,' he told me.

NOTE: Every time that we buy conventional produce sprayed with several dozen toxic chemicals we enable these tragedies to happen. Vote NO with your dollars!