WHO About to Deliver Huge Blow to Companies Like Monsanto

Will this herbicide be deemed ‘carcinogenic’ too?
Print Friendly
plants_testing_science_lab_735_350
Christina Sarich
BY CHRISTINA SARICH
POSTED ON JUNE 3, 2015

 

When the World Health Organization recently declared that the herbicide ingredient glyphosate was ‘probably carcinogenic,’ numerous countries responded with bans, serious inquiries, and boycotts of Monsanto’s Roundup. Now, the WHO is now set to review another Big Ag chemical, 2,4-D, just three months after Monsanto was delivered news it couldn’t swallow. You can bet Big Ag is nervous.

It isn’t as if this ‘bad’ news is ‘big news’ to most of us in the GMO-awareness movement. We’ve been sounding the warning sirens about these products for decades. What matters is that a WHO declaration that a product is cancerous finally gives government agencies and local municipalities the extra ‘oomph’ they need to take decisive action against agribusiness companies who are poisoning us and the planet.

The herbicide 2,4-D is set to be examined by twenty-four scientists representing the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

The review will occur at a meeting scheduled for June 2nd– 9th in Lyon, France.

Read: Health Authorities Call Glyphosate a Human Carcinogen

A totally separate group of IARC scientists were the ones who delivered a death blow to Monsanto, but a joyful recognition to all those who have been negatively affected by Big Ag chemicals. It meant that things were finally changing.

Many believe the new scientific panel could deliver a similar fate to makers of 2,4-D, the main ingredient used in Vietnam, known around the world as Agent Orange.

Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumers Union believes they will upgrade 2,4-D’s status as a dangerous chemical, which would then prompt a similar reaction to Monsanto’s Glyphosate – bans, consumer boycotts, and more.

With the obvious reference in our history of the Vietnam War, the case for 2,4-D is even more open and shut than with glyphosate. Dow representatives say there is no cancer link, but IARC scientists Maria Leon, and others, say that there are multiple cancer connections triggered by 2,4-D exposure.

Should the WHO’s declaration concerning 2,4-D be similar to that given for glyphosate, that means first Monsanto, and then Dow Chemical would be knocked down to size within months. Big Ag, the world is asking for you to pay your karmic debt. It starts now.

Other Popular Stories:

  1. Researcher: Scientists Have Warned for Years that Monsanto’s Roundup Causes Cancer
  2. Dr. Oz Slams Glyphosate, Monsanto, and Regulators Allowing its Release
  3. Danish Authority Calls Glyphosate a Human Carcinogen
  4. Chinese Government Sued over Monsanto Causing Cancer
  5. Two Major Biotech Companies May Soon Merge into ‘Mega Monsanto’
  6. Will Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide Soon Be Banned?

Source:  http://naturalsociety.com/first-glyphosate-now-24-d-who-may-deliver-next-huge-blow-to-companies-like-monsanto/#ixzz3c86eBhu8

Slide # 4

MONSANTO – MYTHS & FACTS

Monsanto_Myths_and_Facts_ENMonsanto gets lots of awards: for sustainability, innovation, corporate equality, cultural competence, corporate responsibility, top science employer— even for being a Great Place to Work.

At the same time, the Internet abounds with tales of another Monsanto of allegedly dark past and purpose. Many of these tales have been repeated so often, by so many people, that they have become lore, no matter how wrong they are.

Our new Monsanto Myths & Facts guide provides a set of factual statements about Monsanto as well as responses to the most common myths that you might encounter, especially online, where fact-checking seems to be in particularly short supply. It is for anyone who wants to learn more, and includes lots of links to additional sources of information. The leaflet is available in the following languages:

We also have an animated slideshow version of the booklet on our YouTube channel.

We hope that you find it useful, and welcome any feedback you have.

Paper versions of the leaflets are available on request. Please use the Contact form.

Monsanto Public Affairs Europe, Middle East and Africa

21 comments to Monsanto – Myths & Facts

  • Neven  says:

    You’re not fooling anyone.

    • Brandon Mitchener  says:

      Thanks for your comment. Obviously our goal is stop other people from fooling people. There’s little societal value in the spread of misinformation.

  • Gene Yakub  says:

    Historically, in man’s attempts to interfere with and control nature there has been a severe backlash against human beings. The actual effects of this horrendous interference are not yet apparent, they require a several cycles of planting and harvest and consumption which you have not yet allowed for.
    Plus, the weed killer ROUNDUP used by your products has been proven to play havoc with all types of natural components put there in the first place to balance the ecological requirements of healthy farming.
    Your goal stated above is a load of codswallop. You are only after making money on the back of we foolish, gullible humans while you can.

    • Brandon Mitchener  says:

      Gene,
      Thanks for your comment. Unbeknownst to most people, Monsanto does take responsibility for its seeds and other products seriously and tests them all extensively before, during and after they are put on sale. Every product that we put on the market complies with current laws and regulations and is accompanied by recommendations on safe use in accordance with national laws and regulations.
      Farming by itself is “unnatural” in the sense that trees and crops don’t normally plant themselves in neat rows, but people have been doing that for thousands of years, and their ability to do that is considered fundamental to the development of human civilization. Roundup has been used successfully by farmers around the world for decades, helping them produce more food, fuel and fibre with less land, water, energy, waste and worry (weeds!) than they did before. That, in turn, has helped make food more affordable and accessible to people who need it. You may choose to believe this or not believe it, but farmers are not stupid and would not do things that knowingly damage their soil. Most of our customers worldwide are small farmers who depend on them entirely for their income and to provide for their families. Would they really buy the same Monsanto products year after year if, as you argue, this was not in the best interests of themselves and their customers, including you and me?

  • Matt b  says:

    Like the above comment says… You are not fooling anyone. I’m waiting for the day that you “Monsanto” cannot refute the fact that you were wrong and you cause mass genocide through your poison. No different to fluoride, all comes out in the wash eventually and you will be held accountable for your crimes to humanity. Brainwashed employees, you should be ashamed of yourselves for being so thick. By the way, yes they would buy the same products year after year because they do what they are told like good little sheep. Its called ignorance.

    • Brandon Mitchener  says:

      Dear Matt, We’re sorry you’re not convinced by what we’re doing. We respect everyone’s right to buy organic and avoid fluoride toothpaste if that works for them. It’s not particularly helpful to see people like yourself think we are guilty of crimes against humanity while lauding some people who deny the access of others to life-sustaining foods for benefits to society. As our CTO is fond of saying, it’s not our business to tell people what to eat or how many kids to have–just to try to make balanced diets accessible to those who are already there. So far we have seen no comparable vision from the anti-Monsanto crowd.

  • Dennis Janssen  says:

    Dear Monsanto,

    It amazes me that people dont see the potential in GMOs. It really annoys me to see that the organic movement and antiscience movements are making it difficult to solve some big problems we are facing on our planet with lies of woo. The natural fallacy is a common bias blinding people for the truth. People just dont see that everything in this world is nature. Something unnatural can’t really excist. We are all bound to these rules of nature and altering some organics is still natures way. I’ve been advocating this on fb and I see what your up against and just wanna say, there are people that believe in GMOs. Although I understand the fear and mistrust of people I have a hard time with the blame game. I dont think companies are evil, they just follow the rules of economy and try to protect their interests. If you wanna be mad about something be mad about the rules of the system. I myself think the patent claiming is a bad thing and should be banned from this world but I can not blame companies for doing it. Its just how these things work in this day and age. I also think everything should be open source and companies should be more honest about there products and should stop manipulating people with psychology tricks. But hey people, reality check, that world is something to dream about but impossible in this era.If people really didnt want it this way, they would not buy all the “unhealthy” processed foods in the first place. Its strange to see that in this discussion everyone wants the government to control this with legislation but themselves want to be free to buy what they want and believe what they want to believe. Euhm…people, make up your mind.
    Hope you find a way to get the public behind GMOs cause it could better the world and create balance in nature.
    We could solve so many problems that it hurts me to see all the ignorance about this subject which is blocking progress.

    Good luck,

    Dennis

    • Brandon Mitchener  says:

      Dennis, Thanks for your comment. As I hope you know, GMOs are not our business focus in Europe, but globally we do believe they’re one tool that can help farmers, including very small scale farmers, improve their harvests while reducing waste. We are strong believers in the value of intellectual property as an inecentive for research and development spending, most of which results in innovation that is useful to society, directly or indirectly. It’s hard to imagine a world in which companies would invest billions of dollars (we invest about $4 million a day) in R&D withhout some financial incentive for doing so. If all your competitors, or customers, can immediately copy your product, what is the point of spending the money? Patents and other forms of IP were created for a reason, because society recognized the need to reward those willing to take this kind of business risk. Contrary to polular misconception, a patent is no guarantee of a return on an investment! Many investments don’t pay off. That’s why it’s all the more important to be able to eke out a reasonable profit from those that do. Best regards, Brandon Mitchener for Monsanto Europe

  • Bob  says:

    Nice PR and images here!

  • Dennis Janssen  says:

    Dear Brandon,

    Thank you for the response. I know that GMOs are not the major focus for Monsanto in Europe. This is probably because our agriculture has already high standards and more effective then the poorer countries. Of course soil also plays a role why we do not have the need for GMO. Also strong legitlation in Europe makes it harder to get it approved for use. This is good for safety but it also is a bit strange to see that believes sometimes come for facts when antiscience find enough support to block progress.
    The patent thing I do understand. I just dream of a world without money and competition. Humankind would be better when working together instead of this ratrace. Our competitive society isnt the most efficient way for progressmanaging our small planet. I myself love the venus project filosophy but I see we are a long way from this hollistic dream. It would be so much better when science and facts would rule instead of politicians whom represent believes and greed. We have so much knowledge it hurts to see its not being used in the most efficient way. People need more education on subjects ( like GMO ) so we can implement our knowledge to the fullest. I have a dream!

  • Karla Kollumna  says:

    How can you lie to yourselves this hard?
    Just go and compare the view, the smell, the taste and the ground of ecological gardens to the ones growing your manipulated seeds using chemicals.
    Humanity did not survive for thousands of years with agriculture by killing all other plants except the ones we want. Not by killing off all bugs which want to feast on the desired plant. And now you, and granted, also other companies come with big money and convince people with clever marketing to spray poison on their food.
    And granted also, in the first year(s) there might be a drastic increase in efficiency- After that the farmers find their former healthy topsoil as rotten ground.

    But just go ahead- Think of cleverly crafted blogarticles, mediacampaigns and sponsorships of ecological organisations while others do hard work on their farm, slowly killing their ecosystems with your products.

    To the ones at Monsanto having doubt about their bosses and their product- Please, quit your job while you still can. You are doing horrible things but you can still quit it.

    • Brandon Mitchener  says:

      Karla,

      Thanks for writing. Many people often seem to assume that Monsanto is full of a bunch of Mr. Burns types who are only in this for the money. That just isn’t true, though.

      Many of our top executives are farmers and grew up on farms, both in the U.S. and in other countries. And many of us believe that we’re very moral people, helping to do the right thing by the planet by helping farmers produce more, better and more affordable food to feed a rapidly growing population with less land, water, energy, waste and worry. Some of us even buy some organic food for personal reasons not related to unfounded fears. For example, I buy organic meat and dairy products for animal welfare reasons, because I saw first-hand as a journalist the difference that Europe’s organic agriculture rules had on animal welfare (I don’t buy any other organic foods). But I also know that most people can’t afford organic food, which is generally about 30% more expensive than non-organic alternatives. Less than 5% of Europe’s population buys organic food. That means that 95% of Europe’s citizens make a conscious decision every time they go shopping NOT to buy organic food. The choice is there, and people choose to buy food that is produced efficiently. Ultimately, making more efficient use of the agricultural land that is already under cultivation around the world reduces pressure on the world’s true natural spaces: forests, mountains, rivers, lakes and oceans.

      I would also like to correct your apparent belief that organic agriculture doesn’t use chemicals. See:https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html and http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/ and http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/eu-policy/expert-advice/documents/final-reports/egtop-final-report-on-ppp-ii_en.pdf. Some of the pesticides used in organic farming, including copper sulphate, are downright terrible for the environment despite being “natural.” Lead and arsenic and mercury are also natural, but that doesn’t make them edible.

      Thanks again for reading our blog and for writing to us. We doubt we will have convinced you, but maybe you will take the time to read more about organic farming and see that it is not really a workable alternative to the agricultural system that feeds the majority of the world’s 7.5 billion people today.

  • Otto Reinstra  says:

    Dear Mr. Brandon Michener, you are wrong. It is not hard at all to “imagine a world in which companies would invest heavily in R&D without some financial incentive for doing so”. In fact, I work for a company that does just that. It is called a public company, and unlike Monsanto it works in the interest of society as a whole, not in the interest of a few investors.
    I think farming and food production should remain in the public demain, transparent to all, and allowing open innovation.
    You will probably keep saying that your greed-is-good philosophy is wonderful for everybody, but as the above comment said, you’re not fooling anyone. You’re hurting society, for example by your recent attacks on the WHO.

    • Brandon Mitchener  says:

      Where to start? 1) There are manny public sector scientists who do some of the same kinds of work as Monsanto. Golden rice is a great example, developed by public sector scientists for a humanitarian purpose–to help poor people in developing countries get more Vitamin A in their diets and avoid blindness and premature death. But anti-GM activists have blocked even those projects that don’t have a profit motive. 2) Then there’s the question of scale. Yes, sure, public sector entities can invest in things, too, but those that invest the most tend to be private industry–because their is a potential profit if their investment results in something that people want to buy. You may not like capitalism–and it sounds like you don’t–but that’s the way business in many countries operates. Monsanto, for its part, invests $4 million a day in R&D, and would be highly unlikely to invest this much if there were not some potential and gainful recovery of that investment. 3) This is all the more true because of the huge regulatory and political hurdles that anyone faces with GM products, whether they be companies or governments or non-profits. Mandatory tests and long review periods have inflated the cost of getting a new GM trait approved to the point that many public sector organisations who have products that would merit approval cannot afford the process to get them approved–which, in turn, makes it less likely for them to get the next research grant.

  • Angelo Liotta  says:

    I had a scientific education and I think that solution to problems like food supply for all mankind will come from advances in science. That’s why I disagree with an ideological approach against GMO technology not supported by scientific evidences, like many environmental activists have. I think as well that big companies like Monsanto have knowledge and means necessary to give all of us a better tomorrow, and making money is not a crime if you pursue these goals with fairness.

  • Dennis Janssen  says:

    So Brandon,

    What’s with all the banning on glyphosate because it is a carcinogen?
    Some stores don’t sell roundup anymore in the Netherlands. Also a lot of negative media reporting. I was always nonbeliever because this pesticide is around so long. What’s up?

    • Brandon Mitchener  says:

      Dennis,

      Thanks for your question. We’ve seen some stores opportunistically removing glyphosate-based weed killers from their cataglogues, but also seen others incereasing sales as a business opportunity. The stores that opt for supposedly “natural” alternatives typically put out press releasses; the stores that are happily selling Roundup and similar products just get on with “business as usual.” Guess which activity generates the headlines?

      For the record, no responsible organisation or scientist has said that glyphosate is a carcinogen because there is simply no evidence for that. In fact, the resent classiciation of glyphosate by IARC as a “probable carcinogen” flies in the face of findings by regulatory agencies for the past 40 years, which have repeatedly determined that glyphosate is not a carcinogen, doesn’t have mutagenic effects, etc. The difference is that IARC looks at potential hazards, while regulators look at risks based on real-world exposure scenarios. There are perfectly natural substances that are also hazardous and worrisome by IARC’s standards–but that classification says nothing about whether there are perfectly safe, prudent ways of using or living with those substances. We’ve published a nice blog post by our chief toxicologist on this:http://monsantoblog.eu/?p=1300.

  • Ionel  says:

    If we can and have nothing to hide, please answer this questions to the people:

    1. Have Monsanto ever conducted a study on large enough number of mice and/or humans and for at least 5-10 years with scientist form any non-profit organization and media representatives as witnesses monitoring the study in order to prove that all your products are harmless to humans and the environment?

    2. Do all the staff, especially owners and shareholders of Monsanto (and all other companies related), eat every day the vegetables produced with the help of it’s products? Prove it! Film/Record step by step from harvesting through preparing and eating it.

    • Brandon Mitchener  says:

      Thanks for your questions, which we’re happy to answer.

      To your first question, it’s highly unlikely that Monsanto or any other comapny has done 5-10 year studies in mice or any other rodents, since that exceeds their natural lifespans. Laboratory rats, which are often used for toxicity studies, generally only live two years, for example. Monsanto’s products, whether seeds or chemical products, are tested according to the law, which in Europe certainly dissuades companies and anyone else from conducting unnecessary animal tests that constitute needless animal cruelty. Moreover, our products are approved by governments, often after scientific review by experts that considers the full body of public and proprietary research available on the products under consideration. In the case of the EU’s ongoing review of glyphosate, for example, Monsanto was required by law to submit every scientific study and reference at its disposal, helpful or unhelpful, so that regulators–not Monsanto–can decide which are the most relevant for an environment, health and safety assessment. You can read our position on animal testing of GM seeds here.

      To your second question, Monsanto employees and shareholders eat the same foods as anyone else. We employ vegans as well as carnivores and people who may buy organic food for animal welfare reasons even as they frown on unsubstantiated claims that organic food is healthier or better for the environment. You can read our public response to the myth that Monsanto only serves organic food in its U.S. headquarters cafeteria here. You can also find numerous videos of Monsanto employees eating Monsanto products on our U.S. YouTube channel here.

      Source: http://monsantoblog.eu/monsanto-myths-facts/?gclid=CIusgLD09sUCFWnItAod3VoA9w#.VXC5NM9VhBc

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

2 Responses to “WHO About to Deliver Huge Blow to Companies Like Monsanto”

  1. Adam Lightwarrior Exposing the Secret Space Program says:

    I go against my Gandhi like peaceful non confrontative policy and strategy for a moment
    These Monsanto people above need to be dragged out and hit with a baseball bat. Why?
    They seem evil. I wonder what makes them tick Whats more chilling, theyve the veneer of being highly functioning, able to discuss, debate. One wonders are they brainwashed, or from bloodlines that are truly fucking evil, and the Monsanto spokespeople, are just nasty. Whatever the case I dislike their slick chatter intensely

    On a positive note. Could it be white hats, from positive secret societies ( this whole worlds about secret societies) have infiltrated the WHO and this is why this developments happened?

  2. Tim says:

    Brandon Mitchener, if you honestly think that growing vegetables using man-made pesticides, fertilizers and GM seeds is a better idea for humanity than growing organic then you are deluded. You have been sold a fantasy by your luciferian controllers. Keep reading The Tap, we may be able to help you.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.