Monsanto ban in Italy....?

[valley ranch]

Andrew Osborn in Brussels

Tuesday 9 September 2003 21.41 EDT
Italy wins Monsanto ban case

Italy is in the EU, Brussels makes agriculture descisions for the EU


Italy won the right yesterday to impose an emergency ban on genetically modified food products when Europe's highest court waded into a bitter dispute between Rome and the US biotechnology giant Monsanto.

But Italy's victory was not clear cut and could be short-lived. The European court of justice said that Rome would have to provide "detailed" evidence that GM products posed a risk to human health before any emergency ban was imposed.

The court also warned that it could not rely on hypothetical evidence or supposition.

Products containing minute traces of GM material could not be automatically banned, the court ruled.

The matter will now be referred back to the Italian courts which will have to decide whether or not the Italian government had been justified in 2000 in banning several varieties of GM maize that were sold elsewhere in the EU.

Both the Italian government and Monsanto claimed victory yesterday, but anti-GM campaigners stressed that the main thing was that the Italian ban would remain in place.

Geert Ritsema, GMO campaigner at FoE Europe, said: "There is huge scepticism in Italy about GM technology. And whatever Monsanto may say, this doesn't mean that these products are allowed or that the ban is lifted."

The case centres upon EU rules on the safety of genetically modified products, which are about to be replaced. FoEE had accused Monsanto of trying to exploit a legal loophole to win product approval.

"What they are trying to do is get access to the market for their products using a concept which has already been rejected by European lawmakers. It's a lost cause," said Mr Ritsema.

Monsanto, however, said it was confident of victory. A spokesman said: "It's a positive outcome for us. We anticipate that the [Italian] court will follow it and the position [ban] will be revoked."

The case is just one of several different legal battles being fought over GM technology. Earlier this month the European commission blocked the first attempt by an EU region to turn itself into a statutory GM-free zone.

 

[valley ranch]

Monsanto Opened Corporate Offices In Brussels Belgium

Brussels, Belgium
Monsanto Corporation has used the revolving door policy to good effect in the EU. see revolving door Monsanto USA. Monsanto has found there is no need to deal with each country in the EU, while Brussels is the Washington DC of Europe and can override objections in any and all countries.


In Europe, March Against Monsanto Is Latest Rejection of the GMO Giant by Katarzyna Gajewska



Eight national governments in the European Union have banned Monsanto's MON810 maize and other forms of GMO cultivation in their countries: Austria, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg and Poland. In Poland, Amflora potatoes and MON810 were banned in January of this year, with the Ministry of Agriculture citing danger to bees in justifying its decision. Violation of the bans are sanctioned with fines of 200 percent of the value of GM seeds, with government ordinance to destroy any GMO fields.

The struggle for the ban took several years and involved a coalition of actors. Greenpeace Poland produced a movie revealing conflict of interest and attempts by biotech giants like Monsanto to influence politicians. In September of last year, Warsaw activists protested in front of the American Embassy against Monsanto, which has an estimated 3,000 hectares of MON810 cultivated in Poland — though the actual amounts planted are hard to determine because farmers purchased some GMO products in the Czech Republic.

In its history, the European Union has only approved two genetically modified organisms for cultivation: Monsanto’s MON810 maize, in 1998 (which was renewed in 2009), and BASF’s Amflora potatoes, in 2010 (although the latter has not been widespread and the company is withdrawing from the market). There are currently over 100,000 hectares of GMO cultivation in the 27 E.U.-member countries, and the main country with MON810 crops is Spain, which increased its cultivation by 19.5 percent last year. Again, the data are based on industry declarations to the government, meaning the actual figures could vary as much as 80 percent.

Monsanto wields its E.U. power from an office in Brussels where it tries to influence public decision-making processes to increase company profits, according to Koen Roovers of Alter-E.U, which is cooperating with Combat Monsanto and Corporate Europe Observatory to encourage more transparency in the biotech sector. Corporate Europe Observatory, Earth Open Source, Testbiotech and other NGOs revealed that the higher ranked employees of the European Food Safety Authority, which evaluates products for authorization, have been linked to Monsanto and other GMO producers. In May 2012, the European Parliament pointed to this conflict of interest in the EFSA and postponed the E.U. budget approval as a result.

But the power of E.U. states against GMO authorization have grown, with Italy announcing in April of this year that it wants to introduce a ban as well, following the insistence of its Minister of Health. UK-based organization GM-freeze calculated that Italy's rejection of GMO crops would have a major impact because "in terms of voting at the Council of Ministers, Italy’s decision to join the countries banning the GM crop now makes it very difficult for the [European] Commission to take any action to lift the bans, because the nine Member States have 162 votes out of the 345 total, which means a qualified majority against the bans (255 votes) is impossible to achieve." The countries with a GMO ban represent 56 percent of the total E.U. population.

Even while an official ban on GM crops is still absent in most of the E.U. member states, regions and municipalities have taken initiative to define themselves as GMO-free zones: in Belgium (entire Wallonia), Finland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK, regional GMO bans are widely in place.

Such GMO-free zones are particularly notable in Spain, the main GM producer in the E.U., where 30 percent of crops are GMO. In Catalunya, the country's wealthiest region, MON810 accounted for 90% of seedlings. While MON810 is grown in Catalunya's neighboring province Aragón, four regions — Asturias, Basque Country, Balearic Islands and Canary Islands — have declared themselves GMO-free. The provinces of Málaga, Álava and Vizcaya as well as the islands of Menorca, Mallorca and Cabildo Insular de Lanzarote have declared their territories GMO-free. In total, 117 Spanish municipalities in 14 regions have sided against GMOs, representing about 20 percent of the country's population.



GMO Research and Industry Blowback

Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen in France has been a victim of attacks for revealing that Monsanto products lead to health problems. In 2011, he won a libel case against the French Association for Plant Biotechnology and its president, Marc Fellous. Then, in September of 2012, Séralini demonstrated in a two-year study of rats fed with NK603 maize, that either with or without the use of the herbicide Roundup, a higher frequency of tumors, kidney and liver pathologies were detected. EFSA gave a green light to this maize based on studies over a 90-day period. Monsanto has since waged a heavy PR campaign in an effort to discredit Séralini's findings, although the French Minister of Agriculture, Stéphane Le Foll, has stressed that long term studies on GMOs are necessary and that evaluation and control at the European level should be improved.

 

[Beekissed]

http://www.vina.cc/2015/07/04/hungary-destroys-all-monsanto-gmo-corn-fields/

 

[valley ranch]

Good for them. The countries in the European union ,Hungray isn't, are in a tougher spot with Brussels infiltrated.
Good for Hungray, taking care of their people, in South America the government will send out a goon squad to beat their people up for speaking out against a company they have made a deal with. Here, we just have to get people in office who care about us.

Thanks for posting that, I hadn't heard about that.

Richard

 

[valley ranch]

What is Monsanto hiding in secret documents?
0
By The Event Chronicle on April 14, 2015 · Study
What is Monsanto hiding in secret documents?
A scientist offers shocking comments.

“Let’s have a federal court where the judge pretends the lawyers for the defense are fully informed about the facts of the case. The plaintiff, a giant corporation, pretends it’s concerned about the safety of the public. The press pretends it’s covering the court case. Activists for the public who live more than a hundred miles away from the courthouse pretend they care about what happens. The overwhelming number of federal employees don’t even know there is a case. The defendants, who are being poisoned by the giant corporation, at one time lived on their land in an undisturbed way—until outsiders, whose descendants now control the court, took away the land by force. Perfect justice, correct? Absolutely no problem.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

(Jon Rappoport) Two days ago, I reported on a scandal occurring in the Monsanto vs. Maui court case:

Namely, heavily redacted documents, which Monsanto has offered to the court in defense of its position that it should be allowed to continue toxic pesticide and GMO experiments in Maui County.

Federal Judge, Susan Oki Mollway, who will decide the case, has read the full unredacted versions of these Monsanto documents—but the lawyers representing the people of Maui have not. And they can’t. The blacked-out information is off-limits to them.

This means they can’t argue their case with full knowledge. They’re hamstrung. To conclude this situation is unfair and illegitimate is a vast understatement.

A scientist familiar with this court case has commented to me about the current situation.

Dr. Lorrin Pang’s CV reads in part: retired US Army Medical Corps, former consultant to the World Health Organization for 20 years, currently advisor to the US Congress for medical research. Americas Best Doctors listing.

Dr. Pang offers his important assessment of what might sit underneath all those Monsanto blacked-out lines:

“There are two worries I have about the redacted lines which only Monsanto and the judge sees. What if…[the redacted lines]reference a Monsanto…chemical similar to toxaphene (banned for toxicity and spreading hundreds of miles). Can she [Judge Mollway] tell us what [Monsanto] chemicals are similar enough to toxaphene to be worrisome? Can she recognize the chemical structure of toxaphene (from multiple choice diagrams)? What if it is toxaphene itself? Furthermore…the [Monsanto legal] argument depends intimately on untested combinations [of Monsanto chemical pesticides]……I need to know the number of chemicals used AND the amounts used to see their potential for [toxic]overlap. I feel I am competent to make these assessments.

“I don’t have access to the [un]redacted versions of Monsanto documents]. Only two other parties do. 1) Monsanto is grossly biased and 2) the Judge who is not scientifically qualified. If she brings in a third party “independent” (say UH) to assess for her, they have to be both non-biased and scientifically qualified. I am not even convinced she can recognize the scientific qualifications of her own advisers. For example, ask them their opinion on the recent ruling of WHO on glyphosate risk of cancer [glyphosate is the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s pesticide Roundup]. On the mutational potential of glyphosate for human pathogens related to antibiotic resistance. On the gene toxicity (same mechanism as cancer) relationship [of glyphosate]to birth defects (widely published, even before the cancer risk publications).

“If [the Monsanto]info is redacted because of threat of vandalism [at their secret facility locations on Maui]—that is a police issue to be resolved if it occurs, not a court decision.”

Dr. Pang is raising vital issues that obliterate any rationale for Monsanto and the federal court to heavily censor Monsanto documents.

How in the world can Judge Mollway evaluate what Monsanto is saying about its pesticide/GMO experiments in Maui County—namely that there are no health problems, the work is safe, and no one is threatened?

What experts will the Judge rely on? Who are they? What bias do they bring? The Judge has no way of evaluating scientists.

Indeed, the case is already stacked in favor of Monsanto and against the people of Maui, and the likely scientific experts on tap will support Monsanto’s position.

This court case is a poorly staged charade, the objective of which is to exonerate Monsanto and permit it to continue to use the “open-air laboratory” of Maui as a testing ground for unapproved toxic pesticides and GMOs.

I continue to be astonished by the lack of coverage this case is getting in the alternative press. Maui is ground-zero in the battle against Monsanto, because the corporation has established its primary experimental premises there.

On Election Day, the people of Maui legitimately voted to place a temporary ban on all Monsanto/Dow experimentation in the County. Not a label, a ban.

They voted to order a deep and independent investigation of all Monsanto/Dow experiments in the County.

That vote has been suspended and suppressed and neutralized and stepped on by Monsanto and Dow’s court filings.

Now, Dr. Pang has come forward and correctly expressed his refusal to believe that the Judge in the case, Susan Mollway, is even remotely competent to rule.

What else do we need to know?

This is a rig-job. A legitimate vote by citizens has been obliterated.

The “science” favoring Monsanto has been cooked.

A corporation is running a federal court.

Why not just say, “A Monsanto Federal Court has ruled that Monsanto is innocent. Don’t worry, be happy.”

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Source: Jon Rappoport — No More Fake New

 

[valley ranch]

Russia Bans GMO Corn Over Cancer Fears as Pressure Builds on Monsanto


Written by Alex Newman




Following an explosive French study suggesting a link between Monsanto’s controversial genetically engineered corn and cancer, Russian authorities have temporarily suspended all imports and use of the biotech GMO product until further safety testing can be performed. Officials worldwide are reportedly investigating the matter as well.

Russia’s consumer-protection agency, known as Rospotrebnadzor, announced the decision last week, saying it had ordered the country’s Institute of Nutrition to investigate the recent French university study. The regulatory agency has also reportedly asked the European Union for its views as the European Food Safety Authority vowed to review the research.

"Until we receive the full information in this case, the import and sale of genetically modified NK603 corn is being temporarily suspended," the Russian agency said in a statement posted on its website. Some analysts called the move largely “symbolic,” but it did make a splash.

The news out of Moscow quickly prompted headlines around the world as consumer fears over genetically engineered crops reached their highest level yet. But even before Russia’s new temporary ban was announced, the embattled American biotech giant was already under attack from California to Europe.

Analysts and Monsanto itself downplayed the significance of the Russian government’s decision, claiming that it would not have a large effect on the firm’s business. Among the reasons cited: the government already prohibits farmers from planting genetically engineered organisms (GMOs) and Russia imports very little corn from the United States anyway.

"Russia is a net exporter of grain, so the actual impact of their temporary suspension, if any, is likely to be small," a Monsanto spokesman said in a statement, claiming that the safety of NK603 corn was “well established.” The company’s stock price has not yet suffered any serious blows from the news, either.

Some critics of the Russian government’s decision, especially pro-GMO lobbyists, alleged that the move did not really have anything to do with safety concerns. Instead, they argued, it was a transparent effort to shield the inefficient Russian agriculture sector from tough U.S. government-subsidized competition.

Anti-GMO advocates countered that Monsanto has long been using the U.S. government as its attack dog in the drive to spread its products around the world. Despite heavy American diplomatic pressure and an intense lobbying campaign, however, governments have not all accepted genetically engineered crops just yet.

Still, Monsanto has been feverishly playing defense in recent weeks, attempting to discredit the University of Caen study on GMO corn that showed increased tumor growth in both male and female rats. According to the St. Louis-based firm, the data was incomplete and the study “doesn’t meet minimum acceptable standards for this type of scientific research.”

Critics have accused Monsanto and the biotech industry as a whole of attempting to quash any scientific data that casts doubts on the safety and efficacy of genetic engineering, saying the whole sector relies instead on lobbying and U.S. government support as the cornerstone of its business plan. But despite being heralded as the first long-term study on the effects of GMOs — industry studies typically last about three months — Monsanto dismissed the results of the latest investigation.

“We do not believe the recent French research findings present information that justifies any change in the safety determination for NK603 or its approval status for imports,” a spokesman for Monsanto told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “The safety of NK603 is well established as reflected in the respective safety assessments by regulatory authorities around the world.”

Earlier this month, researchers in France released the results of their two-year study, which was published in The Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal. According to the scientists, both the genetically engineered corn and the herbicide Roundup were linked to early death, massive organ failure, explosive tumor growth, and other problems.

In addition to Monsanto, some independent experts also questioned the study. However, the outcome sparked major concerns about GMO products around the world, with French authorities calling for an emergency review and even a possible European Union-wide ban on Monsanto’s controversial seeds and herbicide.

“Depending on [food safety agency] ANSES’ opinion, the government will urge the European authorities to take all necessary measures to protect human and animal health,” explained French Agriculture Minister Stephane Le Foll and Social Affairs Minister Marisol Touraine in a joint statement. “[The measures] could go as far as invoking emergency suspension of imports of NK603 corn to Europe pending a re-examination of this product on the basis of enhanced assessment methods.”

In California, the biotech industry has been waging a multi-million dollar campaign to stop Proposition 37, a ballot initiative dubbed “California Right to Know Act” to mandate the labeling of consumer products containing GMOs. Monsanto itself has reportedly spent some $7 million to fight the proposed labeling.

The French study, however, was quickly seized upon by proponents of the plan as another reason that consumers should be able to know what is contained in their groceries. "There is a giant question mark hanging over these foods and their health risks," said pro-Proposition 37 campaign manager Gary Ruskin. "For those of us in California, the case for labeling of genetically engineered foods has never been stronger."

More than a few opponents question the very foundation of Monsanto’s business model, saying that obtaining patents on DNA — life itself — should be off the table completely. Other critics are more concerned with the potential side effects of consuming food that has been genetically modified, sometimes combined with DNA from other plants or animals.

Despite the growing pressure on both sides of the Atlantic, Monsanto is still doing very well as a company. Its share price is up by about 30 percent year-to-date, and more than a few analysts have touted the stock as a bargain. Supporters also believe that genetic engineering might one day help to feed the world by making crops more resistant to droughts or pests.

Documents released by WikiLeaks also confirmed that the company has a relentless ally in the U.S. government, which even tried to threaten other nations into approving GMOs. Top Monsanto officials also have what critics refer to as a “revolving door” with the federal government — allowing executives to move back and forth between regulatory agencies and the private sector at will.

However, even considering the power of the U.S. government, fear and opposition to GMOs is building even in the United States, where most of the corn planted today is genetically engineered. The whole industry could eventually collapse if the trend continues, according to analysts. Activists are currently trying to orchestrate a boycott of companies opposed to labeling as a precursor to bringing down the whole biotech industry.

"Why is this GMO labeling fight so important? Once GMOs are labeled in California, it will bring a cascade effect in other states as well, since most national companies won't create two labeling schemes, one for California and one for the rest of the country," said the Alliance for Natural Health, one of the groups leading the boycott effort. "Moreover, once products containing GMOs are labeled, people will stop buying them — and this economic pressure will be enough to force GMOs off the market."

Many experts predict that if the popular California labeling proposition is approved, which seems likely, it might indeed be the beginning of the end for genetically engineered crops — at least until the industry can prove the safety of its products to American consumers. However, with the powerful U.S. government so blatantly committed to Monsanto’s success, it may well be a long battle.

 

[valley ranch]

Why The Netherlands Just Banned Monsanto’s Glyphosate-Based Herbicides
May 30, 2015 by Arjun Walia. 46 comments.

22.8K
SHARES

Select Language

▼
100

advertisement - learn more
The Netherlands has just become the latest country, following Russia, Mexico, and many others, to say no to Monsanto. The sale and use of glyphosate-based herbicides (the most commonly used herbicides in the world) has just been banned for non-commercial use in the country, effective later this year. This means that people will no longer be able to spray RoundUp on their lawns and gardens and will instead have to find another (hopefully more natural) means of pest control.

This is definitely a step in the right direction.

The move comes as no surprise, considering that the number of countries around the world who are choosing to ban this product is growing at an exponential rate. Bans and restrictions are being implemented due to the fact that glyphosate (the main ingredient in RoundUp) has been directly linked to several major health issues, including: birth defects, nervous system damage, Alzheimers, Parkinson’s, various forms of cancer, and kidney failure. (Sri Lanka recently cited deadly kidney disease as their reason for banning his product. You can read more about that and access the research here.) Indeed, The World Health Organization recently acknowledged the fact that glyphosate can cause cancer, and you can read more about that here.

Not only that, there are multiple environmental concerns associated with the use of this chemical.

What’s even more disturbing is the fact that studies have shown that RoundUp herbicide is over one hundred times more toxic than regulators claim. For example, a new study published in the journal Biomedical Research International shows that Roundup herbicide is 125 times more toxic than its active ingredient glyphosate studied in isolation. You can read more about that here. The eye opening abstract reads as follows:

“Pesticides are used throughout the world as mixtures called formulations. They contain adjuvants, which are often kept confidential and are called inerts by the manufacturing companies, plus a declared active principle, which is usually tested alone. We tested the toxicity of 9 pesticides, comparing active principles and their formulations, on three human cell lines. Glyphosate, isoproturon, fluroxypyr, pirimicarb, imidacloprid, acetamiprid, tebuconazole, epoxiconazole, and prochloraz constitute, respectively, the active principles of 3 major herbicides, 3 insecticides, and 3 fungicides. Despite its relatively benign reputation, Roundup was among the most toxic herbicides and insecticides tested. Most importantly, 8 formulations out of 9 were up to one thousand times more toxic than their active principles. Our results challenge the relevance of the acceptable daily intake for pesticides because this norm is calculated from the toxicity of the active principle alone. Chronic tests on pesticides may not reflect relevant environmental exposures if only one ingredient of these mixtures is tested alone.” (source)

Equally disturbing is the fact that RoundUp has been found in a very high percentage of air and rainfall test samples. You can read more about that here.

Significant concentrations of it have also been found in the urine of people across Europe, you can read more about that here.

One recent study published in the Journal of Environmental & Analytical Toxicology has now proven that animals and humans who consume GMO foods – those that are loaded with glyphosate chemicals, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp – have extremely high levels of glyphosate in their urine.

It’s also noteworthy to mention that there are Wikileaks documents showing how the United States planned to “retaliate and cause pain” on countries who were refusing GMOs. You can read more about that story and view those documents here.

It’s troubling to think that so many children are within proximity of and playing on lawns that have been sprayed with this stuff. Cancer is not a mystery, it is not a stroke of bad luck, it’s time for the world to wake up and realize what research has been confirming for years.

More Information on Pesticides & Herbicides Here:
**There are also multiple articles linked within the article above that provide more information**

Scientists Link Autism To These Toxic Chemicals During Fetal Development

Another Groundbreaking Study Emerges Linking Agricultural Pesticides To Autism

Scientists Can Predict Your Pesticide Exposure Based On How Much You Eat

This Is What Happens To Your Body When You Switch To Organic Food

What Parents Need To Know About Monsanto: “By 2025 One In Two Children Will Be Autistic”

Monsanto’s Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects

Groundbreaking Study Links Monsanto’s Glyphosate To Cancer

New Study Links Gmos To Cancer, Liver/Kidney Damage & Severe Hormonal Disruption

Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal And Fetal Blood

Sources Used:

http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/04...e-herbicides-non-commercial-use/#.VWcpp1xVhBd