Landmark lawsuit claims Monsanto hid cancer danger of weedkiller for decades | Business | The Guardian:
There is lots of mounting evidence against Roundup, and/or the use of genetically modified crops. The research seems to be evenly split between the research paid for by Monsanto ( directly or indirectly ) and the more independent research that points to issues.
The evidence is pretty clear, however, of the negative impact of prolonged glyphosate use on the soil.
Want to know more about Glyphosate on the soil, go to the Soil Association (www.soilassociation.org). They summarized available research related to the impact of glyphosate on soil health as of mid 2016. They found mixed results but strong evidence to support serious concerns about glyphosate and its impact on these specific areas of soil health:
1) leaching into the water, especially with prolonged glyphosate exposure
2) impact on soil micro-organisms, especially when regular use of herbicide(s)
3) impact on fungi (that live near plant roots that provide nutrients as well as protect against drought and disease
4) severity and occurrence of crop diseases
5) impact on earthworms.
For example, two studies found no impact of glyphosate on earthworms, 4 studies did (related to reproduction, movement or activity of different species of earthworms).
Although the World Health Organization has a report that suggests that glyphosate can "probably" cause cancer, other international organizations have not gone so far. See the article in Wikipedia on glyphosate.
Note that glyphosate was first patented in 1950 as a chelator. "Stauffer Chemical patented the agent as a chemical chelator in 1964 as it binds and removes minerals such as calcium, magnesium, manganese, copper, and zinc." (View patent here.)
It wasn't until 1970s that Monsanto came out with its patented herbicide under the brand name RoundUp.
Note that a chelator can be used to deliver certain minerals as a fertilizer to the soil in ways that would not otherwise be readily absorbable to plants. But in the case of glyphosate, it ties up critical minerals (calcium, magnesium, manganese, copper and zinc), depriving the plant (weed) to the point of killing it.
Glyphosate is a registered pesticide (EPA) since 1970s. The most recent draft of the risk assessment by the EPA is here. The draft is open for discussion, so those people/organizations who think that glyphosate is more of a health (and nutrition) risk than Monsanto would want us to believe have an opportunity to weigh in on the issue.
RoundUp is applied to the entire field, both the genetically modified crop (corn or soy) and the weeds within. The weeds die, the crop does not. But you have to wonder about the health and nutritional value of the crop?
It is unlikely that Monsanto has been fully truthful and completely forward on the health impacts of phosphate. It seems even more unlikely that Monsanto has been totally forthright on the nutritional values of organics vs. industrial farming with GMO crops that are heavily doused with glyphosate.
If Monsanto has been untruthful, these court cases could go against the company. If the company has been covering up damning evidence, it could become really, really ugly for the company.
No matter what happens, the merger of Monsanto with Bayer is eminent. (Bayer's $66B buyout offer is from September of 2016, but still facing regulator approval.) Monsanto has enough negative image issues, that the name should be discontinues within a year or so. It will be interesting to see how much liability from RoundUp, Bayer will bear!???
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment