Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Editorials & Other Articles
In reply to the discussion: Monsanto and the Poisoning of Europe [View all]polly7
(20,582 posts)21. As EU Weighs Approval, More Evidence Industry is Rigging the Glyphosate Game
Published on
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
byCommon Dreams
Suspicious donation from Monsanto emerges after WHO seemingly flipped in its assessment of the dangers posed by the chemical
byLauren McCauley, staff writer
?itok=wPms57EP
Monsanto's Roundup relabeled by activists from Global Justice Now, 28th April 2016. The main active ingredient is glyphosate. (Photo: Global Justice Now /Flickr/CC)
As European officials on Wednesday weigh whether or not to re-approve the use of Monsanto's glyphosate, a storm has erupted after the World Health Organization (WHO) seemingly flipped in its assessment of the dangers posed by the chemical.
Ahead of this week's European Commission meeting, which could approve the use of glyphosate for up to nine years, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the WHO released a joint summary report concluding that the chemical, a favored ingredient of agrochemical producers like Monsanto and Dow, was "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet."
These findings were widely (and inaccurately) reported as a "clean bill of health" for a pesticide once declared to be "probably carcinogenic" for humans by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
What's more, documents obtained by the anti-GMO watchdog group U.S. Right to Know found that one of the chairs of the UN's Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) had, in another capacity, received a six-figure donation from Monsanto.
The Guardian reported on Tuesday:
Those opposed to the chemical's re-approval in Europe said the exposed "conflict of interest" in the FAO/WHO report should disqualify it from consideration. The EU's deliberations, which are expected to last two days, were postponed in March after a wave of public opposition forced lawmakers to renege on their approval.
"The timing of the release of this report by the FAO/WHO could be described as cynical if it werent such a blatantly political and ham-fisted attempt to influence the EU decision later this week on the approval of glyphosate," said Green MEP Bart Staes.
"Any decision affecting millions of people should be based on fully transparent and independent science that isnt tied to corporate interests," said Greenpeace EU food policy director Franziska Achterberg. "It would be irresponsible to ignore the warnings on glyphosate and to re-licence this pesticide without any restrictions to protect the public and the environment."
Ahead of this week's European Commission meeting, which could approve the use of glyphosate for up to nine years, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the WHO released a joint summary report concluding that the chemical, a favored ingredient of agrochemical producers like Monsanto and Dow, was "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet."
These findings were widely (and inaccurately) reported as a "clean bill of health" for a pesticide once declared to be "probably carcinogenic" for humans by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
What's more, documents obtained by the anti-GMO watchdog group U.S. Right to Know found that one of the chairs of the UN's Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) had, in another capacity, received a six-figure donation from Monsanto.
The Guardian reported on Tuesday:
Professor Alan Boobis, who chaired the UNs joint FAO/WHO meeting on glyphosate, also works as the vice-president of the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) Europe. The co-chair of the sessions was Professor Angelo Moretto, a board member of ILSIs Health and Environmental Services Institute, and of its Risk21 steering group too, which Boobis also co-chairs.
In 2012, the ILSI group took a $500,000 (£344,234) donation from Monsanto and a $528,500 donation from the industry group Croplife International, which represents Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta and others, according to documents obtained by the US right to know campaign.
Those opposed to the chemical's re-approval in Europe said the exposed "conflict of interest" in the FAO/WHO report should disqualify it from consideration. The EU's deliberations, which are expected to last two days, were postponed in March after a wave of public opposition forced lawmakers to renege on their approval.
"The timing of the release of this report by the FAO/WHO could be described as cynical if it werent such a blatantly political and ham-fisted attempt to influence the EU decision later this week on the approval of glyphosate," said Green MEP Bart Staes.
"Any decision affecting millions of people should be based on fully transparent and independent science that isnt tied to corporate interests," said Greenpeace EU food policy director Franziska Achterberg. "It would be irresponsible to ignore the warnings on glyphosate and to re-licence this pesticide without any restrictions to protect the public and the environment."
"On one side," Dodwell continued, "there are powerful agribusiness companies like Monsanto, whose Roundup weed killer contains glyphosate and accounts for a third of its total sales. And on the other side you have over a million citizens from across the EU who have signed petitions saying that they dont want to be exposed to chemicals that are probably causing cancer."
Full article: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/18/eu-weighs-approval-more-evidence-industry-rigging-glyphosate-game
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
62 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
No, your posts are pathetic look at me crap that idolize a poison giant you seem
polly7
May 2016
#19
Doubling down with Shiva and Mercola doesn't make the lies about India's suicides go away.
HuckleB
May 2016
#25
Anyone who uses the right wing quack Mercola as a source obviously doesn't have a "fucking clue" one
Major Nikon
May 2016
#32
Sure, that's why you have to parrot out a right wing quack and AIDS denialist for your proof
Major Nikon
May 2016
#34
Perhaps, but I don't have to rely on right wing AIDS deniers and loony bins for my evidence
Major Nikon
May 2016
#38
Awww ........... need a little teeny fiddle for your poor, poor Monsanto - the perpetual victim?
polly7
May 2016
#39
Do you really think your easily debunked lies are doing your cause any good?
Major Nikon
May 2016
#40
Pretty stupid of you. Here's Bill Nye pointing out how the Monarch butterfies were decimated
FighttheFuture
May 2016
#47
Pretty stupid of you to quote Nye completely out of context and pretend that's what he meant
Major Nikon
May 2016
#50
Quote seems pretty on target to me as a response to your Facebook crap. Also,
FighttheFuture
May 2016
#59
Right, because poisons are always so safe and this multi-billion dollar industry has nothing
FighttheFuture
May 2016
#8
I know enough to avoid poisons and not want them used. the simplistic WHO procouncement,
FighttheFuture
May 2016
#24
No, but anyone who spews the significance of IARC classifications probably should
Major Nikon
May 2016
#29
Disengenuous apples and oranges comparisons. I am also not only relying on the IARC, as you seem
FighttheFuture
May 2016
#45
No, you call me a "Conspiracy theorist". Fuck you. How's that for telling?
FighttheFuture
May 2016
#54
We are talking about Roundup, and man made poisons and the mega-corporations behind
FighttheFuture
May 2016
#53
I did. Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I do take this from the end, which
FighttheFuture
May 2016
#56
No, you prefer to support exsiting posions, I prefer to call them what they are. Poison and it
FighttheFuture
May 2016
#58