[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]
16970
From: Logan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Hidden Emails Reveal Pesticide Conspiracy
|
As explained by the Alliance of Crop, Soil and Environmental Science Societies, “neonicotinoids are the most widely used insecticides in the world.”1 If you were to visit a conventional farm, you’d likely see evidence of their use in the form of brightly colored red corn seeds and blue soybean seeds, which are color-coded to denote treatment with neonicotinoids. The majority of such seeds come pretreated with the chemicals to ward off insect pests, but in so doing they’re harming pollinators like bees at alarming rates. To get an idea of just how widespread their usage is, a report published in Agricultural & Environmental Letters noted that in the U.S. neonicotinoids were used on “79% to 100% of corn acres” by 2011, but despite this, application of the pesticide still doubled between 2011 and 2014.2 “Because the increased use on corn cannot be explained by expanding treated acres, it must correspond to increasing per-seed application rates. Notably, this increase has come as concerns about nontarget effects and resistance have mounted,” the researchers noted.3 This statement is noteworthy, especially as it’s been revealed that “a sophisticated information war” kept neonicotinoids on the market despite scientists expressing grave concerns.4 An exposé by The Intercept, which obtained lobbying documents and emails, revealed an extensive playbook used by the pesticide industry to downplay the pesticides’ harms by influencing beekeepers, regulators and academia. Meanwhile, bees and other pollinators are still in decline and the pesticide industry has gotten richer: “The global neonic market generated $4.42 billion in revenue in 2018, roughly doubling over the previous decade, according to new figures provided to The Intercept from Agranova, a research firm that tracks the industry.” US Embraces Neonicotinoids as Other Countries Ban Them Entomologists Dennis vanEngelsdorp, now a chief apiary inspector in Pennsylvania, and Jeffrey Pettis, a former USDA government scientist, were among the first to suggest a link between neonicotinoids and bee deaths. They exposed bees to very small, sublethal doses of imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid, then exposed them to the gut parasite Nosema. The findings were clear that exposure to the pesticide, even at very low levels, increased the bees’ susceptibility to the parasite. The researchers explained, “We clearly demonstrate an increase in pathogen growth within individual bees reared in colonies exposed to one of the most widely- used pesticides worldwide, imidacloprid, at below levels considered harmful to bees.”5 One of the observed effects in bees is a weakening of the bee's immune system.6 Forager bees may bring pesticide-laden pollen back to the hive, where it's consumed by all of the bees. About six months later, their immune systems fail, and they end up contracting secondary infections from parasites, mites, viruses, fungi and bacteria. The chemicals have also been shown to trigger immunosuppression in the queen bee, possibly leading to an impaired ability to resist diseases.7 The European Union temporarily banned the use of neonicotinoids in 2013, and banned neonicotinoids for outdoor use for good in 2018 due to environmental concerns, specifically the chemicals’ impact on the bee population.8 The chemicals are still widely used in the U.S., however, and this is largely due to concerted efforts by the pesticide industry. The Intercept reported:9 “In the U.S., however, industry dug in, seeking not only to discredit the research but to cast pesticide companies as a solution to the problem. Lobbying documents and emails, many of which were obtained through open records requests, show a sophisticated effort over the last decade by the pesticide industry to obstruct any effort to restrict the use of neonicotinoids. Bayer and Syngenta, the largest manufacturers of neonics, and Monsanto, one of the leading producers of seeds pretreated with neonics, cultivated ties with prominent academics, including vanEngelsdorp, and other scientists who had once called for a greater focus on the threat posed by pesticides.” Entomologist Exposing Neonicotinoids’ Risks Changed His Tune Initially, vanEngelsdorp made numerous media appearances suggesting that pesticides were among the likely culprits in bee deaths, but then did an about- face, in which he started to downplay their role or brush them off as a risk entirely. “In the following years, vanEngelsdorp used his voice to dismiss concerns with neonics in the media. His shift in rhetoric coincided with a push by the pesticide industry, in response to rising calls for pesticide restrictions to stem bee losses, began a push to rebrand itself as bee-friendly,” according to The Intercept.10 He joined Monsanto’s Honey Bee Advisory Council around that time, and received at least $700,000 in funding from Project Apis m., a Bayer-funded foundation, for his nonprofit, the Bee Informed Project. In 2013, vanEngelsdorp also went on to edit a study used by Syngenta to claim no link between neonicotinoids and poor bee health.11 A group of entomologists later called out the study, saying it had “a number of major deficiencies regarding the study design, the protocol and the evaluation of results,”12 as did a group of scientists at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, who wrote:13 “Conclusions derived from inspection of the data were not just misleading in this case but are unacceptable in principle, for if data are inadequate for a formal analysis (or only good enough to provide estimates with wide confidence intervals) then they are bound to be inadequate as a basis for reaching any sound conclusions. Given that the data in this case are largely uninformative with respect to the treatment effect, any conclusions reached from such informal approaches can do little more than reflect the prior beliefs of those involved.” The Intercept revealed a number of other questionable actions by vanEngelsdorp over the years, including:14 Lending his name to advocacy efforts on behalf of the pesticide industry Engaging with executives of Bayer’s Bee Care Center to suggest ways to minimize annual hive loss calculations when speaking to reporters Avoiding the mention of pesticides as a factor in bee deaths in a mini-documentary series called “Fight to Save the Mighty Honeybee” Citing Varroa mites, not pesticides, as a driver of bee deaths, in part to attempt to defeat legislation to ban neonic-based products for consumers in the state of Maryland Industry Tries to Use Varroa Mites as a Scapegoat Varroa mites are indeed dangerous to bees, feeding off their fat and blood and potentially transmitting a virus called deformed wing virus.15 The mites can be deadly and have been implicated in colony collapses, but there’s also a connection between the mites and neonicotinoids. Bees rid themselves of Varroa mites by regular grooming, but research suggests exposure to neonicotinoids at low doses leads to drops in self- grooming behavior in bees, leaving them more susceptible to disease from the mites.16 It’s also possible that bees become more susceptible to the mites due to neonicotinoids’ adverse effects on immunity. According to The Intercept:17 “The greatest public relations coup has been the push to reframe the debate around bee decline to focus only on the threat of Varroa mites, a parasite native to Asia that began spreading to the U.S. in the 1980s. The mite is known to rapidly infest bee hives and carry a range of infectious diseases. CropLife America, among other groups backed by pesticide companies, has financed research and advocacy around the mite — an effort designed to muddy the conversation around pesticide use. Meanwhile, research suggests the issues are interrelated; neonics make bees far more susceptible to mite infestations and attendant diseases.” This is yet another area of controversy surrounding vanEngelsdorp, who gave a presentation in 2016 at a summit for corporate representatives and researchers involved in the bee crisis. His presentation suggested Varro mites, not pesticides, were to blame for colony losses. “I was shocked,” Luke Goembel, an official with the Central Maryland Beekeepers Association, told The Intercept, “because the journals are full of research that describes many avenues by which pesticides, especially neonicotinoids, almost certainly lead to hive losses.”18 Former Government Scientist Demoted After Speaking the Truth Pettis, the former USDA scientist who worked with vanEngelsdorp, is now president at Apimondia, a beekeeper conference. He also experienced industry pressure to speak only about Varroa mites. His career was suddenly derailed after he presented testimony about neonicotinoids before the House Agriculture Committee in 2014, and didn’t stick to “the script.” As reported by The Washington Post in 2016:19 "Pettis had developed what he describes as a 'significant' line of research showing that neonics compromise bee immunity. But in his opening remarks before Congress, he focused on the threat posed by the varroa mite, often put forward by chemical company representatives as the main culprit behind bee deaths. Only under questioning by subcommittee Chairman Austin Scott (R-Ga.) did Pettis shift. Even if varroa were eliminated tomorrow, he told Scott, 'we'd still have a problem.' Neonics raise pesticide concerns for bees 'to a new level,' he said. About two months later, Pettis was demoted, losing all management responsibilities … Pettis said, the USDA's congressional liaison told him that the Agriculture Committee wanted him to restrict his testimony to the varroa mite. 'In my naivete,' he said, 'I thought there were going to be other people addressing different parts of the pie. I felt used by the whole process, used by Congress.' The hearing was 'heavily weighted toward industry,' he said, 'and they tried to use me as a scientist, as a way of saying, 'See, it's the varroa mite,' when that's not how I see it.' … He said he walked up to Scott afterward, to make small talk, and the congressman 'said something about how I hadn't 'followed the script.'" USDA Whistleblower Rebuked for Neonicotinoid Research USDA whistleblower Jonathan Lundgren, Ph.D., is another scientist who faced retaliation when he started talking about his research, which showed neonicotinoids cause decline in bee and Monarch butterfly populations.20 After publicly discussing his findings, Lundgren claimed that he faced suspensions at work and an investigation of misconduct that he believes was industry motivated. “I guess I started asking the wrong questions, pursuing risk assessments of neonicotinoids on a lot of different field crop seeds used throughout the U.S. and how they were affecting nontarget species like pollinators,” Lundgren told The Intercept.21 Lundgren went on to run Blue Dasher Farm in South Dakota, which is looking for natural pest control methods and crop rotation for agriculture. He believes most research is now industry influenced, noting, “Universities have become dependent on extramural funds, entire programs are bankrolled by these pesticide companies, chemical companies.”22 Neonicotinoids Persist in the Environment Researchers screened oilseed crops in the EU for neonicotinoids during the five-year moratorium. They found neonicotinoids in all the years it was banned in bee-attractive crops, with residue levels depending on soil type and increasing with rainfall. They concluded that this poses a “considerable risk for nectar foraging bees” and supports “the recent extension of the moratorium to a permanent ban in all outdoor crops.”23 There are other concerns as well, like the fact that planting neonicotinoid seeds kills off insects that prey on slugs — prominent corn and soybean pests — thereby reducing crop yields.24 An investigation by the U.S. EPA even found that treating soybean seeds with neonicotinoids provides no significant financial or agricultural benefits for farmers.25 As research has demonstrated, regenerative farming improves biodiversity of the soil, does not harm the environment and increases farmers' net profits. You can get involved by actively seeking out and supporting organic, regenerative farmers, who have decided that avoiding chemical-treated seeds and excessive chemical spraying is essential to nurturing soil health, protecting the environment and growing nutritious food. You can also consider converting part of your own yard into an edible, bee-friendly landscape using organic and regenerative methods. |
16975
From: Logan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Dicamba Drift Set to Damage Crops
URL: LINK LINK
|
Monsanto, DuPont and BASF sell an herbicide responsible for damage to millions of acres across the U.S. As described in this short video, the damage is substantial and many insurance companies are balking at paying compensation for farmers’ losses. There are 221 different pesticides found in your produce, according to a report1 generated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The report released in September 2018 was based on data gathered in 2017. Samples were taken from five states across America and only 37.5% of the vegetables and a mere 14.2% of the fruits were free of pesticide residues. Glyphosate and 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) residues were also detected in some of the samples. Concerns over glyphosate's toxicity have been mounting since the International Agency for Research on Cancer's (IARC) 20152 determination that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen. Since the introduction of genetically modified plants, the problems with pesticide-resistant weeds has grown. Worldwide, at least 48 different weeds3 are resistant to glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto's broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup. In response, agrichemical companies are producing even more toxic pesticides. In November 2016, Monsanto announced4 it had secured approval from the FDA to use specially formulated dicamba, VaporGrip, on growing crops; in the past it had only been used before planting. The claim was that using VaporGrip Technology “gives you extended application flexibility before, at and after planting.”5 Dicamba Drift Destroying Crops As EPA Looks On It took only one growing season to prove the claim that VaporGrip didn’t drift wasn’t true. In July 2017 a complaint advisory from the EPA was published in which they wrote:6 “Despite the conditional approval of new dicamba products with drift reduction agents and further use restrictions set in place prior to the 2017 growing season, some states are reporting high numbers of dicamba complaints. By early July, we already had reports of hundreds of complaints received by state agencies in Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee (a significant increase from last year). Both physical drift and volatilization of dicamba from the target application site have been reported.” The immediate response approved by the EPA was a change to the label so that consumers were instructed to use the product differently than when it was first released.7 But changing how it was applied didn’t stop the numerous complaints in the coming crop seasons. Every summer since the release of the new dicamba formulation, the phones have been ringing. NPR reports8 the Office of the Indiana State Chemist has been overwhelmed by the complaints from farmers and homeowners reporting damage to crops and gardens. With each test of the damaged plants, the scientists found the same culprit: It was dicamba. The herbicide is designed to be used on dicamba- tolerant seed and the new delivery system is intended to stop the potential for drift. But, as you likely guessed, the delivery system for this dangerous toxin failed. For farmers who plant dicamba-tolerant GMO seed, the herbicide kills weeds that are resistant to glyphosate without hurting their crops. For those who don’t use dicamba-tolerant seed, it’s described as a plague.9 One farmer reported the drift affected 80 acres of his farm, which cut the harvest in those fields by one-third. Illinois growers lodged about six times as many complaints in 2019 as they did prior to the widespread adoption of dicamba. Despite the rising number of problems suffered by farmers and homeowners, the EPA extended approval just before the 2019 season. The decision apparently rested on the hope more education and restrictions on the application process would stop the problem. Advertisement Click here to find out why 5G wireless is NOT harmless Sinister Practices May Force Farmers to Buy Bayer Seed The issue has gotten so heated that farmers see their neighbors as threats and one dispute ended in death. Millions of acres of crops were damaged when the herbicide traveled beyond their application sites. You probably could have predicted a sprayed application would land in another field, but the EPA and FDA could not. On hot summer days the technology falls short. Instead of sticking to the area, the chemical quickly evaporates and drifts into nearby fields and gardens.10 Could this be the ultimate plan — releasing an herbicide that requires you to purchase their seed in order to successfully harvest your crop? It seems Monsanto is playing the long game. The challenge of stopping herbicide from drifting with the wind has created a problem for inspectors: It’s difficult to figure out where it originated. The additional workload means they don’t have time for routine inspections. Leo Reed, an Indiana official, calls this “dicamba fatigue.”11 Another telltale sign of fatigue and overworked has been the marked exodus of Missouri’s pesticide inspectors. There were eight, but seven resigned over the course of one-and-a-half years. According to meeting minutes, contributing factors were overload and burnout. Peach Farmer Stands Up to Agribusiness; Outs Marketing Ploy Monsanto claims the crop damage is the result of poor application, weather and other pesticides. But in a lawsuit Bill Bader of Bader Farms in Missouri accused Monsanto (now Bayer, since Bayer bought them out) of creating the circumstances for the drift damage. Bader’s family-owned business is close to shutting down, even though at one time it was the largest of all peach farms in the state. In response, Monsanto/Bayer claimed the problems on the Bader Farm were the result of such things as user errors and weather, and not dicamba. Odessa Hines, spokesperson for BASF, also named in the lawsuit, said the company’s12 “ … products meet all regulatory standards, including rigorous safety and environmental testing. We look forward to defending our product in this case.” Despite their confidence, on the first day of the trial Internal documents showed the companies knew about the herbicide’s potential to cause damage to surrounding crops. They also prepared for complaints that might have come in before the crop system had even been released.13 During opening arguments, Bader’s attorney said the farm's financial situation was “entirely foreseen and foreseeable” based on documentation from Monsanto and BASF. According to the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting:14 “The lawsuit alleges that the companies released the dicamba-tolerant soybean and cotton seeds and accompanying herbicides knowing that it would likely drift and damage non-tolerant seeds in order to make farmers buy the companies’ systems.” Bader asked for $20.9 million in damages and punitive damages from Monsanto and BASF, which originally developed dicamba in the 1950s. Bader’s attorney said,15 “The experiment, we will show, has been a failure.” After hearing three weeks of testimony, the jury awarded Bader $15 million in damages on February 14, 2020,16 and the next day added another $250 million in punitive damages to the award. As reported by Investigate Midwest: “Bader Farms is among thousands of farms, comprising millions of acres of crops, that have alleged dicamba damage since 2015. ’It sends a strong message,’ said Bev Randles, an attorney for Bader Farms. ‘The Baders were doing this, not just because of themselves or for themselves, but they felt like it was necessary because of what it means to farmers everywhere. This was just wrong.’ The lawsuit is the first of hundreds filed by farmers to go to trial. Bader’s lawsuit was independent of the outcome of a pending class-action lawsuit. Bayer said in a statement that they are disappointed with the verdict, and Bader’s losses were not their fault. Bayer said it will appeal the decision.” Dicamba Kills More Than Crops The environmental and financial consequences of using dicamba continue to rise. In 2017, Reuters17 reported Monsanto was giving cash to farmers to offset the cost of using dicamba. The incentive was designed to entice farmers, who were facing the additional costs of more training, to use the herbicide. This was only one decision that dealt a major blow to the environment. Dicamba also impacts bees and other pollinators with a cascading effect on vegetation and crops. Paradoxically, NPR reports that one farmer decided the solution was not to stop using dicamba but, rather, for ALL farmers to begin using it. Once all farmers are planting dicamba-tolerant seed, he said, it will lower crop damage.18 However, as NPR noted: “That might reduce the damage to crops, but the resulting free-fire zone for dicamba could be bad news for other vegetation, such as wildflowers and trees. The wider ecological impact of dicamba drift received little attention at first. Richard Coy, whose family-run company manages 13,000 beehives in Arkansas, Mississippi and Missouri, was one of the few people who noticed it. ‘If I were not a beekeeper, I would pay no attention to the vegetation in the ditches and the fence rows,’ he says. But his bees feed on that vegetation.” Spraying more herbicides and pesticides damages the same insect species that crops need to propagate. This possibly could have been picked up in testing before the release of the new VaporGrip technology, but Monsanto had expressly forbade independent tests. This was an out-of-the-ordinary decision because, commonly, when a new pesticide is developed, a company commissions tests and shares the chemical with universities. Regulators and researchers then assess the safety and effectiveness of the chemical. In tests before the release of XtendiMax with VaporGrip, Monsanto forbade university researchers to test for vaporization and drift potential. Reuters reported Monsanto defended the decision saying it was unnecessary as it was19 "less volatile than a previous dicamba formula that researchers found could be used safely." As if damage to the environment, the food supply chain and financial manipulation were not enough, consider the impact herbicides have on antibiotic resistance, “one of the biggest public health challenges of our time.”20 Research evidence21 shows the application of dicamba and glyphosate — even below recommended levels — triggers antibiotic resistance up to 100,000 times faster when bacteria are exposed in the environment. In a news release from the University of Canterbury, one of the researchers commented:22 “The combination of chemicals to which bacteria are exposed in the modern environment should be addressed alongside antibiotic use if we are to preserve antibiotics in the long-term.” Reduce Your Exposure to Pesticides You cannot solely depend on others to protect your health. Instead, if falls to each of us to practice preventive strategies to reduce the toxins that assault our bodies. Here are some ideas for reducing your exposure to pesticides and other toxins and start on the right path: Purchase organic produce and grass fed (American Grass Fed Certified) meat — Animal products like meat, butter, milk and eggs are the most important to buy organic and grass fed, since animal products tend to bioaccumulate toxins from their pesticide-laced feed, concentrating them to far higher concentrations than are typically present in vegetables. Children are especially vulnerable to the effects of environmental chemicals, including pesticides, so try to buy organic for produce that may have an elevated pesticide load, such as strawberries, spinach, nectarines, apples and peaches. If you eat the skin of the produce it's best to try to buy organic. Wash all produce before eating — Washing all produce before eating helps to reduce your exposure to bacteria and pesticides. Both may also be transferred to melons, oranges and other fruits you peel if the rind is not first washed. While there are commercial preparations, the safest products are white vinegar with a splash of lemon. The acidity helps to kill the bacteria, and friction from a vegetable brush helps to reduce the number of chemicals clinging to the produce. Dry your produce with a paper towel as an extra measure of removing pesticides so they don't dry to the produce. Remove the exterior leaves of leafy vegetables. Eat whole foods — Remember that processed foods are in fact processed with a variety of chemicals, and should therefore be avoided as much as possible. Children already diagnosed with ADHD, autism or seizure disorders in most cases have reduced symptoms when processed foods are completely eliminated. Leave your shoes at the door — Walking across lawns and treated gardens deposits pesticides and other toxic chemicals in your carpet and on your flooring. Pets and small children crawling across the floor have the greatest potential for absorbing these chemicals. However, when you eventually take your shoes off at the end of the day, you may also absorb chemicals through the bottoms of your bare feet. |
Responses:
None
16973
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Mercola warning: Conspiracy/psuedoscience site/unreliable
|
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩 Home » Mercola Mercola Share: FacebookTwitterPinterestEmailTumblrRedditLinkedInFlipb oardGoogle BookmarksShare201 Low Factual Reporting - Fake News - Not Credible Mercola - Conspiracy - Fake News - Bias - Not CredibleMercola - Pseudoscience - Fake News - Bias - Not Credible CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy- Pseudoscience sources. Overall, we rate Mercola.com a Quackery level pseudoscience website that advocates for sometimes dangerous, inaction or action, to serious health issues. Detailed Report Factual Reporting: LOW (full detailed report at link) |
16980
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: the article is heavily sourced
|
Here's the list at the end of the article: Sources and References 1, 2, 3 Agricultural & Environmental Letters October 19, 2017 4, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22 The Intercept January 18, 2020 5 Naturwissenschaften. 2012 Feb;99(2):153-8. doi: 10.1007/s00114-011- 0881-1. Epub 2012 Jan 13 6 PNAS November 12, 2013 110 (46) 18466-18471 7 Scientific Reports 2017; 7: 4673 8 National Geographic April 27, 2018 11 PLOS One October 23, 2013 12 Environ Sci Eur. 2015; 27(1): 28 13 University of St. Andrews January 23, 2017 15 Science Daily April 22, 2019 16 Scientific Reports March 26, 2019 19 Washington Post March 3, 2016 20 Sci Rep. 2016 Jul 14;6:29608. doi: 10.1038/srep29608 23 Science of the Total Environment February 20, 2020 24 Journal of Applied Ecology December 4, 2014 25 EPA Memorandum October 15, 2014 (PDF) |
Responses:
[16981]
16981
From: pamela, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the article is heavily sourced
| Yes it is and thanks, was going to reply myself. |
Responses:
None
16974
From: Logan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Noheart warning:Establishment whore, hates truth/facts especially if I
| post it. |
Responses:
[16976]
16976
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Noheart warning:Establishment whore, hates truth/facts especially...
| back atcha :p |
Responses:
None
[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]