pesticide companies – Lacto Bacto

There was a huge blow to anyone concerned with hidden (by pesticide manufacturers) health effects of pesticides this week. Senate Republican members of the Senate Farm Appropriations Committee voted down an amendment to the Senate farm bill that would have enabled lawsuits against pesticide manufacturers when pesticide health effects and harms are revealed.

The amendment, which was proposed by Senator Booker, also stated that if a product causes cancer, it should be on the pesticide label.

The only good news is that the farm bill did not advance out of committee this week. But it will reconsider the farm bill in September. If the farm bill passes as it is written, only what is on pesticide labels can be acknowledged - and it generally just talks about immediate acute effects, such as skin irritation.

Cancer, neurological harms, effects on the fetus, long-term harms, etc. are typically not on pesticide labels, even if pesticide companies know of harmful health effects (hiding harmful effects is called "failure to warn"). Basically, not allowing consumers to sue pesticide companies is a screw you to Americans.

And yes, the voting was along party lines - Republicans don't want us to be able to sue if health harms are found, while Democrats voted to preserve the right to sue.

From The Hill: Republicans vote down farm bill amendment enabling lawsuits against pesticide companies, a blow to MAHA

Senate Republicans on Thursday voted down an amendment that sought to open up Americans’ ability to sue pesticide companies over the health impacts of their products. ...continue reading "The Farm Bill and Pesticide Liability"

Now, this is wild, but it makes sense. A former executive of the giant pesticide company Monsanto started a consulting firm v-Fluence, which secretly profiled critics of pesticides and GMOs (genetically modified organisms). All to downplay the dangers of pesticides, to discredit environmentalists, and to undermine any anti-pesticide legislation in North America, Europe, and Africa.

And...drumroll... which was partly paid for by US taxpayer money. Yes, over $400,000. US taxpayers partly funded this covert campaign for services done by v-Fluence, such as "enhanced monitoring of critics" of "modern agriculture approaches" (genetically modified crops, conventional pesticides).

What? How can this be? For years now, Big Business (pesticide industry) has had a huge influence over safety rules, research, and studies deemed "acceptable" at the EPA and other US government agencies. So v-Fluence profiled and attacked in-depth any critics of pesticides or a "threat" to their interests. Even the writers and food critics Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman - due to their support for organic farming and concerns with industrial farming.

Journalists from a number of groups, including the non-profit newsroom The Lighthouse and The Guardian, investigated the "private social network" called Bonus Eventus. This social network was set up by v-Fluence to counter resistance to pesticides and genetically modified (GM) crops, and to also denigrate organic and other alternative farming methods. [Organic farming does not use conventional pesticides, thus it would result in Monsanto and other pesticide companies losing $$.]

More than 30 current US government officials are on the membership list, most of whom are from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). At the least, this is a conflict of interest.

By the way, the problem with genetically modified foods is not the concept of genetic modification, but that it is used in a way that dramatically increases the amount of pesticides used. For example, growing Round-up Ready Corn (which means it is resistant to glyphosate) means that more Roundup is being used on the GMO corn than ever before, and this means consumers ultimately ingest more pesticides than ever before when eating products with corn in it. Such as cereal.

Excerpts from The Lighthouse: Poison PR

Paraquat is among the most toxic agricultural chemicals ever produced. It’s banned in the European Union, where the consequences of its use are still being felt, but in parts of the world it’s still being sold. This is made possible, in part, by an influence machine that works to suppress opposition to an $78 billion global industry.

A year-long investigation managed to penetrate a PR operation that casts those who raise the alarm, from pesticide critics to environmental scientists or sustainability campaigners, as an anti-science “protest industry,” and used US government money to do so. ...continue reading "The US Government Helped Fund A Group Attacking Pesticide Critics"