Lawsuit Alleges Monsanto Lied About Roundup

A class action suit against the Monsanto corporation was filed in Los Angeles this week in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. It accuses the company of false advertising for its implied claims that the herbicide, Roundup, is safe for humans. As the lawsuit details:

Defendant makes the claim that Roundup, the world’s most popular weedkiller, works by targeting an enzyme supposedly found only in plants, but not in people. And this is blatantly false.

The enzyme (EPSP synthase), the lawsuit claims, can be found in human gut bacteria. Though scientific studies say glyphosate is safe for humans because they do not have the enzyme, the plaintiffs allege that this is incorrect.

Glyphosate [the main ingredient in Roundup] works by inhibiting weeds from producing EPSP synthase—and once rendered unable to produce this enzyme—weeds cannot uptake minerals, nor can they make proteins from amino acids, and weeds then starve to death.

The lawsuit suggests that when people eat foods that have been sprayed with Roundup, this same, deathly mechanism goes to work on the EPSP synthase that plaintiffs say is found in the human gut:

The same chemistry that kills backyard weeds likewise kills gut bacteria, and this bacteria kill-off compromises our digestion, metabolism, and vital immune system functions.

The suit contends:

When we eat crops sprayed with glyphosate, we ingest glyphosate, and detectable quantities accumulate in our tissues…Glyphosate has been detected in urine, blood, even breast milk—and 75% of rainwater samples.

The lawsuit also alleges many adverse health effects of consuming glyphosate:

Because it kills off our gut bacteria, glyphosate is linked to stomach and bowel problems, indigestion, ulcers, colitis, gluten intolerance, insomnia, lethargy, depression, Crohn’s Disease, Celiac Disease, allergies, obesity, diabetes, infertility, liver disease, renal failure, autism, Alzheimer’s, endocrine disruption, and the W.H.O. recently announced it is ‘probably carcinogenic.’

The complaint further claims that dogs and cats carry the EPSP synthase enzyme, which puts them at risk for health issues related to ingestion of Roundup-coated products.

If the allegations of the suit are proven true, Monsanto has deceived consumers into believing Roundup cannot harm humans, thereby helping to create an epidemic of health issues. The United States government has also been complicit, passing laws to protect the corrupt mega-corporation and colluding with the Monsanto lobby. In 2013, the EPA raised the minimum amount of glyphosate that could be used on food crops.

Though Monsanto’s power is continually bolstered by the government, the company is losing ground and popularity. Growing numbers of countries are banning Monsanto products while a steady slew of bad press has made a significant dent in the company’s profits

Gulf Fishermen Still Struggling

…Nigeyen, however, is certain that the dispersants continue to impact fishing, but at public meetings, cleanup officials downplay their impacts and blame other problems, such as agricultural runoff.

“The destruction to the fisheries has not been comprehensively acknowledged,” Nigeyen said. “It has been downplayed.”

If state and local authorities want to understand the true impacts of the spill and the best way to restore the environment, Nigeyen says, they should be listening to the people who know best – the fishermen and women who depend on the waters, day in and day out…

Deepwater Capitalism

In September of 2009, the BP corporation dug the deepest oil well in history. The 35,055-foot deep Tiber prospect, 300 miles off the Texas coast, promised six billion barrels: one of the largest oil fields ever discovered in the country. So of course, they kept looking for more: They moved their massive drilling rig named Deepwater Horizon fifty miles south of the Louisiana coastline, to a prospect called Macondo, named after the setting of the famous book 100 Years of Solitude, by Gabriel García Márquez.

On April 20, 2010, as they began to seal the well, something went wrong: a mix of oil and gas escaped, rushing up through earth and water, blowing up the Deepwater Horizon, and killing eleven workers, whose bodies were never recovered. Over the next eighty seven days, the whole world watched as over 200 million gallons of oil erupted from the ocean floor into the Gulf of Mexico.

It was the largest oil spill in history – more than ten times the size of the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska. The images of animals covered in oil began to haunt our screens again, and the scale of death was so great it still seems impossible to quantify – estimates of the number of birds killed within the first hundred days ranges between 100,000 and one million. But the real nightmare was offshore, as riptides and hired hands collected thousands of animal carcasses into “death gyres”. Riki Ott explains:

“Hurricane Creekkeeper John Wathen managed to get the only footage of what I came to call the ‘death gyres.’ the rip currents that collected dead animals offshore. The Incident Command – BP and the US Coast Guard – kept the media 1,500 feet up in the air so the press couldn’t really capture the situation there. The animal carcasses were corralled, taken out to sea, and dumped at night, according to fishermen who were involved with so-called ‘Night-time Operations.’ Offshore workers reported ‘thousands of dolphins, birds too numerous to count, sea turtles too numerous to count,’ and even whales in the death gyres.” (Earth at Risk, Building a Resistance Movement to Save the Planetedited by Derrick Jensen and Lierre Keith, p. 49)

Five years later, what can we say?…


Shortly after BP’s oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico began on April 20, 2010, one of the most politically well-connected attorneys in the United States was appointed to administer the $20 billion fund to, in theory, pay compensation to those harmed by BP’s catastrophe.

President Obama and BP’s chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, agreed that attorney Kenneth Feinberg should head the fund. Feinberg would later be chosen, also by Obama, to oversee the compensation of the top executives of the banks that were bailed out with US tax dollars in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

He has, almost needless to say, been accused of being a fox guarding a chicken house.

Feinberg’s firm was paid $1.25 million per month by BP – that we know of (Feinberg refused to disclose the full amount of his compensation and the details of his deal with BP) – to run the so-called Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF).

In essence, BP paid Feinberg $1.25 million a month to limit their liability in the wake of the single largest marine oil disaster in US history.

Outrage against Feinberg escalated enough, that by December 2010, the Center for Justice and Democracy sent a letter to BP CEO Bob Dudley expressing concern over “serious new issues raised about the lack of transparency and potential conflicts of interest related to the administration of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility,” and pointed out the obvious conflict of interest:

Mr. Feinberg, employed by BP, has decided on his own authority that all claims recipients must release all companies who caused this disaster from any and all legal responsibility, no matter how grossly negligent they were. This sweeping release, which assigns victims’ claims to BP, benefits only one actor: BP – the company that happens to pay Mr. Feinberg’s salary.

Countless numbers of people along the Gulf Coast with claims against BP became increasingly enraged in their accusations that Feinberg was little more than a BP shill, and demanded that Feinberg stop claiming he was on their side, and not BP’s.

Shortly thereafter, in January 2011, the federal judge presiding over BP’s oil disaster litigation ruled that Feinberg was not independent of BP and could no longer claim he was, as Feinberg had been promising victims that he was their lawyer and did not answer to BP.

And now he is being sued by people he claimed to have represented against BP…

VERY interesting article.

Historic Attack On Medicare

US President Barack Obama signed into law on Thursday the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, marking a new stage in the bipartisan assault on the government health insurance program for 53 million American seniors and the disabled.

The bill, HR 2, was passed this week by the Senate, following approval by the House last month—in both cases by overwhelming bipartisan majorities.

Obama praised the bill as a “milestone,” after the Senate vote Tuesday. On Thursday, he praised the “bipartisan achievement,” saying that it would “be good for people who use Medicare, it’s going to be good for our seniors.”

In fact, the bill expands means testing for Medicare and establishes a new payment system in which doctors will be rewarded for cutting costs while being punished for the volume and frequency of the health care services they provide.

The press has depicted the bill as a miracle of bipartisanship, demonstrating that Democrats and Republicans can work together to end Washington “gridlock” in the interest of the public good. The reality is that the bill is ultimately aimed at gutting health care services for the millions of seniors who rely upon it…


Smart Meters Unveiled

Smart Meter (SM) technology is something most consumers may not be familiar with. However, just because the ‘smart’ label is attached to a technology, that doesn’t imply the technology is in the best interest of consumers’ overall health.

Think again, especially when it comes to new ‘smart’ electric, gas, or water meters that are AMI (Advanced Metering Infrastructure) SMs, which can do a few things consumers really may not be aware of and which really are NOT very smart safety-wise.

SMs send RFs (Radiofrequency non-ionizing radiation) into the homes they are retrofitted on;

SMs collect information from within the home—even have the capability to record conversations, plus monitoring various appliances, occupancy times, etc.;

SMs then transmit your in-house personal data via microwaves to utility company home offices, which is house wiretapping without a legal search warrant.

SM technologies can be hacked into, but that’s something utility companies may not have addressed before installing a ‘recording spy’ on to your house.

If you are not familiar with SM technology and what it can do, an independent researcher shared this information with me and asked that I publish it. So, below are some quick reference points to know…