The Conscious Resistance – Feb 24, 2020 – Video 29 min
Journalist Derrick Broze interview Dr. Paul Connett of the Fluoride Action Network regarding the upcoming trial between FAN and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This trial could spell the end of the practice of water fluoridation. www.fluoridealert.org
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has continued its glyphosate cover-up by announcing Thursday that they have finished and published their regulatory review and found that glyphosate is ‘not a carcinogen’.
In a statement released Thursday the agency said; “EPA has concluded
that there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is
used according to the label and that it is not a carcinogen.”
The EPA’s findings contradict the findings
of a working group of 17 experts from 11 countries from the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), who in 2015
classified glyphosate as a ‘Probable Human Carcinogen’.
Also in 2015 Sustainable Pulse uncovered a 30 year cover up
by Monsanto and the EPA, related to the probable carcinogenicty of
glyphosate, the World’s most used herbicide and according to Sustainable
Pulse Director, Henry Rowlands, “as expected the cover-up simply
Rowlands continued “One thing that helps the EPA continue to assist
companies such as Bayer/Monsanto to harm public health, is the fact that
there are a lack of independent comprehensive studies out there on the
harm being caused globally by glyphosate-based herbicides, due to a lack
of available funding. This is something that the Global Glyphosate Study is trying to put right.”
Bayer / Monsanto, which produces the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, is currently facing more than 75,000 court cases
in the U.S., some of which have already proven that Roundup is
carcinogenic and specifically that it causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Dr. Charles Benbrook, Project Coordinator of the Heartland Study,
reacted to the EPA’s announcement; “I am flabbergasted at this
decision. There is NOTHING — ZERO — in the EPA decision to reduce worker
exposures and risks.
How can the EPA ignore the thousands of comments highlighting the
need for EPA to recover its spine and require Bayer/Monsanto and other
registrants to take out the high-risk surfactants in glyphosate-based
herbicides (GBHs), so the GBHs sold in the US are as safe as the
reformulated products now sold in Europe?
And why did the EPA not require registrants to add onto labels a
requirement for mixer-loaders and applicators to wear gloves, long
sleeve pants, chemical-resistant shoes (aka rubber boots), especially
for applicators using hand-held equipment and spraying a GBH for several
hours per day, over many days per year, as part of their job, or in
keeping up with weeds on their rural property, homestead, or farm?
This irresponsible action by the EPA sets the stage for a concerted
campaign by activists and public health advocates to ban all uses of
GBHs. For obvious reasons, their prime target won’t be this EPA, and
will instead focus on major food companies.”
Food companies are already reacting in the U.S. and elsewhere around the globe by signing up to The Detox Project’s Glyphosate Residue Free certification for their products, which is now one of the fastest growing certifications in North America.
“It is time for consumers to show our industry-supporting government regulators that it really doesn’t matter if they try to hide the truth, we can all make a difference by forcing change at the check-out,” Rowlands concluded.
In September 2009, over 3,000 bee enthusiasts from around the world descended on the city of Montpellier in southern France for Apimondia — a festive beekeeper conference filled with scientific lectures, hobbyist demonstrations, and commercial beekeepers hawking honey. But that year, a cloud loomed over the event: bee colonies across the globe were collapsing, and billions of bees were dying.
Bee declines have been observed throughout recorded history, but the sudden, persistent and abnormally high annual hive losses had gotten so bad that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had commissioned two of the world’s most well-known entomologists — Dennis vanEngelsdorp, a chief apiary inspector in Pennsylvania, then studying at Penn State University, and Jeffrey Pettis, then working as a government scientist — to study the mysterious decline. They posited that there must be an underlying factor weakening bees’ immune systems.
At Le Corum, a conference center and opera house, the pair discussed
their findings. They had fed bees with extremely small amounts of
neonicotinoids, or neonics, the most commonly used class of insecticides
in the world. Neonics are, of course, meant to kill insects, but they
are marketed as safe for insects that aren’t being directly targeted.
VanEngelsdorp and Pettis found that even at nonlethal doses, the bees in
the trial became much more vulnerable to fungal infection. Bees
carrying an infection will often fly off to die, a virtuous form of
suicide designed to protect the larger hive from contagion.
“We exposed whole colonies to very low levels of neonicotinoids in this case, and then challenged bees from those colonies with Nosema, a pathogen, a gut pathogen,” said Pettis, speaking to filmmaker Mark Daniels in his documentary, “The
Strange Disappearance of the Bees,” at Apimondia. “And we saw an
increase, even if we fed the pesticide at very low levels — an increase
in Nosema levels — in direct response to the low-level feeding of neonicotinoids.”
The dosages of the pesticide were so miniscule, said vanEngelsdorp,
that it was “below the limit of detection.” The only reason they knew
the bees had consumed the neonicotinoids, he added, was “because we
Bee health depends on a variety of synergistic factors, the scientists were careful to note. But in this study, Pettis said, they were able to isolate “one pesticide and one pathogen and we clearly see the interaction.”
The evidence was mounting. Shortly after vanEngelsdorp and Pettis revealed their findings, a number of French researchers produced
a nearly identical study, feeding minute amounts of the same pesticide
to bees, along with a control group. The study produced results that
echoed what the Americans had found.
Drifting clouds of neonicotinoid dust from planting operations caused
a series of massive bee die-offs in northern Italy and the
Baden-Württemberg region of Germany. Studies have shown neonicotinoids
impaired bees’ ability to navigate and forage for food, weakened bee colonies, and made them prone to infestation by parasitic mites.
In 2013, the European Union called for a temporary suspension of the
most commonly used neonicotinoid-based products on flowering plants,
citing the danger posed to bees — an effort that resulted in a permanent
ban in 2018.
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.
The companies also sought influence with beekeepers and
regulators, and went to great lengths to shape public opinion. Pesticide
firms launched new coalitions and seeded foundations with cash to focus
on nonpesticide factors in pollinator decline.
“Position the industry as an active promoter of bee health, and advance best management practices which emphasize bee safety,” noted an internal planning memo from CropLife America, the lobby group for the largest pesticide companies in America, including Bayer and Syngenta. The ultimate goal of the bee health project, the document noted, was to ensure that member companies maintained market access for neonic products and other systemic pesticides.
The planning memo, helmed in part by Syngenta regulatory official
John Abbott, charts a variety of strategies for advancing the pesticide
industry’s interests, such as, “Challenge EPA on the size and breadth of
the pollinator testing program.” CropLife America officials were also
tapped to “proactively shape the conversation in the new media realm
with respect to pollinators” and “minimize negative association of crop
protection products with effects on pollinators.” The document, dated June 2014, calls for “outreach to university researchers who could be independent validators.”
The pesticide companies have used a variety of strategies to shift the public discourse.
“America’s Heartland,” a PBS series shown on affiliates throughout the country and underwritten by CropLife America, portrayed the pollinator declines as a mystery. One segment from early 2013 on the crisis made no mention of pesticides, with the host simply declaring that “experts aren’t sure why” bees and butterflies were disappearing.
“The EPA is endangering the lives of children to protect pesticide industry profits.”
In a move environmentalists denounced as yet another case of the Trump administration putting industry profits over public health, the Environmental Protection Agency announced on Thursday that it will not ban chlorpyrifos, a pesticide linked to brain damage in children.
“By allowing chlorpyrifos to stay in our fruits and vegetables, Trump’s EPA is breaking the law and neglecting the overwhelming scientific evidence that this pesticide harms children’s brains,” Patti Goldman, attorney with Earthjustice said in a statement. “It is a tragedy that this administration sides with corporations instead of children’s health.”
EPA chief Andrew Wheeler’s decision to reject a petition by environmental groups calling for a ban on the neurotoxic chemical ignores the assessments of his agency’s own scientists, saidTiffany Finck-Haynes, pesticides and pollinators program manager for Friends of the Earth.
“The EPA’s refusal to ban chlorpyrifos ignores decades of science showing that this pesticide has irrevocable effects on human health and the environment,” said Finck-Haynes. “The EPA is endangering the lives of children to protect pesticide industry profits.”
Chlorpyrifos has been banned for household use since 2000, but the pesticide is still used by farmers on “more than 50 fruit, nut, cereal, and vegetable crops,” according tothe New York Times.
“In 2016,” the Times reported, “more than 640,000 acres were treated with chlorpyrifos in California alone.”
The Obama administration in 2015 proposed banning use of the pesticide on food crops, but former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt authorized its continued use in 2017.
“This is a total disgrace,” Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) tweeted in response to the EPA’s decision on Thursday.
Finck-Haynes of Friends of the Earth said that as the federal government continues to work on behalf of chemical interests, states must take immediate action to protect the public and the environment.
“While the federal government refuses to act, we urge states to step in, ban chlorpyrifos, and demonstrate that they will safeguard public health and the environment,” said Finck-Haynes. “We call on [New York] Governor [Andrew] Cuomo to sign the chlorpyrifos ban bill sitting on his desk and protect New Yorkers from this toxic pesticide.”
In a statement on Thursday, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) highlighted the Trump administration’s ties to Dow Chemical, the largest producer of chlorpyrifos in the United States.
“The relationship between President Trump and Dow Chemical… has been called into question,” the group said. “Among other things, the chemical manufacturing giant reportedly donated $1 million for Trump’s inauguration, and its CEO previously played a chief advisory role to the president, heading up his now defunct American Manufacturing Council.”
Erik Olson, senior director of health and food at NRDC, said the effort to achieve a ban on chlorpyrifos will continue.
“Until EPA gets this stuff out of our fields and off our food,” said Olson, “this fight is not over.”
A federal appeals court in California ruled on Thursday that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to ditch a proposed ban on a pesticide linked to brain damage in unborn babies and young children violated federal law.
The ruling generated embarrassing headlines for the Trump administration as it rolled out a number of attention-grabbing proposals that are also expected to face serious legal and legislative hurdles.
In a ruling that scolded the agency for ignoring its congressional mandate to protect the public from dangerous chemicals, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the EPA on Friday to finalize a ban on chlorpyrifos within 60 days. The court said there was “no justification” for Pruitt’s decision to reverse course on banning the pesticide because the EPA had scientific evidence showing that chlorpyrifos residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children.
The Trump Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are facing three new lawsuits regarding recently amended practices regarding the use of certain pesticides which have been linked to cancer.
A coalition of conservation and public health groups have filed suit against the Trump Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, accusing the federal government of foregoing an assessment of a pesticide known to have harmful health effects, as well as suspending training for pesticide handlers. The Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health and Californians for Pesticide Reform filed suit against the EPA head, Scott Pruitt, accusing him of failing to protect endangered wildlife and the environment by abandoning a safety assessment of the pesticide malathion.
The lawsuit claims the EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have failed to complete their legal mandate to assess and limit the dangers of malathion. According to the World Health Organization, malathion is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
“Its deplorable that the Trump administration is putting human health and endangered wildlife at risk to please Dow,” said Jonathan Evans, environmental health legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Trump and Pruitt aren’t above the law and they have to take reasonable steps to limit the harms of this dangerous pesticide.”