Weeds dying in a soybean field impacted by dicamba spraying. JJ Gouin / iStock / Getty Images
A federal court overturned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of dicamba Wednesday, meaning the controversial herbicide can no longer be sprayed in the U.S.
<p>The product, originally designed by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto" target="_self">Monsanto</a>, is opposed by some farmers and environmental groups because it can drift when sprayed, damaging <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife" target="_self">wildlife</a> and other crops.</p><p>"Today's decision is a massive win for farmers and the environment. It is good to be reminded that corporations like Monsanto and the Trump Administration cannot escape the rule of law, particularly at a time of crisis like this," lead counsel George Kimbrell of the <a href="http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/1881/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=10186" target="_blank">Center for Food Safety</a> told <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/court-orders-epa-approvals-of-bayer-dicamba-herbicide-vacated-says-regulator-understated-the-risks/" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know</a>. "Their day of reckoning has arrived."</p>
<p>The Center for Food Safety sued the EPA together with <a href="https://nffc.net/" target="_blank">National Family Farm Coalition</a>, <a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a> and <a href="http://www.panna.org/" target="_blank">Pesticide Action Network North America</a>. The groups argued that the EPA broke the law when it ruled on the safety of a kind of dicamba designed by Monsanto to be sprayed widely over crops genetically engineered to be resistant to the herbicide. This method means the dicamba can drift to other, non-resistant crops.</p><p>The herbicide is believed to have damaged 3.6 million acres of soybeans in 2017, and more than 1 million in 2018, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-03/bayer-s-dicamba-registration-pulled-by-court-on-herbicide-s-risk" target="_blank">Bloomberg News reported</a>.</p><p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the EPA "substantially understated the risks" of the herbicides and also "failed entirely to acknowledge other risks," according to U.S. Right to Know.</p>
<div id="35797" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="77896b9baa08d7fa5905f98e506d5e7f"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1268328882094116872" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The court found @EPA refused to estimate the
amount of dicamba damage, characterizing such damage as “potential” an… https://t.co/ev2bah3opD</div> — carey gillam (@carey gillam)<a href="https://twitter.com/careygillam/statuses/1268328882094116872">1591228144.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>One of the risks the EPA failed to acknowledge was the "enormous social cost to farming communities" where the herbicide's use "has turned farmer against farmer, and neighbor against neighbor," the court wrote, according to Bloomberg. A farmer was shot and killed because of a dicamba-related argument in Arkansas in 2016.</p><p>The ruling impacts the dicamba-based herbicide sold by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bayer" target="_self">Bayer</a>, which acquired Monsanto in 2018. It also prohibits the use of BASF's Engenia and Corteva Agriscience's FeXapan, <a href="https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN23B0JA" target="_blank">Reuters reported</a>.</p><p>Bayer told Reuters that the ruling impacted a 2018 EPA approval that expires in December and that it is currently at work on a new 2021 approval.</p><p>"Depending upon actions by the EPA and whether the ruling is successfully challenged, we will work quickly to minimize any impact on our customers this season," Bayer said.</p>
<p>The ruling comes around four months after a jury ruled against Bayer and BASF and in favor of a Missouri farmer who said the companies' dicamba products destroyed his peach orchard, according to Bloomberg.</p><p>That was the first of around 140 pending dicamba suits awaiting trial.</p><p>The dicamba suits are not the only suits Bayer inherited when it acquired Monsanto, Reuters pointed out. Wednesday's dicamba decision came days after arguments were heard in an appeal of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/jury-finds-monsanto-liable-in-the-first-roundup-cancer-trial--2595446068.html" target="_self">first</a> case to go to trial over whether or not the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_self">glyphosate-based</a> weedkiller <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/roundup" target="_self">Roundup</a> causes cancer.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Bayer and BASF Ordered to Pay $265 Million to U.S. Peach Farmer ... ›
- Trump's EPA Backs Bayer's Appeal in Roundup Verdict Appeal ... ›
- 'Dangerous Drift-Prone Pesticide' Threatens Millions of Acres ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Jörg Carstensen / picture alliance via Getty Images
By Carey Gillam
Bayer AG is reneging on negotiated settlements with several U.S. law firms representing thousands of plaintiffs who claim exposure to Monsanto's Roundup herbicides caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, sources involved in the litigation said on Friday.
<p>The reversal comes as U.S. courts are closed to the public because of the spreading coronavirus, eliminating the specter of another Roundup cancer trial in the near future.</p><p>Bayer, which bought Monsanto in June of 2018, has been engaged in settlement talks for close to a year, seeking to put an end to mass litigation that has driven down the company's stock, spurred investor unrest, and thrust questionable corporate conduct into a public spotlight. The first three trials led to three losses for Bayer and jury awards of more than $2 billion, though trial judges later reduced the awards.</p>
<p>Bayer made <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit-delay/bayer-says-glyphosate-settlement-talks-delayed-by-coronavirus-handelsblatt-idUSKBN21K13F" target="_blank">a public statement</a> this week saying that settlement talks have been slowed by the coronavirus pandemic, but multiple plaintiffs' lawyers said that was not true.</p><p>According to the plaintiffs' attorneys, Bayer has been going back to law firms that had already completed negotiations for specified settlements for their clients, saying the company will not honor the agreed-upon amounts.</p><p>"A lot of lawyers around the country thought they had tentative deals," said Virginia attorney Mike Miller, whose firm represents roughly 6,000 clients and won two of the three Roundup trials to date. Bayer is now demanding a "hair cut" on those deals, Miller said.</p><p>Whether or not the various firms will take the reduced offers remains to be seen. "These are uncertain economic times," Miller said. "People have to consider what's best for their clients."</p>In response to a request for comment, a Bayer spokesman provided the following statement: "We've made progress in the Roundup mediation discussions, but the COVID-19 dynamics, including restrictions imposed in recent weeks, have caused meeting cancellations and delayed this process … As a result, the mediation process has significantly slowed, and realistically, we expect this will continue to be the case for the immediate future. During this time, we will continue to do whatever we can to help combat the global COVID-19 pandemic, consistent with our vision of 'health for all, hunger for none.' We cannot speculate about potential outcomes from the negotiations or timing, given the uncertainties surrounding the pandemic and the confidentiality of this process, but we remain committed to engaging in mediation in good faith."<p>US Right to Know <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/anticipation-builds-for-settlement-of-roundup-cancer-claims/" target="_blank">reported in early January</a> that the parties were working on a settlement of roughly $8 billion to $10 billion. Bayer has acknowledged facing claims from more than 40,000 plaintiffs, but plaintiffs' attorneys have said the total number of claims is much higher.</p><p>Among the firms who had negotiated settlements for their clients are the Andrus Wagstaff firm from Denver, Colorado and the Los Angeles firm of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman. Both reached agreements last year with Bayer.</p><p>In addition, the Weitz & Luxenberg firm from New York and Mike Miller's firm recently reached what they thought were agreements on terms. Each of the firms represents thousands of plaintiffs.</p><p>The primary leverage plaintiffs' attorneys had been using in the settlement negotiations was the threat of another public trial. In the first three trials, damning <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-papers/" target="_blank">internal Monsanto documents</a> laid bare evidence that the company knew of the cancer risks of its glyphosate-based herbicides but failed to warn consumers; ghost-wrote scientific papers proclaiming the safety of its herbicides; worked with certain regulatory officials to quash a government review of glyphosate toxicity; and engineered efforts to discredit critics.</p><p>The revelations have triggered outrage around the world and prompted moves to ban the glyphosate-based herbicides.</p><p>Several trials that were to have been held over the last several months were cancelled shortly before they were scheduled to begin when Bayer agreed to individual settlements for those specific trial plaintiffs. Two of those cases involved children stricken with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a third was brought by a woman suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Those plaintiffs, and others who have agreed to settlements in lieu of trials in recent months, are protected and are not part of the current rollback effort by Bayer, according to multiple sources involved.</p><p>Bayer is slated to hold its annual shareholders' meeting on April 28. For the first time in the company's history, the meeting will be <a href="https://www.media.bayer.com/baynews/baynews.nsf/id/Bayer-planning-to-hold-online-only-stockholders-meeting-on-April-28-2020" target="_blank">held entirely online</a>.</p><p>The first three plaintiffs to win jury awards against Monsanto have yet to receive any money as Bayer appeals the verdicts.</p>
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
The CEO of German chemicals giant Bayer, Werner Baumann, speaks during the company's annual news conference in Leverkusen, western Germany, on Feb. 27. INA FASSBENDER / AFP / Getty Images
By Carey Gillam
A California shareholder of Bayer AG on Friday filed a lawsuit against the companies' top executives claiming they breached their duty of "prudence" and "loyalty" to the company and investors by buying Monsanto Co. in 2018, an acquisition the suit claims has "inflicted billions of dollars of damages" on the company.
<p>Plaintiff Rebecca R. Haussmann, trustee of the Konstantin S. Haussmann Trust, is the sole named plaintiff in the suit, which was filed in New York County Supreme Court. The named defendants include Bayer <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-chairman-ceo/pressure-mounts-on-bayer-ceo-to-fix-legal-problems-as-chairman-quits-idUSKCN20K2SM" target="_blank">CEO Werner Baumann</a>, who orchestrated the $63 billion Monsanto purchase, and Bayer Chairman Werner Wenning, who announced last month he was <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/bayer-chairman-steps-down-in-midst-of-roundup-legal-battle-11582714274" target="_blank">stepping down</a> from the company earlier than planned. The suit claims that Wenning's decision came after Bayer improperly obtained a copy of the then-draft shareholder lawsuit "through corporate espionage."<em></em></p>
<p>The lawsuit also claims that Bayer's recent announcement of an audit of its acquisition actions is "bogus" and "part of the ongoing cover-up and intended to create a legal barrier to this case to protect Defendants from their accountability…"</p><p>The action is a shareholder derivative complaint, meaning it is brought on behalf of the company against company insiders. It seeks compensatory damages for shareholders and disgorgement of "all compensation paid to the Bayer Managers and Supervisors who participated in bringing about this Acquisition…" The suit also seeks return of funds paid to banks and law firms involved in the acquisition.</p><p>The defendants include not only Baumann and Wenning, but also some present and former Bayer directors and top managers, as well as BOFA Securities, Inc., Bank of America, Credit Suisse Group AG and the law firms of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and Linklaters LLP.</p><p>A Bayer spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.</p>
<p>The lawsuit comes a little more than a month before Bayer's April 28 annual shareholders' meeting in Bonn, Germany. At last year's annual meeting, 55 percent of shareholders <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-26/bayer-ceo-loses-key-vote-as-investors-reject-monsanto-strategy" target="_blank">registered their unhappiness</a> with Baumann and other managers over the Monsanto deal and the subsequent loss of roughly $40 billion in market value.</p><p>Bayer's purchase of Monsanto has been clouded by tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging Monsanto's glyphosate-based herbicides cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that the company deceived customers about the risks. Bayer proceeded with the acquisition even after the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015 classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen with a positive association to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and despite knowledge of the spreading legal claims.</p><p>Bayer then completed the Monsanto purchase just two months before the first Roundup cancer trial ended with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/11/one-mans-suffering-exposed-monsantos-secrets-to-the-world" target="_blank">a $289 million verdict</a> against the company. Since that time two more trials have ended in similar findings against the company with verdicts totaling more than $2 billion, though the trial judges in each case have lowered the verdicts. All are now on appeal.</p>
<p>Bayer has said there are more than 45,000 plaintiffs currently making similar claims. The company has been working to settle the lawsuits for a figure widely reported to be around $10 billion but has thus far not been successful in putting an end to the litigation.</p><p>The lawsuit claims that during 2017 and 2018, as the filing of new Roundup cancer lawsuits was escalating, the ability of Bayer management to conduct due diligence into Monsanto and the litigation risks was "severely restricted." As a result, "Bayer could not conduct the kind of intrusive and thorough due diligence into Monsanto's business and legal affairs called for under the circumstances."</p><p>The suit claims that Monsanto did not disclose a material risk from Roundup and failed to quantify any potential financial impact. Monsanto's executives "had every incentive to minimize the Roundup risk in order to get Bayer to close the deal," the lawsuit states.</p><p>The shareholder lawsuit claims that "these types of mass-tort cases… can destroy a company."</p><p>The lawsuit points to the fact that Monsanto's glyphosate herbicides are now being restricted and/or banned in many parts of the world, including in Germany.</p><p>"The Monsanto Acquisition is a disaster. Roundup is doomed as a commercial product," the lawsuit states.</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/shareholder-files-suit-against-bayer-over-disastrous-monsanto-acquisition/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know</a>. </em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Cancer Takes Toll as New Roundup Trials Near - EcoWatch ›
- Bayer Apologizes Over Secret List of Monsanto Critics - EcoWatch ›
- Bayer and BASF Ordered to Pay $265 Million to U.S. Peach Farmer ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The Environmental Protection Agency West pictured in DC. Wally Gobetz / Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added its weight to back Bayer AG in its appeal against a federal jury verdict that decided its Roundup weed killer causes cancer, according to Bloomberg.
<p>Bayer is looking to overturn a verdict that first awarded a plaintiff $80 million, but was reduced to $25 million by a federal judge, in a suit that claimed the world's most popular <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/herbicides" rel="noopener noreferrer">herbicide</a> caused a man's non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The EPA, working with the U.S. Department of Justice, filed papers in court on Friday fully and unequivocally supporting Bayer's claim that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" rel="noopener noreferrer">glyphosate</a>, the active ingredient in Roundup, does not cause cancer, as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported. </p>
<p>When the U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria cut the jury reward in the spring, he refused to overturn the jury's findings that Roundup should have been sold with a cancer warning on the label. The EPA, however, said in papers that it had vetted and approved the Roundup warning label issued by Monsanto, which Bayer acquired in 2018 for about $63 billion, and it did not require a cancer warning, as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> reported.</p>
<p>The filings by the EPA and Justice Department said that Monsanto, and subsequently Bayer, could not print a cancer-risk warning on its label because the EPA has the sole authority over warning labels on chemical products and the EPA would not have approved a cancer warning on Roundup labels, according to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Wall Street Journal</a>. </p>
<p>"That label, once reviewed and approved by EPA, is controlling," the agency said, as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> reported. "States cannot impose distinct labeling requirements."</p>
<p>In August, the EPA administrator <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/Andrew-Wheeler" rel="noopener noreferrer">Andrew Wheeler</a> said his agency would not allow a cancer-risk warning on glyphosate-based herbicides, saying it was tantamount to false labeling since the EPA had deemed it safe, as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" rel="noreferrer noopener">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported. </p>
<p>"EPA has a longstanding position—It's not just this administration which determined that this pesticide does not cause cancer," said Jeffrey Clark, the assistant attorney general of the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the Justice Department in an interview, to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" rel="noreferrer noopener">The Wall Street Journal</a>. "EPA should be in control. Congress set it up that way."</p>
<p>In its appeal, Bayer alleged that Chhabria made several errors and that the plaintiff's claims are preempted by federal law. Bayer claims that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, it actually would have been misbranding to print a cancer-risk warning on a glyphosate-based product, according to <a href="https://iegpolicy.agribusinessintelligence.informa.com/PL222562/Food--Ag-Policy-Briefing-Bayer-strikes-back-water-directive-CAP-support" target="_blank">IEG Policy Agribusiness</a>. </p>
<p>Bayer is facing a mountain of litigation as there were 42,700 others suing the company over Roundup as of October, according to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>. So far, Bayer has lost three U.S. court cases where plaintiffs have claimed that long-term exposure to Roundup had caused their cancer. The company has postponed two trials in the U.S. while it works with a mediator to try to hammer out a settlement with the plaintiffs, as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> reported. </p>
<p>Legal scholars told <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Wall Street Journal</a> that the filing by the EPA and the Justice Department will stand out to the appeals court, and the federal government will often add its opinion when a case is based on the interpretation of a federal statute. </p><p>Bayer said in a statement to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> that it's pleased the EPA "expressed its views in this appeal, which are consistent with the preemption arguments we have made throughout this case."</p>
<p>Aimee Wagstaff, the lawyer for Edwin Hardeman, the plaintiff, emailed a statement to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> that said the EPA's filing reflected a desperation move by Bayer that has been rejected by several state and federal judges. "The EPA's brief doesn't change the law," she wrote.</p>
<p>"We are confident the Ninth Circuit will also reject Monsanto's argument and rule in favor of Mr. Hardeman," she added, as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported.</p>
<p>The appeals court judges "may not ultimately agree with the side the government is supporting for other reasons," said Ben Feuer, an appellate lawyer in San Francisco, as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported, but the agency's brief "is going to be closely parsed and they will engage with it."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Ethics Investigations Opened into Actions of EPA Head Wheeler ... ›
- Trump's EPA Sides With Monsanto, Extends Dicamba 2 More Years ›
- Federal Court Reverses EPA Approval of Crop-Harming Dicamba - EcoWatch ›
- Federal Court Reverses EPA Approval of Crop-Harming Dicamba - EcoWatch ›
- Judge Blocks California From Putting Cancer Warning on Roundup - EcoWatch ›
- Bayer Settles Roundup Cancer Suits for Over $10 Billion - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
An American flag waves in the wind at the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco, California on May 17 where a trial against Monsanto took place. Alva and Alberta Pilliod, were awarded more than $2 billion in damages in their lawsuit against Monsanto, though the judge in the case lowered the damage award to $87 million. JOSH EDELSON / AFP / Getty Images
By Carey Gillam
For the last five years, Chris Stevick has helped his wife Elaine in her battle against a vicious type of cancer that the couple believes was caused by Elaine's repeated use of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide around a California property the couple owned. Now the roles are reversed as Elaine must help Chris face his own cancer.
<p>Chris Stevick, who often mixed Roundup for his wife and tested the sprayer used to dispense the weed killer, was diagnosed last month with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Unlike Elaine's aggressive type of NHL known as central nervous system lymphoma, Chris's cancer is a type that tends to grow slowly. He was diagnosed after a physical examination showed abnormalities in his blood and prompted further tests.</p><p>The diagnosis has prompted a scramble among lawyers involved in the sprawling Roundup products liability litigation given that the Stevick's lawsuit against Monsanto is set as the next federal case to go to trial.</p><p>With the trial date of Feb. 24, 2020 looming, Elaine Stevick's lawyers <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/11/Stevick-Letter-Brief-re-husband-cancer-diagnosis.pdf" target="_blank">asked Monsanto's attorneys</a> if the company would agree that Chris Stevick's cancer claims could be joined with his wife's for the February trial in San Francisco. The attorneys argue that at the very least Chris Stevick's diagnosis is admissible evidence at his wife's trial as additional proof of their claim that Roundup exposure can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma.</p><p>Monsanto's attorneys oppose the joining of the claims and say that Elaine Stevick's trial should only proceed in February if there is no mention made of her husband's cancer. Alternatively, Monsanto requests that the February trial be delayed and the company be given time to do discovery into Chris Stevick's diagnosis.</p><p>The issue is to be discussed in a case management conference Thursday, which the Stevicks plan to attend. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/11/Stevick-order-Nov-6-2019.pdf" target="_blank">ahead of the hearing</a> that he is "tentatively of the view" that a continuance of the trial will be necessary if the couple wants to try their claims together. He also said that if Elaine Stevick proceeds on her exposure claims alone, evidence of her husband's cancer diagnosis "will likely be inadmissible…"</p><p>If the judge confirms that joining the claims would indeed require a continuance, Elaine Stevick will choose to proceed on her own in February, said attorney Mike Miller.</p><p>Earlier this year another husband and wife suffering from cancer, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, were awarded <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/business/monsanto-roundup-cancer-verdict.html" target="_blank">more than $2 billion in damages</a> in their lawsuit against Monsanto, though the judge in the case lowered the damage award to $87 million. The Pilliod trial was the third Roundup products liability trial to take place and the third in which juries found that Monsanto's Roundup herbicides cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that the company has hidden the risks from consumers. Alberta Pilliod's cancer has recently returned and it is not clear she will survive much longer, according to her attorneys.</p><p>None of the people so far awarded money in the three trials have received any payout from Monsanto as its owner Bayer AG appeals the verdicts.</p><p>There are currently more than 42,000 people suing Monsanto in the U.S., alleging that Monsanto's herbicides cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The lawsuits additionally allege that the company was well aware of the dangers but did nothing to warn consumers, working instead to manipulate the scientific record.</p><p>The Stevick trial is only one of at least six in five different venues slated for January and February, with each expected to last several weeks. Many lawyers are involved in more than one of the cases, and all have overlapping expert witnesses, setting up organizational and resource challenges for both sides. Multiple trials that had been set for this fall were delayed until next year.</p><p>In the meantime, both sides of the litigation are keeping an eye on the California Appellate Court, where lawyers for plaintiff <a href="https://time.com/5460793/dewayne-lee-johnson-monsanto-lawsuit/" target="_blank">Dewayne "Lee" Johnson</a> and lawyers for Monsanto are awaiting a date for oral arguments in their cross appeals. Monsanto is seeking to overturn the unanimous jury decision handed down against the company in August 2018. The trial judge in that case lowered the jury award from $289 million to $78 million and Johnson is appealing for the reinstatement of the full $289 million.</p><p>Johnson was the first to go to trial against Monsanto and his victory sent share prices in Bayer plummeting just two months after Bayer closed the purchase of Monsanto in June 2018. Johnson was granted "trial preference" due to predictions by his doctors that he did not have long to live. Johnson has outlived those predictions, though his health continues to decline.</p><p>As the litigation drags on, several plaintiffs have died or are nearing death, or have suffered such extreme health problems that their ability to undergo the rigors of depositions and trials has become limited.</p><p>In some cases, family members are being substituted as plaintiffs for deceased loved ones. In legal parlance, the notices to the courts are titled "<a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/11/Suggestion-of-Death.pdf" target="_blank">Suggestion of Death</a>."</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Environmentally-Caused Disease Crisis? Pesticide Damage to DNA Found 'Programmed' Into Future Generations
16 August 2018
Insights + Opinion
Incposterco / Getty Images
When Dr. Paul Winchester, a pediatrician, moved to Indiana from Colorado in 2002, he noticed something disturbing—a high number of birth defects.
<p>"I was used to the number of birth defects I should see in a community hospital, and I saw many more in Indiana," said Winchester, who is medical director of the Neonatal and Intensive Care Unit at St. Francis Hospital in Indianapolis.</p><p> Winchester decided to investigate the reason for the higher numbers of birth defects. His research zeroed in on the herbicide atrazine, one of the most widely used herbicides in the U.S. and the most commonly detected pesticide in U.S. drinking water.</p><p>Winchester and several other researchers including Michael Skinner, professor of biology at Washington State University's Center for Reproductive Biology, conducted <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0184306" target="_blank">a study</a> to see if there was a link between atrazine in drinking water and birth defects.<br></p><p>Studies have found that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor, a substance that can alter the human hormonal system. Atrazine was banned by the European Union because of its persistent groundwater contamination.</p><p>In their study, Winchester and his team found that concentrations of atrazine in drinking water were highest in May and June when farmers sprayed their fields with the herbicide. They also found that birth defects peaked during the same months indicating a close correlation.</p><p>"We plotted water concentrations and birth defects, and they fit like a hat," Winchester said.</p><p>Their <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0184306" target="_blank">study</a>, which was funded by the Gerber Foundation, was published in 2017 on PLOS One.</p><h2>Epigenetic Changes Programmed Into Future Generations</h2><p>But the most disturbing finding was that atrazine had epigenetic effects. Epigenetics is the theory that environmental factors, such as diet, lifestyle choices and pesticides can impact the health of people who are exposed to them and also their descendants. Human DNA, according to epigenetics, is not unchangeable; it can be altered by such environmental factors. Epigenetic changes can be imprinted on the DNA of a fetus during pregnancy according to Winchester.</p><p>"If it is fixed then, it becomes inheritable and it becomes a trait that you can pass on to the next generation and the next and next."</p><p>Epigenetics is a fairly new concept that is slowly gaining acceptance.</p><p>"This is a really important concept that is difficult to teach the public, and when I say the public I include my clinical colleagues," Winchester said.</p><p>For the atrazine study, Winchester's team used Skinner's advanced technology to detect epigenetic changes—and resulting negative health impacts—over several generations of rats whose mothers were exposed to atrazine.<br></p><p>Common sense would seem to dictate that fewer negative health outcomes would be seen with subsequent generations. But the study found the opposite: There were more abnormalities and diseases in later generations of rats. The first generation of rats whose mother was exposed to atrazine weighed less than a group of control rats. The second generation weighed less but also had incidences of testicular disease and breast cancer. The third generation suffered the most problems, according to Winchester.</p><p>"We waited until the third generation, where no direct exposure (to atrazine) occurred, to ask if these epigenetic effects could be inherited, because there is no mechanism, no exposure, no toxicity that could explain a change in disease rates in the third generation. We found that 50 percent of offspring had multiple diseases, emotional and physical problems, hyperactivity, abnormal sperm, and premature puberty."</p><p>In an earlier study, Skinner found that the fungicide vinclozolin also caused inheritable diseases in rats. In all, he tested nearly 20 chemicals and found that all produce epigenetic effects, said Winchester.</p><p>"The most alarming (finding) to me is that almost every chemical tested including atrazine reduced fertility in the third generation of offspring."</p><p>Winchester called the discovery of the link between chemicals like pesticides and epigenetic changes leading to disease "the most important next discovery in all of medicine."</p><p>"What we are learning is that virtually every adult disease we have is going to be linked to epigenetic origins as well," he said.</p><p>More research needs to be done on the link between epigenetic effects and disease but Winchester says limited funding is available for such research.</p><p>"This is a huge thing that is going to change how we understand the origin of disease. But a big part of that is that it will change our interpretation of what chemicals are safe. In medicine I can't give a drug to somebody unless it has gone through a huge amount of testing. But all these chemicals haven't gone through anything like that. We've been experimented on for the last 70 years, and there's not one study on multigenerational effects."</p><h2>Glyphosate Levels in Mothers Linked to Shorter Pregnancies</h2><p>Winchester also co-authored <a href="https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-018-0367-0" target="_blank">a study published recently in Environmental Health</a> that found detectable levels of glyphosate in the urine of 93 percent of a group of pregnant women in Central Indiana. The levels of glyphosate detected correlated with shorter pregnancies.</p><p>Again, the study raises concerns of possible epigenetic effects leading to disease in later generations.</p><p>"We are the first researchers in the U.S. to report that virtually every pregnant mother has glyphosate in her body at the time that she is creating fetal (epigenetic) imprints in her baby," Winchester said.</p><p>Winchester and his team focused on atrazine and glyphosate because they are the most heavily used pesticides in the U.S.</p><p>"That's the only reason they were chosen. We looked to see how commonly they are found in pregnant women, and we were mortified."</p><p>Winchester has been surprised by the lack of reaction to the glyphosate study.</p><p>"A chemical (glyphosate) that didn't come onto the scene until the 1970s has now managed to find its way into every single pregnant woman in the U.S, except seven percent of them. We thought that should be news. But in the current paradigm, which is definitely pro-business, the only thing companies have to prove is that it doesn't kill you if you drink it or take a big dose of it."</p><p>He sees a potentially catastrophic outcome resulting from the epigenetic damage caused by pesticides.</p><p>"Every one of the chemicals tested so far produces infertility, and the industrial world has reached the lowest level of fertility on record. We are below replacement levels in most industrialized countries including the U.S.This is looking at your own species extinction."</p><p>Winchester lays the blame at the feet of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which doesn't consider epigenetic or generational effects of chemicals, and the pesticide and chemical manufacturers like Monsanto.</p><p>"They can sell all the Roundup they want, but if it's in me they are going to have to pay for that. Every molecule that I find is on them … What I want to know is: has my fetus had altered DNA imprinting because of this chemical? I have a right to know that. If we are going to have to wait 75 years to find out if my grandchildren are going to be affected by it, I think somebody has to pay. They better put a fund together. I want somebody's head to roll. I don't think that the EPA and Monsanto get to walk away."</p><p>Winchester connects an ancient expression to a modern health crisis.</p><p>"Even in the Bible, there is the saying, 'the sins of the father are visited upon his offspring.' Well, it turns out that they are."</p>
Read More
Show Less
Farmers Switched to Organic After Pesticides Made Them or Their Families Sick
31 May 2018
Insights + Opinion
Levi Lyle (right) transitioned his family's farm to organic after his father Trent (right) overcame cancer. Bill Tiedje
Some farmers transition to organic production to earn premium prices paid for organic crops. Others switch to make their farms more sustainable. But for some farmers transitioning to organic is a necessity to save their health—and even their lives.
<p>Blaine Schmaltz, who farms in Rugby, North Dakota, is a good example. One day in September 1993, Schmaltz was spraying an herbicide on his field. He stopped to check the level in the sprayer tank. Looking inside, he started to feel lame and then passed out. He was later hospitalized for several months with asthma, muscle aches and pains, and insomnia. A doctor diagnosed him as having "occupational asthma."</p><p>"The doctor told me to leave agriculture," Schmaltz said. "He said, 'if you don't you probably won't live 10 years.'"</p><p>While recovering, Schmaltz read about organic farming and decided to transition because he wanted to continue farming. The next spring he started the transition, and over time found it was the right choice. His symptoms disappeared.</p><p>Schmaltz continues to farm organically, growing wheat, edible beans, flax and other specialty grains.</p><p>"I didn't switch to organic farming for the money or a utopian dream," he said. "I did it for myself and my family in order to stay in agriculture."</p><p><strong>"Common story for many farmers" ...</strong></p><p>Blaine Schmaltz's experience is not uncommon. Other farmers in the U.S. and Canada have switched to organic because of a health crisis they had—or even the death of a family member—due to pesticide exposure.</p><p>"It's definitely a common story for many farmers," said Kate Mendenhall, director of the <a href="http://organicfarmersassociation.org/" target="_blank">Organic Farmers Association</a>, about farmers wanting to go organic because of concerns with pesticides.</p><p>Mendenhall's master's degree thesis at Goddard College involved interviewing farmers worldwide who transitioned to organic, and she found that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides">pesticides</a> were a major concern.</p><p>"That was a theme globally," she said. "Farmers had problems with pesticides or were nervous about them and didn't want them around their children. Some had prior health problems from pesticides." A 2017 report by Oregon State University and organic certifier Oregon Tilth, <a href="https://tilth.org/education/resources/breakingground/" target="_blank"><em>Breaking New Ground: Farmer Perspectives on Organic Transition</em></a>, found that 86 percent of farmers surveyed said that concerns about health was one of the main motivations for transitioning.</p><p><strong>"My husband was slowly being poisoned" ...</strong></p><p>Klaas Martens also switched to organic because of bad reactions to pesticides. Martens, who farms in Penn Yan, New York, suffered headaches, nausea, and temporary paralysis of his right arm from exposure to 2,4-D herbicide and other chemicals.</p><p>Martens dreaded spraying pesticides. "I knew I would feel rotten for a month after," he said.</p><p>His wife, Mary-Howell, would later write: "My husband was slowly being poisoned."</p><p>In 1991, the Martens decided to transition to organic because, according to Mary-Howell, they hated what pesticides "might be doing to us, our family, our land, and our environment."</p><p>The Martens have been farming organically ever since and operate <a href="http://lakevieworganicgrain.com/" target="_blank">Lakeview Organic Grain</a>, which supplies organic feed, grains and seeds.</p><p>Saskatchewan farmer Gus Zelinski transitioned to organic after being hospitalized for pesticide poisoning. He inhaled the herbicide Buctril-M after it circulated into the air of his tractor cabin while he was spraying his field.</p><p>"I couldn't get my breath; I was just about choking," Zelinski said.</p><p>He was hospitalized for a week. "The doctor said I was lucky," he said.</p><p>His wife Dolores said the incident led Gus to convert the farm to organic.</p><p>"We went with organic farming practices and didn't look back. We decided that health was more important than our pocketbook and using chemicals."</p><p>She said other farmers in their area weren't as fortunate as Gus.</p><p>"There are a few farmers in our area who have passed on because of chemicals. But that's not spoken about in farming communities."</p><p>According to Dag Falck, organic program manager at Nature's Path Foods, stories like Gus Zelinski's are common.</p><p>"I can't tell you how many times I heard that in my (organic) inspection career. There were lots of stories about older farmers getting seriously ill or prematurely dying (due to pesticide-related illnesses)," he said. </p><p><strong>"I didn't want my kids exposed to the chemicals" ...</strong></p><p>In some cases, farmers switched to organic after their fathers experienced health problems from pesticide exposure. Tim Raile, who is transitioning his <a href="https://www.raile.farm/" target="_blank">8500-acre farm</a> in St. Francis, Kansas to organic, said his father had used pesticides such as 2,4-D and malathion. He died of chronic leukemia at age 77 when others in his family had lived longer.</p><p>"I really believe that's one reason his life was shortened," Raile said. "He was not that careful (handling pesticides) and was told they were safe back in the 1960s and 1970s."</p><p>Raile isn't surprised that farmers have switched to organic because of concerns with pesticides.</p><p>"It's quite common, and was a consideration for me, for sure. I've tried to protect myself using protective clothing, but inevitably you get sprayed and eventually it will cause problems," he said.</p><p>Levi Lyle is transitioning his family's farm in Keota, Iowa to organic, and his father's cancer was a deciding factor.</p><p>"My passion for organic farming was inspired by my dad overcoming cancer," Levi said in an interview with Iowa Farmer Today.</p><p>In the early 1980s, Levi's father Trent developed stage 4 lung cancer as well as groin cancer.</p><p>"He always wondered where the cancer came from," Levi said. "There's much we know about toxicity we add to our fields and so much we don't know."</p><p>Fortunately, Trent overcame his illness and still farms.</p><p>Glen Kadelbach's father wasn't as lucky. He died of cancer in 2008, and Glen decided to transition the <a href="http://www.kadelbachorganicfarms.com/" target="_blank">family's farm</a> in Hutchinson, Minnesota to organic shortly after his father's death.</p><p>"My dad had gotten splashed with Lasso herbicide 20 years before and he was told he would eventually get cancer. He had prostate cancer and that turned to bone cancer," Kadelbach said.</p><p>While Glen can't be completely sure the pesticide exposure caused his father's cancer, he said it was reason enough for him to go organic.</p><p>"I didn't want my kids exposed to the chemicals," he said.</p><p><strong>"Public health trainwreck" ...</strong></p><p>Herbicides were cited as the cause of health problems for farmers like Blaine Schmaltz, Klaas Martens and Gus Zelinski. What's worse is that herbicide-related health problems are likely to increase for farmers and even the public, according to Charles Benbrook, visiting scholar at the Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University. This is because the amount of herbicides being used is accelerating due to weeds becoming resistant to glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide. Encouraged by companies like Monsanto and Dow, farmers are escalating the war on weeds by using older, more toxic herbicides such as dicamba and 2,4-D to kill glyphosate-resistant weeds.</p><p>"The concern is the amount of herbicides used in the next five to ten years is going to constitute the largest increase in U.S. history," Benbrook said.</p><p>Such an increase of herbicide use demands attention by public health agencies and regulators but Benbrook said there is no effort to study human health impacts of the chemicals.</p><p>"Herbicides are going to pose a greater risk to human health," he said. "This is a public health trainwreck that no one has the tools, the motivation, or the ability to turn around. The end game will be very costly."</p><p>The solution for established farmers like Blaine Schmaltz, Klaas Martens, and Gus Zelinski and for younger farmers like Tim Raile, Levi Lyle, and Glen Kadelbach is to transition to organic.</p><p>"I am so anxious to get rid of the chemicals. I haven't looked back," Raile said.</p><p>"If I can reduce herbicide use by 20 percent, then reduce another 20 percent, in a few years I hope to eliminate it all. It's a clear path for me," Levi Lyle said.</p><p>Without the pesticides, Mary-Howell Martens said, "The farm is a safe place."</p>
Read More
Show Less
Mike Mozart / Flickr
German Agriculture Minister Julia Kloeckner announced Tuesday she is drafting regulation to stop use of glyphosate in the country's home gardens, parks and sports facilities, Reuters reported.
The minister also plans to set "massive restrictions" for its use in agriculture, with exemptions for areas that are prone to erosion and cannot be worked with heavy machinery.
<p>
"I am planning a regulatory draft as a first building block in the strategy to minimize use of glyphosate," Kloeckner said.
</p><p style="">
She said the proposal would be vetted by other ministries but did not set a deadline to end use of the herbicide.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="1c5e2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="C7Q5VJ1576661917"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="986267598047404032" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Statement zum Einsatz glyphosathaltiger Pflanzenschutzmittel: BM'in @JuliaKloeckner stellt Eckpunkte einer Minimier… https://t.co/QIzYJy7Wte</div> — BMEL (@BMEL)<a href="https://twitter.com/bmel/statuses/986267598047404032">1523979493.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p style="">
Glyphosate, the active ingredient
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto">Monsanto's</a> Roundup, is the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-exposure-humans-2501317778.html">world's best-selling weedkiller</a> and has been used for more than 40 years. In Germany, about 40 percent of crop-growing land is <a href="http://www.dw.com/en/weedkiller-glyphosate-eu-license-extended-for-further-five-years/a-41549110" target="_blank">treated</a> with glyphosate.
</p><p style="">
The chemical has been at the center of international controversy since 2015, when the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified it as "<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/iarc-scientist-reaffirms-glyphosates-link-to-cancer-as-monsantos-reque-1906676980.html">probably carcinogenic</a>." The <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/does-monsantos-glyphosate-cause-cancer-1882118579.html">European Food Safety Authority</a>, as well as the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-glyphosate-cancer-2518609280.html">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</a>, consider it safe.
</p><p style="">
In February, the new German coalition government
<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-politics-glyphosate/german-coalition-deal-sets-no-timetable-to-end-glyphosate-use-idUSKBN1FR2GH" target="_blank">agreed</a> on a "systematic minimization strategy" to significantly restrict use glyphosate, "with the goal of fundamentally ending usage as fast as possible." The strategy did not include a timeframe.
</p><p style="">
Germany's new Environment Minister Svenja Schulze, from the center-left Social Democrats, welcomed Kloeckner's proposal as the first step to ending use of glyphosate. Eliminating its use is a key goal of Schulze's legislative term.
</p><p style="">
"We need a full exit from glyphosate during this legislative period. Glyphosate kills everything that is green, depriving insects of their food source," she <a href="http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-04/07/c_137092638.htm" target="_blank">said</a> earlier this month.
</p><p style="">
<span></span>In November, Kloeckner's conservative predecessor Christian Schmidt sparked outrage among glyphosate opponents and <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/christian-schmidt-germany-admits-taking-glyphosate-decision-alone/" target="_blank">the previous German coalition</a> after he unexpectedly voted in favor—and effectively swung the EU's decision—of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/eu-glyphosate-license-extension-2513022181.html">renewing the weedkiller for the next five years</a>.
</p><p style="">
According to Reuters, Werner Baumann, CEO of
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bayer">Bayer</a>, which is <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/bayer-monsanto-merger-2550813842.html">acquiring Monsanto</a>, said the issue has become too politicized in Europe and that Germany would wind up banning the chemical without an adequate regulatory framework.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="3c49b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="OT2YVA1576661917"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="954517603090948107" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Monsanto's Roundup Destroys Healthy Microbes in Humans and in Soils https://t.co/pGdokvAdIS @GMOFreeUSA @NonGMOProject</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/954517603090948107">1516409705.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Pesticide spray sign on Vesterbrook Farm, which suffered damage from herbicide drift.
Herbicide drift has been a major problem last year damaging millions of acres of crops in the U.S.
An organic farmer in Missouri has seen firsthand how destructive herbicide drift can be as it destroys his crops and threatens his livelihood and farm.
<p style="">Mike Brabo and his wife Carol own Vesterbrook Farm in Clarksville, Missouri, about an hour north of St. Louis near the Mississippi River. The farm has been in Carol's family for nearly a century. The couple and their two children have worked the farm since 2008 after Mike survived thyroid cancer.</p><p style="">At that time Mike gained an appreciation for <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/organic">organic</a> foods but found it difficult to afford them. "It's expensive to buy organic fruits and vegetables at Whole Foods," he said.</p><p style="">Mike and Carol decided to grow their own. It wasn't difficult to convert the farm to organic since no chemicals had been used on the land.</p><p style="">"There had been nothing grown on the farm but grass for 15 years," Mike said.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image" style="">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzE2MjYwOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNjM5NjI4M30.G28YfKj5Roir4EdIzX_DddzUxsXVTR9qgPyHI59FWDk/img.jpg?width=980" id="2177c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="63330d3b69eb8df65911203a000ccd9e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Mike Brabo and his wife Carol (center) and children Bethany (left) and Josh (right).</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Vesterbrook Farm</small></p><p style=""><strong>Sell Crops to 150-Member CSA</strong><br></p><p style="">Over the years, the Brabos have grown their organic farm. A lot of vegetables can be grown on 24 acres, and the Brabos have planted more than 60 including lettuce, spinach, beets, kale, broccoli, cauliflower, asparagus, peppers, squash and tomatoes, among others. Some vegetables are grown in four high tunnel greenhouses. They also planted an orchard with apple, peach, plum and cherry trees and fruit bushes such as raspberries. They also grow herbs such as sage, parsley and cilantro.</p><p style="">They sell the fruits of their labor to 150 members of their community supported agriculture (CSA) program. Ironically, some of the CSA members are employees of a large, well-known multi-national <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agribusiness">agribusiness</a> company in St. Louis.</p><p style="">Mike says his customers appreciate getting fresh organic produce. "Some people have a tough time finding organic food. There are not a lot of organic farms in our area."</p><p style="">Vesterbrook Farm uses organic practices but is not certified through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Organic Program. Instead, Mike chose Certified Naturally Grown (CNG) as their certifier.</p><p style="">"Their standards meet or exceed the USDA's," he said. "CNG has a much greater emphasis on sustainability with planting areas that bring in wildlife and beneficial insects."</p><p style="">The Brabos have seen growing success with their organic farm and CSA with sales increasing 10 percent per year.</p><p style=""><strong>Herbicides Damaged Crops, Loss of $300,000</strong></p><p style="">That is until this year. In June, a conventional farmer neighbor sprayed his soybean field with herbicides. Wind blew the herbicides over the Brabos' land.</p><p style="">This happened despite Mike having signs that say "Organic Farm, No Spray" signs and registering his farm with DriftWatch, a communication tool that enables farmers and pesticide applicators to work together to protect specialty crops using mapping programs.</p><p style="">The damage from the herbicide drift was total. "We found damage across our farm, which is 500 yards wide, including on the far north side of the property," Mike said.</p><p style="">Crops damaged included peppers, potatoes, tomatoes, basil; fruit trees were also damaged. "Everything on the farm, even ornamental trees, was damaged," Mike said.</p><p style="">The herbicides also killed half of the farm's bees, an estimated loss of $12,000. Mike estimates the total loss at $300,000.</p><p style="">Tests revealed that the herbicides responsible for the damage were glufosinate, clethodim and metolachlor.</p><p style="">Their Certified Naturally Grown certification was suspended, and the Brabos must essentially start over to remove the herbicide contamination from their farm. It will take three years at an estimated cost of $1.6 million to remediate the damage and regain CNG certification. According to Mike, they will have to plant cover crops and replenish the soil with beneficial bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi.</p><p style=""><strong>"Worst Case Scenario is We Lose the Farm"</strong></p><p>Mike could grow vegetables and sell them as conventional but he refuses for fear that a customer would become sick because of the herbicide contamination.</p><p style="">"As a cancer survivor I'm not going to be complicit in putting something in the food supply that could make someone sick," he said.</p><p style="">For now, the Brabos are out of business for three years. "We aren't sure what we are going to do," Mike said. "The worst case scenario is we lose the family farm."</p><p style="">The Brabos are working with attorneys to reach a settlement with their neighbor's insurance company.</p><p style="">"We just want to be rightly compensated to grow healthy food for ourselves and repairing the soil and ecosystem so we can grow food for the St. Louis community," Mike said.</p><p style="">While the Brabos' farm wasn't damaged by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dicamba">dicamba</a>, their ruined crops demonstrate the destruction it and other <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides" target="_blank">pesticides</a> can cause to small family farms.</p><p style="">"This whole drift issue is so huge. How many farmers and vegetable growers have chemically drifted vegetables?" Mike said.</p><p style="">To help Vesterbrook Farm recover from its devastating losses, go to <a href="https://www.youcaring.com/vesterbrookfarm-979212" target="_blank">YouCaring</a>.<br></p>
From Your Site Articles
- EPA Rule Change Would Expose Teenagers to Highly Toxic ... ›
- 5 Ways This Company Misinforms Consumers About Oil Wastewater ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
iStock
The Canadian government is banning plastic microbeads in toiletries. Although designed to clean us, they're polluting the environment, putting the health of fish, wildlife and people at risk. Manufacturers and consumers ushered plastic microbeads into the marketplace, but when we learned of their dangers, we moved to phase them out.
Why, then, is it taking so long to phase out the world's most widely used insecticides, neonicotinoids? Scientists have proven they're harming not only the pests they're designed to kill, but also a long list of non-target species, including pollinators we rely on globally for about one-third of food crops.
<p style="">Neonics are systemic <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides">pesticides</a>. Plants absorb and integrate them into all tissues—roots, stems, leaves, flowers, pollen and nectar. First introduced in the 1990s, they now account for one-third of the global pesticide market. Agricultural applications include leaf sprays, and seed and soil treatments. They're also used for trees, turf products and flea and tick treatments for pets.</p><p style="">We've known about <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/canadian-beekeepers-sue-bayer-and-syngenta-over-neonicotinoid-pesticides-1.2754441" target="_blank">neonics' harmful impacts</a> on pollinators and ecosystems for years, but this summer, two major scientific releases added significantly to the ever-growing body of research proving widespread use of these toxic chemicals must stop.</p><p style="">On Sept. 18, the <a href="http://www.tfsp.info/" target="_blank">Task Force on Systemic Pesticides</a>—an international group of independent scientists convened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature—released an update to its 2015 <a href="http://www.tfsp.info/worldwide-integrated-assessment/" target="_blank"><em>Worldwide Integrated Assessment of the Impact of Systemic Pesticides on Biodiversity and Ecosystems</em></a>. The 2017 update takes into account more than 500 additional peer-reviewed studies, revealing broader impacts and reinforcing the 2015 conclusions that <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pesticide-bee-bird-deaths-neonicotinoids-1.4296357" target="_blank">neonics represent a major worldwide threat</a> to biodiversity, ecosystems and the services nature provides.</p><p style="">On Oct. 6, task force scientist Edward Mitchell and an interdisciplinary team from the University of Neuchâtel and the Botanical Garden in Neuchâtel, Switzerland, published a study in Science, which found <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6359/109" target="_blank">three-quarters of the honey produced throughout the world contains neonics</a>. Although concentrations were below the maximum authorized for human consumption, they surpassed levels proven to affect bees' behavior, physiology and reproductive abilities.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed"></p><div id="49c20" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0JQL7Z1576662622"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="916815557248409601" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">75% of World's Honey Laced With Pesticides https://t.co/w0HIYxRIKD @BurtsBees @helpthebees</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/916815557248409601">1507420837.0</a></blockquote></div><p></p>
<p style="">Conducted in 2015 and 2016, the study analyzed 198 honey samples from around the world, searching for the five most common neonics: acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/honey-pesticides-global-2494057860.html">Seventy-five percent</a> contained at least one, with proportions varying considerably by region. The highest levels were in North America (86 percent), Asia (80 percent) and Europe (79 percent), with the lowest in South America (57 percent).<br></p><p style="">Thirty percent of all samples contained a single neonicotinoid, 45 percent contained between two and five and 10 percent contained four or five. Regulators don't tend to consider the "cocktail effects" of contamination by multiple neonics. The impacts on bees, humans and other organisms are still undiscovered, but I bet they won't be good.</p><p style="">These new findings restate the need to stop all mass-scale systemic pesticide use. Maintaining the status quo means continuing environmentally unsustainable agricultural practices. After all, the latest science also shows that in many cases, neonics provide little or no real benefit to agricultural production. Instead, they decrease soil quality, hurt biodiversity and contaminate water, air and food. They can't even be relied on to decrease farmers' financial risk or assist significantly with crop yields.</p><p>What are governments doing with this information?</p><p>In 2013, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/29/bee-harming-pesticides-banned-europe" target="_blank">the European Union imposed a moratorium</a> on certain uses of three neonics on bee-attractive crops: imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam. The EU is now considering extending the moratorium. Meanwhile, the <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-pesticides/france-moves-toward-full-ban-on-pesticides-blamed-for-harming-bees-idUSKCN0WK1KL" target="_blank">new French biodiversity law</a> aims to ban all neonics starting in September 2018. North American regulators, meanwhile, have failed to recognize the urgent need to prevent neonics from further contaminating the environment.</p><p style="">Health Canada's <a href="https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/health-canada-plans-to-phase-out-controversial-pesticide/article33007048/?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com&amp" target="_blank">Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency</a>; has proposed phasing out one neonic, imidacloprid, but not until 2021 at the earliest—possibly as late as 2023. While industry <a href="http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/25/news/has-ottawa-sold-out-big-agro-and-its-toxic-chemicals" target="_blank">continues to lobby Ottawa</a> to continue using the toxic chemicals, environmental groups are calling for faster phase-out plans and an end to neonic use.</p><p style="">If we care about the quality and security of our food sources—and the species and ecosystems they rely on—the time for neonics is over. Sustainable and affordable agricultural and pest management practices exist. It's time to ban bee-killing pesticides.</p>
Read More
Show Less
The majority of European Union governments voted against a proposal to authorize two new strains of genetically modified (GMO) maize today.
The two varieties of maize, DuPont Pioneer's 1507 and Syngenta's Bt11, kill insects by producing its own pesticide and is also resistant Bayer's glufosinate herbicide.
<p>If approved, the varieties would be the first new GMO crops authorized for cultivation in the EU since 1998.</p><p>However, as <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-gmo-idUSKBN16Y207" target="_blank">Reuters</a> noted, the votes against authorization did not decisively block their entry to the EU because the opposition did not represent a "qualified majority."</p><p>A qualified majority is achieved when at least 16 countries, representing at least 65 percent of the European population, vote in favor or against. (Scroll down for the vote breakdown)</p><p>The majority of EU governments also voted against renewing the license for another maize, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto">Monsanto</a>'s MON810, the only GMO crop currently grown in the EU. The votes against its renewal was not considered decisive either.<br></p><p><span></span>MON810 is banned in 17 EU countries and is grown on less than 1 percent of agricultural land, mainly in Spain and Portugal, according to <a href="http://www.foeeurope.org/" target="_blank">Friends of the Earth Europe</a>.</p><p><span></span>The Brussels-based environmental advocacy group says the fates of the three crops now rests with the European Commission and is calling on Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, to reject the new GMO crops.</p><p><span></span>"Whether he likes it or not, the buck now stops at Jean-Claude Juncker," said Mute Schimpf, food campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe, in a statement. "He can put himself on the side of the majority of countries, citizens and farmers who do not want genetically-modified crops, or he can back the mega-corporations behind the industrialization of our countryside."</p><p><span></span><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2017/Governments-citizens-reject-GMOs-MON810-Bt11-1507/" target="_blank">Greenpeace EU</a> explained that if the three authorizations are approved, they would only be valid in nine out of 28 EU countries, as well as in three regions (England in the UK, Flanders and the Brussels region in Belgium). The remaining 19 EU countries and regions in the UK and Belgium have used the EU's <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/authorisation/cultivation/geographical_scope_en.htm" target="_blank">opt-out mechanism</a> to prevent GMO crops from being grown in their territories.</p><div id="0dec4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="JDCZTK1490717132"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="651197729662570496" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">It's Official: 19 European Countries Say 'No' to GMOs http://t.co/0lnNqPMywx @food_democracy @NonGMOProject</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/651197729662570496">1444092612.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Although GMO crops are grown in many parts of the world, the topic is <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/its-official-19-european-countries-say-no-to-gmos-1882106434.html">fraught with contention in Europe</a>. While many scientific reviews have concluded that the crops are safe for human consumption and the environment, there are many others that <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/is-gmo-corn-safe-to-eat-2177185201.html">conclude the opposite</a>. Many EU countries have strict laws against GMOs due to public health and environmental concerns. All 28 EU member countries require <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=gmo+labeling" target="_blank">GMO labeling</a>.</p><p>Friends of the Earth Europe has expressed safety concerns of these GMO crops, "especially whether they unintentionally kill butterflies and moths."</p><p>"There is no political or public support for genetically-modified crops; farmers don't even want them. It's time for President Juncker to pull the plug on this failed technology once and for all, and to focus on how we make farming resilient to climate change, save family farms and stop the destruction of nature. It's time to close our countryside to genetically-modified crops and move on," Schimpf added. <br></p><div id="60520" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="J5VKF31490717132"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="846398143709265920" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Time to pull plug on failed #GMO technology once and for all - our reaction to EU vote today… https://t.co/LrVyRhKaro</div> — Friends of the Earth (@Friends of the Earth)<a href="https://twitter.com/foeeurope/statuses/846398143709265920">1490632017.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Similarly, Greenpeace EU food policy director Franziska Achterberg commented that the European Commission should back away from supporting "risky" products. <br></p><p>"When he was elected, Commission President Juncker promised more democratic decision-making. This vote leaves no doubt that approving these GMO crops would break that promise," Achterberg said in a statement. "A majority of governments, parliamentarians and Europeans oppose them, and two thirds of European countries ban GMO cultivation on their lands. Instead of backing risky products peddled by multinational corporations, the commission should support ecological farming and the solutions it provides for rural areas, farmers and the environment."</p><p>Katherine Paul, associate director of <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/" target="_blank">Organic Consumers Association</a> agrees. "President Juncker has an opportunity to do the right thing, by siding with the majority of EU countries that oppose the introduction of these new GMO crops," she told EcoWatch.</p><p>"To do anything less, would send EU leaders and citizens the wrong message—that corporations can buy the approval of crops that farmers and citizens don't want, crops that must be grown using chemicals that are toxic to humans and the environment. We hope Mr. Juncker will stand up to corporate pressure, and instead come down in favor of health, safety and organic, regenerative alternatives to chemical agriculture." </p><p>Ken Roseboro of the <a href="http://non-gmoreport.com/" target="_blank">Organic & Non-GMO Report</a> shared the same sentiment. "The European Union has remained steadfast in rejecting GM crops in their member states for nearly 20 years, and these votes reflect that anti-GMO stand," he said. "The European people don't want to eat GM foods, there is not market for them there, and yet the biotech companies continue to try to push their GMOs. Hopefully,Commission President Juncker will side with the wishes of the majority of the European people and reject approval of these GM crops."</p><p>
Here is Monday's vote breakdown, according to Friends of the Earth Europe:
</p><p>
<strong>On renewal of GMO maize MON 810</strong>
</p><p>
8 Member States voted in favor, representing 34.45% of the EU population: CZ, EE, ES, NL, RO, FI, SV, UK.
</p><p>
6 Member States abstained, representing 22.26% of the EU population: BE, DE, HR, MT, PT, SK
</p><p>
14 Member states voted to reject, representing 43.29% of the EU population: BG, DK, IE, EL, FR, CY, LV, LU, HU, AT, PL, SL, IT, LT 14
</p><p>
<strong>On authorisation of GMO maize 1507</strong>
</p><p>
6 Member States voted in favor, representing 30.45% of the EU population: EE, ES, NL, RO, FI, UK
</p><p>
6 Member States abstained, representing 22.28% of the EU population: BE, CZ, DE, HR, MT, SK
</p><p>
16 Member states voted to reject, representing 47.27% of the EU population: BG, DK, IE, EL, FR, CY, LV, LU, HU, AT, PL, SL, SV, IT, LT, PT
</p><p>
<strong>On authorisation of GMO maize Bt 11</strong>
</p><p>
6 Member States voted in favor, representing 30.45% of the EU population: EE, ES, NL, RO, FI, UK
</p><p>
6 Member States abstained, representing 22.28% of the EU population: BE, CZ, DE, HR, MT, SK
</p><p>
16 Member states voted to reject, representing 47.27% of the EU population: BG, DK, IE, EL, FR, CY, LV, LU, HU, AT, PL, SL, SV, IT, LT, PT 47,27%
</p>
Read More
Show Less