Category: Politics

White House Has “Monsanto’s Back on Pesticides,” Newly Revealed Document Says

(URSTK by Carey Gillam) Internal Monsanto records just filed in court show that a corporate intelligence group hired to “to take the temperature on current regulatory attitudes for glyphosate” reported that the White House could be counted on to defend the company’s Roundup herbicides.

In a report attached to a July 2018 email to Monsanto global strategy official Todd Rands, the strategic intelligence and advisory firm Hakluyt  reported to Monsanto the following:

“A domestic policy adviser at the White House said, for instance: ‘We have Monsanto’s back on pesticides regulation. We are prepared to go toe-to-toe on any disputes they may have with, for example, the EU. Monsanto need not fear any additional regulation from this administration.”

In the email accompanying the report, Hakluyt’s Nick Banner told Rands the information related to issues both for the United States and for China. The report notes that “professional” staff has “sharp” disagreement with “political” staff on some areas, but that the concerns of some of the professional staffers would not get in the way.

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

“We heard a unanimous view from senior levels of the EPA (and USDA) that glyphosate is not seen as carcinogenic, and that this is highly unlikely to change under this administration – whatever the level of disconnect between political and professional staffers.”

The report said that a former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lawyer and a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) official confirmed that both agencies see the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen as “flawed” and incomplete.

“There is little doubt that the EPA supports the use of glyphosate,” the report says. It quotes a current EPA lawyer as saying: “We have made a determination regarding glyphosate and feel very confident of the facts around it. Other international bodies… have reached different conclusions, but in our view the data is just not clear and their decision is mistaken.”

Related: How to Avoid GMOs – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

The report also suggests similarities between the Trump Administration’s support for glyphosate and its actions around a pesticide called chlorpyrifos that is the active ingredient in an insecticide made by Dow Chemical, now DowDupont. There is a large body of science showing that chlorpyrifos is very damaging to children’s brain development and that children are most often exposed through the food and water they consume. Chlorpyrifos was due to be banned from agricultural use in 2017 because of its dangers but the Trump administration postponed the ban at the request of Dow and continues to allow its use in food production.  The Hakluyt reports says:

“The way the EPA under the Trump administration has handled Chlorpyrifos might be instructive in how it would handle new science or new developments related to glyphosate.”

At the time the report was delivered to Monsanto last July, Monsanto had just been acquired by the German company Bayer AG and was in the midst of defending itself in the first Roundup cancer trial. That San Francisco case, brought by cancer victim Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, resulted in a unanimous jury verdict handed down in August ordering Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages to Johnson. The judge in the case later lowered the amount to $78 million. A second trial, also held in San Francisco in a separate case, resulted in an $80.2 million verdict for plaintiff Edwin Hardeman.

A third trial is underway now in Oakland, California. Closing arguments are scheduled for tomorrow in that case, brought by a husband and wife who both have non-Hodgkin lymphoma they allege is due to their decades of using Roundup.

The documents that include the Hakluyt report were filed in Alameda County Superior Court by lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the current case – Alva and Alberta Pilliod.

The filing is in response to Monsanto’s effort to tell jurors about a recently released EPA glyphosate assessment in which the agency reaffirmed its finding that glyphosate does not cause cancer. The Pilliod lawyers say the Hakluyt communications with Monsanto speak “directly to the credibility of the 2019 EPA glyphosate evaluation, issued by an administration which holds itself out as favoring Monsanto’s business interests.”

Widening rift reported between political and professional staffers in regulatory agencies

The Hakluyt report to Monsanto also notes that increasingly professional staffers inside “most” federal agencies are feeling at odds with political staffers on issues such as pesticide regulation, climate science and other matters.

“While this appears to be true of various agencies – Health and Human Services, Commerce, Education, Interior, the Food and Drug Administration, and so on- the EPA may be the leading example of this phenomenon.”

The report quotes a prominent Washington DC law firm partner who has “extensive contacts at the EPA as saying:

“In essence, the political leadership favors deregulation and dismisses the expert risk analysis. It is especially averse to theoretical risk analysis, for example, on the risks of glyphosate, about which a scientific consensus is yet to form… With regard to glyphosate, in particular, the differences between political and professional staff are sharp.” 

Related: How To Heal Your Gut

The professional staffers, those scientists and others who typically have been within an agency for many years through multiple administrations.

Within the EPA, professional staffers are said to have “doubts about glyphosate,” but those doubts “are not shared by the EPA’s leadership.”

The report also provides feedback on Monsanto’s reputation and provides a cautionary note to Bayer, which had just closed the purchase of Monsanto a few weeks before the July 2018 communications:

“Developments in California on glyphosate are striking a chord with the public… The company regularly goes to ‘DEFCON 1’ on the slightest challenge from the environmental, academic or scientific community.”

“Even within the EPA there is unease about your ‘scientific intransigence.’” 

According to the Hakluyt report, an official with the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs said: “There is growing unease in this office at what seems like scientific intransigence by Monsanto to give credibility to any evidence that doesn’t fit their view. We would agree with them that such evidence is non-conclusive, but that does not mean that it is without basis.”

For more information and updates follow @careygillam on Twitter.

Ireland Will Be The First Country to Fully Divest From Fossil Fuels

First, the Church of England fleshes out plans for fossil fuel divestment. That was amazing news. But now Ireland has passed a bill that will have the country sell their more than €300m shares of fossil fuel investments including coal, oil, peat, and gas ‘as soon as practicable’.

The Guardian reports that Ireland passed the fossil fuel divestment bill in the lower house of parliament and the bill is expected to pass the upper house easily. When the law goes into effect the government will be obligated to sell all investments in fossil fuels.

The fossil fuel divestment movement has picked up steam and is growing at a reassuring pace. The Guardian reports that trillions of dollars of investment funds have been divested, including large pension funds and insurers, cities such as New York, churches, and universities. While there is evidence that divestment can have unintended consequences, with the multitude of institutions divesting, as Sami Grover at Treehugger puts it, “I feel like we are close to reaching a critical mass where divestment is just seen as sound, fiscal management.”

The [divestment] movement is highlighting the need to stop investing in the expansion of a global industry which must be brought into managed decline if catastrophic climate change is to be averted. Ireland by divesting is sending a clear message that the Irish public and the international community are ready to think and act beyond narrow short-term vested interests.” – Thomas Pringle, independent member of parliament who introduced the bill.

Governments will not meet their obligations under the Paris agreement on climate change if they continue to financially sustain the fossil fuel industry. Countries the world over must now urgently follow Ireland’s lead and divest from fossil fuels.” – Gerry Liston at Global Legal Action Network, who drafted the bill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hThOpH9Xrdc

California To Fine Citizens Using Over 55 Gallons Of Water As Nestlé Pumps Billions Of Gallons For Free

California has become the first state to pass a law severely limiting the amount of water residents can use on a daily basis, and while politicians claim that the restrictions will be enforced in the name of conserving water, Nestlé is illegally stealing millions of gallons of water each year and the state is doing nothing to stop it.

Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 606 and Assembly Bill 1668 into law, both of which set new standards for “water management planning.” The restrictions will fully take effect by 2022, limiting residents to 55 gallons of water per person, per day. That number will decrease to 50 gallons per person, per day, by 2030.

The bill would impose civil liability for a violation of an order or regulation issued pursuant to these provisions, as specified. The bill would also authorize the board to issue a regulation or informational order requiring a wholesale water supplier, urban retail water supplier, or distributor of a public water supply to provide a monthly report relating to water production, water use, or water conservation.

Related: Drinking Bottled Water Means Drinking Microplastics, According To Damning New Study

To put the allotted daily amount of water into perspective, a report from CBS Sacramento noted that “an 8-minute shower uses about 17 gallons of water, a load of laundry up to 40, and a bathtub can hold 80 to 100 gallons of water,” meaning that residents would have to give up showers on the days they wanted to wash one load of laundry, and taking a bath would be nearly impossible.

That is not to mention the fact that each time an individual flushes a toilet, up to 7 gallons of water is used, and around 6 gallons of water is needed for a full dishwasher cycle. If a family fails to budget how much water is being used by each child during the course of a day, or their home has a water leak they are unaware of, they could end up facing massive fines.

Residents will face fines if they fail to comply with the initial 55-gallon per day water limit, and water districts will be required to set targets for water use with outdoor water allowances based on the region. The Pacific Standard also noted that “beginning in 2027, districts that exceed their annual budgets will face fines of $10,000 per day.”

Residents told CBS Sacramento that they are concerned about the new regulations and whether they will be able to comply without giving up basic necessities. Tanya Allen, a mother who lives with her 4-year-old daughter, said, “With a child and every day having to wash clothes, that’s, just my opinion, not feasible. But I get it and I understand that we’re trying to preserve…but 55 gallons a day?”

While California residents prepare for a new crackdown on water usage that could cost them thousands of dollars in fines, it raises the question: Is California conserving water in all aspects, or are residents being forced to cut back while corporations have free reign, and the government fails to intervene?

In December 2017, The Free Thought Project reported that Nestlé has been illegally extracting more than 60 million gallons of water per year from California’s San Bernardino National Forest—which amounts to billions of gallons of water stolen over the last 68 years—even though it lacks the legal rights and has never provided a valid basis of right to the water.

The glaring misconduct was detailed in an investigation conducted by the California State Water Resources Control Board, which revealed that Nestlé reports “diversions under 11 groundwater records under the State Water Board’s Groundwater Recordation Program,” and from 1947 to 2015, Nestlé’s reported extractions “averaged 192 acre-feet, or 62.6 million gallons, per year.”

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Division of Water Rights (Division) received several water rights complaints against Nestlé Waters North America (Nestlé or NWNA), starting on April 20, 2015. The complaint allegations included diversion of water without a valid basis of right, unreasonable use of water, injury to public trust resources, and incorrect or missing reporting, all regarding Nestlé’s diversion of water from springs at the headwaters of Strawberry Creek in the San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF) for bottling under the Arrowhead label. Many of the complainants emphasized their concerns about the impacts of Nestlé’s diversions during California’s recent historic drought.

Multiple complaints have been filed against the corporation, and even after an investigation by a state agency revealed that billions of gallons of water have been stolen over the last 70 years, no one has been charged for their role in the illegal scheme, and Nestlé continues to steal the drought-stricken state’s most precious resource.

As is typically the case when big government turns a blind eye to the corrupt actions of big corporations, the residents of California—who are forced to fund their government through taxes—are the ones who suffer from the lack of water. At the same time, the new regulations that are being put in place in the name of conserving water are actually the latest cover-up to shield both the state and the corporations it is protecting from any form of legitimate accountability.

Rachel Blevins is an independent journalist from Texas, who aspires to break the false left/right paradigm in media and politics by pursuing truth and questioning existing narratives. Follow Rachel on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Steemit and Patreon. This article first appeared at The Free Thought Project.

‘Astronomical’ Cost of War: Average US Taxpayer Sent $3,456 to Pentagon Last Year and Just $39 to the EPA

(Common Dreams by Jake Johnson) “Congress appropriates more for U.S. military spending than the next eight countries combined, but year after year refuses to adequately invest in access to quality education and healthcare for millions of Americans.”

Image Credit: National Vanguard

As Americans rushed to pay their taxes on Tuesday before the official deadline, peace groups reminded the public of the uncomfortable fact that an “astronomical amount” of the money sent to the IRS each year goes not to funding education or a single-payer healthcare system the U.S. supposedly can’t afford, but straight into the bloated coffers of the Pentagon.

Arms industry executives make out like bandits while programs that provide essential services for most Americans remain drastically underfunded.” – Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action

“Congress appropriates more for U.S. military spending than the next eight countries combined, but year after year refuses to adequately invest in access to quality education and healthcare for millions of Americans, infrastructure spending, and alternative energy,”  Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action, said in a statement late Monday.

“As a result, arms industry executives make out like bandits while programs that provide essential services for most Americans remain drastically underfunded, as do development and diplomacy programs that help end wars and prevent them in the first place,” Martin added.

Highlighting America’s uniquely exorbitant military spending in a blog post on Tuesday, Lindsay Koshgarian of National Priorities noted that it is particularly important to keep in mind who funds U.S.-led endless wars overseas following President Donald Trump’s illegal attack on Syria—an attack that “added nearly $5 billion to missile-makers’ stock value.”

“It’s devastating to know who paid for it: we did,” Koshgarian observed.

“The average taxpayer contributed $3,456 to the military in 2017,” she noted, compared to $80 that went to welfare programs and “just $39 to the Environmental Protection Agency.”

In an analysis published last month, National Priorities estimated that 23.8 cents of every dollar in taxes paid in 2017 went to Pentagon and military spending.

“Meanwhile, 11 cents goes to military contractors, including 1.7 cents for the Pentagon’s biggest contractor and maker of the F-35 jet fighter, Lockheed Martin,” the group found.

A 10 percent cut in spending on military contractors would provide enough money to hire 395,000 elementary school teachers or provide health insurance for 13 million children.” – Lindsay Koshgarian, National Priorities Project

Writing for Truthout on Tuesday, Koshgarian pointed out that the political choice to devote such massive sums of taxpayer money to the Pentagon and corporate war profiteers has very “real consequences.”

“A 10 percent cut in spending on military contractors would provide enough money to hire 395,000 elementary school teachers or provide health insurance for 13 million children,” Koshgarian observed.

If Trump and Republican lawmakers have their way, Americans could soon be dumping even more tax money into the American war machine while healthcare, food stamps, education, and other public programs are slashed.

As Common Dreams reported last month, Trump signed an omnibus spending bill that contained $700 billion in Pentagon funding, and he has asked for an even bigger military budget for next year.

Massachusetts Peace Action highlighted a breakdown of the president’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2019:

Taking Aim at Corporate Impunity, Sanders’ Bill Would Send Big Pharma Execs Behind Opioid Crisis to Jail

(Common Dreams by Julia Conley) “We know that pharmaceutical companies lied about the addictive impacts of opioids they manufactured…Not one of them has been held fully accountable for its role in an epidemic that is killing tens of thousands of Americans every year.”

While President Donald Trump attempts to place blame for the enduring opioid addiction crisis on immigrants, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced Tuesday that he would introduce legislation to take aim at those who drug policy experts agree are truly behind the epidemic that kills tens of thousands of Americans per year—pharmaceutical companies and executives.

“At a time when local, state and federal governments are spending many billions of dollars a year dealing with the impact of the opioid epidemic, we must hold the pharmaceutical companies and executives that created the crisis accountable,” said Sanders in a statement.

Recommended: Opioids No Better than NSAIDs for Chronic Back or Arthritis Pain

The bill (pdf) would threaten Big Pharma executives with at least 10 years in prison should their companies be found guilty of contributing to the opioid crisis through manipulative marketing practices. Executives would also face fines equal to their total compensation packages, while companies would be fined $7.8 billion—one-tenth of the annual cost of the public health epidemic, according to government estimates.

Under the legislation, companies would be required to clearly state that opioids are addictive in any marketing materials for the drugs, which include popular brands including OxyContin, Vicodin, and Percocet.

The roots of the opioid crisis are traced back to the 1990s, when Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, began marketing the drug as safe for long-term use for chronic pain, denying that prescription opioids—which are chemically similar to heroin—had highly addictive properties.

Recommended: Drug Firms Profiting From Addiction – Shipping Massive Quantities of Opioids To West Virginia

After opioid painkiller prescriptions skyrocketed as a result, the rate of overdose began to rise as well, with opioid overdoses killing at least 63,000 Americans in 2016.

In Ohio next year, Purdue is one of several drug companies that will face a jury trial over a lawsuit accusing them of “deceptively marketing opioids” and alleging distributors “ignored red flags indicating the painkillers were being diverted for improper uses.”

But Sanders noted that no company has truly been held liable for the epidemic, which Purdue alone has make tens of billions of dollars off of in recent years:

In 2007, Purdue Pharma…pled guilty and agreed to pay more than $600 million in fines for misleading the public about the risks of the drug. But the company still made $22 billion off of the drug in the past decade.

Recommended: U.S. Life Expectancy To Decline, CDC Blames Pharmaceutical Companies

“We know that pharmaceutical companies lied about the addictive impacts of opioids they manufactured,” said Sanders. “They knew how dangerous these products were but refused to tell doctors and patients. Yet, while some of these companies have made billions each year in profits, not one of them has been held fully accountable for its role in an epidemic that is killing tens of thousands of Americans every year.”