Friday 29th of March 2024

is genetic engineering democratic?...

darthvader

is genetic manipulation democratic?...

Well this where there is confusion; The answer to genetic engineering is quite clear: NO... Not at this point in time... Though it depends on who and what we include in our "democracy"... Has nature got a vote?...

So far not a single country has had the courage to get their voters to adjudicate on the "genetic engineering" vexing issue...

I believe that should the question be put to the Americans: "should GMO food and stuff be allowed on your table?" the democratic answer would be presently a resounding "NO"...

For starters most of the religious nuts should be horrified that life is being manipulated "in vitro" by little gods in white coats...

Second, the conservationists should be horrified that nature is being "denatured" by scientists and polluting the natural gene pool...

Third scientists should be horrified that other scientists are crossing the strong line of species by unnatural gene splicing...

Fourth, you, the consumer should be horrified that the food you eat today isn't that of your ancestors and NO-ONE knows the effect of this transformation on the future of humankind in generations to come....

Thus presently, GMOs are not democratic. They are enforced in a despotic way by corporations who have bamboozled your governments — especially that of America into not allowing proper labelling of food with a loud warming and not having had the guts to put a vote on the creation and usage of GMOs... But have not humans done genetic manipulation for yonks without knowing it?


What is the beef...?
GMO companies like Monsanto are about profits. They claim that food shortage demands new ways to grow things. But the way to grow things intensively and mono-culturally leads to invasion of pests and weeds that have been the scourge of farmers for years... Stronger weed-killers and stronger insecticides have been "invented" but these eventually enter the food chain... In order to "minimise" these, the idea is to create a patent seed for crop resistant to insects and resistant to powerful weed-killers such as Round-Up... All you need to do is do a bit of genetic "engineering" and bob is your uncle... 

Over the last 10 millennium, humans have "modified" some grasses into wheat, rye and corn... by "selection" of seeds. There were wild wheat, wild rye, spelt... But humans by favouring which grasses had the plumpest of seeds did some nifty gene-"manipulation"... This gene manipulation is obviously seen in breeds of dogs, roses, cats, and a million other stuff that humans use for food, decoration or companions. So what's the problemo? 

The major difference here between seed "selection" manipulation and GMO "engineering" is huge... Genetic engineering is performed in the most "unnatural" way by crossing the essential non-crossable species boundaries... In nature, although there is evolution and devolution, at no point is there a cross-over between say "a fish gene-segment and a cactus gene-segment"... This cross-over is not possible in nature. 

What are the genes?
The genes are the memory of life since the beginning of life... They are complex molecules that contain the memory of duplication and reproduction of life which over more than three billion years have diversified into the life-force of all species....

Each species have evolved "separately" from the same stock (or similar various stocks of amino-acids?) — but the diversity of species are such that no species can "remix" with other species readily — apart from very closely related species such as horses and donkeys of which the offsprings are mostly sterile, or the "possible" remix of homo sapiens with homo neanderthalis...
If species were not so strongly defined by the separation of genes, there would be an enormous array of man-fish, dog-turtle or horse-cow on this planet (imagine in antiquity by the man-goats) — and a lot of confused individuals...

Even within species such as humans, the individual gene-pool is controlled by strong mechanisms that disallow the "in-breeding" by making related parents' offsprings of poor quality — or impossible...
Where our medical teams have achieved "miracles" in organ transplants, one has to realise there are strong parameters for success, such as compatibility of donor and management of rejection of tissues, using strong drugs that reduce individuals natural defense mechanism against "alien" invasion. In order to "protect" their body against diseases, transplant repients have to take other medicines such as anti-biotics as well...
We know that blood transfusion of the wrong blood type can lead to death very quickly...

The GMOs
GMOs are a misnomer designed to confuse the issue... They are Engineered... GMOs (GEOs) are not about finding the best seed stock resistant to this or that by selection, but to "create" the seed stock by gene splicing of "alien" gene segments into an existing gene stock.
THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN NATURE. 

So how do they do it?
There is a lot of trial and error using various "spicing" chemicals, until "a satisfactory" new seed stock is generated upon which futher selection of seed stock by intense breeding. A "terminator" gene ican also created so that after a "healthy plant" has gone to maturity, it is "infertile" in most instance, so that the farmer has to go back to the Darth Vader laboratories to get the next PATENTED seeds for the new crop... Some GEOs seeds are not "infertile and their pollen will pollute non-GEOs crops suchas organically grown crops. There are presently court cases in which the farmer of the "polluted" crop will sue the GEOs companies who in return will sue the farmer for stealing their PATENTED "pollens".
All this allows the Darth Vader laboratories to control the next crops, protect their patents and become the ruler of the universe — as far as farming is concerned, so far...

What are the advantages of GEOs/GMOs?
The major claims made by the "laboratories" are about the need to "increase the production of food"... But do these stack up?
No... My own calculation tells me that a continent like Africa can feed itself, without GEOs/GMOs nor large monoculture. These are only introduced there for profit of multimnationals — and nothing else.
But in a country like the USA, the present food wastage — should it be reduced to half of what it is — could actually feed another 150 million Americans on top of the "450" million people already living there... I say 450 million because, yes, I know, the population is barely above 300 millions but most Americans over-consume food to such extend that every American on average is worth about 1.5 normal person, in weight, eating and a bit less in dunnydoos (that's why they grow fat)...
So what about the food "waste"? It has been calculated that the US wastes about US$165 billion in food each year, at various levels of "wastage"... From over-production to packing and in your kitchen, the amount of waste is about 40 per cent of the production.

Time to do some major rethink and ban GMOs (GEOs) crops as soon as possible.
They are unnecessary, potentially dangerous as demonstrated by many independent scientific research and intrusive on natural crops and other species. I a sentence: we don't need GEOs for whatever clever reasons their makers peddles them with...
Demand labelling of GMO food crops and the vote on this issue. In the meantime, do your research and vote with your buying: reject these UNNATURAL products by buying as much as possible organic food...

 

food waste...

How the U.S. manages to waste $165 billion in food each year


By Brad Plumer , Updated: August 22, 2012


Each year, about 40 percent of all food in the United States goes uneaten. It’s just tossed out or left to rot. And that’s a fairly large waste of resources. All that freshwater and land, all that fertilizer and energy — for nothing. By one recent estimate, Americans are squandering the equivalent of $165 billion each year by rubbishing so much food.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/22/how-food-actually-gets-wasted-in-the-united-states/?print=1

evil in your refrigerator...

When we consider the rogue's gallery of devilish, over-sized, greedy and disproportionately powerful corporations, we generally come up with outfits like Microsoft, Bechtel, AIG, Halliburton, Goldman-Sachs, Exxon-Mobil and the United States Senate. Yet somehow, Monsanto, arguably the most devilish, over-sized, greedy and disproportionately powerful corporation in the world has been able to more or less skulk between the raindrops -- only a household name in households where documentaries like Food Inc. are regarded as light Friday evening entertainment. My house, for example. But for the most part, if you were to ask an average American for their list of sinister corporations, Monsanto probably wouldn't make the cut.

It should.

Founded by Missouri pharmacist John Francis Queeny in 1901, Monsanto is literally everywhere. Just about every non-organic food product available to consumers has some sort of connection with Monsanto.

Anyone who can read a label knows that corn, soy and cotton can be found in just about every American food product. Upwards of 90% of all corn, soybeans and cotton are grown from genetically engineered seeds, also known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). These genetically enhanced products appear in around 70% of all American processed food products. And Monsanto controls 90% of all genetically engineered seeds. In other words, Monsanto controls -- and owns patents on -- most of the American food supply.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/02/04/monsanto-the-evil-corporation-in-your-refrigerator/

enemies of the natural...

 

As the battle to get genetically engineered foods (or GMOs) labeled in California — a battle that could very well have an impact on labeling nationwide — heats up, Big Food and Big Ag are working in concert to push back to the tune of $25 million. The fight centers around Proposition 37, the ballot initiative from the Right to Know Campaign that will go to vote in November.

If it passes, the result would be no small change. As Mother Jones’ Tom Philpott wrote recently:

Since GM corn, soy, sugar beets, and cotton (the oil part) are processed into sweeteners, fats, and other additives that suffuse the US food system, the initiative would require the labeling of something like 80 percent of all non-organic processed food sold in supermarkets.

As you can see in the chart below, The “Big 6” pesticide makers (BASF, Bayer, Dow, Dupont, Monsanto, and Syngenta) are putting up big money — especially Monsanto and Dupont (full name E. I. Dupont de Nemours). That’s because all of the Big 6 either produce GMO seeds themselves, or pesticides that work in concert with the seeds, so they have the biggest vested interest in seeing GMO proliferation fly under the radar of most Americans.

The names behind processed foods are also getting in on the fight — like PepsiCo, whose many sub-brands sell many foods and beverages that contain GMO high-fructose corn syrup, soy lecithin, etc. So are the companies behind quite a few “health food brands” — from Kashi to Gardenburger to Silk. In fact, the Cornucopia Institute just released a handy shopping guide to help eaters keep their dollars from going to help oppose Prop 37.

Where is the money going, exactly? Many of these companies are paying the same consultants who worked for the tobacco industry to create “astroturf,” or fake grassroots groups that will do their best to make it look like there’s a big crowd of citizens who think labeling is a bad idea. And they’ll undoubtedly convince many voters. This Reuters article that ran yesterday predicts a close battle.

Here’s a breakdown of the 20 largest donors as of Wednesday, Aug. 15:

chart
http://grist.org/food/these-companies-dont-want-gmos-labeled-in-california/

 

the chicken and the egg versus the shock jocks...

A year five student who made a discovery about a new kind of link between protein and eggs was among those honoured at last night's Eureka Prize ceremony for excellence in science.

Inspiration can come from unexpected places, and for Ignatius Fox it came when his chickens suddenly laid bigger eggs after breaking into the worm farm.

"So we thought that the worms would give protein to them so we tried giving protein to give the big eggs and it worked," Ignatius said.

The student, from Oyster Bay Public School in Sydney's south, received the top honour at the awards in Sydney for a short science film made by a primary school student.

Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, who presented the award, thinks the student's insight puts him ahead of many adults.

"So we've got an 11-year-old person who's made an observation, accidental observation, then formed a hypothesis and then tested it out as opposed to certain radio jocks who'll say, gee, it was warm now and it's colder tonight, therefore there's no such thing as global warming," he said.

Global warming did not play much of a role in the awards but another, lesser-known global issue was front and centre.

Dr Dana Cordell was part of a team that won an award for research into sustaining the dwindling global supply of phosphorus, which is an essential ingredient in fertiliser.

"The good news is we can avert a crisis," Dr Cordell said.

"We will need to recover phosphorus from all organic waste and that includes food waste, human excreta, manure, crop waste.

"At the same time we'll also need to dramatically increase the efficiency of our current food systems."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-29/eureka-moment-for-fox-in-the-henhouse/4229392

the antibiotics versus organics...

HEALTHBEAT: Is organic healthier? Study says not so much, but it’s key reason consumers buyBy Associated Press, Published: September 4

WASHINGTON — Patient after patient asked: Is eating organic food, which costs more, really better for me?

Unsure, Stanford University doctors dug through reams of research to find out — and concluded there’s little evidence that going organic is much healthier, citing only a few differences involving pesticides and antibiotics.

Eating organic fruits and vegetables can lower exposure to pesticides, including for children — but the amount measured from conventionally grown produce was within safety limits, the researchers reported Monday.

Nor did the organic foods prove more nutritious.

“I was absolutely surprised,” said Dr. Dena Bravata, a senior research affiliate at Stanford and long-time internist who began the analysis because so many of her patients asked if they should switch.

“There are many reasons why someone might choose organic foods over conventional foods,” from environmental concerns to taste preferences, Bravata stressed. But when it comes to individual health, “there isn’t much difference.”

Her team did find a notable difference with antibiotic-resistant germs, a public health concern because they are harder to treat if they cause food poisoning.

Specialists long have said that organic or not, the chances of bacterial contamination of food are the same, and Monday’s analysis agreed. But when bacteria did lurk in chicken or pork, germs in the non-organic meats had a 33 percent higher risk of being resistant to multiple antibiotics, the researchers reported Monday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

That finding comes amid debate over feeding animals antibiotics, not because they’re sick but to fatten them up. Farmers say it’s necessary to meet demand for cheap meat. Public health advocates say it’s one contributor to the nation’s growing problem with increasingly hard-to-treat germs. Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, counted 24 outbreaks linked to multidrug-resistant germs in food between 2000 and 2010.

The government has begun steps to curb the nonmedical use of antibiotics on the farm.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/healthbeat-is-organic-healthier-study-says-not-so-much-but-its-key-reason-consumers-buy/2012/09/04/90613076-f660-11e1-a93b-7185e3f88849_print.html

 

The difference between organic and non organic is far more than the "nutritional value" which can appear to be the same... For example there is also "taste" and what I call "elegance"... Elegance is devised as an organically grown produce is often less "gross"  than the intensely grown farm produce — which often is tougher and tasteless, through force feeding and liberal usage of pesticides and herbicides. As well the organic food produce does not kill insects and as such respects the natural processes in which bees act as a pollinator for example.  The problem posed by the antibiotics are numerous and we've only seen the tip of the iceberg so to speak... In "organically" grown food, there is no boosters, nor is there antibiotics that can throw the future of medicine at risk...

some mixed sanity at last...

The US supreme court has ruled unanimously that natural human genes cannot be patented, a decision that scientists and civil rights campaigners said removed a major barrier to patient care and medical innovation.

The court on Thursday held that human DNA was a "product of nature", a basic tool of scientific and technological work, thereby placing it beyond the domain of patent protection. It struck down patents held by Myriad Genetics Inc, a Utah company, on two genes linked to a higher risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

But it also said that synthetic genetic material could be patented, in a mixed ruling for the biotechnology industry, which has argued that patents are necessary to recoup the billions of dollars it spends on research.

Myriad carries out tests for BRCA genes, recently brought into the public eye when actor Angelina Jolie revealed she had a double mastectomy after learning she tested positive for one of the genes.

The ruling represents a major shift in the law, overturning three decades of patent awards by the US government and could have a profound effect on the biotechnology and drug industry.

Justice Clarence Thomas ruled that Myriad's assertion that the DNA it isolated from the human body for its tests were patentable had to be dismissed because it violated patent rules. The court said that laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas lay outside patent protection.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jun/13/supreme-court-genes-patent-dna

See toon at top...

agent monsanto...

 

The Undercurrent delves into the world of mass agriculture to ask how one company has such huge control over the world's food supply. The name Monsanto was once synonymous with Agent Orange, but in today's world it's the dominance of the widespread pesticide Roundup which helps keep the company on top of the pile. But is the World Health Organisation's claim that Roundup 'probably' causes cancer, cause for concern? And what about the company's stance on patenting which sees farmers in developing countries unable to hold on to their seeds for the next season? Guardian Australia has joined forces with The Undercurrent – an online news show billing itself as an antidote to the five-second soundbite – for a four-part series over June and July. Brisbane creators Jen Dainer and Dan Graetz say it is the show they wish existed – so they created it themselves


read more: http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2015/jun/04/undercurrent-monsanto-roundup-pesticide-herbicide-who-carcinogenic-video


see also:
  1. monsanto | Your Democracywww.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/20513monsantomonsanto. By Gus Leonisky at 25 Aug 2012 - 3:06pm; Login or register to post comments; Thumbnail. The opinions expressed in this site are those of ...
  2. deadly concoctions ..... | Your Democracy
  3. www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/17312
  4. 22 Feb 2012 ... The monumental case paves the way for legal action against Monsanto'sRoundup and other harmful herbicides and pesticides made by other ...
  5. beware corporations bearing gifts ..... | Your Democracyyourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/1159321 Jan 2011 ... "A fabulous Easter gift," commented Monsanto Director of Development Initiatives Elizabeth Vancil. Nearly 60,000 seed sacks of hybrid corn ...
  6. genetically modified lies... | Your Democracywww.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/12884‎5 Jul 2011 ... [1] The world's top four seed companies - Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta andBayer - now control over half of the world's seed sales. These are ...
  7. of silent killers... | Your Democracywww.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/18904‎13 Jun 2012 ... Monsanto, the massive biotechnology company being blamed for contributing to the dwindling bee population, has bought up one of the ...

 

the project would be handled discreetly...

For a blockbuster recent piece, the New York Times' Eric Lipton got a first look a massive cache of private emails between prominent public university scientists and GMO industry executives and flacks. The emails came to light through a barrage ofcontroversial Freedom of Information Act requests by U.S. Right to Know, which is funded by the scrappy, anti-corporate Organic Consumers Association.

In addition to the correspondence uncovered by USRTK, Lipton used the FOIA to uncover emails showing close ties between former University of Washington researcher Charles Benbrook and organic food companies like farmer-owned dairy company Organic Valley. Lipton paints a fascinating picture of the the place occupied by public universities in the PR and lobbying war between the agrichemical/GM seed and organic food industries.

"I understand and appreciate that you need me to be completely transparent and I am keenly aware that your independence and reputations must be protected," a Monsanto rep wrote to professors.

But his piece, excellent as it is, may actually underplay the extent to which Monsanto, other ag-biotech companies, and their trade groups and hired PR gunsrely on friendly professors as foot soldiers in the industry's battle against regulators and critics.

Here are some highlights that didn't make it into theTimes. Although there is no specific evidence to suggest that Monsanto paid professors for these activities, and many of the professors have said they reached their conclusions independently, the correspondence is nonetheless interesting: 

• In an August 2013 email to nine prominent academics, Monsanto's strategic engagement lead Eric Sachs broached a plan: that the group would pen "short policy briefs on important topics in the agricultural biotechnology arena," chosen "because of their influence on public policy, GM crop regulation, and consumer acceptance."

Sachs assured the professors that the project would be handled discreetly. "I understand and appreciate that you need me to be completely transparent and I am keenly aware that your independence and reputations must be protected," he wrote. Two outside entities—an industry-funded group called the American Council on Science and Health and a PR outfit called CMA—would "manage the process of producing the policy briefs," "coordinate website posting and promotion," and "merchandize" the briefs by helping turn them into "op-eds, blog postings, speaking engagements, events, webinars, etc." This third-party management is "an important element," the Monsanto exec added, "because Monsanto wants the authors to communicate freely without involvement by Monsanto."

read more: http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/09/monsanto-professors-gmo-PR

 

Read from top...

the news you won't get about monsanto...

 

Hundreds of thousands of people are expected to join a worldwide protest against the multinational biotech and agribusiness corporation Monsanto with rallies to be held in as many as 46 countries in various parts of the world.

read more: https://www.rt.com/news/343917-global-march-against-monsanto/

https://www.rt.com/news/343929-monsanto-bayer-march-gmo/

 

Your Western press paper today will mention a lot about such footballer's chunder of boozy carrots, but nothing about the fact the carrots are sprayed with Roundup to kill the leaves and make it easier for carrots to be uprooted. But with Baron Rupert of Mediocrity controlling much of what the English media will choose as news, we can't be surprised.

sued for polychlorinated biphenyl...

German pharmaceutical company Bayer says it’s paying up to $10.9bn to settle a lawsuit over subsidiary Monsanto’s weedkiller Roundup, which has faced numerous lawsuits over claims it causes cancer.

Bayer said it was also paying up $1.22bn to settle two further cases, one involving polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) in water.

Bayer said the Roundup settlement would “bring closure to approximately 75%” of the current 125,000 filed and unfiled claims. The resolution also puts in place a mechanism to resolve potential future claims, the company said.

 

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/24/bayer-109bn-settlement-...

protections for pesticide companies....

Cancer patients are celebrating a string of courtroom victories after juries in three US states recently ordered Germany’s Bayer to pay more than $500 million in damages for failing to warn about the health risks of its Roundup herbicides. But the consumer wins come as proposed federal legislation backed by Bayer and the powerful agricultural industry could limit similar cases from ever going to trial in the future.

Dubbed the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act, the proposed measure would provide sweeping protections for pesticide companies and their products, preempting local governments from implementing restrictions on pesticide use and blocking many of the legal claims that have been plaguing Bayer, according to the American Association for Justice (AAJ) and other critics.

The measure, which was introduced over the summer, has been gaining traction as a potential amendment to the pending Farm Bill. More than 360 agricultural organizations are throwing their support behind the measure, which was introduced by US Reps Dusty Johnson and Jim Costa. Lobbying disclosure records show that Bayer and the industry-funded CropLife America have made passage a top priority. A similar measure is under consideration in the US Senate.

The new law is needed because pesticides are “paramount to growing our food and keeping communities safe,”according to CropLife.

In response, on Oct. 27, more than 150 US lawmakers signed a letter to the leadership of the House Committee on Agriculture expressing “strong opposition” to the preemption measures, saying they would overturn “decades of precedent” and have a “significant impact” on public safety.  

Local laws that could be in jeopardy include many that restrict pesticide use near schools, parks, and playgrounds, and protect drinking water supplies and wildlife. Preemption of state and local authority would additionally “limit accountability for manufacturers who fail to adequately warn consumers about the hazards posed by certain high-risk pesticides,” the letter warns.

Sen. Cory Booker dubbed the legislation “reckless” and “irresponsible” in a press call on Thursday. “People are making this a priority in the upcoming Farm Bill, and frankly to me it is outrageous,” Booker said.

A “threat to democracy”

The industry efforts in Washington come as scores of cities and towns around the US have moved in recent years to limit and/or ban certain pesticides on public grounds due to evidence of health and environmental risks. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weed killers sold by Bayer, is among those being restricted.

“Preemption is a threat to democracy and public health,” said Kim Konte, who leads Non-Toxic Neighborhoods, a grassroots organization that works with communities across the country to adopt pesticide-free practices. “Parents and our city leaders, not the pesticide industry, should have the power to protect our children from hazardous pesticides in the parks where they play.”

Notably, the preemption efforts come as the Roundup litigation becomes ever more costly for Bayer, which bought Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018. The company has already agreed to pay out billions of dollars in settlements to tens of thousands of people suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) they blame on exposure to Roundup and other Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide brands.

Additionally, the company has been ordered by multiple juries to pay hefty damage awards. Last month alone, juries ordered verdicts totaling $1.25 million in a Missouri case; $175 million in a Pennsylvania case and $332 million in a California case.

Jury selection begins later this month in a case in San Benito, California, and several other trials are also on the dockets in multiple states. Among the central claims made in the nationwide litigation is that Monsanto’s products should have carried warnings on their labels telling users of a cancer risk.

Such claims would effectively be blocked, or substantially weakened, if the preemption measure becomes law, according to plaintiffs’ lawyers and other experts. The measure would effectively make the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the sole authority for determining when and if certain warnings should be required on labeled products, they say. 

“It’s an abomination,” said Brent Wisner, a member of the legal team that won the first Roundup case to go to trial. “I’m doing everything in my power to stop it.”

Johnson, co-sponsor of the House measure, disputes the bill would have any “direct impact on any current or future litigation” or prevent local regulation of the “sale and use of pesticides.” 

But Sarah Rooney, senior director of federal and regulatory Affairs for AAJ, said the intent of the proposed law is clear.  “Wiping out state and local laws is a top priority of these corporations because they don’t want people to seek justice when they develop cancer due to Roundup exposure. We’re urging Congress to reject these proposals.”

Under pressure

Bayer is under pressure from investors to resolve the Roundup litigation, and has argued in multiple courts that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) the EPA’s stance that Monsanto’s herbicides are not likely to cause cancer essentially bars complaints that Bayer and Monsanto failed to warn of a cancer risk. 

Courts have rejected the preemption argument because of a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case titled Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, which established that the EPA’s approval of a product does not rule out claims brought under state laws. If the proposed bill is passed, it would undo the Bates precedent, according to the AAJ.

Bayer did not answer a question about whether or not it initiated the legislation, but said in a statement that it supports the measure because “the future of American farming depends on reliable science-based regulation of important crop protection products that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined safe for use.”

 

https://www.thenewlede.org/2023/11/battle-brewing-over-proposed-us-law-that-would-protect-pesticides/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....