Replies: 80 (Who?), Viewed: 43017 times.
Page 4 of 4
Field Researcher
Original Poster
#76 Old 9th Sep 2019 at 2:04 PM
Okay this is not Bayer/Monsanto related.

I write about the global Climate Protest Day this time. The third global climate strike, is taking place. People around the world will be taking to the streets, to protest for the Paris Agreement and the ongoing climate change on 20.09.2019!! You heard about it? Fight for a better future. We just got one planet. Thank you for your support!

https://fridaysforfuture.org/join
https://fridaysforfuture.org
https://fridaysforfuture.org/how
https://fridaysforfuture.org/events/map
https://fridaysforfuture.org/events/list
https://fridaysforfuture.org/about
https://fridaysforfuture.org/more
Mad Poster
#77 Old 18th Sep 2019 at 1:48 AM
Having worked for a green charity myself, one thing I realized isn't being done is well is protest itself. These organizations all take pride in being ever so peaceful and taking the moral high ground. Problem is....that just isn't all that effective. Large corporations have not shied away from extremely dirty tactics, up to and including assassinations, and a bunch of hippies having a die-in are no match for that sort of stuff. Don't forget that the French government bombed a Greenpeace boat. Do I support ecoterrorism outright? No, not quite. Do I support civil disobedience? No, also not quite.

I support the age-old Dutch ideom, "he who will not listen, must feel". That's a nice way of saying, some people just need some sense beaten into them. In practice that should range from something harmless like sabotage to something more provocative like burning their property to the ground.

Hypocrisy is only okay if I do it.
( Join my dumb Discord server if you're into the whole procrastination thing. But like, maybe tomorrow. )
Field Researcher
Original Poster
#78 Old 19th Nov 2019 at 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGuyCalledPi
Having worked for a green charity myself, one thing I realized isn't being done is well is protest itself. These organizations all take pride in being ever so peaceful and taking the moral high ground. Problem is....that just isn't all that effective. Large corporations have not shied away from extremely dirty tactics, up to and including assassinations, and a bunch of hippies having a die-in are no match for that sort of stuff. Don't forget that the French government bombed a Greenpeace boat. Do I support ecoterrorism outright? No, not quite. Do I support civil disobedience? No, also not quite.

I support the age-old Dutch ideom, "he who will not listen, must feel". That's a nice way of saying, some people just need some sense beaten into them. In practice that should range from something harmless like sabotage to something more provocative like burning their property to the ground.


I can understand you. It is frustrating if you try to change something, and notice the guys won´t give up. Evil never sleeps that´s for sure. Once we pushed them in a corner, they find a different way to slip out and start somewhere else some nasty trouble. And for what? Money power and greed. I must say after my several years of active protest, I wonder how this continues?? Until earth is down in ashes I believe. I understand that getting rid of the bad apples, is the best solution instead of tolerating the bad smell.

You know what´s going on in Germany right now? Here are some nasty news, about a big bloke. I translate:

"Quote"
Reverse in climate protection: Peter Altmaier (CDU political party) wants to run coal power plant and attacks the wind power. The decision on the law of the Minister of Economy will be settled in two weeks. CDU Minister of Economic Affairs Peter Altmaier idea is this: He will not shut down any coal-fired power plant in the next four years. Then the coal companies are allowed to choose when and if they turn off their coal power plant. Coal exit forget it. At the same time, Altmaier wants to finally put an end to the energy turnaround by allowing new windmills to be banned almost everywhere!!! On 3 December 2019, the decision is made on Altmaier's law. Everything depends now on the SPD (political party). Environment Minister Svenja Schulze (SPD) has already protested against the plans of Altmaier: "We can not do this in this form," she said on Thursday. Whether she and other critical voices prevail in the coalition also depends on how loud we are now. Altmaier's attack on wind power would have disastrous consequences for climate protection. Because wind energy is the mainstay of the energy transition in Germany - without rapid expansion we can not achieve the climate goals. The worst part: If Altmaier presses his law now, it can cement climate-friendly rules for years. Because new planning procedures slow down wind power in the long term. Even the conservative Federation of German Industry (BDI) and the unions strongly criticize the proposal. Reason enough for parts of the SPD to position themselves. The candidate for SPD party leader Saskia Esken had already declared more climate protection a condition for the continuation of the Grand Coalition. "Unquote"

Insanity!! Blow the planet to hell, that is their main goal! The north and south pole, melt every day. Lot´s of ice vanished during decades worldwide. So called experts claim the sea level increase, maaaybe in 50 or 80 years. Who really knows when? We can only guess. But if we don´t hit the break, we speed up the process and millions have to relocate, cause a lot of landscape will simply vanish like Atlantis. It will happen soon or later. I post just one of many links. But it showes quite clear, what we have to deal with in the future. It ain´t funny.

What the world would look like, if all the ice melted?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...shoreline-maps/





And what Bayer/Monsanto does in the meantime? Even if anyone knows Glyphosate cause cancer, they still try to poison planet earth. MAN it stinks!!!!
Field Researcher
Original Poster
#79 Old 19th Mar 2020 at 6:31 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...studies-roundup

Revealed: Monsanto’s secret funding for weedkiller studies
The research, used to help avoid a ban, claimed ‘severe impacts’ on farming if glyphosate was outlawed.


Thu 12 Mar 2020 17.00

A can of glyphosate weedkiller is seen in front of a tractor
Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used weedkiller. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s cancer agency, the IARC, declared that it was probably carcinogenic.
Monsanto secretly funded academic studies indicating “very severe impacts” on farming and the environment if its controversial glyphosate weedkiller were banned, an investigation has found.

The research was used by the National Farmers’ Union and others to successfully lobby against a European ban in 2017. As a result of the revelations, the NFU has now amended its glyphosate information to declare the source of the research.

Monsanto was bought by the agri-chemical multinational Bayer in 2018 and Bayer said the studies’ failure to disclose their funding broke its principles. However, the authors of the studies said the funding did not influence their work and the editor of the journal in which they were published said the papers would not be retracted or amended.

Glyphosate is sold by Bayer as Roundup and is the world’s most widely used weedkiller. The World Health Organization’s cancer agency, the IARC, declared that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015 but several international agencies, including the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), subsequently came to opposite conclusions.

Last year courts in the US ordered Monsanto to pay damages of up to $2bn (£1.5bn) to individuals with cancer and faces many more lawsuits. Bayer said it “stands fully behind its glyphosate-based products”.

The new revelations centre on studies published in 2010 and 2014 by researchers at ADAS, an agricultural and environmental consultancy in the UK. The analyses concluded “the loss of glyphosate would cause very severe impacts on UK agriculture and the environment”. They suggested a 20% fall in wheat and rapeseed production. However, other researchers at another consultancy, the Andersons Centre, said: “[We] believe that this may be rather high.”

Glyphosate weedkiller allows planting without ploughing, which helps stop carbon being released to the atmosphere. The ADAS research indicated a 25% increase in greenhouse gas emissions – a rise of 12m tonnes a year – if glyphosate was banned.

The ADAS research was used by the NFU in lobbying against an EU ban in 2017 when the renewal of the licence for glyphosate was being considered. The industry lobby group, the Glyphosate Task Force (now renamed the Glyphosate Renewal Group), also used the research, as did the Crop Protection Association.

Despite a petition from 1.2 million citizens calling for a ban, the pesticide licence was renewed for five years. However, this was far shorter than the 15 years that had been sought.

The secret funding of the ADAS studies was uncovered by a German transparency campaign group, LobbyControl. In December, LobbyControl revealed two pro-glyphosate German studies that were partly funded by Monsanto and published in 2011 and 2015 without the funding being declared.

“This is an unacceptable form of opaque lobbying,” said Ulrich Müller at LobbyControl. “Citizens, media and decision-makers should know who pays for studies on subjects of public interest. The studies also used very high figures for the benefits of glyphosate and for possible losses in case of a ban. These extreme figures were then used to spin the debate.”

The tendency of the results of scientific studies to favour their funders – called funding bias – is widely recognised in research on chemical toxicity, tobacco and pharmaceutical drugs.

A spokesman for Bayer said the company always disclosed its funding of third-party scientific publications. “The lack of reference to the funding of these studies does not meet Bayer’s principles,” he said.

He added: “Glyphosate-based herbicides have been used safely and successfully for more than 40 years. They are one of the most thoroughly studied products of their kind. We have no reason to doubt the methods, content or results of the studies conducted by ADAS.”

Sarah Wynn, at ADAS and one of the authors of the studies, said: “As with other companies in our field, it is entirely normal for external organisations to fund research studies. However, it has always been our core principle that our research is never influenced in any way by those that fund us.” ADAS is now leading another project on glyphosate that was partly funded by Monsanto.

Leonard Copping, editor of the journal Outlooks on Pest Management, in which the studies were published, said: “The authors did not advise me of the source of the funding. For this reason it was not disclosed. Conflict of interests is important but not relevant in this case. The papers will not be amended or retracted.”

However, following an enquiry from the Guardian, the NFU has amended its glyphosate material. “We are happy to add a line to the online article stating that the research on this occasion was funded by Monsanto,” said an NFU spokesman.

Bayer said farmers around the globe rely on glyphosate to provide enough food for the world’s growing population. But campaigners claim Monsanto has defended the product by ghostwriting research papers for regulators and using front groups to discredit critical scientists and journalists. In 2017, the Guardian revealed that EFSA based its recommendation that glyphosate was safe on an EU report that copied and pasted analyses from a Monsanto study.

We've got an announcement…
… on our progress as an organisation. In service of the escalating climate emergency, we have made an important decision – to renounce fossil fuel advertising, becoming the first major global news organisation to institute an outright ban on taking money from companies that extract fossil fuels.

In October we outlined our pledge: that the Guardian will give global heating, wildlife extinction and pollution the urgent attention and prominence they demand. This resonated with so many readers around the world. We promise to update you on the steps we take to hold ourselves accountable at this defining point in our lifetimes. With climate misinformation rife, and never more dangerous than now, the Guardian's accurate, authoritative reporting is vital – and we will not stay quiet.

We chose a different approach: to keep Guardian journalism open for all. We don't have a paywall because we believe everyone deserves access to factual information, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay.

Our editorial independence means we are free to investigate and challenge inaction by those in power. We will inform our readers about threats to the environment based on scientific facts, not driven by commercial or political interests. And we have made several important changes to our style guide to ensure the language we use accurately reflects the environmental emergency.

The Guardian believes that the problems we face on the climate crisis are systemic and that fundamental societal change is needed. We will keep reporting on the efforts of individuals and communities around the world who are fearlessly taking a stand for future generations and the preservation of human life on earth. We want their stories to inspire hope.

We hope you will consider supporting us today. We need your support to keep delivering quality journalism that’s open and independent. Every reader contribution, however big or small, is so valuable.
Field Researcher
Original Poster
#80 Old 26th May 2020 at 7:46 PM
https://www.wemove.eu/latest-news?page=1

Something good happened in Europe! I translate:

It's official - and we won: Conventionally bred animals and plants are not patentable. What seems obvious to all of us was not for companies like Bayer (buyers of Monsanto), Syngenta and Carlsberg: they fought stubbornly for the patents. Without a patent, you cannot control the biological information of plants and animals and make profits!

This success story is a longer one and tells of people who worked hand in hand.

In 2016 we joined the campaign against patents on crops such as Broccoli, tomatoes, melon or paprika, which was previously known mainly in Germany. We mobilized across borders and made the campaign a truly European effort. A few months later, a broad alliance of organizations handed over 800,000 signatures and called for a "no" on patents that make natural organisms the private property of multinationals.

In summer 2016, farmers, gardeners and activists hand over 800,000 signatures against patents on plants and animals to the European Patent Office in Munich. In summer 2016, farmers, gardeners and activists hand over 800,000 signatures against patents on plants and animals to the European Patent Office in Munich.

The European Patent Office (EPO), however, could not be dealt with by just one appeal. So we organized the largest official opposition to a patent that the EPO has ever seen in a broad alliance. Together, we filed nearly 65,000 appeals against a tomato patent signed by citizens from across Europe. That was overwhelming - the EPO couldn't accept them all at once and we filed them in a bundle.

In June 2017, we confronted the EPO with a protest at the Munich office. We started - in line with the city with the long beer brewing tradition - a campaign against a patent application for barley, the brewing process and beer. The signatures came from a beer carriage, traditionally drawn by six horses. A brass band also played.

Submission of hundreds of thousands of signatures in summer 2017 against a patent applied for by the Carlsberg company on barley, brewery and beer. Submission of hundreds of thousands of signatures in summer 2017 against a patent applied for by the Carlsberg company on barley, brewery and beer.

The first big success in Brussels in July 2017: As a result of the many campaigns, the European Union made it clear that plants and animals are not inventions of humans, but nature and therefore a common good. The EPO did not accept this decision, but at least put the permits for pending patent applications on hold. But: It continued to accept new applications.

So we returned to Munich a year later to keep up the pressure - this time just in time for the Oktoberfest. Together with volunteers from WeMove Europe and activists from partner organizations, we addressed thousands of beer fans there who passed the European Patent Office on their way to the festival. For us exactly the right place to distribute flags. No patents for beer: we turned the flow of visitors into a demonstration.

Beer fans on their way to the Oktoberfest pass the EPA and are greeted by activists in four languages. Small but thousands of flags signal: No to patents on beer, brows and barley. In summer 2019, we joined a broad coalition of environmental and farmer organizations and signed an open letter to the patent office. This time it was about showing that it is not just about plants, but also about animals such as pigs, sheep and fish - in this case salmon and trout.

Back in Munich in summer: activists from a broad coalition are calling for an end to patents on plants and animals. This time it's about salmon and trout. All of this is our reading of history. But as you can imagine, there is another one: corporations have put their hands and feet against our demands. They did their lobbying. But last week the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the highest legal body of the European Patent Office, published its legal opinion - and confirmed our efforts. We won on May 14, 2020 - and we very much hope that this decision will put an end to a decade of legally absurd and chaotic decisions at the EPO.

As is so often the case, we can celebrate the good mix of good arguments, strong and experienced partners and a broad international mobilization. This is how power comes from below! A power to which we as a WeMove Europe community could contribute. We owe all of this to you and each and every one of us - by signing appeals with our good name, sharing demands with friends and family and donating when we can.

Our special thanks go to our partners No Patents on Seeds and Campact. Campact invited us to participate in 2016 - precisely because this story is European and we are in the right place.

No Patents on Seeds' assets are the real drivers of this campaign. It is thanks to their excellent expertise and continuous research that we had all the information we needed at the right time to mobilize across borders.

It is always satisfying to celebrate a victory. But we also know about the strong interests of corporations to turn general goods into private property. You will look for loopholes. So we have to stay vigilant.
Field Researcher
Original Poster
#81 Old 11th Jun 2020 at 7:48 AM
More good news!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...t-overrules-epa

Court overturns EPA approval of popular herbicide made by Monsanto
Ruling says EPA ignored clear evidence that the new herbicide would cause widespread damage to crops

Thu 4 Jun 2020 17.40 BSTLast modified on Fri 5 Jun 2020 14.43 BST

Bill Bader surveys his peach trees for damage he says is from illegal use of the herbicide dicamba in 2016.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) broke the law in approving agricultural weedkilling products sold by Bayer and two other chemical giants, ignoring clear evidence that the new herbicides would cause widespread damage to crops, a federal court ruled on Wednesday.

The decision by the US court of appeals for the ninth circuit invalidates the registrations for dicamba-based herbicides made by Monsanto, which is owned by Bayer AG, BASF and Corteva Agrisciences that are designed to be sprayed on genetically engineered soybeans and cotton. The court order effectively makes it illegal for farmers to continue to use the dicamba herbicides this summer as they tend to millions of acres of crops.

In a stinging rebuke, the court said it had no choice but to cancel the EPA’s approval of the herbicides because the agency had strayed so far from its duty to properly assess the dangers presented by the “new use” of dicamba.

“The EPA made multiple errors in granting the conditional registrations,” the court said.

The petition seeking to overturn the EPA’s approval was brought by the National Family Farm Coalition, Center for Food Safety, Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network North America.

“Today’s decision is a massive win for farmers and the environment,” said George Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety, lead counsel in the case. “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. Their day of reckoning has arrived.”

An EPA spokesman said the agency was currently reviewing the court decision and “will move promptly to address the court’s directive”.

The issue at the heart of the court case is a crop and chemical system designed by Monsanto, which was acquired by Bayer in 2018. The company said that soybean and cotton farmers could plant “dicamba-tolerant” versions of the crops and then spray new types of dicamba herbicides directly over the top of their fields to easily kill weeds. Previously, farmers used dicamba sparingly and were largely restricted from using dicamba during the growing season because the chemical can easily drift long distances, killing or injuring a wide array of crops and other plants it settles on.

Monsanto, BASF and Corteva Agriscience told the EPA that their herbicides would have low volatility and if farmers followed instructions on the product labels, they could prevent drift. But since the introduction of the new dicamba crops and herbicides, farmer complaints have been filed with state agricultural officials, reporting dicamba damage across several million acres in at least a dozen states.

The Guardian reported in March that Monsanto predicted its dicamba crop system would lead to thousands of damage claims from US farmers but pushed ahead anyway, and risks were downplayed to the EPA.

The court found that the EPA “refused to estimate the amount of dicamba damage”, failed to acknowledge that restrictions it placed on the use of the dicamba herbicides would not be followed, and did not acknowledge evidence that the new use of dicamba herbicides would “tear the social fabric of farming communities”.

Revealed: Monsanto predicted crop system would damage US farms
The court said it knew its decision could be costly for farmers who planned to use dicamba on their GMO soybeans and cotton fields, but said the EPA’s failure to acknowledge and address risks to other crops left the court no choice.

“We acknowledge the difficulties these growers may have in finding effective and legal herbicides to protect their (dicamba-tolerant) crops …” the ruling states. “They have been placed in this situation through no fault of their own.”

Bayer, BASF and Corteva each issued statements saying their herbicides were important farmer tools that could be used safely and they disagreed with the court’s decision. The companies said they were assessing options in response.

“If the ruling stands, we will work quickly to minimize any impact on our customers this season,” Bayer said.

BASF called the court order “unprecedented” and said it “has the potential to be devastating to tens of thousands of farmers”.
Farmers could lose “significant revenue” if they are not able to kill weeds in their soybean and cotton fields with the dicamba herbicides, the company said.

“We will use all legal remedies available to challenge this order,” BASF said.
Page 4 of 4
Back to top