Guest guest Posted May 10, 2008 Report Share Posted May 10, 2008 >Monsanto, Part 1 >Posted by: " VoiceAnalysis " VoiceAnalysis soundstonedchick >Fri May 9, 2008 8:52 pm (PDT) >MONSANTO'S HARVEST OF FEAR > >By Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele > >Monsanto already dominates America's food chain with its genetically >modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as >frightening as the corporation's tactics -- ruthless legal battles >against small farmers -- is its decades-long history of toxic >contamination. > >Gary Rinehart clearly remembers the summer day in 2002 when the >stranger walked in and issued his threat. Rinehart was behind the >counter of the Square Deal, his " old-time country store, " as he calls >it, on the fading town square of Eagleville, Missouri, a tiny farm >community 100 miles north of Kansas City. > >The Square Deal is a fixture in Eagleville, a place where farmers and >townspeople can go for lightbulbs, greeting cards, hunting gear, ice >cream, aspirin, and dozens of other small items without having to >drive to a big-box store in Bethany, the county seat, 15 miles down >Interstate 35. > >Everyone knows Rinehart, who was born and raised in the area and runs >one of Eagleville's few surviving businesses. The stranger came up to >the counter and asked for him by name. > > " Well, that's me, " said Rinehart. > >As Rinehart would recall, the man began verbally attacking him, saying >he had proof that Rinehart had planted Monsanto's genetically modified >(G.M.) soybeans in violation of the company's patent. Better come >clean and settle with Monsanto, Rinehart says the man told him -- or >face the consequences. > >Rinehart was incredulous, listening to the words as puzzled customers >and employees looked on. Like many others in rural America, Rinehart >knew of Monsanto's fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and >suing anyone who allegedly violated them. But Rinehart wasn't a >farmer. He wasn't a seed dealer. He hadn't planted any seeds or sold >any seeds. He owned a small -- a really small -- country store in a >town of 350 people. He was angry that somebody could just barge into >the store and embarrass him in front of everyone. " It made me and my >business look bad, " he says. Rinehart says he told the intruder, " You >got the wrong guy. " > >When the stranger persisted, Rinehart showed him the door. On the way >out the man kept making threats. Rinehart says he can't remember the >exact words, but they were to the effect of: " Monsanto is big. You >can't win. We will get you. You will pay. " > >Scenes like this are playing out in many parts of rural America these >days as Monsanto goes after farmers, farmers' co-ops, seed dealers - >anyone it suspects may have infringed its patents of genetically >modified seeds. As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, >Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents >in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan >out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and >photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community >meetings; and gather information from informants about farming >activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be >surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure >them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. > >Farmers call them the " seed police " and use words such as " Gestapo " >and " Mafia " to describe their tactics. > >When asked about these practices, Monsanto declined to comment >specifically, other than to say that the company is simply protecting >its patents. " Monsanto spends more than $2 million a day in research >to identify, test, develop and bring to market innovative new seeds >and technologies that benefit farmers, " Monsanto spokesman Darren >Wallis wrote in an e-mailed letter to Vanity Fair. " One tool in >protecting this investment is patenting our discoveries and, if >necessary, legally defending those patents against those who might >choose to infringe upon them. " Wallis said that, while the vast >majority of farmers and seed dealers follow the licensing agreements, > " a tiny fraction " do not, and that Monsanto is obligated to those who >do abide by its rules to enforce its patent rights on those who " reap >the benefits of the technology without paying for its use. " He said >only a small number of cases ever go to trial. > >Some compare Monsanto's hard-line approach to Microsoft's zealous >efforts to protect its software from pirates. At least with Microsoft >the buyer of a program can use it over and over again. But farmers who >buy Monsanto's seeds can't even do that. > >The Control of Nature For centuries -- millennia -- farmers have saved >seeds from season to season: they planted in the spring, harvested in >the fall, then reclaimed and cleaned the seeds over the winter for re- >planting the next spring. Monsanto has turned this ancient practice on >its head. > >Monsanto developed G.M. seeds that would resist its own herbicide, >Roundup, offering farmers a convenient way to spray fields with weed >killer without affecting crops. Monsanto then patented the seeds. For >nearly all of its history the United States Patent and Trademark >Office had refused to grant patents on seeds, viewing them as life- >forms with too many variables to be patented. " It's not like >describing a widget, " says Joseph Mendelson III, the legal director of >the Center for Food Safety, which has tracked Monsanto's activities in >rural America for years. > >Indeed not. But in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four >decision, turned seeds into widgets, laying the groundwork for a >handful of corporations to begin taking control of the world's food >supply. In its decision, the court extended patent law to cover " a >live human-made microorganism. " In this case, the organism wasn't even >a seed. Rather, it was a Pseudomonas bacterium developed by a General >Electric scientist to clean up oil spills. But the precedent was set, >and Monsanto took advantage of it. Since the 1980s, Monsanto has >become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won >674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company, according to >U.S. Department of Agriculture data. > >Farmers who buy Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready seeds are required >to sign an agreement promising not to save the seed produced after >each harvest for re-planting, or to sell the seed to other farmers. > >This means that farmers must buy new seed every year. Those increased >sales, coupled with ballooning sales of its Roundup weed killer, have >been a bonanza for Monsanto. > >This radical departure from age-old practice has created turmoil in >farm country. Some farmers don't fully understand that they aren't >supposed to save Monsanto's seeds for next year's planting. Others do, >but ignore the stipulation rather than throw away a perfectly usable >product. Still others say that they don't use Monsanto's genetically >modified seeds, but seeds have been blown into their fields by wind or >deposited by birds. It's certainly easy for G.M. seeds to get mixed in >with traditional varieties when seeds are cleaned by commercial >dealers for re-planting. The seeds look identical; only a laboratory >analysis can show the difference. Even if a farmer doesn't buy G.M. > >seeds and doesn't want them on his land, it's a safe bet he'll get a >visit from Monsanto's seed police if crops grown from G.M. seeds are >discovered in his fields. > >Most Americans know Monsanto because of what it sells to put on our >lawns -- the ubiquitous weed killer Roundup. What they may not know is >that the company now profoundly influences -- and one day may >virtually control -- what we put on our tables. For most of its >history Monsanto was a chemical giant, producing some of the most >toxic substances ever created, residues from which have left us with >some of the most polluted sites on earth. Yet in a little more than a >decade, the company has sought to shed its polluted past and morph >into something much different and more far-reaching -- an > " agricultural company " dedicated to making the world " a better place >for future generations. " > >Still, more than one Web log claims to see similarities between >Monsanto and the fictional company " U-North " in the movie Michael >Clayton, an agribusiness giant accused in a multibillion-dollar >lawsuit of selling an herbicide that causes cancer. > >Monsanto's genetically modified seeds have transformed the company and >are radically altering global agriculture. So far, the company has >produced G.M. seeds for soybeans, corn, canola, and cotton. Many more >products have been developed or are in the pipeline, including seeds >for sugar beets and alfalfa. The company is also seeking to extend its >reach into milk production by marketing an artificial growth hormone >for cows that increases their output, and it is taking aggressive >steps to put those who don't want to use growth hormone at a >commercial disadvantage. > >Even as the company is pushing its G.M. agenda, Monsanto is buying up >conventional-seed companies. In 2005, Monsanto paid $1.4 billion for >Seminis, which controlled 40 percent of the U.S. market for lettuce, >tomatoes, and other vegetable and fruit seeds. Two weeks later it >announced the acquisition of the country's third-largest cottonseed >company, Emergent Genetics, for $300 million. It's estimated that >Monsanto seeds now account for 90 percent of the U.S. production of >soybeans, which are used in food products beyond counting. Monsanto's >acquisitions have fueled explosive growth, transforming the St. Louis >- based corporation into the largest seed company in the world. > >In Iraq, the groundwork has been laid to protect the patents of >Monsanto and other G.M.-seed companies. One of L. Paul Bremer's last >acts as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority was an order >stipulating that " farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of >protected varieties. " Monsanto has said that it has no interest in >doing business in Iraq, but should the company change its mind, the >American-style law is in place. > >To be sure, more and more agricultural corporations and individual >farmers are using Monsanto's G.M. seeds. As recently as 1980, no >genetically modified crops were grown in the U.S. In 2007, the total >was 142 million acres planted. Worldwide, the figure was 282 million >acres. Many farmers believe that G.M. seeds increase crop yields and >save money. Another reason for their attraction is convenience. By >using Roundup Ready soybean seeds, a farmer can spend less time >tending to his fields. With Monsanto seeds, a farmer plants his crop, >then treats it later with Roundup to kill weeds. That takes the place >of labor-intensive weed control and plowing. > >Monsanto portrays its move into G.M. seeds as a giant leap for >mankind. But out in the American countryside, Monsanto's no-holds- >barred tactics have made it feared and loathed. Like it or not, >farmers say, they have fewer and fewer choices in buying seeds. > >And controlling the seeds is not some abstraction. Whoever provides >the world's seeds controls the world's food supply. > >Under Surveillance After Monsanto's investigator confronted Gary >Rinehart, Monsanto filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Rinehart > " knowingly, intentionally, and willfully " planted seeds " in violation >of Monsanto's patent rights. " The company's complaint made it sound as >if Monsanto had Rinehart dead to rights: > >During the 2002 growing season, Investigator Jeffery Moore, through >surveillance of Mr. Rinehart's farm facility and farming operations, >observed Defendant planting brown bag soybean seed. Mr. Moore observed >the Defendant take the brown bag soybeans to a field, which was >subsequently loaded into a grain drill and planted. Mr. Moore located >two empty bags in the ditch in the public road right-of-way beside one >of the fields planted by Rinehart, which contained some soybeans. Mr. > >Moore collected a small amount of soybeans left in the bags which >Defendant had tossed into the public right-of way. These samples >tested positive for Monsanto's Roundup Ready technology. > >Faced with a federal lawsuit, Rinehart had to hire a lawyer. Monsanto >eventually realized that " Investigator Jeffery Moore " had targeted the >wrong man, and dropped the suit. Rinehart later learned that the >company had been secretly investigating farmers in his area. Rinehart >never heard from Monsanto again: no letter of apology, no public >concession that the company had made a terrible mistake, no offer to >pay his attorney's fees. " I don't know how they get away with it, " he >says. " If I tried to do something like that it would be bad news. I >felt like I was in another country. " > >Gary Rinehart is actually one of Monsanto's luckier targets. Ever >since commercial introduction of its G.M. seeds, in 1996, Monsanto has >launched thousands of investigations and filed lawsuits against >hundreds of farmers and seed dealers. In a 2007 report, the Center for >Food Safety, in Washington, D.C., documented 112 such lawsuits, in 27 >states. > >Even more significant, in the Center's opinion, are the numbers of >farmers who settle because they don't have the money or the time to >fight Monsanto. " The number of cases filed is only the tip of the >iceberg, " says Bill Freese, the Center's science-policy analyst. > >Freese says he has been told of many cases in which Monsanto >investigators showed up at a farmer's house or confronted him in his >fields, claiming he had violated the technology agreement and >demanding to see his records. According to Freese, investigators will >say, " Monsanto knows that you are saving Roundup Ready seeds, and if >you don't sign these information-release forms, Monsanto is going to >come after you and take your farm or take you for all you're worth. " > >Investigators will sometimes show a farmer a photo of himself coming >out of a store, to let him know he is being followed. > >Lawyers who have represented farmers sued by Monsanto say that >intimidating actions like these are commonplace. Most give in and pay >Monsanto some amount in damages; those who resist face the full force >of Monsanto's legal wrath. > >Scorched-Earth Tactics Pilot Grove, Missouri, population 750, sits in >rolling farmland 150 miles west of St. Louis. The town has a grocery >store, a bank, a bar, a nursing home, a funeral parlor, and a few >other small businesses. > >There are no stoplights, but the town doesn't need any. The little >traffic it has comes from trucks on their way to and from the grain >elevator on the edge of town. The elevator is owned by a local co-op, >the Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator, which buys soybeans and corn >from farmers in the fall, then ships out the grain over the winter. > >The co-op has seven full-time employees and four computers. > >In the fall of 2006, Monsanto trained its legal guns on Pilot Grove; >ever since, its farmers have been drawn into a costly, disruptive >legal battle against an opponent with limitless resources. Neither >Pilot Grove nor Monsanto will discuss the case, but it is possible to >piece together much of the story from documents filed as part of the >litigation. > >Monsanto began investigating soybean farmers in and around Pilot Grove >several years ago. There is no indication as to what sparked the >probe, but Monsanto periodically investigates farmers in soybean- >growing regions such as this one in central Missouri. The company has >a staff devoted to enforcing patents and litigating against farmers. > >To gather leads, the company maintains an 800 number and encourages >farmers to inform on other farmers they think may be engaging in " seed >piracy. " > >Once Pilot Grove had been targeted, Monsanto sent private >investigators into the area. Over a period of months, Monsanto's >investigators surreptitiously followed the co-op's employees and >customers and videotaped them in fields and going about other >activities. At least 17 such surveillance videos were made, according >to court records. The investigative work was outsourced to a St. Louis >agency, McDowell & Associates. It was a McDowell investigator who >erroneously fingered Gary Rinehart. In Pilot Grove, at least 11 >McDowell investigators have worked the case, and Monsanto makes no >bones about the extent of this effort: " Surveillance was conducted >throughout the year by various investigators in the field, " according >to court records. McDowell, like Monsanto, will not comment on the >case. > >Not long after investigators showed up in Pilot Grove, Monsanto >subpoenaed the co-op's records concerning seed and herbicide purchases >and seed-cleaning operations. The co-op provided more than 800 pages >of documents pertaining to dozens of farmers. Monsanto sued two >farmers and negotiated settlements with more than 25 others it accused >of seed piracy. But Monsanto's legal assault had only begun. Although >the co-op had provided voluminous records, Monsanto then sued it in >federal court for patent infringement. Monsanto contended that by >cleaning seeds -- a service which it had provided for decades -- the >co- op was inducing farmers to violate Monsanto's patents. In effect, >Monsanto wanted the co-op to police its own customers. > >In the majority of cases where Monsanto sues, or threatens to sue, >farmers settle before going to trial. The cost and stress of >litigating against a global corporation are just too great. But Pilot >Grove wouldn't cave -- and ever since, Monsanto has been turning up >the heat. The more the co-op has resisted, the more legal firepower >Monsanto has aimed at it. Pilot Grove's lawyer, Steven H. Schwartz, >described Monsanto in a court filing as pursuing a " scorched earth >tactic, " intent on " trying to drive the co-op into the ground. " > >Even after Pilot Grove turned over thousands more pages of sales >records going back five years, and covering virtually every one of its >farmer customers, Monsanto wanted more -- the right to inspect the co- >op's hard drives. When the co-op offered to provide an electronic >version of any record, Monsanto demanded hands-on access to Pilot >Grove's in-house computers. > >Monsanto next petitioned to make potential damages punitive -- >tripling the amount that Pilot Grove might have to pay if found >guilty. After a judge denied that request, Monsanto expanded the scope >of the pre- trial investigation by seeking to quadruple the number of >depositions. > > " Monsanto is doing its best to make this case so expensive to defend >that the Co-op will have no choice but to relent, " Pilot Grove's >lawyer said in a court filing. > >With Pilot Grove still holding out for a trial, Monsanto now >subpoenaed the records of more than 100 of the co-op's customers. In a > " You are Commanded E " notice, the farmers were ordered to gather up >five years of invoices, receipts, and all other papers relating to >their soybean and herbicide purchases, and to have the documents >delivered to a law office in St. Louis. Monsanto gave them two weeks >to comply. > >Whether Pilot Grove can continue to wage its legal battle remains to >be seen. Whatever the outcome, the case shows why Monsanto is so >detested in farm country, even by those who buy its products. " I don't >know of a company that chooses to sue its own customer base, " says >Joseph Mendelson, of the Center for Food Safety. " It's a very bizarre >business strategy. " But it's one that Monsanto manages to get away >with, because increasingly it's the dominant vendor in town. > >Chemicals? What Chemicals? > >The Monsanto Company has never been one of America's friendliest >corporate citizens. Given Monsanto's current dominance in the field of >bioengineering, it's worth looking at the company's own DNA. The >future of the company may lie in seeds, but the seeds of the company >lie in chemicals. Communities around the world are still reaping the >environmental consequences of Monsanto's origins. > >Monsanto was founded in 1901 by John Francis Queeny, a tough, cigar- >smoking Irishman with a sixth-grade education. A buyer for a wholesale >drug company, Queeny had an idea. But like a lot of employees with >ideas, he found that his boss wouldn't listen to him. So he went into >business for himself on the side. Queeny was convinced there was money >to be made manufacturing a substance called saccharin, an artificial >sweetener then imported from Germany. He took $1,500 of his savings, >borrowed another $3,500, and set up shop in a dingy warehouse near the >St. Louis waterfront. With borrowed equipment and secondhand machines, >he began producing saccharin for the U.S. market. He called the >company the Monsanto Chemical Works, Monsanto being his wife's maiden >name. > >The German cartel that controlled the market for saccharin wasn't >pleased, and cut the price from $4.50 to $1 a pound to try to force >Queeny out of business. The young company faced other challenges. > >Questions arose about the safety of saccharin, and the U.S. Department >of Agriculture even tried to ban it. Fortunately for Queeny, he wasn't >up against opponents as aggressive and litigious as the Monsanto of >today. His persistence and the loyalty of one steady customer kept the >company afloat. That steady customer was a new company in Georgia >named Coca-Cola. > >Monsanto added more and more products -- vanillin, caffeine, and drugs >used as sedatives and laxatives. In 1917, Monsanto began making >aspirin, and soon became the largest maker worldwide. During World War >I, cut off from imported European chemicals, Monsanto was forced to >manufacture its own, and its position as a leading force in the >chemical industry was assured. > >After Queeny was diagnosed with cancer, in the late 1920s, his only >son, Edgar, became president. Where the father had been a classic >entrepreneur, Edgar Monsanto Queeny was an empire builder with a grand >vision. It was Edgar -- shrewd, daring, and intuitive ( " He can see >around the next corner, " his secretary once said) -- who built >Monsanto into a global powerhouse. Under Edgar Queeny and his >successors, Monsanto extended its reach into a phenomenal number of >products: > >plastics, resins, rubber goods, fuel additives, artificial caffeine, >industrial fluids, vinyl siding, dishwasher detergent, anti-freeze, >fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides. Its safety glass protects the >U.S. Constitution and the Mona Lisa. Its synthetic fibers are the >basis of Astroturf. > >During the 1970s, the company shifted more and more resources into >biotechnology. In 1981 it created a molecular-biology group for >research in plant genetics. The next year, Monsanto scientists hit >gold: they became the first to genetically modify a plant cell. " It >will now be possible to introduce virtually any gene into plant cells >with the ultimate goal of improving crop productivity, " said Ernest >Jaworski, director of Monsanto's Biological Sciences Program. > >Over the next few years, scientists working mainly in the company's >vast new Life Sciences Research Center, 25 miles west of St. Louis, >developed one genetically modified product after another -- cotton, >soybeans, corn, canola. From the start, G.M. seeds were controversial >with the public as well as with some farmers and European consumers. > >Monsanto has sought to portray G.M. seeds as a panacea, a way to >alleviate poverty and feed the hungry. Robert Shapiro, Monsanto's >president during the 1990s, once called G.M. seeds " the single most >successful introduction of technology in the history of agriculture, >including the plow. " > >By the late 1990s, Monsanto, having rebranded itself into a " life >sciences " company, had spun off its chemical and fibers operations >into a new company called Solutia. After an additional reorganization, >Monsanto re-incorporated in 2002 and officially declared itself an > " agricultural company. " > >In its company literature, Monsanto now refers to itself >disingenuously as a " relatively new company " whose primary goal is >helping " farmers around the world in their mission to feed, clothe, >and fuel " a growing planet. In its list of corporate milestones, all >but a handful are from the recent era. As for the company's early >history, the decades when it grew into an industrial powerhouse now >held potentially responsible for more than 50 Environmental Protection >Agency Superfund sites -- none of that is mentioned. It's as though >the original Monsanto, the company that long had the word " chemical " >as part of its name, never existed. One of the benefits of doing this, >as the company does not point out, was to channel the bulk of the >growing backlog of chemical lawsuits and liabilities onto Solutia, >keeping the Monsanto brand pure. > >But Monsanto's past, especially its environmental legacy, is very much >with us. For many years Monsanto produced two of the most toxic >substances ever known -- polychlorinated biphenyls, better known as >PCBs, and dioxin. Monsanto no longer produces either, but the places >where it did are still struggling with the aftermath, and probably >always will be. > > " Systemic Intoxication " Twelve miles downriver from Charleston, West >Virginia, is the town of Nitro, where Monsanto operated a chemical >plant from 1929 to 1995. In 1948 the plant began to make a powerful >herbicide known as 2,4,5-T, called " weed bug " by the workers. A by- >product of the process was the creation of a chemical that would later >be known as dioxin. > >The name dioxin refers to a group of highly toxic chemicals that have >been linked to heart disease, liver disease, human reproductive >disorders, and developmental problems. Even in small amounts, dioxin >persists in the environment and accumulates in the body. In 1997 the >International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World >Health Organization, classified the most powerful form of dioxin as a >substance that causes cancer in humans. In 2001 the U.S. government >listed the chemical as a " known human carcinogen. " > >On March 8, 1949, a massive explosion rocked Monsanto's Nitro plant >when a pressure valve blew on a container cooking up a batch of >herbicide. The noise from the release was a scream so loud that it >drowned out the emergency steam whistle for five minutes. A plume of >vapor and white smoke drifted across the plant and out over town. > >Residue from the explosion coated the interior of the building and >those inside with what workers described as " a fine black powder. " > >Many felt their skin prickle and were told to scrub down. > >Within days, workers experienced skin eruptions. Many were soon >diagnosed with chloracne, a condition similar to common acne but more >severe, longer lasting, and potentially disfiguring. Others felt >intense pains in their legs, chest, and trunk. A confidential medical >report at the time said the explosion " caused a systemic intoxication >in the workers involving most major organ systems. " Doctors who >examined four of the most seriously injured men detected a strong odor >coming from them when they were all together in a closed room. " We >believe these men are excreting a foreign chemical through their >skins, " the confidential report to Monsanto noted. Court records >indicate that 226 plant workers became ill. > >According to court documents that have surfaced in a West Virginia >court case, Monsanto downplayed the impact, stating that the >contaminant affecting workers was " fairly slow acting " and caused > " only an irritation of the skin. " > >In the meantime, the Nitro plant continued to produce herbicides, >rubber products, and other chemicals. In the 1960s, the factory >manufactured Agent Orange, the powerful herbicide which the U.S. > >military used to defoliate jungles during the Vietnam War, and which >later was the focus of lawsuits by veterans contending that they had >been harmed by exposure. As with Monsanto's older herbicides, the >manufacturing of Agent Orange created dioxin as a by-product. > >As for the Nitro plant's waste, some was burned in incinerators, some >dumped in landfills or storm drains, some allowed to run into streams. > >As Stuart Calwell, a lawyer who has represented both workers and >residents in Nitro, put it, " Dioxin went wherever the product went, >down the sewer, shipped in bags, and when the waste was burned, out in >the air. " > >In 1981 several former Nitro employees filed lawsuits in federal >court, charging that Monsanto had knowingly exposed them to chemicals >that caused long-term health problems, including cancer and heart >disease. They alleged that Monsanto knew that many chemicals used at >Nitro were potentially harmful, but had kept that information from >them. On the eve of a trial, in 1988, Monsanto agreed to settle most >of the cases by making a single lump payment of $1.5 million. Monsanto >also agreed to drop its claim to collect $305,000 in court costs from >six retired Monsanto workers who had unsuccessfully charged in another >lawsuit that Monsanto had recklessly exposed them to dioxin. Monsanto >had attached liens to the retirees' homes to guarantee collection of >the debt. > >Monsanto stopped producing dioxin in Nitro in 1969, but the toxic >chemical can still be found well beyond the Nitro plant site. Repeated >studies have found elevated levels of dioxin in nearby rivers, >streams, and fish. Residents have sued to seek damages from Monsanto >and Solutia. Earlier this year, a West Virginia judge merged those >lawsuits into a class-action suit. A Monsanto spokesman said, " We >believe the allegations are without merit and we'll defend ourselves >vigorously. " The suit will no doubt take years to play out. Time is >one thing that Monsanto always has, and that the plaintiffs usually >don't. > >Poisoned Lawns Five hundred miles to the south, the people of >Anniston, Alabama, know all about what the people of Nitro are going >through. They've been there. In fact, you could say, they're still >there. > > From 1929 to 1971, Monsanto's Anniston works produced PCBs as >industrial coolants and insulating fluids for transformers and other >electrical equipment. One of the wonder chemicals of the 20th century, >PCBs were exceptionally versatile and fire-resistant, and became >central to many American industries as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, >and sealants. But PCBs are toxic. A member of a family of chemicals >that mimic hormones, PCBs have been linked to damage in the liver and >in the neurological, immune, endocrine, and reproductive systems. The >Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) and the Agency for Toxic >Substances and Disease Registry, part of the Department of Health and >Human Services, now classify PCBs as " probable carcinogens. " > >Today, 37 years after PCB production ceased in Anniston, and after >tons of contaminated soil have been removed to try to reclaim the >site, the area around the old Monsanto plant remains one of the most >polluted spots in the U.S. > >People in Anniston find themselves in this fix today largely because >of the way Monsanto disposed of PCB waste for decades. Excess PCBs >were dumped in a nearby open-pit landfill or allowed to flow off the >property with storm water. Some waste was poured directly into Snow >Creek, which runs alongside the plant and empties into a larger >stream, Choccolocco Creek. PCBs also turned up in private lawns after >the company invited Anniston residents to use soil from the plant for >their lawns, according to The Anniston Star. > >So for decades the people of Anniston breathed air, planted gardens, >drank from wells, fished in rivers, and swam in creeks contaminated >with PCBs -- without knowing anything about the danger. It wasn't >until the 1990s -- 20 years after Monsanto stopped making PCBs in >Anniston -- that widespread public awareness of the problem there took >hold. > >Studies by health authorities consistently found elevated levels of >PCBs in houses, yards, streams, fields, fish, and other wildlife -- >and in people. In 2003, Monsanto and Solutia entered into a consent >decree with the E.P.A. to clean up Anniston. Scores of houses and >small businesses were to be razed, tons of contaminated soil dug up >and carted off, and streambeds scooped of toxic residue. The cleanup >is under way, and it will take years, but some doubt it will ever be >completed -- the job is massive. To settle residents' claims, Monsanto >has also paid $550 million to 21,000 Anniston residents exposed to >PCBs, but many of them continue to live with PCBs in their bodies. > >Back to top >Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post >Messages in this topic (1) >2. Monsanto, Part 2 >Posted by: " VoiceAnalysis " VoiceAnalysis soundstonedchick >Fri May 9, 2008 8:53 pm (PDT) >Monsanto, contd. >Once PCB is absorbed into human tissue, there it forever remains. > >Monsanto shut down PCB production in Anniston in 1971, and the company >ended all its American PCB operations in 1977. Also in 1977, Monsanto >closed a PCB plant in Wales. In recent years, residents near the >village of Groesfaen, in southern Wales, have noticed vile odors >emanating from an old quarry outside the village. As it turns out, >Monsanto had dumped thousands of tons of waste from its nearby PCB >plant into the quarry. British authorities are struggling to decide >what to do with what they have now identified as among the most >contaminated places in Britain. > > " No Cause for Public Alarm " What had Monsanto known -- or what should >it have known -- about the potential dangers of the chemicals it was >manufacturing? There's considerable documentation lurking in court >records from many lawsuits indicating that Monsanto knew quite a lot. >Let's look just at the example of PCBs. > >The evidence that Monsanto refused to face questions about their >toxicity is quite clear. In 1956 the company tried to sell the navy a >hydraulic fluid for its submarines called Pydraul 150, which contained >PCBs. Monsanto supplied the navy with test results for the product. > >But the navy decided to run its own tests. Afterward, navy officials >informed Monsanto that they wouldn't be buying the product. > > " Applications of Pydraul 150 caused death in all of the rabbits >tested " and indicated " definite liver damage, " navy officials told >Monsanto, according to an internal Monsanto memo divulged in the >course of a court proceeding. " No matter how we discussed the >situation, " complained Monsanto's medical director, R. Emmet Kelly, > " it was impossible to change their thinking that Pydraul 150 is just >too toxic for use in submarines. " > >Ten years later, a biologist conducting studies for Monsanto in >streams near the Anniston plant got quick results when he submerged >his test fish. As he reported to Monsanto, according to The Washington >Post, " All 25 fish lost equilibrium and turned on their sides in 10 >seconds and all were dead in 3 minutes. " > >When the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) turned up high levels >of PCBs in fish near the Anniston plant in 1970, the company swung >into action to limit the P.R. damage. An internal memo entitled > " confidential -- f.y.i. and destroy " from Monsanto official Paul B. > >Hodges reviewed steps under way to limit disclosure of the >information. One element of the strategy was to get public officials >to fight Monsanto's battle: " Joe Crockett, Secretary of the Alabama >Water Improvement Commission, will try to handle the problem quietly >without release of the information to the public at this time, " >according to the memo. > >Despite Monsanto's efforts, the information did get out, but the >company was able to blunt its impact. Monsanto's Anniston plant >manager " convinced " a reporter for The Anniston Star that there was >really nothing to worry about, and an internal memo from Monsanto's >headquarters in St. Louis summarized the story that subsequently >appeared in the newspaper: " Quoting both plant management and the >Alabama Water Improvement Commission, the feature emphasized the PCB >problem was relatively new, was being solved by Monsanto and, at this >point, was no cause for public alarm. " > >In truth, there was enormous cause for public alarm. But that harm was >done by the " Original Monsanto Company, " not " Today's Monsanto >Company " (the words and the distinction are Monsanto's). The Monsanto >of today says that it can be trusted -- that its biotech crops are " as >wholesome, nutritious and safe as conventional crops, " and that milk >from cows injected with its artificial growth hormone is the same as, >and as safe as, milk from any other cow. > >The Milk Wars Jeff Kleinpeter takes very good care of his dairy cows. >In the winter he turns on heaters to warm their barns. In the summer, >fans blow gentle breezes to cool them, and on especially hot days, a >fine mist floats down to take the edge off Louisiana's heat. The dairy >has gone " to the ultimate end of the earth for cow comfort, " says >Kleinpeter, a fourth-generation dairy farmer in Baton Rouge. He says >visitors marvel at what he does: " I've had many of them say, 'When I >die, I want to come back as a Kleinpeter cow.' " Monsanto would like to >change the way Jeff Kleinpeter and his family do business. >Specifically, Monsanto doesn't like the label on Kleinpeter Dairy's >milk cartons: " From Cows Not Treated with rBGH. " To consumers, that >means the milk comes from cows that were not given artificial bovine >growth hormone, a supplement developed by Monsanto that can be >injected into dairy cows to increase their milk output. > >No one knows what effect, if any, the hormone has on milk or the >people who drink it. Studies have not detected any difference in the >quality of milk produced by cows that receive rBGH, or rBST, a term by >which it is also known. But Jeff Kleinpeter -- like millions of >consumers -- wants no part of rBGH. Whatever its effect on humans, if >any, Kleinpeter feels certain it's harmful to cows because it speeds >up their metabolism and increases the chances that they'll contract a >painful illness that can shorten their lives. " It's like putting a >Volkswagen car in with the Indianapolis 500 racers, " he says. " You >gotta keep the pedal to the metal the whole way through, and pretty >soon that poor little Volkswagen engine's going to burn up. " > >Kleinpeter Dairy has never used Monsanto's artificial hormone, and the >dairy requires other dairy farmers from whom it buys milk to attest >that they don't use it, either. At the suggestion of a marketing >consultant, the dairy began advertising its milk as coming from rBGH- >free cows in 2005, and the label began appearing on Kleinpeter milk >cartons and in company literature, including a new Web site of >Kleinpeter products that proclaims, " We treat our cows with love ... > >not rBGH. " > >The dairy's sales soared. For Kleinpeter, it was simply a matter of >giving consumers more information about their product. > >But giving consumers that information has stirred the ire of Monsanto. > >The company contends that advertising by Kleinpeter and other dairies >touting their " no rBGH " milk reflects adversely on Monsanto's product. > >In a letter to the Federal Trade Commission in February 2007, Monsanto >said that, notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence that there is no >difference in the milk from cows treated with its product, " milk >processors persist in claiming on their labels and in advertisements >that the use of rBST is somehow harmful, either to cows or to the >people who consume milk from rBST-supplemented cows. " > >Monsanto called on the commission to investigate what it called the > " deceptive advertising and labeling practices " of milk processors such >as Kleinpeter, accusing them of misleading consumers " by falsely >claiming that there are health and safety risks associated with milk >from rBST-supplemented cows. " As noted, Kleinpeter does not make any >such claims -- he simply states that his milk comes from cows not >injected with rBGH. > >Monsanto's attempt to get the F.T.C. to force dairies to change their >advertising was just one more step in the corporation's efforts to >extend its reach into agriculture. After years of scientific debate >and public controversy, the F.D.A. in 1993 approved commercial use of >rBST, basing its decision in part on studies submitted by Monsanto. > >That decision allowed the company to market the artificial hormone. > >The effect of the hormone is to increase milk production, not exactly >something the nation needed then -- or needs now. The U.S. was >actually awash in milk, with the government buying up the surplus to >prevent a collapse in prices. > >Monsanto began selling the supplement in 1994 under the name Posilac. > >Monsanto acknowledges that the possible side effects of rBST for cows >include lameness, disorders of the uterus, increased body temperature, >digestive problems, and birthing difficulties. Veterinary drug reports >note that " cows injected with Posilac are at an increased risk for >mastitis, " an udder infection in which bacteria and pus may be pumped >out with the milk. What's the effect on humans? The F.D.A. has >consistently said that the milk produced by cows that receive rBGH is >the same as milk from cows that aren't injected: " The public can be >confident that milk and meat from BST-treated cows is safe to >consume. " Nevertheless, some scientists are concerned by the lack of >long-term studies to test the additive's impact, especially on >children. A Wisconsin geneticist, William von Meyer, observed that >when rBGH was approved the longest study on which the F.D.A.'s >approval was based covered only a 90-day laboratory test with small >animals. " But people drink milk for a lifetime, " he noted. Canada and >the European Union have never approved the commercial sale of the >artificial hormone. Today, nearly 15 years after the F.D.A. approved >rBGH, there have still been no long-term studies " to determine the >safety of milk from cows that receive artificial growth hormone, " says >Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist for Consumers Union. Not only >have there been no studies, he adds, but the data that does exist all >comes from Monsanto. " There is no scientific consensus about the >safety, " he says. > >However F.D.A. approval came about, Monsanto has long been wired into >Washington. Michael R. Taylor was a staff attorney and executive >assistant to the F.D.A. commissioner before joining a law firm in >Washington in 1981, where he worked to secure F.D.A. approval of >Monsanto's artificial growth hormone before returning to the F.D.A. as >deputy commissioner in 1991. Dr. Michael A. Friedman, formerly the >F.D.A.'s deputy commissioner for operations, joined Monsanto in 1999 >as a senior vice president. Linda J. Fisher was an assistant >administrator at the E.P.A. when she left the agency in 1993. She >became a vice president of Monsanto, from 1995 to 2000, only to return >to the E.P.A. as deputy administrator the next year. William D. > >Ruckelshaus, former E.P.A. administrator, and Mickey Kantor, former >U.S. trade representative, each served on Monsanto's board after >leaving government. Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas was an >attorney in Monsanto's corporate-law department in the 1970s. He wrote >the Supreme Court opinion in a crucial G.M.-seed patent-rights case in >2001 that benefited Monsanto and all G.M.-seed companies. Donald >Rumsfeld never served on the board or held any office at Monsanto, but >Monsanto must occupy a soft spot in the heart of the former defense >secretary. Rumsfeld was chairman and C.E.O. of the pharmaceutical >maker G. D. Searle & Co. when Monsanto acquired Searle in 1985, after >Searle had experienced difficulty in finding a buyer. Rumsfeld's stock >and options in Searle were valued at $12 million at the time of the >sale. > > From the beginning some consumers have consistently been hesitant to >drink milk from cows treated with artificial hormones. This is one >reason Monsanto has waged so many battles with dairies and regulators >over the wording of labels on milk cartons. It has sued at least two >dairies and one co-op over labeling. > >Critics of the artificial hormone have pushed for mandatory labeling >on all milk products, but the F.D.A. has resisted and even taken >action against some dairies that labeled their milk " BST-free. " Since >BST is a natural hormone found in all cows, including those not >injected with Monsanto's artificial version, the F.D.A. argued that no >dairy could claim that its milk is BST-free. The F.D.A. later issued >guidelines allowing dairies to use labels saying their milk comes from > " non-supplemented cows, " as long as the carton has a disclaimer saying >that the artificial supplement does not in any way change the milk. So >the milk cartons from Kleinpeter Dairy, for example, carry a label on >the front stating that the milk is from cows not treated with rBGH, >and the rear panel says, " Government studies have shown no significant >difference between milk derived from rBGH-treated and non-rBGH-treated >cows. " That's not good enough for Monsanto. > >The Next Battleground As more and more dairies have chosen to >advertise their milk as " No rBGH, " Monsanto has gone on the offensive. >Its attempt to force the F.T.C. to look into what Monsanto called > " deceptive practices " by dairies trying to distance themselves from >the company's artificial hormone was the most recent national salvo. >But after reviewing Monsanto's claims, the F.T.C.'s Division of >Advertising Practices decided in August 2007 that a " formal >investigation and enforcement action is not warranted at this time. " >The agency found some instances where dairies had made " unfounded >health and safety claims, " but these were mostly on Web sites, not on >milk cartons. And the F.T.C. > >determined that the dairies Monsanto had singled out all carried >disclaimers that the F.D.A. had found no significant differences in >milk from cows treated with the artificial hormone. > >Blocked at the federal level, Monsanto is pushing for action by the >states. In the fall of 2007, Pennsylvania's agriculture secretary, >Dennis Wolff, issued an edict prohibiting dairies from stamping milk >containers with labels stating their products were made without the >use of the artificial hormone. Wolff said such a label implies that >competitors' milk is not safe, and noted that non-supplemented milk >comes at an unjustified higher price, arguments that Monsanto has >frequently made. The ban was to take effect February 1, 2008. > >Wolff's action created a firestorm in Pennsylvania (and beyond) from >angry consumers. So intense was the outpouring of e-mails, letters, >and calls that Pennsylvania governor Edward Rendell stepped in and >reversed his agriculture secretary, saying, " The public has a right to >complete information about how the milk they buy is produced. " > >On this issue, the tide may be shifting against Monsanto. Organic >dairy products, which don't involve rBGH, are soaring in popularity. > >Supermarket chains such as Kroger, Publix, and Safeway are embracing >them. Some other companies have turned away from rBGH products, >including Starbucks, which has banned all milk products from cows >treated with rBGH. Although Monsanto once claimed that an estimated 30 >percent of the nation's dairy cows were injected with rBST, it's >widely believed that today the number is much lower. > >But don't count Monsanto out. Efforts similar to the one in >Pennsylvania have been launched in other states, including New Jersey, >Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Utah, and Missouri. A Monsanto-backed group >called afact -- American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation >of Technology -- has been spearheading efforts in many of these >states. > >afact describes itself as a " producer organization " that decries > " questionable labeling tactics and activism " by marketers who have >convinced some consumers to " shy away from foods using new >technology. " afact reportedly uses the same St. Louis public-relations >firm, Osborn & Barr, employed by Monsanto. An Osborn & Barr spokesman >told The Kansas City Star that the company was doing work for afact on >a pro bono basis. > >Even if Monsanto's efforts to secure across-the-board labeling changes >should fall short, there's nothing to stop state agriculture >departments from restricting labeling on a dairy-by-dairy basis. > >Beyond that, Monsanto also has allies whose foot soldiers will almost >certainly keep up the pressure on dairies that don't use Monsanto's >artificial hormone. Jeff Kleinpeter knows about them, too. > >He got a call one day from the man who prints the labels for his milk >cartons, asking if he had seen the attack on Kleinpeter Dairy that had >been posted on the Internet. Kleinpeter went online to a site called >StopLabelingLies, which claims to " help consumers by publicizing >examples of false and misleading food and other product labels. " > >There, sure enough, Kleinpeter and other dairies that didn't use >Monsanto's product were being accused of making misleading claims to >sell their milk. > >There was no address or phone number on the Web site, only a list of >groups that apparently contribute to the site and whose issues range >from disparaging organic farming to downplaying the impact of global >warming. " They were criticizing people like me for doing what we had a >right to do, had gone through a government agency to do, " says >Kleinpeter. " We never could get to the bottom of that Web site to get >that corrected. " > >As it turns out, the Web site counts among its contributors Steven >Milloy, the " junk science " commentator for FoxNews.com and operator of >junkscience.com, which claims to debunk " faulty scientific data and >analysis. " It may come as no surprise that earlier in his career, >Milloy, who calls himself the " junkman, " was a registered lobbyist for >Monsanto. > >Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele are Vanity Fair contributing editors. >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >BIG PHARMA, BIG FOOD, BIG FUEL, AND BIG FASCISM >by Alan Stang, May 9, 2008 > >What form of government are we supposed to have? The Founders of this country >bequeathed us a system we used to call Free Enterprise, in which the >government was supposed to leave business alone. Because of that system, >endorsed by >scripture, we became the greatest nation known to history. > >Now, what kind of system do we actually have today? Because the original >system has been perverted first by ordinary criminals, then by th for >world government the system we have now, the perversion, bega >mercantilism†and today is best described as Fascism. > >“Mercantilism†was the system the Founding Fathers designed our new >country >to reject. In part, it meant government control of the economy and colonies >controlled by force of arms. One example of a mercantilist enterprise was the >British East India Company, which ruled that country for the Queen. >Another was >the Dutch East India Company, which, at the height of its power, had forty >warships. > >A man named Benito Mussolini renamed this system and installed it in Italy >after World War I. He called it “Fascism.†Remember that Fascism had >nothing to >do with oppressing Jews. Mussolini came to power legally in 1922, after the >infamous March on Rome, when no one had ever heard of former Corporal Hitler. >Hitler would not become Chancellor, legally, for another eleven years, not >until 1933. Both Mussolini and Hitler were basically street thugs, but, >again, >they took control of their governments legally, within the constitutional >frameworks of their respective countries. > >What was and is Fascism? Mussolini is the expert. Would you believe him? >According to Mussolini, Fascism is an amalgamation of the monster >corporations and >the government, which gives the former the force they need to impose their >will and gives the latter the power they crave. Indeed, Mussolini’s >system also >became known as “the corporate state.†> >In the beginning, there was considerable admiration for Mussolini’s >system in >Washington, District of Corporatism. Yes, he was a thug, and, yes, his >followers wore black shirts, but he certainly did “make the trains run >on time.†>Indeed, there was even some enthusiasm in the District for Adolf’s typical >German efficiency at the very beginning, before the discovery of the >Holocaust. > >There is considerable reluctance among patriots to call our present, >perverted system “Fascism,†because that is what the Communists >traditionally have >called it, and a patriot rightly shrinks from parroting something the >Communists >say. That reluctance should be dismissed because the difference is that the >Communists want to replace Fascism with their version of Socialism, which >is of >course Communism, while patriots want to replace the present Fascist system >with the original system of Free Enterprise. Patriots want to revive the >dormant Constitution. > >This is important because no other term defines the present system in the >United States better than Fascism. Under el presidente Jorge W. Boosh, the >federal government has become nothing else but a tool and weapon of the >Big: Big >Pharma, Big Food, Big Fuel, Big Physician and on and on. That is why we are >presently in Iraq. Marine Corps legend Major General Smedley Butler – >two Medals of >Honor wrote about it in War Is a Racket, which you can read on li >And the situation he wrote about in 1935 is infinitely worse today, >infinitely more Fascist. Big Pharma runs the Food and Drug Administration, >which is >supposed to regulate it. Our Fascist system routinely shuttles bureaucrats >and >executives back and forth between them, to such an extent that it is >realistic >to consider them two legs on the same bug. Big Pharma/FDA is presently using >government force to outlaw vitamins, via Codex Alimentarius, coming soon >to your >local “health food†store. > >Big Food includes companies like Monsanto Chemical, a monster straight out of >science fiction alien horror. With help from the government, Monsanto is >literally trying to monopolize agricultural seeds. If it succeeds, it will >control >food. It is presently conducting a reign of terror against the world’s >farmers, many of whom are committing suicide. The Monsanto monster will >not stop >until it kills us, so the only solution is to destroy it. See F. William >Engdahl’ >s new book, Seeds of Destruction, the Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, >published by Global Research. > >In a piece by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, in the May, 2008 Vanity >Fair, you will learn that Monsanto is pressuring the Federal Trade Commission >to force dairymen to stop saying on their labels that their milk does not >contain a dangerous Monsanto bovine growth hormone. If successful, >Monsanto would >succeed in repealing the First Amendment. > >Barlett and Steele also say this: “. . . Monsanto relies on a shadowy >army of >private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear >into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they >secretly >videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate >community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming >activities. >Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others >confront >farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto >access to their private records. Farmers call them the ‘seed police’ >and use >words such as ‘Gestapo’ and ‘Mafia’ to describe their tactics.†> >Now comes word that rancher Derry Brownfield has been kicked off the network >where he has conducted a daily talk show for thirty five years, because Derry >dared to expose Monsanto’s satanic machinations. Monsanto used its >advertising >clout for the purpose. That is why you see nothing about Big Pharma, Big >Food, Big Medicine, etc., in the media. > >You already know about Big Banking and Big Oil. Today let’s look at Big >Science. A book that got by me because it has received even less media >coverage >than Dr. Ron No Such Candidate Paul, is The China Study, Startling >Implications >for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-Term Health(Dallas, BenBella Books, 2005), >by T. >Colin Campbell, Ph.D., who stands at the pinnacle of world scientific >research. He is Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell. >He has >authored more than 300 research papers and has received more than seventy >grant-years of peer-reviewed research funding. > >Conducted by Dr. Campbell, the twenty-year China Study remains the biggest >study ever conducted of what people eat. Dr. Campbell adds to it a >mountain of >enough other scientific studies by other scientists high enough to daunt Sir >Edmund Hillary, the conqueror of Everest. > >The enormous body of findings proves that a plant-based diet a ve diet >that excludes meat (including fish and eggs) and dairy (including cheese) >not only produces sensible weight loss; it also arrests and even reverses >killer diseases like diabetes, cancer and heart disease. (Remember, we are >talking about a medical treatment, not about ordinary vegetarianism. I am not >arguing for or against it.) Indeed, he says, it is a better cure for those >diseases >than any of the orthodox, government-endorsed treatments presently available. > >That is why I had never heard of his book. My point is not whether you agree >or disagree. It isn’t whether or not his ideas work for you; it is that Dr. >Campbell’s findings have been suppressed in our Fascist system by a >corporate >monster that includes Big University, Big Federal Grants and Big Food, >because >those findings would turn that system upside down. Imagine what would >happen to >behemoths like McDonald’s and the dairy industry were his findings >generally >known. > >Here are a couple of examples of what happens in our Fascist system when >doctors implement the findings in The China Study. John McDougall, M.D., >reports >that he asked one cardiologist to let him show a McDougall patient the >scientific literature on the subject after the cardiologist recommended >surgery. The >cardiologist refused, saying the information would just “confuse†the >patient. > >Other physicians would send their own wives and children to see Dr. >McDougall, but would never refer a patient to him. It is one thing to be >ignorant. This >is quite another. I believe such a physician is committing a criminal act. He >should be publicly humiliated, stripped of his license to practice and thrown >into prison. Because such quacks are literally killing people to maintain >their lucrative rackets, I also would not be upset were survivors of the >deceased >to apply tar and feathers and run them out of town. > >Dr. McDougall says these medical monsters were fearful of the blowback when >their patients came to see him. “. . . They’d come to me with heart >disease or >high blood pressure or diabetes. I’d put them on the diet and they’d >go back >off all their pills and soon their numbers would be normal. They’d go to >their doctor and say, ‘Why the hell didn’t you tell me about this >before? Why did >you let me suffer, spend all this money, almost die, when all I had to do was >eat oatmeal?’ The doctors didn’t want to hear this.†> >See my book, Electronic Medicine: Cure for Cancer? at www.alanstang.com, for >another manifestation of the fact that these quacks are not at all men of >science. A man of science would be on fire to learn what Dr. McDougall >does to >produce these results. Instead, he says, the quacks hurry the recovered >patients >out of their offices so they will not have to hear more. > >Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., M.D., is a distinguished surgeon at the Cleveland >Clinic. Ess, like McDougall, treats with diet, so, however distinguished he >is, the men who run the hospital won’t take his calls. They won’t >install his >program at the Clinic, but they eat meat and dairy and come to him for >treatment. Dr. Ess says as follows: > >“I have now treated a number of senior staff with coronary disease at the >Clinic senior staff physicians. I have also treated a number of s >trustees. One of the trustees knows about the frustrations that we’ve >had trying >to get this into the Clinic, and he says, ‘I think, if the word gets out >that >Esselstyn has this treatment that arrests and reverses this disease at the >Cleveland Clinic, and it’s been used by senior staff and he’s treated >senior >trustees, but he’s not permitted to treat the common herd, we could be >open for >a lawsuit.’†> >A lawsuit would be lenient. Get out the horse whips! Again, please understand >that I am not suggesting you stop eating dairy and meat. I am not a doctor >and don’t know whether you should do that. As always, I am arguing in >favor of >your right to get the medical treatment you want, be it vegetarianism or >something else. The Nazi medical horror you will read about in The China >Study is an >inevitable product of our Fascist system, including Big Pharma, Big Medicine >and Big Government, including the federal grants that keep researchers in >line. > >Someone who opposes Fascism would be working to dismantle his totalitarian >system. Notice that the Socialists including the Socialists who r >political parties do not, despite their professed hostility to Fa >because Fascism is one of several versions of Socialism and they are >Socialists. >Remember that Hitler called his movement Nazism, “National Socialism. >Death to Monsanto! >© 2008 - Alan Stang - >Alan Stang was one of Mike Wallace’s original writers at Channel 13 in New >York, where he wrote some of the scripts that sent Mike to CBS. Stang has >been a >radio talk show host himself. In Los Angeles, he went head to head nightly >with Larry King, and, according to Arbitron, had almost twice as many >listeners. >He has been a foreign correspondent. He has written hundreds of feature >magazine articles in national magazines and some fifteen books, for which >he has >won many awards, including a citation from the Pennsylvania House of >Representatives for journalistic excellence. One of Stang’s exposés >stopped a criminal >attempt to seize control of New Mexico, where a gang seized a court house, >held >a judge hostage and killed a deputy. The scheme was close to success before >Stang intervened. Another Stang exposé inspired major reforms in federal >labor >legislation. > >His first book, It’s Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights, was an >instant best-seller. His first novel, The Highest Virtue, set in the Russian >Revolution, won smashing reviews and five stars, top rating, from the West >Coast >Review of Books, which gave five stars in only one per cent of its reviews. > >Stang has lectured in every American state and around the world and has >guested on many top shows, including CNN’s Cross Fire. Because he and >his wife had >the most kids in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic, where they lived at >the time, the entire family was chosen to be actors in “Havana,†>directed by >Sydney Pollack and starring Robert Redford, the most expensive movie ever >made >(at the time). Alan Stang is the man in the ridiculous Harry Truman shirt >with >the pasted-down hair. He says they made him do it. Website: AlanStang.com >E-Mail: stangfeedback ****** Kraig and Shirley Carroll ... in the woods of SE Kentucky http://www.thehavens.com/ thehavens 606-376-3363 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release 2/14/05 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.