Eight ways Monsanto is destroying our health

Missed this Sept 27th 2013

‘Monsanto Protection Act’ Killed In Senate

http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-prot...g-bill-1412160

Article on aspartame poisoning. Just a section about Monsanto below. Link at bottom for full article.

Herein lies the problem: There were Congressional Hearings when Aspartame was included in 100 different products and strong objection was made concerning its use. Since this initial hearing, there have been two subsequent hearings, and still nothing has been done. The drug and chemical lobbies have very deep pockets.

Sadly, MONSANTO’S patent on Aspartame has EXPIRED! There are now over 5,000 products on the market that contain this deadly chemical and there will be thousands more introduced. Everybody wants a ‘piece of the Aspartame pie. ‘I assure you that MONSANTO, the creator of Aspartame, knows how deadly it is.

And isn’t it ironic that MONSANTO funds, among others, the American Diabetes Association, the American Dietetic Association and the Conference of the American College of Physicians?



http://rhondagessner.wordpress.com/2...n-a-must-read/

I've been doing some research on aspartme in scientific literature, because whenever claims this serious are brought about I feel compelled to get to actual, peer reviewed sources of information. In my brief interlude in medical journals, I have learned the following:

1. Aspartame has been used as an artificial sweetener for the past 30 years.

2. Negative effects of aspartame appears to be limited to men, not women, and Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma are the only two diseases that appear to be linked with aspartame consumption. No links have been established between aspartame consumption and leukemia, haematopoietic and brain neoplasms, or pancreatic, breast, digestive, endometrium, ovary, prostate, or kidney cancers. Aspartame was also not consistently related to vascular events and preterm deliveries. (Marinovich et al. 2013, Schernhammer et al. 2012, see below for full citations and links)

3. People with the genetic metabolic disorder phenylketenoruia (PKU) should avoid aspartame, as aspartame breaks down into phenylalaline. In trials with healthy people, phenylalaline derived from large doses of aspartame (45 mg/kg of body mass) had no effect, but people with PKR lack the ability to break phenylalaline into tyrosine, and so may suffer from phenylalaline toxicity (research as cited in Klotter 2011).

4. Future research is needed to determine if artificial sweeteners (including aspartame) have any health benefits. There is some unclear "chicken or egg" phenomenon between the greater consumption of artificial sweeteners amongst the obese when compared with normal weight individuals (Gardner et al. 2012).

Based upon the above, newly published, peer-reviewed studies in a number of high profile scientific journals with a variety of international (and therefore non-Monsanto influenced) scientists, I surmise that the majority of information regarding the dangers of aspartame in humans are either incorrect or widely exaggerated. I have yet to find any definitive peer reviewed papers that seem to indicate that the negative public perception of aspartame is justified. That said, if anybody does have a scientific, peer-reviewed, published journal article that indicates negative effects of aspartame other than those I have listed above, I would be really grateful if you send the link my way. Please no "gray" literature (blogs, wiki, health sites, etc.) though. I really do want to learn more about this topic if you have valid data to share, but I get thoroughly annoyed with the internet equivalent of Facebook rumor mills. Donna, if you have a link to the actual 1994 report you refer to in your initial post, I would love to read it and any other peer-reviewed supporting information you may have. Thanks!

Sources

Gardner C, Wylie-Rosett J, Gidding SS, Steffen LM, Johnson RK, Reader D, Lichtenstein AH; on behalf the American Heart Association Nutrition Committee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism, Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the American Diabetes Association. Nonnutritive sweeteners: current use and health perspectives: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association. Circulation. 2012: http://circ.ahajournals.org/lookup/d...013e31825c42ee. Accessed 13 November 2013.

Klotter, J. 2011. Aspartame myth? United States Food and Drug Administration. Townsend Letter. The Townsend Letter Group. http://www.biomedsearch.com/article/...258828794.html. Accessed 13 November 2013.

Marinovich , M., C.L. Galli, C. Bosetti, S. Gallus, and C.L. Vecchia. 2013. Aspartame, low-calorie sweeteners and disease: regulatory safety and epidemiological issues. Food and Chemical Toxicology 60:109-115. (http://www.obesityday.org/usr_files/...sweeteners.pdf)

Schernhammer, E.S., K.A. Bertrand, B.M. Birmann, L. Sampson, W.C. Willet, and D. Feskanich. 2012. Consumption of artificial sweetener and sugar containing soda and risk of lymphoma and leukemia in men and women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 96:1419-1428. (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/6/1419.short)

Sources

Gardner C, Wylie-Rosett J, Gidding SS, Steffen LM, Johnson RK, Reader D, Lichtenstein AH; on behalf the American Heart Association Nutrition Committee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism, Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the American Diabetes Association. Nonnutritive sweeteners: current use and health perspectives: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association. Circulation. 2012: http://circ.ahajournals.org/lookup/d...013e31825c42ee. Accessed 13 November 2013.

Klotter, J. 2011. Aspartame myth? United States Food and Drug Administration. Townsend Letter. The Townsend Letter Group. http://www.biomedsearch.com/article/...258828794.html. Accessed 13 November 2013.

Marinovich , M., C.L. Galli, C. Bosetti, S. Gallus, and C.L. Vecchia. 2013. Aspartame, low-calorie sweeteners and disease: regulatory safety and epidemiological issues. Food and Chemical Toxicology 60:109-115. (http://www.obesityday.org/usr_files/...sweeteners.pdf)

Schernhammer, E.S., K.A. Bertrand, B.M. Birmann, L. Sampson, W.C. Willet, and D. Feskanich. 2012. Consumption of artificial sweetener and sugar containing soda and risk of lymphoma and leukemia in men and women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 96:1419-1428. (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/6/1419.short)

Instead of debating about the system of peer-reviewed papers (which I would have a lot to state) just look at all the sources you cited.

Let's start with the first

American Heart Association Nutrition Committee of the Council on Nutrition

Here is a rooster for you that is typical of most of your sources.
http://www.heart.org/idc/groups/hear...ucm_438885.pdf

Would you kindly note present, past and former employees of Monsanto.

How about looking at those that received grants from Monsanto.
The actual members of the panel that have a relationship past/present or received grant funding directly from Monsanto?

The American Heart Association panels on just about everything is completed occupied by people with interests in Monsanto.

A typical peer-reviewed paper writer at the AHA

She has received funding from USDA, Industry (American Egg Board,

Grape Commission, Monsanto, California Raisin Marketing Board, Metagenics, Inc.)

Dr. Fernandez is currently a member of the FDA Nutrition Committee. She has authored
183 peer-review papers plus over 230 scientific abstracts.

Should we go down the list of all the committees you posted and point out the grants from Monsanto and the people on the committees?

The Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology

We wish to acknowledge the fine technical assistance of Judith Diaz-Collier, who constructed the TFPI13–161 cDNA and produced the initial expression TFPI13–161 in E coli and thank Terri Lewis for secretarial assistance. This work was supported by a grant from the Monsanto/Searle Company (to G.J.B.).

If you think they aren't in Europe and around the world your naive. They make grants worldwide to universities and research. They have a strong presents in the EU.


It's not the first time you dismissed and called bias about Monsanto. You seem to ignore the bias in the peer-review process.

The peer-review process is completely bias and filled with elitist..well never-mind.

Really all I have to state is that the USDA, researchers and research universities have become nothing but propaganda for big AG and other industries. Sorry, I didn't have to get approval to publish from peers. Because if they state it is alright then you can't dismiss it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oh no, a blog

Open access is not the problem – my take on Science’s peer review “sting”
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2013/10/04...t-the-problem/

Open access is not the problem – my take on Science’s peer review “sting”
Michael Eisen, Associate Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology | 10/4/13 | 11 comments | Leave a comment
Michael Eisen

In 2011, after having read several really bad papers in the journal Science, I decided to explore just how slipshod their peer-review process is. I knew that their business depends on publishing “sexy” papers. So I created a manuscript that claimed something extraordinary - that I’d discovered a species of bacteria that uses arsenic in its DNA instead of phosphorus. But I made the science so egregiously bad that no competent peer reviewer would accept it. The approach was deeply flawed – there were poor or absent controls in every figure. I used ludicrously elaborate experiments where simple ones would have done. And I failed to include a simple, obvious experiment that would have definitively shown that arsenic was really in the bacteria’s DNA. I then submitted the paper to Science, punching up the impact the work would have on our understanding of extraterrestrials and the origins of life on Earth in the cover letter. And what do you know? They accepted it!

My sting exposed the seedy underside of “subscription-based” scholarly publishing, where some journals routinely lower their standards – in this case by sending the paper to reviewers they knew would be sympathetic - in order to pump up their impact factor and increase subscription revenue. Maybe there are journals out there who do subscription-based publishing right – but my experience should serve as a warning to people thinking about submitting their work to Science and other journals like it.

OK – this isn’t exactly what happened. I didn’t actually write the paper. Far more frighteningly, it was a real paper that contained all of the flaws described above that was actually accepted, and ultimately published, by Science.

I am dredging the arsenic DNA story up again, because today’s Science contains a story by reporter John Bohannon describing a “sting” he conducted into the peer review practices of open access journals. He created a deeply flawed paper about molecules from lichens that inhibit the growth of cancer cells, submitted it to 304 open access journals under assumed names, and recorded what happened. Of the 255 journals that rendered decisions, 157 accepted the paper, most with no discernible sign of having actually carried out peer review. (PLOS ONE rejected the paper, and was one of the few to flag its ethical flaws).

The story is an interesting exploration of the ways peer review is, and isn’t, implemented in today’s biomedical publishing industry. Sadly, but predictably, Science spins this as a problem with open access. Here is their press release:

Spoof Paper Reveals the “Wild West” of Open-Access Publishing

A package of news stories related to this special issue of Science includes a detailed description of a sting operation — orchestrated by contributing news correspondent John Bohannon — that exposes the dark side of open-access publishing. Bohannon explains how he created a spoof scientific report, authored by made-up researchers from institutions that don’t actually exist, and submitted it to 304 peer-reviewed, open-access journals around the world. His hoax paper claimed that a particular molecule slowed the growth of cancer cells, and it was riddled with obvious errors and contradictions. Unfortunately, despite the paper’s flaws, more open-access journals accepted it for publication (157) than rejected it (98). In fact, only 36 of the journals solicited responded with substantive comments that recognized the report’s scientific problems. (And, according to Bohannon, 16 of those journals eventually accepted the spoof paper despite their negative reviews.) The article reveals a “Wild West” landscape that’s emerging in academic publishing, where journals and their editorial staffs aren’t necessarily who or what they claim to be. With his sting operation, Bohannon exposes some of the unscrupulous journals that are clearly not based in the countries they claim, though he also identifies some journals that seem to be doing open-access right.

Although it comes as no surprise to anyone who is bombarded every day by solicitations from new “American” journals of such-and-such seeking papers and offering editorial positions to anyone with an email account, the formal exposure of hucksters out there looking to make a quick buck off of scientists’ desires to get their work published is valuable. It is unacceptable that there are publishers – several owned by big players in the subscription publishing world – who claim that they are carrying out peer review, and charging for it, but not doing it.

But it’s nuts to construe this as a problem unique to open access publishing, if for no other reason than the study didn’t do the control of submitting the same paper to subscription-based publishers (UPDATE: The author, Bohannon, emailed to say that, while his original intention was to look at all journals, practical constraints limited him to OA journals, and that Science played no role in this decision). We obviously don’t know what subscription journals would have done with this paper, but there is every reason to believe that a large number of them would also have accepted the paper (it has many features in common with the arsenic DNA paper after all). Like OA journals, a lot of subscription-based journals have businesses based on accepting lots of papers with little regard to their importance or even validity. When Elsevier and other big commercial publishers pitch their “big deal”, the main thing they push is the number of papers they have in their collection. And one look at many of their journals shows that they also will accept almost anything.

None of this will stop anti-open access campaigners (hello Scholarly Kitchen) from spinning this as a repudiation for enabling fraud. But the real story is that a fair number of journals who actually carried out peer review still accepted the paper, and the lesson people should take home from this story not that open access is bad, but that peer review is a joke. If a nakedly bogus paper is able to get through journals that actually peer reviewed it, think about how many legitimate, but deeply flawed, papers must also get through. Any scientist can quickly point to dozens of papers – including, and perhaps especially, in high impact journals – that are deeply, deeply flawed – the arsenic DNA story is one of many recent examples. As you probably know there has been a lot of smoke lately about the “reproducibility” problem in biomedical science, in which people have found that a majority of published papers report facts that turn out not to be true. This all adds up to showing that peer review simply doesn’t work.

And the real problem isn’t that some fly-by-night publishers hoping to make a quick buck aren’t even doing peer review (although that is a problem). While some fringe OA publishers are playing a short con, subscription publishers are seasoned grifters playing a long con. They fleece the research community of billions of dollars every year by convincing them of something manifestly false – that their journals and their “peer review” process are an essential part of science, and that we need them to filter out the good science – and the good scientists – from the bad. Like all good grifters playing the long con, they get us to believe they are doing something good for us – something we need. They pocket our billions, with elegant sleight of hand, then get us to ignore the fact that crappy papers routinely get into high-profile journals simply because they deal with sexy topics.

But unlike the fly-by-night OA publishers who steal a little bit of money, the subscription publishers’ long con has far more serious consequences. Not only do they traffic in billions rather than thousands of dollars and deny the vast majority of people on Earth access to the findings of publicly funded research, the impact and glamour they sell us to make us willing participants in their grift has serious consequences. Every time they publish because it is sexy, and not because it is right, science is distorted. It distorts research. It distorts funding. And it often distorts public policy.

To suggest – as Science (though not Bohannon) are trying to do – that the problem with scientific publishing is that open access enables internet scamming is like saying that the problem with the international finance system is that it enables Nigerian wire transfer scams.

There are deep problems with science publishing. But the way to fix this is not to curtail open access publishing. It is to fix peer review.

First, and foremost, we need to get past the antiquated idea that the singular act of publication – or publication in a particular journal – should signal for all eternity that a paper is valid, let alone important. Even when people take peer review seriously, it is still just representing the views of 2 or 3 people at a fixed point in time. To invest the judgment of these people with so much meaning is nuts. And it’s far worse when the process is distorted – as it so often is – by the desire to publish sexy papers, or to publish more papers, or because the wrong reviewers were selected, or because they were just too busy to do a good job. If we had, instead, a system where the review process was transparent and persisted for the useful life of a work (as I’ve written about previously), none of the flaws exposed in Bohannon’s piece would matter.

How Corporations Like Monsanto Have Hijacked Higher Education
Academic research is often dictated by corporations that endow professorships, give money to universities, and put their executives on education boards.

May 11, 2012 |





Here’s what happens when corporations begin to control education.

"When I approached professors to discuss research projects addressing organic agriculture in farmer's markets, the first one told me that 'no one cares about people selling food in parking lots on the other side of the train tracks,’” said a PhD student at a large land-grant university who did not wish to be identified. “My academic adviser told me my best bet was to write a grant for Monsanto or the Department of Homeland Security to fund my research on why farmer's markets were stocked with 'black market vegetables' that 'are a bioterrorism threat waiting to happen.' It was communicated to me on more than one occasion throughout my education that I should just study something Monsanto would fund rather than ideas to which I was deeply committed. I ended up studying what I wanted, but received no financial support, and paid for my education out of pocket."

Unfortunately, she's not alone. Conducting research requires funding, and today's research follows the golden rule: The one with the gold makes the rules.

A report just released by Food and Water Watch examines the role of corporate funding of agricultural research at land grant universities, of which there are more than 100. “You hear again and again Congress and regulators clamoring for science-based rules, policies, regulations,” says Food and Water Watch researcher Tim
Schwab, explaining why he began investigating corporate influence in agricultural research. “So if the rules and regulations and policies are based on science that is industry-biased, then the fallout goes beyond academic articles. It really trickles down to farmer livelihoods and consumer choice.”

The report found that nearly one quarter of research funding at land grant universities now comes from corporations, compared to less than 15 percent from the USDA. Although corporate funding of research surpassed USDA funding at these universities in the mid-1990s, the gap is now larger than ever. What's more, a broader look at all corporate agricultural research, $7.4 billion in 2006, dwarfs the mere $5.7 billion in all public funding of agricultural research spent the same year.

Influence does not end with research funding, however. In 2005, nearly one third of agricultural scientists reported consulting for private industry. Corporations endow professorships and donate money to universities in return for having buildings, labs and wings named for them. Purdue University's Department of Nutrition Science blatantly offers corporate affiliates “corporate visibility with students and faculty” and “commitment by faculty and administration to address [corporate] members' needs,” in return for the $6,000 each corporate affiliate pays annually.

In perhaps the most egregious cases, corporate boards and college leadership overlap. In 2009, South Dakota State's president, for example, joined the board of directors of Monsanto, where he earns six figures each year. Bruce Rastetter is simultaneously the co-founder and managing director of a company called AgriSol Energy and a member of the Iowa Board of Regents. Under his influence, Iowa State joined AgriSol in a venture in Tanzania that would have forcefully removed 162,000 people from their land, but the university later pulled out of the project after public outcry.

What is the impact of the flood of corporate cash? “We know from a number of meta-analyses, that corporate funding leads to results that are favorable to the corporate funder,” says Schwab. For example, one peer-reviewed study found that corporate-funded nutrition research on soft drinks, juice and milk were four to eight times more likely to reach conclusions in line with the sponsors' interests. And when a scrupulous scientist publishes research that is unfavorable to the study's funder, he or she should be prepared to look for a new source of funding

I have a very intelligent friend and every time we just discuss mundane topics or ideas his first response to something he thinks goes against is belief system is "show me the peer-review". Like it is the bible. Very intelligent person but lacks some common sense and can never think outside the box or for himself. Everything is based off of what others state as fact.

Originally Posted by SamanthaJane13

Lots of talk these days about the bullying of young boys and girls in school by more aggressive students. This brings to my mind the biggest bully of all: the biotech company, Monsanto Corporation.

Taken in context, Monsanto’s list of corporate crimes should have been enough to pull their corporate charter years ago. And yet we allow them to continue to destroy our food supply, our health and the planet. Monsanto or Monsatan?

Take a look at the company’s track record and decide for yourself.

Agent Orange: Monsanto was the major financial beneficiary of this herbicide used to defoliate the jungles of Vietnam and destroy the health of American troops and their offspring. It also allowed Monsanto and other chemical companies to appeal for and receive protection from veterans seeking damages for their exposure to Agent Orange and any future biotech creations.

Aspartame: As far back as 1994, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a report listing 94 health issues caused by aspartame. It has been shown to cause slow but serious damage to the human body and yet it is used extensively in many commercial products.

Saccharin: Studies have shown that saccharin caused cancer in test rats and mice; and in six human studies, including one done by the National Cancer Institute, that consuming artificial sweeteners, such as saccharin and cyclamate, resulted in bladder cancer.

Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH): A genetically modified hormone injected into dairy cows to produce more milk, despite the fact that more milk was needed. The cows suffer excruciating pain due to swollen udders and mastitis. The pus from the infection enters the milk supply requiring more antibiotics to be given to the cows. BST milk may also cause breast cancer, colon cancer, and prostate cancer in humans.

RoundUp: The world's most commonly used herbicide and weed killer has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, in a study by eminent oncologists Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson of Sweden. Used on genetically modified crops resistant to RoundUp's active ingredient glyphosate, environmentalists and health professionals are concerned that far from reducing herbicide use, glyphosate-resistant crops may result in increased residues in food to which consumers will be exposed.

Genetically Modified Crops (GMO): Monsanto created Frankenfoods by gene-splicing corn, cotton, soy, and canola with DNA from a foreign source. Consequently these crops are resistant to massive doses of the herbicide, RoundUp, but in turn herbicide-resistant superweeds are taking over. After running into resistance in the west, Monsanto is pushing GMO crops in third-world countries.

According to physicist, ecologist, and activist Dr. Vandana Shiva, “Syugenta and Monsanto are rushing ahead with the mapping and patenting of the rice genome. If they could, they would own rice and its genes, even though the 200,000 rice varieties that give us diverse traits have been bred and evolved by rice farmers of Asia collectively over millennia. Their claim to inventing rice is a violence against the integrity of biodiversity and life forms; it is a violence against the knowledge of third-world farmers.”

Terminator Seeds: A technology that produces sterile grains unable to germinate, forcing farmers to buy seeds from Monsanto rather than save and reuse the seeds from their harvest. Terminators can cross-pollinate and contaminate local non-sterile crops putting in danger the future seed supply and eventually giving control of the world’s food supply to Monsanto and the GM industry.

Standard American Diet: According to the Organic Consumers Association, “There is a direct correlation between our genetically engineered food supply and the $2 trillion the U.S. spends annually on medical care, namely an epidemic of diet-related chronic diseases.

Instead of healthy fruits, vegetables, grains, and grass-fed animal products, U.S. factory farms and food processors produce a glut of genetically engineered junk foods that generate heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer. Low fruit and vegetable consumption is directly costing the United States $56 billion a year in diet-related chronic diseases.”


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ygreen/20110...dodHdheXNtb24-

To add.

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=421360
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=325824
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=293440
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=413413

That's the reason I posted that article. Mainly because you can see where the money goes.

At the same time, unilaterally dismissing scientific findings because of skepticism regarding funding is not appropriate. For example, my dissertation research was funded by Weyerhaeuser NR Company, International Paper, and others, and I was examining the effects of clearcutting and forest regeneration on wildlife. Although my funding came from those sources (which the conspiracy theorists would claim make me biased), my research was independent and not interfered with. For better or for worse, I was never pressured to change any of my findings by big forestry companies and have published several articles in several peer-reviewed journals. In some cases, I believe the public are overly critical about science funded by private industry. Are their occasional bad eggs in the mix? Certainly, but bad science can also come from independently funded sources with an agenda (think about the bad science that linked vaccines with autism).

My post above was mainly a call for more information. As far as information goes, the peer reviewed process offers the best protection against blatant academic dishonesty that we have. Is it perfect? No. Do things slip by? Sure, sometimes. But at the same time, there has been hundreds of clinical trials across the world, funded by both Monsanto and private organizations, testing the effects of aspartame on humans. Aside from the documented effects I listed above, I have seen very few scientific studies that indicate aspartame has negative effects on the majority of healthy adults. I have seen articles that express concerns (which are important for directing scientific inquiry and research, in my opinion), but none that actually document with statistical certainty any real negative effects such as those described in many of the gray literature alarmist documents I have seen online. Keep in mind that these clinical trials span 30 years. Aspartame has been essentially been subject to a 30 year, long-term experiment, and very few negative effects have been found.

There is a reason scientists tend to prefer reading peer reviewed documents... because peer review acts as a filter to separate conjecture, bad statistics, and bad science from good science. I have published several articles and have been an anonymous reviewer for several prominent scientific journals. I have even rejected a few papers that did not meet scientific standards and they were not published. "Show me the peer review" should not be a sign of ignorance. To the contrary, it is a call for the best source of information we have available to us. Bias is everywhere, even in science, but at least peer review offers a series of checks and balances to insure the best information gets published. (Some of my articles took 3-4 revisions before finally being accepted in a reputable journal, and I was grateful for the feedback reviewers gave me... they strengthened the paper and the science. And I've had articles rejected myself too for valid concerns regarding my statistical analysis, which I later fixed).

I knew going into this conversation that people tend to get upset when I play devil's advocate... but in all honesty I follow the data, and the data I have read do not leave me with the impression that aspartame is as dangerous as the public thinks. Monsanto is a corporation and vehemently protects its patents. Do I believe Monsanto has done some harm? Absolutely. Has Monsanto done some good? Absolutely (think about golden rice). I just personally start waving my skepticism flag when I see a bunch of information posted online, regardless of the topic, with no real peer reviewed citations backing the claim up.

If any of you are interested in spending an afternoon in peer review land, feel free to use Google Scholar. It is an excellent resource and often provides links to full articles which otherwise need a journal subscription to access in entirety. In fact, if you do find any literature that is relevant to this debate, please list it here.

Seeds of Death

Thanks Monsanto!
Monarch Butterflies Considered for Endangered Species Status
http://news.yahoo.com/monarch-butter...154350464.html

The monarch butterfly, once common across the United States, could soon end up on the Endangered Species List.

Over the next year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will determine whether the iconic black-and-orange butterflies deserve the federal protections that come with being listed an endangered or threatened species.

By some estimates, the monarch butterfly population has declined by 90 percent over the past two decades, from about 1 billion butterflies in the mid-1990s to just 35 million individuals last winter.

That loss is "so staggering that in human-population terms it would be like losing every living person in the United States except those in Florida and Ohio," Tierra Curry, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement.

The Center for Biological Diversity and other advocacy groups, including the Center for Food Safety, had asked the federal government to step in with a legal petition filed in August 2014.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the petition was worth its consideration, and the agency launched a year-long review into the status of monarch butterflies this week.

Scientists behind the petition say the butterfly's decline is linked to a rise in genetically engineered crops in the Midwest. Many of these crops are altered to be resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, which kills milkweed, the monarch caterpillar's only source of food.

The herbicide is so successful that milkweed plants have virtually disappeared in Midwestern corn and soybean fields, and monarch butterflies have effectively lost a Texas-size chunk of their habitat, according to the petition.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is accepting public comments for their status review until March 2.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteApril

Thanks Monsanto!
Monarch Butterflies Considered for Endangered Species Status
http://news.yahoo.com/monarch-butter...154350464.html

.

I'm sure they will create an electronic butterfly just like they did for the bee's!