Tuesday, December 20, 2016


This article was shared by Mr. S.C., and I want to pass it along here, along with my usual high octane speculation, which, in this case, is really high octane speculation:
Regular readers of this website know that I am not exactly a friend to GMOs, nor, for that matter, to vaccines. And, for the record, I am not in principle opposed to either, i.e., I am not opposed to the concept of vaccines nor to that of GMOs. After all, Jenner's small pox vaccine worked very well, and so did the Sabin polio vaccine. But as I've pointed out, there were problems with the Salk vaccine, and there are certainly problems that studies have shown linking vaccine cocktails to autism, and linking GMOs to cancers and other health risks.
My chief opposition all along to these technologies has not been to the technology itself, but rather against the shoddy bought-and-paid-for corporate "science" assuring us that there is nothing wrong with the technologies as they stand. Additionally, my opposition has also been against the corporate strong-arming of farmers, and to dissenting opinion as they seek to control the scientific narrative, and therefore the public discussion, of these technologies and their blowback effects. Not for nothing has Russia decided against GMOs until after some long term and extensive testing. And to a certain extent, I think we can credit those independent scientists in the west who have made studies of GMOs and reached opinions contrary to that of the corporate-goverment scientific sector.
Which brings me to a problem with this article. One might be inclined, as I was, to initially cheer the idea that finally, someone, somewhere, is bringing suit against one of the world's most abhorrent corporations, which we refer to on this site as Mon(ster)santo, or alternatively, I.G. Farbensanto. You'll note that the suit is not directly related to GMOs, but rather, to a chemical group known as PCB's, of which Mon(ster)santo was a chief producer during years that their use and dissemination was entirely legal. And the suit is being brought decades after their use was banned.
This seems to me to be an egregious case of reaching too far, for if corporations - or anyone else for that matter - were to be held liable for something entirely legal, then scientific development would come to a screeching halt.
But, in this case, as the article also notes, there is some evidence that Mon(ster)santo allegedly knew of, and covered up, the toxicity and risks of PCBs:
“Monsanto produced PCBs for decades while hiding what they knew about the toxic chemicals’ harm to human health and the environment,” Ferguson noted during the press conference.
There is proof that Monsanto knew about and deliberately covered up the dangers posed by PCBs. The AP reported:
“In 1937, an internal memo said testing on animals showed ‘systemic toxic effects’ from prolonged exposure by inhaling PCB fumes or ingestion. In 1969, a company committee on PCBs noted, ‘There is too much customer/market need and selfishly too much Monsanto profit to go out.’”
In a statement provided to the wire service, a Monsanto spokesperson called the state’s lawsuit “experimental because it seeks to target a product manufacturer for selling a lawful and useful chemical four to eight decades ago that was applied by the U.S. government, Washington State, local cities, and industries into many products to make them safer.”
Stop and consider that: the original memo was apparently dated in 1937, and the decision to keep producing the products for no other motive that pure greed, was made in 1969. In other words, we have potentially a pattern of decades of deliberate knowledge and cover-up, all for the sake of profits.
What's interesting to speculate and ponder upon here is that, in such a lawsuit, the subpoena power of the state of Washington could conceivably find other internal memoranda about similar patterns of knowledge and cover-up, and as things get rolling, that could issue in more lawsuits, from more states, foreign nations, and private individuals, and with those, the whole web of "corporate science" and government-corporation interlock and mercantilism might be exposed for all to see, and not remain limited, as it is now, to those of us following the issue. And that's not bad just for Mon(ster)santo, it's bad for the whole agribusiness GMO dream. And that is a good thing.
See you on the...
...oh, one more thing: Memo to Bayer: you might want to rethink that merger with Mon(ster)santo.

No comments:

Post a Comment