Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Musings: Gotcha!

Public records show that for the past decade, mainland groups and philanthropists have carefully cultivated an anti-GMO campaign in Hawaii, arming it with money and training to execute a specific political agenda.

Kauai has been at the heart of this strategy, which employs nonprofit organizations that engage in political advocacy under the guise of “education,” thus skirting the scrutiny, transparency and accountability imposed on lobbying efforts. This tactic produces a movement that claims it's grassroots and broad-based, when in fact, it's a puppet of the national groups that fund its work and pull its strings.

As I've reported previously, much of this political advocacy in Hawaii has been funded by the Ceres Trust and the Cornerstone Campaign, which is bankrolled by the fortunes of two Rockefeller heiresses. Though founded as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, Cornerstone functions only to disperse grants to groups active in the anti-biotech movement, including Friends of the Earth, Genetic Engineering Action Network, Organic Seed Alliance, International Forum on Globalization, Californians for GE Free Agriculture and Earthjustice.

In this post, I'll detail how money from the John Merck Fund — endowed by a scion of the Merck Pharmaceutical empire — has further bolstered this totally non-transparent political advocacy in the Islands.

Though activists were stirring up opposition to the transgenic papaya as early as 2004, the Hawaii campaign began in earnest in 2005, when California anti-GMO activists felt the sting of defeat. While two Northern California counties — Mendocino and Marin — made history in 2004 as the first in the nation to adopt GMO bans, three other counties voted down similar measures later that year. In November 2005, Sonoma County voters also rejected a ballot measure that would have made it illegal to raise, grow, cultivate, propagate, sell or distribute most genetically engineered organisms.

The losing ballot measure was written by Dave Henson, director of the Occidental Arts & Ecology Center (OAEC). His group had begun lobbying voters in 2003 through Californians for GE-Free Agriculture, an initiative largely bankrolled by the John Merck Fund and the David B. Gold Foundation. Both are significant donors to the Center for Food Safety, which has been a major player in the Hawaii anti-GMO movement.

Following the Sonoma County defeat, which spelled the death knell for GMO bans in California, Hensen vowed that supporters would “continue their campaign for sustainable agriculture and GE-Free organisms through other venues.”

One of those venues was Hawaii, where Henson was already cultivating a relationship with GMO-Free Kauai. On July 16, 2005, Henson hosted a one day training “to help spearhead and organize this very important effort to pass a county initiative regarding GMO's,” according to a post by GMO-Free Kauai president Blake Drolson.

That same year, the Cornerstone Foundation gave Henson's OAEC a $5,000 grant to host a GMO Free Hawaii conference, according to Cornerstone's 2005 tax return.

The ante was upped considerably in 2006, when the John Merck Fund started funneling money into Hawaii. The John Merck Fund began supporting anti-GMO groups in 1999 — the same year that Merck's Vioxx began competing directly with Monsanto's Celebrex. Over the next 15 years, the John Merck Fund awarded nearly $9 million to anti-GMO nonprofit advocacy groups, financing media campaigns that aimed to “increase public awareness of the negative impacts of agricultural biotechnology” and “reduce the market share of GM crops,” as well as other activities.

Locally, the Fund began financing a campaign to seek "environmental review and regulation ... of GE crops in Hawaii" — a goal that requires legislation. But the Fund channeled all its contributions to 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, which can skirt state lobbying disclosure laws — and public scrutiny — by conducting their political advocacy under the guise of "education."

Between 2006-2008, the Fund awarded Earthjustice $105,000 in Hawaii-specific grants aimed at stopping bioengineered algae research and production at NELHA in Kona; prohibiting the use of food crops in biopharmaceutical production, and phasing out open air testing of biopharm crops.

Hawaii SEED also cashed in during that same time period, getting grants totaling $75,000 for projects aimed at “halting the release of genetically engineered corn and taro in Hawaii, building resistance to Monsanto's corn seed production and protecting papaya, taro and coffee crops from genetically engineered production.”

By 2007, the Islands' anti-GMO groups were already tag-teaming their money, with Earthjustice bankrolling “Islands at Risk," a 30-minute film about GE crops and patented life forms that featured Hawaii SEED members Walter Ritte and Nancy Redfeather. Those attending the Oahu premiere were urged to bring “the newest leaf from your papaya tree to be tested for GMO,” thus helping to fulfill some of Hawaii SEED's Merck grant requirements.

In an interesting “coincidence,” GM Watch paired its January 2007 reporting on the film's premiere with an episode of student sickening that had occurred at Waimea Canyon Middle School in November 2006. An investigation by the Hawaii Department of Agriculture found no wrongdoing by Syngenta, which was cultivating fields closest to the school.

Nonetheless, in 2007 some WCMS teachers formed a group — variously identified on its own blog as Maluhia and Maluia — “in response to a complete failure of public agencies responsible for the regulation, monitoring, and protection of the public’s health and welfare in relation to pesticide use and GMO agriculture on lands adjacent WCMS campus.”

In 2008, the Merck Fund gave Maluia-WCMS $10,000 “to document health effects in Hawaii related to pesticide exposure and advance policy reforms that protect the health of children and farmers and build toward national comprehensive pesticide policy reform.”

So what did Maluhia do with its $10,000? I contacted the John Merck Fund to request a copy of Maluhia's grant report detailing the use of those funds. The Funds' program officers did not respond. 

But the very specific agenda outlined by the grant may help explain why certain school personnel continue to insist that seed company spraying caused children to be sickened in 2006 and 2008, not the noxious odors emitted by stinkweed, as determined by state health and agriculture officials. They even managed to gain the ear of the Joint Fact Finding Group (JFFG) on pesticides, which actually called upon an anti-GMO activist to review — and, such a surprise, denounce — the state Health Department's conclusions regarding the 2008 incident.

The Merck Fund's 2008 tax return puts the WCMS grant in its broader context. The return notes that the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) North America was awarded $122,000 “to assist nonprofit groups in seven states that are documenting health effects related to pesticide exposure and advancing policy reforms …. and enable Californians for Pesticide Reform and the Maluia-Waimea Canyon Middle School to document health effects related to pesticide exposure and advance policy reforms that protect the health of children farmers and build toward national comprehensive pesticide policy reform.”

Clearly, the activities funded at WCMS were part of a larger effort with a decidedly political end: "national comprehensive pesticide policy reform.” That's why I wasn't at all surprised to see that agenda mirrored in the first-draft recommendations of the JFFG. After all, its membership is heavily weighted with movement followers.

Meanwhile, GMO-Free Kauai had been absorbed by Hawaii SEED. As I've previously documented, PAN also gave Hawaii SEED money to conduct pesticide drift tests in 2012. Though Hawaii SEED collected some 200 air samples on the westside, it detected trace amounts of one pesticide in just one sample. 

Again, as I've previously reported, when Hawaii SEED failed to turn up any evidence of actual pesticide drift, much less harm, it launched a fear-mongering campaign, using scare tactics to frighten westside residents.  According to the minutes of a Jan. 20, 2013 SEED Strategy Meeting “Pesticide: Breakout Group Report Back:”

The Hawaii SEED drift monitoring project is NOT yielding the kind of info to move this work forward. This project will be closed.

Next steps:
1. Collaborate with others who are testing for pesticides in water, blood, soil, animals (die‐off like urchins) and look for allies like surf riders, dept of fish and wildlife, health department. Strategy: pressure OTHERS to do the testing

2. Door‐to‐door or public surveys:
Target native hawaiians , moms, Ag. Laborers, middle class
Goal: Tell the story of epidemic sickness in Hawaii that may be related to pesticides. Use this as ammunition to pressure health department into addressing the effects of pesticides statewide.

Working group: Jeri [Di Pietro], Kawai [Warren], Mike [Broady], Dustin [Barca], Patty [Valentine], Lorrin [Pang], Brittany [Beers]

I understand unfounded anxieties and fears. I understand lying. What I can't wrap my head around is pernicious lying — deliberately disseminating disinformation with intent to harm others. There's a word for it — socio-pathology — but it's difficult to fully grasp. What makes people leap to that level of distortion? Power? Money?

And what makes people believe the lies? Even with all the money they've spent, and the testing they've conducted, these groups have been unable to document any pesticide harm to either people or the environment. Yet through fear-mongering, they've been able to spin a narrative that Kauai is one of the most polluted places on the planet, with the agricultural sector in grave need of radical reform.

In subsequent years, PAN has continued to fund the anti-GMO efforts on Kauai, including the Stop Poisoning Paradise website that it launched to boost Councilman Gary Hooser's anti-GMO Bill 2491, which was written by Earthjustice and CFS attorneys. It also recruited and funded “community activists” who testified in support of anti-GMO legislation on Hawaii and Kauai, without ever identifying themselves as paid lobbyists.

Returning to Henson, his work in the Islands continues to this day, according to the OAEC website:

Every January, Dave facilitates an annual gathering of GMO-free groups from each of the Hawaiian Islands, helping them craft legislative and educational strategies against GMO’s and associated pesticides.

Yet PAN continues to maintain that this heavily orchestrated, well-funded activism is an “all-volunteer, citizens’ effort” — a fiction perpetuated in the David vs Goliath rhetoric of Earthjustice,  Center for Food Safety, Hawaii SEED and Hooser's HAPA.

In short, a very small group has been quite effective — though deeply dishonest — in carrying out a national strategy here in the Islands: Use out-of-state philanthropy and the nonprofit sector to make an end-run around campaign spending and lobbying disclosure. Then deploy your cause in the arena of the counties, not the state, because the counties generously allow filibuster-style testimony. That enables you to create the impression of an overwhelming majority, even though your numbers are tiny and padded with paid activists.

Sprinkle in plenty of fear, a dash each of anti-corporatism and agricultural Utopianism and voila, you've got the makings of a meltdown. 

Which is exactly what we've witnessed in the rural communities and state Capitol of Hawaii, where folks have been played to the hilt, and most don't even know it. 

But the money trail tells the story — for those who wish to understand how it is that groups in total service to the corporate-derived cash of the 1 percent can carry out the charade that they're furthering the cause of democracy, even as they actively undermine it.

Gotcha!

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

Clap. Clap. Clap. Clap.

Very good Joan.

Has the garden island newspaper ever contacted you for your opinion?

John McHugh said...

Superb reporting Joan! Thank you!

Anonymous said...

Again another great article...Mahalo Joan

Anonymous said...

Just like in the movies. The very rich sticking us like skewers with all the lies. See, Geronimo wasn't wrong. Cochise, Sitting Bull, they knew the BS. To think that people in our community fell for this propaganda. Some still falling. Ms. Joan, you are a clever cookie. Makes me wonder why people around the world have a thing for us "Americans". One Nation under God making us miserable enough to fight our neighbors with hurtful words. Imagine what they did to us, let the locals fight amongst themselves first. Pick up the pieces in the end. No need to get ours hands dirty. See what money can do to these natives. Let them fight. We'll give them red t-shirts so we know who our guys are. We'll need a leader, guess who....what a catch, then we'll use this other guy and this gal here. In the mean time there all soaking up the BS and empowering themselves. What a movie.

Anonymous said...

Monsanto and Syngenta have highly paid PR teams who do this spin much better than your screechy ramblings. Ever wonder why they don't hire you? I don't.

Anonymous said...

Yawn. Good try Joan. Is this supposed to get us excited? At the minimum you could point out how both sides use the same tactics. Is this not what war is about?

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the outstanding "money trail report". It says a lot about how the elite continue to destroy the "working person" !

Anonymous said...

Well, this puts a new and frightening spin on the soon-to-be-released released JFF report. Why weren't scientific experts recruited as members of this fact-finding group?

Anonymous said...

5:08 PM You are a joke. Here you are reading her blog! This proves Joan is effective and material. You? Not much.

Anonymous said...

Come on Joan even with your obvious bias you have to questions the stinkweed conclusions. When has there ever been a mass poisioning from stinkweed. I have never heard of that. It just sounds made up. The fact is the department of health and agriculture are both jokes when it comes to investigating anything. You should see the pesticide inspector when she comes out to our farm and measures every tree and garden with a measuring tape to make sure we are applying organic pesticides at the right concentrate. There is a complete lack of common sense with those folks. Here is what I know, they have know idea what made those kids sick. What they do know is stink weed ain't going to sue them for making unproved claims. Stinkweed is still growing in those same areas so why do it happen only that one time.

Joan Conrow said...

And it's clear from your comment, 5:54, that you are not only biased, but think you know everything, even when you're misinformed. There wasn't a "mass poisoning" in either episode. You weren't there, yet you think you know more than first responders and scientists who actually studied it.

As for the rest of your comment, you and the antis claim the ag and health inspectors are no good, yet you clamor for more inspections and regulations for these same departments to enforce. You complain when they follow the rules on your organic farm, yet you think they should be going by the book on the seed farms. Talk about no common sense!

Anonymous said...

Great documentation, Joan. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

To the commenter at 5:54 AM, you need to do some research.

There have been many incidents of mass hysteria and physical manifestations based on the mere detection of an unpleasant odor. Stinkweed is notorious for its noxious odor. This subject is taken very seriously by toxicologists and there are plenty of peer-reviewed articles on this issue published in well-respected journals.

Not necessarily directly on point, but related; you have probably noticed the common occurrence that when people experience someone nearby vomiting, they often become sick themselves, whether it's from the smell, or the psychological effect.

The first time I was handed some freshly cut stinkweed, I thought it had a peculiar smell, kind of a cross between B.O. and a petroleum-based substance. Certainly not expected from a fairly inconspicuous little flowering plant. However, when I once walked into a room in which someone had brought a full 33-gallon bag of the stuff (unbeknownst to me), I immediately began to feel dizzy, headachey, and nauseous. I didn't expect the smell, didn't recognize it, and I don't know whether my reaction was related to the odor alone, or if the chemicals in the plant affected me. My reaction was real, however.

Now, combine the noxious and unexpected odor of stinkweed with the mere suggestion that an evil corporate entity is ruthlessly exposing you to unknown and toxic pesticides that are poisoning you.....I think you can see where there is more to the WCMS incidents than can be ascertained by a laypersons' limited glance at the situation.

Anonymous said...

Thank goodness for folks who are willing to put up money to help out where there is no money.
Follow the money trail is a good thing---we know who gets what, and sometimes if we look hard enough we find out what the money was used for. I know what Maluhia Group did with some of the $ and it proved to be a good thing! It's like a friend politician who told me that a while ago he accepted some $ from one of the biotechs here on Kauai. Well, they may not know it, but he gave it all away to charities----why?--- he finally realized he didn't like what they were doing here. Follow the money on Hillary Clinton, Dave Tsuji . . . . . . . no surprise!

Anonymous said...

Don't be distracted with this while Yukimura and her trolls are pushing to increase gas tax, vehicle weight tax and GE tax on the resides of Kauai and also she's been holding secret meetings to do so violating county and state laws.

This is another beer gate so don't be distracted while they pass the triple tax increase like they did in the solid waste trash cans from $6 to $18 a month.

She's trying to be Ninja about the tax increase.

Anonymous said...

@ 11:06 am....Who da hell is Dave Tsuji?

Anonymous said...

Hey, the PHD guy who ran the study for the State said that in the orient, people eat stinkweed. They use it in their salads and stir fries!

Anonymous said...

OK then link to a article that shows when stinkweed in particular has caused this to happen. My sister has lived in Waimea for the past 20 years never has she or her family ever heard of stinkweed causing this In the way that way. It is a obnoxious weed that exists everywhere so please send me a link so I can see that stinkweed has caused this before.

Anonymous said...

The JFF did not want someone of knowledge. That person would see through all the smoke and haze that the committee was trying to accomplish which was to nail the Seed Companies. Too bad. It is really hard to fake the truth. Ms. Joan, you drove them to silence.....

Anonymous said...

Eagerly looking forward to seeing the JFFG report tomorrow. Am curious about their interpretation of data and whether the money spent was justified. Normally, "money talks, bullshit walks". Hopefully, the opposite would be the case in the report.

Joan Conrow said...

2:40

Here is a a link to a really informative article on stinkweed in Waimea.

Maybe you can share it with your sister so she can get educated, too.

Anonymous said...

2:40 the noxious components and effects of stinkweed were also described in the study that was produced by the UH faculty member (don't remember his name, he was the guy that Bynum was so rude and derisive to). It's not hard to find the info you say you want to, if you really try to look! and 10:48 has provided an excellent anecdote as well.

Anonymous said...

Someone found the stink weed and on Kauai it's called ICE/Meth. Great Job!!!

Police find $1.6M worth of crystal meth in Kauai's biggest drug bust
HNN Staff
Mar 9, 2016 04:45 PM
HANAMAULU, KAUAI (HawaiiNewsNow) - Police on Kauai made a major drug bust on Tuesday -- arresting two men and recovering a giant stash of crystal methamphetamine.

The drugs were discovered in a home in Hanamaulu. While acting on a search warrant, police entered the home and found $2,000 in cash, a stolen handgun and various illicit drugs, including more than seven pounds of methamphetamine. The drugs have a street value of approximately $1.6 million.

“This is the largest amount of crystal methamphetamine that the department has seized in a single incident with the take down of this drug trafficking organization,” said Kauai Police Chief Darryl Perry.

Hanamaulu resident Andrew Martinez, 24, and Steven Orozco, 28, of Stockton, California were arrested and face several charges including first-degree meth trafficking, theft and charges related to altering identification.

Anonymous said...

So wouldn't it be better practices by these companies to maintain the growth of stinkweed so people weren't getting sick. I drove by one of their fields last month full of stinkweed and it was being watered. Pretty messed up if that is what really is getting people sick.

Anonymous said...

Watered by the seed companies? Ag companies are required to water down roads to prevent airborne dust. Another observation without merit. Get the facts before making erroneous suppositions.

Anonymous said...

Joan that's just a nice puff piece. My sister's husband is one of those first responder fireman and nobody was saying it was stinkweed at that time. It was later on when the official's came out with that statement but it wasn't from the people actually at the scene.

Joan Conrow said...

Oh, yes, 8:46, I've always found the unattributed anecdotes of an anonymous commenter so much more credible than an actual researched report. You are so typical of the antis -- you'll believe any bit of speculation ad gossip that supports your view, while rejecting credible evidence that refutes it. There's something really perverse about people who willfully chose to remain ignorant.

John Kauai said...

Hi Joan:

Can you provide a motive for the financing of anti-GMO groups?

I confess that I don't trust corporations since they have lied to the public on so many occasions and so I am biased against the dead companies. But I just don't see how people like Don Huber benefit from bringing their findings to our attention. To call them "attention seekers" just doesn't match up with the people I've personally met.

The only motive I see is that the contributors are concerned. How do they benefit from preventing Monsanto (et. al.) from selling their GMO products? I don't see that at all.

Thanks

Anonymous said...

12:00 PM, I'm sure Joan can address your question better than I, but I can think of three motives:

1) It gives some of the participants a feeling of satisfaction to tilt against the windmill of Big Bad Corporate Ag, because they love the struggle, and it's easier than having to deal head on with real problems like addiction, poverty, domestic abuse, etc.

2) Large Organic producers and associations have a vested financial interest in increasing their market share and maintaining the illusion that their higher margin product is superior to conventional, genetically engineered (GE) food. By investing in smear campaigns against GE food, they demonize it and then offer their supposedly better product, in order to boost sales. Not as prevalent on Kauai as on the mainland and Europe, but the organic producers here indirectly benefit.

3) "Non-profit" activist groups can use fear and smear to generate lawsuits in order to get publicity and attract more donations, Joan has done a good job of reporting on this in her blog, go check the archives.

Joan Conrow said...

John Kauai,
So let's say that the scions of the 1% are funding the anti-GMO movement because "they're concerned." How is that any different than the Koch Brothers funding their pet projects because they're concerned about any change in the status quo?

My point with all of this has been to point out that a small group of wealthy people are attempting to greatly influence politics, but because they're using nonprofits, their political activities are hidden from the public. This doesn't serve a democracy.

Furthermore, it underscores the utter hypocrisy of the anti-GMO groups with their demands for transparency and their rejection of corporatism, and challenges their claim to the moral high ground.

And then, as 2:22 points out, there are financial gains to be recognized by the organic industry, which also funds these groups, and the "nonprofits" that make their money by promoting fear and confusion. Don Huber no doubt enjoys having these groups fly him around so he can pontificate. The motivation there is most likely ego.

Anonymous said...

Corporate money is more transparent? Corporate money is good for democracy?

Joan Conrow said...

3:33. What are you even talking about? It's all corporate money and none of it's transparent.

Anonymous said...

http://www.jmfund.org/about-us
The organization does not appear to be so evil. It was set up by Serena Merck, widow of CEO George Merck in honor of their "shirt-lived" son.
Just as Monsanto is not all bad
http://www.monsanto.com/improvingagriculture/pages/honey-bee-health.aspx

John Kauai said...

Joan:
I'll grant you that depending on the 1% to fund either side of a debate is not a "good thing".

However, where is one suppose to get the money? Where are the "Bernie Sanders" of the ecology movement? (Meaning someone who has been consistent "forever" and so inspires millions of $27 donations to support his cause. Not his political views which shouldn't be under debate here.)

Having met Don Huber and Bob Streit, I do not believe they are motivated solely by ego. Of course, I could be mistaken.

I suppose that I have some "ego" in the game even just entering a comment on this page, but I really think that I'm trying to find a bridge between two sides of what I think is a rather stupid debate. Both sides think they are absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong. If I point out that there are questions about glyphosate and its actions on the flora in your gut which may lead to leaky gut syndrome, I'll get a ton of responses that claim glyphosate is totally safe. (Yet I have yet to hear of anyone drinking it.)

Let me ask you why you have this column? Ego?

Not a criticism. Ego is a good motivator and some times makes good things happen.

So, your response that Huber is motivated solely by ego rings quite hollow to me.

The question still remains open since every column written in support of GMO is balanced by one against. Who am I suppose to believe? Where is the neutral observer to judge?

Let us talk for a second about the DARK act which will prevent any state from requiring labeling food with its source and/or whether or not it is GMO. This seems rather oppressive to me.

I could go on, but to what point I'm not sure.

I just want to figure out a way of keeping the Blues and the Reds from screaming at each other with no chance of agreement.

Joan Conrow said...

John Kauai, First, I didn't say Huber was "motivated solely by ego." I said "the motivation there is most likely ego." Neither of us can say what his motives are, so why speculate? Even he may not know.

You ask a good question. Why aren't millions willing to send their $27 donation to the environmental groups? If they want to take the money from the 1%, that's OK, but they should be upfront about it rather than falsely claiming to be grassroots and anti-corporate.

I haven't found it to be true that "both sides believe they are absolutely right and the other is absolutely wrong." I've talked with a lot of biotech researchers and supporters who fully understand the limits of the technology and have never presented it as a silver bullet. They see it as one tool in the box. They have no problem with organic, just as many conventional farmers I've met have no problem with organic. Their approach has been, we need everything. In fact, I've been struck by how inclusive they are. It's the fringe on the anti-GMO side that has taken the position the technology must be abolished, shut down, that it is unequivocally evil and the tool of corporate masters. Frankly, that's the side that isn't willing to co-exist, and its extremism generates extreme push back, especially from people who really do know and understand the technology and see that much of what the anti-GMO movement puts forth is false.

I'm not sure if it's possible to ever reach agreement on this issue, but perhaps we could start with embracing co-existence. But I can tell you right now, the extremist anti-GMO folks will never agree with that, though the pro-GMO folks will.

John Kauai said...

Joan:

You are the one who brought up ego. Let us drop that line of "attack" since I hear it over and over again from pro-GMO folks and it sounds like crap to me.

I want to be clear I am not pro or anti GMO. However, I did participate in the march against the Chemical Companies on the West side because I think they are lying.

In response, most of what I've received is "you are too stupid to understand". Which isn't very helpful in convincing me that my position is mistaken. I am very willing to be shown my error with facts.

Now, a lot of folks will point to specific studies that supposedly show that GMO isn't harmful. To which anti-GMO folks will point to studies that show it is. Then the discussion devolves into: "you're stupid"; "no you're stupid"; "no no you're stupid".

Having met Don Huber and Bob Streit and having a father who was devoted to Agriculture, I'm more than willing to entertain the notion that BOTH sides have a point. I truly do not trust corporations who have been shown to lie, cheat and deceive over and over again. (NOT all corporations, but the ones involved in the distribution of dangerous chemicals, well... let us not be naive.)

Those supporting anti-GMO/anti-pesticide are afraid. The argument from the "other side" seems to be, "you are so dumb you can't think for yourself, read this and repent."

How in the world does anyone expect that to work?

I will also recognize that there may have been some success in GMO. The rainbow papaya for one. The jury seems to still be out on "golden rice" but that issue is way to complicated to discuss here. As far as development of crops that can tolerate glyphosate, I can counter with studies that show those crops lead to gluten intolerance and/or leaky gut.

The Accord 3.0 process was suppose to provide a way of recognizing the concerns of BOTH sides. The Chemical Companies had plenty of opportunity to nominate people who would support their position. Why did the board end up (apparently) so lop-sided toward the anti-GMO group.

I'm willing to entertain the hypnosis that the Accord 3.0 folks are just a scam, but there we go again down a totally different rabbit hole to accomplish nothing.

The rise in autism correlates with the use of glyphosate. True that correlation does not prove causation, but WTF?!?! Are you really suggesting that it shouldn't be investigated?

The rise in CDUk correlates with the use of glyphosate. True that correlation does not prove causation, but WTF?!?! Are you really suggesting that it shouldn't be investigated?

The way I read the pesticide study, it seems to agree with my idea of "better to be cautious". The precautions outlined in 2491/960 need to be implemented. NOT that it has been show that the pesticides being used cause problems , but that it HAS NOT been shown that they don't.

[end part 1]

John Kauai said...


[part 2]

I have $1000 to the first person who shows up at Kukui Grove and drinks a gallon of Round-up because it "doesn't hurt people".

I depend on those of you who are more rational to prevent some idiot from taking me up on this challenge, but if you won't, well, OK then. I sure hope I have the guts to go through with watching someone commit slow suicide right in front of me. I guess I'll have to get a good lawyer. Maybe he'll work for Monsanto?

NOTE: of course the details of how this might be implemented will have to be worked out. And we may not come to an agreement. But I issue the challenge anyway.

Bottom line, there are enough people who have suffered ill effects from the use of the RUPs the chemical companies on the West Side use to justify a more thorough investigation.

Bottom line: there are so many holes in the data collected about the birth defects on the West Side that if we really want to know the answer we have to spend some bucks to find out.

Bottom line: there are several diseases/conditions that correlate to the use of round-up (glyphosate) that merely denying round-up is the cause is hardly good enough for those who want to know.

Most commenters on this page seem to have staked out a "I don't give a shit what the truth is" attitude. (NOTE: "seem to")

I just want to find out. To do so I need a study by a group that isn't owned by either side. In this day and age, good luck with that.

So who might suggest a path toward resolution rather than scream epitaphs ate the "other side"?

Anonymous said...

John Kauai 6:01 post....

If you eat a gallon of toothpaste you'd also vomit and might die.

Everything is about quantities that are safe, not the material being questioned.

Even too much water can kill you!