The World According to Monsanto

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

The World According to Monsanto

Postby elpuma » Fri May 16, 2008 12:09 pm

Monsanto — a century-old corporation and today's controversial world leader in genetically modified organisms — is examined in this North American premiere. The feature-length doc, directed by prize winning French journalist and filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin, examines the infamous entity in painstaking detail — through first-hand accounts and hitherto unpublished documents revealing misinformation, pressure tactics and attempted corruption.

Public Screenings:

Toronto: At the Toronto Mediatheque, with a post-film discussion Monday, May 26, 6:30 pm (as part of this month's special edition of Green Screens)

Montreal: At Ex-Centris starting Friday, May 23, with the first screening in the company of the director (French version)

Quebec City: Cinéma Le Clap starting Friday, May 23 (French version)

For those in Canada within proximity to any of the above venues....

http://www.nfb.ca/newsletters/20080514/
User avatar
elpuma
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Sarkozy Suffers Legislative Blow

Postby elpuma » Fri May 16, 2008 12:12 pm

Wednesday, May. 14, 2008

Sarkozy Suffers Legislative Blow
By BRUCE CRUMLEY/PARIS


The raucous standing ovation of French parliamentarians on Tuesday was a scene French President Nicolas Sarkozy could have done without; it was the opposition Socialists, not his own conservative majority, that were celebrating. The government suffered a surprise defeat over a law on genetically modified crops, but more importantly, the divisions that vote revealed within the French right threaten more trouble for the President in the future.

In any other country, the proposed legislation on the cultivation of genetically modified crop organisms (GMO) would have produced more yawns than fireworks; it was intended only to bring restrictive national laws in line with European Union directives that are more tolerant of GMOs. Yet wide public hostility towards GMOs — combined with disapproval of Sarkozy's heavy-handed leadership style — turned Tuesday's vote into political drama of the first order. Conservatives have an enormous parliamentary majority of 343 out of 577. But on Tuesday, many of them were missing, and others ready to defect to a leftist motion to reject the bill. The result: a razor-thin 136-135 defeat of the government's GMO measure. It was the first time in ten years that an opposition-led effort has defeated legislation proposed by a French government.

"This is a very beautiful lesson for the government and Nicolas Sarkozy," said Green Party legislator Noël Mamère, one of many Sarkozy opponents who have criticized the conservatives for seeking to ram through controversial legislation without consultation or debate. "I hope that, as I speak, the President is eating the Elysée carpet, because this is a victory of the French people over a government that wanted pass a law by force."

José Bové, the environmentalist and anti-globalist who sat in the public gallery during the vote, had a similar message. "This is a collective victory for the citizens of this country who refuse GMOs," he said. "The government will not be able to do anything it wants after this."

French Prime Minister François Fillon immediately convened a committee of both houses of French parliament to review and reintroduce the legislation for another vote, when whips will presumably insure a full turnout to gain passage. Despite public suspicion of GMOs, that shouldn't prove difficult, since the bill is hardly radical. It obliges farmers to separate natural and GMO cultivation, and sets permitted limits of GMO "contamination" to surrounding plots; requires public disclosure of where GMO crops are located; and make the destruction of GMO crops by protesters — an act for which Bové has been repeatedly arrested — a criminal offense. Such measures would be considered minimal in many countries, and will have limited impact even in France, where less than 1% of all crops raised are GMOs. So why all the fuss?

Because of what it says about Sarkozy, of course, who totally dominates political debate in France even as he languishes in the opinion polls. "This setback is mainly significant against the background of serious public displeasure with Sarkozy's leadership, and the growing incidence of conservatives openly defying him and the government to show their disagreement," says Dominique Reynié, a French political analyst and professor at the Fondation National des Sciences Politiques in Paris. Despite the President's recent efforts to alternatively charm and threaten his party members back into order, Reynié says unhappiness over the meager results of Sarkozy's reform agenda have left conservatives disinclined to follow his lead. That wariness among his own allies contributed to the multiplication of problems the increasingly unpopular Sarkozy has faced this year. "As long as he was popular and helping the right win elections, conservatives in parliament were happy to vote through whatever Sarkozy told them to," says Reynié. "Now they are not only refusing to do that, but on issues like the GMO law, openly demonstrating that they stand with the public, not with the President and government."

That does not bode well for Sarkozy, who must get the reintroduced GMO bill passed before tabling sweeping institutional and constitutional reform, including changes to parliament itself, in June. Many conservatives have already expressed concern over such measures and are looking to the left as possible allies to turn them away. If that happens, Sarkozy may soon be hearing more parliamentary applause of the sort he'd prefer to avoid.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1779414,00.html
User avatar
elpuma
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Sarkozy Suffers Legislative Blow

Postby monster » Fri May 16, 2008 1:37 pm

elpuma wrote:Sarkozy Suffers Legislative Blow


That article made me happy :)

The French get stereotyped pretty badly by the U.S. media but I've noticed that they don't let the government push them around. More than once I've read a story about French civil disobedience and think, why can't Americans be more like that? (We used to be... *sigh*)
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
User avatar
monster
 
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:55 pm
Location: Everywhere
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby medicis » Fri May 16, 2008 6:52 pm

Along with all the other pestilence we have visited upon Iraq (e.g., blackbilgewater) we have also included Monsanto:

"GMO companies like Monsanto are part of the pesticide industry and they have been aggressively buying up seed companies for the past 20 years. Corporations prefer fruits and vegetables that are picked before ripening and have tougher skin in order to survive shipping. However if given a choice, consumers lean in the opposite direction, towards those with more delicate skin and flavor.

Farmers of generations past dedicated their entire lives to producing seeds for plants that would grow well in their local area, only to have them go extinct due to commercial interests. "Fair Trade" alliances such as CAFTA and Codex Alimentarius seek to irradiate, patent and/or genetically modify all seeds. The new Iraqi Constitution only permits farmers to plant Monsanto GMO seeds. However, seed diversification is essential if we are to withstand food viruses such as the one that caused the Great Potato Famine in Ireland in the 1840s.

Stock up on Heirloom seeds while you still can."


article at: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/fo ... ead=124521
medicis
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:37 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Fri May 16, 2008 8:19 pm

The new Iraqi Constitution only permits farmers to plant Monsanto GMO seeds.


Is there an actual primary source for this anywhere?

I just went through the constitution of Iraq, and the article (81) that is supposed to ban farmers using non GMO products isn't there, well its there just says nothing asbout forcing the uese of GMOs.

I know that effectively Iraqi farmers have been forced to rely on GMOs since the invasion, but that is not manated at the moment by their constitution or parliament. They are basically in the same boat a the rest of us. If GMOs turn up in their seed gene pool then they will be done for using patented seed, but if they have managed to save and reuse their own seed since the invasion (something that must be near impossible), and keep it uncontaminated then they are not subject to any legal penalty as far as I know.

I looked into all this before I found RI, so things may have changed, and if anyone has any contrary info with primary sources (ie actual laws banning non GMO/Monsanto seed in Iraq etc etc, cited in full), please point me in that direction.

Cheers.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Fri May 16, 2008 9:04 pm

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby ninakat » Fri May 16, 2008 9:16 pm

And, for those who missed it, The Future of Food exposes the Monsanto insanity. The film is by Deborah Koons Garcia (Jerry Garcia's widow), from 2004. Here's the introduction on google video.
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby medicis » Fri May 16, 2008 11:07 pm

Joe Hillshoist wrote:
The new Iraqi Constitution only permits farmers to plant Monsanto GMO seeds.


Is there an actual primary source for this anywhere?

I just went through the constitution of Iraq, and the article (81) that is supposed to ban farmers using non GMO products isn't there, well its there just says nothing asbout forcing the uese of GMOs.

I know that effectively Iraqi farmers have been forced to rely on GMOs since the invasion, but that is not manated at the moment by their constitution or parliament. They are basically in the same boat a the rest of us. If GMOs turn up in their seed gene pool then they will be done for using patented seed, but if they have managed to save and reuse their own seed since the invasion (something that must be near impossible), and keep it uncontaminated then they are not subject to any legal penalty as far as I know.

I looked into all this before I found RI, so things may have changed, and if anyone has any contrary info with primary sources (ie actual laws banning non GMO/Monsanto seed in Iraq etc etc, cited in full), please point me in that direction.

Cheers.


Apologies for not having checked the constitution to verify...

Glad you have... If I get a clue I'll post.

In the meantime... it would appear that in any case we are screwed.

Also note this additional take on the general matter...

Codex and Nutricide, Dr. Rima Laibow

which fits in with the general picture of control and decimation of populations...

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=n ... itesearch=

If anybody knows more on this or can point, I'd much appreciate it.
medicis
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:37 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Sat May 17, 2008 9:25 pm

Just for the record I'd like to point out that Monsanto are completely fucked up, and are a grave threat to global food security withoout having to resort to making non GMO products illegal.

The NSW govt just gave the OK to begin trials of GM Canola recently, and I think the actual trials began on a couple of farms last week.

It already has farmers turning against each other, with non GM farmers threateninglegal action if any contamination occurs, or cross boundary pollination. Thats in direct response to the way Monsanto (and others apparantly, tho I have no links on that) treated non GMO farmers whose properties and crops were contaminated with GMO pollen.

AS for terminator seeds.... I am tempted to say that if terminator seed genetics gets into the general biosphere, everyone involved with the process, from the board to the researchers to veryone else should have their genetic line removed from the planet like happened in Japan a few hundred years ago.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chlamor » Sat May 17, 2008 10:08 pm

Liberal thy name is hypocrisy. What's new?
chlamor
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chlamor » Sat May 17, 2008 10:16 pm

Monsanto
A Checkered History
BRIAN TOKAR / The Ecologist Sep/Oct98

Monsanto Checkered History Oct98

Monsanto's high-profile advertisements in Britain and the U.S. depict the corporation as a visionary, world-historical force, working to bring state-of-the-art science and an environmentally responsible outlook to the solution of humanity's pressing problems. Whether one is concerned about population growth, the future of agriculture, the quality of our food, or the health needs of an aging population, we are assured that Monsanto will find the answers.

But just who is Monsanto? Where did they come from? How did they get to be the world's second largest manufacturer of agricultural chemicals, one of the largest producers of seeds, and soon — with the impending merger with American Home Products — the largest seller of prescription drugs in the United States? What do their workers, their customers, and others whose lives they have impacted, have to say? Is Monsanto the "clean and green" company its advertisements promote, or is this new image merely a product of clever public relations? A look at the historical record offers some revealing clues, and may help us better understand the company's present-day practices.

Headquartered just outside St. Louis, Missouri, the Monsanto Chemical Company was founded in 1901 by John Francis Queeny. Queeny, a self-educated chemist, brought technology to manufacture saccharin, the first artificial sweetener, from Germany to the United States. In the 1920s, Monsanto became a leading manufacturer of sulfuric acid and other basic industrial chemicals, and is one of only four companies to be listed among the top ten U.S. chemical companies in every decade since the 1940s.

By the 1940s, plastics and synthetic fabrics had become a centerpiece of Monsanto's business. In 1947, a French freighter carrying ammonium nitrate fertilizer blew up at a dock 270 feet from Monsanto's plastics plant outside Galveston, Texas. More than 500 people died in what came to be seen as one of the chemical industry's first major disasters. The plant was manufacturing styrene and polystyrene plastics, which are still important constituents of food packaging and various consumer products. In the 1980s the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) listed polystyrene as fifth in its ranking of the chemicals whose production generates the most total hazardous waste.

In 1929, the Swann Chemical Company, soon to be purchased by Monsanto, developed polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which were widely praised for their nonflammability and extreme chemical stability. The most widespread uses were in the electrical equipment industry, which adopted PCBs as a nonflammable coolant for a new generation of transformers. By the 1960s, Monsanto's growing family of PCBs were also widely used as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, cutting oils, waterproof coatings and liquid sealants. Evidence of the toxic effects of PCBs appeared as early as the 1930s, and Swedish scientists studying the biological effects of DDT began finding significant concentrations of PCBs in the blood, hair and fatty tissue of wildlife in the 1960s.

Research in the 1960s and seventies revealed PCBs and other aromatic organochlorines to be potent carcinogens, and also traced them to a wide array of reproductive, developmental and immune system disorders. Their high chemical affinity for organic matter, particularly fat tissue, is responsible for their dramatic rates of bioaccumulation, and their wide dispersal throughout the North's aquatic food web: Arctic cod, for example, carry PCB concentrations 48 million times that of their surrounding waters, and predatory mammals such as polar bears can harbor tissue concentrations of PCBs more than fifty times greater than that. Though the manufacture of PCBs was banned in the United States in 1976, its toxic and endocrine disruptive effects persist worldwide.

The world's center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto's plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois. East St. Louis is a chronically economically depressed suburb, across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, bordered by two large metal processing plants in addition to the Monsanto facility. "East St. Louis," reports education writer Jonathan Kozol, "has some of the sickest children in America." Kozol reports that the city has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state, the third highest rate of infant death, and one of the highest childhood asthma rates in the United States.

Much more:

http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Monsa ... yOct98.htm

[url=http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-Roundup-Glyphosate.htm]Everything You Never Wanted to Know About
Monsanto[/url]
Liberal thy name is hypocrisy. What's new?
chlamor
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Sat May 17, 2008 10:32 pm

Excerpted from: Nutrapoison
By Alex Constantine

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/10085



"I recognized my two selves: a crusading idealist
and a cold, granitic believer in the law of the jungle.
Edgar Monsanto Queeny, Monsanto chairman, 1943-63, "The Spirit of Enterprise", 1934."


The FDA is ever mindful to refer to aspartame, widely known as NutraSweet, as a "food additive"-never a "drug." A "drug" on the label of a Diet Coke might discourage the consumer. And because aspartame is classified a food additive, adverse reactions are not reported to a federal agency, nor is continued safety monitoring required by law.1 NutraSweet is a non-nutritive sweetener. The brand name is misnomer. Try Non-NutraSweet.

Food additives seldom cause brain lesions, headaches, mood alterations, skin polyps, blindness, brain tumors, insomnia and depression, or erode intelligence and short-term memory. Aspartame, according to some of the most capable scientists in the country, does. In 1991 the National Institutes of Health, a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services, published a bibliography, *Adverse Effects of Aspartame*, listing not less than 167 reasons to avoid it.2

Aspartame is an rDNA derivative, a combination of two amino acids (long supplied by a pair of Maryland biotechnology firms: Genex Corp. of Rockville and Purification Engineering in Baltimore.)3 The Pentagon once listed it in an inventory of prospective biochemical warfare weapons submitted to Congress.4 But instead of poisoning enemy populations, the "food additive" is currently marketed as a sweetening agent in some 1200 food products...

...Nazis and chemical warfare are recurring themes in the aspartame story. Currently, the chief patent holder of the sweetener is the Monsanto Co., based in St. Louis. In 1967, Monsanto entered into a joint venture with I.G. Farbenfabriken, the aforementioned financial core of the Hitler regime and the key supplier of poison gas to the Nazi racial extermination program. After the Holocaust, the German chemical firm joined with American counterparts in the development of chemical warfare agents and founded the "Chemagrow Corporation" in Kansas City, Missouri, a front that employed German and American specialists on behalf of the U.S. Army Chemical Corps.13

Dr. Otto Bayer, I.G.'s research director, had a binding relationship with Monsanto chemists.14 In the post-war period, Dr. Bayer developed and tested chemical warfare agents with Dr. Gerhard Schrader, the Nazi concocter of Tabun, the preferred nerve gas of the SS. Schrader was also an organophosphate pioneer, and tested the poison on populated areas of West Germany under the guise of killing insects.15 Schrader's experiments reek suspiciously of the ongoing aerial application of malathion-developed by Dr. Schrader, a recruit of the U.S. Chemical Warfare Service when Germany surrendered-in present-day Southern Califonia.16

Another bridge to I.G. Farben was Monsanto's acquisition of American Viscose, long owned by the England's Courtauld family. As early as 1928, the U.S. Commerce Department issued a report critical of the Courtauld's ties to I.G. Farben and the Nazi party.17 Incredibly, George Courtauld was handed an appointment as director of personnel for England's Special Operations Executive, the wartime intelligence service, in 1940.18 A year later, with the exhaustion of British military financial reserves, American Viscose, worth $120 million was put on the block in New York. The desperate British treasury received less than half that amount from the sale, brokered by Siegmund Warburg, among others. 19 Monsanto acquired the company in 1949.20

The Nazi connection to Monsanto crops up again on the board of directors with John Reed, a former crony of "Putzi" Hanfstangl, a Harvard-bred emigre to Germany who talked Hitler out of committing suicide in 1924 and contributed to the financing of *Mein Kampf*. 21 Reed is also chairman of Citibank and long a confederate of the CIA. According to a lawsuit filed by San Francisco attorney Melvin Belli, Reed was an instigator, with Ronald Reagan, James Baker and Margaret Thatcher, of the "Purple Ink Document," a plan to finance CIA covert operations with wartime Japanese gold stolen from a buried Philippine hoard.22

Other covert military connections to Monsanto include Dr. Charles Allen Thomas, chairman of the Monsanto Board, 1965[?]. Dr. Thomas directed a group of scientists during WW Il in the refinement of plutonium for use in the atomic bomb. In the postwar period Monsanto operated Tennessee's Oak Ridge National Laboratories for the Manhattan Project.23 (Manhattan gestated with the Oak Ridge Institute for Nuclear Studies, where Lethal doses of radiation were tested on 200 unwary cancer patients, turning them into "nuclear calibration devices" gratis the AEC and NASA, until 1974. 24) Nazi scientists and a 7,000 ton stockpile of uranium were delivered to the Project by its security and counter-intelligence director, Col. Boris Pash, a G2 designate to the CIA's Bloodstone program-and the *eminence grise* of PB/7, a clandestine Nazi unit that, according to State Department records, conducted a regimen of political assassinations and kidnappings in Europe and the Eastern bloc.25

Monsanto Director William Ruckelshaus was an acting director of the FBI under Richard Nixon, a period in the Bureau s history marred by COINTELPRO outrages, including assassinations. Nixon subsequently appointed Ruckelshaus to the position of EPA director, a nagging irony given his ties to industry (Browning Ferris and Cummins Engine Co.). CIA counterintelligentsia on the Monsanto board include Stansfield Turner, a former Director of Central Intelligence, and Earle H. Harbison, an Agency information specialist for nineteen years.

Harbison is also a director of Merrill Lynch, and thus raises the spectre of CIA drug dealing. ln 1984 President Ronald Reagan's Commission on Organized Crime concluded that Merrill Lynch employed couriers "observed transferring enormous amounts of cash through investment houses and banks in New York City to Italy and Switzerland. Tens of millions of dollars in heroin sales in this country were transferred over seas." Merrill Lynch invested the drug proceeds in the New bullion market before making the offshore transfers. 26

As might be expected in view of Monsanto's Nazi, chemical warfarare and CIA ties, NutraSweet is a can of worms unprecedented in the American food industry. The history of the product is laden with flawed and fabricated research findings and, when necessary to further the product along, blatant lies-the basis of FDA approval and the incredulity of independent medical researchers...
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The World According to Monsanto

Postby Sounder » Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:36 am

http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott/201 ... ct-science

The first thing to notice about the study is that Monsanto is listed in the acknowledgements as one of the "supporters." So this is Monsanto-funded research, meaning that he company would be hard-pressed to deny knowledge of it.

The researchers found that within three generations, rootworms munching Monsanto's Bt corn survived at the same rate as rootworms munching pesticide-free corn—meaning that complete resistance had been achieved. Takeaway message: rootworms are capable of evolving resistance to Monsanto's corn in "rapid" fashion.


Ouch
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The World According to Monsanto

Postby blanc » Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:55 am

Perhaps the human race could institute a private prosecution of monsanto for theft of property freely given, for the sake of argument by God for all humans to have dominion over.
blanc
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:00 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The World According to Monsanto

Postby backtoiam » Mon Mar 21, 2016 2:10 pm


Portland To Sue Monsanto For Contaminating Waterway With PCBs

Monsanto manufactured over 1 billion pounds of PCBs and the company’s own documents show they continued to sell the man-made chemicals after becoming aware of the dangers to both humans as well as the environment, according to Reeve.
By Mnar Muhawesh Follow @mnarmuh @mnarmuh | March 18, 2016

Image

A scene from the March Against Monsanto in Denver, CO. (Photo: MAM)
The city council in Portland, Oregon has unanimously voted to authorize a lawsuit against Monsanto for contaminating its waterways with cancer-causing chemicals. Six other West Coast cities are also suing the bio-agricultural corporation in federal court.

City Attorney Tracy Reeve claims that Portland has already spent a significant amount of public money cleaning up contamination in the Willamette River as well as Columbia Slough. Over a billion dollars has been spent cleaning up just the river, Mayor Charlie Hales told Oregon Public Broadcasting.

The source of their woes are PCBs. Polychlorinated biphenyls are synthetic compounds described as “either oily liquids or solids that are colorless to light yellow” by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which adds that “Some PCBs can exist as a vapor in air” and have no smell or taste.

Monsanto manufactured over 1 billion pounds of PCBs and the company’s own documents show they continued to sell the man-made chemicals after becoming aware of the dangers to both humans as well as the environment, according to Reeve.

“Monsanto was the only manufacturer of PCB’s in the United States from 1939 until PCBs were banned in the late ‘70s,” Reeve told KGW. “During that time there’s documentary evidence that Monsanto knew that PCBs were dangerous to the environment, that they migrated from waterways to fish, from fish to birds and also to people and they, nonetheless, continued to manufacture and distribute PCBs.”

They were produced by Monsanto from 1935 until 1977 as a way to insulate and cool electrical equipment, according to Monsanto’s website. Although Monsanto discontinued producing PCBs in the late 70s, the chemicals can last for decades in the environment.

Although PCBs are not found in nature, humans are most often exposed to them by eating fish caught in contaminated waters, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry.

Monsanto has responded to the lawsuit with the following statement:

“We are reviewing the lawsuit and its allegations. However, Monsanto is not responsible for the costs alleged in this matter. Monsanto today, and for the last decade, has been focused solely on agriculture, but we share a name with a company that dates back to 1901.”

“That company manufactured and sold PCBs that at the time were a lawful and useful product that were then incorporated by third parties into other useful products. Various municipalities built landfills on their bays and operated them for decades to deposit city waste and PCB-containing products into those waterfront landfills. Manufacturing and industrial facilities also operated in these areas, contributing to PCBs in the general area. If the third-party disposal or municipal disposal practices of the past have led four decades later to the state’s development of lawful limits on future PCB discharges into various bays and rivers through storm water, then those third parties and municipal landfill operators bear responsibility for these additional costs.”

Portland is joining Seattle, Spokane, Berkley, Oakland, San Diego, and San Jose in lawsuits against Monsanto over toxic pollutants.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/portland-s ... bs/214887/


"A mind stretched by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions." Oliver Wendell Holmes
backtoiam
 
Posts: 2101
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:22 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests