angelburst29
The Living Force
SOTT has covered many news article's on Monsanto. Most recent, being in Monday's May 19th edition titled "Monsanto: History of Contamination and Cover Up."
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/156821-Monsanto-History-of-Contamination-and-Cover-up
I would like to add additional information from my own investigation of Monsanto.
"The Kemner Brief by Eric Francis"
http://www.planetwaves.net/kemner.html
Monsanto's first product was saccharin, a sweetener derived from coal tar.
Because Monsanto has been a leader in the chlorinated chemicals industry, it's one of the world's largest producers of dioxin. Dioxin is an extremely versatile poison. It behaves like a sex hormone (estrogen), one of the most fundamental chemicals regulating life, and it sneaks past the body's defenses. Then it plugs itself into receptor slots the body uses for hormones, and goes to work damaging the immune system, the reproductive system and scrambles DNA, waging a campaign of biological disinformation. Immune collapse, birth defects, multigenerational cancers and many other illnesses are the logical result.
Then in the late 1970s, a rail car accident in Sturgeon, Missouri spilled thousands of gallons of wood preservative called octochlorophenol. Monsanto denied that any dioxin was present in the spill, but testing documented high levels. Residents of the town, including a woman named Frances Kemner, sued Monsanto. During the trial, Kemner's lawyer, Rexford Carr, was able to perform legal miracles, and the court ordered Monsanto to reveal the contents of its secret dioxin files. The documents could fill a small warehouse. Carr then called Monsanto officials as witnesses and questioned them extensively on what they had written and done, and what they knew. Based on this evidence, Rexford Carr wrote what has become known as "The Kemner Brief," which Monsanto has gone to great lengths to try to keep away from the public and out of the newspapers.
.......Before I quote the Kemner Brief, I need to mention a technical detail. The formal name for dioxin is 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin. There are 217 kinds of dioxins, but this variety is the most toxic of all by a factor of hundreds or thousands. The numbers "2,3,7,8" refer to where the chlorine is placed in the molecule -- on the four corners, making it very stable and very, very poisonous. This form of dioxin is referred to by its numbers, or as TCDD.
.......Large chemical firms like Monsanto manufacture products that they sell to other manufacturers, which are then put into household products.
"Monsanto's Santophen is the active ingredient in Lysol disinfectant and cleaning products," the Kemner Brief continues. "Monsanto's analytical chemist, Fred Hileman, testified that Monsanto knew that Lysol is recommended for cleaning babies' toys and for various other cleaning activities involving direct contact with the human body. Yet, there is no dioxin warning on the Lysol package. Hileman testified that he knew people who used Lysol were contacting three parts per billion of 2,3,7,8 and that 2,3,7,8 is extremely toxic. [These are historical facts, not statements of the current state of Lysol or numerous other products that may contain chlorinated chemical agents - ef.] Hileman testified that he knew people were spraying their lawns with products containing Monsanto's 2,3,7,8 and that these people didn't even know it because they had not been told the products contained dioxin, let alone 2,3,7,8."
.......Another product component made by Monsanto is called 2,4-Di. This was an ingredient in Agent Orange, and is currently used as a lawn care product because it kills weeds. As of the mid-1990s, one out of every three packages of this product, for sale in supermarkets and used by lawn-care services, is known to be contaminated with dioxin, though the federal government will not reveal which brands because it's considered a "trade secret." (Any lawn care product that says "Plus Two" or "+2" on the package contains 2,4-Di.)
......."Monsanto never warned any of the potential customers even though it knew the consumers would be exposed to quantities of Monsanto's dioxin. Monsanto knew that people were spraying their lawns with a product containing 2,3,7,8 and that these people had no way of knowing of the presence or toxicity of 2,3,7,8 in these products. Monsanto knew that Lysol contained Monsanto's 2,3,7,8 and that Lysol was recommended for cleaning [household items] and children's toys, although there was no warning to customers that Lysol contained any dioxin."
Lysol as a feminine hygiene product and birth control agent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysol_(cleaner)
In the late 1920s Lysol disinfectant began being marketed by maker Lysol, Incorporated and distributor Lehn & Fink, Inc. as a feminine hygiene product. They intimated that vaginal douching with a Lysol solution prevented infections and vaginal odor, and thereby preserved marital bliss[6]. This Lysol solution was also used as a birth control agent, as post-coital douching was a popular method of preventing pregnancy at that time.
Lysol ad from March 1948.
http://www.mum.org/Lysol48.htm
Women also used Lysol as a birth-control device, douching with it to kill sperm. Andrea Tone, in Devices & Desires (2001, Hill & Wang), writes of the vaginas that the liquid burned, as does the book Facts and Frauds in Woman's Hygiene, from 1936. See another Lysol douche liquid ad, from 1928.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
July 20, 1994
http://pwp.lincs.net/sanjour/monsanto.htm
This is an analysis of the failure of EPA to investigate allegations that the Monsanto Company had falsified scientific studies on the carcinogenicity of dioxin.
Background and summary
Dioxins are highly toxic unwanted byproducts of certain industrial operations including the manufacture of some pesticides. Dioxins are unintentionally created in chemical manufacturing processes when chlorine combines with other chemicals at high temperatures.
Agent Orange, a defoliant widely used during the Viet Nam war by the United States to eradicate jungle hiding places of the Viet Cong, contained trace amounts of dioxin. Since dioxin was known to cause cancer and birth defects in some animals, veterans, who had contracted cancer and who had been in areas sprayed with Agent Orange, attempted to obtain compensation from the Veterans Administration and from the manufacturers of Agent Orange. These manufacturers included Monsanto, Dow, Uniroyal and Diamond Shamrock.
Since the chemical manufacturers were aware of the presence and toxicity of dioxin in Agent Orange and since the presence of dioxin could have been greatly reduced by more careful production techniques, a successful lawsuit by the veterans could have bankrupted some of the world's largest chemical manufacturing companies, just as a similar problem with asbestos had bankrupted the giant Johns Manville Corporation some years ago.
In February 1990, Dr. Cate Jenkins, a chemist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, wrote to the EPA Science Advisory Board that there was evidence that the Monsanto studies were fraudulently done and that if the studies had been done correctly, they would have shown the connection between dioxin and cancer in humans. This accusation received considerable press attention. In August, 1990 EPA decided to launch a criminal investigation of Monsanto.(1)
Amid a furor of publicity and cries of foul and intensive lobbying by Monsanto the criminal investigation went on for two years. However, despite the government's assurances that it would "investigate any allegations of fraud and, if appropriate, evaluate the full range of enforcement options" it did nothing of the kind. Instead it investigated and illegally harassed the whistleblower, Cate Jenkins.
Jenkins' harassment was subsequently halted by order of the Secretary of Labor. The veterans were able to use her report to obtain increased Agent Orange benefits from Congress for Viet Nam cancer victims. Recent EPA reports say that there is now convincing human evidence of the carcinogenicity of dioxin, in contradiction to the Monsanto studies.
Although she had committed no crime, Jenkins had been vilified and harassed for the sin of wanting to protect the public from dioxin. Many wrongs, including violations of EPA's own regulations, were committed by those who illegally harassed her, but no one has suggested punishment for them. And while many EPA officials were willing, even anxious, to apologize to Monsanto, none has come forward to apologize to Dr. Jenkins.
Kemner v. Monsanto
The story moves next to Sturgeon, Missouri, 1979. A freight train derailment caused the spill of a tank car, containing 19,000 gallons of a Monsanto chlorophenol intermediate called OCP-crude, used in making wood preservatives and contaminated with dioxin. Frances Kemner and others exposed to the spill filed suit in Missouri state court in 1980 (Kemner et al v. Monsanto Company(4)). The trial lasted three years and eight months. At the end, the jury found for the plaintiffs with a most bizarre award; nominal awards as low as one dollar for actual damages and more than sixteen million dollars punitive damages! The jury did not believe the plaintiffs had proven that they had suffered any harm to date, but they were outraged at the egregious behavior of the Monsanto Company.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/156821-Monsanto-History-of-Contamination-and-Cover-up
I would like to add additional information from my own investigation of Monsanto.
"The Kemner Brief by Eric Francis"
http://www.planetwaves.net/kemner.html
Monsanto's first product was saccharin, a sweetener derived from coal tar.
Because Monsanto has been a leader in the chlorinated chemicals industry, it's one of the world's largest producers of dioxin. Dioxin is an extremely versatile poison. It behaves like a sex hormone (estrogen), one of the most fundamental chemicals regulating life, and it sneaks past the body's defenses. Then it plugs itself into receptor slots the body uses for hormones, and goes to work damaging the immune system, the reproductive system and scrambles DNA, waging a campaign of biological disinformation. Immune collapse, birth defects, multigenerational cancers and many other illnesses are the logical result.
Then in the late 1970s, a rail car accident in Sturgeon, Missouri spilled thousands of gallons of wood preservative called octochlorophenol. Monsanto denied that any dioxin was present in the spill, but testing documented high levels. Residents of the town, including a woman named Frances Kemner, sued Monsanto. During the trial, Kemner's lawyer, Rexford Carr, was able to perform legal miracles, and the court ordered Monsanto to reveal the contents of its secret dioxin files. The documents could fill a small warehouse. Carr then called Monsanto officials as witnesses and questioned them extensively on what they had written and done, and what they knew. Based on this evidence, Rexford Carr wrote what has become known as "The Kemner Brief," which Monsanto has gone to great lengths to try to keep away from the public and out of the newspapers.
.......Before I quote the Kemner Brief, I need to mention a technical detail. The formal name for dioxin is 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin. There are 217 kinds of dioxins, but this variety is the most toxic of all by a factor of hundreds or thousands. The numbers "2,3,7,8" refer to where the chlorine is placed in the molecule -- on the four corners, making it very stable and very, very poisonous. This form of dioxin is referred to by its numbers, or as TCDD.
.......Large chemical firms like Monsanto manufacture products that they sell to other manufacturers, which are then put into household products.
"Monsanto's Santophen is the active ingredient in Lysol disinfectant and cleaning products," the Kemner Brief continues. "Monsanto's analytical chemist, Fred Hileman, testified that Monsanto knew that Lysol is recommended for cleaning babies' toys and for various other cleaning activities involving direct contact with the human body. Yet, there is no dioxin warning on the Lysol package. Hileman testified that he knew people who used Lysol were contacting three parts per billion of 2,3,7,8 and that 2,3,7,8 is extremely toxic. [These are historical facts, not statements of the current state of Lysol or numerous other products that may contain chlorinated chemical agents - ef.] Hileman testified that he knew people were spraying their lawns with products containing Monsanto's 2,3,7,8 and that these people didn't even know it because they had not been told the products contained dioxin, let alone 2,3,7,8."
.......Another product component made by Monsanto is called 2,4-Di. This was an ingredient in Agent Orange, and is currently used as a lawn care product because it kills weeds. As of the mid-1990s, one out of every three packages of this product, for sale in supermarkets and used by lawn-care services, is known to be contaminated with dioxin, though the federal government will not reveal which brands because it's considered a "trade secret." (Any lawn care product that says "Plus Two" or "+2" on the package contains 2,4-Di.)
......."Monsanto never warned any of the potential customers even though it knew the consumers would be exposed to quantities of Monsanto's dioxin. Monsanto knew that people were spraying their lawns with a product containing 2,3,7,8 and that these people had no way of knowing of the presence or toxicity of 2,3,7,8 in these products. Monsanto knew that Lysol contained Monsanto's 2,3,7,8 and that Lysol was recommended for cleaning [household items] and children's toys, although there was no warning to customers that Lysol contained any dioxin."
Lysol as a feminine hygiene product and birth control agent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysol_(cleaner)
In the late 1920s Lysol disinfectant began being marketed by maker Lysol, Incorporated and distributor Lehn & Fink, Inc. as a feminine hygiene product. They intimated that vaginal douching with a Lysol solution prevented infections and vaginal odor, and thereby preserved marital bliss[6]. This Lysol solution was also used as a birth control agent, as post-coital douching was a popular method of preventing pregnancy at that time.
Lysol ad from March 1948.
http://www.mum.org/Lysol48.htm
Women also used Lysol as a birth-control device, douching with it to kill sperm. Andrea Tone, in Devices & Desires (2001, Hill & Wang), writes of the vaginas that the liquid burned, as does the book Facts and Frauds in Woman's Hygiene, from 1936. See another Lysol douche liquid ad, from 1928.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
July 20, 1994
http://pwp.lincs.net/sanjour/monsanto.htm
This is an analysis of the failure of EPA to investigate allegations that the Monsanto Company had falsified scientific studies on the carcinogenicity of dioxin.
Background and summary
Dioxins are highly toxic unwanted byproducts of certain industrial operations including the manufacture of some pesticides. Dioxins are unintentionally created in chemical manufacturing processes when chlorine combines with other chemicals at high temperatures.
Agent Orange, a defoliant widely used during the Viet Nam war by the United States to eradicate jungle hiding places of the Viet Cong, contained trace amounts of dioxin. Since dioxin was known to cause cancer and birth defects in some animals, veterans, who had contracted cancer and who had been in areas sprayed with Agent Orange, attempted to obtain compensation from the Veterans Administration and from the manufacturers of Agent Orange. These manufacturers included Monsanto, Dow, Uniroyal and Diamond Shamrock.
Since the chemical manufacturers were aware of the presence and toxicity of dioxin in Agent Orange and since the presence of dioxin could have been greatly reduced by more careful production techniques, a successful lawsuit by the veterans could have bankrupted some of the world's largest chemical manufacturing companies, just as a similar problem with asbestos had bankrupted the giant Johns Manville Corporation some years ago.
In February 1990, Dr. Cate Jenkins, a chemist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, wrote to the EPA Science Advisory Board that there was evidence that the Monsanto studies were fraudulently done and that if the studies had been done correctly, they would have shown the connection between dioxin and cancer in humans. This accusation received considerable press attention. In August, 1990 EPA decided to launch a criminal investigation of Monsanto.(1)
Amid a furor of publicity and cries of foul and intensive lobbying by Monsanto the criminal investigation went on for two years. However, despite the government's assurances that it would "investigate any allegations of fraud and, if appropriate, evaluate the full range of enforcement options" it did nothing of the kind. Instead it investigated and illegally harassed the whistleblower, Cate Jenkins.
Jenkins' harassment was subsequently halted by order of the Secretary of Labor. The veterans were able to use her report to obtain increased Agent Orange benefits from Congress for Viet Nam cancer victims. Recent EPA reports say that there is now convincing human evidence of the carcinogenicity of dioxin, in contradiction to the Monsanto studies.
Although she had committed no crime, Jenkins had been vilified and harassed for the sin of wanting to protect the public from dioxin. Many wrongs, including violations of EPA's own regulations, were committed by those who illegally harassed her, but no one has suggested punishment for them. And while many EPA officials were willing, even anxious, to apologize to Monsanto, none has come forward to apologize to Dr. Jenkins.
Kemner v. Monsanto
The story moves next to Sturgeon, Missouri, 1979. A freight train derailment caused the spill of a tank car, containing 19,000 gallons of a Monsanto chlorophenol intermediate called OCP-crude, used in making wood preservatives and contaminated with dioxin. Frances Kemner and others exposed to the spill filed suit in Missouri state court in 1980 (Kemner et al v. Monsanto Company(4)). The trial lasted three years and eight months. At the end, the jury found for the plaintiffs with a most bizarre award; nominal awards as low as one dollar for actual damages and more than sixteen million dollars punitive damages! The jury did not believe the plaintiffs had proven that they had suffered any harm to date, but they were outraged at the egregious behavior of the Monsanto Company.
