Ruphus -> RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of a kind you don´t get to see too often (Nov. 10 2017 7:31:05)
|
After reading Piwin´s post, I had almost finished preparing a summarizing comment with translated press quotes, to display how a formerly investigative and now submissive paper for an exception reported on the Monsanto instigation, when one of the f***** local power failures occured and wiped it all out. So, I now sent the whole thing through google´s translator. Unfortunately resulting in more text for you, but worth it. quote:
Has Monsanto manipulated authorities? EU Member States are discussing the re-approval of the weed killer Glyphosate this Thursday. Almost daily, new oddities come to light. Will the weed killer Glyphosate be allowed in Europe for another 10 years, for 5 or 3 years or not at all? On Thursday, the future of the agricultural chemical will be decided in Brussels, while in the United States thousands of plaintiffs in collective actions are seeking damages from the main producer, the agriculturist Monsanto. They claim that the Monsanto herbicide Roundup (active ingredient: glyphosate) has caused a form of lymphoma cancer in them or in relatives. The main arguments in court are the scientific assessment of the toxicity of glyphosate and whether or not Monsanto has had any influence on scientists and government agencies. Regardless of whether the Group was successful in this, it has tried, as numerous documents show. Perhaps the best prepared defensive battle in the history of Monsanto began a good two and a half years ago. In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified the plant poison glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" in a controversial decision. Controversial, because in retrospect, negative statements regarding cancer risk ("non-carcinogenic") have been transformed into neutral or even positive ("carcinogenic"). And because the IARC contradicts not only the risk assessment of European authorities, but also from numerous other states such as Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Ironically, the world's most sprayed herbicide, which is in Monsanto's blockbuster Roundup as an active ingredient and without many farmers do not get along, so should be potentially harmful to health. But the US company was prepared for the vote of the IARC, which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO) - and fired back. Did the EU authority decide without knowing the facts? Monsanto's carefully planned defense strategy is slowly coming to light, paper for paper, e-mail for e-mail, memo for memo. The reason is the class action lawsuits in the US, which force Monsanto to publish more than a hundred internal documents. These "Monsanto Papers" paint the image of a corporation less concerned with facts and precaution, striving to harness scientists for its own purposes - securing the most important product. It does not matter if this product is harmful to your health. New documents are now raising doubts about the behavior of the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa). The authority, based in Parma, Italy, is responsible, inter alia, for the risk assessment of chemicals to be authorized in the European Union (EU). Efsa has been criticized for years, because it always works together with scientists who were previously employed in the chemical or food industry or changed from the authority to one of the industry's biggest names. The glyphosate classification of Efsa as "unlikely to cause cancer" is a particular focus, as the EU must decide by 15 December this year whether European farmers should inject the herbicide into European fields for another ten years. The agency is less well-known to identify excessive risks for chemicals. In the case of glyphosate, it seems that she already liked her verdict before she knew all the facts. "That's great" In May 2015, the pesticide working group of the industrialized countries OECD met in Paris, including the employees of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Efsa. In an internal e-mail with the subject "Bilateral EPA EFSA Cooperation on Pesticides", EPO employee Michael Goodis wrote to Director Jess Rowland the day after the meeting that he had been contacted by Efsa on the subject of glyphosate: "You say it The IARC will not agree but rather our line. " Rowland, obviously enthusiastic, replied, "Tell 'em, that's just great." This is remarkable for two main reasons: At the time of this e-mail, the IARC had not yet published the reasons for its assessment and had not provided Efsa in advance. The EU authority has not yet assessed the IARC's assessment of the "probably carcinogenic" property of glyphosate. Did Efsa know from the outset that she would classify the pesticide as harmless, no matter what the scientists of the World Cancer Agency had found out? The authority denies this vehemently: No one has contacted goodies. Although the Efsa was then already clear that their assessment would differ from that of the IARC - a predetermination had not been. In Europe, one can understand the answer, one is independent. Rowland's enthusiastic reaction is even stranger. An EPO Director who is pleased that a herbicide is not considered so dangerous? The US Environmental Protection Agency is known in Germany especially for having uncovered the exhaust gas manipulation of VW diesel cars and actually not very considerate to deal with corporate interests. Testimony? Completely blackened Apparently, Monsanto has also tried to exert influence on employees of the EPA. Whether the corporation was successful in this is unclear, the company denies any manipulation of the authority. Rowland himself is suspected of having cooperated with Monsanto. There are numerous indications in the Monsanto Papers, but there is no tangible evidence: Rowland's testimony in the legal proceedings against Monsanto is constantly blackened. To the e-mail of May 2015, the authority did not answer on request. Rowland has retired since last year. I praised the author for release of a illuminating article of a kind rare like hens teeth these days. Yet, I had to wonder whether in todays German middle school there was tought no text analysis and semantic reconstruction anymore. quote:
"Apparently, Monsanto has also tried to exert influence on employees of the EPA. Whether the corporation was successful in this is unclear." "Unclear?" Even without decades of experience: What might be unclear? When wet, may you have seen water? When 3 taken from 5, should there still be 2 left over? Our world is under quite dense alignment through a huge arsenal of means. Leaving over only little of fig leaf randomness and lesser even coincidence, let alone freedom to shape reasonable and fair benefit to the public. Mankind, fellow species and environment are being fleeced, and a fraction of the astronomical excess again being used to bribe and establish for further fleecing. Capitalism and plutocracy having reached to near utmost of apparatus perfection and brain wash. Institutions labeled democratic in truth being tools and office of private order. The most powerful assistant to the misuse being exploited majority´s / common sense´s ordinary psychological evasion of negative conditions / the societal misery. In unnaturally weak psyche of contemporary state people feel that they can not allow sensation of conglomerate of misuse. The people desperately clinching to preserved image of an basically intact and autonomous world. No matter to where yields of either perverse appropriation or atrocity pile up. A psychic state that renders even information as largely useless. Postponing rise and reasoning into times of no ecological return. Sheer insanity, peaking with cored heads who stand 48 hours in trendy line to pick up a smart phone without slightest of rational background, while the prime of higher developed creature in oceans and remaining wilderness are starving and perishing in front of diamond-studded toilet brushes behind facades of polished granite. "Where do you want to go today?" "To hell, please." We as society are lobotomized. As we can´t make out most basic of proportionality and due anymore, no wonder societies´and earth´s desaster are going unchecked. PS: No one of you answered to my above questions as to how you explain to yourself named concerted medial omissions. PS II: One scientist described the situation in institutional labs and how you make sure to present examining results in ways wanted by corporations, if wanting to keep your job. PS III: Someone who researched and criticized with disgust on the paradise papers was asked how he´d do if offered a considerable amount of baksheesh. Guess what he replied after pondering over it for a moment?
|
|
|
|