BREAKING: French Court Rules Monsanto Guilty Of Chemical Poisoning

[polly7]

September 13, 2015 by Amanda Froelich

Monsanto was found guilty of chemical poisoning of a French farmer by a French court earlier this week.


Credit: Jurist.org

When a court in southeast France found Monsanto guilty of chemically poisoning farmers in 2012, the biotech company fought tooth and nail for the conviction to be reversed. One can understand why: the court declared in that ruling that Monsanto’s Lasso weedkiller was responsible for devastating neurological problems, including memory loss.

But after an appeal process by Monsanto which lasted for years, a French appeal court recently upheld the ruling in full.

This news is monumental for a number of reasons: First, never before in French history has ‘chemical poisoning’ by Monsanto’s Lasso weedkiller been confirmed. While it was banned in France in 2007 (after already being pulled off the market by other nations), this matter centered around a French farmer who had been exposed to the deadly concoction.

Grain grower Paul Francois took Monsanto to court back in 2012, stating that he developed neurological problems such as memory loss and headaches after being exposed to the weedkiller in 2004. He was – rightly – upset that Monsanto failed to provide proper warnings on the product label and was left to suffer from the consequences of the poison.

The French court ordered an expert opinion to determine the sum of the damages, as well as to verify the link between Lasso and the reported illnesses. The case could not be more important, for previous legal action taken against Monsanto by farmers failed due to the inability to properly link pesticide exposure with the degenerative side effects.

Francois said to Reuters:

“I am alive today, but part of the farming population is going to be sacrificed and is going to die because of this.”

The farmer’s persistent efforts have paid off, thankfully. As IB Times reports, Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company, was found guilty of chemical poisoning of a French farmer by a French court this week. “The decision Thursday by an appeal court in Lyon in southeast France upheld a 2012 ruling in which the farmer claimed he suffered neurological problems after working with the U.S. company’s Lasso weedkiller.“

The world is waking up to the dangers posed by Monsanto, and it won’t be long before the biotech company is forced to pay for its greedy ambitions.

This article (BREAKING: French Court Rules Monsanto Guilty Of Chemical Poisoning ) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com

http://www.trueactivist.com/breaking-french-court-rules-monsanto-guilty-of-chemical-poisoning/

[Archae]

1. Just as I thought.

Bullshit conspiracy theory website.

Fox News Deleted Report In Wake Of 9/11: Israeli Spies Could Be Linked To Attacks

http://www.trueactivist.com/fox-news-deleted-report-in-wake-of-911-israeli-spies-could-be-linked-to-attacks/

[polly7]

2. I hope you at least go through some of the links.

This isn't new news, by any means.

People, including physicians, farmers, researchers, etc. .... and gov'ts from around the world have been proving and sharing the negative effects of these chemicals for a long, long time.

[HuckleB]

4. This farmer didn't use the product as directed.

And there is no excuse for using that page. "It's not news" is just not a viable justification.

[polly7]

6. I'll use that page whenever I like, thanks ......... it links to studies and stories

from sources all around the world.

Yes, it is news whenever any person or group - including farmers who've used these chemicals for decades without knowing the full consequences and who are now suffering, have their concerns validated ... especially if their own gov't listens, determines they're right, and takes action like this.

[HuckleB]

7. Sure, you can do whatever you want to do.

Last edited Tue Sep 15, 2015, 02:05 PM - Edit history (1)

That doesn't make it right.

BTW, do you know that French courts aren't much different than Italian courts that put scientists in prison for failing to predict an earthquake? Yes, they've given their nod to a claim for a "wifi allergy."

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34075146

[polly7]

8. No worries ....... I don't post anything I can't prove correct from other sources.

I went through each link just to be sure.

[HuckleB]

10. "Correct."

[polly7]

12. Yep, correct! nt.

[HuckleB]

15. Do you support everything Vandana Shiva has said?

If not, what claims of hers do you not support?

[polly7]

17. How exactly is Vandana Shiva relevant to this French Court's decision? nt.

[HuckleB]

20. You said you could support everything you post.

So answer the question.

[polly7]

21. I don't do orders, but

yes, I do support everything I post. I've read the studies, watched what gov'ts all around the world are now saying and agree with them. Poison chemicals cause health problems - severe health problems. What's your biggest problem with that?

[HuckleB]

23. Well, you've said a lot of nothing with that.

Again, do you support Vandana Shiva's claims?

[polly7]

24. You mad? nt.

[HuckleB]

26. You've promoted the movie "Seeds of Death."

Do you support all its claims?

[polly7]

28. No opinion on this French Court's decision?

Why are you trying so hard to derail away from it? I'm smelling desperation ....

[HuckleB]

29. I gave my opinion above. OTH, you used a source that is disreputable.

Then you defended the source.

Discussion tends to flow. I guess yoiu don't want to go with the flow.

Why is that? Perhaps your claim that you can support anything you post is not so viable?

[Brainstormy]

63. you like Fox better?

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/09/10/french-court-confirms-monsanto-guilty-chemical-poisoning/

[HuckleB]

27. You've promoted the movie "Seeds of Death."

Can you support everything that movie claims?

[HuckleB]

35. Your post seems to be mistaken.

I never said it wasn't news. Perhaps you should read my posts before responding, especially if you're going to play the shill gambit, or call me names and accuse me of finding Fox a legitimate source. You should know better.

Another source was already posted, and the fact that its verbage was quite different from that in the OP was noted. If you find the source in the OP legitimate, perhaps you should take some time to consider that as a possible problem.

Ethics matter.

[Archae]

9. It links to wild accusations, anti-Jewish demagogues and woo.

Get back to me when you actually have something credible.

[polly7]

11. Nothing on the actual issue?

Get back to me when you can disprove all the linked studies and show me that what these farmers are claiming wrt their horrible health problems isn't true.

[Archae]

18. YOU made the claim, YOU back it up.

That's how science works.

Almost all those links go back to the OP website anyway.

[polly7]

19. The French Court backed it up.

Based on the results of many studies. I didn't do those studies ......... researchers did. Why the angry, personal stuff?

[Archae]

22. The French court also gave disability payments to a woman with "EMF sensitivity."

As HuckleB pointed out.

Courts are not conducive to science, as we've seen with courts giving out big awards to kids who "got autism from vaccines" or people who "got cancer from their cell phone."

[polly7]

25. Basic common sense and knowing a bit of Monsanto's history and

all of the studies done wrt these poison chemicals and their effects on people all around the world might help you out. You should do a bit of reading, imo.

[Archae]

30. You've got your Boogie Man, that's for sure.

[polly7]

31. I'm not sure why on earth you think any of this is funny.

I guess, if it were you suffering from neurological or kidney or any of the other problems associated with these chemicals it might be a different story?

[marmar]

3. Is Reuters non conspiratorial enough for you?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/11/us-france-monsanto-court-idUSKCN0RA1UM20150911

[HuckleB]

5. Interesting how the verbage differs between the two stories.

[Orrex]

13. That's exactly what a shill would say, you shilling shill.

[HuckleB]

14. My check is late again! If I don't get it soon, I'm done!

[Orrex]

16. That's what you get for skipping the meetings.

[TBF]

32. Well that can't be -

I've read right here on DU that Monsanto is "science" and if you don't believe in them you are "anti-science" and an "anti-vaxxer". True Story.

[polly7]

33. They do try so hard.

Bless their little hearts.

[TBF]

39. Beats working for a living

I suppose ...

😎

[HuckleB]

40. Are you confessing, since you can't support your claim?

If not, cool. Still, the shill gambit attack is not ok.

[HuckleB]

36. Please link us to the post where anyone claimed "Monsanto is 'science.'" Thanks.

[Archae]

37. They already have their view of "science."

I posted above the cartoon of a Monsanto "Mad Scientist."

Thanks to the organic industry's propaganda, this is what people think of when they see "organic" in a store.



This is the reality.

[Dont call me Shirley]

38. Yup, anything anti-monsatan is conspiracy all in caps....

Except for the fact that they are guilty of conspiring to commit genocide with their war chemicals.

[dougolat]

42. And anything like the recent passage in th House...

...of the despicable DARK act is PROGRESS!

[TBF]

41. "So what's the problem here?"

So what's the problem here? Glyphosate (RoundUp) has long been touted as virtually harmless. EPA doesn't even bother to test for residues in food, having decided years ago they pose little risk. But studies to the contrary have gradually been accumulating, and in March of this year, 17 experts from 11 countries meeting at the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), unanimously agreed to re-classify glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (e.g. Group 2A). The Chair of the IARC committee was Dr. Aaron Blair, formerly the top scientist on pesticides and cancer at National Cancer Institute.

Monsanto has called the IARC findings "junk science," as the findings differ from the assessment of regulatory agencies in the U.S. and EU. However, IARC, unlike the regulatory agencies, looks at all the available studies in the scientific literature and does not ignore or downplay studies performed on the formulated product and/or which do not follow narrow testing protocols.

The response to IARC's findings in other parts of the world was immediate. Colombia halted the spraying of glyphosate as part of their coca eradication program. Bermuda and Sri Lanka banned imports of glyphosate products, and Germany's state consumer protection ministers called for "the supply to and use by private persons to be banned for precautionary reasons."

Michael Hansen, Ph.D
Senior Scientist with Consumers Union
Monsanto, RoundUp and Junk Science
Posted: 05/29/2015 10:48 pm EDT Updated: 06/01/2015 1:00 pm EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hansen-phd/monsanto-roundup-and-junk-science_b_7473736.html

[HuckleB]

43. Nice propaganda.

Consumers Union Makes False Claims Against the Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Based On Ideology Not Science
http://www.innovationfiles.org/consumers-union-makes-false-claims-against-the-safety-of-genetically-modified-foods-based-on-ideology-not-science/

So, hmm. Consumer reports' anti-GMO "scientist," says... OK, then.

And then there's the silliness around the hyperbole of the IARC statement.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/roundup-and-risk-assessment

Isn't it time to stop pushing extreme claims? Can you tell us which organic herbicides have lower LD50s than glyphosate?

[TBF]

44. The "Innovation Files" is your source??

[Archae]

45. What's wrong with them?

Did they post an article about a "Jewish plot" on 9-11, like the website in the OP?

Do they rely on reporting a court decision, that is suspect at best?

[TBF]

46. Neo-liberal think tank -

gee I wonder who funds them?

[HuckleB]

48. And yet, as Archae noted, you have no problem with the source used by the OP.

Last edited Tue Sep 15, 2015, 09:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Hmmmmmm.

[Archae]

50. Say what?

I had a BIG problem with the source in the OP, it took me less than a minute to find the anti-Jewish conspiracy theory on that website.

[HuckleB]

51. I typed too fast and missed a word.

Our friend, of course, has not come back to defend his/her defenseless stance. I'm shocked.

[Archae]

53. Ok, no problem on my end.

[TBF]

56. What? Ah, a strawman -

when all else fails make something up.

[HuckleB]

57. You're not even trying to make sense now.

[TBF]

61. Despite your repeated attacks and libel

you cannot disown the fact that you are citing a publication from a neo-liberal think tank supported by all the usual corporate sponsors. That's fine - it's very clear which side you are on. There are the corporations (and their owners) and there are the ordinary people.

In contrast I was raised in a family comprised of union members who worked in factories and family farmers (nearly all out of business at this point because they can't compete against the corporate groups like Monsanto). I don't expect to agree with you and frankly it's surprising we're even posting on the same website. It just goes to show what has happened to the democratic party in the past 1/2 century. We've been invaded. That may not make any "sense" to you but to most of us it's crystal clear. Let me be perfectly clear: we're not voting for your corporate candidates. And we're not supporting companies that are poisoning us in the name of profit.

[HuckleB]

62. I'm on the progressive side, and that means science and ethics matter.

That is not the case with the majority of your posts, at least on this thread.

[TBF]

64. And more attacks -

Your defense of Monsanto shows EXACTLY who you are no matter what you call yourself on this website.

[HuckleB]

65. You like to claim I make attacks, when that's all you do.

It's quite interesting, in a really depressing way.

[HuckleB]

49. Ah, a classic anti-GMO "response."

You can't respond to the actual evidence, so you bash the source, after utilizing Consumer Reports as a source, of all things, yourself.

And then you ignore the second science-based piece from the New Yorker completely.

Meanwhile, you have failed to support your earlier claims on this same OP.

Hmmmmmm.

PS: http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/

[TBF]

55. I didn't utilize Consumer Reports -

you are confusing me with the OP. But the bashing always begins when we don't agree 100% with whatever Monsanto says. Why is that?

[HuckleB]

58. So you don't even know the source of the links you utilize.

That explains a lot.

And, as with your other responses, you fail to respond to the majority of the content of the post to which you theoretically took time to respond, uh, to...

[HuckleB]

47. And a bit of reality.

Last edited Tue Sep 15, 2015, 07:16 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/

[arikara]

52. How anti-science of them

/sarcasm and a BIG K&R

[HuckleB]

54. Psst.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34075146

[Judi Lynn]

60. Fantastic information, Polly7. Thank you, so much. n/t