`

ASPARTAME - MONSANTO DIET DRINK POISON

(Aspartame: also known as Aspartamine, NutraSweet , Equal , Spoonful ) Commonly found in diet drinks and other artificially sweetened "diet" foods. Introduction: There are a number of people who have E-mailed us stating that the following article is an urban legend (untrue) and have provided links to acclaimed medical expert websites. In visiting these links, the pages provided little or no information substantiating their claims that the following article by Nancy Markel is untrue. It is our opinion that whether or not every small detail of the article is correct, the essence of the article is relevant. The essence is that aspartame contains methanol (and methanol cannot be made non-poisonous) which breaks down in the body. The methanol and its metabolic byproducts are bound to have damaging effects on the human body if taken in consistently high doses. Those who consume a lot of diet sodas or cook with Nutri-Sweet are the most likely to have the symptoms. And while the symptom list she provides is quite extensive, remember that the symptoms of methanol poisoning are also extensive.
WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE and the MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS FOUNDATION IS SUING FDA FOR COLLUSION WITH MONSANTO!

Article written by Nancy Markle I have spent several days lecturing at the WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE on ASPARTAME marketed as NutraSweet, Equal, and Spoonful ". In the keynote address by the EPA, they announced that there was an epidemic of multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus, and they did not understand what toxin was causing this to be rampant across the United States. I explained that I was there to lecture on exactly that subject. When the temperature of Aspartame exceeds 86 degrees F, the wood alcohol in ASPARTAME coverts to formaldehyde and then to formic acid, which in turn causes metabolic acidosis. (Formic acid is the poison found in the sting of fire ants). The methanol toxicity mimics multiple sclerosis; thus people were being diagnosed with having multiple sclerosis in error. The multiple sclerosis is not a death sentence, where methanol toxicity is. In the case of systemic lupus, we are finding it has become almost as rampant as multiple sclerosis, especially Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi drinkers. Also, with methanol toxicity, the victims usually drink three to four 12 oz. cans of these per day, some even more. In the cases of systemic lupus, which is triggered by ASPARTAME, the victim usually does not know that the aspartame is the culprit. The victim continues its use aggravating the lupus to such a

degree that sometimes it becomes life threatening. When we get people off the aspartame, those with systemic lupus usually become asymptomatic. Unfortunately, we can not reverse this disease. On the other hand, in the case of those diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, (when in reality, the disease is methanol toxicity), most of the symptoms disappear. We have seen cases where their vision has returned and even their hearing has returned. This also applies to cases of tinnitus. During a lecture I said "If you are using ASPARTAME (NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc.) and you suffer from fibromylagia symptoms, spasms, shooting pains, numbness in your legs, cramps, vertigo, dizziness, headaches, tinnitus, joint pain, depression, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, blurred vision, or memory loss -- you probably have ASPARTAME DISEASE!" People were jumping up during the lecture saying, "I've got this, is it reversible?" It is rampant. Some of the speakers at my lecture even were suffering from these symptoms. In one lecture attended by the Ambassador of Uganda, he told us that their sugar industry is adding aspartame! He continued by saying that one of the industry leader's son could no longer walk - due in part by product usage! We have a very serious problem. Even a stranger came up to Dr. Espisto (one of my speakers) and myself and said, "Could you tell me why so many people seem to be coming down with MS?" During a visit to a hospice, a nurse said that six of her friends, who were heavy Diet Coke addicts, had all been diagnosed with MS. This is beyond coincidence. Here is the problem. There were Congressional Hearings when aspartame was included in 100 different products. Since this initial hearing, there have been two subsequent hearings, but to no avail. Nothing as been done. The drug and chemical lobbies have very deep pockets. Now there are over 5,000 products containing this chemical, and the PATENT HAS EXPIRED!!!!! At the time of this first hearing, people were going blind. The methanol in the aspartame converts to formaldehyde in the retina of the eye. Formaldehyde is grouped in the same class of drugs as cyanide and arsenic-- DEADLY POISONS!!! Unfortunately, it just takes longer to quietly kill, but it is killing people and causing all kinds of neurological problems. Aspartame changes the brain's chemistry. It is the reason for severe seizures. This drug changes the dopamine level in the brain. Imagine what this drug does to patients suffering from Parkinson's Disease. This drug also causes Birth Defects. There is absolutely no reason to take this product. It is NOT A DIET PRODUCT!!! The Congressional record said, "It makes you crave carbohydrates and will make you FAT". Dr.

Roberts stated that when he got patients off aspartame, their average weight loss was 19 pounds per person. The formaldehyde stores in the fat cells, particularly in the hips and thighs. Aspartame is especially deadly for diabetics. All physicians know what wood alcohol will do to a diabetic. We find physicians that believe that they have patients with retinopathy, when in fact, the condition is caused by the aspartame. The aspartame keeps the blood sugar level out of control, causing many patients to go into a coma. Unfortunately, many have died. People were telling us at the Conference of the American College of Physicians, that they had relatives that switched from saccharin to an aspartame product and how that relative had eventually gone into a coma. Their physicians could not get the blood sugar levels under control. Thus, the patients suffered acute memory loss and eventually coma and death. Memory loss is due to the fact that aspartic acid and phenylalanine are neurotoxic without the other amino acids found in protein. Thus it goes past the blood brain barrier and deteriorates the neurons of the brain. Dr. Russell Blaylock, neurosurgeon, said, "The ingredients stimulates the neurons of the brain to death, causing brain damage of varying degrees. Dr. Blaylock has written a book entitled "EXCITOTOXINS: THE TASTE THAT KILLS" Dr. H.J. Roberts, diabetic specialist and world expert on aspartame poisoning, has also written a book entitled "DEFENSE AGAINST ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE". Dr. Roberts tells how aspartame poisoning is escalating Alzheimer's Disease, and indeed it is. As the hospice nurse told me, women are being admitted at 30 years of age with Alzheimer's Disease. Dr. Blaylock and Dr. Roberts will be writing a position paper with some case histories and will post it on the Internet. According to the Conference of the American College of Physicians, "We are talking about a plague of neurological diseases caused by this deadly poison". Dr. Roberts realized what was happening when aspartame was first marketed. He said, "his diabetic patients presented with memory loss, confusion, and severe vision loss". At the Conference of the American College of Physicians, doctors admitted that they did not know this. They had wondered why seizures were rampant (the phenylalanine in aspartame breaks down the seizure threshold and depletes seretonin, which causes manic depression, panic attacks, rage and violence). Just before the Conference, I received a FAX from Norway, asking for a possible antidote for this poison because they are experiencing so many problems in their country. This poison is now available in 90 PLUS countries worldwide. Fortunately, we had speakers and ambassadors at the Conference from different nations who have pledged their help. We ask that you help too. Print this article out and warn everyone you know. Take anything that contains aspartame back to the store. Take the "NO ASPARTAME TEST" and send us your case history. I assure you that MONSANTO, the creator of aspartame, knows how deadly it is.

MONSANTO funds the American Diabetes Association, American Dietetic Association, Congress, and the Conference of the American College of Physicians. The New York Times, on November 15, 1996, ran an article on how the American Dietetic Association takes money from the food industry to endorse their products. Therefore, they can not criticize any additives or tell about their link to MONSANTO. How bad is this? We told a mother who had a child on NutraSweet to get the child off the product. The child was having grand mal seizures every day. The mother called her physician, who called the ADA, who told the doctor not to take the child off the NutraSweet. We are still trying to convince the mother that the aspartame is causing the seizures. Every time we get someone off of aspartame, the seizures stop. If the baby dies, you know whose fault it is, and what we are up against. There are 92 documented symptoms of aspartame, from coma to death. The majority of them are all neurological, because the aspartame destroys the nervous system. Aspartame Disease is partially the cause to what is behind some of the mystery of the Desert Storm health problems. The burning tongue and other problems discussed in over 60 cases can be directly related to the consumption of an aspartame product. Several thousand pallets of diet drinks were shipped to the Desert Storm troops. (Remember heat can liberate the methanol from the aspartame at 86 degrees F). Diet drinks sat in the 120-degree F Arabian sun for weeks at a time on pallets. The service men and women drank them all day long. All of their symptoms are identical to aspartame poisoning. Dr. Roberts says "consuming aspartame at the time of conception can cause birth defects". The phenylalanine concentrates in the placenta, causing mental retardation, according to Dr. Louis Elsas, Pediatrician Professor - Genetics, at Emory University in his testimony before Congress. In the original lab tests, animals developed brain tumors (phenylalanine breaks down into DXP, a brain tumor agent). When Dr. Espisto was lecturing on aspartame, one physician in the audience, a neurosurgeon, said, "when they remove brain tumors, they have found high levels of aspartame in them". Stevia, a sweet food, NOT AN ADDITIVE, which helps in the metabolism of sugar (which would be ideal for diabetics), has now been approved as a dietary supplement by the FDA. For years, the FDA has outlawed this sweet food because of their loyalty to MONSANTO. Organic Stevia http://stevitastevia.com

If it says "SUGAR FREE" on the label-- DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!

Senator Howard Metzenbaum wrote a bill that would have warned all infants, pregnant mothers and children of the dangers of aspartame. The bill would have also instituted independent studies on the problems existing in the population (seizures, changes in brain chemistry, changes in neurological and behavioral symptoms). It was killed by the powerful drug and chemical lobbies, letting loose the hounds of disease and death on an unsuspecting public. Since the Conference of the American College of Physicians, we hope to have the help of some world leaders. Again, please help us too. There are a lot of people out there who must be warned, please let them know this information. ~ Comments Continued from the beginning: My wife who is board certified in Internal Medicine as well as Ambulatory Care (Emergency Medicine) and who is also a diabetics and geriatrics expert, occasionally sees patients who exhibit the symptoms mentioned in the article. Often, stopping consumption of aspartame (most frequently NutriSweet laden diet drinks) reduces or eliminates the symptoms. Some unfortunately cannot be reversed, once the process begins. The Success seminars have a variety of prominent speakers on a wide range of subject; one seminar included President and First Lady Bush (Sr.). A prominent physician speaking at the one I attended in 95, made the comment that Aspartame is #1 cause of complaints to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We've received lots of interesting E-mail accounts from others who've read that article. Here are a few samples [I removed the authors' names] ================================== Subject: Article by Nancy Markle re: Aspartame My name is D.C. from Silver Lake N.Y. I read the e-mail article regarding Aspartame by Nancy Markle approximately 2 weeks ago. It was forwarded to me by my sister who knew that I was experiencing problems with my eyes. I regularly used 3-6 packets of Equal sweetener in my coffee on a daily basis for years! That with other "diet" products. On September 8th, 1998, I experienced a sudden loss of vision in my right eye where only "colorful blurs" could be seen. After extensive testing including MRI, head x-rays, and vision testing of all sorts, the doctors told me they could not figure out what was wrong and recommended that I just replace the lens in my eye glasses to accommodate my new prescription. I did just that.

After reading the article on Aspartame, I immediately discontinued its use. After 5 days, I started feeling better and Praise the Lord, my eyesight started to CLEAR UP! I put the old lens back into my glasses on May 1, 1999 because the "new" lens clouded my vision and I could see better without my glasses. Coincidence? I think not. Thank you for sharing this valued article. I have forwarded it to everyone I know and have given copies to friends without e-mail. God Bless you all! D.C. ====================================== Subject: Help Please In last 2 years I have been diagnosed with "Lupus like" diseases as follows: PolymyalgiaFibromyalgia- Diabetes- Rheumatoid Arthritis with visual problems. I now have to wear glasses due to not being able focus; also no treatments are effective thus far. I drank about 6-10 diet drinks a day and have for about 20 years, my drink of choice was Diet Coke !!!!!! The doctor checks me for Lupus frequently, because when I first got sick, first symptom was butterfly rash on face, but all tests are negative this far. My sediment rate run very high. Is there a test for toxicity from NutraSweet? Please contact me either way. My doctor says diseases are progressing rapidly. ================================== Some thoughts about the medical establishment: I grew up in medical doctors family, with 3 of 4 siblings following my father into a medically related field. The medical community surrounded me. My wife is a practicing doctor. And in general we have high respect for the medical field. However, as she was going through her medical training at one of the top medical schools in the USA, she was told that half of what she would be taught over the next 4 years would later be found to be inaccurate, they just didnt know which half. In other words, there is a necessity for a sharp doctor to be flexible to accept new discoveries that replace old ones (thats why they call it the practice of medicine). Several truths that have been debunked since she went through medical school were that the brain and heart are static; they dont change or heal. Now of course we know that the heart can repair if given the right environment. Further that the brain is not static, but ever changing (neuroplasticity). Even though ADD, dyslexic children are often treated with psychotropics such as Ritalin or Adderall, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), after a detailed study concluded that they dont help academic performance long term at all! Neural-Cognitive Therapy is much more effective as far as academics are concerned. My wife was taught by some of her wise associates that if something didn't make sense, to "follow the money or

the power" to find out why a medical concept, product or medication was being backed by certain authorities. So while truth may be absolute, knowledge of the truth may be ever changing. ~

DIRTY SECRETS of the Food Processing Industry

http://scribd.com/doc/48259922 ~ `

Racketeering charges have been filed against Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, Monsanto, NutraSweet Co., the American Diabetes Association and Dr Robert Moser for
distributing toxic aspartame, in a class action representing many plaintiffs, filed in the US District Court for the
Northern District of California seeking $350 million in damages.

The suit charges the defendants with manufacturing and marketing a deadly neurotoxin unfit for human consumption, while they assured the pubic that aspartame (also known as NutraSweet/Equal)

contaminated products are safe and healthful, even for children and pregnant women. Present US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, is mentioned throughout the lawsuit. As evidence, an explosive affidavit from a former translator for the GD Searle company - the developer of aspartame - was made recently public and revealed the following. For 16 years, the Food and Drug Administration denied approval of aspartame because of compelling evidence of its contributing to brain tumours and other serious disabilities.

Donald Rumsfeld left President Ford's administration as Chief of Staff to become the CEO of
aspartame-producer GD Searle Co. in 1981. Shortly after, Rumsfeld became the CEO, and the day after President Reagan took office, aspartame was quickly approved by FDA Commissioner Arthur Hayes over the objections of the FDA's Public Board of Inquiry. Hayes had been recently appointed by the Reagan Administration. Shortly after aspartame's approval by the FDA, Hayes joined NutraSweet's public relations firm under a 10-year contract at $1,000 a day. In January 1977, the FDA wrote a 33-page letter to US Justice Department Attorney Sam Skinner: "We request that your office convene a Grand Jury investigation into apparent violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act." Skinner allowed the Statute of Limitations to run. Three FDA Commissioners and eight other officers and Skinner took jobs in the aspartame industry shortly after it was approved. The FDA once listed 92 adverse reactions from 10,000 consumer complaints and would send the list to all inquirers. In 1996 the FDA stopped taking complaints and now denies the existence of the report. Seizures, blindness, sexual dysfunction, obesity, testicular, mammary and brain tumours and death, plus dozens of other dread diseases named in the suit, arise from the consumption of this neurotoxin. Defendant Moser, past CEO of NutraSweet, is cited for misrepresenting facts to public and commercial users with full knowledge of the deceptions. Aspartame/Nutrasweet is sold to Bayer, Con Agra Foods, Dannon, Smucker, Kellogg, Wrigley, PepsiCo, Kraft Foods (Crystal Light), Conopco (Slim-Fast), Coke, Pfizer, Wal-Mart and Wyeth (to name a few), who use it in some of their products, including children's vitamins. These entities are named in other suits now in Californian courts. Defendant American Diabetes Association is meant to care for diabetics. A 35-year ADA member, diabetic specialist HJ Roberts, MD, FACP, discovered aspartame can precipitate or aggravate diabetes and its complications, or simulate the complications (especially neuropathy and retinopathy). His report, intended for the Annual Scientific Meeting of the ADA, was rejected for presentation and even publication of the abstract - but was later published in another medical journal.
` The Bush

Robert Cohen, author of Milk, The Deadly Poison which details the horrid politics behind the contamination of

Administration could be called the Monsanto Cabinet, per

our nation's milk and beef supply with bovine growth hormone. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was president of Searle Pharmaceuticals, a company owned by Monsanto. Rumsfeld was also the Secretary of Defense under President Ford. Rumsfeld is believed to have earned around US$12 million from the sale of Searle to Monsanto. Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly received $10,000 for his senatorial campaign from Monsanto in the mid 90s. Ashcroft's contribution from Monsanto was five times that of any other congressional hopeful. Ashcroft, and Sr. Bush Supreme Court appointee Clarence Thomas were instrumental in gaining Food and Drug Administation (FDA) approval for Monsanto's controversial artificial sweetener aspartame, which has been linked to over 200 ailments that include Alzheimer's disease, juvenile diabetes, depression, epileptic seizures, blindness, memory loss, excitability, weight gain, multiple sclerosis and lupus (The Idaho Observer, November, 2000). Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman was on the board of directors of Calgene Pharmaceutical, another company currently owned by Monsanto. Secretary of Health Tommy Thompson is the fourth member of the Bush cabinet to have direct ties to Monsanto. The former governor of Wisconsin designated his state as a biotech zone for the use of Monsanto's bovine growth hormone even though dairy farmers in his state opposed the designation by a 9-1 ratio. Thompson reportedly received $50,000 from biotech companies during his election campaign. Bovine growth hormone, which does increase the productivity of dairy cows, has also been linked to many health problems in children and adults (The Idaho Observer, November, 2000) and makes cows sick. Bovine growth hormone has been outlawed in most countries, but not the U.S. And as Cohen points out, another player in the Monsanto-studded Cabinet is Rep. Richard Pombo, who will head the Agriculture Subcommittee on Dairy, Livestock and Poultry. Pombo is also a Monsanto boy, having taken campaign money from it while stalling a 1994 bill to make labeling mandatory for milk or milk products containing Bovine Growth Hormones. Pombo helped kill the bill in committee. Monsanto also holds the patent on the terminator gene which prevents plants from producing viable seed so that farmers, and therefore, people will be dependent upon the multinational corporation for their food supply. Monsanto has proven to be one of the most greedy, ruthless and environmentally irreverent corporations in world history. One cannot serve the interests of Monsanto and serve the interests of people at the same time.

` BiblePlus http://bibleplus.org/health/ms_lupus.htm DVD: Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World; director: Cori Brackett http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/74846448

DVD: Sweet Remedy: The World Reacts to an Adulterated Food Supply; directors: JT Waldron http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/191050404

Organic Diabetic Sweetener - Stevia http://www.stevitastevia.com

book: The World According to Monsanto; by Marie-Monique Robin http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/286490848 http://www.librarything.com/work/5155236 http://books.google.com/books?id=7RqYQwAACAAJ DVD: The World According to Monsanto http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/317415694 book: The Last Farmer: How One Man Took on Monsanto to Save the Future of Food; by John Park http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/435418555 http://www.librarything.com/work/9879147 http://books.google.com/books?id=L1aHQAAACAAJ book: Fast Food Nation; by Eric Schlosser http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45248356 http://www.librarything.com/work/3735 http://books.google.com/books?id=Z_IO20TJBN8C dvd: Fast Food Nation; director: Richard Linklater http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/77539187 dvd: Foodmatters; director: James Colquhoun http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/428736140 book: Empty Harvest; by Bernard Jensen http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/170954616 http://www.librarything.com/work/1237077 http://books.google.com/books?id=Fp7eN8Ghg60C book: Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy Of Industrial Agriculture; Andrew Kimbrell http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/48013826 http://www.librarything.com/work/241618 http://books.google.com/books?id=plTcVDph_SQC book: Fateful Harvest: The True Story of a Small Town, a Global Industry, and a Toxic Secret; by Duff Wilson http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/46565121 http://www.librarything.com/work/569636 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fateful_Harvest http://www.safefoodandfertilizer.org/index.html book: Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills; by Russell L Blaylock http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44960035

http://www.librarything.com/work/854055 http://books.google.com/books?id=gav_LL7olqQC book: The Truth About Caffeine; by Marina Kushner http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/61209940 http://www.librarything.com/work/1269843 http://books.google.com/books?id=_xkjQaPrDxkC book: The Truth About Coffee; by Marina Kushner http://www.librarything.com/work/8358177 http://books.google.com/books?id=0lh1PgAACAAJ book: Silent Spring; by Rachel Carson http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/561302 http://www.librarything.com/work/23937 http://books.google.com/books?id=HeR1l0V0r54C dvd: Food Inc; director: Robert Kenner http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/429531017 http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/297529846 http://www.librarything.com/work/8401882 http://www.foodincmovie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food,_Inc. http://www.scribd.com/doc/43528259 dvd: King Corn; director: Aaron Woolf http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/213373700 http://www.kingcorn.net http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Corn_%28film%29 http://www.sustainabletable.org/features/articles/kingcorn/ book: Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/53122034 http://www.librarything.com/work/453446 http://books.google.com/books?id=ltpSPgAACAAJ http://www.seedsofdeception.com http://www.responsibletechnology.org book: Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods; by Jeffrey Smith http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/77541620 http://www.librarything.com/work/3361962 http://gmwatch.org http://www.scribd.com/doc/41584887 http://books.google.com/books?id=EctxAAAACAAJ

dvd: Food Fight; director: Chris Taylor http://www.foodfightthedoc.com dvd: Ingredients; producer: Brian Kimmel http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/608387521 http://www.ingredientsfilm.com http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=101225708412&notes_tab=app_2347471856 book: Animal Factory: The Looming Threat of Industrial Pig, Dairy, and Poultry Farms to Humans; by David Kirby http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/428027213 http://www.librarything.com/work/9398107 http://books.google.com/books?id=VQ9sXDyYN64C dvd: The Future of Food; by Deborah Koons Garcia http://www.thefutureoffood.com http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/63134852 book: Disconnect: The Truth about Cell Phone Radiation; by Devra Davis http://www.environmentalhealthtrust.org http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/526057538 http://www.librarything.com/work/10261957 http://books.google.com/books?id=x671QwAACAAJ dvd: Super Size Me; director: Morgan Spurlock http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/56582138 book: Don't Eat This Book: Fast Food and the Supersizing of America; by Morgan Spurlock http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57694996 http://www.librarything.com/work/18410 http://books.google.com/books?id=LLLuAAAAMAAJ dvd: Killer at Large, Why obesity is America's greatest threat; director: Steven Greenstreet http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/317962830 http://www.facebook.com/pages/Killer-at-Large-Why-Obesity-Is-Americas-GreatestThreat/109343939089227 book: We Don't Die We Kill Ourselves: Our Foods Are Killing Us!; by Roger L De Haan http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/83766162 http://www.librarything.com/work/2633326 http://books.google.com/books?id=jGlPAAAACAAJ book: Politically Incorrect Nutrition; by Michael Barbee http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/55803425

http://www.librarything.com/work/607609 http://books.google.com/books?id=KTGzxKdJ7hYC book: The ADHD Fraud: Children are dying from ADHD Drugs; by Fred A. Baughman http://www.adhdfraud.org http://www.ritalindeath.com http://www.feingold.org http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/71817204 http://www.librarything.com/work/1486426 http://books.google.com/books?id=3R4XCP1Dwi8C book: Living Downstream: A Scientist's Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment; by Sandra Steingraber http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/435418465 http://www.librarything.com/work/587300 http://books.google.com/books?id=SNLEbFK2_B0C book: The Fluoride Deception; by Christopher Bryson http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/53870969 http://www.librarything.com/work/1926469 http://books.google.com/books?id=q3v_JgjZ6fsC http://www2.fluoridealert.org http://www.lovethetruth.com/truth_about_fluoride.htm http://www.gatesofhorn.com/blog/the_fluoride_cover_up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_poisoning book: The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water; by Paul Connett http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/642278620 http://www.librarything.com/work/10119111 http://books.google.com/books?id=DEqDaoNTo2IC book: The Devil's Poison: How fluoride is Killing You; by Dean Murphy http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/278376305 http://www.librarything.com/work/8408241 http://books.google.com/books?id=YXKjNwAACAAJ book: Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death; by Barry Groves http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/47726037 http://www.librarything.com/work/278546 http://books.google.com/books?id=CvpFAAAAYAAJ book: Fluoride: The Freedom Fight; by H.C. Moolenburgh http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/23350208 http://www.librarything.com/work/10041318 http://books.google.com/books?id=rblpAAAAMAAJ

book: The Fluoride Question: Panacea or Poison; by Anne-Lise Gotzsche http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1111450 http://books.google.com/books?id=RP1pAAAAMAAJ ~ MONSANTO MEN in the USA Government ` The Bush administration's could be called the Monsanto Cabinet, per Robert Cohen, author of Milk, The Deadly Poison which details the horrid politics behind the contamination of our nation's milk and beef supply with bovine growth hormone. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was president of Searle Pharmaceuticals, a company owned by Monsanto. Rumsfeld was also the Secretary of Defense under President Ford. Rumsfeld is believed to have earned around US$12 million from the sale of Searle to Monsanto. Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly received $10,000 for his senatorial campaign from Monsanto in the mid 90s. Ashcroft's contribution from Monsanto was five times that of any other congressional hopeful. Ashcroft, and Sr. Bush Supreme Court appointee Clarence Thomas were instrumental in gaining Food and Drug Administation (FDA) approval for Monsanto's controversial artificial sweetener aspartame, which has been linked to over 200 ailments that include Alzheimer's disease, juvenile diabetes, depression, epileptic seizures, blindness, memory loss, excitability, weight gain, multiple sclerosis and lupus (The Idaho Observer, November, 2000). Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman was on the board of directors of Calgene Pharmaceutical, another company currently owned by Monsanto. Secretary of Health Tommy Thompson is the fourth member of the Bush cabinet to have direct ties to Monsanto. The former governor of Wisconsin designated his state as a biotech zone for the use of Monsanto's bovine growth hormone even though dairy farmers in his state opposed the designation by a 9-1 ratio. Thompson reportedly received $50,000 from biotech companies during his election campaign. Bovine growth hormone, which does increase the productivity of dairy cows, has also been linked to many health problems in children and adults (The Idaho Observer, November, 2000) and makes cows sick. Bovine growth hormone has been outlawed in most countries, but not the U.S. And as Cohen points out, another player in the Monsanto-studded Cabinet is Rep. Richard Pombo, who will head the Agriculture Subcommittee on Dairy, Livestock and Poultry. Pombo is also a Monsanto boy, having taken campaign money from it while stalling a 1994 bill to make labeling mandatory for milk or milk products containing Bovine Growth Hormones. Pombo helped kill the

bill in committee. Monsanto also holds the patent on the terminator gene which prevents plants from producing viable seed so that farmers, and therefore, people will be dependent upon the multinational corporation for their food supply. Monsanto has proven to be one of the most greedy, ruthless and environmentally irreverent corporations in world history. One cannot serve the interests of Monsanto and serve the interests of people at the same time. ~ Racketeering charges have been filed against Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, Monsanto, NutraSweet Co., the American Diabetes Association and Dr Robert Moser for distributing toxic aspartame, in a class action representing many plaintiffs, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California seeking $350 million in damages. The suit charges the defendants with manufacturing and marketing a deadly neurotoxin unfit for human consumption, while they assured the pubic that aspartame (also known as NutraSweet/Equal) contaminated products are safe and healthful, even for children and pregnant women. Present US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, is mentioned throughout the lawsuit. As evidence, an explosive affidavit from a former translator for the GD Searle company - the developer of aspartame - was made recently public and revealed the following. For 16 years, the Food and Drug Administration denied approval of aspartame because of compelling evidence of its contributing to brain tumours and other serious disabilities. Donald Rumsfeld left President Ford's administration as Chief of Staff to become the CEO of aspartame-producer GD Searle Co. in 1981. Shortly after, Rumsfeld became the CEO, and the day after President Reagan took office, aspartame was quickly approved by FDA Commissioner Arthur Hayes over the objections of the FDA's Public Board of Inquiry. Hayes had been recently appointed by the Reagan Administration. Shortly after aspartame's approval by the FDA, Hayes joined NutraSweet's public relations firm under a 10-year contract at $1,000 a day. In January 1977, the FDA wrote a 33-page letter to US Justice Department Attorney Sam Skinner: "We request that your office convene a Grand Jury investigation into apparent violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act." Skinner allowed the Statute of Limitations to run. Three FDA Commissioners and eight other officers and Skinner took jobs in the aspartame industry shortly after it was approved. The FDA once listed 92 adverse reactions from 10,000 consumer complaints and would send the list to all inquirers. In 1996 the FDA stopped taking complaints and now denies the existence of the report. Seizures, blindness, sexual dysfunction, obesity, testicular, mammary and brain tumours and death, plus dozens of other dread diseases named in the suit, arise from the consumption of

this neurotoxin. Defendant Moser, past CEO of NutraSweet, is cited for misrepresenting facts to public and commercial users with full knowledge of the deceptions. Aspartame/Nutrasweet is sold to Bayer, Con Agra Foods, Dannon, Smucker, Kellogg, Wrigley, PepsiCo, Kraft Foods (Crystal Light), Conopco (Slim-Fast), Coke, Pfizer, Wal-Mart and Wyeth (to name a few), who use it in some of their products, including children's vitamins. These entities are named in other suits now in Californian courts. Defendant American Diabetes Association is meant to care for diabetics. A 35-year ADA member, diabetic specialist HJ Roberts, MD, FACP, discovered aspartame can precipitate or aggravate diabetes and its complications, or simulate the complications (especially neuropathy and retinopathy). His report, intended for the Annual Scientific Meeting of the ADA, was rejected for presentation and even publication of the abstract - but was later published in another medical journal. ~ MONSANTO Genetically Engineered Food: How DANGEROUS to children? ` Listing of the flaws and of the suppressed information regarding Genetically Engineered Food (GM). Listing of the Alternative Farming Methods that will eliminate Global Hunger. ~ Report from: Korea-Japan Joint Resolution Against GM Wheat To: Wheat Farmers and Traders of the USA and Canada: We, consolidated consumers of wheat products and organic farmers of Korea and Japan, are strongly against GM wheat that contains not only Roundup-Ready herbicide-resistant protein but also antibiotics and the virus protein CaMV, all of them having potential of harming human health and causing irreversible damage to the whole of nature, of which we are part. We will never eat even one piece of such grain, nor will we allow one bit to reach our lands. Please stop using GM wheat and keep using conventional non-GM wheat, the variety that we have accepted and enjoyed. If any news that GM wheat is commercially grown reaches us, we win launch a massive rally to replace wheat with staple rice for any purpose of grain use. We sincerely wish you would take our voice into consideration when you make the choice of whether to go with GM wheat or conventional non-GM wheat. --The Coalition of Farmers and Consumers against GM Food in Japan A two-year-old Japanese study has now made it into an English translation. This document from the Health Ministry of Japan ought to rattle a few cages and cause Cheney-Stokes palpitations in the

breasts of scientists, both the perpetrators of fraud and the dupes who bought into the fiction being purveyed as science. In the Japanese report MONSANTO's dangerous logic may take this one-two punch without distress, but literate farmers will recoil if they pause to follow the trail Japanese scientists have marked with iron-clad clarity. Briefly, the desire to harvest more bins and bushels has prompted scientists to install a toxin into the bean itself via the agency of genetic engineering. With systemic resistance in tow, low-input cultivation and cropping could be simplified. To achieve this goal, MONSANTO created a soybean mutant resistant to their bestseller, the organophosphate Roundup. Glyphosate is the effective ingredient in Roundup. The resistant strains developed seriously hampered enzymatic activity of ESPS (5enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase) The technical nature of the development does not need to detain us. Suffice it to say that one of the enzymes works to synthesize the aromatic amino acids tyrosine, phenylalanine and tryptophan, for which reason the soybean failed to thrive. GENETIC ENGINEERING Genetic engineering was the rage at the time of the initial experiments. The idea was to breed unlike species at the molecular level, this technology having developed in the wake of Watson and Crick's modeling of DNA in 1953. The company scientists found a microorganism in glyphosate factory sewage. It was a soil bacterium capable of synthesizing aromatic amino acids in the presence of glyphosate. The resultant product was quite different from nature's blueprint. It took a powerful protein from a cauliflower virus to make the gene insert perform. Additionally, a signal peptide carries the necessary protein to the locus of the enzyme. These few notes are necessarily an aside, perhaps a bow to the ingenious craft of the engineer. But the mix of genes from several unrelated plants assumes understanding of a natural system so complex that no computer in the world could handle even a fraction of the information contained within a blade of grass. The genetically modified soybean has never existed in nature. It appropriated the genetic material of the bean and tampered with it in defiance of natural evolution. The Japanese study tells us that "239 (17.51 percent) nucleotides out of 1,365 total were manually converted into different bases . . . in order for the protein synthetic machinery of the soybean cell to decipher the bacterial gene across the species barrier." All this is interesting, a bit esoteric, and possibly a broadside designed to confuse the grower and hand off convincing evidence that Norman Borlaug is right, the world has to have genetic engineering and greater profits for the brilliant redesigners of nature. The Japanese paper said, "It is with good reason that genetically modified plants are called Frankenstein plants in Europe."

ARE THEY SAFE? According to the FDA, modified beans are as safe as those designed by natural evolution. Are they? For field tests, soybeans were grown without herbicides. The Roundup Ready soybean is usually sprayed with Roundup. "It was a surprise to find that both the genetically modified soybean 40-3-2 strain and the parent strain, A5403, used for field tests were not sprayed with Roundup herbicide in their cultivation. What MONSANTO has produced with Roundup application was a minimal amount, enough to test glyphosate residues in the harvested forage. Several tons of soybeans used in safety assessments were not produced with Roundup. The reason is not stated in the documents." Based on such data, the Japanese study asserts, it is not possible to assess the safety of soybeans that human beings and animals consume on the premise that glyphosate is missing, this when the toxin is used to inhibit plant enzyme ESPS and its effects on other metabolic pathways. One conclusion flows logically from the facts. Test results based on a product other than the one that is marketed are worthless. The protein analyzed was from E. coli, not from RR soybeans. The protein expressed in the bioengineered product does not have the same amino acid sequence as the soil bacterium from which the gene was harvested. There is the matter of "post-transnational modification after expression," the Japanese study said. In short, the whole procedure can run amok. Apparently it has, as on-scene sow breeding experiences in Iowa have revealed. The Japanese study noted that "amino acid sequence" was not determined. "What MONSANTO has sequenced was only 15 amino acids from N-terminal of the protein that was expressed in E. coli. The rest of the sequence was an assumption from the nucleotide sequence of the bacterial DNA. They determined only 33 percent of an expected total of 455 amino acids that the protein is not of soybean." Further: "The real sequence of CP4ESPS protein in the soybean we are eating is still unknown." Further: "Acute toxicity tests on rats are also carried out by the protein expressed in E. coli." What MONSANTO says in the application document is that extracting large amounts of CP4ESPS protein from soybeans is difficult. The Japanese find this a poor excuse. The paper goes on to define the proper procedure. The papers filed with the U.S. government stand accused of conjectural science, science converted to the needs of a corporation that apparently sees science as malleable. "The experiments described are fundamentally invalid," the report concludes. Yet the business of genetic engineering was loaded into American agriculture with hardly a single reference to the

American constituency that the government was obligated to consult. ANIMAL TESTS There were animal tests using cows, chickens, rats, catfish and quail. All seem to have been inadequate. Toasted soybeans were fed to only 10 rats in each group for 28 days. Cross-generation or chronic toxicity was not measured by such a limited scope. Even so, weight and welfare of kidneys, liver, etc., exhibited differences. Short-term tests of untoasted soybeans did not exhibit a difference between GMOs and natural, and this became a peg on which hangs the claim of "no difference." The statistical differences were evident just the same, the Japanese say, but were ignored: Even with these far-from-satisfactory experiments, the data for body and organ weight of liver, kidney and testicles show obvious differences in the male rats between both groups, wild strain A5403 and bio-engineered strain 40-3-2 soybean. The groups fed raw soybeans showed no difference, but the male group fed toasted soybean 40-3-2 exhibited 6.7 percent lower body weight than the A5403-fed group and 13 percent less than the group fed commercial feed mix at the end of test period of 28 days. Although this difference is described as statistically significant in the data sheet, the conclusion ignores these results and states that "no statistical significance is observed." The experiments are far from satisfactory in terms of both the samples and the statistical method used. Our group transcribed all raw data and redid the statistical analysis using the Turkey multiple method. The result again showed the apparent growth obstacle for body and kidney weight in male rats fed with toasted 40-3-2 soybean. We wondered why there is no such difference in the female rats group. The answer to this question seemed to be the amount of feed intake: where males took 25 to 30 grams/day, female rats took only 18 to 20grams/day (approximately 70 percent of male intake). It is highly possible that female rats would also show significant growth difference if the experiment were conducted on a much larger scale and with a longer feeding period. TOASTING, ETC. Much of this report has been abstracted in depth to make it readable for the average farmer. The conclusion needs no explanation, for it speaks with damning finality: We found a highly intentional misinterpretation in ignoring obvious differences between the A5403 and 40-3-2 hybrids in the documents. Raw soybeans showed no difference in the analysis between genes modified 30-4-2 and non-modified A5403 soybeans. Difference is observed in toasted soybeans. Besides such main components as water, protein, fat, fiber and ash, trypsin-inhibitor, lectin and urease, which are called harmful physiologically, active substances as feed are detected in the analysis. Urease is used as an indicator of protein denaturation by heat treatment.

Obvious differences appeared after toasting at actual feed processing conditions (108 C for 30 minutes). While the concentrations of total protein and potassium were not changed, the concentrations of trypsin-inhibitor, urease and lectin are significantly higher in the toasted glyphosate-tolerant bean 30-4-2 compared to that of the A5403 normal bean. These physiologically active substances remained active even after heat treatment in the genetically modified soybean, whereas those of the herbicide-sensitive normal bean were easily denatured and inactivated. The high activity of these elements does not usually satisfy as feed. This result prompted MONSANTO to claim that "the modified soybeans were not toasted sufficiently in the experiment," and they returned and asked for retreatment of the sample by the Texas A&M laboratory that processed the beans. MONSANTO ordered the condition of retoast at 220 C for 25minutes, which is considerably higher than normal processing of 100 C for 10 minutes. Retoasting, however, further widened the difference in activity between the two strains. The hybrid 61-67-1, another genetically modified soybean inserted with bacterial CP4EPSPS, showed a high heat-resistant property. Scientists would usually conclude in such a case that there was substantial difference between the two types, but MONSANTO concluded that the second toasting was still not enough. In the end, they toasted twice further and finally got the result they wanted, i.e., all proteins were denatured and inactivated. With this result, they concluded that genetically modified and nonmodified soybeans have equivalent properties. No protein can withstand repeated heat treatment and stay active. This is a common knowledge of protein chemistry. The results at normal feed-processing conditions is required - no more, no less. MONSANTO based their conclusions on the presumption that "they can't be different" and their economic need that "they shouldn't be different." Their translation of the experiment is based on a desired-outcome attitude and not at all scientific. The English-language report did not show analysis data of the third and fourth heat treatments, but the summary report in Japanesehas a graph, as if there were data, showing the final loss of activity, stating, "The data from insufficient heat treatments is not adopted" and "No substantial difference observed." If one reviews only the summary volume in Japanese and does not look into the English data, one would be ushered to the conclusion "safe." However, we found in the first and the second analyses data a fact indicative of regular heat treatment. Granulated soybean, when heated, loses weight as water and other volatile components evaporate, and as a result, relative concentration of non-volatile substance such as total protein and ash increases. The data shows clearly that the modified 40-3-6 and 61-67-1 and the non-modified A5403 have gone through same level of heat treatment. The decrease of water content also certifies this fact. MONSANTO concluded that the residual herbicide in a crop increases, therefore the safety standard should be slackened. Adopting the Roundup-tolerant soybean would increase the herbicide concentration in the soybean plants and seeds, because the herbicide is directly sprayed on the plant by post-emergence application before harvest. MONSANTO studied in detail the results of changing factors such as spraying times, the concentration of the active ingredient, glyphosate, the duration of

harvest after spraying, and growing locations. The data show clearly that the concentration of glyphosate and AMPA (a degraded metabolite of glyphosate) in forage and hay increase greatly by post-emergence application of the herbicide compared to that of conventional pre-emergence application, although the residual concentration in the plant differed from place to place. The largest value of the combined glyphosate and AMPA was 40.187 ppm in forage, considerably higher than the U.S. safety standard at the time of application to FDA and USDA (1994) of 15 ppm in forage and hay. The maximum combined concentration of glyphosate and AMPA in soybean seed was 13.178 ppm, less than the 20 ppm U.S. standard at that time. The concentration of residual glyphosate increased in accordance with the application, from two to three times. As a result, cultivating Roundup ready soybeans may sometimes violate U.S. safety standards We found a surprising statement in the document to address this problem. In its conclusion, MONSANTO says that "The maximum combined glyphosate and AMPA residue level of approximately 40 ppm in soybean forage resulting from these new uses exceeds the currently established tolerance of 15 ppm. Therefore, an increase in the combined glyphosate and AMPA tolerance for residues in soybean forage will be requested." They know very well that adoption of an herbicide-tolerant crop took precedence over safety standards. In fact, the U.S. tolerance standard of combined glyphosate and AMPA in soybean forage was changed to 100 ppm after they approved the genetically engineered soybean. As for the Japanese government, they revised the safety standard of combined glyphosate and AMPA in soybean seed from 6 ppm to 20 ppm in April 2000 at the request of the U.S. government. Japan could thus import soybeans from the United States without violation of the law. Thus, MONSANTO, in their rush to verify safety, patchworked the results of experiments and analyses that are as full of holes as an incomplete puzzle. Their product was asserted safe through manipulation of experimental results. Even more troubling, rather than trying to meet legal safety standards, they requested - and were granted - the revision of these standards to fit their needs We have managed to find facts showing inadequate and incomplete safety assessment in the application document by MONSANTO, even though our work was limited and took place under difficult conditions. The process of genetic recombination and the results of other animal experiments remain uninspected by us. TEST OF REASON The matter of genetically modified canola is being tested in Canada's high court. The U.S. courts have handed down incredible decisions, most of which carry out a reversal as greatly denounced as the Dred Scott ruling. For now it is up to the American farmer to shun GMOs. The Japanese seem to have taken the position that they want to see what happens to a generation of Americans before they

rush to judgment. The original paper cited, abstracted, and quoted above is titled "Fraudulent Conclusion: Facts Found by Inspection of the Safety Assessment of GM Roundup Tolerant Soybean, MONSANTO's Dangerous Logic as Seen in the Application Documents Submitted to the Health Ministry of Japan." The credit line reads, Masaharu Kawata, Assistant Professor, School of Science, Nagoya University, Japan. A subtitle says, "What Is Herbicide-Resistant Soybean by MONSANTO?" CONCLUSION: MONSANTO Genetically Engineered Food is VERY DANGEROUS. Stop the Monsanto BUTCHERS from KILLING your CHILDREN and GRANDCHILDREN. ~ School Food is Dangerous Dear John, Is anybody doing anything to change the food in schools? Its terrible. Last week I took my 8-yearold to a school picnic. It was a lovely day, but they served bologna and cheese sandwiches on white bread, with mayonnaise. Plus cookies and ice cream. And, of course, enormous plastic jugs of Coke. In class, pupils earn credits for good behavior, which they can use to get candy and Cokes. Help! Frieda Dear Frieda, My, oh my. That is a shame. Maybe you and your child could wear one of the T-shirts to school that says If you love me, dont feed me junk food. I wish these parents and teachers and administrators could understand what they are doing to the precious children in their care. Fortunately, there are some people trying to change things. The chairperson of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Tom Harkin, has proposed that the government subsidize the cost of giving away fruit and vegetables in school cafeterias as an alternative to candy and snacks that are sold in vending machines. Los Angeles Unified School District, which has 748,000 students on its 677 campuses, prohibits carbonated drink sales at elementary schools. And recently, the board of the nations second-largest school district extended the ban, effective January, 2004, to also include the districts approximately 200 middle and high schools.

The Board voted unanimously for this step, despite the vehement opposition of the National Soft Drink Association. Up until now, most Los Angeles Unified Schools have relied on soda sales to fund student activities such as sports and field trips. Sodas sold in vending machines and student stores have generated an annual average profit of $39,000 per high school. Wouldnt it make far more sense to fund our schools adequately in the first place, so they dont have to sell soft drinks and other junk food to cover their costs? Change is painfully slow, but it is starting. In 2001, Berkeley, California, schools went all organic. In 2002, the Oakland school district banned vending machines, candy, soda pop and other junk food from its campuses. In the fall of 2002, Palo Alto (California) Unified School District went all organic. I know its frustrating seeing the junk kids all-too-often eat in schools. But heres a recent report about how things can indeed change, written by Jon Rappaport, titled: A Miracle In Wisconsin In Appleton, Wisconsin, a revolution has occurred. Its taken place in the Central Alternative High School. The kids now behave. The hallways arent frantic. Even the teachers are happy. The school used to be out of control. Kids packed weapons. Discipline problems swamped the principals office. But not since 1997. What happened? Did they line every inch of space with cops? Did they spray valium gas in the classrooms? Did they install metal detectors in the bathrooms? Did they build holding cells in the gym? Afraid not. In 1997, a private group called Natural Ovens began installing a healthy lunch program. Huh?

Fast-food burgers, fries, and burritos gave way to fresh salad and whole grain bread. Fresh fruits were added to the menu. Good drinking water arrived. Vending machines were removed. As reported in a newsletter called Pure Facts, Grades are up, truancy is no longer a problem, arguments are rare, and teachers are able to spend their time teaching. Principal LuAnn Coenen, who files annual reports with the state of Wisconsin, has turned in some staggering figures since 1997. Drop-outs? Students expelled? Students discovered to be using drugs? Carrying weapons? Committing suicide? Every category has come up ZERO. Every year. Mary Bruyette, a teacher, states, I dont have to deal with daily discipline issuesI dont have disruptions in class or the difficulties with student behavior I experienced before we started the food program. One student asserted, Now that I can concentrate I think its easier to get along with people. What a concept---eating healthier food increases concentration. Principal Coenen sums it up: I cant buy the argument that its too costly for schools to provide good nutrition for their students. I found that one cost will reduce another. I dont have the vandalism. I dont have the litter. I dont have the need for high security. At a nearby middle school, the new food program is catching on. A teacher there, Dennis Abram, reports, Ive taught here almost 30 years. I see the kids this year as calmer, easier to talk to. They just seem more rational. I had thought about retiring this year and basically Ive decided to teach another year---Im having too much fun! ~ Monsanto's Agent Orange - DEAD BABIES & DEAD VETERANS ` THE ISSUE THAT WON'T GO AWAY

` The enduring presence of Agent Orange is just one terrible legacy of Vietnam's ill-fated war. The USA used the toxic defoliant to unmask guerrilla fighters by stripping forest cover. But children are still being born with terrible deformities. Families are denied compensation from the USA. The USA denies responsibility. Stop the baby killers Note, some of the above companies (or their subsidiaries) produce drugs, toxic chemical, herbicides, insecticides and fertilizer. Most chemicals are made from fossil fuels. First, they poisons you with their Chemicals. Then, they will help you with their drugs for an exorbitant price. ~

AGENT ORANGE SIDE EFFECTS

The potentially deadly Agent Orange side effects recognized by the Veteran Affairs include: Prostate Cancer Respiratory Cancers Multiple Myeloma Type II Diabetes Hodgkins Disease Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma Soft Tissue Sarcoma Chloracne Porphyria Cutanea Tarda Peripheral Neuropathy Spinal Bifidia in Vietnam veteran children exposed to Agent Orange AGENT ORANGE BIRTH DEFECTS Birth defects were found to occur in Vietnam veterans that were exposed to Agent Orange. The birth defects included Spinal Bifidia and Peripheral Transient Neuropathy, and have continued to affect third generations.

"TCDD (dioxin) has been shown to be extremely toxic to a number of animal species. Mortality does not occur immediately.it appears that the animals' environment suddenly becomes toxic to them." ~ CASARETT AND DOULL'S TOXICOLOGY, 1996 From 1962 to 1970, the US military sprayed 72 million liters of herbicides, mostly Agent Orange, in Vietnam. Over one million Vietnamese were exposed to the spraying, as well as over 100,000 Americans and allied troops. Dr. James Clary, a scientist at the Chemical Weapons Branch, Eglin Air Force Base, who designed the herbicide spray tank and wrote a 1979 report on Operation Ranch Hand (the name of the spraying program), told Senator Daschle in 1988, "When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the 1960s, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide. We were even aware that the 'military' formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the 'civilian' version due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However, because the material was to be used on the 'enemy,' none of us were overly concerned. We never considered a scenario in which our own personnel would become contaminated with the herbicide." quoted by Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, 1990 WHAT DID WE KNOW ABOUT DIOXIN, AND WHEN DID WE KNOW IT? The first reported industrial dioxin poisoning occurred in Nitro, West Virginia in 1949. The exposed workers complained of rash, nausea, headaches, muscle aches, fatigue and emotional instability. A 1953 accident elsewhere resulted in peripheral neuropathies. A 1969 report commissioned by the USDA found Agent Orange showed a "significant potential to increase birth defects." The same year, the NIH confirmed that it caused malformations and stillbirths in mice. In 1970, the US Surgeon General warned it might be hazardous to "our health." The same day, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, and HEW jointly announced the suspension of its use around lakes, recreation areas, homes and crops intended for human consumption. DOD simultaneously announced its suspension of all uses of Agent Orange. When dioxin contaminated material spread on a Missouri farm in 1971,

hundreds of birds, 11 cats, 4 dogs and 43 horses died. In 1978 the EPA suspended spraying Agent Orange in national forests, due to increases in miscarriages in women living near forests that had been sprayed. A 1979 study published in the JAMA by Bogen et al looked at 78 Vietnam veterans who reported Agent Orange exposures. Eighty percent reported extreme fatigue. Over 60% had peripheral neuropathies, 73% had depression, and 8% had attempted suicide. Forty-five per cent reported violent rages. Sudden lapses of memory were seen in 21%. A 1981 study by Pazderova et al. found one half of 80 exposed workers had metabolic disturbances, 23% peripheral neuropathies, and the majority, psychiatric changes, primarily depression and fatigue. In 1979, 47 railroad workers were exposed to PCBs including dioxin in Missouri when cleaning up a spillage from a damaged tank car that had been filled with these chemicals. All were followed medically for six years. Their initial complaints included fatigue and muscle aches. Two committed suicide. Careful evaluations at Rush-Presbyterian Hospital, in Chicago, confirmed peripheral neuropathies (in 96%), depression (69%), tremors (78%), abnormal fatigue (91%), and muscle aches or cramp (51%). Half had cognitive problems, including problems with attention and concentration (50%) and slowed reaction times. These studies are all consistent with each other, and describe a very significant, multi-system illness affecting all parts of the nervous system, and causing fatigue and muscle aches. Some of the studies documented additional organ dysfunction. This syndrome could be very disabling. WHAT DID IT TAKE TO FORGET WHAT WE KNEW? By 1983, 9170 veterans had filed claims for disabilities that they said were caused by Agent Orange. The VA denied compensation to 7709, saying that a facial rash was the only disease associated with exposure. Congress passed the Veterans' Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act of 1984 in response. It required the VA to appoint a 'Veterans' Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards' to review the literature on dioxin and submit recommendations to the head of the VA. According to Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, "The VA.directly contradicted its own established practice, promulgating instead the more stringent requirement that compensation depends on establishing a cause and effect relationship," improperly denying the bulk of the claims.

Four groups of impartial scientists were asked by Zumwalt to review the Advisory Committee transcripts. Their comments are telling, and include the following: "The work of the Advisory Committee.has little or no scientific merit." "an inadequate process is being used to evaluate scientific publications for use in public policy." "less than objective." Unfortunately, the flawed scientific reviews didn't end with the VA committee. The CDC was brought in to add weight to the bogus analysis of dioxin's effects. After 4 years and $63 million in federal funds, CDC concluded that an Agent Orange study could not be done based on military records, and furthermore concluded, without data, that veterans were never exposed to harmful doses of Agent Orange! When the CDC's protocols were examined, however, it was found that three changes had been made to its study in 1985, in an apparent attempt to dilute any negative effect that might be found. Congress learned in 1986 that administration officials, not scientists, had forestalled CDC research on the effects of dioxin. In 1990, Senator Daschle disclosed additional political interference in the Air Force's Ranch Hand study of Agent Orange effects. A 1984 draft report's conclusion was substantially altered, and the study was described as "reassuring." The Ranch Hand study is still ongoing, despite new allegations of fraudulent methodologies coming to light every few years. It will cost taxpayers over $100 million. Monsanto, a manufacturer of Agent Orange, was happy to duplicate the methods of federally funded studies. By omitting five deaths in the exposed group and putting four exposed workers in the control group, they were able to hide a 65% higher death rate in the workers exposed at the Nitro plant. Another study of workers exposed in 1953 at a BASF plant was also shown to be falsified, as all the data had been supplied by the BASF company. Thanks to the efforts of Admiral Zumwalt, who as the commanding Navy Admiral in Vietnam was responsible for some of the spraying, and whose son died from lymphoma, probably as a result of dioxin exposure, many more illnesses were finally linked to Agent Orange, and have been made service-connectable over the past decade. But Zumwalt did not succeed at clearing the air regarding dioxin's actual toxicity, nor did he stop further scientific shenanigans carried out by government and industry to hide the toxic effects of other products, especially those to which our servicemen and women are exposed. In April 2000, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences tried to release a report listing dioxin as a carcinogen, but it was blocked by a lawsuit filed by an industry group. NIEHS had tried to list dioxin as a carcinogen in 1991, but was not allowed to do so then. John Bucher, deputy

director of the NIEHS, says, "Dioxin tends to increase the likelihood of all types of cancers" while industry representatives continue to claim there is insufficient evidence to link dioxin to health problems. Ellen Silbergeld, a University of Maryland toxicologist, responded, "I think the public should be mad as hell about the [dioxin review] process and the way it's been abused." AGENT ORANGE: 2002 US and Vietnamese government scientists and international experts met last week in Hanoi to discuss the effects of the "last significant ghost" of the Vietnam War: Agent Orange. Vietnam wants US help performing research and obtaining compensation. It blames Agent Orange for tens of thousands of birth defects. The US and Vietnam did sign an agreement during the meeting to carry out joint research studies. But US ambassador Raymond Burghardt noted that developing research studies "that are definitive and address the underlying causes of disease in Vietnam" will be a "difficult task." Reporting on the conference, Reuters pointed out, "Observers say conclusive research could have far-reaching and expensive consequences in terms of compensation claims for the US and Agent Orange makers, Dow Chemical and Monsanto." However, the US seems to think it has an ace in the hole. The US embassy made clear, at the time of the conference, that "US-Vietnam relations were normalized in 1995 after Vietnam dropped claims of war reparations/compensation. At the time of normalization, neither compensation nor reparations were granted or contemplated for the future." And, anyway, the US government has a fallback position. "Washington argues there is no hard evidence showing the defoliant caused specific illness," Reuters reported last week. And US government scientists chimed in that any linkages to birth defects "would take many more years to prove." The well-documented story of dioxin and scientific perfidy provide a guidepost for how to assess government-sponsored research, advisory committees, and regulatory decisions that impact on the health effects of toxic exposures, especially when the government may be liable for damages. "Those Who Cannot Remember the Past Are Condemned to Repeat It" --George Santayana RECOMMENDED READING Zumwalt ER. Report to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs on the association between adverse health effects and exposure

to Agent Orange. DVA Report, 1990. Echobichon DJ. Toxic Effects of Pesticides, in Casarett and Doull's Toxicology. Klaassen CD ed, McGraw-Hill, NY. 1996. Klawans HL et al. Neurologic problems following exposure to TCDD, dioxin. In Neurotoxins and their pharmacological implications, ed. Jenner P, 1987. Raven Press, NY. Welch, Craig. Dioxin debate growing hotter. Seattle Times May 29, 2000 Agent Orange help needed now, Vietnam Red Cross says. Reuters, March 5, 2002. ~

Agent Orange Dangers

The most toxic dioxin was used in Agent Orange, the herbicide developed for military use. An April 2003 study performed by Columbia University sought to re-examine military records of the Vietnam War. What the study found was that about 21 million gallons of herbicides were sprayed from 19611971, adding up to 1.84 million gallons. This figure was 10% greater than previously believed, and over half of the herbicides sprayed were Agent Orange. Deadly illnesses associated to Agent Orange was not acknowledged by the Pentagon until years after Vietnam veterans were exposed to the dangerous herbicide. Laboratory studies performed in 1969 found that birth defects was linked to Agent Orange exposure, however the use of the herbicide was not discontinued until two years later, exposing 2.4 million Vietnam veterans to it, in addition to 5 million acres of forest with the majority of them still unrestored to date. According to the VA site, Agent Orange was sprayed from 1965 to April 1970. According to the president of Vietnam Veterans of Central Florida, When it was being sprayed you knew it. It was everywhere, for people who were on the ground, you could actually see it on their skin, (Orlando Sentinel, 6/9/03). Dow, Monsanto, Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Hercules Inc., Uniroyal inc., TH Agricultural & Nutrition Company, and Thompson Chemical Corporation all produced Agent Orange for military use and were included in the Agent Orange settlement. The Department of Veterans Affairs announced in 2003 that the link to chronic lymphocytic leukemia to Agent Orange exposed Vietnam veterans is so strong that benefits would automatically be given to any new diagnoses of it. There are as many as 1,000 new patients for chronic lymphocytic leukemia alone expected amongst Vietnam veterans. Since many of the diseases associated to Agent Orange exposure can take 20-30 years to develop, thousands of Vietnam veterans may have been excluded from the Agent Orange settlement in 1985. In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report linking Agent Orange to multiple myeloma and other conditions. As more Agent Orange studies were performed more illnesses were

linked to the herbicide. The VA has listed prostate cancer, respiratory cancers, multiple myeloma, type II diabetes, Hodgkins disease, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, soft tissue sarcoma, chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, peripheral neuropathy, and spinal bifidia in children of veterans exposed to Agent Orange as side effects of the herbicide. The recent Supreme Court issuance of Vietnam veterans to seek compensation from chemical manufacturers will allow the ability for justice to be given to victims unjustly exempted from the Agent Orange settlement. For years, Vietnam veterans have been unable to collect any damages despite the deadly illnesses suffered. Despite the lapse of time that has unfolded since the end of the Vietnam War, illnesses are still being diagnosed and Vietnam veterans that have served their country have been denied rights.

~ Monsanto Keeps Up Attack on Seed Saving Farmers

` As if U.S. farmers weren't in enough trouble, now the "seed police" are after them. Monsanto, the world leader in genetically modified grains, is pursuing fines and jail sentences for farmers who use their seed in noncontractual ways-such as saving it and sowing it the next season. The Center for Food Safety has released an investigative review of Monsanto's use of U.S. patent law to crack down on farmers. Monsanto has filed 90 lawsuits against U.S. farmers in 25 states that involve 147 farmers and 39 small businesses or farm companies, according to the report. *500: The number of U.S. farmers under investigation annually by Monsanto. *$10 million: Monsanto's annual budget (plus 75 staff) devoted to investigating and prosecuting U.S. farmers. *$15,253,602: The total recorded judgments granted to Monsanto for farmer lawsuits. *$3,052,800: The largest recorded judgment in favor of Monsanto as a result of a farmer lawsuit. *8 months: The prison sentence given to a Tennessee farmer convicted of violating an agreement with Monsanto. Sources: "Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers 2005" (The Center for Food Safety); The Associated Press. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CFSMOnsantovsFarmerReport1.13.05.pdf ~

The Story of Agent Orange

`

PART 1

It is the war that will not end. It is the war that continues to stalk and claim its victims decades after the last shots were fired. It is the war of rainbow herbicides, Agents Orange, Blue, White, Purple, Green and Pink. This never-ending legacy of the war in Vietnam has created among many veterans and their families deep feelings of mistrust of the U.S. government for its lack of honesty in studying the effects of the rainbow herbicides, particularly Agent Orange, and its conscious effort to cover up information and rig test results with which it does not agree. STUDY CANCELED On August 2, 1990, two veteran's groups filed suit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., charging that federal scientists canceled an Agent Orange study mandated by Congress in 1979 because of pressure from the White House. The four year, $43 million study was canceled, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, because it could not accurately determine which veterans were exposed to the herbicide used to destroy vegetation in Vietnam. The American Legion, Vietnam Veterans of America and other veteran's groups are charging a massive government cover-up on the issue of herbicide exposure because of the hundreds of millions of dollars in health care and disability claims that would have to be paid. The results of the scientific studies are rigged, claim many veterans, to exonerate the government which conducted the spraying and the chemical companies which produced the herbicides. Until there is a true study of the effects of Agent Orange, say the veterans - a study devoid of government interference and political considerations, the war of the rainbow herbicides will go on. Charges of a White House cover-up have been substantiated by a report from the House Government Operations Committee. That report, released August 9, 1990, charges that officials in the Reagan administration purposely "controlled and obstructed" a federal Agent Orange study in 1987 because it did not want to admit government liability in cases involving the toxic herbicides. Government and industry cover-ups on Agent Orange are nothing new, though. They have been going on since before the herbicide was introduced in the jungles of Vietnam in the early 1960s. PLANTS GIVEN CANCER Agent Orange had its genesis as a defoliant in an obscure laboratory at the University of Chicago during World War II. Working on experimental plant growth at the time, Professor E.J. Kraus, chairman of the school's botany department, discovered that he could regulate the growth of plants through the infusion of various hormones. Among the discoveries he made was that certain broadleaf vegetation could be killed by causing the plants to experience sudden, uncontrolled growth. It was similar to giving the plants cancer by introducing specific chemicals. In some instances, deterioration

of the vegetation was noticed within 24-48 hours of the introduction of the chemicals. Kraus found that heavy doses of the chemical 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) could induce these growth spurts. Thinking this discovery might be of some use in the war effort, Kraus contacted the War Department. Army scientists tested the plant hormones but found no use for them before the end of the war. Civilian scientists, however, found Kraus' plant hormones to be of use in everyday life after the war. Chemical sprays that included 2,4-D were put on the market for use in controlling weeds in yards, along roads and railroad rights of way. ARMY EXPERIMENTS WITH DEADLY DEFOLIANTS The Army continued to experiment with 2,4-D during the 1950s and late in the decade found a potent combination of chemicals which quickly found its way into the Army's chemical arsenal. Army scientists found that by mixing 2,4-D and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) and spraying it on plants, there would be an almost immediate negative effect on the foliage. What they didn't realize, or chose to ignore, was that 2,4,5-T contained dioxin, a useless by-product of herbicide production. It would be twenty more years until concern was raised about dioxin, a chemical the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would later call "one of the most perplexing and potentially dangerous" known to man. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "The toxicity of dioxin renders it capable of killing some species of newborn mammals and fish at levels of five parts per trillion (or one ounce in six million tons). Less than two millionths of an ounce will kill a mouse. Its toxic properties are enhanced by the fact that it can pass into the body through all major routes of entry, including the skin (by direct contact), the lungs (by inhaling dust, fumes or vapors), or through the mouth. Entry through any of these routes contributes to the total body burden. Dioxin is so toxic, according to the encyclopedia, because of this: "Contained in cell membranes are protein molecules, called receptors, that normally function to move substances into the cell. Dioxin avidly binds to these receptors and, as a result, is rapidly transported into the cytoplasm and nucleus of the cell, where it causes changes in cellular procession." After minimal experimentation in 1961, a variety of chemical agents was shipped to Vietnam to aid in anti-guerilla efforts. The chemicals were to be used to destroy food sources and eliminate foliage that concealed enemy troop movements. RAINBOW HERBICIDES The various chemicals were labeled by color-coded stripes on the barrels, an arsenal of herbicides known by the colors of the rainbow, including Agent Blue (which contained arsenic), Agent White, Agent Purple, and the lethal combination of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, Agent Orange.

On January 13, 1962, three U.S. Air Force C-123s left Tan Son Nhut airfield to begin Operation Hades (later called Operation Ranch Hand), the defoliation of portions of South Vietnam's heavily forested countryside in which Viet Cong guerrillas could easily hide. By September, 1962, the spraying program had intensified, despite an early lack of success, as U.S. officials targeted the Ca Mau Peninsula, a scene of heavy communist activity. Ranch Hand aircraft sprayed more than 9,000 acres of mangrove forests there, defoliating approximately 95 percent of the targeted area. That mission was deemed a success and full approval was given for continuation of Operation Ranch Hand as the U.S. stepped up its involvement in Vietnam. SIX TO TWENTY-FIVE TIMES STRONGER THAN RECOMMENDED Over the next nine years, an estimated 12 million gallons of Agent Orange were sprayed throughout Vietnam. The U.S. military command in Vietnam insisted publicly the defoliation program was militarily successful and had little adverse impact on the economy of the villagers who came into contact with it. Although the herbicides were widely used in the United States, they usually were heavily diluted with water or oil. In Vietnam, military applications were sprayed at the rate of three gallons per acre and contained approximately 12 pounds of 2,4-D and 13.8 pounds of 2,3,5-T. The military sprayed herbicides in Vietnam six to 25 times the rate suggested by the manufacturer. In 1962, 15,000 gallons of herbicide were sprayed throughout Vietnam. The following year that amount nearly quadrupled, as 59,000 gallons of chemicals were poured into the forests and streams. The amounts increased significantly after that: 175,000 gallons in 1964, 621,000 gallons in 1965 and 2.28 million gallons in 1966. The pilots who flew these missions became so proficient at their jobs that it would take only a few minutes after reaching their target areas to dump their 1,000-gallon loads before turning for home. Flying over portions of South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia that had been sprayed, the pilots could see the effects of their work. Many of them adopted a grim fatalism about the job. Over the door of the ready room for Ranch Hand pilots at Tan Son Nhut Airport near Saigon hung this sign: "Only You Can Prevent Forests." MAKERS KNEW OF DANGER TO HUMANS Unknown to the tens of thousands of American soldiers and Vietnamese civilians who were living, eating and bathing in a virtual omnipresent mist of the rainbow herbicides, the makers of these chemicals were well aware of their long-term toxic effects, but sought to suppress the information from the government and the public, fearing negative backlash. Of particular concern to the chemical companies was Agent Orange, which contained dioxin. Publicly, the chemical companies said dioxin occurred naturally in the environment and was not harmful to humans.

Privately, they knew otherwise. A February 22, 1965 Dow Chemical Corporation internal memorandum provided a summary of a meeting in which 13 executives discussed the potential hazards of dioxin in 2,4,5-T. Following that meeting, Dow officials decided to meet with other makers of the chemical and formulate a stance on Agent Orange and dioxin. In March 1965, Dow official V.K. Rowe convened a meeting of executives of Monsanto, Hooker Chemical, which operated the Love Canal dump, Diamond Alkali, the forerunner of DiamondShamrock, and the Hercules Powder Co., which later became Hercules, Inc. According to documents uncovered only years later, the purpose of this meeting was "to discuss the toxicological problems caused by the presence of certain highly toxic impurities" in samples of 2,4,5T. The primary "highly toxic impurity" was 2,3,7,8 TCDD, one of 75 dioxin compounds. CONCERN OVER DIOXINS KEPT QUIET Three months later, Rowe sent a memo to Ross Mulholland, a manager with Dow in Canada, informing him that dioxin "is exceptionally toxic, it has a tremendous potential for producing chloracne (a skin disorder similar to acne) and systemic injury." Rowe ordered Mulholland in a postscript to the letter that "Under no circumstances may this letter be reproduced, shown or sent to anyone outside of Dow." Among those in attendance at one of the meetings of chemical company officials was John Frawley, a toxicologist for Hercules, Inc. In an internal memorandum for Hercules officials, Frawley wrote in 1965 that Dow was concerned the government might learn of a Dow study showing that dioxin caused severe liver damage in rabbits. Dow was concerned, according to Frawley, that "the whole industry will suffer." Frawley said he came away from the meeting with the feeling that "Dow was extremely frightened that this situation might explode" and lead to government restrictions. The concern over dioxins was kept quiet and largely out of the public view. The U.S. government and the chemical companies presented a united front on the issue of defoliation, claiming it was militarily necessary to deprive the Viet Cong of hiding places and food sources and that it caused no adverse economic or health effects to those who came into contact with the rainbow herbicides, particularly Agent Orange. AIR FORCE KNEW OF HEALTH DANGER But, scientists involved in Operation Ranch Hand and documents uncovered recently in the National Archives present a somewhat different picture. There are strong indications that not only were military officials aware as early as 1967 of the limited effectiveness of chemical defoliation, they knew of potential long-term health risks of frequent spraying and sought to keep that information from the public by managing news reports.

Dr. James Clary was an Air Force scientist in Vietnam who helped write the history of Operation Ranch Hand. Clary says the Air Force knew Agent Orange was far more hazardous to the health of humans than anyone would admit at the time. "When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the 1960s," Clary wrote in a 1988 letter to a member of Congress investigating Agent Orange, "we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide. We were even aware that the `military' formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the `civilian' version, due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However, because the material was to be used on the `enemy,' none of us were overly concerned. We never considered a scenario in which our own personnel would become contaminated with the herbicide. And, if we had, we would have expected our own government to give assistance to veterans so contaminated." MILITARY DOWNPLAYS USE OF HERBICIDES Aware of the concern over the use of herbicides in Vietnam, particularly the use of Agent Orange, the U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV), attempted to put the proper public relations spin on information concerning Operation Ranch Hand by announcing a "revision" in its policy on the use of herbicides. It was not so much a revision of the policy as it was an appearance of a revision of the policy as it was an appearance of revision, as is evident in a memorandum signed by Gen. R.W. Komer, deputy to Gen. William Westmoreland for civil operations and RD support (CORDS). "The purpose of this exercise would be to meet criticisms of excessive use of defoliants by clarifying that they will no longer be used in large areas, while in reality not restricting our use of defoliants (since they are not now normally used in this area anyway). In addition, there would be an escape clause . . . which would permit the use of defoliants even in the prohibited area provided that a strong case could be made to MACV/JGS. "Appearing to restrict the use of defoliants in this manner would (a) help meet US and Vietnamese criticism of these operations; (b) increase peasant confidence so that they would grow more rice; (c) be of psywar (psychological warfare) value by suggesting that large areas were sufficiently pacified by now that large scale defoliants use was no longer necessary." But the idea that the spraying of herbicides could be confined to a limited area as suggested in this memo was known to be futile as early as 1962. MIST DRIFT One of the first defoliation efforts of Operation Ranch Hand was near a rubber plantation in January, 1962. According to an unsigned U.S. Army memorandum dated January 24, 1966, titled "Use of

Herbicides in Vietnam," studies showed that within a week of spraying, the trees in the plantation "showed considerable leaf fall." "The injury to the young rubber trees occurred even though the plantation was located some 500 yards away and upwind of the target at the time of the spray delivery." The memo went on to say that "vapors of the chemical were strong enough in concentration to cause this injury to the rubber." These vapors, "appear to come from `mist drift' or from vaporization either in the atmosphere or after the spray has settled on the vegetation." The issue of "mist drift" continued to plague the defoliation program. How far would it drift? How fast? Wind speed and direction were of major concerns in answering these questions. Yet, there were other questions, many of which could not be answered. What happened in humid weather? How quickly did the chemicals diffuse in the atmosphere or were they carried into the clouds and dropped dozens of miles away? How long would the rainbow herbicides linger in the air or on the ground once they were sprayed? A November 8, 1967 memorandum from Eugene M. Locke, deputy U.S. ambassador in Saigon, once again addressed the problem of "mist drift" and "significant damage" to rubber plantations from spraying earlier in the year. According to Locke, "the herbicide damage resulted from a navigational error; some trees in another plantation had been defoliated deliberately in order to enhance the security of a U.S. military camp. The bulk of the herbicide damage must be attributed, however, to the drift of herbicide through the atmosphere. This drift occurs (a) after the spray is released from the aircraft and before it reaches the ground, and/or (b) when herbicide that has already reached the ground vaporizes during the heat of the day, is carried aloft, then moved by surface winds and eventually deposited elsewhere. "There is a lack of agreement within the Mission regarding the distances over which the two kinds of drift can occur. When properly released (as required at 150 feet above the target, with winds of no more than 10 mph blowing away from nearby plantations) herbicide spray should fall with reasonable accuracy upon its intended target. The range of drift of vaporized herbicide, however, has not been scientifically established at the present time. In recognition of this phenomenon and to minimize it, current procedures require that missions may be flown only during inversion conditions, i.e., when the temperature on the land and in the atmosphere produces downward currents of air. Estimates within the Mission of vaporized herbicide drift range from only negligible drift to distances of up to 10 kilometers and more." Ten kilometers and more. More than six miles. In essence, troops operating more than six miles from defoliation operations could find themselves, their water and their food doused with chemical agents, including dioxin-laced Agent Orange. And they wouldn't even know it. More than four months later, on March 23, 1968, Gen. A.R. Brownfield, then Army Chief of Staff,

sent a message to all senior U.S. advisors in the four Corps Tactical Zones (CTZ) of Vietnam. Brownfield ordered that "helicopter spray operations will not be conducted when ground temperatures are greater that 85 (degrees) Fahrenheit and wind speed in excess of 10 mph." But the concern was not for any troops operating in the areas of spraying, as was evident in the memo, but for the rubber plantations. The message ordered that "a buffer distance of at least two (2) kilometers from active rubber plantation must be maintained." No such considerations were given for the troops operating in the area. PROJECT PINK ROSE One of the U.S. government's worst planned and executed efforts to use herbicides was a secret operation known as "Project Pink Rose." According to a recently declassified report on "Project Pink Rose," the operation had its genesis in September 1965 when the Joint Chiefs of Staff received a recommendation from the Commander in Chief Pacific "to develop a capability to destroy by fire large areas of forest and jungle growth in Southeast Asia." On March 11, 1966, a test operation known as "Hot Tip" was documented at Chu Pong mountain near Pleiku when 15 B-52s dropped incendiaries on a defoliated area. According to the declassified memo, "results were inconclusive but sufficient fire did develop to indicate that this technique might be operationally functional." What neither the government nor the chemical companies told anyone was that burning dioxins significantly increases the toxicity of the dioxins. So, not only was the government introducing cancer causing chemicals into the war, it was increasing their toxicity by burning them. Nevertheless, "Project Pink Rose" continued. In November, 1966, three free strike target areas were selected: one in War Zone D and two in War Zone C. Each target was a box seven kilometers square. The target areas were double and triple canopy jungle. The areas were heavily prepped with defoliants, the government dumping 255,000 gallons on the test sites. The three sites were bombed individually, one on January 18, 1967, another January 28, 1967 and the last on April 4, 1967. According to the memo, "the order and dates of strikes were changed to properly phase Pink Rose operations with concurrent ground operations." Which means that U.S. and Vietnamese troops were living and fighting in these test sites on which 255,000 gallons of cancer causing defoliants had been dumped. The results of "Project Pink Rose" were less than favorable.

According to the memo, "The Pink Rose technique is ineffective as a means of removing the forest crown canopy." The conclusion: "Further testing of the Pink Rose technique in South Vietnam under the existing concept be terminated." DEFOLIANTS DUMPED ON PEOPLE AND INTO WATER SUPPLIES In addition to the planned dumps of herbicides, accidental and intentional dumps of defoliants over populated areas and into the water supplies was not unusual, according to government documents. A memorandum for the record dated October 31, 1967, and signed by Col. W.T. Moseley, chief of MACV's Chemical Operations Division, reported an emergency dump of herbicide far from the intended target. At approximately 1120 hours, October 29, 1967, aircraft #576 made an emergency dump of herbicide in Long Khanh Province due to failure of one engine and loss of power in the other. Approximately 1,000 gallons of herbicide WHITE were dumped from an altitude of 2,500 feet. No mention was made of wind speed or direction, but chemicals dropped from that height had the potential to drift a long way. Another memorandum for the record, this one dated January 8, 1968 and signed by Col. John Moran, chief Chemical Operations Division of MACV, also reported an emergency dump of herbicide, this time into a major river near Saigon. "At approximately 1015 hours, January 6, 1968, aircraft #633 made an emergency dump over the Dong Nai River approximately 15 kilometers east of Saigon when the aircraft experienced severe engine vibration and loss of power. Approximately 1,000 gallons of herbicide ORANGE were dumped from an altitude of 3,500 feet." CHEMICAL COMPANY EMPLOYEES DEVELOP SKIN PROBLEMS The chemical companies continued to insist that the herbicides in general, and Agent Orange in particular, had no adverse effects on humans. This despite Dow's concerns about human exposure to Agent Orange expressed internally in 1965 but hidden from the government. And this despite evidence at the plants producing Agent Orange that workers exposed to it suffered unusual health problems. The Diamond Alkali Co. in Newark, New Jersey, was one of the major producers of Agent Orange for the government. Spurred by Pentagon officials to make their production schedules to "help the war effort," patriotic employees at Diamond Alkali eagerly sought to fill their quotas. But some of Diamond Alkali's employees began suffering what were described as "painful and

disfiguring" skin diseases, according to the doctor who treated more than 50 of the employees in the early and mid 1960s. "They (the employees) were aware of what was going on," said Dr. Roger Brodkin, head of dermatology at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. "No one worried much about the skin disease because everyone was determined to make production schedules." Brodkin said he alerted state health officials of the problem, but got little response. "They came out, all of them, said Brodkin. "They looked around and they said, `Ah hah,' and left. Nothing was done." Brodkin later discovered that many of Diamond Alkali's employees involved in the manufacture of Agent Orange were suffering a variety of ailments. "We discovered that not only were these people getting skin disease, but they were also showing some indication of liver damage," he said. It was not until 1983 that the state of New Jersey got around to testing the soil around the plant. It found hazardous levels of dioxin. New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean urged residents living within 300 yards of the plant to move. It was not until 1968 that scientists began raising some concerns about the use of the rainbow herbicides in Vietnam. STATE DEPARTMENT EXONERATES CHEMICAL COMPANIES Part of their concern came following a November 1967 study by Yale University botany Professor Arthur Galston. Galston did some experiments with Agent Orange and other herbicides to determine whether they were dangerous to humans and animals. Galston was unable to come to any definite conclusions on Agent Orange, but advised that continued use of it might "be harmful" and have unforeseen consequences. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in the summer of 1968 sent a letter to the Secretaries of State and Defense urging a study to determine the ecological effects of herbicide spraying in Vietnam. That letter prompted a cable from Secretary of State Dean Rusk to the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. The cable, dated August 26, 1968, sought additional information but informed embassy officials of the tactic State was going to take in its reply to the AAAS. "The Department of State's proposed reply notes that the limited investigations of the ecological

problem which have been conducted by agencies of the USG thus far have failed to reveal serious ecological disturbances, but acknowledges that the long-term effect of herbicides can be determined definitively only by long-term studies." Rusk suggested releasing "certain non-sensitive" portions of a study on the ecological effects of herbicide spraying in Vietnam done earlier that year by Dr. Fred H. Tschirley, then assistant chief of the Corps Protection Research Branch, Corps Research Division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Beltsville, Maryland. Tschirley went to Vietnam under the auspices of the State Department early in 1968 and returned with exactly the report the U.S. government and the chemical companies wanted. Tschirley foresaw no long-term ecological impact on Vietnam as a result of the herbicide spraying. In addition, in his report of April 1968, later reprinted in part in the February 21, 1969 issue of Science magazine, Tschirley exonerated the chemical companies. "The herbicides used in Vietnam are only moderately toxic to warm-blooded animals," Tschirley wrote. "None deserves a lengthy discussion except for Agent Blue (cacodylic acid), which contains arsenic." This despite evidence within the chemical companies that dioxin, the most toxic ingredient in Agent Orange, was responsible for health problems in laboratory animals and workers at the plants that produced the chemical. "There is no evidence," Tschirley wrote, "to suggest that the herbicides used in Vietnam will cause toxicity problems for man or animals." Rusk urged Tschirley's report be made public. In his cable to Saigon, he wrote: "Its publication would not only help avoid some awkwardness for Tschirley, but would provide us with valuable documentation to demonstrate that the USG is taking a responsible approach to the herbicide program and that independent investigation has substantiated the Midwest Institute's findings that there have been no serious adverse ecological consequences." What Rusk did not mention was that Tschirley's report had been heavily edited, in essence changing its findings. USE OF CHEMICALS CONTINUES IN VIETNAM While the debate over the danger of Agent Orange and dioxin heated up in scientific circles, the U.S. Air Force continued flying defoliation sorties. And the troops on the ground continued to live in the chemical mist of the rainbow herbicides. They slept with it, drank it in their water, ate it in their food and breathed it when it dropped out of the air in a fine, white pungent mist. Some of the troops in Vietnam used the empty Agent Orange drums for barbecue pits. Others stored watermelons and potatoes in them. Still others rigged the residue laden drums for showers.

Former Marine Danny Gene Jordan remembers sitting on Hill 549 near Khe Sanh in the spring of 1968, waiting for night and cooking his C-rations. Jordan had been in country just a few weeks and was still learning his way around, so he wasn't sure why the five C-123s approaching his unit would be flying so low and in formation. "They're defoliating," one of his buddies told him. Then came the mist, like clouds floating out of the back of the C-123s, soaking the men, their clothes and their food. For the next two weeks, the men of Jordan's unit suffered nausea and diarrhea. Jordan returned from Vietnam with an unusual amount of dioxin in his system. More than 15 years later, he still had 50 parts per trillion, considered abnormally high. He also had two sons born with deformed arms and hands. The spraying continued unabated in 1968, even though, according to military records, it apparently was having minimal effects on the enemy. A series of memorandums uncovered in the National Archives and now declassified indicate that defoliation killed a lot of plants, but had little real effect on military operations. ADVANTAGES VERSES DISADVANTAGES DISCUSSED As early as 1967 it had become clear that herbicide spraying was having few of the desired effects. According to an undated and unsigned USMACV memorandum, Rand Corporation studies in October 1967, concluded "that the crops destruction effort may well be counterproductive." According to the memo, "The peasant, who is the target of our long range pacification objectives, bears the brunt of the crop destruction effort and does not like it." Col. John Moran, chief of the Chemical Operations Division of MACV, wrote a memorandum dated October 3, 1968, and titled "Advantages and Disadvantages of the Use of Herbicides in Vietnam" that provides some key insights into the defoliation program. "The effect of defoliation on the enemy, in itself, is of little military value," Moran wrote. "Its military potential is realized only when it is channeled into selected targets and combined with combat power to restrain the enemy from using an area or pay the cost in men and material from accurately delivered firepower." Disadvantages of defoliation were more numerous, according to the memorandum. "The herbicide program carries with it the potential for causing serious adverse impacts in the economic, social and psychological fields," Moran wrote. Ecologically, according to the memorandum, "Semideciduous forests, especially in War Zone C and D, have been severely affected. The regeneration of these forests could be seriously retarded by repeated applications of herbicide."

An unsigned, undated memorandum written sometime late in 1968 provided even more details about the negative impact of defoliation. Regarding the effect of VC/NVA combat and infiltration capability, the memo reported that "Very few PWs who have infiltrated even mention the effects of US herbicide operations. Some state that they have seen areas where the vegetation has been killed, but do not mention any infiltration problems caused by the defoliation. There are indications that US herbicide operations have had a negligible effect on NVA infiltration and combat operations." The psychological effects of defoliation, according to the memorandum, were twofold; they either hardened the resolve of the VC/NVA or angered the Vietnamese farmers whose crops were destroyed. "Some enemy soldiers may become more dedicated to the elimination of those who `ravage the countryside.' In addition, Allied herbicide operations may provide good material for enemy propaganda efforts aimed at fermenting an anti-US/GVN (Government of Vietnam) attitude among the population." The reaction of the civilians affected by herbicide spraying is even more noticeable according to the memo. "The obvious reaction of the peasant whose labors have been destroyed is one of bitterness and hatred. He will frequently direct this hatred toward both the US/GVN, for accomplishing the destruction, and the VC/NVA, for bringing it about. If he has previously leaned toward the VC, he is likely to side with them completely after the crop destruction. He is aided in making this decision by the incessant propaganda of the VC cadre who decry the `barbarous crimes perpetrated by the Americans and their lackeys.'" So, while Operation Ranch Hand provided no long or short term military benefits, it also provided neither long nor short term psychological benefits. If anything, it embittered the civilian population of Vietnam and drove it closer to the Viet Cong and NVA. And no one yet was sure what eventually would be the effect on the health of those exposed to the chemicals. Operation Ranch Hand was shown by late 1968 to be a bankrupt strategy, one devoid of good sense, good planning or good intentions. ORANGE AEROSOL DISCOVERED Meanwhile, the military continued to learn just how toxic Agent Orange could be. On October 23, 1969, an urgent message was sent from Fort Detrick, Maryland, to MACV concerning cleaning of drums containing herbicides. The message provided detailed instructions on how to clean the drums and warned that it was particularly important to clean Agent Orange drums. "Using the (Agent) Orange drums for storing petroleum products without thoroughly cleaning of them can result in creation of an orange aerosol when the contaminated petroleum products are consumed in internal combustion engines. The Orange aerosol thus generated can be most

devastating to vegetation in the vicinity of engines. Some critics claim that some of the damage to vegetation along Saigon streets can be attributed to this source. White and Blue residues are less of a problem in this regard since they are not volatile." Not only was Agent Orange being sprayed from aircraft, but it was unwittingly being sprayed out of the exhausts of trucks, jeeps and gasoline generators. In March 1969, Lt. Col. Jim Corey, deputy chief of CORDS in I Corps reported to his boss, R.M. Urquhart, unusual defoliation in Da Nang. "A large number of beautiful shade trees along the streets in the city of Da Nang are dead or dying," Corey wrote. "This damage appears to be entirely a result of defoliation chemicals." There was no evidence of insect or fungus damage to the vegetation, according to the memo. "In every instance of tree and garden plot damage," Corey wrote, "empty defoliant barrels are either present in the area or have been transported along the route of the damage." The use of herbicides was not confined to the jungles. It was widely used to suppress vegetation around the perimeters of military bases and, in many instances, the interiors of those bases. LAB TESTS ON ANIMALS CURTAIL SOME USE OF AGENT ORANGE Nevertheless, the use of Agent Orange throughout Vietnam was widespread through much of 1969. Then, late in the year a study done by Bionetics Research Laboratories showed that dioxin caused deaths and stillbirths in laboratory animals. The tests revealed that as little as two parts of dioxin per trillion in the bloodstream was sufficient to cause deaths and abnormal births. And some GIs were returning home from Vietnam with 50 parts per trillion, and more, in their bloodstream. When the report was released by the Food and Drug Administration, the White House, on October 29, 1969, ordered a partial curtailment of the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam. On November 4, 1969, a message went out from Joint Chiefs of Staff to Commander in Chief Pacific (CINCPAC) and MACV. "A report prepared for the National Institute of Health presents evidence that 2,4,5-T can cause malformation of offspring and stillbirths in mice, when given in relatively high doses. This material is present in the defoliant (Agent) Orange. "Pending decision by the appropriate department on whether this herbicide can remain on the domestic market, defoliation missions in South Vietnam using Orange should be targeted only for areas remote from population. Normal use of White or Blue herbicides can continue, but large scale substitution of Blue for Orange will not be permitted."

USE OF AGENT ORANGE FINALLY ENDED Despite the order, some troops continued to use Agent Orange when they ran out of the other rainbow herbicides. Finally, in early 1971, the U.S. Surgeon General prohibited the use of Agent Orange for home use because of possible harmful effects on humans and on June 30, 1971, all United States defoliation operations in Vietnam were brought to an end. VETS BEGIN DEVELOPING HEALTH PROBLEMS As soldiers who had served in Vietnam attempted to settle back into civilian life following their tours, some of them began to develop unusual health problems. There were skin and liver diseases and what seemed to be an abnormal number of cancers to soft tissue organs such as the lungs and stomach. There also seemed to be an unusually high number of birth defects among children born to Vietnam veterans who had been exposed to Agent Orange. Some veterans experienced wild mood swings, while others developed a painful skin rash known as chloracne. Many of these veterans were found to have high levels of dioxin in their blood, but scientists and the U.S. government insisted there was no link between their illnesses and Agent Orange. In the mid 1970s, there was renewed interest in dioxin and its effects on human health following an industrial accident in Seveso, Italy, in which dioxin was released into the air, causing animal deaths and human sickness. EPA BANS USE OF AGENT ORANGE IN U.S. Then, in 1979, the Environmental Protection Agency banned the use of Agent Orange in the United States when a large number of stillbirths were reported among mothers in Oregon, where the chemical had been heavily used. While veterans clamored for help from the Veterans Administration, the government responded either slowly, or not at all. In 1979, a National Veterans Task Force on Agent Orange was formed and legislation finally was passed by Congress at the urging of Rep. Tom Daschle (D-SD), a Vietnam veteran who became a U.S. Senator, to commission a large scale epidemiological study of veterans who had been exposed to the herbicide. That proved to be only the beginning of the battle over Agent Orange. Over the next four years, the VA examined an estimated 200,000 veterans for medical problems they claimed stemmed from Agent Orange and other herbicides used in Vietnam. But many of those examined were dissatisfied with their examinations. They claimed the exams were done poorly and often in haste by unqualified medical personnel. Many veterans also claimed that the VA seemed to have a mind set to ignore or debunk Agent Orange connected disability complaints. CLASS ACTION SUIT FILED

Fed up with what they perceived as government inaction on the Agent Orange issue, veterans filed a class action lawsuit in 1982 against the chemical companies that had made Agent Orange. Among the companies named were Dow Chemical Co. of Midland, Michigan; Monsanto Co. of St. Louis, Missouri; Diamond Shamrock Corp. of Dallas, Texas; Hercules Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware; Uniroyal Inc. of Middlebury, Connecticut; Thompson Chemical Corp. of Newark, New Jersey and the T.H. Agriculture and Nutrition Co. of Kansas City, Missouri. By the early 1980s, some of the chemical companies' dirty little secrets about dioxin were beginning to leak out. TIMES BEACH Times Beach was an idyllic little community of about 2,200 residents in the rolling farmlands of eastern Missouri 20 miles southwest of St. Louis. It was an ideal place to live and raise children, with plenty of open spaces, two story wood frame houses, quiet streets and none of the pollution, poverty or crime of the inner city. Or so it seemed. Unknown to the residents of Times Beach, for several years in the mid 1970s, dioxin laced oil had been sprayed on the town's roads to keep down the dust. Times Beach was one of 28 eastern Missouri communities where the spraying had been done. But none of the others had the levels of dioxin contamination of Times Beach, parts of which had dioxin levels of 33,000 parts per billion, or 33,000 times more toxic than the EPA's level of acceptance. The contamination was so bad that the government decided the only way to save the town's residents from further damage from dioxin was to buy them out and move them out. In early 1983, the U.S. government spent $33 million buying the 801 homes and businesses in Times Beach and relocating its 2,200 residents. The entire town was fenced in and guards were brought in to keep out the curious. "Caution, Hazardous Waste Site, Dioxin Contamination," read the signs leading into Times Beach. What had been a comfortable little community became a ghost town. It remains a ghost town today because of dioxin contamination. So, while the government was paying off the residents of Times Beach because of dioxin contamination, it continued to deny that Vietnam veterans who had been exposed to Agent Orange and its dioxin were at risk. AMA DOWNPLAYS DIOXIN DANGER While the government was busily buying up Times Beach and evacuating its residents, the American

Medical Association was coming under attack from environmental health specialists for its stance on dioxin. In its June 1983 convention, the AMA adopted a resolution calling for a public information campaign on dioxin to "prevent irrational reaction and unjustified public fright." "The news media have made dioxin the focus of a witch hunt by disseminating rumors, hearsay and unconfirmed, unscientific reports," the resolution read, in part. That position was overwhelmingly supported by President Ronald Reagan in a speech at the AMA convention, calling the resolution "a positive step toward a more reasonable public debate" on the issue. But Dr. Samuel Epstein, professor of occupational and environmental medicine at the University of Illinois Medical Center in Chicago, called the AMA "incompetent and ignorant" for its stance on dioxin. "The AMA's contribution in this area is a profound disservice and consistent with their established record of extreme conservatism and lack of information and demonstrated lack of concern for preventive medicine," said Epstein. And Dr. Paul Wiesner, an assistant director of the CDC said that "Evidence is increasing that there is an association with a rare form of tumor called soft tissue sarcoma after occupational exposure (to dioxin)." STUDIES CONTRADICTORY AND CONFUSING By 1983, the results of studies of Agent Orange and dioxin exposure began to trickle in. They were, for the most part, contradictory and confusing. A series of studies conducted between 1974 and 1983 by Dr. Lennart Hardell, the so called Swedish studies, showed a link between exposure to Agent Orange and soft tissue sarcomas and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. And in July 1983, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a report citing "an association" between dioxin exposure and incidence of soft tissue sarcoma. "The early warning sign has gone up," said Dr. Edward Brandt, Jr., assistant secretary of the HHS. This was also the year of the Times Beach buy out and growing nationwide concern over dioxin. Few people knew what it was and only Vietnam veterans and researchers knew what it could do to the human body. In December 1983, the EPA announced a nationwide plan to clean up more than 200 dioxin contaminated sites, including 50 plants where 2,4,5-T had been manufactured. The cost of the cleanup was put at $250 million and was expected to take four years. But barely two months later, in February, 1984, the U.S. Air Force released the first part of a three part study on Operation Ranch Hand pilots and crewmen. It concluded that the 1,269 pilots and crewmen involved in the herbicide spraying program in Vietnam suffered no higher death or serious

illness rates than the general population. But to Vietnam veterans, studying aircrews who had handled drums of Agent Orange, and not the soldiers exposed to it, was like testing the crew of the Enola Gay for the effects of radiation, not the survivors of Hiroshima. Said Maj. Gen. Murphy Chesney, deputy Air Force Surgeon General: "Do I worry as a physician because we used it? The answer is no. I say war is hell, you've got to win it. Agent Orange was a war agent. It was used to protect our ground troops. It saved millions of lives possibly, thousands, anyway, in Vietnam." MACV memorandums written during the war did not support Chesney's claims that Agent Orange saved lives, but no one questioned him on his conclusions because those documents were still classified. The VA, meanwhile, continued to dismiss veterans health complaints if they dealt with exposure to Agent Orange. "A lot of veterans are scared because of early news reports of physical damage, while some among any large number of people are going to have health problems such as a matter of routine natural incidence," said Dr. Barclay Shepard, director of Agent Orange Studies for the VA. "Put that together with disillusionment over the Vietnam War and anger with the government and there is little wonder that many veterans truly believe that they have in some way been hurt. But the evidence has not supported a cause and effect relationship." LAWSUIT SETTLED - VETS WIN, BUT LOSE Then on May 7, 1984, came the news that the Agent Orange lawsuit, filed two years earlier, had been settled. Prodded by U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, attorneys for the veterans and the chemical companies reached an agreement at 4 a.m. the morning the case was to go to trial. At that time, 15,000 veterans and their relatives were involved in the suit, but about 250,000 subsequently filed claims. Under the terms of the settlement, the Vietnam veterans who claimed exposure to Agent Orange would receive $180 million from the chemical companies. But those companies did not have to accept blame for any injuries that occurred as a result of Agent Orange. The U.S. government was not a party to the litigation. "Thus resolution is a compassionate, expedient and productive means of meeting the needs of the people involved," said David Buzzelli, vice president of government and public affairs for Dow Chemical. Veterans at first were ecstatic. "This is a defeat for the chemical companies. We brought them down to their knees and we got an

open admission of guilt," said Rod Rinker of Atlanta, one of the veterans who claimed Agent Orange exposure. Not so, said the chemical companies. "When you look at the overwhelming scientific evidence, Agent Orange is not a reasonable or likely cause of the ill health effects experienced by the veterans," said R.W. Charlton, another Dow spokesman. Despite the release earlier of the results of the Operation Ranch Hand study, 1984 seemed to be a year in which the Vietnam veteran's complaints about Agent Orange and the health problems it caused were being taken seriously. The federal court decision boosted the morale of the Agent Orange claimants. Then Congress chimed in. In late 1984, Congress passed Public Law 98-542, designed to provide compensation for soft tissue sarcoma and required the VA to establish standards for general Agent Orange and atomic radiation compensation. It seemed as if the veterans were winning. But every time a veteran went to the VA seeking compensation for Agent Orange related problems, he was turned away. "Since 1984, Public Law 98-542 has been virtually ignored," said South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle. "In spite of the intent of Congress, in spite of the efforts of everyone involved in the writing of that law, in spite of our promises to veterans at that time that at long last, after all these years, they would be given the benefit of the doubt, not one veteran in this country has been compensated for any disease other than chloracne." Agent Orange sufferers tried on several occasions to sue the government for its role in use of the herbicide, but their suits were routinely dismissed because of what has come to be known as the Feres Doctrine. In 1950, the Supreme Court ruled in a case involving the death of a military man that the government is not responsible for deaths, injuries or other losses related to military service. Meanwhile, the reality of the settlement reached in the lawsuit with the seven chemical companies began to settle in. The lawyers involved wanted $40 million off the top for their fees. They had decided in a secret agreement prior to the May 1984 settlement that they would receive a 300 percent return on any investment in time and effort they had made. Many veterans charged that this secret fee agreement by the plaintiff's management committee precluded any incentive for the committee to represent the veterans in the suit. Judge Weinstein decided to give the lawyers $9.2 million. It became readily apparent that $180 million just wasn't enough to take care of the Agent Orange claimants and their families, which had reached more than 200,000 by then. A master plan to divide the settlement noted that the settlement "is simply not large enough." The plan suggested taking $130 million for a settlement to provide cash payments to eligible veterans or the families of deceased members. Maximum cash payments of $12,800 to the most qualified claimants, or about 17,000 veterans and their survivors, was suggested. The master plan also suggested using $52 million to fund a "class assistance foundation" earmarked for benefit programs.

TEST RESULTS CONTINUE TO BE MIXED Results of Agent Orange tests continued to be mixed. The results varied greatly, depending on who was doing the testing. In December, 1985, the Air Force released the third of its Operation Ranch Hand studies. It confirmed the other two: that there was no evidence that Agent Orange had any adverse affects on those who handled it during the war. "At this time, there is no evidence of increased mortality as a result of herbicide exposure among individuals who performed the Ranch Hand spray operation in Southeast Asia," the Air Force concluded. But in April, 1986, the CDC released a report that showed that the residents of a mobile home park near St. Louis were suffering from liver and immune system damage as a result of their exposure to dioxin laced chemicals. According to the study, the 154 residents of Quail Run Mobile Home Park in Gray Summit, Missouri, near Times Beach southwest of St. Louis, showed depressed liver function and deficiencies in their immune systems. The dirt roads in the mobile home park had been sprayed in 1971 with dioxin laced oil to keep down the dust. While the CDC seemed concerned about Missouri residents exposed to dioxin laced chemicals, it did not demonstrate the same concern for Vietnam veterans exposed to dioxin contaminated herbicides. In fact, information began to surface in 1986 that the CDC not only was dragging its feet on Agent Orange studies, it was deliberately ignoring information to which it had access in order to come up with results that would be favorable to the government. In the summer of 1986, the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care held hearings to assess the progress of the CDC study of Agent Orange, mandated seven years earlier. Testimony from witnesses from the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) shocked and angered members of the committee, according to Sen. Tom Daschle. "OTA reported that the Centers for Disease Control had changed the protocol for the study without authorization," said Daschle. "OTA also reported at that particular hearing that petty arguments at CDC were interfering with the study's progress and that progress had virtually come to a standstill." After seven years of study, the CDC had made no progress on one of the most important and highly publicized issues of the war in Vietnam. In charge of the CDC study was Dr. Vernon Houk, director of the agency's Center for Environmental Health and Injury Control. The White House's Agent Orange Working Group was supposed to supervise the CDC study while the Pentagon's Environmental Support Group was charged with providing the CDC with records of Agent Orange spraying and troop deployment.

Houk's CDC team complained throughout the study that those records were too spotty to make a scientific study of the effects of Agent Orange on soldiers. Not so, said the Pentagon. Richard Christian, head of the Pentagon's Environmental Support Group, testified before Congress in mid 1986 that the records of troop movements and spraying were more than adequate for a scientific study. Christian's testimony was bolstered by two other sources. Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Murray had been asked by Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger in early 1986 to undertake a study to determine if Pentagon records were adequate for purposes of the study. After four months, Murray also determined that the records for a comprehensive study of Agent Orange were more than adequate. In addition, the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, had used outside consultants to study reports of troop deployment and Agent Orange spraying to determine if they were sufficient for CDC purposes. Its conclusion: the Pentagon had the necessary records. The Institute of Medicine also was highly critical of the CDC research methods, charging that it excluded from its study the veterans most likely to have been exposed to Agent Orange. WHITE HOUSE COVER-UP Despite information from three sources that there were adequate records available for a comprehen sive CDC study on Agent Orange, the White House and CDC sought to cover it up. First, the Institute of Medicine's study was never turned over to the White House. Then, Murray decided that as a non-scientist, he was in no position to challenge the objections of CDC's Houk and deferred to his judgement on the matter of records. Then, according to Daschle, the Pentagon came down hard on Christian for criticizing the CDC. "DOD officials altered his follow-up testimony before it was sent to the Hill, deleting his information challenging CDC's claims," said Daschle. By mid 1986, the White House had set the wheels in motion to cancel the CDC's Agent Orange study. There were other indications that the Reagan administration had no real interest in studies of Agent Orange or dioxin. In late 1986, the House Energy and Commerce Committee learned that the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was trying to stop all dioxin research, claiming that enough research had been done. Despite efforts to shut down research and cover up results of studies not favorable to the government or chemical companies, evidence continued to flow in showing a definite statistical link between cancers and exposure to Agent Orange and dioxin: - A 1986 study by the National Cancer Institute of Kansas revealed that farmers exposed to 2,4-D, an

ingredient of Agent Orange, had six times more non-Hodgkin's lymphomas than farmers not exposed. - A VA study released in 1987 showed that Marines who served in areas of Vietnam that had been heavily sprayed with Agent Orange had a 110 percent higher rate of non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. The study also showed these Marines had a 58 percent higher rate of lung cancers. - A 1987 study in the state of Washington showed veterans who had been exposed to Agent Orange had significant increases in soft tissue sarcomas and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. - A 1987 VA study showed veterans who were most likely exposed to Agent Orange had eight times more soft tissue sarcoma than other veterans. Meanwhile, the CDC had been taking blood samples of 646 Vietnam veterans, selected on the basis of probable exposure to Agent Orange, to test the level of dioxin in their blood. Other scientists were highly critical of this method of testing, but the CDC moved on. Then, in September 1987, the CDC exonerated Agent Orange, claiming once again there were not sufficient records available to make the necessary tests. "We cannot find a sufficiently large number of people who have been exposed to do a scientifically valid study of exposure to Agent Orange," said Houk. "We looked at three different kinds of exposure: short-term, long-term and exposure from being in an area of Vietnam where the herbicide was used. In none of these groups was there any difference in the level of Agent Orange in the blood." Houk recommended that the Agent Orange study be canceled. The White House agreed, and shortly after that the CDC's $43 million Agent Orange study came to an end with a not guilty verdict for Agent Orange. ~
`

Stop the MASSACRE

`

Proverb: A good person leaves an inheritance to their childrens children.

What kind of inheritance are you leaving?

Monsanto FOOD POLICE

**Codex Alimentarius!** The FOOD POLICE!... HR 875 - S 425... No Organic Farming or Backyard Gardening Will Be Allowed!
This bill is sitting in committee and I am not sure when it is going to hit the floor. One thing I do know is that very few of the Representatives have read it. As usual they will vote on this based on what someone else is saying. ~ Lydia Scott Urge your members to read the legislation and ask for opposition to this devastating legislation. Devastating for everyday folks but great for factory farming ops like Monsanto, ADM, Sodexo and Tyson to name a few. I have no doubt that this legislation was heavily influenced by lobbyists from huge food producers. This legislation is so broad based that technically someone with a little backyard garden could get fined and have their property siezed. It will effect anyone who produces food even if they do not sell but only consume it. It will literally put all independent farmers and food producers out of business due to the huge amounts of money it will take to conform to factory farming methods. If people choose to farm without industry standards such as chemical pesticides and fertilizers they will be subject to a variety of harassment from this completely new agency that has never before existed. That's right, a whole new government agency is being created just to police food, for our own protection of course. DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, READ THIS LEGISLATION FOR YOURSELF. The more people who read this legislation the more insight we are going to get and be able to share. Post your observations and insights below. Urge your members to read this legislation and to oppose the passage of this legislation. Pay special attention to

Section 3 which is the definitions portion of the bill-read in it's entirety. section 103, 206 and 207- read in it's entirety.

Red flags I found and I am sure there are more...........

Legally binds state agriculture depts to enforcing federal guidelines effectively taking away the states power to do anything other than being food police for the federal dept. Effectively criminalizes organic farming but doesn't actually use the word organic. Effects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it.

Effects anyone producing meat of any kind including wild game. Legislation is so broad based that every aspect of growing or producing food can be made illegal. There are no specifics which is bizarre considering how long the legislation is. Section 103 is almost entirely about the administrative aspect of the legislation. It will allow the appointing of officials from the factory farming corporations and lobbyists and classify them as experts and allow them to determine and interpret the legislation. Who do you think they are going to side with? Section 206 defines what will be considered a food production facility and what will be enforced up all food production facilities. The wording is so broad based that a backyard gardener could be fined and more. Section 207 requires that the state's agriculture dept act as the food police and enforce the federal requirements. This takes away the states power and is in violation of the 10th amendment. There are many more but by the time I got this far in the legislation I was so alarmed that I wanted to bring someone's attention to it. (to the one person who reads my blog)

Didn't Stalin nationalize farming methods that enabled his administration to gain
control over the food supply?

Didn't Stalin use food to control the people?

Last word... Legislate religion and enforce gag orders on ministers on what can and can't be said in the pulpit, instituting regulations forcing people to rely soley on the government, control the money and the food. What is that called? It is on the tip of my tongue... I haven't read any of the Senate's version of the bill as I have been poring thru the House's version. Here is the link and I hope some of you can take a look and post your observations and insights below. One thing I am pretty sure of is that very few if any Senator's have actually read the legislation and when it comes up for a vote they will more than likely take someone else's word on how they should vote. The other thing I am pretty sure about is that the legislation was probably written by lobbyists and industry experts. S 425
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-425

Stop the MONSANTO Henchmen in Congress from destroying our country Does MONSANTO have a BODY BAG with your CHILDs name on it?
http://food307.livejournal.com/645.html http://food306.livejournal.com/629.html

MONSANTO Genetically Engineered Food: How DANGEROUS to CHILDERN?

http://food305.livejournal.com/565.html

MONSANTO MEN - Henchmen - in the USA Government Is your CONGRESSMAN a Monsanto BUTCHER?
http://bigoil600142.insanejournal.com/475.html http://www.campaignfinance.org/states http://www.publicintegrity.org

Monsanto's Agent Orange - DEAD

BABIES & DEAD VETERANS

Stop the Baby Killers.

http://food308.livejournal.com/670.html http://food310.livejournal.com/512.html

Monsanto Keeps Up Attack on Seed Saving Farmers

http://food309.livejournal.com/633.html Proverb:

The field of the poor may yield much food, but it is swept away by injustice.

Things you can do

1. Contact your members at 202-224-3121 and ask them to oppose HR 875 and S 425. While

you are at it ask them if they personally have read the legislation and what their position is? If they have not read the legislation ask them to read it and politely let them know that just because other representitives are not reading the legislation and voting on it does not mean they can do the same. 2. Get in touch with local farmers and food producers by attending a local farmers market and asking them how business is. 3. Attend a local WAPF meeting, this is a good start to learning about what is going on in farming and local & state initiatives . The website is http://www.westonaprice.org/localchapters/index.html
4. Check out the Farmers Legal Defense Fund at http://www.ftcldf.org/index.html 5. Find out who sits on your states agriculture and farming committee and contact them

with your concerns. 6. Continue to contact your elected officials and let them know your position on legislation and why. 7. Get active at the local and state levels, this is the quickest way to initiate change.

HR 875 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-875

S 425 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-425

Organic Consumer http://www.organicconsumers.org http://organicconsumers.org/ACO/index.cfm Acres USA http://www.acresusa.com

SMALL FARMS FEAR New Food Safety Regulations

http://food303.livejournal.com/586.html

TOXIC WASTE Fertilizer - KILLING Farmers and POISONING their Fields

http://food304.livejournal.com/512.html The BENEFITS of ORGANIC FOOD http://food302.livejournal.com/613.html

WHATS WRONG with the FOOD and DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)

DVD Super Size Me Educationally Enhanced; director: Morgan Spurlock Cancer, Nutrition & Healing; director Jerry Brunetti Hoxsey, How Healing Becomes A Crime; director: Ken Ausubel BOOK When Healing Becomes a Crime; by Kenny Ausubel

Please STOP the MONSANTO BUTCHERS from PUTTING PEOPLE in PRISON and Concentration Camps Please WRITE TO POLITICIANS and OPPOSE THIS LEGISLATION THANK YOU ARE YOU DRIVING A General Motors http://bigcoal108.insanejournal.com/375.html

NAZI Hitler CAR?

Keep the NUTS away from the NUKES

Nazis in the American Military
the Final Solution http://bigoil600141.insanejournal.com/298.html

Neo Nazi Hit List = Are you next?

http://bigoil600144.insanejournal.com/495.html

books One Woman Against the Reich by Helmut W. Ziefle Behind Enemy Lines by Marthe Cohn Shanghai Diary by Ursula Bacon Prisoner and Yet by Corrie ten Boom A Testament to Freedom by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

~ Small Farms Fear New Food Safety Regulations

`

Small-scale Organic Family Farmers are growing increasingly vocal about their concerns regarding the new legislation. The problem, they say, is that small farmers, who are most accountable for their food's freshness and health, may suffer the heaviest burden under proposed new food rules. "A lot of people worry that what's on the books right now is very much geared toward the biggest agricultural players," said Patty Lavera, assistant director of the nonprofit consumer group Food and Water Watch. "It's sort of a one-size-fits-all approach, and when its one size fits all, it's usually written by the big guy." Small-scale farmers say the big companies have the funds and staff to comply with the rules, and that factory farms that specialize in mass-producing one item are better positioned to comply with mandates to establish food safety plans for every product they sell. "A small farm is much more likely to grow multiple things and have a diversified approach," Lavera said. "So if they have to take 19 steps for each of those crops, it's much harder for them than a large farm that only grows one or two things." Small farmers argue that they are already much more accountable to their customers for the quality of their product than are mass-production facilities, and that they will be crushed under the weight of the new laws aimed at large industrial offenders.

Particularly burdensome are proposed standards for record-keeping, they say. While the DeLauro bill would allow for paper record-keeping, the Dingell bill mandates electronic record-keeping. Small farm operations fear that such a rule would involve establishing an expensive and time-consuming system that could put them out of business.
Examining Calif. program

A new California program that regulates leafy greens illustrates how small farmers who practice sustainable methods can be the unintentional targets of laws aimed at industrial offenders, BadenMayer said. Critics say the rules unfairly penalize small farmers who grow crops and raise cattle on the same farm (http://www.polyfacefarms.com ) , while failing to address what they believe is the root of the E. coli problem -- large, mismanaged feedlots that cram cattle together and spew waste runoff. Do regulators understand small farms? Still, critics say regulators suffer from a lack of understanding of small farm operations, and that it shows when rules are drafted. Small-farm advocates say the language gives too little weight to a farming operation's scale -- a critical flaw that could put them out of business.
This legislation is so broad based that technically someone with

a little backyard garden could get fined and have

their property

siezed.

It will effect anyone who produces food even if they do not sell but only consume it. It will literally put all independent farmers and food producers out of business due to the huge amounts of money it will take to conform to factory farming methods. If people choose to farm without industry standards such as chemical pesticides and fertilizers they will be subject to a variety of harassment from this completely new agency that has never before existed. That's right, a whole new government agency is being created just to police food, for our own protection of course. ` DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, READ THIS LEGISLATION FOR YOURSELF. The more people who read this legislation the more insight we are going to get and be able to share. Post your observations and insights below. Urge your members to read this legislation and to oppose the passage of this legislation.

Pay special attention to

Section 3 which is the definitions portion of the bill-read in it's entirety. section 103, 206 and 207- read in it's entirety.

Red flags I found and I am sure there are more...........

Legally binds state agriculture depts to enforcing federal guidelines effectively taking away the states power to do anything other than being food police for the federal dept. Effectively criminalizes organic farming but doesn't actually use the word organic. Effects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it. Effects anyone producing meat of any kind including wild game. Legislation is so broad based that every aspect of growing or producing food can be made illegal. There are no specifics which is bizarre considering how long the legislation is. Section 103 is almost entirely about the administrative aspect of the legislation. It will allow the appointing of officials from the factory farming corporations and lobbyists and classify them as experts and allow them to determine and interpret the legislation. Who do you think they are going to side with? Section 206 defines what will be considered a food production facility and what will be enforced up all food production facilities. The wording is so broad based that a backyard gardener could be fined and more. Section 207 requires that the state's agriculture dept act as the food police and enforce the federal requirements. This takes away the states power and is in violation of the 10th amendment. There are many more but by the time I got this far in the legislation I was so alarmed that I wanted to bring someone's attention to it. (to the one person who reads my blog)

TOXIC WASTE Fertilizer - KILLING Farmers and POISONING their Fields

`

BOOK REVIEW Fateful Harvest: The True Story of a Small Town, Global Industry, and a Toxic Secret by Duff Wilson As corporations are denying their practice of recycling such industrial toxic waste as arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, and dioxins into common plant food and fertilizers, Fateful Harvest: The True Story of a Small Town, a Global Industry, and a Toxic Secret (HarperCollins; September 13, 2001; $26.00; hardcover), by award-winning investigative reporter Duff Wilson, exposes the real-life story of embattled mayor Patty Martin as she discovers this alarming practice in her small town of Quincy, Washington. As livestock die, children fall ill, and cancer cases multiply, Martin, a mother of four, and a small band of farmers face threats and intimidation in a town torn between their health concerns and the

moneyed interests. Toxic waste is spread on crops, even so-called organic crops, to save industry money. Wilson found heavy metals, chemicals and radioactive wastes being recycled as fertilizer and spread over fields across the nation - and eventually served for dinner. Not only does Wilson expose recycling run amok, he also reveals how the reckless practice is currently accepted around the world, without the knowledge of unsuspecting farmers and gardeners. Developed from a series of articles from the Seattle Times that was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, Fateful Harvest specifically documents how Martin discovered that Cenex/Land O'Lakes (the butter and chemical makers) poured dangerous waste into a concrete pond and "sprayed these toxins into the sky like a fountain." Says Wilson, "the spray turned to mist that children walked through on their way to school." Cenex got rid of the residue by calling it fertilizer and spreading it on a farmer's land; crops wilted, horses died. The book also examines other companies, such as Alcoa Aluminum, which sold toxic waste as "Road Clear" (ice melting product) and "Ag-Mag" (fertilizer). Because of the growing use of these hazardous fertilizers - more widespread, ironically, since a 1976 federal law cracked down on dumping toxic wastes, raising the cost of landfills and safer recycling -- scientists have found dangerous levels in some wheat, rice, peanuts, leafy vegetables, dirt, dust, and fertilizer workers' blood. Martin is part of a larger group of concerned citizens, activists, and environmental agencies all over the country of concerned environmentalists and safe-food activists who are trying to get the government to act before the effects are irreversible. In conclusion, Wilson argues, "I'm angry we're taking toxic chemicals unsafe in air and water and putting them on the very fields that grow the food our children eat. Diluting it doesn't assure me. Calling it a product is duplicitous. Minimizing it is sickening. No one has seriously added up the amount of toxic acid, ash, slag, dust, and other industry waste being spread in the guise as fertilizer on the land that grows our food. No one has told the farmers, the gardeners, and consumers what they're risking in order for some polluting industries to save money. I hope this book sounds an alarm." MORE GOOD READING Living Downstream : A Scientist's Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment by Sandra Steingraber Easy to read and engrossing look by a scientist at the links between cancer and chemicals in the environment. Fast Food Nation

by Eric Schlosser No more Happy Meals- ever! ~ A Fateful Harvest And A Cautionary Tale, A Few Thoughts From Jeffrey Hollender, President ~ Faithful readers will remember that a few issues back we reviewed a new book called Fateful Harvest, the True Story of a Small Town, a Global Industry, and a Toxic Secret, by Duff Wilson. The book follows an investigative trail of secrets and sickness from a single small town to the headquarters of global fertilizer companies that are covertly adding toxic waste to their products. Its a stunning tale and one thats really about much more than fertilizer. In a nutshell, heres the story Fateful Harvest tells... Patty Martin, mother of four and mayor of the small town of Quincy, Washington, started noticing something amiss in her community. Crops were failing, topsoil was being rendered infertile, and people were falling prey to rare diseases. When she started asking questions about the unusual patterns she saw, Martin didnt find too many people willing to talk. Nonetheless, the source of her towns troubles soon became clear: a fertilizer product manufactured with industrial toxic sludge from a nearby waste pond had been applied to local fields. The sludge contained high concentrations of poisonous heavy metals like cadmium, chromium, and beryllium, and these materials had leached into the soil and were taken up by the crops that grew there. From there, the story was picked up by writer Duff Wilson who was surprised to find that regulatory loopholes large enough to drive a John Deere combine through allow producers of hazardous waste to take this sort of twisted creative license with their effluent all the time. Materials that under any other circumstances would be headed at great expense for disposal at a hazardous waste processing facility instead are relabeled as "soil amendments", combined with nitrogen, and pawned off on an unsuspecting public as fertilizer. Everyday, with a simple semantic switch, industries are "recycling" their toxic by products into a profitable commodity. The only thing worse than the dreadful immorality of this ethically vacant practice is the end result: a wide dissemination into the environment of highly toxic compounds that are, worse still, released in the exact places where we grow our food. Crops absorb these materials as they grow and we absorb them when we eat the crops. Things like carcinogenic chemicals, heavy metals, arsenic, lead, dioxins, even radioactive substances. All deliberately dumped. On our food. What really struck me though were the similarities between the willful poisoning of our land and food supply, and the willful poisoning of our homes. Industries with toxic waste on their hands get away with this because there are no laws to stop them, and any suggestions to make some are quickly quelled by an army of lobbyists.

Users rarely realize what theyre really dealing with because (except now in Washington State) fertilizers are subject to no ingredient disclosure. In the end, our plates turn into test tubes, and we turn into guinea pigs in an ongoing experiment to see just how much low level poisoning we can take. Since no ones yet stepped forward with definitive evidence that these food-borne exposures are dangerous, theyre assumed to be safe until proven otherwise and the practice is allowed to continue. Sound familiar? It should. That's the same scenario that allows deadly chemicals into our homes disguised as household cleaners that provide us with neither meaningful ingredient disclosure nor adequate safety warnings. As with cleaning products, it's the Precautionary Principle turned on its head. You and I, the public, are left both holding the bag and trying frantically to fill it with scientifically acceptable contrary truths while companies are allowed to profit as they pollute our environment, our homes, and our bodies in the questionable name of profit. Meanwhile, anyone with even just three or four functioning brain cells can tell you how things in our little corporate-sponsored research project are going to turn out. People are going to get sick and some are going to die. Which in effect turns the burden of proof were being so illogically asked to provide into a dark accounting of accumulated death and disease. If I'm being too blunt, I apologize. But maybe it's time for a little straight talk to the people in charge of things like fertilizers and floor polish. If so, I've got a question thats blunter still. How many people have to perish before we cross the threshold of definitive proof? A thousand? Ten thousand? More? How many lives must be destroyed by illness before this obvious madness stops? How many damaged children do we have to count before the cease and desist order comes through? I say no more. We've got enough evidence and even if we didn't, we're all smart enough to make a bare minimum baseline prediction about whats going to happen to a world that molecule by molecule is slowly becoming saturated with toxic compounds...Nothing good. That's why it's time to take control. It's clear that we can no longer wait for criminally irresponsible companies and a tacitly complicit government to respond to the dangers represented by waste-laced fertilizer and chemical-laden cleaners. And it's clear in a post-September 11th world in which so much is already beyond our control that we must take personal responsibility for everything we possibly can. Whether it's cleaning products or fertilizer, that means refusing first to use such products at all. But more than that it means no longer accepting the dominant paradigm, asking others to join in its rejection, and demanding change aggressively and loudly if necessary.

At a bare minimum, we need complete ingredient disclosure on products like fertilizer and cleaners so consumers can make informed decisions about their homes and their health. Taking things further (which would be a wise thing to do), we should only permit the sale and use of those chemicals that have been conclusively proven safe beyond all reasonable doubt. We should demand an end to the innocent-until-proven-guilty approach to consumer chemicals that assumes a substance is safe until uncontrolled tests conducted on a unsuspecting general public show it to be unfortunately otherwise. One of the most important things we need is a national Right-to-Know law that would require companies to fully disclose all the pollutants they release and all the chemicals that are found in their products. In recent years, members of Congress have repeatedly attempted to introduce such legislation, but industry lobbying has so far successfully kept all of these various efforts bottled up in committee. Public pressure could reverse this trend. To that end, and as a first step, I offer a sample letter of support below. Please consider sending it or something like it to your Senators and Representatives, and to the editor of your local paper as well. Lets stop the intentional contamination of our world and ourselves. And lets stop it right now. SAMPLE LETTER: Dear (Senator or Representative): I am writing to ask you to support broad expansion of the existing toxics release Right-to-Know law. Less than 5% of toxic pollution is currently reported to the public even though the Office of Technology Assessment estimates that as many as 40 billion pounds of pollutants may be released into the environment each year. We need to protect and expand the publics right to know about all hazardous materials that are being used and/or emitted by industry regardless of their type or the quantities involved. To that end, I ask that you sponsor or support new Right-to-Know legislation that would require: * Full reporting about all chemicals and toxic materials transported through our neighborhoods; found in the workplace; contained in consumer products; and released into the environment. * Full reporting by all industries of the types and quantities of chemicals and toxic materials they produce, transport, handle, use, and emit. * Industries to inform parents if foods or products contain chemicals that may cause cancer, or reproductive, endocrinological, or neurological harm, or have not yet been conclusively shown to be completely safe.

I have a fundamental right to know about all the toxic chemicals in my community, my workplace and my home. I hope you will work to protect this right by making expanded Right-to-Know legislation your highest priority in the current session of Congress.

Sincerely, ~ Duff Wilson, an investigative reporter for the Seattle Times, wrote Fateful Harvest in 2001 as a summary of the complex and shocking story about the use of toxic waste in American fertilizer. Yeah, it sounds too ridiculous to be true, but it happened, and is happening today, mostly because so many people make money doing it and it solves two real problems: what to do with toxic waste and how to make cheap agricultural fertilizers. The book reads like a mysterysince the original question of what was killing farmers and poisoning their fields around the small eastern Washington town of Quincy ignited the controversy. The book also reads like a science fiction nightmareafter all, what kind of society would poison itself by recycling toxic waste from steel mills, foundries, and manufacturing plants into fertilizer? And the book reads like a heroic feminist novelsince the person who first raised the issue, and who never backed down despite all the formal and informal pressure brought against her to push her to silence, was the mayor of Quincy, Patty Martin. Duff Wilson is a good enough writer that his readers, even his cynical readers, are dragged along as he learns about Martins crusade, and finally becomes a believer, and then writes a series of investigative articles for the Times that almost got him a Pulitzer. The point of the book is that manufacturers were stuck with piles of toxic by-products containing heavy metals and dioxin, among other very nasty things, and needed a way to legally get rid of the junk. They found their solution in fertilizer companies who bought the hazardous waste and called it an ingredient (thus circumventing waste recycling rules) and then spread the waste material on farmers fields. The result was cheap fertilizer, but with the toxic consequence of soil buildup of heavy metals, plus the serious problems of poisons that migrated to plants, animals, and people. Yes, this crazy waste recycling process continues today. And Patty Martin is still involved in fighting it (see her Web site). If you care about what people eat or what is splattered across Americas farmland, this is a book worth reading. Stop the KILLING FIELDS Save our children and grandchildren ~

~ dvd: Super Size Me; director: Morgan Spurlock http://worldcat.org/oclc/5658213 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me dvd: Killer at Large, Why obesity is America's greatest threat; director: Steven Greenstreet http://worldcat.org/oclc/317962830 book: The Book of Jewish Values; by Joseph Telushkin http://worldcat.org/title/oclc/41601215 http://librarything.com/work/58359 book: Fast food nation; by Eric Schlosser http://worldcat.org/oclc/45248356 http://librarything.com/work/3735 dvd: Fast Food Nation; director: Richard Linklater http://worldcat.org/oclc/77539187 book: Empty Harvest; by Bernard Jensen http://worldcat.org/oclc/170954616 http://librarything.com/work/1237077 book: Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy Of Industrial Agriculture; Andrew Kimbrell http://worldcat.org/oclc/48013826 http://librarything.com/work/241618 book: Fateful Harvest: The True Story of a Small Town, a Global Industry, and a Toxic Secret; by Duff Wilson http://worldcat.org/oclc/46565121 http://librarything.com/work/569636 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fateful_Harvest http://safefoodandfertilizer.org/index.html book: Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills; by Russell L Blaylock http://worldcat.org/oclc/44960035 http://librarything.com/work/854055 dvd: Foodmatters; director: James Colquhoun http://worldcat.org/oclc/428736140 book: The Truth About Caffeine; by Marina Kushner http://worldcat.org/oclc/61209940 http://librarything.com/work/1269843 book: The Truth About Coffee; by Marina Kushner http://librarything.com/work/8358177

book: Silent Spring; by Rachel Carson http://worldcat.org/oclc/561302 http://librarything.com/work/23937 dvd: Food Inc; director: Robert Kenner http://worldcat.org/oclc/429531017 http://worldcat.org/oclc/297529846 http://librarything.com/work/8401882 http://www.foodincmovie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food,_Inc. http://scribd.com/doc/43528259 book: Unforgiven: The American Economic System Sold for Debt And War; by Charles Walters http://worldcat.org/oclc/50949802 http://librarything.com/work/1189392 http://books.google.com/books?id=LqntAAAACAAJ book: Raw Materials Economics; by Charles Walters http://worldcat.org/oclc/27752946 http://librarything.com/work/8937126 http://books.google.com/books?id=3vw4AAAACAAJ dvd: King Corn; director: Aaron Woolf http://worldcat.org/oclc/213373700 http://kingcorn.net http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Corn_%28film%29 http://sustainabletable.org/features/articles/kingcorn/ book: Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating http://worldcat.org/oclc/53122034 http://librarything.com/work/453446 http://seedsofdeception.com http://responsibletechnology.org book: Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods; by Jeffrey Smith http://worldcat.org/oclc/77541620 http://librarything.com/work/3361962 http://gmwatch.org http://scribd.com/doc/41584887 http://books.google.com/books?id=EctxAAAACAAJ book: The World According to Monsanto; by Marie-Monique Robin http://worldcat.org/oclc/286490848 http://librarything.com/work/5155236

http://books.google.com/books?id=7RqYQwAACAAJ dvd: The World According to Monsanto; director: http://worldcat.org/oclc/317415694 http://foodmatters.tv/_webapp_270153/The_World_According_to_Monsanto http://films.nfb.ca/monsanto http://greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/monsanto_movie080307 http://documentarywire.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto dvd: Food Fight; director: Chris Taylor http://foodfightthedoc.com dvd: Ingredients; producer: Brian Kimmel http://worldcat.org/oclc/608387521 http://ingredientsfilm.com http://facebook.com/notes.php?id=101225708412&notes_tab=app_2347471856 book: Animal Factory: The Looming Threat of Industrial Pig, Dairy, and Poultry Farms to Humans; by David Kirby http://worldcat.org/oclc/428027213 http://librarything.com/work/9398107 http://books.google.com/books?id=VQ9sXDyYN64C book: Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution; by Gerald Markowitz http://librarything.com/work/1113868 Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy; by Kevin Bales http://librarything.com/work/220673 dvd: The Future of Food; by Deborah Koons Garcia http://thefutureoffood.com http://worldcat.org/oclc/63134852 dvd: Fresh; by Ana Sofia Joanes http://worldcat.org/oclc/402895065 http://freshthemovie.com book: Free for All: Fixing School Food in America; by Janet Poppendieck http://worldcat.org/oclc/317461908 http://librarything.com/work/8402346 http://organicconsumers.org/articles/article_21072.cfm http://organicconsumers.org/school/school-lunch.cfm http://janetpoppendieck.com/free_for_all.html book: Third World America: how our politicians are abandoning the middle class and betraying the American dream; by Arianna Stassinopoulos Huffington

http://worldcat.org/oclc/609529688 http://librarything.com/work/10233699 book: Disconnect: The Truth about Cell Phone Radiation; by Devra Davis http://environmentalhealthtrust.org http://worldcat.org/oclc/526057538 http://librarything.com/work/10261957 book: We Don't Die We Kill Ourselves: Our Foods Are Killing Us!; by Roger L De Haan http://scribd.com/doc/45109088 http://worldcat.org/oclc/83766162 http://librarything.com/work/2633326 book: Politically Incorrect Nutrition; by Michael Barbee http://worldcat.org/oclc/55803425 http://librarything.com/work/607609 Acute Pesticide Poisoning http://calameo.com/books/000640845afcfc05a6da3 http://scribd.com/doc/52078426 Acute Pesticide Poisoning Among Farm Workers http://calameo.com/books/0006408450a480716be58 http://scribd.com/doc/52078673 ACUTE PESTICIDE POISONING: A MAJOR GLOBAL HEALTH PROBLEM http://calameo.com/books/00064084595afe926eddc http://scribd.com/doc/52078623 Africa - Up in Smoke - Global Warming Vulnerability http://calameo.com/books/0006408721ce0e71fb175 http://scribd.com/doc/52108700 Agriculture at a Cross Roads http://calameo.com/books/000640845286b867b9e57 http://scribd.com/doc/52078756 Agriculture: Investing in Natural Capital http://calameo.com/books/000640845fda9c91e726a http://scribd.com/doc/52078803 Agroecology - How to Feed the World Without Destroying It http://calameo.com/books/00064084501bee5821e4a http://scribd.com/doc/52078837 Agroecology and Sustainable Development http://calameo.com/books/0006408456a4cf227865a http://scribd.com/doc/52078908

Atrazine - most commonly detected Pesticides in Ground Water http://calameo.com/books/000640845ca1f30e42543 http://scribd.com/doc/52078928 Biodiversity as Tool for Adapting to Global Warming - Lessons from the Field http://calameo.com/books/000640845f8b8cbfbd21a http://scribd.com/doc/52078984 Bioenergy for the Poor http://calameo.com/books/000640845a1192cbec8e0 http://scribd.com/doc/52079028 Childhood pesticide poisoning http://calameo.com/books/000640845cf16ce4f1cb8 http://scribd.com/doc/52079062 Climate Change and Food Security http://calameo.com/books/00064084542aba091e895 http://scribd.com/doc/52079120 Climate Change Impacts - Destruction of Africa Forest-Dependent Rural Livelihoods http://calameo.com/books/000640872886dfcc1a847 http://scribd.com/doc/52108738 Communities in Peril - Global impacts of Pesticide Use http://calameo.com/books/0006408720a23c5ae3e93 http://scribd.com/doc/52079180 Connecting the Dots - Biodiversity, Adaptation and Food Security http://calameo.com/books/000640845c55c74b0e283 http://scribd.com/doc/52079279 Ecological Agriculture: Mitigating Climate Change, Providing Food Security & Self-Reliance for Rural Livelihoods in Africa http://calameo.com/books/000640872df0d5d8ed27a http://scribd.com/doc/52108752 Ecogical Agriculture - Providing Food Security, Mitigating Climate Change, http://calameo.com/books/000640845e99deb03dd7a http://scribd.com/doc/52079369 Environmentally Sustainable Development - The Importance of Women http://calameo.com/books/000640845550997234d73 http://scribd.com/doc/52079422

Family Fruit Farmers: Poisoning by Pesticides http://calameo.com/books/0006408450bac19747754 http://scribd.com/doc/52079483 Farm Worker Exposure to Pesticides http://calameo.com/books/000640845044b9e753aef http://scribd.com/doc/52079516 Farm Workers Poisoned in Pesticide Drift Accident http://calameo.com/books/00064084553d618cd7008 http://scribd.com/doc/52079566 Farmworker Health Facts http://calameo.com/books/000640845a6d295238c50 http://scribd.com/doc/52079641 Fields of Poison: California Farmworkers and Pesticides http://calameo.com/books/0006408450460dedaaf32 http://scribd.com/doc/52079697 Global Wariming Impact on Fiji Food Security and Poverty http://calameo.com/books/000640845056c7d01e539 http://scribd.com/doc/52079764 Global Wariming Impact on Food Security in the Pacific - Vanuatu http://calameo.com/books/00064084512133b94c27b http://scribd.com/doc/52079824 Global Warming Impacts on the Achievement of the Millennium Development Goals http://calameo.com/books/0006408456c307b9e86bf http://scribd.com/doc/52080130 Global Warming Economic Impacts on Tanzania and Deforestation http://calameo.com/books/000640845a1d2e64bfd58 http://scribd.com/doc/52079909 Global Warming Impact on Nepal http://calameo.com/books/000640845247227c64cf2 http://scribd.com/doc/52080001 Global Warming Impact on Uganda - Integral Farm-Household Management http://calameo.com/books/000640845036826ae754c http://scribd.com/doc/52080189 Global Warming Impact on World Fisheries http://calameo.com/books/000640845842d5f1b4658

http://scribd.com/doc/52080059 Global Warming Mitigation in Pastoralism Dry Lands http://calameo.com/books/00064087225c0a5c71418 http://scribd.com/doc/52107003 Global Warming Mitigation Practitioners Handbook http://calameo.com/books/000640872cb4e15f474f8 http://scribd.com/doc/52107082 Green Economy Initiative http://calameo.com/books/0006408722f60c5fcfc41 http://scribd.com/doc/52107137 Health Hazards of Peticides in Pakistan http://calameo.com/books/000640872a9e9ca92cfef http://scribd.com/doc/52107154 How to Assist the Small Scale Farmer http://calameo.com/books/0006408729314a9d4ff76 http://scribd.com/doc/52107170 How to Mainstream Climate Change Adaptation for Agriculture http://calameo.com/books/000640872bc6fbe7ba2e9 http://scribd.com/doc/52107181 Indian Farmers Suffering from Toxic Pesticides http://calameo.com/books/0006408723a8a940f9a55 http://scribd.com/doc/52107229 Kenyan Farm Workers: Poisoning by Pesticides http://calameo.com/books/0006408724ea97eff7f9f http://scribd.com/doc/52107250 Lessons for Climate Change Adaptation http://calameo.com/books/0006408720d149d012d7b http://scribd.com/doc/52107270 Natural Capital - The New Political Imperative http://calameo.com/books/00064087216784dc54acc http://scribd.com/doc/52107299 Natural capitalism - Path to Sustainability http://calameo.com/books/0006408726865bcbe881f http://scribd.com/doc/52107320

Negative Impact of Global Warming on Coffee Production http://calameo.com/books/000640872be931d8fee0a http://scribd.com/doc/52107344 Organic Agriculture - a Guide to Climate Change and Food Security http://calameo.com/books/000640872ef8d659a01b4 http://scribd.com/doc/52109191 Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa http://calameo.com/books/000640872c4353847ad1c http://scribd.com/doc/52107379 Organic agriculture and Global Warming http://calameo.com/books/0006408723f4886eec04f http://scribd.com/doc/52107399 Organic Agriculture and the Global Food Supply http://calameo.com/books/000640872cb883e25a18b http://scribd.com/doc/52107427 Organic Agriculture for IMPROVED Food Security in Africa http://calameo.com/books/0006408729a9df4bdc0fa http://scribd.com/doc/52107455 Organic Solutions to Climate Change and Food Security http://calameo.com/books/00064087284c1e39c1b17 http://scribd.com/doc/52107474 Pesticide exports to the Third World http://calameo.com/books/00064087213780bdd5d69 http://scribd.com/doc/52107495 Pesticide Poisoning Killing Asian Farm Workers http://calameo.com/books/00064087289b1e91b291c http://scribd.com/doc/52107544 Pesticide Poisoning of Residents Near Farm Fields http://calameo.com/books/000640872410684ed82e2 http://scribd.com/doc/52107563 Pesticide Safety Laws Fail to Protect Farmworkers http://calameo.com/books/0006408725f66aec819f8 http://scribd.com/doc/52107576 Pesticide Use and Health Costs http://calameo.com/books/000640872e6327a044830

http://scribd.com/doc/52107597 PESTICIDES AND WOMEN AGRICULTURAL WORKERS IN SOUTH AFRICA http://calameo.com/books/0006408726e68a3e81dce http://scribd.com/doc/52107613 Pesticides Are Dangerous http://calameo.com/books/000640872e8480cab16d0 http://scribd.com/doc/52107626 Pesticides Are Poison http://calameo.com/books/00064087250920f70d439 http://scribd.com/doc/52107646 Pesticides poison Colorado farm workers http://calameo.com/books/000640872ce96b4413a69 http://scribd.com/doc/52107662/ Plight of the Farmworker - Episcopal Farmworker Ministry http://calameo.com/books/000640872051f8d94eff8 http://scribd.com/doc/52107699 Reforestation and Organic Farming is improving Soil Fertility and Increasing Crop Yields in Africa http://calameo.com/books/000640872d32c0fcb225c http://scribd.com/doc/52107730 Reforestation helps Vulnerable Populations Adapt to Global Warming http://calameo.com/books/0006408721ba63a8b370e http://scribd.com/doc/52108247 Survivors of Pesticide Poisoning - Say No to Methyl Iodide http://calameo.com/books/000640872ce2e18cd4b1c http://scribd.com/doc/52108274 The Hidden Problems of Child Farm Workers http://calameo.com/books/000640872bdd32ce0eb36 http://scribd.com/doc/52108329 Towards Sustainable Agriculture http://calameo.com/books/0006408729436a6f8540a http://scribd.com/doc/52108374 Traditional food crops as a source of community resilience http://calameo.com/books/00064087217e5dbb8f0e4 http://scribd.com/doc/52108433

What Can Be Done to Curtail Pesticide Poisoning Impacts http://calameo.com/books/00064087212ee18efa6b6 http://scribd.com/doc/52108536 Women are the Key to Food Security and Rural Development http://calameo.com/books/000640872a0565fe28ea5 http://scribd.com/doc/52109289 Women in Agriculture - Making a Strong Case for Investing in Women http://calameo.com/books/000640872c05e2fa33e2c http://scribd.com/doc/52108598 Zero-Waste Agriculture - Organic Berry Farm http://calameo.com/books/000640872ad603c73eb50 http://scribd.com/doc/52108620 book: Internal Combustion; by Edwin Black http://worldcat.org/oclc/69021042 http://books.google.com/books?id=S0DDjjjD5gwC http://www.internalcombustionbook.com ~ book: Does the Bible Teach Nutrition; by Elizabeth Baker http://worldcat.org/oclc/39785982 http://librarything.com/work/3961650 http://scribd.com/doc/45056870 MIRACLE IN WISCONSIN a different kind of school lunch http://feingold.org/PF/wisconsin1.html http://foodrevolution.org/askjohn/43.htm http://gmfreeschools.org http://advancedhealthplan.com/miracleschool.html http://puppetgov.com/2009/01/14/miracle-in-wisconsin-a-different-kind-of-school-lunch book: The Bible Cure; by Dr. Reginald Cherry http://worldcat.org/oclc/3889804 http://librarything.com/work/355159 ~