Donate to the Occupy Monsanto Legal Defense Fund


This is a Call to Action for a
Non-Hierarchical Occupation of Monsanto Everywhere

Whether you like it or not, chances are Monsanto contaminated the food you ate today with chemicals and unlabeled GMOs. Monsanto controls much of the world's food supply at the expense of food democracy worldwide. This site is dedicated to empowering citizens of the world to take action against Monsanto & it's enablers like the FDA, USDA, EPA, GMA, BIO, and the processed food companies that use Monsanto's products.



During the Cold War 2,4-D was an Agent of Biological Warfare

Posted: December 9th, 2013 | Filed under: Research | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Currently, the USDA is reviewing GMO crops designed to withstand 2,4-D and Dicamba. However, 50 years ago 2,4-D, otherwise known as 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, was considered a agent of biological warfare that could kill farmers crops. Agent Orange, used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971, caused thousands of birth defects. Agent Orange is half 2,4-D and half 2,4,5-T, which means these GMO crops are very toxic to humans and the environment. Worse, if approved, these toxic GMOs wouldn’t be required to be labeled.


What The Farmer Should Know Biological Warfare Agent During the Cold War 2,4 D was an Agent of Biological Warfare Vietnam War Vietnam Toxic herbicides Handbook GMO Labeling gmo Civil Defense Chemicals Agent Orange 2 4 Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid 2 4 D 2 4 5 Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acid 2 4 5 T
“Before disaster strikes.. What the Farmer Should Know About Biological Warfare”
Federal Civil Defense Administration Handbook, 1955

24D Biological Warfare Agent During the Cold War 2,4 D was an Agent of Biological Warfare Vietnam War Vietnam Toxic herbicides Handbook GMO Labeling gmo Civil Defense Chemicals Agent Orange 2 4 Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid 2 4 D 2 4 5 Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acid 2 4 5 T

POSSIBLE METHODS OF ATTACK

The methods of attack which seem more likely are:
1. Destructive dusts from airplanes carrying chemical plant growth inhibitors, such as 2,4-D or 2,4,5-T.
2. Large scale aerial dissemination of disease-producing spores.
3. Secret introduction of foreign plant diseases or insects new to this country.

March in March to Evict Monsanto

Posted: February 7th, 2013 | Filed under: Events | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
March in March to Evict Monsanto March in March to Evict Monsanto Syngenta Protest Pollution pesticides Occupy Monsanto Oahu Monsanto Molokai Maui March lease land Kauai Kamehameha Schools herbicides Hawaii GMO Justice Coalition Hawaii Haleiwa DuPont Pioneer Dupont Dow Demonstration Dee Jay Mailer Chemicals Big Island Babes Against Biotech

On every Saturday during the month of March safe food activists throughout the state of Hawaii will be marching on 5 of the major islands to evict Monsanto.

  • March 2 – Hale’iwa, Oahu
  • March 9 – Kaua’i
  • March 16 – Big Island
  • March 23 – Maui
  • March 30 – Moloka’i

STOP the Chemical Poisoning of Hawai’i!

“We personally invite Dee Jay Mailer the CEO of Kamehameha Schools to discuss why they are leasing 1,033 acres of land to Monsanto in Hale’iwa.”


march in march to evict monsant march2 March in March to Evict Monsanto Syngenta Protest Pollution pesticides Occupy Monsanto Oahu Monsanto Molokai Maui March lease land Kauai Kamehameha Schools herbicides Hawaii GMO Justice Coalition Hawaii Haleiwa DuPont Pioneer Dupont Dow Demonstration Dee Jay Mailer Chemicals Big Island Babes Against Biotech

march in march to evict monsant march9 March in March to Evict Monsanto Syngenta Protest Pollution pesticides Occupy Monsanto Oahu Monsanto Molokai Maui March lease land Kauai Kamehameha Schools herbicides Hawaii GMO Justice Coalition Hawaii Haleiwa DuPont Pioneer Dupont Dow Demonstration Dee Jay Mailer Chemicals Big Island Babes Against Biotech

march in march to evict monsanto big island March in March to Evict Monsanto Syngenta Protest Pollution pesticides Occupy Monsanto Oahu Monsanto Molokai Maui March lease land Kauai Kamehameha Schools herbicides Hawaii GMO Justice Coalition Hawaii Haleiwa DuPont Pioneer Dupont Dow Demonstration Dee Jay Mailer Chemicals Big Island Babes Against Biotech
+
march in march to evict monsanto kona march16 March in March to Evict Monsanto Syngenta Protest Pollution pesticides Occupy Monsanto Oahu Monsanto Molokai Maui March lease land Kauai Kamehameha Schools herbicides Hawaii GMO Justice Coalition Hawaii Haleiwa DuPont Pioneer Dupont Dow Demonstration Dee Jay Mailer Chemicals Big Island Babes Against Biotech

march in march to evict monsanto maui March23 March in March to Evict Monsanto Syngenta Protest Pollution pesticides Occupy Monsanto Oahu Monsanto Molokai Maui March lease land Kauai Kamehameha Schools herbicides Hawaii GMO Justice Coalition Hawaii Haleiwa DuPont Pioneer Dupont Dow Demonstration Dee Jay Mailer Chemicals Big Island Babes Against Biotech


Source: Babes Against Biotech & Hawaii GMO Justice Coalition

[Russia Today] Behind the scenes: Undercover shareholder pushes for transparency at Monsanto

Posted: February 1st, 2013 | Filed under: Incident Reports, Press, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |


Behind the scenes: Undercover shareholder pushes for transparency at Monsanto

Published February 1st
Download

­About a dozen protesters calling themselves Occupy Monsanto spent several hours near Monsanto’s headquarters in Creve Coeur, Missouri as shareholders voted on members for the company’s Board of Directors.

The protesters called for more transparency in the multinational company’s operations especially in labeling, research and business practices.

Adam Eidinger who owns 75 Monsanto shares read his speech to the protesters before heading to the meeting to address shareholders with a statement on behalf of Pesticide Action Network, the company, which submitted the study on potential risks of using GMOs.

RT: You are a Monsanto shareholder, so you’re obviously interested in the company making a profit. But you are planning to speak on behalf of the company which submitted the study on the potential risks of Monsanto products. Why are you doing this?

AE: Well the resolution we had would have required a report to be written that could be shared with researchers and scientists across the globe about the risks that they know – the company knows already – about their genetically modified crops. Which many safe food activists believe make us more reliant on herbicides and chemicals that the company also sells. And these chemicals may be what’s causing higher rates of cancer in industrialized nations across the globe.

We know how it caused tumors in rats that were fed in long term studies last year. Dr. Seralini’s study was a topic during this shareholder meeting, I brought it up. I was able to speak during the meeting.

And this meeting was closed to the public, as you said. And one of the things we are asking for is in the future this to be live-streamed.  People around the world care about what’s going into the food. They may not want to own Monsanto stock.

I only bought the stock so I could speak at this shareholder meeting.

RT: A Chinese economist has criticized Monsanto for controlling the country’s soybean market and trying to do the same with corn and cotton in the country. How is this impacting local farmers?

AE: It devastates local farmers time and time again. We’ve seen countries where Monsanto has introduced ‘patented’ technologies, I like to call it. And they only provide hybrid seeds to farmers who then loose bio-diversity, loose varieties that have actually adapted to that area.

What we need on this planet is better distribution of food and we need better organic methods to be shared with farmers, not more reliance on chemicals and pesticides.

And now, it was quite alarming at this shareholder meeting, there are these new technologies where they are going to be modifying insects and viruses and introducing these novel viruses into the environment to handle pests, to kill pests.

We wonder why bee populations around the world are plummeting – it’s because of these chemicals and possibly because of this new technology.

RT: In 2009, Monsanto was accused by the US Justice Department of breaking anti-trust rules. But in 2012 the inquiry was closed without taking any enforcement action. Why?

AE: I think Monsanto is a perfect example of regulatory capture where an industry captures the levers of government, levers of our democracy that are supposed to protect us from companies that would profit over our health being impacted in a really negative way. I mean people may be allergic to these crops, to the chemicals that are used on them, and they are trying to avoid them. And in America they have no right to know if the food has been genetically modified or not. And that is something I brought up at the meeting, if you want to be transparent you ought to label the food. 

So yes, you have people at the FDA like Michael Taylor who is the head of food safety who also was the vice-president of Monsanto for a decade and prior to that worked at the FDA as well. So it’s a revolving door, he was at the FDA, went to work for Monsanto and now he’s back at the FDA. It’s clear that secretary of state Clinton, she emphasized giving these hybrid seeds to Africa, yet there’s no proof this is going to help African farmers. I think quite the contrary – they are going to become dependent on buying seeds from the United States when they should be able to save their seeds and develop their own varieties in Africa.


Source: Russia Today

The 10 Biggest GMO PR disasters of 2012

Posted: January 3rd, 2013 | Filed under: Research | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

2012 was the year the lights came up on the biotech industry. Its claims, its tactics and its products all came under scrutiny and some of its biggest PR fairytales bit the dust. Here are some prime examples.

1. Fleeing Europe: The biotech bubble needs to appear to be constantly expanding but in early 2012 came the news that the GM and chemicals giant BASF was pulling its GM division out of Europe because it was facing opposition “from the majority of consumers, farmers and politicians.” BASF also announced it was stopping the commercialization of its GM Amflora potato, one of only two GM crops authorized for cultivation in the European Union. The crop had been a commercial flop. The industry’s only other crop grown in Europe, Monsanto’s Mon810 GM maize, continued to face bans in a number of countries including Germany, Austria, Hungary, Luxembourg, France, Greece, Italy, Bulgaria and Poland. Even GM crop trials are in decline and with BASF quitting Europe they’re expected to decline still further.

2. Meltdown in India: Bt cotton in India has been claimed as one of the industry’s biggest success stories but in 2012 the PR claims completely fell apart. First, a leaked agriculture ministry advisory to cotton-growing states admitted, “Cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011-12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers.” Two new award winning films also helped expose the truth about GM cotton in India to a wider audience. So too did a powerful report from India’s Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture, after its committee members visited five States, examined thousands of documents and talked to large numbers of farmers and experts. The 31 MPs also met around a hundred widows of Bt cotton farmers, including 14 in a village promoted by Monsanto as a model for Bt cotton’s success. It turned out the farmers in Monsanto’s “model village” wanted a ban on Bt cotton. The shocked MPs issued a unanimous report saying GM crops were not the right way forward for India and called for an immediate ban on all GM crop trials. Not long afterwards an expert panel of scientists set up by lndia’s Supreme Court recommended a 10-year moratorium on GM crops.

3. Opposition grows in the US: Everyone knows about California’s referendum on the labeling of food containing GM ingredients, which was narrowly lost in the face of a massive advertising blitz by its industry opponents. But it took all kinds of lies, dirty tricks and a cool $45 million to kill off the initiative, and still 48.6 percent of voters supported it. Worse still for the industry, the controversy it stirred up helped spread GMO awareness nationwide. Many other states and local governments are now picking up the fight for GMO labeling, while the national Just Label It campaign has already submitted over a million signatures to the FDA asking the agency to require the labeling of GM foods. Some activists even took to the supermarket aisles to label GMO foods themselves. The industry has also been facing street protests across the US, with at least 60 protests targeting Monsanto on the anniversary of the Occupy movement.

4. Opposition grows worldwide: In 2012 protests against GM crop trials and the biotech industry’s activities took place across the globe. And although 60 countries already have GM food labeling, important new breakthroughs were achieved in: India, which is to introduce labeling for the first time in 2013; South Africa, where GM labeling is being tightened up to help enforce food industry compliance; Brazil, where the courts forced the multinational food company Nestle to label GM ingredients in its products; and Turkey, where mandatory labeling is to be extended to include GMO-fed animal products.

5. The reality of GM farming overwhelms public relations – nature cannot be fooled: US farmers are having to use still more pesticides to try and save their crops as infestations of rootworms have exploded on GM (Bt) corn engineered to eradicate them. “I lost $25,000 in yield,” said Charles Sandager, a Minnesota farmer. “They are going to outsmart us, them bugs.” Likewise, in order to combat the ever proliferating numbers of herbicide-resistant superweeds, the GM industry is preparing to roll out crops resistant to older and even more toxic herbicides, as well as to multiple herbicides. Washington State University agronomist Charles Benbrook says what the GM industry is doing “makes about as much sense as pouring gas on a fire to put it out.” Benbrook’s research shows that GM crops, far from cutting agrochemical use in the US as the industry likes to claim, have unleashed a pesticide gusher.

6. Toxics exposed: Among the toxic herbicides GM crops are now being engineered to resist is 2,4-D, a component of Agent Orange. Research has shown 2,4-D to be an endocrine disruptor, and has linked exposure to cancers, neurological impairment and reproductive problems. As a result, Norway, Denmark and Sweden have banned it, but the new wave of 2,4-D-resistant GM crops will massively increase the exposure of farmworkers and consumers to this dangerous herbicide. In 2012 there was also growing evidence of the dangers of Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide, which with the considerable help of GM Roundup Ready crops is the most heavily used herbicide worldwide:
+ Glyphosate found in people’s urine - A German university study found significant concentrations of glyphosate in the urine samples of city dwellers. All had concentrations of glyphosate at 5 to 20-fold the limit for drinking water. News of this study came not long after the publication of a study confirming glyphosate was contaminating groundwater. Last year also saw the publication of two US Geological Survey studies which consistently found glyphosate in streams, rain and even air in agricultural areas of the US. Glyphosate has also been found circulating in women’s blood and can even cross the placental barrier and so reach the developing fetus.
+ Glyphosate and Roundup damage DNA in human mouth cells – A 2012 study by Austrian researchers raises concerns over the safety of inhaling glyphosate, one of the most common ways in which people are exposed to the herbicide in the GM soy-producing countries of South America.
+ Glyphosate damages nerve cells – A new study adds confirmatory evidence to previous studies that found a correlation between Roundup exposure and Parkinson’s disease.
+ Roundup can cause amphibians to change shape - A 2012 study found that tadpoles exposed to environmentally relevant concentrations of Roundup grew abnormally large tails. 
+ Roundup kills rat testicular cells - A new study showed that at low doses Roundup reduced testosterone by 35% in mature rats. At high doses, it destroyed testicular cells.
+ Roundup harms beneficial gut bacteria –  A study by scientists at Leipzig University found that Roundup negatively impacted the gastrointestinal bacteria of poultry in vitro. The researchers found that highly pathogenic bacteria resisted Roundup, whereas beneficial bacteria were moderately to highly susceptible to it. The study provides a scientific basis to farmer reports of increased gastrointestinal disease in animals fed GM Roundup Ready soy.
+ Roundup probably causes birth defects, according to a new peer reviewed paper published in the Journal of Environmental and Analytical Toxicology

7. Monsanto guilty of false advertizing: An advertisement for Roundup that Monsanto placed in Dutch newspapers made a number of misleading claims, according to the Dutch Advertising Code Commission. Earlier in the year, the Advertising Standards Council of India concluded that Monsanto’s claims of economic benefits to farmers from its GM cotton were baseless. Monsanto has also previously been found guilty of using wrong, unproven, misleading and confusing claims to promote either its GM crops or Roundup by advertizing watchdogs in the UK, South Africa and France.

8. Unethical research practices and scientific fraud: In December the Chinese authorities sacked three officials who had approved and conducted a controversial US funded research project that involved testing GM golden rice on school children. The officials were punished for “violating relevant regulations, scientific ethics and academic integrity.” The Chinese investigation into how the research was conducted has also provided evidence that contradicts the claims made about how much golden rice was fed to the children in a paper on the study published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. As a policy researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences has commented, “Either the researchers are lying about this now or they lied about it in their paper. It’s a serious offence either way.” Earlier in 2012 came the retraction of a study by researchers at the Monsanto-backed Danforth Center that claimed to have found a way through genetic engineering to boost the protein content of cassava. The retraction occurred “after researchers failed to find any supporting data to back up [the paper's] claims.” In late 2012 there was also news of researchers studying the Bt toxins used in GM crops having doctored images in a whole series of published papers. Neither of the researchers involved seems to be facing the sack, although one of the researchers is having to step down as head of their university’s Committee on Bioethics! In October of 2012 came the headline, “Top GM researcher falsified patent claim to grab national award.” Back in February 2012 there was yet another remarkable headline, “Untangling India’s Bt cotton fraud: ICAR’s top research institutes and GEAC [the key GM regulator] exposed in Bt cotton research scam.” The scam apparently involved, among other things, stealing a Bt cotton gene from Monsanto, but Monsanto itself and various Indian agricultural universities also stand accused of theft - criminal biopiracy – in the case of another GM crop. And that’s all in just the last 12 months! Some see all this as the result of an over-commercialised public science sector, while others suspect it is the inevitable by-product of GM crops being based on a fraud themselves – a massively hyped technology rooted in entirely false premises.

9. Seralini publishes explosive GMO/Roundup study: Prof Gilles-Eric Seralini’s research found serious adverse health impacts in the rats fed Monsanto’s GM corn (NK603) and/or small amounts of the Roundup herbicide that the crop was engineered to withstand. Wave after wave of dubious criticism, fuelled and orchestrated by those with industry connections, attempted to silence the questions raised by the long-term study, as well as to stifle scientific discourse and get the paper retracted. But as the dust starts to settle over the controversy, the study not only remains unretracted but there is a growing recognition of the need for long-term studies on GM crops of the sort Seralini has conducted. Worst of all from the biotech industry’s point of view, their supporters’ savage attacks on Seralini’s study have exposed the fact that a careful comparison of Seralini’s research with Monsanto’s own safety trials shows that if the Seralini experiments are considered insufficient to demonstrate harm, then those carried out by Monsanto cannot prove safety. This is because, whatever its limitations, Seralini’s study was conducted to generally higher scientific standards than the studies underlying GM food approvals. As a result, the attacks on Seralini’s study are bound to fuel calls for mandatory long-term testing of all GMOs and their associated pesticides before they’re commercialized, as well as bringing into question all existing GM crop approvals.

10. Regulatory capture exposed: The other damaging consequence for the biotech industry of the attacks on Seralini and the rush by the likes of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to reject the study, has been the resulting exposure of the double standards of regulators who have accepted Monsanto’s studies claiming safety for their products at face value while demanding that public researchers like Seralini prove any harm from GM crops beyond all doubt. This is why 140 French scientists in a public statement published in Le Monde, declared that it was contrary to all scientific ethics to damn an experimental protocol when it gave results that were not wanted, while accepting it when it gave results that were. EFSA’s behaviour has also brought further focus on the problems of regulatory capture and of serious conflicts of interest among the regulators. This was already an open scandal, not least after EU member states earlier in 2012 had had to refuse the nomination of an ex-Monsanto employee to EFSA’s management board. By the end of 2012 there was growing awareness of the extent of regulatory dysfunction and the scandal of government agencies doing exactly what multinational corporations ask them to do.


Source: GM Watch

WTFographics: GMO Labeling

Posted: December 3rd, 2012 | Filed under: Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |


Source: YouTube

Bill Maher Speaks to Gary Hirshberg about GMOs

Posted: October 20th, 2012 | Filed under: Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

HBO pulled this video. Sorry!

Political comedian Bill Maher discusses GMOs & Prop 37 with Just Label It Chair Gary Hirshberg on the October 19, 2012 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher.


Source: Youtube

The Nation: Occupy Monsanto

Posted: September 5th, 2012 | Filed under: Press | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

occupy monsanto banner2 The Nation: Occupy Monsanto The Nation St. Louis Protest Peter Rothberg pesticides Occupy Monsanto Occupy Jaye Crawford herbicides GMO Labeling gmo DNA Demonstration Agent Orange

Occupy Monsanto

Peter Rothberg, September 5, 2012 – 4:02 PM ET

One of the most important legacies of the Occupy movement has been the sustained, focused campaigns that have emerged from the broad, diffuse protests that captured the world’s attention last fall. Occupy the SEC has kept up the pressure for the Volcker Rule, while Occupy Colleges is determined to end the student debt crisis.

Another powerful example is the expanding network known as Occupy Monsanto, which has emerged over the past eight months staging numerous protests at companies connected to the global trade of genetically engineered foods, known as GMOs.

(GMO foods are organisms which have had specific changes introduced to their DNA using genetic engineering techniques. The plants produced by Monsanto’s seeds are designed to be treated with toxic herbicides and pesticides, chemicals which have been suspected to increase allergies and have been linked to decreased fertility, asthma, organ failure and even, possibly, cancer. The jury is still out, but Occupy Monsanto sensibly argues that vegetables are fine the way nature intended them, and that Monsanto is devoting far more research to the financial metrics of GMOs than to the health implications.)

Trying to sustain its focus, Occupy Monsanto recently announced that it will organize a full week of protests in St. Louis, home of the Monsanto Corporation, on the anniversary of OWS, September 17, 2012. The protests based on the idea that Monsanto’s push to control agriculture poses a great threat not only to consumers in the United States but to farmers and communities throughout Latin America, Africa and Asia, will call on US legislators to mandate the labeling of GMO food, so consumers can decide whether to ingest these products or not.

Occupy Monsanto aims to aggressively confront and expose the industrial agriculture system head-on. “There is something wrong when a chemical manufacturer, the same company who made Agent Orange, controls the US food supply,” said activist Jaye Crawford.

“Wall Street and the American political elite have underestimated and even ignored our potential to effect rational policy change on GMOs which would include labeling for GMOs and restrictions on GMO cultivation,” says Gene Etic an anti-GMO campaigner based in Washington, DC. “If Occupy Monsanto’s anti-GMO actions are successful, after September 17 the media and increasingly more voters will ask tough questions about these experimental GMO crops especially within the context of the presidential election, as that office holds the power to determine American food policy,” says Etic.

The protests will vary in size and nature but are unified in rejecting the legitimacy of GMO food. Check out this interactive map with times, dates and locations of the more than sixty protests organized so far.


Source: The Nation