Diet Drink Poison

`
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
Administration 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.
`
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
Organic Diabetic Sweetener - Stevia

http://www.stevitastevia.com
book: The World According to Monsanto; by Marie-Monique Robin

http://www.librarything.com/work/5155236
http://books.google.com/books?id=7RqYQwAACAAJ
DVD: The World According to Monsanto
book: The Last Farmer: How One Man Took on Monsanto to Save the Future of Food; by John
Park
http://books.google.com/books?id=L1aHQAAACAAJ
book: Fast Food Nation; by Eric Schlosser
http://books.google.com/books?id=Z_IO20TJBN8C
dvd: Fast Food Nation; director: Richard Linklater
dvd: Foodmatters; director: James Colquhoun
book: Empty Harvest; by Bernard Jensen
http://books.google.com/books?id=Fp7eN8Ghg60C
book: Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy Of Industrial Agriculture; Andrew Kimbrell
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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fateful_Harvest
http://www.safefoodandfertilizer.org/index.html
book: Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills; by Russell L Blaylock
http://books.google.com/books?id=gav_LL7olqQC
book: The Truth About Caffeine; by Marina Kushner
http://books.google.com/books?id=_xkjQaPrDxkC
book: The Truth About Coffee; by Marina Kushner
http://books.google.com/books?id=0lh1PgAACAAJ
book: Silent Spring; by Rachel Carson
http://books.google.com/books?id=HeR1l0V0r54C
dvd: Food Inc; director: Robert Kenner
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.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://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://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.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://books.google.com/books?id=VQ9sXDyYN64C
dvd: The Future of Food; by Deborah Koons Garcia
http://www.thefutureoffood.com
book: Disconnect: The Truth about Cell Phone Radiation; by Devra Davis
http://www.environmentalhealthtrust.org
http://books.google.com/books?id=x671QwAACAAJ
dvd: Super Size Me; director: Morgan Spurlock
book: Don't Eat This Book: Fast Food and the Supersizing of America; by Morgan Spurlock
http://books.google.com/books?id=LLLuAAAAMAAJ
dvd: Killer at Large, Why obesity is America's greatest threat; director: Steven Greenstreet
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://books.google.com/books?id=jGlPAAAACAAJ
book: Politically Incorrect Nutrition; by Michael Barbee
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://books.google.com/books?id=3R4XCP1Dwi8C
book: Living Downstream: A Scientist's Personal Investigation of Cancer and the
Environment; by Sandra Steingraber
http://books.google.com/books?id=SNLEbFK2_B0C
book: The Fluoride Deception; by Christopher Bryson
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://books.google.com/books?id=DEqDaoNTo2IC
book: The Devil's Poison: How fluoride is Killing You; by Dean Murphy
http://books.google.com/books?id=YXKjNwAACAAJ
book: Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death; by Barry Groves
http://books.google.com/books?id=CvpFAAAAYAAJ
book: Fluoride: The Freedom Fight; by H.C. Moolenburgh
http://books.google.com/books?id=rblpAAAAMAAJ
book: The Fluoride Question: Panacea or Poison; by Anne-Lise Gotzsche

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
MONSANTO Genetically Engineered Food: How DANGEROUS to CHILDERN?

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.

Monsanto Keeps Up Attack on Seed Saving Farmers

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

TOXIC WASTE Fertilizer - KILLING Farmers and POISONING their

Fields
The BENEFITS of ORGANIC FOOD
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
Neo Nazi Hit List = Are you next?

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
their property
a little backyard garden could get fined and have
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
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
book: Empty Harvest; by Bernard Jensen
book: Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy Of Industrial Agriculture; Andrew Kimbrell
book: Fateful Harvest: The True Story of a Small Town, a Global Industry, and a Toxic
Secret; by Duff Wilson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fateful_Harvest
http://safefoodandfertilizer.org/index.html
book: Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills; by Russell L Blaylock
dvd: Foodmatters; director: James Colquhoun
book: The Truth About Caffeine; by Marina Kushner
book: The Truth About Coffee; by Marina Kushner
http://librarything.com/work/8358177
book: Silent Spring; by Rachel Carson

dvd: Food Inc; director: Robert Kenner
http://www.foodincmovie.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food,_Inc.
book: Unforgiven: The American Economic System Sold for Debt And War; by Charles
Walters
http://books.google.com/books?id=LqntAAAACAAJ
book: Raw Materials Economics; by Charles Walters
http://books.google.com/books?id=3vw4AAAACAAJ
dvd: King Corn; director: Aaron Woolf
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://seedsofdeception.com
http://responsibletechnology.org
book: Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods;
by Jeffrey Smith
http://gmwatch.org
http://books.google.com/books?id=EctxAAAACAAJ
book: The World According to Monsanto; by Marie-Monique Robin
http://books.google.com/books?id=7RqYQwAACAAJ
dvd: The World According to Monsanto; director:
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://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://books.google.com/books?id=VQ9sXDyYN64C
book: Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution; by Gerald Markowitz
Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy; by Kevin Bales
dvd: The Future of Food; by Deborah Koons Garcia
http://thefutureoffood.com
dvd: Fresh; by Ana Sofia Joanes
http://freshthemovie.com
book: Free for All: Fixing School Food in America; by Janet Poppendieck
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
book: Disconnect: The Truth about Cell Phone Radiation; by Devra Davis
http://environmentalhealthtrust.org
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
book: Politically Incorrect Nutrition; by Michael Barbee
Acute Pesticide Poisoning
http://calameo.com/books/000640845afcfc05a6da3
Acute Pesticide Poisoning Among Farm Workers
http://calameo.com/books/0006408450a480716be58
ACUTE PESTICIDE POISONING: A MAJOR GLOBAL HEALTH PROBLEM
http://calameo.com/books/00064084595afe926eddc
Africa - Up in Smoke - Global Warming Vulnerability
http://calameo.com/books/0006408721ce0e71fb175
Agriculture at a Cross Roads
http://calameo.com/books/000640845286b867b9e57
Agriculture: Investing in Natural Capital
http://calameo.com/books/000640845fda9c91e726a
Agroecology - How to Feed the World Without Destroying It
http://calameo.com/books/00064084501bee5821e4a
Agroecology and Sustainable Development
http://calameo.com/books/0006408456a4cf227865a
Atrazine - most commonly detected Pesticides in Ground Water

http://calameo.com/books/000640845ca1f30e42543
Biodiversity as Tool for Adapting to Global Warming - Lessons from the Field
http://calameo.com/books/000640845f8b8cbfbd21a
Bioenergy for the Poor
http://calameo.com/books/000640845a1192cbec8e0
Childhood pesticide poisoning
http://calameo.com/books/000640845cf16ce4f1cb8
Climate Change and Food Security
http://calameo.com/books/00064084542aba091e895
Climate Change Impacts - Destruction of Africa Forest-Dependent Rural Livelihoods
http://calameo.com/books/000640872886dfcc1a847
Communities in Peril - Global impacts of Pesticide Use
http://calameo.com/books/0006408720a23c5ae3e93
Connecting the Dots - Biodiversity, Adaptation and Food Security
http://calameo.com/books/000640845c55c74b0e283
Ecological Agriculture: Mitigating Climate Change, Providing Food Security & Self-Reliance
for Rural Livelihoods in Africa
http://calameo.com/books/000640872df0d5d8ed27a
Ecogical Agriculture - Providing Food Security, Mitigating Climate Change,
http://calameo.com/books/000640845e99deb03dd7a
Environmentally Sustainable Development - The Importance of Women
http://calameo.com/books/000640845550997234d73
Family Fruit Farmers: Poisoning by Pesticides

http://calameo.com/books/0006408450bac19747754
Farm Worker Exposure to Pesticides
http://calameo.com/books/000640845044b9e753aef
Farm Workers Poisoned in Pesticide Drift Accident
http://calameo.com/books/00064084553d618cd7008
Farmworker Health Facts
http://calameo.com/books/000640845a6d295238c50
Fields of Poison: California Farmworkers and Pesticides
http://calameo.com/books/0006408450460dedaaf32
Global Wariming Impact on Fiji Food Security and Poverty
http://calameo.com/books/000640845056c7d01e539
Global Wariming Impact on Food Security in the Pacific - Vanuatu
http://calameo.com/books/00064084512133b94c27b
Global Warming Impacts on the Achievement of the Millennium Development Goals
http://calameo.com/books/0006408456c307b9e86bf
Global Warming Economic Impacts on Tanzania and Deforestation
http://calameo.com/books/000640845a1d2e64bfd58
Global Warming Impact on Nepal
http://calameo.com/books/000640845247227c64cf2
Global Warming Impact on Uganda - Integral Farm-Household Management
http://calameo.com/books/000640845036826ae754c
Global Warming Impact on World Fisheries
http://calameo.com/books/000640845842d5f1b4658
Global Warming Mitigation in Pastoralism Dry Lands
http://calameo.com/books/00064087225c0a5c71418
Global Warming Mitigation Practitioners Handbook
http://calameo.com/books/000640872cb4e15f474f8
Green Economy Initiative
http://calameo.com/books/0006408722f60c5fcfc41
Health Hazards of Peticides in Pakistan
http://calameo.com/books/000640872a9e9ca92cfef
How to Assist the Small Scale Farmer
http://calameo.com/books/0006408729314a9d4ff76
How to Mainstream Climate Change Adaptation for Agriculture
http://calameo.com/books/000640872bc6fbe7ba2e9
Indian Farmers Suffering from Toxic Pesticides
http://calameo.com/books/0006408723a8a940f9a55
Kenyan Farm Workers: Poisoning by Pesticides
http://calameo.com/books/0006408724ea97eff7f9f
Lessons for Climate Change Adaptation
http://calameo.com/books/0006408720d149d012d7b
Natural Capital - The New Political Imperative
http://calameo.com/books/00064087216784dc54acc
Natural capitalism - Path to Sustainability
http://calameo.com/books/0006408726865bcbe881f
Negative Impact of Global Warming on Coffee Production

http://calameo.com/books/000640872be931d8fee0a
Organic Agriculture - a Guide to Climate Change and Food Security
http://calameo.com/books/000640872ef8d659a01b4
Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa
http://calameo.com/books/000640872c4353847ad1c
Organic agriculture and Global Warming
http://calameo.com/books/0006408723f4886eec04f
Organic Agriculture and the Global Food Supply
http://calameo.com/books/000640872cb883e25a18b
Organic Agriculture for IMPROVED Food Security in Africa
http://calameo.com/books/0006408729a9df4bdc0fa
Organic Solutions to Climate Change and Food Security
http://calameo.com/books/00064087284c1e39c1b17
Pesticide exports to the Third World
http://calameo.com/books/00064087213780bdd5d69
Pesticide Poisoning Killing Asian Farm Workers
http://calameo.com/books/00064087289b1e91b291c
Pesticide Poisoning of Residents Near Farm Fields
http://calameo.com/books/000640872410684ed82e2
Pesticide Safety Laws Fail to Protect Farmworkers
http://calameo.com/books/0006408725f66aec819f8
Pesticide Use and Health Costs
http://calameo.com/books/000640872e6327a044830
PESTICIDES AND WOMEN AGRICULTURAL WORKERS IN SOUTH AFRICA
http://calameo.com/books/0006408726e68a3e81dce
Pesticides Are Dangerous
http://calameo.com/books/000640872e8480cab16d0
Pesticides Are Poison
http://calameo.com/books/00064087250920f70d439
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
Reforestation and Organic Farming is improving Soil Fertility and Increasing Crop Yields in
Africa
http://calameo.com/books/000640872d32c0fcb225c
Reforestation helps Vulnerable Populations Adapt to Global Warming
http://calameo.com/books/0006408721ba63a8b370e
Survivors of Pesticide Poisoning - Say No to Methyl Iodide
http://calameo.com/books/000640872ce2e18cd4b1c
The Hidden Problems of Child Farm Workers
http://calameo.com/books/000640872bdd32ce0eb36
Towards Sustainable Agriculture
http://calameo.com/books/0006408729436a6f8540a
Traditional food crops as a source of community resilience
http://calameo.com/books/00064087217e5dbb8f0e4
What Can Be Done to Curtail Pesticide Poisoning Impacts

http://calameo.com/books/00064087212ee18efa6b6
Women are the Key to Food Security and Rural Development
http://calameo.com/books/000640872a0565fe28ea5
Women in Agriculture - Making a Strong Case for Investing in Women
http://calameo.com/books/000640872c05e2fa33e2c
Zero-Waste Agriculture - Organic Berry Farm
http://calameo.com/books/000640872ad603c73eb50
book: Internal Combustion; by Edwin Black
http://books.google.com/books?id=S0DDjjjD5gwC
http://www.internalcombustionbook.com
~
book: Does the Bible Teach Nutrition; by Elizabeth Baker
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
~

Diet Drink Poison

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Diet Drink Poison

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

`

ASPARTAME - MONSANTO DIET DRINK POISON

Article written by Nancy Markle

DIRTY SECRETS of the Food Processing Industry

Administration could be called the Monsanto Cabinet, per

Organic Diabetic Sweetener - Stevia

book: The World According to Monsanto; by Marie-Monique Robin

dvd: Food Fight; director: Chris Taylor

book: The Fluoride Question: Panacea or Poison; by Anne-Lise Gotzsche

ARE THEY SAFE?

American constituency that the government was obligated to consult.

harvest after spraying, and growing locations.

AGENT ORANGE SIDE EFFECTS

"TCDD (dioxin) has been shown to be extremely toxic to a number of

hundreds of birds, 11 cats, 4 dogs and 43 horses died.

to Agent Orange. DVA Report, 1990.

Agent Orange Dangers

The Story of Agent Orange

Privately, they knew otherwise.

USE OF AGENT ORANGE FINALLY ENDED

illness rates than the general population.

TEST RESULTS CONTINUE TO BE MIXED

Stop the MASSACRE

What kind of inheritance are you leaving?

Monsanto FOOD POLICE

**Codex Alimentarius!** The FOOD POLICE!... HR 875 - S 425...

Section 3 which is the definitions portion of the bill-read in it's entirety.

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

Effects anyone producing meat of any kind including wild game.

Didn't Stalin use food to control the people?

Stop the MONSANTO Henchmen in Congress from destroying our

MONSANTO Genetically Engineered Food: How DANGEROUS to CHILDERN?

MONSANTO MEN - Henchmen - in the USA Government

Monsanto's Agent Orange - DEAD

BABIES & DEAD VETERANS

Stop the Baby Killers.

Monsanto Keeps Up Attack on Seed Saving Farmers

Things you can do

with your concerns.

SMALL FARMS FEAR New Food Safety Regulations

TOXIC WASTE Fertilizer - KILLING Farmers and POISONING their

WHATS WRONG with the FOOD and DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)

NAZI Hitler CAR?

Keep the NUTS away from the NUKES

Neo Nazi Hit List = Are you next?

a little backyard garden could get fined and have

Pay special attention to

Section 3 which is the definitions portion of the bill-read in it's entirety.

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

TOXIC WASTE Fertilizer - KILLING Farmers and POISONING their Fields

book: Silent Spring; by Rachel Carson

Atrazine - most commonly detected Pesticides in Ground Water

Family Fruit Farmers: Poisoning by Pesticides

Negative Impact of Global Warming on Coffee Production

What Can Be Done to Curtail Pesticide Poisoning Impacts

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

Codex Alimentarius! The FOOD POLICE!... HR 875 - S 425...