Forbes and Monsanto: A Match Made in H*ll
Posted by Don Carr in Featured Articles, Food, Subsidies on January 26, 2010 | no responses
Special to AgMag from EWG Communications Director Alex Formuzis
Clearly, the only criterion Forbes magazine uses when determining which U.S. corporation wins its yearly “Company of the Year” title must be profit. That’s the only way to explain how a company as notorious as Monsanto could possibly get the nod for 2009 from the mag, which proclaims itself “The Capitalist Tool.”
Too bad Bernie Madoff lost out.
The chemical behemoth, which is responsible for a laundry list of misdeeds that could land any of us behind bars, welcomed the award, of course.
Monsanto’s blog:
Not only is this exciting for the 22,000 Monsanto employees worldwide, but it’s also exciting for everyone working in agriculture today.
Really? I don’t think “exciting” is the word those farmers whom Monsanto has targeted with lawsuits would choose, and I’m not sure the young children the company employed at its plants in India would pick it either.
Here are a few items about Forbes’ top pick for ‘09 that we highlighted in an old Mulch post, before we put that old blog out to pasture:
’65-’72: Monsanto contractors illegally dumped tons of toxic chemicals in landfills throughout the United Kingdom. As a result, UK government researchers have found components of Agent Orange, dioxins and PCBs in groundwater testing.
’05: Monsanto paid a $1.5M fine for bribing a top official in the Indonesian government in an effort to sidestep environmental and safety assessments of the company’s genetically altered cotton.
A cottonseed subsidiary of Monsanto based in India stands accused of employing children. “Around 17,000 children work for Monsanto and their Indian subsidiary Mahyco. These children get no education, earn less than 40 Eurocents . . . a day and are exposed to poisonous pesticides like Endosulphan during their work.”
According to a report by The Center for Food Safety, “The agribusiness giant has sued hundreds of farmers over GMO crops, and has been awarded more than$20 million from these farmers.” The Center issued a detailed report, noting that, “Under financial duress, many farmers who have been accused of patent infringement based on insubstantial evidence have decided to settle out of court rather than face an expensive and lengthy lawsuit.”
And, of course we can’t leave out Anniston, Alabama, where local farmers were urged by Monsanto to use soil the company knew was contaminated with PCBs.
Agent Orange Legacy is advocating for services, support and rights of the Children of Vietnam Veterans exposed to Agent Orange and their families.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Officials just now recognizing Agent Orange exposures
Health » 'Veterans ... deserve timely decisions,' VA secretary says.
By Matthew D. LaPlante
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 01/15/2010 02:45:14 PM MST
Click photo to enlargeVietnam veteran James Randazzo talks recently about... (Jim Urquhart / The Salt Lake Tribune)«123»Related
Sickened by Service
Jan 15:
Government waits for proof - sometimes for decades - before caring for sick veteransVets say toxic tests sickened them; government says prove itVets: Burn pits are killing usWhen he returned from Vietnam, James Randazzo figured himself fortunate.
"I came home alive," said the 60-year-old Utahn, whose service included more than two years north of Da Nang and demolition missions into North Vietnam. "That's plenty more than many others can say."
About a decade after returning home, Randazzo arrived at a Veterans Affairs hospital covered in pus-filled boils and red lesions. His skin was rusty orange. He itched all over.
"The people at the VA, they didn't even want to touch me," Randazzo said. "It was like they were afraid they would catch it."
No one could tell him what he had, or how he got it. Decades later, the condition still comes and goes -- and the Tooele resident still doesn't know why.
It took decades of research and political pressure before the federal government began recognizing certain medical conditions were related to Agent Orange exposure. Early this year, an order from Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki will take effect, permitting Vietnam veterans with certain types of heart disease, leukemia and Parkinson's disease to access additional care and disability payments.
Over the past 40 years, according to VA records, about 86,000 veterans who suffered from these conditions were denied benefits. Some will now collect retroactive compensation. Many others have already died.
Randazzo's condition is still not on the list. And although he figures it's just a matter of time, he's angry.
"It's not like we all start suffering the moment that the government decides we are worthy of compensation. I've been living with this for 30 years," he said. "How long do veterans have to wait?"
Not even Shinseki can answer that question.
"Since my confirmation as secretary, I've often asked why, 40 years after Agent Orange was last used in Vietnam, we're still trying to determine the health consequences to our veterans who served in the combat theater," Shinseki said in an October statement. "Veterans who endure a host of health problems deserve timely decisions."
By Matthew D. LaPlante
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 01/15/2010 02:45:14 PM MST
Click photo to enlargeVietnam veteran James Randazzo talks recently about... (Jim Urquhart / The Salt Lake Tribune)«123»Related
Sickened by Service
Jan 15:
Government waits for proof - sometimes for decades - before caring for sick veteransVets say toxic tests sickened them; government says prove itVets: Burn pits are killing usWhen he returned from Vietnam, James Randazzo figured himself fortunate.
"I came home alive," said the 60-year-old Utahn, whose service included more than two years north of Da Nang and demolition missions into North Vietnam. "That's plenty more than many others can say."
About a decade after returning home, Randazzo arrived at a Veterans Affairs hospital covered in pus-filled boils and red lesions. His skin was rusty orange. He itched all over.
"The people at the VA, they didn't even want to touch me," Randazzo said. "It was like they were afraid they would catch it."
No one could tell him what he had, or how he got it. Decades later, the condition still comes and goes -- and the Tooele resident still doesn't know why.
It took decades of research and political pressure before the federal government began recognizing certain medical conditions were related to Agent Orange exposure. Early this year, an order from Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki will take effect, permitting Vietnam veterans with certain types of heart disease, leukemia and Parkinson's disease to access additional care and disability payments.
Over the past 40 years, according to VA records, about 86,000 veterans who suffered from these conditions were denied benefits. Some will now collect retroactive compensation. Many others have already died.
Randazzo's condition is still not on the list. And although he figures it's just a matter of time, he's angry.
"It's not like we all start suffering the moment that the government decides we are worthy of compensation. I've been living with this for 30 years," he said. "How long do veterans have to wait?"
Not even Shinseki can answer that question.
"Since my confirmation as secretary, I've often asked why, 40 years after Agent Orange was last used in Vietnam, we're still trying to determine the health consequences to our veterans who served in the combat theater," Shinseki said in an October statement. "Veterans who endure a host of health problems deserve timely decisions."
Post-traumatic stress diagnosed using magnetism
Post-traumatic stress diagnosed using magnetism
Jan. 21, 2010
Courtesy Institute of Physics
and World Science staff
The thicket of anxiety, recurring nightmares and related problems that envelops some war veterans and other trauma survivors has been diagnosed using a physical test for the first time, researchers say.
The findings are being called a major advance in studying the condition—post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)—which in the past was detectable only through psychological screening.
U.S. war veterans were involved in clinical trials that scientists say appear to have diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder using magnetoencephalography, a non-invasive measurement of magnetic fields in the brain. (Image courtesy U.S. NIH)
This severe anxiety disorder, enshrined in popular consciousness through films such as the Rambo series about a tormented Vietnam veteran, often stems from war but can result from any traumatic event. The disorder can manifest itself in flashbacks, recurring nightmares, anger or hypervigilance.
U.S. war veterans were involved in clinical trials that scientists say appear to have diagnosed the disorder using magnetoencephalography, a non-invasive measurement of magnetic fields in the brain.
Conventional brain scans had failed to detect the disorder, said the researchers, whose work appeared Jan. 20 in the Journal of Neural Engineering.
The researchers from the Minneapolis Veteran Affairs Medical Center and the University of Minnesota, led by Apostolos P Georgopoulos and Brian Engdahl, worked with the 74 veterans who had served in World War II, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq, and had been diagnosed with behavioural symptoms of PTSD. Also participating in the study were a group of people without the disorder.
With more than 90 percent accuracy, the researchers said, they were able to tell apart PTSD patients from healthy subjects using a “synchronous neural interactions test.” This involves analysing the magnetic charges released when populations of brain cells connect or “couple.”
The ability to objectively diagnose PTSD is seen as a first step towards helping those afflicted with the disorder.
“The excellent results obtained offer major promise for the usefulness of the synchronous neural interactions test for differential diagnosis as well as for monitoring disease progression and for evaluating the effects of psychological and/or drug treatments,” the researchers wrote.
This work follows success in detecting other brain diseases, such as Alzheimer’s and multiple sclerosis, using the magnetic technique, scientists said. The method was invented by Georgopoulos and the latest research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
world science
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The Agent Orange Horror And The U.S.
The Agent Orange Horror And The U.S.
by Bill Fletcher, Jr
NNPA Columnist
Originally posted 1/6/2010
(NNPA) - You may not notice a victim of Agent Orange. They may look healthy on the outside, full of life and vigor. Yet inside them there is a time-bomb, a time-bomb set during the US war against Vietnam more than thirty five years ago. In over three million people, including US troops who were involved in that war, this bomb has been going off over the years creating an on-going catastrophe.
On a recent visit to Vietnam I had the opportunity to meet with leaders and activists in the Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin (VAVA). Formed in 2003 by physicians, Vietnamese war veterans, and other activists, this mass organization spread throughout the country amounting to more than 60,000 members in chapters in most provinces. VAVA came together to remind both Vietnam, but also the world, of the continuing impact of the human-made plague that served as an instrument of war by the US against Vietnam.
Agent Orange is a form of chemical warfare. It was promoted as a defoliant by the US government, allegedly for the purposes of destroying jungles and forests where soldiers of the National Liberation Front and North Vietnam were encamped during the Indochina War. As one leader of VAVA informed me, Agent Orange was described by the USA as being so safe that soldiers were informed that they could use it on their skin against various insects.
Agent Orange was not safe at all. In fact, it was precisely the opposite. Getting into the blood stream it had a long-term impact on those exposed. The impact, however, was not immediate, at least on human beings.
In a discussion with leaders of VAVA, I asked at what point the impact of Agent Orange became obvious. There were two principal stages, I was informed. The immediate ecological destruction was obvious. The impact on humans, however, took longer to uncover. It was after the war had ended (1975) that the Vietnamese began to notice oddities. Strange cancers were on the rise. The most bizarre of birth defects appeared, hideous by any stretch of the imagination, including children born absent eyes and limbs.
Agent Orange might have been ignored altogether in the USA had not something else happened at the same time. Agent Orange’s impact became evident on US veterans and their families. The same symptoms were occurring in the USA and neither the US veterans nor the Vietnamese were being provided with useful answers as to what was actually going on.
A lawsuit against companies that were alleged to have been involved in the production of Agent Orange failed in US courts, largely for technical reasons. At the same time, the US government has not wanted to come to terms with the impact of this criminal instrument of war. In fact, according to various Vietnamese with who I spoke, US diplomats repeatedly made it clear that true normalized relations between the USA and Vietnam would not take place as long as the Vietnamese continued to raise the issue of Agent Orange. Given that the USA has yet to pay the reparations to Vietnam promised at the time of the Paris Peace Agreement in 1973, it is understandable that the Vietnamese government has been reluctant to press this matter.
The resolution of the Agent Orange horror will only take place when the US government assumes responsibility for its use of chemical warfare in Indochina. Not only was Agent Orange used in Vietnam, but also in Laos and Cambodia against insurgent groups and their base areas. Assuming responsibility means an acknowledgement to the peoples of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and, yes, the people of the USA, that the US committed horrendous damage against soldiers and civilians. In addition to the health impact on Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, and U.S. veterans, extensive ecological damage was done to Indochina, including but not limited to the wholesale destruction of forested areas.
For those who have suffered the effects of Agent Orange, whether a US veteran and his/her family here at home, or Vietnamese civilians and former combatants, the price has been literally and figuratively very high. The damage to families, the resources into medical care, and the proliferation of orphans, has put immense strain on entire populations. For Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, economically underdeveloped countries, the resource strain has been immeasurable. Yet in all of this, the USA continues to keep its fingers stuck in its ears and its eyes closed refusing to accept responsibility for this atrocity.
The time has come to repair the damage. Congress and the President must act to move legislation that will address the extent of this horror, both in Indochina, but also here at home. It is time to bring the Indochina War to an end.
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum.
The Seattle Medium
by Bill Fletcher, Jr
NNPA Columnist
Originally posted 1/6/2010
(NNPA) - You may not notice a victim of Agent Orange. They may look healthy on the outside, full of life and vigor. Yet inside them there is a time-bomb, a time-bomb set during the US war against Vietnam more than thirty five years ago. In over three million people, including US troops who were involved in that war, this bomb has been going off over the years creating an on-going catastrophe.
On a recent visit to Vietnam I had the opportunity to meet with leaders and activists in the Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin (VAVA). Formed in 2003 by physicians, Vietnamese war veterans, and other activists, this mass organization spread throughout the country amounting to more than 60,000 members in chapters in most provinces. VAVA came together to remind both Vietnam, but also the world, of the continuing impact of the human-made plague that served as an instrument of war by the US against Vietnam.
Agent Orange is a form of chemical warfare. It was promoted as a defoliant by the US government, allegedly for the purposes of destroying jungles and forests where soldiers of the National Liberation Front and North Vietnam were encamped during the Indochina War. As one leader of VAVA informed me, Agent Orange was described by the USA as being so safe that soldiers were informed that they could use it on their skin against various insects.
Agent Orange was not safe at all. In fact, it was precisely the opposite. Getting into the blood stream it had a long-term impact on those exposed. The impact, however, was not immediate, at least on human beings.
In a discussion with leaders of VAVA, I asked at what point the impact of Agent Orange became obvious. There were two principal stages, I was informed. The immediate ecological destruction was obvious. The impact on humans, however, took longer to uncover. It was after the war had ended (1975) that the Vietnamese began to notice oddities. Strange cancers were on the rise. The most bizarre of birth defects appeared, hideous by any stretch of the imagination, including children born absent eyes and limbs.
Agent Orange might have been ignored altogether in the USA had not something else happened at the same time. Agent Orange’s impact became evident on US veterans and their families. The same symptoms were occurring in the USA and neither the US veterans nor the Vietnamese were being provided with useful answers as to what was actually going on.
A lawsuit against companies that were alleged to have been involved in the production of Agent Orange failed in US courts, largely for technical reasons. At the same time, the US government has not wanted to come to terms with the impact of this criminal instrument of war. In fact, according to various Vietnamese with who I spoke, US diplomats repeatedly made it clear that true normalized relations between the USA and Vietnam would not take place as long as the Vietnamese continued to raise the issue of Agent Orange. Given that the USA has yet to pay the reparations to Vietnam promised at the time of the Paris Peace Agreement in 1973, it is understandable that the Vietnamese government has been reluctant to press this matter.
The resolution of the Agent Orange horror will only take place when the US government assumes responsibility for its use of chemical warfare in Indochina. Not only was Agent Orange used in Vietnam, but also in Laos and Cambodia against insurgent groups and their base areas. Assuming responsibility means an acknowledgement to the peoples of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and, yes, the people of the USA, that the US committed horrendous damage against soldiers and civilians. In addition to the health impact on Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, and U.S. veterans, extensive ecological damage was done to Indochina, including but not limited to the wholesale destruction of forested areas.
For those who have suffered the effects of Agent Orange, whether a US veteran and his/her family here at home, or Vietnamese civilians and former combatants, the price has been literally and figuratively very high. The damage to families, the resources into medical care, and the proliferation of orphans, has put immense strain on entire populations. For Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, economically underdeveloped countries, the resource strain has been immeasurable. Yet in all of this, the USA continues to keep its fingers stuck in its ears and its eyes closed refusing to accept responsibility for this atrocity.
The time has come to repair the damage. Congress and the President must act to move legislation that will address the extent of this horror, both in Indochina, but also here at home. It is time to bring the Indochina War to an end.
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum.
The Seattle Medium
Saturday, January 23, 2010
CALL FOR IMMEDIATE ARREST OF 5 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES FOR TREASON
CALL FOR IMMEDIATE ARREST OF 5 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES FOR TREASON
January 22, 2010 by Gordon Duff · 74 Comments
Constitution in flamesTHE FIVE THAT STAND AGAINST ALL AMERICANS, THE “MAFIA” JUDGES
By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor
Five members of the Supreme Court declared that a “corporation” is a person, not a “regular person” but one above all natural laws, subject to no God, no moral code but one with unlimited power over our lives, a power awarded by judges who seem themselves as grand inquisitors in an meant to hunt down all hertics who fail to serve their god, the god of money.
Their ruling has made it legal for foreign controlled corporations to flush unlimited money into our bloated political system to further corrupt something none of us trust and most of us fear. The “corporation/person” that the 5 judges, the “neocon” purists, have turned the United States over to isn’t even American. Our corporations, especially since our economic meltdown are owned by China, Russia and the oil sheiks along with a few foreign banks. They don’t vote, pay taxes, fight in wars, need dental care, breathe air, drive cars or send children to school. Anyone who thinks these things are people is insane. Anyone who would sell our government to them is a criminal and belongs in prison. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes this “gang of five” bribe sucking clowns above the law. There is nothing in the Constitution that even mentions corporations much less gives them status equal to or greater than the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.
The Supreme Court of the United States has no right to breathe human life into investment groups owned by terrorist sympathizers, foreign arms dealers or groups working for the downfall of the United States and everything we believe in, but 5 “justices” have done just that. We now have a new government above our government, above our people, one above any law. Five judges have created institutionalized gangsterism as the new form of government for the United States.
No American soldier can ever go to war fighting for a Chinese hedge fund, a German bank or a Saudi Arabian fertilizer company. Will our new debates in Congress be between members representing the opium warlords against the Columbian cartels? Their cash, which long ago has infiltrated one major corporation or bank after another is now heading for your local representative. How important do you think secure borders for America are for these new policial “influencers?”
For years we complained about AIPAC, the Sierra Club, the NRA, trial lawyers, trade unions, NAM (National Association of Manufacturers) and the churches that got involved in politics. Behind all of these were people, American citizens, and, on some occasions, Americans who fought for their country, raised kids here and were invested in the survival of America although they didn’t always act that way. This was an American problem. Now we aren’t even sure we have an America anymore.
Anyone who believes that a massive flood of corporate money into politics won’t throw control of both houses of Congress into the hands of the wealthy nations that are also our primary strategic enemies, you know the ones, the ones loaded with oil cash, the ones with 10 cent an hour labor and legal systems that shoot first and ask questions later. They just were told they can buy the United States, not just our government, but our military, and the lives of our soldiers. They can now make our laws, raise our taxes, decide on our civil rights, where we can live, if we can own guns, how late we stay up, where and what we drive and, eventually, how we think. The Supreme Court has given foreign owned corporations the eventual power to silence us all.
When a corporation commits a crime, nobody goes to jail. When wars come, they don’t fight, they simply rake in cash. When children are poisoned or workers are killed, they seldom even pay a fine. However, when they want something, billions in tax money for “bail outs” or fat contracts or special laws, they have always gotten it. It has been a battle to control corporations for 140 years. Sometimes the American people have lost, sometimes they have won. Our greatest presidents are the ones who reined in corporate power and kept the influence of money over humanity in check. Think of Theordore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy.
Without them we would be living in work camps, stuck at machines all day, our children at our sides. We would be paid in beans and salt pork, dying at 40 in filth like people around the world who live in countries controlled by corporations.
Based on the justices that we want prosecuted being Reagan/Bush “conservatives” you would think this is a liberal/conservative issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing less “conservative” has ever been done by a branch of our government. There is nothing “conservative” about our Supreme Court going insane and abandoning our Constitution and making medical decisions, not to give life to a fetus, but to a bank account.
This is nothing but an extremely unAmerican and unpatriotic group of thieves believing that Americans had given up so many of their civil liberties in silence during the Global War on Terror scam that opening the “Pandora’s Box” of class conflict could now be done with nobody saying a word. Their “corporate person” is now a Baron or Duke, the great landlords of the medieval period. Americans are now destined for serfdom. Their political and economic theories, what are they? Is it conservatism or feudalism?
We are already burdened with a representative government that has tied itself to the money spigot because of the incredible cost of media exposure in campaigns. People running for office in ancient Rome would purchase thousands of animals for slaughter in the arena. Mass executions were staged as media events for political campaigns. In fact, the arenas in every Roman city were built for that purpose, today replaced by television and the internet. We thought we had changed since that time. We were wrong.
The framers of the Constitution created the Supreme Court, the Electoral College and originally had Senators appointed, not elected, to protect the wealthy from having their money and land seized by the masses who would otherwise have controlled the government. This was the 1780s. The only “democracy” we knew about was ancient Athens, where the majority of the people living there were slaves. 27 Amendments later, including the Bill of Rights, we have worked to define justice and decency. Generations have fought and died to keep life in our imperfect system from 1780. Who would have thought that 5 people could destroy it all?
Political debate in America is sometimes extreme, often bordering on violence. Feelings are high. How many times have you heard people threaten to leave the country because “their America” no longer exists. We know that few really mean it. When faced with a real threat, no people on earth are to be feared like Americans. When help is needed, no people on earth are to be trusted and relied on like Americans. This is the pride we have in our country and ourselves. We never agree on anything. We aren’t supposed to, we are Americans.
Everything we built has been based on a balance, race, religion, ethnicity, social standing, political beliefs, regional interests, all striving and compromising to build something we are all secretly very proud of, something all of us are willing to fight for and many are. Americans all agree on one thing, that our government in Washington is out of control and has been for some time. We all have different ideas on this but agree on the fact itself. We wonder where the politicians come from, men too often “less great” than those of the past, in fact, less great than average. Decisions are continually made that most find puzzling and, in fact, are driven by a rotten underbelly of corruption and self interest.
Now, 5 members of the Supreme Court, people none of us voted for, a group that is answerable to no authority and, seemingly, no law or moral code, a group famous for immoderation, poor judgement and low personal integrity has, either through blindness, avarice or insanity clearly done something so malicious, so unjust and so utterly inconsistent with our Constitution that they, themselves, have become an “enemy of the people.”
What is their power? What they have done is not within the scope of the authority given through the Constitution. Their acts are outside the law, their acts are those of a conspiracy, their acts are meant to diminish our freedoms, our sacred institutions and even endanger our lives. Typically, such acts are called crimes and those who commit them are criminals.
What could drive judges, albeit judges appointed with little thought as part of a cheap political ploy, to abandon any American consitutency? Corporations have no religion. They care nothing for the unborn. They have no allegiance to a flag, a family or any moral ethic. They serve no person, owe no loyalty other that to stockholders, shadowy groups of Russian oligarchs, Chinese banks, corrupt dictators grown fat on the spoils of their people or the international consortiums of bond and currency speculators who have, for decades, abandoned any economic law to build the etherial “house of cards” we call the “world economy.”
The control of the American electoral process has been given to them. No serving politican can survive now standing against them. Years ago “they” bought our newspapers and our television networks. Fact and truth became whatever they wanted us to believe. “They” gained control of what many thought and what almost all of us see and hear. That wasn’t enough. They wanted it all. As their control has grown, so has terrorism, continual war, economic poverty for millions Americans and insensitivity to justice and humanity. Who would expect anything else from a corporation with no blood, no heart and no face?
The Founding Fathers led America on the path to freedom and eventual democracy. The Federalists limited the ability of an impetuous electorate to seize power and “reform” America into chaos and anarchy. This system of government was predicated on the belief that love of country would always burn brightly in America and with progress, freedom and bounty was the ineviable reward of our industry. It is only now too obvious that so much has happened that was unforseen. It is not a denial of our traditions to correct wrongs when we find them. This was how America was created. We are drowning in wrongs, we all finally agree on this.
The time is now. Party politics have failed. Political theories are little more than empty rhetoric meant to mislead and misinform. State has become church and church has become state. State is less just and church less godly. All we have left is “we, the People.” This is how we began and it is now all we have to move forward. It is time for the states to call for a Constitutional Convention to establish, not just a Republic, but a Democracy, by and for the people, the American people, rich and poor, a nation loyal to itself, not tied to corporations, a vast military industrial complex or endless foreign alliances.
If it is to be a genuinely conservative nation, one with individual freedoms, a small government, fewer taxes and more opportunity, a nation as intended, then we will all have to live with it. The bloated corpse we are creating in Washington is emitting a stench we can no longer abide. We will be saying goodbye to our Supreme Court, our seniority system in Congress and our political machines pretending to be “parties” and hello to paper ballots, a free press, term limits and the ability to yank a scoundrel out of office when we catch one.
Veterans Today Senior Editor Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran and regular contributor on political and social issues.
January 22, 2010 by Gordon Duff · 74 Comments
Constitution in flamesTHE FIVE THAT STAND AGAINST ALL AMERICANS, THE “MAFIA” JUDGES
By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor
Five members of the Supreme Court declared that a “corporation” is a person, not a “regular person” but one above all natural laws, subject to no God, no moral code but one with unlimited power over our lives, a power awarded by judges who seem themselves as grand inquisitors in an meant to hunt down all hertics who fail to serve their god, the god of money.
Their ruling has made it legal for foreign controlled corporations to flush unlimited money into our bloated political system to further corrupt something none of us trust and most of us fear. The “corporation/person” that the 5 judges, the “neocon” purists, have turned the United States over to isn’t even American. Our corporations, especially since our economic meltdown are owned by China, Russia and the oil sheiks along with a few foreign banks. They don’t vote, pay taxes, fight in wars, need dental care, breathe air, drive cars or send children to school. Anyone who thinks these things are people is insane. Anyone who would sell our government to them is a criminal and belongs in prison. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes this “gang of five” bribe sucking clowns above the law. There is nothing in the Constitution that even mentions corporations much less gives them status equal to or greater than the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.
The Supreme Court of the United States has no right to breathe human life into investment groups owned by terrorist sympathizers, foreign arms dealers or groups working for the downfall of the United States and everything we believe in, but 5 “justices” have done just that. We now have a new government above our government, above our people, one above any law. Five judges have created institutionalized gangsterism as the new form of government for the United States.
No American soldier can ever go to war fighting for a Chinese hedge fund, a German bank or a Saudi Arabian fertilizer company. Will our new debates in Congress be between members representing the opium warlords against the Columbian cartels? Their cash, which long ago has infiltrated one major corporation or bank after another is now heading for your local representative. How important do you think secure borders for America are for these new policial “influencers?”
For years we complained about AIPAC, the Sierra Club, the NRA, trial lawyers, trade unions, NAM (National Association of Manufacturers) and the churches that got involved in politics. Behind all of these were people, American citizens, and, on some occasions, Americans who fought for their country, raised kids here and were invested in the survival of America although they didn’t always act that way. This was an American problem. Now we aren’t even sure we have an America anymore.
Anyone who believes that a massive flood of corporate money into politics won’t throw control of both houses of Congress into the hands of the wealthy nations that are also our primary strategic enemies, you know the ones, the ones loaded with oil cash, the ones with 10 cent an hour labor and legal systems that shoot first and ask questions later. They just were told they can buy the United States, not just our government, but our military, and the lives of our soldiers. They can now make our laws, raise our taxes, decide on our civil rights, where we can live, if we can own guns, how late we stay up, where and what we drive and, eventually, how we think. The Supreme Court has given foreign owned corporations the eventual power to silence us all.
When a corporation commits a crime, nobody goes to jail. When wars come, they don’t fight, they simply rake in cash. When children are poisoned or workers are killed, they seldom even pay a fine. However, when they want something, billions in tax money for “bail outs” or fat contracts or special laws, they have always gotten it. It has been a battle to control corporations for 140 years. Sometimes the American people have lost, sometimes they have won. Our greatest presidents are the ones who reined in corporate power and kept the influence of money over humanity in check. Think of Theordore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy.
Without them we would be living in work camps, stuck at machines all day, our children at our sides. We would be paid in beans and salt pork, dying at 40 in filth like people around the world who live in countries controlled by corporations.
Based on the justices that we want prosecuted being Reagan/Bush “conservatives” you would think this is a liberal/conservative issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing less “conservative” has ever been done by a branch of our government. There is nothing “conservative” about our Supreme Court going insane and abandoning our Constitution and making medical decisions, not to give life to a fetus, but to a bank account.
This is nothing but an extremely unAmerican and unpatriotic group of thieves believing that Americans had given up so many of their civil liberties in silence during the Global War on Terror scam that opening the “Pandora’s Box” of class conflict could now be done with nobody saying a word. Their “corporate person” is now a Baron or Duke, the great landlords of the medieval period. Americans are now destined for serfdom. Their political and economic theories, what are they? Is it conservatism or feudalism?
We are already burdened with a representative government that has tied itself to the money spigot because of the incredible cost of media exposure in campaigns. People running for office in ancient Rome would purchase thousands of animals for slaughter in the arena. Mass executions were staged as media events for political campaigns. In fact, the arenas in every Roman city were built for that purpose, today replaced by television and the internet. We thought we had changed since that time. We were wrong.
The framers of the Constitution created the Supreme Court, the Electoral College and originally had Senators appointed, not elected, to protect the wealthy from having their money and land seized by the masses who would otherwise have controlled the government. This was the 1780s. The only “democracy” we knew about was ancient Athens, where the majority of the people living there were slaves. 27 Amendments later, including the Bill of Rights, we have worked to define justice and decency. Generations have fought and died to keep life in our imperfect system from 1780. Who would have thought that 5 people could destroy it all?
Political debate in America is sometimes extreme, often bordering on violence. Feelings are high. How many times have you heard people threaten to leave the country because “their America” no longer exists. We know that few really mean it. When faced with a real threat, no people on earth are to be feared like Americans. When help is needed, no people on earth are to be trusted and relied on like Americans. This is the pride we have in our country and ourselves. We never agree on anything. We aren’t supposed to, we are Americans.
Everything we built has been based on a balance, race, religion, ethnicity, social standing, political beliefs, regional interests, all striving and compromising to build something we are all secretly very proud of, something all of us are willing to fight for and many are. Americans all agree on one thing, that our government in Washington is out of control and has been for some time. We all have different ideas on this but agree on the fact itself. We wonder where the politicians come from, men too often “less great” than those of the past, in fact, less great than average. Decisions are continually made that most find puzzling and, in fact, are driven by a rotten underbelly of corruption and self interest.
Now, 5 members of the Supreme Court, people none of us voted for, a group that is answerable to no authority and, seemingly, no law or moral code, a group famous for immoderation, poor judgement and low personal integrity has, either through blindness, avarice or insanity clearly done something so malicious, so unjust and so utterly inconsistent with our Constitution that they, themselves, have become an “enemy of the people.”
What is their power? What they have done is not within the scope of the authority given through the Constitution. Their acts are outside the law, their acts are those of a conspiracy, their acts are meant to diminish our freedoms, our sacred institutions and even endanger our lives. Typically, such acts are called crimes and those who commit them are criminals.
What could drive judges, albeit judges appointed with little thought as part of a cheap political ploy, to abandon any American consitutency? Corporations have no religion. They care nothing for the unborn. They have no allegiance to a flag, a family or any moral ethic. They serve no person, owe no loyalty other that to stockholders, shadowy groups of Russian oligarchs, Chinese banks, corrupt dictators grown fat on the spoils of their people or the international consortiums of bond and currency speculators who have, for decades, abandoned any economic law to build the etherial “house of cards” we call the “world economy.”
The control of the American electoral process has been given to them. No serving politican can survive now standing against them. Years ago “they” bought our newspapers and our television networks. Fact and truth became whatever they wanted us to believe. “They” gained control of what many thought and what almost all of us see and hear. That wasn’t enough. They wanted it all. As their control has grown, so has terrorism, continual war, economic poverty for millions Americans and insensitivity to justice and humanity. Who would expect anything else from a corporation with no blood, no heart and no face?
The Founding Fathers led America on the path to freedom and eventual democracy. The Federalists limited the ability of an impetuous electorate to seize power and “reform” America into chaos and anarchy. This system of government was predicated on the belief that love of country would always burn brightly in America and with progress, freedom and bounty was the ineviable reward of our industry. It is only now too obvious that so much has happened that was unforseen. It is not a denial of our traditions to correct wrongs when we find them. This was how America was created. We are drowning in wrongs, we all finally agree on this.
The time is now. Party politics have failed. Political theories are little more than empty rhetoric meant to mislead and misinform. State has become church and church has become state. State is less just and church less godly. All we have left is “we, the People.” This is how we began and it is now all we have to move forward. It is time for the states to call for a Constitutional Convention to establish, not just a Republic, but a Democracy, by and for the people, the American people, rich and poor, a nation loyal to itself, not tied to corporations, a vast military industrial complex or endless foreign alliances.
If it is to be a genuinely conservative nation, one with individual freedoms, a small government, fewer taxes and more opportunity, a nation as intended, then we will all have to live with it. The bloated corpse we are creating in Washington is emitting a stench we can no longer abide. We will be saying goodbye to our Supreme Court, our seniority system in Congress and our political machines pretending to be “parties” and hello to paper ballots, a free press, term limits and the ability to yank a scoundrel out of office when we catch one.
Veterans Today Senior Editor Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran and regular contributor on political and social issues.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Health Case for Reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act: Executive Summary
Toxic Substances Control Act: Executive Summary
There is growing agreement across the political spectrum that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 does not adequately protect Americans from toxic chemicals. In the 34 years since TSCA was enacted, the EPA has been able to require testing on just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals produced and used in the U.S., and just five chemicals have been regulated under this law. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson has asked Congress to provide her agency with better chemical management tools for safeguarding our nation’s health.[1]
Much has changed since TSCA became law more than 30 years ago. Scientists have developed a more refined understanding of how some chemicals can cause and contribute to serious illness, including cancer, reproductive and developmental disorders, neurologic diseases, and asthma.
The Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition believes that, by reforming TSCA, we can reduce our exposure to toxic chemicals, improve our nation’s health, and lower the cost of health care. This report documents some of the scientific findings and economic analysis underlying our position.
Chronic disease is on the rise
More than 30 years of environmental health studies have led to a growing consensus that chemicals are playing a role in the incidence and prevalence of many diseases and disorders in our country, including:
•Leukemia, brain cancer, and other childhood cancers, which have increased by more than 20% since 1975.[2]
•Breast cancer, which went up by 40% between 1973 and 1998.[3] While breast cancer rates have declined since 2003, a woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer is now one in eight, up from one in ten in 1973.[4]
•Asthma, which approximately doubled in prevalence between 1980 and 1995 and has stayed at the elevated rate.[5][6]
•Difficulty in conceiving and maintaining a pregnancy affected 40% more women in 2002 than in 1982. The incidence of reported difficulty has almost doubled in younger women, ages 18–25.[7][8][9]
•The birth defect resulting in undescended testes, which has increased 200% between 1970 and 1993.[10]
•Autism, the diagnosis of which has increased more than 10 times in the last 15 years.[11]
The health and economic benefits of reforming TSCA
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 133 million people in the U.S.—almost half of all Americans—are now living with these and other chronic diseases and conditions, which now account for 70% of deaths and 75% of U.S. health care costs.[12]
Estimates of the proportion of the disease burden that can be attributed to chemicals vary widely, ranging from 1% of all disease[13] to 5% of childhood cancer[14] to 10% of diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and neurodevelopmental deficits[15] to 30% of childhood asthma.[14] Whatever the actual contribution, effective chemical policy reform will incorporate the last 30 years of science to reduce the chemical exposures that contribute to the rising incidence of chronic disease. And any decline in the incidence of chronic diseases can also be expected to bring health care cost savings. Even if chemical policy reform leads to reductions in toxic chemical exposures that translate into just a tenth of one percent reduction of health care costs, it would save the U.S. health care system an estimated $5 billion every year.
The U.S. now spends over $7,000 per person per year directly on health care.[12] This sum does not include the many other kinds of costs, such as the costs of raising a child with a severe learning disability or coping with a young mother’s breast cancer diagnosis. Chemical policy reform holds the promise of reducing the economic, social and personal costs of chronic disease by creating a more healthy future for all Americans.
http://healthreport.saferchemicals.org/
There is growing agreement across the political spectrum that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 does not adequately protect Americans from toxic chemicals. In the 34 years since TSCA was enacted, the EPA has been able to require testing on just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals produced and used in the U.S., and just five chemicals have been regulated under this law. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson has asked Congress to provide her agency with better chemical management tools for safeguarding our nation’s health.[1]
Much has changed since TSCA became law more than 30 years ago. Scientists have developed a more refined understanding of how some chemicals can cause and contribute to serious illness, including cancer, reproductive and developmental disorders, neurologic diseases, and asthma.
The Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition believes that, by reforming TSCA, we can reduce our exposure to toxic chemicals, improve our nation’s health, and lower the cost of health care. This report documents some of the scientific findings and economic analysis underlying our position.
Chronic disease is on the rise
More than 30 years of environmental health studies have led to a growing consensus that chemicals are playing a role in the incidence and prevalence of many diseases and disorders in our country, including:
•Leukemia, brain cancer, and other childhood cancers, which have increased by more than 20% since 1975.[2]
•Breast cancer, which went up by 40% between 1973 and 1998.[3] While breast cancer rates have declined since 2003, a woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer is now one in eight, up from one in ten in 1973.[4]
•Asthma, which approximately doubled in prevalence between 1980 and 1995 and has stayed at the elevated rate.[5][6]
•Difficulty in conceiving and maintaining a pregnancy affected 40% more women in 2002 than in 1982. The incidence of reported difficulty has almost doubled in younger women, ages 18–25.[7][8][9]
•The birth defect resulting in undescended testes, which has increased 200% between 1970 and 1993.[10]
•Autism, the diagnosis of which has increased more than 10 times in the last 15 years.[11]
The health and economic benefits of reforming TSCA
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 133 million people in the U.S.—almost half of all Americans—are now living with these and other chronic diseases and conditions, which now account for 70% of deaths and 75% of U.S. health care costs.[12]
Estimates of the proportion of the disease burden that can be attributed to chemicals vary widely, ranging from 1% of all disease[13] to 5% of childhood cancer[14] to 10% of diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and neurodevelopmental deficits[15] to 30% of childhood asthma.[14] Whatever the actual contribution, effective chemical policy reform will incorporate the last 30 years of science to reduce the chemical exposures that contribute to the rising incidence of chronic disease. And any decline in the incidence of chronic diseases can also be expected to bring health care cost savings. Even if chemical policy reform leads to reductions in toxic chemical exposures that translate into just a tenth of one percent reduction of health care costs, it would save the U.S. health care system an estimated $5 billion every year.
The U.S. now spends over $7,000 per person per year directly on health care.[12] This sum does not include the many other kinds of costs, such as the costs of raising a child with a severe learning disability or coping with a young mother’s breast cancer diagnosis. Chemical policy reform holds the promise of reducing the economic, social and personal costs of chronic disease by creating a more healthy future for all Americans.
http://healthreport.saferchemicals.org/
Former Monsanto Exec. Appointed to the Head of the F.D.A.!
Former Monsanto Exec. Appointed to the Head of the F.D.A.!
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesMichael R. Taylor, J.D., was appointed Deputy Commissioner for Foods. This was announced on the FDA’s website the day after the earthquake in Haiti. Michael Taylor is a former top executive, lawyer and lobbyist with biotech giant Monsanto Co. He has rotated in and out of law firms, Monsanto, the USDA and FDA.
During his former stint in the FDA during the Clinton administration he helped write the rules to allow rBGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) into the American food system and our children’s milk. Which is perhaps why the FDA staffer who wrote Taylor’s bio seems to have all-but-forgotten his decade-plus of Monsanto work. Michael Taylor and Monsanto are responsible for subjecting this country and many others to the increased risk of breast cancer (7 times greater risk), prostate cancer and colon cancer because of what they did to milk, cheese, yogurt, ice cream with rBGH as well as to all the foods that rely on milk solids and other parts of milk.
As a bi-product of the rBGH fight Michael Taylor then led the ban on labeling of GM products all together. This was labeled “the principal of substantial equivalence” which prohibits any distinction to be made between GM and traditional products. Regardless of any testing or lack there of on the possible effects of GM foods used for human consumption. Even though Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried “serious health hazards,” and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.
He left the FDA in 1994 and a few years later became Monsanto’s Vice President in charge of lobbying in Washington. As a lobbyist, Taylor argued AGAINST the Delaney Clause, one of the foundations of food safety regulation that prohibits cancer-causing chemicals to be added to food.
“The American Academy of Environmental Medicine this year said that genetically modified foods, according to animal studies, are causally linked to accelerated aging, dysfunctional immune regulation, organ damage, gastrointestinal distress, and immune system damage. A study came out by the Union of Concerned Scientists confirming what we all know, that genetically modified crops, on average, reduce yield. A USDA report from 2006 showed that farmers don’t actually increase income from GMOs, but many actually lose income. And for the last several years, the United States has been forced to spend $3-$5 billion per year to prop up the prices of the GM crops no one wants.
If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor.” – Jeffrey M. Smith*
It’s deplorable that Michael Taylor who has repeatedly and knowingly endangered the American people is once again in charge of our food safety.
A Winning Pair FDA & USDA!
USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto support of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn. Vilsack was the origin of the Seed Pre-Emption bill in 2005, which many people in Iowa fought. The bill took away local government’s possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds such as where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers. Tom Vilsack was also the founder and former chair of the Governor’s Biotechnology Partnership.
Bill HR 875 nicknamed ‘The Criminalization of Organic Farming and the Take Over of the US Food Supply’
Monsanto is taking massive control over all farms through the falsely named “Food Safety” bills, introduced by Rosa DeLauro whose husband, Stanley Greenburg got rich from working for Clinton and Monsanto. The agriculture committee is loaded with people who have gotten large donations from Monsanto. The biggest of the Monsanto bills introduced by DeLauro is HR 875. Identical bills that have been enacted into law in the European Union resulted in 60% of the Polish farmers are now gone and 60+ UK farmers have committed suicide. Iraq has been rendered helpless serfs by the theft of their country’s seeds and criminalization of farmers’ collection of their own seed. By far the most devasting is India, where 182,000 farmers have committed suicide since the WTO and IMF got hold of agriculture and our Big Ag firms went in there, an additional 8 million farmers have left the land altogether.
By comparison to other nations the criminalization of our hard working family farmers is still in it’s infancy. In Ohio, state ag department SWAT team raid on an organic CoOp, Pennsylvania ag department raids on horse and buggy Mennonites, California setting coliform levels so low fresh milk dairy farmers would need cows that produced pasteurized milk right out the udder, arrest and handcuffing of a single mother in front of her children for selling goat milk, the USDA paying its agents bonuses for foreclosing on farms. HR-875 will make theses instances look like specs of dust in the devastation it wishes to unleash on Americans.
This is the death of organic food and the criminalization of seed banking. It is a Monsanto take over and Taylor is here to run it with a few former Monsanto sidekicks – Clarence Thomas (Supreme Court), Ann Veneman (Executive Director of UNICEF).
WHAT YOU CAN DO!
Keep the conversation going! Share informative articles such as this with friends, family and colleagues. Knowledge is power! This is a topic you rarely if ever see on the news, it’s up to us to protect our family, friends and farmers. Americans need to demand a food safety system that is independent of corporate interests. Use your buying power; every dollar you spend with organic, local, Monsanto-free farmers, as well as the stores and restaurants that carry their food, is a vote against companies like Monsanto.
CLICK HERE TO DIGG THIS STORY
It will take you less then 5 minutes to read the facts below. These scientific facts should lead to no other conclusion that top parties (former and present) at Monsanto should face criminal prosecution, not be rewarded with top seats in the American Government.
a VERY Brief Monsanto Background – Monsanto is responsible for the following:
■The Manhattan Project – under Monsanto operation conducted during World War II to develop the first atomic bomb and nuclear weapons.
■Agent Orange – Dow Chemical and Monsanto were the main producers of Agent Orange. Internal memos from them reveal that at the time Agent Orange was sold to the U.S. government for use in Vietnam it was known that it contained a dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), a by-product of the manufacture 2,4,5-T. The National Toxicology Program has classified TCDD to be a human carcinogen linked to the following diseases as reported by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs: prostate cancer, respiratory cancers, multiple myeloma, type II diabetes, Hodgkin’s disease, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, soft tissue sarcoma, chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, peripheral neuropathy, B cell leukemias, such as hairy cell leukemia, Parkinson’s disease, ischemic heart disease, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and spina bifida in children of veterans exposed to Agent Orange.
■DDT – Monsanto began producing in 1944 along with 15 other companies. People living in areas where DDT is used for IRS have high levels of the chemical and its breakdown products in their bodies. These levels have been associated with profound affects on male fertility and neurological abnormalities in babies ingesting relatively large quantities of DDT from breast milk.
■Bovine Growth Horomone (rBGH, BST) - Bovine somatotropin (abbreviated bST and BST) is a protein hormone produced in the pituitary glands of cattle. It is also called bovine growth hormone, or BGH. Monsanto first synthesized the hormone in large quantities using recombinant DNA technology and marketed it as “POSILAC” beginning in 1994. The resulting product is called recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), or artificial growth hormone. After many legal battles, bad press and public outcry against rBGH Monsanto sold its POSILAC Brand Dairy Product and Related Business to Elanco Animal Health, a division of Eli Lilly and Company in August 2008. Posilac was banned from use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and most of Europe, by 2000 or earlier. By 2009, in parts of the United States, consumer desire for “no artificial growth hormones” caused many milk products to become rBST-free
■Sued 100+ Family Farms – The non-profit Center for Food Safety listed 112 lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations. Many innocent farmers settle with Monsanto (agree to use their GMO seeds) because they cannot afford the lawsuit from the giant company. Monsanto is frequently described by farmers as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” both because of these lawsuits and because of the questionable means they use to collect evidence of patent infringement.
■RoundUp - This is a deep rabbit whole that is a key element in the current Monsanto compan – I highly recommend watching The World According to Monsanto! Much of Monsanto’s seed products are genetically modified, often to make them immune to their pesticides. In a study by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, researchers found that “these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity (chemical driven liver damage).
■PCBs – Monsanto produced PCBs at plants in Sauget, Illinois and Anniston, Alabama. Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents — many emblazoned with warnings such as “CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy” — show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew. Anniston is now one of the most polluted patches of land in America, so saturated with toxic, cancer-causing chemicals, that it’s in the dirt people walk on, in the air that they breathe, even in the blood that pumps through their veins. Due to PCB’s toxicity and classification as persistent organic pollutants, PCB production was banned by the United States Congress in 1976 and by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2001.
*Jeffrey M. Smith, International Best Selling Author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans.
More detailed Monsanto Articles
BioIntegrity.org | OrganicConsumers.org | Vanity Fair 2008 feature article | Combat-Monsanto.co.uk
http://www.wearegreen.tv/
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Hunt for Dioxin Substitutes to Fight Autoimmune Diseases
HealthNewsDigest.com
Scientists at Oregon State University are hunting for substitute chemicals for a toxic dioxin to fight diseases that are triggered by haywire immune systems attacking the body.
The dioxin, known as TCDD, has been shown to suppress the immune system in animals and prevent type 1 diabetes in mice. OSU researchers hypothesize that it could do the same in people. But they aren't considering it as a treatment because it has produced bad side effects in animals and can cause chloracne, a disfiguring skin disease in humans.
Instead, they're looking for safer alternatives that would function like TCDD, which is perhaps best-known for its presence in the jungle-decimating Agent Orange herbicide used during the Vietnam War.
If successful, the chemicals might be able to prevent and treat autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis and type 1 diabetes.
Scientists at Oregon State University are hunting for substitute chemicals for a toxic dioxin to fight diseases that are triggered by haywire immune systems attacking the body.
The dioxin, known as TCDD, has been shown to suppress the immune system in animals and prevent type 1 diabetes in mice. OSU researchers hypothesize that it could do the same in people. But they aren't considering it as a treatment because it has produced bad side effects in animals and can cause chloracne, a disfiguring skin disease in humans.
Instead, they're looking for safer alternatives that would function like TCDD, which is perhaps best-known for its presence in the jungle-decimating Agent Orange herbicide used during the Vietnam War.
If successful, the chemicals might be able to prevent and treat autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis and type 1 diabetes.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Why Haven't Fruit & Vegetable Eaters Been Told About This Toxic Waste Overload?
Why Haven't Fruit & Vegetable Eaters Been Told About This Toxic Waste Overload?
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
January 16 2010 | 45,845 views
The U.S. government is encouraging farmers to spread a chalky waste from coal-fired power plants on their fields to loosen and fertilize soil.
The material is produced by power plant "scrubbers" that remove acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide from plant emissions.
The substance is a synthetic form of the mineral gypsum, and it also contains mercury, arsenic, lead and other heavy metals.
The Environmental Protection Agency says those toxic metals occur in only tiny amounts. But some environmentalists say too little is known about how the material affects crops, and ultimately human health.
Sources:
Washington Post December 23, 2009
Wall Street Journal January 9, 2010
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Follow me on Facebook Follow me on Twitter
As you may know, coal-fired plants produce about 50 percent of the power in the US, and are a major source of environmental pollution. One of its byproducts is FGD gypsum (flue gas desulfurization gypsum). Not surprisingly, the standard solution is to develop a scheme to sweep the problem under the rug and make money doing it.
In this case, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has begun promoting what they call “wastes beneficial uses,” in order to deal with industrial byproducts.
This is history repeating itself ad nauseum.
The plot to use of FGD gypsum on agricultural soils is virtually identical to the story of how the toxic byproduct fluoride was deemed beneficial to human health, once it became too costly for the aluminum industry to clean it up.
If you’re not yet aware of how the “beneficial waste uses” of fluoride came about, you may want to take a look at it now, because these two stories are hauntingly familiar.
Ironically, while the EPA and USDA are recommending the use of this toxic byproduct on fields, the Obama administration is also in the process of drafting the first federal standards for storage and disposal of coal wastes. The White House and the EPA are currently at odds over how to handle the more than 125 million tons of coal ash and sludge waste generated each year, reports the Wall Street Journal.
According to the Associated Press, this action was prompted by a spill from a coal ash pond near Knoxville, TN, just over a year ago. Ash and water flooded 300 acres, damaging homes and killing fish. The cleanup will cost an estimated $1 billion.
It’s logically challenging to accept that while an accidental coal waste spill is environmentally devastating, the willful spreading coal waste on farm lands, year after year, would be environmentally sound.
Granted, the combined contents of the spill was likely far more toxic than FGD gypsum alone, but we’re still talking about adding toxins to our farm lands, and no matter how minute these toxins are, they will eventually accumulate.
Why would we want to do this to ourselves, and to our future generations?
Where Else Can You Find This Toxic Byproduct?
By the way, the use of FGD gypsum on farm fields is not brand new. According to the American Coal Ash Association, farmers' use of the material has more than tripled in the past 6 years, from about 78,000 tons spread on fields in 2002, to nearly 279,000 tons in 2008.
However, the overall annual production of this byproduct is expected to double in the next several years, as more coal-fired plants come online and as more scrubbers are added to existing power plants to comply with the EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule and other requirements. This means, the problem of what to do with all that waste will grow significantly.
About half of the nearly 18 million tons of FGD gypsum produced in the US in 2008 was put to “beneficial use” in the manufacturing of drywall. However, did you know that this potentially heavy metal-laced byproduct is also used as a filler ingredient in some foods and in toothpaste?!
Yet another reason to avoid processed foods. Much of it is not even food-based!
There’s no question that the push for FGD gypsum in farming is orchestrated by the industry producing the waste – as a solution that is convenient and profit-producing for them. I doubt it has ANY real benefits to human health.
Consider this 2007 National Network for Use of FGD Gypsum in Agriculture workshop, led by the Electric Power Research Institute, whose sole objective is to “increase the use of FGD gypsum in agricultural applications.”
The electric power industry hard at work to improve the quality of your food?
I think not.
Because as reported by the Wall Street Journal, the Electric Power Research Institute has also stated that utilities could lose $5 billion to $10 billion of revenue each year if they were no longer allowed to sell coal combustion byproducts to industry. Furthermore, the organization says added storage costs could be a burden on power plants, especially those operating in deregulated markets, where they must compete against other forms of non-coal power generation.
What Can You Do?
There does not appear to be any kind of grassroots movement to stop this practice. Or if there is, I’ve not been able to find it. However, there is one thing I’d encourage you to do, and that is to bring your concerns about the agricultural use of FGD gypsum to the attention of organic growers everywhere.
Why?
Because it appears use of FGD gypsum may have trickled into organic farming as well, since it’s not considered a petroleum-based soil additive, which is forbidden in organic farming.
One of the significant benefits of buying locally-grown, organic food is that you can oftentimes meet the growers face to face. You can ask questions about their growing practices and discuss your personal concerns with them directly. And that is a dialogue I believe must be revived.
We’ve become so far removed from our food sources, most people have no idea what they’re putting in their mouths anymore. Approaching your local farmers and opening up a dialogue might be the most important thing any one of us could do.
Related Links:
Buying Local Should Include Buying Organic
Organic Farming Increases Crop Yields
What You Don't Know About Factory Farming May Make You Sick
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
January 16 2010 | 45,845 views
The U.S. government is encouraging farmers to spread a chalky waste from coal-fired power plants on their fields to loosen and fertilize soil.
The material is produced by power plant "scrubbers" that remove acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide from plant emissions.
The substance is a synthetic form of the mineral gypsum, and it also contains mercury, arsenic, lead and other heavy metals.
The Environmental Protection Agency says those toxic metals occur in only tiny amounts. But some environmentalists say too little is known about how the material affects crops, and ultimately human health.
Sources:
Washington Post December 23, 2009
Wall Street Journal January 9, 2010
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Follow me on Facebook Follow me on Twitter
As you may know, coal-fired plants produce about 50 percent of the power in the US, and are a major source of environmental pollution. One of its byproducts is FGD gypsum (flue gas desulfurization gypsum). Not surprisingly, the standard solution is to develop a scheme to sweep the problem under the rug and make money doing it.
In this case, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has begun promoting what they call “wastes beneficial uses,” in order to deal with industrial byproducts.
This is history repeating itself ad nauseum.
The plot to use of FGD gypsum on agricultural soils is virtually identical to the story of how the toxic byproduct fluoride was deemed beneficial to human health, once it became too costly for the aluminum industry to clean it up.
If you’re not yet aware of how the “beneficial waste uses” of fluoride came about, you may want to take a look at it now, because these two stories are hauntingly familiar.
Ironically, while the EPA and USDA are recommending the use of this toxic byproduct on fields, the Obama administration is also in the process of drafting the first federal standards for storage and disposal of coal wastes. The White House and the EPA are currently at odds over how to handle the more than 125 million tons of coal ash and sludge waste generated each year, reports the Wall Street Journal.
According to the Associated Press, this action was prompted by a spill from a coal ash pond near Knoxville, TN, just over a year ago. Ash and water flooded 300 acres, damaging homes and killing fish. The cleanup will cost an estimated $1 billion.
It’s logically challenging to accept that while an accidental coal waste spill is environmentally devastating, the willful spreading coal waste on farm lands, year after year, would be environmentally sound.
Granted, the combined contents of the spill was likely far more toxic than FGD gypsum alone, but we’re still talking about adding toxins to our farm lands, and no matter how minute these toxins are, they will eventually accumulate.
Why would we want to do this to ourselves, and to our future generations?
Where Else Can You Find This Toxic Byproduct?
By the way, the use of FGD gypsum on farm fields is not brand new. According to the American Coal Ash Association, farmers' use of the material has more than tripled in the past 6 years, from about 78,000 tons spread on fields in 2002, to nearly 279,000 tons in 2008.
However, the overall annual production of this byproduct is expected to double in the next several years, as more coal-fired plants come online and as more scrubbers are added to existing power plants to comply with the EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule and other requirements. This means, the problem of what to do with all that waste will grow significantly.
About half of the nearly 18 million tons of FGD gypsum produced in the US in 2008 was put to “beneficial use” in the manufacturing of drywall. However, did you know that this potentially heavy metal-laced byproduct is also used as a filler ingredient in some foods and in toothpaste?!
Yet another reason to avoid processed foods. Much of it is not even food-based!
There’s no question that the push for FGD gypsum in farming is orchestrated by the industry producing the waste – as a solution that is convenient and profit-producing for them. I doubt it has ANY real benefits to human health.
Consider this 2007 National Network for Use of FGD Gypsum in Agriculture workshop, led by the Electric Power Research Institute, whose sole objective is to “increase the use of FGD gypsum in agricultural applications.”
The electric power industry hard at work to improve the quality of your food?
I think not.
Because as reported by the Wall Street Journal, the Electric Power Research Institute has also stated that utilities could lose $5 billion to $10 billion of revenue each year if they were no longer allowed to sell coal combustion byproducts to industry. Furthermore, the organization says added storage costs could be a burden on power plants, especially those operating in deregulated markets, where they must compete against other forms of non-coal power generation.
What Can You Do?
There does not appear to be any kind of grassroots movement to stop this practice. Or if there is, I’ve not been able to find it. However, there is one thing I’d encourage you to do, and that is to bring your concerns about the agricultural use of FGD gypsum to the attention of organic growers everywhere.
Why?
Because it appears use of FGD gypsum may have trickled into organic farming as well, since it’s not considered a petroleum-based soil additive, which is forbidden in organic farming.
One of the significant benefits of buying locally-grown, organic food is that you can oftentimes meet the growers face to face. You can ask questions about their growing practices and discuss your personal concerns with them directly. And that is a dialogue I believe must be revived.
We’ve become so far removed from our food sources, most people have no idea what they’re putting in their mouths anymore. Approaching your local farmers and opening up a dialogue might be the most important thing any one of us could do.
Related Links:
Buying Local Should Include Buying Organic
Organic Farming Increases Crop Yields
What You Don't Know About Factory Farming May Make You Sick
Thursday, January 14, 2010
US veterans help to deal with consequences of war
US veterans help to deal with consequences of war
The President of the Vietnam Union of Friendship Organisations (VUFO) Vu Xuan Hong met with a delegation from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (VVMF) of the US in Hanoi on January 12.
The delegation, led by retired US Army General Barry Richard McCaffrey, who is currently an Adjunct Professor at the US Military Academy-Westpoint, and Jan C. Scruggs, VVMF President, arrived in Vietnam on January 11 for a week-long working trip.
The VUFO President expressed his hope that the VVMF officials would gain a better understanding of the current situation in Vietnam as well as the country’s on-going renovation and endeavours to overcome the aftermath of the war. He said he wished the VVMF would continue assisting Vietnam in humanitarian projects to overcome the consequences of Agent Orange/dioxin and clear unexploded ordnance and mines left from the war, thus helping boost the two countries’ relations for their people’s long-term benefit.
They said the VVMF delegation will tour Hanoi , the central provinces of Quang Tri, Thua Thien-Hue, and Quang Nam, the central city of Da Nang and Ho Chi Minh City .
During the trip, the VVMF officials will hand over some personal belongings of Vietnamese soldiers from the war and inform their host of the Congress’s appropriation of US$1 million to project RENEW - "Restore the Environment and Neutralise the Effects of the War"- which aims to prevent injuries through public education and ordnance removal.
On the day, Professor McCaffrey talked with students from the International Relations Academy about challenges to the global community and to the Obama administration.
The President of the Vietnam Union of Friendship Organisations (VUFO) Vu Xuan Hong met with a delegation from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (VVMF) of the US in Hanoi on January 12.
The delegation, led by retired US Army General Barry Richard McCaffrey, who is currently an Adjunct Professor at the US Military Academy-Westpoint, and Jan C. Scruggs, VVMF President, arrived in Vietnam on January 11 for a week-long working trip.
The VUFO President expressed his hope that the VVMF officials would gain a better understanding of the current situation in Vietnam as well as the country’s on-going renovation and endeavours to overcome the aftermath of the war. He said he wished the VVMF would continue assisting Vietnam in humanitarian projects to overcome the consequences of Agent Orange/dioxin and clear unexploded ordnance and mines left from the war, thus helping boost the two countries’ relations for their people’s long-term benefit.
They said the VVMF delegation will tour Hanoi , the central provinces of Quang Tri, Thua Thien-Hue, and Quang Nam, the central city of Da Nang and Ho Chi Minh City .
During the trip, the VVMF officials will hand over some personal belongings of Vietnamese soldiers from the war and inform their host of the Congress’s appropriation of US$1 million to project RENEW - "Restore the Environment and Neutralise the Effects of the War"- which aims to prevent injuries through public education and ordnance removal.
On the day, Professor McCaffrey talked with students from the International Relations Academy about challenges to the global community and to the Obama administration.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
If I had a hammer ...
If I had a hammer ...
By LARRY HENDRICKS Assistant City Editor | Posted: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:00 am | (0) Comments
It was no ordinary hammer.
His brother Wayne, a Vietnam War veteran, gave it to him before dying of an illness attributed to exposure to the defoliant Agent Orange.
"It's all I had left of my brother," said Ash Fork resident Ron McElwain, who lost the hammer in the westside Flagstaff Home Depot parking lot last week.
He is hopeful somebody found it and can give it back to him.
McElwain said the hammer is a Craftsman framing hammer with an orange fiberglass handle and black rubber grip. The hammer came to McElwain 14 years ago while the two brothers, both carpenters who come from a long like of carpenters, were working on a job in Baltimore.
"At the end of the job, I put the hammer in the back of my truck by accident," McElwain said, adding that he called his older brother right away to tell him he had it.
"He said, 'Keep it.'"
McElwain had been using the hammer ever since.
Then, five years ago, his brother died just before Christmas.
"I always looked up to my older brother," McElwain said, adding that he went into the service just like his brother as soon as he graduated from high school.
His brother served a tour of duty in Vietnam and returned home in 1970 a changed man. Ron did not go to Vietnam while he was in the service. While in Vietnam, Wayne had been exposed to the defoliant Agent Orange, McElwain said.
According to information from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the herbicide was used between 1961 and 1971 to take the leaves off trees to prevent enemy forces from hiding under the canopies.
Several diseases are recognized by Veterans Affairs as being linked to the exposure of Agent Orange. Among them are respiratory cancers, prostate cancer and leukemia.
McElwain is asking whoever found the hammer to give him a call and return it.
"It would mean everything in the world to me," McElwain said. "Wayne was one of my heroes."
Larry Hendricks can be reached at 556-2262 or lhendricks@azdailysun.com .
Information, please
Anybody with information on the hammer can call Ron McElwain at 978-394-5314, or e-mail him at wtfo234@yahoo.com.
Posted in Local on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:00 am Updated: 10:39 pm. | Tags:
By LARRY HENDRICKS Assistant City Editor | Posted: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:00 am | (0) Comments
It was no ordinary hammer.
His brother Wayne, a Vietnam War veteran, gave it to him before dying of an illness attributed to exposure to the defoliant Agent Orange.
"It's all I had left of my brother," said Ash Fork resident Ron McElwain, who lost the hammer in the westside Flagstaff Home Depot parking lot last week.
He is hopeful somebody found it and can give it back to him.
McElwain said the hammer is a Craftsman framing hammer with an orange fiberglass handle and black rubber grip. The hammer came to McElwain 14 years ago while the two brothers, both carpenters who come from a long like of carpenters, were working on a job in Baltimore.
"At the end of the job, I put the hammer in the back of my truck by accident," McElwain said, adding that he called his older brother right away to tell him he had it.
"He said, 'Keep it.'"
McElwain had been using the hammer ever since.
Then, five years ago, his brother died just before Christmas.
"I always looked up to my older brother," McElwain said, adding that he went into the service just like his brother as soon as he graduated from high school.
His brother served a tour of duty in Vietnam and returned home in 1970 a changed man. Ron did not go to Vietnam while he was in the service. While in Vietnam, Wayne had been exposed to the defoliant Agent Orange, McElwain said.
According to information from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the herbicide was used between 1961 and 1971 to take the leaves off trees to prevent enemy forces from hiding under the canopies.
Several diseases are recognized by Veterans Affairs as being linked to the exposure of Agent Orange. Among them are respiratory cancers, prostate cancer and leukemia.
McElwain is asking whoever found the hammer to give him a call and return it.
"It would mean everything in the world to me," McElwain said. "Wayne was one of my heroes."
Larry Hendricks can be reached at 556-2262 or lhendricks@azdailysun.com .
Information, please
Anybody with information on the hammer can call Ron McElwain at 978-394-5314, or e-mail him at wtfo234@yahoo.com.
Posted in Local on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:00 am Updated: 10:39 pm. | Tags:
South Korea: Subsidies for Agent Orange Victims to Be Hiked
Subsidies for Agent Orange Victims to Be Hiked
The Cabinet approved a plan Tuesday to increase state subsidies for veterans currently suffering from ailments due to being exposed to defoliants during the Vietnam War and people of national merit.
Payments will increase by an average of 5 percent this year, the government said, adding the rise reflects its willingness to strengthen the welfare of those who contributed to national development.
The administration also plans to raise subsidies for holders of the Order of Military Merit who are 60 or older by 10,000 won per month.
The descendants of soldiers who perished during the 1950-53 Korean War will also get a subsidy raise ranging from 15.2 to 17.6 percent, according to the government.
The Cabinet approved a plan Tuesday to increase state subsidies for veterans currently suffering from ailments due to being exposed to defoliants during the Vietnam War and people of national merit.
Payments will increase by an average of 5 percent this year, the government said, adding the rise reflects its willingness to strengthen the welfare of those who contributed to national development.
The administration also plans to raise subsidies for holders of the Order of Military Merit who are 60 or older by 10,000 won per month.
The descendants of soldiers who perished during the 1950-53 Korean War will also get a subsidy raise ranging from 15.2 to 17.6 percent, according to the government.
US senator welcomed in Vietnam
US senator welcomed in Vietnam
National Assembly Vice Chairman Tong Thi Phong received visiting US Senator Christopher S. Bond in Hanoi on January 11.
At the reception, the NA Vice Chairman said she was pleased with the current developing ties between Vietnam and the US as well as the effective co-operation between the two countries’ parliaments in sharing law-making experiences.
She expressed her wish that in the coming time, the two sides will continue to expand their co-operation and hold more dialogues on such issues as energy, environment, crime prevention and addressing the war consequences.
Phong noted that the US Congress has approved a budget of US$3 million to help Vietnam clean up dioxin contaminated areas around the Da Nang Airport . However, long-term sustainable solutions to the issues will cost an estimated US$45 million, including spending on detoxification and afforestation in contaminated areas and treatment and care costs for AO victims, she said, adding that the two sides should continue talks to address the issue.
For his part, Senator Bond congratulated Vietnam on its assumption of the ASEAN Chair this year and said that besides the co-operation between the two countries, co-operation between the US and ASEAN is very important.
On the same day, the US senator was received by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Pham Gia Khiem, who said that the two countries should continue boosting their co-operation, especially in economics and education.
Senator Bond said his visit is to study possibilities of co-operation between US and Vietnamese businesses, especially small- and medium sized enterprises. He said he would work with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development on co-operation in agricultural research and bean production. (VNA)
National Assembly Vice Chairman Tong Thi Phong received visiting US Senator Christopher S. Bond in Hanoi on January 11.
At the reception, the NA Vice Chairman said she was pleased with the current developing ties between Vietnam and the US as well as the effective co-operation between the two countries’ parliaments in sharing law-making experiences.
She expressed her wish that in the coming time, the two sides will continue to expand their co-operation and hold more dialogues on such issues as energy, environment, crime prevention and addressing the war consequences.
Phong noted that the US Congress has approved a budget of US$3 million to help Vietnam clean up dioxin contaminated areas around the Da Nang Airport . However, long-term sustainable solutions to the issues will cost an estimated US$45 million, including spending on detoxification and afforestation in contaminated areas and treatment and care costs for AO victims, she said, adding that the two sides should continue talks to address the issue.
For his part, Senator Bond congratulated Vietnam on its assumption of the ASEAN Chair this year and said that besides the co-operation between the two countries, co-operation between the US and ASEAN is very important.
On the same day, the US senator was received by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Pham Gia Khiem, who said that the two countries should continue boosting their co-operation, especially in economics and education.
Senator Bond said his visit is to study possibilities of co-operation between US and Vietnamese businesses, especially small- and medium sized enterprises. He said he would work with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development on co-operation in agricultural research and bean production. (VNA)
ksl.com - VA admits ‘Agent Orange' caused Utah man's heart disease
ksl.com - VA admits ‘Agent Orange' caused Utah man's heart disease
This article also has a video. If you let the video continue after the news story it also The video which also explains cardiomyopathy. After watching all I can say is it's an outrage.
This article also has a video. If you let the video continue after the news story it also The video which also explains cardiomyopathy. After watching all I can say is it's an outrage.
Study Proves Three Monsanto Corn Varieties' Noxiousness to the Organism
Study Proves Three Monsanto Corn Varieties' Noxiousness to the Organism
Friday 11 December 2009
by: Le Monde with AFP | Le Monde
A study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences demonstrates the toxicity of three genetically modified corn varieties from the American seed company Monsanto, the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (Criigen, based in Caen), which participated in that study, announced Friday, December 11.
"For the first time in the world, we've proven that GMO are neither sufficiently healthy nor proper to be commercialized. [...] Each time, for all three GMOs, the kidneys and liver, which are the main organs that react to a chemical food poisoning, had problems," indicated Gilles-Eric Séralini, an expert member of the Commission for Biotechnology Reevaluation, created by the EU in 2008.
Caen and Rouen University researchers, as well as Criigen researchers, based their analyses on the data supplied by Monsanto to health authorities to obtain the green light for commercialization, but they draw different conclusions after new statistical calculations. According to Professor Séralini, the health authorities based themselves on a reading of the conclusions Monsanto has presented and not on conclusions drawn from the totality of the data. The researchers were able to obtain complete documentation following a legal decision.
"Monsanto's tests, effected over 90 days, are obviously not of sufficient duration to be able to say whether chronic illnesses are caused. That's why we ask for tests over a period of at least two years," explained one researcher. Consequently, the scientists demand a "firm prohibition" on the importation and cultivation of these GMOs.
These three GMOs (MON810, MON863 and NK603) "are approved for human and animal consumption in the EU and especially the United States," notes Professor Séralini. "MON810 is the only one of the three grown in certain EU countries (especially Spain); the others are imported," he adds. A meeting of EU ministers over MON810 and NK603 is scheduled Monday
Translation: Truthout French Language Editor Leslie Thatcher.
Friday 11 December 2009
by: Le Monde with AFP | Le Monde
A study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences demonstrates the toxicity of three genetically modified corn varieties from the American seed company Monsanto, the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (Criigen, based in Caen), which participated in that study, announced Friday, December 11.
"For the first time in the world, we've proven that GMO are neither sufficiently healthy nor proper to be commercialized. [...] Each time, for all three GMOs, the kidneys and liver, which are the main organs that react to a chemical food poisoning, had problems," indicated Gilles-Eric Séralini, an expert member of the Commission for Biotechnology Reevaluation, created by the EU in 2008.
Caen and Rouen University researchers, as well as Criigen researchers, based their analyses on the data supplied by Monsanto to health authorities to obtain the green light for commercialization, but they draw different conclusions after new statistical calculations. According to Professor Séralini, the health authorities based themselves on a reading of the conclusions Monsanto has presented and not on conclusions drawn from the totality of the data. The researchers were able to obtain complete documentation following a legal decision.
"Monsanto's tests, effected over 90 days, are obviously not of sufficient duration to be able to say whether chronic illnesses are caused. That's why we ask for tests over a period of at least two years," explained one researcher. Consequently, the scientists demand a "firm prohibition" on the importation and cultivation of these GMOs.
These three GMOs (MON810, MON863 and NK603) "are approved for human and animal consumption in the EU and especially the United States," notes Professor Séralini. "MON810 is the only one of the three grown in certain EU countries (especially Spain); the others are imported," he adds. A meeting of EU ministers over MON810 and NK603 is scheduled Monday
Translation: Truthout French Language Editor Leslie Thatcher.
When reading this, bear in mind two things. First, Monsanto, along with Dow, manufactured Agent Orange for the US Defense Department during the American War in Viet Nam. That herbicide cocktail is now "presumed" by the Department of Veterans Affairs to cause 15 different life threatening conditions. Second, government documents released under freedom of information requests in recent years record internal discussions that took place as early as 1960 between and among DoD officials and Dow employees regarding the known risks to mammals (notably humans) arising from exposure to Agent Orange. We might assume, but I cannot state with absolute certainty, that Monsanto knew this at the time, as well. They certainly knew subsequently.
In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto's GM maize.
http://ping.fm/9ABs2
In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto's GM maize.
http://ping.fm/9ABs2
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Three Approved GMO's Linked to Organ Damage
Three Approved GMO's Linked to Organ Damage
Friday 08 January 2010
by: Rady Ananda, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto's GM maize.
All three varieties of GM corn - Mon 810, Mon 863 and NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. Made public by European authorities in 2005, Monsanto's confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats that these researchers analyzed is the same data, ironically, that was used to approve them in different parts of the world.
The Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen studied Monsanto's 90-day feeding trials data of insecticide-producing Mon 810, Mon 863 and Roundup® herbicide absorbing NK 603 varieties of GM maize.
The data "clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system," reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.
Although different levels of adverse impact on vital organs were noticed between the three GMO's, the 2009 research shows specific effects associated with consumption of each GMO, differentiated by sex and dose.
Their December 2009 study appears in the International Journal of Biological Sciences (IJBS). This latest study conforms with a 2007 analysis by CRIIGEN on Mon 863, published in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, using the same data.
Monsanto rejected the 2007 conclusions, stating:
"The analyses conducted by these authors are not consistent with what has been traditionally accepted for use by regulatory toxicologists for analysis of rat toxicology data."
[Also see Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, et al. "Report of an expert panel on the reanalysis by Séralini et al. (2007) of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863)." Food Chem Toxicol. 2007; 45:2073-2085.]
In an email to me, Séralini explained that their study goes beyond Monsanto's analysis by exploring the sex-differentiated health effects on mammals, which Doull, et al, ignored:
"Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMO's, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."
Other Problems With Monsanto's Conclusions
When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.
Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests "lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases," wrote Seralini, et al, in their Doull rebuttal. [See "How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects Can Be Neglected for GMO's, Pesticides or Chemicals." IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]
Further, Monsanto's analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, "In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent."
The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.
They have called for "an immediate ban on the import and cultivation of these GMO's and strongly recommend additional long-term (up to two years) and multi-generational animal feeding studies on at least three species to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods."
Human health, of course, is of primary import to us, but ecological effects are also in play. Ninety-nine percent of GMO crops either tolerate or produce insecticide. This may be the reason we see bee colony collapse disorder and massive butterfly deaths. If GMO's are wiping out Earth's pollinators, they are far more disastrous than the threat they pose to humans and other mammals.
Further Reading:
Health Risks of GM Foods, Jeffrey M. Smith.
Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops, Union of Concerned Scientists.
Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years, The Organic Center.
Friday 08 January 2010
by: Rady Ananda, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto's GM maize.
All three varieties of GM corn - Mon 810, Mon 863 and NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. Made public by European authorities in 2005, Monsanto's confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats that these researchers analyzed is the same data, ironically, that was used to approve them in different parts of the world.
The Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen studied Monsanto's 90-day feeding trials data of insecticide-producing Mon 810, Mon 863 and Roundup® herbicide absorbing NK 603 varieties of GM maize.
The data "clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system," reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.
Although different levels of adverse impact on vital organs were noticed between the three GMO's, the 2009 research shows specific effects associated with consumption of each GMO, differentiated by sex and dose.
Their December 2009 study appears in the International Journal of Biological Sciences (IJBS). This latest study conforms with a 2007 analysis by CRIIGEN on Mon 863, published in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, using the same data.
Monsanto rejected the 2007 conclusions, stating:
"The analyses conducted by these authors are not consistent with what has been traditionally accepted for use by regulatory toxicologists for analysis of rat toxicology data."
[Also see Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, et al. "Report of an expert panel on the reanalysis by Séralini et al. (2007) of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863)." Food Chem Toxicol. 2007; 45:2073-2085.]
In an email to me, Séralini explained that their study goes beyond Monsanto's analysis by exploring the sex-differentiated health effects on mammals, which Doull, et al, ignored:
"Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMO's, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."
Other Problems With Monsanto's Conclusions
When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.
Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests "lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases," wrote Seralini, et al, in their Doull rebuttal. [See "How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects Can Be Neglected for GMO's, Pesticides or Chemicals." IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]
Further, Monsanto's analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, "In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent."
The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.
They have called for "an immediate ban on the import and cultivation of these GMO's and strongly recommend additional long-term (up to two years) and multi-generational animal feeding studies on at least three species to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods."
Human health, of course, is of primary import to us, but ecological effects are also in play. Ninety-nine percent of GMO crops either tolerate or produce insecticide. This may be the reason we see bee colony collapse disorder and massive butterfly deaths. If GMO's are wiping out Earth's pollinators, they are far more disastrous than the threat they pose to humans and other mammals.
Further Reading:
Health Risks of GM Foods, Jeffrey M. Smith.
Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops, Union of Concerned Scientists.
Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years, The Organic Center.
Minnesota veterans relieved as VA recognizes Agent Orange link | Minnesota Public Radio NewsQ
Minnesota veterans relieved as VA recognizes Agent Orange link | Minnesota Public Radio NewsQ
"You shouldn't have to fight like we did to get somewhere," said Graham, of Dakota, who along with his wife worked with other Minnesota veterans to form a group called U.S. Military Veterans with Parkinson's.
"You shouldn't have to fight like we did to get somewhere," said Graham, of Dakota, who along with his wife worked with other Minnesota veterans to form a group called U.S. Military Veterans with Parkinson's.
DU THE CENSORED STORY AND A SHOUT OUT TO CIVILIAN DOCTORS CARING FOR GULF WAR VETERANS TO SHOW THEY CARE : Veterans Today - News for U.S. Military Veterans Jobs, VA Benefits, Home Loans, Hospitals & Administration
DU THE CENSORED STORY AND A SHOUT OUT TO CIVILIAN DOCTORS CARING FOR GULF WAR VETERANS TO SHOW THEY CARE : Veterans Today - News for U.S. Military Veterans Jobs, VA Benefits, Home Loans, Hospitals & Administration
I believe what the author has stated. The use of such munitions is unconscionable. Yet it continues unabated. There is definitely a pattern from one war to the next. I admire the authors plea. I hope that civilian doctors take notice. I too wish someone had done the same thing for the Vietnam veterans, for all our veterans.
I am the widow of a Vietnam veteran & founder of Agent Orange Legacy. If you are the child of a Vietnam veteran and you believe you are ill because of your parent(s) exposure to agent orange join us.
Learn more about our 'Lobbying Campaign'
http://www.agentorangelegacy.us
Join our 'Support Community'
http://www.agentorangelegacy.ning.com
I believe what the author has stated. The use of such munitions is unconscionable. Yet it continues unabated. There is definitely a pattern from one war to the next. I admire the authors plea. I hope that civilian doctors take notice. I too wish someone had done the same thing for the Vietnam veterans, for all our veterans.
I am the widow of a Vietnam veteran & founder of Agent Orange Legacy. If you are the child of a Vietnam veteran and you believe you are ill because of your parent(s) exposure to agent orange join us.
Learn more about our 'Lobbying Campaign'
http://www.agentorangelegacy.us
Join our 'Support Community'
http://www.agentorangelegacy.ning.com
Monday, January 11, 2010
Oklahoma City vets’ claims being rejected
Oklahoma City vets’ claims being rejected
Many armed forces veterans in Oklahoma are having trouble receiving disability payments
BY ANN KELLEY The Oklahoman Comments Comment on this article6
Published: January 10, 2010
Four times Gary Endsley has applied for disability compensation for health problems he thinks are related to exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam. Each time Endsley has been turned down by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-vets-claims-being-rejected/article/3430969#ixzz0cLOob0QN
With each rejection letter he’s flooded with more disappointment and frustration, and feels that he’s "being called a liar” about his military record, he said.
"I’m beginning to feel like I had been better off going to Canada and skipping the war,” said Endsley, 65, of Oklahoma City.
Endsley is one of many armed forces veterans living in Oklahoma and wrangling with Veterans Affairs over disability compensation.
Nationally, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs processed more than 1.1 million claims in 2009, including 25,396 for Oklahoma, said Jessica Jacobson, spokeswoman for the agency’s regional office in Dallas.
The Oklahoman requested the number of Oklahoma veterans denied disability compensation for 2009, but Jacobson Friday said those numbers were not available.
She said the caseload has increased 50 percent since 2000, with Afghanistan and Iraq military servicemen and women returning home and the aging population of other war veterans, as well as the initiation of new U.S. Department of Defense benefits and recent court rulings.
Veterans feel impact
Terry Farmer thinks the increased caseload and inevitable backlog of claims has attributed to his uncle, Raymond O’Mealey, being denied disability compensation in December. O’Mealey, 87, of Oklahoma City is a World War II veteran.
"I think they’re so overwhelmed they don’t have time to really investigate the claims,” Farmer said.
O’Mealey suffers from several combat-related ailments, including post traumatic stress syndrome and foot problems from a severe case of jungle rot.
Farmer said O’Mealey filled out the 28-page application and has physician letters to back up his claim.
"Their response was basically that there wasn’t enough proof that his condition was service related,” Farmer said.
Records that might help his uncle prove his case were destroyed in a 1973 fire in a government building in St. Louis, Farmer said.
Endsley is facing a similar problem. His service records were thrown away by a former spouse. He’s tried to rebuild his file, but the U.S. government has no record of his temporary duty assignments, which included more than a month in Vietnam, where he thinks he was exposed to Agent Orange.
He’s even gone so far as to get a letter from a fellow serviceman who relieved him from duty in Vietnam, but that wasn’t enough.
"I suppose we’re both liars,” Endsley said. Jacobson said claims decisions are weighed on evidence from physicians and hospital and military records.
If a claimant disagrees with the findings, they can file a notice of disagreement. For Oklahomans, the claim is sent from the Muskogee office to be reviewed by a senior decision maker at the regional office in Dallas. If the claim is denied a second time, it can be appealed to the Board of Veterans Appeals in Washington, D.C.
Jacobson said in 2009, they averaged nationally more than 80,000 new claims each month. The goal is to process each claim within 125 days, but in 2008, 36.7 percent took longer.
For James Sisco, of Yukon, the problem is not getting disability compensation, but getting it increased as his back injury has worsened over the years. Sisco, 50, retired from the Navy in 1997 with 20 percent disability benefits. It entitles him to a $200 a month payment. He reapplied again in 2008, hoping to get more money.
"Basically, they said there was no change in my status even though I’ve got years of medical records showing how painful my back problem is,” Sisco said. "I’m not trying to get something for nothing.”
He thinks his claim is being handled like "he’s a faceless person” by "a bunch of government bureaucrats.”
Every claim is unique
John Pettyjohn, 60, of Bethany, has been helping Oklahoma veterans with their claims applications for nearly 20 years, first as a volunteer.
He’s helped veterans with more than 15,000 claims and has 127 cases working.
"The claims are as unique as the individual,” Pettyjohn said.
Pettyjohn said veterans shouldn’t be tasked with finding evidence of their service because the claims processors should be doing that.
"You get these new guys in there that don’t understand war or what happens during a war,” Pettyjohn said. "If too much footwork is involved they just give up.”
To address the increasing caseload, the Veterans Administration has hired nearly 4,200 employees since January 2007, Jacobson said.
It takes about two years for a new employee at the administration to be fully trained in all aspects of claims processing.
She said they’ve hired back 90 recent retirees to assist in training and mentoring new employees. They also are trying to streamline into paperless processing with technology to process claims faster.
Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-vets-claims-being-rejected/article/3430969#ixzz0cLOsASoD
Many armed forces veterans in Oklahoma are having trouble receiving disability payments
BY ANN KELLEY The Oklahoman Comments Comment on this article6
Published: January 10, 2010
Four times Gary Endsley has applied for disability compensation for health problems he thinks are related to exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam. Each time Endsley has been turned down by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-vets-claims-being-rejected/article/3430969#ixzz0cLOob0QN
With each rejection letter he’s flooded with more disappointment and frustration, and feels that he’s "being called a liar” about his military record, he said.
"I’m beginning to feel like I had been better off going to Canada and skipping the war,” said Endsley, 65, of Oklahoma City.
Endsley is one of many armed forces veterans living in Oklahoma and wrangling with Veterans Affairs over disability compensation.
Nationally, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs processed more than 1.1 million claims in 2009, including 25,396 for Oklahoma, said Jessica Jacobson, spokeswoman for the agency’s regional office in Dallas.
The Oklahoman requested the number of Oklahoma veterans denied disability compensation for 2009, but Jacobson Friday said those numbers were not available.
She said the caseload has increased 50 percent since 2000, with Afghanistan and Iraq military servicemen and women returning home and the aging population of other war veterans, as well as the initiation of new U.S. Department of Defense benefits and recent court rulings.
Veterans feel impact
Terry Farmer thinks the increased caseload and inevitable backlog of claims has attributed to his uncle, Raymond O’Mealey, being denied disability compensation in December. O’Mealey, 87, of Oklahoma City is a World War II veteran.
"I think they’re so overwhelmed they don’t have time to really investigate the claims,” Farmer said.
O’Mealey suffers from several combat-related ailments, including post traumatic stress syndrome and foot problems from a severe case of jungle rot.
Farmer said O’Mealey filled out the 28-page application and has physician letters to back up his claim.
"Their response was basically that there wasn’t enough proof that his condition was service related,” Farmer said.
Records that might help his uncle prove his case were destroyed in a 1973 fire in a government building in St. Louis, Farmer said.
Endsley is facing a similar problem. His service records were thrown away by a former spouse. He’s tried to rebuild his file, but the U.S. government has no record of his temporary duty assignments, which included more than a month in Vietnam, where he thinks he was exposed to Agent Orange.
He’s even gone so far as to get a letter from a fellow serviceman who relieved him from duty in Vietnam, but that wasn’t enough.
"I suppose we’re both liars,” Endsley said. Jacobson said claims decisions are weighed on evidence from physicians and hospital and military records.
If a claimant disagrees with the findings, they can file a notice of disagreement. For Oklahomans, the claim is sent from the Muskogee office to be reviewed by a senior decision maker at the regional office in Dallas. If the claim is denied a second time, it can be appealed to the Board of Veterans Appeals in Washington, D.C.
Jacobson said in 2009, they averaged nationally more than 80,000 new claims each month. The goal is to process each claim within 125 days, but in 2008, 36.7 percent took longer.
For James Sisco, of Yukon, the problem is not getting disability compensation, but getting it increased as his back injury has worsened over the years. Sisco, 50, retired from the Navy in 1997 with 20 percent disability benefits. It entitles him to a $200 a month payment. He reapplied again in 2008, hoping to get more money.
"Basically, they said there was no change in my status even though I’ve got years of medical records showing how painful my back problem is,” Sisco said. "I’m not trying to get something for nothing.”
He thinks his claim is being handled like "he’s a faceless person” by "a bunch of government bureaucrats.”
Every claim is unique
John Pettyjohn, 60, of Bethany, has been helping Oklahoma veterans with their claims applications for nearly 20 years, first as a volunteer.
He’s helped veterans with more than 15,000 claims and has 127 cases working.
"The claims are as unique as the individual,” Pettyjohn said.
Pettyjohn said veterans shouldn’t be tasked with finding evidence of their service because the claims processors should be doing that.
"You get these new guys in there that don’t understand war or what happens during a war,” Pettyjohn said. "If too much footwork is involved they just give up.”
To address the increasing caseload, the Veterans Administration has hired nearly 4,200 employees since January 2007, Jacobson said.
It takes about two years for a new employee at the administration to be fully trained in all aspects of claims processing.
She said they’ve hired back 90 recent retirees to assist in training and mentoring new employees. They also are trying to streamline into paperless processing with technology to process claims faster.
Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-vets-claims-being-rejected/article/3430969#ixzz0cLOsASoD
Talks with dad ease Vietnam scars
Talks with dad ease Vietnam scars
By Helena Oliviero
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Christal Presley bites her lower lip when she hears her father’s voice on the other end of the telephone.
She’s on edge. It doesn’t take much to set him off. And she’s about to ask about the one thing no one in her family can ever talk about: Vietnam.
The Atlanta woman still gets flashbacks of her father, Delmer Presley, locking himself in his bedroom for days at a time, curled up like a baby, his eyes big and wild.
On the phone, she can’t help but feel like the scared little girl who sometimes took refuge in a closet and wrote stories by the light of a flashlight.
But she’s 31 now. She can no longer hide from her father — or a war that ended before she was born.
“I want to know if you are still up for it,” says Christal. “It will just be some questions.”
“Questions about what?” grumbles her father, who lives in their rural Virginia hometown.
She holds her breath.
“Questions about the war,” she says.
“I don’t want to talk about the war,” he says. “I don’t know anything about a war.”
He hangs up.
Moments later, Christal’s mother calls back.
“He says he’ll do it,” Judy Presley says. “Did you hear me? He says he’ll do it.”
Dad was always on edge
An only child, Christal has long suffered from anxiety and depression. Two years ago, a psychiatrist suggested she might even suffer from the condition tormenting her father — Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
For Christal, it would be what is known as intergenerational PTSD, described as a psychiatric problem passed on to family members who didn’t experience the trauma themselves. While many experts believe children can be affected by a parent’s PTSD, some question whether the children themselves suffer from the condition. [See related story.]
What is clear is war can deeply affect the children of soldiers — whether the war raged in the 1960s or it’s taking place today in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Christal and her father, a Vietnam vet drafted as a teenager, barely spoke while she was growing up. Struggling to deal with the relentless fear he experienced in Southeast Asia, Delmer was easily reminded of the horrors once he came home.
Eating at restaurants, Christal would pray no one would drop a spoon.
Her mother repeatedly told her, “It’s not his fault. It’s not his fault.” Then she’d whisper: “It’s Vietnam.”
As the years went on, Christal found she not only inherited her father’s deep brown eyes and wrinkled forehead, but also his nervous energy and anti-social behavior. She avoided getting to know people and making new friends.
As an adult, she knew that, to confront her own demons, she’d have to confront those of her father.
Christal decided to approach her father and ask about his past, his fears, the anxiety he carried with him. She persuaded him to talk to her every day for a month, and she created a Web site, United Children of Veterans, where she would blog daily about their conversations. The very name of her project conjures up images hellish and hopeful, depending on which avenue it would take: “30 Days with My Father.”
For Christal, an instructional mentor with Atlanta Public Schools who’s finishing up a Ph.D. in education, it would be part of a larger effort to conquer her fear and heal her relationship with her dad.
Advice to vets: Find help
Delmer, one of 10 children, grew up in Davenport, Va., a community of farmers and coal miners.
Apart from his one year in Vietnam, he’s never traveled more than 100 miles from his tiny town. After getting married, he settled in nearby Honaker.
Delmer received his draft letter in l968 — the year of the Tet offensive, a bloody campaign launched by the Viet Cong that helped turn the American public against the war. Only 18, he told officials he was flat-footed and colorblind, to no avail. He landed in Vietnam in April 1969, a radio telephone operator in charge of his platoon’s communications.
Morale was low when Delmer arrived, and the war was escalating.
In that initial conversation with his daughter, Delmer remembers underground tunnels covered in bamboo, teeming with snakes.
“We used to have to send men down there to check the tunnels out,” he says. “I never went down there. Just stuck my head in.
“I was too big,” he jokes, laughing. “Too big and ugly.”
Christal wants to know more.
“If you could give any advice to families of veterans, Dad, what would you tell them?”
“They need to find a group to get in and get counseling,” he says. “Either that, or they’ll jump off a cliff.”
“What should families of veterans expect?” she asks.
“War changes a person,” he says. “It changes people. I can’t explain it. ... It changes everything.”
It’s the first time Christal and her father have ever spoken about the war. As she hangs up the phone, Christal is thrilled with how it went. But hours later, she talks to her father again. He is seething mad.
Their talk has stirred emotions he wasn’t ready to deal with. He questions her motives and, inexplicably, accuses her of taking drugs.
Christal wants to end the project now, tell him that she can’t reason with a crazy person. Instead, she tells him that she loves him.
“I have a story to tell just like you do, and I need your help. It doesn’t mean you have to talk about the war. You can say whatever you want,” she says.
There’s a long silence.
“I just want to get to know you, for you to get to know me,” she says.
“You do this project,” he finally says, his voice shaking. “You do this project and write whatever you want.”
Nightmares intensified
For years, Delmer dealt with inner turmoil by working 12 hours a day, six days a week, welding mining equipment.
Then, in the 1980s, his hands began to shake so much he couldn’t keep his grip on a welder’s torch.
He also had cysts removed from his fingers and a tumor removed from his lung — problems he believes were caused by wartime exposure to Agent Orange (a now-banned defoliant that’s been linked to leukemia, cancer and other health woes) though doctors say there’s no way to know for sure. His nightmares became more intense.
“If there was a storm and I was sleeping, I would wake up and not know if I was home in my bed or in the jungles of Vietnam,” he says. “I thought I was losing my mind.”
In 1985, he was diagnosed with PTSD — a condition he had never heard of. Six years later, his symptoms worsening, he went on disability.
Despite counseling and medication, Delmer finds his mind is never far from the battlefield.
Recently, while grocery shopping, Delmer heard a balloon pop and he went berserk.
“I almost tore a tomato stand down,” the 60-year-old says. “It’s embarrassing but you just can’t help it.”
Memories torment him
Almost a month into the conversations with his daughter, Delmer tells of the death of one young soldier that haunts him to this day.
The two were walking about 20 yards apart when the other man stepped on an explosive booby trap.
“He had only been in Vietnam a week,” he says. “He showed me a picture a day or two earlier of his baby girl. She was just 3 months old. ... I’ve had dreams over and over about him never getting to hold that baby.”
He’s also tormented by “search and destroy missions.”
“That was the order — to burn whole villages. ... These houses were made of straw and they would burn easily. You could see the people with their clothes burning. ... You couldn’t understand what they were saying, but everyone cries in the same language.
“I know I did some things I shouldn’t have done. I knew better. I did. I just didn’t consider those people human. I never saw a Vietnamese before in my life, and I hated them. ... I was trained not to see them as human.”
Getting to know dad
Thirty days into the conversations — which have now continued beyond the month originally planned — Christal isn’t nervous anymore. The talks aren’t forced. Her dad is not defensive. He really wants to talk.
Delmer tells her about how he washed his socks in streams in Vietnam and stored his canned food inside them after they dried. He talks about the pet monkey, JoJo, he had in Vietnam.
Delmer has questions, too, for his daughter, who lives in the big city. What does it mean to be a mentor to teachers? Does she see homeless people in Atlanta? Are any of them Vietnam vets?
Christal talks to her dad about relationships and why he doesn’t get close to anyone.
“Well, you didn’t get attached to anybody, because they died,” he says, reverting to his wartime mentality. “They got killed. And you didn’t want to get hurt.”
Christal is also learning more about who her dad is and discovering his sense of humor.
“You like talking to me?” he asks.
“Yes,” she says.
“Wait till you get my bill. You’ll change your mind.”
‘It was all my fault’
“What could Mom and I have done?” Christal asks tentatively. “What could we have done to make things better — to have better supported you back then?”
“You could have took me out back and shot me,” he says. “That would have solved your problems. Put a little poison in my coffee.”
She presses.
“Nothing,” he says. “It was all my fault. My problems. I just tried to keep it balled up inside of me.”
“A lot of people think when you come home, the war is over, but that’s when it really starts,” he says.
What’s helped Delmer over the years is his guitar, he says. He plays at churches, funerals and schools.
Christal thinks about what could have helped her and her conclusion is basic. She wishes she’d had other children of veterans to talk to.
It’s something she’s created now.
Christal’s blog and Web site, which started in November, has received more than 10,000 visitors. She gets dozens of e-mails and comments from children of veterans across the country. One woman begs for advice because her father, a Vietnam veteran, is scaring her kids. A Vietnam vet tells her he has not spoken to his own children in 23 years. Christal asks her father about the current battles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“I wish they weren’t going on,” he says. “I can’t understand going into Iraq, losing all those people. But I didn’t understand the Vietnam War either.”
Today, about 2 million U.S. children have a parent in either the active or reserve component of the military, according to a 2009 RAND Corporation study. The study found children in military families are more likely to miss school activities and feel that people don’t understand their problems.
She has changed, too
Since she began the dialogue with her father, Christal has seen changes in herself. She no longer makes excuses to avoid social get-togethers. And Delmer also sees himself changing. He said the project has helped him open up and relax.
When Christal went home for Christmas, she braced herself for flashbacks as she curved up the mountain to her childhood home.
The flashbacks never came.
Her father lit candles and played “Silent Night” on his guitar. He gave her money for Christmas. She used the money to buy a guitar.
“Dad, tell me some things you like about me,” she says.
“Christal, I just like that you’re smart and stuff,” he says. “You’re witty. You got my sense of humor. You are headstrong like me. You don’t let anyone push anything over on you. You are a whole lot smarter than me.”
He’s proud Christal just completed her Ph.D.
“Tell me what I mean to you,” she says.
“You mean the world to me, buddy,” he says. “Why? Didn’t you know it? Didn’t you know that Christal?”
She closes her eyes.
Deep in her heart, she knew it. She just needed to hear it.
Epilogue:
The project reached the 30-day mark during her Christmas visit home. Christal and her father have decided to continue to talk every day, going far beyond the original 30 days.
Tom Howe, president of Veterans and Military Families for Progress, a Washington, D.C.,-based nonprofit , has asked Christal to be part of a team that will make recommendations to the White House on how the government can better help soldiers returning from war - and their families.
Christal also is going to Vietnam in March for about three weeks. She will be one of 12 people from across the country going on a trip organized by a group called “Soldier’s Heart.”
Delmer continues to play guitar every day. A song he wrote and performs about Vietnam was recently played over the loudspeaker at an elementary school near his home. He got a standing ovation.
By Helena Oliviero
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Christal Presley bites her lower lip when she hears her father’s voice on the other end of the telephone.
She’s on edge. It doesn’t take much to set him off. And she’s about to ask about the one thing no one in her family can ever talk about: Vietnam.
The Atlanta woman still gets flashbacks of her father, Delmer Presley, locking himself in his bedroom for days at a time, curled up like a baby, his eyes big and wild.
On the phone, she can’t help but feel like the scared little girl who sometimes took refuge in a closet and wrote stories by the light of a flashlight.
But she’s 31 now. She can no longer hide from her father — or a war that ended before she was born.
“I want to know if you are still up for it,” says Christal. “It will just be some questions.”
“Questions about what?” grumbles her father, who lives in their rural Virginia hometown.
She holds her breath.
“Questions about the war,” she says.
“I don’t want to talk about the war,” he says. “I don’t know anything about a war.”
He hangs up.
Moments later, Christal’s mother calls back.
“He says he’ll do it,” Judy Presley says. “Did you hear me? He says he’ll do it.”
Dad was always on edge
An only child, Christal has long suffered from anxiety and depression. Two years ago, a psychiatrist suggested she might even suffer from the condition tormenting her father — Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
For Christal, it would be what is known as intergenerational PTSD, described as a psychiatric problem passed on to family members who didn’t experience the trauma themselves. While many experts believe children can be affected by a parent’s PTSD, some question whether the children themselves suffer from the condition. [See related story.]
What is clear is war can deeply affect the children of soldiers — whether the war raged in the 1960s or it’s taking place today in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Christal and her father, a Vietnam vet drafted as a teenager, barely spoke while she was growing up. Struggling to deal with the relentless fear he experienced in Southeast Asia, Delmer was easily reminded of the horrors once he came home.
Eating at restaurants, Christal would pray no one would drop a spoon.
Her mother repeatedly told her, “It’s not his fault. It’s not his fault.” Then she’d whisper: “It’s Vietnam.”
As the years went on, Christal found she not only inherited her father’s deep brown eyes and wrinkled forehead, but also his nervous energy and anti-social behavior. She avoided getting to know people and making new friends.
As an adult, she knew that, to confront her own demons, she’d have to confront those of her father.
Christal decided to approach her father and ask about his past, his fears, the anxiety he carried with him. She persuaded him to talk to her every day for a month, and she created a Web site, United Children of Veterans, where she would blog daily about their conversations. The very name of her project conjures up images hellish and hopeful, depending on which avenue it would take: “30 Days with My Father.”
For Christal, an instructional mentor with Atlanta Public Schools who’s finishing up a Ph.D. in education, it would be part of a larger effort to conquer her fear and heal her relationship with her dad.
Advice to vets: Find help
Delmer, one of 10 children, grew up in Davenport, Va., a community of farmers and coal miners.
Apart from his one year in Vietnam, he’s never traveled more than 100 miles from his tiny town. After getting married, he settled in nearby Honaker.
Delmer received his draft letter in l968 — the year of the Tet offensive, a bloody campaign launched by the Viet Cong that helped turn the American public against the war. Only 18, he told officials he was flat-footed and colorblind, to no avail. He landed in Vietnam in April 1969, a radio telephone operator in charge of his platoon’s communications.
Morale was low when Delmer arrived, and the war was escalating.
In that initial conversation with his daughter, Delmer remembers underground tunnels covered in bamboo, teeming with snakes.
“We used to have to send men down there to check the tunnels out,” he says. “I never went down there. Just stuck my head in.
“I was too big,” he jokes, laughing. “Too big and ugly.”
Christal wants to know more.
“If you could give any advice to families of veterans, Dad, what would you tell them?”
“They need to find a group to get in and get counseling,” he says. “Either that, or they’ll jump off a cliff.”
“What should families of veterans expect?” she asks.
“War changes a person,” he says. “It changes people. I can’t explain it. ... It changes everything.”
It’s the first time Christal and her father have ever spoken about the war. As she hangs up the phone, Christal is thrilled with how it went. But hours later, she talks to her father again. He is seething mad.
Their talk has stirred emotions he wasn’t ready to deal with. He questions her motives and, inexplicably, accuses her of taking drugs.
Christal wants to end the project now, tell him that she can’t reason with a crazy person. Instead, she tells him that she loves him.
“I have a story to tell just like you do, and I need your help. It doesn’t mean you have to talk about the war. You can say whatever you want,” she says.
There’s a long silence.
“I just want to get to know you, for you to get to know me,” she says.
“You do this project,” he finally says, his voice shaking. “You do this project and write whatever you want.”
Nightmares intensified
For years, Delmer dealt with inner turmoil by working 12 hours a day, six days a week, welding mining equipment.
Then, in the 1980s, his hands began to shake so much he couldn’t keep his grip on a welder’s torch.
He also had cysts removed from his fingers and a tumor removed from his lung — problems he believes were caused by wartime exposure to Agent Orange (a now-banned defoliant that’s been linked to leukemia, cancer and other health woes) though doctors say there’s no way to know for sure. His nightmares became more intense.
“If there was a storm and I was sleeping, I would wake up and not know if I was home in my bed or in the jungles of Vietnam,” he says. “I thought I was losing my mind.”
In 1985, he was diagnosed with PTSD — a condition he had never heard of. Six years later, his symptoms worsening, he went on disability.
Despite counseling and medication, Delmer finds his mind is never far from the battlefield.
Recently, while grocery shopping, Delmer heard a balloon pop and he went berserk.
“I almost tore a tomato stand down,” the 60-year-old says. “It’s embarrassing but you just can’t help it.”
Memories torment him
Almost a month into the conversations with his daughter, Delmer tells of the death of one young soldier that haunts him to this day.
The two were walking about 20 yards apart when the other man stepped on an explosive booby trap.
“He had only been in Vietnam a week,” he says. “He showed me a picture a day or two earlier of his baby girl. She was just 3 months old. ... I’ve had dreams over and over about him never getting to hold that baby.”
He’s also tormented by “search and destroy missions.”
“That was the order — to burn whole villages. ... These houses were made of straw and they would burn easily. You could see the people with their clothes burning. ... You couldn’t understand what they were saying, but everyone cries in the same language.
“I know I did some things I shouldn’t have done. I knew better. I did. I just didn’t consider those people human. I never saw a Vietnamese before in my life, and I hated them. ... I was trained not to see them as human.”
Getting to know dad
Thirty days into the conversations — which have now continued beyond the month originally planned — Christal isn’t nervous anymore. The talks aren’t forced. Her dad is not defensive. He really wants to talk.
Delmer tells her about how he washed his socks in streams in Vietnam and stored his canned food inside them after they dried. He talks about the pet monkey, JoJo, he had in Vietnam.
Delmer has questions, too, for his daughter, who lives in the big city. What does it mean to be a mentor to teachers? Does she see homeless people in Atlanta? Are any of them Vietnam vets?
Christal talks to her dad about relationships and why he doesn’t get close to anyone.
“Well, you didn’t get attached to anybody, because they died,” he says, reverting to his wartime mentality. “They got killed. And you didn’t want to get hurt.”
Christal is also learning more about who her dad is and discovering his sense of humor.
“You like talking to me?” he asks.
“Yes,” she says.
“Wait till you get my bill. You’ll change your mind.”
‘It was all my fault’
“What could Mom and I have done?” Christal asks tentatively. “What could we have done to make things better — to have better supported you back then?”
“You could have took me out back and shot me,” he says. “That would have solved your problems. Put a little poison in my coffee.”
She presses.
“Nothing,” he says. “It was all my fault. My problems. I just tried to keep it balled up inside of me.”
“A lot of people think when you come home, the war is over, but that’s when it really starts,” he says.
What’s helped Delmer over the years is his guitar, he says. He plays at churches, funerals and schools.
Christal thinks about what could have helped her and her conclusion is basic. She wishes she’d had other children of veterans to talk to.
It’s something she’s created now.
Christal’s blog and Web site, which started in November, has received more than 10,000 visitors. She gets dozens of e-mails and comments from children of veterans across the country. One woman begs for advice because her father, a Vietnam veteran, is scaring her kids. A Vietnam vet tells her he has not spoken to his own children in 23 years. Christal asks her father about the current battles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“I wish they weren’t going on,” he says. “I can’t understand going into Iraq, losing all those people. But I didn’t understand the Vietnam War either.”
Today, about 2 million U.S. children have a parent in either the active or reserve component of the military, according to a 2009 RAND Corporation study. The study found children in military families are more likely to miss school activities and feel that people don’t understand their problems.
She has changed, too
Since she began the dialogue with her father, Christal has seen changes in herself. She no longer makes excuses to avoid social get-togethers. And Delmer also sees himself changing. He said the project has helped him open up and relax.
When Christal went home for Christmas, she braced herself for flashbacks as she curved up the mountain to her childhood home.
The flashbacks never came.
Her father lit candles and played “Silent Night” on his guitar. He gave her money for Christmas. She used the money to buy a guitar.
“Dad, tell me some things you like about me,” she says.
“Christal, I just like that you’re smart and stuff,” he says. “You’re witty. You got my sense of humor. You are headstrong like me. You don’t let anyone push anything over on you. You are a whole lot smarter than me.”
He’s proud Christal just completed her Ph.D.
“Tell me what I mean to you,” she says.
“You mean the world to me, buddy,” he says. “Why? Didn’t you know it? Didn’t you know that Christal?”
She closes her eyes.
Deep in her heart, she knew it. She just needed to hear it.
Epilogue:
The project reached the 30-day mark during her Christmas visit home. Christal and her father have decided to continue to talk every day, going far beyond the original 30 days.
Tom Howe, president of Veterans and Military Families for Progress, a Washington, D.C.,-based nonprofit , has asked Christal to be part of a team that will make recommendations to the White House on how the government can better help soldiers returning from war - and their families.
Christal also is going to Vietnam in March for about three weeks. She will be one of 12 people from across the country going on a trip organized by a group called “Soldier’s Heart.”
Delmer continues to play guitar every day. A song he wrote and performs about Vietnam was recently played over the loudspeaker at an elementary school near his home. He got a standing ovation.
Gates Foundation = Monsanto
Gates Foundation = Monsanto
Gates Foundations = Monsanto now even more than ever. I should refine that statement. Gates Foundation = in favor of a pro-biotech, for-profit, unsustainable, scary, powerful approach to "feeding the world" (a.k.a. lining corporate pockets). And they have many ties to Monsanto including a brand new one. They just filled Rajiv Shah's old job with Sam Dryden. Dryden's resume is enough to make me throw up.
Gates Foundations = Monsanto now even more than ever. I should refine that statement. Gates Foundation = in favor of a pro-biotech, for-profit, unsustainable, scary, powerful approach to "feeding the world" (a.k.a. lining corporate pockets). And they have many ties to Monsanto including a brand new one. They just filled Rajiv Shah's old job with Sam Dryden. Dryden's resume is enough to make me throw up.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Company of the Year... Monsanto? Maybe they could hire Charles Manson to be their spokesperson?
Jan-09-2010
Company of the Year... Monsanto?
Chuck Palazzo Salem-News.com
Maybe they could hire Charles Manson to be their spokesperson?
(DA NANG, Vietnam) - What a slap in the face. What an insult. What a display of ignorance. What little to no compassion, let alone admission of guilt to the war crimes this company was involved in. No, they were never convicted – because they settled out of court like Dow and the rest of the criminals who created, sold, and made hundreds of millions of dollars creating, selling and reaping the profits from Dioxin – yes, Agent Orange. (forbes.com/forbes/2010/0118/americas-best-company-10-gmos-dupont-planet-versus-monsanto.html)
This week, Forbes Magazine named Monsanto its company of the year. Can you believe it? Forbes – sure, a conservative, capitalist magazine – but nominating and approving Monsanto? A killer that was and continues to be, responsible for MILLIONS of deaths, MILLIONS of humans affected with disease as a result of being sprayed and exposed, MILLIONS of offspring whose health (and most of the time, untimely deaths), all caused by the evil poison known as Agent Orange.
They still produce Round-up, a watered down version of Agent Orange. However, the French Courts have found in favor of those who brought suit against them – Monsanto was accused and convicted in the French Courts about the make-up and what actually Round-up is and does – they were convicted of lying to the courts - perjury. Their sentence? A fine – a pittance compared with the BILLIONS of dollars in revenue they achieve each year. But that recent series of court cases in France is indeed significant – Round-up sales have dropped since the court’s decision, and this might just be a start – because Monsanto did in fact earn less than their forecasted revenues in 09 as a result in a drop in sales of Round-up. (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8308903.stm)
Their CEO did in fact receive less in bonus compensation as a result of much of this being revealed – but he still earned millions of dollars! (stltoday.com/blogzone/mound-city-money/st-louis-companies/2009/12/monsanto-ceo-grant-sees-bonus-shrink-in-09/)
Today, Monsanto is viewed by many as a savior in terms of world hunger – because of its creation of genetically engineered seeds. Two very important facts:
1. GE seeds are in fact NOT better than natural seeds and are, some believe, even worse – in terms of the environment, human lives, spread of new diseases and humanity in general.
2. It has been revealed by the AP as well as other trusted sources, that Monsanto has and continues to use strong-arm tactics in forcing farmers to buy and use their seeds.
3. …and a third, contributed by my fellow writer, Vietnam Combat Vet, and Marine: Gordon D. (truthout.org/article/three-approved-gmos-linked-organ-damage)
This is a short video about the lie of what Monsanto and others preach about GE crops: techblogarchives.com/2010/01/06/genetic-engineering-the-worlds-greatest-scam/
The GE seed issue is certainly a serious one – but brothers and sisters, let us never forget Vietnam, Cambodia, Canada, Korea and other countries where Agent Orange was sprayed in both war and peacetime. Let us not forget all the human tolls it has taken – and continues to take. The lives that have been devastated, the lives removed. The products and GE seeds and eventual crops that wind up on your supermarket shelves have all been brought to you by the profits Monsanto received as a result of the US Government paying them hundreds of millions of dollars for the poison we all despise: Agent Orange.
More about Monsanto, the food industry in general, and the devastation and lies they and others like them are propagating, in this wonderful piece called “Food, Inc.” (theconscious.com/?p=61)
This may or may not be available free of charge, depending on what country you reside in, but it IS available to all from www.thepiratebay.org. Remember, you will need a torrent program to download it. Email me if you need further instructions. (thepiratebay.org/torrent/5142533/Food__Inc__%282008%29)
I urge you all – please log in to Forbes, create an account, and comment about this truly wrong winner this year. Monsanto and its executives belong behind bars – not recipients of Forbes’ Company of the Year Award!
Not a single word about their involvement with the US Government during the Vietnam War. Not one mention of all the death and destruction they have caused and continue to be responsible for. This is the true corporate world – its finest for its shareholders and executives, but its worst for all of us who were exposed to, suffer from, and pass on the devastation we know as Agent Orange. Genetic alteration to seeds? What about the genetic alteration, eventual disease, disability and death from Agent Orange?
===================================================
Chuck Palazzo is a Marine Corps Vietnam Veteran, the Interim Editor for Agent Orange, and a longtime Vietnam Veterans Against the War Member. Chuck Palazzo has spent years since the war studying the impacts and effects of Agent Orange, a defoliant chemical sprayed by the U.S. govt. on the jungles of Vietnam. He says Dioxins have been re-discovered to cause all sorts of damage to humans. These include Heart Disease, Parkinsonism, Diabetes et cetera. Dioxins are already known to produce serious birth defects and a variety of cancers. The chemical is still sold in Third World Countries and is causing the same problems.
We at Salem-News.com welcome Chuck aboard and look forward to sharing more of his stories with our readers in the future.
Company of the Year... Monsanto?
Chuck Palazzo Salem-News.com
Maybe they could hire Charles Manson to be their spokesperson?
(DA NANG, Vietnam) - What a slap in the face. What an insult. What a display of ignorance. What little to no compassion, let alone admission of guilt to the war crimes this company was involved in. No, they were never convicted – because they settled out of court like Dow and the rest of the criminals who created, sold, and made hundreds of millions of dollars creating, selling and reaping the profits from Dioxin – yes, Agent Orange. (forbes.com/forbes/2010/0118/americas-best-company-10-gmos-dupont-planet-versus-monsanto.html)
This week, Forbes Magazine named Monsanto its company of the year. Can you believe it? Forbes – sure, a conservative, capitalist magazine – but nominating and approving Monsanto? A killer that was and continues to be, responsible for MILLIONS of deaths, MILLIONS of humans affected with disease as a result of being sprayed and exposed, MILLIONS of offspring whose health (and most of the time, untimely deaths), all caused by the evil poison known as Agent Orange.
They still produce Round-up, a watered down version of Agent Orange. However, the French Courts have found in favor of those who brought suit against them – Monsanto was accused and convicted in the French Courts about the make-up and what actually Round-up is and does – they were convicted of lying to the courts - perjury. Their sentence? A fine – a pittance compared with the BILLIONS of dollars in revenue they achieve each year. But that recent series of court cases in France is indeed significant – Round-up sales have dropped since the court’s decision, and this might just be a start – because Monsanto did in fact earn less than their forecasted revenues in 09 as a result in a drop in sales of Round-up. (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8308903.stm)
Their CEO did in fact receive less in bonus compensation as a result of much of this being revealed – but he still earned millions of dollars! (stltoday.com/blogzone/mound-city-money/st-louis-companies/2009/12/monsanto-ceo-grant-sees-bonus-shrink-in-09/)
Today, Monsanto is viewed by many as a savior in terms of world hunger – because of its creation of genetically engineered seeds. Two very important facts:
1. GE seeds are in fact NOT better than natural seeds and are, some believe, even worse – in terms of the environment, human lives, spread of new diseases and humanity in general.
2. It has been revealed by the AP as well as other trusted sources, that Monsanto has and continues to use strong-arm tactics in forcing farmers to buy and use their seeds.
3. …and a third, contributed by my fellow writer, Vietnam Combat Vet, and Marine: Gordon D. (truthout.org/article/three-approved-gmos-linked-organ-damage)
This is a short video about the lie of what Monsanto and others preach about GE crops: techblogarchives.com/2010/01/06/genetic-engineering-the-worlds-greatest-scam/
The GE seed issue is certainly a serious one – but brothers and sisters, let us never forget Vietnam, Cambodia, Canada, Korea and other countries where Agent Orange was sprayed in both war and peacetime. Let us not forget all the human tolls it has taken – and continues to take. The lives that have been devastated, the lives removed. The products and GE seeds and eventual crops that wind up on your supermarket shelves have all been brought to you by the profits Monsanto received as a result of the US Government paying them hundreds of millions of dollars for the poison we all despise: Agent Orange.
More about Monsanto, the food industry in general, and the devastation and lies they and others like them are propagating, in this wonderful piece called “Food, Inc.” (theconscious.com/?p=61)
This may or may not be available free of charge, depending on what country you reside in, but it IS available to all from www.thepiratebay.org. Remember, you will need a torrent program to download it. Email me if you need further instructions. (thepiratebay.org/torrent/5142533/Food__Inc__%282008%29)
I urge you all – please log in to Forbes, create an account, and comment about this truly wrong winner this year. Monsanto and its executives belong behind bars – not recipients of Forbes’ Company of the Year Award!
Not a single word about their involvement with the US Government during the Vietnam War. Not one mention of all the death and destruction they have caused and continue to be responsible for. This is the true corporate world – its finest for its shareholders and executives, but its worst for all of us who were exposed to, suffer from, and pass on the devastation we know as Agent Orange. Genetic alteration to seeds? What about the genetic alteration, eventual disease, disability and death from Agent Orange?
===================================================
Chuck Palazzo is a Marine Corps Vietnam Veteran, the Interim Editor for Agent Orange, and a longtime Vietnam Veterans Against the War Member. Chuck Palazzo has spent years since the war studying the impacts and effects of Agent Orange, a defoliant chemical sprayed by the U.S. govt. on the jungles of Vietnam. He says Dioxins have been re-discovered to cause all sorts of damage to humans. These include Heart Disease, Parkinsonism, Diabetes et cetera. Dioxins are already known to produce serious birth defects and a variety of cancers. The chemical is still sold in Third World Countries and is causing the same problems.
We at Salem-News.com welcome Chuck aboard and look forward to sharing more of his stories with our readers in the future.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
MOBLEY v. CERRO FLOW PRODUCTS, INC. GEORGIA VANETTA MOBLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CERRO FLOW PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation with its princip
MOBLEY v. CERRO FLOW PRODUCTS, INC.
GEORGIA VANETTA MOBLEY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CERRO FLOW PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Illinois, et al., Defendants.
Civil No. 09-697-GPM.
United States District Court, S.D. Illinois.
January 5, 2010.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. PATRICK MURPHY, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This case is before the Court on the motion for remand of the case to state court brought by Plaintiffs Georgia Vanetta Mobley, Mallie Yvonne Payne, Ceolia Terry Julien, Linda Goodwill, Pamela Jean Nesbitt, Nina Alexis Clark, Jeanette Smith-Jackson, Lela Mae Humphrey, Mary Etta Henry, Felicia Lynndell Murdock, Gladys Maurine Porter, Carolyn Jean Hughes, Lorraine Franzella McKinney, Hattie Johnson, Vivian A. Hannah, Kimberly Renee Gaines, Donna Ann Mendez, Sheila Stevenson, Christa Michelle Pierce, Flossie G. Williams, Tamiko Dawnyel Smith, Mildred Wells, Donna Marie Johnson, Gail Yvonne Wren, Gwendolyn Ray, Dorothy Elizabeth Weir, Deborah Kaye Reeves, Cynthia Marie Edwards, Alice Mae Moore, Brenda Fay Snelling, Ruby N. Fleming, and Ora Mae Johnson (Doc. 25). According to the allegations of the operative complaint in this case, Plaintiffs are persons who reside or have resided in St. Clair County, Illinois, and who seek damages for personal injuries and/or property damage due to allegedly improper disposal of toxic chemicals at three locations in and around Sauget, Illinois, that are styled "Release Sites" in Plaintiffs' complaint: (1) the Sauget Landfill, an approximately 90-acre site in Sauget; (2) the W.G. Krummrich Plant, an approximately 314-acre site located at 500 Monsanto Avenue in Sauget where at the times relevant to this case a group of affiliated companies comprised of Defendants Pharmacia Corporation ("Pharmacia"), Solutia, Inc. ("Solutia"), Monsanto AG Products, LLC ("Monsanto"), and Pfizer, Inc. ("Pfizer"), manufactured chemicals and chemical products, in some instances pursuant to contracts with the federal government; and (3) a site at 3000 Mississippi in Sauget owned by Defendant Cerro Flow Products, Inc. This case was filed originally in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, on July 29, 2009. The operative complaint in the case asserts claims for personal injuries based on theories of negligence, strict liability, nuisance, and battery together with claims for property damage based on theories of negligence, nuisance, and trespass. On August 15, 2009, Solutia and Monsanto removed the case to this Court
According to the notice of removal in this case, polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs") were produced at the W.G. Krummrich Plant between 1935 and 1977; the removing Defendants, Solutia and Monsanto, assert also that the herbicide Agent Orange was manufactured at the W.G. Krummrich Plant between approximately 1965 and 1969, although Plaintiffs' complaint waives claims based on Agent Orange. See Doc. 2-1 at 2 ¶ 1. As to the Sauget Landfill, Solutia and Monsanto claim that between 1940 and 1945 that site was used to dispose of toxic waste from three plants operated by Pharmacia on land immediately adjacent to the W.G. Krummrich Plant where chemicals were produced pursuant to contracts with the Chemical Warfare Service ("CWS"), an agency of the United States War Department (the predecessor of the United States Department of Defense). Solutia and Monsanto assert also that waste from the plants operated by Pharmacia pursuant to contracts with the CWS was disposed of into Dead Creek, which is part of the area identified by Plaintiffs as being contaminated by improper disposal of toxic waste at the three Release Sites named in Plaintiffs' complaint. The removing Defendants assert that, insofar as they are sought to be held liable for contamination resulting from improper disposal of toxic waste at the Sauget Landfill, the W.G. Krummrich Plant, and Dead Creek, their actions were undertaken at the direction of the government and thus this case is properly within the Court's jurisdiction over suits against persons acting under the direction of a federal officer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442. Alternatively, Solutia and Monsanto allege federal subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as amended by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (codified in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.). On October 5, 2009, Plaintiffs moved for remand of this case to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.[ 1 ] Plaintiffs' motion for remand has been fully briefed and the Court now rules as follows.
II. ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, the Court notes the well settled standard under which it must evaluate the instant motion for remand. A defendant seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536, 540 (7th Cir. 2006); Lyerla v. Amco Ins. Co., 461 F. Supp. 2d 834, 835 (S.D. Ill. 2006). Federal removal jurisdiction is statutory in nature and is to be strictly construed. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941); Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir. 1993); Fuller v. BNSF Ry. Co., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1091 (S.D. Ill. 2007). Removal is proper if it is based on permissible statutory grounds and if it is timely. See Boyd v. Phoenix Funding Corp., 366 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2004); Gragg v. Alfa Laval, Inc., Civil No. 09-773-GPM, 2009 WL 4110389, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2009). Finally, "[d]oubts concerning removal must be resolved in favor of remand to the state court." Ellis v. Hansen & Adkins Auto Transp., Civil No. 09-677-GPM, 2009 WL 4673933, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2009). See also Stephens v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., Civil No. 09-633-GPM, 2009 WL 3517560, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 22, 2009) ("Any doubts about the propriety of removal must be resolved against removal and in favor of remand to state court.").
A. Federal Diversity Jurisdiction under the CAFA
As already has been noted, one of the asserted basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction in this case is diversity jurisdiction under the CAFA. Among the actions covered by the CAFA is a "mass action," defined by the statute as "any civil action . . . in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims involve common questions of law or fact," and in which there is minimal diversity of citizenship (at least one plaintiff is not a citizen of the same state as at least one defendant) and the plaintiffs each seek a recovery exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i). See also Bullard v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 535 F.3d 759, 761-62 (7th Cir. 2008); Gilmore v. Bayer Corp., Civil No. 09-986-GPM, 2009 WL 4789406, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 2009). The CAFA further authorizes removal of "mass actions" from state court to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b); Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1195 (11th Cir. 2007); Aburto v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1473-K, 2009 WL 2252518, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2009). According to Solutia and Monsanto, the removing Defendants in this case, this action is identical to four other actions pending in this Court, namely, Custer v. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Civil No. 09-514-DRH (S.D. Ill. filed July 9, 2009), Clayton v. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Civil No. 09-550-GPM (S.D. Ill. filed July 23, 2009), Williams v. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Civil No. 09-551-JPG (S.D. Ill. filed July 23, 2009), and Brown v. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Civil No. 09-582-GPM (S.D. Ill. filed July 30, 2009). Solutia and Monsanto argue that, if the thirty-two Plaintiffs in this case are aggregated with the twenty-one plaintiffs in Custer, the nineteen plaintiffs in Clayton, the five plaintiffs in Williams, and the thirty plaintiffs in Brown, this case may be deemed to contain 107 Plaintiffs, slightly in excess of the minimum number of plaintiffs required for the exercise of jurisdiction under the CAFA. The Court finds this argument to be frivolous, as it is clearly precluded by the statutory language of the CAFA.
First, the CAFA expressly excludes from the statutory definition of a "mass action" any civil case in which "all of the claims in the action arise from an event or occurrence in the State in which the action was filed, and that allegedly resulted in injuries in that State or in States contiguous to that State[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(I). Here it is undisputed that Plaintiffs in this case are suing in Illinois on claims that arose in Illinois. Second, the CAFA also excludes from the statutory definition of a "mass action" any case in which" the claims are joined upon motion of a defendant[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(II). Here the only way that the claims this case could be joined with the claims in Custer, Clayton, Brown, and Mobley would be on a motion for consolidation by Defendants, given that Plaintiffs' complaint in this case expressly disclaim any desire for consolidation of the claims in this case with related claims. See Doc. 2-1 at 3 ¶ 12. It is the case, of course, that in some instances a court can order consolidation sua sponte. See Disher v. Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1013-14 (S.D. Ill. 2007). However, the Court sees no likelihood of sua sponte consolidation here and, even if such consolidation were to occur, it likely would be solely for pretrial purposes, which would not bring the consolidated claims within the scope of the CAFA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(IV) (excluding from the CAFA's statutory definition of a "mass action" civil actions in which "the claims have been consolidated or coordinated solely for pretrial proceedings"). In sum, the removing Defendants' argument for CAFA jurisdiction in this case is expressly foreclosed by the language of the statute. See Tanoh v. Dow Chem. Co., 561 F.3d 945, 952-56 (9th Cir. 2009) (claims of plaintiffs in separate cases cannot be aggregated to form a "mass action" under the CAFA). The Court concludes that diversity jurisdiction under the CAFA does not exist in this case.[ 2 ]
B. Federal Officer Jurisdiction
Having disposed of the removing Defendants' argument for federal subject matter jurisdiction under the CAFA, the Court turns to the issue of whether federal subject matter jurisdiction exists in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442. That statute provides, in relevant part, for the removal of "[a] civil action . . . commenced in a State court against . . . [t]he United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, sued in an official or individual capacity for any act under color of such office[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). To effect removal as persons acting under a federal officer, Solutia and Monsanto, the removing Defendants, must prove three elements: (1) they are "persons" within the meaning of the statute; (2) they acted under the direction of a federal officer, meaning that there is a nexus or causal connection between Plaintiffs' claims and the acts the removing Defendants performed under the direction of a federal officer; and (3) the removing Defendants have a colorable federal defense to state-law liability. See Jefferson County, Ala. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 431 (1999); Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 129 (1989); Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 242 (1981); Kelly v. Martin & Bayley, Inc., 503 F.3d 584, 586-87 (7th Cir. 2007); Alsup v. 3-Day Blinds, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 838, 844-45 (S.D. Ill. 2006).[ 3 ] The basic purpose of Section 1442(a)(1) is to ensure a federal forum for defenses of official immunity by federal officers. See Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 407 (1969); Wisconsin v. Schaffer, 565 F.2d 961, 964 (7th Cir. 1977). Because federal officer removal is rooted in "an anachronistic mistrust of state courts' ability to protect and enforce federal interests and immunities from suit," although such jurisdiction is read "expansively" in suits involving federal officials, it is read narrowly where, as in this instance, only the liability of a private company purportedly acting at the direction of a federal officer is at issue. Freiberg v. Swinerton & Walberg Prop. Servs., Inc., 245 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1150, 1152 n.6 (D. Colo. 2002) (emphasis omitted).
For purposes of the "acting under" requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), this element, as noted, entails a showing of a causal nexus between acts taken by the removing Defendants at the direction of a federal officer and the injury of which Plaintiffs complain. Under the "regulation plus" standard for acting under a federal officer embraced by this Circuit, a causal nexus is established by showing that complained-of conduct was undertaken at the express direction of a federal officer. For example, in Venezia v. Robinson, 16 F.3d 209 (7th Cir. 1994), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the removal under Section 1442(a)(1) of a suit for extortion brought by an operator of video poker machines against an agent of the Illinois Liquor Control Commission who solicited a bribe from him, where the defendant claimed that he solicited the bribe at the direction of agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was conducting a sting operation against the plaintiff. See id. at 210-12. As the Supreme Court of the United States has instructed, to show the propriety of removal under Section 1442(a)(1), "[t]here must be a causal connection between what the officer has done under asserted official authority and the state prosecution." Mesa, 489 U.S. at 131 (quoting Maryland v. Soper, 270 U.S. 9, 33 (1926)). "It must appear that the prosecution of him, for whatever offense, has arisen out of the acts done by him under color of federal authority and in enforcement of federal law, and he must by direct averment exclude the possibility that it was based on acts or conduct of his not justified by his federal duty." Id. at 131-32 (emphasis added). See also Freiberg, 245 F. Supp. 2d at 1155 ("What [removing defendants] must establish for purpose of [Section] 1442(a)(1) is that the government authority under which they worked required them to act as they did," that is, "they must establish the [government's] direction and control of their activities directly interfered with their ability to fulfill their state law obligation[.]").
In this instance what is chiefly in dispute between the parties is whether the removing Defendants have met their burden to show a causal nexus between Plaintiffs' claims and acts the removing Defendants allegedly took at the direction of a federal officer; in other words, whether the removing Defendants can "show that . . . the federal officer really did `make them do it[.]'" Weese v. Union Carbide Corp., Civil No. 07-581-GPM, 2007 WL 2908014, at *7 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2007) (quoting Faulk v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 48 F. Supp. 2d 653, 664 (E.D. Tex. 1999)). It appears from the record of this case that this issue hinges entirely on toxic waste dumping activities of the removing Defendants in connection with the plants operated by their corporate affiliate Pharmacia during the Second World War pursuant to contracts with the CWS. Thus, before reaching the issue of whether the removing Defendants have shown a causal nexus for purposes of the second prong of the test of federal officer jurisdiction, the Court must address a dispute between the parties about the pertinence of evidence concerning toxic pollution allegedly caused by the plants operated by Pharmacia pursuant to contracts with the CWS. Plaintiffs point out that the site of those plants is not identified as a "Release Site" in their complaint. This is true, but as the removing Defendants point out, there is evidence that toxic wastes from the plants that Pharmacia operated pursuant to contracts with the CWS was dumped in the Sauget Landfill, which is one of the Release Sites identified in Plaintiffs' complaint, and in Dead Creek, which is part of the area identified in Plaintiffs' complaint as having been contaminated by Pharmacia, Solutia, Monsanto, and Pfizer. Accordingly, the Court concludes that evidence concerning the plants operated by Pharmacia pursuant to contracts with the CWS is relevant to the issue of whether federal officer jurisdiction exists in this case, and the Court will consider such evidence in evaluating Plaintiffs' motion for remand of this case to state court.
The Court turns then to the issue of whether the removing Defendants have shown that they acted under a federal officer. The removing Defendants point out, of course, that the plants Pharmacia operated pursuant to contracts with the CWS were engaged in the production of chemicals for use by the War Department and that military personnel were assigned to the plants, including officers in oversight positions. Concerning the specific manner in which toxic waste from the plants was disposed of, the removing Defendants offer deposition testimony taken in a separate case by Charles McDonnell, who worked at one of the CWS plants for approximately eighteen months beginning in the latter part of 1943. According to McDonnell, a colonel assigned to the plant where he worked was in charge of the "whole shebang." Doc. 2-5 at 12. McDonnell testified also that while he was working at the plant, toxic chemicals were disposed of by washing them down the sewer or dumping them into the Sauget Landfill. According to McDonnell, waste from the plants, including trash, floor sweepings, oil and solvent-soaked rags, process residues, and drums containing liquid wastes were hauled by Pharmacia to the Sauget Landfill for disposal. See id. at 14-20, 23, 36, 39-45, 59-63, 80-83, 85-87, 90-91. In addition to McDonnell's testimony, the removing Defendants point to the deposition testimony, also taken in a separate case, of Ernest Mares, an industrial chemist who was in charge of the manufacturing operations at a plant operated by Pharmacia pursuant to a contract with the CWS for approximately three and a half years and who testified that the military was responsible for "oversight" at the plant. Doc. 2-4 at 28. Finally, the removing Defendants rely on a letter dated August 24, 1944, in which a brigadier general in charge of the technical division of the CWS expressed the view that waste chemicals at one of the plants operated by Pharmacia for the CWS should be "sewered." Doc. 2-3 at 8. This evidence, the removing Defendants contend, establishes that the acts challenged in this lawsuit were taken at the direction of federal officers.
Plaintiffs for their part point out that the plants operated by the removing Defendants' affiliate Pharmacia for the CWS during the Second World War were designed and built by Pharmacia. Concerning McDonnell's testimony, Plaintiffs point out that McDonnell concedes that he has no personal knowledge of the contractual arrangement between CWS and Pharmacia or of the scope of governmental oversight as to the activities of Pharmacia. See, e.g., Doc. 2-5 at 11-12. They point out also that, according to McDonnell, the governmental presence on site at the CWS plants was not especially pronounced: McDonnell testifies that government officers would "come in, stay a few hours" and then go elsewhere to "goof off." Id. at 11. Finally, as to disposal of toxic waste at the plants, McDonnell was clear that "Monsanto did the dumping." Id. at 63. Concerning Mares's testimony, Mares acknowledged that while the military had the power of ultimate control over the plant where he worked during the Second World War, Pharmacia controlled "the actual, basic operation of the plant" and that the military's oversight role was confined chiefly to signing off on the manner in which the removing Defendants ran production at the plant, that is, "We designed it, and they [the military] approved it." Doc. 2-4 at 28, 118. Finally, concerning the letter urging waste chemicals to be "sewered," Plaintiffs point out that this was only a "recommend[ation]" by the military, not a command. Doc. 2-3 at 8. Plaintiffs point out also that the military gave Pharmacia and its agents the freedom to manage production at the CWS plants "in whatever manner they saw fit." Id. at 15. Finally, Plaintiffs point out that the removing Defendants have adduced no evidence, in the form of exemplar contracts or regulations, for example, showing that the military regulated disposal of toxic waste at the plants operated by Pharmacia pursuant to contracts with the CWS in a manner that prevented Pharmacia and/or affiliated corporations from complying with their duties under state law. The Court believes that Plaintiffs have the better of the argument here. On the state of the record, the evidence in this case shows merely that the acts complained of in this lawsuit occurred under the general auspices of federal authorities, not that federal authorities specifically directed those acts as is required to establish a causal nexus for purposes of federal officer jurisdiction.
A review of authority from sister federal trial courts bolsters the conclusion that federal officer jurisdiction does not exist in this case. For example, in Bahrs v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 795 F. Supp. 965 (D. Ariz. 1992), a plaintiff class brought suit alleging injuries caused by the defendants' alleged dumping of toxic substances and contamination of the plaintiffs' water supply. See id. at 967. One of the defendants, General Dynamics Corporation, was a military contractor that sought removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The court noted that, "[t]o prevail, General Dynamics must prove the existence of a nexus between actions for which it is being sued and the activities of the federal official . . . . The critical analysis is `to what extent defendants acted under federal direction' at the time they were engaged in conduct now being sued upon.'" 795 F. Supp. at 969 (quoting Gurda Farms, Inc. v. Monroe County Legal Assistance Corp., 358 F. Supp. 841, 844 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)). The court noted further that "[m]ost courts which have addressed this issue require `direct and detailed control' by the federal official over the defendant." Id. (quoting Ryan v. Dow Chem. Co., 781 F. Supp. 934, 950 (E.D.N.Y. 1992)). The court concluded that while the removing defendant had shown that it had a contractual relationship with the government, it had "made no showing as to the manner in which the contract was carried out." Id. at 970. The court explained that the defendant's government contract provided an insufficient basis for federal officer removal. "While the government officials were undoubtedly most interested in the production of war materials, the record before this Court does not demonstrate the government's necessary control over the method of waste disposal. The mere fact that the government possessed the power to exercise control over the project does not establish that the power was in fact ever exercised." Id. Thus, the court found that the case was not within federal officer jurisdiction.
In Arness v. Boeing North American, Inc., 997 F. Supp. 1268 (C.D. Cal. 1998), the plaintiffs brought suit against the defendants based on the defendants' "alleged release of [toxic chemicals] from their activities at [certain facilities] which allegedly resulted in the contamination of the surrounding area's groundwater, soil and subsurface soil." Id. at 1270. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' conduct exposed them to the toxic chemicals and they sought damages for injuries caused by that exposure. See id. The defendants asserted that they conducted activities at those facilities under government contracts and at "the direction of federal officers pursuant to detailed and comprehensive procedures dictated by these officers." Id. Specifically, the defendants asserted that the government's production requirements mandated the flushing of rocket engines with the toxic chemicals that allegedly contaminated the surrounding environment. See id. at 1273. The district court observed, however, that the defendants' "use of [toxic chemicals] did not cause Plaintiffs' injuries. Rather, Plaintiffs' injuries were allegedly caused by [the defendants'] negligent disposal and storage of [the chemicals], which activities were not performed at the government's behest." Id. at 1274-75. Moreover, the government's failure to specify storage and disposal practices for the toxic chemicals despite mandating their use was insufficient to establish a causal nexus. See id. at 1275. The court concluded that "because the government did not specify safeguards that [the defendants] must use, or restrict [the defendants'] ability to implement safeguards, [the defendants were] not acting under federal direction when [they] allegedly released the [toxic chemicals]. Rather, the acts relevant to Plaintiffs' suit occurred only `under the general auspices of' a federal officer." Id. (quoting Fung v. Abex Corp., 816 F. Supp. 569, 572 (N.D. Cal. 1992)). Accordingly, the court remanded the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
Finally, in New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 381 F. Supp. 2d 398 (D.N.J. 2005), the district court considered its jurisdiction over claims based on the defendant's waste disposal practices. The plaintiff had brought a state-law action for cleanup and removal costs, and also for damages allegedly caused by discharges at the defendant's property. See id. at 401. The defendant removed the action on the basis of federal officer jurisdiction, arguing that "certain of its production activities during World War II were at the behest of and under the control of the federal government, and these activities resulted in the disposal of products included in the conduct alleged against it[.]" Id. The district court found that federal officer removal was inappropriate. Even if the defendant produced, stored, and transferred certain products under government control, the defendant had not shown that the government ordered the improper disposal of hazardous wastes. See id. at 405. Thus, there was no causal nexus between the actions conducted under government control, that is, the production, storage, and transfer of the products, and the conduct charged by the plaintiff, that is, the "improper disposal of toxic substances into the waters of the [s]tate[.]" Id. at 404. The court concluded that, "as Defendant has not offered any evidence supporting its claim that the federal government exercised control over the disposal of hazardous substances, . . . Defendant has not met its burden to demonstrate the requisite causal nexus to invoke the protections of the federal officer removal statute." Id. at 405. As in Bahrs, Arness, and Exxon, the record in this case does not show that federal officers dictated the manner in which the removing Defendants' affiliate Pharmacia disposed of chemical wastes or compelled Pharmacia to dispose of those wastes improperly. Instead, the record shows only that Pharmacia acted under the general auspices of a federal officer. Absent proof of a causal nexus between the acts complained of by Plaintiffs and the orders of a federal officer, the removal of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) is improper and the case is due to be remanded to state court.[ 4 ]
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs' motion to strike exhibits C, D, and E to the notice of removal in this case (Doc. 24) is DENIED. Plaintiffs' motion for remand of this case to state court (Doc. 25) is GRANTED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1. Plaintiffs also have brought a motion requesting that certain documents attached to the notice of removal in this case be excluded from the record of the case (Doc. 24). The Court denies this request, as the challenged documents are public court documents that the Court can judicially notice. See 4901 Corp. v. Town of Cicero, 220 F.3d 522, 527 n.4 (7th Cir. 2000); Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280, 284 (7th Cir. 1994).
2. The Court's conclusion that this case is not a "mass action" also is supported by a number of traditional rules governing the exercise of federal subject matter jurisdiction on removal: first, that only a voluntary act of a plaintiff (rather than an involuntary consolidation) can make a case removable, see Poulos v. Naas Foods, Inc., 959 F.2d 69, 71-72 (7th Cir. 1992); Vogel v. Merck & Co., 476 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1002-03 (S.D. Ill. 2007); second, that a federal court cannot acquire subject matter jurisdiction through consolidation of cases or consolidate cases as to which it lacks such jurisdiction, see Cella v. Togum Constructeur Ensembleier en Industrie Alimentaire, 173 F.3d 909, 912-13 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 496-97 (1933)); United States for Use of Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Brandt Constr. Co., 826 F.2d 643, 647 (7th Cir. 1987); and third, that, as already has been discussed, the right of removal is construed narrowly. The CAFA is presumed to have been enacted in light of these settled principles and must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with them. See Kitson v. Bank of Edwardsville, Civil No. 06-528-GPM, 2006 WL 3392752, at **13-14 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2006); Buller Trucking Co. v. Owner Operator Indep. Driver Risk Retention Group, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 2d 768, 775-76 (S.D. Ill. 2006).
3. It appears that, of the four Defendants in this case that are, as already has been noted, affiliated corporations (Pharmacia, Solutia, Monsanto, and Pfizer), only Pharmacia actually was involved in the toxic waste dumping activities alleged in the complaint; the liability of Solutia, Monsanto, and Pfizer presumably is based on principles of successor liability or some other theory warranting disregard of separate corporate entities for purposes of imposing liability on Pharmacia's affiliated corporations. For the sake of simplicity, in this Order the Court has tried wherever possible to treat Pharmacia, Solutia, Monsanto, and Pfizer as if all four companies were involved in the misconduct alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint, consistent with Plaintiffs' theory that the affiliated corporations are jointly and severally liable for harm caused by that misconduct.
4. As should be clear from the foregoing discussion, the question of whether federal officer jurisdiction is proper in this case hinges ultimately on occurrences at the plants operated adjacent to the W.G. Krummrich Plant during the Second World War. The record in this case is devoid of evidence concerning the production of Agent Orange at the W.G. Krummrich Plant in the 1960s and in any event, as already has been noted, Plaintiffs do not assert claims for damages based on harm caused by Agent Orange. As to the production of PCBs at the W.G. Krummrich Plant from the 1930s until the 1970s, the record is similarly devoid of evidence tending to show a causal nexus. The notice of removal in this case avers that PCBs were manufactured at the site in the 1970s consistent with a federal policy favoring use of PCBs in capacitors and transformers. However, even assuming this is true, this hardly amounts to proof that federal officers compelled the removing Defendants to take certain actions, much less that federal officers hindered the removing Defendants in safely disposing of chemical waste generated by production of PCBs. Cf. Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 901 F. Supp. 1195, 1199 (E.D. Tex. 1995) (personal-injury claims against manufacturers of Agent Orange were properly removed in federal officer jurisdiction because the manufacturers produced Agent Orange according to specifications prepared by the government and faced criminal penalties if they failed to deliver the product to the Defense Department as ordered).
This copy provided by Leagle, Inc.
x
GEORGIA VANETTA MOBLEY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CERRO FLOW PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Illinois, et al., Defendants.
Civil No. 09-697-GPM.
United States District Court, S.D. Illinois.
January 5, 2010.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. PATRICK MURPHY, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This case is before the Court on the motion for remand of the case to state court brought by Plaintiffs Georgia Vanetta Mobley, Mallie Yvonne Payne, Ceolia Terry Julien, Linda Goodwill, Pamela Jean Nesbitt, Nina Alexis Clark, Jeanette Smith-Jackson, Lela Mae Humphrey, Mary Etta Henry, Felicia Lynndell Murdock, Gladys Maurine Porter, Carolyn Jean Hughes, Lorraine Franzella McKinney, Hattie Johnson, Vivian A. Hannah, Kimberly Renee Gaines, Donna Ann Mendez, Sheila Stevenson, Christa Michelle Pierce, Flossie G. Williams, Tamiko Dawnyel Smith, Mildred Wells, Donna Marie Johnson, Gail Yvonne Wren, Gwendolyn Ray, Dorothy Elizabeth Weir, Deborah Kaye Reeves, Cynthia Marie Edwards, Alice Mae Moore, Brenda Fay Snelling, Ruby N. Fleming, and Ora Mae Johnson (Doc. 25). According to the allegations of the operative complaint in this case, Plaintiffs are persons who reside or have resided in St. Clair County, Illinois, and who seek damages for personal injuries and/or property damage due to allegedly improper disposal of toxic chemicals at three locations in and around Sauget, Illinois, that are styled "Release Sites" in Plaintiffs' complaint: (1) the Sauget Landfill, an approximately 90-acre site in Sauget; (2) the W.G. Krummrich Plant, an approximately 314-acre site located at 500 Monsanto Avenue in Sauget where at the times relevant to this case a group of affiliated companies comprised of Defendants Pharmacia Corporation ("Pharmacia"), Solutia, Inc. ("Solutia"), Monsanto AG Products, LLC ("Monsanto"), and Pfizer, Inc. ("Pfizer"), manufactured chemicals and chemical products, in some instances pursuant to contracts with the federal government; and (3) a site at 3000 Mississippi in Sauget owned by Defendant Cerro Flow Products, Inc. This case was filed originally in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, on July 29, 2009. The operative complaint in the case asserts claims for personal injuries based on theories of negligence, strict liability, nuisance, and battery together with claims for property damage based on theories of negligence, nuisance, and trespass. On August 15, 2009, Solutia and Monsanto removed the case to this Court
According to the notice of removal in this case, polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs") were produced at the W.G. Krummrich Plant between 1935 and 1977; the removing Defendants, Solutia and Monsanto, assert also that the herbicide Agent Orange was manufactured at the W.G. Krummrich Plant between approximately 1965 and 1969, although Plaintiffs' complaint waives claims based on Agent Orange. See Doc. 2-1 at 2 ¶ 1. As to the Sauget Landfill, Solutia and Monsanto claim that between 1940 and 1945 that site was used to dispose of toxic waste from three plants operated by Pharmacia on land immediately adjacent to the W.G. Krummrich Plant where chemicals were produced pursuant to contracts with the Chemical Warfare Service ("CWS"), an agency of the United States War Department (the predecessor of the United States Department of Defense). Solutia and Monsanto assert also that waste from the plants operated by Pharmacia pursuant to contracts with the CWS was disposed of into Dead Creek, which is part of the area identified by Plaintiffs as being contaminated by improper disposal of toxic waste at the three Release Sites named in Plaintiffs' complaint. The removing Defendants assert that, insofar as they are sought to be held liable for contamination resulting from improper disposal of toxic waste at the Sauget Landfill, the W.G. Krummrich Plant, and Dead Creek, their actions were undertaken at the direction of the government and thus this case is properly within the Court's jurisdiction over suits against persons acting under the direction of a federal officer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442. Alternatively, Solutia and Monsanto allege federal subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as amended by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (codified in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.). On October 5, 2009, Plaintiffs moved for remand of this case to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.[ 1 ] Plaintiffs' motion for remand has been fully briefed and the Court now rules as follows.
II. ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, the Court notes the well settled standard under which it must evaluate the instant motion for remand. A defendant seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536, 540 (7th Cir. 2006); Lyerla v. Amco Ins. Co., 461 F. Supp. 2d 834, 835 (S.D. Ill. 2006). Federal removal jurisdiction is statutory in nature and is to be strictly construed. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941); Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir. 1993); Fuller v. BNSF Ry. Co., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1091 (S.D. Ill. 2007). Removal is proper if it is based on permissible statutory grounds and if it is timely. See Boyd v. Phoenix Funding Corp., 366 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2004); Gragg v. Alfa Laval, Inc., Civil No. 09-773-GPM, 2009 WL 4110389, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2009). Finally, "[d]oubts concerning removal must be resolved in favor of remand to the state court." Ellis v. Hansen & Adkins Auto Transp., Civil No. 09-677-GPM, 2009 WL 4673933, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2009). See also Stephens v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., Civil No. 09-633-GPM, 2009 WL 3517560, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 22, 2009) ("Any doubts about the propriety of removal must be resolved against removal and in favor of remand to state court.").
A. Federal Diversity Jurisdiction under the CAFA
As already has been noted, one of the asserted basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction in this case is diversity jurisdiction under the CAFA. Among the actions covered by the CAFA is a "mass action," defined by the statute as "any civil action . . . in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims involve common questions of law or fact," and in which there is minimal diversity of citizenship (at least one plaintiff is not a citizen of the same state as at least one defendant) and the plaintiffs each seek a recovery exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i). See also Bullard v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 535 F.3d 759, 761-62 (7th Cir. 2008); Gilmore v. Bayer Corp., Civil No. 09-986-GPM, 2009 WL 4789406, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 2009). The CAFA further authorizes removal of "mass actions" from state court to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b); Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1195 (11th Cir. 2007); Aburto v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1473-K, 2009 WL 2252518, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2009). According to Solutia and Monsanto, the removing Defendants in this case, this action is identical to four other actions pending in this Court, namely, Custer v. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Civil No. 09-514-DRH (S.D. Ill. filed July 9, 2009), Clayton v. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Civil No. 09-550-GPM (S.D. Ill. filed July 23, 2009), Williams v. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Civil No. 09-551-JPG (S.D. Ill. filed July 23, 2009), and Brown v. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Civil No. 09-582-GPM (S.D. Ill. filed July 30, 2009). Solutia and Monsanto argue that, if the thirty-two Plaintiffs in this case are aggregated with the twenty-one plaintiffs in Custer, the nineteen plaintiffs in Clayton, the five plaintiffs in Williams, and the thirty plaintiffs in Brown, this case may be deemed to contain 107 Plaintiffs, slightly in excess of the minimum number of plaintiffs required for the exercise of jurisdiction under the CAFA. The Court finds this argument to be frivolous, as it is clearly precluded by the statutory language of the CAFA.
First, the CAFA expressly excludes from the statutory definition of a "mass action" any civil case in which "all of the claims in the action arise from an event or occurrence in the State in which the action was filed, and that allegedly resulted in injuries in that State or in States contiguous to that State[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(I). Here it is undisputed that Plaintiffs in this case are suing in Illinois on claims that arose in Illinois. Second, the CAFA also excludes from the statutory definition of a "mass action" any case in which" the claims are joined upon motion of a defendant[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(II). Here the only way that the claims this case could be joined with the claims in Custer, Clayton, Brown, and Mobley would be on a motion for consolidation by Defendants, given that Plaintiffs' complaint in this case expressly disclaim any desire for consolidation of the claims in this case with related claims. See Doc. 2-1 at 3 ¶ 12. It is the case, of course, that in some instances a court can order consolidation sua sponte. See Disher v. Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1013-14 (S.D. Ill. 2007). However, the Court sees no likelihood of sua sponte consolidation here and, even if such consolidation were to occur, it likely would be solely for pretrial purposes, which would not bring the consolidated claims within the scope of the CAFA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(IV) (excluding from the CAFA's statutory definition of a "mass action" civil actions in which "the claims have been consolidated or coordinated solely for pretrial proceedings"). In sum, the removing Defendants' argument for CAFA jurisdiction in this case is expressly foreclosed by the language of the statute. See Tanoh v. Dow Chem. Co., 561 F.3d 945, 952-56 (9th Cir. 2009) (claims of plaintiffs in separate cases cannot be aggregated to form a "mass action" under the CAFA). The Court concludes that diversity jurisdiction under the CAFA does not exist in this case.[ 2 ]
B. Federal Officer Jurisdiction
Having disposed of the removing Defendants' argument for federal subject matter jurisdiction under the CAFA, the Court turns to the issue of whether federal subject matter jurisdiction exists in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442. That statute provides, in relevant part, for the removal of "[a] civil action . . . commenced in a State court against . . . [t]he United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, sued in an official or individual capacity for any act under color of such office[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). To effect removal as persons acting under a federal officer, Solutia and Monsanto, the removing Defendants, must prove three elements: (1) they are "persons" within the meaning of the statute; (2) they acted under the direction of a federal officer, meaning that there is a nexus or causal connection between Plaintiffs' claims and the acts the removing Defendants performed under the direction of a federal officer; and (3) the removing Defendants have a colorable federal defense to state-law liability. See Jefferson County, Ala. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 431 (1999); Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 129 (1989); Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 242 (1981); Kelly v. Martin & Bayley, Inc., 503 F.3d 584, 586-87 (7th Cir. 2007); Alsup v. 3-Day Blinds, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 838, 844-45 (S.D. Ill. 2006).[ 3 ] The basic purpose of Section 1442(a)(1) is to ensure a federal forum for defenses of official immunity by federal officers. See Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 407 (1969); Wisconsin v. Schaffer, 565 F.2d 961, 964 (7th Cir. 1977). Because federal officer removal is rooted in "an anachronistic mistrust of state courts' ability to protect and enforce federal interests and immunities from suit," although such jurisdiction is read "expansively" in suits involving federal officials, it is read narrowly where, as in this instance, only the liability of a private company purportedly acting at the direction of a federal officer is at issue. Freiberg v. Swinerton & Walberg Prop. Servs., Inc., 245 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1150, 1152 n.6 (D. Colo. 2002) (emphasis omitted).
For purposes of the "acting under" requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), this element, as noted, entails a showing of a causal nexus between acts taken by the removing Defendants at the direction of a federal officer and the injury of which Plaintiffs complain. Under the "regulation plus" standard for acting under a federal officer embraced by this Circuit, a causal nexus is established by showing that complained-of conduct was undertaken at the express direction of a federal officer. For example, in Venezia v. Robinson, 16 F.3d 209 (7th Cir. 1994), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the removal under Section 1442(a)(1) of a suit for extortion brought by an operator of video poker machines against an agent of the Illinois Liquor Control Commission who solicited a bribe from him, where the defendant claimed that he solicited the bribe at the direction of agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was conducting a sting operation against the plaintiff. See id. at 210-12. As the Supreme Court of the United States has instructed, to show the propriety of removal under Section 1442(a)(1), "[t]here must be a causal connection between what the officer has done under asserted official authority and the state prosecution." Mesa, 489 U.S. at 131 (quoting Maryland v. Soper, 270 U.S. 9, 33 (1926)). "It must appear that the prosecution of him, for whatever offense, has arisen out of the acts done by him under color of federal authority and in enforcement of federal law, and he must by direct averment exclude the possibility that it was based on acts or conduct of his not justified by his federal duty." Id. at 131-32 (emphasis added). See also Freiberg, 245 F. Supp. 2d at 1155 ("What [removing defendants] must establish for purpose of [Section] 1442(a)(1) is that the government authority under which they worked required them to act as they did," that is, "they must establish the [government's] direction and control of their activities directly interfered with their ability to fulfill their state law obligation[.]").
In this instance what is chiefly in dispute between the parties is whether the removing Defendants have met their burden to show a causal nexus between Plaintiffs' claims and acts the removing Defendants allegedly took at the direction of a federal officer; in other words, whether the removing Defendants can "show that . . . the federal officer really did `make them do it[.]'" Weese v. Union Carbide Corp., Civil No. 07-581-GPM, 2007 WL 2908014, at *7 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2007) (quoting Faulk v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 48 F. Supp. 2d 653, 664 (E.D. Tex. 1999)). It appears from the record of this case that this issue hinges entirely on toxic waste dumping activities of the removing Defendants in connection with the plants operated by their corporate affiliate Pharmacia during the Second World War pursuant to contracts with the CWS. Thus, before reaching the issue of whether the removing Defendants have shown a causal nexus for purposes of the second prong of the test of federal officer jurisdiction, the Court must address a dispute between the parties about the pertinence of evidence concerning toxic pollution allegedly caused by the plants operated by Pharmacia pursuant to contracts with the CWS. Plaintiffs point out that the site of those plants is not identified as a "Release Site" in their complaint. This is true, but as the removing Defendants point out, there is evidence that toxic wastes from the plants that Pharmacia operated pursuant to contracts with the CWS was dumped in the Sauget Landfill, which is one of the Release Sites identified in Plaintiffs' complaint, and in Dead Creek, which is part of the area identified in Plaintiffs' complaint as having been contaminated by Pharmacia, Solutia, Monsanto, and Pfizer. Accordingly, the Court concludes that evidence concerning the plants operated by Pharmacia pursuant to contracts with the CWS is relevant to the issue of whether federal officer jurisdiction exists in this case, and the Court will consider such evidence in evaluating Plaintiffs' motion for remand of this case to state court.
The Court turns then to the issue of whether the removing Defendants have shown that they acted under a federal officer. The removing Defendants point out, of course, that the plants Pharmacia operated pursuant to contracts with the CWS were engaged in the production of chemicals for use by the War Department and that military personnel were assigned to the plants, including officers in oversight positions. Concerning the specific manner in which toxic waste from the plants was disposed of, the removing Defendants offer deposition testimony taken in a separate case by Charles McDonnell, who worked at one of the CWS plants for approximately eighteen months beginning in the latter part of 1943. According to McDonnell, a colonel assigned to the plant where he worked was in charge of the "whole shebang." Doc. 2-5 at 12. McDonnell testified also that while he was working at the plant, toxic chemicals were disposed of by washing them down the sewer or dumping them into the Sauget Landfill. According to McDonnell, waste from the plants, including trash, floor sweepings, oil and solvent-soaked rags, process residues, and drums containing liquid wastes were hauled by Pharmacia to the Sauget Landfill for disposal. See id. at 14-20, 23, 36, 39-45, 59-63, 80-83, 85-87, 90-91. In addition to McDonnell's testimony, the removing Defendants point to the deposition testimony, also taken in a separate case, of Ernest Mares, an industrial chemist who was in charge of the manufacturing operations at a plant operated by Pharmacia pursuant to a contract with the CWS for approximately three and a half years and who testified that the military was responsible for "oversight" at the plant. Doc. 2-4 at 28. Finally, the removing Defendants rely on a letter dated August 24, 1944, in which a brigadier general in charge of the technical division of the CWS expressed the view that waste chemicals at one of the plants operated by Pharmacia for the CWS should be "sewered." Doc. 2-3 at 8. This evidence, the removing Defendants contend, establishes that the acts challenged in this lawsuit were taken at the direction of federal officers.
Plaintiffs for their part point out that the plants operated by the removing Defendants' affiliate Pharmacia for the CWS during the Second World War were designed and built by Pharmacia. Concerning McDonnell's testimony, Plaintiffs point out that McDonnell concedes that he has no personal knowledge of the contractual arrangement between CWS and Pharmacia or of the scope of governmental oversight as to the activities of Pharmacia. See, e.g., Doc. 2-5 at 11-12. They point out also that, according to McDonnell, the governmental presence on site at the CWS plants was not especially pronounced: McDonnell testifies that government officers would "come in, stay a few hours" and then go elsewhere to "goof off." Id. at 11. Finally, as to disposal of toxic waste at the plants, McDonnell was clear that "Monsanto did the dumping." Id. at 63. Concerning Mares's testimony, Mares acknowledged that while the military had the power of ultimate control over the plant where he worked during the Second World War, Pharmacia controlled "the actual, basic operation of the plant" and that the military's oversight role was confined chiefly to signing off on the manner in which the removing Defendants ran production at the plant, that is, "We designed it, and they [the military] approved it." Doc. 2-4 at 28, 118. Finally, concerning the letter urging waste chemicals to be "sewered," Plaintiffs point out that this was only a "recommend[ation]" by the military, not a command. Doc. 2-3 at 8. Plaintiffs point out also that the military gave Pharmacia and its agents the freedom to manage production at the CWS plants "in whatever manner they saw fit." Id. at 15. Finally, Plaintiffs point out that the removing Defendants have adduced no evidence, in the form of exemplar contracts or regulations, for example, showing that the military regulated disposal of toxic waste at the plants operated by Pharmacia pursuant to contracts with the CWS in a manner that prevented Pharmacia and/or affiliated corporations from complying with their duties under state law. The Court believes that Plaintiffs have the better of the argument here. On the state of the record, the evidence in this case shows merely that the acts complained of in this lawsuit occurred under the general auspices of federal authorities, not that federal authorities specifically directed those acts as is required to establish a causal nexus for purposes of federal officer jurisdiction.
A review of authority from sister federal trial courts bolsters the conclusion that federal officer jurisdiction does not exist in this case. For example, in Bahrs v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 795 F. Supp. 965 (D. Ariz. 1992), a plaintiff class brought suit alleging injuries caused by the defendants' alleged dumping of toxic substances and contamination of the plaintiffs' water supply. See id. at 967. One of the defendants, General Dynamics Corporation, was a military contractor that sought removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The court noted that, "[t]o prevail, General Dynamics must prove the existence of a nexus between actions for which it is being sued and the activities of the federal official . . . . The critical analysis is `to what extent defendants acted under federal direction' at the time they were engaged in conduct now being sued upon.'" 795 F. Supp. at 969 (quoting Gurda Farms, Inc. v. Monroe County Legal Assistance Corp., 358 F. Supp. 841, 844 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)). The court noted further that "[m]ost courts which have addressed this issue require `direct and detailed control' by the federal official over the defendant." Id. (quoting Ryan v. Dow Chem. Co., 781 F. Supp. 934, 950 (E.D.N.Y. 1992)). The court concluded that while the removing defendant had shown that it had a contractual relationship with the government, it had "made no showing as to the manner in which the contract was carried out." Id. at 970. The court explained that the defendant's government contract provided an insufficient basis for federal officer removal. "While the government officials were undoubtedly most interested in the production of war materials, the record before this Court does not demonstrate the government's necessary control over the method of waste disposal. The mere fact that the government possessed the power to exercise control over the project does not establish that the power was in fact ever exercised." Id. Thus, the court found that the case was not within federal officer jurisdiction.
In Arness v. Boeing North American, Inc., 997 F. Supp. 1268 (C.D. Cal. 1998), the plaintiffs brought suit against the defendants based on the defendants' "alleged release of [toxic chemicals] from their activities at [certain facilities] which allegedly resulted in the contamination of the surrounding area's groundwater, soil and subsurface soil." Id. at 1270. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' conduct exposed them to the toxic chemicals and they sought damages for injuries caused by that exposure. See id. The defendants asserted that they conducted activities at those facilities under government contracts and at "the direction of federal officers pursuant to detailed and comprehensive procedures dictated by these officers." Id. Specifically, the defendants asserted that the government's production requirements mandated the flushing of rocket engines with the toxic chemicals that allegedly contaminated the surrounding environment. See id. at 1273. The district court observed, however, that the defendants' "use of [toxic chemicals] did not cause Plaintiffs' injuries. Rather, Plaintiffs' injuries were allegedly caused by [the defendants'] negligent disposal and storage of [the chemicals], which activities were not performed at the government's behest." Id. at 1274-75. Moreover, the government's failure to specify storage and disposal practices for the toxic chemicals despite mandating their use was insufficient to establish a causal nexus. See id. at 1275. The court concluded that "because the government did not specify safeguards that [the defendants] must use, or restrict [the defendants'] ability to implement safeguards, [the defendants were] not acting under federal direction when [they] allegedly released the [toxic chemicals]. Rather, the acts relevant to Plaintiffs' suit occurred only `under the general auspices of' a federal officer." Id. (quoting Fung v. Abex Corp., 816 F. Supp. 569, 572 (N.D. Cal. 1992)). Accordingly, the court remanded the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
Finally, in New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 381 F. Supp. 2d 398 (D.N.J. 2005), the district court considered its jurisdiction over claims based on the defendant's waste disposal practices. The plaintiff had brought a state-law action for cleanup and removal costs, and also for damages allegedly caused by discharges at the defendant's property. See id. at 401. The defendant removed the action on the basis of federal officer jurisdiction, arguing that "certain of its production activities during World War II were at the behest of and under the control of the federal government, and these activities resulted in the disposal of products included in the conduct alleged against it[.]" Id. The district court found that federal officer removal was inappropriate. Even if the defendant produced, stored, and transferred certain products under government control, the defendant had not shown that the government ordered the improper disposal of hazardous wastes. See id. at 405. Thus, there was no causal nexus between the actions conducted under government control, that is, the production, storage, and transfer of the products, and the conduct charged by the plaintiff, that is, the "improper disposal of toxic substances into the waters of the [s]tate[.]" Id. at 404. The court concluded that, "as Defendant has not offered any evidence supporting its claim that the federal government exercised control over the disposal of hazardous substances, . . . Defendant has not met its burden to demonstrate the requisite causal nexus to invoke the protections of the federal officer removal statute." Id. at 405. As in Bahrs, Arness, and Exxon, the record in this case does not show that federal officers dictated the manner in which the removing Defendants' affiliate Pharmacia disposed of chemical wastes or compelled Pharmacia to dispose of those wastes improperly. Instead, the record shows only that Pharmacia acted under the general auspices of a federal officer. Absent proof of a causal nexus between the acts complained of by Plaintiffs and the orders of a federal officer, the removal of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) is improper and the case is due to be remanded to state court.[ 4 ]
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs' motion to strike exhibits C, D, and E to the notice of removal in this case (Doc. 24) is DENIED. Plaintiffs' motion for remand of this case to state court (Doc. 25) is GRANTED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1. Plaintiffs also have brought a motion requesting that certain documents attached to the notice of removal in this case be excluded from the record of the case (Doc. 24). The Court denies this request, as the challenged documents are public court documents that the Court can judicially notice. See 4901 Corp. v. Town of Cicero, 220 F.3d 522, 527 n.4 (7th Cir. 2000); Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280, 284 (7th Cir. 1994).
2. The Court's conclusion that this case is not a "mass action" also is supported by a number of traditional rules governing the exercise of federal subject matter jurisdiction on removal: first, that only a voluntary act of a plaintiff (rather than an involuntary consolidation) can make a case removable, see Poulos v. Naas Foods, Inc., 959 F.2d 69, 71-72 (7th Cir. 1992); Vogel v. Merck & Co., 476 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1002-03 (S.D. Ill. 2007); second, that a federal court cannot acquire subject matter jurisdiction through consolidation of cases or consolidate cases as to which it lacks such jurisdiction, see Cella v. Togum Constructeur Ensembleier en Industrie Alimentaire, 173 F.3d 909, 912-13 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 496-97 (1933)); United States for Use of Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Brandt Constr. Co., 826 F.2d 643, 647 (7th Cir. 1987); and third, that, as already has been discussed, the right of removal is construed narrowly. The CAFA is presumed to have been enacted in light of these settled principles and must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with them. See Kitson v. Bank of Edwardsville, Civil No. 06-528-GPM, 2006 WL 3392752, at **13-14 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2006); Buller Trucking Co. v. Owner Operator Indep. Driver Risk Retention Group, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 2d 768, 775-76 (S.D. Ill. 2006).
3. It appears that, of the four Defendants in this case that are, as already has been noted, affiliated corporations (Pharmacia, Solutia, Monsanto, and Pfizer), only Pharmacia actually was involved in the toxic waste dumping activities alleged in the complaint; the liability of Solutia, Monsanto, and Pfizer presumably is based on principles of successor liability or some other theory warranting disregard of separate corporate entities for purposes of imposing liability on Pharmacia's affiliated corporations. For the sake of simplicity, in this Order the Court has tried wherever possible to treat Pharmacia, Solutia, Monsanto, and Pfizer as if all four companies were involved in the misconduct alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint, consistent with Plaintiffs' theory that the affiliated corporations are jointly and severally liable for harm caused by that misconduct.
4. As should be clear from the foregoing discussion, the question of whether federal officer jurisdiction is proper in this case hinges ultimately on occurrences at the plants operated adjacent to the W.G. Krummrich Plant during the Second World War. The record in this case is devoid of evidence concerning the production of Agent Orange at the W.G. Krummrich Plant in the 1960s and in any event, as already has been noted, Plaintiffs do not assert claims for damages based on harm caused by Agent Orange. As to the production of PCBs at the W.G. Krummrich Plant from the 1930s until the 1970s, the record is similarly devoid of evidence tending to show a causal nexus. The notice of removal in this case avers that PCBs were manufactured at the site in the 1970s consistent with a federal policy favoring use of PCBs in capacitors and transformers. However, even assuming this is true, this hardly amounts to proof that federal officers compelled the removing Defendants to take certain actions, much less that federal officers hindered the removing Defendants in safely disposing of chemical waste generated by production of PCBs. Cf. Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 901 F. Supp. 1195, 1199 (E.D. Tex. 1995) (personal-injury claims against manufacturers of Agent Orange were properly removed in federal officer jurisdiction because the manufacturers produced Agent Orange according to specifications prepared by the government and faced criminal penalties if they failed to deliver the product to the Defense Department as ordered).
This copy provided by Leagle, Inc.
x
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)