Bitchute Telegram Feed

Trump’s EPA Allows Bayer/Monsanto to Choose Their Own Regulations on Deadly Herbicides

Earlier this year I reported how President Trump issued an executive order mandating domestic production of glyphosate-based herbicides for use in agriculture and the military. Then, just a few days later, I reported how the current U.S. Farm bill is seeking to give legal immunity to Bayer for harm caused by glyphosate. Now it is being reported that Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has allowed Bayer/Monsanto to choose their own regulations they are willing to abide by for another destructive herbicide, dicamba. It has been well documented that Trump's EPA in his second term is run by former industry insiders and lobbyists from the very industry it is supposed to regulate. Not only are they seeking to give legal protection to Bayer for their dangerous herbicides which have been ruled in the U.S. Courts to cause cancer and other diseases, they have also removed regulations for power plants that pollute the air so that data centers can be built very quickly to fuel the energy needed for more AI development. These actions are being sold to the Conservative MAGA movement as necessary to roll back "climate change" regulations by "the liberals" which they claim are based on bad science, and hamper industry development. But these actions have nothing to do with fighting back against the "climate change agenda", and have everything to do with enriching the pockets of Trump's friends in the industry who do not want to be regulated anymore for purely economic reasons that have nothing to do with the environment or the health of the U.S. population. Americans from both sides of the political spectrum are now opposing things like these data center developments, so don't fall for the partisan political games!

Read More

U.S. Supreme Court Protects Bayer’s Monsanto Weedkiller with Glyphosate that Causes Cancer from Further Lawsuits

The U.S. Supreme Court handed the Trump Administration a huge victory today, by blocking further lawsuits against Bayer's Monsanto company which produces Roundup, the #1 herbicide used in the world with the cancer-causing ingredient glyphosate. The reason I am saying that this a victory for the Trump Administration, and not just Bayer, is because the Trump Administration has been trying to pass legislation that would give Bayer total legal immunity from any harm caused by glyphosate in their products, similar to how pharmaceutical companies have legal immunity from any harm caused by vaccines. Trump also issued an Executive Order earlier this year to produce MORE glyphosate-based herbicides in the U.S. through Bayer.

Read More

US Supreme Court Declines Bayer/Monsanto Bid to Challenge Glyphosate Cancer Rulings

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a bid from Bayer-owned Monsanto that aimed to challenge thousands of lawsuits claiming its weedkiller Roundup causes cancer – a potentially costly ruling, AFP reported Tuesday. The high court did not explain its decision, which left intact a $25 million ruling in favor of a California man who alleged he developed cancer after using the chemical for years. The decision marks a major blow to the German conglomerate’s legal fight against Roundup-related cases, and Bayer has set aside more than $15 billion to deal with a wave of US lawsuits linked to the weedkiller.

Read More

Will Supreme Court Let Bayer-Monsanto Off the Hook for Cancer-Causing Glyphosate Herbicide Roundup?

In June of 2020 it was announced that Bayer-Monsanto had reached the "largest settlement in pharma history" by agreeing to pay $10 Billion to settle about 125,000 lawsuits by people who died or came down with cancer from glyphosate poisoning, the main ingredient in Roundup, the world's most heavily used herbicide (weed killer) that is found in most food today. But there is one lawsuit that Bayer has contested, where plaintiff Edwin Hardeman was awarded $80 million in damages due to having non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a known side effect to too much exposure with glyphosate. The trial court judge reduced his settlement award to $25 million, and Bayer appealed the decision, which was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, and U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar has recommended that the Supreme Court deny Bayer's appeal. The stakes are high, as the Supreme Court's ruling could affect all future lawsuits against Bayer-Monsanto, and possibly even past lawsuits. What will the Supreme Court do, and just what are the Wall Street Billionaires and Bankers who largely control the Supreme Court planning behind the scenes in all of this? To rule in favor of Bayer could save investors $billions, and allow the EPA to continue to authorize the use of the world's most deadly herbicide to continue to be sold and used to poison our food supply. If they allow the decision of the Ninth Circuit to stand, how will that affect what the EPA does next regarding approving Roundup for agricultural use? While many people and groups have been calling on a ban of glyphosate-based herbicides, the fact is that if it is banned outright immediately, a very significant percentage of agriculture will no longer be able to produce food, as certain crops, such as corn, are over 90% genetically modified and could not grow without the herbicide Roundup. It would take many years to transition to something else. Whatever the reasons are behind the scenes for what the Supreme Court does, the stakes are high, and the results could be disastrous no matter which way the High Court rules. The best case scenario would be to allow all these lawsuits from people killed or injured by glyphosate to receive their settlements, and to put pressure on the EPA to start phasing out the use of Roundup giving farmers enough time to make the transition, so as to not bring major disruptions to the already fragile food supplies. But in that scenario the people would win, and Wall Street would lose, and that is just not something I see happening much, if at all, in today's judicial system.

Read More

Mexico’s Decision to Ban GMO Corn and Glyphosate Has Rocked the Agribusiness World

Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador quietly rocked the agribusiness world with his New Year’s Eve decree to phase out use of the herbicide glyphosate and the cultivation of genetically modified corn. His administration sent an even stronger aftershock two weeks later, clarifying that the government would also phase out GM corn imports in three years and the ban would include not just corn for human consumption but yellow corn destined primarily for livestock. The bold policy moves fulfill a campaign promise by Mexico’s populist president, whose agricultural policies have begun to favor Mexican producers, particularly small-scale farmers. The prohibitions on genetically modified corn, which appear toward the end of the decree, have more profound implications. Comments by Brian Shilhavy, Editor, Health Impact News: "This is welcome news from Mexico. For years, my company Healthy Traditions, has tried to work with small-scale farmers in the U.S. to try and grow corn not contaminated with GMO DNA and the glyphosate herbicide. But no matter how hard our farmers tried to grow organic, non-contaminated corn, within one season it always tested positive for GMO DNA, as Big Ag's massive corn operations always contaminated their fields no matter how hard they tried to shield them. We did not sell any corn products for several years, as even organic corn products that were advertised as "GMO Free" tested positive for GMOs when we pulled their products off of the shelves of grocery stores. We finally found a source of Mexican corn in Central Mexico, where a ban on GMO corn existed, and that is the corn we have been purchasing and selling to the public for the past several years now, as it consistently has tested negative for GMOs and glyphosate. It is a true open-pollinated heirloom corn variety, representing the rich culture that exists in Mexico for their love of corn "maiz." These varieties, some thousands of years old, would soon be lost to the modern GMO crops without this protection.

Read More