President Macron: The Antidote to Trump’s Climate Change Ignorance

“I do know how your president now has decided to jeopardize your budget, your initiatives, as he is extremely skeptical about climate change.”

These are the words that the newly elected president of France, Emmanuel Macron, used to empathize with American entrepreneurs and scientists as he welcomes them to France to continue their work on climate change, renewable energy, and other technologies that could help our planet.

He ends the video by saying, “France is your nation.” It is hard to not to trust the man and his desire to implement solutions to global warming, but before we jump to conclusions let’s develop a better understanding of what Macron is all about.

After a tumultuous election process filled with protests against both candidates, Macron will be taking over as the youngest president in French history, but don’t let the numbers fool you. Although he garnered 66.1% of the vote, the French people may have simply been voting for the lesser of two evils, an election process that sounds a lot like what Americans experienced during the United States presidential election of 2016.

However, unlike President Trump, Macron is attempting to unite the left, right, and center by recruiting people to government based on “their experience, their competence, what they have done and not for what they represent or their political weight.” Even former president of the United States of America, Barack Obama, endorses Macron for his liberal values and how he appeals to people’s hopes rather than their fears.

Based on what Macron said in his video to American scientists and entrepreneurs, it is hard not to agree with Obama’s point of view. Macron is not only providing solutions for France, he is also addressing the concerns of many Americans.

Macron may be the spark of positive change that France, the European Union, and the United States need.  However, it is important to remember that words are just words. Until these words become actions, we can only hope that Macron is the antidote to Trump’s climate change ignorance and a saving grace for climate change scientists and entrepreneurs.

Sources:


USDA Drops Glyphosate Testing Plans, Makes Monsanto’s Life Easier

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is no longer planning to test samples of corn syrup for glyphosate residue. Plans to test for the herbicide were coordinated between the USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency and scheduled to begin in April of this year.

The cancellation of this program is good news for Monsanto. The company is currently embroiled in litigation, with plaintiffs in the case alleging that Roundup caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The extent of the EPA’s involvement in the lawsuit is not known, although the federal judge presiding over the case has indicated he is likely to subpoena the chair of the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee. Regardless of the lawsuit, the decision by the USDA to drop scheduled glyphosate testing is disheartening and further erodes their food integrity credibility.

Agencies in Disarray

The USDA’s failure to properly test for glyphosate residue is baffling. The agency’s reasons for not testing for the world’s most used pesticide center around that process being too expensive and inefficient. If that argument sounds familiar, that’s because it echoes Monsanto’s own thoughts on glyphosate tests. The Food and Drug Administration doesn’t necessarily agree. Last year they set in motion a testing program that found glyphosate in every sample of honey tested. Launched in February, it was indefinitely suspended by November.

When Demand Isn’t Enough

Europe and Canada have glyphosate testing programs in place, with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency planning to release their findings in the near future. This is the most used herbicide in the world, with over 250 million pounds of it used in the U.S. every year. Any layperson looking for it has only to walk into the nearest supermarket, restaurant, or convenience store. But we don’t know for sure, although we definitely want to.

The entire motivation behind the FDA’s short-lived was public demand. The American public and the U.S Government Accountability Office both have issues with the current ill-advised and unsustainable system. For a brief, shining period the USDA got it. The taxpayer need and demand for testing didn’t change. So what did?

Related Reading:
Sources:


Monsanto Might Be in Big Trouble

Monsanto is currently embroiled in a lawsuit from farmers claiming that glyphosate caused their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, contradicting the EPA’s finding that the chemical is “…not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” On Tuesday, documents from the case were unsealed, including an internal email exchange at Monsanto that implies they wrote portions of EPA studies on the herbicide. According to one email, “…we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak…” Another email specifically mentions portions of studies that would be ghostwritten by Monsanto employees, as opposed to regulatory agencies.

Suspect Everyone

Federal judge Vince Chhabria, who is based in Northern California and is overseeing the litigation against the company, has indicated that, “My reaction is when you consider the relevance of the EPA’s reports, and you consider their relevance to this litigation, it seems appropriate to take Jess Rowland’s deposition…” Previous documents released in the case included a letter from a long-time EPA employee, alleging that Rowland and other colleagues played “political, conniving games with the science to favor the registrants.” Other emails directly from Rowland indicated that he would quash another assessment of glyphosate from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, among other things. Rowland’s testimony will be key for the plaintiff, as his time as the chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee coincides with the release of the EPA memo that disputes the World Health Organization’s classification of glyphosate as probably carcinogenic. A subpoena will likely be necessary to interview Rowland, as he has declined a previous, voluntary request.

The EPA is also concerned about their standing in this lawsuit. Raven M. Norris, the attorney representing them this case,  stated, “The agency has legitimate concerns about being pulled into private litigation…They want to be able to maintain their impartiality.” If the already released documents are any indication, impartiality is already off the table. They are left fighting for plausible deniability.

Monsanto has maintained its defense of glyphosate, and Bill Heydens, one of the alleged ghostwriters, has given sworn testimony about his original emails, claiming, “It was things like editing relatively minor things, editing for formatting, just for clarity, really just for overall readability to make it easier for people to read in a more organized fashion…”. Rowland will hopefully provide the other side of that conversation, but it is likely his testimony will protect the company.

A Vulnerable Position for the Agricultural Giant

Complaints and studies against Monsanto and glyphosate have been piling up for quite some time now. While the WHO has reclassified the chemical after extensive research, the U.S. regulators have lagged behind with a different script. The EPA may be able to claim that they were unaware of this manipulation, though plaintiff attorneys have suggested that the EPA “may be unaware of Monsanto’s deceptive authorship practices.” But there really isn’t a good position here. If Rowland implicates Monsanto and saves the EPA, Monsanto’s $66 million dollar merger with Bayer might be in jeopardy. If Rowland follows the money (history indicates probably) or martyrs himself, the EPA looks incompetent. For the rest of us, we’ll get a better picture of who is pulling the strings when this case is decided.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


Plant-Based Milk Draws “Misleading Label” Claims From Dairy Industry

The answer to an age-old question in advertising used to be simple. Got milk? Yes, America answered. But that is not our new reality. The question remains the same. The answer now? What kind of milk?

Milk is no longer something your local milkman drops off in a crate on your front porch. Milk comes in many different varieties. There are dairy versions like cow, goat, sheep, or buffalo (though the last two milks usually end up as cheeses). If you’re vegan or lactose-intolerant, there are options like almond milk, soy milk, coconut milk, rice milk, hemp milk, oat milk, pea milk…yeast milk? At this point, it’s safe to say milk is a both a universal and incredibly niche item. Cow milk is everywhere, but if you know where to look, the options magically open up.

Why on earth does this box of milk have almonds on it? This is sooooo confusing!

Protecting the People from Reading Labels

More than thirty congressional members have signed a letter to the Food and Drug Administration to ask that the FDA take “appropriate action” in regards to milk labels. While their idea of appropriate action is not specified in the letter, it’s clear that the dairy industry considers plant-based milk products a threat. Unfortunately for the current food establishment, this is not the first or last time customer demand will force them to adapt or die.

Americans are eating less meat. They’re more environmentally conscious. Allergies are also on the rise, and more people are beginning to see the correlation between what they eat and their overall health. Half of Americans consume non-dairy milk, and over one-third of them are open to plant-based eating in general. This is naturally going to open up the food market for healthy competition from alternatives to traditional meat and dairy. The “appropriate reactions” from big food companies so far have been to run to the FDA, claiming a product label like almond milk has the potential to fool customers into thinking they are buying dairy milk. Another example is Hellman’s Mayonnaise claiming consumers needed to be protected from vegan mayonnaise because it isn’t “real” mayonnaise.

Is This the System We Want?

Large corporations often handicap their competition while pretending to play the part of the consumer’s champion. Pay no attention to the fact that the vegan mayo behind the curtain is serving a growing population looking for healthier and more environmentally friendly options while egg costs have never been higher. You, the consumer, have been wronged by their confusing label. The language in the letter to the FDA from dairy state congressmen seems altruistic…until you realize they have claimed the consumer is not capable of reading a label. Why on earth does this box of milk have almonds on it? This is sooooo confusing!

Consumers have more access to information than ever before, and they’ve changed. Questioning the status quo is now the thing to do. Tactics like letters released and lawsuits filed over “misleading labels” are a system that believes people aren’t able to see the bias, and it’s also one of the reasons these industries are floundering right now. Consumers want healthier options and product accountability. Hellmann’s may have figured something out… their new vegan mayo line launched in 2016, 2 years after they tried to shut down Just Mayo.

Further Reading:
Sources:


Trump Demurs When Asked About Vaccine Safety Commission Headed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has released a statement revealing president-elect Donald J. Trump has appointed him to chair a commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity in his new administration. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the son of Robert Kennedy and an outspoken supporter of safe vaccines. While many health professionals have expressed dismay at the involvement of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the creation of this commission would be in line with some of the vaccine and autism concerns Trump expressed during his campaign. The media has been quick to cry anti-vaxxer, but both men are on record as being pro-vaccination, including Trump at a primary debate in 2015. “Autism has become an epidemic,” he said. “… It has gotten totally out of control. I am totally in favor of vaccines. But I want smaller doses over a longer period of time.”

Will unbiased vaccine science finally be available now that the leader of the country is willing to have this kind of discussion in a public forum? There are two factors that could help change these attitudes.

The First Factor

Even if you don’t agree with Robert F. Kennedy Jr, he is still a Kennedy. This comes with name brand recognition, political connections, money, and a legacy of a public service. As a Democrat, he also brings the potential to promote bipartisan agendas. Many movements succeed when they find the right spokesperson. Kennedy could be that person.

The Second Factor

The second factor here is Trump. Taking a position that calls anything about vaccines into question has massive negative repercussions. Most politicians’ reputations don’t recover. (Hi, Jill Stein!). It’s also proven difficult to predict what exactly Trump will do next and which of his many outlandish campaign promises he will uphold. It’s clear he has strong feelings on the subject of vaccinations, but who knows how serious he is about acting on them. According to Hope Hicks, the presidential transition national spokesperson, “The president-elect is exploring the possibility of forming a commission on autism, which affects so many families; however, no decisions have been made at this time…”

What’s Going to Happen?

The appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to a commission studying vaccine safety would be a huge comfort to people and their loved ones who are struggling with the aftermaths of bad vaccine reactions, whether neurological conditions, paralysis, or developmental disorders. It remains unclear, however, if this commission (if it does indeed happen) will be able to make a difference in vaccine safety. The pharmaceutical industry and the science they have provided is firmly entrenched in the government, medical establishment, and mainstream media. Robert F. Kennedy will have a daunting task ahead of him if he is to adjust these views in any way.

Also, see Robert Kennedy Jr. Accepts Trumps Appointment to Chair Vaccine Committee from the previous day.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


Robert Kennedy Jr. Accepts Trumps Appointment to Chair Vaccine Committee

After meeting with president-elect Donald Trump, Robert Kennedy Jr. has agreed to chair a commission on “vaccination safety and scientific integrity.”

Kennedy, an environmental activist, an environmental attorney, an author, and a former U.S. senator, is an outspoken critic of vaccine safety and the government cover-up of the vaccine/autism connection. Trump, who has had personal knowledge of vaccine injured children, is following through with his pledge to move toward a safer vaccine schedule and administration. He claims to be an advocate of vaccination, but he wants to see smaller doses spread out over time. His tweets do not mention toxic contents.

Kennedy also says he is pro-vaccine. His goal is vaccine safety. He wants the American people to be assured that vaccines are as safe as possible. He was very outspoken about thimerasol in vaccines and may well have been instrumental in it being removed from most of our children’s vaccines.

Mainstream media continues to denounce the vaccine/autism connection as they make this announcement. There is, of course, no mention that the government has paid out 3 billion dollars for vaccine injuries (including autism) while protecting the pharmaceutical companies from litigation. Nor is there mention of the high infant mortality rate in the U.S. that is statistically linked to the ever growing vaccine schedule.

Hopefully, the commission will illuminate the work of the many doctors and scientists who have voiced concern about vaccine safety and efficacy.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


EU Proposal to Renew Glyphosate License Blocked!

Europe has become a battleground between environmental groups and big biotech companies. A French farmer won a case against Monsanto after suffering neurological problems due to inhaling their weedkiller, Lasso. By now, everyone has seen the study from the World Health Organization’s cancer agency calling glyphosate, the darling of Monsanto’s herbicides, probably carcinogenic. Instances like these and many others have left some European Nations wary of these chemicals, as evidence of their toxicity to humans is on the rise.

The Votes Are…Not In

And now we come to a crossroads. The European license for glyphosate is scheduled to expire on June 30. Previous meetings of nations of the European Union to renew the license for a 15-year span have ended in stalemates, as countries have refused to support that renewal in the face of growing scientific unrest and public opposition. The latest meeting took place Monday, with the executive body of the European Union, the European Commission (which is not affiliated with any specific country), proposing a 12- to 18-month extension for more scientific study. Malta was the only voice speaking against the extension, but the lack of votes from Germany, France, Italy, Greece, Austria, Portugal and Luxembourg kept the extension from being adopted.

The Results Are…Likely To Go One of Two Ways

So what happens now, with the glyphosate license expiring in less than a month? Option one would be an executive decision by the European Commission ignoring the lack of agreement from EU Nations and reauthorizing glyphosate. While possible, this scenario flies in the face of the Commission’s support of the democratic process that led to last year’s law allowing countries to make their own decisions regarding genetically modified crops. The leader of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, has publicly proclaimed his unwillingness to act against the interests of the majority view. The proposal of an extension did receive support from many countries, though, and Monsanto could see losses of potentially up to $5 billion dollars, which could result in some serious corporate pressure on the Commission.

What’s behind door number two? The simple option: leave it be. If a new agreement is not in place by the 30th of June, the license  is expired and all glyphosate products need to be gone from European Union shelves in six months. Is this more likely to happen if there are only eight votes either blocking or missing in keeping glyphosate from the shiny new license it desires? It seems unlikely until you consider some of the countries that abstained: Germany, France, and Italy, aka, three of the most powerful countries in the EU. The more you look at it, the more prudent this option becomes, really. Glyphosate has been labeled as probably cancer-causing. A product with issues (dangerous malfunctions, allergens or food contamination) would be pulled the shelves immediately. Why is glyphosate any different?

The Whole World Should be Watching

Europe has been on the forefront of recent biotech regulations in agriculture, and the decision, in this case, will resonate throughout the world. Supporters of a renewed license have pointed to the fear and confusion this will cause with consumers, which consumers would be well within their rights to feel. A probable cancer-causing chemical that has previously been sprayed with wild abandon is pulled off of shelves until a scientific consensus can be reached. What exactly is there to fear again? The knowledge that safety takes a backseat to profits, perhaps.

Related Reading:
Sources