OF THE
TIMES


The Monsanto corporation knew that prolonged exposure to PCBs could produce 'systemic toxic effects' back in 1937! And even after the EPA ban back in the 1970's the toxicity persists. Several cities across the US have filed similar lawsuits, Seattle, Portland, San Diego, Oaklandand Berkeley. As the company clearly stated above 'we will defend ourselves aggressively' and always play dirty!
- Monsanto's dirty dealings - chemical reform bill could grant the evil empire legal immunity for PCB pollution - As noted by The Environmental Working Group: "Slipped at the last minute into the House version, H.R. 2576, of a bill to update the broken Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 is a provision that could shield the company from liability for decades of pollution with a family of chemicals made only by Monsanto: polychlorinated biphenyls, better known as PCBs. While the insertion was so subtle many lawmakers probably did not even notice it, the implications of the Monsanto bailout clause are huge. The implications of the provision - added at the last minute - are significant enough that perhaps it should be called the "Monsanto bailout clause."
- 'Poison Papers': Monsanto knew of grave health risks from toxic PCB chemicals it sold for years before ban - As far back as 1969, an internal policy document admitted "damage to the ecological system by contamination from PCBs," and stated that "evidence proving the persistence of these compounds and their universal presence in the environment is beyond questioning." The non-biodegradable nature of PCBs, which are still found both in water and in soil worldwide, has since turned out to be one of its most serious legacies. "Direct lawsuits are possible... because customers using the products have not been officially notified about known effects nor do our labels carry this information," read the assessment. At the end of the document, the author provides Monsanto with three solutions: Do Nothing ("poor customer relations" and "potential loss of business"), Discontinue Manufacture ("not that simple") and presumably the option the company chose: Respond responsibly by phasing out the product ("maximizing the corporate image by publicizing this fact"). "At the end of the day, Monsanto went for the profits instead of for public health and environmental safety," said Sherman.



Comment: The US has to resort to legislation to cripple RT and Sputnik because they have no real substantiation of faulty reporting or interference. The truth of the lie has to be progressively supported by punishment and degradation, no matter how unwarranted or unfair.