DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Friday, May 20, 2016
DO YOU REMEMBER 1987?
Do you remember 1987 when the Senators were giving Ollie North such a bad time? This brings it all into perspective, thought you might be interested in this forgotten bit of information.
It was 1987! At alecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt. Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra
hearings during the Reagan Administration.
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator, "did you not recently spend
close to $60,000 for a home security system?"
Ollie replied, "yes Sir, I did".
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience,
"Isn't that just a little excessive?"
"No sir" continued Ollie.
"No, and why not?" the senator asked.
"Because the lives of my family and I werethreatened sir".
"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.
"By a Muslim terrorist sir". Ollieanswer.
"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"
"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir", Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. "Why are you so afraid of this man?", the senator asked.
"Because sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of", Ollie answered, "And the Muslims are trying to take over America and destroy it from the inside out and putting their people into our political offices.
"And what do you recommend we do about him?", asked the senator.
"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip. By the way, that senator was Al Gore! Also: Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986.The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993,Israel had to agree to release so-called, "political prisoners". However,the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands.
The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, insisted that all prisoners bereleased. Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center .
It was 1987! At alecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt. Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra
hearings during the Reagan Administration.
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator, "did you not recently spend
close to $60,000 for a home security system?"
Ollie replied, "yes Sir, I did".
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience,
"Isn't that just a little excessive?"
"No sir" continued Ollie.
"No, and why not?" the senator asked.
"Because the lives of my family and I werethreatened sir".
"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.
"By a Muslim terrorist sir". Ollieanswer.
"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"
"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir", Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. "Why are you so afraid of this man?", the senator asked.
"Because sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of", Ollie answered, "And the Muslims are trying to take over America and destroy it from the inside out and putting their people into our political offices.
"And what do you recommend we do about him?", asked the senator.
"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip. By the way, that senator was Al Gore! Also: Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986.The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993,Israel had to agree to release so-called, "political prisoners". However,the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands.
The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, insisted that all prisoners bereleased. Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center .
I Have To Say, I Am In Awe Over Today's Daily Times Editorial
A Viewer said, Against overwhelming odds, the DT may have penned the most pitiful piece of PC journalism to date. It's hard for me to imagine one person baking this illogical pretzel in his/her mind. To think of 2 or more sane adults reviewing it and not seeing the gaping holes in that pretzel before posting it is stunning.I assure you a financial adviser was not even discussed.
If any CPA tells you to move to a county/state with higher local taxes because it's the charitable thing to do and it offsets your federal liability - run!
A portion of the editorial said:
If any CPA tells you to move to a county/state with higher local taxes because it's the charitable thing to do and it offsets your federal liability - run!
A portion of the editorial said:
"When it's your spouse who is laid off from a state job, your property that was damaged by a storm after disaster relief funding was cut, your niece (or the girl next door) who was raped and is contemplating suicide, your loved one addicted to painkillers, where will you turn"?
Good Lord, how far will the Liberal Media go any more. The Editorial attacks Governor Hogan for reducing taxes in Maryland and implies the reductions are just too good to be true.
This coming from a Newspaper who continues to increase their price, yet is so thin and provides a good 70% less news then it had delivered years ago for twenty five cents.
This attack piece is just the beginning of their campaign to go after Hogan in the hope of convincing local voters to elect another Democrat Governor who will raise taxes and destroy the state, just like O'Malley did.
Perhaps the Daily Times should look at Hogan's popularity rating and they'd come to realize just why so many people are dropping their subscription to that paper. Why they lost their building in Downtown Salisbury, had to sell their Press and outsource daily printing to Wilmington, DE. and if that's not enough, their massive drop in employees should speak volumes as well. Then, out of nowhere, the skeleton crew they managed to keep as employees were then forced to reapply for their jobs at a massive reduction in pay. Yet they support a $15.00 minimum wage, rain taxes and have been the recipient of a massive local tax reduction and stood in line every year with their hands out at City Council Meetings.
So please, do tell me how and why ANYONE would purchase that newspaper any more and actually believe ANYTHING they say when it comes to finances? I'm just in awe.
Are You Paying Too Much To Advertise Elsewhere?
Image taken at 7:00 pm last night.
Use your head. SBYNews charges $100.00 a month for an ad, what are you paying elsewhere?
On SBYNews your ad is on our Home Page, is yours elsewhere?
SBYNews does not market on Twitter and other sources tricking people to come to our Website. We don't have national, (Fox, CBS, NBC or Gannett links to boost our numbers. Our numbers are legitimate down to earth, earned through word of mouth visitors. THEY ARE LOCAL.
So go ahead, throw your money away on bogus marketing schemes where other media sources throw out numbers to impress you but just know you can't sell that car to customers in California, if you get my drift.
Salisbury News is a grass roots Website. Salisbury News is LOCAL traffic. Love me or hate me, numbers, (above) do not lie.
Call me if you'd like to advertise with us. 410-430-5349
Shelter animals to be euthanized if not adopted
"We put it out there, because it is the reality,” said Tina Bright, a shelter worker. “If we're stuck with dogs and we have absolutely no place to put them, we're going to have to put them down and it really stinks."
The group has lost its contract with Cecil County, which will begin running its own in-house shelter in Chesapeake City in July.
But any animals who can't find new owners by the end of June will be euthanized.
Edie Hardy adopted a full blue nose pit bull named "Kallie" from the nonprofit a few years ago. She claims the company has recently turned away rescue groups who have offered to save some of the dogs.
More
Dunk your County Executive Bob Culver and Salisbury's Mayor Jake Day
MSP DUI Arrests (Salisbury Barrack)
The Salisbury Barrack made the following DUI arrests during the week of 5/06/2016 through 05/13/2016:
James Allen Worton 23yoa Salisbury, MD
Jalin Kenneth Lyons 20yoa Salisbury, MD
Joseph Raymond Knight 24yoa Salisbury, MD
Monroy Ramos Wilson 18yoa Salisbury, MD
Toi Courtney Joynes 31yoa Salisbury, MD
Stacey Lemont McDaniel 45yoa Salisbury, MD
Francisco Chan Poroj 23yoa Salisbury, MD
Kelly Jean Phillips 37yoa unknown
William Gerard Wilson 36yoa Salisbury, MD
Gold Alert Issued for Missing Middletown Man
Troopers are looking for Lawrence Kenetski who hasn’t been heard from since approximately 12:00 p.m. yesterday, Thursday, May 19, 2016, after he left the Division of Motor Vehicles located at 2101 Mid County Drive, New Castle.
There is a concern for Mr. Kenetski’s safety and welfare as troopers have been unable to make contact with him to check on his welfare and attempts to locate him have been unsuccessful.
Lawrence Kenetski is described as a white male. He is 5’08” tall, weighs 137 lbs., and has gray hair and blue eyes. He also wears glasses. There is no clothing description available for Kenetski at this time. He may be operating a green 2007 Hyundai Sonata bearing DE registration 236274.
If anyone has any information in reference to the whereabouts of Lawrence Kenetski they are asked to call Troop 2 at 302-834-2620. Information may also be provided by calling Delaware Crime Stoppers at 1-800-TIP-3333, via the internet at www.tipsubmit.com, or by sending an anonymous tip by text to 274637 (CRIMES) using the keyword "DSP."
Prince Neglected A Crucial Part Of His Legacy – But You Shouldn’t
In the wake of Prince’s death, it has been called “the worst estate planning sin a wealthy artist could commit: leaving no will at all.”
Rather than providing a clear plan for dividing his assets among loved ones, Prince may have created a situation where there could be decades of legal fights within his family. And, without a will, Prince’s legacy misses out on a huge concern he’d confronted during his career – to be an example, illustrated in a will, of freeing artists from restrictive recording contracts.
Why? The reason may never be clear. Perhaps the fact that his toxicology report found large traces of the painkilling drug Percocet has something to do with it.
“Consciously or otherwise, some people simply do not deal well with addressing after-death legacy,” says attorney Hillel Presser of the Presser Law Firm, P.A., which specializes in comprehensive asset protection, which includes wills.
“I have no idea whether Prince had some other principle at work, but the lack of a will clearly lays the burden on the living, who are left with an abundance of guesswork.”
Presser’s recommendations for those who don’t want to follow in Prince’s footsteps include:
• If you don’t have a will, get to work on one. Eighty percent of American adults have something in common with Prince – they have no will. That’s a mistake; even more so if you have a family. Your heirs could end up feuding over your possessions, maybe even taking each other to court. If you have children who are minors, what would become of them if you and your spouse both died? In a will, you could give clear instructions on who you would want to appoint as their guardian.
• If you have a will, consider updating it. An old estate plan can be worse than none at all. Maybe you are now divorced. Maybe your financial situation has changed significantly enough that you want to make other plans for what you leave behind. If you have assets now that you didn’t have when you drew up the original will, you will want to add them so that there’s no confusion after you die.
• Find a good estate planner. This is particularly important if you have a taxable or complex estate. A good estate planner can save you a fortune in estate taxes and help you achieve other estate-planning objectives, including some you might have overlooked.
“Find attorneys you can trust,” Presser says. “If you have legal claims against you after death, then an asset-protection attorney should work with your estate-planning attorney so that your heirs get as much of your estate as legally possible – creditor-free.”
Rather than providing a clear plan for dividing his assets among loved ones, Prince may have created a situation where there could be decades of legal fights within his family. And, without a will, Prince’s legacy misses out on a huge concern he’d confronted during his career – to be an example, illustrated in a will, of freeing artists from restrictive recording contracts.
Why? The reason may never be clear. Perhaps the fact that his toxicology report found large traces of the painkilling drug Percocet has something to do with it.
“Consciously or otherwise, some people simply do not deal well with addressing after-death legacy,” says attorney Hillel Presser of the Presser Law Firm, P.A., which specializes in comprehensive asset protection, which includes wills.
“I have no idea whether Prince had some other principle at work, but the lack of a will clearly lays the burden on the living, who are left with an abundance of guesswork.”
Presser’s recommendations for those who don’t want to follow in Prince’s footsteps include:
• If you don’t have a will, get to work on one. Eighty percent of American adults have something in common with Prince – they have no will. That’s a mistake; even more so if you have a family. Your heirs could end up feuding over your possessions, maybe even taking each other to court. If you have children who are minors, what would become of them if you and your spouse both died? In a will, you could give clear instructions on who you would want to appoint as their guardian.
• If you have a will, consider updating it. An old estate plan can be worse than none at all. Maybe you are now divorced. Maybe your financial situation has changed significantly enough that you want to make other plans for what you leave behind. If you have assets now that you didn’t have when you drew up the original will, you will want to add them so that there’s no confusion after you die.
• Find a good estate planner. This is particularly important if you have a taxable or complex estate. A good estate planner can save you a fortune in estate taxes and help you achieve other estate-planning objectives, including some you might have overlooked.
“Find attorneys you can trust,” Presser says. “If you have legal claims against you after death, then an asset-protection attorney should work with your estate-planning attorney so that your heirs get as much of your estate as legally possible – creditor-free.”
Thursday, May 19, 2016
BREAKING: Benghazi 2.0?
The Obama administration hasn't learned a damn thing. Their latest foreign policy debacle? Shipping arms to the Libyan "unity" government. Per Townhall:
The new Libyan government has only been in power for six weeks, but on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry signaled the U.S. is ready to help train and armits forces in the fight against ISIS.
Speaking in Vienna, Kerry urged the international community to support the new unity government, which he said was “the only legitimate one in Libya and which must now start to work.”
Part of this support would also mean backing the new government’s efforts to secure an exemption from a United Nations arms embargo.
The fledgling government, which arrived by boat from neighboring Tunisia on March 31, “is the only entity that can unify the country,” Kerry said. "It is the only way to generate the cohesion necessary to defeat" Islamic State.
Libyan Prime Minister Fayez Serraj, who appeared with Kerry, said he welcomed the support. […]
The oil-rich country has faced political chaos and violence since the NATO bombing campaign helped rebels oust and kill longtime ruler Moammar Kadafi in 2011. It remains beset by armed militias, as well as Islamic State, and until recently had two rival governments.
Kerry announced the joint decision after diplomats from more than 20 countries, including the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, met to discuss the growing extremist threat in Libya.
The U.N. sanctions committee must approve an exemption to the arms embargo, but that is now all but assured.
Kerry said the international community must find a “delicate balance” to prevent arms from falling into enemy hands.
Many conservatives, most notably Rand Paul and Donald Trump, have questioned the wisdom of providing American weapons to unstable Middle Eastern groups that have no clear purpose or stability, warning that they're likely to end up in the hands of America's enemies. So what about the Libyan "Unity" government. It's a mess. As Voice of America notes:
Stabilizing Libya is an urgent goal for the West as it tries to combat IS more effectively and counter the smuggling of migrants to Europe.
The unity government, installed in March, was meant to be a first step in bringing order to a country that has known little since Gadhafi’s ouster. Western officials have placed hope in war fatigue, the allure of foreign aid and development money, and the growing threat of IS to build popular momentum for the unity government.
But in large parts of Libya, questions remain about the GNA’s legitimacy.
Under the U.N. negotiated deal, the GNA is meant to be sharing power with two rivals: the east’s National Salvation Government, an arm of the House of Representatives (HoR); and the rump of the General National Congress, which refused to stand aside after Libyans voted for the HoR to replace it as the country’s legislature in 2014.
But the GNA has struggled to consolidate its position in the Libyan capital, let alone expand its authority to the rest of the country. It remains dependent on the support of powerful western militias, whose loyalty remains suspect and who may be biding their time to see how the unity government fares.
In short, the Libyan government appears to be built on the hopes and dreams of the United Nations, a fickle coalition of groups without a common interest and dubious loyalties.
Sounds like another nightmare.
Source: AAN
The new Libyan government has only been in power for six weeks, but on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry signaled the U.S. is ready to help train and armits forces in the fight against ISIS.
Speaking in Vienna, Kerry urged the international community to support the new unity government, which he said was “the only legitimate one in Libya and which must now start to work.”
Part of this support would also mean backing the new government’s efforts to secure an exemption from a United Nations arms embargo.
The fledgling government, which arrived by boat from neighboring Tunisia on March 31, “is the only entity that can unify the country,” Kerry said. "It is the only way to generate the cohesion necessary to defeat" Islamic State.
Libyan Prime Minister Fayez Serraj, who appeared with Kerry, said he welcomed the support. […]
The oil-rich country has faced political chaos and violence since the NATO bombing campaign helped rebels oust and kill longtime ruler Moammar Kadafi in 2011. It remains beset by armed militias, as well as Islamic State, and until recently had two rival governments.
Kerry announced the joint decision after diplomats from more than 20 countries, including the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, met to discuss the growing extremist threat in Libya.
The U.N. sanctions committee must approve an exemption to the arms embargo, but that is now all but assured.
Kerry said the international community must find a “delicate balance” to prevent arms from falling into enemy hands.
Many conservatives, most notably Rand Paul and Donald Trump, have questioned the wisdom of providing American weapons to unstable Middle Eastern groups that have no clear purpose or stability, warning that they're likely to end up in the hands of America's enemies. So what about the Libyan "Unity" government. It's a mess. As Voice of America notes:
Stabilizing Libya is an urgent goal for the West as it tries to combat IS more effectively and counter the smuggling of migrants to Europe.
The unity government, installed in March, was meant to be a first step in bringing order to a country that has known little since Gadhafi’s ouster. Western officials have placed hope in war fatigue, the allure of foreign aid and development money, and the growing threat of IS to build popular momentum for the unity government.
But in large parts of Libya, questions remain about the GNA’s legitimacy.
Under the U.N. negotiated deal, the GNA is meant to be sharing power with two rivals: the east’s National Salvation Government, an arm of the House of Representatives (HoR); and the rump of the General National Congress, which refused to stand aside after Libyans voted for the HoR to replace it as the country’s legislature in 2014.
But the GNA has struggled to consolidate its position in the Libyan capital, let alone expand its authority to the rest of the country. It remains dependent on the support of powerful western militias, whose loyalty remains suspect and who may be biding their time to see how the unity government fares.
In short, the Libyan government appears to be built on the hopes and dreams of the United Nations, a fickle coalition of groups without a common interest and dubious loyalties.
Sounds like another nightmare.
Source: AAN
Black Leaders Trash Obama's Transgender Agenda
Black Americans are sick and tired of being used as a tool to advance the radical gay and transgender agenda, and they have a message for President Obama: knock it off!
Conservative black leaders have criticized the Obama administration's comparison of North Carolina's transgender law to Jim Crow edicts, saying it trivializes the importance of the civil rights movement, Christian Post Politics reports.
When the Justice Department last week filed a lawsuit against North Carolina for its law requiring people to use bathrooms in government buildings that match their birth sex, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said: "This is not the first time that we have seen discriminatory responses to historic moments of progress for our nation. We saw it in the Jim Crow laws that followed the Emancipation Proclamation.
The comparisons were too much for some to take. Project 21, a nationwide group of black conservative leaders, issued a statement saying they disagreed with opposition to the North Carolina law itself, but were even more outraged by the analogy.
Project 21 member Nadra Enzi said that "as a Black Southern man who grew up fighting what I call 'Jim Crow-lite' in the 1970s-1980s, in Savannah, Georgia… I find the ridiculous transgender/civil rights movement comparison insulting and disrespectful.
"Middle-and upper-income whites in search of artificial oppressed person status can do so without using our history to prop up delusional defenses.
Another member, Derryck Green, said: "Attaching this insanity to the legacy of civil rights… trivializes everything the brave men and women experienced and sacrificed in the pursuit of social, economic and legal equality…", while Christopher Arps added that "Civil rights champions were not spat upon, beaten with police batons and sometimes murdered for the right of men to go to the same restroom with little girls.
Source: AAN
Conservative black leaders have criticized the Obama administration's comparison of North Carolina's transgender law to Jim Crow edicts, saying it trivializes the importance of the civil rights movement, Christian Post Politics reports.
When the Justice Department last week filed a lawsuit against North Carolina for its law requiring people to use bathrooms in government buildings that match their birth sex, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said: "This is not the first time that we have seen discriminatory responses to historic moments of progress for our nation. We saw it in the Jim Crow laws that followed the Emancipation Proclamation.
The comparisons were too much for some to take. Project 21, a nationwide group of black conservative leaders, issued a statement saying they disagreed with opposition to the North Carolina law itself, but were even more outraged by the analogy.
Project 21 member Nadra Enzi said that "as a Black Southern man who grew up fighting what I call 'Jim Crow-lite' in the 1970s-1980s, in Savannah, Georgia… I find the ridiculous transgender/civil rights movement comparison insulting and disrespectful.
"Middle-and upper-income whites in search of artificial oppressed person status can do so without using our history to prop up delusional defenses.
Another member, Derryck Green, said: "Attaching this insanity to the legacy of civil rights… trivializes everything the brave men and women experienced and sacrificed in the pursuit of social, economic and legal equality…", while Christopher Arps added that "Civil rights champions were not spat upon, beaten with police batons and sometimes murdered for the right of men to go to the same restroom with little girls.
Source: AAN
NEW EVIDENCE ABOUT THE DANGERS OF MONSANTO’S ROUNDUP
JOHN SANDERS WORKED in the orange and grapefruit groves in Redlands, California, for more than 30 years. First as a ranch hand, then as a farm worker, he was responsible for keeping the weeds around the citrus trees in check. Roundup, the Monsanto weed killer, was his weapon of choice, and he sprayed it on the plants from a hand-held atomizer year-round.
Frank Tanner, who owned a landscaping business, is also a Californian and former Roundup user. Tanner relied on the herbicide starting in 1974, and between 2000 and 2006 sprayed between 50 and 70 gallons of it a year, sometimes from a backpack, other times from a 200-gallon drum that he rolled on a cart next to him.
The two men have other things in common, too: After being regularly exposed to Roundup, both developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a blood cancer that starts in the lymph cells. And, as of April, both are plaintiffs in a suit filed against Monsanto that marks a turning point in the pitched battle over the most widely used agricultural chemical in history.
Until recently, the fight over Roundup has mostly focused on its active ingredient, glyphosate. But mounting evidence, including one studypublished in February, shows it’s not only glyphosate that’s dangerous, but also chemicals listed as “inert ingredients” in some formulations of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers. Though they have been in herbicides — and our environment — for decades, these chemicals have evaded scientific scrutiny and regulation in large part because the companies that make and use them have concealed their identity as trade secrets.
Now, as environmental scientists have begun to puzzle out the mysterious chemicals sold along with glyphosate, evidence that these so-called inert ingredients are harmful has begun to hit U.S. courts. In addition to Sanders and Tanner, at least four people who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup have sued Monsanto in recent months, citing the dangers of both glyphosate and the co-formulants sold with it. As Tanner and Sanders’s complaint puts it: Monsanto “knew or should have known that Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate alone and that safety studies of Roundup, Roundup’s adjuvants and ‘inert’ ingredients” were necessary.
Research on these chemicals seems to have played a role in the stark disagreement over glyphosate’s safety that has played out on the international stage over the last year. In March 2015, using research on both glyphosate alone and the complete formulations of Roundup and other herbicides, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen. The IARC report noted an association between non-Hodgkin lymphoma and glyphosate, significant evidence that the chemical caused cancer in lab animals, and strong evidence that it damaged human DNA.
More
Frank Tanner, who owned a landscaping business, is also a Californian and former Roundup user. Tanner relied on the herbicide starting in 1974, and between 2000 and 2006 sprayed between 50 and 70 gallons of it a year, sometimes from a backpack, other times from a 200-gallon drum that he rolled on a cart next to him.
The two men have other things in common, too: After being regularly exposed to Roundup, both developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a blood cancer that starts in the lymph cells. And, as of April, both are plaintiffs in a suit filed against Monsanto that marks a turning point in the pitched battle over the most widely used agricultural chemical in history.
Until recently, the fight over Roundup has mostly focused on its active ingredient, glyphosate. But mounting evidence, including one studypublished in February, shows it’s not only glyphosate that’s dangerous, but also chemicals listed as “inert ingredients” in some formulations of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers. Though they have been in herbicides — and our environment — for decades, these chemicals have evaded scientific scrutiny and regulation in large part because the companies that make and use them have concealed their identity as trade secrets.
Now, as environmental scientists have begun to puzzle out the mysterious chemicals sold along with glyphosate, evidence that these so-called inert ingredients are harmful has begun to hit U.S. courts. In addition to Sanders and Tanner, at least four people who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup have sued Monsanto in recent months, citing the dangers of both glyphosate and the co-formulants sold with it. As Tanner and Sanders’s complaint puts it: Monsanto “knew or should have known that Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate alone and that safety studies of Roundup, Roundup’s adjuvants and ‘inert’ ingredients” were necessary.
Research on these chemicals seems to have played a role in the stark disagreement over glyphosate’s safety that has played out on the international stage over the last year. In March 2015, using research on both glyphosate alone and the complete formulations of Roundup and other herbicides, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen. The IARC report noted an association between non-Hodgkin lymphoma and glyphosate, significant evidence that the chemical caused cancer in lab animals, and strong evidence that it damaged human DNA.
More
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)