Dr. Oz Show “New GMO Pesticide Doctors Are Warning Against” Originally aired on 9/22/2014

Health Impact News Editor Comments

Dr. Oz caused a lot of controversy last week when he aired a show titled: New GMO Pesticide Doctors Are Warning Against. The show was highlighting the recent USDA approval of Dow Chemical’s herbicide “Enlist,” which is expected to gain the approval of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This EPA approval would clear the path for the herbicide to begin being used on America’s farmlands and crops.

Dr. Oz apparently feels so strongly about this topic, and how toxic and dangerous this new herbicide is, that he reportedly did something he has never done before on his show: he encouraged his viewers and followers to take political action to try to stop the approval of this product from being used on food. He started a petition to President Obama on Whitehouse.gov, and by the end of the week it was well on its way to the required 100,000 signatures.

The controversial herbicide by Dow contains 2,4-D, a highly powerful and toxic component that supporters of GMO crops now say is necessary due to the fact that super weeds have become resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup containing glyphosate. If approved, it will enter the food supply and bring in potentially billions of dollars to Dow Chemical.

So I asked Health Impact News investigative reporter John P. Thomas to research 2,4-D and write a report, as well as to educate us a bit about the approval process with the EPA to get new chemicals approved for use in the marketplace. What you will learn about 2,4-D, which is about to be approved to be sprayed on crops all throughout the U.S., will indeed shock you.

2,4-D – A New Anti-inflammatory Drug or a GMO Weed Killer – Which do You Prefer?

by John P. Thomas
Health Impact News

Beware – the following facts about the herbicide 2,4-D and a newly published scientific research study proposing using this toxic herbicide as a human pharmaceutical drug just might twist your mind into a pretzel. Let’s start with a few facts before we begin stretching the dough into a twistable string.

History of 2,4-D – Chemical Warfare

During World War II scientists developed a number of chemical warfare agents. One was called 2,4-D. It was a powerful herbicide that could be sprayed by airplanes over farmland to destroy crops.

In 1948 it was approved as an agricultural chemical to kill weeds. During the Korean War and again during the Vietnam War, this chemical was combined with a chemical cousin to create a defoliant that was sprayed over large areas to make enemy combatants more visible. Many American soldiers became seriously and permanently ill from being exposed to the chemical that had the common name Agent Orange. This herbicide contained orange dye so that pilots could easily see where they had sprayed it – hence the name Agent Orange.

In addition to the soldiers who were harmed by exposure to Agent Orange, thousands of innocent citizens in Korea and Vietnam were also made seriously ill by having been sprayed with the chemical or coming into contact with it on plant material. Those who were exposed, developed illnesses such as Parkinson’s disease, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, kidney and liver damage, soft tissue sarcoma, and reproductive problems. [1]

Agent Orange contained both 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. According to the National Pesticide Information Center Dioxin, an unintended by-product of the manufacture of 2,4,5-T, was blamed for the negative health effects and eventually led to the ban of Agent Orange. [2]

Was Agent Orange Harmful to Human Health?

The use of Agent Orange was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 400,000 people and 500,000 birth defects in Vietnam. During this time, Rachel Carson publicly denounced its main ingredients, noting that people exposed to 2,4-D when spraying it on their lawns had developed severe neuritis and even paralysis. [3]

Over the past 40 years, dozens of studies have shown the connection between 2,4-D and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (cancer of the blood) and soft-tissue sarcoma in people. Other research reveals that 2,4-D enters breast milk and semen where it disrupts normal hormone functions, which can also cause serious and lasting effects during fetal and infant development.

In fact, in Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, researchers have found higher rates of certain birth defects in areas with the highest use of 2,4-D and other similar herbicides. The higher rate of birth defects was most evident in infants conceived in the spring—the time of year when the herbicide is most used. Those birth defects were significantly higher in males, and consisted mostly of cardiac and lung abnormalities.

Young children are most at risk for indoor exposure to 2,4-D because they crawl and play on the floor, and then put their hands in their mouths, or the chemical residue from the floor is absorbed into their skin or inhaled. [4]

Does the Environmental Protection Agency Believe 2,4-D is Harmful?

Despite previous research, the EPA decided in 2004 that 2,4-D could not be classified with regard to its ability to cause cancer because there was not enough data.

In other words they deny that this chemical causes harm with the exception of acute reactions such as skin irritation from direct contact, vomiting as a result of swallowing it, or dizziness from inhaling its fumes. Even then, they state that 75% of the herbicide will be excreted from the body by means of urine in about 4 days without any change to the chemical. [5]

Do You Want to Take the Herbicide 2,4-D as Medicine?

Now for the mind twisting study. I will quote it in its entirety. The word “auxin” that is used in the following report refers to a synthetic version of a natural plant hormone that regulates plant growth. Auxin type herbicides cause plant cells in the tissues that carry water and nutrients to divide and grow without stopping. This uncontrolled cellular growth is believed to ultimately kill the plant. [6]

The research study states:

2, 4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) is a well-known plant auxin which is widely used in plant tissue culture experiments as well as a weed killer and an herbicide. In this study, 2,4-D was rediscovered as a new anti-inflammatory agent through silicomolecular modeling and docking studies along with drug formulation and in vivo anti-inflammatory inspection. The molecular modeling and docking studies indicated high affinity of 2,4-D toward COX-2 enzyme in a way similar to Ibuprofen, suggesting a higher anti-inflammatory activity. Molecular docking by both MOE 2013.08 and Leadit 2.1.2 revealed excellent binding pattern compared to some of well-known non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. 2, 4-D was formulated in different gel bases. In vitro drug release experiments were used to examine the best 2,4-D formula for in vivo studies. In vivo carrageenan-induced hind paw edema inflammatory model in rats was used to test the in silico finding. 2,4-D showed potential in vivo anti-inflammatory activity and significantly reduced the concentration of prostaglandin E2 in hind paw tissues in a way similar to Ibuprofen. These results may open the door to introduce a new anti-inflammatory molecule; especially that 2,4-D is a well-investigated regarding its toxicity and side effect. [7]

Let me summarize the key point from the study.

Scientists are conducting research on 2,4-D, a substance that has a long history of human harm, to see if they can turn it into a US FDA approved human drug.

Why would they want to do that?

Perhaps because they want the American public to believe that 2,4-D is so safe that people can take it in a pill form to help with arthritis, headaches, and other discomforts.

Do you see the twist yet? If we believe that 2,4-D is a safe substance, then we should actually have no concern or fear regarding it being in our food, water, bodies, urine, or in semen. After all, if it is a pharmaceutical drug and pharmaceutical drugs are supposed to be safe and beneficial for us, then why should we be concerned about a little 2,4-D being sprayed on farms?

The Future of 2,4-D is a Billion Dollar Industry

In 2011, about 25.6 million pounds of 2,4-D were sprayed into the environment in non-agricultural products. Today, Americans are also exposed to 2,4-D through herbicides applied to lawns, turf grass and other non-agricultural applications. [8]

In addition, over 1,000 other products that contain 2,4-D were applied to residential lawns, public parks, and school properties. [9]

The future looks pretty bright for Dow Chemical if they are able to convince the EPA to approve their new formulation of 2,4-D. The Environmental Working Group reports that according to the USDA, annual 2,4-D usage on crops could rise to between 77.8 and 176.2 million pounds annually by 2020. This would represent 3 to 7 times the usage recorded in 2011. [10]

The EPA is considering an application from AgroSciences, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Corporation, to begin selling its new formulation of 2,4-D herbicide. The USDA granted approval to Dow Chemical in mid-September of 2014. The final approval decision is expected shortly from the EPA.

Some believe that EPA approval is very likely now that the USDA has given its approval. [11] That is, unless public outcry against the new Dow Chemical herbicide and its new GMO herbicide resistant seeds somehow overwhelms EPA regulators.

The new Dow Chemical herbicide formula will be used with their new GMO corn and soy seeds. This new product is called Enlist Duo. It contains glyphosate and 2,4-D in addition to other undisclosed ingredients.

The Enlist system is designed as a replacement for Monsanto’s Roundup and its Roundup Ready seeds, which have become increasingly ineffective, because weeds have developed tolerance against glyphosate poisoning, and have turned into super weeds. Some of these weeds have incorporated genetic material from the GMO plants into their own genetics and have used it to grow taller, stronger, and with greater vitality than the previous weeds that were killed by glyphosate when it was first introduced to genetically modified crop fields. [12]

So how much does Dow have to gain from the approval of 2,4-D so they can sell their new GMO seeds and Enlist herbicide?

“Dow thinks Enlist could be a blockbuster. Its new president, Tim Hassinger, predicts the product line could be the biggest selling and most profitable in the history of Dow’s ag division, with profits over Enlist’s lifetime topping $1 billion.” [15]

400,000 Public Comments Filed with the USDA Opposing Approval

There has been considerable public outrage against this new generation of GMO seeds and herbicides that have been developed by Dow Chemical for the production of corn, soy, and cotton.

However, Dow Chemical is working hard to convince farmers and the American public that their plans have minimal risk and will help solve the world food shortage. Dow Chemical wants us to believe that they are coming to the rescue of American agriculture just in the nick of time before super weeds take over. They have increased the size of the droplets that will be sprayed to minimize the drifting of the chemicals on neighboring properties, and they have removed the pesticide aroma so that neighbors won’t be able to determine when Enlist Duo has been applied. [13]

Despite the Dow Chemical spin, there were over 400,000 public comments filed with the US Department of Agriculture opposing the approval of the Enlist Duo system. Even though there was considerable opposition, the USDA approved the products earlier this month. Now we are waiting to see what the EPA will do regarding the final approval of Enlist Duo. Dow has spent 5 years and 120 million dollars thus far to get Enlist Duo and the new GMO seed approved. [14]

Safety Studies Were Funded and Conducted by Dow Chemical

In a study conducted by Dow Chemical and published in 2014, researchers investigated the herbicide 2,4-D to assess the potential for interaction with the androgen, estrogen and steroidogenesis pathways in the endocrine system. The assays were conducted to meet the requirements of the in vitro component of Tier 1 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.

They determined that 2,4-D does not have the potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or steroidogenesis pathways when tested with tissues in the test tube. These in vitro data are consistent with a corresponding lack of endocrine effects observed in vivo animal studies, and thus provide important supporting data indicating the low potential of 2,4-D to interact with the human endocrine system. [16]

There are several major flaws with the Dow Chemical funded study. First, they only studied 2,4-D in isolation. Their new herbicide will contain both 2,4-D and glyphosate. Glyphosate has been shown to have substantial effects on human reproduction because of its estrogenic qualities. [17] Glyphosate is also associated with the development of inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, depression, ADHD, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, multiple sclerosis, cancer, cachexia, infertility, and developmental malformations. [18]

The second flaw is that they did not evaluate 2,4-D along with the adjuvants and numerous other chemicals that increase the effectiveness of the 2,4-D or the glyphosate. The adjuvants actually increase the potential harm of the primary ingredients in the formula. For example, glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Roundup, becomes 125 times more toxic because of the presence of adjuvants. [19]

At this point, all we know is that the new Enlist Duo herbicide contains 2,4-D and glyphosate. We do not know about the adjuvants or other chemicals that are in the product, thus we cannot evaluate the true potential harm.

Have Federal Regulators Been Captured by Corporate Interests?

Many of us who have been watching the pesticide approval process and the pharmaceutical drug approval process over a period of years have remarked that we are observing a system of regulatory capture. In other words, the system that was originally designed to protect the public has been corrupted and has been taken captive by the corporations that the agencies once regulated.

Federal agencies such as the US Federal Drug Agency (FDA), US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are funded in large part by various new product application fees and registration fees paid by corporations who are seeking government approval for their products. It is common to find former employees of key corporations working for federal agencies and having regulatory authority over the corporations that once employed them.

This makes us wonder how federal agencies can conduct unbiased risk assessments.

How Does the EPA Examine Potential Risks?

EPA risk assessments include: Ecological Risk Assessment (plants and animals, etc.), Human Health Risk Assessment, and Pesticide Cumulative Risk. The EPA describes its own human risk assessment process as follows:

A human health risk assessment is the process to estimate the nature and probability of adverse health effects in humans who may be exposed to chemicals in contaminated environmental media, now or in the future.

Human health risk assessments address questions such as: What types of health problems are caused by pesticides in the environment? What is the chance that people will experience problems when exposed to different levels of pesticides? Is there a low level below which some chemicals don’t pose a human health risk? What pesticides are people exposed to and for how long? Are people more likely to be susceptible or exposed to pesticides because of factors such as age, genetics, pre-existing health conditions, ethnic practices, gender, where they work, where they play, what they eat, etc.

The EPA risk assessment examines whether a substance has the potential to cause harm to humans and/or ecological systems, and if so, under what circumstances. It examines the numerical relationship between exposure and effects. It examines what is known about the frequency, timing, and levels of contact with a substance. Finally, the EPA examines how well the data support conclusions about the nature and extent of the risk from exposure to pesticides. [20]

Is the EPA Risk Assessment Process Unbiased?

The EPA risk assessment process sounds great, but how well does it work? A report by Nathan Diegelman for The S.T.A.T.E. Foundation begins to reveal a very disturbing story. His article states:

Most people seriously overestimate the amount of protection given them by governments regarding pesticide safety. Congress found that 90% of the pesticides on the market lack even minimal required safety screening. Of the 34 most used lawn pesticides, 33 have not been fully tested for human health hazards. If any tests are done, they are performed by the chemical manufacturers, not the EPA. “If a chemical company wanted to, they could start with a desired conclusion, and skew the data, and the EPA would never know,” notes David Welch, an entomologist with the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs. Welch did a random sampling of 15 pesticide files and found 13 without proper reviews. One third of the most commonly used lawn pesticides were illegally registered for use.

“The EPA should be called the IPA- the Industry Protection Agency,” Jay Feldman, coordinator of the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides stated. The chemical industry is extremely powerful, and wraps the EPA in red tape. It is also essential to understand that by law pesticide registration in the U.S.A. is not a consumer safety program. EPA has admitted in court that pesticide registration does not ensure product safety. Rather, it is a balancing act of costs and risks. [21]

The EPA Knowingly Approves Dangerous Chemicals for “The Greater Good”

Why is it so hard for the US Environmental Protection Agency to take action against the widespread use of existing highly toxic pesticides and to prevent new highly toxic products from being approved? Mother Jones Magazine gives us valuable insights to this question. Mother Jones states:

Since the mid-seventies, the E.P.A. has issued regulations restricting the use of only five industrial chemicals out of more than eighty thousand in the environment. … Cost-benefit analyses are integral to decisions: a monetary value is assigned to disease, impairments, and shortened lives and weighed against the benefits of keeping a chemical in use. Lisa Heinzerling, the senior climate-policy counsel at the E.P.A. in 2009 and the associate administrator of the office of policy in 2009 and 2010, said that cost-benefit models appear “objective and neutral, a way to free ourselves from the chaos of politics.” But the complex algorithms “quietly condone a tremendous amount of risk.” She added that the influence of the Office of Management and Budget, which oversees major regulatory decisions, has deepened in recent years. “A rule will go through years of scientific reviews and cost-benefit analyses, and then at the final stage it doesn’t pass,” she said. [22]

In other words, The EPA knows that high risk herbicides such as 2,4-D will cause harm to human health and to the environment, but it is compelled to approve high risk products.

The traditional method that is used for conducting a risk assessment or a cost benefit analysis is to put everything into a common denominator. In this case we would expect that they would use dollars and cents, though sometimes a numerical weighting scale is used to designate the amount of risk.

The dollars and cents cost of human death, human illness, human disability, and harm to the environment are compared to the dollars and cents benefits that are expected to be obtained for farmers, corporations, and the greater society if a new herbicide is approved. If in the judgment of federal regulators, the risks to human health are considered not too extreme, when compared against potential benefits, then the new herbicide will be approved.

Another way to say this is that if benefits to society and to corporations are determined to be more important than the harm to individual people and the environment, then the new product will be approved. Casual observers might expect that the risk to human health should be zero, but that is not how the process works. Some risk to human health and life is expected by the EPA when toxic substances are spread through the environment and enter into our food and water supply.

In other words, some people will die because they are exposed to these chemicals.

How Does a Former EPA Scientist Describe Corporate Control at the EPA?

The EPA risk assessment process might work reasonably well if those who were responsible for doing the risk assessments were truly unbiased and they used a precautionary principle. However, this is not the case in the USFDA, USDA, or the EPA. Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, former Senior Policy Analyst in the Office of the Administrator at the US Environmental Protection Agency describes the close working relationship between the EPA and the chemical companies. She was an EPA whistleblower who lost her position when she began to speak out against the poisoning of South African mine workers by a US corporation in 2000. She describes the EPA culture:

It’s very much a corporate culture. And when I first arrived at EPA, it was not unusual to have someone from Dow Chemical sitting at a desk in the corner in the same office that you were in who was also writing environmental policy. … It took me a while to sort of … get a handle on who was a government official and who was from the private sector in the very office.

I’m sure you’ve read a lot of history of EPA where in fact there have been congressional hearings about industry leaders actually writing environmental policy, sending it to EPA for their comments, and then EPA promulgating those as rules. So it took a while for me to understand that … there was very little difference between corporate interests, interests of the pesticides industry, … the mineral extractive industries, and what was happening at EPA. And whenever there was a conflict between what was good for industry and what was good for the people, industry almost always won. [23]

Who Should We Believe? Is There Evidence that 2,4-D Kills People?

We have now heard from the USDA, which has given its approval to Dow Chemical’s Enlist Duo. We have heard from Dow Chemical scientists who say that 2,4-D does not have negative effects on hormonal activity. We have also heard from other scientists that 2,4-D is so safe that we should consider using it like an anti-inflammatory drug.

So, why is there such a public outcry about the new GMO seeds and weed killer that Dow Chemical has developed? It starts with the fact that 2,4-D is not safe and it does kill people.

Let’s look at an unintended experiment that was conducted in Oregon last year.

In October of 2013 a pesticide company sprayed 2,4-D over a residential community in Curry County, Oregon. 45 people in the affected area became ill and one man eventually died from complications caused by the exposure. In an article published in September of 2014, The Progressive states:

A group of residents of the Cedar Valley area near Gold Beach in Curry County, Oregon say their properties were doused with pesticides by a helicopter aiming for privately-owned timberlands last October [2013].

John Burns, assistant chief of the local volunteer fire department, was outside doing yard work one morning last October. So were several of his neighbors, he said — it was a nice day. “I noticed a helicopter kept going over the top of me, with kind of a horrible smell to it, but I didn’t realize it was dropping product on me,” Burns told CMD. He later found out the helicopter had made seven passes over the valley. He didn’t notice an immediate effect from the exposure, although as the day wore on he says he felt progressively worse.

Burns’ neighbor, James Welsh, who was out in his backyard talking on his cell phone, was hit with chemicals and immediately felt sick, had difficulty breathing, and felt nauseous. His son, Jim Welsh, was left to tell the story because his father passed away in April. He had a preexisting heart condition, but Jim said his father was healthy enough overall until that day last October. When his condition “deteriorated rapidly… he couldn’t be treated because he couldn’t tell what he was sprayed with,” Jim said.

Welsh and his neighbors didn’t find out until April 8, 2014 that what had fallen on them was a mix of 2,4-D and triclopyr combined with an adjuvant, and that the applicator had “applied one product at a rate above the maximum allowed by the label instructions.” Burns called the combination that had fallen on them “extreme poison.” James Welsh died of a heart infection later that month. [24]

You Have no Legal Recourse if You are Harmed by EPA Approved Chemicals Used on Farms

One might think that if a farmer or a pesticide applicator sprayed you with a toxic herbicide that you could sue for damages.

Well, all 50 states have what are known as Right to Farm Laws. Originally these laws were designed to prevent farmers from being sued by neighboring property owners for conducting normal agricultural activities, which neighbors might find to be offensive. In other words, if you built your house next to an existing farm, then you should expect that there will be farm smells, such as when the farmer spreads manure on his fields.

These laws have been expanded in many states through the influence of corporate agribusiness to such an extent that you cannot sue a farmer for any practice that is considered normal farming activities. Thus the old family farms that have been transformed into agribusinesses are still protected. Farms with enormous livestock confinements with huge lagoons of liquefied manure and urine (that have super-concentrated smells that could make a skunk faint), or farms that have vast fields of monoculture crops grown with a myriad of chemicals and pesticides and sometimes even treated with sewage sludge are all protected from being sued by neighboring land owners. [25] This means that if an agribusiness sprays toxic herbicide on their fields or forest land and some of it drifts over you and your property, then you may not have legal recourse.

EPA Corruption and Conflict of Interest

It is not only that corporation staff people sit in the same offices with EPA administrators and prepare documents for EPA staff, but there is an even more destructive pattern in the regulatory culture of the EPA, USDA, and USFDA. It is the revolving door between people being employed by government agencies and at other times being employed by the corporations that the agencies regulate.

There are hundreds of cases where former corporate employees from pesticide manufacturing companies take a break from corporate life and take jobs at the EPA where they are responsible for regulating their former employers. Similarly, EPA employees are often rewarded for good service by being hired by the corporations they once regulated. This system is clear evidence that our Federal regulatory agencies are broken and have been captured by corporations.

Our regulatory agencies no longer serve to protect the health of American citizens, but primarily exist to further corporate profits.

Over the years, various organizations have assembled data about the existence of the revolving door between government agencies and corporations. I have provided a few links that you can used to learn more about the revolving door that has led to corporate domination of our federal regulatory process.

Oddly, I couldn’t find recent information about the revolving door, and some of the resources that once collected such information are no longer in existence. [26]

You may find these links to be of interest. Some describe the corruption at the EPA, USDA, and USFDA. Regardless of the agency and the specific corporation, the revolving door pattern is the same. To search for additional references on regulatory corruption and corporate influence, use your internet search engine and search for EPA USDA USFDA “revolving door” or use your favorite corporation along with the words “revolving door.”

Lies and Deception: How the FDA Does Not Protect Your Best Interests

CORRUPT: The Government’s Revolving Door with Monsanto

The EPA is the Environmental Corruption Agency



[1] “USDA Approves New 2,4-D Resistant GE Corn and Soy,” Linda Larsen, Food Poisoning Bulletin, September 22, 2014, Retreived 9/25/14. http://foodpoisoningbulletin.com/2014/usda-approves-new-24-d-resistant-ge-corn-and-soy/

[2] “2,4-D General Fact Sheet,” National Pesticide Information Center, Retreived 9/25/14. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/24Dgen.html

[3] “Sign the petition to President Obama to stop Dow Chemical’s “Agent Orange” crops,” Center for Food Safety, Retrieved 9/26/14. http://dow-watch.org/

[4] “2,4-D Pesticides,” Natural Resources Defense Council, Retreived 9/25/14. http://www.nrdc.org/health/pesticides/2-4-d.asp

[5] “2,4-D General Fact Sheet,” National Pesticide Information Center, Retreived 9/25/14. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/24Dgen.html

[6] IBID.

[7] Khedr MA1, Shehata TM2, Mohamed ME3.; “Repositioning of 2, 4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid as a potential anti-inflammatory agent: In Silico and Pharmaceutical Formulation study.” Eur J Pharm Sci. 2014 September 19, PMID: 25245006.

[8] “EPA Seeks To Expand Use of Toxic Pesticide 2,4-D,” Jane Coaston, Environmental Working Group, June 4, 2014, Retreived 9/26/14. http://www.ewg.org/release/epa-seeks-expand-use-toxic-pesticide-24-d

[9] “2,4-D General Fact Sheet,” National Pesticide Information Center, Retreived 9/25/14. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/24Dgen.html

[10] “EPA Seeks To Expand Use of Toxic Pesticide 2,4-D,” Jane Coaston, Environmental Working Group, June 4, 2014, Retreived 9/26/14. http://www.ewg.org/release/epa-seeks-expand-use-toxic-pesticide-24-d

[11] “Dow Chemical Receives USDA Approval To Commercialize Its Enlist Corn and Soybean Seeds In The U.S.” by Trefis, September 24, 2014, 01:51 PM EDT, NASDAQ.com, Retrieved 9/25/14. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/dow-chemical-receives-usda-approval-to-commercialize-its-enlist-corn-and-soybean-seeds-in-the-us-cm394570

[12] “Glyphosate Herbicide Causes Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria, Kidney Disease, and Infertility,” Health Impact News, Information provided in an interview with Dr. Don Huber. http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/glyphosate-herbicide-causes-antibiotic-resistant-bacteria-kidney-disease-and-infertility/

[13] “Has Dow found superweed slayer?” Indianapolis Star, Jeff Swiatek, September 25, 2014. http://www.indystar.com/story/money/2014/09/25/dow-found-superweed-slayer/16204839/

[14] IBID.

[15] IBID.

[16] Coady KK1, Kan HL2, Schisler MR2, Gollapudi BB3, Neal B4, Williams A4, LeBaron MJ2.; “Evaluation of potential endocrine activity of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid using in vitro assays,” Toxicol In Vitro. 2014 Aug, PMID: 24815817.

[17] “Genetically Modified Organisms and the deterioration of health in the United States,” N.L. Swanson, 4/24/2013, Retrieved 9/11/14. http://sustainablepulse.comGMO-health-1.pdf

[18] Anthony Samsel 1 and Stephanie Seneff 2, “Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases,” Entropy 2013, 15, 1416-1463, Published April 18, 2013 (available free online). http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/Entropy/entropy-15-01416.pdf

[19] “Roundup Herbicide 125 Times More Toxic Than Regulators Say,” Sayer Ji, GreenMedInfo, April 14, 2014. http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/roundup-herbicide-125-times-more-toxic-regulators-say

[20] “Overview of Risk Assessment in the Pesticide Program,” Pesticides, US EPA, Retrieved 9/4/2014. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/overview_risk_assess.htm

[21] “Poison In The Grass: The Hazards And Consequences Of Lawn Pesticides,” Nathan Diegelman, The S.T.A.T.E. Foundation, published by Chemicals and Effects Upon Health, http://www.chem-tox.com, Retreived 9/4/14. http://www.chem-tox.com/pesticides/pesticidereport.htm

[22] “Why the EPA Can’t Manage To Block This Gnarly Herbicide,” Mother Jones Magazine, Retreived 9/4/2014. http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/02/why-epa-cant-ban-atrazine

[23] “EPA Whistleblower Speaks Up About US Corporation Poisoning South African Miners,” Interview transcript with Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo former Senior Policy Analyst in the Office of the Administrator at the US Environmental Protection Agency, Retrieved 9/4/2014. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10903

[24] “Oregon Residents Challenge the State “Right-to-Farm” Law,” Rebekah Wilce, The Progressive, September 08, 2014, Retrieved 9/26/14. http://www.progressive.org/news/2014/09/187846/oregon-residents-challenge-state-right-farm-law#main-content

[25] IBID.

[26] You may see references to a revolving door list on the internet that was managed by the Edmonds Institute. I spoke with Beth Burrows who is listed as the contact person for the Edmonds Institute regarding revolving door information. She indicated that the Edmonds Institute has been closed and she does not have new information to share.