#CSuite स्मार्टसिटीसाठी पूर्णवेळ 'सीईओ' नियुक्त करणार – स्मार्टसिटीसाठी पूर्णवेळ 'सीईओ' नियुक्त करणार LokmatFull coverage http://bit.ly/2zT8y6u
— Muzaffaruddin Alvi (@Muzaffar1969) November 30, 2017
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Featured Post
Twenty Practical Steps to Better Corporate Governance | The Corporate Secretaries International Association (CSIA)
Twenty Practical Steps to Better Corporate Governance | The Corporate Secretaries International Association (CSIA) Please click the li...
Showing posts with label 2017 at 02:55AM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2017 at 02:55AM. Show all posts
Friday, December 1, 2017
#CSuite स्मार्टसिटीसाठी पूर्णवेळ ‘सीईओ’ नियुक्त करणार – स्मार्टसिटीसाठी पूर्णवेळ ‘सीईओ’ नियुक्त करणार LokmatFull coverage http://bit.ly/2zT8y6u
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Senators Unveil Road Map for Self-Driving Car Legislation – U.S. News & World Report
U.S. News & World Report |
Senators Unveil Road Map for Self-Driving Car Legislation
U.S. News & World Report Companies such as Alphabet Inc, General Motors Co and Volkswagen AG are pursuing automated technologies and want unified federal regulations to replace outdated rules and make it simpler to develop and eventually sell the technology across the … Senators outline driverless car legislationThe Hill |
June 14, 2017 at 02:20AM
from
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Charlie Helps FRSA retweeted: This is good news! Financial Restatements Hit Six-Year Low – CFO Journal. – WSJ hubs.ly/H07MSth0 #GAAP #SEC #CorpGov https://t.co/uc6pMUGlRF
|
|
Charlie Helps FRSA retweeted:
This is good news! Financial Restatements Hit Six-Year Low – CFO Journal. – WSJ hubs.ly/H07MSth0 #GAAP #SEC #CorpGov https://t.co/uc6pMUGlRF
June 13, 2017 at 02:32AM
https://twitter.com/HelpsCharlie/status/874373797293563906
from Charlie Helps FRSA
Chartmaster: This is why you should sell the tech wreck
http://ift.tt/eA8V8J
Carter Worth, Cornerstone Macro head of technical analysis, shows which tech stocks are bargain buys.
June 13, 2017 at 02:53AM
from
Charlie Helps FRSA retweeted: A strong #board is essential today. Members w/ these areas of expertise are non-negotiable crwd.fr/2scpvEe @Inc #CorpGov #diversity
|
|
Charlie Helps FRSA retweeted:
A strong #board is essential today. Members w/ these areas of expertise are non-negotiable crwd.fr/2scpvEe @Inc #CorpGov #diversity
June 13, 2017 at 02:32AM
https://twitter.com/HelpsCharlie/status/874373796156899336
from Charlie Helps FRSA
Constellation Brands (STZ): A Must-Add to Your Portfolio
Constellation Brands, Inc. STZ performance has been quite impressive lately. Thanks to its strong brand portfolio, strategic initiatives and robust quarterly results the company has become a key pick for investors.
In fourth-quarter 2017, the company’s top and bottom line had topped estimates and improved year over year. While the quarter marked the company’s 10th consecutive earnings beat, Constellation Brands surpassed sales estimates for eight straight quarters now.
And if this wasn’t enough, the company also sports an impressive long term earnings growth rate of 17.8%. So what’s driving the company toward such gains? Let’s have a look into the strategic policies of the company and the factors impacting its continued success.
The overall impact of the company’s strategies and growth trajectory is clearly visible in its stock performance. In the past six months this Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) stock has gained 16.6%, outperforming the Zacks-categorized Beverages-Alcohol industry’s growth of 9.2%.
Factors Driving Growth
Being one of the world’s largest wine companies, Constellation Brands has a formidable portfolio of well-known brands. It holds a dominant position in the premium wine and beer segment in the U.S. and is a leading producer of wine in Canada and New Zealand. This provides it with a competitive edge and bolsters its well-established position in the market. Constellation Brands is committed towards brand building by including new products.
Owing to its strategic endeavors, the company is witnessing robust depletion trends and increasing market share, especially in the U.S. beer category. Incidentally, the company was the highest growth contributor in the U.S. beer category for the fourth straight year, in fiscal 2017. This was largely backed by the company’s Ballast Point acquisition.
In addition to its strong beer business, Constellation Brands’ fourth quarter and fiscal 2017 performance is driven by higher margins across its entire product portfolio. The splendid year, along with superb cash flows enabled the company to raise dividend, buyback shares, support acquisitions and make constant investments to facilitate business growth throughout the fiscal year.
These factors also led the management to issue an encouraging guidance for fiscal 2018, where it remains focused on achieving adjusted earnings per share growth that surpassed its previously anticipated target of at least 10%. Fiscal 2018 adjusted earnings are envisioned in a range of $7.70–$8.00 per share, reflecting Constellation Brands’ favorable ongoing prospects.
The company is focused on expanding their existing business, as evident from its various buyouts including the Obregon Brewery, which bolsters its high-end Mexican beer portfolio. Constellation Brands is on track with a number of expansion plans including that of Nava brewery in Mexico and the construction of the East Coast brewery in Belleville and its glass plant expansion, which is expected to cater to more than 50% of the glass demand.
Nevertheless, the recent sale of the Canadian wine business is likely to hurt results to an extent. Stiff competition, currency fluctuations and the risk of increasing taxes remain concerns. However, effective integration and growth of its recently acquired brands makes us increasingly hopeful regarding the company’s ability to sustain growth momentum.
Other Key Picks
Investors may consider better-ranked stocks such as Aramark ARMK, McCormick & Company, Inc. MKC and B&G Foods, Inc. BGS all carrying a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 (Strong Buy) Rank stocks here.
Aramark delivered an average positive earnings surprise of 4.5% in the trailing four quarters and has a long-term earnings growth rate of 12%.
McCormick delivered an average positive earnings surprise of 3.1% in the trailing four quarters and has a long-term earnings growth rate of 8.8%.
B&G Foods delivered an average positive earnings surprise of 2.1% in the trailing four quarters and has a long-term earnings growth rate of 10%.
More Stock News: This Is Bigger than the iPhone!
It could become the mother of all technological revolutions. Apple sold a mere 1 billion iPhones in 10 years but a new breakthrough is expected to generate more than 27 billion devices in just 3 years, creating a $1.7 trillion market.
Zacks has just released a Special Report that spotlights this fast-emerging phenomenon and 6 tickers for taking advantage of it. If you don’t buy now, you may kick yourself in 2020. Click here for the 6 trades >>
Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report
Constellation Brands Inc (STZ): Free Stock Analysis Report
B&G Foods, Inc. (BGS): Free Stock Analysis Report
McCormick & Company, Incorporated (MKC): Free Stock Analysis Report
Aramark (ARMK): Free Stock Analysis Report
To read this article on Zacks.com click here.
Zacks Investment Research
June 13, 2017 at 02:52AM
from Zacks Equity Research
Car-Crash Governance at Uber http://ift.tt/2slIm08 via @compliancememe #corpgov #compliance #corpculture
|
|
Car-Crash Governance at Uber http://ift.tt/2slIm08 via @compliancememe #corpgov #compliance #corpculture
June 13, 2017 at 02:32AM
https://twitter.com/oceg/status/874373740330721280
from OCEG
Can Initiatives of Skechers (SKX) Boost Earnings?
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. SKX, one of the leading retailers of footwear in the United States and overseas, is well on track with its growth efforts through the launch of new products and establishing a strong global distribution platform. Let’s now delve into the stock’s performance and look into the aspects impacting the company’s growth trajectory.
We observed that Skechers has outperformed the Zacks categorized Shoe & Retail Apparel industry in the past month by gaining 12.1% compared to the industry’s growth of 0.4%. In that time frame, the company’s shares performed better than the broader Consumer Discretionary sector growth of 1.3%.
Strategic Endeavors
Skechers’ international business remains a considerable sales growth driver with Europe being the significant market outside the U.S. In order to boost international sales and profitability, the company has undertaken stringent efforts towards additional store openings and increasing distribution channels by entering into international agreements.
Skechers’ multi-brand strategy provides the required impetus for rolling out new products at compelling prices. A strong diversified portfolio of brands aids Skechers’ to expand the targeted demographic profile of customers.
Such growth initiatives have helped Skechers’ to make a sharp come back in the first quarter of 2017, after posting negative earnings surprises in three previous quarters. Net sales of the company have beaten estimates for two straight quarters now, owing to the strong performance at the international wholesale business, company-owned global retail operations and the domestic eCommerce business.
The sturdy sales related strategies and growth plans have led management to project second-quarter 2017 net sales in the band of $950–$975 million compared with $877.8 million reported in the prior-year quarter.
Concerns to Overcome
Although Skechers top-line performance has been satisfactory, the bottom-line has been an aspect of worry since it witnessed a decline of 4.8% in the first quarter from the year ago period. Negative impacts emerging out of higher operating expenses and foreign currency translation upon gross margins were the primary cause of lower reported earnings. Moreover earnings per share have declined year over year in the last four quarters.
The soft second-quarter 2017 earnings per share projection also raise concerns. Management now anticipates earnings per share in the range of 42–47 cents compared with 48 cents delivered in the year-ago period. The dismal earnings performance has made investors a little concerned.
Bottom Line
Given the pros and cons embedded, Skechers currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). We remain hopeful that the company’s cost containment and improved inventory management strategies can perk up its performance in the following quarters. Until then investors need to patiently wait and watch if the company’s ongoing policies yield better results.
Other Key Picks
Investors may consider better-ranked stocks such as Best Buy Co., Inc. BBY, Burlington Stores, Inc. BURL and The Children’s Place, Inc. PLCE all flaunting a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.
Best Buy delivered an average positive earnings surprise of 33.8% in the trailing four quarters and has a long-term earnings growth rate of 11.8%.
Burlington Stores delivered an average positive earnings surprise of 22.6% in the trailing four quarters and has a long-term earnings growth rate of 15.9%.
Children’s Place delivered an average positive earnings surprise of 36.6% in the trailing four quarters and has a long-term earnings growth rate of 8%.
More Stock News: This Is Bigger than the iPhone!
It could become the mother of all technological revolutions. Apple sold a mere 1 billion iPhones in 10 years but a new breakthrough is expected to generate more than 27 billion devices in just 3 years, creating a $1.7 trillion market.
Zacks has just released a Special Report that spotlights this fast-emerging phenomenon and 6 tickers for taking advantage of it. If you don’t buy now, you may kick yourself in 2020. Click here for the 6 trades >>
Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report
Children’s Place, Inc. (The) (PLCE): Free Stock Analysis Report
Best Buy Co., Inc. (BBY): Free Stock Analysis Report
Burlington Stores, Inc. (BURL): Free Stock Analysis Report
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. (SKX): Free Stock Analysis Report
To read this article on Zacks.com click here.
Zacks Investment Research
June 13, 2017 at 02:52AM
from Zacks Equity Research
Corporate Governance retweeted: How can boards ensure good voter turnout from their retail shareholders? hubs.ly/H073fkM0 ft. @donnelleyfin #CorpGov
|
|
Corporate Governance retweeted:
How can boards ensure good voter turnout from their retail shareholders? hubs.ly/H073fkM0 ft. @donnelleyfin #CorpGov
June 13, 2017 at 02:32AM
https://twitter.com/ToGovern/status/874373735939284993
from Corporate Governance
Sunday, June 11, 2017
AIDINDIA retweeted: @laurajfinn Such a pleasure @laurajfinn & thank you for all the work you do for students, education & those in the #corpgov profession!
|
|
AIDINDIA retweeted:
@laurajfinn Such a pleasure @laurajfinn & thank you for all the work you do for students, education & those in the #corpgov profession!
June 11, 2017 at 02:45AM
https://twitter.com/AIDIndia3/status/873656188239581184
from AIDINDIA
@laurajfinn Such a pleasure @laurajfinn & thank you for all the work you do for students, education & those in the #corpgov profession!
|
|
@laurajfinn Such a pleasure @laurajfinn & thank you for all the work you do for students, education & those in the #corpgov profession!
June 11, 2017 at 02:45AM
https://twitter.com/kirstinferguson/status/873652217185685504
from Dr Kirstin Ferguson
Theresa May’s top aides quit after U.K. election criticism: reports
British Prime Minister Theresa May’s two closest aides quit after facing sharp criticism from Conservative lawmakers over the general election campaign. Read Full Story
The post Theresa May’s top aides quit after U.K. election criticism: reports appeared first on ForexTV.
June 11, 2017 at 12:44AM
from Market Watch
Friday, June 9, 2017
As Law That First Saved Grand Canyon Turns 111, Trump Takes Aim At Its Legacy
WASHINGTON — Today marks the 111th anniversary of the Antiquities Act, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt and used by him and 15 other presidents, both Republicans and Democrats, to designate more than 150 national monuments.
The magnificent treasures that have been protected by the act include Wyoming’s Devils Tower, Arizona’s Grand Canyon, Idaho’s Craters of the Moon and Alaska’s Glacier Bay.
Rather than celebrating that legacy, President Donald Trump has taken aim at the 1906 law, claiming that recent administrations have abused it to “lock up millions of acres of land and water.”
Twenty-seven national monuments designated or expanded since 1996, spanning more than 11 million acres of land and about 760 million acres of ocean, are threatened by a pair of executive orders signed by Trump in April. By Saturday, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is due to make a recommendation on what he thinks should happen to the 1.35-million-acre Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, which is at the center of the current fight.
In announcing his monuments review, Trump spoke as if a Bears Ears reversal was a done deal, saying the Obama-era designation had been done “over the profound objections of the citizens of Utah” and “should never have happened.” No previous president has tried to revoke a monument designation and legal scholars argue that Trump lacks the authority to do so.
Conservationists and lawmakers took to social media on Thursday to celebrate the Antiquities Act, with many using the hashtag #MonumentsForAll and expressing outrage over the Trump administration’s actions.
“On a day when we should be celebrating the anniversary of the law used to protect places like the Grand Canyon, Zion, and the Statue of Liberty, it’s outrageous that we’re facing down an unprecedented attack on our national parks and monuments by President Trump and Interior Secretary Zinke,” Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, said in a statement.
“People understand that this review is nothing more than an attempt to give away our public lands to the fossil fuel industry,” he added.
See below for some celebratory posts:
From Upper Missouri River Breaks to Bears Ears and all over the U.S., everyone has a favorite #MonumentsForAll. Happy b’day #AntiquitiesAct! http://pic.twitter.com/3NhIwS17kt
— Nat Resources Dems (@NRDems) June 8, 2017
Happy 111th birthday to the Antiquities Act, signed into law #OnThisDay in 1906! @DevilsTowerNM first site created under Antiquities Act. http://pic.twitter.com/5KCZr60Mne
— J. A. Garfield NHS (@GarfieldNPS) June 8, 2017
On this 111th anniversary of the Antiquities Act it is under unprecedented fire from the President’s EO & @SecretaryZinke #MonumentsForAll
— Sen. Patrick Leahy (@SenatorLeahy) June 8, 2017
Happy 111th anniversary Antiquities Act! 1 million comments stand with our #MonumentsForAll – add your voice: https://t.co/sdhECs50l9 http://pic.twitter.com/j0Y7DLttS9
— Sierra Club (@SierraClub) June 8, 2017
RT if you agree: For 111 years, the #AntiquitiesAct has preserved our nation’s natural, cultural & historic wonders. #MonumentsForAll http://pic.twitter.com/kA6j8GVxQp
— Rep. Jacky Rosen (@RepJackyRosen) June 8, 2017
Today marks anniversary of Antiquities Act, which protects public lands & creates monuments. Let us continue to protect #MonumentsForAll. http://pic.twitter.com/moHI0pAHaj
— Steny Hoyer (@WhipHoyer) June 8, 2017
Want to say Happy 111th Anniversary Antiquities Act! I stand w #MonumentsForAll & against Trump’s order to review/downgrade our monuments http://pic.twitter.com/vSTu3untfc
— Ben Ray Lujan (@repbenraylujan) June 8, 2017
Today is 111th anniversary of signing of Antiquities Act, which has helped create many of our nat’l monuments, into law by Teddy Roosevelt http://pic.twitter.com/3QQFnEwuJn
— Rep. Erik Paulsen (@RepErikPaulsen) June 8, 2017
Today is the 111th anniversary of the Antiquities Act. Tell @POTUS to keep his hands off @goldbutte & #BasinAndRange. #MonumentsForAll.
— Dina Titus (@repdinatitus) June 8, 2017
Teddy Roosevelt once said “It is not what we have that will make us a great nation; it is the way in which we use it.” #MonumentsForAll
— Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (@RepAnnaEshoo) June 8, 2017
Today is the 111th anniversary of Teddy Roosevelt signing the #AntiquitiesAct to protect America’s natural treasures for generations to come http://pic.twitter.com/uEX72Nrpka
— Tom Udall (@SenatorTomUdall) June 8, 2017
On the 111th anniversary of the #AntiquitiesAct, I join my fellow Americans to renew our commitment to preserving our Nat’l #MonumentsForAll http://pic.twitter.com/HsOgILEY96
— Tim Walz (@RepTimWalz) June 8, 2017
#OTD in 1906, #TeddyRoosevelt signed #AntiquitiesAct, which allowed presidents to create national monuments like Fort Pulaski. #FindYourPark http://pic.twitter.com/r28RZRJ73N
— Fort Pulaski NM (@FortPulaskiNPS) June 8, 2017
The #AntiquitiesAct, which designates nat’l monuments, turns 111 years old today. Let’s celebrate by protecting this act! http://pic.twitter.com/04HSgUhETu
— Rep. Donald McEachin (@RepMcEachin) June 8, 2017
I oppose @Potus‘s attempts to dismantle the #AntiquitiesAct. The preservation of lands and #monuments is too important.
— Rep. Donald McEachin (@RepMcEachin) June 8, 2017
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
June 09, 2017 at 02:54AM
from Chris D’Angelo
Report: 15 Million Americans’ Drinking Water Tainted By Toxic Chemical
Some 15 million Americans across 27 states are drinking water that could be contaminated with potentially carcinogenic man-made chemicals without even realizing it.
According to a new analysis and map released Thursday by the Environmental Working Group and scientists at Northeastern University, perfluorochemicals (PFCs) — a class of chemicals including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFAS) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) — were detected in 162 U.S. drinking water systems in recent Environmental Protection Agency testing.
The toxic chemicals have been used over the years in a wide range of consumer products, like certain types of nonstick cookware, cleaning products and waterproof clothing, and have been linked to a number of health concerns including cancer, developmental issues and a weakened immune system.
Manufacturers have claimed the dangerous PFCs are no longer used in these products. But Bill Walker, EWG managing editor and the new analysis’ co-author, pointed out that PFCs have proven so ubiquitous in many products over time that, based on testing by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 98 percent of Americans have at least some PFCs in their blood.
Practically any additional exposure to PFCs consumed through drinking water or any other means — even fast food wrappers, for example — is too much, Walker argues, because it takes a long time for the chemicals to leave the body.
“There’s a significant body of evidence out there indicating that these are chemicals you don’t want in your drinking water,” Walker told HuffPost. “They might be, and likely are, having a human health impact at extremely low concentrations. We don’t need anymore.”
Despite the growing recognition of health risks associated with exposure, PFCs are not a federally regulated water contaminant like lead or arsenic.
Recognizing the potential threat, the EPA listed PFCs under its 2012 Unmonitored Contaminant Watering Rule as a candidate for regulation, prompting tests to begin in 2013.
The EPA rule specifically mandates that all U.S. water systems serving more than 10,000 customers test for these unregulated contaminants. In the case of the PFCs, systems were required to report back any detected levels that exceed 20 parts per trillion for PFOA and 40 ppt for PFOS.
But these results likely don’t even come close to telling the full story of PFC exposure in the U.S.
While the EPA has required this testing and set a nonbinding health advisory level of 70 ppt for either PFOAs or PFOS or both chemicals combined, advocates say that concentration far exceeds the safe level of exposure that a growing number of scientists are pointing to. One calculation released in 2015 put the estimated safe level of PFC concentration in drinking water at 1 ppt.
In addition, the EPA testing — though it includes a small selection of samples from water systems smaller than those serving more than 10,000 customers — excludes most small water systems, which serve some 53 million Americans (about 18 percent of the U.S. population). Another 15 million U.S. households (15 percent of the population) get their water from private drinking wells that are not required to be tested for PFCs.
The testing would not have helped the residents of Hoosick Falls, New York, a village of 3,400. In 2015, elevated levels of PFOA were detected in the town’s water supply thanks to testing paid for by a private citizen who was concerned about the chemical. That testing revealed levels as high as 18,000 ppt, likely due to the village wells’ proximity to a plastics factory that made Teflon products.
Concerns over the chemicals have prompted some states, like Minnesota and Vermont, to take action by setting lower state-level limits — as low as 20 ppt — for the substances.
But the risk remains high. The analysis and map released Thursday also points to more than 47 sites of known or suspected PFC contamination across the U.S. (identified above by red dots).
Among the sites, tracked by Northeastern University researchers, are 21 military bases, 20 industrial facilities and seven civilian firefighting locations.
Phil Brown, Northeastern University’s Social Science Environmental Health Institute director, said the hope of the tracking project is to make more Americans aware of the problem’s ubiquity.
“Chemical policy has not done an adequate job of protecting us from this,” Brown told HuffPost. “This is a whole class of chemicals that people rarely hear about. But the more we know, the more consumer and environmental activism will come about.”
For the moment, it appears unlikely — given the Trump administration’s push to downsize the EPA and slash regulations deemed overly burdensome to industry — that further federal action on PFCs will be coming anytime soon.
Even under the Obama administration, Walker noted, no new water contaminants were added to the list of regulated substances. That inaction continued a long-standing trend: Over the past 20 years, no new contaminants have been added to those regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
So ongoing action will likely come, instead, from states, which Walker argues puts residents of certain states less amenable to new regulations at a clear disadvantage compared to others.
“Things are not supposed to work this way in the United States where rights and protections given to people in one state don’t cross the line to another,” Walker added. “We need a federal standard.”
type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=58920381e4b0522c7d3e471c,56f024f7e4b09bf44a9deb98,58ba2022e4b0d2821b4e6338,58b44dfde4b0a8a9b7848f09
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
June 09, 2017 at 02:54AM
from Joseph Erbentraut
Of Mice, Monsanto And A Mysterious Tumor
(First published in Environmental Health News.)
Call it the case of the mysterious mouse tumor.
It’s been 34 years since Monsanto Co. presented U.S. regulators with a seemingly routine study analyzing the effects the company’s best-selling herbicide might have on rodents. Now, that study is once again under the microscope, emerging as a potentially pivotal piece of evidence in litigation brought by hundreds of people who claim Monsanto’s weed killer gave them cancer.
This week tissue slides from long-dead mice in that long-ago research study are being scrutinized by fresh eyes as an expert pathologist employed by lawyers for cancer victims looks for evidence the lawyers hope will help prove a cover-up of the dangers of the weed killer called glyphosate.
Glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s branded Roundup products, is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and is applied broadly in the production of more than 100 food crops, including wheat, corn and soy, as well as on residential lawns, golf courses and school yards.
Residues have been detected in food and human urine, and many scientists around the world have warned that exposure through diet as well as through application can potentially lead to health problems. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen in 2015 based on a review of scientific literature, triggering the wave of lawsuits against Monsanto, and pushing California regulators to announce they would add glyphosate to a list of known carcinogens.
What the expert finds, or doesn’t find, is expected to be key evidence in hearings slated for the week of Dec. 11 in dozens of consolidated cases being overseen by a federal judge in San Francisco.
Rewind to 1983
Monsanto, as well as many other scientists and regulatory bodies, have defended glyphosate’s safety. They say research showing a cancer connection is flawed and hundreds of studies support its safety.
And yet—rewind to July 1983 and a study titled “A Chronic Feeding Study of Glyphosate (Roundup Technical) in Mice.” Following the document trail that surrounds the study offers an illuminating look into how science is not always clear-cut, and the lengths Monsanto has had to go to in order to convince regulators to accept scientific interpretations that support the company’s products.
The two-year study ran from 1980-1982 and involved 400 mice divided into groups of 50 males and 50 females that were administered three different doses of the weed killer or received no glyphosate at all for observation as a control group. The study was conducted for Monsanto to submit to regulators. But unfortunately for Monsanto, some mice exposed to glyphosate developed tumors at statistically significant rates, with no tumors at all in non-dosed mice.
A February 1984 memo from Environmental Protection Agency toxicologist William Dykstra stated the findings definitively: “Review of the mouse oncogenicity study indicates that glyphosate is oncogenic, producing renal tubule adenomas, a rare tumor, in a dose-related manner.” Researchers found these increased incidences of the kidney tumors in mice exposed to glyphosate worrisome because while adenomas are generally benign, they have the potential to become malignant, and even in noncancerous stages they have the potential to be harmful to other organs. Monsanto discounted the findings, arguing that the tumors were “unrelated to treatment” and showing false positives, and the company provided additional data to try to convince the EPA to discount the tumors.
But EPA toxicology experts were unconvinced. EPA statistician and toxicology branch member Herbert Lacayo authored a February 1985 memo outlining disagreement with Monsanto’s position. A “prudent person would reject the Monsanto assumption that Glyphosate dosing has no effect on kidney tumor production,” Lacayo wrote. ”Glyphosate is suspect. Monsanto’s argument is unacceptable.”
Eight members of the EPA’s toxicology branch, including Lacayo and Dykstra, were worried enough by the kidney tumors in mice that they signed a consensus review of glyphosate in March 1985 stating they were classifying glyphosate as a Category C oncogen, a substance “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”
Research rebuttal
That finding did not sit well with Monsanto, and the company worked to reverse the kidney tumor concerns. On April 3, 1985, George Levinskas, Monsanto’s manager for environmental assessment and toxicology, noted in an internal memorandum to another company scientist that the company had arranged for Dr. Marvin Kuschner, a noted pathologist and founding dean of the medical school at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, to review the kidney tissue slides.
Kushner had not yet even accessed the slides but Levinskas implied in his memo that a favorable outcome was assured: “Kuschner will review kidney sections and present his evaluation of them to EPA in an effort to persuade the agency that the observed tumors are not related to glyphosate,” Levinskas wrote. Notably, Levinskas, who died in 2005, was also involved in efforts in the 1970s to downplay damaging findings from a study that found rats exposed to Monsanto’s PCBs developed tumors, documents filed in PCB litigation revealed.
Kuschner’s subsequent re-examination did —as Monsanto stated it would—determine the tumors were not due to glyphosate. Looking over slides of the mouse tissue from the 1983 study, Kuschner identified a small kidney tumor in the control group of the mice – those that had not received glyphosate. No one had noted such a tumor in the original report. The finding was highly significant because it provided a scientific basis for a conclusion that the tumors seen in the mice exposed to glyphosate were not noteworthy after all.
Additionally, Monsanto provided the EPA with an October 1985 report from a “pathology working group” that also rebutted the finding of the connection between glyphosate and the kidney tumors seen in the 1983 study. The pathology working group said “spontaneous chronic renal disease” was “commonly seen in aged mice.” Monsanto provided the report to the EPA stamped as a “trade secret” to be kept from the prying eyes of the public.
The EPA’s own scientists still did not agree, however. An EPA pathologist wrote in a December 1985 memo that additional examination of the tissue slides did not “definitively” reveal a tumor in the control group. Still, the reports by the outside pathologists brought into the debate by Monsanto helped push the EPA to launch a reexamination of the research.
And by February 1986 an EPA scientific advisory panel had dubbed the tumor findings equivocal; saying that given the tumor identified in the control group by some pathologists, the overall incidences of tumors in the animals given glyphosate were not statistically significant enough to warrant the cancer linkage.
The panel did say there may be reason for concern and noted that the tumor incidences seen in the mice given glyphosate were “unusual.”
The advisory panel told the EPA the studies should be repeated in hopes of more definitive findings, and that glyphosate be classified into what the agency at that time called Group D—“not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.” The EPA asked Monsanto for a repeat of the mouse oncogenicity study but Monsanto refused to do so.
The company argued “there is no relevant scientific or regulatory justification for repeating the glyphosate mouse oncogenicity study.” Instead, the company provided EPA officials with historical control data that it argued supported its attempt to downplay the tumor incidences seen in the worrisome 1983 study.
The company said the tumors in mice appear “with some regularity” and were probably attributable to “genetic or environmental” factors. “It is the judgement of Monsanto scientists that the weight-of-evidence strongly supports a conclusion that glyphosate is not oncogenic in the mouse.” Monsanto said repeating the mouse study would “require the expenditure of significant resources … and tie-up valuable laboratory space.”
Feds fold
The discussions between Monsanto and the EPA dragged on until the two sides met in November 1988 to discuss the agency’s request for a second mouse study and Monsanto’s reluctance to do so. Members of the EPA’s toxicology branch continued to express doubts about the validity of Monsanto’s data, but by June of 1989, EPA officials conceded, stating that they would drop the requirement for a repeated mouse study.
By the time an EPA review committee met on June 26, 1991, to again discuss and evaluate glyphosate research, the mouse study was so discounted that the group decided that there was a “lack of convincing carcinogenicity evidence” in relevant animal studies. The group concluded that the herbicide should be classified far more lightly than the initial 1985 classification or even the 1986 classification proposed by the advisory panel. This time, the EPA scientists dubbed the herbicide a Group E chemical, a classification that meant “evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans.” At least two members of the EPA committee refused to sign the report, stating that they did not concur with the findings. In a memo explaining the decision, agency officials offered a caveat. They wrote that the classification “should not be interpreted as a definitive conclusion that the agent will not be a carcinogen under any circumstances.”
Despite the EPA’s ultimate conclusion, the mouse study was among those cited by IARC for classifying glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Indeed, many other animal studies have similarly had questionable results, including a 1981 rat study that showed an increase in incidences of tumors in the testes of male rats and possible thyroid carcinomas in female rats exposed to glyphosate and a 1990 study that showed pancreatic tumors in exposed rats. But none have swayed the EPA from its backing of glyphosate safety.
Christopher Portier, who was an invited specialist to the IARC review of glyphosate and is former director of the National Center for Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, believes the evaluations applied to glyphosate data by regulators are “scientifically flawed” and putting public health at risk.
“The data in these studies strongly supports the ability of glyphosate to cause cancer in humans and animals; there is no reason to believe that all of these positive studies arose simply by chance,” Portier said.
Monsanto fought the plaintiffs’ request to view the mouse tissue slides, calling it a “fishing expedition,” but was overruled by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria who is overseeing the roughly 60 combined lawsuits under his purvey. Monsanto has confirmed that roughly 900 additional plaintiffs have cases pending in other jurisdictions. All make similar claims – that Monsanto manipulated the science, regulators and the public in ways that hid or minimized the danger posed by its herbicide.
“The importance of the original kidney slides and the re-cut kidney slides is immense to the question of general causation and played a critical role in the EPA’s decision to re-categorize glyphosate…” the plaintiffs’ attorneys stated in a court filing.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Aimee Wagstaff reiterated that in a recent court hearing, telling Judge Chhabria that the events surrounding the 1983 mouse study “sort of dominoed,” and potentially are “extremely relevant” to the cancer litigation.
(Coming in October 2017 – Whitewash- The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science, Island Press)
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
June 09, 2017 at 02:54AM
from Carey Gillam
Thursday, June 8, 2017
MidSouth raising capital to exit SBLF
http://ift.tt/eA8V8J
The Louisiana company, which fired its CEO earlier this year, has been paying a hefty dividend on funds it obtained from the Treasury Department in 2011.
June 08, 2017 at 02:47AM
from
Sessions Stops 3rd-Party Donation Settlements
http://ift.tt/eA8V8J
Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday issued a memo prohibiting U.S. attorneys’ offices from requiring defendants to make donations to unrelated third parties as a condition of settlements in federal cases.
June 08, 2017 at 02:45AM
from
3rd Circ. Says Former Le-Nature’s Exec Can’t Lower Sentence
http://ift.tt/eA8V8J
The Third Circuit on Wednesday said a district judge was correct in refusing to reduce the prison sentence of the onetime executive of now-defunct bottling company Le-Nature’s Inc., who in 2011 pled guilty in connection to a $660 million swindle of banks and investors.
June 08, 2017 at 02:45AM
from
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
CFPB’s Cordray threatened with contempt charges by House panel
http://ift.tt/eA8V8J
The House Financial Services Committee is claiming that Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray allegedly lied about the bureau’s investigation into the Wells Fargo scandal.
June 07, 2017 at 02:54AM
from
State Street Investors Deny Forum Shopping In Calif. Court
http://ift.tt/eA8V8J
State Street Corp. shareholders told a California federal court Monday that they didn’t engage in forum shopping when filing allegations that the Boston-based custody bank failed to disclose widespread fraud, including a scheme that overcharged government and pension fund managers across the globe.
June 07, 2017 at 02:54AM
from
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)