The Aldi Facial - Oh yeah Baby!

ALDI IS RUN BY FUCKING MORONS.

This is based upon personal experience and years of full on infighting with them.

The Aldi Management.

OK - global pollution. Plastics poisoning the air, the earth and the sea.

Aldi brand "Lacura - exfoliating wash".

"Contains micro-beads to help unclog blocked pores."

Manufactured in AUSTRALIA.

After every other cosmetics manufacturer phased plastic micro-beads out AND IT'S GLOBALLY BANNED EVERYWHERE,
the IDIOT management of Aldi are still getting it made for them and they are still selling their facial cleaner - filled with plastic microbeads.

(but they won't tell you which bunch of Aussie cash grabbing shit heads are manufacturing it for them either)

Ingredients:

Water, polyethylene (beads), soap and shit.....

It just grinds up finer and finer and finer......

Plastic Microbeads in cosmetics and cleaners?

This has been a very public issue, for a very long time.

AND the morons at Aldi just don't get it.

Why? Because they are all dumb fucks. 


The Forethought to this is, Aldi is run by a retarded bunch of arseholes, and are supplied by a bunch of arsehole retarded AUSTRALIAN manufacturers - who make the microplastic filled facial cleanser.

It's known that the plastic granules and powders, soak up poisons in the ocean and end up in the food chain, and it bioaccumulates, as the little things get eaten by the bigger things etc., until we eat them - in the concentrated toxins in the flesh of the fish - both as poisons in the flesh and the plastic impregnated flesh... 

The Afterthought is, how come the retarded arseholes running Aldi, never advertise the pollution levels and types of pollution, in the fish that they ARE selling?

They never label their fish, "This meat is so toxic, and it contains poisons X, Y and Z, (etc.) in levels so high, that the recommended maximum permissible consumption is 1 meal of 200 grams or less per week, for the average adult, and 20% of this for children."

And the poisons X, Y and Z (etc) are known carcinogens, mutagens and endrocrine disruptors (your boys become girls etc).

The retarded lazy lying arseholes running Aldi AND the fuck holes of manufacturers in Australia who are making this shit for them, never say anything about this....

And the crap on the packet:

 "Made in Australia. Lacura Essentials is a registered trademark of Aldi stores. Aldi guarantees that our exclusive brand products are developed to our stringent quality specifications."

Yah - fuck as if.


The First Proof Microbeads In Skin Care Are Poisoning Fish Flesh
Fish n' chips are coming with a side of chemical pollutants.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/08/17/the-first-proof-microbeads-in-skin-care-are-poisoning-fish-flesh/
 
18/08/2016 7:42 AM AEST | Updated 14/09/2016 10:15 AM AEST 

The devastating effect of plastic in our waterways is hitting home in our seafood industry, with the world's first proof that microbeads from face wash are contaminating fish flesh.
 
Researchers have long known that fish mistake the tiny plastic balls used in toothpastes and face scrubs for food. They also know these microbeads are covered in organic pollutants but no one ever showed those toxic chemicals could jump from the microbead into the flesh.
 
A collaboration between Australia's RMIT University and China's Hainan University showed up to 12.5 per cent of the chemical pollutants on microbeads passed into the fish that eat them.
 
Once these chemical pollutants are in the food chain, they can accumulate as bigger fish eat bigger fish that are eventually eaten by humans.

Etc.

Jan 2016:


Coles and Woolworths ban products containing plastic microbeads

January 8 2016

Major supermarket chains and beauty product manufacturers have committed to phasing out the use of microbeads in Australia, following US legislation to ban the tiny plastic particles that damage waterways and oceans.




2015 AND earlier...

U.S. Passes Law Banning Plastic Microbeads - Norwex Movement

https://www.norwexmovement.com/us-bans-microbeads/


Microbeads - Plastic Free Seas


http://www.plasticfreeseas.org/microbeads.html



Microplastics in the sea a growing threat to human health, United Nations warns | The Independent

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/microplastics-microbeads-ocean-sea-serious-health-risks-united-nations-warns-a7041036.html



2014:

Facebook:

Lynda Folkard‎ to  ALDI Australia

10 March 2015 · Canberra, ACT ·

You Lacura face scrub contains microbeads. Please consider taking this off the market.


2013:

Beauty brands pledge to end use of microbeads in their products
Firms act after Independent on Sunday report on plastics in the food chain 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/beauty-brands-pledge-to-end-use-of-microbeads-in-their-products-9431984.html

Cosmetics companies have promised to remove plastic "microbeads" from their products, following an investigation by The Independent on Sunday which revealed these tiny particles are ending up in fish and other marine creatures after being washed down bathroom sinks.

Thirteen companies, including international cosmetic firms that sell the exfoliating washes and creams with microbeads made from polyethylene and other plastics, say they are planning to stop using them.

Only German discount supermarket Aldi could not give a firm commitment on removing the beads from its facewash.  

Tony Baines, of Aldi said: "This is something we continually review."

Tesco, Procter & Gamble, Estée Lauder, Clarins, Superdrug and Sainsbury's all said they will remove microbeads, but were unable to confirm when.
"We are aware of environmental concerns with certain types of plastic microbead. We are planning to phase these out of our brands and are working with our suppliers to investigate alternatives," a Tesco spokesperson said. Procter & Gamble said that it will not be adding plastic microbeads to any new products and Estée Lauder said that it is "currently in the process of removing exfoliating plastic beads in the small number of our products that contain them".

Superdrug said that it is currently working on a plan to remove the beads from its own products. Sainsbury's said it launched two products with plastic microbeads last year but now plans to stop adding them to any new items. "Once sold through, these will not be replaced," a spokesperson said.

Clarins, the French cosmetics company, said: "We have become aware [microbeads] could pose a problem to the environment. We have therefore decided to phase them out as quickly as possible and are already working diligently on alternative ingredients."

Unilever, Boots, Marks & Spencer, and King of Shaves all promised to end production by the end of next year, while L'Oréal, Johnson & Johnson, and Reckitt Benckiser said that they will stop by 2017.

"We stopped using plastic microbeads in new products in February 2014," Boots said. "We are also carefully managing our stock to ensure the vast majority of old-formulation products will be out of stores well before the end of December 2015." Reckitt Benckiser, producer of Clearasil, said microbeads were on its "not allowed" list and it has already begun the process of removing them from its existing product range.

Over the past two decades, plastic microbeads have become ubiquitous throughout the "personal care" industry, despite a lack of any comprehensive assessment into the effects on the environment or wildlife. A study, led by Mark Anthony Browne of the University of California and published last December, found that potentially toxic pollutants, such as nonylphenol, phenanthrene and Triclosan, stick to microplastic beads and are carried into the tissues of animals when they are consumed.

Dr Browne said that up to 78 per cent of "priority pollutants" – those deemed by the US Environmental Protection Agency as persistent, bio-accumulative or toxic, are typically found in close association with microplastics in the environment, which include the small particles formed by the breakdown of larger plastic waste.

In studies yet to be published, Dr Browne and his colleagues found that a typical household product with microplastic exfoliants, such as a facewash, can contain millions of beads, some as small as a few thousandths of a millimetre in diameter.

The smaller particles are more dangerous to wildlife as they are more likely to be absorbed through the lining of the gut or lungs and thence into an organism's vital tissues. "The research we've done to date shows there is a range of different sizes in each product, some around a millimetre and some as small as a few microns [thousandths of a millimetre]. Some look under the microscope as if they have been ground up. There is a concern about them being a vector for noxious substances," Dr Browne said.

Tests have shown that the kind of fat-soluble pollutants that environmental agencies worry about the most – such as cancer-causing PCBs – can accumulate on the surface of microplastic beads, which have a large surface area compared to their volume. Dr Brown said these concentrations can be up to a million times greater than typical background levels in seawater.

Chris Fowler, of the Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association, said it had made its members aware of concerns over plastic microbeads, but it was for individual companies to formulate their own policies.

"If companies have decided to move away from using plastic microbeads we must remember it will some take time before we start seeing this on the shelf, as reformulation needs to takes place," he said.

Particle physics

No one seems to know – or is prepared to admit – when plastic microbeads were first used, or which company pioneered their use. None of the 15 or so companies we asked could tell us when microbeads were first included in their formulations. But Unilever, one of the first companies to promise to end the use of plastic microbeads, offered a lead in the form of a 1972 patent to protect the intellectual property attached to plastic microbeads used as exfoliants.

The patent was in the name of Willis J Beach of Saginaw, Michigan, who proposed a skin-cleaner with a "plastic synthetic resin". The plastic resin particles will not "clog drains into which it is poured", the patent states. The microbeads are also too small to be caught in the filters used to treat waste water before it is discharged into rivers, streams and, ultimately, the sea. Few companies now try to justify the use of plastic microbeads, given the growing scientific evidence linking them to persistent pollutants such as PCBs.

"No producer will make a public statement. If they admit they're at fault, in so doing they are culpable for the pollution they've caused," said Stiv Wilson of the 5 Gyres Institute in the United States, which campaigns for microbead abolition.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK  About the shit that WE collectively create in out industries, farms, life styles and waste disposal (not reprocessing) methods - and how it end's up in the air, soil, water and ocean.

This is a fairly simple model, in that everything up hill ends up down hill.

So mostly everything - the pollution, that goes up in the air, comes down on the land, or it's dumped on the land, or it's applied to the soil, which washes into the ground waters and ends up in the ocean, or it settles into the oceans directly.

And everything toxic, that gets dumped into the rivers and ground waters goes into the ocean, and everything toxic that gets dumped into the ocean, is THERE, in a single step.


Aldi sell tinned herring, in assorted broths of flavour.

And of course, it all comes with the Aldi standard caveat - or partial truth.

"Made to Aldi's stringent quality standards - blah, blah, blah, tinned in Germany from sustainable fishing stocks."

Oh kudos for the sustainability.

But oceans - full of plastic waste and toxic shit, circulate that shit.

The toxic crap made here, goes around there, and what is harvested there, comes back here, full of toxic crap.

OK we go Internets:

Google:  fish mutations herring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herring#As_food

Main article: Herring as food

Herring has been a staple food source since at least 3000 B.C. There are numerous ways the fish is served and many regional recipes: eaten raw, fermented, pickled, or cured by other techniques, such as being smoked as kippers.

Herring are very high in the long-chain Omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA.^[122] They are a source of vitamin D.^[123]

Water pollution influences the amount of herring that may be safely consumed. For example, large Baltic herring slightly exceeds recommended limits with respect to PCB and dioxin, although some sources point out that the cancer-reducing effect of omega-3 fatty acids is statistically stronger than the cancer-causing effect of PCBs and dioxins.^[124]

The contaminant levels depend on the age of the fish which can be inferred from their size. Baltic herrings larger than 17 cm may be eaten twice a month, while herrings smaller than 17 cm can be eaten freely.^[125] Mercury in fish also influences the amount of fish that women who are pregnant or planning to be pregnant within the next one or two years may safely eat.


More Specifically farmed salmon, but HERRING gets a solid mention:

http://www.nofarmedsalmon.com/

What Makes the Fish Feed so Toxic?

In one Norwegian fish pellet plant, the main ingredient turns out to be eel, used for their high protein and fat content, and other fatty fish from the Baltic Sea. The Baltic is highly polluted. Some of the fish used have toxic levels of pollutants, which then simply get incorporated into the feed pellets.

In Sweden, fish mongers are now required to warn patrons about the potential toxicity of Baltic fish. According to government recommendations, you should not eat fatty fish like herring more than once a week, and if you’re pregnant, fish from the Baltic should be avoided altogether.

Swedish Greenpeace activist Jan Isakson reveals some of the sources of all this pollution. Just outside of Stockholm, there’s a massive paper mill on the bank of the Baltic that generates toxic dioxins.

Nine other industrialized countries surrounding the Baltic Sea also dump their toxic waste into this closed body of water. Dioxins bind to fat, which is why herring, eel, and salmon are particularly vulnerable, and end up accumulating higher amounts than other fish.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
https://www.evira.fi/en/foodstuff/information-on-food/food-hazards/restriction-on-the-use-of-foodstuffs/dietary-advice-on-fish-consumption/

Dietary advice on fish consumption

Fish is recommended food and consumption of fish should be increased. Fish contains healthy fatty acids, several vitamins and minerals and a lot of protein. Fish is a particularly good source of n-3 fatty acids and vitamin D. The useful fatty acids contained in fish have been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases.

The National Nutrition Council recommends that

• fish should be eaten at least twice a week
• different fish species should be varied in the diet.

Exceptions to dietary advice on fish consumption [1]

Despite the favourable nutritional qualities of fish, the consumption of salmon or trout and herring caught in the Baltic Sea, particularly in the Gulf of Bothnia and the Gulf of Finland, may subject consumers to higher than normal levels of dioxins and PCB compounds, which are harmful to health.

Also, higher than normal levels of methylmercury can be derived from predatory fish, particularly pike, caught in inland waters, but also from pike caught in the sea.
The older the fish, the more contaminants will have accumulated in it.

For these reasons the Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira has issued the following exceptions to the general dietary advice on fish consumption:

• Children, young people and persons of fertile age may not eat large herring, which uncleaned are longer than 17 cm, or alternatively salmon or trout caught in the Baltic Sea more often than once or twice a month.
•  
•  Children, young people and persons of fertile age may not eat pike caught in a lake or in the sea more often than once or twice a month.
•  
• Pregnant women and nursing mothers should not eat pike at all due to the mercury accumulated in pike.
•  
• Persons who eat fish from inland waters on a daily basis are advised to reduce their consumption of also other predatory fish that accumulate mercury. Apart from pike, these include large perches, pike perches and burbots

Fish contaminants and consumption restrictions

The purpose of dietary advice is to ensure the safe consumption of fish. The advice is related to dioxins, PCB compounds, mercury and cesium-137 contained in fish.

The safety assessments are based on a portion size of 100 g of fish. If the portion eaten is smaller, fish can be eaten more often. Herring as well as salmon or trout caught in the Baltic Sea as well as predatory fish from inland waters can be eaten from time to time. In summer, for example, they can be eaten in larger amounts, as long as the total annual consumption is balanced and restricted.


Part (up to one third) of the dioxins and PCB compounds accumulated in fish fat can be removed by skinning the fish before preparing it for food. The exceptions to dietary advice do not apply to small herring, which uncleaned are less than 17 cm long. Filleted herring are usually large, longer than 17 cm.

Dioxin and PCB levels in fish from inland waters are normally low, and mercury levels are lower in other lake fish than in pike. The mercury and cesium-137 levels of fish vary from one lake to the other.

Farmed fish contains only low levels of dioxins and PCB compounds, thanks to the control of fish feed quality.

[1] Recommendation issued by the Finnish Food Safety Authority based on contaminant levels.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Now to farmed salmon - which Aldi sell shit loads of in tins. There is no labelling on the tins, about the toxins in the flesh, and there is no maximum recommended consumption levels. Just come down to Aldi and buy, buy, buy and eat, eat, eat.

OK we go Internets:

Google: farmed salmon toxic

2009:


http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2766962.htm

CONOR DUFFY: Marketing featuring images of pristine Tasmanian waters has been crucial to the industry's popularity. But on his most recent visit to Australia, one of the world's leading environmentalists, Dr David Suzuki, gave the National Press Club a very different perspective on Tasmanian salmon.
 
DAVID SUZUKI, ENVIRONMENTALIST: You all sat here and chowed down on farmed salmon and obviously you don't give a shit about what you're putting into your body. You know what a farmed salmon is? It's filled with toxic chemicals.
 
CONOR DUFFY: The Australian Marine Conservation Society has also been critical of the industry's use of chemicals and the reliance on wild-caught fish for feed. It says at least four kilograms of wild fish need to be caught to raise one kilogram of salmon.
 
BEN BIRT, AUSTRALIAN MARINE CONSERVATION SOCIETY: That's the position of the Australian Marine Conservation Society: that farmed salmon from sea cages in Tasmania are best avoided if you want to make a choice that's good for the marine environment.

And remembering that Aldi are a global company:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-205547/Salmon-health-alert.html

Salmon health alert
By SEAN POULTER, Daily Mail

Scientists Issued a devastating new warning last night about the safety of Scottish farmed salmon.

They said the fish is so contaminated with toxic chemicals it should be eaten no more than three times a year.

The chemicals, which have been linked to cancer and birth defects, come from the feed used in fish farms. The findings could have a shattering impact on the £700million-a-year Scottish salmon farming industry, which supports some 6,500 jobs.

Sales of salmon soared as farming brought prices down and the health benefits of oily fish emerged. It has overtaken cod as the best-selling fresh fish in Britain - and 98 per cent comes from Scottish farms.

Salmon farmers there branded the latest study "deliberately misleading" last night while the Food Standards Agency said the levels of pollutants were within safety limits used by Britain, the EU and the World Health Organisation.

Its chairman Sir John Krebs said the health benefits of eating oily fish outweighed any risk.

But Dr Jeffery Foran, an American toxicologist involved in the study, said neither he nor his family would eat farmed salmon again after what he discovered.
Poullutants

The project - based at the University of Albany in New York state - looked at pollutant levels in farmed and wild salmon bought in Britain, Europe and North America.

Previous small-scale studies had identified a contamination risk, but this is by far the biggest and most comprehensive study.

Researchers measured the levels of industrial pollutants - PCBs and dioxins - and agricultural pesticides such as toxaphene and dieldrin.

They examined 700 fish, some bought in London supermarkets and some direct from Scottish farms. The highest concentrations were found in fish from Scotland and the Faroe Islands.

Dr Foran said this may be because their feed contains oil recovered from the ground-up bodies of tiny sea life harvested in the North Atlantic - a dumping ground for decades for manmade toxins. Fish from Norway also performed badly.

The study, published in the respected U.S. journal Science, concluded: "The consumption advice is that no more than one meal every four months should be consumed in order to avoid an increased risk of cancer." Even smaller amounts, it suggested, could trigger harmful effects to brain function and the immune system.

Dr Foran said: "All the compounds we were looking for are classified as probable carcinogens. The evidence from comprehensive animal studies points to a range of cancers including liver, breast, lymphatic and thyroid.

"There are a variety of other health effects, particularly in relation to PCBs.

"They include reproductive and developmental effects. There are also neurological, brain function effects and immune system effects."

All the fish tested was in fillets, but the findings apply equally to smoked salmon.

Almost all tinned salmon, however, is produced from wild fish which have only low levels of pollution.

"Benefits outweigh risks"
Despite the startling results of the survey, the FSA said it was sticking by its advice to consumers. Sir John Krebs said: "People should consume at least two portions of fish a week - one of which should be oily like salmon.

"There is good evidence that eating oily fish reduces the risk of death from heart attacks. We advise that the known benefits outweigh any possible risks."
Scottish Quality Salmon, which represents farmers, said the researchers had been wrong to use strict guidelines drawn up by the U.S. Environment Protection Agency rather than those used elsewhere in the world.

Technical consultant Dr John Webster said: "PCB and dioxin levels in Scottish salmon are significantly lower than the thresholds set by international watchdogs".
The organisation said its members apply "the most stringent independently inspected quality assurance standards in the world".

It said feed suppliers had taken steps to minimise PCB and dioxin levels, including sourcing fish meal and oils from seas which are less polluted and switching to plant oils.

But Don Staniford of the Salmon Farm Protest Group said: "This scientific study blows out of the water the myth that farmed salmon is safe, nutritious and healthy.
"It's official - salmon is now the most contaminated foodstuff on the supermarket shelf."

Dr Dan Barlow, head of research for Friends of the Earth, said: "We have long known that farmed salmon were more heavily contaminated with toxic pollutants than their wild relatives.

"We now know Scottish-raised salmon are among the most contaminated and that the levels of contaminants may be so high as to possibly detract from the health benefits of eating fish."

Pollutants are not the only problem facing salmon farmers. Recent studies have found contamination with radioactive waste from the Sellafield nuclear plant, while there are concerns about the use of malachite green to kill parasites and infections.

There are also health fears over feeding the fish chemicals which colour their flesh pink.

Scotland's estimated 300 salmon farms produce some 160,000 tonnes of salmon a year.

Almost three-quarters of the jobs in the industry are in remote rural areas with fragile economies.

These are boosted by an estimated £1million a week in wages alone.

Published on Jun 23, 2016

This information is from a documentary called "Poisonous Fish: The Big Health Lie" that aired in November 2014, produced by Austrian national TV (ORF): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_Sl_... (German: "Giftiger Fisch: Die große Gesundheitslüge")

Norwegian farmed salmon suffer extremely unhealthy living conditions and are fed toxic substances:
- Fish from the Baltic Sea contamined by industrial wastes
- Ethoxyquin to preserve the fat in those fish
The accumulation of this makes them "5 times more poisonous than any other food available in a normal supermarket"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mmmmm K.

Got that.

Some fish has shit loads of toxins in the flesh, and some fish has not so much. But all fish contain pollution.

And since the management of Aldi, NEITHER state the pollution levels in ANY of the fish they sell, AND they do not stipulate the safe (???) consumption limits of the fish types, e.g. "not more than one meal of 100 grams per adult per month" or "women should not eat this product up to 2 or 3 years before pregnancy or when pregnant"** and although they say herring are sustainable farmed, they don't say where.

So I emailed them this question:

"Just wondering about the seafoods you sell.

What tests are performed on them to ascertain what toxins are in the flesh, such as plastics, PCB's, biocides of all descriptions, and other pollutants?; and

Why are there no recommended maximum safe consumption levels listed on the tins and other containers?; and

In the interim, would you be kind enough to send me the lists of the contaiminants, if any, found in the fish based foods that you sell, and the list of the fisheries that they are obtained from.

Thank you very much."


Their Reply

customerservice@aldi.com.au   
11:56 (53 minutes ago)
       
Dear Fuck Face Arsehole of a Customer

(they didn't really say that - but when they habitually bullshit, lie, and give you the run around, that is exactly what they mean),

Thank you for your enquiry, in relation to ALDI Testing.

We are unable to provide information around specifics tests and results, although we can confirm that we have measures in place that go beyond the Australian Quality Assurance standards.

You can find more information at https://corporate.aldi.com.au/en/corporate-responsibility/consumers/safer-products/

We have passed your feedback and recommendations onto the appropriate department in regards to the packaging for our canned fish products.*****

We appreciate the time and effort you have taken to contact ALDI Customer Service.

Kind Regards,

Michelle

ALDI Customer Service

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh you mean the tests that list the toxins and their levels are not available, nor the location of the fisheries...

And yet they can't pass on what they got from the european fisheries, nor from the German cannery, nor from the material they submitted to pass the Australian Quality Assurance standards - and exactly what are these standards, and what do these standards cover?

While they have taken a week to respond, emails can be responded to on a global basis within 24 hours, so just how much time would these lying arseholes need to not make a reply?

****And in relation to listing the contaminants and the "safe"(???) levels of consumption, appearing on the labels of their tinned fish, or any other products, I bet nothing fucking happens at all.

Lip service, lip service, lip service = Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

And to round off their astounding vauuous customer service, a customer service survey:


            ALDI Customer Satisfaction Survey - Non-Phone          
     
Thank you for recently contacting our Customer Service Department.
 
At ALDI, we are always trying to improve the level of service we provide our customers. To help us do this, we would like you to tell us how we are doing by taking part in the ALDI Customer Satisfaction Survey.
 
This survey only has six questions and will take you less than three minutes to complete.
 
Your feedback will be used to help us improve the performance of our Customer Service Department.
 
Kind Regards,
ALDI Customer Service Team
 
This email is sent by ALDI Stores (A Limited Partnership) ABN 90 196 565 019 whose registered address is 1 Sargents Rd, Minchinbury, NSW 2770, Australia. This message including the enclosures is intended exclusively for the recipient(s) stated and can contain privileged, confidential or otherwise protected information. Should you receive this message in error, it is strictly prohibited for you to use, disseminate, forward, print or copy this message. Please inform the sender mentioned above and delete the message received.
   

     
Begin Survey
   
  


And global pollution caused by Monsanto and their PCB's?

http://suker-punch.blogspot.com.au/2016/12/washington-state-sues-monsanto-over.html