Monsanto Has Knowingly Been Poisoning People for (at Least) 35 Years
Evidence has surfaced from the archives of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that now proves that Monsanto has been fully aware of the potential of glyphosate to cause cancer in mammals (human populations) since as early as 1981.
When the WHO recently announced that Monsanto’s glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic,” the first thing the company did was move to damage control – to “evade detection of apprehension” for their heinous deeds. Teams of writers with links to the biotech industry went to work refusing that their chemicals were causing cancer the world over, even though study after study has found a link between the two.
How can Monsanto maintain that glyphosate and GMOs are harmless? What are these “800 studies” proving its safety, and where are they? And how can the EPA, which reviews extensive toxicological and environmental data before registering an active ingredient, corroborate such nonsense and classify glyphosate as “practically non-toxic” when there is so much evidence to the contrary? Especially when their own documents tell a very different story!
With a search through EPA around the time of glyphosate’s initial registration (in addition to earlier investigations by Sustainable Pulse which highlighted a sudden change in the EPA view on toxicity in 1991), what was discovered was very illuminating.
Among the EPA’s records were multiple animal experiments (using rats, mice, and dogs) designed to test the acute and chronic toxicity of glyphosate in the period 1978-1986, conducted by laboratories such as Bio/dynamics Inc for Monsanto and submitted for EPA consideration.
At least two of the these reports involving the reproductive systems of rats exposed to glyphosate had telling results, but these were shielded from pubic view as ‘trade secrets’ of the biotech industry. What exactly were in those studies? Why can’t the public know? Monsanto’s need for secrecy shows that their aims were likely far more sinister than anyone would like to think.
Dr. Pang (retired US Army Medical Corps, former consultant to the World Health Organization for 20 years ) offers his important assessment of what might sit underneath all those Monsanto blacked-out lines [in recently exposed secret Monsanto documents regarding the Maui County vs. Monsanto case]:
As Jon Rappoport recently detailed:
“There are two worries I have about the redacted lines which only Monsanto and the judge sees. What if…[the redacted lines] reference a Monsanto…chemical similar to toxaphene (banned for toxicity and spreading hundreds of miles). Can she [Judge Mollway] tell us what [Monsanto] chemicals are similar enough to toxaphene to be worrisome? Can she recognize the chemical structure of toxaphene (from multiple choice diagrams)? What if it is toxaphene itself? Furthermore…the [Monsanto legal] argument depends intimately on untested combinations [of Monsanto chemical pesticides]……I need to know the number of chemicals used AND the amounts used to see their potential for [toxic] overlap. I feel I am competent to make these assessments.
I don’t have access to the [un]redacted versions of Monsanto documents]. Only two other parties do. 1) Monsanto is grossly biased and 2) the Judge who is not scientifically qualified. If she brings in a third party ‘independent’ (say UH) to assess for her, they have to be both non-biased and scientifically qualified. I am not even convinced she can recognize the scientific qualifications of her own advisers. For example, ask them their opinion on the recent ruling of WHO on glyphosate risk of cancer [glyphosate is the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s pesticide Roundup]. On the mutational potential of glyphosate for human pathogens related to antibiotic resistance. On the gene toxicity (same mechanism as cancer) relationship [of glyphosate] to birth defects (widely published, even before the cancer risk publications).
If [the Monsanto] info is redacted because of threat of vandalism [at their secret facility locations on Maui]—that is a police issue to be resolved if it occurs, not a court decision.”
In this argument, Dr. Pang obliterates any rationale for Monsanto and the federal court to heavily censor Monsanto documents – from the EPA, USDA, or elsewhere.
During an exclusive interview on the Progressive Radio Network on September 4, 2015, there was an interview between Anthony Samsel, an independent research scientist working internationally in the interest of public health and the environment, and Stephanie Seneff, a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
Samsel stated that Monsanto misrepresented the data and deliberately covered up data to bring glyphosate to market.
Here’s a portion summary of what’s covered, in case the interview is unable to be heard:
““Monsanto had relied upon earlier historical animal control data, toxicological research with lab animals afflicted with cancer and organ failures, and completely unrelated to glyphosate. In some cases the control animals displayed kidney, liver and pancreatic diseases.
Many of Monsanto’s own studies required the inclusion of extraneous studies in order to cancel out damaging results. This is not an uncommon industry habit, particularly in toxicological science. It enables corporations to mask undesirable outcomes and make claims that observable illnesses and disease are spontaneous occurrences without known causal factors.
Frequently, Monsanto would have to rely on three external control studies to negate the adverse effects of a single one of its own. Samsel found other incidences in Monsanto’s data where 5, 7 and in one case 11 unrelated studies were necessary to diminish the severity of its own findings. In effect, glyphosate received licensure based upon a platform of junk tobacco science.”“
The researchers go on to explain that Monsanto covered up the fact that glyphosate was equally toxic in both low and high range doses.
These findings are corroborated by a study out of France finding that glyphosate administered at an ultra-low dose of 0.1 ppb (the EU’s safety limit) in drinking water altered over 4000 gene clusters in the livers and kidneys of rats.
So what information is hiding in Monsanto’s sealed documents?
Among the many cancers and diseases associated with glyphosate are:
- Adenoma cancer in the pituitary gland
- Glioma tumors in the brain
- Reticular cell sarcomas in the heart
- Malignant tumors in the lungs
- Salivary mandibular reticular cell carcinoma
- Metastatic sarcomas of the lymph gland
- Prostate carcinoma
- Cancer of the bladder
- Thyroid carcinoma
- Adrenal reticulum cell sarcomas
- Cortical adenomas
- Basal cell squamous skin tumors
Yet these were all hidden from public view. I think that hundreds of billions of dollars won’t come close to account for the 40 years of health damage Monsanto has potentially caused by hiding this information. But one thing is certain, just like the Tobacco industry – Monsanto will pay.
Here is a similar interview with Stephanie Seneff.
Monsanto Hides Toxicity Test Results on Roundup, Calling them ‘Commercial Secret’
Mid-2014, Monsanto refused to release to the public lab tests conducted in St. Louis, Missouri, which gave them authority to use glyphosate in China.
Chinese food safety volunteers tendered a request to China’s Ministry of Agriculture to release the study that justified issuing the safety certificate for the import into China of Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup.
Glyphosate was given a safety certificate in 1988 after studies submitted by Monsanto were conducted at Younger Laboratories in St. Louis Missouri.
The test was meant to be an acute exposure toxicity test in which rats were given Roundup by mouth for several days, and rabbits were exposed to Roundup by skin. The company claimed that the herbicide had no effect on the eyes or the skin, and that no allergies ensued.
However, they refused to release the lab report to China’s food safety volunteers, stating that it is an industry secret.
If there truly were no adverse effects from rabbits and rats being exposed to glyphosate, then why not absolve themselves from public scrutiny, and post them for all to see? If animals simply feeding on glyphosate-resistant GMO corn, soy, and other crops developed tumors, then what would have happened to rats who ate the stuff straight from droppers?
It is now common knowledge that during the Cold War, Monsanto’s 2,4-D was a form of biological warfare, and Operation Ranch Hand using Agent Orange killed millions and caused an untold number of birth defects.
Is this what Monsanto is hiding about their toxic brew of chemicals used today?
I don’t think this article will surprise anyone who is awake.
At least 10 yrs ago I attended a lecture on Round Up by a prof at the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS). The details are sketchy now, but as I recall, she had researched the use of Round Up on family gardens in Mexico. Some gardens were treated, but others, in a separate area were not. In the end she observed the same birth defects in children who ate from the treated gardens as has been observed in some of the world’s frog populations damaged by pesticide runoff. In the village where the children ate from the Round Up sprayed garden, little boys were born with damaged genitalia, some with micro penis, some with no penis at all. The horrifying truth about this product has been know for a very long time.
Why would you spray a broad spectrum herbicide on a garden?
Monsanto was involved in Manufacturing PCB’s since 1935 so maybe you should change the title to at least 80 years. My mother worked in the attorney generals office and she told me about it. I just did a quick search and came up with this article about one of many suits brought against them from their time in Massachusetts.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091213/NEWS/912130326
In english gematria monsanto is 666
Increased Pesticides
Monsanto-Mahyco’s primary promise was that Bt cotton would reduce the amount of chemicals needed to control pests. Over the past 10 years, however, government data show that pesticide
usage has stayed the same or increased across the cotton belt. This is due to two factors: Insects have developed resistance to Bt cotton: The cotton bollworm, Bt’s target pest, developed resistance to the Cry toxin produced by Bt cotton, pushing farmers to use more pesticides to control the pest. To
combat this problem, in 2006, Monsanto released a second generation of Bt cotton called Bollgard-II, which has two Bt genes instead of the original single gene in Bollgard-I. Secondary pests are becoming a problem: Because of the initial reduction in bollworm populations in Bt cotton fields, pests that did not previously pose a significant threat to cotton crops, such as mealy bug, aphids and thrips, have become more prevalent.[xiii] Farmers are now using highly toxic pesticides to manage these new pest problems.
Increased Costs
Bt seed, which farmers have to buy from seed companies every year, is anywhere from 3 to 8 times more expensive than conventional hybrid seed, and several times more costly than the local seed farmers could buy in the market two decades ago. The seeds can cost anywhere between 700
($13) to 2,000 rupees ($38) per packet. Cotton farmers in India are also spending significantly more on pesticides and other farm inputs. In 2002, farmers spent Rs 5.97-billionon pesticides and in 2010 this number rose to Rs 8.80-billion as farmers tried to combat pest resistance and the emergence of secondary pests. Bt cotton also requires higher levels of irrigation and fertilizer to yield well, further
pushing up farmers’ costs.
You’re as full of it as your Gish gallops.
A couple of days ago, you pretended to be the coy scientist, saying (and I’m paraphrasing) that if Monsanto ever found out you worked in a lab, you’d never get a lab job again.
I’m calling BS. You’ve never worked in a lab, except maybe to mop the floors and empty the trash!
With all the rhetoric here about the laurels and problems with Monsanto products, where oh where is the discussion of a class action lawsuit against Monsanto?
Why is everyone wasting time discussing the obvious – it matters not what Roundup does or does not do – what matters is that Monsanto knowingly put a product on the market that gives people cancer! If they knew 35 years ago that the glysophates were a cancer causing agent, then the FDA, and anyone who knowingly put people at risk needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Anyone who kills people (whether by violence or poisoning) is still subject to capital punishment under our existing laws. A slow kill is still murder – and Monsanto has been slowly poisoning people for decades. Remember Agent Orange? Now Roundup; and then we factor in their Genetically Modified Seeds that the rest of the world will not even purchase. Where are lawyers that have the testicular fortitude to take on this industry giant? Why haven’t they and others even attempted to put a stop to frankenfoods and the slow kill of the American public?