Print Friendly and PDF

How the FDA, USDA, and EPA Protect Chemical Industries, Not the Public

Paul Fassa
by
July 3rd, 2014
Updated 07/03/2014 at 12:37 am
Pin It

money corrupt political man 263x164 How the FDA, USDA, and EPA Protect Chemical Industries, Not the PublicThe United Sates Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are probably the most well-known agencies which are supposed to protect us from harmful foods and chemicals. But as just one 500-page report bashing the FDA says, they don’t. They protect the industries from which you’re supposed to be protected. It’s not simply just government bureaucratic idiocy as most tend to assume. It’s mostly by design.

Here’s a quote from former FDA commissioner Dr. Herbert Ley:

The FDA ‘protects’ the big drug companies and are subsequently rewarded, and using the government’s police powers they attack those who threaten the big drug companies. People think that the FDA is protecting them. It isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as night and day.

You’ve probably surmised that the FDA is failing from several issues of what the organization bans and allows. But even the EPA, once an environmental watchdog feared and hated by corporations, has lost its teeth over the past few decades. And now with biotech GMO advocate, former Iowan governor Tom Vilsack in charge of the USDA, forget about protecting us from GMOs or agent orange-type pesticides.

Yes, that agent orange one, 2, 4-D has been approved by the USDA.

A Fatal Flaw in the Corporate Regulatory Agency Relationship

But here’s the problem or fatal flaw. All these chemical companies have a proprietary trade secrets code where they are allowed to not disclose all the ingredients of any commercially produced chemical compounds. And yes, the regulatory agencies honor that!

Regulatory agencies test only the active ingredients of pesticides and herbicides such as Monsanto’s Roundup while acquiescing to industry demands of “protecting trade secrets” for the inert ingredients used as adjuvants to increase glyphosate’s plant absorption. Thus glyphosate alone has been tested short term as less harmful environmentally as some other pesticides as long as it’s used within proper guidelines. of Course glyphosate is not at all safe, even in small amounts.

Researchers at Caen University in France, the same people whose long term toxicity on Roundup resistant corn and Roundup produced those rats with gross tumors, had earlier broken the corporate code of secrecy using state of the art spectrometry equipment. They separated the ingredients of glyphosate-based herbicides, including Monsanto’s Roundup, to determine if those “inert” substances added to the toxicity of glyphosate.

That study determined the most commonly used adjuvant, POE-15, was more toxic by itself than glyphosate. The researchers asserted that regulatory testing only active ingredients is useless, and the combination of all the ingredients need to be tested long term on mammals to determine human safety. Here’s that study.

This proves that breaking the corporate code of preserving trade secrets is necessary with long term testing if public and environmental safety is to be protected.

Another Source:

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/fda2.html

From around the web:

  • RealityCheck

    The article is simply wrong. These agencies test the whole product, not just the active ingredient.

    The only thing they honor regarding trade secrets is… secrecy. Companies are not allowed to withhold information from these agencies. You’re just plain wrong.

    Trade secrets are absolutely vital to technological progress, the economy, and the wellbeing of Americans.

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

  • issyco

    Yes, I know, but WHY??? Why do our taxes continue to support these agencies that aren’t doing the service they were hired to do — protecting the publc at all costs!

    • http://www.themindbodyspiritstore.com Danny Zwolenski

      How can we be sure it is wrong. Seems pretty sure of his content. And even if he is wrong, the point I see in the article is that we cannot trust these agencies, they are not protecting us like they are supposed to, they DO protect us from these dangerous companies and their poisons. This is not new news. The public is more at risk because of these agencies, they are out of control and need to be exposed to everyone. Too many people blindly live their lives believing they are protected from consuming harmful products and that is not even close to the truth.