Are the full body protective suits not enough of a tip off that pesticides are toxic? If not, consider this: Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide – the most widely used and best-selling herbicide in the U.S. and one of the world’s most popular weed-killers – has been labeled a probable carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
The decision was made by IARC, the France-based cancer research arm of the World Health Organization, which considered the status of five insect and weed killers including glyphosate, which is used globally in industrial farming.
As reported by The Lancet:
“In March, 2015, 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC; Lyon, France) to assess the carcinogenicity of the organophosphate pesticides tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate (table). These assessments will be published as volume 112 of the IARC Monographs.”
After analysis, it was determined that glyphosate falls into the 2nd level of concern (mainly at industrial use) of 4 levels for possible cancer-causing substances. The 4 levels are:
- Known carcinogens,
- Probable or possible carcinogens (where glyphosate stands)
- Not classifiable
- Probably not carcinogenic
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it would consider the French agency’s evaluation. But given US government agencies’ decisions and political ties, hope is dismal that they will do anything to limit its use. The EPA’s 2012 assessment of glyphosate concluded that it met the statutory safety standards and that the chemical could “continue to be used without unreasonable risks to people or the environment.”
Read: Study Finds Roundup Chemicals Lethal in Small Doses
Though the agency analyzed numerous weed killers, glyphosate, being one of the most popular, is of greater concern. This active ingredient found in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide currently holds the highest production volumes of any herbicide, used in more than 750 different products. Unfortunately, its use has skyrocketed in recent years due to the development of herbicide-resistant genetically modified crops – made to withstand copious amounts of herbicide spraying.
Though the ill effects from glyphosate exposure are most said to be concerning for occupational workers, tests revealing how ubiquitous the chemical really is should pave way for widespread concern.
Not only has glyphosate been detected in the air, in the water, and in our food, but it is also showing up in humans – despite the claims from Monsanto that the chemical is excreted from our bodies. Numerous studies have shown that not only is it causing numerous health problems, but it is showing up in urine samples, blood samples, and even breast milk. This is concerning.
“Glyphosate has been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural workers, indicating absorption. Soil microbes degrade glyphosate to aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA). Blood AMPA detection after poisonings suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in humans. Glyphosate and glyphosate formulations induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro.
One study reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) in residents of several communities after spraying of glyphosate formulations. Bacterial mutagenesis tests were negative. Glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and AMPA induced oxidative stress in rodents and in vitro. The Working Group classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
Needless to say, Roundup creator and biotech giant Monsanto strongly disagreed with the decision.
“All labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health,” said Phil Miller, a Monsanto spokesman, in a statement.
Article image from: GMOEvidence
73 thoughts on “17 Scientists Speak Out: Monsanto’s Roundup is Causing Cancer”
Wow, johnny they only cherry pick the parts of the article just like you!! At least they did get it from The Lancet that published the whole thing to begin with, so they do a much better job of research to begin with.
Still missing the point Bobo. As they say ignorance is bliss. Time to take those rose colored glasses off.
Why don’t you explain it to me then johnny bisquick. And while you are at it tell us what kind of government we have.
We have a corrupt government that has been bought off by these corporations, dimwit.
Unfortunately Bobo doesn’t understand that comment. He is wearing his rose colored glasses. All is right with the world (as long as is taking his meds!)
The bad news keeps coming. We have reached the point where enough
consumers worldwide avoid GMOs, that food manufacturers are phasing them
out. No matter how many regulators MON buys off, no matter how much
they fight labeling laws, no matter how much they suppress independent
studies, as people refuse to buy GMOs, MON will slowly die like a weed
doused with Roundup… Less
Time will tell bisquick, but each day that passes with non of your horror stories coming true, the more foolish you look. Gmos are one of the most studied products in history, and except for your few obscure fake studies they all point to complete safety. By the way bisquick what kind of government do we have?
“Gmos are one of the most studied products in history”
Try and prove this and YOU will look like a fool.
I would rather be a healthy fool now than a poisoned fool later.
Wayne Parrott, a professor of Crop and Soil Sciences at the University of Georgia “GMOs are the most studied food products in all of mankind. We’ve been growing them since 1994”
I do agree with the last half of your title, fool!!! By the way Johnny Bisquick have you studied up on our government yet? Come on now give us an answer for a change don’t dodge it like you do the real facts on gmos.
You site one person’s claim and statement and you think you proved:
“Gmos are one of the most studied products in history”
Wow Bobo you sure know how to take a leap of faith. Do you believe in Astrology Robby?
I could put a thousand out there and you wouldn’t believe me so why waste my time. One expert opinion is enough to prove the point in the case of dealing with a person like yourself. By the way what type of government do we have Johnny bisquick?
So you’ll stop asking what kind of government we have we were founded as a Constitutional Republic; however, as we were warned we allowed central banks to destroy a once great nation, now we are much closer to plutocracy, idiocracy, or as John said a corrupt fascist dictatorship, banksters plan was communism.
You could never prove that a single peer-reviewed study found they are safe because that is not how science works. You said they were the most studied products your own quote says food. Lack of study of food in general is key to that statement. I find it hilarious that your quote also acts as if a couple of decades is a long time. Just like smoking won’t kill you instantly but over time the correlation between smoking and health problems becomes obvious…the research shows the last two decades of GMO have made all of the conditions in graphs below skyrocket.
First of all Obama would never have been elected in your type of government, there goes that one.secondly your cute little pictures mean nothing. Your graphs on the other hand, if you include the consumption of organic food replaces gmos just as good, so what did we prove? Nothing, because there is no correlation between any of them. As for your studies there are thousands of peer review studies linking safety. I can list them, or you can put on your big boy pants and go find them yourself at the gmo dangerous talk website.
What are you talking about Obama? Your dear leader wouldn’t be elected in what type of government? Do you even know we are supposed to be a constitutional republic? You tried that twisted logic before; however, it doesn’t match reality. Organic was our response to ensure some food remained real. Your big tobaco moment already happened go enjoy a glass of round up. No study has ever shown them to be safe.
Are you mentally unstable? Senior moment maybe? You are the one that claimed we are living in a plutocracy. I said if we were Obama would not have been elected. You are wrong about that and you are wrong about the safety studies. Why is it instead of something meaningful all you can say is drink a glass of roundup? Don’t you realize you can have gmos without roundup? Another fact that easily escaped you. You really don’t even know much about it do you. Thankfully the farmers of your state embrace things like the gmo papaya.
I know you are slow on the uptake as I have already got you to admit you were wrong about the article on Sri Lanka ban on glyphosate when you said it mentioned rr rice and proved it didn’t. Try rereading my original comment I said we were founded as a constitutional republic. We have fallen so far from what the founders in visioned as we are firmly owned by the central banks. We grow all of the terrible Gmo seeds here. You know nothing about papaya. Our biggest year in production and price was the year before GMO rainbow was introduced. We have never recovered from the damage that introduction caused Asian exports to crash. The poor people who adopted Gmo to take care of a minor cosmetic issue now sell an entire truck load for only $5-$10 total. Our most profitable papaya are grown Gmo free here in Maui. The pahoa experience showed us the danger of Gmo to sales. I have thousands of non-Gmo papaya trees and they are thriving.
From the Tribune Herald
“Hawaii’s largest yield was 80.5 million pounds in 1984. In 1992, the virus hit Puna, which was growing 53 million pounds of papaya annually.
By the time transgenic papaya was commercialized in 1998, production had been cut in half and most trees were infected, Gonsalves said.
While production remains significantly below pre-virus levels, Gonsalves and other scientists believe there wouldn’t be much left without it.
“There’s no papaya industry. Simple as that,” he said.”
Simply put the facts don’t agree with you again. For the record, I also pointed out your errors on Sri lanka, not the other way around. You have a serious problem with the facts.
Lol, LoLo…you cite a person’s opinion in an article as fact. He is going to say that because like you he relies on selling GMO. Your source is a news article with one guys opinion. Here is from the NASS USDA GOV
1997, farm price reached a record high 48.9 cents per pound (fresh and processed combined). Farm value reached a record $19.0 million.
How could a cosmetic issue like ring spot kill all papaya as your fear mongering claims.
Not a person an expert scientist with agreement from others in his field. You have an opinion, but they have real knowledge on the subject.
As far as price where did I mention it? Oh you only changed the topic again. Of course as sprouting dwindles from the virus the price goes up. Any idiot but you could easily understand that basic economic principle. But you said “Our biggest year in production and price was the year before GMO rainbow was introduced.” This is false or a lie, only you know if you are purposely misleading people or not smart enough to know the facts.
Lol, we already know you are incapable of doing your own research or even drawing conclusions from recorded facts like we had the record farm value the year before introduction of the GMO that killed our export markets. You a Haole from the mid west want to tell me a farmer who grows papaya about our crops. The production decrease had nothing to do with the cosmetic ring spot issue, many non-Gmo trees are still free of that minor issue. As noted by the recorded numbers the biggest production decreases came from a series of hurricanes and storms that destroyed massive numbers of trees.
You are the one that changed the topic my first post mentioned the farm value as this is what makes farmers grow. The low price of 84 made many growers switch to more lucrative crops and that record was utilization production it was long before any Gmo.
You are funny. You change your story. Then you claim I do no research, when I look up an article from a newspaper in your backyard, and then claim that they and the experts they interviewed for the article no nothing, but alas you know everything. We are all suppose to bow down to an arrogant ass like you. No thank you some of us have brains and use them to see through your lies.
Lol you have brains to see that what you sell is ok. You cite an article with the opinion of a guy dependent on scaring farmers just like you. I cited USDA NASS that show storms not the cosmetic issue of ring spot impacted production. The price issue you already lost and that is important for those of us who farm.
So you cite a government agency, you believe to be corrupt, for factual evidence? Your argument gets weaker by the minute. The next lie you told is that price is what matters to farmers. That is a fantasy. It is net income, is what matters. High prices are easily offset with low production. That two economic principles you failed. Combine that with your lies and inability to research and you scored a zero.
I am a farmer and we definitely care about price as a higher price leads to higher net income. The production had everything to do with storm damage and nothing to do with the Gmo, as we have already established since even the number you cite is long before Gmo. We had a much higher net income before Japan stopped buying our papaya,
They stopped? Strange how in 2012 they took about sixteen percent of Hawaii’s crop including the gmos. For a farmer you really don’t keep up much on your industry. You don’t understand what happened to the trees, why the price went up or why the majority of the crop is now gmo, and when pressed you cite an organization that you don’t believe in. If you are going to lie the least you could do is come up with something better.
Storms come and go the last one you are referring to was just last year, before that not much destruction from storms beyond those I mentioned and as your 16% shows they destroy far more trees than ringspot. The state has dealt with ringspot since the 40s it is only a problem for young plants and where aphids are the vector. Sterile soil planting was introduced in the early 70s and makes biggest difference in production. Many non-Gmo cultivars are naturally resistant. Monsanto owns the patent and gave free seeds out through HIPA which is why they were adapted. Fear mongering to get an example of a GMO success. It backfired when Japan our number one export destination refused to buy them. Thus the farm value was highest the year before introduction of the transgenic rainbow.
This from the organization Patrick Moore the GMO advocate who proclaimed round-up is safe to drink, would drink it now then foot in mouth when offered a glass found:
“The selling price of GE papaya has fallen to 30-40% percent below production costs, and the price that farmers get for their GE Papaya is 600 percent lower than the price for Organic Papaya”
My trees are still ringspot free and PCR testing confirms they have not been contaminated by Gmo pollen.
You obviously know very little about economics. You keep whining about Japan when they are currently buying gmo papaya, keep living in your fantasy world, and keep selling to the organic suckers while it lasts, they will eventually wake up and do gmos as well.
I just showed you that GMO Papaya price is 30-40 PERCENT BELOW PRODUCTION COSTS! and we receive over 600 percent higher prices for organic. No one but your customers would grow anything for a price below production costs that is why you are clearly the one incapable of understanding Econ 101.
But guess price doesn’t matter if like your customers welfare croppers on Gmo are given higher crop insurance payments if growing Gmo corn. You already lost enjoy a healthy glass of round up and read the WHO finding of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. When was Gmo papaya accepted by Japan show export numbers.
I lost, but you have to ask a dumb Midwesterner about YOUR crop and where it goes? Lol, you haven’t even made a good point let alone won any kind of debate. For your uneducated information Japan approved the rainbow variety in December 2011. over three years ago and you don’t even know what is going on in your own industry? How sad? Or maybe you have been lying to us all along and don’t even raise papaya or live in Hawaii.
For your next economic lesson, why would someone keep operating below production cost? On the outside it seems to not make sense especially to someone as economically as ignorant as yourself. However, after the best five years in farm profits in history the farmers can afford to operate like this for one year. The more important fact though is that if they do nothing they will lose more money than if they farm. This is thanks to things called fixed costs, something I’m sure you never heard of, like land payments equipment payments property taxes and so on.
Lol my point exactly Japan only allowed transgenic papaya 4 years ago and they still buy almost none compared to what they bought when Gmo was introduced. Keep trying to claim it makes sense to operate at 30-40 percent under operating costs. A truck load of transgenic papaya is $10 and used as hog bait. No one can pay anything at those prices. Step away from your register and visit Hawaii anytime let me know.
Been there they love the gmo papaya, that is why they grow so many. Japan, still wouldn’t be buying them without gmos, because simply put there wouldn’t be enough.
Lol sounds like somebody’s afraid to meet in person I could come visit you. You already agreed that Gmo papaya are 30-40 percent below production costs, only someone so accustomed to Monsanto’s welfare economics of subsidies would think that is a good idea. You still haven’t addressed why my non-Gmo papaya are still thriving as are all of the farms who remained organic. Another false promise from Monsanto. Why so focused on Papaya and not the fact we are the test site developing all of the GMO monstrosities your little store sells. Go back to regional hybrids before you destroy the lil store your pappy gave ya.
Are you stable? I never agreed to any of your crackpot theories.
You are obviously unstable and that is illustrated by your statement that it makes sense for Gmo papaya to operate at 30-40 percent below operating costs that only works in your world of government handouts from those of us who understand economics your insane.
Where did you dream up that I said this? First of all with all of the lies you put out I don’t believe your price of papaya and secondly I don’t believe your lie on the 30-40% under cost either.
4 of your posts ago dummy. Although programs can seem real so maybe your a program would explain your inability to follow threads or use logic.
This sound familiar it’s your words…
“For your next economic lesson, why would someone keep operating below production cost? On the outside it seems to not make sense especially to someone as economically as ignorant as yourself.”
It’s clear you are the one who is ignorant
As I was talking about this year in the Midwest for corn and bean farmers. You know I really do pity you for not being able to understand almost anything. Good thing you are on an island, I bet you still have trouble getting lost.
You are the only one unable to understand anything as anyone can see your response was about papaya by following the thread something you are incapable of doing. Not surprised your customers are also corporate welfare receipients operating below priduction costs as well. You are lost and you have clearly lost this argument. Just wait till we shut down the source of the Gmo monstrosities here at gmogroundzero.
Keep trying as you have failed miserably so far. You are as wrong about my posts as you are about the corporate welfare as well. My customers have made record amounts of money the last few years. Even this year soybeans are projected to make money. Hopefully one day you will open you eyes and leave stupidity behind, but I doubt it.
Leaving stupidity behind is easy I do it everytime I stop responding to your idiotic comments:)
You have been wrong about everything so far so why stop now.
Zero is what your credit stands for
Zero is what your IQ is Bobo.
Zero is the number of friends you have here.
Zero is the number of credible references you offer here
Zero is the amount of research you have done on GMOs
Zero is the amount of interest readers have in your posts here
I could go on but I am getting bored of your zeros
Oh yeah but you do get a score of 100 for one aspect of your posting:
Your ability to make people laugh!! LOL
You are funny johnny, you wouldn’t have any friends either if you didn’t have multiple profiles. For the references and research, anybody that has actually looked at my comments and seen where my facts have come from know that you are lying, again. Now tell us johnny bisquick what kind of government do we have?
Well at least her story isn’t a fantasy like yours Bobo. My my my you do sound upset and being so rude too. Are you off your meds Bobo? You do realize you are the odd man out here with no friends except fellow trolls. How does it feel to have no friends Bobo. Especially when you have no one to turn to except the doctors from Consanto. Poor Bobo.
Sorry buddy you are playing around with the data again.
Did your bosses put you up to this again Bobo. I think I hear your mommy calling you for supper
Yes I can see where you couldn’t comprehend the simple facts. Maybe you should try your other profile to see if it is more clear for you. As far as moms are concerned is it true yours abanded you because she couldn’t stand the sight of you? I can understand that. By the way johnny bisquick what kind of government do we have.
Nothing of any clarity or importance here to respond to.
“Are you mentally unstable?”- Sorry Bobo I think you have got that category all sewn up here
“Senior moment maybe?- that’s about 60 years away for you Bobo
” Thankfully the farmers of your state embrace things like the gmo papaya.”- they had no choice – you know Bobo- no democracy
Johnny, back to this profile? You do like to use them both don’t you. Thanks for thinking I’m going to make it to 104 johnny, you have more faith in gmos than I gave you credit for!! By the way what type of government do we have no johnny? You started by saying we had a democracy and now we don’t? You switch answers as often as you do profiles!!
” I can list them”- you can’t even read them let alone list them Bobo
“gmo dangerous talk website.”- that would be Monsanto? right Bobo?
Wrong again bisquick. That would be gmo answers. Does it really matter if the site links to independent verifiable evidence? Oh wait a second any evidence that doesn’t agree with your backwards view can’t exist can it? By the way Johnny bisquick what type of government do we have?
Somebody stop that Bobo record from skipping.
Why waste your time here – nobody takes you seriously Bobo.
This coming from a person with multiple profiles. Who doesn’t even know what type of government we have.
Nothing of any clarity or importance here to respond to.
Trying to keep people from checking out your multiples? Sorry johnny, but you have to try harder than that. By the way Johnny, well you know go ahead and tell us.
Lol, this GMORoberts is clueless…but some very powerful, very evil banksters who own Monsanto and the fiat currency system of this once great nation do believe in astrology. GMORoberts is just a slave to his faith in a science he can’t even comprehend and in fiat currency he can’t even earn.
#1 – Saccharin
Did you know Monsanto got started because of an artificial sweetener?
John Francisco Queeny founded Monsanto Chemical Works in St. Louis, Missouri with the goal of producing saccharin for Coca-Cola. In stark contrast to its sweet beginnings, studies performed during the early 1970s,* including a study by the National Cancer Institute in 1980, showed that saccharin caused cancer in test rats and mice.
After mounting pressure from consumers, the Calorie Control Council, and manufacturers of artificial sweeteners and diet sodas, along with additional studies (several conducted by the sugar and sweetener industry) that reported flaws in the 1970s studies, saccharin was delisted from the NIH’s
Carcinogen List. A variety of letters from scientists advised against delisting; the official document includes the following wording to this day: “although it is impossible to absolutely conclude that it
poses no threat to human health, sodium saccharin is not reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen under conditions of general usage as an artificial sweetener.”
#2 – PCBs
During the early 1920s, Monsanto began expanding their chemical production into polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to produce coolant fluids for electrical transformers, capacitors, and electric motors. Fifty years later, toxicity tests began reporting serious health effects from PCBs in laboratory rats exposed to the chemical.
After another decade of studies, the truth could no longer be contained: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a reportciting PCBs as the cause of cancer in animals, with additional evidence that they can cause cancer in humans. Additional peer-reviewed health studies showed a causal link between exposure to PCBs and non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, a frequently fatal form of cancer.
In 1979, the United States Congress recognized PCBs as a significant environmental toxin and persistent organic pollutant, and banned its production in the U.S. By then Monsanto already had manufacturing plants abroad, so they weren’t entirely stopped until the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants banned PCBs globally in
And that’s when Monsanto’s duplicity was uncovered: internal company memos from 1956 surfaced, proving that Monsanto had known about dangers of PCBs from early on.
In 2003, Monsanto paid out over $600 million to residents of Anniston, Alabama, who experienced severe health problems including liver disease, neurological disorders and cancer after being exposed to PCBs — more than double the payoff that was awarded in
the case against Pacific Gas & Electric made famous by the movie “Erin Brockovich.”
And yet the damage persists: nearly 30 years after PCBs have been banned from the U.S., they are still showing up in the blood of pregnant women, as reported in a 2011 study by the University of California San Francisco; while other studies are indicating a parallel between PCBs and autism.
#3 – Polystyrene
In 1941, Monsanto began focusing on plastics and synthetic polystyrene, which is still widely used in food packaging and ranked 5th in the EPA’s 1980s listing of chemicals whose production generates the most total hazardous waste.
#4 – Atom bomb and nuclear weapons
Shortly after acquiring Thomas and Hochwalt Laboratories, Monsanto turned this division into their Central Research Department. Between 1943 to 1945, this department coordinated key production efforts of the Manhattan Project—including plutonium purification and production and, as part of the Manhattan Project’s Dayton Project, techniques to refine chemicals used as triggers for atomic weapons (an era of U.S. history that sadly included the deadliest industrial accident).
#5 – DDT
In 1944, Monsanto became one of the first manufacturers of the
insecticide DDT to combat malaria-transmitting mosquitoes. Despite
decades of Monsanto propaganda insisting that DDT was safe, the true
effects of DDT’s toxicity were at last confirmed through outside
research and in 1972, DDT was banned throughout the U.S.
#6 – Dioxin
In 1945, Monsanto began promoting the use of chemical pesticides in
agriculture with the manufacture of the herbicide 2,4,5-T (one of the
precursors to Agent Orange), containing dioxin. Dioxins are a group of
chemically-related compounds that since become known as one of the “Dirty Dozen”
— persistent environmental pollutants that accumulate in the food
chain, mainly in the fatty tissue of animals. In the decades since it
was first developed, Monsanto has been accused of covering up or failing
to report dioxin contamination in a wide range of its products.
#7 – Agent Orange
During the early 1960s, Monsanto was one of the two primary manufacturers of Agent Orange, an herbicide / defoliant used for chemical warfare during the Vietnam War. Except Monsanto’s formula had dioxin levels many times higher than the Agent Orange produced by Dow Chemicals, the other manufacturer (which is why Monsanto was the key defendant in the lawsuit brought by Vietnam War veterans in the United States). As a result of the use of Agent Orange, Vietnam estimates that over 400,000 people were killed or maimed, 500,000 children were born with birth defects, and up to 1 million people were disabled or suffered from health problems—not to mention the far-reaching impact it had on the health of over 3 million American troops and their offspring.
Internal Monsanto memos show that Monsanto knew of the problems of
dioxin contamination of Agent Orange when it sold it to the U.S. government for use in Vietnam. Despite the widespread health impact, Monsanto and Dow were allowed to appeal for and receive financial protection from the U.S. government against veterans seeking compensation for their exposure to Agent Orange.
n 2012, a long 50 years after Agent Orange was deployed, the clean-up effort has finally begun. Yet the legacy of Agent Orange, and successive generations of body deformities, will remain in orphanages throughout VietNam for decades to come.
(Think that can’t happen here? Two crops were recently genetically engineered to withstand a weedkiller made with one of the major components of Agent Orange, 2,4-D, in order to combat “super weeds” that evolved due to the excessive use of RoundUp.)
8 – Petroleum-Based Fertilizer
In 1955, Monsanto began manufacturing petroleum-based fertilizer after purchasing a major oil refinery. Petroleum-based fertilizers can kill beneficial soil micro-organisms,
sterilizing the soil and creating a dependence, like an addiction, to
the synthetic replacements. Not the best addiction to have, considering
the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil…
#9 – RoundUp
During the early 1970s, Monsanto founded their Agricultural Chemicals division with a focus on herbicides, and one herbicide in particular: RoundUp (glyphosate). Because of its ability to eradicate weeds literally overnight, RoundUp was quickly adopted by farmers. Its use increased even more when Monsanto introduced “RoundUp Ready” (glyphosate-resistant) crops, enabling farmers to saturate the entire field with weedkiller without killing the crops.
While glyphosate has been approved by regulatory bodies worldwide and is widely used, concerns about its effects on humans and the environment persist. RoundUp has been found in samples of groundwater, as well as soil, and even in streams and air throughout the Midwest U.S., and increasingly in food. It has been linked to butterfly mortality, and the proliferation of superweeds.Studies in rats have shown consistently negative health impacts ranging from tumors, altered organ function, and infertility, to cancer and
#10 – Aspartame (NutraSweet / Equal)
An accidental discovery during research on gastrointestinal hormones
resulted in a uniquely sweet chemical: aspartame. During the clinical
trials conducted on 7 infant monkeys as part of aspartame’s application
for FDA approval, 1 monkey died and 5 other monkeys had grand mal
seizures—yet somehow aspartame was still approved by the FDA in 1974. In
1985, Monsanto acquired the company responsible for aspartame’s
manufacture (G.D. Searle) and began marketing the product as NutraSweet.
Twenty years later, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
released a report listing 94 health issues caused by aspartame.
#11 – Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH)
This genetically modified hormone was developed by Monsanto to be
injected into dairy cows to produce more milk. Cows subjected to rBGH
suffer excruciating pain due to swollen udders and mastitis, and the pus from the resulting infection enters the milk supply requiring the use of additional antibiotics. rBGH milk has been linked to breast cancer, colon cancer, and prostate cancer in humans.
#12 – Genetically Modified Crops / GMOs
In the early 1990s, Monsanto began gene-splicing corn, cotton, soy,
and canola with DNA from viruses and bacteria in order to achieve one of
two traits: an internally-generated pesticide (the corn or soy causes
the insect’s stomach to rupture if they eat it), or an internal
resistance to Monsanto’s weedkiller RoundUp (enabling farmers to drench
their field with RoundUp to kill ever-stronger weeds).
Despite decades of promises that genetically engineered crops would
“feed the world” with “more nutrients,” drought resistance, or yield,
the majority of Monsanto’s profits
are from seeds that are engineered to tolerate Monsanto’s
RoundUp—providing them with an ever-increasing, dual income stream as weeds continue to evolve resistance to RoundUp.
Most sobering however, is that the world is once again buying into Monsanto’s “safe” claims.Just like the early days of PCBs, DDT, Agent Orange, Monsanto has successfully fooled the general public and regulatory agencies into
believing that RoundUp, and the genetically modified crops that help sell RoundUp, are “safe.” Despite the fact that NO human testing has ever been done on GMO crops!
Meanwhile, Monsanto has learned a thing or two in the past 100+ years
of defending its dirty products: these days, when a new study shows the
negative health or environmental impacts of GMOs, Monsanto attacks the
study and its scientist(s) by flooding the media with counter claims from “independent” organizations, scientists, industry associations,
blogs, sponsored social media, and articles by “private” public
relations firms—all endorsed, founded, funded or maintained by Monsanto.
You forgot ethoxyquin John. Any one that had pets between 1970 and 2000 that had some bizarre slow painful death probably didn’t know why. This Is why! I was fighting Monsatan about this back at the end of the 80’s and early 90’s. I had 2 dogs , an Irish Setter and a lhasa Apso that died from this shit.
ETHOXYQUIN, CARCINOGENIC,TOXIC FOOD PRESERVATIVE in Pet Foods: A Letter to the FDA
PS Tell Bobo to stick a Mongolian Gerbil where the sun don’t shine.
Here’s a little something for you Robo Bobo.
The founding family of Monsanto were also slave owners. The corporation has always existed for evil purposes. Many of the “useful idiots”, as the elites who started this chemical cartel as a method of eugenics call people like GMORoberts, are just clueless lemmings. To ignorant to even attempt to conduct research they rely on the opinions of others.
The small amount of studies conducted on GMO have been almost entirely funded by the same companies that sell them. The review process of the FDA and USDA does not involve any government testing it relies solely on research of the company that sells the Gmo. Even in the industry funded studies which only last 90 days significant issues are found and anyone who actually understands the science knows they are anything but safe.
Lots of hate for Monsanto here.. Pretty entertaining..
What good have they done? Anyone?