Monsanto ‘Deliberately Covered Up Data’ Proving Glyphosate is Cancerous for 4 Decades

A key sign we need truly independent testing

Christina Sarich
By Christina Sarich
Posted On September 30, 2015

What will it take to shut down Monsanto’s doors irrevocably? Likely it will be the same type of lawsuit that finally pulled the shades on the tobacco industry. If Big Tobacco eventually had to pay a $206 billion settlement over 25 years for lying about the health impacts of cigarettes, what do you think Monsanto will have to pay for lying about glyphosate’s carcinogenic nature for almost 40 years?

Some well-respected researchers are now saying that Monsanto demanded incriminating data and reports be sealed and locked away from public scrutiny as proprietary trade secrets, though they knew these documents would reveal glyphosate’s carcinogenic nature.

Monsanto has yet to be caught red-handed lying about research, but the corp has been caught twice when they utilized outside laboratories that were later found to have been criminal. In 1978, the EPA busted Industrial Biotest Laboratories for rigging laboratory results; the company’s executives were found guilty for submitting fabricated data supporting glyphosate in positive light to the government. In 1991, another firm, Craven Labs, was found guilty on similar charges with 20 felony counts. Monsanto’s timeline of crime is undeniable. [1]

The EPA continually colludes with Monsanto to present glyphosate as ‘safe’ to the public, but during an exclusive interview on the Progressive Radio Network on September 4, Anthony Samsel stated that Monsanto used an industry trick to dismiss evidence about glyphosate’s risks in its own research.  “Monsanto misrepresented the data,” says Samsel, “and deliberately covered up data to bring the product [glyphosate] to market.”

Samsel, an independent research scientist and a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, explains, along with Dr. Stephanie Seneff, that in order to minimize and cancel out its adverse findings:

“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 recent study from France published in the August issue of the Environmental Health Journal by scientists at Kings College London and the University of Caen in France.

The two year study found 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, though the biotech industry has been trying to debunk its findings.

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.

Want to learn more? Watch these videos:

Lobbyist who says you can drink glyphosate:

Documentary of the Monsanto Company:

Seeds of Death:

Monsanto has gotten away with murder for long enough. The world is starting to wake up, and hold them accountable. Our efforts are working; just don’t let up the pressure. Keep educating yourself and others and we will protect the food supply.

Additional Sources:

[1] GlobalResearch

Post written byChristina Sarich:
Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga.

13 responses to “Monsanto ‘Deliberately Covered Up Data’ Proving Glyphosate is Cancerous for 4 Decades”

  1. text me443) 732-5770 See Available strains Good
    for Pain, cancer,
    insomnia We got some MEDICAL marijuana/weeds realMary Jane good for and
    we do also provide medical cards to all our clients willing to buy meds
    for their sick and doesn’t have a card dddfgdfre

    Reply

  2. Fraudulent Scientific Research Exposed by Medical Journal Editors and Professors

    Dr. Richard Horton current editor-in-chief of the British Lancet journal:

    “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

    Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the esteemed New England Journal of Medicine:

    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines … I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/jul/15/the-truth-about-the-drug-companies/?pagination=false

    Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of disease prevention at Stanford University, highlighting the corrupting influence of Big Pharma and concluded that:

    “There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false … it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true.” http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 😐

    Reply

  5. If Big Tobacco eventually had to pay a $206 billion settlement over 25
    years for lying about the health impacts of cigarettes, what do you
    think Monsanto will have to pay for lying about glyphosate’s
    carcinogenic nature for almost 40 years?

    I believe the precedence would be 10% of their profits from the 40 years.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.