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 Monsantoโs glyphosate was โprobably carcinogenic,โ the first thing the company did was move to damage control โ to โevade detection of apprehensionโ 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 studyย has proven aย link between the two.
How can Monsanto maintain that glyphosate and GMOs are harmless? What are these โ800 studiesโ 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 andย classify glyphosate as โpractically non-toxicโ 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 glyphosateโs 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 EPAโs 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 โtrade secretsโ of the biotech industry. What exactly were in those studies? Why canโt the public know? Monsantoโs 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:
โThere are two worries I have about the redacted lines which only Monsanto and the judge sees. What ifโฆ[the redacted lines] reference a Monsantoโฆchemical 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? Furthermoreโฆthe [Monsanto legal] argument depends intimately on untested combinations [of Monsanto chemical pesticides]โฆโฆI 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 donโt 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 Monsantoโs 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]โthat is a police issue to be resolved if it occurs, not a court decision.โ
In this argument, Dr. Pang obliterates any rationale for Monsanto and the federal court to heavily censor Monsanto documents โ from the EPA, USDA, or elsewhere.
It is now common knowledge that during the Cold War, Monsantoโs 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?
Many attest that GM foods are nothing more than biological weapons. Some say they are premeditated murder. Some say they are meant to sterilize an entire generation of people:
โWe have a greenhouse full of corn plants that produce anti-sperm antibodies.โ ~ Mitch Hein, president of Epicyte, a California-based biotechnology company.
Moreover, the Codex international organization, founded by the United Nations, charged with regulating all foods, minerals, and herbs in the world, does not believe that GMO products are food, and as such, โcan be used for various practices, including birth control and the creation of infertility in a nation or people.โ
President of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, said his companyโs transgenic corn plants, โcreate anti-sperm antibodies.โ
He has also explained that the creation of transgenic organisms and their use in food could be used as a tool to solve the โoverpopulation problem.โ
Monsanto is not creating food.
