Glyphosate Red Herring for Real Dangers of Roundup

Glyphosate shocked the news world in 2015 when the World Health Organization declared it a probable carcinogen. The larger, nearly unmentioned problem, is that focusing on glyphosate alone obscures the real issue: the toxicity of Roundup.  Glyphosate is merely a red herring that hides the real dangers of Roundup.  Farmers and homeowners don’t poison weeds and driveways (and themselves) with glyphosate alone. They use Roundup, which is an entirely different animal.

Monsanto narrows Glyphosate / Roundup Argument

Monsanto is pleased to keep the discussion narrowed to glyphosate alone.  And most of the world’s industry-captured regulatory agencies have been pleased to oblige the chemical giant.  Glyphosate alone can be shown – in some studies, at least – to have a much nicer safety profile than Roundup. Consequently, any arguments about glyphosate have been cleverly controlled by Monsanto from the beginning.  The company has been assisted in this shell game by many of the world’s alphabet agencies – like the Monsanto-friendly EPA – in charge of protecting public health and the commons.

The EPA, incredibly (some would say, criminally), reviews only those studies which have examined glyphosate alone. The agency does not research, in any meaningful way, the entire toxic cocktail that is Roundup.  This glaring glitch results from an absurd loophole in the way chemicals in the U.S. are unleashed on the public, with the help of pliant agencies like the EPA, FDA, and others.  It’s the same story for generic drugs, which are not equivalent, no matter how they are marketed.  A generic drug is deemed to be “equivalent” if its “active ingredient” can be shown to be triggered in dubious lab tests.

Nothing in Our Universe exists in a Vacuum
For reasons beyond the pale of sensibility, EPA looks only at what Monsanto alleges is Roundup’s only active ingredient, glyphosate.  This is a ludicrous position, because the numerous adjuvants in Roundup change the entire game.  Nevertheless, as incredible as it seems, chemical companies like Monsanto are allowed to claim that all the adjuvants in Roundup (or other pesticides) are not active (in other words, irrelevant), without being made to prove that claim.

Far from being the be-all the and the end-all in the active chemical cocktail that is Roundup, glyphosate is only one of many ingredients present and active in the world’s most popular week killer.

Roundup lawsuits being filed against Monsanto are calling the company out for this incredible oversight.  The suits argue that the mixture of glyphosate with many other ingredients that comprise Roundup is what makes Roundup’s carcinogenic to people. Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL), Chronic Lymphocytic Lekemia (CLL), Multiple Myeloma, Hairy Cell Leukemia (HCL) have all been linked to Roundup exposure.

Roundup Warning: Adjuvants increase the toxicity of active ingredients
The FDA has  categorically failed to demand long-term tests of Roundup, the most popular of many Monsanto pesticides that list glyphosate as their only “active” ingredient.   Meanwhile, all glyphosate weed killers contain many other chemicals and ingredients called adjuvants.  Many of these adjuvants are toxic by themselves, yet their own toxicity can increase exponentially when mixed with glyphosate.

The adjuvants increase glyophosate toxicity by allowing it to penetrate animal, plant and human cells more easily.  The half-life of many Roundup adjuvants also outlast glyphosate alone.

The testing of a so-called active ingredient like glyphosate is essentially pointless.  Nobody is exposed to glyphosate alone.  It is always within a product that contains many other chemicals and components.  These ingredients can affect one another in profound ways.

1,000 times more toxic
An in vitro study looked at eight major pesticides – including Roundup – in terms of their complete formulations. The products were all shockingly many times more toxic to human cells when tested against their isolated adjuvants or so-called active ingredients.  Some were as much as 1,000 times more toxic.

Another in vivo study of pigs showed glyphosate and the adjuvant POEA combined in herbicide formulations were toxic to the pigs and lethal in high doses. Glyphosate alone, however, was not. A similar study using rats showed Roundup formulations were far more toxic than glyphosate alone.

Glyphosate Red Herring for Real Dangers of Roundup

Herbicides and pesticides are not accurately tested for safety and regulated by the agencies in charge of protecting human health and our environment.  The additives in Roundup and other weed killers and pesticides can comprise as much as 95 percent of the finished product. The EPA, FDA and other alphabet agencies have failed to protect us from Roundup and other pesticides and chemicals.  Our last best hope is that Roundup Lawsuits filed against Monsanto will stop the systemic poisoning of our food, soil, water, and our own bodies and minds.

Related

Share

Train Engineers’ Sleep Apnea undiagnosed before crashes

Two New York City-area engineers who crashed their trains in 2016 suffered from undiagnosed sleep apnea.  Neither has a memory of the crash he caused.  That was the finding of the National Transportation Safety Board.  The crashes – in Hoboken, New Jersey and Brooklyn, New York – killed one person and injured 200.

Both trains were moving faster than double the posted speed limit, the Associated Press reported. Each crashed at a station that had been exempted from federal regulations which require automatic speed controls that could have slowed or stopped them. The NTSB documents were made public Sept. 21, 2017.

NTSB Report will Combine Findings

NTSB said the common circumstances of the two accidents – the Sept. 29, 2016 New Jersey Transit crash in Hoboken, New Jersey; and the Jan. 4, 2017 Long Island Rail Road crash in Brooklyn – warranted combined findings and recommendations into one report slated for release in 2018.

The 2,500 pages of documents released Sept. 21 included medical reports and interview transcripts.  They show what investigators have learned but don’t include crash causation conclusions.

Sleep Apnea Controversy Rages
The sleep apnea findings inflame the debate over whether or not to require testing for the malady in train engineers and OTR semi-truck drivers. Sleep apnea harms one’s ability to get needed rest, which most reasonable people would agree is important for a train engineer or a truck driver.

The Obama administration had introduced legislation to require train engineers and truck drivers to be screened for sleep apnea; but the Trump administration reversed course.  Many OTR truckers have fought the screening measure because they would suffer the costs of it, estimated at $1,000-$2,000 per person.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has pushed for government-mandated screenings.  Mr. Schumer called the Trump administration’s decision to abandon a plan to enact a sleep apnea testing requirement “unconscionable.”

“We can’t have train engineers with undiagnosed sleep apnea at risk of falling asleep at the switch,” said Mr. Schumer.

Sleep Apnea affects Waking Hours
Sleep apnea can affect the afflicted even during waking hours, leading to drowsiness.  Sufferers are repeatedly awakened as their airways close and breathing stops.

Former Federal Railroad Administrator Weighs In
Former Federal Railroad Administrator Sarah Feinberg issued a safety advisory in December 2016 that urged railroads to test for sleep apnea.  Ms. Feinberg argued that the Hoboken and Brooklyn crashes were “further confirmation” that undiagnosed and untreated sleep apnea “is a danger to rail passengers, subway commuters and everyone on America’s highways.”

NTSB – Sleep Apnea caused Highway, Rail Accidents
The NTSB has blamed sleep apnea as the probable cause of ten highway and rail accidents in the past 17 years.

Morbid Obesity raised Sleep Apnea Risk
NTSB records show the Hoboken and Brooklyn engineers both had the sleep apnea risk factor of morbid obesity, but neither had been diagnosed with that disorder either, until after their crashes.  Both engineers are now being treated with pressurized breathing masks.

NJ Transit engineer Thomas Gallagher – 6 feet tall and 322 pounds – told investigators he only remembered looking at his watch and the speedometer and activating the horn and bell before his packed rush-hour train slammed into Hoboken Terminal.  Then 48, he told investigators the next thing he remembered was a “loud bang.”  Meanwhile, a conductor standing on a platform told investigators he couldn’t see the engineer through the cab window as the train hit the station at more than double the 10 mph speed limit.  That means Mr. Gallagher may have slumped down or fallen.

Falling debris killed a woman on a platform, and the crash hurt 110 people aboard the train.

The morbidly obese train engineer in the Long Island Railroad crash told investigators he only remembered approaching the terminal and then getting thrown from his seat in the crash. His train was going 13 mph in a 5 mph curve when it hit a bumping post at the end of the tracks.
The engineer said he was unaware of the impending crash, which launched the lead car into the air and on top of the concrete platform. His crash hurt more than 100 people.

“I didn’t know what the hell was going on,” the engineer said. “I remember being thrown from the seat because I was into the dashboard area, and just, you know, screaming and smoke, and people were laying on the floor in front of me.”

Train Engineers’ Sleep apnea undiagnosed before crashes
Train Engineers and OTR truckers should not have to pay for their own sleep apnea screenings, but neither should train passengers or drivers of cars on the road, when undiagnosed sleep apnea injures or kills them.

RELATED

Share

Chemical Farming Kills Earth, Animals, People

Chemical based farming kills earth, animals, and people – are we leaving anything out? Oh, yes, it also kills the beauty that mother nature developed over thousands of years before man came along and thought he could steamroll her into submission.

What kind of an animal thinks it can poison its own food supply and remain healthy? How can something be sprayed on plants to kill weeds and bugs without harming everything else around it? What kind of an animal would even believe such a thing possible?

Related:  Roundup non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Probably one enamored of technology.  Probably one convinced he is special, somehow outside the bounds of plant and animal life, of nature. Probably an animal capable of superstitious “reasoning,” or what psychologists call “magical thinking,” at least where his own pocketbook is concerned. Probably an animal who thinks he’s not an animal, but some sort of superior being. Probably some animal who read in the bible that he has dominion over the other animals, and he takes that to mean that he can kill them or use them or torture them or whatever he likes without any consequences.

Silent Spring
Silent Spring author Rachel Carson, whose famous book launched the environmental movement, noted that in 1947 “DDT is good for me” was a little piece pushed by TIME magazine. “Public health” announcements ran film of children being sprayed with the carcinogenic neurotoxin while they ate and swam and played. Doctors for decades hawked cigarettes, declaring them good for us, maybe even a great way to help relax (and not think about what could be silently killing us). It was propaganda, plain and simple, just like Monsanto’s declarations today – its false advertising – about how wonderful Roundup is, about how safe glyphosate is.

Chemical Farming Kills Earth, People, Animals
Ms. Carson spoke presciently about our chemical-based farming methods.  The corporate model of farming – which tortures animals and poisons so many of us today, while denying us needed nutrients – didn’t gain a foothold until after WWII.  That’s when chemical companies that made killing weapons (and killings in sales) realized they could also make a “killing” in farming, in killing pests in the mass production of food.  The problem, of course, is that farming based on toxic chemicals kills indiscriminately, just like Roundup today.  Rachel Carson was an early critic of this chemical model of farming.

Balance of Nature Unbalanced by Monsanto
Ms. Carson said: “Now to these people, apparently, the balance of nature was something that was replaced as soon as man came on the scene. You might as well assume you could repeal the law of gravity. The balance of nature is built on a series of inter-relationships between living things and their environment. You can’t just step in with some brute force and change one thing without changing many others.”

You’re Headed for Disaster
Ms. Carson added, “That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to tilt the balance of nature in our favor; but unless we do bring these chemicals under better control, you’re certainly headed for disaster.”

GMOs Poisoning Most of Us Most the Time
GMO foods are now poisoning most of us most the time.  Some 80 percent of our food supply is genetically modified.  There’s a clear parallel between our increasing use of glyphosate and rising increases in infertility, thyroid disease, liver disease, kidney problems, and other life-threatening maladies.

Inadequate Regulatory System
The problem is that we have an inadequate regulatory system, says Claire Robinson, editor of GM Watch.  That system doesn’t explore all the risks of GMO foods, leaving that task mostly for the same companies like Monsanto that profit from GMO proliferation. The pesticide lobby is very strong.  Monsanto, Syngenta and others steadily push to weaken pesticide regulation at the same time that they are profiting more and more from the sale of GMO seeds, which are made to be sold with their pesticides.

Low Dose Glyphosate damages Kidney, Liver Function
The regulation is overrun by Monsanto sycophants and government shills like Michael Taylor, as well as EPA officials both past and present.  Some EPA officials were recently unmasked in a Monsanto lawsuit. They can be seen in emails colluding with Monsanto to help the company push the phony claim that glyphosate is safe.  Glyphosate is decidedly NOT safe.  In fact, ultra-low doses of glyphosate, thousands of times below what regulators says is completely safe, have been shown to cause increased incidents of liver and kidney damage over the long term. That is the way glyphosate is working on virtually all of us – long term.  A study led by London, UK geneticist, Dr. Michael Antoniou has shown this long-term, low-dose effect.  Given that most people in the U.S. have been found to be contaminated with glyphosate, even those of us trying to eat organic foods and avoid all the poisoned Monsanto food that we can, are at risk.

Buy Organic, Buy Local
The best answer is to buy organic, which is the food most likely not to be contaminated with glyphosate.  Buy from local producers when you can. Get to you know your food producers. Then join an action group.  Since our regulators are captured by Monsanto and other industry giants, and our politicians are captured or gutless, we are largely on our own to start citizen movements to save ourselves, our children, and our planet earth for future generations.

RELATED

•  Pesticide Action Network, North America
www.panna.org

•  Moms Across America
www.momsacrossamerica.com

•  Moms advocating Sustainability
www.momsadvocatingsustainability.org/resources

•  Environmental Working Group
www.ewg.org

•  Slow Food USA
www.slowfoodusa.org/about-us

•  US Right to Know
www.usrtk.org

•  GMWatch
www.gmwatch.org

•  The Detox Project
www.detoxproject.org

•  Independent Science News
www.independentsciencenews.org

•  Dr. Joseph Mercola
www.mercola.com

•  Center for Food Safety
www.centerforfoodsafety.org

•  www.AllergyKids.com

•  American Nutrition Association
www.AmericanNutritionAssociation.org

•  www.organicconsumersassociation.org

•  www.HealthAndEnvironment.org

•  www.ResponsibleTechnology.org

Books

•  GMO Myths and Truths

•  Altered Genes, Twisted Truth

Share

Stanford Academic unmasked as Monsanto Shill

Take a good look at this picture of Stanford Academic, Henry I. Miller.  Would you trust this man to serve you honest advice about healthy food?  Look closer. Would you be more or less likely to take that advice if you learned that he was being paid by Monsanto to promote it?  This Stanford academic has been unmasked as a Monsanto shill.

A longtime ally of large agricultural companies (as well as the tobacco industry), Stanford’s Henry I. Miller has been unmasked as a Monsanto shill.

Forbes Magazine Op-Ed Fraud
According to documents recently released in a Monsanto lawsuit that charges a man’s lymphoma was caused by Roundup, Mr. Miller – a prominent Stanford University academic – allowed Monsanto to write an op-ed for Forbes magazine in his name.

Mr. Miller is a Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Monsanto called him into service after the world began to notice Roundup is linked with lymphoma and other cancers, as well as liver and kidney damage.

Carcinogen Maker Monsanto 

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization (WHO), ruled that glyphosate used in Roundup and other Monsanto poisons, was a “probable carcinogen.” Monsanto promptly sent an email to Mr. Miller through Eric Sachs, a Science, Technology & Outreach Lead at Monsanto. The company invited Miller to write about the decision.

Eric Sachs wrote:

“Henry,
Are you interested in writing more on the topic of the IARC panel, its process, and controversial decision? I have background and can provide information if needed. The outcome is embargoed but will be communicated as early as next week.
Eric”

This brief email proves Miller and Sachs knew each other well, and that Monsanto directly asked Miller to help fight the IARC pronouncement.  Miller’s response shows his complicity and willingness to let Monsanto control him, for a price.  He wrote back to Monsanto :

“I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft,” he responded, adding a bloated note that he was “inundated with projects.” (The poor man wasn’t just busy like most people; he was ‘inundated.’)

Sachs then greased the skids for Miller’s easy slide into prostitution: “We have a draft nearly done and will send to you by tomorrow,” Sachs wrote.  Then just hours later, Sachs sent Miller a draft with a patronizing note to further help Miller slide down: “Here is our draft…It’s still quite rough… but a good start for your magic…” .

Miller later passed this draft on to Forbes magazine without disclosing that Monsanto had written most of it. When Forbes learned of Miller’s 2015 arrangement in the summer of 2017, Forbes removed the piece from its web site, though CBS preserved and published most of it in a PDF.

Miller attacks IARC for Monsanto
In his Monsanto-ghostwritten article, Milller cautioned against trusting any U.N. agency. He argued that the EPA and ECHA (European Chemical Agency) had not previously found the active ingredients to be likely carcinogens. Miller never noted agrochemical have strongly undermined and influenced these agencies. Miller also failed to note U.S. EPA used Monsanto’s own research to approve glyphosate products.

Miller echoes unsubstantiated Monsanto Claims
After comparing “hazard” and “harm,” Miller dutifully repeated unsubstantiated the Monsanto claim: “[T]he reality is that glyphosate is not a human health risk even at levels of exposure that are even 100 times higher than the human exposures that occur under conditions consistent with the product’s labeling.”

More and more research disputes this Monsanto claim, as do plaintiffs in several Roundup cancer lawsuits.

The Case of Henry I. Miller
The case of Henry I. Miller is emblematic of just how Monsanto works with writers to both massage and manipulate public opinion for profit and also protect itself from liability. It is hardly the first time Monsanto has tried to manipulate media and control spin on scientific research.

Monsanto Works to Spin IARC Decision
According to other Monsanto emails about a month before the 2015 IARC decision, Monsanto Product Safety Assessment Strategy Lead William Heydens promoted ghost-writing research for academics to sign as their own. Mr. Heydens wrote in an email to toxicologist Donna Farmer titled “IARC planning”:

“An option would be to add Greim and Kier or Kirkland to have their names on the publication, but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak. Recall that is how we handled Williams Kroes & Munro, 2000.”

Monsanto Lies in Plain Sight as Evidence Mounts
Monsanto has repeatedly denied that this email proves they ghost-wrote the Williams, Kroes, and Munro article. Monsanto claims that any evidence which shows Monsanto collusion with writers or EPA officials has been taken out of context.

Stanford Academic unmasked as Monsanto Shill

The problem for Monsanto is that email is far from the only evidence that Monsanto attempted to control controversy surrounding its poison products. Meanwhile, Monsanto continues to spin and obfuscate as its own company emails show it to be a manipulator trying to save itself from what any half wit can see is the truth. Faced with the truth over anything, Monsanto lies and denies what the whole world can see, and then attacks anyone and any agency that attempts to shine the clean light of truth.

RELATED

 

Share

Monsanto Campaign to Retract Séralini Study Revealed

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” thundered the Wizard of Oz when Toto pulled back the drape.  The little dog showed the world the Wizard was only a voice, and smoke and mirrors.  The same is true of the biotech bully from Missouri.  Its campaign to retract the now-famous Seralini study has revealed Monsanto to be the scoundrel that it is.

Monsanto Man behind the curtain

Monsanto employs hundreds of such men to thunder behind curtains that hide the truth.  Monsanto pays them all or their proxies to pass off the illusion that Monsanto is great and powerful, and somehow necessary.  Monsanto pretends to want to feed the world, and to make farming easier for farmers.  Only the last part may be partially true, with a giant caveat.*   Glyphosate sold to farmers under the guise of making their lives easier has been unmasked as a probable carcinogen.  Hundreds of farmers and homeowners exposed to Roundup have found themselves diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, Multiple Myeloma, Hairy Cell Leukemia, or Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

*Related:  Monsanto Lawsuit – Roundup Lymphoma

Monsanto’s money and the political and “scientific” juice that money buys may make the company appear to be as powerful as the Wizard of Oz.  But just tug on that curtain with Toto and you can see it is all bombast, subterfuge, balderdash.  The street word is bull****, and Monsanto is full of it.

Monsanto Money Buys Research, Researchers
When Monsanto is confronted by science that threatens to end the company’s poison gravy train, it hires not only “researchers,” writers and editors to defend itself and pitch its party line.  Monsanto also has editors fired, and replaced by those who better do the company’s bidding.

“If the company thinks, I think so, too,” is the famous line from How to Succeed in Business without really trying.  That is the way things work for Monsanto.  Recent documents uncovered in a lawsuit over the company’s Roundup – linked with lymphoma – give Monsanto’s whole cynical game away.  These documents follow the money.  They show exactly how Monsanto manipulates scientists, massages messages, and attacks anyone and any studies that threaten Monsanto’s poison profits.

Roundup Cancer Lawsuit Documents Released
Recently released documents in Roundup cancer lawsuits against Monsanto show its desperate attempts to suppress a study that showed Roundup’s adverse effects.  They also show that the editor of the journal that retracted the Séralini study had a contractual relationship with Monsanto.  The editor picked to replace him was also a former Monsanto employee.

Roundup Linked with Liver, Kidney Damage
Internal company documents show Monsanto launched a concerted campaign to force the retraction of a study by Giles Eric Seralini.  The study had revealed Roundup’s toxic effects.  The documents also show that the editor of the journal that first published the study entered into a contract with Monsanto shortly before it secretly launched a campaign to discredit and kill it.

Monsanto moves to Stifle Roundup Cancer Research
Led by Prof GE Séralini, the damaging study showed that very low doses of Monsanto’s Roundup had dramatically toxic effects on rats, including serious liver and kidney damage.  The research called for a larger-scale carcinogenicity test to further assess Roundup’s dangers.  Such a study could have blown Monsanto’s Roundup right off the map; consequently, the company jumped to retract and destroy it.  Monsanto needed to stifle any further research on its best-selling poison, because it knew then, and it knows now, that further research will only show the real, horrendous toxic effects of glyphosate.

The Heavy Hand of Monsanto
The newly released documents show that throughout Monsanto’s secret retraction campaign, company employees tried to cover Monsanto’s tracks to hide its heavy hand.  Nevertheless, Monsanto scientist David Saltmiras admitted to orchestrating a “third party expert” campaign.  He enlisted scientists – who were ostensibly independent of Monsanto – to letter bomb the editor-in-chief of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), A. Wallace Hayes.  Letters from the “scientists” demanded that Mr. Hayes retract the study.

Fake Third Party “Experts”
Using ostensibly independent “third party experts” is a classic public relations trick perfected by Big Tobacco, which used doctors, among other paid shills, to tout the safety and the wonders of cigarettes.  The idea is to pay “independent” experts to support industry products and attack their critics, in order to hide industry’s heavy hand.

GM Watch: Jonathan Matthews
“Back in 2012, GMWatch founder Jonathan Matthews exposed the pesticide industry links of the supposedly independent scientists who lobbied the journal editor to retract the Séralini paper. Now we have first-hand proof of Monsanto’s direct involvement.

In one document, Monsanto’s David Saltmiras trumpets his own achievements, boasting of how he “successfully facilitated numerous third party expert letters to the editor which were subsequently published, reflecting the numerous significant deficiencies, poor study design, biased reporting and selective statistics employed by Séralini.  In addition, coauthored the Monsanto letter to the editor with [Monsanto employees] Dan Goldstein and Bruce Hammond.”

Mr. Saltmiras further boasts: “Throughout the late 2012 Séralini rat cancer publication and media campaign, I leveraged my relationship [with] the Editor i[n] Chief of the publishing journal… and was the single point of contact between Monsanto and the Journal.”  Word on the street is that Mr. Saltmiras will be promoted at Monsanto, and he is favored to win the coveted  a****** of the year award from all those who care about eating nutritious, non-pesticided food.

Another Monsanto employee, Eric Sachs, writes in an email about how he manipulated another scientist, Bruce Chassy, into writing a letter to the journal editor to retract the study.  But Mr. Chassy – who runs the pro-GMO Academics review website – was not that hard to move, it turns out, seeing as how he was also paid by Monsanto.  Mr. Chassy had formerly earned his Monsanto keep by writing hit pieces against Dr. Seralini in Forbes, another fake news outlet committed to pro-GMO propaganda.  (Forbes tends to back any company that pays; it’s a pretty simple formula.)  In 2016, Mr. Chassey was exposed as a Monsanto shill who failed to disclose Monsanto had paid him more than $57,000 in less than two years.  Chassey was also the first to sign a petition to retract the damaging (to Monsanto) Seralini study.

Mr. Sachs gushes in one internal Monsanto email: “I talked to Bruce Chassy and he will send his letter to Wally Hayes directly and notify other scientists that have sent letters to do the same. He understands the urgency… I remain adamant that Monsanto must not be put in the position of providing the critical analysis that leads the editors to retract the paper.”

Mission Not Accomplished

For remaining so cutely “adamant” about the importance of hiding Monsanto’s heavy hand in back-stabbing science, the self-promoting Mr. Sachs has clearly failed in his mission, as his released emails hilariously and ironically prove.

In response to Monsanto’s request, Mr. Chassy urged Mr. Hayes to retract the GE Séralini paper: “My intent was to urge you to roll back the clock, retract the paper, and restart the review process.”

Mr. Hayes, of course, complied, as he was working for Monsanto, too.  (What a shock!  Not.  These Monsanto fellows are so delicate with one another, it would almost be touching, if it weren’t so nauseating.)

Mr. Chassy was also the first to sign a petition demanding the retraction of the Séralini study.  Never does Mr. Chassy declare any link with Monsanto.  In 2016, however, he was exposed as having taken more than $57,000 in less than two years from Monsanto.  Mr. Chassey traveled, wrote, and spoke about GMOs – always favorably, of course.

The Lying Editor A. Wallace Hayes

The editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology, A. Wallace Hayes, also lied about accepting money from Monsanto.  He entered into a “consulting agreement” with Monsanto just before helping retract the damaging (to Monsanto) Séralini study.  He lied to a New York Times reporter about the timing of his payments from Monsanto.  Mr. Hayes was paid $400 per hour for his “services” to Monsanto at the same time that he was pretending to be an unbiased editor.

It gets uglier and dumber for Monsanto. The editor brought in to replace Mr. Hayes was also found to be a former Monsanto employee.  Meanwhile, the company continues full throttle to poison scientific discourse, as well as most of America and much of the world.

Stop using Roundup, Stop Supporting Monsanto
Americans need to wise up and stop using Roundup, stop poisoning themselves, their food, their pets.   Many dogs have been reported to experience seizures and cancers after roaming in Roundup-sprayed fields.  But since those stories are “anecdotal,” Monsanto thinks it can just write them all off.  (Will you write them all off, too, or write yourself off?)  Monsanto doesn’t care about you or your dog.  The company only wants you to buy more and more pesticides and continue to poison the world.  Because you’re too lazy to figure out how to battle your weeds without Roundup.  Don’t be too lazy, or too stupid.  Just stop it.  Stop it now.  Farm clean.  Live clean.  Eat clean.  There are natural weed killers than can do everything Roundup can do without poisoning you, your dog, your kids, or your food.

RELATED

Share

New GMOs Series a Must Watch

A groundbreaking new video series called GMOs Revealed launched August 22, 2017.  One can register to view it at this link.  This new GMO series is a must watch for anyone who uses Monsanto’s cancer-causing Roundup or eats food poisoned by pesticides.

Glyphosate Poisoning Everywhere

Glypohosate poisoning is just one of the eye-opening topics of the video series, but the ubiquitousness of Monsanto’s most profitable poison may make it the most important subject covered.

Glyophosate has been found in Cheerios, Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, organic crackers, many processed snacks and popular foods, as well as in most rainwater in the U.S., in California wine, in orange juice, in vaccines, in nearly everything we all eat and drink or are forced to take.

Roundup linked with Diabetes, Obesity, Kidney Failure, Alzheimer’s, Autism

Dr. Stephanie Seneff, an MIT Senior Research Scientist, is one of many experts in her field who appear in the video series.  In one interview, Dr. Seneff says:

“Roundup usage on GMO corn and soy correlates very very strongly with the rise in diabetes, obesity, kidney failure, Alzheimer’s disease, Autism – all of these diseases including thyroid problems. . .”

The shocking documentary series delivers nine episodes of hard-hitting truths about not only glyphosate, but also GMOs, genetic pollution, Monsanto, seed monopolies, crop collapse, and much more.

Related:  Monsanto Roundup Lawsuit

GMOs Revealed was produced by Dr. Patrick Gentempo, Dr. Beau Pierce and Jeff Hays, a highly accomplished filmmaker who also produced “Bought” and “Doctored.”  Food experts interviewed for the film include David Wolfe, Sayer Ji, Dr. Joseph Mercola, Zen Honeycutt, Vani Hari, Stephanie Seneff, Mark Kastel and more than a dozen more people interested in healthy food and concerned with the poisons foisted on us all.

Watch the trailer to see for yourself how powerful this docu-series really is.  View all nine episodes for free at this link.

Monsanto Crimes, GMO Dangers Revealed

In case you haven’t seen the explosive, bombshell revelations over the last few weeks from the California court case, Monsanto’s lies are now being exposed daily. Monsanto was not only  caught ghostwriting “independent” reviews that falsely claimed its poisons were safe, but Monsanto was also caught colluding with government regulators to distort the science and hide the fact that its products are sickening and possibly killing people around the world.

At the same time, all the “negative PR” shills who spend millions of dollars smearing clean food advocates like Mike Adams, Doctor Oz, and the Food Babe, among others have been exposed as  Monsanto shills.  Even Monsanto’s criminal front group — the ACSH — has been exposed as being lead by a criminal felon who takes money to smear food scientists blowing the whistle on glyphosate dangers and GMOs.

Monsanto & Big Tobacco

Monsanto is now being exposed for its fake science and toxic products in the same way Big Tobacco was eventually exposed.  Scientists and research have been compromised by Monsanto money.  The truths are all coming out, and the more we all learn and share these truths, the more quickly we can save ourselves and Mother Earth from the biotech holocaust.

Life & Death Struggle

Make no mistake.  Our quest to eat clean food and drink clean water is a life and death struggle.  It is nothing less than life and death.  This “GMOs Revealed” docu-series is an absolute must-see. It’s not airing on Netflix or Amazon Prime, either. It’s not available on YouTube. It is only available through the GMOs Revealed website.

New GMOs Series a Must Watch

Episodes begin airing August 22, and a new episode airs each day.  Please watch it and join the fight.

RELATED

Share

Monsanto Roundup Fight Erupts in Calif. Court

A Monsanto Roundup fight erupted in a California court Thursday, and led to a judge’s threatening to call security.  A law firm suing Monsanto for a plaintiff who claims he was injured by Roundup had released internal Monsanto documents.  Monsanto lawyers objected to the release of those documents.

Related:  Monsanto Lawsuit

The California federal judge admonished both sides in the contentious hearing August 24, 2017.  Monsanto lawyers alleged that an opposing attorney improperly leaked confidential documents in the multidistrict litigation over Roundup weedkiller’s alleged propensity to cause cancer.

Judge Chhabria:  “Plenty of Blame to Go Around”

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said there was “plenty of blame to go around” over the legal dust up.  It all stemmed from a July 2017 meeting during which Monsanto lawyers argued that 86 disputed documents were irrelevant to the litigation and should remain under seal.  Plaintiffs’ attorney R. Brent Wisner then waited 30 days for Monsanto to file a declaration to defend its protective order.  Law360 reported that Monsanto wrote no such declaration.  Therefore, Mr. Wisner assumed Monsanto had decided not to pursue its argument that the documents couldn’t be unsealed, because the judge had threatened to sanction Monsanto if it continued to make what he called “frivolous filings.”

Judge Admonishes Both Sides’ Lawyers
Judge Chhabria noted Thursday that the confusion came from ambiguity in his protective order. Nevertheless, he said he was tempted to dismiss Mr. Wisner and possibly his law firm from the case for leaking documents which the judge said they knew involved a confidentiality dispute.  The judge said the plaintiffs’ knowledge of the confusion was made clear in a motion to clarify the order, filed as the evidence was being posted online.  But the judge also admonished Monsanto lawyers for claiming the documents’ confidentiality couldn’t be questioned because they weren’t relevant to the litigation.  Judge Chhabria called that Monsanto contention “almost laughable.”

Related:  Roundup non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Lawsuit

The judge said: “Mr. Wisner, along with other members of the leadership group, decided to ignore that this was a live dispute.  It seems obvious that these documents are relevant to the general causation phase of this litigation. It seems clear the position Monsanto was taking in the meet and confer was unreasonable. … The great irony here is had you teed this up before me in a joint discovery letter or a motion, I would have no doubt ruled in your favor and I would probably have had Monsanto pay the litigation costs.”

Glyphosate causes Cancer, says Monsanto Lawsuit
The multidistrict litigation consolidated in California alleges glyphosate – in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller – causes cancer.  Monsanto disputes that allegation.  Monsanto company executives and attorneys claim that decades of studies have found no link between glyphosate and cancer.

Roundup / Glyphosate Cancer Link

On the plaintiff’s side, the World Health Organization and several studies dispute Monsanto’s claims that Roundup is safe.  Several studies have found Roundup, of which glyphosate is only the main listed ingredient, to be a “probable carcinogen,” or a likely one.

The August 24 hearing on a recent order to show cause stems from a March 2017 pretrial order from Judge Chhabria.  The judge said then that he would not consider the plaintiffs’ challenges to the confidentiality of documents proffered by Monsanto, unless they were proven to be relevant to the case.  The judge also said that he would sanction Monsanto for unreasonable attempts to get or maintain confidentiality.

Mr. Wisner was accused of posting the documents on his firm’s website and of leaking them to The New York Times.  The Times reported that internal emails suggest Monsanto may have influenced research on its Roundup weedkiller product through EPA employees, and may have manipulated public opinion in the process.

Mr. Wisner brought a legal ethics expert, U.C. Hastings Professor Richard Zitrin, to represent him in Thursday’s hearings.  Mr. Zitrin said the documents were released in good faith, because Monsanto had failed to responded within the 30 days of Mr. Wisner’s challenging the protective order.  Mr. Zitrin said it was not Mr. Wisner’s job to warn Monsanto that its time was running out.

Judge: Lawyer became PR Man
The judge took exception to that Mr. Zitrin’s argument.  He said, “In light of the fact there was a live dispute, it absolutely was [Mr. Wisner’s] obligation.  The problem is he was not focused on being a lawyer.  He was more interested in being a PR man. … You’re saying he didn’t file a motion because Monsanto didn’t file a declaration, but he said to Monsanto, ‘We’re going to decide whether to file a joint letter or we’re going to file a motion.’  That was recognition.’”

When Mr. Wisner and Mr. Zitrin then began to debate about who should speak next , the judge told Mr. Zitrin to sit down or he would call security.

Judge: Monsanto Argument “almost laughable”
Judge Chhabria also scorned Monsanto’s arguments concerning confidentiality.  The documents at issue include internal communications in which employees at the company claim to have “ghostwritten” review articles that upheld findings that glyphosate does not cause lymphoma.

“How could you have taken this position that these documents are not relevant to the general causation of this case?” the judge asked Monsanto attorney Joe Hollingsworth.

Mr. Hollingsworth said they weren’t original scientific reports, but “literary surveys” that his client hadn’t cited as evidence in the case. “Those aren’t original reports by epidemiologists,” he said. “What none of those documents refer to is any original science that’s going to have to form the basis for an expert’s opinion. They’re irrelevant to Daubert inquiry.”

The judge said they contributed to Monsanto’s assertion that the scientific consensus was that there was no link between glyphosate and cancer, but a plaintiffs’ attorney pointed to a motion to dismiss that had cited a few of the articles Monsanto allegedly helped write.

The judge did not indicate how he would rule on the matter.

Monsanto Roundup Fight Erupts in Calif. Court

The MDL is In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, case number 3:16-md-02741, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

RELATED

Share

Monsanto-funded Journalists fail to disclose Industry ties

An EcoWatch story broke the news two years ago of how Monsanto fakes news.  Time and again, Monsanto-funded journalists fail to disclose industry ties.  Journalists whom the company secretly pays write pro-GMO articles, or hit pieces against organic foods.  Those ostensible “journalists” fail to disclose their monetary (and career) conflicts of interest.  Those “journalists” work for Monsanto to produce fake news.

Fake Monsanto News – 27 Examples

In Nov. 2015, EcoWatch uncovered 27 examples of so-called journalists failing to disclose they were paid by Monsanto.

A Columbia Journalism Review story on whether science journalists should accept money from corporate interests triggered the research. The authors wanted to know whether journalists were disclosing their sources’ corporate ties and conflicts of interest. U.S. Right to Know reviewed recent articles to assess how often journalists, columnists and other writers quote academic sources without disclosing that they were funded by the chemical giant Monsanto.

The review found 27 articles quoting (or authored by) university professors after they received Monsanto funding.  Alarmingly, the university professors failed to disclose their funding.  If even university professors – who obviously know better – fail to disclose their funding, how many other Monsanto-funded writers fail to disclose that the biotech bully from Missouri is paying them to promote Monsanto or help shield the company from liability?  Monsanto is now being sued by farmers and others for causing their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, for failing to warn people that Roundup is carcinogenic.

Collapse of Journalistic Standards, Personal Integrity

This is a failure of journalistic standards as well as personal and civic integrity.  Whenever a writer quotes sources about food controversies such as GMOs or organic food, readers have a right to know if Monsanto funded that writer or whether the writer has any conflicts of interest.

Cuttlefish Squirt Ink for Monsanto
These writers are like cuttlefish squirting ink for Monsanto, covering up the truth of the matter in a morass of disinformation, misinformation, or outright propaganda.  Failing to reveal obvious conflicts of interest fools the reading public about the credibility of Monsanto-funded academics, their support of GMOs, their criticisms of organic food.  It also detracts from the credibility of consumer advocates, or anyone else (like this writer, writing because science shows GMOs are neither safe nor nutritious) who wants the world to know the truth about Monsanto’s poison products and business model.

University Professors Shill for Monsanto, hide Secret Funding

EcoWatch found that many top media outlets quoted either University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta or University of Illinois Professor Emeritus Bruce Chassy, while failing to disclose that the “professors” had received funding from Monsanto.  The New York Times published documents that showed Professor Folta received Monsanto funding in August 2014, while Professor Chassy received Monsanto funding in October 2011, if not also prior to that date.

Fake Monsanto News from NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, etc.

Failure to disclose Monsanto funds occurred at well-known news outlets, including the New York Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune. Other Monsanto-funded fake news appeared in science publications, such as Nature, Science Insider and Discover. Other fake Monsanto news came from magazines such as the New Yorker, Wired, The Atlantic. But fake Monsanto news was not and has not been limited to print and internet media. Well known broadcast outlets like ABC and NPR also published fake Monsanto news without revealing they were funded by Monsanto itself.

EcoWatch published this list of news articles quoting (or authored by) Professors Folta and Chassy after they received their Monsanto funding, yet failed to disclose that Monsanto funding.

•  New York Times: “Taking on the Food Industry, One Blog Post at a Time.” By Courtney Rubin, March 13. (Also ran in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune).
•  New York Times: “Foes of Modified Corn Find Support in a Study.” By Andrew Pollack, Sept. 19, 2012.
•  Washington Post: “Kraft Mac & Cheese Just Got Duller. You Can Thank (Or Blame) ‘The Food Babe’.” By Michael E. Miller, April 21. (Also ran in the Chicago Tribune).
•  Washington Post: “Proof He’s the Science Guy: Bill Nye Is Changing His Mind About GMOs.” By Puneet Kollipara, March 3.
•  Nature: “GM-Crop Opponents Expand Probe Into Ties Between Scientists and Industry.” By Keith Kloor, Aug. 6.
•  NPR: “Is The Food Babe A Fearmonger? Scientists Are Speaking Out.” By Maria Godoy, Feb. 10.
•  New Yorker: “The Operator.” By Michael Specter, Feb. 4, 2013.
•  The Atlantic: “The Food Babe: Enemy of Chemicals.” By James Hamblin, Feb. 11.
•  Wired: “Anti-GMO Activist Seeks to Expose Scientists Emails with Big Ag.” By Alan Levinovitz, Feb. 23.
•  ABC News: “Scientists Developing Hypo-Allergenic Apples.” By Gillian Mohney, March 22, 2013.
•  Science Insider: “Agricultural Researchers Rattled by Demands for Documents from Group Opposed to GM Foods.” By Keith Kloor, Feb. 11.
•  Columbia Journalism Review: “Why Scientists Often Hate Records Requests.” By Anna Clark, Feb. 25.
•  Discover: “Open Letter to Bill Nye from a Plant Scientist.” By Keith Kloor, Nov. 10, 2014.
•  Discover: “How to Balance Transparency with Academic Freedom?” By Keith Kloor, Feb. 27.
•  Discover: “Anti-GMO Group Seeks Emails from University Scientists.” By Keith Kloor, Feb. 11.
•  Forbes: “Zombie Retracted Séralini GMO Maize Rat Study Republished To Hostile Scientist Reactions.” By Jon Entine, June 24, 2014.
•  Forbes: “Did The New Yorker Botch Puff Piece On Frog Scientist Tyrone Hayes, Turning Rogue into Beleaguered Hero?” By Jon Entine, March 10, 2014.
•  Forbes: “You Can Put Lipstick On A Pig (Study), But It Still Stinks.” By Bruce M. Chassy and Henry I. Miller, July 17, 2013.
•  Forbes: “Anti-GMO Scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, Activist Jeffrey Smith Withdraw from Food Biotech Debate.” By Jon Entine, May 29, 2013.
•  Forbes: “Malpractice On Dr. Oz: Pop Health Expert Hosts Anti-GM Food Rant; Scientists Push Back.” By Jon Entine, Oct. 19, 2012.
•  Forbes: “Scientists Smell a Rat In Fraudulent Genetic Engineering Study.” By Henry I. Miller and Bruce Chassy, Sept. 25, 2012.
•  Forbes: “The Science of Things That Aren’t So.” By Bruce Chassy and Henry I. Miller, Feb. 22, 2012.
•  Des Moines Register: “Consumers Are Misled About Organic Safety.” By John Block, Oct. 10, 2014.
•  Gainesville Sun: “Genetically Modified Foods Face Hurdles.” By Jeff Schweers, June 29, 2014.
•  Peoria Journal Star: “Hybrid Crops That Used to Offer Resistance to Rootworm No Match for Mother Nature.” By Steve Tarter, June 21, 2014.
•  Gawker: “The ‘Food Babe’ Blogger Is Full of Shit.” By Yvette d’Entremont, April 6.
•  St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “California Labeling Fight May Raise Food Prices for All of Us.” By David Nicklaus, Aug. 19, 2012.

Related:  Writer Henry Miller Outed as Monsanto Puppet, again

Two Compromised Professors, Thousands of “Others”
If university professors are this easy to capture and compromise, how much easier is it for Monsanto to pay “journalists,” bloggers and other hack writers (not on a university salary) to promote GMOs and attack organic foods and those who believe in and support them?

Fake “Independent” Experts
These two compromised professors who failed to disclose their Monsanto funding have received major media attention as “independent” experts on GMOs and organics.  The professor fakers only admitted to receiving their Monsanto funding after they were unmasked by emails uncovered by Freedom of Information Act requests filed by a consumer group – U.S. Right to Know.

Monsanto News Fakers Like Fleas
Now, how many other news fakers are out there with “scientist” and “professor” titles defending Monsanto and attacking organics while hiding their secret Monsanto funding?  Think of them like fleas.  If you can find two, you know you’ve got a thousand you can’t yet see. “Independent” indeed!

Monsanto-funded Journalists Fail to Disclose Industry Ties

In future, one would hope that when “journalists” write about food, they carefully question their sources regarding any conflicts of interest.  Who or what corporation is funding this so-called food “expert”?  What PR or front group is used to fund this “expert” person to hide his ties with Monsanto, the real source of the funding?  This is a shell game played for decades, but the stakes have never been higher. Roundup is very likely killing people, while “professors” and other corporate shills provide desperately-needed cover for what is arguably a criminal enterprise.

Readers beware!

RELATED

Share

Roundup Carcinogenicity Evidence Clear since 1985

Monsanto’s official position is that no evidence shows Roundup or glyphosate can cause cancer.  The problem for Monsanto is that plenty of evidence shows Roundup, as well as its only identified active ingredient, glyphosate, is carcinogenic.  A Roundup lymphoma lawsuit petition from April 2016 outlined some history of which Monsanto cannot help but be aware.  Roundup carcinogenicity evidence has been clear since at least 1985, if not earlier.

Monsanto Knows Glyphosate Carcinogenic
Monsanto knew of glyphosate’s carcinogenic properties as early as the 1980s.

Related:  Monsanto Lawsuit

Roundup Carcinogenicity Evidence Clear since 1985

March 4, 1985: A group of the EPA’s Toxicology Branch published a memorandum classifying glyphosate as a Category C oncogene. Category C oncogenes are possible human carcinogens with limited evidence of carcinogenicity.

1986: EPA issued a Registration Standard for glyphosate (NTIS PB87-103214). The Registration standard required additional phytotoxicity, environmental fate, toxicology, product chemistry, and residue chemistry studies. All the data required was submitted and reviewed and/or waived.

October 1991: EPA published a Memorandum entitled “Second Peer Review of Glyphosate.” The memorandum changed glyphosate’s classification to Group E (evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans). Two peer review committee members did not concur with the committee’s conclusions. One member refused to sign.

Roundup Toxicity Dwarfs Glyophosate Alone
Besides the toxicity of the active molecule in glypohosate, many studies support the hypothesis that glyphosate formulations found in Monsanto’s Roundup products are more dangerous,more toxic than glyphosate alone.

Since glyphosate is rarely, if ever, used alone, it is irresponsible, at best, for Monsanto to test only glyphosate. It is duplicitous, disingenuous, and quite possibly criminal, at worst, to test only glyphosate alone.

Related:  Roundup Cancer Lawsuit

1991 (or earlier): Evidence had demonstrated glyphosate formulations were significantly more toxic than glyphosate alone.

2002: Julie Marc published a study titled “Pesticide Roundup Provokes Cell Division Dysfunction at the Level of CDK1/Cyclin B Activation.” The Marc study found Monsanto’s
Roundup caused delays in the cell cycles of sea urchins, while the same concentrations of glyphosate alone proved ineffective and did not alter cell cycles.

2004:  Ms. Marc published a study titled “Glyphosate-based pesticides affect cell cycle regulation.” The study demonstrated a molecular link between glyphosate-based products and cell cycle dysregulation. The study noted: “[C]ell-cycle dysregulation is a hallmark of tumor cells and
human cancer. Failure in the cell-cycle checkpoints leads to genomic instability and subsequent
development of cancers from the initial affected cell.” Further, “[s]ince cell cycle disorders such
as cancer result from dysfunction of unique cell, it was of interest to evaluate the threshold dose
of glyphosate affecting cells.”

2005:  Francisco Peixoto published a study showing Roundup’s effects on rat liver mitochondria are much more toxic and harmful than the same concentrations of glyphosate alone.

The Peixoto study suggested the harmful effects of Roundup on mitochondrial bioenergetics could not be exclusively attributed to glyphosate.  They could be the result of other chemicals, namely the surfactant POEA, or alternatively due to the possible synergy between glyphosate and Roundup formulation products.

Roundup Adjuvants NOT INERT
2009:  Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Seralini published a study examining the effects of Roundup and glyphosate on human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells. The study used dilution levels of Roundup and glyphosate far below agricultural recommendations, corresponding with low levels of residues in food. The study concluded that so-called “inert” ingredients, and possibly POEA, change human cell permeability, amplifying toxicity of glyphosate alone. The study further suggested glyphosate toxicity determinations must take adjuvants into account – the chemicals used in the formulation of the complete pesticide. The study confirmed adjuvants in Roundup are not inert; so Roundup is always more toxic than its so-called lone active ingredient, glyphosate.

Monsanto Knew or Should Have Known
The Delaware petition reads: “The results of these studies were confirmed in recently published peer-reviewed studies and were at all times available and/or known to (Monsanto).

“(Monsanto) knew or should have known that Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate alone and that safety studies on Roundup, Roundup’s adjuvants and “inert” ingredients, and/or the surfactant POEA were necessary to protect Plaintiff from Roundup.”

Monsanto Failed to Test Roundup for Safety

The petition further charges that Monsanto “knew or should have known that tests limited to Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate were insufficient to prove the safety of Roundup.”

Monsanto is then charged in the petition with failing to appropriately and adequately test Roundup, Roundup’s adjuvants and “inert” ingredients, and/or the surfactant POEA to protect Plaintiff from Roundup.”

RELATED

Share

Monsanto sued in Delaware for causing non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Monsanto was sued in the state of Delaware (Roundup Petition) for causing a man’s non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.  The plaintiff is New York resident Kenneth Panthen, who was diagnosed with NHL after using Roundup for several years.

Roundup Lawsuit Petition
The lawsuit petition says Mr. Panthen was injured “as a direct and proximate result of (Monsanto’s) negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup®, containing the active ingredient glyphosate.”

Related:  Roundup non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Lawsuit

Mr. Panthen maintains that “Roundup® and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce.”  He also alleges Roundup lacked proper warnings and directions regarding its dangers.

All Formulations of Roundup

“Roundup,” says the petition, “refers to all formulations of Defendant’s Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Prodry Herbicide, Roundup Promax, Roundup Quik Stik Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Quikpro Herbicide, Roundup Rainfast Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Rainfast Super Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer 1 Plus Weed Preventer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed and Grass Killer 2, Roundup Ultra Dry, Roundup Ultra Herbicide, Roundup Ultramax, Roundup VM Herbicide, Roundup Weed & 3Complaint for Damages Grass Killer Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass killer Ready-to-Use Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer1 Ready-to-Use, Roundup WSD Water Soluble Dry Herbicide Deploy Dry Herbicide, or any other formulation of containing the active ingredient glyphosate.”

Injuries were Avoidable
The Monsanto lawsuit petition also states that Mr. Panthen’s injuries, “like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable.”

The petition also explains that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7. U.S.C. § 136 et seq.: “FIFRA requires that all pesticides be registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prior to their distribution, sale. . .”

EPA does not verify Roundup Safety
Part of the EPA registration process requires a chemical maker to perform a variety of tests to evaluate the potential for exposure to pesticides, toxicity to people and other potential so-called “non-target organisms,” and other adverse effects on the environment.  EPA registration, however, is no assurance or finding of safety, says the petition:

“The determination the EPA makes in registering or re-registering a product is not that the product is safe (emphasis ours), but rather that use of the product in accordance with its label directions ‘will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.’” 7 U.S.C. § 136(a)(c)(5)(D).

FIFRA defines “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” to mean “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(bb).  FIFRA thus requires the EPA to make a risk/benefit analysis in determining whether a registration should be granted or allowed to continue to be sold in commerce.

EPA does not Test Monsanto Products
FIFRA generally requires that a registrant like Monsanto conduct health and safety testing of its pesticides.  However, most people are surprised to learn that Monsanto and other pesticide makers perform their own tests; an agency like the EPA simply peruses those tests.  The government does no safety testing of its own.

The petition explains: “The government is not required, nor is it able, to perform the product tests that are required of the manufacturer.”

Just as drug companies attempt to hide behind “FDA approval,” despite the fact that FDA does no drug testing of its own, Monsanto has attempted to hide behind EPA registration as some sort of official government certification of safety.

The other problem with that dubious position is that secret Monsanto emails between Monsanto executives and EPA officials in charge of registering (and, one can only hope, regulating)  Roundup show that EPA employees worked to help Monsanto.  Recently-released documents show that EPA officials helped slow reviews of Roundup/Glyphosate, and helped Monsanto sidestep any meaningful regulations.  Several EPA officials have helped engineer public perception for the benefit of Monsanto.

Glyphosate a Probable Carcinogen
Monsanto became gravely concerned with public perception and legal problems after the World Health Organization declared in 2015 that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen.  Many of the legal cases regarding glyphosate in Roundup are based on that World Health Organization’s declaration.  But the WHO is far from the only organization to find deeply troubling problems with glyphosate.

RELATED:

Share