(July 5, 2018) The EPA helps Monsanto hide a non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma link with the only active ingredient listed in the chemical giant’s Roundup. That’s the story that emerged when we pull back the curtain and expose the EPA for what it is. As with many governmental regulators (like the CDC with its giant conflict of interest in vaccination), EPA works ostensibly as a government watchdog to protect people from profit-driven corporations. In reality, as this latest evidence shows, the EPA works first for corporations and secondarily (if at all) for U.S. citizens.
Related: Monsanto EPA Ties Cancerous
A new report proves the EPA purposely ignored evidence showing a clear link between glyphosate (in Monsanto’s Roundup and other pesticide poisons) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The report shows the EPA obscured, cherry-picked, and/or simply ignored data presented by a Scientific Advisory Panel charged with reviewing the EPA’s glyphosate evaluation. The evidence shows the EPA deliberately misrepresented the opinions of the scientific panel.
The EPA’s covering for Monsanto comes doubly into play, as many farmers, landscapers, agricultural workers, and homeowners have taken Monsanto to court over Roundup links to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The plaintiffs accuse the chemical giant of lying about glyphosate’s safety profile. Monsanto continues to claim that Roundup is “half as toxic as table salt.” Hundreds of farmers and homeowners who have suffered with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using Roundup disagree. Many have filed Roundup lawsuits that accuse Monsanto of hiding Roundup’s cancer-causing effects. The research obscured and/or ignored by the EPA shows the link between Roundup and cancer is real.
EPA ignored glyphosate cancer link – 2017
Bloomberg reported that a panel of scientists not connected with Monsanto assembled in 2017 to review the EPA’s glyphosate evaluation. Fifteen experts comprised the Scientific Advisory Panel. Nearly all of them took issue with the EPA’s conclusion on glyphosate. Eleven of the 15 disagreed with the EPA’s hasty decision to give glyphosate and Monsanto a free pass over Roundup and glyphosate’s links with cancer.
Four of the six reviewers assigned to evaluate epidemiological data criticized the EPA for disregarding pertinent data regarding glyphosate’s potential link with cancer. All four of the “dissenters” are biomedical researchers at leading research universities. The two who approved of EPA’s glyphosate evaluation are private consultants, which means they work almost exclusively for industry interests.
EPA officials inexplicably tossed out all but one meta-analysis of epidemiological data. They claimed the rest of the results were “statistically invalid.” But the panelists discovered that this specious claim simply was not true. They found the data was valid.
EPA Monsanto Collusion Unveiled
After taking a second look at the data, the panelists found the discarded meta-analyses were statistically significant. That data showed that farmers exposed to glyphosate had an increased risk ratio for non-Hodgkin lymphoma of 1.27 to 1.5. Those figures mean those farmers experienced a 27- to 50-percent higher risk of cancer than control groups.
One of the researchers pointed out that women in America stopped taking post-menopause estrogen because of a 22-percent increased risk in breast cancer. The risk association of glyphosate nearly doubles that risk.
EPA Assessment “Highly Imbalanced (and) “Seriously Flawed”
A University of Washington at Seattle biostatistician, Lianne Sheppard, said the EPA’s assessment on glyphosate was “highly imbalanced. She said the EPA clearly downplayed relevant findings.
“The agency’s conclusion is seriously flawed and needs to be strongly revised,” said Ms. Sheppard.
EPA obscured criticisms of Itself
Besides willfully disregarding statistically significant information regarding glyphosate’s potential to cause cancer and promote tumor growth, the EPA has also taken steps to downplay the Panel’s criticisms of the EPA itself.
The EPA’s report on the Scientific Advisory Panel’s peer review does everything possible to hide the fact that most of the panelists criticized the EPA and its handling of the glyphosate analysis.
The EPA not only failed to disclose the number of scientists who launched criticisms at the EPA, it repeatedly used a lying euphemism in an attempt to cover up its fraudulent work. The EPA’s’s report used the lie of a phrase “some panel members” an astounding 76 times. Any 12-year-old child can see that substituting the word “some” for “a majority” or even “most” is simply a disingenuous way to lie and mislead.
That majority of panelists who criticized the EPA’s pseudo science could also criticize its pseudo independence, the EPA glaring conflict of interest with the pesticide industry. The EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs received nearly 30 percent of its funding from the pesticide industry last year. So who is this agency working for – the pesticide industry or the people targeted by the industry to buy pesticides?