Monsanto Attacks the IARC for Labeling Glyphosate a Carcinogen – Using the U.S. Government as a Weapon

Monsanto Influenced Report on Cancer and Roundup

February 22, 2018 by: 

U.S. Right to Know recently reported that even though 39 percent of all Americans will one day be diagnosed with cancer, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, government representatives are going out of their way to protect the manufacturers of a known cancer-causer: The glyphosate produced by agri-giant Monsanto.

When the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer labeled glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” back in 2015, the first real crack appeared in Monsanto’s carefully constructed narrative that its billion-dollar product is harmless, and that farmers should continue dousing their fields with this toxic herbicide. (Related: EPA hid truth about glyphosate and cancer for decades to protect Monsanto’s corporate profits.)

The IARC also found that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma,” as well as “convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals.” (Related: Learn more about the science linking glyphosate and cancer at Glyphosate.news.)

Monsanto was immediately assaulted with a slew of lawsuits from farmers and others claiming to have developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma as a result of exposure to glyphosate, which is the primary ingredient in the company’s Roundup product.

Of course, Monsanto should never be underestimated. The people who run the “world’s most evil corporation” are master tacticians, and they had a plan for dealing with this situation even before the IARC released its report.

Read More: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-02-22-monsanto-attacks-iarc-for-labeling-glyphosate-a-probable-carcinogen.html

The Killing Continues: as Consumer Goods, Agricultural Products and Pharmaceuticals

Monsanto Bayer Chemical Warfare

History of Chemical Warfare: Poison Gas during World War I: Bayer Still Refuses to Take Responsibility

100 Years of Chemical Warfare

CBG Network 26 April 2015

During the war BAYER became the biggest German explosives producer, the company also manufactured gas masks. Due to a price guarantee by the government, profits were elevated to undreamt of heights. Also during the Third Reich research into chemical war gases was carried out in BAYER laboratories. The inventor of SARIN and TABUN, Dr. Gerhard Schrader, became head of the BAYER pesticides department after WW II.

Read More: https://www.globalresearch.ca/poison-gas-during-world-war-i-bayer-still-refuses-to-take-responsibility/5445360

Email of intrigue: “IARC is killing us!”

Monsanto Papers Roundup Regulatory Collusion

Posted on 

As researchers we often look to documents to shed new light on issues important to food policy. Sometimes, they simply reflect what we already know.

That’s the case with one new communication string that adds to evidence of a far-reaching strategy by food industry players to discredit and diminish the world’s leading cancer research agency. We’ve already seen documents from Monsanto and other chemical industry interests laying out plans to tear apart the credibility of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) because of its classification of Monsanto’s weed killer glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

Now we see evidence that other food industry players are part of the scheme; working to head off potentially damaging IARC scrutiny of food additives such as aspartame, sucralose, and more.

The email of intrigue was obtained through a state open records request.  It shows communication between James Coughlin, a one-time scientist for Kraft General Foods Inc. who operates a food and “nutritional” consulting business, and Timothy Pastoor, a retired toxicologist with the agrochemical giant Syngenta AG who now runs his own “science communications” business. Also included on a portion of the email string is Monsanto PR man Jay Byrne, who runs a “reputation management” and public relations business, and Douglas Wolf, a former Environmental Protection Agency scientist now with Syngenta.

In the October 2016 email, Coughlin tells Pastoor how he’s been “fighting IARC forever!!” dating back to his time at Kraft. He relates the time he spent criticizing the international cancer agency to a U.S. House of Representatives staffer who was coordinating an effort to strip U.S. funding from IARC.

And then, articulating the deep fear the food industry holds for the cancer agency, he gets to the meat of the matter: “IARC is killing us!” he writes. The 2-page string can be found here.

Read More: https://usrtk.org/food-for-thought/email-of-intrigue-iarc-is-killing-us/

Corporate power, not public interest, at root of science committee hearing on IARC

monsicko logo

Score another point for corporate power over protection of the public.

U.S. Rep Lamar Smith, chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, & Technology, has slated a full committee hearing for Feb. 6 with an agenda aimed squarely at attacking some of the world’s top cancer scientists.

Given the fact that cancer is the second-leading cause of death in the United States, it seems obvious that our lawmakers should be supporting cancer science rather than trying to thwart it. But Smith’s action comes after the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC) angered Monsanto Co. when it declared the pesticide glyphosate, a key ingredient in Monsanto’s weed killing products, to be a probable carcinogen.

Though the hearing is titled “In Defense of Scientific Integrity: Examining the IARC Monograph Programme and Glyphosate Review,” the irony of the descriptor is not lost on those who have been following Smith’s efforts to derail and defund this cancer research agency.

Read More: https://usrtk.org/pesticides/corporate-power-not-public-interest-at-root-of-upcoming-science-committee-hearing/

This Just In: Eating Artificial, Manufactured, Factory Food Causes Cancer

Geordi as Watson says no sh*t sherlock to DataNo Sh*t Sherlock

Researchers: Eating Processed Foods Greatly Increases Chances of Getting Cancer

Originally published at iBankCoin.com

The British Medical Journal published a study that says eating sh*tty processed foods cause cancer.

Researchers in Paris studies the medical record of 10,000 adults and cross referenced their intake of food items — amounting to more than 3,000, and found that foods such as processed cakes, chicken nuggets, mass produced bread, soda, confectionary and processed meat increased risks of getting cancer.

In fact, it showed that as little as a 10% increase in consuming this sh*tty foods led to a 12% bump in cancer.

Naturally, processed food fags are having a f*cking stroke over this and are in hyper-shill mode trying to kill the story. The common rebuttal is ‘urging caution’ and reminding normies to have a ‘balanced diet’ while also advertising Dorito flavored Taco Bell cancer bombs.

Processed foods amount to a staggering 50% of the average person’s diet in several western countries — such as ‘Merica.

“If confirmed in other populations and settings, these results suggest that the rapidly increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods may drive an increasing burden of cancer in the next decades,” the researchers said.

Here is the absolute state of Cancer Research U.K.:

“People shouldn’t worry about eating a bit of processed food here and there based on this study. There is good evidence that too little fruit, vegetables and fiber and too much processed and red meat in our diets can contribute to the development of some types of cancer,” Linda Bauld, Cancer Research U.K.’s prevention expert, said in an email.

“Eating a balanced diet, avoiding junk food and maintaining a healthy weight are things we can all do to help stack the odds in our favor,” she added.

In other words, keep eating MCD and frozen tendies, in spite of the fact researchers found a marked increase in cancer rates in people in a LARGE DATA SET, rubber stamped by a cancer prevention ‘expert’ who probably gets grants by General Mills.

New Monsanto Emails Raise Questions On Safety Of RoundUp Products

monsicko logo

Documents released yesterday in a lawsuit against Monsanto have resulted in new questions about the company’s efforts to influence the news media and scientific research and revealed internal debate over the safety of its highest-profile product, the weed killer Roundup.

As the New York Times notes today, new internal emails, among other things, reveal ethical objections from former employees to “ghost writing” research studies that were pawned off as ‘independent’ analyses.

The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment.

A similar issue appeared in academic research. An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, “I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.” He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: “We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.”

The newly disclosed emails also reveal internal discussions which cast some doubt over whether internal scientists actually believed in the company’s external messaging that Roundup was, in fact, safe.

“If somebody came to me and said they wanted to test Roundup I know how I would react — with serious concern.”

And, here’s more:

The documents also show that a debate outside Monsanto about the relative safety of glyphosate and Roundup, which contains other chemicals, was also taking place within the company.

In a 2002 email, a Monsanto executive said, “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies — Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.”

In a 2003 email, a different Monsanto executive tells others, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”

Not surprisingly, Monsanto’s lawyers have argued that the comments above have simply been taken out of context… 

Monsanto said it was outraged by the documents’ release by a law firm involved in the litigation.

“There is a standing confidentiality order that they violated,” said Scott Partridge, vice president of global strategy for Monsanto. He said that while “you can’t unring a bell,” Monsanto would seek penalties on the firm.

“What you’re seeing are some cherry-picked things that can be made to look bad,” Mr. Partridge said. “But the substance and the science are not affected by this.”

you know, because the phrase, “we call that ghost writing and it is unethical,” can be interpreted in so many different ways.

Read More: www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-02/new-monsanto-emails-raise-questions-safety-roundup-products

Toxic Relations: Stop Colluding with Monsanto and the Agrochemical Industry!

monsicko logo

Environmental campaigner Dr Rosemary Mason has just written to the UK’s Policy Advisor Nigel Chadwick at the Chemicals Regulation Directorate of Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

She also sent Chadwick a 19-page document (Monsanto_has_committed_slow_poisoning_of_the_people_of_Wales) in which she asserts that Monsanto has engaged in the slow poisoning of the people of Wales with PCBs and Roundup. This, she says, is with the help of the British government, the Expert Committee on Pesticides, the Health and Safety Executive, Defra, the Royal Society, European Food Safety Authority, European Chemicals Agency, the German Rapporteur Member State, the BBC, the BMA and Rupert Murdoch.

Mason also discusses how Monsanto has committed ecocide with Roundup in Wales thanks to Swansea City Council’s authorised the spraying of it on city roadsides. A total of 518 kg was used in 2016.

She mentions her long and unsatisfactory many years’ history of correspondence with the HSE about pesticides, which has failed to stimulate appropriate regulatory action despite the firm evidence she has provided about the damaging effects of biocides throughout the UK and across the globe.

As with many of her previous documents, Mason outlines how Monsanto has conspired to keep its money-spinning, disease-causing product (glyphosate-based) Roundup on the market via a combination of deception, the manipulation of science and regulatory processes and the co-option of key figures – the same company that was also involved in the cover up of Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

Monsanto in Wales: PCBs and toxic dumping

Mason states:

“Wales is the site of the worst environmental disaster that the public has never heard of because there was a massive cover up for more than 40 years.”

She describes the role of the British government in colluding with Monsanto by outlining how Monsanto poisoned the environment in Wales with the dumping of toxins from its factory there, where it manufactured PCBs and other dangerous chemicals. The company knew about the health risks of PCBs long before they were banned. Company papers subsequently released show that for more than 30 years Monsanto had sat on lab tests results that indicated PCBs were fatal to rats and other animals.

It stopped making PCBs in Anniston (US) in 1971 because of scandals about PCBs on the health of the population and wildlife. However, the British government agreed to ramp up production at the Monsanto plant in Newport, Wales.

Toxic waste from the increased production was dumped at various quarries in Wales and one in the north of England. The British government, which knew of the dangers of PCBs in the environment in the 1960s, allowed their production in Wales until 1977.

Mason notes the extraordinary lengths to which the British government went to protect Monsanto and cover up the truth. One quarry has been found to contain at least 67 toxic chemicals. Seven PCBs have been identified, along with vinyl chlorides and naphthalene. A few years ago, the unlined quarry was found to be still leaking (the pollution of water has been occurring since the 1970s). The waste and groundwater contain significant quantities of poisonous, noxious and polluting material.

PCBs are chemicals persist in the environment and will never disappear from Wales.

Mason argues:

“The continual leak of Monsanto’s toxic chemicals will carry on for many years from Brofiscin, Maendy or one of the other five quarries around Wales in which toxic chemical waste was carried in the past by lorries bearing IWD/Purle and Monsanto logos.”

Mason describes how important research has been ignored by regulators and governments over the years that showed how various agrochemicals and other man-made chemicals in the environment are changing humans: polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), DDT, chlordane, lindane, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, toxaphene, heptachlor, dioxin, atrazine and dacthal – all identified as endocrine disruptor chemicals.

As a resident of Wales, Mason notes that in 1973, she swapped being poisoned by PCBs leaking into the Cardiff water supply for Monsanto’s test bed for its flagship glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup in Swansea. In her various papers, Mason has provided disturbing descriptions of how glyphosate has been used liberally in South Wales and data relating to the deteriorating health of residents as well as degradation of the environment and biodiversity across the UK.

Yet, due to government collusion with the agrochemical sector, European directives have been sidelined, regulatory processes subverted and ‘business as usual’ remains the order of the day.

Business as usual  

The British Government enjoys very close financial relationships with Monsanto, Syngenta, AstraZeneca, Bayer CropScience and Dow Chemicals. Mason states:

“The UK government supported the Glyphosate Task Force (GTF), a consortium of companies joining resources and efforts in order to renew the European glyphosate registration with a joint submission (most companies produce their own formulated glyphosate products).”

She then highlights how private corporations are shaping the government’s research agenda in Britain in a way that serves their own interests:

“In 2010 Michael Pragnell, founder of Syngenta and former Chairman of CropLife International, was appointed as Chairman of Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and by 2011 CRUK was donating money (£450 million/year) to the Government’s Strategy for UK Life Sciences and AstraZeneca (Syngenta’s parent company) was providing 22 compounds to academic research to develop medicines in the UK. One Corporation promotes cancer; the other Corporation tries to cure it.”

Whether it is CRUK, the Francis Crick Institute or the Oxford Martin Commission (see Mason’s letter to the OMC here) for Future Generations, Mason draws attention to the fact that these bodies, which say they are concerned about health and disease, appear to do their best to avoid addressing the issue of transnational agrichemical companies and their products.

Read More: www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/02/toxic-relations-stop-colluding-with-monsanto-and-the-agrochemical-industry/

Study Shows Roundup Weedkiller Causes Liver Disease At Extremely Low Concentrations

monsicko logo

Brandon Turbeville

If the toxic herbicide glyphosate had not provided enough reasons to justify a ban, a new study published in Scientific Reports is doing just that.This study has revealed that Roundup, of which glyphosate is the main ingredient, has the potential to cause non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

The study involved a test on rats that showed that even at extremely low levels of exposure, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) was produced.

This peer-reviewed study showed that Roundup caused NAFLD at a concentration far below that which is found in the bodies of most Americans.

Indeed, the research showed that exposing the rats to Roundup in concentrations a thousand times lower than allowable limits in food and drinking water or even lower than concentrations found in the urine of most Americans caused changes in the liver which contained the molecular signature of NAFLD.

Around a third of U.S. residents are affected by NAFLD which generally causes no symptoms in most people but can lead to liver cirrhosis and cancer. There are known risk factors but these factors do not explain the increase of cases of NAFLD and why it is much more common in young people in the past. It is also worth noting that liver cancer has increased among Americans almost three-fold since the 1980s.

Read More: www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/03/66141.html

Glyphosate Contaminants In Processed Brand Name Foods

Is this a surprise to anyone? It would be nice to see a list of foods that do not contain glyphosate.

1989's Joker says, "With Joker Brand I get a smile again and again."

By Catherine J. Frompovich

Glyphosate is the main chemical active in several brands of agricultural and corporate farming herbicides used in the growing fields; in GMO seed crop cultures; and in what’s called “preharvest staging” [1].  That’s when the herbicide is sprayed several days [3 to 5 days] prior to crop harvest to “ensure” seed heads mature evenly.  Some consider that process acts as a “desiccant.”

The more commonly-used herbicide is Roundup® manufactured by Monsanto.  In GMO farming, there is Roundup Ready® seeds, which are totally different from heirloom or non-GMO seeds.  One specific difference is GMO seeds have patents on them, meaning something has been done to modify the seed from the parent or original plant strain produced by Nature.

Recently on an Internet talk show, I heard a professor talking about the non-browning apple, i.e., the apple’s protein is turned off  to make the GMO-non-browning apple not brown when cut and exposed to air, as a normal apple does.

Well, the question I, as a natural nutritionist, have is:  If the protein (0.3 gram or 1% of Daily Value) [3] in the GMO non-browning apple is turned off, does that mean the apple protein is not functional within that GMO apple as a nutrient for human nutrition?  Has a scientific nutritional analysis proven that factually one way or the other?  Or does science indicate that protein is viable as human nutrition?  Because, if not, that would make a real nutritional difference in the GMO non-browning apple!

Furthermore, what’s called the “equivalence factor” of GMO phoods really is this, in my opinion: GMO plants have ‘things’ either inserted or turned off or modified (allowing patents to be issued making food seeds/plants corporate property subject to legal redress) from original parent plants, therefore, GMOs are NOT equivalent to the original plant food, regardless of what GMO science claims!

The fact food crop seeds or plants have “patents” should be the prime exclusionary criterion difference, in my opinion, since historical and heirloom foods/seeds/plants did not, and do not, have patents!  That’s why the U.S. FDA is out to lunch on GMO phood science, I say, and all GMO phoods legally must be labeled correctly to comply with truth in advertising laws in the USA.

Then there’s the inconvenient ‘byproduct’ of corporate farming; it’s glyphosate residues in processed foods, which has been confirmed scientifically by Food Democracy Now, The Detox Project and their 29-page report “Glyphosate: UNSAFE ON ANY PLATE”[2].

Below are two charts showing the glyphosate food testing results in parts per billion (ppb) FDN had performed, and the results are nothing short of stunning!  Cheerios, which moms routinely give to toddlers as “finger food,” contain 1,125.3 ppb!

Read More: www.activistpost.com/2017/02/glyphosate-contaminants-processed-brand-name-foods.html