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

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:

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:

Total Control: UN-elected One-World Government: UN Agenda 2030

UN Agenda 2030

The United Nations 2030 Agenda decoded: It’s a blueprint for the global enslavement of humanity under the boot of corporate masters

(NaturalNews) This week, Michael Snyder published an important article entitled The 2030 Agenda: This Month The UN Launches A Blueprint For A New World Order With The Help Of The Pope.

That article references this UN “2030 Agenda” document that pushes a blueprint for so-called “sustainable development” around the world.

This document describes nothing less than a global government takeover of every nation across the planet. The “goals” of this document are nothing more than code words for a corporate-government fascist agenda that will imprison humanity in a devastating cycle of poverty while enriching the world’s most powerful globalist corporations like Monsanto and DuPont.

In the interests of helping wake up humanity, I’ve decided to translate the 17 points of this 2030 agenda so that readers everywhere can understand what this document is really calling for. To perform this translation, you have to understand how globalists disguise their monopolistic agendas in “feel good” language.

Here’s the point-by-point translation. Notice carefully that nowhere does this document state that “achieving human freedom” is one of its goals. Nor does it explain HOW these goals are to be achieved. As you’ll see here, every single point in this UN agenda is to be achieved through centralized government control and totalitarian mandates that resemble communism.


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:

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: