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

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