Science Committee Hearing Targets Cancer Scientists, Betrays Public Interest
06 February 2018
Politics
Lamar Smith, chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on July 24, 2014. NASA / Aubrey Gemignani
By Carey Gillam
Score another point for corporate power over protection of the public.
U.S. Rep Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, & Technology, has slated a full committee hearing for Tuesday with an agenda aimed squarely at attacking some of the world's top cancer scientists.
<p>Given the fact that cancer is the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/types.htm" target="_blank">second-leading cause of death</a> in the U.S., 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 <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto">Monsanto</a> Co. when it declared the pesticide <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">glyphosate</a>, a key ingredient in Monsanto's weed killing products, to be a probable carcinogen.</p><p>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.</p><p>In <a href="http://governance.iarc.fr/ENG/Docs/CLSBiggs-IARC_01112017.pdf" target="_blank">letters to IARC's leadership</a>, Smith <a href="http://governance.iarc.fr/ENG/Docs/SST_IARC12082017.pdf" target="_blank">has repeated</a> false narratives and inaccurate news stories planted by Monsanto and chemical industry allies, and cited the "serious nature of these concerns related to expenditures of taxpayer dollars."</p><p>It's worth noting that the plan to put the International Agency for Research on Cancer on the hot seat was put into motion roughly three years ago when Monsanto predicted the international cancer scientists would find its weed killer to have carcinogenic potential. The company <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/72-Document-Details-Monsantos-Strategy-Regarding-IARC.pdf" target="_blank">said as much</a> in internal communications brought to light through recent litigation.</p><p>The documents also show that it was February 2015, a month before the IARC classification, when Monsanto executives laid out <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/72-Document-Details-Monsantos-Strategy-Regarding-IARC.pdf" target="_blank">a strategic plan</a> to discredit the cancer scientists. The plan was designed to "orchestrate outcry with IARC decision."</p><p>The efforts to manipulate public perception about IARC ramped up last summer when Monsanto allies spoon-fed a <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/monsanto-spin-doctors-target-cancer-scientist-in-flawed_us_594449eae4b0940f84fe2e57" target="_blank">false narrative</a> to a Reuters reporter who produced a news story that shot around the globe and has been a key talking point for the chemical industry attack against IARC.</p><p>The story relied on the deposition of an IARC scientist named Aaron Blair and reported that Blair withheld critical information that would have altered the IARC glyphosate classification. Reuters never provided a link to the deposition, which at that point was not filed in any court and was not publicly available.</p><p>Chairman Smith ran with the story, stating that Blair "admitted to knowing that this research could have prevented" the classification of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.</p><p>Anyone taking time to actually read <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Dr.-Aaron-Blair-03.20.2017_Redacted.pdf" target="_blank">the deposition</a>, which is now public, would see that Blair never said any such thing, and in fact protested multiple times that the data in question was not fully analyzed and not published and thus was not suitable to be considered by IARC.</p><p>A similar false narrative pushed by the chemical industry and repeated by Smith accused IARC of deleting assessments finding no connection between glyphosate and cancer from its final report. Smith and team either don't know or don't care that IARC's deletions were of Monsanto assertions that the <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/IARC_Response_Reuters_October2017.pdf" target="_blank">cancer scientists said</a> could not be substantiated.</p><p>IARC officials <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/2016/glyphosate_IARC2016.php" target="_blank">have detailed</a> the falsehoods perpetuated against them by the chemical industry but the defense has fallen on deaf ears.</p><p>Monsanto needs to discredit the international cancer scientists because it was the IARC finding that <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/" target="_blank">triggered waves of lawsuits</a> against Monsanto, and prompted moves to ban the chemical in some European countries.</p><p>But while Monsanto and other chemical industry interests are concerned about the billions of dollars in revenues they rake in annually from glyphosate-based products, the attack on this independent science group should have all of us concerned.</p><p>Approximately 39 percent of men and women living in the U.S. are expected to be diagnosed with cancer during their lifetimes, according to the National Cancer Institute.</p><p>For this year alone, the American Cancer Society has estimated there will be more than 1.68 million people newly diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 deaths from cancer. Worldwide, there are more than 14 million cases of cancer occurring each year, and that number is expected to hit nearly 22 million by 2030.</p><p>Cancer "affects almost everyone's life, either directly or indirectly," and beyond the toll on life and health it costs the U.S. more than $200 billion in medical costs and lost productivity, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).</p><p>In order to reduce deaths from cancer, we have to put more emphasis on preventing it in the first place, and a big part of that "primary prevention" according to a 2016 report by the HHS National Toxicology Program "is to identify the carcinogens."</p><p>Clearly, the companies that sell chemicals linked to cancer prefer to see IARC defunded and dismantled. They've said as much through the disingenuously named <a href="http://campaignforaccuracyinpublichealthresearch.com/caphr-launches-new-coalition-on-one-year-anniversary/" target="_blank">Council for Accuracy in Public Health Research</a>, a nonprofit established by the American Chemistry Council a year ago with the specific goal of <a href="http://campaignforaccuracyinpublichealthresearch.com/about/" target="_blank">promoting the "reform</a>" of IARC.</p><p>But to see our lawmakers so eagerly promoting corporate interests when such dire public safety interests are at stake marks perhaps a new low in American politics. These are literally life and death matters.</p><p>Our public servants must be held to account, to support the scientists who work to identify carcinogens, and push back against the corporate interests who want to discredit the science that threatens its profits.</p><p>Scientific integrity should mean exactly that.</p><p style=""> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate </em><em><a href="http://www.ehn.org/monsanto-cancer-iarc-weedkiller-science-2530759419.html" target="_blank">Environmental Health News</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
How Monsanto Manufactured 'Outrage' at Chemical Cancer Classification It Expected
19 September 2017
Popular
By Carey Gillam
Three years ago this month Monsanto executives realized they had a big problem on their hands.
It was September 2014 and the company's top-selling chemical, the weed killer called glyphosate that is the foundation for Monsanto's branded Roundup products, had been selected as one among a handful of pesticides to undergo scrutiny by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Monsanto had spent decades fending off concerns about the safety of glyphosate and decrying scientific research indicating the chemical might cause cancer or other diseases. And even though the IARC review was still months away, Monsanto's own scientists knew what the outcome would likely be—and they knew it wouldn't be good.
<p style="">Internal company records show not just the level of fear Monsanto had over the impending review, but notably that company officials fully expected IARC scientists would find at least some cancer connections to glyphosate. Company scientists discussed the "vulnerability" that surrounded their efforts to defend glyphosate amid multiple unfavorable research findings in studies of people and animals exposed to the weed killer. In addition to epidemiology studies, "we also have potential vulnerabilities in the other areas that IARC will consider, namely, exposure, genetox and mode of action…" a Monsanto scientist wrote <a href="http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/35-Monsanto-Admits-Company-Faces-Issues-in-Epidemiology-Exposure-Genotoxicity-and-Mode-of-Action.pdf" target="_blank">in October 2014</a>. That same email discussed a need to find allies and arrange funding for a "fight"—all months before the IARC meeting in March 2015. </p><p style="">And Monsanto predicted internally before IARC even met that the review of the scientific evidence would result in a decision that glyphosate "possibly" was carcinogenic or "probably" was. Monsanto officials had forecast the IARC decision in an <a href="http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/72-Document-Details-Monsantos-Goals-After-IARC-Report.pdf" target="_blank">internal "preparedness" plan</a> that warned colleagues to "assume and prepare for the outcome..." The document shows Monsanto thought it most likely that IARC would peg glyphosate as a "possible human carcinogen." The rating of probable carcinogen was "possible but less likely," the Monsanto memo stated. IARC ultimately did <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf" target="_blank">classify glyphosate</a> as "probably carcinogenic to humans."</p><p>As the IARC meeting loomed, the internal documents show that Monsanto did not wait for the actual IARC decision before acting. It enlisted teams of PR and lobbying experts, scientists and others in a plan aimed at creating what was designed to appear as a storm of "outcry" and "outrage" to follow the IARC classification. IARC had a history of "questionable and politically charged rulings," the Monsanto memo said.</p><p>The plan was to create enough controversy to thoroughly discredit IARC's evaluation because Monsanto officials knew that regulators would be influenced by IARC, and continued widespread use of the top-selling chemical could be at risk. </p><p>"It is possible that IARC's decision will impact future regulatory decision making," Monsanto stated in its internal correspondence.</p><p style="">The timing was critical because in 2015 both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Commission were evaluating re-authorizations of Monsanto's weed killer. Following IARC's classification, both the European Union and the EPA delayed final decisions on glyphosate amid the still-brewing debate over the chemical's safety.</p><p>"What this indicates to me is that it was obvious to Monsanto that there was evidence of carcinogenicity," said Peter Infante, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/fqpa_srb_panel_member_biosketches_oct_2016.pdf" target="_blank">an epidemiologist</a> who worked for more than 24 years for the U.S. government studying cancer risks to workers from exposure to toxic substances. "It would seem to me that Monsanto does not like the public to be informed of the cancer hazard."</p><p>After the IARC ruling, a storm of protest did erupt from various individuals and organizations alongside Monsanto's howls of indignant outrage. Some <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-09-26-JEC-to-Collins-NIH-IARC-Funding-due-10-10.pdf" target="_blank">have questioned the wisdom of U.S. funding</a> for IARC and Monsanto has perpetuated <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/monsanto-spin-doctors-target-cancer-scientist-in-flawed_us_594449eae4b0940f84fe2e57" target="_blank">a false narrative</a> that the chairman of the IARC working group withheld critical information from the team. </p><p style=""><a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/" target="_blank">The document trail</a>, which includes internal emails, memos and other communications obtained from Monsanto by plaintiffs' attorneys through litigation pending in the U.S., makes clear that the debate over, and challenge to, IARC's classification did not sprout authentically from a variety of voices, but rather was manufactured by Monsanto in advance of IARC's decision and continued afterward. The goals was—and is—to convince regulators to discount the findings of the team of independent scientific experts who made up the IARC team that examined glyphosate. </p><p style=""> The internal records obtained through litigation, combined with documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and state records requests also show that the actions employed to discredit IARC were part of a decades-long pattern of deceptive tactics by Monsanto to persuade regulators, lawmakers and members of the press and public that glyphosate and Roundup are safe. The company has used these tactics multiple times over the years to try to discredit several scientists whose research has found harmful effects associated with glyphosate. </p><p>"<strong>Orchestrate Outcry"</strong> </p><p style="">The IARC attack plan, which was laid out in a February 2015 memo, involved not only Monsanto's internal PR people, scientists and marketing experts, but a range of outside industry players. Various individuals were assigned tasks. The "strategies and tactics" included: </p> <ul class="ee-ul"> <li>"Orchestrate Outcry" with IARC Decision—Industry conducts robust media/social media outreach on process and outcome.</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>"Identify/request third-party experts to blog, op/ed, tweet and/or link, repost, retweet, etc." The documents show one such "expert," academic Henry Miller, was <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/21-Internal-Monsanto-Email-Detailing-Company-Effort-to-Preemptively-Criticize-IARC-Ahead-of-Glyphosate-Report.pdf" target="_blank">provided a draft article</a>.</li> </ul> <p style=""> to submit to Forbes for publication under his name with no mention of Monsanto's involvement. Forbes learned of the deceit last month and <a href="http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/08/04/monsanto-ghostwriting-stanford-university-hoover-institution-fellow/amp/" target="_blank">severed relations with Miller.</a></p> <ul class="ee-ul"> <li>"Inform/Inoculate/Engage Industry Partners"—Notably the industry partners listed included three organizations that purport to be independent of Monsanto but have long been seen by critics as front groups for the company—Monsanto named <a href="https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/why-didnt-an-illinois-professor-have-to-disclose-gmo-funding/eb99bdd2-683d-4108-9528-de1375c3e9fb" target="_blank">Academics Review</a> and the <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/genetic-literacy-project/" target="_blank">Genetic Literacy Project</a>, both based in the U.S. and <a href="https://usrtk.org/food-for-thought/trevor-butterworth-spins-science-for-industry/" target="_blank">Sense About Science</a>. which has run operations in the United Kingdom and the U.S., as groups to help with its mission. In fact, Sense About Science was the group identified by Monsanto to lead the industry response and "provide a platform for IARC observers." The groups did as Monsanto planned, posting scathing attacks on IARC on their websites.</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"> <li style="">Engagement with Regulatory Agencies—Monsanto planned for grower associations/ growers to "write regulators with an appeal that they remain focused on the science, not the politically charged decision by IARC."</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>"Push opinion leader letter to key daily newspaper on day of IARC ruling" with assistance of the Potomac Group marketing firm.</li> </ul> <p style="">The preparedness plan also called for supporting "the development of three new papers on glyphosate focused on epidemiology and toxicology." As planned, shortly after the IARC decision Monsanto arranged for several scientists—many of them former employees or paid consultants—to author and publish research papers supporting glyphosate safety. It was revealed through discovery documents that Monsanto discussed ghostwriting the papers. <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Heydens.png" target="_blank">In one email</a>, company scientist William Heydens told colleagues the company could "ghost-write certain reports that would carry the names of outside scientists—"they would just edit & sign their names so to speak," he wrote. He cited as an example a 2000 study that has been regarded as influential by regulators. <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews" target="_blank">Documents show</a> Monsanto's heavy writing and editing involvement in the resulting purportedly "independent" review. </p><p style="">Monsanto has adamantly denied ghostwriting, but <a href="http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/18-Monsanto-Scientist-Admits-to-Ghostwriting-Cancer-Review-Paper.pdf" target="_blank">one memo from August 2015</a> from the files of Monsanto scientist David Saltmiras actually uses that term, stating that he "ghostwrote cancer review paper Greim et al (2015)…" referring to a paper that showed authorship by German scientist Helmut Greim along with Saltmiras. (Monsanto has acknowledged that Greim worked as a consultant to the company with part of his job being to publish peer-reviewed data on glyphosate).</p><p><a href="http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/20-Monsanto-Email-from-Donna-Farmer-Demonstrating-Company-Manipulation-of-Glyphosate-Studies.pdf" target="_blank">Another internal email</a> illustrates the writing by a Monsanto scientist of a research paper titled "Developmental and Reproductive Outcomes… after Glyphosate Exposure." The scientist, Donna Farmer, did extensive work, including what she called a "cut and paste" of certain information. But her name was not included as an author before the paper was submitted to a journal. The <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10937404.2012.632361" target="_blank">published version</a>, concluded there was "no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects." </p><p style="">The paper trail of documents also show that Monsanto feared that a U.S. health agency planning to review glyphosate in 2015 might agree with IARC and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/collusion-or-coincidence-records-show-epa-efforts_us_5994dad4e4b056a2b0ef02f1" target="_blank">collaborated with the EPA to successfully block that agency</a>—the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR)—from doing its review. "We're trying to do everything we can to keep from having a domestic IARC occur," <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Text-Messages.pdf" target="_blank">a company official wrote. </a> </p><p style="">The record also shows that well before IARC, Monsanto <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html?_r=0" target="_blank">recruited networks of academic scientists</a> in the U.S and Europe who have defended Monsanto's products, including its weed killer, without declaring their collaborations with Monsanto. And that these silent soldiers helped Monsanto discredit scientists who reported research showing harm associated with glyphosate and Roundup, including working <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2017/08/10/unearthed-docs-monsanto-connected-campaign-retract-gmo-paper/" target="_blank">at Monsanto's bidding</a> to get one damaging study by French scientist Gilles-Éric Séralini retracted from a scientific journal where it was published in September 2012. The company even discounted concerns by one of its own paid consultants who found evidence of glyphosate's genotoxicity and refused to do the additional tests he recommended.</p><p>If what Monsanto says is true, that glyphosate is so very safe, and that there is no evidence it causes cancer or other health problems, then why all the smoke and mirrors? Why would the company need to ghostwrite research papers to present to regulators? Why would Monsanto need to establish networks of scientists to promote glyphosate safety and to tear down scientists whose research raises concerns? Why would Monsanto try to block a review of glyphosate by the U.S. ATSDR?</p><p>Two committees of the European Parliament have scheduled a hearing for Oct. 11 in Brussels to delve into these and other questions as the European Commission faces a looming deadline for making a decision on the re-authorization of glyphosate before the end of 2017. </p><p>Lawmakers should take note of evidence that their own food safety agency appears to have dropped the ball on independent assessments of glyphosate research. Records show that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/24/eu-declared-monsanto-weedkiller-safe-after-intervention-from-controversial-us-official" target="_blank">dismissed a study</a> linking Monsanto's weed killer to cancer at the advice of an EPA official who Monsanto deemed "useful" and who is part of a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/epa-inspector-general-probing-collusion-with-monsanto_us_59372108e4b0aba888b99dca" target="_blank">probe now into possible collusion</a> between the EPA and Monsanto. </p><p style="">They should also pay heed to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/15/eu-report-on-weedkiller-safety-copied-text-from-monsanto-study" target="_blank">news that EFSA</a> based its recommendation on glyphosate on a report that copied and pasted analyses from a Monsanto study. </p><p>Monsanto Chairman Hugh Grant was invited to address the Parliament meeting in October, but declined to appear or to send anyone else from Monsanto. Dr. Roland Solecki, head of chemical safety for the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), has also declined, according to organizers. I do plan to participate, as will a representative from IARC and several others. </p><p>Throughout this debate, it is worthwhile to remember that the concerns about glyphosate safety have deep roots that date all the way back to at least 1985 when EPA toxicologists looked at data showing rare tumors in <a href="http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2017/june/of-mice-monsanto-and-a-mysterious-tumor" target="_blank">mice dosed with glyphosate</a> and determined that glyphosate was "possibly carcinogenic to humans." </p><p style="">Monsanto protests eventually reversed that classification but in light of all of the deceptive tactics recently revealed in documents, the words of an EPA scientist more than 30 years ago are worth considering today: "<a href="https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/web/pdf/103601/103601-170.pdf" target="_blank">Glyphosate is suspect… Monsanto's argument is unacceptable</a>."</p><p style="">The EPA scientist in <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/web/pdf/103601/103601-170.pdf" target="_blank">that 1985 memo</a> also wrote: "Our viewpoint is one of protecting the public health when we see suspicious data. It is not our job to protect registrants…" </p><p style="">European lawmakers would be wise to recall those words.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Like many other plant-based foods and products, CBD oil is one dietary supplement where "organic" labels are very important to consumers. However, there are little to no regulations within the hemp industry when it comes to deeming a product as organic, which makes it increasingly difficult for shoppers to find the best CBD oil products available on the market.
<p>Here you can learn about the importance of organic hemp oil, why it's better for the environment, and which CBD companies actually make trustworthy products with sustainable farming processes. origins which weigh heavily on many consumers who want to buy a product that's produced in the best way possible for not only themselves to ingest, but for the environment as well through sustainable farming methods. </p><h2>What Is CBD Oil?</h2><p>First things first, CBD stands for cannabidiol, and it's a cannabinoid found within cannabis sativa plants. This plant compound is believed to have many potential benefits, and it is primarily derived from hemp plants via a CO2 extraction process. </p><p>Since CBD is extracted from industrial hemp, which contains only trace amounts of THC (the psychoactive component in cannabis plants), this means that CBD won't make you feel high like marijuana, which has much higher levels of THC that causes psychoactive effects. Instead, the effects of CBD are much more subtle and promote a general sense of calm and relaxation in most users.</p><h2>What Makes a CBD Oil Organic?</h2><p>In terms of organic labels, perhaps the most important (and prominent) certification comes from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This government organization has been labeling foods as "organic" for many years, but what exactly does this certification entail? Essentially, a label indicating that a product is "USDA Organic" or "Certified Organic" means that at least 95% of the ingredients are obtained from organic sources.</p><p>For a crop to be considered organic by the USDA, it must be grown without the use of industrial solvents, irradiation, genetic engineering (GMOs), synthetic pesticides, or chemical fertilizer. Instead, farmers rely on natural substances and <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">mechanical, physical, or biologically based farming</a> techniques to cultivate healthy and organic crops.</p><p>Before the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, no hemp-derived products could be dubbed as "certified organic" since the hemp plant and its extracts were still categorized as a Schedule I Controlled Substance. However, it's still difficult for CBD companies to obtain a USDA certified organic label for their products due to the legal grey area that still surrounds CBD extracts. </p><p>Because of these challenges, and due to the fact that industrial hemp has only recently become an agricultural crop, very few CBD oils are USDA certified organic. Rather, many CBD products contain hemp extracts from plants that were grown in organic conditions but may not be federally certified.</p><h2>What are the Best Organic CBD Oil Brands?</h2><p><em>Each product featured here has been independently selected by the writer. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p><em><br></em>
<h2>Why Organic Hemp Oil Matters</h2><p>Hemp is a unique plant, not only for its rich cannabinoid content, but also for its ability to absorb a wide variety of components in soil. But this trait poses great risks when it comes to the creation of CBD products derived from hemp.</p><p>Because hemp has a high capacity for compound uptake, this means that the plants can retain <a href="https://www.remedyreview.com/industry/lab-test-results/" target="_blank">harmful chemicals like pesticides</a>, heavy metals, and other residual solvents. This is especially true when it comes to synthetic chemicals that are more toxic to humans, and difficult to remove once they have been absorbed by the hemp plant.</p><p>Organic farming practices help reduce the risk of hemp crops absorbing harsh chemicals that may later end up in CBD oil after extraction. When you're taking CBD as a wellness supplement to help alleviate your symptoms or improve your overall well-being, the last thing you want is to ingest compounds that might negatively outweigh the benefits of CBD. This is an important reason to look for third party lab test results when shopping for CBD products since these certificates of analysis can show the full cannabinoid and terpene profile of a hemp extract, as well as test results that search for the presence of any residual solvents.</p><p>In addition to creating a better end product, organic farming practices are also better for the environment. Sustainable and organic farming methods may <a href="https://www.helpguide.org/articles/healthy-eating/organic-foods.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">reduce pollution, conserve water, reduce soil erosion, increase soil fertility, and use less energy</a>. The use of natural pest deterrents as opposed to chemical pesticides is also better for nearby animal populations and ecosystems.</p><h3>Organic vs. Natural</h3><p>While there are only a select few companies offering certified organic ingredients in their products, almost every brand in the CBD market creates "natural" products. The term "all-natural" or "plant-based" does not mean that a product is organic, and since hemp oil is a natural derivative of hemp plants, these products are often referred to as all-natural. However, there are some synthetic CBD oils that should be avoided because they are chemically constructed and may produce unwanted side effects that are not caused by naturally derived CBD extracts.</p><h2>What are the Benefits of Organic CBD Oil?</h2><p>There's a long list of potential CBD oil health benefits, and some of the most common wellness advantages include:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503660/" target="_blank">Chronic pain relief</a></li><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604171/" target="_blank">Anti-anxiety effects</a></li><li>Better sleep</li><li><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inner-source/201901/cbd-oil-mental-health-should-you-take-it-too" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Improvements in mood</a></li><li>Internal balance and regulation</li></ul><p>When dealing with pain, inflammation, sleep issues, and mental health struggles, it can be hard to find sufficient treatment options. The use of certain prescriptions can cause unwanted side effects, yet they are often the only solution for patients with these medical conditions. In search of other therapies, people have started to flock towards CBD oil as an alternative remedy for a variety of conditions. However, it should be noted that CBD products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and you should seek your doctor's advice before using CBD if you have a serious medical condition.</p><h2>Look at the Labels Before You Buy CBD Oil</h2><p>When you go online to buy CBD oil, you'll quickly realize there is an overwhelming number of brands that are saturating the market. It can be difficult to determine which products are truly as good as they make themselves out to be. Always look for up-to-date third-party lab tests so you know you are getting a great product, and don't hesitate to contact the brand if you have any additional questions. And if you're intent on purchasing 100% organic CBD oil, it's best to look for certified products or brands that are held to strict regulatory standards.</p><p><strong>Melena Gurganus </strong>is the Reviews Editor at EcoWatch. She is passionate health and wellness and her writing aims to help others find products they can trust. Her work has been featured in publications such as Health, Shape, Huffington Post, Cannabis Business Times, and Bustle.<br></p>
Spruce
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjI3OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTM2NzgzOX0.axY0HjeqRctJsR_KmDLctzDpUBLBN-oNIdqaXDb4caQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="774be" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8379f35b1ca8a86d0e61b7d4bfc8b46e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="spruce organic cbd oil" data-width="710" data-height="959" /><p>As one of the best brands in the business, Spruce CBD is well-known for its potent CBD oils that feature many additional beneficial phytocannabinoids. This brand works with two family-owned, sustainably focused farms in the USA (one located in Kentucky and one in North Carolina) to create its organic, small product batches. The max potency Spruce CBD oil contains 2400mg of full-spectrum CBD extract, but the brand also offers a lower strength tincture with 750mg of CBD in total.</p>
$89
CBDistillery
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjkzNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTU4OTM4Nn0.ypRdeDSBcE87slYrFfVrRwtJ2qGIK6FD5jBB4pndTMo/img.jpg?width=980" id="b473b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9930b53c9d58cb49774640a61c3e3e75" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="cbdistillery cbd oil" data-width="1244" data-height="1244" /><p>All of the products from CBDistillery are <a href="https://ushempauthority.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U.S. Hemp Authority Certified</a>, and for good reason. The company only uses non-GMO and pesticide-free industrial hemp that's grown organically on Colorado farms. Its hemp oils are some of the most affordable CBD products on the market, yet they still maintain a high standard of quality. CBDistillery has a wide variety of CBD potencies across its product line (ranging from 500mg to 5000mg per bottle) and offers both full-spectrum and broad-spectrum CBD oils to give customers a completely thc-free option.</p>
$35
FAB CBD
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIyNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NDIwOTEyMn0.MlTjz096FJ0ev_-soK7_Z-FeQeJczWoeh9Qi9SSkHsY/img.jpg?width=980" id="04b26" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="76aa4862f44603242e318982acea6646" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="fab cbd oil" data-width="800" data-height="800" /><p>For an organic CBD oil that has it all, FAB CBD offers plenty of variety for any type of consumer. All of its products are made with zero pesticides and extracted from organically grown Colorado industrial hemp. FAB CBD oil comes in five all-natural flavors (mint, vanilla, berry, citrus, and natural) and is also available in four strengths (300, 600, 1200, and 2400mg per bottle).</p>
$39
NuLeaf Naturals
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIxOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NzExNTgyMX0.D6qMGYllKTsVhEkQ-L_GzpDHVu60a-tJKcio7M1Ssmc/img.jpg?width=980" id="94e4a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3609a52479675730893a45a82a03c71d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="nuleaf naturals organic cbd oil" data-width="600" data-height="600" /><p>As an industry-leading brand, it comes as no surprise that NuLeaf Naturals sources its CBD extract from organic hemp plants grown on licensed farms in Colorado. The comany's CBD oils only contain two ingredients: USDA certified organic hemp seed oil and full spectrum hemp extract.</p><p>NuLeaf Naturals uses one proprietary CBD oil formula for all of its products, so you will get the same CBD potency in each tincture (60mg per mL), but can purchase different bottle sizes depending on how much you intend to use.</p>
$38.50
Charlotte's Web
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjk3NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzQ0NjM4N30.SaQ85SK10-MWjN3PwHo2RqpiUBdjhD0IRnHKTqKaU7Q/img.jpg?width=980" id="84700" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a2174067dcc0c4094be25b3472ce08c8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="charlottes web cbd oil" data-width="1244" data-height="1244" /><p>Perhaps one of the most well-known brands in the CBD landscape, Charlotte's Web has been growing sustainable hemp plants for several years. The company is currently in the process of achieving official USDA Organic Certification, but it already practices organic and sustainable cultivation techniques to enhance the overall health of the soil and the hemp plants themselves, which creates some of the highest quality CBD extracts. Charlotte's Web offers CBD oils in a range of different concentration options, and some even come in a few flavor options such as chocolate mint, orange blossom, and lemon twist.</p>
$60
From Your Site Articles
- Best CBD Oils of 2020: Reviews & Buying Guide - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oil for Pain Management - Top 10 CBD Oil Review 2020 ... ›
- Best CBD for Dogs 2020 - Organic CBD Oil for Pets - EcoWatch ›
- Full Spectrum CBD Oil: What To Know - EcoWatch ›
- Charlotte's Web: A Review of the Certified B Corp CBD Brand ›
- Best CBD Waters: Plus All You Need to Know - EcoWatch ›
- The Best Water Soluble CBD Available Online - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD for Sleep (Lab-Tested, Person-Tested Oils) - EcoWatch ›
- CBD Oil for Dogs: 7 Benefits & Treatment Guide - EcoWatch ›
- NuLeaf Naturals CBD Review | Are They Worth The Cost? - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Capsules & Pills - Buyer's Guide (Update for 2021) - EcoWatch ›
- Because Price Matters: Most Affordable CBD Oils of 2021 - EcoWatch ›
- Strongest CBD Oils to Buy in 2021? - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oils For Pain: Top 3 Brands of 2021 - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Vape Pen: Top Brands of 2020 - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
By Carey Gillam
In a well-orchestrated and highly coordinated media coup, Monsanto Co. and friends this week dropped a bombshell on opponents who are seeking to prove that the company's beloved Roundup herbicide causes cancer.
A widely circulated story published June 14 in the global news outlet Reuters (for which I formerly worked) laid out what appeared to be a scandalous story of hidden information and a secretive scientist, "exclusive" revelations that the story said could have altered a critical 2015 classification that associated Monsanto's Roundup to cancer and triggered waves of lawsuits against Monsanto.
<p>It was a blockbuster of a story, and was repeated by news organizations around the globe, pushed by press releases from Monsanto-backed organizations and <a href="https://www.americanchemistry.com/Media/PressReleasesTranscripts/ACC-news-releases/ACC-Calls-for-Investigation-Into-IARC-Officials.html" target="_blank">trumpeted by industry allies</a> like the American Chemistry Council.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed"></p><div id="79d7d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="VTK37H1548946881"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="875885722733096964" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Monsanto Accuses IARC Scientist of Withholding Glyphosate Data in Cancer Risk Assessment https://t.co/lYJYOQPIKq @TrueFoodNow @justlabelit</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/875885722733096964">1497662404.0</a></blockquote></div><p></p><p>It was also flawed and misleading in a number of critical respects.</p><p>Authored by Reuters' reporter Kate Kelland, who has a history of cozy relations with a group partly funded by agrichemical company interests, the piece accused a top epidemiologist from the U.S. National Cancer Institute of failing to share "important" scientific data with other scientists as they all worked together assessing the herbicide <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_self">glyphosate</a> for the <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/" target="_blank">International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)</a>. That group reviewed a wide body of research on glyphosate and determined in March of 2015 that the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides" target="_self">pesticide</a> should be classified as a <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf" target="_blank">probable human carcinogen</a>. Had the group known of this missing data, it's conclusion could have been different, according to Reuters.</p><p><span></span>The story was particularly timely given glyphosate and Roundup are at the center of mass litigation in the U.S. and under scrutiny by U.S. and European regulators. After the IARC classification, Monsanto was sued by more than 1,000 people in the U.S. who claim they or their loved ones got non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) from exposure to Monsanto's glyphosate-based Roundup and the company and the cases could start going to trial next year. Roundup is the most widely used herbicide in the world and brings in billions of dollars a year for Monsanto. The company insists the IARC classification is meritless and the chemical is proven safe by decades of research.</p><p>So yes, it was a big story that scored big points for Monsanto in the debate over glyphosate safety. But drilling deeply into the sourcing and selective nature of the Reuters piece makes it clear the story is not only seriously flawed, but that it is part of an ongoing and carefully crafted effort by Monsanto and the pesticide industry to discredit IARC's work.</p><p>The story contains at least two apparent factual errors that go to the credibility of its theme. First the story cites "court documents" as primary sources when in fact the documents referred to have not been filed in court and thus are not publicly available for reporters or members of the public to access. Kelland does not share links to the documents she references but makes it clear her information is largely based on a deposition from Aaron Blair, the National Cancer Institute epidemiologist who chaired the IARC working group on glyphosate, as well as related emails and other records. All were obtained by Monsanto as part of the discovery process for the Roundup litigation that is pending in federal court in San Francisco. </p><p>By citing court documents, Kelland avoided addressing whether or not Monsanto or its allies spoon-fed the records to her. And because the article did not provide a link to the Blair deposition, readers are unable to see the full discussion of the unpublished study or the multiple comments by Blair of many other studies that do show evidence of links between glyphosate and cancer. I'm providing the deposition <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Dr.-Aaron-Blair-03.20.2017_Redacted.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>, and disclosing that I requested and obtained it from attorneys involved in the Roundup litigation after Kelland's story was published.</p><p>Second, the story relies in part on an anti-IARC view of a scientist named Bob Tarone and refers to him as an "independent" expert, someone "independent of Monsanto." Kelland quotes Tarone as saying that IARC's evaluation of glyphosate is "flawed and incomplete." Except, according to <a href="http://governance.iarc.fr/ENG/Docs/IARC_responds_to_Reuters_15_June_2017.pdf" target="_blank">information provided by IARC</a>, Tarone is far from independent of Monsanto; Tarone in fact has acknowledged that he is a paid consultant to Monsanto, and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552246" target="_blank">a piece cited by Reuters</a> and authored by Tarone last year in a European scientific journal is being recorrected to reflect Tarone's conflict of interest, according to IARC, which said it has been in communication with that journal.</p><p>But much more noteworthy than the errors is how selective the story is in pulling from the Blair deposition. The story ignored Blair's many affirmations of research showing glyphosate connections to cancer, and focused instead on Blair's knowledge of <a href="https://goo.gl/RcYBgq" target="_blank">one unpublished research study</a> that was still in progress. The story hones in on speculation that the data perhaps could have been finished and published in time to be reviewed by IARC and further speculation by Blair, prodded by a Monsanto attorney, that had it been finished and had it been published it could have helped counter the other studies IARC viewed that showed positive cancer connections.</p><p>That research, part of a massive ongoing project by U.S. government researchers called the <a href="https://aghealth.nih.gov/" target="_blank">Agricultural Health Study</a>, includes hundreds of studies and years of data analyzing pesticide impacts on farmers. Blair, who retired from the National Cancer Institute in 2007, was not leading that research but was part of a team of scientists who in 2013 were analyzing data about pesticide use and the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The data specific to glyphosate did not show a connection to NHL but in working to publish a paper about all the data the group had gathered, they decided to narrow the focus to insecticides and in 2014 <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25337994" target="_blank">did publish a paper</a> on that work. </p><p>The data on glyphosate and NHL has yet to be published, and some scientists who are familiar with the work say it has not tracked people long enough yet to be definitive given NHL generally takes 20 or more years to develop. A prior compilation of data by AHS researchers that also showed no connection between glyphosate and NHL was <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253709/" target="_blank">published in 2005</a> and was considered by IARC. But because the newer data was not published, it was not considered by IARC.</p><p>Blair said the decision to limit the published work to insecticides was to make the data more manageable and was made well before IARC announced it would be looking at glyphosate in 2015.</p><p>"The rule is you only look at things that are published," Blair told me this week after the Reuters story was published. "What would it be like if everyone on the working group whispered things they knew but weren't published and made decisions on that?" IARC confirmed it does not consider unpublished research. In his deposition, Blair states that nothing has changed his opinion about glyphosate and NHL.</p><p>Epidemiologist and University of Toronto scientist John McLaughlin, who sat on the glyphosate working group for IARC with Blair, said to me in a note this week that the information about the unpublished work written about by Reuters did not alter his view of the validity of IARC conclusion on glyphosate either.</p><p>Also left out of the Reuters story—the deposition and a draft copy of the study in question shows that there were concerns about the AHS results due to "relatively small" subgroups of exposed cases. And notably, the Reuters report leaves out Blair's discussion of the North American Pooled Project, in which he participated, which also contains data related to glyphosate and NHL but is not favorable to Monsanto. A <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/NAPP.pdf" target="_blank">synopsis of that project</a> presented to the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology in 2015 showed that people who used glyphosate for more than five years had significantly increased odds of having NHL, and the risk was also significantly higher for people who handled glyphosate for more than two days per year. That information, like the new AHS data, was not given to IARC because it wasn't yet published.</p><p>"When Dr. Blair's deposition transcript is read in total, it shows that nothing was wrongfully withheld from IARC," said plaintiffs' attorney Aimee Wagstaff. She said Monsanto was using pieces of the deposition to "further its agenda in the media."</p><p>To epidemiologist Peter Infante, who spent more than 20 years leading a cancer identification unit at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and analyzed a body of epidemiology research on glyphosate in testimony to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>) Scientific Advisory Committee in December, the attention drawn to unpublished data that supports Monsanto's position is much ado about nothing.</p><p>"You still have other studies that show dose response," he told me. "This Agricultural Health Study is not the gold standard. For glyphosate and NHL they haven't been following people long enough. Even if the data had been published and had been considered by IARC, it would be in the context of all the other study results."</p><p>And finally, in an odd exclusion, the story fails to disclose that Kelland herself has at least tangential ties to Monsanto and friends. Kelland has helped promote an organization called the <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/working-with-us/for-journalists/" target="_blank">Science Media Centre</a>, a group whose aim is to connect certain scientists such as Tarone with journalists like Kelland, and which gets its largest block of funding from corporations that include the agrichemical industry. <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/about-us/funding/" target="_blank">Current and past funders</a> include Monsanto, Monsanto's proposed merger partner Bayer AG, DuPont and agrichemical industry lobbyist CropLife International. Kelland appears in <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/film/" target="_blank">a promotional video</a> for SMC touting the group and authored an essay applauding the SMC that appeared in a <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/SMC-Views-from-the-front-line-essays-on-the-SMC.pdf" target="_blank">SMC promotional report</a>.</p><p>As a Reuters reporter for 17 years (1998-2015), I know the value of an "exclusive." The more such scoops a reporter garners, the more bonus points and high praise from editors. It's a system seen in many news agencies and it works great when it encourages dogged, investigative journalism. But powerful corporations like Monsanto also know how eager reporters are to land exclusives and know that handing favored journalists cherry-picked information with the promise of exclusivity can serve their public relations needs quite well. Follow up the hand-fed story with a press release from an industry-funded outlet and calls for an investigation from the industry group American Chemistry Council and you have propaganda gold.</p><p>What you don't have is the truth.</p><p><em>Carey Gillam is a veteran journalist and research director for <a href="https://usrtk.org/" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know</a>, a non-profit consumer education group.</em><em><br></em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
IARC Scientist Reaffirms Glyphosate’s Link to Cancer as Monsanto’s Requests to Dismiss Cancer Lawsuits Denied
06 July 2016
Food
Dr. Kurt Straif, a section head with the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), appeared in an interview with euronews defending the agency's assessment that glyphosate probably causes cancer in humans.
"Our evaluation was a review of all the published scientific literature on glyphosate and this was done by the world's best experts on the topic that in addition don't have any conflicts of interest that could bias their assessment," Straif said.
"They concluded that, yes, glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans based on three strings of evidence, that is clear evidence of cancer in experimental animals, limited evidence for cancer for humans from real-world exposures, of exposed farmers, and also strong evidence that it can damage the genes from any kind of other toxicological studies."
Watch here:
Glyphosate is the main ingredient in Monsanto's blockbuster product, Roundup, and is also found in herbicides manufactured by Syngenta and Dow.
In March 2015, the IARC concluded that glyphosate is a "probable human carcinogen," touching off an international row on the health and safety of the widely applied herbicide. However, this past May, the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and a different regulatory body from the WHO issued a joint report concluding that the ingredient is "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet." Unsurprisingly, the different opinions about the controversial herbicide were "welcomed" by Phil Miller, Monsanto's vice president for global regulatory and government affairs.
UN Says Glyphosate 'Unlikely' to Cause #Cancer, Industry Ties to Report Called Into Question https://t.co/VeprImTxGs https://t.co/bQpkWVMkym— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1463499367.0
During the euronews interview, Straif explained why the conclusions from the IARC and the FAO/WHO about the weedkiller seem to be contradictory.
"Our classification of the cancer hazards of glyphosate still stand," he said. "We are the authority to classify cancer substances worldwide for the WHO, and it was then this other panel that looked at a very narrow angle of exposure from daily food, and then came up with the conclusion on how much of that may be safe or not."
Basically, the IARC assessment focussed on "hazard" while the other looked at "risk." David Eastmond, a toxicologist at the University of California, Riverside, explained to Wired how the terms are different: "If you have people gawking at sharks swimming around a tank in an aquarium, the sharks are a hazard, but they pose little risk. If you have a surfer on the beach with a shark, now that shark is both a hazard and a risk."
During the interview, the euronews host asked Straif which body of the WHO she should trust as a "consumer, as a farmer, as an occasional beer drinker, as somebody who likes to sit in parks that have been treated with glyphosate."
He replied, "I think it's important to understand the literature that our assessment that glyphosate can cause cancer in humans still stands, and then you have to look at the other assessments for the specific scenarios, and that is not my authority to comment on these evaluations."
Straif also hinted at possible conflicts of interest from the FAO/WHO report. When the euronews host asked the senior scientist if he was "disturbed" by credible reports of the FAO/WHO scientists allegedly receiving payoffs by Monsanto for a favorable glyphosate review, Straif replied, "It is an important topic that needs important scrutiny, yes."
Following the release of the FAO/WHO report, Greenpeace EU as well as food-industry watchdog group U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) questioned whether the evaluation was muddied by industry ties.
Will Monsanto have to face the music about its weedkiller? Roundup cancer lawsuits have been mounting against the company, as EcoWatch reported last week, the agribusiness giant has not been able to legally run away from the growing thorn.
Mother-of-Three Sues #Monsanto Claiming #Roundup Caused Her #Cancer https://t.co/7qqPNHs5WH @nongmoreport @FoodDemocracy @food_tank @EWG— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1467379973.0
In court documents obtained by EcoWatch, at least one court from Hawaii and two from California have rejected Monsanto's attempts to dismiss the respective lawsuits.
For instance, last week, U.S District Judge Michael Seabright denied Monsanto's request to dismiss a lawsuit by Christine and Kenneth Sheppard, former owners of Dragons Lair Kona Coffee Farm in Hawaii.
The Sheppards claim that Monsanto falsely masked the carcinogenic risks of glyphosate and is responsible for causing Christine Sheppard's cancer, non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
As detailed by Courthouse News Service, one reason Seabright decided to reject Monsanto's dismissal considers the 2015 designation [of Roundup as a probable carcinogen] by the WHO.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Glyphosate Sprayed on GMO Crops Linked to Lake Erie's Toxic Algae Bloom
Neil Young: Say No to GMOs on 'Behalf of All Living Things'
Mother-of-Three Sues Monsanto Claiming Roundup Caused Her Cancer
Senate Ag Leaders Lobby Hard to Pass DARK Act Compromise to Preempt Vermont GMO Law