Second CA Glyphosate Trial Scheduled for Elderly Couple in Declining Health
16 November 2018
Health + Wellness
Roundup for sale at a hardware store in San Rafael, CA, on July, 9. JOSH EDELSON / AFP / Getty Images
The first trial claiming long-term use of Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller caused the plaintiff's cancer ended with a $289 million jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, though that was later reduced by a judge to $78 million.
Now, Monsanto's next date in the judgment seat in California has been set for March 18.
<p>California Superior Court Judge Ioana Petrou granted an early trial Thursday to elderly couple Alva and Alberta Pilliod who claim their use of Roundup from 1975 to 2011 caused their non-Hodgkin lymphoma, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit/california-judge-orders-next-monsanto-weed-killer-cancer-trial-for-march-idUSKCN1NK34M" target="_blank">Reuters reported</a>.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="96758" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="OXMO7W1576662574"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1063233054993457152" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Aging, cancer-stricken California couple granted speedy trial against Monsanto @Bayer over Roundup cancer claims. T… https://t.co/pbVl8fmUKV</div> — carey gillam (@carey gillam)<a href="https://twitter.com/careygillam/statuses/1063233054993457152">1542329488.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>Alva and Alberta used Roundup in their garden for decades before receiving their diagnoses in 2011 and 2015, respectively. Their case was one of around 250 similar claims that had not yet been assigned trial dates in Petrou's Oakland court, but they asked for an early trial due to declining health and fear of relapse, <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/sick-couple-push-to-fast-track-roundup-cancer-trial/" target="_blank">Courthouse News Service reported</a>.<br></p><p>Alberta's lawyer Michael Miller testified that Alberta has two brain tumors and suffers from vertigo and nausea. She fell recently, had a large seizure that affected her balance and has to drive with one eye closed because of double vision.</p><p>"These are serious problems," Miller said during a Nov. 7 hearing, according to Courthouse News Service. "Let's get these folks a trial date."</p><p>The Pilliods' is one of around 9,300 pending U.S. cases claiming <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_self">glyphosate</a>, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller, caused the plaintiffs to develop cancer. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bayer" target="_self">Bayer</a>, the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/bayer-monsanto-merger-2575082668.html" target="_self">German company that recently acquired Monsanto</a>, claims that glyphosate is safe.</p><p>"While we have great sympathy for the plaintiffs, we are confident that our glyphosate-based herbicides were not the cause of their injuries and we will vigorously defend them at trial," the company said in a statement reported by Reuters.</p><p>The <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</a> found glyphosate safe in 2017, but the World Health Organization's <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/" target="_blank">International Agency for Research on Cancer</a> found that it was "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015. </p><p>Bayer has a lot riding on the outcomes of the pending trials. Its share price fell 30 percent since the first historic verdict was announced in August. </p><p>There are other glyphosate trials pending for next year, including one in St. Louis, Missouri. Federal cases bundled in a San Francisco case are scheduled to begin trial in late February. </p><p>Meanwhile, the plaintiff in the first trial, Dewayne Johnson, has continued his fight against Monsanto following his victory, which <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-cancer-lawsuit-2617128096.html" target="_self">Bayer has said it will appeal</a>. </p><p>Johnson spoke in Berkeley Wednesday night on the invitation of <a href="https://www.facebook.com/herbicidefreecal/" target="_blank">Herbicide-Free Cal</a>, the group he is now working with.</p>"This is way bigger than I am. I'm just happy to be a part of it," Johnson said at the event, <a href="https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/11/14/cancer-case-plaintiff-continues-crusade-against-monsanto/" target="_blank">CBS Local SF BayArea reported</a>. "Like I said, I'm the leaf that didn't die."<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="37514" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="FYNVVP1576662575"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1029023781547859975" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Jury Finds Monsanto Liable in the First Roundup Cancer Trial – Here’s What Could Happen Next… https://t.co/f0kQc3jqaf</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1029023781547859975">1534173362.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Plaintiff Dewayne Johnson is dying of cancer. He looks on after hearing the verdict to his case against Monsanto at the Superior Court Of California in San Francisco, California, on August 10, 2018, before the award was reduced to $78 million. Josh Edelson / POOL / AFP / Getty Images
A California groundskeeper who won a landmark cancer trial against Roundup-maker Monsanto has agreed to accept $78 million, a significant reduction from the jury's original award of $289 million, the Associated Press reported.
A new trial would have taken place if plaintiff DeWayne "Lee" Johnson did not accept the lessened damages ordered by Judge Suzanne Bolanos of San Francisco's Superior Court of California last week.
<p>
<span></span>On Oct. 26, Johnson's attorneys filed a notice of acceptance of the judge's decision.
</p><p>
"We appreciate and acknowledge this jury's verdict sending a strong message to deter Monsanto's conduct that caused Lee Johnson's non-Hodgkin lymphoma," according to a <a href="https://twitter.com/careygillam/status/1057799218902036484" target="_blank">statement</a> from the lawyers. "However, to hopefully achieve a final resolution within his lifetime, Mr. Johnson has accepted the punitive dames reduction suggested by Judge Bolanos."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="db307" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7K3WT31576662575"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1057799218902036484" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">https://t.co/1yCS4r3kYI</div> — carey gillam (@carey gillam)<a href="https://twitter.com/careygillam/statuses/1057799218902036484">1541033961.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
In August, a jury unanimously decided that Johnson had developed cancer from exposure to Monsanto's widely used <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">glyphosate</a>-based weedkillers, and awarded him $39 million in compensatory and $250 million in punitive damages.
</p><p>[<em><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-cancer-lawsuit-california-2614497507.html">Read how the judge lowered damages from $250 million to $78 million.</a></em>]</p><p>
Much of the plaintiff's case was based on the International Agency for Research on Cancer's classification that glyphosate is a "probable human carcinogen."
</p><p>
<span></span>Johnson, who was diagnosed in 2014 with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, is now near death according to his doctors, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/11/01/662812333/groundskeeper-accepts-reduced-78-million-in-monsanto-cancer-suit" target="_blank">NPR</a> reported.
</p><p>
Monsanto tried to toss out the jury's overall verdict, but Judge Bolanos affirmed the liability portion of the verdict while significantly slashing the punitive damages to match Johnson's $39 million compensatory award.
</p><p>
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bayer" target="_self">Bayer</a>, which purchased Monsanto this year and is facing <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit/groundskeeper-in-bayer-in-u-s-weed-killer-case-accepts-reduced-award-idUSKCN1N638T" target="_blank">more than 8,700 U.S. lawsuits</a> over glyphosate, has defended the safety of the herbicides and vowed to appeal the case.
</p><p>
"The court's decision to reduce the punitive damage award by more than $200 million is a step in the right direction," Bayer told <a href="https://phys.org/news/2018-11-slashed-award-monsanto-cancer-trial.html" target="_blank">AFP</a> inquiry at the time of the judge's ruling.
</p><p>
<span></span>"But we continue to believe that the liability verdict and damage awards are not supported by the evidence at trial or the law and plan to file an appeal with the California Court of Appeal."
</p><p>
Johnson's lawyers said they expected the company to fight back.
</p><p>
<span></span>"We expect Monsanto to appeal, notwithstanding, so we will address all issues regarding the verdict and the amount of damages at the Court of Appeals," they stated.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="a789f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="EJ5XR51576662575"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1056199066814738432" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">#Cheerios, #QuakerOats and Snack Bars Test Positive for #Glyphosate https://t.co/ITnzTJwI0b @SoilAssociation @FightAgainstGMO @bpncamp</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1056199066814738432">1540652455.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Why Is Glyphosate Sprayed on Crops Right Before Harvest ... ›
- Man Dying of Cancer Testifies in Landmark Case Against Monsanto ›
Related Articles Around the Web
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 ›
- Why Is Glyphosate Sprayed on Crops Right Before Harvest? - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Siding With Monsanto, GOP Threatens to Cut Off WHO Funds Over Glyphosate Finding
08 February 2018
Health + Wellness
By Jake Johnson
During a House Science Committee hearing on Tuesday, Republican lawmakers sided with the chemical industry in questioning the International Agency for Research on Cancer's (IARC) classification of glyphosate—the key ingredient in the Monsanto-produced weedkiller Roundup—as a probable carcinogen and threatened to cut off the agency's funding.
<p>IARC, a branch of the World Health Organization, <a href="http://www.ehn.org/monsanto-cancer-iarc-weedkiller-science-2530759419.html" target="_blank">immediately came under fire</a> from industry groups and right-wing lawmakers after arguing in 2015 that the scientific literature shows <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">glyphosate</a> "probably" causes cancer in humans.</p><div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="464501dbd7b738fca06056ba6896fadd"><div class="fb-video" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/EcoWatch/videos/1497387253607540/" data-allowfullscreen="true"></div></div><p style="">On Tuesday, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) continued these attacks, suggesting that IARC's conclusion about glyphosate is "unsubstantiated" and "not backed by reliable data"—a talking point that has been <a href="http://jech.bmj.com/content/jech/70/8/741.full.pdf" target="_blank">strongly disputed</a> by independent scientists.</p><p style="">"The selective use of data and the lack of public disclosure raise questions about why IARC should receive any government funding in the future," Smith said, citing government officials and a <a href="https://www.apnews.com/716e2a6e6ff14f1b8920c17e61c64353/GOP-lawmakers-take-aim-at-cancer-research-group-over-Roundup" target="_blank">former scientist for the pesticide industry</a>.</p><p>While one Monsanto official was <a href="https://www.apnews.com/716e2a6e6ff14f1b8920c17e61c64353/GOP-lawmakers-take-aim-at-cancer-research-group-over-Roundup?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics" target="_blank">quick to express his excitement</a> "that serious questions are being asked about the discredited IARC opinion," other experts characterize GOP attacks on the IARC as the product of an industry-funded disinformation campaign aimed at undermining scientific findings that threaten corporate profits.</p><p style="">During her <a href="https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-115-SY-WState-JSass-20180206.pdf" target="_blank">testimony</a> at Tuesday's hearing, Jennifer Sass, a scientist with the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>, highlighted a 2015 <a href="https://academic.oup.com/carcin/article/36/7/707/1800366" target="_blank">paper</a> by University of Southern California medical professor Dr. Jonathan Same, who argued that attacks on the IARC "can be traced to the 'playbook' of the tobacco industry for discrediting findings related to active and passive smoking."</p><p>"Fundamentally, this hearing is about the ability of a public health agency to call a carcinogen a carcinogen, even if it makes a huge amount of money for a powerful corporation," Sass said. "Are we willing to sell out the public's right to know about harmful chemicals in the places we work, live and play, just so that Monsanto can sell more glyphosate?"</p><p>In a <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/REVISED-FINAL-Minority-Staff-Report-on-Glyphosate-2.6.2018.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> released ahead of the hearing—which makes use of documents that have come to light thanks to <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/10/16/lawsuits-rack-against-monsanto-over-cancer-linked-herbicide" target="_blank">ongoing lawsuits against Monsanto</a>—Democrats on the House Science Committee expressed their agreement with Sass, detailing the pesticide industry's attempts to control the public debate about glyphosate as well as the scientific studies that have been conducted to assess its potential harm."</p><p>"These efforts appear aimed at corrupting and disrupting any honest, thorough and complete scientific evaluation of glyphosate and its potential adverse impact on the public's health," the report concludes.</p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/02/07/siding-monsanto-gop-threatens-cut-who-funds-over-glyphosate-finding" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Missouri Organic Family Farm Faces Ruin After Herbicide Drift ›
- 6 Ways Trump Is Bad for Food, Health and the Environment ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
By Carey Gillam
Sometimes the truth about our food is not very appetizing.
As many gather this holiday season for shared family meals, it is likely that they'll be serving up small doses of pesticides with each plate passed, including a prevalent type shown to be harmful to children and reproductive health.
<p style="">New data released recently by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shows a rise in the occurrence of pesticide residues detected in thousands of samples of commonly consumed foods. Documents obtained from the agency through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests also show the government is bracing for more, with the use of at least one controversial weed killing chemical–the herbicide known as 2,4-D–expected to triple in the next year.</p><p>And buried deep within the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/Pesticides/UCM582721.pdf" target="_blank">FDA's latest annual pesticide residue report</a> is data showing that a controversial insecticide called chlorpyrifos, which is marketed by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-pesticides-assessments-2509672274.html">Dow Chemical</a> and is <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/chlorpyrifos#actions" target="_blank">banned from household use</a> due to known dangers, was the fourth-most prevalent pesticide found in foods out of 207 pesticides detected.</p><p style="">Overall, about 50 percent of domestic food and 43 percent of imported foods sampled showed pesticide residues in the FDA's testing for fiscal year 2015, which is the period covered in the new report. That is up from about 37 percent of domestic and 28 percent of imported foods found with residues in 2010, and up from 38.5 percent and 39 percent, respectively, found by FDA a decade earlier in 2005.</p><p>FDA sampling has been shrinking over the years, dropping about 25 percent from a decade ago from more than 7,900 samples to 5,989 samples tested in its latest report. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) also does annual pesticide residue testing, but looks at more than 10,000 samples. The <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/2015PDPAnnualSummary.pdf" target="_blank">latest USDA residue report</a>, which also was for the 2015 time period, found <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/" target="_blank">about 85 percent</a> of samples contained pesticide residues.</p><p>Notably, samples of fruits and vegetables–considered healthy food choices–showed the highest frequency of pesticide residues in the new FDA report. Roughly 82 percent of domestic American fruits and 62 percent of domestic vegetables carried residues of weed killers, insecticides and other pesticides commonly used by farmers.</p><p>Among the domestic food samples, FDA said 97 percent of apples, 83 percent of grapes, 60 percent of tomatoes, 57 percent of mushrooms and 53 percent of plums carried residues. Exactly half of the fruit jams and jellies and similar spreads examined were tainted with pesticides, according to the FDA data.</p><p>Looking at imported fruits and vegetables, the FDA found that roughly 51 percent of imported fruits and 47 percent of imported vegetables carried residues. Overall, the imported foods had more illegally high levels of pesticide residues than did domestic foods sampled. More than 9 percent of both imported fruits and vegetables were considered in violation of legal pesticide residue limits compared to only 2.2 percent of American-grown fruits and 3.8 percent of domestic vegetables.</p><p>The FDA said some specific commodities brought into the country may warrant special attention due to illegally high levels of pesticides, including cabbage, mushrooms, oranges and orange juice and rice.</p><p><strong>Outdated "Safe" Levels</strong></p><p style="">The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets legal limits, referred to as "maximum residue limits" (MRLs) for pesticide residues on foods. The FDA and USDA routinely assure consumers that if residues are below the established MRLs, they are both legal and safe. But many scientists and medical professionals disagree, saying regulatory methods are outdated and too dependent on input from the chemical industry players selling the pesticides.</p><p style="">"Risk assessment practices at federal agencies have not been updated for modern scientific principles, including accounting for the fact that people are exposed to multiple chemicals and that certain groups, such as genetically susceptible, the very young and old can be at greater risk of exposure," said Tracey Woodruff, a former EPA senior scientist who directs the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine.</p><p style="">The controversy around <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chlorpyrifos">chlorpyrifos</a> underscores those concerns. Farmers have been using chlorpyrifos since 1965 and the government has long maintained that as long as residues are below established MRLs, they are safe.</p><p>But in recent years, that regulatory view has shifted as studies show that this pesticide, which is used on corn and fruits and vegetables such as cranberries, Brussels sprouts and broccoli, can have harmful neurodevelopmental effects on fetuses whose mothers are exposed and on young children. Research ties the chemical to attention deficit problems, tremors and autism.</p><p style="">On Dec. 15, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment <a href="https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/crnr/chemicals-listed-effective-december-15-2017-known-state-california-cause" target="_blank">listed chlorpyrifos</a> as known to "cause reproductive toxicity." And the EPA has said that it can no longer <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-0402" target="_blank">vouch for the safety</a> of the residues found in food. The EPA had planned to outlaw chlorpyrifos use in agriculture. But the Trump administration <a href="https://usrtk.org/in-the-news/roundup-cover-up-book-paints-troubling-portrait-of-the-worlds-most-popular-weed-killer/" target="_blank">reversed that plan</a> earlier this year after <a href="https://usrtk.org/in-the-news/roundup-cover-up-book-paints-troubling-portrait-of-the-worlds-most-popular-weed-killer/" target="_blank">heavy lobbying</a> from Dow and other agrochemical industry representatives.</p><p>The FDA declined to comment about its report and declined to address questions about the safety of chlorpyrifos residues found in food.</p><p><strong>Surge in 2,4-D Expected</strong></p><p style="">Separate from the FDA's published residue report, internal FDA documents show the agency working to get a handle on the residues of two widely used herbicides–glyphosate and 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D). <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/FDA-May-18-2017-memo-on-gly-and-24-D.pdf" target="_blank">An internal memo</a> dated in May of this year obtained through FOIA states that 2,4-D use is "expected to triple in the coming year" because of new genetically engineered crops designed to tolerate direct application of the herbicide.</p><p style="">Neither FDA nor USDA has routinely tested for glyphosate despite the fact it is the world's most widely used herbicide, and testing by academics, consumer groups and other countries has shown residues of the weed killer in food. The FDA said in early 2016 that it planned to start testing for the weed killer, and documents show that one FDA chemist reported finding <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/fda-finds-monsantos-weed_b_12008680.html" target="_blank">residues in honey</a> and <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fda-tests-confirm-oatmeal_b_12252824.html" target="_blank">in oatmeal products</a>, but overall results of the program testing have not been released publicly.</p><p>Details of the testing program are being kept secret, and in the documents released by FDA through the FOIA, large blocks of information are blacked out. FDA declined to comment about the status of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">glyphosate</a> and 2,4-D testing, including when it might publish some results.</p><p style="">Pesticides that the FDA did test for, and find, in the latest food sampling report, included <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/html/endosulfan-agreement.html" target="_blank">endosulfan</a>, an insecticide that has been banned in more than 80 countries and is being phased out due to established dangers to human health; the insecticide <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/ddt-ban-takes-effect.html" target="_blank">DDT,</a> which was banned in the 1970s in the U.S. and <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf" target="_blank">malathion</a>, an insecticide classified by the <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/" target="_blank">International Agency for Research on Cancer</a> as probably carcinogenic.</p><p style=""><em>This article first appeared in <a href="http://www.ehn.org/what-foods-have-the-most-pesticides-on-them-2518891617.html" target="_blank">Environmental Health News</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
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