Lee Johnson and his two sons. Lee Johnson
By Carey Gillam
Let the battle begin.
Opening statements are slated for Monday in the landmark legal case that for the first time puts Monsanto and its Roundup herbicide on trial over allegations that the company's widely used weed killer can cause cancer.
<p>Dewayne "Lee" Johnson, a San Francisco-area school groundskeeper who used a form of Roundup regularly at his job, will face off against the global seed and chemical giant in a trial expected to extend into August. Johnson hopes to persuade a jury that Monsanto, which last month became a subsidiary of Bayer AG, is to blame for the non-Hodgkin lymphoma that doctors have said leaves him only weeks or months left to live. </p><p>Hints of the courtroom drama to come unfolded over the last week of June as jury selection dragged on for days, with Monsanto claiming widespread bias among prospective jurors. A number of the members of the jury pool, <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/live-blog-first-monsanto-roundup-cancer-trial/" target="_blank">Monsanto's attorney said</a>, revealed in jury questionnaires that they view Monsanto as "evil." Some even said they believe the company has "killed people," a Monsanto attorney lawyer told San Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos. </p><p>Monsanto's attorneys cited similar issues in seeking to quell media coverage of the trial, telling the judge that she should not allow news cameras to televise the events because the publicity would "create a significant safety risk" for Monsanto's employees and attorneys who have been targeted with "multiple threats and disturbing communications," related to the litigation. Monsanto said employees have received threatening phone calls as well as ominous postcards sent to their homes. One postcard displayed a skull and crossbones along with a photo of the recipient, <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Monsanto-opposition-to-media-broadcasting-of-trial.pdf" target="_blank">Monsanto said in a court filing. </a> </p><p>Judge <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/order-allowing-CVN-video-of-trial.pdf" target="_blank">Bolanos ruled</a> that some parts of the trial will be allowed to be broadcast, including opening statements, closing arguments and the announcement of a verdict. The trial is expected to be closely followed by people around the world; the French news outlet <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Judges-order-on-media-request-by-Agence-France-Presse.pdf" target="_blank">Agence France Presse</a> is among the contingent of media who sought permission to cover the case.</p><p>Heated debates over the safety of Roundup and the active ingredient glyphosate have spanned the globe for years. Concerns mounted after internal Monsanto documents came to light through court-ordered discovery, showing conversations among Monsanto employees about "ghost" writing certain scientific papers to help influence regulatory and public opinion about Monsanto products.</p><p>Many of those internal corporate records are expected to be a key part of Johnson's case. Johnson's attorneys say they have evidence that Monsanto has long known that glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup are carcinogenic and have hidden that information from consumers and regulators. They allege Monsanto has manipulated the scientific record and regulatory assessments of glyphosate in order to protect corporate glyphosate-related revenues. Monsanto knew of the dangers and "made conscious decisions not to redesign, warn or inform the unsuspecting public," <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Dewayne-Johnson-lawsuit.pdf" target="_blank">the Johnson lawsuit</a> claims. </p><p>If they can convince a jury of the allegations, the lawyers say they plan to ask for potentially "hundreds of millions of dollars."</p><p>Johnson's lawsuit against Monsanto makes him <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/" target="_blank">one of roughly 4,000 plaintiffs</a> who sued the company after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a <a href="http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-10.pdf" target="_blank">probable human carcinogen</a> in March 2015. The IARC classification was based on a review of more than a decade of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies analyzing glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides. Johnson's case is the first to go to trial. Another is scheduled for trial in October in St. Louis, Missouri.</p><p>Monsanto argues <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Monsanto-trial-brief.pdf" target="_blank">there is no justification for any of the claims</a>, and asserts it has decades of regulatory findings of safety and hundreds of research studies to back its defense. "Glyphosate is the most tested herbicide in history," Monsanto stated in its trial brief. </p><p>The company says it plans to introduce expert testimony demonstrating that the science is firmly on its side—"the entire body of epidemiology literature shows no causal association" between its glyphosate-based herbicides and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the company states. As well, the animal testing database "is most consistent with glyphosate not being a human carcinogen," according to Monsanto. </p><p>The company's attorneys also plan to show that Johnson's exposure was minimal, and notably, that development of his type of cancer—a disease called mycosis fungoides that causes lesions on the skin—takes many years to form and could not have developed in the short period between Johnson's exposure and his diagnosis.</p><p>Monsanto's attorneys <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Monsanto-trial-brief.pdf" target="_blank">argue in court filings</a> that Johnson's claims are so weak the judge should instruct the jury to provide a directed verdict in Monsanto's favor. </p><p>But Johnson's attorneys plan to tell jury members that Johnson began to experience a skin rash not long after being accidentally doused in a Monsanto glyphosate-based herbicide called Ranger Pro. He saw the rash—which turned to lesions and then invaded lymph nodes—worsen after he would use the chemical, which was frequently as he treated school grounds. Johnson's attorneys plan to tell jurors that Johnson was so worried that the herbicide was to blame that he called Monsanto's offices as well as a poison hotline number listed on the herbicide label. Monsanto employees recorded his outreach and his concerns, internal Monsanto documents show. But even after the IARC classification of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, Monsanto did not inform him of any risk, according to evidence to be presented at the trial. </p><p>As part of their case, Johnson's attorneys intend to <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Plaintiff-Johnsons-statement-re-trial-times.pdf" target="_blank">present video depositions</a> of 10 former or current Monsanto employees, and of former Environmental Protection Agency official Jess Rowland, whose relationship with Monsanto has sparked allegations of collusion and an <a href="https://www.bna.com/watchdog-may-find-n73014453069/" target="_blank">inquiry from the EPA's Office of Inspector General</a>. They also will call to the stand Johnson himself, his wife, his doctors, and several scientists as expert witnesses.</p><p>The <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Monsantos-statement-regarding-trial-time-limits.pdf" target="_blank">Monsanto witness list</a> includes 11 expert witnesses who will testify both about the necessity of herbicides, including glyphosate-based herbicides; certain scientific literature; the plaintiff's type of cancer and potential causes; and other evidence that Monsanto says discredits Johnson's claims.</p><p>Johnson's attorneys will start the opening statements on Monday, and have projected that initial explanation of their case to the jury will take roughly 1-1/2 hours. Monsanto's attorneys have told the court they expect their opening statements to take roughly 1-1/4 hours. </p><p><em>Carey Gillam is a </em><a href="http://careygillam.com/" target="_blank"><em>journalist and author</em></a><em>, and a public interest researcher for </em><a href="https://usrtk.org/" target="_blank"><em>US Right to Know</em></a><em>, a not-for-profit food industry research group.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
- First Glyphosate Trial, of Thousands, Begins as Plaintiff Fights for ... ›
- Man vs. Monsanto: First Trial Over Roundup Cancer Claims Set to ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
T.Tseng / Flickr / CC BY 2.0
By Stacy Malkan
For anyone who wonders why consumers aren't inspired to trust the GMO industry, consider this bizarre statement from Impossible Foods Chief Communications Officer Rachel Konrad in defense of the Impossible Burger, a veggie burger made more meat-like via genetically engineered yeast.
<p>Konrad was upset by a June 27 Bloomberg article <a href="https://bit.ly/2MuQvFH?cc=adeff27992d755c7a084838316c9f1dd" target="_blank"><em>Is it too early for fake meat?</em></a> that raised concerns about insufficient research, regulation and labeling in the realm of new food technologies. </p><p>Konrad took to Medium, blasting critics of the Impossible Burger as "anti-science fundamentalists" and "setting the record straight" with information she sourced from chemical industry front groups and other unreliable anti-consumer messengers who regularly communicate inaccurate information about science. </p><p>Bloomberg is not a trusted source of reporting on science, according to Konrad, because the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) <a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/07/13/five-reasons-youre-right-not-trust-corporate-science-media-bloomberg-example-11551" target="_blank">says so</a>. The ACSH is a <a href="https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/" target="_blank">corporate front group</a> that <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/acsh-financial-summary.pdf" target="_blank">solicits money</a> from tobacco, chemical and pharmaceutical companies to defend pesticides, e-cigs, cosmetics and other toxic products that aren't likely to win over the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/vegan">vegan</a> crowd. </p><p>Instead of enduring the bias of Bloomberg, Konrad tells us, we should take heart in the rise of <a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/mark-lynas-promotes-chemical-industry-commercial-agenda/" target="_blank">Mark Lynas</a>, a promoter of GMOs and pesticides who communicates <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/doug-gurian-sherman/science-dogma-and-mark-lynas" target="_blank">inaccurate information</a> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130802170034/http://www.foodfirst.org/en/GMO+uproar+in+EU" target="_blank">about science</a>, <a href="https://biotechsalon.com/2015/06/16/the-absurdity-of-claiming-that-all-gmos-are-safe/" target="_blank">according to</a> <a href="http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/sd-gmo-food-safety-utak-20180511-story.html" target="_blank">scientists</a> and <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/of-myths-and-men-mark-lyn_b_2591502.html" target="_blank">food experts</a>. </p><p>Konrad's article also links to a column by Ted Nordhaus, who sits on the board of the <a href="https://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2016/521/844/2016-521844456-0ddae559-9.pdf" target="_blank">parent organization</a> of Genetic Literacy Project, a chemical industry propaganda group that <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-library/?_search_bar=IARC" target="_blank">attacks cancer scientists</a> as part of its role as an "industry partner" in <a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/monsanto-relied-on-these-partners-to-attack-top-cancer-scientists/" target="_blank">Monsanto's public relations strategy</a> to protect Roundup weed killer from cancer concerns.</p><p>The false and inflammatory messaging these front groups use to promote genetically engineered foods, defend <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides">pesticides</a>, ignore health and environmental risks and silence consumer and environmental advocates goes a long way toward explaining why the GMO industry isn't winning consumer trust. </p><p>Impossible Foods had a chance to turn a new leaf. Up to now, most GMO foods have been engineered to survive the spraying of weed-killing chemicals: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/22/monsanto-trial-cancer-weedkiller-roundup-dewayne-johnson" target="_blank">glyphosate</a>, now <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/business/soybeans-pesticide.html" target="_blank">also dicamba</a>, and soon <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-gmo-crops-pesticide-resistance-met-20151203-story.html" target="_blank">also 2,4-D</a>, in what environmental groups call the <a href="http://www.panna.org/gmos-pesticides-profit/pesticide-treadmill" target="_blank">GMO pesticide treadmill</a>. But the <a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/newgmos/" target="_blank">GMO industry is changing</a> with the emergence of new techniques such as CRISPR and synthetic biology. </p><p>As one of the first food companies out with a genetically engineered food product that may actually offer consumer benefits (if one likes "bleeding" veggie burgers), Impossible Foods had the opportunity to write a new story, and build trust with an open, transparent process that respects consumer concerns. They blew it. </p><p>Impossible Burger's new genetically engineered protein is new to the human food supply, and we are supposed to trust the manufacturer to vouch for its safety. But the company's process hasn't inspired trust. </p><p>Their GMO "heme" ingredient is "super safe," according to the Impossible Foods <a href="https://www.impossiblefoods.com/faq/" target="_blank">website</a>. Konrad explains in Medium, "An objective, third-party team of the nation's top food researchers unanimously concluded in 2014 that the Impossible Burger's key ingredient, soy leghemoglobin (produced by a genetically engineered yeast), is 'generally recognized as safe.' The panel made this conclusion in 2014, well before we began selling the Impossible Burger on the market in 2016."</p><p>She left out some important facts. As the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/business/impossible-burger-food-meat.html" target="_blank">New York Times reported</a> last August, when the Food and Drug Administration raised concerns that the studies presented in Impossible Foods' GRAS notification were <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/072717_Impossible_Burger_FOIA_documents.pdf" target="_blank">inadequate to establish safety</a>, the company withdrew its petition but put the burger on the market anyway. </p><p>That was within their rights, but not a way to establish confidence in their product. </p><p>Another flag: The three food researchers who wrote the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/downloads/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/gras/noticeinventory/ucm588603.pdf" target="_blank">expert panel report</a> that Impossible Foods submitted to the FDA—Joseph Borzelleca, Michael Pariza and Steve Taylor—are on a short list of scientists the "food industry turns to over and over again" to obtain GRAS status, and all three served on the <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pzg95c00/pdf?search=%2522borzelleca%2522" target="_blank">Phillip Morris Scientific Advisory Board,</a> according to a 2015 investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, <em><a href="https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/15/17144/food-safety-scientists-have-ties-big-tobacco" target="_blank">The Misinformation Industry: Food safety scientists have ties to Big Tobacco</a>.</em></p><p>Borzelleca, the Center for Public Investigation reported, was the most active of the go-to scientists, having served on 41 percent of 379 panels convened in the last 17 years to review the safety of new food ingredients.</p><p>"Despite his decades of experience and praise heaped upon him by colleagues—one called him a 'wonder'—critics of the GRAS system say Borzelleca is emblematic of a system that is rife with conflicts of interest," CPI reported. "If scientists depend on the food industry for income, they may be less likely to contest the safety of ingredients companies hope to market, critics say."</p><p>"These are standing panels of industry hired guns," Laura MacCleery, an attorney for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told CPI. "It is funding bias on steroids."</p><p>But the views of critics with legitimate concerns are not welcome in the world of the Impossible Burger, according to Rachel Konrad. </p><p>Rather than blazing a new path of integrity with its new food technology, Impossible Foods has decided to follow a path well worn by many other purveyors of food additives and genetically engineered foods: rush new products to market without a transparent process or comprehensive safety reviews, then shout down anyone who raises concerns. Across our nation, people who want to know what's in their food find such arrogance distasteful.</p>
From Your Site Articles
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. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p>
<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" /><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" /><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" /><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" /><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" /><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 ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Man vs. Monsanto: First Trial Over Roundup Cancer Claims Set to Begin
19 June 2018
Health + Wellness
Lee Johnson and his two sons. Lee Johnson
By Carey Gillam
Dewayne "Lee" Johnson has led what many might call an unremarkable life. The 46-year-old father and husband spent several years working as a school groundskeeper and spending free time teaching his two young sons to play football. But this week he takes center stage in a global debate over the safety of one of the world's most widely used pesticides as he takes Monsanto to court on claims that repeated exposure to the company's popular Roundup herbicide left him with terminal cancer.
<p>San Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Ramos Bolanos was assigned Monday to oversee the trial, and jury selection is tentatively expected to begin Thursday, June 21, with opening statements possible by June 27. The courtroom showdown could last three to four weeks, lawyers involved estimate, and will shine a spotlight on decades of scientific research and internal Monsanto documents that relate to the testing and marketing of Monsanto's flagship herbicide and the active ingredient, a chemical called <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">glyphosate</a>.</p><p>Though Johnson is the lone plaintiff in <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Dewayne-Johnson-lawsuit.pdf" target="_blank">the lawsuit,</a> his case is considered a bellwether for roughly 4,000 other plaintiffs <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/" target="_blank">also suing</a> Monsanto over allegations that exposure to Roundup caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Another case is scheduled to go to trial in October in St. Louis, Missouri.</p><p>The lawsuits, which have been piling up in court dockets around the U.S., not only challenge Monsanto's position that its widely used herbicides are proven safe, but they also assert that the company has intentionally suppressed evidence of the risks of its weed killing products, misleading both regulators and consumers in a dangerous deception.</p><p>The litigation, proceeding both in federal and state courts, began after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate—the active ingredient in Roundup—as a <a href="http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-10.pdf" target="_blank">probable human carcinogen</a> in March 2015. The IARC classification was based on years of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies analyzing glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides.</p><p>Monsanto and allies in the agrochemical industry have blasted the litigation and the IARC classification as lacking in validity, countering that decades of safety studies prove that glyphosate does not cause cancer when used as designed. Monsanto has cited findings by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other regulatory authorities as backing its defense. The company can also point to an <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/public-comment-period-open-glyphosate-draft-risk-assessments" target="_blank">EPA draft risk assessment</a> of glyphosate on its side, which concluded that glyphosate is <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-0068" target="_blank">not likely carcinogenic</a>. </p><p>"Glyphosate-based herbicides are supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health and environmental effects databases ever compiled for a pesticide product," <a href="https://monsanto.com/app/uploads/2017/07/Glyphosate-benefits-and-safety_public-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">Monsanto states</a> on its website. "Comprehensive toxicological and environmental fate studies conducted over the last 40 years have time and again demonstrated the strong safety profile of this widely used herbicide." </p><p>Glyphosate represents <a href="http://www.4-traders.com/news/Global-10-Billion-Glyphosate-Market-Opportunity-Analysis-and-Industry-Forecasts-Report-2017-2022--25952620/" target="_blank">billions of dollars</a> in annual revenues for Monsanto, which <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Monsanto-corporate-disclosure-of-Bayer-deal.pdf" target="_blank">became a subsidiary</a> of German-based Bayer AG on June 8, and several other companies selling glyphosate-based herbicides. Monsanto brought the pesticide to market in 1974 and the weed killer has been used prominently for decades by farmers in food production and by municipalities to eradicate weeds in public parks and playgrounds, and by homeowners on residential lawns. </p><p>Monsanto had <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/SF-State-Court-Dewayne-Johnson-Denial-of-Monsanto-motion-for-continuance.pdf" target="_blank">sought to delay</a> the Johnson case, just as it has sought to delay and/or dismiss the others brought against it. But the trial was expedited because he is <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Plaintiffs-evidence-doctors-discussion-of-life-expectancy.pdf" target="_blank">not expected to live</a> much longer after being diagnosed in 2014 with a form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma called <a href="https://www.cancer.gov/types/lymphoma/patient/mycosis-fungoides-treatment-pdq" target="_blank">mycosis fungoides</a>.</p><p><strong>A Death Sentence</strong></p><p><a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/trial-preference-aug-2017.pdf" target="_blank">According to court records</a>, Johnson worked as a groundskeeper for the Benicia Unified School District for many years and applied multiple treatments of Monsanto's herbicides to the San Francisco-area school properties from 2012 until at least late 2015, including after he was diagnosed with cancer in August 2014. His job entailed mixing and spraying hundreds of gallons of glyphosate-based herbicides around school properties. He used various Roundup products, but mostly Roundup PRO, a highly concentrated version of the weed killer. After developing a skin rash in the summer of 2014 he reported to doctors that it seemed to worsen after he sprayed the herbicide. In August of that year he was diagnosed with a type of lymphoma but continued his work until 2015 when he underwent several rounds of chemotherapy only to learn in September 2015 that he likely had but 18 months to live. </p><p>In a deposition taken in January of this year, <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Plaintiffs-evidence-doctors-discussion-of-life-expectancy.pdf" target="_blank">Johnson's treating physician testified</a> that more than 80 percent of his body was covered by lesions and his diagnosis continued to be terminal. Still, Johnson has improved since starting a new drug treatment and plans to attend some of the trial if possible, his attorneys said.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODEwMjE4Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNDE2NTA3Nn0.PxCLie9XB-sf6p8YfEGtokmodzjMgYKVkBFiYv50VrA/img.jpg?width=980" id="1d999" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3a5bf9b5505e0a7ea03a82790617ed57" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Lee Johnson</small></p><p>Johnson has not led an unblemished life; Monsanto <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Deposition-of-Dewayne-Johnson-re-arrest-record.pdf" target="_blank">uncovered</a> an aggravated assault charge against him from the early 1990s, along with a misdemeanor weapons charge and a domestic abuse complaint against the mother of his oldest child. The company elicited deposition testimony from Johnson that he failed tests for pesticide applicators three times, and sprayed the pesticide without a certified applicator license. Johnson wore proper protective gear over his clothing but was accidentally drenched in the pesticide at least once when mixing it.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODEwMjE4My9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMzY0NDQ3NX0.FzxCxLF_hwejMPhR3K5483xFXx6iBUfx0dL0W9Lta_0/img.jpg?width=980" id="17b66" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c2adfd15dd5631e5ea7ea0be0eed58d1" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Lesions on Lee Johnson's hand. </small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Lee Johnson</small></p><p>Monsanto's lawyers will argue other factors could be to blame for Johnson's cancer, and that its weed killer played no role.<br></p><p>Johnson's attorneys have shrugged off any issues regarding Johnson's personal behavior or other potential causes for his disease, and say in court filings they will offer evidence at trial that Monsanto "for decades, engaged in a shocking degree of scientific fraud and manipulation of the scientific literature with respect to Roundup" to cover up the evidence that it does cause cancer. </p><p>The trial evidence will include information that Monsanto ghostwrote articles relied on by the EPA, IARC and California's environmental regulators; rewarded employees for ghostwriting; and actively suppressed the publication of information that revealed the harm associated with glyphosate and Roundup. Johnson's attorneys say internal Monsanto documents show extensive "manipulation" of the scientific record, and clearly improper and fraudulent interactions with regulators. </p><p>Johnson's attorneys <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Plaintiff-Johnsons-statement-re-trial-times.pdf" target="_blank">intend to call</a> 10 current and former Monsanto employees to the stand. </p><p>"We're going to get them here. We have the goods," said Brent Wisner, who is one of three attorneys representing Johnson at trial. "If the evidence we have is allowed in, Monsanto is in trouble." </p><p><strong>Lead Lawyer Out</strong></p><p>Wisner was only brought in to help try to case within the last few weeks after lead attorney Mike Miller suffered a near-fatal accident while kite surfing and remains too severely injured to try the case. Wisner's role is key as he is set to deliver both the opening and closing statements for Johnson's case in Miller's absence.</p><p>Monsanto <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Monsanto-motion-to-exclude-plaintiff-lawyers-from-case.pdf" target="_blank">filed a motion</a> on June 18 seeking to exclude Wisner from trying the case, however, claiming he has been acting as a "PR man," and lobbyist against glyphosate, particularly in Europe, where glyphosate has been under intense regulatory scrutiny. Monsanto also cited Wisner's release in August 2017 of hundreds of pages of internal Monsanto documents turned over in discovery that the company had wanted to keep sealed, a tactic that earned Wisner a rebuke from the judge in the federal multidistrict litigation pending against Monsanto. Monsanto's lawyers argue that the internal corporate communications have been intentionally presented out of context by Wisner and other plaintiff's attorneys to make it appear as though the company engaged in deceptive practices when it did not.</p><p>Wisner's activities put him in violation of a California "advocate-witness" rule, Monsanto contended in its filing. </p><p>In addition to trying to exclude the lawyer, Monsanto is seeking to exclude reams of evidence, including internal emails written by its scientists, arguments that it deceived the EPA, evidence of fraud committed by laboratories, and testimony from Johnson's expert witnesses.</p><p>Judge Bolanos will hear arguments on Wednesday regarding that motion and more than a dozen others regarding what evidence will and will not be allowed at trial. </p><p>Both sides say the case and the outcome are important in a larger sense. If the jury finds in favor of Johnson it could encourage additional litigation and damage claims some of the lawyers involved estimate could run into hundreds of millions of dollars. If the jury sides with Monsanto, other cases could be in jeopardy. Additionally, a victory for Monsanto in this first case could ease <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-politics-glyphosate/germany-moving-ahead-with-plans-to-restrict-weed-killer-glyphosate-idUSKBN1HO2IM" target="_blank">regulatory questions</a> dogging the company.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODEwMjE4MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NzQ2NzA4M30.ejjZ7GrfMeHGXXcsT3bddaDaW0C_fMyQhX798GWhGzU/img.jpg?width=980" id="9c37a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="56e5b0f03f411fa0fd6b43019066729d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Araceli Johnson, Lee Johnson's wife, and their two sons.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Lee Johnson</small></p><p>As for Johnson, he will try to attend some of the trial, and will testify, but will not likely be there for it all, said Wisner. Johnson's wife, Araceli Johnson, will be called to testify, as will two of his co-workers and his doctors.<br></p><p>"Right now he's on borrowed time. He's not going to come to most of the trial," said Wisner. "The guy is going to die and there is nothing he can do about it. It's unbelievably horrible." </p><p><em>Carey Gillam is a </em><a href="http://careygillam.com/" target="_blank"><em>journalist and author</em></a><em>, and a public interest researcher for </em><a href="https://usrtk.org/" target="_blank"><em>US Right to Know</em></a><em>, a not-for-profit food industry research group.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
NTP Scientist: Glyphosate Formulations 'Much More Toxic' Than Chemical Itself
10 May 2018
Health + Wellness
Mike Mozart / Flickr / CC BY 2.0
Amid conflicting scientific studies and growing public concern over the impacts of the world's most widely used herbicide, the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) has launched research to examine the health risks of glyphosate and glyphosate-formulations.
"Due to the multiple interpretations of evidence on the potential health risks of glyphosate exposure, major public concern about exposure risks, and reported differences in the toxicity of different glyphosate products, NTP is conducting more research on glyphosate and its formulations," according to the NTP website.
<p>
The NTP's initiative was first reported by Carey Gilliam in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/08/weedkiller-tests-monsanto-health-dangers-active-ingredient" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>. Gilliam is an author, investigative journalist and research director for <a href="https://usrtk.org/" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know</a>.
</p><p>
<span></span>Glyphosate, the star ingredient in <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto" target="_blank">Monsanto's</a> Roundup, is sprayed on agricultural fields around the world and helps beat back weeds in home gardens, golf courses and parks.
</p><p>
<span></span>Gilliam noted, "Monsanto introduced its glyphosate-based Roundup brand in 1974. But it is only now, after more than 40 years of widespread use, that the government is investigating the toxicity of 'glyphosate-based herbicides' on human cells."</p><p>Jennifer Sass, a scientist with the <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>, commented to The Guardian, "This testing is important, because the EPA has only been looking at the active ingredient. But it's the formulations that people are exposed to on their lawns and gardens, where they play and in their food."<br></p><p>
Glyphosate has been surrounded with controversy ever since March 2015, when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified the chemical as "probably carcinogenic to humans." The panel also concluded that there was "strong" evidence for genotoxicity both for "pure" glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations.
</p><p>
Later that year, the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) released its own report that
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/does-monsantos-glyphosate-cause-cancer-1882118579.html" target="_blank">rejected</a> the IARC's classification of glyphosate as a possible carcinogen, but admitted that conclusion was just for the chemical alone.
</p><p>
EFSA's report stated: "The genotoxic effects observed in some glyphosate-based formulations are related to the other constituents or 'co-formulants.'"
</p><p>
According to a
<a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NTP_GBF-paper.pdf" target="_blank">poster of the NTP's research</a>, glyphosate formulations decreased human cell "viability" by disrupting cell membranes. Also, the concoctions "significantly altered" cell viability. (The poster does not necessarily represent any final NTP determination or policy.)
</p><p>
"We see the formulations are much more toxic. The formulations were killing the cells," Mike DeVito, acting chief of the National Toxicology Program Laboratory, told The Guardian. "The glyphosate really didn't do it."
</p><p>
Here are the specific aims of NTP:
</p><ul class="ee-ul">
<li>Evaluate whether glyphosate is genotoxic (causes DNA damage)</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul">
<li>Evaluate whether glyphosate induces oxidative damage</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul">
<li>Compare the effects of glyphosate on measures of genotoxicity, oxidative stress, and cell viability to the effects of glyphosate-based formulations</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul">
<li>Identify data gaps on the effects of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations on human health outcomes other than cancer.</li>
</ul><p>
Monsanto has adamantly defended the safety of its product. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also says that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
</p><p>
Other governments have taken action on such formulations. In 2016, the European Union banned
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/eu-bans-glyphosate-co-formulant-monsanto-1917259116.html" target="_blank">glyphosate products</a> mixed with the adjuvant POE-tallowamine due to its perceived risks to human health.
</p><p>
<span></span>Tallowamine, which aids the effectiveness of glyphosate, was once found in Monsanto's Roundup. The inert ingredient was found to be "more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than [glyphosate] itself," <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/" target="_blank">Scientific American</a> reported in 2009, citing a French study.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="107c6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="CXBQT21576662777"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="699679905873858560" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">French Ecology Minister Calls for Ban on #Glyphosate Formulations https://t.co/SjyDTIhsvr #Monsanto @nongmoreport https://t.co/WdOqMru4vC</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/699679905873858560">1455651663.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
Read More
Show Less
William Murphy / CC BY-SA 2.0
You may not know her, but Stacy Malkan is fighting for you.
For over 15 years Malkan has worked as a consumer advocate to make the products we buy safer. Through the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which she cofounded, she's helped reduce hazardous chemicals in personal care products like shampoo, deodorant and makeup. Now, in her work as cofounder and co-director of the nonprofit consumer and public health watchdog group U.S. Right to Know, she advocates for transparency and accountability in the food industry to build a healthier food system.
<p>The industries Malkan works to reform are large, powerful and protected, but her dedication and vision are supporting an explosion of consumer interest in healthier products and better food. At this cultural turning point, we sat down with Malkan to ask her about the current state of food—and what the future may hold.</p><p><strong>So, what's on your dinner plate today?</strong></p><p>Simple foods that work for a toddler! I buy organic as much as possible, especially when it comes to the grain products my child consumes in large quantities. I also try to avoid plastic food containers due to concerns about toxic chemicals leaching. For breakfast we often go with oatmeal, and a typical dinner is baked chicken and a vegetable, usually broccoli or asparagus (the only two vegetables my toddler will eat), or beans and rice, or pizza, which is always the most popular choice in my house.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzY0MTA3MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNjc3ODgxMH0.5RNTQhbkqsn2R44q-y2f7xMFph1VAaT5vCJ248w8gFw/img.jpg?width=980" id="9dbd4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="84146f5af6a1fe74892cbe21ab93c92f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Stacy Malkan</small></p>
<p><strong>Food defines us and our cultures in so many ways. Does that make it easier or harder to encourage healthy food production?</strong><br></p><p>One of my favorite weekly activities is the local farmer's market. We try to go every Sunday. They always have a live band and wonderful food that stays fresh for so much longer than produce I buy in the supermarket. So in a very tangible way, food defines my community for me and my community helps encourage healthy food production. But conscious eating gets a lot more difficult when it comes to eating in restaurants and other communal eating situations that rely on mass production of cheap foods, such as school food—although local <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/it-takes-a-village-to-transform-school-lunches_us_58ac7ddde4b0e0aeb2bdac8b" target="_blank">groups are trying to change that</a>. The community has a huge role to play in supporting healthy food systems and local food production, and we need to step it up.</p><p><strong>Where do we stand at this point? Is our food system getting more transparent or are things getting worse? </strong></p><p>There are many positive signs. Organic demand is growing across all demographics. The largest group of organic buyers is millennial moms, and most women in that age group haven't even had children yet. Food companies are scrambling to meet the demand for foods free of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides">pesticides</a> and chemical additives. It's a disruptive time for the food industry, and full of possibility for transformation. On the other hand, large food and chemical corporations are pushing back with mighty force—spending hundreds of millions on propaganda and lobbying campaigns—to prop up an unhealthy food production system that depends on GMOs and pesticides and keeps consumers in the dark about what they're eating. So it's also a dangerous time and unfortunately I hear many consumers and reporters parroting industry propaganda without questioning it.</p><p><strong>Where do you think the most (or least) progress is being made? </strong></p><p>Most progress: consumer demand for healthy food and the rising awareness about the healing power of food are unstoppable trends, and the smart companies are stepping up to meet that demand. Least progress: bad policies that rig the market in favor of chemical-intensive, unsustainable agriculture, and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/factory-farming">factory farms</a> that are not being challenged with enough power. The good food movement needs to figure out how to become an effective political movement to create a fair playing field.</p><p><strong>Speaking of propaganda, what tip would you give people to help them see past fake "experts" like <a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/sci-babe-yvette-dentremont/" target="_blank">SciBabe</a>?</strong></p><p>There's an aggressive, condescending attack style common to the corporate propaganda campaigns to manufacture doubt about science and risk. The message is: "Don't worry your pretty little head and keep buying our chemical food." If people suggest you are ignorant, or try to shame you for raising concerns about our food system or insisting on transparency, ignore them.</p><p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate </em><em><a href="http://therevelator.org/future-food-5-questions/" target="_blank">The Revelator</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Chafer Sentry applies glyphosate, the most widely applied pesticide worldwide, to stubbles in North Yorkshire. Chafer Machinery / Flickr
Scientists with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ( FDA) have found traces of a ubiquitous and controversial weedkiller in granola, crackers and other everyday foods, according to internal documents obtained by The Guardian through a freedom of information request.
The FDA has tested food samples for glyphosate for "two years, but has not yet released any official results," Carey Gilliam reported in The Guardian article. Gilliam is an author, investigative journalist and research director for U.S. Right to Know.
<p>
"I have brought wheat crackers, granola cereal, and corn meal from home and there's a fair amount in all of them," FDA chemist
<a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/FDA-Richard-Thompson-wheat-crackers-email.pdf" target="_blank">Richard Thompson emailed</a> to colleagues in January 2017.
</p><p>
He noted that broccoli was the only food he tested that "does not have glyphosate in it."
</p><p>
In other emails, FDA chemist Narong Chamkasem found
<a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Over-the-tolerance-finding-in-corn.pdf" target="_blank">"over-the-tolerance" levels of glyphosate in corn,</a> detected at 6.5 parts per million, which is over the legal limit of 5.0 parts per million.
</p><p>
Gilliam observed, "An illegal level would normally be reported to the Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>), but an FDA supervisor wrote to an EPA official that the corn was not considered an 'official sample.'"
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="af151" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="N2BUON1576683825"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="990969988155695104" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">And this is only part of the story- In response to my FOIA @US_FDA redacts & withholds- says "we have determined th… https://t.co/9nhCOuCR5D</div> — carey gillam (@carey gillam)<a href="https://twitter.com/careygillam/statuses/990969988155695104">1525100631.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
Chamkasem has also found glyphosate in
<a href="https://usrtk.org/fda-glyphosate-in-honey/" target="_blank">numerous samples of honey</a> and <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/fda-tests-confirm-oatmeal_b_12252824.html" target="_blank">in oatmeal products</a>. But the FDA temporarily suspended testing after those findings, and Chamkasem's lab was "reassigned to other programs," FDA documents show. An FDA spokesperson said those tests were not considered part of the official glyphosate residue "special assignment," which only looks for traces in corn, soy, eggs and milk.
</p><p>
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto">Monsanto's</a> top-selling product, RoundUp. The chemical is the world's most widely used weedkiller and has been sprayed on agricultural fields and home gardens for decades. Other tests have <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-glyphosate-cheerios-2093130379.html" target="_blank">found</a> glyphosate in many common food products including "all-natural" <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/quaker-oats-accused-of-being-deceptive-and-misleading-after-glyphosate-1891128136.html" target="_blank">Quaker Oats</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-wine-beer-testing-2553632957.html" target="_blank">alcoholic beverages</a> and, consequently, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-found-in-urine-of-93-percent-of-americans-tested-1891146755.html" target="_blank">human urine</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/toxic-weed-killer-glyphosate-found-in-breast-milk-infant-formula-1882030657.html">breast milk</a>.
</p><p>
The widespread use of glyphosate is also creating environmental problems, including
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/gmos-glyphosate-enlist-duo-2075835175.html" target="_blank">herbicide-resistant weeds</a>.
</p><p>
Scrutiny has surrounded the chemical ever since the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified it as a
<a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf" target="_blank">probable human carcinogen</a> in 2016.
</p><p>
Even though the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the FDA routinely test thousands of food samples for residues of commonly used pesticides, the regulators have refused for decades to test for glyphosate because the government says it considers it safe.
</p><p>
In 2014, the Government Accountability Office
<a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-38" target="_blank">criticized both agencies</a> for the failure to test regularly for glyphosate.
</p><p>
As safety concerns continued to mount, the FDA began in 2016 its own limited testing program—its so-called "special assignment"—for glyphosate residues. The USDA was moving forward with its own glyphosate testing program in 2017 but quietly
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/usda-glyphosate-testing-2326808630.html" target="_blank">dropped the effort</a>.
</p><p>Monsanto has vehemently defended its product and the safety of glyphosate. The EPA and other international scientific bodies, including the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/un-says-glyphosate-unlikely-to-cause-cancer-industry-ties-to-report-ca-1891132192.html" target="_self">Food and Agriculture Organization</a> and the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/does-monsantos-glyphosate-cause-cancer-1882118579.html" target="_self">European Food Safety Authority</a>, say that glyphosate is <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-glyphosate-cancer-2518609280.html" target="_self">not likely</a> to be carcinogenic to humans. </p><p><span></span>When asked about the emails, an FDA spokesperson told The Guardian that the FDA has not found any illegal levels in corn, soy, milk, or eggs, which it considers part of the "special assignment." The spokesperson did not address the FDA scientists' unofficial findings.<br></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="bb4b2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="H0M2Q71576683825"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="986650249866498048" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Germany to Put 'Massive Restrictions' on Monsanto Weedkiller https://t.co/0xKVnPjy5U @NRDC @GMWatch… https://t.co/l9WKucdBxz</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/986650249866498048">1524070725.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
By Stacy Malkan
"I want grandkids one day, so sperm is important to me because I've got three young boys," said mom, author and social media genius Leah Segedie in a video introducing her "Save the Swimmers" campaign.
"This is where my youngest rolls his eyes at me and says, 'I know Mom. Avoiding plastics can help save my swimmers, oooh kay.' But to me this is no laughing matter. Over 25 years of studies have demonstrated that these little sperm are crying out for help."
<p>In her new book, out now from Rodale Books, Segedie explains what the science is saying about the impact of hormone-disrupting chemicals on male fertility. As she puts it, she drops science, along with truth bombs about how the government is failing to ensure the safety of toxic-chemical-laden products and food, and many practical tips about how to protect our families without going bonkers. The book is called <a href="https://www.rodalebooks.com/green-enough/" target="_blank"><em>Green Enough: Eat Better, Live Cleaner, Be Happier (All Without Driving Your Family Crazy)</em></a>.</p><p>As the founder of <a href="https://www.mamavation.com" target="_blank">Mamavation.com</a>, a mom-focused social media community devoted to practical conversations about healthy living, Segedie doesn't let eye rolls stop her from delivering her message in the most straightforward and relatable way she can, cuss words and all. One headline in the book describes the food safety system in the U.S. as, "Generally Recognized as <del>Safe</del> Bullshit."</p><p>So what do Moms need to know about toxic chemicals in our homes and how to protect our loved ones and their swimmers? I asked Leah Segedie to share some of the takeaway messages from her book. </p><p><em><strong>Stacy Malkan: You spent a lot of time studying up on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs)—chemicals that can mimic or block our body's natural hormones—and one of the pioneering scientists in the field, Pete Myers, was your science advisor for your book. Tell us what the research on EDCs is saying. </strong></em></p><p><strong>Leah Segedie: </strong>The most important part of what I've learned is simple—dose doesn't equal the poison when it comes to hormone disrupting chemicals. Smaller amounts can have a more detrimental impact on pregnant women and children than larger ones. And chemicals do unpredictable things at low doses, which has been demonstrated in tons of studies. The scariest part is how regulators ignore low-dose effects. Lots of products contain low doses of these hormone-disrupting chemicals. In <em>Green Enough</em> I tell you exactly what those chemicals are and how you can avoid most of them. The most vulnerable of the population are pregnant women and small children. But those aren't the only people at risk. Hormone disruption is more likely to happen when you are going through a hormonal change, so in addition to considering this for pregnant women and children, the same is true for adolescents going through puberty and women going through menopause. </p><p>And then there is the toxic soup environment to consider. We don't know the impact of what happens when different chemicals mix together in our bodies. So with the 85,000 chemicals in commerce, we actually have no idea what they are doing and how they are impacting our health. Long story short, we are not protected the way everyone thinks. Chemicals are evaluated based on old and outdated technology and techniques. And we need to update how we treat and evaluate chemicals in this country. But I say don't wait for them to get their act together. It's your life and your family—take control of your own home environment. </p><p><em><strong><em>Malkan</em>: What are your top tips for saving the swimmers? </strong></em></p><p><strong>Segedie:</strong> When I talk about the Save the Swimmers campaign in my home, I'm referring to how I got my husband and young boys on board with all the changes I needed to make. And it was simple. I explained to them what is happening to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/opinion/sunday/are-your-sperm-in-trouble.html" target="_blank">sperm health</a> in the United States. About 90 percent of young men have some degree of unhealthy sperm. Did they want unhealthy sperm that could prevent them from having children one day? Well then, we need to make some change in this house to dumb down the amount of hormone disrupting chemicals we have everywhere. I involved them in the process and was clear why it was happening. It was about as simple as that. </p><p>My top tips for avoiding hormone-disrupting chemicals: </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px;">1. Stop eating or drinking from plastic.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><span></span>2. Stop using synthetic fragrances in the home, especially ones that don't list their ingredients.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><span></span>3. Pay attention to what's in your personal care products.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><span></span>4, Notice what your food is wrapped in.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><span></span>5. When you make changes, make them slowly so they stick and are accepted by your family. When things happen to quickly, it creates a mutiny.</p> <p>I'd say that starting with food would be the most important part, not just what ingredients you chose, but also the chemicals coming from packaging, cookware, storage containers and cans. Getting a handle on these "indirect additives" is the quickest way to get toxic chemicals out of the food you eat. In <em>Green Enough</em>, I discuss how to purge your kitchen of these chemicals, what to do when you find them and what products are safer solutions.</p><p><em><strong><em>Malkan</em>: What has been the biggest challenge in getting your family on board? </strong></em></p><p><strong>Segedie: </strong>I'm very honest with my family about why I'm doing things and I involve them in those decisions all the time. In the beginning, I sat them down and explained I wanted to have grandkids one day and there were chemicals inside our home that have the potential to prevent that from happening. And I needed their help to ensure they had healthy sperm. It seems that boys care a great deal about how virile they are, even when they are young, so that worked to my advantage. So when I have to make adjustments, I tell them "I want grandkids one day ... do you want kids? Okay then do you agree this is wise?" and I get a yes and possibly an eye roll. But that's really all I need. </p><p>My biggest challenges are not my two youngest but my oldest son and my husband. My husband is more set in his ways and we aren't planning on having more children so he joked with me for a time that he could do whatever he wanted and his sperm could become green with mutation and it would be fine. My oldest son is just starting go through puberty so all he wants to do is things his friends are doing. But he's very much a thinker and prides himself on being smart so I blow up his ego by saying he knows more about endocrine disruption than most adults and he gets a kick out of that part. For those two I just have to reward them more. The younger two are fine with me giving them a hug and me telling them how proud I am of them. But you'd be surprised how far they got in a couple of years ... even with eye rolling. </p><p><strong><em><em>Malkan</em>: A recent study found high levels of endocrine disrupting chemicals called </em><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/12/well/eat/the-chemicals-in-your-mac-and-cheese.html" target="_blank"><em>phthalates in macaroni and cheese</em></a><em>. As the mom of a toddler who loves mac and cheese, this one is a real challenge. What's your 'green enough' guidance? </em></strong></p><p><strong>Segedie: </strong>Phthalates (said "Thal-8s") are in all dairy products at varying levels, including organic dairy. But the rule about dairy is simple: the more processing the dairy goes through the higher the phthalate level. And this is why powdered cheese has the highest level of phthalate contamination. We still enjoy dairy in my home, so I find other places to lessen the amount we are exposed to. I end up purchasing low fat versions of yogurt and string cheese because it's hiding inside the fat. I know fat is all the rage right now, but fat from animal products is also a very efficient delivery method for these chemicals. </p><p>As for the solution to your mac and cheese problem, I would recommend instead of using the powdered cheese, make your own mac and cheese with milk and cheese you grated yourself. That will cut down on the phthalate level instantly. And if you are really worried about phthalate contamination, start paying more attention to other places where phthalates are hiding. The final two chapters of <em>Green Enough</em> will help you lessen phthalate contamination inside each room of your home and your personal care products. These complicated scenarios were a primary focus of the book. </p><p><em><strong><em>Malkan</em>: The green path can be a lonely one. What's your best advice for having the green enough conversation with reluctant loved ones? </strong></em></p><p><strong>Segedie: </strong>I would say that if they don't live inside your home don't lecture them. Just live your life the way you need to and eventually they will ask you why you do things the way you do and that is your opportunity to tell them. Wait until they ask you. That's when they are more likely to accept what you have to say. </p><p><em><strong><em>Malkan</em>: You have been sparking discussions on social media about the role of women in the food industry. Do you think the natural products industry has a gender inequity problem?</strong></em></p><p><strong>Segedie: </strong>Yes, I do believe the natural industry could use more women and people of color in charge. It's ironic that women are their primary customers and yet decisions that impact them don't involve them. And it's typical of industries that are growing and seeing a bull market, so to speak. Not only would I like to see more female CEOs and people of color, but I'd also like to see them sitting on the boards of directors. For an industry that prides itself on being "better," in this case they really are not. </p><p><a href="https://www.mamavation.com/2018/03/the-natural-industry-needs-more-women-leaders.html" target="_blank">I wrote about this the other day after having a very unpleasant experience</a> with someone very powerful in the industry. And I think the solution is really simple: as women we need to start using our voices more and supporting brands that respect us and give us a seat at the table. Now there are so many organic brands to choose from, we can start getting picky. I'm starting to create a list of these brands and I encourage other women to start sharing their stories to create more awareness around this issue. We deserve this!</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Toxic Industrial Chemicals Found in 10 Types of Macaroni and ... ›
- Every Parent Concerned About Their Kids' Health Should Read This ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
By Stacy Malkan
The world's largest pesticide and seed companies want you to believe they are on the side of science. High-tech foods are the future, they say, and people who raise concerns about their pesticides and genetically engineered seeds are "anti-science."
The Atlantic magazine will provide a platform to those industry talking points in exchange for corporate cash at a Feb. 15 event titled, "Harvest: Transforming the Food We Eat" sponsored by DowDuPont.
<p style="">The fluff agenda has "farmers, foodies, techies and tinkerers" discussing how the latest food technologies are transforming the way we cultivate crops and animals, and the implications for the future of food.</p><p style="">Will any of the participants ask why DowDuPont <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/01/14/dow-chemical-wants-farmers-to-keep-using-a-pesticide-linked-to-autism-and-adhd/" target="_blank">continues to push</a> a dangerous pesticide despite strong <a href="https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/public-health/chlorpyrifos-insecticide-brain-development-children-epa" target="_blank">scientific evidence</a> that it <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/28/opinion/sunday/chlorpyrifos-dow-environmental-protection-agency.html" target="_blank">harms children's brains</a>?<br></p><p>Will any of them ask why DuPont <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2018/1/23/dupont_vs_the_world_chemical_giant" target="_blank">covered up the health risks</a> of <a href="https://theintercept.com/series/the-teflon-toxin/" target="_blank">the Teflon chemical</a> linked to birth defects, as it allowed the chemical to contaminate waterways across the globe?</p><p style="">Will they ask why—despite record profits—DowDupont has <a href="http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/12/dow-chemical-mustfinallyhelpthebhopaldisastervictims.html" target="_blank">refused to help</a> disaster victims <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2014/12/bhopal-the-worlds-worst-industrial-disaster-30-years-later/100864/" target="_blank">or even clean up</a> the chemical contamination caused by a 1984 pesticide plant accident in <a href="https://bhopal.org/" target="_blank">Bhopal</a>?</p><p style="">What's next? Will The Atlantic agree to host a "transforming health" event sponsored by Phillip Morris or a "transforming climate" event sponsored by ExxonMobil?</p><p>Maybe. In 2015, The Atlantic <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/live/events/food-summit/2015/" target="_blank">Food Summit</a> was underwritten by Elanco, a division of Eli Lilly that makes ractopamine, a growth-promoting chemical used in meat production that is <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/03/30/if-you-eat-meat-in-the-united-states-buyer-beware/" target="_blank">banned in 100 countries</a> due to health concerns, but still used here.</p><p>As Tom Philpott <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/food/2015/11/pharma-exec-meat-industry-critics-youre-lunatic-fringe/" target="_blank">reported in Mother Jones</a>, Elanco's President Jeff Simmons delivered a sponsored speech at the event, in which "he complained that a group he labeled the 'fringe 1 percent,' agitating for increased regulation on meat producers, is driving the national debate around food."</p><p>Simmons' <a href="https://youtu.be/BHc7q8YBZFQ?list=PLwj46yNDLyTUeT0KBp3TZtb-TXXt9YJV4" target="_blank">15-minute speech</a> featured an emotional video of a mother who attended an Elanco/American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics program and learned about "the importance of protein" and eating more meat as a way to improve her family's health.</p><p style=""><strong>Purchasing the Food Narrative</strong></p><p style="">With its rent-a-food-summit model, The Atlantic is helping corporations shape how we think about our food system. That is fundamentally incompatible with The Atlantic's guiding commitment to "look for the truth."</p><p style="">All the brands participating in this week's "Transforming Food" event—Food Tank, Land O'Lakes and New Harvest, too—are giving DowDuPont cover to present themselves as champions of science while framing the food debate around the technologies they sell.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed" style="">
</p>
<p style="">But the facts of history are important to any honest discussion about the future, and DowDuPont is no champion of science.<br></p><p style="">Both Dow and Dupont have long histories of <a href="https://theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-deception/" target="_blank">covering up science</a>, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dow-chemical-pushes-white-house-kill-risk-study-showing-pesticide-n749396" target="_blank">suppressing science</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/05/us/dow-says-us-knew-dioxin-peril-of-agent-orange.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank">knowingly selling</a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1983/07/06/us/files-show-dioxin-makers-knew-of-hazards.html" target="_blank">dangerous products</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/19/us/dow-chemical-deceived-women-on-breast-implants-jury-decides.html" target="_blank">covering up health concerns</a>, <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/michigan/articles/2017-06-02/dow-chemical-loses-key-ruling-in-dioxin-pollution-dispute" target="_blank">failing to clean up</a> <a href="https://www.courier-journal.com/story/tech/science/watchdog-earth/2015/08/25/explosions-rocked-dupont-plant-50-years-ago/32347111/" target="_blank">their messes</a>, and engaging in <a href="http://usrtk.org/the-agrichemical-companies-have-a-history-of-concealing-health-risks-from-the-public/" target="_blank">other scandals</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/a-few-other-things-the-agrichemical-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-them-crimes-scandals-and-other-wrongdoing/" target="_blank">crimes and wrongdoings</a>—whatever it took to protect the bottom line.</p><p style="">Protecting reliable profit streams, rather than innovating what's best for people and the environment, will motivate these companies into the future, too.</p><p style=""> <strong>GMO Pesticide Profit Treadmill</strong></p><p>To understand how DowDuPont and the other <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/sep/26/farming-mega-mergers-threaten-food-security-say-campaigners" target="_blank">pesticide/seed mega-mergers</a> are likely to impact the future of our food system, look to how these companies are deploying patented food technologies right now.</p><p>Most GMO foods <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx" target="_blank">on the market</a> today are engineered for use with specific pesticides, which has led to <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/glyphosate-now-most-used-agricultural-chemical-ever-422419" target="_blank">increased use of those pesticides</a>, the proliferation of weeds resistant to those pesticides, and an aggressive effort to sell more and worse pesticides that are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/business/soybeans-pesticide.html" target="_blank">damaging farmland across the Midwest.</a></p><p>To understand what needs to change to have a healthier food system, ask <a href="http://www.panna.org/blog/future-food-ask-farmers-not-dowdupont#.WoMrN97rFV4.twitter" target="_blank">farmers, not DowDuPont</a>. Ask the communities that are <a href="http://www.civilbeat.org/2015/02/house-panel-rejects-bill-to-impose-buffer-zones-for-pesticides/" target="_blank">fighting for their health</a> and their <a href="http://www.civilbeat.org/2015/03/fierce-opposition-by-ag-industry-kills-pesticide-disclosure/" target="_blank">right to know</a> about the pesticides they are drinking and breathing.</p><p style=""><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/23/hawaii-birth-defects-pesticides-gmo" target="_blank">In Hawaii</a> and <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/birth-defects-cancer-in-argentina-linked-to-agrochemicals-ap-investigation-1.1505096" target="_blank">Argentina</a>, where genetically engineered crops are grown intensively, doctors are raising concerns about increases in birth defects and other illnesses they suspect may be related to pesticides. <a href="https://harpers.org/archive/2016/02/the-trouble-with-iowa/" target="_blank">In Iowa</a>, another leading GMO producer, water supplies have been polluted by chemical runoff from corn and animal farms.</p><p style="">The future of high-tech food, under the stewardship of companies like DowDuPont and Elanco, is easy enough to guess: more types of crops genetically engineered to survive pesticides, and food animals engineered to grow faster and fit better in crowded conditions, with pharmaceuticals to help.</p><p style="">Purchased media forums such as The Atlantic's "transforming food," and the articles and debates about the "future of food" that Syngenta was <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/james-cusick-crina-boros/how-gm-giant-bought-control-of-what-millions-of-londoners-read" target="_blank">just caught buying</a> in London, and <a href="http://progressive.org/magazine/how-the-biotech-industry-cultivates-positive-media/" target="_blank">other covert industry PR</a> projects to reframe the GMO debate, are efforts to distract from the facts of history and the truth on the ground.</p><p style="">Consumers aren't buying the spin. Demand for organic food <a href="http://www.startribune.com/americans-are-eating-more-organic-food-than-ever-survey-finds/424061513/" target="_blank">continues to rise</a> across <a href="http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/04/21/who-is-buying-organic/" target="_blank">all demographics</a> of American society.<br></p><p>Changing consumer tastes are <a href="http://fortune.com/2015/05/21/the-war-on-big-food/" target="_blank">shrinking the big food companies like icebergs</a> and <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/26/food-lobby-consumer-tastes-washington-190528" target="_blank">splitting up</a> the food industry lobby as "millennials and moms seek healthier and more transparent products."</p><p style="">Let's give them what they want: a food system that is healthy for people, farmers, the soil and the bees—a food system that prioritizes <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/opinion/sunday/protect-our-childrens-brains.html" target="_blank">protecting our children's brains</a> over the profits of the pesticide industry.</p><p style="">That's the discussion we need to have about transforming the food we eat.</p><p style=""><em>Want to know more secrets the food and chemical companies are hiding about our food? Sign up for the U.S. Right to Know <a href="https://usrtk.org/sign-up/" target="_blank">newsletter here</a>, and you can <a href="https://usrtk.org/donations/donate-to-usrtk/" target="_blank">donate here</a> to keep our investigations cooking.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Mike Mozart / Flickr
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released on Monday a human health and ecological draft risk assessment for glyphosate, concluding that the widely used—and highly controversial—pesticide is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans."
According to the EPA's announcement, the assessment “found no other meaningful risks to human health when the product is used according to the pesticide label." However, the announcement noted, "the ecological risk assessment indicates that there is potential for effects on birds, mammals, and terrestrial and aquatic plants."
<p>Last month, the ingredient won a new five-year lease in the Europe Union, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/27/controversial-glyphosate-weedkiller-wins-new-five-year-lease-in-europe" target="_blank">following a bitter fight</a>. Similarly, Monday's draft assessment is a foundational document in the EPA's potential extension of the product's registration for use in 2019, the <a href="http://beta.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pesticide-cancer-20171218-story.html" target="_blank">Los Angeles Times</a> reported. </p><p>The EPA's latest findings contradicts the March 2015 conclusion of the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which labeled glyphosate a “<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/iarc-scientist-reaffirms-glyphosates-link-to-cancer-as-monsantos-reque-1906676980.html">probable carcinogen</a>." The France-based panel's ruling sparked <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/european-parliament-ban-glyphosate-2500863218.html">debate around the world</a>, prompted <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-lawsuits-roundup-cancer-2324693930.html">hundreds of lawsuits</a> over allegations that glyphosate causes cancer, and resulted in the state of California adding glyphosate <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/california-roundup-cancer-warning-2335205128.html">to its list</a> of cancer-causing chemicals.<br></p><p style="">
Glyphosate is the active ingredient many herbicides, most notably in <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto">Monsanto's</a> star product, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/roundup">Roundup</a>. The product is the world's best-selling weedkiller, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-in-monsantos-roundup-is-linked-to-cancer-but-big-ag-wants-i-1882096041.html">applied to</a> more than 150 food and non-food crops and used on lawns, gardens and parks. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-exposure-humans-2501317778.html" target="_blank">In fact</a>, researchers from the University of California San Diego School of Medicine found that human exposure to glyphosate has increased approximately 500 percent since 1994, the year Monsanto introduced its <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/" target="_blank">genetically modified</a> Roundup Ready crops in the U.S. Today, the chemical can be detected in household foods such as cookies, crackers, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/ben-jerrys-glyphosate-2495229732.html" target="_blank">ice cream</a> and even <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/results-of-glyphosate-pee-test-are-in-and-its-not-good-news-1891129531.html" target="_blank">our urine</a>.
</p><p>
Monsanto <a href="https://monsanto.com/company/media/statements/glyphosate-report-response/" target="_blank">strongly disagrees</a> with IARC's classification and vehemently defends the safety of its products. The St. Louis-based company has <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-files-lawsuit-to-stop-california-from-listing-glyphosate-as-k-1882157015.html">sued California</a> to stop it from requiring cancer warnings on glyphosate-based products.
</p><p>
But earlier this year, a batch of Monsanto's internal records released by attorneys who are <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-lawsuits-roundup-cancer-2324693930.html" target="_blank">suing Monsanto</a> over glyphosate-cancer claims, suggested company ties to an official at the EPA, prompting an <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/epa-inspector-general-probing-collusion-with-monsanto_us_59372108e4b0aba888b99dca" target="_blank">investigation</a> into <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-monsanto-cancer-lawsuits-2261203098.html" target="_blank">possible collusion</a> between Monsanto and the EPA staffer.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="b7fca" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="LEFEH41576683865"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="892531404021661698" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Just Released Docs Show Monsanto 'Executives Colluding With Corrupted EPA Officials to Manipulate Scientific Data'
https://t.co/aCYVEIWPSn</div> — Mark Ruffalo (@Mark Ruffalo)<a href="https://twitter.com/MarkRuffalo/statuses/892531404021661698">1501631043.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>"This trove marks a turning point in Monsanto's corporate life," Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., an attorney involved with the class action suit, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-papers-2467891575.html" target="_blank">told</a> journalist Carey Gillam, who is also the research director for <a href="https://usrtk.org/" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know</a>. "They show Monsanto executives colluding with corrupted EPA officials to manipulate and bury scientific data to kill studies when preliminary data threatened Monsanto's commercial ambitions, bribing scientists and ghostwriting their publications, and purchasing peer review to conceal information about Roundup's carcinogenicity, its toxicity, its rapid absorption by the human body, and its horrendous risks to public health and the environment."</p><p>
In a press release, the <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a> also <span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span>called the EPA review "<a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2017/pesticides-12-18-2017.php" target="_blank">flawed</a>."
</p><p style="">
"The only way the EPA could conclude that glyphosate poses no significant risks to human health was to analyze industry studies and ignore its own guidelines when estimating cancer risk," said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The EPA's biased assessment falls short of the most basic standards of independent research and fails to give Americans an accurate picture of the risks posed by glyphosate use."</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="c7dbc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="DM3QSS1576683866"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="942913943818747904" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING. EPA finds #glyphosate not a carcinogen. In response to being chastised by an advisory panel for not follo… https://t.co/DBnIpd2SBi</div> — Nathan Donley (@Nathan Donley)<a href="https://twitter.com/Nathan_Donley/statuses/942913943818747904">1513643177.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
The Center for Biological Diversity also pointed out that the EPA's assessment showed that glyphosate posed a risk to plants and wildlife exposed to the chemical, including the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/bill-nye-on-glyphosate-we-accidentally-decimated-the-monarch-butterfly-1882073954.html">imperiled monarch butterfly</a>.
</p><p>
Per the release:<span></span>
</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">
Migratory monarch populations have declined by 80 percent in the past two decades, and their decline has been driven in large part by the surge in glyphosate use resulting from the widespread planting of corn and soybeans crops genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate. Glyphosate is a potent killer of milkweed. The dramatic surge in the glyphosate use has virtually wiped out milkweed plants in the Midwest's corn and soybean fields.
</p><p>
The EPA has opened a 60-day public comment period for the draft risk assessments.
</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
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
Collusion or Coincidence? Records Show EPA Slowed Glyphosate Review in Coordination With Monsanto
17 August 2017
Food
By Carey Gillam
Newly released government email communications show a persistent effort by multiple officials within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to slow a separate federal agency's safety review of Monsanto's top-selling herbicide. Notably, the records demonstrate that the EPA efforts came at the behest of Monsanto, and that EPA officials were helpful enough to keep the chemical giant updated on their progress.
The communications, most of which were obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, show that it was early 2015 when the EPA and Monsanto began working in concert to stall a toxicology review that a unit of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was conducting on glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto's branded Roundup herbicide products. The details revealed in the documents come as Monsanto is defending itself against allegations that it has tried to cover up evidence of harm with its herbicides.
<p style="">The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a federal public health agency within the CDC that is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is charged with evaluating the potential adverse human health effects from exposures to hazardous substances in the environment. So it made sense for the ATSDR to take a look at glyphosate, which is widely used on U.S. farms, residential lawns and gardens, school playgrounds and golf courses. Glyphosate is widely used in food production and glyphosate residues have been found in testing of human urine. </p><p>The ATSDR announced in February 2015 that it planned to publish a toxicological profile of glyphosate by October of that year. But by October, that review was on hold, and to this date no such review has yet been published. </p><p style="">The documents reveal this was no accident, no bureaucratic delay, but rather was the result of a collaborative effort between Monsanto and a group of high-ranking EPA officials.</p><p style="">"These new documents are particularly alarming because they prove that Monsanto's efforts to capture EPA and subvert it's mission to safeguard public-health were largely successful," said <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/community/robert_kennedy_jr/">Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.</a>, an environmental lawyer who is representing plaintiffs <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-lawsuits-roundup-cancer-2324693930.html" target="_self">pursuing claims</a> against Monsanto.</p><p style="">"Those schemes allowed the company to pull puppet strings and exercise pervasive control at the supervisory level across several agency branches."</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed" style=""></p><div id="7dea5" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="U2VSCL1503066410"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="895030658619379712" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Internal EPA Documents Show Scramble for Data on Monsanto’s Roundup https://t.co/hQdzWUiDqa @food_democracy @GMWatch</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/895030658619379712">1502226912.0</a></blockquote></div><p></p><p style="">For Monsanto, the timing of the ATSDR review was worrisome. In March 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) had declared glyphosate to be a <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf" target="_blank">probable human carcinogen</a>, and Monsanto feared ATSDR might have similar concerns about the chemical. Previous reports <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-14/monsanto-accused-of-ghost-writing-papers-on-roundup-cancer-risk" target="_blank">have described</a> how one EPA official, Jess Rowland, communicated to Monsanto in April 2015 his willingness to try to kill the ATSDR review. Rowland, who retired in 2016, was the deputy division director within the health effects division of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs. Allegations of collusion between Rowland and Monsanto have <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/epa-apos-inspector-general-probing-004542607.html" target="_blank">prompted a probe</a> by the EPA's Office of Inspector General.<br></p><p style="">But the trove of documents newly obtained from within EPA and HHS demonstrate that the assistance to Monsanto came not only from Rowland but also from even higher-level EPA officials. Rather than encourage and assist the toxicology review of glyphosate, Monsanto and EPA officials repeatedly complained to ATSDR and HHS that such a review was unnecessarily "duplicative" and should take a back seat to an EPA review also underway.</p><p><strong>The following timeline shows how the events unfolded: </strong></p><p style=""><strong>May 19, 2015: </strong>Michael Dykes, who at that time was Monsanto's long-time vice president of government affairs, <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/May-2015-discussion-ATSDR-EPA.pdf" target="_blank">wrote directly to the EPA's Jim Jones</a>, the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention. Jones had oversight of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs and was a presidential appointee who carried significant clout. The afternoon was waning when the email came in at 3:28 p.m. Dykes reminded Jones that they had recently discussed the HHS' ATSDR glyphosate review at a meeting. "You were not aware of their review. Did you learn anything more about their efforts?" Dykes asked. </p><p style="">Jones did not waste time. Roughly an hour later he forwarded the message to his second in command, Office of Pesticide Programs Director Jack Housenger, <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/May-2015-discussion-ATSDR-EPA.pdf" target="_blank">writing</a> "Monsanto thinks atsdr is doing a glyphosate Assessment. Could you guys run that down?" Housenger responds quickly: "Yes. Jess checked with them ... It has been difficult to get information." </p><p style="">Within an hour Jones instructed a member of his staff to get him contact information for the head person responsible for ATSDR. She replied the next morning that Dr. Patrick Breysse was the point person. Breysse joined the CDC in 2014 as director of its National Center for Environmental Health, overseeing the NCEH's ATSDR.</p><p style=""><strong>May 20, 2015: </strong>It was only a little after 8:30 a.m. but Jones told the staff member to instruct Housenger to get in touch with Breysse, and within two hours Housenger had <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/May-20-2015-Breysse-ATSDR-on-EPA-request.pdf" target="_blank">penned an email</a> to Breysse explaining that an EPA's own re-evaluation/risk assessment of glyphosate was nearing completion, and asking Breysse if "you would still feel the need to do your assessment." Housenger told Breysse that he already had reached the individual assigned to the ATSDR assessment and she had indicated she would "coordinate" with EPA, but that was not sufficient. Housenger did not mention Monsanto's outreach to EPA on the issue, but instead questioned "whether this is a good use of government resources" for ATSDR to continue with its review. Breysse responded that he would "look into this" and Housenger thanked him for his quick response. Breysse then reached out to an ATSDR division director named James Stephens to arrange a discussion about the EPA request.</p><p style=""><strong>May 21, 2015:</strong> James Stephens <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/May-21-2015-ATSDR-on-EPA-request.pdf" target="_blank">wrote back to</a> Patrick Breysse that the ATSDR team thought the EPA work "overlaps but isn't totally duplicative…" and stated that the ASTDR team has not been able to see draft copies of the EPA's work. "I think we would all welcome further discussion with EPA but would hope to use it to help us find out more about what they are doing, " he told Breysse. After hearing from Stephens, <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/May-22-2015-ATSDR-EPA-on-glyphosate.pdf" target="_blank">Breysse wrote back</a> to Housenger saying ATSDR staff would be in touch to discuss. Housenger replied with his reiteration that the ATSDR review would be a "<a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/June-6-2015-EPA-ATSDR.pdf" target="_blank">duplicative government effort</a>" and that the EPA draft would be out in July of 2015. (As of this writing, that EPA preliminary risk assessment still has not been released, though in 2016 the EPA did release a cancer assessment report that declared glyphosate was not likely to cause cancer.)</p><p style=""><strong>June 4, 2015: </strong><a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/June-5-2015-EPA-ATSDR-on-glyphosate.pdf" target="_blank">Pressing the issue</a>, EPA's Housenger wrote again to Breysee to say he had not heard from anyone yet. The ATSDR's Stephens wrote back promising to make sure "someone gives you a ring." <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/57-Monsanto-Worries-About-ATSDR-Glyphosate-Review-Seeks-to-Rebut-IARC.pdf" target="_blank">Internal Monsanto emails</a> show that at the same time, Monsanto was also pushing the "duplicative" narrative with HHS, meeting on June 4 with HHS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Global Health Mitchel Wolfe to ask him to help repudiate the IARC classification and to recognize that a review of glyphosate was "not the primary role" for his agency. "Dr. Wolfe said he would follow up on what was going on with ATSDR and he was encouraged to have discussions with EPA staff, as well," a Monsanto memo detailing the meeting states.</p><p style=""><strong>June 9, 2015:</strong> Henry Abadin, an ATSDR supervisory scientist, <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/June-9-2015-ATSDR-EPA.pdf" target="_blank">reported to Stephens</a> that he had talked with Housenger and explained that the agency did not believe it was "duplicating efforts." Nevertheless, he said he told EPA, "we did not have a problem with putting the glyphosate profile on hold, pending the OPP [Office of Pesticide Programs] final report."</p><p style=""> <strong>June 19, 2015:</strong> To further ensure the ATSDR review didn't move forward, Monsanto's Dykes talked again with HHS's Wolfe, asking for an update on ATSDR. "I explained… our question was about the purpose and scope of such a duplicative review by ATSDR. I also told him that we were concerned that ATSDR may come out any day with a report. I again stressed that we were concerned that they were even reviewing glyphosate as were the people we talked with at EPA," Dykes wrote to colleagues.</p><p style=""><strong>June 21, 2015: </strong>It was a Sunday, but Monsanto's Dykes was still concerned enough about the ATSDR review <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/57-Monsanto-Worries-About-ATSDR-Glyphosate-Review-Seeks-to-Rebut-IARC.pdf" target="_blank">to copy multiple colleagues</a> on a late night email to report that he had continued to press the "duplicative" point with ATSDR but was concerned about a "glyphosate review coming any day." In <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Text-Messages.pdf" target="_blank">a text message</a> sent that same day, Monsanto Eric Sachs reached out to a former EPA toxicologist named Mary Manibusan asking for contacts at ATSDR. "We're trying to do everything we can to keep from having a domestic IARC occur w this group. may need your help," Sachs wrote. The text messages were among certain <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/newly-released-monsanto-papers-add-to-questions-of_us_597fc800e4b0d187a5968fbf" target="_blank">internal Monsanto records</a> obtained by cancer victims who are suing Monsanto alleging Roundup caused their diseases.</p><p style=""><strong>June 23, 2015:</strong> By Tuesday, Monsanto's Jenkins had good news: He had heard from Housenger that the EPA official had been successful in garnering a promise from ATSDR to put its report "on hold." The review was not dead, however, <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/57-Monsanto-Worries-About-ATSDR-Glyphosate-Review-Seeks-to-Rebut-IARC.pdf" target="_blank">he wrote</a>: ATSDR argues "that their process is distinguishable and not duplicative. They look at different endpoints and told EPA they don't "make a call on cancer", but I think we should continue to be cautious." </p><p style="">On <strong>June 24, 2015: </strong>Monsanto's chief scientist William Heydens <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/57-Monsanto-Worries-About-ATSDR-Glyphosate-Review-Seeks-to-Rebut-IARC.pdf" target="_blank">responded:</a> "'Distinguishable and not duplicative'? Seriously? And I will believe the not 'making a call on cancer' part when I see it. Anyway, at least they know they are being watched, and hopefully that keeps them from doing anything too stupid..." Jenkins wrote back, acknowledging that Monsanto had much more to fear from ATSDR than EPA as the two agencies had arrived at "different conclusions" on other issues. He reported he had been told ATSDR was "VERY conservative and IARC like…"</p><p style=""> By<strong> October 23, 2015:</strong> EPA and Monsanto had the ATSDR review fully on hold. EPA's Housenger <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/60-Communication-Between-Monsanto-and-Key-EPA-Official-Jack-Housenger-Regarding-Potential-Government-Review-of-Glyphosate.pdf" target="_blank">wrote to update Monsanto's Jenkins:</a> "They are waiting for our glyphosate RA. And they agreed to share what they do." </p><p>That same month, the EPA's Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC), which was chaired by Rowland, issued an internal report stating that contrary to IARC, the EPA's review of glyphosate found it "<a href="http://src.bna.com/eAi" target="_blank">not likely to be carcinogenic to humans." </a> </p><p style="">The EPA still has yet to issue the overall new risk assessment it said would be out in 2015. The agency has offered ever-changing timelines for the assessment, but now says it intends to release a draft risk assessment sometime this year. That will be followed by a 60-day public comment period. After the public comment period, the EPA will determine whether any risk management is needed. In the meantime, Monsanto has cited the EPA's backing of glyphosate safety as repudiation of the IARC finding both in court and with regulators in Europe who are also looking at glyphosate safety issues.</p><p>The EPA did not respond to a request for comment about its efforts to delay the ATSDR report or communications with Monsanto regarding that effort. </p><p style="">But Brent Wisner, a lawyer representing many of the cancer victims who are suing Monsanto, said the documents offer damning evidence of close ties between the EPA and the chemical company. </p><p style="">"I think it's very clear… that EPA officials and Monsanto employees worked together to accomplish a goal of stopping that analysis at ATSDR. That is collusion. I don't know what else you'd call that," said Wisner.</p><p style="">For its part, the ATSDR said this week that the review it started in 2015 "is not complete," but that it anticipates a draft glyphosate toxicological profile to be issued for public comment by the end of this year. A spokesperson for the agency declined to discuss the circumstances surrounding the delay in the review.</p><p>And Jones, whose EPA job ended when the Trump administration took over, defended his responsiveness to Monsanto's concern about the ATSDR review, saying it had only to do with the "efficient use of government resources." </p><p style="">"Had any party contacted me and informed me that another agency within the administration was simultaneously assessing a chemical as my organization, I would have intervened," Jones said. "There is no value to the same government investing limited resources to work on the same issue. As you know resources at the federal level were and are scarce which made duplication even more problematic."</p><p style="">Jones said additionally that "when two organizations assess the same chemical, it is very likely there will be differences in their assessments. Even when these differences don't matter from a public health perspective, an enormous amount of energy is spent attempting to resolve these differences" and that is not ultimately in the "public interest." </p>
Read More
Show Less
Mike Mozart / Flickr
By Carey Gillam
As agrochemical giant Monsanto Co. faces a growing wave of U.S. lawsuits over its top-selling Roundup herbicide line, among its key defense arguments is that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has long backed the safety of the weed-killing products.
<p>And indeed, the EPA has been a stalwart supporter of Monsanto Co.'s claims of safety, assuring the public that there is nothing to fear from the company's cocktail of chemicals. But <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-2468647604.html">internal agency documents</a>, released in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/u-s-right-to-know-sues-epa-for-release-of-glyphosate-documents/" target="_blank">lawsuit,</a> indicate that as recently as last year, the agency had holes in its data files when it comes to the actual Roundup formulations used by consumers, farmers and others around the world. The documents also raise questions about how and why regulators for years have failed to require robust testing on what is the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsantos-glyphosate-most-heavily-used-weed-killer-in-history-1882164311.html">world's most widely used weed killer</a>.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed"></p><div id="467e2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="E1Q9VM1553274951"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="893131868308213760" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">'Secret Docs' Show Monsanto's Attempt to Influence Writers, Bribe Scientists https://t.co/0AqIfexG1R</div> — Mark Ruffalo (@Mark Ruffalo)<a href="https://twitter.com/MarkRuffalo/statuses/893131868308213760">1501774205.0</a></blockquote></div><p></p><p>The EPA <a href="https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-secret-documents/" target="_blank">documents</a> show that only a little more than a year ago, in March and April of 2016, EPA officials were scrambling to gather data on ingredients Monsanto has commonly used to formulate its herbicide products. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">Glyphosate</a> is the active ingredient in Roundup brands as well as hundreds of other herbicides, and the agency has a deep database of studies submitted by Monsanto regarding that specific chemical. But in the EPA records from 2016, the agency is seen urgently asking Monsanto for any studies it could provide analyzing the safety of its fully formulated products and seeking to understand the make-up of formulations used for decades. Even though Monsanto has been selling Roundup herbicides for more than 40 years, the internal agency documents indicate the agency had only sparse information about those formulations.</p><p>The EPA's interest in scrutinizing formulations came after the agency was poised to issue an updated favorable risk assessment of glyphosate in 2015. The agency only delayed finalizing that assessment after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf" target="_blank">reported in 2015</a> that there was enough peer-reviewed, published research to classify glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. IARC also noted in its report that there was research showing risks with formulations.</p><p>The EPA appeared to be playing catch-up in March of last year when agency officials requested information from Monsanto on the inert ingredients in popular U.S. and European formulations of glyphosate used in "<a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/EPA-FOIA-discussions-of-glyphosate-formulations-april-2016.pdf" target="_blank">the present day and also dating back to the 80s</a>." EPA was particularly interested in "information on how glyphosate formulations have changed over time in the last 20-30 years."<br></p><p>The EPA records also show a certain level of double-talk about that lack of data. Even as the agency was working to gather details on the Roundup formulations, the agency was at the same time assuring the public that there was no reason for concern because the EPA had the information needed to gauge the safety of those formulations.</p><p>Consider <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/EPA-note-to-Dan-Silver-re-glyphosate-and-Roundup.pdf" target="_blank">this statement</a> from the agency: </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Often, glyphosate products contain water, dyes, and/or surfactants that help facilitate movement of glyphosate into the plant…" EPA Chemical Review Manager Khue Nguyen wrote in January 2016 to an 83-year-old homeowner who had read about Roundup concerns and written to the agency seeking answers. "While manufacturers of pesticide products do not always disclose all 'other ingredients' on their labels ... they are required to disclose those ingredients to EPA. Inert ingredients in a product such as Roundup are not of concern for the consumer when pesticide products are used according to the label." </p><p>Contrast those public assurances about the EPA's knowledge of Roundup ingredients with an internal discussion documented by Nguyen three months later. In an <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/EPA-time-sensitive-on-formulations-email-April-2016.pdf" target="_blank">email dated April 6, 2016</a>, Nguyen reminded five Monsanto executives that the EPA had a "time sensitive" information request—it needed data, and <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/EPA-notes-from-April-2016-meeting-with-Monsanto.pdf" target="_blank">the notes attached to the email</a> show a particular need for data on glyphosate formulations: </p><p>"In an effort to resolve questions about the potential toxicity of glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and any co-formulants (inert ingredients and surfactants), EPA was interested in any data or information Monsanto may have on how the formulations may differ from data on the active ingredient and surfactants independently of one another," the notes attached to Nguyen's email state. The notes go on to ask for information about changes in Monsanto's Roundup formulation "over the years." </p><p>The notes state "Monsanto indicated that up until 2000, nearly all glyphosate products on the market were its Roundup formulation which used some form of tallow amine as a surfactant. Afterwards, the properties of surfactants used and the ratio of surfactant to active ingredient were changed in most formulations… EPA suggested that Monsanto provide in writing any information that documents the changes of glyphosate formulations over time and across the globe."</p><p>Subsequent to that meeting, Monsanto did send over some data, and in a follow-up <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/EPA-email-April-2016-re-Monsanto-glyphosate-studies.pdf" target="_blank">email</a> dated April 18, 2016, an EPA scientist sought clarification about what to look for. "Just to be clear on our strategy here, we want to see which of these we have or don't have, and we also want to see if there are any formulation studies that will help our analysis. Does that sound right?" </p><p>It is heartening that EPA is starting to pay attention to questions about the safety of Roundup formulations, but such evaluations are long overdue and the agency's public assurances of safety despite the lack of data is "such hypocrisy," said Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist with the <a href="http://consumersunion.org/" target="_blank">Consumers Union</a>. "And it's an admission that this is a big problem."</p><p>These mixtures, or formulations, have raised concerns with certain independent scientists who say laboratory studies show the combinations of glyphosate with other substances used in Roundup are <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/05/17/new-evidence-about-the-dangers-of-monsantos-roundup/" target="_blank">more toxic that glyphosate alone</a>, and can possibly cause cancer or other health problems. Some research has indicated the formulations can be <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Seralinia-2016-Glyphosate-Formulations-STudy.pdf" target="_blank">endocrine disruptors</a>, meaning they have the potential to trigger serious diseases such as cancers, reproductive and developmental problems, and birth defects.</p><p>The EPA's knowledge—or lack thereof—about formulated Roundup products is also potentially important to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/judge-threatens-to-sanction-monsanto-for-secrecy-in_us_58c2de66e4b0c3276fb78433" target="_blank">litigation pending against Monsanto</a>. Thousands of people around the United States are suing the chemical company, alleging that not only did Roundup exposure cause them or their loved ones to get cancer, but that Monsanto knew the Roundup formulations could be harmful but covered up the evidence. They also allege that certain EPA officials colluded with Monsanto in the handling of safety assessments, and the EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/epa-inspector-general-probing-collusion-with-monsanto_us_59372108e4b0aba888b99dca" target="_blank">has confirmed it is probing those concerns.</a></p><p>One ingredient traditionally used in Roundup has been the focus of particular scrutiny as some research has shown that this added ingredient, polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), can be extremely damaging to human cells. POEA is a surfactant that helps glyphosate adhere to the leaves of plants. European regulators became so concerned with POEA that in 2016 they <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/eu-agrees-ban-on-glyphosate-co-formulant/" target="_blank">agreed to ban it</a> from use as a co-formulant in glyphosate-based herbicides after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4303/epdf" target="_blank">in a 2015 report,</a> said there was insufficient data available to perform a risk assessment on POEA. EFSA stated: "Its genotoxicity, long term toxicity/carcinogenicity, reproductive/developmental toxicity and endocrine disrupting potential should be further clarified." </p><p>In part of the April 18, 2016 email string with the EPA, <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Monsanto-email-to-EPA-re-surfactants.pdf" target="_blank">a Monsanto executive confirmed</a> the widespread use of POEA in its products, telling the EPA "the surfactant system used almost exclusively in Roundup agricultural herbicide formulations globally throughout these two decades (the 1980s and 1990s) contained a polyethoxylated tallow amine surfactant…" </p><p>Monsanto <a href="https://monsantoblog.eu/monsanto-transitions-away-from-tallowamine-in-products-enfr/" target="_blank">says on its website</a> that tallowamine-based products "do not pose an imminent risk for human health when used according to instructions" and points out that in 2009 <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/06/17/E9-14113/alkyl-amine-polyalkoxylates-exemption-from-the-requirement-of-a-tolerance" target="_blank">the EPA exempted</a> the surfactant from legal limitations on residues in food, because there "is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population…" </p><p>Still, the company itself has admitted a lack of extensive safety tests on its formulated products. In an <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/28-Internal-Email-Monsanto-Regarding-Lack-of-Testing-of-Carcinogenicity-of-Roundup-Formulation-1.pdf" target="_blank">internal Monsanto email</a> from December 2010, a Monsanto chemistry regulatory affairs manager noted that "with regards to the carcinogenicity of our formulations we don't have such testing on them directly…" The manager went on to explain that the company has "extensive testing" on glyphosate and "some extensive tox testing" on the surfactant and should be able to address questions about the safety of its formulations "in a confident manner." That email and hundreds of others were obtained by plaintiffs as part of discovery in the lawsuits against Monsanto.</p><p>In a <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/37-Monsanto-Executive-Writes-Vulnerable-on-Surfactants-Formulated-Product-Does-the-Damage.pdf" target="_blank">2002 email</a> also obtained as part of discovery in the court case, a Monsanto scientist writes to a colleague, "we are in pretty good shape with glyphosate but vulnerable with surfactants. What I've been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies - Glyphosate is OK but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage." In <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/37-Monsanto-Executive-Writes-Vulnerable-on-Surfactants-Formulated-Product-Does-the-Damage.pdf" target="_blank">another 2002 email</a> between the same Monsanto colleagues, the scientist writes, "Even though no testing requirements have been implemented for several years now, this damn endocrine crap just doesn't go away, does it." </p><p>And <a href="http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/27-Internal-Monsanto-Email-You-Cannot-Say-That-Roundup-is-not-a-Carcinogen.pdf" target="_blank">in a 2003 email</a>, a Monsanto toxicologist writes, "you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen ... we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement. The testing on the formulations are not anywhere near the level of the active ingredient. We can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer."</p><p>An EPA spokesman confirmed that the agency does not "routinely require long-term toxicity studies for pesticide product formulations" as it does for active ingredients like glyphosate. He added, however, that all inert ingredients in pesticide products, must be approved for use by EPA and "each component of an inert mixture must be supported by a battery of toxicity data and must be approved for use by EPA." </p><p>Further, the EPA spokesman said, "If there are data to indicate risk for a formulated mixture, EPA evaluates the potential effects in our risk assessments. The human health risk assessment process is conservative… thus ensuring that when a pesticide is used according to the label, people are well protected."</p><p>The EPA's recent interest in pursuing questions about formulated glyphosate products was also seen <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/glyphosate_issue_paper_evaluation_of_carcincogenic_potential.pdf" target="_blank">in September 2016, </a> when the agency stated that it was collaborating with the <a href="https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/" target="_blank">National Toxicology Program</a> (NTP) Division of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to develop a research plan that would evaluate "the role of glyphosate in product formulations and the differences in formulation toxicity." The agency acknowledged that "currently, the publicly available information regarding non-cancer endpoints for glyphosate and glyphosate formulations is limited."</p><p>The status of EPA's involvement in that collaboration is unknown but the <a href="https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/glyphosate/index.html" target="_blank">NTP confirms</a> on its website that it is "undertaking additional research to investigate the potential genetic and mechanistic toxicity of glyphosate and glyphosate formulations." </p><p>Still, CropLife America, the lobbying group for Monsanto and other agrochemical industry players, have made it clear such an inquiry is not welcomed. In a letter <a href="http://191hmt1pr08amfq62276etw2.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CLA-Comments-FIFRA-SAP-Glyphosate-section-7-10-04-16.pdf" target="_blank">dated October 2016</a>, CropLife questioned "why EPA would collaborate and develop a research program with the National Toxicology Program (NTP) without input from the registrant." That registrant, Monsanto, "would be the appropriate source" for data EPA might need, CropLife wrote.</p>
Read More
Show Less