The year 2015 hasn’t
been kind to Monsanto. In March, the World Health Organization declared
that the company’s flagship product, its herbicide glyphosate or
Roundup, is a probable human carcinogen. Increasingly, national health
ministries are taking a hard second look at glyphosate’s health and
environmental dangers and efforts are underway to ban the herbicide.[1]
To protect its citizens, last year the Netherlands, Bermuda and Sri
Lanka have either banned or imposed strict limits on Roundup. Last June,
France banned its use in gardens. Brazil, Germany and Argentina are
considering legislative bans. And this month, California’s environmental
protection agency launched plans to label Roundup as a carcinogen.[2]
Glyphosate is the most
widely used herbicide in the world today. Over 130 countries currently
permit extensive use of the chemical. The US is the largest consumer,
using approximately 20% of the world’s Roundup.[3] The latest reliable
figures from the US Geological Survey record 280 million pounds of
Roundup were used in 2012, nearly a pound for every American.[4] In
2013, gross profit of $371 million on crop chemicals including Roundup
climbed 73% due to a 37% increase in sales. That same year Monsanto’s
net income rose 22% to $1.48 billion.[5]
Over the years a large body
of independent research has accumulated and now collectively provides a
sound scientific rationale to confirm that glyphosate is far more toxic
and poses more serious health risks to animals and humans than Monsanto
and the US government admit. Among the many diseases and health
conditions non-industry studies identified Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and
autism since Roundup has been shown to instigate aluminum accumulation
in the brain. The herbicide has been responsible for reproductive
problems such as infertility, miscarriages, and neural tube and birth
defects. It is a causal agent for a variety of cancers: brain, breast,
prostate, lung and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Other disorders include chronic
kidney and liver diseases, diabetes, heart disease, hypothyroidism, and
leaky gut syndrome. In addition to lung cancer, glyphosate may be
responsible for today’s growing epidemics of chronic respiratory
illnesses among farm workers and their families.[6] However, these
findings derive from outside the Big Agriculture industry. Private
industries routinely defend themselves by positing their own research to
refute independent reports. Consequently, for several decades it has
been a he-said-she-said stalemate. Monsanto is content with this. It can
conduct business as usual, Roundup sales increase, and the debates and
media wars continue without government interference. Then who is
protecting the public?
Government officials and
health regulators more often than not simply ignore these studies even
if published in peer-reviewed journals. The bulk are independently
funded. Most have been performed in foreign nations and therefore
American bias dismisses them outright. Furthermore, Monsanto and other
large chemical agricultural companies are quick to counter and discredit
adverse scientific findings. The company has the financial means to
retain large international PR firms, such as Burson-Marsteller and
Fleishman Hillard, consultation firms and think tanks, as well as large
armies of hired trolls and academic spokepersons to mobilize damage
control upon notice and protect the integrity of Monsanto’s products and
public image. It funds and orchestrates self-serving research at
universities and research laboratories to increase an arsenal of junk
science. And of course it has Hillary Clinton and Bill Gates as its
celebrity cheerleaders.
The EPA continues to align
itself with Monsanto’s safety claims and limits glyphosate’s risks to
kidney, reproductive and carcinogenic damage; and the warning only
applies for very long-term exposure to high levels of the toxin.
Anything under that is considered harmless. The EPA continues to approve
small amounts of glyphosate as safe in drinking water to children. Its
safety level is 0.7 ug/L. This was determined back in 1994, and after 20
years of further research into glyphosate’s biomolecular activities and
health risks, the level has remained the same.[7,8] A review of
existing data sponsored by Moms Across America found that out of 21
drinking water samples analyzed, 13 had glyphosate levels between 0.08
and 0.3 ug/L, well below the EPA’s limit, but significantly above the
European Union’s limit of 0.1 ug/L.[9]
While the company manages
to successfully dodge scientific research outside its purview, the
tables would certainly turn if it could be proven in a court of law that
Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate is one of the most toxic
substances ever launched on the public, which adversely affects almost
every tissue and cell in a mammal’s body.
Imagine for a minute that
evidence emerged to implicate Monsanto on a massive cover-up and
manipulation of scientific data from hundreds of research trials. If it
were Monsanto’s data indicting itself about glyphosate’s toxicity, and
if it can be shown the company falsified, masked or fudged its data to
win regulatory approval, it may likely be the largest corporate scandal
in history. The question could Monsanto be charged with crimes of
omission and more deservingly crimes against humanity?
This scenario may not be
fantasy or the wishful thinking of GMO’s opponents. The case has a
precedent and has been played out in the courts before. In November
1998, the US government won a judgment against the four largest US
tobacco companies: Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Brown & Williamson,
and Lorillard. The case came to trial after a former vice president of
research and development at Brown & Williamson, Jeffrey Wigand,
turned whistleblower and revealed that his company concealed the
tobacco’s health risks and was making concerted efforts to addict people
to smoking. High ranking executives were found to have approved the
inclusion of known addictive and carcinogenic chemicals, such as
coumarin, in its cigarettes to increase smoking, sales and profits.
Before the trial there had
never been a lawsuit lost by a tobacco company because no one could
prove with absolute medical certainty that smoking had ever caused lung
cancer or emphysema. During Congressional hearings, all seven CEOs
representing the four tobacco giants lied under oath stating they had no
knowledge about an association between nicotine and brain addiction.
Their rationale was that they believed their research data and marketing
strategies were protected under propriety secrecy claims and therefore
they could avoid conviction. Although FDA scientists possessed all the
necessary information that could condemn Big Tobacco’s false claims, the
industry relied upon proprietary rules in order to hide behind legal
protection. The FDA was silenced and powerless to make the industry’s
information public. Consequently it is estimated that millions of people
died from a risk that could have been prevented or at least reduced
substantially. Instead, the FDA honored the tobacco industry above all
human life.
The guilty verdict, which
resulted in the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement against the tobacco
companies, enforced a minimum $206 billion settlement over a 25 year
period. While the majority of payments were to settle 46 states’
Medicaid lawsuits to recover smoking related health costs, the
settlement unfortunately exempted the industry from private tort claims.
Many critics of the Agreement state that the settlement was too
merciful. No tobacco executive went to prison and evidence indicates the
industry emerged stronger and consolidated the companies into an ever
more powerful cartel.[10]
What busted the tobacco
companies was not the scientific evidence piling up outside the
industry. Rather it was its crimes of omission about cigarettes’ health
risks within the industry. The industry’s own research prosecuted
itself. And this is demanded today in order to bring down Monsanto’s
chemical regime and to protect populations and children throughout the
world.
Perhaps we might want to
consider the atmosphere Monsanto faced after it first developed
glyphosate in 1973 and prepare for EPA approval for the remainder of the
decade.
During the latter half of
the 1970s, Monsanto’s leading products were under federal inquiry and
public assault regarding safety. Dioxin had been banned. Safety concerns
arose over its sweetener saccharin, and cyclamate was removed from the
market. The company’s attempts to get it’s new artificial sweetener
aspartame confronted obstacles during FDA scientific review. Independent
research had shown that aspartame caused brain tumors in mammals. And
its best selling herbicide at the time, Lasso, was showing signs of
carcinogenicity. Today Lasso is a restricted-use pesticide due to its
oncogenicity. With sales falling and future growth under threat,
Monsanto faced a desperate need to launch a new and novel flagship
product. Monsanto found itself banking its future on its new herbicide
glyphosate. As we recently discovered, enormous amounts of research,
analysis and hundreds of trials were conducted to learn as much as
possible about the compound’s bioactivity in mammals and its potential
health risks. All of this research data, studies and reports were
subsequently sealed as trade secrets upon submission to the EPA. For
over thirty years it has sat in the EPA vaults.
Monsanto has yet to be
caught and charged for falsifying scientific data on glyphosate. However
on earlier occasions two laboratories Monsanto outsourced research to
were caught and indicted. In 1978, the EPA busted Industrial Biotest
Laboratories for rigging laboratory results; the company’s executives
were found guilty for submitting fabricated data supporting glyphosate
positively to the government. In 1991, another firm, Craven Labs, was
found guilty on similar charges with 20 felony counts.[11]
To this day, Monsanto
continues to assert that Roundup is environmentally friendly. We are
told it biodegrades rapidly and therefore poses no long-term risks after
repeated usage. We are told that the herbicide is ideal for weed
control. Throughout the US, it is liberally sprayed on our public parks,
school playgrounds, sporting fields, and throughout our lawns and
gardens. We are told it doesn’t bio-accumulate in the body’s cells and
tissues and is excreted rapidly. We are also told that glyphosate
toxicity is dose specific. Only exceedingly high levels of the pesticide
pose any serious health risks.[12]
How factual are these
claims or are they mere propaganda to obscure scientific truths far more
deceptive and sinister? To answer that we would have to know for
certain whether or not Monsanto conducted long-term studies on
glyphosate that revealed devastating toxic effects on mammal health. We
would need evidence that their own data clearly negates their scientific
declarations, and that the company intentionally, and with forethought,
either distorted or concealed data from federal regulatory officials
and the public.
There is now an enormous
cache of evidence on both scientific and legal grounds that Monsanto in
fact conducted numerous studies in the 1970s and 1980s on glyphosate’s
toxicity and health risks and intentionally sealed this research from
independent and public review and scrutiny. As with Big Tobacco’s
proprietary claims that prevented the FDA from publicly warning
Americans about the dangers of smoking, the EPA has sat on Monsanto’s
own deleterious data for decades.
Anthony Samsel is an
independent research scientist working internationally in the interest
of public health and the environment. He is a member of the Union of
Concerned Scientists, and a former scientist and consultant at Arthur D.
Little, one of the world’s leading management consulting firms. Now
retired, Samsel has devoted much of his independent research on
Roundup’s toxicological characteristics and bioactivity. Unable to gain
access to research reports and data Monsanto submitted to the EPA
through FOIAs, he turned to his senator’s office, who assisted in the
procurement of studies and reports he sought. Months later he received a
hoard of scientific documents, over 15,000 pages worth, covering
Monsanto’s complete glyphosate research.
With his co-investigator
Dr. Stephanie Seneff at MIT the two have been reviewing Monsanto’s data.
Their conclusion is Monsanto’s claims about glyphosate’s safety are
patently false. The company has known for almost four decades that
glyphosate is responsible for a large variety of cancers and organ
failures. Clearly it was for this reason that Monsanto demanded the data
and reports to be sealed and hidden from public scrutiny as proprietary
trade secrets.
During an exclusive
interview on the Progressive Radio Network on September 4, Samsel stated
that Monsanto used an industry trick to dismiss evidence about
glyphosate’s risks in its own research. “Monsanto misrepresented the
data,” says Samsel, “and deliberately covered up data to bring the
product [glyphosate] to market.”[13]
In order to minimize and
cancel out its adverse findings, Samsel explained that Monsanto had
relied upon earlier historical animal control data, toxicological
research with lab animals afflicted with cancer and organ failures, and
completely unrelated to glyphosate. In some cases the control animals
displayed kidney, liver and pancreatic diseases. Many of Monsanto’s own
studies required the inclusion of extraneous studies in order to cancel
out damaging results. This is not an uncommon industry habit,
particularly in toxicological science. It enables corporations to mask
undesirable outcomes and make claims that observable illnesses and
disease are spontaneous occurrences without known causal factors.
Frequently, Monsanto would have to rely on three external control
studies to negate the adverse effects of a single one of its own. Samsel
found other incidences in Monsanto’s data where 5, 7 and in one case 11
unrelated studies were necessary to diminish the severity of its own
findings. In effect, glyphosate received licensure based upon a platform
of junk tobacco science. By ignoring cause and effect relationships
behind the onset of multiple cancers and other life-threatening diseases
throughout many of its research trials, Monsanto engaged in a radical
scientific denialism that has since raked in tens of billions of
dollars.
But the cache of Monsanto documents, after Samsel’s and Seneff’s review, reveals much more that we should be worried about.
In addition, Monsanto’s
studies included doses from low to high range. Samsel observed that low
glyphosate doses were equally if not more toxic than higher doses. The
company later discontinued low dose trials, relying only on higher
levels because it is customarily assumed to have greater toxicological
risks. Samsel’s observation has recently been confirmed by a study
published in the August issue of the Environmental Health Journal by
scientists at Kings College London and the University of Caen in France.
The two year study found that glyphosate administered at an ultra low
dose of 0.1 ppb (the EU’s safety limit) in drinking water altered over
4000 gene clusters in the livers and kidneys of rats. These alterations,
the study reports, “were consistent with fibrosis, necrosis,
phospholipidosis, mitochondria membrane dysfunction and ischemia.”[14]
Consequently low doses of Roundup are far more toxic than US EPA limits.
During its years
investigating glyphosate’s bioactivity, Monsanto conducted hundreds of
trials on mice, rats, beagle dogs, rabbits and other life. Among the
many cancers and diseases Monsanto’s own research found associated with
glyphosate are:
Adenoma cancer in the pituitary gland
Glioma tumors in the brain
Reticular cell sarcomas in the heart
Malignant tumors in the lungs
Salivary mandibular reticular cell carcinoma
Metastatic sarcomas of the lymph gland
Prostate carcinoma
Cancer of the bladder
Thyroid carcinoma
Adrenal reticulum cell sarcomas
Cortical adenomas
Basal cell squamous skin tumors
In female mammals there
were cancers of the lung, liver, thymus, stomach, bladder adrenal
glands, ovaries, colon, uterus, parathyroid and mammary glands.
Samsel and Seneff also
noticed that Monsanto had conducted many long-term studies, as much as
two years, on mice and rats. When Gilles-Eric Seralini and his French
team reproduced and extended the length of Monsanto’s 3-month GMO maize
rat-fed study for the life of the animals, they observed profuse cancer
and tumor development started after the 4th month of the study. Monsanto
continues to stand by its 3-month study as sufficient proof of GM
maize’s safety. Yet the thoroughness and variety of Monsanto’s research
operations should give strong reason to suspect that Monsanto has
likewise conducted long term studies and knows all too well the
deleterious effects of its pesticides, herbicides and genetically
modified crops.
One of Monsanto’s claims is
that glyphosate doesn’t bio-accumulate in tissues, rapidly bio-degrades
and is excreted from the body readily. Contrary to this claim, Monsanto
carried out meticulous studies to determine levels of accumulation and
the organs, tissues and cells glyphosate reaches. Glyphosate was radio
labeled with carbon 14 and given in 10 mg doses to seven groups of
animals, male and female. After only 24 hours, the toxic chemical was
found in the lungs and all body fluids: lymph, blood, urine and cerebral
spinal fluid. Glyphosate also accumulated in the bone by 30 ppm and in
the bone marrow by 4 ppm. Monsanto’s studies were comprehensive. It
found an accumulation of the chemical in red cells, thyroid, uterus,
colon, testes and ovaries, shoulder muscle, nasal mucosa, heart, lung,
small intestine, abdominal muscle and the eyes.
Samsel and Seneff noted
that the bioaccumuilation in the pancreas was not reported. Why would
such meticulous efforts be made to measure radio labeled carbon 14 laced
glyphosate levels in all the other organs, tissues and bodily fluids
and then ignore the pancreas? The scientists believe this was
deliberate.
Samsel notes that
glyphosate does a “particular number on the lungs.” According to a 2014
report by the National Cancer Institute, lung cancer rates have been
declining. The decline is largely due to the national decrease in
smoking. However, other lung cancers such as adenocarcinomas are on the
rise. The NCI is unable to account for this anomaly.[15] Yet the
Institute is not considering that Americans are increasingly being
exposed to glyphosate in their food, water and environment?
During the PRN interview,
Dr. Seneff stated that the pancreas may be driving glyphosate to gather
in the lungs. The pancreas is responsible for the release of the enzyme
trypsin. which in turn infiltrates the lungs. A study published by
Brazil’s Universidade Federal de Santa Maria in the medical journal
Ciencia Rural measured glyphosate’s reactivity with digestive enzymes
including trypsin. Trypsin activity was found to increase in parallel to
higher glyphosate concentrations.[16] Seneff suggests that this may be
contributing to the increase of glyphosate in the lungs that is
contributing to the dramatic rise in COPD and asthma conditions, as well
as lung cancers.
The occurrence of cataracts
is rising rapidly, particularly in Mid-Western states such as ND, SD,
NB, IA, KS, and MO. According to Prevent Blindness America’s statistics,
17% of adults over 40 years have cataract problems. The NIH projects
the rate will reach nearly 40% by 2030.[17] Monsanto’s study showing
glyphosate activity in the eye may be contributing to this epidemic. Dr.
Seneff stated that the eye’s exposure to sunlight reacts with
glyphosate residue thereby potentially making the chemical more toxic.
Farmers often apply glyphosate on crops when it is warm, moist and when
there is plenty of sunlight in order for the chemical to activate more
effectively. These are similar conditions to our eyes during the day.
Monsanto’s research was not
limited solely to the Roundup compound. It also performed extensive
research on glyphosate’s individual metabolites, the intermediate
molecules that result after Roundup’s breakdown through metabolic
reactions. Many of these metabolites are every bit as toxic as
glyphosate. All the glyphosate metabolites in solutions fed to rats were
measured before and after feeding. One of Samsel’s more disturbing
discoveries was that levels of the metabolite N-Nitrosoglyphosate (NNG)
were found in higher concentrations in the rats’ feces and urine
excretions than the original amount in the feeding solutions. NNG is a
known carcinogen and endocrine disruptor. Samsel postulates that our own
body’s natural nitrous acid reacts immediately with glyphosate, without
requiring a catalyst, to produce NNG. Both the EPA and the World Health
Organization acknowledge that NNG is present in glyphosate during the
manufacturing process. The agencies therefore have established safety
limits for NNG. However, for any endocrine disruptor, there is no
realistic safety limit because such chemical disruptors destroy cells on
a molecule to molecule basis.
Nitrous acid naturally
occurs in the colon, urinary tract and skin tissue. According to the
CDC, skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the US, and
affects more men than women. The Skin Cancer Foundation estimates that
“each year there are more new cases of skin cancer than the combined
incidence of cancers of the breast, prostate, lung and colon.”[18,19]
Basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas are the two most common forms,
both which have been identified by Monsanto with glyphosate exposure,
particularly in males. When glyphosate reacts in the skin along with
nitrous acid the metabolites NNG contributes to skin melanomas. Other
chemicals are added to Monsanto’s Roundup to increase its effectiveness
such as the surfactant POEA (polyethoxylated tallow amine), which also
increases its toxicity.
We don’t pay enough
attention to these other ingredients, Samsel states, because the EPA
permits Monsanto to add anything it wants to enhance Roundup’s potency
while identifying these substances innocuously as “inert.” When Monsanto
convinces the public that glyphosate breaks down quickly, we are not
told that the compound’s metabolic byproducts are equally toxic.
Therefore Anthony Samsel’s
unprecedented discovery and review of Monsanto’s actual scientific and
toxicological data of Roundup has provided us with information that
warrants a thoughtful pause. Samsel and Seneff cover the subject in more
detail in a new peer-reviewed paper titled “Glyphosate Pathways to
Modern Diseases IV: Cancer and Related Pathologies.” The paper has been
approved for publication in October.
During recent years dozens
of states are submitting bills to label GMO foods. These food crops are
heavily laced with glyphosate residue. Not only GM crops, but even
non-GM produce are sprayed with Roundup. According to the Organic
Consumers Association, non-organic and non-GM foods such as wheat,
barley, oats, flax, peas, lentils, beans and sugar cane are also being
sold to farmers “as a dessicant, to dry out all their crops so they
could harvest them faster.”[20] Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, Grocery
Manufacturers of America and other agro-chemical companies are
aggressively combating labeling efforts. The Big Ag lobby is today
pushing for a national bill to prevent GMO labeling that would supersede
individual state’s rights. We can only wonder what the voting outcome
in California, Colorado, Washington and Oregon may have been had
Monsanto’s own research been made available to the media and public. Is
it therefore not time for full Congressional hearings to learn the truth
once for all and make the disclosure of Monsanto’s Roundup research
public for all?
Richard Gale
is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio and a former Senior
Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries. Dr. Gary Null
is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on
nutrition and natural health and a multi-award-winning director of
progressive documentary films, including Seeds of Death about GMOs and
Poverty Inc. More at the Progressive Radio Network
Notes:
[1] Daniel Cressey. “Widely Used Herbicide Linked to Cancer” Nature. March 25, 2015
[2] RT (Russian TV). “California EPA mulls labeling Monsanto’s Roundup as being ‘known to cause cancer” September 6, 2015https://www.rt.com/usa/314544-california-epa-glyphosate-carcinogenic/
[3] Alexis Baden-Mayer, “Monsanto’s Roundup. Enough to Make You Sick” Organic Consumers Association. January 21, 2015
[4] Mary Ellen Kustin. “Glyphosate Is Spreading Like a Cancer Across the U.S.” Environmental Working Group. April 7, 2015
[5] Jack Kaskey, “Monsanto Raises Forecast as Profits Tops Estimates on Corn” Bloomberg Business, April 3, 2013.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-03/monsanto-raises-forecast-as-profit-tops-estimates-on-corn-seed
[6] Alexis Baden-Mayer, op.cit.
[7] Environmental Protection Agency “Glyphosate Fact Sheet”http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/glyphosa.pdf
[8] Environmental Protection Agency. “Basic Information about Glyphosate in Drinking Water”
[9]Zen
Honeycutt, Henry Rowlands, Lori Grace. “Glyphosate Testing Full Report:
Findings in American Mothers’ Breast Milk, Urine and Water,” Moms
Across America. April 7, 2015 http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/glyphosate_testing_results
[10] “Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement,” Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement
[11] “Monsanto Timeline of Crime 1901-2014” Children of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance. February 16, 2015.http://covvha.net/monsanto-1901-2014-timeline/
[12] EPA, “Glyphosate Fact Sheet” op cit.
[13]
Interview with Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff. Gary Null Show,
Progressive Radio Network. Broadcast on September 4, 2015. http://prn.fm/the-gary-null-show-09-04-15/
[14]
Mesnage R, Arno M, Costanzo M, Seralini G-E, Antoniou M.,
“Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage
following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure” Environmental Health
2015, 14:70 doi:10.1186/s12940-015-0056-1
[15] “Lung Cancer Fact Sheet.” American Lung Association. http://www.lung.org/lung-disease/lung-cancer/resources/facts-figures/lung-cancer-fact-sheet.html
[16]
Salbero I, Pretto A, Machado da Silva V, Loro V, Lazzari R,
Baldisserotto B. “Glyposate on digestive enzymes activity in piava
(Leporinus obtusidens). Cencia Rural Vol. 44 no. 9. September 2014.
[17] “Vision Problems in the US,” Prevent Blindness America. http://www.visionproblemsus.org/cataract/cataract-map.html
[18] Skin Cancer Foundation. “Skin Cancer Facts.” http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts
[19] “Skin Cancer Statistics,” Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/
[20] Alexis Baden-Mayer, op cit.
No comments:
Post a Comment