Poison Watch
See other Poison Watch Articles
Title: Monsanto knew 35 years ago that its glyphosate-soaked ‘food’ causes cancer
Source:
Intellihub
URL Source: https://www.intellihub.com/monsanto ... ate-soaked-food-causes-cancer/
Published: May 14, 2015
Author: Ethan A. Huff | Natural News
Post Date: 2015-05-15 22:57:51 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 6839
Comments: 17
Key data outlining the toxicity of glyphosate (Roundup) was recently uncovered, revealing that Monsanto knew about the cancer-causing effects of its best-selling herbicide more than 35 years ago, as did the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and yet neither entity chose to make this information known in the interest of public health. One of the ways that Monsanto covered up the true dangers associated with glyphosate was to substantially reduce the amount of the chemical given to study rats. Now-exposed EPA memos reveal that test rats in the new studies were suddenly being given only 1/100 of the amount of glyphosate given in earlier studies, with no explanation.
Both Monsanto and the EPA knew full well, at least as early as 1981, that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, causes cancer in mammals. Earlier studies conducted during the late 1970s and early 1980s appear to have documented cancer-causing effects from glyphosate in rats, mice and dogs, though this information was buried by Monsanto with the blessing of the EPA.
Using “trade secrets” as an excuse to keep the findings of these studies confidential, Monsanto successfully cherry picked and manipulated its cohort of study data to suggest that glyphosate was safe, and the rest is history. Except that previously hidden memoranda that have since come to light reveal a whole lot more about the true nature of this pervasive chemical pesticide.
According to Sustainable Pulse, uncovered EPA memos from the early 1980s point to research showing that glyphosate caused significant damage to the kidneys of rats. These same studies also noted hyperplasia in the rats, which is considered a very early and necessary step in the formation of cancerous tumors.
In 1981, the EPA scrutinized this data and pressed Monsanto for more information before granting a NOEL, or “no observed adverse effect level,” for glyphosate. But less than one year later, Monsanto successfully obfuscated the data and convinced the EPA that glyphosate was safe under the guise that conflicting data was suddenly a “trade secret.”
“The evidence shows that by 1981 both Monsanto and the EPA were aware of malignant tumours and pre-cancerous conditions in the test animals which were fed small doses of glyphosate in the secret feeding experiments,” said Dr. Brian John for GM-Free Cymru, about the facts.
“Although concerns were expressed at the time by EPA committees, these concerns were later suppressed under the weight of conflicting evidence brought forward by Monsanto, some of it involving the inappropriate use of historical control data of dubious quality. None of these studies is available for independent examination.”Monsanto hid glyphosate dangers by substantially reducing exposure levels in test mice
A 1986 EPA memo admitted that this was a curious move by Monsanto, adding that the glyphosate doses tested were nowhere near the “maximally tolerated dose.” If the glyphosate doses had remained the same, remarked the then Oncogenicity Peer Review Committee, “tumours might have been induced.”
“The effect of glyphosate on endocrine tissue such as breast and prostate, or even placenta, is disruptive at least and an increased incidence of endocrine neoplasia is likely to be seen in National Statistics,” added retired academic pathologist Dr. Stanley Ewen, noting that glyphosate’s association with pre-neoplastic changes in experimental mice were never revealed as they should have been.
“The Glyphosate Task Force denies the involvement of glyphosate in human malignancy despite their knowledge of many reports of lymphomas and pituitary adenomas in experimental animals dosed with glyphosate.”
The tobacco industry, as you may recall, never really recovered from its shameful legacy of lying to the public about the safety of cigarettes. But Monsanto’s massive cover-up of glyphosate’s cancer-causing effects takes evil to a whole new level, as the multinational corporation not only lied about the herbicide’s safety but actively manipulated a federal agency tasked with protecting public health in the process.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Sue them and put them out of business.
I think you miss the point of the article: government bureaucracy was in-bed with private industry. You can't sue Mother-Nature ... or didn't you know?
and Congress and yet none chose to make this information known in the interest of public health.
Sue? Go before the same men and women dressed in black that draw their paychecks from the same g0vt that has been protecting monsanto since before agent orange in Nam? Sorry my friend, but suing will do nothing but suck up scarce resources and make the lawyers richer.
Choose the venue carefully. Sue them in federal court in Vermont.
Was? What changed? Why was this study released? What happened?
I have this garden. Every year I have problems with these morning glories. This year I rounded up the whole field. A few times to kill everything. Now I have it tilled up since last Sunday. There are now hundreds if not thousands of these damned morning glories popping up. I started hitting them with Round up again on Thursday. Then Friday there are even more popping up. So I've been going around spraying a little bit on everything popping up. I plan on doing the same today. I usually have it planted by now but I was delaying to reduce the weeds this year. Despite this article I will go spray some more today. Then I'll probably put some black or red plastic down to keep the weeds out. Morning glories suck.
Apparently they do.
How did you not know they are truly noxious weeds? Too bad you didn't have to reap what you sowed.
Prolific beautiful flowers - not 'noxious weeds'.
Why don't you just plant some bindweed if you like agricultural hazards that much? They have pretty white flowers.
Your bindweed flowers look very similar to moonflowers...
That just makes me want to get out my sprayer and mix up some 2-4-D so I can "water" them. Bindweed and morning glory, once established for a few years, can take 25 years or more of steady eradication to kill out their root systems. You can use stuff like Tordon to get more time before they come back but then you have put some pretty toxic stuff into the ground where your well water comes from. Pretty flowers, my ass.
I'm spraying and spraying and they are popping up and popping up. I'm going to get some platic. It works.
Certainly, in a garden/flower/shrub area, it works better unless you're willing to spray very carefully under the right weather conditions and keep spraying steadily for 10, 15, 25 years (depending on how deep the roots are). For home/garden, the plastic is almost certainly the best. The idiotic town I'm in has allowed bindweed to grow all over the place and done nothing but mow it (which only spreads it faster). It's a disaster. Anyone with a farming outlook is just horrified by it when the "pretty flowers" start blooming. It's shocking negligence.
LOL!
Okay, okay - to heck with dang 'pretty flowers' -
#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
Sue them and put them out of business.
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
Key data outlining the toxicity of glyphosate (Roundup) was recently uncovered, revealing that Monsanto knew about the cancer-causing effects of its best-selling herbicide more than 35 years ago, as did the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ...
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
Sue them and put them out of business.
#5. To: BobCeleste (#4)
#6. To: buckeroo (#2)
"government bureaucracy was in-bed with private industry."
#7. To: Deckard (#0)
#8. To: A K A Stone (#7)
Morning glories suck.
I planted a bunch of 'Heavenly Blue' MG seeds decades ago.
They were beautiful! And now they are the problem of the person
I sold that house to. (Boy do those suckers grow! Whew!) 
#9. To: Chuck_Wagon (#8)
#10. To: TooConservative (#9)
Goodness!
#11. To: Chuck_Wagon (#10)
#12. To: TooConservative (#11)
#13. To: Chuck_Wagon (#12)
#14. To: TooConservative (#13)
#15. To: A K A Stone (#14)
I'm going to get some platic. It works.
#16. To: TooConservative (#13)
Pretty flowers, my ass.
#17. To: TooConservative (#13)
we'll just stck with lavender azaleas instead - okay? (Geesh...) %20of%20lavender
%20azalea.jpg)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]