Monsanto Colluded With EPA, Was Unable To Prove Roundup Does Not Cause Cancer, Unsealed Court Docs Reveal

Tyler Durden's picture

If we had a dime for every kooky, left-wing theory we've heard alleging some vast corporate conspiracy to exploit the treasures of the earth, destroy the environment and poison people with unknown carcinogens all while buying off politicians to cover their tracks, we would be rich.  The problem, of course, is that sometimes the kooky conspiracy theories prove to be completely accurate.   

Lets take the case of the $60 billion ag-chemicals powerhouse, Monsanto,  and their controversial herbicide, Roundup as an example.  For those who aren't familiar, Roundup Ready is Monsanto’s blockbuster weedkiller, credited with transforming U.S. agriculture, with a majority of farm production now using genetically modified seeds resistant to the chemical. 

For years the company has assured farmers that their weed killing product was absolutely safe to use.  As proof, Monsanto touted the approval of the chemical by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

That said, newly unsealed court documents released earlier today seemingly reveal a startling effort on the part of both Monsanto and the EPA to work in concert to kill and/or discredit independent, albeit inconvenient, cancer research conducted by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)....more on this later.

But, before we get into the competing studies, here is a brief look at the 'extensive' work that Monsanto and the EPA did prior to originally declaring Roundup safe for use (hint: not much).  As the excerpt below reveals, the EPA effectively declared Roundup safe for use without even conducting tests on the actual formulation, but instead relying on industry research on just one of the product's active ingredients.

"EPA's minimal standards do not require human health data submissions related to the formulated product - here, Roundup.  Instead, EPA regulations require only studies and data that relate to the active ingredient, which in the case of Roundup is glyphosate.  As a result, the body of scientific literature EPA has reviewed is not only primarily provided by the industry, but it also only considers one part of the chemical ingredients that make up Roundup." 

Meanwhile, if that's not enough for you, Donna Farmer, Monsanto's lead toxicologist, even admitted in her deposition that she "cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer" because "[w]e [Monsanto] have not done the carcinogenicity studies with Roundup."

Monsanto

 

And just in case you're the super skeptical type, here is Farmer's actual email, from back in 2009, which seems pretty clear:

"you cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer..we have not done carcinogenicity studies with "Roundup".

Monsanto

 

And while the revelations above are quite damning by themselves, this is where things get really interesting. 

In early 2015, once it became clear that the World Health Organization's IARC was working on their own independent study of Roundup, Monsanto immediately launched their own efforts to preemptively discredit any results that might be deemed 'inconvenient'.

That said, Monsanto, the $60 billion behemoth, couldn't possibly afford the $250,000 bill that would come with conducting a legitimate scientific study led by accredited scientists.  Instead, they decided to "ghost-write" key sections of their report themselves and plotted to then have the independent scientists just "sign their names so to speak."

"A less expensive/more palatable approach might be to involve experts only for the areas of contention, epidemiology and possibly MOA (depending on what comes out of the IARC meeting), and we ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections...but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak."

Monsanto

 

Finally, when all else fails, you call in those "special favors" in Washington D.C. that you've paid handsomely for over the years. 

And that's where Jess Rowland, the EPA's Deputy Division Director for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Agency's Cancer Assessment Review Committee, comes in to assure you that he's fully exploiting his role as the "chair of the CARC" to kill any potentially damaging research..."if I can kill this I should get a medal." 

Monsanto

 

All of which begs the question of whether the D.C. swamp is just too large to be drained.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
giggler321's picture

It's called RoundUp for a reason.  People are the weeds...

Anopheles's picture

What a bunch of bullshit.

They pulled out ONE example where an idiot reseracher with a chip on his shoulder is talking nonsense.   They are trying to prove a negative.  IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.

 

Want an example?  Prove to me that god doesn't exist....  

Try another example? Prove to me that air doesn't cause cancer. 

Mimir's picture

You are just sleep walking Monsanto's argument since years.

Do some reading concerning the "precautional principle":

When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically"

 

Kefeer's picture

If you cannot see the nefarious activity in this example and note that it was done before (also noted above), then add to what is already known about the nature of government and man - well what hope is there for you to see the forest among the trees?

northern vigor's picture

Maybe anopheles is a big share holder in Monsanto? Maybe it is Bill Gates?

ThreeRs's picture

Well, hell.

 

All you have to do is the Math.

 

No really.

 

Who created Math?

 

What kind of Math does it take to set a Universe in motion, and everything in it?

 

I rest my case.

To Hell In A Handbasket's picture

Only in the USSA, would a court find against a farmer, in favour of a multinational company for patent infringement/unauthorised use/non-payment on Monsanto GMO seeds, cross pollinated by wind with the farmers non-GMO seeds and farmer told to pay Monsanto royalties,  or destroy the crop. To find the EPA colluding with Monsanto? Well, it would be more of a shock to find out they did not, such is the level of corruption in the USSA. That country is fucked, almost beyond repair.

gwar5's picture

Make Soros drink a gallon of Round-Up and put him in a TSA scanner for a few hours.

 

Kills unwanted opaque weeds. 

 

 

 

Kefeer's picture

Food Cocktail:

1 Part Roundup

1 Part GMO

Does a body good!!

Fishthatlived's picture

If the author of the article doesn't even know that Roundup is an herbicide and not a "weedkiller," why should I read the rest?

brushhog's picture

Even if they did the "studies" would you believe Monsanto's assessment of their own product? Unless its performed by a completely independent 3rd party ( if thats even possible anymore ) it's a conflict of interest.

cashtoash's picture

EPA's budget is being cut by 75-80%, all this discussion about weed killers is wastage of time and soon will not be supported by the tax dollars.

cashtoash's picture

EPA's budget is being cut by 75-80%, all this discussion about weed killers is wastage of time and soon will not be supported by the tax dollars.

baldknobber's picture

It would have been a insult and dishonor to all our Vets if we had done all that Agent Orange rsearch on them and then not brought the finished product to market

bluskyes's picture

It's a crooked game all around.

The ones that like to bitch the most about pesticides, are the ones that would neither A. Weed a crop all summer with a hoe. nor B. Pay the cost of real "organic" food production, which is at least 10x current grocery store prices. nor C. Eat imperfect food, being spotted, and containing bugs.

 

TRM's picture

10x??? Not likely. 1.5 to 2 times maybe. Yes I will pay more for certain things like grains. Even conventional crops are being sprayed with it at harvest to desicate, (kill dry evenly). Grains are the worst.

By the way I garden and weed manually.

They have knowingly poisoned the food supply. Hanging is too good for these people but it will do.

bluskyes's picture

 Growing your own food in a garden is great, I do as well, and do not spray the garden, but there's no way in heck I could make any kind of a living by growing produce. I've done the math.

ThreeRs's picture

I went no till last year.

 

No weeds. Just some Johnson grass that my weed eater takes care of.

 

The guy that farms the acres of fields around me is no till as well. Doesn't plow, doesn't spray weed killer because he doesn't have to. He grows malt barley under contract to Budweiser.

 

Just seeds the ground each year and waters.

 

Now, if we could just get Trump to stop the spraying overhead, I'd be in heaven.

 

I had the best Broccolli last year, and other things to numerous to mention. I could make a profit if I wanted to sell what I grow. I tend to give away the excess over what I need to people I like.

sinbad2's picture

Not true, I live near a hippy village, and the locals grow organic food, and sell it at the farmers market.

bluskyes's picture

Do they make a profit, or have any other sources of income? Have you verified that it is truly organic? Almost everyone claiming "organic" is cheating to gain a slight premium over "conventional"

sinbad2's picture

"Do they make a profit"

I don't know, maybe we should force them to hand over their tax returns?

Vinpocetine's picture

Monsanto Logic:

Glyphosate doesn't affect humans, but it affects plants and microbes.

 

Hey Monsanto & EPA, people don't have anything like a gut microbiome, do they?  

So, it looks like Roger McLellan is still Editor-in-Chief of Criticial Reviews in Toxicology

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=editorialBoard...

 

 

 

 

ThanksIwillHaveAnother's picture

MobilEye should make an automated weeder.   But Monsanto would not allow that.

sinbad2's picture

The USA is a company, so obviously the various Government departments work for the corporations, it's not limited to just the EPA. The FDA works for the drug companies, Defense works for the MIC, you the people are merely customers.

TRM's picture

A more accurate headline would be "Monsatano can't refute studies showing Roundup causes cancer".

Publicus's picture

We need to lay off at least 90% of the people from the EPA.

 

 

DRAIN THE SWAMP!

gm_general's picture

Every time some idiot brandishes the "Conpiracy Theory = crazy" meme I want to vomit. Allow me to present what I term my "Conspiracy vaccuum theory" - If there is money and/or power to be obtained, or if existing money and/power could potentially be lost due to some circumstance, and this situation requires more than one person to obtain the desired outcome, the situation will naturally attract a conspiracy (meaning more than one person will then collude to create the desired outcome). It's just common sense!

Dealyer Turdin's picture

Two words between them and a pitchfork, amazing what will swerve the herd innit?

bobdog54's picture

Actually almost everything causes cancer given sufficient volumes are consumed.

It's a wonder the average life span in America has increased so much over the last 200 years!

gm_general's picture

Life span increases were largely due to proper sanitation and cleaner water supplies, possibly also government support systems that are in the long run untenable. I don't think it is increasing any further of late, from what I read. What is critical to the corporation though is that you live just long enough to reproduce and provide future customers.

bobdog54's picture

Agree with your first statements, the last not so much.  I suspect that most corps are not thinking that way but would agree there is evil out there.  As I read thru the comments of this article it is clear to me that much is said without much actual knowledge.  I have not doubt that roundup and most other things can cause a cancer(s) if consumed in sufficient quantities which is the key element in a good analysis of what's what by each individual carcinogin.  Remember the bacon crisis many many years ago, that was one side of the emotional fervor and then there was the infamous thalidomide crisis which was the opposite result - one being bullshit and the other being a horror beyond one's imagination.  So where is roundup, that's what I want to know without all the emotion, just the science...

 

bobdog54's picture

Agree with your first statements, the last not so much.  I suspect that most corps are not thinking that way but would agree there is evil out there.  As I read thru the comments of this article it is clear to me that much is said without much actual knowledge.  I have not doubt that roundup and most other things can cause a cancer(s) if consumed in sufficient quantities which is the key element in a good analysis of what's what by each individual carcinogin.  Remember the bacon crisis many many years ago, that was one side of the emotional fervor and then there was the infamous thalidomide crisis which was the opposite result - one being bullshit and the other being a horror beyond one's imagination.  So where is roundup, that's what I want to know without all the emotion, just the science...

 

Road Hazard's picture

Has the WHO ever looked into the long term health effects from oh I dunno...... exposure to melted, nuclear cores leaking poison into the Pacific ocean 24x7 until the end of time?

And wasn't it the EPA, faced with ever increasing amount of radiation from Fukushima, that just kept raising the limits on what is considered "safe"?

Glad they're keeping the citizens best interests at heart.

If these organizations aren't doing what's in their charters, why even have them around?