Activist Post
Monsanto-funded research has been proliferating as uncontrollably as their genetically modified (GM) plants, and the bugs increasingly resistant to them.
Two studies have appeared in scientific journals in the past eight months, both funded by Monsanto, and both discrediting a Roundup herbicide-cancer link.[i] [ii]
The context within which these new studies are appearing is the growing body of experimental research indicating that the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, along with the surfactants and related "inactive" ingredients found within glyphosate-based formulations, cause genetic damage associated with cancer initiation, and at levels far below those used agricultural applications and associated with real-world exposures.[iii] [iv] [v] [vi] [vii]
This has put manufacturers and proponents of glyphosate, as well as "Roundup Ready" GM plants in a vulnerable position.
If, the precautionary principle is employed and a much-needed reclassification of glyphosate as a class III carcinogen to a class II or I occurs, the increasingly global dominance of GM-based food crop systems will come to a screeching, regulation-induced halt.
So, given the threat posed by non-industry funded research on glyphosate’s toxicity, Monsanto has been putting money into research and development -- but not in the reputable sense of the phrase -- bypaying for research to develop the storyline that, despite damning research to contrary, Roundup is still safe.
The newest study, published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology titled, "Epidemiologic studies on glyphosate and cancer: A review," declared its glaring conflict of interest in the following manner:
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors have disclosed the funding source for this research. JSM [study author] has served has a paid consultant to Monsanto Company. Final decisions regarding the content of the manuscript were made solely by the four authors.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MissouriEven if no such a conflict was explicitly declared, industry-funded research is almost exclusively positive, minimizing or denying harms to exposed populations associated with the products they are evaluating.
A salient example is the recent summary of 176 studies by Baker[viii] which found that published research looking into the impact of Bisphenol A on human health resulted in exclusively pro-industry findings:
Funding Harm No Harm
Industry 0 13 (100%)
Independent (e.g. government) 152 (86%) 11 (14%)
Adding to the problem, the editorial boards of some of the journals within which the questionable science is printed are populated by paid consultants of the very industries they publish ostensibly impartial research on.
For example, the editor of the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology withinwhich latest Monsanto-funded glyphosate-cancer review was published, Gio Batta Gori, is notorious for being a tobacco industry consultant and for publishing junk science in his journal, which has been called: "A Scientific Journal with Industrial Bias as Its Specialty."His journal published research in 2003, provided by the same company, Exponent, which employs three of the researchers who authored the latest glyphosate-cancer study, as well as one author on the 2011 glyphosate-cancer study, on the purported non-carcinogenicity of dioxin, a highly toxic ingredient in Agent Orange.
Given these obvious conflicts of interest, from the bottom up and the top down, the time has come for people to enact reform with their dollars and their forks, and when worthwhile ballot initiatives emerge, their votes.
#1: Stop buying anything not explicitly labeled non-GMO or certified organic, which amounts to the same assurance.
#2: Grow it yourself, or support local organic growers.
#3: Support the California Ballot Initiative to label GMOs.
Notes:
[i] Developmental and reproductive outcomes in humans and animals after glyphosate exposure: a critical analysis. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2012 ;15(1):39-96.
[ii] Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and non-cancer health outcomes: a review. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011 Nov ;61(2):172-84. Epub 2011 Jul 21.
[iii] Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Boulben, S., Hureau, D., Durand, G., and Belle, R. 2002. Pesticide Roundup provokes cell division dysfunction at the level of CDK1/cyclin
B activation. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 15: 326–31.
[iv] Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Durand, G., and Belle, R. 2003. Embryonic cell cycle for risk
assessment of pesticides at the molecular level. Environnemental. Chemistry. letters. 1: 8–12.
[v] Marc, J., Belle, R., Morales, J., Cormier, P., and Mulner-Lorillon, O. 2004a. Formulated
glyphosate activates the DNA-response checkpoint of the cell cycle leading to the
prevention of G2/M transition. Toxicol. Sci. 82: 436–42
[vi] Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., and Belle, R. 2004b. Glyphosate-based pesticides affect
cell cycle regulation. Biol. Cell. 96: 245–49.
[vii] Marc, J., Le Breton, M., Cormier, P., Morales, J., Belle, R., and Mulner-Lorillon, O. 2005.
A glyphosate-based pesticide impinges on transcription. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.
203:1–8.
[viii] Baker, Nena (2008). The Body Toxic. North Point Press. p. 142. [cited from Lessig 2011, p. 25 Lay summary].
This article first appeared at GreenMedInfo. Please visit to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health.
BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW
10 comments:
The cancer rate in the U.S. is very well tracked and the data is available to anyone. There has not been an increase in most cancers with smoking caused lung cancer being the main exception. If roundup caused cancers it would be obvious, there would be an increase in one or multiple cancers. There is none. It would make sense to first determine that there is an increase and then look for the cause. These pseudo scientists are identifying things they want to prove cause cancer and then designing their research to find spurious data that could be construed to prove their thesis.
Yes. Let that be a lesson to you all. The Monsanto shill has spoken.
Corporate LIARS...Sounds like the denials from the Tobacco industry in the 70's. Did anyone with working brain cells expect them to admit it??
You do understand how science works don't you? The process is kind of a cause and effect relationship where the scientists looks for evidence of both. If Roundup caused cancer (the cause) then the rate of cancer would drastically increase after the introduction of roundup (the effect) and the evidence would be there for all to see. Take smoking for example: Clearly the rate of lung cancer in smokers skyrocketed. A clear cut case of cause and effect. But what have we done about it? Nothing much or at least nothing much that was effective. Perhaps 3 million lung cancer deaths worldwide per year and what has the government done??? They raised taxes so they could profit by the sale of cigarettes. Why wouldn't they ban cigarettes? Sure you can cite prohibition but seriously 3 million deaths a year and they don't even give it a try!! But YOU want to prohibit roundup, a highly beneficial chemical that arguably allows us to feed the 7 trillion people on earth with ZERO evidence of even a single death. If you gave a shit about cancer or premature deaths you would be advocating to eliminate tobacco. SO I suspect this has nothing to do with cancer or saving lives it is all about some fantasy world you live in where Monsanto is the bad guy and no lie is too big for you if you can stop them.
It is only logical to a thinking mind that something that kills, whether it kills a plant or an insect, will, at the very least, disrupt and change any living thing. To even presume that these herbisides and pesticides are not harmful to all living things is just foolishness. Everyone wants to take the "easy way out". Just hire one person to poison the plants that are a bother instead of hiring a person to weed the garden. It sounds easier and more cost effective. But in the long run, it will come to light, that they have not only been sold a lie, but they have lost their healthy food supply, their clean water, their clean air as well as their independence and their very lives.
If this shit is as good for us as they claim, they have no problem with us liberally sprinking it on their salad bars and water supplies near monsanto facilities...
I mean, it's "good" for you...
lung cancer from cigarettes is predominately caused by radiation in the fertilizer that stimulates the tobacco growth and not from the smoke. it embeds itself at the nodes of all of the channels in the lungs. many people got lung cancer (including donna summer) after the world trade center collapse, not from the dust but from the radiation (from the embedded nuclear devices, but that's another story).
still, roundup is NOT safe, and cancer is not the only outcome of eating glyphosphate. how many people now have gluten allergies or intolerance that once did not? how has our general body shape changed over the course of this dreadful experiment called GMO 'farming'?
i am sure monsanto is VERY careful to tip the data and to slowly build its processes to stipulate exactly that people aren't getting cancer from them, but from something else.
there is a war on reproductive abilities, it is a coordinated effort, our bodies accumulate so many toxic chemicals just from living in this increasingly irradiated and toxified environment that was once a healthy biosphere.
monsanto has so much influence on the government, who is to say that they're not behind spraying chemtrails, especially when they develop genes that are resistant to the aluminum salts in them?
regardless of whether or not glyphosphate is carcinogenic, it is still toxic and is fabricated exclusively to kill cells. since i switched to eating solely organic food numerous maladies have disappeared. no more palpitations for instance. monsanto typifies neo-liberalist evil, the argument that we have to feed the world is an excuse to destroy sustainable agricultural systems and implement naked capitalism the world over. abu ghraib was once the largest seed bank in iraq until order 81 destroyed it and allowed the patenting of genomes (and then the necessary selling of fertilizers, pesticides and seeds to allow the toxic food to grow). the implementation of biowarfare to systematically cripple sustainable systems was first introduced by kissinger in the 70s. we know, monsanto, and we're not eating or buying your dead food any longer.
The Monsanto-funded review actually covered the entire spectrum of human studies (observational)that link glyphosate exposure and cancer -- there were 15 -- so to the Monsanto shill, you have no clue.
"many people got lung cancer (including donna summer) after the world trade center collapse, not from the dust but from the radiation (from the embedded nuclear devices".
Key the eerie music and fuzzy pictures of space aliens. Seriously it's time for another visit to your psychiatrist.
I can understand their logic perfectly. For instance, when restaurants had smoking and non-smoking sections, the smoke never bothered anyone in the non-smoking section because the smoke knew it wasn't supposed to go there. And it's the same with Roundup.
Post a Comment