It was 2015 when the International Agency for Research on Cancer( IARC) determined glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, as a probable human carcinogen. 1
Since then, Bayer, which in 2018 acquired Monsanto and all of their Roundup-related legal difficulties, has faced jury decisions worth a combined $2.4 billion from people who alleged that exposure to glyphosate justification their cancer, solely non-Hodgkin lymphoma. 2
In June 2020, Bayer agreed to pay between $8.8 billion and $9.1 billion to settle 125,000 Roundup disputes that have been filed, which account for about 75% of the Roundup/ cancer suits. 3 Another $1.25 billion was to be set aside by Bayer to cover future Roundup claims, but despite the settlement — the largest in Big Pharma history — Bayer declared no immorality. 4
Through all of the high-profile lawsuits, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency remained steadfast in the support services of glyphosate. In an assessment on glyphosate, the final draft of which was released in April 2019, the EPA felt the chemical “is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”5
It turns out, nonetheless, that a hidden EPA report from 2016 spot the opposite — that glyphosate did appear to be linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. 6
Internal EPA Report Links Glyphosate to Cancer
The freshly exhausted confidential EPA report7 was included in an flaunt by investigative reporter Sharon Lerner in The Intercept, who wrote :8
“The internal report which was marked “confidential, ” found that the four highest-quality studies’ all reported hoisted threats of NHL associated with exposure to glyphosate even after controlling for other pesticide exposures’ and concluded that research studies’ require indicative evidence of carcinogenic capacity between glyphosate revelation and increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.’
But the EPA never published this clear expression of concern. Instead, it subsequently exhausted the reporting of 2016 and 2017 that clearly reaped on the earlier paper — various slice have identical wording — but reached the opposite conclusion: that glyphosate is’ not a probable carcinogen.’”
Lerner spoke with Genna Reed, a senior adviser at the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientist, who stated that the EPA cherry-picked data from the internal report. “They only employed the pieces of the meta-analysis that fit the conclusion they wanted to support … There is obviously a need for more firewalls to prevent political interference with the science.”9
Internal Report May Support Glyphosate Proposition 65 Appeal
Not simply did the EPA continue to support glyphosate’s safety for years after the internal report disclosed evidence indicative of its carcinogenicity, but they croaked so far as to block warning labels in California when the state announced today that it missed warning labels on it within the state. 10
As background information, glyphosate was officially added to California’s Proposition 65 schedule of carcinogens in July 2017, and warning labels stating that glyphosate may cause cancer were supposed to be added to makes beginning in the summer of 2018.
The descriptions, however, were halted when Monsanto challenged the California rule in court. In February 2018, a federal referee temporarily boycotted California’s plans to add cancer warning labels on glyphosate-based makes, 11 which the EPA subsequently backed up.
Then, in August 2019, the EPA stated they will “no longer approve commodity labels claiming glyphosate is known to cause cancer, ” adding that that is “a false claim that is not encounter the labeling requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act( FIFRA ). ”1 2
In 2020, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra registered an appeal to challenge the EPA ruling, and it’s possible that the uncovered report may act in the appeal’s favor. According to Sustainable Pulse: 13
“Now, with the brand-new internal report denying EPA’s public findings — which the Court used as the basis to not require a Prop 65 warning for glyphosate — the request can gather the carpet out from under the assertion that there is no evidence glyphosate is a carcinogen.”
Bayer to End Residential Sales of Glyphosate
The EPA, unwavering in their endorsement of glyphosate, re-registered the chemical for another 15 years in 2020.14 Bayer, however, appears to have grown attentive after the cloudburst of lawsuits.
In July 2021, they announced they would be halting suburban sales of its glyphosate-based products in the lawn and garden grocery with “new formulations that are dependent upon alternative active ingredients starting in 2023. ”1 5 They met sure to point out that the sales will be stopped for solely litigation purposes: 16
“This move is being made alone to manage litigation risk and not because of any safety concerns. As the vast majority of claims in the prosecution come from Lawn& Garden market consumers, this action mainly eliminates the primary source of future asserts beyond an presupposed latency season. There will be no change in the availability of the company’s glyphosate formulations in the U.S. professional and agricultural markets.”
It’s a positive step in the right direction, but glyphosate will still be available for agricultural marketplaces, which becomes up a significant portion of its utilization, and going to be able be sprayed in academies, parks and other public settings.
Farmers may apply glyphosate to agricultural crops such as genetically engineered soybeans at a rate of 0.75 pounds to 1.5 pounds per acre, 17 developing serious environmental and public health concerns. Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety , was contained in a news release: 18
“Bayer’s decision to end U.S. residential sale of Roundup is a historic victory for public health and the environment. As agricultural, large-scale use of this toxic pesticide continues, our farmworkers remain at risk. It’s time for EPA to act and restrict glyphosate for all uses.”
Journalist Disinvited From Media Ag Conference
Carey Gillam, an investigative correspondent, was invited to speak at the Agriculture Media Summit in Kansas City, an occasion for agriculture and livestock novelists. With lengthy know on using data obtained via Freedom of Information Act( FOIA) seeks, Gillam was asked to do a proposal about pursuing FOIA request.
However, once her list appeared on the agenda, the sponsors — which included Big Ag calls like Syngenta, Corteva and Koch — pushed back and said they did not want her to speak. Gillam had recently written an article for The Guardian about Syngenta potentially misinterpreting data relating to their paraquat weedkiller. 19
Gillam is the author of “Whitewash — The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science, ” and has previously gone on record about how Monsanto tried to discredit her for writing critical cases about the company and its harmful makes. 20 In an interrogation with The Disinformation Chronicle, Gillam spoke about the significant influence of firms on the media and their role in spreading disinformation and censorship: 21
“We’re seeing this more and more with corporate money at play in journalism powwows. Two years ago, I wrote about Bayer striving force within the Foreign Press Association and the Foreign Press Foundation.
I had internal documents that showed that, in exchange for very generous donations, Bayer would be involved in setting agendas for journalistic conferences and getting a say in award champions. They were going to pick what kind of stories are applauded and promoted.”
Going even deeper, internal documents from Monsanto’s “intelligence fusion center” exposed a strategic response aimed to discredit writers or anyone who they regarded a threat by bringing in third-party participates. 22 “They’ve done this to both researchers and many other journalists.
A key lesson is a front group that calls itself the American Council on Science and Health. These radicals do the dirty work so a company can show above the fray, ” Gillam said. 23
Playing’ Whack a Mole’ in Disinformation Campaigns
Gillam shared three internal Monsanto documents with The Disinformation Chronicle, which detail the company’s game plan for shaping sure their narrative — and their narrative simply — is heard. The first, designation “Let Nothing Go, ” means that every negative news story or social media announce must be countered.
“Anywhere that anything compromising or negative about this corporation might show, they required person on their team or a third party to counter it, ” Gillam said. “This is why they needed so many different actors around the world to be constantly monitoring social media. This continues to happen.”2 4
The use of third-party participates like the American Council on Science and Health is preferable, since it removes Monsanto( or now Bayer) from those discussions, which would clearly be biased, and starts it seem as though safety commodities are coming from independent sources.
The second substantiate, “Whack a Mole, ” is a nod to “whacking down anybody who is raising any questions or concerns or pointing to any potential problems with Monsanto.”2 5 Monsanto’s so-called “stakeholder mapping project”2 6 was first uncovered in France, but Monsanto likely had various indices to track beings in countries throughout Europe.
The hit lists contained hundreds of figures and other personal information about columnists, politicians and scientists, including their sentiments about pesticides and genetic engineering. 27 Gillam justified: 28
“This is what they were doing and they secured is not simply professors, but dieticians and nutritionists. Parties who have some expert and look independent, but they’re out to whack down anyone who has Monsanto doesn’t like.”
The third document references “Project Spruce, ” an internal code name for Monsanto’s defense directive to protect the company against all realized threats to its business, 29 including claims that Roundup justifications cancer.
“Through Project Spruce they worked with a third party in a deep, coordinated effort to smear, disrepute and try to shut down the concerns that Roundup movements cancer, ” Gillam said. 30
Equally disturbing, she says that internal reports too expose Monsanto’s efforts to manipulate search engine optimization on Google. As an example, she said that anyone searching for information on her diary on Google would instead be directed to negative publicity affixed by the Monsanto-directed third parties. 31
Disinformation Is the New Normal
We’re living through a experience when access to independent information and science is getting increasingly more difficult to find. If you want to learn about the real health risks of herbicides like glyphosate or pesticides also is set out in the ag business, you can’t rely on Bayer or the EPA but, very, must dig beneath the surface.
It’s an inauspiciou detail but a significant one, and it applies not only to information about herbicides, fungicides and pesticides but virtually any topic of significance. Gillam knows this all too well, and she offers the following advice for anyone endeavouring the truth: 32
“If you’re a book, you just have to make everything with a grain of salt and do your best to check, and double check, and triple check it. Go instantly to the source.
Look up and read research papers for yourself, and try to see if the source of information you’re relying on has some controversial ties-in that may bias the information … This is a really frightening age of disinformation, and we all have to be very careful and prudent when we are trying to discern the truth.”
Read more: articles.mercola.com