Protecting Monsanto
A German study1 published in 2012 showed that even those with no direct
agricultural contact have significant concentrations of glyphosate in their urine
concentrations ranging from five to 20 times the permissible limit for glyphosate
in German drinking water.
In its defense, Monsanto has relied heavily on the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) determination that the chemical is "not likely to be carcinogenic"
to humans a decision issued on September 12, 2016. 8 But just how objective
was the EPA in its evaluation of the available science?
"The filing,12 made [February 27, 2017] by plaintiff's attorneys, includes what the
attorneys represent to be correspondence from a 30-year career EPA scientist
accusing top-ranking EPA official Jess Rowland of playing 'your political
conniving games with the science' to favor pesticide manufacturers such as
Monsanto.
Rowland oversaw the EPA's cancer assessment for glyphosate and was a key
author of a report finding glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic.
Monsanto has also filed a court brief arguing the IARC classification of
glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen should be disregarded as irrelevant
in these cases. According to Monsanto, the IARC's approach is "less rigorous"
than the EPA's, and its conclusions are "scientifically unreliable."
Moreover, Monsanto claims "neither the views of IARC or EPA are necessarily
relevant to the general causation issue of the litigation because plaintiffs will
need to present admissible expert testimony showing the company's products in
fact caused their cancers," The Huffington Post writes.
The EPA is not alone in aiding and abetting the chemical technology industry. On
February 9, House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced the
"Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017" (H.R. 985), 14 which opponents
warn would make it nearly impossible for the average person to challenge a
company in court.
According to Joanne Doroshow, executive director of the Center for Justice and
Democracy: "The bill is designed to ensure that no class action could ever be
brought or litigated for anyone. It would obliterate civil rights, antitrust, consumer,
essentially every class action in America."
For example, the bill would require counsel for a plaintiff to submit sufficient
verification of the allegations within 45 days of filing the civil action.
This deadline cannot be extended, and if the judge decides the evidentiary
support is insufficient, the civil action is to be dismissed without prejudice. The
class action must also prove that each class member "suffered the same type
and scope of injury as the named class representative or representatives."
Ironically, the bill would also require all class members to prove they have no
conflicts of interest in the case.
Scientific Consensus Statement on Glyphosate
Initial toxicity testing by the industry itself suggested these formulations posed
low risks to non-target species, mammals and human health. As a result, high
acceptable exposure limits were set worldwide. Limits were raised even higher to
accommodate increased usage on genetically engineered (GE), herbicide-
tolerant crops.
Since 1974, 1.8 million tons of glyphosate have been applied to U.S. fields; two-
thirds of that volume has been sprayed in the last 10 years. 17 Between 1974 and
2014, 9.4 million tons of glyphosate were used worldwide.
However, the scientific evidence that has emerged over the past decade "point to
the need for a fresh look at glyphosate toxicity."
2. Glyphosate and its metabolites are widely present in the global soybean
supply
The paper recommends investing in more studies "that draw on the principles of
endocrinology to determine whether the effects of GBHs are due to endocrine
disrupting activities." This recommendation arose from findings that glyphosate
displays hormone-disrupting effects in some experiments, and many endocrine
disrupting (ED) chemicals are known to affect human health even at minute
levels.
For example, in one recent animal study,18 Roundup was found to cause fatty
liver disease at 0.1 parts per billion (ppb) in drinking water, which is 14,000 times
lower than the concentration permitted in U.S. drinking water (700 ppb). At this
dose, the daily intake level of glyphosate amounted to 4 nanograms per kilogram
of bodyweight per day, which is 437,500 times below the permitted intake level in
the U.S.
This is said to be the first study to present a causative link between dietary
exposure to Roundup and serious disease, and endocrine disruption is one of the
proposed mechanisms. Disturbingly, previous tests showing glyphosate levels in
urine suggest Americans have a daily intake of glyphosate that is about 1,000-
fold higher than the level found to cause fatty liver disease in rats.
This task force warns that the health effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals is
such that everyone needs to take proactive steps to avoid them especially
those seeking to get pregnant, pregnant women and young children, as even
extremely low-level pesticide exposures have been found to considerably
increase the risk of certain diseases.
For example, evidence25 suggests endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) play a
role in obesity, diabetes-related non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, reduced fertility,
hormone-sensitive cancers, thyroid diseases and neurodevelopmental diseases.
According to GM Watch:26
"Scientists have calculated that in the U.S. alone, pesticide EDs cause some
7,500 annual serious disability cases and generate annual medical and lost work
costs of about $45 billion. A study (covering some EDC-associated diseases
within the [EU] puts annual costs to health services within this region at 150
billion per annum and some $340 billion in the U.S."
The author of that GM Watch article, Ramon Seidler, Ph.D., a retired senior
research scientist and team leader of the Genetically Engineered Organism
biosafety program at the EPA, concludes:
"It is long past time for the U.S. Congress to change the rules that now require
industry to study and report risk evaluations to regulators prior to sale of new
chemicals. Realities dictate that the opposite should be the case; i.e., regulators
and government or academic scientists should conduct and study chemical
safety parameters and report the independent results to industry. Funding for
such determinations could come from an industry registration tax for each
chemical being registered ...
Today we need to know why the U.S. EPA and other regulators around the world
continue to make what many scientists and members of the public feel are
decisions that lack common sense. In the U.S., I believe that we need publicly
visible, politically courageous investigations within regulatory agencies, perhaps
conducted by the Office of Inspector General, to attempt resolution of these
crucial matters "
Glyphosate is most heavily applied on GE corn, soybeans and sugar beets, but
it's also commonly used to desiccate conventional (non-GMO but non-organic)
wheat and protect other conventional crops from weeds. Glyphosate and
Roundup may be even worse than DDT, having been linked to an ever-growing
array of health effects, including:27 28
,