by Tyler Durden
Monsanto Colluded with EPA - Was Unable to Prove Roundup Does Not
Unsealed Court Docs Reveal
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
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
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
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)...
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
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."
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" because "we have not done
carcinogenicity studies with Roundup".
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
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
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."
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."
All of which begs the question of whether the D.C. swamp
is just too large to be drained...