So, you’ve probably heard earlier this month about the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer announcing that “glyphosate”, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s line of pesticides, is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
The research was published in The Lancet Oncology and relies on studies conducted on the chemical over the last few decades.
A working group of the IARC, based in Lyon, France, said after reviewing scientific literature it was classifying glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
Now, Monsanto (maker of the world’s most widely used herbicide, Roundup) wants the WHO to retract this report by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. Surprise, surprise.
So, when findings show something is safe (meaning FDA or EPA passed an ingredient in question after most-likely being paid-off), companies like Monsanto are tickled pink. But when actual science is released declaring the dangers of their ingredients on humans, they want to meet with the scientists and the organization that conducted the study.
Round-up (Monsanto’s product) has been linked to cancer for a long time. This isn’t the first time it’s been made public. But it’s the first time a huge organization like WHO admits it. And because of the great inter-web, it’s gone public. Really, really public.
The company (Monsanto) said last week that the report was biased and “contradicts regulatory findings that the ingredient, glyphosate, is safe when used as labeled.”
During an interview, Philip Miller, vice president of global regulatory affairs at Monsanto said: “We question the quality of the assessment….The WHO has something to explain.”
Miller said the company wants a retraction and Monsanto officials have asked to meet with WHO and IARC.
Miller claims that Monsanto provided scientific data to the IARC showing the safety of glyphosate, but that the agency largely ignored it. (So, when they ignore data showing the harmful effects of their product, it’s ok then?)
The Environmental Protection Agency (which can ban the use of products and ingredients) is currently reviewing the ingredient in question. Miller said the IARC report should not affect this review. Yes, that’s right. Should NOT affect this review. (*sigh*).
However, as part of the review process, the EPA said it would look at the WHO report. (I wonder if they would have looked at it if all this hadn’t come up?)
Since Monsanto introduced it in the 1990’s, Farmers have been using glyphosate in increasing quantities.
Because farmers have been able to kill weeks so easily and effortlessly, “Roundup Ready” corn, soybeans and other crops are popular today. What we’re seeing now are weeds that have developed resistance to glyphosate. This is bad for so many reasons… Not to mention the fact that farmers need to use more and more herbicide.
The scientists behind study say they stand behind their assessment. Monsanto executives said they are reviewing their options as they move forward.
The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published their study of glyphosate on March 20, finding that the popular herbicide may contribute to non-hodgkins lymphoma.
This is all closely related to GMOs. Because crops such as corn, soybeans have to be specifically modified to survive the herbicide (which has also been found in water, food and the air we breathe).
So, we can see now why Monsanto will resort to lying and cheating to get their product approved and sold — they are so heavily invested in the success of the chemical.
The safety of glyphosate when used as directed, has been backed by the United States and other countries…even if the IARC report cited studies that raised concerns about glyphosate and impacts on health.
Is it a surprise that Monsanto says such studies are invalid?
Some study’s are shut out, ignored…while others praised. Who know where funding comes from for any of them.
That’s the very reason we cannot trust most studies conducted (products like this, medications, even vaccines are re-called all the time).
So, is it one big human experiment?
“There are a number of independent, published manuscripts that clearly indicate that glyphosate … can promote cancer and tumor growth,” said Dave Schubert, head of the cellular neurobiology laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. “It should be banned.”
My rule of thumb has always been common sense. If something can kill one organism, perhaps it’s harmful to others? Is everything manufactured in a lab harmful? Most likely not, but we still prefer to consume and use products made by nature.
Or as close to nature as possible.