U.S. EPA Uses Fake Sci­ence to Claim Glyphosate Safe

Trillions - - In This Issue -

The en­tirely cor­rupt and crim­i­nally in­sane En­vi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency (EPA) just re­leased its lat­est in-depth fraud to show that glyphosate, the toxic her­bi­cide in Mon­santo’s Roundup, should cause hu­man be­ings lit­tle harm, which com­pletely con­tra­dicts vast num­bers of well-de­signed in­de­pen­dent stud­ies pub­lished in peer-re­viewed jour­nals and the EPA'S own sci­en­tists. The EPA is pro­mot­ing its fraud on the ba­sis of fake sci­ence pro­vided by the agro­chem­i­cal in­dus­try.

Roundup, the deadly her­bi­cide that in­cludes glyphosate as its ac­tive in­gre­di­ent, is the sin­gle most broadly used her­bi­cide in the world. An es­ti­mated 300 mil­lion pounds of it are ap­plied across agri­cul­tural lands in the United States alone ev­ery year.

On De­cem­ber 4, 2017, the EPA, which seems to have lost both its di­rec­tion and its soul un­der the cur­rent lead­er­ship of the anti-en­vi­ron­ment ad­min­is­tra­tor Scott Pruitt, pub­lished its lat­est “find­ings” (lies) about the prod­uct. Those find­ings com­pletely con­tra­dict many other stud­ies that point to the role glyphosate plays in a va­ri­ety of can­cers, in­testi­nal ill­nesses, kid­ney dis­eases and more around the world. It fur­ther con­tra­dicts a crit­i­cal 2015 World Health Or­ga­ni­za­tion study of ex­ist­ing pub­lished re­search that led the WHO to iden­tify glyphosate as a prob­a­ble car­cino­gen.

Pruitt’s role in all of this is a key one, but it is also crit­i­cally im­por­tant to fol­low history from the Oba­maad­min­is­tra­tion era to un­der­stand what is hap­pen­ing here. Just a few years ago, the U.S. Depart­ment of Health and Hu­man Ser­vices (HHS) an­nounced it would be look­ing into glyphosate’s safety. But Mon­santo was not go­ing to al­low that, and it was later dis­cov­ered that Jess Row­land, the chair of the EPA’S Cancer As­sess­ment Re­view Com­mit­tee at the time, moved quickly to re­as­sure Mon­santo that he would ac­tively work to block the re­view. He even said in one of his com­mu­ni­ca­tions on the sub­ject, “If I can kill this, I should get a medal.”

Ac­cord­ing to a group of farm­ers and oth­ers who say the weed killer has sick­ened them, the state­ment from Row­land was al­legedly made dur­ing a con­ver­sa­tion be­tween Row­land and a Mon­santo reg­u­la­tory af­fairs man­ager. Ac­cord­ing to a March 2017 court fil­ing in a case against Row­land, that phone con­ver­sa­tion, which oth­er­wise would have been kept quiet, was re­peated by the Mon­santo reg­u­la­tory af­fairs man­ager in an email he dis­trib­uted to his col­leagues not long af­ter the call.

Mon­santo’s man­age­ment was seek­ing Row­land’s as­sis­tance to block a sep­a­rate and new in­ves­ti­ga­tion into glyphosate’s safety by the Agency for Toxic Sub­stances and Dis­ease Registry, part of the HHS. Mon­santo was ap­par­ently suc­cess­ful be­cause the new in­ves­ti­ga­tion within the HHS never hap­pened.

Dur­ing the EPA’S ear­lier re­view of the chem­i­cal, it had con­cluded that se­ri­ous harm could hap­pen af­ter ex­po­sure to glyphosate. It ref­er­enced harm to growth and birth rates of birds and mam­mals just from spray drift alone. It also said that small mam­mals were be­ing ex­posed to glyphosate in con­cen­tra­tions 10 times the level the agency had de­ter­mined as the point of con­cern.

The same ear­lier re­ports also in­cluded a note that monarch but­ter­flies were at very high risk be­cause of con­tact with glyphosate. That is be­cause milk­weed, the sole host plant for monarch cater­pil­lars to graze upon, was de­ter­mined to re­quire field buf­fers of up to 600 feet to pro­tect the cater­pil­lars. It is be­lieved that the rapid in­crease in ap­pli­ca­tion rates of glyphosate on GMO corn and soy­bean crops in the United States – crops al­ready en­gi­neered to tol­er­ate glyphosate – is be­hind the al­most com­plete de­struc­tion of milk­weed plants in Mid­west­ern U.S. corn and soy­bean fields. There are no field buf­fers in place any­where in the

United States, which has had the domino ef­fect of killing off mi­gra­tory monarch pop­u­la­tions by more than 80% in the past 20 years.

The EPA’S lat­est re­port say­ing that glyphosate is safe for hu­mans and other forms of life is there­fore not just a bla­tant lie but a di­rect as­sault that will harm hu­man health and the en­vi­ron­ment.

With all of this data and other data avail­able con­tra­dict­ing the EPA’S lat­est find­ings, Nathan Don­ley, a se­nior sci­en­tist at the Cen­ter for Bi­o­log­i­cal Di­ver­sity, said, “The only way the EPA could con­clude that glyphosate poses no sig­nif­i­cant risks to hu­man health was to an­a­lyze in­dus­try stud­ies and ig­nore its own guide­lines when es­ti­mat­ing cancer risk.” He fur­ther said, “The EPA’S bi­ased as­sess­ment falls short of the most ba­sic stan­dards of in­de­pen­dent re­search and fails to give Amer­i­cans an ac­cu­rate pic­ture of the risks posed by glyphosate use.”

But wait, it gets worse – much, much worse.

It is a well-estab­lished fact that glyphosate dam­ages DNA in soil mi­crobes, kills bac­te­ria, rad­i­cally al­ters soil bi­ol­ogy and causes ge­netic mu­ta­tions in mi­crobes and in­sects. When sprayed re­peat­edly on fields over time, it es­sen­tially turns those fields into dis­ease fac­to­ries and churns out new pathogens that na­ture and hu­mans have lit­tle or no im­mu­nity against. This has been known for many years, but the fact re­mains heav­ily sup­pressed.

While most sci­en­tists have avoided this is­sue en­tirely due to the po­ten­tial for vi­cious at­tacks from Mon­santo, one of the world’s lead­ing ex­perts has been try­ing to sound the alarm since 2011. This ex­pert is Pro­fes­sor Don M. Hu­ber.

Hu­ber’s spe­cialty is plant and soil dis­eases, and his ex­per­tise has been re­lied upon by the U.S. fed­eral gov­ern­ment and state gov­ern­ments for more than 50 years. There is per­haps no one more of an ex­pert on the bi­o­log­i­cal im­pacts of glyphosate than he is. (A com­plete bio of Hu­ber can be found at tril­lions.buzz/files/dr_­don-m-hu­ber_bio.pdf.)

Hu­ber sent the fol­low­ing let­ter to Tom Vil­sack, for­mer Sec­re­tary of the U.S. Depart­ment of Agri­cul­ture, on Jan­uary 17, 2011:

Dear Sec­re­tary Vil­sack:

A team of se­nior plant and an­i­mal sci­en­tists have re­cently brought to my at­ten­tion the dis­cov­ery of an elec­tron mi­cro­scopic pathogen that ap­pears to sig­nif­i­cantly im­pact the health of plants, an­i­mals, and prob­a­bly hu­man be­ings. Based on a re­view of the data, it is wide­spread, very se­ri­ous, and is in much higher con­cen­tra­tions in Roundup Ready (RR) soy­beans and corn—sug­gest­ing a link with the RR gene or more likely the pres­ence of Roundup. This or­gan­ism ap­pears NEW to sci­ence!

This is highly sen­si­tive in­for­ma­tion that could re­sult in a col­lapse of U.S. soy and corn ex­port mar­kets and sig­nif­i­cant dis­rup­tion of do­mes­tic food and feed sup­plies. On the other hand, this new or­gan­ism may al­ready be re­spon­si­ble for sig­nif­i­cant harm (see be­low). My col­leagues and I are there­fore mov­ing our in­ves­ti­ga­tion for­ward with speed and dis­cre­tion, and seek as­sis­tance from the USDA and other en­ti­ties to iden­tify the pathogen’s source, preva­lence, im­pli­ca­tions, and reme­dies.

We are in­form­ing the USDA of our find­ings at this early stage, specif­i­cally due to your pend­ing de­ci­sion re­gard­ing ap­proval of RR al­falfa. Nat­u­rally, if ei­ther the RR gene or Roundup it­self is a pro­moter or co-fac­tor of this pathogen, then such ap­proval could be a calamity. Based on the cur­rent ev­i­dence, the only rea­son­able ac­tion at this time would be to de­lay dereg­u­la­tion at least un­til suf­fi­cient data has ex­on­er­ated the RR sys­tem, if it does.

For the past 40 years, I have been a sci­en­tist in the pro­fes­sional and mil­i­tary agen­cies that eval­u­ate and pre­pare for nat­u­ral and man­made bi­o­log­i­cal threats, in­clud­ing germ war­fare and dis­ease out­breaks. Based on this ex­pe­ri­ence, I be­lieve the threat we are fac­ing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk sta­tus. In lay­man’s terms, it should be treated as an emer­gency.

A di­verse set of re­searchers work­ing on this prob­lem have con­trib­uted var­i­ous pieces of the puz­zle, which to­gether present the fol­low­ing dis­turb­ing sce­nario:

Unique Phys­i­cal Prop­er­ties

This pre­vi­ously un­known or­gan­ism is only vis­i­ble un­der an elec­tron mi­cro­scope (36,000X), with an ap­prox­i­mate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to re­pro­duce and ap­pears to be a mi­cro-fun­gal-like or­gan­ism. If so, it would be the first such mi­cro-fun­gus ever iden­ti­fied. There is strong ev­i­dence that this in­fec­tious agent pro­motes dis­eases of both plants and mam­mals, which is very rare.

Pathogen Lo­ca­tion and Con­cen­tra­tion

It is found in high con­cen­tra­tions in Roundup Ready soy­bean meal and corn, dis­tillers meal, fer­men­ta­tion feed prod­ucts, pig stom­ach con­tents, and pig and cat­tle pla­cen­tas.

Linked with Out­breaks of Plant Dis­ease

The or­gan­ism is pro­lific in plants in­fected with two per­va­sive dis­eases that are driv­ing down yields and farmer in­come—sud­den death syn­drome (SDS) in soy, and Goss’ wilt in corn. The pathogen is also found in the fun­gal causative agent of SDS (Fusar­ium solani f. sp. glycines).

Im­pli­cated in An­i­mal Re­pro­duc­tive Fail­ure

Lab­o­ra­tory tests have con­firmed the pres­ence of this or­gan­ism in a wide va­ri­ety of live­stock that have ex­pe­ri­enced spon­ta­neous abor­tions and in­fer­til­ity. Pre­lim­i­nary re­sults from on­go­ing re­search have also been able to re­pro­duce abor­tions in a clin­i­cal set­ting.

The pathogen may ex­plain the es­ca­lat­ing fre­quency of in­fer­til­ity and spon­ta­neous abor­tions over the past few years in US cat­tle, dairy, swine, and horse oper­a­tions. These in­clude re­cent re­ports of in­fer­til­ity rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spon­ta­neous abor­tions in cat­tle as high as 45%.

For ex­am­ple, 450 of 1,000 preg­nant heifers fed wheatlege ex­pe­ri­enced spon­ta­neous abor­tions. Over the same pe­riod, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abor­tions. High con­cen­tra­tions of the pathogen were con­firmed on the wheatlege, which likely had been un­der weed man­age­ment us­ing glyphosate.


In sum­mary, be­cause of the high titer of this new an­i­mal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its as­so­ci­a­tion with plant and an­i­mal dis­eases that are reach­ing epi­demic pro­por­tions, we re­quest the USDA’S par­tic­i­pa­tion in a multi-agency in­ves­ti­ga­tion, and an im­me­di­ate mora­to­rium on the dereg­u­la­tion of RR crops un­til the causal/pre­dis­pos­ing re­la­tion­ship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and an­i­mal pro­duc­tion and hu­man health.

It is ur­gent to ex­am­ine whether the side-ef­fects of glyphosate use may have fa­cil­i­tated the growth of this pathogen, or al­lowed it to cause greater harm to weak­ened plant and an­i­mal hosts. It is well-doc­u­mented that glyphosate pro­motes soil pathogens and is al­ready im­pli­cated with the in­crease of more than 40 plant dis­eases; it dis­man­tles plant de­fenses by chelat­ing vi­tal nu­tri­ents; and it re­duces the bioavail­abil­ity of nu­tri­ents in feed, which in turn can cause an­i­mal dis­or­ders. To prop­erly eval­u­ate these fac­tors, we re­quest ac­cess to the rel­e­vant USDA data.

I have stud­ied plant pathogens for more than 50 years. We are now see­ing an un­prece­dented trend of in­creas­ing plant and an­i­mal dis­eases and dis­or­ders. This pathogen may be in­stru­men­tal to un­der­stand­ing and solv­ing this prob­lem. It de­serves im­me­di­ate at­ten­tion with sig­nif­i­cant re­sources to avoid a gen­eral col­lapse of our crit­i­cal agri­cul­tural in­fra­struc­ture.


COL (Ret.) Don M. Hu­ber Emer­i­tus Pro­fes­sor, Pur­due Univer­sity APS Co­or­di­na­tor, USDA Na­tional Plant Dis­ease Re­cov­ery Sys­tem (NPDRS)

The U.S. fed­eral gov­ern­ment has en­tirely ig­nored Hu­ber’s warn­ing, and a smear cam­paign was launched against him. The nec­es­sary re­search into the mi­cro-fun­gal-like or­gan­ism has not been done as needed – or at least not been made pub­lic. But we can see the ef­fects in our health and the rapid de­cline in in­sect, bird and bat pop­u­la­tions. Even snakes are now be­ing threat­ened around the world by a strange new fun­gus.

When one con­sid­ers the re­al­ity of glyphosate, it is mind-bog­gling that the chem­i­cal has not been banned by more coun­tries, and it has be­come clear that Mon­santo and the other agro­chem­i­cal com­pa­nies man­u­fac­tur­ing glyphosate and sim­i­lar chem­i­cals should be con­sid­ered en­emy num­ber one.

How­ever, we also have to ac­cept re­spon­si­bil­ity for the us­age of glyphosate and the poi­son­ing of our bod­ies and planet. Many of us can choose to eat or­gan­i­cally grown pro­duce and grow more of our own food. We can opt out of the glyphosate mad­ness and stop pay­ing the agro-chem­i­cal in­dus­try to poi­son us and our chil­dren.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.