Fluoride Toxicity Trial Update

The landmark federal trial pitting Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and others against the US EPA over water fluoridation came to a dramatic turning point Wednesday.  FAN has argued that fluoride’s ability to impact the mental development of both the fetal and infant brain posed an unacceptable risk to millions of Americans (and others) drinking fluoridated public water supplies. The dramatic moment came when, after both sides had completed their summary statements, the federal judge surprised everyone by recognizing the key plank in the plaintiffs’ case and undermining the key argument in the EPA’s case. The judge said: “So much has changed since the petition was filed…two significant series of studies – respective cohort studies – which everybody agrees is the best methodology. Everybody agrees that these were rigorous studies and everybody agrees that these studies would be part of the best available scientific evidence. The EPA appears to have applied a standard of causation, which from my read of TSCA is not accurate. It’s not a proper allocation. It’s not the proper standard.” In short, after 20 years of work by FAN and its supporters, and 70+ years of campaigning by opponents of fluoridation since its inception, Wednesday felt like a moment in time where the validity of our objections was finally recognized on a world stage.

Fluoride Trial Week 1: Scientist Says He Was Threatened Because of Fluoride Study

The first week of the historic water fluoridation trial wrapped up on Friday afternoon after four days of occasionally tense testimony from expert witnesses with the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). One expert witness claimed he had been coerced into signing a statement downplaying his study which claimed fluoride is a neurotoxicant. Another witness confirmed that at least one type of fluoride is a pesticide being added to the water supply. Attorneys with FAN argue that water fluoridation violates the 1970 Toxic Substances Control Act provisions which prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical which has been found to present an unreasonable risk to the general public. Under section 21 of the TSCA citizens are allowed to petition the EPA to regulate or ban individual chemicals. The EPA is represented by lawyers from the Department of Justice who are presenting experts from the corporate firm Exponent Inc. The government is defending water fluoridation and seeking a dismissal of the petition by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in the case include: FAN, Moms Against Fluoridation, Food & Water Watch, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology and the Organic Consumers Association. The corporate "mainstream" media is not covering the case at all.

U.S. EPA Ignores Glyphosate Cancer Link – Proposes Re-approval

Relying heavily on confidential industry research, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed to re-approve glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup. EPA’s conclusion that glyphosate poses no risks to humans contradicts a 2015 World Health Organization analysis of the leading independent research that determined glyphosate is a probable carcinogen. “American consumers have no reason to trust the EPA’s deeply flawed assessment of glyphosate’s safety,” said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “As with past EPA studies, the agency has relied heavily on confidential industry research that can’t be reviewed by independent scientists. This is an industry-friendly conclusion that’s simply not based on the best available science.” In addition to the WHO’s conclusion, other U.S. federal agencies have acknowledged evidence of glyphosate’s link to cancer. This includes the EPA’s Office of Research and Development and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Within the past nine months, two juries have ordered Monsanto/Bayer to pay multimillion-dollar awards to glyphosate users suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which independent research has linked to glyphosate. A third trial is currently underway, and lawsuits involving roughly 13,000 people have been filed against the company for failing to warn consumers of the pesticide’s cancer risks.

As Federal Government Refuses to Ban Glyphosate Local Municipalities are Taking Action to Protect Citizens

Our federal health and environmental agencies, like the EPA, have failed to protect the environment from glyphosate pollution. The result is many humans are contaminated with glyphosate. Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup's active ingredient is glyphosate with added chemicals to enhance its ability to penetrate plant tissue. These added chemicals are also toxic, creating a synergistic load beyond glyphosate’s toxicity. Despite Monsanto’s assertions the Roundup is bound by topsoil and does not threaten groundwater, independent scientific research has discovered it seeps into groundwater and nearby waterways. Its penetrating capacity has also been discovered to penetrate animal and human cells. Some municipalities have recently responded to glyphosate’s water pollution by banning the use of herbicides containing glyphosate.

Banned for Use in War, But OK for Our Crops

Researchers who recently examined studies sponsored by Dow Chemical and used by the EPA to approve chlorpyrifos, a type of insecticide, found inaccuracies in what the company reported to the agency. A memo sent to EPA management said that “The study was graded unacceptable due to an inadequate presentation of the statistical data analysis.” Some research has linked the pesticides to autism and other brain disorders. There’s also evidence to suggest that some children are more vulnerable to the chemicals than others due to their genetic makeup. These health effects should come as no surprise when we consider that chlorpyrifos were developed as a nerve gas during World War II by the Nazis, though they weren’t used in battle. Chemical weapons were prohibited by the Geneva Convention after WWI—so the chemical is too inhumane to use in war, but A-OK for our food, according to the government’s thinking.

How Many American Deaths Will the EPA be Responsible for Before They Ban Glyphosate Herbicide?

A California jury recently found Monsanto liable for a groundskeeper’s cancer, ordering the company to pay out $289 million. It was the first lawsuit that went to trial alleging that Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed-killers cause cancer. Other research shows that cancer may only be the tip of the iceberg in describing the toll this chemical is taking on our health. There have been hundreds of lawsuits filed against Monsanto alleging that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the Roundup herbicide, causes cancer, and now finally the courts are taking the claims seriously as a federal judge recently ruled that these cases can proceed to trial. The World Health Organization has labeled glyphosate a “probable carcinogen” and yet the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it isn’t—although we shouldn’t be surprised, given the crony ties that have been exposed between top EPA officials and the biotech industry. The EPA can’t be counted on to protect our health. How is this chemical possibly in the market? Tell the EPA to ban glyphosate!

Is Monsanto Influencing the EPA to Ignore Health Hazards of Herbicide Glyphosate?

The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking public input on the health impacts of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. But despite mounting evidence, the EPA continues to ignore glyphosate’s hazards, and it looks like Monsanto’s under-the-table influence may be a reason why. Monsanto has launched a campaign to pressure the EPA into declaring glyphosate safe. It is terrified of losing the profits from selling this ubiquitous herbicide. The use of glyphosate on U.S. farmland has exploded in recent years. A recent study found that Americans’ exposure to the pesticide has increased fivefold since it was first introduced more than 20 years ago.

Biotech Industry Going All Out to Stop Independent Review of Glyphosate

Recently we reported that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a draft report on the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. This was in advance of a meeting in which a panel of scientists would discuss the available data on glyphosate and its potential to cause cancer—but that meeting never happened. It was postponed, ostensibly because the agency was seeking additional experts so there could be a more “robust review of the data.” The biotech industry is going all out to stop this review. CropLife America, the trade group for the nation’s largest biotech and pesticide manufacturers, strenuously objected to the government reviewing the cancer data, telling the EPA that there is no need to discuss the issue at all! Outrageously, CropLife also called for the removal of any scientist from the panel who has “publicly expressed an opinion regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.” The trade group kindly offered the names of scientists who should be removed from the reviewing panel to restore “impartiality.”

EPA Review of Glyphosate: Can a Truly Independent Panel of Scientists be Found?

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released a draft report finding that glyphosate—the active ingredient in Monsanto’s popular Roundup weed killer—is not likely to cause cancer in humans. This finding is preliminary, to be followed by the agency’s final review of glyphosate, which has been delayed until spring of 2017. The EPA decided to address the potential cancer-causing effects of glyphosate after the United Nations’ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced last year that the chemical was a “probable carcinogen.” An “independent” panel of scientists will review the EPA’s report this month. But as our readers know, Monsanto and other biotech giants have so deeply corrupted the science of this issue that finding independent scientists would be a very tough challenge.

Will Congress Protect Americans From Untested Chemicals?

Most people think that manufacturers must prove chemicals safe before they put them on the market. They’re wrong. Instead, federal law presumes that most chemicals are safe until proven toxic.