For the past 35 years Monsanto has known of the link between glyphosate and cancer, but has systematically worked to cover it up through scientifically fraudulent methods in its safety testing research programme. This is the most significant conclusion to be drawn from a new research paper published in the Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry and now available online. For the first time the authors, Dr. Anthony Samsel and Dr. Stephanie Seneff, present in tabulated form the data contained in secret Monsanto studies conducted in the period 1980 – 1990 which showed unequivocally that animals exposed to different quantities of glyphosate in their food supply developed tumorigenic growth in multiple organs.
In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is the research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), determined glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, to be a “probable carcinogen” (Class 2A). This determination was based on evidence showing the popular weed killer can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma and lung cancer in humans, along with “convincing evidence” it can also cause cancer in animals. Monsanto has maintained that the classification as a carcinogen is wrong and continues to tout glyphosate (and Roundup) as one of the safest pesticides on the planet. However, they’ve now been slapped with a growing number of lawsuits alleging they long knew that Roundup’s glyphosate could harm human health. In fact, internal Monsanto documents reveal they knew over 30 years ago that glyphosate caused adenomas and carcinomas in the rats they studied – and that’s only the beginning of Monsanto’s trouble. As each day goes by, the GMO (genetically modified organism) cookie continues to crumble.
Personal injury law firms around the United States are lining up plaintiffs for what they say could be "mass tort" actions against agrichemical giant Monsanto Co that claim the company's Roundup herbicide has caused cancer in farm workers and others exposed to the chemical. The latest lawsuit was filed Wednesday in Delaware Superior Court by three law firms representing three plaintiffs. The lawsuit is similar to others filed last month in New York and California accusing Monsanto of long knowing that the main ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, was hazardous to human health. Monsanto "led a prolonged campaign of misinformation to convince government agencies, farmers and the general population that Roundup was safe," the lawsuit states.
Globalist Agriculture Cartel Pillages Ukraine as IMF and World Bank Wage War to Expand Monsanto’s GMO Empire
Is it possible that the conflict in Ukraine is really just a front for a Monsanto land grab? Before Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was forcibly removed from office, he had repeatedly rejected agreements and loan packages from international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, which padded their deals with conditions that included loosening regulations for Ukraine's agricultural sector.
This is the final part in a two part series about the spraying of toxic particles in the atmosphere. The spraying of nanoparticles of aluminum, barium, strontium, and other substances produces persistent contrails that spread out over the course of a day to form artificial clouds in the skies over America and large parts of the world. The first article described the creation of these clouds by jet aircraft and described the health consequences. Regardless of why persistent contrails are being sprayed, the health hazards are serious. The aluminum that is in the spray is associated with Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Lou Gehrig's disease, autism, developmental delays, and other neurological conditions. These particles can enter into any cell of the body and cause Inflammation and disrupt normal life processes. Heart disease, pulmonary failure, and cancer are linked to high level exposure to particulates in the atmosphere. President Obama recently spoke on climate change and said that the climate problem, “is not simply a danger to be avoided – this is an opportunity to be seized.” It appears that Monsanto and other corporations are getting in line to seize the opportunities that are about to develop. Monsanto is developing abiotic seeds, which will be able to withstand drought and severe storms. So, if your country is having unusually stormy weather or is experiencing drought, then Monsanto seeds will still give you a crop, while your neighbors who don’t use Monsanto seeds will experience crop failures. Monsanto also has a solution for all the nanoparticles of aluminum that are being sprayed into the air, and which eventually fall to the ground where it accumulates in the soil at highly toxic levels. Monsanto has developed an aluminum resistant gene that they can insert into the next generation of their seeds. This means that it won’t matter how much aluminum accumulates in the soil from aerial spraying, because Monsanto crops will still thrive, while the crops grown from non-GMO seeds will just turn yellow and die because of the excess aluminum. Monsanto will be ready for the future and will have seeds for every contingency.
Our society is largely built on the idea that science can help us make good, solid decisions. But now we're facing a world so rife with problems caused by the very sciences that were supposed to keep us healthy, safe, and productive, it's quite clear that we're heading toward more than one proverbial brick wall. In a sense, the fundamental role of science itself has been hijacked for selfish gain. Looking back, you can now see that the preferred business model of an industry was created first, followed by "scientific evidence" that supports the established business model. When the science doesn’t support the company’s economic gains, it’s swept under the rug, even if people are dying and the planet is becoming irreparably poisoned as a result. Today we live in a world where chemical companies and biotech giants can easily buy and pay for their own research studies, as well as the lobbying to support whatever legislation they need passed in their favor. Conflicts of interest have become the norm within virtually all fields of science, which creates a completely unworkable – and dangerous – situation in the long run.
Soybean oil is the most common oil used in the US, but this is a relatively new phenomenon. Prior to 1900, cooking was done with lard and butter, and the processed foods that are now primary sources of soybean oil (and other soy ingredients) were nonexistent. In the 1950s, saturated fats were condemned on the basis of them raising your cholesterol and causing heart disease – a theory that has since been proven wrong, but which is still lingering in medical offices and public nutrition regulations. Partially hydrogenated soybean oil was developed to replace saturated fats like butter and lard in the food supply. Not only did consumers embrace it, but food manufacturers did even more so because of its low cost, long shelf-life, and stability at room temperature. There was just one problem: partially hydrogenated oils are sources of trans fats, which are now known to cause chronic health problems such as obesity, asthma, auto-immune disease, cancer, and bone degeneration. Yet, even if you take the hydrogenation process out of the picture, soybean oil is still detrimental to your health. While trans fats are now being pulled out of processed foods due to their extreme health risks, soybean oil is still fair game… but it shouldn’t be – and here’s why.
As we reported last week, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) introduced a bill that has been championed by the Monsantos of the world, not to mention the Big Food industry. The deceptively titled “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015” would preempt state efforts to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws with a completely voluntary standard. It would also block communities and states from banning the cultivation of GMO crops. Late last week, by a vote of 275 to 150, the DARK Act passed the House, and is now on it’s way to the Senate. While it still is unclear if the Senate will consider the DARK Act or take up a similar bill that is reportedly being written by Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND), any step forward for this bill is dangerous for the 93% of Americans who want to know what’s in their food.
The Washington, DC-based National Press Foundation announced that they're taking applications for an upcoming all-expenses-paid journalism conference called "Food, From Farm to Table." The conference promises to "take a holistic look at the issues: hunger, food waste, organic, GMOs, food science, feeding the world’s growing population, and more." That's cool, if you don't mind that one of its major sponsors is Monsanto, that the program includes a visit to the controversial agrobiotech company's research labs, or that this sounds a whole lot more like a press junket than a journalism conference.
Glyphosate Causes Cancer: EPA “Trade Secret” Sealed Files Reveal Cancer Link Known Back in the 1970s
Dr. Anthony Samsel was recently interviewed by Tony Mitra, where he discussed certain documents he has in his possession from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that allegedly show Monsanto knew about research connecting glyphosate to cancer since the 1970s. Dr. Samsel states that the documents he received from the EPA are "trade secret" documents belonging to Monsanto. These documents allegedly are safety studies about glyphosate from the late 1970s to the early 1980s, and others beyond those dates. Monsanto allegedly asked the EPA to seal these documents as "trade secrets" so no one else could review the data from these studies. Dr. Samsel stated that he is still sifting through all the data from these sealed documents, and that he is about to write a paper on glyphosate and cancer. He states that these "trade secret" documents are documents that Monsanto had the EPA seal so that nobody could revisit the data. According to Samsel, these documents show: "unequivocally, that glyphosate causes cancer. Should it be on the market? No. Should it be in our food? No." He states that taking glyphosate off the market will not necessarily solve the problem if they substitute it with another herbicide. "No herbicide belongs in our food. Whether it is 2,4-D, Dicamba, Glufosinate.... there should be no herbicides in our food because it disrupts our bacterial homeostasis, and it disrupts our immune system. When we disrupt our bacteria and the microbiota within us, disease ensues. Disease begins with the destruction of our microbiome."