Leaked internal documents from Monsanto condemn the already-struggling giant to maintain some level of integrity. The company has been caught red-handed using a ghostwriter to craft their own independent safety reviews to be published in scientific journals.
According to Natural News, plaintiffs suing the agricultural company are alleging that Monsanto self-wrote several “independent” scientific reviews that “proved” that RoundUp’s main ingredient, glyphosate, was not a carcinogen.This set of internal Monsanto e-mails (which can be seen online) shows that the reviews that claimed to be “scientific” and “truthful” were anything but. If inhaling or ingesting glyphosate doesn’t give you cancer, then reading some of these documents might. It’s disturbing, to say the least, how a seemingly business-like correspondence details a conscious and deliberate effort to fool the public.
As more evidence compounded and was presented on the carcinogenic effect of their product, Monsanto suddenly took to more suspect behavior. Spokespeople from the company repeatedly denied claims that glyphosate induced cancer and to prove that it was not all mouth-service, they pointed to scores of independent, third-party reviews that concluded to no such effect. These studies were a rebuttal to a 2015 assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that suggested that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen. This triggered a wave of lawsuits from individuals who claimed that they had contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma from exposure to Monsanto’s product, RoundUp.
Monsanto’s most recent review called “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate.” Supposedly, Monsanto paid Intertek Group Plc to “supervise” the article. Lawyers from Monsanto, nevertheless, countered that the company’s involvement was limited to engaging the consultants of Intertek.
To be fair, the leaked documents support this as well. Rather than blatantly lying, Monsanto executives attempted to play a linguistics game instead. For example, in a back-and-forth exchange between Monsanto’s executives and Intertek consultants, an appropriate leading sentence for the abstract was being determined. Monsanto executives were asked to choose between a safe, “expert panel review of the carcinogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate” and the the more provocative, “an expert panel concludes there is no evidence that glyphosate is carcinogenic to humans.” Obviously, the Monsanto executives liked the second sentence better but decided against using it. In Monsanto executive Thomas Sorahan’s own words: “We can’t say ‘no evidence’ because that means there is not a single scrap of evidence, and I don’t see how we can go that far.” -Natural News
Monsanto was crafty. But plaintiffs say that a complete read of the documents shows a more sinister approach. Allegedly, Monsanto’s Chief of Regulatory Science, William Heydens was heavily involved in reviewing drafts submitted by outside experts. Anything that voiced a slightly different opinion from the company’s desired message was vetoed. Monsanto maintains that the only participated in “cosmetic editing.”
Documents were gathered an put on the internet as Monsanto missed the deadline to object to the release of the evidence. Legal representatives of Monsanto have fired back saying that they were “blindsided by these disclosures.” Monsanto has since asked U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco to have these documents pulled from the web and they seek a reprimand for the lawyers responsible for “breaching confidentiality orders.”
It Took 22 Years to Get to This Point
The head of the Canadian province of Ontario, Doug Ford, has warned that it will retaliate against...
This article was originally published by Willow Tohi at Natural News. The federal deficit has...
This article was originally published by Michael Snyder at The Economic Collapse Blog. The number...
Commenting Policy:
Some comments on this web site are automatically moderated through our Spam protection systems. Please be patient if your comment isn’t immediately available. We’re not trying to censor you, the system just wants to make sure you’re not a robot posting random spam.
This website thrives because of its community. While we support lively debates and understand that people get excited, frustrated or angry at times, we ask that the conversation remain civil. Racism, to include any religious affiliation, will not be tolerated on this site, including the disparagement of people in the comments section.
Yeah, old DuPont does the same thing. I used to work for this lady who was manager for DuPont– the largest chemical company in the world… you wouldn’t believe the stuff they do!!
Yes I would. Hundreds of cases of bladder cancer came out of their Chambers Works facility in NJ. They claimed that it was from local farmers. Yea, only farmers close to this site used something to cause it. After a while the evidence was too overwhelming to deny. It came from a chemical used in dye manufacture.
I grew up in the land of oil refining and chemical plants from DuPont, Monsanto, Hercules and a few smaller ones. Trapped muskrats as a kid. Many if not most had tumors. Superfund Sites were littered throughout the area.
Want to see a DuPont supervisor flip out? Get a splinter in your finger.
The people at the top are corrupt as hell… whether its a government worker, president of the US or president of some chemical company or some CEO of a big bank– they are FETID WITH CORRUPTION– and that is why we are all doomed.
We are doomed because hardly anyone gives a shit what they eat or use or use for money or consume or waste or anything! Fookin zombie masses just flat out suck! Until they grow a brain and start giving a shit we ARE doomed…
Where’s Ron Ahrens when ya need him lol.
Did you not catch the phrase “already-struggling” in the opening paragraph of this article? People ARE waking up and either making better choices at the grocery store or (in the case of governments) choosing to ban GMOs in their countries. We’re not doomed just yet!
Sad fact of life but true. Come on someone hit the reset button.
Monsanto has since asked U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco to have these documents pulled from the web and they seek a reprimand for the lawyers responsible for “breaching confidentiality orders.”
Sure……,good luck with that,hell,going to make copies meself.
The horse has way left the barn on that one!
To be able to alter and poison the food supply while getting away with it is total corruption assisted by the highest levels of government. Pushback by concerned citizens has been completely ignored. If the people can’t control the integrity of the food they eat then we have no rights at all except the right to remain silent. What happened to the anti gmo public opposition? Not everybody can grow their own food or afford organic food prices. “Control the food control the people.”
Those chemical companies are evil to the core. They don’t care about people….it is always about the money. They want to “patent” every seed that their chemical “blows onto”. Eventually, your back yard garden will become royalty to them beause the “seeds” from those plants will then belong to them. They have the power to sue the small farmer….who has for years replanted his own seeds. Monsterso is evil. The goal is to own all crops worldwide.
Independent farmers could never win in court.
I would counter-sue them for contaminating my “pure heirloom seeds “, but they would fly over my field, at night, spray my crop, and once “contaminated” they would own me. Someone could fight it, but it would take a few million. There are many documentaries out there, and court cases to prove it.
The more of your own food that you grow and the more organic, the better. I grow some but not enough!
Today I watched a robot that could do the work of a hundred men if the demand was there.
Know this ….. we are being aged out.
With that said he/ she/ it was freakin awesome…
After finishing my university degree, I still had access to the research facilities for a year. I set about reading every science journal in the collection. I read the latest issues and also read the back issues stretching back to the 1950s. I was just interested in getting a free education in science. But what I discovered (and later varified with first-person contacts with scientists and professors and also with interviews) was that their was science and then there was Bad Science. And Bad Science took off in the 1980s and has only got worse. Bad Science was corporate science; science that was pure BS in order to peddle toxic products and get funding for the “scientist” so they could make money and go to conferences to bang younger scientists. By the 1990s the agenda had moved to owning every atom on this planet and having it patented, trade marked and then sold as a product for a profit. Science is now corrupt and you can read many articles on how the majority of peer-reviewed papers published are using faulty or fabricated data. Real science broke away in the 1950s and is hundreds of years ahead of the time-wasting fairy tales that are published in the journals.
When the Federal government backs the bad science the American people know they are fighting an uphill battle. The Environmental Protection Agency another example of bought off governance where Monsanto gets the outcome they desire. Like glyphosate review being stymied for years in the evil Monsanto style of inside government collaboration.