Carey Gillam Exposes the Dirt on Monsanto - Episode 19
In this week's episode...

Today Jeffrey Smith interviews Carey Gillam. This is an interview Jeffrey did with her for the Healing from GMOs and Roundup conference. This online conference has 18 experts and all but Carey are focused on how to heal from the exposure to GMOs and Roundup. Carey is a reporter and has been the top investigative reporter of Monsanto for years.

Carrie is the author of Whitewash: The Story of a Weedkiller, Cancer and the Corruption of Science.  When you hear the interview with Carey about the absolutely underhanded things that Monsanto has done, then you realize clearly we can't allow the government or Monsanto to tell us what is safe.

We highly recommend you pick up a copy of Carey's book, it is an epic uncovering of Monsanto's corruption of science.  You can purchase her book here.

To purchase the Healing from GMOs online conference packages, you can get them here.

Notes for this week's Podcast

[1:40] “I included the interview with Carrie because I needed to make sure people realize that there are dangers to GMOs, and in her case just Roundup, that has been purposefully hidden from view. That Monsanto has been working hard to actually conceal it from us, pretending that Roundup is safe so that if people want to take the conference and they look and go, ‘Well, you know, the FDA approved it, the EPA has approved it, Monsanto says it's safe.’"

[6:24] “We see a number of strategies that Monsanto has employed over many, many, many years to manipulate public policymakers and manipulate the public, and really suppress the wealth of information that is out there showing harm from this chemical, both environmental and human health harm. You know, as a journalist, that's really my job. It's not to make a decision on whether or not I think this chemical causes cancer. It is to present relevant and factual information so that people can make decisions.”

[24:53] “The tragedy is that all these farmers borrowed money on the secondary market, loan sharks, to buy these seeds, which were going to make them rich. The genetically engineered cotton seeds were such a failure that 250,000 farmers committed suicide.”

[27:26] “Again, this book isn't a diatribe against Monsanto or one chemical. It's an exploration of what goes on behind the scenes in Washington, in our scientific laboratories and the scientific community and how the power of a very large corporation like Monsanto, you know, can skew the narrative and hide the truth….. Somehow we've been convinced that the risks to our health and to our environment are worth it. I guess the book really points out, you know, the risks that are coming along with these rewards.”

This week's Transcript

Hi everyone. This is Jeffery Smith and welcome to my podcast, Live Healthy, Be Well. Today I interviewed Carey Gillam.

This is actually an interview I did with her for the Healing From GMOs and Roundup conference. This online conference has 18 experts, and all but Carrie are focused on how to heal from the exposure to GMOs and Roundup. We have Josh Axe, Joe Mercola, Professor Seralini, Dietrich Klinghardt, Tom O'Bryan, Sayer Ji, Kiran Krishnan, Michelle Perro, Zach Bush, Larry Bohlen, Lee Cowden, tons of great people, scientists, product developers, and doctors. However, I also interviewed Carrie.

Now Carrie is a reporter, but she's been the top investigative reporter of Monsanto for years. She used to work for Reuters and so she would call me sometimes to interview me and get the backstory on certain topics. We met while I was traveling and she was based I think in Kansas City and I've met her in other places and now she works for US Right to Know.

But I interviewed her after her publication of her book Whitewash, which is an outstanding book that you can buy at a discount at If you go to which is the name of my first book, there's a store there and you can buy Whitewash from Carey Gillam.

I highly recommend the book and I included the interview with Carrie because I needed to make sure people realize that there are dangers to GMOs, and in her case just Roundup, that has been purposefully hidden from view. That Monsanto has been working hard to actually conceal it from us, pretending that Roundup is safe so that if people want to take the conference and they look and go, "Well, you know, the FDA approved it, the EPA has approved it, Monsanto says it's safe."

Well, when you look at Whitewash, when you hear the interview with Carrie about the absolutely underhanded things that Monsanto has done, then you realize clearly we can't allow the government or Monsanto to tell us what is safe. We need to take matters into our own hands.

So if you want to look at the entire conference Healing From GMOs and Roundup, go to You'll see all of the different speakers there and right now you could enjoy one for free. That is with Carey Gillam, a former Reuters investigative reporter.


Jeffrey: Hi everyone. This is Jeffrey Smith from the Institute for Responsible Technology and I'm here with Carrie Gillam. I met Carrie first when you were a Reuters reporter and a very good one, one that I would call first to cover Monsanto and you've since transitioned to US Right To Know and now have a book called Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and The Corruption of Science. Some of my favorite topics. Thank you, Carrie, for joining.

Carrie: Thanks for having me here.

Jeffrey: So I love your writing. First of all, and I love whenever one of your stories came out for Reuters. It was like, I know you were going to be hard-hitting and not holding back. I've talked to a lot of reporters who are cowered by Monsanto, but you didn't step back. I remember you telling me once, "They must be trained in intimidation tactics," so they were trying to intimidate you back then.

Carrie: Yeah, I mean certainly. Monsanto is known, I think pretty commonly, for trying to intimidate journalists and scientists. Trying to either charm and cajole or pressure and intimidate people who don't parrot the narrative. Who doesn't support the agenda of Monsanto.

You know, you see it with other companies as well. I think in my experience - you know, I covered a lot of big corporations and followed a lot of politicians and interviewed them, and Monsanto is about the toughest on the block when it comes to their ability to apply pressure.

Jeffrey: Wow, and we'll have a chance if you want to share any of that pressure. But I think you actually spilled the beans on decades of pressure pressurizing scientists, journal editors, academia. In your book, you kind of pull the cover back on the deception - the years of deception focused on glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, which is Monsanto's big selling herbicide. The number one selling herbicide in the world.

Why don't you lay the foundation for us? I think we're going to jump into some very fun stories, but why don't you lay the foundation that'll give the viewers a chance to get their bearings to dive in.

Carrie: Sure, sure. Thank you. You know, I have to preface by saying this isn't my opinion necessarily. I didn't come to this because of any preconceived notions. I came to this through 20 years of reporting on this industry and on this company.

My views have evolved and tracked along with the revelations that have come about through documentation, through research that has been published in peer-reviewed journals and through thousands of pages of freedom of information documents that I've obtained from USDA, FDA, EPA, that show interactions with Monsanto around this chemical.

Then there are millions of pages of discovery documents that I've tracked and spent a lot of time with that have come about through litigation. These are internal Monsanto emails and other documents. So they really lay a pretty clear picture and it's a pretty dark one.

I recently testified to the European Parliament and the title of my presentation was "Decades of Deception" because, really, when you put it all together, the puzzle pieces do not paint a pretty picture.

We see a number of strategies that Monsanto has employed over many, many, many years to manipulate public policymakers and manipulate the public, and really suppress the wealth of information that is out there showing harm from this chemical, both environmental and human health harm.

You know, as a journalist, that's really my job. It's not to make a decision on whether or not I think this chemical causes cancer. It is to present relevant and factual information so that people can make decisions. So that's what I've done in the book and that's what I've been talking about lately is trying to share the documentation that illustrates very clearly that the company has worked hard to hide the truth about glyphosate.

Jeffrey: Great. I love that introduction. By the way, the book is for sale. If you look below this interview, you'll see a link and there'll be a discounted opportunity to buy it at a discount for watching this series.

Carrie, I am aware of the secret documents - the Monsanto secret documents and the lawsuit representing thousands of people with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. I appeared on the Doctor's TV show with Brent Wisner and also Terry McCall, whom you know very well. They testified and you've been working with that law firm. They've been giving you access, which is so exciting, to all those millions of documents. I think it would be a nice place to start there.

What did those secret documents from Monsanto - what are the secret ones that they didn't want you to read? What are the ones that they most definitely didn't want you to read and what were the most shocking or revelatory discoveries?

Carrie: Gosh, I mean, you know, I've been reading more of them today. I'm working on a project right now and I think they all are. I mean what I'm reading today, I guess I would tell you is the most shocking. But I think what I read yesterday would be the most.

Jeffrey: Tell me. Call me every day would you please, Carrie?

Carrie: Today, I was reading over the Intertek related documents I suppose. And these were documents in which Monsanto was discussing how it wants to discredit the International Agency for Research on Cancer. They want to counter the finding from these international experts that glyphosate probably causes cancer, that it's probably carcinogenic.

So they're talking about, "All right, we want these papers done. We're going to hire this group and they're going to hire these scientists and we're going to have these papers done. And you know, we can probably go straight a lot of it. You know, we can probably handle it that way. It'll be cheaper and easier for us."

So you see this progress. You see then that these papers are put together and they're published in a journal and in this journal under declaration of interest it says that no one from Monsanto reviewed these papers before they were published. No one was involved from Monsanto, no lawyers, no Monsanto people were involved and the authors all are acting independently.

You see in the internal documents, Monsanto scientists editing, drafting, rewriting, moving things around in these papers. You see them talking directly to the authors. Even though the declaration of interest said there was no direct communication. You see a contract with one of the authors where Monsanto was paying him directly even though that was not declared.

I mean we could go on and on and on and you see them discussing how important it is to have these papers that appear to be independent, put together in time to give to the European Chemical Regulators because they are trying to determine if they should keep glyphosate on the market.

So all of this is engineered to look like it's an authentic independent review by all of these experts who are not being influenced by Monsanto. When the documents show very clearly the opposite. I mean, to me that's outrageous. Those papers are still sitting out there and they're still being cited by Monsanto supporters as, "Look, IAARC was wrong. Look, all of these authentic independent authors say IAARC was wrong and glyphosate is not, you know, likely to cause cancer."

So I mean, that's just one example, but we've seen it over and over and over as Monsanto refers in documents to ghostwriting a paper published in the year 2000 that the EPA has cited in its own decision that glyphosate is safe. There's another paper from 2015 the EPA has cited where you see a Monsanto scientist saying very clearly he "ghost wrote" that study.

The science, I mean, that's just one way it's been manipulated. We could talk all day long about other examples. But -

Jeffrey: I love that example. I mean, you know, you and I have seen this from a distance and seeing the outcome, the outpouring of this fake news and fake science for years, but to see it so black and white, how they did it and then they denied it. It was denied publicly, and it was such a clear lie. It's so exciting.

You mentioned the EPA. Now, we've known for years that the FDA was in collusion and whatnot because the person in charge of policy on GMOs at the FDA was Monsanto's former attorney, later Monsanto's vice president, then back at the FDA as the US food czar. But that's more in terms of GMOs.

Carrie: Right.

Jeffrey: What would you say would be the most egregious stories of EPA collusion or manipulation?

Carrie: Well, there's still a big mystery surrounding this official named Jess Roland, who was a very influential individual at the EPA and worked there for more than 20 years, and worked very closely with Monsanto. He was in charge of the cancer assessment review report that came together and supported Monsanto's view of glyphosate safety.

You can see through the documents that Monsanto - they consider him a friend, that he can be useful to them in defending glyphosate. We know that after he left EPA, he did go to and got some work with the chemical industry, but we don't know why or where or how because he won't say even in depositions.

We know that that very friendly cancer assessment review committee report, which was not yet official or published, was somehow leaked to the media and to Monsanto just days before a key Monsanto hearing in the court case and before some key European meetings.

Monsanto grabbed that report and waved it around and said, "You know, look! The EPA says it's safe." The report was then pulled back by the EPA. They said, "Oops, we didn't mean for this to be released"

Jeffrey: On our website so that everyone can grab it.

Carrie: Yeah. So, I mean there's one example. You see Monsanto with some of the documents - this was a story I reported not too long ago -wanting another review of glyphosate to go away when that was being done by an agency within the Health and Human Services department. And they contact top folks at EPA, including Jess Roland, and they want it to go away and EPA immediately jumps on it and then it goes away.

Jeffrey: He said, according to a Monsanto executive quoting the conversation, "If I could kill this review, I deserve a medal." I was like, who is this guy? My favorite exposed document about Jess Roland is from Marianne Copely who died of cancer.

But before she died of cancer, she had to leave the EPA cause she had cancer. She was their senior toxicologist and she just blasted him as changing final reports to favor industry. She said, doing things so that he can get a bonus. She wrote 14 ways that glyphosate can cause cancer and said glyphosate does all of them.

It certainly causes cancer and she even said about this other woman, "If anyone's taking bribes from the industry at EPA, it's her." She doesn't make sense. I mean she let the guns blazing and we have this document and you'd think it might shake some sense into this Jess Roland who turns out to be Monsanto's lap dog. That's my nickname for him - the lapdog of Monsanto.

Carrie: Yeah, we don't know. He's a private citizen now. He and his lawyer don't return my phone calls and they were not very forthcoming in the deposition. That was an issue with the lawyers. So you know, that's one unanswered question. I guess at this point I was just, again looking at another document I got from the EPA and Jess Roland is talking to Monsanto's shortly before he retires and he is telling the Monsanto individual he's going to try to get this report out quickly before he leaves. That will be beneficial to Monsanto. So you know, we don't know.

I mean you talk about other sorts of collusion or collaboration, I don't know if we can call it that. Maybe we can call it coincidence, but the USDA and the FDA who both every year test thousands of foods for residues of pesticides, have not historically tested for glyphosate.

Jeffrey: What a surprise.

Carrie: Even though it's the most widely used, right? Agric chemical in history.

Jeffrey: Isn't it safer than table salt and biodegrades and you can take a bath in it according to Monsanto.

Carrie: And so every year when I was at Reuters and now at US Right to Know, when I call USDA and say, "What the heck, why are you not testing food for glyphosate?" They say "It's really, really safe. It's probably not in very big amounts. We don't know and it's really expensive to test for it."

Jeffrey: So let's take a breather just a moment and I just want to step back and add a little bit of science. Sprinkle a little bit of science here that all of us can say "So what could it possibly do?" Just to name it all, right? It is a class 2-A carcinogen according to the IAARC of the World Health Organization, patented as an antibiotic and happens to more easily kill the beneficial gut bacteria and can't easily kill the nasty pathogenic stuff which could potentially overgrow.

It's been shown to create leaky gut in certain test tube cells where the actual connections between the cell walls become separated in the presence of glyphosate. It chelates minerals, making them unavailable for metabolic pathways to function correctly, which runs our entire body. It's in mitochondrial toxins so the energy sensors can have a problem.

It's linked to birth defects in many ways and endocrine disruption and it creates nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which is linked to a lot of other, more serious diseases including liver cancer. Did I miss anything? I probably did.

Carrie: Don't think so. You covered it pretty well. And I would have to say as a journalist, you know, I can't say all of those things are definitively proven. I'm not sure, but there is a scientific consensus, right?

Jeffrey: Let me say this. The proof - the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, I spoke to Michael Antonio who said it's absolutely proven. Molecular profiling, it caused it no question. And the amount that caused it was 437,000 times less per body weight than the EPA allows humans to consume.

Carrie: That was very worrisome research that came out just about a year ago. January, wasn't it? 2017 I believe.

Jeffrey: Yeah, exactly. The other ones I can build a case for. We're not going to do it here. When I say very strong evidence, I mean at least publications on the mitochondrial toxin. A whole report on teratogen meaning its birth defect and, and epidemiological evidence.

So I can create a case for it, and certainly, Monsanto creates a case against it. For example, shall we talk about the Seralini study? Is that one of your favorites?

Carrie: Oh, of course, Seralini. I mean, that's probably a good example. It's pretty controversial, but it's an example of the pressure and the power that the company will bring to bear when a scientist, you know, puts forth information that is dangerous for the company's sales and its agenda.

I mean, that's what Seralini did in 2012. He published this study. You're familiar with it. Probably all your folks are too. It's a long term feeding study, feeding the rats, both the GM corn and, and glyphosate putting that in their drinking water.

Jeffrey: Roundup, yeah.

Carrie: Yeah. They found a host of problems and evidence of endocrine disruption, and mammary tumors, and liver and kidney issues. And he really raised a red flag and said this needs to be investigated. We need more research, which is what you hear from scientists all the time. You know, they want people to build on their research.

Monsanto jumped all over him. They orchestrated an outcry from seemingly unconnected, independent scientists demanding a retraction. You can see in the documents where they're discussing - they don't want it to look like they're the ones making this happen.

Jeffrey: I have to say you're - I don't know if the audience realizes that you're using quotes from them. When you say "orchestrate an outcry", that's a Monsanto term.

Carrie: That was in the documents.

Jeffrey: You're so drenched in these documents. You speak those words so beautifully. I just want to make sure - this is not an interpretation. You said this in the beginning. This is not your opinion. These are their words. Go ahead.

Carrie: Yeah, I mean, yeah, they described that. Now that was not in Seralini's case, that was for IAARC, but they did have a preparedness plan to orchestrate an outcry and outrage. They wanted to orchestrate outrage. But they did the same thing with Seralini, and maybe that's in the Seralini document. But they do describe and discuss with Seralini how they don't want it to look like it's from them. They don't want to look like they're behind it, even though they're behind it.

Jeffrey: One of the people who they pay to claim that they're independent Bruce Chassis, got ahold of the editor and asked for a retraction. And Bruce Chassis was paid, "Oh, I'm an independent scientist." Completely dependent on Monsanto and was paid to create a website attacking my second book, Genetic Roulette. And you know, I don't know if he's been attacking you as well. We'll talk in a moment about -

Carrie: Oh yeah, definitely.

Jeffrey: Well, we'll talk about the attacks on you in just a moment. It's always fun to share war stories. It's like people say, "Oh and I got this scar over here from this war. I got this scar over here from this war."

What was so interesting was reading the contract they had with the editor of the journal. Could you share that?

Carrie: Right. Yeah. So I mean those are two other factors that people didn't really know related to this. So the journal that published the Seralini study that Monsanto wanted the study retracted from - the editor Wallace Hayes, Monsanto put him under contract and was paying him. I believe I could look back here. I think it was $400 an hour.

Jeffrey: That's right.

Carrie: That's what it was. Nobody knew that. That wasn't disclosed. At the same time, they recommended one of their former employees, Peter Goodman, a scientist for Monsanto, who had moved to the University of Nebraska and was receiving funding from Monsanto and other chemical companies to run a program there, was named to the editorial board of the same journal.

So both Wallace Hayes and Goodman were there during this period where the retraction was being sought from the independent scientists. Lo and behold, they retracted it.

Jeffrey: It was interesting, the letter by Wallace Hayes giving excuses as to why he retracted it, were reasons that no other study on the planet had ever been retracted from that. There wasn't enough evidence here.

So there was so much outcry, so many hundreds of scientists said, "This is wrong," that he wrote a new letter. This was shared with me. I was giving a talk in Beijing with one of the writers of the Seralini study, and he said, "So Wallace Hayes wrote because there weren't enough rats to make it a cancer study." And then the scientist smiled and said, "The word cancer was never used in the study".

Carrie: Right, it wasn't.

Jeffrey: It was never used in the study! So Wallace Hayes was just desperate and it had passed his peer review twice and then it passed the peer review again when it was republished.

And the thing is this guy Goodman, I mean I had a talk with him when I was writing Seeds of Deception, and he was trying to convince me based on theories, very technical stuff, that the proteins that were being produced by the GMOs wouldn't cause allergic reactions, but they don't have any data on it. So it was just theories.

I said, "Come on. You know, clearly that there's no way you can guarantee that GMOs aren't going to create allergic reactions in at least some people. That's obvious and no research has been done to verify that. But it's obvious that it's certainly a risk."

And he didn't acknowledge it, he said, "But it's worth it because we need GMOs because I've been to India and I've seen how they farm and we need to bring GMOs to India." Well, they brought GMOs to India.

The tragedy is that all these farmers borrowed money on the secondary market, loan sharks, to buy these seeds, which were going to make them rich. The genetically engineered cotton seeds were such a failure that 250,000 farmers committed suicide, who had planted BT cotton and were not able to pay back their loans and we're considering losing their - 250,000.

Now, Monsanto, you could find that they were saying, "Oh, it wasn't related to the cotton, it was related to the loans." Well, a door to door interview with a hundred families every year verified that it was all, almost always the failure of BT cotton that led to the suicides in the suicide belt.

So according to Goodman, the need to bring GMOs is worth the risk to cause allergic reactions and possibly death in people that eat GMOs so they can bring them to save India's agriculture. Okay, I digress.

Carrie: Yeah, that's important. That's his job at the University of Nebraska is to develop this allergen database to basically support the safety of GMOs, and that's why he gets a lot of his money from the chemical companies. And you see also in the documents, I'm sure you're aware of this, where you know, someone is calling him for an interview, he's getting prepped for an interview and the chemical companies are going to provide the media training for him, you know.

Jeffrey: Well, and media training. The state department will pay for reporters from other countries to come and get media training from Monsanto. It's incredible

Carrie: There's so much of this, this is I guess why I call it Whitewash because you know, you're sort of coloring over or painting over the truth. The people have a right to know, I think because it can change their opinions. It can change their actions, can change their support or criticism of different policies. You know, people are supposed to have the truth in a democratic society.

Jeffrey: All right, so let's give you a venue now. They're attacking you, claiming whatever. If you want to be able to respond to their attacks about the book and what it's saying, go for it. If you'd like to do that, tell me anything that they've said and tell us the truth.

Carrie: I mean, the only question that I would have is, you know, if you find an error in the book, let me know. So far nobody's been able to do that. It's pretty well documented. I feel like almost every sentence is footnoted and indexed. I was afraid it wouldn't even be very reader-friendly because I wrote it as locked up tight as I could with everything fact-checked and documented up and down and back and forward.

Again, this book isn't a diatribe against Monsanto or one chemical. It's an exploration of what goes on behind the scenes in Washington, in our scientific laboratories and the scientific community and how the power of a very large corporation like Monsanto, you know, can skew the narrative and hide the truth.

And Monsanto is not the only company. I say, if Monsanto and glyphosate go away tomorrow, we still have these issues. You know, DOW chemical is another one and DuPont. They are making billions of dollars off of these chemicals and they're convincing us that they're needed to feed the world.

Somehow we've been convinced that the risks to our health and to our environment are worth it. I guess the book really points out, you know, the risks that are coming along with these rewards.

Jeffrey: Fantastic, and thank you for writing this book. Is there any particular story in it, or fact, or aspect that you want us all to know about before we read it?

Carrie: All of it. I mean I'm most moved by the people. I have a lot of real people throughout the book. You know, because that's why we care. I mean we all eat. So there's a lot of the book about the food, and the residues, and the impacts on health, and the government testing or lack thereof.

But I interview a lot of farmers, people who love it, people who hate it, people who have been stricken by non-Hodgkin lymphoma, weed scientists, agronomists. So there's a lot of real people in the book.

I guess the end of the book might be the most important. It's seeking solutions. You know, do we have alternatives? Do we need to be reliant on these pesticides indefinitely in order to survive? And really the answer is no, of course not.

I mean, we've been farming and feeding people since the beginning of time, really, right? And certainly before glyphosate. So you know, farmers are in many cases returning to more time tested traditional methods of farming where they are encouraging more biodiversity, where they are rotating crops, where they're using cover crops and other strategies that, you know, are safer and healthier.

You don't have to be organic. You don't have to get rid of every single pesticide. That's probably the best way for all of us, for our health, but increasingly farmers are realizing you don't have to. USDA is actually now - I mean, USDA knows this too. Everybody really knows it. It's not rocket science.

This pesticide treadmill that we're on is harming the environment, is harming human health. Medical professionals around the world know that. The United Nations knows that and is pushing agroecology right now. We all know pesticides are contributing to rising rates of disease and cancers in children and the elderly, vulnerable populations around the world. It's known. So the question is, what do we do about it?

Jeffrey: Exactly. These are facts, these are absolute facts. And my question, I want to ask you a question that people ask me, which is how do these people sleep at night?

But my question is have you in your reading - because you read a lot of stuff that never makes it to the light of day because if it does... is it just administrative or if there's actually humanity in there, it's not interesting.
You look for the kind of like we will take over the world. We want to get those pieces.

So have you found any humanity in these, in these letters from Monsanto? Have you found anyone questioning whether it's appropriate to be pushing something out? Has anyone raised an alarm about when they find a problem in these notes?

Carrie: Not from the internal documents from Monsanto that we've seen. I mean, you do see one of Monsanto's toxicologists saying, "We can't say Roundup doesn't cause cancer because we haven't done those tests."

Jeffrey: And that's Donna Farber who I debated on The Doctors in 2015 who said to the world, "I am completely confident in this as a mother. I can back it up by science." Then when the documents came out, she wasn't so confident in private. Okay, go ahead.

Carrie: Yeah, I mean she states that very clearly to other employees. You know, we haven't done the test and that's stated repeatedly and Monsanto will even acknowledge that when they're pressed that they haven't done extensive tests on formulations and the EPA hasn't required that.

But in terms of humanity, I mean I have seen that from EPA and from the FDA. You see it more from the underlings. There's one great one from 1984, I think it was, from an EPA toxicologist because they found carcinogenic evidence way back then.

Jeffrey: I know.

Carrie: A Monsanto study - a Monsanto funded study. Monsanto's arguing with them and they're getting pressure and the EPA toxicologist says, I'm paraphrasing, but essentially it's not our job to protect the registrant, meaning Monsanto. It's not our job. It's our job to protect your public.

Jeffrey: I love that.

Carrie: That he had to argue that and state that and the fact that he eventually was overruled. You know it's sad.

Jeffrey: Yeah, it was. It was interesting, the document that someone said, "Oh, we're going to bring in this doctor to examine the slides and he's going to argue with the EPA that they misinterpret it." The doctor hadn't even looked at the slides, but the person from Monsanto was telling the other person from Monsanto the conclusion that their expert was going to have, and sure enough, in order to eliminate the statistical significance, he found a tumor that no one else could see.

But he circled and said, "This is a tumor," and the people in the EPA weren't convinced, but they argued that and argued that and they argued that and it was all of a sudden no longer a carcinogen

Carrie: I mean, they argued it for years because the EPA toxicologists were so entrenched and said, "No, this is wrong. This shows evidence of carcinogenicity," and the EPA asked Monsanto to redo the study and Monsanto refused to redo them.

Jeffrey: Amazing. I mean, I love to hear that. It's so classic Monsanto. It's like, it's too expensive. That was their response - it's too expensive to do this study to see if this poison was going to cause...

Carrie: When they finally did change the classification - you had toxicologists at the EPA who would not sign off on it. So for the industry to maintain that there's no evidence and there's never been any scientific proof that this chemical causes cancer is ridiculous. It's not remotely true.

Jeffrey: So, I have been talking about Monsanto for 21 years, working in this field. And you have for so many years - first as a Reuters reporter and they were on your beat. You covered them.

Carrie: That was my job, right.

Jeffrey: How many years?

Carrie: 17 years at Reuters, and then two years now at US Right to Know.

Jeffrey: Okay. So, some people get so angry and so frustrated, and so beside themselves and they ask me, "How do you deal with this?" And I could tell you what my response is, but I want to ask you because I know some people are already riled up and they just think about Monsanto and they turn red. How do you remain composed? You have a family, et cetera, et cetera. So how do you read these things and deal with it?

Carrie: Well, I mean I take great pleasure, I guess, in sharing and in writing about and publicizing these things. I've been a journalist for 30 years. So, you know, that's sort of the thing.

That's why you want to be a journalist. You want to find the truth and bring it home, find the truth and let people know about it. That's kind of gratifying. So when I'm able to read these documents and see things that are relevant and important, and I'm able to write that and put that out there, I mean that to me. Maybe nobody even reads it, I guess, I certainly can't counter of power of the giant Monsanto, but I can do my little part to share the truth with people who care so

Jeffrey: Well. If people read your stuff, Carrie, they love it. There's a scientist that every time you write something, here's another excellent article by Carrie. You know when you wrote something in Reuters, we'd all look at it, post it, pass it around because it was the truth.

It was objective even though they didn't want you to tell the truth about their genetically modified wheat, and you told it. I remember these details that you told me, and you did a beautiful job.

I'll tell you, it is fun to share this stuff. And you know, some people will hear a story that has some gross manipulation and feel depressed. I'm elated that I get to discover another gem. I remember calling up a scientist, Dr. Arpad Pusztai who I had interviewed.

He's in the first chapter of my first book, Seeds of Deception. I'm like writing all these things about him - hours and hours in the interview. He'd read everything to make sure it was correct, and then I read something else. I said, "Arpad, I just read that you were burglarized and all your research notes were taken. Is that true?"

He goes, "Yes," I said, "That's wonderful news. Why didn't you tell me?"

He says, "I didn't know it was important."

So I do, I like to pull those gems out about how they manipulate and share it. And there's also a sense of not taking it personally that's really important for, you know, sustainability. If we're going to have a sustainable practice if you're going to work 30 years in this or maybe 21 years and we get punched down every time we talk about the corporate model of greed over humanity.

But there are people who worked for Monsanto. Have you ever met someone who was a whistleblower or regretful who worked for Monsanto? Because I have.

Carrie: I mean, yeah, I mean there's one guy, whistleblower guy and there are some others. The people that I've encountered mostly though are really, really frightened and intimidated about saying anything meaningful, you know, or explosive. Maybe you're better at it than I am.

I mean, it's been, it's been a hard nut to crack and I've had great sources and many other companies and in federal agencies. So I've had a hard time cracking a nut in Monsanto.

Jeffrey: Yeah. I mean, one guy from Monsanto, the former Monsanto scientist said when they found that corn damaged the rats, they didn't withdraw the core and they rewrote the study to hide the effects. He said that three Monsanto scientists who did the study the milk from cows treated with bovine growth hormone. So it found so much cancer-promoting hormone in the milk. The three scientists stopped drinking milk unless it was organic.

One more, and there are other studies, there are other stories like that. But before we finish, is there anything else that you want to say about your excellent book, which we totally recommend gets purchased not only for everyone listening but as Christmas presents so you can pass around the gift of deception and health in the same package.

Carrie: Right, right. Two things I would like to say. I guess, one is if you go to buy it on Amazon, if you look at the reader reviews, in a number of favorable ones, you'll also see a whole slew that was posted right around the same time, same day, some of them in the same minute.

Basically saying what a horrible person I am and what a horrible book it is and how it's all fake news. That is noteworthy simply because that took place about a week ago and they laid it out. These were Monsanto trolls. Yeah. Surrogates. I mean, who laid it out on Twitter - this planned attack on my Amazon reader review page.

Then we watched it and we took screenshots of Twitter so we could see what they were planning to do and say and everything. So you know, that just sort of underscored what I write about in the book. This is what they do. This is how they manipulate public opinion.

Jeffrey: Before you give the second point, I wrote an article on Monsanto trolls. You can find that on our website, It might also be on Huffington post and I describe how to out the trolls, what to say when you've discovered a troll so that everyone else knows.

This is just a paid ad by Monsanto, and you can link to that troll article to out them or you can write down what I've suggested. I've described how they have this whole plan for trolls. So yes, go to Amazon.

By the way, it's temporarily out of stock. So buy it from our site at a discount, which will help support the Institute for Responsible Technology. But still, go to the Amazon thing and find out where the trolls are and then really make your statement, make your comment.

Point out that these are guys that are being paid by Monsanto, they organize it on Twitter. You can link back to my troll article so people can realize that actually, they have a huge budget to do this. This is part of their plan.

Carrie: Well you can see in the, in some of the documents that have come out, they have a program called letting nothing go, right?

Jeffrey: That's what I talk about, exactly. They'll let nothing go for - go ahead and tell them about it.

Carrie: No, it's essentially a program so that in social media, anything that's on Facebook or Twitter, Instagram, anything that is posted that is negative or contrary to their agenda, that it is countered and attacked and assaulted. Like that's part of their program. Again, it's a pretty smart thing.

But I guess the other point I wanted to make about the book is that I really hope people will understand, I use glyphosate and Monsanto as the narrative, as the storyline. Much as Rachel Carson used DDT for her book Silent Spring. But I'm really hoping it's a wake-up call and raises awareness for the larger problems of corporate control and the pesticide dependence that we have.

I think Monsanto and glyphosate are a very big issue, but certainly not the only issues that we need to think about to protect our health and our environment.

Jeffrey: Not only that Carrie, but it's a winnable model. In other words, Rachel Carson won against DDT, we're winning against the GMOs and there's a lot of corporatocracy right now where corporations run the EPA even more so now. They run the FDA, they run so many agencies and people will end up feeling like victims and powerless.

So when we have a model of actually knowing the truth and the truth actually setting us free so we can be free of this in our own lawns and our own food. And then ultimately, you know, in society and we can have that victory.

I think the model becomes a way of empowering us in a much bigger sense because there's a lot of news out there where we feel like the government is not supporting us. Here, we don't need that. We don't need the government to make some important decisions for ourselves. But ultimately I think the government will come around when we change the marketplace so much with our own choices. It becomes a failure to complete.

Carrie: That's right. And you can't make informed choices unless you're informed and that's what you do. And that's what I'm trying to do and hopefully -

Jeffrey: You do it so well again, I still say at the end what I said at the beginning. You're such a great writer. I love reading stuff and so I would like to recommend that people get the book and then keep it moving.

Make it a permanent lending library piece. You know, so many people when they hear about Roundup, they want to tell their friends about the dangers of Roundup and the dangers of GMOs. They have someone, a neighbor who's spraying Roundup or a golf course or a school and we tend to talk about it so much that our friends sort of look the other way and walk the other way when we approach because they've heard it.

You know, here's a way to let Carrie give the information, let the book do it. The stories will bring you in. You won't want to put it down. And I share that with others. It'll create the healthy choices that we're all looking for, which will create the economic reality of driving Roundup off the market, et cetera. And all that will occur through individual education.

Carrie: I agree. Education information, that's the key for us all to have. I guess I can definitely say, based on the response I've been called a terrorist. I've been called someone who wants to see the demise of all humanity. So attacks on me and the attacks on the book have made it clear this is a book the chemical industry does not want you to read.

Jeffrey: The way they do it, they never argue the details. They do a broad brushstroke to try and discredit the whole book by discrediting the author. I described the 10 tactics that they use in my book that I wrote 10 years ago and they're still doing it so that people think, "Oh, she's been discredited and all these people say the same thing, don't bother."

When they don't bother, then they've won. So if you want Monsanto to win, don't bother. If you want Monsanto to lose, realize what they're actually saying, and share it with people. It's like a functioning democracy. Get informed because it's not going to happen through mainstream media at this point because you're no longer at Reuters.

Carrie: Well, The New York Times is doing some pretty good stuff. Yeah. Guardian, Lamont, I mean there are journalists out there now doing some really good stuff.

Jeffrey: They're picking up some of the stuff that you've discovered and where they're taking it, you did a great job testifying before Parliament.

Carrie: Yeah. But I mean the European Parliament - Europeans have a much more proactive and precautionary way of looking at, you know, these chemicals. Gosh, I mean, parliament voted to ban it as you know, now European Commission is trying to decide what to do.

Monsanto's threatening to sue them if they don't keep it on the market, but at least people there are awake and aware and debating this. We're not even really debating it in Washington at all.

Jeffrey: I know, but it's getting out there in the general public. I've been nonstop around the country for 13 years and two and a half years ago, I saw, "Oh, the next big thing is glyphosate."

I actually went to the Natural Products Expo and I started telling companies glyphosate is the next culprit. GMOs so far now it's the culprit. It's happening.

Carrie: Exact same thing to my editor at Reuters, it was 2013 or 2014 - the exact same thing. And he told me it was crazy, he didn't know what I was talking about, you know, leave that glyphosate alone.

Jeffrey: When someone wants to know where to invest or what to cover, they should call us.

All right, Carrie, so great to talk to you and we have some other experts that are going to say, "Okay, you've been exposed to glyphosate and exposed to GMOs. What can you do?"

This gives the context for why we have been poisoned and why we need to make decisions now and can't rely on and wait for the FDA, or the EPA, or the World Health Organization to tell us what to do because they have been oftentimes captured. So it's time for us to switch from victim to victor and this information is the way.

Thank you so much.

Carrie: Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you for listening to Live Healthy, Be Well. Please subscribe to the podcast using whatever app you're listening to this podcast with or go to to subscribe.

This podcast will inform you about health dangers, corporate and government corruption and ways we can protect ourselves, our families and our planet. I interview scientists, experts, authors, whistleblowers, and many people who have not shared their information with the world, until now.

Please share the podcast with your friends. They will enlighten and may even save lives.

Safe eating


Save this episode...