Listen to the Podcast:
Watch the Podcast:
In today's episode Jeffrey dives into the absolute corruption of science and scientists when Monsanto first released Roundup for widespread use. In the early studies submitted by Monsanto in 1985 the EPA clearly saw in an IARC report that rodents exposed to low doses of Roundup were developing some tumors and developing more tumors with higher doses. The EPA and IARC wanted to label it as a possible carcinogen. This was not the end for Monsanto; over the course of many decades Monsanto engaged in an entire marketing campaign to discredit these studies. Included in their plan was:
- "Orchestrate Outcry"
- Industry outreach to media.social media
- Third-party experts blog, op/ed, tweet, link, repost, retweet, etc.
- Use front groups
- Have grower associations write to regulators
- Opinion leader write letter to daily newspaper on day of IARC ruling
- Ghost write or inspire supporting research papers
And so much more, including paying off scientists and EPA executives like Jess Rowland.
The Institute for Responsible Technology is working to protect you & the World from GMOs (and while we’re at it, Roundup®...) To find out exactly how we do this and to subscribe to our newsletter visit https://www.responsibletechnology.org/
Join us at Protect Nature Now to Safeguarding Biological Evolution from GMOs 2.0. The place to get critical up to date information, watch our short film and most importantly, learn easy ways for you to take action against this existential threat. Visit: https://protectnaturenow.com/
Watch the film: Secret Ingredients
Notes for this week's Podcast
This week's Transcript
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Uh, later in the epa, they were given a research study by Monsanto where it was clear that a low dose caused a particular tumor and a higher dose caused more tumors, and the control group had no tumors. And so they said, we're gonna call it a possible carcinogen in 1985, which it could have stopped the commercialization of Roundup. So what happened was Monsanto needed the EPA to reverse it and argued over and over again, what can we do to reverse it? So eventually they, you could read from the memos made public from the lawsuit. In a 1985 memo, uh, from Monsantos, George Lev Levin Kass, he said that they were gonna hire Dr. Marvin Kushner, who will review the kidney sections and present his evaluation to persuade the agency that the observed tumors are not related to glyphosate. Kushner had never seen the slides before.
He had never been given the data, but here the person from Monsanto was telling another executive what Kushner would f would find the, that same Levin Levinsky tried to downplay a study earlier about Monsanto's pcb. So he knew how to rig the research, and Dr. Kushner looked at the controls and circled something and said, see, there's a tumor in the controls. No one else looking at it saw a tumor. None of the E p A scientists said there's a real tumor there. He just circled in there and said, there's a tumor here, which would cause lack of statistical significance and invalidate the study. So they argued and argued for years, and eventually the E P A gave up and declared it not a carcinogen.
And yet, the World Health Organizations Institute for International, uh, agency for Research on Cancer used the same study to support its evidence that it causes cancer. They also then were getting a lot of pressure because they were saying, glyphosate causes cancer because it's geno toxic, meaning it damages the, the dna. So Monsanto hired Dr. James Perry, the world's expert at Genotoxicity, and said, look at these four studies and tell us what you find. And he looked at the four studies and said, yep, looks like it's Geno oxic. This, it looked back and said, wait a minute. Look at all of these studies says, yep, that increases the evidence. It certainly looks like it's geno toxic Monsanto's internal memos made public from a lawsuit. Quote, we want to find slash develop someone who is comfortable with the GenOx profile of glyphosate Roundup and who can be influential with regulators and scientific outreach operations.
Uh, we, my read is that Perry is not currently such a person, and it would take some time and money to get him there. And he said, we simply aren't going to do the studies that Perry suggests. He suggested to do all those studies. They ignored that, they ignored that one, one edit one sci one, um, edit. Uh, executive wrote, has Dr. Perry ever done research for industry before? In other words, doesn't he know he is not supposed to find these findings? So what did Monsanto do? They were supposed to legally turn over the findings to the apa. They broke the law, hid the study, and then ghost wrote their own study as a review paper hired scientists to sign it, and the conclusion was just the opposite to what Perry found, that there was no genotoxicity.
We found in the, in the documents to the EPA that Marion Copley, who was a 30 year senior toxicologist, wrote a letter to Jess Roland, who was the head of the committee that was evaluating whether glyphosate causes cancer, glyphosates the chief poison and Roundup. And it was a letter that did not hold back. She had cancer, she was dying. She had to leave the epa, and she said she needed to do this before she died. And she listed 14 ways that glyphosate could promote cancer. And she said any one of these mechanisms alone could cause tumors, but glyphosate causes all of them, and that it's certain that glyphosate causes cancer. She said to Jess Roland, don't play your political conniving games with the science to favor the registrants, meaning Monsanto for once, do the right thing and don't make decisions based on how it affects your bonus. You and Anna allow it intimidate staff on the cancer committee and changed final reports to favor industry. Jess promised me never to let Anna on Clark committee, her decisions don't make rational sense. If anyone in the office of Pesticides, uh, programs is taking bribes, it is her. So she did not hold back. So what did Jess Roland do? Jess Roland, it turns out was Monsanto's lap dog.
He tipped off Monsanto months before he was, they were supposed to know that the, in that the International Agency for Research on Cancer was doing an analysis of, of glyphosate and carcinogenicity, giving them the chance to prepare their defense. Um, he also told Monsanto executives that there was another agency in the government that was gonna do a evaluation of glyphosate and carcinogenicity, and he was determined to stop them. And he said, if I can kill this, I should get a medal. And it was killed. And some other comments going back and forth between people at the FDA verify that Jess was doing a nice job, that maybe he can help us after rear top retires, and then mysteriously a non final report on the glyphosate, uh, analysis. Wait, this has stopped working. Okay. So he oversaw the committee that determined that glyphosate did not cause cancer.
The report appeared on the website for the, for the EPA before it was supposed to be put there. No one knows how it got there. It was immediately copied by Monsanto and sent to the press and sent to regulators. And then it was taken down with an apology. And a few days later, Roland left the epa. So we think it was him. Now, an analysis of how Roland's committee found that glyphosate did not cause cancer. When the World Health Organization's Committee did was published in a peer reviewed journal. The World Health Organization used peer-reviewed published studies that had an overwhelming evidence of cancer in Roland's committee. They relied almost exclusively on Monsanto studies and were seeing how Monsanto conducts their studies.
No wonder. And they also, they avoided studies that used the whole formulation. They just focused on glyphosate. Even though Roundup, which has a lot of other ingredients, some that are a thousand times more toxic than glyphosate, that Roundup as a whole can be 125 times more toxic than glyphosate alone. And that Roundup as a whole has a lot of evidence of causing cancer. But the E E P A doesn't have to look at the whole formulation because their rules are designed by industry. So they just look at, so when Roland tipped off Monsanto, they created a whole plan and the documents of that plan became public because of this lawsuit. It's been such a valuable trove of information. And the purpose of the plan was to orchestrate outcry. This was before I a c, the International Agency for Research on Cancer issued its results. So Monsanto did not even know what the results were, but they knew the research and could anticipate that they were gonna be determining that it was either a carcinogen or a probable carcinogen. And so they created, they used their front groups. They decided to ghost write specific, uh, articles to have an independent count, uh, quote, independent council review. They had created third party social media posts. They had growers associations on board, opinion leaders, et cetera. They planned all this the same tactics that I have been reporting on for years. But we have it all. I mean, this was gold for us. It's like, yeah, we know they do all of these things, but here it was in their own handwriting.
And here's where we, okay. And so for example, they had an expert panel review whether it causes cancer. And one person, one scientist said, I can't be a part of a deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication. We call that ghost writing. And it is unethical. So one person stood up to them, but others on the committee did not. And we have, in fact, the consulting agreement and how much money changed hands with someone who was supposed to be an independent person. And the document said, never influenced by Monsanto, even though we see evidence that people in Monsanto actually wrote the critique and rewrote it and insisted that their their lapdogs, um, do what they said so that when they published it, it was Monsanto's words.
They also described in their own emails. We ghost write recall and said, we just edited and, and we, they, the, the scientists just edited and signed their names. And he said, recall, that's how we handled Williams Crows and Monroe 2000. The Williams Crows Monroe 2000 is probably that review paper that they wrote. Instead of issuing the peri report, which is being cited by regulatory agencies all over the world showing that glyphosate doesn't cause cancer, they're admitting that they wrote it. In fact, Monsanto scientist, David Salt Ramirez, acknowledged when he was describing what he did during the year. Yep. Ghost wrote Cancer review paper.
And he even tried to argue that he wanted to have his name on it because he wanted some credit. Cuz he's been doing this for two years. For two years he's been ghost riding and he wanted some credentials, but they said, no, we can't have Monsanto, uh, authoring anything that is favorable of glyphosate. So they kept his name out of it. They had, um, a guy named Henry Miller Miller submit an article to Forbes that had been drafted by Monsanto when it became public. Forbes took it off their website and everything else that that Miller had written, he was one of Lapdogs at the fda. Thank you for listening To Live Healthy, be Well. Please subscribe to the podcast using whatever app you're listen to podcast with or go to live healthy be well.com 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. It will enlighten and may even save lives. Save eating.