Below are some of our videos explaining the potential dangers of Monsanto Roundup, and especially the connection to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other forms of cancer. To learn more about the types of injuries that have been linked to this product, and the legal claims that have been filed, click Monsanto Roundup Herbicide.
Papantonio: Monsanto Knowingly Sold Human Carcinogen To Consumers
Environmental lawyers have begun filing lawsuits against Monsanto for cancer deaths related to their product Roundup.
What these lawsuits are uncovering shows an effort both on the part of Monsanto and the US government to minimize the message about the dangers of Roundup in relation to human cancer.
The Story begins as early as the 1980s when laboratory tests on glyphosate began to show cellular changes in laboratory animals that should have been considered early signals of a relationship to cancer.
In fact in 1985 the EPA during a time when it was actually effective; a time when it actually worked on behalf of a safe environment, determined that glyphosate the primary ingredient of Roundup needed to be classified as a class C carcinogen which meant that it clearly was suggestive of a relationship to cancer.
But then miraculously 6 years later the EPA suddenly changes that classification to something just the opposite where they claim that NO they were wrong; and overnight glyphosate according to the EPA and Monsanto the public now has no worries about cancer. Nothing to worry about here … move on.
All of the laboratory testing from the early 80s that the EPA used to classify glyphosate as a cancer agent suddenly became unavailable to the public with Monsanto arguing that all the early testing results fall under protection of trade secrets that cannot be shared with the general public.
The next twist takes place when the World Health Organization issues a statement in 2015 maintaining that the Monsanto Roundup herbicide in their words is “probably a human carcinogen”.
As you might imagine Monsanto called in its army of paid for scientists, lobbyists, politicians needing contributions, and governmental agencies more concerned with mega-profits than human health.
With government, corporate controlled media, and even the White House pulling every string to protect Monsanto, it appears that the only place this story will be fully be told is in court rooms in front of juries. That’s the only way that this story will ever be told. For a jury to hear the story and make a decision about how bad the conduct is, both of Monsanto and the U.S. government in this deadly cover-up that has cost thousands of lives throughout America and worldwide.
Lawsuits claims Monsanto Still Trying to Cover Up Deadly Health Risks of Roundup
Farron: Study after study is coming out these days showing that Monsanto's Roundup is causing cancer and other very severe neurological defects. Monsanto adamantly denies all of these charges, however they can't deny the reality of science. Joining me now to talk about this is Howard Nations. Howard, Monsanto has done a phenomenal job for decades now of keeping the public in the dark about the dangers of Roundup. Luckily just in the last I'd say probably 12 months we're finally getting organizations, The World Health Organization, who has looked at this and said, "This is not a safe product." We've got articles coming out now several times a week. Lay out the Roundup story, what do we know now that we may not have known 18 months ago?
Howard: As you say The World Health Organization, its cancer research arm, which is the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon France, announced that glyphosate, the world's most widely used herbicide, is quote, "Probably carcinogenic to humans," end quote. Glyphosate is the main ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Now Monsanto, the world's largest seller of glyphosate accused the IARC of cherry picking data. Monsanto was outraged, you can't imagine how outraged they were that they'd been caught, but the IARC reviews carcinogenicity of industrial chemicals in food.
On March 20th a panel of international experts reported findings of 5 agricultural chemicals in the category of organophosphates, one of which is the Roundup product. They published the article in Lancet Oncology. Lancet is one of the world's most respected medical journals. Glyphosate was determined to be quote, "Probably carcinogenic in humans," end quote. That's a 2A category, which means that they had limited evidence of the link in humans from the studies, but the evidence from the animal studies showed tumors in mice, rats and DNA damage to human cells. It led to that 2A finding of probably, as opposed to possibly, probably carcinogenic.
Farron: One of the thing that's interesting is that in these studies with the mice and rats, they use mice and rats because their chemical make up is very similar to those in humans, which means when they see it happen in mice and rats it is very likely that it would happen in human beings. I know we do have a lot of people against animal testing but this is about as spot on as you can get aside from taking human beings and putting them in a laboratory and spraying them with Roundup and seeing what happens. They slap this label on there, probably, because they can't obviously say, definitively, because we're not doing human testing on this.
Monsanto as you pointed out, they got furious, absolutely up in arms. They say, "There is no way. This stuff is marketed as safe. It is environmentally friendly. What are you talking about?" One of the things I love is that Monsanto, just like every other industry, when they get [pucked 00:03:31] with something they say, "Okay. We're going to take charge." They created this glyphosate task force that they're running that comes out and says, "Well, our little task force, this glyphosate task force, it says everything's okay. Don't worry about it." As anything else happened? Is there any weight to anything that Monsanto says?
Howard: Not surprisingly Monsanto claimed that the relevant scientific data was excluded from the IARC report, in that they disregarded dozens of scientific studies, specifically genetic toxicity studies. Guess what IARC chose to ignore? They ignored the industry finding, as in industry submitted studies. As true scientists they consider only peer reviewed publications and government reports. This is the difference between scientists and politicians that Monsanto can buy.
There was also, Mother Earth News just reported that there's a new study out of France that demonstrates that glyphosate based herbicides are toxic to human reproductive cells. They create risk of infertility, low sperm count and prostate or testicular cancer. Now this study was reported in Toxicology, which is the most esteemed journal in that field. It shows that, listen to this, it shows that at low levels that are currently EPA approved, within EPA guidelines, the use of Roundup on our food could cause DNA damage, endocrine disruption and cell death, from approved products.
Farron: What's really interesting here too is that especially now that we're entering summertime and springtime, we see commercials for Roundup on television constantly. There is not a single warning in any of those commercials. At least when we see pharmaceutical commercials they've got the little blurb and they're saying, "By the way, this pill's probably going to cause a lot more damage than it solves in your body," but with Roundup there are absolutely no warnings. They do not have to disclose anything, any of this science that we're discussing.
Part of that comes back to the fact that right now neither the EPA, nor the FDA, are regulating this product in any way in terms of it being sprayed on our food supply and then fed to us. Right now it really is the wild west with Monsanto and Roundup because there are no limits to who they can sell it to, how much can be used and how much we can be exposed to. First of all it seems outlandish that we're not even proposing anything at this point to deal with the toxicology and the exposure to humans, and most people don't know. What do we do? What's the step from there?
Howard: You know the only people that are really giving Monsanto a hard time are the French, the French studies, the French regulatory agencies. Roundup and glyphosate products have been used in the United States since 1970. Today they're using 100,000 pounds a year that are being sprayed in farms and in yards all over the United States. Now the big deal was they genetically modified crops for corn, soy and cotton, so that they became resistant to glyphosate. Monsanto claimed that this would reduce the use of herbicides, but the weeds that they're supposed to be killing also developed a resistance to glyphosate so they have to use more herbicides to kill the weeds.
Monsanto petitioned the EPA. You talk about regulatory, Monsanto petitioned the EPA, the EPA approved a 20 times increase in legal residue limits for food crops. Then to expand their base Monsanto encourage the use of Roundup as a desiccant, which is used to dry out crops. The result was that it used to just be sprayed on GMO crops, now they're sprayed on non GMO crops such as wheat, barley, oats, flax, peas, lentils, dry beans, everything. The result of that has increased the use over a 15 year period of Roundup in the United States by 527 million pounds.
Here's where again the French got them, Monsanto falsified data in order to expand their base even further. They falsified data of Roundup safety and marketed it to park departments, and this is what you're talking about in the United States, the advertising you see. They advertised to park departments, to consumers as environmentally friendly and biodegradable, to encourage use on road sides, playgrounds, golf courses, schoolyards and our own lawns and home gardens. The French court ruled that these particular marketing claims were false advertising.
Farron: You know, I wish we could see something like that happen in the United States, especially because a lot of the studies that have been done are focusing primarily on the consumption of crops that have been exposed to glyphosate. As you mentioned that list of food products there, a lot of those people may think, "I don't necessarily eat barley." Well guess what, those are the roots of a lot of the foods made in the United States, so it gets into essentially the food chain and it builds from there. There's a build up of it.
But again that's just consumption, what we also have to worry about is exposure to the chemical itself. You may not eat anything that has glyphosate on it, but if you're walking through a park that has been sprayed ... If you've ever smelled Roundup you know it is a very, very strong aroma. If you get it on your skin it almost seems to seep through your skin. It is detectable in the human bloodstream 30 minutes after exposure, 30 minutes. It does not take long for this to get into your system and be detectable. That is phenomenally fast.
Whether it's through direct contact, through breathing in the chemicals, or through consumption, there almost is no escape. What we know now is it's not even just cancers, is it? There is a laundry list of diseases, conditions caused by exposure to Monsanto's Roundup.
Howard: Yeah. Anyone that thinks they're not being exposed to Roundup, it's been found, it's in the food we eat, it's in the water we drink, it's in the air we breathe, it's in the playgrounds where our children play. The whole list, EcoWatch came out with this report where they had found health problems which they attribute to exposure to Roundup and/or glyphosate. You're ready for this? ADHD, Alzheimer's, birth defects, autism, brain, breast, prostate and lung cancer, celiac disease, chronic kidney disease, colitis, depression, diabetes, heart disease, hypothyroidism, inflammatory bowel disease, liver disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, multiple sclerosis, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Parkinson's and then infertility, miscarriage and stillbirth in relationship to pregnancy and respiratory disease. In addition, the weeds have developed their resistance to Roundup so it doesn't even perform the legitimate function for which it was approved in the first place.
Farron: When you look at that list of illnesses, it almost seems like being around Roundup is worse than smoking a cigarette at this point comparatively the diseases that it [inaudible 00:12:01] because we know that glyphosate is a neurotoxin. In addition to the cancers, which are the big thing that a lot of people focus on, we're looking a neurological symptoms as you pointed out, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ADHD, autism. Those things have all been linked in studies, private studies not industry founded studies, not government studies. Independent studies have proven a correlation.
Now we're working on causation, I know that, because it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing, but there is absolutely a correlation between exposure to glyphosate and that huge list of things that you just listed. Where do we go from here? How do we get action? How do we get the US government to do what France is doing and say, "Look, there are problems with this, we have to do something?"
Howard: You start by electing a Democratic congress because the Republicans will sure as hell never regulate them. But the good news for Monsanto is Bayer's offered $62 billion to buy them. They rejected the offer but Monsanto may want to rethink rejecting that offer before the world wakes up to the devastating health hazard that Monsanto's peddling to us on a daily basis. Regulations, not going to happen. The EPA has indicated, they found toxicity and danger and devastating results at levels that are currently approved by the EPA. Regulation in the United States from the federal government is not going to happen.
Farron: What's interesting too is that we started off discussing this World Health Organization study, 2 weeks ago a World Health Organization sub-committee released a report saying that glyphosate was not necessarily linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but this little paper they released was only 6 pages long. I read the whole thing about 4 times to make sure I was reading it correctly and that the media was getting it correct, and it turns out they weren't. What the study said was that, we cannot from the research provided to us find a link between glyphosate consumption and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. But the media immediately ran with and said, "World Health Organization says, 'No link between glyphosate and cancer.'" Those were the headlines, and it was absolutely misleading, absolutely not true and it was only if, like I said, it had to be a consumed version of glyphosate over the life of whatever plant was being consumed and it would only look for that one specific form of cancer. The media's playing a big role in the misinformation around this as well.
Howard: As you said, we see Roundup advertised all the time. Monsanto spends a lot of money with the media in advertising. It's the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules. They make the rules in the media, they make the rules in federal control of the industry. There's not a lot there, not a lot of hope on the horizon for the consuming public and for the children and for the unborn who are being exposed to this through pregnant women.
Farron: I know that there are a lot of brilliant lawyers out there who are looking into these cases. That I think right now is our best hope. Let's get this in the court system, let's get some relief for the people that have been injured. Howard, unfortunately we are out of time. Thank you for this. I appreciate everything that you do, a phenomenal story and we're going to stay on it.
Howard: Thanks Farron.
Cancer, Cancer, Cancer: Monsanto Roundup
Thom Hartmann: Speaking of collusion, the EPA's Inspector General has begun a probe looking into whether the EPA colluded with Monsanto to buff up research on the herbicide glyphosate or glyphosate. What do you know about this potential probe, and how could it affect the ongoing lawsuits against Monsanto?
Mike Papantonio: I know a lot about it. We know that first of all the EPA in the early '80s came out and said, "We know that we've seen signs of change that's consistent with cancer." They said that in the early '80s, and then they went as far as saying, "We believe this is a human carcinogen." The way that they rated it, we said, "We believe this is a human carcinogen." Six years later, nothing's new, nothing's different and all of a sudden they say, "No, we changed out mind." There's was nothing there to change their mind except lobbying money and except pressure from Monsanto to say, "Please take us off of this cancer list." Then, we find out just a couple years ago the World Health Organization says, "No, they were right all the way back in the 1980s. This is a human carcinogen. It will absolutely cause certain types of cancer."
The problem again came down to this. The people in charge were the same kind of people we're seeing Trump appoint. They're coming from industry. They're coming from law firms that have always worked for industry. They're coming from science backgrounds that have always worked for industry. Those are the people who are in charge. There's not advocates out there. There are not consumer advocates or people advocates out there. These are simple people who have made ... They're living their entire lives being paid by industry. What do we expect out of them? Should we expect anything more? I think not.
Thom Hartmann: What do we do about that, Pap?
Mike Papantonio: Well, I think the only thing you can do is at this ... I've really landed here after thinking about it for a lot of years. The only thing that seems to work is to able to open up the courtrooms, and to be able to have these companies pay for what they've done. The only thing that changes the next CEO's mind about whether they should engage in corporate corrupt decisions, the only thing that changes their mind is that the CEO right before them lost $8 billion, $10 billion for the company because he lied or because he or she engaged in corrupt conduct that they knew that they should not have engaged in, that they knew was going to kill people, was going to be fraudulent, was going to hurt the environment.
The only thing that works is do that with one other thing, Tom. You know what it is? Throw them in jail. Somebody has to go to jail when people do things like that. If I were your neighbor and I went and I said, "I think I'm going to put my sewage in Tom's pool tonight. I don't think he'll worry about it." You know what? The next day, I'd be charged and probably convicted of at least very, very serious misdemeanors.
Thom Hartmann: Yeah.
Mike Papantonio: Not so with corporate America now.
Thom Hartmann: Yeah, unfortunately. Mike Papantonio, always great to get your insights. Thanks, Pap for dropping by tonight.
Papantonio: Monsanto, The Master Of Lies And Purveyor Of Cancer
Manila Chan: The U.S. District Court in San Francisco has 50 lawsuits against Monsanto on their desks but recently new allegations against the biotech giant are stocking the flames in the court of public opinion. Monsanto is being accused of hiring third party internet trolls to counter negative comments and a slew of other online tactics to lessen their negative image. Joining me now to discuss, host of America's Lawyer, famed trial attorney, Mike Papantonio. Pap, good to see you tonight.
Mike Papantonio: Hey, good to see you.
Manila Chan: On the subject of trolls and fake news, ghost writing and what have you. If this allegation is true, would Monsanto have broken any laws by doing so?
Mike Papantonio: Well, first of all, it is true. Whether they broke any laws the problem that they have with this now is that a jury will hit them with putative damages if this is tried right. I've tried half a dozen major cases like this. Where we've seen this type of troll activity, where the company tries to hide the truth by trying to distort the truth. We saw this with BP, the deep water horizon, Coca Cola's been accused of doing this type of thing, things like soda taxes. But the important thing is a jury's going to hear this. I just got through with a $900 million case where the same kind of conduct took place and at the heart of the conduct was this type of ugly conduct where you're trying to change the facts by trolling people. Matter of fact, Ring of Fire has been trolled. We've been attacked by Monsanto trolls online for posting stories about the dangers of Round-Up. We tracked their names back to the company, we're able to call them out on it but the problem they have, this doesn't go away for them. This will come up in trail. It will certainly come up in the case that I try against Monsanto down the road.
Manila Chan: Pap, do you think it's at all unique then in that a company the size of Monsanto would engage in something like online trolling? I mean, it seems kind of petty, doesn't it?
Mike Papantonio: Well, it's not petty. This is a company that's hired ... they go all the way back to the 1980s. The story begins in the 80's when laboratory tests on glyphosate began to show cellular laboratory changes consistent with cancer. What did they do? They went out and they hired people to phony some of that material up, hire experts to say, "No, that's not true," and this is how this has continued throughout their history. 1985 the EPA, during a time when the EPA was effective, said that glyphosate can cause cancer. The same stuff in Round-Up can cause class C cancer, which means it's clearly suggestive a relationship to cancer. What did they do with that? The same type of thing, only more sophisticated. They went out and hired scientists to write articles to take the EPA off the route there where they changed the science and then six years later, they succeeded. The EPA suddenly changed the classification, no new studies, no new information, they simply made the proclamation. Yes it would cause cancer six years ago but now it doesn't cause cancer. Nothing to worry about, move on. So, this type of thing goes on from bottom to top.
Manila Chan: Now, as you say, the plaintiffs are claiming that Round-Up has caused them cancer. This has been an allegation for many, many years; however, it wasn't until just 2016, last year, that the FDA began testing food for traces of the herbicide. With the number of claims coming from so many people over the last 20 or so years, what has taken the FDA so long in your opinion?
Mike Papantonio: Because the FDA has been captured by this industry. The people with inside the FDA have been manipulated by this industry. There's no question about that. They've gone out and hired scientists, what we call biostitutes, they go to universities, Harvard, Yale, they hire these biostitutes that will say anything for the right amount of money. Monsanto had a lot of money to spread around so they had a lot of biostitutes working for them. They sent that to the EPA, EPA was easily manipulated because frankly, a lot of folks that work with the EPA were involved with this. Probably now if you take a look are somehow working for the industry.
The problem that Monsanto has, they started out arguing that, their sales pitch on this used to be that glyphosate is safer than table salt. We know that's not true, the World Health Organization, in 2015, came out and said, "This stuff causes cancer." So, what did they do now? They troll the public. They try to take people like me and discredit me, they try to discredit the lawyers who are working on this by hiring these trolls that go online and say these ridiculous things that this stuff's safe. We know it's not safe. It's just a matter of time.
Manila Chan: I want to get this in there, we're running out of time. But, like you said, speaking of discrediting, Monsanto did give a statement directly to RT in response to these claims that glyphosate causes cancer and they've stated, "With a degree of high confidence that it does not." What scientific data are they looking at and what of these claims of trolling and ghost writing and funding their own studies. Wouldn't that just discredit that statement that they gave us.
Mike Papantonio: Of course! They are lying about that. There's no easier way to put it. In 1996, the New York Attorney General sued Monsanto for lying about that. They sued Monsanto because Monsanto was advertising that this stuff is safer than table salt. The problem is they continue the lie.
Manila Chan: All right, thank you so much.
Mike Papantonio: People keep lying because of it.
Manila Chan: Mike Papantonio with your expertise.
Lawsuits Helping To Expose Monsanto’s Deadly Roundup Cover-up
Mike Papantonio: Environmental lawyers have begun filing lawsuits against Monsanto for cancer deaths related to their product Roundup. What these lawsuits are showing is an effort both on the part of Monsanto and the US government to minimize the message about the dangers of Roundup in relationship to human cancer. The story begins as early as the 1980s when laboratory tests on glyphosate began to show cellular changes in laboratory animals that should have been considered early signs of a relationship to cancer.
In fact, in 1985 the EPA, during a time when it was actually effective, a time when it actually worked on behalf of a safe environment, they determined that glyphosate, the primary ingredient of Roundup, needed to be classified as a Class C carcinogen which meant that it clearly was suggestive of a relationship to cancer.
Then miraculously six years later the EPA suddenly changed that classification to something just the opposite where they claimed that no, they were wrong. Overnight glyphosate, according to the EPA and Monsanto, the public has no worries, nothing to worry about here. Just move on. All of the laboratory testing from the early '80s that the EPA used to classify glyphosate as a cancer agent suddenly becomes unavailable to the public, unavailable to doctors and Monsanto argues that all of that early testing falls under the protection of trade secrets so it can't be shared with anyone.
The next twist takes place, the World Health Organization issues a statement in 2015 maintaining that glyphosate in Monsanto Roundup in their words is probably a human carcinogen. As you might imagine Monsanto called in its army of paid scientists and lobbyists and politicians needing contributions and governmental agencies more concerned with mega-profits than human health. With government corporate controlled media and the White House pulling every string to protect Monsanto, it appears that the only place this story is going to be fully told is in courtrooms in front of juries.
One of the lawyers handling the Monsanto Roundup case is an attorney called Robin Greenwald. You've heard that name because she's one of the finest environmental attorneys in the country. Robin, thanks for coming to the show.
Robin Greenwald: Hi Mike. Thank you for having me.
Mike Papantonio: In the lawsuits that you've brought Robin, have you made part of your claim that Roundup, it's primarily made up of glyphosate, they failed to warn users about the connection between that and cancer in this product. Do they provide a warning about that that the World Health Organization said should be provided?
Robin Greenwald: No Mike, there's no warning about an association between using Roundup and cancer. Our focus in our lawsuits is about non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma so it's the use of Roundup and the outcome of non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma by some users.
Mike Papantonio: Robin, give us ...
Robin Greenwald: There is no warning.
Mike Papantonio: ... a rundown on what you've alleged in your lawsuits against Monsanto in regard to Roundup, the history, the knowledge, the possibility then to fix this problem. Tell us what your lawsuit's about.
Robin Greenwald: Sure. The saga as you mentioned at the beginning started really when Roundup was being registered through the EPA FIFRA Program, the registration process. Companies at that time have to give certain data to the government to show that their product is either safe or that it's not safe and needs certain protections. That's part of the registration process. It's public record that two of the laboratories that Monsanto used to supply information to the Federal EPA both provided false data and both of those laboratories, one was IBT in the 1980s and then Craven Laboratories in the 1990s, they both were investigated, prosecuted and convicted by the Department of Justice for providing false data in connection with Roundup and other chemicals for that matter.
There's a sort of sorted past in some respects and all of this is outlined in the complaint. As you mentioned in your lead-up the EPA originally classified Roundup as a, glyphosate I should say, as a Class C. Then it changed the registration to E which is non-carcinogen. It's important to note that when EPA did that ...
Mike Papantonio: Okay.
Robin Greenwald: I'm sorry.
Mike Papantonio: Yeah, that's what I want to ask you about. What changed, Robin? How do you go overnight, one day yeah, we think it can cause cancer. The next day, don't worry about it public, don't worry about it doctors. There's no problem here. How did that happen in your estimation as you've looked at this material?
Robin Greenwald: Well, we're still uncovering a lot of that information now, but even when EPA changed the classification from C to E it said specifically our finding, our change from C to E does not mean that glyphosate is a non-carcinogen. I believe that the government looked at different data, other data, new data. Unfortunately these things happen when a registration occurs and there's a certain classification. Companies that are registering products can give new information to the government. Different people look at different information. Unfortunately from time to time it is a moving set of facts. Certainly here something happened within the process to change it.
Mike Papantonio: Robin, what I find very interesting, and we've seen this, look, you handle some of the biggest, most important environmental cases in this country. I get that. I know you see corporations gaming the system, but in this situation all the early testing that was done, we now have Monsanto saying, "No, you can't see that because it's a trade secret. It might be bad, but you can't see it. It might show cancer, but you can't see it. It might be threatening public health, but you can't see it." What's your thought on that?
Robin Greenwald: Well, I don't agree with that. I think that any data, any scientific research that's submitted to EPA should be available to the public, but it's not. We all know that the law, our system, our regulatory system allows companies to submit scientific data to the government under what's called CBI, confidential business information. When it has that stamp the government does not give it to the public at large.
Query why Monsanto doesn't want to share those studies with the public. If Roundup and glyphosate are so safe then those documents and those studies should be documents that they would want to share with the public. Unfortunately that's not what's happened here and as we know there is documents that are stamped confidential that the public doesn't get to see.
Mike Papantonio: Robin, how extensively has Roundup been used throughout the world? What is your concern, if any, about how it's affected our food supply? If we've got this used pole to pole and all of a sudden we find out it does cause cancer, how does it affect the food supply? Is that something that you're going to be talking about in your trial?
Robin Greenwald: Roundup is the number one used herbicide in the world, glyphosate. Monsanto had a patent on Roundup until 2000 and then what it did in 2000 is it developed something called Roundup Ready Seeds because it was losing the patent in the United States, and all of this is alleged in our complaint.
In 2000 recognizing they were going to lose the patent, they developed this Roundup Ready Seeds. The farmers who used Roundup Ready Seeds, when they lost the patent they would still have to use Monsanto's Roundup because that was the only herbicide that would be effective on those genetically modified seeds. It is the world's most used herbicide. I believe it remains that today.
Our lawsuit, Mike is focused on exposure to Roundup through application. Maybe the food case will come next, but right now our focus is on people who use Roundup in the application process. Those would be landscapers, farmer workers, farmers, individuals who use it for home use. It's really dermal exposure and inhalation in the process of exposure. That's the focus in large measure of the World Health Organization as well.
Mike Papantonio: Robin, are you seeing a large number of cases right now as you're screening these cases, as they're calling you, they would call you because you really are one of the foremost experts on this in the country right now.
Robin Greenwald: Thank you.
Mike Papantonio: As they call you are you seeing numbers increase?
Robin Greenwald: There are definitely, definitely increasing numbers. I think as people learn about it, for so many decades Roundup was used and nobody thought anything about it. People believed the label, that it was safe. So often we'll get a call from someone and say, "I used it for 15, 20 years and I never thought anything about it and I was reading an article or I was on Google and I saw that it can cause non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and I'm 40 years old. I have no history of cancer in my family. I was diagnosed with stage 4 non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma two years ago. I'm still going through treatment. Do you think it's from Roundup?" We get those calls often.
Mike Papantonio: I see both Democratic and Republican senators, congressmen jumping behind to support Monsanto even though they're seeing the same material that you're looking at. How has this become such a political issue, protecting Monsanto?
Robin Greenwald: Monsanto is a huge corporation. It has a large swath of lobbyists and people who push hard to keep the product in the marketplace. Let's remember, it is a huge part of Monsanto's profit center so it is something that they will fight hard to keep on the market.
Mike Papantonio: Lawsuits are being filed nationally ...
Robin Greenwald: You know Mike, something ... I'm sorry.
Mike Papantonio: Go ahead. No, go ahead, please.
Robin Greenwald: No, I was going to say something interesting that I, sort of a little hidden fact in the complaint is in 1996 the New York Attorney General's Office actually sued Monsanto over Roundup finding their advertising to be false and deceptive in the state of New York. The two lines in particular that the state of New York sued Monsanto under was, one line was called safer than table salt and the other one was practically nontoxic. Those were the two advertisements they used throughout the state of New York. They stopped doing that in New York. I'm sorry.
Mike Papantonio: Let me do another story on this in the future. Thank you for joining me, Robin Greenwald.
According to Lawsuits, Corporate Media Is Lying to You About The Dangers of Monsanto’s Roundup
Great news everybody. A new panel from the UN and World Health Organization tells us that do not worry, glyphosate, the main chemical component of Monsanto's Roundup, do not worry, this stuff does not cause cancer. At least, that's what all of the headlines today are telling us. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that anyone who wrote any of those stories took the time to read the very short six-page report from the panel.
First of all, the panel based their decision on research that was submitted to them. They conducted no research of their own, nor did they contract any scientists to do the research for them. Whatever was submitted is what they used. Here's the big thing that every single media outlet is missing today: it's not the fact that it doesn't cause cancer, it's the fact that they think it may not cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma only. Again, look at the headlines. "Unlikely to cause cancer." Of all of the things that Monsanto's Roundup and glyphosate can cause, this panel looked for one thing, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Even on this outcome, I hate to disagree with science, but they're absolutely wrong because all of the independent investigations and studies done by real scientists who aren't working for the industry say that yes, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is possibly, probably linked to exposure to glyphosate. That's just a small piece of the puzzle. This new panel or report that's come out doesn't look at the neurological effects caused by glyphosate. We know from studies that it's been linked to ADHD, that it is linked to autism, because what happens is that this chemical, which is so prevalent, gets into the food, which is taken in, and what happens when a pregnant woman eats that is when the glyphosate gets into the fetus it starts messing with brain development. It prevents neurons from forming properly. It prevents myelination in the brain, which is directly linked to autism.
This panel, looking for one specific disease based on a select amount of research, should not be given any credence when we have all of this other research that says yes, glyphosate is linked to at least 15 different conditions, birth defects, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease. They aren't looking for those. Breast cancer, other forms of cancer, brain cancer, but no, look what the media's doing with it today. The media, by the way, that gets millions of dollars every year from Monsanto in advertising. They're out there doing Monsanto's work for them by saying that this stuff was just found by the UN to not cause cancer, which is an absolute lie and a misrepresentation of what is in that new panel report. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was the only thing mentioned in that report, and even that is a bit spotty.
Right now, there are honest journalists out there who are looking into the industry ties in the research that the panel used, and I guarantee you we're going to find out that the research used by that panel was funded, at least in part, or has some kind of ties to Monsanto, because that's the kind of dirty tricks that they pull. Monsanto's already been found to have falsified data relating to glyphosate and the cancer-causing agents within Roundup, but hey, listen to the corporate media if you want. According to them, this stuff is almost safe enough to drink.
Roundup Weed Killer Declared Cancer Causing by Agency of World Health Organization, Lawsuits Reveal
Mike: Farron, you started your career as a journalist actually working as the editor for a broadly distributed magazine called National Trial Lawyer Magazine. It goes to tens of thousands of attorneys throughout the country. One of the stories that's emerging out of there is this story about Roundup. The IARC, which is the International Agency for research on cancer, they came out with their latest thought on this. It is that there's a probable link here between Roundup and cancer. The World Health Organization has determined that there is a probable link. What is that all about? He use a hundred thousand pounds of it every year in the United States, so this is pretty scary stuff.
Farron: A hundred million pounds. A hundred million pounds.
Mike: Oh, excuse me. A hundred million pounds.
Farron: Right. The active ingredient in Roundup which is glyphosate is actually what is so problematic, and that is the specific chemical that the IARC is saying is probably carcinogenic to humans because it is causing cancer in lab rats. Glyphosate, as you mentioned, a hundred million pounds used in the United States every year, both industrially and commercially for people using it at their homes. It is hugely dangerous. The cancer part is just one piece of the danger puzzle that glyphosate and Roundup can cause this myriad of health issues.
Mike: Okay, let me back up. Let me walk back on this. The cancer is typically going to be non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. It's going to be a blood-borne cancer. The fact is, you always hear industries saying, "Well, oh yeah, the rats died, or the beagles died, or the monkeys died, but that doesn't mean anything for humans." That's why they test lab animals. They test lab animals to see, and they've done it for hundreds of years, understanding there's a relationship between what a chemical does to a rat or a monkey and what it does to a human. Matter of fact, a primate is the most close surrogate to a human being where it comes to those types of test. They're not killing these animals just for the heck of it. They're killing these animals to find out what is the relationship between this Roundup product and human beings. The word is not good according to these tests.
Farron: No, this latest round of tests that have come out are just that. They are the latest. We have been seeing results like this for years. We have known that glyphosate is dangerous, almost as dangerous as the chemical that it replaced back in the '70s, which was DDT. That is why Roundup exists, because they couldn't use DDT anymore because it was killing people, so Monsanto says, "Okay, we'll come out with this new chemical, a little bit watered down, but it's going to do the same thing both to your weeds and to human beings." Since the 1970s, very few studies have been done, but all of the ones that have been done point to the fact that this glyphosate in Roundup can cause cancer. It can cause neurological defects of all kinds.
Mike: Birth defects.
Farron: Yeah, it can cause reproductive problems. It can cause infertility. I mean, there is an endless list of the things that glyphosate has been used for, and what's really scary is that these tests are showing that even if you go and you buy a jug of it at your local big box store, you spray it out in your yard, within thirty minutes it is detectable in the human blood stream, which means it's already in your body going through it after you've gone out in your little home garden and sprayed your weeds. That is how quickly it affects the body.
Mike: Let's say the obvious. The obvious is this is a chemical that's designed to kill living cells. We can agree on that, right?
Mike: It's designed to kill living cells. It's a chemical that you can take an uptake through inhalation. You can take an uptake through ingestion. You can expose yourself by just skin contact. Now, it's there to kill cells. Now, the IARC looks at it, the World Health Organization says some of the cells that it kills may be the problem on the mechanism of why it's causing cancer. Now, the industry comes out and does what the industry always does and said, "Gee whiz." There's something called the glyphosate task force, and it looks like it's a legitimate task force. No, it's Monsanto. Monsanto is the biggest funder of this entity, that they look like a bunch of scientists that simply are giving their opinion. No, they're paid for by the very industry that is under criticism here. All of a sudden, we start seeing this big PR push-back. I don't know if you saw this, Farron, but it was an incredible statement. A Monsanto spokesman comes out in saying, "We're using this to protect schools." Did you see that?
Mike: What does that mean? We're using this weedkiller, this cell-killer to protect schools. From what? Weed?
Farron: I think what he's very poorly trying to say is, "Look, we're protecting schools by protecting the food supply from the weeds," but here's the problem, is that if you spray Roundup on a plant of any kind, as long as it's within the size range and dose range, it's going to die. That includes crops. How does Monsanto overcome this? They create genetically modified organisms that are Roundup-resistant so that now farmers are free to go and spray as much Roundup as they want on these crops to kill the weeds, and that is why the levels of glyphosate that we're finding in human beings has increased so much. Because of these Roundup-resistant crops, there's nothing holding farmer and big agriculture back from dumping this by the gallon onto heads of lettuce, or broccoli, or whatever vegetable it is we're eating that day.
Mike: The other part of it is we're looking at this ... The thing we hear from industry is, "Gee, it's inconclusive. There's not enough information," the exact thing we always hear. We heard it on tobacco, "Gee whiz, there's not enough information that shows you this will kill you by way of cancer, or heart disease, or COPD." There's not enough information. We heard that for decades. We saw it was asbestos, "There's not enough information to show that this stuff will kill you." It is a blueprint approach that industry uses, and we're seeing exactly that play itself out with this product now, Roundup. It's a multi-billion-dollar product. They've made more money than they can spend on this product. What everybody's missing here is there's a lot of parts to this chemical, Roundup. There's what we call inert ingredients. The inert ingredients could be a problem here. Talk about that a little bit.
Farron: Overall, the entire chemical cocktail that makes up Roundup, as we hit on earlier, let me go through the list. Here's is everything we know that is being linked to the chemicals, all of the chemicals in Roundup, ADHD, because these chemicals act as neurological inhibitors, both in children and in fetuses, which means that it affects the way the brain develops. The neurons do not myelinate as they're supposed to. That also causes autism. It's been linked to Alzheimer's Disease, birth defects, brain cancer, breast cancer, other forms of cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, celiac disease, gluten intolerance, chronic kidney disease, colitis, depression, diabetes, heart disease, hypothyroidism, inflammatory bowel disease, liver disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, and unfortunately I'm out of room to continue the rest of the list here. Those are all things that have been linked by studies to all of the chemicals in Monsanto's Roundup.
Mike: Okay, now Monsanto, of course, disagrees with all of this.
Mike: They say none of this is true. They say that the IARC was out to lunch. The World Health Organization was out to lunch, that their information does not show what they say it shows. They say that Roundup is completely safe, it can be used by a child, whatever. It can be used in any kind of setting. It has no relationship to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and it's exactly the type of thing that you would expect. To me, as I look at these studies and I look at the twenty-fold increase in legal residue limits that the EPA is now allowing ... Understand the EPA is part of this, too. EPA, no surprise here, is just an extension of whatever the corporation wants to do. In this situation, it happens to be Monsanto. The EPA is nothing more than an extension of Monsanto, and that's why the EPA every year has increased the acceptable amount of legal residue, such as poison, that can be found on food. They've increased that twenty-fold just in the last few years. As we see the industry push back, the way they're pushing back is a way that we would expect, and that is to get to the regulators, make the regulators do what they want them to do.
Farron: Let me say another thing that's interesting here, because you and I have spoken a lot about the dangers of pharmaceuticals and the failures of the FDA, but still, when those pharmaceutical commercials come on television, at least there's a small part of it that is dedicated to telling you that, "Hey, this drug might kill you." When you see commercials for Monsanto's Roundup, there is absolutely no warning whatsoever. It's marketed as safe. It's environmentally-friendly. It's biodegradable. All they tell you is how great it is, not the fact that it's been linked to cancer in every kind of animal that we've ever tested it on. That's a big failure there, too.
Mike: The cases I see coming in to me, our firm, on this, all seem consistent with most of the stuff we've just covered. Of course, we always invite Monsanto to come on. If they want to respond to this, they're welcome to come onto the show and respond in any form or fashion that they want to. We're going to be talking about this a lot in the weeks to come, because I think this needs a little bit more publicity than what the media is giving it. Obviously the media, corporate media, is not giving this a lot of publicity because, there again, corporate media is paid to advertise for people like Monsanto. They make a lot of money advertising for organizations like Monsanto. They're welcome to come here any time and respond. They have the floor. Farron, thanks for joining me, okay?
Farron: Thank you very much.
Deadly Monsanto RoundUp Is Probably In Your Body Right Now, According to Numerous Lawsuits
Tom: Earlier this month the EPA posted, then retracted a study connecting glyphosate, if I'm pronouncing that right, an ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide to cancer. The world health organization has already labeled glyphosate a probable carcinogen. Why did the EPA retract their study?
Mike: Because the EPA is just like the FDA. There has been so much influence, corporate influence with the EPA. As you know, these are the types of cases I handle. I'm always amazed that there haven't been Department of Justice indictments of what's going on with the EPA and the FDA right now. Today we have the world health organization telling us what independent researcher and scientists have been saying for a long time, and that is that Monsanto’s Roundup is a probable carcinogen. Understand this is a big deal. For IARC or the world health organization to say that Roundup is a probable carcinogen, that is a major leap. Hardly ever do that. Which means that the positive, that the chemicals in Roundup causes cancer in humans. Lab test have been shown consistently that these chemicals cause cancer in lab animals. The relationship between what we see in monkey studies and what we see in humans is direct. You don't find a better surrogate relationship between testing animals, such as primates, and the results that you can expect in humans.
We see the direct relationship. Monsanto responded to this news the same way they did when their chemicals in Agent Orange and aspertains in PCBs were linked to cancer. They told us that the scientists were wrong. They're smarter than anybody in the room. They cherry pick the data to make it look worse than it actually is. They created this glyphosate task force. This is very interesting. People don't understand what's happening. The media gets this report from this task force. It's Monsanto, they create the task force. The corporate media doesn't have enough sense to ask the question; "Who are these people who are saying that this is all ridiculous science and there's nothing to this?" These are the very people who are selling Roundup. Roundup, they tell us it's safe, it's environmentally friendly and non-toxic. We know that's a lie.
Tom: Is Monsanto also helping sponsor the Democratic national convention?
Mike: It wouldn't surprise me. As you know, Hilary Clinton. Look at her ties to Monsanto, GMOs, you name it. Monsanto gets what they want from the Hilary Clinton family. More importantly, the thing that you see about Monsanto; I've operated case against all of these folks. Whether it's DuPont, whether it's Pfizer, whether is Mark. Monsanto knows deception better than most corporations that I've worked against in America today. They're well financed to the point that they can create at many front groups as they want. Pay off as many scientists as possible. What they are trying to hide from consumers, here's what's awful. They're trying to hide from consumers that organization after organization has said that Roundup is related to ADHD, Alzheimer's disease, autism, birth defects, brain cancer, breast cancer, kidney disease, heart disease, ALS, MS, Hodgkin lymphoma. I could go on forever. The problems that we're seeing, Parkinson's disease, for example, what happens is this is a cumulative type of product. It builds up in the human body year after year, and we're spraying 100 million tons of Roundup every year. Both on farms and around our own households.
The chemicals are so potent, Tom, that they're detectable in human bloodstream within 30 minutes of exposure. Very unusual for that to happen. Here's the worst part, neither the EPA or the FDA test for Roundup residue on crops that are sold throughout the United States that your family and everybody else's family watching this program eat every single day, because the EPA is owned and operated by companies like Monsanto.
Tom: To that point, Pap in the last minute we've got left here. Am I correct in understanding that the science that is submitted to the FDA and the EPA, to justify things like glyphosate, is not necessarily peer reviewed science out of science or nature magazine. That is actually produced by the corporation itself?
Mike: Not at all. It is not peer reviewed. It may be peer reviewed but the peer review is actually monitored. It's actually engineered by the industry. It's not like the FDA or the EPA has independent scientists that can pay the kind of money that these corporations pay to absolutely phony up science. There is no other way to put it. They phony up science, they make the science work to whatever end they want and in the end the FDA simply has to buy it.
Tom: Amazing. Mike telling you. Always great to see you my friend. Thank you.
Mike: Thank you Tom.