To: "permaculture" <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: [permaculture] Fw: Monsanto's Roundup: new deadly scam exposed
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 23:31:34 -0000
Monsanto's Roundup: new deadly scam exposed
by Jon Rappoport
February 2, 2014
www.nomorefakenews.com
Roundup is the Monsanto herbicide that is touted as the cornerstone of GMO
food
crops. Monsanto claims these crops are genetically engineered to withstand
heavy
spraying of Roundup.
Therefore, the crops live and the weeds die. Breakthrough.
There are several key lies associated with these claims---but a new one has
surfaced.
A study to be published this month indicts Roundup and, in fact, the general
class
of insecticides and herbicides. On what grounds? When they're tested for
safety,
only the so-called "active ingredients" are examined.
The untested ingredients are called "adjuvants," and they are said to be
inert and
irrelevant. But the new study concludes this is far from true. The
adjuvants are
actually there to INCREASE the killing power of the active ingredient in the
herbicide
or insecticide.
Safety tests don't take this into account. "Active ingredients" are already
toxic,
but the adjuvants ramp up their poisonous nature even higher.
And the worst offender is Roundup.
Here are key quotes from a January 31 article at GM Watch, "Pesticide
approvals
misleading---and Roundup most toxic of 9 pesticides tested."
"Pesticide formulations as sold and used are up to 1000 times more toxic
than the
isolated substance that is tested and evaluated for safety."
"Roundup the most toxic of herbicides and insecticides tested."
"...the complete pesticide formulations as sold and used also contain
additives
(adjuvants), which increase the pest- or weedkilling activity of the
pesticide.
These complete formulations do not have to be tested in medium- and
long-term tests
- even though they are the substances to which farmers and citizens are
exposed."
"This is a serious defect of the regulatory process, according to a newly
published
study by the team of Professor Séralini (Mesnage et al. 2014, Biomedical
Research
International). The study found that for eight major pesticides (out of a
total
of nine analyzed), the commercial formulation is up to 1000 times more toxic
than
the active ingredient assessed for safety by regulators."
"The study was carried out in vitro on three types of human cells."
"The study produced another surprise outcome. Roundup is often claimed to be
a benign
herbicide that is widely used in public spaces and by home gardeners as well
as
by farmers. Yet the researchers found it was by far the most toxic of all
the herbicides
and insecticides they tested."
Obviously, we are looking at a major crime and major scam here. It boils
down to
this: the manufacturers who put these adjuvants in their pesticides and
herbicides
know very well why they are there---to increase the killing power of the
"active
ingredient." But this fact is overlooked and ignored. The pretense is,
the adjuvants
are inert and harmless.
The new study that exposes this crime is led by French scientist Gilles Eric
Seralini.
He previously published a study showing rats developed tumors when fed GMO
food.
A firestorm of criticism was leveled against him. He was "discredited."
But in
case you think we should reject Seralini's latest findings, here is my piece
on
the earlier manufactured firestorm:
Remember a researcher named Gilles-Eric Seralini, his 2012 GMO study, and
the controversy
that swirled around it?
He fed rats GMOs, in the form of Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn, and they
developed
tumors. Some died. The study was published in the journal, Food and Chemical
Toxicology.
Pictures of the rats were published.
A wave of biotech-industry criticism ensued. Pressure built. "Experts" said
the
study was grossly unscientific, its methods were unprofessional, and
Seralini was
biased against GMOs from the get-go. Monsanto didn't like Seralini at all.
The journal which published the Seralini study caved in and retracted it.
Why? Not because Seralini did anything unethical, not because he plagiarized
material,
not because he was dishonest in any way, but because:
He used rats which (supposedly) had an inherent tendency to develop tumors
(the
Sprague-Dawley strain), and because he used too few rats (10). That's it.
Those
were Seralini's errors.
Well, guess what? Eight years prior to Seralini, Monsanto also did a
rat-tumor-GMO
study and published it in the very same journal. Monsanto's study showed
there were
no tumor problems in the rats. But here's the explosive kicker. Monsanto
used the
same strain of rats that Seralini did and same number of rats (10). And
nobody complained
about it.
Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumer's Union, explains in an
interview with
Steve Curwood at loe.org:
"Well, basically what Dr. Séralini did was he did the same feeding study
that Monsanto
did and published in the same journal eight years prior, and in that study,
they
[Monsanto] used the same number of rats, and the same strain of rats, and
came
to a conclusion there was no [tumor] problem. So all of a sudden, eight
years later,
when somebody [Seralini] does that same experiment, only runs it for two
years rather
than just 90 days, and their data suggests there are problems, [then] all of
a sudden
the number of rats is too small? Well, if it's too small to show that
there's a
[tumor] problem, wouldn't it be too small to show there's no problem? They
already
said there should be a larger study, and it turns out the European
Commission is
spending 3 million Euros to actually do that Séralini study again, run it
for two
years, use 50 or more rats and look at the carcinogenicity. So they're
actually
going to do the full-blown cancer study, which suggests that Séralini's work
was
important, because you wouldn't follow it up with a 3 million Euro study if
it
was a completely worthless study."
Boom.
I can just hear Monsanto felons gibbering: "Well, we the biotech industry
people
published our study. We used 10 rats and we used the Sprague-Dawley strain.
And
that was fine. It was especially fine because our study showed GMOs were
safe.
But then this guy Seralini comes along and does the same study with the same
kind
of rat and same number of rats, and he discovers tumors. That's not fine.
That's
very bad. He...he...used the wrong rats...yeah...and he didn't use enough
rats.
He's a faker. Well, I mean, we used the same kind of rat and same number of
rats,
but when we did the experiment, we were Good, and Seralini was Bad. Do you
see?"
Yes, the mists are clearing and things are coming into focus.
Any comments, Monsanto? I'd be happy to pass them along to Michael Hansen.