UN agency to US Congress: Drop dead

IARC takes US money, manipulates scientific studies, colludes with activists – and snubs Congress

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in France has received over $48 million from America’s National Institutes of Health (NIH), to determine whether various chemicals cause cancer in humans. Of more than 900 chemicals it has reviewed, only one was ever found non-carcinogenic. The latest substance to face IARC scrutiny is glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide RoundUp.

Not surprisingly, the agency branded glyphosate carcinogenic. But this time evidence is surfacing of collusion with anti-chemical activist groups and class action lawyers, serious conflicts of interest involving a key IARC glyphosate reviewer, and IARC manipulation of scientific reports along with deliberate withholding of studies that concluded the chemical is safe, so that the agency could get a guilty verdict.

Despite this disturbing evidence, and demonstrable proof of the chemical’s safety, the European Union barely extended its authorization for glyphosate use, and then by just five years, instead of the usual 15.

The House of Representatives Science Committee is deeply concerned about this corruption of science, its potential impacts on US regulatory decisions, and the use of IARC rulings by predatory lawyers who are suing glyphosate manufacturers. It sent letters to Health and Human Services Secretary Eric Hargan (who oversees the NIH and its agencies) and IARC director Chris Wild. The letters “request” all relevant documents and the names of IARC-affiliated people who could testify at Committee oversight hearings.

Dr. Wild’s artful and legalistic response emphasized “scientific consensus” among all review panel members; said “deliberative” documents would not be made available; claimed there were no conflicts of interest among any IARC reviewers; said he and his staff would not be “pressured” by “vested interests,” the media or Congress; and said congressmen can come to France if they want answers to their questions.

In other words: Drop dead. Members of Congress who authorize taxpayer funding for IARC have no right to scrutinize its deliberations and decisions, to ensure sound science, transparency and accountability.

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world. It is vital to modern agriculture – and one of the most extensively tested chemicals in history: some 3,300 studies over four decades attest to its safety. Indeed, virtually every reputable regulatory agency and scientific body in the world has determined that it does not cause cancer – including the European Food Safety Authority, European Chemicals Agency, German Institute for Risk Assessment and US Environmental Protection Agency.

Only IARC says glyphosate causes cancer. To help it reach that conclusion, the agency employed the services of Italy’s Ramazzini Institute, which also concocted studies claiming cell phones and artificial sweeteners cause cancer. It relies on Ramazzini even though regulatory bodies in Europe, the United States and New Zealand have investigated and criticized Ramazzini’s sloppy, suspect pseudo-science.

Dr. Wild’s agency has also worked closely with Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the $690-million-a-year National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences or NIEHS (an NIH agency in the HHS). Birnbaum is also a member of the Collegium Ramazzini and has directed over $90 million of US taxpayer funds to her Ramazzini colleagues, many of whom serve on numerous IARC “expert panels.”

Evidence is accumulating that Brinbaum has worked closely with anti-chemical pressure groups and even trial lawyers, thereby undermining the US regulatory and chemical review process and perhaps ultimately forcing glyphosate off the market. She has helped to coordinate and direct these activities, and has turned the United States into IARC’s biggest donor, earmarking $4.2 million to support IARC’s current effort to list more agricultural and industrial chemicals as carcinogens – including artificial sweeteners. Even GMO foods are on the agency’s hit list.

The well-funded, carefully coordinated effort to eradicate weed-eradicating glyphosate has also involved a number of devious, secretive, deceptive actions.

The 2014 advisory group that decided IARC would review glyphosate was led by activist statistician Dr. Christopher Portier, who worked for years for NIEHS and Birnbaum. In fact, investigative journalists David Zaruk (Risk-Monger) and Kate Kelland (Reuters) discovered, Portier drove the glyphosate review, while also working for the anti-pesticide Environmental Defense Fund and serving as the only “invited specialist” on the working group that labeled glyphosate carcinogenic.

At the same time, Portier was also advising trial lawyers suing over other chemicals that IARC had found carcinogenic – and shortly after serving on the advisory group signed with the same lawyers to work on their glyphsate suits, a gig for which he has so far been paid $160,000. No conflicts of interest?

Even more outrageous, as Ms. Kelland explained in another article, IARC repeatedly ignored or altered studies that exonerated glyphosate. One report clearly said the researchers “unanimously” agreed that glyphosate had not caused abnormal growths in mice they had studied. IARC deleted the sentence.

In other cases IARC panelists inserted new statistical analyses that reversed a study’s original finding; quietly changed critical language exonerating the chemical; and claimed they were “not able to evaluate” a study because it included insufficient experimental data, while excluding another study because “the amount of data in the tables was overwhelming.” These machinations helped to ensure a “consensus.”

Equally questionable, NIH Cancer Research Institute scientist Aaron Blair conducted a years-long study that also found glyphosate was not carcinogenic. But he held off on publishing his results, and did not divulge his findings, knowing IARC would leave “unpublished” work out of its analysis.

This is not science. It is manipulation and deception – supported by our tax dollars, and used to drive safe, widely used chemicals off the market.

Other activists repeatedly claim “endocrine disrupting” chemicals which don’t cause cancer or other harm in high doses somehow do so at barely detectable levels. Another clever ploy claims no actual exposure is needed; kids get cancer because their parents or grandparents were exposed to something, perhaps years ago. It’s ridiculous. But convincing a jury there’s no cause-effect relationship is a Sisyphean task.

The end result, if not the goal, is to undermine public confidence in science-based risk assessments, lend credibility to agitator claims that countless chemicals contaminate our foods and imperil our health, endlessly frighten consumers, and set the stage for billion-dollar lawsuits to enrich class-action lawyers and organic food interests.

More than 1,000 US lawsuits already claim glyphosate causes cancer, and law firms are running ads saying anyone who has cancer and was ever exposed to glyphosate in any form or amount may be entitled to millions in compensation. Other lawyers are playing the same games with “manmade climate change.”

Ending legal predation will require major state and federal reforms. However, the American people elected this President and Congress to bring transparency and accountability back to Washington and international regulatory agencies. They need to use their oversight and funding powers to do so.

Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith told me he is reviewing Mr. Wild’s response. “Given the serious nature of our concerns related to IARC’s expenditures of taxpayer dollars, IARC should exercise due diligence and provide a complete response to my November 1 letter. The Science Committee will use all tools at our disposal to ensure the stewards of our taxpayers’ dollars are held accountable,” Smith said.

That is good news. Too many regulators and “scientific” panels have the attitude, “We are accountable only to ourselves. We will not have any member of Congress or the Trump Administration presume to tell us how to run our business, do science or be transparent.” That arrogance is intolerable.

Even if Dr. Wild is beyond the reach of US law, Drs. Birnbaum, Portier, Blair, et al. are not. They should be compelled to testify under oath, and funding for their agencies and work should be made contingent on their cooperation in rooting out the apparent secrecy, corruption, conflicts of interest and junk science.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of books and articles on energy and environmental policy.

Advertisements

91 thoughts on “UN agency to US Congress: Drop dead

      • Well I wouldn’t recommend eating Roundup. Most usage of roundup is to spray it on weeds; not on food crops.

        Due to the genius of some long ago farmer, food plants are planted and grow in rows. Those rows happen to fit the machines that John Deere builds to harvest food crops.

        Farmers don’t plant weeds in the rows where food crops are planted, but weed seeds do get into the space between those crop rows, by was of irrigation watering, which may come out of a water ditch, which contains the seeds of every weed known to agricultural science.

        Ergo, any plant that is located in between the crop rows, is 97% sure guaranteed by consensus to be a weed species. The presence of ANY plant species in between the crop rows, is readily determined from the infra-red signature of chlorophyll, when the light from the IR LEDs strikes it. Those LEDs are attached to the Roundup spray head, that also is conveniently located on the machine to be between the food crop rows, and in between them where no food crop plant has been planted.
        Even the dumbest of code writers can then instruct the Roundup head to blatch that thing that is not dirt and is not a food crop plant.

        So I don’t see how you get to eat roundup in that scenario.

        I keep a goodly supply of the concentrated 32% Roundup where I can get at it, when my eagle eye spots some non food plant anywhere I don’t want to see any plants.

        For the legal disclosure, I did once work for Monsanto Chemical Company Central Research Laboratories in St Louis County MO. And no I had nothing to do with any organic chemicals; digital electronics initially, and III-V LED devices after that.

        Monsanto is a very responsible company, and teaches proper safety procedures related to all of its products. Sacharin is the first product Monsanto ever made. It is also the only non-nutritive sweetener, that has never been linked to any health issues, that is unless you find the taste somewhat bitter, which I do. No I don’t use any kind of plastic faux sweeteners. I use honey in my coffee, and brown or raw sugar when I can’t get honey.

        No I am not getting paid by Monsanto for saying good things about them. They also make Skydrol, Aspirin, Nylon, and the active ingredient in almost ALL household detergents. Skydrol is a non-flammable hydraulic fluid used in 97% of all aviation hydraulic systems including commercial airliners.

        G

      • George:
        “Well I wouldn’t recommend eating Roundup. Most usage of roundup is to spray it on weeds; not on food crops.”
        Isn’t the major reason for GMO food crops is their resistance to direct spray of this and other herbicides? This would also imply that the herbicides do enter the crops and therefore the pesticides are being indirectly eaten.

      • We grow RoundUp Ready alfalfa in Virginia, just spray the field for the weeds and the alfalfa keeps on growing. I am under the impression that RoundUp is broken down fast by sunlight and does not last long at all. Surely, it it were a carcinogen, there would be a lot of horses and cattle with gigantic, malignant tumors from eating the alfalfa….

        PMK

      • Typically myopic view of life from George there. Like everyone in India and around the world is equipped with latest internet drone, John Deer tractors that detect individual weeds for selective spraying. Total PR BS. OK George declares his background which explains his blinkered view of the subject. He drank the Monsanto Cool-Aid.

        PD:

        The well-funded, carefully coordinated effort to eradicate weed-eradicating glyphosate has also involved a number of devious, secretive, deceptive actions.

        No glyphosate is not a weed-killer it is an everything killer. The only plants that are not killed by it are the ones genetically engineered to resist it … and produced by Monsanto. That makes it a potential WEAPON, not a weed killer.

        That is why many people are against it and Monsanto’s aggressive attempts to monopolise the worlds grain markets. That is probably what is behind some rather biased looking “science”.

      • Greg, conspiracy theories just make you look silly. How can you use it as a weapon? You would have to be able to spray over everything, then spray it over everything again when you replant and so on for ever. If you can do that, you have already won the war through other means. Roundup doesn’t stay in the soil as an active ingredient.

        And why would we let anybody monopolise anything? We have various laws and agencies to prevent that. We don’t need fake science and lunatic chemophobes to do that for us, thanks.

      • George: The farmers spray the whole field first to get rid of the weeds to be able to till the field, else the weeds just churn up into crop rows. Secondary spraying might just be in furrows, but not the first spraying. The spraying is for crab grass, which sends out shoots all over like dendrites. It is going to get up into the rows unless everything is sprayed. The computer control for spraying is not to protect plant crops, but to save money on herbicide.

      • To: “george e. smith”.
        A lot of conventional grains are being sprayed with Roundup just before harvest as a desiccant. The crops all die and dry in a uniform way. If people want to eat that and pay to be poisoned then that is their choice. Most don’t even know of this use.

        One of the first ideas for Roundup was an antibiotic until they realised it killed all the good bacteria but left the bad ones. So that is what you are putting into your gut. The gut biome controls inflammation, immunity and neurotransmitter production for the brain so it is kind risky and silly to poison it.

      • So Greg, am I right that you are an omnibus critic of the usual bundle of poster topics the left has for their global political utopian dreams (that you may not be aware of – that would be rich!! ) ? Did your choice for president get in? Granola, tofu meat substitute and organic veg much?

      • Greg,

        The only point that is important is the dose-response curve for anything that is ingested.

        For gyphosate, the maximum dose of no observed effect level (NOEL, that is NO, NONE, whatsoever health effect on any organ…) is around 500 mg/kg/day for dogs administered over a full life.
        For a 80 kg human, that means ingesting some 40 g glyphosate every day of one’s lifetime, without any effect. Humans are even more tolerant than most animals for possible toxic products…

        The the exposure:
        A test in India of agricultural workers using Roundup on glyphosate-ready crops revealed an average daily intake of maximum 0.000001 g/day.

        Even if glyphosate was a real carcinogen, which it is not, it is safe to use…

      • TRM,

        I know the use of vine killing potato fields before they are harvested to avoid blight reaching the potatoes (be it mostly diquat dibromide, not glyphosate). It seems to be used in grains, but that differs from country to country:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation
        Thus ultimately, we need to know how much glyphosate is digested by people.

        Here a recent study in Jama about the quantities found in urine of people in California:
        http://www.timesnownews.com/health/article/glyphosate-main-ingredient-in-india%E2%80%99s-widely-used-weedkiller-may-cause-cancer/114338

        The detectable amounts increased from an average of 0.20 micrograms per liter in 1993-1996 to an average of 0.44 micrograms in 2014-2016.

        As the average volume of urine is about 2 l/day, that still is less than 1 microgram/day for an adult or
        0.000001 g/day, while the NOEL is at least 40 g/day.

        Better don’t eat potatoes at all: the NOEL of the natural pesticide solanine in potatoes is less than 10 times over what is found in potato eaters… If solanine was a synthetic product, it would never have been admitted to the market…

      • TRM,
        Baloney, Roundup was eyed from the beginning for it’s herbicidal properties. They only patented it as an antibiotic as a way of covering all their bases; just in case it turned out to be useful as an antimicrobial. It didn’t, mostly because it would require very large doses, and even then, the body flushes it out too quickly to be useful. Your notion that it somehow will kill the useful bacteria in your gut at the very small doses you could get from residual exposure (from crops treated with Roundup), is completely unfounded. A beer will do more damage. Do you abstain from that too?

    • Ah don’t worry the UN want $22.5B for foreign aide, it asked the same last year and got $13B.
      http://www.dw.com/en/un-asks-for-record-225-billion-for-humanitarian-aid-in-2018/a-41611053

      There are so many causes to try and drag money from countries and few with proper auditing.
      The UN own estimate is 30% the real number will probably be higher
      https://www.devex.com/news/30-percent-of-aid-lost-to-corruption-ban-ki-moon-78643

      Thirty percent of development aid last year failed to reach “its final destination” owing to corruption, Ban said, adding “we cannot let it persist.”

  1. Aside from defunding IARC and some personnel changes at NIH, perhaps a RICO criminal prosecution against the trial bar and their pet witnesses?
    I have seen the solicitations for plaintiffs by the trial bar on cable TV, and they attribute the finding that glyposate is carcinogenic to the “UN”.

  2. It is unbelievable that these science funding agencies always end-up getting captured by crusaders but there appears to be nothing we can do to stop it. It just goes on and on and on. Nobody seems to be able to correct it.

    Would it be a mistake to just stop all science funding by the government?

    • The problem is that much of science lacks a proper customer, scientists can do pretty much as they please, safe in the knowledge that funders are not going to check their output, besides counting papers and citations. So there is a way to fix the problem, but it would require hiring several hundred scientist reviewers with all sceptical genes intact, but there will always be the zombie problem, as in they will try to infect the reviewers with whatever it is that turns them into crusaders.

      • The other argument would be to find some way of banning environmental activist groups from funding scientific research into environmental matters but that idea is impossible to enforce or even to consider in a free society.

        Nonetheless the modern environment movement is hell-bent on doing more damage to humanity than companies like Monsanto or Exxon-Mobil could ever have dreamt of. How you prevent this minuscule minority from lying its way through civilisation and corrupting science as it goes is a conundrum!

    • Frankly, it is wise to have less government, rather than more.

      Once you set up some institution that can control things by “legitimate” authority, it is set in stone, and anyone who can figure out how to exploit the rules and laws will EVENTUALLY figure it out.

      Best to have less.

    • Its not really a surprise. The agencies are set up to put safety first, and the people who go and work there are almost always already on the side of or have sympathy with the activists – certainly at the management level. The problem is that we have become so absurdly fearful of everything.

    • Exactly. If they were doing good science with no conflicts of interest and were proud of their work, they would be happy to have their work reviewed. A review that finds no fault with their work gives them a perfect reason to request more funding. But that only works if they have nothing to hide.

    • Wild’s response is typical of someone from a body which has NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO ANYONE and has legally immunity from prosecution under any and all legal jurisdictions in the world. l

  3. The UN has set itself up as the world’s governing body for everything and if any country dares question them they become the subject of shaming, ridicule, and outright ostracizing. If you read Agenda21 that is their preferred methods of forcing their will on others. Nations are being effectively bullied using the “consensus” reasoning the UN invents. Then Trump came along.

  4. What other state funded-extremist led sciencey movement comes to mind as a likely source of similar self dealing and questionable science?

      • At least cancer is a real problem. I doubt that a ‘war on cancer’ is the solution but it is a real problem. Unlike climate change or Round up.

      • The impetus was a theory by a small group at the National Institutes of Health that cancer was mostly caused by trace amounts of artificial chemicals. I once worked for a company that went bankrupt partly because of the ban on cyclamates, which left them with a large amount of inventory they could not sell.
        California’s Proposition 65 warnings are a holdover of that movement.

    • hunter – The coming war on PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), used in teflon-related products for years – and now detectable in drinking water systems the world over at Parts-Per-Trillion (PPT) levels. EPA is developing regulations to control these very small amounts detectable in drinking water (see: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking-water-health-advisories-pfoa-and-pfos); based partly on research from – you guessed it – the IARC (see: https://www.aiha.org/publications-and-resources/TheSynergist/Industry%20News/Pages/IARC-Monograph-PFOA-Possibly-Carcinogenic-to-Humans.aspx). As far as I have been able to research, the jury (scince) is still out as to the carcinogenicity of long-term exposure to PFOAs. (Note; LD50 (rat): “an oral LD50 of 680 mg/kg and 430 mg/kg for male and female CD rats, respectively” – source: https://peerreview.versar.com/epa/pfoa/pdf/Health-Effects-Document-for-Perfluorooctanoic-Acid-(PFOA).pdf)

      I am currently employed at a location where there are multiple drinking water sources and distribution networks supplying drinking water, now being monitored for PFOA – to a detection limit of 70 ppt. Wells exceeding this limit (yes, they exist) are taken off-line, and for that distribution network additional water must be pumped from wells testing <70 ppt PFOA to charge that system as the 'offending' wells are taken off-line. The solution? Activated carbon filtration systems are being engineered to remove the PFOA, to be installed in the near future, at a TBD cost.

      This will end up costing many thousands of dollars to the water purveyors – and opens up potential future litigation for 'exposure' to the offending compounds.

      Precautionary principle much??? I agree with monitoring and removing stuff from drinking water that may harm us, especially the vulnerable populations (for the children, right?) that may be more susceptible to reactions to exposures. But – it seems that, 'if man makes it, it is not found in nature, it can be detected as a source of human uptake – then – it bust be bad' at 70 ppt detection levels????

      What is the right way to go on this and other similar issues? Extreme limits of detection, and subsequent overreaction damn the costs? Or a more measured, cost- and health-effective approach?

      Food for thought,

      MCR

  5. What else would we expect? They’ve let loose the Dogs of Consensus and fake science via statistics as well as the corruption of peer review and scientific method from the Church of AGW tactics.

    How long was it going to be before otehr branches of science saw how to get away with falsifying data for money.

    It’s a slippery slope once we lower the standards and let the con men into science.

    • In the old days, the limits imposed by the “ecological fallacy” were recognized.
      Now, with “disparate impact” and “evidence-based medicine” – versus science-based medicine, all that is needed is 1. pet theory, and 2. guilt by association, such as correlation.
      [“counterfactual” need not apply.]

    • There is rational that everything causes everything. We are all exposed to everything and we all die of something.

      That is not help of course.

      Visualize this. I am at a church meeting when a woman hears I work at a nuke plant and starts telling about how radiation causes cancer. She has a cigarette in one hand, a cocktail in the other with skin turned to leather by sunbathing.

      The point is the self induced large risk from lifestyle makes environmental risk insignificant.

      We belong to a drinking club with a boating problem. We are out in the sun. My skin is frequently exposed gasoline and diesel fuel.

      What is my secret? You can not cause cancer. Most things are toxic so red wine is okay in moderation, drinking gasoline is not

  6. Oh it is based in France. Full of french public servants “scientists”, whose career depends on their agreeing with french gov. OK. I wondered why it wanted to kill round-up. I understand now.

  7. As a farmer I have used Glyphosate in the form of round up many times. No more. Firstly I stopped using it a few years ago as I noted the productivity of the soil was declining. It was only after that I came across Dr Don Huber and I invite anyone to start where I did (see link below). I am also an MD and as such have read thousands of studies I can tell you in medical science there is a lot of miss information and outright data manipulation if not tampering. Estimates are that at least 50% of medical studies are flat out wrong. Certainly don’t know any other areas of science where that happens.
    Links below just for a start. Anyone who pursues this can find much more. It is my view the so called science that glyphosate is safe is a classic example of making a science out of bad science. It is also my view is is a myth that we need these chemicals to “feed the world” and this has absolutely been proven wrong.



    or
    http://earthopensource.org/wordpress/downloads/GMO-Myths-and-Truths-edition2.pdf

    • Thanks, John. Please post a citation for the best study, or the five best studies, you believe pin this chemical as carcinogenic.

      • Thanks for your interest. The last link in my original post on GMOs Myths and truths is over 300 pages and does review the available literature. Sadly the available long term studies on the the safety of round up are lacking and I can only find two. Please remember if I spray glyphosate as apposed to round up on my fields it does nothing.

        1 Seralini Study. There is a long story behind this study as it has faced much criticism yet it still stands

        https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5

        I like the Seralini study as it seems to be the only long term(2 year) study of GMO corn and roundup. It was heavily criticized and was even withdrawn and later re published. No controversy there. I have read the critics and read the study. It is far from perfect but no study is yet it still stands as one of the few long term studies.

        There is a second long term study on mice, the name of which escapes me right now. As I re call it was done in Egypt.

        Below is a review article that perhaps can help do ni a much better why any article review I could do.
        Environmental & Analytical
        Toxicology
        Antoniou et al., J Environ Anal Toxicol 2012, S:4
        http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-0525.S4-006
        J Environ Anal Toxicol Toxicology of Pesticides ISSN:2161-0525 JEAT

        Lastly has round up been proven harmful, evidence looks like it likely is but certainly there is a lack of long term studies. Has round up been proven safe???? Somebody find me that study

      • That paper is worse than bad it is terrible, if you think that is compelling please stop any discussion of science right now.

        The study is GM maize on rat study .. so first big point not human. Second point it finds there are abnormalities with the rats and the GM maize itself.

        This analysis revealed a consistent and statistically significant (p< 0.01) decrease in certain phenolic acids in treatment diets, namelyferulic and caffeic acids. Ferulic acid was decreased in both GM maize and GM maize +R diets by 16% to 30% in comparison to the control diet (889 ± 107, 735 ±89, respectively, vs. control 1,057 ± 127 mg/kg) and caffeic acid in the samegroups by 21% to 53% (17.5 ± 2.1, 10.3 ± 1.3 vs. control 22.1 ± 2.6mg/kg).

        Then they add Roundup on top of that. This is what we call shotgun science approach in the hard sciences if you throw enough bullets around you get some statistical variations.

        Your great article was unsurprisingly singled out by scientists from outside the field, I knew nothing of it but when I read it I was like WTF it is that bad
        https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/09/30/does-the-seralini-corn-study-fiasco-mark-a-turning-point-in-the-debate-over-gm-food/#ba4eaaf7bfaa

        The study sparked an immediate furor among independent scientists, including those who support the labeling of GM foods but found Seralini’s research sloppy and poorly documented.

        It’s bad science in any field.

      • seralini is a known liar.
        What sort of man takes a race of rats that produces cancer of its own, to prove a carcinogenic effect? not a scientist, for sure

    • I don’t think they were evaluating the efficacy of glyphosate as an agricultural chemical or if it should be used as a salad dressing. They were trying to figure out if it causes cancer. Then again, almost any substance can be shown to ‘probably’ cause cancer….

    • Dr Mercola has also posted about issues with Glyphosates, apparently the explosion in gluten sensitivity is actually Glyphosate sensitivity, you see the difference in people who travel and can eat bread in Europe but not the US:

      https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/08/06/plant-paradox-healthy-foods-hidden-dangers.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20170806Z1_UCM&et_cid=DM153950&et_rid=5567324

      Not All Bread Is the Same
      If you’ve ever traveled to Europe, you may have indulged in some bread and noticed you didn’t experience the same type of problems you have when eating bread in the U.S. The reason for this is because the lectins are removed when you use traditional methods of raising bread, which is still popular in Europe.

      “Europe [has] always used traditional methods raising bread. They use yeast or sourdough. Yeast and bacteria are actually pretty good at breaking down the gluten molecule and other lectins,” Gundry explains.

      Europe also does not permit the use of glyphosate to desiccate wheat, which has become common practice in the U.S. Glyphosate is also used on many conventional grains, including beans and flax, so it’s in the animal meats we eat, it’s in our baked goods, and even in wine produced in the U.S. According to Gundry, glyphosate potentiates gluten to people who are not even gluten-sensitive, and interferes with your liver’s ability to manufacture the active form of vitamin D.

      Glyphosate also chelates important minerals, disrupts the shikimate pathway, decimates your microbiome and increases leaky gut, which allows more of the LPSs into your bloodstream. Since it works synergistically with the lectins, it really delivers a double-whammy.

      “[Glyphosate] hits cytochrome P450. It’s one of the reasons the Europeans are so far [ahead] on health,” Gundry says. “It’s one of the reasons why so many of my patients can go to Europe, eat their traditional diet and think they’re cured and now they can start eating bread. They come back and eat a piece of bread and, bam — the whole thing starts all over again.”

    • Thanks John for the additional information on roundup/glyphosate. Back in the late 90’s my better half and I spent six years on a sailboat in the NW Caribbean, the last one mostly in Guatemala and Belize. Upon returning to the US we both had developed gluten sensitivity, me to the point of a serious vitamin deficiency with symptoms of dry beriberi. It took a couple of years to finally tie it to gluten sensitivity. In my case, after spending about 2 months on a chicken and rice diet, slowly adding back one food item at a time, we pinned mine down to wheat, then finally to gluten. Once we had done that, her’s was easier to diagnose.

      Since we both came down with the sensitivity and showed symptoms shortly after returning to the States, we suspect it ties back to a 50lb sack of high gluten flour we purchased in Guatemala which was possibly overloaded with Roundup at/before harvest. Of course that last bit is only conjecture. But, a few months before bringing the boat back to the US we had visited her parents in the States for a couple of weeks and had no symptoms from that. Since then I have followed the research on glyphosate and gluten sensitivity with interest.

  8. Addition to above post. If you have an afternoon go to Pubmed and type in Glyphosate toxicity or Glyphosate cancer. About one billion pounds of round up is sprayed annually. There are detectable levels in virtually every one of us.
    Most people are unaware it is sprayed on most of our cereal crops a week or two before harvest to dry the crops to facilitate harvest. t.

  9. We have what I think Judith Curry would call a wicked problem. The result is that most published research findings are wrong.

    Scholars must publish if they are to have any hope of gaining employment. They won’t be published unless they find something new. There’s no penalty for being wrong.

    We rely on science to allow us to innovate our way out of problems as they develop. Thus, the government funds science. The funders won’t fund blue sky research. They want a well developed plan. They want results.

    Scientists are desperate to get grants and publish. The net result is bad science, lots of it. IMHO, science has become a swamp that needs to be drained.

      • Yes, there are people getting sick and dying younger and younger.

        Its because Generation Whine are basically fat tubs of goo who spend most of their time playing video games, texting and complaining.

        Basically the opposite of Saskatchewan farmers.

      • +10

        That also underlines the problem with the current state of medical cancer research. The whole area has large donations and funding with little regard for results it’s an emotional tug (sound familiar)

        The discovery of fraud has led investigations in the area of research and unsurprisingly they got headline s like
        http://retractionwatch.com/2017/04/20/new-record-major-publisher-retracting-100-studies-cancer-journal-fake-peer-reviews/

        China has a major issue with a whole industry popping up with fake papers
        https://www.nature.com/news/china-cracks-down-on-fake-peer-reviews-1.22176
        Although policy in China appears as much to blame

        Physicians in China are often pressured to publish, but are given little time or resources to do so. Jiang, too, is sympathetic, but says that such publications are aimed at personal advancement, rather than making a contribution to science.

        This is why you want your science hard and factual and not from activists.

  10. Looks like we have a Monsanto shill deleting comments.

    [I notice your previous comment on this thread is still up. Do you have some references for for comments being deleted because they have negative expressions about Monsanto. Thanks . . . mod]

    (I looked through the Moderation board to find only ONE comment that was deleted,for a good reason too) MOD

  11. @George E. Smith

    Those LEDs are attached to the Roundup spray head, that also is conveniently located on the machine to be between the food crop rows,

    This sounds like science fiction to me. I can’t imagine dozens or hundreds of IR sensors reliably working in a dirty, dusty, wet, shaking and rattling environment like a farming engine.

  12. Send in the FDA thugs with their Homeland Security weapons team. They already do this at local pharmacies in the U.S.

  13. Is Hagen a Trump appointee? Some aspects of the swamp can be cleaned up quickly. If conflicts and malfeasance can be proven, surely these individuals in gov employ can be dismissed and IARC defunding. Start with a private statistician reviewing the same data as our activist statistician at NIEH.

    And Lamar Smith has the right idea but is short on success with subpoenas for NASA/NOAA temperature riggers and conspirator-mega grant manipulator- prof Shady Shuke. Why did he give in on this?

  14. I don’t think the “science is settled” quite yet on glyphosate. It is being detected in placental tissue at levels higher than “promised”. It kills plants by binding nutrients (primarily mineral), and that is the last thing you want around developing babies.

    Its use as a pre-harvest drying agent on some crops puts it right on the plant foliage. Glyphosate persistence should be relatively easy to study on these (worst case) chemically dried plants…and the animals that eat them…BUT…
    It’s getting hard to trust scientific study results coming from industry or government. No one should trust the UN. There is a price to pay for bad science.

    • I agree with that, I don’t trust Monsanto scientists but nor do I trust the UN’s because they are both activists 1st and scientists second.

  15. “I am also an MD and ….”

    And a crackpot!

    Being in the nuclear industry you get good at identifying the rhetoric of crackpots.

    When it comes to safety, are the dead bodies? If something is dangerous, that is not safe, and in widespread use; then you have dead bodies. Crossing the street, swimming pools are dangerous. We have dead bodies all over the place.

    The benefit of doing something must also be considered when evaluating the risk.

    Electrical safety is a big issue for me, at work and at home. However, if you start talking about the hazards of electromagnetic radiation, I will be thinking you are a crackpot and I will have to be careful not to hurt your feelings.

    Science can prove a negative. You can collect lots of evidence that suggest the risk is small. So if the benefit is large, just do it.

    • Ha ha ha, I see more absurd arguments against Glyphosate:

      Glyphosate toxicity: Looking past the hyperbole, and sorting through the facts. By Credible Hulk

      “You may at some point have heard people speak of glyphosate as being “less toxic than caffeine or table salt.” What they’re referring to when they say that is what we call its LD50, which a standard way of quantifying acute toxicity. A substance’s LD50 is the dose at which 50% of the subjects who ingest that amount will die of complications from an acute overdose, and it is measured in units of mass of the substance per unit mass of the subject (usually mg/kg). See, one of the most fundamental principles in all of toxicology is that “the dose makes the poison,” which was famously coined by Paracelsus, the father of toxicology. Most substances have some amount beyond which they become toxic. Many substances that are benign, beneficial, or even essential to human health in one range of concentration will become harmful if taken in sufficiently large amounts. Even water can be toxic if you drink enough of it. So, you can’t just look at it as though there were some toxic things in the world and some non-toxic things, or that something that is toxic at one dose is bad in any dose, simply because that’s not how toxicology works.

      Here you can find a very brief introduction to concepts in toxicology, but for now, suffice it to say that students are generally taught about three main types of toxicity: acute, chronic and subchronic.

      By the acute standard of LD50, glyphosate (albeit not necessarily round up brand mind you, which also contains surfactants) is indeed less toxic than either caffeine or table salt.

      It has an LD50 of 5600 mg/kg based on oral ingestions in rats, according to EPA assessments, placing it in Toxicity Category III. The EPA ranks chemicals in four categories, I being the most toxic and IV being the least.”

      http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/glyphosate-toxicity-looking-past-the-hyperbole-and-sorting-through-the-facts-by-credible-hulk/

      Long but worth reading to see that all those anti round up claims are unsupportable.

      • Except for the few cancer buff, I don’t think the toxicity of glyphosate is questioned. It is not toxic to humans or any other mammals, or at least in conceivable doses. However, it is toxic to most plants and certain bacterial. And, according to several studies, many bacteria in the human microbiome. Since humans rely heavily on that microbiome for a healthy subsistence there is at least the potential for glyphosate to cause serious harm by eliminating certain bacteria we rely on. That is what Dr Senef’s papers are trying to determine. Scientists have just begun to study the human microboime and its effects on health.

  16. Again glyphosate is just one component of round up. If I spray just glyphosate on my fields it will not kill a thing. The only two long term studies I can find on round up show a problem. This is in our food supply, should we not have better evidence that this. Those who call the Seralini study junk science seem to have nothing to say about the Monsanto study it was modeled after using the same type of rat, basically same study design and heck even published in the same journal. That 90 day study dismissed statistically significant change in organ weights as “not biologically significant”. The Seralinin study was for 2 years. It was not perfect but no study is. For what it was designed to show it did in fact do a very good job showing liver and kidney toxicity. The tumors were an unexpected finding and because of the study design by definition could not show statistical significance yet there are the tumors. It was with withdrawn a year after publication after a former Monsanto employee got on the board of that journal. They could not find any valid scientific reason to withdraw it or we would have heard it from high roof tops. It was withdrawn believe it or not for “inconclusive results”. It was republished after passing a rigorous per review and stands as one of the few long term studies.
    LD 50 is for toxicology but means nothing as a endocrine disruptor, long term carcinogen, and its effects on our gut bacteria.
    All I am saying is this stuff is in our food supply. Watch Dr Hubers video linked in me prior post, then tell yourself there is absolutely safe and then feed this stuff to you kids.

    • Except for a few cancer buffs, I don’t think the toxicity of glyphosate is questioned. It is not toxic to humans or any other mammals, or at least in conceivable doses. However, it is toxic to certain bacteria, and, according to several studies, many bacteria in the human microbiome. Since humans rely heavily on that microbiome for a healthy subsistence there is at least the potential for glyphosate to cause serious harm by eliminating certain bacteria we rely on. That is what Dr Senef’s papers are trying to determine. Science is just beginning to study the mirobiome and is a far cry from determining the effects of each class of bacteria in it. Because of the complexity my guess is it is going to be a long time before we fully understand any negative effect on the human.

  17. Basically the regulatory guidelines in the EU are based on punitive taxes, fees, and penalties of all things American by hook or by crooked science. It’s basically the methods of Obama’s EPA pseudoscience but with heavy nationalistic and protectionist overtones applied.

  18. re: “Ending legal predation will require major state and federal reforms.”

    Not necessarily. It really only requires one legal reform – a credible loser-pays system. Make the lawyers have some economic skin in the game and they’ll be a lot less likely to launch baseless litigation of all types.

  19. Having done a quick page search I find that the Radon scam, supported by the EPA, Health Canada, and the World Health Organization (albeit, inexplicably, at varying mitigation threshholds of 4, 5, and 2.7 picocuries/L, respectively) has been overlooked.

    Here is a scam that aims to hit millions around the world in the pocket book to the tune of thousands of dollars for a hole in the basement and exhaust pipes that uglify the home inside and out and take up precious space. All to fix a health problem for which NO scientist has ever offered any proof. Indeed, what evidence there is suggests that such levels (and much higher ones) are protective against cancer.

    Yet this campaign has the full support of not only the United Nations and the USA but also that of “Holmes on Homes”.

    How does that happen, and keep happening, in a society that’s ever more educated and “informed”?

    • Just as the CAGW sycophants look for new ways to “save” us from the evil carbon emitting cars and power plants. People who are rational actually have to start looking at every organization with over a few thousand members as being easily corruptible. It’s scary that so many are just fed any new catastrophic end of the world scenario every time some con artist can come up with it. As long as they can get enough people to donate to their cause to “save”, (there’s that word in quotations again) us all from ourselves they’re new age spirituality saints above any angelic hierarchy they’re so high on life and millions of dollars they believe they are gods. It’s just more insanity because there’s a sucker born every minute.

  20. Having worked on the anti- pesticide game for 30 years the anti-pesticide folks are as bad if not worse than the anti-vaccers or the CAGW crowd. It is an industry and some EPA staff walk hand in hand with them. The glyphosate attacks are an attack on pesticides, using the DDT paradigm as their model, but it is also an attack on GMOs. The “quats”, i.e., diquat, paraquat, etc are far more biological active in animals than glyphosate yet are still used and not attacked by radical environmentalists. Why? because to my knowledge they are not pertinent to GMOs just in general agriculture. Glyphosate (Rodeo) has been approved for use in drinking water bodies to control aquatic weeds for decades. While we don’t need pesticides to grow food, while there have been gross mistakes using pesticides in the past, if used properly we grow a lot more food with them than without them.

  21. Kind of amazing to watch how even this thread wanders. Is RoundUp carcinogenic or not? Indeed, it has an effect on the human micro-biome, but is that effect cancerous? Zero evidence presented here that this is the case.

    As for the French response, well, they have been arrogant jerks who can’t manage their own country worth a damn for a long time. This is the land of Rousseau and Robespierre – they are the leading edge of Leftist insanity. Or you could just look at their Islamic population and how they’ve created the seeds of their own destruction. By 2050, Europe will be Eurabia. Think France will be less hostile then?

Leave a Reply - if your comment doesn't appear right away, it may have been intercepted by the SPAM filter. Please have patience while our moderation team examines it.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s