Shocking Monsanto Records Reveal White House May Have Betrayed Cancer Victims

Just before going to concluding arguments in the third lawsuit against Monsanto, in which Alva and Alberta Pilliod allege that the company’s pesticides are to blame for their cancers, shocking new documents came to light.

According to Monsanto’s own report, the company hired a corporate intelligence company “to take the temperature on current regulatory attitudes for glyphosate.” The company’s report indicated that a domestic policy advisor at the White House said: “We have Monsanto’s back on pesticides regulation. We are prepared to go toe-to-toe on any disputes they may have with, for example, the EU. Monsanto need not fear any additional regulation from this administration.”

This wasn’t the only shocking news that has come out of the third trial against Monsanto: emails were released showing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials may have worked with Monsanto to help slow the release of the dangers of the pesticide from the public, as well as feeding the company consistent updates.

Despite the recent revelations, the EPA made a contradictory statement in its media release it distributed a week ago, in which the agency declared that “glyphosate is not a carcinogen.” The media release also declared that the EPA’s decision is “consistent with the findings of other regulatory authorities that glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.”

The statement is a stark contrast to the World Health Organization’s declaration that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen” after reviewing approximately 1000 studies, as well as the verdicts in two trials against Monsanto in which juries awarded the plaintiffs who are suffering from cancer the win. In order to do so, the jury first had to decide whether there was sufficient evidence linking Monsanto’s glyphosate-based pesticide, RoundUp, to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma—a type of cancer of the lymphatic system.

Additionally, it’s not clear which regulatory authorities the EPA is referring to as nearly 30 countries have already banned or have declared their intentions to restrict the sale or use of the pesticides.

Furthermore, the new court-revealed report suggests that the government may be working on behalf of Monsanto. The government has a responsibility to the public and its safety. The public deserves credible, unbiased, science-based policy from their government, not one that has “Monsanto’s back.”

The same report also revealed that the government’s view of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), in which a government official stated: “…In talks with the EU and others on GMO products, however, we stand shoulder to shoulder with Monsanto.”

As if that wasn’t enough, the report also discussed the direction the government has taken on the pesticide chlorpyrifos, declaring that “the way the EPA under the Trump administration has handled chlorpyrifos might be instructive in how it would handle new science or new developments related to glyphosate.” Considering how chlorpyrifos was handled, that sounds disturbing.

Carey Gillam, the Research Director at U.S. Right to Know and author of the book, White Wash explained why that’s a problem: “There is a large body of science showing that chlorpyrifos is very damaging to children’s brain development and that children are most often exposed through the food and water they consume. Chlorpyrifos was due to be banned from agricultural use in 2017 because of its dangers but the Trump administration postponed the ban at the request of Dow and continues to allow its use in food production.”

If the government intends to handle science or developments linked to glyphosate in the same way it handled chlorpyrifos, it may be planning to suppress or denounce the science in favor of corporate profits.

And, the agency may be relying on corrupt science to make its regulatory decisions. In an earlier court case, evidence was presented suggesting that at least some of the science may have been forged. Unsealed documents released as part of an earlier court case suggested that Monsanto may have faked its own safety studies, producing its own corrupt science.

If White House’s allegiance with the chemical giant, Monsanto, now Bayer AG, smells like conflict of interest and pandering to corporate interests, you’re not alone. Sadly, it’s not necessarily new either: American regulators like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), banned glyphosate over 30 years ago but mysteriously reversed its decision and, despite the increasing scientific evidence and legal losses continues to allow RoundUp and other glyphosate products to be sold to consumers.

Why does the EPA seem hell-bent on allowing chemical corporations to run roughshod over the human right to health and safety, while the same corporations rack up billions in profits? The whole thing is disturbing, to say the least. I’d love to hear your thoughts on what might be going on at the EPA.

 

Dr. Michelle Schoffro Cook, PhD, DNM shares her food growing, cooking, preserving, and other food self-sufficiency adventures at FoodHouseProject.com. She is the publisher of the free e-newsletter World’s Healthiest News and an international best-selling and 20-time published book author whose works include: The Cultured Cook: Delicious Fermented Foods with Probiotics to Knock Out Inflammation, Boost Gut Health, Lose Weight & Extend Your Life. Follow her work.

 

65 comments

Ganaisha Calvin
Ganaisha Calvin8 hours ago

another notch in their betrayal belt

SEND
Ann B
Ann B7 days ago

From Watergate to here..all the same hidden lies and corruption NO HONEST POLITICIANS ANYMORE!!!!!

SEND
Ruth R
Ruth R8 days ago

And chlorpyrifos is still being sold, unregulated, in third-world countries...... If glyphosate is banned in the US, guess where all the old stocks will end up?

SEND
Leo C
Leo Custer9 days ago

thank you for sharing!

SEND
Lorraine A

Donald strikes again. Thanks for sharing.

SEND
Clare O'Beara
Clare O9 days ago

th

SEND
Clare O'Beara
Clare O9 days ago

can't be true, there would not be any money in it, would there now

SEND
Clare O'Beara
Clare O9 days ago

oh, you think?

SEND
Irene S
Irene S10 days ago

Really? Who would have ever thought it!

SEND
Ruth S
Ruth S10 days ago

Thanks.

SEND