Slashdot Mirror
Monsanto Leaks Suggest It Tried To Kill Cancer Research On Roundup Weed Killer (rt.com)
Danny Hakim reports via The New York Times (Warning: article may be paywalled; alternate source): Documents released Tuesday in a lawsuit against Monsanto raised new questions about the company's efforts to influence the news media and scientific research and revealed internal debate over the safety of its highest-profile product, the weed killer Roundup. The active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, is the most common weed killer in the world and is used by farmers on row crops and by home gardeners. While Roundup's relative safety has been upheld by most regulators, a case in federal court in San Francisco continues to raise questions about the company's practices and the product itself.
The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes's website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment. A similar issue appeared in academic research. An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, "I can't be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication." He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: "We call that ghost writing and it is unethical." Mr. Miller's 2015 article on Forbes's website was an attack on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization that had labeled glyphosate a probable carcinogen, a finding disputed by other regulatory bodies. In the email traffic, Monsanto asked Mr. Miller if he would be interested in writing an article on the topic, and he said, "I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft." The article appeared under Mr. Miller's name, and with the assertion that "opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." The magazine did not mention any involvement by Monsanto in preparing the article.
The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes's website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment. A similar issue appeared in academic research. An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, "I can't be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication." He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: "We call that ghost writing and it is unethical." Mr. Miller's 2015 article on Forbes's website was an attack on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization that had labeled glyphosate a probable carcinogen, a finding disputed by other regulatory bodies. In the email traffic, Monsanto asked Mr. Miller if he would be interested in writing an article on the topic, and he said, "I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft." The article appeared under Mr. Miller's name, and with the assertion that "opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." The magazine did not mention any involvement by Monsanto in preparing the article.
Except nobody has ever died from glyphosate. The company tries to kill negative press about "glyphosate causing cancer" because it's bullshit that has been debunked again and again. IARC did claim it "could possibly" cause cancer, based on research which has since been debunked, which is why every other major regulatory agency have approved the fact that it doesn't cause cancer. Hell, it's even less toxic than most organic pesticides.
Those that cling to "glyphosate causes cancer" and "Monsatan is the devil" are the same folks who believe in chemtrails, vaccines causing autism, and countless other health conspiracies.
Sure, Monsanto is a business and they want to protect their image against nonsense, as is their right (and, to shareholders, their responsibility) to do so.
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
You can't argue with 900 people who've been diagnosed with cancer. Really, you can't. Even though they're dead wrong, there's no arguing with them. It's too emotional and they're desperate for someone to blame. Comparing it to vaccinations and autism is pretty apt.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Agent Orange isn't glyphosate. It doesn't contain any of the same active ingredients (besides water). Monsanto was one of several companies which manufactured the herbicide under contract to the US government. It was never safe for use on populations. Blaming Monsanto for Agent Orange is like blaming a firearms manufacturer for someone shooting up a gay nightclub.
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
Actually, the Johnson & Johnson claims keep getting over-turned on appeal. There have been plenty of claims, but they don't end up paying them out because the science doesn't support talc causing ovarian cancer. But yes, another jury of members of the public has found in favour of a claimant. Doubtless, it'll again be overturned on appeal. There's lots to read about this, but it is odd that the only 'scientific' studies that find there is a statistically significant link between un-contaminated talc powder and cancer, are those being performed by claimants, and nobody else can replicate their results. http://www.latimes.com/busines...
As for glyphosate, they ARE very, very clear about it. It's the most widely used herbicide in the world. It has been tested over and over and over again. There's no *evidence* it causes cancer. That's it. (Evidence, that is, which is able to be replicated. Anybody can make a claim in a study, but there's no peer-reviewed, replicated studies, which find any link between glyphosate and any form of cancer).
And be a test subject? Sure - I'll happily eat any and all GMOs. I go out of my way to avoid any food labelled 'organic' between 1) I don't support fear-mongering, and 2) I generally know from a most-used range of 6 products, which pesticides and herbicides are being used on non-organic crops. Conversely, I *don't* know which of over 170 organic-approved pesticides/herbicides are being used on organic crops, Most of these are more toxic than glyphosate, and unlike glyphosate, most have not been through 40 years of studies to prove their safety.
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
"And there are no regulations about this or any other use of GMO."
And here's where we get to you spouting nonsense. GMO foodstuffs are the most heavily regulated of any crops. Also, it's interesting that you'll happily consume the exact same 'toxin' when it's produced in another plant, but use transgenesis to bring that same trait to a GMO crop to protect it against parasites, and you lose your mind?
I really should debunk you point by point since your entire argument is "they won't debate these perfectly fine points", but since you're believe "GMOs are unregulated", it's really be a waste of time since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I can only suppose you're repeating talking points you heard somewhere.
So, because done right, it has benefits, that means that done wrong should be tolerated or encouraged? Since labor builds value, slavery should be legal. Nope, just because done right is good, it doesn't mean that it should be done poorly, at all, under any circumstances.
Learn to love Alaska
The point is that they tried to suppress the research.
The question is how risky is glycophosphate that they felt the need to try to suppress research.
This is like Donald Trump and Jared Kushak's meeting with the russians.
A) no meeting reported...
B) there was a meeting with one russian lawyer about adoptions and was meaningless.
C) uh.. okay so there was a meeting with 2 russians.
DEF) Increasingly more russians.
G) Okay so it was supposed to be about russians providing damaging clinton/DNC information
H) Uh.. Okay so I do have a relationship with the participants going back for years and I did say, "I love it!" when I thought it was about clinton.
I) Oops.. some of the russians are ex intelligence officers and/or have intelligence training.
Monsanto is at step B).
Is it going to turn out that glycophosphates are as carcinogenic as saccharine (not much/really have to literally eat the stuff by the handful) or is it going to be as carcinogenic as dioxins (which were also wonderful and safe until they were not).
Do we stop at step B.. or are we going to step R?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It's crazy because if they would simply LABEL GMO (and what genes were added from what other plant/animal) instead of sneaking it in, then people wouldn't have rare allergic reactions and most would buy it if it were 10% cheaper.
Then after 5 years, they could raise the prices to be the same and folks would stay with it.
But as it is, they act so shady that it makes people suspicious.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.
Do you think that people would be rotating crops more without GMOs? Or are you misusing the term "mono crop".
GMO is bad because resistance to herbicides induces over-use of them.
Which is only even possible for herbicide-related traits, and why refuges are required, and why new traits dealing with different herbicides are developed - and this has also been a (minor, manageable) issue ever since we had herbicides.
GMO is bad because GMO has been used to have plants make toxins. So GMO food can contain poison.
BT is toxic only to insects, and is frequently used by organic farmers.
And there are no regulations about this or any other use of GMO.
Are you insane? You don't believe that the USDA, FDA, and EPA regulate GMOs?
GMO is bad because it has been used to make kill-genes, even if only in the lab, and between that and mono-crop the results of a wide-spread release could cause massive destruction.
So something that hasn't existed outside a lab, of a company that has pledged never to use it, that farmers don't want, if it became very common in farming, might, in a sci-fi scenario in your head, cause 'massive destruction'. Do you fear a robot uprising as well?
GMO is bad because Monsanto claims it's harmless, and when Monsanto says something, the opposite is more likely true.
Non sequitur.
But the pro-GMO crowd doesn't talk about the reasonable objections. Instead, it's all about the strawman.
Right, the "Frankenfood" fear-mongering didn't really exist.
I don't mean to be rude, this is probably one of the most well-written anti-GMO screeds I've seen, but it's still all just the equivalent of saying "computers are bad because they give off radiation (radio waves), increase our carbon footprint, and can be used to make military drone strikes" in a world where cell phones and wifi are banned in Europe because of brain-cancer worries and 'it caused my headaches'.
GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.
As opposed to the Cavendish Banana, which was not genetically modified?
The left side of an implication is the sufficient, not the necessary condition.
Ezekiel 23:20
GMO is bad because Monsanto claims it's harmless, and when Monsanto says something, the opposite is more likely true.
Non sequitur.
You'd like to think that, but history shows us that Monsanto Always Lies. Kind of like TEPCO.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Or lock the farmers into having to buy their seeds from one certain manufacturer. Essentially, GMO allow a few companies to control the world's food supply.
And then there's lawsuits due to patent and other forms of IP issues. "Sorry, you're gonna starve now because you infringed our copyright."
That's not what he said or implied though. He pointed out that there are ways in which GMOs can be used correctly and for the benefit of everyone to get better food with less energy/demand on the soil.
The whole problem with the GMO-discussion is that people mix up 2 things, namely the scientific process of genetic modification, and the gigantic corporations that seek to make profit using the process - sometimes in ethically questionable ways.
All of the food we eat is 'genetically modified' in the sense that we've been breeding and artificially selecting for desirable traits in plants and animals for millenia, now it's just become possible to do it at way faster timescales and increasing accuracy. The fact that there is corporate greed and instances seeking to take advantage of this process for their own personal benefit at the expense of other people does not invalidate the process of gene modification itself anymore than criminals and scammers using the internet for malicious ends makes the whole of the internet a bad thing.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
"Done right" for GMO sounds to me like "done right" for nuclear power - it's possible, but it'll never really happen because financial realities always make it fail.
Selective breeding has nature taking a hand in the outcome, and as such it far less likely to cause a problem that we find hard to solve (although exceptions occur, I guess). GMO research is frankly at the very beginning - we "think" a particular gene or whatever 'turns on and off' some feature of the plant, but honestly, we have no idea what else it does too. I strongly suspect that in a few decades people will wonder how on earth we ate any of the GMO food around today. Then they'll look into it and realise the only way people would buy it was if it was mixed in with non-GMO and not labelled as such.
I'm by no means saying we shouldn't research this stuff - I just seriously doubt we know even half of what we really need to know for it to be "done right".
The real problem is not discovering yet another corporation lying about how dangerous their product is. The real problem is nothing is being done about it. There's not a fucking thing that will come out of these latest "shocking" revelations. Never has. Never will.
You want to know how insane it is? If sanctions were actually taken against Monsanto for poisoning food crops and killing people, their lawyers would point to the tobacco industry and say, "Hey! No fair! How come they get to kill people and we can't?!?"
Greed N. Corruption runs capitalism today, and the lack of action taken against deadly corporations shows that it is sanctioned at the highest levels. The reason is quite simple; resource management is a responsibility held by every government, and population control is a key component of that responsibility.
Before you label that a conspiracy, take a good hard look at how many deadly products are legal today. Why would Greed ever want to cure cancer? There's trillions to be made treating it instead and it ensures deaths. Outlaw tobacco? Yeah right. That's another Win-Win industry.
Death is no longer merely a side-effect of life. It is now manufactured.