The Glyphosate Files: Smoke & Mirrors in the Pesticide Approvals Process
()
About this ebook
The search for answers leads the author of this investigative and enthralling book into official U.S. archives from the 1970s and 80s, and on to the documents being used in the current European approvals process. The details of the secret studies by Monsanto & Co. which this research brings to light provide unsettling insights into the entanglements between industry, private testing institutions and the regulatory authorities. They expose a system which allows the chemical manufacturers to downplay the risks of their products. In the end the question remains: do our governments offer greater protection to commercial interests, or to our health?
Related to The Glyphosate Files
Related ebooks
The Monsanto Papers: Corruption of Science and Grievous Harm to Public Health Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Daily Poison: Pesticides - an Underestimated Danger Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption, and the Control of Our Food Supply Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Crop Chemophobia: Will Precaution Kill the Green Revolution? Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSummary: The Secret History of the War on Cancer: Review and Analysis of Devra Davis's Book Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSummary of Dr. Jason Fung's The Cancer Code Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsChemical Warfare on America Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPoison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The End of the Beginning Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAt the Breaking Point of History: How Decades of U.S. Duplicity Enabled the Pandemic Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Body Toxic: How the Hazardous Chemistry of Everyday Things Threatens Our Health and Well-being Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsKefir & Yakult Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFauci Leaks: Why did the Director of NIAID decide to fund coronavirus gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsIs It Safe?: BPA and the Struggle to Define the Safety of Chemicals Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSummary of Torsten Engelbrecht's Virus Mania Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsIs COVID-19 a Bioweapon?: A Scientific and Forensic Investigation Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Animal Pharm: One man's struggle to discover the truth about Mad Cow Disease and Variant CJD Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsReducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now: 2008-2009 Annual Report President's Cancer Panel Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSUMMARY Of Covid-19: The Great Reset Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSummary of David Michaels's The Triumph of Doubt Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsHistory of Pesticides, A Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe $800 Million Pill: The Truth behind the Cost of New Drugs Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPDQ Epidemiology Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Price of Health: The Modern Pharmaceutical Enterprise and the Betrayal of a History of Care Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsExtraordinary Healing: How the Discoveries of Mirko Beljanski, the World's First Green Molecular Biologist, Can Protect and Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe General Genetic Catastrophe: On the Discovery and the Discoverer Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsKiller Commodities: public health and the corporate production of harm Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Antibiotic Tales Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Vaccine: Inside the Race to Conquer the COVID-19 Pandemic Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Politics For You
Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on the U.S.-Israeli War on the Palestinians Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Republic by Plato Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A People's History of the United States Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Fear: Trump in the White House Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Daily Stoic: A Daily Journal On Meditation, Stoicism, Wisdom and Philosophy to Improve Your Life Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Capitalism and Freedom Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The U.S. Constitution with The Declaration of Independence and The Articles of Confederation Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Gulag Archipelago [Volume 1]: An Experiment in Literary Investigation Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5On Palestine Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Cult of Trump: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the President Uses Mind Control Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Great Reset: And the War for the World Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends: The Cyberweapons Arms Race Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Freedom Is a Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the Foundations of a Movement Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Killing the SS: The Hunt for the Worst War Criminals in History Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Essential Chomsky Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Ever Wonder Why?: And Other Controversial Essays Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race: The Sunday Times Bestseller Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Closing of the American Mind Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Spook Who Sat by the Door Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them) Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Anarchy: The East India Company, Corporate Violence, and the Pillage of an Empire Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Reviews for The Glyphosate Files
0 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
The Glyphosate Files - Helmut Burtscher-Schaden
Helmut Burtscher-Schaden
The Glyphosate Files
Smoke & mirrors in the pesticide approvals process
For Laurin and Livia
www.kremayr-scheriau.at
eISBN 978-3-218-01100-6
2017 by Verlag Kremayr & Scheriau GmbH & Co. KG, Wien
All rights reserved
Image Part II Chapter 1: courtesy of Andreas Rummel
Image Part II Chapter 4: courtesy of GLOBAL 2000
Translation: Patricia Lorenz and Joanna Scudamore-Trezek
Project management & copy-editing: Sonja Franzke, vielseitig.co.at
Cover design & letterpress: Silvia Wahrstätter, buchgestaltung.at
Table of contents
Prologue: The wrong WHO
Part One USA 1973 to 1991
Chapter 1: Suspected fraud
Chapter 2: Cancer alarm
Chapter 3: Miraculously exonerated
Chapter 4: A licence to kill
Part Two Europe 2012 to 2017
Chapter 1: System failure
Chapter 2: Mobilisation
Chapter 3: Smoke and mirrors
Chapter 4: Entanglements
Chapter 5: Cracks in the system
Epilogue The future
Appendix
Glossary
Endnotes
Thanks
Prologue
The wrong WHO
16 May 2016. My instructions were to refrain from working, just for once. Simply to spend a stress-free afternoon with my daughter at the playground. Nothing unusual for a public holiday in spring, but it wasn’t to turn out like that. While my daughter clambered over the climbing frame on this particular Whit Monday, I typed the term glyphosate into Google News on my mobile phone.
The force of habit.
For I work as a biochemist for the Austrian environmental organisation GLOBAL 2000. The main focus of my work is problematic commonplace chemicals and how to protect people from the dangers and risks they present. Over the past year I had been working with a group of environmental activists, consumer protectionists and scientists from various European countries towards our shared goal of preventing the European Union from renewing its approval of a carcinogenic pesticide. In only two days‘ time, in Brussels, the 28 EU Member States would vote on the issue which had kept my European colleagues and myself busy for months. Would glyphosate receive renewed approval in the European Union despite the WHO classifying it as probably carcinogenic for humans
?
What Google News returned in response to my query from the playground was unexpected bad news; I read the words: WHO gives thumbs up for glyphosate. Germany’s daily newspaper FAZ wrote: New evaluation of risk: WHO does not believe glyphosate causes cancer¹. Even Die Zeit carried the headline: WHO scientists classify glyphosate as not carcinogenic.²
I was shocked. At a stroke this volte-face would make all our work of the recent months obsolete. How could this be? And above all, why should the WHO’s cancer research agency (IARC) have suddenly revised their assessment?
Then came the revelation – someone else was behind the retraction: the joint FAO/WHO meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). This scarcely pronounceable name describes an international pesticide advisory panel of rather dubious repute. However, at this moment the retraction
of the JMPR threatened to tip the scales at the forthcoming EU vote: in just two days‘ time glyphosate could be given renewed approval. The champagne would then be flowing at Monsanto! What was little known, however, was that the JMPR had already once given a highly dubious all-clear to Monsanto’s glyphosate back in the 1980s. Even then the JMPR contradicted another expert panel which the previous year had classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic in humans
.
Back in the 1980s it was the American environmental protection agency, the U.S. EPA; today it is the WHO’s cancer research agency IARC. But who or what is this JMPR?
While the WHO’s cancer research agency IARC exclusively uses studies which are open to public examination when classifying cancer, the JMPR primarily relies on studies which are carried out by the pesticide manufacturers themselves and kept under wraps. Where the IARC strives for independence and transparency in its decision-making, many see the JMPR as dominated by industry and opaque in its dealings. While the IARC assesses whether a chemical by its very nature is carcinogenic, irrespective of dosage and method of intake, the JMPR examines only the risk posed by pesticide residues in foodstuffs.
One of the first to welcome the JMPR’s positive assessment on Twitter was the Executive Vice President and CTO of Monsanto, Robb Fraley. Only a year earlier Fraley had ranted and raved against the IARC. Now he happily tweeted: WHO/FAO refutes WHO/IARC; glyphosate safety re-affirmed! But there was another tweet on the same topic: French journalist Stéphane Foucart of Le Monde revealed an interrelationship which throws a different light on the JMPR’s judgement: Alan Boobis and Angelo Moretto (ILSI associates) were not only members of the JMPR WG on glyphosate, they were its chair and co-chair. Someone had done some careful research, because Alan Boobis and Angelo Moretto are two scientists whose names regularly crop up whenever there are attempts to turn industry-friendly recommendations into regulations. Both have important roles at the International Life Science Institute (ILSI), a global science institute largely financed by major food and chemical corporations including Monsanto, Bayer, Nestle, BASF, and many others.³
Despite this, however, many newspapers appeared the next day falsely proclaiming that the WHO gives the all-clear for glyphosate. And the timing of this purported exoneration of the pesticide, just one day before the decisive vote, was naturally devastating, both for us and all those wanting to block glyphosate.
The trip to the playground was abruptly ended by this news. My confidence that our work would bear fruit in terms of the EU decision was seriously dented. Now it was essential to rectify the basic facts with a statement to the press. Firstly, that the WHO had not made a retraction
. Secondly, that there are still unresolved conflicts of interest within the JMPR. And thirdly, that the JMPR is exclusively concerned with pesticide residues in foodstuffs. Too many topics to squeeze into a 1-page press release. For in the end this was only the latest development in a story which had started in the USA in the 1970s. To explain all this would fill a book. This book.
PART ONE
USA 1973 to 1991
Chapter 1
Suspected fraud
Too good to be true
On 4 April 1983, the US Federal Court of Chicago opened a trial that was to become one of the most extensive trials in the history of Illinois. By the time the sentence was pronounced in October 1983, its records filled more than 16,000 pages.¹ The legal authorities had been investigating the case for six years. Newspaper commentaries had called it the biggest case of scientific fraud in the history of the USA, maybe even in the history of the world. The fraud was suspected to have been committed by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (IBT Laboratories), formerly the largest private testing institute for industrial chemicals in the United States. In the dock were Joseph C. Calandra, the founder and former owner of IBT Laboratories, as well as three of his former leading scientists. They were charged with routinely falsifying test reports on substances in drugs, personal care products and pesticides and thus to have wilfully deceived the US-American regulators.
The fraud had already been uncovered back in 1976. Adrian Gross, an attentive investigator at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the authority responsible for the authorisation of drugs and food additives, had become suspicious when examining a study on a painkiller carried out by IBT Laboratories. The test data seemed too good to be true
.² None of the rats had developed tumours, Adrian Gross explained later, although every pathologist knows that rats and mice in long-time studies also develop spontaneous tumours, and show a certain degree of mortality. However, according to the IBT study, all of the animals were clean.
During a more precise examination of the data of this Naproxen study
, Gross discovered oddities in the data tables: rats which had been listed as dead in one section of the study suddenly reappeared in another section of the study. We do not really believe in animals coming back to life after death
, Adrian Gross noted in his report. Due to the appalling sanitary and hygienic conditions in the animals’ housings, IBT Laboratories indeed struggled with a mortality rate among the laboratory animals that, in many cases, prevented them from doing tests in accordance with the regulations. In order to hush up this fact, IBT technicians were ordered to replace
perished animals with healthy ones. When the advanced decay of the dead animals made an autopsy impossible, this was documented internally with the abbreviation TBD / TDA, too badly decomposed/technician destroyed animal.
³ This probably explained the riddle of the lack of tumours.
The Naproxen painkiller study was only one of 22,000 studies that the IBT had carried out for manufacturers and authorities during their three decades of existence. Hundreds of chemicals that had since become part of thousands of daily products had been classified as safe because of the test results. One of these chemicals was to receive particular attention in the forthcoming trial: Monsanto’s antibacterial agent triclocarban (TCC). What the interrogation of witnesses was to unearth about the safety testing on TCC and the role that Monsanto played in this is suggestive of how far the company was ready to go to push through its interests.
TCC, an anti-bacterial additive for soaps, had attracted the attention of the FDA at the beginning of the 1970s. There had been indications that TCC had caused deformities in the testicles of rats fed with the anti-bacterial agent. This presented Monsanto with a problem: at around the same time, the chemical company had requested an increase in the permitted levels of TCC in bar and liquid soaps. Monsanto therefore asked the private IBT Laboratories to do a feeding study on rats. The study was supposed to convince the authorities that TCC was safe. Interestingly, at about the same time, Monsanto toxicologist Paul Wright left his job at Monsanto to take up a position at IBT Laboratories. There, as section head for rat toxicology, he supervised the very study that was to prove the safety of TCC. However, as early as half way through the 24 month feeding study, it became apparent that the laboratory rats resisted this (putative) plan. In June 1972, pathologist Donovan L. Gordon discovered testicular lesions in the male animals. He noted his observations in an interim report, which caused unexpected reactions.
The numerous attempts that Gordon’s superiors and Monsanto representatives made between 1972 and 1976 to convince the pathologist that the damages he identified were not caused by TCC, but had to be due to other reasons, were given a lot of space in the trial. In a report that is as readable as it is disturbing, US-American journalist Keith Schneider outlines the details. It was published in the Spring Edition 1983 of the Amicus Journal by the environmental organisation Natural Resources Defense Council, and taken up in numerous US-American media. Here is an overview of the most important events as they relate to Monsanto’s TCC:⁴
•On 11 October 1972, before the interim presentation of the study to an FDA panel, two Monsanto scientists impress upon Gordon how important it is to present TCC in a good light. Seemingly with success, for the minutes do not mention testicular lesions. However, Gordon continues to think that the testicular lesions are caused by TCC.
•6 October 1973: three months after the end of the feeding study, Paul Wright, who by then has quit IBT and is again working for Monsanto, meets the head of IBT, Joseph C. Calandra. He is concerned that Gordon’s interim report continues to describe testicular lesions that have occurred with large and small doses of TCC. He pushes Calandra to convince Gordon to change his conclusions, because factors such as stress, gender, age and nutrition could also be responsible for the animals’ lesions.
•On 22 January and 21 February 1975, Gordon’s findings in the TCC study are criticised at two further meetings at IBT.
•25 August 1975: Gordon, who sticks to his conclusion, has to re-examine and discuss the tissue samples with Dr William Ribelin, a pathologist hired by Monsanto. Gordon is able to convince Monsanto pathologist Ribelin that his observations indeed prove a treatment-related effect in all three dose groups⁵. Later, he will testify in court that Ribelin also gave him a handwritten copy of his report, in which Monsanto was informed that Ribelin had also arrived at the conclusion that TCC caused testicular lesions in all three dose groups.
•In January 1976, a last unsuccessful attempt is made to persuade Gordon to change his findings. Then Calandra asks an unexpected question: had there been any significant decomposition in the rats he studied? Gordon confirms that this was the case in some rats but not with others. Calandra then informs Donovan L. Gordon that he will remove his findings from the report and replace them with the wording that decomposition precluded meaningful evaluation of the testicular tissues.
•11 May 1976: Monsanto delivers the final TCC report, in which rats in the low dose group no longer show testicular lesions, to the FDA. The latter sees its concerns about testicular atrophy due to TCC dispelled, and recommends an increase of the admissible levels of TCC in bar and liquid soaps.
•April to July 1976: IBT is suspected of fraud. The TCC study is one of the first to come to the attention of the investigators. Monsanto has to repeat the study and commissions the private Bio/dynamics testing laboratory to do this. IBT, meanwhile, shreds hundreds of letters between IBT and its clients that, investigators presume, could have proven that large chemical companies had known about the IBT fraud.
•June 1982: a Monsanto spokesman explains to the magazine Mother Jones⁶ that the hopelessly flawed IBT study
had been replaced by a study by Bio/dynamics Laboratories. According to the spokesman, that study shows that a human would have to eat 26 bars of soap a day for a normal lifetime in order to consume the amount of TCC that caused significant toxic effects in the test animals. Monsanto’s bacterial killer TCC is considered vindicated.
•21 October 1983: Paul Wright and two of his co-accused are found guilty by the jury of key charges (IBT founder Joseph C. Calandra was able to evade the trial because of health problems). Wright is jailed for six months and loses his job at Monsanto.
The man who had uncovered the scandal, Adrian Gross, had been asked one year before the start of the trial why corporations would allow their products to be subjected to phony or inadequate testing. Did the companies not want to know if their product causes cancer, reduces fertility or damages the DNA? And did they not risk being sued and financially destroyed by marketing dangerous products? Gross answered with a counter question: How are you going to prove that one pesticide caused cancer in somebody? First of all… a person, unlike a rat, is exposed to hundreds if not thousands of them.
Chemical companies, Mother Jones stated, know that they are fairly safe from individual product liability lawsuits. In the rare event that they lose a case, damage awards tend to be relatively small when weighed against the profits generated by the product."⁷
The further course of the history of TCC proves him right: Monsanto escapes further investigations. This is not changed by the fact that, according to Mother Jones, the new contracting laboratory of Monsanto, which in the end vindicated TCC, also came to the attention of a U.S. EPA/FDA inspection shortly afterwards because of inadmissible practices and deficits. TCC successfully survived on the US market. According to a study by the U.S. EPA, more than 80% of deodorant soaps in the USA contained TCC at the turn of the millennium. In 2008, however, a team of researchers at the University of California found that TCC is an endocrine disrupting substance (see box on page 22) and causes changes in male sexual organs in tests with rats.⁸
A worrying result for, in 2014, a study sponsored by the National Institute of Health showed that 80% of the pregnant women examined excreted TCC in their urine and a fifth of the newborns had the bacterial killer in their blood at the moment of their birth.⁹ The authors of this study expressed their concerns about the endocrine-disrupting potential of TCC. On 6 September 2016, the FDA finally decided to ban the use of TCC in bar and liquid soaps, with the exception of medical purposes. More than four decades after the pathologist Donovan L. Gordon noted the first clear indications of this in his study report, the FDA thus stated that TCC could pose health risks, such as (…) hormonal effects
¹⁰.
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, EDC
The WHO links endocrine-disrupting chemicals to a worldwide increase in fertility disorders, such as a decrease in the quality of sperm or deformities of male sexual organs, an increase in hormone-related forms of cancer, such as breast, prostate or testicular cancer, as well as a series of other diseases of modern civilisation, such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, etc. Their damaging effect is due to the fact that, because of their (coincidental) structural similarity to hormones, they can disrupt sensitive hormonal control processes in the organism. Like hormones, they can sometimes take effect in very low doses. The organism is most sensitive to the interference of endocrine-disrupting chemicals during so-called critical developmental windows, which is why foetuses, infants and adolescents are particularly sensitive to these substances. Decades can pass between the exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and the manifestation of an illness due to this exposure.¹¹
We are the lab rats!
In the US media, the IBT fraud case caused some venomous and strong reactions. In its edition of 4 July 1982, the Tallahassee Democrat asked:
Feel safe? … and then adds: Don’t. They’re testing products on you.¹²
One of the most comprehensive, radical and simultaneously unerring analyses was offered by the monthly Mother Jones magazine¹³ in its June and the following July edition of 1982. In part 1 of its analysis¹⁴ the editors preceded their report with a letter that said:
A year-long team investigation has found that our entire regulatory structure is so corporate-dominated, so riddled with incompetence and corruption that it almost completely fails to protect the American people.
The paper bluntly uncovered the inherent conflicts of interest that contracting laboratories, such as IBT, face:
Private testing laboratories live and die by the positive results generated on products they test for safety. Your future as a laboratory owner or administrator is in serious jeopardy if you find too many products unsafe.
The magazine however, was hardest on regulatory authorities:
The illusion of safety is not always created by corrupt testing laboratories or deceptive corporations. Too often, regulatory agencies look the other way or blindly accept the conclusions of obviously self-interested research.
The total failure of the regulatory system was closely linked to the concern for health. The authors of Mother Jones presented concrete figures on the incidence of deformities in newborns and of annual cancers, and linked them to the disastrous failure of safety checks by authorities.
More than 800,000 new cases of cancer are expected this year, and, according to the Center for Disease Control, nearly three out of every 100 children born in 1982 will have serious birth defects
. Some of this carnage is inevitable. It is caused by combinations of human error, bad luck and acts of God
. But far too much of it is caused by products we place our trust in because they are labelled safe.
Suddenly, a question that nobody had been interested in for years was being debated in the national papers: is it smart to leave the examination of sensitive chemicals to those who produce and sell these chemicals? And why are the test reports kept a secret?
Lessons learned…
Will those responsible now draw the evident and necessary conclusions from the scandal? Will the registration system be fundamentally reformed? Unfortunately, the answer is no. The essence of the registration system remains untouched, although a lack of transparency, inherent conflicts of