Genetics Are The New Eugenics: How Genetically Modified Foods [GMOs] Reduce The Human Population

GMO Biohazard
Source: Katehon.com
F. William Engdahl
February 22, 2017

The following is from an interview transcript

Last year, we had a series of mergers in the agribusiness’ GMO-corporations worldwide. This has created an alarming concentration of corporate power in the hands of basically three corporate groups.

The first one is Bayer AG of Germany, which made a friendly takeover of Monsanto. The reason for this was that Monsanto became identified in the public mind as pure evil and everything bad about GMO’s, which was accurate. This became a burden on the whole GMO project. So, Bayer stepped in, which has a friendly image of an aspirin, harmless, nice company, but in fact is the company that invented heroin in the 1880’s and made gas for the ovens of Auschwitz during WWII. It’s one of the dirtiest agribusiness companies in the world with a series of homicides and pesticides that killed off bee colonies and many other things that are essential to life and to nature.

ChemChina – China State Chemical giant – for some reason took over Swiss Syngenta, which makes weed-killers.

Then, Dow Chemicals and DuPont merged their GMO businesses together.

So, we have three gigantic corporate groups worldwide controlling the genetically-modified part of the human food chain. As dangerous as the GMO crops are and the more they sell, it is becoming more and more obvious that they are the chemicals that by contract must be applied to those GMO seeds by the corporations. They demand that if you buy roundup ready soybeans or corn, you must use Monsanto (now Bayer) roundup.

Therefore, this is giving more corporate power to the GMO industry than ever before and that’s an alarming trend. They are putting pressure on the bureaucracy in Brussels. One example: there was a massive public campaign against the renewal of the license of the European Commission for Glyphosate. Glyphosate is the most widely used weed-killer in the world. Glyphosate is the main ingredient in Monsanto’s roundup. The other ingredients are Monsanto’s corporate secret, but the combination of them is one of the most deadly weed-killers.

The World Health Organization’s body responsible for assessing genetic dangers made a ruling the last year that Glyphosate was a probable cancer-causing agent.

The license came up for automatic renewal last year – a 15-year license. The EU commission for health was prepared to automatically renew it for 15 years. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which is responsible allegedly for the health and safety of European citizens, recommended approval based on a German study by the German Food Safety Agency that was simply lifted 100% from studies given by the private corporation Monsanto! So, the whole chain was corrupt from the beginning and all the information was rigged. In reality tests have shown that in minuscule concentrations, lower than in recommended levels in Europe and in the US, Glyphosate causes kidney disease, liver disease, and other illnesses that are potentially fatal.

Now, Glyphosate has shown up in urine tests, in urban drinking water, in gardens, in ground water and so forth. And that gets into the system of childbearing women, for example, with embryo. It’s all in this!

The EU commission, despite a million petitions – this is a record setting – and despite recommendations from leading scientists around the world to not renew the license, made a compromise under huge industry pressure and renewed it for 18 months. Why did they renew it for that time? Because at the end of 18 months, they were told by Bayer and Monsanto that the takeover of those two giant corporations will be completed and Bayer is going to replace Glyphosate with another, likely more deadly toxin, but not so well-known as Glyphosate. So, they simply bought time. And that is just one example.

This agenda of GMO is not about the health and safety; it’s not about increasing crop yields – that’s a lie that has been proven in repeated tests in North America and all around the world. Crop yields for farmers, using GMO plants, may increase slightly for the first 1-2 harvest years, but ultimately decline after 3-4 years. And not only that! We’ve been promised by Monsanto and other GMO giants that the use of chemicals will be less, because of these “wonderful” traits that GMO plants resist. In fact, the weeds become resistant and you have super weeds, which are 5-6 feet in a height and choke out everything. It’s a catastrophe. So, farmers end up using added weed killers to kill the super weeds. This whole mad playing around with the genetic makeup of nature is a disaster from the beginning.

The real agenda of GMO, which I have documented in great detail in my book “Seeds of Destruction”, comes from the Rockefeller Foundation. It comes out of the 1920s-1930s Eugenics movement. The Rockefeller Foundation during the 1930’s, right up to the outbreak of World War II when it became politically embracing too, financed the Nazi Eugenics experiments of Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin and in Munich. Why did they do this? Their goal was the elimination of what they called “undesirable eaters”. That is called population reduction.

After the war, the head of the American Eugenic Society, who was a good friend of John D. Rockefeller, at the annual conference of the American Eugenic Society said: “From today, the new name of eugenics is genetics”. Moreover, if you keep that in mind – genetic engineering, the Human Genome Project and so forth – they all are scientific frauds. Russian scientists have proven that the entire Genome Project utterly disregarded 98% of the scientifically valuable data in favor of 2%  that was completely nonsense and a waste of billions of dollars.

Therefore, they have been obsessed with the idea of how to reduce human population in a way that would not be so obvious as simply going out and carrying out mass-sterilization.

Actually, they have done that in Central America together with the World Health Organization by giving certain vaccines that they cooked-up to have abortive effects. Therefore, the women of child-bearing age in Central America were given these vaccines against tetanus. The organization of the Catholic Church became suspicious because the shots were given only to women, not to men. And they found that there was buried in the vaccine an abortive effect that made it impossible for women to conceive and bear children. This is all covert population reduction.

These are the Western patriarchs who believe they are the gods, sitting on the throne with great dignity, controlling mankind. I think they are a bunch of fools, but they have this agenda of genetic manipulation. It’s against nature, it’s chemically unstable. And I have to congratulate the Russian Federation that they had the courage and the moral concern for their own population to ban GMO cultivation across Russia. That was a step forward for mankind. I would hope that Russia will use its influence to get China to do the similar thing, because their agriculture is in dire need of some healthy Russian input. But this step by Russia to make a GMO-free agriculture is a great step for mankind.

Read More At: Katehon.com

Advertisements

Breaking: Bayer buys Monsanto: the Empire strikes back

QuestionEverything
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
September 16, 2016

This is the largest corporate cash buyout in history.

Mega-giant Bayer put $66 billion on the table, and mega-giant Monsanto said yes.

Think GMOs, crop seeds, pesticides, medical drugs.

Keep in mind that one of the consultants on the European side of this deal is the Rothschild Group.

But that’s not all. Dow and DuPont are planning to merge. Recently, another biotech giant, Syngenta, was swallowed up by the state-owned ChemChina. And this just in: two major Canadian fertilizer manufacturers, Potash Corp of Saskatchewan Inc. and Agrium Inc. are merging.

Consolidation, monopoly. The Empire strikes back.

The global rebellion against GMOs and pesticides, particularly Monsanto’s Roundup, is one of the reasons for these deals. But lurking in the background is another factor, exemplified by the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty.

If the TPP passes, corporate tribunals will take over the adjudication of disputes in which a nation rejects importing toxic pesticides, medical drugs, or GMOs. These tribunals will decide whether that nation is permitted to refuse importation.

Of course, the tribunals will favor mega-corporate interests. But now, with the mergers involving Bayer, Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta, and ChemChina, the devastating clout of the tribunals will be that much more powerful.

The ability to shove toxic products down the throats of populations will elevate.

This is the corporate face of Globalism.

This is a giant step in the direction of controlling the world’s food supply.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
________________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Clinton receives millions from Dow Chemical; backs away from effort to ban toxic chemical that harms women

Dow Chemical
Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
September 7, 2016

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton embodies all that is wrong with American politics today, as she has proven time and again. One example unearthed just recently involves her policy reversal regarding a dangerous chemical, after the company that manufactures it became a benefactor of the Clintons’ charities.

As reported by Breitbart News in February, at one time Clinton opposed use of an industrial solvent manufactured by Dow Chemical known as Trichloroethylene, or TCE, because it was found to be potentially harmful to pregnant women. But she changed her mind after the nation’s largest maker of TCE began partnering with, and eventually contributing to, the Clinton Global Initiative and an advisory group linked to her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Not so ironically, at the time of the Breitbart report Clinton was making an issue of the government-created toxic water crisis in Flint, Mich., in which residents were saturated with dangerous levels of lead. Lead poisoning: bad; chemical poisoning: not so much (for donors, anyway).

Clinton’s personal and financial partnership with Dow Chemical reveals much about the inner workings of her and her husband’s growing financial empire, as well as the “pay for play” nature of her political life.

Phony legislation that went nowhere

On October 5, 2005, then-U.S. Sen. Clinton, D-N.Y., drafted a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, noting that seniors and children are especially vulnerable to the toxic effects of the chemical, used primarily as a metal degreaser. She then urged the agency to adopt regulatory measures to prevent possible harm from the chemical.

“Endicott, Hopewell Junction and Ithaca [New York] are known to be contaminated with volatile organic compounds where TCE is also known to be present,” Clinton’s office said at the time in a statement which highlighted the letter.

At the time, there was intense political pressure on Clinton and her New York lawmaker colleagues, after it was found that TCE had leached into an underground water table near Hopewell Junction. In addition, a number of homes had experienced “vapor intrusion” of the chemical into their homes. Both of these incidents caused significant threats to public health, as most residents were likely not purifying their water or cleaning the air in their houses.

Also, noted Breitbart, the EPA reported discovering other toxins in the well water of at least five homes in the Hopewell Junction community while testing was being conducted for the presence of TCE.

“TCE is a widespread pollutant in the United States and vapor intrusion is known to be a significant pathway of exposure,” Clinton, who took the lead, said in her letter, which was signed by other senators and congressmen. “The EPA needs to act now to establish safe, protective ‘interim standards’ in order to ensure the health and safety of our children and our communities.”

Principles for sale

In 2007, Clinton would introduce legislation that made clear that TCE was potentially harmful to “pregnant women, infants, and children.”

Shortly after Clinton introduced her measure, Dow began partnering with the Clinton Global Initiative, eventually working up to being a benefactor. The company pledged a $30 million loan guarantee for a clean water projection in India at the Clinton Global Initiative’s 2007 annual meeting. Andrew Liveris, Dow’s chairman and CEO, announced the loan while appearing at the annual meeting in late September 2007, less than two months after Clinton introduced her TCE Reduction Act.

Breitbart noted that Liveris became a close friend of the Clintons, with Dow donating between $1 and $5 million to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2014. Liveris also gave Bill Clinton the use of a private Dow jet when the former president went to North Korea in 2009 to successfully negotiate the release of two American journalists who were being held in that country.

There are other ties as well, Breitbart noted. But in sum, this is just another example of how the principles of Bill and Hillary Clinton are not hard-and-fast ideological things, but are instead for sale to the highest bidder.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

Breitbart.com

Congress.gov

HVMag.com

EPOnline.com

NaturalNews.com

Monsanto’s Creation of Herbicide-Resistant Superweeds Grows in Several States

pesticides soybean field
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
August 7, 2016

Soybean fields in parts of Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee are plagued by “superweeds” that have become resistant to glyphosate, the main ingredient in biotech company’s Monsanto’s RoundUp herbicide. Farmers are now dousing the plants with illegal chemicals to try and kill the rogue weeds.

The Root of the Problem

When agritech giant Monsanto rolled out its “RoundUp Ready” GMO seeds, the mammoth corporation made farmers a promise: the new crop system would allow them to use less chemicals on their crops.

The worrisome weeds would surely die, Monsanto said, but the RoundUp Ready plants would withstand the chemicals and thrive, producing greater yields. Yup, farmers were told RoundUp was all they would ever need.

This promise has led to a more than tenfold increase in RoundUp use in the past decade, and a lot of the weeds aren’t having it anymore. They’re stronger than glyphosate now, stronger than Monsanto’s promise, and stronger than the American farmer’s best efforts. [1]

But if you don’t strangle the weeds to death, they’ll strangle crops to death. Something has to be done. That “something” involves growers illegally spraying a powerful herbicide that is damaging hundreds of thousands of crops in the aforementioned states.

Regulators, farmers, and academics alike are pointing their fingers at Monsanto’s introduction this year of a new variety of genetically modified soybean.

The new mutant soybean was designed to resist not just glyphosate, but also the dicamba herbicide, which has been used for decades. [2]

Read: Monsanto Spent $1 Billion on New Herbicide

The Road to Hell was Supposedly Paved with Good Intentions

The thinking behind “Xtend,” the new version of the herbicide-tolerant soybeans, was that it would give farmers the option of also spraying dicamba. This, Monsanto believed, would kill off the weeds that RoundUp couldn’t touch.

The problem with dicamba is that it’s known for evaporating quickly and drifting into neighboring fields. What’s more, ridiculously small amounts of the chemical can wreak havoc on soybeans.

Source: AGFAX.com

Read: Study Finds Dicamba Harms Non-Targeted Plants and Insects

Monsanto sold farmers the new biotech soybean seeds before the company could provide an updated version of dicamba, one that was designed not to drift. [3] [2]

To Make Matters Worse

The new dicamba, you see, is still awaiting approval from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). When and if it gains approval, the agency may impose restrictions on how and when the chemical may be used.

Monsanto didn’t care that it was unapproved, and it wasn’t going to sit around waiting on the silly government to give it the go-ahead. It went ahead and started selling its dicamba-resistant soybeans anyway, handing farmers a new weed-killing tool that wasn’t approved yet.

According to Philip Miller, vice president of global regulatory affairs for Monsanto, the company “took quite a bit of effort” instructing farmers and pesticide dealers to avoid spraying older versions of dicamba over the new biotech fields and, for the most part, the farmers have complied.

Those that haven’t are likely breaking the law out of desperation.

soybeans-crop-800Barber said this threat only adds to the farmers’ frustration:

“They’re afraid that they’re not going to be able to grow what they want to grow. They’re afraid that they’re going to be forced to go with that technology.” [3]

Farmers have always had to contend with drifting, but Bob Scott, a weed specialist at the University of Arkansas, said he’s never seen it this bad before:

“This is a unique situation that Monsanto created.”

Farmers whose fields have been damaged are especially angry, said Tom Barber, another scientist at the University of Arkansas who studies weeds, and rightly so. They’re already struggling financially due to low crop prices. Barber explained:

“They see their soybeans out there all cupped up and stunted, their reaction is not good.

We’ve seen cases of herbicide drift before. Usually the farmers work it out among themselves. But it’s getting to the point now, it’s made a lot of farmers upset with their neighbors. It’s an unfortunate thing.”

In Missouri, more than 1,000 farmers have filed formal complaints with the state’s Department of Agriculture. In Arkansas, 25 complaints have been filed. If the department determines that a farmer has sprayed dicamba illegally, the farmer can be fined.

In Arkansas, fines can reach $1,000. State regulators are considering raising the maximum fine to $5,000 because the lower fines aren’t stopping farmers from spraying dicamba.

Even if the EPA approves the use of Monsanto’s reformulated version, the Arkansas Plant Board may implement new regulations that could drastically restrict the use of dicamba.

There is also evidence that Monsanto’s new glyphosate-dicamba mixture might not work for very long. Recent research suggests that weeds may evolve to resist dicamba over just 3 years.

Of course, Monsanto and other chemical companies like Dow have vowed to create other, new toxic mixtures and crops designed to withstand them. [4]

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

[1] TakePart

[2] The Wall Street Journal

[3] NPR

[4] Environmental Working Group

AGFAX.com

‘Dark Act’ Won’t Truly Label GMO’s – Food & Agriculture Consultant

Source: RTAmerica
August 3, 2016

Critics have branded the new law requiring the labeling of GMO products the DARK Act, short for “Denying Americans the Right to Know,” arguing that it allows companies to use QR codes or 1-800 numbers as a form of labeling, forcing consumers to scan the code or make a call to get more information. Independent food and agriculture consultant Elizabeth Kucinich joins RT America’s Lindsay France to discuss the law, which she claims “won’t truly label GMO’s.”

Chemical Industry Withholding Crucial Pesticide Toxicity From Regulatory Authorities

Toxic chemicals
Source: NaturalNews.com
L.J. Devon
July 28, 2016

Crucial data on pesticide toxicity is often concealed by the deceptive language put in place by the chemical industry. To bypass regulatory oversight, the chemical industry uses clever marketing language to make their patented chemicals sound legitimate. Some of the biggest agrochemical formulators, including Monsanto, Dow, Bayer and Syngenta, are claiming that their chemicals are safe, while hiding the known compounding, synergistic effects of their pesticides (often hidden in patent applications).

There is no scientific standard or regulation to address the synergy of new pesticide products, the compounding effects of pesticide formulations, or the unknown toxic effects of mixing and accumulating pesticides in the fields. For these reasons alone, pesticide burden and toxicity is far greater than assumed. Over time, as various amounts of pesticides accumulate in ground water and in soil, people become nothing but rats in a DNA-damaging real life lab experiment.

The gray area: Synergistic effects of widely-used agrochemicals lead to compounding toxicity

According to an investigation by the watchdog group, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), nearly 100 different pesticide products aren’t really safe at all, even after being given a license by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Over a six year time period, the EPA actually green-lighted nearly 100 pesticide products that had synergistic compounds known for “increasing the dangers to imperiled pollinators and rare plants.” Ecological biodiversity and agricultural sustainability are at risk here, but the threats are allowed to continue on.

These synergistic effects occur when two or more chemicals come together and interact in a way that increases and emboldens their toxicity. In tests, one chemical may be non-toxic at a certain level, but when the chemical is combined with another, the newfound toxicity can cause considerable harm to pollinators, rare plants or human health. The EPA may deem that a certain pesticide is safe at a certain level of exposure, but over time, intermixing chemicals can generate much greater toxic effects.

The CBD’s latest report, Toxic Concoctions: How the EPA Ignores the Dangers of Pesticide Cocktails, breaks down the harm that the chemical industry is doing by fooling regulatory authorities and using loopholes to embellish the data.

Over 90 agrochemicals on the market cause synergistic, compounding toxic effects

One of Dow AgroScience’s toxic pesticide products was revoked in 2014 for these reasons. Dow’s Enlist Duo, containing 2,4-D and glyphosate, causes such toxic, synergistic effects to plants, that the EPA revoked its license, even after approving it in October 2014.

Several products patented by Monsanto, Dow, Bayer and Syngenta have similar synergistic effects that the companies fail to properly disclose. No one is really studying and cross checking what these compounding effects can do to the environment and to human beings.

The Center for Biological Diversity investigated 140 patented products from these large chemical companies. Ninety-six of them or (69 percent) demonstrated synergy between the various active chemicals in the products. Of the patented applications, 72 percent of the products demonstrated synergy involving the most widely-used chemicals in agriculture. These chemicals included glyphosate, atrazine, 2,4-D, dicamba and the neonicotinoids thiamethoxam, imidacloprid and clothianidin, among others.

“It’s alarming to see just how common it’s been for the EPA to ignore how these chemical mixtures might endanger the health of our environment,” said CBD scientist Nathan Donley. The EPA doesn’t even cross examine compounding synergistic effects for the many different neonicotinoids.

“It’s pretty clear that chemical companies knew about these potential dangers, but the EPA never bothered to demand this information from them or dig a little deeper to find it for themselves,” he stated.

While the government looks the other way, CWC labs is working toward greater transparency. CWC labs will soon have the capability to disclose not only the heavy metal content of popular food items, but also various pesticide levels. In this way, CWC labs can help the public recognize where they may be consuming toxic, synergistic combinations of agrochemicals.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources include:

BiologicalDiversity.org[PDF]

CommonDreams.org

The Amazing Glyphosate Revolt Grows – F. William Engdahl

34534534544

Source: Journal-Neo.org
F. William Engdahl
May 23, 2016

I must make a confession. I never thought it would get this far. There is an absolutely amazing international revolt against the most deadly and most widely used weed killer in world agriculture–glyphosate. Those of you who have followed my earlier writings can detect my feeling of pessimism that mere “democratic” grass-roots protest, combined with a scientific assessment from an agency of WHO that glyphosate was a “probable carcinogen” would be enough to stop the pending, twice-postponed EU Commission renewal of the expiring license for glyphosate in the EU. It almost doesn’t matter at this point what the ultimate vote is when the next EU Commission glyphosate meeting is convened. The genie is out of the bottle. One of the world’s most important eugenics projects to maim and ultimately reduce human population is on the brink of being banned much as DDT decades ago.

On May 19, a revised proposal by the European Commission to re-approve glyphosate for use in Europe for 9 more years (rather than the original 15 years), but with almost no restrictions on use, failed to secure the required qualified majority among EU governments. This is an amazing and very positive development for democratic empowerment against an institution increasingly seen–not only by the British population–as an anti-democratic, even totalitarian structure irresponsive to the most basic concerns for the health and safety of EU citizens.

The agri-chemical industry bigs—Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and friends–are stunned at their failure. Corruption in government corridors whether in Berlin or Brussels seems to be losing its efficacy.

The next step for the troubled glyphosate renewal process will be for the EU Commission, those faceless, unelected bureaucrats, to come up with a new revised proposal that will bring Germany to approval by end of June when the old license expires or order glyphosate withdrawn from the entire EU market within six months according to Henry Rowlands’ international GMO watchdog media, Sustainable Pulse.

They cite Brussels EU Commission sources who report that the Commission did not even dare call for a formal vote, realizing that they would fail the EU requirement of Qualified Majority “yes” vote of the 28 EU states. France and Italy would have voted against in an informal polling. Germany would have abstained along with six other EU states.

Under current EU rules incorporated in the Treaty of Rome, a matter coming for a vote in the Council of Ministers of the 28 member states requiring a Qualified Majority approval, must satisfy two criteria. First, that 55% of member states vote in favor. Second, that the proposal is supported by member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population. Under the rules, an abstention under qualified majority voting counts as a vote against.

According to official statements of various EU governments in March before the latest May 19 meeting, in addition to open opposition to glyphosate license renewal on EU Commission terms expressed by France, Sweden and the Netherlands, the governments of Bulgaria, Denmark, Austria, Belgium and Italy had joined the “no” group. Their combined populations equal 53% of total EU population when Germany as abstainer is added. In that case the “yes” to glyphosate side would have a mere 47% not the required 65%.

An EU glyphosate ban today could deal a possible death blow to the global GMO project as more of the world wakes up to the fact that the entire GMO crop cultivation is part and parcel of the consumption of deadly glyphosate. It can be said that the Rockefeller Foundation’s funding of genetic manipulation, of genetics since World War II, as I document in my Seeds of Destruction book, is about eugenics or race purity as the Nazis practiced during the Third Reich. Little known is the fact that the Nazi eugenics, otherwise known as creation of the “Master Race,” was financed by…the Rockefeller Foundation. Monsanto has been in the orbit of Rockefeller core assets, now joined by Bill Gates, since World War I.

Industry Panic

At this point the global agrichemical cartel–one getting dramatically smaller from proposed mergers between ChinaChem with Syngenta and now Bayer AG with Monsanto are approved–is in a clear panic mode, and making stupid mistakes in the process. What’s at stake is huge for the health and safety of world citizens and for the future of the deadly agrichemicals industry. Glyphosate is the major component of Monsanto’s proven-toxic Roundup, the most profitable product of the GMO giant and the world’s most widely-used weed-killer.

Now Washington wants the EU to drop all health and environmental safeguards on GMOs to pave the way for a transatlantic trade agreement (TTIP). TTIP negotiations started on 25 April in New York. EU Health Commissioner Andriukaitis’ rush to ram through a re-licensing of glyphosate in May, shortly after his New York TTIP talks, was clearly another reflection of immense Washington pressure on the unaccountable EU Commission bureaucracy.

On May 16, timed for release just hours before the scheduled EU Council of Ministers vote on approval of glyphosate license renewal, the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) released what it claimed was a scientific study. They admit in the first sentence that it was rushed to publication. The study concluded regarding glyphosate:

“The overall weight of evidence indicates that administration of glyphosate and its formulation products at doses as high as 2000 mg/kg body weight

by the oral route, the route most relevant to human dietary exposure, was not associated with genotoxic effects in an overwhelming majority of studies conducted in mammals, a model considered to be appropriate for assessing genotoxic risks to humans. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is

unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures…the meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.”

This means that one part of the WHO says glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet,” while another arm of WHO, the very respected World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that glyphosate, the weed-killer used in most every GMO plant worldwide, and most other crops and even home gardens as well, was a “probable human carcinogen.”

The new FAO/WHO rush job however is no science. It’s fatally flawed bought-and-paid for prostitution science, with no offense to the world’s oldest profession meant.

As one critic points out, “this announcement was made without one single regulatory or industry glyphosate study ever having been performed at a real-life dietary exposure level (under 3 mg/kg body weight/day). This is a huge hole in the risk assessment process for glyphosate, as low levels of the herbicide may hack hormones even more than high levels and hormone hacking chemicals are often carcinogens.”

Conflicts of Interest

Moreover, the FAO/WHO rush job study committee is riddled with members with glaring conflicts of interest in terms of ties to the chemical industry desperately trying to ram through glyphosate re-approval until 2031. According to a report in the UK Guardian, Professor Alan Boobis, who chaired the UN’s joint FAO/WHO meeting on glyphosate, is vice-president of the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) Europe. The co-chair of the sessions was Professor Angelo Moretto, a board member of ILSI’s Health and Environmental Services Institute, and of its Risk21 steering group too, which Boobis also co-chairs. The Guardian report pointed out that in 2012, “the ILSI group took a $500,000 (£344,234) donation from Monsanto and a $528,500 donation from the industry group Croplife International, which represents Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta and others, according to documents obtained by the US Right to Know campaign.”

Continue Reading At: Journal-Neo.org

___________________________________________________________________

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”