Were USDA Scientists Harassed for Questioning Roundup’s Safety?
by Jefferey Jaxen
Posted on April 4, 2015
It continues to be revealed to the public that the only legitimacy Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry tout comes from payoffs, censorship, and bullying. On March 26th, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), an advocacy group for local, state, and federal researchers, filed a legal petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to stop the “political suppression or alteration of studies and to lay out clear procedures for investigating allegations of scientific misconduct.”
[size=14pt]
Reading in Between the Lines
According to Reuters, PEER’s Executive Director Jeff Ruch said that at least 10 USDA scientists have been investigated or faced other consequences arising from research that called into question the safety of certain agricultural chemicals. Ruch goes on to say that his organization had received mounting complaints over the last year from USDA scientists claiming they have been ordered to retract studies, water down findings, remove their names from authorship, and experienced delays in approvals for publication of research papers.
The petition does not identify any specific research or scientists. One senior scientist at the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, who asked to not be named, told Reuters “Your words are changed, your papers are censored or edited or you are not allowed to submit them at all.” These increasing attacks and censorship on scientists all seem fitting as the world is currently rejecting glyphosate after its new classification to a 2B carcinogen by the World Health Organization.
No Proof
Genetically modified organisms and their associated chemicals are showing to be a historical study of how the industry’s products can decimate populations, environments, and individual health while relying on nothing but criminal fraud. A quick look back through time shows the same ‘strong arm’ tactics, influential pay offs, and plain criminality.
A 2012 study published in the scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology found “severe toxic effects (including liver congestions, necrosis and kidney nephropathies), increased tumor rates and higher mortality in rats fed Monsanto’s genetically modified NK603 maize and/or the associated herbicide Roundup.” Shortly after, this study was retracted after the journal hired a former Monsanto employee to fill a new editorial position reviewing biotechnology papers.
History was made in 2013 as two million people participated in protest against Monsanto and GMO food. Shortly after, the group March against Monsanto was on track to make history again as they prepared a rally directly outside Monsanto’s headquarters in St. Louis, MO. As critical mass began, Facebook promptly removed the page, stalling the momentum. Facebook also went one step further and removed individual pictures of children holding anti-Monsanto signs while simultaneously blocking entire accounts.
Investigative newscasters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson of Florida’s Fox 13 station were set to expose that Florida’s milk was tainted with genetically-engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), the flagship product for Monsanto’s in 1998.
According to Akre and Wilson, “Fox 13 didn’t want to kill the story revealing synthetic hormones in Florida’s milk supply. Instead, as we explain in great detail in our legal complaint, we were repeatedly ordered to go forward and broadcast demonstrably inaccurate and dishonest versions of the story. We were given those instructions after some very high-level corporate lobbying by Monsanto.”
Who could forget the 2012 French Caen study, the first to record the health of rats fed GMOs throughout their entire lifespan, rather than merely 90 days, which was the duration of Monsanto’s tests. Shocking the world with viral images showing massive tumors in the rats, Monsanto publicly renounced the study as “bad science” and sent its bought and paid for attack dog, The European Food Safety Authority, to call for a retraction of the study. A tactic we see happening currently with the recent cancer classification of glyphosate.[/size]
by Jefferey Jaxen
Posted on April 4, 2015
It continues to be revealed to the public that the only legitimacy Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry tout comes from payoffs, censorship, and bullying. On March 26th, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), an advocacy group for local, state, and federal researchers, filed a legal petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to stop the “political suppression or alteration of studies and to lay out clear procedures for investigating allegations of scientific misconduct.”
[size=14pt]
Reading in Between the Lines
According to Reuters, PEER’s Executive Director Jeff Ruch said that at least 10 USDA scientists have been investigated or faced other consequences arising from research that called into question the safety of certain agricultural chemicals. Ruch goes on to say that his organization had received mounting complaints over the last year from USDA scientists claiming they have been ordered to retract studies, water down findings, remove their names from authorship, and experienced delays in approvals for publication of research papers.
The petition does not identify any specific research or scientists. One senior scientist at the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, who asked to not be named, told Reuters “Your words are changed, your papers are censored or edited or you are not allowed to submit them at all.” These increasing attacks and censorship on scientists all seem fitting as the world is currently rejecting glyphosate after its new classification to a 2B carcinogen by the World Health Organization.
No Proof
Genetically modified organisms and their associated chemicals are showing to be a historical study of how the industry’s products can decimate populations, environments, and individual health while relying on nothing but criminal fraud. A quick look back through time shows the same ‘strong arm’ tactics, influential pay offs, and plain criminality.
A 2012 study published in the scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology found “severe toxic effects (including liver congestions, necrosis and kidney nephropathies), increased tumor rates and higher mortality in rats fed Monsanto’s genetically modified NK603 maize and/or the associated herbicide Roundup.” Shortly after, this study was retracted after the journal hired a former Monsanto employee to fill a new editorial position reviewing biotechnology papers.
History was made in 2013 as two million people participated in protest against Monsanto and GMO food. Shortly after, the group March against Monsanto was on track to make history again as they prepared a rally directly outside Monsanto’s headquarters in St. Louis, MO. As critical mass began, Facebook promptly removed the page, stalling the momentum. Facebook also went one step further and removed individual pictures of children holding anti-Monsanto signs while simultaneously blocking entire accounts.
Investigative newscasters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson of Florida’s Fox 13 station were set to expose that Florida’s milk was tainted with genetically-engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), the flagship product for Monsanto’s in 1998.
According to Akre and Wilson, “Fox 13 didn’t want to kill the story revealing synthetic hormones in Florida’s milk supply. Instead, as we explain in great detail in our legal complaint, we were repeatedly ordered to go forward and broadcast demonstrably inaccurate and dishonest versions of the story. We were given those instructions after some very high-level corporate lobbying by Monsanto.”
Who could forget the 2012 French Caen study, the first to record the health of rats fed GMOs throughout their entire lifespan, rather than merely 90 days, which was the duration of Monsanto’s tests. Shocking the world with viral images showing massive tumors in the rats, Monsanto publicly renounced the study as “bad science” and sent its bought and paid for attack dog, The European Food Safety Authority, to call for a retraction of the study. A tactic we see happening currently with the recent cancer classification of glyphosate.[/size]
