EPA to American People: 'Let Them Eat Monsanto's Roundup Ready Cake'

Monsanto's 'EPA Cheerleading Division' Raises Herbicide Limits To Alarming Levels

The EPA, whose mission is to "to protect human health and the environment," has approved Monsanto's request to allow levels of glyphosate (Roundup) contamination in your food up to a million times higher than have been found carcinogenic.

If you haven't already heard, it's now official. Monsanto's request to have the EPA raise allowable levels of its herbicide glyphosate in food you may soon be eating has been approved [see Final Rule]. Public commenting is also now closed, not that it was anything but a formality to begin with.

Here is the original registration application, lest detractors claim it was not Monsanto behind this bold move to legalize what an increasingly educated public considers a form of institutionalized mass poisoning:

1. EPA Registration Numbers: 524-421, 524-475, and 524-537. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132. Applicant: Monsanto Company, 1300 I Street NW., Suite 450 East, Washington, DC 20005. Active ingredient: Glyphosate. Product Type: Herbicide. Proposed Uses: Add wiper applicator use over the top to carrot and sweet potato, add preharvest use to oilseed crop group 20, add the use Teff (forage and hay), and conversion of the following old crop groups to the following new crop groups: Vegetable, bulb, group 3 to vegetable, bulb, group 3-07; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 to vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10; fruit, citrus, group 10 to fruit, citrus, group 10-10; fruit, pome, group 11 to fruit, pome, group 11-10; and berry group 13 to berry and small fruit, group 13-07. Contact: Erik Kraft, (703) 308-9358, email address: kraft.erik@epa.gov. [emphasis added]

Notice above, the proposal includes "Add wiper applicator use over the top to carrot and sweet potato," revealing that one reason why Monsanto wants tolerances on glyphosate raised is because this chemical will be applied directly not just to Roundup Ready plants but to non-GMO crops as well, virtually guaranteeing that unless you eat 100% USDA organic concentrations of grave concern will end up in your food and body.

How grave? The Food Poisoning Bulletin describes the new tolerances as follows:

Under the new regulation, forage and hay teff can contain up to 100 ppm (100,000 ppb) glyphosate; oilseed crops can contain up to 40 ppm (40,000 ppb) glyphosate, and root crops such as potatoes and beets can contain 6000 ppb glyphosate. Fruits can have concentrations from 200 ppb to 500 ppb glyphosate. These numbers are magnitudes higher than the levels some scientists believe are carcinogenic. [emphasis added]

Indeed, only last month, a new study found that glyphosate has 'xenoestrogen' properties and stimulated breast cancer proliferation in the parts per trillion range – that would be six orders of magnitude lower levels than presently receiving the EPA's Monsanto-friendly stamp of approval. So how does the EPA address the potential for carcinogenicity in section 3 of their Exposure Assessment? They state their position as follows: 

Continue to Page 2

Pages :
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sick Logic in Action



This is a result of 'sick logic', a common problem when analyzing food.  Foods are deemed to be 'safe', if there people can make claims about sickness, like "EPA has concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary."

When we only attempt to measure 'sick'ness caused by food additives, poisons, etc, it is relatively easy to find no evidence.  This leads to the commonly formatted statement of denial, "there is no evidence that...", which translates into "we haven't found any evidence that we are prepared to believe".

The search for sickness results in the classic 'boiled frog' syndrome.  We (our governments and corporations) refuse to see the danger until we can prove that deaths are caused by the rise in toxic chemicals.  Even then, they are more likely to try 'turning down the heat a bit', rather than turning it off. We are the frogs, and most of us are not even aware of the rise in temperature. 

We need to measure the 'healthiness', not the 'sickness creating' effects of foods. As long as we only search for sickness, denial is easy - just ask any tobacco company lawyer.  When we search for health, we can compare foods based on healthiness.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to write a comment