Monsanto used its time to present a defense of glyphosate's value to agriculture, to offer detailed explanations for why the IARC analysis was flawed, and to explain why the company believes a host of data points found in various studies should be discounted, and/or are not relevant. Company representatives also argued that glyphosate residues found in numerous urine tests were nothing to worry about, and actually helped show that the chemical does not bio-accumulate in the human body. They also said reports of glyphosate residues found in human breast milk were "implausible."
Groups concerned about glyphosate argued to the panel that the EPA was favoring industry studies over published literature, which is generally considered more authoritative, and was using flimsy protocols to shrug off statistical significance found in several studies.
Many of the participants from both sides of the debate spoke of a need for research on the safety of formulated products that have glyphosate as the active ingredient. The EPA evaluates only glyphosate and not the actual formulation in which it is applied, even though the formulations are increasingly being feared to be more potentially dangerous to human health than the active ingredient alone.
One particularly interesting story line that played out this week was the saga of Dr. Peter Infante, a nationally recognized epidemiologist who initially was invited and confirmed by EPA as one of the agency's scientific advisory panel members for the glyphosate meetings. The meetings were slated for Oct. 18-21 but CropLife America, which represents the interests of Monsanto and other agribusinesses, sent a letter to the EPA on Oct. 12 calling for Infante to be completely disqualified, saying he had "patent bias."
Infante appeared to have impeccable credentials, having spent decades working for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health specializing in the determination of cancer risks associated with toxic substances. But CropLife insisted Infante be thrown off the panel. One of its reasons: Infante would give more weight to independent research than the industry's own research.
The EPA did as the industry asked, but the ousting did not sit well with Infante, who had spent long hours studying the data EPA sent the panel members in advance. In part to defend his reputation, and also to offer his analysis, a somewhat disgruntled Infante showed up at the EPA meetings anyway, telling the SAP members there is "impressive evidence" of glyphosate ties to NHL that should not be ignored.
"There is clearly the evidence for the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma related to glyphosate exposure," Infante said in an interview after he addressed the panel. "Is it conclusive? No, I don't think so. But I think that EPA is concluding that there is no evidence. And that's exactly wrong, according to their own criteria." There is enough data to classify glyphosate as having "limited" evidence of carcinogenicity in humans," Infante said.
By the time the singing broke out, the room seemed ready for the distraction. The Rev. Billy Talen, who leads a group of self-proclaimed "earth-loving urban activists" that frequently use performance as protest, took his turn at the microphone. Talen told the SAP members of his group's concern about glyphosate applications made on playgrounds around the country and the danger this could pose to children. "We're very aware of the cancers that come from, we believe, from glyphosates," he told the group.
Shortly after, Talen was warned his five minutes were up, and he and a small number of his followers started singing: "Monsanto is the devil. No glyphosate. Hey."
>>>>
This is my newest article, and I am thankful to both Rob Kall, publisher of OpEdNews, and to Los Angeles Progressive Editor Dick Price, because both enabling exposure to this important news in California.
I am glad to say that the LA Times and the Fresno Bee plus presumably the other Bees, in Sacramento and in Modesto, have now covered this. Others have included the St. Louis Post Dispatch (because Monsanto is in St. Louis), San Diego Union-Tribune, ABC News, London Daily Mail, Santa Rose Press Democrat, assorted agricultural publications, plus the biggest and most important one: Reuters, because this one opens the door to international coverage via Reuters Wire Stories, if, and indeed, IF, any international editors are responsive enough to cover this story.
This press coverage is vital to me because we are using precisely the same legal machinery to label aspartame as a carcinogen in California, yet the only coverage thus far in California has been here, at the Los Angeles Progressive as well as the cover story for the current magazine for the National Health Federation, some 20,000 members, based in Monrovia, CA. Is it because this corporate miscreant, Monsanto, is already so well known to Americans, compared to Ajinomoto, the Japanese manufacturer of aspartame (although Monsanto owned the aspartame patent for many years before Ajinomoto did!).
Somewhere along the line, humans have lost most of our instinct for self preservation biochemically and genetically, but I am glad to see it is alive and well in Sacramento in the California Carcinogen Identification Committee, and in the mind of this Fresno County Superior Court Judge, who may go further soon, and entirely throw out Monsanto's case out of court.
Doing so would thus allow smooth sailing for Roundup's carcinogen labeling, until the next legal confrontation, which, from the sound of it, my guess says will be in Federal Appeals court on the grounds of this lame legal argument laid out by Monsanto and described in the above article.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
4
3
