Monsanto ‘Deliberately Covered Up Data’ Proving Glyphosate is Cancerous for 4 Decades

Courtesy of

A key sign we need truly independent testing
Christina Sarich
by Christina Sarich
Posted on September 30, 2015

What will it take to shut down Monsanto’s doors irrevocably? Likely it will be the same type of lawsuit that finally pulled the shades on the tobacco industry. If Big Tobacco eventually had to pay a $206 billion settlement over 25 years for lying about the health impacts of cigarettes, what do you think Monsanto will have to pay for lying about glyphosate’s carcinogenic nature for almost 40 years?

Some well-respected researchers are now saying that Monsanto demanded incriminating data and reports be sealed and locked away from public scrutiny as proprietary trade secrets, though they knew these documents would reveal glyphosate’s carcinogenic nature.


Monsanto has yet to be caught red-handed lying about research, but the corp has been caught twice when they utilized outside laboratories that were later found to have been criminal. In 1978, the EPA busted Industrial Biotest Laboratories for rigging laboratory results; the company’s executives were found guilty for submitting fabricated data supporting glyphosate in positive light to the government. In 1991, another firm, Craven Labs, was found guilty on similar charges with 20 felony counts. Monsanto’s timeline of crime is undeniable. [1]

The EPA continually colludes with Monsanto to present glyphosate as ‘safe’ to the public, but during an exclusive interview on the Progressive Radio Network on September 4, Anthony Samsel stated that Monsanto used an industry trick to dismiss evidence about glyphosate’s risks in its own research.  “Monsanto misrepresented the data,” says Samsel, “and deliberately covered up data to bring the product [glyphosate] to market.”

Samsel, an independent research scientist and a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, explains, along with Dr. Stephanie Seneff, that in order to minimize and cancel out its adverse findings:

“Monsanto had relied upon earlier historical animal control data, toxicological research with lab animals afflicted with cancer and organ failures, and completely unrelated to glyphosate. In some cases the control animals displayed kidney, liver and pancreatic diseases.

Many of Monsanto’s own studies required the inclusion of extraneous studies in order to cancel out damaging results.  This is not an uncommon industry habit, particularly in toxicological science. It enables corporations to mask undesirable outcomes and make claims that observable illnesses and disease are spontaneous occurrences without known causal factors.

Frequently, Monsanto would have to rely on three external control studies to negate the adverse effects of a single one of its own. Samsel found other incidences in Monsanto’s data where 5, 7 and in one case 11 unrelated studies were necessary to diminish the severity of its own findings.  In effect, glyphosate received licensure based upon a platform of junk tobacco science.”

The researchers go on to explain that Monsanto covered up the fact that glyphosate was equally toxic in both low and high range doses. These findings are corroborated by a recent study from France published in the August issue of the Environmental Health Journal by scientists at Kings College London and the University of Caen in France.


The two year study found that glyphosate administered at an ultra-low dose of 0.1 ppb (the EU’s safety limit) in drinking water altered over 4000 gene clusters in the livers and kidneys of rats, though the biotech industry has been trying to debunk its findings.

So what information is hiding in Monsanto’s sealed documents?

Among the many cancers and diseases associated with glyphosate are:

  • Adenoma cancer in the pituitary gland
  • Glioma tumors in the brain
  • Reticular cell sarcomas in the heart
  • Malignant tumors in the lungs
  • Salivary mandibular reticular cell carcinoma
  • Metastatic sarcomas of the lymph gland
  • Prostate carcinoma
  • Cancer of the bladder
  • Thyroid carcinoma
  • Adrenal reticulum cell sarcomas
  • Cortical adenomas
  • Basal cell squamous skin tumors

Yet these were all hidden from public view. I think that hundreds of billions of dollars won’t come close to account for the 40 years of health damage Monsanto has potentially caused by hiding this information. But one thing is certain, just like the Tobacco industry – Monsanto will pay.

Want to learn more? Watch these videos:

Lobbyist who says you can drink glyphosate:

Documentary of the Monsanto Company:

Seeds of Death:

Monsanto has gotten away with murder for long enough. The world is starting to wake up, and hold them accountable. Our efforts are working; just don’t let up the pressure. Keep educating yourself and others and we will protect the food supply.

Q3 Earnings Bloodbath Continues With Terrible Monsanto Results: Company Fires 2,600 As It Boosts Buyback ~ ZeroHedge

Tyler Durden's picture

It had been quite a downcast start to the third quarter earnings season following very disappointing earnings from Illumina, Adobe and Yum Brand. Then Moments ago agri-giant Monsanto made it four out of four when it reported a huge miss on both the top and bottom line, with Q4 revenue of $2.36 billion, far below the $2.79 billion consensus estimate and down 10% from a year ago. The EPS was likewise a disaster, which at at loss of $0.19 in Q4, was also far below the consensus estimate of ($0.03).Q4 EBIT tumbled to -$773 million, while full year EBIT was down 15% to $2.2 billion.

This is what the company justified this shockingly bad result:

Full-year net sales results were driven by the performance of the company’s Seeds and Genomics segment and licensing agreements, which were more than offset by foreign currency headwinds, declining corn acres and declines in glyphosate pricing.

Then there was the topic of cash flow: Monsanto was proud to announce that in 2015 it $3.1 billion in cash from operations, the same as in fiscal year 2014. Free cash flow was a source of $2.1 billion in fiscal year 2015, compared with a source of $959 million in fiscal year 2014. The fiscal year 2015 cash flow results primarily reflected the absence of The Climate Corporation acquisition and the BioAg Alliance with Novozymes.

So, great news right: the company was generating solid cash flow right. Well, yes, until one realizes that in 2014 MON repurchased $7.1 billion in stocks, and then another $835 million in 2015. In other words the company spent more than it generated in the past two years on buybacks.

Worse, MON spent $7.1 billion buying back stock at an average price of just over $115/share in 2014. Its stock is now $85, which as every Treasurer knows is a great way to generate a -25% return on cash investment…

… but to assure a huge grin on the faces of activist shareholders who were delighted to sell to the company at $125 last summer.

As for MON, we are happy that the company has not learned its lesson:

Monsanto plans to enter into a new $3 billion accelerated share repurchase program under its current share repurchase authorization, as it progresses toward its targeted capital structure. The company plans to begin the new accelerated share repurchase program in the near-term and complete it sometime in the next six months.

Because when all else fails, a short-term pop and a long-term drop is precisely what “activist shareholders” demand.

And as for all else failing, one just needs to look at the outlook:

  • Monsanto expects to achieve ongoing EPS of $5.10 to $5.60 in fiscal year 2016.

This compares to consensus estimates of $6.22. What is to blame this time?

Ongoing EPS guidance reflects in part an estimated $0.35 to $0.40 of headwinds from currency, $0.50 to $0.85 of headwinds from Agricultural Productivity pricing declines and $0.20 to $0.30 from elevated cost of goods for corn and the anticipated launch costs of Roundup Ready® Xtend soybeans. EPS on an as-reported basis is expected to be $4.44 to $5.01 in fiscal year 2016, reflecting additional charges related to the first phase of announced restructuring actions.

So pretty much everything including central bankers.

It gets worse:

The company projects free cash flow in the range of $1.6 billion to $1.8 billion for fiscal year 2016. The company expects net cash provided by operating activities to be $2.7 billion to $3.1 billion, and net cash required by investing activities to be approximately $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion.

Consensus cash flow estimate: $2.56 billion. But at least more than all of the company’s net cash will be used to fund the stock buyback.

And while Monsanto management is delighted to hand over all of its cash flows to investors (and management’s equity-linked compensation bonus), there is something for workers too: a pink slip.

The plans also include an expected separation of approximately 2,600 employees over the next 18-24 months. 

Which, incidentally, is what in the New Normal is called “growth.”

Monsanto’s Migraine: Big Fiascoes Facing the World’s Biggest Seed Company

Note: Tweets are VERY difficult to re-post, go here to view the clever tweets mentioned below…mahalo!
The problems are piling up at the company’s front door.

Photo Credit: a katz/

Monsanto has been reeling from a number of setbacks around the globe. Here’s a look at some of the main reasons that 2015 has been a giant headache for the biotech giant. But that headache could find some reilef if the U.S. Senate hands them a legislative victory that would keep American consumers in the dark about what’s in their food.

Roundup Probably Causes Cancer

In March, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the World Health Organization’s cancer arm, said that the controversial herbicide glyphosate — the main ingredient in Monsanto’s popular weedkiller Roundup — is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” IARC noted, “Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the USA, Canada, and Sweden reported increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustment for other pesticides.” Used by home gardeners, public park gardeners and farmers, and applied to more than 150 food and non-food crops, Roundup is the Monsantot’s leading product and the world’s most-produced weedkiller.

In June, France banned Roundup. French Ecology Minister Segolene Royal said, “France must be on the offensive with regards to the banning of pesticides.” She added, “I have asked garden centers to stop putting Monsanto’s Roundup on sale” in self-service aisles. And earlier this month, California issued a notice of intent to list glyphosate as a carcinogen. “As far as I’m aware, this is the first regulatory agency in the U.S. to determine that glyphosate is a carcinogen,” said Dr. Nathan Donley, a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “So this is a very big deal.”

In April, U.S. citizens filed a class action lawsuit against Monsanto, claiming that the company is guilty of false advertising by claiming that glyphosate targets an enzyme only found in plants and not in humans or animals. The plaintiffs argue that the targeted enzyme, EPSP synthase, is found in the microbiota that reside in human and non-human animal intestines. In addition to its potential cancer-causing properties, Roundup has been linked to a host of other health issues, environmental problems and the record decline of monarch butterflies.And in September, another of the company’s herbicides got slammed when a French appeals court confirmed that Monsanto was guilty of chemical poisoning, upholding a 2012 ruling in favor of Paul Francois, whose lawyers claimed the company’s Lasso weedkiller gave the cereal farmer neurological problems, including memory loss and headaches.

Tweet Backfires

Monsanto would probably love to forget one of their recent tweets that tried to put out the glyphosate-fueled public image fire. A day before the cancer-listing announcement by California’s EPA, Monsanto posted a tweet, asking if people has questions about glyphosate with a link to a FAQ page:

The tweet wasn’t the PR success that the company had hoped for. Instead of helping to alleviate consumer fears about the chemical, the tweet became a target for the Monsanto-hating Twitterati:

EU Nations Ban GMOs

In addition to the glyphosate backlash, Monsanto has had to deal with several EU countries who have said no to the company’s GM crops. A new European Union law signed in March allows individual member countries to be excluded from any GM cultivation approval request. European opposition to GMOs has been strong: Unlike in the Americas and Asia, where GMO crops are widely grown, only Monsanto’s pest-resistant MON810, a GMO maize, is grown in Europe. Several nations have taken advantage of the new exclusion law: Scotland, Germany, Latvia, Greece, France and recently, Northern Ireland, have all invoked it.

In August, Scotland became the first EU nation to ban the growing of genetically modified crops by requesting to be excluded by Monsanto’s application to grow GMO crops across the EU. “Scotland is known around the world for our beautiful natural environment — and banning growing genetically modified crops will protect and further enhance our clean, green status,” said Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead.

Germany cited strong resistance from farmers and the public when it made its opt-out request. “Germany has committed a true act of food democracy by listening to the majority of its citizens that oppose GMO cultivation and support more sustainable, resilient organic food production that doesn’t perpetuate the overuse of toxic herbicides,” said Lisa Archer, food and technology director at environmental nonprofit Friends of the Earth. “We are hopeful that more members of the EU will follow suit and that the U.S. Congress will protect our basic right to know what we are feeding our families by requiring mandatory GMO labeling.”

Soon after Germany’s decision, Latvia and Greece announced that they too are taking advantage of the EU law. France, too, is using the opt-out law to ensure the country’s GMO ban remains in place.

While anti-GMO activists warn of the dangers that genetically modified foods pose to health and the environment, the Big Food industry and many scientists argue that GMOs are safe and can help feed a skyrocketing human population. Monsanto told Reuters: “We regret that some countries are deviating from a science-based approach to innovation in agriculture and have elected to prohibit the cultivation of a successful GM product on arbitrary political grounds.” There is a significant political dimension as well: Newswire reported that the GMO opt-out law “directly confronts U.S. free trade deal supported by EU, under which the Union should open its doors widely for the U.S. GM industry.” It remains to be seen how the opt-out law will play out in the long run.

But for now, could the GMO resistance in Europe be working? Following the announcements by Latvia and Greece, EurActiv, an online news service covering EU affairs, reported that Monsanto “said it had no immediate plans to request approvals for any new GM seeds in Europe.”

The GMO Debate Rages On

The debate over genetically modified foods is complex, and not without its contradictions. While the anti-GMO movement appears to gaining steam, GMO foods have been a big part of the U.S. food system for many years. The vast majority of several key crops grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, including soy (93 percent), corn (93 percent) and canola (90 percent). As Morgan Clendaniel, editor of Co.Exist, points out, “Many crops are genetically modified so frequently, it’s nearly impossible to find non-GMO versions.” He adds that, althought 80 percent of all packaged food sold in America contain GMOs, consumers are kept in the dark, because the U.S. is “one of the few places in the developed world that doesn’t require food producers to disclose whether or not their ingredients have any modifications.”

One scientist who has been sharply critical of GM crops is David Williams, a cellular biologist at the University of California at Los Angeles. He says that “inserted genes can be transformed by several different means, and it can happen generations later,” which can result in potentially toxic plants. In addition, faulty monitoring of GM field tests presents another danger. For example, from 2008 to 2014, only 39 of the 133 GM crop field trials in India were properly monitored, “leaving the rest for unknown risks and possible health hazards.”

But within the scientific community, Dr. Williams is in the minority, In fact, as science writer David H. Freeman notes in Scientific American, “The vast major it of the research on genetically modified crops suggests that they are safe to eat.” David Zilberman, an agricultural and environmental economist at the University of California at Berkeley (who Freeman describes as “one of the few researchers considered credible by both agricultural chemical companies and their critics”) says that the use of GM crops “has increased farmer safety by allowing them to use less pesticide. It has raised the output of corn, cotton and soy by 20 to 30 percent, allowing some people to survive who would not have without it. If it were more widely adopted around the world, the price [of food] would go lower, and fewer people would die of hunger.”

The European Food Safety Authority said it will issue its scientific opinion on the GM crops by the end of 2017. For now, the GMO debate — filled with a host of pros and cons — rages on. But beyond the health and environmental threats that Monsanto’s products may pose, some worry that about the how control of the global food system is increasingly concentrated in a few biotech and agriculture megacorps like Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Pioneer and DuPont. “Beating in the heart of every good capitalist is the heart of a monopolist,” says Neil Harl, an agricultural economist at Iowa State. “So we have to have rules, we have to have the economic police on the beat. Or we end up with concentration and that means higher prices.”

GMO Labeling Law: SAFE or DARK?