As this latest trial in San Francisco, CA involving Monsanto’s Roundup progresses, more and more controversial information is being brought to light. In this newest round of testimonies, Monsanto was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based on faulty studies.
In this current trial involving Monsanto and Benicia school district groundskeeper DeWayne Johnson, Johnson claims that after using Roundup on the job he developed rashes and sores. Later he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a specific type of blood cancer.
In the weeks since this trial began, the evidence against Monsanto has been surprisingly strong. First New York toxicologist William Sawyer’s testimony brought to light that glyphosate – the harmful ingredient in Roundup that is potentially carcinogenic (cancer causing) – can bioaccumulate in the skin and is then absorbed in the body. Also problematic for Monsanto was the issue that POE-tallowamine, the additive that spreads Roundup over a large surface area, could be toxic since it was never fully studied (and is also banned in the European Union).
The next chink in Monsanto’s armor is the faulty study performed decades ago that was supposed to prove the safety of Roundup’s chemical formulation. In the mid-1970’s, Monsanto hired Industrial Bio-Test (IBT) Laboratories to perform tests on mice to determine the toxicity of glyphosate. These tests were required by the EPA to ensure that it was safe to use. Roundup apparently passed these studies, but “the data was later found to contain discrepancies invalidating IBT’s conclusions that glyphosate was safe,” reports Courthouse News. Worse yet, “A subsequent review by the EPA found that IBT routinely falsified data, and three of its executives were convicted of fraud.”
It is “hard to believe the scientific integrity of the studies when they said they took specimens of the uterus from male rabbits,” an EPA reviewer said of IBT, according to the complaint.
“We just established that Roundup was approved in the 1970s, yet this mouse study was done in 1983 and this rat study was done in 1981,” Brent Wisner, Johnson’s attorney, said of the studies. “Is it fair to say that between the original registration and [the early 1980s], there were no valid mouse or rat studies” of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity?”
Here’s the irony: while Roundup was approved for market largely based on this faulty study, this study was not allowed into evidence in this trial because Monsanto was not involved in these tests. However, 15 other animal studies were discussed that DID find a link between glyphosate and tumor formation. So Roundup was approved for sale based on a study that was altered but it’s not taken off the market based on the findings of other reputable tests?
As this trial progresses, it’s clear that glyphosate has a strong link to blood cancers like non-Hodgkin lymphoma. If you used Roundup regularly and were diagnosed with this type of cancer, call Periscope Group today. Your voice needs to be heard and you deserve financial compensation to help pay for your medical bills and lost wages. Please note that it’s critical that you call now. This trial may determine future settlements and if you wait too long, you may miss your chance at getting your financial settlement.