EN
FR
A new report by the toxicologist Dr Peter Clausing shows that the EU authorities violated their own rules and disregarded evidence that glyphosate is carcinogenic to reach a conclusion that the chemical does not cause cancer
The EU authorities reached the conclusion that glyphosate is not carcinogenic by disregarding and brushing aside evidence of cancers in experimental animals and by violating directives and guidelines that are supposed to guide their work, according to a new report [1] by the German toxicologist Dr Peter Clausing.
The report shows for the first time that glyphosate should have been classified as a carcinogen according to the current EU standards. This would mean an automatic ban under EU pesticides legislation. However, the EU authorities disregarded and breached these standards, enabling them to reach a conclusion that the chemical is not carcinogenic.
Commenting on his findings, Dr Clausing said, “What surprised me most was how obviously and widely the authorities violated their own rules. Seeing this made me angry. The authorities should be made accountable for their failure.”
Dr Clausing added, “The evidence that glyphosate is carcinogenic is so overwhelming that it should be banned.”
The authorities in the firing line are the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) (Germany being the rapporteur member state for glyphosate in the EU), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).
The three agencies’ conclusion that glyphosate is not carcinogenic contrasted with that of the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which in 2015 classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on “sufficient” evidence in animals and “limited” evidence in humans. IARC is recognised for its strict independence policy and high quality research.
The new report shows that BfR, EFSA, and ECHA failed to apply relevant guidance from the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sets international standards for chemicals testing) and ECHA itself, and indicates that they manipulated facts and data to reach the conclusion that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.
Dr Clausing says he is concerned that the authorities’ actions could put public health at risk. He said, “In Europe cancer incidences have doubled and tripled in recent decades, depending on the tumour type. I am worried that the skyrocketing use of glyphosate has contributed to that and will continue to do so if no action is taken.”
Commenting on demands for more transparency in the pesticide approvals process, he added, “Transparency is necessary, but not sufficient. Transparency without consequences if things go wrong is useless.”
Dr Clausing used to work as a senior toxicologist in the pharmaceutical industry but is now a board member of Pesticide Action Network Germany.
The new report is published by GLOBAL 2000 (Friends of the Earth Austria).
According to the report’s editor Claire Robinson of GMWatch, a UK-based NGO that has drawn attention to the risks of glyphosate, “Dr Clausing has written a comprehensive and incisive challenge to the EU authorities’ assessments of glyphosate. On 19–20 of July, EU member state representatives are invited to discuss the re-approval of glyphosate at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (ScoPAFF).
“The author and editors of the new report invite the representatives and the European Commission to read it and respond before this discussion takes place. Following the science appears to leave them with only one possible course of action: to refuse to renew of glyphosate’s authorisation.”
Main findings of the report
• According to the EU pesticides regulation, a substance is to be considered carcinogenic if two independently conducted animal studies show an increased tumour incidence in exposed animals.
• In the case of glyphosate, at least seven out of twelve such long-term studies found an increased tumour incidence.
• Initially, BfR failed to recognise numerous significant tumour incidences, due to its failure to apply the appropriate statistical tests stipulated by the OECD and ECHA. BfR had instead relied on statistical tests applied by industry, which had only indicated a significant carcinogenic effect of glyphosate for a single type of tumour in a single study.
• Due to the IARC monograph on glyphosate, published in 2015, the BfR re-assessed its own evaluation and acknowledged the above-mentioned significant incidences in seven out of twelve studies.
• Nevertheless, the BfR – and EFSA and ECHA, which relied on the BfR’s groundwork – failed to notice a further eight significant tumour effects, which were recently identified by Prof Christopher Portier, former associate director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in the US.
• BfR, EFSA and ECHA made a biased selection of studies in their glyphosate assessments. They took into full consideration two studies that did not find that glyphosate caused malignant lymphoma – but which contain such obvious deficiencies that they should have been excluded from the evaluation. In contrast, they downplayed a study that found that glyphosate did cause malignant lymphoma by citing an alleged viral infection in the animals – for which there is no evidence, as admitted by ECHA. The sole source for this alleged infection is Jess Rowland, a former US EPA official, who made the claim in a teleconference with EFSA. An investigation has confirmed that EFSA had no evidence for the alleged infection beyond Rowland’s remark. Monsanto internal emails disclosed in a US lawsuit suggest that Rowland was an eager helper of the chemical company who boasted that he should “get a medal” if he succeeded in killing another agency’s investigation into glyphosate’s health effects.
• BfR, EFSA and ECHA played off one type of statistical test against another, arguing that glyphosate was not carcinogenic because significance in cancer incidence was only achieved in one type of test and not in another. This violates OECD guidance, which states that significance in either test is sufficient to reject the notion that the cancers occurred by chance.
• BfR, EFSA and ECHA violated restrictions on the use of historical control data (the compiled data from untreated control animals in previous studies) set by the OECD, to dismiss the carcinogenic effects of glyphosate.
• BfR, EFSA and ECHA avoided mentioning dose-response relationships that strengthened the evidence that tumour effects were caused by glyphosate and not by random chance. This suggests that the authorities tried to cover up evidence for the carcinogenic effects of glyphosate.
Notes
1. Peter Clausing (2017). Glyphosate and cancer: Authorities systematically breach regulations. Published by GLOBAL 2000 (Friends of the Earth Austria). http://www.gmwatch.org/files/GLO_02_Glyphosat_EN.pdf
Download the report
Download the new report: GLO 02 Glyphosat EN.pdf
The full report in English and the Summary in several different languages, including English, are available here: https://we.tl/0z7wOISv9m
Português
Your Tax Free Donations Are Appreciated and Help Fund our Volunteer Website
Disclaimer: We at Prepare for Change (PFC) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news, and therefore may seem controversial. The opinions, views, statements, and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted, endorsed, espoused, or agreed to by Prepare for Change, its leadership Council, members, those who work with PFC, or those who read its content. However, they are hopefully provocative. Please use discernment! Use logical thinking, your own intuition and your own connection with Source, Spirit and Natural Laws to help you determine what is true and what is not. By sharing information and seeding dialogue, it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm.
Prof. Lupus Dayeng, I applaud you. You are absolutely correct in this statement you have made! I will be sharing this on social media. More people need to know this, and especially from a professor of Science.
Open letter to all physicians and doctors of classical medicine
My name is Professor Lupus Dayeng, I am the founder of the Dayeng Foundation. Integrated is a scientific research center and a therapy center for the treatment of many so-called civilization diseases.
For many years, as a team of scientists, we have studied the causes of these civilization diseases internationally. The results were clear and irrefutable. The causes of diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, skin diseases, allergies and many more, are for the most part pharmaceuticals.
Also responsible is the food industry and chemical industry for cosmetic products and personal care products.
We have managed to successfully treat many of these diseases.
Other international physicians, professors, doctors and therapists have come to similar conclusions, including Nobel Prize laureates. But what happens in classical medicine? Doctors’ offices, hospitals, specialty clinics and so on. It is hardly ever investigated for the causes of diseases, the anamnesis is no longer known to the medical profession, and the Hippocratic oath has long since lost its meaning. The profit is important. Everyone seeking help from a medical doctor first gets the question of a health insurance number or the financial resources.
I know very many instances where patients were not treated physically because they could not provide money. Even many emergency clinics have not helped patients with life-threatening injuries because they have no money. What’s going on here? The Hippocratic oath was exchanged in favor of a slavery for the pharmaceutical industry. This behavior can also be found in the normal medical practices. A doctor’s office must make profits, otherwise credit rates can not be paid and so on. The pharmaceutical industry pays commissions to doctors. Professors receive money and expensive material for recommending certain medications.
But what do pharmaceuticals actually do? First, you always hear and read something about so-called side effects. What should be the side effects? What is that supposed to mean? Does this mean that there is a positive main effect, however, accompanied by side effects? Has no doctor ever thought about this nonsense? There is an effect or there is no effect point. It is not possible to subdivide effects, either it is something positive or negative. If, therefore, a drug which can possibly only somewhat alleviate a symptom, but has so-called side effects which adversely affect the health condition, then I speak of negative effects as a whole. A woman is pregnant or not, one
Little pregnant is not there.
So, positive or negative, in medicine there can be no in between. If something is not 100% positive for the organism, it does not belong in the human body. To make compromises is just half pregnant and that is impossible.
Over the last 80 years, more and more viruses have been found in all medical doctors. The virus affects the logic of all medical professionals and turns them into unwilling drug addicts of the pharmaceutical industry. 99% of all physicians now believe themselves that pharmaceuticals actually cure diseases. Then these physicians should give me just a single drug that this would have ever done. Chemistry can not repair a diseased biological organism. Whoever claims that this works is a criminal.
Official sources speak of 12.8 million people worldwide who die annually of pharmaceuticals. I think this sum is very understated. Especially older people are very well manipulated in our time.
Almost every person over 60 years consumes several different pharmaceuticals daily. A good business for physicians and the pharmaceutical industry. However, in most countries, elderly people are not usually autopsied after death, because one assumes a natural death. Therefore, there are at least 50 million dead, through pharmaceuticals. Many of my international colleagues are of the same opinion.
If you were to imagine that these people were killed by a virus, you can be very sure that the pharmaceutical industry would immediately provide a vaccine against this virus. The profit would be incomprehensible big. If we now remain in the name of Virus, then the name of the real virus that kills these many millions of people every year is PROFIT = pharmaceutical industry.
In our therapy center, we heal about 84000 people annually who had suffered from an illness which mainly resulted from pharmaceuticals.
Many international doctors who have freed themselves from the bondage of the pharmaceutical industry have already joined us. These physicians have one thing in particular, they have character. What about your character?
You are welcome to benefit from our scientific research. Remember the Hippocratic oath and begin to really want to heal people.
The background of this human despising system is coming to light more and more quickly, and many professors are also openly discussing it. So how do you want to be viewed by people later? As a real medical doctor or an unscrupulous businessman? You make this decision, meet the right one.
Prof. Lupus Dayeng
Independent, scientific research center of the Dayeng Foundation
http://lupus-trust.net