A LobbyControl investigation reveals how Monsanto has secretly funded pro-glyphosate scientific studies. Fake papers that the Bayer Group (owner of Monsanto) confirms that it used to obtain the renewal of its authorization in the European Union. (1) As well as to warp the theater of lies. #shame!
The ‘made-to-order’ scientific studies
Lo Instituts für Agribusiness – a private research organization in agricultural economics located at the University of Giessen-has published two scientific studies on glyphosate, in 2012 and 2015. Both studies, presented as ‘independent,’ highlight the benefits to the economy and the environment (!) that would result from the use of the world’s best-selling agrotoxin. Without even mentioning, ça va sans dir, the dangers already proclaimed at the time to human, animal and ecosystem health. (2)
The two studies, in particular, emphasized:
– in 2012, the need to (continue to) use glyphosate. Predicting an economic disaster for European agriculture, with losses of up to US$4 billion/year, assuming its abandonment, (3)
– in 2015, the environmental benefits of using glyphosate, which would even protect the soil. (4) The exact opposite of what a recent study on the ecological crisis caused by the extensive use of agrotoxics in the US found instead. (5)
Monsanto had funded the studies, however, in secret. Their lead author, Professor Michael Schmitz, had until a few weeks ago declared the absence of conflicts of interest. But it was contradicted by documents collected by LobbyControl, which instead show Monsanto’s funding. As later acknowledged by Bayer itself, the current owner of Monsanto.
The liars’ lobby
The above false studies have been injected like a virus into every scientific, media and political plexus. The Julius-Kühn-Institut itself, the federal research institute under the Ministry of Agriculture, has taken them up in the Journal für Kulturpflanzen. With the aggravation of presenting the work under the aura of the University of Giessen, rather than a handful of technicians serving Big Ag.
The fake papers were included in the bibliography of the Bundestag, Germany’s federal parliament. And they are cited as one of many sources in official impact assessments on the effects of a glyphosate ban, both in Germany and Austria. (6) The Julius-Kühn-Institut later reported after the scandal broke that the German impact assessment would be based on other data.
Public opinion and agricultural representatives have themselves been deceived by the liar’s lobby. That they have gone so far as to include calls for false papers even on the German Wikipedia page devoted to glyphosate. The famous weekly Die Zeit after all, in a 2015 report, warned that without glyphosate, farmers were threatened with ‘severe losses.’ Relying on a Journal of Crops article that, once again, relied on Professor Michael Schmitz’s falsehoods smuggled in as independent research from the University of Gießen.
Background, in the U.S. and Europe
U.S. federal courts have gathered ample evidence of Monsanto’s concealment of scientific documents that revealed serious human health hazards associated with glyphosate exposure as far back as 40 years ago. As well as collusion between Monsanto and the top leadership of the government environmental agency. The Environment Protection Agency (EPA), which had never investigated the cancer risks associated with Round-Up exposure, had in fact gone to great lengths to counter the work of the WHO agency for cancer research.
The IARC (International Agency for the Research on Cancer) had qualified the poison Under consideration as potentially carcinogenic, but the European Chemicals Risk Assessment Agency gave greater value to the scientific studies manipulated by Monsanto, although even then their falsity had come to light in overseas federal courts.
Liability and remedies
The European legislator-with EU Regulation 2019/1381, ‘on transparency and sustainability of Union risk analysis in the food supply chain‘-has introduced some useful measures to bring a minimum of transparency and civil society participation in risk assessment procedures in the food supply chain.
However, the theater of lies that engulfed the German federal authorities must lead to the clarification of everyone’s responsibility. Not to mention that it was the German risk assessment body (BfR) – starting in 2001, at the behest of the European Commission – that denied the evidence already available at that time on the correlation between birth defects and exposure to glyphosate. (7)
Judicial initiatives continue in the U.S. and take off in Europe as well. In France, where the
Glyphosate Campaign
has promoted thousands of complaints following the detection of traces of glyphosate in the urine of exposed citizens. (8) But global monopolists of agrotoxics and seeds continue to experiment with the deadly mixes of their poisons even in Europe. And the guinea pigs in this mephitic open field laboratory are all of us. Waiting for the European Commission to adopt the rules delegated to it for the past 10 years to assess the relevant risks.
#StopPesticides! #NoPesticides! #Égalité!
Dario Dongo and Fabrizio Adorni
Notes
(1) SEE https://www.lobbycontrol.de/2019/12/monsanto-glyphosatstudien/
(2) See in this regard the previous articles https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/glifosato-ora-basta/, https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/armi-di-distruzione-di-massa-il-glifosato/, https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/stopglifosato-uneuropa-senza-roundup-e-ancora-possibile/, https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/stopglifosato-ecco-allora-dicamba-lagrotossico-dei-nuovi-disastri/
(3) Michael Schmitz, P., & Garvert, H. (2012). Die ökonomische Bedeutung des Wirkstoffes Glyphosat für den Ackerbau in Deutschland. Journal fur Kulturpflanzen-Journal of Cultivated Plants, 64(5), 150
(4) Mal, P., Hesse, J. W., Schmitz, M., & Garvert, H. (2015). Konservierende Bodenbearbeitung in Deutschland als Lösungsbeitrag gegen Bodenerosion. Journal für Kulturpflanzen, 67(9), 310-319
(5) Michael Di Bartolomeis, Susan Kegley, Pierre Mineau, Rosemarie Radford, Kendra Klein. (2019). An assessment of acute insecticide toxicity loading (AITL) of chemical pesticides used on agricultural land in the United States. PLOS ONE 14(8): e0220029. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220029
(6) Moreover, the Austrian Parliament has demonstrated its integrity. Approving a total ban on glyphosate-for the first time in Europe and the second in the world, after Russia-on 2.7.19. See https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade .it/progresso/austria-il-primo-bando-totale-al-glifosato-in-europa
(7) SEE http://ilfattoalimentare.it/glifosato-erbicida-malformazioni-europa-preoccupa.html
(8) See previous articles https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/consum-attori/glifosate-condanna-da-2-miliardi-di-dollari-per-monsanto, https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/consum-attori/glifosate-confermata-la-condanna-di-monsanto-in-usa, https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/salute/il-glifosate-fa-male-nuovi-studi-e-seconda-condanna-in-arrivo-in-usa, https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/consum-attori/monsanto-il-vietnam-annuncia-richiesta-di-risarcimento , https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/salute/glifosato-il-primo-conto-da-289-milioni-di-dollari. Latest updates at https://usrtk.org/monsanto-papers/
(9) See reg. EC 1107/09 ‘concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market’ as amended. Annex II 3.6.5 and 3.8.2
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.
