European Food Safety Authority Promises to Release Data on Glyphosate

eu and glyphosate


By Derrick Broze

After facing heavy criticism, Europe’s top food safety organization has promised to release data from their scientific review which found that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans. 

On Thursday, the European Union’s European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) stated that they will soon release raw data from the studies they reviewed upon concluding that glyphosate does not cause cancer. Glyphosate is not only the most widely used herbicide, it is a key ingredient in biotech giant Monsanto’s popular Roundup products. The EFSA stated that releasing the data “will further increase the transparency of the glyphosate evaluation.”

In March 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found that glyphosate “probably” contributes to non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans and classified it as a ‘Group 2A’ carcinogen. Aaron Blair, a scientist emeritus at the National Cancer Institute and lead author of the study, told Reuters,

There was sufficient evidence in animals, limited evidence in humans and strong supporting evidence showing DNA mutations and damaged chromosomes.

The researchers also found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985. The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.”

This conclusion was disputed by the EFSA. In November 2015, Bernhard Url, Executive Director of the EFSA, stated “glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential.” Url’s position did not sit well with environmental activists who agreed with the IARC’s findings.

“Ninety-six academics from around the world signed an open letter to European Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis, dated Nov. 27, urging EU authorities to ignore the European watchdogs’s opinion,” Reuters reported at the time. “We urge you and the European Commission to disregard the flawed EFSA finding on glyphosate in your formulation of glyphosate health and environmental policy for Europe.”

The letter was written by Christopher Portier of the non-governmental organization the Environmental Defense Fund. Portier was a specialist consulted as part of the IARC study on glyphosate. Portier’s letter called for “a transparent, open and credible review of the scientific literature.”

Now the EFSA is responding to those criticism by promising to release their data. “Transparency and openness are essential values for EFSA because they strengthen confidence in science,” EFSA’s Executive Director Url said. “Sharing the data that underpin our work is a key ingredient in making science reproducible and therefore trusted.” No specific date was given for the release of the data.

The EFSA is not the only bureaucracy to dispute the carcinogenic qualities of glyphosate. The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) also released a statement claiming that glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans” exposed to it through food. The World Health Organization WHO co-signed the statement with the FAO. The organizations also found that glyphosate is not likely to be genotoxic, destructive to cell’s genetic material, in humans.

“In view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet,” the committee wrote.

For those keeping score, that’s the FAO, WHO, EFSA, and UN stating that glyphosate does not pose a risk of cancer to humans, and the WHO’s IARC stating that it could be linked to cancer.

Despite the findings by the WHO and FAO, glyphosate has been linked to other health problems. In 2014 Anti-Media reported on a study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health which claims to have found a link between glyphosate and the fatal Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown origin (CKDu), which largely affects rice farmers in Sri Lanka and other nations. In response Sri Lanka has banned glyphosate and Brazil is considering doing the same.

Glyphosate is also not the only Monsanto product that has recently been connected to cancer. In June 2015, the IARC also found that the weed killer 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, known as 2,4-D, “possibly” causes cancer in humans.

Who is the average person – with only a basic understanding of this science and these chemicals – to trust in this situation? The European government organization, the American bureaucracy, or the global government? None should be fully trusted, but we can look to these institutions and inspect the people involved, the financial connections, and other possible conflicts of interest in hopes of finding some clarity.

One thing is for certain, whether or not glyphosate is a cancer risk, it is a fact that the over reliance on pesticides and chemicals is damaging the planet, the plants, and the animals. Is is that difficult to imagine that it could also be damaging to human life?

What’s the solution? Stop supporting these industrial factory farms that partner with Monsanto, stop using chemicals to grow food, and invest in organic community and backyard gardens. These are powerful beginning steps towards reestablishing balance between humanity and the planet.

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for and the founder of the Follow him on Twitter. Derrick is the author of three books: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 1 and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 2

Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact

This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Image Credit:


Monsanto’s Government Ties

Image result for Monsanto connections

“Agricultural biotechnology will find a supporter occupying the White House next year, regardless of which candidate win the election in November”
– Monsanto Inhouse Newsletter, 2000

A Monsanto official told the New York Times that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food,” said Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications. “Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

It would be nice to think the FDA can be trusted with these matters, but think again. Monsanto has succeeded in insuring that government regulatory agencies let Monsanto do as it wishes. Take a look:

Prior to being the Supreme Court Judge who put GW Bush in office,Clarence Thomas was Monsanto’s lawyer.

The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto’s Calgene Corporation.
The Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto’s Searle pharmaceuticals.
The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin’s governor.
The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the last election were Larry Combest (Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and Attorney General John Ashcroft. (Source: Dairy Education Board)

In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto’s growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto’s researchers put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report. Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen. Deciding whether or not rBGH-derived milk should be labeled fell under the jurisdiction of another FDA official, Michael Taylor, who previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto.



Organic and Natural Product Companies
Associated with Monsanto

Brand Name(s): Arrowhead Mills, Bearitos, Breadshop, Celestial Seasonings, Earth’s Best Baby Food, Garden of Eatin, Health Valley, Imagine Foods, Terra Chips, Westbrae, Millina’s, Mountain Sun, Shari Ann’s, Walnut Acres Owned By: Hain Food Group Principle Stockholders: Bank of America, Entergy Nuclear, ExxonMobil, H.J. Heinz, Lockheed Martin, Merck, Monsanto, Pfizer, Philip Morris, Walmart, Waste Mangement Inc. Significantly Owned By: Citigroup

Brand Name(s): Cascadian Farms, Muir Glen Owned By: Small Planet Foods Principle Stockholders: General Mills Significantly Owned By: Alcoa, Chevron, Disney, Dupont, ExxonMobil, General Electric, McDonalds, Monsanto, Nike, Pepsico, Pfizer, Philip Morris, Starbucks, Target, Texas Instruments

Article From:

Monsanto connections motivate Iowans to drop support for Hillary Clinton

Image result for Monsanto connections



The Future of Food

Monsanto files patent for new invention: the pig

Scientists suspect health threat from GM corn

‘Monsanto Laws’ Would Take Away Right To Ban GMOs

Rats’ Internal Organs, Blood Altered By GM Corn – Monsanto

GM Industry puts Human Gene into Rice

GM food safety research – Why has it not taken place?

Sick From Aspartame? Meet Donald Rumsfeld





Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.