Agitators, regulators and predators on the prowl

Blatant corruption, manipulation and fraud.

“Corrupt anti-science, anti-industry agencies have gained disturbing power in recent years,” says Paul Driessen. “This article recounts the incredible example of an EU agency that exerts major influence over the use of chemicals, especially in Europe, but also in the USA and world.  As the article and linked sources demonstrate, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has engaged in unbelievably shoddy and even fraudulent science – and rampant collusion with anti-chemical activist groups – to pave the way for predatory lawyers to sue Monsanto and other companies for billions of dollars over phony cancer risks.”

“The only thing that overshadows that behavior is the conniving of one of IARC’s principal scientists. It’s an unbelievable saga.”



Agitators, regulators and predators on the prowl

They’re going for a knockout and jackpot on a farm chemical, a corporation – and science

By Paul Driessen

Legal and scientific ethics seem to have become irrelevant, as anti-chemical agitators, regulators and trial lawyers team up on numerous lawsuits against Monsanto. They’re seeking tens of billions of dollars in jackpot justice, by claiming a chemical in the company’s popular weed killer RoundUp causes cancer.

A key basis for the legal actions is a March 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer ruling that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen.” A previously little known agency in the World Health Organization (WHO), IARC has gained infamy in recent years – as critics slammed it for manipulating data and altering or deleting scientific conclusions to advance extreme anti-chemical policy agendas.

IARC stonewalls all inquiries

Although it is funded by US and European taxpayers – and is at the forefront of controversial policy, legal and regulatory actions – IARC insists that its deliberations, emails, draft reports and all other materials are its private property. Therefore, the agency claims, they are exempt from FOIA requests and even US congressional inquiries. IARC stonewalls all inquiries and advises its staff to talk to no one.

Its 2015 ruling became the primary justification for California listing glyphosate as carcinogenic under Proposition 65, a European Parliament vote to ban the chemical, and a European Commission committee proposal to give it only a five-year extension for further use in the EU. These actions, in turn, have given trial lawyers the ammo they need for their lawsuits – and other legal actions they are already preparing.

Glyphosate is an herbicide. It kills weeds. Used in conjunction with genetically modified RoundUp-Ready crops, it enables farmers to practice no-till farming – wherein a couple of soil spray treatments eliminate the need to till cropland to control weeds. That preserves soil structure and organisms, moisture, organic matter and nutrients; improves drainage and soil biodiversity; reduces erosion; and permits the high-yield farming humanity must practice if we are to feed Earth’s growing populations without having to plow under millions more acres of wildlife habitat. It also reduces labor and tractor fuel consumption.

Banning it just in Britain would cost the UK $1.2 billion a year in reduced crop yields and farm incomes.

Coffee is more carcinogenic than glyphosate

Moreover, as UK science writer Matt Ridley points out, coffee is more carcinogenic than glyphosate. So are numerous other foods and beverages that we consume every day, adds cancer expert Bruce Ames. Of all dietary pesticides that humans ingest, 99.99% are natural, Ames notes; they are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves against fungi, viruses, insects and other predators.

Indeed, every other regulatory agency and reputable scientific body, going back some 40 years, have universally found that this RoundUp chemical does not cause cancer! The European Food Safety Authority, European Chemicals Agency, German Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), US Environmental Protection Agency and even other WHO experts have all studied glyphosate carefully. They have all said it is safe, non-carcinogenic or “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.”

America’s tort industry senses more jackpots

And yet IARC villainizes glyphosate. In a way, that’s not surprising. Out of 900 chemicals the agency reviewed since it was formed, it found only one was not carcinogenic. Many other chemicals, and even GMO foods, may soon be branded the same way, especially now that America’s tort industry senses more jackpots from “cooperating closely” with IARC and putting more agency advisors on its payroll.

The latest tactic is to claim the chemical is being detected in some foods and in people’s urine. We can detect parts per trillion! (1 ppt is two teaspoons in 660 million gallons.) But where does actual risk begin?

And how did IARC reach conclusions so completely different from nearly every other expert worldwide, whose studies confirmed glyphosate poses no cancer risk? That’s where this story gets really interesting.

Junk-science factory

IARC is linked inextricably to Linda Birnbaum’s National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, which gets millions in US taxpayer money. The NIEHS funds and works with Italy’s junk-science factory, the Ramazzini Institute, and is allied with radical elements in US and EU government agencies. One of the most prominent and recurrent names on the list is Dr. Christopher Portier.

According to investigative journalists David Zaruk (Risk-Monger) and Kate Kelland (Reuters), Portier worked for years with Birnbaum at the NIEHS. He has also been a principal US government liaison to IARC, was paid as its only “consulting expert” on the working group that demonized glyphosate as carcinogenic, and did so while also being paid by the US National Institutes for Health – and while simultaneously being paid by the rabidly anti-pesticide group Environmental Defense. Portier has also received over $160,000 as a consultant to law firms that are suing Monsanto and other companies!

An “expert” with no experience with the chemical

Equally outrageous, Portier admitted that, before he was hired as an “expert” on IARC’s glyphosate panel, he “had not looked at” any of the scientific evidence and had no experience with the chemical. He signed his lucrative deal with the lawyers within a week of finishing his work on the panel – but later admitted that he had been working with them for two months: while he was consulting for IARC!

Portier, IARC and the predatory lawyers all worked diligently to keep these arrangements – and major conflicts of interest – a secret. As Ms. Kelland explained in another article, IARC was equally diligent in securing a “guilty verdict” on glyphosate – by ignoring or altering multiple studies and conclusions that exonerated the chemical. That scientific and prosecutorial misconduct was revealed when Kelland compared IARC’s draft and final report, and found numerous indefensible changes and deletions.

In multiple instances, she  discovered, the IARC panel simply removed scientists’ conclusions that their studies had found no link between glyphosate and cancer in laboratory animals. In others, the panel inserted a brand new statistical analysis, “effectively reversing” a study’s original finding. Other times, it surreptitiously changed critical language after scientists had agreed to earlier language that made precisely the opposite point from what appeared in the final Monograph 112 report on glyphosate.

One animal pathology report relied on by the US EPA clearly and unequivocally stated that its authors “firmly” and “unanimously” agreed that glyphosate had not caused abnormal growths in mice they had studied. The published IARC monograph simply deleted the sentence.

Overall, Reuters found ten significant changes between the critical draft chapter on animal studies and IARC’s final published monograph. Every one of them either deleted key statements that the Monsanto chemical did not cause tumors, replaced them with assertions that it did cause tumors, or (six times) claimed IARC “was not able to evaluate” a study because of “limited experimental data” included in it.

In addition, IARC panelist Charles Jameson said another study was excluded because “the amount of data in the tables was overwhelming,” and possibly because it may have been submitted an hour late. Dr. Jameson also claimed he didn’t know when, why or by whom any of the changes had been made.

Swampy, shoddy, deceptive practices

Zaruk’s meticulous and eye-opening analysis of IARC’s swampy, shoddy, deceptive practices, collusion with anti-chemical zealots, blatant conflicts of interest – and six reasons why agency director Christopher Wild should be fired – is must reading for anyone concerned about cancer research and scientific integrity. His discussion of “hazard” versus “risk” assessment is particularly enlightening and valuable.

 Blatant corruption, manipulation and fraud

Many would call this saga blatant corruption, manipulation and fraud. All funded by our tax dollars! It is uncomfortably similar to what we have seen over the years with IPCC and other work on climate change.

The lawyers hope that years of anti-chemical activism, carefully stoked public fears, doctored studies and silencing or marginalizing of contrary voices will bring them a huge jury jackpot – akin to what their brethren recently received in an absurd talcum-powder-causes-cancer case (which was also based on IARC pseudo-science), before the suspect evidence, verdict and award were tossed out on appeal.

It’s likely that the EU and WHO will do little or nothing about this cesspool. Thankfully, the US Congress, particularly Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Lamar Smith (R-TX), is digging into it. We can only hope that they and their committees will issue and, more importantly, enforce subpoenas. If Portier and other IARC staffers, panelists and hired guns refuse to comply, Chaffetz and Smith (and judges in the Monsanto cases) should arrest and jail them, until they open their mouths, books and deliberations.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of books and articles on energy and environmental policy.

15 thoughts on “Agitators, regulators and predators on the prowl”

  1. Yet another step in destroying capitalism and reducing world population under the guise of “protecting us”. utilizing tentacles of the Globalist entity called the United Nations.

  2. How must a layman judge this information? Since being an expert was required by governments, almost everyone called himself an expert. That coffee is more carcinogenic than glyphosate, well, let it be. What is the meaning of that sentence for a layman?

  3. written by Dr Stephanie Seneff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and published in 2015 in Agricultural Sciences
    Round Up’s main ingredient is glyphosate, which works synergistically with aluminum, which is often percent in certain foods, water, and vaccines, to induce neurological damage. If you ask Monsanto, they will tell you that in vivo studies showed Round Up to be nontoxic to animals. However, there are two large problems with this assumption. Firstly, the studies were too short as they were only performed for 3 months on average. Secondly these absolutely skewed studies were only performed using pure glyphosate but left out the combination of adjuvants/fillers that have always been contained in the herbicide that is sold on shelves. These adjuvants include polyethoxylated alkylamines (POEAs), which is known to be extremely toxic on its own and can synergistically increase the toxicity of Glyphosate by 125 fold! These authors wrote ([39] Abstract, p. 1): “Despite its reputation, Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested”. Moreover, Monsanto claims that Glyphosate is not harmful to humans as it disrupts the Shikimate pathway that is present in plants but not in animal cells. This argument overlooks the fact that our gut bacteria also have the shikimate pathway and they use it to make essential nutrients that our cells cannot make! This includes many amino acids, which have been found to be deficient in Alzheimers and Autism cases.

  4. my two bobs worth on roundup and soils
    I ran a small lab testing soil iota some yrs back.
    nothing huge ability wise to test chem amounts
    i did use a highpowered scope to examine what and how many soil biota were in samples..and i CAN say the soils i assayed and filmed for the farmers locally showed the almost total lack of any biota at all in chem treated soils.
    i gave the soils 48 hrs or more to develop activity if they were on the dry side..time didnt matter much, they just werent there.
    my own sandy underdeveloped but never chem treated soil when examined was teeming with life
    i have an amoeba film clip i am very proud of;-)
    roundup has helped develop superweeds
    it has NOT dropped chem use, its massively increased by millions of litres.
    the rise in gut issues is highly likely to be from spray topping crops to drop leaves to enable the expensive primadonna harvesters easier working. BUT that sprayed chem dries ON the seed heads and even husking it ensures dry chem will be ON those grains and into milling products!
    Carrots are spraytopped now
    and they all get this weird black mouldy fungus spots appearing within days f being purchased..never in my longish life had i seen this in carrots ..they would go dry shrivelled and if stored moist would go slimy but this is NOT normal!
    as for saving soils and allowing health by not tilling?
    biggest load of rubbish ever
    the roots dont rot down unless maybe youre in deep wet soils in ideal land..not many of us are.
    what you get is mould and fungal disease havens and also bug paradise, and bloody annoying rootclusters to then have to hack through to plant next crops into.
    harvesting -allowing stock to graze- then burning off and immediately doing a disc over has far more benefit to soils in allowing oxygen in -diseases to be halted and pests to be seen by birds-as well as allowing surface broken to allow water IN, as well as the good oxygen dependent biota to kick in.
    the fact monmongrel push GMO and chem as THE way to save the planet from agw ought to be a wake up!!
    not one gmo crops even managed to show increased yield consistently, a few crops a few times isnt enough
    their prices and the fact they sell at differing prices to each buyer also stinks.
    curious how standard crop yields also have risen? well not if you factor in the co2 rise being the MAIN driver!
    as for dodgy science?? well monmen are THE leaders in obfuscating and dodgy! the chem ingredients arent ever listed the synergists can be anything and UNlabelled andpossibly more toxic than glyphosate is.

    • I had noticed this black fungal growth on carrots but had no idea as to why. I’m sure I never saw this years ago. I’d better start peeling and not just washing them 🙁
      Even better, I’d better start growing my own again.

  5. Good ol’ open minded me!!! I bought ALL that stuff ! As I have stated before, we will believe what they want us to! It then, is up to me to discern what is true. I feel so used! But I have also been fooled by actually believing I live on a globular planet. That has been utterly flattened by a friendly Flat Earther. (reel smart guy; drinks his own urine to stay healthy!) Yes, he was kind enough to prove to me that we are on a plate; apparently, not a ball after all! …but he did get upset when I asked him who was feeding the elephants and the turtle. …hmm-mm. Maybe their farts are causing some of this methane ?

  6. Rotten people in rotten places working for rotten Companies and rotten Corporations (And “Rotten” Countries) !

    These “are” truely “evil” people (Entities, not really Human Beings, just living evil !) with wicked agendas paving the way for the their Master & King, this is what
    is “built” into them and they have been prepared for this day in/and time !!!

    Unfortunately this “is” their Day & Time, We can win some Battles but only until He returns from above can the War be won to completion !

    These “people” are literally “devil’s” living amongst Us, their spirits and souls came from below !!

    Literally !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!


    Great article Robert !!!

    Keep Fighting the Good Fight every moment, every minute, every day, it’s are only way…

    Rick (Not Emmett)

  7. A very good documentary can be viewed on Net Flix >>> “Whats with Wheat”. It goes into recent studies regarding Wheat and gluten issues then provides current scientific understanding of the affects of glyphosate in the ability for he body to digest nutrients.

    Cancer is a concern, but the real story may be in the area of neurology.

    This is an important subject. Whats with Wheat. Search for it on NetFlix.

    • ta for the tip;-)
      and yes seeing as for generations people ate wheat and were just fine
      it has to be the variance in how its treated/grown/handled in recent decades
      also while we talk of GMO some corps are GM-ing crops but escaping labelling
      by using other methods to mutate plants
      ie Clearfield cropseeds either irradiated to prodce mutations or herbicide applied to find the resistant ones
      neithers a good look but it escapes the investigation, and health trials
      as lousy as they are
      NONE have ever been tested in double blind placebo controlled human subjects.EVER!!!

    • I can vouch for a problem with neurology ?

      Personally !

      They don’t know their @$$ from a hole in the ground !!!

      And I’m living proof of it…

  8. I enjoy the content on this website, but I draw the line at pro-Monsanto propaganda. It’s hypocritical that you have no problems questioning the official global warming narrative, but buy the official FDA “glyphosate is safe” narrative hook, line, and sinker without a shred of skepticism. There is glyphosate residue in literally everything–even vaccinations–and none of the glyphosate safety studies account for this level or delivery of exposure. Maybe you’re a-okay with a dose of pesticide every time you eat or get a shot, but I have severe doubts that this is safe, natural, or healthy and avoid it accordingly. I suggest you apply the same amount of skepticism you give to global warming to pesticides; you will be shocked and horrified by what you find.


  9. A friend of ours who grew all his own fruit told me about an awful experience he had some years ago. He was doing some building work for a friend. The friend had sprayed roundup around the area of work and our friend became very ill immediately afterwards. He always blamed the roundup. He recently died of cancer…’nuff said.

  10. Recently, internal Monsanto emails were released after a lawsuit, over Monsanto’s strenuous objections. Their chief toxicologist distinctly said in one email that Monsanto should NEVER say Roundup does not cause cancer, because there are no publcally available, peer reviewed pstudies of Roundup’s carcinogenic effects. Only glyphosate. After 40 years on the market, that is a good trick. You have eaten huge amounts of an untested substance. And you might look at studies which show that farmers get no net economic benefit from Roundup plus GMO corn, vs. conventional methods. It strains credulity that the so called gold standard science on these substances does not include multigenerational animal studies or actual Roundup. Until you see the outlier studies that do. Then you see how much money the industry would lose if there were large, objective studies. This science fraud effect is so strong that I am told that questioning Monsanto products at Texas A&M is a sure way not to ever be hired. 1/3 of their research budget is allegedly from Monsanto.

    As with most weed killers, Glyphosate inhibits metabolization of a mineral. In this case it is manganese. Ask a biochemist what manganese deficiency does to animals, microorganisms and plants. You are an animal, and your body depends on trillions of microorganisms. And, as well discussed above, Roundup has many other toxic chemicals in it, which likely cause many health problems other than cancer. The entire hit piece above ignores these facts, so who, exactly, is committing science fraud? As lawyer, I am willing to concede that lawyers and activists are all suspect. Are you willing to concede that science has become a corrupt shell of what it should be?

  11. Yo, Paul

    Please make a video where you drink a big tall cold glass of glyphosate and then you smack your lips.

    Patrick Moore was offered this challenge in an interview after touting the safety of Round-Up. His response was to mutter, “What? You think I’m crazy.”

    Talk is cheap, Paul. I need to see some action from you.

Comments are closed.