In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released reports classifying glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicidal Roundup weed killer, as “probably carcinogenic” to humans. In 2017, this classification prompted California to add glyphosate to its Prop 65 List of carcinogens. Since 2016, hundreds of consumers began filing lawsuits against Monsanto, citing use of or exposure to Roundup had caused their diagnosis of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, as well as other forms of hematopoietic cancer now thought to be linked to glyphosate exposure. What’s confusing many consumers, however, is the conflicting scientific data—and its media coverage. In June 2017, Reuters published an exposé, charging that a top U.S. Cancer Institute epidemiologist had intentionally withheld scientific data from the council—implying that this data would have altered the IARC classification of glyphosate as a carcinogen, freeing Roundup from its legal woes. The question many consumers find themselves facing when they receive a non-Hodgkins lymphoma diagnosis—and they believe it might have been caused by Roundup exposure—is, Who can I trust to tell me the truth?
It’s hard to read the information available and not feel confused. As consumers, our expectation of media covering science is to be a mix of biased and unbiased information, allowing us to draw our own conclusions. What we don’t expect is for the science itself to be biased. Which makes the timing of the Reuters report—whose seeming implication is that Monsanto was wronged by a rogue scientist—particularly suspect. Monsanto and its industry allies have widely championed the article with the same ferocity that they’ve challenged every journalist and article that’s published contradictory evidence or taken a less-than-complimentary look at Monsanto’s business tactics as a whole. Roundup is just the latest development in Monsanto’s long history of “spinning” the story about the products they market.
It seems almost too good to be true that in the midst of mass litigation, news appears seeming to fully exonerate Monsanto from cancer allegations. Bias aside, we know for a fact—from Monsanto’s own unsealed internal exchanges—that the corporation is no stranger to bending science when it suits their design. Monsanto also has an extensively documented history of discrediting the work of independent scientists and media who publish work which goes against Monsanto’s business objectives, routinely employing scientists benefiting from corporate endowments to research its products. It shouldn’t be surprising that their findings support Monsanto’s claims of consumer safety. The Reuters story appears to be Monsanto’s latest attempt to bend science into “spin”, preserving the profits of their top-seller, Roundup.
Not as much as we should for a products that’s been on the market for over 40 years—a fact that is disturbing, no matter which side of the aisle you’re sitting. We know that the initial discovery of glyphosate in the 1950s was so insignificant that the scientist never bothered to publish his findings. We know in the early 1960s, glyphosate was briefly used as a chelator, a binding agent that suppresses chemical activity by forming chelates. We know that in plants, glyphosate interferes with the shikimic acid pathway, an enzyme path necessary for plants to make proteins necessary to their growth and function. Several independent researchers have postulated that its chelating (binding/disrupting) properties may be one of the ways in which glyphosate contributes to the development of certain forms of cancer, as the chemical may have the power to bind and disrupt chemical activity inside the body the same way that it suppresses certain enzyme paths in plants. We know that glyphosate’s binding (chelating) qualities cause the chemical to persist in soil for over 6 months. We also know that it’s not just glyphosate that we should be researching: the proprietary formulations of herbicides using glyphosate all work differently in the human body, animals, and the environment. The combination of glyphosate with other chemicals, when added to the internal chemistry of humans, animals, and the environment have differing effects—many of which are likely to be toxic, and very few of which have been studied extensively. We also know that in over 40 years of marketing, the FDA has not analyzed the percentages—or effects—of glyphosate residue in foods.
Conflicting science and media spins complicate the issue, and the reality is that glyphosate’s connection to diagnoses of non-Hodgkins lymphoma and hematopoietic cancers will be determined as much in the courts as it will in the research labs. It’s a battle, but one worth fighting, especially if you or a loved one has been diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma or hematopoietic cancer—such as chronic B-cell lymphoma, lymphocytic lymphoma, or multiple myeloma—and you believe the diagnosis results from exposure to Roundup. When you’re dizzy from the “spinning” of science and the constant see-saw of media coverage, it’s tough to know which way to turn. Periscope Group is here to help you figure which direction your path leads: take our free, confidential 30-second survey, or contact one of our trained advocates, and tell us your story. If you think Monsanto’s failure to warn about the potential risks of Roundup exposure caused your diagnosis of non-Hodgkins lymphoma or other hematopoietic cancer, help and compensation may be only a click away.
