a license extension for Monsanto’s glyphosate is being prepared

French media report the revelation that 99 percent of scientific studies have been excluded from the preliminary report on glyphosate, and most of the industrial propaganda findings have been retained.
(illustration, Roundap, Monsanta preparation containing toxic glyphosate, sold freely and will continue to be so …)

In preparation for the decision to extend the authorization for the use of glyphosate, a substance from Monsanto’s pesticide RoundUp, a panel of EU experts excluded 99 percent of scientific studies whose findings speak about the toxicity of this compound, and priority was given to reports from the agro-industry praising its products. association Future generations (Future generations).

The International Center for Cancer Research (World Health Organization) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic”, but European Union agencies, as well as the United States in 2017, still renewed the license for sale and use.

Protest in Mexico, February 2021 against Monsanto

Interest links with industry – corruption

All French media reported this discovery, reminding that during the 2017 election campaign, President Macron promised that glyphosate would be banned in France “at the latest” by 2020, when a replacement will be found for its use in agriculture and gardening.

The promise has not been kept, glyphosate is still in use, and the European Union should announce a decision on the extension of the license for another five years by December 15, 2022.

France will hold the presidency of the European Union for the first six months of next year, and the local media report that President Macron’s crucial engagement in connection with the ban on glyphosate is not expected.

Discovery of the association Future generations shows that the European Union has continued the old practice of decision-making, primarily in the interests of large-scale industry, instead of the interests of citizens.

As a rule, the European Commission makes decisions based on the opinion of a panel of experts who, as practice has shown in the last few decades, have interesting connections and contracts with the industry.

The example of Monsanto – which is now owned by Bayer – is the most striking illustration of this rule, which is actually just one form of corruption. For years, Green MEPs have published lists of contracts by members of the European Commission’s panel of experts on conflicts of interest, pointing out that permits for genetically modified corn have been issued – solely on the basis of findings by none other than Monsanto’s own experts.

Propaganda texts are “stronger” than scientific ones

The task of preparing a preliminary report that would be the basis for issuing or denying a new license for glyphosate was given to the agencies of four countries: France, the Netherlands, Hungary and Sweden. In their report (Renewal Assessment Report) – the association revealed Future generations – 99 percent of scientific studies have been excluded, and priority has been given to industrial pseudo-scientific propaganda.

Of the 7,188 studies published on glyphosate in scientific journals over the past decade, only three percent have been rated as good enough to form the basis for EU decision-making. Of those three percent, only 0.4 percent were rated as credible!

“Is scientific expertise possible without science?” Asks the Future Generation Association, which fights pesticides, pointing to the scandalous fact that 99 percent of the scientific literature on the toxicity of the most widely used synthetic pesticide is actually censored – although it causes human poisoning and its environment and participates in causing endocrine disorders and affects the hormonal system.

In turn, the Association points out, industry studies are cited with affection even though industry tests do not follow testing rules.

Last year, the “New European Expertise” determined that the conclusions of the International Center for Cancer Research were incorrect and that glyphosate as the active substance of Monsanto’s pesticide was neither carcinogenic, nor mutagenic, nor toxic, nor did it play the role of a hormonal disruptor.

At the same time, the French National Institute for Medical Research (Inserm) found the opposite, concluding that there is a “probable link” between occupational exposure to glyphosate and lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease (cancer of the lymphatic system).

Analyzing the preliminary EU report on glyphosate, the Association shows how the rules that enable the censorship of industrially unsuitable scientific studies have been premeditatedly formulated. “According to the ‘rules’, studies that analyze the effects of glyphosate exclusively on mammals (…) are taken into account, which automatically excludes studies performed on other organisms – especially those that live in water.”

The association protests against the exclusion of all scientific studies that study the influence of glyphis at the cellular and molecular level.

In addition to all this, after reading the summary, university papers from Asia and South America were rejected because the “experimental conditions” are not equal to those in Europe.

Pauline Cervan, toxicologist and lead author of the association’s report Future generations, indicates that in turn all industrial studies (of the manufacturer itself) violate the basic rules of laboratory tests, for example the effect of glyphosate on bone marrow. Nevertheless, the agencies of the four EU countries took them into account in their preliminary report as credible.

In a conversation for a Parisian The world Servan said that it is true that the preliminary report will be made available to the public, but that it has several thousand pages, and that the period for studying that document is limited to two months.

Source: Balkan Magazin – Aktuelnosti by www.balkanmagazin.net.

*The article has been translated based on the content of Balkan Magazin – Aktuelnosti by www.balkanmagazin.net. If there is any problem regarding the content, copyright, please leave a report below the article. We will try to process as quickly as possible to protect the rights of the author. Thank you very much!

*We just want readers to access information more quickly and easily with other multilingual content, instead of information only available in a certain language.

*We always respect the copyright of the content of the author and always include the original link of the source article.If the author disagrees, just leave the report below the article, the article will be edited or deleted at the request of the author. Thanks very much! Best regards!