More Monsanto scientific fraud in early glyphosate "safety studies"
Yet another peer-reviewed journal article has demonstrated the scientifically fraudulent techniques used in Monsanto-sponsored glyphosate "safety" studies in the period when the company was seeking US approval for the controversial herbicide.
Dr Marek Cuhra has conducted a careful study (1) of all of the assessments made of the toxicity of glyphosate to aquatic organisms -- and in particular the water-flea Daphnia magna. He discovered that the industry sponsored study conducted by McAllister and Forbis in 1978 for ABC laboratories (which was never published) purported to show that glyphosate was about 300 times less toxic than was revealed in later studies. And yet that deeply flawed study was used for the assessment of glyphosate toxicity by the American EPA and by other regulators worldwide, on the assumption that it was completely reliable. The study purported to show that glyphosate was effectively harmless, and that was accepted as a scientific "fact".
The author's analysis of the ABC study refers over and again to scientific fraud -- involving the falsification of data, unsound scientific practice, scientific misconduct and blatant cheating. This was part of a pattern, and the author summarises a history of systematic fraud involving a number of scientific laboratories working for Monsanto. This confirms accusations made by others (2). With respect to research conducted by ABC laboratories, he says: "The review of these reports of research performed at ABC strongly indicates that unsuitable methodologies have been employed, evinced as flaws in the experimental setup, misinterpretation of the data and miscalculation of endpoints. Furthermore, the regulatory importance of these documents has been exaggerated and scientific conclusions have been changed in subsequent revisions. Also, the documentation indicates that US EPA staff assisted in such manipulation of conclusions."
These are very serious charges levelled against the research laboratories which undertook the work, the Monsanto Corporation, and the staff who worked for the EPA. Even more serious is the fact that this fraudulent research was used in the issuing of approvals for glyphosate in Europe and elsewhere, and that no attempt has been made since 1978 to reject or revise approvals which should never have been made in the first place. As a result, glyphosate is still on the market and is still poisoning the environment and the food supply.
(1) Marek Cuhra (2015), Glyphosate nontoxicity: the genesis of a scientific fact.
Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry 15: 89–96 · September 2015
Abstract: Repetition of a 1978 experiment on the toxicity of glyphosate chemicals in water-flea Daphnia magna showed surprising results. In the 31 years which had passed between the two series of experiments, the toxicity of glyphosate had apparently become 300 times stronger! Further investigation into this enigmatic paradox discloses unfortunate aspects of laboratory researcher cultures as well as fundamental challenges in current regulatory approval of chemicals and the epistemology of risk-assessment.
Schneider, K. Faking it: The case against industrial bio-test laboratories. The Amicus Journal. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (1983) (http://planetwaves.net/ contents/faking_it.html, accessed September 2015).
Novak, R.A. The long arm of the lab laws. The Chemist 10 (2001) 45–46.
Monsanto Imagine Backgrounder: Testing fraud: IBT and Craven Laboratories (2005) (http://www.monsanto.com/
Cummins, J. Re: (SANET-MG) Biotest Lab pesticide fraud of 1970s (2005) (http:/www.ibiblio.org/echolandtech/ SoilWiki/message-archives/JoeCummins/msg00440.html).
EPA Open letter to the environmental analytical laboratory community. Washington, DC: US EPA Inspector General’s Office, 5 September 2001.
Report on the Laboratory Fraud Work Group. US EPA Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training (2002).
Jane Goodall and Steven Druker Expose US Government Fraud over GMOs