Petition update

GLYPHOSATE approval process a sham

Tony Mitra
Delta, Canada

Jan 16, 2016 — Hi Tony,

This is for immediate release ..I sent this in an email to friends across the pond who are hammering European regulators most of which won’t show their faces….


Subject: GLYPHOSATE approval process a sham

I find it most interesting that so many involved in the regulatory process for the re-evaluation of Glyphosate will not to show their face or disclose their identity. I believe all persons involved in these decisions should be held accountable and their names made known for the sake of open and honest scientific debate. I would be happy to debate anyone of them.

I do not mean to be insulting, but the entire Glyphosate safety study process that led to the approval and marketing of Glyphosate-based herbicides, was a sham. Why do I say this ??? Because if you look closely, you will see that all of the long-term studies were directed with intention of investigating Glyphosate the parent acid. However, all Glyphosate products are formulated with salts and or esters of Glyphosate.

These Glyphosate products behave far differently in biology than the parent acid Glyphosate, which has low solubility, although still AMPHIPHILIC.

The EPA is complicit in this charade and misrepresentation which is tantamount to a cheap magic parlor trick, a bait and switch if you will. In all of the over 15,000 pages of Monsanto trade secret documents, in my possession I do not find any long-term studies devoted to the salts and esters of Glyphosate. These multiple, two-year studies in mice and rats, as well as rabbits, dogs and others were all conducted with the Technical form of Glyphosate, N-Phosponomethyl glycine. These were the studies that led to the approval of Glyphosate and its registration. These studies were not conducted with the actual principle ingredients which include salts and esters which behave differently.

Seralini was on the right track with his long-term rat studies, but missed the mark. What he found actually has a different meaning in light of what we know about glyphosate. Its not the surfactants, its the salts and esters. This is just one of many points where Seralini and Samsel differ on what is responsible for the causal effects of Glyphosate. While it is necessarily true that surfactants as well as fungicides and many other chemicals increase the penetration, delivery and synergy of the herbicide with respect to the plant and other living things, it is actually the salts and esters of Glyphosate that are responsible for the damage to biology stemming from its behavior in the universal solvent, water. Here, It is also a solubility issue as the parent acid Glyphosate is far less soluble than the salts and esters which are used in agriculture which directly affect public health and the environment. Hence this is the major reason why these Glyphosate products behave more aggressively in biology.

It is resolved and well understood that the salts and esters are by far more effective than the chemical parent acid Glyphosate, even John Franz noted this in his text on the subject Glyphosate. These salts and esters are far more available due to their solubility, which is determined by the attached cations to the Glyphosate molecule. In the case of the actual marketed products, these are the salts and esters expressed as the potassium, ammonium and isopropyl Glyphosates.

This is just one of the reasons why, I disclosed my opinion publicly, that these products must be pulled from the shelves and all use of these products must stop forthwith. I am certain that such deception by industry will not be taken lightly around the planet. The world has been scammed and Monsanto’s so-called science is a sham. Shame on the US EPA and all other regulatory authorities who have been deluded senseless for the sake of corporate monetary gain.

Anthony

Anthony Samsel
Research Scientist / Consultant
P.O. Box 131
Deerfield, NH 03037


Keep fighting for people power!

Politicians and rich CEOs shouldn't make all the decisions. Today we ask you to help keep Change.org free and independent. Our job as a public benefit company is to help petitions like this one fight back and get heard. If everyone who saw this chipped in monthly we'd secure Change.org's future today. Help us hold the powerful to account. Can you spare a minute to become a member today?

I'll power Change with $5 monthlyPayment method

Discussion

Please enter a comment.

We were unable to post your comment. Please try again.