French academics have highlighted the dangerousness on the human health of the world number one weed-killer, Roundup, even with extremely weak doses. Published in the American scientific magazine Chemical Research in Toxicology at the end of December, the study undertaken by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, helped by his colleague Nora Benachour, has made a world premiere: for the first time, a study on the effects of Roundup (a range of very powerful weed killers that are the center of the American firm's GM strategy) has reached very worrying conclusions for the Human Being.
"We worked on cells of new-born babies with doses of products 100,000 times lower than those with which the average gardener is in contact. Roundup has been programming the death of the cells in a few hours..." says to the AFP the Professor of molecular biology from the University of Caen. Necrosis, asphyxia or deterioration of the DNA: these are the consequences of the contact of the weed killer with the human cells.
"In 2005, we had already proven this toxicity but not with such tiny doses", adds the researcher, who is also a member of the CRIIGEN, a French pressure group chaired by Corinne Lepage (the French Environment Secretary between 1995 and 1997) whose aim is to research on independent information on genetic engineering. "The noxious effects are not proportional to the concentrations in glyphosate (the active ingredient of Roundup), but rather depend on the nature of the additives", he stresses. It therefore seems that the "cocktail effect", i.e. the combination of the active ingredient and the additives, the POEA in particular, is to blame since it makes the weed killer all-the-more toxic.
To this study, Monsanto France replies by an official statement indicating that "the study of Mr. Séralini intentionally diverts the normal use of Roundup in order to disparage the product, whereas its public health has been shown for the past 35 years throughout the world".
However at the end of October 2008, the condemnation of the group's French subsidiary to a-15,000-Euro fine was confirmed in a court of appeal. The judges in Lyon agreed to say that Monsanto France made "misleading advertising" with Roundup: the product was advertised by mentioning that the weed killer was "biodegradable" and left "a clean ground". The small TV spot showing a small dog unearthing a bone surrounded by bad weeds has thus disappeared from the TV screens. In the same way, the accused mentions no longer appear on the cans of the product.
According to Professor Séralini, the blood cells of umbilical cord, placenta and kidney of embryo used in his tests were subjected to concentrations similar to those which are found in harvests, after Roundup has been used. These striking results are all-the-more alarming since the range of Monsanto's transgenic crops is almost exclusively based on its high-profile weed killer (70% of the GMOs marketed by Monsanto are resisting Roundup). Developed by the seeds' giant, the genetically modified cotton, corn or soya labeled "Roundup Ready" are quite simply designed to tolerate the leading product of the firm. It kills bad grasses without destroying the harvest; thanks to the introduction into the seed of a gene coming from a bacterium which itself makes a protein that resists the glyphosate.
In France, despite the conclusions of the Séralini-Benachour duet, Thierry Mercier estimates that it is not necessary to re-evaluate Roundup. The "vegetable and environment" vice-director of Afssa - the French Agency for food security - says that "these results do not undermine the evaluations carried out (by Monsanto) and in independent laboratories. It is necessary to be careful as for a possible extrapolation to the human being of in-vitro studies".
But when the vice-president of Monsanto - Brett Begemann - is asked in late December by the French paper La Tribune if the seed-bearer publishes a list of research laboratories to which it appeals to make its studies, the group's number 2 reckons: "Not to my knowledge." (...) He says: "But Monsanto collaborates with many public and private research institutes." "On the other hand; the studies on the harmlessness of our products are mainly undertaken in-house. But that does not deteriorate at all the reliability of the regulation authorities which validate our products on scientific bases", he later adds.
The public authorities thus do not seem to be yet ready to banish from the French gardens and fields this product that contains glyphosate, even though it is already prohibited in Denmark since 2003. On 13 January, the Euro MPs agreed to prohibit within the European Union a score of pesticides among the most dangerous used in the weed killers, fungicides and insecticides. As a result, the authorisations of 22 the carcinogenic, toxic substances for the reproduction or with disturbing effects on the hormonal system, will not be renewed, even though some case-by-case exemptions are likely. It is therefore clear that Roundup has passed between the meshes of the European net since it excluded from the list of the products for which the Euro MPs have pointed an accused finger.
And yet, the results of the study of Caen on the effects of Roundup join those of other studies undertaken in 2005, in every way. Already at the time, Rick Relyea of the University of Pittsburg (USA) had shown that the POEA increased the impact of the weed killer on the populations of amphibians. In the same way, Robert Bellé, a researcher of the biological station of Roscoff in France, had concluded that Roundup had a harmful effect on the division of fertilized ovule of sea urchins
As for it, the study of Gilles-Eric Séralini is the first to show that Monsanto's weed killer destroys human cells. This is why the Professor and some environmentalist groups are denouncing the laxity of the current regulators on the weed killers who continue to test the active ingredient and the additives in a separate way, only. They are claiming in particular to the authorities in charge to re-evaluate the various formulations of Roundup by taking into account these multiplicative effects of the toxicity of the glyphosate by its additives.
Reading at the results of the three last significant studies on Roundup and taking into account the huge investments made by Monsanto in bio-technologies, some observers do not hesitate to say that hiding the toxicity of the weed killer enables the firm to protect its GMOs. This theory was brilliantly illustrated by Marie-Monique Robin in her book entitled: "The World According to Monsanto" to be released in English in August 2009. She also drew from it a documentary film.
The multiple attacks which the company undergoes by being almost constantly under fire, particularly in Europe, do not prevent it from being in a very good economical health, quite the contrary.
MONSANTO: "CRISIS? WHAT CRISIS!?
On January 14, 2009, its share owners Board announced it will pay its shareholders next April a dividend 10% higher compared with 2008. In addition, this same dividend is in rise of 340%, compared with 2002, the year when the group became independent after splitting with Pharmacia group. This emancipation has been a great success, because at the time, Monsanto saw its share price falling regularly, in particular due to the decline of Roundup, which lost the protection of its patent this year. Its business success, is still topical today Between the early 2008 and the beginning of 2009, the American firm increased its net incomes by 117% (556 million dollars), particularly thanks to a strong demand of the Monsanto products in Latin America and particularly of Roundup in Brazil.
Moreover, the vice-president of Monsanto considers that the food crisis can only be beneficial for his group: "This crisis made it possible to many countries to become aware of the urgency to increase the agricultural outputs. (...) Between today and 2050; the world requirements in food will double! In other words, it will be necessary to produce more with same surfaces" says Brett Begemann in the French business newspaper La Tribune. When the issue of the moratorium on the culture of GM crops in France is raised, the group's number two is crystal clear: "Let the scientists do their job", he says, while specifying that France is not a privileged target for Monsanto.
A BUSINESS OF HANDLING
Thus, Monsanto, founded in 1901 in Saint-Louis with the United States, designer of Roundup but also of the Agent Orange - used like a chemical weapon during the Vietnam war, is a multinational in very good health today.
Despite the huffs and puffs, Monsanto maintains its course. At the moment, the Monsanto ship is far from going adrift: even the current financial and economic storm seems unable to reach the American giant. Recently, Monsanto has made a major breakthrough: European Union accepted the importation of its second generation of soya from the USA "Roundup Ready 2" for animal and human consumption. According to the European regulation, all manufactured food containing less than 0.9% of GMO does not have to mention it on its packing. Thanks to its continuing business successes, Monsanto is even finalizing its very last major project: to develop a corn resistant to dryness.
We can therefore take for granted that despite the attacks against it, and the results of the study of Gilles-Eric Séralini and others, the Monsanto firm succeeds in bypassing all the obstacles which are drawn up in front of it.
No matter the manipulation of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), the American agency of food protection who accepted the "substantial equivalence" of the GM seeds compared to the conventional ones. No matter the manipulation of the Bush administration (Junior and Senior). No matter the 100,000 hectares which in 2006 were devoted to the culture of GMO throughout the Globe. No matter the privatization of the agriculture by setting up copyrights and licensing that Monsanto imposes on all the users of its transgenic seeds, who, if they do not respect them, are likely to see the "gene Police" coming into their fields before being sued. No matter the sometimes deadly dependence of the Indian small farmers of BT cotton. No matter the "accidental" introduction in Mexico of GM corn - whose culture is prohibited in this country - that has caused serious genetic mutations of some varieties of Mexican corn, the purest on Earth. No matter all this: Monsanto resists, whatever the cost.
The European Union, where the legislation is the most severe in the world in terms of the protection of the Environment, is the only one which can face Monsanto to protect its citizens from it. At the end of 2008, the Environment Council of Ministers of the EU concluded an agreement on the reform of the legal framework applicable to the GMOs. This agreement recognizes in particular the right for the member States to create GMOs free areas. A small agricultural town in the South East of France, Le Thor, already did so, after its town hall council decided to prohibit GMOs on its land. This measure was confirmed by a court decision on 12 January 2009.
Moreover, the recent vote of Euro MPs on the prohibition of the most dangerous pesticides was adopted at the same time as a European law which envisages the prohibition of air sprayings. Since the beginning of the year, the pesticides on are now prohibited in the parks, the public gardens, the sports grounds, the schools and the playing fields. Lastly, the European commission also engaged with launching studies to evaluate the impact of the pesticides on the worrying mortality of the bees. That is a breakthrough for the European Union which must remain in advance in these environmental subjects compared with the rest of the world.
At all events, everyone can only be in favor of solutions to improve the agricultural outputs to feed the world where so many people are starving. But should it pay the price that Monsanto tries to impose it? Is Monsanto the only solution to regulate the scourge of hunger? Are there not other more respectful methods for the Human Being and the Environment to make agriculture more productive without destroying Nature and the people? This debate is and must remain on the agenda.
William Sanjour, who was at the head of the "waste" department of the EPA (the American agency of environmental protection) between 1970 and 2001, simply says in Marie-Monique Robin's film: "All that Monsanto says must be checked by independent people".
Because first and foremost, Monsanto, whose principal activity is the handling of the genes' plants, also knows how to skillfully handle the public, the governing people, the scientists and the opinion to serve its own cause, damaging Nature and the people who live from Nature. It is up to the genuine scientists and politicians to take their responsibilities to allow the consumers and citizens to see more clearly in the obscure game of Monsanto.
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter