Glyphsate is a good non-selective plant killer, but then, so are many other herbicides. All of them kill both the crops and the weeds. The specialty of glyphosate and its very extensive use is only in relation to its use on genetically modified "Roundup Ready" crops that are so engineered not to die of glyphosate sprayed indiscriminately over farmland by airplane, helicopter and massive crop sprayers. Another dangerous use of more recent origin is to use glyphosate as a desiccant even on non-GMO seed, and cereal crops, cotton and sugarcane - purely for convenience of harvesting.

Tea is not a "Roundup Ready Crop". Therefore, glyphosate is not a crucial requirement for the tea plantations. In fact, glyphosate formulations are not at all necessary for weed control in tea plantations. Any other accepted weed killer will be more than sufficient. If not the administrators of the Regional Plantation Companies, at least the administrators of the Plantation Ministry should have realized this long ago.

If glyphosate is banned for other food crops because of health hazards, then it must be banned for tea too. As a global consumer drink, tea is second only to the vital thirst quencher, water. Over two billion people drink tea from a global production of three billion tons. We cannot afford to lose our tea trade, which will inevitably happen with continued use of glyphosate. We will lose over two million livelihoods too. What is crucial? Trade and livelihoods or convenience of glyphosate?

Anti-glyphosate consumer groups are very strong. In the USA the Organic Consumers Association with over two million women is just one of several. Another, Moms Across America, which is as strong, wants a full stop on the "practice of spraying glyphosate on GE foods and as a drying agent on food crops, increasing the consumption of glyphosate in our food, including but not limited to, wheat, corn, soy, sugar, rice, dry peas and beans and tea". Note the last word - TEA!!!

These two women's consumer group will influence their families, thereby increasing the number of campaigners to about 16 million. There are several such groups.

A survey of consumers in the European Union extrapolated to the total population shows that over 65% are against the use of glyphosate. Prohibition of glyphosate was backed by 75% of Italians, 70% of Germans, 60% of French and 56% of Britons, in a survey of more than 7,000 people across the EU's five biggest states.

This opposition cannot be ignored. The present state of glyphosate is precarious too. It will be banned soon, the world over. There need be no doubt about that. Recently unearthed evidence against it is damning.

It is a very poor reflection on all administrators in the tea industry, both political and industrial, that they are clamouring to use glyphosate when consumers all over the world - said to be in the millions in the West and two-thirds of the population in the European Union, have successfully proved that glyphosate is a scam from mid-2015.

Consider the following;

1. Papers released by a court in the USA.

Unsealed court documents released early this year reveal startling details of falsehoods, cover-ups skullduggery from Monsanto, the introducers of RoundUp, the glyphosate containing herbicide.

They also show collusion between Monsanto and US EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] in regard to covering up the hazards of glyphosate. There are also revelations of Monsanto's pre-planned attempts to peremptorily sabotage and ridicule the conclusions of the World Health Organization's IARS on the "probable carcinogenicity" of glyphosate.

These papers include depositions, emails of Monsanto officers and statements made to court by officers of the EPA and Monsanto.

The judge's observation on testimony by EPA

"Simply put, the EPA does not require, and thus not consider, chronic effects data resulting from continuous exposure to Roundup - the root of all Plaintiffs' allegations in this case. For this fact alone, the EPA's conclusions related to glyphosate should be excluded as irrelevant":

So much for Monsanto's claims of acceptance of the safety of glyphosate by regulatory authorities all over the world!!! As exposed under item 2 below, research papers submitted by Monsanto were sealed and locked in a safe at the EPA, never studied.

Though both parties have claimed to have conducted extensive prior testing to prove the safety of Roundup, the EPA did not conduct a single test on its formulation but accepted and relied on the applicant Monsanto's word on the safety of glyphosate - which is just one of the formulation's active ingredients. Other equally or more dangerous additives were not even divulged.

Admission in court by Dr. Donna Farmer, Monsanto's Lead Toxicologist.
"In the 35 years that Roundup has been on the market, Monsanto has conducted no chronic carcinogenicity studies on the formulated Roundup product because such a study was not required by the EPA for the registration of glyphosate".
In her deposition she has admitted that she "cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer" because "we [Monsanto] have not done the carcinogenicity studies with Roundup."

On the contrary, Monsanto has been claiming continuous conduction of research on the safety of glyphosate and declaring its safety as proved by this research.

Underhand tactics by Monsanto

Monsanto has an army of paid people nicknamed "trolls" who are required to viciously attack scientists who report findings against Roundup and commentators that criticize Monsanto's products and methods. Monsanto has also several times authored their own "ghost-written" scientific papers full of fiction and denouncing genuine research papers. They have got them signed by scientists in their pay and even published in scientific journals through known contacts by-passing accepted conventions.


The leaked papers describe such an activity to attack the conclusion of the IARS on the "probable carcinogenicity" of glyphosate well before that conclusion was determined and published.


Collaboration between EPA and Monsanto

The released papers show Monsanto relying on a senior officer of the EPA to get information on the progress of the deliberations at the IARS, and also rely on him to block a move for research at the EPA.

It is reported that Jess Rowland, the EPA's Deputy Division Director for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Agency's Cancer Assessment Review Committee, assured Monsanto that he's fully exploiting his role as the "chair of the CARC" to kill any potentially damaging research...and has commented that "if I can kill this I should get a medal."

Well, he may have a job reserved for him at Monsanto upon retirement from the EPA!

For more details please go to here.

2. Papers released from the EPA through the intervention of a U.S. Senator's office in 2015.

Information from these is coming out like a carpet bombing operation on Monsanto with their own explosives. This information is destroying all the foundations on which the safety of Roundup was claimed by Monsanto, regulators and their interested parties including users.


Dr. Anthony Samsel, a scientific researcher, unsuccessfully tried repeatedly through the Freedom of Information Act to get at the research papers lodged with the EPA by Monsanto. He then got them through his Senator Jeanne Shaheen [New Hampshire]. He got a hoard of over 15,000 papers covering Monsanto's complete glyphosate research over 40 years.

Among the many cancers and diseases Monsanto's own research found associated with glyphosate are:
  • Adenoma cancer in the pituitary gland
  • Glioma tumors in the brain
  • Reticular cell sarcomas in the heart
  • Malignant tumors in the lungs
  • Salivary mandibular reticular cell carcinoma
  • Metastatic sarcomas of the lymph gland
  • Prostate carcinoma
  • Cancer of the bladder
  • Thyroid carcinoma
  • Adrenal reticulum cell sarcomas
  • Cortical adenomas
  • Basal cell squamous skin tumors



Monsanto found that extremely low concentrations far lower than those recommended for use on crops, were far more dangerous than much higher concentrations. Their reaction was to stop those researches, cover up the results and concentrate only on the effects of higher concentrations since it is the general tendency to assume them to be more dangerous.

They also manoeuvred studies to allow room to tone down or deny adverse effects found in research. Above all, they hid or covered up adverse results and built up a concerted marketing campaign falsely claiming total safety.

The lurid details in these papers are too much to be included here. Interested readers could look up here.