Monsanto will make more than two billion dollars this year from the sales of Roundup.
Their blockbuster weed killer has been the most popular herbicide on the planet and has
brought the company billions upon billions of dollars in profits ever since it was first
introduced.
So it should come as no surprise that the company's doing everything they can to convince
people around the world that their cash cow is perfectly safe but the claims being made
by the company about Roundup safety don't fit in with what science is telling us.
Independent scientific studies have linked exposure to glyphosate a variety of different
illnesses including Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, brain cancer, breast cancer can kidney disease
just to name a few.
All the while Monsanto has been telling consumers that their product is safe enough to drink
straight out of the bottle, though executives have repeatedly refused to demonstrate this
when asked by reporters.
As lawsuits against the company keep growing, Monsanto is now going to have to take their
tired and weak defenses to the courtroom where juries will be soon deciding whether or not
consumers can hold the company liable for the diseases that science is blaming on this
corrupt company.
Joining me to talk about this is Carol Moore, probably one of the country's most aggressive
legal investigators working on this Monsanto case.
Carol, Roundup, they're finding it in beer and wine.
That's the latest story that's coming out where they're doing testing and the residue
of Roundup is being found in the wine that we think is safe or the beer that we think
is safe.
What are you finding in your investigation?
Well interesting enough they found it in Gallo, Mondavi, Barefoot, Sutter Home Wine, Yellow
Tail, all these popular wines that we Americans enjoy and they're finding it in parts of per
billion that would cause illnesses such as breast cancer.
And then they found it in beer.
Beer's one of the most popular American alcoholic drinks we have and they found it in beer.
It's rather alarming and I would think American consumers would be alarmed.
Yeah, well, here's the problem.
People don't understand what it means when you find Roundup residue in the beer that
you're drinking or the wine that you're drinking.
This is across the board.
You can go down the list, probably the beer that you're drinking, the wine that you're
drinking now has residue of Roundup.
Here's the point.
Add that to this.
They're finding 23 parts per billion of Roundup in the wine.
Some of the most popular wines, 23 parts per billion of that toxin in the wine.
Now, the studies show that it only takes one part per trillion to cause cellular changes
where it comes to breast cancer.
The science is clear on it.
We're talking about one part per trillion that can actually affect cell division which
leads to some of the breast cancer problems they're finding related to this particular
toxin.
What's your take?
You know and I'm talked about the wine and disappointed to see that but then I would
get a really big surprise also this week when we learned that they had detected it in baby
infant formula, soybean infant baby formula at 170 parts per billion.
And they have no idea how children are going to react to this, what diseases it may cause.
But we do know childhood diseases are on the rise, birth defects are on the rise.
Carol, how long have they had this information?
You've been probably one of the chief investigators looking at this.
When did they start learning A, that Roundup has the ability to cause cancer and B, when
did they start learning that this is a residue from Roundup that can be found in baby formula
as you point out, the food we eat?
In a minute I want to talk to you about the list of foods that we eat every day and talk
about how much Roundup glyphosate is found in those products.
But when did all this really start developing?
As you've investigated this, what is that time where they knew something's wrong here?
Clearly in the 80's there were studies that show that it would cause tumors in rats and
mice.
Then more importantly then in the 90's they would say tumors of different locations in
the bodies.
That's a precautionary principle sign that said you've got to tell people this.
And then Hardell found the link to Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the 90's.
So it's been out there for several decades now.
Well you mentioned the precautionary principle.
The precautionary principle is about if I understand it correctly, you may not have
all of the information, you might even have two studies that disagree with each other.
One study says clearly cancer, one study says maybe cancer.
But the requirement for the company is to give the consumer a choice.
Say to the consumer, I'm going to disclose what we found.
We found cancer in monkeys, we found cancer in rats, these studies are also showing things
like Parkinson's disease, they're showing things like, with children, a whole host of
different cancers with children.
There are studies that vary.
One study may show this, another study may not be as strong as that.
But, under the precautionary principle as you point out, the responsibility of the company
is to let people know that and then let them make the decision as to whether or not they
want to use this product.
Isn't that kind of what that's about?
That's absolutely what this is about and it's telling the mothers of these children that
are put on soy-based infant meal, this has a Roundup residue in it and you have to know
to make the choice ... not on the label and Roundup and Monsanto is not telling you, you
can't make the choice.
Well, the World Health Organization came out with a study that was very clear.
They came out and they said, we're not guessing here.
The World Health Organization made the statement that we want to tell you that there's a probable
relationship between Roundup and cancer.
Okay, so that's behind us.
Tell us a little bit about how important that study, who was involved and how serious that
study was that right now Monsanto seems to totally want to distance themselves from.
What was your take on that study?
There were 17 scientists that made that study and came together from 10 different countries
across the world.
They had no political agenda, they were world renowned, very respected scientists and they
came up with that conclusion.
And then after that, 94 other scientists from 27 countries came out in full support of this
decision that Roundup is a probable carcinogen.
What have you seen as you've done this investigation when the World Health Organization comes up?
For example, 17 scientists around the world, they don't have any agenda, they're not working
for any entity that's in competition with Monsanto.
17 scientists from all over the world say yeah, this will cause cancer.
Then as you point out, 92 or 94 scientists come out and say we agree with that.
What is Monsanto doing here?
What are they doing to try to discredit these scientists?
What kind of steps have you seen them taking?
Well, they've been across the board.
They took this right at these people.
They went right at these people, they tried to subpoena, they tried to contact them
personally.
They've been going to the EPA, telling the EPA you've got to stop this.
They've gone to every legislation in the United States and across the world saying we've got
to shut this down.
They have had their own study written by their own team that is totally written by Monsanto
but they put it out as it was written by other experts.
So they've done everything they can to suppress the truth from the consumers of the world.
What I think is interesting Carol is some of the material that you're finding, that
you've shared with me is that I don't think there's been a study that's come out where
independent scientists, they have no dog in the fight, as we pointed out, from all over
the world that come out and say, you know what, we think it causes Parkinson's disease,
we think it causes childhood cancer, we think it causes leukemia, we think it causes Non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma.
If I were to take those four studies for example, every one of those studies were attacked,
not just mildly attacked but the people who actually wrote the stories were victimized
by the company.
The company would go after them in the university that they worked, in the laboratory that they
worked.
They put political pressure on those scientists who said that.
As a matter of fact, I'm sure you know more about this than I do but right now the World
Health Organization is under attack to where they're going to lose their funding from the
United States because Monsanto has such political influence that they're getting congressman
and senators to say let's not fund the World Health Organization because they've now said
that Roundup will cause cancer.
Did I get that right?
Absolutely.
We've seen documents were written directly to members of Congress of the United States
saying we don't want this organization funded any longer.
They're writing those letters every day to try and shut this down so that consumers won't
know the truth and won't be able to make that important choice.
You have some cities and counties around the country that are banning the use of Roundup.
Give us a thumbnail sketch of how active that's becoming where the city or the state says
you can't even use this stuff in our city.
Talk about that a little bit.
Well I think one of the most important one that we need to look at is the city of New
York has banned the use of Roundup in any public right away and specifically in childhood
playgrounds.
It's terrible because we know that Roundup has an ability to be absorbed dermally through
the arms or face or legs of these children.
So, New York City just said we're not using this anymore, we'll find an alternative.
So they no longer use Roundup and they passed that resolution in 2015, they passed it in
2016.
We've seen other countries like the Netherlands say no more Roundup for us.
That's a position that a lot of other states should take and pattern our behavior after
those same countries and states that are doing that.
I talked about food studies that have shown Roundup is becoming increasingly common in
food.
Give us a rundown just basically what those numbers look like.
Parts per billion when they're finding glyphosate Roundup in the actual food, will you give
us kind of rundown.
It's interesting.
A lot of mothers, new mothers feed their children Cheerios and Cheerios has been tested for
the residue of Roundup at 1124 parts per billion.
And then you've got things like Oreos, everybody loves Oreo cookies, 400 parts per billion.
Little cheese and crackers, these are things that you think might be healthy for your children
and yet we don't know that they have this residue.
Right.
Well here's the point, you're giving me numbers like that but it's only one part per trillion,
one part per trillion that has the ability to cause human disease.
Carol, thank you for joining, we'll stay on this story.