Bayer Acquisition – Exit glyphosate, enter glufosinate ?

headline of the week mentions Bayer, the new owners of Monsanto, declaring a decision to have summaries of safety test studies on glyphosate made pubic on its transparency platform. In my view, such headlines are misleading and might not cover the whole truth.

The story starts in the early 1970s in the US, when Monsanto submitted these safetyy test documents on glyphosate to the Environment Protection Agency (EPA).

Not every nation is falling for poisoning itself with glyphosate. There are a small group of small nations that are ahead of the rest of the planet and attempting to preserve nature, flora, fauna and agriculture, and thus preserve all life, humans included. One could take their example.

The papers should have included proof that presence of glyphosate in food did not harm humans or animals.

Such proof usually involves laboratory tests on health of two groups of identical animals, where one group was exposed to glyphosate in their food, while the other lived the same lifestyle and ate the same food, but without glyphosate. The comparison of health parameters of these two groups, are used to determine if glyphosate makes the test animals sick compared to the other group, or not.

Such safety test report should contain both the summary report from the scientists conducting the tests, as well as all the supporting raw data, based on which these summaries were made.

Finally, the regulatory authority, such as the EPA, is obliged to make these safety test reports and data public, and subject to public scrutiny.

North America started with glyphosate first and has used it the most. As a result it is perhaps unsurprising, that their foods are the most toxic with glyphosate poisoning, as tested by the Canadian Government and shown in the book ‘Poison Foods of North America’ by Tony Mitra.

What makes glyphosate unique, along with some other related GM products, is that these safety test reports, records and raw data have been kept hidden from public for over 45 years now, by all governments everywhere. Meanwhile the public is bombarded by a plethora of unsubstantiated “independent scientific reports” that declare glyphosate to be safe. These independent reports, without supporting data, are just third party opinions and worth little more than bad quality toilet paper.

However, the table might be turning now, with an unbelievable rise of hitherto unknown or uncommon diseases suspected linked to glyphosate. However, there is not too much of independent research going on about glyphosate, primarily because the biotech corporations have mostly managed to control the research.

One of the most disturbing identity of glyphosate is that it biologically mimics glycine, one of the twenty amino acids that make up all the proteins. Only glufosinate is comparable in the sense that it mimics glutamate, another of the 20 amino acids that form the building block of all life. Unfortunately, there is insufficient research being conducted anywhere, on these aspects of glyphosate, and also glufosinate, in destroying everybody’s biology, by molecular mimicry and wrongful entry into our proteins.

Anyhow, things might be changing, as things sometime do. Many smaller nations have started banning glyphosate. Many states and regions within nations, such as in India and Sri Lanka, are selectively or regionally banning glyphosate. A key court case in the US has gone against Monsanto, where glyphosate was accepted as the reason behind the litigant, Mr. Dewayne Johnson, getting terminally ill with cancer.

Anyhow, Monsanto has now been purchased by Bayer, who is killing the Monsanto name because of the negativity attached to the company.

Under this backdrop, comes this news that the so called “transparency platform” of Bayer, will disclose “summaries” on glyphosate safety studies. I personally have a poor opinion on such summaries mainly because they usually lack supporting raw data and proof of safety, and because Monsanto had been tightly controlling past research on glyphosate and only allowed flattering reports to get published.

We shall not know the full truth about glyphosate’s safety, irrespective of smokes and mirrors from Bayer’s transparency platform without honest independent research outside of control of the biotech industry.

Independent nations should not accept safe limits for glyphosate as set by the western nations with a vested interest or the international bodies such as Codex Alimentarius that have long been infiltrated by corporate lobbies. They need to either conduct independent and unbiased test of glyphosate themselves and set their own safety standard, or ban glyphosate from their agriculture. Farsighted nations are already doing that, such as Venezuela, Mali, Nepal, Bhutan, Senegal and Bolivia. France and Germany are reportedly looking for a way out of glyphosate dependent agriculture. When will the rest of the world wake up ?

It is good to remember that institutions such as Codex Alimentarius has long been infiltrated by biotech lobbies promoted by the US and US controlled regions, to the extent that today member nations have less say than these corporations. Nations such as India would be sacrificing its food sovereignty and the future of its own farming and farmers, by following safety limits on glyphosate set by Codex Alimentarius instead of banning it first and checking its safety independently later if it likes. . Note how the US and UK opposes establishment of worldwide for sovereignty rights to farmers and nations.

So what is behind this Bayer’s disclosure regarding a possibly selective and partial transparency on glyphosate safety?

Well, some of my scientist friends, such as Thierry Vrain of Canada, suspect that glyphosate has gotten so controversial and indefensible that Bayer may be planning to kill Glyphosate, and replace it with their own glufosinate. Phasing out glyphosate might need dexterity if Bayer wants to avoid being sued into bankrupcy. Is this transparency ploy an attempt to engineer a safe exit for glyphosate and a safe entry for glufosinate?

After all, Bayer’s baby – glufosinate, is the only other broad spectrum herbicide that is also a mimic of yet another canonical amino acid – glutamate, and has similar potential to cause biological havoc by wrongly getting into proteins.

So Stephanie Seneff rightly ponders about a shift to glufosinate that  could open up another wave of new diseases due to new kinds of protein disfunction, and bring more misery to the living world.

All this is happening because independent nations are not acting to the best interest of its citizens, and is bowing to western efforts to control their food web through toxicity. Ultimately, this is the responsibility of the citizens, you and me, to either preserve national food sovereignty, or to give it up.

Thats all for today.

A glyphosate letter to FSSAI

To: Mr. Pawan Kumar Agarwal, CEO, FSSAI, ceo@fssai.gov.in

Copy to: Persons listed below

Date: Friday, November 16, 2018

Subject:  Glyphosate in seed crops imported from Canada, Australia

Mr. Agarwal,

I draw your attention to the report from Times of India, linked below, regarding FSSAI making a press release with assurance that pulses, beans and pea imported into India might be safe from glyphosate poisoning.

I would advise against arriving at such a hasty statement based on evidence that might deserve a lot more scrutiny.

Following items need clarification, from the newspaper report:

  1. Very few samples were found to contain glyphosate
  2. The level of glyphosate found were within limits
  3. Glyphosate may have been used by some countries to control weed.

I shall offer a counter point of view and suggestion on each of these points, as follows:
1) Very few samples contain glyphosate:

Countries such as Canada and Australia do not use glyphosate only for weed control. They use it to desiccate (kill and dry) crops just before harvesting. The process involves direct spraying of the crop at close distance with glyphosate, to force the crop to die and dry out, before the harvesting machine is used. This guarantees presence of and high concentration of glyphosate in harvested seeds. The level of contamination with glyphosate is usually an order of dimension higher than if the poison was used on the ground prior to planting the seeds, for weed control. That fact bears proof by CIFA’s own tests, the results of which have been published in “Poison Foods of North America”. Any crop that is desiccated with glyphosate prior harvesting cannot have no glyphosate. Therefore, if tests in India show no glyphosate in those crops, the quality of those tests are suspect.

I would also draw your attention to the fact that High pressure liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MSMS), the method usually used for high level of accuracy and repeatability for detecting glyphosate, is an exacting science and the attending lab technician needs to be highly skilled to identify the spectrogram of glyphosate among all the other signatures, separate it out and quantify it. Therefore, if the lab assistants are not sufficiently trained especially in this task, the results can be less than perfect. This method is not something where the sample is shoved inside a machine, and the lab attendant then watches his smart phone and awaits accurate results to be spewed out by the machine.

I would strongly suggest that the Government of India obtains a written guarantee from all exporting nations such as Canada and Australia, that they do not use glyphosate, or any other poison, for desiccation of the crops before harvest. I would suggest FSSAI investigates reliability of these tests and to explain how crops desiccated with glyphosate can have no presence detected. Further,  these results should be disclosed to the people so that they can stand public scrutiny.

I would also recommend that you arrange for tests of the seeds grown in Canada and earmarked for shipment to India, be independently tested in certified labs in Canada and results submitted to you prior shipment.

2) Level of glyphosate were within limits:

India has not set a safe limit for glyphosate. Further, India has not approved Glyphosate for use in agriculture at all. Therefore, no glyphosate can or should be considered as “within limit”. There is a possibility that FSSAI has been coaxed to accept limits set by Codex Alimentarius, which is very high and influenced by the toxic chemical lobby, to hoodwink innocent third world countries into importing toxic foods.

I had sent an earlier email to FSSAI officials warning about this, and am copying it here for your records.

India needs to reset limits set by external entities and set its own limit by conducting tests on lab animals subjected to measured doses of glyphosate. India is more than able to carry out honest tests and set its own safety limits than be coaxed by standards set under control of the same interests that make the profit in sale of such toxic foods. Allowing Codex Alimentarius’s limits for glyphosate in seed crops is like appointing a fox to guard the hen house.

3) Glyphosate is used by some countries to control weeds
This statement  is only partially true and not so relevant in this case. Glyphosate is used here as a killer poison to kill the crop itself, and not weeds, just prior to harvesting. Therefore, describing it as a weed killer is essentially passing misinformation. It is used as a crop killer, and not just weed killer.

I hope you shall pay attention to these facts and help India set very high, rather than very low, standards of food safety that is geared for keeping Indian citizens safe rather than keeping exporting nations make a profit at the expense of ill-health for people of India.

pastedGraphic.png

Thank you

Santanu Mitra

49/65 Prince Gulam Mohd Shah Road, Kolkata 700033, India
+91-98317 13068, tony.mitra@gmail.com

Link to TOI news article: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/pulses-beans-imported-into-india-safe-for-consumption-fssai/articleshow/66640252.cms

Copy to:
 Mr Ram Vilas Paswan, Minister, food & public distribution, min-food@nic.in, ramvilas.p@sansad.nic.in

Mr Sanjeev Hans, PS to Minister, psfoodmin@nic.in

Mr Ashish Bahuguna, Chairperson, FSSAI, chairperson@fssai.gov.in

Ms Machavi Das, CMCO, madhavi.das@nic.in

Mr Kumar Anil, Advisor, advisor@fssai.gov.in
 Ms Rubeena Shaheen, Director, rubeena@fssai.gov.in

Mr Sunil Bakshi, Advisor, sbakshi@fssai.gov.in

Mr Bhaskar N, Advisor, advisor.qa@fssai.gov.in

Ms Suneeti Tateja, Director, suneeti@fssai.gov.in

Mr Raj Singh, Head, r.singh@nic.in

Mr. Prof. Ram Gopal Yadav, Rajya Sabha, Govt of India., Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare, ramgopal.yadav@sansad.nic.in

 +++

Farewell America ?

I have read a few books of Chris, and used to listen to him on video in the past. I have moved away somewhat in recent months since I find him sort of vaguely repetitive. He is a radical journalist, and sounds almost like a die hard communist – not that I have any instinctive disdain about communists. I used to be left leaning for as long as I remember, but more like a social democrat than an out and out communist.

I am likely to read this book, or rather, listen to it being read to me, through this audio book. The reason is not so much that I expect to learn some great insight. I already instinctively agree, I think, to most things that the author has to say in this book.

Chris has been singularly critical of the American government, society and civilization, in many of his books, with a very penetrating and focussed point of view. However, I know that Chris, in all his wisdom, misses the point when it comes to describing the mistakes and sorrows of the American civilization.

He is more of often than not focussed only on the degeneration of the American system from within, and the complacence of its civil society.

He, however, does not appear to spend much time on the degenerative and corrosive influence that the US has exerted across the planet in the last few generations, in this age of American Empire. In this regard, Noam Chomsky has been far more aware of USA’s global negative impact, than Chris Hedges, in my view. Neither of them go far enough though – again in my view.

The reason for the current ongoing phase of planetary mass extinction and possible near future collapse of the life sustaining environment of the planet, is human endeavour. Humans have singularly been the greatest agents of death – a fact that others have realized and talked about. But if Hedges and Chomsky have come to the same conclusion – they have shied away from mentioning it.

In many ways, the American Civilization has set the tone and the music, for the rest of the world to dance to. Therefore, the later phase of the original human influenced era of planetary climate decline – the age of anthropocene, could now be termed the age of Americene, or some such – implying the culmination of the age of anthropocene where the American Civilization drives what remains of the planet – as the ultimate act of the human species – the homo sapiens sapiens.

Radical as it may appear to the non-plussed, this has been obvious for a long time to a lot of smart people. Talking about it, or writing about it – has not been that common though.

Another thing that Chris Hedges misses, is identifying the role of the immigrant, in the evil US Empire. He does not dwell much on the fact that the US in peacetime years, have killed perhaps upwards of 20 million people across the world on phoney wars including the recently coined expression – war on terror, a tactic that legitimizes toppling of democratically elected Governments that did not dance to the US tune an includes assassination of foreign heads of state with impunity.

He does not dwell on the fact that a lot of mercenaries employed by the US as their foot soldiers are actually immigrants that have not yet gotten the US passport but whose service would place citizenship on a fast track. This is more or less exactly the same tactic used by the Romans in employing mercenary killers in their vaunted Roman Legions of the past.

Also absent is the mention that the huge influx of legal immigrants, mostly highly skilled, are in essence collaborators and enablers of this evil empire, cogs in the wheel of the machinery that exploits the planet and runs it into the ground. Being recent converts, they are even less willing to criticize the hand that feeds them, and are more hypocritical  in their pretence of being liberal minded. Although both the liberals and the conservatives have been captured by the corporations, it is the so called liberals that are out and out war mongers and promoters of bombing the rest of the planet for whatever reason they could cook up. They appear in my eyes as the bigger groups of hypocrites in a hall full of hypocrites.

Making bombs and planes and exploding them in far off lands is the biggest and about the only real business in town, in the US. The rising tide of immigrants are the biggest enablers of this mechanism – a view that Chris Hedges fights shy of nailing in his books, as does Noam Chomsky. Criticizing the greatest reader block is bad for business.

Poisoning of the society is also not mentioned, I think, in that many words, but it does mention failure of the civil society. In many ways this is similar to the last phase of the Roman Empire., Then too the civil society was self engrossed, over complacent and oblivious to the world outside of their palaces.

However, Chris Hedges also misses the poisoning of the environment, the water, the air, the oceans, the land and the food, not to mention the medical system, with toxic chemicals and viruses masquerading as technological solutions to existing problems.

Then there are the issues of infiltrating, and spoiling, every institution created to safeguard the planet from being polluted by any single nation through hegemony. Most glaring of course is the United Nations and all the branches and twigs under it.

I do not think either Hedges or Chomsky is stupid, or ignorant of these facts. However, I understand that if you are writing a book for the express purpose of hoping to sell a lot of copies as a means of income, it does not pay to piss off your potential – liberal leaning – readership.

I understand these limitations, and do not hold a grudge against Chris Hedges or Noam Chomsky per se. They are good at what they do, even if they do not go far enough to satisfy me.

But I look at Donal Trump’s win, on apprehensions against immigrants on one side, and the disappearance of real industrial jobs on the other, and a sense of deep gloom, might have prompted folks that live far away from urban centres to vote for Trump. Urban centres are known to live within their own bubble, and are apt to see the world from their own coloured lenses, filtered and sanitised to fit their point of view, which is – they themselves are good citizens, it is only bad politicians and mad Trump, that makes America a bad country.

Another way of looking at it is – the deep state hated Donald Trump because he was a maverick and did not play ball the way a well groomed politician has been trained to play, irrespective of which side of the US political aisle he or she belonged to. Therefore, it was difficult for the system, to control Donald Trump and ensure business as usual policies could continue and progress. Trump posed a threat of toppling the apple-cart by merely being unpredictable and anti-establishment. The deep state would have to work on him overtime. To remodel him and make him heel. It is almost like breaking in a recalcitrant wild horse that does not want to have a saddle attached to its back, even less a rider sitting atop it and holding the reins. It is a horse that was likely to buck and and try to kick the rider in the teeth if it could.

It therefore paid, to have the media to stoke idea that Trump was the root of most of the problems. It helped to steer public opinion, much like a sheep dog steers sheep into the pen, into singularly hate Trump and pin all ills of mankind on him.

If the ends up with him getting fed up and doing something reckless so that he could be successfully impeached out of his chair- all the better. If not, perhaps he can be made to lose the next election. Either way, there was a chance that the horse would eventually learn to bite the bit and resign itself into being ridden.

While I do not like politicians in general, and have an extremely low opinion of anyone that has been a career politician, with very few exceptions, I did not dislike Trump quite that way. I found him to be a curiosity, and an indication that the America electoral system was entering a phase of uncharted territory. Unpredictable things are likely to happen in future more regularly than not.

I did not thing Chris Hedges would mention it though – since pointing him out as the cause of most of US’s problems is good for business, if your business is writing books aimed at the American readership.

So, the question remains – why do I read such books?

Well, these books places an anchor in my mind, first of all, that the world as I know it is truly coming to an end. Even the sixth mass extinction on its own will change the world into an unrecognizable place. But from all logic, it is not just the disappearance of living animal that is changing. Humans have greatly over-stayed the planetary welcome. It is time for most of us to go. And this century, like so many scientists are saying, is going not going to end on a business as usual track.

Books such as these are vague reminders of the greater gloom across the horizon. Instead of being depressed, one might consider all this philosophically, moving away from ourselves and watching it from far away and above, as a curious but inevitable flow of events that forever intertwine creation with destruction. Everyone comes for a brief period, plays out his or her role, and then disappears, leaving the stage for the next group.

Our time is coming to an end. Time to say good bye. Chris Hedges covers a small part of the evolving drama. Perhaps worth a read. These however, are my views by reading the sampler and editors notes. I might change my mind, or fine tune this opinion piece, after I read the book. I doubt though, that there would be any need for a major revision.

I have a notion of including these writings into chapters in the book “Lonely Road”.