Comments:
Keeping Monsanto
Profitable... Colombia Will Keep Spraying Drug Crops Despite
Court
(Not a Comment but timely article) THE OBSERVER
[London]
British Chemical Company ICI Pulls Out of Cocaine War
----------------------------
By Antony Barnett and Solomon Hughes
ICI has pulled out of the controversial US project to
spray vast areas of Colombia with herbicides in an attempt to eradicate its
cocaine and heroin trade. The British chemicals company's decision, which came
after an Observer investigation revealed its involvement, will be a major
embarrassment to the US government and will dent the credibility of the plan.
ICI does not want its name dragged into such a program, particularly as there
have been reports of children in Colombia who have inhaled the chemicals
falling ill.
ICI's decision to refuse to allow its products to be used
is likely to worry the US government. Hospitals in sprayed areas have reported
increases in skin rashes, diarrhea, stomach aches and respiratory problems.
Food crops have also been destroyed and livestock
poisoned.
In January, the US State Department claimed the only
chemical used in the aerial eradication is glyphosate. This pesticide,
commonly known as 'Round Up', is made by the biotech corporation Monsanto.
However, the department was forced to admit it was mixing the glyphosate in an
untested brew with another chemical called Cosmo Flux, a sticky soap-like
substance which helps the pesticides stick to the leaves of plants. One of its
key ingredients is made by ICI. ICI was forced to admit its products were
being used when presented with documents from The Observer obtained by
Colombian scientist Dr Elsa Nivia of the Pesticides Action Network.
Ed Hammond of the US campaigning group Sunshine Project
said: 'Massive spraying in Colombia has been a hostile act against the
environment and people that live there. The decision by ICI not to have
anything to do with this program is sensible and will be a wake-up call to
Washington.'
--------------
Ted Schettler MD, MPH
I think you need to see this from the UK. Please do not
disclose the identity of RB in any forwarded posts. He gets trouble enough
already.
Regards,
Rex Warren
----- Original Message -----
From: RB
To: "Rex Warren" <rexglor@bigpond.com
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 2:44 AM
Subject: Doors are closing fast here!
Dear Rex,
Thought you should see this correspondence. Seems that
the Government agencies here are determined to hide the truth about glyphosate
and all the other OPs. I have sent a copy to Suzanne Fisher in the USA for her
comments.
Seems obvious to me that they intend to close the door on
these issues just as they have managed to do with the OP group legal action
over here. My case has evidence of illegal pesticide mixtures, breaches of
almost every related pesticide, Health & Safety and employment regulation,
evidence of false scientific and medical opinion submitted to the court and of
proven false statements by the defendant and his staff and yet the case was
thrown out on the grounds that it would be an "abuse of process" if
they allowed it to continue! It would be unbelievable if we didn't know how
the system operates.
It is now perfectly obvious that every agency of
government is working to the same agenda and that is to hide the fact that
they approved dangerous chemicals for use on and in food without ever having
properly tested them either individually or in combination.
Whilst they work together to stop us exposing the truth
many of those deadly chemicals are being quietly withdrawn from the market
place leaving injured people wondering why they are suffering and without any
chance of proper diagnosis. I have pointed out to the Deputy Chief Medical
Officer here that the State has a duty under the Human Rights Act to protect
us from noxious substances but so far there has been no reply. Is that another
law which will not be enforced?
Hope that you find the following of interest and that you
and yours are as well as can be expected.
All the best,
R
First is my recent letter to Sir John Krebs at the
Food Standards Agency dated 20 July 2001
Sir John Krebs FRS
Chairman, Food Standards Agency
Skipton House London SEI 6XZ
Dear Sir,
A thousand thanks for your letter of 18th July since you
have confirmed to me that my observations on the prolonged activity of
commercial formulations of pirimiphos methyl were correct and that the
information given to me by the manufacturers and the PSD was incorrect.
Perhaps you will understand now why I have grave concerns about the
"science".
In their Evaluation Document on pirimiphos methyl October
1997 the PSD claimed that the half life for the chemical was measured in days
in water and hours in sunlight. They were, even then, aware of my information
but I must report that a sample mixed for treating grain stores on 20/6/97
retains insecticidal action, to this very day, despite the fact that some of
the sample tested has been stored in sunlight since 3/7/99 even the evaluation
document reported that the chemical retained insecticidal action weeks after
it was used as a bait even with rainfall involvement. (see pages 153 to 154,
a, Blank et al 1985)
There are other serious issues raised by that document
including the potential to mutate salmonella and damage sperm so I must ask
you which science it is that you have confidence in? I am confident that once
we can establish truly independent scientific research we will be able to
obtain a more honest picture of the dangers of these chemicals.
Glyphosate is another. Proudfoot clearly states in his
book Pesticide Poisoning distributed to all GPs in 1996 that glyphosate does
not have anti cholinesterase properties. I pointed out to the PSD that this
was wrong, that it killed insects as rapidly, if not more so, than pirimiphos
methyl and that a contact in the USA had suffered cholinesterase inhibition
after exposure to a glyphosate product. They ignored my reports, as you have
done, by restating the then current views of the scientific establishment. Now
we know that the science has moved on and that the Egyptians found the
evidence that our scientists failed to discover. Did they try?
So I ask again which science should we trust? The blind,
repetitive, and untested opinions expressed by those with industry links, or
independent research?
My view is that scientists who present false evidence in
order to protect a company's interests are committing a crime against humanity
and should face prison. This is especially so on food safety issues.
However your letter was perfectly timed and I have passed
on the information. I am very grateful.
In the same post I had a letter from Keith Butler asking
if I had any objection to my name being mentioned in the minutes and report of
the working group. I confirm that I have no objection although I would ask
that on this occasion my full address should not be printed unless the same is
true for other contributors.
Incidentally. I recently discovered that the chemical
which finished my working life on farms was not simply Actellic D but was a
mixture with another grain store OP, Reldan 50. I understand that this was not
only unapproved but was also illegal. HSE investigations failed to discover
this and yet the chemical was used in a grain store, hopefully not on the
grain since the toxicity of such mixtures is unknown. I had an interesting and
friendly conversation with the manufacturers who, unlike other scientists,
admitted that these chemicals act by vapour release. He also agreed with me
that many poisoning cases could well be the result of such illegal acts. My
concern is that grain from various farms will be treated with different
insecticides and from these admissions it is clear that we do not know what
toxins may be released during processing when these grains are mixed. I
believe that the FSA should grasp this nettle and protect us all by
restricting such uses.
Yours sincerely,
RB.
This is his reply which I think will interest and
anger you considering that the evidence of glyphosate inhibition in humans has
been raised with the powers that be here on numerous occasions.
www.foodstandards.gov.uk FOOD STANDARDS AGENCYRoom 515C, Aviation House, 125 Kingsway, London WC2B 6NH
Tel: 020 7276 8542 Fax: 020 7276 8513 E-mail:
zoe.corbynefoodstandards.gsi.gov.uk
24 August 2001
Dear Mr B:
Thank you for your letter of 20 July 2001 to Sir John
Krebs. I have been asked to reply to points you raise.
Firstly, with regard to pirimiphos-methyl, the stability
in water and the photochemical degradation studies assessed in the evaluation
document to determine the degradation time to 50% (DT50) (half life) have been
carried out in accordance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP). GLP is
concerned with the organisational process and the conditions under which
studies are planned, performed, monitored, recorded and reported. While the
Agency notes your findings, we have confidence in the GLP Compliance Programme
and thus we have confidence in the Science. In the UK the Department of Health
is responsible for administering the GLP Compliance Programme, inspecting
facilities claiming GLP compliance and advising the regulatory authorities.
With regard to your particular experiments, you may wish
to note that the DT50 reflects the time it takes for a chemical to decay to
half its amount. This translates to an exponential decay, which means that
even after a long length of time a small amount of active will still be
present. This may provide the insecticidal action that you speak of.
Secondly, with regard to glyphosate the FSA is aware of
the Egyptian paper to which you refer (FM El-Demerdash et a/, Journal of
Environmental Scientific Health, Jan 2001, 36 (1), pg. 29-42). This paper
shows glyphosate inhibiting acetylcholinesterase. However, studies are in
vitro and at extremely high concentrations relative to what humans would be
exposed to through glyphosate residues in food, or even occupational exposure.
The FSA prides itself on keeping abreast of current literature and we are
currently doing an examination to see if there are any data demonstrating that
glyphosate has such effects in vivo. To date we have not found any. You
mention in previous correspondence (21 May 2001 to Ms Adjei) that you have
seen only an extract of the Egyptian paper. For your information, I enclose a
copy of the full paper.
Thirdly, you mention the use of a chemical mixture of
Actellic D and Reldan 50. As you are aware, the FSA has set up the Working
Group on the Risk Assessment of Mixtures of Pesticides and Veterinary
Medicines (WiGRAMP) to look at the toxicity of mixtures. The Group is very
conscious of the need to address exposure to illegal mixtures as well as
approved tank mixes. Many stakeholders have raised concerns about illegal
mixtures and I would like to assure you that the Group will give these due
consideration. I have passed your comments regarding the mention of your
details in the WiGRAMP minutes and report to Mr Butler.
Lastly please note that, as recent correspondence on the
subject of pirimiphos methyl and glyphosate has failed to raise any new
issues, we wish to bring this correspondence to an end. I have been in touch
with ACP Secretariat and understand that they will be responding to your
letter of the 9 April (copied to the FSA) in the near future.
Yours sincerely
Zoe Corbyn