samsel quote

Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

On October 6, 2015, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a paper on request from the European Commission titled “Review of results published by Mesnage et al. (2015) in PLoS ONE and the laboratory findings communicated by Dr. Samsel to Farm Wars,” which responded to the findings of Dr. Anthony Samsel that laboratory diets used exclusively by scientists around the world for toxicology testing are contaminated by Glyphosate. And the EFSA’s results are? Don’t worry, be happy, nothing to see here, we’ve determined that it’s okay, business as usual.

Since testing for Glyphosate contamination in laboratory chow used for toxicological testing purposes is not required, the following request was made, and summarily dismissed by the EFSA:

It is time for the GLP and OECD protocols to be updated to include routine testing for Glyphosate contamination, and all testing done previously with the contaminated feed re-evaluated in light of this new information.

The EFSA’s dismissal:

The information reported on the website is not supported by sufficient detail or a reference to permit a full scientific review. In conclusion, no new scientific elements were provided that would impact on the validity of regulatory feeding tests in the EU.

Did the EFSA even look at the actual lab data or any details? According to Dr. Samsel, NO. Just dismissed them as having no impact, and did not bother to make even one attempt to reach out to Drs. Samsel, Mesnage or Seralini. If you don’t look at the data or methodology used, how can you possibly make the following statement regarding that data?

There are several limitations with the methodological approach used by the authors, including insufficient information about the test material and methodology used, incomplete reporting of the data, and inappropriate interpretation of legislation and results. EFSA

This is not rocket science, folks. If you use rodents for toxicology testing that are already being fed a toxic substance such as Glyphosate, a patented metal chelator, herbicide and antibiotic during the trial, doesn’t it stand to reason that these tests would be inaccurate? To not even consider the ramifications of this and to dismiss Dr. Samsel’s findings outright is outrageous.

As stated in the Farm Wars article:

Mutual Acceptance of Data (MAD) 

The testing of chemicals is labour-intensive and expensive. Often the same chemicals are being tested and assessed in several countries. The OECD Council therefore adopted a Council Decision* in 1981 – on Mutual Acceptance of Data (MAD) – stating that test data generated in any member country in accordance with OECD Test Guidelines and Principles of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) shall be accepted in other member countries for assessment purposes and other uses relating to the protection of human health and the environment. 

A further Council Act was adopted in 1989 to provide assurance that the data are indeed developed in compliance with the Principles of GLP.  This Council Decision-Recommendation on Compliance with GLP establishes procedures for monitoring GLP compliance through government inspections and study audits as well as a framework for international liaison among monitoring and data-receiving authorities. 

A 1997 Council Decision on the Adherence of Non-Member countries to the Council Acts related to the Mutual Acceptance of Data in the Assessment of Chemicals sets out a step-wise procedure for non-OECD countries to take part as full members in this system.

But what if the agency that is tasked with assessing toxicity is corrupt to the core?

Collusion copy failure to regulate copy

Open Letter to the European Commission and European Food Safety Authority

It is time for a change, and NOT business as usual. The very least we can do is to make sure that the safety testing we conduct is on behalf of the people, and NOT the corporations making a killing off of the products they are selling irrespective of the damage they cause.

“Creation is crying out. Survival of all species is now in jeopardy and our failure to act will not be without consequence.” (Dr. Anthony Samsel) 

©2015 Barbara H. Peterson


Review of results published by Mesnage et al. (2015) in PLoS ONE and the laboratory findings communicated by Dr Samsel to Farm Wars:

BREAKING: Lab Chow Contaminated by Glyphosate:

Open Letter to the European Commission and European Food Safety Authority by R. Mason

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “EFSA Says Glyphosate Contaminated Lab Chow Okay!”

  1. Abe says:

    The 10 jobs that attract the most psychopaths

    1) CEO
    2) Lawyer
    3) Media (TV/Radio)
    4) Salesperson
    5) Surgeon
    7) Police Officer
    8) Clergymen
    9) Chef
    10) Civil Servant

  2. Diana says:

    I share your feelings Connie. However–unfortunately it’s not enough to look for “organic.” Everyone must look for “USDA CERTIFIED ORGANIC,” particularly when you are purchasing personal care products that you RUB INTO YOUR BODY AND WASH DOWN THE DRAIN INTO OUR WATERWAYS. You really do want to use only real USDA certified organic personal care products on your body because, otherwise, you are absolutely buying products filled with ingredients that contain residues of pesticides, herbicides, defoliants, fungicides, growth hormones and other agricultural chemicals, along with untested petrochemical synthetics and toxic industrial contaminants, GMOs and SynBio–super engineered and extreme GMOs. Do you really want to be a corporate guinea pig voluntarily rubbing all of this ugly, UNnatural stuff into your body and washing their chemical liquids down your drains into our drinking water and CROP IRRIGATION WATER?

    It’s a travesty but there has been virtually no enforcement of the organic regulations in the personal care marketplace. Sadly for all of us, the unethical predatory companies are very well aware of this and they are grossly exploiting the situation and customer trust in organic, and have been reaping the profits from this organic rape for more than ten years.

    How do I know this? I am the owner of small, family-owned certified organic artisan personal care products crafting company (in business since 1991) and I have maintained an ongoing, thorough investigation of this personal care marketplace assault to calculate the extent of the organic fraud that is harming our authentically-certified organic business.

    I am deeply disturbed to report that, according to the marketing information that I have collected and analyzed from cheating competitors, about NINETY PERCENT of the companies selling personal care products that are sold on the internet, in catalogs and in retail stores of all types–health/grocery types, big box, discount, upscale department stores and boutiques, etc.–and that claim to be “organic” and even “certified organic” are NOT certified and do not meet our USDA National Organic Program regulations. Some companies even use the USDA organic seal illegally on their web sites! This widespread organic fraud is dazzling!

    It’s also troubling that many of the unethical companies portray themselves (often “the owners/founders”) as concerned moms and dads, health professionals, religious people, people who survived a terrible illness, environmental heroes, etc., etc. Don’t believe a word of it! The only thing that you can believe is a USDA organic certificate that lists the company name and ALL of their claimed “organic” products. If the product labels don’t have the USDA seal AND the company can’t produce an authentic certificate with their company name and that lists all of their products, then you must question them. Most likely, they are NOT a real organic business and their products are not genuine certified organic.

    Thanks for letting me lay this organic problem on the table. I know it’s not pleasant to hear–I’m sick to death of seeing such gross fake organic–but it is very important information to be aware of. Please don’t give your hard-earned dollars to companies who are lying to you. This organic fraud and lack of enforcement hurts us all and destroys the integrity of our organic law. Please don’t buy the fake organic and/or phony “natural” personal care products–they’re not good for you, our soil, our air and our water, nor are these chemical products good for innocent wildlife that live in or drink the contaminated water. Why provide financial reinforcement to companies who aren’t abiding by the organic regulations and who have no qualms about lying to you? How organic are you?

  3. Abe says:

    I wouldn’t have expected anything less. I hope the great people at EFSA remember what happened to the Nazi collaborators!

  4. irene says:

    CDC falsifying data concerning the increase of autism in children and alzheimers in adults.
    Economic hit men toppling democratic republics in order to remove natural resources from the people there.
    News agencies admitting crisis actors used to push a political agenda favorable towards war.
    Pharmaceutical companies covering up evidence that side effects of their drugs are worse than nothing and testing falsification at every level.
    How can the fall of ROME be this bad? Who knowingly does such dishonest things? I was too honest when I got my degree. I would have done better if I had been willing to stretch the truth a lot more than I did. As it was dishonesty was lased through the whole culture and apparently it continues and becomes more profound and a much larger scale in the real world.
    I truly thought there were mechanisms to thwart this dishonesty. When my neighbor, a high level banker hired the constitutional lawyer to paint his house I should have asked the painter why he wasn’t lawing instead. I had no understanding of the depth and scope of this problem that is causing humanity’s suicide. Imagine paying a lawyer to paint your house so he can’t sue the bank.

  5. Connie Chauvel-Gomez says:

    protest this contaminated “food”!!
    Buy Organic and grow your own when possible!!