Samsel quote 2 copy

Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

What if I told you that what Monsanto is selling is not what regulators approved as safe?

Research Scientist Anthony Samsel has discovered that the chronic long-term safety studies on Glyphosate that Monsanto submitted to regulators across the globe to show that the product is safe are for a different form of Glyphosate than is used in the products that the company sells.

A classic case of bait and switch.

In other words, the poison that you are spraying on your weeds and that is being dumped on the crops that are used to make the food we eat and that is being poured into the water that we drink is not the same product that the EPA gave its seal of approval to. There have been no chronic long-term safety studies on those containers full of Roundup being sold all across the world to an unsuspecting public who has been fed a lie instigated by Monsanto and propagated by our very own EPA. The studies used for EPA approval declaring that Roundup Glyphosate-based herbicides are safe are bogus.

And not only are these untested substances in the food and water, but in the air, on the soil, in our tampons, our chonies, our cat food, dog food, paper plates and cups, hair products, body washing products, mouth wash, and basically anything that has been manufactured using water, including anything that has been sprayed with it. And that means just about everything. And the EPA has no idea what the chronic long-term effects will be. No idea whatsoever. Yet, the agency has labeled this mess as “safe.” Can we believe anything it says?

The substance used for testing purposes is called Technical Glyphosate Acid, or N-Phophonomethyl glycine. Yet, the salts and esters of Glyphosate i.e. Potassium Glyphosate, Ammonium Glyphosate and Isopropylamine Glyphosate are the three substances currently used in all Monsanto Glyphosate based products.

According to Anthony Samsel:

There are no chronic long-term studies on these three chemical salts and ester of GLYPHOSATE.. All approvals were based on the Glyphosate Technical acid form, there is a big difference. These salts are far more effective biologically than Glyphosate Technical acid form. They do more damage even without the surfactants and adjuvants because it is actually the salts and esters of Glyphosate that are responsible for the damage to biology stemming from its behavior in the universal solvent, water.

In other words, the surfactants and adjuvants help the salts and esters of Glyphosate to penetrate the plants, but it is actually these salts and esters that do the real damage, even without the surfactants and adjuvants.

What are salts and esters?

The following explanation comes from a pharmaceutical perspective, but applies to the Glyphosate application as well:

Salts can be prepared from drugs with acidic or basic functional groups such as carboxylic acids, imides, sulfonamides and amines. Salts are prepared by treating the amine with strong acid or the carboxylic acid with strong base resulting in a charged form. You could make a propionate salt but more generally you see hydrochloride, sodium, or potassium salts.  

Esters can be prepared from drugs with either a carboxylic acid or alcohol functional group. Either preparation of a salt or preparation of an ester derivative can enhance water solubility of a drug. An ester derivative would have to be hydrolyzed before it is active.

Just add water and you’ve got a substance with enhanced penetration capabilities. This is called hydrolysis:


(hīdrŏl`ĭsĭs), chemical reaction of a compound with water, usually resulting in the formation of one or more new compounds. The most common hydrolysis occurs when a salt of a weak acid or weak base (or both) is dissolved in water.

Let’s just take a look at the EPA’s Assessment of Ecological Risk for Glyphosate Potassium Salt:

EPA Assessment Glyphosate Potassium Salt1

As we can see, the assessment is supposed to be for Glyphosate Potassium Salt. Yet, in the following section, we can clearly see that it states that the studies have been conducted using Technical Glyphosate, not Glyphosate Potassium Salt:

EPA Assessment Glyphosate Potassium Salt0

Then the document goes on to make the determination that based on the studies using Technical Glyphosate only, not Glyphosate Potassium Salt, there is low concern for risk:

EPA Assessment Glyphosate Potassium Salt2

The following section shows that no differentiation is given between Technical Glyphosate and Glyphosate Potassium Salt, when they are clearly different:

EPA Assessment Glyphosate Potassium Salt3

And the summary indicates neither acute nor chronic levels of concern are exceeded for Technical Glyphosate, not the actual product, Glyphosate Potassium Salt:

EPA Assessment Glyphosate Potassium Salt4

The following table shows chronic toxicity risk for Technical Glyphosate only, again, not the actual product, Glyphosate Potassium Salt:

EPA Assessment Glyphosate Potassium Salt5

The assessment is for one substance, yet uses testing for a different substance to declare its safety!

Anthony Samsel states:

It’s like Monsanto getting the approvals for table salt, sodium chloride, to be used on food and then going back to the EPA and saying – Oh BTW, we have another salt of sodium we want to register, and the EPA lets them use the same testing that they used for sodium chloride. However, the new salt is SODIUM CYANIDE and a lot of people are now dying !!!!!

You can download the entire document from the EPA site at the following link:

Another interesting point is that a new study has come out showing that Monsanto’s Glyphosate is now the most heavily used weed killer in history. From the linked article:

most widely used

And the moral of this story is?

Never do business with the government or Monsanto. They’d eat their own children.

©2016 Barbara H. Peterson

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

5 Responses to “The Monsanto Glyphosate Bait & Switch Caper”

  1. Matthew says:

    Thank you.

  2. Abe says:

    LOL I’m glad I checked back. I was just about to shut down and go screaming at the Atty Gen! I’m still P.O’ed they just blew that off last spring!!

  3. This is from personal conversation. The Sodium Cyanide reference is a hypothetical comparison. In other words, it’s like testing a relatively benign substance and taking those test results and applying them to a highly toxic substance and saying that the toxic substance is safe based on those results. It just doesn’t compute.

  4. Abe says:

    Is this from there 5th paper???
    HOLY ()&*(^%&*$^&%^^*(&)(%$^%#&*%(*&^(*^!!!!!!!

  5. amicus curiae says:

    nice catch of the duplicity
    not that anyone expects anything BUT lies and misdirection from the Monmongrels