How the FDA, USDA, and EPA Protect Chemical Industries, Not the Public

Written by on July 4, 2014 in Big Pharma, CDC, EPA & FDA, Health with 0 Comments

 | Naturalsociety | July 3rd 2014

usda fdaThe United Sates Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are probably the most well-known agencies which are supposed to protect us from harmful foods and chemicals. But as just one 500-page report bashing the FDA says, they don’t. They protect the industries from which you’re supposed to be protected. It’s not simply just government bureaucratic idiocy as most tend to assume. It’s mostly by design.

Here’s a quote from former FDA commissioner Dr. Herbert Ley:

The FDA ‘protects’ the big drug companies and are subsequently rewarded, and using the government’s police powers they attack those who threaten the big drug companies. People think that the FDA is protecting them. It isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as night and day.

You’ve probably surmised that the FDA is failing from several issues of what the organization bans and allows. But even the EPA, once an environmental watchdog feared and hated by corporations, has lost its teeth over the past few decades. And now with biotech GMO advocate, former Iowan governor Tom Vilsack in charge of the USDA, forget about protecting us from GMOs or agent orange-type pesticides.

Yes, that agent orange one, 2, 4-D has been approved by the USDA.

A Fatal Flaw in the Corporate Regulatory Agency Relationship

But here’s the problem or fatal flaw. All these chemical companies have a proprietary trade secrets code where they are allowed to not disclose all the ingredients of any commercially produced chemical compounds. And yes, the regulatory agencies honor that!

Regulatory agencies test only the active ingredients of pesticides and herbicides such as Monsanto’s Roundup while acquiescing to industry demands of “protecting trade secrets” for the inert ingredients used as adjuvants to increase glyphosate’s plant absorption. Thus glyphosate alone has been tested short term as less harmful environmentally as some other pesticides as long as it’s used within proper guidelines. of Course glyphosate is not at all safe, even in small amounts.

Researchers at Caen University in France, the same people whose long term toxicity on Roundup resistant corn and Roundup produced those rats with gross tumors, had earlier broken the corporate code of secrecy using state of the art spectrometry equipment. They separated the ingredients of glyphosate-based herbicides, including Monsanto’s Roundup, to determine if those “inert” substances added to the toxicity of glyphosate.

That study determined the most commonly used adjuvant, POE-15, was more toxic by itself than glyphosate. The researchers asserted that regulatory testing only active ingredients is useless, and the combination of all the ingredients need to be tested long term on mammals to determine human safety. Here’s that study.

This proves that breaking the corporate code of preserving trade secrets is necessary with long term testing if public and environmental safety is to be protected.

Another Source:

More from Naturalsociety

Tags: , , ,


If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on YouTube

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the articles on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use' must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.
Send this to a friend