Why the FDA's announcement of glyphosate testing is a total science SHAM by InCharge ..... Politics Debate Forum
Date: 2/24/2016 10:36:57 AM ( 8 y ago)
Hits: 691
URL: https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=2305508
0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message. Hide votes What is this?
(NaturalNews) As I explain in my latest podcast (below), the FDA's announcement that it will test foods for glyphosate is more of a SHAM than SCIENCE. In my view, the agency's announcement is nothing more than "scientific theater" to pretend to test foods for glyphosate, all while claiming glyphosate is completely safe no matter what levels are found.
This is why it's so important that other, non-governmental labs take up the testing of glyphosate at the same time. It's obvious to nearly everyone that we can't trust the FDA's glyphosate tests any more than we can trust the EPA's tests on lead in municipal water supplies. In every case -- FDA, EPA, USDA -- these government agencies have systematically used science to deceive the public, not inform us.
Given that the FDA is pro-GMO and pro-glyphosate, it is irrational to think that they would approach glyphosate testing without a pro-glyphosate bias (and all the accompanying political maneuvers that go with it). In precisely the same way the CDC altered vaccine trial data to hide the truth about autism risks in African-American boys, the FDA is very likely to alter its glyphosate testing data to hide the truth about glyphosate in the food supply. (I've already warned Natural News readers about glyphosate being sprayed on wheat crops and ending up in breads, cakes, muffins, donuts, breakfast cereals and other wheat-derived foods.)
As the director of an analytical food science lab, I am intimately familiar with food contamination testing methods and state-of-the-art scientific protocols. I can tell you how the FDA will likely fake their tests to produce artificially low results: They will use an inappropriate glyphosate method with low "recoverability" in order to produce artificially low findings.
There are at least three ways they can pull this off in the lab:
1) They can deliberately use a bad extraction technique that fails to extract glyphosate from foods. (Most pesticides are easily extracted from foods, but glyphosate is particularly difficult. If you use the same methods that might be used for something like atrazine, you'll get artificially low results or no results at all.)
2) They can deliberately use an analytical method that demonstrates very poor recoverability. In particular, they can choose LC mobile phase solutions that demonstrate poor chemistry in LC columns, and they can also choose methods that fail to ionize the glyphosate molecule, resulting in no measurable signals on LC/MS systems. (The glyphosate molecule is highly polar, meaning chemists must use appropriate analytical techniques and equipment to isolate it from other molecules.)
3) They can commit straight up scientific fraud by diluting samples after extraction, for example, or by entering the wrong sample mass into the software that calculates the quantitative results. This is precisely what the CDC and EPA routinely do when it suits their political interests, and we know the FDA has a long history of engaging in scientific fraud to cover up the deadly side effects of drugs like Vioxx and Rezulin.
For all these reasons, you should fully expect to see private labs producing far higher glyphosate numbers than the FDA, even for the same foods tested.
Even if the FDA does manage to report some glyphosate findings in foods, it will almost certainly declare any concentration it finds to be "safe." If the agency keeps finding higher and higher levels in foods that it tests, it will simply raise the "allowable" level of exposure to match that concentration, once again proclaiming that glyphosate is safe in essentially unlimited amounts. (In truth, glyphosate can cause cancer at part per trillion concentrations.)
Make no mistake: When it comes to glyphosate, the FDA, EPA and USDA are all engaged in "scientific theater" designed to deceive the public and protect the profit interests of Monsanto, Syngenta, DOW Chemical and other poison pushing corporate giants. This is the role of modern-day corrupt government: to deceive the public at every opportunity while pretending to be doing something important. In the same way the TSA engages in totally useless "security theater" at the airports, the FDA pretends to be interested in protecting the public from toxins in the food supply.
But if that were true, the agency would have banned sodium nitrite in the 1980s and trans fats in the 1990s. Yet sodium nitrite -- a potent, cancer-causing chemical used in processed meat -- is still ridiculously deemed "safe" by the FDA, even as countless millions of people have likely been stricken with cancer over the past three decades from eating sodium nitrite. (For the record, it's a simple chemistry equation that sodium nitrite + meat proteins + HCl in stomach acid produces nitrosamines which cause colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, brain tumors and other forms of cancer. This is irrefutable and not disputed by anyone other than corrupt bureaucrats who are totally illiterate in chemistry.)
Like every other federal agency in existence, the FDA makes a mockery of its stated public mission, and it systematically uses science to deceive the public rather than protect it. If you think the FDA protects the food supply, you must also believe the Federal Reserve protects the money supply... (hilarious!)
If you want REAL science, stay tuned to Natural News and my Forensic Food Lab (Labs.NaturalNews.com) where we'll be releasing all sorts of fascinating and honest food testing results in the months ahead.
Click here for my podcast or listen below:
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/053075_glyphosate_testing_FDA_science_theater.html#ixzz416VNDGUc
<< Return to the standard message view
fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=2305508