Collegium Ramazzini Statement on Russia's war on Ukraine

https://collegiumramazzini.org/news

The Collegium Ramazzini is an international scientific society that examines critical issues in
occupational and environmental medicine with a view towards action to prevent disease and
promote health. The Collegium derives its name from Bernardino Ramazzini, the father of
occupational medicine, a professor of medicine of the Universities of Modena and Padua in the
late 1600s and the early 1700s. The Collegium is comprised of 180 physicians and scientists
from 35 countries, each of whom is elected to membership. The Collegium is independent of
commercial interests.
The Collegium Ramazzini joins its scientific colleagues around the world in condemning
Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. The Russian invasion is a violation of Article 2 of
the UN Charter, which states that “all States have the obligation to refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence
of any State.” Russia’s invasion has resulted in more than 100,000 military and an untold number
of civilian deaths and injuries, and displaced over 12 million people. Attacks on civilian
populations have destroyed more than 100,000 private homes, 15,000 apartment buildings, 1,118
schools, and 978 medical facilities. In addition, 27% of Ukraine is contaminated with landmines
and unexploded ordnance, which will continue to pose hazards for decades.
As public health humanitarians, we condemn Russia’s acts of terror against civilians. In
addition to Russia’s killing and injuring civilians with indiscriminate weapons and targeted
attacks, we condemn the deliberate targeting of civilian energy and water infrastructure,
destruction of schools and health-care facilities, use of sexual violence as a weapon, deportation
of children, and atrocities committed against civilians in Bucha, Izium and elsewhere. We
condemn the attempts to destroy Ukraine’s cultural heritage by destroying churches and
museums and looting Ukrainian art and cultural artifacts.
As scientists investigating the interface of environmental pollution and human health, we
condemn Russia for its devastating damage to Ukraine’s environment, including air, water, and
soil pollution; conflict-related fires; toxic releases and spills; flooding of mines; and habitat and
ecosystem destruction. The 1998 Statute of the International Criminal Court treats armed attacks
that cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment as war crimes. We
condemn Russia’s military seizure of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), the first-
ever takeover of a nuclear power plant, which is prohibited by the Protocol 1 Amendment to the
Geneva Conventions. The military takeover increases the risks radiation exposure to nuclear
plant workers and the general population. A radiation release from the ZNPP as a result of
military activities could spread over two million square kilometers and expose one million
people to radiation.
As an academy of experts that promotes the fundamental right to a safe and healthful
work environment, we condemn Russia for worsening economic instability in Ukraine. Nearly
five million jobs have been lost since the war began and real wages have dropped by over 11%.
Sixty percent of those who fled to other regions of Ukraine are still out of work. The war
threatens to lower labor standards and has weakened enforcement of occupational regulations,
creating unsafe working conditions that further jeopardize the security and safety of civilians at
work.

 As advocates for global health, we condemn Russia’s use of energy and food as weapons.

Russia’s cutoff of oil and gas to Europe has resulted in an energy crisis and surge in fuel costs
globally. Russia’s military takeover of Ukraine’s agricultural land, destruction of grain storage
facilities, and impairment of shipments from Ukrainian seaports threatens the food security of
400 million people, especially in Africa and Asia. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has resulted in an
estimated $2.8 trillion in lost global output by the end of 2022. These are funds that could have
been used for health care, food security, and the climate crisis.
We insist that Russia immediately withdraw from Ukraine’s occupied territories and halt
its aggression.
We urge the global community to support Ukraine in its post-war recovery and
reconstruction.
The Collegium is committed to assist Ukraine in efforts to achieve lasting peace, health,
and sustainable development.

 

global transport and production, fumigants, containers, chemicals, glyphosate

Selected publications related to global transport and production, fumigants, containers, chemicals, glyphosate by Prof. Dr. med. Xaver Baur:

view publications...

Health risk due to fumigants in dock workers

125 French dockers answered the Fum Ex 2 questionnaire in a face-to-face interview. 83.5% were not aware of any exposure to fumigants or pesticides. Most frequently declared symptoms during workshifts were fatigue and neurological disorders for dockers and respiratory irritation for refrigeration technicians. Only 28 workers wore regularly individual protection equipment. A "healthy worker" effect could explain the low level of symptoms. Our findings show that workers in all steps of the logistic transport chain and also consumers are endangered to be exposed to hazardous containers' atmospheres. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31891171

Fum-EX 2 Questionnaire fumigants, chemicals

Creation of a world‑wide ecological problem and the role of PCB - Reassuring customers and government alike though questionable decision-making process Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner point in their article "Industrially produced chemicals have become an essential ingredient in virtually all of our lives. Our kitchens are filled with detergents; household sprays are made from a variety of solvents; our walls and floors are made of ‘vinyl’; our foods are packaged in wrappings made of clear plastics; our vegetables are grown with synthetic fertilizers and covered with pesticides; our computers, desks, and mechanical devices are filled with synthetic materials. It is not surprising that chemicals are in our bodies as well, where literally hundreds of chemicals have been identified”……” Scientists barely understand what long-term dangers these substances may present to human health and the environment. Some of these chemicals are especially worrisome“…….”Of special concern are a variety of chlorinated hydrocarbons, including DDT and other pesticides that were once spread freely………... Despite being banned decades ago, they have accumulated in the bones, brains, and fatty tissue of virtually all of us. Their close chemical carcinogenic cousins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), were found in innumerable household and consumer products—like carbonless copy paper, adhesives, paints, and electrical equipment—from the 1950s through the 1970s.”

2.3 Anthropogenic emission sources Prev Chapter 2. Emission of air pollutant

See also INEP website

  The Monsanto papers: Poisoning the Scientific Well

The Monsanto Papers Analyzing, 141 recently de-classified documents, made public during the course of pending toxic tort litigation, In Re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, McHenry has reveal “Monsanto-sponsored ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media, interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on retraction and the creation of a so-called academic website as a front for the defense of Monsanto products”. by LB McHenry in Int J Risk Saf Med. 2018;29(3-4):193-205.

     “The Monsanto Papers” is a set of 141 recently de-classified documents, made public during the course of pending toxic tort litigation, In Re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, 3:16-md-2741, Northern District of California. The documents include: internal Monsanto emails, manuscript drafts, peer review reports, deposition testimony, powerpoint presentations and text messages.  Plaintiffs’ attorneys sought the release of these documents on the grounds that none contain trade secrets that are the basis for maintaining confidentiality.  These documents and others obtained from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests are posted on the websites of U.S. Right to Know (https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/) and the law firm of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman (https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-secret-documents/).  The public release of the Monsanto Papers was controversial since there was a legal dispute over whether the case’s protective order had been violated.  Monsanto’s attorneys sought sanctions from the court against the plaintiffs for the release of some of the documents.   This request was denied”

 

Further information on pollution and glyphosate:

The Agricultural Health Study Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the Agricultural Health Study. Andreotti et al.,

The Agricultural Health Study (AHS) is a ongoing  prospective cohort of licensed pesticide applicators enrolled in Iowa or North Carolina, Note that the authors do not provide data on expose (no human biomonitoring no ambient monitoring data is collected within the study). The pesticide use data is based on a follow-up questionnaire that was administered five years after enrollment and completed by 63% of the participants. In the recent data update the authors could not observe a  associations between glyphosate use and overall cancer risk or  total lymphohematopoietic cancers, including NHL and multiple myeloma. However, there was evidence of an increased risk of AML (acute myeloid leukemia) for applicators, particularly in the highest category of glyphosate exposure compared with never users of glyphosate. The authors  truncated cancer incidence follow-up in 2005 to be concurrent with the last exposure information. Based on 26 exposed cases,there was an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) compared with never users (RR = 2.44, 95% CI = 0.94 to 6.32, Ptrend = .11), though this association was not statistically significant. Expeditious efforts to replicate these findings are warranted.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expert opinion on adherence to the rules of good scientific practice in the subsections “B.6.4.8 Published data (released since 2000)”, “B.6.5.3 Published data on carcinogenicity (released since 2000)” and “B.6.6.12 Published data (released since 2000)” in the report “Final addendum to the Renewal Assessment Report. Risk assessment […] for the active substance GLYPHOSATE […]”,  October 2015, 4322 pages

by Dr. Stefan Weber

Expert opinion on Glyphosate Task force report

“The expert’s task was to compare the three subsections B.6.4.8, B.6.5.3 and B.6.6.12 of the report “Final addendum to the Renewal Assessment Report. Risk assessment […] for the active substance GLYPHOSATE […]”, October 2015, 4322 pages (hereafter: report) with document M in annex II, section 3, point 5: “Toxicological and toxicokinetic studies” of the license application “Glyphosate & the IPA-, K-, NH4- und DMA salts of glyphosate […] Application for Renewal of Approval […]” by the ‘Glyphosate Task Force’ (author reference: “Monsanto Europe S.A. on behalf of the ‘Glyphosate Task Force’”), May 2012, Belgium, 1027 pages (hereafter: application) for text concordances.”

Summary: “It is absolutely correct to call this plagiarism in the sense of scientific misconduct because the presumed author, the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), is committed to the same principles of good scientific practice as universities, and defines the concept of plagiarism in the same way. The systematic omission of 1) indications and 2) source references over several pages can only be interpreted as deliberately concealing the origin of the text in the sense of conditional intent. Formal errors must be excluded…… All in all, the writers of the report must be accused of significant scientific misconduct and of fulfilling all the definitional criteria of text plagiarism in the sense of conscious deception about the true authorship.”

EU Parlament-Workshop 2017

Lobbyism

Titel: Poisoning the Scientific Well

 

Content/Text:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29843257

Published in The International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, June, 2018.

 

The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the Scientific Well[1]

 

LEEMON B. McHENRY

       Department of Philosophy, California State University, Northridge, California, USA

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Examination of de-classified Monsanto documents from litigation in order to expose the impact of the company’s efforts to influence the reporting of scientific studies related to the safety of the herbicide, glyphosate.

METHODS: A set of 141 recently de-classified documents, made public during the course of pending toxic tort litigation, In Re Roundup Products Liability Litigation were examined.

RESULTS: The documents reveal Monsanto-sponsored ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media, interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on retraction and the creation of a so-called academic website as a front for the defense of Monsanto products.

CONCLUSION: The use of third-party academics in the corporate defense of glyhphosate reveals that this practice extends beyond the corruption of medicine and persists in spite of efforts to enforce transparency in industry manipulation.  

 

     “The Monsanto Papers” is a set of 141 recently de-classified documents, made public during the course of pending toxic tort litigation, In Re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, 3:16-md-2741, Northern District of California. The documents include: internal Monsanto emails, manuscript drafts, peer review reports, deposition testimony, powerpoint presentations and text messages.  Plaintiffs’ attorneys sought the release of these documents on the grounds that none contain trade secrets that are the basis for maintaining confidentiality.  These documents and others obtained from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests are posted on the websites of U.S. Right to Know (https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/) and the law firm of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman (https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-secret-documents/).  The public release of the Monsanto Papers was controversial since there was a legal dispute over whether the case’s protective order had been violated.  Monsanto’s attorneys sought sanctions from the court against the plaintiffs for the release of some of the documents.   This request was denied”

 

 

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An academic researcher's guide to increased impact on regulatory assessment of chemicals by Marlene Ågerstrand, Anna Sobek,  Karl Lilja,  Maria Linderoth,  Lina Wendt-Rasch,  Ann-Sofie Wernerssond  and  Christina Rudéna This work deals with the many factors deciding a research study's regulatory use. According to several EU chemical legislations, all available and relevant studies can be used in hazard and risk assessment of chemicals. However, in practice, standard tests conducted under GLP and sponsored and provided by industry are predominantly used. Peer-reviewed studies from independent sources are often disregarded or disputed since they often do not comply with regulatory data requirements and quality criteria. Shortcomings in regulatory assessment of chemicals

Transparency of chemical risk assessment data under REACH by Ingre-Khans E, Ågerstrand M, Beronius A, Rudén C The authors mention that conclusions on hazard and risk are influenced by expert judgements as well as potential conflict of interests. The REACH regulation requires EU manufacturers and importers of substances to register information on the hazard and risk of their substances with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). The transparency of information on the hazard and risk of substances was found to be limited for several reasons. First, certain information was removed due to confidentiality and certain fields were not published because they could contain confidential information although the information had not been claimed confidential. Also, the extent to which registrants reported information varied, and the presentation of some data and certain terminology required further clarification. In addition, the data source for the majority of the key and supporting studies could not be identified due to confidentiality. Since registrants are only required to summarise studies, it cannot be verified whether all relevant information from non-public industry reports have been reported. Lastly, certain information related to the hazard and risk assessment were only reported in the CSR which is only available upon request; a time-consuming and work-intensive process. As information on registered chemicals is currently provided to the public, it is difficult to follow steps that are undertaken in the hazard and risk assessment.REACH: limited transparencies and corporate influences