Glyphosate Test Results In and Why Everyone Should Care

Breastfeeding_mom-work.jpg

The Glyphosate Test Results are in and the results, considering that most of the moms and supporters tested are well aware of GMOs and glyphosate and have been avoiding them for several months or years, are alarming.

THANK YOU to all the moms and supporters who generously spent the time and money to send your urine and water samples in. Thank you to Sustainable Pulse for funding the tests for the breast milk samples and to the moms who paid to ship their samples over night.

Summary:

http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/04/06/worlds-number-1-herbicide-discovered-u-s-mothers-breast-milk/ 
 
Full report:
Please share these online and with your local media.
Parents need to know if their children are being poisoned with glyphosate: which is an antibiotic: antibiotics kill gut bacteria which is 70% of immune system and a chelator: strips the body of the vital nutrients needed to fight cancer, illness and grow.
It is also an endocrine disrupotor: affecting hormones and birth defects.
 
Glyphosate is sprayed on GMOs during growing, on many staple food crops (wheat, sugar, rice, soy, corn etc) as a drying agent at harvest and on the soil of 160 of our non organic food crops.See our "Samsel" blogs for the EPA list
Parents, our children are being assaulted by daily ingestion of toxic chemicals that have been linked to mental illness, diabetes, obesity, asthma, allergies, autism, auto immune diseases and more!
 
It may seem improbable that one chemical could be the source of so much harm, but when you learn about how glyphosate works (basically giving a weed AIDS by destroying it's immune system) it all makes sense.
When you learn that glyphosate destroys gut bacteria and the gut bacteria is the  where Tryptophan, Seratonin ( which regulates insulin) and Melatonin are created, it all makes sense.
When you learn that glyphosate breaks down the blood brain barrier and let's toxins into the brain, from vaccines and the environment, it all makes sense.
When you learn that glyphosate impairs the liver's ability to detox, allowing heavy metals to build up in the body, it all makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is that the EPA and FDA allow this.
Comments from Dr. Stephanie Seneff, co author with Samsel of two glyphosate papers, both found under "data".

Stephanie Seneff, Senior Research Scientist, MIT

"It is certainly disheartening to know that glyphosate is present in breast milk, but lest you think this means you should not nurse your baby, please be aware that soy-based formula probably also contains glyphosate, possibly in even higher concentrations. The US government has conducted very few studies measuring the amount of glyphosate residue in food, but a report issued by the Department of Agriculture in 2011 showed that over 90% of 300 samples of soy contained glyphosate, and nearly 96% contained AMPA, a derivative of glyphosate. Today, 90% of the soy crop in the US is "Roundup Ready," which means you can spray Roundup on it and it won't die. Contrary to what was claimed, this growth in Roundup Ready crops has led to a tremendous increase in the amount of Roundup applied to our core crops over the past decade.

I had been intensely researching possible connections between autism and a variety of different toxic chemicals in the environment for many years before I thought to take a look at glyphosate as a possible contributor to autism.  This delay was of course a consequence of the widely disseminated message that glyphosate is nearly nontoxic to humans. However, once I started looking, I was astonished to find that all of the many comorbidities associated with autism could be explained by glyphosate's known mode of action on biological systems.  Anthony Samsel and I have teamed up to write two papers detailing our findings on the diverse ways in which glyphosate disrupts human physiology, and linking glyphosate to a number of diseases and conditions that are currently on the rise in the US - a partial list includes autism, obesity, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, and various gut disorders like Celiac disease and inflammatory bowel disease.  We are still researching this topic, and nearly every day we are discovering new ways in which glyphosate can negatively impact health.  The problem is that the effects are insidious -- glyphosate erodes your health slowly over time, so that it's hard for people to realize what's happening to them until it's too late."
We must speak up. We must stop buying GMO food and food that is sprayed with pesticides!
Please join us in 4th of July parades to let everyone know about GMOs and pesticides in your town in a single day! If not you who? If not now, when?
Plus it's FUN and so easy to join into a parade. Sign up at www.momsacrossamerica.com/events_all
Write to the EPA Roundup Review manager: pates.john@epa.gov
We need the world to know about GMOs and glyphosate.
All proceeds go towards empowering people in health and freedom!
We must protect our children NOW.
THANK YOU.
Zen Honeycutt
Moms Across America
P.S. The Good News is that you can eliminate detectable levels of glyphosate from your body! Buy only organic! or Non GMO AND Organic. Thank you!

Showing 9 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2014-09-01 10:36:42 -0700 · Flag
    “Roundup Weedkiller Linked To Global Epidemic of Fatal Kidney Disease”

    http://bit.ly/Z4HxGh

    Never ceases to amaze me how such dramatic headlines can be generated by an such an absolute lack of evidence. But then, an absence of evidence have never kept MAA from making claims, the glyphosate “survey” for instance.

    http://bit.ly/1nmxHFy
  • commented 2014-05-26 10:19:38 -0700
    Dear Andy, i have repeated my post from a little while back. We agree more testing is needed and I am sure we can all agree that following MAA’s great initiative to test for glyphosate in mothers breast milk now is the time to do a full test research across the USA using many more mothers from different backgrounds?

    Re the Seralini study in a statement, the peer review journal, FCT’s publishers Elsevier clearly said:
    “Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data”

    • But the editor said “no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size” (number of rats in the study) and the strain of rat used “regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence”
    • The results presented were correct but inconclusive
    • The retraction is based only on this inconclusiveness

    The study was established as a chronic toxicity study (10 rats needed) not a carcinogenicity study (40 rats needed) and the sample sizes are therefore in accordance with these established protocols.

    In which case the study’s finding, that male rats in the treated groups suffered severe liver and kidney dysfunction remain valid as the editor said this study was correct.

    Liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher than in the control group. There were also 1.3 – 2.3 times more instances of “marked and severe” kidney disease.

    Even if we set aside the mortality and tumor findings the evidence of chronic toxicity demands that the study is taken seriously and acted upon by the regulatory authorities. Again there is a clear need to replicate this study because:

    • If Séralini’s study is flawed and insufficient; so are those of Monsanto for the EU
    • If the rats used by Séralini are the wrong strain; so are those of Monsanto for the EU
    • If the sample sizes used by Séralini are too small; so are those of Monsanto for the EU

    Given that FCT retracted Séralini’s study they should surely revisit the EU ones they published which supported Monsanto’s application.

    The only difference was Seralini kept his rats for their lifetime as opposed to Monsanto’s much shorter 90 days!

    Andy, here is why we need to adopt the precautionary principle. So I am sure you will all agree that both MMA’s findings as well as Seralini’s should now undergo trials that everyone agrees is the way to remove all doubt. Agreed?
  • commented 2014-05-26 10:08:25 -0700
    Hi Zen, I’m puzzled, your article is suppose to be about “glyphosate test results”: so where are the test results? A German regulatory body recently reviewed over 1000 new reports and scientific publications in its 10-year reassessment of the safety of glyphosate. No new information was found that would lead to a change in the European Accepted Daily Intake of glyphosate (which is even more strict than the U.S. regulation).

    I don’t know much about your background, and I don’t mean to sound harsh, but have you considered involving an actual scientist to review the material posted on your site? Even a visit to Wikipedia would be a good start. The topics that you cover are so important that moms (and dads) deserve to receive the highest quality information: otherwise you risk creating unnecessary fear, which I’m sure is not your intention! This is a shame, since there is a huge amount of published information to draw upon.

    Your post consists of a series of preposterous claims there are simply not supported by the currently available information, or logic. A few simple examples:

    -You say that glyphosate is an antibiotic. Yes, but only at high concentrations. Don’t forget, salt and sugar and alcohol are also antibiotics, and will also kill you if taken at a high enough dose.

    -You claim that glyphosate “chelates” (or sequesters) minerals in the diet. Anyone with a basic proficiency in arithmetic and chemistry could calculate that the amount of minerals in a typical diet are thousands of fold higher than the traces of glyphosate present in foods, so this chelating activity is irrelevant to health. Please don’t speculate about “cancer” etc. unless you have some evidence.

    -You claim that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor and causes birth defects (presumably in humans?). Where is your evidence?

    -You claim that Roundup “gives plants AIDS, by disrupting their immune system”. Where do you get such colorful notions? No, glyphosate works by blocking a plant enzyme that is essential for making certain amino acids.

    Sadly, without a major shift in the way you check your facts, your group cannot be taken seriously, and you risk being dubbed as mere members of the “lunatic fringe”. If your blog was about the latest fashion or music trend, then any personal biases and opinions would be fair game, but if you begin to discuss topics that affect our health, then you have an ethical duty to do a better job.

    —Andy A.
  • commented 2014-05-17 09:32:13 -0700
    Dear Jess , I am sure we can all agree that following MAA’s great initiative to test for glyphosate in mothers breast milk now is the time to do a full test research across the USA using many more mothers from different backgrounds?

    Re the Seralini study in a statement, the peer review journal, FCT’s publishers Elsevier clearly said:
    “Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data”

    • But the editor said “no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size” (number of rats in the study) and the strain of rat used “regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence”
    • The results presented were correct but inconclusive
    • The retraction is based only on this inconclusiveness

    The study was established as a chronic toxicity study (10 rats needed) not a carcinogenicity study (40 rats needed) and the sample sizes are therefore in accordance with these established protocols.

    In which case the study’s finding, that male rats in the treated groups suffered severe liver and kidney dysfunction remain valid as the editor said this study was correct.

    Liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher than in the control group. There were also 1.3 – 2.3 times more instances of “marked and severe” kidney disease.

    Even if we set aside the mortality and tumor findings the evidence of chronic toxicity demands that the study is taken seriously and acted upon by the regulatory authorities. Again there is a clear need to replicate this study because:

    • If Séralini’s study is flawed and insufficient; so are those of Monsanto for the EU
    • If the rats used by Séralini are the wrong strain; so are those of Monsanto for the EU
    • If the sample sizes used by Séralini are too small; so are those of Monsanto for the EU

    Given that FCT retracted Séralini’s study they should surely revisit the EU ones they published which supported Monsanto’s application.

    The only difference was Seralini kept his rats for their lifetime as opposed to Monsanto’s much shorter 90 days!

    Here is why we need to adopt the precautionary principle. So I am sure you will all agree that both MMA’s findings as well as Seralini’s should now undergo trials that everyone agrees is the way to remove all doubt. Agreed?
  • commented 2014-05-15 12:37:17 -0700
    Just a quick note. Dr. Stephanie Seneff’s research is NOT supported by the scientific community. She has a PhD in electrical engineering and computer science, and is NOT a biologist.

    The paper referenced in this blog was published in the journal, Entropy. Entropy is not known for publishing biology related research and focuses on publications within physics. Why might this be relevant? Entropy is known as a “pay-to-play” journal, meaning that if you have the money, you can publish. Random biology article that doesn’t fit the the scope of the journal + money = publication. Aside from the “pay-to-play” issue, Entropy is also listed as a journal with an impact factor of ZERO. If you are confused, here is a simple explanation; research published in journals with low impact factors is largely NOT supported by REAL and PRACTICING scientists.

    The paper itself also contains a couple of fatal flaws. Remember when I said Seneff is NOT a biologist? This is made evident when reading the paper and noting that there were no actual experiments done. Seneff simply compiled any and all research she could find (most from unaccredited sources) and started drawing scientific conclusions. Last time I checked, that isn’t part of the scientific method. Seneff’s paper also heavily cites Seralini’s 2012 paper in which they claim using roundup-up ready treated corn led to tumors in mice. In 2013, this paper was retracted from Food and Chemical Toxicology (where it was published) because it was found that their experimental design was flawed.

    Feel free to voice your opinions and get your point of view out there, just start being smart about it. It is only affecting the credibility of your organization when you post “facts” drawn from this type of “research.” Put in the effort and show us the REAL science behind the dangers of GMOs. That is, if you can find any.
  • commented 2014-04-12 23:39:15 -0700
    Sorry but on rereading there were a few oddities in my quote. Here it is cleaned up! It is a sorry story for the consumer…

    “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
    – Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications1

    “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”
    – US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)2

    “It is not foreseen that EFSA carry out such [safety] studies as the onus is on the [GM industry] applicant to demonstrate the safety of the GM product in question.”
    – European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)3

    “One thing that surprised us is that US regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by the biotech crop developer, and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review… The picture that emerges from our study of US regulation of GM foods is a rubber-stamp ‘approval process’ designed to increase public confidence in, but not ensure the safety of, genetically engineered foods.”
    – David Schubert, professor and head, Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Institute, commenting on a comprehensive peer-reviewed study of US government’s regulation of GMOs that he co-authored.
  • commented 2014-04-12 22:57:41 -0700
    We should all be concerned about the science behind GMO and glyphosate.
    Who is really testing them?

    “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
    – Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications1 (the FDA is the US government’s Food and Drug Administration, responsible for food safety)
    “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”
    – US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)2
    “It is not foreseen that EFSA carry out such [safety] studies as the onus is on the [GM industry] applicant to demonstrate the safety of the GM product in question.”
    – European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)3

    “One thing that surprised us is that US regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by the biotech crop developer, and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review… The picture that emerges from our study of US regulation of GM foods is a rubber-stamp ‘approval process’ designed to increase public confidence in, but not ensure the safety of, genetically engineered foods.”
    – David Schubert, professor and head, Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Institute, commenting on a comprehensive peer-reviewed study of US government’s regulation of GMOs that he co-authored5,6
  • commented 2014-04-08 13:10:13 -0700
    No, it DOES make sense. It makes sense because the EPA and the FDA are trying to change human DNA. If you really truly believe that the FDA and the EPA are unaware of this bullshit, then their attempts to affect your brain have already happened. They’re doing it on purpose. End of story.
  • commented 2014-04-07 18:17:30 -0700
    Question: If we eliminated all GMO products and crops tomorrow, how long would it take to restore chemical and biochemical balance in the world? Is a matter of years or generations? Any idea?