GLYPHOSATE TEST RESULTS

Glyphosate Testing Full Report: Findings in American Mothers’ Breast Milk, Urine and Water.

Conducted by Moms Across America plate_1.jpg  and Sustainable Pulsesustainable_pulse.jpg

April 7, 2014

Zen Honeycutt, Moms Across America |  Henry Rowlands, Sustainable Pulse

Supporter: Lori Grace, Environmental Arts & Research 

 Download pdf of report here 

Contents:

  1. Press Release
  2. What is Glyphosate?
  3. Quotes from Scientists on Testing
  4. Quotes from Mothers on Testing
  5. Similar Testing on Urine in Europe
  6. Independent Science on Glyphosate
  7. Testing Method
  8. Testing Results – Tables / Maps
  9. Contacts
  10. References

(1) World’s Number 1 Herbicide Discovered in U.S. Mothers’ Breast Milk

Urine Testing also Shows Levels over 10 Times Higher than in Europe

Water Testing shows 70% of American household's drinking water positive for above detectable levels

In the first ever testing on glyphosate herbicide in the breast milk of American women, Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse have found ‘high’ levels in 3 out of the 10 samples tested. The shocking results point to glyphosate levels building up in women’s bodies over a period of time, which has until now been refuted by both global regulatory authorities and the biotech industry.

The levels found in the breast milk testing of 76 ug/l to 166 ug/l are 760 to 1600 times higher than the European Drinking Water Directive allows for individual pesticides (Glyphosate is both a pesticide and herbicide). They are however less than the 700 ug/l maximum contaminant level (MCL) for glyphosate in the U.S., which was decided upon by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based on the now seemingly false premise that glyphosate was not bio-accumulative.

Glyphosate-containing herbicides are the top-selling herbicides in the world and are sold under trademarks such as Monsanto’s ‘Roundup’. Monsanto’s sales of Roundup jumped 73 percent to $371 million in 2013 because of its increasing use on genetically engineered crops (GE Crops). 

Breastfeeding_mom-work.jpg

The glyphosate testing commissioned by Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse, with support from Environmental Arts & Research, also analyzed 35 urine samples and 21 drinking water samples from across the US and found levels in urine that were over 10 times higher than those found in a similar survey done in the EU by Friends of the Earth Europe in 2013.

The initial testing that has been completed at Microbe Inotech Labs, St. Louis, Missouri, is not meant to be a full scientific study. Instead it was set up to inspire and initiate full peer-reviewed scientific studies on glyphosate, by regulatory bodies and independent scientists worldwide.

The initial testing was done using ELISA tests and due to a high minimum detection level in breast milk and urine, it is possible that even those samples which tested negative contained ‘worrying’ levels of glyphosate.

Moms Across America Founder and Director, Zen Honeycutt, stated Monday, “When I was told by several doctors and labs that I could not test my own or my children's urine for the most widely used herbicide in the world over a year ago, I became determined to find a way. Parents and citizens deserve the ability to be able to take care of themselves and their families by finding out if herbicides could be impacting their health. The purpose of this glyphosate testing project is to shed light upon the presence of glyphosate in our water, children's bodies and mother's breast milk, hopefully inspiring further scientific studies to support the world in being a healthy, safe place to live.

“It is important to note that  the mothers and supporters who participated in this project are mostly familiar with GMOs and glyphosate. The majority of them have been trying to avoid GMOs and glyphosate for several months to two years, so the findings are alarming. We can only wonder what the levels of glyphosate are in those who are not aware of GMOs and glyphosate,” Honeycutt added.

High Glyphosate Levels – Danger for Infants?

There is currently no regulatory limit for the amount of glyphosate in breast milk anywhere in the world. However, the EPA has set a legally enforceable maximum contaminant level (MCL) for glyphosate of 700 ug/l in drinking water, which is 7,000 times higher than the MCL in Europe.

Monsanto and regulatory bodies worldwide have based all of their regulations on the assumption that glyphosate is not bio-accumulative. Senior Monsanto scientist, Dan Goldstein, even recently stated (1) , “If ingested, glyphosate is excreted rapidly, does not accumulate in body fat or tissues, and does not undergo metabolism in humans. Rather, it is excreted unchanged in the urine.”

The discovery of levels of glyphosate in breast milk that are much higher than any reported results for urine samples is a source of concern to both the general public and government regulators worldwide, as the data suggests that glyphosate is bio-accumulative; building up in people’s bodies over a period of time.

Earth Open Source Research Director Claire Robinson said, “Regulators and industry always say it is the dose that makes the poison, and even the increasing levels of glyphosate currently found in food and feed and the environment are not a problem. However, that argument only holds true if glyphosate doesn't build up in the human body and is excreted as fast as we take it in. These breast milk results suggest glyphosate may bio-accumulate. That means that our body tissues might be exposed to higher levels than the so-called safe levels set by regulators. So the regulations are not protecting us."

From a total of 10 samples sent in by mothers from states across the U.S., 3 women had detectable levels of glyphosate in their breast milk. The highest glyphosate level was detected in a mother from Florida (166 ug/l) and the other two mothers with ‘positive’ results were from Virginia (76 ug/l) and Oregon (99 ug/l).

Dr Angelika Hilbeck, senior scientist at the Institute of Integrative Biology in Zurich, stated,

“If confirmed in a full investigation, it seems that glyphosate has become a ubiquitous chemical in terms of presence and persistence. This data also offers a first indication of potential accumulation in the human body, giving newborns a substantial dose of synthetic chemicals as a ‘gift' for their start into life, with unknown consequences. This is reckless and irresponsible conduct in a democratic society, which still has a living memory of previous reckless chemical contaminations, such as DDT. It seems we either did not learn, or we have forgotten, our lessons from Rachel Carson!”(2)

Honeycutt added, “Moms Across America feels very strongly that breast milk should still be the number one choice for mothers and certainly preferred over GMO soy formula ingredients. We just urge all mothers to eat as organic as possible, especially avoiding meat, dairy, oils and grains that are sprayed with glyphosate at harvest as a drying agent.”

“What we have found encouraging is that the women who have been eating organic and non-GMO food only, for several months to two years, did not find detectable levels of glyphosate in their breast milk.”

Why Are Glyphosate Levels in Urine Higher than in Europe?

In 2013 people in 18 countries across Europe were found to have traces of glyphosate in their urine by a test commissioned by Friends of The Earth Europe (3). The maximum levels of glyphosate found in the tests ranged from 0.16 ug/l in Switzerland to 1.82 ug/l in Latvia.

Shockingly, the new US testing by Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse, with support from Environmental Arts & Research, found maximum glyphosate levels in urine over 8 times higher than those found in Europe.

From the 35 samples received from across the U.S., 13 samples were above the minimum detectable level. The three highest levels were all found in women, with the highest in Oregon (18.8 ug/l). Other positive results were found in samples from the states of California, Washington, Maryland, Colorado and Hawaii.

Experts point to the GE Crop industry as being to blame for the results in both breast milk and urine, due to the amount of glyphosate used on ‘Roundup-Ready GE Crops’ in the U.S.

The U.S. has a high percentage of its farmland controlled by the GE crops industry, with many varieties of GE soybeans, GE corn, GE cotton and others, whereas Europe has only allowed one GE Crop – Monsanto’s MON810 maize – which is still not grown in most EU states due to health and environmental concerns.

A 2012 study published by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook (4) found that the use of glyphosate in the production of three genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops - cotton, soybeans and corn - has increased. Benbrook’s analysis was the first peer-reviewed, published estimate of the impacts of genetically engineered (GE) herbicide-resistant (HT) crops on pesticide use.

Benbrook’s response to the findings: "Most genetically engineered soybeans now moving through trade channels worldwide contain 2 ppm to over 10 ppm of glyphosate plus its major metabolite, AMPA. These are extraordinarily high residues that raise concerns, given that many people are exposed to glyphosate through drinking water, the air, and a variety of foods. I am particularly worried by exposures during pregnancy and through the first years of a child's life, when the risk of harm to developing organ systems is greatest. More research is urgently needed on glyphosate's capacity to disrupt normal development,” Benbrook stated.

Glyphosate in U.S. Drinking Water

In this initial testing phase 21 samples of drinking water were tested for glyphosate from across the Unites States individually by Moms Across America supporters.

13 of the samples contained glyphosate levels of between 0.085 ug/l and 0.33 ug/l. This is well below the levels found in both urine and breast milk but is still cause for concern, as the European (EU) maximum allowed level for glyphosate in drinking water is 0.1 ug/l.

Regulatory Bodies Urged to Act – Further Testing Needed

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and other regulatory bodies around the world are being urged to act following the release of this initial testing data, to prevent what is a dangerous public health situation.

Sustainable Pulse Director Henry Rowlands stated, “Regulatory bodies and governments worldwide need to act fast to ban all glyphosate-based herbicides as a temporary measure, while further long-term testing is completed by both them and independent scientists. This is the only way that they can regain the trust and protect the health of mothers, infants and the general public as a whole.”

“It was a huge mistake by both the U.S. government and the biotech industry to promote and release products without long-term independent studies. What we are now looking at with glyphosate-based herbicides is a similar situation to what we all faced in the 20th Century with PCBs, DDT and Agent Orange,” Rowlands concluded.

Due to the testing results and skyrocketing health issues, as a matter of precaution, Moms Across America calls for a cease and desist of the practice of spraying glyphosate on GE foods and as a drying agent on food crops, increasing the consumption of glyphosate in our food, including but not limited to, wheat, corn, soy, sugar, rice, dry peas and beans and tea. The EPA lists over 160 foods with allowable levels of glyphosate that are unacceptable to mothers.

Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse are also calling for:

  • Adequate long-term independent testing to ensure that glyphosate herbicide formulations as sold and used are not persistent, bio-accumulative or toxic. This testing must include the outcomes most relevant to children’s health.
  • The U.S. Congress should supply funding for urgently needed long-term independent research on glyphosate herbicide formulations, including their health effects, how they get into the human body, and current levels of accumulation in people, animals and the environment. Studies performed for regulatory authorisation up until now have only tested the isolated ingredient glyphosate, not the complete formulations as sold and used, even though the formulations have been found in many studies to be much more toxic than the isolated ingredient. Also these studies are funded by the agrochemical industry, i.e. they are not independent. Finally, they are kept secret under commercial confidentiality rules, so cannot be scrutinized by independent scientists and the public.


PCB Similarities

This case of finding high levels of glyphosate in breast milk is a re-run of the Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) scandal (5) in the 1970s, which ended up in the toxic chemical compound’s production being banned by the U.S. Congress in 1979.

Before the ban Monsanto, the only North American producer, had marketed PCBs under the trade name Aroclor from 1930 to 1977 and had insisted that it was not toxic.

It was not until levels of PCBs in breast milk were found to be 10 times those in blood, obtained from residents in the Osaka Prefecture of Japan (6), that the toxicity of PCBs was questioned by regulators, leading to the 1979 ban.

According to the EPA, PCBs, which were widely used for over 40 years as dielectric and coolant fluids, have now been shown to cause cancer in humans.

Is it not time that regulators learned lessons from past mistakes?

(2) What is Glyphosate?

Glyphosate is the presumed active ingredient of Roundup and other commercial glyphosate herbicide formulations. Glyphosate was developed by John E. Franz of Monsanto Company. It was first used in 1972 as a non-selective, water-soluble herbicide with a specific mechanism of action: the directed interruption of plant development through metabolic poisoning. The chemical is a specific inhibitor of the plant enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), which does not exist in mammals, including humans. Based on this known mechanism of toxicity, the herbicide has been claimed to have low toxicity for mammalian species. However, glyphosate and its formulations have other mechanisms of toxicity.

Monsanto’s US patent for Roundup expired in 2000 and it ceased production in 2007.  Other glyphosate herbicides manufactured by Monsanto, such as PROMAX and WeatherMAX, are in current use. Moreover, numerous generic glyphosate formulations (e.g. Clearout 41) are now produced by at least 100 manufacturers worldwide. 

Glyphosate is:

#1:  A Patented Antibiotic – USPTO # 7777136. Leading to concerns about possible harm, including the killing of beneficial gut bacteria which causes immune system damage.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=7771736&OS=7771736&RS=7771736

#2: Chelating Agent - Although glyphosate can be rapidly immobilized in soil (also spray tank mixtures, and plants) through chelation with various cat-ions (Ca, Mg, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Zn), it is not readily degraded and can accumulate for years (in both soils and perennial plants). Glyphosate’s chelation properties may lead to possible harm such as vitamin and mineral deficiencies.

http://www.archpatent.com/patents/3160632

 Glyphosate has been shown in several recent studies to be an endocrine disruptor. According to the National Institutes of Health, endocrine disruptors could have long-term effects on public health, especially reproductive health. And the “dose makes the poison” rule does not apply to endocrine disruptors, which wreak havoc on our bodies at low doses.

Most genetically modified (GM) crops are engineered to tolerate the herbicide Roundup, Monsanto's best-selling product. The main active ingredient in Roundup is glyphosate. A number of glyphosate-resistant crops are also produced by Monsanto.

Health Risks

Laboratory and epidemiological studies confirm that Roundup and glyphosate pose serious health and environmental hazards, including possible endocrine (hormone) disruption, cell death, DNA damage, cancer, birth defects, and neurological disorders.

Some of these toxic effects are observed at low, realistic doses that could be found as residues in food and feed crops and in drinking water.

People are exposed to glyphosate though contaminated food, water and air, often as a result of the herbicides application to fields. This is not only the case in rural areas, where ‘Roundup Ready’ GM crops are grown on a large scale. Glyphosate-based herbicides are widely used by municipal authorities on roadsides, pavements, and in public parks and school grounds. It is also widely used by home gardeners.

Roundup and glyphosate and their residues have been detected in previous testing in air, rain, groundwater and even circulating in women’s blood.

Not Enough Safety Tests

Roundup and other glyphosate herbicide formulations as sold and used have been found in studies to be more toxic than the isolated ingredient, glyphosate. However, only glyphosate alone is tested in long-term safety tests for regulatory authorizations. This is a fundamental problem affecting all pesticide authorizations.

The ‘safe’ dose for Roundup exposure set by regulators is not based on up-to-date objective evidence. So, current regulations do not protect the public.

The chemicals used in the GM model of farming are toxic, and the model of farming itself is unsustainable and damaging to the environment – with an increase in herbicides significantly increasing pollution and health risks for citizens, and contributing to biodiversity loss. The only people who stand to gain from this model are those that produce the herbicide-resistant crop the chemicals required to grow them.

The chemicals used in the GM model of farming are toxic, and the model of farming itself is unsustainable and damaging to the environment – with an increase in herbicides significantly increasing pollution and health risks for citizens, and contributing to biodiversity loss. The only people who stand to gain from this model are those that produce the herbicide-resistant crops and the chemicals required to grow them.

(3) Quotes from Scientists on Testing

Dr. Don M. Huber, Professor Emeritus, Purdue University.
 
"It is well established in the scientific literature that glyphosate disrupts the endocrine hormone system, and is toxic to liver and kidney tissues, a strong mineral chelator, and a potent antibiotic that kills essential microorganisms in the gastro-intestinal tract.  The levels observed in breast milk and urine in this preliminary survey indicate that intake of this chronic toxin is highly biologically significant and almost 100 times the amounts documented in peer-reviewed scientific studies to cause birth defects, kidney and liver damage, hormonal disruption, and predispose to cancer. Much higher levels of glyphosate in breast milk than urine indicate a concentration factor that can especially compromise the health and development of an infant through direct toxicity, deprivation of essential mineral nutrients, and dysbiosis of the microbiome essential for immune, neural and physical development. Additional testing is essential to confirm the validity of this data on a larger scale if we are to avoid compromising the health and well-being of an entire generation."

Jack Heinemann, Professor of genetics and molecular biology in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

“We have an inadequate knowledge of the effects of real life exposures to the many potentially and actually toxic chemicals that are part of daily modern life. This snapshot of just one pervasive chemical, glyphosate, in the fluids of human bodies is therefore important and timely. No single study of this type or scale is enough to determine if this chemical alone or in combination with the many other “approved as safe if exposed below certain amounts” cause harm. But that this study was initiated by a grassroots campaign rather than government or funded by the industries that profit from mass release of these compounds, says to me how neglected this area of public good research is.

“Glyphosate was measured in parts per billion in urine and breast milk. Are these levels too low to cause harm in people after a lifetime of constant low level exposure? Possibly, but possibly not.

“What does this mean for women who choose to breastfeed? In my opinion, the many good things that breastfeeding does for babies far outweighs the risk of the low level exposures to this pesticide. But it is also my opinion that, until such low level exposures to nursing babies can be determined to be safe there should be an obligation placed on the pesticide industry and the relevant government agencies to reduce exposures that are sufficient to cause accumulation of the pesticide in breast milk.

“Urban lawns and roadsides as well as the farm in America and many other places have become addicted to these agrochemicals. There is far too little emphasis on providing services to agriculture that reduce this dependency and too much emphasis on innovation dependent upon it. Let’s wean the farmer from these chemicals rather than our babies from their milk.”- Heinemann

 Anthony Samsel, a former private environmental U.S. government contractor as well as a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists

“Everyone eating the western diet of food grown, sprayed and desiccated with Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide can expect to find its active ingredient glyphosate in their body. Glyphosate chelates chemical elements important to our existence, disrupts vitamin synthesis and detoxification enzymes like glutathione and CYP 450 enzymes, as well as many essential amino acids. Glyphosate is an antibiotic, capable of killing hundreds of species of bacteria which are directly responsible for our immune function and overall health. It is a chronic toxin, a chemical weapon like no other, which is capable of killing organisms both directly and indirectly. Monsanto’s Roundup-glyphosate based herbicide may in fact be, the most disruptive chemical to our biology and our environment.

“The glyphosate in humans data recently collected from volunteers across the USA serves as a snapshot of the general population... Breast milk samples contained levels from 76 to 166 ug/L, levels that can cause harm. The thought of babies receiving glyphosate through their mother’s milk is particularly troubling as it demonstrates that there is no escape from this antibiotic chemical.

“If the HPLC method was used (High Pressure Liquid Chromatography), it would have yielded an increased statistical result, as this method has a lower range of detection.  However, there is a higher cost associated with the method which would have made it prohibitive for many participants.  The result of my own urine test in this group was below the detection level, as were over 50% of the participants. Dietary exposure is an obvious function in this regard. Not all glyphosate ingested is passed in the urine and feces, a small portion is metabolized to AMPA another toxin. The remainder of the glyphosate continues to circulate in the blood and cerebral fluid where it travels to the cells and causes cumulative, chronic damage. It is deposited in the body's tissues which include but are not limited to the liver, kidneys, pancreas, heart and other muscles.

“We have got to get glyphosate out of the food supply. Our health and the health of those we love may be in grave danger from exposure to this chemical. It is urgent that people know and time is of the essence. Every moment lost will be a new health casualty.”- Samsel

(4)  Quotes from Mothers on Testing

Jessica M. from Virginia:

"It is frightening to see any glyphosate in my body, especially in my breast milk that will then contaminate my son's growing body. It's particularly upsetting to test positive for glyphosate because I go to great lengths to eat organic and GMO free. I do not consume any meats or seafood and only very rarely eat dairy. This really shows me, and should show others, just how pervasive this toxin is in our food system."

Rachel T. from Illinois:

“I tested negative. I am relieved to know that the time, money, and effort we have spent to source good quality, organic, GMO-free food over the past several years has paid off. This should offer hope and encouragement to many families; that what we eat truly does affect us. I hope that someday in the future the knowledge of how to source these foods becomes more main stream so that others can benefit and heal their bodies from the countless health problems caused by GMO laden foods.”

Most recent map of glyphosate use in America with Breast Milk results. Red-Negative, Green Positive.

GlyphosateUsage2009.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ng.

Moms Across America discovered that the quantity of local glyphosate spraying at farms does NOT correlate to positive or negative glyphosate detectable levels in mothers, suggesting the glyphosate is coming from another source, such as national brands of food, which are not connected to local environmental conditions. Manufacturers must be responsible and conduct further testing.

(5)  Similar testing on Urine in Europe

Two full-scale glyphosate testing projects have been carried out in Europe over the last year on urine in humans.

The first was organized by Friends of the Earth Europe and the second was led by Dr. Monika Krüger of the University of Leipzig in Germany.

When looking at the data from both of these tests please keep in mind that the U.S glyphosate testing has already detected glyphosate levels in urine of between 8.1 ug/l and 18.8 ug/l with a much smaller survey.

Determination of Glyphosate residues in human urine samples from 18 European countries: (Medical Laboratory Bremen commissioned by Friends of the Earth Europe)

http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/glyphosate_studyresults_june12.pdf

In this study, 182 urine samples received from 18 European countries were analyzed for glyphosate and AMPA residues using a new GC-MSMS method. With a LOQ of 0.15 ug/l, on average 44 % and 36 % of the urine samples analyzed were found to contain quantifiable levels of glyphosate and AMPA, respectively. However the frequency of detection calculated for each individual EU-state ranged from 10% to 90%. The highest glyphosate concentration was 1.8 ug/L (Latvia), the highest AMPA concentration was 2.6 ug/L (Croatia). All in all 12 (6.6%) participants of the study significantly exceeded the tentative reference value of 0.8 ug/L for glyphosate.

Detection of Glyphosate Residues in Animals and Humans: Dr. Monika Krüger

http://omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.pdf

In this study glyphosate residues were tested in urine and different organs of dairy cows as well as in urine of hares, rabbits and humans using ELISA and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy (GC-MS). Cows kept in genetically modified free area had significantly lower glyphosate concentrations in urine than conventional husbandry cows. Also glyphosate was detected in different organs of slaughtered cows as intestine, liver, muscles, spleen and kidney. Fattening rabbits showed significantly higher glyphosate residues in urine than hares.

Glyphosate was significantly higher in the urine of humans who didn’t eat organic food. Furthermore, chronically ill humans showed significantly higher glyphosate residues in urine than in the healthy population.

The glyphosate levels detected Kruger’s study were all under 2 ug/l in human urine.

(6) Independent Science on Glyphosate

There have been a large number of independent studies carried out on glyphosate and Roundup which show why the public and media should be concerned over the possible harm that the herbicide is causing.

Below is a small selection of these studies. For a wider selection please visit here: http://www.gmoevidence.com/location/roundup-evidence/

 

2014: Glyphosate, Hard Water and Nephrotoxic Metals: Are They the Culprits Behind the Epidemic of Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Etiology in Sri Lanka?: Dr. Jayasumana (Sri Lanka)

The Sri Lankan President has put a ban on all glyphosate-based pesticides following this study.

The study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health links glyphosate (Roundup) to a series of mysterious epidemics of fatal chronic kidney disease of unknown origin (CKDu) affecting several poor farming regions around the world. The current death toll from CKDu is 20 000 and the number of those with the disease number over 400 000.

Full Paper Here: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/2/2125

 

2013: Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via oestrogen receptors: Dr. Thongprakaisang (Thailand)

This study shows that glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer, T47D cells, but not in hormone independent breast cancer, MDA-MB231 cells, at 10-12 to 10-6 M in estrogen withdrawal condition.

Full Paper Here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Thongprakaisang%20S%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23756170

 

2010: Glyphosate Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signalling: Dr. Andres Carrasco (Argentina)

This study, by a team led by Prof Andres Carrasco at Buenos Aires University , found that glyphosate and Roundup cause birth defects in frog and chicken embryos at extremely low doses.

http://www.gmwatch.eu/images/pdf/Carrasco_research_paper.pdf

More information on glyphosate’s possible links to birth defects can be found here: http://www.earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/Roundup-and-birth-defects/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5.pdf

 

2012: Teratogenic Effects of Glyphosate-Based Herbicides: Divergence of Regulatory Decisions from Scientific Evidence: Dr. Michael Antoniou (UK)

Malformations were seen from the administration of glyphosate to rabbits and rats in studies commissioned by industry for regulatory purposes. These effects were not found only at high maternally toxic doses but also at lower doses. Statistical significance was not always achieved at lower doses because too few animals are used in such tests. “Historical control data” and other excuses were used to dismiss the findings.

Full paper here: http://omicsonline.org/2161-0525/2161-0525-S4-006.php?aid=7453

 

2004: Neural Tube Defects and Maternal Residential Proximity to Agricultural Pesticide Applications: Dr. Rull (US)

This study evaluated the effects of maternal environmental exposure to 59 agricultural pesticides on neural tube defects (NTDs) in babies born in California between 1987 and 1991. Maternal residential proximity within 1,000 meters of crop pesticide applications occurring around the month of conception was assessed using a model based on linking California Pesticide Use Reports (PUR) and land-use survey maps. The study found an association between glyphosate exposure and anencephaly, a type of neural tube defect.

Full paper here: http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2004/07000/Neural_Tube_Defects_and_Maternal_Residential.499.aspx

 

2002: Birth defects, season of conception, and sex of children born to pesticide applicators living in the Red River Valley of Minnesota, USA: Dr. Garry (U.S.)

An epidemiological study carried out in Minnesota, USA found that the children of pesticide applicators exposed to glyphosate herbicides had an increased incidence of neurobehavioral disorders, including ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder).  This suggests that glyphosate herbicide impacts neurological development.

Full paper here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12060842

 

2007: Evaluation of DNA damage in an Ecuadorian population exposed to glyphosate: Dr. Paz-y-Miño (Ecuador)

Ecuadorian people exposed to aerial glyphosate herbicide spraying on coca crops showed a much higher degree of DNA damage in blood cells than a control population living 80 km away. The researchers ruled out tobacco, alcohol, non-prescription drugs and asbestos as causes. None of the individuals had used or been exposed to other herbicides or pesticides when the samples were taken. The study also found acute poisoning reactions to the glyphosate spraying, including intestinal pain and vomiting, diarrhoea, fever, heart palpitations, headaches, dizziness, numbness, insomnia, burning eyes, blurred vision, difficulty in breathing, and skin rash.

Full paper here: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/gmb/v30n2/a26v30n2.pdf

 

1997: Male Pesticide Exposure and Pregnancy Outcome: Dr Savitz (Canada)

A study of farming families in Ontario, Canada found a higher than normal rate of late miscarriages and pre-term deliveries associated with glyphosate exposure.

Full paper here: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/146/12/1025.full.pdf

 

2005: Differential effects of glyphosate and roundup on human placental cells and aromatase: Dr Seralini (France)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/

 

2006: Time- and Dose-Dependent Effects of Roundup on Human Embryonic and Placental Cells: Dr Seralini (France)

http://www.gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Benachoural.AECT_2007.pdf

In these in vitro experiments, glyphosate was found to be toxic to human placental cells and Roundup formulation was more toxic. Glyphosate and Roundup damaged human embryonic cells and placental cells in vitro in concentrations well below those recommended for agricultural use. The study’s authors concluded that Roundup may interfere with human reproduction and embryonic development.

(7) Testing Method

 Glyphosate Testing Method: Glyphosate Plate Assay

The testing of drinking water, urine and breast milk was carried out by Microbe Inotech Laboratories, Inc. (MiL inc.)

For the detection and quantitation of glyphosate in water (groundwater, surface water, well water), urine and breast milk, the MiL inc. uses a 96 well microtiter plate assay.  For soil, crop, and foods, additional preparation steps are required but can be processed at a small additional fee.  This assay applies the principles of enzyme linked immunosorbent assay methodology (ELISA) to the determination of glyphosate. 

The sample to be tested is derivatized and then added, along with an antibody (binding protein) specific for glyphosate to microtiter wells coated with Goat Anti-Rabbit Antibody and incubated for 30 minutes.  A glyphosate enzyme conjugate is then added. 

This particular format is known as a competitive ELISA assay since, at this point in the procedure, a competitive reaction occurs between the glyphosate which may be in the sample and the enzyme labeled glyphosate analog for the antibody binding sites on the microtiter well. 

The reaction is allowed to continue for sixty minutes.  After a washing step and addition of a substrate (color solution), a color signal (blue color) is generated.  The presence of glyphosate is detected by adding the “Color Solution”, which contains the enzyme substrate (hydrogen peroxide) and the chromogen (3,3’,5,5’-tetramethylbenzidine).  The enzyme-labeled glyphosate bound to the glyphosate antibody catalyzes the conversion of the substrate/chromogen mixture to a colored product.

After an incubation period, the reaction is stopped and stabilized by the addition of a diluted acid (Stopping Solution).  Since the labeled glyphosate (conjugate) was in competition with the unlabelled glyphosate (sample) for the antibody sites, the color developed is inversely proportional to the concentration of glyphosate in the sample. 

Six concentrations (0, 0.75, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 4.0 ppb) of glyphosate standards in distilled water with a non-mercury preservative and stabilizers are used to generate a standard response curve.  A control solution at approximately 0.75 ppb of glyphosate is included in every run and treated in the same manner as unknown samples to serve as a positive control within the assay.  The color absorbance is read using a microplate reader (see Figure).

Any results obtained with a calculated glyphosate concentration of less than 0.05 ppb is assumed to be below the detection limit of the assay with glyphosate reported as being absent (7.5 ppb detection limit for Urine) (75 ppb detection limit for Breast Milk). 

 

(8) Test Results

Test Results for the presence of Glyphosate in American Mother’s Breast Milk

Partial display. Interactive Map at http://batchgeo.com/map/9bcabad4abf8e4c4fafa883251c6754d

GlyphosateMothersMilk.png

 

Test Results for the presence of Glyphosate in American Mothers’ Breast Milk

Project #

Sample #

Test Results

Age

Gender

Weight

State

Zip

062A

1

<75 ug/L

26

F

105

IL

62521

062B

1

<75 ug/L

43

F

225

NV

89109

062C

1

<75 ug/L

32

F

113

CA

95521

062D

1

<75ug/L

26

F

110

AZ

85741

062E

1

99 ug/L

28

F

165

OR

97202

 62F

1

76 ug/L

22

F

100

VA

23220

062G

1

166 ug/L

30

F

180

FL

32726

062H

1

<75 ug/L

39

F

145

CO

80229

062I

1

<75 ug/L

29

F

130

IA

50031

062J

1

<75 ug/L

30

F

125

PA

17601

 

Test Results for the presence of Glyphosate in the urine of American adults and children.

Partial display. Interactive Map link to Urine Test results for glyphosate http://batchgeo.com/map/997080dd3f0dbc59b5de665f4ea04bf1

 

GlyphosateUrine.png

Of the 35 initial samples sent in 34% of the people tested positive for detectable levels of glyphosate in their urine. 85% of all participants noted that they were actively avoiding GE foods and pesticides in their diet.

 Test Results for the presence of glyphosate in the urine of American people and children.

Project #

Sample #

Matrix (Water/Urine)

Test Results

Age

Gender

Weight (lbs)

State

Zip

glyph001

1

U

8.7 ug/L

8

M

52

CA

92691

glyph002

1

U

<75 ug/L

67

F

130

HI

96821

glyph004

1

U

8.5 ug/L

13

 

 

CA

91320

glyph007

2

U

<7.5 ug/L

44

F

180

FL

33030

glyph014

2

U

<7.5 ug/L

39

F

130

PA

19072

glyph016

2

U

15.5 ug/L

52

F

140

NC

28711

glyph018

2

U

15.6  ug/L

69

F

127

CA

95608

glyph023

1

U

9.2 ug/L

65

M

210

MD

20874

glyph020

3

U

<7.5 ug/L

45

F

125

MD

21022

glyph037

1

U

<7.5 ug/L

64

M

140

NH

03037

glyph 036

1

U

<7.5 ug/L

53

F

120

CA

91377

glyph 038

2

U

<7.5 ug/L

68

F

129

CA

91361

glyph 038

2

U

8.5 ug/L

13

M

100

CA

91320

glyph040

1

U

<7.5 ug/L

39

F

 

FL

34219

glyph042

1

U

<7.5 ug/L

63

F

120

CA

94920

glyph044

1

U

15.5 ug/L

60

F

130

OR

97520

glyph044

2

U

18.8 ug/L

26

F

109

OR

97520

glyph046

1

U

13.3 ug/L

66

F

160

WA

98036

glyph046

2

U

<75 ug/L

4

F

40

WA

98036

glyph048

1

U

<7.5 ug/L

40

F

115

CA

92691

glyph048

2

U

<7.5 ug/L

11

M

75

CA

92691

glyph048

3

U

<7.5 ug/L

5

M

36

CA

92691

glyph048

1

U

<7.5 ug/L

8

M

56

CA

92691

glyph055

1

U

<7.5 ug/L

39

F

130

CA

92672

glyph055

2

U

<7.5 ug/L

4

M

35

CA

92672

glyph055

3

U

<7.5 ug/L

4

M

38

CA

92672

glyph059

1

U

8.1 ug/L

6

M

49

CO

80302

glyph 064

2

U

14.6 ug/L

4

F

45

MO

63701

glyph066A

1

U

<7.5 ug/L

31

F

115

HI

96725

glyph066C

1

U

<7.5 ug/L

61

F

129

CA

95066

glyph066D

1

U

<7.5 ug/L

31

M

180

HI

96732

glyph066Da

1

U

8.6 ug/L

28

M

160

HI

96729

glyph066E

1

U

<7.5 ug/L

42

M

200

HI

96729

glyph066F

1

U

<7.5 ug/L

9

M

75

CA

92691

glyph068

1

U

10.5 ug/L

33

F

140

HI

96761

glyph073

1

U

<7.5 ug/L

64

F

131

NV

89439

glyph075

1

U

<7.5 ug/L

71

F

136

VA

22033

glyph077

1

U

<7.5 ug/L

68

M

145

TX

79453

glyph080

1

U

<7.5 ug/L

12

F

75

HI

96741

glyph081

1

U

<7.5 ug/L

63

M

180

WA

98072

The highlighted urine glyphosate test results are after a positive glyphosate result in initial testing of one family member and then 2-6 weeks of switching to 100% organic diet. The negative detection of glyphosate coincides with the disappearance of recorded inflammation and autism symptoms in the 8 year old boy after 6 weeks of an organic diet and 2 weeks of Reverse Osmosis Filtered water which tested negative for detectable levels of glyphosate.

 

 

Test Results for the presence of Glyphosate in the water of American households.

Partial display. Interactive Map at http://www.batchgeo.com/map/8b5b606dab90cba4e8fe828fe0dedeb5

GlyphosateWater.png

 

Test Results for the presence of Glyphosate in the water of American households.

Project #

Matrix (Water/Urine)

Level

State

Zip

glyph001

W

0.085 ug/L

CA

92691

glyph002

W

0.123 ug/L

CO

96821

glyph004

W

0.17 ug/L

CA

91320

glyph007

W

<0.05 ug/L

FL

33030

glyph014

W

0.167 ug/L

PA

19072

glyph016

W

0.086ug/L

NC

28711

glyph018

W

0.087 ug/L

WI

53588

glyph020

W

0.140 ug/L

CA

95608

glyph020

W

0.151 ug/L

CA

95608

glyph027

W

0.212 ug/L

MD

21022

glyph027

W

0.116ug/L

MD

21022

glyph028

W

<0.05 ug/L

IL

60441

glyph 036

W

<0.05 ug/L

CA

91377

glyph038

W

<0.05 ug/L

CA

91361

glyph039

W

0.33 ug/L

NY

12561

glyph042

W

<0.05 ug/L

CA

94920

glyph 064

W

0.096 ug/L

MO

63701

glyph071

W

0.22 ug/L

 

 

glyph072

W

<0.05 ug/L

CT

06105

glyph080

W

<0.05 ug/L

 

96741

glyph082

W

<0.05 ug/L

NC

27973

glyph083

W

<0.05 ug/L

CA

92691

 

These results are from Multipure (.17 ug/l) and Pursanova (<.0.05 ug/l) Reverse Osmosis Sytems. Showing that not all Reverse Osmosis Systems remove glyphosate at a lower then detectable level.

(9) Contacts:

Henry Rowlands, Director, Sustainable Pulse, www.sustainablepulse.com , Skype: henry.rowlands

Zen Honeycutt, Founder and Director of Moms Across America, www.momsacrossamerica.com, info@momsacrossamerica.com, Skype: zen.honeycutt. Moms Across America is presented by the non profit CA State Grange and is a national coalition of unstoppable Moms. “Empowered Moms, Healthy Kids.”

Microbe Inotech Labs, Inc. 11754 Westline Industrial Dr., St. Louis, MO  63146-3402  Phone:  1-800-688-9144 www.microbeinotech.com

10)   References:

  1. http://gmoanswers.com/ask/given-glyphosate-lipid-soluble-and-knowing-its-really-only-ingested-humans-through-gm-foods-how
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson
  3. https://www.foeeurope.org/weed-killer-glyphosate-found-human-urine-across-Europe-130613
  4. http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_biphenyl
  6. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00454276

 


Showing 116 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2015-06-22 05:00:07 -0700
    “So far as I know, only one eminent person has had both the clarity to see and the courage to speak candidly about the obvious failures and danger of industrial agriculture. That person is Prince Charles.
    From Wendell Berry on the Princes speech in Washington.

    " What’s gone wrong with our food system can be reversed. A better way of doing things is still possible. The next generation can be fitter, healthier, wiser and more compassionate than the last one. That is the basic message of Prince Charles speech, and we wholeheartedly agree."
    From Will Allen and Eric Schlosser

    These are the people you need to listen too – not some rabid idiot from Monsanto!
  • commented 2015-06-20 11:46:39 -0700
    love spell spell to get back ex,divorce,marriage love together contact Dr.OBODO Via Info:
    Email: templeofanswer@hotmail.co.uk
    Cell: +234(815)-5425481
  • commented 2015-06-20 11:45:52 -0700
    A couple of years ago I was in a dark period in my life, the man I love to bits had gone off with someone else, that was when I was told about this spell caster. Well he told me he could see that we would get back together that gave me hope, and he was right, because this week we have moved in with each other and are so happy. A big thank you to Dr.Obodo. If you are in need of an angel please get in touch with my Dr.obodo at E-mail: templeofanswer@hotmail.co.uk or Cell: +2348155425481.
  • commented 2015-03-18 07:53:36 -0700
    “Prince of Pseudoscience
    Charles is coming to visit the United States.
    Don’t listen to a single foolish word he says.
    ”http://slate.me/1FAuQog">http://slate.me/1FAuQog

    “Now it makes more sense. Prince Charles has addressed Sustainable Food Trust functions before. The Sustainable Food Trust appears to have an anti-GMO bias. For example, its chief executive, Patrick Holden, characterized a study in which consuming GMO-derived feed was reported to cause serious health issues in pigs as “another in a series of recent studies that have identified negative health impacts in animals consuming GM crops,” comparing it to the “study by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and colleagues in 2012 which found high rates of cancer and other problems in rats fed GM maize for two years,” concluding that “there should be no further moves to introduce GM crops into the UK, or GM food into the human food chain until these issues have been fully investigated by independent scientists.” Of course, GM foods have been “fully investigated by independent scientists,” and the Séralini study and the pig study were both absolutely awful studies whose conclusions were—to put it very mildly!—not supported by the data.”
  • commented 2015-03-17 19:47:30 -0700
    Wow. No stronger evidence needed to show the biased and anti-science nature of MOA than to find all of my posts have been deleted. Welcome to the land of woo and cognitive dissonance.
  • commented 2015-02-12 13:47:08 -0800
    We will trust the Lord
  • posted about this on Facebook 2015-02-05 13:29:54 -0800
    Glyphosate Testing Results
  • commented 2015-01-18 10:31:15 -0800
    Myth: The Seralini (2012) study was bad science and no conclusions can be drawn from it.
    Truth: The Seralini study is the most detailed and thorough study ever done on a GM food and its associated pesticide costing well over $3 million .

    GM opponents were said to be the “climate skeptics of the left”, Séralini and his scientists were labelled “crafty activists” and “anti-science” and the group that funded the study was accused of “polluting science communication”.

    But the results were published in The Journal of Food & Chemical Toxicology.
    And yet the reason for the Journal of Food & Chemical Toxicology later retraction of Seralini’s Study was very odd indeed as Dr Wallace Hayes conceded that an examination of Prof Séralini’s raw data gave:

    “no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data” and nothing “incorrect” about the data.
    Hayes states that the retraction is solely based on the “inconclusive” nature of the findings!

    However Hayes’ new boss was previously employed by Monsanto!! There is your answer!

    Nothing incorrect about the data!!!

    The study has been republished in the Journal of Environmental Sciences and over 1200 scientists have pledged to boycott Elsevier’s Journal of Food & Chemical Toxicology over the retraction because they felt that the retraction was unscientific as it surely was.

    All existing peer reviewed papers would have to be withdrawn if only those that were 100% conclusive were published – no help to science!!!

    Why wont Chuck agree to more safety studies of GM food??
  • commented 2015-01-17 09:11:53 -0800
    The evidence for GM toxicity is very strong – only industry guys like Chuck will always deny it – but he is there to defend the evil empire – Monsanto, Syngenta and Dow.

    Controlled Animal Feeding Studies Show Clear Signs of Toxicity linked with GM crops
    Revealed by GM vs isogenic non-GM comparison

    Feeding studies conducted by academics:
    commercialised crops: Bt maize/corn
     Rats fed GM Bt corn over three generations: areas of necrosis to liver and kidneys and alterations in blood biochemistry (Kilic & Akay, 2008).
     Old and young mice fed GM Bt corn MON810: marked disturbance in immune system cells and in biochemical (cytokine) activity (Finamore et al., 2008).
     Pigs fed GM Bt corn variety MON810 for 31 days: differences in immune cell type numbers (e.g. CD4+ T cells, B cells, macrophages) and biochemistry (cytokine levels; e.g. IL-12, IFNg, IL-6, IL-4, IL-8) (Walsh et al., 2011).
     Ewes and their lambs fed GM Bt corn variety Bt176 over three generations: hyperplasia of ruminal epithelial basal cells in ewes and a disturbed gene functioning of liver and pancreas in lambs (Trabalza-Marinucci et al., 2008).
     Rats fed MON810 GM Bt corn for 91 days: multiple organ changes in weight, biochemistry; severe damage in structure and function including to liver, kidney, testes, intestines (Gab-Alla et al., 2012; El-Shamei et al., 2012).
     Rabbits fed GM soy: enzyme function disturbances in kidney and heart (Tudisco et al., 2006).
     Mice fed GM soy: disturbed liver, pancreas and testes function; abnormally formed cell nuclei and nucleoli in liver cells, indicating increased metabolism and potentially altered patterns of gene expression (Malatesta et al., 2002; Malatesta et al., 2003; Vecchio et al., 2004).
    Mice fed GM soy over their lifetime (24 months): more acute signs of ageing in the liver; significant changes in the expression of 49 proteins. Significant decrease in senescence markers (e.g. regucalcin, HSPs); lower metabolism. Structure of liver cell nuclei suggest marked lowering of gene function (Malatesta et al., 2008):
    A long-term toxicity study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. Carman JA et al. (2013) J Organic Systems 8: 38-54
    Gastric & uterine differences in GM ration fed pigs:
     Marked increase in severe stomach inflammation (4-fold males; 2.2-fold females)
     Uteri 25% heavier
    Feeding studies conducted by industry
    Rats fed commercialised insecticide-producing MON863 Bt corn:
     Grew more slowly
     Sex differences
     Showed higher levels of certain fats (triglycerides) in their blood
     Problems with liver and kidney function (Séralini et al., 2007).
     Rats fed commercialised GM Bt corn varieties MON863 and MON810 and Roundup tolerant NK603: signs of toxic effects on liver and kidneys. (de Vendomois et al., 2009).

    Conclusions
     GM possesses inherent unpredictability for health and the environment which is currently impossible to quantify.
     Cisgenics and genome editing are alternative GM procedures and regulated as are transgenic protocols
    There already exist proven alternatives to meet future food needs in a sustainable manner, a role that GM in its current form is unable to fulfil:
    “Genetic-modification technologies just treat the symptoms rather than dealing with the causes”, Hans Herren, president of the Millennium Institute, Arl ington, Virginia (USA); co-chair of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). [Nature, 455: 850-852, 2008].
  • commented 2015-01-15 12:11:24 -0800
    Your concern for the study is addressed here: http://www.naturalnews.com/048298_GMOs_liver_damage_DNA.html#
  • commented 2015-01-15 09:23:59 -0800
    Good try Chuck.. if you spout it, maybe they will believe it. I raise you: " The results revealed that the laboratory diet used in our investigation was proved experimentally,
    using the PCR assay, to contain genetically modified components without being labeled as such. The results of all parameters evaluated
    in our investigation were consistent and confirm that the GM diet fed to rats for 30, 60, or 90 days has deleterious histopathological
    and histochemical impacts. Biochemical alterations in alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, creatinine, uric acid, and
    malondialdehyde concentrations were also observed. Genotoxicity of the GM diet was also demonstrated in germ cells as increased
    numbers of cells with chromosomal aberrations and in liver cells as increased ratios of DNA fragmentation. In conclusion, the results
    of the present work indicate that there are health hazards linked to the ingestion of diets containing genetically modified components." Source: http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/havuz/biy-1406-61.pdf

    The challenge for the pro gmo lobby is that they are trying to control the conversation with their millions of dollars, however people are waking up and realizing that perhaps our food doesn’t need chemicals in it. Maybe we don’t need wheat dried with glyphosate. Perhaps ingesting glyphosate for 20 years has affected us, because after all. scientists never studied the long term affects of glyphosate. We need new independent research. We the people, aka “anti gmo” want to know what is in our food. Our kids are getting sick! You, Chuck, can ignore that fact if you want to, but as parents, we will not. We know that United States manufacturers make and label gmo foods for other countries. Hershey is a prime example. We also know that US manufacturers reformulate their products in other countries. Kelloggs cereal would be a perfect example.

    We see the millions donated to stop labeling and then we see these same manufacturers, closing their doors, cutting jobs. General Mills is a perfect example and one of many.
    We see the revolving door, we know the EPA raised the allowable levels of glyphosate and we see the scientific studies being released every week linking glyphosate to diseases. We see the tricks that Monsanto plays with "Food is love’ campaing, sending the propoganda into our schools, we the parents, are awake and we are awakening our friends one step at a time. We realize that while we were raising our kids, biotech, EPA, FDA were busy NOT protecting the people.

    We want to know what is in our food. It’s our fundamental right to know what we are putting our body and to have a choice.

    As for your corrleation is not causation.. and organic is attributed to autism.. I encourage you to use a little common sense, and sure go ahead and run some scientific studies showing how dangerous eating foods without added chemicals and pesticides is.

    Over 25% of our children now have some kind of food allergy. Do you care about that? We want to know what is in our food. We want it labeled. It’s really that simple.
    Whether gmos are dangerous or not, label the food, so we can track whether they are making people sick.

    I’ll leave you with tobacco and cigarette smoke was safe and not linked to cancer for how long… this generation is smarter, we have information at the end of our fingertips and we know how to use it.
    We have scientists who were there approving gmos 20 years ago, raising the alarm, but they weren’t listened to. Well they have a voice now and we “anti-gmo” are listening. We live it, we see it.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170 -Glyphosate induces cancer cells, Glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. Glyphosate patented as an antiobiotic.
    Glyphosate gets in through the shikamate pathway in the gut, disrupts the gut bacteria. Ask the GI doctors what they are seeing.

    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/agriculture-food/german-environment-ministry-seeks-unconditional-gmo-ban-311238

    http://www.biofortified.org/2014/06/why-does-russia-plan-to-stop-gmo-cultivation-and-imports/
  • commented 2015-01-14 09:02:22 -0800
    It’s so easy to say science doesn’t support this… sure if you choose to believe that.
    The bottom line and will continue to be, there is not ONE long term study on what glyposate does to the body, particularly the gut. We’ve been ingesting this for years. A perfect example, Doritios: How many gmos are in them?
    If you have Doritos for lunch with a sandwich and macaroni and cheese- how much glyphosate have you ingested? How much before it’s too much? Veterinarians are seeing the problems with farm animals, that can’t be discounted.
    This video sums it up.
    You can’t ignore what is right in front of you.
    You also shouldn’t ignore that when moms switch to organic foods, there kids start to feel better, come back to life.
    Our kids are sick and getting sicker.
    Label the foods! If you can’t handle a label, then ban glyphosate all together.
    History is teaching us that we can do better. We do not need chemical companies making our food. That’s the beginning and the end of it. How does glyphosate benefit me as a consumer?
    We know that farmers are figuring out that their yields are NOT increasing and their soil is being depleted.
    Use your science and go study that.
    Go figure out why so many are having gut issues.
    How much glyphosate can we ingest through air, water, food, breast milk before it’s too much?
    Is it a coincidence those who are chronically ill have a higher level of glyphosate in their urine? I don’t think so.
    This video explains so much. I encourage you scientists to listen and question what you’re paid to learn. What if.. you’re wrong and glyposate CAN BE absorbed through the gut, attacking our good gut bacteria. What if it is glyphosate that is disrupting our chemistry? https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=929462363752750&amp;set=vb.488353241197000&amp;type=2&amp;theater
  • commented 2015-01-13 22:35:38 -0800
    Chuck, do they pay you by the word, or the time?
  • commented 2015-01-13 08:39:21 -0800
    I appreciate everyone’s responses on here. There seems to be much controversy about the effects of glyphosate and other herbicides. What I find in many instances there is much misinformation and more disinformation.

    Misinformation comes from those who are giving false or inaccurate information unintentionally. The disinformation comes when there is intent to mislead others.
    I AM NOT POINTING ANY FINGERS.

    Our country evolves around capitalism. It is well proven that not every business operates under moral and ethical priciples. We have toxic wasted dumping, falsification of data in studies, the ignoring of statistically significant data in a study, deep pockets for lobbying, banks that illegally charge consumers a fee etc. The list can go on for long time and we cannot ignore the fact that sometimes the cost of litigation and fines are far less than the money made.

    Bottom line, no one wants a study that has the potential to undermine an entire business and eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars of profit. There are reasons that the DSM IV has diagnosis with no known etiology; there is no money curing an illness.

    We can all tout how bad or good something is. We need some crowd funding done to pilot more studies to prove the point and take irrefutable evidence to our legislators.
    There are so many researchers that want a name for themselves.
  • commented 2015-01-13 07:16:34 -0800
    Chuck, the trial was good – no cherry picking – but it was small. So do you now agree we need to do a proper large trial that rules this in or out?
  • @beastsaver tweeted link to this page. 2015-01-12 05:26:14 -0800
  • commented 2015-01-12 00:02:17 -0800
    Dream on Chuck…

    Huge Increase in US Chronic Diseases Linked to Glyphosate … http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/11/07/new-study-huge-increase-us-chronic-diseases-linked-glypho
  • commented 2015-01-02 14:25:12 -0800
    Chuck thank you for the reply. I have read both sides of the argument about GMOs. I am looking for testing at this point. Her issues are neurological in nature and neurological symptoms may be manifested from many origins, pesticides being one of them. Rather than relying on someone’s research, when conflicting research exists, I am in search of eliminating potential causes.

    It is a well know fact research results are skewed by deep pockets that provide funding and finding a neutral unbiased presentation of findings is difficult.

    Is there a lab that you know of for testing?
  • commented 2015-01-02 09:15:47 -0800
    Is there a test that can be performed to determine glyphosate levels in an individual and a lab that tests food?

    Our daughter, who mainly eats vegetable and fruits, developed a controversial medical condition (neurological) which is unrecognized by nearly every doctor despite the research by the NIH for 20 years.

    Her disorder is autoimmune; the results of either a viral or bacterial infection either a viral or bacterial that ended up passing the blood brain barrier, or the result of pesticide poisoning.

    Our daughter ate vegetables at every meal and snack so I am interested in having a test run to see if there is any glyphosate in her system.
  • commented 2014-12-22 07:50:51 -0800
    Dear Tammy, it is unfortunately not surprising to read Chucks response – these guys never look at real evidence – their purpose in life is to cast doubt on anything that might interfere with the vast profits Monsanto and others make by poisoning us all.
    It is the well established strategy perfected by the tobacco industry and subsequently used by these people. Just be sceptical!
  • commented 2014-12-16 08:41:58 -0800
    Tammy – yes Chuck is part of the GTF (glyphosate task force to protect Monsanto and others from the truth) -and below is why:

    Scandalous conclusion amid overwhelming evidence of glyphosate toxicities

    How did they arrive at such a preposterous conclusion when the evidence for glyphosate herbicides toxicity has accumulated worldwide to such an extent that a number of countries are already banning its use? Denmark took the lead to ban the herbicide back in 2003 2 The Dutch Parliament banned it in April 2014 for non-commercial use 3, to take effect by the end of 2015; France is set to follow. Brazil, one of the largest growers of glyphosate-tolerant genetically modified (GM) crops has now filed a law suit by Federal Prosecutors to ban glyphosate along with 8 other dangerous pesticides 4. El Salvador imposed a complete ban in February 2013, linking glyphosate herbicides to an epidemic of chronic kidney disease that has struck the region 5. Sri Lanka’s scientists have provided evidence for glyphosate accumulation in the body especially in the presence of hard water. Its ability to capture and retain arsenic and nephrotoxic metals enables it to act as a carrier to deliver the toxins to the kidney 6 (see 7 Sri Lanka Partially Bans Glyphosate for Deadly Kidney Disease Epidemic, SiS 62). The Sri Lankan government initially instituted a ban, but reneged under pressure from industry 8.

    Glyphosate has also been linked to many other health problems including cancers (see 9 Glyphosate and Cancer, SiS 62), infertility (see 10 Glyphosate/Roundup & Human Male Infertility, SiS 62), along with neurotoxicity, reproductive problems, birth defects, genotoxicity, and other human health problems as well as ecotoxicity (see 11 Ban GMOs Now, special ISIS report), and many have considered a world-wide ban long overdue.
  • commented 2014-12-16 08:41:55 -0800
    Tammy – yes Chuck is part of the GTF (glyphosate task force to protect Monsanto and others from the truth) -and below is why:

    Scandalous conclusion amid overwhelming evidence of glyphosate toxicities

    How did they arrive at such a preposterous conclusion when the evidence for glyphosate herbicides toxicity has accumulated worldwide to such an extent that a number of countries are already banning its use? Denmark took the lead to ban the herbicide back in 2003 2 The Dutch Parliament banned it in April 2014 for non-commercial use 3, to take effect by the end of 2015; France is set to follow. Brazil, one of the largest growers of glyphosate-tolerant genetically modified (GM) crops has now filed a law suit by Federal Prosecutors to ban glyphosate along with 8 other dangerous pesticides 4. El Salvador imposed a complete ban in February 2013, linking glyphosate herbicides to an epidemic of chronic kidney disease that has struck the region 5. Sri Lanka’s scientists have provided evidence for glyphosate accumulation in the body especially in the presence of hard water. Its ability to capture and retain arsenic and nephrotoxic metals enables it to act as a carrier to deliver the toxins to the kidney 6 (see 7 Sri Lanka Partially Bans Glyphosate for Deadly Kidney Disease Epidemic, SiS 62). The Sri Lankan government initially instituted a ban, but reneged under pressure from industry 8.

    Glyphosate has also been linked to many other health problems including cancers (see 9 Glyphosate and Cancer, SiS 62), infertility (see 10 Glyphosate/Roundup & Human Male Infertility, SiS 62), along with neurotoxicity, reproductive problems, birth defects, genotoxicity, and other human health problems as well as ecotoxicity (see 11 Ban GMOs Now, special ISIS report), and many have considered a world-wide ban long overdue.
  • commented 2014-12-16 00:44:32 -0800
    Could Chuck Nirwad be a more obvious paid shill? Of course he is!!

    GMO Contamination Denial: Controlling Science
    09 December 2014
    Don Fitz
    http://truth-out.org/news/item/27889-gmo-contamination-denial-controlling-science

    Did you ever think that investigation of the potential dangers of putting GMOs (genetically modified organisms) into food would be based on objective research? Or that unbiased reviews of research by academic journals would chart a steady march toward scientific truth? If so, you would be very wrong. Through all of its phases, scientific research is subject to repression, manipulation and more insidious forms of control that push it toward a profit-based consensus.

    Suppression of GMO Research

    Three well-known GMO studies form a pattern of authors’ being harassed, intimidated and even having their findings “retracted” or withdrawn by a scientific journal after being published.
  • commented 2014-12-15 14:51:52 -0800
    Could Chuck Nirwad be a more obvious paid shill?
  • commented 2014-08-10 08:46:17 -0700
    Clearly organic is best and GM is crap as we all knew!
    www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201
  • commented 2014-07-21 00:15:16 -0700
    Cancer deaths double in Argentina’s GMO and intensive cropping areas

    (6th July 2014) A report by the Ministry of Health in Córdoba, Argentina reveals that deaths from cancerous tumours are double the national average in areas where genetically engineered crops are grown and agro-chemicals are used.

    This comprehensive report documented five years of information on cancer cases in the province. Glyphosate – the herbicide that underpins most GMO cropping – and its major degradation product, AMPA have been detected in lakes, soils, and even in rainwater in these most affected regions.
    It provides more evidence that, far from being the miracle it is claimed to be, industrial, GMO driven cropping is turning into a public health hell.  
    The highest rate of death occurs in the “pampa gringa” area, where most GMO crops are grown and most agrochemicals are used.
    http://www.gmeducation.org/environment/p217794-cancer-deaths-double-in-argentina-s-gmo-and-intensive-cropping-areas.html
  • commented 2014-07-21 00:14:58 -0700
    Cancer deaths double in Argentina’s GMO and intensive cropping areas

    (6th July 2014) A report by the Ministry of Health in Córdoba, Argentina reveals that deaths from cancerous tumours are double the national average in areas where genetically engineered crops are grown and agro-chemicals are used.

    This comprehensive report documented five years of information on cancer cases in the province. Glyphosate – the herbicide that underpins most GMO cropping – and its major degradation product, AMPA have been detected in lakes, soils, and even in rainwater in these most affected regions.
    It provides more evidence that, far from being the miracle it is claimed to be, industrial, GMO driven cropping is turning into a public health hell.  
    The highest rate of death occurs in the “pampa gringa” area, where most GMO crops are grown and most agrochemicals are used.

    http://www.gmeducation.org/environment/p217794-cancer-deaths-double-in-argentina-s-gmo-and-intensive-cropping-areas.html
  • commented 2014-07-20 00:18:00 -0700
    This latest and biggest ever study used research that wasn’t available to Dangour and also the Standford study. Much has happened in the years since those two studies. Oddly Dangour didn’t even use material from Germany and Italy where some of the best research was carried out because it meant translating it!!
    The Standford study was again from a smaller and less uptodate group of studies. The world moves on and we get better assessments of the differences. This is good news and should not be denigrated.
    What we can say is that the degree to which chemical industrialised farming has decimated biodiversity, contaminated our water supplies and breast milk will not go with out an effect on our food – you would have to be a very stupid person not to see the link between what we are doing to nature and what we are doing to ourselves.
  • commented 2014-07-10 14:00:03 -0700
    Just more Gish Gallop from Chuck, David. It’s amazing how someone seemingly intelligent can buy into such obvious rubbish but one must remember he is part of the Monsanto Glyphosate Task Force -GTF – set up to spread disinformation. More words count even if it is fiction.
    Seralini has been republished which is great so scientists can know what he found out. More research is needed but the direction of travel is clear – GMO’s are not safe – even Mondanto’s own safety assecessments proved that!

    For good information see GMO Myths and Truths where the arguments are cset out very clearly.
  • commented 2014-07-09 05:28:00 -0700
    @ Chuck:

    Oops – that was a blooper!

    What I wanted to say was – Hey Chuck you’re back! This is like a “Return from the dead” sequel!

    The problem Chuck is that instead of being concerned and asking for more science you blindly defend the presence of glyphosate in urine and breast milk as inevitable and inconsequential.

    I don’t think that the Seralini study is necessarily a good study – there are too many variables. But then I don’t think that the safety studies showing herbicide tolerant crops safe are good either – especially when they didn’t include herbicide treatment on the crop.

    And by the way – most of the criticism of the Seralini study actually applies to all other studies used to demonstrate safety of herbicide tolerant GM crops!!!