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 138 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • 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 2014-08-05 10:37:30 -0700
    Bt brinjal in Bangladesh – the true story

    http://bit.ly/1pWdary
  • 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 2014-07-19 09:36:19 -0700
    New Organic Farming Meta-analysis – What Does it Really Show?

    http://bit.ly/1jJXg6L
  • 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 07:39:19 -0700
    David,

    I said goodbye to Mr. Kindersley, not the subject or this particular thread.

    Seems like you are recycling the same old bromides. “No scientific basis for ‘substantially equivalent’”. Didn’t we already discuss that?

    From FDA, http://1.usa.gov/1r8oSCH:

    “Under this policy, foods, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, and their byproducts, derived from plant varieties developed by the new methods of genetic modification are regulated within the existing framework of the act, FDA’s implementing regulations, and current practice, utilizing an approach identical in principle to that applied to foods developed by traditional plant breeding. The regulatory status of a food, irrespective of the method by which it is developed, is dependent upon objective characteristics of the food and the intended use of the food (or its components). The method by which food is produced or developed may in some cases help to understand the safety or nutritional characteristics of the finished food. However, the key factors in reviewing safety concerns should be the characteristics of the food product, rather than the fact that the new methods are used.”

    SE is an FDA policy that applies appropriate scientific standards, it is not a specific scientific principle in itself, and if you read through that policy, you will find that the “…action is being taken to ensure that relevant scientific, safety, and regulatory issues are resolved prior to the introduction of such products into the marketplace.” In a way, I view SE as similar to a risk assessment; it is underpinned by science, but one has to apply a certain amount of judgment and interpret terms like “reasonable” and “appropriate”.

    If you are going to quote scientific studies, quote the original studies, not “letters to the editor”, otherwise, you’re just playing telephone with advocacy groups.

    Likewise, if you are going to criticise studies, be specific. Which studies are subject to the same criticism as those done by Team Seralini and how have they been used in the regulatory process? Unsupported general statements are not persuasive.

    On another subject that has already been discussed in this thread, EPA does account for total amount of active ingredient by applying the “risk cup” concept and considering all pathways of exposure.

    And finally, “not biologically significant” usually refers to parameters for which there is no causative link and values fall within a range considered to be “normal”. The point here has more to do with data dredging than the term “biologically significant”. If one uses an alpha of 0.05 and looks at 20 possible variables, there is a one in twenty chance that a correlation will be considered statistically significant when it was not. In other words, if I look at enough variables within a study, including those which are not biologically significant, I am likely to find statistically significant correlations that are due to random chance rather than treatment effect. There are appropriate ways of dealing with such facts that don’t require any “explaining away”; however, those unfamiliar with such statistics and experimental concepts choose to make that accusation when it serves their needs. In the case of research that does not support their narrative, they accuse scientists of hiding data, and when such results support their narrative, they embrace data dredging and consider all correlations to be evidence of causation.

    I cut and pasted the last paragraph from a previous reply to you as it seems you cut and pasted your latest reply without ever having read what was said earlier. Actually, I could have cut and pasted my entire previous reply to address your comments. Perhaps you have some algorithm that spits out automated replies based on key words?

    Now, as I can see you are recycling your own previous comments and not reading mine, I say farewell to you also, but I will continue to keep readers of this post informed as relevant new information is brought to my attention.
  • 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!!!
  • commented 2014-07-09 05:01:39 -0700
    @ Chuck:

    1. You state that “The precautionary principle is not an absolute, …”. Did you know that there is no scientific basis to the term used to describe GM and non-GM crops as “substantially equivalent” (SE). Different factors are usually compared including mineral and amino acid content between the non-GM and GM variety. If the ranges are comparable than the GM crop is considered SE. The problem is that the non-GM and GM crop is not considered in terms of the genetic modification. For example, a herbicide tolerant crop will contain herbicide which the non-GM crop does not contain – but yet is still considered SE. And if non-GM and GM crops were SE, why can GM crops be patented?

    In a letter to the Editor in Food and Chemical Toxicology (2013), Viljoen observed that “One of the most central issues relating to the safety of glyphosate”® “tolerant GM crops, but which has been ignored in most studies, is whether the commercial herbicide should be included in the treatment practice of the crop being used in feeding studies. A search of the scientific literature regarding animal feeding studies to specifically determine the human safety of R crops, identified 16 studies on broilers, mice and rats for canola (1), corn (8) and soybean (7) (Table 1). In only three studies was the application of R noted but in two of these not further described as to allow experiments to be independently repeated. Thus, very few feeding trials assessing the safety of R tolerant GM corn, canola or soybean is certain to have used a product that is known to be comparable to what would be found in the food chain.” Yet they are still considered to be SE…

    I find it strange that all the critics of the “bad science” that show some potential adverse effect of glyphosate are strangely silent on the really bad science applied in the studies finding that glyphosate tolerant crops are safe for human consumption even though in most studies these crops were never treated with glyphosate!

    2. Regarding the term “not biologically significant”, there is no scientific basis for its use either – even though it is used a lot to explain away anomalies in data in GM safety studies. What the papers should rather state is that the effect or importance of the anomaly is not known or understood. But this does not happen because the industry is afraid that this will raise unnecessary questions about the safety of GM food in general.
  • commented 2014-07-08 12:50:05 -0700
    This is not science or evidence Chuck and you know it!
    Stick to facts and we will all agree. The first thing we need to do is have proper safety testing. Agreed?

    See GMO Myths and Truths – it’s on line and written by scientists which is not the same as your last piece or shall we say contribution Chuck of the GTF!
  • commented 2014-07-08 07:45:59 -0700
    “The cult of anti-GMO: A lot like the cult of antivaccine”

    http://bit.ly/1lQXJP8
  • commented 2014-06-28 08:01:04 -0700
    Great to see Seralini back with his research – even the science community welcomes it..

    Just typical of you Chuck not to agree to testing like MAA’s wonderful work on breastmilk. Being part of the GTF it’s the l;ast thing you want – Seralini, MAA or anyone else to find out what is actually happening!

    Read this…

    A new study found, the largest investigation to date has found a dramatic increase in the number of hospitalizations for children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) during the past decade in the United States.

    The new study, published online in the Journal of Investigative Medicine, found a 65 percent increase in IBD hospital discharges from 2000 to 2009. The number increased from 11,928 discharges in 2000 to 19,568 discharges in 2009.

    The same is happening in China – a huge increase in NCD’s – non communicable diseases. It is perhaps no coincidence that China uses a lot of Roundup?

    China:
    Largest producer of glyphosate of the world.

    Largest exporter of glyphosate of the world, including export of glyphosate to Monsanto to produce Roundup formula herbicide.

    Massive environment pollution caused by illegal discharge of toxic industrial waste from production of glyphosate.

    China is major importer of Monsanto’s Roundup, which accounts to 80% of China’s herbicide market.

    China widely applies Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicide, causing widespread pollution.

    China is largest importer of RR soybeans, RR canola processed into RR soybean food oil and RR canola food oil, flooding the Chinese market

    Chinese researchers identified AMPA, metabolites of glyphosate, toxic, in RR soybean food oil.

    RR soybean protein powder, containing higher levels of glyphostate, is added to sausages, ham, frozen food, cakes, cookies, bread, even infant formula milk powder and wheat-flour in China.

    It cannot be good for us Chuck – common sense should tell us that!
    But you don’t believe in common sense or the precautionary principle do you?
  • commented 2014-06-27 14:22:17 -0700
    “Seralini GMO Study Republished” http://bit.ly/1nNw3NN

    Seralini claim: “Now the study has passed a third peer review arranged by the journal that is republishing the study, Environmental Sciences Europe.”

    The real story from ESEU editor-in-chief: "We were Springer Publishing’s first open access journal on the environment, and are a platform for discussion on science and regulation at a European and regional level.” ESEU conducted no scientific peer review, he adds, “because this had already been conducted by Food and Chemical Toxicology, and had concluded there had been no fraud nor misrepresentation.” The role of the three reviewers hired by ESEU was to check that there had been no change in the scientific content of the paper, Hollert adds.”

    Contrary to claims made by Seralini, the paper was not re-peer-reviewed.

    Nothing has changed. Here is a summary of the criticism:

    - The population of rats used have a high propensity for tumors. This causes a great deal of background noise, and would likely favor a false positive result.

    - There were only 20 rats in the control group, and 80 in the exposure groups, an atypical asymmetry.

    - The data reports that “some” of the test groups had a higher tumor incidence, while others did not – sounds suspiciously like cherry picking the data.

    - The statistical analysis done by the team was atypical, characterized by nutrition researcher Tom Sanders as ”a statistical fishing trip,” while a more standard analysis was excluded.

    - Exposure to GM corn or the herbicide Roundup had the same negative effects. It is inherently implausible (admittedly not impossible) for such distinct mechanisms to have the same effect.

    - There was no dose response at all – which is a critical component of demonstrating a toxic effect.

    - The researchers did not control for total amount of food consumed, or fungal contaminants, both of which increase tumors in this population of rat.

    “The Seralini GMO rat study is now infamous for its poor quality and overstated conclusions. The republication of the paper extends the saga, but does nothing to correct the many failings of the study.”
  • commented 2014-06-24 03:09:15 -0700
    Yes David you are dead right – impressive info too but we desparately need more tests but also we need to make the Precautionary Principle central to decision making.

    Precautionary Principle: When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.

    The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action. . . . it should, to the extent possible, be cost-effective.

    It is a human right to live free of chemical contaminants; Chemical industry had lied about its products, making them seem safer and more vetted than they actually were; Our ”love” of techno-fixes may cause us to ”leap before we look” in our use of technologies without sufficient caution. She also thought that it was foolish of people (“man”) to think that they could “control” nature – she called it arrogance
  • commented 2014-06-24 01:54:23 -0700
    @ Chuck:

    “Now, for what I assure you is the last time… " Play it again Sam!!!

    You and every other industry apologist ignore one really important fact. The thing that the industry promised would never happen has now happened. The industry promised based on “scientific evidence” that glyphosate breaks down quickly making it harmless. The fact that glyphosate is breast milk even at low levels debunks the “breaks down quickly” argument. So now the industry is trying to save face by saying that levels of pesticides are low – but don’t consider cumulative effects. It’s not just the industry that is to blame – the EPA have their heads stuck in the sand and are too afraid to pull them out – ignorance is bliss.

    The problem with your response as with most of the industry apologists is typified in an article by Steve Savage: “Pesticides: Probably Less Scary Than You Imagine”. Based on LD50 values for acute oral toxicity he makes the following statement: “97% of pesticides used in California, for instance, are less toxic than caffeine or aspirin. Agricultural technologist Steve Savage argues that, sometimes, increased herbicide use is actually a good thing.” http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com/2012/09/pesticides-probably-less-scary-than-you.html

    It sounds logical until you actually break the numbers down into facts:

    Pure caffeine has an LD50 of 127mg/kg. So a 100 kg person would have to ingest 12.7 grams of pure caffeine for acute toxicity. An average cup of brewed coffee contains about 150 mg of caffeine per cup. In order to get to acute toxic levels a person would have to drink about 85 cups of coffee in one go! (Please don’t try this at home!)

    Pure aspirin has an LD50 of 200 mg/kg. So a 100 kg person would have to ingest 20 grams of pure aspirin for acute toxicity. An average aspirin tablet contains between 75-81 mg of aspirin. In order to get to acute toxic levels a person would have to drink about 247-267 aspirin tablets in one go! (Please don’t try this at home!)

    Pure glyphosate has an LD50 of 5000 mg/kg. So a 100 kg person would have to ingest 500 grams of pure glyphosate for acute toxicity. The average commercial formulation of glyphosate contains about 360 grams/L of glyphosate. In order to get to acute toxic levels a person would have to drink about 1.4 L of glyphosate formulation.

    Makes sense right! Well not quite because in a study by Roberts et al (2010) they found that ingesting just 200 mL of glyphosate formulation (containing about 72 grams of glyphosate) – was in their own words “fatal” (resulting in death) (Monsanto participated in the Roberts study). They also found that 19 grams of glyphosate resulted in “moderate to severe effects (“Poisoning requiring intervention, for example, hypotension, respiratory failure requiring intubation, ventricular dysrhythmias or cardiac arrest, marked sedation or coma, seizures, or oliguria”). http://informahealthcare.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/15563650903476491

    So this means that:
    1. The real LD50 of glyphosate is actually lower than that reported. How low is it actually? Answer: We don’t know!
    2. There does appear to be a dose dependant effect, despite your argument to the contrary.
    3. If glyphosate has a fatal effect at one order of magnitude below the reported LD50, what effect is it having at lower doses that appear to be absorbed by the body?

    At this point sane people ask for more testing and investigation. Industry apologists are all in denial stating that “Unfortunately (unfortunate for their credibility), there is evidence to support a claim, the claim that Roundup and other glyphosate-containing herbicides do not cause harm to humans at the levels found on the food we buy.”

    Ps. Have you thought about where the glyphosate in breast milk and urine is coming from if according to you it is filtered out of the drinking water?
  • commented 2014-06-20 07:15:35 -0700
    Chuck,
    The key point that you have completely missed is that the industry have always argued that Roundup would NEVER bio-accumulate in the body. So the crucial point is that it should simply not be there in breast milk or sperm. Agreed? So regulators who have accepted the industry studies should now be asking why is this happening.

    It is not sensible to attack researchers who are being responsible in raising these questions. This is what independent science is about.

    To question it is unscientific.

    So let’s do proper tests on breast milk and sperm across America to settle this one way or another – agreed?

    Moms Acrsoss America have made a great start – let’s all congratulate them.
  • commented 2014-06-20 06:44:26 -0700
    Dear Peter,

    Seriously? A 0.5% dose is “similar to those found in water after agricultural practices”? 0.5% = 5,000,000 ppb and the MCL as established by EPA is 700 ppb. No, 0.5% is not “similar to those found in water after agricultural practices” that is more like the concentration found in the spray tanks used to apply Roundup.

    Rats were fed what amounts to Roundup solution straight from a spray tank for 8 days, and there was no accounting of what “fed” meant in terms of glyphosate per unit body weight. (In that respect, “dose” is used incorrectly by the authors. Rats drank a 0.5% solution, but what that meant in terms of amount consumed is not specified.) By “poisoning” rats with a solution that no one is exposed to unless they drink from a spray tank every day for a week and then looking at a large number of variables, Team Séralini has again embarked on a statistical fishing trip to produce more misleading data, provide headlines for pseudoscientific websites like Mothers Across America, and satisfy those who generously support them with more of what they want to hear.

    I bid you adieu, but I must admit, I could not resist reengaging upon reading such utter nonsense. Here is another term that I am sure you will misuse, but it fits you to a tee: Dunning-Kruger effect (http://bit.ly/1rftW7N).

    Now, for what I assure you is the last time…

    Adieu
  • commented 2014-06-19 04:38:06 -0700
    A new study in rats found that Roundup altered testicular function after only 8 days of exposure at a concentration of only 0.5%, similar to levels found in water after agricultural spraying, writes Claire Robinson.

    The study found no difference in sperm concentration, viability and mobility, but there was an increase in abnormal sperm formation measured 2, 3, and 4 months after this short exposure.

    The study, the first to measure the delayed effects of exposure to Roundup on sperm in mammals from a short exposure, was conducted by a team including Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen, France.

    Roundup was found to change gene expression in sperm cells, which could alter the balance of the sex hormones androgen and estrogen. A negative impact on sperm quality was confirmed, raising questions about impaired sperm efficiency. The authors suggested that repeated exposures to Roundup at doses lower than those used in agriculture could damage mammalian reproduction over the long term.

    The study’s findings should raise alarm in farm workers, as well as people who spray Roundup for municipal authorities and even home gardeners. People exposed to lower doses repeated over the long term, including consumers who eat food produced with Roundup and people who happen to be exposed to others’ spraying activities, should also be concerned.

    Those who want to conceive a child should take special measures to minimise their exposure, including eating organic food and lobbying for a ban on Roundup spraying in their neighbourhoods.

    An acute exposure to glyphosate-based herbicide alters aromatase levels in testis and sperm nuclear quality

    Estelle Cassault-Meyer, Steeve Gress, Gilles-Éric Séralini, Isabelle Galeraud-Denis
    Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology
    Volume 38, Issue 1, July 2014, pp. 131–140
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668914001227
  • commented 2014-06-18 06:54:31 -0700
    David,

    “Do you know that while the EPA monitor pesticide levels in water – they exclude glyphosate! I wonder why?”

    Sure sounds like you were implying a conspiracy theory involving the EPA to me. If not, then explain the “wonder why” part.

    So how come you didn’t defend your fallacious car analogy? Talk about lack of focus. Okay, if you want to talk about glyphosate in drinking water, let’s do that.

    EWG has a pretty decent summary of drinking water analysis data. This is not my community, but it is a good example: http://bit.ly/1oFm1n1 Search the site for your own community and see what you find for glyphosate. Of course, I anticipate that if you don’t find glyphosate above MCL, you will claim that MCLs are invalid. I also anticipate that when you do that, you will not provide evidence; only junk-science and anecdotes.

    The study you site from the USA indicates that less than 6% of groundwater samples were positive for glyphosate, and those that were had concentrations of less than 10 ug/L (ppb) and MCL = 700 ug/L. Given those numbers, it’s not surprising that the vast majority of communities have zero detections for glyphosate. Furthermore, the study did not identify drinking water sources; this was an environmental study, such as it was.

    As for the study from Canada, that relates to urban streams and urban use, not controlled agricultural uses. However, even under poorly controlled urban usage, the concentrations found in urban streams where residues of herbicide applied to landscapes wash into storm drains or directly into non-drinking water channels, were less than 0.5 ug/L (ppb).

    But as I said, even if glyphosate concentrations are an order of magnitude or two less than MCL, and if water is filtered so that the effective concentration is zero at the tap, that still won’t stop you from moving the goal posts or coming up with some unsubstantiated claim that suits your narrative. After all, it’s your narrative and your cause that counts, not the truth.
  • commented 2014-06-18 02:45:01 -0700
    @ Chuck:

    Focus buddy! Where do you get the idea of a conspiracy theory? You are weird!

    1. You state it’s not found in drinking water in “your community” – is that before or after treatment to remove it? Can you post a link to the data from “your community”?
    2. If it’s not in the water then how come it was found in water in the Moms Across America study and how come other studies have found it in water too:
    In the USA: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jawr.12159/full
    In Canada: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-011-0600-7#
    In Argentina: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653513008837

    Since it’s not in “your” drinking water maybe we should have your urine tested for glyphosate – it’s a pity you can’t lactate – you would make an ideal experimental candidate! Mmmm I guess if your urine tested positive for glyphosate we’d have to check for it in your food! And if it tested negative we could get you in a glyphosate human exposure study – long term! What potential you have!
  • commented 2014-06-17 06:52:06 -0700
    David,

    Maybe because it is not US EPA’s responsibility to do all monitoring.

    The Safe Drinking Water Act “authorizes the US EPA to set national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally-occurring and man-made contaminants that may be found in drinking water. US EPA, states, and water systems then work together to make sure that these standards are met.” http://1.usa.gov/U6eZK6

    For the most part, EPA sets standards and enforcement rules and the operators of public water systems provide for actual sampling and analysis. For instance, in my community, which is in the heart of one of the most intensively farmed regions of the world, the state department of public health is responsible for enforcement and the public water system operators do in fact test for glyphosate. Which, by the way, has been 0 ppb over the course of the last 10 sampling periods.

    You imply that because EPA may not be doing it, it is not being done, which is not the case. Another conspiracy theory of yours?

    I think you would benefit by displaying this somewhere you can see it every day:

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/pdf/FallaciesPoster24x36.pdf
  • commented 2014-06-17 04:17:40 -0700
    @ Chuck:

    These are desperate times I guess when you have to reference Wiki: http://bit.ly/SlvQXN = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority (nothing personal Wiki)

    Do you know that while the EPA monitor pesticide levels in water – they exclude glyphosate! I wonder why?
  • commented 2014-06-14 11:00:08 -0700
  • commented 2014-06-07 08:55:06 -0700
    MAA is a great organisation using ‘common sense’.
    You cannot spray the earth with toxic chemicals without any adverse effects!

    Re Gish Gallop – it perfectly fits you Chuck – thanks for introducing me to it!!

    The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments – the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or “gotcha” arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially by creationists and GMO proponents) to overwhelm one’s opponent.

    Kinda fits you Chuck….
  • commented 2014-06-07 08:11:35 -0700
    Peter,

    I am sorry I ever introduced you to the term “Gish Gallop” because you have proceeded to misuse it ever since. I have tried to remain on point and highlight the fact that Moms Across America is an advocacy group that is not interested in science, they are interested in producing provocative headlines and fear mongering. You, on the other hand, have drifted off the point numerous times with swarms of side arguments in an attempt to avoid the fact that the evidence is not on your side unless you and others make it up (as in the case of the MAA “survey”) or it comes from poor quality studies from the likes of Dr. Sérallini and other advocates masquerading as scientists.

    You have accused me of being an “industry plant” and that is certainly not the case; it just reinforces the fact that you won’t hesitate to form conclusions that serve your narrative absent evidence; the fact that someone disagrees with you is enough. My interest here was in discussing critical thinking and science and learning how advocates, conspiracy theorists, true believers, etc. defend their positions. In that regard, I thank you for engaging me in this discussion.

    With every new post of yours comes another logical fallacy, this time it is “Argument from Authority” http://bit.ly/SlvQXN. I fear if we keep this up, you will eventually get to them all. We now seem to have reached the point where you feel that if you make the same assertion enough times, you will persuade without evidence, so there is no point in continuing our conversation.

    Adieu.
  • commented 2014-06-07 03:33:53 -0700
    Moms Across America are in good company – major independent scientists are issuing warnings:

    “Last October, a group of 93 international scientists issued a statement saying there was a lack of empirical and scientific evidence to support what they said were false claims the biotech industry was making about a ‘consensus’ on safety.”

    On Twitter, the author at Reuters was accused in these words, “You are willfully ignoring the scientific consensus on this.” He dismissed the group, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), which published the statement, as “a smattering of outliers and GMO opponents.”

    ENSSER members include Hans Herren, Ph.D., founder and president of Biovision Foundation and winner of the World Food Prize; Angela Hilbeck, senior scientist at the Institute of Integrative Biology at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, and David Schubert, Ph.D., professor and director of cellular neurobiology, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, among others.

    Such respected scientists are hardly “outliers.”

    Chuck – say who pays you? And why don’t you answer the question – should we now do comprehensive testing of GMO and Roundup?
  • commented 2014-06-07 03:15:23 -0700
    MOms Across American have done and continue to do a great job. They are rightly skeptical of these new found technologies that give no benefits to farmers, people who eat the food or safety.

    Chucks amazing ability to NOT answer questions shows how he is an industry plant on this website. Gish Gallop is his speciality under the false guise of ‘science’.

    He never answers questions! MAA are absolutely right to ask that proper testing takes place given that most studies by industry show no safety issues while all independent studies show problems.

    To cap it all would you trust Monsanto, Dow etc who have horrific levels of contaminating the environment and people.

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0101-02.htm
    Sylvester Harris, 63, an undertaker who lived across the street from the Monsanto plant, said he always thought he was burying too many young children.

    “I knew something was wrong around here,” he said.
  • commented 2014-06-06 09:56:03 -0700
    David,

    Thanks for the links. (The third one returns “Access Denied”.)

    Have you read the entire Williams study? “POEA” appears 47 times (thanks Adobe Acrobat) and among other statements, the study includes:

    “Based on a review of the available developmental and reproductive studies, no data exist from studies that have been conducted using Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) protocols and/or according to established testing guidelines to indicate that glyphosate, POEA surfactants or commercial glyphosate herbicides are developmental or reproductive toxicants. While a few studies claimed adverse reproductive or developmental effects (Dallegrave et al. 2003; Yousef et al. 1995; Dariuchet al. 2001; Beuret et al. 2004; Romano et al. 2010), these studies suffer from numerous inadequacies in design and reporting. Many of these studies appear to (1) have used commercial herbicide formulations rather than pure glyphosate or surfactant and have not followed up with additional studies to determine if findings were due to the pesticide active ingredient or another formulation component, (2) have failed to include appropriate controls, (3) have used inadequate numbers of animals per treatment group, and (4) have not clearly stated doses or dose rates. Furthermore, no consistent dose-related trends in effects were observed in these studies.”

    So the point is, if you want to say something about glyphosate, study pure glyphosate, if you want to say something about POEA, then study POEA, and if you study the combined commercial product as a single variable, it is not proper to make claims about the component parts. Oh, and while you are at it, use appropriate methodologies. While the focus of the William paper may have been on glyphosate, the authors certainly did not ignore the issue of surfactants.

    Furthermore, In DeSesso’s response to the Bellé letter, he states:

    “Nothing in our publication, however, challenges the idea that altering the DNA-damage checkpoint or G2/M cell cycle transition could hasten tumorigenesis. Further, it was not our intent to suggest that chemicals that interfere with DNA checkpoints do not lead to cancer or that clonal selection is not a key step in cancer development. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that glyphosate has been shown to be nongenotoxic and noncarcinogenic in whole-animal studies. In studies conducted through the National Toxicology Program, glyphosate was not mutagenic in multiple strains of Salmonella typhimurium at concentrations of up to 10,000 µg/plate and did not induce micronuclei formation in mice at doses of up to 50 mg/kg (NTP 1992). Furthermore, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified glyphosate as a class E compound (noncarcinogenic to humans ) based on adequate studies in mice and rats (U.S. EPA 1997). International organizations and panels have come to similar conclusions about the absence of carcinogenic effects in mammals (European Commission 2002; WHO 1994; WHO/FAO 2004). Therefore, the relevance of their sea urchin studies with glyphosate-based formulations to understanding mechanisms involved with the origin of tumorization is unclear.”

    In other words, lots of chemicals, both natural and synthetic, can be shown to produce negative physiologic effects when naked cells are bathed in high rates, but that information, in and of itself, does not support the conclusion that the same effects will be found in whole animals exposed to vastly smaller concentrations through different routes of exposure and, in the case of POEA, after significant biodegradation has occurred.

    If, as you say, there is not enough evidence, then the proper position is to avoid making claims, but that is not what the Moms Across America crowd is doing, they are saying we don’t have enough information to supports our claims, so we will make them anyway even if we have to rely on anecdotes, pseudoscience and poorly done, equivocal research. Unfortunately (unfortunate for their credibility), there is evidence to support a claim, the claim that Roundup and other glyphosate-containing herbicides do not cause harm to humans at the levels found on the food we buy.
  • commented 2014-06-04 21:45:10 -0700
    Why we cannot trust GMO safety claims – only independent research.

    A literature review of GM food safety studies found about an equal number of research groups suggesting that GM foods were safe and groups raising serious concerns. However, most studies concluding that GM foods are as nutritious and safe as non-GM counterparts were performed by the companies responsible for developing the GMO or associates.

    In spite of the fact that industry-linked studies are biased in favour of conclusions of safety, approvals for GM crops are based solely on industry studies.

    “In a study involving 94 articles selected through objective criteria, it was found that the existence of either financial or professional conflict of interest was associated [with] study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a favourable light.”

    – Johan Diels, CBQF/Escola Superior de Biotecnologia da Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Portugal, and colleagues

    Conclusion

    A comprehensive review of the scientific literature on the health risks and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods found that studies in which authors had a financial or professional conflict of interest with the GMO industry were more likely to conclude that the GMO was as safe and nutritional as the non-GM food tested.

    GMO Myths and Truths – see it online – it is the most comprehensive assessment of the issues of GMO.